Friday assorted links


3. Yes.
4. Free yourself. Just give it away.
5. Yes
6. They broke up what, 50 years ago? Half are dead. The original fans are dying. I go to the relatives and they are playing Perry Como on Alexa. They must be the last ones in the US doing this.
7. Yes.

#4 "Omni can get you your stuff for $3 in 3 hours of free the next day." Yeah, until they run out of money.

This is a concept that might work if it could be automated, but the transaction costs are far too high if it's all manual labor.

There's no way that: "“Omni can get you your stuff for $3 in 3 hours of free the next day.” this is currently economical.

I like this comment format. More people should just leave rapid fire responses.

#2 - Happy coincidence. One of the younger members of the hunt is a STEM (biology/micro?) PhD working on genetic solutions for cancer. He makes the effort to try to explain his work to me.

#3 - Yes. And, apparently people have more sympathy for puppies and "endangered" snail darters than for adult and gestational humans.

#6 - Lord, I hope so. Beatles were mostly idolized by teenage girls. Dudes went along for the ride. There were so many better rock bands.

#7 - It's 90% perspiration, 10% inspiration.

#6: Agreed. I just finished reading Tom Wolfe's The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, and one of the funnier sections of the book is when the Merry Pranksters go to see the Beatles in San Francisco, and of course they're all on acid and the screaming frenzy of all the teenage girls started freaking all the Pranksters out to the point that they all got up and left like twenty minutes into the concert.

"1. Do robot women prefer human fashion stylists?"

Is that what China has become? A land where the robots are dressed impeccably by an army of human assistants?

In China, people are cheaper than robots. And there are way more on the way.

#2 -- sounds like the FDA is doing a horrible job. Film at 11.

Also: 3% GDP. The tyrany of Obama is slowly lifting.

"“The self-medication of experimental products without the advice of a licensed physician amplifies the safety concerns ..."

This statement reminds me of the doctor who told us our mother, who was dying of cancer, shouldn't take so many pain pills because she might get addicted. Since her life expectancy then was no more than a few months, it seemed insane to worry about this as it was all too obvious that no matter how addicted she became she'd never have to detox.

"5. Are concussion lawsuits coming to youth football?"

When the trial lawyers get into a feeding frenzy it will spell the death of football. Of course, per the article, the lawsuits are spreading to soccer also. And basketball is nearly as dangerous as football.

E-Sports for the win!

Lawyers do not care about concussions or football, they care only where the money is. Youth football is run by bankrupt non-profits with volunteer coaches. So other than your occasional fame-seeking lawyer, forget about it.

Lawyers could go after the NFL and colleges, but these are wildly-left-wing institutions, so they may get a pass out of professional courtesy. Unless either (1) the money becomes just too good or (2) the Dems find a political advantage in giving the NFL the Harvey Weinstein treatment.... and pretend they never, ever heard of it.

So that leaves High School. HS Football is run by towns and overseen by states. These entities do have money, and are not necessarily left wing. Logic says this is where lawyers start assaulting.

[For The Children, of course!!]

The first paragraph: "After more than a decade of medical research, congressional hearings and a seemingly endless class-action lawsuit against the NFL, the legal battle over concussions in football is trickling down to the high school and youth levels."

He was responding to the bulletin #s wording, not the article. One can criticize that if one wants to be an asshole, but your critique as written is better laid at Tyler's door, not Jim's.

And I think Jim is overall correct- the legal assault will go where the money is- that ain't youth football as properly described by the label.

He said "Lawyers could go after the NFL and colleges, but these are wildly-left-wing institutions, so they may get a pass out of professional courtesy." The NFL went through a massive, well publicized and still contentious class action case, and the article talks about dozens of lawsuits the NCAA is facing.

Jim was extravagantly, objectively wrong.

And also, for the record, they've already come for high schools, too, as the article points out. The only novel thing in the article was Pop Warner.

" Youth football is run by bankrupt non-profits with volunteer coaches"

Who have blanket liability insurance. The Lawyers will go after the insurance companies. The insurance companies will promptly raise the rates. All the programs will close.

In the mid to late fifties a lot of places for trampolining opened up. They were all the rage. Trampoling was thought to be safe. They had liability insurance. When T turned out to be that safe, insurance was cancelled and they all closed.

When trampolining turned out to be NOT that safe.

I have a number of friends who have new-fangled trampolines in their backyard (and that professor in South Korea whose 4-year old daughter broke in on his BBC interview has one in the living room or play room). They seem to differ from the old-fashioned trampolines in being surrounded by netting.

I presume that increases the safety level, but I wonder how safe they are and if liability will eventually cause them to exit the market as those 1950s trampoline places.

My fingers are sore! Carpal tunnel! Where’s my class action suit?

Responding to the funny E-Sports comment, way up there.

@#5 - JWatts is right. Notice even women soccer players are suing. One guy who wore a leather helmet while playing pro soccer got ridiculed, but it seems he was on the vanguard. Heading a ball is tough.

E-sports, chess, and baseball will make comebacks in the future.

So is heading a move.

A simple, unscientific test for the danger of soccer vs. basketball is the wellbeing of ex-pros. There just aren't the same cognitive issues with prominent ex-soccer players, so I seriously doubt a similar reckoning is coming.

Hey, Ray. I was just looking at one of my comments from Tuesday about coffee and noticed there were comments on my comment I failed to respond to. While reading that, it occurred to me that the Philippines should be capable of producing first-class coffee. To do that, you need to be near the equator. You need mountains because most of the best coffee is grown at high altiitude on the sides of mountains. (Brazil is unusual in that they grow much of their coffee on flat land at low altitude, and produce a decent product.) And it seems that the best coffee is grown on poor soils, in particular volcanic soils. I guess it's like fine wine -- the best French wine come from grapes grown on poor gravelly soils.

The Philippines has all of these things, but I've never heard of Filipino coffee. None of my vendors has ever offered it for sale. I think that technically, the Philippines has everything it takes to be a first-class producer of coffee. Do you know why that hasn't happened? I suppose they could be like Mexico, which is a major producer of chocolate, but they hardly export any of it because they eat it all themselves.

#5: I think this is related to the whole politically correct "movement". It's funny because it also fits the right demographic (I wonder what would happen if this was impacting the NBA...). Soccer is indeed coming but that is still irrelevant in the US. Overall, I predict that the US dominance of sports tends to diminish over the coming decades due to this "sports can get you hurt" attitude.

"Overall, I predict that the US dominance of sports tends to diminish over the coming decades due to this “sports can get you hurt” attitude."
Well, I am sure China athletes "factories". By the way, you know how the Soviets moved so fast in spite of the German mine fields? They sent the infantry clear them the old fashioned way.

Evidently, I can not imagine my country sacrificing innocent youngster for sportive glory in gladiatorial arenas... As President Temer pointed out, our country's youth is our country's future.

"I wonder what would happen if this was impacting the NBA…."
You mean if 250 lbs basketball players were charging into each other's torsos many times a game? Beats me. I wonder what would happen if this were impacting the U.S. chess team or the American 4×100 metres relay team.

TR, you are all over the map, but you get a call-out from me since you mentioned chess! :)

I'm genuinely confused about what is meant by the phrase 'The US Dominance of Sports'. The US has never won the World Cup and is 43/86 in the 'medals per capita' table from the Rio Olympics. What would it look like if they weren't dominant?

Medals per capita makes no difference (if / when China takes the lead no one will care that the US has less people). US is the only country that has national events broadcast to the whole world (Super Bowl, NBA finals, etc.). Yes, the World Cup (soccer in general) is an exception but that does not change the larger picture (by the way, the amount of money moved on each NFL season is still bigger than on each 4 year World Cup event).

I just happened to look at NBA players stats the other day. Out of the 13 attributes listed there is no preference for body weight and sprinting speed which might cause more concussion damge.

For NBA the most important attribute is leaping height not body height as most people assumed. In fact leaping height is negatively correlated with body height. Tall people often do not have to jump and their leaping muscles are less developed and longer leg bones lever system make the leaping power less efficient.

Body weight is negatively correlated with leaping height. Body weight is positively correlated with sprinting speed (proxy for muscle mass?) but sprinting speed is also not important in NBA.


3. If people are sympathetic to dogs why do they allow them to be exploited by law enforcement? It doesn't seem to be a sign of sympathy to send a dumb animal into an unlit building in search of a dangerous criminal just because their human comrades are afraid to carry out the task themselves. Additionally, their handlers retire with stupendous lifetime benefits while Fido gets dog biscuits and water for a couple of years.

Dogs will do jobs that Americans(non-dog) just won't do. Cheap labor.

What you have just uncovered is the emotional vs. rational dichotomy that exists in most people regarding animals in general, except those that are hard-line rationalists. I divide people's relationships with animals into two ethical categories, humans are animals vs. humans are not animals. If you believe humans are no more special than the police dog (or the beef cow, or pig, or horse etc.) your supposition holds water. It becomes ethically dubious to exploit the dog. If you believe humans are somehow special in a way that removes them, even marginally, from all other animalia on earth, it becomes more difficult. As people would quote the bible, “stewardship over them…” if you believe that sort of thing. In the latter case we are entitled to whatever we think our “stewardship” means, including using the dog as cannon-fodder, the cow for meat, and the horse for glue.

Neither case removes the emotional attachment, but it does change the ethics of what you think you are “allowed” to do with any animal on earth. Now here’s the headscratcher. If we are no better than animals, and animals use other animals all the time, is there an ethical conundrum? Perhaps as animals our using the dog as cannon-fodder is part and part of the human/dog symbiotic relationship. The dog has prospered massively in diversity and genetic spread through this relationship and so have we, even if an individual Fido 50 gets killed in a shootout. If we have “stewardship” over the dog, then we can use it in any we wish, including for food (which many cultures do).

At the end of the day, most people want to have their ethical cake and eat it too. They love their pets but don’t for a second think that they don’t have legal and moral authority over them. They love them like children, and put them on leashes with cute sweaters. There are very very few animal independence hard-liners out there for the obvious reason that their claims of equal animal rights sound ludicrous even to animal lovers.

At the end of the day, it is my opinion that we have the right to use Fido 50 for police duties, and that Vietnamese have the right to eat him, and that Kosher and Halal butchers have the right to kill cattle in the fashion that befits their religion, and that you can dress your shitzu in cute sweaters while putting on a sparkle leash. I believe this because if those animals had agency like I do they would protest. But they don’t.

I would give my cat independence. But he’d come right back to me with this confused look on his face. The same one he gives me every day.

So why the popularity of movies like Independence Day? Don't our alien overlords have the right to put us on leashes in cute sweaters?

Because we have that complicated admixture of capacities we call agency?

Gawd I hope it’s on our alien overlords’ standard planetary checklist of acceptable agencys.

Of course they do if they succeed in enslaving me. Galactic might makes right. Actually, I'm kind of hoping they put me out to stud. I wouldn't mind being genetic playdough for their heinous designs, and I wonder what after several generations a "lap" version of me would look like.

Let’s think for a minute. What would an alien overlord species actually want from us (or you EE, assuming you were the only one they could nab)?

They wouldn’t put you out to stud because it’d be easier to clone a few cells than create conditions in which you could breed.

They’d want you to worship them.

@EverExtruder - some good points made, but keep in mind the only reason your cat buries their poo is that they respect you. It is NOT true a domestic cat will always bury their feces. To the contrary, when marking their territory they actually use feces as a scent boundary marker. I've seen it with feral cats in the Philippines. And no, I've never had nor want to have dog meat while overseas, though it's so common that people illegally round up even other people's pets for the meat.

Maybe although I don't know. My cat is pretty stupid i.e. "confused". If he stopped using the box I'd think he was on his way out so to speak.

Cats don’t bury poo out of respect. It’s evolutionary—either hygiene (bury bacteria) or survival (hide poo which is evidence you are here).

6 - I realize the Beatles have a LOT of sentimental value for people over a certain age, but so do a great many other things that died 50 years ago.

It's time to stop wondering why younger people are not as interested in them as you are.

I'd bet the impression some get from this article (though it never says), that the Beatles and Rolling Stones started out with a similar level of popularity circa 2000, is wrong. My hunches: the Beatles started out being much more popular (and still are); the Rolling Stones flatlined a while go (with the exception of that album which came out in 2004); the Beatles have been dropping because the generational falloff began much later (and the passing of members); looking ahead, it is the Beatles which will endure, and be popular even after everyone who enjoyed their music originally have passed from the scene, because they will be -- and, I'll argue, are -- the starter band for tweens who are just getting into pop music.

It's also worth noting the uniqueness of the pop music catalogue. Nothing like it has ever existed before, ie. this globalized soundtrack. It'd be interesting to estimate the value of the top thousand songs. Would $1 trillion be too high? I don't think there is a place so remote that people haven't heard of the Beatles, and they like them, which suggests to me that people will in a hundred years.

because they will be — and, I’ll argue, are — the starter band for tweens who are just getting into pop music.


The only acceptable function for the Beatles music is as a gateway for tweeners to move on to classics by, among others, the Rollong Stones.

I'm 43 and I have lived in 5 countries. I have never met anyone my age or younger who listens to the Beatles. I've met plenty who listen to the Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin.

The Stones were the band your parents would hate for sure, while the Beatles were clean cut wearing suits.

And the Stones are not historical artifacts, but a working band.

And the benchmark should be Chuck Berry who both the Stones and Beatles wold have been watching on YouTube and looking up lyrics and chords with Google. Another working man.

Chuck was released this year with new material Berry produced in his 80s. The Stones released a new album last year produced in the 70s.

Meanwhile, the Beatles estate produced a new "director's cut" of Sgt Pepper, with their last performance four decades ago.

What is remarkable is the Beatles are reasonably well known when most of the real pioneers of sound recording are unknown. Half of the pioneers of performing are known today because they are still performing, or recently performed. Well, maybe not half.

And the Beatles stopped performing because they could not overcome the challenges of performing. The Stones did: 4 of the 20 biggest tours since 1980. Not performing probably doomed the Beatles because by doing studio only, they worked increasingly individually each going in different directions and never charting a common path.

But everyone knows about Beatles concerts. Everyone knows about Chuck Berry performing. From maybe 30 second news clips.

Elvis doesn't seem to be getting his 30 seconds any more.

Music is really all about the performing. "Classical" music "artists" are popularly known only because of performances by well known performing artists, for me, Bernstein and his children's concerts broadcast on TV and radio, as a kid, and later from patriotic events like Boston Pops 4th, complete with cannons.

Chuck was released this year with new material.....
I guess you mean a new Chuck Berry album was released. Chuck himself was released(from prison) 3 times, the other charges he beat.

It seems perfectly normal that mass entertainment phenomena fade over time. The thing is, 40 years ago you'd see a letter to the edtior or some such (indubitably from someone of a certain vintage) referring to The Beatles as 'modern day Mozarts'. If that's your point of departure, I suppose it seems anomalous that people lose interest.

There is a considerable body of early music, opera, and concert-and-chamber music that retains its audience though it has been around for centuries. It's a niche audience, though. Symphonies and Philharmonics are part of the philanthropic sector. Jazz may be more commercially viable, but it's still a niche.

Doesn't seem anomalous even for modern day Mozarts -- Mozart's music hasn't retained its audience, it's merely retained *AN* audience.

What makes Mozart far more impressive then the Beatles is that his music persists even though almost nobody is consuming it when they are young with unformed musical preferences. This isn't true for the Beatles. once 8-15 yo kids stop hearing the Beatles the Beatles will disappear from memory. no one is going to hear a Beatles song in their forties and be entranced.

The issue is that there's only so much time in the day that we are listening to music. The newest stuff is the focus of radio play or spotify or whatever. People like the new. If you want to listen to the oldies, you usually have to go out of your way. The farther and farther we go from when they were released, the more new music is created that could potentially compete with it. Only the stuff with the best staying power will remain. I think the Beatles were a cultural phenomenon, but even cultural phenomenons lose their popularity over the centuries.

Someone made a gushing assertion to Jacqueline Susann about the era and her reply was "Yes, The Beatles, Andy Warhol, and Me". An indicator of a time period, not necessarily something perused later.

Most people who listen to Mozart started at a young age.

I wouldn't put the Beatles at the same level as Mozart, but their work was of extraordinary quality. I think it would impress an intelligent person in their forties, but how would such a person avoid listening to the Beatles (or Mozart) his entire life?

We'll all be dead, but I imagine the Beatles will be fairly well known even 500 years from now.

@Art Deco - what about art deco? Is that a timeless classic in architecture?

I think this is right. The digital Long Tail as described by Chris Anderson has fractured the mass entertainment industry. The Beatles were huge because the limited media meant fewer artists got all the attention. And now?

“The second best-selling album of 2014, Beyonce's self-titled, hasn't sold more than one million copies in this calendar year. But back in 1994, 38 albums had already sold more than a million copies by Sept. 4.”

#6 - The generational argument is sound, that's why today's pop hits get so many YouTube views while classics that are clearly superior get almost nothing. (note recently Wiz Khalifa, “See You Again” feat. Charlie Puth (2015) overpassed PSY's Gangham Style as most Youtube viewed). However, it is NOT true to say the music of today is superior to yesterdays. Reason: a computer analysis of music, using harmonious / discordant notes found that 1960s music was superior, and more creative, followed by 1970s (not sure about 1950s, but probably up there) and 1980s not far behind, trailing off in the 1990s, then 00s and 10s in last place. Folks it's science, not subjectivity. Probably classical music, which has the calming effect of raising chickens faster, so it's rooted in biology, is also very good music.

Bonus trivia: why is heavy metal bands so popular with middle aged people? I guess they are reliving their youth? When I was young and this music was popular, I hated it, just like today. Awful stuff. AC/DC had maybe two good songs. Megadeth or whatever (Osburne? Sorry I don't know a single name in metal) had no memorable songs with any notable hook or riff whatsoever.

Ray, I like your posts very much, but "classical music, which has the calming effect of raising chickens faster," I don't get. ??

Re: Heavy metal for middle aged folks - I am one of those who didn't like much heavy metal when I was young, although most of my friends did so I heard a lot of it (I was pretentiously interested in blues and jazz, and it was much better for getting girls). Now I am older, the songs seem more melodic to me, and perhaps have a nostalgia element, also I can appreciate the theatrical aspects more of say an AC/DC or Thin Lizzy performance. So I occasionally listen to heavy metal.

Anyone familiar with both puppies and adult humans should prefer puppies. How is this even close?

Because not even Nancy Pelosi will take a dump on your carpet and get you to clean it up.

Nor will she scream outside your window at 5:00am every day, having been largely abandoned by abandoned by jerk neighbors who thought she was cute once and are now just realizing they over-committed and don't have the time for her any more.

+1 for sure.

I snarfed a bit...+100

The appropriate comparison is with cats, who will come out on top every time if you're comparing them with dogs or people.

As a kid I liked cats, I now get along tremendously with dogs and consider myself greatly improved.

@Anonymous - But dogs turn on their owners and kill them, even professional owners, check out the Wikipedia page on this, going back 50+ years. Some of the stories are incredible: like the well-cared for show dog who turned on his dog kennel owner, the dog that broke through a door after being locked in to prevent further attack to finish off their owner, the dog who killed a child and in the 1950s there was a trial to save the dog from being euthanized. I spent a good hour on that Wikipedia page, it was fascinating. A cat might eat you when you die, but at least it won't kill you, Alfred Hitchcock inspired TV shows aside. By contrast, my pet monkey in the Philippines is impossibly cute and I could not imagine her hurting me, though I'm told in my absence she was grown big and strong. Yes I am aware of the famous "Gap advertisement" chimpanzee who tore off the face and genitals of visitors when angered and how primates have the strength of several people. But the endangered PH mountain monkey is impossibly cute. Quite literally (photos on Google images are hard to find) the cutest monkey in the world. Kind of like a Rhesus monkey but much cuter. The trouble is, caged monkeys, even in big cages, develop mental problems say biologists so they are to a degree ticking time bombs.

I'll watch out for that, but currently our dog and I are partners. Rodents (native and invasive) try for our garden. The dog loves to go out at night to hunt them. The responsibility is so strong she'll check favorite spots before she pees in the morning. We've caught a few.

My dogs might take a dump but they won't throw it at me. Or am I wrong?

Yes. The proper goal in life is to surround oneself with idiots that think you are Superman. Very affirming. And they are so cute too!

That is my plan with kids. Though it's possible there are some long term issues that I neglected to consider.

How long have you had your kids?

6 years

Works until the are 13 or so, then the situation reverses, and you become the idiot.

Most dogs remember the ancient bargain, except maybe for those poor creatures bred down to be fashion accessories.

Nice articles, but what happened to the baby deer that Odin rescued/protected?

So if Donald Trump thought I was Superman he would be a good pet?

Will the Beatles hold up as well as Beethoven and Mozart? I doubt it, and I loved The Beatles' music even though they broke up when I was three years old. When the last of their fans who were buying their music in the 1960s die (around the years 2050-2060), they fade into obscurity.

They'll be popular just like Gershwin and Louis Armstrong are popular. Not massively popular, but still listened to and widely known. The songs are too catchy to completely fade away.

Chuck berry and most jazz music won't go away either. They've already passed the durability test.

Yup. I think the more interesting and difficult question to answer is: 30 years from now, what will the popularity of the Beatles relative to the Stones be? And 100 years from now?

As other commenters have said, artists' popularity rises and falls. Not just the Cole Porter and Bach and Mozart examples, but all the way back to Aristophanes and Aeschylus.

Also, the graphs in the article would've been more edifying if they'd overlayed the Stones' graph on top of the Beatles'. Instead, they force the reader to squint at the scales on the vertical axes of two graphs and mentally compare them in one's mind. The whole point of a graph is to give the reader a visual that they can quickly digest, not to make them hunt around and scroll up and down to find out what's going on.

And the descriptions of the first two searches are horribly lacking: the first one is "overall Beatles searches" and the second one is "a range of searches related to ‘The Beatles'". Okay, one can understand that those searches are different, but different how?

So the article has a very interesting factoid, but poorly presented.

One tries hard to think of a Beatles song that is popular and not a pastiche. For example, "Here there and everywhere" is wonderful but the Beach Boys did it better (God only knows - now that is almost as good as classical music). "Yesterday" innocently steals chord changes from a very famous composer (I will let you look it up - hint - he's a Russian, albeit one whose gravesite is in New York state) (and any literate musician who wanted to pastiche that composer could have written just as good a song). "Norwegian Wood" and "Girl" are blatantly Dylanesque (and it is not Murakami's fault that he could not tell the difference) --- I could go on, and list songs by other musicians that are the targets of the pastiche of each of the 10 most popular Beatle songs, and which will , not being pastiches themselves, therefore be remembered longer than any of those 10 (give or take one or two or three). But, like most well-known "popular music" bands that stay together for a decade or so, the Beatles achieved a few original songs nobody else could have written, and what more could the Beatles have wanted - they will be listened to with pleasure along with the other bands with 5 or 6 original songs, as long as those bands, too are listened to (Lennon once said they were "just a band", and he meant it - I really think he would have been so much happier to be a medium-famous rock and roll musician instead of some hysterical modern phenomenon). For the record, the best non-pastiche Beatles songs (excluding songs from the first 3 or 4 albums) are: Lennon - Help, I want you/She's So Heavy; McCartney: Your Mother Should Know, Good Day Sunshine; Harrison: Something, Here Comes the Sun, Lennon/McCartney, Hard Day's Night, Please Please Me. Other people may come up with a different short list but the list is always going to be short. Talented pasticheurs in their 20s, a vintage superb live band in their very early days, but together, not a phenomenon that transcends their time or anything like that, just a bunch of guys who succeeded at being talented popular musicians for a few years when they were young and healthy and still had the fortitude to step away from the bong every once in a while (for the record, in my humble opinion as a humble and much much less well selling musician, all 4 of them were better musicians once they abandoned their boy band days). There is so much good music out there for people who like popular music that it would not be credible that one band would stay supremely popular for very long.

Tolkien was disappointed in Shakespeare's imitative incompetence at describing how a woods (a forest that MARCHED a little bit in one of the acts of the drama of MacBeth) would move and talk if it could: and Tolstoy, who grew up with pals of Pushkin stopping off by his parents' city digs and the beloved country estate all the time, thought Shakespeare flawed in that he could not describe a woman who was not ruled, for purposes of plot, anyway (leaving aside the English poetry that even Tolstoy could not, as a foreigner, be expected to understand) by the commonly accepted passions of his limited belated Renaissance day: and is not our life, yours and mine, spent wishing, for example, that on our drive to work we would drive through the beautiful woods described by Tolkien, with love, rather than through the stage prop woods of Shakespeare's pastichean few dozen words/moments of sylvan drama in MacBeth?; and that upon coming home we would be greeted by a spouse who would have been more competently described by Pushkin, who for all his faults was fascinated by people better than himself, than Shakespeare, incredible word-meister that he was, but just too much of an unambitious impartial observer, who rarely let on that he thought maybe there were such people in the world (i.e., people better than himself)? The questions answer themselves (verb sap. s.). So maybe I was right in what you might have thought a long clueless comment on the Beatles: in fact, there are more artists that will be remembered far from now down the road of years ahead than we know about: and even Shakespeare will be forgotten to the extent that he was a pasticheur.

Nicest of all is to wonder what, for example, an ocean would be like if it were not just so many trillions and trillions of random gallons of saltwater covering at various depths so many millions and millions of acres of seafloor mud but actually something with a NAME that called to our hearts: cor ad cor loquitur. Next time you are spending a weekend at the shore (lower slower Delaware, in my case, although when I was younger it was the Hamptons, with that beautiful south facing beach with sunrises and sunsets over the water: word) , if you are trying to say something about the ocean, fee free to remember this comment.

When I was a kid one of my uncles told me about how my grandfather, who was a colonel, got cashiered from the army (partly) for asking, after having been widowed, an octroon Louisianian beauty to marry him (this all went down in Biloxi) (she said no, by the way, and so he asked someone else - neither octroon nor Louisianan - although my cousins could be mistaken for either); well, later, he got taken on as a naval attache (army/navy) and met a friend of a friend of Gandhi's, back in the day (not so long ago) when those in the know figured one day Gandhi would be super world famous (well he = my grandfather - did a million things, but the story was about what he told the friend of the friend of Gandhi's - back in the early midcentury decades): and, as the story goes, he said (to the friend of Gandhi's) that you can come across as the best person in the world, the person most famous for being a good person, but people will eventually see through you unless you are true to yourself, always and in everything. And he said, tell your little friend Gandhi to just wake up. I don't think the friend of Gandhi relayed any part of that message: he lived until the 1990s, and remembered the message, but never said he relayed it. An ideal (be true to yourself) which almost nobody reaches. If the ocean could be a person for a day instead of being what it is - so many trillions of gallons of salt water covering at various depths so many millions of square miles of rock and mud and whatever - the ocean might reach such an ideal. Gandhi, with his prejudices. my grandfather, with his, his friend who was a friend of Gandhi, and me: none of us have been, for more than a moment or two , true to ourselves. God loves us the way we are but loves us too much to let us stay that way. I don't like using people's names when I talk about what God wants. I remember, being very young, thinking the ocean, too, knew what it was to care about someone else. It is no small thing to be the only friend in the world to someone who never had a friend.

if the phrase "Gandhi with his prejudices" means nothing to you - too bad.

if you are a lazy millennial who does not like to research facts - Gandhi was a bigot (caste, race). I am not.

any literate musician who wanted to pastiche that composer could have written just as good a song [as "Yesterday"]

And with a little practice, I could play cornerback for the New England Patriots.

About the Beatles... from Wikipedia:
"Throughout the 18th century, the appreciation of Bach's music was mostly limited to distinguished connoisseurs."

All the greats go out of popular fashion for a little while.

6. Yes, interest in the Beatles is declining -- which is a pretty decent sign that the era of pop music, whatever it was, is over.

The question is what comes after rap.

Gotta be polka, right?

No, more rap. Just more virulent and moronically politized. There’s a market for it.

Justin Bieber is worth something like $200 million at age 23. Pop music is alive and well; the era of the rock group may well be over but superstar solo artists seem to be doing just fine.

Throughout the 18th century there were no recordings of any kind. The proles listened to traditional and folk music played on simple instruments by their neighbors. Orchestral music was something for the urban elite and pipe organs were found in cathedrals, not in homes or public houses. Wealthy Europeans had harpsichords and virginals but these were too expensive for the common folk.

Fair observation. But how does it explain someone like Cole Porter? He's been in and out of fashion a least a couple of times in my life time (big revivals in the 60s and 00s but out now if memory is correct). And he's certainly part of the recorded music age.

And even Bach, considered one of the greatest musicians of all time, is part of the recorded music age now. If we could track interest in his music the same way over time, we'd see a peak in interest when it was a fad to include his music in movies in the 80s to now when the popularity of all classical music is famously in decline. Be patient, he'll be back.

Which reminds me of an interesting question told to me by famous AI researcher John McCarthy. Why wasn't the phonograph invented in, say, the 17th century? The technologies involved were all in place.

1877, IIRC.

McCarthy told me Alexander Graham Bell was practically slapping his own head for not inventing it first after hearing about Edison's invention. It was so trivially simple, once you know what it is.

Making one sound recording is a neat parlor trick. Mass producing identical sound recordings is an industry. And I'd argue the latter couldn't be done before the 19th century.

Maybe the required precision and tolerances were not yet adequate? Someone in France had thought up the idea of recording sound waves -- and actually did so in 1860. But he had no way to turn those recordings back into sound. It took 20th/21st century technology to do so:

I suppose someone could try a proto-steampunk project: create a phonograph system using technology from say the 18th century. Edison's idea of using wax cylinders seems more promising than the French technology of sooty paper. But will the experimenter be able to get useable sound out of those cylinders, using 18th century technology?

They were making good clocks in the 17th century. I don't see any reason they couldn't make a phonograph, if they knew what it was. It could have been revolutionary. Imagine the impact if the Pope gave a monthly speech that was distributed on cylinders throughout the Catholic world.


I was wondering why Tyler had created link #7, and why Vanity Fair is seemingly re-posting a 20-year old article. Actually I'm still wondering, but it's clear that Wieseltier is In The News.

I'd love a job as a foppish dilettante:

“Well, I’m back from breakfast with ‘the president,’ that is, with Havel,” he wrote breathlessly to a friend in October 1991 about the Washington visit of Czech leader Václav Havel. “I looked handsome, all in black, with a red tie and brown suede boots: as usual, it was nice to stick out.”
In another letter, he reported, “Today I will write a bit, read a bit, receive friends and a few strangers who have phoned to say they admire my work (the fools! I do no work!) . . .”

But I'm probably not cut out for it.

#1. Incidentally, Sophia apparently just received Saudi citizenship:

No idea what that actually means, however.

Probably doesn't mean it can drive a car.

The Beatles now have a channel on Sirius/XM, so you don't really need to search for them anymore. :-)

I don't see how most amateurs would be able to make an injected medicine which is both sterile and pyrogen-free. It takes quite some experience and a proper facility to do that.

3. Yes. I believe because puppies are dependent. Adult humans should know better.

Should know better than to be beaten? We're talking about victims, not perpetrators.

3. I've never seen an action movie where the hero righteously gunned down hordes of puppies to save the day or played a computer game where I was rewarded for killing faceless enemy puppies.

So maybe there's a gap in the market there.

6. The Beatles are still arguably the greatest band the world has seen, but they're just not exactly relevant or cool anymore. As someone born in '95, I still love their songs, but it all sounds like my parents' music, not mine. It's almost conservative to listen to them these days.

I suspect that The Beatles are reaching the nadir of their general popularity. After several more decades, though, I think we may see a major Beatles resurgence, as they go from being considered "old music" to being considered "classic music." Bach isn't hip or trendy anymore either, but he's still listened to.

I doubt the Beatles is your parents' music. I was born in 75 and the Beatles always seemed ancient and quaint to me. The Beatles were already conservative before 1990. In the early 90's there was a rush of 60's and 70's retro, and a surge of radio stations playing 'hits of the 50s, 60s, and 70s' etc, aimed at the older generations.

Hm, maybe it's more my grandparents' music than my parents'. My parents definitely listened to the Beatles, but they're only about ten years older than you, so it wouldn't have quite been hip current music even in their youth. In any case, it definitely always seemed like old music. Good, but old.


That's pretty rotten. Australia consumer law basically says if no one in their right mind would agree to a contract than it doesn't stand. And I don't see how anyone in their right mind would agree to a payment plan that could result in jail time if they miss a payment.

This kind of protection is kind of vital in a country where fully half of the population has below average understand of contract law.

And statistics.

Maybe we pay higher prices as a result of these protections, but at least when we get dragged off an airplane it's because we've done something to deserve it, like headbutt a flight attendant.

You had to be there from before the Beatles and British Invasion all through the 60's to have any meaningful insight. Sure, looking back at it from now doesn't reveal the reality that was. Same goes for Elvis era, and before that bebop era, and before that swing era (etc., etc.). Sure enough.
***Any guitar players (who are not without good reason often depicted as puerile idiots--think Nigel Tufnels) who have intellectual inferiority complexes (on top of their genuine cognitive deficits) would surely feel better about themselves after reading a typical MR pop music post and comments.

The Beatles were quite conservative in there outlook as evidenced by songs such as Revolution and Taxman. They were quite derisive of left wing politics.
They have also been much more protective of their intellectual property than other acts of their time, which has limited their exposure in recent years.

#2 look at Bethesda based Northwest Biotherapeutics. Their immunotherapy for glioblastoma multiform (GBM), developed in conjunction with UCLA, is concluding Phase 3 trial with results expected to be announced soon. Initial indications are that this is a safe and effective treatment.

Regarding No.6.

A Brief History of the Ownership of the Beatles Catalog.

" Michael Jackson, who had famously been told about the value of publishing by McCartney during the sessions for their 1982 collaboration "Say, Say, Say," purchased ATV's 4,000-song catalog for $47.5 million, becoming the owner of the approximately 250 Lennon-McCartney songs, as well as tracks by Bruce Springsteen, the Rolling Stones, Elvis Presley and more. McCartney, to say the least, was not pleased."

Comments for this post are closed