At Trapit we’re constantly discoverying amazing blogs and online magazines (we hope you are too). Trapit Discovers showcases many of these findings. Check out my favorite discovery this week. 

trapitdiscovers:

Performance piece from Helmut Dick. Image via. 

The taxidermy focused blog, Ravishing Beasts is the work of Rachel Poliquin, author of The Breathless Zoo: Taxidermy and the Cultures of Longing, and part of her part of her post-Doctoral Fellowship work for the History Department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Poliquin is interested in the, “aesthetics side of natural and unnatural sciences” and her blog provides an examination of taxidermy as a unique fusion of art and natural science. There you’ll find a performance piece from Helmut Dick featuring a strolling half man/half sheep, the strange and creepy work of Canadian celebrity chef Martin Picard (squirrel sushi anyone?), and the road kill photography of New Jersey photographer Kimberly Witham.   

-Laura

Read More

It is a wise man who said that there is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals. -Felix Frankfurther

Fair and balanced.  Tell both sides.  We inform, you decide.  Teach the debate.

In politics, philosophy, ethics, and a whole host of other arenas, these are undoubtedly great ideals to strive for.  You might ask yourself how anyone, particularly anyone involved in presenting unbiased, honest information to people, could possiblybe opposed to this.

(Image credit: Philadelphia Inquirer / Universal Press Syndicate.)

Well, I am.  Because you cannot choose, in an unbiased fashion, if you have biased facts.  For the type of news I bring to the world, this is particularly egregious, because I am a scientist.  When it comes to science, not all ideas are entitled to equal time, equal weight or even an equal presence.  In science, ideas, perspectives, and theories are judged by a much higher standard: by their scientific merits.

Well, where do you go if that’s what you want: science, medical, and health news viewed through the filter of their scientific merits?  Do you go to the news outlets you like, and trust that their reporting provides that filter?  Do you go around to various networks of blogger scientists and medical professionals, collecting a firehose of RSS feeds?  Do you do a haphazard search on the topic, trusting yourself to sift through the results and pull out the legitimate articles?

Whatever you choose, the above options are far from satisfying.  In an ideal world, you’d have the unlimited knowledge necessary to discriminate between what was scientifically factual and what wasn’t.  But unless you yourself were actually one of the scientists who worked on the issue in question, how would you be sure you had it right?   I suppose you could go and find out what the scientists who actually did work on it, and listen to what they had to say.  You’d then eschew the sources that either ignored or bashed those scientists, and you’d likely get riled up and angry at the sources that spread misinformed untruths about the results.  It would take all of that to make sure you were getting it right; that’s being vigilant about the truth!

(Image credit: Jesse Springer.)

Of course, it would be great if there was a reputable place that did all this work for you.  Not just one person’s version or spin on it, either, no matter how sound their science might be.  If you’re anything like me, you want to get as many reasoned, diverse, legitimate perspectives as you can, from qualified individuals.  You might think to go to one of the many news aggregators.  And while that might pull in a few good sources, you’re know you’re going to pull in the bad ones, too, indiscriminately.

Don’t forget your goals!  At the same time that you want this good information, you are trying to separate out those who are — either through ignorance or more sinister motives — working to cover the truth up.  Wouldn’t it be wonderful if, somewhere, there was a place that gave you only the information you sought, separated out from the misinformation?

(Image credit: Adapted from Meyer’s Konversations-Lexikon [4th edition], 1888.)

That includes those sources, upon hearing the words scientific theory, who might tell you, “well, it’s only a theory.  It isn’t like it’s a provable fact.”  You know better than to let that rhetoric stop you; having a scientific theory is the most wonderful thing of all!  Instead of an endless series of unrelated, inexplicable phenomena, we can make sense of our Universe.  Instead of trillions of unrelated organisms over billions of years on Earth, we have evolution.  Instead of astrological prognostications and UFO sightings, we have the science of astronomy, covering the Sun, stars, planets, and beyond.  And instead of faith healing, conspiracy theories and corporate marketing, we have accurate scientific information about everything from heart disease and HIV/AIDS to tobacco and vaccination against infectious disease.

(Image credit: Robert A. Rohde.)

That’s what, in an ideal world, all of your news would be: accurate, informative and full of a diversity of viewpoints, all of which are reasoned and take into account the full gamut of known facts, data, and the leading scientific theories.  If only such a vetted, hand-curated collection of news sources — fact-checked and sifted through by an expert — existed for the topics you cared most about.

So it should come as no surprise that when the New York Times public editor asked whether news sources should serve as truth vigilantes and fact check the veracity of their reporting, I couldn’t believe it.  Neither could most Times’ readers, apparently, because the overwhelming response was:

[Y]es, you moron, The Times should check facts and print the truth.

To everyone who thinks that way, good for you!  I’m not only 100% with you in spirit; I’m doing something extraordinary about it.  That ideal news source I’ve been describing, for dozens of cutting-edge science and health topics?  I’ve been building it.

Because these days, I’m more than just a scientist; I’m also the head editor over here at Trapit for the Science and Health sections, and you should really, really care.  Trapit is the discovery engine that will find you that incredible diversity of hand-checked sources on any specific topic, and I am the truth vigilante who’s been curating the science and health sections to deliver you that high-quality content you want, exclusively, on a plethora of science and health issues.

The basics of curation are easy, and you can give it a try yourself: sign up for Trapit, have it discover whatever topic you’re interested in, and then take a look through the articles it returns.  Like some of them, and want to see more content like those articles?  Give ‘em the thumbs up!  Are some of them off-topic?  (I was interested in dolphins, not the Miami Dolphins!)  Thumbs down, and tell it that you don’t like the content.  And are some of them on-topic but full of the type of content you know is completely bankrupt?  Thumbs down, and tell it that you do not like the source!

For any topic you like, Trapit gives you the power to control your web experience.  But you don’t have to do it all yourself; we’ve got a whole team of curators working to bring you the best of the web: that’s our featured traps section!  For me in particular, I’m committed to bringing you not just the best in science and health news, but to be the best, most accurate truth vigilante I can be in controlling what content makes it into our featured traps, while making sure that misinformation is kept out.  While large news organizations drag their feet on this issue, and while google lackadaisically contemplates flagging “inappropriate” sites, over here, I am working as hard as I can to bring you the most scientifically and medically valid information, exclusively.

(Image credit: Shutterstock, retrieved from this website.)

That means when you want to learn about Climate Change, I’m going to make sure I’m bringing you stories that are devoid of counterfactual, unsubstantiated and misleading content.  That means when you want to know about fluoridation in your water supply, you’re going to hear about the medical and dental effects of fluoride and how it relates to public policy, not from anti-science activists.  You can go out and find all the misinformation you like on the Internet, but if I’m doing my job properly, you won’t get it from me.

Because every single Science and Health trap you find at Trapit has been trained, vetted, and curated by me to make sure that, although you might get policy or news content in there, what you don’t get is an earful of junk.

Because you deserve to have a place to go on the Internet for scientifically and medically accurate news, from lesser known and up-and-coming bloggers as well as the big names.

But that’s my job.  That’s my goal.  That’s why I’m proud to be the truth vigilante that the mainstream news media won’t be.  And when you see someone spreading harmful disinformation to others, you should be one, too.  I’m the head editor of Trapit Science and Trapit Health, and it’s my pledge to bring you the most accurate information about every science and health topic that I possibly can, with the utmost respect for the truth.

-Ethan

John Bentham-Dinsdale, “Barbary Pirates.” via.

Anyone old enough to remember life before the Internet may remember the infamous luxury tax. In an attempt to raise government revenues, Washington levied a ten percent tax on cars valued above $30,000, boats above $100,000, jewelry and furs above $10,000 and private planes above $250,000. Congressional leaders crowed publicly about how the rich would finally be paying their fair share, even convincing President George H.W. Bush to renounce his ‘no new taxes’ pledge” and sign the bill.

Almost immediately these class warriors realized how badly their best intentions missed the mark. The punitive new taxes took in $97 million less in their first year than had been projected for the simple reason that there were now a lot fewer people buying these products.

The New England boat building industry was left devastated—a staple of the economy in the states of key legislators who had pushed the law.  Yacht retailers reported a 77 percent drop in sales that year and boat builders estimated layoffs at 25,000. By some reports, the additional unemployment insurance paid out due to the crippled industries actually resulted in a netdecrease of revenue.

By 1996, with bipartisan support, Congress voted to repeal this numb-skulled attempt to manipulate consumer behavior. Two decades later, it’s beginning to look like Congress may not have learned—or forgotten—this lesson in unintended consequences.  I’m referring to SOPA—the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act.

Like the luxury tax before it, the objective of this act—the theft of Internet content—is noble.  It is undeniable that unscrupulous operators of sites like The Pirate Bay are blatantly stealing movies or music and cashing in on them.  And the powerful entertainment lobby is perfectly justified in protecting these rights—but is federal legislation the answer?  Are we ready to give faceless bureaucrats in Washington DC, many of whom would be hard pressed to distinguish Twitter from kitty litter, carte blanche to effectively censor the Internet for a bunch of Hollywood lawyers?

As always, the devil is in the details, and considering recent legislation easily consumes thousands of pages—if not trees—there is a lot of detail waiting to feed the unintended consequences machine.  Much of this detail involves the arcane art of copyright law, an infinitely fertile field for mischief, intended or otherwise. The punishments for alleged copyright abuse as defined by SOPA are significant and, while targeted at those who make their dishonest livings through piracy, the draconian measures outlined in this legislation will undoubtedly impact the unsuspecting and the innocent as well.

Paul Tassi is a freelance journalist you also runs the popular online movie/TV/gaming site “Unreality.”  In a recent Forbes story, Paul tells of the Congressional hearings where SOPA was debated.  The consensus among Congress, Paul recounts, was merely that, “piracy sounds bad, therefore we should pass this anti-piracy bill,” or one representative who wanted to pass the bill, “because she was bored”(remember that kitty litter…).

“These elected officials representatives have no idea the amount of power they’re giving the entertainment industry,” argues Tassi (or, more darkly, know exactly how much power is being transferred, but also know exactly how dangerously low their re-election campaign funds are).   The point being that there are those in Congress who, without taking the time to understand even the most basic implications, would take action that has the potential of destroying an entire industry—one that is of the few remaining engines of growth in the US economy.

In 1801, president Thomas Jefferson, still looking for respect among the seasoned states of Europe, sent a fleet of warships from our young US Navy to the northern African coast to dispatch the Barbary pirates, who were wrecking havoc on ocean trade.  Unfortunately, today’s Internet pirates are not so easily identified, and square-rigged frigates carrying cannon are more effective weapons than those born by clueless bureaucrats with reams of new regulations and campaign war chests to fill.

Milo Winter, “The Goose that Laid the Golden Egg.” 1919. Via.

Now is hardly the time to interfere with one of the last industries creating jobs. “Just say no” to Hollywood lobbyists and their Capital Hill stooges who only threaten to kill another golden goose.

Gary Griffiths
Trapit CEO and Co-founder

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
Robert Frost, 1915

Image via flickr.

A few decades ago, William Trogdon found himself at a crossroads - out of work and out of a marriage. Unsure of what the future held, he set out on what was to be his own personal discovery of America; a journey that would consume three months and some 13,000 miles. Trogden’s only criteria was to stick to two lane highways and small towns. Writing under the pseudonym William Least Half-Moon, he chronicles his travels in Blue Highways: A Journey Into America, a bit of a cult classic. Along the way, he encounters characters ranging from the born-again Christian teenager to a boat builder, a prostitute, a maple syrup farmer, a Hopi Native American medical student, and a host of others.

This past week, my wife and I were invited by friends to spend New Year’s weekend with them in Scottsdale, Arizona. We knew exactly where we were going, and when we wanted to be there, and had only to determine the airline with the best rates and schedule. In making the trek to Arizona, I focused on getting there as quickly and efficiently as possible: no detours, whether they be farmers, hitchhikers, or prostitutes.

My path was direct, like search, while the path of Blue Highways was meandering, like discovery - Charles “discovered” a lot of interesting places and people that he didn’t know he was looking for - but he sure was delighted when he found them. In my case, I knew exactly what I wanted, and was satisfied when I got my answer.

Said another way, Christopher Columbus was “searching” for a water route to India. Of course, he “discovered” America - perhaps not what he set out to do, but arguably a discovery that had far greater economic, social, and historical impact.

Putting this in Trapit’s perspective, when you need information, we like to think of it in two axes. The first is precision: I know what I want - a fact (when did Columbus “discover” America? What was the name of his flagship?) Or it may be driving directions to that new restaurant, or finding that replacement part for your vacuum cleaner.

The second axis is serendipity, the magic we experience when we find something that is really interesting, that didn’t know we were looking for—the Appalachian log cabin restorer that William Trogdon met, or the cocoa beans that Columbus brought back from the New World to the delight of European aristocrats. When it comes to information, a balance of these two axes is important: too much precision is simply boring, while unconstrained serendipity is chaos - a random collection of data without personal relevance.

The web has gotten too big not to be personalized; it is growing and changing much faster than your interests. Can search meet your needs? Sure, sometimes. Maybe for that vaccum cleaner part - if you can wade through the sites that have paid to make sure they have a chance to sell you a vacuum cleaner - or a toaster. But capturing the surprise and delight we remember from when the web was young. Exploring the unknown. That’s discovery.

Gary Griffiths
Trapit CEO and Co-founder

Couple of weeks ago, Forbes tech reporter Eric Savitz interviewed Microsoft’s chief strategy and research office Craig Mundie. Mundie tells Savitz that, “Microsoft has had Siri for over a year.” And just in case the hole Mundie was digging for himself wasn’t deep enough, he goes on to try to explain that since the iPhone 4s basically sucks, Apple had no choice but to “market” Siri to make up for the phone’s deficiencies.

After the howls of laughter died down, what Mundie was trying to say was that the Windows 7 phone has had built in voice recognition technology for the past year. Which is 100% accurate, and 100% irrelevant. Microsoft claims Windows 7 can “Make a call, send a text, or find a pizza place using only your voice.” (To verify these claims, one must of course find a Windows 7 phone that, at least in Silicon Valley, is as easy as finding an AOL subscriber.)

But whether a Windows 7 phone can or can’t do these tasks simply doesn’t really matter. What Mundie apparently fails to grasp is that, yes, much of Siri’s success is marketing - but not the marketing that Mundie apparently despises. To the contrary, there may be no better example of Apple’s creativity and, more importantly, Apple’s understanding of their customers than demonstrated by Siri’s marketing. Apple had the marketing sense to create the perception of machine intelligence that far outstrips Siri’s actual technical capabilities.

It is evident that Apple, understanding their customer, anticipated the questions and commands that Siri would likely be asked, and hard-coded some answers into the software. From the sublime (“What is the meaning of life,” - “I can’t answer this now, but give me some time to write a very long play in which nothing happens.”) to the ridiculous (“How much wood would a woodchuck chuck…” - “Depends on whether you’re talking about European or African woodchucks”).

Apples engineers nailed it: they’ve created the illusion of technology being much “smarter” than it actually is, using keen insight and humor to surprise, delight, and entertain a whole new legion of Apple converts. One can only guess long hours and long Q&A flow charts on Apple white boards. They gave Siri a name, a personality, and that Apple brand magic.

Speech recognition technology has been around for a long time. The ability to run applications on mobile phones has been around for a long time. It took Steve Jobs’ genius to show the telecom carriers that people really did want - and would use - apps on phones. And it’s taken Steve Jobs foresight to make speech recognition - and the underlying AI - mainstream.

So if this is mere marketing, Craig, so be it. You’ve proven the old adage: “If Microsoft invented sushi, they’d probably have called it “cold dead fish.”

Gary Griffiths
Trapit CEO and Co-founder