Fruit vs Robots: The Smartphone War & What the Future Holds

Apple-leads-In-US-market
– by Micah Ward

Back in 2009 when the first Droid phone by Motorola was released, and in 2008 when the first 3G iPhone was put out onto the market, most of us scoffed. We assumed that this whole smartphone nonsense where you have to pay thirty extra dollars a month on top of your existing phone plan made no sense. Hell, most of us had just recently gotten phones with keyboards in them, which felt revolutionary to us. Although a majority of people thought the smartphone trend would never last (including myself), we were all wrong. Smartphones have dominated the telephone market for the better part of the last 5 years, and it seems like mostly everyone you see out in public has one of these high-tech internet connected phones.

But is this a bad thing?

Most certainly not. Smartphones have changed the away our society works. Now, a world of information can be carried in your pocket and can update you on anything you want to hear about. Information is more and more readily available with new apps such as Facebook Paper, which allows users to see their Facebook feed and breaking news on the same timeline. This breaks the border between the news world and the social world and allows you to see only the news that you care about, which makes current events a lot more appealing.

But this article isn’t about any cutting edge apps for these devices, it’s about the phones themselves. Due to the iPhone (well, the first one with mobile internet, the iPhone 3G) and the Droid (not the first HTC one, but the first popular Motorola model) being released around the same time, competition was imminent. And that’s a good thing. When two or more large companies are after the same market, they are constantly bettering their products in order to outsell the other, giving us, the consumers a better product and better deals when sales occur.

And to this day, Androids and iPhones dominate the smartphone market. Although Windows phones are also in the running, this article is not about them, and I apologize in advance if I offend any Windows phone users by not including them. Regardless, these two types of devices have been going at it for years, constantly trying to outsell the other. It’s amazing to me that one company working on one phone (Apple/iPhone) can still manage to outsell many multi-billion dollar manufacturers who work to make the best possible Android phone. When it comes down to it, the buyer wants what they want, and they will buy whatever their preference is, even if the phone they are passing up has better features. Which is fine, because you should always use what you are comfortable with, not what the market tells you to buy.

Smartphones have come a long way, too. For example, the iPhone 3G could only browse the web for 5 hours on a good day without dying, while the newest iPhone generation boasts 10 hours minimum of constant web browsing in order to wear the battery down. This being said, minor features and small technological advances that we “cannot live without” are the major selling points of smartphones.

But where is the market going to go?

It seems as if us “flat-thinkers”, people who can only see the here and now and cannot really look into the future, see this generation of smartphones as the best. I mean, what could get better than having a phone that is smarter than you? They couldn’t possibly get any better….right? That’s most likely what people thought about other technological advances that we have long surpassed since. So, you ask yourself in a non-rhetorical way, how could smartphones get better? Well, let me put forward a few ideas that I have of what the future may hold.

Solar Powered Charging
Why hasn’t this been done yet? The technology is there and it is old enough that it can be done for a relatively cheap price. So why not include a solar charging panel on the back of the phone to lay out in those hot sunny days, but also include a charging port in the phone if it is overcast for a normal cord.

Thought-Reading Phones
Imagine Siri. Now imagine Siri without having to speak. When a button is pushed, the phone would tune into your thought channel and do whatever you pleased in a matter of milliseconds. Obviously this would involve organic surgery and the technology most likely isn’t there yet, but we can dream, can’t we?

Projected Keyboard
I’ve seen concept art for this, but never an execution. Typing long paragraphs on your phone is annoying. What if the phone had a built in projector that flashed a keyboard onto any surface in order to type with ease and grace? Either way, I’ll probably still end up typing with just two fingers.

Better Batteries
This is an obvious one, but come on. I have to charge my phone at least once during the day to make it last until night. JUST UP THE BATTERY CAPACITY ALREADY.

Front-Facing Flash
If you’re like me and have tried to take a Snapchat or a selfie in the dark, you’ll be much to your dismay when you realize that the picture shows up dark. Companies should implement a front facing flash for the front camera in order for people to rev up their “selfie game”.

These are just a few ideas. Many more things can happen in the market of phones, because there are so many possibilities. I doubt any of my predictions will come true, but if they do, you can say you heard it here first. Or, if you heard it somewhere else first, you could lie and said I made it up. Whatever you feel like.

All joking aside, I am very eager to see what the smartphone market has to offer and I will be anxiously awaiting the next generation of iPhones and Androids. If you have any neat ideas regarding advancements in smartphone technology, feel free to post a comment on my blog, goldenanchurs.wordpress.com. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I hope you use your phone in good health.

—–
P.S.: I did an interview with Phil on my blog regarding Save State Gamer, and it might be worth checking out if you’re missing Phil’s posts while he’s gone!

ALF Reviews: “Lookin’ Through the Windows” (Season 1, Episode 20)

Just as the Jodie episode gave way to the deplorable “Help Me, Rhonda,” last week’s experiment in competence spits us right into “Lookin’ Through the Windows,” which is awful. But before we dig into what happens in the episode, I’d like to talk for a bit about the concept.

“Lookin’ Through the Windows” parodies Hitchcock’s excellent Rear Window. It’s an undeniably great film with a solid central premise and culturally indelible imagery, which makes it a relatively common reference point for other films and TV shows.

The film stars Jimmy Stewart as a photographer with a broken leg. Boredom, limited mobility and an unfortunately timed heat wave lead to Stewart’s character spending nearly all of his time at an open window, and his idle hobby of watching the neighbors turns obsessive when he believes he’s seen evidence of a murder.

It’s one of those rare films that could probably be pieced together by those who haven’t seen it, simply because of how frequently it’s been referenced, parodied and ripped off. It’s also ALF‘s first attempt at singular, sustained parody (unless, of course, I’ve missing something along the way…do feel free to let me know in the comments), and even if it wasn’t doomed at this point to be compared to the Simpsons episode in which Bart believes he saw Ned Flanders kill Maude — the gold-standard of Rear Window sendups — it falls completely apart on its own. Compare it to better shows that mined the concept more fruitfully, and it’s disappointing. Remove it from any such comparison…and it’s still pretty disappointing.

The neighbors here, of course, are the Ochmoneks. I’d make a joke about how it has to be the Ochmoneks because there are no other named characters outside of the Tanner family, but that wouldn’t really be fair. Los Angeles is a notoriously small town. In fact, you’ve probably never heard of it. It’s not unlikely that there would be only a handful of families in the whole place, so good on ALF for verisimilitude.

The Rear Window stuff begins with the very first shot: ALF at a window with a pair of opera glasses. He’s watching the Ochmoneks argue, and every so often he makes a mark on a chalkboard to indicate who’s winning. Somewhat impressively, the writing staff not only incorporated the heat wave aspect — coupled in this instance with the Tanners’ electricity failing due to brown outs — but bothered to refer back to it throughout the episode. No, “Lookin’ Through the Windows” is not very good…but it does at least demonstrate some good impulses. Whereas ALF is frequently content to introduce ideas, details and even entire characters just for the sake of forgetting they exist a few minutes later, it’s nice that this episode has some semblance of internal continuity.

Willie comes in and tells ALF not to spy on the neighbors, which is fair, but then he suggests that he go play in the yard instead. It’s broad daylight, so here’s another example of the show forgetting — or ignoring — that ALF is supposed to be kept secret from the rest of the world. It’s pretty much established in the pilot as the single most important detail of the show, but I could count on one hand the episodes since that gave even half a shit about it.

For this to make even a modicum of sense, the Tanners would have to have ridiculously high, solid walls surrounding their home, something like we see in the movie Dogtooth. However we’ve seen the outside of their house in every establishing shot, and we know it doesn’t. If ALF goes out to play in the yard, he’s caught. End of story. Or, at least, I wish it could be.

ALF and Willie yak for a bit, and while they do there’s this gentle, smokey saxophone music playing. When their conversation ends, ALF leans out the window and yells at somebody to “knock off the sax.” I get the joke — we assumed the music was on the soundtrack, while it was actually playing within their reality — but beyond that…what the living fuckbucket? Who was playing the saxophone? Mr. Ochmonek? And why is it not okay for ALF to watch people through the windows, but it’s fine for him to lean out and shout verbal harassment at them? What kind of sense does that make?

God I wish I was watching Dogtooth.

ALF, "Lookin' Through the Windows"

The episode proper gets off to a pretty good start. It’s dinner time, and Kate sets a massive plate of food in front of ALF, who explains that it’s all part of a new diet he’s trying: “You can eat as much as you want of whatever you want.”

Then, when no further explanation is forthcoming, Lynn asks, “And you lose weight that way?”

To which ALF replies, “You do?”

It’s a solid gag that compounds nicely, and it taps into the way a visitor like ALF would believably misunderstand concepts we think are simple, something that really, really, really should be more of a factor in his characterization than it actually is.

What’s more, another very nice moment follows. The lights go out, and the family moans. Lynn laments having to reset all of the clocks yet again, and Kate, in the dark, replies wearily, “Let’s not. Let’s just live a few minutes behind everyone else.”

Every so often some actual humanity shines though these cardboard characters, and nearly always it’s through Kate. Not only does she call ALF on his bullshit, but there’s a kind of quiet, simmering frustration within her that suggests something deeper than the lines that they ask her to recite. I’m willing to bet that this comes entirely from Anne Schedeen, who manages to inhabit a place behind her words rather than on top of them, as the rest of the actors do.

Interestingly, though, the show just sort of has that line tumble out. The real punchline is that when the lights come back on, ALF ate all of the food. I’d wager Lynn’s (decently well-observed) line about the clocks and Kate’s response were both placeholder lines…a way to pad out the darkness so that when the lights came back on we could see the big reveal of ALF’s empty plate. The way the scene is structured, it’s very clear that that’s the moment that’s supposed to get the big laugh…the rest is just jogging in place.

The best line a few episodes ago was some shoe-horned explanation as to why Lynn doesn’t have braces anymore, and now it’s a line that’s literally being used just to space out what the writers think of as the big laughs. I’m amazed at how downright funny the tossed-off material is compared to the garbage that seemed to receive the bulk of the show’s efforts.

ALF, "Lookin' Through the Windows"

There’s a knock at the door and ALF is shooed away, so I guess they do care about keeping him a secret. Except when it comes to hollering nonsense out the window, in which case fuckin’ go nuts.

It’s Mr. Ochmonek, and he’s pissy because his wife is a bitch and nothing he ever does is right. It’s his own fault for marrying a character on the show ALF, though. If he’d waited a bit he could have married a woman on a much better sitcom, where she’d be allowed to be an actual human being and then they might have had a relationship instead of a series of plot-dependent spats.

Since this is already an overt nod to Rear Window, we know that ALF is going to think Mr. Ochmonek killed his wife. That’s fine. The execution (so to speak…) is not, but we’ll get to that. For now I just want to point out how strange it is that both stories to heavily feature Mrs. Ochmonek have touches of Hitchcock. Way back in “Strangers in the Night” the whole “plot” hinged on the fact that both ALF and Mrs. O wanted to watch Psycho. The scene in which ALF cross-dresses also suggests an aborted attempt to tie the themes together more tightly than what we got, but that’s just speculation on my part.

Here she gets her second turn in the spotlight, and it’s so that she can drive another story centered around a Hitchcock film. It’s coincidence, I’m positive, but a very bizarre one. I wonder if we’ll get a story in season two about Mrs. Ochmonek chasing Willie around in a crop duster. Or ALF hosting a cocktail party around her corpse that he crammed into a trunk.

ALF, "Lookin' Through the Windows"

Speak of the devil, Mrs. Ochmonek comes over to retrieve her husband, and Mr. Ochmonek eats some corn.

There’s some preposterously unnatural dialogue in which Mr. Ochmonek reveals that he believes the Tanners spy on him while he fights with his wife, which would make sense if he was confronting them, but instead it’s delivered as an off-hand comment to the very people that he’s essentially accusing of voyeurism. It’s ridiculous. If you believed your own neighbor was spying on you in your weakest moments — actually believed it — would you bring it up with him in some chummy “you’ll never guess” kind of way? Of course not…you’d be pissed off and confrontational. None of this makes any sense.

Fortunately for that shitty moment, though, it gets eclipsed by a much worse one. Willie attempts to assuage Mr. Ochmonek’s concern, which leads to Max Wright choking his way through the line “No. No we don’t. Noh one…in this roooom…whaatches you, through yurwindows.”

And then…oh yes, dear reader, there’s more…Lynn suggests that it might be their “poltergeist,” which nobody comments on or acknowledges in any way, even though this is pretty conclusive evidence that the girl is suffering from acute mental illness.

The fuck this show the fuck.

ALF, "Lookin' Through the Windows"

That night Lynn comes into the laundry room to say goodnight to ALF, and there’s a near-miss here with what could have been another great joke. ALF says he’s speedreading a book, and Lynn asks him what it’s about. He says, “I have no idea.”

On its own, that’s funny. The joke should end there, with the implication that he’s gliding so quickly over the words that he’s not comprehending them. But instead the writers take it further and try to turn it into a joke about how he’s wearing the fur off of his finger by moving it across the page so quickly.

Damn, guys. They sure reached pretty far to make sure that joke dropped dead, didn’t they?

Lynn leaves and ALF hears the Ochmoneks fighting again, so he goes over to the window and hot damn this is a great screengrab:

ALF, "Lookin' Through the Windows"

I know I’ve praised Fusco’s puppetry many times before, and I stand by everything I’ve said, but I do think it’s worth drawing some additional attention to the physical ALF puppet itself. It’s impressively articulated for something that seems so simple. Everything from the way the eyebrows move to the ability of the ears to perk up like a dog’s contribute to ALF’s “reality,” and I like that a lot. So far we’ve seen ALF elated, depressed, sick, terrified, dazed, and whatever else, and each time the emotion registers. The odd thing is that when I started reviewing ALF, I thought the easiest thing to do would be to make fun of how fake the puppet looks. Little did I know that would actually be the one thing I couldn’t criticize at all.

ALF runs into Willie and Kate’s bedroom and shouts that he just saw Mr. Ochmonek murder his wife with an ice pick.

Okay, now I can criticize.

See, usually in a Rear Window parody (and in, uh, Rear Window) the protagonist doesn’t actually witness the murder; they infer that there’s been a murder, and then go nuts trying to prove it. If they saw a murder then there’s not really a story. How could there be? The protagonist picks up the phone, calls the cops, and the murderer is arrested before he has time to clean up the evidence. The end.

ALF botches this crucial aspect, though not surprisingly I guess. By having him actually witness the crime, it raises additional questions that the episode isn’t up to answering…a complication compounded by the writers’ choice of the murder weapon: an ice pick.

Think about that. As I’m sure you know, Mr. Ochmonek didn’t really murder his wife. (It would be a pretty dark sitcom if he had.) So by having ALF “see” this happen — rather than assume it — the writers raise an unanswerable question: what the fucklights could possibly be happening that looks like an ice pick murder?

Picture an ice pick murder. Honestly. Picture a man stabbing his wife repeatedly with an ice pick until she dies. What else could that possibly be? If you see that happen, is there any possibility at all that you actually witnessed something benign? The whole plot of this episode falls at the first hurdle, because nothing that isn’t an ice pick murder can possibly be mistaken for an ice pick murder…and then, of course, they still need to provide some rational explanation for what really happened.

Do they pull it off? Place your bets now.

ALF, "Lookin' Through the Windows"

Willie tells ALF to fuck fucking off, so ALF goes to sleep and dreams that Mr. Ochmonek is stalking the Tanner house with an ice pick. One thing I have to say is that even though this episode sucks dick, it sure did lead to an article full of great screengrabs.

There’s not much to this dream sequence, but — and I mean this — it gives us some very effective imagery. It’s also miles better (and infinitely more relevant) then either of the dream sequences we’ve gotten from Willie so far, so I’m all for this.

Anyway ALF wakes up screaming his head off, and the Tanners all arrive in the kitchen to check on him at the same time, making it seem like they not only share a bed, but a hive mind.

ALF, "Lookin' Through the Windows"

Willie chastises ALF for spying on the neighbors in the first place, which is what caused his paranoia. It’s a fair thing to say at this point, but I really wish it was an excuse to bring back Dr. Larry from last week. Seriously, I’d give anything for this show to ditch its original concept and become Dr. Dykstra: Alien Psychologist.

They all go to bed and ALF goes back to the window and you don’t even have to scroll down because you know what the fuck he sees.

ALF, "Lookin' Through the Windows"

ya dudes mr ochmonek is totes burying a corpse

The episode is over and Mrs. Ochmonek is dead forever. Good night, everyone!

…no, it’s still going. It’s the next morning, and ALF does the only logical thing you can do after watching your neighbor brutally murder his wife with a sharp instrument: he calls the murderer and pretends to be conducting a survey on behalf of the BBC. He asks Mr. Ochmonek the difference between American TV and British TV, and then he asks if he killed his wife.

Kate hears him and hangs up the phone before Mr. Ochmonek can produce a story-ending “no,” and then it’s suddenly nighttime again. What a day that was!

As Willie gets ready for bed he glances out the window and sees ALF snooping around the Ochmoneks’ house, which causes him to make this face:

ALF, "Lookin' Through the Windows"

Wowsers.

This is the big pulse-pounding moment in Rear Window; Jimmy Stewart can’t leave the house, so he sends Grace Kelly into the murderer’s home to investigate. When The Simpsons did it Bart couldn’t leave the house, so he sent Lisa into the murderer’s home to investigate. In this show, ALF can’t leave the house, so he says fuck it and does it himself anyway.

Why the writers threw themselves into a Rear Window parody without wanting even slightly to adhere to the conventions that would render it watchable is beyond me.

Anyway, Willie calls Mr. Ochmonek on the phone to distract him so that ALF can escape the house, but ALF is a dick so he dicks around all dicklike instead.

ALF, "Lookin' Through the Windows"

I fucking hate ALF, you guys.

Mr. Ochmonek talks to Willie for a while, and explains that the difference between American TV and British TV is that in Britain they respect their audience. I’d be impressed by the fact that they tied this phone conversation back to a previous one if it weren’t for the fact that they did it as an excuse to give a big “fuck you” to their own viewership.

“We keep ALF alive because we get paid to,” they seem to say. “What’s your excuse?”

Anyway, ALF gets home and he managed to steal Mrs. Ochmonek’s false teeth, so Willie goes to bring them back.

Why is any of this even happening? Call the cops, ALF, you piece of shit. You believe you watched a woman get stabbed to death in her home and your response is to turn it into a physical comedy routine. Jesus Christ.

ALF, "Lookin' Through the Windows"

After Willie leaves, Kate and Lynn rush over to the window in time to see Mr. Ochmonek charging at Willie with an ice pick.

I love that every window in the Tanner home affords a perfect, clear view of everything happening inside the Ochmonek house. Seriously, no matter what room these assholes are in, they always see perfectly into the other house. Do the Ochmoneks live in a giant glass dome?

ALF, "Lookin' Through the Windows"

The lights go out again, and Kate rushes over to save Willie from being murdered by Ice Pick Ochmonek. ALF, two whole days after he should have done this in the first place, decides to call the cops.

They arrive almost as quickly as Kate does, which again makes sense because cops in LA are probably bored out of their minds waiting for something to do. But, hey, that’s what happens when you’re a lawman in such a tiny, quiet town.

It’s explained that Mr. Ochmonek never murdered his wife with an ice pick and wasn’t going to murder Willie with it either; he was using it to make Willie a nice cocktail!

Well, if that’s the case, why was he charging at Willie with it? And what the fuck was he doing driving it repeatedly through his wife’s heart? See, this is the kind of question you’re left with when you have your characters actually “witness” this crap. No attempt whatsoever is made to explain what actually happened between he and his wife, but the cocktail explanation with Willie defies all human logic. In what way does mixing a drink resemble an active threat to kill another man?

Here’s an experiment you can do at home to find out. First, invite a friend over, and mix him or her a nice, refreshing cocktail. Take careful note of their expression and demeanor as you do so.

Next, invite another friend over. When this friend arrives, grab an ice pick, approach them threateningly, and act like you are about to murder them. Take careful note of their expression and demeanor as well.

Now it’s time to review your findings. Did you notice any overlap whatsoever between the way these two people interpreted your actions? No? Nothing at all? How strange!

In ALF these two actions are easily and frequently mistaken for one another…but something tells me you’d have a hard time duplicating the results.

Of course, even if we accept this, that still leaves the small matter of the corpse wrapped in a tarp that Mr. Ochmonek buried in his back yard. But, no, don’t worry about that either! It was actually just a side of beef that started to rot, and he was getting rid of it.

The police accept this far too easily. For starters, who — in the name of shitstabbing Christ on the cross — disposes of bad meat by digging a hole and burying it? And why wrap it in a tarp? Did the tarp go bad, too?

And secondly, when they ask where his wife is he responds that she’s at her sister’s house. There are no followup questions and no attempt to make contact with her to verify the story. That’s insane. Somebody called and reported a murder. The police followed up on it and were unable to find the victim. The murderer says she’s fine, but admits he buried a crapload of beef in his back yard. And they’re fine with that. What — with all due respect — the fuckfuckfuck.

Even by sitcom logic, they need to dig up that yard. First the Alien Task Force, then Social Services, and now the LA Police Department have all been shown to operate on the honor system. And that’s insane. I’m not saying that Mr. Ochmonek killed her (it’s a family sitcom, so we know he didn’t), but since when is “I buried some old meat in the yard and my wife is totally chilling with her sis” an airtight alibi?

Dig. Up. The yard.

But, no. That’s it. We’re meant to be as satisfied by this solution as everyone in the show is. I won’t spoil the ending of Rear Window, but I will go back to that Simpsons episode. Remember the conclusion, when it turned out that Ned killed a houseplant and not his wife? That was a deliberately unsatisfying, illogical solution to the question, because that was the joke…and it was still a hundred times better than what ALF gives us here with a perfectly straight face.

Oh well. It’s over. There’s some short scene before the credits, as usual, but I don’t care about that. Instead I’d like to take a moment to appreciate Mr. Ochmonek’s shirt.

ALF, "Lookin' Through the Windows"

Because daaaaamn Mr. Ochmonek. It’s no wonder you look so proud in a fine ass shirt like that. You can bury my spoiled meat any day.

Now stop reading this shit and go watch Dogtooth.

Polyhedra and the Media

Personal musings on new geometry and the state of journalistic integrity in the information age
by Adam Lore

adam1 icoshaedron tesselations

Newly Discovered Forms

I really like polyhedra.

Okay, that is a bit of an understatement, I am completely obsessed with polyhedra! So when I heard that a new type of these shapes had supposedly been discovered I became very excited.

(Just really quickly, for anyone unfamiliar with the term, a polyhedron is a solid three dimensional geometric shape with straight edges and planar faces.)

As it turns out, though, the media coverage of this new finding at first left me totally confused about what was discovered. In the first articles I read, there were conflicting reports and major errors. It was unclear whether these were new at all, and there was a lack of clarity as to exactly what attributes these new shapes had.

adam2 platonic solids

You see – my apologies to those of you who already know this stuff – people who study the attributes of polyhedra are usually interested in the ones that are highly symmetrical. One well known group is the group of Platonic Solids. A cube is one of these, because it is made of ‘regular’ polygons (squares), every polygon is the same, the polygons meet together at a vertex in the same way at the same angle, and none of the vertices is “caved in”. It becomes interesting to try to figure out which other shapes have all of these qualities, and to find that there are only 4 other shapes like this. (Now we have a problem. Both the 3rd group, the rhombic polyhedra, and the new, fourth group have more than one type of face, and many of the faces are not equiangular, thus not regular.)

adam3 archimedean and rhombic

Then, if we allow the criteria to include polyhedra that are made out of 2 or more regular polygons instead of just one, we get 13 new ones, called the Archimedean Solids. (A rigid version of a soccer ball, also known as the truncated icosahedron, is a prime example of one of these.) By this new criterion we can also include prisms (which are just two of the same shape in the floor and ceiling, perhaps a pentagon, connected by squares along the rim) and anti-prisms (the same thing but with triangles instead of squares along the rim.) Then, there are some other ones, too, but the point is, there is a very specific limited amount of these things. (Problem: There are infinite numbers of prisms and antiprisms.)

Just to be clear, the new forms are a modification of a previously known class of cages called Goldberg cages. (A cage can have nonplanar faces.) (Here I will be treating the modified forms as a group themselves). So, this newly discovered group of polyhedra by neuroscientists Stan Schein and James Gayed have the following attributes:

adam4 equilateral polyhedral

They are convex, which means they do not have parts that are caved in,
they do not have equal angles but they do have equilateral edges (meaning each edge is the same length), and
all of their faces are “planar”, which is very important, meaning that the faces lie flat and do not bulge in or out.

adam5 georg harts goldberg polyhedra

George Hart’s Goldberg polyhedra models

At first I thought that mathematician and polyhedron model builder George W. Hart had already worked out the math for these same shapes, but he confirmed via e-mail that the models he had made “have planar faces but generally are not equilateral. So, their result is new because of the equilateral property and (in my quick reading) appears to be correct.” (Thanks, George!) In a recent Science News article on the subject mathematician Branko Grünbaum makes the same confirmation, “It is correct, and the result is new.”

adam6 schein and gayed

Stan Schein (left) and James Gayed (right)

The Schein-Gayed Innovation

So, basically what Schein and Gayed did was they took a previously known group of ‘Goldberg cages’ with icosahedral, octahedral and tetrahedral symmetry, described back in 1937 by mathematician Michael Goldberg, and modified them. The original Goldberg cages bulged out and did not have edges of equal length. Later, George Hart made modified versions that did not bulge out before, but those did not have equal edges. Schein and Gayed worked out the necessary math and modified the Goldberg cages to be both planar and equilateral, thus convex equilateral Golderg polyhedra with polyhedral symmetry! (An object with ‘polyhedral symmetry’ has icosahedral, octahedral or tetrahedral symmetry.) Their discovery adds one new class to what were previously only 3 known classes of convex equilateral polyhedra with polyhedral symmetry. So you see, what they did was actually quite innovative and – in my view – a pretty important discovery in this particular field of study.

adam7 goldberg spherical polyhedra

Now, it took me a while to sort all of this out. The articles that showed up on Google news had conflicting reports and major errors. The best article* out there did not show up in the search results. A particularly atrocious little article on Gizmodo.com (called “These Brand New Shapes Are a Class of Their Own” by PJ Smith) mistakenly reports that the new shapes have equal sides and equal angles, “a combo that’s actually never been seen before.” This is completely false, in more ways than one. In fact, I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell, every single sentence in the first two paragraphs of the Gizmodo articles is incorrect!

(the best article: science news: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/goldberg-variations-new-shapes-molecular-cages)

http://gizmodo.com/these-brand-new-shapes-are-a-class-of-their-own-1523136222

Gizmodo Falsehoods

Gizmodo: “The criteria for being your own type of three dimensional solid is all about whether your edges are equal lengths, and whether your faces are regular polygons.”

This is false.

Gizmodo: “Discovered by UCLA neuroscientist Stan Schein and UCLA neuroscientist James Gayed, Goldberg polyhedra (pictured left) do have sides that are all the same length, but its polygonal faces have equal angles.”

Doubly false- Schein-Gayed versions of the Goldberg Polyhedra were on the right (not the left) and the faces do not have equal angles.

Gizmodo: “And surprisingly enough, that’s a combo that’s actually never been seen before.”

False, combinations of equal edges and equal angles have been seen before, as well as combinations of just equal edges.

Gizmodo: “The Goldberg polyhedra’s properties, specifically their equal angles, give them a rounded, spherical appearance.”

False, they don’t have equal angles so their spherical appearance could not possibly arise from having equal angles.

I am not going to go through the whole thing, but I think you get the point. How is it that this is what passes for journalism today? This guy just copied an article from another website, an article that was almost as far off from the truth, went further and misunderstood every detail of the first article, took no effort to check his facts, obviously did not consider looking at the original research paper, and turned in and published pure garbage. What is even the point of writing about something if literally every single sentence is wrong? Why is this considered acceptable? Why do we not have higher standards than this?

adam8 Various polyhedra

1) Kepler-Poinsot Solids 2) Heptagonal polyhedra 3) Johnson Solids 4) Waterman Polyhedra
“All of these classes of polyhedra are wonderful. Why compare?”

adam9 uniform polyhedra models

Uniform Polyhedra Models

Another frustrating aspect of this is the outright dismissal by some sources of Schein and Gayed’s findings. One article by the Daily Mail is entitled: “Scientists discover a new SHAPE for the first time in 400 years (but it just looks like a football)”, as if there have been no new shapes discovered since the 1600’s, completely ignoring the works of Coxeter, Penrose, John H. Conway, Gosset, Schlaffli, J. C. P. Miller, Michael Longuet-Higgins, Norman Johnson, Steve Waterman, or Nikolai Lobachevsky, to name just a few. Reducing the findings to “but it looks just like a football” is all too typical.

Correspondingly, the Comment sections are filled with smart aleck remarks of this nature:

adam10 smart ass quotes

Weeding through this kind of misinformation and utter garbage is the burden of the information edge.

adam11 goldberg-polyhedron

Beautiful Objects – an Interview with STAN SCHEIN

“We never gave any thought to applications.
We are basic scientists interested in beautiful objects”

But so on the bright side, which really is the side we should be focusing on, Schein and Gayed’s original paper on the topic was easy to find, an excellent read, and along with it was Stan Schein’s e-mail address. I sent him a quick e-mail, and he promptly responded, recommending the much better article in Science News, which I also highly recommend to anyone interested in the topic!. Stan was very polite and accommodating, responding back and forth several times, asking what my own field of study was, and clarifying my misunderstandings from poorly written articles. He even allowed me to conduct a little mini-interview with him!

James Gayed and you seem to have discovered not just a new sub-group of polyhedra, but an entirely new approach to finding new forms that seems to have been overlooked by mathematicians until now. Do you anticipate this leading to more discoveries soon by other researchers using the same method and applying it to different groups of shapes?

Schein: We use the Goldberg construction, dating to 1937, to generate the cages. Not new. We do have a new approach to transforming these to polyhedra. We ourselves hope to discover more new cages and polyhedra. How soon others do it, we cannot say.

adam12 freelance_Icosa-T25-planar

How do you feel the public and the media have responded to your new findings? Do you feel your work has been under appreciated, over exaggerated, misunderstood? Any notable clarifications you would make to articles that have been published?

Schein: We are surprised by the level of interest. We are impressed by some of the coverage, particularly the article in Science News, the PNAS blog, and a piece in Der Spiegel (in German).

Are you aware of any interesting properties of the duals of this sub-class of Goldberg polyhedra? (For example, the dual of a cube being an octahedron, replacing the faces with vertices.) It would seem that some level of symmetry would be lost, but traded for another.

We do not see much that is interesting in the duals of these Goldberg polyhedra. But, please note that the dual of a cage or polyhedron has the same symmetry as the original.

Do you feel that there is something particularly more appealing or useful, more important, about the particular combination of a polyhedron being convex, planar, and having equilateral sides and polyhedral symmetry? Do you think that other classes of polyhedra with high symmetry in other ways but that lack one of these are less important?

We began with an interest in self-assembly. The ‘parts’ that self-assemble are generally the same, so if the part is equivalent to an edge, then all the edges have the same size (length). We also suppose that in some situations it might be easier to assemble parts that result in planar surfaces than parts that have to contend with twisted surfaces that are out of plane or far out of plane. We used that logic to understand why the protein clathrin self-assembles into only certain fullerene cage structures and why the carbon atom self-assembles into only those cages that all have isolated pentagons. We are also interested in symmetry point groups that characterize cylinders, like nanotubes, as well as the icosahedral, octahedral and tetrahedral ones.

I have noticed that you have excluded most prisms and anti-prisms from your area of focus, it seems because of their lack of polyhedral symmetry. Is there anything about polyhedral symmetry specifically that you find to be important or interesting?

Good point. The Archimedean solids, like the soccer ball or truncated icosahedron, have one type of vertex and more than one type of regular face. Prisms and antiprisms do as well, but they do not have polyhedral symmetry. Polyhedral symmetry is appealing for reasons related to the prior answer. And, as Crick and Watson observed in 1956, virus shells (capsids) are likely to have helical or icosahedral symmetry because these elegant structures can be assembled from a very small number of parts, perhaps one in many cases, with a minimum of rules or genes.

A lot of media coverage of your findings have emphasized “400 years”. Where would you personally place the importance of the findings within the context of other polyhedron-related discoveries in the past 400 years? (For example,could you compare the new polyhedra with the Catalan Solids, Kepler’s Star polyhedra, Norman Johnson’s solids, Coxeter’s many findings, results in higher dimensional polytopes, etc).
All of these polyhedra are wonderful. Why compare?

adam13 First_compound_stellation_of_icosahedron

There seem to be many potentially beneficial applications of your findings. Does this drive your research, the hope that the applications of your discovery can help humanity, or are you content with pure abstract discovery just for the sake of understanding geometry better and finding something new, regardless of how it changes the practical world?

We never gave any thought to applications. We are basic scientists interested in beautiful objects. However, now that we have something new, it makes sense to think about uses. For example, in our paper we cite a wonderful article in the NY Times that described spherical computer displays and associated software that help children and adults alike to understand changes in the earth and its climate. Think what would happen to the so-called “debate” about climate change if everyone (including our political leaders) could see it for themselves on the spherical display. These displays could be much less expensive and thus more widely used if they were made from chips (like the planar faces of the Goldberg polyhedra). Also, we wonder if the Goldberg polyhedra could be used as designs for inexpensive but beautiful housing in disaster areas.

Any indication yet that you are aware of that your findings could influence string theory, particle physics or cosmology?
No.

adam14 24-cell

Concerning future research, do you anticipate that your method of transforming cages into polyhedra by adjusting dihedral angle discrepancies to zero, or similar methods, will lead to new findings in other aspects of geometry, such as new 2-dimensional tilings, or previously unknown higher dimensional polytopes? Is this an area of interest for you? Are there any other particular classes of polyhedra you are excited to explore?
It would be wonderful to extend the work to higher dimensions, but it is hard enough to think clearly about those objects without having to worry about metrical properties like edge length, angles in faces and planarity

Thank you, Stan. I will be looking forward to any new discoveries to which this may lead.

So, there you have it, folks. I guess the moral of the story is that if you sort through all of the noise and cynical trash out there, and if you are willing to put in a little extra effort and patience, pretty much anything you ever wanted to know is at your fingertips with the click of a button. And there are still plenty of new things to be discovered. Yes, journalism has become increasingly unreliable, but at the same time our ablity to simply do it ourselves is become increasingly easier. What a frustrating yet particularly wonderful and splendid time period to be alive!

I will now leave you with this quote from the great Johannes Kepler:

“We do not ask for what useful purpose the birds do sing, for song is their pleasure since they were created for singing. Similarly, we ought not to ask why the human mind troubles to fathom the secrets of the heavens. The diversity of the phenomena of nature is so great and the treasures hidden in the heavens so rich precisely in order that the human mind shall never be lacking in fresh nourishment.”

References:
Fourth class of convex equilateral polyhedron with polyhedral symmetry related to fullerenes and viruses
(the original paper by Stan Schein and James Maurice Gayed)
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/02/04/1310939111.abstract?sid=ecc1b2dc-28a3-4ffd-a274-31537de9daf3

Science News -Goldberg Variations

Goldberg variations: New shapes for molecular cages

Scientific American article with video by George Hart about Goldberg Polyhedra (2013)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/goldberg-polyhedra-mathematical-impressions-video/

Gizmodo’s atrocious article
http://gizmodo.com/these-brand-new-shapes-are-a-class-of-their-own-1523136222

Vega$: Into the Sunset I Will Ride

New Vegas

Well, I’m off to sunny Las Vegas, where the wine flows like prostitutes, and I couldn’t be happier. I’ve asked a few talented honchos to fill in for me while I’m gone, so Noiseless Chatter won’t be going dead, and you should still check back, because these guys know more than I do, and one of them wants to talk about math or something.

You should follow my new-ish Twitter feed if you aren’t already doing so…I’ll try to keep posting things there and sending pictures and stuff because hot damn, baby, I have always wanted to go to Vegas and this is going to be GREAT. I heard there’s a neon light there somewhere and I’d really like to see it.

There will still be a new ALF review on Thursday, but I won’t be around to fix all the typos I missed before it went live. There shouldn’t be too much of a drop off in activity here, mainly because I never post all that much in the first place. Yes, it’s now that my laziness will truly pay off.

Also, regarding The Lost Worlds of Power: as I’ve mentioned, we got…well, let’s just say we got a lot more in the way of submissions than we expected. Originally I had wanted to reply to everybody by the end of this month…but that’s not going to happen. I’m only about 1/3 of the way through them, but I’m hoping I can pick up the pace a bit in March and be done before April. I apologize for the delay, and I know everybody’s excited to hear the results and which pieces they can look forward to reading in the finished anthology, but I want to make sure I take the time to evaluate every submission thoroughly and respectfully, so your patience is appreciated!

Anyway, I’ve got a travel toothbrush, prescription sunglasses and a bag full of Hawaiian shirts. I’ll see you in just over a week.

Gordon Weston Shumway

A month or so ago there was a pretty interesting Facebook trend; folks would post an offer to create art of some kind to the first five people that “liked” their status, and then each of those five people would be obligated to post the same offer to their friends. Sure, it’s silly, but I also thought it was kind of neat. So neat that I posted it twice…for a total of ten people.

I wanted to share here the art I did, because while I went into it having no idea what to do, I thought at some point about ALF recreating famous scenes from the life of Christian Weston Chandler. And, well, once I got that idea in my head, there was nothing I could do but buy a pack of colored Sharpies and get to work.

This was hugely fun, and I hope you enjoy / are disturbed by what you are about to see. The deeper I got into this project the more I realized that ALF and Chris Chan have a lot in common, thematically speaking. But that’s a story for another day.

Gordon Weston Shumway

Reference:
Christian Weston Chandler

Gordon Weston Shumway

Reference:
Christian Weston Chandler

Gordon Weston Shumway

Reference:
Christian Weston Chandler

Gordon Weston Shumway

Reference:
Christian Weston Chandler

Gordon Weston Shumway

Reference:
Christian Weston Chandler

Gordon Weston Shumway

Reference:
Christian Weston Chandler

Gordon Weston Shumway

Reference:
Christian Weston Chandler

Gordon Weston Shumway

Reference:
Christian Weston Chandler

Gordon Weston Shumway

Reference:
Christian Weston Chandler

Gordon Weston Shumway

Reference:
Christian Weston Chandler