Using a neuro-headset, you can shift this bike’s gears with your thoughts. It’s interesting that Google’s driverless car is also using a Prius.

 Toyota seems to be doing some major imagery building work here .. nice!

Hat tip to Tom Anderson at Google + for the link.

Advertisements

In 1995, with their forthcoming 15th anniversary issue in mind, The Face magazine approached Stephen Hawking and asked him for a time travel formula. They soon received the following response by fax.

Transcript follows. Image very kindly supplied by The Face’s former editors, Richard Benson and Johnny Davis. Huge thanks!

About a year ago, The Wall Street Journal ran an article describing the plight of Americans struggling to rebuild after bankruptcy. The article highlighted Linda Frakes, who filed for bankruptcy after accumulating more than $300,000 in credit card debt.

“Ms. Frakes is now unemployed, living on $330 a week of unemployment benefits and odd jobs,” the Journal wrote. Frakes “struggled to rent a home and buy a car after bankruptcy. A used-car dealer ultimately gave her financing on a Jaguar.”

No one’s hardship should be belittled. Becoming unemployed or losing a home aren’t just financial problems. They’re social and emotional problems that strike at people’s sense of being.

But things always need to be kept in perspective. Only in America, I thought to myself after reading the article, can someone be driving a Jaguar and portrayed as living in an impoverished underclass. Context is crucial with these issues.

The recent Occupy Wall Street protests have aimed their message at the income disparity between the 1% richest Americans and the rest of the country. But what happens when you expand that and look at the 1% richest of the entire world? Some really interesting numbers emerge. If there were a global Occupy Wall Street protest, people as well off as Linda Frakes might actually be the target.

In America, the top 1% earn more than $380,000 per year. We are, however, among the richest nations on Earth. How much do you need to earn to be among the top 1% of the world?

$34,000.

That was the finding World Bank economist Branko Milanovic presented in his 2010 book The Haves and the Have-Nots. Going down the distribution ladder may be just as surprising. To be in the top half of the globe, you need to earn just $1,225 a year. For the top 20%, it’s $5,000 per year. Enter the top 10% with $12,000 a year. To be included in the top 0.1% requires an annual income of $70,000.

Of course, goods and services cost different amounts in different countries. These numbers only apply to those living in the U.S. To adjust for purchasing power parity, those living in Western Europe should discount their dollar-denominated incomes by 10%-20%, Milanovic says. Those in China and Africa should increase their incomes by 2.5-fold. India, by threefold.

The global distribution figures may seem incomprehensibly low, but consider a couple of statistics you’re likely familiar with: According to the U.N., “Nearly half the world’s population, 2.8 billion people, earn less than $2 a day.” According to the World Bank, 95% of those living in the developing world earn less than $10 a day.

Those numbers are so shocking that you might only think about them in the abstract. But when you consider them in the context of the entire globe, including yourself, the skewing effects they have on the distribution of income is simply massive. It means that Americans we consider poor are among some of the world’s most well-off. As Milanovic notes, “the poorest [5%] of Americans are better off than more than two-thirds of the world population.” Furthermore, “only about 3 percent of the Indian population have incomes higher than the bottom (the very poorest) U.S. percentile.”

In short, most of those protesting in the Occupy Wall Street movement would be considered wealthy — perhaps extraordinarily wealthy — by much of the world. Many of those protesting the 1% are, ironically, the 1%.

This isn’t to disparage the occupiers’ message. Protestors are, I think, upset because so many of America’s top 1% are perceived to have earned their income unjustifiably — think bankers and bailouts. Most are not against inequality of wealth; they’re against inequality of opportunity. As they should be.

But take a step back and put things in perspective. As Milanovic notes, “One’s income … crucially depends on citizenship, which in turn … means place of birth. All people born in rich countries thus receive a location premium … all those born in poor countries get a location penalty. It is easy to see that in such a world, most of one’s lifetime income will be determined at birth.” He continues, “it turns out that place of birth explains more than 60 percent of variability in global incomes.” And there are few better places to be born than America — even if you end up poor by American standards. If there is inequality in opportunity, those born in America are the ones with the unfair advantage.

As author Matt Ridley put it, “Today, of Americans officially designated as ‘poor,’ 99 percent have electricity, running water, flush toilets, and a refrigerator; 95 percent have a television, 88 percent a telephone, 71 percent a car and 70 percent air conditioning. Cornelius Vanderbilt had none of these.” Nor does much of the world.

Food for thought.

A lot of media attention nowadays is focused on the Occupy Wall Street protests which have spread like wildfire across the world.
The Motley Fool has a great writeup which analyses the US economy in the context of the world economy and concludes that the average protestor in the USA is probably part of the 1% of the world population in terms of income and assets. Thus many of those protesting the 1%, are ironically the 1%.
Everything is ultimately a matter of perspective.

This, most nights.

Posted: September 23, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , ,
Media_http25mediatumb_qtvap

Is Nike Taking Us Back To The Future?

When Nike gives you a call at midnight, you know it’s something good. With just a few hours notice Nike flew me out to LA for “a big announcement.” When they won’t tell you what it is until you get there, you know it’s something bigger than a new colorway of Dunks.

Upon arriving in the room, I found a box waiting for me with an iPod Shuffle with a personal message from Dr. Emmett Brown:

“Welcome to Los Angeles. If my calculations are correct, over the next 24 hours you are about to see some SERIOUS SH*T!”

Inside the box was an invite from to “IT’S ABOUT TIME…an unveiling that could change the course of time” as well as metal shield glasses.

The table of goodies that included mid 80′s candy, Throwback Pepsi (forumla from 1985), and a copy of Back To The Future all but confirmed the suspicions.

About a year ago we shared with you these documents of the Marty McFly Nike Air Mag shoes registered with the US Patent Office.

It looks like we’re getting closer to 2015 than we thought!

It's About Time Invitation

It’s About Time Invitation

Metal Shield Glasses

Metal Shield Glasses

Metal Shield Glasses

Metal Shield Glasses

Back To The Future, Throwback Pepsi, Tastes of Childhood

Back To The Future, Throwback Pepsi, Tastes of Childhood

Nike Air Mag

Nike Air Mag

Nike Air Mag

Nike Air Mag

Nike Air Mag

Nike Air Mag

Great Scott! Just three words: I want these.

As a huge fan of Robert Zemeckis’ “Back to the Future” trilogy, I think one of the most memorable moments in the 1989 sequel has to be when Michael J. Fox’s character, Marty McFly, puts on a pair of Nike Air 2015 sneakers that automatically lace themselves. Now, 22 years on, it seems Nike has at long last heard the cry from fans and mothers with butter-fingered kids.

Really looking forward to tomorrow’s announcement to see how reel life has inspired a real life innovation.

If Mario was first designed in 2011, he’d probably have to adopt some of our modern trends:

Thirty minutes later…

Maybe this warp pipe is safe:

Damnit.