background img

The New Stuff


To sum up a life such as Michelangelo Buonarotti’s in the length of a blog post seems not only an impossible challenge but the epitome of an understatement, yet if there was ever a life worthy of such an endeavor, it is his.

Michelangelo (correctly pronounced mi-keh-LAHN-geh-lo, not michael-angelo) is perhaps one of the most well-known artists, the man who struggled for years to complete one of the ultimate pieces of art ever created. But in truth, Michelangelo’s struggles began almost at the beginning of his life and they were to mold that life as distinctly as he himself would carve his great statues. When I uncovered his connection to my main historical character in The King’s Agent, I felt it a blessing to be able to research this gifted man’s life and a privilege to include him in one of my books.

Born on March 6, 1475 in Casentino, Italy, outside the walls of the grand city of Florence, his father was Lodivico di Lionardo Buonarroti-Simoni, the Podesta of Caprese and Chiusi. His mother, Francesca di Neri di Miniato del Sera, gave birth to five sons in all, all within an eight year span. It killed her, and it was a loss that would shape the entirety of Michelangelo’s life. 

Because of his mother’s ill health, Michelangelo was suckled by a wet nurse. The loving woman, nurturing in even sense of the word, was one Signora Topolino, a stonecutter’s wife living in the rocky hills of Pontasseive. Michelangelo found such encompassing affection from this woman and her family that he would return to them, for days and months at a time, throughout the entire course of his life. It is a great myth—one that might have started from Michelangelo’s own lips—that he ingested stone dust along with the woman’s milk, binding him and his life to worship of the stone. 

Michelangelo was six when his mother passed and, from that moment on, he lived a life of solitude; his father was consumed by his grief and incapable of caring for the children Francesca left behind. Lodivico’s sister, Michelangelo’s Aunt Cassandra, took over the care of the household, but she was a cold if efficient woman, seeing to the boys’ needs but with little love in the act. Nonna Alessandra, Michelangelo’s grandmother, offered some affection, but it was not enough to fill the emptiness created by the loss of his mother. None of the adults cared much to keep track of the young boy’s comings and goings and Michelangelo became a child of the streets, an urchin as prone to mischief as he was to curiosity. 

At the age of 13, his father sent Michelangelo to school in the city proper, under the auspices of Francesco da Urbino, but he neglected all of his studies save for drawing. And though his father and uncle tried, literally, to beat the predilection for art out of the child, they were vastly unsuccessful, eventually capitulating to Michelangelo’s truth and fostering his artistic achievements. 

In 1488, at the age of thirteen, he entered the studio of Domenico and Davide Ghirlandaio, elite members of the large Florentine artistic community. There he learned the cutting edge techniques of the age and studied the works of such masters as Giotto, Donatello, Ghiberti, and others, those considered the founding fathers of the Renaissance. In 1489, he became a pupil at the School of Sculpture headed by the great Bertoldi, who was himself a student of the master Donatello. Here his obsession with sculpture would be secured and here he would come to the attention of one Lorenzo de’ Medici, Il Magnifico. His life would be forever changed for it.

From this moment on, Michelangelo’s life would be one of learning, not only artistically, but philosophically and of self-enlightenment, present in the studio of Lorenzo during the deep discussions of Paganism and Humanism. He studied the human anatomy by sneaking into the morgue of a church and dissected the bodies awaiting burial (it is why he was able to recreate them with such precision). He learned too the harshness of life, the confusing truth of his sexual orientation, and the vagaries of living in Italian states that went to war with the same frequency and glee with which they sat down to a vast meal. 

Michelangelo was an ardent patriot to his Tuscan lands, and took part in the many revolutions that plagued the city, pulling on his loyalties to the Medici and the city in a gut wrenching struggle. He became both adored and vilified by the popes of the Catholic Church, heartbroken by both men and women, and though he was forever surrounded by great friends, talented colleagues, and lovers, he remained a solitary man, rarely speaking of what he felt most deeply. 

And yet, in all that I learned of him, as he became for me not the subject of my work, but a living, breathing being with whom I spent many hours of many days, it was his intellect and his vulnerability that touched me the most deeply. It has been one of the great delights of my life to ‘spend that time’ with him while crafting The King’s Agent. And I am thrilled to be including him in my current work in progress, but there he is a younger man, in the throes of artistic and personal awakening, feisty in his arrogant youth. 



Michelangelo’s list of works is breathtaking, astounding, too vast to be accounted for here, and he is considered to be one of the greatest artists of all time. He was a sculptor, painter, architect, engineer and poet. His best known work, that of the paintings on the ceiling and the altar wall of the Sistine Chapel, catapulted him into the realm of the immortal icon, and yet it was his other work, that with the stone, creations like the great David (originally called the Giant), with which he cared the most, with which he identified. Were one to encounter the painter of the Sistine Chapel and ask him what he did, he would answer forthrightly, “I am a sculptor.”

The relationship between the lead male character, Battista della Palla—a true historical character—and Michelangelo is as I’ve drawn it within The King’s Agent, one of emotional succor of the most innocent kind, a bond between an older and younger man of a father and son nature, each yearning to fulfill the emptiness and lack of the one, each more than willing to fulfill that emptiness for the other. It was, perhaps, the most long lasting and satisfying bond of the magnificent Michelangelo’s life. The love they bear for each other is just one of the many reasons for the love I bear them both.

by

MICHELANGELO: A SHORT HISTORY OF A LONG, MAGNIFICENT LIFE


To sum up a life such as Michelangelo Buonarotti’s in the length of a blog post seems not only an impossible challenge but the epitome of an understatement, yet if there was ever a life worthy of such an endeavor, it is his.

Michelangelo (correctly pronounced mi-keh-LAHN-geh-lo, not michael-angelo) is perhaps one of the most well-known artists, the man who struggled for years to complete one of the ultimate pieces of art ever created. But in truth, Michelangelo’s struggles began almost at the beginning of his life and they were to mold that life as distinctly as he himself would carve his great statues. When I uncovered his connection to my main historical character in The King’s Agent, I felt it a blessing to be able to research this gifted man’s life and a privilege to include him in one of my books.

Born on March 6, 1475 in Casentino, Italy, outside the walls of the grand city of Florence, his father was Lodivico di Lionardo Buonarroti-Simoni, the Podesta of Caprese and Chiusi. His mother, Francesca di Neri di Miniato del Sera, gave birth to five sons in all, all within an eight year span. It killed her, and it was a loss that would shape the entirety of Michelangelo’s life. 

Because of his mother’s ill health, Michelangelo was suckled by a wet nurse. The loving woman, nurturing in even sense of the word, was one Signora Topolino, a stonecutter’s wife living in the rocky hills of Pontasseive. Michelangelo found such encompassing affection from this woman and her family that he would return to them, for days and months at a time, throughout the entire course of his life. It is a great myth—one that might have started from Michelangelo’s own lips—that he ingested stone dust along with the woman’s milk, binding him and his life to worship of the stone. 

Michelangelo was six when his mother passed and, from that moment on, he lived a life of solitude; his father was consumed by his grief and incapable of caring for the children Francesca left behind. Lodivico’s sister, Michelangelo’s Aunt Cassandra, took over the care of the household, but she was a cold if efficient woman, seeing to the boys’ needs but with little love in the act. Nonna Alessandra, Michelangelo’s grandmother, offered some affection, but it was not enough to fill the emptiness created by the loss of his mother. None of the adults cared much to keep track of the young boy’s comings and goings and Michelangelo became a child of the streets, an urchin as prone to mischief as he was to curiosity. 

At the age of 13, his father sent Michelangelo to school in the city proper, under the auspices of Francesco da Urbino, but he neglected all of his studies save for drawing. And though his father and uncle tried, literally, to beat the predilection for art out of the child, they were vastly unsuccessful, eventually capitulating to Michelangelo’s truth and fostering his artistic achievements. 

In 1488, at the age of thirteen, he entered the studio of Domenico and Davide Ghirlandaio, elite members of the large Florentine artistic community. There he learned the cutting edge techniques of the age and studied the works of such masters as Giotto, Donatello, Ghiberti, and others, those considered the founding fathers of the Renaissance. In 1489, he became a pupil at the School of Sculpture headed by the great Bertoldi, who was himself a student of the master Donatello. Here his obsession with sculpture would be secured and here he would come to the attention of one Lorenzo de’ Medici, Il Magnifico. His life would be forever changed for it.

From this moment on, Michelangelo’s life would be one of learning, not only artistically, but philosophically and of self-enlightenment, present in the studio of Lorenzo during the deep discussions of Paganism and Humanism. He studied the human anatomy by sneaking into the morgue of a church and dissected the bodies awaiting burial (it is why he was able to recreate them with such precision). He learned too the harshness of life, the confusing truth of his sexual orientation, and the vagaries of living in Italian states that went to war with the same frequency and glee with which they sat down to a vast meal. 

Michelangelo was an ardent patriot to his Tuscan lands, and took part in the many revolutions that plagued the city, pulling on his loyalties to the Medici and the city in a gut wrenching struggle. He became both adored and vilified by the popes of the Catholic Church, heartbroken by both men and women, and though he was forever surrounded by great friends, talented colleagues, and lovers, he remained a solitary man, rarely speaking of what he felt most deeply. 

And yet, in all that I learned of him, as he became for me not the subject of my work, but a living, breathing being with whom I spent many hours of many days, it was his intellect and his vulnerability that touched me the most deeply. It has been one of the great delights of my life to ‘spend that time’ with him while crafting The King’s Agent. And I am thrilled to be including him in my current work in progress, but there he is a younger man, in the throes of artistic and personal awakening, feisty in his arrogant youth. 



Michelangelo’s list of works is breathtaking, astounding, too vast to be accounted for here, and he is considered to be one of the greatest artists of all time. He was a sculptor, painter, architect, engineer and poet. His best known work, that of the paintings on the ceiling and the altar wall of the Sistine Chapel, catapulted him into the realm of the immortal icon, and yet it was his other work, that with the stone, creations like the great David (originally called the Giant), with which he cared the most, with which he identified. Were one to encounter the painter of the Sistine Chapel and ask him what he did, he would answer forthrightly, “I am a sculptor.”

The relationship between the lead male character, Battista della Palla—a true historical character—and Michelangelo is as I’ve drawn it within The King’s Agent, one of emotional succor of the most innocent kind, a bond between an older and younger man of a father and son nature, each yearning to fulfill the emptiness and lack of the one, each more than willing to fulfill that emptiness for the other. It was, perhaps, the most long lasting and satisfying bond of the magnificent Michelangelo’s life. The love they bear for each other is just one of the many reasons for the love I bear them both.

by


Thomas Midgley Jr – The Worlds Most Destructive Man


“Midgley’s name is inseparably associated with four outstanding advances. The first was the discovery of the chemical antiknock agents. Tetra-ethyl lead, the principal one of these, has added immensely to the performance and efficiency of gasoline engines both in the air and on the ground. The second advance, which was necessary to the practical success of the first, was the extraction of bromine from sea water. The third was the utilization of fluorine to produce an altogether new series of refrigerating compounds, the only such compounds known which are stable, non-flammable, and completely non-toxic, and which are therefore indispensable in air-conditioning.  The fourth advance was in the field of rubber, in which he extended the knowledge of the chemistry of vulcanization and of the fundamental composition of natural and synthetic rubbers.” – Biographical Memoir of Thomas Midgley Jr. 1889 – 1944 By Charles F. Kettering
He certainly sounds like quite the scientist, doesn’t he? No-one can deny that he was indeed gifted in the field of chemistry, despite the fact that he had never received and formal training as a scientist. His training was in Engineering, though after gaining an interest in the industrial applications of chemistry he ceased to continue his engineering work. Although his work was pioneering in some respects, it left a deadly trail behind him.
Tetra-ethyl Lead
In 1921, when working for General Motors, Midgley discovered that by adding lead to petrol he was able to prevent a problem known as ”knocking’. Knocking occurs when fuel burns too early in the internal combustion cycle and leads to noise and engine damage. The addition of lead, or ‘tetra-ethyl lead’ (also sometimes called ‘lead tetraethyl’, for some reason) to the petrol resulted in slightly slower rates of combustion, meaning that the knocking was prevented.
Car Engine
Car Engine
We can look back on this with the benefit of hindsight and think “Hey, lead is really dangerous, don’t add that”, but of course we have the benefit of knowledge. Surely they didn’t? Actually – surprisingly – the dangers of tetra-ethyl lead were well known at the time of discovery, yet this did not seem to sway the production of it.
In 1923, General Motors, Du Pont and Standard Oil of New Jersey formed a joint company titled the ‘Ethyl Gasoline Corporation’. They later adopted the shorter and less-toxic sounding name, ‘Ethyl’, no doubt a decision made by the PR department aimed to suppress public fear and increase company  profitability. The additive was made available for public consumption on the 1st February 1923.
What are the dangers of Lead, then?
“Lead is a Neurotoxin. get too much of it and you can irrepairable damage the brain and central nervous system. Among the many symptoms associated with over-exposure are blindness, insomnia, kidney failure, hearing loss, cancer, palsies and convulsions. In its most acute form it produces abrupt hallucinations, disturbing to victims and onlookers alike, which generally then give way to coma and death. You really don’t want to get too much lead in your system.” -Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything
Yet despite these dangers, lead was being used in a vast array of products, ranging from the lining of toothpaste tubes and water tanks to being used as a solder in food tins. Lead was also used in paints. Lead arsenate was even sprayed onto fruit as a pesticide! These applications were bad, but the worst application of all came in the form of petrol.
Almost as soon as production had started at the Ethyl plant, workers began to show the first signs of lead poisoning. The Ethyl corporation began its long-lasting policy of unyielding denial that their product had any connection to the illnesses. “These men probably went insane because they worked too hard”, was the comment made by one Ethyl spokesman to an audience of reporters when the outbreak of poisonings occurred.
Ethyl
Ethyl
It is hard to give exact figures of those that died and were injured by over-exposure to lead, largely due to cover-ups by the industry. However, it is known that at least 15 people died in the early days of production, and countless others were made ill.
“At times, however, suppressing the news became impossible – most notably in 1924 when, in a matter of days, five production- workers died and thirty-five more were  transformed into permanent staggering wrecks at a single ill-vented facility.” – Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything
Something had to be done, so Midgley took it upon himself to hold a demonstration where he illustrated just how harmless he believed lead to be. He did this by pouring tetra-ethyl lead over his hands and then holding a cup of it under his nose and inhaling it for sixty seconds. Whilst performing this deadly demonstration he was assuring reporters of how he could repeat this practice daily without harm. He did this whilst knowing full-well the dangers of lead poisoning due to having been over-exposed to the substance a few months previous to the demonstration.
Chlorofluorocarbons
After the ‘success’ of tetra-ethyl lead, Midgely moved onto his next deadly substance. Refrigerators used rather dangerous gasses that were deadly if they leaked. One devastating incident took place at a hospital in Cleveland, Ohio 1929 when a refrigerator killed more than one-hundred people. in 1930, Midgley was commissioned by General Motors to see if he could produce a better alternative to these deadly gasses. It needed to be stable, non-flammable, non-corrosive and safe to breathe. He devised a compound made from chlorine, fluorine and carbon – it was called Freon (also called dichlorodifluoromethane), a type of chlorofluorocarbon, or CFC.
Freon caught on quickly, and within a couple of years all refrigerators were using it. In addition to refrigerators it had found a use in many other applications too, such as car air-conditioners and deodorant sprays.
Midgley performed another of his ‘safety demonstrations’, this time showing just how unreactive Freon was. He inhaled a big lungful of the gas and then proceeded to blow it onto a candle, which was then extinguished.
CFCs may have seemed safe at the time, unlike tetra-ethyl lead, but it wasn’t until fifty years later that the real dangers of CFCs were discovered when we started looking at the ozone in the stratosphere.
Earth's Atmosphere
Earth's Atmosphere
Ozone (O3), or Trioxygen, is a form of oxygen, only its molecule contains three atoms of oxygen, instead of the normal two. At ground level ozone is an air pollutant which can have damaging effects on the respiratory system of many animals and can burn plants, yet it is beneficial to us when it is up in the stratosphere as it prevents many of the suns damaging ultra-violet rays from entering Earth’s atmosphere.
“Beneficial ozone is not terrible abundant, however. If it were distributed evenly throughout the stratosphere, it would form a layer just 2 millimeters or so thick.
“Chlorofluorocarbons are also not very abundant – they constitute only about one part per billion of the atmosphere as a whole – but they are extravagantly destructive. A single kilogram of CFCs can capture and annihilate 70,000 kilograms of atmospheric ozone. CFCs also hang around for a long time – about a century on average – wreaking havoc all the while. And they are great heat sponges. A single CFC molecule is about ten thousand times more efficient at exacerbating greenhouse effects than a molecule of carbon dioxide – and carbon dioxide is of course no slouch itself as a greenhouse gas. In short, Chlorofluorocarbons may ultimately prove to be just about the worst invention of the twentieth century.”– Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything
Ozone Molecule
Ozone Molecule
You might think that Midgley would have discovered the effects of his inventions and felt incredible guilty, but he never lived to find out. He had invented a contraption which used motorised pulleys to automatically raise or turn him in his bed. He needed this as he had become crippled by polio. Ironically, in 1944 he became entangled in the cords of his contraption as it went into action and was strangled to death.
There will be a follow up to this article soon in which we will look further into the  effects of lead in the atmosphere.

Thomas Midgley Jr – The Worlds Most Destructive Man


Thomas Midgley Jr – The Worlds Most Destructive Man


“Midgley’s name is inseparably associated with four outstanding advances. The first was the discovery of the chemical antiknock agents. Tetra-ethyl lead, the principal one of these, has added immensely to the performance and efficiency of gasoline engines both in the air and on the ground. The second advance, which was necessary to the practical success of the first, was the extraction of bromine from sea water. The third was the utilization of fluorine to produce an altogether new series of refrigerating compounds, the only such compounds known which are stable, non-flammable, and completely non-toxic, and which are therefore indispensable in air-conditioning.  The fourth advance was in the field of rubber, in which he extended the knowledge of the chemistry of vulcanization and of the fundamental composition of natural and synthetic rubbers.” – Biographical Memoir of Thomas Midgley Jr. 1889 – 1944 By Charles F. Kettering
He certainly sounds like quite the scientist, doesn’t he? No-one can deny that he was indeed gifted in the field of chemistry, despite the fact that he had never received and formal training as a scientist. His training was in Engineering, though after gaining an interest in the industrial applications of chemistry he ceased to continue his engineering work. Although his work was pioneering in some respects, it left a deadly trail behind him.
Tetra-ethyl Lead
In 1921, when working for General Motors, Midgley discovered that by adding lead to petrol he was able to prevent a problem known as ”knocking’. Knocking occurs when fuel burns too early in the internal combustion cycle and leads to noise and engine damage. The addition of lead, or ‘tetra-ethyl lead’ (also sometimes called ‘lead tetraethyl’, for some reason) to the petrol resulted in slightly slower rates of combustion, meaning that the knocking was prevented.
Car Engine
Car Engine
We can look back on this with the benefit of hindsight and think “Hey, lead is really dangerous, don’t add that”, but of course we have the benefit of knowledge. Surely they didn’t? Actually – surprisingly – the dangers of tetra-ethyl lead were well known at the time of discovery, yet this did not seem to sway the production of it.
In 1923, General Motors, Du Pont and Standard Oil of New Jersey formed a joint company titled the ‘Ethyl Gasoline Corporation’. They later adopted the shorter and less-toxic sounding name, ‘Ethyl’, no doubt a decision made by the PR department aimed to suppress public fear and increase company  profitability. The additive was made available for public consumption on the 1st February 1923.
What are the dangers of Lead, then?
“Lead is a Neurotoxin. get too much of it and you can irrepairable damage the brain and central nervous system. Among the many symptoms associated with over-exposure are blindness, insomnia, kidney failure, hearing loss, cancer, palsies and convulsions. In its most acute form it produces abrupt hallucinations, disturbing to victims and onlookers alike, which generally then give way to coma and death. You really don’t want to get too much lead in your system.” -Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything
Yet despite these dangers, lead was being used in a vast array of products, ranging from the lining of toothpaste tubes and water tanks to being used as a solder in food tins. Lead was also used in paints. Lead arsenate was even sprayed onto fruit as a pesticide! These applications were bad, but the worst application of all came in the form of petrol.
Almost as soon as production had started at the Ethyl plant, workers began to show the first signs of lead poisoning. The Ethyl corporation began its long-lasting policy of unyielding denial that their product had any connection to the illnesses. “These men probably went insane because they worked too hard”, was the comment made by one Ethyl spokesman to an audience of reporters when the outbreak of poisonings occurred.
Ethyl
Ethyl
It is hard to give exact figures of those that died and were injured by over-exposure to lead, largely due to cover-ups by the industry. However, it is known that at least 15 people died in the early days of production, and countless others were made ill.
“At times, however, suppressing the news became impossible – most notably in 1924 when, in a matter of days, five production- workers died and thirty-five more were  transformed into permanent staggering wrecks at a single ill-vented facility.” – Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything
Something had to be done, so Midgley took it upon himself to hold a demonstration where he illustrated just how harmless he believed lead to be. He did this by pouring tetra-ethyl lead over his hands and then holding a cup of it under his nose and inhaling it for sixty seconds. Whilst performing this deadly demonstration he was assuring reporters of how he could repeat this practice daily without harm. He did this whilst knowing full-well the dangers of lead poisoning due to having been over-exposed to the substance a few months previous to the demonstration.
Chlorofluorocarbons
After the ‘success’ of tetra-ethyl lead, Midgely moved onto his next deadly substance. Refrigerators used rather dangerous gasses that were deadly if they leaked. One devastating incident took place at a hospital in Cleveland, Ohio 1929 when a refrigerator killed more than one-hundred people. in 1930, Midgley was commissioned by General Motors to see if he could produce a better alternative to these deadly gasses. It needed to be stable, non-flammable, non-corrosive and safe to breathe. He devised a compound made from chlorine, fluorine and carbon – it was called Freon (also called dichlorodifluoromethane), a type of chlorofluorocarbon, or CFC.
Freon caught on quickly, and within a couple of years all refrigerators were using it. In addition to refrigerators it had found a use in many other applications too, such as car air-conditioners and deodorant sprays.
Midgley performed another of his ‘safety demonstrations’, this time showing just how unreactive Freon was. He inhaled a big lungful of the gas and then proceeded to blow it onto a candle, which was then extinguished.
CFCs may have seemed safe at the time, unlike tetra-ethyl lead, but it wasn’t until fifty years later that the real dangers of CFCs were discovered when we started looking at the ozone in the stratosphere.
Earth's Atmosphere
Earth's Atmosphere
Ozone (O3), or Trioxygen, is a form of oxygen, only its molecule contains three atoms of oxygen, instead of the normal two. At ground level ozone is an air pollutant which can have damaging effects on the respiratory system of many animals and can burn plants, yet it is beneficial to us when it is up in the stratosphere as it prevents many of the suns damaging ultra-violet rays from entering Earth’s atmosphere.
“Beneficial ozone is not terrible abundant, however. If it were distributed evenly throughout the stratosphere, it would form a layer just 2 millimeters or so thick.
“Chlorofluorocarbons are also not very abundant – they constitute only about one part per billion of the atmosphere as a whole – but they are extravagantly destructive. A single kilogram of CFCs can capture and annihilate 70,000 kilograms of atmospheric ozone. CFCs also hang around for a long time – about a century on average – wreaking havoc all the while. And they are great heat sponges. A single CFC molecule is about ten thousand times more efficient at exacerbating greenhouse effects than a molecule of carbon dioxide – and carbon dioxide is of course no slouch itself as a greenhouse gas. In short, Chlorofluorocarbons may ultimately prove to be just about the worst invention of the twentieth century.”– Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything
Ozone Molecule
Ozone Molecule
You might think that Midgley would have discovered the effects of his inventions and felt incredible guilty, but he never lived to find out. He had invented a contraption which used motorised pulleys to automatically raise or turn him in his bed. He needed this as he had become crippled by polio. Ironically, in 1944 he became entangled in the cords of his contraption as it went into action and was strangled to death.
There will be a follow up to this article soon in which we will look further into the  effects of lead in the atmosphere.

 
Thanks to physics and centrifugal force, the SpillNot coffee cup holder will never spill your coffee, but that's not to say you won't look like a complete idiot while carrying it around. Assuming your coffee mug is indeed a mug and has a handle, the SpillNot mug holder serves no purpose other than being a science experiment to prove you can wave around a cup of scolding hot liquid above little Timmy's head and it won't spill and give him 3rd degree burns. Or maybe you just have the shakes, Parkinson's disease, want to do sweet coffee mug tricks, or are on your 12th cup of coffee and just need a steady hand to carry your mug to and from the coffee maker.
The SpillNot coffee mug holder is made from a black plastic base with a non-slip coaster and a string for carrying, is a perfect gift idea for a science teacher, or physics lover, and measures 7.5 inches tall x 6.25 inches wide x 4.5 inches. Check out the spill proof coffee mug holder in action doing some of the best coffee mug tricks you will see today, via the video below.
SpillNot Spill Proof Coffee Mug Holder
SpillNot Spill Proof Coffee Mug Holder
SpillNot Spill Proof Coffee Mug Holder
SpillNot Spill Proof Coffee Mug Holder
SpillNot Spill Proof Coffee Mug Holder
SpillNot Spill Proof Coffee Mug Holder
SpillNot: A Spill Proof Coffee Mug Holder



SpillNot: A Spill Proof Coffee Mug Holder

 
Thanks to physics and centrifugal force, the SpillNot coffee cup holder will never spill your coffee, but that's not to say you won't look like a complete idiot while carrying it around. Assuming your coffee mug is indeed a mug and has a handle, the SpillNot mug holder serves no purpose other than being a science experiment to prove you can wave around a cup of scolding hot liquid above little Timmy's head and it won't spill and give him 3rd degree burns. Or maybe you just have the shakes, Parkinson's disease, want to do sweet coffee mug tricks, or are on your 12th cup of coffee and just need a steady hand to carry your mug to and from the coffee maker.
The SpillNot coffee mug holder is made from a black plastic base with a non-slip coaster and a string for carrying, is a perfect gift idea for a science teacher, or physics lover, and measures 7.5 inches tall x 6.25 inches wide x 4.5 inches. Check out the spill proof coffee mug holder in action doing some of the best coffee mug tricks you will see today, via the video below.
SpillNot Spill Proof Coffee Mug Holder
SpillNot Spill Proof Coffee Mug Holder
SpillNot Spill Proof Coffee Mug Holder
SpillNot Spill Proof Coffee Mug Holder
SpillNot Spill Proof Coffee Mug Holder
SpillNot Spill Proof Coffee Mug Holder
SpillNot: A Spill Proof Coffee Mug Holder






Buffalo's historic snow storm, dubbed "Winter Storm Knife," has been blamed for the deaths of at least eight people since it began Monday, often by cutting off their access to help in emergency situations.
The city in upstate New York typically sees about 7 feet of snow throughout its winter; already more than 5 feet have fallen in just a few days.
Derek Gee, chief photographer at The Buffalo News, has taken breathtaking aerial photos of the wintry weather’s arresting impact on the area, which we have run with his permission.


The storm paralyzed 140 miles of I-90, the main highway crossing New York State. More than 100 drivers were at one time stranded in their cars, some for as long as 36 hours. Emergency crews worked around the clock to free them.

Sporting events to have been hosted by home teams in Buffalo were postponed, including Friday's Sabres (NHL) game and Sunday's Bills (NFL) game.

Roofs, porches, and even homes have collapsed under the weight of the snow.

New York State Electric and Gas Corp. reported that 72 customers lost electricity Wednesday night.

The snow is the result of "thundersnow," a phenomenon caused when wet air from Lake Erie encountered the colder atmosphere over Buffalo.

Wednesday saw some respite in the snowfall, but authorities still received 12 calls from people finding themselves stuck.

Some emergency calls have been met by authorities using snowmobiles.

"Mother Nature is showing us who's boss once again," New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Wednesday. "This is an historic event. When all is said and done, this snowstorm will break all sorts of records, and that's saying something in Buffalo."
buffalo snow

This Aerial Photography Shows Just How Arresting The Snow Storm In Buffalo Is



Buffalo's historic snow storm, dubbed "Winter Storm Knife," has been blamed for the deaths of at least eight people since it began Monday, often by cutting off their access to help in emergency situations.
The city in upstate New York typically sees about 7 feet of snow throughout its winter; already more than 5 feet have fallen in just a few days.
Derek Gee, chief photographer at The Buffalo News, has taken breathtaking aerial photos of the wintry weather’s arresting impact on the area, which we have run with his permission.


The storm paralyzed 140 miles of I-90, the main highway crossing New York State. More than 100 drivers were at one time stranded in their cars, some for as long as 36 hours. Emergency crews worked around the clock to free them.

Sporting events to have been hosted by home teams in Buffalo were postponed, including Friday's Sabres (NHL) game and Sunday's Bills (NFL) game.

Roofs, porches, and even homes have collapsed under the weight of the snow.

New York State Electric and Gas Corp. reported that 72 customers lost electricity Wednesday night.

The snow is the result of "thundersnow," a phenomenon caused when wet air from Lake Erie encountered the colder atmosphere over Buffalo.

Wednesday saw some respite in the snowfall, but authorities still received 12 calls from people finding themselves stuck.

Some emergency calls have been met by authorities using snowmobiles.

"Mother Nature is showing us who's boss once again," New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Wednesday. "This is an historic event. When all is said and done, this snowstorm will break all sorts of records, and that's saying something in Buffalo."
buffalo snow



Here's Why Europe Wants To Break Up Google

The European parliament is considering a motion that would suggest Google unbundle its search engine from its other products, The Financial Times reported this afternoon
Although the parliament doesn't have the power to split up Google (or any company for that matter), this dramatic move would put political pressure on the European Union to double-down on the antitrust investigation that it has been conducting against Google for the last four years. 
European concern about Google stems from the fact that the company has huge market share in Europe — about 90%, versus around 68% in the US. Some believe that it abuses that dominance by downgrading the search results of its rivals. 
When the antitrust investigation first launched in 2010, now-former VP of the European Commission Joaquin Almunia listed four main areas of concern:
  • That Google gives links to its own "vertical search services," like Google Shopping, restaurant reviews, news, or YouTube, preference over rival links
  • That it takes content from competing companies (like restaurant reviews from Yelp) and uses it in its own services
  • That it shuts out search advertising competitors on websites where it delivers search advertisements
  • That it makes it difficult for advertisers to move their advertising away from its own system, AdWords.
Yelp, for example, has argued that Google pushes down its results in favor of its own properties (like Google+ reviews), even when Google's websites offer lower quality search results.
In February of this year, Google nearly settled the European antirust case by promising it would give its rivals more prominence in specialized search results and would allow competitors like Yelp to stop Google from using their content, without pushing down their organic links. There was no fine against Google and the Commission ultimately found that it was not an illegal business. 
Competitors and other critics didn't think that solution was harsh enough.
"We do not believe Google has any intention of holding themselves to account on these proposals," David Wood, legal counsel for a trade group representing Microsoft and other rivals, told The New York Times
The "very, very negative" response from a lot of different sources prompted the European Commission to re-open the case in September. German justice minister Heiko Maas demanded that Google reveal how its search algorithm works, in order to protect consumers and prove it doesn't favor its own products.
EU Commissioner Almunia has also suggested that it may launch an investigation into Android, Google's mobile operating system, which runs on about 75% of all new smartphones sold in Europe.
Google, for its part, strongly maintains that it doesn't promote its own products at the expense of its competitors, it just tries to give the best results. 
In a speech in Berlin in October, former Google CEO and current executive chairman Eric Schmidt tried to justify Google's results by wants to be able to provide users with the most direct answers to any question they may ask. The EU is investigating Google because other companies have complained that the search engine favors its own results, and Schmidt argues that it's because Google just wants to be as direct as possible and save users from having to click around.  
"Put simply, we created search for users, not websites," he says. "And that’s the motivation behind all our improvements over the last decade."
The anti-trust case isn't the only instance of Google clashing with the EU. In June, Google was forced to start enacting the EU's "right to be forgotten" ruling.
The ruling says individuals can request to have Google stop linking to websites, news stories, and items that are "inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant." Opponents of this legislation — including Google — believe that it's akin to censorship. 
by

Here's Why Europe Wants To Break Up Google


Here's Why Europe Wants To Break Up Google

The European parliament is considering a motion that would suggest Google unbundle its search engine from its other products, The Financial Times reported this afternoon
Although the parliament doesn't have the power to split up Google (or any company for that matter), this dramatic move would put political pressure on the European Union to double-down on the antitrust investigation that it has been conducting against Google for the last four years. 
European concern about Google stems from the fact that the company has huge market share in Europe — about 90%, versus around 68% in the US. Some believe that it abuses that dominance by downgrading the search results of its rivals. 
When the antitrust investigation first launched in 2010, now-former VP of the European Commission Joaquin Almunia listed four main areas of concern:
  • That Google gives links to its own "vertical search services," like Google Shopping, restaurant reviews, news, or YouTube, preference over rival links
  • That it takes content from competing companies (like restaurant reviews from Yelp) and uses it in its own services
  • That it shuts out search advertising competitors on websites where it delivers search advertisements
  • That it makes it difficult for advertisers to move their advertising away from its own system, AdWords.
Yelp, for example, has argued that Google pushes down its results in favor of its own properties (like Google+ reviews), even when Google's websites offer lower quality search results.
In February of this year, Google nearly settled the European antirust case by promising it would give its rivals more prominence in specialized search results and would allow competitors like Yelp to stop Google from using their content, without pushing down their organic links. There was no fine against Google and the Commission ultimately found that it was not an illegal business. 
Competitors and other critics didn't think that solution was harsh enough.
"We do not believe Google has any intention of holding themselves to account on these proposals," David Wood, legal counsel for a trade group representing Microsoft and other rivals, told The New York Times
The "very, very negative" response from a lot of different sources prompted the European Commission to re-open the case in September. German justice minister Heiko Maas demanded that Google reveal how its search algorithm works, in order to protect consumers and prove it doesn't favor its own products.
EU Commissioner Almunia has also suggested that it may launch an investigation into Android, Google's mobile operating system, which runs on about 75% of all new smartphones sold in Europe.
Google, for its part, strongly maintains that it doesn't promote its own products at the expense of its competitors, it just tries to give the best results. 
In a speech in Berlin in October, former Google CEO and current executive chairman Eric Schmidt tried to justify Google's results by wants to be able to provide users with the most direct answers to any question they may ask. The EU is investigating Google because other companies have complained that the search engine favors its own results, and Schmidt argues that it's because Google just wants to be as direct as possible and save users from having to click around.  
"Put simply, we created search for users, not websites," he says. "And that’s the motivation behind all our improvements over the last decade."
The anti-trust case isn't the only instance of Google clashing with the EU. In June, Google was forced to start enacting the EU's "right to be forgotten" ruling.
The ruling says individuals can request to have Google stop linking to websites, news stories, and items that are "inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant." Opponents of this legislation — including Google — believe that it's akin to censorship. 
by


By The Time Europe Finally Gets Around To Breaking Up Google, There's A Good Chance It Won't Matter

As Europe considers splitting Google into two companies, it's worth remembering what happened the last time a government tried to break up a dominant tech company.
Last time around it was Microsoft, which dominated personal computers.
In the 1990s, as the web took off, the only way most people could get online was with a PC. More than 95% of PCs shipped with Microsoft Windows. 
In 1995, Microsoft bundled its web browser, Internet Explorer, with Windows. Over the next few years IE became the dominant browser, and the main gateway to the Internet. Netscape, the pioneer in the space, basically became irrelevant. (It was bought by AOL and later open sourced and used as the basis of Firefox.)
Competitors complained, and the Department of Justice stepped in with a formal investigation. The government also looked at a bunch of other things, like what Microsoft did with its own version of Sun's Java technology (then commonly used to make interactive web pages) and how it pressured PC makers to support its favored technology.
In March 2000, the judge in the case, Thomas Penfield Jackson, did what Europe is considering doing to Google today. He ruled that Microsoft should split into two companies — one that made Windows, and another that made everything else. 
Fast forward 14 years. Microsoft no longer dominates computing. So the government's antitrust investigation worked, right?
Sort of.
A lot of Microsoft insiders say that its antitrust battles did make the company more timid. For instance, before the antitrust problems, Microsoft might have considered bundling its search engine, Bing, into Windows. But there was no way Microsoft would even consider doing that afterwards.
Microsoft also stopped paying attention to IE, allowing competitors like Firefox and Google's Chrome to horn in. It's no longer the number one browser.
There was also a lot more bureaucracy put into place — certain decisions had to pass through more legal reviews, employees had to get trained on legal considerations, and so on. This may have contributed to a slower-moving culture that failed to innovate as quickly as it needed to.
But consider the following:
  • The law moves very slowly. Microsoft appealed Jackson's ruling. The company was never broken into two and Microsoft was never forced to remove IE from Windows. The appeals court did rule that Microsoft was a monopoly, and it did restrict it from a lot of other particular practices. But the final results of the case were very different from the initial ruling. In any big case like this, the losing side will drag the appeals process out as long as possible. That's by design — most legal systems are designed to make sure that everybody gets a fair chance to argue their case.
  • Disruption comes from unexpected places. Microsoft and the investigators were both fixated on the personal computer market and the web browser. But in fact, the end of Microsoft's dominance came from an entirely different place — smartphones. In 2007, more than 90% of Internet requests came from a Windows computer. Now, it's about 15%. That's not because the government opened the PC to other web browsers. It's because people chose a completely different way of computing that Microsoft missed out on and had no control over. 
Google is incredibly powerful.  Search drives a lot of web traffic, and Google absolutely dominates that market. Google dominates web advertising, mobile operating systems, and online video as well, and Chrome is now the number-one desktop web browser. Regulators should absolutely look at how Google is using that power and step in with forceful targeted penalties if they find abuse.
But in the end, the disruption to Google's business will come from an unexpected place.
Most of Google's revenue still comes from search advertising through a web browser. So maybe Facebook or another company will dominate mobile advertising before Google has a chance to. Maybe users will conduct web searches within particular mobile apps rather than turning to Google's web browser. Or, more likely, some company or business we can't even imagine yet will make search a lot less relevant.
Antitrust is a blunt, slow-moving instrument. By the time regulators actually figure out what to do to stop Google from using search to dominate other businesses, search probably won't matter that much anyway. 
by

By The Time Europe Finally Gets Around To Breaking Up Google, There's A Good Chance It Won't Matter


By The Time Europe Finally Gets Around To Breaking Up Google, There's A Good Chance It Won't Matter

As Europe considers splitting Google into two companies, it's worth remembering what happened the last time a government tried to break up a dominant tech company.
Last time around it was Microsoft, which dominated personal computers.
In the 1990s, as the web took off, the only way most people could get online was with a PC. More than 95% of PCs shipped with Microsoft Windows. 
In 1995, Microsoft bundled its web browser, Internet Explorer, with Windows. Over the next few years IE became the dominant browser, and the main gateway to the Internet. Netscape, the pioneer in the space, basically became irrelevant. (It was bought by AOL and later open sourced and used as the basis of Firefox.)
Competitors complained, and the Department of Justice stepped in with a formal investigation. The government also looked at a bunch of other things, like what Microsoft did with its own version of Sun's Java technology (then commonly used to make interactive web pages) and how it pressured PC makers to support its favored technology.
In March 2000, the judge in the case, Thomas Penfield Jackson, did what Europe is considering doing to Google today. He ruled that Microsoft should split into two companies — one that made Windows, and another that made everything else. 
Fast forward 14 years. Microsoft no longer dominates computing. So the government's antitrust investigation worked, right?
Sort of.
A lot of Microsoft insiders say that its antitrust battles did make the company more timid. For instance, before the antitrust problems, Microsoft might have considered bundling its search engine, Bing, into Windows. But there was no way Microsoft would even consider doing that afterwards.
Microsoft also stopped paying attention to IE, allowing competitors like Firefox and Google's Chrome to horn in. It's no longer the number one browser.
There was also a lot more bureaucracy put into place — certain decisions had to pass through more legal reviews, employees had to get trained on legal considerations, and so on. This may have contributed to a slower-moving culture that failed to innovate as quickly as it needed to.
But consider the following:
  • The law moves very slowly. Microsoft appealed Jackson's ruling. The company was never broken into two and Microsoft was never forced to remove IE from Windows. The appeals court did rule that Microsoft was a monopoly, and it did restrict it from a lot of other particular practices. But the final results of the case were very different from the initial ruling. In any big case like this, the losing side will drag the appeals process out as long as possible. That's by design — most legal systems are designed to make sure that everybody gets a fair chance to argue their case.
  • Disruption comes from unexpected places. Microsoft and the investigators were both fixated on the personal computer market and the web browser. But in fact, the end of Microsoft's dominance came from an entirely different place — smartphones. In 2007, more than 90% of Internet requests came from a Windows computer. Now, it's about 15%. That's not because the government opened the PC to other web browsers. It's because people chose a completely different way of computing that Microsoft missed out on and had no control over. 
Google is incredibly powerful.  Search drives a lot of web traffic, and Google absolutely dominates that market. Google dominates web advertising, mobile operating systems, and online video as well, and Chrome is now the number-one desktop web browser. Regulators should absolutely look at how Google is using that power and step in with forceful targeted penalties if they find abuse.
But in the end, the disruption to Google's business will come from an unexpected place.
Most of Google's revenue still comes from search advertising through a web browser. So maybe Facebook or another company will dominate mobile advertising before Google has a chance to. Maybe users will conduct web searches within particular mobile apps rather than turning to Google's web browser. Or, more likely, some company or business we can't even imagine yet will make search a lot less relevant.
Antitrust is a blunt, slow-moving instrument. By the time regulators actually figure out what to do to stop Google from using search to dominate other businesses, search probably won't matter that much anyway. 
by


Popular Posts