Lax New Rules Will Make Kickstarter Huge—For Better or Worse


Illustration: bobaa22/Getty Images

Illustration: bobaa22/Getty Images



Cyril Ebersweller says Kickstarter is about to get bigger.


On Monday, Kickstarter introduced a new, looser set of rules for launching projects on the popular crowdfunding site, and as someone who regularly donates funds to such projects, Ebersweller believes the rules will indeed lead to a broader range of Kickstarter campaigns and may spur larger donations as well. Those who were excluded from seeking funding on Kickstarter, says Eberweller, the founder of the hardware seed fund Haxlr8r, now have “a new avenue” to launch their campaigns.


Other longtime investors say the same thing, and this is almost certainly what Kickstarter aiming for. Facing increased competition from crowdfunding operations like Indiegogo–which is much more liberal in allowing a wide range of projects onto its site–Kickstarter is following suit. The new rules are simpler–they’re about half as long–but they also remove bans on certain types of campaigns, and they allow creators to launch campaigns without the approval from Kickstarter’s official community managers. Though it started out as a place mainly for funding books, films, music, and other art, it’s morphing into something that handles not only computer software but as a vast variety of other things, including the gamut of hardware devices.


‘This will allow project creators to move faster and will allow Kickstarter to handle more projects.’


Brady Forrest, a vice president at the hardware incubator Highway 1, is particularly bullish on the new “Launch Now” tool that lets creators bypass the site’s gatekeepers. “This will allow project creators to move faster and will allow Kickstarter to handle more projects at once,” he says. For Emile Petrone, CEO and founder of the hardware marketplace Tindie, this optional tool also just make more sense for certain projects. Successful Kickstarter project creators often know more about their target market than Kickstarter’s community managers, Patrone argues. “The reality is, they are not the ones who should be filtering who is going to be successful and who isn’t–just because it’s impossible for them to do,” says Petrone. “It’s like judging a baby and saying: ‘Well, is that going to be an NBA star?’”


Ebersweller is also excited about a new rule that lets hardware creators offer multiple devices as rewards to contributors, rather than just one. He calls this a “big game changer” that “will help tremendously.” These reward “bundles,” he stays, are attractive not only the average contributor but to prospective retail distributors, who can use Kickstarter bundles to much effectively test the market for a product. Further expanding the reach of its site, Kickstarter has also lifted bans on fundraising for tuition; websites and apps focused on e-commerce and social networking; real estate; bath, beauty and cosmetic products, eyewear, and electronic surveillance equipment.


The Kickerstarter possibilities are now much, much greater. But Petrone also warns that the site’s more lenient rules could lead to heartbreak for some creators, particularly the Launch Now tool. Many Kickstarter projects need more handholding, not less. The typically learn the hard lessons of manufacturing and logistics only after accepting money from customers, he says, and the result is often delays and angry backers.


But Kickstarter, he says, is more concerned with other things. “It would hurt their growth if they put the brakes on.”



Marvel Finds Doctor Strange Director, Loses Two More Ant-Man Directors


Image courtesy Marvel

Image courtesy Marvel



The cinematic fortunes of Marvel Studios continue to be mixed when it comes to their forthcoming movies, with news surfacing this week showing that while the studio may have success in advance planning, it’s less effective at dealing with more immediate concerns.


Firstly, it was revealed that Sinister director Scott Derrickson will helm Doctor Strange , a project that has yet to be officially announced by Marvel. (Expect that official announcement to come at this year’s Comic-Con International in San Diego, where the studio traditionally unveils new projects.) Derrickson himself confirmed the news on Twitter after initial reports hit the internet.


Based on the character created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko for 1963′s Strange Tales #110, the Doctor Strange movie has been long rumored, having been teased by Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige as being in development in past interviews. The choice of Derrickson—whose previous films include not only Sinister but also The Exorcism of Emily Rose—to direct suggests Marvel may be looking to use the supernatural superhero to move in a horror direction, similar to using Guardians of the Galaxy to push the studio towards science fiction and away from more obvious superhero fare.


But while the undated Strange has its director seemingly locked down, the same can’t be said for the floundering Ant-Man, which is still scheduled for release in July next year. Following the departure of Edgar Wright from the project, early reports cited Marvel talking to three possible replacements: Anchorman’s Adam McKay, Zombieland’s Ruben Fleischer, and Rawson Marshall Thurber of We’re The Millers fame. Since then, both McKay and Thurber have reportedly turned down offers, leaving only Fleischer in the running. So, that means the job is his by default, right…? Well, not exactly; reports have claimed that he wasn’t that into the possibility in the first place, preferring the possibility of making the equally-troubled Ghostbusters 3.


So where does that leave Ant-Man? The short answer is “in trouble.” The project isn’t just missing a director; sources have also said that the production’s heads of department also left when Wright departed, making it all that much less likely that the movie will meet its July 17, 2015 opening date. Will a new director be found quickly enough to make the deadline, or will the release date get shifted? More to the point, given the project’s troubled history, will a new director be found who’s willing to take on what’s beginning to look like a poisoned chalice of a movie? As with so many superhero stories, the story of Ant-Man remains to be continued.



Google Is Using Twitter Data Again, This Time for Disaster Alerts


Photo: Ariel Zambelich/WIRED

Photo: Ariel Zambelich/WIRED



Google announced Tuesday that its public disaster alerts in Google Now, Search and Maps will include relevant Tweets. When Google issues a public alert via one of its products, as a weather or other natural disaster-related PSA, it will now include tweets that help give people more context about what’s happening in their own areas. This also seems to represent a small, but perhaps significant, step in bringing Twitter data back into Google products.


The announcement itself on Google+ was relatively minor. It simply noted where tweets may appear, and gave examples of the kinds of things they might be used for.



Starting today, you can find relevant data from Twitter on a subset of Google Public Alerts. We launched Public Alerts to provide updates from official sources, such as the National Weather Service, via Google Now, Search, and Google Maps. Now, some of the more extreme Public Alerts will include Tweets to help answer important questions: are schools closing? Are neighbors evacuating? What are people seeing on the front lines of a storm?



The low key announcement looks a bit like a rapprochement between Google and Twitter, or at least a tacit admission that their products work better together. Way back in 2011, the two companies couldn’t come to an agreement to let Google continue to use Twitter’s firehose data. The deal collapsed publicly in spectacular fashion, and Google subsequently shuttered Realtime Search.


Twitter declined to comment on the news, but a Google spokesperson tells Wired that the tweets are sourced via Twitter’s public API and not the “firehose,” or real-time data stream. Google also reiterated that for now, tweets are only going to be used in public alerts and crisis responses, and there are no plans to bring back Twitter-powered real-time search or to use Tweets in other ways.


Still, there are lots of interesting things about Tuesday’s announcement. The first is simply that Google is using tweets to power one of its products again, even if it doesn’t have immediate plans to expand that scope. It’s also curious to see that there aren’t any Facebook results in public alerts—perhaps explained by the strong partnership Facebook enjoys with Bing—although Google notes that it is looking at all sorts of other social products it can use. Finally, it seems like a tacit admission that there isn’t enough of a real-time conversation taking place on Google+ for it to be able to use that network as the sole source for public alerts.


In any case, it’s a nice move from Google. If its goal is to put truly timely information in front of people when they need it most, Twitter is the best place for that, new deal or not.



The Consensus on Climate Change [Greg Laden's Blog]


Sadly, a large percentage of Americans are under the impression that climate scientists do not agree on the reality of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). A lot of people are simply wrong about this. They think that there is a great deal of controversy among the scientists who study the Earth’s climate. But there isn’t. One way we know this is from a study done by John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs, and Andrew Skuce, called “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature


In that study, the authors analyzed “the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’.” They learned that “66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.” Among the papers that expressed a scientific position on the topic, “97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”


The study was actually a bit conservative, as in order to be counted as part of that ~3% not supporting the consensus position on AGW a paper did not really have to be fully against the idea. Also, since the study was done, the consensus has increased. I asked study author Dana Nuccitelli about more recent changes in consensus, and he told me, “The consensus is growing over time, and reached 98% in 2011 (the last year included in our survey). So by now the minimizers/deniers are probably in the 1-2% range in the peer-reviewed literature (contrary to the ‘crumbling consensus’ claims).”


The other day I was giving talks at a local high school, and between classes, found myself chatting with a science teacher who had just completed a module on climate change and AGW. She asked me, “Isn’t there now research that shows that the consensus isn’t really as high as previously thought? Or is that bogus? Sounds bogus to me.”


Yes. Bogus.


I’m not sure what research the teacher was referring to (it was just something she had heard about) but there is a paper just published in “Energy Policy” by economist Richard Tol, who as far as I can tell has been a naysayer of climate science for some time now. Tol’s abstract says:



A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change… This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook’s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.



Nuccitelli has responded to Tol’s paper, in a post at Skeptical Science called “Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus.”


Concern Tol-ing


Tol is practicing a special kind of science denialism here, sometimes called “seeding doubt” or as I prefer it, “casting seeds of doubt on infertile ground.” In other contexts this is called “concern trolling” or the “You’re not helping” gambit. The first of two paragraphs of the Conclusion section of Tol’s paper reads (emphasis added),



The conclusions of Cook et al. are thus unfounded. There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct. Cook et al., however, failed to demonstrate this. Instead, they gave further cause to those who believe that climate researchers are secretive (as data were held back) and incompetent (as the analysis is flawed).



Let’s get straight that Cook et al is not flawed, despite Tol’s complaints.


Tol’s main complaint is in the coding of the abstracts. He claims that it is imperfect. Well, duh. This is, essentially, social science research, and coding of text is imperfect. Tol makes the claim that the imperfections, if corrected, might bring the consensus down to a dismal 91%. I’m pretty sure he’s wrong about that, but if he is right, we are not impressed.


Tol’s key point is that the papers that are coded as not making a claim include some that do. He then incorrectly calculates how many of of those, if coded “correctly” there would be, and using this, downgrades the consensus to 91%


Nuccitelli explains in detail, in his post, how Tol’s re-analysis is badly done (see the amazing graphic at the top of this post) (go read it) and notes:



In reality, as our response to Tol’s critique (accepted by Energy Policy but not yet published) shows, there simply aren’t very many peer-reviewed papers that minimize or reject human-caused global warming. Most of the papers that were reconciled ‘towards stronger rejection’ went from explicit to implicit endorsement, or from implicit endorsement to no position. For abstracts initially rated as ‘no position,’ 98% of the changes were to endorsement categories; only 2% were changed to rejections.



Nuccitelli also notes that a separate study indicates that Tol’s method is flawed in the sense that no matter what data are used, the consensus will be decreased as an artifact of the methodology. Nuccitelli notes “…by making this mistake, Tol effectively conjured approximately 300 papers rejecting or minimizing human-caused global warming out of thin air, with no evidence that those papers exist in reality. As a result, his consensus estimate falls apart under cursory examination.”


Amazingly, when the Consensus research team fixed Tol’s methodology but applied the same question about coding papers in the no-position category, and re-calculated the percent consensus, it went up by 0.1%. Also, as Nuccitelli points out the Cook et al paper is not alone, and there have been a number of other studies that show essentially the same level of consensus among papers and/or scientists.


So, the consensus is real and isn’t going away. As is also the case with Anthropogenic Global Warming.



What Hollywood Can Teach Us About Escaping the Dreaded Time Loop



Premise: The Enterprise collides with another ship near a distorted time-space continuum, creating a tear that sends them back to the start of the journey.

Onscreen loops: 5

The Escape: The crewmembers experience dĂ©jĂ  vu—or “nIb-poH,” as Worf (Michael Dorn) calls it—prompting Data (Brent Spiner) to send a message to his next iteration, helping them avoid the initial collision.

Lesson Learned: Got a bad feeling about something? Always play some poker ask for help.

Where to Watch: CBS.com

Groundhog Day (1993)




Premise: Disgruntled weatherman Phil Connors (Bill Murray) heads to Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania to cover Groundhog Day—again, and again, and again…

Onscreen loops: 36

The Escape: Phil’s extrication is straight out of Kubler-Ross—denial, bargaining, grief, acceptance, seduction, saving people from puddles, and redemption. What, those aren’t the seven stages of grief?

Lesson Learned: Don’t play God, play Good Samaritan.

Where to Watch: Amazon, Google Play


Xena, Warrior Princess, “Been There, Done That” (1997)




Premise: A young couple, Hermia (Rebekah Davies) and Neron (Joseph Murray), hides their love because their families are feuding. After Hermia drinks a poison that will kill her the next day, Neron begs Cupid to never let the next day come, causing the loops. Xena (Lucy Lawless), naturally, comes to the rescue.

Onscreen loops: 14

The Escape: Xena finally discovers the lovers’ plot and uses her trusty chakram to knock the poison out of Hermia’s hand before dashing around town to end the hijinks from the feud. In other words, Romeo and Juliet would have a very different ending if only Xena were around.

Lesson Learned: There are limits to what you should do for love.

Where to Watch: Hulu Plus, Amazon


The X-Files, “Monday” (1999)




Premise: Mulder (David Duchovny) has a bad day that only gets worse when he and Scully (Gillian Anderson) get caught in a bank robbery with a robber who’s carrying a bomb. Even if neither of them faces the bomber, every time the bomb detonates, the day restarts.

Onscreen loops: 5

The Escape: Pam (Carrie Hamilton), the robber’s girlfriend and the only character with memory of each loop, gets shot trying to save Mulder. This prevents the bomber from detonating his device, and time from resetting the day.

Lesson Learned: Confronting the problem is often the only solution.

Where to Watch: Hulu Plus, Amazon


Stargate SG-1, “Window of Opportunity” (2000)




Premise: Alien archaeologist Malikai (Robin Mossley) tampers with a time machine after his wife dies. Instead of seeing her again, he accidentally causes a loop throughout several universes and zaps Teal’c (Christopher Judge) and O’Neill (Richard Dean Anderson), leaving them the only ones aware of the looping.

Onscreen loops: 22

The Escape: Because the time machine simultaneous activates 14 Stargates and cuts off the ionization of subspace therefore disrupting the normal flow of time—oh, forget it. Simply put, O’Neill convinces Malikai to stop fiddling with the time machine, and Malikai complies.

Lesson Learned: Nothing good comes from dwelling on the past.

Where to Watch: Amazon


Day Break (2006-2007)




Premise: Detective Brett Hopper (Taye Diggs) is framed for the murder of an assistant DA. He’s guilty until proven innocent by time looping the same 24 hours and tracking down new clues. But that’s not all: His girlfriend Rita (Moon Bloodgood) is the ex-wife of his former partner Chad (Adam Baldwin), his current partner Andrea (Victoria Battle) may have ties to the mob, and the Shadow Man (Jonathan Banks, a.k.a. Mike from Breaking Bad) is tracking his every move.

Onscreen loops: 48

The Escape: Hopper discovers everyone’s secrets and solves the case—sort of. This short-lived series just didn’t have enough time to tie up all loose ends. Maybe with one more loop…

Lesson Learned: The Shadow Man put it best: “For every decision, there’s a consequence.” So choose wisely.

Where to Watch: Hulu


Supernatural, “Mystery Spot” (2008)




Premise: “The Trickster,” a demigod that feeds off of mischief, returns to torment Sam (Jared Padalecki) and Dean (Jensen Ackles) by creating a loop that always ends in Dean’s gruesome death.

Onscreen loops: 11

The Escape: Sam tracks down and threatens the Trickster, who ends his temporal mayhem. (But the Winchester brothers are never out of danger—when Dean later dies anyway, Sam begs the Trickster to create one last loop.)

Lesson Learned: Fighting fate is easier than accepting it.

Where to Watch: Amazon


Triangle (2009)




Premise: In this mind-boggling horror-thriller, Jess (Melissa George) repeatedly causes the deaths of her friends—including one played by pre-Hunger Games Liam Hemsworth—when they reach a time-looping ghost ship in the Bermuda Triangle.

Onscreen Loops: 3

The Escape: There is none. Even after abandoning ship, Jess, who’s later revealed to be an abusive mother to her autistic son, ends up heading back on board. Karma wins this round.

Lesson Learned: Prepare for—and accept—the worst.

Where to Watch: YouTube, Google Play


Source Code (2011)




Premise: The U.S. military sends the consciousness of Capt. Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) into a parallel reality through the shadowy government-run Source Code program. There, he repeats the final eight minutes of a doomed passenger train until he finds the bomber.

Onscreen loops: 9

The Escape: Stevens sacrifices himself, thereby permanently entering the alternate timeline and finding a way to save every passenger. Mission accomplished!

Lesson Learned: If you’re going to martyr yourself, fine—but do it for the greater good.

Where to Watch: YouTube, Google Play


Haven, “Audrey Parker’s Day Off” (2011)




Premise: A man’s “Trouble”—an ability that manifests under emotional stress—causes him to restart the day every time it doesn’t end the way he planned. Audrey (Emily Rose), immune to Troubles, is the only one who notices the looping.

Onscreen loops: 5

The Escape: Audrey stabilizes the man by helping him reconnect with his daughter, but he sacrifices himself after realizing his loops always end in someone’s death.

Lesson Learned: Don’t obsess over fixing your mistakes.

Where to Watch: YouTube, Amazon


Looper (2012)




Premise: Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) kills criminals sent from the future, but hesitates when his older self (Bruce Willis) appears as his next target. Old Joe tries to change their past, and ends up leading both to Sara (Emily Blunt, in her first time-looping film), a rifle-toting protective mother, and her mysterious child.

Onscreen loops: 1

The Escape: When he realizes Old Joe will cause the events he wanted to prevent, Joe kills himself, erasing his future. Call it the Inverted Grandfather Paradox.

Lesson Learned: You can’t change your fate, but you can change the fate of others.

Where to Watch: Amazon, Google Play



Airbus Used Its Best Employees as Guinea Pigs for Its New Plane


Image: Airbus

Image: Airbus



For most people, a seven-hour flight that lands exactly where it departed from is a special kind of torture. But for nearly 250 Airbus employees, it was a reward for their hard work. Based on the photos, they were totally thrilled.


Airbus is most of the way through the long march to certification of the Airbus A350-XWB, the wide-body commercial jet it’s spent a decade working on. In the past year, four test planes have logged 1,600 hours. They’ve flown in extreme temperatures and at extreme altitudes and been hit with faux lightning strikes. An airframe built specifically for the purpose had its wings nearly broken in a machine that resembles a huge birdcage.


These tests prove the A350 is airworthy and safe, but they don’t reveal anything about how it feels to spend hours in the cabin, which is what really matters to the people who ultimately will use the planes.


Enter the guinea pigs.


Airbus selected about 250 of its very best employees (all of them recommended by their managers) to take a ride and share their thoughts. On Monday, the A350 took off from the Airbus assembly plant in Toulouse, France, flew over Oslo, and landed in Toulouse seven hours later.


The flight simulated a “real airline environment,” complete with a cabin crew borrowed from Air France. The passengers endured a standard boarding process and put their bags in the overhead bins (it’s not clear what they carried aboard. They received hot towels and were served what appears to be a good meal. On the entertainment systems, they played Sudoku, watched The Hobbit and The Big Bang Theory, and kept an eye on the flight map.


Afterward, they completed questionnaires, sharing their thoughts on everything from the in-flight entertainment system to how the storage bins worked. The crew reviewed the galleys, safety equipment, and their rest areas. The result was an airborne focus group that looked like a lot of fun. These people are rabid plane geeks, after all, and were the first passengers on an all-new airplane.


It was the first of two “Early Long Flights” planned this week; the second is a 12-hour overnight flight with a Lufthansa crew. Using employees as guinea pigs isn’t just a European thing. Boeing did the same while testing the 787-8 and 747-8.


The widebody A350 is the second commercial jet (after the Boeing 787 Dreamliner) made largely of composite material. That will make it 25% more fuel efficient than comparable older jets, Airbus says, a huge selling point for the cash-strapped airline industry. Airbus has taken 812 orders from 39 customers and expects to begin deliveries later this year.



Chemicals found that treat citrus greening in the lab

A University of Florida research team is cautiously optimistic after finding a possible treatment in the lab for citrus greening, a disease devastating Florida’s $9 billion citrus industry. It is the first step in a years-long process to bring a treatment to market.



Claudio Gonzalez and Graciela Lorca led the research team that examined three biochemical treatments: phloretin, hexestrol and benzbromarone.


The team sprayed greenhouse tree shoots separately with one of the three biochemicals and were successful in stopping the bacteria’s spread, particularly with benzbromarone, which halted the bacteria in 80 percent of the infected trees’ shoots. They expect to begin field experiments with this treatment later this year. Their research was published in late April by the online open access journal PLOS Pathogens.


Gonzalez and Lorca are UF associate professors in the microbiology and cell science department, part of UF’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. The team also works under the auspices of the UF Genetics Institute.


The researchers found that benzbromarone targets a specific protein, known as LdtR, in the citrus greening bacterium. When benzbromarone binds to LdtR, it inactivates the protein, which disrupts a cell wall remodeling process critical for the greening bacterium’s survival inside a citrus tree.


“As a consequence of the chemical treatment, several genes were not expressed and the bacteria were not able to survive inside the phloem of the plant where osmotic pressure from sugar is high,” said Fernando Pagliai, a co-author of the study and a UF graduate assistant. Phloem is the living tissue that carries organic nutrients to all parts of the plant.


Benzbromarone is typically used to treat gout in humans.


Citrus greening first enters the tree via a tiny bug, the Asian citrus psyllid, which sucks on leaf sap and leaves behind bacteria. The bacteria then move through the tree via the phloem. The disease starves the tree of nutrients, damages its roots and the tree produces fruits that are green and misshapen, unsuitable for sale as fresh fruit or for juice. Most infected trees die within a few years.


The disease has already affected millions of citrus trees in North America and could wipe out the industry in the next decade if a viable treatment is not found.


UF/IFAS researchers have attempted everything from trying to eradicate the psyllid to breeding citrus rootstock that shows better greening resistance. Current methods to control the spread of citrus greening include removing and destroying infected trees.


Florida growers say they desperate for a treatment that will work.


“Every grower I know is just hanging by their fingernails, hoping and praying for a new discovery for treatment,” said Ellis Hunt Jr. of Lake Wales, whose family has been in the citrus business since 1922.


Industry experts, though, say it could be five to seven years before a new active-ingredient product could be commercially available because of the amount of time field testing takes and government regulations.




Story Source:


The above story is based on materials provided by University of Florida . Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.