Three Short Reviews of Three Short Reads


Photo: Ariel Zambelich/WIRED

Photo: Ariel Zambelich/WIRED



Six days in to my month of reading only single-serving content like Kindle Singles, I feel like I’m behind. I’m only through three titles, which kind of defeats the purpose of an encapsulated experience every time you sit down to read. Despite it being Summer Reading Season, I still have a job; and this week was particularly busy, what with all the Apple news, visiting asteroids, the revamped Obamacare website and other excitement.


OK, enough apologies; here’s what I got into:


The Rover , by Drew Magary


I love Magary’s work, especially his stuff on Deadspin, and I was interested to see if he could bring the casual tone of his online work to fiction. He did! This is a neat story about a bored older man and his emotional attachment to a space vehicle that lands in his yard. It’s only 23 pages long—about perfect for a bedtime story—with a narrative arc a lot like an 80s movie: improbable event occurs –> protagonist has an adventure stemming from that event –> minor twist ending.


No Exit , by Gideon Lewis-Kraus


Yes, this story ran in WIRED and you can read it for free. But hold that click! The Kindle Single version is an extended cut, significantly longer than what you’ll find online or in the magazine—and it’s absolutely worth two bucks. Hell, I work here, I get the magazine for free, and I shelled out. No Exit is an amazing reality check on the popular mythology of Silicon Valley. You think it’s all piles of easy money and baby billionaires? Well, OK, there is a lot of that, but Lewis-Kraus’ beautifully written piece offers a rare glimpse of the grind that goes with the gold rush. At 48 pages, this one took me two sittings, but it’s just about right for a day at the beach.


Baghdad Country Club , by Joshuah Bearman


This came out in 2011, and I heard so much about it at the time. Then I read it, and, honestly, I shrugged. BCC tells the story of an entrepreneur who opens a bar in Baghdad’s Green Zone, and all of the acrobatics that feat required. The details are fascinating. But the story trips over those details a lot, and the arc doesn’t flow. It’s almost like you can feel the writer (who also wrote the WIRED story that became Argo ) struggling to make use of his amazing reporting. And the reporting is amazing. One fun note: I bought the 42-page piece off The Atavist and sent it to my Kindle. Then, when I sat down to read, I noticed it started at Chapter 2… See, the story begins with a video, which my Kindle couldn’t play. So read this one on your iPad, or watch the video on your laptop like I did. Then crawl into bed. (You can opt for a text-only version, but the video is pretty cool.)



Fecal source tracking in Norwegian water catchments: New methods

The Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Research, Bioforsk, has tested and implemented a set of methods for the detection of fecal pollution in Norwegian watercourses. The methods, which combine microbial and molecular biological techniques, can give answers as to whether the contamination is a result of human or animal excreta. In addition, the methods provide grounds for assessing whether the water pollution poses a health risk or not.



Fecal contamination in water is one of the most common reasons for human diseases. Molecular methods can reveal if the contaminants derive from human or animal excreta. The methods also provide a basis for determining whether water contamination constitutes a health risk or not.


Fecal water contamination occurs when excreta from humans or animals enter a water source due to e.g. sewage leakage or inadequate wastewater treatment.


As of today, it has not been customary in Norway to specify whether the contamination source derives from humans or animals. This has made it difficult to implement efficient measures against fecal water contamination, which in return makes it difficult to reduce contaminant exposure and potential health risks associated with it.


This is about to change. The Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Research, Bioforsk, has tested and implemented a set of methods for the detection of fecal pollution in Norwegian watercourses. The methods, which combine microbial and molecular biological techniques, can give answers as to whether the contamination is a result of human or animal excreta. In addition, the methods provide grounds for assessing whether the water pollution poses a health risk or not.


E. coli as indicator for fecal contamination


Fecal contamination measured in terms of the indicator bacteria E. coli can be the result of wastewater leakage, effluent discharge after inefficient sewage treatment, or agricultural runoff containing animal fecal matter entering surface and/or groundwater. The contamination happens if E. coli enters water, either directly from the contaminative source, or indirectly via e.g. soil irrigation with fecally contaminated water or use of organic animal-based fertilizers. The latter is particularly a problem after heavy rainfall with subsequent runoff.


Most strains of E. coli are harmless, but some groups, such as Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, STEC, contain types of E. coli which are particularly pathogenic. STEC is also the only group of E. coli which is transmitted from animals to humans through food and waterborne infection. It is therefore important that e.g. drinking water does not contain it.


Two-step method for contaminant detection


Adam Paruch from Bioforsk is one of the researchers involved in the testing of the new methods for determining the source of fecal contamination in water. He points out that there are several microbial methods for the detection of E. coli in water, but up until now, it has not been common practice in Norway to use molecular biology to determine exactly where these bacteria stem from, i.e. whether the source is human or animal. This has rendered it difficult to implement effective and target-specific measures against the contaminative source.


"The tool set for tracking contaminative sources consist of two steps. The first is to perform a microbiological test to determine whether a water source is affected by fecal contaminants or not. To do this we carry out a standard 18-hour test for the detection and quantification of E. coli in water samples. In the second step, which is based on genetic markers, we only concentrate on the fecally positive water samples from the first step. The well characterized host associated markers, e.g. for humans, cows and horses, can be detected both qualitatively and quantitatively. This helps us to quickly identify the major sources of contamination in a water catchment, " Paruch says.


He has collaborated closely with Lisa Paruch, a molecular biologist at Bioforsk, in testing the tool set on various smaller catchments in Norway. The results obtained so far clearly indicate that molecular analyses can be very useful for determining the specific source of fecal contaminants in water.


Methods reveal health risk potential of bacteria


In addition to fecal origin discrimination (i.e. human vs. non-human) and further identification of principle pollutants, the two researchers' analyses also included another test which rendered it possible to determine whether the bacteria present in water was pathogenic or not.


"The molecular methods used in our experiments can determine the seven most common STEC serogroups, which includes E. coli O157:H7 which induces serious illnesses and even deaths among humans. By combining microbial and molecular biological techniques, we are in the process of establishing an efficient analyses set which can provide us with exclusive supporting information for public health risk assessment," Lisa Paruch says.


Call for collaboration with authorities


In Norway, this is the first time molecular and microbial biological methods are combined in a tool set to track sources of fecal contamination in water. As of today, the methods have only been tested on a few small catchments. The plan now is to invite Norwegian environmental authorities and municipalities suffering from contaminative waters in partaking in collaborative efforts to test the methods further.


"We know that fecal contamination doesn't only derive from wastewater, so for the appropriate measures to be implemented, it is important that we find out what the actual contamination source is. Now we have established a tool set of methods which can provide us with information on this," says Trond Mæhlum, Head of Department at Bioforsk Soil and Environment.


"By implementing host-specific genetic markers from e.g. cows, horses, pigs and birds in a standard analyses set, we can use these methods to find out which target-specific measures need to be implemented to limit the discharge of fecal contaminants to waters. This can protect humans and our environment from potentially pathogenic E. coli from human and animal feces. Our hope is that authorities working with environmental, health and food security issues are interested in testing and implementing these methods further in cooperation with us," he says.



Infection in malaria-transmitting mosquito discovered

Researchers have found the first evidence of an intercellular bacterial infection in natural populations of two species of Anopheles mosquitoes, the major vectors of malaria in Africa. The infection, called Wolbachia, has been shown in labs to reduce the incidence of pathogen infections in mosquitoes and has the potential to be used in controlling malaria-transmitting mosquito populations.



"Wolbachia is an interesting bacterium that seems perfectly suited for mosquito control. However, there were strong doubts that it could ever be used against field Anopheles populations," said Flaminia Catteruccia, associate professor of immunology and infectious diseases at Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and at the University of Perugia, Italy. "We were thrilled when we identified infections in natural mosquito populations, as we knew this finding could generate novel opportunities for stopping the spread of malaria."


The study appears online June 6, 2014 in Nature Communications.


Anopheles mosquitoes are the deadliest animal on the planet. They are responsible for transmitting malaria, which causes more than 600,000 deaths each year and puts half of the world's population at risk for diseases. Wolbachia infections spread rapidly through wild insect populations by inducing a reproductive phenomenon called cytoplasm incompatibility (CI), and 66% of arthropod species are infected. However, it was commonly thought that Anopheles mosquitoes were not natural hosts for Wolbachia infections, and attempts to identify infections in these mosquitoes in the field had failed.


Co-author Francesco Baldini, from University of Perugia, Italy and HSPH, in collaboration with researchers from CNRS, France, collected Anopheles mosquitoes from villages in Burkina Faso, West Africa, and analyzed their reproductive tracts. Their objective was to identify all the bacteria in the reproductive systems of both male and female mosquitoes; they were not looking directly for Wolbachia. To their surprise, they found a novel strain of the infection, which they named wAnga.


The researchers say they can now investigate whether the wAnga strain shares properties with other Wolbachia strains, which could make control strategies possible by inducing CI and reducing Plasmodium (the parasite that causes malaria) numbers in Anopheles mosquitoes in the field. "If successful, exploiting Wolbachia infections in malaria mosquitoes could reduce the burden of the disease globally," said co-author Elena Levashina, from the Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology, Berlin.




Story Source:


The above story is based on materials provided by Harvard School of Public Health . Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.



9 Toys You’ll Need to Celebrate Ghostbusters’ 30th Anniversary




Today marks a very special anniversary: three decades exactly since the premiere of Ghostbusters, the movie that let Bill Murray flirt with Sigourney Weaver, Rick Moranis pretend to be a dog, and introduced Slimer to the world.


To celebrate the anniversary, Ghostbusters is getting re-released for one day only in a couple of months. However, that screening alone might not be enough to recreate the joy you had when first seeing the movie as a kid, but don’t worry—that’s what all the new toys released to coincide with the anniversary are for.


With new releases from Lego, Minimates, and Funko POP! (amongst many others), your inner child will once again remember what it was like to be afraid of no ghosts, even as your outer adult cringes at the thought of a potential Ghostbusters III without Harold Ramis. We’ve picked out some of the best toys that are part of the anniversary celebrations for you to add to your shopping list, alongside new proton packs and ghost boxes. Just remember not to cross the streams.



It’s Not Surprising Two Harrier Jets Have Crashed in a Month


An AV-8B Harrier jet lands aboard the flight deck of USS Boxer (LHD 4) while at sea, 2007. Photo: Josh Valcarcel/U.S. Navy

An AV-8B Harrier lands aboard the flight deck of USS Boxer (LHD 4) while at sea, 2007. Photo: Josh Valcarcel/U.S. Navy



An AV-8B Harrier jet crashed into a strip of residential homes in Imperial, California this week, destroying three houses. Last month, another Harrier crashed in the desert south of Phoenix. Both pilots ejected safely and no one was injured in either crash.


The Harrier is among the coolest, most ingenious aircraft ever designed, but the downsides of its design and a long history of failures mean these most recent crashes are hardly surprising.


Developed in the 1960s, the Harrier is marvelous for its ability to hover like a helicopter. The jet engine pumps air through four nozzles, two on each side of the fuselage, right under the wings. They rotate to propel the plane forward or straight up, allowing for very short takeoffs and vertical landings, and unchaining the plane from the need for long runways. The Harrier can operate out of clearings in the jungle (think Vietnam), a landing dock designed for helicopters, or downtown Miami (where Arnold Schwarzenegger uses one to win the day in “True Lies”).


The Harrier was developed by the British and acquired by the United States Marine Corps, the only American military branch that operates the plane. After American firm McDonnell Douglas took over production, the Harrier entered service in 1971.


The first Harrier, the AV-8A, had a horrific safety record; more than half of the planes crashed. The second generation AV-8B, produced by Boeing, entered service in 1985. It’s much safer, but still compares poorly to other jets. According to an 2002 LA Times report, the AV-8B Harrier suffered 11.44 accidents per 100,000 flight hours, compared to just 3 for the F/A-18 Hornet. Between 1971 and 2002, 45 Marine pilots were killed in 143 noncombat accidents in Harriers.


The Harriers operated by the Marines haven’t been as useful as their promoters hoped. Taking off vertically limits how much weight the jet can carry, so the crew needs to skimp either on fuel or on weapons payload. Less fuel means less range, which limits usefulness. “It’s not a very good airplane when you consider everything about it,” said Pete Field, an aviation consultant who served as a Marine officer and Navy test pilot.


The Harrier is supposed to be replaced by the F-35, the Lockheed Martin top-of-the-line warplane that promises supersonic speed, radar-evading stealth, and excellent agility. One variant will have the same short takeoff and vertical landing capability as the Harrier. Problem is, the F-35 is massively over budget and behind schedule, and the versions that do eventually take off won’t be nearly as great as early designs indicated. So we’re stuck with the Harrier for the time being.


Complications


In cruise mode, the Harrier flies just like a normal jet. At slow speeds, it’s a lot more complicated. Pilots can aim the nozzles downward to generate lift, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy to keep the plane stable.


Colonel Bill Lawrence (Ret.), who has flown 130 types of aircraft as a Marine Corp pilot and Navy test pilot, compared controlling the Harrier in hover mode to balancing a model airplane on the point of a pencil. If the plane starts to roll, “it can get very quickly out of control.” Watch an early video of the Harrier in testing, and you see how much trouble the pilots had keeping it parallel to the ground.


On top of everything associated with flying a conventional jet, Harrier pilots have to correctly angle of the nozzles, based on wind and runway conditions. They also have to deal with the reaction control system, a series of nozzles used to keep the plane level. The nozzle in the nose blows air down, the two in the wingtips blow up and down, and the one in the tail blows down and side to side.


In the first generation AV-8A Harrier, all those controls were mechanical—basically a pile of levers. That made for a lot of work, especially for pilots who grew up flying conventional planes and had to adjust to aerodynamics associated with helicopters. The next-generation AV-8B came with digital flight controls that made things much simpler, but the accidents have kept on coming.


Low Speed Woes


The ability to fly slowly, so useful to Arnold, is a major liability if the engine gives out. Less speed, especially at a low altitude, means less ability to maneuver the jet to a safe location before hitting the ground.


The Harrier that crashed in Imperial this week was less than 70 miles from the Marine Corps Base in Yuma when it went down, so the pilot may have been in a landing pattern and flying at reduced speed. “If he was doing that, then his ability to deal with an engine out was restricted,” Lawrence said.


That may explain why the pilot—trained to avoid collateral damage when crashing—hit three houses instead of the surrounding empty fields, the nearby desert, or the airport in the middle of town.



Uber Lands $1.2 Billion So You Can Get Rid of Your Car


Photo: Jon Snyder/WIRED

Uber’s Travis Kalanick. Photo: Jon Snyder/WIRED



Uber just became one of the most valuable tech startups in history.


Co-founder and CEO Travis Kalanick announced today that investors are pouring another $1.2 billion into Uber in a funding round that values the five-year-old company at $17 billion. Though nine and 10-figure deals have become common enough in Silicon Valley to seem almost normal, the news may leave many people out in the real world scratching their heads. Does Uber–an app-ified version of the cab business–really need that much money?


Given the scope of Uber’s ambition, it just might.


Kalanick doesn’t just want to give you a ride when you don’t have your car. He wants you to give up your car, period. “Our vision is to offer a way for people to get around cities without having to drive a car,” Kalanick told Bloomberg Businessweek . “If you can make it economical for people to get out of their cars, or sell their cars, and turn transportation into a service, it’s a pretty big deal.”


To get to the point where it can offer enough affordable rides in enough places to make owning a car redundant, Uber needs lots of people on the ground. And that costs lots of money. Unlike most tech startups, which can spread their products around the globe with the tap of a return key, Uber needs teams in every city where it operates to manage all the non-digital aspects of moving people around. To manage everything from recruiting drivers to battling regulators, it needs a very physical human presence across the globe–a concept that sounds almost quaint at a time when other startups like WhatsApp can become hugely valuable without anyone ever really leaving the office.


This is not to say Uber won’t also put some of its cash toward expanding the definition of what it does. Kalanick has taken to calling Uber a “logistics platform,” and when the company received its last big capital injection–a $250 million led by Google Ventures–many wondered whether self-driving cars delivering packages was Uber’s endgame. But the economics of moving stuff are different than the economics of moving people, and Kalanick told WIRED at the time that the company was focused much more on simply expanding what Uber already does and does well.


He sounded much the same note this time around, saying that package delivery was something Uber is playing with, but that growth is really what the billion dollars is all about. “The business as it is, the current growth, that is what was funded,” he told Businessweek. “The logistics, or moving things as well as people, is icing on the cake.”


Right now, Uber operates in more than 120 cities in nearly 40 countries. And that’s only the start, if Kalanick has his way. Uber truly wants to be everywhere, and that won’t come cheap. If, for example, Uber wants to expand into 1,000 more cities, the current round of funding provides just a little more than $1 million per location. If you think of every Uber operation in every city like its own little startup, that’s not so much in the grand scheme of tech funding. If Uber truly wants to convince you to forget your car, it’s still going to need every dollar it can get.



Got $20,000? Then You, Too, Can Die in the Game of Thrones Books


The horrifying deaths on Game of Thrones have provoked a lot of feelings in fans of the medieval fantasy series: anger, sadness, grief… jealousy?


If you’ve ever stared at the severed heads and mutilated bodies of the Westerosi dead and thought “hey, I wish that were me,” then you’re in luck! In order to raise funds for two charities, The Wild Spirit Wolf Sanctuary and the Food Depot of Santa Fe, Song of Ice and Fire series author George R. R. Martin has come up with a rather creative crowdfunding prize: Two lucky Game of Thrones fans with $20,000 will actually get a character in a future Game of Thrones novel named after them—a character that will, naturally, die a horrible death. As the description for the “Martyr” pledge level explains:



There is one male character and one female character available. You can choose your character’s station in the world (lordling, knight, peasant, whore, lady, maester, septon, anything) and you will certainly meet a grisly death!



We would expect nothing less. Other rewards include having breakfast with Martin (“Hand at the Table,” $15,000), Martin’s well-worn hat (“Crown,” $7,500) and a pair of tickets to the Season 5 premiere (“King,” $7,500).


The benefit hopes to raise $200,000, and anyone who makes a donation will be entered to win another tremendous prize:



You and a friend will be flown out (from wherever you are in the world) to meet me in Santa Fe, where we’ll share a helicopter ride to the Wild Spirit Wolf Sanctuary. In addition to touring the Sanctuary together, we’ll also have plenty of time to discuss the show, A Song of Ice and Fire, direwolves—and if there’s anything you have ever wanted to ask me, here’s your chance!



If you’ve ever wanted to speak to the man himself about the hidden meaning of the prophecies of Quaithe or the true identity of the Knight of the Laughing Tree, now’s your chance! (Just don’t ask him when the next book is coming out. We all know how that ends.)