• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди115
      • Показать ещё
      Компании258
      • Показать ещё
      Разное217
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации4
      Страны / Регионы98
      • Показать ещё
      Формат12
      Показатели13
      • Показать ещё
      Издания16
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы2
Выбор редакции
06 декабря, 14:30

Ключи и лампочки Томаса Эдисона пойдут с молотка

Ключи от дверей лаборатории знаменитого изобретателя в одноимённом городке штата Нью-Джерси и несколько лампочек будут проданы на американском аукционе Heritage.

22 ноября, 06:02

Дракон-конь: «новый человек» изменяющейся Японии. (Драматическая история в нескольких частях с прологом и эпилогом) Часть четвертая

Около девяти часов холодным вечером 15 ноября 1867 года Накаока Синтаро из хана Тоса прибыл на постоялый двор Омия с тремя спутниками. Тут один из самураев, находившихся здесь же, спросил его слугу, не здесь ли остановился господин Сайя - такова была кличка Рёма. Ничего не подозревающий слуга ответил утвердительно и повел гостей вверх по лестнице. И тут один из самураев выхватил меч и ударил его в спину, затем все четверо взбежали по лестнице и углубились в темный коридор. Открывая раздвижные двери, ведущие в комнату Рёма, один из них выкрикнул: «Господин Сайя, как я ждал этой встречи!»

19 ноября, 17:05

К юбилею минской детской музыкальной школы искусств № 1: как в стенах заведения воспитываются будущие звезды сцены

Легендарный изобретатель и предприниматель Томас Эдисон однажды заметил: «Гений – это 1% вдохновения и 99% пота». С суровой формулой жизни хорошо знакомы профессиональные музыканты. Ежедневный труд, отсутствие свободного времени, а иногда и буквально стертые в кровь пальцы – такова цена безупречной техники.

10 ноября, 20:04

Развитие смертной казни в США.

Оригинал взят у oper_1974 в Развитие смертной казни в США.         История применения смертной казни в США берет свое начало еще в колониальный период. Принято считать, что практика подобного вида наказания была привезена в Новый Свет колонистами из Европы.         Уже в 1612 г. в Вирджинии губернатором Томасом Дейлом (Thomas Dale) был введен свод законов, который предусматривал смертную казнь даже за незначительные преступления (кража винограда, убийство куриц и торговля с индейцами).        В 1630 г. в Массачусетсе впервые была совершена смертная казнь. В 1665 г. в Нью-Йорке был принят ряд законов под названием The Duke´s Laws, которые предусматривали применение смертной казни за избиение родителей, а так же за непринятие "истинного Бога".         Судя по архивным данным, самой популярной экзекуцией на рубеже XVIII века являлось повешение. Такие казни проходили с минимальными затратами. Суд выносил преступнику смертный приговор, и уже через несколько дней его вешали на ближайшем дереве.       Всё, что для этого требовалось - лестница, верёвка и пара опытных палачей, которые получали небольшой гонорар. Эшафоты для повешения строились только в тех случаях, когда судебный процесс приобретал национальную известность.      Примерно в 1720 году казни в США превратились в один из видов массового развлечения. Палачи смекнули, что это может принести им неплохие деньги, так как люди любят смотреть на запретные и шокирующие вещи.      "Когда человек повисал в петле, зрители охали и отворачивали головы, закрывали глаза и плакали, - писал историк Сизар Коули. - Однако никто не упускал возможности посетить казнь лично. Любопытство и прилив адреналина двигали толпой".      Если в XVII веке казни проводились преимущественно с согласия церкви, то в XVIII веке главными палачами выступали уже плантаторы. Провинившихся рабов вешали, сжигали или заковывали в железных клетках, подвешенных на деревьях.      В архивах до сих пор сохранились записи, вроде: "Фрэнсис Бош. Чернокожий. Раб. Преступление: восстание рабов и кража лошади. Наказание: повешение в кандалах. Место: Нью-Йорк. Дата: 1741 год".       В 1794 г. в штате Пенсильвания смертная казнь как один из видов наказания была отменена для всех преступлений кроме убийства первой степени.      В начале 19 в. происходят значительные изменения в системе наказания: в некоторых штатах была построена система пенитенциарных учреждений, а также уменьшен список преступлений, расценивающихся как тяжкие и особо тяжкие; происходит отмена смертной казни в ряде штатов.      Первым штатом был Мичиган, в котором в 1846 г. смертная казнь была отменена в отношении всех преступлений за исключением государственной измены. Затем отмена смертной казни происходит в штатах Род-Айленд и Висконсин.      Тем не менее, в большинстве штатов смертная казнь имела место. Причем показательно, что список преступлений классифицируемых как тяжкие был расширен, особенно для преступлений совершаемых рабами.      Кроме того, во второй половине 19 в. (особенно в период Гражданской войны) помимо официальных способов смертной казни широкое распространение получает так называемый Суд Линча (назван по имени землевладельца из Вирджинии Чарльза Линча, который казнил нарушителей закона без суда).      В XIX веке государственная инструкция требовала использования специальной верёвки и постройки эшафота по особым стандартам. Дилетанты к проведению казней не допускались. Специально подготовленные палачи должны были моментально принимать решения в сложных ситуациях, когда, например, преступник болтался в петле, но по-прежнему дышал.     До второй половины XIX века американцы относились к смертной казни абсолютно равнодушно. Менее 3% населения считали, что её нужно отменить и заменить пожизненным заключением. В основном таких взглядов придерживались родственники преступников, дожидавшихся повешения.      1881 год изменил всё. Группа бизнесменов и коллеги знаменитого "лампочника" Томаса Эдисона изобрели электрический стул и запустили национальную кампанию по дегуманизации повешения. Они рассказывали, как долго преступники мучаются в петле и что даже убийцам необходимо гарантировать лёгкую смерть.        Всего за восемь лет сознание населения было полностью изменено. Люди начали воспринимать электрический стул как один из самых быстрых и лёгких способов ухода из жизни. Он стал настоящим символом избавления от страданий.      Первым казнённым на электрическом стуле стал нью-йоркский убийца Уильям Кеммнер (август 1890-го). За его ужасающей смертью следила вся страна. Его "поджаривали" несколько минут, и всё это время преступник оставался жив. У него вытекли глаза, помещение наполнилось запахом горелого мяса, однако все эти подробности пресса упустила.      Изобретатели орудия смерти с помощью больших денег и связей в высших кругах власти официально утвердили электрический стул, как "самый гуманный способ наказания за всю историю существования Соединённых Штатов".         В начале 20 в. происходит ряд преобразований, в том числе и в сфере правосудия и в результате с 1907 по 1917 гг. 6 штатов полностью отменили смертную казнь и 3 штата ограничили ее распространение на два вида преступлений: государственная измена и убийство первой степени (убийство должностного лица), тем не менее, пять из шести штатов в дальнейшем восстановили применение смертной казни на своей территории.        С начала 17 в. количество приведенных в исполнение смертных приговоров стабильно возрастает и достигает своего пика в начале 20 в. Можно выделить главные причины столь резкого увеличения числа казней:       Во-первых, экономические и политические трансформации в России в начале 20 в. В связи с этим в Америке растет страх возможности подобного явления и на территории их государства. В результате ряд штатов, ранее отказавшихся от смертной казни или ограничивших ее определенным видом преступлений возвращается к ее практике.        Во-вторых, Великая Депрессия 1930-х гг. Как пишут американские историки, в указанный период времени было произведено самое большое количество смертных казней за всю историю ее существования в США.14 летнего Джоржа Стинни казнили в 1944 г. а через 70 лет признали невиновным.      В начале XX века даже авторитетные учёные заявляли о "тупике эволюции способов экзекуции". Тогда никто не догадывался, что в 20-х годах появятся газовые камеры. Они до сих пор являются самым неизученным методом убийства.      Многие документы американское правительство засекретило, однако опытные химики уже тогда называли газовые камеры "худшим способом убийства в человеческой истории".     Психологи считали, что самые большие страдания преступник испытывал, когда двери узкой и тесной камеры закрывались. Ощущение клаустрофобии и безысходности намного страшнее, чем непосредственное глотание газа. Иногда между процессом запирания и пусканием газа проходило более трёх часов.     Изобретение смертельной инъекции и машины по её внутривенному введению стало самым дорогостоящим в истории казней. Частные компании, заключившие договора с государством на $800 млн., разрабатывали новую технологию убийства почти 20 лет.      В конечном счёте инъекция получилась гораздо менее эффективной, чем убойная доза обыкновенного морфия или героина. Состав этой гремучей смеси совершенствуется с 1982 года по сей день.        Таким образом, на протяжении 315 лет "индустрия" смертных казней в Соединённых Штатах меньше всего заботилась о гуманности и безболезненном уходе заключённого из жизни. На экзекуциях были заработаны триллионы долларов (с учётом инфляции), десятки тысяч людей умерли в муках и страданиях.       Любопытно, что в 1972 году Верховный суд США запретил казни, однако запрет продлился всего четыре года. Его сняли лоббисты, заинтересованные в астрономических доходах от продвижения смертельной инъекции.       Народное одобрение снятия запрета было получено благодаря раскрутке нескольких громких уголовных дел и газетным заголовкам, вроде "Этот человек убил 15 детей, разрушив счастливые семьи. Неужели он не заслуживает смерти? Почему наше правительство прощает таких мерзавцев?".         Преступления, за которые наказанием служит смертная казнь варьируются от штата к штату. Проанализировав имеющиеся данные, можно сделать следующий вывод: во всех штатах смертной казнью карается убийство (убийство первой степени, тяжкое убийство, преднамеренное убийство, изнасилование и последующее убийство), в 12 штатах казнят только за убийство первой степени (с наличием отягчающих обстоятельств или без их наличия), в 4 штатах смертной казни подлежат лица, совершившие государственную измену.        Кроме того, в некоторых штатах предусмотрена смертная казнь для лиц, совершивших насильственные действия в отношении женщин (изнасилование, изнасилование и убийство) и детей (изнасилование ребенка, не достигшего 16 лет, похищение ребенка, повлекшее смерть, похищение ребенка с причинением телесных повреждений и др.), в ряде штатов казнь является наказанием за лжесвидетельство, повлекшее казнь невиновного человека.http://www.rae.ru/forum2012/248/1032http://publizist.ru/blogs/23441/10449/-

07 ноября, 19:50

Common Benefits of Failure That Entrepreneurs Should Keep in Mind

Image credit: PhotoDune While it is human nature to spend a lot of time focusing on the success stories we hear in life, particularly those in our area of business or expertise, it is also a fact of life that failure--  or what some people would simply see as things not going to plan -- occurs often enough too. If you want to build a successful business and grow as an entrepreneur, you will have to face some setbacks and challenges along the way; if you don't, you're likely not pushing yourself enough or learning anything new. Happily, though, failure can also actually help your business, if you know how to learn from your mistakes. Read on for some common benefits that you can keep in mind today. Learn Invaluable Lessons One of the biggest pluses of something not turning out how you wanted is that it gives you the opportunity to learn many invaluable lessons. Take master inventor Thomas Edison as just one example of learning from so-called failure. While Edison was one of the country's most successful innovators, he always had to go through many different attempts along the way to making his inventions work. Indeed, when asked about his failures the famed creator once said, that "I have not failed 10,000 times  -- I've successfully found 10,000 ways that will not work." If you want to be a long-term entrepreneur, you will need to learn from your mistakes too. The lessons you learn from things not going to plan tend to be things you won't discover any other way, whether through a degree, through a mentor, or from books. Lessons learned first-hand are the ones that stick, after all, and will always be with you, reminding you of what not to do in the future. During your career in business you are sure to learn invaluable lessons about things such as: The importance of research and planning Forging partnerships with the right people Surrounding yourself with the best team Understanding and tracking finances Making decisions hastily or at times of heightened emotion The importance of small details Failure can certainly help you to be more cautious in the future, as well as more careful about whom you go to for advice. Face Your Fears and Face the Facts Enduring failures in business also helps you to face your fears and to face the facts. While you may not want to do this at first, the end results can be illuminating and more quickly lead you to the success you desire. For many people, the threat of failure looms over their head all the time and radically affects how they go about their days and what they aim for in life. A benefit of facing failure is that it helps you to face up to your fear and to learn that your whole world won't stop or collapse if you're not successful. Once you own your failure, you can be liberated from this type of fear and go about your business without the added (and often debilitating) pressure of attempting to be perfect. In addition, having a failure in your business, whether the whole venture doesn't succeed or just a particular product or branch of the firm alerts you to issues with your idea or your process that need to be amended. Facing up to these facts can give you pause and encourage you to conduct more research, analyze your target market better, or spend more time identifying gaps in your sales or admin process, for instance. Enjoy Increased Clarity, Creativity, and Resilience There are much more personal benefits to be enjoyed as a result of failure too. Clarity, for example, is a common one. Getting results you weren't hoping for can help you to clear out the clutter in your life and focus in on what it is that you're after in life. Creativity can also come as a result of a lack of success in an endeavor. Failure tends to create constraints in life (such as limiting the resources you have available), which means that you, in turn, will need to become more innovative and look for fresh possibilities to explore. Often, these constraints will lead you to your best ideas ever. Facing failure can also build your strength of character. Having to deal with things not going to plan can be a huge test of your grit, resilience, and determination. It can show you that you're much stronger than you realized and that you have more courage than expected. Failure can help to drive you on even more in the future, as it can spur you on to do better next time round. Bottom Line: When it comes to failure, the bottom line is that the definition of the word is actually "lack of success," and not a corresponding indictment of a person's entire personality, skill sell, or any other personal element. If you feel disappointed that you didn't receive the results you wanted on a business, product launch, idea or more, take the time to look for the benefits in the experience regardless. This way you will find much to take away, which will help you become a better entrepreneur in the long run. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

07 ноября, 11:30

Не "Матильдой" единой. Киноляпы, которые оскорбляют историю

Что не так с "Матильдой"?  Лайф попросил исторического консультанта кино и сериалов Павла Корнакова и эксперта по декоративно-прикладному искусству из Российского аукционного дома Светлану Честных проанализировать обнародованные кадры из "Матильды" и трейлер будущего кинофильма на предмет соответствия предметов интерьера истории. — Костюмы и интерьеры в трейлере фильма "Матильда" воссозданы в соответствии с эпохой и со временем. На мой взгляд, особенно удалась сцена в особняке Кшесинской, который есть на снимках. Известно, что она очень любила французскую мебель, лак, в интерьере это читается. Хорошо сделана сцена коронации. В целом, я считаю, интерьеры и архитектура русского модерна, показанные в трёхминутном ролике, воссозданы верно, — рассказала Лайфу главный эксперт по декоративно-прикладному искусству Российского аукционного дома Светлана Честных. По словам исторического консультанта кино и сериалов Павла Корнакова, одежда и интерьер в фильме не совсем соответствуют действительности. — Мне подарили фотографии кадров со съёмок коронации, показанной в фильме, и могу сказать, что это полный непорядок. И кавалергарды одеты не так, как надо, и награды развешаны не так, как положено. Декорации великолепны, но наполнение никуда не годится, — говорит Корнаков. Затерянные во времени По словам экспертов, одна из самых распространённых ошибок авторов исторического кино возникает из-за желания снимать фильм именно в тех местах, где действительно происходили описываемые в картине события. Например, режиссёру "Царства небесного" и "Гладиатора" Ридли Скотту не пришло в голову, что за несколько веков локация меняет свой облик.  Вышедшая на экраны в 2005 году картина "Царство небесное" рассказывает о событиях, предшествовавших Третьему крестовому походу. В один из моментов главный герой кинокартины Балиан в исполнении Орландо Блума отправляется рефлексировать на Голгофу, которая в фильме представлена как пустынный холм за пределами городских стен. Всё бы хорошо, но в конце XII века лобное место располагалось уже в центре Иерусалима.  — Как минимум там должен уже быть храм Гроба Господня, — подтвердил Лайфу директор Центра информационных и социологических программ Фонда исторической перспективы Александр Музафаров.  Ещё одну эпическую драму Ридли Скотта "Гладиатор", появившуюся пятью годами раньше "Царства", назвать историческим фильмом можно лишь с большой натяжкой. Действие картины происходит во II веке нашей эры, а некоторые его события — на площади Святого Петра, относящейся к периоду Позднего Ренессанса. Более того, создатели фильма в нескольких сценах даже забыли убрать скульптуры римских пап. — Это чрезвычайно распространённая ошибка. Авторы фильмов часто стараются снимать примерно в тех местах, которые соответствуют исторической действительности, но совершенно не учитывают, что за несколько веков места меняют свой облик. Хотя, на мой взгляд, в "Гладиаторе" декорации намеренно сделаны в жанре китча. Это и огромные здания, которых во II веке не могло существовать, они были гораздо меньше. В этом легко убедиться, если приехать в Рим, где до сих пор сохранились остатки античных зданий, например Пантеон. Можно на этом примере представить себе масштаб, потому что Пантеон был одним из самых больших зданий Рима.  В античных и средневековых фильмах ещё часто не соблюдают такую особенность интерьеров того времени, как земляные полы. Это ведь очень некинематографично. Отсюда ощущение, что в домах поработала пылесосом клининговая компания, слишком в них чисто. Хотя клининговая компания, несомненно, там поработала — декорации уж слишком чистые. Конечно, пыль в то время тоже протирали, но пылесосов точно не было, — усмехнулся эксперт. Одна из самых знаменитых мелодрам, снятых в конце XX века режиссёром Джеймсом Кэмероном, описывающая крушение легендарного лайнера "Титаник", получила 14 номинаций на "Оскар", собрала в прокате больше $1,8 млрд, заставив на протяжении часа рыдать почти всю женскую аудиторию. А вот искусствоведы могли заметить, что картину "Водяные лилии", которую Роуз в исполнении Кейт Уинслет показывает в каюте лайнера возлюбленному Джеку (Леонардо Ди Каприо), французский импрессионист Клод Моне начал писать в 1915 году, то есть спустя семь лет после трагедии, а завершил только в 1926 году. — Клод Моне действительно начал свою серию "Кувшинки" в 1909 году, но картина, представленная в фильме "Титаник", по композиции более схожа с написанной в промежутке между 1915—1926 году картиной под названием "Белые кувшинки" из коллекции Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art в США. Данный факт заставляет задуматься о верности исторической хронологии фильма, так как крушение "Титаник" потерпел в ночь на 15 апреля 1912 года, — рассказала Лайфу искусствовед Ольга Демина. Бог — в деталях Отсутствие исторического консультанта на площадке или его низкую квалификацию выдают детали. Например, в советском детективном сериале "Семнадцать мгновений весны", действие которого происходило в 1945 году, на стене в кабинете Мюллера висят советские часы "Слава", массовый выпуск которых начался только в 70-х годах прошлого века. — В фильме "Семнадцать мгновений весны" много ошибок, но это скорее ляпы, чем неточности в интерьере. Ещё, например, у Штирлица в доме на столе то появляется, то исчезает телефон. Если брать интерьеры фашистских заведений, например гестапо, то они приведены к "среднесоветскому формату", совершенно нетипичному для Германии. У немцев другой стиль, более готические формы. В фильме появляется и много современных предметов, техники. Это современный диктофон, который использует Штирлиц. Для кино той эпохи это характерно. А фильм вообще начинается с того, что большая часть героев носит форму, упразднённую в 1938 году, — рассказал Музафаров. События одного из самых прославленных романов XX века — "Унесённых ветром" писательницы Маргарет Митчелл, получившей за него Пулитцеровскую премию — разворачиваются во времена гражданской войны между Югом и Севером США — с 1861 по 1873 год. Экранизировали роман Виктор Флеминг, Джордж Кьюкор и Сэм Вуд в 1939 году, вот только не учли, что главная героиня Скарлетт О’Хара в исполнении Вивьен Ли не могла гулять по освещённой электрическими фонарями улице вечерней Атланты, поскольку Томас Эдисон изобретёт лампу накаливания только в 1879 году, спустя шесть лет после завершения войны. — Это тоже очень распространённая ошибка. Лампы в фильмах часто светят очень ярко, но это условность жанра, поскольку, если оставить исторически верное освещение, то действие кино будет происходить в полутёмных комнатах при четырёх свечах. Камерам просто не хватит такого света. Тем более это камера, снимавшая на цветную киноплёнку. Поэтому часто либо делают подсветку и ставят свечи в уже освещённую комнату, либо вставляют электрические осветители в традиционные для времени приборы — в керосиновые лампы, спирто-калильные лампы. Свет получается более ярким и совершенно другим, отличным от живого огня, — говорит Музафаров.  Турецкий сериал "Великолепный век", вышедший на экраны в 2011 году, повествует о периоде правления султана Сулеймана Великолепного, а также о его отношениях с наложницей русского происхождения, ставшей впоследствии его супругой. Телесагу, растянувшуюся на пять сезонов, за пять лет показали в 50 странах мира. И всё это время не утихали споры об исторических неточностях. В том числе и интерьер дворца Сулеймана не совсем соответствует духу времени: шторы во дворце лидера Османской империи были прямыми и без драпировки, помпонов и ламбрекенов в отличие от того, что показано в сериале. Пол не был застелен коврами. Вместо них там расположились ковровые дорожки и маты. А ещё в покоях Сулеймана не было столов. В "Великолепном веке" же султан предаётся любимому делу — мастерит ювелирные украшения — за деревянным столом. Наше новое кино В российской военной драме "Сталинград" Фёдора Бондарчука, рассказывающей о вымышленных событиях в период Второй мировой войны, Музафаров увидел ошибки, которые часто допускали представители советского кинематографа.  — Квартира, в которой живёт героиня фильма, достаточно большая и комфортабельная. Это характерный штамп, порождённый советским кино. В советском кино крайне редко показывали реальный быт людей. В фильмах 50-х и 60-х годов прошлого века герой живёт в комфортабельной квартире, у него хорошая мебель. И в "Сталинграде" эта квартира огромна, — говорит эксперт. В "Сибирском цирюльнике" Никиты Михалкова, претендовавшем на премию "Оскар" как лучший фильм на иностранном языке, но выбывшем из гонки из-за дисквалификации, Музафаров также указал на неточности с освещением и проблемы с логикой. — В "Цирюльнике" много ошибок. К примеру, всё то же электрическое освещение в Александровском училище. В Москве электричество в те годы было, но не в казармах. А юнкера, натирающие зеркальный паркет? Во-первых, это не работа юнкеров. Во-вторых, паркет в училище выглядит будто дворцовый. Я подозреваю, что снимали либо действительно во дворце, либо в соответствующем павильоне, но такой гладкой, зеркальной поверхности в училище, где живёт около 600 человек, быть не могло, — подытожил эксперт.  Другой проблемой исторических фильмов, снятых российскими режиссёрами, Александр Музафаров видит "театральность в декорациях" и рассказывает об этом на примерах фильмах "Царь" Павла Лунгина и "Три мушкетёра" Юнгвальда-Хилькевича. — "Царь" — это фильм из театрального условного жанра. Условная изба, условная деревянная церковь, условные палаты. Авторы даже не сделали попытки прийти к достоверности, так же как и в "Трёх мушкетёрах" Юнгвальда-Хилькевича. Ничего общего с реальностью нет — просто музыкальная сказка, — подытожил он. Вымысел от и до  Закроем глаза на то, что в фильме "Боги Египта" Алекса Пройаса, вышедшем на экраны в 2016 году, рассказывается история противостояния египетских божеств, что само по себе является вымыслом. Герой Николая Костера-Вальдау на представленном кадре фильма стоит на мраморном полу, украшенном изображениями божеств. Но египтяне не изображали своих божеств на полах, потому как наступить на сакральное изображение считалось, мягко говоря, неуважением и порицалось. — Создатели фильма даже не попытались воспроизвести древнеегипетскую цивилизацию. Сооружения такие, как их себе представлял режиссёр, то, что речь идёт о Египте, можно понять только благодаря неким маркерам — иероглифам и статуэткам, но из разных слоёв египетской цивилизации. Всё это смешение культур — просто антураж с подписью "Древний Египет". Никакого отношения к реальности здесь нет, — говорит Музафаров.

04 ноября, 15:19

10 of the Most Badass and Bizarre Cars From the Henry Ford Museum

For those of you who have never visited the Heny Ford Museum up in Dearborn, Michigan, here is a little cheat sheet on some crazy cars that it contains.

03 ноября, 20:21

Remarks by the President at Hillary for America Rally -- Miami, FL

Florida International University Miami, Florida 11:18 A.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, Miami!  (Applause.)  Thank you!  Thank you!   AUDIENCE:  Obama!  Obama!  Obama! THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Well, it is good to be back at Florida International University.  (Applause.)  This is a good-looking crowd here.  (Applause.)  Can everybody please give Gabby a huge round of applause for her great work?  (Applause.)   I want to thank -- (laughter) -- who's screaming here?  (Laughter.)  I want to thank Mayor Philip Levine, who's here.  I want to thank Senator Bill Nelson.  I want to thank Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  I want to thank your next state senator, Debbie Mucarsel-Powell.  Your next Congressman Joe Garcia.  And your next United States senator, Patrick Murphy.  (Applause.)     Florida, we got five more days.  Five more days. AUDIENCE MEMBER:  We love you! THE PRESIDENT:  I love you, too.  (Applause.)  But I've got some business to do here today.   So, five more days to decide the future of this country that we love.  Now, the good news is, you don’t have to wait until Election Day to vote.   What does that say up there?  I'm sorry, I can't hear you.  What does it say up here? AUDIENCE:  Vote early!  THE PRESIDENT:  You know, I'm still not hearing it.  What? AUDIENCE:  Vote early!  THE PRESIDENT:  Vote early!  If you are registered, you can vote right now at any early voting location.  In fact, there’s one just 10 minutes away at the International Mall Branch Library.  Go ahead and plug this into your phones if you haven’t voted.  It is at 10315 NW 12th Street, in Doral.  I mean, we're making this really simple for you.  I am telling you right now where you can go vote after this rally.   Now, if you are just watching on television, or you're not from around here and you're trying to figure out, well, where else could I vote.  Then you go to IWillVote.com, and it will give you additional locations.  IWillVote.com.  If you’re voting by mail, don't let that thing just sit on your coffee table or your kitchen counter, and then you forget about it, it gets mixed up with some other stuff.  Send in your ballot right now so it makes it by Election Day.  The point is, we got work to do to finish what we started eight years ago.  (Applause.)   Now, I have to say that I've been going to some college campuses and I realize that, eight years ago, some of you were 10.  (Laughter.)  She's all like, "Yeah!"  (Laughter.)  Now, that makes me feel a little old.  But she says I look good.  Okay.  All right.  Michelle agrees.  (Laughter.)   But for those of you who maybe were a little older and might remember, in 2008, we were living through two long wars, and we were about to enter into the worst economic crisis in the last 80 years.  But you know what, because of some hard work, we turned the page.  America has now battled back.  Last year, incomes rose faster than any time at least since 1968.  Poverty fell at the fastest rate at least since 1968.  We've created 15 million new jobs.  Twenty million have health insurance that didn’t have it.  (Applause.)  We’ve kicked our addiction to foreign oil. You know, can I just say, I was driving through North Carolina yesterday -- (applause) -- North Carolina in the house -- and we passed by a gas station.  And I don’t have to stop usually at the gas station, because the Beast, the motorcade, they're always full.  Service is taking care of that.  But I noticed gas at $1.99.  (Applause.)  The reason I make this point is, because I think in 2008 they were predicting that if Obama got elected, gas would be $6.00.  So sometimes it's useful to check the tape, see what they said before.  It turns out what they said was wrong.  So what that means is, what they're saying now is probably also wrong.  Anyway, I just wanted to do that little detour.   But in addition to -- AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Thanks, Obama! THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughter.)  Right, thanks, Obama.  $2 a gallon gas.  (Applause.)   So kicked our addiction on foreign oil.  Doubled our production of clean energy.  Have done more to battle climate change than any time in our history.  We're world leaders on that.  (Applause.)  We brought home more of our men and women in uniform.  Took out Osama bin Laden.  (Applause.)  Are systematically rolling up ISIL in Iraq.  And, by the way, back home we've made sure that in all 50 states people have the freedom to marry who they love.  (Applause.)   So there's a reason that I've got gray hair -- because I've been busy.  And most of all, across these 50 states that I've traveled, what I've seen is the thing that really makes America great.   AUDIENCE MEMBER:  You! THE PRESIDENT:  No, it's you.  You.  (Applause.)   I've seen the American people -- people of every party, every faith, every race, every region -- people who know we're stronger together.  Young and old folks; men and women; black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American; folks with disabilities; gay, straight folks -- it doesn’t matter -- all of us pledging allegiance to the red, white, and blue.  That's the America I know.  That's the America we love.  And there is only one candidate in this race who has devoted her life to building up that America -- and that is the next President of the United States of America, Hillary Clinton.  (Applause.)   Now, make no mistake, Florida -- all the progress we’ve made goes out the window if we don’t win this election.  So we’ve got to work our hearts out this week.  We got to work like our future depends on it, because it actually depends on it.  And listen, especially for the young people out there, I know for some of you this is your first election where you've been paying attention.  (Applause.)  And you're out there and you're looking it, and you're saying, man, this is really nasty.  Generally, D.C. is not so much of a battleground.  But down here, it's just like every ad is just depressing.  And there's negative ads, and there's noise, and there's distractions.  And sometimes the temptation is to tune it out, and you want to just focus on the Cubs winning the World Series.  (Applause.)  Which, by the way, even for a White Sox fan, is a pretty big deal. AUDIENCE MEMBER:  South Side! THE PRESIDENT:  South Side!  Because the Cubs have been waiting like 108 years.  (Laughter.)  I was watching something on television, and they explained that the last time the Cubs had won, Thomas Edison was alive and they hadn’t invented sliced bread yet.  So you know the expression, "This is the greatest thing since sliced bread"?  This is actually, for Cubs fans, the greatest thing since sliced bread.  (Applause.)  And I want to congratulate the Chicago Cubs for an amazing season.   But it's tempting to want to not really focus on our government and our politics.  But this election is critical.  And the good news is, once you get past all the noise and all the distractions, and all the okie-doke, the choice could not be clearer, because Donald Trump -- AUDIENCE:  Booo -- THE PRESIDENT:  Don’t boo! AUDIENCE: Vote! THE PRESIDENT:  Don’t boo! AUDIENCE: Vote! THE PRESIDENT:  Don’t boo! AUDIENCE:  Vote! THE PRESIDENT:  Come on, you guys know that.  You already know that.  You can’t boo.  He can’t hear you boo, but he can hear you vote.  (Applause.)  Don’t boo -- vote. Donald Trump is uniquely unqualified to be President.  (Laughter.)  No, I’m not joking.  You laugh.  I’m not joking.  He is temperamentally unfit to be Commander in Chief.   Here’s a guy who says he’s a great businessman.  But it seems like a lot of his business is built around stiffing small businesses and workers out of what he owes them -- work they’ve done.  He thinks it’s cute, or smart, or funny to basically not pay somebody who’s done work for him and say, go ahead and sue me because I got more money than you, and you can’t do anything about it.  It’s not fair. Here’s somebody who, for decades, has refused to release any tax returns.  And now maybe it’s because he’s not as rich as he says is, but he has admitted he does not pay federal income taxes for years.  Not a dime.  So he’s not helping to support our troops or our veterans.  He’s not helping to build roads or build schools or help young people finance a college education because he’s not putting anything in.  He’s taken a lot out but hasn’t put anything in.   He says that he’s going to be his own foreign policy advisor.  He says that’s because he’s got a good brain.  Now, I won’t opine on his brain.  What I can say is that anybody who suggests that America should torture people, or ban entire religions from entering America, or insults POWs, or attacks a Gold Star Mom --  AUDIENCE:  Booo -- THE PRESIDENT:  Don’t boo. AUDIENCE:  Vote! THE PRESIDENT:  Or talks down about our troops, that’s not somebody who’s fit to be President. Listen, you even have a Republican senator saying you cannot afford to give the nuclear codes to somebody so erratic.  And as Hillary points out, anybody that you can bait with a tweet is not someone you can trust with nuclear weapons.  (Applause.)  Anybody who is upset about a Saturday Night Live skit, you don’t want in charge of nuclear weapons.  No, I’m serious.  This is a guy who, like, tweets they should cancel Saturday Night Live -- I don’t like how Alec Baldwin is imitating me.  Really?  I mean, that’s the thing that bothers you, and you want to be President of the United States?  Come on, man.  Come on.  (Applause.)  Can’t do it. Now, I think the thing -- but you know what, we have to be honest.  He’s got support here in Florida.  He’s got some support around the country.  No, he does.  If he didn’t, then I wouldn’t have to go around and get everybody to vote.  He’s got some support.   And the most frustrating thing is, some of his support is coming from working folks.  People say, well, you know, he’s going to be our voice.  Are you serious?  This is the guy who spent 70 years -- his whole life -- born with a silver spoon, showing no respect for working people.  He’s spent a lot of time with celebrities.  Spends a lot of time hanging out with the really wealthy folk.  But you don’t see him hanging out with working people unless they’re cleaning his room or mowing the fairways on his golf club.  You’re going to make this guy your champion if you’re a working person?  Come on. Somebody who spent his life without ever showing any regard for working folks.  But he has insulted minorities, and immigrants, and Muslims, and Americans with disabilities.  That’s the voice you want? AUDIENCE:  No! THE PRESIDENT:  You want a voice who’s bragging about how being famous lets you get away with what would qualify as sexual assault, and calls women pigs, and dogs, and slobs?  And when he pays attention to women, it’s because he’s grading them on a scale of one to ten.  What kind of message are we sending if that’s our voice? I tell you what, we’re going to teach our kids, I want to teach all American kids that our diversity is our strength.  (Applause.)  That, in America, it’s not about what you look like, but who you are, and what you do, and what your character is.  (Applause.)  That women are not just full and equal citizens; they may be a lot more capable of doing what a man can do.  (Applause.)  But the problem is that he has said so much stuff, and our culture and our media has just gotten so reality-TV-ized -- I know that’s not a word.  (Laughter.)  But you get my drift.  It’s become normal when somebody just says wacky stuff.  As long as they’re famous, we think it’s okay.  I mean, and you hear people justifying it.  They’re all like, well, you know, he may be -- that’s just locker room talk; or I don’t really like what he’s saying, but as long as he supports Republican policies and he cuts taxes for the wealthy, that’s what I care about -- saying character doesn’t matter. Let me tell you something about this office that I’ve been in for eight years.  (Applause.)  Who you are, what you are does not change after you occupy the Oval Office.  All it does is magnify who you are.  All it does is shine a spotlight on who you are.  If you disrespected women before you were in office, you will disrespect women as President.  If you accept the support of Klan sympathizers before you are President, you will accept their support after you’re President.  If you disrespect the Constitution before you’re President, and threaten to shut down the press when it says something you don’t like, or threaten to throw your opponent in jail in a live presidential debate without any regard for due process; if you discriminate against people of different faiths before you are President, then that is what you will do in office, except you will have more power to carry out the twisted notions that you had before you were in office.  (Applause.)  So you can’t make excuses for this stuff.  This isn’t a joke.  This isn’t "Survivor."  This isn’t "The Bachelorette."  (Applause.)  This counts.  This has to do with what’s going to happen in your family, in your community, to soldiers and veterans, the safety of our kids. Listen, I am a strong Democrat, but I tell you what.  We aren’t born Democrats or Republicans -- we’re Americans first.  (Applause.)  And I have good friends who are Republicans.  And I know they don’t think this way about women.  They don’t think this way about Muslims.  They don’t think this way about immigrants.  This is -- what they are doing is something different entirely.  It is different from what we have seen before. And the good news is all of you are uniquely qualified to make sure that this uniquely unqualified person does not become President.  And all you’ve got to do is make sure that you go out there and you vote.  (Applause.)   And the other good news is you don’t just have to vote against this guy, because you have a candidate who’s actually worthy of your vote.  Somebody who is smart.  Somebody who is steady.  Somebody who is tested, perhaps the most qualified person ever to run for this office -- our next President, Hillary Clinton.  (Applause.)   This is somebody who has dedicated her life to making this country better.  Think about how she got her start.  While Donald Trump and his developer dad were being sued by the Justice Department for denying housing to African American families, Hillary was going undercover from school to school to make sure minority kids were getting an equal shot at a good education.  (Applause.)   She has not stopped fighting for justice, fighting for equality ever since.  Her heart has always been in the right place.  Works hard every single day.  I know.  She worked hard when she was running against me.  (Laughter.)  I was worn out.  She worked hard when she was working for me.  (Applause.)  She was there in the Situation Room as my Secretary of State, making the argument to go after bin Laden even when it was risky.  Circled the globe as Secretary of State.  Earned the respect of world leaders.   Her efforts weren’t always flashy.  They weren’t always fully appreciated -- which is true for a lot of the work that women do, by the way.  (Applause.)  Just want to make that observation.  She made me a better President.  She understands policy.  She understands how the world works.  She understands that this stuff that we do, the challenges we face aren’t abstract.  They mean something to real people.  She knows that she’s got to work hard because you are out there working hard.  And, by the way, she doesn’t whine or complain or blame others or suggest everything is rigged when things aren’t going her way.  She just works harder.  She just comes back better.  Because she knows no matter how hard things may be for her, there are a lot of people who are having an even tougher time trying to pay the bills, or trying to find a job, or trying to finance a college education.  So she doesn’t have time to whine.  She just gets up and does the work.  (Applause.)  And she knows the decisions you make as President mean something to that soldier or that veteran or our military families; that a parent who’s trying to make ends meet, they need a President who cares and knows that they’re doing; that a student trying to go to college for the first time needs somebody with an actual plan to help them; that a young person who was brought to this country as a child, has never known another country, is American by every standard except they don’t have a piece of paper.  She knows they need to have a chance to get back to this country they love.  (Applause.)  She’s got plans that will actually help these people.  She’s going to be a leader who actually values hard work, respects working Americans.  And she will be an outstanding Commander-in-Chief because she’s been in the room when tough decisions were made.   You worried about keeping America safe?  She’ll do it.  Because she knows our military and knows our diplomats.  She doesn’t just talk about it.  She doesn’t play one on TV.  She’s been there.  She will be a smart, steady President for the United States.  (Applause.)   And the one thing I’ve got to remind you, though, is she’s not going to do it alone.  That’s why we’ve got to have a Congress that is also focused on you.  Patrick Murphy, he’s got the same values Hillary does.  Unlike his opponent, Marco Rubio, Patrick --  AUDIENCE:  Booo -- THE PRESIDENT:  Don’t boo.  What are you supposed to do?   AUDIENCE:  Vote!  THE PRESIDENT:  Unlike his opponent, Marco Rubio, Patrick actually shows up to work.  (Applause.)  He puts you ahead of politics.  He didn’t try to defund Planned Parenthood.  He didn’t think that somehow some politicians should be making decisions.  He said, let women make their own health care decisions.  (Applause.)  He didn’t walk away from Florida’s Latino community when the politics got tough.  He kept on.  Patrick kept on fighting for comprehensive immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship.  (Applause.)   He actually believes in science and, as a consequence, believes climate change is a problem for the people of Florida, and that we should do something about it.  (Applause.)  Patrick Murphy brought Democrats and Republicans together to fund Everglades restoration.  He has a track record of caring about the environment.  As your next senator, he and Hillary will help protect this planet for our kids and help make sure that Florida is protected against some of the worst consequences of climate change.  (Applause.)  This should be a no-brainer.   And there’s one other big difference between Patrick and Marco:  Marco supports Donald Trump.  Now, keep in mind, earlier this year he called Donald a “dangerous con-artist.”  He said that Donald Trump has “spent a career sticking it to working people.”  And then he tweeted -- this is Marco Rubio -- he tweeted, “Friends don’t let friends vote for con-artists.”  So guess who just voted for Donald Trump a few days ago?  Marco Rubio.  Obviously, he did not have good enough friends.  (Laughter and applause.)   Listen, but this tells you something.  This tells you something.  Now, if you knew better when you were running against Trump -- you knew he was a con-artist, spent a lot of time sticking it to working people -- this is what you said -- I mean, I’m not making this up, right?  I just want to be clear.  He said this.  It’s quoted, taped, right?  If you knew better and then you went ahead and voted for this guy anyway, and supported this guy anyway, that means you are somebody who will say anything or be anything, be anybody just so you can get elected or cling to power.   And you know what, if that’s the kind of person you want representing you, I guess you should vote for Marco Rubio.  But if you want a senator who will show up and work for you, and have some integrity, and has some consistency, and will actually say what he thinks and what he means and then act on that, somebody you have confidence in -- then you should vote for Patrick Murphy.  (Applause.)  I trust Patrick Murphy.  (Applause.)  I believe in Patrick Murphy.  And Hillary needs Patrick Murphy in the United States Senate to make sure she gets done what she gets done.  (Applause.)  So part of the reason that it's important to get Patrick in, part of what I want to say about this election is this is about more than just plans, policies.  There’s something more fundamental at stake.  What’s at stake is the character of our nation.  You know, when Hillary was young, her mom taught her the Methodist creed:  Do all you can, for all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.  That's what guides her.  That's her North Star.  She believes that we can summon the best in this country and make it better for all people, not just some.  That's what America is all about, isn't it?  (Applause.)   We're a country like no other, not because of the height of our skyscrapers, not because of the size of our military.  It's because this is a place founded on an idea:  We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men and women are created equal.  (Applause.)  That we're all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.  (Applause.)  You don't have to be born to wealth or privilege.  You don't have to have a certain last name or look a certain way, or do your hair a certain style.  You just got to be willing to contribute.  (Applause.)  You just got to be willing to work.  You just got to care enough about other people and making sure everybody has got a fair shot.  And if you do that -- if you do that, then you're a patriot, and you can contribute to this country that you love.  And you can go as far as your dreams can take you.  That's what makes this place special.   That's what drove patriots to choose revolution over tyranny; to found this nation.   And that's what led GIs to liberate a continent.  That's what led women to march to get the ballot.  (Applause.)  That's what led marchers to cross a bridge in Selma to win their rights.  That's what allowed workers to organize for collective bargaining and better wages.  That's what’s made America exceptional.  That's what’s always made America great.  (Applause.)  We've never been about just doing for ourselves.  It's been about what we can do together.  (Applause.)   It's about what can be achieved by us, the people, together, through the hard, slow, and, yes, sometimes frustrating work of self-government.  That's not what Donald Trump stands for, but it is what Hillary stands for.  (Applause.)  The idea that in this big, diverse country of ours, we don't demonize each other.  We reach out and try to work together.  We recognize that issues aren't always black and white, and sometimes you got to compromise even when you are right.  She knows none of us are perfect, but she knows that those of us who have been blessed with positions of leadership should try to conduct ourselves with the sense of decency and good-heartedness that can set an example for our kids. And I know Hillary will do that.  I know she will continue the progress we've made.  And she’ll need allies like Patrick -- because we can't just have Hillary stuck with a Republican Congress that behaves the way they’ve been behaving.  (Applause.)  You know, they haven't worked with me since I've been in office.  They didn’t work with me when we were about to go into a Great Depression.  Even now, they control the Senate and the House, and they can't pass their own stuff.  (Laughter.)  They’re so accustomed to just saying no, obstruction, gridlock, “we're against whatever it is that Obama proposes.”   I will sometimes propose their own stuff and they’ll oppose it.  (Laughter.)  It surprises them.  I'll be like, well, this is in your Republican handbook; this is in your talking points.  I thought you all were for this.  No, but you're for it now, we can't be for that -- I'm sorry.  (Laughter.) AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Come on, man! THE PRESIDENT:  Come on, man.  (Laughter and applause.) So, apparently, they don't have much confidence in their nominee.  So instead, they’re already promising more unprecedented dysfunction in Washington.  Now, it's hard to promise more dysfunction, right?  I mean, that's a hard thing to do.  But they’re promising that.  They’re promising “years” of investigation, “years” of hearings, “years” of shutdown, “years” of obstruction, “years” of repeal Obamacare votes.   Can I just say, by the way -- I'm going to take another aside.  I know I'm running long, but -- (applause) -- we have given -- 20 million people have health insurance that didn’t have it before.  (Applause.)  Twenty million people.  The parade of horribles the Republicans have talked about haven't happened.  Death panels -- you remember that?  Saying this would bankrupt the country.  None of what they’ve said has happened.  So now, after 60 votes to repeal this thing that haven't succeeded, now Trump said we got to call a special session to repeal it.  And he had a big press conference, and he had a couple of doctors and a nurse, and Ben Carson and some people -- (laughter) -- no, no -- who’s an excellent neurosurgeon.  He really is.  I don't know what happened on the political thing, but -- (laughter.) So they come and they spend like an hour -- "We're going to repeal Obamacare."  Okay, and then what you going do?  "Well, then we're going to repeal it and we're going to give you something great."  Okay, what?  "Well, something."  (Laughter.)  Because premiums are going up.  Well, now, it is true, premiums are going up for a handful of people who don't get tax credits -- that's important.  We're going to work as hard as we can to do something about it.  We would have already done it if Republicans had helped.  But keep in mind, their alternative would have been no health insurance; that's what they had before.  (Applause.)     So the reason I pointed this out was you watch the press conference and what you realize is they got no plan.  (Laughter.)  They want to repeal because, ideologically, they’re opposed to the idea of helping these 20 million people get health insurance. It's not like -- they don't even have a pretense of a plan.  They don't even have a semblance of a plan.  There’s not even a hint of a plan.  Not even a remote -- not even a -- there’s no plan.  (Laughter.)  Nothing.  Zero.  Nada.  (Applause.)  Come on!   You can't just be against something.  You got to be for something.  (Applause.)  You can't spend eight years being against me, and now you're going to be against Hillary.  But you haven't been for anything.  (Applause.)  Come on.  Now you’ve got some of these senators who are talking about how we won’t even appoint another Supreme Court justice.  Now, we’ve had nine Supreme Court justices for a really long time.  And part of the reason you have nine is to break ties.  And some of the same folks who just a while back said, well, we can’t have hearings and vote for the guy Obama nominated because we’re so close to the election, we should let the next President make the nomination.  Right?  That’s what they said. So now, they think Hillary might win -- they say, well, we might block hers too.  Wait, but I thought you said that the people were going to decide.  Can I talk to the press for a second?  (Laughter.)  What happened?  Do we ever run back the tape?  Do we ever kind of go, well, what happened?  That’s what they said, and now they’re saying something entirely different.  Come on, man.  (Applause.)  This has got to be on the level.  Don’t pretend like gridlock is happening because somehow Democrats and Republicans are equally obstructionist.  It’s just not true.   You’ve got some Republicans right now who are suggesting they will impeach Hillary.  They don’t necessarily know why, but they’re just going to impeach her.  (Laughter.)  Imagine if you had sitting Democratic senators saying that about Donald Trump -- before he was even elected, saying, he will be impeached.   Look, nobody likes gridlock.  But gridlock is not something mysterious that descends like a fog on Washington.  Gridlock isn’t happening because both sides are doing bad things and both sides are corrupt.  That’s not what’s going on.  Gridlock happens purposely when Republican politicians like Marco Rubio decide they will do anything to oppose anything good for the country if a Democratic President proposes it.  And that’s now Marco Rubio’s campaign platform:  Gridlock.   If you think “Vote for Gridlock” is a good slogan, you should vote for Republicans.  But if you believe America can do better, if you think we should be doing something to create jobs for working families, if you think we should be providing health care for folks who need it, if you think we should be helping single moms with child care so they can go to the job -- (applause) -- if you think we should have equal pay for equal work, or raise the minimum wage, then you need to vote for Democrats up and down the ticket.  You’ve got to vote for Hillary and Patrick.  (Applause.)  People who will roll up their sleeves and move this country forward.  (Applause.)  All right.  I’ve gone on too long.   AUDIENCE:  No! THE PRESIDENT:  I know I’ve gone on a little too long.  My staff is going to talk about me when I get back there.  (Laughter.)  They’ll say, what was going on, you’re talking too long.  (Laughter.)   So let me end with this.  Let's take it down for a second, because I want to make this point to your people especially.  Just give me one second.  Just give me one second. You know, I know a lot of you are cynical about politics.  There’s a lot about this election that gives you reason to be.  But I’m here to tell you, right now, you have a chance to move history in a better direction.  You have a chance to reject divisive politics and mean-spirited politics.  You have a chance to elect a leader who has spent her entire life trying to move this country forward, the first female President, who can be an example for our sons and our daughters.  (Applause.)  You have the chance to shape history, and I want young people to understand, those moments don’t come that often.   You know, there are times where history is movable.  Where you can make things better or worse.  This is one of those moments.  And it’s in your hands.  This incredible power that each of you have.  I know you care about a lot of issues, young people.  I’ve heard from you.  I’ve seen you march for criminal justice reform.  That’s great.  But if you care about criminal justice reform, it’s not just enough to protest -- you’ve also got vote for a President, and Congress, and prosecutors who care about disrupting that pipeline of underfunded schools to overcrowded jails, and make sure that the criminal justice system is accountable and fair. I know there are a lot of young people who care about the environment and climate change.  I’ve heard you.  But you’ve got to have a President and a Congress who believes in science and who cares about climate change, and who will protect the progress we’ve made, and want to leave a better planet for our kids. If you’ve been working on immigration reform, I’ve been working too.  But if we’re going to finish the job, you’ve got to have a President and a Congress who sees in immigrants not criminals or rapists, but people who have the same dreams and aspirations, and who care about this country, and who want to contribute and give back to it. My point is, your vote matters.  It’s because of you that 20 million people have health insurance that didn’t have it.  It’s because of you that there are young people who got Pell grants and could go to college who couldn’t before.  It’s because of you that a Marine can serve his country without hiding the husband that he loves.  It’s because of you that young DREAMers have been able to come out of the shadows and are serving our country and are going to school.  (Applause.)  It’s because of you that we made this progress.  So, Florida, and young people especially, I’m asking you the same thing I asked of you eight years ago.  I’m asking you to believe -- not just in my ability to change things, one person’s ability to change things, even.  I’m not just asking you to believe in Hillary’s ability to change things.  I’m asking you to believe in your ability to change things. You remember my slogan wasn’t "Yes, I Can."  It was "Yes, We Can."  And I’m not on the ballot this time.  But fairness is on the ballot.  Decency is on the ballot.  Justice is on the ballot.  All the progress we’ve made is on the ballot.  Immigration reform is on the ballot.  A higher minimum wage is on the ballot.  Equal pay for equal work is on the ballot.  Democracy is on the ballot.  Hillary Clinton will move us forward if you give her a chance.  And if we win Florida, we will win this election, and it’s in your hands.  (Applause.)  So go out there and vote.  Get your friends to vote.  Get your family to vote.  Get your cousins, and neighbors, and coworkers to vote.  Tell them that this is the moment where America makes a stand about who we are and what we believe.  Tell them this is the moment we reject cynicism and reject fear.  This is the moment we choose hope.  Choose hope.  Choose hope.  Choose hope.  Choose hope.  Choose hope.   Go out there are vote.  And if you do, we will elect Hillary Clinton the next President.  Go elect Patrick Murphy the next senator.  We’ll continue this amazing journey.  We will finish what we started.  We will show the world why America is the greatest nation on Earth.  I love you guys.  Bye-bye. END  12:02 P.M. EDT

03 ноября, 19:30

Obama: Cubs World Series Win Is The Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread. Literally.

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Even President Barack Obama took some time on Thursday to gush about the Chicago Cubs, who were fresh off winning their first World Series since 1908. Sometimes Americans want to focus on things that aren’t politics, Obama said while speaking about negative campaign ads airing in Florida. “Down here, it’s just like every ad, it’s depressing. And there’s negative ads and there’s distractions. And sometimes the temptation is to tune it out and you want to focus on the Cubs winning the World Series,” he said during a campaign rally for Hillary Clinton at Florida International University. “Which, by the way, even for a White Sox fan is a pretty big deal.” “The Cubs have been waiting like 108 years,” he added. “I was watching something on television, they explained that the last time the Cubs had won, Thomas Edison was alive and they hadn’t even invented sliced bread yet. So you know the expression ‘this is the greatest thing since sliced bread’? This is actually, for Cubs fans, the greatest things since sliced bread.’” Sliced bread didn’t hit the market until 1928. As the Cubs and Cleveland Indians faced off in Game 7 of the World Series on Wednesday night, Neil deGrasse Tyson noted on Twitter how much has changed since the Chicago team last won: Mark Twain was still alive, Henry Ford hadn’t perfected the assembly line and the Wright brothers were debating whether an airplane could fly from New York to Paris. Obama also tweeted support for the Cubs early Thursday morning, inviting the team to the White House.  It happened: @Cubs win World Series. That's change even this South Sider can believe in. Want to come to the White House before I leave?— President Obama (@POTUS) November 3, 2016 The president returned from his baseball digression by saying it’s crucial to focus on the election and to vote, even when it’s tempting to tune out politics. HUFFPOST READERS: What’s happening in your state or district? The Huffington Post wants to know about all the campaign ads, mailers, robocalls, candidate appearances and other interesting campaign news happening by you. Email any tips, videos, audio files or photos [email protected] -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

02 ноября, 15:42

Дивидендные аристократы: Consolidated Edison, Inc. (ED)

Consolidated Edison — регулируемая коммунальная холдинговая компания. Компания владеет Consolidated Edison Company of New York (сокращенно: CECONY) и Orange and Rockland Utilities (сокращенно: O&R). CECONY продает электричество, газ и пар (занимается пароснабжением) в городе Нью-Йорке (New York City) и графстве Вестчестер (Westchester County). O&R продает электричество и газ в штатах Нью-Йорк и Нью-Джерси. Дополнительно к этому компания владеет средненьким газовым бизнесом и конкурентным энергетическим бизнесом. Картинка ниже иллюстрирует операционную структуру компании: Важно понимать, что Consolidated Edison в целом — это электричество, газ и пароснабжение. CECONY и O&R в 2015 году сгенерировали 95% прибыли на акцию. Капитализация компании по подразделениям представлена на рисунке ниже: У Эдисона (для простоты буду называть Consolidated Edison так, не путайте с Томасом Эдисоном :)) длинная операционная история. История компании отслеживается с 1823 года, когда она была известна под названием New York Gas Light Company. 61 год спустя в 1884 несколько компаний, работавших с газовым освещением улиц, консолидировали свои бизнесы. Объединенная компания была известна как Consolidated Gas Company of New York. Консолидированный бизнес продолжал расти, поглощая газовые, электрические и паровые компании. В 1936 году компания изменила свое название на Consolidated Edison. Бизнес с такой длинной операционной историей определенно квалифицируется как «голубая фишка». У Эдисона также длинная дивидендная история. Дивидендная история Consolidated Edison Эдисон выплачивала растущие дивиденды 42 года подряд. Дивидендная история компании с 1982 года приведена на рисунке ниже: В настоящий момент акция имеет дивидендную доходность 3,7%. Для сравнения средняя дивидендная доходность S&P500 — 2,1%. Два основных момента выделяется в дивидендах Эдисона:Длинная история медленного ростаОтносительно высокая доходность относительно среднерыночной.В последний раз Эдисон увеличил дивиденд на 3,1%. Компания наращивала свои дивиденды в среднем на 1,5% в течение последних десяти лет. Для сравнения, инфляция за этот период была в среднем около 1,9%. Рост дивидендов за последние 10 лет у компании оставляет желать лучшего. Перспективы роста и ожидаемые прибыли В то время как дивиденды росли на 1,5% в год в среднем за последние 10 лет, прибыль на акцию у компании росла немного быстрее — на 3,1% в год. Прибыли (не прибыли на акцию!) на самом деле росли быстрее. К сожалению, Эдисон спонсировал часть своего роста за счет допэмиссий. Эти допэмиссии как раз и приводили к тому, что рост прибыли на акцию ограничивался 1,6 процентных пункта за последние 10 лет. С учетом того, что 95% прибыли компании поступает от регулируемой деятельности, то рост компании ограничивается главным образом ростом тарифов. Можно ожидать, что рост прибыли компании составит 4-5% в год в будущем. Продолжающиеся допэмисси будут вредить этому росту. В целом, можно ожидать роста прибыли на акцию в районе 2,5-3,5%. Такой рост совместно с доходностью 3,7% может давать ожидаемый доход в районе 6-7% в год.Менеджмент компании ориентируется на коэффициент дивидендных выплат в районе 60-70%. По итогам 2016 года ожидается, что коэффициент выплат будет в районе 65%. Дивидендные выплаты могут соответственно вырасти на 2,5-3,5%. Перспективы роста компании могут не показаться восхитительными, но компания действительно дает медленный (ключевое слово — медленный) и стабильный рост. Компания имеет 42 года последовательного увеличения дивидендов — это знак того, что у компании сильное и продолжительное конкурентное преимущество. Конкурентное преимущество и стойкость к рецессии Не сложно догадаться, что является конкурентным преимуществом у Эдисона. Коммунальный сектор конечно же является естественной монополией. Естественная монополия Эдисона обслуживает Нью-Йорк Сити. А Нью-Йорк Сити — это 7-ой крупнейший мегаполис, население которого составляет примерно 20 миллионов человек. Отрасль коммунального хозяйства сильно зарегулирована в США. Это создает дополнительные барьеры для входа на рынок.Рост будет медленным, но рост вероятно будет продолжаться, т.к. у компании сильное и продолжительное конкурентное преимущество. По мере роста населения Нью-Йорка людям будет нужно все больше и больше электричества, газа и пара, а это значит, что, вероятно, Эдисон будет выплачивать растущие дивиденды.Компания продает энергию. Этот продукт имеет жизненно важное значение для всей экономики. Как результат, Эдисон будет хорошо чувствовать себя во время спада.С 2007 по 2011 год прибыль на акцию у компании изменялась следующим образом: 2007 — 3,48 долл. на акцию (максимум)2008 — 3,36 долл. на акцию (на 3,4% ниже максимума)2009 — 3,14 долл. на акцию (на 9,8% ниже максимума)2010 — 3,47 долл. на акцию (восстановление, до максимума не хватило 0,3%)2011 — 3,57 долл. на акцию (новый максимум) Как вы видите, Великая Рецессия умеренно снизила прибыль на акцию в 2008 и 2009 годах.У акций компании исключительно низкая волатильность. Эдисон по уровню низкой волатильности акций — на втором месте, ниже только у Johnson & Johnson’s (JNJ). Низкая волатильность акций является результатом низко рискованной деятельности. Оценка Эдисон торгуется на уровне 17,8 годовых прибылей. В течение последних 10 лет компания торговалась на уровне 14,5 годовых прибылей. Для сравнения — медиана P\E для S&P500 за тот же период составлял 18,2. Причина, по которой P\E компании повышенный заключается в низких процентных ставках. Низкие процентные ставки повышают цену облигаций и «облигационно-подобных» бумаг. Со своими низкими темпами роста и стабильными дивидендами, Эдисон ведет себя как облигация. Цена на акцию будет расти, если процентные ставки будут падать — и падать, если процентные ставки будут расти.На данный момент инвестировать в Consolidated Edison чрезвычайно рискованно. Если сверхнизкие процентные ставки начнут расти (к чему клонит ФРС), то цена акции будет падать. Заключение Эдисон — стабильная, медленно растущая коммунальная компания с длинной историей повышения дивидендов. Дивидендная доходность 3,7% может привлекать инвесторов, охотящихся за дивидендной доходностью. В настоящий момент акции компании очень чувствительны к процентным ставкам. Если ставки начнут расти, то цена акции может упасть существенно. Ожидаемая полная доходность Эдисона — 6-7% в год, так что вы можете зависнуть с ними на годы, если акция упадет на 20%.Компания подходит для того, чтобы держать ее в долгосрочной перспективе для тех инвесторов, которые ищут доход выше среднего с очень маленьким риском снижения дивидендов. В целом же — Consolidated Edison не сильно привлекателен.Оригинал: http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/10/consolidated-edison-inc-ed/  ================ Внезапно, да? :) Казалось бы, дивидендными аристократами могут быть компании, которые известны на весь мир, транснациональные конгломераты, а тут — на тебе: сугубо локальная компания. Оказывается, не все дивидендные аристократы, это компании вроде McDonald's...

27 октября, 01:13

Puppet Masters of Media Propaganda, Banking and War Profiteering, Tactical Diversions and False Flag Deceptions, Boogieman Terrorists, Police Brutality Against It's Citizens, The Big Picture of Global Politics and Change We Must To Live Again

Part I Puppet Masters of Media Propaganda In this day and age of vast amounts of news and media that bombard and compete for public attention fewer and fewer are able to discriminate fact from fiction. Shocking tabloid headlines, once reserved for amusement at grocery store line checkout, are now used by the mainstream press to bait the hook to get the consumer to bite and read/watch more. Journalists and reporters, if you can now call them such, are woefully compromised in the bias they take in propagandizing issues that ultimately serve the agenda of the media giants and hidden elite (owners of these media conglomerates) for whom they work and shape the perceptional lens of the masses. Is there a intentional agenda behind all this and if so, whose masterminding it and for what purpose? The answer, I believe, is YES. One of the greatest known masterminds of media propaganda and tactical distraction was Dr. Edward L. Bernays. He is considered the founding Father of Public Relations and was also the nephew of famed psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. Some twenty-five years ago I spent an afternoon with Dr. Bernays picking his brain on the subject of PR strategies to promote humanitarian concerts I envisioned could promote world peace. In his late 90's at the time, he was kind and considerate with me as he served coffee and crumb cakes and showed photos of himself with Henry Ford, Thomas Edison and numerous US Presidents of this era that he had worked with. Over the course of the next 25 years I would experience great pushback from various power structures in achieving my goals towards peace. I went to great lengths to educate myself about why this could be occurring and ultimately learned of the real power and philosophies that drove the manipulative skills use of Bernay's. Edward's agenda of herding society in specific directions, on behalf of those who envisioned a new world order, is apparent in his quote: "We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of... If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it... ...The conscious and intellectual manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country." Towards bringing a spotlight to the elite few who orchestrate the monstrous intent of mind-controlling society, consider this excerpt from a speech from John F. Kennedy before the American Newspaper Publishers Association on April 27, 1961 (some two years before his assassination) : "We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence ---on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of election, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system that has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations... Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, nor rumor printed, no secret revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war -time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match... ...That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment -the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution --- not primarily to AMUZE and ENTERTAIN not to emphasize the Trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants" -but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometime even anger public opinion." In order to place the agenda and motive of mind-controlling society through the modern media machine lets consider a few historic quotes that point to people behind such actions. "All Wars are fought for money" - Socrates (469 BC) "When one with honeyed words but evil mind persuades the mob, great woes befall the state." -- Euripides (406 BC) from his play "Orestes" The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people." ― James Madison "Experience has shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." - Benjamin Franklin "In every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the People." -- Eugene Victor Debs, Voices of a People's History of the United States "For PEOPLE to rule themselves in a REPUBLIC, they must have virtue; for a TYRANT to rule in a TYRANNY, he must use FEAR."-- William J. Federer "Those who are capable of tyranny are capable of perjury to sustain it." -- Lysander Spooner" "A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really well prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy." -- Aldous Huxley, Oxford graduate, English writer, novelist and philosopher. One of the greatest truisms of the human existence and wisdom, when describing the various monstrous realities that have occurred on our earth, is "Follow the money." In part II of this series of articles we'll next explore the subject of "Banking and War Profiteering." As a pretext to subject, I encourage you to consider the nature of greed, money and power as described by Mayer Amschel Rothschild, considered the 'Founding Father of International Banking': "Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not whom makes the laws." -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

24 октября, 13:00

Почему любой компании нужны инновации

Как большим компаниям сохранять конкурентоспособность и выйти на новый виток развития

24 октября, 04:09

Known as 'Father of Public Relations,' Edward Bernays molded 'America's tribal consciousness'

EDITOR'S NOTE: It is hard to imagine a world without ubiquitous communication aimed at molding public opinion. Yet public relations didn't formally exist until roughly a century ago. The man credited with creating the field of PR, Edward Bernays was one of the most colorful characters of the 20th Century. This is his 125th birthday. Without him, the great Caruso might not have become the toast of the land. Sigmund Freud's work might not have been translated for American readers for another decade. A generation of children might have grown up with dirty faces, and a generation of women might have gone on smoking cigarettes behind the shed. The rich and the powerful turned to him for advice. His clients included Presidents Coolidge, Wilson, Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower. Others equally well known included Thomas Edison, Eleanor Roosevelt, Enrico Caruso on his first visit to America, and the dancer Nijinsky. Those he rejected were notorious: Adolf Hitler, Gen. Francisco Franco, and former Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza. "Hitler wanted me to create a campaign for the German train system," Bernays deadpanned. "Apparently, he did not know that I'm Jewish." Today, Edward Bernays is known as the Father of Public Relations, and in large part the field of PR was his idea. Many of the ideas at the core of his beliefs came from his uncle, the Viennese psychiatrist Sigmund Freud. Freud family photo, 1878. His mother Anna is second from left, back row, next to Sigmund Freud. "People sought him out not just because of what he could do for them but to keep their competitors away from him," said Dr. Otto Lerbinger, chairman of the school of public relations at Boston University. "He always came up with a different angle." A bibliography of books and articles commenting on the campaigns he engineered fills nearly 5,000 pages, and lists more than 4,000 separate entries. Until the end, he relished reminiscing about them. His success was so great that the War Department hired him to spearhead recruitment to the Armed Forces and donations to War Bonds, allowing him to mold many of the era's most famous posters. "Dodge was coming out with a new automobile in 1928," he said, "and they asked me what I could do to bring it to the public's attention. Those were the days of silent films, and it occurred to me that no one had ever heard Charlie Chaplin's voice. So I got Chaplin and Gloria Swanson together," he explains. Bernays arranged for the two to do a radio commercial, but not before taking out a highly publicized policy with Lloyd's of London insuring the star of silent movies against stage fright. "No one had ever heard Chaplin's voice," he said. When the time came, everyone stayed home to listen to Dodge Hour. Bernays's goal, unique at the time, was to create events that contained his message and stirred media attention.  Mission accomplished. The soap campaign Bernays designed for Procter and Gamble in the early 1920s was one of his favorites - and illustrative of the unique way he developed to convey a message. "The simple fact was that kids cried when they got soap in their eyes. Soap was something they hated." To change that, Bernays persuaded schools across the country to participate in soap sculpture contests. "It made it possible for the soap they hated to become something they loved, something that would gratify their creative instincts. Within a year, 22 million kids were involved in soap sculpture," he said. Born in Vienna, Bernays came to the United States a year later. He married Doris Fleischman, a marital and business partnership that lasted until her death in 1980. The marriage created headlines when Fleischman kept her maiden name, and again when she became the first married American woman to receive a passport in her maiden name. The public relations counseling firm they founded together was enormously successful. "For a long time, he was known as 'U.S. Publicist No. 1,"' said Lerbinger, who credits Bernays for teaching the first university course in public relations at New York University in 1923. Bernays was never reluctant to discuss the revolutionary methods that helped him change the face of American public opinion In the 20th century. "I never visited newspapers," he says. "I created circumstances." During his lifetime, public relations became a multi-billion-dollar field. But when Bernays arrived on the scene before World War I, there were only press agents whose reputations were sometimes unsavory. Opinion research was unknown. "In those days, public opinion was considered philosophy. There was no psychology," he said in a 1984 in his living room in Cambridge, MA. When Bernays began his career, sociology was in its infancy, and Walter Lippmann had just begun to define the term "public opinion." Bernays, meanwhile, concentrated on what he called "the American tribal consciousness." Bernays perceived at an early age that opinion could be molded. With Eleanor Roosevelt. Bernays lived long enough to have his share of regrets. His campaign for the American Tobacco Co., for example, is one of them.  His task was to break the taboo against women smoking in public. "The first thing I did was go to a psychoanalyst. He told me that for women, cigarettes represented man's inhumanity to women. So my idea was to get women to show their equality." Women lighting up "Torches for Freedom," 1929.". Bernays contacted actresses, models and debutantes across the nation. At the appointed hour, hundreds marched to places like Boston Common, Union Square in San Francisco, and Central Park in New York to light up "torches of freedom." "This was before anybody knew cigarettes were carcinogenic," he said. "I later worked to get tobacco advertising off radio and television to ease my guilt complex." Sigmund Freud, his mother's brother, sent him a manuscript while Bernays was in Paris accompanying Woodrow Wilson to the 1919 Peace Conference after World War I. Though Freud's books had been translated into English in Europe, they had not yet been published in America. "Freud sent me a copy of Introductory Lectures in Psychoanalysis, and I took it and talked to a publisher I knew. Freud wrote me how public opinion is formed," he said. Freud's insights contributed to Bernays's 1923 classic, Crystallizing Public Opinion, which changed corporate and political communication forever. Bernays' uncle Sigmund Freud in 1926. Bernays had his critics, many of whom blamed him for introducing "mind control" to industry and the government. He was accused of using Freudian psychological insights for commercial purposes, especially in the form of subliminal advertising. Others criticized his work for the government encouraging young people to enlist during the 1st World War. The campaign he conducted on behalf of the United Fruit Company is one of his most controversial. In a series of ads published in the U.S. media, the president of Guatemala,  Jacobo Arbenz, was described as a communist. Arbenz was ousted in a coup d'état engineered by the United States Department of State and the Central Intelligence Agency. It was led by the brothers John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles, both of whom had major interests in United Fruit. Bernays's role in the unsavory affair led to disagreement over his legacy. Bernays insisted that what he had done was change public relations into a profession with academic underpinnings. Before his death in 1995, Bernays turned his attention to the generation gap. "Very little has been done to bridge that gap," Bernays said. "When you consider that by the year 2040, up to 40 of the nation's population will be over 65, that's a problem." "In American society," he said, "It Is vital that every institution adjust to public needs, hopes, desires, aspirations. The only way this can be done is through research. The maladjustment between the institution or product and Its public must be discovered. "Only when that maladjustment is known," he said, "can the adjustment be completed." OurPaths.com is a place to celebrate extraordinary lives. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
18 октября, 00:00

Редкая звуковая запись: Лев Толстой говорит на четырех языках!

Лев Николаевич не возражал, когда его сфотографировал пионер цветной фотографии Прокудин-Горский (это фото Толстого, кстати, считается первым цветным фото, сделанным в России), и пришел в восторг, когда к нему в Ясную Поляну заявился посланник от Томаса Эдисона.Оказалось, изобретатель захотел записать голос Толстого на свой фонограф. Граф Толстой не растерялся и начитал на фонограф отрывки из составленного им сборника «Мудрые мысли на каждый день». Причем начитал на четырех языках! Случилось это знаменательное звуковое событие 107 лет назад, в октябре 1909 года.Изобретатель пришел в такой восторг от результата, что отправил писателю в подарок фонограф с запиской: «Подарок графу Льву Толстому от Томаса Алвы Эдисона». Через год после того, как запись была сделана, 82-летний Лев Николаевич скончался.

14 октября, 02:19

Remarks by the President in Opening Remarks and Panel Discussion at White House Frontiers Conference

Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 3:21 P.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, everybody.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Well, thank you, Alexis, for that introduction.  I love that story -- she bumped into me on the elevator.  What she didn’t mention, by the way, is that she started on her pre-med degree when she was 16, bumping into me on the elevator.  She was already well on her way.  So, to the rest of you -- good luck.  (Laughter.)  Hope you already have tenure -- because Alexis is coming.  (Laughter.) I’m only going to speak briefly today because we have an amazing panel and I want to learn from the people who are in attendance here today.  But I want to start by recognizing Mayor Peduto of Pittsburgh, who has been an extraordinary innovator and city leader.  And give -- yes.  (Applause.)  Congressman Doyle, who fully supports our innovation agenda -- and we need strong allies in Congress -- so give Mike Doyle a big round of applause, please.  (Applause.)    We also have people from across our agencies -- Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx -- (applause) -- NIH Director Francis Collins -- (applause) -- National Science Foundation Director France Cordova.  (Applause.)  And I want to thank two extraordinary leaders who once served in my administration and did extraordinary work -- Presidents Suresh of Carnegie Mellon -- (applause) -- and Chancellor Gallagher of Pitt.  (Applause.)  Part of sort of the Obama alumni mafia here. (Laughter.)  As well as all the faculty and students and staff here at CMU and Pitt for allowing us to turn your campuses into a science fiction movie for the day.  (Laughter.)    Earlier today, I got a chance to see some pretty cool stuff. A space capsule designed by the private sector to carry humans out of our atmosphere.  Small, unmanned quadcopters that can search disaster areas and survey hard-to-reach places on bridges that might need repairs.  I also successfully docked a capsule on the International Space Station.  It was a simulation, but trust me -- I stuck the landing.  (Laughter.)    But here’s the thing about Pittsburgh -- this kind of stuff is really nothing new.  Most folks have probably heard about how this city is testing out a fleet of self-driving cars.  But Pittsburgh has been revitalizing itself through technology for a very long time.  There is a reason that U.S. Steel Tower is now also the corporate home of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center -- because the Steel City is now home to groundbreaking medical research and world-class universities.  It’s the birthplace of some of the most advanced artificial intelligence and robotics systems the world has ever seen.  And you are investing in your young people with after-school STEM programs, and maker faires, and “Girls of Steel” robotics teams.  (Applause.)  That’s how this city came back after an iconic industry fell on tougher times -- doubling down on science, doubling down on tech, doubling down on innovation -- all of which can create amazing new jobs and opportunities. And stories like that are not just happening here in Pittsburgh, or in Silicon Valley.  They’re happening in Chattanooga and in Charleston and in Cincinnati -- cities where we’re seeing science and technology spur new jobs and new industries; new discoveries that are improving our lives and, in many cases, saving lives.  And that's consistent with this nation, who we are -- a nation born from an idea that became the world’s laboratory.  There aren't a lot of countries where one of your Founding Fathers has an idea to fly a kite in a thunderstorm and helps to fundamentally change how we think about electricity.  A place where the women who solved the equations to take us into space, even though they weren’t always acknowledged.  A nation whose engineers brought us the Internet.  Innovation is in our DNA.  Science has always been central to our progress, and it's playing a leading role in overcoming so many of our greatest challenges. That's as true today as it's ever been.  Only with science can we make a shift to cleaner sources of energy and take steps to save the only planet we have.  Only with science do we have the chance to cure cancer, or Parkinson’s, or other diseases that steal our loved ones from us way too soon.  Only through science will we have the capacity to reengineer our cities as populations grow, to be smarter and more productive, to lead humanity farther out into the final frontiers of space -- not just to visit, but to stay -- and ensure that America keeps its competitive advantage as the world’s most innovative economy. And I was doing some pictures before I came out here with some folks, and they said, thank you so much for what you've done for science.  And I confessed, I am a science geek.  I'm a nerd. (Laughter and applause.)  And I don’t make any apologies for it. I don’t make any apologies for it.  It's cool stuff.  And it is that thing that sets us apart; that ability to imagine and hypothesize, and then test and figure stuff out, and tinker and make things and make them better, and then break them down and rework them. And that’s why I get so riled up when I hear people willfully ignore facts -- (laughter) -- or stick their heads in the sand about basic scientific consensus.  It's not just that that position leads to that policy; it's also that it undermines the very thing that has always made America the engine for innovation around the world.  It’s not just that they’re saying climate change is a hoax, or taking a snowball on the Senate floor to prove that the planet is not getting warmer.  It’s that they’re doing everything they can to gut funding for research and development, failing to make the kinds of investments that brought us breakthroughs like GPS and MRIs and put Siri on our smartphones, and stonewalling even military plans that don’t adhere to ideology. That’s not who we are.  We don’t listen to science just when it fits our ideologies, or when it produces the results that we want.  That's the path to ruin.  Sixty years ago, when the Russians beat us into space, we didn’t deny that Sputnik was up there.  (Laughter.)  That wouldn’t have worked.  (Applause.)  No. We acknowledged the facts, and then we built a space program almost overnight, and then beat them to the moon.  And then we kept on going, becoming the first country to take an up-close look at every planet in the solar system.  That's who we are.  That's where facts will get you.  That's where science will get you.  And that’s why, in my first inaugural address, I vowed to return science to its rightful place.  And, by the way, I want to make clear, this idea that facts and reason and science are somehow inimical to faith and feelings and human values and passion -- I reject that.  For us to use our brains doesn’t mean that we lose our heart.  It means that we can harness what's in our heart to actually get things done.  And that's why in the first few months of my administration, we made the single largest investment in basic research in our history -- because innovation is not a luxury that we do away with when we’re tightening our belts.  It's precisely at those moments, when we've got real challenges, when we double down on new solutions that can lead to new jobs and new industries and a stronger economy. So over these last eight years, we’ve worked to recruit the best and brightest tech talent into the administration.  We've partnered with academia and the private sector.  We've empowered citizen scientists to take on some of our biggest challenges.  We’ve reimagined our federal approach to science through incentive prizes and 21st century moonshots for cancer, and brain research, and solar energy.  We’ve turbo-charged the clean energy revolution.  We built the architecture to unleash the potential of precision medicine, dropped enough new broadband infrastructure to circle the globe four times; applied data and evidence to social policy to find out what works -- scale up when it works, stop funding things that don't, thereby fostering a new era of social innovation.  We’ve helped once-dark factories start humming again, putting folks to work manufacturing wind turbine blades longer than the wingspan of a 747.  And we realized that we can’t look to the future if we’re also not going to lift up the generation that’s going to occupy that future.  So we started the White House Science Fair to teach our kids to send a message that the winner of the Super Bowl isn’t the only one that deserves a celebration in the East Room.  (Applause.)  We hooked up more of our classrooms and communities to the high-speed Internet that will help our kids compete.  We’re pushing to bring computer science to every student.  We’re on track to prepare 100,000 STEM teachers in a decade.  And as a running thread throughout this, we are working to help all of our children understand that they, too, have a place in science and tech -- not just boys in hoodies, but girls on Native American reservations, kids whose parents can’t afford personal tutors.  We want Jamal and Maria sitting right next to Jimmy and Johnny -- because we don't want them overlooked for a job of the future. America is about Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers -- but we’re also the place you can grow up to be a Grace Hopper, or George Washington Carver, or a Katherine Johnson, or an Ida B. Wells.  We’re the nation that just had six of our scientists and researchers win Nobel Prizes -- and every one of them was an immigrant.  (Applause.)  So part of science, part of reason, part of facts is recognizing that to get to where we need to go we need to lift everybody up, because we're going to be a better team if we got the whole team.  We don't want somebody with a brilliant idea not in the room because they're a woman.  We don't want some budding genius unavailable to cure cancer or come up with a new energy source because they were languishing in a sub-standard school as a child. So that’s what I’ve been focused on.  Alexis has done some things.  I’ve done some things, too.  (Laughter.)  But, look, I only get two terms -- which is fine -- (laughter) -- because the presidency is a relay race.  We run our leg, then we hand off the baton.  And that’s why this conference isn’t just about where we’ve been, it’s about where we’re going.  We’re looking to tomorrow.  We're trying to institutionalize the work that we've been doing over these last eight years.  But we also want to make sure that these partnerships continue to thrive well beyond my administration.  The future is yours to create.  It’s all of ours.  And we’ve got a tremendous group here from all across America -- from the sciences, from industry, from academia.  All of you in your own fields are transformative.  You're transforming the way we treat diseases, and building smarter and more efficient, and more inclusive communities.  You’re unlocking the data that make our criminal justice system smarter and fairer.  You’re harnessing the power of artificial intelligence -- big data robotics, automation -– for the good of all of us.  You’re breaking new ground on clean energy and giving us our best hope of staving off the worst consequences of climate change.  And you’re taking us on that final frontier, firing up the boosters for humanity’s journey to Mars.  So, today, I am proud to build on your work.  We've announced federal and private commitments totaling more than $300 million to throw into the pot -- investing in smarter cities; expanding our Precision Medicine Initiative; spurring the development in small satellite technology.  We’re supporting researchers working to better understand our brains -– how we think and learn and remember.   And, in fact, it’s in that area where I’d like to close -- brain research.  Before I came onstage, about half an hour ago, I had the chance to meet an extraordinary young man named Nathan Copeland.  And back in 2004, Nathan was a freshman in college, studying advanced sciences, interested in nanotechnology.  And he was in a car accident that left him paralyzed.  For years, Nathan could not move his arms, couldn’t move his legs -- needed help with day-to-day tasks.  But one day, he was contacted by a research team at Pitt, and they asked if he wanted to be involved in an experimental trial supported by DARPA, the same agency that gave us the Internet, and night-vision goggles, and so much more.  And since he was a scientist himself, Nathan readily agreed.  So they implanted four microelectrode arrays into his brain, each about the size of half a button.  And those implants connect neurons in his brain with a robotic arm, so that today, he can move that arm the same way you and I do -- just by thinking about it.  But that’s just the beginning.  Nathan is also the first person in human history who can feel with his prosthetic fingers. Think about this.  He hasn’t been able to use his arms or legs for over a decade, but now he can once again feel the touch of another person.  So we shook hands.  He had a strong grip, but he had kind of toned it down.  (Laughter.)  And then we gave each other a fist bump.  And researchers will tell you there’s a long way to go -- he still can’t feel with his thumb or experience hot and cold, but he can feel pressure with precision.  That’s what science does.  That’s what American innovation can do.  And imagine the breakthroughs that are around the corner.  Imagine what’s possible for Nathan if we keep on pushing the boundaries.  And that’s what this Frontiers Conference is all about, pushing the bounds of what is possible.  And that’s why I’ve been so committed to science and innovation -- not just so that we can restore someone’s sense of touch, but so we can revitalize communities; revitalize economies; reignite our shared sense of possibility and optimism. Because here in America, with the right investments, with the unbelievable brilliance and ingenuity of young people like Alexis and Nathan, there is nothing we cannot do.  So let’s keep it going.  Let’s get to work.  With that, I think it’s time to start our panel.  Thank you, everybody.  Thank you. * * * * * DR. GAWANDE:  If I were to tie together -- you know, it sounds incredibly disparate -- but the story that is coming out from everything you're saying -- I'm going to take what you said, Riccardo, about the last century, one step farther.  The last century was the century of the molecule.  We were trying to -- the power of reductionism -- boil it down to the most small possible part -- the atom, the gene, the neuron.  Give me the drug, the device, the super-specialist.  And that provided enormous good. But in this century, what they're all describing is now we're trying to figure out how do they all fit together.  How do the neurons fit together to create the kinds of behaviors that you're to solve in mental illness.  How do they fit -- the genes network can fit together in epigenetics to account for the health and disease of the future that we all may face.  And Zoe is describing a super-highway of information and science that is plugging into the patient through a bike path called the doctor's office.  And trying to make a system that can actually bring it all together really is a completely different kind of science from the last century.  It's surrounding these problems.  People come from incredibly different perspectives now.  You're all of them in one.  We normally might bring a psychiatrist and an engineer and a neuroscientist together.  But it really isn’t the age of the hero scientist anymore. And so I want to ask you:  What do we have to reinvent about the way we do science to make all of this possible, genuinely, scientifically, with real innovation? THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, I want to thank the panelists, especially Zoe, because of the story you're telling.  Although, Kaf, it sounds like you were also inspired in part because of very personal experiences.  At the end of the day, they're people who want to enhance their lives.  And so being able to bring it down from 40,000 feet down to what you’re experiencing while you’re waiting on the phone to help somebody you love so deeply I think is a good reminder of why we do this. As you say, Atul, what we’ve been calling this Precision Medicine Initiative is really how we stitch together systems that can maximize the potential of the research that a Kaf or a Riccardo are doing, and end up with Zoe’s husband getting better treatment.  And a couple of things that we’ve tried to do that I think are helping. Number one is to make sure that the data that is being generated by genomic sequencing, as its price comes down, is better integrated and better shared, which is going to require us rethinking research models.  In the past, what’s happened is, is that if a researcher wants to look into cancer, they get some samples from an arrangement, maybe, with a teaching university close by, and their plugging away, somewhat in isolation.  And what we now have is the opportunity to -- as we discover, particularly, that what we used to think of as cancer might turn out to be 20 different types of cancer -- we’re now in a position where we can actually generate a huge database, and as a consequence, not only identify some of the specific features of that cancer, not only identify what kinds of genetic variants might make you more predisposed to that cancer, but we’re also breaking down those silos in such a way where we can accelerate research.  Not everybody has to have one small sample.  Now, potentially, we’ve got a million people who are contributing to a database that somebody like a Kaf or a Riccardo can work on. And what that allows us to do in developing cures is, over time, as Riccardo said, to identify, first of all, do you have a predisposition towards a particular disease, and can we intervene more quickly before you develop it.  Second, can we develop better cures, interventions, as Kaf said.  But third, are we also in a position to get this information to patients sooner to empower them so that they can be in charge of their own health.  Because part of our goal here is to shift from what is really a disease-care system to actual health care system.  So that’s one big chunk of the initiative.  And just to be more specific, part of what we’re doing with the Precision Medicine Initiative is to get a bunch of collaborators to start digitalizing, pooling, and sharing their data.  Within the VA, we’ve got half a million folks who have signed up and are contributing their genetic samples.  We now have more and more institutions that are coming together.  And as a consequence, our hope is, is that if you are a cancer researcher in any particular cancer, you’re going to have a big data set that you can start working off of.  And, by the way, we’re being very intentional about making sure that we’re reaching out to communities that sometimes are forgotten -- whether it’s African American communities, women -- so that we can really pinpoint what works for who. Just one last thing I want to say, though, because it goes to what Zoe said about systems.  Even as we’re doing all this cool stuff to come up with greater cures, what we’re also having to do is try to figure out what are the incentives -- the perverse incentives that are set up in the health care system that prevent it from reaching a patient earlier.  So I’ll just give two quick examples. The first is what you were talking about in terms of your individual patient data.  We’re trying to promote the notion, number one, that this data belongs to you, the patient, as opposed to the institution that is treating you -- because once you understand that it's yours and you have agency in this process, it means that as you're looking for different treatment options, as you're consulting with different doctors, you're able to be a more effective advocate without having to constantly fill our paperwork and so forth.  So that's important.  And one of the things that we've discovered is, is that even the software where your individual patient is stored -- because it's a commercial enterprise oftentimes -- it's not interoperable, it's not sharable in easy form.  And so we've actually been trying to get some of the major providers to start working together so that it makes it easier for somebody like Zoe, if she's moving from system to system to system. The second this is -- and, Atul, you've written about this -- to the extent that we are reimbursing doctors and hospitals and other providers based on outcomes rather than discrete services that are being provided, we can start incentivizing the kind of holistic system thinking in health care -- rather than you come in, you get a test, then you got to go to another place to do this, and then you got to go to another thing to do that, and then maybe the surgeon hasn’t spoken to the primary care physician and you don’t have the outpatient coordination that would make sure that you're not coming back into the hospital. And one of the things that we've been trying to do with the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, that hasn’t gotten as much attention as just providing people insurance is to make sure that we're pushing, we're nudging the system more and more to do that. So, that was a long answer, but it's a big topic.  The good news is, is that I think we've identified the pathways where we can start making real progress. DR. GAWANDE:  I want to live in your world.  I want to live in the world where -- THE PRESIDENT:  I'm only going to be here for four more months.  (Laughter.)  Three and a half.  DR. GAWANDE:  -- in a world where I get to own -- I have my genomic information, I have my medical records, I have --everything about me belongs to me, and it's easy to access, and I can bring it to the doctors that I need to get it to. The second level -- you know, you announced an initiative today, the All of Us Research Initiative, where you would be able to, A, get that data and then share it with researchers so that they can learn more from you -- trusting that that data is safe. I worked in the Clinton administration, and I got notified that my background records, my clearance records were hacked, right?  If you can hack all of my background records now, suppose you can hack my genetic information, all of my electronic records, my mental health information and more.  And being able to trust -- so we're in this world where having system science only works if it's transparent and information is widely available.  And yet, we're in deep fear about what happens with information and making it widely available. I'd love to hear what you have to think about that.  And I'm going to jump to Riccardo and think in the variety of the world that you've been in, how do we trust that this research is in the right hands? THE PRESIDENT:  I'll be very quick on this.  This is going to be an ongoing problem that we have across disciplines.  It's not just in health care.  As Riccardo said, our lives become digitalized.  It means that how we provide security for that information -- whether it's financial, health, you name it -- is going to be challenging. Now, the good news is that we are making real progress in understanding the architecture that we have to build across sectors, private and public, in order to make this work.  In fact, our outstanding president of Pitt has been working with our cybersecurity committee to really crack some of these problems.  And we've put some guidelines for the private sector and providers to assure best practices on cybersecurity.  But it is going to be something that will be increasingly challenging.  Here's the only thing I would say, though.  The opportunities to hack your information will be just as great or greater in a poorly integrated, broken-down health care system as it will be in a highly integrated, effective health care system. (Applause.)  So I think it’s important for us not to overstate the dangers of -- the very real dangers of cybersecurity and ensuring the privacy of our health records.  We don’t want to so overstate it that that ends up becoming a significant impediment to us making the system work better.  DR. GAWANDE:  Are there technological solutions, Riccardo, to this problem of privacy? MR. SABATINI:  So we started to -- one of the questions we started about a year ago is exactly can we identify someone from his own genome.  So we started to build a class of algorithm to predict and extract information from your genes -- some common traits -- your height, your eye color, your skin color, the structure of your face.  Every single model has its own limitations, sometimes for the lack of data, sometimes because the data is not only in your genes. But what we learned is that using them collectively, we can go a long way to really identify a person from his genome.  So this is something that we have to face, is a digital asset is one of the most complicated ways to be handled.  We want to publish it, we want to share it, but it’s still something -- there is some concern about identity and security. We worked across the board to find different solutions, let’s say, the old system will have to work to find what is the right way.  We are proposing -- and we started to work on a platform called OpenSearch.  It is a way where we decided to share the thousands of genomes in a very secure way with the community a month ago.  We launched it, it’s called OpenSearch -- Search.hli. -- you get inside there, and you can have this Google feeling of shuffling thousands and thousands of genomes, million of records, and hundreds of databases in a very secure way. Now, this is one of the efforts to try to match security and open access and sharing of information.  The one thing I guess we still have to learn is both how every single person feels about tracking or not.  So we always talk about sharing our own information, but do we own our own information?  How many of you have your genomes sequences?  How many of us have sequenced their genome?  Can you raise your hands, for example?  How many of you have your genomes sequenced?  So a very fraction -- typically it’s 2, 3 percent of the audiences when I speak.  So we need to remove a fear, and allow people to engage more in their own health and in their own data.  There are technologies to keep them safe and to keep them secure.  The one thing that is very important is overcoming this barrier of knowing yourself, which I think is the most -- is the hardest hurdle to scale up the databases. Security -- there are the best people working on it across the board, both in the scientific domain and governmental domain. But this should not be a limitation to access your own information and feel comfortable to own your own information and feel comfortable to share it with a governmental infrastructure, and with companies that implement the security right. DR. GAWANDE:  At the center of this I think is a question about optimism and pessimism about whether we can solve these problems.  And I think I would like to ask a question of all of you about our values, the scientific values of a scientific orientation.  And behind that orientation is a fundamental belief -- we have an allegiance to the idea that the way you discover -- the way you explain nature, the way you describe the world, the way you intervene in the world is through factual observation and through testing.  And there’s a certain sense of -- it’s an orientation, it’s a way of being that we’re describing.  It’s an openness, it’s an inquisitiveness, it’s curiosity.  It’s a willingness to acknowledge good arguments and recognize ones that are bad and that haven’t tested out. And that orientation feels like, at times -- on the one hand, it’s been the most powerful, collective enterprise in human history, the scientific community.  And at other times it feels embattled.  And I wonder, why does it seem under fire when we’re -- you mentioned, President Obama, that in certain areas like climate change, or around nutrition, or around other parts of medical care, we have enormously fraught debates.  And it feels at this moment almost like we’re not just debating what it means to be a scientist, but what it means to be a citizen.  What do you take away, Kaf and Zoe, about where we are, and why are we under fire, and how do we get past this? DR. DZIRASA:  I think, in a lot of ways, science, the outcome changes perspective, right.  So when science is useful, we don’t have people arguing about whether polio vaccines are great or not, right.  And so I think there are a lot of areas in medicine where we face this challenge.  I actually think debate is very healthy for science.  I think contentious debate can actually be very helpful for science, in the same way our country was set up in way that healthy, constructive debate can be extremely useful. I think what we want to do, especially as neuroscientists, I think we’re at a place where we need to draw as many people in as possible and have healthy, constructive debates about how we get the outcomes we want.  I’ll give you an example.  I talked to two scientists recently.  One was last weekend -- Steve McCarrol (ph) at Harvard -- and he’d recently come up with a technique where he could sequence the genes of every cell in the brain.  And so when you think about the challenge of something like genetics, you’ve got three billion base pairs in the human genome.  In the brain, we’ve got about a 150 billion cells, half of those which carry electricity, and the electricity is changing every millisecond.  So the problem is enormously scaled.  The Brain Initiative allows us to come up with these tools where now, if you can understand what each individual cell type is, you can now start to have these debates about how to understand what they mean. I’ll give you another example.  I sat with another investigator, Lauren Frank (ph), and he’s now using the Brain Initiative to record many, many channels in the brain, simultaneously, from an animal, where he’s studying how memory works.  This, of course, could one day be useful for something like Alzheimer’s.  And he says now, that he’s able -- within 24 hours, he’s pulling in about 20 terra-bytes of data.  So I’m not that old, I remember when I was in high school, my hard drive had 100 megabytes of data.  So we’re at a place now where we’re going to have to bring in other disciplines to know how to handle that data.  I sat with a high school kid last night, Gabe, and it was pretty clear to me that the people who were going to solve this challenge of the brain are probably in like seventh or eighth grade right now.  And so how do we create an ecosystem where all those different perspectives can come in.  The utility is, when all those different perspectives come in, there has to be contentious debate.  But I think the solutions that will come out of it are what will move people’s perspective on the usefulness of science. DR. GAWANDE:  Zoe, what do you think about the constructive debate you hear, how we get to the more constructive debate, and enough optimism that we want to actually put funding into the kind of work that Kaf is talking about. DR. KEATING:  Well, I think just making it broader.  I was really inspired this morning by a lot of the speakers on the health track, and one of them was Steven Keating -- who’s not related to me at all -- and I was really struck how -- he was a PhD student and he was doing 3D printing.  And he wanted to study his brain tumor, because he had a brain tumor.  But in order to study his tumor, he had to become a medical student in order to get some of the tumor so he could study it.  And that seemed really -- like, wow, that’s limiting.  Think of all these amazing people we have in our country who are doing things, and increasingly people are doing things outside of institutions.  And I feel like that’s where solutions are going to come from.  I think that we should also look at Silicon Valley.  I was thinking about patients and how the whole patient issue I was having is kind of like a user-experience problem that somebody might tackle at a software start-up, and maybe we should approach these things from different perspectives that way. And I think that’s part of this trust -- you were talking about trust in data -- that somehow expanding, bringing in voices, figuring out how people can contribute data, how we can all just be more involved will be a way towards making trust.  The same thing is true with government. THE PRESIDENT:  No, absolutely.  I’ll just pick up on a couple of themes.  Any scientific revolution is, by definition, contesting the status quo.  And we’re going through a period in which our knowledge is expanding very quickly.  It is going to have a wide range of ramifications and you’ve got a whole bunch of legacy systems that are going to be affected.  So if self-driving cars are pervasive, a huge percentage of the American population makes its living, and oftentimes a pretty good living, driving.  And so, understandably, people are going to be concerned about what does this mean.  We’ve heard of the controversies around Uber versus those who have taxi medallions, but it’s actually driverless Uber that is going to be even more challenging. The same is true in the health care field.  One of the things that you discover is this Rube Goldberg contraption that grew up over the last 50 years or 60 years, in terms of our health care system, is there’s all kinds of economics that are embedded in every aspect of it.  So it’s not surprising, then, that when we passed the Affordable Care Act, that there are going to be people who push back not just because they really want to make it work and they’ve got some legitimate, factual critiques of it, but because people’s pocketbooks may be threatened.  And, Zoe, you just used one example, which was the enormous controversy we had when we said that we should phase out certain types of insurance that, on their face, look really cheap, until you have a tumor and it turns out that they don’t cover you.  And that very low-cost insurance, sort of the equivalent of the bare-bones insurance you have to get for driving but when you get in an accident it turns out doesn’t do anything to fix your car -- but obviously much more is at stake here.  We still have debates today where people will say, you know, people aren’t having the choices that they used to have.  Well, the choices, in some cases, that they used to have were choices to get insurance that weren’t going to cover them during a catastrophe. So I think that the way I would like to see us operate -- and we’re not there at the moment, and it will never be perfect -- is, yes, significant debate, contentious debate, but where we are still operating on the same basic platform, basic rules about how do we determine what’s true and what’s not.  And one of the ironies I think of the Internet has been the degree to which it’s bringing us unprecedented knowledge, but everything on the Internet looks like it might be true.  And so in this political season, we’ve seen just -- you just say stuff.  (Laughter.)  And so everything suddenly becomes contested.  That I do not think is good for our democracy, and it’s certainly not good for science or progress or government or fixing systems.  We’ve got to be able to agree on certain baseline facts.  (Applause.) If you want to argue with me about how to deal with climate change, that’s a legitimate argument.  Some people might argue it’s unrealistic to think that we’re going to be able to fix this so we should just start adapting to the oceans being six feet higher.  You might want to suggest to me that it’s got to be a market-based solution, and it’s all going to come through innovation; regulation is not going to help; we need a huge -- I’m happy to have those arguments.  But what you can’t do is argue with me that we’ve had over the last 10, 15 years, each year is the hottest year ever, or that the glaciers are melting and Greenland is melting.  You can’t argue with me about that because I can see it, and we’re recording it. And in the same way around health, I think any good scientist or doctor would not presume to suggest that the sum total of our knowledge is all contained in our current medical schools, and there may be holistic medicines or alternative medicines that are remarkable, but we also should be able to test them.  And you can’t just assert that this works and more conventional therapies don’t work and not be subject to that kind of testing regimen. So that’s where I think we have to move our conversation generally if we’re going to have the kind of debate that Kaf talked about. MR. GAWANDE:  So how do we move our conversation in that way, right?  There was a time when scientists were arguing about climate change, and reasonably so.  THE PRESIDENT:  Right. MR. GAWANDE:  So how do we set up frameworks where we say, this is our time period where we’re going to collect facts, and at the end of the day we will accept the consensus of fact?  How do we do that in our current political enterprise? THE PRESIDENT:  If I had the perfect answer to that, then I’d run for President.  (Laughter.)  Look, this takes us a little bit far afield, but I do think that it’s relevant to the scientific community, it’s relevant to our democracy, citizenship.  We’re going to have to rebuild, within this Wild, Wild West of information flow, some sort of curating function that people agree to.  I use the analogy in politics -- it used to be there were three television stations and Walter Cronkite is on there and not everybody agreed, and there were always outliers who thought that it was all propaganda, and we didn’t really land on the Moon, and Elvis is still alive, and so forth.  (Laughter.)  But, generally, that was in the papers that you bought at the supermarket right as you were checking out.  And generally, people trusted a basic body of information. It wasn’t always as democratic as it should have been.  And Zoe is exactly right that -- for example, on something like climate change, we’ve actually been doing some interesting initiatives where we’re essentially deputizing citizens with hand-held technologies to start recording information that then gets pooled -- they’re becoming scientists without getting the PhD.  And we can do that in a lot of other fields as well. But there has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world.  And that’s hard to do, but I think it’s going to be necessary, it’s going to be possible.  I think the answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say, this is reliable and I’m still able to argue about -- safely -- about facts and what we should do about it while still -- not just making stuff up. DR. GAWANDE:  Focusing on the idea of places where the scientific orientation can be -- the ethos can be protected is really important.  Science is always probable knowledge.  It's never nailed down.  But we're at CMU, we're at University of Pittsburgh, because they are places that hold those values of scientific orientation.  There are places that live like that online, in patient communities.  There are places that professional societies are making happen.  It's crucial, though, that it also happen in government and it also happen in the private sector.  And I guess my final question would be, for any and all of us, what’s the most important thing we can make sure that we do to keep that scientific orientation, that optimism, and that striving for the big opportunity going?  That we can keep these values as part of the places where we are, whether they’re in the virtual world or in our institutions.  And maybe, I’ll let you have the last word, so I’ll start on that end, if that’s okay, Zoe. DR. KEATING:  Well, I really feel like it’s just this huge opportunity and this way for -- if people feel like they can contribute, that then they will trust things.  They will trust institutions, they will trust government if they feel that they have a voice.  And it’s our job to figure out how can we make this thing the President was talking about -- how can we make the system that allows people to contribute, but it’s somehow vetted so that all that knowledge can be shared, because we need all hands on deck. DR. GAWANDE:  And a chance for people to participate in the science itself. DR. KEATING:  Yes, a chance for people to participate.  And that’s beyond health care, that’s across the board.  And I feel like that’s a huge challenge for our time.  Right now, just how can we do that so that we can really -- because we need everybody’s help in everything that's coming for us. DR. GAWANDE:  Riccardo. DR. SABATINI:  The one thing that -- the fight is a little bit unfair because magic has all the answers -- things that you find around.  There’s always strong answers.  There is the cure of cancer, but it’s closed in a closet somewhere.  Science cannot state those strong answers, because it’s a constantly evolving field, and it wouldn’t be a fair.  But we have a cool story that sometimes we don’t say enough. When we describe how the brain works, when we describe the majesty of what it means watching inside your genes and how the proteins flow, and the molecules, and when I explain these stories and I make them human, and I explain cases -- stories of patients and people that access their health and they really got incredible advancements on that.  When we nail the story right, then we engage the young people, the vast majority of the population.  We tend to fight these bogus messages.  But on one side it means we are failing.  We are failing to tell the amazing advancements that we are doing in the right stories, beating fake stories with great realities.  And this is a challenge that we have to do.  And I’m engaging as much as possible, explaining the excitement that there is in the time in history when we have access to things that we were never even dreaming 15 years ago.  This is the story that we have to tell outside these doors. You are some of the smartest people in this country.  You have to be advocates of how amazing things we’re doing, without giving strong solutions and fake results, but telling that there are the best people chasing this dream and we’re going to crack it.  It is our duty, making people feel confident that this is the right story to follow. DR. DZIRASA:  I’m honored that you chose to sit on this panel, because I think health is the real truth-teller and the real equalizer.  When you think about this country by 2050, we’ll be spending about a trillion dollars a year on Alzheimer’s.  If, Lord willing, we get over 85, half of us will have Alzheimer’s.  One out of every 48 boys in this country are born with autism now.  And so it’s the real truth-teller.  It is the real common enemy that all of us, as Americans, as scientists, as educators have. The reason I’m optimistic is because I fundamentally believe there is a seven-year-old sitting in a classroom somewhere that will take all of these investments and all of this work that we’ve made and transform things for my family.  The challenge for me is that I would love to see an America in which, whether that seven-year-old is sitting in a school in Detroit or Baltimore or Gentry High School in the Mississippi Delta, that they will also have the opportunity for their ideas to bubble up and be nurtured.  Because, at the end of the day, the solution to that common enemy that we all face might be sitting in that classroom right now.  (Applause.) THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I’m going to steal some ideas from what my other panelists have already said. First of all, Zoe’s point about opening up systems so that people understand them and don’t just feel like cogs in that system, but rather, have agency in that system I think is critically important. So what we’ve been trying to do across the board -- and we’re not even close to being there yet -- is to use technology as a way to do exactly what you are talking about.  Whether it’s releasing big data -- and the easiest example, I think, for the general public to think about is all the apps that now give us the weather over our phones, and those are all generated from inside government, but what used to be closed data now we let out there.  Well, it turns out that we’ve got huge data sets on all kinds of stuff.  And the more we’re opening that up and allowing businesses, individuals, to work with that information I think the more they feel empowered.  And that makes a huge difference. The second thing that I want to emphasize is the most important curator to be able to sort through what’s true and false and sustain those scientific values you talk about is the human brain, and making sure that our kids are getting that ability to analyze and do that sorting early.  And so part of the reason why we’ve been emphasizing STEM education is not because we don’t value the humanities -- and I was a political science and English major, and I probably learned more reading novels than textbooks -- but what it does do is, it helps everyone as citizens, even if you don’t become a doctor or a scientist or a physicist, it helps you evaluate information in a way that allows you to make good decisions in your own life but also allows you to participate in the country as a whole.  And so we want everybody -- we’re putting a special emphasis on girls, young people of color, who so often are underrepresented in the STEM fields.  We want to make sure they feel a confidence about so much of the technology and information, revolutions and science that is transforming their lives all around them.  And we want them to be creators of science, not just consumers or if.  So I think that’s very important.  The final thing I’ll say is that government will never run the way Silicon Valley runs because, by definition, democracy is messy.  This is a big, diverse country with a lot of interests and a lot of disparate points of view.  And part of government’s job, by the way, is dealing with problems that nobody else wants to deal with.  So sometimes I talk to CEOs, they come in and they start telling me about leadership, and here’s how we do things.  And I say, well, if all I was doing was making a widget or producing an app, and I didn’t have to worry about whether poor people could afford the widget, or I didn’t have to worry about whether the app had some unintended consequences -- setting aside my Syria and Yemen portfolio -- then I think those suggestions are terrific.  (Laughter and applause.)  That's not, by the way, to say that there aren't huge efficiencies and improvements that have to be made.  But the reason I say this is sometimes we get, I think, in the scientific community, the tech community, the entrepreneurial community, the sense of we just have to blow up the system, or create this parallel society and culture because government is inherently wrecked.  No, it's not inherently wrecked; it's just government has to care for, for example, veterans who come home. That's not on your balance sheet, that's on our collective balance sheet, because we have a sacred duty to take care of those veterans.  And that's hard and it's messy, and we're building up legacy systems that we can't just blow up. We've been pushing very hard in the area of medicine to have the FDA reimagine how it does regulations in the genetic space so that it's different from how they might deal with a mechanical prosthetic.  But I don't want to just blow up the FDA because part of government’s job is to make sure that snake oil and stuff that could hurt you isn't out there on the market being advertised on a daily basis. So there are going to be some inherent balances that have to be taken, and there are equities that are complicated in government.  And I guess the reason I'm saying this is I don't want this audience of people who are accustomed to things happening faster and smoother in their narrow fields to somehow get discouraged and say, I'm just not going to deal with government.  Because, at the end of the day, if you're not willing to do what Kaf said earlier, which is just get in the arena and wrestle with this stuff, and argue with people who may not agree with you, and tolerate sometimes not perfect outcomes but better outcomes, then the space to continue scientific progress isn't going to be there.  And what gives me confidence is that I've met a lot of people as President of the United States, and the American people fundamentally are good, they’re decent, and they’re smart, and they just don't have time to follow everything.  The more we empower them, the more we bring them in and include them, I have no doubt that we're going to be able to make enormous strides.  And the audience here I think is representative of the amazing possibilities that we confront. DR. GAWANDE:  Well, let’s thank the panel.  (Applause.)  And I'd also like to thank the President for having the Frontiers Conference.  I think you set an expectation which can apply to any President in the future of any party that you can be a President for science and health and that we can live up to those values.  So, thank you.  (Applause.)  END 4:35 P.M. EDT

13 октября, 00:43

Текст: Правила суперзвезд: The Economist о том, как устроены великие компании ( The Economist )

По-настоящему сильные компании не только помешаны на кадрах, но и не боятся революций Журнал The Economist сделал специальный выпуск о компаниях-суперзвездах: как они вырываются вперед и удерживаются на вершине. Мы перевели ключевой материал о том, на какие управленческие принципы сегодня опираются такие компании. В начале XX века General Electric, продукт союза между главным американским изобретателем Томасом Эдисоном и главным американским банкиром Дж. П. Морганом, была технологической суперзвездой. С тех пор патенты Эдисона давно утратили силу, электричество стало стандартным сервисом, но GE по-прежнему бизнес-империя &md...

12 октября, 15:00

4 Steps to Having More “Aha” Moments

Marion Barraud for HBR The owner of a graphic design firm worries that her clients have dried up despite her best efforts. Even a seemingly bulletproof marketing plan that worked in the past is now yielding crickets. What should she do? And how exactly should she go about deciding what’s best for her business? Your problem-solving instincts may tell you that she’d better start brainstorming and making a detailed spreadsheet with a step-by-step plan. But both anecdotal evidence and published research suggest that taking a moment of inaction may be just as, if not more, important. People commonly report that they make the best decisions not while actively trying to make a choice but, say, taking a shower, knitting or working out. This is because ‘aha!’ moments that spark brilliant, unexpected solutions tend to crop up when our minds are quiet and our consciousness is at rest. These aha moments are often the only way to solve truly complex problems that are too big for our conscious mind to process. The good news is that these flashes of insight are not as random as they seem, and can be fostered by specific conditions. For years, we’ve been noticing that the research supports four specific steps to take to help you have more insights. Each of these steps helps you to notice new activations in your brain, which are the source of these creative moments. Notice quiet signals Whether you are a business owner, an executive or an employee, your calendar is likely packed with meetings. As a result, you end up spending a lot of time surrounded by people, without a chance to enjoy some peace and quiet. You and Your Team Series Decision Making How to Tackle Your Toughest Decisions Joseph L. Badaracco Stop Second-Guessing Your Decisions at Work Carolyn O’Hara How Leaders Can Let Go Without Losing Control Mark Bonchek But silence and solitude are crucial for nurturing precious eureka moments. Insights themselves can be thought of as quiet — below the din of everyday thought.  Researchers have recently begun to pay more attention to the benefits of quiet for insight. And the ultra-quiet state of meditation has been linked to better decision making, suggest findings published in Psychological Science. People in the study made smarter decisions after just 15 minutes of undisturbed time spent meditating because it made them more resistant to their own biases.  Aha! tip: No matter how busy you are, do your best to take breaks between meetings and find some alone time. Go to an empty conference room or, even better, leave the office and take a walk outside. (Walking might in fact spur your next insight, according to scientists.) Look inward Once you have found a quiet spot, try to focus on your inner thoughts and ignore what’s going on around you. In other words—zone out rather than glance at your buzzing phone. Mark Jung-Beeman has identified that right before a person has an “aha!” moment, there are brain-waves in the alpha range in the brain’s visual cortex. These alpha waves indicate that external information is reduced. That can help people notice the internal “aha!” moment. It’s like the brain’s “idle” mode. Internal focus often goes hand in hand with mind wandering—another crucial ingredient of the insight-generating recipe. As Jung-Beeman and colleagues point out in the Neuroleadership Journal, Thomas Edison would routinely let his mind wander hoping to capture fleeting bits of innovative thought. “He would then write down his thoughts during that period, in the belief that they were often creative,” they note. The genius inventor may have been onto something: Scientists have since found mind wandering to be crucial for triggering insights. In one standard test of creativity, researchers gave people two minutes to come up with as many uses as possible for ordinary objects such as bricks or shoes. The participants then took a 12-minute break, during which some of them were given a demanding memory task. Others were given a simple, undemanding task aimed at eliciting mind wandering. The people in the latter group performed approximately 40% percent better the second time they completed the creative object-use task. Conversely, the participants who completed the demanding task failed to show improvement. Aha! tip: To stimulate optimal daydreaming conditions, don’t over-schedule your days. Rather, allow some downtime on a regular basis — even small doses can have a big impact. Try to turn your devices off for several hours a day – or several days a week if you can. This way your mind will be truly free to wonder, and your brain won’t miss the next light bulb moment when it happens. Take a positive approach The prospect of making an important decision can induce a great deal of anxiety, which, unfortunately, is a number-one enemy of creative insight.  Being anxious creates a lot of “noise” in the brain, drowning out the space for insight.  At the same time, research has shown that feeling even slightly happy, as opposed to anxious, is conducive to eureka moments and insightful problem solving. That’s because people tend to notice a wider range of information when they feel happy than when they feel concerned. In a recent study, scientists noted that positive emotions played an important role in the emergence of insight. Jung-Beeman also found in his own research that people who were in a better mood solved more word problems because they experienced more light bulb moments. The researchers also scanned the people’s brains during experiments, finding that a good mood altered brain activity and promoted an insight-friendly neural environment. Aha! tip: If you are feeling grumpy when tackling a complex decision, do something to lift your spirits. Talking to a friend, going out to dinner or reading a book can bring a much-needed breakthrough. Recent research has also shown that snoozing is a good way to deal with frustration. So take a daily nap to feel your best — your hard-working brain might thank you by sprouting a perfect solution after you wake up. Use less effort You have likely always been taught to think long and hard before making an important decision. But insights happen specifically when you are not actively making an effort to choose what to do.  Stepping away from deliberation is key for quality decision-making, suggests research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. In the study, scientists gave participants information about four different apartments they had never visited, asking them to pick the best one. Some were told to decide right away, without having a chance to analyze the information. Others were instructed to carefully examine it before choosing what to do. Finally, there were those who studied the information first but were then purposefully distracted by an unrelated task prior to making a choice. It turned out that the last group most consistently picked the apartments that were objectively the best. Why so? Taking a break from thinking about an issue may allow people to unravel their unconscious thought — hidden yet powerful cognitive processes that occur outside their conscious awareness. This oft-untapped resource is key to processing the deluge of information that a person needs to digest to make an insight-driven decision. Deeper — nonconscious — activity in the brain that is activated when we first consider a problem continues to stay active when we move on mentally to other tasks. We really do “keep working on things” unconsciously.  Another reason that not trying to solve a problem actively can work is that the source of an impasse to a solution involves being stuck in the wrong problem-solving strategy. We can’t have an insight while the wrong pathway is dominant in our mind. Aha! tip: Remember to take a break from any decision-making process. And once you are taking it, do focus on something else. Exercise is a foolproof way to take your mind off work, so put a daily workout on your calendar the same way you would schedule a meeting with a client or boss. In short, anything that helps you be able to notice quiet signals in the brain, or “weak activations” as they are called, can increase the chances of insight. By practicing leaving space for quiet, being internally focused, taking a positive approach, and not actively trying to have insight, we can all have more insights everyday. More insights means solving complex problems faster, and that’s something we could all benefit from, whether we want to tweak a marketing campaign, solve a client challenge, or change the world.

12 октября, 14:00

Watching Tattoos Go From Rebellious to Mainstream

Michelle Myles, a tattoo artist in New York City, talks about how attitudes toward body art have changed over her 25-year career.

12 октября, 00:44

Clash Between Apple & Samsung In The Supreme Court Could Significantly Impact The Tech Sector

The two world's leading smartphone manufacturers, Apple and Samsung, clashed again in court today, this time in the nation's highest tribunal. While the Supreme Court's interpretation of an obscure statute enacted in the same year Thomas Edison opened up his lab in New Jersey will determine the outcome of the [...]

12 октября, 00:30

Видеозапись и магнитная лента

В 1898 году датчанин Вальдемар Поульсен продемонстрировал устройство для магнитной записи звука. На тот момент уже существовали фонографы конструкции Томаса Эдисона, на которых умещались десятки секунд записи речи. Для записи звука на фонографе игла наносит звуковую дорожку на сменном барабане. С этой же звуковой дорожки иглой снимают звук. Телеграфон Поульсена внешне похож: у него тоже есть вертикальный барабан, но из стальной проволоки. На записывающую головку подаётся электрический сигнал, носитель движется с постоянной скоростью около головки и на нём остаётся намагниченность, соответствующая сигналу. Для проигрывания нужна головка воспроизведения, которая проходит и регистрирует изменения магнитного поля проволоки, а затем преобразует их в электрический сигнал. В 1900 году на проволоке остался голос императора Австрии Франца Иосифа I — на сегодня одна из старейших доживших до наших дней магнитных аудиозаписей. В последующем телеграфоны продавались как устройства записи речи для быта, для развлечения и в качестве диктофона. Конечно, устройство из позапрошлого века обладало своими особенностями. К примеру, у изобретения Поульсена усилителя сигнала не было, поэтому звук нужно было слушать в наушниках. Качество записи было лишь незначительно выше, чем у механических фонографов. Но принципы функционирования телеграфона остались ровно теми же, что и у устройств куда сложнее его. Эти устройства научились записывать звук высокого качества, данные и даже видео. Для этого инженерам пришлось решить не один десяток проблем. Читать дальше →

12 августа 2015, 00:16

Электрические автомобили - (далёкое) прошлое автомобилестроения (1880-1920 гг)

Оригинал взят у viribusunitis1 в Электрические автомобили - (далёкое) прошлое автомобилестроения (1880-1920 гг)До Теслы - был ещё ЭдисонАлекс Арбакл (Alex Q. Arbuckle)1900Зарядка электромобиляIMAGE: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS"Электричество - это стоящая вещь. Там нет жужжащих, издающих скрежет передач, с их многочисленными рычагами, которые можно перепутать, нет опасного и зловонного бензина и никакого шума." Томас ЭдисонЭлекрические автомобили - вовсе не последнее новшество. Они существуют столько же, сколько автомобили с двигателями внутреннего сгорания. Первые электрокары появились в 1880-х годах, и следующие десятки лет приобретали популярность благодаря своей простоте в экспулатации, отсутствию запахов и меньшему уровню шума, в отличие от машин, работающих на бензине.Максимальная скорость - всего около 32 км\ч, в основном такими автомобилями пользовались состоятельные люди, чтобы передвигаться по городу. Считалось, что основные покупатели таких автомобилей - женщины, т.к. машины были чистыми, тихими, без выхлопных газов и у них не было заводной рукоятки. Некоторые машины даже специально оборудовали поддельными радиаторами, чтобы сделать более привлекательными на рынке среди водителей-мужчин.1895Томас Эдисон и его первый электрический автомобиль. "Эдисон Бйэкер" и одна из его батарей.IMAGE: GENERAL PHOTOGRAPHIC AGENCY/GETTY IMAGES1882Мужчины управляют электрическим автомобилем Сименса и Хальске в окресностях БерлинаIMAGE: ULLSTEIN BILD/GETTY IMAGES1899Колумбийский электрокарIMAGE: NATIONAL MOTOR MUSEUM/HERITAGE IMAGES/GETTY IMAGES1899Роджер Уоллес управляет электрическим автомобилемIMAGE: NATIONAL MOTOR MUSEUM/HERITAGE IMAGES/GETTY IMAGES1899Камиль Женатци в машине собственного дизайна неподалеку от Парижа. Первый человек, достигший скорости в 100 км/ч в  автомобиле.IMAGE: HULTON ARCHIVE/GETTY IMAGES1906Электрокары ньюйоркской компании Томаса Эдисона в МанхэттэнеIMAGE: BETTMANN/CORBIS1907Берлин, электрочистильщик улиц работает на дорогах городаIMAGE: ULLSTEIN BILD/GETTY IMAGES1909Машины заряжаются на электрической подстанцииIMAGE: SCHENECTADY MUSEUM; HALL OF ELECTRICAL HISTORY FOUNDATION/CORBISПродажи электромобилей достигли своего пика в начале 1910-х годов, когда все больше и больше домов стали подключаться к электроэнергии. В Соединенных Штатах, 38% автомобилей были электрическими в это время.Тем не менее, популярность электромобилей резко упала с появлением новых разработок и улучшений: развития дорожной инфраструктуры, открытий в сфере нефтепродуктов, изобретений электрического стартера и глушителя - все они сделали бензиновый автомобиль более доступным и практичным вариантом.1910Реклама элекроавтомобиляIMAGE: CORBIS"Теперь владельцы электрических автомобилей могут сами устанавливать заражающее устройство в своих конюшнях." Нью-Йорк Таймс (1910г.)1910Зарядная установка с выпрямителем электротока используется для зарядки электоавтомобиля  в гараже, Кливленд, штат Огайо (США)IMAGE: SCHENECTADY MUSEUM; HALL OF ELECTRICAL HISTORY FOUNDATION/CORBIS1912Женщина использует зарядное устройство с рукояткой для зарядки своего автомобиля Columbia Mark 68 Victoria. Автомобиль выпущен компанией Pope Manufacturing в 1906-м году, а зарядное устройство -  в 1912-мIMAGE: SCHENECTADY MUSEUM; HALL OF ELECTRICAL HISTORY FOUNDATION/CORBIS1920Электрический автомобиль из Детройта едет по горной дороге между Сиэттлом и Маунт Рэниром, штат Вашингтон (США).IMAGE: INTERIM ARCHIVE/GETTY IMAGES