In a year that has already been super hot for rare bottles of The Macallan Scotch whisky at auction, another bottle just sold to a collector at an Edinburgh, Scotland whisky sale for a record breaking price. The expression in question is The Macallan Valerio Adami 1926 and the final bid when the gavel fell was £848,750. A grand price for a Macallan Whisky just auctioned at over over $1 million.
The auction, which was held on October 3rd, had as its central focus an expression that is part of a rare series of The Macallan whiskies dating back to the 1920s. Bottled in 1986, the distillery is said by auction house Bonhams to have
commissioned two world-famous Pop Artists – Valerio Adami and Peter Blake – to design labels for a very limited edition of 24 bottles –12 of the Adami and 12 of the Blake labels. The bottle is elegantly presented in a specially commissioned cabinet or Tantalus, based on the traditional ‘Brass and Glass’ distillery spirit safe. It was bought by the vendor direct from the Macallan distillery for an undisclosed sum in 1994 and was part of a wider collection from the same owner offered in the sale.
Although 12 bottles of The Macallan Valerio Adami 1926 were produced, it is not known how many of them still exist. One is said to have been destroyed in an earthquake in Japan in 2011, and it is believed that at least one of them has been opened and drunk.
“I am delighted at this exceptional result,” said Bonhams Whisky specialist in Edinburgh Martin Green in a prepared statement. “It is a great honor to have established a new world record, and particularly exciting to have done so here in Scotland, the home of whisky. Bonhams now holds the record for the three most valuable bottles of whisky ever sold at auction.”
For the curious, Valerio Adami (born 1935) is an Italian artist famous for painting bold, flat forms outlined in thick, black lines, in a style reminiscent of comic art. He is among the most acclaimed of 20th Century Pop Artists.
The latest institution to reap the benefits of technology is one that’s quite surprising. A catholic church in Australia is at the center of some controversy for introducing some electronic collection plates, which allows people to use their credit cards to make donations.
The new collection plates at St. Mary’s Cathedral look pretty futuristic and they stick out a little, but they accept chip card payments which is a pretty neat feature that’s sure to come in handy. The catch is that the card minimum is $10. The controversy started in September when the Roman Catholic cathedral in Sydney made a post on Facebook showing off the collection plates and discussed how the system worked.
The church explained that they were the first church to incorporate the technology, and that multiple $10 payments could be made with different taps of your credit card. The issue that most people had with the technology was the payment minimum, which some claimed to be too high.
The Huffington Post reports that people left a lot of angry comments, prompting the church to delete the post. Users criticized the amount of money that the collection plate charged, claiming that they wouldn’t have a problem is the payment minimum was lower or if they could choose the amount of money they wanted to donate. Other Facebook commenters said they were happy with the addition of the technology, especially in those instances when they had no cash on hand.
The online video game Fortnite Battle Royale was launched just a year ago in September 2017. Since then the game had amassed 125 million active players by June and made $1.2 billion for the developer, Epic Games.
It has also been linked to 200 divorces and a case of aggravated harassment where a 45-year-old man threatened to kill an 11-year-old boy after losing to him in the game.
Love it or hate it, the question begs: How has Epic Games created a game with such enormous social, economic and psychological impact?
according to free unblocked games, Fusing elements from recent hits such as Minecraft, PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds and Overwatch, the game is deceptively simple: up to 100 players are placed in a constantly shrinking environment, and the objective is to be the last person (or team) standing.
Think Hunger Games and you’re not too far off.
Fortnite’s success rests on three principles: accessibility, sociality and spectacle.
Accessibility
The game is completely free to play and, as of August 2018, it’s available on all major platforms, from consoles to phones to PCs and Macs.
It’s very simple to play: stay alive, and if something moves, shoot it. It can also be played in very short bursts. The average match goes for 20 minutes or so.
The free-to-play business model emerged in the late 1990s as the internet drove a social and cultural shift in how we view and use entertainment. People were now less inclined to pay for a one-off, single piece of static content, and more inclined to invest in an evolving library of content accessible at any time.
This shift is often described as a move from offering a “product” to offering a “service”. Game makers were, as ever, early adopters, providing downloadable content to users for a fee.
Downloadable content became commonplace as broadband availability and smartphone adoption grew. Soon developers were releasing “freemium” games with “in-app purchases”: you can play the game for free, but gain a bunch of advantages by paying.
Related: Weedcraft Inc. Is A Tycoon Simulator For Future Ganjapreneurs
Fortnite has managed an astonishing 68.8% conversion rate, with the regular spend being US$85 (A$117). More pointedly, the average spend is 850 “V-bucks”, Fortnite’s in-game currency.
This is a classic trick of psychology known by theme parks and banks: exchange real money for something more abstract (like Disney dollars or payment by card tap), and the pain of parting with your hard-earned cash lessens.
Epic is also very active here, listening to the player base and constantly updating content to tease more V-bucks from players’ wallets.
Sociality
This leads into the second principle: Fortnite is built to be social.
When you pay, you’re mostly buying cosmetic items, such as a new outfits, dances or taunts. These items are not about providing gameplay advantages, but about players wanting to express themselves.
Accessibility once more helps. Since the game is free and on every major platform, users can play with friends whether on their phone, console or computer.
Enough play time and customisation generates a sense of psychological investment, as a person’s sense of identity becomes linked to the game.
At this point Fortnite can activate psychological triggers, often based on negative emotions such as “FOMO” (“Fear Of Missing Out”), by sending notifications on your platform of choice whenever a friend starts or joins a game. This pushes players to engage with the game once again.
Of course, the downside to this is feeling compelled to play even at inopportune moments. Thus a US survey reports that 35% of students have skipped study to play, and 20.5% of workers have missed work for Fortnite shenanigans. And, as I said earlier, an addiction to Fortnite and other online games has been mentioned in 200 divorces in the UK.
Spectacle
It’s well known by game developers that, for a player, losing a match is a horrible moment. So if you’re going to make your player fail, make failure fun.
Building on sociality, Fortnite makes failure a spectator sport. When you’re eliminated, you get to watch your team mates, or the player who eliminated you.
This is of course a prime opportunity for your antagonist to unleash their latest and greatest dance moves and taunts, but it also makes for great streaming material.
The game’s cartoonish style drives a lot of this spectacle, allowing a broad spectrum of fashion choices: from tooled-up cyberpunk ninjas firing lasers, to tomato-headed grenadiers shooting “boogie bombs” which make enemies dance upon contact.
This again reinforces accessibility and sociality, as everyone feels welcome, and everyone finds something expressive of themselves.
How long can a Fortnite last?
The question now, as with any gaming trend, is how long this can last. While games such as Pokémon Go often have blockbuster openings, revenue quickly declines.
One year on from launch, Fortnite is still going strong – at the moment –and releasing on Android in August opened up a whole new market.
Whether Epic Games can keep up the pace, offering fresh new content appealing to its player base, is an open question.
How long will people keep shooting things on Fortnite? Flickr/Whelsko, CC BY
Even as cannabis was becoming normalized in more parts of the country, there was still a deep, lingering stigma that affected the biggest and best of us during the years that Ricky Williams played football (1999-2011). The former Dolphins running back felt overwhelmed by that stigma at times during his career, but he didn’t let it stop him.
On “The Roll Up Podcast,” Williams described how, “My past kept haunting me. People didn’t want to associate with me because of my past with cannabis.” Well he took all the naysaying and criticism and turned it on its head. Now Williams has started his own cannabis brand, “Real Wellness,” which launched in March, and is available at select dispensaries in San Diego and Orange County.
“I am known as a professional football player,” Williams told the Sun Sentinel back in March. “In the last 14 years, I have been educating myself and training as a health care practitioner.” “I realized I was a healer,” he toldCNBC Make It back in March, adding that his experience with pain, anxiety put him a unique position where he has “an expertise to offer the world.”
Williams said of the many positive side effects he experienced with cannabis that, “it brought me to the realization that, you know, I’m really good at football, but this really isn’t my path, this isn’t my destiny. There’s something more I’m supposed to do here.”
Cannabis had certainly done plenty for the famous football player. “[It had] turned into something that I would do after workout and after practice to relax. One of the positive side-effects is I started to be more self-reflective and really started to understand myself more.” Which is where his idea to start a cannabis brand was likely born.
In his time with both the Saints and the Dolphins, he admitted to using cannabis throughout for the social anxiety and pains that came with playing. He’d also experimented with marijuana during high school and college, during both youthful times, he said the cannabis also helped him recover from football related injuries.
Aside from the stigma that came with using cannabis, Williams also estimates that he lost out on around $10 million in salary and endorsements for his known use. He hopes that now “Real Wellness” can make back some of that money and that he can bring healing and wellness to the people of Southern California for now. This is definitely a brand to keep an eye on as it potentially expands farther out into the rushing green.
Paper shredders and toddlers don’t mix. One of these things will destroy everything in its path. The other is a paper shredder (ba-dum ching). But seriously, try telling a small child not to play with something that looks like it came out of a sci-fi movie.
Leo Belnap, a 2-year-old from Salt Lake City, found an envelope full of money in his house and decided to shred it all for fun, since we all know how irresistible paper shredders are. Aside from the awfulness of the fact that these parents lost a thousand bucks in one quick swoop, it’s very impressive that a 2-year-old managed to work a paper shredder so effectively.
According to The Washington Post, Ben and Jackee Belnap had been saving money over the past year in order to pay back their parents for football season tickets. “I’m digging through the trash and Jackee hollers and says, ‘I found it,’” Ben told KSL. “She’s holding the shredder and she says, ‘I think the money is in here.’”
So me and my wife had been saving up to pay for our @Utah_Football tickets in cash. We pulled our money out yesterday to pay my mom for the season… Well we couldn’t find the envelope until my wife checked the shredder. Yup. 2 year old shredded $1,060. pic.twitter.com/93R9BWAVDE
Jackee Belnap said that she instantly knew that Leo was the culprit because he’d been helping his parents shred junk mail and other documents. The baby thought that he was helping his parents on this occasion, too, which is cute but also enraging.
If you weren’t the recipient of one yourself, it’s a safe assumption that you know all about the presidential alert that went out this past Wednesday — essentially a group text that included almost everyone in the country. The alert was sent out in order to test out the Wireless Emergency Alert system, which notifies Americans in case of a national emergency, natural disaster, or terrorist attack.
It was only a matter of time before the text in the emergency alert was swapped with all sorts of messages and jokes, becoming the latest meme online.
There’s not much explanation or science to this meme, which doesn’t make it any less fun. It’s pure escapism, making classic jokes such as “U up?” and referencing Harry Potter movies. Users add in all sorts of jokes and they work really well if you picture Trump voicing the messages as if they were a personal text.
Don’t worry. The president can only text you in case of a serious emergency, so if you see a text like this one in the future, it means that the world is ending or something bad is happening. Let’s just laugh with some memes and pretend that everything is okay for once. You deserve it.
Attorneys for Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who’s accused Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, released the results of a polygraph test focused on the decades-old incident. They suggest that Ford’s responses to two questions about her allegations were “not indicative of deception.”
How trustworthy is that assessment and the polygraph technology it relies on?
People have long yearned for some way to separate truth from falsehood, whether in high-stakes court cases or family kerfuffles. Over the years, inventors have developed an evolving assembly of tools and instruments aimed at figuring out whether someone is telling a lie. They’ve tried to incorporate increasingly more science, but with varying degrees of success. Society has often looked to instruments like the polygraph to inject some objectivity into the detection of deception.
As a defense lawyer, I’ve had many a client tell me that he or she did not commit the alleged crime. But I’ve never asked a client to submit to a polygraph exam: It’s high risk, low reward, and the results – while inadmissible in a criminal case – are unpredictable. Just how reliable is a polygraph at identifying who’s lying and who’s telling the truth?
Looking for signs of lies
Methods of lie detection have progressed from their torture-centric roots. Early techniques included subjecting someone to a water test: Those who sank were considered innocent, while floating indicated guilt, lies and witchcraft. Neither outcome was good news for the accused. In medieval Europe, an honest man was thought to be able to submerge his arm in boiling water longer than a liar.
Eventually people developed more humane methods, focusing on physiological factors that could be used as arbiters of truth. In the early 20th century, William Moulton Marston – self-proclaimed “father of the polygraph” – showed a strong link between systolic blood pressure and lying. Basically, spin a tale and your blood pressure rises. Martson also created the comic book character Wonder Woman, whose golden lasso can extract the truth from those it ensnares.
In 1921, physiologist John Larson, from the University of California, Berkeley, was the first to couple measurements of both blood pressure and breathing, looking at rises and drops in respiration. The Berkeley Police Department adopted his device and used it to assess the trustworthiness of witnesses.
In 1939, Larson’s protégé, Leonarde Keeler updated the system. He made it compact for travel and added a component to gauge galvanic skin response, which measures sweat gland activity that could reflect the intensity of an emotional state. His device, purchased by the FBI, was the precursor to the modern polygraph. Later versions were variations on this original.
Sensors detect changes in how the subject’s body reacts to questions from the examiner. AP Photo/Fernando Vergara
What today’s polygraph does is encapsulated in the word itself. “Poly” means many or multiple, and “-graph” means to write. The system records several physiological responses – most often perspiration, heart rate, breathing rate and blood pressure – and graphs them out visually for an examiner to interpret.
There are two most common approaches to administering a polygraph. In what’s called the Controlled Question Technique, an examiner will ask irrelevant questions, control questions and relevant questions. Then, based on what he sees in the graphical representation of the subject’s physiological responses, he will identify whether they change significantly in response to relevant questions. The underlying assumption is that deception will, due to the stress induced by lying, lead to a measurable response in the form of increased perspiration, heart rate and so on.
The second approach is known as the Guilty Knowledge Test, which is really a misnomer. It tests any knowledge of events, not just guilty knowledge. The examiner measures a subject’s response to specific questions in an attempt to discern whether the subject does in fact have personal knowledge of an event. This could be anything from knowing how many times a victim was stabbed to the color of the getaway car.
Presumably, a person who lacks knowledge of an event would not react significantly differently to the accurate answer because he or she wouldn’t know what’s right and what’s not. Meanwhile, so the logic goes, a person who has firsthand knowledge would demonstrate a physiological response. Of course, this method also has inherent limitations regarding, among other things, what types of questions may be presented.
Can polygraphs really tell truth from lies?
The efficacy of polygraphs is hotly debated in scientific and legal communities. In 2002, a review by the National Research Council found that, in populations “untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests (GKTs) can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.” Better than flipping a coin to figure out whether someone is telling the truth, but far from achieving consistent and reliable results.
The NRC warned against using polygraphs in employment screenings, but it did note that specific-incident polygraph tests in the field yield more accurate results. It seems targeted, relevant questions – for instance, “Was the robbery committed with a gun?” – meant to unmask a subject who may have a strong motive to lie or conceal information seem to work better.
Polygraphs can deliver false positives: asserting that someone is lying who is actually telling the truth. The consequences of “failing” a polygraph can be serious – from not getting a job to being labeled a serial killer.
In the 1998 Supreme Court case United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that “there is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable” and “[u]nlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors’ knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion.”
Notably, litigation over the precursor to the modern polygraph gave rise to the seminal Frye opinion from the D.C. Circuit in 1923, which held that the polygraph evidence was inadmissible in court. In 2005, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reiterated that “polygraphy did not enjoy general acceptance from the scientific community.”
The reality is that multiple factors – including nervousness in a high-stakes situation – can affect the readings detected by a polygraph machine, and give an impression that the subject is lying. For that reason, polygraphs are not generally admissible in any criminal case, even though police interrogators will sometimes trick a suspect into submitting to one. Polygraphs may be admissible in civil cases, depending on the state, and some states allow polygraph tests to be used in criminal cases if everyone agrees to it.
Better than nothing?
In short, polygraphs may offer some – albeit slight – confidence that a person is telling the truth about a particular incident. Studies have shown that when a well-trained examiner uses a polygraph, he or she can detect lying with relative accuracy.
But a polygraph is not perfect: An examiner’s interpretation is subjective, and results are idiosyncratic to the person being tested. Under the right circumstances, the polygraph allegedly can be fooled by a trained individual. Even some of my forensic evidence students “beat the test” when I bring a polygraph examiner in for a classroom demonstration.
Perhaps the 11th Circuit summed it up best: There is no Pinocchio factor associated with polygraphs. As much as we’d like a sign as obvious as a growing nose, there’s no 100 percent reliable physical sign of telling a lie.
A polygraph examination demonstrates “that the examinee believes her own story.” And perhaps that’s enough. A subject’s willingness to even submit to an exam often reveals a level of veracity and can fill a void when the other party has not similarly submitted to an exam.
Although the Mormon Church has been in vehement opposition to an initiative designed to legalize a statewide medical marijuana program, it appears that is no longer the case. An apparent “compromise” has been reached between the church, cannabis advocates and Governor Gary Herbert, according to various reports. So, just like that, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which has always maintained an anti-drug policy for its parishioners, now supports marijuana for therapeutic use.
That means that no matter what happens in the upcoming November election, medical marijuana will have an opportunity to move forward. Herbert says he intends to bring lawmakers in for a special session after the midterm election to hash out a palatable deal, regardless of how the election pans out. If voters approve Proposition 2, the initiative will be revised to make good on the compromise. If it fails, the issue will be brought to the table under a similar model.
“Today we have a group of people who’ve come together to help create a better policy than exists in Proposition 2, which will provide for us to have access to safe cannabis-based treatments and really a framework for true medical marijuana use,” Herbert saidat a press conference.
The Mormon faith was initially against the concept of medical marijuana because of concerns that it would spiral into widespread use. This attitude put the church at odds with the majority of the voters. A poll released earlier this year found 77 percent of the voting public is in support of medical marijuana.
So, the compromise, which, according to Herbert, will focus on the unintended consequences of legalization, should prove beneficial for all parties involved. It is at least a sign that the issue of medical marijuana is no longer considered taboo in conservative Utah.
But that doesn’t mean that the church supports Proposition 2. Elder Jack Gerard said it continues to oppose the language of the initiative, but that it would, to some degree, stop campaigning so desperately against it. The compromise is what the church is behind wholeheartedly.
“We believe it creates a framework that is good for patients, their caregivers, is good for children, and in our mind, that’s good for Utah,” Gerard said.
That doesn’t seem likely. The agreement reportedly has the full support of the church and the Republican-dominated state legislature. All of the controversial points included in Proposition 2 have been eliminated, which has put opposing forces at ease. The compromise will not come with a home cultivation provision, nor will permit edibles that are attractive to children. Smoking will be banned. Also, medical marijuana will be distributed exclusively through local health departments.
Still, medical marijuana advocates were quick to take the deal to prevent foreseeable hassles if Proposition 2 was victorious at the polls.
This week I completed a forty day stay at a treatment center for alcohol addiction and remain in outpatient care.
The support I have received from my family, colleagues and fans means more to me than I can say. It’s given me the strength and support to speak about my illness with others.
Battling any addiction is a lifelong and difficult struggle. Because of that, one is never really in or out of treatment. It is a full-time commitment. I am fighting for myself and my family. So many people have reached out on social media and spoken about their own journeys with addiction. To those people, I want to say thank you. Your strength is inspiring and is supporting me in ways I didn’t think was possible. It helps to know I am not alone. As I’ve had to remind myself, if you have a problem, getting help is a sign of courage, not weakness or failure.
With acceptance and humility, I continue to avail myself with the help of so many people and I am grateful to all those who are there for me. I hope down the road I can offer an example to others who are struggling.
Brad Pitt has sparked fresh dating rumours after being spotted on a night out with a female pal in LA. The actor, 54, was joined by jewelry designer and holistic therapist Sat Hari Khalsa at the Silverlake Conservatory of Music annual charity bash this week. The pair were seen smiling and laughing as they chatted closely at the event.
A clean-shaven Brad kept a low-profile in his dark flat cap and blazer, while Sat was wearing a white dress underneath a white cardigan. Some US reports said he arrived with her, but a source said they are just friends. The event was hosted by Brad’s good friend, Flea from Red Hot Chilli Peppers, who also founded the charity. Sat previously joined the Chilli Peppers on tour as their holistic nurse.
Everybody remembers the infamous kiss Britney Spears and Madonna shared at the 2003 MTV Video Music Awards, but not everybody remembers that Christina Aguilera was there too.
During an interview with Andy Cohen on SiriusXM’s Radio, Cohen asked Aguilera, 37, if she felt bothered that her role in the performance didn’t get the same kind of press, even though she also locked lips with the “Like a Virgin” singer.
“It was weird,” Aguilera, who recently kicked off her Liberation Tour, admitted. “And you know why they cut it? The cut away to get Justin [Timberlake]’s reaction.”“She can have her kiss, it’s okay,” she added. Aguilera also said that she would love to see Britney again.
“I would love to reconnect somehow and have a tea date or something with Britney,” she admitted. Continuing, she remarked, “I don’t know, I think that would be really fun after all these years, both being mamma bears now.”
Like a fine wine or George Clooney, many things improve with age: wisdom, the ability to tune people out on social media, the art of saying “no” …and now we can add self-esteem to the list.
According to a recent study published in the journal Psychological Bulletin, 60-years-old seems to be the magic number for our self-confidence levels, which may stick around for a full decade. Researchers studied data from more than 164,000 people.
Results showed that average levels of self-esteem increased from age 4 to 11 years, remained stable from age 11 to 15, increased strongly until age 30, continued to increase until age 60, peaked at age 60 and remained constant until age 70, declined slightly until age 90.
The analysis revealed that “people’s self-esteem changes in systematic ways over the life course.” On average, self-esteem increases in early and middle childhood, remains constant in adolescence, increases strongly in young adulthood, continues to increase in middle adulthood, peaks between age 60 and 70 years, and then declines in old age, with a sharper drop in very old age.
“Midlife is, for many adults, a time of highly stable life circumstances in domains such as relationships and work. Moreover, during middle adulthood, most individuals further invest in the social roles they hold, which might promote their self-esteem,” study co-author Ulrich Orth, a professor of psychology at the University of Bern in Switzerland, told TIME.
Up until this extensive study, it was assumed that confidence levels would take a hit during the “awkward” teenage years, but that’s not the case at all. Instead, it plummets in old age. Explains Orth: “Old age frequently involves loss of social roles as a result of retirement, the empty nest, and, possibly, widowhood, all of which are factors that may threaten self-esteem. In addition, aging often leads to negative changes in other possible sources of self-esteem, such as socioeconomic status, cognitive abilities and health.”
The pattern of findings from the study holds across gender, country, ethnicity, and birth cohort.
