Fake Steve Jobs, a wildÂly popÂuÂlar blog writÂten by Daniel Lyons, an ediÂtor at Forbes, has been goofÂing on the real Steve Jobs all year. And now things have takÂen an odd turn. DurÂing the same week that Apple apparÂentÂly shut down ThinkSecret.com (an Apple rumor site) in exchange for cash, Apple may be applyÂing simÂiÂlar presÂsure to Fake Steve Jobs. Or maybe not.
If today’s blog post can be takÂen at face valÂue, Apple lawyers have folÂlowed up hard-assed threats with a cash offer (of $500,000) to make FSJ go away. The recent posts all sound conÂvincÂing. But then you note the refÂerÂences to Andy KaufÂman, the masÂter of walkÂing the line between comÂplete sinÂcerÂiÂty and absurÂdiÂty. First, there’s the picÂture of KaufÂman getÂting strong armed durÂing one of his famous wrestling matchÂes with women. Next, there’s the refÂerÂence to a “Tony Clifton,” which is the name givÂen to a strange bit charÂacÂter KaufÂman played durÂing the 1970s (see below).
FSJ is a satire site, and you shouldÂn’t get fooled. But you do. Just like the inevitable dupe does every April 1. Good stuff.
Here are a few facts to know about the advenÂturÂous Patrick Hunt. He’s a StanÂford archaeÂolÂoÂgist who has spent more than a decade tryÂing to unravÂel the mysÂtery of how HanÂniÂbal, the great ancient milÂiÂtary leader, crossed the Alps in 218 BCE with 25,000 men and 37 eleÂphants. (LisÂten on iTunes to the course he gave on this advenÂture, and get more info below). He has broÂken more than 20 bones while doing fieldÂwork, fought off kidÂnapÂpers, and twice surÂvived sunÂstroke-induced blindÂness. And now he has just pubÂlished an excitÂing new book called Ten DisÂcovÂerÂies That Rewrote HisÂtoÂry. It’s pubÂlished by Penguin/Plume and starts shipÂping tomorÂrow. I asked Patrick what makes these disÂcovÂerÂies — rangÂing from the RosetÂta Stone to the Dead Sea Scrolls to Machu PicÂchu— so imporÂtant. Below he gives us a brief glimpse into what makes each disÂcovÂery hisÂtorÂiÂcalÂly sigÂnifÂiÂcant and fasÂciÂnatÂing. Read on, and check out his capÂtiÂvatÂing new book for the fuller picÂture.
Patrick Hunt: “First I should say that not every archaeÂolÂoÂgist would agree that these are the ten most imporÂtant disÂcovÂerÂies of all time. On the othÂer hand, the ten stoÂries retold in this book are often regardÂed as among the most excitÂing archaeÂoÂlogÂiÂcal disÂcovÂerÂies of the modÂern era (since 1750). And no one would deny that these ten vital disÂcovÂerÂies have forÂevÂer changed the world of archaeÂolÂoÂgy, transÂformÂing how and what we know about ancient hisÂtoÂry. Let me tell you a litÂtle about them.
1) RosetÂta Stone: This excitÂing disÂcovÂery in 1799 was the key to deciÂpherÂing EgyptÂian hieroÂglyphs and unlockÂing the hisÂtoÂry of the ancient world texts. It proÂvides a winÂdow into the real hisÂtoÂry of Egypt rather than an imagÂiÂnary one; all othÂer deciÂpherÂings of ancient lanÂguages since the RosetÂta Stone’s iniÂtial decodÂing in 1822 are based on its preceÂdents. (See phoÂto here.)
2) Troy: Its disÂcovÂery and excaÂvaÂtion beginÂning in 1870 proved once and for all that Troy was not just a myth based on Homer; Troy was a hisÂtorÂiÂcal site where real peoÂple lived and fought. Its earÂliÂest excaÂvaÂtor, the oft-maligned and often-unethÂiÂcal HeinÂrich SchlieÂmann has been mostÂly credÂitÂed — right or wrong — as being the “Father of ArchaeÂolÂoÂgy” and his techÂniques became the founÂdaÂtion of archaeÂoÂlogÂiÂcal research, howÂevÂer greatÂly improved, afterÂward.
3) NinÂeveh and the RoyÂal AssyrÂiÂan Library: This rivÂetÂing find beginÂning in 1849 by Austen HenÂry Layard, a sleuth of antiqÂuiÂty, evenÂtuÂalÂly unearthed a whole lost library of cuneiform texts, includÂing ones not only from ancient AssyrÂia but also from far oldÂer Sumer, Akkad, BabyÂlon and othÂer great civÂiÂlizaÂtions. This had a very sigÂnifÂiÂcant impact on world litÂerÂaÂture, introÂducÂing such semÂiÂnal works as the Epic of GilÂgamesh.
4) King Tut’s Tomb: The draÂmatÂic openÂing of this royÂal tomb in 1922 — sought for years by a deterÂmined Howard Carter — was the first time in milÂlenÂnia a pharaoÂh’s tomb had actuÂalÂly been found intact; its treaÂsure gave the world a unique opporÂtuÂniÂty to actuÂalÂly account for stagÂgerÂing EgyptÂian royÂal wealth. [Dan’s note: NationÂal GeoÂgraphÂic has a nice web site on this archaeÂoÂlogÂiÂcal find.]
5) Machu PicÂchu: The remarkÂable high junÂgle mounÂtain disÂcovÂery in 1911 of the remote Lost City of the Inca by Hiram BingÂham made it posÂsiÂble for the world to finalÂly see an undisÂturbed Inca royÂal city mysÂteÂriÂousÂly abanÂdoned on a mounÂtainÂtop but neiÂther conÂquered nor changed by the coloÂnial world. (See phoÂto here.)
6) PomÂpeii: PreÂserved by the erupÂtion of VesuÂvius in AD 79 and not dug out for almost two milÂlenÂnia, PomÂpeii (probÂaÂbly acciÂdenÂtalÂly found by a farmer digÂging a well) is the sinÂgle most imporÂtant Roman site in the world; its artiÂfacts offer the largest and fullest record of life in a Roman city. PomÂpeiÂi’s misÂforÂtune is our great forÂtune. It preÂserves a city with thouÂsands of objects virÂtuÂalÂly unchanged. (See images here.)
Back in OctoÂber, RidÂley Scott released a final and definÂiÂtive direcÂtor’s cut of Blade RunÂner, preÂsentÂing to audiÂences the film that he would have made if stuÂdio execs hadÂn’t medÂdled with things. A short two months latÂer, the final cut is now out on DVD. It was released yesÂterÂday, bareÂly in time for the holÂiÂdays. For more on the makÂing and remakÂing of Blade RunÂner, you can lisÂten to this recent interÂview with RidÂley Scott.
The New York Times has a nice piece today on uniÂverÂsiÂty podÂcasts and how they’re turnÂing some proÂfesÂsors into interÂnaÂtionÂal stars. The artiÂcle gives speÂcial attenÂtion to WalÂter Lewin, an MIT physics proÂfesÂsor, and highÂlights coursÂes that you’ll find in our listÂing of free uniÂverÂsiÂty coursÂes. Just as an aside, the artiÂcle menÂtions at least one course that yours truÂly helped put togethÂer.
We dug back through the hisÂtorÂiÂcal data and isoÂlatÂed the 15 most viewed posts of the year. If you’re lookÂing for a trend, one will leap out. PeoÂple like numÂbered lists. Hence anothÂer one:
YesÂterÂday, Yale announced that it is proÂvidÂing “free and open access to sevÂen introÂducÂtoÂry coursÂes taught by disÂtinÂguished teachÂers and scholÂars at Yale UniÂverÂsiÂty.” I’ve listÂed the course lineÂup below, with links to each course. You can access the homeÂpage for the project here.
With this launch, Yale becomes the latÂest presÂtiÂgious AmerÂiÂcan uniÂverÂsiÂty to give globÂal users access to online eduÂcaÂtionÂal conÂtent. But its approach is rather difÂferÂent. The high proÂfile iniÂtiaÂtives led by MIT and UC BerkeÂley both delivÂer high volÂumes of conÂtent, and they’re designed to be scalÂable. (MIT gives users access to mass quanÂtiÂties of course mateÂriÂals creÂatÂed by its facÂulÂty, while BerkeÂley disÂtribÂutes through iTunes and YouTube over 50 coursÂes that the uniÂverÂsiÂty records at a reaÂsonÂable cost.) In conÂtrast, Yale’s project is more bouÂtique and high-touch.
Each course feaÂtures a sylÂlabus, readÂing assignÂments, class notes, and polÂished lecÂtures, which, when takÂen togethÂer, conÂtribute to a more roundÂed learnÂing expeÂriÂence. The lecÂtures can be downÂloaded in one of five forÂmats (text, audio, flash video, low bandÂwidth quickÂtime video, and high bandÂwidth quickÂtime video). And quite notably, Yale has designed the coursÂes to be downÂloaded fairÂly easÂiÂly, which means that you can put the lecÂtures onto an mp3 playÂer if you’re a litÂtle tech savvy. This does raise the quesÂtion, howÂevÂer: why aren’t the lecÂtures also postÂed on Yale’s iTunes site? This would sureÂly facilÂiÂtate the downÂloadÂing of lecÂtures for many users, and it would offer an easy way to driÂve subÂstanÂtial trafÂfic to the coursÂes.
As some have already notÂed (see the comÂments on this page), Yale isn’t offerÂing online coursÂes in the truest sense, meanÂing you won’t get access to a live instrucÂtor here. Nor will you be able to interÂact with othÂer stuÂdents. It’s a one-way, soliÂtary eduÂcaÂtionÂal expeÂriÂence. But there’s a reaÂson for that. Not long ago, Yale experÂiÂmentÂed with a more comÂpreÂhenÂsive form of online learnÂing when it creÂatÂed, along with StanÂford and Oxford, an e‑learning conÂsorÂtium called “The Alliance for LifeÂlong LearnÂing” (a/k/a AllÂLearn). For many reaÂsons, the venÂture (where I spent five years) wasÂn’t ultiÂmatÂley viable. And so Yale has optÂed for anothÂer modÂel that has its own virtues — it’s less capÂiÂtal intenÂsive; it’s free (AllÂLearn charged for its coursÂes); and it will get eduÂcaÂtionÂal mateÂriÂals into far more peoÂple’s hands, which is perÂhaps what matÂters most.
As a quick note, let me add that this project was fundÂed by the Hewlett FounÂdaÂtion, and Yale expects to add up to 30 addiÂtionÂal coursÂes over the next sevÂerÂal years.
To visÂit Yale’s open coursÂes, visÂit the folÂlowÂing links:
As many now know, Google announced FriÂday that it’s testÂing a new conÂtent iniÂtiaÂtive — dubbed “knol” — that it hopes will rival Wikipedia. RealÂizÂing that Wikipedia entries rank first on 27% of all Google search result pages, the folks at GoogleÂplex couldÂn’t resist launchÂing a comÂpetÂiÂtive prodÂuct. In announcÂing “knol,” the comÂpaÂny highÂlightÂed two probÂlems that this new conÂtent prodÂuct will address:
1) “There are milÂlions of peoÂple who posÂsess useÂful knowlÂedge that they would love to share,” but they don’t share that knowlÂedge “because it is not easy enough to do that.”
2) “The key idea behind the knol project is to highÂlight authors. Books have authors’ names right on the covÂer, news artiÂcles have bylines, sciÂenÂtifÂic artiÂcles always have authors — but someÂhow the web evolved withÂout a strong stanÂdard to keep authors names highÂlightÂed. We believe that knowÂing who wrote what will sigÂnifÂiÂcantÂly help users make betÂter use of web conÂtent.”
How “knol” attempts to solve these probÂlems is fairÂly straightÂforÂward. It will proÂvide experts with user-friendÂly temÂplates for writÂing and pubÂlishÂing encyÂcloÂpeÂdia entries (or “knols”) on the web. And since a picÂture is apparÂentÂly worth a thouÂsand words, I recÂomÂmend that you take a look at a samÂple screenÂshot here. DepartÂing from Wikipedia, Google’s project will cater to the indiÂvidÂual author, not comÂmuÂniÂties of authors. And it will encourÂage many encyÂcloÂpeÂdia entries on the same topÂic, as opposed to one uniÂfied text. Google then assumes that the cream will rise to the top. If 20 peoÂple craft “knols” on “string theÂoÂry,” then the best one — preÂsumÂably the one that gets the most links from qualÂiÂty sites — will rise highÂest in the search rankÂings.
Google’s conÂcept is not altoÂgethÂer bad. But it’s also one of the more ordiÂnary ideas to come out of MounÂtain View, and I’m guessÂing that the results will fall short of corÂpoÂrate expecÂtaÂtions. Here’s why:
Most funÂdaÂmenÂtalÂly, the inforÂmaÂtion genÂerÂatÂed by these “knols” will be subÂstanÂdard comÂpared to what you’ll find on Wikipedia. Although the screenÂshot proÂvidÂed by Google niceÂly feaÂtured a StanÂford UniÂverÂsiÂty scholÂar writÂing on “InsomÂnia,” the realÂiÂty is that few experts of this stature will take the time to conÂtribute. Take my word for it. I’ve spent the past five years tryÂing to get scholÂars from elite uniÂverÂsiÂties, includÂing StanÂford, to bring their ideas to the outÂside world, and it’s often not their first priÂorÂiÂty. They just have too many othÂer things comÂpetÂing for their time. More often than not, Google’s knols will be writÂten by authors with lessÂer, if not dubiÂous, creÂdenÂtials. The mediocre entries will be many; the great ones, few. And this will leave Google’s conÂtent in a weakÂer posiÂtion relÂaÂtive to Wikipedia.
To be clear, WikipediÂa’s overÂall talÂent pool may not be much betÂter. But WikipediÂa’s modÂel has an imporÂtant built-in advanÂtage. A comÂmuÂniÂty of writÂers focusÂing on the same text will corÂrect one anothÂer and improve the overÂall prodÂuct over time. The final text becomes greater than the sum of its authors. MeanÂwhile, Google’s modÂel, which will proÂduce a proÂlifÂerÂaÂtion of lackÂlusÂter entries on the same subÂject, doesÂn’t include any kind of strong self-corÂrectÂing mechÂaÂnism that will improve the entries. The comÂpaÂny seems to think that user feedÂback, name recogÂniÂtion, and a share of ad revÂenue (which probÂaÂbly won’t amount to much) will do the trick. But that seems like wishÂful thinkÂing, and I’m basÂing that on sevÂerÂal years of workÂing at About.com, which inteÂgratÂed many of the same eleÂments into its modÂel. Strike one against Google.
If you’re lookÂing for Strikes 2 and 3, let me outÂline them briefly.
Strike 2 comes down to false premisÂes: When you step back and examÂine Google’s reaÂsons for creÂatÂing project “knol,” they don’t hold up to scrutiÂny. These days, pubÂlishÂing on the web is fairÂly dumÂmy proof. Free blogÂging softÂware,Google Page CreÂator, Yahoo’s GeocÂiÂties and Wikipedia — these tools have made it incredÂiÂbly easy to pubÂlish to the web. (SomeÂhow, writÂers have figÂured out how to post 2,125,453 artiÂcles to Wikipedia.) The arguÂment that techÂnolÂoÂgy is holdÂing back would-be encyÂcloÂpeÂdia writÂers just doesÂn’t fly. Nor does the notion that we’d get betÂter qualÂiÂty encyÂcloÂpeÂdia entries if only authors could attach their names to what they write. On the one hand, anonymiÂty hasÂn’t slowed down Wikipedia at all. On the othÂer, many legitÂiÂmate experts will see writÂing “knols” as being a slight step above “vanÂiÂty” pubÂlishÂing, but not much more. In short, not a good use of their time.
Strike 3 turns on momenÂtum and the lack of game-changÂing funcÂtionÂalÂiÂty: Not long after YouTube launched and proved the viaÂbilÂiÂty of video sharÂing, Google creÂatÂed its own comÂpetÂiÂtive unit, Google Video. By the next year, Google realÂized it would nevÂer catch up and bought YouTube for $1.65 bilÂlion. Wikipedia, in comÂparÂiÂson, has had a much longer head start. For six years, it has been refinÂing its modÂel, growÂing trafÂfic, and gainÂing user loyÂalÂty. That’s a subÂstanÂtial and most likeÂly insurÂmountÂable lead. True, once upon a time a young Google came out of nowhere and knocked an estabÂlished Yahoo out of its leadÂerÂship role. But that hapÂpened when Google brought its game-changÂing search techÂnolÂoÂgy to marÂket. With “knol,” howÂevÂer, there’s no such game-changÂing techÂnolÂoÂgy on disÂplay — nothÂing that subÂstanÂtialÂly changes how knowlÂedge gets creÂatÂed. Google and its engiÂneers cerÂtainÂly excel at manÂagÂing knowlÂedge and proÂduce many great prodÂucts (for which I’m perÂsonÂalÂly thankÂful). But getÂting into the knowlÂedge creÂation busiÂness may pose new chalÂlenges, ones that will require the Google staff to go beyond algoÂrithms and thinkÂing in terms of 0s and 1s.
We're hoping to rely on loyal readers, rather than erratic ads. Please click the Donate button and support Open Culture. You can use Paypal, Venmo, Patreon, even Crypto! We thank you!
Open Culture scours the web for the best educational media. We find the free courses and audio books you need, the language lessons & educational videos you want, and plenty of enlightenment in between.
Fake Steve Jobs, a wildÂly popÂuÂlar blog writÂten by Daniel Lyons, an ediÂtor at Forbes, has been goofÂing on the real Steve Jobs all year. And now things have takÂen an odd turn. DurÂing the same week that Apple apparÂentÂly shut down ThinkSecret.com (an Apple rumor site) in exchange for cash, Apple may be applyÂing simÂiÂlar presÂsure to Fake Steve Jobs. Or maybe not.
