Posts Tagged Metro Areas

New Commercials For Old Milwaukee Beer Feature Group Of Friends Contemplating Suicide | The Onion – America’s Finest News Source


New Commercials For Old Milwaukee Beer Feature Group Of Friends Contemplating Suicide

JUNE 22, 2012

One of several nearly silent advertisements set to air nationally.

WOODRIDGE, IL—Old Milwaukee beer announced Friday the launch of a new series of commercials featuring a group of friends despondently contemplating suicide while drinking the alcoholic beverage and sitting in darkened apartments.

According to company spokesperson Jim Sloman, the ads are intended to reflect the experience of a large segment of the Old Milwaukee customer base, namely those for whom the daily indignities and humiliations of life have almost become too much to bear, and who increasingly see no solution other than killing themselves.

“We’re confident consumers of Old Milwaukee will strongly relate to these drunk, hopeless, broken down men joylessly downing beer after beer while listlessly watching television and discussing in flat monotones whether there’s any compelling reason why they shouldn’t just end it all,” Sloman said following a screening of a TV spot in which a pale, sunken-eyed man opens his ninth Old Milwaukee, stares at it blankly, and then puts it down untouched after realizing that nothing is helping. “Extensive market research has shown these scenes are quite authentic in terms of how a great number of Americans enjoy the crisp, delicious taste of Old Milwaukee beer.”

Old Milwaukee reps say the new advertising campaign will “really strike a chord” with their consumer base.

 

Sloman said the commercials will have elements of continuity tying them together in a loose narrative, including a character named Randall who, irrespective of anything else being said in the commercial or whether anyone is even listening to him, only looks at the floor and says, “Erica…Erica…where did it all go wrong?” Additionally, one or more characters will end each ad by offhandedly muttering Old Milwaukee’s new slogan, “Honestly, what’s the fucking point?”

One of the more conceptual commercials in the campaign simultaneously shows the four friends alone in their respective homes, with each engaged in a different activity: One puts a gun in his mouth for a full 10 seconds before removing it, burying his head in his hands, and sobbing loudly; another tries to masturbate but is unable to achieve an erection; and the remaining two characters whisper prayers to God to please just kill them and end the suffering.

“I imagine these spots will have a lot of Old Milwaukee drinkers thinking, ‘Hey! How did you guys get a camera into my house?’” said Sloman, who along with the assembled reporters erupted into laughter.

According to a press release, the commercials will run on network and basic cable television between the hours of 3 a.m. and 6 a.m., when members of the target demographic are typically thinking about going out to their garages and running their cars until they die of carbon monoxide poisoning.

“We’re planning some really fun tie-ins with the new campaign,” advertising director Jill Eisenhard said. “If you somehow gather the mental wherewithal to collect 30 UPC labels and mail them to our promotions department, we’ll send you an Old Milwaukee pen and notepad set, perfect for scrawling down your tear-stained final words.”

When asked whether the company was concerned that the new ads would diminish their sales due to mass suicides, Eisenhard expressed confidence that the Old Milwaukee brand could always rely on a new group of suicidal customers reaching drinking age.

“Since its founding in 1890, those who have been left hopeless by life—and, more generally, by the immutable tragedy of the human condition—have always provided the primary revenue stream for Old Milwaukee products,” Eisenhard said. “That will never change.”

 New Commercials For Old Milwaukee Beer Feature Group Of Friends Contemplating Suicide | The Onion – America’s Finest News Source.

, , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Should New York City Expand Its Network of Trash-Sucking Vacuum Tubes? | Motherboard


Should New York City Expand Its Network of Trash-Sucking Vacuum Tubes?

Posted by Alex_Pasternack on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012

  • Trash-vacuum-tubes_large

When urban planners were trying to turn New York’s Roosevelt Island from a haven for the disabled and the mentally ill into a liveable city, they got utopian. Lying beneath their plans was an unusual technology: a series of tubes that literally suck garbage from buildings at speeds up to 60 miles per hour to a central collection point, where the trash is taken off the island by truck or barge. Theoretically, that eliminates the emissions and traffic caused by giant garbage trucks, and makes trash sorting easier.

Now, more than thirty years after the “AVAC,” or Automated Vacuum Collection System, was installed, Envac, the Swedish company that built it, is exploring how to upgrade it and even extend the system to other parts of the city. Under a new feasibility study conducted by City University and funded by two city agencies, the easiest option would be to stretch the current system south, to cover the new technology campuses being built on Roosevelt Island by Cornell University and the Technion. Other potential trash tube candidates include the Coney Island boardwalk, in a new housing development there, and near Chelsea neighborhood in Manhattan. There, according to Envac’s new proposal, the tubes could ride underneath the infrastructure of the High Line, the hip railway-cum-park that floats along the neighborhood’s increasingly hip river-side edge. “We can retrofit in dense urban areas so we don’t have to rip up the street,” said Rosina Abramson, who cut her teeth on the system as an official on Roosevelt Island and now runs Envac’s U.S. operations.

Envac, which bills itself as “the global market leader in automated vacuum waste collection,” has built around 600 systems in the Middle East, England, Southern Europe and Asia. New systems are currently being built for new residential developments in Helsinki, Qatar, and Quebec. The first urban scale system in the world was installed in Stockholm’s Sundbyberg development in 1966, and its still running today.

The U.S. got its start in trash tubes in 1969. Under a plan that year for new technology called “Operation Breakthrough,” the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed the installation of a pneumatic collection system into a new 500-unit housing project in Jersey City. When it was completed in 1974, the complex, now called Summit Plaza, boasted the first pneumatic collection system for residential refuse in the US. By then, Envac had already constructed a demonstration system in the U.S: in 1971, a similar system began operating at Disney World, where it continues to run. Others would pop up around the globe: Munich Olympic Village in 1972, Parque Central, Caracas in 1973, and Chertanovo, Moscow in 1975.

When Roosevelt Island’s system was finished in 1976, it became the first and only such system to be installed on an urban scale in the U.S. The pneumatic tube system, said Mayor John Lindsay in 1969, “could one day replace garbage cans and household incinerators.”

Disney’s garbage tube system was completed in 1971.

One of the first innovations in garbage disposal arrived in 1938, with American architect John W. Hammes’ garbage disposal, a small grinder that fits under the sink and processes food waste before flushing it into the sewer system. It was in the 1950s when the idea for vacuum collection first emerged. In 1951, the first patent was issued to an American engineer who designed a system for collecting soiled linen, for Eastern Cyclone Industries. But it was up to the Swedes to invent a system for household refuse.

You can practically smell the benefits of turning trash collection over to a giant vacuum. Gone would be garbage trucks, eliminating traffic and noise, and even overflowing trash receptacles could be a thing of the past. While these systems rely on lots of electricity to create enough suction and must inevitably cope with ugly blockages – Christmas trees, exercise equipment, computers, shelving and vacuum cleaners have turned up inside the Roosevelt Island system – they take street emissions out of the trash equation. “There are not odors. No spills. No vermin,” Abramson told Forbes. “It facilitates recycling too, because you drop it in and there it goes.”

In 2010 I asked Juliette Spertus, the curator of an exhibit on the system, whether she thought this was a good idea or the product of Jetsons-era whimsy. She wasn’t so sure.

“Pneumatic collection is not always the answer,” she wrote by email. “It is not cost effective in low density areas. Even in areas that use pneumatic systems, not everything is collected through the tubes. Bulk wastes: appliances, furniture, etc. can’t be fed into a tube the way they are fed into the back of a garbage truck. And there is the issue of how much to include. For example, Barcelona chose only organics and refuse. Recyclables are less volatile and pick ups are less frequent so the city decided to continue collecting them by truck. These decisions tend to have more to do with local waste management policy than technical parameters.

A 1976 advertisement for Roosevelt Island’s garbage tube system. See a diagram drawn by middle schoolers here

There’s a lesson to be learned however just by thinking about garbage tubes. “However, even the major disadvantages, start up cost and administrative complexity (where should the pipes go and who is responsible for them), are opportunities to bring service infrastructure into the design discussion and raise important questions about public space. This is what drew me in. To install a pneumatic system, or any alternative to trucks, a municipality or developer has to quantify the real cost of the current strategy, weigh the benefits, and project into the future. This seems like an invaluable exercise no matter what the outcome is. I think that developers and municipalities are remiss if they do not explore pneumatic collection anytime they are putting in new underground infrastructure.”

The trash tubers come back at the right time, maybe: New York happens to be in the midst of a series of giant underground construction projects, like the extension of the no. 7 line and the 2nd Avenue Subway project. That could make construction of new piping much cheaper and easier than it would otherwise be. And the city’s got plenty of garbage problems.

Then again, the city already has a vibrant and powerful refuse collection industry that might be loathe to cede their pick-up routes to a bunch of Swedish vacuum tubes. “The private carting industry stands to benefit from automated trash collection delivering solid waste and recyclables in compacted separate containers,” reads a statement from Envac about the new feasibility study, which is funded by New York State Energy Research Agency and the New York State Department of Transportation. Even if its organized crime ties have beenwhittled down, this is not an industry that takes kindly to upgrades.

That’s too bad. One of the more compelling opportunities with a more automated trash system would be the ability to more automatically levy charges on individuals per the amount of garbage they discard. Under a digital pay as you throw scheme, residents in a residential building would only be able to open the doors to receptacles in their area using RFID cards. Costs would be assesed by sensors, which can weigh the garbage, recyclables and compostables. That sounds annoying, but such schemes have already been credited in the U.S. with reducing residential waste increasing recycling. By keeping better track of how we throw out, we might become more responsible trash disposers too. While recycling’s on the rise in the U.S., an estimated 77 percent of the plastic in the U.S. still ends up in overflowing landfills. According to the EPA, the total amount of municipal solid waste in the U.S. grew from 151.6 million tons in 1980 to 249.9 millions tons in 2010.

The control panel for Roosevelt Island’s system (Jonathan Snyder/Wired.com)

But keeping better track of trash and charging for its disposal don’t require a giant pneumatic tube system. And right now, the future of trash tubes in New York remains mostly speculative, less a game-changer than a blast from a paleofuture past when the underground looked ripe for pneumatic tubes for virtually anything. Despite all the beauty of automation, the aging Roosevelt Island network still requires some very dirty manual work. When part of the tube springs a leak, the system’s last resort, as Greg Whitmore’s documentary shows, below, is a small, anonymous Swedish man who must crawl into the trash tube and repair it with glue.

“Nature Abhors a Vacuum,” Greg Whitmore’s short documentary on Roosevelt Island’s trash system.
Photos by Jonathan Snyder/Wired.com

Should New York City Expand Its Network of Trash-Sucking Vacuum Tubes? | Motherboard.

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Nation Mesmerized By Spurs’ Dazzling Pass-Screen-Pass-Shoot Brand Of Offense | The Onion – America’s Finest News Source


Nation Mesmerized By Spurs’ Dazzling Pass-Screen-Pass-Shoot Brand Of Offense

MAY 25, 2012

 

SAN ANTONIO—In arenas, sports bars, and homes throughout the country, the San Antonio Spurs’ dominating run through the playoffs has transfixed the nation with the breathtaking spectacle of their pass-screen-pass-shoot offense. “There they go, passing, doing a screen, passing again, and shooting the ball!” said South Dakota resident Roger Siler as he reviewed Spurs highlights on his computer. “Sometimes you think they won’t pass it that second time, but then they do. They almost always do! And then they shoot the ball, scoring points. Wow.” Perhaps even more thrilling is the fact that before viewers can get a chance to catch their breath, Americans say, the Spurs then get back on defense.

 Nation Mesmerized By Spurs’ Dazzling Pass-Screen-Pass-Shoot Brand Of Offense | The Onion – America’s Finest News Source.

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Why I refuse to text message – Life stories – Salon.com


TUESDAY, OCT 25, 2011

Why I refuse to text message

I don’t care how convenient it is, or how many friends pity me for my decision. I’m holding out — here’s why

 

 

refuse to text

 

Three years ago I received a text message that read: “Dude, you have another book coming out?” Naturally, the text was unsigned. In lieu of a signature, I was provided a New York City phone number, which I did not recognize.

Not wanting to be rude, particularly to someone from New York City asking about a book, I decided to text back a response, something I had never done before.

I wanted to type, “Who are you?” But I knew that no one actually types out words such as “are” and “you” anymore. I also had no idea how to make a space between words, or a question mark. I wound up typing:Whoru

Almost immediately, I received this: Did you just call me a whore?

I frantically thumbed my reply, making a couple dozen errors on my way to this gem: nosorrydontknowhowtotext.

It never occurred to me simply to call the number and speak to the human who sent the message. That seemed somehow too forward. If my interlocutor had wanted to talk on the phone, after all, he or she would have called.

In the spirit of full disclosure, the texter in question turned out to be my editor at Salon. (Hi, Sarah!) She has not texted me again.

Now look: I am not one of those cranky old Luddites who greets every new technological innovation as another chink in the armor of civility. Nor am I seeking to indict, or inflame, the growing legion of texters. I certainly understand the appeal of text messages. It’s a form of communication that suits the American lust for efficiency. Why engage in a whole awkward, messy human conversation if all you need to do is transfer information, or a quick anodyne sentiment?

I also realize that people who are younger than me (people who don’t, for instance, remember a time when Apple was a record label) have grown up communicating primarily by typing into machines. To them, it feels more natural to use little blips of prose than to speak directly, in real time, on a telephone.

But it is worth pointing out that in the past few years the culture of communication in the developed world has undergone a pretty radical shift. You either text, or you don’t text — and the fault line between these two camps grows ever wider.

We’ve now reached the point where texters feel empowered to be openly hostile to those of us who can’t, or won’t, text. Email is, to them, a laughably primitive medium, akin to smoke signals. And thus I keep hearing the same condescending four-word refrain: “Why didn’t you text?” Or sometimes, “Check your texts, dude.”

The world of texters is sort of sorry I missed that rendezvous and that magazine assignment and that free ticket to the Red Sox. But mostly, they’re sorry I’m a sad loser who doesn’t text.

A few weeks ago, for instance, I visited friends in Portland. I kept calling them on their cellphones, and they kept replying with text messages. I eventually met up with one of them at a bar. But before we could even speak a word to one another, we had to deal with this accumulated tension.

And thus I began (as I so often do) by asking just the wrong question. “Don’t you ever talk on the phone anymore?”

My friend narrowed her eyes. I suspected she was furious. I certainly was. But rather than telling me to go to hell, she turned to a third friend and explained, “He doesn’t text.” What struck me was her tone. It wasn’t cruel so much as pitying. She might as well have said, “He doesn’t drive.” Or perhaps, “He doesn’t know how to read.”

I continue to receive text messages from people who clearly know me. Mostly, they’re writing because my name has somehow come up in conversation. It’s a sweet impulse, in other words. But because I only see their message and a phone number (since they’re apparently not close enough to be saved in my contact list) I usually have no idea who they are.

Weeks, or sometimes months later, when I see them again, they’ll ask if I ever got their “message,” and I’ll say no, because I assume they mean a phone message. Then they think I’m lying. And I’m left to ponder why they’re guilt-tripping me. And really, the best result I can hope for is that we reach that familiar text/non-texter impasse, which ends with them asking, “Dude, why don’t you text?”

In the grand scheme of things this is penny-ante stuff. The reason I find the text revolution so dispiriting has more to do with the actual human dynamics of our culture.

By which I mean that there’s a growing tribe of people whose bodies may be situated in a public setting, such as seated across from you in a restaurant, but whose brains and heart belong to a device.

This was true in the age of the Palm Pilot, oh so many years ago. But the Palm Pilot geeks (my brother was one of them) were still sort of outliers. You could listen to them go on about how they’d just organized their entire event calendar and cross referenced it with their budget spreadsheet and the whole thing was, you know, kind of cute in a wonky way.

Then came the BlackBerry vanguard. But that seemed limited to frantic and overachieving business people.

With the advent of smart phones, I often feel the entire culture is suffering from a perpetual and pervasive case of attention deficit disorder.

By which I mean that when I’m talking with someone, I’m also, implicitly, competing with their device, and with all the other people they might want to text — or tweet or chat or message — rather than talking to me.

This is especially mortifying in my creative writing classes. Students these days don’t even try to hide the fact that they are engaged in one or more text conversations during class. I see them every time I teach, glancing furtively at the device on their lap, thumbing out acronymic dispatches.

There’s really not much to say in defense of such conduct, except, I suppose, that college students have always been distracted creatures.

The fact that people my age — in our 40s, that is — are subject to the same kind of nonsense strikes me as sad. And I myself am sad when I begin to drift away from a conversation, itching to find a computer where I can check my email or surf the Net.

The turn away from phone conversations, and toward texting, is a part of this larger evolution. As a species, we’re becoming glib and skittish and nervous about intimacy.

Friends of mine who are texters have argued that I should view the practice — along with Twitter — as a turn toward the written word.

But my own impression is texts (and tweets) are pretty much the opposite of literature. They’re not about making a deep connection, or initiating a discussion, but proving our superior wit. They serve a kind of bureaucratic emotional function, by putting our consideration on the record, our flickers of affection.

I recognize this pattern from my own emailing habits, all those dashed-off one-liners that are intended simply to prove I’m a nice guy. Or at least not a jerk.

The shift from emails to texts simply accelerates the process by which people are holding their own internal lives at bay. After all, if some future editor had the misfortune of combing through an archive of your text messages, I doubt she would find much that revealed who you truly were. Instead, the record would show that you had trouble making plans, that you liked to quote characters from a particular television show, that you hoped to run into a number of folks, but wound up missing most of them.

There’s no doubt that joining the text revolution would save me time, especially now I’ve finally gotten one of those “slide” phones that has a full keyboard. But I have no plans to do so. It feels like another one of those deals where I’m trading convenience for a tiny part of my soul.

You have to draw the line somewhere, after all. So I’m going to keep leaving those awkward voice mails for my friends — and ignoring the snippy texts they send, inferring that I should stop leaving them awkward voice mails.

I’m not trying to be a jerk. I’m just trying to hold on to a few of the inefficiencies that make us human. 

Why I refuse to text message – Life stories – Salon.com.

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 263 other followers

%d bloggers like this: