Monday News: X-rays of corsets; scientists study the justification for oral sex; Price fixing trial is over
Publishing NewsAgency pricing / lawsuits9 Comments
Taking X-Rays Of Women In Corsets Was A Haunting Use Of New Technology – The Public Domain Review had a post on the x-rays taken of corset wearing women in the late 1890s and published in Ludovic O’Followell’s treatise Le Corset in 1908. Digg picked up on this article and killed the site so I’ve only got the one picture to show to you. The x-ray displays the downward pressure the corset exerts on the rib bones, not to mention what was going on with the internal organs. Gizmodo
What’s the point of oral sex? : Seriously, Science? – I’m not entirely sure why studies like this are done because the conclusion is essentially – “IT COULD BE ANYTHING!!”
“Female orgasm may be designed to increase relationship satisfaction (Pair-Bond Hypothesis), to encourage subsequent copulations (Promoting Future Copulations Hypothesis), to retain preferentially the sperm of men with higher genetic quality (Sire Choice Hypothesis), to promote fertilization (for a critical review, see Levin, 2011), or female orgasm may be a non-functional byproduct of male orgasm (reviewed in Puts, Dawood, and Welling, 2012). “ Discover Magazine
The Finale: Does Judge Cote’s Belief the Publishers Are Guilty Exonerate or Implicate Apple? | Publishers Lunch – The Apple price fixing trial is over and Judge Cote revealed that it was a good thing that the publishers settled because she would have found them to have conspired. The question, she says, is whether Apple was aware of and participated in, the horizontal collusion between the publishers. Publishers Marketplace (paid link)
“On the basis of this trial record I would find that the publishers conspired with each other in December of ’09 and January of 2010 to raise eBook prices.”
Snyder said in the back and forth on this point, “I think that the critical question is, in terms of Apple’s liability, whether Apple was aware of such a horizontal conspiracy.”
Judge Cote said, “I agree with that, absolutely.”
I can’t access the Publisher’s Lunch article (members only), does it say when Judge Cote will reach a decision? Because I’m hopeful Apple will get a smackdown.
“Why on earth would anyone perform oral sex? Particularly on a woman?!?“ Really, Discover? Really? I’ve no desire to read the rest of the article after that opening.
@CG – No, there is no mention of when Judge Cote will reach a decision. I suspect it will be shortly. She’s been very prompt with her decisions in the past. A court official said it might be two months and I think 60 days is a pretty reasonable time frame in which to write a decision such as this.
Really good article. Can’t wait to hear what the judge decides.
And the corsets? Talk about suffering for beauty.
“Digg picked up on this article and killed the site…” What does that mean?
@CG: Wow. Just wow. ?!?!
UGH. I agree that the “particularly on a woman” intro kills any interest in reading this article further. WHY? I would have thought that oral sex on either gender is equally perplexing from a scientific perspective. In both cases, it doesn’t seem to further the biological purpose of reproduction.
The same judge is now handling the Penguin/Author Solutions class action lawsuit. Pretrial stuff started today.
“female orgasm may be a non-functional byproduct of male orgasm”–really? What male-centric hubris! Females have the only organ on the human body designed just for one purpose: sexual pleasure. And it gets dismissed that easily as a “non-functional byproduct” of the obviously much more important few-seconds-long male orgasm? I’m so irritated I wish I subscribed to Discover so I could send them a note discontinuing my subscription and demanding my money back!
I have 3 sons and one daughter, and we’ve frequently joked about which sex is superior…when they were younger, my sons and husband always trumped the discussion with the ease of peeing in the woods, since we’re all avid campers…daughter and I had to concede on that one. But when they got older, I told them I’d never give up multiple orgasms for any of their puny advantages! Sons and husband are still trying to figure out how to trump that! I say they’ll never be able to! Viva la difference, and to hell with Discover!
Here is another good article on the Apple vs DOJ case: http://www.electronista.com/articles/13/06/23/amazon.becomes.as.much.a.focus.as.tactics.used.by.apple/
I understand all of the arguments that Apple and their lawyers made and I give note to the distinction between the horizontal conspirators vs the vertical players theory. But the fact remains that if Apple hadn’t entered into that particular set of agreements with the publishers with the express purpose to undermine Amazon’s market share to the benefit of the publishers and Apple and to the detriment of the consumer this whole sorry affair would have never occurred.
The publishers needed Apple and the power it represented to force Amazon to back down. The publishers saw that Amazon had created a revolutionary product that was completely transforming their industry. Instead of embracing that change, they felt threatened and attempted to do everything they could to undermine or impede digital publishing. In their panic they made a number of incredibly shortsighted decisions, including enlisted Apple (who had its own agenda) to combat an entity that should have been the publisher’s biggest partner/ally, instead turning Amazon into the enemy.
Apple may be able to wiggle out from under this mess due to a technicality but my desire to spend money on their products or support their platforms has been greatly lessened by a careful study of their business practices.