28th
Hi. I'm an editor.
I live in Washington and work in Arlington.
I spend all day reading and cooking.
Whenever I get down about the business of journalism I come across things that re-inspire me.
Read more at The New York Times.
via Neatorama

… by far is the animated Robin Hood. I had it on VHS growing up and probably wore out the tape.
Ever wondered what it’d sound like translated into 13 languages? Wonder no longer.
via Neatorama


And look how cool Shanghai (maybe) will look by then! I’ve always been a sucker for maps of all kinds and, by extension, cool scale models like the one seen above. Neatorama pulls together some Flickr snapshots of this cooler than cool scale projection of what the Shanghai Urban Planning Museum believes China’s largest city will look like in 2020.
Any time I see one of these cool scale models I stop and stare for entirely too much time. Wake Forest has one (I think it’s in Benson University Center now?), and so does the library at the University of Hartford, where I taught this spring. And who could forget that cool model of Revolutionary Boston that lit up and made noises that they had up in the sadly now-defunct observation deck at the John Hancock Tower?
I’ve often grouped people who harp on the texture of food into two camps: picky or pompous. There’s nothing worse than someone who refuses to eat something that tastes delicious because they “don’t like the texture.” It’s the classic cop-out for the unadventurous. But it’s also a classic crutch for food writers (and other gourmets, or wine connoisseurs) who can’t do their jobs well. It’s a real shame, because discussing the texture of food can be really fun. I wish I didn’t have such a hangup about it.
So it was kind of surprising that a Gourmet blog post, “The Mouthfeel Wheel,” could generate something of value. This texture wheel for wine tasters is actually kind of neat. Maybe I’ll get over my distaste for texture discussions yet. (But I still refuse to say “mouthfeel.” Urgh.)

P.S. Other tasty bites recently from Gourmet:

It’s been difficult to get a straight analysis of Radiohead’s groundbreaking, pay-what-you-want-online record release strategy for its latest effort, In Rainbows. Lots of winking and nodding and declining to comment.
But Wired gives a nice breakdown of a new British study of how torrent downloads affected the sanctioned downloads at the band’s official site. The verdict? First, there’s a jillion tech-savvy Radiohead fans out there. Second and more important, especially for the music business on the whole:
“The hard lesson to the music business here is that it must license venues for music acquisition that fans prefer to file sharing networks or otherwise make the toleration of file sharing part of their business plans. If even Radiohead’s freely available album was torrented 2.3 million times in the first three and a half weeks, how can more traditional offerings successfully clamp-down on file sharing? They can’t, pure and simple.”
Ouch.
Even when an album is basically free, it boils down to what venue a downloader is more comfortable with. That often means illegal torrent sites. This reminds me of Chris Anderson of The Long Tail fame’s upcoming book, “FREE.” Here’s a great intro to some of its principles, also from Wired.