Google Buzz Feed

buzz profile picture

Twitter @jasonmray

twitter profile picture

Flickr Feed

ImageAmp 1.0 Released – View Images in Winamp

July 26th, 2009

ImageAmp logo

I finally got around to polishing up and releasing the Winamp plugin I started several years ago. Version 1.0 is now available, along with source code if there are still any Winamp developers out there. Check out the ImageAmp page for more info.

Tags: ,

Dr. Pepper’s Pepsin Bitters

July 22nd, 2009

Soda has become a bit of a hobby for me — check out my flickr stream to see what I've been trying lately — so I was surprised that news of this auction slipped under my radar. Dr Peppers Pepsin Bitters

Apparently, back in May there was an auction for what was claimed to be an early recipe for Dr. Pepper: a pharmacist's notebook with a recipe titled Dr. Pepper's Pepsin Bitters. The date, location, and even the letterhead on some of the recipes correspond to the exact place where the well-kept secret of the Dr. Pepper recipe would have originated.

This was a perfect target for my internet sleuthing itch. I was determined to figure out what exactly that recipe was. Let's make some Dr. Pepper!

A high-res scan of the recipe is on the auction page. Unfortunately, the recipe is written in a 19th century pharmacist shorthand, and the handwriting isn't the most legible.. Wikipedia, here we come.

Several hours of research later, here's what I've come up with:

The recipe uses an apothecary system for measurements. The squiggly-looking '3' is the symbol for 'ounce'.

The quantity of measures is a mix of roman numerals, fractions, and apothecary shorthand. ℥iii means 3 ounces, ℥ss means half an ounce. "Cong." is short for congius, meaning 'gallon' (though I'm not sure if it is the equivalent of a modern US gallon). So "cong 3½" means "three and a half gallons". The 'o' stands for pints, so "Syrup oiii" means 3 pints of syrup.

The other strange term in the recipe is "Aq. Dist", which turns out to mean aqua distillata, or distilled water.

After all this, here's what we come up with:

Dr. Pepper's Pepsin Bitters

  • Gentian Root, ground. 2 ounces.
  • Bitter Orange Peel, ground. 2 ounces.
  • Wahoo Bark, ground. 2 ounces.
  • Sweet Flag Root, ground. 1 ounce.
  • Mandrake Root, 2 ounces.
  • Cardamom, Half an ounce.
  • Cloves, Half an ounce.
  • Coriander, Half an ounce.
  • Cinnamon Bark, Half an ounce.
  • Diluted Alcohol, 3.5 gallons.
  • Simple Syrup, 3 pints.
  • Glycerine, 2 pints.
  • Distilled Water, 5 gallons (or as much as necessary)

Macerate with the dilute alcohol for five days. Filter, then add the syrup, glycerine, and water. Dissolve 640 grain (about 1.5 ounces) of Wyeth's pepsin in water, add it in. Then pour into 16 ounce bottles.

So what's the conclusion? Is this Dr. Pepper?

Well, obviously not. First, there definitely aren't "23 flavors" here as Dr. Pepper's recipe advertises. Second, this recipe is anywhere between 10 and 80 proof, depending on how diluted your "dilute alcohol" is. Third, I'd be willing to bet that one of the ingredients of modern Dr. Pepper is artificial almond extract, and I don't see anything on the list that might taste similar. Then there's the fact that mandrake root is poisonous...

So I believe the Dr. Pepper Snapple spokesman when he says that this isn't the Dr. Pepper we know today, but I would be willing to believe it was an early recipe. Just as the first recipe for Coca-Cola contained both coca and kola bean, this could very well have been the recipe that was modified and toned-down into a soft drink as prohibition picked up. Perhaps if I can find replacements for the more questionable ingredients, we may have a pretty interesting beverage recipe here.

Open-Mindedness

May 11th, 2009

Savage Obsession

March 2nd, 2009

I stumbled upon a video over at fora.tv where Adam Savage discusses his obsessions:

For me, this really is an inspiring presentation, as I’ve been starting to realize that obsession is exactly what is lacking from the current state of so many forms of expression.  Obsession is, for me at least, what sets apart good modern art from mediocre modern art. It’s what separates good design from bad design. It’s what separates the intriguing from the commonplace.

The St. Louis Art Museum currently has an installation upstairs in their modern art collection.  It’s a large ring of rocks on the floor, maybe twelve feet wide.  And it’s completely uninteresting.  A twelve-foot ring of old shoes.. or cellphones.. or, hell, lima beans would have been more interesting.  In contrast, the next room over has a painting by Chuck Close hanging on the wall:

Keith by Chuck Close

At just over 9 feet tall, it’s striking to say the least.  A hand-painted, photo-realistic portrait with the ears painted in slightly soft-focus and the pores of the nose the size of a thumb-print.  The rock sculpture could be replicated by any bored fifth-grader, while only a maniac could come close to reproducing the Keith portrait. And the difference appears to be obsession.

Just skim the Wikipedia article on Close. The guy suffered a spinal artery collapse that left him mostly paralyzed, and he still continued to paint by strapping a paintbrush to his wrist. Now that’s obsession.

A near-universal lack of obsession is evidenced everywhere in modern culture.  Look at the contemporary t-shirt designs from Affliction and Express.  Ridiculously popular, they consist of simple vector tracings of old engravings mixed with formulaic typography.  A talented graphic designer could churn out several of these in a day. So what’s the problem with that? Well, they’re just not very interesting. The designs lack craftsmanship. In an effort to cover up the lack of real effort, they rely on copy & pasting meticulously hand-drawn engravings from almost a century ago. I’m guilty of this myself actually — the background image of this site is just a quick Photoshop from one of those ye olde scans, but that just illustrates my point. I designed logo and background of the site in an hour or so, and I relied on the image of the engraving to do all the texture work for me. And that’s exactly why it feels like a run-of-the-mill design to me.

In general, I think if we could find ways to turn a little self-motivation into obsession, the world would be a much more interesting and inspiring place.

Posted in Art, General | 1 Comment »

The Harsh Reality of Digital Copyright

January 10th, 2009

Lawrence Lessig recently appeared on an episode of The Colbert Report, attempting to discuss the current state of copyright law in America and how it needs to be changed to cope with the world of digital media.  One of his main points during the interview was that copyright law is turning 70% of kids into criminals for their music habits.

I can’t claim to be an expert on any type of law so I won’t discuss them, but I’d like to raise a single point: copyright laws in an internet context are nearly unenforceable.  Just like any intellectual property license, the effort required to enforce a license grows with the number of licensees.

Now, I will argue that any artist, musician, director, writer, or whomever should have the right to produce a work and make a profit from that work.  But, they have to be aware of and deal with the side effects of the distribution medium.  An artist can create an oil painting on canvas and sell it.  A musician can charge at the door for a performance.  But once they step into any digital medium, they are now dealing with licenses.  Not a product, not a measurable time period of entertainment, but a license.

What’s the problem with that?  Well, imagine a company selling SuperBalls.  Imagine that company marketing two types of balls: one for bouncing, and one for rolling.  The two are identical except for the license that accompanies them.  If you bought the SuperBall Roller, you’re only allowed to roll the ball.  If you bought the SuperBall Bouncer, your license is only for bouncing.  Now imagine that company attempting to enforce those licenses upon every 5-year-old kid who owns a SuperBall.  Sounds like a ridiculous expectation of the company, right?

The root of the problem with digital copyright on the internet is that the group of licensees, due to its sheer size, is more difficult to manage than a million 5-year-old children.  No company has the physical or financial resources for that scale of enforcement.  Any company that has built their business model on the assumption that they can enforce their digital media licenses is doomed to fail.

Perhaps that’s a bold statement, considering Apple just announced that they’re removing the DRM from 8 million songs.  But Apple’s iTunes store isn’t selling downloads.  They’re selling convenience, variety, and image.  They don’t have to worry about chasing down music pirates, because people will still buy songs.  The RIAA recently announced that they are no longer suing individuals.  Perhaps they’re just outsourcing the enforcement to the ISPs, but they seem to be slowly starting to realize the harsh reality of digital copyright.

New Year, New Site.

January 1st, 2009

Alright.. so it’s finally 2009.  I’ve been working on getting this site up over the holiday break.  After a fair amount of twiddling the CSS and a quick reminder about just how painful PHP is, the basics of jasonmray.com is up.  Yes, jasonray.com was already taken (parked by ESPN).

Let’s see what the new year has in store..

Posted in General | 1 Comment »