Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 1068

It's Not So Easy to 3D Print a Gun

I spent the day yesterday desperately trying to get my hands on a gun. Specifically, the "Liberator," the 3D-printable firearm offered by Defense Distributed. I was unsuccessful, which vis probably for the best.

The idea of download-and-print firearm plays an out-sized role in the current debate over guns — something to which I have contributed. Defense Distributed is explicit about its political aims, which tech site The Verge described as "crypto-anarchy." Two members of Congress, Rep. Steve Israel and Sen. Chuck Schumer have called for restrictions on the ability to print 3D weapons. With news that the plans for the weapon were downloaded 50,000 times yesterday, New York City police commissioner Ray Kelly indicated that it "obviously is a concern." So, as a resident of that city, it seemed like a natural experiment: How long would it take me from downloading a set of files to having a weapon in-hand?

It's been about 24 hours since Defense Distributed's long-standing goal of offering a firearm design that anyone could 3D print became a reality when it posted plans for the Liberator on its website. To celebrate the occasion, it also released this video, which you've likely already seen and don't need to watch after the first ten seconds.

I wanted to replicate this scene. So, at about 11 in the morning on Monday, I set out on a process I expected to follow:

1. Download the files 2. Print the files 3. Test the weapon

And here's the process I actually followed.

1. Downloading the files

By far the easiest part of the process was accessing the files themselves. Click a link, head over (somewhat amusingly) to Mega, the new sharing site created by the once-disgraced Kim Dotcom, and click "download." In short order, you have a compressed file that has potential to become lethal force. The file contains the following:

The license for the designs A folder containing 16 "STL" files. STL is an abbreviation for the stereolithography format, a type of computer-aided design (CAD) file Instructions on printing and assembling the firearm in English The same, apparently, but in Chinese An image of a traditional handgun with Chinese-language labels 2. Getting them printed

I do not own a 3D-printer. Late last week, the devices took a big leap forward in accessibility when Staples announced that it would carry them — for $1,300, which was not in the budget my editor game me for this article. Last year, the office supply company announced plans to introduce 3D printing service in its stores, but that's still a ways away. So I needed to find another proto-Kinkos of the 3D-printing age.

Given the buzz, the forward-thinking nature, and the anything-anytime spirit of Manhattan, I thought finding someone who could help me print the files would be a breeze. Seeking someone to hold my hand, I reached to a colleague that I knew was familiar with the intricacies of 3D printing. He couldn't help, he told me, but offered some folks who might.

Oh, and, he had a question for me: You know you are taking a legal risk, right?

2a. The legal issue

I did, but clearly not its full extent.

There are really three issues at play. The first question is whether or not the firearm is a legal weapon. The second is whether or not I could legally own it. The third is whether or not someone could make the parts for me.

Defense Distributed is very clear about the Liberator's legal status. It is a legal firearm provided you include a key component — a heavy slug of steel. The first part of the instructions DD provides addresses that slug:

Print (ONLY) the frame sideways (the shortest dimension is the Z axis). …

Once the frame is finished, epoxy a 1.19x1.19x0.99" block of steel in the 1.2x1.2x1.0" hole in front of the trigger guard. ...

Once the epoxy has tried, the steel is no longer removable, and is an integral part of the frame. Now your gun has ~6 ounces of steel and is thus considered a 'detectable' firearm. So now you can print all the other parts.

The logic goes like this. The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1998 insists that a weapon be able to be traced in a metal detector. Without that slug, the Liberator isn't, since it's made entirely of plastic.

The technicalities presented go a little further. Because the frame isn't considered a component of the weapon by itself, DD insists that you build the frame and insert the steel before printing anything else, as indicated above. That way, it's impossible for you to build an illegal weapon.

Building a gun is something of a philosophical exercise. At some point, like the Ship of Theseus, you have a collection of parts; at some point you have a firearm. Legally, it's generally more specific — and since most philosophical questions don't carry the risk of jail time if you answer wrong, nearly everyone I spoke with erred on the side of interpreting the law conservatively. Since the Liberator uses custom parts, it's primarily the detectability issue that DD is concerned about. Follow its instructions, and in DD's estimation the weapon is itself legal.

The next question was whether or not it was legal for me to have it in my possession. David Kennedy, the director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at New York's John Jay College, was pretty clear that it wasn't.

New York City has a variety of permits that might apply in this case. The first that Kennedy cited was the "premises permit." With such a permit, I would be allowed to have a handgun in my home, transport it to a firing range while secured and unloaded, and use it at the firing range. When I was done, same process in reverse.

I was very much not allowed to carry it in public. For that, I would need a carry permit. For that, I'd need to demonstrate "specific need" — like being a security guard. Those, he said, were rarely granted. And "without the possession of one of those two permits," Kennedy told me, "you are not permitted to carry a handgun in New York City." I indeed had neither.

The third question ended up being the biggest one. Could a business or other third party legally print the pieces for me?

Setting aside the issue of the steel slug, no expert I spoke with felt that the printing establishments bore much risk. I spoke with James Jacobs, professor of Constitutional Law and the Courts at New York University. "If the law says it is unlawful to make the gun or part of the gun without a license," he said, you can't do it. Otherwise, "you can do what is not proscribed."

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has a FAQ on gun manufacture. Barring machine guns and some shotguns:

Firearms may be lawfully made by persons who do not hold a manufacturer’s license under the GCA provided they are not for sale or distribution and the maker is not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms.

Sounds good. But there's a bit of philosophy tucked in there. What is "for sale" in this case? Does hiring someone to print a piece of a gun count as selling a gun part? The printers I spoke with weren't generally interested in testing that line. That is, once I found some printers.

2b. Finding a printer

Searches for "3D printing" are not terribly fruitful, despite this being the future and all. A look on Google did indicate that Makerbot, a well-known manufacturer of 3D printers, had a small shop in lower Manhattan. I went there, introduced myself and asked if they printed objects on demand. They don't. It was shortly after I explained what I wanted to print that someone came from behind the counter and recommended I contact Makerbot's PR person.

Shapeways, a company that allows you to upload design files that others can buy and have shipped, has printing facilities in Long Island City, across the East River from Manhattan. When I explained what I wanted to print, the response was unequivocal. The site doesn't allow weaponry "of any kind" to be posted.

Additionally, we have certain checks in place throughout the entire printing process to ensure that these items don't get printed. To host any weaponry on our site, Shapeways would legally need a firearms license, which we do not possess, nor intend to.

This is called erring on the side of caution.

I ended up finding two different firms that were willing to explore the idea of helping me print the components. With various caveats.

[image error]
Image from Defense Distributed.

2c. Printing it

My goal, as I indicated at the outset, was to see how easily and quickly I could get my hands on a working firearm. I wanted to walk into some Brooklyn storefront, lay out a hundred bucks or so, hang around for half an hour, and walk out with my DIY gun kit.

The Brooklyn part was right. But 3D printing, still being a young technology, is slow. The two firms I spoke with each suggested that printing the various small parts would take hours — eight hours in one's estimation.

Nor would it necessarily be cheap. The firm that ultimately offered to do the printing suggested that, given the number of objects and the fact that it was important to ensure that they were well-milled and that I wanted it quickly, the final price would be a bit above my budget: $1,500. My editor respectfully declined to authorize a cost that was higher than either a 3D printer itself or a brand new AR-15 assault rifle.

It wasn't only the short timeframe and the scale of the thing that raised the price. Both firms were nervous about the prospect of doing the printing. One noted that we lived in "Bloomberg's New York," which residents of Bloomberg's New York will understand. It's an interesting experiment, but it's also a novel exploration of the legal issues surrounding the manufacture of guns. That can be off-putting. The tempered assurances of a writer on a deadline were not enough to assuage any concerns.

The $1,500 was an offer in hand. The other firm I spoke with had a significantly lower price, but similar concerns. It offered that it would normally charge $80 for similar printing — $10 an hour — but it quickly became clear that it wasn't terribly interested in doing the job. It suggested reaching out to maker spaces — communal hubs offering the tools do-it-yourselfers would need to complete a project. I called a few, but — given the limited resources and learning curve required — quickly gave up. This step was functionally equivalent to buying a 3D printer and doing it myself, which was not the route I wanted to take.

John Jay's David Kennedy put it best.

The panic that this is causing is completely unfounded. It's not that hard to build a crude, working firearm, call it a zip gun, call it whatever you want. It is a lot easier and would be a lot easier to fabricate something with existing materials than it would be to set up a printer and build one of these things. Home manufactured firearms are a next-to-non-existent problem anywhere. I don't think this changes anything very much.

Zip guns — firearms manufactured from materials like rubber bands and pipe and wood — have been around for decades. They are probably less tedious to assemble, being composed, as they are, of things you can get at a hardware store. They're less ambiguously illegal, of course, but they have another distinct advantage: They may be safer.

2d. Surviving

When I first reached out to my colleague who does 3D printing, he noted that I would probably want to do a denser print. Normally, the slicing done by the computer that operates the computer results in about 20 percent density. In order for the firearm to be more durable — which, he wrote, "I'd assume you'd want this to be" — you'd print at a higher density, which is also slower.

He's right. I would want it to be dense. Shooting a gun is, at its most basic level, the creation of a small explosion that propels a piece of metal in the right direction. Last month, a squirrel hunter tried to create an ad hoc weapon by taping a bullet to the end of a BB gun. The explosion was not controlled, and pieces of metal propelled into his legs and arms.

When Defense Distributed tried to test the Liberator for that video above, they first tried to trigger it with a lengthy piece of string, Mythbusters-style.

Once that worked, they tested it by hand. Since the lifespan of the roughly-finished weapon is described in the instructions as "1 round" — primarily because of internal damage to smaller parts — it seemed like a good thing to test first.

We are still early, very early, in the lifespan of 3D printing. The Defense Distributed announcement may indeed be symbolic of some near future when 3D printers become more commonplace, designs for printable weapons become more refined, and the legal boundaries become more obvious and well-know. But as of right now, printing your own gun is not a feasible enterprise. At least not for your average guy who writes for websites. When I told my wife that I might be home late because I could be headed to Brooklyn to make a gun, she responded by text. "Um that sounds scary and dangerous," she said. "Can you not get arrested or shot?"

If you insist.

Photo (top): Still from a Defense Distributed YouTube video.

       

We Still Don't Know How the Cleveland Kidnappers Got Away With It for So Long

The morning after three women were rescued from nearly a decade of captivity, there aren't many more answers to the biggest question of all: How did their kidnappers get away with it for ten years? Police and FBI officials in Cleveland held a brief press conference this morning on the rescue of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight, and despite a few important updates, they were forced to admit that there is much about this story that is still unknown.

The biggest piece of new information is that the young child who was rescued at the house along with the other women is indeed the daughter of Amanda Berry. Police wouldn't speculate as to who the father is, or where the girl was born, but like all three of the victims, she appears to be perfectly healthy. Berry, DeJesus, and Knight have all been released from the hospital and returned to their families. Police also praised Berry as "the real hero" for triggering the escape and bring police to the scene.

Police did announced that despite numerous tips over the years related to the kidnappings, they never had any indication or clues that would have directed them to look for the women at the house where they were found. City records indicate that there have never been any violations or complaints registered to that address. Police have only visited the address twice: Once in 2000, for a fight in the street (there were no arrests), and a second time in 2004, when Child Protective Services conducted an investigation related to Ariel Castro's job as a bus driver. (He inadvertently left a sleeping child on his bus, but it was a ruled a honest mistake and no charges were ever filed.)

Police did say that all three men living at the house—the owner, Ariel Castro, and his two brothers, Pedro and Oneil—are now under arrest and will soon be charged.

Beyond that, there is still a ton that we don't know and may not know for weeks or months. Police don't know how the women were kidnapped, they don't know what happened to them in that house, and they can't explain how the women lived there for so long without being noticed. All three women and all three suspects are still alive and well, so perhaps they will eventually reveal the whole story, but right now an eager public will just have to wait to hear it. 

Finally, police maintained that this is still an open investigation, and it will be several days before the FBI can even finish processing the house as a crime scene. They've also called on locals to share any information they might have. The FBI also says that at this time, there's no indication that the case extends outside the neighborhood, though they are looking at the possibility that the suspects could be tied to other kidnappings around the country.

       

The New Truth About the Cop Shot in Watertown: Friendly-Fire in a Getaway

The way the nation met 33-year-old MBTA Transit Police officer Richard Donohue was — like much of the conflicting information from that night of mayhem in Watertown, Massachusetts — violent, fast, and scary: He was exchanging fire with the Tsarnaev brothers, the story went, and he took a gun shot to his right thigh from the Boston bombing suspects — an injury that would see Donohue lose all of his own blood, sever three blood vessels, send him into cardiac arrest, and almost die. Now comes a more complete picture, with more eyewitnesses telling a new story, that Donohue was probably shot by a fellow police officer. 

The Boston Globe has a long story in today's paper with new accounts from Watertown residents who witnessed "the climactic moment in the confrontation, when Dzhokhar Tsarnaev drove between two groups of police officers amid police gunfire" in the early morning of April 19. Jane Dyson lives less than 200 feet from where Donohue went down:

"A black SUV appeared, and rapid gun fire was focused on the vehicle," Dyson wrote in a statement provided to the Globe, referring to the vehicle Tsarnaev allegedly drove in his escape. "It appeared to me that an individual at the corner [of the street] fell to the ground and had probably been hit in the gunfire."

Dyson's account of the guns-blazing getaway seems to indicate that Donohue was shot while Dzhokhar was fleeing (and running over his brother) and that the gunfire was one-way, not an exchange between the suspects and the cops. Indeed, the Globe reports that the Tsarnaev brothers were no longer armed as Dzhokhar drove away, which would seem to align with updated reports about the next day that the younger Tsarnaev brother was not, in fact, armed when authorities captured him in a Watertown boat.

The Globe adds that Dyson, the neighbor, offered to make a statement to police officials, but it remains unclear whether or not she did. (The DA's office in Middlesex and Massachusetts state police are reviewing three possible accidental shootings in the manhunt "as part of a broader criminal investigation.") But the paper backs up Dyson's story with new eyewitness accounts from other residents: "Two witnesses support Dyson's account that Donohue appeared to be wounded in the final volley of shots fired at the fleeing younger suspect."

So one of the most closely followed victims of the Boston Marathon aftermath may have gone down by gunfire from one of the six law enforcement agencies on hand. He's still one of Boston's absolute bravest. But it does give us a clearer picture of a night when some 300 bullets were fired, and of situations in which cops are caught in the line of so much fire it's hard to keep straight: Remember the Empire State Building shootings last year, when police officers shot and wounded all nine bystanders injured in the incident?

Even though Dyson's eyewitness account may knock down the cops-versus-terrorists shootout narrative a peg, she's the first to acknowledge that mayhem can lead to accidental violence. "I don’t second-guess the actions the police took to stop these terrorists," the Watertown resident tells the Globe. "The police did a great job." 

Donohue is doing fine.

       

The (Slightly More) Professional Guide to Working from Home

It seems that working from home — that dreamy day job to which we all used to aspire, and perhaps some of us still do — has fallen on hard times. According to a recent article in The New York Times, a paper with a long history of articles about the trend in co-working arrangements, working from home is overrated, bewildering, isolating, and in some cases downright horrid. Yahoo's Marissa Mayer may be against working from home, but she's not the only one. As a disgruntled work-from-homer told the Times, "I would get distracted by dust bunnies under the desk and end up vacuuming in the middle of the day, or look at myself in the mirror at 7 p.m. and realize I was still in pajamas." The pretzels were too tempting. The Xbox called. Bed, oh, bed. It's easily swayed folks like this who are keeping the shared office in business! 

But let's just say you don't want to deal with the difficulties of finding a shared office space, or paying for it, or putting on pants in the morning. Are there ways to make your work-from-home routine a bit more productive, and you, yourself, ever so slightly more efficient, all the while remaining firmly planted upon your own couch? I talked to a few of the Internet's most skilled work-from-homers (as it happens, I am no slouch in this regard either, though I often dress like one when I work from home) for their best filing-from-the-couch advice.

Get Dressed in Some Form or Fashion. I'll admit I usually break this rule when I do find myself working from home. I roll out of bed in sweatpants and a T-shirt, move my laptop to my lap as I sit on the couch, and if it's a working-from-home day (as it was frequently during my recent book leave), I'll stay that way until maybe noon, when, yes, I might put on something a little nicer, particularly if I've ordered in food and will feel ashamed about my outfit. I have experimented with donning workout clothes first thing in the morning; this has the added benefit of making you feel sporty and energetic even if you never get to the gym! STFU, Parents blogger and author Blair Koenig tells me, "One thing I'll always remember is when I told a woman at a party that I work from home, she was super confused and asked me all these questions. She was like, 'So do you make sure to get to your desk by 9 on the dot?', 'Do you get dressed right away?' and—my favorite— 'Do you wear shoes?' Haha. Get dressed when you get out of bed. It makes you feel more alert, and it allows you to open the door for packages without scrambling for a bra." As for the shoes, is there broken glass in the house? Then you should probably go into the office. As for that woman at that party, she should perhaps get out of her own house more often. 

[image error]Consider Your Resources. In the wise words of Grantland work-from-homer Rembert Browne, "Have good enough internet, but not incredible internet. You need to leave the house sometimes, and the Time Warner Cable/Internet package will see to it that you do, because it will stop working every 97 minutes, forcing even the staunchest homebody out for fresh air or even a change of location." Take these lessons further, across your entire work-from-home mantra. Have a good enough computer, but not an incredible computer. Have a good enough desk, but not an incredible desk. Have a good enough mug of coffee next to you, but not an incredible one (it would only be incredible if it was bottomless, and also full of money, right?), because whether you're in the office or working from home, it's good to get up now and again, to stretch your legs and get some air and another cup of coffee. For the prevention of blood clots and whatnot. 

Take Advantage of the Great Opportunities that Have Befallen You! Because you can. Because you can. "People who work from home often don't have set hours, and therefore work longer hours, so fuck it, have a glass of champagne with your sandwich for lunch," says Koenig. Or a beer with your afternoon snack. I'd suggest, also, picking up dry-cleaning or making a trip to the post office mid-day, running out for a sandwich around 3 p.m. in your sweatpants, scheduling a non-rush-hour-timed doctor's appointment, and even taking a coffee meeting around the corner from your home-workplace when and if you feel like it, because you can. (And you can work outside, too.) If you have a dog and you work from home, pet your dog.

Be Efficient. Not only is all of the above nice, it's also consistent with your greater world needs. Suddenly, you can be oh-so-productive because you're not, say, waiting in line, or busily commuting to your shared office space. It's like performance-based multi-tasking. You, among the office-based civilians of the world, are free from 9 to 5, or 10 to 6, or any clock-punching constraints at all! Use that. "Maximize benefits like doing your grocery shopping when everyone else is in an office," says Koenig. "Remind yourself that while you may be 'glued to the couch' or at a desk in your studio apartment most days, you also have the freedom to go to Target when no one else is there if you plan ahead." Related: Make sure you leave the house at least once a day, even if it's at 10 p.m. at night, lest you begin to feel a wee bit feral.

[image error]Find Friends. "Try to find a work-from-home buddy you can chat with, either on IM or at lunch every now and then, because it can be lonesome to be so alone. (Having a social media circle is helpful, too, if you have self-discipline!)," says Koenig. Browne suggests working from home with someone else. "Every day you work at home by yourself, and don't see or talk to another human, you lose three weeks off your social skills life." If you do not do this, make sure you're actually speaking to at least one person a day, like, in a human way, more than simply saying "thank you" to the delivery guy you ordered food from via Seamless. In a pinch, talk to your cat, Mrs. Morris Whiskerson, or your plant, Beauregard. But, seriously, find a person. If you no longer know what a person is, get outside ASAP.

Set Daily Goals for Yourself. You can do this in the office, too, but it's even more satisfying beyond the view of any prying coworkers to make a list, accomplish each item on said list, and nerdily cross off those items at the end of the day with a huge grin on your face. It also stands as a reminder of what you need to get done. When you're alone in particular, that motivation can be very helpful. 

Keep Yourself Reasonably Clean. "Don't forget to shower. I do, a lot, and that's a mistake," says Koenig. This goes for your greater workspace, i.e., your home, as well. Here is a valuable lesson from Valleywag's Sam Biddle, who lived it so you don't have to: "Oh man. I used to take one home day every week, but I had to stop. I would blink and there I was eating a burrito in boxer briefs with a blanket wrapped around me—it was every sick blogger stereotype enabled. I think there's a lot to be said for working with other people for both psychological and quality of work purposes... but the best argument is that it prevents you from lapsing into a slime bubble." So if you're going to work from home, be aware. Beware the slime bubble! Unless, of course, you do great work in a slime bubble. 

If you don't, as luck would have it, you're at home, so you're very near whatever you need to clean. Browne suggests cleaning before you work: "If your room is dirty or there are dishes in the sink, even the quickest of glances at disorder will turn into a 45 minute procrastination break that you most certainly didn't have time for." If you're slightly more carefree, you can double-bill productivity by washing dishes on your 10-minute work break, because you really should get up off the couch sometime.

[image error]Sit Up Straight. Here's another rule I knowingly break. I like working on the couch. It's comfortable and it doesn't put me to sleep, and yes, there is an incline to it, and it is soft, and there are blankets in case of chill. But you may want to find several pleasing spots to work in in a work-from-home day, just to keep things interesting. Biddle says you should sit up in these spots: "If you don't have an office or if you have to work from home for some other reason, avoid horizontal surfaces at all costs. Never in bed. The couch will deceive you. It's not a desk. You need to be slightly uncomfortable in order to get anything done, so even if you're sitting on a chair with a TV dinner tray to prop up your laptop, do that." If you have multiple spots in a home in which to work, using them each throughout the day is like the around-the-world party of employment.

Don't Turn on the TV Until You Stop Working, and Be Judicious with Internet. Unless you're following breaking news and writing about it, TV and unlimited online time can be a slippery slope. Keep the TV off, and if you find yourself unable to stop checking Facebook or Twitter or other websites, download an internet-blocking program (Freedom is one) to prevent you from misbehaving. Or just unplug your router.

Don't Work from Home. Browne concludes with this as his last work-from-home recommendation, and it might be some sort of joke, or a last-ditch effort to keep everyone from working at home. You can aim to do it sometimes, not always, if you're the type who enjoys variety. But if you are the type who ends up always working at home, be vigilant about spending at least some of your time at home not working at home. That, of all the above, is paramount. 

Insets via Flickr/SamWebster; Flickr/Dave Morris; Flickr/Renee Rosen-Wakeford.

       

Watch Kanye West Scream 'I Am a God' and Sing at Kardashian at the Met Gala

If you were at the Met Gala last night you were treated to Kanye West performing new music in a studded mask. If you weren't—which, let's face it, you probably weren't, and you've been stuck looking at red carpet photos all morning—you can hear scream-y snippets of that music via Twitter Vine clips taken by several glamorous, somewhat punk-y guests. 

In one post by DJ A-Trak (via Vulture) West screams and says, "I am a god," which—relax—is the title of a track off his new album. As Vulture points out, that yell—we would recommend making sure your sound isn't all the way up—fits with comments made by Daft Punk's Thomas Bangalter, who described a session with West to Rolling Stone: "He was — kind of screaming primally." If this isn't a primal scream, we don't know what is. 

You can hear more of that track in a Vine from actress Jaime King. (King is a good source for Kanye snippets, as is modle Coco Rocha, who has Vines a-plenty on her Twitter account.)

In other Vines, via Complex, West sang an auto-tuned track, apparently to Kim Kardashian, about how awesome she is. 

Kanye telling Kim not to worry what anyone says that she's awesome. Quite touching really. #metgala vine.co/v/b2iO0Y6P2Eb

— CocoRocha (@cocorocha) May 7, 2013

Kardashian posted what appears to be a response on Instagram with the caption "Baby you're AWESOME." 

Kanye's new album is possibly coming out on June 18, based on a recent dramatic tweet. (There has also been speculation that the date could signify Kardashian's due date.) According to the Twitter account Team Kanye Daily Vogue is going to release video of West performing "I Am A God" May 10. We've reached out to Vogue for confirmation. (Update: a representative at Vogue denies the report.) West is obviously getting comfy with the magazine. He and Kardashian dined at Vogue editor Anna Wintour's house before the gala. West is also performing on the season finale of Saturday Night Live May 18, so hopefully we'll get some more clarity as to what exactly he's doing.

       

Sex-Crazed Cicadas Will Soon Outnumber Humans 600-to-1

The very horny and very loud insects haven't arrived in full force for the Mid-Atlantic cicada sex invasion quite yet, but when they do, they will come with a huge body-count advantage over people, outnumbering us 600-to-1, or possibly even more, according to the Associated Press. The exact number of noisy bugs that will emerge from beneath the soil for the sole purpose of making more cicada babies remains unknown. Several experts estimate that 30 billion of the brood will make the four- to six-week migration above ground and across much of the East Coast. Researcher Gary Hevel at the Smithsonian Institute pegs that number of the 2013 swarm at closer to 1 trillion. The states prime for the cicada mating brigade — North Carolina up through Connecticut — have an estimated total of 50.6 million people, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The lower bug estimate is where the AP got its 600-to-1 figure, but if the cicadas come out in the trillions, the pesky (but ultimately harmless) noise-makers will outnumber people 20,000-to-1.

The pests won't populate the entire coast, however, so not all 50 million of us have to panic. The map below, from the experts at Cicada Mania, shows the most likely areas of infestation, with the dots referencing previous sightings: 

[image error]

A closer look at the Maryland, DC, Pennsylvania, and Virginia areas, for example, only shows this year's brood — known as Brood II — in certain parts of Maryland and Pennsylvania:

[image error]

[image error]But those areas that do house this year's brood, well, they're going to see as many as 1 billion of the bugs per square mile; another estimate puts the number at 1.5 million per acre, or 960 million per square mile. Since these bug masses will use so much of the Eastern seaboard as their sex dens, we can expect many, many billions of them in concentrated areas, making for one very loud cicada love song. It's going to be noisy.

So far, though, Cicada spotting has been limited. A few East Coasters have reported spotting the sex bugs in their backyards, or at least the holes in the ground via Instagram. They're just not in buzzsaw-decibel droves yet. But they will be. Oh, they will be. And soon those holes will be talking, and their creators will be having sex, and leaving their crunchy cicada shells all over your yard. You will be outnumbered. Just know that.

       

Did Obama's Golf Diplomacy Work? Let's Go to the Photo Op!

White Houe Press Secretary Jay Carney said on Monday that President Obama was golfing with three senators to "test the theory that this kind of engagement can produce the kind of results that everybody... wants to see." It was yet another sign that the White House hasn't completely bought into the idea that Obama could get Congress to pass the stuff he wants if he just hung out with them more, while buying in fully to the idea that people might stop suggesting the tactic if he bothers trying it. So far, the results of Obama's dinner-and-golf diplomacy have been mixed. Did Obama's golfing with Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss, Colorado Democrat Mark Udall, and Tennessee Republican Bob Corker go any better? Well, since it was largely one big photo-op for the political press corps, let's pay very, very close attention to the resulting photos and analyze their faces for clues.

But first, some history. In March, Obama had a dozen Republican senators over for dinner. All but two voted to filibuster a bill that would have required background checks for all gun purchases. Texas Sen. Tom Coburn had even given the dinner a thumbs up. When Obama had 20 female senators over to chat in April, some were not happy with the format. The senators complained they got to talk too much. "That took up our entire two hours, to go around the table," Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski told The Washington Post. "It was not the kind of warm banter that can go back and forth." But Murkowski did like that when she asked Obama to take her shoes off, he said "Absolutely!"

And of course, the most famously unsuccessful golf diplomacy attempt for Obama was in June 2011, when he and House Speaker John Boehner golfed on the same team, yet did not prevent a crisis over raising the debt limit later that summer.

But there were some differences between then and now that could be crucial, if the grand dinner diplomacy dinner is true. In 2011, sure, Obama patted Boehner on the back affectionately...

[image error]

(Photo via Associated Press​.)

... but their faces showed that this sport of male bonding had not brought them together.

[image error]

Closeup:

[image error]

(Photo via Associated Press​.)

This is not just cherry picking the available photos. Other photos from that day were equally unhappy.

[image error]

[image error]

(Photo via Associated Press​.)

So, that brings us to Monday and the POTUS-and-Senators foursome. Here's Obama with Corker.

[image error]

Closeup, they look pretty intense, but in a sports way.

[image error]

(Photos via Associated Press​.)

Here, Udall shows his intense sports face, while Corker and Obama chat.

[image error]

Closeup, we see it wasn't 100 percent laughs on Monday:

[image error]

(Photo via Associated Press.)

Here it looks like Chambliss said something very charming to Obama.

[image error]

They're happier here:

[image error]

(Photos via Reuters.)

And here they look like best pals:

[image error]

[image error]

(Photos via Reuters.)

It's almost as if Corker is saying, "On second thought, your second-term agenda sounds pretty reasonable?" But let's not bet on it.

       

Anna Wintour, Accidental Punk Icon

Tonight is the annual Metropolitan Museum of Art Costume Institute Gala with the troublesome theme of "punk." Yes, the gala—and the corresponding exhibit—are causing problems for both celebs and punks. The exhibit was panned in Times, real-life punks see it as a watering down of a culture, and celebs just don't know what to wear. The woman at the center of all of this, per usual as the gala's official fashion ambassador/party host, is Vogue's editor Anna Wintour. It's hard to imagine Wintour, known for her perfection and love of Prada, getting down and dirty in the spirit of the theme, but some have endeavored to do so. And, yes, it's "Annarchy." 

Today New York posted its alternate cover, featuring Anna with a purple streak in her hair and a nose ring, which was scrapped for a cover on the Boston bombings. 

[image error]

But perhaps even better is an effort from yet-to-launch fashion and lifestyle website The Upswing. Editorial director Aaron Gell told The Atlantic Wire in an email that while the site is set to launch in the middle of this month, they "couldn't bear to miss the social event of the season." He added: "We wanted to pay homage to the nutty confluence of glamour and punk rock happening tonight at the Met, and the idea was to picture Anna Wintour doing a little research to prepare for the big event. " Check out Wintour, photoshopped and hanging out with some real-life punks: 

[image error]

[image error]

[image error]

The red carpet live stream on the Met's website begins at 7 p.m. It should be an interesting one: Tiger Woods, Lindsay Vonn, and Kim Kardashian are among the attendees. How on Earth will they dress punk? 

       

The NFL Can't Stop Cutting Its 'Marginal' Gay Rights Advocates

NFL punter Chris Kluwe, whose expletive-laden public battle with a government official over gay marriage turned him into the most vocal athlete in politics and kicked off the year football (and the rest of the pro sports world) finally tackled gay rights, was cut by the Minnesota Vikings on Monday — just days after he hinted that his advocacy was forcing him out the door. Fellow advocate and Super Bowl champion linebacker Scott Fujita retired a month after coming out in full support of gay players in the locker room in The New York Times. And Brendon Ayanbadejo, the linebacker who championed equal rights on the steps of the Supreme Court, was let go by the Baltimore Ravens, only to turn around the next day and hint that as many as four active NFL players might be coming out together, before the new season begins this fall. Indeed, the league's roster of outspoken gay rights supporters has been depleted, and just when the NFL appears to need them most: Football is preparing for its own Jason Collins moment, amidst outright bigotry, and prominent players questioning whether players are really ready. But were these less prominent advocates released because of the NFL's big gay issues, or because they weren't good enough? And will the real Pro Bowlers please stand up for a new reality where the NBA has already broken ground?

Kluwe announced the news via Twitter, where he has also taken his politics, on Monday morning:

So long, Minnesota, and thanks for all the fish!

— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) May 6, 2013

Kluwe had a year remaining on his contract, but the NFL doesn't do guaranteed contracts, and Minnesota ranked 22nd in the league in punting average in a breakout year for punters. He put the writing on his social media wall on opening night of last month's NFL Draft, when no team picked openly gay kicker Alan Gendreau — but the Vikings did select UCLA punter Jeff Locke:

I have a picture of my new #Vikingsuniform! Who knows if I'll get to wear it! Looks cool though. twitter.com/ChrisWarcraft/…

— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) April 25, 2013

"It's a shame that in a league with players given multiple second chances after arrests, including felony arrests, that speaking out on human rights has a chance of getting you cut," read a text message from Kluwe, obtained by NBC's Pro Football Talk on the Sunday after the draft. And in typical Kluwe fashion — remember that "lustful cockmonster" open letter to a Maryland politician last September? — he told The Minnesota Star Tribune's Chip Scoggins over the weekend that he would rather be cut for being outspoken about gay rights than play football: 

Now, I would hope that I would get the chance to play football again, because I think I can still play. But if it ends up being something that costs me that position, I think making people aware of an issue that is causing children to commit suicide is more important than kicking a leather ball.

Those comments aren't unlike what Ayanbadejo — the backup Ravens linebacker who made more headlines for his stance on gay rights in the locker room and in Washington at the big anti-gay Super Bowl and beyond — said when he said he was cut a month ago. "I make a lot of noise and garner a lot of attention for various things off the football field. When that starts happening, why do you have that player around?" Ayanbadejo told Newsday on April 4 — a pretty serious assertion that he walked back the next day.

But was Kluwe cut because he wasn't worth the $1.45 million the Vikings were slated to pay him, or because he was talking more about a new political dialogue than than punting strategy? That depends on who you ask. Ask ESPN's Kevin Seifert, and you'll see the Vikings got rid of a player whose 39.9-yard net average and punts downed inside the 20 yard line put him in the middle-to-bottom of the league. Going by Bleacher Report's Lead NFL Draft writer Matt Miller, the Vikings got rid of the eighth best punter in the league, "a good directional punter who limits touchbacks (two on the year) and keeps the ball from being returnable when at all possible."

That's... not entirely clear from a player evaluation perspective. But as the second week of Jason Collins's coming out begins, America's first major team-sport athlete is still looking for a job, too. This is raising questions in the sports world that are less driven by statistics than poor taste. This is where the seedy underbelly of sportswriters talking about "marginal" players start comparing gay people with non-gay people, and look for answers that aren't there. NBC's Mike Florio first floated the rumor that NFL team officials "want to know whether Manti Te'o is gay," prompting an underwhelming NFL investigation. When Florio responded to a CBS scoop that "a current gay NFL player is strongly considering coming out," he suggested that a gay player could use his sexuality to his contractual advantage

For a marginal player who may be on his way out of the league, the indirect benefit of coming out could be getting another chance to play from a team that chooses to embrace diversity — or that doesn’t want to be perceived as shunning it.

Florio was smacked down for that observation, and his notion that having a gay teammate would be a general distraction for any team. Token players for a team looking to pump its diversity was seen as ridiculous, because no sport, no matter how many role models it produces and no professional athlete would want any part in this kind of affirmative action.  But "marginal" players like Collins could be setting the stage: "The fact that Collins is an underwhelming player HELPS," argues Deadspin's Drew Magary. "If it's not a big deal to many people for such a low-end player to come out, it will be less of a big deal when a bigger name follows suit. Collins will absorb some of that scrutiny and send it back harmlessly into the atmosphere, where it will disperse."

So why are all the non-gay gay-rights advocates among the playing ranks still so marginal, and why aren't they playing anymore? To be fair, there are some Rob Gronkowskis and other stars out there being generally awesome about this whole thing, and the Indianapolis Colts are even more awesome, but Kluwe appears to have influenced his Vikings teammates to be more open, even as former stars like Hines Ward admit the opposite: "I don't think football is ready, there's too many guys in the locker room and, you know, guys play around too much," Ward, the former Pro Bowler turned commentator, said after Collins's announcement. That's better than what his former Steelers receiving mate Mike Wallace said the same day, but still: If the NFL is in fact having "internal conversations about how to prepare for the moment when one of its players publicly discusses his homosexuality," where are the conversations on the outside, and who's going to start them? "Lustful cockmonster" might be extreme, but it's not grounds for breaking a contract, and it sure is a better conversation starter than another day at church, or a WNBA player with another thoughtful essay in the Times. If the NFL is truly ready for its breakthrough moment, it doesn't need benchwarmers — it needs all-star advocates. Of the 179 reactions to the Collins news from pro athletes rounded up by Outsports.com, only 24 were NFL players — and only 17 of them were active. Today, the league is down to 16 bold enough to speak, and hardly any loud enough to be heard.

       

The Third Boston Bomber Buddy Is Out on Bail Because He's Just an Alleged Liar

Nineteen-year-old American citizen Robel Phillipos, one of the three suspects charged with helping to get rid of possible incriminating evidence against their friend Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, will be released from jail today and shuffled into home arrest. Yes, federal authorities have apparently determined that the biggest threat posed by Phillipos now is telling dumb lies about visiting an alleged terrorist's dorm room, not fleeing a side investigation into how his pals threw out a backpack full of explosives in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings. In a document filed by Phillipos's attorney and the Department of Justice earlier today, "both said they had agreed on a plan to release Phillipos from custody. Under the plan, Phillipos would be under home confinement at a home other than his own, he would wear a monitoring ankle bracelet, and post a secured bond worth $100,000," reports The Boston Globe. And it looks like a judge made that official this afternoon.

The biggest factor in the decision: prosecutors and the Justice Department don't believe Phillipos is a flight risk. Also at work here: Phillipos may not have been directly involved in the ongoing terror plot, or at least his lawyers say so. The charges against Phillipos — lying to investigators over a series of four interviews — all have to do with the time period after the bombings, and not with that fateful backback doing in the two other not very smart friends, Dias Kadyrbayev and Azamat Tazhayakov. The timing of when each of the three 19-year-olds knew that Tsarnaev was a suspect — after his photo surfaced across the country but before his name was released, in between which the bag apparently vanished from the dorm room — continues to be the centerpiece of the charges against all three.  

The Globe's staff report today mentions that a hearing in 10 days could decide the next steps for Phillipos, but its unclear if this is a good sign for either side :

The document also suggests that a quick resolution of the criminal charges could be in the offing. Both sides asked for a probable cause hearing to be changed to May 16 so the both sides can “confer about how this matter should proceed."

Phillipos could face a maximum of eight years in prison and a $250,000 fine if he is found guilty of lying to federal investigators.