« May 2006 | Main | July 2006 »

June 09, 2006

internets 1, hollywood 0

there's a story on the bbc site today highlighting a debate between mpaa president bill glickman and eff [electronic fronteir foundation] co-founder / grateful dead lyricist john perry barlow. why do the people from the industry sound like such idiots all the time:

It is ridiculous to believe that you can give product away for free and be more successful. I mean it defies the laws of nature. Would a clothing store give all their clothes for free? Would a car dealership give all its cars for free? Of course not. If they don't make a profit in this world they're out of business. That's just the laws of human nature.
capitalism obviously is human nature, face it. *cry*

| | Comments (0)

June 08, 2006

jon stewart, defender of gays

check out this video of jon stewart engaging in an amazing defense of gay marriage against the comparatively foolish arguments of bill bennett. stewart always amazes me, and although he is clearly hilarious, he is more logical, persuasive and just generally spot on than most of our politicians. as he says, "divorce is not caused because 50% of marriages end gayness."

[thanks boing boing]

| | Comments (0)

plug in to pepsi

pepsi_ad.jpg

bbdo of canada has created the above ad for pepsi. it has a fully funtional headphone jack in it, and when you plug in you get to hear samples of tracks available only at pepsiaccess.ca. they are up and running in toronto and vancouver right now. of course i'm interested in anything where public transit and music collide...

[thanks engadget]

| | Comments (0)

fivefingers barefoot shoes

fivefingers.jpg

i'm not sure if these shoe things are cool or lame, but i certainly would like to try a pair. the soles are made of vibram, the same stuff my chaco hiking sandals are made from [karma's favorite! heh]. those are super comfortable so i wonder if these bizarre looking foot-glove things would be too. although i could imagine it being a bit painful running on hard concrete, or getting beat up on the playground for looking like an idiot. but still :]

[thanks gizmodo]

| | Comments (1)

spock and naked ladies

leonard_nimoy.jpg

since we at the house of 168 1/2 have been doing a all-the-star-trek-movies marathon, i thought it would be apropos to post about leonard nimoy's recent career change. he's now taking photos of naked women, eggs and other things. live long and prosper indeed :]

| | Comments (0)

June 07, 2006

babies heart satan

need i say more? ;]

[thanks boing boing]

| | Comments (0)

the ark of the covenant

raiders_of_the_lost_ark_1.jpg raiders_of_the_lost_ark_2.gif


this article from the fortean times was awesome. it's a conjecture about what the ark of the covenant might actually have been - a super fancy leyden jar. really cool stuff.

Re-Engineering the Ark

From Exodus to Indiana Jones, the Ark of the Covenant has been described as possessing awesome destructive powers – but how did it work? Michael Blackburn and Mark Bennett believe they have found the answer, and that it reveals a mastery of the forces of electricity not normally associated with Biblical times and technologies.

In a secular age such as ours, it’s not unlikely that more people will be familiar with the story of the Ark of the Covenant from Steven Spielberg’s blockbuster (and first Indiana Jones film) Raiders of the Lost Ark than from its pivotal appearance in the Old Testament, a book held as the actual word of God by two major religions.

In the movie, of course, Hitler’s Nazis seek the ancient artefact in order to harness its mysterious power as a devastating weapon against their enemies (and end up getting fried by it in the process).

Surprisingly, though, Hollywood got it more or less right: the Ark indeed held the lethal and devastating power of God, which was to be used as a weapon by those who possessed it.

But beyond the Bible itself there are no clues, maps or traces to follow, no ancient remains or fragments to find: the Ark’s very existence is dependant purely upon one of the most influential – and yet most heavily edited and historically dubious – books ever written. All we have are the biblical descriptions, and the Ark remains no more tangible than many other biblical stories. It has until now been a matter of pure belief, not fact.

But if we were to take the information provided in the Bible, could we use it to decode what the Ark actually was? Could one be built, even on a small scale, using substances and technologies available during the Biblical period?

The Ark of the Covenant was a machine designed, created and used for a specific purpose, and the technology involved is easily understood by anyone who has ever received a shock from a supermarket trolley or had the misfortune to wear nylon. Today, the concepts behind the Ark are readily understood, but at the time of its creation it must have been beyond the comprehension of most people, an awe-inspiring artefact. As Arthur C Clark famously wrote: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. To those who saw the Ark, it really must have seemed as if the power of God had been stolen from the sacred mountaintop and now resided within the golden Temple, held captive to the will of men. Which is, in effect, precisely what happened, but not quite as we have been led to believe.

LIGHTNING IN A JAR

Over 250 years ago, a Dutch scientist called Pieter Van Musschenbroek (1692-1761) sent a report to the Paris Academy of Sciences outlining his experiments with electricity, and created a sensation. The year was 1747.

His invention, destined to be immortalised as the Leyden Jar, named after Van Musschenbroek’s home town and university, was a very simple device that accumulated and stored a large amount of electricity which, when discharged, could deliver a very powerful punch. As the inventor himself wrote: “My whole body was shaken as though by a thunderbolt”.

In terms of 18th-century science Van Musschenbroek’s seemingly miraculous invention soon excited the curiosity of his fellow scientists. Benjamin Franklin called it “Musschenbroek’s wonderful bottle”, and went on to carry out a series of often painful tests to determine exactly how one could produce such a powerful “electrical commotion” from little more than a glass bottle filled with water.

Franklin thought the Leyden Jar would be a good way to kill turkeys, and carried out trials. Using one jar the size of a pint glass, he knocked himself unconscious for several hours. His most famous experiment used a kite to capture lightning in a Leyden Jar with a silk thread and key. Some recent scholars doubt that Franklin actually performed this test – the next two people who attempted it were killed in the effort.

Prior to the discovery of the properties of the Leyden Jar, the only means of producing electricity had been by friction machines – glass globes rotated against leather or silk pads, which generated small static charges. The Leyden Jar, although dependant upon friction machines for charging, represented a major advance in the understanding and development of electricity that would not be superseded until Allasandro Volta created the Voltaic pile (which produced an electrochemical reaction) in 1800.

A description taken from a book published in 1899 describes the Leyden Jar (pictured above) thus:

It consists of a glass jar, coated outside and inside with tinfoil to within 2 or 3 cm of the top. It may therefore be regarded as a condenser (capacitor) consisting of two parallel plates (positive and negative) separated by a glass dielectric (insulator). The jar is provided with a wooden lid, through the centre of which passes a brass rod, terminating in a brass knob; a short length of metal chain is attached to the lower end, and of sufficient length to touch the tinfoil lining. The tinfoil serves as the insulated conductor, which may be conveniently charged through the knob; the jar is either placed on a table or held in the hand, so that the outer coating is consequently earth-connected.

From these descriptions it is certainly possible, even with only a rudimentary knowledge of electricity, to understand the basic principles involved and to construct a working version. What the description doesn’t tell us, though, is how large the volume of the jar is in relation to the charge. To give an example, a 500–1,000gm (1.1–2.2lb) jar, such as an average coffee or storage jar, would be capable of producing a charge in excess of the 220-volt domestic supply.

So, while it would be easy enough for Blue Peter to instruct the nation’s children in how to build a Leyden Jar out of common household items, it wouldn’t be advisable, as they are potentially highly dangerous devices.

Today, the Leyden Jar may be regarded as a little piece of crude but important technical history, but it has been in constant use in the 250-odd years since its invention. It survives to this day in the more advanced form of the capacitor, which works upon exactly the same principles, although in a more highly refined manner. It remains one of the key components in countless modern electrical devices and systems and is produced in vast numbers – over 200 thousand million units per year.


THE ARK OF THE COVENANT

Some time ago, we came across a description of a device that displayed all the known characteristics and functions of a standard Leyden Jar, although its technical sophistication and development was particularly notable. There were, though, a couple of problems with it: firstly, that it was approximately 3,500 years old. And, secondly, that it was the Ark of the Covenant.

That is to say, the Biblical Ark of Moses, the lost golden treasure that once stood in the Tabernacle in the wilderness of Sinai – the same Ark that led Moses and his followers into the Promised Land and stood in the legendary Temple of Solomon. The symbol of God’s sacred covenant with his chosen people was, essentially, a Leyden Jar, a device capable of producing thousands of volts of static electricity!

But how could a device invented less than 300 years ago have been used in biblical times? Where could the knowledge to build and use such sophisticated technology have come from? And what evidence is there to support such a seemingly outlandish claim? After all, the idea is contrary not just to the ideas and expectations that have grown up around the Bible, but also to what we think we know about ancient history and science.

The questions posed by the Ark when viewed from the perspective are considerable and wide ranging, and with potentially enormous implications. But is the idea of the Ark being an electrical device really as radical as it initially appears?


THE BAGHDAD BATTERY

The word electricity is derived from the Greek word for amber; the generation of a static charge by rubbing substances such as amber and wool was documented by Thales of Miletus in 600BC. Amber would be considered as the only substance that could produce static for the next 2,200 years.

In 1938, Dr Wilhelm König, a German archæologist appointed director of the National Museum of Iraq, found the controversial ‘Baghdad Batteries’ in the museum’s collection. These were small clay jars, each of which had an asphalt stopper, through which ran an iron rod surrounded by a copper cylinder. König had also come across copper vases that had once been plated with silver, and speculated that the ‘batteries’ had been used to accomplish this. Interestingly, the ‘batteries’ were dated to roughly 250BC but, rather surprisingly, the vases appeared to date from around 2,500BC and to come from Sumerian sites.

Although the dates differed, these discoveries suggested that the principles of electrochemical reaction were known and used in the process called electrolysis, or electroplating, at least 1,000 years before the Ark and 4,300 years before Volta. (In fact, the electroplating process was not used commercially until the middle of the 19th century.)

Clearly, the existence of these artefacts supports the idea of electricity being used in intelligent and highly developed ways long before we laid claim to its discovery. Perhaps the idea that the Ark of the Covenant was a device capable of storing electricity, to be used intelligently to achieve certain effects, is not quite as unlikely as it first appears.

Anyone who reads the biblical descriptions of the Ark’s behaviour would be struck by the details of the deaths of those foolhardy or unfortunate enough to have touched it. In Leviticus X:1–2, for instance, Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, approach the Ark in the Tabernacle: they “took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord”.

Later, in II Samuel VI:6–7, as David is bringing the Ark to Jerusalem, Uzzah “put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God”.

What kind of power could have caused this to happen? Why could some people handle the Ark and live, but not others? Could the power of God the Creator reside in a gold-covered chest, as tradition would have us believe? And, of course, it’s rather disconcerting that this divine power should be, on the one hand, so indiscriminate and uncontrollable, and on the other so easily confined.

There have been attempts to offer some sort of alternative possibilities for the Ark’s mysterious powers. In 1968, Erich von Däniken, in his book Chariots of the Gods, interpreted the Ark as a capacitor capable of producing enough electrical energy to communicate via radio with the crew of a passing alien spaceship. There is, as others have argued, nothing to support the idea that a technology such as the Ark was so sophisticated that it could only have come from an advanced alien race (or, indeed, any other non-human being, such as a god); besides, the logic behind such a gift is the equivalent of giving a toaster to a monkey and expecting it to make breakfast. In any case, it’s high time we freed the concepts of both God and aliens from the limited roles in which they have been cast; we should allow them to remain as the great unknowns, safely beyondour reach, where they belong.

SPECIFICATIONS AND MATERIALS

The story of the Ark effectively starts in Egypt, where the Hebrews lived and laboured as slaves under a cruel Pharaoh. Inspired by God and the leadership of Moses, they flee from Egypt – estimates range from a few thousand to a few million or so of them – into the wilderness. Here, they settle near Mt Sinai and come face to face with God…

The Ark makes its initial appearance in Exodus, the second book of the Old Testament, Chapter XXV. God speaks directly to Moses, ordering that an “offering” be built, to very precise and demanding specifications. This offering includes the Ark of the Covenant, the Tabernacle (Temple) and all of the fixtures, fittings and furnishings. The wealth of detail is enormous and bewildering, everything from colours to dimensions is mapped out with a precision befitting an engineer.

In verses 10-21, the instructions for the Ark are given; it is a lidless rectangular box construction, made of Shittim wood, measuring two and a half cubits long by one and half cubits wide and high. It is covered in gold over the inner and outer surfaces, with a gold crown or border around the top. Four gold rings are then added to each corner, for the carrying poles. These are to be made of the same gold-covered wood, and it is specifically ordered that they should never be removed.

Next comes the ‘lid’, the mercy seat, which matches the dimensions of the box and is covered in gold. The cherubim are added to the mercy seat – one of these winged figures is placed at either end of the lid, facing inwards, with their four wings outstretched to form a canopy or arch over the Ark. And that is basically all there is to it: a very simple box construction, roughly the size of a coffee table, with an elaborately decorated lid.

From these basic details there is nothing to indicate anything particularly unusual about the Ark. It appears to be nothing more than a carrying chest for the sacred laws of God. The cherubim on the lid stand guard over the contents, as they once did at the gates of paradise. So how do we account for its power?

The Ark was made from a dense hard wood, generally assumed to be Acacia arabia. Its dimensions, based upon the Egyptian Royal cubit, also known as the cubit of Moses or “long cubit” – equivalent to 525mm or around 21 inches – are approximately 4ft 4in (1.3m) long, with a height and depth of 2ft 7in (76cm). The pure gold covering of the Ark would probably have consisted of thin plates or sheets of beaten gold, not gold leaf or solid cast gold as is often assumed, neither of which is practical or realistic.

The Mercy Seat or lid is of the same dimension as the box and made of the same wood and covered in gold sheets. On the top sit the two winged figures, the cherubim, at either end of the lid, their wings extended above them, inclining inwards. The cherubim figures are made of gold and of beaten work. This would suggest that the figures are solid castings with the wings made separately of finer worked gold sheets.

If we then make the comparison between these details of the Ark and a normal Leyden Jar, we get some interesting results. The gold coverings of the Ark form the positive (inside) and earth (outside) conductive layers (replacing the tin foil lining) and an insulator separates the two layers (in this case the wood replaces the glass). Wood is not generally used as an insulating material due to its capacity to absorb moisture – a Leyden Jar will not function under damp conditions. However, consideration must be given to the ideal dry desert conditions under which the Ark operated.

The construction details of the mercy seat differ from the modern Leyden Jar. Normally, the lid is not made conductive, in order to insulate the single charging rod inserted through it. The Ark has two figures on its conductive lid, creating a double configuration in which one cherubim would be connected to the earth layer, the other to the inner, positive one, isolated from the outer layer. In other words, the cherubim would act as the positive and negative terminals.

These basic comparisons show an almost identical construction for the Ark and Leyden jar, and it would be reasonable to assume that the same principles apply to both versions. Clearly, the Ark is the more complex design, displaying many features well in advance of its modern counterpart.


A BIG SHOCK

Using the example of the 500gm-coffee jar-sized Leyden Jar, and assuming that this could store a charge of approximately 200 volts, the Ark would have held the equivalent of 125 such jars, giving it a comparable, if not greater, potential voltage, as well as, more importantly, allowing for a much longer discharge time. Such a level of voltage goes a long way to explaining the reasons for the Arks more evolved design.

The most obvious difference is the use of twin terminals on the Ark. There are no problems with this configuration, other than ensuring good connection and isolation of each terminal, but there are some very good reasons for it. Because of its size, and the relation of capacity to charge, it would not be possible to touch the Ark by hand or with any form of implement to discharge it. The Ark would have carried a charge of thousands of volts, and because the human body is a better conductor than air, it would have killed anyone who got too close to it. Sound familiar?

Of all the various differences, the construction of the lid, or mercy seat, is the most interesting feature. The lid is in effect the connection or switch that provides the completed circuit. Without the lid, the Ark is simply an inert, gold covered box. Unfortunately, the Bible fails to supply certain minor but crucial details. It doesn’t state how thick the wood used in the Ark’s construction was, if the mercy seat was covered with gold on both sides, or how far the gold lining inside the Ark extended.

In a normal Leyden Jar, the inner foil lining does not cover every surface. There is always a gap left to prevent the charge from ‘jumping’ or escaping and puncturing the glass. In terms of the Ark, these same rules would not be so critical; the wood insulation, assuming a thickness of 1–2 inches (2.5–5cm), would offer a greater resistance than glass, and the thicker gold better conductivity than tinfoil. These factors, combined with the greater voltage capacity, suggest that Ark was fully lined.

There is one last area of concern – the Ark’s inherent weak spot – the joint between the box and the lid. This is really only a question of design, and poses an interesting challenge as to the method of the joint’s construction, as well as factors such as insulation and how well the box and lid sit together. The diagram shown opposite gives a potential construction method that would ensure firm contacts of the earth and positive surfaces and, with the addition of a layer of wax or resin to seal the join, perfect insulation.

This explains the purpose of the mysterious crown around the rim of the box. It was not just a decorative feature, but a safety guard that ensured the vital earth connection to the lid and also ‘caught’ and earthed any leakage that might escape through the join.

Finally, the carrying poles were made from the same wood as the Ark, and covered in gold sheeting and attached to the Ark by solid gold rings secured to each bottom corner. These rings would have been securely attached to the Ark, through the outer earth layer, and secured to the insulating wood without touching the inner, positive layer. The Ark could then be safely transported, with those carrying it acting as the earth connection; this explains the specific instruction that these poles should never be removed.

The Ark is a clever, complex piece of design, displaying all the hallmarks of a sophisticated knowledge and mastery of the electrical principles involved. Without any doubt, the Ark of the Covenant was capable of producing some of the effects claimed for it in the Bible. It was large enough to carry a powerful and lethal charge many times over and remain active for a considerable period of time. Beyond that, it was limited and certainly could not have produced all the effects described in the biblical texts.

THE TABERNACLE

The Ark was not built to stand alone; it was a component, just as its modern equivalent is, in a much larger construction. It was built specifically to be housed within the Holy of Holies, the inner sanctum of the Tabernacle in the wilderness, the temple that once stood at the foot of Mt Sinai and from which the glory of the Lord emanated.

“And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim, which are upon the ark of the testimony…” Exodus XXV:22.

God’s instructions continue with construction of the Tabernacle and its furnishings, in exacting detail. The Tabernacle, or Temple, is also referred to as a tent and often depicted along the lines of a European tent rather than the more appropriate Bedouin variety. These tend to be low square or rectangular constructions, with sloping awnings extending from the main body.

Above: Setting up the Tabernacle (Exodus XXVI)

The Temple is in effect a roofless rectangular wooden box, open at the eastern end. The entire structure is then covered in linen, goat’s hair and leather curtains or covers to form an enclosed, tent-like structure. The inner space is divided into two areas, one for the Ark and the other for the ceremonial ministrations of the priests. It must have been a very imposing structure and, given its location, a virtual cathedral in the wilderness.

The Temple structure was made up of 48 upright planks of Shittim wood, 20 on each side and eight at the back. Using the Egyptian Royal Cubit, each plank measured 10 cubits long by one cubit and a half wide – roughly 17ft long by 2ft 7in wide (5.2m by 76cm). Therefore, the temple was approximately 52ft long by 21ft wide and 14ft high (15.8 by 6.4 by 4.3m), allowing for 3ft (91cm) underground for support.

What emerges from the clutter of the biblical description is a rather beautiful structure, entirely in keeping with the practical style of Bedouin peoples. The similarities end there, though, as the Temple is richly decorated in luxuriant colours, designs and massive amounts of gold covering the walls, not to mention the gold-covered furniture, fittings and utensils, the vast amounts of linen used in the coverings and fencing and all the goat hair, leather, wood, silver and brass.

The application of such rich and extravagant decorations is perhaps understandable, if a little contrary to the story of the Exodus; this was, after all, a temple, and everything must have been designed to create a powerful impression. The decoration and design of the Temple appear to have been created with an emphasis on maximising effects that only became apparent when viewed from the outside.

If the Ark was placed inside the Temple (in effect a large conductive box) and discharged, the result would be disappointing. There would be no spectacular effects, just the barely discernible glow of a few sparks and a loud crack. Why go to all this trouble to create the Temple if this was the end result? There must be some other, less obvious factor involved. The natural assumption to make is that the entire interior structure, and everything in it, would become live if the Ark put several thousand volts into the walls. But the Ark is the only crucial part of the Temple that is earthed, so it would operate normally if it were charged – any discharge would occur between the two cherubim, not the walls or pillars.

The answer to this problem is in the opposite principle – the Ark is not the source of the charge, the Temple is. The secret lies in the massive amount of static electricity generated through the linen, goat hair and leather coverings.


BUILDING THE ENERGY

The generation of static electricity is totally dependant upon atmospheric conditions and friction. When the Temple was first built, the various layers of the covers would have been dragged across each other to build up the outer coverings. The goat’s hair, being the more abrasive, would have become positively charged with static, which would then have spread to every conductive surface. The walls, the furniture, the Ark – everything was charged with positive, static electricity. The initial charge of static would have been very weak, but it would have retained its potential. And under certain atmospheric conditions, the initial charge would be dramatically increased and maintained by static generated and stored in the covers.

Above: The Ark of the Covenant (Exodus XXV)

The charge would slowly build up over the interior surfaces and inside the Ark. When the charge in the Ark became strong enough to overcome the air resistance between the two cherubim, it would jump the gap between the wings and discharge. This would not have been a lightning-like spark, rather a glow or corona discharge caused by the pointed wing tips of the cherubim. The effect would be an intense burst of brilliant light of considerable duration and power, accompanied by noise and heat. The initial discharge from the Ark would be fed and maintained by the surrounding positive charge stored in the walls and covers. The corona would slowly diminish as the stored charge was exhausted and the cycle, depending on conditions, would begin again.

The key to its successful operation is air resistance. Due to the Ark’s size, and its being earthed, it acted as the catalyst or trigger. The secret is the air resistance inside the Ark and the gap between the wings of the cherubim, which could be set accordingly. It would take longer for the charge in the Ark to overcome the air resistance than it would for the charge to build up inside the Temple. By the time the Ark was ready to discharge, a massive charge would have built up inside the Temple.

GOD HAS BEEN CAGED

The entire structure and purpose of the Temple was to create and harness massive charges of static electricity. Everything about it was designed to enhance and amplify this energy to maximum effect, for reasons that we are, perhaps, only too familiar with. Within this structure, the Ark played a crucial role as catalyst, but it was a single component of a larger system; outside of the Temple walls in which it was designed to function, the Ark was of limited use, except, perhaps as a symbol. It is somewhat ironic that so much attention has been focused upon the mystery of the Ark in recent years, when in fact the key to the greatest secret of the ancient world lies in the overlooked, in the Tabernacle in the Wilderness.

Both the Ark and Temple are superbly designed pieces of organic technology that utilise the power of the natural elements, simply and efficiently, for a specific purpose. Everything about the construction and use of this technology is entirely in keeping with what we know and understand about the concepts and realities of the ancient world. There is nothing fantastic or alien about it – it is readily understandable in practical terms that most of us are familiar with.

The existence of such technology over 3,500 years ago, and the obviously intelligent way in which it was harnessed and used, might well indicate that the ancient world has not offered up all of its secrets.

“And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle”.

–– Exodus XL:35.

End


| | Comments (0)

hideo wakamatsu

hideo_wakamatsu.jpg hideo_wakamatsu_cartoon.jpg


so i was chatting with laurence today who says that i don't ever tell him what i'm doing. so on a personal note: today i went up to LA to do some pre-internship-travel shopping. for those of you who don't know i will be interning with intel up in portland this summer but also doing fieldwork for them in london. that means i get to do the 11 hour flight even more often than usual! yay! so i decided that since i'm not technically "backpacking" for these trips, i ought to buy something that's not a backpack. well i already got a super cute carry-on sized piece from this designer and so i decided to complete the set and get the big one. i love the design of this luggage by hideo wakamatsu. it's super sleek, very quiet, and it seems more or less sturdy. and okay, yes, fine, i admit it: it's also metrosexual.

incidentally the cartoon i found from googling for the designers name and appears to be from someone's comic blog.

| | Comments (1)

western digital my book

wd_mybookpro.jpg

i have been looking for a [new] external hard drive for a while. i have too many computers and so much media. after one of my desktop hard drives crashed and then my powerbook hard drive bit it about 2 months after buying it, i started getting paranoid about my mass of unprotected digital content. i've finally developed a system for backing stuff up, keeping everything in a central place etc. but the external drive i got is a loaner, and i want something quiet, fast, not too large, and stylish. along comes this beauty from western digital. it's got a 7200rpm drive which is supposedly super quiet. i rather like the ones from lacie but this seems cheaper faster, and it sports firewire 800, 400 and usb 2.0. wohoo. but the best part is the "capacity gauge" a backlit blue led on the front of the drive that tells you at a glance how full it is. oh! and it looks like a book! like all of my other aluminum books, my powerbook, my.... ;]

| | Comments (0)

June 04, 2006

walmart goes "organic"

there is a very provocative article in the new york times magazine today about walmarts move toward stocking organic foods. it speaks a lot to the issues of sustainability, exactly the same sorts of issues we, the members of a seminar on ubicomp, were raising during a discussion of bruce sterling's new book shaping things. the article is definitely worth a read as it's important [if you care that is] to not take "organic" at face value, just because the government says it's organic it might be doing more harm to our environment than you think. for now the burden of sustainability is one which we all must fight to carry.

The Way We Live Now
Mass Natural

By MICHAEL POLLAN
Published: June 4, 2006

"Elitist" is just about the nastiest name you can call someone, or something, in America these days, a finely-honed term of derision in the culture wars, and "elitist" has stuck to organic food in this country like balsamic vinegar to mâche. Thirty years ago the rap on organic was a little different: back then the stuff was derided as hippie food, crunchy granola and bricklike brown bread for the unshaved set (male and female division). So for organic to be tagged as elitist may count as progress. But you knew it was over for John Kerry in the farm belt when his wife, Teresa, helpfully suggested to Missouri farmers that they go organic. Eating organic has been fixed in the collective imagination as an upper-middle-class luxury, a blue-state affectation as easy to mock as Volvos or lattes. On the cultural spectrum, organic stands at the far opposite extreme from Nascar or Wal-Mart.

But all this is about to change, now that Wal-Mart itself, the nation's largest grocer, has decided to take organic food seriously. (Nascar is not quite there yet.) Beginning later this year, Wal-Mart plans to roll out a complete selection of organic foods — food certified by the U.S.D.A. to have been grown without synthetic pesticides or fertilizers — in its nearly 4,000 stores. Just as significant, the company says it will price all this organic food at an eye-poppingly tiny premium over its already-cheap conventional food: the organic Cocoa Puffs and Oreos will cost only 10 percent more than the conventional kind. Organic food will soon be available to the tens of millions of Americans who now cannot afford it — indeed, who have little or no idea what the term even means. Organic food, which represents merely 2.5 percent of America's half-trillion-dollar food economy, is about to go mainstream. At a stroke, the argument that it is elitist will crumble.

This is good news indeed, for the American consumer and the American land. Or perhaps I should say for some of the American land and a great deal more of the land in places like Mexico and China, for Wal-Mart is bound to hasten the globalization of organic food. (Ten percent of organic food is imported today.) Like every other commodity that global corporations lay their hands on, organic food will henceforth come from wherever in the world it can be produced most cheaply. It is about to go the way of sneakers and MP3 players, becoming yet another rootless commodity circulating in the global economy.

Oh, but wait. . .I meant to talk about all the good that will come of Wal-Mart's commitment to organic. Sorry about that. When you're talking about global capitalism, it can be hard to separate the good news from the bad. Because of its scale and efficiency and notorious ruthlessness, Wal-Mart will force down the price of organics, and that is a good thing for all the consumers who can't afford to spend more for food than they already do. Wal-Mart will also educate the millions of Americans who don't yet know exactly what organic food is or precisely how it differs from conventionally grown food.

The vast expansion of organic farmland it will take to feed Wal-Mart's new appetite is also an unambiguous good for the world's environment, since it will result in substantially less pesticide and chemical fertilizer being applied to the land — somewhere. Whatever you think about the prospect of organic Coca-Cola, when it comes, and come it surely will, tens of thousands of acres of the world's cornfields — enough to make all that organic high-fructose corn syrup — will no longer receive an annual shower of pesticides like Atrazine. O.K., you're probably registering a flicker of cognitive dissonance at the conjunction of the words "organic" and "high-fructose corn syrup," but keep your eye for a moment on that Atrazine.

Atrazine is a powerful herbicide applied to 70 percent of America's cornfields. Traces of the chemical routinely turn up in American streams and wells and even in the rain; the F.D.A. also finds residues of Atrazine in our food.

So what? Well, the chemical, which was recently banned by the European Union, is a suspected carcinogen and endocrine disruptor that has been linked to low sperm counts among farmers. A couple of years ago, a U.C. Berkeley herpetologist named Tyrone Hayes, while doing research on behalf of Syngenta, Atrazine's manufacturer, found that even at concentrations as low as 0.1 part per billion, the herbicide will chemically emasculate a male frog, causing its gonads to produce eggs — in effect, turning males into hermaphrodites. Atrazine is often present in American waterways at much higher concentrations than 0.1 part per billion. But American regulators generally won't ban a pesticide until the bodies, or cancer cases, begin to pile up — until, that is, scientists can prove the link between the suspect molecule and illness in humans or ecological catastrophe. So Atrazine is, at least in the American food system, deemed innocent until proved guilty — a standard of proof extremely difficult to achieve, since it awaits the results of chemical testing on humans that we, rightly, don't perform.

I don't know about you, but as the father of an adolescent boy, I sort of like the idea of keeping such a molecule out of my son's diet, even if the scientists and nutritionists say they still don't have proof that organic food is any safer or healthier. I also like that growing food organically doesn't pollute the rivers and water table with nitrates from synthetic fertilizer or expose farm workers to toxic pesticides. And the fact that animals raised organically don't receive antibiotics or synthetic growth hormones. Sounds like a better agriculture to me — and Wal-Mart has just put the force of its great many supermarkets behind it.

But before you pour yourself a celebratory glass of Wal-Mart organic milk, you might want to ask a few questions about how the company plans to achieve its laudable goals. Assuming that it's possible at all, how exactly would Wal-Mart get the price of organic food down to a level just 10 percent higher than that of its everyday food? To do so would virtually guarantee that Wal-Mart's version of cheap organic food is not sustainable, at least not in any meaningful sense of that word. To index the price of organic to the price of conventional is to give up, right from the start, on the idea, once enshrined in the organic movement, that food should be priced not high or low but responsibly. As the organic movement has long maintained, cheap industrial food is cheap only because the real costs of producing it are not reflected in the price at the checkout. Rather, those costs are charged to the environment, in the form of soil depletion and pollution (industrial agriculture is now our biggest polluter); to the public purse, in the form of subsidies to conventional commodity farmers; to the public health, in the form of an epidemic of diabetes and obesity that is expected to cost the economy more than $100 billion per year; and to the welfare of the farm- and food-factory workers, not to mention the well-being of the animals we eat. As Wendell Berry once wrote, the motto of our conventional food system — at the center of which stands Wal-Mart, the biggest purveyor of cheap food in America — should be: Cheap at any price!

To say you can sell organic food for 10 percent more than you sell irresponsibly priced food suggests that you don't really get it — that you plan to bring business-as-usual principles of industrial "efficiency" and "economies of scale" to a system of food production that was supposed to mimic the logic of natural systems rather than that of the factory.

We have already seen what happens when the logic of the factory is applied to organic food production. The industrialization of organic agriculture, which Wal-Mart's involvement will only deepen, has already given us "organic feedlots" — two words that I never thought would find their way into the same clause. To supply the escalating demand for cheap organic milk, agribusiness companies are setting up 5,000-head dairies, often in the desert. These milking cows never touch a blade of grass, instead spending their days standing around a dry-lot "loafing area" munching organic grain — grain that takes a toll on both the animals' health (these ruminants evolved to eat grass, after all) and the nutritional value of their milk. But this is the sort of milk (deficient in beta-carotene and the "good fats" — like omega 3's and C.L.A. — that come from grazing cows on grass) we're going to see a lot more of in the supermarket as long as Wal-Mart determines to keep organic milk cheap.

We're also going to see more organic milk — and organic foods of all kinds — coming from places like New Zealand. The globalization of organic food is already well under way: at Whole Foods you can buy organic asparagus flown in from Argentina, raspberries from Mexico, grass-fed meat from New Zealand. In an era of energy scarcity, the purchase of such products does little to advance the ideal of sustainability that once upon a time animated the organic movement. These foods may contain no pesticides, but they are drenched in petroleum even so.

Whether produced domestically or not, organic meat will increasingly come not from mixed, polyculture farms growing a variety of species (a practice that makes it possible to recycle nutrients between plants and animals) but from ever-bigger Confined Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFO's, which, apart from using organic feed and abjuring antibiotics, are little different from their conventional counterparts. Yes, the federal organic rules say the animals should have "access to the outdoors," but in practice this often means providing them with a tiny exercise yard or, in the case of one organic egg producer in New England, a screened-in concrete "porch" — a view of the outdoors. Herein lies one of the deeper paradoxes of practicing organic agriculture on an industrial scale: big, single-species CAFO's are even more precarious than their conventional cousins, since they can't use antibiotics to keep the thousands of animals living in close confinement indoors from becoming sick. So organic CAFO-hands (to call them farmhands seems overly generous) keep the free ranging to a minimum and then keep their fingers crossed.

Wal-Mart will buy its organic food from whichever producers can produce it most cheaply, and these will not be the sort of farmers you picture when you hear the word "organic." Big supermarkets want to do business only with big farmers growing lots of the same thing, not because big monoculture farms are any more efficient (they aren't) but because it's easier to buy all your carrots from a single megafarm than to contract with hundreds of smaller growers. The "transaction costs" are lower, even when the price and the quality are the same. This is just one of the many ways in which the logic of industrial capitalism and the logic of biology on a farm come into conflict. At least in the short run, the logic of capitalism usually prevails.

Wal-Mart's push into the organic market won't do much for small organic farmers, that seems plain enough. But it may also spell trouble for the big growers it will favor. Wal-Mart has a reputation for driving down prices by squeezing its suppliers, especially after those suppliers have invested heavily to boost production to feed the Wal-Mart maw. Having done that, the supplier will find itself at Wal-Mart's mercy when the company decides it no longer wants to pay a price that enables the farmer to make a living. When that happens, the notion of responsibly priced food will be sacrificed to the imperatives of survival, and the pressure to cut corners will become irresistible.

Up to now, the federal organic standards have provided a bulwark against that pressure. Yet with the industrialization of organic, these rules are themselves coming under mounting pressure, and forgive my skepticism, but it's hard to believe that the lobbyists from Wal-Mart are going to play a constructive role in defending those standards from efforts to weaken them. Just this past year the Organic Trade Association used lobbyists who do work for Kraft Foods to move a bill through Congress that will make it easier to include synthetic ingredients in products labeled organic.

Organic is just a word, after all, and its definition now lies in the hands of the federal government, which means it is subject to all the usual political and economic forces at play in Washington. Inevitably, the drive to produce organic food cheaply will bring pressure to further weaken the regulations, and some of K Street's finest talent will soon be on the case. A few years ago a chicken producer in Georgia named Fieldale Farms persuaded its congressman to slip a helpful provision into an appropriations bill that would allow growers of organic chicken to substitute conventional chicken feed if the price of organic feed exceeded a certain level. That certainly makes life easier for a chicken producer when the price of organic corn is north of $5 a bushel, as it is today, and conventional corn south of $2. But in what sense is a chicken fed on conventional feed still organic? In no sense but the Orwellian one: because the government says it is.

After an outcry from consumers and some wiser heads in the organic industry, this new rule was repealed. The moral of the Fieldale story is that unless consumers and well-meaning organic producers remain vigilant and steadfast, the drive to make the price of organic foods competitive with that of conventional foods will hollow out the word and kill the organic goose, just when her golden eggs are luring so many big players into the water. Let's hope Wal-Mart recognizes that the extraordinary marketing magic of the word "organic" — a power that flows directly from our dissatisfaction with the very-cheap-food economy Wal-Mart has done so much to create — is a lot like the health of an organic chicken living in close confinement with thousands of other chickens in an organic CAFO, munching organic corn: fragile.

Michael Pollan, a contributing writer for the magazine, is the author, most recently, of "The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals." He also teaches journalism at the University of California at Berkeley.

| | Comments (0)

June 03, 2006

12m4s

12m4s.jpg

not too much info on this one, but i'm blogging it for posterity.

The installation ' 12m4s ' is a site-specific work by LAb[au] conceived for the major circulation axis of the art center 'STUK', a building by Neutelings. It is an architectural intervention using visitor's movements to generate in real time out of its main parameters such as visitor position, orientation and speed a visual ( 3d particles ) and sonic ( granular synthesis) scape.

The installation, based on different capture techniques such as image recognition and ultra sound sensors, uses all these multiple tracked data to create a space of sound and movement.

The result, this 'particle synthesis' is projected on a mylar screen fusing projection and reflection while building a common space in between the digital and the body space.

[thanks information aesthetics]

| | Comments (0)

tango: sony bravia parody

tango.png

this paradoy of the sony bravia ad [which was how i first heard of jose gonzalez actually, and perhaps unsurprisingly] is quite cute. it's an ad for a drink called tango and it was filmed on the streets of swansea in wales.

| | Comments (0)

jetblue gets the internets

jetblue.jpg

jetblue won a license to offer high-speed internet on their aircrafts yesterday. jetblue flies direct from long beach to boston which is great for me, and we already have wireless at the long beach airport. airlines like jetblue are super convenient and actually seem to attract customer loyalty considerably more than a lot of the "established" companies; they definitely have my vote. but i'm wondering a] is it going to be free and b] are they going to ban skype? heh.

[thanks gizmodo]

| | Comments (0)

June 02, 2006

beirut: gulag orkestar

beirut_gulag_orkestar.jpg

so i wonder who actually reads my blog. i get a few regular visitors [you know who you are] but there are a bunch of people who keep popping up that i don't actually know. who are you my fans and what do you want from me? speak up! make yourselves known! ;]

anyway in order to cater to the silent masses i will return to posting about my new favorite music as well [when i am motivated enough that is]. i always send cds to the karmadomicile but for those of you who aren't citizens of that great flat, i will clue you in on the most interesting sounds reaching my ears.

i just got the album from "beirut" who is a young guy, very young, making some insanely amazing sounds. i first heard about him from brookyln vegan and tried to track it down after i read the glowing review. well perhaps it is the fact that it's summer and sunny but this album really really excited me. it's a bit of yann tiersen, a bit gypsy, and a bit something awesome. if you want a copy... just ask :]

| | Comments (0)

June 01, 2006

invisible maze

invisible_maze.jpg

the invisible maze is an interface by jeppe hein which will be presented from june 10th until august 27th [i hope i can see it!] at the statens museum for kunst in copenhagen. it is a maze the can only be experienced as you move about. visitors wear digital headphones that react everytime they hit a "virtual wall." six different "classic" mazes [like pacman, the labyrinth, and the maze from the shining] are presented, to encourage return visits. it's a really interesting take on space and mazes--places where you can't really see much of everything are now totally wide open, yet something new is hidden.

[thanks wmmna]

| | Comments (0)

inside / out

inside-out.jpg

inside / out is an interactive light installation that was presented on the streets and buildings of downtown memphis. it is a system which monitors "activity levels" inside of the buildings and creates a light display on the outside. the activity level is measured by counting the number of people entering and exiting the space. i like seeing ambient displays on the urban scale that actually involve the people who are in the space.

[thanks information aesthetics]

| | Comments (0)

days away

goldie_hawn.jpg

i have been away in italy attending AVI, a conference on advanced visual interfaces. i was there to present at a workshop on gender and interaction. the workshop was pretty interesting with people from all sorts of backgrounds. the conference itself was a bit more "traditional hci" but i did get a chance to meet up and chat with friends, bumping into people randomly on the streets of venice. afterwards i got a chance to hang out with the karmafamily and get a bit of sun :]

on another note according to myheritage.com [a pretty interesting and addictive site, check it out] the celebrity who looks most like me is goldie hawn. okay, i can buy that more or less but a few people down on the list is omar sharif, which... well, i leave it up to you to judge that ;]

| | Comments (2)