Colbert and Stewart Restore Fear to Keep Sanity Alive

Image via Wikipedia

I write this, after many moons of not doing anything related to putting words down to paper. Or screen. But that is not entirely true, at the same time: I have been busy with three separate projects of mine, moving them forward an inch at a time, while my so far fruitless search for a job continues.


In any case, here I am, writing once again. What brought me back? Two things: the knowledge that I would eventually come back to this personal sandbox of mine, and my desire to comment on something that has me deeply interested at the moment.


Last week, Stephen Colbert announced in the Colbert Report his Keep Fear Alive rally, which comes as a 'response' to Glenn Beck's own "God-mandated" one. I think it goes without saying that I consider Glenn Bleck a clown of the saddest variety, and the fact that he even gets an audience makes me lose faith in democracies in general. For, if the most developed and most free of the world's democratic societies can engender enough mindless gits to follow Beck's virulent idiocy, what can we expect of the rest of the world, who like it or not look up to the US as a pattern to follow? I won't dwell on the fact that many a reputed economist points out that the USA is no longer the land of opportunity and economic freedom it once was, that torch being clumsily handled nowadays by countries like Chile, of all places.


Colbert and Jon Stewart have launched a campaign to, quite literally, slap Americans on their collective faces and make them come to their senses (Stewart's "Restore Sanity" rally couldn't be more appropriately named). That goes both to the misguided followers of Beck and to those who ignore the growing threat these movements pose. They send a signal to politicians, whom we know will do their best to get cozy with the largest number of potential voters. Whether they share their views is besides the point. And Beck and his clones can deliver the crowds, as they have shown.


Well, hopefully so can Colbert and Stewart.


In olden times, court jesters held a kind of power in court as they were the only ones who, through comedy and satire, make the ruler see the error of his ways. In a democracy, the people are the rulers, so it is perhaps only fitting that two comedians who have made their name in TV now offer the American people the same service.


But two comedians won't restore the US to the economic powerhouse it was twenty years ago. That has to be done by the government and the people. So far, it seems they have forgotten how to do so, and the US approaches more and more the kind of society where everybody lives in comfort but where stagnation of many kinds is the unseen threat to their continued existence.


I mentioned that countries like Chile now are trying to wield the torch of economic freedom, but are so far doing so clumsily. Yes, clumsily... but with a clumsiness that stems from learning the ropes. And they will learn, and then master. And then, hopefully, show the US how it's done, and the US will remember. And remember that they used to be quite good at it.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Glenn Beck Responds To Stewart/Colbert Rallies (huffingtonpost.com)
• Have Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart crossed the line? (salon.com)
• Restore Sanity, Or Keep Fear Alive? (plastic.com)
• Glenn Beck: Jon Stewart Using His Rally To 'Activate The Youth' (mediaite.com)
• Glenn Beck Responds To Jon Stewart's 'Rally To Restore Sanity' (mediaite.com)

Hip to be square: New eco-bottles for Coke

I haven't posted anything in a while now (busy with a couple of writing gigs, job interviews, the likes) but here I am. And to restart the posting, I found this very interesting concept of a new soft drink bottle that's way more eco-friendly than what we're used to.

Designed by Andrew Seunghyun Kim, the bottle sports some very attractive features. As an engineer, I particularly love the fact that, being square, you can put more of them in the same space, optimizing transportation costs. Also, they are vertically stackable, and can collapse to a third of their original size. 

Here's a couple more images:

The full article can be read at DesignersCouch, where there are more images at a higher resolution. I think this is the way to go - it ads an element of cool design to something that's absolutely common nowadays, and it becomes more environmentally friendly. Plus, there are the added logistics advantages. For the brand, it is a win-win-win situation. 

In Favor of Vertical Farms

I have read about the concept of vertical farms many times. Those not familiar with the concept might want to read this article on the Huffington Post, or the Wikipedia entry on the topic. Both are informative. More extensive information can be found at VerticalFarm.com.


At first, I deemed this idea to be too, well, 'science-fiction'y would be the word. I could only envision these skyscrapers full of floor after floor of plants and crops, and even livestock... Unless there were also flying cars in the picture, there was no way I could really see it.


But the more I think about it, the better idea they seem to be. If done properly, they would allow people in the cities to have fresh produce without the need of hauling them all the way from the farmlands - that's less carbon impact in a way.  It also frees farmland which can be devolved to wildlife. Or used for other kinds of farming. Can it be done?

Cuba has been experimenting with urban farming for almost two decades now, more so in the last few years. Granted, the Cuban case is one of resorting to these measures due to desperation and hunger - but necessity is the mother of invention, and crisis the best fuel for human intellect available. So, the Cubans have shown the world that good, healthy, organic crops can be grown in urban settings, enriching the diet of people in those areas. But they do it in flat tracts of land. Is going vertical too farfetched?


I believe that we will see a vertical farming revolution start somewhere like Singapore or Japan, places where real estate is at a premium and where the population density and its demands will at some point force a crisis of this sort. 


When will this happen? That's difficult to foresee, but I believe that the triggers will be some unprecedented rise in the price of food due to farmland being lost to drought or flooding (hint: climate change); or perhaps the price of oil going through the roof, to levels unheard of, will be the trigger. Whatever the reason, I believe we will see the first vertical farms within the next decade. It will take a while for them to become widespread practice, but that they will. I imagine organic and free-range food advocates might raise an eyebrow or oppose vociferously, depending on their own personal beliefs. I don't know. 


I just know that in perhaps twenty years time I will be having a delicious meal at a rooftop restaurant, surrounded by gardens and with the cityscape all around us. And all the ingredients of the meal will have been grown a few floors below us.

Petition to Somali Pirates: Attack the Japanese!

OK, not all the Japanese. Just Japanese fishing vessels.

Here's the thing: fish are dying out. World fisheries are down to 30% of their size of 40 years ago. Certain species, are particularly at risk, like bluefin tuna. Japan in particular sends fishing fleets all over the world, sometimes even wandering into territorial waters of other countries. They are wiping out multiple species of fish. They kill dolphins. They kill whales.

And they don't care.

They even claim that they will keep at it, even if a ban is imposed.

So, after talking about this with my friend David, here's my suggestion to Somali pirates: go after Japanese fishing boats. For the pirates, it is a win-win situation - they get to ask for their usual ransom and such, and for once they become the good guys in the picture. For the environment, it is also a positive thing - the marine wildlife massacre at Japanese hands is stopped short.

Time to do the right thing, pirates. Here's hoping you'll do it.

Tim Burton's Loss of Talent

I positively hate it when otherwise talented filmmakers find a formula (which might be erroneous) and decide to stick to it. Why do they do it? Because it works, they say. Because it is my trademark, my seal, if you will, they say. 


Because they are lazy and uncreative, I say.


Take M. Night Shyamalan: with The Sixth Sense, he created a fantastic movie, engrossing, atmospheric, and original at a time when Hollywood is apparently busier looking for the next big remake. He signed contracts for more movies. But, wrongly assuming that what made his movie great was the unexpected twist, his next films suffered from being forced into this same situation. Unbreakable was a fantastic concept that sort of worked. Signs and The Village became a showcase of further creative stagnation. And when he finally lets his imagination free again, he unsubtly goes all out against his critics in Lady in the Water. Here we have a guy who is brilliant at creating atmosphere, and able to at least come up with intriguing ideas, but smothers his films in a misguided effort to stick to his 'formula'.


There is another example in Michael Bay. He has given us some good films, like Bad Boys and The Island. But his formula has been distilled by now: get a hot girl, a likable hero or two, enough explosions to level London, and smother everything in over the top special effects. This doesn't mean his films are less entertaining. Sometimes they are fun to watch (Transformers, Armaggedon), sometimes they are dreadful at best (Transformers 2, Bad Boys II). No work of art, his pictures, but at least some are watchable.


Many great filmmakers have found themselves in this hole. And so does Tim Burton nowadays. His formula is very standardized by now: a creepy character played by Johnny Depp (Willy Wonka, Sweeney Todd, The Mad Hatter), some other creepy female character played by Helena Bonham-Carter (who is as bi-dimensional an actress as you can get without actually being a cartoon), music by Danny Elfman (who ails from the same "I've found my style/formula!" problem), and a visual design which was overwhelmingly original the first few times, but which has become stylistically inert by now.





Alice in Wonderland could have avoided Tim Burton's name in all the advertising, title, and even the film itself, and everybody would still have automatically known it was Tim Burton's film. Frankly, he could have used an alias and we would still be able to recognize the author. This is not a mark of genius. This is a signal of lazy creativity (or absolute lack thereof) and a total waste of budget.


Big Fish is one of the best films of all time in my personal opinion. 1989's Batman with Jack Nicholson ranks as one of the best Batman films, superseded only by Nolan's more recent treatments. In fact, most of Burton's filmography prior to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is part of my personal library of favourite films, with few exceptions (Sleepy Hollow was dreadful, for example, and his Planet of the Apes an absolute insult).


Alice in Wonderland is a not very entertaining film that reveals a once talented filmmaker trapped in a cage of his own design. I am sure he has the genius to break out of it, and, while remaining true to his style, get rid of his formula. But for now, he has only a complete loss of talent to show the world.

Genius Dies in the Shadows

Back in the 80s (boy, am I old), there was a Spanish band named Duncan Dhu. Originally from San Sebastian, a town in the Basque Country, they became famous throughout not only their home country, but also in every corner of Latin America. Their style was based on an acoustic and simple pop-rock with a touch of rockabilly. Sounds interesting? Perhaps even more enticing than the sound were the lyrics of their songs. One in particular, En algun lugar (which means 'somewhere') is widely regarded as not only a catchy tune that has become a classic of Spanish-language rock, but also for its lyrics. With the folksy, happy spirit of the music, the words decrying the tragedy of life in many places of the world can be overlooked.


I was recently thinking of this after listening to a speech given by pop-star Shakira at Oxford University (of all places!). My Dad sent me the video, and I hadn't gotten around to viewing it until yesterday. She speaks a great amount of truth, but one phrase in particular jumped out at me:

"Universal education is the key to greater prosperity and stability in the world."

Indeed. Many a totalitarian and repressive government has suppressed education as well as the free access to information as a means of keeping control over its population. This is tragic in itself, but being some sort of humanist as I am, to me the most terrible loss is that of human potential. A small child in Bolivia who can't read or write might otherwise have become the next Nobel in Literature; a young girl in Mexico who will be fortunate if she manages to finish elementary school before having to drop out might have gifted the world with a solution to hunger; and that inner city boy from Detroit who dropped out of high school just might have turned out to be a bright surgeon, able to save many lives.


We will never know, and it won't be just their loss - it is a loss for all mankind.


This brings me back to Duncan Dhu's song. There are a couple of lines which go "Y en las sombras, mueren genios sin saber de su magia concebida, sin pedirlo, mucho tiempo antes de nacer". In the shadows, genius dies without learning of its magic, conceived a long time before being born. This just makes reference to the fact that, even if a person lives, their genus might not: it needs to be nurtured in a different way. If we keep genius in the shadows, it will wilt and die faster than the plants in my German flatmate's room.


We have to give these unknown geniuses the chance to work their magic, so that we might all benefit from it.

Microgeneration for a Cleaner World

Our modern society's appetite for energy is nothing short of voracious. We need energy in various forms to power our domestic appliances, move our vehicles, manufacture goods, even to farm our food.

That is not going to change, and frankly, I wouldn't want it to. Why give up on all the modern conveniences of life, the product of thousands of years of human development and technological evolution? If anything, I would like to see this advantages of modern life become more ubiquitous, as opposed to being available only in certain societies.

But here's where we have the well-known conundrum: more energy involves more pollution and/or higher costs, which invariably translate themselves into lower standards of living for the people of the affected areas.

Is mass power generation in a cheap, clean manner possible?

Enter microgeneration, the production of energy and heat by individuals to meet their own needs.

What first attracted me to the concept of microgeneration is the individualistic nature of the concept: you generate the energy that you are going to use. Then I thought about it better, and realized that this could be the answer we are looking for. There are currently isolated villages all over the world without electricity, and other advantages of modern life that can need it to exist. In many cases, the problem is getting remote connections to the grid set up - the further away one is located from the point of generation, the more expensive it is to get electricity there.

So, what if individual households within a village were able to generate their own energy? Of course, one household might have trouble coming up with a scheme where it manages to supply all of its own needs. But setups where, say, household A covers their roof with photovoltaic cells, household B installs a small wind generator, and households C and D set up a biological machine that generates biogas which in turn powers a Bloom Box... Well, this pretty much would satisfy the small community's energy needs in a clean way. And it is also synergistic: while the photovoltaic cells won't work at night, wind blows regardless of the time of day; and while the biogas output might not be enough to keep the Bloom Box running at full capacity 365 days a year, it would sure be enough to make up for the slack that either of the other methods could cause.

The beautiful part is that microgeneration does not necessarily need to be limited to a remote village. The community mentioned could easily be a suburban neighborhood or a city block. 

This doesn't negate the need for a grid, either. But it is a step closer to the smart grid concept that has been much talked about by corporations and the media. And it doesn't make massive generating installations superfluous, either. But if there is less load on them from domestic consumers, there is less need for them to be massive and then the whole grid's needs can be met by alternative, renewable energy sources, without reliance on coal or gas.

Finally, it is m belief that this doesn't translate into a threat for the power companies: they could well be the owners of the microgenerating equipment, and upgrade and service it accordingly. In the scheme, the building owner would get paid by the power company, or at the very least they would get their electricity for free, with any surplus being fed directly to the grid.

Just as computers moved from single, massive supercomputers to datacenters comprised of what in essence amounts to thousands or millions of much smaller devices (but which in turn are far more resilient and powerful than the older behemoths), so will power generation move from titanic power plants to distributed networks of much smaller generators - which will in turn translate into a cheaper, more resilient, and cleaner energy grid.

Spiritual Journey: Around the World in 9 Spirits

Originally published in Skyscanner.com, on March 15th, 2010

Vodka, Russia: The quintessential spirit, it is produced in many countries, with Polish, Swedish, Ukrainian, Finnish, and even American brands being known all over the world. But this international drink is undeniably linked to Russia in our minds - and with good reason: vodka comprises more than 70% of all alcoholic drinks consumed in the country. Many historians agree that vodka originally appeared in Western Russia, in the 15th century. And while it is usually served neat by Russians, Poles, and other countries, it has become an importnat ingredient in some of the world's most famous cocktails.

Whisky, Scotland: Scottish culture is known for many particular aspects: kilts, bagpipes, the Highlands, tartans... But whisky is perhaps one of the most characteristic things about Scottish culture. Indeed, many stories, legends, and customs revolve around the drink. Historians agree that it was distilled originally by Irish monks, around the 14th century, but by the 16th century its production was well established in Scotland. Made from malted barley, whisky is produced in close to 400 different distilleries across the Scottish country - from large, corporate companies like Glenmorangie to smaller, artisanal houses. 

Tequila, Mexico: Just as Scottish culture is tightly linked to whisky, so is Mexico equated to tequila in many minds. Made from the blue agave plant, a species native to Mexico, tequila is produced using distilling methods introduced by the Spanish almost five centuries ago. The spirit is made only in the Tequila region of western Mexico, and is closely regulated by the Tequila Council. It can usually be found in three different varieties: blanco or plata (white or silver), which is non-aged tequila; dorado (gold) or reposado, which has been aged in oak barrels for up to a year; and añejo, which has been aged for more than a year. Like whisky and other spirits, proper tequila should be sipped, and is usually accompanied by sangrita, an orange, tomato, and chili chaser.

Baijiu, China: The word baijiu means "white liquor" in Chinese. This spirit is made mostly from rice, and occasionally from other grains. It is always strong, being 40 to 60% alcohol by volume. It is usually served warm or at room temperature in a small ceramic bottle. It is not usually had on its own, but rather as part of a typically large Chinese meal. Different baijiu grades exist, and they are commonly classified not by their age like other spirits, but rather by their fragrance. Like many vodkas, it can be found in both pure and flavored versions.

Cachaça, Brazil: Made from sugarcane, cachaça is better known around the world as a prime ingredient for caipirinhas, the traditional Brazilian cocktail made of cachaça, lime, and sugar. Being made from sugarcane juice, it is often compared to rum, but the latter is made from processed molasses, which lends it a very different flavor. Cachaça is widely produced and drunk throughout Brazil, and its popularity is growing around the world, particularly in Germany and the US.

Gin, Great Britain: Originally sold as medicine, this spirit is made from grain alcohol and juniper berries and other herbs and fruits, which lends to each brand its own particular flavor. While it has its origins in continental Europe, possibly in France, and with the spirit being distilled in places as far afield as the Philippines, New Zealand, and the Netherlands, it has become the quintessentially British spirit. At one time there were hundreds of gin distilleries in London (some illegal), with many more throughout England. Both the martini and the gin & tonic, probably two of the world's best known cocktails, have gin as their main ingredient. Another very typically British drink, the Pimm's Cup, uses gin-based Pimm's as its main ingredient.

Pisco, Peru: Named after the coastal town of Pisco, in Peru, this spirit is distilled from grapes, and has its origin in the 16th century. When the Spanish forbade the production of wine in Peru, pisco appeared as a method of employing the grapes. It is of a sweetish taste that is not very alcoholic, which might mislead first time drinkers. While it is usually drunk straight in Peru, even to the exclusion of ice, some pisco-based cocktails enjoy enormous popularity, both in the country and abroad. Foremost amongst these is the Pisco Sour, a drink made with egg white, syrup, bitters, and lemon or lime juice. 

Raki, Turkey: This aniseed flavored plum brandy is popular throughout the Balkans, but particularly so in Turkey. It is usually drunk as an aperitif, particularly with seafood, and mixed with cold water. The resulting mixture acquires a white color from which the nickname of aslan sütü (or lion's milk) is derived. Originally it was distilled almost exclusively at Greek and Albanian run meyhanes, or restaurants, where Muslims, who can't produce or drink alcohol, would sometimes go to enjoy the drink. With the secularization of Turkey, raki became widely popular, and today is regarded by most as the country's national drink.

Shochu, Japan: This spirit is native to Japan and traditionally made from sweet potatoes, barley, or rice. Although similar in nature to Chinese baijiu, it is much less alcoholic in content. Unlike sake, which is brewed, shochu is actually distilled, and has been produced in Japan since at least the 15th century. While its exact origins are unknown, it is widely believed that the techniques for making it are based on ancient Persian developments taken by the Mongols to Korea, where it eventually made the jump to Japan. Regardless of its origin, shochu is very popular in Japan, and has recently surpassed sake in sales. It is traditionally served in a variety of ways: neat, with ice, with cold or hot water, with tea, or with fruit juices.

(Free) Web-Based Microsoft Office in 2010: Too Little, Too Late?

Stephen Elop, formerly of Macromedia and currently head of Office software at Microsoft, has announced a bold plan: to make Microsoft's Office freely available on the web, much like Google Docs.


Hell just froze over.


Or has it?


Truth is that Elop's plan is not as bold as it sounds initially. And with good reason: Microsoft seems reticent to let go of its largest source of revenue. According to an article published at Bloomberg, "Office 2010, due by June, will include a free Web-based version for the first time, matching similar software from Google. Future updates may add Twitter-like functions that allow users to post short messages."


So, Microsoft has finally heard the message. This is reason to be optimistic (even though I am a huge fan of Google Docs, I have to admit I would jump on a web-based, free version of MS Word or Excel if given the chance). But then, the company adopts the position that they want to go in that direction, but carefully, so as not to damage the established business model. An internal analyst at Microsoft said “You don’t want to give everybody free Office over the Web because that jeopardizes a highly profitable business, but you have to do something.” That is correct. But they don't seem to realize that 'doing something' involves embracing a new model that will by nature disrupt what they're doing right now.


Here are the facts: Microsoft reported the impressive sum of $58.4 billion in sales last fiscal year. The Office unit accounted for around $18 billion - virtually a third of the total. If that unit's numbers were to dip by any measure, the whole company's revenues would take a hit - something that shareholders might not be overly happy about.


But the situation Microsoft faces here is one where risk-taking should be given some serious thought. Companies like Google, Salesfroce.com, 37Signals, and others, have by now much more experience and penetration in the business of web-based applications delivered over the Cloud. Some organizations are boldly moving towards making use of this. And with good reason - Google's enterprise suite, Google Apps (which includes Docs and other productivity tools) has a license cost of $50 per user per year. Substantially less than Microsoft's $150, even more so if one considers that all one needs to use Google's offering is a computer with a browser and an Internet connection. Microsoft might require more robust computers, and perhaps more infrastructure beyond that.


Sure, Office is a much more powerful tool than Google Docs - today. Three years down the road? Five years? It doesn't even have to be Google. IBM and Sun either possess or have in the past made attempts at delivering the same service. Then, the infrastructure and the market might not have been ready. Today they are. More and more are companies looking for ways to save money. And SaaS and IaaS solutions are making this possible.


Microsoft says they want to embrace the cloud. So far, they seem to be suspiciously looking at it while holding an umbrella. If they don't change their strategy, they might find that while they were worrying about the Cloud, they failed to build their Ark.

Richard Branson's Carbon War Room

I remember reading in The Scotsman (or was it The Guardian?) an editorial that Scotland could benefit a lot from a war economy. While it is true that as part of the United Kingdom Scotland is very much involved in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the article's author rather was talking about the enormous benefit Scotland could reap by literally declaring war on climate change. Very discreetly, this has been going on for a few years: Scottish universities are at the forefront of climate change research, and many startups in what has been nicknamed the Silicon Glen - Scotland's equivalent to Silicon Valley - are developing new and promising technologies to help fight climate change. They're not quite there yet, but they're on their way. A fantastic example to many other regions.

But I digress.

I remember liking that article enormously, since it gave a focus to the climate change efforts that has been lacking in other media. Yes, we should be at war against climate change, and yes, a war economy would benefit us all in that sense. But efforts are absolutely non-coordinated, and lacking a general direction.

I've come to realize that Richard Branson probably read the same article I did, but him being a gentleman of slightly better means and a few more resources than myself, he went ahead and co-founded a very interesting outfit.

So, there is an apparent lack of focus in general when it comes to the fight against climate change. Sure, you have a bunch of brilliant people working at a lab in, say, Massachusetts, a team of scientists in Brazil, a couple of Australian entrepreneurs, plus a team of Indonesian activists. All of them are working towards the same goal, but their efforts are uncoordinated and, what is worse in our free market economy, unsustainable.

Enter the Carbon War Room.

True to his nature as an entrepreneur, Branson and a team of businessmen, philanthropists and scientists have put together this entity (called a philanthropic initiative, as well as a corporate think-tank) that, underneath its wargames exterior, is in reality a very interesting exchange for entrepreneurs and individuals wanting to work in the war against climate change. Some might say it doesn't look very serious, or that it subtracts from actual grassroots environmentalist, but as I see it, this is only going to be a forum for those involved to learn what is going on in other places, and also perhaps as an idea garden.

It would be absolutely unfair to give full credit for this initiative to Richard Branson. It was current CEO Jigar Shah, founder of SunEdison, who had the idea. Branson brought in financial backing and his well-known marketing abilities (already at work, using the Winter Olympics as a stage), but it can safely be said that it is Shah who is the man behind the curtain.

Whether the Carbon War Room will be able to deliver its goal as a philanthropic initiative aiming to bring strategic focus to the war on climate change remains to be seen. They already appear to be in the right track, and I for one will be cheering for them all the way.