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.

Will Buzz kill Wave?

When Google launched Wave a few months ago, it promised to be the panacea of online collaboration. "What if e-mail was invented today?" was the premise claimed as the central idea for creating it. But upon launch, it was met with an atmosphere of enthusiasm that slowly evolved into plain confusion. I clearly remember a phrase going around, saying that Wave was invented so young people would know what old people feel when they try to use a computer. Criticism started mounting. Now, except for a few enthusiasts, Wave is pretty much sitting in the back burner. A great tool, and recognised as such, but it is a great tool in search of an application. A solution in search of a problem. Fact is, anything that Wave can do, other software can also do in a simpler fashion.





At the time of launch, a few friends and I were discussing whether or not Wave meant trouble for Facebook. I said that it most definitely didn't - the aims of both applications were worlds apart. However, those who claimed that it might spell trouble for FB might have been onto something.

Fast forward to today. Google launched Buzz three days ago - and it looks like a serious Facebook rival. It doesn't claim to be a social networking site - but it just might turn into one, or at least into something similar enough as to not make a difference.



Already Google has shown that they learned from what went wrong with Wave, and they have given us a much stabler environment that coexists seamlessly with current Gmail accounts. There is no hunting for an invite, which some have said makes Buzz not have that air of exclusivity that Gmail had at first and Wave emulated later. But there's only so many times that trick will work. And that gives Buzz the advantage of instantaneously having a wide user base. Some of us Wave pioneers excitedly logged on to the Wave page only to come to the realisation we had no one to 'wave' with. Buzz is already showing signs of a more vibrant life than Wave did. Buzz can also turn into a one stop page where you can follow Twitter feeds, your friends' comments, share web content....

I don't think Buzz will kill Wave, and unless Google decides to pull the plug on the latter app, I don't think it will die. Truth is, Wave has a host of interesting functions that make it particularly well suited for online collaboration in ways that Buzz (or Gmail, for that matter) isn't. It won't be the panacea it was meant to be, and definitely not a tool for everybody. But my guess is that Google is aware of this. Not every single person out there uses Google Scholar, for example, or Google Docs for that matter. As I said before, Wave is a solution in search of a problem. I believe it has already found people who are grateful for its existence and that it will continue to grow and improve.

As to Buzz? I see it growing into a widely used functionality of Gmail, stealing users from Facebook and Twitters homepages, but never actually eclipsing them. But I could be wrong. Time will tell.

Solar Beautyfying in Sydney

According to many people, UTS Tower is Sydney's ugliest building - it even won that distinction in a poll ran by The Sydney Morning Herlad. However, an initiative by the Laboratory for Visionary Architecture (LAVA) could soon metamorphose the notorious edifice into a stunning marvel.

LAVA's proposed ‘Tower Skin’ concept would wrap the building with a lightweight composite mesh textile. The cocooned shell would then collect rain water, generate electricity and assist the ventilation system in cooling the tower. At night, the skin works as an intelligent media surface that communicates information on events in real time. This Enviroskin covering is in essence a photovoltaic surface that not only would make the tower more aesthetically pleasing, but also reduce its overall carbon footprint.



While the finished project might not look as fantastic as the concept, this certainly offers insights on what cities might be able to do in order to improve the environmental friendliness of some of their older buildings. The endless rows of prefabricated concrete structures that dot many former communist cities seem as prime candidates.

South of the Border: 10 Destinations Down Mexico Way

Paraphrasing New York Times writer Brooks Barnes, Mexico is luring back travelers with cool new hotels, a flourishing contemporary art scene, world class gastronomy, and the world famous beaches and colonial heritage. Recent months have seen a swine flu scare and media reports of violence in the border towns - all of which have contributed to decreases in tourism. While a trip to Mexico might not seem like a good idea, the truth is different. Rates are down, even in the swankiest of boutique hotels, and the truth is that the country is still predominantly a peaceful destination - just as crime rates in Detroit wouldn't stop tourists from going to Orlando, Mexico's most touristy destinations are safe, fun, and beautiful. So, without further ado, let us look at the 10 most popular destinations in the country.


CANCUN: 40 years ago, a coconut plantation with only three inhabitants was this part of the Mexican Caribbean's only trace of civilization. Today, it is a fantastic resort city, world famous for it's year round pleasant weather, white sand beaches, and the cool, crystal clear waters plentiful with coral reefs and multicoloured fish. This coastal city has it all: world-class restaurants, luxurious hotels, and more options for entertainment than can be listed. And yet, if you were to look for activities away from the city, you would find eco-excursions to nature preserves, scuba diving tours, visits to the centuries old Maya ruins of the region, or day trips to Cozumel, an island a few miles away and with a charm all its own.


MEXICO CITY: This mega-city, home to over 20 million persons, might seem too large to be real. But the city has a history spanning seven centuries and enough variety to last a life time. First it was the capital of the Aztec empire, as can be seen by the archaeological wonders on display at the National Anthropology Museum. Centuries later, it became the capital of Spanish territories in the New World, as testified by the old colonial neighborhoods of Coyoacán and San Angel, and the city's downtown itself, all rich with European heritage. And in the early 19th century it became the capital of Mexico, and ever since has developed an identity that is both cosmopolitan and uniquely Mexican. Hotels of all kinds, top class gastronomy, and endless cultural and entertainment opportunities await travelers who head to the place German explorer Alexander von Humboldt called the City of Palaces.


GUADLAJARA: Mexico's second largest city, nicknamed La Perla de Occidente (the Western Pearl) is a city of rich culture, and with an identity completely its own. Here you will find restaurants serving all varieties of Mexican food, but also Irish pubs and Argentinean steak houses, French bistros and Japanese teppanyakis. This football-mad city is well known for the warmth of its people and the beauty of its avenues. A few miles away, Mexico's agave growing region is located. Here's where tequila is produced, in the region of the same name. Visitors to Tequila will find a culture surrounding the drink that is light-years away from the throat-burning fuel of frat parties, one that is much more similar to Scotland's whisky culture. Go ahead, give it a shot - you won't regret it. 

PUERTO VALLARTA: One of Mexico's more famous Pacific Coast cities, Puerto Vallarta spreads on both sides of the Ameca River's mouth, occupying a spot of privilege in the Bay of Banderas. It is said that the most beautiful sunsets in the Pacific can be seen from Puerto Vallarta. First gaining international notoriety as the place where John Huston filmed The Night of the Iguana, with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, the city has gained a renown for beautiful beaches, excellent weather year round, and, being in the Pacific coast, access to some of the world's best sport fishing and surfing spots.


EL BAJIO: This region boasts industrial centers like León, where most of Mexico's leather production is located, to cultural cities like Guanajuato - at one point the world's largest producer of silver and now home to the International Cervantes Festival, the world's largest celebration of the Spanish language and its culture. Smaller, charming colonial towns and cities are abundant in the region. If you decide to go there, don't forget to visit San Miguel de Allende, site of some beautiful Spanish colonial architecture; Celaya, famous for the cajeta candy, made with goat's milk, and a delight to anyone with a sweet tooth; and Irapuato, where some of the best strawberries in the world are grown.


ACAPULCO: Another city in the Pacific, Acapulco was originally set up as a Spanish port in the Pacific, and from here sailboats called naos would travel to Japan, the Philipines, and China. Acapulco celebrates each year the Nao Festival, celebrating centuries of contact between the city and Asia. The city occupies the Bay of Santa Lucía, and at night the view is simply stunning. World class restaurants can be found all over town, as well as small, traditional Mexican eateries, where excellent seafood and Mexican fare can be had. The city's nightclubs are varied and you are sure to find one that suits your taste - whether it is salsa and Latin rhythms at Q, pop and dance music at Alebrije or Palladium, Siboney for those looking for a piano bar serving great martinis, or the hyper-exclusive Baby'O for celebrity-spotting, Acapulco has something for everyone.


LOS CABOS: The southernmost tip of Baja, comprised of San José del Cabo and Cabo San Lucas, is internationally known simply as Cabo. This is a perfect destination for those looking for golf courses, relaxing spas, and sport fishing. It is also a prime destination for whale-watchers: humpback whales come here every year to give birth and raise their young. Secluded beaches pepper the peninsula, with some attracting surfers and others attracting people looking to spend a while away from everything.


TIJUANA: Mexico's fifth largest city has acquired a somewhat dubious reputation of a place ripe with seedy spots and dodgy areas. In truth, it is an industrial city that has nevertheless developed a very interesting and active cultural scene. While thousands of American tourists cross the border each day in search of cheap booze and entertainment, others have found Tijuana to be a place of great weather and interesting alternatives. Art galleries can be found everywhere in town, and the old city center is a stunning reminder of the city's colonial past. This is the birthplace of Ceasar salad (which you can still have at the place where it was created - Caesar's Hotel), and home to many unforgettable dining experiences.


IXTAPA-ZIHUATANEJO: Remember that beach at the end of The Shawshank Redemption, where Andy and Red meet again? That's Zihuatanejo, one of the Mexican Pacific lesser known places. A charming town, where life just seems to flow at a leisurely place, it stands as the more traditional half of Ixtapa-Zihuatanejo, the other being the resort town of Ixtapa. Unlike other places, this one mixes the charm of small Mexican villages with the modernity of resorts like Cancun. Whether you are on the lookout for nightlife or just wish to lay back and enjoy the beach, you will surely find it here. It is truly the kind of place you often dream about, but don't really think it could actually exist. Only, in this case, it does.

MAZATLAN: Owning a history that is markedly different from that of other Mexican cities, Mazatlán went from being a small fishing village to a large commercial seaport through the influence of German settlers. While most of them are gone now, their heritage is still clearly visible in the Bavarian-influenced music of the city and the Pacifico brewery, as well as in some buildings here and there. It was much later that it became a tourist destination, with frequent visits from John Wayne, Gary Cooper, and other Hollywood stars of the time. Mazatlán is more city than resort, but one where life is relaxed, and where visitors can just enjoy a day of fishing for swordfish which you can later have grilled or smoked at any of the many excellent seafood restaurants of the city.

Written by Carlos Isoard Freyssinier, originally published in Skyscanner.net

The Google Super Bowl Spot

So, the King of Internet Search and Advertising broke two of their cardinal rules this past Sunday:

• Advertising in mass media: although some products have been advertised in TV and print, like Google Chrome or Google Earth, the company had a strict policy of not advertising their search engine, much less their brand as a whole.
• No brand advertising: CEO Eric Schmidt famously called brand advertising "the last bastion of unaccountable spending in corporate America", and the company's official position on this was simply that brand advertising is a waste of money.

But last Sunday, during a commercial break on the Super Bowl's 3rd Quarter, the following ad made an appearance:

What made them change their minds? Interesting question. The first and obvious answer could be the increased presence of Microsoft's Bing. Some other people will point the undeniable power of Super-Bowl ads to reach millions of viewers, both during the game and through the Internet at later times (broadcasters, aware of this, have set up websites exclusively devoted to 'Super Bowl Ads').

When it was rumored that Google would be advertising in the Super Bowl, most analysts expected it to be a spot about the Nexus mobile phone, or possibly a continuation of the Google Chrome campaign they have been running in many countries. But no, it was pure brand advertising, 

Whatever the reason, the spot stays true to Google's corporate philosophy: simple, accesible, and universal. 

I have to say, I like it a lot.

Italian Super(electric)car: The Maserati Tramontane

Continuing with the topic of a few days ago, but adding some flair and luxury.

When Tesla introduced the Roadster, it was the only electric sports car in the market. Still is. And it is also the only electric car in the market of some luxury. But competition might be closer than expected.

Recently, Ondrej Jirec, a Czech designer, presented his design for the all-electric Maserati Tramontane.

 

Credits and Copyright Ondrej Jinec

The design is beautifully minimalistic, and has some clever ideas: the whole design is built around 'layers' that allow for the vehicle to have the lowest number of pieces, while adding to safety and storage capabilities. Perhaps most interesting of all is the use of three motors, a frontal one driving the front wheels, while the rear wheels are driven by two in-wheel motors. All electric.

Granted, it as of yet exists only as some renderings and a few drawings, but the level of attention this design has garnered from the press and cyberspace should serve as an indicator of what we might be seeing on the streets before too long.

Revenge of the Electric Car

A few years ago, a documentary film was released that gave filmgoers a glimpse at the behind-the-scenes dealings that would lead to the untimely demise of General Motors' EV-1 electric car. The film was called, appropriately, Who Killed the Electric Car?

While the tone the filmmakers went for was one of corporate conspiracy, and of evil executives protecting their greedy interests, it did show something that many people have overlooked: years before the sky-rocketing of oil prices, before carbon footprints were in everybody's mouth, before the effects of climate change had started becoming increasingly evident, one of America's legendary car companies came up with a vehicle that was astoundingly advanced and that, many claim, would have changed the whole playing field. As far back as 1996!




Almost fifteen years later, the car industry has given us hybrid vehicles like the Honda Insight, the Toyota Prius, and the Chevrolet Volt (arguably the EV-1's heir - except for the fact that it is a hybrid and not purely electrical). All of these cars are, by themselves, a big step forward towards the zero-emissions vehicle that we need today. But in light of GM's earlier attempt, they almost would seem to be a step backward, or a half-hearted attempt at best. Many arguments can be made: market wasn't ready, too expensive, not really appealing to consumers, blah, blah, blah. Truth is, I would absolutely agree to all of this if GM had let the market decide on the EV-1. But they pulled the plug on the project too early, and without much explanation.

Now, Tesla Motors, a start-up and as such a company without the corporate hurdles tha GM had, has shown the industry that there is a market for electric cars. Nissan will be launching their LEAF this year. BMW has been testing its all-electric Mini-E since last year. More carmakers, both old and established, and young and hungry for recognition, are due to enter the market with their own offerings.



The electric car was almost killed. The reasons? Many. None in particular. I think that's beside the point, and better not dwelt upon. The filmmakers that created Who Killed the Electric Car? have realised this. The future looks bright - and they've seen it. Now they're readying up a new documentary, which rather than lament the EV-1's untimely and unprovoked demise, celebrates the birth and growth of it multiple descendants. In light of this, the new documentary's title is fitting in more ways than one.

It is, indeed, the Revenge of the Electric Car.

Apple's iPad: Worth It?

After months (even years) of hype, Apple has presented their new device: the iPad. And for the last 24 hours, cyberspace has been exploding with comments of people loving it, hating it, expressing admiration or being dumbfounded by the device. If anything, I believe there's more comments leaning towards the "I like it" than in the "I hate it" camp. Here's Apple's video:



So, what's to like, what's to hate, what's the bottom line?

To like, at a first glance, is the crisp, bright screen and the 10 hour battery life. Also, and this is not surprising coming from Apple, the interface. It simply can be described as organic. And beautiful. Another point which I believe to be a brilliant strategic move by Jobs, is that it can use nearly any iPhone app out there. This immediately gives the iPad access to a library of hundreds of thousands, even millions, of applications. While there will evidently be native applications which better exploit the device's increased screen real estate and other hardware advantages, the fact is that the device is at a big advantage.

However, I'm not a big fan of certain aspects of the iPad. First of all, even though it is touted as a device that's made to surf the web in absolute confort, it doesn't support Flash. Big mistake. Flash is used by many websites. Without it, some of these just won't be accesible from Apple's device. Another issue is multi-tasking. Google's android has demonstrated that there is a need for this capability in modern operating systems, regardless of whether they are focused on computers or smartphones.

As an aside, I can't help but listen to all those comments that say there is no real need for something that isn't and iPhone nor a laptop.

When the iPod came out, it changed the whole industry. There were already dozens of portable MP3 players in the market, some with much better technical specs than the original iPod. And yet, it was Apple's device the one that changed the playing field forever. And I think the iPad just might be able to do the same on the basis of its similarities.

The iPod had a very friendly user interface. So does the iPad. The iPod had a very convenient way of interfacing with the user's computer via iTunes. So does the iPad. The iTunes store was probably the biggest difference in the end. The iPad has access to this marketplace, as well as to the App store and the newly created iBookstore. In short, everything seems set for the iPad to start gaining momentum quite rapidly.

My bottom line? I probably won't buy it soon. Then again, I might just walk into a MacStore with some extra cash burning a hole in my pocket in a few months.

Will Jobs change the industry yet again? Time will tell. If I had to bet, my money's with the winning horse - and Apple has been that horse many, many times by now.

Jennifer's Body is Awful

I just saw Jennifer's Body, and I think it is absolutely, resolutely, positively the most awful thing out there (I have to point out that I'm referring to the movie itself - it is simply horrible; Jennifer's body is, actually, statuesque).


However, I want to be true to my philosophy that even the worst movies have some redeemable features. What could those be, in this case? Let's see:

• Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfried - very different kinds of beauty, and Ms Fox is much more targeted by the paparazzi, but Ms Seyfried is certainly easy on the eyes.
• The dialogues, in a Diablo Cody kind of way. I mean, they still sound implausible, but they sure are entertaining.
• Acting which, while over the top, is surprisingly sincere. It is clear none of them even remotely believe they're working on a masterpiece, so apparently they went at it with the idea of enjoying themselves.

There. Three redeeming features. Oh, and the movie lasts less than 90 minutes.

All the people involved in this movie have made better films at some other point in their careers. Diablo Cody wrote Juno, a very implausible but likable character; Amanda Seyfried starred in Atom Egoyan's thriller Chloe; even Megan Fox - she was on the first Transformers film (let's not talk about the second one). I'm sure they'll go back to making stuff worth watching.

If there's nothing good on TV, and you stumble upon this movie, I recommend you read a book.

Google Betrayed by China

Google, the preeminent Internet company in the world, has always claimed it's motto to be "Don't be Evil". Lofty goal in the corporate world, where becoming evil almost seems a question of when, not if. And yet, Google has succeeded for the most part. Critics abound for some of their actions and for the company as a whole. That is natural, and healthy even. I consider myself a Google fan, and constantly applaud and cheer their developments. However, I have also pointed out at times, issues with the company that don't seem to fit in a non-evil company, in my opinion. One of them was their decision to allow the Communist Party of China to censor some of their search results and products.

A few months ago, while in Shanghai, a friend of mine sent me a YouTube link. When I licked on it, I found YouTube (a Google company), was absolutely blocked. Not surprising, even if the video I wanted to watch was only of some goals in the Spanish league. Out of curiosity, I tried to access some websites I knew the Chinese government would probably have blocked. I was correct: all of them were blocked.

Why would a company that prides itself on not being evil and on putting people before everything else (a humanist company if there ever was one) would lend itself to such low blows against freedom? Sergey Brin's statement at the time was that along the lines that it is better to provide the Chinese people with some access to information, even if imperfect, than to simply deny it fully. Fair enough. If you ask me, the decision was also fueled by the amount of money to be made. No problems there - Google is still a public company with responsibilities to its shareholders, like it or not. But dealing so closely with the Chinese Communist Party might not have been ideal. As a quote from the 1999 film 8mm says,

"If you dance with the Devil, the Devil don't change. The Devil changes you."

As far as I can tell, this hasn't exactly happened. But Google did choose to play with fire and found its fingers burnt. Agreeing to censor the Internet in essence means stifling the freedom of the Chinese people, which in turns strengthens the Communist Party's hold over its people. The forces of change that have to come from within cannot appear if held back with help from without. And now, China has used resources obtained from Western companies to attempt to hack into e-mail accounts of human rights activists.

Google has taken the right position. On a letter published in Google's Official Blog, David Drummond, Google's Chief Legal Officer states that over the next few weeks they will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which they could operate an unfiltered search engine within [Chinese] law, if at all. Furthermore, they recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially their offices in China.

A walkout from China has been threatened by Google. This is truly the spirit of the "Don't be Evil" motto. Let's hope they follow it.