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.

The Luckiest Guy in the World Dies, Aged 93

So, there's this guy who one fine morning, while on a business trip, happens upon a veritable cataclism. A blinding flash of light, an explosion that sounded as if the gates of Hell had just been thrown wide open, and clouds of dust that would kill you, either instantly or, worse still, painfully over a matter of days. What the hell had just happened?, our guy asked himself. Is this the end of the world?

It might as well have been. The date was August 6th, 1945. The city was Hiroshima, and it had just been attacked by the Americans. With an atomic bomb.

Realising things were about to get ugly, our guy, whose name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi, decided to get the hell out of that place, and head home.

By the way, home happened to be... Nagasaki.

The day after he made it back, the Americans dropped their second atomic bomb, and I'm sure by now Tsutomu was starting to get convinced that the US Army had a personal vendetta against him.

Whatever else happened, Tsutomu can lawfully claim to be the only survivor of two atomic explosions. He might be called unlucky - after all, he had first row seats for two of the 20th century greatest disasters.

I prefer to call him the luckiest man in the world. Yes, he was badly burned, was twice irradiated by nuclear fallout, and was witness to horrors that would drive most of us mental. But he survived, raised a family, became an antin-nuclear activist, and led a long life, passing away only recently. A detailed article by the BBC can be read here. The best part was that his story, as told by himself, is fantastic and horrifying at the same time - and absolutely real. Above all, it is as loud a plea for world peace as there has been.

He is quoted as saying: "It was my destiny that I experienced this twice and I am still alive to convey what happened."

Indeed, in the words of Nagasaki's mayor, a precious storyteller has been lost.

Safer Airports, the Israeli Way

The recent incident on Northwest Flight 253 has sent security heads of many a transportation authority, airport, and airline scrambling to come up with more thorough ways to scrutinise passengers, looking for potential terrorists. All of this is good and well, in principle. But reality shows that this will only turn airports - already a nightmare for travelers - into inefficient messes beyond our lowest expectations.

This needs not be so.

Ben-Gurion International Airport, in Israel, is probably more at risk of terrorist attacks than any other airport in the world. Yet, in the vast majority of cases, you can get from the door to the boarding lounge in just 30 minutes. This is not only for the convenience of the travelers - clusters of people at the counters are themselves ripe targets for terrorists.

Rafi Sela, the president of AR Challenges, a global transportation security consultancy, recently offered his opinion in an interview with the Toronto Star. His views and insights on the Israeli approach as compared to the measures being adopted in airports across the US, Canada, and Western Europe, are very interesting. The key? Don't look at luggage and X-rays. Look at people.

From personal experience I can say that security at Israeli airports is carried out professionally and efficiently. What's more, Israeli personnel are courteous and polite - the same can't be said of many cases in North America and Europe. I wouldn't call them perfect, no. On one occasion, I was at a smaller airport, taking an internal flight between Tel-Aviv and Eilat. Believe me, I could have strangled the girl that checked my papers. She was cute (very!) and polite, but inefficient and clearly out of her depth. Just my luck to get a rookie in training. But barring that small incident, all my other experiences in Israeli airports have been good. Security is thorough, but people are not delayed more than what's strictly necessary.

Hopefully order will emerge from chaos, just as it did in Israel. Otherwise, air travel will become a larger evil than it is now. A necessary evil, but one that need not be so.