Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
With all the fall-out and people either pointing fingers or patting themselves on the back, there was an actual document produced that is now the Copenhagen Accord.
I decided to give a link to it, so you can read it for yourself.
As you read it, you might notice that most of the language is directed towards the underdeveloped world, the part that is going to take it on the chin if carbon emissions continue to increase and the world continues to heat up.
While there is some nice words about keeping the temperature below 2C, it's just a lot of words. Well, in actual fact, there's not a whole lot of words, just a couple of paragraphs and only to say its something they want to aim for, without giving any guidelines on what to do.
what I like is the last two pages, I think everyone is supposed to fill in what they want to do, like an attendance sheet.
Then again, one climate scientist, James Hansen had hoped for a failure, not because he relishes the idea of a heated planet but rather:
would rather it not happen if people accept that as being the right track because it's a disaster track," said Hansen, who heads the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
"The whole approach is so fundamentally wrong that it is better to reassess the situation. If it is going to be the Kyoto-type thing then [people] will spend years trying to determine exactly what that means." He was speaking as progress towards a deal in Copenhagen received a boost today, with India revealing a target to curb its carbon emissions. All four of the major emitters – the US, China, EU and India – have now tabled offers on emissions, although the equally vexed issue of funding for developing nations to deal with global warming remains deadlocked.
His full interview in the Guardian is found here.
Let's hope for something better
Monday, December 21, 2009
Time for some confession; I've lived only two years in Brantford and so I don't have the background to understand all that is happening on the south side of Colborne Street here in Brantford. From what I have heard it was a part of the downtown which suffered greatly when the economy of Brantford went down with the closing of the various farm machinery companies. I know that is probably a great exaggeration of what happened, but that's what I picked up. It seems at one point there was a horror movie shot in downtown Brantford, and nothing was necessary to give that run down, post-apocalyptic look to it. Says it all doesn't it.
A year or so ago, it was decided that the property on the south side was viewed as a problem and needed to be torn down. The city moved to expropriate the property and tear it down, with the purpose of building a larger campus for Laurier Brantford and the YMCA. Both are needed for the downtown and will be considered part of the renaissance of the downtown core. All this will need to the revitatization of the downtown core, which is desperately needed. As well, with the downtown core becoming based up higher education, it is important.
It would seem the city is of one voice and all agree it needs to be done. I remember one meeting I was at when the discussion was brought up and when the expropriation was brought up, there was unanimous support.
Or is there.
I brought up the topic in a past blog and I received a comment on twitter about what is going on. A link was given to me about a document that brings forward an alternative view of the south side of Colborne. A month ago the Brantford Heritage Committee produced a document which points to rehabilitation not just bulldozering the south side. The document is called:
"South Side of Colborne: A case for Rehabilitation". It is a fascinating document in that it gives the view that some of the property should be saved. The producers of the document point out that this is one of the largest stretches of
The longest stretch of pre-confederate buildings in the province of Ontario (if not anywhere west of Quebec)
This has inspired the group and people to reconsider this and say that there are buildings that should be saved and restored. They should be the anchor of any development which needs to take place.
The recommendation of the committee is:
While there are many buildings that have played a large part in the history of both Brantford and the country, we acknowledge that in order for the downtown to be revitalized some will likely need to be sacrificed. However, many of these are simply good buildings under tacky veneer, and some have fascinating and important histories.
The Heritage Committee recognizes that saving stand-alone buildings may not always be practical for a number of reasons. Considering that, the Heritage Committee advises that the City keep at least two blocks of buildings on the south side of Colborne Street, and elsewhere save good buildings where possible. This solution would provide plenty of room for complimentary contemporary uses, while still maintaining the uniquely historic character of the downtown core. It would also provide loft type
housing, a varied streetscape and small quirky spaces for individual entrepreneurs.
Certainly there is a lot of good with both sides, one side reminds us the south side is all that went wrong in the past with Brantford and to redevelop the City it will require some sacrifices and bring it to an end. The other sides says the South Side has property which is historically significant and needs to be preserved. These preserved and restored buildings can be part of the selling point since in many places older structures have a higher price and are viewed as viable property.
I have noticed lately in the papers there is now an interest and those who are not accepting the straightforward tear it all down philosophy.
It will be interesting to watch this all happen.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
While the debacle that is/was Copenhagen or COP(out)15 was going on, I decided to read the above book by noted author and columnist Thomas Friedman. He has written a number of books looking a such subjects as Globalization, to give an example. As a person who has studied and reported on OPEC and oil, it is only logical he should write a book about the environment and issue a call for the US to take the leadership in Green Technology.
His book is filled with accounts of personal encounters with some of the key players of the 20th century, as well as his travels to the various parts of the world. He also looks at the history of energy consumption and how governments, driven at times by need and at times by ideology has either benefited or dismantled energy policy in the States. He looked at the 70's, when the above OPEC was flexing its muscle and using its oil to 'punish' the West. The reaction by the US was to push for measures the encouraged both the increase of car milage and the use of alternative fuels, including nuclear. The result of these measures was the lowering of oil prices, not because of OPEC but because demand had decreased. This led to the Saudis to decide to use oil production for pricing only and not as a political weapon. Of course when oil prices went down, so did gas prices and suddenly the need to conserve disappeared and one saw the lowering of milage and the introduction of SUV's.
He considers two major reasons for getting involved in Clean Energy. The first has to do with oil. He asks the question why are we ( speaking as an Americans) sending money to countries that hate us? While we've heard the rhetoric over the past years since 9/11 to make the US less dependent on Middle East oil, it is more talk then action. He says we should do just that. He considers the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and points out that the Kingdom has had a tendency to export its fundalmentalists to many parts of the Arab world. Due to its considerably large bank account, it changing the face of the Middle and cloning its very conservative view of Islam around that part of the world. Many a liberal Muslim country is feeling the effect of the Saudi's desire to export it's troublemakers. Let's be honest, the leadership of the Saudi nation should be dangling upside down from a Palm tree, but because of its wealth it's able to keep the people content.
Friedman considers what he calls the "First Law of Petropolitics":
If the resource curse describes the economic pitfalls that can come from resource riches, then what New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman calls the “first law of petropolitics” deals with is the potential political ramifications. Friedman applies the law to “petrolist states,” which he defines as “states that are both dependent on oil production for the bulk of their exports or gross domestic product and have weak institutions or outright authoritarian governments.” Examples of states that meet this criterion include Egypt, Iran, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Venezuela, among others.1
Friedman’s proposed law suggests that there is a negative correlation between the “price of oil and pace of freedom,” which “always move in opposite directions in oil-rich petrolist states.” In his framework, the “pace of freedom” means the development of the elements of a democratic government, such as free speech, free press, free and fair elections, an independent judiciary, independent political parties, and general rule of law.2
Its easy to not allow freedom of speech or even get along with others if oil is $70.00 a barrel, versus $20.00 a barrel. He considers President Chavez of Venesuala telling Tony Blair to 'go to hell', very easy when oil is the former rather then the latter. So high oil price is corrupting. It slows the natural progression of democracy because it gives corrupt government the means of quieting, or buying off dissention.
Another problem is the fact that the world wants to be like Americans, with all its wasteful glory. The world can't take 6 Billion Americans, it needs people who consume little and care for the planet.
He then talks about China and the incredible change that has been that country. How it went from backwater to a true economic giant. It's impact is everywhere, including its pollution, by the way. Mr. Friedman points out that 25% of the air pollution of Los Angeles can be traced to China. China is still in the Carbon Based economy and it has to grow and go at a great pace. It needs to because its growing populatioon demands growth.
Friedman talks about a talk he gave in China in which he told his listeners he hopes China stays with tne Carbon based energy model. He wants them to stay like that for another five years, so to give the US a chance to gain a headstart. Friendman believes the next energy source has to be clean energy and technology must be developed in the west, it is the only way to have China for breakfast rather then the other way around.
In the end he asks the US to be China for a day, by that he means making the great changes needed and not have to worry about lobbiests or other interference. He wants the US to have the mission of developing Clean Energy because such technology will pull the US out of the doldrums and lead to another Industrial Revolution which will have a positive impact on the planet.
While it is an American book, the lessons learned are just as necessary for Canada. We are a hybrid, a democracy with a lot of oil. While everybody points to the Evil of the Athabasca Oil Sands, we have to recognize it is here, but it should not be an excuse to stay the development of Clean Energy in Canada. We too can suffer the effects of Global Climate Change and we are equally unprepared for its coming.
I do recommend this book to anyone who wants to accept the challenge that the world doesn't have to stay the way it is. Go find it and read it for yourself.
Friday, December 18, 2009
The Headline in the Guardian screams "Copenhagen Ends in Failure"
Some corners, on the other hand see it as a breakthrough, because there is a new agreement which seems to take the place of Kyoto and is more of an easy sell to the Developed World. One headline lauded the deal as "meaningful".
I suppose it comes down to what a person's individual view is. The treaty encourages nations to work in a way so the temperature doesn't rise above 2C on average. This is a good thing, although many wanted 1.5C.
A reference in the Guardian gives this summation:
But it disappointed African and other vulnerable countries who had been holding out for far deeper emission cuts to hold the global temperature rise to 1.5C this century. As widely expected, all references to 1.5C in previous drafts were removed at the last minute, but more surprisingly, the earlier 2050 goal of reducing global CO2 emissions by 80% was also dropped.
The agreement also set up a forestry deal which is hoped would significantly reduce deforestation in return for cash. It lacked the kind of independent verification of emission reductions by developing countries that the US and others demanded.
So no real goals and what goals have been set in the past are now dropped. There is a vague reference to what is wanted, plus the sort of promise to have something in place next years. In other words, a huge waste of time.
By the way, it's not a treaty, because its not at all binding, it's an Accord, sort of a general statement of agreement that means we'll all sorta kinda work towards something, when its convenient. Oh and we'll throw a few bucks at the nations that are going to take climate change on the chin because, we would rather buy their silence then do something constructive.
Hey Developed World, how about use the money, double it and develop clean energy yourself. The same applies to you China! Then take the extra, give it to the developing world and help them develop their own clean energy- plus give aid and comfort to them because until we get our act together they are going to be the ones to suffer.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
As one listens to the final days of the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change, the picture emerging is one that can be considered disturbing. It appears that the majority of the carbon which is now in the atmosphere, causing all the environmental degradation is from one source and one source only, and that Source is Canada.
Well, come on you would think so by the way this fair Dominion is getting slammed by everybody with an agenda and a press badge. To give an example, Maude Barlow, the head of the Council of Canadians has declared the Athabasca Oil Sands as "Canada's Mordor".
Canada, it seems, is being reviled because of the development of the Oil Sands, which is being inspired by such nations as the USA, which wants a near-by source of oil that is owned and operated by a country which doesn't export terrorism, with the possible exception of hockey, and is friendly. As well, China seems to be in on the deal, providing the finances for future development.
It is safe to say that the Oil Sands are nasty. They are a major source of greenhouse gases as well as environmental degradation. A lot of places it becomes an open pit mine, so the forests are, obviously, destroyed with the loss of natural life as well.
From one article it appears the Oil Sands is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases in the world, so if Canada wants to meet any sort of target, it has to look carefully at the CO2 emissions from the Oil Sands Project. It just has to.
It is because of this, Canada is taking it on the chin. There are protests against Canada in Copenhagen, for example, attacking us on the Oil Sands.
On top of it, Ontario and Quebec has called for strict standards. I found this article in the National Post, talking about the sanctimonious claptrap from the former "Have Provinces".
Never mind that when the Liberals were in power in Ottawa, the Liberal government of Ontario extracted a pledge from the feds not to include emissions from automakers in the national caps required to meet our Kyoto commitments, and to put a larger burden on energy-producing provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan. We don't recall Ontario and Quebec squawking about emissions "fairness" then.
Another article points out the Oil Sands produce 5% of Canada's CO2 emissions, most of what we produce comes from transportation, in comparison.
I suppose it is simple to say the Oil Sands are now the cause celebre of all that is wrong with the world. I would suspect that it is true, there are problems with the Oil Sands, basically because it's part of the entire Carbon based fuel economy which needs to come to an end. We have to stop our dependence on Carbon products to produce energy to run our global economy. It is now the 21st Century, we need to stop relying on energy that was developed in the 18th century.
So am I in favour of Oil Sands or what? The quick answer is 'no'.
What does annoy me is when people take pot shots at my fair Dominion.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
So my daughter, who is a barista at the Starbucks that is on the campus of Carlton University told the story of someone, let refer to him as a Ongeblussen, who berated her because while Starbucks does sell a Christmas Blend coffee, in both regular and decaf, there was no Hannukah Blend.
First of all, let's consider a few things:
1) how do we describe the Christmas blend? For the answer, we need to go to the website
Christmas is a time for family and friends to come together to eat, drink and be merry. And over the last 25 years, Starbucks® Christmas Blend has become a flavor of the season as much as turkey, stuffing and candy canes. It’s the unique blend of beans that makes this coffee such a fitting accompaniment for your holiday taste traditions. Our Christmas Blend is sweet and spicy, with a flavor derived from bright, sparkling Latin American coffees and smooth, full-bodied Asia/Pacific beans.
The second point is, a Hannukah blend coffee would only have a window of eight nights, certainly eight crazy nights, but eight nights still. So not a lot of lead time for a good selling coffee. Unlike Christmas which has a lead time of two months.
The third point, which is more theological, is how would you make the Hannukah Blend kosher- would the rabbi have to bless the whole shipment of beans as they arrive, after the beans are roasted. or would each bag have to be blessed? There are important questions and sadly I don't think there's an answer in the Law for this one. It may not have been one of the questions Moishe received the answer for when he entered the Tabernacle.
The fourth point is a bit more practical and this goes back to the person who raised it, no one really cares. Starbucks has decided to have a Christmas blend, probably because the predominant holiday of this time is Christmas. Thus they believe if they market stuff with the name "Christmas", it will go very good for them and after 25 years it's probably a good strategy. If this person wants to market a Hannukah blend coffee, then open your own coffee shop and make that part of your holiday gifts.
Finally, let me say something about my favourite blend, the Pikes Place Roast, a fantastic coffee, worth the price and worth the time it takes to drink.
Howard Schultz wrote this about the Blend:
“We named this coffee after our first store in Seattle's Pike Place Market because it truly represents the best of what we do: freshly roasted, freshly scooped, freshly ground, freshly brewed.”
It is truly delicious.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Finally, there is a phrase that describes what we're going through as far as climate change is all about. Let's be honest, no one can oppose something called 'global warming' can they? Especially the 'warming' part, we all like to be warm and cozy and very comfy. If things began to warm up, notice the use of 'warm', not become unbearably hot and miserable you get support.
However if you decide to say it's 'global weirding', then you have a picture of something out of control, or anarchy and of the old tried and true no longer being there. It means things are getting out of control and we had better do something. The site Double Tongue describes the phrase in this manner:
n. an increase in severe or unusual environmental activity often attributed to global warming
I came across the phrase in the book "Hot, Flat and Crowded" by Thomas Friedman. In chapter with the same name, he gives the background to the phrase and what it is meaning in the present and perhaps the future. The problem again stems from too much CO2 in the atmosphere. We are at 387 ppm, some figure we can go as high as 450, which translates into a 2C change in temperature. That means there is some 'warming' but not enough to affect everything, just the people and places that really don't matter- ie the third world for example.
I should point out that one article states that Friedman is wrong to use the phrase since it gives the idea that it's almost one off. However a full study will lead one to realize that things are moving out of control, or at least there is that strong potential. It can mean hard storms when we don't expect it, or no storms when we hope for some rain or moisture of some sort. What it truly means is that:
hotter heat spells, longer and sharper droughts, more violent storms, and more intense flooding
will become the norm, thus the weird stage. The abnormal becomes sadly the normal and the end result of that is not very good for any life on the planet.
It is now half way through Copenhagen 15, the summit has been marked with bizarrely bad draft treaties, division between the haves and have nots and a protest march,which featured a lot of arrests. In other words, an almost normal summit.
The division between the developed nations and the undeveloped nations has to do with tolerance, and that comes to temperature. The developed want 2C increase, something which is completely reachable and doesn't truly affect the West much, after all, we've been pumping the stuff into the atmosphere for over 200 years, we can tolerate a bit more and get it to the upper limits, while nations such as Tuvalu are pushing for lower temperature increase:
Led by Tuvalu, negotiations at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen dramatically broke down today after developing countries split between those who favour a new protocol and others who want to continue with the legally binding Kyoto agreement.
The split appeared after several small island states and poor African states had demanded a legally binding treaty to aim at a maximum global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. They also wanted greenhouse gas concentrations stabilized at 350 parts per million (ppm) rather than the 450ppm favored by developed countries and some major developing nations.
The small islands states and their supporters claimed the existing agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, was not tough enough for the countries most vulnerable to the consequences of climate change. They wanted a new legally-binding protocol to run alongside the existing Kyoto Protocol.
They don't have a whole lot of high ground to go to, so if the temperature goes up too high and there's massive melt at Antarctica and Greenland, they and the Maldives suddenly have some issues, such as staying dry.
So what must we do, easy, get the CO2 levels down, don't accept anything that gives a licence to keep pumping the stuff into the atmosphere and don't allow any one group to tell us we got to keep things going. We can't. It's that simple.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
It was one of those things when it comes to writing this blog; I had every intention of making comment on Naomi Klein's opening comments at Klimaforum09. Klimaforum09 is an alternative climate change forum for NGO's, protest movements and groups not associated with the status quo. Their purpose was to give a different way of looking at things. The preamble to their declaration stated:
There is a solution to climate change. What people and the planet need is a just and sustainable transition of our societies to a form that will deliver a more fertile planet and more fulfilling lives to future generations.
We, participating people and organisations at the Klimaforum09 in Copenhagen, call upon every concerned person, social movement, cultural, political, economic or other forms of organization to contribute to this necessary transition. It will not be an easy task. The climate challenge is indivisibly linked to other critical ecological problems as well as to complex social issues.
The tone adopted by Ms Klein was dismissive and devisive about COP15. She was even critical of Hopenhagen, which she dismissed as being corporate driven. She pointed out that a major sponsor was Coca-Cola, for example. She wanted unrest, such as happened in Seattle:
Down the road at the Bella Centre [where delegates are meeting] there is the worst case of disaster capitalism that we have ever witnessed. We know that what is being proposed in the Bella Centre doesn't even come close to the deal that is needed. We know the paltry emissions cuts that Obama has proposed; they're insulting. We're the ones who created this crisis... on the basic historical principle of polluters pays, we should pay
I was going to write, what's the matter Naomi, jealous that Hopenhagen has better schwag and tees then your summit has? I was going to say that climate change is bigger then any one group and whether she may like it or not, big business, multi-nationals have to be a part of the equation of the solution.
By the way I still do believe it, all sides must sit at the table as equals to discuss and bring about solutions that will bring down the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and commence the cooling of the planet.
Then i read this headline:
Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak
It seems a draft treaty for Copenhagen was leaked to the Guardian. The draft treaty, which was written ahead of the conference, because that the way these things operate, seems to be different then Kyoto in the idea of who should bear the brunt of it all. The document, which can be read here.
Developing nations are very angry over it since they are the ones to bear the responsibility for cutting carbon emissions. It's as if, should interpretations be correct that to sell it to the developed world, its being made not so bad. To quote the Guardian:
The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.
In fact the numbers quoted for carbon emission is on the order of "Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes." I suppose the thinking goes along like this, geez it's not as if those poor people have anything that makes CO2 gas, I mean they just use wood for fuel, the walk everywhere and have barely subsistent agrilculture and work, so they don't need to use as much. I mean look at the West, we've got SUV and jets to travel around the world going to conferences such as this. We've got microwave ovens and home theatre, no one can expect us to GIVE that up. It would be cruel and inhumane.
If I can be a bit serious, the West has such a large carbon footprint that cutting back as dramatic still makes the reduced level at double the people in developing nations. Again, we've got SUV's, and they don't.
I wonder about a few things, is this one of those 'the ship of state is the only one the leaks from the top', is it a trial balloon and that the real document will seem so much better in comparison. Which is rather wrong, why not start with a decent draft rather then give a bad one so that the final crappy one will seem great in comparison.
It could be a very concerned person who looked at the draft and realized it was so horrific it needed to be exposed to the light of day.
Will it mean Copenhagen is a failure? Or perhaps something good can happen, that the West now chasticed for trying to pull a fast one, will come to the table and really discuss the issue of global warming, climate change and reducing CO2 emissions.
By the way, one of the world's eminent scientist on global warming is hoping for a failure. He believes it the only way to save the planet.
Monday, December 07, 2009
So they have gathered today in Copenhagen. Three thousand or so people from all the nations in the world have gathered at this lovely Danish City. The purpose is to bring about a clinate change treaty that will keep us from destroying our planet. By the way I went to the homepage and the site can house 15,000 delegates. That's a lot of officials, semi-officals, media hacks, flacks, bloggers, cranks, cynics, supporters, troublemakers, hangers on and all the sort that gather at these conferences.
This is not to say it's already a failure, in fact it has opened with a great deal of optimism. The welcome speech from the Danish Prime Minister declared:
The UN climate change conference opened Monday in an atmosphere of hope for a deal in Copenhagen within the next two weeks.
“A deal is within our reach,” the Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said in his opening speech, stressing that the talks will have to overcome deep distrust between rich and poor nations on how to share the burden of curbing emissions.
The presence of more than a hundred world leaders meant “an opportunity the world cannot afford to miss,” Lars Løkke Rasmussen said.
The purpose of all this is to deal with the issue of global warming and the levels of CO2 emissions that are viewed as the direct cause of climate change and global warming. This is articulated in the Committment Seciont of the UN Framework Commission on Climate Change:
Develop, periodically update, publish and make available to the Conference of
the Parties, in accordance with Article 12, national inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol,using comparable methodologies to be agreed upon by the Conference of the Parties;
(b) Formulate, implement, publish and regularly update national and, where
appropriate, regional programmes containing measures to mitigate climate change by
addressing anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, and measures to facilitate adequate adaptation to climate change;
(c) Promote and cooperate in the development, application and diffusion,
including transfer, of technologies, practices and processes that control, reduce or prevent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol in all relevant sectors, including the energy, transport, industry, agriculture, forestry and waste management sectors;
(d) Promote sustainable management, and promote and cooperate in the conservation
and enhancement, as appropriate, of sinks and reservoirs of all greenhouse gases not controlledby the Montreal Protocol, including biomass, forests and oceans as well as other terrestrial,coastal and marine ecosystems;
In other words, it is by the use and in particular the burning of fossil fuels that has increased the level of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and thus raised the overall temperature of the planet. This is seen in the increase of storms, the moving north and south of deserts, of the disappearance of ice, in particular at the Arctic, where more open water is being observed and the fact it is getting later in year for it to ice over. There are shifts in migration of animals and the potential for flooding.
This led to the Kyoto Protocol which was the first great attempt to articulate and spell out exactly what the Convention meant in terms of decreasing CO2 emissions. The onus was to be paid by the developed world, since we were the ones pumping that stuff out. The developing world was to be basically left out, I know that is a gross simplification. Then again, we've been told how difficult it must be, so we reject the thought we can do anything about it.
Still, there are now websites, songs and videos calling for change:
This site in question deals with climate justice, which is defined as:
‘Climate Justice’ is urgently needed by today’s and tomorrow’s victims of climate change. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people in developing countries die because of climate change-related crises. Environmental disasters cost governments billions, so people suffer even more as economies are hit. Climate Justice is needed by those whose communities and economies are ruined by abnormal and increasing tropical storms, floods, droughts and crop failures. Climate Justice is needed by the world’s children, because it is they who will face greater catastrophes tomorrow if something isn't done soon.
Another group calls itself 350.org. The title comes from what is believed to be the upper limits of safe and acceptable CO2 presence in our atmosphere. That's parts per million, by the way. For most of history, the website declares, the level was at 276, now it's 387, which is in the unacceptable range. Listen the belief is not necessarily we'll wipe out human life along with everything else on the planet, it's just going to be very bad for a very long time unless we get our act together.
www.350.org" width="480" height="60" border="0" />
Copenhagen may represent an effort that will finally make a difference. What is needed is honesty and transparency by all members. I want to say, forget carbon credits, which is a mugs game, and say, let's honestly reduce CO2 emissions. I know there is concern that if we do get off the diet of fossil fuels it will end our comfortable lifestyles. But it might also foster new technologies and unleash new creative energies that will make a difference for the planet and for all members. Right now, the West has enjoyed the lions share when it comes to the benefits of carbon based lifestyle- the next lifestyle will need to include the underdeveloped and developing world.
I was going to say something about climategate, let's leave that for later.
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Alright, as it is that time of year when people, places, things, news outlets, those that are into this sort of thing, announce the (blank) of the year. CNN, for example has the "Heros of the Year", Time Magazine has the "Person of the Year" and People Magazine has the "Sexiest Man/Woman of the Year". All these are something that people who want to write about this sort of thing.
At the end of November, the Global Language Monitor announced the most popular words of 2009 and I suppose to no ones surprise, although as I look at the other words, it can be considered a bit of a surprise, the top word is "Twitter". This organization monitors the use of the English language on the Internet, through news media, so it gains an understanding what words are popular. After all the carefull analysis, the people behind have decided to declare Twitter, the famous 140 character microblog as the word of the year, or the most popular.
I've been thinking about it and in one way, 2009 may be the year Twitter came to an age, I suppose. There seems to be one event, or a series of events that brings about and propels something to the front. One has to go back and consider that the First Gulf War was the event that brought CNN to the forefront. After that war, it became one of the most important sources of instanteous round the clock news. So with Twitter, I suppose it has to do with the events in Tehran, following the disputed Presidential Elections. By going on Twitter, one could follow what was happening. As the young people of Tehran protested, they Tweeted. They sent off messages about what was happening to them, what they were witnessing, all in 140 characters or less. I know some would argue the arrest of the dissident in Egypt may be the first real twitter event. As well, one of the eyewitnesses of the crash landing into the Hudson River of US Airways, posted his photographs on Twitter.
I was reading an article in The Huffington Post, regarding the announcement. One of the most interesting comments, and this might explain why Twitter has stayed around, perhaps not as popular as Facebook, but has maintained a presence is this:
Twitter has gone in the way of YouTube. At first, people thought YouTube was silly and weird; they didn't know how to YouTube and what a YouTube channel was. Now YouTube is synonymous, the industry standard, for online video -- for everyday people to watch, upload and share videos," Scott Goodstein, the text messaging expert who ran Obama's social networking presence during the campaign, told me. "Twitter is going through the same process. Twitter has become synonymous with quick, short opinion and perspective -- coming from anyone, going everywhere."
Which is true; Twitter has gone from the ubiquitous "I'm sitting in my beanbag chair, eating popcorn", to a source of news and information. After all, if I want to know what is happening, all I need to do is look at the popular topics on the front page. A lot of it might be driven by the day or popular culture, just consider how last week #TigerWoods was right up there, or at times you can see Lady Gaga, but every so often something comes along and makes it interesting to follow. Or one can put in a search and discover what others are saying about a topic of interest to you. For example, today I typed in "Climategate" and one of the responses was:
h8groupthink @cnni If ur not going 2 cover this scandal thoroughly ur aren't legit journalists http://tinyurl.com/y92eues #climategate science scandal
By the way, using that quote does not mean I adhere to the thought that Climate Change is not real.
Personally , I think I'm beginning to get Twitter. I didn't at first, I thought it was a waste of time and just another way to get more spam in my life. When I had my first account I signed up to 'get' more followers, big mistake. In fact may I suggest that you never do that, all you will get is people pushing their business plans. Like I said more spam in my life. There have been a few articles complaining about twitter spam. On the other side, one person asked the question, is it spam or good marketing? AS with all new topics, Twitter has unleashed onto us a plethora of books filled with everything from How To Twitter, to using twitter as a business and marketing tool.
Of course the irony of all these marketing books, is Twitter has yet to make money. It may be worth a lot, on paper, its value may be high, but is anyone getting a decent salary from it? Then again, perhaps the founders don't need the money. Who knows.
It has inspired a lot of people to create a lot of ways of connecting with, looking at, following twitter. Right now on my computer and on my Ipod Touch is TweekDeck, a stand alone twitter reader and poster that flashes up messages of those I follow. It's handy and makes it possible to follow, and occassionally post, while not having to stare at it all the time I'm on the computer. As well, as an app it's very handy. Of course there are a lot of apps that have to deal with twitter available on the iphone and iPod Touch.
As i have mentioned about photography, there's a number of ways of posting pictures to twitter. either directly or through agents such as Twitpic, Pikchur or Tweetphoto. There's a lot more.
This being the holiday season, I can't close anything about twitter without mentioning this, you can give the gift of a book containing your tweets. Yes, the company Tweetbookz will publish a book containing your tweets. You heard me right. It is the gift that will surprise and induce hours of joy as family and friends pour over your 140 characters. It is the gift that all will remember and probably question what sort of ridiculous shallow self-centred so and so you truly are. Would I get anyoone this gift, I'm not going to say. The concept has been reviewed, even by Wired.com.
So congratulations Twitter. May your failwhales be rare and your success grow.
Follow me on Twitter
Monday, November 30, 2009
After an amazing Grey Cup game, what else could I blog about but the Game. It's not going to be long, since you've been reading and watching the news stories about how the game went. No doubt if I read the papers in Saskatchewan, there would be the weeping and gnashing of teeth and questions on the strategy of putting 13 players onto the field, when only 12 are required at any one time. While a nice thought, it is clearly against the rules of football. Perhaps with the longer and wider field someone on the Saskatchewan side line thought it may be a good rule and good experiment. May I suggeset that it be brought up at the next rules committee meeting and not tried near the very last play of the game.
I discovered in the study that this game ranks as one of the most popular games ever played on television. It appears the Grey Cup was viewed by more Canadians then any game. Not bad for a league that was supposedly dead and all about buried. Those who can remember may recall the great expansion experiment of the CFL. While many thought it was a horrible idea, and I write this recalling that I do know where my Shreveport Pirates' hat is, it did give some benefits to the League. By the way, if you can remember the Shreveport Pirates, you are a true fan of the game. Quickly two of the best results of the expansion were at the Grey Cup game this year, one is the Montreal Alouettes, again history lesson, Montreal did not have a team for about ten years, not until 1996 when the Baltimore Stallions relocated north to the City of Montreal. Ten years before that, the Concordes collasped and Montreal was without a team.
The second benefit was the Montreal Quarterback, Anthony Calvillo, winner of now two Grey Cups was a member of the Las Vegas Posse. Although likely, as I read the history, I doubt he is mentioning that fact to a lot of people. When he makes it into the Hall of Fame, I think we shall see a lot more about his record with Montreal then with Las Vegas.
So the League has enjoyed some results from the American expansion. But this is not a history lesson, but to simply say, it was an enjoyable game albeit weird, but then again what do we expect from the CFL?
Some are saying Montreal did not so much win, as Saskatchewan lost. After all they complain, how does a team hold the lead for 59 minutes, 59 seconds and then lose on a defensive penalty. To all of them let me say this, the Montreal Alouettes are the champions because they managed to overcome their sloppy play in the first half. After the first half, there was no way Montreal should have been anywhere near winning the game on anything. They were down by 14 points and looked bad in all departments of the game, offense, defence and even special teams, they looked horrid. I mean how do you punt the football 7 yards? Saskatchewan on the other hand, had the game under control, they were shutting down the high power Alouettes, they made AC look human, in other words, it was all working.
Then Saskatchewan forgot the first rule of professional sports, when you have the opponents down on the ground, you never let them get back up. Montreal went into the half looking bad but they must have looked inside themselves and remembered all those feeling from last year, how bad it felt to lose like they did, even though they were the best team in the League. They got themselves back into a game that by the standards of the first half they had no right to be back.
Then the moment forever seared into the collective memory of a Province; Damon Duval attempted the game winning field goal. His attempted sailed far right and it was game over, let the celebration begin with RiderNation going nuts, but hold it, what are all those orange cloths on the field? A few of the on field officials did a quick count and discovered one more person in Green then the rules require, thus the penalty. The result, ten yards closer and the field goal. Cue the proper celebration, cue the Red, White and Blue confetti, cue a whole province now on suicide watch.
Quirky? Of course, what can you expect from a Grey Cup game? Just one more reason why the CFL is loved in this household.
Hopefully next year it will be a Hamilton Tiger-Cat, BC Lions Grey Cup Final.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The Big News for Brantford is the south side of Colbourne Street is to be razed and a new development is slated. It is to included buildings for the University, both Laurier Brantford and Nipissing, a new and expanded Y, plus perhaps, Mohawk College. The latter is something, since the college just bought the Expositor Building and they are developing an urban studies program. Apparently the hope is this faculty will study the development of the core of Brantford, so the re development will form a very living laboratory.
Today I was driving past the area and noticed some interesting things on the back of the buildings.
It appears someone decided to grow a garden and wanted all who drove or walked past to realize this fact. For an area devoid of life, it has something interesting that should be preserved, perhaps not structurally, because some of the buildings are quite bad, but through photographs and writings.
One can also make out the ghost of businesses of the past, the building to the right was the "Grand River Canoes". Sadly the business only exists as ghost writing and when this building comes down, it will cease to be, not even in memory.
What is amazing, is the drop between the front of the buildings on Colbourne and the back, it's amazing these were built but they were, and the builders took full advantage of the difference:
It will be something to discover if they will fill the height and make it viable, especially in this section of the road.
Still, the back is worth recording and keeps it record alive.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Times of London had an interesting article early this month, it was entitled "Is Internet Access now a human right?". The reason for the article is the fact that England is attempting to deal with internet piracy by threatening to cut off access to the Internet over those who are chronic abusers of piracy. Again, it's all about piracy, the government over there wants to ensure that people who download the latest whatever, music, movie, ebook, application, will never be allowed on the Internet ever again.
It's nothing the average ISP ( Internet Service Provider) want to be put in over there, it means they are effectively snitches for the music and movie industry. They are the spy on what each and every one of their consumers are doing at any one time. This was tried in France. The government attempted to enact a "three strikes and out" law in which scofflaws who abuse internet piracy would lose the right to access for the rest of their lives. The High Court struck it down, by the way. The Court ruled such a restriction is a violation of human rights, which is good for them. The rest of the EU however does not share this same view, an article Business Week declared that Europe was giving up on declaring Internet access a human right.
Much of this is being spurred on by the negotiations for the Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement, a new treaty to deal with international counterfeiting. Now when you think of counterfeiting, you may think of a group printing phony money, or a sweatshop some place knocking off a bunch of purses or shirts all bearing some brand name, or even Rolex watches. Certainly we can understand the need for rules to watch and control that, much of what is conterfeit is cheap, awful and potentially dangerous. However many have pointed out this treaty has more to do with intellectual property, rather then classic counterfeiting. In fact some have wondered if this is an anti-counterfeiting treaty, or a copyright treaty.
One of the problems with this treaty and there are a lot, is the fact it is being negotiated in secrecy. A document from the European Commission for Trade has this comment at the end:
As agreed among ACTA participatns, the negotiating papers are not public documents and therefore should be treated with reserve.
This is the Internet however, and nothing can remain a secret very long, can it? One of the leading proponents for Internet freedom, Dr. Michael Geist has almost been single-handed in his exposure of this travesty. His one article examines the chapters dealing with the Internet and it's not pretty. Many believe that acceptance of this treaty will lead to the establishment of a global 'three strikes and you're out' policy. The treaty contains information on protecting ISP from lawsuits when they act as agents of the State. As well, it will mean border guards will have the right to seize things such as mp3 players and laptops they believe contain pirated material. Now how these people will be able to discern downloaded from ripped is beyond me, I wonder if you ever have to cross an international border and have your ipod, you better bring all the cd's that have the music on it, otherwise you may be saying bye-bye to your player. I suspect this may happen the closer we come to a major holiday. What better way to get gifts for your loved one then seizing them at the border.
Truly the more you read about this treaty, the nastier it comes. Boing Boing has this article.
I've got more to say about this in an upcoming blog.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Okay, you like social networks, I like social networks. You have signed up for a bunch of them, I've signed up for a bunch of them. You like to take and post photographs from your camera, cellphone, (some) mp3 players, I like to take and post photographs from my camera and cellphone. Especially of Isabelle, she is so cute.
You got your twitter, brightkite, facebook, plurk and whatever else is out there, accounts and you want to post pictures. I suppose you could go to everyone of them and post the photographs individually. That's one idea, oh I forgot, there's also posterous. Yes it's possible to simply post each photograph to each site individually- I'm sure that will take a great deal of time.
you can use a site such as Pikchur. Pikchur is a place where you can post your photographs and videos to all those sites. It happens in an instance too, upload the picture to pikchur and all the sites you've set up with get them as well. It happens quite fast as well. It is very simple to use, simply sign up for an account, add other accounts and start uploading. I've been using pikchur since March 2009 and it is a great site. As I said, uploading is easy and the fact it posts over a variety of sites and platforms adds to the experience. As with all social networks, you can follow and have others follow you. The great part about being able to post is that you allow more people to view your artwork.
Like a number of sites, it offers an upgrade to a pro package. For a reasonable sum and I paid $11.95 US for the pro upgrade you can read all about it here. It's great to have the statistics and gain an idea where people are coming from to view your photographs. As well, the phtograph is kept at its original size, while scaled for viewing on the main page, you can click and get the full size when you want. On top of it, you get to have 'pro' on your avatar. I mean how can you beat that, I don't think you can.
Other features I like is that you can decide which photograph to make public or private and you can include information as to where the photo was taken, so there is a bit of geocaching when it comes to pictures. You can upload on the computer, cellphone, iphone, practically anywhere you want. So while simple and straightforward, it does have a number of useful features for you to use and enjoy.
For the money, it is a great service. I do recommend it to you if you enjoy taking and sharing you pictures. It's one of the nice features of social networking isn't it, not only do I get to know what beanbag chair you're sitting in, I can see it because you've probably taken a picture of it on your cellphone.
I should also point out that the founders are pretty friendly guys.
so Pikchur, simple, straightforward and a boon to all us photographers who are also social network junkies.
You can follow me at pikchur.com/people/Paulthe. I can use the followers.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
A good book is not necessarily one you agree with, but one that makes you think and presents idea which, although perhaps contradicts your personal views causes you to evaluate, re-evaluate and generally consider the ideas brought forth by the author. If the author seems to be writing against convention, so much the better.
The book "Dead Aid: Why Aid is not working and How there is a better way for Africa" considers the subject of the abject poverty of the African continent and asks the question that doesn't seemed to be ask, why hasn't things improved? The author Dr. Dambisa Moyo has written what has to be a scathing review of the "Aid Business" and points out the flaws of funneling over 1 Trillion Dollars in aid over the past 50 years.
She is not an armchair quarterback, she was born in Zambia and although a great deal of her education has taken place off the continent, she does not forget where she has come from, she is an African who desires to bring her continent out of the mire of poverty and into prosperity. I should point out that she has garnered as much criticism as she has praise. Some have gone so far to point out the irony of her criticism when in fact, they say, her education has put her in the catagory of enjoying aid. To be fair, this is rather unfair, in that she has only enjoyed what many others from other nations have been able to take hold of, and that is scholarships. It has opened her eyes to a broader way of looking at life and with her degrees in economics, she has been able to bring this teaching to the question of aid.
So what is wrong with aid? That is the start of the book. There are three points to her thesis
1) it leads to a dependency of aid
2) it stifles growth of industry, business and entrepreneurship
3) it leads to corruption.
The last point is one that has gripped the continent of Africa, we are all aware of the stories of dictators pocketing huge sums of money that were supposed to be used to feed the people. Or the stories of only the people belonging to the leaders tribe being able to enjoy the aid, while the rest of the nation starves. She lists the main culprits and how they enjoyed the spoils of aid.
Perhaps the middle point is one that gets forgetting, Dr. Moyo tells the story of a man who developed a business of making mosquito nettings. For nations that deal with the scrourge of malaria, this is vital. His business employed some 15 others and Dr. Moyo reckoned 150 people were dependent upon this business for their livelihood. While it was a challenge to keep up to the demand, it was still a thriving business. It was going well, until some celebrity decided to make mosquito netting a major cause and began to fund raise for the netting. The appeal was a success and the nation benefitted from thousands of mosquito nets being brought into the country. However, with all these free nets, the business quickly went under. The owner had to lay off his entire staff and close shop. The result was, in the short run, netting for all, but they began to tear and quickly became ineffective. The long term was an rather successful business was closed. While this is one example, it could be repeated over and over in Africa. Just one has to consider the effect of sending our used clothes to Africa has dismantled the local garment industry, again, how does the local business compete against free.
To Dr. Moyo the aid has not helped, she points out that at one points there were nations in Africa that had better GNP then China or India, but that is no more, as those nations expanded, African nations either stagnated or retreated. The problem with aid is that it does stifle development, why develop she suggests, when all you have to do is bank the cheques.
There is an interesting video of her on youtube:
The title of her book, no doubt is a direct criticism of the famous Live Aid concerts of the mid 80s which started the golden age of aid giving to Africa. Although to be fair, Live Aid was about getting people food, not an unending supply of aid.
So she opposes aid, the question then needs to be asked, what can replace aid. She gives three major suggestions.
1) establishment of a bonds market
3) the concept of microbanking and microloans.
A brief word on all three. Instead of aid, African nations need to raise funds for development by floating bonds. That is, borrow money at rates of return and interest that would be establish by the bond markets. To her way of thinking, this would put the nations on the road of development because they would use such funds for infrastructure renewal and growth as well as modernizing industry and the economies of the nation. She points out that such a market would ensure no corruption, since if the money is squandered then the next time the nation tries to float a bond, it would be severerly punished by the bonds market by its rating and the fact no one will invest. So investment is part of the key. She points out the natural wealth of resources possessed by many African nations.
The second point has to do with the huge investment China has given to Africa over the years. There has been some criticism, especially Chinese development in Sudan, which some has said has led to the disaster of Darfur. To prove the size of the investment China is making into the infrastructure and industry, she tells a story of a man who rode a motorcycle to South Africa. What impressed the man was the fact he was able to ride on paved roads, not the dirt ones only that he had thought. Often he saw signs speaking of the assistance given by China for the building of the road. If you google Chinese Aid to Africa, you will have many hits and a lot of them ask the question is Chinese aid good or bad for Africa. One article from the BBC discusses the growth of aid from China and how there are drawbacks, in that Chinese aid some times have no strings to it, so it too can be used for corruption, although with the Chinese acumen for business and investment it is unlikely they would tolerate abuse of their aid for very long.
The third is one that excites many people, microbanking is growing. Since its inception in Bangladesh and the development of the Grameen Bank has brought dignity and lifted many from the grip of poverty. These loans are small ones that encourage people to invest in industry, buying a sewing machine, farming, buying a few goats and making money. It has been a boon to many, receiving loans when conventional banks would not even consider.
These to Dr. Moyo are the tools to a growing Africa, one in which people are no longer imprisoned by poverty but are building a brighter future for themselves and their nation.
The question of course, is she right. I noticed in the interview above she talked about the aid industry and the fact that the problem is not all aid, but the wrong type of aid. I suspect aid that has built schools and established health clinics would be considered the right aid to her, since they have been helpful in helping lives and educating the youth of Africa. She also encourages the nations of Africa to begin to ween themselves off aid, but lowering it, not taking as much and not making it such an important part of the economy. So not all aid is bad, it just too much of it, can be very bad.
Does that mean we stop writing cheques to charities that support aid and relief efforts to African nations. Probably not, but perhaps a more careful consideration as to the type of aid is what is needed.
I suggest looking for this book and reading it.
Monday, November 09, 2009
If you go to my facebook page, or twitter, or pikchur, you will notice I enjoy taking photographs. When I got a new cellphone, I wanted something that could take photographs and videos, like people want to know how their cellphone is to make and receive phone calls, my that is so 1990's. When the family camera died, I wanted to make sure the next camera was an improvement.
I enjoy taking pictures.
One aspect that has been a major plus for all of us who take photographs is the availability of places to store our photos and also to edit our photographs. In fact last year, PCMag had an article on the various free online editing sites there are out there for the budding photographs. I encourage you to read it and use some of the sites listed, there's a number of very good ones. I prefer Picnik myself and have used it a number of times. You may go over the article and find a different one, and so be it, more power to you.
All the sites have a basic, read free, site and then they offer the premium sites, usually with more services, no ads and better resolution of the end results. Also if you get the premium service, you get tools that are not offered in the basic. Flickr offers such a thing, Picnik and Pikchur all make it possible to enhance your experience at a relatively reasonable yearly cost. I understand, for example, Flickr allows you to upload and store more photographs for $24.95 a year.
One site that I've used a few times is BeFunky. It's different in that it allows you to take your photograph and do some very interesting things with it. The header in the homepage states you can turn your digital photographs into 'works of art'. It is actually very good and you can do some fascinating things with regular pictures:
So quite impressive when it comes to the effects. I noted they even have an app on Facebook. You've perhaps seen the notices for 'cartoonizer'. That's BeFunky in action. If it's an app on Facebook, it is probably bringing in the dough.
It's a fairly recent company but it sounds like it has a good workplan for growth and expansion.
The site is clean and fairly user friendly. To make the necessary changes is also straightforward, although you might find the choices a bit overwhelming. The claim is 125 different special effects, so there is truly accounting for all sorts of taste. The work can be saved to a gallery, saved to the hard drive, emailed, shared and printed. You can also take your work and turn it into mugs, t shirts, stickers, magnets, post cards and postage stamps, USA only.
The company wants you to take out a befunky plus membership. It is a premium that offers first and foremost, the removal of the watermark, plus things such as better resolution and the ability to upload more photographs. It sounds like a great deal, but I've got to admit I do have one slight problem and I think if they change this, it would be an even better site.
The problem is the amount, befunky wants $50.00. It does mean no more of those annoying announcements and the slowing down of the work, but I wonder if the price is a bit much. As I pointed out, most other services offer premium grade for $25.00. I think this is probably the sweet spot for most of us. Fifty seems a bit much, but for half that I suspect they would get a lot more people. If they halved their costs I think I would look at it as an option.
It's something for them to think about.
Still, it worth considering as a service to enjoy.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
It is interesting to have watched a show and then stop for a few years only to pick up watching again. This has happened to me with Star Trek:The Next Generation. You may wonder if a geek such as myself could have ever stopped watching Star Trek, after all I did watch the JJ Abrams movie, and found simply the greatest. I don't know if I would say it's the greatest Star Trek movie, but certainly it is one of the best ones and did an incredible job re-starting the franchise. Let's face it, Star Trek Nemesis was basically a bust and besides it was all dark and dingy. The new movie had that new starship smell to it, it was bright, shiny and totally new.
By the way, the movie is coming to DVD on the 17th of November, start saving those pennies.
So, what about the Next Gen? It was an amazing series when you get right down to it. I've watched two episodes, the first being: "I, Borg" and the second "Inner Light". Both are amazing in they look at themes and ideas, which was one of the hallmarks of the franchise, Gene Roddenberry believed in concepts and ideas, and he expressed some very controversial topics through the Starship Enterprise.
The first episode considered the idea of individuality and how that may be the greatest weapon against the hive mentality. The crewmembers, just in case you don't know, come to the scene of a wrecked Borg vessel, most of the crew is dead but they rescue one, a rather younger Borg. They at first want to use him as a weapon by introducing a virus into his central processing unit. The hope is to infect the entire collective and thus destroy the Borg. Since the Federation is at war with the Borg, it makes for a good tactical plan. However, through encountering the crew, the Borg begins to develop a personality and an individuality, apart from the Collective. He learns that resistence is not always useless and there is something more.
Another Borg vessel is spotted and Hugh, as he is now called, is returned to the crash site, he is assimilated back to the crew, but just before, he looks at Geordi. The result of his encounter is played out in another episode.
The second episode is "The Inner Light". To be honest there are not enough superlatives for this episode. It is considered one of the highest rated of all the episodes of all the series. It won a Hugo Award, the highest award in science fiction. the Enterprise comes across a probe which sends a signal to Picard, he ends up fainting into a coma. In the coma he lives the life of a citizen of a planet that launched the probe. He becomes part of the society, raises a family and realizes the planet is dying. The members of the planet wanted to live, not by leaving their world, but becmoing part of Picard's memory. In the probe there is a flute, which Picard plays. To many the theme is remarkable and strikes a chord with many viewers.
As I said, it's amazing how great the writing and acting was in the series. Was every episode good? No of course not, there were some serious clunkers, but so what you take the good with the bad.
I'm planning to continue to watch and enjoy.
Live Long and Prosper
Saturday, October 31, 2009
The news is saying that the Large Hadron Collider is going to be fired up. This after a number of what can only be described as 'epic fails'. It is ready to discovered the mysteries of the universe, or something like that, it's not going to cause a black hole and suck our planet into it and destroy all life. That's the good news, at least we think so.
However there is something odd going on with the devise. A number of newspaper articles have been reporting that there's something wrong and it may have to do with the fact the Collider is successful. Right now the Collider is going to search for the Higgs Boson, also known as the "God Particle". This particle is the elemental building block of all creation.
It is this search that may be the cause of all of the Hadron Colliders problems. Two scientists, Dr Holger Bech Nielsen and Dr Masao Ninomiya have written a paper entitled: "Test of Effect in Large Hadron Collider: A Proposal". In this article, the authors state that either nature or God hate the very thought of the Higgs Boson, that the very creation, which will take place in the future, causes a ripple in the time-space continuum so that it returns to the machine that made it to destroy it. The ripple tears through the fabric of creation to eliminate such a monstrosity from happening. It is odd to consider that it has been beset with some rather odd bad luck, such as that magnet overheating and failing, or the fact that one of the people involved has been recently arrested for terrorism.
The question must now be directed to the thought, what would happen if a Higgs Boson was created in its purest form in the labratory, would it bring about the end of the world, open a portal to another dimension, wipe out life and start over, or be the trigger which opens the Earth to invasion by others.
Another theory, which is being popularized is the fact the Collider is being sabotaged by time travelers. They are returning to destroy the Collider because they have lived through the creation of Higgs Boson. The two things will be the creation of time travel and the second is, something nefarious. Something that would make two brave time travelers through the centuries to bring about the end of their enslavement. If successful, the Higgs Boson will not come into being and it will be the Earth shall be saved. Of course, it will mean the end of Time Travel and thus the two who returned will be blotted out because they can't travel in something that hasn't been created.
If you don't believe me, then perhaps you should read the essay in the New York Times.
You know, people will watch very lame 'horror' movies and miss the real horror, the creation of the Higgs Boson. Those sad people will lay their heads on their pillow tonight, oblivious of the great struggle taking place throughout time, to keep them safe.
Makes one think.