hyphenated -
Filed under

science & technology

 

beyond celine

Since being introduced to iTunes Genius by Kevin, I've been hooked. It's a great way to listen to all the music in our collection without the playlist being completely random. I'll pick a song I'm in the mood to listen to and start the Genius. I'm rarely disappointed with the results. Oftentimes, Genius will remind me of artists that I've neglected and the re-discovery is much appreciated.


After work today, I chose a song by Martha Wainwright from her latest album. I only started listening Ms. Wainwright after I went to one of her concerts on a friend's recommendation. I've been a fan of Rufus Wainwright (her brother) for years, and Martha did not disappoint.

While cleaning the apartment and grooving to the music, I kept recognizing Canadian artists on the playlist. Turns out that 14 of the 25 songs were by Canadian musicians and bands (some duplicates):
  • Martha Wainwright - Montreal, Quebec
  • Rufus Wainwright - Montreal, Quebec
  • Stars - Toronto, Ontario (now based in Montreal, Quebec)
  • Matthew Good - Burnaby, British Columbia
  • Arcade Fire - Montreal, Quebec
  • Sarah Harmer - Burlington, Ontario
  • Sarah Slean - Pickering, Ontario
  • The Stills - Montreal, Quebec
  • Metric - Toronto, Ontario
  • Feist - Calgary, Alberta
Thanks to Genius, my Canada Day celebration continued into today. The playlist exemplifies the musical talent in this country (and indicates that Kevin and I support that talent by purchasing the albums) and that it extends considerably from the realm of the mainstream (i.e., Celine Dion is not on the list). Check out CBC Radio 3 to get better acquainted with the great music being made in this great country. 

And for those unfamiliar with Martha Wainwright, let me introduce her to you:

Filed under  //   books & art   Canada   science & technology  

Comments [2]

greenwashing

A headline in The Economist this week grabbed my attention - "Washing without water". The article proceeded to outline a new technology for washing clothes using minimal water and nylon beads, indicating that the carbon footprint of the new system is "40% smaller than the most efficient existing systems for washing and drying laundry". Sounds great.


But, the article didn't satisfy my curiosity about this new technology and its efficiency. Doesn't the production of synthetic fibers, including nylon, require fossil fuels? Aren't the processes by which such fibers are produced very energy intensive? Did the calculation of the carbon footprint include these considerations? Since the article didn't contain this information, I looked elsewhere. Hello Google.

The most pertinent of my findings is summarized by the following table:
Fiber Energy use (MJ) per kg of fiber
Flax10
Cotton (conventional)55
Wool63
Viscose100
Polyester125
Acrylic 175
Nylon 250
via O Ecotextiles 

Since 250 MJ of energy is not very tangible to me, I did some conversions. According to Wikipedia, gasoline contains about 32.0MJ/l. So to make a kilogram of nylon requires the amount of energy contained in about 8 liters of gasoline, which is enough to drive 100km in a new Toyota Camry. 

In conducting my research, I also discovered that the price of nylon has risen substantially, 25% in the US, in line with rising energy prices and that demand for nylon has decreased in recent years (more information can be found here). Although unproven, I'm left with the impression that the new washing technology is an attempt to find a new market for nylon in reaction to current market trends.

But, although interesting in itself, my questions remained since the quantity of nylon used in the new washing machines was not quantified in the article. So, I explored the company's website. There, despite not finding the information I sought, I discovered two things:
  1. The 40% reduction in carbon footprint may have included the manufacturing of the nylon, but it's not really clear. The company states that the "calculation also includes the environment cost of the Xeros nylon beads which will be recycled, never just thrown away." Sounds like the study may have relied on a true life cycle analysis (LCA) of the product, but I can't find a link to said study so can't verify what is meant by "environment costs".
  2. The company is assuming that the nylon will be recycled. This assumption is only valid if the infrastructure and education needed to ensure that consumers actually recycle the beads is launched along with the product. Somehow, I'm skeptical. Many things are recyclable. Many of these things are not recycled.
Long story short, the new technology may not be as sustainable as the company claims. I get the sense that greenwashing may be at play here (pun not intended, but I must admit that I like it), but I don't have access to the information I need to substantiate my gut feeling.

Which brings me full circle - shouldn't the The Economist provide the reader with this information? As far as I can tell, all the information provided in the article can be gleaned from the company's website. Needless to say, I'm not impressed with journalism that regurgitates information without any critical investigation. Isn't journalism about asking questions and finding answers? Isn't that the value-added? I can read a website for free. I pay for news for the additional information. So, if the additional information isn't there, what am I paying for when I buy The Economist

Perhaps, as James Fallows argued in 1991The Economist is relying on its sacred cow status to retain readers.The criticism launched in 1999 by Andrew Sullivan, namely that "there's a funny thing about the Economist. The closer you look, the weaker it gets. Beneath the blizzard of one-liners ... and snazzy graphs, it contains less original reporting than many other news magazines", rings true. I haven't noticed it in the past, but perhaps I never took the time to look closely enough.

Filed under  //   science & technology   sustainability  

Comments [1]

an apple a day...

In the Mac vs. PC debate, I'm firmly in the Mac camp. 


I have not owned a PC since the 486 running Windows 3.0, which I used to write many papers during my undergrad, kicked the bucket in 2003. The iBook G4 I bought when I started my Master's was a huge upgrade. I jumped from 1990s era technology to OS X overnight. The iBook is still alive and, although I was recently upgraded to a MacBook Air (thanks to Kevin), asleep in the corner. I'm not ready to part with it - it has a lot of sentimental value.

And that is the heart of the reason why I am on the Mac bandwagon. I couldn't imagine getting sentimental about a PC. Macs are sleek and elegant and friendly and PCs are machines. 

The dichotomy was exemplified on my recent trip out east when passing through security at the airport. As usual, I was asked to place my laptop into one of the sterile grey bins. But, since part of my trip was for work, I was carrying both my work laptop (a heavy, chunky, nondescript Dell) and my light, portable, beautiful MacBook Air. Sitting in the bins (they were not allowed to share a bin) side by side, the contrast between my Mac and my machine became all the more clear.

Most of the Mac attributes, outlined above, that cause Mac users to grow attached to their Mac products can be attributed to Steve Jobs and his vision. There aren't many CEOs who are as integral to the design of the products as Steve Jobs is at Apple and it isn't too difficult to speculate that the fate of Steve Jobs and the fate of Apple are tightly intertwined. Even in his short absence, an Apple application (Voice Memos) for the iPhone was launched with a poorly designed icon (via @patrickc). 

Nonetheless, all the coverage of Steve Jobs and his recent illness and liver transplant is bordering on the ridiculous and has trespassed into the excessive. Case in point: the New York Times site has a "Steve Jobs Coverage" section. Really? Given the importance of Steve Jobs and the stock value of Apple in the greater scheme of things, does whether Steve is back at work full time or whether he should resign or disclose the personal details of his illness and surgery, including the legitimacy of the liver, really deserve special coverage? In my view, special coverage should be limited to natural disasters and wars and genocides and other major news events.

That said, perhaps there should be special coverage to speculate on the future market share of Apple and PC based on how geeky Steve Jobs and Bill Gates looked in the early 80s. I'd read that.

Filed under  //   science & technology  

Comments [0]

motivated by data

When I started this blog, I signed up for Google Analytics and started collecting data to get a sense of readership. 


My overall impression of Google Analytics: it provides a lot of data without yielding much easily accessible information. Finding out, for example, how the visitor from Serbia came across my blog involves doing a bunch of drilling down which is tedious and time consuming. I'm aware of products that help translate Google data into more meaningful results but, for now, I think that these are a bit excessive for my purposes.

If anything, Google Analytics has proved to be very motivating. First of all, it's great to know that people from across Canada and all around the world are actually visiting the blog and reading my posts. Not all readers comment so, without Google Analytics, I wouldn't know that quite a few people read hyphenated on a regular basis. 



Secondly, I have observed a direct correlation between new posts and number of daily visitors. Naturally, visitor numbers drop off if I don't post regularly and so I make an effort to keep the posts coming to maintain readership. That's not to say that I only post to drive up traffic (I enjoy the writing a lot), but seeing a graph trending towards zero does help to motivate.

The data also can be quite entertaining, especially the information about the Google search terms that directed people to my site. As I tweeted the other day, it appears as though my blog is being mistaken as a grammatical resource for those interested in the appropriate use of the hyphen.

Filed under  //   science & technology  

Comments [1]

nostalgia

I've been meaning to write a post about nostalgia for awhile - ever since Kevin started raving about the new Amazon Kindle. I'm sure that the Kindle is a very sophisticated and innovative device, but I still find it hard to reconcile with my fondness for a good book. 
Kevin would argue that the genius of the Kindle is that it takes a good book and makes it more accessible. The kindle is more portable and less resource (e.g., paper) intensive. Despite my tendency to be swayed by arguments rooted in sustainability, I still find it difficult to get excited by the Kindle. 


A good book is more than content. Dog-eared pages, musty smells, stains, cover art, font, notes on the inside cover, memories. All of these things add to the content and contribute to the book-reading experience. I derive more enjoyment from reading second-hand books as compared to new ones because the books themselves, physically, tell a story too. And, a rebuttal to Kevin's green argument, even paperbacks can be sustainable if reused!

For the most part, I pass books along to friends when I've read them. But there are exceptions. I have a box of favorite books in a box in Montreal, in the basement. The box is among other boxes of personal treasures - similar to the nostalgia boxes described by Lily. I want to keep these books because they mean something more to me than words on a page. They resonated with me and I want to hold on to them for posterity.

Elaine was keeping some of the books from my childhood and I hope they're still around. There's a copy of Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss that has blood splattered across a few pages - I got a nosebleed once when I was reading it (actually, I think I was listening to the audio tape that came with the book - the narrator's voice "Would you eat them in a box? Would you eat them with a fox?" still echoes in my mind). These books are associated with fond memories of bedtime stories and rainy days. A few years ago, Elaine gave me a used copy of a Richard Scary book that she found at a book sale. Apparently I loved the book as a child and seeing it at the sale reminded my mom of me.

The Kindle can't compete from a nostalgia standpoint and, for the same reasons I was reluctant to make the switch from film to digital, I don't think I'll be buying one anytime soon. In addition, I'm not convinced that the Kindle offers improvements to paper books in the same way digital photography did in comparison to film. Paying for film, waiting to get photos developed, weeding out bad shots on the spot, and sharing photos more readily are all benefits offered by digital. I have a hard time thinking of many issues associated with conventional books that the Kindle will solve. Most of the books I read are already rather portable. Perhaps the Kindle will corner the market for text books. 

Filed under  //   books & art   family & friends   science & technology   sustainability  

Comments [3]

one month

One month ago today, I started this blog and it seems like an opportune juncture to reflect on my experience as a blogger thus far. I can relate to a few sentiments expressed by a fellow novice blogger in Ireland, namely identifying as an "outlier in the blogosphere" (among my friends, I think I'm the only blogger) and really enjoying the writing. 

Kathryn recently asked me how I come up with ideas for posts. Since I started blogging, I've been conscious of how blogable the things that I read, hear, observe, and discuss are. Sometimes the most benign ideas end up as posts - I have a tendency to link current events and thoughts to memories and other references (in case you haven't noticed).  Also, I like thinking critically, telling stories, and writing. Consequently, keeping up with the blog hasn't proven difficult. 

Actually, I've been jotting down ideas for future blog posts as they come to me and there are currently a few posts in the blog 'incubator' (stay tuned for a response to Kevin's post about education/schooling as well as for one on nostalgia). Some posts stay in the incubator longer than other as I develop and refine my ideas. 

(As an aside, incubator as a metaphor is a bit more mainstream and suitable for describing my posts-in-waiting than the bizarre simile that occurred to me earlier today. The simile would only make sense to anyone who lived on a farm with hens and has seen what eggs look like before they are laid. Yes, the chicken has to be dead to do this.)

In any case, I strive to keep the topics diverse and not rant too much. In line with my first post, I try to keep hyphenated interesting. Hopefully, I've succeeded thus far. The stats have been encouraging: over 400 views by 83 unique visitors from 7 countries. 

(Another aside: My favorite piece of information from Google Analytics is that someone who was searching for information regarding bathroom vents was directed to my post about vermicomposting by Google. I doubt they found what they were looking for.)

The comments I've received from friends and family, either on the site or in conversation, have also been encouraging. My initial assumption that my parents were more likely to read my blog than my tweets or my Facebook updates has been proven correct. Blogging has been rewarding on so many levels. I plan to keep it up for the months to come.

Filed under  //   family & friends   science & technology  

Comments [0]

ode to hubble

One thing that two of my father's hobbies have in common: they involve looking through magnifying devises at objects that are very small or very far away. John tried to engage me and Kathryn in his hobbies when we were kids, giving us the chance to peer through the binoculars or the telescope to partake in his excitement. 


The binoculars were rather hopeless for the longest time - John would point out a bird sitting on a branch and pass me the binoculars to take a peek. More often than not, I wouldn't be able to align the binoculars with the bird and, rather than marveling at its beautiful plumage, I would get frustrated because all I saw was blurry branches and leaves. Needless to say, I didn't get very excited and bird watching was not added to my list of interests. 

I do have some funny memories associated with my dad's passion for birds. I must have been about four years old when John heard the call of an oven bird. He proceeded to jump up, proclaim something to the effect of "An ovenbird!! I've never seen one of those!" before running to grab his binoculars and trying to locate the bird. My four-year-old self wondered what an ovenbird might look like - for John to be so excited it must be really neat. I proceeded to imagine a rather square bird reminiscent of a stove. Now that I know what an ovenbird looks like, I don't know if it was worth all the excitement.

John's passion for astronomy proved to be more contagious, despite a rough initiation to the hobby. John set up his binoculars on a tripod (he hadn't purchased a telescope yet) to view the moons of a planet (I think it was Saturn but, since I was six at the time, I could be wrong). Once he had the planet in focus, he invited Kathryn and I to take a look. In my hurry to see what all the fuss what about, I tripped over one of the tripod legs and sent the binoculars crashing to the ground where they met their fate on a patch of ice. Oops. John was not happy, especially since we lived in a remote arctic community at the time - binocular repair shops were not part of the local economy.

Despite that event, which I don't think I'll ever live down, I remained fascinated by the cosmos. Throughout elementary and high school, we lived in a rural area where star gazing was possible in the absence of much light pollution (with the exception of the northern sky where the erie orange glow of Montreal drowned out the stars). The Milky Way was visible on clear nights. Occasionally, I witnessed northern lights and shooting stars. Magical is probably the best word to describe those warm summer nights spent laying on the dewy grass listening to peeper frogs and coyotes while contemplating the insignificance of my existence in light of the vastness overhead... at least on the nights without many mosquitoes.

One slow summer day when I was about 18, I was browsing the bookshelf for new reading material at my parent's place and picked up Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time and dove in. I admit to never finishing it (probably like most of the people who bought it), but I made it about halfway through and was impressed and engaged by the theories. A CEGEP course in astrophysics/astronomy and some additional extra-curricular reading also resonated with me. The thought that everything, absolutely everything, originated from a singularity 13.7 billion years ago (thank you, Wolfram Alpha ) still leaves me awestruck and feeling particularly insignificant.

The motivation for this post was the recent news coverage regarding the beginning of the end for the Hubble telescope, which will remain operational until about 2014. The beautiful and humbling images obtained from the telescope over the years have left me awestruck time and again and probably can be attributed, along with my father's hobby, to my appreciation for the cosmos.


Filed under  //   family & friends   science & technology  

Comments [3]

quality of life

Last week, Vancouver was described as offering the highest quality of life when compared to other North American cities (it ranked fourth in the world). As reluctant as I am to admit it, I'm a Vancouverite. I'm reluctant to admit it because being a Vancouverite and being a Montrealer are mutually exclusive and I'd rather be a Montrealer. Montrealer implies cultured, indie, edgy, stylish. Vancouverite implies mellow, posh, fit, gortex. But, after being here for over four years, I can no longer deny it: I'm a resident of the best city in North America according to the ranking.

Is Vancouver really the best city? Given the moderate climate, the beautiful setting, the decent infrastructure, and the good food, it's not hard to see why it scores so high. But I'm pretty sure that the likelihood to experience a large-scale natural disaster was not considered when the cities were ranked. Due to the forces of plate tectonics, Vancouver is earthquake prone. Indeed, all evidence suggests that we are overdue for the 'big one'. The aftermath of an earthquake of the magnitude expected would be devastating. That said, seeing as the rating represents a snapshot of the city now, I suppose that it is reasonable to assign a high ranking to Vancouver... assuming that worrying about the impending quake doesn't negatively affect ones quality of life.

I've accepted that an earthquake could shake the city to pieces at any minute. I don't like the idea but I've resigned myself to the fact that it could happen and that there's not much I can do about it. Vancouver is a great place to live and I'll accept the risk. Despite being prone to worrying, I don't think about it on a daily basis. Frankly, the only reason it came to mind recently was that I noticed that the Google maps satellite imagery provides a profile of the seafloor, including the mid-ocean ridge in the Atlantic - evidence of plate tectonics and continental drift. A reminder.

The satellite image also reminded me of the time Kevin came home from a job interview a few years ago and recounted some of the questions he was asked, including "How would you move Mount Fuji?". Before he had a chance to tell me how he had responded in the interview, I blurted, "Do nothing. Just wait for continental drift to take its course." Kevin groaned - such an elegant and simple solution and he didn't think of it. He didn't get the job. I don't think I would have gotten it either seeing as I don't have the qualifications needed to apply.

Filed under  //   science & technology   Vancouver  

Comments [1]

wild parrots of telegraph hill

When Kevin and I visited San Francisco in the summer of 2007 we did all the touristy stuff, including a visit to the switchbacks on Lombard Street. We were talking some photos when a very noisy flock of birds flew overhead and landed in a nearby tree. I am not a birder/birdwatcher (i.e., I don't carry field guides and binoculars everywhere) but my dad is and, whether I like it or not, if I see an unfamiliar bird I'm drawn to it and can't help wanting to know what it is. Thanks John. In any case, I discovered that the birds were parrots. Having no prior knowledge of parrots inhabiting San Francisco, I couldn't quite believe that I was observing parrots living wild in an American city. I took photos as proof:

   
Click here to download:
wild_parrots_of_telegraph_hill.zip (664 KB)


Later in our trip, when perusing the shelves at the famous City Lights Bookstore, I discovered that a book had been written about the parrots. As a student with limited disposable income and way too much reading on my plate, I didn't buy the book. I did, however, recently borrow it from my friend Matthew and just finished reading it. The book was quite interesting.

Some interesting facts:
- The parrots are called cherry-headed conures when sold as pets (which is where the San Francisco population likely originated) and red-masked parakeets by ornithologists
- They are originally from northwestern Ecuador and Peru
- They successfully breed in San Francisco and they've been in San Francisco for many years
- There was a species of parrots native to the US, but these were hunted to extinction by 1918
- Telegraph hill is steep because soil was mined from the slopes for use as ballast in ships

Most of these facts are from one chapter of the book. The rest focuses on the author's relationship with the parrots over several years. The story is very sweet and the book made learning about the parrots much more enjoyable than I imagine reading the Wikipedia entry would be. (There doesn't seem to be an entry about the parrots in San Francisco, hence I've taken the opportunity to promote a related product.)

Filed under  //   books & art   family & friends   science & technology  

Comments [0]

the intersection of the sciences

Is social science 'science'? Or, in more blunt terms, what are the
merits of social science given its 'fuzzyness'? These are question
that I've mulled over for over ten years, starting in CEGEP, when
social science, health science, and pure and applied science were
presented as distinct disciplines in the course catalogue. No one
really talked about it, but it was pretty clear that some students in the
pure and applied and health science realms perceived themselves to be
enrolled in the 'important' and 'concrete' disciplines - destined
to be engineers, doctors, and computer scientists. Indeed, amongst the
'scientists', social science courses were viewed as easy courses taken
to boost ones GPA. Beyond that, the merit of humanities courses was
often discounted or ignored. Starting CEGEP, I was a 'scientist'
taking 'real' science and math courses in the hopes of becoming an
engineer.
 
The most important thing I learned in CEGEP was that I don't like pure
science enough to pursue it as a career. Sure, physics was interesting
(I especially liked astrophysics and waves/modern physics) and
chemistry was alright, but I despised calculus. I didn't get it and I
didn't really want to. Seeing as calculus is an integral (no pun
intended) component of an undergraduate degree in engineering, I
started reconsidering my career path. Realizing that I really enjoyed
my biology courses, I shifted gears from pure and applied science to
health science. I also found that I quite enjoyed the social science
courses I was taking to boost my GPA and compensate for my dismal
grades in calculus.
 
That's why I ultimately enrolled in the McGill School of Environment
for my undergrad. The curriculum at the MSE was diverse, allowing
students to take courses in a variety of disciplines. My transcript
includes biology, anthropology, geography, economics, and religious
studies courses. Most of the courses I completed had an environmental
science focus and I graduate with a B.Sc.. Still a 'scientist'. A
memorable debate with my mother (a social scientist) reminds me that,
at that point in time, I remained stubbornly sure that, albeit being
interesting, social sciences were 'fuzzy' and, as such, not really as
worthy as 'science'.
 
This debate continued through my Master's, where students from a
variety of science and social science backgrounds converged to study
Resource & Environmental Management. There were many heated
discussions in my courses about the worth of social science as
compared to pure science. I found myself in a new, slightly awkward
position: My supervisor was an economist and - gasp! - I was
conducting social science research. My graduate studies provided me
with new perspective. With most of the 'scientists' conducting
research based on imperfect models (models tend to rely on assumptions
and incomplete data), I realized that 'science' can be pretty 'fuzzy'
too. The quantification of the 'fuzziness' is the most important part.
Uncertainty, error, risk, and sensitivity analyses help to anchor the
findings of research in all realms.
 
My views of social science and its merits have certainly evolved over
the past ten years and, as an environmental manager, I am more aware
of the importance of social science today than I ever have been in the
past. Human behaviour counts for a lot. My favorite example: risk vs.
uncertainty. So long as the risk, uncertainty, and discounting are
misunderstood or ignored, decisions related to environmental issues
will be misinformed. So many environmental issues are low probability,
high magnitude, and long-term. If probability and risk are treated as
synonymous and discount rates are too high (which they typically are),
appropriate action is unlikely to be taken. Social science plays a key
role in understanding how environmental issues are perceived and how
these perceptions shape decision making. With this understanding,
positive progress can be made more efficiently.
 
This post was inspired by a recent article in the NY Times Magazine:
"Why Isn't the Brain Green?". The author explains that "the [social science]
research ... has the potential to improve environmental messages, policies
and technologies so that they are more in tune with the quirky workings of our minds."

Filed under  //   family & friends   science & technology  

Comments [4]