| Vitruvian Mind |
| Give back, Get involved |
|
Posted on July 21st, 2008 by Myk.
Categories: Travel & Leisure, Consumer Products, Philanthropy & Environment, Business & Finance, Science & Technology, Sports & Health.
From Trendhunter, I give you the fastest boat in the world. Also, the most environmentally friendly. It made me go a big rubbery one as it reminded me of Fight Club, the second best movie of all time after True Romance. TH writes:
The Earth Race boat is a bio-diesel powered boat that runs on human fat and looks like a highly futuristic vessel you’d expect to see on Star Trek.
The inventors of the zero carbon boat intend of breaking the current global speed record, planning to take the boat around the world running purely on fat. It was invented by an enlightened former oil industry engineer from New Zealand who is also an environmentalist. He hopes the project will promote environmental awareness and highlight the fascinating potentials of sustainable resources.
Pete Bethune and two crew members underwent liposuction, gathering a total of 2.5 gallons of excess blubber to power the speed boat. Their fat alone was enough to produce 2 gallons of fuel. He put the lard in motor and says under optimal conditions, the boat could run a successful 9 miles.
This boat is built for speed. While most boats ride over waves in rough seas, the Earth Race boat is built to pierce right through them. He plans on taking a 27,600-mile journey across the world, making the entire journey on 100% biodiesel.
If inventors could find a way to use global muffin tops, saddle bags and beer bellies as energy, these could be revolutionary.
One things for sure—in today’s society, human fat is definitely a renewable resource. So long as the obesity epidemic persists, fueled by pop culture phenomenons like McDonalds, it looks like there will be plenty of fuel to burn.
If we took all the plastic surgeons in LA and Miami and took them to the heartland for a little sucking…we might possible solve all of our energy problems :). Screw $5 gas prices and expensive corn-based ethanol, McDonald’s-generated lipids work too! The update on the boat’s progress is spectacular as well:
Despite being threatened by pirates and having almost been sunk by submerged logs, the Earthrace biodiesel trimaran (powered by recycled human fat) made the fastest trip around the world. This knocks 14 days off the previous record.
Tyler Durden would be more than proud. He would be ecstatic.
Posted on July 11th, 2008 by Myk.
Categories: Media & Entertainment, Business & Finance, Humor & Pop Culture.
I just read about Harvey Weinstein’s (of Pulp Fiction, Shakespeare in Love, and many other movies) professional troubles in Gawker. Called that “indestructible cockroach” of independent movies—New York’s Harvey Weinstein—has had a roller-coaster of a career. Some hightlights:
From Gawker:
Harvey Weinstein’s track record of releases has been disappointing since leaving Disney’s Miramax, where he shepherded modern classics such as Shakespeare in Love. (The once-bullish film producer doesn’t even have the confidence to finance Quentin Tarantino’s next project.) The Weinstein Company’s own backers, led by Goldman Sachs, are rumored to be reconsidering their support. And the independent mini-conglomerate’s forays into media sectors other than movie-making have been mixed at best. (Fashion TV show Project Runwayis a money-spinner but social network A Small World has tiny traffic.)
The point of the story is that it seems lackluster performance of his films is hitting him pretty hard and it’s not clear whether there’s any asset that can be sold for cash in an emergency. He’s not a well loved guy in the industry–epitomizing the egomaniacal fat jewish producer archetype.
Thought this is an interesting random pop-culture post.
Posted on July 10th, 2008 by Myk.
Categories: Media & Entertainment, Business & Finance, Science & Technology.
The median age of Americans is 38. Did you know that?? As of last season, the average age of Americans watching live TV is…drum roll…50. Yep. I suppose we already knew this was going to happen but PSFK brought the topic to our attention. This is one of those “thought you should know” posts.
Posted on July 8th, 2008 by Myk.
Categories: Travel & Leisure, Business & Finance, Definitions.
Sometimes, I gotta let out my geeky side and throw down some economics. This post draws from this weeks Economist Article called “The domino effect.”
First let me define current-account:
From the article,
Currencies of economies with large current-account deficits should depreciate relative to those of countries with surpluses. This will stimulate their exports and curb imports, thereby helping to slim the trade gaps. America has the world’s biggest current-account deficit and the dollar has dutifully been falling since 2002. Oddly, however, the currencies of many other countries with large deficits had enjoyed big gains until recently. Now, at last, currency markets have started to see sense.
Ergo, when a country consumes more than it produces, it’s currency should lose value. Check the chart below…as you can see that the weakest currencies this year have been in countries with deficits.
Though a current-account deficit is not necessarily bad (because an economy may be borrowing from abroad to finance investment to generate growth) a country with a large current account deficit has greater economic risk. Its economy and its currency may struggle if money flowing in dries up.
So how does this affect us and why is it important of us to know? Well, the dollar is a crap currency right now for everyone travelling abroad. It’s weak as hell you’re gonna get bent over in almost any country you visit. When you wonder WHY this is happening to you (more specifically than we’re in a recession etc. etc.) at least you will understand that the current account is a major driver of your $10 coffee. Hope it tastes really goood…
Posted on July 2nd, 2008 by Myk.
Categories: Philosophy & Spirituality, Definitions.
Forget Obama and his audacity of hope….we don’t do politix here. I want to talk about audacity as it relates to Mr. Dieckmann’s oft-quoted famous phrase “More is more.”
The definition:
Other permutations: audacious audacities, audaciousness, audaciouliscious…great f*ing word, huh?
I’m in the mood for some stream-of-consciousness thoughts on the word, cause it’s that goood. First and foremost, it’s BIG. An audacious (blatant) lie an audacious (go-for-broke) bet an audacious (indecent) proposal an audacious (life-changing) decision…actions at this level are those that make up legend. Audacity has power–because it is unexpected, as David proved when he faced Goliath. Audacity, unburdened of the basest and most limiting human emotion, fear, is liberating (like Nike just do it yo!). Audacity is compelling–everyone loves the underdog and wants to read about it in the paper. Audacity is contagious–people are always drawn to something bigger more exciting. Audacity is inherently hopeful (sorry Barak-buddy you mixed that one up)–because it makes no promise about the future…it reflects the style of the chase. I mean, it’s audacious because it’ll NEVER work!!! (but it WILL work says the gambler/physicist/lover/entreprenuer)
Here’s a toast to Audacity and acting “heedless of restraints.” It works it works I swear it does! I conclude with one of my favorite quotes, ”Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.” Yep, that’s right.
Posted on June 24th, 2008 by Myk.
Categories: Media & Entertainment, Travel & Leisure, History & Politics, Business & Finance.
I’ve been remiss in writing on VM lately…but fear not friends….we continue to look for random, intellectually stimulating, and fascinating pieces of information to share. Check out THIS link! It’s a section of www.newseum.org ’s site, which is a museum in DC that follows the history and development of journalism. The link takes you to today’s Front Page of 575 newspapers. Think about that…these guys compile the up-to-the-day info on what media outlets around the world are writing about.
For all those who lament the US media’s spin and banal topics, you can check out what the topics du jour are in Le Monde or the Moscow Times. The site also provides analysis of what newspapers are writing about on a given day (what’s interesting in many ways is what they are NOT writing about)…
So read all about it folks!
Posted on June 4th, 2008 by Myk.
Categories: Philosophy & Spirituality.
Those of you who know me know that I believe we create our realities. As happy or as miserable as you are today, you are responsible for it. Another way of saying it in a non-new-agey way is ”We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves strong. The amount of work is the same.” I leave you with a passage my mom sent me a while back:
Thought that is projected, now thinks. So it’s not possible to separate the thinker from the thought, because the thinker thinks a thought, and then the thought thinks and becomes a thinker, and then the thought, that was a thought that is now a thinker, thinks another thought, which becomes a thinker, also. And so, there is a constant summoning of Life Force. Now, a thought that is thought longer becomes Thought Form. A thought that is thought upon by many, becomes Thought Form. A thought that is thought upon by many, in a very clear undiluted fashion, as from Nonphysical Perspective where there is no resistance, becomes physical matter. That’s why the physical universe is a by-product of the Nonphysical attention or focus. So, the Nonphysical Energy that created this physical mass from the Energy of the Universe, the mass itself, now becomes a thought that is thinking, that is attracting the Energy.
Excerpted from a workshop in Los Angeles, CA, on Sunday, August 2nd, 1998 All Is Well
Read that again and see if it makes sense…if it doesn’t, read it again. If you consider it long enough, and superimpose it upon your life, it will.
Posted on May 28th, 2008 by Myk.
Categories: Media & Entertainment, Business & Finance, Science & Technology.
I’d again like to use True Romance, the best movie ever filmed as a heuristic to help us us understand the realities of life. In once scene, Christian Slater (Clarence Worley) is convincing Michael Rappaport (Dick Richie) to help him unload a suitcase of cocain. Dick tell Clarence, “It’s difficult because you’re sellin’ it to a particular group. Big shots. Fat cats. Guys who can use that kind of quantity. Guys who can afford two hundred thousand. Basically, guys I don’t know. You don’t know. And, more important, they don’t know you.”
That’s the topic of interest. We’ve grown up with the phrase “it’s who you know.” Many of most successful individuals are trained to be networkers–I mean one of the most valuable assets of a top-tier MBA program is the oppotunity to meet the “right” people. To know them so that later in life, so that you’re plugged in. That works I suppose, but I’d drill down on something that was stated so elegantly by Dick Richie. It’s not who you know…it’s who knows YOU. The direction of information flow is of paramount importance.
In our world these days, with all the information cruising the ether, it is increasing easy to gain information on people. You already know this. You might even have Googled yourself to see what you can find. Most likely, you find the first link is to some silly paper that you wrote in college or your MySpace profile. That’s not good and I’d like to bring your attention to that fact.
We all spend an-increasing large portion of our lives browsing content online to uncover relevant information. You should probably be thinking about spending a little bit of that time managing YOUR information–ie what others who are searching see about you. I don’t mean taking down those pictures of you doing body shots with god- knows-who (probably a good idea but uninterstingly obvious) but actually creating relevant content that you would like people to know and making it easy to access. Why? Because you want to control the information flowing from you to others. It is a fact that the internet allows others to begin to “know you” (and make assessments about you) without your active knowledge. This can help you or hurt you but it’s also something you have complete control over. When you think about it, it makes sense–do what you have to do to own your information.
This post is a reflection on several recent encounters where someone found content about me online (specifically this blog and our corporate website). In both cases I was able to skip a few steps in the lets-get-to-know-each-other game. In both cases I got points for information that I had shared. And in both cases I was stoked that Phil and I write VM. I know that we’ve been taught it’s who you know, but it’s becoming pretty apparent that who knows me is no less important.
Posted on May 22nd, 2008 by Myk.
Categories: Philosophy & Spirituality, Business & Finance, Science & Technology, Arts & Literature.
In the 1960s, a sociologist named Robert K. Merton wrote an essay on scientific discovery, where he wrote that ”a scientific genius is not a person who does what no one else can do; he or she is someone who does what it takes many others to do. The genius is not a unique source of insight; he is merely an efficient source of insight.” Malcom Gladwell, author of the Tipping Point, references this in his recent New Yorker article on innovation titled In the Air. First off, it’s a very nice read, as generally are all articles in the NYorker. In addition, it’s just a fascinating topic.
There are a number of fun parts of the article and I’d like to comment on a couple. In 1999, one of Microsofts giants, a dude named Myhrvold, launched a firm called Intellectual Ventures. He raised 100s of millions of dollars and hired brilliant people to work there. What’s really interesting is that IV is not a venture capital firm. “Venture capitalists fund insights—that is, they let the magical process that generates new ideas take its course, and then they jump in. Myhrvold wanted to make insights—to come up with ideas, patent them, and then license them to interested companies.” Thus, IV’s job was ideation–which is really the coolest thing I can think of. By bringing together a team of brains, he hoped to pave the way for creativity and therefore discovery.
From the article:
The original expectation was that I.V. would file a hundred patents a year. Currently, it’s filing five hundred a year. It has a backlog of three thousand ideas. Wood said that he once attended a two-day invention session presided over by Jung, and after the first day the group went out to dinner. [T]he next day the attorney comes up with eight single-spaced pages flagging thirty-six different inventions from dinner. Dinner.”
Gladwell writes about the value created when bringing really smart people together to facilitate scientific discovery. There can be remarkable insights created even over chit-chat at dinner. The traditional theory of scientific genius as a solitary experience is challenged, with Gladwell offering examples that indicate discoveries are often made by multiple people nearly simultaneously–what science historians call “multiples.”
In 1922, William Ogburn and Dorothy Thomas, found a hundred and forty-eight major scientific discoveries that fit the multiple pattern. Newton and Leibniz both discovered calculus. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both discovered evolution. Three mathematicians “invented” decimal fractions. Oxygen was discovered by Joseph Priestley, in Wiltshire, in 1774, and by Carl Wilhelm Scheele, in Uppsala, a year earlier. Color photography was invented at the same time by Charles Cros and by Louis Ducos du Hauron, in France. Logarithms were invented by John Napier and Henry Briggs in Britain, and by Joost Bürgi in Switzerland. Four independent discoveries of sunspots by Galileo in Italy, Scheiner in Germany, Fabricius in Holland and Harriott in England occured in 1611.
The law of the conservation of energy, so significant in science and philosophy, was formulated four times independently in 1847, by Joule, Thomson, Colding and Helmholz. They had been anticipated by Robert Mayer in 1842. There seem to have been at least six different inventors of the thermometer and no less than nine claimants of the invention of the telescope. Typewriting machines were invented simultaneously in England and in America by several individuals in these countries. The steamboat is claimed as the “exclusive” discovery of Fulton, Jouffroy, Rumsey, Stevens and Symmington.
Compelling data right? Scientific discoveries appear to be in many cases inevitable. If not one person, then another…or another. So, what happens when a company like IV brings together intellectual heroes (over dinners at conference tables) that might otherwise be laboring seperately? As IV’s patents have been proving, a lot. Maybe these thinkers would have breakthrough ideas by themselves…but it looks like thinking together accelerates the process. There are efficencies in scientific cooperation that ought to speed scientific progress.
Maybe this appears obvious and in some ways counter-intuitive to how things practically work. Groups of people generally involve politics and egos and other impediments that hamper productivity. But if a team can get away around those obstacles (and from the article one gets the impression that IV’s participants love knowledge more than egos–c’mon they’re GEEKS), shared creativity results in productivity.
But not in all cases. A fun thought provoking note is that the same cooperation between artistic geniuses does not make for better art. Producers of science and art are different beasts. Hmmm….
A work of artistic genius is singular, and all the arguments over calculus, the accusations back and forth between the Bell and the Gray camps, and our persistent inability to come to terms with the existence of multiples are the result of our misplaced desire to impose the paradigm of artistic invention on a world where it doesn’t belong. Shakespeare owned Hamlet because he created him, as none other before or since could. Alexander Graham Bell owned the telephone only because his patent application landed on the examiner’s desk a few hours before Gray’s.
Sort of like 1000 monkeys couldn’t write Hamlet–it takes a very special SINGULAR monkey to do that. this note is just my reflection on the story. Read it and lemme know your thoughts. It’s inspiring stuff to know though, huh?
Posted on May 15th, 2008 by Myk.
Categories: Philosophy & Spirituality, Science & Technology, Humor & Pop Culture.
In a recent post on VM, I wrote about how many people we can realistically be intimate with…and that technology enables us to maintain relations with more people than we can hold dear. In a tangential topic, I’d like to highlight an article I recently read in the Economist Special Report on Global Nomads. It is called Family Ties and I wish it were publicly available but it isn’t (so I hope they won’t mind me taking a few exerpts to share). It speaks to the effect of mobile technology on how I interact with you. And you with me.
It starts with an introduction of the concept of strong vs. weak ties. From the article:
In the 1970s Mark Granovetter became one of the most influential sociologists of that decade with a paper titled “The Strength of Weak Ties”. Mr Granovetter argued that society needs not only healthy “strong ties” between relatives and friends but also ample and fluid “weak ties” between casual acquaintances. Far from trivial, these weak ties are the “bridges” between “densely knit clumps of close friends” and thus the conduits for ideas, fads and trends. “Social systems lacking in weak ties will be fragmented and incoherent,” Mr Granovetter argued. Any erosion of weak ties is therefore to be deplored. Most sociologists “agree that nomadic technology, far from isolating people, brings them closer to their families, friends and lovers—their strong ties. But they still disagree on what that means for weak ties with strangers, and thus society at large.
In other words, “weak ties” are the glue that hold together society. We need them or it inhibits our socialization. The article suggests that, thanks to technology, we are losing that glue as we increasingly communicate with our closest friends throughout the day. With mobile phones more and more people call, text, and e-mail persons close to them. Exchanges are frequent and short. Now, we expect less content (”hey baby let’s raise hell!”) but maintain a feeling of perpetual connectivity, making us feel as if we are together during the entire day although we are apart. Great for maintaining relationships (I personally have to thank my cell provider for enabling a cross-continent relationship to last as long as it did) with light touches. However,
The potential problem with connected presence is that it usually excludes other people who may be physically present. In situations that might once have been an opportunity to talk to a stranger—waiting for a bus or boarding an aeroplane, say—people now fill the time with a few messages to parents, lovers or friends. This strengthens the strong ties, but weakens, or even cuts, the weak ties in society.
Hmmm…so texting your mom might keep you from meeting Mr. Right right next to you on the airplane. Your loss babycakes!
At the end of the day, I love examining my own conclusions. In the last note, I wrote that technology makes it easier to know more people and thus easier to replace them. This note is about technology moving us towards communicating with those close to us to the detriment of meeting others. The notes are some ways in opposition to each other…but really, they’re about the changing nature of relationships between each of us. The most important thing to keep in mind is the phrase “you and I have a relationship” is changing. Really. Write that down (because it’s true). The fun part is that we’ll discover together the mechanics of it all–of technology and you and me.
