We should see about getting one of these. Alupa is concerned about the armogeddeon. So after the bomb, or after our google histories put us all on big brother’s list and we can’t use the banking system anymore, or just generally after we run out of natural resources and the grids collapse, we should move to the country and form a real self-sustaining cooperative, with this jobbie keeping us juiced up. We can take turns : )
Is awesome.
It is referenced in the Vanity Fair article linked below.
“The design of the new Central Chinese Television (CCTV) headquarters defies the popular conception of a skyscraper — and it broke Beijing’s building codes and required approval by a special review panel. The standard systems for engineering gravity and lateral loads in buildings didn’t apply to the CCTV building, which is formed by two leaning towers, each bent 90 degrees at the top and bottom to form a continuous loop.
The engineer’s solution is to create a structural “tube” of diagonal supports. The irregular pattern of this “diagrid” system reflects the distribution of forces across the tube’s surface. Designed by Rem Koolhaas and Ole Scheeren and engineered by Ove Arup, the new CCTV tower rethinks what a skyscraper can be.”
This is amazing. Modern and postmodern, form follows function, but you can literally see the forces on the building. I am completely enthralled with this thing. The irregular grid on the building’s facades is an expression of the forces traveling throughout its structure. I like the word expression.
The other cool aspect–as the author in the VF article pointed out, there is a slight nod to communism– is how in this skyscraper the relationship between individuals is completely different. Unlike a traditional skyscraper, in which you can usually not see any other part of the building, the CCTV tower gives its denizens a sense of their surroundings, of the building itself and of the other people with which they are working. The architecture creates a relationship among those within, as opposed to a verticle stack of disconnectness.
The architects also mentioned how the building is not overwhelming. It can be broken down into three distinct building which are easily visually digestable, and b/c it is only 47 stories the viewer does not have to crane to see to the top.
China: Figuring their shit out. more pics
America’s largest brewery sold to a Belgium company, that is really controlled by Brazillians, the third world.
Gov’t bailing the largest lenders in the nation.
Markets in trouble today after an overnight correction in the Asian Markets.
The dollar the weakest it has ever been agains the Euro
The upcoming Olympics are in Beijing.
Ford and GM cutting more jobs.
And in case you missed it, there was a run on a bank. An honest-to-god line to get money out of IndyMac.
Strap in, it’s going to get interesting.
Can Mycologist Paul Stamets save the world with mycelium fungus? He thinks so. Pretty interesting stuff, but you have to make it past the first 9 minutes to get to the goods.
There is no doubt that the internets have entangled themselves into our lives. NPR has a fascinating interview with Jeremy Bailenson of Standford’s Virtual Human Interaction Lab about how a person’s virtual persona (ala Second Life type virtual realities) affects their everyday life from gaining confidence to losing weight.
NPR’s Learning from the virtual you audio clip
I don’t have experience with Second Life version of me other than my Nintendo Wii mii, which looks a lot like Mr. Garrison crossed with Elton John crossed with David Cross - let me tell you, that is great for my self esteem :} I do think the internet has affected me in other ways, some for the better, some for the worse. The most apparent thing that sticks out to me is that I don’t read the same as I did 10 years ago. I tend to skim looking for bullet points and quick understanding rather than ruminating on points and trying to really understand the nut of a passage. Obviously, this is not a good thing. On the positive side, the internet has truly influence my position on intellectual property by observing remarkable people share their hard work for free. That truly amazes me in many, many ways, but I’ll digress from that for now.
My question to all of you is how has the internet changed/enriched/affected you?
I have seen a VW Beetle with an Immersive Media logo on the door in downtown Lawrence over the past few days. I think this means that Google is imaging Lawrence for their nifty, if not scary, Street Level view of Google Maps. I’ve didn’t see it driving, so maybe they were just stopping by for some sweet football action on their way to another destination.
This link pretty much sums up LA for me. Watch the video.
I no longer have to steal, ahem, borrow a premium membership to nytimes. You can read all the articles for free now!
Thomas Friedman kicks ass…
And this is why Toyota is going to take over. 113 mpg by 2008. Sweet Jesus!
The firm’s next Prius will be so efficient it will be the first production car capable of returning more than 110mpg. The newcomer is being developed to try to improve European sales. While the car has been a success in the US, it has met a mixed reaction on this side of the Atlantic, due to the popularity of diesel models. But now we’ve been told that engineers working on the new Prius have a fuel economy target of 40km/litre - a mind-boggling 113mpg.
“The whole electrical system has been redesigned to improve economy” said one Toyota engineer. “We are working on a prototype that runs solely on the electric motor in slow traffic, but switches to engine and motor drive when higher speeds are needed.” The secret lies with the batteries. The current Prius uses nickel-hydride items, which currently offer the best balance between cost and performance.
But engineers are working on new lithiumion cells, which are lighter, smaller, generate more power and last longer. Subaru and Mitsubishi both plan to sell electric cars by 2010, but Toyota hopes to get its new model on the road as early as 2008.
And improved economy isn’t the firm’s only goal, as engineers are working on reducing the current car’s 10.9-second 0-62mph time by more than a second.
This is a good article showing why American auto-makers aren’t headed in the right direction to turn themselves around or help with the mess they’ve created with the environment. This was posted in a sports column originally. Please feel free to go buy a Toyota or Honda…
Recently, the CEOs of Chrysler, Ford and General Motors lunched with Senate leaders, telling them the one-third vehicle mileage increase proposed by George W. Bush and Barack Obama — you heard that right, Bush and Obama have offered nearly identical fuel-efficiency plans — was impossible. Rick Wagoner, CEO of General Motors, said at a news conference after the lunch that a one-third mileage improvement “doesn’t look achievable.” This is exactly the kind of excuse-making that allowed Honda and Toyota to wrap their hands around the Big Three’s necks in the first place! As the UAW-Detroit contracts talks heat up, the relationship between mpg and saving Chrysler, Ford and General Motors bears exploring.
The National Academy of Sciences said in 2002 that a one-third improvement in mpg is practical using existing technology, and without sacrifice of safety or passenger comfort. Now, the U.S. automakers claim a one-third improvement can’t be done. It’s not that Detroit cannot achieve better fuel economy — it’s that Detroit doesn’t want to. What the current executive-suite suits at the Big Three want is to maximize their bonuses and stock options during their short stays at the top, then let somebody else take the blame for the next round of decline of the U.S. auto industry that is inevitable if fuel economy does not improve. And that’s setting aside the national-security implications. A one-third increase in car and SUV mpg is what’s needed to break U.S. dependence on Persian Gulf oil. Wouldn’t it be nice if Detroit CEOs acted as though they cared about national security!
This summer, the Senate passed something that on paper seemed even better than the Bush-Obama plan, ordering a 40 percent mpg improvement by 2020; the House has yet to act. But although the Bush-Obama plan had teeth, specifying that carmakers show annual mpg improvement beginning immediately, the Senate provision contained a huge asterisk: There are no annual milestones, just a requirement that the mpg rise be accomplished by 2020. That gives Detroit the green light to spend most of the next 13 years doing nothing about petroleum waste, and there is no endeavor in which American automakers are more accomplished than doing nothing about petroleum waste. Plus, the Senate bill contains a waiver provision — as the 2020 deadline approaches, automakers can request a waiver. Thus the Senate mpg bill, widely praised by gullible editorialists, actually is pure froth.
Now remember that little phrase, “the House has yet to act.” Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who boasts about how she will take the bold steps the president will not, won’t allow a floor vote on any mileage provision. Pelosi says new mpg rules can be negotiated in conference committee — that is, in secret, with no public disclosure. And she hasn’t even scheduled a conference. George W. Bush proposed a strong, binding program of immediate mpg increases, and Democrats in the House refuse to allow an up-or-down public vote. The calculus is that Pelosi wants to prevent any kind of reform from passing so that, in the 2008 presidential election, Democrats can denounce Republicans for lack of progress on mpg. Wouldn’t it be nice if House Democrats acted as though they cared about national security!
While the Senate was considering mpg rules, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a mostly Detroit-run lobby group, aired radio ads that were monuments to deceit. Two women were heard discussing how new mpg regulations could “force” automakers to “put safety in the back seat.” One said, “I want to keep my SUV because it makes me feel safe.” Several senators speaking against the tough Bush-Obama version of the mileage rules declared that higher mpg would imperil lives by replacing safe large SUVs with small cars. But the Bush-Obama proposal would not require automakers to reduce the size or weight of passenger vehicles. Fuel economy could be improved through engineering changes including reducing horsepower, which many vehicles presently have too much of anyway; the new Acura TL has an absurd 286 horsepower in a midsized sedan, showing that even former good-guy Honda has abandoned corporate responsibility regarding horsepower. Reducing the horsepower of new vehicles would reduce crash rates, thus improving safety.
And although being in a heavy SUV might make the driver feel safer, the reality is the opposite. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety continues to find that you are more likely to die in an SUV than in a regular car. In its most recent study, “very large” SUVs had a higher occupant death rate than midsized cars — that is, trading in your large SUV for a regular-size car makes you less likely to die. The IIHS also finds that econobox-sized cars are death traps in crashes, so don’t switch to a tiny car to save fuel, switch to a midsized vehicle with a middling-horsepower engine. Here are the most recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration figures on fatality rates by vehicle class. They show that people in “light trucks,” the class that enfolds SUVs and most pickup trucks, are roughly one-third more likely to die per mile traveled than people in regular-size cars. It was quite cynical for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers to tell consumers that SUVs will make them feel safe when statistics show that buying an SUV makes the driver more likely to die.
Not only has it been nearly two decades since the average fuel economy of new vehicles sold in the United States improved — the sad story is here — but the EPA continues to publish Pollyannaish statistics that make it seem as though American vehicles burn less fuel than they actually do. According to the EPA figures used to enforce the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard, this year’s new cars average 27.5 miles per gallon and new SUVs average 21.6. Is there one single person in the United States whose SUV gets 21.6 mpg? There can’t be many regular cars that actually get 27.5 mpg, either. Researchers have long complained that claimed EPA averages are unrealistic — vehicles tested using gentle acceleration with air conditioners off, with no weight onboard, and employing other gimmicks to make fuel consumption appear lower. Surely government-issued unrealistic mpg figures are a leading reason for years of national complacency about petroleum use. People go into auto showrooms and see impressive-looking government window stickers declaring that cars get 28 mpg and SUVs get 22 mpg. People think, “That’s pretty good.” They don’t worry, buy something huge, then find themselves lucky to record 15 mpg.
Beginning with the 2008 model year, the EPA is switching to what it asserts is a realistic method of computing fuel economy; the agency’s estimates of actual mpg performance have fallen about 10 percent as a result, although still seem on the high side to me. Good luck actually getting 17 mpg in the city driving your 4,090-pound, all-wheel-drive Lexus RX350! But although EPA estimates of fuel use are being adjusted for realism as regards individual vehicles, the big overall number has not been adjusted. The EPA still claims that new cars average 27.5 mpg and new SUVs average 21.6 mpg, which is plainly absurd.
Fuel note: In policy-wonk slang, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy law is shortened to CAFE. If you type CAFE using Word, the AutoCorrect feature changes what you typed to CAFÉ, the correct uppercase spelling for a place to meet someone for a glass of wine. Watch carefully — I’ve seen The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal refer to “the CAFÉ standard” in automobile stories recently.
California note: for two generations, California has been ahead of the nation both in car-culture trendsetting — Toyota and Honda cracked the U.S. market partly by moving their design studios to California in the mid-1970s and listening closely to what high school kids were saying about cars — and in auto-emission reductions. The strict anti-air-pollution rules enacted by California in the 1970s and 1980s, which led to spectacular smog reductions throughout the state, gradually were matched in the Northeast, then by federal rules. Two years ago, California mandated a one-third increase in auto and SUV fuel economy beginning in 2010. Instead of racing to meet the rule, American automakers are suing to block it — Detroit, get your heads out of the sand and get your engineers to work solving the problem! This month California officials also proposed standards for proper tire inflation. Merely keeping America’s tires at proper pressure would cut vehicle petroleum consumption 5 to 10 percent — which is important in the big scheme. Yet most people never bother to check tire pressure, and states don’t require filling stations to have working, free-of-charge air pumps. The president of the United States and the Congress of the United States are wringing their hands in public about petroleum waste, yet we don’t even have the national resolve to pump a little air into our tires!