Birds To Find Fish

Some interesting tidbits.

This NPR article about music, recordings, playback and medium is very interesting and well written.

My first reaction is to try and make comparisons and metaphors with imagery: everything from **the overwhelming “buzz” of visual stimuli today as compared to the past** to **compression formats (.png , .jpg. .raw)** to **film vs. CCD (analogue vs digital photography).** But I’m getting over the flu and too exhausted to get into all of that…

So just to get into what is literal about the article – I think it is very interesting how the definition of “noise” and “sound” is like the definition of “plant” and “weed.” Basically, there is no difference except desirability. And I think it is kind of funny that the way of dealing with sound v noise, is to mask it – cover it up.

Plus, as always, the reader’s comments are always interesting:

via bob smart:

Magnetic recording tape used in an analogue process does have some drawbacks such as noise but it has far greater resolution than digital recording whose resolution is predetermined and finite. CD standard is 16 bit 44.1k which means that basically the recording device writes a 16 character word 44.1 thousand times per second to describe the incoming audio. This is low resolution these days but it’s still standard. One of the horrible consequences is as the signal gets quieter the word size gets smaller. This is most noticeable during a fade at the end of a song. Listen to the fade on the end of Hey Jude on vinyl then listen to it on CD. It’s longer on vinyl as when the signal gets low enough in the digital domain the word size becomes zero and therefore the programme no longer exists.

Does that mean that Digital has solved Zeno’s dichotomy paradox?

and my favorite from David Strumsky:

Perspective widens: even the space music is played in affects the experience (outdoors, hall, arena, club, living room). 78s, tape, LPs, all couldn’t handle reality and their engineers played with our heads then as now. The point is not that one medium is “better” over another, but that we shouldn’t let our heads and ears get dumbed down, and be wary of relying on ubiquitous sources of music. Educate your ears. Cherish the variety and its concommitant uses.

Although it is just a twist on the golden rule, I enjoyed Seth Godin’s recent entry. This man is really smart.

I can’t stop watching THIS.

As I said to Holloway, it is one of the most insane things I have seen in a really long time. I’ve been a crotchety old man, complaining how surfing really hasn’t gone anywhere (except BIGGER, which is rad) but hasn’t progressed with tricks or moves anywhere near what skating and snowboarding has in the last decade.

Anyway, this will shut me up for awhile. I don’t really understand how he did this – I mean obviously it is physically possible, but wow – insane- so smooth. I’m just watching it over and over now.

Two completely different articles and takes on Big Oil were shared with me in the last 24 hours, so I thought I continue putting them out.

First, Lissa D sent over the site Wiwa v. Shell which is so packed with info, it is a little overwhelming. A good place to start and get an overview of the situation is HERE. I have personally boycotted Shell since the 90’s, so I will admit to having a prejudice, but everything I have heard and read about the conditions are just completely unacceptable.

Some folks may have already seen Ed Kashi’s project “Curse of the Black Gold,” I found it is worth revisiting his amazing images.

The next article is via WSJ about deep sea drilling exploration, HERE. There are lots of aspects and metaphors I’d like to wax upon (including mankind’s amazing ability to adapt and stretch beyond boundaries (some might say “infect”)), but I’ll stick to two major themes, and try to be brief on them.

1) The financial aspect of this is mind-blowing. In the second paragraph, huge numbers get thrown around like they are nothing: “$500,000 a day” and “took more than 10 years and cost $2.7 billion — with no guarantee it would pay off.”

This seems amazing to me, and a HUGE gamble. Why wouldn’t an energy company take that money and, instead of investing it in an infrastructure that is old, changing, and nonrenewable – look at creating new technology (and therefore new MARKETS) that are undeniably in demand and cannot be depleted (ie: once an infrastructure is set up, no more exploration or moving costs will accrue)?
Let’s forget about the finite AND incredibly risky aspects, and say nothing about environmental volatility (the conditions must be INSANE that far offshore with weather, water pressure at that depth, salt and water corrosion, etc) AND sustainability (even these huge reserves will run dry).

Instead, let’s just ask: Why not take that money to put into creating a new road instead of landscaping your dead-end? Solar, wind, bio, extended-batterylife, or even something completely new?

I honestly don’t understand why Oil companies don’t see themselves and ENERGY companies and try to adapt/change – seems very similar to what GM and other US automakers did: we are big and doing just fine. Until they aren’t.

The flip side of this is that they ARE businesses, they have some BRILLIANT people working for/with them, and they ARE making a lot of money. So obviously someone – several someones – think it is worth the Billion(s) Dollar gamble… which makes me wonder what the payoff/jackpot will be. It must be a staggering number.

2) About a paragraph under the first map, Robin West says: “”This is technology capable of going to the moon.”
ahhh…. such mixed feelings about this. In someways, I am exited and that there really could be other applications of knowledge, tech, and experience. But then again, not to get all “Avatar” on y’all, but seriously – what use is getting to other places if we keep makes the make mistakes we’ve made here? Brings to mind another pop culture movie reference – Agent Smith’s line about humans being a virus in the Matrix.

What I am getting at is that I am very hopeful there is another side of the coin to this exploration – one that is creative and beneficial to people in more ways that strictly material (ie, more money for suppliers, more oil for consumers). Even if people are throwing resources to sustain something unsustainable, perhaps the Side-Effect will contain more worth than the Original Purpose.