While driving home from work the other night I heard a piece on NPR about how this year’s Lilith Fair has been scaled back. It got me thinking about the one I attended during the summer of 1997 just outside of Pittsburgh. That summer was spent interning for the Allegheny Heritage Development Corporation in Somerset County, PA. The exact details surrounding my attendance of Lilith are hazy. I did enjoy the company of two female interns. Much press at the time was devoted to the long lines for the women’s restroom and I can confirm those queues were very long. The men’s room, in contrast, was a complete ghost town. I don’t remember any of the artists from the secondary stages, but according to Wikipedia, there were some great acts like Juliana Hatfield and Beth Orton. I remember Lisa Loeb and Indigo Girls from the main stage, but that’s about it. I guess the ‘98 festival included such diverse acts as Mono (RIP) and Neko Case which is really random and awesome.
I kind of feel like I betrayed the whole vibe the event organizers worked so hard to foster back in ‘97. During a sudden downpour, I sought shelter with one of my female companions behind a concession stand. We both kind of grabbed each other in the excitement of the moment and ended up kissing. It was all very innocent and awkward, but it felt like we were breaking some kind of unwritten Lilith Fair rule. I suppose our spontaneous behavior was more befitting of something like Lollapalooza. The evening ended with a long car ride back to our rural postings which included my endlessly annoying renditions of Sneaker Pimp songs with made-up lyrics.
It seems like this year’s Lilith Fair doesn’t offer the same kind of deep bench the ’90s version offered. I was looking over the line-up tonight for the show in the ‘Couv and it doesn’t have the kind of impressive offering s those from the ’90s.
July 22nd, 2010
Subtle Drummer
http://www.liveleak.com
Worst. Concert. Ever.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com
Japanese Sci Fi Illustrations
http://pinktentacle.com
Colour Changing Lightbox
http://www.robandnick.com
July 16th, 2010
Tim Exile
http://www.youtube.com
Vince Clarke and the Temple of Synth
http://www.motherboard.tv
Remembering the E-mu Drumulator
http://www.retrothing.com
“Doctor Who” on Guitar
http://www.youtube.com
July 13th, 2010
OK Go - End Love
http://www.youtube.com
Air - La Femme D’Argent
http://www.youtube.com
LCD Soundsystem - Drunk Girls
http://www.youtube.com
Doves - Black and White Town
http://www.youtube.com
July 11th, 2010
Not many people are interested in a single purpose digital camera, which is exactly what the Sigma DP1 is. Designed for wide angle nature photography, this compact digital camera offers few features most consumers would want, like a mechanical zoom lens or the ability to shoot HD video. But the DP1 does include features I find particularly appealing, like a DSLR sized imaging sensor and manual exposure control. I’m especially fond of the long shutter option, which allows for (semi) long exposure night photography — something I haven’t seen on many compact digital cameras. I also like the overall design and construction of the DP1, which has a decidedly old-fashion flair to it. When the lens is retracted and covered with the purpose-built cap, it slips easily into the jacket pocket. The layout of the controls are pretty simple and the camera is relatively easy to learn. There is no optical viewfinder, but I always use the LCD for framing shots, so this isn’t a big deal for me. And while I like the design from an aesthetic standpoint, the ergonomics are really quite bad once you start using it on a regular basis. So bad that I prefer the way my crappy Canon A-70 handles. Once you attach the lens shade/filter adapter, the camera becomes even more awkward to use. But I suspect most fans of the DP1 put up with its quirk because when it does perform, it performs fantastically. I was sold on the camera after seeing example photos on the Sigma website. It’s not easy to produce razor-sharp and highly saturated pictures, but with some practice, it within reach of even the most novice of users. One other thing worth pointing out is the DP1 does export images in the RAW format, which is common for DSLRs for not so much for compact digital cameras. Unfortunately, Sigma forces you to use their software to convert the images to something you can use (like .jpg), but for me, this isn’t a big hassle. I suppose if you had dozens of photos to convert it would be frustrating though.
Finally, it’s worth mentioning the newer DP2 offers some features that might appeal to a wider user-base. Gone is the wide angle lens, which has been replaced something approximating the standard 50mm focal length (non zoom of course) someone would use on a DSLR. But other than the lens change, I don’t know if Sigma made any radical departures from the original design. Would I recommend this camera to someone in the market for a compact digital camera? Probably not. Besides the fact it lacks a zoom lens, most people would be very disappointed with the shutter lag and low light performance. These aren’t really issues for most DP1 users who are taking landscape photos, but casual users are looking for something to take pictures of their kids, which the DP1 wasn’t really designed for. I suppose the DP1 would make a good travel camera due to it’s small size and robust construction — just make sure and bring the battery charger.
For examples shots from the DP1, see my Flickr page
July 2nd, 2010
Flaming Lips House
http://www.fitzsimmons-arch.com
Danish Pavilion at EXPO 2010
http://www.dailyicon.net
Cool Parking Structure
http://www.dezeen.com
America’s 11 Most Endangered Historic Places
http://www.preservationnation.org
June 26th, 2010
I was watching the BBC documentary Clear the Skies the other night and it got me thinking about the current state of US air defense. This straight ahead documentary offers a linear narrative of the morning of 9/11, focusing on air defense and Continuation of Government (COG) efforts. To a certain extent, I was surprised at how well things actually worked. The USAF and the FAA jointly coordinated efforts to track the hijacked aircraft. Fighter jets were scrambled for intercept in a (somewhat) timely fashion. Communication lines functioned and information was delivered to the appropriate people. Since I’ve been researching the old Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE), the Cold War air defense system, I’ve been interested in knowing what US air defense looks like today. Obviously, we don’t have the massive network of regional SAGE air defense facilities we use to have, but the cooperation between the USAF and the FAA seems adequate for tracking aircraft and identify those with hostile intent. But based on what was presented in the documentary, we seem to be lacking alert interceptors, or in layman’s terms, armed jet fighters ready to fly at a moment’s noticed. On 9/11, armed aircraft were scrambled pretty quickly from Langley in Virgina, but they were some 200 miles away from DC and unable to intercept the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. However, if the other Capitol bound jetliner wouldn’t have went down in Pennsylvania, it would have likely been brought down by one the interceptors from Langley. I don’t remember where the NYC bound fighter jets originated from, but it might have been Cape Cod. Again, they were not able to make it to New York by the time the second plane hit the twin towers, but they would have been able to take down any additional hostile aircraft.
Of course there are many on the inter-webs criticizing the Pentagon’s response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. They suggest too many minutes passed between when the planes were identified as hijacked and when the order went out to scrambled interceptors. They also complain the USAF unnecessarily restricting interceptors to subsonic flight. For those who aren’t familiar with supersonic flight, when the sound barrier is broken, it creates a “sonic boom” that can shatter windows and generally make people angry — particularly the elderly, who hate having Mattlock interrupted by anything, including acts of war. Because of this, military aircraft are only allowed to “kick out the jams” over the ocean. So this is a fair criticism of the USAF I think, but the fault may really be with the FAA. There should be some kind of supersonic waiver granted for interceptors when faced with hostile aircraft over the continental US. We can deal with a few broken windows and the agitated old folks (P.S., old people need to be isolated and studied so it can be determined what nutrients they have that might be extracted for our personal use…hey, it’s not just a Lyndon LaRouche campaign slogan anymore!)
Anyway, my take away from the BBC documentary was we need to increase the number of interceptor aircraft on alert in or near large urban areas. And we don’t need fancy F-22s or F-35s for the job. More F-15s and F-16s would do just fine, thank-you-very-much. I foresee two problems with this recommendation though. 1. Cost. The Pentagon would want to spend vast sums of money on additional F-22s/F-35s for air defense instead of cheaper F-15s/F-16s. That’s just the way they roll. Everybody knows USAF brass don’t secure lucrative post military “consulting” jobs by pushing inexpensive weapons systems. 2. NIMBY. Basing interceptors close to urban areas means you’re going to piss a lot of people off. Already, there are many in PDX complaining about the ANG’s F-15s. Frankly, I don’t mind them that much even though I live fairly close to the airport. They only fly after 9:00 AM, so the noise it’s a big deal compared to the ass-hats who run their leaf blowers nonstop. But people like to bitch about every little thing, so increasing deployment of fighters would surely create a lot of angry letters to politicians.
To me, it would make sense for the US to reevaluate air defense in, say, five to ten years. There is a lot of technology hitting maturity, like phased array radar, that’s coming down in cost and could be deployed to increase radar coverage. The phased array sites we currently have in Alaska, California, and Cape Cod look out. Why not look in as well?Increasing and modernizing radar sites would benefit both the FAA and USAF. Also, it’s a safe bet the F-16 will still be in production for another decade based on the strength of foreign orders, so I think it would be a good idea to purchase additional aircraft for air defense purposes or overhaul older F-16s slatted for retirement. Like a wise man once said, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
June 17th, 2010
I’ve noticed a strange dichotomy in the United States around how we collectively treat teenagers. On the one hand, we seem to coddle them — shielding our precious youngsters from adult responsibilities. But then we have American parents who apparently encourage their teenagers to take incredible risks, like in the case of Abby Sunderland, the 16 year old girl who attempted to sail solo around the world or Jordan Romero, the 13 year old boy who climbed Mt Everest last month. Both of these undertakings were extremely risky. Would these parents let their children spend a summer running a log skidder on the side of a mountain here in the Pacific Northwest? Because their chances of getting permanently maimed or killed is probably about the same (timber industry jobs are the second most dangerous in the US after fishing). I’m sure these parent would respond that their children had the training and equipment reducing the danger involved in either of these endeavors, but whether you’re crossing the Pacific Ocean by yourself or struggling up the Hilary Step, there is a lot one can’t control. Weather of course comes to mind. At the top of Everest or the middle of the Pacific, a sudden and unexpected change in the weather can be deadly. And one’s body can become the enemy as well. You never know how your body will react to being at 29,000 feet above sea level or how long you can survive acute appendicitis 1,200 miles from land.
This makes me wonder if parents often justify putting their children in peril if it could lead to a certain level of notoriety. This might not even be a trend isolated to the US — parents in other countries could be just as eager to let their kids engage in risky activities if they thought the payoff would be mega big, like a line in the record books. Of course this could just lead to a race among to parents to see who can push their kid to be the youngest to summit K2 or fly solo by balloon around the globe. Where would it all stop? At some point, I would hope we would all collectively stigmatize this trend as overly reckless, rather than encourage it but publicizing it so much.
June 15th, 2010
The picture above can only mean one thing: New party CDs are in their final stages. I’ve actually started mailing completed one, so be on the lookout for yours in the mail. Below is what the final product looks like.
June 12th, 2010
Previous Posts