text:
12 Films of Christmas (Part 6)
Hello there. We're now halfway into my 12 Films of Christmas series. Time sure flies. So let's get into this.
So I kind of cheat with my definition of "Films" for this series, but I feel like christmas specials count since they're never part of any major arc, but rather tend to be one-off stories, making them somewhat eligible for the "Films" definition. Why did I have to make such a convoluted explanation? Because I wanted to have an excuse to talk about "A Charlie Brown Christmas" for my series. So what's this about then? Well, it's christmas in *wherever the hell this is set*. However, Charlie Brown (Peter Robbins) isn't feeling the christmas spirit as he's disgusted by how commercialized christmas has gotten. So this is really about him trying to find the meaning of christmas. All while he has been chosen to direct a christmas play featuring all the other kids… and Snoopy (Bill Melendez, R.I.P) of course. I haven't seen this since I was like seven years old. And revisiting it I am actually loving it more than I did back then. I think this might be because I understand some of the critiques that Charlie Brown has about christmas and it's rampant commercialization (a sentiment I share with him). It's actually really clever and fascinating in that sense. I also of course love the animation. It's simple, but it has a lot of charm to it. And the humor is so good in this too, especially the stuff from Snoopy who just steals every scene he's in. Really, this holds up incredibly well and I highly recommend watching it, whether you're a "Peanuts" fan or not. It's great (and available on youtube!).
What do you think about "A Charlie Brown Christmas"? Who's your favorite "Peanuts" character? Leave any and all thoughts in the comments!
Have a good one.
14/12/2017 / TheMarckoguy	/ 5 Comments
Hello there! You might be asking yourself "Markus, what the hell is this?". Well, for the past two years, in the 12 days leading up to christmas (December 24th) I have had a series of posts where each day I talk about a christmas song. I've had a lot of fun talking about christmas music here, and I've gotten some good comments from people about it all, whether it would be because they already liked the song or if it's a new one to them. However, this year I decided to do something slightly different. For 2017 I wanted to talk about films (big and small) where christmas is featured. Of course, I missed making my first post yesterday (because "Star Wars"), so you're getting two of these today as compensation. So, let's get into part 1 of the 12 Films of Christmas.
So for the first one we talk about something that has become quite a christmas tradition, especially in the United States. I am of course talking about Dr. Seuss' "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" (the 1966 version). To be completely honest with y'all, I had never actually watched this until today. I had only caught small snippets of it in movies, TV, and internet videos. So I thought now was a good a time as any to finally watch it and see what all the fuss is about. So for anyone not aware, "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is about a green creature known as The Grinch who absolutely hates christmas, and then cooks up a plan to try to steal the christmas joy from the people of Whoville. So then The Grinch's shenanigans ensue. Did I like this? Yeah, it was alright. I obviously have no nostalgia for it since I never watched it as a kid. But as an adult I can watch it and appreciate it for what it is; A fun and innocent little short film about the christmas spirit. Boris Karloff provides the narration and also voices The Grinch here, and his delivery of everything is just perfect. Also, having the distinct designs of Dr. Seuss combined with the direction of animation legend Chuck Jones makes for some wonderfully creative and energized animation that kept me entertained. And that's really it, it's entertaining at best. I have no deep feelings for this since I watched this for the first time today, but I did enjoy it and can see why people love it so many years after it's release. Really, it's an easy and pretty fun watch if you have half an hour to kill.
Are you a fan of "How the Grinch Stole Christmas"? How old were you when you first watched it? Feel free to tell me any and all thoughts in the comments below, I'd really like to hear what you guys think.
Short Film Review: Conscientia (2017)
This is something that doesn't happen often, me reviewing a short film. And before we begin, I will be 100% transparent with this. I was asked by one of the people who made this short to review it early. The guy who asked me is someone I consider a friend, and I wanted to make that clear because any potentially good things I might have to say about this are not because of my previous affiliation with these guys. I will judge this on it's own merits. So let's find out if it's any good.
Ladies and gentlemen… "Conscientia".
Samuel (Jakob Lewis Barnes) is struggling with his inability to sleep, which causes him to slowly lose his mind and perception of reality. This soon comes to a head during one fateful night. So what we have here is a weird yet interesting horror plot that is told in a somewhat non-linear style. You can still easily pick up on what order things are in, but it's still not a straight line of events. And I have to say that I quite enjoyed the plot here. It is simple enough to follow along easily, but it still has some slightly more complex ideas that will make you think. The short format makes it feel a little bit thin and not fully developed, but they still do a pretty good job to condense the idea into a shorter format.
Here we have two characters, one that we get to know a little bit, and one that is just kind of there. I get that you can't give them super big arcs when you keep it this short, but I didn't find myself fully invested in the two here. Jakob Lewis Barnes plays Samuel, our protagonist/insomniac. His psychological struggle is interesting to watch, but I'd like to see it developed a bit more. But at least Barnes gave a really good performance here. Then we have Hannah Thomas as Lauren, a woman that Samuel seems to be dating. And she's the one that I explained as "just there". With Samuel you get some idea of what type of character he is, but with Lauren it's just "Hello, I am character" and not much else. Thomas gives a good performance, even though her character doesn't do much. So overall, good performances, okay-ish characters.
The score was composed by Martin Gratton, and I think he did a good job. The score was chilling and eerie, and it really helped sell the uneasy feel that the director clearly wanted to go for. So yeah, good score for the short.
This short was directed by Nick Deal and I think he did a good job working with his limitations. The short feels somewhat claustrophobic since it's set mostly inside one small apartment, and Deal's direction (combined with Gratton's aforementioned score) helps the short feel tense, eerie, and creepy, elevating it beyond it's small budget. The talent and ambition here is great enough to be able to make something that exceeds their limitations, and I respect that quite a bit.
While not perfect, "Conscientia" is still a pretty damn good short. It has a good plot, okay-ish characters, really good performances, really good music, and really good directing. My flaws with it is that some aspects feel slightly underdeveloped (but it's not a dealbreaker). Time for my final score. *Ahem*. My final score for "Conscientia" is a 9,11/10. While flawed, I highly recommend watching it (when it gets released).
My review of "Conscientia" is now completed.
Firstly: Nick, Jakob, Jumpcut… thank you for giving me this opportunity, I feel truly honored.
Secondly: "Conscientia" will be released on Monday, only on youtube.
Series Review: Castlevania – Season 1 (2017)
I've been anticipating the release of this show for a while. From when the teaser poster and such was released, to when the first trailer dropped, it all seemed like it could be good. Could Netflix bring us a good video game adaptation? Well, let's find out.
Ladies and gentlemen… "Castlevania" season 1!
After his wife gets burned at the stake, Dracula (Graham McTavish) unleashes an army of dark creatures upon the city of Gresit. So when Trevor (Richard Armitage), the last surviving member of the Belmont clan, shows up in town he has to try and save the city from this evil. So now we have our medieval fantasy. And while it's only four episodes long, they manage to develop the story pretty damn well. They manage to establish backstories without getting too heavy with the exposition. And it actually creates some solid drama at times, giving the world and plot a little extra weight without sacrificing the fun and interesting fantasy elements of the plot. There's also time dedicated to showing what a bunch of dicks members of the Christian church was at the time. Sure, there were no actual demons back then, but a lot of the bullshit they're up to here actually happened in real life. So yeah, it's a surprisingly layered story that stays true to the source material while still making it feel fresh and different.
The characters here are all pretty interesting. Trevor Belmont as a character is kind of an arrogant asshole, but he's actually given a good reason in the show, so he's not just an ass for the sake of being an ass. And you can tell that despite his arrogant façade, he is a good person (and badass warrior). And Richard Armitage is great as the character. Dracula doesn't appear much in the show, but his presence is always felt. I also like that he's not just a generic evil-doer that just wants to kill people because he's the villain. They give him good motivation for doing it, making him a much more interesting antagonist. And Graham McTavish (again, despite not showing up a lot) kills it in the role. We also get Matt Frewer as a bishop who's a huge dick, and Frewer is great in the role. We also get Tony Amendola as an elder that Trevor runs into/befriends, and Amndola is really good in the role. Really, every actor heard in this show does a good job.
The score for the show was composed by Trevor Morris, who also did the score for "Iron Fist" (*cough* read my review *cough*). And while that was good, I think this score is even better. The music in "Castlevania" is dark, eerie, epic, badass, cool, and just overall fits the dark and haunting atmosphere of the show. Morris composed some really solid stuff here.
"Castlevania" was produced by Adi Shankar, animated by Powerhouse animation & Frederator studios, directed by Sam Deats, and written by acclaimed comic book writer Warren Ellis. And it's, as I've made pretty clear, an adaptation of the "Castlevania" video game franchise from Konami. And in terms of animation/direction, this show is very well handled. The animation is beautiful in a dark and haunting way, perfectly helping to create a dark and often eerie atmosphere for this show. The show shines especially in the action scenes which are badass, intense, and quite brutal. And I really mean it when I say brutal, there's blood and dismemberment in this show. So yeah, this show has some fucked up visuals throughout, which I do think works for the show. Still… don't bring grandma.
Seeing as this is a pretty niche show that just came out, there's not much in terms of reception on the sites I tend to use. Keep in mind, i only report the reception as it is at the time of review… I refuse to edit. Anyhow, it does exist on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, but it has no critic scores at the time of this review. But it does have a score on imdb.com (based on very few votes at the time), and it is an 8,7/10.
Season 1 of "Castlevania" is one of the best video game adaptations available out right now. It has a great plot, really good characters, great performances, great music, and great direction/animation. The only minor flaw I have is that it is so short (four episodes), but it's not a deal breaker for me. Time for my final score. *Stabs demon*. My final score for "Castlevania" season 1 is a 9,65/10. Which means that it gets the "SEAL OF APPROVAL!".
My review of "Castlevania" season 1 is now completed.
There is a season 2 planned… for 2018… fuck.
Short Film Review: Emotional Motor Unit (2016)
12/12/2016 / TheMarckoguy	/ Leave a comment
Remember in my "Harlequin" review when I said that you shouldn't get used to me reviewing short films? Well, I think that statement still stands, though I am still willing to create those types of reviews… at least if I'm asked to review it and if the short seems really interesting to me. Well, here we are… reviewing a short film.
Ladies and gentlemen… "Emotional Motor Unit".
So the story is about a very lonely writer (Graham Cawte) who gets introduced to a robot (Francesca Burgoyne), called the "Emotional Motor Unit" (E.M.U. for short). And then the writer starts learning about what it means to be human by having interations with this human-like machine. And I have to say that this plot was interesting, I was really invested throughout. Sure, it's only about 22 minutes long, so I couldn't be as invested in it as if it had been a full length movie. But what they managed to do dramatically speaking with only 22 minutes is pretty fucking impressive.
The characters in this short were really interesting. Graham Cawte is really good in the main role as this lonely and pretty much emotionless person. The character does a have a bit of an arc, and it's pretty good. Francesca Burgoyne was really good in her role as this machine that helped the writer evolve as a person. The two supporting actors did a pretty good job in this too, but we're not gonna dwell on them as much since they aren't the main focus of this.
The score was composed by Imraan Husain and it was really good. Nothing mindblowing, but it was pretty well composed and it worked very well for the short.
This was directed by Adam Nelson and I thought that it was pretty well directed. The shots look really good and you can tell that this director knew what the hell he was doing.
Since this isn't really out for the public I can't put any scores from my usual sites here. Soooo… awkward.
"Emotional Motor Unit" is a surprisingly effective and well crafted short about emotions and what it really means to be human. It has a good plot, good characters, really good performances, good music, and really good directing. I'm not gonna give it any of my usual scores/ratings for this since shorts and full length movies are very different, which makes it a bit harder to rate it in a normal sense. But I do highly recommend that you check it out whenever it's released to the public. I guess it gets the seal of approval without really getting the seal of approval.
My review of "Emotional Motor Unit" is now completed.
Big thanks to Apple Park Films for giving me this opportunity!
"Harlequin" is finally out!
Hello there, ladies and gentlemen… and earthworms. A while back I (and a few more people) got to see the short film "Harlequin" before it was released to the public. Kind of like an early screening, but instead of a big Hollywood movie it was for a small short film. I also reviewed said short film to sort of get some early buzz around it so people would get more excited about it. Well, a few days ago the short was finally released to the public. And to help it's writer/director (Jakob Lewis Barnes) out a bit I decided to make this post about it. Not as a review, just as a reminder of sorts that it is out and that you should all go check it out and give it some love. To recap, it stars Kenton Hall as a clown named Charles and he is going a little insane. I will not say more than that because you should just go check it out and experience it for yourselves. I really enjoyed it, and I hope you guys do too.
Short Film Review: Harlequin (2016)
09/10/2016 09/10/2016 / TheMarckoguy	/ 2 Comments
Some if not most of you might be asking right now "What the hell is this, Markus? What's goin' on?". Relax, I'm going to explain. I was one of not many people to receive the honor of getting to see this little short film before it's released to the rest of the public. So that's pretty big for me, a small town dude who just happens to be running a blog where movies occasionally get reviewed. Just don't expect this to become a regular thing… reviews of short films, I mean. Call this a special occasion.
Ladies and gentlemen… "Harlequin".
Charles (Kenton Hall) is a clown. But he isn't your normal "nice guy who makes kids happy" clown. He has some mental issues going on. And these issues seem to manifest themelves around the time of a performance he is setting up. And that's about all I can say. It's a bit difficult to tackle the plot of a short since it is just that… short. So there's not much that can truly be said about it. I'll give it this: It intrigued me a lot. There's definitely some really interesting stuff going on here. I could definitely see this as a full length feature. But seeing as it is as surreal as it is, on such a short runtime, I can't really say much about it plotwise. I was intrigued and I was invested in it which is a testament to the talent of the writer/director, but I can't really talk about it as in depth as most regular movies.
There aren't many actors in the movie. There are a total of four, but only one should really be focused on: Kenton Hall. This is because he's the only one that gets enough space to the point that I can look at his performance. And to give credit where credit is due… he's really good in this. Not Oscar worthy or something like that… but he's really good in this independent short film about a crazy clown man. He's really good, and the supporting actors do fine in their very minor roles.
The music in this short film help set a pretty eerie atmosphere in a way that actually kind of symbolizes the mess that is Charles' mind. Sure, the music is not as thought-provoking and symbolic as in other movies, but I honestly don't think that it's the point. The music here is meant to help show that nothing is as it seems while also setting a pretty eerie mood. And that is a plus for this little thing.
"Harlequin" was written and directed by Jakob Lewis Barnes, a man who's very passionate about film and the art of filmmaking. Me and Jakob have communicated a lot on twitter and I think that he's a really cool dude. But I'm not gonna let my positive experiences with Jakob cloud my judgment of his directing and writing. And it's really well directed and well written. The writing presents the interesting stuff with Charles and his mental health, and it kept me intrigued. And the directing was really good as well. I mean, for someone who's on such a small budget and with no major stuff under his belt he did a pretty great job. You can tell from the shots we get that something is a bit odd here, kind of like with the music choices. And that of course helps the short a lot and makes it really interesting. Again, I am basing this on the small budget that this pretty clearly was on. And while not really related to the directing itself, there's a fun little clown-related easter egg in this that I thought was kind of fun.
I can't really judge "Harlequin" like I do most normal, full length features. To tell you the truth, I had to think carefully how I would judge this thing. Then after some thinking I figured it out… I think. The pretty minor plot presented is intriguing, the performance from Kenton Hall is really good, the music choices are good, and the directing is pretty good. I can't really give it any of my normal ratings since it's such a different thing for me to review, so all I can really do is say whether I recommend it or not. *Drumroll*. Yeah, I recommend it. If you want to see something kinda weird but still really interesting, I recommend that you watch it. Although you'll have to wait until it is released for the public in late October or something (Not entirely sure to be honest). If you want to keep up with it, follow the JumpCut Uk Productions twitter account. Keep in mind that I do recommend it.
My review of "Harlequin" is now completed.
Jakob, if you're reading this… it was an honor to be one who got to see it early! Thank you.
Short Story: Sudden Impact
James drove home from work in his Volvo V70 along the beautiful country road. The sides of the road were lined with red tulips. It was warm outside, it was probably at least 25 degrees celsius. The CD-player in the car played Willie Nelson's "On The Road Again", that was James' favorite song. He came upon the bridge that ran over a glittering stream of fresh water. The sound of the car rolling over the boards of the bridge was one of his favorite sounds, it relaxed him. The tulips that ran along the road gave off a sweet smell that made him think of his wife, Jane. They were happily married, had been for three years. It was only a short time until he would come home and see her again. Her face always left James with a smile whenever he came home from work. The rows of tulips ended and he came up on the small road that led up to the small town he lived in. When he got into the town he started cruising along the streets and waved at all the people he knew and saw walking on the sidewalks. When he cruised through the town he felt the many smells of the different stores. Grilled meat, pastries, flowers…so many nice smells. He pulled over, turned off the ignition and got out of the car. He decided to go buy some flowers for his wife. Why? Because he felt like it, that's why. He walked into the florist shop.
"How much for a dozen roses?"
"A dozen? Something special happening today, James?"
"Nah, just feeling like giving my wife a nice present"
"Oh. Gotcha! Can you wait here a minute while I go get them for you?"
"Sure, no probs"
The florist walked into the back of the shop. She was an old friend of James. They were in the same class for many years. It took circa 5 minutes before she came back with a bouquet of red beautiful roses.
"There ya go!"
"Thanks! Sooooo…how much?"
"25 bucks, pal"
"25? That's pretty cheap"
"Feeling kind today"
"Ha. Thanks, Kate!"
He paid the 25 dollars for the roses, waved goodbye and walked out. He put the roses carefully in the passenger seat, sat in the driver's seat, started the car and drove off. He got home 5 minutes later. He lived in a yellow house with two floors and a porch. He walked in.
"HONEY, I'M HOME!"
*No response*
"HELLOOO!?"
"YOU HOME!?"
*Still no response*
He walked in to the dining room, took the dead flowers in the vase and threw them away, filled with some fresh water and put the new ones in there. He sat down at the table and picked up the newspaper that just were there on the table. He started reading it.
After a while he got to the comics section, his favorite part about the paper.
*BANG*
He dropped down with his face in the paper with a hole through his head. Behind him was the kitchen. And in there was Jane…with a 9mm 1911 Colt pistol. James' blood ran slowly all over the table. The look in Jane's eyes was cold…and empty.
She dropped on the floor with a big gaping hole on the bottom of her head. The ceiling was painted red with her blood, it was originally white. The wall was painted red with James' blood, it was originally baby blue. The married couple had fallen. Not by disease, not by natural causes…but by the hands of one of them. The riddle will never be answered to why she did it, we can only guess.
What is your theory? Post it as a comment.
(By the way, I made this because I was bored).


Photos don't do the art of Nashville justice. Its masterpieces are best seen in person. But, if you can't take a trip down south (or up north, depending on where you live), reading about the Nashville art scene will do.
Tattoos used to be considered primarily masculine. However, the times have changed drastically. More women were tattooed in 2012 than men (in the United States). Also, tattoos are evolving into more feminine, beautiful works of art. In some ways, tattoos are becoming a female affair. This is due in part to a woman named Maud Wagoner — the first American female tattoo artist.


So, you'd like to sell your home with a lease option?! We'd like to get started marketing your property right away, please complete the form below and we will be in touch with you shortly.
Please complete all property and contact information. Once we have received all your information, we will be in touch with you shortly.


text:
package org.apereo.cas.logging;

import lombok.NonNull;
import lombok.extern.slf4j.Slf4j;
import lombok.val;
import org.apache.commons.lang3.StringUtils;
import org.apache.logging.log4j.core.LogEvent;
import org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.AbstractAppender;
import org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.AppenderRef;
import org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.Configuration;
import org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.Property;
import org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.plugins.Plugin;
import org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.plugins.PluginAttribute;
import org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.plugins.PluginConfiguration;
import org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.plugins.PluginElement;
import org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.plugins.PluginFactory;
import org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.PatternLayout;

/**
 * This is {@link SplunkAppender}.
 *
 * @author Misagh Moayyed
 * @since 5.3.0
 */
@Plugin(name = "SplunkAppender", category = "Core", elementType = "appender", printObject = true)
@Slf4j
public class SplunkAppender extends AbstractAppender {
    private final Configuration config;
    private final AppenderRef appenderRef;

    public SplunkAppender(final String name, final @NonNull Configuration config, final @NonNull AppenderRef appenderRef) {
        super(name, null, PatternLayout.createDefaultLayout(), false, Property.EMPTY_ARRAY);
        this.config = config;
        this.appenderRef = appenderRef;
    }

    /**
     * Create appender.
     *
     * @param name        the name
     * @param appenderRef the appender ref
     * @param config      the config
     * @return the appender
     */
    @PluginFactory
    public static SplunkAppender build(@PluginAttribute("name") final String name,
                                       @PluginElement("AppenderRef") final AppenderRef appenderRef,
                                       @PluginConfiguration final Configuration config) {
        return new SplunkAppender(name, config, appenderRef);
    }

    @Override
    public void append(final LogEvent logEvent) {
        val newLogEvent = LoggingUtils.prepareLogEvent(logEvent);
        val refName = this.appenderRef.getRef();
        if (StringUtils.isNotBlank(refName)) {
            val appender = this.config.getAppender(refName);
            if (appender != null) {
                appender.append(newLogEvent);
            } else {
                LOGGER.warn("No Splunk log appender could be found for [{}]", refName);
            }
        } else {
            LOGGER.warn("No Splunk log appender reference could be located in logging configuration.");
        }
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
You are here: Home / News / Governor Branstad ready to greet VP nominee Paul Ryan
Governor Branstad ready to greet VP nominee Paul Ryan
September 4, 2012 By Dar Danielson
Governor Terry Branstad.
Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan begins a two-day visit to Iowa this afternoon in Cedar Rapids.
Iowa Governor Terry Branstad will be on hand to meet the Wisconsin Congressman. He talked about Ryan's performance at last week's Republican National Convention.
"Well first of all I thought he did a phenomenal job. I think he's a very courageous guy,…he's the only one I know of in the Congress that put together a comprehensive plan to address the biggest problem facing America," Branstad says.
"And that is this massive increase in the national debt, which has gone up more than a trillion dollars a year, every year that Obama's been president."
Branstad says Ryan has an Iowa connection. "I was on the floor of the convention for his speech. He pointed out he comes from a very humble background, Janesville, Wisconsin, it's not too far from Dubuque. His father graduated from Loras College, but his father died when he was 19. He's a guy who has worked hard his whole life," Branstad says.
Branstad was asked about the accuracy of statements Ryan made in his speech about the closing of a car plant in Janesville, Wisconsin.
"I think that he did a phenomenal job of pointing out that the Obama Administration promised to keep the unemployment rate below eight percent, but it's not been below eight percent for 40 some months," Branstad says. "And indeed we've spent all this money on this massive stimulus that hasn't worked, but has saddled us with this massive debt that we've got to pay."
The governor says he finds it "really interesting" that President Obama has been held accountable for the wrong information from his administration. "The projections that this administration have made on this budget have been so far off, and no one wants to talk about that. The truth of the matter is that people who have genuine knowledge and interest in the national economy have got to be scared to death…there seems to be just no interest from this administration in addressing the biggest problem facing America, and that is this massive debt."
Branstad made his comments in his weekly meeting with reporters. He will be in Cedar Rapids later today to introduce Paul Ryan when he speaks late this afternoon. Ryan will be in Adel Wednesday morning for and event at the Dallas County Courthouse.
Filed Under: News, Politics / Govt Tagged With: Democratic Party, Republican Party, Terry Branstad

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Can I reuse a turtle tank for fish?
Can a fish tank be reused for a turtle?
The Short answer to this question is yes, but there are some requirements beforehand.
After it has dried, give it one final rinse and then it is ready to be set up!
We highly recommend testing the PH levels and ensuring everything is stable.


Since its first major references to the Oviedo Convention in two judgments delivered in 2004 (Glass v. the United Kingdom and Vo v. France), the European Court of Human Rights was called upon to decide upon an ever increasing number of cases touching on various issues from the bioethical field, such as consent to medical treatment, examinations, or to the removal of organs and tissues; reproductive rights (prenatal diagnosis, medically assisted procreation and the right to a legal abortion); decisions taken in end-of-life situations; retention of biological data by the authorities and the right to know one's biological identity. The cases brought before the Court raised important questions and often highly sensitive issues under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and most often Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In its case-law, the European Court of Human Rights frequently refers to texts and instruments developed by the Bioethics Committee. For instance, in its judgment in the case of Lambert v. France (2015), the Court's Grand Chamber based part of its reasoning on the Guide on the decision‑making process regarding medical treatment in end‑of‑life situations.


Secure Endpoint Firewall is an advanced personal firewall designed especially for mobile computer users who take their laptop on the road and connect to the internet from a number of different locations.
Test speed, detect WiFi spy and protect your WiFi. No more worries about your WiFi safety concerns.
System monitoring software. PerfScreen is an app which displays in a single window a series of performance counters.


Spencer foresaw an evolutionary trend towards completely harmonious cooperation in a "social organism" that would embrace all of humanity. This would bring about the transformation of human nature into a state of perfection in a stateless anarchy with perpetual peace.
There are some intimations of a similar utopian progressivism in Wilson's Evolution for Everyone. Although I generally agree with Wilson, I am not persuaded by the utopian elements in his writing. Like Spencer, Wilson defends a theory of group selection based on the idea of the "social organism"--the idea that a social group can become as harmoniously cooperative as an organic body. This can easily be pushed towards the sort of perfectionist utopianism that one sees in Spencer.
For example, Wilson's chapter on "The Egalitarian Ape" in Evolution for Everyone suggests that human groups can become so egalitarian that no individual has more authority than another. To support this conclusion, he looks to the egalitarianism of hunter-gatherer groups, he appeals to Chris Boehm's conception of how a "reverse dominance hierarchy" can enforce equality, and he contrasts human egalitarianism with "despotic chimp society."
There are problems with this reasoning. Hunter-gatherers are not completely without leaders or conflicts over dominance. If they appear to be egalitarian, it's only because their resistance to exploitative dominance inclines them to punish individuals who become too pushy in their dominance. Wilson quotes from Richard Lee's studies of the !Kung San in the Kalahari Desert in southern Africa. But he does not quote Lee's comments on "patterns of leadership" among the !Kung (see Lee, THE !KUNG SAN , 343-50, 457-61). Wilson concedes this point later in his book when he writes: "The balance of power is never equal in real villages. Some members are always better than others in their physical prowess, intelligence, or experience. . . . Powerful members of villages who demonstrate their good intentions are rewarded with leadership, whole those who throw their weight around are shunned and excluded" (292).
The same is true for chimps. Although Wilson claims that Frans de Waal has shown the "despotism" of chimp society, de Waal actually contrasts the "egalitarian dominance" style of chimps and the "despotic dominance" style of rhesus monkeys. Dominant male chimps must serve the good of their group, and they are punished by their group when they don't. This supports de Waal's argument that there is an evolutionary logic behind limited government based on checks and balances: even as we allow ambitious individuals to pursue their dominance drive, we can check and channel that dominance to satisfy the desire of the many to be free from exploitative dominance.
Like Spencer, Wilson foresees that international relations will evolve towards peaceful cooperation. He sees the emergence of a "global village" based on a "shared value system." But he is vague as to what this "shared value system" would be, how it would be enforced, and whether it could really secure perpetual peace.
In contrast to Spencer and Wilson, I think that Darwinian science supports a realist conception of human nature that makes conflicts of interests unavoidable. This supports a tragic view of the human condition in which some conflicts cannot be resolved except by force. That's why war is inevitable. Human beings desire war when fear, interest, or honor move them to fight for their community against opposing communities. I agree with Wilson about the importance of evolution by group selection. But I would stress that group-selected cooperation will always be weakened by competition both within and between groups, so that the best we can achieve is to maintain a tense balance of competition and cooperation.
A very good post. However, while it is true that human nature tends to produce war, today we have the good fortune of certain new features in the world that tend strongly to turn nations away from direct combat. Perhaps the most important is that nuclear weapons so radically change the calculus of war that states simply avoid it. Another important factor is that in our current technologically advanced version of market capitalism, wealth is best attained through internal economic growth plus international trade, rather than conquest. Another factor, according to many, is that democracies tend, for various reasons, to not go to war with each other. The result of these factors is that war between major nations seems to have been abolished, and other wars have become considerably less frequent.
I do quite agree, however, that humans society will always have a a balance cooperation and competition.


I have given the range of competing technologies in my prior posts. I have a range of predictions in terms of outcomes on my blog. The molecular manufacturing dominant is one category.
However, advances in some areas make it easier for advances in lagging areas to occur.
The various ways to get to far better computer performance enables better molecular modeling and better planning and more elaborate work with proteins and DNA nanotechnology.
So the criticism that there is only one future vision is wrong.
However, I am constantly looking at how to refine my predictions and projections. When new develops and trends gain momentum then it needs to be recognized. when I look at the range of capabilities and pace of improvement with DNA nanotechnology, self assembly, arrays of probes, atomic layer deposition, and other methods for primarily 2-20 nanometer patterning and some molecular precise actions, I do not see any future (short of catastrophe) where we degrade from this capability.
I see AI systems already used to control many billions of dollars in finances through program trading.
Again I wonder what is the objective and precise definition of superlative technology and how are its first principle justified and how is the result applied.
Because of A, B and C we can objectively classify tech X, Y and Z as superlative while J,K and L are not. Therefore because of A this means that X is different from K in this way and means such action or inaction is justified.
Plus would any of this be analogous to choice of business, career or investment. I cannot invest in business plan X because it has too much potential upside. A billion dollar opportunity would clearly be taken by one of the existing large companies. A Google could not arise because Yahoo or Microsoft are entrenched. Or only superlative people could have founded and enabled Google, because I am most likely only average then I should just get a salary job as say a rhetorical professor at Berkeley or a professorship somewhere else where the upside and downside are in a tight bound. (downside protected by tenure). Then I could tell everyone to not do anything superlative. Don't try things that have too much upside. Well what is superlative? Well 10 times the average salary is not superlative but 1000 times is. Ok, Why ?
Hey don't you see you only have one fixed vision of the future where you get a 1000 times greater than average salary ? Actually I was trying to execute on a business or technology plan which had that as a possibility but which also might fail or only partially succeed. I think that if enough people creatively try to work on plans and projects with high upside that the collective result would be superior to everyone taking low risk opportunities only.
Futurism can be far more than present hopes and fears.
I strive for far more accuracy in my predictions and a far deeper survey of what is going on now that would have the most impact.
So how does the superlative discourse rule (is there a rule other than no predictions that MNT, AGI or life extension of 1000 years succeeds ?) apply when there are 50 different paths and 500 different projects to get to a similar class of result ?
New architectures, such as Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA), Processor in Memory (PIM), the Vector architecture (reborn), and others.
New devices capable of computing, such as RSFQ, CNFET, RTD, SET, Y-junctions, Moltronics, Quantum Dots, spintronics, and other devices of which the participants may be aware.
New ways of using devices, such as adiabatic logic design or reversible logic.
Optical interconnects in on processor communication.
What would the results of such systems be ?
What will continuing progress with algorithms help to achieve.
the computing power is applied to help advance the state of the art in researching the physical sciences and engineering.
Development of hypersonic scramjet engines has been limited by inadequate computing power.
Being to model in better than realtime effects in the body at better than cellular precision with input feeds from live sensors and scanning tools would have a big effect in terms of personal medicine. Being able to combine all of readouts to advance the science of medicine seems like it would have big impact.
Where is the superlative boundary crossed and why was it important ?
If billion electronic neuron devices are created then what is the result, when would it be superlative, when not.
I don't know if variations on those systems will achieve AGI, but they would seem likely to have conquered various challenges that we are close to now. Self driving cars. self directed and robust robots.
how does the superlative discourse rules square with the debate over high risk/high payoff research ?
I'm sure that any discussions of likely futures need to go well beyond making lists of plausible technologies to consider the socio-economic realities that determine whether technologies will actually be adopted. One also needs to recognise that some advances are going to need conceptual breakthroughs whose nature or timing simply cannot be predicted, not just technology development (I believe AGI to be in this category).
So is it correct to say that you have not sufficiently studied the disciplines of forecasting, or put effort into trying to achieve accurate forecasts and are unable to make accurate forecasts therefore you believe that no one else can or could be usefully more accurate ?
There are still no specifics of the utility of the "Superlative discourse" or any clear definition (unless the above I don't know so you and others can't know either was one of the main points).
Here is a mini-review of some of the forecasting disciplines (or why we can do better than a range of wild guesses about the future) and basically that I have considered the socio-economic and technological development realities that effect the likelyhood of every item (and a lot more items not listed) in my entire list of technologies.
I believe that this shows the possibility of training oneself and learnnig what the proper inputs are in determining a future outcome and then rigorously reducing biases and focusing solely on an accurate assessment and prediction then an expert person could also achieve near 90% accuracy in predictions. As has been noted, technology adoption has political, economic and sociological components.
We can judge the reliability of forecasting by the success of such forecasts in the past. Since you are interested in energy, I can recommend Vaclav Smil's book "Energy at the crossroads", which has a very salutory chapter called "Against forecasting". This lists, in quantitative detail, the dismal history of failure of forecasts of energy demand, capacity and price when compared with what actually happened. To give just a couple of examples, in 1971 Glenn Seaborg, then chair of the Atomic Energy Commission, gave as the median of estimates of generating capacity for 2000 as 1600 GW, but opined that the upper end of the range of estimates, at 2100 GW, was more optimistic. What was the actual value in 2000? 780 GW. Coming closer to the present, Smil cites six 10-15 year projections of oil prices, published between 1997 and 2001 by authoritative sources. Their price predictions for 2007 are actually pretty closely bunched around $18 a barrel.
Most forecasters are not very good. However, it is a relative thing like baseball. Hitting at a 0.400 rate or higher and you are a hall of famer. Hitting at 0.150 or less and you do not make the major leagues. Plus there is the quality of the swings.
The vast majority of the impact is from those who are very good.
Plus better predictions are from those who would stand to make or lose money based upon the accuracy of their prediction. What were the best commodities traders predicting ?
Billionaire Jim Rogers, legendary commodities trader, who picked the bottom of the commodities bull market in 1999. With George Soros, Jim Rogers co-founded the Quantum Fund in 1970. I had bought his 2004 book and knew that he had a good record on commodities. He identified the impact of the rise of China on commodities well in advance.
So the flaw is in looking to regulatory bodies where there are people with a government job putting together a forecast for accuracy. Sources that are consistently wrong should not be turned to again and again for another prediction.
Do you also look for Securities and exchange commission civil servant to give you stock picks ? Would you then cite a book on how most people, even "experts", underperform the indexes in stock portfolio performance.
The better course of action is to look and find the consistent winners in picks and predictions and strategy.
Celebrating forecasting losers who have some kind of claim to authority but inaccurate predictions is bad strategy. All I respect is proven accuracy on predictions and the ability to select the correct high impact factors.
The list of losers is long. It is useful to know why they were losers and what the flaw was in thinking that they should have been right. Learn the lessons for identifying winners. Accept the unbiased feedback of the facts and results.
Forecasting is another area to seek out those who are Superlative. Superlative forecasters: they exist too.
If Dale and other Antisuperlativians have any specific attachment to a particular desired outcome (like communism, higher taxes, guaranteed minimum income), I suggest he follow his own advice and drop them- now.
If Richard Jones has a specific attachments to particular desired outcome, like Soft Machines, I suggest that he drop them – now.
I hope you find these suggestions as useful as I found yours.
Another suggestion is – please try and reflect upon how the suggestions or statements that you make work if they were turned back upon yourself. It will help you to identify completely bonehead statements.
You will notice that when you said that you had to increase your patience, it was in response to me using a small bit of the same methods that you and Dale use. You and Dale initiated the psychoanalysis postings. (and group think, wishful thinking accusations). I am not surprised that you did not connect it and say. Oh right, I was doing that same completely obnoxious thing and it had nothing to do with anything of substance.
you have group think with Dale. He has no evidence or substance and you went along with it anyway. Group think.
Brian, I'm skeptical of your forecasting because you have a bizarre list of new devices capable of computing. RSFQ, SET and RTD are old topics now and still show little commercial promise. If you were to ask around any research group studying Molectronics, Quantum Dots or Spintronics about the prospect of commercialisation you would be lucky to get more than laughter in return. It is a no-brainer to predict that in ten years time we will have even more exotic devices and research fads to get excited about. Simply reciting them in parrot fashion does not fool anyone into thinking that you have any more insight than a high school kid who makes reference to Moore's law.
If technology forecasting was really any good, would you not spend more of your time making money rather than posting wikipedia links in blogs?
I will not be revealing my own net worth or income. But I am doing well in the SF Bay Area. I have been paid to speak on future technology (universities and companies). How I make my money is not affected by my blogging. It is a paid hobby at this point, but which is something that I am good at and will defend.
By your measure then Ray Kurzweil should be believed.
Ray charges a $25,000 speaking fee and gave 40 speeches last year. Plus he is worth in the range of $100 million from inventing technology and selling companies and now using AI for a hedge fund.
Commercialization of spintronics already started happening.
MRAM sold by Freescale. Not a DRAM killer yet but it has applications.
IBM working on racetrack memory. Could have more impact.
Quantum dots also have been commercialized. Biological purposes.
So the research groups that you say are laughing are wrong OR you did not ask any research labs. I do not parrot a list. I have plenty of analysis. 1600+ posts on my own site.
Your money theory is either wrong or you should believe Ray Kurzweil.
Your method for assessing and laughing at technology that is being commercialized is wrong. So laughing at the prospect of commercialization is because of someone who does not know what is already happening. Like you and whoever you may or may not have been asking.
Brian, you have missed the point. I was criticising your list of devices capable of computing, not your memory devices list. Maybe your analysis doesn't distinguish between these applications. Many of your 1600 blog posts are just copies of press releases.
I never intended to question how much money you make. I never stated a money theory either so I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Ray Kurzweil made his money as a software company entrepreneur. Jim Rogers made his money as a commodities trader. Neither of them has made fortunes from correctly forecasting scientific developments.
Ray has indicated that he has achieved his success from timing his inventions. He uses his futurist forecasting of scientific trends to help him make money from inventions. He has said it repeatedly. So Ray is saying that he owes his success with inventions (which he made his money from) forecasting science and technology.
The 1 million/year he makes from speaking is for speaking about Accelerating technology and his views on the Singularity. Yes it is only a part of his income, but for others it would be considered a fortune form money directly related to forecasting scientific developments.
So either way you, Vince, are wrong in the statement about Ray did not make fortunes from correctly forecasting scientific developments.
Jim Rogers was pointed out in response to my conversation with Richard. Richard said that the future could not be predicted and quoted a faulty prediction on nuclear power and about failed oil price predictions. I showed that there are successful forecasters of oil prices. You, Vince, missed the point of that part of the conversation.
You had indicated that if technological forecasting was any good (mine tech forecasting or anyone elses) then the good forecasters would be making money from it rather than posting or blogging. It was an implied money theory of credibility. If it was any good then you or someone else would make money from it. Well I have made some money from it and my blog. Ray has made money from it.
Not including technology and IT industry market forecast businesses of Gartner, Jupiter Research.
You are trying to weasle out or were highly imprecise in your comments about what technology was laughable. You said the commercialization of Spintronics was laughable according to the implied authority of "unnamed research groups".
Your complete lack of precision and loose terminology seems to indicate a complete lack of understanding of what is in the broad field of Spintronics. I did not even include GMR for hard drives.
I will bet that RSFQ circuit-based products will have a significant commercial market (at least 20 millions of dollars/year) by the end of 2013. It does not have to be RSFQ based supercomputers. Commercial meaning selling stuff where RSFQ components is a critical part of the product.
I think RSFQ based supercomputers could be made but it is not clear whether they will be commercially successful. I believe a small market for certain military applications could exist. It is also possible that next generation superconducting circuit variants could displace RSFQ for that application.
I understand the distinctions. There is nothing in my writings to indicate otherwise.
My blog is also for the purpose of tracking what I feel are relevant technological and other developments. I do not state analysis in each one, but if I note it in my blog it was because of its significance. There are plenty of postings that I have made with analysis of technology and the future. There are limitations because of time, but the quality and value of my blog is one for which I do not apologize and would stack up against other sites like this one.
I must agree that this is ALWAYS a danger: the danger of not being imaginative enough, of sticking to some particular, blinkered view of the future, and perhaps even letting it become a dogmatically held belief.
So what should you do about this problem? Perhaps a good thing to do would be to exercise your own imagination and start outlining your own possible futures; preferably some desirable ones. The way to help people who have one "fixed" vision of the future is to provide them with other views of the future. To put it another way, we want to think of MORE plausible, desirable future scenarios to play around with.
What are you actually doing by posting on "the superlativity critique"? Are you being imaginative and coming up with interesting future scenarios for us to mull over? No, you're just trying to pooh-pooh somebody else's speculative ideas, which is always an easy task. In doing so you are exacerbating the of lack-of-imagination problem. You are trying to bury imaginative ideas about the future. If everyone did that, we would end up with precisely zero imagination, and we would not be able to make any plans for a better future.
In summary, I totally agree that we all need to think imaginatively and creatively about the future, and we all need to make sure that our ideas don't get old and stale. So Let's go do that! Let's not try to shoot each other's ideas down in flames, let us instead offer each other constructive criticisms (did you hear that dale?). Before we can create a better world, we have to imagine a better world.
Sure. I've also heard it all before.
One can devote plenty of time to constructive, practical, promising, programmatic discussion concerning technodevelopmental change without feeling the least bit compelled to take marginal cult-like pronouncements and hyperbolic salesman's pitches about nanotech superabundance, artificial superintelligence, or imminent medical superlongevity particularly seriously. In some circumstances the most constructive thing to do is to expose obfuscation, confusion, and falsehood where one finds it by one's lights, even if that will appear "negative" to those who affirm the notions so exposed. I'm sorry to hear that you feel critique is a matter of shooting others down in flames: in my opinion it is the profoundest sign of respect that one will direct arguments to the better judgment of even people who seem to one to be spouting the most foolish imaginable sorts of nonsense.
Roko, I did write a book about the direction I think nanotechnology should be taken in. It'll be out in paperback in a couple of weeks so you can read it and judge for yourself whether it is imaginative or not. In fact, most of this blog is devoted to positive discussions of the (non-superlative) potential outcomes of nanotechnology, and when I do criticise (for example in my six challenges for molecular nanotechnology) I think those criticisms are couched in a constructive way. So, there's plenty of stuff for you to mull over.
I look forward to going out and buying your book!
I think that perhaps you slightly misunderstand me when I talk about visions of the future; I am thinking about long-term visions of the future. I've actually just spent a pleasant hour and a half looking over all of your blog posts from this year. Your blog is interesting, informative, and thought provoking, and I can only applaude you for writing it. But what you are writing is not long-term speculation on where nanotechnology will take us; nowhere in the posts that I read could I find material that looks very significantly beyond what is possible today. For example, you write about how one might use certain materials to more efficiently produce UV light to sterilize water for people to drink. You write about better targeted mechanisms for delivering drugs. Yes, this is great stuff. It is the cutting edge of science, the next step, but it is not highly speculative. You, from what I have read, make uncontroversial predictions about what will happen in the short-term (say with a time horizon of 15 years) in the world of nanotech, and it seems that you're doing a bloody good job of it.
Transhumanists, on the other hand, like to think long term. What will nanotech look like in 50 years time? Will we be able to build a general intelligence in the year 2050? etc. We're doing long-term thinking, you're doing short-term thinking.
When you argue against such discourses, you are effectively arguing against serious long term thinking. Why? because in a world of accelerating technological change, long term thinking requires thinking about a world where technology is very significantly more advanced. In order to think about a world where technology is very significantly more advanced, we have to gloss over technical details, and we have to make claims that are likely to be incorrect, because most interesting claims about the medium-long term future are likely to be incorrect. It's still worth considering them as possibilities, and it is very much worth thinking about which ones we like most.
The best thing for people like yourself to do is to come up with your own superlative technology discourses; this should work rather like a Monte Carlo simulation – if you ask one person what they would like the world to be like in 50 years time, the answer will not be particularly illuminating, but if you ask 10 people with widely differing opinions, you'll at least get some understanding of the space of possibilities. I encourage you to go out and do this, and post your thoughts.
If you don't feel that long-term prediction is your thing, then that's fine, but then don't go around shouting down other people's speculative ideas about the future – it's hypocritical. To put it another way, don't criticize another person's idea of where we're going unless you can think of a better one.
This response applies to Dale Also. However ridiculous you think Transhuman ideas are, you can't knock them until you can come up with something better. What is your vision of the world in, say, the year 2080? Go ahead, write a post on it.
Roko, your comment that I don't say a great deal about what I think 2080 will look like is a fair one. But, and it is a big but, you need to remember that the most prominent transhumanists are not talking that far ahead either. Michael Anissimov says he thinks full MNT will arrive between 2015 and 2025, and this is actually quite conservative by the standards of some MNT proponents; Kurzweil expects full artificial general intelligence by 2030. Aubrey de Grey thinks that we will be able to triple the life expectancy of a fifty year old in 25 years. These superlative outcomes are all forecast to take place on a timescale which is pretty similar to the 15 year timescale you point out that I operate on! So I don't accept at all that pointing out ways in which these superlative outcomes are implausible is at all at odds with longer term thinking.
Moving on to this, it seems to me that you confuse two rather different concepts. One can attempt to predict what the world will be like in 50 years time, and one can say how one would like the world to be in 50 years time. These exercises are not the same! There is a lot of value in what some commentators call "normative scenarios" – i.e. saying how you think things ought to be, as a tool to help us work towards that goal, without necessarily expressing a view about how likely they are. For me, since you ask, my normative scenario for 2080 would involve a stable population of perhaps 8 billion people all of whom enjoy healthy lives with decent living standards underpinned by the universal use of decentralised, renewable energy, largely from the sun. This may not be, to you, very imaginative or indeed superlative, but most of the more imaginative scenarios I think are plausible involve outcomes I wouldn't want to see. These undesirable scenarios are useful, if somewhat depressing, to work through, too. I found this set of scenarios quite enlightening.
To return to your suggestion that long-term prediction isn't my thing, a more accurate comment to make about me is that I'm not very comfortable with Utopian thinking. The historical record of political and social movements underpinned by such thinking is not very encouraging.
This is already wrong as we are skipping ahead to systems that 100-900 times faster in 2008 and 2009 and FPGA is being integrated for automated acceleration.
Some other big tech impacts.
28 qubit adiabatic computer being demoed next week 512-1024 qubit planned for 2008.
Those faster computers accelerate molecular modeling and computational chemistry packages.
These things are why I contend that your view is wrong.
Myostatin inhibitors (4 times as powerful as steroids without the side effects) in expanded phase II human trials Highly antidipated by millions with muscle disease and those 7 million around the world already using steroids.
Toshiba will be making gigabit scale MRAM (spintronic memory) as I indicated MRAM chips are already sold for some special applications, such as devices that will be exposed to harsh environments.
Even with the past rates of progress.
Well, some are, some are not. I, from my limited technical knowledge of MNT would say that Michael's predictions are way over-optimistic. As for Kurzweil's prediction, where did you get that from? I thought he was talking 2040's as a ballpark figure. In any case, I think that kurweil's predictions are a bit too optimistic. I think it is a fair point that some transhuman thinkers are getting a little bit too "eager" about their predictions, which I find annoying.
– indeed! That is what you should think of transhuman thinking as being. I think most of the debate misses this point, and instead focuses on whether or not scenario X is likely or not, which is often a less interesting question, especially since the likelihood of a scenario is often heavily influenced by whether we actively try to achieve it, which is in turn influenced by what we think it's likelihood is.
Contrast this with transhumanist normative scenarios; we talk about a world in which old, hard problems like death, ignorance and unhappiness have been solved, in which humans overcome the limitations and sorrows that our evolutionary past has burdened us with.
I would certainly rather live in the transhuman version of the future than yours; in yours, things will not be significantly better than they are now. I'll still get old and die, I'll still be unhappy, I'll still have the very limited intelligence I have now, I will still be limited to the types of experience that I can have now.
Now I accept that some people who embrace the transhuman vision of the future like it so much that they start fooling themselves into thinking that it can be achieved more quickly and easily than is realistic. (Brian Wang's talk of the D-wave quantum computer makes me think that he has fallen victim to this temptation.) This is, of course, a mistake, but the cure is not to completely abandon the vision. Rather, we should be as realistic as possible about timescales and likelihoods of events, whilst maintaining an optimistic and exciting vision of our future. I find the transhuman vision – of a future where almost anything is possible and life is routinely fantastic to be a rather nice one to pursue, but if you have an alternative, then do come out with it.
One area I think H+ futurism can be improved is by actively initiating the positive future desired. Kurzweil, Freitas and de Grey certainly fit this mold. But beyond that I don't think futurists are learning enough about what specific improvements now, will improve longevity.
I read a Sept/05 Scientific American article about a Financial Manager turned stem cell proponent who has made stem cell funding in California his mission. When I think of those leading biomedical research innovations, I think of existing university research centres and industry research prorogatives. No doubt there are innovations, but what do futurists bring to the table? Have US futurists looked at various presidential candidate health care plans and picked the best one to lobby for? Biomedical research occurs divorced from futurism. What innovations can be realized now to make a "better future"?
I have placed a comment about Dwave systems adiabatic quantum computer on your site.
I have a longbet prediction out there for Quantum computers.
Anyone is welcome to challenge it.
It should be clear by the end of 2008 if Dwave system when scaled up to the necessary level delivers the performance to make an impact financially and scientifically. I have written about 100 articles on quantum computers and looked at the adiabatic QC papers and the QC algorithms. I am comfortable with my view assessment of the developments and potential impact of QC.
How about the article of Richards for 100 times improvement in computers over 10 years versus 100 to 1000 times spreading over the next two years ? Am I being over optimistic about Nvidia or AMD ? How about computer memory ?
I have assessed the presidential candidate positions on health care.
However, by my analysis only a few positions matter. I think Hillary is 70% likely to win the overall election. I think she is 85-90% to win the Democratic nomination. I think it is Rudy coming out for the Republicans. I think Rudy's chances will be further hindered by Ron Paul taking 2-10% of the vote (more from Rudy than from Hillary). Hillary and Rudy would both lift the ban on stem cell funding at the federal level. Rudy would still ban human cloning. Hillary supports therapeutic cloning.
I also recognize that my coming out in support of Hillary or if other futurists did so would have minimal impact.
where I feel more impact is possible for futurists is to come up with new plans and ideas which could be picked up by companies or politicians to help make the systems function better. My suggestion for a plan related to medicine is devices for gathering more data about biomarkers for people to help provide data to be mined by researchers and then also for personalized medicine.
New and reasonably adoptable potentially high impact ideas instead of adding another voice in a sea of voices in support of one slightly less inferior plan.
So it seems that SENS is an avenue worth pursuing even based on nearterm work.
3. Take the tests needed to detect cancer and heart disease early. Find out your own higher risks based on family history.
However, besides the near term steps for important small gains I also look at the high potential and underfunded opportunities. This is where a little more effort can bring a lot more rewards. So first two on the list are SENS and molecular manufacturing. I also try to find overlooked ways to use old or near term technology and processes.
Brian, I skimmed your biomarker proposal. How much would it cost for a pharmacy or individual to lease or procure a lab-on-a-chip and operate it for the trial duration? I'm not sure, but I don't think lab-on-a-chips are cheap or mature enough to be available for general consumption, or they already would be widely utilized, wouldn't they?
Yes, there would be work to do to bring costs down and to make more comprehensive tests. Which is why I was suggesting that someone like an Andy Grove (who lead Intel in bringing the costs of semiconductors lower) would be an ideal person to bringing this about. Andy Grove has lamented the lack of pharma progress. He is motivated.
The global market for microfluidic technologies was worth an estimated $2.9 billion in 2005. This figure should grow to $3.2 billion in 2006 and $6.2 billion by 2011. Self monitoring of blood glucose in diabetics is $1.2 billion business.
51 tests for $100. Results downloadable to PC. Have to make more detailed blood analysis and then transmit results for centralized processing.
It is a goal to work towards that would provide a lot of benefits.
Plus there are earlier stages where it is only for a few thousand people like Nielson boxes. A statistically diverse group that would help researchers to make better inferences about larger populations. Instant clinical trial data from recorded data mine-able information. Information to improve health and lower costs.
I think the initial few thousand Nielson box goal is achievable in a few years and the larger vision within ten years. Lab on a chip are lithography and MEMS. It is a matter of getting HMOs and PPOs and government funded medical programs to see that this would help them lower costs in the long run.
In terms of the costs. The system would be a lot cheaper than doctors or nurses taking the blood samples and sending them to labs for the tests. A really capable machine would probably initially cost several thousands to tens of thousand of dollars. It would have several chips and perform multiple tests and would have re-usability (instead of throw-away systems).
I think the attitude of – if this was cheap enough then it would already be widely utilized is the wrong way to look at it. I think this would be a superior way to figure out what is really happening with people when they get treatment and in between exams.
Your suggestion was to pick from the current presidential candidate suggestions for healthcare which all amount to put more money into the current broken down system (110 billion/year for the Clinton plan) and get some more insurance for some or all of the uninsured. These plans do not try to prevent people from getting sick in the first place or take steps to get the data we need to make people healthier.
If healthcare was cheap enough or mature enough so that everyone could have it then it would already be implemented wouldn't it.
Are we trying to change the future for the better or aren't we ?
$5 billion per year would pay for tens of thousands of machines and a research program for further development and refinement. 5% of the Clinton plan.
I agree when lab-on-a-chips become available for longitudal/latitude studies, researchers (not necessarily Andy Grove) should certainly submit proposals to the NIH or whoever, and the federal government at the time should fund such research. I remember a while back such a survey (to determine root causes of asthma and such) that didn't utilize lab-on-a-chips was cancelled by Bush, thus my mention if health care advances are the H+ raison d'aitre, why not lobby for the most progressive candidate? I'm hooked on Clinton's $50 billion environment trust fund and her health rhetoric seems is the most sophisticated, but I've yet to look at any platform details of the other candidates.
It is in Canada. The main drawback appears to be Soviet-style lineups for some medical procedures (MRIs for example). Those not wealthy enough to tacitly have the procedure done elsewhere suffer. From within the system it is worse for maybe the 50-75% highest income households. Since universal health care is 1/2 the price of US private insurance, it is an acceptable tradeoff instead of sickly citizens or flirting with bankruptcy.
I agree active living and preventative medicine behaviours are the cheapest longevity gains in the Western world, but how specifically to initiate this? In Canada the PM has given a tax-break for children's recreational sports dues. I think everyone wants athletic lifestyles for their population. How?
Processed foods are subsidized and so much cheaper than fresh foods. When I used to be a labourer, I had a lunch choice of a $6 Subway sandwich or a $2 box of noname cookies. Guess which I could afford? If I go into Mc Donald's, the cheap burgers are less than $2 and the health menu much more. What you really seem to be espousing is a tax on livestock/hog farmers and a tax on processed foods containing veggie oils? Is there any superior solution or should H+ proponents be lobbying to treat unhealthy food companies like cigarette makers (and soon big oil)?
I agree $5 billion would certainly advance lab-on-chip timetables, but cost-effectively? I think lab-on-a-chip diagnostic technologies are derived from a much larger semiconductor manufacturing industry; some underutilized semiconductor processees eventually trickled down to be used for other purposes. If so, I wouldn't necessarily think $5 billion would buy a whole host of deflationary manufacturing processes, but maybe it would. How would the $5 billion be allocated? Are lab-on-a-chip technologies originated from an industrial library in their own right, or do they just piggyback on semiconductor advances? Would the $5 billion lead to anything novel that DARPA or NiH (who both have funded lab-on-a-chips at much higher levels) haven't thought of yet? I'd like to see cheap medical diagnosis, but computer makers can afford Moore's Law because everyone has a computer or items with chips. There isn't an analogous economy of scale for medical surveys by lab-on-chips since the products (medical R+D knowledge) take years to decades to output.
–We performed virtual modeling of the treatment options on your computational health model. This treatment had the best results. We have verified FDA individual authorization from the FDA servers for the registered and validated individual treatment plan (just like registering a flight plan) We will monitor the effects and the treatment and see over the next few hours if everything is tracking as expected and continue monitoring to ensure that results are correct.
The $5 billion/year would not just be to make lab on a chips cheaper. The goal is t get the same kind of detailed data collection on health biomarkers that we have on TV viewing habits. What is novel is findout what are the actual root causes of health changes not just for populations but for individuals.
It took decades to change the food pyramid recommendations. Even though within a few years doctors and nutritionists knew that the guidelines were helping to increase obesity. If you are performing detailed tracking you can catch incorrect health guidelines early and provide highly detailed and personalized recommendations.
Universal healthcare – Plenty of people fighting over that now (millions of people and billions of dollars). My impact on resolving that would be neglible. I think looking at the problems from a different angle is a better contribution.
Why suggest things go through the NiH and federal government ? When has anything like my more radical idea gotten any kind of traction there ? Were the Nielson ratings justified and set up by the federal government ? where did you come up with me espousing a tax on farmers ? I made nothing like that statement. My main talk about $5 billion/year vs $110 billion is that my plan is far more affordable than what Hillary has been talking about and I believe would lead to better health for more people and it would help to lead to changing the statistical nature of FDA approvals.
More exercise and healthier living: I am not a proponent of a nanny state in most cases. If you have looked at my writing and arguments with Dale, you would know that I am not going to be promoting socialists causes or nanny states. If people choose to not exercise that is there choice. I am certainly willing to look at some ways to tilt society to encourage and not block healthier choices.
Healthier eating: Buy fruit, veggies and bag your own lunch. 33 cents for one lb of oranges, 80 cents for one lb of apples, bananas 33 cents a lb. Whole wheat bread $3 per loaf or 1.50 on sale. Smoked salmon about $10/lb. enough for 2 weeks of sandwiches.
If one is performing calorie restriction with alternating semi-fasting. Monday, Wednesday, Friday would be semi-fasting days with only 400 calories with 20 grams of protein all day. Morning slimfast shake or salmon. And something similar in the evening. No lunch at all or just 20 nuts for a snack.
Exercise – riding a bike or walking is cheaper than driving a car.
Healthier living and near term longevity enhancement (how to initiate) – It is initiated for people who take the time to figure it out. The basics eat right and exercise are constantly being broadcast. All of the information is available. Just like info is available that people should stop smoking yet about 20% in western countries still do. where regulation and policy is needed is to get rid of sources of problems that are controlled by policy like switching from coal and fossil fuels to nuclear and renewables. This is the cause of 60,000 deaths in the USA and 6,000 in canada. Fortunately Ontario is on track to eliminating coal. Safer transportation systems is also within the control of federal government and city planners.
For Canada, since it is provincial government paying for healthcare then actively managing public health would be in the financial interest of the provincial government. Just as the utilities pay people to switch out of less efficient appliances, there would be justification for financial rewards and penalties for health behaviorial targets or for keeping biomarkers within prescribed target ranges.
fighting obesity: Myostatin inhibitors will increase muscle mass which will reduce obesity.
Plenty of money goes to other stuff or is wasted. Still progress is being made and will be made. That is why it is a good thing that not all of the money is one pool with the government. A lot of individuals and corporations can make and fund other choices.
H+ is not just about longevity.
Brian, your idea to take bloodwork, urine analysis and perhaps skin biopses from individuals in their homes at several intervals per day and have the samples analyzed by a lab-on-a-chip, is good. But this idea (and whatever useful database it generates) is dependant on cheap lab-on-a-chips, not upon a $5 billion investment. I'm sure if you or I or anyone went to a venture cap with an idea for better medical diagnostic equipment or any medical equipment in general, we'd get the cash no problem (gelFAST/Sprixx already stole the idea I would've had years from now for portable hand-sanitizers).
The barrier here is innovation, I think. You could just as easily say University X needs better solid-state clean room equipment, country Y needs a new synchrotron, or research park Z needs better interdisciplinary collaboration. Given cheap lab-on-a-chips, your $5 billion could no doubt go far. One prerequisite I can think of is good medical databases, something the various provinces of Canada are grappling at what velocity to introduce.
I pulled the $5 billion guesstimate out of the air. I merely stated that $5 billion/year would make the plan a slam dunk and yet still be far cheaper and have better results than other plans. Basically I had a few points.
1) That there are better medical plans than what is being tossed around by presidential and politicians. (I was being told, that as a futurist, I should recommend one of the current plans that are being discussed.) I indicated that since I spend my time thinking about the future and the application of technology that I can come up with better and more innovative plans and tha I can recognize better plans. Thus I identified the medical plan proposed by Intel X-CEO Andy Grove and my own suggestion of using massive amounts of data gathering and getting the equipment for that cheaper and to develop better business models and processes to make it work.
2) I also have suggestions which I think would lead to superior space programs, environment, energy and transportation programs.
3) I think cheaper labs on a chip are coming from the progression of many businesses and technologies. The progress of technology and business models will likely enable this before the political situation were to change to enable and accelerate it with lesser and more expensive technology.
4) It all goes back to the original arguments put forward about speculative futures. That futurists should not project superlative futures or technology.
My argument has been that if all someone who really knows that kind of technologies that we already have and the kind of technologies that we are getting from research and development progress, and all that they can think to recommend is a "non superlative future", then I make the case that they do not really understand what is available and possible or they are not being innovative is thinking about problems.
You Philip have again made that point. We could radically alter public health and the development of our understanding medicine with a little innovation usage of what we have and some willingness for a few people to get out of the way of better ideas or for innovative people to bootstrap something better and avoid the blockages to innovation.
Next Next post: Less than Moore?


Hon. Samuel Merrill (1786-1869) was born in Haverhill, graduated from Harvard in 1807, where he was noted for his scholarship in the classics, and was admitted to the bar of Essex County in 1811. He practiced law in Andover and was the President of the Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Company for forty-one years. He served in both houses of the Massachusetts Legislature. He died in December 1869 and is buried at the Maplewood Cemetery in Haverhill.


text:
the bachelorette :: kaitlyn : epi 6.
We pick up where we left off in beautiful San Antonio, Texas. The Europe of Texas!
Ian is still mad. He is so over poop jokes he can't even think deep. Ian thinks Kaitlyn is a surface-level person and he needs her to be a big ole cry baby or this is it. They are not in it for the same reasons and he's ready to walk. Her blood is boiling and she is "super offended."
If you can describe yourself as "super offended" you are likely very mature and deep.
Anyway. Ian walked. Then, he got in the Suburban of Doom and talked about being "deep" about 247 times.
Then he said, "oh man, I need to have sex." : (
Nick runs to KaityKat's rescue and lets her know that he saw that Ian convo coming. He wants to be deep, but he wants to be goofy, too.
"I want to be the one person who knows you inside and out." -- Nick
That sounds like a bad Old Navy commercial.
ROSE CEREMONY TIME!!!!!!!!!!
The bros head out to the Alamo (REMEMBER?) and I can only imagine how much differently that story would have turned out if Davy Crockett had these guys in his unit. Picture a giant Texas-shaped hole in the United States.
CHRISSY POO HARRISON WEARING THE MOST MACY'S LABOR DAY SPECIAL SUIT AND TIE COMBO EVER.
That one guy didn't get a rose and I think he didn't get one because Kaitlyn didn't know his name. I don't know his name either.
Then, that guy with his haircut and his Men's Wearhouse vest got sent back to welding school.
It's like all these guys loaded up in a van and hit up that 1 for 19 sale at Jos. A. Bank. Everyone but that dentist guy. He shops at the same place HIllary Clinton gets her suits.
The boys are headed to Dublin! And I can only imagine that there's a lot of dark beer in their future.
This is the first time Joe has been out of the country and he thinks going on a one-on-one date would be " a lot of fun."
"Kaitlyn is just a pot of gold." -- Dentist Guy
Shit. Come on, man.
"I've wanted to go to Ireland for about 10 years. It's very green." -- Dentist Guy
"We're in Europe right now!" -- Jerad
It's obvious these people know nothing about Ireland.
Nick has 10 minutes to get ready for his one-on-one date.
"Luck of the Irish!" -- Nick
You would think these guys could've looked at Wikipedia on the flight over, right? Just a quick run-through of facts about Ireland? No. There's no time. Only cliches.
Nick describes the park where they are-- there are families and dogs. And one sexy gUrl.
Nick and Kaitlyn can't keep their hands off of each other.
NICK WENT SHOPPING ON THE SET OF AN OLD AVRIL LAVIGNE VIDEO.
KaityKat is really scared of birds, so walking around in a park like this is basically an episode of "Fear Factor."
The cliches just keep on rolling in like a bunch of damn potatoes and Nick and Kaitlyn do an Irish jig in the street.
I'm imagining Nick choosing those green pants because he thought someone would pinch him if he didn't wear green all day. : (
Nick bought matching rings for the two of them. They're just walking down the street and then Nick threw her up against a wall and kissed her. Then, they kiss in front of a Kay's Jeweler. Then, they went to a pub and he put his hand up her shirt while ordering a whiskey.
NICK IS DRESSED LIKE HE'S IN A CREED VIDEO, IF CREED WAS STILL MAKING VIDEOS IN 2015.
Do we even address the boyz in the hotel? I mean, we all know what is happening. ABC PRODUCERS, SAVE YOUR EDITING TRICKS FOR SOMEONE ELSE.
Nick and KaityKat head to dinner in an old church. Nick's outfit is enough to send me over the Cliffs of Moher (look it up on Wikipedia).
I feel like he beat up several 6th grade boys on the way to a school dance to piece his outfit together. Are his pants too tight to tuck his shirt in? Why wear a tie if you aren't going to tie it?
So, Kaitlyn is glad Nick has done this before (WHAT?), but she's worried everyone else is judging him for it (DUH).
Nick goes on this rant about how he's just concerned with being himself.
NOTE: Normal, decent people rarely have to give speeches about how they don't need to be liked, they just need to be true to themselves. Think about the best person you know-- they have never given you some shitty speech about "just doing me." You know why? Only shitty people have to use that excuse for their behavior. Only shitty people have to "do me."
Kaitlyn really likes Nick.
"...at the same time, I just believe in...everything." --Kaitlyn
Believing in everything is a sure-fire sign of being a deep thinker.
So, at this point ABC has really done it. These two are going to town in an old church and finally Kaitlyn gives Nick his rose and they go at it some more.
Eventually, the two head back to her hotel where they shut the door and do things most people in their situation would do in the back of a car in a movie. This is a family blog (just meaning-- my family reads it), so no details will be shared. There was heavy breathing. And I don't think they were lifting weights.
The next morning there is a lot of shame and maybe a bit of regret on the part of Kaitlyn. Kaitlyn says they "deserved" that time together. That's a weird word to use to describe the situation. Especially as the camera shows one of the parties involved talking to themselves expressing how bad they feel and the other is shown doing a walk of shame. If that's what your relationship deserves...WHOA.
I mean, now...Kaitlyn is talking about how she is hoping Nick won't sex and tell. She says this over and over and over and over again. Nick sits on the couch and tells the guys everything that happened without them even knowing what he is telling them. He even says it was "intimate."
Here's the deal-- adults have sex after dates all the time. Hopefully, they aren't doing it on TV, while dating several other adults at once. Usually ends poorly for most parties involved. If KaityKat thinks sexin' it up with her suitors is a good idea, she thinks it's a good idea. Not sure what else to say about it other than I HOPE HER GRANDMOTHER DOES NOT OWN A TV. I HOPE HER MOM AND DAD DISCONNECT THE INTERNETS.
AND I PRAY A CHILD DOES NOT COME OUT OF THIS HOTEL MEETING. You sure as hell know these two would name that baby Ireland and call him/her "Dubs" as a nickname for the rest of his/her life.
It's time for the group date and everyone is talking about someone being dead or something.
Like a total cheese ass, ChrissyPoo Harrison meets the boyz in the street and says, "I regret to inform you that the worst has happened. Kaitlyn is dead."
You see, what he had meant to say is-- KAITLYN IS ABOUT TO BE DEAD TO YOU, BECAUSE SHE TOTALLY DID IT WITH THAT OTHER GUY LAST NIGHT.
So, I guess this date is a fake funeral/wake.
Listen, no one wants to attend their own funeral more than I do.
This is weird.
So, I fast forwarded through the coffin scenes.
GROUP DATE AFTER-PARTY TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ben Z. needs KaityKat to know that today was "super hard."
I mean, what's more hilarious than a fake funeral?! Especially for a guy who's mom died.
Jerad gets some time with Kaitlyn and it's all "honest" and "honest." Has he been honest about his job at Denny's or did he play it up like he manages some restaurant he inherited from his billionaire grandpa?
Everyone is all "don't talk about Nick."
Shawn gets some alone time with Shawn and describes the casket as "it was funny." Now, he wants to show some pictures of his family to her!!!!!!!!!!
The producers got into his sister's Instagram account 15 minutes ago and printed off these pics for him. What a treat! What a moment!
Kaitlyn loves the photos so much she wants to keep them!
(Weird.)
They do some kissing.
Shawn feels really good. Very confident. He's never been more confident.
Jerad gets the rose.
KaityKat whisks Jerad off to a church for some alone time.
The Cranberries are there ready to sing "Linger" for the 1,345,765 time in their life.
In 20 years, this will Carly Rae Jepsen and a whole new generation of gUrls will feel the way I feel.
Sad. : (
Jerad says this is Kaitlyn's FAVORITE BAND.
I AM CALLING BULLSHIT SO HARD ON THAT ONE.
No one's favorite band is the Cranberries. It's 2015.
Back at Guinness World Headquaters SHAWN IS FLIPPING HIS SHIT.
He has pulled his producer aside...
"Man-to-man, friend-to-friend, are you going to tell me she wants Jerad over me? Do you not know what we have? She came to my room for 6 or 7 hours and said 'you're the one. you're it.' What, she's going to get to the fantasy suite and bang two other dudes? ... Trust is the thing... I'm about to cry." -- Shawn
Shawn, woman-to-man, you signed up for this shit and she already banged a dude in a hotel room.
Shawn decided to go to Kaitlyn's hotel room because her words don't match her actions.
"She's ruining everything we have." -- Shawn
THIS IS THE MOMENT IN THE SHOW THAT IS STRAIGHT OUT OF A ROMANTIC COMEDY.
SHE THINKS HE KNOWS, BUT HE DOESN'T KNOW, HE'S JUST UPSET.
SHE'S ABOUT TO SAY, "Well, what are you talking about?"
AND HE'LL BE ALL, "Wait. What are you talking about?"
"Oh, I thought you were made because I had sex with Nick."
"No, I'm mad because you said you wanted that picture of my niece and then you took Jerad for one-on-one time. WHAT."
Garry Marshall couldn't write this shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hands down the best recap you've ever written.
aynsleyliz said...
agreed! ^^


On the last day of Pentecost, with a lot more alcohol in my veins than on an average Monday night, I try to capture my thoughts. It's a lot harder these past months which won't come as a surprise for those who know me a bit better. Ever since I've gotten back from Tallahassee I find it hard to get my bearings again. There are the usual suspects like getting back into the Dutch way of life, the Dutch cuisine (yay for our grocery stores), living in my old Dutch home again, and my overly blunt countrymen and women. Then there is also the slow realization what it means to have left behind the new friends I made in Florida. Unfortunately, it's a bit more involved than to just board a plane for a long weekend if you want to say hi, so we have to resort to Skype and the like. Sure, it's better than say 10 years ago: 'Nowadays' you can have an actual conversation online where you can see and hear each other, but it just isn't the same as in real life.
And then this week, suddenly our renewed strategy document landed on my doorstep. Instead of giving me the last push to really throw me off balance I tried to catch it and use it like a floatation device. Trying to hold on for dear life, hoping I could use it as a beacon to help me make sense of it all. Like the lighthouse metaphor, getting a brief insight in the lay of the land and re-establish the markers on the horizon. It's too early to tell if I will succeed (mis)using our strategy document. I haven't been able to really understand all its meaning and underlying messages yet, but the one thing I already found helpful is its title.
Since I've gotten back I have been talking to a lot of people. Mostly friends and colleagues. Yes, those were all 'forms of familiar conversation', and yes, mostly because the topics and the people were in some fashion familiar to me. But those talks proved to be very useful for me and the lighthouse metaphor aptly describes the overall feeling I had at the end. You can learn so much about yourself, others and the world around you if you have a genuine conversation with someone you thought you knew well. So a message to all those who can't make heads or tails of our new strategy document: Go have a beer with a colleague and talk about it. Far more insightful and a lot more fun than just reading the text and trying to decipher its meaning just by yourself.
Speaking of fun. I hope the next part will be enjoyable, but I'm actually a bit anxious. I just had my, 'I play keyboard' coming out for most of my colleagues at our 15th-year-anniversary party. Now I feel I'm about to have my 'I really love this type of music' coming out. The two are related since I first heard about my now favorite artist during one of the keyboard lessons I had when I was just a teenager. The classroom had a picture of a guy named Chick Corea which in its own sparked my curiosity. That, and the fact that his hands were large enough to cover almost two perfect octaves on the keys.


What I love about pre-wedding shoots, no matter who or where they are, is is the ability to get to know the wedding couple much better ahead of the wedding day. Getting to see how they are with each other and how they react in front of the camera means I get some great insights ahead of the wedding.
So yesterday's pre-wedding shoot on a very muddy and very squelchy Hampstead Heath, in North London, with Jodi and Simon allowed me to get to know Jodi and Simon that much better, ahead of their wedding at the Churchill Hyatt Regency hotel in Portman Square in Central London towards the end of March.
For instance, I found out that Jodi is chatty, fun but also very relaxed and easy going. Not one to make a big fuss about her wedding day. Simon is equally as easy going, straightforward and not a man who wants too much of a fuss in front of the camera. Of course, this is fantastic news for me as a wedding photojournalist who specialises in a no nonsense and relaxed candid approach to wedding photography!
Here's a few of the images from yesterday's shoot. I hope you enjoy them as much as I did making them.
Are you getting married and think you'd enjoy have a pre-wedding portrait shoot? Or perhaps you are looking for a London wedding photojournalist? I cover the whole of the UK and destination weddings overseas, so I'd love to chat with you and hear all about your wedding plans.
Call me on +44 (0)7920 422144 or send me a message via my contact page. I'll be delighted to hear from you.
You can see other True Love Stories here.


"PPP. The Department of Medical Assistance Services shall work to transform the system of care of Medicaid-funded behavioral health services to emphasize community services that are evidence-based and trauma informed. The department shall engage stakeholders during the process of rewriting the Community Mental Health and Rehabilitative Services manual, including stakeholders who are experienced in training providers in the use of evidence based services and adherence to the model of care."


"Avalanche" comes with a clean HTML5 code and SEO enriched design that would positively impact your search rankings. The theme is flexible and comes with a separate options panel within the main admin panel where you can customize your design elements. It can be used for any online storefront and also includes an embedded contact form and social media icons.
The theme is built on the latest HTML5 & CSS3 standards and supports Magento version 1.5 and higher. The homepage comes with attractive jQuery effects for your icons along with a support for a custom banner, favicon and logo. You also get to choose from 25 customizable background patterns and 7 basic color options. Extensive typographic options of over 400 different fonts give you a wide choice in your content styling.
The homepage features a prominent keyword search bar in the header which allows users to easily do a quick search. Also included is an international flag and currency switcher along with an opt-in box in the footer for newsletter subscription. The primary content area has a full-width image slider along with 3 call to action spaces for your banners. The rest of the content area has a 5 column grid which can be used for different product categories.
All product listings come with an Ajax enriched "Quick View" option that loads a snapshot of the product along with an "Add to cart" facility.
The theme has a top menu for basic account management and support quicklinks along with a shopping cart icon with a touch menu. Primary navigation is by a Megamenu which can include multiple columns of categories along with embedded images. You can also choose from a "Suckerfish" or "Simple menu" options. The theme also has a separate footer quicklink menu along with breadcrumb filters for internal pages.
Internal category and search result pages comes with a choice of a grid or list layout along with an option to sort by "Position", "Price" and "Name" attributes. You can also add sortable categories in the sidebar such as a price range etc for easy access.
Individual product pages come with "Cloud Zoom" facility that allows users to see a magnified version of the image highlighted by the mouse pointer. You can also include social media icons, reviews and star ratings and can also allow users to add the product to a wishlist or for comparison. The checkout module comes in a user-friendly single page format with a option to redeem a discount coupon and also allows users to check the shipping and tax estimate based on their location details.
The Avalanche Magento Theme comes with life-time free updates and one-year free support. It's priced at $199 for the premium edition and $399 for the developer edition for unlimited usage.


A large retrospective exhibition of Gerald Scarfe's political work has now opened at the Wilhelm Busch Museum in Hannover, Germany. Around 120 of his extraordinary drawings are now on show until 12th August. A catalogue of the exhibition is also available to order from the Wilhelm Busch Museum.