Spray-On News!

Spray-on!

This is the thing: how far can science go? The answer seems to be always easy, because to everything that happens there is a link to scientific thought that pulls forward the limits of its own.

What if you could actually spray-on the clothes you are about to wear for the day? It does sound unbelievable, something that could have been taken from a Sci-Fi movie written by Spielberg. Well, it is real, forget about TV!

A spanish fashion designer, along with Imperial College London, developed a formula where actual fabric is mixed with some sort of polymers that, when the solvent evaporates, stick to the skin and form a (very tight) piece of clothing. You can then take it off, wash it and wear it again! After the development of the idea into an actual possibility, the scientists-designers paired up with Fabrican Ltd. a company which will explore all the possibilities for its commercial use.

The truth is that the clothes are unflattering for anyone who does not have an awesome magazine-worth body, but... will it be a viable option for medical uses? Industry? Do you think it will become a fashion trend or it is purely business that will lead to nowhere?


Click on the logos (links) to read the news reports, watch more videos and have deeper thoughts then, please comment!

Can you imagine him with a grenade?

...when he was fifteen...

The story below is that of a young man being trialed in the USA for the crime of killing an American soldier in Afghanistan. But he doesn't come from the middle-east as we all might think; he is a Canadian guy who was sent to wat at the age of 15 and now he is being judged for the things he did (intentionally or unintentionally) while there.

Youngest Guantanamo inmate, Canadian Omar Khadr, tried.

A former child combatant has gone on trial at Guantanamo Bay, the first detainee to face military justice under President Barack Obama.

Canadian citizen Omar Khadr, now 23, is accused of throwing a grenade that killed a US soldier during a gun battle in Afghanistan in 2002, when he was 15.

A UN envoy, Radhika Coomaraswamy, said the trial would set a dangerous precedent for child soldiers worldwide. However, the judge said the prosecution must show that Mr Khadr had had intent to commit a crime, and he told jurors they could consider his age in making their decision.

'Clear standards'

Military officers in the jury pool indicated that they saw no problem with trying Mr Khadr. "Does anyone believe that juveniles should not be prosecuted for violent offences? "Prosecutor Jeff Groharing asked them. "Does anyone feel the accused should be held to a different standard because he was 15 years old at the time of the alleged offences?" None said they held those beliefs. The judge, Col Patrick Parrish, said the jury could consider the age of the defendant - now a tall, broad-shouldered and bushy-bearded man - at the time of his alleged crime.

Ms Coomaraswamy, special envoy for children in armed conflict, said no child had been prosecuted for a war crime since World War II. "Juvenile justice standards are clear: children should not be tried before military tribunals," she said.

As it happens always when it comes to war-related events, we tend to focus on the horror of crimes, the horror if war, and not focus on the reasons why those events took place, or the things that were actually going wrong during the course of the conflict. I would like to point out something I find even more essential, than the actual murder being discussed here. The underlying fact that must be considered is: Why are kids sent to war? In my opinion, we cannot expect a child to be fully aware of the extent in the consequences (immediate or not) of his actions... That's why they are called "adolescents" remember? It comes from the Latin, and means "to be lacking of...". Lacking of maturity, which is not wrong at all, it is a stage of life that should be respected as they all are.

A fifteen-year-old in war makes no sense, as it does not, the fact of wanting to trial him as an adult, because in the end, this trial mught be one more, of the "somke courtains" for not discussing the errors of the US and just ointing out how "justice" is always done.

To read the whole story go to bbc.co.uk

77 Million Paintings

Brian Eno discusses 77 Million Paintings, which sees the continued evolution of his exploration into light as an artist’s medium and the aesthetic possibilities of “generative software.”

77 Million Enos

Some weeks ago the exposition called 77 Million Paintings by Brian Eno closed at a museum we all know in Mexico City. I was there, sat there for, seriously, about two hours and contemplated the installations trying not to even blink!

The question I raise now is, Was It Art? I mean, Brian Eno is a British artist devoted to everything that can be linked to music… painting included. 77 mixed marvelously the ambient sounds created by Eno ex profeso for the presentation with the outstanding images full of colour and life that were appearing at regular intervals in front of all of us sitting inside the dark, very dark room without even realising the presence of the others.

The question I stated above is there because, despite how much I personally admire Eno and his music, it is difficult to me sometimes telling the artistic merit behind something created by computers. 77 was made up by a program designed by Eno himself, which randomly depicted a series of combinations of colour, shapes and shades he already decided in advance. The combinations could ad up to 77 million different depictions (therefore, the name of the exposition that has gone all over the world, and re-designed ad hoc for our country). Now, Eno’s ambient music is entirely made by computer, Eno’s paintings are entirely made by computer… is it still art?

Descartes

"In order to seek truth, it is necessary once in the course of our life, to doubt, as far as possible, of all things."

Edith Piaf - Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien

Is INCEPTION more than just a movie?

Dreams are always something attractive for two main reasons… first, they lack of any logic (anyway, it is not necessary whatsoever inside the world of the subconscious). Second, they are absolutely private no matter what. Or at least we want to think so. Inception deals with one of the oldest ideas in the history of mankind, reality. Is the world we see and feel actually the real thing?

Descartes thought centuries ago, that even though our senses report a vast amount of inputs, that is not enough because it is our senses (and their connection to the conscious mind) that always tend to deceive us one way or another, just remember the world-famous example of the “Wax”.It is, on one hand, dreams where we could be more “real” considering that according to psychology, they are the place where we actually free our mind, let our deepest thoughts roam our mind, be ourselves. On the other hand, dreams can keep us from that we normally call the real world, and even drive us mad.

To wonder what reality is, seems to be deeper than just asking if we are the body we see every morning in the mirror. Inception makes some of those questions in a very cinematographic (and effective) form.

Impossible objects like the ones created by Escher in his paintings or the Penrose chairs are real in our dreams. The laws of nature are all broken in a very “natural” and simple way, but Einstein and his e=mc2 had already proved that in the physic world (and not only in dreams) the most unbelievable things were actually possible (like the possibility of two objects occupying the same physical space at the same time). A true paradox!

Finally, dreams, as I said earlier, seem to be the most private thing a man can think of. But what would happen if, just like in the movie, dreams could be invaded by others, shared and controlled? The creepy thing in all this matter is that it is not just an issue of science fiction, but a (soon to be born) reality in research at universities all over the USA. The idea of creating artificial intelligence as well as devices that could change come of the settings of our minds forever are things we should worry about. In ethical terms, is it OK to think of the possibility of accessing other people’s deepest thoughts?

If you remember the movie clearly, here are some possible readings of the movie that increase the paradox immensely. Consider them and reflect on them as well:

READING 1: Saito hired Cobb and co. to plant an idea in Fischer’s mind. They succeed, and in the end Cobb really does go home to his kids.

READING 2: Saito hired Cobb and co. to plant an idea in Fischer’s mind, but the ending—everything from the moment Cobb “wakes up” on the plane until the credits roll—is just a dream.

READING 3: Cobb is actually the subject of the inception. At least some—maybe all—of the “real world” scenes are actually dreams.

READING 4: Everything we see is a product of Cobb’s subconscious.

All the levels identified in the movie, make up a series of paradoxical realities that contradict each other but, in the end there is just one thing common to all of them, that is, the token each character holds, that keeps them from being mental, or getting lost. Is there anything in our daily life that actually functions as a token? We need, I reckon something, whatever it is, in our lives that reminds us of who we are all along the way… because how can I know I am the same person I was five minutes or five years ago if I look totally (or considerably) different? What does my singularity and continuity depend on?