blog

The Thomas Farm Project

Matt — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:49:15 +0000

Just a heads-up: I am participating in an agricultural living “experiment” with two friends of ours and we just launched a new site dedicated to the year-long venture: thomasfarmproject.com. We plan to post blog entries (more frequently than I do here) and photos as we explore “sustainable” “intensive” “gardening.” (Please overlook the site’s default styling—we’re working on it.)

Check it out!

—m

Don’t Bother Replacing Office

Matt — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:00:14 +0000

Recently Mark Gimein wrote in his blog that Microsoft Office doesn’t have any real competition because its closest competitor, OpenOffice.org (OO), is free, but mediocre. According to him, because the latter suite is mediocre, few would use it to replace the Old MS Standby, and because it is free, no one can be expected to develop and subsequently sell an alternative office suite for anything more than nothing.

He makes some excellent points. For one, I think he’s right in saying that OpenOffice.org is in many ways a clone of MS Office pre-2007. Of course, this isn’t entirely true, but it appears that the purpose of OO and its predecessor, StarOffice, was to duplicate Office functionality for a lower price. Unfortunately, while Office underwent a pretty significant and, in my opinion, positive overhaul with its 2007 version, OO seems mired in the past, particularly in terms of its interface — functionality buried behind a dizzying array of menus, submenus, dialog boxes and property sheets. Gimein believes that the OO community has settled for “good enough” software since its price tag is $0. Furthermore, we shouldn’t expect anyone else in the open source community to produce anything superior in the non-sexy realm of office productivity software. I hope, to a degree, he’s right.

I don’t think anyone should bother replacing Microsoft Office in its current form. That is, a large office software suite with a plethora of features, most of them of acceptable quality, but none of them particularly amazing. Instead, I’d rather see the free software community develop modular, more specific tools that work together happily via open standards. The idea is old. Individual software programs should fulfill a particular niche within a larger procedural pipeline, not consist of the entire pipeline in themselves. People in the Linux/Unix world seem to get this. Why use Word for everything including word processing, HTML and image editing, desktop publishing, writing theses and dissertations (with references!), creating forms for users to fill-in, and sharing documents for viewing when each of these tasks really needs its own, dedicated system to do the job well?

I’m guessing my argument is moot anyway. The future of office software is not primarily on the desktop, but likely in the cloud (a whole other topic altogether). Like Google Docs, they’re likely to be a bit more streamlined than the Office we’re used to. In the meantime, do yourself a favor and learn about more focused systems that replace bits of Office functionality — text editors (other than Notepad), image editors, desktop publishing systems (even for academic posters!), HTML editors, database systems, diagramming tools, and so on. (Take note, there are free systems [other than OO] in all of these categories.)

For my own sake, I can’t go without griping about a couple of Gimein’s assertions:

Don’t confuse the so-called open source movement with the free software movement. Richard Stallman is more concerned with ethical issues regarding our liberty and freedom with software than about production processes and quality; those latter issues are promoted more by the Open Source Initiative, which is trying to appeal to the business world.
OO’s benefits go beyond the free price; the author neglected to mention that it natively supports the OpenDocument format, preventing users from vendor lock-in.

Bemoaning the Decline of Print

Matt — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 14:34:44 +0000

This morning I stumbled upon a blog entry titled Rebooting the Book (One Apple iPad Tablet at a Time) by Mark Sigal. In the article, Sigal dreams of the new possibilities of when digital readers and other multimedia devices completely replace the printed book, in particular when Apple gets involved in the e-book reader business. (I personally don’t know anything about Apple’s e-book projects, but it’s really beside the point.)

This article is another example of dramatic, high-tech speculation in which possibilities in the future world astound us, and those who hold on to present or past ways are cast aside in irrelevance. In this case, it’s the bibliophiles who are desperately (and apparently, naively) holding on to the printed word; if only they would open their eyes to the inevitable developments — “books” with internet connections, interactive features, simulations, video immersion, and built-in social networking — they would see the light too! So the other author pleads.

For better or worse, I don’t quite consider myself a bibliophile. I like reading, but I tend to get distracted and forget about the two or three books I’m trying to engage. However, I, like some bibliophiles, am really hesitant to fully embrace the e-book reader trend, or the multi-media remaking of the book. My primary concerns are in the form of questions. First, there are the copyright issues. How will future e-books be distributed, who will have the rights to read them, and will I be able to give a copy to my friend when I am done (something I can do now with physical books, at no risk to my legal self)? Will e-books make me more or less dependent on energy companies, telecoms, and technology companies? Will they help the small publisher, or more greatly benefit the large media outlets (e.g., Amazon, Apple, etc)?

These last concerns are particularly directed at Sigal’s speculations about the new possibilities for multimedia in learning. Will future forms of what are now printed genres help me better reason about the world? Will simulations and immersive digital environments help me to better develop, communicate, and defend my ideas? Will they help me think and speak coherently? I for one have a really hard time reading a long wikipedia article without getting completely distracted with links redirecting me and my thought processes to other articles or other places on the web.

I like new things. They’re fun and exciting. I also understand that communication media change and will continue to change. (Personal case in point: I’m writing a blog.) However, don’t give up on print just yet. Don’t give up on that which is non-interactive. Don’t give up on the linear construction of ideas. And please, don’t just assume that if Apple is coming out with a new technology that the best thing to do with it is to push it into our schools.

Update (1 October 2009): I just read an article regarding these new kinds of media and some and those who are suspicious.

“Sizing Up Sustainable Food”

Matt — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:19:28 +0000

On a semi-recent edition of NPR’s Talk of the Nation, host Ira Flatow interviewed three individuals regarding the local food movement—James McWilliams, Michael Pollan, and Brian Halweil. While Flatow tried to structure the debate with the interviewees in opposition to one another, they had little to disagree about. Instead, this interview turns out to be a nice overview of the broadness of the so-called locavores’ arguments regarding food production. It’s more than simply reducing your “carbon footprint”; they promote thinking about where your food comes from in terms of energy use, community connection and development, economics, health, and creating a decentralized, stable food system. Also, Pollan et al. argue that it’s important to put an end to the strict dichotomy between what is known as conventional farming and organic farming. To its own benefit, the former can easily integrate some of the practices of the organic community, while the latter can be easily co-opted by large agri-businesses, reducing its benefits, particularly in terms of energy use. (I recommend listening to the interview over lunch.)

Moreover, this interview is a fine response to one previously aired, in which Charlotte Allen vents her frustration with what she feels is an impossible and condescending call to eat locally. However, she doesn’t offer very strong arguments for her position during the interview outside of a desire to be able to eat whatever she wants, cheaply, and ignores the broader costs of food production.

On a related note, in a more recent interview on NPR’s All Things Considered, Pollan discusses the national diet and the food industry in relation to the health care debate. His primary argument is that while the federal government is trying to cut health care costs, it is also fueling the fire by heavily subsidizing the crops that find their way into our junk food—in particular, corn syrup.

This topic verges on a conversation I’ve been hoping we could have for a while now. Unfortunately, discussion about how to build healthy lifestyles has been shadowed by the conversation about how to mend health problems. Health reform (as opposed to simply health care reform), should include a thorough examination of our food and our food sources.

Review: Web Style Guide

Matt — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:54:56 +0000

I recently read the Web Style Guide (3rd ed.) by Patrick J. Lynch and Sarah Horton. This book struck me as a mature, down-to-earth, and useful guide to designing for the web. The authors intelligently address the web development process, information design, page structure, layout and typography. They avoid gimmicky trends and focus on approach as opposed to rushing into new technologies; it’s not a how-to guide or a book about any particular web system or language. Instead, the authors elaborate on emerging standards and conventions the web community has developed over the past two decades.

I was particularly impressed by Lynch and Horton’s commitment to universal usability, that is, designing to support all users, including those not typically supported such as the visually-impaired. As a result, they rightly emphasize the semantic nature of HTML. For example, instead of creating your headings with a styled

tag, use the appropriate tag and style as necessary. (This prompted me to re-familiarize myself with some of the underused features of HTML, including for abbreviations, for in-document citations,

for addresses, and

,: for lists of terms and definitions.) By using these tags instead of styled
or
tags, you can provide hints to screen readers and search engines about how to render or interpret your web content.

The Web Style Guide is generally helpful, easy to read, and well-written. (I recommend it if you plan to re-design your own website.) If you don’t feel like purchasing the text or simply want to sample some of the content, you can access the full text online.

m

ps: unfortunately, reading this book made me realize that I have a lot of work to do to improve this site. Don’t judge me by the authors’ standards just yet!

Ben’s Solar Cooker

Matt — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:08:13 +0000

In a recent trip to Boise, Idaho, I had the chance to check out my father-in-law’s new solar cooker. He built it for a small competition at work, making it from scratch and hand-cutting 140 pieces from two mirrors to create a parabolic reflector. In the Boise sun, the cooker can be really effective. It’s reportedly able to heat food up to almost 360 °F! I’ve posted some pictures of us using the device to cook eggs, hot dogs and marshmallows.

If you’re interested in building one of your own, you may want to visit the Solar Cooking Archive.

Enjoy!

Vertical Farms?

Matt — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:59:32 +0000

I recently read “A Farm on Every Floor,” an opinion piece in the NY Times by Dickson Despommier. In the letter, the author attempts to make the case for what he calls urban “vertical farms.” The idea is that we’re running out of farmable land, farmer-applied chemicals are rendering our soil unusable, and the world population is booming so we need a new, soil-less way to farm. In particular, he suggests we can build these vertical farms in buildings in the middle of large cities.

Having a read a few things about growing food (e.g., Wendell Berry, Michael Pollan, Barbara Kingsolver (in progress), etc.), I’m really skeptical. In particular, the author mentions growing plants not in soil, but in “nutrient solutions.” Is it just in my head, or do significant nutritional and developmental benefits come from the subtleties of a cultured soil, developed over a long time of care and processes of recycling biomass? I believe this is one of Pollan’s arguments in In Defense of Food. I am familiar with the notion of hydroponic farming, but do we really know enough about the complex nutrient balance in soils and plants to fully simulate good topsoil?

Despommier says that vertical farming will also “finally put an end to agricultural runoff.” From what I understand, this polluting runoff is actually due to poor farming techniques in land unsuitable for row cropping. Furthermore, he suggests these farms should be run by “private sources, including groups controlling venture-capital funds.” Haven’t we suffered enough from handing over our food sources to corporations fed by disconnected shareholders? This funding model may be appropriate for Google, GE, and Ford, but not for food, again.

For the time being, I’d much rather see more urban buildings adopt rooftop gardens.

Fences

Matt — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:18:37 +0000

In response to a growing number of attacks by local wildlife (i.e., rabbits), Whitney and I constructed fences around the most important vegetable patches in the garden. (In particular, the bunnies were devouring innocent green beans we planted two weeks ago.)

While we went into the project rather blindly, with some help from various unreliable sources on the web, I think it turned out quite nicely. We used chicken wire with one-inch openings and secured it to 36-inch stakes. For the patch on the ground, we used fencing 36 inches wide, and buried it about 6 inches into the ground, folding it outward a few inches to prevent the rabbits from burrowing. Because we didn’t have to worry about burrowing under the beds, we were able to use shorter fencing (24 inches wide) and stapled it the base of the beds, using a few stakes to add stability.

So far there’s no evidence that any hungry mammals (other than us) have been able to get into the fenced-off areas. We hope it stays that way—if only we had done this a week ago!

I’ve uploaded a set of photos of this experiment for your viewing pleasure.

A Little Harvest

Matt — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 01:08:40 +0000

Over this past weekend, we took the opportunity to visit nearby Chiles Peach Orchard (we were especially lured by advertised locally-made ice cream). We had a fantastic time. Contrary to our expectations, it only took us a few minutes to find enough fruit to last us the rest of the week. (Hence, our bug spray, water bottles, and long sleeves and pants weren’t really necessary.) I have a feeling that we’ll be heading back as picking season continues. Whitney plans to make peach pie the next time around. (I’ve posted a couple peach picking photos in the gallery).

If the peaches weren’t local enough, yesterday I was able to pick a few things from our own garden. Sadly, I think this is the first time I’ve ever picked something from the garden for my own consumption. I’ve been hoping for some time to re-orient my relationship with food and the land on which it’s grown, so this was quite a treat (if only a meager one).

We’ve had some critter problems and the yield won’t be amazing this year, but I’ll try to note future “harvests” as they occur.

To the Farm

Matt — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:11:31 +0000

As Whitney and I tie up a few loose ends in Blacksburg, we are preparing for our move to a farm in central Virginia owned by the family of friends of ours. In the coming months I’ll be writing more about this move and the developing plans for our time there. Needless to say our adventure will mark a rather dramatic change in our surroundings and day-to-day activities, and will provide (potentially) countless learning opportunities.

Earlier in June we had a chance to get away and visit the farm, start (late) planting in the garden, and learn a thing or two about the workings of the property. I’ve created a small photo collection* from our visit. Enjoy.

*I’m hoping to make photo collections a sizable portion of this blog’s entries; bear with me as I work out the kinks in the photo management system. (Thanks to AJ for pointing me in the direction of Gallery.)