efeefe

A thread em que conversávamos sobre infra-estrutura e a liberdade de projetos.

... o que é mesmo que estamos fazendo agora?

 Onde está nossa conversa agora?
 Como o xemele nos organizou?
 O que andamos fazendo em nossos projetos e qual a convergência dessas ações?

 Sinto ressoar os tambores da caordem...

leia mais

(author unknown)09545710128983789620

O Seminário Internacional do Fórum da Cultura Digital teve como resultado uma carta dirigida ao Ministro da Cultura, Juca Ferreira, e à sociedade civil como um todo. Conheça o documento lido na cerimônia de encerramento do evento, que aconteceu de 18 a 21 de novembro, na Cinemateca Brasileira, em São Paulo:

São Paulo, 21 de novembro de 2009

Carta da Cultura Digital Brasileira

a @dpadua, in memorian

Há muito esperava-se por este momento. Um grande encontro, voltado ao debate e à formulação de políticas públicas de cultura digital. Ele aconteceu. Foi breve e intenso.

Durante quatro dias, realizadores e pensadores da cultura contemporânea brasileira construíram uma zona autônoma livre na Cinemateca Brasileira.

Aqui, em São Paulo, virtualidades atualizaram-se em reuniões, rodas de conversas, seminários e shows. Encontros face a face que persistirão por meio de redes já constituídas e outras a constituir. Projetos, muitos projetos, surgiram de forma espontânea e colaborativa.

Diferentemente de outros fóruns, este não se pretende conclusivo. Tudo o que aqui se fez integra um processo, dinâmico, de formulação e criação. Esse processo prossegue. Não pode parar.

Esta carta, portanto, é apenas expressão do que se produziu nestes dias, com base em um prévio trabalho de articulação de quatro meses, realizado por meio da plataforma www.culturadigital.br – o primeiro site de redes sociais criado no Brasil para a construção de políticas públicas. É uma fotografia deste cenário. Nem menos nem mais.

A conjuntura é estimulante.

Três elementos compõem essa avaliação. 1. O programa de banda larga, encomendado ao conjunto do governo pelo presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva; 2. A nova lei de direitos autorais; 3. O projeto de marco civil da internet, proposto pelo Ministério da Justiça em parceria com a Fundação Getúlio Vargas.

Em relação ao programa de banda larga, é preciso garantir que a dimensão da educação, da cultura e do conhecimento estejam no centro dos debates, e não em posição periférica. Somos nós, pensadores e realizadores da cultura digital (potencialmente todos os cidadãos) que precisamos dessa banda para fazer fluir os fluxos criativos, econômicos e sociais.

O acesso à banda larga deve ser considerado um direito fundamental dos cidadãos e cidadãs, imputando ao Estado o dever de formular e implementar políticas para garantir o acesso universal – independente das condições socioeconômicas e da localização geográfica.

Considerando a necessidade de universalizar o acesso à Internet, o serviço de banda larga deve ser considerado um serviço público essencial, assim como os serviços de energia elétrica, telefonia fixa e água/saneamento básico, para que o Estado brasileiro possa melhor acompanhar a sua prestação, impondo metas de universalização, de continuidade e dos preços e tarifas praticados pelo mercado;

Sobre a lei de direitos autorais, é preciso que ela incorpore os direitos dos usuários e criadores digitais e tenha como princípio a ampliação do acesso à cultura por meio da rede mundial de computadores – um instrumento importante de democracia.

Antes de avançar, algumas considerações sobre a continuidade deste processo.

É preciso que o Ministério da Cultura garanta o Fórum da Cultura Digital Brasileira como um ambiente de formulação permanente de políticas públicas, constituindo assim um novo modelo institucional de governança baseado na interlocução permanente entre governo, estado e sociedade.

Nos próximos dias, submeteremos aos participantes da plataforma um proposta de organização dessa nova institucionalidade e pretendemos construir uma agenda com a Secretaria de Políticas Culturais do Ministério da Cultura para garantir essa institucionalidade.

Também é fundamental que o ministério efetive sua entrada no programa interministerial de manutenção da Rede Nacional de Ensino e Pesquisa (RNP), constituindo dentro dessa instituição pioneira um programa de cultura digital em interface com a academia, a sociedade civil e o mercado de inovação;

Temos muito a propor.

Nestes dias, realizamos encontros setoriais de arte digital, comunicação digital, economia da cultura digital, infraestrutura para a cultura digital e memória digital. Para cada um desses eixos, designamos um curador, que produziu, em colaboração com participantes da rede social CulturaDigital.BR, um documento com a delimitação do campo em debate, um diagnóstico e propostas políticas e de políticas.

Esses documentos, extensos, foram submetidos à análise dos participantes deste seminário, em plenárias abertas. Agora, esse material será devolvido à rede, para ser reavaliado e complementado pelos internautas, constituindo-se em matéria-prima para quem quer transformar a imaginação em ação. Deve servir ao Governo Federal, mas também a governos estaduais, municipais e às instituições culturais da sociedade civil e do mercado.

Esses documentos estarão acessíveis na rede social nos próximos dias.

Por fim, é preciso dizer que, mais importante que as redes são as pontas dessa rede, onde os seres vivem e realizam suas existências.

Este fórum é dedicado ao amigo, companheiro e construtor de imaginários Daniel Pádua, que partiu na manhã do dia 20 de novembro, dia de Zumbi e da Cultura Digital Brasileira.

Vídeo: Claudio Prado lê a carta para o Ministro da Cultura e demais participantes da cerimônia de encerramento

O Espaço Matilha Cultural realiza o evento Copenhaguem é aqui! com palestras, debates, exposições de arte/fotografia e cinema sobre as questões ambientais mais inquietantes da atualidade.

leia mais

(author unknown)

El Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente tiene en su web una estupenda colección de posters e infografías que explican temas como el consumo eléctrico, la explotación de los mares o la generación de dióxido de carbono en todo el mundo. Con versiones en PDF para imprimir y enmarcar. Es que yo soy mucho de posters. Aquí el dedicado a los residuos peligrosos, hac clic para verlo más grande:

olá,

na quinta-feira(20) rolou o workshop do Navalha, projeto de glerm que é um objeto para edição não linear de samples no pure-data. Apesar das poucas pessoas, quem estava lá, prestaram bem atenção nas infinitas possibilidades de interações com outros objetos e instrumentos. Um grande problema é que não tem como fazer um workshop de 2 horas pra falar de um projeto de mais de anos de estudo, fica impraticável mostrar tudo do jeito que merece ser mostrado. A solução pra isso é fazer imersões longas, 1 mês, 2 mêses…

ontem rolou a apresentação do MSST - Movimento dos Sem Satélite - aqui no Piksel Festival. a performance aconteceu no meio do Tarnsalen, um salão dentro do BergenKunstMuseum. Montamos uma mesa-estilo-hacklab, cheio de instrumentos diy, patches, circuit bending, cameras, microfones… com aquele velho desapego estético de palco e de showroom.

Um dia antes da performance, estávamos planejando o que fazer pra que esse momento fluisse da mesma forma como fluem nossas práticas e entendimento sobre toda essa tecnocracia. Glerm e Luca encontraram uma palavra pra resumi o sentimento disso: ENOUGH! CHEGA! BASTA!

a performance começou com uma transmissão de rádio de comandos do shell, depois continuou com uma leitura em 4 linguas do manifesto acompanhadas por instrumentos diy que tocavam sinteses analógicas de baixo, informações de cpu, da rede, osciladores e phasers. Além disso, várias pessoas participaram remotamente da performance pelo canal #msst no irc.freenode.org. uma projeção direta do canal do IRC para todos verem que não era só a gente que estava alí, que tinha um bando em volta. A performance não tinha nenhum efeito visual pós-moderno, tinha muito feeling dentro de cada passo, de cada grito, de cada noise, de cada mensagem.

a performance do msst aqui no piksel também foi uma homenagem ao grande dpádua, hacker e sem satélite que nos deixou um legado importante nessa nossa marcha.

baixe aqui o vídeo da performance. valeu a valentina e lucia do giss.tv pela edição.

logo mais escrevo sobre as outras performances que vi por aqui,

ví algumas coisas bem massa.

té mais.

Dizem que os mitos são feitos por estórias ou histórias que alguém contou, imaginou ou escreveu. Mas, existem mitos que demoram certo tempo para serem documentados. Alguns outros nunca serão.

Então, resta andar nas rodas gigantes luminosas, nadar no mar em dias de chuva nublados, e cantar para instigar o silêncio sereno, de tudo aquilo que pulsa no momento como um anagrama secreto da alma que um dia foi intensamente codado.


"Drink me, make me feel real
Wet your beak in the stream
Game we're playing is life
Love is a two way dream"
@Bjork



"Words like violence, break the silence
Come crashing in, into my little world
Painful to me, pierce right through me
Can't you understand, oh my little girl

All I ever wanted, All I ever needed
Is here in my arms, words are very
Unnecessary, they can only do harm

Vows are spoken, to be broken
Feelings are intense, words are trivial
Pleasures remain, so does the pain
Words are meaningless, and forgettable

All I ever wanted, all I ever needed
Is here in my arms, words are very
Unnecessary, they can only do harm


Enjoy the silence..."

Martin Gore @ Depeche Modenoreply@blogger.com (Maira Begalli)09545710128983789620

“tecnologia é mato, o importante são as pessoas”
frase do amigo, blogueiro, pirata, metarecicleiro,
Daniel Padua que nos deixou hoje..
triste.. mas sua alegria so nos fez pensar na frase:
“hoje o ‘ceu’ esta em festa!” com ctz! sua alegria
era contagiante e inesquecivel!

Ta dificil expressar essa falta. Galera dos tambores
de aço e mts amigos fazendo homenagem hj no forum
de cultura digital em sampa

Suas idéias de “imaginários livres” estarão sempre presentes
http://imaginarios.net/dpadua/

http://ow.ly/E5wB

Tagged: dpadua, imaginarios

[Este Alfarrábio ficou completamente abandonado nas últimas semanas. Foi, talvez, por algum apagão particular meu aqui, que deixei que o domínio expirasse – mas, por culpa do copoanheiro Adauto, que assumiu a parte burrocrática da coisa, eis que voltamos à ativa. Um retorno doloroso pelas circunstâncias, mas que exige nossa modesta homenagem a um grande Camarada:]

Imagens, lembranças, sensações se mesclam enquanto ainda tento absorver a notícia de que o DPádua partiu pra batucar o maracatu do Seu Estrelo em outras paragens. Ficamos sem a companhia -- física -- de um grande amigo imaginante, pirata nômade, espírito compartilhante e livre. Posso assegurar que, muito mais do que um ativista, era um praticante apaixonado da filosofia open source, de compartilhamento do conhecimento. E, sim, como o próprio diria, era um cara *buuunito, e cocrante*. Deixo o relato do outro Daniel, o Duende, que exprime da melhor maneira o que eu poderia dizer nesse momento.Daniel Padua, o narigão, o sapão, o anatólio, o imaginante, o sátiro pulapulante, o barbudo, o meu melhor amigo, meu irmão nesta vida, e discretamente um de meus heróis...

É tão difícil falar neste momento. É difícil, não só pelo sentimento vazio da partida. É difícil porque meu querido amigo sabia muito bem como gostava que falassem dele. E eu tenho certeza de que ele iria ficar uma arara comigo se eu fizesse um testemunho sofrido, circunspecto e triste. Então, com todo o meu profundo respeito pela minha dor e pela dor de todos os meus amigos... amigos queridos dele também... eu vou me limitar a dizer umas poucas frases do jeito que ele gostava.

Meu amigo sempre gostou de dizer que era ficção para nossos sentidos. Eu sempre impliquei com a palavra ficção na frase dele. Sempre achei que a gente precisava de uma palavra muito maior para descrever o que éramos um para o outro, uns para os outros, todos nós do bando. E um dia nós achamos esta palavra. Nós somos mitos para/nas narrativas-vida uns dos outros.

DPadua era, além de tudo mais que eu já disse no início deste desajeitado email, um de meus mitos maiores. Sua existência alterava meu universo imaginário... o de todos nós... de uma maneira por vezes difícil de medir ou explicar. Ele simplesmente transformou tudo aquilo que tocou. De barba em riste e sorriso grande aberto, meu amigo DPadua mudou todas as nossas vidas e todas as nossas histórias: para alguns de seu jeitinho discreto, de mineirinho de Vila Velha, para outros trazendo mudanças gigantescas e inexprimíveis.

DPadua é hoje parte de todos nós. E me aconchega o coração saber que hoje ele descansa, livre das dores da convalescência e do aperto no peito de sentir a inevitável dor de seus amados. Descansa, e repousa dentro de todos nós -- nós que nos tornamos todos um pouquinho DPadua depois que ele passou por nossas vidas. Em nós, ele vive enquanto vivermos. E espero que o DPadua dentro de todos vocês possa novamente cantar e dançar em breve.

Eu posso dizer que eu conheci o cara. E se posso dizer mais uma coisinha, digo esta:
Se querem homenagear o cara, festejem a vida que ele trouxe. Não se concentrem em sua partida. Como nômade que era, DPadua cedo ou tarde sempre partia em busca de novas viagens. Longa vida à vida IMAGINANTE e AMOROSA que ele nos trouxe.

E até mais, meu amigo.
A gente se vê nas ilhas imaginárias.

"tecnologia é mato, o importante são as pessoas" – Daniel Pádua

Como diria o Rosa, *as pessoas não morrem, ficam encantadas*. O Sapolino se encantou.(author unknown)136066750931507755461582493577246940629909545710128983789620

Descanse em paz grande irmão …  Você me fez de várias formas uma pessoa muito melhor, te devo pra sempre.

Mais sobre o assunto...

Noitada nerd

Instalando o gentoo, agora em texto :)

leia mais

(author unknown)09545710128983789620

Onde você estiver, esta é uma pequena lembrança dos seus eternos amigos imaginários, valeu por tudo DPadua........

leia mais

(author unknown)09545710128983789620

 

leia mais

(author unknown)09545710128983789620

I was trying to think of something coherent to say about the Digital Economy Bill published this week, but I'm too damned angry right now.

I'm a self-employed media professional working in the entertainment industry, who earns his living by creating intellectual property and licensing it to publishers. You might think I'd be one of the beneficiaries of this proposed law: but you'd be dead wrong. This is going to cripple the long tail of the creative sector — it plays entirely to the interests of large corporate media organizations and shits on the plate of us ordinary working artists.

Want to write a casual game for the iPhone and sell it for 99 pence? Good luck with that — first you'll have to cough up £50,000 to get it certified as child-friendly by the BBFC. (It's not clear whether this applies to Open Source games projects, but I'm not optimistic that it doesn't.)

Want to publish a piece of shareware over BitTorrent? You're fucked, mate: all it takes is a malicious accusation and your ISP (who are required to snitch on p2p users on pain of heavy fines) will be ordered to cut off the internet connection to you and everyone else in your household. (A really draconian punishment in an age where it's increasingly normal to conduct business correspondence via email and to manage bank accounts and gas or electricity bills or tax returns via the web.) Oh, you don't get the right to confront your accuser in court, either: this is merely an administrative process, no lawyers involved. It's unlikely that p2p access will survive this bill in any form — even for innocent purposes (distributing Linux .iso images, for example).

I've had problems in the past with idiots at Elsevier issuing DMCA takedown notices against legitimately-posted copies of Accelerando, on the basis of a web search conducted by spider. If this bill goes through, it's going to make it difficult for me to distribute fiction for free (encouraging readers to try my work); I don't want to see folks having their connectivity axed just because a filename they downloaded matches something with an ISBN in Amazon's database.

This bill isn't about securing our creative industries. It's about fucking the little guys, depriving them of channels to reach their public, and about protecting the cartel of big media organizations who are threatened by the development of the public internet. And it stinks from the head down.

I don't like to do incandescent anger (I have blood pressure issues). So I don't usually focus on issues like this on my blog (you want me to live long enough to finish the current book before I stroke out, right?). So I'm going to hand you over to Cory Doctorow, who has the goods, and to the Open Rights Group, who need your support.

That's all for now.

UPDATE: There's a petition on the Number 10 Downing Street website, "to abolish the proposed law that will see alleged illegal filesharers disconnected from their broadband connections, without a fair trial". If you live in the UK, I strongly urge you to sign it. While these petitions are in no way binding, large sign-ups send a warning sign to the government and have, in the past, provoked a re-think on controversial legislation. And this is especially likely in the run-up to a general election (which must be held within the next six months).

Apresentação Fórum de Cultura Digital - Acervo digital e Mídia

leia mais

(author unknown)

Increasing the share of renewable energy will not make us any less dependent on fossil fuels as long as total energy consumption keeps rising. Renewable energy sources do not replace coal, oil or gas plants, they only meet (part of) the growing demand. The solution is simple: set an absolute limit to total energy production. Why should we not be able to cope in 2030 with the amount of energy we consume today?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In spite of the impressive development of wind power, Spain is now 3 times more dependent on fossil fuels for electricity generation than a decade ago

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regardless of the growing share of renewable energy sources, we burn up more and more fossil fuels every year. This is the case in the US, in Europe and on a global scale, but to make my point I will start by analysing the situation in Spain and in the Netherlands, because both countries are regarded to be an example for their commitment to renewable energy. Moreover, the Netherlands have a negligible share of nuclear energy and hydropower (green according to some, not green according to others), while in Spain these energy sources have remained unchanged over the last decade, which makes the calculations more clear.

Share of renewables

Last week, Spain made headlines around the world with the news that it generated over 53 percent of its electricity by wind power alone, be it during an extremely windy night and only for some hours. There is no denying that the development of wind power in Spain is impressive. Electricity generated by wind power grew with 8,000 percent between 1996 and 2007, from 338 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in 1996 to 27,509 GWh in 2007. With it, the share of wind power in electricity production grew from 0.2 to 9 percent (source). In the Netherlands, the amount of "green" electricity increased by 400 percent between 1998 and 2008, from 2,300 GWh  to 9,500 GWh. With it, the share of renewable energy (mostly biomass and wind) in electricity production grew from 2.5 percent to 9 percent (source).

This sounds great, especially when you compare it to the situation in the United States, where the share of renewable energy in electricity production (excluding hydropower*) rose from 1.4 percent to 2.3 percent during the same period (1998-2008, source). Or, on a global scale, where the share of renewables rose from 1.12 percent in 1990 to 2.3 percent in 2006. Yet, just like the Americans and the rest of the world, the Spanish and the Dutch are now more dependent on fossil fuels than a decade ago, not less.

Total electricity production

The reason is, of course, that the total electricity production in both countries kept rising. In Spain, it went up from 174,246 GWh in 1996 to 303,293 GWh in 2007 (a rise of almost 80 percent in 11 years). The share of fossil fuels in electricity generation grew from 38 percent in 1996 to 59 percent in 2007, while the absolute amount of fossil fuels used for electricity generation grew from 67,651 GWh to 179,737 GWh (source). So, from 1996 to 2007 the amount of wind powered electricity in Spain grew with 27,171 GWh (around 30,000 GWh if you include the use of solar and biomass), and the amount of fossil fuel powered electricity grew with 112,086 GWh. Now please explain to me, what is so "green" and exciting about this trend?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Spanish would have obtained the same results if they would not have built one wind turbine, but had chosen to limit the rise of energy consumption to 85 TWh instead of the recorded 112 TWh

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You could argue that Spain went through an economic boom during the last decade, and that it was merely catching up with the rest of Europe. This is why it is interesting to look at the Netherlands, too, a mature economy. Dutch electricity production rose less spectacularly, from 92,000 GWh in 1998 to 105,000 GWh in 2008 (a rise of 14 percent in 10 years). The share of fossil fuels in electricity production in the Netherlands even dropped from 90 to 85 percent, but here also the absolute amount of fossil fuel generated electricity grew from 83,000 GWh in 1998 to almost 90,000 GWh in 2008 (source). Thus, from 1998 to 2008 the amount of "green" electricity in the Netherlands grew with 7,200 GWh, while the amount of "non-green" electricity grew with 7,000 GWh. So today, the Dutch are more dependent on fossil fuels for electricity generation than they were in 1998.

Avoided emissions

Of course, things could have been even worse: that is why policymakers and statisticians prefer to talk about "avoided use of fossil energy" and  "avoided CO2-emissions". The reasoning goes as follows: if we would not have built those wind turbines and solar panels, then we would have burnt up even more fossil fuels. But, who are we fooling here? 

The Spanish would have "avoided" the same amount of emissions and fossil energy if they would have built not one wind turbine between 1996 and 2007, but had chosen to limit the rise of energy consumption to 84,915 GWh, instead of the recorded 112,086 GWh. If they would have done that, they would have been just as dependent on fossil fuels as they are today, and they would have emitted the same amount of greenhouse gases as they do today - all this without those 27,171 GWh of wind powered electricity. They would not have made headlines with it, though. Nobody would have noticed.

The same goes for the Dutch: they would have "avoided" the same amount of emissions and fossil energy if they would have limited the rise of energy consumption to 7,000 GWh, instead of the recorded 14,000 GWh.

Embodied energy

In fact, this low-tech scenario would have been a more ecological and energy-efficient choice, because both countries would have saved the energy required to produce those renewable energy plants and sources - solar panels, wind turbines and wood pellets. Green electricity is not generated by a "clean" energy source, but by a "cleaner" energy source. Solar panels, wind turbines and wood pellets do not use gas or coal during their operation, but they do require energy for their production (and since they are mostly produced far away from the place where they are used these figures do not show up in national statistics of energy consumption).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The embodied energy of wind turbines and solar panels is not a problem if they replace non-renewable energy plants. However, this is not the case. We are piling up energy sources.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mind you: the embodied energy of wind turbines (and solar panels) is not a problem if they replace non-renewable energy plants, because in that case we do save energy and thus make progress. But, this is not the case, so the embodied energy of this added electricity generation capacity is definitely extra energy use.

We do too much

This does not mean that coal plants are preferable to wind turbines and solar panels. In fact, if the Dutch had built the (7,200 GWh) renewable energy plants and not built the (7,000 GWh) non-renewable energy plants, the result would have been real progress. Likewise, if they would have frozen energy consumption at the 1998 level and built nothing - renewable nor non-renewable energy plants - again there would have been substantial progress. They would be less dependent on fossil fuels and they would produce less CO2 and air pollution.

The problem is that they did not do any of this. Or, better said, they did everything at the same time; constructing more renewable energy plants, constructing more non-renewable energy plants, and consuming more energy.

Piling up energy sources

Again, this trend is not limited to Spain and to the Netherlands (see these figures), and what is happening is not a new phenomenon either. What we are doing for more than 100 years now, is piling up energy sources. Today (in the Netherlands, Spain, the US and worldwide) the absolute amount of coal consumed for electricity production is much larger than one century ago, when there was no talk of gas, oil and nuclear. The dirty coal of the beginning of the industrial revolution was not replaced by cleaner gas plants. The gas plants joined the coal plants.

Next, nuclear plants did not replace the existing coal and gas plants, they joined them. Today, with renewable energy, the same thing is happening. They address an energy demand that did not exist before. We use renewable energy sources to power an ever growing plethora of energy-sucking gadgets - and this will not get us anywhere.

Up until now, newer and cleaner energy sources have always been used to enlarge energy production, not to make it "greener" (see for instance the image on the left, depicting US energy consumption from 1845 to 2001, source).

The so-called greening of our electricity production, which generates so much talk, is still 100 percent wishful thinking. We are not one step further than 5, 10, 20 or even 100 years ago. On the contrary, things get worse every day.

Relative versus absolute figures

Much more important than what we do, is what we don't do. The key to progress is scaling down non-renewable energy production, or at least keeping it at the same level. Instead of aiming for the development of more renewable energy, policymakers should do anything in their power to make sure that not one more kilowatt of non-renewable energy is added. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All policy objectives are expressed in relative terms - a fruitless approach as long as total energy consumption is on the rise.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Problem is that all policy objectives are expressed in relative terms (as a percentage of total electricity production) and never as absolute figures. The European Union aims to generate 20 percent of total electricity production by wind energy and 15 percent by solar energy in 2020 (source). The US aims to generate 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025 (source). None of their reports describe any goal in absolute figures. This is a fruitless approach as long as total electricity consumption is on the rise.

United States

For instance, imagine that the US indeed realises the very ambitious goal of generating 25 percent of their electricity consumption by renewables, and let's assume it takes them 5 years longer as planned. According to the projections of the IEA, US electricity demand will grow by 26 percent (16 to 36 percent) from 2007 to 2030. This means that the 3,800,000 GWh of today will be 4,788,000 GWh by 2030. When everything goes to plan, about 1,244,880 GWh of that will then be renewable (that is 3 times the worldwide renewable electricity capacity today).

But, this is scarcely more than the 988,000 GWh of electricity demand that will be added during that period. So even if this ambitious goal would be realised, the US would still be as dependent on fossil fuels as it is today. Limiting electricity demand to current levels and not building any renewable electricity generating capacity would yield the same result. Limiting electricity demand to current levels and greening 25 percent of the existing electricity production would bring real progress.

Worldwide

The rise of renewable energy is of secondary importance. What matters is that the absolute amount of burned up fossil fuels lowers. Only then would we become less dependent on non-renewable energy sources and on foreign energy suppliers, and only then would we lower CO2-emissions.

On a global scale, the futility of the present approach is even more obvious. The total amount of renewable electricity worldwide (excluding hydro*) rose from 31,000 GWh in 1980 to 414,000 GWh in 2006 - a rise of 1,300 percent or an absolute increase of 383,000 gigawatt-hours.

Yet, the amount of electricity generated by coal and gas doubled in that same period, which comes down to an absolute increase of 6,355,900 GWh. So, we added around 20 times more non-renewable sources than renewable sources. Total global electricity production rose from 8,027,000 Gwh to 18,008,000 Gwh, a rise of 250 percent. If we look at total energy production instead of just electricity production, the preponderance of fossil fuels is even larger (see the image above, courtesy of Der Spiegel).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much more important than what we do, is what we don't do.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This trend does not seem to come to an end soon. Last week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) published its "World Energy Outlook 2009", which looks forward to 2030. According to the organisation, energy consumption will rise by 40 percent between now and 2030. This will happen in spite of the fact that global energy consumption decreased in 2009 owing to the economic crisis. The IEA expects electricity consumption to rise with another 76 percent in 2030, which equals a required capacity of 4,800 gigawatts - almost 5 times the present capacity in the United States.

Even if we succeed in building 4,800 gigawatts of renewable energy in the coming 20 years (something which is rather unrealistic), we would still not be one step further than we are today. What we have to deal with is that which is almost regarded as an unshakable natural law - the non-stop growth of energy use.

How to solve the energy crisis

Don't get me wrong: all efforts to build and develop renewable energy and energy efficient technology are useful and very necessary. My point is that, by themselves, they will not yield any results. To make them work, we need to put an absolute limit to energy use.

Imagine that the European Union or the US would decide that in 2020 we can only use as much energy (or electricity) as we do today. Interestingly, all other efforts suddenly make sense. If the share of renewable energy would rise, then the share of non-renewable energy would automatically fall. Energy efficient technology would be automatically transformed in energy savings, and not in extra applications or performance, as it happens now (the energy efficiency paradox).

In this scenario, with every small step forward in renewable energy production and energy efficient technology, we would become less and less dependent on fossil fuels, and we would emit less and less greenhouse gases. Moreover, it is hard to call this measure drastic or radical: if we can manage today with 18,008,000 Gwh, why not in 2030? What more energy-sucking gadgets do we need? By the way, we can keep developing new products and services as we please, we will only have to make sure that these are energy efficient. Considering the amount of energy that is now wasted by most products and services, there is lots of room for innovation, improvement, and thus economic growth.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we put an absolute limit to energy use, all other efforts (renewable energy sources, energy-efficient technology) suddenly make sense

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right now we try to match our energy production to an ever increasing demand. But, we could also try to match our demand to a fixed supply. Considering the circumstances, this would be a much more realistic and intelligent strategy. An even better strategy is the "oil depletion protocol", an idea of author Richard Heinberg. He proposes an international agreement to lower oil production and consumption each year with 2.6 percent. We can wait until the geological, economical or geopolitical reality lowers the availability of fossil fuels, but if we anticipate that reality now then we definitely have more of a chance to make a successful transition to a durable, less energy-intensive society.

Not China's fault

Last, but not least, the IEA notes that the rise of energy use is largely on account of non-western countries, with China ahead. But, this does not clear us at all. As the IEA calculated in a former report, almost 30 percent of energy use in China comes from the production of export goods - from bicycles over jeans to solar panels.

Western countries succeed in limiting the rise of their energy consumption because they have outsourced ever more energy use. Moreover, the IEA states in its last report, non-OECD countries are, in spite of their high share in current energy use, only responsible for 42 percent of the CO2-emissions since 1890 - with a much bigger population. This means that - in a fair world - we would have to reduce our energy use much more than them.

© Kris De Decker (edited by Vincent Grosjean). First illustration by Milo, illustration on the right by Agence Eureka.

Energy statistics:  World / US / Europe / The Netherlands / Spain

* Even if you consider hydropower to be an ecologically sound energy source, its potential is limited to countries that have a suitable geology. Its share in electricity production has fallen, both worldwide and in the US.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More :

• Ecotech Myths
• Low-tech Solutions
• Obsolete Technology
• Mixed links and updates (No Tech Magazine)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Increasing the share of renewable energy will not make us any less dependent on fossil fuels as long as total energy consumption keeps rising. Renewable energy sources do not replace coal, oil or gas plants, they only meet (part of) the growing demand. The solution is simple: set an absolute limit to total energy production. Why should we not be able to cope in 2030 with the amount of energy we consume today?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In spite of the impressive development of wind power, Spain is now 3 times more dependent on fossil fuels for electricity generation than a decade ago

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regardless of the growing share of renewable energy sources, we burn up more and more fossil fuels every year. This is the case in the US, in Europe and on a global scale, but to make my point I will start by analysing the situation in Spain and in the Netherlands, because both countries are regarded to be an example for their commitment to renewable energy. Moreover, the Netherlands have a negligible share of nuclear energy and hydropower (green according to some, not green according to others), while in Spain these energy sources have remained unchanged over the last decade, which makes the calculations more clear.

Share of renewables

Last week, Spain made headlines around the world with the news that it generated over 53 percent of its electricity by wind power alone, be it during an extremely windy night and only for some hours. There is no denying that the development of wind power in Spain is impressive. Electricity generated by wind power grew with 8,000 percent between 1996 and 2007, from 338 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in 1996 to 27,509 GWh in 2007. With it, the share of wind power in electricity production grew from 0.2 to 9 percent (source). In the Netherlands, the amount of "green" electricity increased by 400 percent between 1998 and 2008, from 2,300 GWh  to 9,500 GWh. With it, the share of renewable energy (mostly biomass and wind) in electricity production grew from 2.5 percent to 9 percent (source).

This sounds great, especially when you compare it to the situation in the United States, where the share of renewable energy in electricity production (excluding hydropower*) rose from 1.4 percent to 2.3 percent during the same period (1998-2008, source). Or, on a global scale, where the share of renewables rose from 1.12 percent in 1990 to 2.3 percent in 2006. Yet, just like the Americans and the rest of the world, the Spanish and the Dutch are now more dependent on fossil fuels than a decade ago, not less.

Total electricity production

The reason is, of course, that the total electricity production in both countries kept rising. In Spain, it went up from 174,246 GWh in 1996 to 303,293 GWh in 2007 (a rise of almost 80 percent in 11 years). The share of fossil fuels in electricity generation grew from 38 percent in 1996 to 59 percent in 2007, while the absolute amount of fossil fuels used for electricity generation grew from 67,651 GWh to 179,737 GWh (source). So, from 1996 to 2007 the amount of wind powered electricity in Spain grew with 27,171 GWh (around 30,000 GWh if you include the use of solar and biomass), and the amount of fossil fuel powered electricity grew with 112,086 GWh. Now please explain to me, what is so "green" and exciting about this trend?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Spanish would have obtained the same results if they would not have built one wind turbine, but had chosen to limit the rise of energy consumption to 85 TWh instead of the recorded 112 TWh

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You could argue that Spain went through an economic boom during the last decade, and that it was merely catching up with the rest of Europe. This is why it is interesting to look at the Netherlands, too, a mature economy. Dutch electricity production rose less spectacularly, from 92,000 GWh in 1998 to 105,000 GWh in 2008 (a rise of 14 percent in 10 years). The share of fossil fuels in electricity production in the Netherlands even dropped from 90 to 85 percent, but here also the absolute amount of fossil fuel generated electricity grew from 83,000 GWh in 1998 to almost 90,000 GWh in 2008 (source). Thus, from 1998 to 2008 the amount of "green" electricity in the Netherlands grew with 7,200 GWh, while the amount of "non-green" electricity grew with 7,000 GWh. So today, the Dutch are more dependent on fossil fuels for electricity generation than they were in 1998.

Avoided emissions

Of course, things could have been even worse: that is why policymakers and statisticians prefer to talk about "avoided use of fossil energy" and  "avoided CO2-emissions". The reasoning goes as follows: if we would not have built those wind turbines and solar panels, then we would have burnt up even more fossil fuels. But, who are we fooling here? 

The Spanish would have "avoided" the same amount of emissions and fossil energy if they would have built not one wind turbine between 1996 and 2007, but had chosen to limit the rise of energy consumption to 84,915 GWh, instead of the recorded 112,086 GWh. If they would have done that, they would have been just as dependent on fossil fuels as they are today, and they would have emitted the same amount of greenhouse gases as they do today - all this without those 27,171 GWh of wind powered electricity. They would not have made headlines with it, though. Nobody would have noticed.

The same goes for the Dutch: they would have "avoided" the same amount of emissions and fossil energy if they would have limited the rise of energy consumption to 7,000 GWh, instead of the recorded 14,000 GWh.

Embodied energy

In fact, this low-tech scenario would have been a more ecological and energy-efficient choice, because both countries would have saved the energy required to produce those renewable energy plants and sources - solar panels, wind turbines and wood pellets. Green electricity is not generated by a "clean" energy source, but by a "cleaner" energy source. Solar panels, wind turbines and wood pellets do not use gas or coal during their operation, but they do require energy for their production (and since they are mostly produced far away from the place where they are used these figures do not show up in national statistics of energy consumption).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The embodied energy of wind turbines and solar panels is not a problem if they replace non-renewable energy plants. However, this is not the case. We are piling up energy sources.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mind you: the embodied energy of wind turbines (and solar panels) is not a problem if they replace non-renewable energy plants, because in that case we do save energy and thus make progress. But, this is not the case, so the embodied energy of this added electricity generation capacity is definitely extra energy use.

We do too much

This does not mean that coal plants are preferable to wind turbines and solar panels. In fact, if the Dutch had built the (7,200 GWh) renewable energy plants and not built the (7,000 GWh) non-renewable energy plants, the result would have been real progress. Likewise, if they would have frozen energy consumption at the 1998 level and built nothing - renewable nor non-renewable energy plants - again there would have been substantial progress. They would be less dependent on fossil fuels and they would produce less CO2 and air pollution.

The problem is that they did not do any of this. Or, better said, they did everything at the same time; constructing more renewable energy plants, constructing more non-renewable energy plants, and consuming more energy.

Piling up energy sources

Again, this trend is not limited to Spain and to the Netherlands (see these figures), and what is happening is not a new phenomenon either. What we are doing for more than 100 years now, is piling up energy sources. Today (in the Netherlands, Spain, the US and worldwide) the absolute amount of coal consumed for electricity production is much larger than one century ago, when there was no talk of gas, oil and nuclear. The dirty coal of the beginning of the industrial revolution was not replaced by cleaner gas plants. The gas plants joined the coal plants.

Next, nuclear plants did not replace the existing coal and gas plants, they joined them. Today, with renewable energy, the same thing is happening. They address an energy demand that did not exist before. We use renewable energy sources to power an ever growing plethora of energy-sucking gadgets - and this will not get us anywhere.

Up until now, newer and cleaner energy sources have always been used to enlarge energy production, not to make it "greener" (see for instance the image on the left, depicting US energy consumption from 1845 to 2001, source).

The so-called greening of our electricity production, which generates so much talk, is still 100 percent wishful thinking. We are not one step further than 5, 10, 20 or even 100 years ago. On the contrary, things get worse every day.

Relative versus absolute figures

Much more important than what we do, is what we don't do. The key to progress is scaling down non-renewable energy production, or at least keeping it at the same level. Instead of aiming for the development of more renewable energy, policymakers should do anything in their power to make sure that not one more kilowatt of non-renewable energy is added. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All policy objectives are expressed in relative terms - a fruitless approach as long as total energy consumption is on the rise.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Problem is that all policy objectives are expressed in relative terms (as a percentage of total electricity production) and never as absolute figures. The European Union aims to generate 20 percent of total electricity production by wind energy and 15 percent by solar energy in 2020 (source). The US aims to generate 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025 (source). None of their reports describe any goal in absolute figures. This is a fruitless approach as long as total electricity consumption is on the rise.

United States

For instance, imagine that the US indeed realises the very ambitious goal of generating 25 percent of their electricity consumption by renewables, and let's assume it takes them 5 years longer as planned. According to the projections of the IEA, US electricity demand will grow by 26 percent (16 to 36 percent) from 2007 to 2030. This means that the 3,800,000 GWh of today will be 4,788,000 GWh by 2030. When everything goes to plan, about 1,244,880 GWh of that will then be renewable (that is 3 times the worldwide renewable electricity capacity today).

But, this is scarcely more than the 988,000 GWh of electricity demand that will be added during that period. So even if this ambitious goal would be realised, the US would still be as dependent on fossil fuels as it is today. Limiting electricity demand to current levels and not building any renewable electricity generating capacity would yield the same result. Limiting electricity demand to current levels and greening 25 percent of the existing electricity production would bring real progress.

Worldwide

The rise of renewable energy is of secondary importance. What matters is that the absolute amount of burned up fossil fuels lowers. Only then would we become less dependent on non-renewable energy sources and on foreign energy suppliers, and only then would we lower CO2-emissions.

On a global scale, the futility of the present approach is even more obvious. The total amount of renewable electricity worldwide (excluding hydro*) rose from 31,000 GWh in 1980 to 414,000 GWh in 2006 - a rise of 1,300 percent or an absolute increase of 383,000 gigawatt-hours.

Yet, the amount of electricity generated by coal and gas doubled in that same period, which comes down to an absolute increase of 6,355,900 GWh. So, we added around 20 times more non-renewable sources than renewable sources. Total global electricity production rose from 8,027,000 Gwh to 18,008,000 Gwh, a rise of 250 percent. If we look at total energy production instead of just electricity production, the preponderance of fossil fuels is even larger (see the image above, courtesy of Der Spiegel).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much more important than what we do, is what we don't do.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This trend does not seem to come to an end soon. Last week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) published its "World Energy Outlook 2009", which looks forward to 2030. According to the organisation, energy consumption will rise by 40 percent between now and 2030. This will happen in spite of the fact that global energy consumption decreased in 2009 owing to the economic crisis. The IEA expects electricity consumption to rise with another 76 percent in 2030, which equals a required capacity of 4,800 gigawatts - almost 5 times the present capacity in the United States.

Even if we succeed in building 4,800 gigawatts of renewable energy in the coming 20 years (something which is rather unrealistic), we would still not be one step further than we are today. What we have to deal with is that which is almost regarded as an unshakable natural law - the non-stop growth of energy use.

How to solve the energy crisis

Don't get me wrong: all efforts to build and develop renewable energy and energy efficient technology are useful and very necessary. My point is that, by themselves, they will not yield any results. To make them work, we need to put an absolute limit to energy use.

Imagine that the European Union or the US would decide that in 2020 we can only use as much energy (or electricity) as we do today. Interestingly, all other efforts suddenly make sense. If the share of renewable energy would rise, then the share of non-renewable energy would automatically fall. Energy efficient technology would be automatically transformed in energy savings, and not in extra applications or performance, as it happens now (the energy efficiency paradox).

In this scenario, with every small step forward in renewable energy production and energy efficient technology, we would become less and less dependent on fossil fuels, and we would emit less and less greenhouse gases. Moreover, it is hard to call this measure drastic or radical: if we can manage today with 18,008,000 Gwh, why not in 2030? What more energy-sucking gadgets do we need? By the way, we can keep developing new products and services as we please, we will only have to make sure that these are energy efficient. Considering the amount of energy that is now wasted by most products and services, there is lots of room for innovation, improvement, and thus economic growth.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we put an absolute limit to energy use, all other efforts (renewable energy sources, energy-efficient technology) suddenly make sense

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right now we try to match our energy production to an ever increasing demand. But, we could also try to match our demand to a fixed supply. Considering the circumstances, this would be a much more realistic and intelligent strategy. An even better strategy is the "oil depletion protocol", an idea of author Richard Heinberg. He proposes an international agreement to lower oil production and consumption each year with 2.6 percent. We can wait until the geological, economical or geopolitical reality lowers the availability of fossil fuels, but if we anticipate that reality now then we definitely have more of a chance to make a successful transition to a durable, less energy-intensive society.

Not China's fault

Last, but not least, the IEA notes that the rise of energy use is largely on account of non-western countries, with China ahead. But, this does not clear us at all. As the IEA calculated in a former report, almost 30 percent of energy use in China comes from the production of export goods - from bicycles over jeans to solar panels.

Western countries succeed in limiting the rise of their energy consumption because they have outsourced ever more energy use. Moreover, the IEA states in its last report, non-OECD countries are, in spite of their high share in current energy use, only responsible for 42 percent of the CO2-emissions since 1890 - with a much bigger population. This means that - in a fair world - we would have to reduce our energy use much more than them.

© Kris De Decker (edited by Vincent Grosjean). First illustration by Milo, illustration on the right by Agence Eureka.

Energy statistics:  World / US / Europe / The Netherlands / Spain

* Even if you consider hydropower to be an ecologically sound energy source, its potential is limited to countries that have a suitable geology. Its share in electricity production has fallen, both worldwide and in the US.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More :

• Ecotech Myths
• Low-tech Solutions
• Obsolete Technology
• Mixed links and updates (No Tech Magazine)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tudo o que eu penso da Capoeira, um dia escrevi naquele quadro que está na porta da Academia. Em cima, só estas três palavras: Angola, Capoeira, mãe. E embaixo, o pensamento: Mandinga de escravo em ânsia de liberdade, seu princípio não tem método e seu fim é inconcebível ao mais sábio capoeirista.

Saem daqui da Academia sabendo tudo. Sabendo que a luta é muito maliciosa e cheia de manhas, que a gente tem de ter calma. Que não é uma luta atacante, ela espera. Capoeirista nunca dizia a ninguém que lutava. Era homem astuto e ardiloso, como a própria luta, que se disfarçou com a dança para sobreviver depois que chegou de Angola. Capoeirista é mesmo muito disfarçado. Contra a força só isso mesmo. Está certo.

Ninguém pode mostrar tudo o que tem. As entregas e revelações têm de ser feitas aos poucos. Isso serve na Capoeira, na família, na vida. Há segredos que não podem ser revelados a todas as pessoas. Há momentos que não podem ser divididos com ninguém.

Os negros usavam a Capoeira para defender a sua liberdade. No entanto, malandros e gente infeliz descobriram nesses golpes um jeito de assaltar os outros, vingar-se de inimigos e enfrentar a polícia. Foi um tempo triste da Capoeira. Eu conheci, eu vi. Nas bandas das docas… luta violenta, ninguém a pôde conter. Eu sei que tudo isso é mancha suja na história da Capoeira, mas um revólver tem culpa dos crimes que pratica? E a faca? E os canhões? E as bombas? A Capoeira Angola parece uma dança, mas não é não. Pode matar, já matou. Bonita! Na beleza está contida sua violência.

- Mestre Pastinha.

De hoje até 21 de novembro, acontece em São Paulo o Seminário Internacional do Fórum de Cultura Digital, promovido pelo Ministério da Cultura. É um evento de extrema importância para o futuro da cultura no Brasil. Lá serão discutidas as bases para uma política do Governo Federal em relação à infraestrutura das redes no Brasil, à comunicação mediada por computadores, à manutenção de arquivos públicos com documentos e obras de arte, à economia da cultura.

O Minc tem feito um trabalho muito bom no sentido de ouvir os setores da sociedade civil implicados em suas políticas. O ciclo de seminários sobre direitos autorais realizado em 2008 foi bastante produtivo e resultou em uma proposta de revisão das leis de proteção à propriedade intelectual — tudo com transparência. Vale a pena participar.

Será possível assistir ao vivo aos debates por aqui: http://culturadigital.br/aovivo/. Ou siga a cobertura do evento via Twitter, pela palavra-chave #culturadigitalbr.

Na semana que vem, a Matilha Cultural começa sua programação "Copenhagen é aqui", trazendo uma programação paralela ao COP-15. O Desvio estará participando com uma instalação sobre lixo eletrônico criada por Glauco Paiva. Abaixo a descrição da instalação:
A produção mundial de equipamentos eletroeletrônicos cresce a cada ano. À medida que a indústria e a mídia impõem um ritmo acelerado de obsolescência e consequente descarte desse material, o mundo inteiro se vê frente a um novo problema. O descarte eletrônico tem alta concentração de componentes tóxicos, e não pode ser misturado com o lixo comum.
Apesar do surgimento de diversas iniciativas na área, o nível de absorção desse material através do reuso e da reciclagem ainda não consegue nem dar conta do material produzido há cinco anos. É necessário colocar a questão para a opinião pública e propor estratégias de ação, para evitar que que o risco crescente de contaminação da natureza pelos componentes tóxicos do lixo eletrônico não se transforme em uma tragédia. É fundamental que as pessoas tomem consciência de que o lixo eletrônico não é uma questão distante mas um problema presente, que faz parte do cotidiano de todxs. Estamos cercadxs de material potencialmente tóxico, que não tem um método definido e assegurado de descarte.
Para fazer frente a essa situação, o núcleo Desvio propõe uma instalação imersiva que sintetiza com perspectiva crítica essas questões.
Um totem construído com resíduos tecnológicos amalgamados em resina cristal, com a aparência de estarem fossilizados ou solidificados em vidro. O totem será um ponto de acesso sem fio que oferecerá a visitantes que tenham laptops ou smartphones o download de informações sobre a questão do lixo eletrônico, soluções possíveis e o cenário atual no Brasil.
Os visitantes entram na instalação e veem-se cercados por uma fotomontagem inspirada no quadro As meninas, de Velázquez. Os visitantes terão a sensação de estar em uma sala abarrotada de equipamentos eletro-eletrônicos. A obra traça uma linha do tempo de vida dos equipamentos "do atari ao wii, do prológica ao notebook" fazendo uma brincadeira visual entre o passado e o presente e mostrando a velocidade da obsolescência tecnológica em relação à arte considerada clássica. Em anexo, serão exibidas imagens e vídeos retratando a precariedade da gestão de lixo eletrônico no Brasil e no mundo, e alguns projetos que tentam enfrentar essa situação.
Em As Meninas, Velázquez brinca com a tridimensionalidade, a profundidade e a sensação de imersão. A fotomontagem transforma a referência de Velázquez em um grande escritório, onde pessoas usam equipamentos eletrônicos, as meninas jogam video-games, os servos e nobres falam ao celular ou usam dispositivos eletrônicos portáteis.

efeefe

A Plataforma de Residuos Eletrônicos para América Latina e Caribe (RELAC IDRC/SUR) apresenta a Sexta Oficina Internacional "IntegraçãoRegional para a Gestão de Residuos Eletrônicos na América Latina ", que se realiza agora, nos dias 16, 17 e  18 de novembro na Cidade do Panamá.

leia mais

(author unknown)

Ao chegar no Music Hall, onde aconteceu o show de lançamento do cd da Aline Calixto, deparamo-nos com um vendedor de balas um tanto incomum: um gambiólogo nato! Otaviano construiu seu próprio baleiro usando acrílico, LED´s de diversos tamanhos e cores, pilhas recarregáveis e outros componentes de “uso geral”. Estilo gambiológico, auto-didata, hobbysta, DIY, faça-você-mesmo, Prof. Pardal, enfim, a força da gambiarra flui no sangue de Otaviano, cujo trabalho nos deixou orgulhosos. As fotos foram tiradas com a baixa qualidade de um celular, mas isso não tem importância e sim este registro. Otaviano será nosso gambiólogo convidado e esse post nos lembrará disso. Jean Baptiste Gambièrre Approved !