Recently in Life Category

This week is, of course, the Thanksgiving Holiday, and we, like many are traveling to visit family. Since we are not running the holiday, and there will likely be over two dozen people at dinner, I’m sure there are some decisions being made that might not have otherwise. Rather than a sustainably raised heritage turkey, I expect to see a Tyson-brand frankenbird grace our table. I have little doubt that much of the vegetables we’ll have will be purchased with little consideration to where they came from and how far they had to travel to reach our plates, let alone the means used to grow them. I’m sure there will be food prepared from boxes containing ingredients that only an industrial chemist could love.

Of course, none of this will stop me from eating any of it. I’m a pragmatist, and for me, spending the time with family for Thanksgiving and the coming Christmas is more important than these high ideals that I try to live by the rest of the time. Sure, I’ll try to plant the seeds of change, and perhaps nudge things, but ultimately the holiday is more important.

But, we still need to do our part, particularly where what is frugal and what is sustainable cross paths. We’re visiting my in-laws this weekend, and we’ll be borrowing a vehicle from them that is several miles-per-gallon more efficient than our pickup for the trip, at least until we can get our pickup fixed, which should help it’s efficiency immensely. And what we eat outside of the big feast will, at least half the time, not have the same kinds of concerns.

Christmas, to me, is the bigger violator of sustainable practices, since it’s a holiday that revolves entirely around consumption of everything, not just food. Of course, people are already asking what we want for Christmas, but as I sit in our new condo and look around at the stuff that we still have in boxes that we’re not sure where to put. Now, the new place isn’t really any smaller than our last place, it’s just laid out in a way that maximizes living space to storage, where the last place took another direction on that tradeoff.

Ultimately, we want or need very little new stuff. What stuff I can think of are things that would replace the need for other things, though those things tend to be more expensive, or household gadgets that would make it easier to make more of my own food from scratch more easily (rolling out noodles by hand sucks).

We had, for a while, considered buying a larger condo than we did, and while we certainly could have afforded to do so, we’re left thinking now that all the extra space would have done for us would have been to make fill it with more stuff. Even when we have kids, I’m not sure I’d want to see our primary living space (ie, the house) exceed 2000 square feet on the highest end (though I would want an outbuilding for a workshop).

I’m giving a lot of thought to trying to start a hackerspace in Pullman, because more and more I want the ability to indulge in creative instinct, but I don’t always have the time or money to buy the tools that I would need myself. What I really want, these days, are things that’ll make it easier to indulge that creative impulse, to learn. Ultimately, those are the gifts that would be most valuable to me, those that would allow me to create, and to create gifts for others that will hopefully mean something to them as well.

Recently, I was having a conversation with a friend who is an esthetician and she mentioned a conversation she’d had with someone recently, who had begun asking about ‘food-grade’ hydrogen peroxide. With some further investigation, the person said that they had heard anecdotal evidence (my words) of a man who drank food-grade hydrogen peroxide to make him healthier, and that he had lost weight because of this practice, however, the health food store where this person found the product indicated they’d only used it for cleaning tables. Knowing what this person was planning, my friend said that she didn’t know where to find the product, and had to offer to talk to a nurse client about the practice in order to convince this person not to run out and start drinking the hydrogen peroxide.

My first question was what is food-grade hydrogen peroxide? According to the website foodgradeh2o2.com, it appears to be a 35% solution of h2o2 (what you buy in the drug store is usually only 3%), and they claim that the ‘stabilizers in it are not the toxic stabilizers used in industrial and pharmaceutical grades of hydrogen peroxide’. I’ve been able to find absolutely no documentation for the stabilizers used in ‘pharmaceutical grade’ hydrogen peroxide, but given that we often apply this stuff to open wounds, I can’t imagine that they’re that bad.

Of course, in addition to people talking about using hydrogen peroxide for weight loss, there are also sites that talk about using hydrogen peroxide for cancer treatment, which apparently works both via ingestion and injection. The basis for this is the idea of ‘oxygen therapy’, which, incidentally, the American Cancer Society does not advocate, and in fact claims has been linked to several deaths.

Hydrogen Peroxide has some solid uses, like as a disinfectant, stain remover and bleaching agent. But the way Hydrogen Peroxide accomplishes these tasks chemically, should make anyone wary of using this stuff internally. When the chemical, H₂O₂, breaks down it generally results in 2H₂O₂ -> 2H₂O + O₂, part of why it makes such a great rocket fuel, but it also means that there is a lot of free oxygen running around, just looking for atoms to rip electrons from (remember, ‘oxidation’ is just another name for rust!). Yes, we do use this tendency of oxygen to rip electrons from atoms to generate our energy we use, but there are a lot of dangers to over-exposure to oxygen. That bubbling you see when you put hydrogen peroxide on a fresh blood stain (or cut for that matter)? That’s caused by cells rupturing as the oxygen released when the peroxide decomposes begins tearing apart proteins and cell membranes.

Food-Grade Hydrogen Peroxide might have better stabilizers in it than what’s available at the pharmacy, but I’m not entirely sure. And the chemical can often serve as a better replacement for chlorine bleach as a cleaning agent, but what drinking it is doing to you internally (if it causes weight-loss at all, it’s probably because it prevents your body from actually absorbing nutrients after a long time ingesting it), is pretty much exactly what it’s doing when used externally. Tearing cells open. Denaturing proteins. Use it to clean and disinfect, but anything that can be used to kill bacteria, is going to cause you problems internally, and should be treated with care.

I’ve got a pet peeve regarding the way large companies handle their charitable donations. Mostly, that they use the fact that they are considering being charitable as a means to drive direct sales of their products. Like Yoplait’s Save Lids to Save Lives campaign, or Dawn’s 1 bottle = $1 to save wildlife campaign. Okay, so instead of just donating a sum of money to charity and making announcements about that to try to drive sales, they make you buy their product in order to donate a small sum of money per sale. Fine.

What bothers me more are all the caveats they put on the donation. Yoplait requires you to collect the lids and mail them to them. Dawn requires you to go to their website and enter a code to ‘activate your donation’. Look, I’m not the one donating to charity. You are. Track you god damn sales, and figure things out that way. These companies are hiding behind these processes which most people aren’t going to follow through on (people are lazy about this shit, I know I am), in order to try to keep from actually having to donate. According to Dawn’s FAQ their donation program ran from July 1, 2009 to October 1, 2009. Their donation counter as of right now? $126,991. You can fucking bet that Dawn has sold more bottles of their dish detergent than that over third quarter of this year.

Even worse, as far as I’m concerned, is that these companies then put these artifical caps on their donation size. For Dawn, it was $500,000 (not that they even came close). For Yoplait, it’s $1,500,000, and that’s at $0.10 per lid. That means they need to recieve fifteen million lids to reach that figure. And after that? Fuck you, breast cancer. So what, the company can afford to donate $0.10 per lid they recieve up to fifteen million sales, but not a dime after? Now, Yoplait has guaranteed a minimum donation of $500,000, which is awesome, but I’ll be really interested to see what their final donation is, after all this is said and done.

I’m all for corporate sponsorship of charity. And I have no problem with these companies making a big deal of the fact that they’re donating to charity. But imposing artificial limits on their donation, and requiring me to jump through hoops for them to make these donations is flat ridiculous and dishonest. Make a promise to donate a percentage of all sales or profits over a given timeframe to a given charity. Great. But don’t create extra work for your customers, who you know full well are unlikely to follow through, in order to try to get the PR boost for being charitable, when in reality, you’re probably going to be donating a lot less than you imply in your marketing and outside of the fine print on your advertising and labeling. That’s just being dishonest. At least in Yoplait’s case, they’re a lot more upfront about the requirement to mail in lids, and the max donation, then I ever saw on Dawn’s advertising.

This last week, Catherine and I were able to spend the week in Stehekin, WA, a small town in the heart of the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area in North Cascades National Park with less than 100 year-round residents. The area is only accessible via mountain trail, plane, or boat, and data connectivity (what is to be had, I turned my phone and netbook off for the week, though) is all via satellite.

Stehekin’s motto, which can be seen adorning belt-buckles and a postcards and the like is “Stehekin Is What America Was”, and it’s pretty easy to see what they mean even after a few minutes of being in the valley. The construction still uses mostly local timber from the woods nearby, of the cars in the valley very few are newer than fifteen years old, most are far older. Heat is provided by fireplaces, stoves, and blankets. The electricity is based on a fourty year old hydro-electric plant, and the only agricultural operation still in the valley irrigates with a gravity fed ditch off of Boulder Creek, which runs by the old school house.

I’ll be writing on Stehekin over the next few weeks, probably on Monday’s, to discuss what about Stehekin is most interesting and what can be taken from a place which, due to difficulty of access, makes it seem quaint and what most would consider old-fashioned. While I’m not willing to advocate that everyone live in remote wilderness areas where groceries need to be boated up from 50 miles downlake, there are elements of life in the Stehekin Valley which I believe can apply to a more urban or suburban lifestyle.

Also, the residents of Stehekin love to share the valley with visitors, and if you don’t want to camp, the Stehekin Valley Ranch is a pretty inexpensive way to do that, plus the food they serve is fantastic. The owner of the ranch often joins the guests in the cookhouse for meals, and is more than willing to engage in friendly conversation. The ranch also acts as a base for rafting, kayaking, horseback riding, and a variety of other activities.

Stehekin is a great place to visit and is completely worth the trip, but it’s popular enough you’ll probably need to plan a year or so in advance. Frankly, this is better in many ways, since it keeps Stehekin less crowded, letting you head out on the trail for the day, and fully expecting not to run into anyone else. Several of the hikes we went on, we didn’t see anyone else, and it was pretty much just us and the wildlife native to the North Cascades.

My wife loves the smell of air-dried clothing. Personally, I don’t particularly care, but I also don’t have any direct love of machine-dried clothing either (except for the feeling of fresh-from-the-drier pants). However, we live in an Apartment, second floor, and while there is a lot of grass around our apartment (one of the many benefits of campus housing), the University had no interest in putting up a clothesline, particularly since my wife was probably the only person in our complex asking for it. However, our apartment does have a small deck area, and Landlord-Tenant Law always has provisions for tenants making improvements to the property their renting.

So, we had a small deck, covered from above by the deck of our upstairs neighbors. The design, therefore, was simple. Four eye-hooks and some cord is really all you need, but we found a ~$10 USD cinch that, while being half the cost of the project, was completely worth it. At the time I completed this project, I didn’t have a power drill, only a Dremel, but for my needs that was plenty.

Tools: * Drill or Rotary Tool * Socket Wrench * Sharp Knife/Scissors * 4 Circular Hooks * Clothesline or Rope * Clothesline Cinch (optional)

When deciding on Hooks and line, consider how big your space is, and how many clothes you think you’ll be able to hang. For us, we went with hardware that would be able to support ~50 lbs. This was seriously overkill for our purposes, as our deck was really small, but if we move, we plan to take this hardware with us, and to be honest, finding line that’s much weaker that that is kind of hard. Consider the ratings of what you’re buying, and how much you plan to hang up. At least with the ~50 lbs limit on our line, we can air-dry sweaters and stuff in the fall before it gets too cold.

Installation was simple. Drill very shallow holes for the circular hooks. These need to be big enough around for you to start the hooks into the wood, but the holes are mostly to keep the hardware going in the wall straight. Find a socket that fits the circular hook, and attach that to your socket wrench, and use that to drive the hooks all the way in. The socket wrench will provide you with the leverage you need to drive the hooks all the way in, and will save your hands from trying to turn them directly. Once all four hooks are in place, choose a corner to tie the line down to, and tie it down using a simple knot. I’d suggest either a bowline, or a double hitch.

Once tied down, just run the line through your hooks, until you reach the other side. If not using the cinch, cut to length and tie down reasonably hard using the same sort of knot as on the other side. You don’t want to pull so hard that your hooks (or line) fails, but the line should be as taut as possible. If using the cinch, simply attach the cinch with a short piece of line from the eye hook on the wall, then string the line from the opposite side through the cinch and pull it tight.

So, why air dry? Well, the California Energy Comission claims that a dryer is typically the second largest energy user in your household, second only the the Refrigerator. That site estimates the operating costs of a clothes dryer at around $85 per year, or $1500 over 18 years of operation. It adds up over time, no doubt. Plus, some clothing items shouldn’t be machine-dried, and the clothesline is exactly what these items require.

I’m not advocating completely forsaking the machine dryer. We certainly don’t have room for enough line to make that even possible, and nearly half the year, the weather simply isn’t compatible with the idea of the clothesline. But, it does save some energy, provides clothing a fresh clean smell you can’t get any other way, and it’s an inexpensive thing to do. That $20 price tag I put on this project includes the clothespins.

One of the meetings I attended at Boise Code Camp this year was Brad Frazer’s talk on Copyright Law as it applies to Software. This was an interesting session, at least in part because it was presented, not by a software guy, but by a lawyer, which for many, seemed to be a different take on the issue than most people are familiar with. Having followed the Open Source world for so long, and having a mind which finds Law somewhat interesting, I got the impression I was more prepared than many, but even then, it was interested to hear Mr. Frazer’s take on these issues.

The discussion began with defining Copyright. Beginning of course with the fact that Copyright, is not a verb. You don’t “copyright” something. You can “create copyright” on something, like I am as I write these words right now. You can “register” copyrights, like I would if I sent the contents of my Blog to the Federal Copyright Office. But Copyright is not a verb. And Copyright can apply in interesting ways. These words are copyrighted because I am writing them in a tangible form. However, if I was simply delivering a lecture on these issues, and not actually even writing it down, it wouldn’t, because air is not a tangible medium.

So, anytime you write a code, and commit it to a tangible medium (aka, you’re hard disk), you’re creating copyright around that material. However, who owns that Copyright? This issue is a lot less clear. Generally speaking, when I create copyright, I’m the sole holder of that copyright. Even if I create code for a client, on a for-pay arrangement, that copyright is absolutely mine (unless, of course, I’ve assigned the copyright to them). However, if I write the code for my employer, the copyright belongs to them. So, the copyright to any code I write for my current employer is automatically held by Washington State University, and I have zero claim to that copyright.

This can be tricky, becuase if I were to get a job at, say, University of Washington, doing the same things that I’ve done here at WSU, I could get my new employer in trouble for implementing code too similarly to how I’d implemented it at my old employer, because the copyright that my previous employer held on a particular method of implementing an idea. Which is another good point, copyright does not cover ideas. It only covers particular representations of ideas. So, if I develop a new algorithm, anyone can implement that algorithm as long as they don’t implement it the same way I did, and not run afoul of copyright law. If I want to protect the idea, I’d have to patent it. Please, I’m not trying to start an argument about Software Patents, I happen to dislike the current state of software patents, I’m just making a point.

What was more interesting was Frazer’s claim that if you don’t register your copyrights, you’re basically completely unable to defend them. I wasn’t sure I bought that, so I made a comment on not sure I believed that to Frazer on Twitter. He directed me to the the US Code, specifically Title 17, Chapter 4, Section 411, which basically states that if you don’t register your copyright, you’re basically unable to sue to defend it. Huh.

What’s even more strange to me is how Copyright applies to Open Source projects. Some Open Source projects, generally those which are corporately backed, do require Contributor License Agreements (CLA), which generally contains a clause which assigns your copyright to the project when you contribute to it. How many of those projects register these copyrights? I have no idea, though I’d be curious to see. However, I know that most projects never bother. When Frazer first talked about this registration thing, I got the impression that he felt that FLOSS was not defensible in court, a statement which I know to be untrue.

Frazer did also address this issue on twitter, referencing a Federal Appeals Court case Jacobsen v Katzer, which addresses the defensibility and protection of Open Source Software rather well. In short, Open Source software is defensible in court, and don’t let anyone tell your otherwise.

Copyright is a serious issue, and one which has become increasingly confusing over the last several decades. If you really think you may need to (or hell, even want to) defend a copyright in court, make sure you register it. It’s likely to be the only way you’ll ever successfully defend it.

For years, I was the kind of person who would only own one or two pairs of shoes, and more than that, I’d very rarely spend more than maybe $40 on a pair. Even ten years ago, this didn’t seem like such a bad deal. Shoes used to consistently last at least a year for me, and that was with them being worn nearly every day. These days, a normal pair of shoes is lucky to last six months, and after that they’re pretty much relegated to spending the rest of their days in some landfill somewhere. These days, when I’ve begun to focus more on long-term use and reuse, it was time to begin looking for better options.

When we rewind the clock, even a century, we find a world where people treated shoes differently. They were necessary, but unlike most clothing, the tools (and skills) to make quality shoes were not commonplace. Enter the cordwainer and the cobbler. While these days, the only true cordwainers make extremely high quality, one off, pairs of shoes, in the not-so-distant past even the relatively industialized process of shoe-making still put out a product that a cobbler could repair as the shoes got damaged over time.

However, there are still shoe companies that put out shoes that can be repaired, generally at a fraction of the cost of a new pair. My wife recently let a pair of her Birkenstocks wear down to the point where both the footbed and the sole needed replacing. Total cost: about $60. Far better than the $120+ those sandals would have cost new. But there are other manufacturers that put out these sorts of quality shoes as well. Just search you local listings for ‘Shoe Repair’, and you’ll find a place like our Moscow, ID local Pecks Shoe Clinic. Look at the brands they sell, and that should give you an idea of the longevity of your shoes.

Currently, I’m just about in the market for some new Dress Shoes, and I’ve been really eyeing the Birkenstock Alabama line. Yeah, they’re almost $200, but they shoud be really comfortable, and most importantly, I can make them like new using a skilled cobbler and less than half of a new pair of shoes. Unlike a lot of clothing items, I think it’s a lot easier to tell the difference between good- and poor-quality shoes. Even if the shoes were easily repaired, thus saving money and resources over the long term. Plus, it creates jobs, since quality shoe repair is a skilled trade, and there are more people involved in making quality shoes than mass market shoes. Sure, more hands leads to more cost, but over the long term, quality shoes have a lot more value.

Created by Train Horns

Yeah, I passed the test, but it made me feel like my brain was trying to escape out of my ears.

I’d heard about this tone quite a while ago, first as a cellphone ringtone because kids loved that their cell phones could ring without their teachers realizing, but also as a deterrent by shop keepers. I know that I wouldn’t stick around if I could hear that tone. This reminds me, in a sense of Jeff Atwood’s post on Monday about Rate Limiting, where he features a photograph of a door which has a sign limiting only three students in the store at a time.

Personally, I’m not sure it’s ever worth alienating an entire class of customers, particularly young customers. Hell, even at times when having younger people around definitely can interfere with my shopping (Comic Book Shops or Game Stores), I just can’t imagine begrudging them the right to be at the store. Sure, things occasionally need to be dealt with, but it just seems to me that those issues can be dealt with on a case by case basis. But, if that’s what the shop-owner wants…whatever.

Not that I’m against sound as a deterrent. LRAD is one of the coolest things ever, and it has been used successfully to fend off pirates on the high seas and stuff. However, LRAD is at least a directed sound beam, whereas using this mosquito sound as a deterrent is just painfully generally.

I doubt there were very many people surprised by this, but a New Dehli, India business complex, Paharpur Business Center and Software Technology Incubator Park, published an interesting report at last week’s TED Conferece.

We have tried and tested these plants for 15 years at Paharpur Business Centre and Software Technology Incubator Park (PBC™ - STIP) in New Delhi, India. It is a 20 year old, 50,000 ft2 building, with over 1,200 plants for 300 building occupants.

PBC™ - STIP is rated the healthiest building in Delhi by the Government of India.* Their study found that there is a 42% probability of increasing blood oxygen by 1% if one is inside the building for 10 hours.

Also, compared to other buildings in Delhi, the incidence of eye irritation reduced by 52%, lower respiratory symptoms by 34%, headaches by 24%, upper respiratory symptoms by 20%, lung impairment by 10-12% and Asthma by 9%. As a result of fewer sick days — employee productivity also increased.

Certainly everyone knows that plants scrub CO2 from the air, and replace it with fresh oxygen, but I was ecstatic to read that some plants, like the Money Plant can scrub chemicals like formaldehyde, xylene or benzene as well. Since my wife and I are already trying to stop using chemical cleaners, due in part to the EPA’s assertion that indoor air is often more polluted than outdoor air, this one little extra step is easy, and pretty amazing.

Of course, not everyone has a green thumb. I am a notorious plant killer, so my Wife does almost all the plant care in our house. Actually for a while, I had a plant at work which ideally was helping with this indoor air quality issue. Of course, I neglected watering it for a while (and it was in nutrient poor soil, another thing I knew and neglected), so it is now a pitiful brown twig. I should do something about that. The nice thing about the plants that the PBC - STIP uses is that they really are low-maintenance plants, even with my poor plant skills, with a few gentle reminders, I could probably keep them alive for the extent of their natural lifespans.

This study was really interesting, particularly in a day and age where so many people have forgotten how to take advantage of the natural world. A world where the natural is almost despised for being somehow unsanitary. When really, the world we’ve created for ourselves often has done far more harm than good to us.

I’m not trying to be a Tree-Hugger here. I’m not trying to say that we shouldn’t utilize technology, but I think too many of us have a blind faith in all sorts of technology, and never question that the technology we’re presented with. From a business perspective, this is entirely foolish. As a society we allows want the cheapest product, while business is trying to maximize profits. A lot of products are developed for the market with the deepest concern for maximizing profit. In that pursuit, other issues, like health concerns are often overlooked. In some ways, this is hard to blame on the companies. It is somewhat unreasonable for a company to test their product in conjunction with every other product and/or medication on the market. But, since we don’t really need cleaning chemicals outside of Baking Soda, Washing Soda, Oxygen Bleach, Water and Vinegar it’s pretty easy to avoid those problems.

As an aside, this issue of the natural world affecting our health had an interesting development last week in the New York Times. Per Lenore Skenazy at Free Range Kids:

Otherwise, healthy children and germs and dirt have had a long and happy relationship since the beginning of time. Ms. Brody even says that that may be why babies put everything in their mouths. Not to feel it or taste it. To get a great big mouthful of germs. (And worms.)

Not only do we need the natural world to keep us healthy, but we need to the natural world to make us sick as well (at least when we’re young). And I’ve experienced this one first hand.

When I was younger, I never had a problem with pine pollen, but then I spent a reasonable amount of time outside in the spring and summer, when the pollen tends to be thick. As I got older, I spent more time inside vegging out watching TV, or playing on my computer (and my health during that time is indicative of that, it still is). In the summer of 2002, I got a job working for Spokane County Parks and Recreation (I was employed with them through a temp agency). I worked five days a week out at Liberty Lake County Park doing basic park maintenance. That summer, I started having severe problems with pollen. To the point that it would lead to sneezing fits that caused my head to explode in pain. Since then, I’ve had to start using allergy pills during the summer.

Of course, I’d had issues before that, but it was then that made it clear how bad the problem had become. Had I not spent the majority of my teens indoors instead of out, I might not have that problem today. I can’t say for sure either way, but it seems like a reasonable argument considering the study detailed in the NY Times. It seems to me that we’ve clearly forgotten a huge amount of what it means to live well not only for ourselves, but ultimately for the planet as well. Hopefully, with all the doom and gloom surrounding the question of the environment today, will convince more people to take this sort of thing seriously.

I try not to talk politics much on this blog, partially because I suspect my own political leanings do not mesh cleanly with the majority of my readership, but also because I don’t believe most of what I believe, or write about, needs to be a political issue. Of course, I recognize that everything is a political issue, but that doesn’t mean I believe it needs to be.

With that in mind, I will say that I am not excited about the Barack Obama Presidency. Yes, his stated agenda on Government Transparency, Technology, and particularly Net Neutrality fall very much within my own feelings on those issues, I disagree on many other aspects, not limited to the Economy, and failure to identify the real problem facing health care today. I’m still not convinced, but as the election is over, and the man has been sworn in, I’ve little choice but to give him the benefit of the doubt. He may well prove me wrong.

That said, during the Inauguration, one comment in particular stood out to me.

Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things—some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

This, I think, is probably the most important thing said during what was otherwise an impotent speech. Beautiful, yes. Powerful, not really. Don’t believe me on the impotent thing? Just consider what the markets reaction. But the above comment shows that Obama (or one of his speechwriters) is willing to vocalize what makes this country great. Most of the countries greatest accomplishments have been from the cult of the amateur. Charles Goodyear’s development of Vulcanization was a piece of home experimentation and tinkering, than any deeply funded research.

There is a deep history of American Ingenuity spawning, not from the mega-corporations of their day, but from the individuals toiling away in obscurity. Even the dot-Com boom, and the Web 2.0 rebirth has been driven, not by large companies, but by the individual who wants to create something interesting. Sure, a lot of those companies have been swept up by your Google’s and your Yahoo!’s, but very few came from there.

And this idea of the doers, and makers, is exactly what being sustainable is about. Being able to re-purpose, reuse, and repair are a core principal of living well with the environment. Makers consume, sure, but we consume less. For the new President to so accurately recognize the importance of this maker’s spirit in front of such a large audience, was significant to me. While I certainly feel that the new President recognizes the importance of the maker’s spirit, we’ll see how well it is encouraged and fostered over the coming years.