Justin Newsome (@NerdistNewsome) has shared a tweet with you

My back to the brick post want literal. Man, all these copiers today:-)

Paging Zack Morris: This retro 1980s case turns an iPhone into a 'brick' handset http://t.co/zEKXxbz1 -- CNET (@CNET)

May 2012 | Gadget Lab | Wired.com

http://m.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012
This came out days after my last Google headset post. Looks just different enough from my description to avoid prior art patent issues.  Coincidence, I think not.

Google Glasses: ‘Spec’ulation 3-Back to the Brick

In this last post on the topic, I demonstrate how the evolution of cell phones will progress to a form that somewhat resembles their ancestry.  By having the screen in a headset or glasses you will no longer have a screen on your phone that could break.  There will be no need for buttons or ports.  Technology will have advanced so far in all areas there will be alternatives for all functions.  

You will see the numbers on your phone simply because the image is analyzed and the computer is able to figure out where the number should show up on the phone based on the phones accelerometer and an AR (augmented reality) tool called hieroglyphs.  It is difficult to interpret an object without any reference.  A hieroglyphic is an image that acts as the reference.  There are already some android apps that utilize hieroglyphs; namely AndAR Model Viewer.  The video demonstrates AndAR in action.  The point is that instead of projecting a chair or other object, a keypad would be displayed.  The 0-9 keypad, a-z keyboard, or other specialty buttons would no longer be constrained to the size limitations of the phone.  They would no longer pose a physical requirement on the phone.  This all assumes you still want that info linked to the location of the phone.  It may as well just be a designated area within your field of view. 
   

Example of Using Hieroglyphs

Bluetooth resolves several of the constraints.  There is no need for a port for the headset jack.  There are Bluetooth enabled headphones.  Video and audio can be transmitted and received similarly.  There is no need to run a cord from your phone to the glasses when it can all be transmitted wirelessly.  

A camera?  To take full advantage of your new, fully customizable, AR environment at least one camera would be built into the headset.  You don't like the user interface of reality, then program a different one.  The head mounted display would render a phone's camera redundant.  Do not worry.  Your eyes will not be strained by staring at a screen because eReader type displays will be used.  That technology still has to improve refresh rates and coloring to meet streaming video demands.  It is improving rapidly.  My guess is that in 2 years it will begin to meet these needs.   

Volume control would be virtual.

The power button would be virtual.

HDMI transmission is achieved with Bluetooth.

Charging can take place using inductive technology.  Simply place your phone on a mat.  No port is required.  PowerMat is likely the biggest name in this market currently.  I would have put their product instead of their logo, but really, while the technology is great, a phone sitting on a mat is just boring.  

A few options would exist for the Micro HD-SD slot.  It could be mounted into the headset.  That would be one more feature adding weight where you do not want it.  Alright, communicate to another auxiliary device.  Maybe you now say you do not want to carry around extra devices.  No, that auxiliary device could be in your clothes recording biometric info for you to later review.  But you did say you did not want an auxiliary device, period.  In that case, lose the SD card altogether.  Cloud computing is still a nascent industry and already has several companies vying for your support.  

I cannot say the same about the SIM card; the card some phone companies use to identify their customers.  Barring the companies switch to different methods, it would have to reside some place on your person.  However, it could still be integrated into the headset or auxiliary device.

What is left?  A brick.  Since many of the components have been removed, the battery and processors can stretch out with much more leg room.  It has become a slab of fully enclosed plastic and metal that is impervious to the elements.  Dropped your phone on the ground.  No worries, the slab phone can be dropped 10 times further without damage.  Ever dropped your phone in the toilet.  No worries, disgusting, but no worries.  Your new slab phone can be water tight depending on the options.  Want a warranty; you get it for $1 cause the carrier knows it would take acid or nuclear radiation to destroy that beast.  And if it did the warranty would not cover it.  Some things never change.  

All of these will be features available based on the phone model.  The only technology that is needed is the eReader screen to avoid eye strain which I said would likely be ready for market in 2 years.  That makes it perfect timing for Google to unveil their design as a prototype stage.  They will work on their product and it may find some people interested in wearing it for short term periods.  By the time all the bugs are worked out the only thing left to do will be to switch out the screens.  It is a classic example of how Moore's law is being used to bring products to market.  

As this is my last post on the topic, here is a video from a Mashable post that shows some progression in their work just within the past month.  A month ago, Sergey Brin,  a Google co-founder, discussed the project briefly with Robert Scoble (@scobleizer on Twitter)  Whether true or not, it was said or joked that the glasses at the time only continually rebooted.
 

Use Cases of a Head Mounted Display

UP NEXT: Introducing Me, Myself, and I - A Social Media Multiple Personality Disorder

Google Glasses: ‘Spec’ulation 2: The Welcomed End of Privacy

The money the government has spent on facial recognition will be wasted as new augmented reality glasses will obscure everyone’s identity.  I found this link from last year that shows the government's interests in the technology.  Instead, a more intense battle will spring up over privacy.  The government will try to get the exact same data from tech companies.  This would be a cheaper prospective route to achieve the same goal if litigation can be minimized.  Each headset will be linked to a phone number, a user account, and thus it is linked to the person.  Before, money was given to companies to try to identify people by their faces.  Now, the government will try to solicit the information from Silicon Valley's finest and the telcos (telephone companies).  Is this a good thing?  Is it bad?

Currently, with Google location, you can turn on location history and track your travels.  It tells me I have traveled over 65,000,000 meters since I started the service.  The image below shows what I was doing 1 year ago.  By default, this option is disabled for users. 

 Google Latitude Location History

With Google glasses similar services will likely spring up.  Record your entire day to a cloud server to review at a later time.  Use HighlightCam to cut through all the boring footage.  Or just use it to live more effectively in the present.  Where was that new Thai restaurant that opened downtown?  Actually pay attention to your classes and take notes later.  Hell, have an app take notes for you to review later while listening to the recordings.  As mobile operating systems develop the ability to readily record and store this massive amount of data, the apps will update to utilize the features to bring users more functionality, to gain greater market share, to find new ways of targeting ads and selling products.

Another gray area of the ethics of many companies today is how they use your data and how long they store it.  It ranges from a few months to a few years.  All of this is to provide advertisers information.  We, you, accept this in order to get free products; phones, apps, added functionality of apps.  Saving and storing, lets say 24 hours of your life would all be part of the same package.  First reactions are typically along the lines of ‘that’s evil’, ‘it’s creepy’.  But then you get attacked.  Chances are the attacker will get caught on the camera you are wearing.  Just as police can currently call up the local telco and request the recording of phone conversations with a pass code, they will similarly be able to view the last 24 hours of your life and location history to find those clues.  Parents will similarly likely track their children to ensure they use the technology responsibly.  They will of course want to because the headlines of video sexting (vixting?) will be all over the news.  The invasion of your privacy, or the sharing of your demographic information, depending on how you look at it, is not a new issue here.  That has been the case for years.  What is new is what you get for it!  

Because the government and companies benefit greatly by getting this information they will help pay for the glasses to help you buy them.  There have already been discussions that the internet may join the ranks of indispensable human rights.  The U.N. has already declared that it is a basic right in 2011 as countries continually tried to limit the content available to their denizens.  Depending on the direction those debates take, the government could then be justified in passing legislation that would ensure no citizen is denied this right.  It would be great political theater as one side touts the endless value added to citizens' lives and the other crucifies such policies as a new level of government intervention and invasion of privacy.  No, it would not only be the government.  Companies will also be peddling their goods with all the latest features.  Want the latest model, $200 with contract.  Wait a few months and get it free with contract.  It is free, right?

It is easy to veil the entire topic in a glow of George Orwell's 1984. But then again it is only an extension of the same practices that have been around for decades.  Or perhaps I have already been brainwashed into loving Big Brother, not by having my head forced in a cage with a hungry rat, but rather by accepting numerous terms of service and clicking several EULAs (End User License Agreements) to receive a patchwork of tools that eventually I will not be able to get through a day without.  Instead of a fear of rats, society will be incensed with a new spreading fear; nomophobia, a fear of being disconnected.  Sorry if I ruined the ending for you.


Google Glasses: ‘Spec’ulation 3-Back to the Brick: A Sales Pitch for the Coming Years

Natural Gas Boom: "Split Estate" Summary

This is the final part of the Natural Gas Boom series.  The first post described fracking and the actions taken in NC regarding it.  The second post discussed my own personal opinions on the matter.  This post summarizes the Aperture cinema movie "Split Estate" and the presentation that followed.  When a friend asked, "Will the film be biased," I didn't want to give a resounding yes.  So instead I said, 'I don't know, but I can tell you it is sponsored by Clean Water for North Carolina.'  This pretty much gave the answer since organizations typically have to be extremely biased and use strong wording to get through to a society that is largely apathetic.  I felt that my opinions on fracking expressed in the last post took both sides in to reasonably consideration.  Despite the tendency for organizations to come off sounding extremist we both, Clean Water for NC and myself, essentially came to similar centrist conclusions; that there is no need to rush to action when so much risk is involved. 

"Split Estate" Summary

A split estate situation occurs because land is treated differently than the subsurface resources.  When you purchase your property, your mortgage may or may not include the resources below the land.  D.R. Horton made national news when they sold property to individuals that excluded the mineral rights.  They then sold those to interested companies.  They returned the rights to the property owners as pressure built against them.  People that own both may set up a contract with companies to sell or lease the mineral rights.  

Trailer for "Split Estate"

Throughout the film are several instances of oil execs denying that their practices caused any harm and then you see all the harm that it actually did cause.  Rivers look carbonated with all the gas coming from under the ground.  In areas where the bubbles come up, holding a match close by resulted in a localized, small explosion.  Contaminated water supplies led to several diseases.  Some families simply resolved to not drink the water.  However, breathing VOC's (Volatile Organic Compounds) while taking showers is actually just as bad, if not worse, as drinking it.  It would be difficult to get treatment for the different symptoms because each company's fracking fluid is considered proprietary information, and thus people cannot know what chemical is actually poisoning them. 

Another frequent theme is that the companies would not offer to help without significant legal threat and would provide contracts heavily worded in their own favor.  A family that lived down wind of several of the drilling platforms had to move from their home.  Several people ended up having the platforms placed only a little more that 100 feet from their homes.

There were also several good gotcha moments when high level corporate execs were caught lying, denying, or (to avoid libel) were just ignorant of their products.  For instance, one would say all that is in our product is water, sand, and wood pulp.  That certainly sounds proprietary.  Then there is a long list that shows over 200 ingredients that constitute the fluid, many of which are known to have serious negative health impacts.

Post Movie Presentation Summary

The movie below comes straight from Clean Water for NC's website.  It does a great job of quickly summarizing their stance on the issue. 

Website Presentation by Clean Water for NC that Explains Their View of Fracking

The images below depict where fracking could take place.  Comparing the two images goes back to my last post about prioritizing when and where fracking should take place.  It does not seem like there should be a need to immediately start fracking in NC when there are large swaths of land that could be utilized first that would pose much less risk.

Locations in North Carolina where Drilling would Take Place.

Locations in the US Where Drilling is Taking Place or is Being Considered

Interviewing Katie Hicks of Clean Water for North Carolina

Me:

I attended the movie/presentation and was actually able to get some of my friends to attend.  I was shocked cause it seems few people ever want to get involved in anything.  I have some questions and I would like to include the answers in my next blog post.  My blog is The Techno Post.  If you have any comments you would like to include regarding my last posts feel free to include.  I'm interested to hear.  Really, feel free to add any comments, post related or not.  Thank you for taking time to answer my questions.

Katie:

Hi, Justin! It was great to meet you.Thanks for your thorough list of questions and for sending us the link to your blog.  I'll look forward to following it!

I've included some brief responses in blue below. I hope it will be helpful. The attached power point presentation has a lot of good information, though I didn't have the time to present it on Thursday. You can find a lot of links on the subject on our Fracking Resources Page for further information, too! 

The Attached Power Point Presentation

Me: 1.  The response of my friends after the movie was that it was a little extreme.  Numbers are frequently used that either scare people or do not mean anything too them.  I find percentages help convey meaning better.  Do you have any percentages that could be used to indicate the scale of the problem?  For instance, % of wells that have caused environmental issues.  % of land area utilized by fracking companies that has been negatively impacted. % of water supplies contaminated.  A website with heat maps would also be a good way to show this sort of info if you know any good links.

Katie: The film, released in 2009, relies on personal resident stories, many of which are worst-case scenarios, for two reasons - documentarians favor this kind of storytelling, but also, as of 2009 there were no comprehensive studies of environmental and health impacts. In fact, there STILL isn't this kind of information...since the gas industry is exempt from many environmental laws data just hasn't been collected on these impacts through time. State reporting requirements vary widely. I would check out this article from ProPublica for more information, and there is definitely more peer-reviewed research out there now than there was in 2009 (check our website) but in summary I think you're hitting on one of the biggest problems with this industry - we just DON'T have enough information or data on how widespread the threat is yet.

 

Me: 2.  One of the conclusions in the movie was that companies can incorporate new clean technologies to minimize their impact and harm.  Do you have any comment on that?  Would you be more inclined to be for fracking in NC if you knew those measures were put in place?
 

Katie: Short answer: potentially, but CWFNC and our community partners have little to no expectation that those kinds of technologies will be perfected, tested, and proven without a doubt to be safe for communities on a short-term time scale. However, NC is considering legalizing fracking in the very short term, which is why we have been encouraging a very slow, cautious approach to removing our state's protections from fracking. See CWFNC's Board's statement on hydraulic fracturing. 

 

Me: 3.  A frequent comment is that it is worth the risk to answer our energy issues.  I know you touched on this topic in your presentation.  Please go over this and include any links for people interested in making their homes more efficient.  Are there any NC initiatives or incentives for this?
 

Katie: Yes! Please check out NC SAVE$ ENERGY, a campaign to create a statewide, independently administered energy efficiency program that would weatherize homes and other buildings. Specifically, take a look at the report at the top of this page which shows how other states have used similar programs successfully. 

 

Me: 4.  It was mentioned that energy costs would not necessarily be reduced because oil and natural gas resources frequently get exported to maximize profits.  I thought there was more of an issue exporting natural gas.  I don't want to say this made fracking for natural gas more appealing, but rather that it would better address the cost of energy in the US.  This topic is unclear to me.  Could you explain and/or offer links to help?
 

Katie: I'd start by reading this article from February. Of course, transporting natural gas in itself is a risky process! My understanding is that we're producing so much of it right now that this has led the administration to want to export a lot of it. 

 

Me: 5.  I have heard a variety of claims that try to say fracking is not the problem, it is the other processes involved that cause the harm.  One version of this is that it is not the cracks that form that contaminate water sources but rather equipment at the surface failing that cause the contamination.  Another version of this says that it is a problem with storing the fracking fluid that is at issue.  Too me, saying a part of the process of fracking is a problem is the same as saying fracking itself is a problem.  Do you have any information on where the issues actually are?  How frequent the different processes actually do fail?
 

Katie: I think when a lot of people use the term "fracking," they often are really speaking about the whole process: fracturing, horizontal drilling, injection, the equipment used...it's definitely confusing, but I think you're right that various components of the overall process are more problematic than others. We've heard a lot about poor well installations and failed casings. There are a few slides on the specific failures in the attached powerpoint.

 

Me: 6.  The defense of the earthquakes that result is that they are so micro scale that no one even feels them.  Is there any evidence of this?  Have people reported feeling earthquakes that were likely caused by fracking?  Do you think, or do you know other professional organizations that think, there is potential for larger ones.

 

Katie: Here's an article about the 4.0-scale quake in Ohio, which was stronger than previous ones in Ohio (these were caused not by fracking but by injection of fracking waste for disposal).  There is currently some seismic testing going on in various states. As to whether quakes could be bigger, I can't speak to that, but you may be able to find some resources from geology experts. I personally don't think about earthquakes as one of the more serious threats currently, but it also depends what is nearby the fracking operations - for example, nuclear facilities or other facilities that could have huge impacts if a quake hit them. 

 

Me: 7.  In terms of producing energy efficiently and cleanly, natural gas wins out over coal.  Are there any estimations about how many coal plants would be displaced by introducing locally acquired natural gas? 

Katie: Here's an article on why natural gas won't really address climate change any better than other fossil fuel products. I am not aware of any such projections but the information may be out there, however, as it's currently done natural gas is not being used locally where it's drilled, but being transferred to other regions via pipelines. That's my own understanding, anyway. 

 

Me: 8.  I recently read that in India there is a project underway to mount solar panels over lakes and reservoirs to prevent evaporation.  Here is a link discussing what I described.  Would NC ever do anything like this to help with water shortages and energy supplies?

 

Katie: Wow, how interesting, I hadn't heard of that! I can't speak to what NC might do in the future, but new and creative ideas to address our water and energy problems are definitely going to be important.

Natural Gas Boom: My Take

North Carolina is in the middle of a battle to determine whether or not hydraulic fracturing should be allowed.  I have mixed feelings about having the industry here.  I have seen Gasland and for a long while after, I was entirely against it.  I watched the news coverage of the BP oil fiaso, and am aware of numerous other oil disasters.  Here is a list that takes you to just before the BP incident.  People have said that because there is so much redundancy in a nuclear power plant and because every deail is picked over so intently that nothing can go wrong.  Here is a list of nuclear incidents you likely would not have heard about in mainstream media.  A study is taking place to see how feasible hydraulic fracturing would be for North Carolina.  The study, which can be found here, preliminarily reports that with proper regulation fracking can be prosperous.  Even without the lists of examples of how bad and/or even good regulation fails to prevent incidents, many people readily admit how ill equipped government is to ensure the best interests of its populous.

I took this picture at AMNH during a trip to New York because it was loaded with irony.  I feel it highlights the contradictions people set up around themselves as they try to resolve energy conflicts.

On the other hand, I am aware of the current state of the renewable industries, the free-for-all as everyone tries to come up with the next most efficient product, the lack of standardization that makes committing to 1 company unnecessarily risky, and the small percentage of renewables currently in use.  In this TED talk, T Boone Pickens, makes a good argument of using natural gas as a bridge to the future.  

T. Boone Pickens' Lecture at a TED talk

However, even Pickens admits that he does not know where the bridge goes.  He admits repeatedly, jokingly, that the future is not his problem.  He is right, it is not his problem.  It is everyone elses’.  If he has children then it is their problem.  I believe solar energy along with the necessary advances in battery technology will be developed and competitive enough that as fossil fuel demand increases the total energy supply will not be an issue.  Also, since the supply will be diversified the industry will be more elastic.  Energy supply will not be the problem.

  

Lack of funding is the problem.  Because the need for an alternate fuel source will not be great enough once fracking has been deemed our energy savior, investments in renewable energy sources will pull back.  Other countries, tired of suckling to a single fuel line from a single country and hurting from payment of exorbitant fees will take the lead.  America, the great innovator, is in some ways already lagging behind the likes of China, Germany, and Brazil.  Those countries will only be the beginning.  Fuel crises continually arise as a single fuel pipeline cuts through several European/Eurasian countries.  The benefit of being self reliant is too great for many of these countries to ignore.  If America does not take the lead in innovation in addition to being indebted to OPEC nations we will have a whole other host of nations to rely on.

As hurtful as it is to say, America needs hard times.  Those hard times are what drives invention.  People cry to go back to the fuel bottle, but they must be weaned off it to grow past our present predicaments.  T Boone Pickens portrayed himself to be a neglectful parent, both to his children and to his country by acknowledging there is a problem and refusing to address the issue.  

There are people that say you would be eliminating thousands of jobs by introducing a dramatic change in industry.  Not so much eliminating, as displacing.  The jobs that would be lost producing fossil fuels and destroying ecosystems would be gained in the renewable industry and in developing new infrastructure to support it.  If this is a dramatic and sudden change, yes, the change would be devastating.  To prevent any sudden changes, it is perfectly fine to proceed with some natural gas extraction, but ensure funds are raised and location is considered to mitigate the environmental risks.

Contracts can have terms set that would either force an up front cost and/or to resolve any issues.  There have been legal obligations in the past, although were they enough?  A decade after the Exxon Valdez spill digging 6” into sand at the beaches and you pull up an oily brine.  How are the tourist industry jobs recovered?  BP utilized surfactants to disperse and dissolve the oils as they floated up in the Gulf of Mexico.  The greatest benefit, whether BP intended it or not, was that aerial photos showed no signs of oil.  However, chemicals that settled at the bottom decimated colonies of shrimp and other sea life which harmed another popular area industry.  How are those jobs recovered?  

Representatives of a company are legally obligated to act in the greatest interest of the shareholders and thus the company; not to protect the environment, not to protect citizens’ jobs.  If you are thinking, ‘but their reputation would be hurt by not protecting the other aspect’, then I have to ask, what was your first thought when I mentioned Exxon Valdez and BP oil spill?  Was it a sort of groan? Or ‘he’s one of those guys?’ Or ‘not that old topic again’?  Corporations have enough options open to them to protect themselves for the amount of time that the typical citizen can stand to hear about a topic.  

Besides, it is primarily an inelastic market.  Forcing the oil corps to clean up their own mess will only result in raising the cost of oil to the consumer in a reactive rather than proactive manner.  What other option do you have?  The government can raise the price of a gallon of fuel.  That candidate would quickly be run out of office next term.  It reminds me of a party a friend threw recently.  The friend did not want to invite certain people for different reasons, but at the same time he did not want to seem rude to those same people.  He had another friend invite people for him.  This way when someone asked either party host, ‘Why didn’t you invite me?’ He could respond that the other person, which ever person it was, must have forgot.  In our oil instance it would simply be passing the blame to another area of government.  Obama was an event organizer.  He should be able to get that deal together easily.  Alright, any conservative reading this should have been able to appreciate that remark at least. 

So, in summary, the contractual agreement between government and oil company needs to strongly encourage the company to diversify its portfolio into renewable investments which help to make the market more elastic.  Eventually, rather than fighting the use of renewables, it will be a perfectly justifiable option to discuss with shareholders.  Some of this cost would still come back to the consumer, but it would be a better value for the dollar.  The endeavor is always going to pose environmental risks, but there is no reason the locations should not be prioritized into only operating in the areas of least impact first.  For North Carolina, that risk seems too great. Oil companies love to advertise to states about the pockets of resources they have found, but they do not advertise the impacts.  And state sponsored studies only look at their own feasibility.  The federal government should conduct this study and map out when each state would be allowed to proceed.  They are not preventing drilling, only prioritizing it.  The study, along with regulating the fossil fuel supply can be used as a tool to manipulate the fuel prices to the consumer to build necessary funds for risk mitigation, to promote federal level infrastructure changes to make other resources a viable option for the future, and to help direct public perception towards the cleaner side of energy production.  Because, as Pickens inferred, it is up to us whether we like what we see at the other side of the bridge.  

UP NEXT: Natural Gas Boom: "Split Estate" Movie Summary

Natural Gas Boom: Now a North Carolina Issue

I am interrupting the current blog series because of a current local issue and event.  Aperture will be showing a movie that discusses fracking for natural resources.  More details of the event are at the bottom of the post.  This post briefly covers my beliefs on the topic, the brief summary of the issue as it relates to NC, and event details.

Recently, my home state, North Carolina, got news that it may have significant pockets of natural gas that would make fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, a possibility in the near future.  I have mixed feelings.  And as part of my mixed feelings, I have turned to the blogiverse to sort out my thoughts.  I am for solar and wind energy like many people would say.  On the other hand, I am also realistic that renewable resources are more expensive and have their own limitations, also like most others would say.  Unlike most people I am less ready to allow the limitations to drive me into acceptance of fossil fuels.  No, I do not have solar panels on my roof.  No, I don’t even typically recycle.  I hold that responsibility up to companies and the government.  If a utility company came to me and said, ‘We would like to install these panels on your roof.  There will be no up front cost.  The cost to us will be made up by charging the same rate as if you did not have the panels.’  I would agree.  Maybe there was some small monthly payment that would be required at first to make the financials work out.  That would still be acceptable.  And I can tell you also that there already are companies that offer this service.  As far as recycling, the majority of the county I live in get service for this as part of their waste management.  Because I live outside the city limits recycling is not provide.  

The gas pockets in North Carolina have been considered for development after the BP oil spill, after other states have had successes and failures with fracking, and after the documentary Gasland raised concerns about the potential harmful effects.  With that in mind a study was commissioned to investigate the impacts that introducing this industry into North Carolina would have.  There have been 2 meetings to discuss the findings of the study and to listen to public opinion.  

This Thursday (4/26), a local independent movie theater, Aperture Cinema, will be showing “Split Estate” at 7:30pm.  The film examines the practice of fracking.  After the movie there will be a presentation on how North Carolina will specifically be impacted, the current and proposed regulations, and how residents can get involved.  Admission is free.

311 west fourth st.winston salem nc
www.aperturecinema.com

Tomorrow I will expand on how I believe the issue should be approached and later in the week I will give a summary of the Aperture event.  After that, back to the lighter side of blogging for a couple weeks.

UP NEXT: Natural Gas Boom- My Take