fashion nova phone number
title: smooth jazz: endless summer sequel (10 hours jazz music session)
Senin, 31 Oktober 2016
fashion nova perfect jeans
in this tutorial you'll learn how to recyclefive t shirts from boring to absolutely amazing and unique.hey guys! after posting my do it yourself shorts tutorial many of you asked for moreclothes diys. so today we're making shirts, tops and all that cool stuff. i'll show youhow to transform five plain boring t shirts into fabulous tops that you'll adore. i promise.want to see it for yourself? let's do it! let's start with this spiral dyed fringe t-shirt.you'll need a shirt, fabric spray paint, elastics, scissors and beads. first we are going tocolor the shirt using a spray paint. place the shirt on the flat surface. locate thecenter of your shirt and pinch it there. this will be the center of your spiral. now starttwisting the fabric like so. you can also
use the palm of your hand. then start featheringthe remaining parts into a spiral with your other hand until you get a nice little cinnamonroll. mmm... now i am getting really hungry. on with the shirt – we need to secure theshape with elastics, so that our roll shape stays in place while painting. tuck the shirtparts peeking out under your elastics like so. i want to color two opposite fourths ofthe circle in pink and the other two in blue. hold your stencil over the shirt so you haveonly one fourth of the shirt exposed and spray the color on. i started with pink for thefirst fourth of the shirt, now i am moving on to the blue spray paint. then go in withpink again and lastly with blue on the last quarter. using the same stencil cover theshirt and spray on the blue paint. spray applies
the color in a wider circle, therefore it'snecessary to use a stencil if you're working with more than one color. you can be quitegenerous because spray paint doesn't tend to leak throughout the fabric. you can alsojust pour some paint on the t shirt for a higher pigmentation. when you are happy, cutthe elastics and here’s the result. as you can see the edges are much sharper when tiedying with spray paint instead of usual fabric paint.if you want more colored stripes, just go ahead and tie the shirt into a roll again.pinch it at the same spot as before, twist, feather the shirt, secure with elastics andstart spraying. since i want to add just pink color this time i’ll spray a pink spraypaint over the entire shirt both, on the front
and at the back. cut the elastics and nowthe spiral design is even more pronounced. i love how it looks! like a cool skeletonspiral! finally we can proceed to the fringe part.start by cutting along the bottom part of the shirt to make it a bit more cropped andto get rid of the edge. for the cute fringe make narrow cuts vertically approximatelyhalf of an inch apart. you can go as high as you want with it, i decided to make aboutfour inches long cuts. you can cut both, the front and the back of the shirt in one go.this way you get equal strings on both sides and you finish quicker. next we need to pulleach string, this will gather the material and won’t look that freshly cut. beforewe start tying the strings i recommend placing
a piece of paper inside the shirt to separatethe front and the back strings. we'll decorate fringes with colorful beads. i decided forlilac, blue, white and yellow ones. take your first and fourth string - it doesn't materwhere you start and thread on three random colored beads. make a knot to keep them inplace like so. then take your third string go through this loop and pair it with thestring number six. add beads and make a knot. as you see, you need to have two strings betweenthe two you tie together. so now you must take the fifth and the eighth one, put thebeads on and make a knot. continue tying the strings with beads all along the front andthen turn the shirt around and continue the same steps at the back. take two strings,thread on the beads and tie a knot. in the
end you will get this cool cross tied fringethat i absolutely adore. you could just make a normal fringe, maybe add some beads to eachstring, but i think this cross tied fringe looks even better. my shirt had a wide necklineso i like to wear it off the shoulder. if you cut the fringe shorter you can totallymake it appropriate for school. it goes great with jeans and will give that fun and carefreeaccent to your outfit. next we are making this adorable cat shirt.we’ll need a shirt, fabric paint, container for color, sponge applicators or a paint brush,scissors, self-adhesive paper, pencil, a piece of cardboard and a printed shape or captionof your choice. you can print out words, smiley face, flower, animal, you name it. i choseto go for a how cute caption and a kitten
on the front, while painting kitty paws onthe back. it will look spectacular! first we have to cut out the kitten, the how cutecaption and the paws. i want to have three different paws sizes so i have to cut allthree out. if you want to have all one size, it’s enough to just cut it once. you canput any caption you like on your shirt. for example a real name of your pet if you haveone. when all the shapes are cut, place them on a self-adhesive paper, outline them witha pencil and cut them out. the important part for us is the paper embracing our shapes.so i like to make one cut to reach the shape, a cat in this case and then cut it out inone go. in the end you need to seal the cut with a tape or a piece of self-adhesive paper.do exactly the same for the caption – one
cut to reach the letter, cut the letters outand seal the cuts. see how we get a perfect caption stencil. and lastly make few pawsstencils, i made two big paws, two middle sized and two small paw stencils.before you start painting, place a piece of cardboard inside the shirt. this will preventthe color transferring from the front to the back of your shirt. stick the how cute stencilon the shirt and don't forget to place a small dot inside the letter o and e. time for myfavorite part – painting. dip the sponge or a brush into the paint. always apply thepaint from the edge towards the center to get a sharp and neat edge. i am using pinkand green fabric paint for this shirt. i decided to color the word "how" and a "dot" in pinkand the word cute in green. normally the fabric
paint looks best on white fabric, but youcan also buy paint meant for darker fabrics. so if your shirt isn't white or some otherlight color, make sure to use dark fabric paint. i applied two coats of paint and nowwe can remove the stencil. first i am removing the two dots using tweezers. then i carefullypeeled off the big one. look how beautiful it is, simply perfect! let's move on to thekitten. stick the stencil in the middle of the shirt below the caption. when choosinga shape for your shirt i recommend going for a simple one. this way it's much easier tomake a stencil and color it neatly. also, keep in mind that if you are using one color,you will only get a shape of an image, so make sure that the shape is representativeenough. once the paint on the front is completely
dry, flip the shirt around and place the pawson the back. i decided to place them diagonally starting with two smaller on the bottom andthen bigger on top. i am making three pink and three green paws, starting with the pinkone on top. again, apply the paint from the edge towards the center for a neat result.when you are done with the first paw, go ahead and peel away the stencil right away. it’smuch easier to remove it when the color is still wet. the edge will still be sharp andprecise. i have been obsessed with fabric paint lately, i love how you can transformplain pieces in something unique and creative. you can also make a shirt for your friend’sbirthday, there is nothing better than a personalized present. and in case you were wondering, fabricpaint is completely washable, so you will
be able to use your amazing customized clothesfor many years. last paw stencil to peel off and i am all done with painting! i am absolutelyin love with this design, especially the paws on the back! we are not yet finished withthis shirt, no, no, i also want to cut it into a muscle t. cut away the bottom edge,i didn't want to go too short. and cut away the sleeves making larger holes for the armslike so. give all the edges a good tuck and we are all done with this gorgeous top. howadorable it is! i like wearing muscle tees with colorful bandeaus underneath, so herei went for the pink one. i finished this cute girly look with some distressed jean shortsand pink sneakers. for all you edgy girls i’m creating thiscool american flag top with side cut outs
and chains. you will need a black t shirt,scissors, chains, black thread and a needle, star studs, self adhesive paper, masking tape,red and white fabric paint, container for paint, sponge applicators or a paint brushand pliers. lay your shirt flat. cut away the bottom edgeto get rid of that sewed part, but you still want to keep the shirt long... next cut allalong the sides of the shirt. start where the sleeves start and continue cutting straightalong. but before you reach the bottom start cutting towards the corner, making a curvedcut to the outside like so. fold the shirt in half and cut the other side by followingthe edge of the already cut side. this way you get a symmetrical cut on both sides!get your chains, i am using two different
sizes of silver chains, and sew them on thesides of the shirt. the chains will hold the back and the front of the top together andwill also add a cool detail to the design. using pliers cut about 3 inches long chainpieces. a combination of thinner and thicker chains will look awesome. take your threadand a needle and make a knot. now we’re ready to start sewing. flip the shirt insideout because we want to attach the chain on the inside of the shirt. make a first stitchwith the needle going inside and then up again. lead the needle through the chain loop, andmake another stitch like so. make two knots to secure the work. we have sewed one sideof the chain to the front fabric of the top, so now we have to sew the other chain sideto the back fabric of the top. repeat the
steps making sure that knots and the chainend will be on the inside of your shirt. you can buy chains like these in a craft storeor you can use pieces of old necklaces that you don’t wear any more. i never throw awaymy old jewelry because there are so many parts you can re-use. beads, charms, chains allthat can be used for your future diy projects. cut another three equally long chain pieces.my first chain was thicker, so now i’m taking this thinner one with a cross. this is actuallya part of an old necklace i don’t wear anymore. also, i recommend checking the jewelry sectionson sale, you will definitely find a lot of super cheap diy supplies there. a necklacewith a lot of chains will be definitely cheaper than buying a chain in a craft store. youcan then use it for anything you want. i am
keeping about half of an inch space betweeneach chain. i went for 4 chains to begin with and this is how they will look when the shirtis on. pretty epic! time to sew four chains on the other side of the shirt as well, againtwo thicker and two thinner ones! i used the clip to mark where i want my first chain tobe. i decided to add a couple of chains more on each side lower on the shirt. this is whyi love making my own shirts so much. you don’t need to have the entire shirt design completelyplanned from the beginning. just start cutting and creating and then try your shirt on andyou’ll see if there’s something missing. you’ll get so many awesome ideas along theway! my last chain is on so i can flip the shirt again and pull firmly all the cut edges.see how cool the sides of our shirt look!
absolutely amazing!for the american flag start by placing a piece of cardboard inside the shirt to prevent colortransferring on the back. take a rectangle piece of self adhesive or normal paper inthe desired size of your flag and stick it on the shirt where you want the flag to be.stick four masking tape pieces all around it, and then peel the self adhesive paperaway. stick masking tape pieces horizontally one close to another. then peel away everyother tape piece and you are left with the perfect stripe stencil. in the top left cornerof the flag, we will attach the stars studs so we need to keep it black. dip the brushinto red fabric paint and start coloring the first stripe. i want the flag to have thatdistressed look. to achieve that, don’t
color the entire stripe perfectly from edgeto edge. leave some parts on the edges without color. just paint quickly and don’t payattention on making it neat. this will give you a cool distressed flag look. we're donewith the red paint. make sure to use fabric paint for dark fabric if you want the colorsto look bright on a darker material. stick new pieces on the top left corner as beforeand on the red stripes when they dry. go in with white fabric paint. i like coloring thestripes with a brush as it gives a more distressed result while the sponge applicator will giveyou a more even layer of color, which is not what we want in this case.we are ready to peel off all the tape pieces! i like to still keep the top and the leftone on for the time being – they will guide
me where to place the stars. take the studs.place them on the top left corner of the flag, push them through the fabric and with thehelp of scissors bend the spikes inside. peel off the two remaining tape pieces and we areall done with this epic top! since the top has cuts all along the sides, i am wearingit with a black bandeau. see how the chains pop on top of the black! at the bottom ofthe shirt i tied two knots to hold everything together and i paired it with distressed denimshorts and white sneakers. or you can also make the same design on a white shirt. inthat case you will need red and blue fabric paint. color the little square on the topleft corner in blue and make red stripes elsewhere on the flag.from rock chick style to happy and cute. i’ll
show you how to easily make a halter top outof a plain shirt. for this project we need a white fitted shirt, scissors, few needlesor pins, white thread, heart shape print–out and colorful fabric pens.lay your shirt flat and cut away the sleeves. make a cut on both shoulders to separate thetop straps. then flip the shirt around and make a cut across the back of the shirt connectingthe bottom of the sleeve cuts. be careful that you only cut the back layer of the top.next cut the neckline on the front of the shirt, keeping that rounded shape. now weneed to make a fold on the neckline. fold about half an inch edge of fabric towardsthe inside of the top and secure it with needles all around the collar. cut away any extrafabric in the corners. it’s time to sew
the folded edge. thread your needle, go throughthe folded edge and tie the ends of the thread together twice for a secured knot. continuestitching up and down along the neckline, making sure you have enough space for a stringin this pocket that we are creating. keep removing the needles while stitching untilyou reach the other side. make one final stitch through the fabric upwards. go through theloop with a needle and make a knot. repeat this twice to secure your work. cut away theexcess thread. on the bottom of the shirt i am just going to snip of an inch of thefabric. to get a straight cut, fold the edge upwards, you can secure it with needles andcut along the line. we’re going to use that extra fabric to get a string for our halter.i had to pin the edge along with needles as
the fabric kept rolling inside. you shouldend up with a fabric ring that you need to cut on one side to get a long string. youcan also cut away the already sewed part here and sew it yourself by making a few stitcheslike this. now you got a nice even string for your halter. pull it firmly to give ita more rounded shape, attach a pin on one end and lead it through the folded pocketon the neckline. do this step by step. lead the string through the pocket a couple ofinches, deruffle the fabric, go on a few more inches and deruffle again until your stringcomes out on the other side. pull the string so you have equally long pieces on both sidesand deruffle the neckline. make a knot on each end of the string. you could also threadon a bead before tying a knot. that would
look so cute! give all the cut edges a tugand we are done with the shape of our top. but we still have to give this plain snowwhite halter some color. cut a heart shape out of the print out and place it on the centerof the top. to keep the fabric stretched and flat you can place some heavy objects on thecorners. secure the stencil in place with some masking tape pieces.finally we are ready to use some fabric markers! i am going to fill the heart with colorfuldots of different sizes. first i am making some larger dots and then smaller to fillthe empty space around them. i am using pink, yellow, orange, turquoise, green and purplemarkers to create a color explosion in a shape of a heart.the fabric markers work best on white fabric,
see how live and bright the colors are! afew final dots and we are done. peel off the masking tape pieces, remove the stencil andlook at our absolutely spectacular design. the heart looks like a beautiful mosaic madeof tiny colored stones. so pretty. i paired the top with my yellow shorts and white sneakersfor a simple yet lovely look. last but not least we are making a knottedsmiley shirt. you will only need a shirt, piece of chalk or a pencil, and scissors.that’s it. lay your shirt flat and sketch where you want to have a smiley face. makethree cuts along the lines. next make short cuts crosswise on the left and the right ofthe cuts. give all the little strings a nice tug. now we need to knot the left and rightstring pairs together like so. i like to knot
each pair twice. pull the knots firmly tosecure them. here i am also cutting the mouth, pulling the strings and tying the upper andlower pairs together. this knotting technique is a great method for shrinking shirts thatare too big for you. it gives you some nice ruffly texture and also makes the shirt morefitted. in the end i am just going to cut the bottom edge of the shirt. i’m snippingaway some fabric on the neckline to make it a bit wider, so i can wear it off shoulder.and i am also cutting away a bit of the sleeves. here goes the first one. i placed that extrafabric from the right sleeve on the left one as a guide. pull all the freshly cut edgesso that the material rolls up and our fifth shirt is finished. i paired it with a flowynavy skirt and white sneakers for a super
comfy but very adorable look.and these were my five diy shirts ideas, i really hope you guys like them. if you wantmore clothes diys give this video a "thumbs up" or let me know in the comments. also tellme which of the five shirts is your favorite because i'm really interested in what stylesyou like and this also helps me when i'm planning for new diys. ok, i hope you're doing greatand i'll talk to you soon! bye! give another life to your old clothes andbe the creator of your own unique style. along the way you will freshen up your closet, savemoney and protect the environment.
Jumat, 28 Oktober 2016
fashion nova paypal
[music playing] -10 years ago, shaun smith wasfighting a war against a rival drug gang. to win, he introduced urbanterrorism to the british underworld. victims were firebombed withhomemade napalm, attacked with grenades, and sprayed upwith machine guns. in retaliation, his enemiestried to blow shaun up with a car bomb, the biggest explosionon mainland britain
between the fall ofthe ira in '77. shaun smith was knownas an enforcer. today, after five years inprison, he is trying to modify those skills by working as adebt collector in the straight [inaudible] economy. -i only do it witha fucking smile. -often shaun's debts fall intothe gray area between the legitimate economy and theunderworld, a lucrative market potentially worth 150billion in britian.
this is a typical debt forshaun, a dispute between a businessman and a gangsterover 300,000 pounds. to recover the debt, shaun hasbrought backup and a dog unit. but just in case things getsout of control, off camera there is a notorious gangsterwith a history of firearms and extreme violence. -sexual abuse is an unspeakabletaboo in the however, male rape is commonlyused as a weapon by gangsters to enforce a debt.
this is a less well known formof underworld violence, which acts as a powerful propagandatool, over and above the physical and mental sufferingit causes. -the lads know they've got offlightly with a telling off, because a slap is nothingcompared to the extremist tendencies shaun was capableof in the past. -shaun smith was an extremistwho specialized in spreading terror for no rational gain. but the hidden costs ofthis guerrilla war
haunts him to this day. -since filming this, shaun hitthe jackpot, landing the biggest deal of his career,a one million pound debt in portugal. payoff was a much neededall-expenses holiday in the sun. after all, going straight hadn'tturned out to be the quiet life he'd oncedreamt of. nat is still workingwith his brother.
he's clean, and no longerself-harming. he's also busy training for hispro boxing comeback, his last shot at the title. tony is still on the run. his family fears if he comesback, he may go on the missing list forever.
fashion nova pants
drew schutte: we've been doingthis eight years, as we say. and it was something that thefirst time ken was going to do it i thought would be special. there's a lot of places whereyou meet leaders of industries. but what is more importantthan having leaders of industries, is havingsomeone that can communicate with them well. and that goes to writing greatarticles, and also having
great conversations with them. and ken auletta was someone iadmired from afar, even when i was at wired, and so wantedto associate with that. and now, eight years later,being at new yorker, it's a real thrill to be introducingken myself. and he is one of thefinest writers we have at the new yorker. he lives up to everything westand for, which is pushing the story somewhere different,pushing the story somewhere
unique, pushing the storysomewhere progressive. if it's already been written,you're not going to read about in the new yorker, and keepingthe bar of excellence higher than, i would, say anypublication out there. and ken epitomizes that, so tohave him as our regular host of the series is really,really important. he is working on a book, thefuture of media, which i'm really excited about. because all of usin this room--
you know it's the tech worldmeeting the content world, and that is a powerful story. and that book is comingout in 2010, and we look forward to that. and with that, i will turnit over to ken auletta. ken auletta: thank you, drew. [applause] i had one piece of business orinstruction i'm following-- please turn off your cellphones, if you could.
when eric schmidt first joinedgoogle, there were those who said he was a figurehead. $16.5 billion later, and amarket that exceeds the combination of most of thelargest media companies in the world, you don't hearmuch of that. but what you do hear somethingabout, more and more, is that google is the new microsoft. we want to talk about thattoday, and much else. let me just--
eric schmidt: i prefer-- why can't i just bethe figurehead? [laughter] ken auletta: you can, wouldyou like to be? eric schmidt: it hasits benefits. ken auletta: what doyou really feel? eric schmidt: well, in the firstplace, i want to thank that the newhouse school for-- ken auletta: see, he's actingas a figurehead now.
eric schmidt: i'm not goingto thank you, i'm going to thank them. first of all, i want to thankthe newhouse school. i believe very, very strongly ineducation, and in the kinds of things the schoolrepresents. and i'm happy to bepart of this. and i think you'll be doingthis for a long time. i always feel like with ken,i should interview him. he's the most thorough personi've ever met in life.
and i don't know how big booksare these days, but his will be the biggest, i feellike saying. so what is really going ondeep down inside of that organization? so we'll see what you have tosay when i interview you. ken auletta: so, this isunlike what the chicago tribune guy said yesterday. he said newspaper reporters,that they should get paid by the word, in effect.
well, book people do. eric schmidt: so that'sthe secret. ken auletta: in any case-- eric schmidt: maybe youshould go ahead and ask your question. ken auletta: before i do, let mejust say one thing, format. the format is eric and i willhave a conversation up here for a half hour or so,and then we'll turn out to you for questions.
i'll give you a kind of signalthat they're coming. and we'll do a half hour of thatand then we'll be ready for dinner. you have late breakfastsin san francisco. eric schmidt: googledoesn't really start until about 11:00. we've had our earlybreakfast now. ken auletta: so, one of thethings that increasingly is said about google is that,it's a one trick pony.
and i know you're going to say,it's a pretty good trick. so let me announce-- eric schmidt: you see, he'sdone his research. ken auletta: but what do you sayto those who say you're a one trick pony? search, that's your money. eric schmidt: well, if the trickis internet, then we're happy to have thatbe our trick. google is an innovatorin the internet.
and it turns out that we werefortunate that search is both one of the most interestingproblems on the internet, and also, because of our advertisingmodel, very, very, very, good business. if you're going to pick abusiness to be in, that's a great one to start in. we've got a lot of newthings coming. and we recently, last year,expanded our mission. we used to say we'research and ads.
now we're search,ads, and apps. and we're slowly changing fromjust talking about search, which, of course, got us wherewe are now, to talking really about cloud computing, the waysin which people will live their lives online. as an example of a new trick,think about google maps, google earth, geospatialinformation, the notion of just knowing where you are andbeing able to tell where you are going in a physical sense.
these are really revolutionaryideas on the scale we've done, and they're new since thecompany was founded. ken auletta: but thereare lots of them. and then, as was said aboutyahoo, by one of their executives some years ago, theproblem with yahoo, he said, is that you spread everythingso thin like peanut butter. right now, the one that ismonetizing is the search. but how do you monetizeall these other apps? eric schmidt: but the goal ofthe company is not to monetize
everything. the goal of the company isto change the world. monetization is a techniquewhich allows us to pay for it. but we don't start frommonetization, we start from the standpoint of what problemsdo people have? a long time ago, larry andsergey and i were, four or five years ago, we're sittingaround saying, well, we should have a strategy. and larry and sergey botharticulated the strategy as
trying to solve big problemsthat affect a lot of people. it's a very broad statement. and larry and sergey would arguethat we're not being ambitious enough, we're notdoing enough different things, if you look at the number ofinteresting problems that information can solve. and these new emergingplatforms, whether they be mobile, or pcs or macs, or soforth and so on in mobility-- i mean, an enormous number ofthings that you can now do
that you couldn't do before-- it's very nice that wealso have a very strong advertising business. and, so far, on the internetthere have not been very many monetizable businesses thathave been other than advertising. there's a few, but, frankly, itlooks like the free service model of the internet withtargeted advertising, is still the best model forus to pursue.
ken auletta: for instance, yougave an interview to maria bartiromo at cnbc in march,in which you said that, my priority this year isto figure out how to make money o youtube. and how to make that not justa success in terms of an audience, but a success inmonetization, if i can use that word again. what would be your definitionof success at youtube? eric schmidt: well, youtubeis a good example.
i was trying to think aboutwhat's new, since a year ago, when we talk about search,ads, and apps. and probably the biggestnew thing has been the success of youtube. the number of clips and the-- a statistic that we have beenquoting is that there's 10 hours of video uploaded everyminute on youtube. to spend some time on youtubeand see the diversity of viewpoints, the languages,the usage patterns--
and its usage pattern isgoing up like this-- we don't yet know exactlyhow we're going to make significant amounts ofmoney from youtube. but it seems obvious that, as anaudience business-- we have many people in the audiencehere who are in the media industry-- it seems obvious thatwe should be able make some money from that. and that's a good thing. youtube is a good example.
when we were fortunate enoughto acquire youtube, we said, your goal is to build anincredible audience business, an incredible community, atremendously scalable model. and we're going to help you withthe kind of technology that google is unique for. youtube is now the majorityof our outbound bandwidth. we've had to re-engineer ourinternal networks, because otherwise the internal networkwould have keeled over, because there's so much videobandwidth going in and out of
the company. and it's in our corporatenetworks, or internal production networks. so it's an amazing phenomenon. so hopefully, in the next year,we will come up with some new inventionsof how to do that. ken auletta: but, as the ceo andnot a figurehead, what is the matrix you would use? how would you judge whether atthe end of the year youtube
has succeeded, by your lights? eric schmidt: because ofthe way the company works, we'll know. in youtube's case, we reviewit on a periodic basis. and we measure everything downto the millisecond, so we know exactly, view rates, adoptionrates, and so forth and so on. we know what the distributionlooks like. we've got a number of peoplehere who are actually distributed partners, they'redistributing their
professional content throughyoutube, which we're very excited about. so we can tell. it is the possible creationof a whole new industry, so we'll know. do we have metrics? absolutely, we havea revenue plan. we have a usage plan. we have a scale plan.
we have a bandwidth plan. and we'll see how wego against them. ken auletta: will you sharethe revenue plan with us? eric schmidt: no. no, we don't do guidance. plus, in the case of youtube,we might just wrong. one of the great things aboutgoogle is that we have enough sort of leverage, if youwill, that we have the luxury of time.
i think many people in businessare under such short quarter time pressure, that theycannot invest for scale. they have to makemoney right now. and that kind of short-termfocus, which is an unfortunate reality of the way our systemsare organized, really does make people sometimes makethe wrong trade-off. we have the luxury of time toinvest, and hopefully our systems and our judgment isgood enough, that when we invest in something that isnot going to pay out,
we'll change it. we'll try something else. we know people are watchingthe content. we know the communityis forming. and we know it'svery powerful. ken auletta: your good friendsteve ballmer says that google has been trying to block theirattempt to acquire, or partner with yahoo. for a change is, he correct?
eric schmidt: and so,i feel so sorry. ken auletta: about? eric schmidt: what wasthe allegation again? ken auletta: that google hasbeen trying to block-- this is like interviewing arussian, when they understand english but they ask forthe interpretation. eric schmidt: i just wantto get the quote right. ken auletta: he said that googlehas been trying to block their acquisition, orpartnership with yahoo.
is he right? eric schmidt: it would seem tome that that decision is up to yahoo, not to google. ken auletta: are you-- but has google beenattempting-- eric schmidt: am i missingsomething? ken auletta: yes. my question, actually. ken auletta: has googlestrategized and tried to
figure out how to prevent thatpartnership or acquisition? eric schmidt: it's been widelyreported that we have talked to yahoo since microsoft madeits offer to purchase them. and we've said publicly, and i'mhappy to repeat now, that we think an independent yahoo isbetter for competition, for innovation, and so forth. there are a lot of reasonsto think that. if you look at microsoft'shistory, again, it's well established, well publicized,its ability to use, in
particular windows and themarket power that they have, to essentially inhibit choice,or prevent choice. and we've, again, said this, inbetter ways than i'm saying now, it's perfectly possiblethat under such a merger, or tight arrangement theycould do that. so we think it's in the market'sinterest, and in particular in end users'interests, to have an independent yahoo. we also did a test with yahoo,where we showed that our
advertising would do prettywell with them. and that's sort of where westand with yahoo right now. ken auletta: but in that test,people then raise the question, including microsoft,raised this question and others, that there would beantitrust concerns if-- eric schmidt: microsoftraised this? ken auletta: they did,as you know they did. as they did when you acquireddoubleclick. eric schmidt: i knewabout that.
ken auletta: yes, ok. but when you-- eric schmidt: they then, bythe way, bought the other competitor, closedbefore we did-- ken auletta: for twice asmuch money as you spent. eric schmidt: yeah, there'sa long history there. ken auletta: but the argumentthat was made by others, if google partnered with yahoo,the argument was that this would pose some antitrustquestions.
you said that shouldn'tbe of concern. eric schmidt: well, in thefirst place, we have not announced a deal with yahoo. so it's important to look at thefacts, as opposed to the speculation. if we were to do a deal withyahoo, or other companies like yahoo, we would make sure thatwe structured it in such a way that those were concerns werenot the primary concerns. if you look at industrialstructures--
i'll make a strongerstatement. we have learned in watchinghow both traditional industries have matured, andalso microsoft's historical behavior, that marketsdo mature. people can work togetherand compete. and there are ways of doing themthe right way, and there are ways of doing themthe wrong way. i think it's every reason tobelieve that as the internet matures as a business, you'regoing to see outsourcing,
competition, partnerships,collaborations, mergers, all the kinds of things thatyou're seeing now. and the particular complaintsthat have been raised, have a problem where theydon't understand how the market works. we are a relatively small partof a very, very large advertising network. for example, yahoo, and i hopeeverybody knows, is the number one player, by far, in thedisplay ads business, and, in
fact, in what is, in fact, alarger business than the business that google is in. so that's an example ofone of the things that people tend to ignore. ken auletta: do you, in yourcalculus going forward, assume that in the end microsoft andyahoo will be joined in some way, as businesspartners, or-- eric schmidt: i don't know. everybody here's been reading inthe press about the things
going on at the yahoo board, andmr. icahn, and so forth. i don't understand how allof that plays out. one of the rules that we've beenoperating internally is to try to focus on the future. and i'd like to say veryclearly, internally we do talk about strategy withrespect to this. and what we say is that weshould have a strategy about innovation and our end users,not about our competitors. one of the axioms we useinternally is that companies
that spend their time focusingon their competitors end up being behind them. it's much, much better forus to look forward at our business, our partners, thekinds of things that we can do, and how quickly we canhelp change things. so the media coverage, andindustry coverage, is all obsessed about winnersand losers. it's a little bit like thepresidential campaign. it's nonstop coverage ofthis person, and that
person, and so forth. when, in fact, what's reallyimportant about technology is that you have an opportunityto redefine the game, over, and over, and over again. and the winner redefinesthe game. so we hope that, with theproducts that we have coming out over the next year, we'vegot a whole new set of interesting things forour end users and advertisers to use globally.
and that's what we spendour time on. ken auletta: trying toreconfigure the game, several weeks ago microsoft announceda program called cashback, where they were going togive rebates to their customers or users. to try and attack yourlead in search. your reaction to that? eric schmidt: well, i guessprobably a statement about their quality.
historically those kinds ofsystems have not worked, for one reason or another. but ultimately the end userwants, in our case, the best information. and so that's howwe approach it. another example, we run thecompany on a set of principles, one ofwhich is that we focus on end user quality. another one is we focuson the end user
perceived quality of ads. notice i didn't sayadvertisers. so this focus on end users,which is the characteristic that i think is why the companyhas grown so quickly, is not going to change. ken auletta: but you can make anargument, if you're giving a rebate to the end user, whichmicrosoft is offering, that serves the end user's-- eric schmidt: well, it partlyoffsets some of the payments
that they've madeto microsoft. ken auletta: ok. in the-- eric schmidt: right? ken auletta: in the purchaseof doubleclick, lots of concerns were raised at thetime about privacy. what is the privacy linethat eric schmidt and google will not cross? eric schmidt: there's, again,lots of concern about privacy.
and i think everybody hereknows that these modern computer systems, of whichgoogle is an example, do, in fact, in the normal course ofbusiness, aggregate a lot of they'll know, maybe, wheresomebody is, they'll know their credit card number,they'll know what their searches are, that kindof that stuff. it's gathered in the normalcourse of the way the servers work. we have a natural limit on whatwe do, which has to do
with our end user perception. now if we were to do somethingwhich caused one of you, or all of you to believe that wewere not trustworthy, with respect to personal informationthat you had, private information,what have you, you wouldn't go back to google. you'd go somewhere else thatdidn't have such a, from your perspective, draconianview on privacy. also, if we made a mistake andsomehow we released your
information inappropriately,that would also cause you to move to a competitor. furthermore, google makes astrong statement, that we won't trap you. this is part of this issue aboutcompetitive structures and so forth. we won't trap your data. if you don't like us, you canmove from our choice to a competitor's choice.
we think that produces a bettercompetitive model for all the players. so with respect to privacy, atthe end of the day, the real check is how do you feel aboutwhat we're doing at privacy. we calculate what our users say,doing, is that people are ok with ads targeted on whatthey're doing, but not necessarily with whowe think you are. there's a line there, and we'revery careful about that. we also limit, with a veryaggressive privacy policy, how
much information we keep aboutthe cookie that is put on your computer, the searchesthat we do. and we publish all of that. and, by the way, just so thateveryone understands-- every privacy conversationends up being a long one. there's a subtle issue withgovernments, whereas governments don't want us tokeep information for too long, but they want us to keep it fora little while, in case there's something baddone by somebody.
and they have the right tosubpoena and things like that. so we're trying tofind a balance. and we've ended up where wethink is the right balance. i do believe that privacy isgoing to be an evergreen issue, that these modernsystems, of which google is one, they really do bring thetraditional questions of anonymity, personal freedom,and government rights to the fore. and i also believe thatgovernments, the countries,
will differ on how theyapproach that. ken auletta: you mentionedsubpoenas. does google get a lot ofsubpoenas, or requests from the government for informationon your users? eric schmidt: like all of theemail systems, we get a fair number of, essentially, searchwarrants, because criminals are foolish enough to use emailto commit their crimes. and we are required by law,as everybody else is, and we do that.
it's not overwhelming. i would have thought it wouldhave been worse, but it is a constant factor. ken auletta: you told me lastwinter, that you, as a member of the apple board, recusedyourself from discussions of iphone, because therewere some areas where you were competing. what's the status of that? can stay on the board when it'sobviously a key part of
their business, and you,as a director, recuse yourself from it? eric schmidt: well, it'sobviously something that we do talk about. and under us law a directorof two companies has what is known as-- you have a two hat problem. you actually have to representboth groups. so the legal solution for thatis you do recusal if you find
yourself in a situation wherethere's a potential conflict. i've only done this once ortwice, so it's not as common as it sounds, and in what webelieve was the appropriate situation, so like businessdealings and things like that. both apple and google believethat the mobile space is going to be very large, that manyof us are going to-- it's interesting that you saidturn off your mobile phones at the beginning of the meeting. the fact of the matter is,everyone here has your mobile
phone with you, in yourpocket, or your purse, or what have you. we're so dependentupon them now. and there's a new generation ofsuch devices coming out, of which the iphone is a veryimpressive example, which will become even more centralto our lives. from the standpoint of bothapple and google, both companies agree with that. each company has a differentapproach, and they're quite
different, as to howto go about that. it turns out google has a hugepartnership with apple in many things, including maps. and, in fact, the vast majorityof the google searches that are mobileactually come in on the iphone, which is very good forboth apple and google. on the one hand, we have thisrecusal issue, but on the other hand, you have a lot ofpartnerships that are deep, and are technology centered,that are very,
very end user focused. ken auletta: but, as you havesaid, mobile is a growing business, and one that you seeas a growing business, but so does apple. and increasingly youwill bump into each other at various places. does at some point itbecome untenable for you to remain as--? eric schmidt: well,it has not so far.
and, again, remember in google'scase we're not building a phone. we're building a linux basedoperating system, which has been, again, broadly discussed,which, in our view, will enable a new category ofplatforms, that are likely to be quite differentfrom the iphone. and the iphone, which, ofcourse, i love, is a great product-- there'll be many otherways of doing mobility. and you can imagine--
start doing a list of differentways of doing mobile computing, there aremany, many choices. ken auletta: i mentioned, inmy introduction, that there are some people who likenedgoogle to the new microsoft. if you go out and talk totraditional media companies, oftentimes you will hearcomplaint, that google is trying to dis-intermediatemy business. if i am a publisher, where youhear that complaint, or i am viacom, where you hear thatcomplaint in television land,
and go down the list, andnames several others. eric schmidt: but, viacomactually has responded to the complaint. ken auletta: with a billiondollar lawsuit, yes. but how would you allay myconcerns, that you are not my competitor, you are my partner,which is the favorite phrase at google? eric schmidt: the way i look atthis is that there is a sea change, right?
and a sea change from onemodel to another. and i think many of thecriticisms that i've seen seem to be really about thechange, and google happens to be the messenger. so those changes aregoing to occur independent of google's behavior. people are, and i think it'sterrible, people are reading less print newspapers,some magazines are struggling from ad rates.
we all know the various issuesof modernization. there is a lot of evidence thatpeople are consuming a great deal more media on thesedigital networks, but they're paying, quote paying through adrates, and so forth, less and less for it. not a good situation. bad for google because we arecritically dependent upon high quality content. so for us, this is--
we really do havegoal alignment. what we don't know, and we'venot yet solved, is how to fix that problem. how to come up with productsthat are online, advertising products, whose monetization perhour of media consumption, for example, monetizesat the same rate. so if we were able to inventthat-- and we're working on these things, but we'venot invented it yet-- then i think a lot of theseconcerns would go away.
this is really because there'sa change in modernization, a change in advertising. it affects all of us,and it's bad for all of us, in my opinion. ken auletta: so i am the newyork times, which we all would agree is an important source ofinformation in our society, how are you going to save me? eric schmidt: well, i don't knowthat we're going to save or not save a specificinstitution.
in the new york times' case,they are a large advertising partner on their site. we also index and delivera lot of content. the new york times isa specific example. people, using various googlemechanisms, read articles, and then they have an opportunity togo to the monetizing sites of the new york times. and we have a lotof technology to make that very easy.
so far we're very good at takingthe traffic that comes to google, and sendingit to the sites. we're not as good at takingthe traffic and monetizing it directly. and then giving the money to theother site, as much as the historic model, the printadvertising, and so forth. there is an analogy,involving itunes. cd sales have continued todecline, even though the net margin in itunes is roughlysimilar to a cd.
so you'd say, well, they'rekind of equivalent, right? well, they're not because thegross revenue that goes into that pays for jobs, andbuildings, and people, and distribution, who arestruggling with this change of model. and we certainly don't want tosee that continue in all of these other media industries. ken auletta: social networks,like facebook, you have orkut, have tremendous traffic,but they don't
have tremendous revenue. are you confident that theywill be able to sell advertising, and how? eric schmidt: eventually. we have a deal with myspace thatwe've been working on for quite some time. there's a tremendous amountof use of social networks. and, judging, based on thelook of this audience, my guess is that you don'tspend all day
inside your social network. but there's an awful lotof other people who do. and the traffic is phenomenal. and there will be advertisingproducts, that are in that context, about what people aredoing, where people will learn how to market andsell products. i'm very optimisticabout that. it's taken longer for theindustry to find those mechanisms, but they'reclearly there.
ken auletta: the same is truefor mobile devices? eric schmidt: mobile is actuallyeasier because, if you think about a targeted ad,a mobile phone has a gps, it knows where it is, and it'sa highly personal device. so one of the sea changetransitions going on in advertising is from untargetedto targeted advertising. when you go from untargeted totargeted, revenue goes up because the advertiser willsupport a higher ad rate, if you will.
mobile looks like it willultimately be the highest of the ad rates. that is, it'll be the mosttargetable and the most valuable, based on the initialsuccesses that we've had now. ken auletta: but it may notbe considered traditional advertising, it maybeconsidered service? eric schmidt: well,historically, in advertising everyone was focused ontelevision advertising, for example, many people hereknow all about this.
but there was this muchlarger business, called direct marketing. these were the flyers that youwould get in your mailbox, and things like that. one way of thinking aboutgoogle's success is to think that our primary success was,in fact, in that direct marketing piece, which is quitemeasurable and very, very tactical. we like to say that our mostimportant customer is, in
fact, the vp of sales in acompany, because when the vp of sales signs up, they can see,we're going to get this amount of revenue, and it'svery, very predictable. in the mobile case, it's justan extension of that. there will, of course, bepowerful new mobile ad formats, because as the devices,the mobile devices get more powerful, you'll beable to do things like click-to-play video ads, andother motion things. most people believe thatadvertising is ultimately
about telling stories, right? it's all about narrative, andthese new devices will be able to do very, very powerfulnarratives. again, remember, they know wherethey are, they have a camera, you can play video onthem, and you can talk to the person, right? eric, stop, turn left,you need new pants. i'm looking at them now, andthey have a hole in them. i mean you can imagine thatscenario, it's a very, very
lucrative ad. ken auletta: you mentioned allthese products, and apps, and things you're doing at google. what excites you? what new product, that you havein the pipeline get your juices going? eric schmidt: the ones that ithink are the most impressive are the ones that use artificialintelligence to do things that i cannot imaginewere doable.
the automatic translation thatis being done now, we will eventually do hundred by hundredlanguages, where you can automatically take thisset of languages and immediately convertthem into other. and the translations aredone by computer, not done with humans. that alone will havea phenomenal impact, we hope, on society. so that's one example.
another example that i'm very,very excited, has do with the geopositioning. people now, because of iphonesand blackberries with gpss, all of a sudden you don't haveto be given instructions anymore where you're going,you just sort of figure it out. you could say, i want to goto starbucks, or whatever. there it is, turn left, andso forth and so on. the level of resolution that wecan now achieve, again, is
exciting in and of itself. when you think about it, notso much in our part of the world, in the united states andin europe, but think about all the places that have neverhad reliable maps. and at google we have peoplewho are actually taking satellite photos, and handdrawing the first accurate maps of large, 30 millionpeople, cities, because they've never existed before. what we found was that oursearch business, advertising
and business, often are leadingand lagging with the presence of maps. because geo-mappingis so fundamental. we have a lot of fun things. for example, one of the demosthat we do, is we take a star field that is 13.5 billion yearsold, it's the widest view you can get out of thespace telescope, it was done in so-called deep view series. they go around earth, every oncein a while, and they take
these long exposure pictures. and we go from there all the waydown to a street sign in san francisco. and that view is a viewof 13.5 billion years ago to the present. and it's the largest fieldof view that a human can ever see. it is, literally, the sizeof the universe. this stuff is amazing.
ken auletta: when you think ofgoogle, and you spin forward, what do you worry most about? is it competition, is itsomething within google, something else? eric schmidt: at our scale, andin our position, if you look at the history oftechnology, the problems are set from within. it's not a competitor's movethat ultimately screws up the business, or the franchise,or the institution.
and, just as i was sayingearlier that companies in competitive markets often focuson a competitor rather than what they should be doing,we, because of our market position, because ofour success, we have an opportunity to find ourselvesas we go forward. but there are so many-- andpeople have commented on this a great deal recently-- there's so many obstacles tocontinued success, right? you have scale issues, andgrowth issues, and turnover,
and so forth and so on. but great companies, we hopeto be a great company some day, can overcome them. they get to the next level,the next level, and the next level. that's almost completely determined by internal factors. in our case, we've grownvery quickly. we have a lot of new people.
how do we make sure thatoriginal, incredible culture, which larry and sergey founded,which again, you've studied pretty carefully, howdo we know that that's been replicated uniformly acrossthe 20,000 or so employees that we have and all thecontractors and partners? how do we know that every personis operating at that level and scale? well, we don't. but we have to have systemsto do that.
so i worry a great deal aboutwhether the model, now that it's been set and it appearsto be scalable, will in fact scale. and that's been true fora couple of years now. ken auletta: do you worryabout government? eric schmidt: only in the sensethat they ultimately have the power-- governments can affectthe internet in some remarkable ways.
people have talked-- forexample, there are a number of governments that ban variousforms of google. youtube is periodically bannedby this country-- i can never remember whichcountries are banning youtube at any given time-- for whatever reason. and then we go andwe talk to them. and we explain that, yes, thatvideo, we know you didn't like that video.
and it's not legal here, butthat's only one video, and there's how many other videos,and so forth and so on. and then people put pressure onthem, and they unblock it. so that's an example. and i had never appreciated thatgovernments would see the internet as so important thatthey would begin to block it at the router level. so i worry about that. i think the issues of privacyand competition, that we're
talking about now, at least thewestern governments that we deal with, understand thebalance pretty well. we've been able to navigatethat, as have other internet companies. ken auletta: my last question,before i turn to the audience for questions. you're a relatively young man,but in internet time, you're an old man, you've been arounda long time, and-- eric schmidt: it's the firsttime i've ever been called an
old man, ken. ken auletta: you want meto withdraw the point? or speak it in russian? eric schmidt: no, no,please continue. ken auletta: what is uniqueabout this period? you've been through severalgenerations of change. what is unique about beinga ceo in internet time? eric schmidt: the onlydifference between now and 100 years ago is the compressionof time.
i've studied this for awhile. i looked at what was lifelike 100 years ago. and the equivalent group wassitting in the equivalent ballroom, having the equivalentconversation, but time was different. and, if you look at the historyof technology, what it really does is, itaccelerates time. companies are formed quicker,decisions are made faster, scaling occurs quicker, and,by the way, failure also
occurs more quickly. so one way to think aboutgoogle's success is that it in many ways it's no differentfrom the success of the companies that existed over the,say 30 years previously, that i looked at, that i'mdirectly familiar with, and obviously you'refamiliar with. the difference is it allhappened quicker. if you want to make a list of,what are all our challenges? well you have customer issues,government issues, scalability
issues, innovation issues,aging issues, employee turnovers, and soforth and so on. you can make all that list.the difference is it all occurs at google in six monthsrather than six years. when i was at sun, we had allthe same issues, we just had longer time. another example is that,at sun we had two year product road maps. we have trouble gettinga six month
product road map at google. it's not because the peoplearen't smart, people are very smart, it's just that itchanges so quickly. and my guess is that 20 yearsfrom now or 30 years from now, the next interview, andmaybe you guys will still be doing your-- ken auletta: whenwe're old men. eric schmidt: well, in yourcase, you'll finally be old. they will be saying the samething, oh we had so much time
when we were at google, butnow, in xyz company, god! everything happened inone month, right? and off we go. and the reason the compressionof time occurs is because there's so many more actors. we're seeing a situation nowwhere we, as americans, don't appreciate the effect ofthe industrialization of 2 billion people. and all those peopleare coming online.
they're all usingthe internet. and they're all goingto be players. and we have to listen to themand participate in it. there's not that much differencewhen you go back and you look at thekind of people-- when i first joined google, forexample, i realized that they're exactly-- at the time the people thati was working with were in their late 20s--
these were exactly the samepersonality types that i"d worked with 20 yearsearlier at sun. to the same point where thisperson, who didn't have a house, was sleeping in hiscube, on his futon. and i thought, it's the sameperson 20 years later. we had to put in a rule,by the way, you couldn't live at google. which we had to haveat sun too. ken auletta: questions?
yes. if you'd please just identifyyourselves. do we have microphones coming? there's one comingright behind you. audience: hi, i'm gerry corbett,with red flag, formally hitachi. i've been experimenting with thegoogle health, and i was really surprised at the lackof partners and service providers on the site.
and sort of intriguedwith some of the models that are on there. if you want to get your medicalhistory, you pay a company $25 to fax 100 pages. what's your view of how fastgoogle health is going to grow, and what are theimpediments there? eric schmidt: well, in the firstplace, we just launched it, so i'm glad you'reusing it. and we're in perpetual betawith our products, so we
listen to feedback,we're always changing it and so forth. the most important, i think,with google health will be the connection with your existingservice providers. and i agree with you thatthe list that we have is relatively short. on the other hand, thearchitecture that we built is pretty easy for themto connect to. so we think that with marketing,and the pressure,
and customer demand, because,remember we can bring so many people to it, we thinkpeople will come to it pretty quickly. how long will it take? we never know, but it'scertainly months, not weeks, as try to get more people. we have a whole team now goingout, now that it's public, and stable, and so forth, saying,wouldn't you really like to get your consumers all thatinformation, and all that
health information? the feedback about google healthitself, ignoring the partnership thing, hasbeen phenomenal. and we hope, over the next fewyears, that it will become one of the major ways, or one ofthe major components of the debate that's going tooccur in health care. ken auletta: yes, there. just wait for the microphoneto come please. larry aidem: i'm larry aidemfrom sundance channel.
first off on a personal note,lynn vanderhoek was kind enough to put me at the headtable, a very misguided act, but it is her birthday today,and so you should say happy birthday to her when she-- eric schmidt: happy birthday. larry aidem: she mentioned thatnone of the lowlifes in her family had said anything,so i figure that's the least we can do. i have a quick question juston the scale issue, eric,
because it's sort of a truism oftraditional media companies that the pace that they moveat is disturbingly the opposite of nimble. and yet you have, notwithstanding this spectacular growth, moved very nimbly. and you briefly addressed thepractices, but i'm curious, could you just give a coupleof examples of what you do internally to keep thatentrepreneurial, fast-moving. i think ken interviewed, a fewyears ago, one of your
executives who mentioned oncea week she has office hours where anyone in the companycan come for two hours. and i thought, wow,what a great idea. but could you just talk abouta few other examples that? eric schmidt: again, whenwe're talking about the problems of scale, eventuallyteams go from 3 people to 30 people and you wonder are yougetting 10 times more productivity. so we worry about thosekinds of things.
in our case, we have a number ofarchitectural reasons to be optimistic. every week everyone submitswhat they did in what are called snippets. and if you fail you get abusedby the email system until you tell us what you're doing. we can see that. people have something called20% time where they are encouraged to do thingson their own that are
interesting to them. most of our innovations actuallyoccur from 20% time. we do continual productreviews-- product review after product review. we spend all day sittingin meetings just, how are you doing? why are you not doing better? ken in his coverage of googlewatched one of these where all of a sudden it was obviousthat, in particular, the
founders thought that thisparticular area was just not aggressive enough. and eventually we sent them offand said come back with a more aggressive plan. so i think part of the thingsthat we do are to push harder. i don't think that thecreativity and the innovation occurs naturally. i think it does need tobe executive assisted. and in that context,risk has to be--
it has to be ok to fail. ken auletta: question,corner here. behind you. miguel helft: hi eric, miguelhelft from the new york times. going back to ken's questionabout monetization, media, and the threat that this change isposing to our business, what sense of responsibility, if any,does google have in sort of helping solve thatmonetization problem? and as you've mentioned, if youdon't solve it or somebody
else solves it, they'll be lessinformation in the world and less for you to organize. and if there is a sense ofresponsibility, to what extent does it play a rolein helping design? or how does it constrain youwhen you design a product like google news which a lot ofpublishers, rightly or wrongly, see as competitive? eric schmidt: in the case ofgoogle news, after a lot of discussions with the publishersof the key
newspapers we agreed that onbalance google news sent more traffic to the sites thancannibalization of the sites. so on balance we concludedthat it was positive. it's important to know thatthe publishers who go into google news have an opportunityto opt out. in other words, they'renot forced into this. because it's easy if you don'twant to be part of the index. so the consensus after a lot ofconversations was that on balance it was positive.
that's not an answer to youroverall question, but it's a specific answer. the overall question of what arewe doing, it's a huge, in my view, moral imperativefor google to help here. and a lot of the issues arounddoubleclick were really about historically google has hadadsense for content product which allowed you to monetizeessentially largely remnant inventory and other sort of websites inventory that was not directly sold.
by combining the doubleclickarchitecture with that architecture, we can offer asingle essentially exchange and platform for publishers,which over time we believe will begin to generate some verysignificant revenue for online publishers such as thenew york times and the new york times' competitors. it's a very large businessopportunity for us. it's very, very competitive. as i mentioned, yahoois a leader there.
microsoft has a significantoffering there. and there's a couple ofother companies as well, including aol. ken auletta: ben? just stand up. you got it. ben schachter: hi. ben schachter, i'm a financialanalyst at ubs. but i won't ask you aboutthe quarter so
don't worry about that. a more broad-based questionabout passion, and that is early stages of the company,really there was a passion about organizing information. and you sort of found a way,in a lot of ways copied a model, about how to pay forit around advertising. but the passionate reallywasn't for advertising. so the two questions are-- is the passion for you and fora lot of at the company, has
it always been around the ideaof cloud computing, and the network, and that you'recontinuing to evolve that? and the second question is howdo you keep the financial discipline around paying for thebuild out of that cloud? eric schmidt: the passion on theadvertising side is very strong still. and it's around new advertisingapproaches to targeted advertising. every time i see an ad thatmakes no sense to me, i think
why did that advertiser botherpaying what are pretty significant ad rates when theycould have used a more targeted approach. we have many product ideas ofthings that we can do that will produce fewer,more targeted ads. and that model we think has verysignificant sort of legs, if you will. lots of future. the cloud computing is a wayof expressing, imperfectly
perhaps, the notion that googleis becoming more and more central to a lot ofaspects of the way the internet is working ifyou're a daily user. there is a new way of buildingapplications that's not the monolithic windows-basedmodel. if you think about the oldmodel, you had this huge development tool. you built the dlls, youdistributed it and so forth. this new model is much moreof a sharing model.
so we're trying to comeup with language that explains that. if you don't care if thetechnology, you can see this if you use, for example,google calendar. and i thought calendars arenot very interesting. but the calendars that we offerare phenomenal because they're so easy to crosslink. or spreadsheets similarly. in a spreadsheet cell you canhave an automatic search which
automatically changes the celland so forth and so on. we just had a developerconference here across the street a few weeks ago wherethousands of people came to learn how to build in this newapplications platform. how does that relate thatto advertising? all of those platforms willneed to be monetized. all of those platforms are goingto at least consider using advertising as away of making money. some of them will be enormouslysuccessful, of
course we don't know whichones right now. audience: yes, thisgentleman here. we'll come to you. adam lashinsky: thank you. hi eric, adam lashinskiwith fortune magazine. you said that the vast majorityof mobile searches on google are comingfrom the iphone. which is a fascinating commentsince the iphone is a tiny market share of cell phones.
could you quantifythat in any way? and i understood your to ken-- i want to know if i understoodyou correctly that you don't necessarily need to recuseyourself every time discussion of the iphone comes up at theapple board meetings. and one other quick question,you also said that google is working on ways to help thisproblem continuing to get high quality content given that therevenue stream is decreasing for the overall media.
would you give a couple examplesof what google is doing to help fixthat problem? eric schmidt: in reverse order,the easiest examples have to do with some of theproducts that doubleclick will be offering. publishers use doubleclick andnow can monetize their websites more by the integratedoffering that we're busy building. with respect to that iphone idon't know the exact number,
but it's on the order of afactor of 10 or more searches. and the reason simplyis that the iphone has a better browser. and we hope that as othercompetitors for the iphone bring out more scalable and morepowerful browsers we will also see very significantgrowth. my guess is most of you haveeither never used the browser that's in the mobile phone thatyou use or it doesn't work at all.
or in any case youcan't find it. if you are an iphone user today,it's easy to find. and that's the distinction thati was trying to make. and on the recusal issues, yeah,that's roughly right. ken auletta: ok, adam? yes, ma'am. christa quarles: i guess whenmarketers figure out which half of their ad budgets they'rewasting, do they just spend half?
is the ad market goingto get cut in half i guess when that happens? and then the second part ofthat question is as the ad market becomes maybe too small,is that why we're potentially seeing focus creepto the extent that you're looking at renewable energy? i guess how does that fit intoorganizing the world's information? so any comments there?
male speaker: say who you are. christa quarles: oh,sorry, christa quarles with thomas weisel. eric schmidt: yes, hi, chris. i disagree that renewableenergy is focus creep. when you realize how much energygoogle uses, it's the least we should be doing. these data centers that we'rebuilding unfortunately use an enormous amount of power.
we try to put them nextto renewable-- like next to dams. presumablynot downstream from the dam but sort of next to the dam. and things like that. because we're very aware of theenvironmental impact of the data centers. one of the studies is thatabout 1 and 1/2% of us electricity is in factnow going to data centers as a whole.
so it's an important issue andsomething we care a lot about. ken auletta: did you say half? eric schmidt: 1.5%. ken auletta: oh, 1.5%. eric schmidt: 1.5% was themost recent study i saw. christa, could you repeatyour first question. christa quarles: whenthe marketers figure out which half-- eric schmidt: yeah, whichhalf, will it go down?
the evidence is that budgetsgo up, not down, in this situation becauseof the linkage. think about why dopeople advertise. they don't advertise just forfun, and they certainly don't advertise just to see their adson tv. they advertise in order to sell stuff. and so when we can show alinkage for direct marketing spending for sales,the budgets go up. now so far, the question that'sasked overall is what
happens to total ad budgets. and we don't know. we know that the advertisingindustry is on the order of $750 billion, roughly half inthe us and half elsewhere. we know that it's is growingslowly, not a lot. we know that the online part isgrowing very dramatically. some of that is taking share. so you're seeing a shift fromuntargeted to targeted ads. and i think that will continuefor many, many years--
20 years, 30 years. ken auletta: yes, sir? audience: hi, i'm[? stefan busick ?], newhouse class of 1980, now serving atcomcast. you had said earlier in your remarks, perhapsoff-handedly, that one of the goals at google was tochange the world. to what end? eric schmidt: to be better. audience: that's a lofty goal.
that kind of power can be usedfor good or not so good. what is you're-- eric schmidt: well we're notplanning on doing bad things. audience: well yeah. i was just wondering what isyour idea of creating a better world through google? eric schmidt: well a lot of theworld is organized around lack of information, and inparticular trying to prevent people from knowingwhat's going on.
in the technology generationthat i've been part of the biggest story has been theempowerment of individuals to use digital technologyto find out things. i talked about theyoutube growth. another thing that's growingvery quickly is the uploading of digital photographs. our estimates are we getsomewhere between 15 and 30 million photographs uploadedevery day. that number is growingvery dramatically.
and those photographs,by the way, are almost all about people. so people are obsessed withtheir friends and what's going on and so forth and so on. that photographic record hasenormous value to open society and is ultimately threateningto closed societies. so we take the position thatthe empowerment of the individual with all the kind ofinformation that we see is ultimately an improvement.
my personal view is that you'regoing to get better governance with moretransparency. you're going to get bettergovernance in the political sphere, businesses, and soforth, to the degree that your model allows you to talk aboutwhat you're doing and to let people know about it. we have tried within-- and google started off, and anumber of the reporters here know, pretty secretive.
and we've tried as hard as wecan to change that culturally, to write down exactly whatour policy is, exactly what we're doing it. because the world is betterwhen you know what people are doing. ken auletta: let's takeone more question. this side of the room. yes, sir? justin resuello: thank you.
hi, my name is justin resuellowith moody's investor service. i'm wondering if you couldtalk about the mission of don't be evil, perhaps inrelation to google.org, and the challenges the firm faceswith commodity costs and supply issues. where does google.orgfit in and is it becoming more important? eric schmidt: as partof going public-- we debated going public.
as you know, it was a bigdecision for the company. ultimately we really didn'thave a choice. we decided that as part of thewealth that was going to be created we wanted to pay some ofthat back into society, and a commitment was made thatroughly 1% of equity value and 1% of profits would go in. and google.org was createdas a result. google.org has identified fiverough errors they're focusing on, and they have projectsin each one of them.
one is in renewable energyas previously discussed. another one has to do withsmall businesses. another one has to do withtransparency in governance in third world countries. and there are a coupleof others. i won't do justice, but ifyou go to their website you'll see them all. and a lot of google employeesare volunteering their time with it.
it's an example ofdon't be evil. don't be evil is oftenmisunderstood. we don't have an evil meterthat we can sort of apply. this is-- you know, you were sayingearlier about what is good or evil. but the rule of don't be evilallows for a conversation. and i thought when i joined thecompany this crap, right? companies don't reallyhave these things.
it must be a joke. it must one of thesesort of larry and sergey humorous things. so we're sitting in a roomin the first six months. and we're sitting around havinga discussion about advertising and one of theengineers says, that's evil. and it's like a bomb goesoff in the room, right? everything stops and everyonethen has a moral and ethical conversation, which, by theway, stopped the product.
i saw it with my own eyes. so it's a cultural rule. it's a way of forcing aconversation, especially in areas which are ambiguous. ken auletta: i wantto thank eric. i think we've seen why he'snot a figurehead. eric schmidt: oh, thankyou very much, ken. happy to do this andthank you all. drew schutte: i just want tothank eric and ken and thank
our sponsors, ubs and thenewhouse school for making this happen and thankyou all for coming. have a great day.
Kamis, 27 Oktober 2016
fashion nova panorama
it’s already dark. your mother knows what she does. - if you want i’ll go there.- no! she can take care of it. she is there with your grandmother. and what about this story...between you and z㩠seco? there is no story.it is of no concern to you. it’s agonizing. bad news is always the first to arrive.
someone is coming. things over there are very complicated. i can’t do more than i have done. - my heart is heavy.- how is he doing? for god’s sake, do something! - i’m going over there to check.- what for? will it do any good? they are gonna kill my boy. shut up!if i’m telling you, it’s cause i’ve seen it.
all you can see is disgrace. was i not supposed to see it?i was there. what good did it do?i did what i could. you’re right.we do what we can. only sees disgrace... and what more could i have seen? that was all you brought to this house. i saw the poor guy... ...all covered in barbwire.
i pity him, his face isall covered in blood, in gore. your mother is over there,settling it with z㩠seco. who knows what can happen? she is over there all alone. hope to god they don’t take her as well. - no one leaves this house.- just let him go. if one of us goes over there,it will only make matters worse. believe in your father. only disgrace...
to me and my daugther. but god is bigger. if our world is like that,beside him there is another law. there’s who to trust. we live abandoned. you are my daughter’s disgrace why do you talk so much? - this is my house.- soon my mother will be home... maybe she’ll even have my brother with her.
you listen way too much to your father. soon she will be here. they are going to kill him. they will only let him goif i can get three oxes to give them. damn! what are we to do? offer anything, we can make a deal. there’s no deal,it’s either three oxes or he gets killed we can ask one of the neighbours.
they don’t have anything,much less to spare us. no one ever finds three oxeslost around the pasture. what happened mother? he said he’ll forgive him for stealing. at what cost? at what cost mother? that you go work for him. but in that case, i’ll go. - go son. go tell it to z㩠seco...- you are not going!
- there has to be another way.- what other way father? - i’m going!- you are not going! you don’t know z㩠seco.if he takes you, he will treat you like a dog. i will take care of myself father.i’ll make a deal with him...you are not going! what about my brother?we just let him die over there? he’s your oldest son. oh, so he is worth more?are we going to sacrifice one for the other? he can fix his brother’s mistakes. family needs to be there when the rest fails us.
he can go there sincethe father doesn’t do a thing. he chose this path.he was raised by you. - because he didn’t have a father.- mother! i found my boy here alone more than once.and where was his father? and now my boy will diebecause of this nonsense. so the scar on z㩠seco’s face is nonsense? - you didn’t give him that scar.- but my brother did. if i go there we all die we both die.
you talk so much about z㩠seco,but used to work for him. you and your brother.this business is all about money. - it's not for your kids, it's not for your wife...- that’s enough mother! you abandoned your family all your life.and, now you’re handing your boy to death enough! you are useless to your family.damn! i’m a man and the father of my sons.did you hear me? lawless world. - worst of all, he went after it.- it’s all lies.
you are always on his side. if only you had taught him the right way. with me, all he learned was the right way. i’m on my brother’s side.he probably didn’t steal anything. he stole! it’s a fact! he stole more than once. and when he was littlehe’d steal under your order. what if he did?so what? because of that he needs to be beaten to death?
if until later today we don’t givethem what they want, they will kill him. later when? i don’t know. how was i supposed to know? time is running out.if you do nothing, i'll go there. if you go there willjust changes the dead's name. there things are done without asking. my brother’s mistake was to look into his faceand say that there are things we should never do. go you wretched man...
you’ll come back in a sackwithout your balls and eyes, just like your uncle. so what does one do? i am going there! - what?- i am going there... if there will be a bloodshed,i won’t abandon my son. stop it. you were right.bring me the sickle. no! if you three die on the same day,what is left of me?
let’s go! no one leaves! you're not going.no one leaves! - stop it mother!- stay away! - what did you say?- only i know how much it hurts. let go of the sickle. leave him there. if you three die at the same time,what is left of me? woman, it’s your son over there.it’s your son. and this one here? what is he?
and you? i won’t let god take the three of you from me.i can’t handle being alone again. - give me the sickle!- no! hold on. wait, there’s always a way.just wait. there’s always a way. wait. these people only understand blood and money. give him this land, it should be enough. this is my land. soon revenge will be forgotten.that should be enough. it’s my land.
you go and make a deal. you left my daughter emptyhanded during her whole life. - now you want to take what belongs to me?- we will find a new life after leaving this place. i buried your father here.i'll stay here. he wants oxes. you've lost your mind. - is there another way?- we can always find more land. this is my land. i already told you this. you’re not going! that’s it!
tell him! tell him! we give what we have. leave here for what? to die? what else can we do? leave him there! say what? his entire life he’s gotten into trouble.this is how it’ll end for him anyways. he can be a thief, but he has a father.
go get him. he must be already dead. go get him! damned!you all have a deal with the devil. bad blood! will burn in hell. in hell’s fire.god curse you all! shut up grandmother! shut up! bury yourself here.six feet under.
with my grandfather,father, mother, all of us. for my brother,hell is already burning.
fashion nova panorama mall
as an architect you design for the present, with an awareness of the past, for a future which is essentially unknown. the green agenda is probably the most important agenda and issue of the day. and i'd like to share some experience over the last 40 years -- we celebrate our fortieth anniversary this year -- and to explore and to touch on some observations about the nature of sustainability.
how far you can anticipate, what follows from it, what are the threats, what are the possibilities, the challenges, the opportunities? i think that -- i've said in the past, many, many years ago, before anybody even invented the concept of a green agenda, that it wasn't about fashion -- it was about survival. but what i never said, and what i'm really going to make the point is, that really, green is cool. i mean, all the projects which have, in some way, been inspired
by that agenda are about a celebratory lifestyle, in a way celebrating the places and the spaces which determine the quality of life. i rarely actually quote anything, so i'm going to try and find a piece of paper if i can, [in] which somebody, at the end of last year, ventured the thought about what for that individual, as a kind of important observer, analyst, writer -- a guy called thomas friedman, who wrote in the herald tribune, about 2006.
he said, "i think the most important thing to happen in 2006 was that living and thinking green hit main street. we reached a tipping point this year where living, acting, designing, investing and manufacturing green came to be understood by a critical mass of citizens, entrepreneurs and officials as the most patriotic, capitalistic, geo-political and competitive thing they could do.
hence my motto: green is the new red, white and blue." and i asked myself, in a way, looking back, "when did that kind of awareness of the planet and its fragility first appear?" and i think it was july 20, 1969, when, for the first time, man could look back at planet earth. and, in a way, it was buckminster fuller who coined that phrase. and before the kind of collapse of the communist system, i was privileged to meet a lot of cosmonauts in space city and other places in russia.
and interestingly, as i think back, they were the first true environmentalists. they were filled with a kind of pioneering passion, fired about the problems of the aral sea. and at that period it was -- in a way, a number of things were happening. buckminster fuller was the kind of green guru -- again, a word that had not been coined. he was a design scientist, if you like, a poet,
but he foresaw all the things that are happening now. it's another subject. it's another conversation. you can go back to his writings: it's quite extraordinary. it was at that time, with an awareness fired by bucky's prophecies, his concerns as a citizen, as a kind of citizen of the planet, that influenced my thinking and what we were doing at that time. and it's a number of projects. i select this one because it was 1973, and it was a master plan
for one of the canary islands. and this probably coincided with the time when you had the planet earth's sourcebook, and you had the hippie movement. and there are some of those qualities in this drawing, which seeks to sum up the recommendations. and all the components are there which are now in common parlance, in our vocabulary, you know, 30-odd years later:
wind energy, recycling, biomass, solar cells. and in parallel at that time, there was a very kind of exclusive design club. people who were really design conscious were inspired by the work of dieter rams, and the objects that he would create for the company called braun. this is going back the mid-'50s, '60s. and despite bucky's prophecies
that everything would be miniaturized and technology would make an incredible style -- access to comfort, to amenities -- it was very, very difficult to imagine that everything that we see in this image, would be very, very stylishly packaged. and that, and more besides, would be in the palm of your hand. and i think that that digital revolution now is coming to the point
where, as the virtual world, which brings so many people together here, finally connects with the physical world, there is the reality that that has become humanized, so that digital world has all the friendliness, all the immediacy, the orientation of the analog world. probably summed up in a way by the stylish or alternative available here, as we generously had gifted at lunchtime, the [unclear], which is a further kind of development --
and again, inspired by the incredible sort of sensual feel. a very, very beautiful object. so, something which in [the] '50s, '60s was very exclusive has now become, interestingly, quite inclusive. and the reference to the ipod as iconic, and in a way evocative of performance, delivery -- quite interesting that [in] the beginning of the year 2007, the financial times commented that the detroit companies envy the halo effect that toyota has gained
from the prius as the hybrid, energy-conscious vehicle, which rivals the ipod as an iconic product. and i think it's very tempting to, in a way, seduce ourselves -- as architects, or anybody involved with the design process -- that the answer to our problems lies with buildings. buildings are important, but they're only a component of a much bigger picture. in other words, as i might seek to demonstrate, if you could achieve the impossible,
the equivalent of perpetual motion, you could design a carbon-free house, for example. that would be the answer. unfortunately, it's not the answer. it's only the beginning of the problem. you cannot separate the buildings out from the infrastructure of cites and the mobility of transit. for example, if, in that bucky-inspired phrase, we draw back
and we look at planet earth, and we take a kind of typical, industrialized society, then the energy consumed would be split between the buildings, 44 percent, transport, 34 percent, and industry. but again, that only shows part of the picture. if you looked at the buildings together with the associated transport, in other words, the transport of people, which is 26 percent, then 70 percent of the energy consumption is influenced by the way that our cites and infrastructure work together.
so the problems of sustainability cannot be separated from the nature of the cities, of which the buildings are a part. for example, if you take, and you make a comparison between a recent kind of city, what i'll call, simplistically, a north american city -- and detroit is not a bad example, it is very car dependent. the city goes out in annular rings, consuming more and more green space,
and more and more roads, and more and more energy in the transport of people between the city center -- which again, the city center, as it becomes deprived of the living and just becomes commercial, again becomes dead. if you compared detroit with a city of a northern european example -- and munich is not a bad example of that, with the greater dependence on walking and cycling -- then a city which is really only twice as dense, is only using one-tenth of the energy.
in other words, you take these comparable examples and the energy leap is enormous. so basically, if you wanted to generalize, you can demonstrate that as the density increases along the bottom there, that the energy consumed reduces dramatically. of course you can't separate this out from issues like social diversity, mass transit, the ability to be able to walk a convenient distance, the quality of civic spaces.
but again, you can see detroit, in yellow at the top, extraordinary consumption, down below copenhagen. and copenhagen, although it's a dense city, is not dense compared with the really dense cities. in the year 2000, a rather interesting thing happened. you had for the first time mega-cities, [of] 5 million or more, which were occurring in the developing world. and now, out of typically 46 cities, 33 of those mega-cities are in the developing world.
so you have to ask yourself -- the environmental impact of, for example, china or india. if you take china, and you just take beijing, you can see on that traffic system, and the pollution associated with the consumption of energy as the cars expand at the price of the bicycles. in other words, if you put onto the roads, as is currently happening, 1,000 new cars every day -- statistically, it's the biggest booming auto market in the world --
and the half a billion bicycles serving one and a third billion people are reducing. and that urbanization is extraordinary, accelerated pace. so, if we think of the transition in our society of the movement from the land to the cities, which took 200 years, then that same process is happening in 20 years. in other words, it is accelerating by a factor of 10. and quite interestingly, over something like a 60-year period, we're seeing the doubling in life expectancy, over that period where the urbanization has trebled.
if i pull back from that global picture, and i look at the implication over a similar period of time in terms of the technology -- which, as a tool, is a tool for designers, and i cite our own experience as a company, and i just illustrate that by a small selection of projects -- then how do you measure that change of technology? how does it affect the design of buildings? and particularly, how can it lead
to the creation of buildings which consume less energy, create less pollution and are more socially responsible? that story, in terms of buildings, started in the late '60s, early '70s. the one example i take is a corporate headquarters for a company called willis and faber, in a small market town in the northeast of england, commuting distance with london. and here, the first thing you can see is that this building, the roof is a very warm kind of
overcoat blanket, a kind of insulating garden, which is also about the celebration of public space. in other words, for this community, they have this garden in the sky. so the humanistic ideal is very, very strong in all this work, encapsulated perhaps by one of my early sketches here, where you can see greenery, you can see sunlight, you have a connection with nature. and nature is part of the generator, the driver for this building. and symbolically, the colors of the interior are green and yellow.
it has facilities like swimming pools, it has flextime, it has a social heart, a space, you have contact with nature. now this was 1973. in 2001, this building received an award. and the award was about a celebration for a building which had been in use over a long period of time. and the people who'd created it came back: the project managers, the company chairmen then. and they were saying, you know,
"the architects, norman was always going on about designing for the future, and you know, it didn't seem to cost us any more. so we humored him, we kept him happy." the image at the top, what it doesn't -- if you look at it in detail, really what it is saying is you can wire this building. this building was wired for change. so, in 1975, the image there is of typewriters.
and when the photograph was taken, it's word processors. and what they were saying on this occasion was that our competitors had to build new buildings for the new technology. we were fortunate, because in a way our building was future-proofed. it anticipated change, even though those changes were not known. round about that design period leading up to this building, i did a sketch, which we pulled out of the archive recently. and i was saying, and i wrote, "but we don't have the time,
and we really don't have the immediate expertise at a technical level." in other words, we didn't have the technology to do what would be really interesting on that building. and that would be to create a kind of three-dimensional bubble -- a really interesting overcoat that would naturally ventilate, would breathe and would seriously reduce the energy loads. notwithstanding the fact that the building, as a green building, is very much a pioneering building.
and if i fast-forward in time, what is interesting is that the technology is now available and celebratory. the library of the free university, which opened last year, is an example of that. and again, the transition from one of the many thousands of sketches and computer images to the reality. and a combination of devices here, the kind of heavy mass concrete of these book stacks, and the way in which that is enclosed by this skin,
which enables the building to be ventilated, to consume dramatically less energy, and where it's really working with the forces of nature. and what is interesting is that this is hugely popular by the people who use it. again, coming back to that thing about the lifestyle, and in a way, the ecological agenda is very much at one with the spirit. so it's not a kind of sacrifice, quite the reverse. i think it's a great -- it's a celebration.
and you can measure the performance, in terms of energy consumption, of that building against a typical library. if i show another aspect of that technology then, in a completely different context -- this apartment building in the alps in switzerland. prefabricated from the most traditional of materials, but that material -- because of the technology, the computing ability, the ability to prefabricate, make high-performance components
out of timber -- very much at the cutting edge. and just to give a sort of glimpse of that technology, the ability to plot points in the sky and to transmit, to transfer that information now, directly into the factory. so if you cross the border -- just across the border -- a small factory in germany, and here you can see the guy with his computer screen, and those points in space are communicated. and on the left are the cutting machines,
which then, in the factory, enable those individual pieces to be fabricated and plus or minus very, very few millimeters, to be slotted together on site. and then interestingly, that building to then be clad in the oldest technology, which is the kind of hand-cut shingles. one quarter of a million of them applied by hand as the final finish. and again, the way in which that works as a building, for those of us who can enjoy the spaces,
to live and visit there. if i made the leap into these new technologies, then how did we -- what happened before that? i mean, you know, what was life like before the mobile phone, the things that you take for granted? well, obviously the building still happened. i mean, this is a glimpse of the interior of our hong kong bank of 1979, which opened in 1985, with the ability to be able to reflect sunlight deep into the heart of this space here.
and in the absence of computers, you have to physically model. so for example, we would put models under an artificial sky. for wind tunnels, we would literally put them in a wind tunnel and blast air, and the many kilometers of cable and so on. and the turning point was probably, in our terms, when we had the first computer. and that was at the time that we sought to redesign, reinvent the airport.
this is terminal four at heathrow, typical of any terminal -- big, heavy roof, blocking out the sunlight, lots of machinery, big pipes, whirring machinery. and stansted, the green alternative, which uses natural light, is a friendly place: you know where you are, you can relate to the outside. and for a large part of its cycle, not needing electric light -- electric light, which in turn creates more heat, which creates more cooling loads and so on.
and at that particular point in time, this was one of the few solitary computers. and that's a little image of the tree of stansted. not going back very far in time, 1990, that's our office. and if you looked very closely, you'd see that people were drawing with pencils, and they were pushing, you know, big rulers and triangles. it's not that long ago, 17 years, and here we are now.
i mean, major transformation. going back in time, there was a lady called valerie larkin, and in 1987, she had all our information on one disk. now, every week, we have the equivalent of 84 million disks, which record our archival information on past, current and future projects. that reaches 21 kilometers into the sky. this is the view you would get, if you looked down on that. but meanwhile, as you know,
wonderful protagonists like al gore are noting the inexorable rise in temperature, set in the context of that, interestingly, those buildings which are celebratory and very, very relevant to this place. our reichstag project, which has a very familiar agenda, i'm sure, as a public place where we sought to, in a way, through a process of advocacy,
reinterpret the relationship between society and politicians, public space. and maybe its hidden agenda, an energy manifesto -- something that would be free, completely free of fuel as we know it. so it would be totally renewable. and again, the humanistic sketch, the translation into the public space, but this very, very much a part of the ecology. but here, not having to model it for real. obviously the wind tunnel had a place,
but the ability now with the computer to explore, to plan, to see how that would work in terms of the forces of nature: natural ventilation, to be able to model the chamber below, and to look at biomass. a combination of biomass, aquifers, burning vegetable oil -- a process that, quite interestingly, was developed in eastern germany, at the time of its dependence on the soviet bloc.
so really, retranslating that technology and developing something which was so clean, it was virtually pollution-free. you can measure it again. you can compare how that building, in terms of its emission in tons of carbon dioxide per year -- at the time that we took that project, over 7,000 tons -- what it would have been with natural gas and finally, with the vegetable oil, 450 tons. i mean, a 94 percent reduction -- virtually clean.
we can see the same processes at work in terms of the commerce bank -- its dependence on natural ventilation, the way that you can model those gardens, the way they spiral around. but again, very much about the lifestyle, the quality -- something that would be more enjoyable as a place to work. and again, we can measure the reduction in terms of energy consumption.
there is an evolution here between the projects, and swiss re again develops that a little bit further -- the project in the city in london. and this sequence shows the buildup of that model. but what it shows first, which i think is quite interesting, is that here you see the circle, you see the public space around it. what are the other ways of putting the same amount of space on the site? if, for example, you seek to do a building
which goes right to the edge of the pavement, it's the same amount of space. and finally, you profile this, you cut grooves into it. the grooves become the kind of green lungs which give views, which give light, ventilation, make the building fresher. and you enclose that with something that also is central to its appearance, which is a mesh of triangulated structures --
again, in a long connection evocative of some of those works of buckminster fuller, and the way in which triangulation can increase performance and also give that building its sense of identity. and here, if we look at a detail of the way that the building opens up and breathes into those atria, the way in which now, with a computer, we can model the forces, we can see the high pressure, the low pressure, the way in which the building behaves rather like an aircraft wing.
so it also has the ability, all the time, regardless of the direction of the wind, to be able to make the building fresh and efficient. and unlike conventional buildings, the top of the building is celebratory. it's a viewing place for people, not machinery. and the base of the building is again about public space. comparing it with a typical building, what happens if we seek to use such design strategies
in terms of really large-scale thinking? and i'm just going to give two images out of a kind of company research project. it's been well known that the dead sea is dying. the level is dropping, rather like the aral sea. and the dead sea is obviously much lower than the oceans and seas around it. so there has been a project which rescues the dead sea by creating a pipeline, a pipe,
sometimes above the surface, sometimes buried, that will redress that, and will feed from the gulf of aqaba into the dead sea. and our translation of that, using a lot of the thinking built up over the 40 years, is to say, what if that, instead of being just a pipe, what if it is a lifeline? what if it is the equivalent, depending on where you are, of the grand canal,
in terms of tourists, habitation, desalination, agriculture? in other words, water is the lifeblood. and if you just go back to the previous image, and you look at this area of volatility and hostility, that a unifying design idea as a humanitarian gesture could have the affect of bringing all those warring factions together in a united cause, in terms of something that would be genuinely green and productive in the widest sense. infrastructure at that large scale is also
inseparable from communication. and whether that communication is the virtual world or it is the physical world, then it's absolutely central to society. and how do we make more legible in this growing world, especially in some of the places that i'm talking about -- china, for example, which in the next ten years will create 400 new airports. now what form do they take?
how do you make them more friendly at that scale? hong kong i refer to as a kind of analog experience in a digital age, because you always have a point of reference. so what happens when we take that and you expand that further into the chinese society? and what is interesting is that that produces in a way perhaps the ultimate mega-building. it is physically the largest project on the planet at the moment. 250 -- excuse me, 50,000 people working 24 hours, seven days.
larger by 17 percent than every terminal put together at heathrow -- built -- plus the new, un-built terminal five. and the challenge here is a building that will be green, that is compact despite its size and is about the human experience of travel, is about friendly, is coming back to that starting point, is very, very much about the lifestyle. and perhaps these, in the end, as celebratory spaces. as hubert was talking over lunch,
as we sort of engaged in conversation, talked about this, talked about cities. hubert was saying, absolutely correctly, "these are the new cathedrals." and in a way, one aspect of this conversation was triggered on new year's eve, when i was talking about the olympic agenda in china in terms of its green ambitions and aspirations. and i was voicing the thought that -- it just crossed my mind that new year's eve,
a sort of symbolic turning point as we move from 2006 to 2007 -- that maybe, you know, the future was the most powerful, innovative sort of nation. the way in which somebody like kennedy inspirationally could say, "we put a man on the moon." you know, who is going to say that we cracked this thing of the dependence on fossil fuels, with all that being held to ransom by rogue regimes, and so on. and that's a concerted platform.
it's more than one device, you know, it's renewable. and i voiced the thought that maybe at the turn of the year, i thought that the inspiration was more likely to come from those other, larger countries out there -- the chinas, the indias, the asian-pacific tigers. thank you very much. (applause)
Langganan:
Postingan
(
Atom
)
