ARTBASE (2)
BIO
Jim Andrews does http://vispo.com . He is a poet-programmer and audio guy. His work explores the new media possibilities of poetry, and seeks to synthesize the poetical with other arts and media.
David Cole on John Yoo
It isn't online, unfortunately, but there's a review in the Nov 17,2005
issue of the New York Review of Books by David Cole of a book by John Yoo
called 'The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs
After 9/11' that is...what? Shocking? Disturbing? You're probably used to it
by now. But here we go.
Here we have a lawyer reviewing another lawyer's book. David Cole is a law
professor at Georgetown and the author of 'Enemy Aliens: Double Standards
and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism'. Yoo has returned to
private life in the law faculty at Berkeley.
Here are some excerpts from Cole's review of Yoo:
Few lawyers have had more influence on President Bush's legal policies in
the "war on terror" than John Yoo. This is a remarkable feat, because Yoo
was not a cabinet official, not a Whith House lawyer, and not even a senior
officer in the Justice Department....Yet by all accounts, Yoo had a hand in
virtually every major legal decision involving the US response to the
attacks of September 11, and at every point, so far as we know, his advice
was virtually always the same--the president can do whatever the president
wants.
Yoo's most famous piece of advice was in an August 2002 memorandum stating
that the president cannot constitutionally be barred from ordering torture
in wartime--even though the United States has signed and ratified a treaty
absolutely forbidding turture under all circumstances, and even though
Congress has passed a law pursuant to that treaty, which without any
exception prohibits torture.
In his book, Yoo contends that the president has unilateral authority to
initiate wars without congressional approval, and to interpret, terminate,
and violate international treaties at will. Since leaving the Justice
Department, Yoo has also defended the practice of "extraordinary
renditions," in which the US has kidnapped numerous "suspects" in the war on
terror and "rendered" them to third countries with records of torturing
detainees. He has argued that the federal courts have no right to review
actions by the president that are said to violate the War Powers Clause. And
he has defended the practice of targeted assassinations, otherwise known as
"summary executions."
The Pentagon's National Defense Strategy, issued in March 2005, states: "Our
strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who
employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes,
and terrorism."
The proposition that judicial processes--the very essence of the rule of
law--are to be dismissed as a strategy of the weak, akin to terrorism,
suggests the continuing strength of Yoo's influcence. When the rule of law
is seen simply as a device used by terrorists, something has gone perilously
wrong.
issue of the New York Review of Books by David Cole of a book by John Yoo
called 'The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs
After 9/11' that is...what? Shocking? Disturbing? You're probably used to it
by now. But here we go.
Here we have a lawyer reviewing another lawyer's book. David Cole is a law
professor at Georgetown and the author of 'Enemy Aliens: Double Standards
and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism'. Yoo has returned to
private life in the law faculty at Berkeley.
Here are some excerpts from Cole's review of Yoo:
Few lawyers have had more influence on President Bush's legal policies in
the "war on terror" than John Yoo. This is a remarkable feat, because Yoo
was not a cabinet official, not a Whith House lawyer, and not even a senior
officer in the Justice Department....Yet by all accounts, Yoo had a hand in
virtually every major legal decision involving the US response to the
attacks of September 11, and at every point, so far as we know, his advice
was virtually always the same--the president can do whatever the president
wants.
Yoo's most famous piece of advice was in an August 2002 memorandum stating
that the president cannot constitutionally be barred from ordering torture
in wartime--even though the United States has signed and ratified a treaty
absolutely forbidding turture under all circumstances, and even though
Congress has passed a law pursuant to that treaty, which without any
exception prohibits torture.
In his book, Yoo contends that the president has unilateral authority to
initiate wars without congressional approval, and to interpret, terminate,
and violate international treaties at will. Since leaving the Justice
Department, Yoo has also defended the practice of "extraordinary
renditions," in which the US has kidnapped numerous "suspects" in the war on
terror and "rendered" them to third countries with records of torturing
detainees. He has argued that the federal courts have no right to review
actions by the president that are said to violate the War Powers Clause. And
he has defended the practice of targeted assassinations, otherwise known as
"summary executions."
The Pentagon's National Defense Strategy, issued in March 2005, states: "Our
strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who
employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes,
and terrorism."
The proposition that judicial processes--the very essence of the rule of
law--are to be dismissed as a strategy of the weak, akin to terrorism,
suggests the continuing strength of Yoo's influcence. When the rule of law
is seen simply as a device used by terrorists, something has gone perilously
wrong.
Re: Lev Manovich: public lecture
> This situation fundamentally changed over the last few years as the
> developments in IT now make possible for us for the first time to record
> (and consequently organize and access) as much data as we want.
> How does IT
> industry, computer science and engineering research, media design and art
> are responding to this new 'post-compression' condition? What
> kind of media
> art can we create today when we can capture the world without any
> limitations.
Really? What has happened over time is the size of the hard drives have
increased and so have the sizes of the entities we save. A film can easily
take up more than a gigabyte. And a typical hard drive can hold then about a
hundred movies. And I imagine that part of the response to yet bigger hard
disks will be yet bigger entities. Some games, for instance, that you play
over the net are forever expanding their storage space on your hard drive
with new levels and environments and so on.
I don't think there are no limitations to data storage now, given that what
we store changes in response to the amount of storage space available. And
the net bandwidth. And whatever else.
Computer Science tells us that most computing problems are intractable and
that there are infinitely many of them. Which is to say we can always max
out whatever computer we have if it addresses the types of tasks it's
capable of. Film is not the end of the road.
Let's suppose that we ourselves operate at about 24 'frames per second' at
the visual level (never mind sound and touch and other sensory data). And in
a moment we take in, say, an area that is 4000x4000 in distinguishable
'pixels'. And that we can distinguish about 66666 different colours. Round
that to 65536=2^24 which would take 3 bytes to code. I'm not sure if those
numbers are right but I suspect they're in the ballpark.
3 bytes * 24 * 4000 * 4000 = 1,152,000,000 bytes per second = 1.152 Gb/sec.
of visual information.
Then there's sound and touch and smell and taste. As a rude approximation,
let's just say each of these is half the bandwidth of the visual.
So that'd put the whole critter at about 3.5 Gb/sec of sensory information.
CPU's can't handle that yet.
If the typical hard drive is about 100 Gb, that gives us about 33 seconds
per hard drive of full sensory storage.
ja
http://vispo.com
> developments in IT now make possible for us for the first time to record
> (and consequently organize and access) as much data as we want.
> How does IT
> industry, computer science and engineering research, media design and art
> are responding to this new 'post-compression' condition? What
> kind of media
> art can we create today when we can capture the world without any
> limitations.
Really? What has happened over time is the size of the hard drives have
increased and so have the sizes of the entities we save. A film can easily
take up more than a gigabyte. And a typical hard drive can hold then about a
hundred movies. And I imagine that part of the response to yet bigger hard
disks will be yet bigger entities. Some games, for instance, that you play
over the net are forever expanding their storage space on your hard drive
with new levels and environments and so on.
I don't think there are no limitations to data storage now, given that what
we store changes in response to the amount of storage space available. And
the net bandwidth. And whatever else.
Computer Science tells us that most computing problems are intractable and
that there are infinitely many of them. Which is to say we can always max
out whatever computer we have if it addresses the types of tasks it's
capable of. Film is not the end of the road.
Let's suppose that we ourselves operate at about 24 'frames per second' at
the visual level (never mind sound and touch and other sensory data). And in
a moment we take in, say, an area that is 4000x4000 in distinguishable
'pixels'. And that we can distinguish about 66666 different colours. Round
that to 65536=2^24 which would take 3 bytes to code. I'm not sure if those
numbers are right but I suspect they're in the ballpark.
3 bytes * 24 * 4000 * 4000 = 1,152,000,000 bytes per second = 1.152 Gb/sec.
of visual information.
Then there's sound and touch and smell and taste. As a rude approximation,
let's just say each of these is half the bandwidth of the visual.
So that'd put the whole critter at about 3.5 Gb/sec of sensory information.
CPU's can't handle that yet.
If the typical hard drive is about 100 Gb, that gives us about 33 seconds
per hard drive of full sensory storage.
ja
http://vispo.com
Re: "Rilke and the Archaic Torso", by Edward Picot
Hi Edward,
I liked having all those translations of the Rilke poem, to start it out. I have to read a poem at least five times anyway to start to understand it, so great to read four different translations instead.
Your commentary on it was to the point and useful not only about the poem but larger contexts involving Nietzsche, Shaw, Yates, Eliot etc, the 'theory' of the 'superman' in art, politics, and relations between Romanticism and Modernism. Also some interesting observations about the 'superman' in relation to the Darwinian.
Your "Undercommentary" and Flash piece broadened the context from a historical study to some sort of consideration of the place of that literary history and history of ideas in the contemporary and/or in your own view of things now. Instead of views on who we are and how history is shaped, the "Undercommentary" gives us a look at something of your history and wondering on your own identity. And the Flash piece puts the broken torso in interesting relation to Flash poetry, or 'disjunctive' contemporary poetry.
As a work of net art, it's quite humble, but that doesn't seem to be a detriment to it as a good piece of "hyperliterature". Nor did I get the sense that I'd rather have seen it be in print. I do get that sense, though, in a lot of hypertext that is unreadable for one reason or another on the screen. The Flash poem was a bit unreadable. That's actually the only part of the piece I didn't read a few times. But I guess I read it visually instead, in relation to the fragment, the torso, the disjunctive, the Superman and the Flash.
Thanks. I enjoyed it very much.
> "Rilke and the Archaic Torso"
> http://sporkworld.org/guestartists/picot/index.html
ja
I liked having all those translations of the Rilke poem, to start it out. I have to read a poem at least five times anyway to start to understand it, so great to read four different translations instead.
Your commentary on it was to the point and useful not only about the poem but larger contexts involving Nietzsche, Shaw, Yates, Eliot etc, the 'theory' of the 'superman' in art, politics, and relations between Romanticism and Modernism. Also some interesting observations about the 'superman' in relation to the Darwinian.
Your "Undercommentary" and Flash piece broadened the context from a historical study to some sort of consideration of the place of that literary history and history of ideas in the contemporary and/or in your own view of things now. Instead of views on who we are and how history is shaped, the "Undercommentary" gives us a look at something of your history and wondering on your own identity. And the Flash piece puts the broken torso in interesting relation to Flash poetry, or 'disjunctive' contemporary poetry.
As a work of net art, it's quite humble, but that doesn't seem to be a detriment to it as a good piece of "hyperliterature". Nor did I get the sense that I'd rather have seen it be in print. I do get that sense, though, in a lot of hypertext that is unreadable for one reason or another on the screen. The Flash poem was a bit unreadable. That's actually the only part of the piece I didn't read a few times. But I guess I read it visually instead, in relation to the fragment, the torso, the disjunctive, the Superman and the Flash.
Thanks. I enjoyed it very much.
> "Rilke and the Archaic Torso"
> http://sporkworld.org/guestartists/picot/index.html
ja
Re: Dyson at Google + Cathedral down due to author's negligence
> The difference with traditional writing here being that each work is
> essentially part of it's timeframe due to the techniques/software-hardware
> being used in creating it?
Any programming is time-based insofar as there is a very carefully
constructed control flow. That is not to a particular time but to a general
time (like a clock). But while any clock is concerned with time in general,
it is anchored in its own age/time by its look and design and concept of
time. A clock is a time machine that reminds us of its time and can do many
other things, like a work of art can, such as embody a notion of eternity
(or not, such as the case may be).
> Making its timeframe more general-less personal
> than is the case with an ordinary poem? Using Director 6.0 frames it in a
> different time than using Director 8.5?
Am working on a project with some other poets to publish some kinetic work
by bp Nichol, a Canadian poet, from the eighties. Some computer poems done
with Apple Basic on an Apple IIe. I have viewed these works through an Apple
IIe emulator (for the PC) that is freely downloadable. Very Atari. Green
text, no anti-aliasing, blips and bleeps, command line, no visual menus,
etc. Kind of exciting to view this work on the emulator. Fullscreen. Very
time machine to that time. Making a Director or Flash version of those works
would take some doing to get it right. When we fire up Director or Flash
work, there are expectations, and they aren't the same as concern work from
the eighties.
> The problematic part being that we
> are not aware of how much of the current state-of-the-art in
> computing goes
> into creating these pieces of digital writing, while with ordinary writing
> we needn't bother?
Well, the state of language and the world certainly colors ordinary writing.
Reading Chaucer or Shakespeare or the Romantics, for instance, is very time
machine and of all that language in mood and tongue that still is ours. Time
machine back to that time and language and world, and also of 'eternal'
experience. But, yes, in computer art, not only the language and the world,
but the OS and working within doable contemporary possibilities for kinetic
aspects, visual aspects, sonic, etc. Something of a challenge to rise above
that 'language'. 'Rise above' in the sense that it doesn't dominate your
work, doesn't speak more prominently than whatever you're saying.
> I don't get the portal to the future bit, though. Digital writing going
> metaphorical by pretending what it could be if current techniques evolved
> beyond their present state, showing directions for the future perhaps? Or
> when talking concrete poetry creating virtualities for future
> 'materialisations'?
Well, for instance, when I was reading Lionel Kearns's work from the
sixties-through-eighties, it struck me that some of the work was speculative
about futures that could still happen but haven't. It is forward-looking
writing. 'On Lionel Kearns' is a look back at a forward-looking poet; we see
him looking at us and into the future. Yet the poems are anchored in the
sixties-through-eighties via all sorts of details belonging to that time.
> In traditional, structuralist narrative theory you got the distinction
> narration time/narrated time. A theory that is more towards
> reception of the
> literary work adds 'reading time' to those time dimensions, as a required
> condition for the existence of the other two. Those theories
> generally lead
> to a historic, procedural interpretation of a text, making for a different
> Shakespeare sonnet depending on when one reads it.
Sure. Meaning is constructed by us, so that will change, over time.
> A piece of digital writing would add runtime to that, effectively
> including
> the hardware into its timeframe and expanding the reading
> experience beyond
> the visual at the cost of binding it to the hardware it was written for. I
> see you taking a turn for the positive here, claiming a magical HG Wells
> quality for digital writing because of its fragility. Runtime as a future
> actualisation of creation time, making a sort of handler for a reverse
> engeneering process to get back there. Restoring the place, as it were.
I wasn't thinking specifically of digital literature, actually, as time
machines. When I studied literature of previous eras, time portals there
too. Mediated via the book material but more generally through the language.
My experience of previous eras is mostly through books (and of course the
magical mythic outlines of my own past (in my head)). Though my visit to
England was wonderful in that sense of history not only via the book but the
museum, for instance, and some of the architecture. As is commmonly noted,
Europeans have a different sense of history than in North America. Where I
live, *evident* history is the land, the forests, the environment, and the
indigenous cultures. Not western culture/history. That is sort of who I am,
but it is a mere blip on the land here, impermanent and slated for disaster.
Computer art is time-based, but not linear time. The timeline versus the
flowchart. I talked with a guy recently who is working with others on a
project "to kill Max", to make a better Max. He says at the heart of the
program is concern with time, with timing, with synchronization, etc.
Thinking about what he said, it seems the same could be said of Director,
for instance. At the heart of Director is a way of carving up time into
"frames" in the "Score" (timeline) and assigning processing times/order to
any code that is run and any screen updates.
I think the "magical HG Wells quality...of digital writing" is yours, Dirk.
We are always in the moment but we have memory and imagination, and need to
refer to the past and imagine the future.
> In my Cathedral i start from places, because in spite of some very
> convincing believers in the discrete universe, i maintain the time-place
> continuum in its Leibnizian sense. Consequently there's a fifth time-place
> dimension there, namely global network time. Without referring to
> the Dyson
> book (i haven't read it) or the man himself, that's where the dysonian
> horseshit kicks in. I think you're right in being very sceptical towards
> such thinking (its crappy because it mixes up the fictional
> timeframes with
> realtime), but perhaps you're underestimating Mrs Hayles argument on this:
> in a world with a science of simulation, companies act on the
> power of their
> own make-believe. Which brings us back to some very real dangers on the
> print-to-digital market.
I think we will develop impressive artificial intelligence. We already have,
actually, in chess and other specific tasks. But I mean more comprehensive
intelligence. I see no reason why not except time. The mind is amazing
software wired into amazing bodies. We don't understand the half of it. But
we will (if we don't kill ourselves off first). I am hopeful that the Net
will continue to evolve as something that assists humanity in its better
aspirations and as a source of both information and inspiration to billions
of people.
But I am skeptical about the notion of the Net as a single intelligence. To
me, it is its plurality yet connectivity amongst pluralities that describes
its potential. Artificial intelligence can--and already is--useful in
facilitating the connectivity amongst pluralities, in gathering and
arranging and relating information. Weizenbaum (author of ELIZA) argued that
there are some decisions computers should not be allowed to make: those that
require wisdom. As long as we are wise enough to know what questions those
are, we might muddle through OK.
ja
http://vispo.com
> essentially part of it's timeframe due to the techniques/software-hardware
> being used in creating it?
Any programming is time-based insofar as there is a very carefully
constructed control flow. That is not to a particular time but to a general
time (like a clock). But while any clock is concerned with time in general,
it is anchored in its own age/time by its look and design and concept of
time. A clock is a time machine that reminds us of its time and can do many
other things, like a work of art can, such as embody a notion of eternity
(or not, such as the case may be).
> Making its timeframe more general-less personal
> than is the case with an ordinary poem? Using Director 6.0 frames it in a
> different time than using Director 8.5?
Am working on a project with some other poets to publish some kinetic work
by bp Nichol, a Canadian poet, from the eighties. Some computer poems done
with Apple Basic on an Apple IIe. I have viewed these works through an Apple
IIe emulator (for the PC) that is freely downloadable. Very Atari. Green
text, no anti-aliasing, blips and bleeps, command line, no visual menus,
etc. Kind of exciting to view this work on the emulator. Fullscreen. Very
time machine to that time. Making a Director or Flash version of those works
would take some doing to get it right. When we fire up Director or Flash
work, there are expectations, and they aren't the same as concern work from
the eighties.
> The problematic part being that we
> are not aware of how much of the current state-of-the-art in
> computing goes
> into creating these pieces of digital writing, while with ordinary writing
> we needn't bother?
Well, the state of language and the world certainly colors ordinary writing.
Reading Chaucer or Shakespeare or the Romantics, for instance, is very time
machine and of all that language in mood and tongue that still is ours. Time
machine back to that time and language and world, and also of 'eternal'
experience. But, yes, in computer art, not only the language and the world,
but the OS and working within doable contemporary possibilities for kinetic
aspects, visual aspects, sonic, etc. Something of a challenge to rise above
that 'language'. 'Rise above' in the sense that it doesn't dominate your
work, doesn't speak more prominently than whatever you're saying.
> I don't get the portal to the future bit, though. Digital writing going
> metaphorical by pretending what it could be if current techniques evolved
> beyond their present state, showing directions for the future perhaps? Or
> when talking concrete poetry creating virtualities for future
> 'materialisations'?
Well, for instance, when I was reading Lionel Kearns's work from the
sixties-through-eighties, it struck me that some of the work was speculative
about futures that could still happen but haven't. It is forward-looking
writing. 'On Lionel Kearns' is a look back at a forward-looking poet; we see
him looking at us and into the future. Yet the poems are anchored in the
sixties-through-eighties via all sorts of details belonging to that time.
> In traditional, structuralist narrative theory you got the distinction
> narration time/narrated time. A theory that is more towards
> reception of the
> literary work adds 'reading time' to those time dimensions, as a required
> condition for the existence of the other two. Those theories
> generally lead
> to a historic, procedural interpretation of a text, making for a different
> Shakespeare sonnet depending on when one reads it.
Sure. Meaning is constructed by us, so that will change, over time.
> A piece of digital writing would add runtime to that, effectively
> including
> the hardware into its timeframe and expanding the reading
> experience beyond
> the visual at the cost of binding it to the hardware it was written for. I
> see you taking a turn for the positive here, claiming a magical HG Wells
> quality for digital writing because of its fragility. Runtime as a future
> actualisation of creation time, making a sort of handler for a reverse
> engeneering process to get back there. Restoring the place, as it were.
I wasn't thinking specifically of digital literature, actually, as time
machines. When I studied literature of previous eras, time portals there
too. Mediated via the book material but more generally through the language.
My experience of previous eras is mostly through books (and of course the
magical mythic outlines of my own past (in my head)). Though my visit to
England was wonderful in that sense of history not only via the book but the
museum, for instance, and some of the architecture. As is commmonly noted,
Europeans have a different sense of history than in North America. Where I
live, *evident* history is the land, the forests, the environment, and the
indigenous cultures. Not western culture/history. That is sort of who I am,
but it is a mere blip on the land here, impermanent and slated for disaster.
Computer art is time-based, but not linear time. The timeline versus the
flowchart. I talked with a guy recently who is working with others on a
project "to kill Max", to make a better Max. He says at the heart of the
program is concern with time, with timing, with synchronization, etc.
Thinking about what he said, it seems the same could be said of Director,
for instance. At the heart of Director is a way of carving up time into
"frames" in the "Score" (timeline) and assigning processing times/order to
any code that is run and any screen updates.
I think the "magical HG Wells quality...of digital writing" is yours, Dirk.
We are always in the moment but we have memory and imagination, and need to
refer to the past and imagine the future.
> In my Cathedral i start from places, because in spite of some very
> convincing believers in the discrete universe, i maintain the time-place
> continuum in its Leibnizian sense. Consequently there's a fifth time-place
> dimension there, namely global network time. Without referring to
> the Dyson
> book (i haven't read it) or the man himself, that's where the dysonian
> horseshit kicks in. I think you're right in being very sceptical towards
> such thinking (its crappy because it mixes up the fictional
> timeframes with
> realtime), but perhaps you're underestimating Mrs Hayles argument on this:
> in a world with a science of simulation, companies act on the
> power of their
> own make-believe. Which brings us back to some very real dangers on the
> print-to-digital market.
I think we will develop impressive artificial intelligence. We already have,
actually, in chess and other specific tasks. But I mean more comprehensive
intelligence. I see no reason why not except time. The mind is amazing
software wired into amazing bodies. We don't understand the half of it. But
we will (if we don't kill ourselves off first). I am hopeful that the Net
will continue to evolve as something that assists humanity in its better
aspirations and as a source of both information and inspiration to billions
of people.
But I am skeptical about the notion of the Net as a single intelligence. To
me, it is its plurality yet connectivity amongst pluralities that describes
its potential. Artificial intelligence can--and already is--useful in
facilitating the connectivity amongst pluralities, in gathering and
arranging and relating information. Weizenbaum (author of ELIZA) argued that
there are some decisions computers should not be allowed to make: those that
require wisdom. As long as we are wise enough to know what questions those
are, we might muddle through OK.
ja
http://vispo.com
video of Harold Cohen talk
Apologies if this link has been on the list before (I imagine it has);
here's a video of Harold Cohen giving a talk at the Tate gallery (April
2004): http://www.tate.org.uk/onlineevents/archive/harold_cohen . "He is the
author of the celebrated AARON program, an ongoing research effort in
autonomous machine (art making) intelligence which began...in 1973."
There were various interesting threads in this talk. The trajectory of his
work has sort of followed the trajectory of AI in that he started out trying
to get the thing to do make art rather like a human might do so, and has
instead found himself considering its abilities in terms not of the human
but of a different sort of 'intelligence'.
He talks about the role of programming in his art, about tools that do not
require expertise and tools that do.
It's an interesting talk by one of the seminal artist-programmers.
I found this link, by the way, on http://www.gratin.org , Antoine Schmitt's
wonderful page of links.
Does anyone know of a great list of links to lectures/talks? That'd be very
entertaining and enlightening, wouldn't it?
ja
http://vispo.com
here's a video of Harold Cohen giving a talk at the Tate gallery (April
2004): http://www.tate.org.uk/onlineevents/archive/harold_cohen . "He is the
author of the celebrated AARON program, an ongoing research effort in
autonomous machine (art making) intelligence which began...in 1973."
There were various interesting threads in this talk. The trajectory of his
work has sort of followed the trajectory of AI in that he started out trying
to get the thing to do make art rather like a human might do so, and has
instead found himself considering its abilities in terms not of the human
but of a different sort of 'intelligence'.
He talks about the role of programming in his art, about tools that do not
require expertise and tools that do.
It's an interesting talk by one of the seminal artist-programmers.
I found this link, by the way, on http://www.gratin.org , Antoine Schmitt's
wonderful page of links.
Does anyone know of a great list of links to lectures/talks? That'd be very
entertaining and enlightening, wouldn't it?
ja
http://vispo.com