By Maura Schiefer

Guest Writer

If you’re thinking “why Sweden?” you’re the not the first.

It isn’t uncommon that I am given a quizzical look followed by, “You’re studying English in Sweden?” I must admit, it seems a bit odd, but as many exchange students will tell you, studying abroad is not just about academics, but also about the experience of living in another country for five months.

This is the exact reason I choose to study at Stockholm University. I wanted to experience something completely different from normal everyday life in the United States, and so far, I have not been disappointed.

I arrived in the snowy land of Sweden two weeks ago. After picking up my key at the University, I made my way to my dorm, which is about a ten minute walk, a subway stop, and another ten minute walk away. Two giant suitcases, a backpack, a purse, and non-plowed sidewalks made the trip more difficult then I would have liked.

Incredibly discouraged, I slowly dragged my luggage down the snowy paths. I feared that, despite all my weight training with Cory, I would never make it to my dorm. Luckily, two other European exchange students saw me struggling and offered to help.

“Exchange students should help each other out,” they told me in surprisingly good English. So far, I have found this statement to be incredibly true and my experience would not be the same without all of the wonderful international students I have met so far.

The living situation for students in Stockholm is unique: students from all local universities live in the same dorms, despite age, gender, or university. My corridor is composed of international and Swedish students, who all share a common living space and kitchen.

My friends come from places all over the world, including Mexico, Syria, Italy, and China. With their help I have slowly begun assimilating to daily Swedish life. I have gone to a Swedish spin class, learned to take the Stockholm Metro, and participated in a completely Swedish run soccer practice. I have gone to the largest IKEA in the world, I’ve been ice-skating on the lake by my dorm, and I’ve learned that “queuing” is a national sport in Sweden.

Despite all of this, I’m still trying to get a handle on Swedish culture, especially the language. Unlike English, Swedish has nine vowels– four of which I cannot pronounce. I have picked up a few phrases, but for the most part, every time I attempt to speak Swedish, I completely butcher the language.

While almost every Swede speaks English, all signs and products are in Swedish. After a few very unsuccessful trips to the grocery store, I have decided that next time I will pick up a Swedish-English dictionary, as not to mistake “yogurt” and “sour cream” again.

Having only been in Stockholm for two weeks, I still have so much to explore, including Gamla Stan (the old town in Stockholm), So-Fo (the up-and-coming arts and fashion center of the city), and all of the local museums. But despite all of the wonderful things Sweden has to offer, I do occasionally feel homesick for our beloved Haverford.

The Daily Show’s segment on “Stockholm Syndrome” might shed some more light on the Swedish experience for you Fords. If you’re looking for a good laugh, I promise you will not be disappointed. Hej då!

By Atticus Brigham
Staff Writer

After having Saturday’s track meet postponed due to a large storm, the Goats lined up Sunday morning at 11 a.m. for a day of indoor track. After observing the track decorum of the Bees first, the Goats took to the track against the likes of Swarthmore, Temple, Rutgers-Camden, and NYU.

Captain Anders Hulleburg ’11 set the tone for the day with a 14:54 performance in the 5K. He averaged a pace of 12.5 miles an hour, just under the Haverford campus speed limit for cars.

Hulleburg was followed closely by Oregon native Joseph Carpenter ’11, who finished 10 seconds later. Haverford alum and Rutgers graduate student Taylor Burmeister ’09 filled out the podium in 15:10. Goat Eric Chesterton ran a personal best by .13 seconds in the slower heat.

“It wasn’t a great race, but Anders ran really well," Carpenter said. "There wasn’t too much competition."

The mile saw a personal best from Lucas Fuentes ’11 (4:22), who finished mere inches in front of Chris Southwick ’11. Jordan Schilit ’13 finished close behind Elias Tousley ’11, a Centennial Conference Cross Country Sportsmanship award winner.

The 800m race featured four returners from Haverford’s distance medley relay (DMR) team that raced in the Armory in New York on Friday.

Ivo Milic ’13, who anchored the DMR and ran 1600m in 4:13, ran 1:55 to finish first for Haverford. His teammates Eric Arnold ’12, Tim Schoch ’12, and Richard Dowlat ’11 finished seconds behind in the 800m. More impressive was their 10:03 performance in the Armory, which might qualify them for the D3 National Meet and is an impressive time for early February.

At the end of the meet, Haverford’s “B” team upset its “A” team to finish the 1600m relay in 3:35.

Apartment 26 resident Jacob Olshansky enjoyed the meet.

“Reuben [Land ‘11] outkicked Mike Riccio [‘13] by a foot," Olshansky said. "The Haverford on Haverford action in the four by four was cool."

Other notable performances came from Alec Koffer ’13, who won the 400m in 52.28, and Dan O’Toole ’09, who ran 4:16 to take third in the mile.

Nicola Fiddes

Photo Editor

By Alissa Aron

Staff Writer

I felt a little devious as I approached the warehouse door subtly marked with a cryptic “IV."

But I had been invited to this nearly unmarked warehouse in the Seattle suburbs, the endpoint of my determined quest to see the inner workings of Nathan Myhrvold’s kitchen laboratory. Myhrvold, once the Chief Technology Officer for Microsoft, left the company to found Intellectual Ventures (IV), an invention company with the ultimate goal of advancing society.

Projects at IV have included devising methods to weaken hurricanes and cure malaria, by constructing a barrage of lasers around villages that would vaporize any mosquito who dared enter. But I first learned of Myhrvold in a New York Times article describing his latest endeavor: a 1,500 page cookbook designed to teach professional chefs the basic science underlying any conceivable dish.

To write the book, Myhrvold has set up a kitchen laboratory equipped with every imaginable culinary gadget, including both those intended for both in and out of the kitchen. Ever since reading the article, I have attempted to penetrate the bastion that is IV, even contacting the chefs at the Seattle restaurant where Myhrvold (who is a classically trained chef in addition to a scientist boasting two masters degrees, a Ph.D. and a postdoctoral fellowship under Stephen Hawking) sometimes works the line.

Finally, while home in Seattle over break, I was able to reach Chris Young, Myhrvold’s trusty sidekick who heads the book project after he left his biochemistry graduate studies to work as a researcher for chef Heston Blumenthal at his famed restaurant, The Fat Duck.

Young agreed to show me around the 27,000 foot laboratory that housed the kitchen wonderland. Needless to say, I expected a little more than a 4-by-5-inch “IV” on the door of the place.Walking inside, my skepticism evaporated as I was greeted by the site of spectrophotometers and hurricane-modeling fish tanks. Young introduced Maxime Bilet, the project’s head chef, who had also come over from The Fat Duck.

The photography studio was the first stop on the tour, where Young estimates that the team’s professional photographer has shot over 100,000 images for the book so far. He then led me past a well-secured mosquito dwelling and a laser test zone to the kitchen. Chefs were easily recognizable in striped aprons, but beyond that, the room’s identity was questionable. Enormous rotary evaporators were set up for use as stills, as the vacuum suction on the instrument allows liquids to boil at room temperature.

This set-up allows particular flavors from herbs, flowers, or any fragrant material to be distilled and isolated without the heat that would cause their odors to be altered. A large collection of homogenizers capable of dividing fat globules to diameters of only a few microns (the tongue can detect down to about seven microns) make super-smooth sauces and soft-serve ice cream base.

If those aren’t enough to get the job done, there is always the sonicator, which uses ultrasound to blend the mixture at the molecular level. Freeze driers hold whole heads of romaine, making a healthy snack with that ever-satisfying crunch, and a 100-ton hydraulic press has been used to smash dried beef so the individual muscle fibrils unravel like Twizzlers.

An important area of the lab’s research involves cooking under high pressure. Most famously utilized in the emerging technique of sous-vide, where foods are vacuum-packed and submerged in water, then cooked below boiling for extended periods of time in order to maintain the foods’ integrity, Young and Myhrvold are looking to even more exotic methods. They make intensely flavored stocks using an autoclave – a device that subjects its contents (usually scientific or medical equipment and waste) to high-pressure steam, typically to render them sterile, and experiment with ovens that utilize the properties of pressurized gas to ensure uniform, accurate heating of foods.

If the team needs a piece of equipment that it doesn’t have on hand – or that doesn’t yet exist – they can turn to the on-site machine shop, complete with a 3D printer (great for making chocolate molds), an insanely powerful water knife, which Young claims can cut through a six-inch thick block of steel like warm butter, and numerous other computer and manually operated machining tools that can make just about anything from just about any material.

And for those items they can’t make, there’s always the warehouse where their bounty of used scientific equipment waits to be refurbished or put to an entirely new use. IV’s resources, both financial and intellectual, seem to be near-limitless, which helps to explain how the book project, originally intended to be a comprehensive, but relatively short, explanation of sous-vide, has expanded into an unparalleled, authoritative work on the science of cuisine. Despite the project’s evolution, Young remains optimistic that the three-volume book will be released this summer.

by Qeter, images by Qevin

In order to dispell any fears over the recent security technology upgrades Quaker Bouncers are receiving, Q (from MI6) is here to quell and quiet any quandaries you will query (questions?), as well as introduce some the newest gadgets he has in the works.

LW(Q):  What motivated this upgrade of Quaker Bouncer technology, which some fear is too drastic, perhaps unnecccessay[sp], and a waste of money?

Q(A):  A number of security breaches over the last few years has some community members concerned that the campus is too open and carelessly unsafe.  We have sought to update the technologies employed by Quaker Bouncers to keep pace with the rapid growth of the civilized world and enable them to keep Haverford as safe as possible.

LW(Q): Well those are certainly valid arguments, but do you not think these measures are excessive for a liberal arts school of only 1200 students?

Q(A):  Ah, ahah!  Only 1200 you say, yet under the lax security measures of the past years, many visitors were allowed to slip under the radar.  Our research has led us to believe the more accurate head count for the campus on weekends, including these "visitors," was close to 10,000 (check this)!  Quite the party indeed.

LW(Q): So what are some of these new security technologies we can expect to see in the future?

Q(A):  First we have an ice cube; any viewer would not doubt it is but a simple ice cube.  But!  When placed in a drink, the microscopic alcohometer embedded in the ice will detect the alcohol content within five seconds.  If the drink has more than one shot’s worth of alcohol, BOOM!  So long to your Solo cup! Thanks to this explosive new technology, no more will students be incapacitated by any dangerously sweet cocktail.

Next, we have a welcome mat.  What could be more inviting?  However, there is far more hidden under this mat than your spare door key!  Once an individual places his or her feet on the mat, infared scanners measure and cross-index the footprint, while also calculating the Body Mass Index of the visitor.  After a brief seven minutes of waiting on the mat, a full background check will be complete and loaded onto a mainframe computer for each and every person who walks through the door.  Imagine the wealth of information available to the campus security forces!  Thanks to this mat, we will always know who exactly is "welcome" to the student body.

And, of course, each QB will be equipped with standard issue PP7 and license to kill.   No more poncing about for the Bouncers, now their bark will have a little more bite! These are only the immediate advancements available to the Quaker Bouncers.  We also have some exciting developments in the works for the long range initiative to secure the bi-co during campus parties.

Ideally within three to five years, work will be complete on a state-of-the-art, polyurethane, hermetically sealed dome, or "bubble."  Once the college finishes negotiations over materials with the Durex corporation, work should begin immediately.  This move will be sure to "burst the bubble" of any uninvited, ill-intentioned visitor to Haverford.

In the next ten years, we will be refining the prototype of our remote partying technology.  Using a direct computer link with the brain and consciousness, a 3-d hologram, or "avatar," of a student may engage in raucous behavior without endangering him or herself, safely encased in their dorm room.

LW(Q): Do you think by tightening security and limiting access to campus we are creating an atmosphere of distrust?  Are we acting as if only non-tri-co students are capable of harm?  Won’t greater security measures and restrictions on student parties only drive people to act out even more?  By these moves are we implicitly suggesting the Honor Code and the community based on Trust, Concern, and Resepct we uphold as a unique and beneficial aspect of Haverford life is untrustworthy, unstable, and bound to fail?

Q(A):  No, I don’t think so, considering [xxxx].

LW(Q):  Thanks for your time, Q.

Q(A):  Thank you!