Food science writer Harold McGee has an interesting article at the New York Times about the varieties and development of apples as we know them. Stephen Colbert likely won't approve McGee's culprit for helping speed along the natural selection that led to the large, delicious fruit we've come to love: bears!

My only disappointment is that McGee didn't mention the best eating apple ever: the Honeycrisp. Honeycrisps were developed at the University of Minnesota in the 1960s, and recently became the Minnesota state fruit. They were touted as the perfect combination of sweet and crisp, and despite high praise forming high expectations, they didn't disappoint when I tried them last year. I've had some that taste almost apple-pie-like. Raw. They're also ridiculously juicy. If you haven't tried them yet, go get one! They're a bit more expensive than other apples, but they are so worth it.

Photo: Honeycrisp apples by Shane Bee.

I've been skeptical and critical of some past Nobel Peace Prize winners, but I'm unabashedly happy about this one: Gore and UN share Nobel peace prize.

Here's Gore's blog entry about the award with a brief video.

Science has been so undermined by the Bush administration in so many ways from curtailing stem cell research to its endless support of the oil industry, it's nice to see someone in politics who has taken the time to understand an issue like this as thoroughly as Gore has throughout his life be recognized for sharing it. As he said in his Oscar acceptance speech, climate change is "not a political issue; it's a moral issue." It's also a scientific issue. In this current climate of obfuscation, that can't be repeated often enough.

Now if only Gore would announce his last minute candidacy for president, so I could have a candidate to be excited about. Unlike John Kerry and this year's democratic crop, I think he actually learned a few lessons from the events of November and December 2000.

Al Gore addressed the opening general session of the Special Libraries Association annual conference in Denver last night. Since I couldn't be there, here's a round-up of blog posts about the event:

[6/05: edited to add several new accounts]

Ann Perbohner reports that Lexis-Nexis introduced Gore with a presentation visualizing the impact of An Incovenient Truth on published news reports. She also bullet points some highlights of the talk.

Eli Edwards appears to have liveblogged the address, including answers from the Q&A at the end. This is the most thorough report of the event that I've found.

[ETA] J's scratchpad has even more detailed notes and quotes.

Robin Niedorf says he pointed out that getting information isn't a problem; the problem is figuring out how to interpret, organize, and present it.

Tracy Z. Maleef calls him a rockstar, and says the event was "like a librarian revival meeting."

Judith Sweet speculates that librarians have a low humor threshold, due to Gore's ability to get people to laugh at the same jokes, even in the book signing line. She also has paparazzi shots of Gore signing books.

Stephen Leary says that Gore's address wasn't quite what he expected, but he was still impressed.

Chris Zamarelli notes while he included some material on global warming and promoting his new book, the speech was clearly written for the SLA audience. As such, it wasn't perfect, but it was enjoyable.

[ETA] Jane Dysart sums it up as articulate, funny, and compelling.

[ETA] Lyndsay observed a warm atmosphere in the hall; "his stance is very much ours."

Finally, Jill Hurst-Wahl has the social networking angle, noting that social networking sites can help to create the dialogue that Gore emphasized is so important to our collective intake of information.

The consensus is that Gore definitely gets it re: the power of information. He recognizes the importance of our profession in helping to harness that. The audience appreciated that he gave a mostly original speech, and found him humorous and engaging.

I hope there will be video available eventually. Hey Stephen Abram, does SLA have a YouTube account? Don't you think they should?

The New York Times has a short, interesting article about a new laser analysis of the Book of Kells:

Pending the laser analysis, experts assume that expensive materials for some of the blue pigments came from the gemstone lapis lazuli, mined in northeast Afghanistan. Yellow pigments are believed to have been made from arsenic sulfide and, bizarrely, reddish Kermes pigments from the dried pregnant bodies of a genus of Mediterranean insect, suggesting extraordinary trade routes for the ninth century.

Some techniques will help to analyze the pigments made from vegetable matter; others will be used to examine the inks.

“A lot of what we have done before has been based on anecdotal reports of the materials that were used,” said Robin Adams, the librarian of Trinity College, who hopes the exacting dot-by-dot analysis by laser will unlock secrets and help his staff preserve the book. “Essentially the laser bounces back, and you get a spectrum. That spectrum tells you whether this pigment is lead, copper or whatever. We haven’t got the reports yet, but we very much expect it to tell us new information about what the monks used.”

They also suggest that one of the real mysteries isn't one that will be solved by this analysis: how the Book got from Kells to be donated to Trinity College in the 17th century.