Stokke chair

I bought this chair (Stokke Balans made in Norway. Designed by Peter Opsvik.) about twenty years ago (!), when I first had back problems. (Actually I think my back problems started when I was 15, but they were diagnosed as a lung collapse, if you can credit that.)

I'm proud that it looks almost as new. But less proud that the main reason for this is the little use it has had over the years.

I think I would be in better shape now, and would have avoided a ton of back troubles if only I had used it daily, instead of sitting slumped at the computer.

The problem is it almost forces you to sit up straight, and if you're lazy and your back muscles are already weak, that feels like work. But it's work you need.

It seems like kneeling chairs are disappearing from the landscape. I can't even find Stokke's once big selection on their site anymore! They seem to be living on selling baby chairs now. What a pity.

I think one problem is that most "kneeling chairs" are static. They can't move when you're sitting on them. This chair can. You can rock a little and you can vary your position as you're working. You can give yourself mini-workouts every couple minutes (or any time you're just reading on screen), rocking and twisting, perhaps to music. You don't even need to get up, just take your hands off the keyboard. Kewl.

I find it works even better with the inflatable seat I bought recently. It flexes under me as I rock and roll on the chair, and makes it more comfortable.


Update: it seems these simple, compact, and effective chairs are still produced, now under the brand name Variér. Sadly, now as then, their range are not cheap chairs. Frankly I suspect they may be a bit overpriced, but what do I know about making furniture. I do think though that nobody else makes anything quite like them. I'm considering upgrading to their Thatsit model, but it's like $1200, and I want to make sure there's a real difference from what I have.

A weird twist in copyright

Apparently now big corporations are stealing from individuals, instead of vice versa. It's a weird life.

Talking about weird, how about the Allison Stokke story? I an not sure what to think about that. On the one hand, I can understand that too much attention is too much, especially from creeps who overdo it or act as a-holes. On the other hand Allison is exceedingly attractive, and those shorts are really very small. It should not really be a big surprise that men like to put her picture on their desktop.

And about that, the former article, referring the latter issue, says: "It's all doubly muddled online, where images can be thoughtlessly taken with one mouse click, such as when thousands of boys made screensavers out of high school track star Allison Stokke's photo and never once asked, 'Legal?'"...
This is a pretty dumb comment. Personal use is legal. This issue is not germane to that discussion. I would expect better journalism from Washington Post.

Here's another remarkable comment: "'What's noteworthy in each of these cases', Lessig says, 'is that bloggers, a community typically associated with piracy, are rallying in support of copyright.'"
Bloggers are a community? With common personality traits? That's news to me. If "bloggers" are a group, it may well be the most diverse group I've ever heard of. And about the least coherent.

I'm reminded: 25 years ago, I was contacted by Danish newspaper Extrabladet, they wanted to use this photo of my mom (which had placed highly in national contests and exhibitions) to illustrate an article about the elderly. I refused, because even though back then I could certainly have used any money they would pay, Extrabladet is a low-brow, unprincipled, and mean-spirited publication, and I wanted nothing to do with them.