Archive for the ‘Interestingness’ Category

Fascinating legs

Thursday, August 7th, 2008

While riding home last night, I was listening to Studio 360, and they had a bit about Olympic-level athletes who have artificial limbs. The current media darling for this topic is Oscar Pistorius, but I found Aimee Mullins’ contributions to the story to be more poignant, more insightful.

The story goes, that each of these athletes had lost their lower legs as a result of birth defects. And, with the use of their specially-designed prosthetic limbs, they are able to run like the fucking wind. Many of their able-bodied competitors like to cry foul because they think the carbon-fibre legs give the amputees an unfair advantage. When people accused Aimee Mullins of using the appliances to lengthen her stride, she had them shortened. And she got faster. That shut ‘em up.

Fascinated as I was with this story, I got home and started looking up photos and YouTube videos to learn more. I was surprised to learn that Mullins was not only an accomplished athlete, but also a model and an actress. The bits about her being a model were interesting for a lot of reasons, but I was amused by the fact that she looks crazy-tall when she’s wearing her “model legs.” Unfair advantage, indeed…but it’s hard to call it “unfair” when the fact is I’m cheering for her. Last I checked, overcoming a handicap was a good thing.

But it’s when I looked up her acting experience that I started to wander into another territory that’s perplexed me in the past. One of the movies she has starred in is called Cremaster 3, an extremely abstract art film, part of a series by Björk’s partner Matthew Barney. I mean, extremely abstract. Go ahead, click the link, and make sure you watch the trailer.

The thing I can’t quite figure out is how, exactly, funding is procured for such a project. The mind reels. Clearly, Barney had a really detailed vision for the creation of this project, but what’s the audience? Who do you pitch it to, in terms of funding? Who buys this stuff?

My friend Peter, from high school, is an actor, and he has starred in a slew of artfilms like this. I recently re-connected with him through MySpace, and he has links to trailer videos for the projects he’s been in. And dude…it scares me. They’re abstract, like the Cremaster Cycle is, but they’re far-lower-budget. Hand-held cameras, scraped-together wardrobe, lots of gratuitous nudity that crosses the line into the obscene (one man’s opinion—a man with no problem with nudity), and generally the type of stuff that only gets shown in small, deviant circles. Don’t get me wrong: more power to ‘em.

But it still perplexes me, and leads my brain to make up wild theories, bordering on Eyes Wide Shut territory. I’m not implying secret-society-type stuff, so let me explain: My impression is, the people responsible for creating these types of movies are independently wealthy, whether by inheritance or by wild success (or marriage to Björk). And they’ve got artistic aspirations and/or outside-the-mainstream sexual proclivities which they would like to express through a group artistic effort. It’s kinda like…a really scaled-down, much more tame/artistic version of the “themed orgies” we’ve all heard about but never actually seen. Small societies of people who somehow have the time and money to invest in ambitious/large projects that aren’t intended for a wide audience, but more intended to scratch an individual (or small group) itch. It’s freakin’ fascinating.

Clearly, I’ve pigeon-holed myself as a complete prude, misanthrope and art-ignorant snob. But that’s totally not the case. I’m just taking a different tack — after deciding that the art itself isn’t my cup of tea, I’m still fascinated and curious about the scene-behind-the-scenes. That may not be my cup of tea either, but, on the face of it, I just don’t get how it’s being done.

Anyway, even though the sum-of-its-parts vision of the Cremaster Cycle doesn’t tickle my fancy, I must admit I am very impressed by the imagery of Aimee Mullins wearing the lucite lower legs. It’s one of those things you might’ve seen in a Hellraiser movie, and you don’t even need computers to make the image!

Alright, I’ve led you down a meandering path for long enough. Sorry about that.

Privacy, and why no one cares

Thursday, July 24th, 2008

If you’re reading this because you want an answer to the “why” in my headline, you’re gonna be sorely disappointed. Today, I am stunned, slowly shaking my head at my computer screen. The “me generation” has struck again. Let’s back up a moment. The big story I’m seeing today is an iPhone-related story. So, if you could care less about iPhone stuff, you know what to do. Anyway, there’s this video game that was released, for free, to the iTunes AppStore for iPhone and iPod Touch. It’s a basic block-matching puzzle game, but it’s got some nifty features and storylines built in, so it’s pretty damn fun to play. I’ve had it on my phone for almost a week. One of the nifty features, apparently, is a “Community” mode of play. So, you can team up with your friends and play the game together. I say “apparently” because I never bothered to opt-in for the Community mode. Thankfully. Y’see, the developers of this game did something terribly sloppy. When a user “opts in” for the Community mode, they’re asked for their phone number and email address. Then (if the reports are correct) the app compiles a list of all the people/info in your phone’s addressbook, and sends that data IN THE CLEAR (without encryption) back to their servers. The game developers are apparently not doing anything with this data yet (if you believe them), and aren’t even storing the data on their servers (again, if you believe them). But the fact that you could be sitting in downtown Mountain View, playing the game at the bus stop, and suddenly all of your contacts’ phone numbers, email addresses, street addresses, etc, are all broadcast in-the-clear across a completely un-secured public WiFi network…that’s fuckin’ scary. But here’s the thing: on public forums and bulletin boards across the internet, from what I’m seeing, the prevailing attitude is “so what?” and “who cares?” Seriously, here are two direct quotes from the comment section of the Gizmodo article:

I mean, they released a quality game at an unbeatable price, what’s not to like? I don’t understand why it’s so bad for someone to see your contacts…worst case scenario is someone saying “OMG, user Substance_D has someone named Erika D on his contact list! Should I prank call her up? I can even see the number since these servers are unencrypted!” Wtf, who cares. 

First, stop pretended your contact list is of any desire to anyone; you don’t know anyone we want to talk to anyways. Furthermore, all the big social networking sites let you voluntarily (and I know Aurora Feint left that part out) give up your contact list to them and its stored on THEIR servers even after they find your friends. So to think that your info has never been given up to MySpace, Facebook or Linkedin just cause YOU didn’t agree to a search is pretty naive since with all the members they have statistically speaking one of your friends/family, that has YOUR contact info, has submitted to the search. The exception to that is of course if you don’t have any friends. Searching someone’s contact list is not new and not evil, most social programs do it. Stop demonizing these developers.

I can’t believe how shallow people’s views are. Well, yeah I can, because I know full well that reading comment sections of websites is a really good way to lose faith in humanity. But I just can’t get past the fact that nobody GETS it. I, for one, don’t trust MySpace, Facebook or LinkedIn. I don’t use those utilities that crawl your email address book to find your friends. It just feels wrong to me. Too much trust. But I can understand how others would set aside any such fear. OK, fine. But granting the same trust to some independent game development shop who has had absolutely NO presence in the market before, and who has done absolutely nothing to instill trust? FUCK no. Maybe it’s a complete lack of understanding of the technology…I’d imagine a huge percentage of the world just thinks the internet works by “magic.” Actually, I’ve seen plenty of commentary from folks who think “oh, if someone really wants your data, they’ll find a way.” Really? Man, you don’t know anything. And you’re part of the problem. You give up before you even know, and you encourage others to do the same. The last quote up above was a direct response to this guy, who gets it:

OK. I think I understand. So here’s the reasons why it’s apparently OK that they STOLE YOUR PRIVATE FUCKING CONTACT LIST:
1) They make a fun game, so who cares if they STOLE YOUR PRIVATE FUCKING CONTACT LIST?
2) they’re cool, so it’s OK they STOLE YOUR PRIVATE FUCKING CONTACT LIST.
3) it’s nanny Apple’s fault who, in this one single instance, should be more closed not more open, so a rogue developer can’t STEAL YOUR PRIVATE FUCKING CONTACT LIST. (not that they’re rogue or anything)
4) the developers didn’t want to inconvenience users by making them type or something, so they STOLE THEIR PRIVATE FUCKING CONTACT LIST.
5) since the developers only had 10 weeks they had no choice but to STEAL YOUR PRIVATE FUCKING CONTACT LIST.
6) Since your gaming community is going to include every single person you know, why not just STEAL YOUR PRIVATE FUCKING CONTACT LIST?
7) the developers are new to computers, the internet, privacy, and Earthlings, and had no idea anyone would mind if they STOLE THEIR PRIVATE FUCKING CONTACT LIST.
Did I miss any reasons why it’s OK they STOLE YOUR PRIVATE FUCKING CONTACT LIST? Oh yeah.
8) Think of all the fun their summer intern is going to have searching their database for the privates on Steve Jobs, Buckethead, Brian Lam, and other known people whose numbers may not be in your iPhone, but may be in the PRIVATE FUCKING CONTACT LISTS THEY STOLE. 

Several people have defended the developers, saying YOU (as a user of the game) had to opt-in. But as far as I can see, the game only asked me for my email address and phone number (which I did not give). I wasn’t asked for my whole contact list. That ain’t exactly transparent. I think we’ll see a handful more fuck-ups like this from iPhone developers, but I don’t think we’ve seen the last of the apathy monster that’s running around, rampant.

See WALL•E

Sunday, June 29th, 2008

You’ve already been told, but I’m gonna tell you too. See it. We went last night, and about 30 seconds into the film I leaned over to Liz and said “yeah, this movie’s gonna make me cry.”

It’s not rare for a Pixar movie to make me cry, but I’ll go ahead and agree with Cabel that this movie has one of the most memorable first acts of all the movies I’ve seen.

Also of note, this movie employed one of my favorite visual effects of the past decade. I first saw it in the TV series Firefly. In that show, they would often show a spacecraft from far away, perhaps in orbit over a planet, and they’d suddenly zoom in on it. But rather than just zoom in, they’d try and re-create reality: the “camera” would be slightly off-center and out-of-focus, so you (the viewer) would watch as the focus and position were re-composed, as if there were a real cameraman between you and the scene. It’s such a subtle thing, but when you’re dealing with 100%-computer-generated visuals, it adds a sense of realism and dynamic range. It adds emotion and grit to an antiseptic visual medium.

Anyway, they did this sort of thing in WALL•E. Apparently, from what I’ve read, it was the director’s goal from the outset to treat the visuals with a good deal more attention to “reality detail.” They employed lens flares, tricky focus, hell, they even used atmospheric effects like the “shimmering” you’d get on a sweltering-hot day.

I remember being in awe of the translucent leaves, genius textures and atmospheric haze that was used in A Bug’s Life. And these people are just getting better and better at what they do. I work in an office that’s about five miles from Pixar’s home base in Emeryville, CA. I’m gonna be sad when I eventually have to move away.

Li Wei

Sunday, June 22nd, 2008

Just stumbled upon this guy’s art, and love it:
li-wei

A Bug’s Life

Saturday, April 26th, 2008

Last year, I went to Stanford’s campus with Liz’s parents and a family friend, just to walk around and see the school. While we were there, we had to dodge a handful of particularly wooly inchworms hanging from the campus trees. They seemed to be all over. One of them even hitched a ride on my shoulder as we walked into Liz’s building and into her lab.

A week or so later, Liz and I went to the art museum on campus, and it was like a minefield: you couldn’t walk anywhere without having to dodge hundreds of silken strands, each with a wooly inchworm at the end. It was almost scary. We saw them on the surfaces of every sidewalk, and they were absolutely wall-to-wall in the shade. There are waist-high painted cement pylons at the ends of the pedestrian-only roads, to keep cars out. On the shadow-side of each of these, there were hundreds of these fuzzy worms. Infestation doesn’t begin to describe it.

This past winter, when Liz and I visited my sister in Denver, we drove up to Keystone to go snowboarding. On the way back, my sister pointed out the huge swaths of dying trees on either side of the highway. Apparently, there’s a huge problem that will cause entire populations of this type of tree to die out within the next few years. The cause: beetle kill. All those thousands of trees will be destroyed simply by beetles.

And today, in sharp contrast to last year, I had to dodge dozens of silken strands with inchworms at their ends (not the fuzzy kind). Right outside my house, as I was walking back and forth to my car. This wasn’t a real problem last year, not this far into the hills.

Do the bugs know something we don’t? What’s going on?

Damn, that’s impressive

Wednesday, April 16th, 2008

I sent a brief email this morning to the fine folks at WNYC.org, asking them to considering changing the format of their podcast of the Brian Lehrer Show. See, they recently changed the podcast format from one 20-30 minute segment of the show (only a portion), to six separate segments totaling about two hours (the whole show).

Multi-segment podcasts tend to get unwieldy: in order to play them all in a row, you can’t just sync them to your iPod. They’ll stop between each track, and you’ll have to find the next one to start it playing…not safe behavior while driving. It’s possible to get around that by organizing a playlist of the episodes you want, prior to syncing your device…but that takes time, and it has the downside that each of those tracks can now be included in your music rotation if you put your device on shuffle. There are a few other reasons why the small segments get prohibitively more annoying to work with (if time is hard to come by, as is true of many folks), and that’s kinda why I haven’t listened to the Brian Lehrer Show in a week or so.

Anyway, I sent the email kindly asking if they’d consider larger podcast episodes, and I received this email from the WNYC Program Director about 4 hours later:

Dear Jim,

Just wanted to let you know that we got your note about the Lehrer show podcasts and are investigating with iTunes. We agree—it would be a good solution.

So stay tuned, and thanks very much for writing,

Chris

I’d say that’s cool as shit. Nice to know they’re not only open to suggestion, but also very nice about responding to requests!