Okay, it's probably not the way most people would look at this article on the military's research into things that smell bad, but I found it fascinating as a statement on interface design. Forget about computers for a minute and consider the article from the standpoint of how senses and sensibilities are often learned instead of innate.

That was it. I was having lunch with Ammy, Rick, Karen, Crystal, and Emily on Sunday and I couldn't remember what show William Shatner was going to be hosting, but now I remember. It's the forthcoming American edition of Iron chef.

"Sauteed... Octopus... Tastes.... Sogood."

Well, the semester's over, and there's no semester to supercede it, so I guess it's time to take down the "Spring 2001" lefthand nav module. I've got plenty more nav modules lined up. I'll probably replace it later tonight.

Here's a full clip of the scene parodizing Disneyland, South Park, and a few other things.

Enjoy!

---

Update: The link seems to be down for now, but may be put back up later... Don't fret, just go see the film (again) :-)

A bunch of us went to see Shrek yesterday at Grand Lake and it was great.

I'll resist a full-blown movie review, but I will say that everyone should go see it. What differentiates it from the regular hit-parade of computer-generated movies, each one refining a bit on the techniques of the last? Well, I'll tell you:

• Plot: Even without the amazing production value of the animation, Dreamworks had a good story to tell, very funny, and very witty, appealing to kids and adults, without having to alienate one segment to pander *cough*jarjar*cough* to another.
• Economy: The movie tells a good, complete story, and keeps it moving. I can't think of another animated, expecially 3d rendered, movie that avoided grandstanding, gratuitously showing off the computer effects at the expense of moving the story along, even if only for a single scene. Shrek uses the incredible graphics to push the story's points along at every step of the way, without stepping back and saying "Wow, look what we can do with graphics. We'll get back to the story in a minute."
• Attention to detail: This is in two areas. The attention to artistic detail is amazing in it's understatedness. The credits had 30 people listed under 'lighting,' an amazing number for a CGI film. It's not like these people are gaffers stringing lamps and changing gels, they're all working inside the computer. Similarly, the creatures are very well done, falling short only when they try to make real people (and this could be seen as an inentional caricature of the human condition itslef, how the 'people' are the only ones that seem phoney). Little touches (watch how the grass that's been walked on stays a little bent) make this film a pleasure to watch. On the other side of attention to detail is the skill which with the writers and animators wove in so many casual (and not so casual) references to other movies, sonetimes nods, sometimes shakes of the head. Particularly brilliant are the 'information booth' nod to South Park, the constant counter-Disney references, and the gingerbread man torture scene.
• Talent over Typecasting: I was really disappointed with the CGI animation in Dragonheart, because the director basically filmed Sean Connery saying all the lines, and directed the artists to give the dragon Connery's facial expressions, making a Connery-dragon. Similarly, in Mulan, Eddie Murphy's character, Mushu, was an anthropomorphised pocket dragon, which was basically a wrapper over an Eddie Murphy stand-up routine. Sometimes this works (as in Robin Williams's portrayal of the Genie in Aladdin), but more often it seems a little shallow, and inhibits the suspension of disbelief. In Shrek the characters each have their own personality. Donkey is Donkey, not Eddie Murphy in a Donkey suit. Shrek is great, without a hint of Wayne, Dr. Evil, or even (thank god) Fat Bastard slipping through. Mike Meyers did a teriffic job, and the decision (so I've herad it told) to re-record his part in the Scottish accent was a very effective one. It makes the character more vulnerable and worthy of compassion. The only caricatured role is Lithgow's Lord Farquaad, which is precicely as it should be. It adds shallowness to the character that only furthers the point of the movie.

Now that I've abandoned a short review, I'll close by saying that this really is a movie you should see. My mom saw it opening night and loved it. The kids in the theater (2pm matinee will do that) were all over it, and applause and cheering broke out at several points. This is absolutely a film I'll get on DVD as soon as it's available, if for no other reason than to see all the references and nuances I missed the first time around, or even on the second time, as I plan to see this in the theater another time.

Just go see it. You'll love it.

"When Spam is illegal, only criminals will MakeMoneyFast."

So, after a long week of angry threads, accusations, and counteraccusastions on MetaFilter (of which I had no part in, aside from detached ovesrver) it is clear now that Kaycee, the girl who 'died' of Leukemia last week, is a figment.

The truly disturbing thing is that, like a terrorist act, it seems that there is more than one party taking the blame, in entirely seperate ways.

I'm confused, but a little too bothered by the deception to be bothered trying to uncover an X-files pack of lies...

Apple today announced a 17" LCD Display. It's been anticipated, and looks great. At $999 it's a really good price point for a 1280x1024 display, especially for Apple's excellent LCD quality.

So here's the rub: They no longer sell CRT monitors (no real problem there) and all the LCD displays require Apple's ADC connector, a digital monitor/usb/power connector that exists only on G4 PowerMacs and Cubes.

In short, Apple doesn't sell any displays that can be used with the notebook computers they sell. Apple doesn't carry any adapters, nor do they advertise that any are available, to let me use the VGA port on my Powerbook.

On one hand this pisses me off, as this is a monitor I would actually buy, but I'm not going to buy a desktop mac just to run it. On the other hand, this may be what Apple feels is a necessary move to drive new hardware sales. Palm Computing recently announced unit shipments were less than half of what they anticipated, and this is largely because people are happy with the Palm PDAs they have, and the added functionality of new models isn't enough to get them to discard a working Palm and pay $300 for what amounts to an incremental upgrade.

It's possible that this is Apple's worry as well, and by making great displays that will only work with new machines, they are attempting to create a larger incentive to move to new hardware (the monitors also won't work with older G4 powermacs or any G3 powermac). Some say this is the rationale behind OS X's requirements, and while that's a contestable point, it's pretty clear that Apple has little motivation to make OS X compatable with older Nu-Bus Macs, a feat it has admitted is technically possible but logistically unlikely.

Anyhow, I'm just venting. The monitor looks great, and I'd love a machine to use it with, but I'm really happy with my G3 Bronze powerbook. I am looking for a second monitor for it, and would get the 17" display if it would work, but this doesn't seem too likely. It's even less likely that Apple will start offering ADC ports in powerbooks since ADCs are still rare in the world and a powerbook's video options are designed to be compatible with all the scenarios a mobile professional is likely to come across in the field (S-Video, RCA video, and VGA outputs).

Ah well, maybe some day...

Just to dispell any notion that I'm against absurd movies on principle, I'm really jazzed to see Legally Blonde.

I'm done.