markdarb

Google’s Promising Open Attitude

In Tech Tacos on December 23, 2009 at 1:31 am

I just read an exciting blog post, The meaning of open, on Google’s official blog. It’s by Jonathan Rosenberg, Senior Vice President, Product Management. It started off last week as an in-house post, but “in the spirit of openness” has been released to the world at large. It makes for an exciting read, because it shows that at the top Google has the right attitude towards its products and the technology ecosystem at large.

I found one comment near the start of the post particularly promising:

In many cases we aren’t there, but I hope that with this note we can start working to close the gap between reality and aspiration.

The example that jumped straight into my head is Google Earth, which is one horrible big beast of proprietary software. It’s free to use, but if you want some “advanced” features like the ability to export flyovers as movies you have to fork out hundreds. Anything you export is full of copyright message, compasses, etc. They’re basically having to protect the interests of those who provide that content that we see for free. There’s a notion of openness in that they provide the powerful KML language to do build all sorts of cool things around in it, but as long as the central pillar is closed it isn’t, in my mind, good enough. Well it would seem that the powers that be at Google agree, and these guidelines and Google’s longterm vision dictate that products like Google Earth must eventually come out into the open.

On a related note, the following excerpt also interested me:

There’s also our recent work with the W3C to create a standard geolocation API that will make it easy for developers to build browser-based, location-sensitive applications. This standard helps everyone, not just us, and will lead to users having access to many more compelling apps from thousands of developers.

The reason it interests me is that I’m also not a big fan of Google Maps. Why should developers have to embed some other party’s JavaScript to get a map? I much prefer the idea of an HTML5 tag that enables the platform to display maps in its own way, with the option of complete styling and integration with the rest of the page (like with HTML5’s <video> tag). I’ve been doing some cross-platform mobile work for roam3, and one tiny little bit of work I’ve been doing highlight’s this issue. If you’re doing a cross-platform app written in HTML (using PhoneGap) and you want to insert a map, using the Google Maps API seems ludicrous. Android has built-in map functionality which (as far as I’m aware) you’re unable to use in a webpage, so instead you use a bit of clunky and slow JavaScript to do the job. If there was a generic map tag then the browser would be free to use the operating system’s more efficient built-in alternative (which ironically, in the case of Android, is still Google Maps, but a nice efficient and smooth-scrolling Java version). Anyway, this excerpt gives hope that an HTML5 tag like I’ve described might not be too far away. Perhaps it’s already here, in which case I really should get around to reading up on it.

Those are just two interesting tidbits that caught my attention. I won’t go on about the rest of the post; you’d be better off reading it yourself. The important thing is that Google is demonstrating a very promising attitude towards openness. Free software purists might dislike that this posts alludes primarily to open source, not freedom, but I say forget the terminology: Google is doing a great job of addressing practicalities and issues of freedom alike.

Let’s see what sort of an open world Google might have helped us reach in another five years.

Update: And oh yeah, I reckon Google’s philosophy of letting you easily stop using their products and transfer elsewhere is worthy of mention. The post mentions the example of not getting on a plane that doesn’t have emergency exits. I certainly appreciate GMail’s POP, forwarding, etc, capabilities, and remember how frustrating it used to be that Hotmail didn’t support any of that. Unfortunately, you might not realise a plane doesn’t have emergency exits until it’s crash landed and you’re trying to get off. That’s what it was like with Hotmail. Thankfully I’ve learnt a bit in the years since then.

Comment »

Avatar

In Mixed Movies on December 20, 2009 at 11:21 am

I just watched Avatar in 3D, and I thought it was absolutely brilliant.

Some might think aspects of the plot are just average, perhaps predictable and even unoriginal, but I would have to disagree. I found the story to be beautiful. In it we see two contrasting insights into human nature. We see a future where the evil traits of our past still persist. Some might call the bad guys in this film a bit one dimensional, but I think they embody an all-too-real aspect of mankind. The protagonists, on the other hand, show an attitude and way of acting that we should aspire to. They recognise evil and are completely self-sacrificing in their efforts to overthrow it. In Avatar these simple but enduring ideas have been brought to a new dimension (forgive the intentional pun), resulting in a film that touches the heart.

Much of the hype surrounding the film, however, has been due to its special effects and the use of 3D. Well it deserves every bit of that hype. The effects are stunning, and the film sets a very high precedent for future films to live up to. I’ve watched other films praised for their special effects and been able to criticise some aspect of the graphics as not realistic enough and not quite there. I certainly found that with The Lord of the Rings and, I dare say, the modern Star Wars films. The effects in Avatar, on the other hand, seemed beyond criticism. Today’s technology and artistry have reached a level of photorealism, and indeed awesomeness, that I can scarcely imagine where it might be improved. Once I realised how flawless I thought the special effects were I went on the lookout for effects that weren’t quite good enough. The best I could suggest was certain water and fire simulations (those good old tricky things to do in CG), but saying that requires me to be exceptionally picky. If you wanted to be even more picky you could perhaps maintain that a higher level of photorealism can yet be achieved, that the animation was just a tiny tad cartoony, but I personally hold no such grudges against Avatar. The film was simply visually superb, so close to flawless that any major advances in film-making from here will be impressive indeed. I can imagine that the process of producing such remarkable effects could be made infinitely more efficient, but (unlike a few years ago) I am not creative enough to imagine the next significant advance in the field, unless perhaps it be some sort of holographic 3D (which still seems like a faraway dream, one that could prove rather disappointing if it turned out to be no better a medium for telling a good story).

The director, James Cameron, certainly waited until the time was right to finally make this masterpiece. I have to wonder if comparable upcoming films (such as Tintin and The Hobbit) will be able to compete. In the two aforementioned cases, Weta Digital (responsible also for the brilliant effects in Avatar) surely won’t disappoint.

If you get the chance, or even if you don’t, you should definitely watch Avatar in 3D. I firmly believe that 3D has gone beyond gimmickry, and now legitimately adds to the cinematic experience. It adds an extra dimension (forgive me for using the same pun twice) to the visual impressiveness of an already impressive film.

Once upon a time I thought having something in 3D in front of the screen truncated at the screen’s borders completely unnatural, and capable of ruining it all. Now I feel that it’s not an issue at all. It’s as natural as anything else truncated at the edge of the screen.

The film’s subtitles were put out from the screen in 3D to allow other elements to pop out a bit without interference. On one occasion, however, I did notice a stray ponytail pop out further than the subtitles yet still remain underneath them. I’d have missed it if I wasn’t looking out for that sort of thing, but regardless it wasn’t irreparably unnatural.

The film has a few interesting religious parallels, such as being born again, having a single tangible deity, and being able to “connect” to that deity. My friend sitting next to me was reminded of Acts 2:39 (talking about the promise of the Holy Spirit being available to everyone) when the saying “children’s children” was used. I doubt that parallels to being born again and receiving the Holy Spirit were particularly intended, but it’s still interesting to think about.

Well, I suppose that’s enough incoherent rambling about this particular film. I’ve shared my inconsequential opinion with the world. Now, if you haven’t yet seen Avatar in 3D, make sure you don’t miss out!

Update (2009-12-20 UTC, 21st in NZ):

An afterthought: I suppose it’s easier to pass something off as photorealistic in a fantasy set in a colourful jungle like nothing we know here on Earth. If, on the other hand, the animations regularly dealt with animals, humans and plants that we’re more familiar with we might still think the effects left a little extra something to be desired.

I also think the resemblance of some of the jungle to New Zealand bush is worthy of mention. The design of certain plants was clearly based on native New Zealand bush, albeit on a bigger scale. You can trust Weta to put a little bit of home in its creation! I suppose New Zealand bush is that little bit more alien to most of the world, thus suiting the film quite nicely.

Also, I neglected to mention how lovable and dynamic the characters are in Avatar. Just another fantastically developed part of this charming tale.

Comment »

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science

In Rapt Reading on December 19, 2009 at 10:51 am

This is hopefully to be the first of many entries in my online reading log. This is the most recent book I’ve finished; there are others I’ve read lately and would like to add to the log sooner or later.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, by Tom Bethell, is well worth the reading. It introduces some much-needed scepticism to a reader who blindly takes many of today’s popular scientific theories for granted.

The author starts by expressing concern that journalists, who are happy to criticise politicians, are all too submissive to scientific opinion. Throughout the book we see how politics can pollute science, particularly when it’s government-funded. We are shown that the “smart money” of private investors just hasn’t been poured into certain scientific endeavours that have been promising and claiming breakthroughs for decades, but still don’t seem to have gotten anywhere.

Some chapters were on issues I’d never been particularly interested in or known much about, and it was illuminating to become aware of hidden controversies that it would seem many politicians and scientists would prefer we remained blissfully ignorant of.

The chapters were great crash courses on the significant shortcomings of various scientific theories. The Introduction and Conclusion served as crash courses in an extreme-right way of looking at science and funding. Therein is, of course, something of which to be wary: such an unbalanced and anti-left book could well be very misleading. However, even with a very sceptical eye, some of the insights into how the scientific community shuns those who dare to question questionable theories and offer alternatives, and some of the examples of misinformation that is widely used to support modern science, are very shocking.

The book made me realise I was given a very one-sided education on certain issues at school, one such issue being the Kyoto Protocol. Being given a list of benefits without a single mention of negative aspects and controversies is like being taught history from a single viewpoint without any regard for the necessity to understand that true history encompasses differing viewpoints. Being taught a questionable scientific theory as scientific fact is like being indoctrinated with the propaganda of a political régime, seeing its corrupt history through rose-tinted glasses.

The book’s front cover says “Liberals have hijacked science for long enough. It’s time to set the record straight.” Even if this book goes too far in some issues – and I’m not trying to imply that it does – I think it would be foolish to outright dismiss everything it says, and I think it would be right to say that the science I was taught here in New Zealand, like that taught elsewhere in the world, had a strong political bias to the left.

I find that when I start reading up on issues like those covered in this book, I start to see what was once unquestionable in my mind as a popular opinion that isn’t necessarily based on the facts and the truth at all.

Sometimes when reading material like this I find myself instinctively not believing a point. That should set alarm bells ringing, because more often than not the deeply held opinion is based on popular opinion, not facts, and once the author goes about building an argument my puny opinion can’t stand up to it. When you read about all sorts of issues, the unpopular way of looking at them tends to make the most sense.

Perhaps it would be unwise to completely swing around to the radical version of science offered in the book, but there’s certainly no harm in reading up on the other side of these issues so that we can be in a better position to understand the likelihood of a certain theory being correct, instead of regurgitating spoon-fed science as fact.

Conservatives will find themselves nodding their heads, and liberals will find themselves instinctively disagreeing. Anyone with a bit of common sense will see the irony, or perhaps even hypocrisy, when such a political book criticises politics, but if you get beyond this and evaluate the individual arguments by their own merits then you’ll have had a mind-opening and worthwhile experience.

So, since this book reveals some shocking insights into science today, and since it provides a much-needed, fuller understanding of some popular scientific theories by presenting an argument against them, I would heartily recommend it to anyone.

Comment »