It’s who you know, not what you know.

Headlines lately have been lashing out on the probation department and the idea of patronage. Commissioner O’Brien has recently been fired after a long battle of the blame game. However, the underlying message here is that our world has become a battle between networking with people and not so much how much knowledge or how smart an individual is, which is troublesome to say the least. Many jobs in the criminal justice field and services are not hiring very often so when a position does open up many applicants will be pushed aside and others moved to the head of the list because their parents donate money, their family is friends with someone that works there and the list of possibilities goes on. Many of my friends are on the state police list and have seen their name go up and down the list very often, many have seen why that is because of parents involvement in the department or some phone calls and extra pushes from family friends, neighbors and teachers. It is hard to see an individual who does not have the same scores, experience and to be quite frankly the drive you have be considerate for a job because they “know someone, who knows someone.” Networking has become the buzzword in our society and especially in this economy any help you can get you take. How has the “ who you know” idea shadowed over what you know. That’s simple because in this economy everyone is fighting for a job and there are many more fighting for the same job you want. Was Commissioner O’Brien wrong in hiring a majority of his family to work in the probation department and other branches of Massachusetts state positions? Yes, is he the first person who is guilty of helping out people he knows and giving them a job over other? No. O’Brien was an extreme case as he was public about his favoritism; however the problem of patronage is evident outside of the probation department.

So how do we address this issue is it a crime to network and use those names and contacts to your advantage? We are a society that uses all forms of communications from word of mouth to texting and video chat. When we meet someone for the first time, their business card becomes that much more important down the road because you never know when you need their help or that extra push to land the job you want. No matter what, what you know and learn in the classroom and through experience will help you succeed in your position however if you know someone that can help you or knows the employer that can guarantee an interview, and your foot in the door.

Lighting In the Virtual World

When it comes to realism, lighting in a still image or animated scene can make or break a persons viewing experience. When comparing a computer generated imagine to a photograph the first thing that comes to mind is whether or not it looks as real as the picture. The more real it looks, the more satisfaction is had by the viewer.

Lighting is probably the last thing thought about when it comes to computer graphics, whether you're the animator or the viewer, even though its the key factor in realism. Its a tricky and time consuming process in the 3D world but when the right results are achieved, it's very gratifying.

When setting up a well lit scene multiple factors need to be considered. The time of day and the mood the scene is going to convey are just a couple. If it's during daylight hours the color of the lights should be warmer such as yellow and orange. If its a night time scene then colors should have a more cool blue tone to them.

Normally two or three lights per scene also helps achieve realism. Since real world lighting for the most part always has more than one light source its always best to do the same in the virtual world. Additional things that should be considered are the rays of light, whether its from the sun, and indoor light fixture or spotlight. The type of light is very important.

To achieve a type of mood shadows usually play the most important role. The darker the scene and the more prominent the shadows are, the more negative the mood is. The brighter the scene and the less shadows there are, the happier or more positive the mood is. Another thing to keep in mind when considering shadows is its edge. The softer the edge the more realistic it is. Harder edges are usually used for more non-realistic imagery.

These are just a few of many of the important things to be thought about when it comes to lighting a virtual scene. Any virtual object and or scene can appear real if it's lit properly. Like anything the more time and thought put into it, the better the results. In the end, the greatest compliment a 3D artist can receive, is the viewer not realizing that imagery is computer generated.

Media in the Classroom

Being a graduate student outside of work, teachers often pride themselves in using the “newest up to date” technology. This “new” technology is PowerPoint with more than one color on each slide or a graphic that actually appears on the slide rather than a box with an x mark in it. Most teachers are lucky if they can get the image of the computer to project on the screen (whiteboard) in front of the class. Then I come to work and see how the bare minimum of our work is twice as advanced as what I see in the classroom.

Teachers are fascinated that they can post assignment on Blackboard, a university based networking site which students can log onto and keep track of class assignment grades and chat with other classmates. They are amazed that we can talk to each other without seeing one another.

Now these teachers are the exception as most teachers stand in front of the class and talk, talk, and talk some more without using any visual aids. I believe that my generation is much more visual than past generations, because we have been exposed to so many different media outlets and technological advances. Teachers always say that they want to stay up to date with the times, however they give us articles from the 70s, show us videos from when bell bottom pants were in and insist that power point presentations are the latest thing. Most teachers lecture on how to give a good presentation and they themselves use bright colors, light text, and poor images to serve as teaching tools, and most of us in the room would create a better presentation just from what we know about power point such as movement of text, sounds, pictures, links, and movie players; just to name a few.

Is this a clash of generations, are teachers trying to make productive steps forward, are power points the first steps in trying to be “ in with the times?” Our classrooms seem to be the last places to experience the wave of technology and teachers are the ones struggle to keep their classes engage in their lectures.

Now you see me... now you... still see me.

The past four plane rides I've taken have all qualified me for a "Random Security Screening." For something so random, I feel like my odds have been pretty good since 9/11! With these odds, I'm thinking of purchasing a lottery ticket...

Unfortunately, I don't think the odds have anything to do with it. The fact that I'm pulled out of line constantly to get searched or scanned or virtually strip searched (I'll get to that in a minute) is simply because of how I look. Granted, I am tall, dark, and ruggedly handsome (or so my mother tells me), but I'm also Egyptian. Mind you, I'm a practicing Christian that was born and raised in the United States, but I'm sure it doesn't help at all that I have a big nose and a beard. Maybe I should shave? Then again, I doubt that curly haired Mexicans or Indians are having much luck either, regardless of their facial hair status.

Now, anyone that knows me understands that while I'm not for racial profiling as a policy, I fully understand the heightened alarm when someone even remotely middle-eastern-looking looks at an airport the wrong way (and with the poor service, the high prices, and flight delays, can you really blame them for looking the wrong way?). Hell, I understand that if I saw me in an airport, I'd want to perform a "Random" security search on me as well... that's not really my point.

My point is that these "random" searches aren't very random. That much is obvious when I am literally the only person in a line of 20 people about to board a plane (this is AFTER the security check) that gets politely asked to have my personal belongings checked... for a second time. Let's not sugar coat it. That's racial profiling and security personnel aren't even bothering to hide it anymore. Am I so daft as to think that people that look middle eastern aren't targets for airport security? Of course not, but I at least appreciated it when they cared enough about my feeling to lie to me about it! What happened to grabbing me out of line along with a complimentary white person who I secretly suspect goes behind the curtain and jokes with TSA about the middle eastern sucker who is behind the other curtain having his bag turned inside out...... but I digress.

A few of years ago airline security at least pretended that these screenings were random... now... it seems that the facade has been cast off. There are a few problems with this that actually DECREASE security in airports.

Remember up above where I mentioned virtual strip searches? No? Glance up top... It's ok... I'll wait.

Anyway... so, I was in Boston and they have these nifty new security scanners that you walk through and then stand still for 10 seconds or so. These new scanners are so powerful and sensitive that they can actually see THROUGH your clothing... I'm not joking... you can look it up on Google images (or some other search engine of your choice). Try this link . Let's assume that I'm ok with some poor TSA worker looking at my virtually naked body. And let's say that I'm ok with that TSA employee looking at my friends and family that way. What I'm not ok with is the fact that I'm the only person in a long line of people who has to go though the machine! I used to be completely understanding of the fact that TSA workers had a job to do and that by stopping me in an airport, they were doing that job. "Random" metal detector and bag searches are one thing because of the minimal indignity, but I have to draw the racial profiling line at semi-naked scans of a person's body! I know the scan takes some time and the airport doesn't want to delay everyone, but come on! This is above and beyond... and I'm of the opinion that either everyone goes through this security scan or no one goes through it at all. Aside from the fact that it feels offensive to get singled out "randomly," it feels even weirder to have everyone's eyes looking at you KNOWING why you're getting scanned and knowing that the scanners are seeing you naked.

Even if everyone goes through these scanners (which they don't) for the simple sake of pretending that middle eastern people aren't being hounded at the airport, there are still a number of legal issues that are not addressed...

While this new device is a leap in airport security technology, there are a series of legal issues that this machine raises. First of all, what about privacy considerations? "Random" people are being virtually strip searched without probable cause! Since when does the government have the right to make strip searches mandatory and without cause? Some may argue that consent is implied by the fact that people have purchased a ticket to fly, but people don't really have a choice when it comes to reasonable long distance travel, thus consent may be negated.

There are also potential health and HIPAA violations here. There are all kinds of people walking through this scanner with varying medical conditions. There are people with prosthetics, breast implants, insulin pumps, false body parts (like hips), or who are missing body parts. These people no longer have their privacy available to them and their private medical conditions are potentially visible to the world without proper protections. What about radiation? Many authorities say that these X-rays aren't harmful, but there is disagreeing literature. What about unborn children or fetuses that are exponentially more sensitive to radiation?

Supposedly there are privacy features built in that blur a person's face, so that the scanner cannot see the person being scanned, but we're really just taking the government's word for that when there are some borderline horror stories about the lack of privacy.

Even worse, according to these articles (1 and 2), these scanners are actually being used as porn by some airport workers! Really? The images aren't even that great, but clearly this is an example that people can abuse just about anything! With the increased rate of "random" security searches, I wonder if these airport employees know that their new porn is really made up of a shockingly high number of Middle Easterners, Mexicans, Indians, and other brown people. To make matters worse, the government is possibly in on this as well! The machines have the capability of saving the images that are scanned for later use. Supposedly the government doesn't save the images, but I'll leave that argument between them and the conspiracy theorists out there.

What about children? That's right... I went there even though it is just a repugnant thought. Children could be and have been scanned without a parent's consent. Should children have to go through this scanner when pornography is a potential issue? Should they have to go through it when the issue of whether these scans are safe or not remains unanswered?

Finally, isn't security the purpose of these scanners? A large security risk facing America that was created by TSA officials is precisely the fact that brown people get singled out. All we're doing is telling potential terrorists how to avoid getting searched. Instead of someone with dark hair, brown skin, and a beard packing a bomb in his shorts, you'll have brainwashed, blond haired, blue eyed Americans doing the terrorizing instead! Al Qaeda is recruiting all over the world and they're not just recruiting middle-easterners! Look at this blond woman dubbed "Jihad Jane!"

New technology is great. Keeping America safe from terrorism is a noble and wonderful goal, but there just has to be a better way that doesn't single out certain people for a potentially humiliating violation of privacy.

Tape or Tapeless? That is the question.

I was walking up Boylston Street in Boston last fall when I spotted white trucks, roped off areas, and people running around with walkie talkies and gaffers tape, a sight that has become familiar to locals. Film crews were putting cameras in place for the next shot in the newly released movie, The Town. As crowds were swarming to get a glimpse of the actors, I was going in the opposite direction towards the production tents to get a look at what the producers and directors were seeing.

As I was standing behind the roped off area near the director's chair, two crew members wheeled by a storage container labeled Panavision on the side. I continued to watch them open the container and pull out a large film reel and load it onto the camera. I thought to myself, "hmm, I thought many of these films were shot digitally", but what I have come to realize is that the majority of motion pictures are still shot on film.

With all the digital cameras consumers buy today, they seem to be the smart ones not wasting money on tape after tape, but instead shooting their footage right to flash memory that is automatically digitized without any extra effort. The real question becomes, why does the film industry still use film, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of tapeless production?

As a filmmaker, I work for a legal consulting firm producing and analyzing video for litigation across the country. My job requires me to be knowledgeable about every aspect of video production and there can be no room for error when the cameras begin to roll. The option for a reshoot does not exist in a video deposition when a key witness is being questioned by counsel on a case that has millions of dollars, or someone's fate on the line.

One of my professors in college used to say to us, "Digital media does not exist unless it exists in three places." Those words are now part of my mental framework whenever I begin to roll tape, or shoot digitally. As a filmmaker you have to be thinking one step ahead of everyone else, because an error will result in more time and money spent reshooting something that could have been done right the first time.

So that brings us to the question again, tape or tapeless? In my industry today, I believe that everything should continue to be shot on tape and digitized separately. There are some instances when I am able to shoot on tape and also digitize at the same time, but that requires a little more effort and sometimes the location doesn't allow for it to easily be done. After my shoot, I import the footage to a video editing hard drive which is automatically backed up to a second hard drive, but I also have the physical tape.

It has yet to happen to me (knock on wood), but if and when one hard drive fails, I will have the backup to save me. And if and when that backup fails at the same time my main drive fails, I will have the tape to fall back on. And if and when all my hard drives fail and my tape has been ruined, the never ending question of "how much backup is actually enough?" will have to be answered.

Young filmmakers love the ability to shoot in high definition right to P2 cards, but after a full day of shooting priceless material, let's only hope that they don't accidentally hit that "format" button erasing all their footage with no hope of retrieving it. Let's just say that I've learned my lesson a couple times...

The reason for motion picture production companies to still shoot on film is a little more involved than what the average consumer needs to know, but one reason is that film is durable and extremely reliable. Unlike the beginning of picture making when film was highly combustible and dangerous, it has come a long way and been perfected to last longer and endure rougher physical conditions.

To be a good filmmaker you have to think above the bar and outside of the box because there is no room for error on your watch. So whether shooting on tape or digitally, think about every possible scenario to protect your footage and deliver the highest quality product you can.

After all, it is your reputation.

News: Apple to allow iOS apps created using third-party development tools

Apple announced last Thursday an updated iOS Development License Agreement which relaxes restrictions on what development tools may be used in creating iOS apps. In addition, they are publishing App Store Review Guidelines in an effort to add clarity to the app store approval process.

In April, Apple added language to the previous agreement restricting apps that linked to the documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool. While the change in the language affected many 3rd-party development tools (such as Unity, Titanium, and MonoTouch), it was largely seen as targeting Adobe. Adobe was set to release Flash CS5, and was advertising that software's Flash-to-iPhone publishing option. The new restrictions would forbid apps created with that feature from being accepted into the App Store. Adobe abandoned work on the feature shortly thereafter. Now with the new iOS Development License Agreement, Apple has essentially reversed its position. Adobe has announced that it will resume work on its iPhone Flash tool.

As someone who uses both Apple and Adobe products extensively, I'm quite pleased at this development. I understand Apple's desire to have an approval process that ensures that the apps submitted to its store conform to a certain standard of quality. However, the initial restriction on third-party tools seemed mostly arbitrary and anticompetitive. It makes no difference to the user how the app was created, only that it works. If apps created using a third-party tool fail Apple's quality standards, then the app should rightfully be kept out. If the app performs as well as an app created using Apple's preferred development software and is secure, it is hard to justify keeping it out. Will this change make it easier for developers to also create products simultaneously for Apple's competitors, such as Google's Android platform? Yes. But the only one who loses from this arrangement is Apple. For consumers and for the health of the mobile marketplace as a whole, it is a win.

Out with the OLD in with the NEW

Recently I had jury duty. For my first time I was somewhat excited, looking at the experience like that of a trial on TV; until I got to the courthouse. The jurors were escorted to this “waiting room” it was over crowded with no AC and uncomfortable chairs. There I and 25 other people waited to be told what the next move would be. Then the waiting set in, in the mean time we watched a video on a tube TV; which I haven’t seen in years. At the first sight of the VHS Tape, I thought to myself “this should be good.” The video was from 1970 at least. Watching the video I thought to myself this is what the state uses tax money on, an outdated video about how jurors are the most crucial part of a trial and how we should be proud of ourselves that we are serving “our duty to the Commonwealth.”
After viewing the video I sat there in awe and thought with all the technology and media advances in 2010, the court system couldn't update their presentation on “jury service.” When I got home that night I searched and explored the Massachusetts Jury website, there I found this statement on the top of the home page:


"Due to recent changes in technology, including the implementation of new jury management software, a small amount of technical information on this website may be outdated. THE INFORMATION ON THE LOG-IN JUROR SERVICE WEBSITE IS ACCURATE AND CURRENT.
We are implementing a new website in the near future and would welcome any comments or suggestions our users may have.
Please direct your comments to JurorHelp@jud.state.ma.us."

Any suggestions? I have many suggestions. Near future? When is that going to be? Jury duty is not glamorous and will probably never be something that one looks forward to; but make the process modern. The website is not organized, the graphics, colors and links are scattered and confusing. The site itself is cluttered and the pictures are not recent. Technology is the future of our society, with the Internet, smart phones, and all the media products out there we have become dependant on our media aids. With modern technology the process wouldn’t seem so ancient to the first time juror or someone who has served many times.
Waiting in the “juror area” I saw almost every lawyer carrying a smart phone. One attorney was making appointments and scheduling further dates for her client on her phone. If lawyers and those working in the court system are up to date with savvy technology, then how didn’t the court system get the memo: ITS 2010 not 1970. I understand that the court system is on a strict budget, but to make or buy a up to date video and have someone maintain their website is not going break the bank. Everywhere you turn media plays a role in your daily life. I felt like I had gone back in time when I entered the court, its maintenance was appalling, the organization of the cases was dumbfounding and the “juror area” room felt like a room in my grandmother’s house. But beside the appearance of the court, the one aspect of my day that stood out was the fact that attorneys, clients, and those employed for the court were aware that it was 2010 and used the newest technology and media advances but were surrounded by a building that still used VHS tapes.
I am not that technology savvy myself but a system such as the courts; the foundation of our legal system needs to be up to date with the society that it serves and provide services for jurors, attorneys, the commonwealth and its employees. The court system is one of the most used tools in the criminal justice system and in regards to my experience one of the most “out dated, ancient, and behind” systems as far as district courts go.