Review: "Avatar" ( + a fun Thought Experiment)

When I first heard of Avatar, I'll admit I thought of the animated Nickelodeon show. Well, Avatar isn't by Nickelodeon but it was animated, and yes it was quite a show.

Estimates have over $150 million spent on marketing this $300 million movie. The hype surrounding the film revolved around the sheer amount of time spent creating it and the new technologies invented to shoot it. If you are a gamer, you should be familiar with this technique of marketing. Blockbuster Video Games are produced to very high production values. New software is written and re-written to get the look-and-feel of a video game just right. Screenshots are "leaked" to get interest up. The wow factor is what studios aim for in a game these days.

Well, Avatar seemed to be all that leading into opening weekend and it did deliver. The production was through the roof. You ARE on the forest moon named Pandora. You fight the battles and you feel the flora and fauna. This movie WILL win the Oscar for Best Visual Effects, if nothing else. Unfortunately, the movie also falls victim to what I'll call the Video Game Budget Ratio.

100:1. It's not a Vegas odd for anything, so don't get excited. It represents the balance of effects budget to story and character development budget. For every $100 spent on mind-blowing special effects, $1 is spent on screenplay. Avatar's downfall is the low-brow, underhanded insult to viewers it doles out in the form of it's story and characters. Save Sigorney Weaver (even she isn't safe at some points from the director's megaphone), the characters in Avatar were as bland in one direction as Pandora's forest is vivid in the other. The One-Note performance of Stephen Lang's Colonel character reminded me of my Halo playing days. Made me want to lock and load and that's it.

Sam Worthington's character, Jake, however isn't firey on purpose. The intent here, I believe, is to allow the audience the ease of replacing him for themselves as the movie progresses. The movie wants to emotionally engage you wholly through the eyes of Jake and his eponymous Avatar.

I won't re-hash the story here, however I'll say this: For the movie to work for me, it needs to be a cautionary tale. It needs to say to us "Remember Fern Gully? Yah, don't do that." It needs to remind us that anything that drives us to disassociate with our humanity is not good and needs to be abolished. It also needs to not lay the message on so thick, that it loses half a star.

Rating: * * * 1/2

Now for something fun. On the way home from watching Avatar, I remember something that had been said in the movie. The whole point of the humans being there on Pandora was a fictitious substance they called, probably tounge-in-cheek, "unobtainium". A little Googling revealed that it's a naturally occurring superconductor at room temperatures. Also the year the movie happens is 2154 AD, esentially 150 years from now. My question is this: Assuming unobtainium holds it's value over time (I know, I know, just look at fluctuating gold prices), would the price of unobtainum (Ub) justify, in a Venture Capitalists' mind (at least 50% ROI), a single there-and-back-again trip to Pandora today (using travel times from the movie).

A little legwork:

Ub price in 2154 (Source: Avatar): $20 million per kilo
Ub price in 2009 (adjusted for 3.0% inflation): $241,507 per kilo
For comparison:







Let's say we retro fit (for interstellar space travel, al la proper shielding, .7c speed etc.) one of the Space Shuttles for this mission at the cost per mission, so far: $1.5 billion in 2008 (Source: Space Shuttle )

Shuttle can hold in payload: 24,400 kg
Time it takes to get to Alpha Centauri/Pandora at .7c : 5.681 years

Alright, up front costs: $1.5 billion dollars, 7 humans, 11 years

Robots could mine the Ub and humans could supervise from surface and/or orbit.

well, in 2020, the Shuttle would return, with 24,400 kg of Ub, which is now worth $337,631 per kilo (inflation), times 24.4 million = 8.2 trillion dollars in 2020. A total return of 408,566% or 371% a year.

Let's mine Pandora baby!

OFF TOPIC: The Tallest Building in the World, Elsewhere.

Well this isn't a consumer post. In fact it's the first post since the beginning of the summer. However, I've been introduced to an interesting blog (thanks, @tdeffen). There's a post over at the Infrastructurist sharing the thought experiment, "What would the world's tallest building look like in NYC?" Well, I'll let you follow the links for that one.

I decided to localize this experiment a little. Oklahoma City, Tulsa and Stillwater are on the list. I included several shots from San Francisco as a more realistic setting too, having spent several months there myself...

Facts about the world's tallest building: Burj Dubai:

• Stands 818 m / 2,684 ft (that's exactly a half-mile!)
• Time from Start to Topped-out: 4 years, 17 weeks, 6 days. (2004 - 2009)
• Did I mention it's stupidly tall?

First we'll start with Tulsa. Tallest Building in Tulsa (also in the state)? BOK Tower: 667 ft. A paltry 25% of the Burj Dubai height!




Next is Oklahoma City. I place it where the new Devon Tower is suppose to go. This is from the I-40, I-35 interchange.
Like in the previously mentioned blog post, I simulate what the view would be from the observatory deck. You would have no trouble watching a RedHawks game. Bring your binoculars telescope.Last of the Oklahoma pics is Stillwater, home of Oklahoma State University. The whole campus has 3D buildings in Google Earth, so I added one more, where the new Athletic Village is supposed to go. Boone Pickens, eat your heart out.

Here's a comparison that's on par with the NYC blog post. San Francisco. I picked a place that looked like an old parking lot over by the newly completed Rincon Tower. Choose which one is uglier.
As if from Coit Tower:
You still can't escape the ostentation 15 miles away in Berkeley, CA.
Hope that was as interesting to look at as it was for me to screenshot!

Cheers.

Craftsman 5.50 Torque Rating 22 in. Deck 2-n-1 Mulch-Side Discharge Push Lawn Mower

It's spring. That means grass starts growing and if you don't live in an apartment, condo or cardboard box, you have to cut your grass. I have lived in either university dorms or apartments the past 4 of 5 years so I rarely had the occasion to perform the ritual of lawn care. Now that I've settled into a full-blown house with all the responsibilities that entails, I found myself without a mower.

Enter the Craftsman 5.50 Torque Rating 22 in. Deck 2-n-1 Mulch-Side Discharge Push Lawn Mower! This no-frills mower from Sears runs $149.98, which is a great price for an entry-level machine. I have less than a 1/4 acre lawn (.08 acres to be exact) and this is about all that I needed to get going. Stay tuned for the performance review!

UPDATE: After it's maiden voyage, I would have to say that the intentional consumer-confusing "5.50 Torque Rating" (what's wrong with horsepower?) did nothing to bolster my confidence for cutting the thickest of domestic lawns. Our lawn was around 8"-12" tall and upon covering these areas, the little 158cc Briggs & Stratton engine would bog down, then a second later, increase RPM to compensate for the loss in cutting speed. It seemed like the thing was going to shut down if I kept plowing through the thick grass so I would have to pause while it caught it's breath.

The blade wasn't as sharp as it could have been coming out of the factory. Even in thinner areas on the lawn, some grass was left standing tall and proud and warranted a second go-over.

Despite these things, I think performance will improve as I maintain a mowing schedule that doesn't allow the grass to get wildly out of hand.

Rating: ***1/2

Review: Garmin nuvi 650

Image copyright Garmin

So you've navigated your way back to my blog! Well, I'm glad fate has guided you here. Well, if you couldn't tell by the post title, the picture or the punny puns, I'm going to be reviewing the Garmin nuvi 650.

Reviewing this product has taken a while mainly because I got a job and had to move the family to Norman, OK. But another important reason is with that time, I've been able to use the GPS system on enough roads and highways to compile usage data.

//DISCLAIMER
Having gone to a university that was heavily recruited by Garmin, being interviewed for employment by Garmin and having friends that work at Garmin, I feel that I should disclaim that these reasons are what steered me in the Garmin direction. My wife surprised me with the nuvi 650 as my graduation gift. (I mean really surprised me. I had purchased my own Garmin GPS shortly before, but that's another story).
//END DISCLAIMER

Down to the review. Initial impressions had me surprised at how light the nuvi itself was. I knew it had an internal battery and glass touchscreen, but the weight is light enough to put in a coat pocket. However, after using the Garmin nuvi around the state of Oklahoma and a drive to and around the Orlando, Florida area, I would say the Garmin nuvi, or any GPS for that matter is only as good as the MAPS that are on it. Out of date maps can seriously cripple your trip, especially if you have no experience with the area. To remedy this, Garmin introduced the nuMaps Guarantee. You can get the latest maps within 60 days of purchase (it's actually within 60 days of the GPS's first satellite acquisition. Those pesky GPS sats have timekeeping onboard and beam it to your unit.

The 650 has a touch widescreen (I recommend over the square screen) and an MP3 player, which I think is more of a novelty than a feature. The speakers are adequately loud to overcome road noise. The rendering engine takes time to update and draw, which, as 3D hardware becomes more mobile device friendly in terms of power consumption, we can expect to see really slick looking map displays. Even though the GPS updates once per second (and driving to the mall doesn't require much more), I would like to see the maps up at ~30 frames per second using dead reckoning. Of course we might be talking about a beefier processor and extra RAM. But for a company that relies on WOW factor for it's consumer lines, it would be getting that edge in my book.

So the Garmin nuvi made it endlessly easier to navigate Orlando and Norman, OK, two places I don't have much street knowledge of, but the large gripes from me are the map rendering speed and the unit shipping with 2 year-old maps.

This unit is DISCONTINUED, but still available for purchase at fine retailers like Amazon.com for $202.

Rating: ****1/2

Review: Chipotle vs. Qdoba

Being the fever pitch of college football season, I thought this post could pit two very, very similar Mexican fast food restaurants against each other. In my town, Chipotle and Qdoba are recent acquisitions with Qdoba taking the lead in time spent in Stillwater, so we'll start there.

Qdoba offers burritos and Mexican dishes, "Subway style" as many people put it, in that you order which meat you want then go down the line picking and choosing what else to put in it. Qdoba offers at least two types of salsas, pico de gallo, and cheese. Sour Cream and guacamole are available for an extra $.50 each. The main thing Qdoba has going for it is the vairity of ways you can put together meat, rice, beans and cheese. Burritos, the signature entree, start at $5.79.

RATING: ***

Chipotle is Qdoba's twin brother that went to art school instead of culinary vo-tech. The decor is neo-constructionism with exposed sheet metal and bolted-on metal siding that distinguish the restauraunt from it's counterpart. The meat, however is the focus of this place. They tout the time and effort they put into the various meats and to me, it showed. I got the Carnita Burrito, which was pulled pork, rice, beans, and cheese in a tortilla big enough to wrap a football. The taste was better in many aspects than Qdoba's. The meat, once again, was very tasty for having been mass produced. Carnita pork was $5.85.

RATING: ***1/2

So in the Championship of Fast Mexican food, Chipotle beats Qdoba's 3.5 to 3.0.

Review: Chili's White Chocolate Molten

I've noticed a movement in the restaurant industry from offering only chocolate items to complementing them with the white chocolate counterpart. For years normal chocolate had been the only choice for choco-holics at restaurants. The Wendy's fast food chain is an example. My wife thought it was blasphemous when Wendy's started offering the white Frosty, even though "vanilla", the Frosty still tastes like creamy white chocolate.

flickr image by chapstickaddict

We have another example of this with Chili's new White Chocolate Molten Cake. The original Chocolate Molten Cake was outstanding which prompted my wife and I to share a White Chocolate. This dessert is very sweet, bordering on too-rich. But the raspberry sauce 'tease' does for this dessert that the caramel sauce did for the original Chocolate Molten: it's great. The cake that we got was a little dry around the edges, indicating to me that it had been sitting out for a few hours. Regardless, the presentation is awesome (it's modeled like a little volcano).

Overall, I would give this dessert a try. It went for $5.69. I think a $4.99 price point would see it sell a lot more.

RATING: ***1/2

Review: Consuming the mobile Intarwebs

So the Internet is increasingly mobile these days. With everything from Blackberries to iPhones tagging along with everyone, it seems like we can't unplug ourselves from anything. Don't feel guilty, neither can I. But mobile websites are good in other cases than for mobile devices. I'll explain.

To obey the rules of this post, I'm reviewing my internet connection at home. My wife and I wanted to save a bit of money this semester and go with a "cheaper" internet plan. Previously, we had an ISP called "SuddenLink". Clever word play aside, SuddenLink provided a decent connection at 6Mbps down and 1.4Mbps up. It was slightly overpriced at nearly $40 a month ($39.95). A little competition would go a long way in bringing down the price point here. $40 a month is what my parents were paying for cable internet nearly 8 years ago, so what gives?

Anyway, now Aubrey and I are with "Lindsey Communications", a subsidiary of our apartment management company. Providing mediocre service for the price of the "other" guys is their specialty. It's a 128kbps connection that's CAPPED at 1 Gig up/down per month. It's $19.99/mo (half the price for 1/50th the speed?) which makes me wonder how much the profit margins are given the distributed electrical cost for their obviously minimal equipment and 15 person payroll.

RATING: **

Regardless, now I have Internet that's...wait for it...TWICE as fast as dial-up. And it's coming in...over a cable modem. This leads me to my other use of mobile computing websites! Websites specifically designed for mobile machines usually contain all the same content of the parent site, but are stripped of a lot of the formatting and ads that normally appear. They are built to load much faster than their bloated counterparts. Here's a list of popular and personal favorite sites.

Popular:

• CNN.com's mobile site http://m.cnn.com
• Google tools in mobile form! http://m.google.com
• The BBC's mobile site http://www.bbc.co.uk/mobile/ents/index.shtml
• Flickr Mobile: http://m.flickr.com/

Personal Favs:

• Slashdot (nerd news) http://slashdot.org/palm
• USAA bank: http://mobile.usaa.com
• National Weather Service mobile: http://mobile.srh.weather.gov/

Anyway, this is just a taste to raise awareness that mobile sites can be used on regular computers for even faster access times to your favorites sites. A really good list of mobile sites is in the form of a mobile site itself (which I think is neat) at:

http://cantoni.mobi/

If all you need a is some quick info without wading through a lot of clutter, go mobile.