Paranoid Agnostic scores 4 out of 5 stars. Why did we score so high? Well, in part because we didn’t leave anything out! Sites score low on the “built-with” scale if they use few different technologies. On this site we use two different javascript libraries, we have widgets, RSS feeds, we make use of good character encoding, CSS is used extensively, and we have a few gimmics.

Sites that score low on the built-with scale seem to have fewer technologies. This is not neccassarily a good rating. A very effective, standards-compliant website (XHTML strict, CSS, and RSS) would score quite low. Whereas a really error-prone messy site (lots of different widgets, bloated javascript libraries, too much privacy invading analytics) would score very high.

So what does this score mean? My interpretation is that the score is trying to measure how “mashup-able” a site is. If a site is built with many different components it scores high. A site that is a mashup, a site that can be mashed-up, a site that wants to flexible over the long term, needs to use the technologies that score highly on this scale. That is not necassarily a bad thing. There is just no measure of how effective those technologies are employed yet.

I am told that today is Blog Day and that on Blog Day bloggers are supposed to blog about five blogs that they believe their readers will find interesting.

is getting pretty big, and ever since becoming a graduate student in Library and Information Science, I have been mostly adding library/infosci blogs. Thus, I find it strange that when I made this list of “five blogs that I think you should know about” there was just one library blog that made the cut.

Five Interesting Blogs That I Think You Should Know About

CogNews

News about Cognitive Science. This is the slashdot of cognitive science, with infrequent posting but excellent selection of content.

All In The Mind

Podcast from ABC (Australian Radio Station) about psychology. Really interesting 30 minutes podcasts. I highly recommend checking the archives for the recent interview with Daniel Dennet on Evolutionary Psychology and Religion and another recent episode on Stalking.

Junk Charts

I usually don’t like sites that just criticize other people’s work. However Junk Charts is special. It is a thoughtful and very productive criticism of data visualization (i.e. charts and graphs that are misleading or deceptive or just plain bad)

Statistical Graphs and Data Visualization

Despite the title sounding dull, this is a very exciting topic. If you have ever heard of or read Tufte, then you will undoubtedly find this site useful and interesting.

Unit Structures:: Fred Stutzman

Fred Stutzman is a Ph.D. student in Library and Information Science. He is by now becoming famous for his work on the adoption of Facebook by college students. If you search Google Video you will find that he has given a talk at Google about his research on facebook. His site also has some links to MP3 files of recent interviews he gave. His postings about his research are well worth reading.

The female lead character, Audrey, was played by Breanna, who has an incredible and obviously well-trained voice.  Breanna’s singing was stellar and her New York accent was quite fun.

The male lead character, Seymour, was played by Matt.  Matt really looked the part and played it well. I quite enjoyed the comical “Mushnik and Son” number. Mr.  Mushnik was played a big bear of guy and looked huge compared to Matt (Seymore) who is quite skinny and shorter. The two together made a great comedy team.

While the lead characters were certainly held by talented players, the productions was really made grande by a super supporting cast. There were a LOT of people on the stage during the big numbers and it really built a great energy. Now, in a production like this, having a lot of people on stage can mean diaster. It is hard to find a place for everyone, and it is even harder to give each person something to do on stage, and then to make it all work together and not seem chaotic would seem nearly impossible. In this production the impossible was accomplished.

Three trios of “Doo-wop” girls provided excellent support in each number. The trios really provided the glue in every scene, and without them the performances, though talented, would have been merely interesting rather than brilliant.  For example, at any given moment there was usually one on stage left or right, another in the balconies at microphones, and another scattered in the background.  This really made THE difference. It help the audience stay involved because no matter where you looked there was always on of the Doo-wop trios drawing your attention and keeping your imagination in the scene at hand.  There were some terrifically comical moments provided by these Doo-wop trios, not the least of which was a scene where one trio acted as three potted plants interpreting the lyrics sung by Seymore.

One thing that impressed me was that with all the people on stage at any time, the energy always stayed with the main action.  That is a big accomplishment. Sometimes a stage play can get an uneven feel, with attention drifting from the main characters to the supporting cast in an uncomfortable way. In every scene, all the people on stage seemed to focused, organized, and they fed the audience.  The extras that lounged on benches didn’t distract but added to the scenes. The Doo-wop girls never upstaged anyone and kept the energy flowing in every scene.

This is not just an accomplishment for the talent young men and women on stage. Clearly there was some well organized stage managment and creative coreography.

The sets blew us away. There was a good attention to detail without it becoming too much of a distraction. In many ways that is a strenght of the whole production. Lots of detail, but well focused.  The sets were attractive, and technically quite sophisticated. Since the set was constructed in a solid manner and the stage was not extremely large, this made it impossible to have any whole-scale set changes. The set designers were very creative however. The bulk of the action takes place in the flower shop or on the street (“skid row”) in front of the shop. One scene has to take place in a dentist’s office, and there isn’t room for a separate set for the office.  Instead the office was hidden behind one of the walls of the “skid row” street.  The wall was rotated and inside was the office.  It was brilliant and delightful.  Another thing about the detists set was that they had actual dental equipment. You know that monstous thing that holds the little sink you spit in and has the arm with the light and drill?  They had one of those!

The fact that this production had special effects cannot go unmentioned. The Little Shop of Horrors revolves around the ever growing man-eating monster flower “Audrey II.”  This production had several different props for the Audrey II at different stages of growth and each model was setup to seem like it was alive.  Honest too goodness special effects. The larger versions were well made: attractive but monstrous as well.  In several scenes Audrey II has to swallow characters, and the large versions were constructed so that the actors could slip inside and disappear.  This extra effort in the design of the plant makes much more entertaining.  In the final scene when Audrey II eats Audrey the devouring of the lead actress looked so smooth and so graceful that the audience spontaneous applauded.  It was wonderful.

Perhaps the only weakness in the entire evening was in the second last number.  The singing of “The Meek Shall Inherit” had a good beginning but got a bit chaotic near the middle. Fortunately, the cast pulled it together toward the end of the number and that made a smooth segway to the final scene giving them a strong finish.

Hours later I am still so impressed.  This evening was such a treat!

In frame 1, we see “how the customer explained it.” A tree with a swing in it, but the swing inexplicably has three seats. In my experience it is common that customers do not know their own need, especially in relation to information technology. They are able express that they have a need, but not necessarily what the need is. That is, of course, why they hire consultants. But projects go wrong for many reasons, and the customer is not entirely to blame. This cartoon analogy rings true for me. Customers typically express their need in a rough way but tend to try to specify the solution as well, and they usually get that part wrong. In this case the customer knows they need a swing, but thinks the solution involves lots of seats on the swing. They don’t understand that the extra seats don’t solve their problem, and probably prevent it from working at all.

In frame 2, we see “how the project leader understood it.” The project leader figured out the swing should have just one seat but didn’t really understand the “swing” concept and has the swing attached to the tree in a way that would preclude “swinging.” This is worse in some ways than customer’s explanation. The customer at least captured their need. Hear the project leader “doesn’t get it” but manages to capture some of the characteristics the customer described. Project leaders make mistakes like this because they are responsible to the “project” and responsible for delegating work to team members. The focus is on the parts, not the whole.

Compare that to the perspective of the business consultant in frame 5. Business consultants interface with the customer directly but are motivated to make a sale. They have to communicate to the customer both that the customer’s need is understood and that the solution offered will be the best available. Sales people and consultants tend to over promise, setting up everyone else to under deliver. Over promising also sets up the premise for frame 8, where the customer is over billed. Customers will always feel over billed if you promise the moon and don’t deliver.

In frame 3 we see the perspective of the analyst. The analyst interfaces with the project leader. He “gets it” put takes an engineering approach to the problem. He works within the constraints of the problem that the project leader has proposed and comes up with a solution. In this case the swing will swing, but it is not a straight forward solution. The analyst is not solving the customer’s problem, the analyst is solving the problem invented and interpreted by someone who just didn’t get it. Worse yet, in frame 4 we see how the programmer delivers what the analyst asks for. All the parts the analyst described are there, but when put together they just don’t do the right thing. If you made up a checklist for the deliverables, the programmer has indeed done his job… all parts accounted for. But it doesn’t meet the customers need.

In frame 4 we a source heavily linked with all the other frames. The documentation describes a mere shadow of the customer’s need. If the documentation were written first, and resembled the business consultant’s view, then the analyst might have been able to pass on something better to the programmer. The lack of documentation probably explains frame 7 as well. Operations often does not install what is needed to meet the customer’s need. Operations is so far divorced from the customer that they don’t know what the deliverable is supposed to do. They don’t know what the parts are for or what is important and what is not.

In frame 9 we see what ultimately happens after an IT project goes wrong. Everyone stops taking the customers calls, and refers them to support. Support, has to figure out how to make the best of a bad situation and deliver something, anything, of value to the customer. Support people are emergency workers. They conduct triage on the deliverables and decide what is worth saving and what is a write-off. In frame 9, we the tree has been cut down. There is no swing, but there is a nice stump to sit on.

In frame 10 we see what ultimately would have suited the customer’s needs. A nice tire swing. Not what the customer described exactly, but pretty close. Not as elaborate as what the business consultant recommended, but roughly the same idea. It does the same thing the analyst designed, but is much less complicated.

There are some lessons to be learned here. Of all the view expressed, the business consultant’s was the closest to the customer’s need. But typically business consultants are involved at the beginning of the process and are removed from the project later on. Some methodologies require that the customer be involved at all stages. I’m not sure that is realistic in many cases. However, it is clear that IT projects need customer advocates. I believe that business consultants, as expensive as they are, should be those advocates. Business consultants should not be sales-people but expert generalists with development and management experience. They should not be the project manager but should work directly with the customer and the project leader. The role of the business consultant should be to create the documentation, understand the big picture and the details, and assist the project leader.

I think this poster assumes the project leader is a technical team-leader or manager and not a professional project manager. That is a fairly good assumption in most cases. The technical project leader’s job is to make sure that the right resources are allocated to the project, that the job is getting done. The leadership role involves keeping things on track; its a difficult balancing act. While the project leader needs to understand the big picture, we need to be realistic and assume he will not be given the opportunity to reflect on big picture aspects. The team leader is too busy worrying about details. That is why the business consultant/advocate needs to work with this type of leader.

Most development methodologies now emphasize artifact creation at all stages by different participants in the project. I think if the the business consultant’s job is act as the “big picture” thinker and to interface with both the project leader and customer, then it is the business consultants job to ensure that the right documentation has been created. At least three levels of documentation need to exist: A high-level documentation that the customer can understand that explains what problem is being solved; A technical specification that describes the various parts that must be created and how they fit together to create the solution. This would include step-by-step user documentation for each component of the system; and low-level documentation create by and for the analyst and programmers. The low-level documentation is meant so that the system can be installed by operations and so that it can be maintained. In the end support and operations will need all of this documentation and without it they cannot be expected to deliver what the everyone else built and expected.

I’m not optimistic that much can be done about the customer being over-billed. IT projects are expensive, however if we assume they will be expensive that gives us a constraint to work within and we can concentrate on building value within that constraint.

You can get the cartoon printed on a t-shirt at cafepress.com.

Access was a truely remarkable conference and I regret that I was only able to be there for about 3/4 of all the presentations. The presentations were diverse and complimentary. I will describe a set of common themes that I observed that, based on my conversation with other participants may be seen as unusual. I believe what emerged through the presentations was that library technology is striving to capture emergence. Looking at the conference through “emergence colored glasses,” the highlight of the conference was a presentation by Humanities Computing professor Stan Ruecker on content-rich browsing interfaces.

The audience was much in awe of Ruecker’s interface examples. Peter Binkley’s comments after the presentation captured the enthusiasm that I think was the concensus. He said something like, “Your interfaces are like choclate and I just want to smear them all over my own work.” (By the end of the conference I anticipated with great delite every occaision when Peter approached a microphone… he is blessed with remarkable wit). Ruecker showed us several examples of his work and the common element in all of them was presenting the user with an insane amount of data.

The first example was a pill database. The idea of the appliation is to let users get information about the medication they take by first visually identifying the pill. The interface we saw presents users with a screen with hundreds or thousands of pills. He made a strong case for how and why that interface worked. Ruecker then showed many other interfaces that had similar features. The interfaces were innovated and generated a lot of enthusiasm as Peter’s comment demonstrates.

My enthusiasm, however, is not for the specific interfaces or their domain-specific success. I was impressed by the one slide where he explained WHY these interfaces should work theoretically. He brought into the discuss J.J. Gibson’s theory of affordances. Affordances, recognize that agent(user) and environment are coupled together and that environment and the environment represent opportunities for action.

In this case the idea is that interfaces “afford” actions to their users. Why present an insane amount of information to the user? Won’t that confuse them? It will not confuse them it the interface affords some action. In this case the interface contains an insane amount of information and controls to change how it is visualized or to reduce the amount of information (both of which are domain-specific changes). This means that the interface affords opportunties to improve or refine it.

In contrast, one might argue that simple interfaces like google’s afford very little. While the impose a small cognitive load on the user the provide little or no opportunity for action. This theory is nice because it explains both why Google works and why Ruecker’s interfaces work… with one theory.

Let me say, I’m not a fan of affordances, but I am a fan of theory in science and psychology. In this case I have no objection to invoking affordances as an exploratory mechanism but I would like to go beyond Ruecker’s explanation however and bring in the concept of embodiment. Embodiment, like affordances, acknowledge’s that the user/agent is coupled with its environment. Embodied theories of behavior explicitly state that “cognition is for action.” That is, we perceive so we can act; not so that we can think. If thinking is happening, it is a separate parallel process. Embodiment also argues that we solve many symbolic problems, not by thinking about them, but by exploiting our environment. In short, a complex environment makes us smarter.

So embodiment says,

1. if we are inseparable from our environment,
2. and if our brains are hardwired so that perception result in action,
3. a user will repeated consult the environment for potential actions in loose loops,
4. thus providing opportunities for action will result in “smarter” behavior

Allow me to say, that this is of course, an extreme dumming down of this type of explanation. I recommend Andy Clark’s book “Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again” or Nuenez and Lakoff’s “Where does Mathematics Come From?”.

This brings me to loose-coupling and emergence. Many of the presentations at Access extoled the virtues of loose-coupling. It is taken for granted now that, in software design, we want “small parts, loosely coupled.” The emphasis on web services, REST, and AJAX all result from and reinforce this idea. Such loose-coupling is seen as the right thing to do because it makes things for manageable, scalable, and flexible. If we engineer software from loosely coupled components we end up spending less time fixing things later and exploit other people’s work more easily… so there is strong reusability angle as well.

Loose-coupling is not just a popular in programming however. I see Catherine Steeves excellent (if shaky) presentation on collaboration as an effort to apply loose-coupling to social networks just as much as Gene Smith’s presentation on folksonomies was. Folksonomies exploit social networks that we didn’t know were there. Catherine advocates finding social networks (in meat-space) that we may not know are there by finding bridge-builders in our existing networks. For me, Access would not have been complete with Catherine presentation which both advocated for collaboration and warned of the dangers of over-collaboration. Essentially, the message I heard was: look for the edge of chaos and try to stay there.

The notion of loose-coupling is frequently invoked in computing science in exactly that way: the edge of choas. It helps to explain how complexity emerges from choas. And that brings me to emergence.

Gene Smith’s presentation on folksonomy was well balanced explaining how some advocate that folksonomy means that we don’t need domain experts, that we don’t need catalogers and that tagging will “just work out” in the end. Other react against that and argue that in some problem domains that cannot or will not happen. Yet, his presentation is optimistic that there is much value in folksonomy and tagging. The balanced approach he took agrees with me very much.

I see those that claim that tagging is a revolution as overly optimistic. In essence I see them as arguing that we can pick an architecture of simple components that are loosely-coupled and that we can expect the higher level complexity to emerge. They see this pattern throughout nature and are optimistic that it will happen on the web because we already have some early positive examples of interesting emergent properties (social bookmarking). I would say however, that in those examples, as in nature, we do not see consistent success of emergence from small-parts-loosely-coupled. In nature, often the “local interactions” of small part cancel each other out or result in “noise.” Similarily the results of folksonomy are not yet astonishing: I would characterize them as mildly asthonishing in some limited examples. Definately a cause for attention, optimism, and further work, but no reason to declare that we have a solution to hard problems.

It gives us reason to look as both folksonomy but also further toward ontology. The semantic web provides a tractable architecture for knowledge systems. I have read Peter recently say that he thought RDF was scary but will now look toward it. I feel that we have no choice but to look at RDF and the semantic web; if for no other reason but to explore the possibility that folksonomy may be TOO simple to build the components of loosely-coupled architecture. Historically, in part, RDF and the sematic web can trace their roots to a book by Lenat and Guha back in the 1980s called “Building Large Knowledge Based Systems.” This work describes the ideas behind the Cyc project. Probably the most interest ontology-based artificial intelligence system around. The idea is that the small parts are atomic pieces of information “stones are hard” or “math is hard.” These are loosely coupled by inference rules. So we could infer from the first two that “stones are like math in that they are both hard” and thus form the basis for metaphors used in complex ideas.

While Lenat went on to found Cycorp which applies this theory to military and big banking applications, Guha went on to work on the sematic web.

Gene Smith (I think it was him) commented at one point in his presentation that one solution to a tagging problem that came up with an application he wrote for a client might be solved by “algorithms” and someone asked what those woudl be. He said he didn’t know but it was a class of solution they might hire a programmer to invent. It might be that the class of solutions he called “algorithms” really allude to the difference between what can be handled by components that are “taxonomy/folksonomy” and those that are “ontology.” Obviously, whenever you apply a taxonomy you start to see ontology. The work of Lenat and Guhu, RDF, and the semantic web might lend some insight there.

This brings me to my last point. Synthetic psychology. If you have read Braitenberg’s vehicles you may know this terms. I know this work from the UofA’s Biological Computing Project which uses the “small parts loosely coupled” approach to in explaining cognition/psychology/behavior. The idea is similar to what we have seen but there is an emphasis on using models to discover principle crucial to explaining why a system works.

I think that is what Access 2005 impressed on me. We have good reasons to adopt some new methods and technologies. But perhaps went unsaid but that was implied is that we need to look for the reasons why these mechansims work, beyond the here-and-now. In synthetic psychology we avoid unecassarily complicated explainations by adopting this methodology:

1. Pick an architecture of simple componment and rules for there interaction
2. Design a system from that architecture
3. Look for surprising or interesting results
4. Analyse the system to discover what was critical to create the surprise/result

For programmers this is not shocking. For science it is turning things upside down. The approach is called “synthetic” because it advocated building first and analysing later. It advocates that you can learn about feature crucial to the success of a system through wise modeling choices.

Ruecker’s explanation seems to fit this method. For each problem domain a cross-discipilary group choose an architecture and designed a system. They then analyzed it to see what worked and why it worked. We can be very enthusistic about the success of the specific examples. We could say, “wow, we’ve got that pill inteface problem licked now” but we should be more enthusiastic about the method. The brilliance of this work is that is gives us a path to follow toward future success!

Oh yeah… since this has degraded into a rant… I might as well tack on my other unstructure thoughts about access. I’m sad I missed the hackfest. The food was outstanding. One fellow I had lunch with on Tuesday from Yale commented that this food was really above the norm for similar conferences. I agree. A really friendly group. Doug Poff remains the king of good questions… while the rest of us remained stunned after a good presentation he is actively seeking more info.

The lyrics below are an excerpt from Parade. The tune itself is very pop-ish; very upbeat and catchy. The lyrics are distopian but clearly not pessimistic. I’m hooked…

get it right get it right get it right now
let’s burn
the factory
that makes all
the wannabes
let’s burst all
the bubbles
that brainwash
the masses

My favorite playlist trick is to put a little high-energy Garbage mixed in with Jack of Jill and then finish with Jimmy Eat World’s Authority Song.

Today Kim and I had brunch with our friend Sharon at Culina. Kim had bacon and eggs while Sharon and I both had the special. Bacon and eggs at Culina is special. They have bacon that is pork meat taken from the shoulder and is not served in strips. You can see it clearly in the attached photo. It is quite tender and not as greasy as regular strips of bacon. It tastes more like turkey to me.

The special today at Culina was a frittata with corn and melted edam served with sausage with herbs and maple covered in a tomato chutney. The frittata was moist and light but I really don’t like quiche and this is really just quiche. It tasted fine though. The chutney was refreshing. The sausages were remarkable. The maple was not overpowering and the herbs were prominent but balanced. These were the best sausages I have had in a long time and the played well with the chutney!

The Usual Suspects will be b-luncing at Culina again in just a few weeks. I look forward to whatever the special is that week. After today’s experience I am hoping that the menu includes those lovely sausages again!

Last week the Usual Suspects brunched at Cafe de Ville downtown. I had the Catania which is reminiscent of eggs benedict; however I do it a great disservice by making such a simple comparison. The Catania is thick bread topped with sliced grilled vegetables with a poached eggs on each covered with a spinach dressing and feta cheese. It is served with potatoes fried with dried tomato and seasoning. This is truly a gestalt dish; the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Attention to given to every little detail in this dish. The vegetables are sliced in a way that allows them to mix and form a meshed bed under the poached eggs. The eggs are not poached in little cups and are thus unique and not quite soft-poached and not quite hard poached (which is how I make them at home. how did they know?!). The sauce was not trying to be a hollandaise variant as would be the obvious ploy in this type of dish. Instead it was a new experience taking this dish from being a “fancy eggs benny” to being its own thing.

While at de Ville I also shared a dish of baked brie in puff pastry with a friend. The brie seemed somewhat strong to me but it was rich and delicious. I regret not taking a photo of that plate as it was the most artful presentation at the table that morning! I highly recommend trying it. I was warned that the baked brie would take 20 minutes and might not come before my main order. That was odd as it is listed as a “starter.” Why offer a starter that will threaten to relegate your main dish to the heat lamp?! However, I was delighted that the brie came in ample time.

Over at the Blue Plate on 103 Ave just north of Jasper, they offer a Eggs Benedict Florentine. Its really good but nothing compared to the Catania. Both have spinach and feta cheese. Both are like eggs benedict but the Catania is unique in some many subtle ways. Of course it costs twice as much so I’ll give my dollar to the Blue Plate much more often to de Ville and the Florentine is really worth it but the comparison is still worth making.

Despite the dubious path that lead me to her music, I don’t regret listening to the disc. Torrini does in fact sound a bit like Bjork and it is no wonder as they are both Icelandic.

The title of the album I listened to, “Love in the Time of Science” was interesting. The opening track was short but incredible. A+ for first impressions. The rest of the album is good and some tracks are better than good. Her music is smooth and interesting. Some of the instrumentals remind me of The Flaming Lips (just a bit, as on the opening of the track “Baby Blue”). There are a lot of influences that come out in this album. Some tracks reminded me of something that could be a theme to a Bond tune (just a bit). Some reminded me of the band Red Delicious.

This music is definitely interesting and just the right mix of “different enough” and “similar enough.” The titles of the tracks really made an impression on me too:

1. Sea People
2. To Be Free
3. Wednesday’s Child
4. Baby Blue
5. Dead Things
6. Unemployed in Summertime
7. Easy
8. Fingertips
9. Telepathy
10. Tuna Fish
11. Summerbreeze

I know a few consultants besides myself who aspire to be Unemployed in Summertime. And sandwiching Dead Things between that track and Baby Blue was intriguing…. perhaps more so in title than in the actuality of the music.

I’ll leave you with a quote from the lyrics: “Sad things have to happen… sometimes.” (followed by the sound of a telephone/computer like noise)

Winner of the Oscar for best animated short, director Chris Landreth’s Ryan is an “animated documentary” based on the life of artist Ryan Larkin. Once one of Canada’s most influential animators, Larkin now lives on welfare and begs for money on the streets of Montreal. Employing stunning visual effects, the film traces Larkin’s descent into mental illness and addiction. Ryan will be shown along with the documentary Alter Egos – which gives further insight into Larkin’s struggles and examines the complex relationship between him and Landreth.

I have previously written about Ryan and I disagree with EPL’s description of the two films. Ryan is not based on the life of Ryan Larkin. It is based on an interview with Ryan Larkin. The visuals are interesting, certainly deceptive, but not stunning. The film does not trace Larkin’s descent into mental illness though it does attempt to blame him for not overcoming his mental illness and implies a false causal relationship between Larkin’s substance abuse and his illness/situation. I am not convinced that Landreth was as interested in having Larkin as the subject of the “documentary” as he was interested in becoming a part of Larkin’s life.

Ryan should not be seen without seeing the documentary “Alter Egos.” Alter Egos is about the making of Ryan and while it does not attempt to explain Larkin’s descent to the streets, it manages to provide more explanation than Ryan does. Alter Egos exposes Landreth for what he became by making Ryan and is a much more potent film.

You can get Ryan/Alter Egos from Edmonton Public Library. I was able to rent it at my local Blockbuster and you can order it directly from the National Film Board.