So MS has said that it won't sue Novell's customers, and Novell said it won't Sue MS's customers, (sad, BTW, that this is what it comes to) but how does this protect the corporate Linux adopter from everyone else with a lawyer? If corporate CIOs and legal departments are truly holding off on Linux and open source (and apparently they are) because of potential litigation over IP issues, then I don't see how this is much of a help. If I now go out and install Suse, what's to keep Oracle, or TIBCO, or Cisco from suing me. Do RH and Novell have to secure covenants from every copyright/patent holder in the industry?
Besides, hasn't the SCO thing proven that suing your customers is not a good idea (despite what the music industry is up to). If MS sues Citigroup for using Red Hat, then I'd put my money on Citigroup.
First off, who wrote this review? Sounds to me like an Anthology Solutions employee trying to be all slashdotty.
I just looked at the specs for this and am not that impressed. Like many other NAS devices, they claim OS/X support, but support is not via AFP. Though their docs make no mention of it, the YellowMachine is almost certainly running SAMBA only, and OS/X support is also through SAMBA. The problem with this is primarily long filenames. Try backing up your music collection to a SMB/CIFS box, and you'll see what I mean. IMHO, if you don't have AFP support, then you don't support Macs.
Similarly, there's no support for rsync or (given what Tom's Networking has to say) file access via FTP or HTTP. And this may be just me, but who wants a router, DHCP server, a firewall, and a proxy server embedded in a NAS box? And $1300? That's cheap?
I recently purchased a RAID enabled SOHO NAS appliance. I spent a long time figuring out exactly what was needed in a mixed OS/X, Windows, Linux environment. I picked the Infrant ReadyNAS box. You can see my blog entry on this subject for details as to why. In short: support for SMB/CIFS, AFP, NFS, rsync, webdav, and FTP. Support for UPS devices. Support for Gigabit Ethernet. Very good documentation and an even better (employee active) user forum. And I got a TB of storage (650MB after RAID 5 formatting) for $1,000.
I've only recently started worrying about this regarding my own hosted server (i.e. not corporate, just little ol' me.) I have no problems creating certs and configuring sshd, but my reading suggests that sshd will accept certs fine, but if they're not presented it will fallback to password mode. Is my understanding correct? I'd rather have it not ask for passwords at all. Any pointers?
1. As noted in the article, there are other ways of solving the problem:
a. XML parsing by ASICs in dedicated XML processing hardware.
b. Moore's Law.
2. XML is successful specifically because it's text based and a standard. Just as compiled languages are slower than assembly, and managed code is slower than compiled code, the benefits of text based information is worth the cost.
3. I'm not sure the problem even exists. I've spent the last 3 years specializing in SOAP Web Services, and you know what? None of my (very big) clients actually has a problem with too much XML on the network. They just anticipate having this problem in the future; see point 1.
4. This one's a stretch, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with it yet, but... If a system is self-contained, even if distributed, then I don't see the value in using XML for communicating between processes. You might as well use the native RPC mechanism, such as RMI for Java apps. If a system is not self-contained, then XML should be used for just the interfaces exposed to the outside world. Internal communication should remain native. In other words, a lot of XML on the network is completely unnecessary.
Just tried it with Safari. Clicking the demo link does absolutely nothing. Turning off pop-up blocking and clicking the link does... absolutely nothing.
I'm late to this story, but it seems that all the posts above assume a merger between IBM and Apple, and rightly dismiss the idea. And even though the Reg piece is based on a flimsy foundation, there's every reason to assume some kind of reseller or cooperative marketing agreement between the two.
Most people here will agree to the soundness of OS X as a desktop machine (forget about servers for a minute). So when a customer asks IBM to help it review its desktop strategy, why shouldn't IBM recommend OS X? It's solid as a rock, virus free, easy to use, and *nix based -- meaning it plays well with others, i.e. the other OSes IBM markets.
Maybe IBM will even become an authorized reseller just like HP resells iPods. In fact, I've been wondering about this since OS X came out; it just makes perfect sense to me for IBM, Sun, and others who concentrate on the server room to recommend/resell Apple for the desktop. It's certainly more ready for primetime than Linux.
If their representation of forensic science is anything like their representation of computer hardware and software, then not very high.
"As you can see from this animated, 3 dimensional representation of the crime scene recreated 20 minutes after digitizing the surveillance tapes, and shown of the movie theater sized flat panel display on the wall, it's clear that the butler did it."
That said, I do watch CSI Miami just for David Caruso's over the top acting.
The article's slashdotted, so I'm not sure what this is all about. But I've always prided myself on my ability to estimate time and miles. Frequently, I'll look at my watch and find it's, say, 3:00. Some time later I'll estimate that it's 4:22, look at my watch, and find it's 4:20.
Similarly, I will look at the odometer in my car, drive a distance, and guess that it's 10 miles later. Looking down, 10.1.
The best is when you combine them. "How long before we get there?" the wife asks. "About 47 minutes," say I, and 47 minutes later arrive at our destination.
I note this only because most everyone else seems incredibly bad at this. As when someone gives you loose directions to a place like this, "Oh, go about 3 miles, then turn left on Main St." Half a mile later I'm slamming on the breaks 'cause I just past a sign saying "Main St." Or when they tell you it's a 5 minute drive, when it's really 15. Drives me batty.
In short, I estimate that just about everyone sucks at estimating. Funny thing is people always over-estimate distance and under-estimate time.
Currently OS X Server ships with JBoss, and opinions about Mark Fluery aside, that's a good thing. However, there's a ship about to leave, and Apple should do what they can in the next 12 months to be sure and get on it. That ship is the "tiny container" (for lack of a better name). Those frameworks that aim to compete with J2EE by introducing a simpler, lighter container for hosting your Plain Old Java Objects. They do not provide persistence (you get that from Hibernate, for instance), they do not provide transactions (you get that from a JTA provider), etc. What they do provide is a lightweight container and an integrtated AOP framework for glueing it all together.
There's no argument that these containers are getting a lot of attention (so much so that the latest J2EE spec does what it can to emulate them -- not enough). Apple can win some serious street cred among app server developers by adopting one of these frameworks, enhancing the code, hiring the developers (maybe away from BEA -- hint, hint) and integrating it with X-Code.
And by "lightweight container" I mean Spring, Pico, and, yes, even JBoss (once all the overweight J2EE stuff is tossed). There are others, of course, such as Excalibur, but Spring and Pico have all the mind share. Spring especially, it seems.
While I'm at it, if Apple really wants a piece of the application server space they should endorse Mono with equal vigor. Imagine, a.NET compatible runtime on OS X supported by Apple. Furthermore, those important Java/.NET sub-projects need full fledged support; Hibernate, Junit (Nunit), Ant (Nant), XDoclet, one of the umpteen MVC frameworks, and so on.
So there you have it Apple: Proudly ditch the complexity of EJB. Raise the flag of lightweight containers and AOP. Embrace.NET via Mono. Support those all so important tactical projects. And integrate -- fully -- the whole kit & kaboodle into your development environment.
I'm sorry, my friend, but thirteen servers does not mean decentralized it means replicated. The fact that they are geographically dispersed doesn't matter. Furthermore, the root servers just redirect to the authoritative server, so your "company.com" search goes to Verisign for resolution. What happens when Verisign, oh, I dunno, decides to send back the IP address of a cheesy search engine instead on an error code for domain names that don't exist. I tell you what happens, the Internet breaks.
To be truly decentralized not only do we need more than 13 overloaded root servers, but no one entity should be authoritative. How that's done is left as an exercise to the reader.
It seems that the best way to influence legislation is to buy yourself a government official. Based on your experience can you ballpark how much the following type of decision makers cost (in USD)?
The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. In particular, ICANN:
1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet, which are
a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS");
b. Internet protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system ("AS") numbers; and
c. Protocol port and parameter numbers.
2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system.
3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions.
From the Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Govt. establishing ICANN, Section II (Purpose), Part B (Purpose):
a. Establishment of policy for and direction of the allocation of IP number blocks;
b. Oversight of the operation of the authoritative root server system;
Exactly! Why all the hullabaloo all of a sudden? The Apache license and many others have long been incompatibile with the GPL, that does not make them any less free. I was under the impression that we "elected" the OSI to be the final arbiter of what is and is not an open source license.
BTW, surf over to gnu.org and take a look at the long list of GPL incompatible licenses. These include Apache, Mozilla, PHP, Zope, Apple, and more. Again I ask, why all the excitement?
We hear that commercial software companies come up with new ideas because they "wanted to make some money." In other words, there was some need they had for a new application, and they "scratched" it by coming up with a tool. The problem is, it's not uncommon to end up with two or three (or more!) different packages doing the same thing. For a specific example, look at what's happened with the relational databases, where there are now several competing packages that have to be supported by each distribution.
2. Commercial software companies love a good feud.
Oracle vs Microsoft. Java vs.Net. HP-UX vs AIX. For every interesting commercial technology, there are two bitterly feuding camps that spend as much time taking potshots at each other as in improving their own products.
3. Commercial software companies often scratch the wrong itch.
The problem with commercial development is that the developers often aren't the consumers of their products, and thus don't feel the pain of their mistakes. The other problem with commercial software development is that they often don't fix problems or develop new features that aren't going to make them money.
4. In the commercial software community, you're either "with us or against us"
Attempts to point out flaws or places where there's room for improvement in an application usually lead directly to legal action. Attempts to contact the company directly lead to either unqulaified indivduals, fees, or, again, legal action. Direct comment from the companies if laded with fear, uncertainty, and doubt: "The GPL is a cancer." "Linux is stealing my IP." "Hey! No benchmarking."
5. The commercial software community has a huge chip on its shoulder...called Microsoft
Although Linux is also a popular a target lately too, the merest mention of MS is like a bull having a red cape waved before his eyes. All reason and sense of decorum flies out the window. And while I'm first in line to throw rotten tomatoes at Bill Gates, it's harmful to the community. The reality is that Microsoft owns the lion's share of the non-server OS market. If the first thing you tell all these people who own Windows is that they are idiots, you're not starting out on very good ground to convert them.
Search for "apple" on Google, and you have to troll through a couple pages of results before you get anything not directly related to Apple Computer
In my mind this is not a flaw, but a feature. In fact I rely on this every day. Type in "Axis" and I go to the Apache site, not a page about WWII or math. Type in "Python" and I do no go to a page about snakes or comedy troupes.
Granted, the article does state that technophiles have skewed Google's results in my favor, but I am fully aware of this. If I did want to know about apples, for instance, I would use a search term of, say, "apple growing" (5th link down). If I want to know about the Axis powers in WWII, I would first enter "axis powers" (third link down).
It's not broken. Users must be aware of the Web's zeitgeist.
I'm going to try this out when I get home. But the most recent beta still had the "sticky mouse" problem that effectively rendered the game unplayable. There were indications that this would not be fixed for GA. If so, then I just wasted my money.
Your comment reminds me of an old SNL skit called "Ruining it for Everyone." In a talk show format the host interviews in turn the first hitchhiker to kill the guy that gave him a ride, the guy that defecated in restaurant restrooms, and so on. And now no one picks up hitchhikers, bathrooms are for patrons only, and internet streaming is one step further away.
Agreed. Kavalier and Clay works on many, many levels. The world of comic books is used as a brillaint allegorical device to advance the true nature of the work.
Fundamentally, both of the main characters are incomplete and ineffectual alone, but together they form a perfect whole. The task of both Kavalier and Clay is to become complete indviduals. At it's simplest, Kavalier the artist and Clay the writer, join to create a complete work, The Escapist.
Further, is the recurring theme of the Golem (a man mad of clay). Kavalier, uses the Golem to escape Nazi occupied Eastern Europe. But then continues to use the man of Clay (note the capital C) to succeed in America.
Clay, on the other hand, is only able to assert himself and use his natural brialliance when joined with the talented, worldly, and handsome Kavalier. Whenever, this bond is loosened Clay is simply buffeted around by events.
Finally, we must look at the primary comic book character they created, The Escapist. An amalgam of the two men; The Escapist blends the skills (magic) of Kavalier, and the desires (Escapism) of Clay.
This complex novel of growth is mirrored by the world of comic books, from the original juvenalia of the early 30's to the complex (some thought dangerous) works of the 50's.
When war sunders the partnership, both men wallow. Clay in suburbia and Kavalier in the Antartic and later New York. Finally, there is an explosive moment of growth. Clay acknowledges his homosexuality, rejects his dependence on others, (vindicates himself and the comic book industry), and pursues a career in Hollywood. Kavalier, returns to the woman he loves (who ultimately "completes him" (sorry)). And the Golem is undone.
This book is enjoyable at the surface in showing the golden age of comic books (even Stan Lee makes an appearance) and WWII America, but it's a disservice to the author and yourself to not look deeper. I have made only the slightest scratch (possibly wrong) in this complex work. Enjoy.
For the second year in a row, NASA will have Live Coverage of the 2002 Leonid meteor storm
I wonder how they did this last year. Or did Nasa finally perfect its tachyon transceiver?
Re:An Interesting Alternate Universe Idea
on
Superhero Smackdown
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Most of this has been done before, in a Saturday Night Live episode back in the late 70's. The skit was done in the recurring "What If?" bit, where Jane Curtain hosts a TV show that answers silly questions like, "what if Spartacus had a Piper Bear Cub?" In one episode they answer "What if Superman landed in Nazi Germany?" Michael Palin was hosting and played Hitler. I think Dan Akroyd played Superman. Classic line: (Superman looking at Jimmy Olson's crotch) "Olson's a Jew!"
Slashdot Mirror
So MS has said that it won't sue Novell's customers, and Novell said it won't Sue MS's customers, (sad, BTW, that this is what it comes to) but how does this protect the corporate Linux adopter from everyone else with a lawyer? If corporate CIOs and legal departments are truly holding off on Linux and open source (and apparently they are) because of potential litigation over IP issues, then I don't see how this is much of a help. If I now go out and install Suse, what's to keep Oracle, or TIBCO, or Cisco from suing me. Do RH and Novell have to secure covenants from every copyright/patent holder in the industry?
Besides, hasn't the SCO thing proven that suing your customers is not a good idea (despite what the music industry is up to). If MS sues Citigroup for using Red Hat, then I'd put my money on Citigroup.
So Microsoft, I propose you do this: A dancing Ballmer silhouette.
Ask and you shall receive: http://www.macboy.com/cartoons/ballmer/
First off, who wrote this review? Sounds to me like an Anthology Solutions employee trying to be all slashdotty.
I just looked at the specs for this and am not that impressed. Like many other NAS devices, they claim OS/X support, but support is not via AFP. Though their docs make no mention of it, the YellowMachine is almost certainly running SAMBA only, and OS/X support is also through SAMBA. The problem with this is primarily long filenames. Try backing up your music collection to a SMB/CIFS box, and you'll see what I mean. IMHO, if you don't have AFP support, then you don't support Macs.
Similarly, there's no support for rsync or (given what Tom's Networking has to say) file access via FTP or HTTP. And this may be just me, but who wants a router, DHCP server, a firewall, and a proxy server embedded in a NAS box? And $1300? That's cheap?
I recently purchased a RAID enabled SOHO NAS appliance. I spent a long time figuring out exactly what was needed in a mixed OS/X, Windows, Linux environment. I picked the Infrant ReadyNAS box. You can see my blog entry on this subject for details as to why. In short: support for SMB/CIFS, AFP, NFS, rsync, webdav, and FTP. Support for UPS devices. Support for Gigabit Ethernet. Very good documentation and an even better (employee active) user forum. And I got a TB of storage (650MB after RAID 5 formatting) for $1,000.
I've only recently started worrying about this regarding my own hosted server (i.e. not corporate, just little ol' me.) I have no problems creating certs and configuring sshd, but my reading suggests that sshd will accept certs fine, but if they're not presented it will fallback to password mode. Is my understanding correct? I'd rather have it not ask for passwords at all. Any pointers?
Here's why:
1. As noted in the article, there are other ways of solving the problem:
a. XML parsing by ASICs in dedicated XML processing hardware.
b. Moore's Law.
2. XML is successful specifically because it's text based and a standard. Just as compiled languages are slower than assembly, and managed code is slower than compiled code, the benefits of text based information is worth the cost.
3. I'm not sure the problem even exists. I've spent the last 3 years specializing in SOAP Web Services, and you know what? None of my (very big) clients actually has a problem with too much XML on the network. They just anticipate having this problem in the future; see point 1.
4. This one's a stretch, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with it yet, but... If a system is self-contained, even if distributed, then I don't see the value in using XML for communicating between processes. You might as well use the native RPC mechanism, such as RMI for Java apps. If a system is not self-contained, then XML should be used for just the interfaces exposed to the outside world. Internal communication should remain native. In other words, a lot of XML on the network is completely unnecessary.
Just tried it with Safari. Clicking the demo link does absolutely nothing. Turning off pop-up blocking and clicking the link does ... absolutely nothing.
Next.
I'm late to this story, but it seems that all the posts above assume a merger between IBM and Apple, and rightly dismiss the idea. And even though the Reg piece is based on a flimsy foundation, there's every reason to assume some kind of reseller or cooperative marketing agreement between the two.
Most people here will agree to the soundness of OS X as a desktop machine (forget about servers for a minute). So when a customer asks IBM to help it review its desktop strategy, why shouldn't IBM recommend OS X? It's solid as a rock, virus free, easy to use, and *nix based -- meaning it plays well with others, i.e. the other OSes IBM markets.
Maybe IBM will even become an authorized reseller just like HP resells iPods. In fact, I've been wondering about this since OS X came out; it just makes perfect sense to me for IBM, Sun, and others who concentrate on the server room to recommend/resell Apple for the desktop. It's certainly more ready for primetime than Linux.
So where does CSI rate on the geek scale for you?
If their representation of forensic science is anything like their representation of computer hardware and software, then not very high.
"As you can see from this animated, 3 dimensional representation of the crime scene recreated 20 minutes after digitizing the surveillance tapes, and shown of the movie theater sized flat panel display on the wall, it's clear that the butler did it."
That said, I do watch CSI Miami just for David Caruso's over the top acting.
The article's slashdotted, so I'm not sure what this is all about. But I've always prided myself on my ability to estimate time and miles. Frequently, I'll look at my watch and find it's, say, 3:00. Some time later I'll estimate that it's 4:22, look at my watch, and find it's 4:20.
Similarly, I will look at the odometer in my car, drive a distance, and guess that it's 10 miles later. Looking down, 10.1.
The best is when you combine them. "How long before we get there?" the wife asks. "About 47 minutes," say I, and 47 minutes later arrive at our destination.
I note this only because most everyone else seems incredibly bad at this. As when someone gives you loose directions to a place like this, "Oh, go about 3 miles, then turn left on Main St." Half a mile later I'm slamming on the breaks 'cause I just past a sign saying "Main St." Or when they tell you it's a 5 minute drive, when it's really 15. Drives me batty.
In short, I estimate that just about everyone sucks at estimating. Funny thing is people always over-estimate distance and under-estimate time.
Currently OS X Server ships with JBoss, and opinions about Mark Fluery aside, that's a good thing. However, there's a ship about to leave, and Apple should do what they can in the next 12 months to be sure and get on it. That ship is the "tiny container" (for lack of a better name). Those frameworks that aim to compete with J2EE by introducing a simpler, lighter container for hosting your Plain Old Java Objects. They do not provide persistence (you get that from Hibernate, for instance), they do not provide transactions (you get that from a JTA provider), etc. What they do provide is a lightweight container and an integrtated AOP framework for glueing it all together.
.NET compatible runtime on OS X supported by Apple. Furthermore, those important Java/.NET sub-projects need full fledged support; Hibernate, Junit (Nunit), Ant (Nant), XDoclet, one of the umpteen MVC frameworks, and so on.
.NET via Mono. Support those all so important tactical projects. And integrate -- fully -- the whole kit & kaboodle into your development environment.
There's no argument that these containers are getting a lot of attention (so much so that the latest J2EE spec does what it can to emulate them -- not enough). Apple can win some serious street cred among app server developers by adopting one of these frameworks, enhancing the code, hiring the developers (maybe away from BEA -- hint, hint) and integrating it with X-Code.
And by "lightweight container" I mean Spring, Pico, and, yes, even JBoss (once all the overweight J2EE stuff is tossed). There are others, of course, such as Excalibur, but Spring and Pico have all the mind share. Spring especially, it seems.
While I'm at it, if Apple really wants a piece of the application server space they should endorse Mono with equal vigor. Imagine, a
So there you have it Apple: Proudly ditch the complexity of EJB. Raise the flag of lightweight containers and AOP. Embrace
You're welcome.
I'm sorry, my friend, but thirteen servers does not mean decentralized it means replicated. The fact that they are geographically dispersed doesn't matter. Furthermore, the root servers just redirect to the authoritative server, so your "company.com" search goes to Verisign for resolution. What happens when Verisign, oh, I dunno, decides to send back the IP address of a cheesy search engine instead on an error code for domain names that don't exist. I tell you what happens, the Internet breaks.
To be truly decentralized not only do we need more than 13 overloaded root servers, but no one entity should be authoritative. How that's done is left as an exercise to the reader.
Article 1, Section 1 of the ICANN bylaws:
The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. In particular, ICANN:
1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet, which are
a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS");
b. Internet protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system ("AS") numbers; and
c. Protocol port and parameter numbers.
2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system.
3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions.
From the Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Govt. establishing ICANN, Section II (Purpose), Part B (Purpose):
a. Establishment of policy for and direction of the allocation of IP number blocks;
b. Oversight of the operation of the authoritative root server system;
'nuff said.
Exactly! Why all the hullabaloo all of a sudden? The Apache license and many others have long been incompatibile with the GPL, that does not make them any less free. I was under the impression that we "elected" the OSI to be the final arbiter of what is and is not an open source license.
BTW, surf over to gnu.org and take a look at the long list of GPL incompatible licenses. These include Apache, Mozilla, PHP, Zope, Apple, and more. Again I ask, why all the excitement?
1. Too many companies "scratch the same itch."
.Net. HP-UX vs AIX. For every interesting commercial technology, there are two bitterly feuding camps that spend as much time taking potshots at each other as in improving their own products.
We hear that commercial software companies come up with new ideas because they "wanted to make some money." In other words, there was some need they had for a new application, and they "scratched" it by coming up with a tool. The problem is, it's not uncommon to end up with two or three (or more!) different packages doing the same thing. For a specific example, look at what's happened with the relational databases, where there are now several competing packages that have to be supported by each distribution.
2. Commercial software companies love a good feud.
Oracle vs Microsoft. Java vs
3. Commercial software companies often scratch the wrong itch.
The problem with commercial development is that the developers often aren't the consumers of their products, and thus don't feel the pain of their mistakes. The other problem with commercial software development is that they often don't fix problems or develop new features that aren't going to make them money.
4. In the commercial software community, you're either "with us or against us"
Attempts to point out flaws or places where there's room for improvement in an application usually lead directly to legal action. Attempts to contact the company directly lead to either unqulaified indivduals, fees, or, again, legal action. Direct comment from the companies if laded with fear, uncertainty, and doubt: "The GPL is a cancer." "Linux is stealing my IP." "Hey! No benchmarking."
5. The commercial software community has a huge chip on its shoulder...called Microsoft
Although Linux is also a popular a target lately too, the merest mention of MS is like a bull having a red cape waved before his eyes. All reason and sense of decorum flies out the window. And while I'm first in line to throw rotten tomatoes at Bill Gates, it's harmful to the community. The reality is that Microsoft owns the lion's share of the non-server OS market. If the first thing you tell all these people who own Windows is that they are idiots, you're not starting out on very good ground to convert them.
:q!
Search for "apple" on Google, and you have to troll through a couple pages of results before you get anything not directly related to Apple Computer
In my mind this is not a flaw, but a feature. In fact I rely on this every day. Type in "Axis" and I go to the Apache site, not a page about WWII or math. Type in "Python" and I do no go to a page about snakes or comedy troupes.
Granted, the article does state that technophiles have skewed Google's results in my favor, but I am fully aware of this. If I did want to know about apples, for instance, I would use a search term of, say, "apple growing" (5th link down). If I want to know about the Axis powers in WWII, I would first enter "axis powers" (third link down).
It's not broken. Users must be aware of the Web's zeitgeist.
I'm going to try this out when I get home. But the most recent beta still had the "sticky mouse" problem that effectively rendered the game unplayable. There were indications that this would not be fixed for GA. If so, then I just wasted my money.
Anyone happen to know if this problem is fixed?
Your comment reminds me of an old SNL skit called "Ruining it for Everyone." In a talk show format the host interviews in turn the first hitchhiker to kill the guy that gave him a ride, the guy that defecated in restaurant restrooms, and so on. And now no one picks up hitchhikers, bathrooms are for patrons only, and internet streaming is one step further away.
Agreed. Kavalier and Clay works on many, many levels. The world of comic books is used as a brillaint allegorical device to advance the true nature of the work.
Fundamentally, both of the main characters are incomplete and ineffectual alone, but together they form a perfect whole. The task of both Kavalier and Clay is to become complete indviduals. At it's simplest, Kavalier the artist and Clay the writer, join to create a complete work, The Escapist.
Further, is the recurring theme of the Golem (a man mad of clay). Kavalier, uses the Golem to escape Nazi occupied Eastern Europe. But then continues to use the man of Clay (note the capital C) to succeed in America.
Clay, on the other hand, is only able to assert himself and use his natural brialliance when joined with the talented, worldly, and handsome Kavalier. Whenever, this bond is loosened Clay is simply buffeted around by events.
Finally, we must look at the primary comic book character they created, The Escapist. An amalgam of the two men; The Escapist blends the skills (magic) of Kavalier, and the desires (Escapism) of Clay.
This complex novel of growth is mirrored by the world of comic books, from the original juvenalia of the early 30's to the complex (some thought dangerous) works of the 50's.
When war sunders the partnership, both men wallow. Clay in suburbia and Kavalier in the Antartic and later New York. Finally, there is an explosive moment of growth. Clay acknowledges his homosexuality, rejects his dependence on others, (vindicates himself and the comic book industry), and pursues a career in Hollywood. Kavalier, returns to the woman he loves (who ultimately "completes him" (sorry)). And the Golem is undone.
This book is enjoyable at the surface in showing the golden age of comic books (even Stan Lee makes an appearance) and WWII America, but it's a disservice to the author and yourself to not look deeper. I have made only the slightest scratch (possibly wrong) in this complex work. Enjoy.
How can we comment, if we can't read the article?
Oh, wait...
For the second year in a row, NASA will have Live Coverage of the 2002 Leonid meteor storm
I wonder how they did this last year. Or did Nasa finally perfect its tachyon transceiver?
Most of this has been done before, in a Saturday Night Live episode back in the late 70's. The skit was done in the recurring "What If?" bit, where Jane Curtain hosts a TV show that answers silly questions like, "what if Spartacus had a Piper Bear Cub?" In one episode they answer "What if Superman landed in Nazi Germany?" Michael Palin was hosting and played Hitler. I think Dan Akroyd played Superman. Classic line: (Superman looking at Jimmy Olson's crotch) "Olson's a Jew!"
Well, I fell for it. HOwever, if I could I'd mod you up as "funny." Good one.
inept
Alert
The text you entered was not found.