Based on my understanding of the facts as they have been presented to me, this week's two-disc version of FOTR is simply the theatrical version and a few bonus features. The November extended version of FOTR is going to include the director's cut, with gobs of deleted scenes restored so as to present the movie as Peter Jackson and friends would have if the Box Office nuts would have allowed it.
Why I have to have the first one: it's the "official" version.
Why I have to have the second one: it's got deleted scenes.
...if only the other four billion web sites could take the hint, the world would be a better place.
If we can not rid the Internet of popup ads, then the terrorists have won. (Er, really, is it fair to label SPAM-ers as Internet terrorists? I don't think anyone would mind, really, since NO ONE likes SPAM, except the flavorful meat variety. Between toasted slices of bread with melted cheese. Mmmm.
Compared to my AMS Tech (gone under) laptop with a K62 300 MHz processor, a 3 GB hard drive, a dead 12x CD-ROM, and 32 MB of ram on a 12.1" LCD... Yeah, that's a nice machine. I want.
Not to take away from ReadParse, but news about this movie has been available at Coming Soon for several weeks. Maybe the boys over there have more news worth duplicating...
Now for an on topic comment: haven't we had enough comic book hero movies for one life time? The answer seems to be no, as it was first Superman, then Batman, and now Spider-Man who have repeatedly broken box office records every time a new one is released.
Now the bad news: we all have to wait two years for the movie to develop. So why is it such big news now?
Okay, so we know that a web site servicing [enter insanely high number here] requests per minute and referencing [enter insanely high number here] web pages and boasting an insanely high bandwidth needs, well, a little bit more than what I'm writing from to get it done. My question: What's in Google's closet? What are the technical specs of the machines working behind the scenes? What are the limits?
Hahah. Very nice. I wish I had some mod points for you.:-)
I agree completely. The Phantom Menace was a great Star Wars movie. Lucas successfully appealed to today's younger generation while not discouraging the average fan of the previous three movies. (And Episode I was better than the others anyway.)
Good job, George. Looking forward to Episode II.
I agree. The writer's question about whether or not Lindows could surpass so quickly what took WINE ten years to do is a bit ridiculous.
Compare it to the space race of the 1950s and 1960s. Despite that the Russians were the first ones up, America beat them to the moon.
It's an endless cycle, I think. Someone introduces something, someone betters it, someone introduces the next thing based on the first thing... ad infinitum.
But then again, Matt Drudge is a professional investigative reporter. Slashdot gets most of its stuff from its users as the investigative reporters serve it up... so fair is fair.
However, I posted my comments on the issue hours ago, and I would like to place them here for the sake of, um, conversation in a more communal setting than a personal weblog:
The beginning of the end of life as we know it is approaching. "Israeli scientists have built a DNA computer so tiny that a trillion of them could fit in a test tube and perform a billion operations per second with 99.8% accuracy." 99.8% accuracy equates to 499 accurate out of 500 total, or 1 error per 500 chances. With one billion operations per second, that's two million errors per second. So not only are we thrilled for this great new science, but we are thrilled at something that can potentially - at best - make only two million (2,000,000!) errors per second! In a test tube!
Their presupposition is that DNA computers have the potential to be much faster and to store much more data: "DNA can hold more information in a cubic centimeter than a trillion CDs...giving it massive memory capability that scientists are only just beginning to tap into." Professor Ehud Shapiro adds,
The living cell contains incredible molecular machines that manipulate information-encoding molecules such as DNA and RNA in ways that are fundamentally very similar to computation...Since we don't know how to effectively modify these machines or create new ones just yet, the trick is to find naturally existing machines that, when combined, can be steered to actually compute.
What do I think? I think that such technology in the wrong hands will lead to the manipulation of human DNA and potentially all new forms of crime, terrorism, etc. Of course, in the right hands, this developing technology has enormous potential. My comment about "two million errors per second" was more in jest than anything; no technology is perfect upon its initial realization.
Remember the movie Johnny Mnemonic in which Keanu Reeves is a data courier using his brain as a storage device? The Terminator also comes to mind, having a computer chip for a heart and futuristic storage devices for a brain. I like the idea of upgradable memory that never fails me, but what computer device is absolutely perfect? My verdict: I don't like it. Despite the obvious advantages, there are too many wildcards and unknowns at this point.
...is that/. actually thinks this is news worthy. Nearly everyone swaps files, so nearly everyone knows what's going on. What's the point in telling everyone what they already know? Are you trying to point the RIAA's finger at every piece of file-swapping software that we use?
And if so many users are sharing and so many files are swapped, why do I have so much trouble finding the music I want? It's not like people don't have it... somebody has to or I wouldn't have the knowledge to search for it. What's going on?
"Don't do what you like for a living; you'll just end up hating it."
That statement my not be true for every one, but it does have some aspect of truth to it. There are things about curriculums that always makes some things less likable. And, probably more often than not, it's because the educators don't exactly know how to welcome students to the business world, so they just teach stuff from the book. I would suggest that, in most cases, students learn to hate what they used to love because instructors fail to show them something new with it. Instead of showing interesting and valuable applications of the knowledge they teach, they simply teach it and expect the students to see through to the other side.
You and I both know that it doesn't quite work that way (well, maybe for a few of us). Another thing everyone's momma probably said at one time or another is, "You'll appreciate it more if you work for it". Taking the easy path can be gratifying, but that still doesn't take away from the wonderful feeling of knowing that you've earned your keep. That said, it's important to know your work ethic and what you work well with. If you like something but don't work well at it, don't let it escalate above hobby-status.
Then again, this is just my advice to keep myself straight. I don't know if it will help you any, but it's here for you in case it might.:)
...a Nike "swoosh" and the New York Yankees famous "NY" logo? It's all advertising, and it's all just the same. Why do people make such a big deal about erasing the logos of your fashion designers and such while allowing team logos on sports clothing to be left alone? You can't just stand on the bridge; you've got to cross, retreat, or jump.
The point of that poor analogy is that we can't hold so many double standards for one type of logo over another. We can't simply preach against logos and other silly advertisements and then allow our 'FDNY' logos to flood our screens.
More importantly, I say that logo fight is a losing battle anyway. If someone spent the money to wear that logo, then it should be shown. A television program should not blur a Reebok logo because Reebok isn't paying them. People can usually decipher it anyway, and I would guess that the ad works doubly well then, because people are *consciously* trying to figure out what the logo is.
I don't want to start a First Amendment argument, because I am in support of getting rid of these damn popup ads (they are examples of abuse of privilege)...
(Sorry, I know this is scattered. I wanted to make a few points that I couldn't find scattered among the hundreds of other comments.)
From the story on which you base your comments: "I would like to ask a broader question: What authors (in any genre, fiction or nonfiction) alive today will still be read (hard copy or online) in 2051?"
Please know what you're talking about before you say it; and he died on Thursday, May 11, 2001, the day before I finished his first novel of the "trilogy". I learned of his death on Saturday. So imagine the irony that I felt, waiting for his next novel to be completed, when I finished his novel, then found out the next day that he had died two days before. I had a bad weekend; I didn't know him, yet I missed him.
I think you missunderstand...You really need to learn what the word fiction means.
I think you misspell "misunderstand". And now, a quote from the original story:
I would like to ask a broader question: What authors (in any genre,
fiction or nonfiction) alive today will still be read (hard copy or online) in 2051?
What is this about knowing what fiction means? I answered the question asked.
George Orwell (1984 and Animal Farm)
Aldous Huxley (Brave New World)
Ray Bradbury (Fahrenheit 451 and Something Wicked This Way Comes, among others)
Douglas Adams (nuff said)
Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and others)
Those are my five favorites. Bill O'Reilly would qualify, but I've only just started reading one of his books. Maybe I'll be a writer some day, but until then, I'll keep my list as it is.
I sit corrected. I feel like I should also give mention to some of my other favorite authors who are placed in the science fiction section, although I hardly consider the novels about science or as entirely fiction...
George Orwell, 1984 and Animal Farm Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Ray Bradbury, several novels...
I will still be read in 2051, largely because my writing career has just begun, and I'll only be 68/69 in 2051... assuming I make it that far. Others that may stand the test of time will probably be politics/nonfiction authors like Bill O'Reilly and authors of fiction novels with powerful social/political commentary. Call me crazy, but I think this is a time when politics is not quite in the mainstream, and it is going to make its rebound through writing.
As for current fiction writers, I would say Crighton and Koontz, but only because they're about the only two I'm familiar with. Fannie Flagg's Fried Green Tomatoes was surprisingly an excellent novel that will be around for decades, and Janice Daugharty's Like A Sister has a good shot at sticking around as well. Both are female authors of the last twenty years; Daugharty's novel was released in 1999.
Unfortunately literature is not blessed with very many instant classics... because most people don't read books until they have received good reviews or recommendations.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy will forever be remembered - by me - as the greatest work of science fiction ever. The nonsensical stories and characters fit together perfectly as the longest "trilogy" of all time. He was a master of the English language, which helped him to give each of his novels a timeless quality. Sure, he's one of the more recent 20th century sci-fi authors, but that's why he'll still be around in fifty years.
I also find it interesting that, of all the names listed in the body of this article, I had only heard of Heinlein, Asimov, and Tolkien...
(1) Slashdot seems to post an awful lot of anti-Microsoft propoganda for a site that seems not to use Microsoft products much, if at all.
(2) Let's see. Newer, beefier OS. Same hardware. Who do you think is going to be slower? The way I see it, prices of the hardware are *always* dropping, and the hardware available for the WinXP launch allows XP to run much faster than Win2000 did at launch.
64bit versus 32bit? Yeah, I'd like to see an unbiased report on this, please. Thanks to all the slashdot readers who submitted links to other reviews and comparisons.
Either "camp" is posed with a paradox. What created that which expands and collapses repeatedly? Or what caused God to create things / what caused the very start?
I can not comprehend any fact contraray to this: everything has a cause. So I must wonder... what is the ultimate cause of everything? (and then, in a fit of insanity, I ask 'what was its cause?' and thus I distract myself to avoid further frustration)
Okay, I agree with the concept of empiricism which you explain very well. My answer to the paradox is simple, yet difficult to comprehend:
There are two "levels" for the concerns of this argument. The first is human thought. The second is that which exceeds human thought, that which drives the universe - this empirical nature of it all, as you explained.
On our level, we make the choices, because we know not of our causality. On a higher level, it is all decided for us by the natural, biological, and highly complex conditions which have created all that we are and will be and will do.
I wrote something very similar to what you wrote on my weblog a couple days ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when is invention inspiration-less?
Why I have to have the first one: it's the "official" version.
Why I have to have the second one: it's got deleted scenes.
If we can not rid the Internet of popup ads, then the terrorists have won. (Er, really, is it fair to label SPAM-ers as Internet terrorists? I don't think anyone would mind, really, since NO ONE likes SPAM, except the flavorful meat variety. Between toasted slices of bread with melted cheese. Mmmm.
Compared to my AMS Tech (gone under) laptop with a K62 300 MHz processor, a 3 GB hard drive, a dead 12x CD-ROM, and 32 MB of ram on a 12.1" LCD... Yeah, that's a nice machine. I want.
Now for an on topic comment: haven't we had enough comic book hero movies for one life time? The answer seems to be no, as it was first Superman, then Batman, and now Spider-Man who have repeatedly broken box office records every time a new one is released.
Now the bad news: we all have to wait two years for the movie to develop. So why is it such big news now?
How does Google do so much so smoothly?
Hahah. Very nice. I wish I had some mod points for you. :-)
I agree completely. The Phantom Menace was a great Star Wars movie. Lucas successfully appealed to today's younger generation while not discouraging the average fan of the previous three movies. (And Episode I was better than the others anyway.)
Good job, George. Looking forward to Episode II.
And Episode II looks like it's going to be much better. 'Nuff said.
Compare it to the space race of the 1950s and 1960s. Despite that the Russians were the first ones up, America beat them to the moon.
It's an endless cycle, I think. Someone introduces something, someone betters it, someone introduces the next thing based on the first thing... ad infinitum.
However, I posted my comments on the issue hours ago, and I would like to place them here for the sake of, um, conversation in a more communal setting than a personal weblog:
That's two million errors per second!
several communal programs: better for "power-users".
That about sums up my opinion on the matter.
And if so many users are sharing and so many files are swapped, why do I have so much trouble finding the music I want? It's not like people don't have it... somebody has to or I wouldn't have the knowledge to search for it. What's going on?
That statement my not be true for every one, but it does have some aspect of truth to it. There are things about curriculums that always makes some things less likable. And, probably more often than not, it's because the educators don't exactly know how to welcome students to the business world, so they just teach stuff from the book. I would suggest that, in most cases, students learn to hate what they used to love because instructors fail to show them something new with it. Instead of showing interesting and valuable applications of the knowledge they teach, they simply teach it and expect the students to see through to the other side.
You and I both know that it doesn't quite work that way (well, maybe for a few of us). Another thing everyone's momma probably said at one time or another is, "You'll appreciate it more if you work for it". Taking the easy path can be gratifying, but that still doesn't take away from the wonderful feeling of knowing that you've earned your keep. That said, it's important to know your work ethic and what you work well with. If you like something but don't work well at it, don't let it escalate above hobby-status.
Then again, this is just my advice to keep myself straight. I don't know if it will help you any, but it's here for you in case it might. :)
The point of that poor analogy is that we can't hold so many double standards for one type of logo over another. We can't simply preach against logos and other silly advertisements and then allow our 'FDNY' logos to flood our screens.
More importantly, I say that logo fight is a losing battle anyway. If someone spent the money to wear that logo, then it should be shown. A television program should not blur a Reebok logo because Reebok isn't paying them. People can usually decipher it anyway, and I would guess that the ad works doubly well then, because people are *consciously* trying to figure out what the logo is.
I don't want to start a First Amendment argument, because I am in support of getting rid of these damn popup ads (they are examples of abuse of privilege)...
(Sorry, I know this is scattered. I wanted to make a few points that I couldn't find scattered among the hundreds of other comments.)
Please know what you're talking about before you say it; and he died on Thursday, May 11, 2001, the day before I finished his first novel of the "trilogy". I learned of his death on Saturday. So imagine the irony that I felt, waiting for his next novel to be completed, when I finished his novel, then found out the next day that he had died two days before. I had a bad weekend; I didn't know him, yet I missed him.
I'm reading that now. :-) Awesome book, definitely. I think it's amazing how so few people know that it even exists.
Aldous Huxley (Brave New World)
Ray Bradbury (Fahrenheit 451 and Something Wicked This Way Comes, among others)
Douglas Adams (nuff said)
Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and others)
Those are my five favorites. Bill O'Reilly would qualify, but I've only just started reading one of his books. Maybe I'll be a writer some day, but until then, I'll keep my list as it is.
George Orwell, 1984 and Animal Farm
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
Ray Bradbury, several novels...
As for current fiction writers, I would say Crighton and Koontz, but only because they're about the only two I'm familiar with. Fannie Flagg's Fried Green Tomatoes was surprisingly an excellent novel that will be around for decades, and Janice Daugharty's Like A Sister has a good shot at sticking around as well. Both are female authors of the last twenty years; Daugharty's novel was released in 1999.
Unfortunately literature is not blessed with very many instant classics ... because most people don't read books until they have received good reviews or recommendations.
I also find it interesting that, of all the names listed in the body of this article, I had only heard of Heinlein, Asimov, and Tolkien...
(2) Let's see. Newer, beefier OS. Same hardware. Who do you think is going to be slower? The way I see it, prices of the hardware are *always* dropping, and the hardware available for the WinXP launch allows XP to run much faster than Win2000 did at launch.
64bit versus 32bit? Yeah, I'd like to see an unbiased report on this, please. Thanks to all the slashdot readers who submitted links to other reviews and comparisons.
I can not comprehend any fact contraray to this: everything has a cause. So I must wonder ... what is the ultimate cause of everything? (and then, in a fit of insanity, I ask 'what was its cause?' and thus I distract myself to avoid further frustration)
There are two "levels" for the concerns of this argument. The first is human thought. The second is that which exceeds human thought, that which drives the universe - this empirical nature of it all, as you explained.
On our level, we make the choices, because we know not of our causality. On a higher level, it is all decided for us by the natural, biological, and highly complex conditions which have created all that we are and will be and will do.
I wrote something very similar to what you wrote on my weblog a couple days ago.