The Balrog *is* in the first movie. You can see its foot in the latest trailer. The article is wrong. Gollum will supposedly not be seen on screen until the second movie (we'll probably see Smeagol in the first, though).
There was a lot of stuff thrown into the recent Telecom Act and/or the DMCA (don't recall which at this time) that provided for distinctions between online and broadcast. The main reason was to give the RIAA a revenue source from Internet radio. Broadcast royalties go the publishers (ASCAP, BMI, etc.). RIAA lobbyists convinced our beloved Congress that the Internet was a distribution medium, so they should get some of that money. As far as the playlist rules, I'm not sure if that was in the legislation itself or was developed by the FCC as part of their regulations for implementing the law.
One rumor (which sounds most probable to me) says that Strider gives them to the hobbits in Bree. Additionally, Strider is wandering around with a non-broken sword that apparently is *not* Narsil, the shards of which are reportedly waiting for him in Rivendell.
The CD-R "tax" is not collected at the till. It is actually a levy on CD-R manufacturers/distributors, not on consumers. The manufacturers get to decide how much of that levy gets passed on in the retail price of the goods. Your CAN$10 tax would just be the standard GST you'd pay on any taxable goods.
Not entirely a poor example, as TWA successfully emerged from chapter 11 quite a few years ago (a friend was flying the day they announced it, and the flight attendants brought out champagne). Of course, successfully emerging from Chapter 11 doesn't guarantee future success, particularly in today's airline market.
Actually, English grammatical structures haven't changed that much, certainly not due to the introduction of the apostrophe. English retains a genitive case (in the singular, at least), which French lacks. In your example, the French construction would be more like "The birthday presents of Tom are nice".
The apostrophe as an indicator of possession is an accident of orthography, not grammar or syntax. The apostrophe traditionally represents sounds that are left out, usually vowels. The genitive (or possessive) case in the singular was generally formed in English by adding -es to a noun. The plural was generally -a. With a few exceptions, the e was gradually lost in pronunciation, and spelling conventions followed suit, putting an apostrophe in place of the e in every genitive - except for pronouns. I'm not sure if the use of an apostrophe without the "s" for the plural genitive arose at the same time. So from a historical perspective, the apostrophe in Tom's and the apostrophe in isn't are actually doing the same thing, not different things.
Gradually, however, the concept of -es as the genitive marker was lost, and the "rule" of 's and ' (for plural) being the possessive markers was extrapolated from common orthographic usage. Most of the other case formations were regularised, and the genitive (marked now by the apostrophe) is really the only vestige remaining of the old case system, with the exception, again, of the pronouns.
Pronouns were and still are irregular. "Its" as the accepted form of the third-person neuter genitive pronoun was well-established before "Tomes" would have been shortened to "Tom's". (As an aside, the dominant Anglo-Saxon form was "his", from the nominative "hit", consonant with masculine "he" and feminine "heo". The "h" was dropped in the dominant dialect, though some dialect populations in England and America still retain the old "h" pronunciation, however.)
Actually, the novel is a single narrative divided into six "books" as markers for major transitions in the narrative - it is not six separate novels under three covers. The "book" divisions are more like "meta-chapters". Pick up any long novel, and you're likely to find similar divisions. The reason it is published in three volumes is because Britain was suffering from a paper shortage following WWII, and it was cheaper for the publisher to release it in three separate volumes over a period of several years.
LoTR was originally begun as a requested sequel to the Hobbit, which his publishers felt there was a significant market for. As he progressed, he read/shared completed chapters with his son Christopher and several friends, including CS Lewis. It wasn't until WWII and Christopher ended up in the RAF, stationed in South Africa, that he sent chapters to him by mail.
To address the issue of allegory and other literary terms: If the novel can be "used for so many different allegories", that actually proves that it *isn't* an allegory, and that there are a lot of people who really don't know what an allegory is. An allegory would have a stricter, one-to-one correspondence between all of the objects and actions of the novel and the things that it was an allegory of (e.g., Pilgrim's Progress is intended *only* to be read as an allegory of Christian conversion). Each metaphor and symbol, and every movement of the plot, would point primarily to the *one* overriding allegorical correspondence. Just because metaphor and symbolism are tools used in constructing an allegory does not mean that every work in which they are used is an allegory. Likewise, themes (power corrupts, elevation of the weak above the strong, death, etc.) do not make a narrative an allegory. Allegories are narrow in their symbolism and thematic application and depend almost entirely on authorial intention (Roland Barthes be damned). If you want an allegorical story by Tolkien, read "Leaf by Niggle" - it's the closest he comes to the form.
What you find in LoTR that is "readable in a modern context" is a group of thematic elements that many people can recognize as resonating with concerns in their own lives.
there is no way I am going to return the favor by doing something that costs me 15,000 votes, no matter how corrupt I am.
I agree with most of your post, but here you're making the big assumption that you've got at least 15,000 constituents actually paying attention to what you're doing.
... because the first time I met Raymond Feist, he was working at Comic Kingdom in San Diego - a rather large store that sold lots of "pre-owned" comic books. That was before he was a bestselling author, of course.
Just for the record, though, Feist seemed to be a pretty nice guy, whatever his view on copyright law. I never actually knew his name until a few years after he left the shop, and Magician had been published. All I knew was that he was involved in a role-playing group that included some people I knew at school. I bumped into him years later at the San Diego ComicCon, and he apparently recognized my face, and we had a brief chat about nothing. Later I came across a copy of Magician and saw his face on the flap.
Which doesn't make much sense, since the whole m.o. of slashdot is that almost every "story" is "stolen" from another source./. is a news clearinghouse, not a news provider.
This includes all of the recordings of Tolkien himself, as well as his son reading excerpts from the Silmarillion, and musical arrangements of Tolkien's verse from "The Road Goes Ever On" performed by Donald Swann.
Mr. and Mrs. Tolkien's personalities aside, the story of Beren and Luthien from the Silmarillion was inspired by the circumstances of Tolkien's courtship of Edith. While she may not have aged well, early pictures show her to have been a reasonably attractive young woman.
Actually, Disney does own rights to Winnie-the-Pooh, both the foolish red-shirted version and the original "Classic Pooh". But the others are, AFAIR, in the public domain. And don't forget all the other public domain content that Disney has made millions off of - Beauty and the Beast, the Little Mermaid, Pocahontas, Aladdin, Snow White, Hercules, and on and on. Imagine trying to convince Disney Corp. that Lewis Carroll's copyright should be retroactively renewed, and that Disney should pay his heirs a portion of the royalties they made off their use of Alice in Wonderland. Disney believes in principal, not principle.
Their current licensing agreement most likely only covers Rambus's RDRAM memory, not the SDRAM and DDR SDRAM that Rambus now claims fall under its patents.
Not necessarily to kill it off, but to at least get a finger into everyone's pies to ensure a steady stream of revenue if their own idea failed to make it.
* (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole...
puts limits on how much of the original work can be reproduced, and it would probably be decided on a case-by-case basis as to how much is too much. But it's a good bet that handing out a complete copy of, say, "The Satanic Verses" to each student would be infringement, while handing out copies of a few pages or perhaps even a single chapter would fall under fair use.
AMD does have Rambus licenses. Their chipset roadmap has had a "floating" feature of Rambus support since the Athlon was introduced, they just haven't chosen to implement it yet. If a few more companies follow Toshiba's lead, I'd expect it to appear pretty quickly.
This doesn't necessarily reflect my view of the GPL or RMS, but I couldn't resist making the connection when I saw this thread:
The FSF would, presumably, do everything in their power to hasten the day when they become completely redundant.
Like Lenin's position that the tyranny of the proletariat was necessary to hasten the withering away of the state and the flowering of a state-less communist society?;o)
Slashdot Mirror
... it was 2am when I wrote that. Funny thing is, I've had a few Kiwi friends, but never any from Oz...
The Balrog *is* in the first movie. You can see its foot in the latest trailer. The article is wrong. Gollum will supposedly not be seen on screen until the second movie (we'll probably see Smeagol in the first, though).
FWIW, a package I saw in Fry's the other day was the $199 server edition. All the workstation versions were still 7.1.
There was a lot of stuff thrown into the recent Telecom Act and/or the DMCA (don't recall which at this time) that provided for distinctions between online and broadcast. The main reason was to give the RIAA a revenue source from Internet radio. Broadcast royalties go the publishers (ASCAP, BMI, etc.). RIAA lobbyists convinced our beloved Congress that the Internet was a distribution medium, so they should get some of that money. As far as the playlist rules, I'm not sure if that was in the legislation itself or was developed by the FCC as part of their regulations for implementing the law.
One rumor (which sounds most probable to me) says that Strider gives them to the hobbits in Bree. Additionally, Strider is wandering around with a non-broken sword that apparently is *not* Narsil, the shards of which are reportedly waiting for him in Rivendell.
I believe this is a fairly recent policy implemented due to the recent foot-and-mouth and mad cow disease scares in Europe.
He said "the economy", not "economics". There's a difference.
The CD-R "tax" is not collected at the till. It is actually a levy on CD-R manufacturers/distributors, not on consumers. The manufacturers get to decide how much of that levy gets passed on in the retail price of the goods. Your CAN$10 tax would just be the standard GST you'd pay on any taxable goods.
Not entirely a poor example, as TWA successfully emerged from chapter 11 quite a few years ago (a friend was flying the day they announced it, and the flight attendants brought out champagne). Of course, successfully emerging from Chapter 11 doesn't guarantee future success, particularly in today's airline market.
Actually, English grammatical structures haven't changed that much, certainly not due to the introduction of the apostrophe. English retains a genitive case (in the singular, at least), which French lacks. In your example, the French construction would be more like "The birthday presents of Tom are nice".
The apostrophe as an indicator of possession is an accident of orthography, not grammar or syntax. The apostrophe traditionally represents sounds that are left out, usually vowels. The genitive (or possessive) case in the singular was generally formed in English by adding -es to a noun. The plural was generally -a. With a few exceptions, the e was gradually lost in pronunciation, and spelling conventions followed suit, putting an apostrophe in place of the e in every genitive - except for pronouns. I'm not sure if the use of an apostrophe without the "s" for the plural genitive arose at the same time. So from a historical perspective, the apostrophe in Tom's and the apostrophe in isn't are actually doing the same thing, not different things.
Gradually, however, the concept of -es as the genitive marker was lost, and the "rule" of 's and ' (for plural) being the possessive markers was extrapolated from common orthographic usage. Most of the other case formations were regularised, and the genitive (marked now by the apostrophe) is really the only vestige remaining of the old case system, with the exception, again, of the pronouns.
Pronouns were and still are irregular. "Its" as the accepted form of the third-person neuter genitive pronoun was well-established before "Tomes" would have been shortened to "Tom's". (As an aside, the dominant Anglo-Saxon form was "his", from the nominative "hit", consonant with masculine "he" and feminine "heo". The "h" was dropped in the dominant dialect, though some dialect populations in England and America still retain the old "h" pronunciation, however.)
Actually, the novel is a single narrative divided into six "books" as markers for major transitions in the narrative - it is not six separate novels under three covers. The "book" divisions are more like "meta-chapters". Pick up any long novel, and you're likely to find similar divisions. The reason it is published in three volumes is because Britain was suffering from a paper shortage following WWII, and it was cheaper for the publisher to release it in three separate volumes over a period of several years.
LoTR was originally begun as a requested sequel to the Hobbit, which his publishers felt there was a significant market for. As he progressed, he read/shared completed chapters with his son Christopher and several friends, including CS Lewis. It wasn't until WWII and Christopher ended up in the RAF, stationed in South Africa, that he sent chapters to him by mail.
To address the issue of allegory and other literary terms: If the novel can be "used for so many different allegories", that actually proves that it *isn't* an allegory, and that there are a lot of people who really don't know what an allegory is. An allegory would have a stricter, one-to-one correspondence between all of the objects and actions of the novel and the things that it was an allegory of (e.g., Pilgrim's Progress is intended *only* to be read as an allegory of Christian conversion). Each metaphor and symbol, and every movement of the plot, would point primarily to the *one* overriding allegorical correspondence. Just because metaphor and symbolism are tools used in constructing an allegory does not mean that every work in which they are used is an allegory. Likewise, themes (power corrupts, elevation of the weak above the strong, death, etc.) do not make a narrative an allegory. Allegories are narrow in their symbolism and thematic application and depend almost entirely on authorial intention (Roland Barthes be damned). If you want an allegorical story by Tolkien, read "Leaf by Niggle" - it's the closest he comes to the form.
What you find in LoTR that is "readable in a modern context" is a group of thematic elements that many people can recognize as resonating with concerns in their own lives.
there is no way I am going to return the favor by doing something that costs me 15,000 votes, no matter how corrupt I am.
I agree with most of your post, but here you're making the big assumption that you've got at least 15,000 constituents actually paying attention to what you're doing.
You must not have finished reading his post. He said he figured out that it was Audio Galaxy that did a stealth install of the program.
Actually, it was the Greeks who took Troi, and I wonder if she likes it that way...
... because the first time I met Raymond Feist, he was working at Comic Kingdom in San Diego - a rather large store that sold lots of "pre-owned" comic books. That was before he was a bestselling author, of course.
Just for the record, though, Feist seemed to be a pretty nice guy, whatever his view on copyright law. I never actually knew his name until a few years after he left the shop, and Magician had been published. All I knew was that he was involved in a role-playing group that included some people I knew at school. I bumped into him years later at the San Diego ComicCon, and he apparently recognized my face, and we had a brief chat about nothing. Later I came across a copy of Magician and saw his face on the flap.
Which doesn't make much sense, since the whole m.o. of slashdot is that almost every "story" is "stolen" from another source. /. is a news clearinghouse, not a news provider.
Go here.
This includes all of the recordings of Tolkien himself, as well as his son reading excerpts from the Silmarillion, and musical arrangements of Tolkien's verse from "The Road Goes Ever On" performed by Donald Swann.
Mr. and Mrs. Tolkien's personalities aside, the story of Beren and Luthien from the Silmarillion was inspired by the circumstances of Tolkien's courtship of Edith. While she may not have aged well, early pictures show her to have been a reasonably attractive young woman.
Actually, Disney does own rights to Winnie-the-Pooh, both the foolish red-shirted version and the original "Classic Pooh". But the others are, AFAIR, in the public domain. And don't forget all the other public domain content that Disney has made millions off of - Beauty and the Beast, the Little Mermaid, Pocahontas, Aladdin, Snow White, Hercules, and on and on. Imagine trying to convince Disney Corp. that Lewis Carroll's copyright should be retroactively renewed, and that Disney should pay his heirs a portion of the royalties they made off their use of Alice in Wonderland. Disney believes in principal, not principle.
Their current licensing agreement most likely only covers Rambus's RDRAM memory, not the SDRAM and DDR SDRAM that Rambus now claims fall under its patents.
Not necessarily to kill it off, but to at least get a finger into everyone's pies to ensure a steady stream of revenue if their own idea failed to make it.
The following:
* (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole...
puts limits on how much of the original work can be reproduced, and it would probably be decided on a case-by-case basis as to how much is too much. But it's a good bet that handing out a complete copy of, say, "The Satanic Verses" to each student would be infringement, while handing out copies of a few pages or perhaps even a single chapter would fall under fair use.
AMD does have Rambus licenses. Their chipset roadmap has had a "floating" feature of Rambus support since the Athlon was introduced, they just haven't chosen to implement it yet. If a few more companies follow Toshiba's lead, I'd expect it to appear pretty quickly.
This doesn't necessarily reflect my view of the GPL or RMS, but I couldn't resist making the connection when I saw this thread:
;o)
The FSF would, presumably, do everything in their power to hasten the day when they become completely redundant.
Like Lenin's position that the tyranny of the proletariat was necessary to hasten the withering away of the state and the flowering of a state-less communist society?
Sorry, CT, but Sonny was a Republican. The Democrats aren't the only asses in Congress.