The fangirl in me is shouting "squeeee!" and hyperventilating like the soon-to-be-ravished heroine of a bodice-ripper romance novel. However, the practical (and far more sensible) part of me is holding out for a release date. I refuse to go back into training for the sit-in-the-uncomfortable-seat-for-3-plus-hours marathon before I absolutely have to.
(And no, sitting around while reading/. doesn't count. My sofa is very comfortable, thank you.)
> My aunt's niece Dorothy got a file in email... Your aunt's niece would, presumably, be you. Or your sister. Or a cousin. Obfuscated family relationships lend no credibility to your tale.
> She asked her aunt what to do with a.zip file, and was told she needed to "unzip the file". So of course Dorothy opened up Internet Explorer and typed "www.unzip.com"*. And how old, exactly, was your "aunt's niece"? Where was her mom? If she was that young, why was there no supervision to her computer time? Who was taking responsibility there?
> I won't even describe what happened that day- the shock, the screaming, the tears... but it was horrible. Children should be given some warning before seeing grown women stripped and tied to walls. And you would know that, how? As you have told this tale, you weren't there to witness what happened.
> And this law was all we had. No, we still have parental responsibility. This is the element that was missing in this story, if in fact it happened at all. I have no lack of contempt for people who insist that they know what's best for me and everybody else, and do their level best to shove their opinions down my throat. You want to make the government responsible for baby-sitting everybody in the country, whether they need it or not, because some people can't be bothered to keep an eye on their kids. This piece of legislation is wrong-headed on so many levels, I can't even begin to number them all. This law was written so vaguely that people looking for medical information wouldn't be able to find it on the 'Net. "Think of the children" is always the wail of those who want to get rid of everything that they find offensive, because who can argue with it? Me, for one. I refuse to have some anonymous busybody out there tell me that I can't look at what I wish on the Web. I also refuse to let that same busybody git tell my daughter / sister / cousin / whatever* that she isn't allowed to have access to women's health care information because she might run across a nekkid nipple.
Oh, I looked up unzipped.com through waybackmachine.org. It's got nothing. Nothing. It got registered, but apparently never had any content. Again, your story falls down upon close scrutiny.
*The same applies to my son / nephew / cousin / et cetera not having access to information on men's health because they might see a photo of nekkid boy bits. Oh the humanity!
...a spokeswoman for the [Tate] gallery told the London Telegraph that the Manzoni piece was a bargain at that price. She called Manzoni an incredibly important artist and his Can 004 "a seminal work."
Y'know, I was going to make a terribly snarky comment about how the gallery spokeswoman was referencing the wrong bodily function. Upon second thought, however, I feel that/. has suffered quite enough already today.;)
Okay, as one of those "creative types", I have to offer a rebuttal.
IANAA(uthor), but as a science-fiction loving, convention-attending geekette, I know several. Many talented, published writers don't make it to the point where their writing supports them. That field is as chancy as, say, acting; and it takes damn good luck in combination with hard work and talent to make it as a full-time author. Now, just because a published writer relies on a day job to pay the bills doesn't make them any less a professional writer. He/she is still getting a royalty check, however small (and most of them are). But, even a small check is one heck of an incentive to keep writing. You say that they shouldn't receive any financial gain for their work, however, on the basis that there would be better creative work. I disagree; one has only to browse any website specializing in "fan fiction" to see Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap) in its full glory. If creative types were not allowed to profit from their abilities, society wouldn't see a proliferation of good quality, because there wouldn't be any incentive for the creative types to do the work.
Now, as to my own circumstance: I am an artist, I work in several different media, but I'm most focused on custom jewelry. I carve models for lost-wax casting, draw initial designs, and do all of the fabrication, stone setting and finishing by myself. One necklace can have a huge investment of time, effort, and energy behind it. Contrary to popular belief, jewelers don't make money; jewelers make jewelry. Materials are expensive. If I didn't make a dime off of my labor, I couldn't afford to keep working, and this is my day job. I'm good at office work, sure; but I'm passionate about my creative efforts, and there's the difference.
By your argument, any number of talented, creative people might just as well work at a fast-food joint and never create anything, because the time and effort that it takes to hone those talents into real skills will never be rewarded. Yes, some creative types become obsessed with their bank accounts. Most don't, however; and to deny them a chance to get paid for doing something that they are really, really good at seems like a very draconian measure. Punish the spoiled brats and prima donnas; yes. Don't buy what they produce. But condemning all in order to reach the guilty few is overkill.
Harlan Ellison is a decent writer. However, he's also a fantastic grandstander. His temper tantrums and aggressive behavior at writers' conventions are nothing short of legendary. The quality of his writing aside (I like most of his short stories), a good portion of his popularity is tied directly in to his notoriety. He knows, much to the chagrin of many people, that his antics keep his books on the shelves where less - colorful - authors disappear from print. It doesn't surprise me that AOL settled. Having seen the man on one of his torrential rants (not, thankfully, as the focus of his ire), I almost feel sorry for the execs of AOL/Time/Warner, imagining what sort of invective must have been leveled against them.
I went and browsed the museum website. Unless I'm grossly misinterpreting, it seems as though more exhibits are going to be added and switched out as the collection grows.
I'm glad to see that someone has undertaken the task of creating a museum setting for so much of this memorabilia. (Even if it is a vanity effort.) Many early films are known only from their titles and a few salvaged props -- the films themselves have degraded into cellulose dust. I find it sad that so much of the early history of cinema has been lost entirely; especially since so many of the first science fiction films were delightful works of whimsy. (See IMDB and Filmsite for their descriptions of Georges Méliès "A Trip to the Moon".) Hmm. I wonder if any of the props for that one survived. If so, I hope that they'll show up at Mr. Allen's Museum someday.
Well, look at it this way: you don't have to be "stuck with" people like us, do you? Your options under those circumstances would be much the same as they are now. Go down for murder in the first (as you seem to advocate), take yourself out of the picture, or put up / shut up. (Which, despite your threatening posturing, is the most likely.)
Maybe you're happy with your "threescore and ten". If so, great; have a good time. I, however, have a lot of things to say, and a lot of contributions to make, and I want as much "quality time" as possible in which to do those things. How many people contribute in the first 15 years of their lives? How about the first 20? Hell, for many people even the first 30 are a write-off in terms of making a lasting contribution to society. Would you have objected to Einstein having more time to carry out his research? How about Ada Lovelace? Leibniz? Would you have denied Bach and Beethoven the chance to continue composing great works of music? Would you shudder at the thought of another 100 years or more of creative output from da Vinci or Michaelangelo? I certainly wouldn't.
You seem to think that people like the parent poster, and Yours Truly, are unspeakably arrogant for thinking that we have more to offer the world than can be crammed into 70 or 80 years; of which maybe 50 are fully usable and productive. I think that you are probably arrogant, selfish, and nearsighted; based on your attempt to tell us that you dislike the idea of our continuing to live productive lives through technonogical intervention. I will not stoop to dismissing you as a Luddite; after all, you are using a computer to post on Slashdot. But you do exhibit a "dog in the manger" attitude that I find distasteful. As I wrote in the beginning: if you don't like the idea, you certainly don't have to participate in the experiment. And then, you won't be "stuck with people" like us for hundreds of years. QED.
(Also, please note that I have the huevos to put my name to my statements.)
The story was first posted back in October, before the investigation was completed. The facts that have since come to light add a whole new dimension to this outsourcing fiasco. (You can read the original Slashdot article here.)
I'm trying to decide if Ms. Newburn is an out-and-out hypocrite, or just spectacularly inept at fraud. She apparently sends the work to Pakistan, ignoring any concerns about professional ethics, and creates "Tom Spires" to cover her posterior; then cries about how awful it is that American jobs are going overseas, once her house of cards comes crashing down. This situation really calls for the old question: "What the hell were you thinking?!"
The old chap in the photo reminds me of those who refused to evacuate their homes just before Mt. Saint Helens blew. It's amazing, if disturbing, to see such a profound love of place displayed.
Elena, I add my thanks and congratulations to you for shooting these haunting photographs, and providing your commentary to accompany them. Bolshoi spasibo; i berech'. (Many thanks, and keep safe.)
"This ad shows how everything has changed," says Mitch Bainwol, RIAA chairman. "Legal downloading is great because fans are supporting the future of creative work in America." (emphasis mine)
That's right, Mr. Bainwol. Fans support the artists. Not the RIAA. The fans. I have discovered many bands that I like a lot because a friend sent me an MP3. I don't think that any performer out there (okay, unless you're a member of Metallica) would complain about losing that $.02 in royalties, if it meant another person buying the CDs and attending the concerts. Which is exactly what I do, but I'm not buying crap from the latest over-hyped bubblegum act, either.
Either way, the RIAA loses.
And that's just fine with Y.T.
Addendum: I'm not exactly pleased with the whole 'wink-n-nod' attitude that the commercial apparently displays, either. Instead of bringing attention to the issue of a private organization taking legal enforcement powers unto itself, I see large corporations engaged in a mutual luv-a-thon. And there's a perverse logic to the whole thing: turn it into a joke, and people will quit whining. At least until Grandma faces a $1.5 million dollar lawsuit for her supposed obsession with the musical stylings of Ol' Dirty Bastard.
Okay, I'm of a divided mind on this one. I'm a user of the meetup.com service, and I'm fairly happy with it. Find an interest, go to your local area's page for said interest, sign up, vote on a place to get together; and once a month, you have the opportunity to have coffee (or whatever) with like-minded folks. It's pretty simple, but the key factor is that there's an expectation that you'll be meeting people in a group, and in a fairly public place. Safety issues are thusly taken into consideration, and you get to meet people whom you might otherwise never run into.
Friendster, and all of the others, provide a service: facilitating introductions between people who might not be the most socially graceful. The cliche of the pasty-faced computer geek who has every IM service known to man, and several dozen contacts on each, but can't make eye contact with someone of the opposite gender to save their life, has become a cliche because there's at least a grain of truth to it. Online introduction services take some of the anxiety out of the process. However, as you might expect, people who are socially awkward don't always take safety concerns into consideration, which is why I would prefer to see more emphasis on group activities.
Now, having said that, I have people who I consider to be good friends on my ICQ contact list, who I have never met (much as I might like to.) But, for every person who makes the grade, there are at least 50 who I would have been perfectly happy had they never stumbled across my profile. At least the "ignore" button takes care of them.
Sort of, but not quite. Some mathoms that were old and unusual, or of historical interest -- like Bilbo's mithril chainmail shirt -- wound up in the mathom house (read: museum) in Michel Delving. Most, however, got recirculated (re-gifted, so as to stay somewhat on topic) as birthday presents.
Now, here's a question: what do you do when the lady who responds to you is more of a LotR geek (and wellspring of useless knowledge) than you are?
Yes, well; despite the fact that I'm not new around here, I read the article, as did you. My reproof was to the other posters who have been typing harsh invective about the Estate's (non) interference in bringing The Hobbit to the big screen.
Mind you, I don't doubt that if Christopher could throw a monkey wrench into the works, he would. He's not even talking to his own son right now, because his son (Simon Tolkien) is a fan of the films. [sarcasm] For shame, Simon; for shame! [/sarcasm] Here sir; you can have the seat next to me for the opening of RotK. I'll even share my popcorn. And my industrial sized box of tissues.
New Line and WB are both, technically, part of AOL/Time Warner, but under different management. (Sort of like Sam's Club and Wal-Mart -- same ownership, different businesses; with different management, business licensing, budgets, etc.) In situations like this, the parent company is perfectly happy to take a hands-off approach, because it's in their best interest in the long run. In other words; let the kids squabble. It'll mean that more money goes into AOL/TW's pocket if anything gets done. And if not, the parent company hasn't lost anything.
Chalk up another one for the Big, Evil, Faceless Corporation (TM).
The Estate (and Christopher) are not behind any difficulties currently facing a Wingnut Films production of The Hobbit. Warner Bros. Pictures, however, is.
In 1976, the Saul Zaentz Co., doing business as Tolkien Enterprises, acquired rights to both The Hobbit and LotR. This agreement included the film rights. Tolkien Enterprises entered into an agreement with WB so that they could film the Rankin & Bass animated version of The Hobbit. Now comes the fun part: WB still has those rights, and they're sitting on them like a broody hen with only one egg. New Line can't greenlight Peter -- they don't have the rights, and aren't likely to get them in the near future. Rumor has it that a few of the key brass over at the Frog Studio are a little cheesed off about the fact that a bunch of Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, and other assorted mangy fairy-tale creatures have been collectively kicking the backside of a certain boy wizard at the box office for the past two Christmases running. Heh.
Now OTOH, the Tolkien Estate is being a pain in the butt about the idea of a movie museum in Wellington. And for that, Christopher Tolkien can rightly be accused of behaving like the dog in the manger.
Fine; InfoWorld has printed the article. However, per SpamCop, no official announcement is going to be forthcoming until Monday, the 24th.
Personally, until I have confirmation from the source, I see nothing that warrants getting my knickers into a twist. As of this moment, the purchase plan is nothing but a rumor; kind of like the official release date for Duke Nukem Forever.
I would like to point out that, unless you are extremely careful, those Google results are probably of less worth than a handful of "genuine, guaranteed magic beans". Many people have fairly common names. When I order a book from my favorite independent bookstore, the order desk has to scroll past about 75 entries to find my address among all of the other same-names in the database, and this is just one (relatively small) company's listing. You could easily be screwing yourself out of a valuable employee, just because s/he has the misfortune to share a moniker with a club DJ, or someone of an even less savory nature.
Google is a great tool, but it isn't a valid replacement for the interview process.
Although this may be modded as "redundant" (assuming that anyone even sees the comment):
Saruman did not chuck the palantir out the window. Grima Wormtongue did. And apparently caught absolute bloody hell from his boss for the act, once Sharky figured out just what his little stooge had tried to bounce off of Gandalf's skull.
Geez. Leave it to the girl geek to get the details right...;)
Umm, I don't remember any reference to this in Bulfinch's, and a quick glance through it didn't turn up a story along these lines (although it is late, and I'm pretty tired, having spent a fun evening taking photos of the eclipse.) Some material can be found at Bulfinch's Online. The druids, however, were not a tribe themselves, but rather a priestly caste among the early Celtic peoples. (Druid priest is therefore somewhat redundant.) They were also responsible for law, the pronouncement of legal judgements, and keeping of history. It's not entirely accurate to say that they had no written language, as they did have a system of writing; it just wasn't particularly widespread. Reason being, the lawyers (brehon) and bards had to memorize everything -- without changing or forgetting a single word -- during their training, which lasted about 20 years.
Now, lest this be completely off-topic, there's some reasonably educated speculation that Stonehenge could have been used as an astronomical calendar for both lunar and solar observations. Apparently, the lunar calculations are pretty accurate, for people without slide rules. (Not necesssarily the druids, although they are firmly linked to Stonehenge in popular imagination.)
As I said at first: don't know where you read the story, but a mis-timed eclipse isn't the most likely culprit for the downfall of the early Celts (or the druids.) We have Julius Caesar to thank for that one.;)
Yes, people are living longer, and thus seeing the need for more joint replacement surgeries. More; and, sadly, more frequent, due to rejection problems. I can't imaging being a halfway compassionate surgeon, having to tell an otherwise healthy and active 55-year-old that the best she can expect from her new knee is 10 years, tops, before they have to do the procedure all over again. This discovery has the potential to make repeat surgeries a thing of the past. However, the folks for whom this is absolutely fsking fantastic news are the people like me, and a couple of good acquaintances, who have congenital joint deformities.
One gal has gone through her second complete hip replacement. Why? Because the first one rejected. She's not even 40. I was born mostly missing one hip socket. I got lucky; the socket finally grew deep enough to work, but I could still be staring down the edge of a scalpel in the future. And if I'm going to go through the 6 - 9 damn months that it usually takes to get mobile again, I'm going to want that new joint to outlast me, if at all possible. Add in things like injuries that can't be corrected by arthroscopic surgery, compound or crush fractures, bone-lengthening surgeries for deformed limbs, and a host of other skeletal problems, and I'd say that this research stands to make life better for a whole lot of people out there. IMNSGDHO.
If this is an attempt by Microsoft to keep Google's price low, and maybe cripple their IPO; well, it wouldn't be the first time that Gates & Co. played dirty. If it's an attempt to create a pump-and-dump stock inflation, then this is bad news for any potential investors who aren't knowledgable about MS's corporate history (and don't know where to look for the information. Hard as it is to believe around here, there are those for whom just checking e-mail is a serious challenge.) Even if this is nothing more than a collection of rumors, as has been postulated elsewhere, the mere possibility that a purchase like this could happen tends to make me think that another DoJ action is long overdue. Although it would be nice to see a decision -- and penalty -- with some teeth in it, this time.
Here's hoping that someone at the FTC has the sense to say "You've got to be kidding..."
Per Dictionary.com: mushroom pron. mush'room noun
1) Any of various fleshy fungi of the class Basidiomycota, characteristically having an umbrella-shaped cap borne on a stalk, especially any of the edible kinds, as those of the genus Agaricus.
2) Something shaped like one of these fungi.
Unless you're trying to say that portabellas and shitakes are made out of beef, I'm seeing fungus among us.;)
"It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours; far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves. Of old they spoke the languages of Men, after their own fashion, and liked and disliked much the same things as Men did. But what exactly our relationship is can no longer be discovered..." ("The Fellowship of the Ring", from the Prologue.)
Slashdot Mirror
(And no, sitting around while reading /. doesn't count. My sofa is very comfortable, thank you.)
Your aunt's niece would, presumably, be you. Or your sister. Or a cousin. Obfuscated family relationships lend no credibility to your tale.
> She asked her aunt what to do with a .zip file, and was told she needed to "unzip the file". So of course Dorothy opened up Internet Explorer and typed "www.unzip.com"*.
And how old, exactly, was your "aunt's niece"? Where was her mom? If she was that young, why was there no supervision to her computer time? Who was taking responsibility there?
> I won't even describe what happened that day- the shock, the screaming, the tears... but it was horrible. Children should be given some warning before seeing grown women stripped and tied to walls.
And you would know that, how? As you have told this tale, you weren't there to witness what happened.
> And this law was all we had.
No, we still have parental responsibility. This is the element that was missing in this story, if in fact it happened at all.
I have no lack of contempt for people who insist that they know what's best for me and everybody else, and do their level best to shove their opinions down my throat. You want to make the government responsible for baby-sitting everybody in the country, whether they need it or not, because some people can't be bothered to keep an eye on their kids. This piece of legislation is wrong-headed on so many levels, I can't even begin to number them all.
This law was written so vaguely that people looking for medical information wouldn't be able to find it on the 'Net. "Think of the children" is always the wail of those who want to get rid of everything that they find offensive, because who can argue with it? Me, for one. I refuse to have some anonymous busybody out there tell me that I can't look at what I wish on the Web. I also refuse to let that same busybody git tell my daughter / sister / cousin / whatever* that she isn't allowed to have access to women's health care information because she might run across a nekkid nipple.
Oh, I looked up unzipped.com through waybackmachine.org. It's got nothing. Nothing. It got registered, but apparently never had any content. Again, your story falls down upon close scrutiny.
*The same applies to my son / nephew / cousin / et cetera not having access to information on men's health because they might see a photo of nekkid boy bits. Oh the humanity!
Y'know, I was going to make a terribly snarky comment about how the gallery spokeswoman was referencing the wrong bodily function. Upon second thought, however, I feel that /. has suffered quite enough already today. ;)
IANAA(uthor), but as a science-fiction loving, convention-attending geekette, I know several. Many talented, published writers don't make it to the point where their writing supports them. That field is as chancy as, say, acting; and it takes damn good luck in combination with hard work and talent to make it as a full-time author. Now, just because a published writer relies on a day job to pay the bills doesn't make them any less a professional writer. He/she is still getting a royalty check, however small (and most of them are). But, even a small check is one heck of an incentive to keep writing. You say that they shouldn't receive any financial gain for their work, however, on the basis that there would be better creative work. I disagree; one has only to browse any website specializing in "fan fiction" to see Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap) in its full glory. If creative types were not allowed to profit from their abilities, society wouldn't see a proliferation of good quality, because there wouldn't be any incentive for the creative types to do the work.
Now, as to my own circumstance: I am an artist, I work in several different media, but I'm most focused on custom jewelry. I carve models for lost-wax casting, draw initial designs, and do all of the fabrication, stone setting and finishing by myself. One necklace can have a huge investment of time, effort, and energy behind it. Contrary to popular belief, jewelers don't make money; jewelers make jewelry. Materials are expensive. If I didn't make a dime off of my labor, I couldn't afford to keep working, and this is my day job. I'm good at office work, sure; but I'm passionate about my creative efforts, and there's the difference.
By your argument, any number of talented, creative people might just as well work at a fast-food joint and never create anything, because the time and effort that it takes to hone those talents into real skills will never be rewarded. Yes, some creative types become obsessed with their bank accounts. Most don't, however; and to deny them a chance to get paid for doing something that they are really, really good at seems like a very draconian measure. Punish the spoiled brats and prima donnas; yes. Don't buy what they produce. But condemning all in order to reach the guilty few is overkill.
Harlan Ellison is a decent writer. However, he's also a fantastic grandstander. His temper tantrums and aggressive behavior at writers' conventions are nothing short of legendary. The quality of his writing aside (I like most of his short stories), a good portion of his popularity is tied directly in to his notoriety. He knows, much to the chagrin of many people, that his antics keep his books on the shelves where less - colorful - authors disappear from print.
It doesn't surprise me that AOL settled. Having seen the man on one of his torrential rants (not, thankfully, as the focus of his ire), I almost feel sorry for the execs of AOL/Time/Warner, imagining what sort of invective must have been leveled against them.
I'm glad to see that someone has undertaken the task of creating a museum setting for so much of this memorabilia. (Even if it is a vanity effort.) Many early films are known only from their titles and a few salvaged props -- the films themselves have degraded into cellulose dust. I find it sad that so much of the early history of cinema has been lost entirely; especially since so many of the first science fiction films were delightful works of whimsy. (See IMDB and Filmsite for their descriptions of Georges Méliès "A Trip to the Moon".)
Hmm. I wonder if any of the props for that one survived. If so, I hope that they'll show up at Mr. Allen's Museum someday.
Maybe you're happy with your "threescore and ten". If so, great; have a good time. I, however, have a lot of things to say, and a lot of contributions to make, and I want as much "quality time" as possible in which to do those things.
How many people contribute in the first 15 years of their lives? How about the first 20? Hell, for many people even the first 30 are a write-off in terms of making a lasting contribution to society. Would you have objected to Einstein having more time to carry out his research? How about Ada Lovelace? Leibniz? Would you have denied Bach and Beethoven the chance to continue composing great works of music? Would you shudder at the thought of another 100 years or more of creative output from da Vinci or Michaelangelo? I certainly wouldn't.
You seem to think that people like the parent poster, and Yours Truly, are unspeakably arrogant for thinking that we have more to offer the world than can be crammed into 70 or 80 years; of which maybe 50 are fully usable and productive. I think that you are probably arrogant, selfish, and nearsighted; based on your attempt to tell us that you dislike the idea of our continuing to live productive lives through technonogical intervention. I will not stoop to dismissing you as a Luddite; after all, you are using a computer to post on Slashdot. But you do exhibit a "dog in the manger" attitude that I find distasteful. As I wrote in the beginning: if you don't like the idea, you certainly don't have to participate in the experiment. And then, you won't be "stuck with people" like us for hundreds of years. QED.
(Also, please note that I have the huevos to put my name to my statements.)
I'm trying to decide if Ms. Newburn is an out-and-out hypocrite, or just spectacularly inept at fraud. She apparently sends the work to Pakistan, ignoring any concerns about professional ethics, and creates "Tom Spires" to cover her posterior; then cries about how awful it is that American jobs are going overseas, once her house of cards comes crashing down. This situation really calls for the old question: "What the hell were you thinking?!"
Elena, I add my thanks and congratulations to you for shooting these haunting photographs, and providing your commentary to accompany them.
Bolshoi spasibo; i berech'. (Many thanks, and keep safe.)
"This ad shows how everything has changed," says Mitch Bainwol, RIAA chairman. "Legal downloading is great because fans are supporting the future of creative work in America." (emphasis mine)
That's right, Mr. Bainwol. Fans support the artists. Not the RIAA. The fans.
I have discovered many bands that I like a lot because a friend sent me an MP3. I don't think that any performer out there (okay, unless you're a member of Metallica) would complain about losing that $.02 in royalties, if it meant another person buying the CDs and attending the concerts. Which is exactly what I do, but I'm not buying crap from the latest over-hyped bubblegum act, either.
Either way, the RIAA loses.
And that's just fine with Y.T.
Addendum: I'm not exactly pleased with the whole 'wink-n-nod' attitude that the commercial apparently displays, either. Instead of bringing attention to the issue of a private organization taking legal enforcement powers unto itself, I see large corporations engaged in a mutual luv-a-thon. And there's a perverse logic to the whole thing: turn it into a joke, and people will quit whining.
At least until Grandma faces a $1.5 million dollar lawsuit for her supposed obsession with the musical stylings of Ol' Dirty Bastard.
I'm a user of the meetup.com service, and I'm fairly happy with it. Find an interest, go to your local area's page for said interest, sign up, vote on a place to get together; and once a month, you have the opportunity to have coffee (or whatever) with like-minded folks.
It's pretty simple, but the key factor is that there's an expectation that you'll be meeting people in a group, and in a fairly public place. Safety issues are thusly taken into consideration, and you get to meet people whom you might otherwise never run into.
Friendster, and all of the others, provide a service: facilitating introductions between people who might not be the most socially graceful. The cliche of the pasty-faced computer geek who has every IM service known to man, and several dozen contacts on each, but can't make eye contact with someone of the opposite gender to save their life, has become a cliche because there's at least a grain of truth to it. Online introduction services take some of the anxiety out of the process. However, as you might expect, people who are socially awkward don't always take safety concerns into consideration, which is why I would prefer to see more emphasis on group activities.
Now, having said that, I have people who I consider to be good friends on my ICQ contact list, who I have never met (much as I might like to.) But, for every person who makes the grade, there are at least 50 who I would have been perfectly happy had they never stumbled across my profile. At least the "ignore" button takes care of them.
Now, here's a question: what do you do when the lady who responds to you is more of a LotR geek (and wellspring of useless knowledge) than you are?
No... but it makes my mouth water. ;)
Mind you, I don't doubt that if Christopher could throw a monkey wrench into the works, he would. He's not even talking to his own son right now, because his son (Simon Tolkien) is a fan of the films.
[sarcasm] For shame, Simon; for shame! [/sarcasm] Here sir; you can have the seat next to me for the opening of RotK. I'll even share my popcorn. And my industrial sized box of tissues.
In situations like this, the parent company is perfectly happy to take a hands-off approach, because it's in their best interest in the long run. In other words; let the kids squabble. It'll mean that more money goes into AOL/TW's pocket if anything gets done. And if not, the parent company hasn't lost anything.
Chalk up another one for the Big, Evil, Faceless Corporation (TM).
In 1976, the Saul Zaentz Co., doing business as Tolkien Enterprises, acquired rights to both The Hobbit and LotR. This agreement included the film rights. Tolkien Enterprises entered into an agreement with WB so that they could film the Rankin & Bass animated version of The Hobbit. Now comes the fun part: WB still has those rights, and they're sitting on them like a broody hen with only one egg.
New Line can't greenlight Peter -- they don't have the rights, and aren't likely to get them in the near future. Rumor has it that a few of the key brass over at the Frog Studio are a little cheesed off about the fact that a bunch of Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, and other assorted mangy fairy-tale creatures have been collectively kicking the backside of a certain boy wizard at the box office for the past two Christmases running. Heh.
Now OTOH, the Tolkien Estate is being a pain in the butt about the idea of a movie museum in Wellington. And for that, Christopher Tolkien can rightly be accused of behaving like the dog in the manger.
Personally, until I have confirmation from the source, I see nothing that warrants getting my knickers into a twist. As of this moment, the purchase plan is nothing but a rumor; kind of like the official release date for Duke Nukem Forever.
Many people have fairly common names. When I order a book from my favorite independent bookstore, the order desk has to scroll past about 75 entries to find my address among all of the other same-names in the database, and this is just one (relatively small) company's listing. You could easily be screwing yourself out of a valuable employee, just because s/he has the misfortune to share a moniker with a club DJ, or someone of an even less savory nature.
Google is a great tool, but it isn't a valid replacement for the interview process.
Saruman did not chuck the palantir out the window.
Grima Wormtongue did. And apparently caught absolute bloody hell from his boss for the act, once Sharky figured out just what his little stooge had tried to bounce off of Gandalf's skull.
Geez. Leave it to the girl geek to get the details right... ;)
The druids, however, were not a tribe themselves, but rather a priestly caste among the early Celtic peoples. (Druid priest is therefore somewhat redundant.) They were also responsible for law, the pronouncement of legal judgements, and keeping of history. It's not entirely accurate to say that they had no written language, as they did have a system of writing; it just wasn't particularly widespread. Reason being, the lawyers (brehon) and bards had to memorize everything -- without changing or forgetting a single word -- during their training, which lasted about 20 years.
Now, lest this be completely off-topic, there's some reasonably educated speculation that Stonehenge could have been used as an astronomical calendar for both lunar and solar observations. Apparently, the lunar calculations are pretty accurate, for people without slide rules. (Not necesssarily the druids, although they are firmly linked to Stonehenge in popular imagination.)
As I said at first: don't know where you read the story, but a mis-timed eclipse isn't the most likely culprit for the downfall of the early Celts (or the druids.) We have Julius Caesar to thank for that one. ;)
One gal has gone through her second complete hip replacement. Why? Because the first one rejected. She's not even 40. I was born mostly missing one hip socket. I got lucky; the socket finally grew deep enough to work, but I could still be staring down the edge of a scalpel in the future. And if I'm going to go through the 6 - 9 damn months that it usually takes to get mobile again, I'm going to want that new joint to outlast me, if at all possible.
Add in things like injuries that can't be corrected by arthroscopic surgery, compound or crush fractures, bone-lengthening surgeries for deformed limbs, and a host of other skeletal problems, and I'd say that this research stands to make life better for a whole lot of people out there. IMNSGDHO.
This wasn't one of the talking heads from Fox News, was it? Sure seems like something that the "Fair and Balanced" (TM) Network would come up with.
Even if this is nothing more than a collection of rumors, as has been postulated elsewhere, the mere possibility that a purchase like this could happen tends to make me think that another DoJ action is long overdue. Although it would be nice to see a decision -- and penalty -- with some teeth in it, this time.
Here's hoping that someone at the FTC has the sense to say "You've got to be kidding..."
mushroom
pron. mush'room
noun
1) Any of various fleshy fungi of the class Basidiomycota, characteristically having an umbrella-shaped cap borne on a stalk, especially any of the edible kinds, as those of the genus Agaricus.
2) Something shaped like one of these fungi.
Unless you're trying to say that portabellas and shitakes are made out of beef, I'm seeing fungus among us. ;)
"It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours; far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves. Of old they spoke the languages of Men, after their own fashion, and liked and disliked much the same things as Men did. But what exactly our relationship is can no longer be discovered..." ("The Fellowship of the Ring", from the Prologue.)
So -- there ya go. ;)