"They just don't get it. It's one picture that you donate to the world in exchange for your name being mentioned. Sports sponsors have been doing something similar for a long time."
Yes, one picture that you donate to the world and advertise that you will shoot and give away your products for free. Trust me, you'll get a lot of people contacting you to see if you'll take more pictures and give them away for free, too. People calling to offer you a paying job? Not so many (read: none).
I got most of my domains out of there in time but they glommed on to a few (a couple of.org crossovers I took to protect name and a.net I wasn't going to renew). I followed all the steps to try and get ICANN to help me with no success so far.
ENOM will probably have to pay the piper as well for some of their tactics. But yeah, I think ICANN will be changed (hopefully for the better).
Boobox
I ended up going over to mydomain.com and they seem pretty cool so far (and offer they made to registerflies folk was very nice). Best of luck to you.
Could be they don't want to be liable for all those screwed in the Registerfly.com debacle as they didn't do a thing to help the domain name owners (yes, I'm one of them).
Medium format may take a bit longer, but it may follow its smaller cousin... digital backs are available but a bit expensive right now to the average, non-pro photographer (let's see.. new car or digital back for my Mamiya?). I confess, I haven't picked up my 35mm or medium format film camera since I purchased my digital SLR a couple of years ago.. instead I'm looking at the latest digital SLRs and drooling over those. I've never shot large format but as that comprises a small segment of the photo-shooting public, even before the digital revolution, I imagine that will remain the same for a while yet. Probably the same with medium format, but if the prices start to decline, I'll look into it.
It's been a while since I read it, so I did a little Googling and found this interesting article by Phil Goetz here.
Here's a relevant quote:
"Hypertext is text with links. Links take you from one text to another. Sometimes there is a default linear path which the reader can follow through the narrative, and the links are optional.
For instance, say you were reading the hypertext version of Hamlet on an Apple Macintosh. After reading Act II, you might be prompted, 'Should Hamlet (A) kill his uncle, (B) leave the country, or (C) mope about life and death?' You type 'A', and read a considerably shortened version of Hamlet (This exhibits one problem with interactive fiction - sometimes the action which builds up to more dramatic climax is not the action which a goal-oriented reader would take.)...
...Jorge Luis Borges described such a book (though he did not write one) in 'El jardin de senderos que se bifurca' ('The garden of forking paths') in 1941 (Fishburn, 1990):
'In all fiction, when a man is faced with alternatives he chooses one at the expense of the others. In the almost unfathomable Ts'ui Pen, he chooses - simultaneosly - all of them... Fang, let us say, has a secret. A stranger knocks at his door. Fang makes up his mind to kill him. Naturally there are varios possible outcomes. Fang can kill the intruder, the intruder can kill Fang, both can be saved, both can die and so on and so on. In Ts'ui Pen's work, all the possible solutions occur, each one being the point of departrre for other bifurcations. Sometimes the pathways for this labyrinth converge. For example, you come to this house: but in some possible pasts you are my enemy: in others my friend.' (Borges, 1944)
In the same year Borges described a backwards hypertext fiction, the likes of which has never been written, in 'An examination of the work of Herbert Quain' (Borges, 1944). Herbert Quain's supposed book April March was a backwards-branching hypertext. The first chapter described the events of an evening. The next theee chapters describe three alternate prececling evenings. The next nine chapters describe nine alternate evenings before those in the second through fourth chapters with three possible preludes to each of those three chapters. There never was any such book; Borges often pretended to review an imaginary book in order to explain the principles he had in mind for a book without actually writing it.
Julio Cortazar wrote the novel Rayuela (Hopscotch) in 1963, which is a simple non-interactive type of hypertext. He provides two ways of reading it: With or without a set of optional chapters between the required chapters (Cortazar, 1966). To my lnowledge, the only interactive fiction written on paper before it had been demonstrated on a computer was 'Norman vs America', a 20-frame cartoon by Charles Platt based on an idea by John Sladek, published in an underground comic in 1971 (Platt, 1971)."
Julio Cortazar's Hopscotch is a good example of what I guess you'd call an interactive book (pre-internet hypertext? Written in 1966). There were, if memory serves, a couple of ways to read the book; one was to "hop" to certain chapters in a prescribed order.
Remember The Madness of King George a few years back? The original title was The Madness of King George III but they thought that American audiences would want to know where parts I and II were playing at...
While I haven't kept up with the firmware upgrades for Kodak's DCS 14n, I was very interested in the camera when it was first announced (Photokina, September,2002). The reviews, comments and first photos made me decide to wait. I ultimately bought a Canon 10D earlier this year.
Even though I own (a very small amount of) Kodak stock. Why? I don't like buying something that's, perhaps, been released too early to meet some deadline, not that that, *ahem* , ever happens in the computer world. I was and still am concerned about Kodak's late entry into digital photography and that they, while a powerhouse for so long in traditional photography, may not be able to catch up.
The best alternatives (or first choice), IMHO, are Canon's 1DS, though it's about $3000 more (or so), or medium format photography with a digital back ($14,000+? for just the back). I went the cheaper route with the 10D ($1500), switching from Nikon (akin to going from all Mac to all Linux perhaps; it's not quite as drastic as going from Mac to PC), and, so far, haven't regretted it.
Michael Reichmann has another comprehensive (albeit not as technical)
review here.
The Bordeaux 2000 vintage is acutally one of the top vintages in the last 50 years (if you believe the critics) and is being compared to the '82 and '61 vintages in regards to quality and longevity.
Overall, Bordeaux 2000 will probably be better only because the breadth of wines that will be very good (a rising tide lifts all boats). I haven't had a chance to try many of them, but what I've tasted has been very good. Of course, many consider wine drinkers to be pretentious in their use of language and rabid critiquing, but I think you'll find that common in any facet of life that people are intensely interested in or receive income from. Francis Coppola makes very good wines, from his sub-$10 Rosso to his flagship Rubicon, so Spielberg is, at the least, in good company.
C'mon moderators. Off topic? A line from Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarves ("Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to work we go") interupted mid-stream after they find out they're no longer needed? Unfunny, perhaps, but not off-topic.
Actually, Tolkien spent many years (decades?) while writing the Hobbit and LOTR (I forget the actual timeline but know there was a large gap), so no, he didn't have any set deadlines (that I'm aware of). That said, any work of art, compared to something intended more for commerce, IMHO, should be able to stand on its own when presented while the commercial work just needs to make money. And by standing on its own, I mean that the artist should be pleased with it first, everyone else second. At least, that's what writing for spec generally entails, or so I've found.
I think a large part of the reason I (and possibly others) enjoy the LOTR more, in general, is the connection made by repeated readings, the emotional attachment garnered over the years. It's something I've reread every year or every other year for some 25 years. But I also am willing to cut the movie-makers a lot of slack in order to enjoy the film.
But I don't mean to denigrate The Matrix trilogy. I enjoyed them very much and value them for both their artistic and commercial realities. Tolkien's waters, to me, just run a bit deeper and, warts and all, so does Jackson's adaptation. And, in the end, both camps will get plenty of my money.
I certainly don't disagree with you regarding your overall view of both trilogies.
When it comes to an adaptation of a book to a movie, there is definitely going to be changes, omissions, additions and so on, that aren't necessarily justified by the text. A lot depends upon the text, itself, and how it was written. With Shakespeare, for example, the words and directions are fairly literal (though much liberty has been taken in the various films made) and it's probably easier to adapt that to film than it was with Burroughs' Naked Lunch. The same applies to Herbert's Dune. I enjoyed the movie and the Sci-Fi channel adaptations, though both took their own approach in adapting. I suppose I'm just happy to see something visualized that I enjoy, and know that I'll still have the books to devour on my own terms.
Regarding the comparison, I think one could make a pretty good case juxtaposing LOTR and the Matrix films, if you look broadly at them. Good v. Evil? Sure. Frodo needs to destroy the ring to save Middle Earth. Neo needs to fulfill his destiny to save his world. Gandalf to Morpheus? Trinity to Aragorn? Sauron/Saruman to Smith? Of course the differences are in the details but I don't think it's an unfair comparison.
All in all, it seems that we both immensely enjoyed the films (all six!) but just have a different seat to view them from. It's all good.
Off topic, but I couldn't resist. Wal-Mart is soon to enter the retail wine (fermented grapes) business, according to a press release some months ago, and have actually contacted a number of the major players in California bulk wine to brand their own name. At our wine shop, we received an email from another shop suggesting the Top 12 possible names:
12. Chateau Traileur Parc
11. White Trashfindel
10. Big Red Gulp
9. Grape Expectations
8. Domaine Walmart "Merde du Pays"
7. NASCARbernet
6. Chef Boyardeaux
5. Peanut Noir
4. Chateau des Moines
3. I Can't Believe It's Not Vinegar!
2. World Championship Riesling
And the number 1 name for Walmart Wine...
1. Nasti Spumante
The story's the thing.
The Matrix started strongly, with enough subtlety and interesting ideas paired with killer wire fights and excellent effects to capture the public eye; the 2nd film, however, floundered on screen (though I thought it was still worth the price of admission) with less story and more special effects and CGI. By the end of the third film, It was like watching a hurricane, that once was beautifully coiled, rippling with power and newness, dissipate into just another tropical storm named Huey, or something similar. I still thought the third flick was worth my ten bucks but was let down, ultimately with the 2nd and 3rd, because the beginning was so strong.
With the LOTR, the story's already there and strong. Tolkien knew more world mythology by rote than most people have ever heard or read. I remember in college chuckling when coming upon certain dwarf names in some obscure book of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
With that background and perspicuity already in the work, Jackson had to "merely" transfer one great media work to another format (and I applaud his efforts). Did he also make use of the best CGI available? Certainly. Did it work? Yes. Of course not everyone is pleased with casting, cuts, etc., but I've found the three Tolkien films a much more pleasing crescendo when compared with the Matrix.
I think changes between any movie made from a book or books, even the beloved Tolkien trilogy, are a necessary evil as part of the media switch. I guess I'm even geek enough to rather have seen Glorfindel instead of Liv Tyler on Frodo's crossing to Rivendell. The problem, time and space notwithstanding, is the style of book, and whether or not that can be adequately expressed. Whether it's Lowry's "Under the Volcano" or Herbert's "Dune," it's difficult to transform words and thoughts into pictures and movement without some loss. As a fan, I'm willing to give the director/creative team a lot of leeway and will suspend my interior cinema of what I think the characters should look like in order to enjoy what's on the screen. So, on with the show.
Slashdot Mirror
Reverse the polarity to the deflector screen shield. Duh.
"They just don't get it. It's one picture that you donate to the world in exchange for your name being mentioned. Sports sponsors have been doing something similar for a long time."
Yes, one picture that you donate to the world and advertise that you will shoot and give away your products for free. Trust me, you'll get a lot of people contacting you to see if you'll take more pictures and give them away for free, too. People calling to offer you a paying job? Not so many (read: none).
... like just about everything in life, from Amazon.com to Slashdot, caveat emptor.
Where have you been??? We discuss it all the time at both my LARPers Round Table and MUD meetings.
Spot on, kimvette.
.org crossovers I took to protect name and a .net I wasn't going to renew). I followed all the steps to try and get ICANN to help me with no success so far.
I got most of my domains out of there in time but they glommed on to a few (a couple of
ENOM will probably have to pay the piper as well for some of their tactics. But yeah, I think ICANN will be changed (hopefully for the better).
Boobox
I ended up going over to mydomain.com and they seem pretty cool so far (and offer they made to registerflies folk was very nice). Best of luck to you.
Could be they don't want to be liable for all those screwed in the Registerfly.com debacle as they didn't do a thing to help the domain name owners (yes, I'm one of them).
When we get to the point of cryogenic suspension being used in space travel, it's not the process I would be worried about. *cough*HAL*cough*
Medium format may take a bit longer, but it may follow its smaller cousin... digital backs are available but a bit expensive right now to the average, non-pro photographer (let's see.. new car or digital back for my Mamiya?). I confess, I haven't picked up my 35mm or medium format film camera since I purchased my digital SLR a couple of years ago.. instead I'm looking at the latest digital SLRs and drooling over those. I've never shot large format but as that comprises a small segment of the photo-shooting public, even before the digital revolution, I imagine that will remain the same for a while yet. Probably the same with medium format, but if the prices start to decline, I'll look into it.
.. in getting them to cure the darn cold I currently have.
I voted today in California and had no problem with the electronic voting machine. Then again, my presence on this site might explain that.
Actually, geek movies have certainly ruled the box office for quite a while (Check the top grossing films here).
Top 10 grossing films:
1. Titanic (okay... not so geeky... well, maybe a little geekish)
2.Star Wars, Episode 4 (geek enough?)
3. E.T. ('nuff said)
4.Star Wars, Episode 1 (see #2)
5. Spider-Man (See #3)
6. LOTR, RoTK (Classic geekdom)
7.Jurassic Park (geek-o-saurs)
8.LOTR, TT (Classic geekdom, redux)
9.Finding Nemo (Geek fish?)
10. Forrest Gump (Geek is as geek does)
The top 10 certainly is dominated by the science fiction/fantasy/comic book genres which are, natch, close to any geek's heart (including this one's).
Yes, you are correct.
...Jorge Luis Borges described such a book (though he did not write one) in 'El jardin de senderos que se bifurca' ('The garden of forking paths') in 1941 (Fishburn, 1990):
It's been a while since I read it, so I did a little Googling and found this interesting article by Phil Goetz here.
Here's a relevant quote:
"Hypertext is text with links. Links take you from one text to another. Sometimes there is a default linear path which the reader can follow through the narrative, and the links are optional.
For instance, say you were reading the hypertext version of Hamlet on an Apple Macintosh. After reading Act II, you might be prompted, 'Should Hamlet (A) kill his uncle, (B) leave the country, or (C) mope about life and death?' You type 'A', and read a considerably shortened version of Hamlet (This exhibits one problem with interactive fiction - sometimes the action which builds up to more dramatic climax is not the action which a goal-oriented reader would take.)...
'In all fiction, when a man is faced with alternatives he chooses one at the expense of the others. In the almost unfathomable Ts'ui Pen, he chooses - simultaneosly - all of them... Fang, let us say, has a secret. A stranger knocks at his door. Fang makes up his mind to kill him. Naturally there are varios possible outcomes. Fang can kill the intruder, the intruder can kill Fang, both can be saved, both can die and so on and so on. In Ts'ui Pen's work, all the possible solutions occur, each one being the point of departrre for other bifurcations. Sometimes the pathways for this labyrinth converge. For example, you come to this house: but in some possible pasts you are my enemy: in others my friend.' (Borges, 1944)
In the same year Borges described a backwards hypertext fiction, the likes of which has never been written, in 'An examination of the work of Herbert Quain' (Borges, 1944). Herbert Quain's supposed book April March was a backwards-branching hypertext. The first chapter described the events of an evening. The next theee chapters describe three alternate prececling evenings. The next nine chapters describe nine alternate evenings before those in the second through fourth chapters with three possible preludes to each of those three chapters. There never was any such book; Borges often pretended to review an imaginary book in order to explain the principles he had in mind for a book without actually writing it.
Julio Cortazar wrote the novel Rayuela (Hopscotch) in 1963, which is a simple non-interactive type of hypertext. He provides two ways of reading it: With or without a set of optional chapters between the required chapters (Cortazar, 1966). To my lnowledge, the only interactive fiction written on paper before it had been demonstrated on a computer was 'Norman vs America', a 20-frame cartoon by Charles Platt based on an idea by John Sladek, published in an underground comic in 1971 (Platt, 1971)."
Julio Cortazar's Hopscotch is a good example of what I guess you'd call an interactive book (pre-internet hypertext? Written in 1966). There were, if memory serves, a couple of ways to read the book; one was to "hop" to certain chapters in a prescribed order.
Remember The Madness of King George a few years back? The original title was The Madness of King George III but they thought that American audiences would want to know where parts I and II were playing at...
(ducks)
See it here.
I use Zone Alarm and also utilize Steve Gibson's Shields Up! to check my ports.
While I haven't kept up with the firmware upgrades for Kodak's DCS 14n, I was very interested in the camera when it was first announced (Photokina, September,2002). The reviews, comments and first photos made me decide to wait. I ultimately bought a Canon 10D earlier this year.
Even though I own (a very small amount of) Kodak stock. Why? I don't like buying something that's, perhaps, been released too early to meet some deadline, not that that, *ahem* , ever happens in the computer world. I was and still am concerned about Kodak's late entry into digital photography and that they, while a powerhouse for so long in traditional photography, may not be able to catch up.
The best alternatives (or first choice), IMHO, are Canon's 1DS, though it's about $3000 more (or so), or medium format photography with a digital back ($14,000+? for just the back). I went the cheaper route with the 10D ($1500), switching from Nikon (akin to going from all Mac to all Linux perhaps; it's not quite as drastic as going from Mac to PC), and, so far, haven't regretted it.
Michael Reichmann has another comprehensive (albeit not as technical) review here.
The Bordeaux 2000 vintage is acutally one of the top vintages in the last 50 years (if you believe the critics) and is being compared to the '82 and '61 vintages in regards to quality and longevity.
Overall, Bordeaux 2000 will probably be better only because the breadth of wines that will be very good (a rising tide lifts all boats). I haven't had a chance to try many of them, but what I've tasted has been very good. Of course, many consider wine drinkers to be pretentious in their use of language and rabid critiquing, but I think you'll find that common in any facet of life that people are intensely interested in or receive income from. Francis Coppola makes very good wines, from his sub-$10 Rosso to his flagship Rubicon, so Spielberg is, at the least, in good company.
Here's Wine Spectator's look at Bordeaux 2000
C'mon moderators. Off topic? A line from Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarves ("Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to work we go") interupted mid-stream after they find out they're no longer needed? Unfunny, perhaps, but not off-topic.
Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to....
umm, never mind.
Actually, Tolkien spent many years (decades?) while writing the Hobbit and LOTR (I forget the actual timeline but know there was a large gap), so no, he didn't have any set deadlines (that I'm aware of). That said, any work of art, compared to something intended more for commerce, IMHO, should be able to stand on its own when presented while the commercial work just needs to make money. And by standing on its own, I mean that the artist should be pleased with it first, everyone else second. At least, that's what writing for spec generally entails, or so I've found.
I think a large part of the reason I (and possibly others) enjoy the LOTR more, in general, is the connection made by repeated readings, the emotional attachment garnered over the years. It's something I've reread every year or every other year for some 25 years. But I also am willing to cut the movie-makers a lot of slack in order to enjoy the film.
But I don't mean to denigrate The Matrix trilogy. I enjoyed them very much and value them for both their artistic and commercial realities. Tolkien's waters, to me, just run a bit deeper and, warts and all, so does Jackson's adaptation. And, in the end, both camps will get plenty of my money.
I certainly don't disagree with you regarding your overall view of both trilogies.
When it comes to an adaptation of a book to a movie, there is definitely going to be changes, omissions, additions and so on, that aren't necessarily justified by the text. A lot depends upon the text, itself, and how it was written. With Shakespeare, for example, the words and directions are fairly literal (though much liberty has been taken in the various films made) and it's probably easier to adapt that to film than it was with Burroughs' Naked Lunch. The same applies to Herbert's Dune. I enjoyed the movie and the Sci-Fi channel adaptations, though both took their own approach in adapting. I suppose I'm just happy to see something visualized that I enjoy, and know that I'll still have the books to devour on my own terms.
Regarding the comparison, I think one could make a pretty good case juxtaposing LOTR and the Matrix films, if you look broadly at them. Good v. Evil? Sure. Frodo needs to destroy the ring to save Middle Earth. Neo needs to fulfill his destiny to save his world. Gandalf to Morpheus? Trinity to Aragorn? Sauron/Saruman to Smith? Of course the differences are in the details but I don't think it's an unfair comparison.
All in all, it seems that we both immensely enjoyed the films (all six!) but just have a different seat to view them from. It's all good.
Off topic, but I couldn't resist. Wal-Mart is soon to enter the retail wine (fermented grapes) business, according to a press release some months ago, and have actually contacted a number of the major players in California bulk wine to brand their own name. At our wine shop, we received an email from another shop suggesting the Top 12 possible names: ...
12. Chateau Traileur Parc
11. White Trashfindel
10. Big Red Gulp
9. Grape Expectations
8. Domaine Walmart "Merde du Pays"
7. NASCARbernet
6. Chef Boyardeaux
5. Peanut Noir
4. Chateau des Moines
3. I Can't Believe It's Not Vinegar!
2. World Championship Riesling
And the number 1 name for Walmart Wine
1. Nasti Spumante
The story's the thing. The Matrix started strongly, with enough subtlety and interesting ideas paired with killer wire fights and excellent effects to capture the public eye; the 2nd film, however, floundered on screen (though I thought it was still worth the price of admission) with less story and more special effects and CGI. By the end of the third film, It was like watching a hurricane, that once was beautifully coiled, rippling with power and newness, dissipate into just another tropical storm named Huey, or something similar. I still thought the third flick was worth my ten bucks but was let down, ultimately with the 2nd and 3rd, because the beginning was so strong. With the LOTR, the story's already there and strong. Tolkien knew more world mythology by rote than most people have ever heard or read. I remember in college chuckling when coming upon certain dwarf names in some obscure book of the Dead Sea Scrolls. With that background and perspicuity already in the work, Jackson had to "merely" transfer one great media work to another format (and I applaud his efforts). Did he also make use of the best CGI available? Certainly. Did it work? Yes. Of course not everyone is pleased with casting, cuts, etc., but I've found the three Tolkien films a much more pleasing crescendo when compared with the Matrix.
I think changes between any movie made from a book or books, even the beloved Tolkien trilogy, are a necessary evil as part of the media switch. I guess I'm even geek enough to rather have seen Glorfindel instead of Liv Tyler on Frodo's crossing to Rivendell. The problem, time and space notwithstanding, is the style of book, and whether or not that can be adequately expressed. Whether it's Lowry's "Under the Volcano" or Herbert's "Dune," it's difficult to transform words and thoughts into pictures and movement without some loss. As a fan, I'm willing to give the director/creative team a lot of leeway and will suspend my interior cinema of what I think the characters should look like in order to enjoy what's on the screen. So, on with the show.
...they can make ice cream so fast but not help me lose my desk-bound shape? It's not fair. Sigh...