Except HoME is largely made up of the various versions of The Silmarillion that Tolkien worked on from 1917 until the 1960s, except for a few volumes that are works associated with the writing of LotR and associated materials.
Years ago when I was posting on Tolkien newsgroups, when the LotR movies first came out, there was sizable debate about this. I think it would be all but impossible to film the entire Silmarillion, it's too big for a movie. Some parts of it, like the Ainulindale, would be rather hard to bring to the screen.
Some of the stories would work very well, in particular the Turin saga, Beren and Luthien, the Fall of Gondolin (the first story of Middle Earth Tolkien ever wrote) and some of the other works. The expanded Narn I Hin Hurin, which is about Hurin and Turin, would make a pretty awesome epic in its own right.
If you go past the Silmarillion proper, I think the Atalante (Fall of Numenor) would make a very impressive prequel to LotR.
Bullshit. The story of Turin would make a damned good movie, though some might not like the ending quite so much. The Fall of Gondolin is pretty good too.
If you play Beethoven's Fifth and Seventh, I think you would have a hard time making that claim. And that's not even comparing him to Mozart or Wagner.
I don't think it's merely perception in your case. Classical music reached considerable complexity, and the modern forms in some cases are even more complex, both in chords, changes and even in the scales used. Progressive rock in many cases has tried to replicate, though not often with as much success, the complexity and diversity of classical forms. You take a band like, say, King Crimson, where Fripp and his cowriters went out of their way to use bizarre tunings, strange chord sequences ripped from jazz, classical and even early and mid-20th century avante garde. The same goes for many 1970s prog rock acts like Emerson, Lake and Palmer and Yes. Some of the progressive rock musicians, like Robert Fripp, Chris Squire, Bill Bruford, Neil Peart, Tony Banks, David Gilmour and Rick Wakeman are considered some of the most talented musicians to play "popular" music. There are still a few acts out there that follow in their steps, but by and large full blown prog rock pretty much died by the early 1980s, which is when I think you began to see the beginnings of a slide towards conformity.
But also keep in mind here that most popular musicians from the post-war period onward did not receive any kind of formal training. While that doesn't make becoming a good songwriter impossible, it makes it harder. What I will note from my knowledge of popular music over the last half century is that those songwriters who did excel were ones who often had a very wide familiarity with music. Take the Beatles. You listen to a lot of their early recordings, in particular the BBC Sessions from 1963 to 1965, you find that these guys had an enormous wealth of popular and obscure songs in many genres; rock, rockabilly, R&B, blues, jazz, show tunes, country and western, in fact they were walking encyclopedias of music from the pre-war and immediate post-war period, so when they went to pen their own songs, even the seeming trifles from early on, they could draw on that encyclopedia to come up with all sorts of odd changes and surprising chord progressions you wouldn't expect to find from four young men of seemingly limited experience.
Imagine a radical shift in the North American Grain Belt, and the US is now reliant on Canada to make up the difference. That is precisely the kind shift in the balance of power. Sure Canada is friendly now, but ho ho there's a trade dispute over softwood lumber or access to the Pacific fishery or the US wants to introduce some protectionist measures over steel production, but I'd Canada gets cranky, suddenly that grain don't flow so quickly south of 48th.
Within a century there may be any number of serious geopolitical wars. As much as oil and other industry-important wars may crop up, wars over water and food are the ones to watch.
1. How do you decide who you respect as far as statements about climatology? What standards do you apply? 2. Who is it that you're studying so far as arguments for AGW? Again, what standards do you apply?
I don't have a Facebook account because I neither have the time nor the desire to put any degree of personal data on there. It simply does not interest me, and heaven knows I post enough on the intertubes.
I think you will find most scientists shy away from attributing any particular weather system like Katrina with AGW. Statistically, it's just about impossible to pick out one weather event and say "See that one was caused by climate change!"
It's a statistical science, like radioactive decay. You can't predict when a particular alpha particle will be emitted, you can only predict at what points you should see rough percentages emitted. The same goes for AGW. You can't predict an individual storm, but what you can do is predict that storm systems will become more frequent and more powerful over time. There will still be years with fewer hurricanes and years with more hurricanes. What counts is the mean.
The problem here is that a good deal of attention is paid to be non-experts; Al Gore, journalists, populizers, who tend to make extreme or absurd claims. The actual scientists seem to rarely be the voice that is heard. It's all filtered, either by exuberant supporters or hostile critics.
At the end of the day, the Universe doesn`t give one single fuck about shills, Al Gore, pseudo-skeptics or any of this nonsense. If it`s happening (and the vast majority of researchers in fields related to climate says it is), then what precisely does your post mean.
This whole notion that it's sane to pose the question of AGW in terms of political affiliation or idea is beyond me. It fundamentally isn't a political question, so treating it like a political question is absolute moronic. Yes, there is a political dimension, but defining your position on it based on your political ideology is as inane and mad an activity as I can imagine.
The Universe does not give one tiny fuck about politics. Lightning will not bend towards or against you because your a Libertarian or a Conservative or a Liberal or whatever. The petty ideological beliefs of humans aren't even specks of dust on a neutron star.
What I remember most from the Bill Gates Golden Age was Microsoft-friendly magazines printing artist's renditions of Chicago and, when they finally delivered, releasing problem the worst TCP/IP stack in the history of the world; pretty much the 16bit Windows for Workgroups stack welded on to a Windows 95 and so hopelessly broken that it often required having to reinstall winsock just to get things working. I know that all too well because I was tech support for a small ISP back in the day.
If it was just the XBox you could see it, but Microsoft has blown a lot of money trying to buy market share in the web portal/search game (how many iterations of MSN are we up to now) and the mobile business. Having deep pockets and the will to outspend your competitors doesn't guarantee success. If it did, everyone would be talking on Windows Mobile phones as they searched with Live/Bing.
The fact of the matter is that Microsoft's vast fortunes were built on its OEM sales to PC endors and corporate Exchange-Office volume licensing. Virtually nothing else they do makes money.
But as alternative platforms begin to overwhelm the PC, that victory will become increasingly empty. Being the dominant PC OS maker in a world dominated by smart devices largely running iOS or Android clearly indicates a long term problem.
Considering how much money Microsoft has poured in to the XBox, can you really call it a success? They bought market position, to be sure, but that investment has yet to pay for itself.
Slashdot Mirror
He's actually done a few narrations over the years and I have to agree, he's rather good at them. I have no problem with him narrating.
Shatner: I'm talking with native Martian life. I want to get to the raw nerve.
Except HoME is largely made up of the various versions of The Silmarillion that Tolkien worked on from 1917 until the 1960s, except for a few volumes that are works associated with the writing of LotR and associated materials.
Years ago when I was posting on Tolkien newsgroups, when the LotR movies first came out, there was sizable debate about this. I think it would be all but impossible to film the entire Silmarillion, it's too big for a movie. Some parts of it, like the Ainulindale, would be rather hard to bring to the screen.
Some of the stories would work very well, in particular the Turin saga, Beren and Luthien, the Fall of Gondolin (the first story of Middle Earth Tolkien ever wrote) and some of the other works. The expanded Narn I Hin Hurin, which is about Hurin and Turin, would make a pretty awesome epic in its own right.
If you go past the Silmarillion proper, I think the Atalante (Fall of Numenor) would make a very impressive prequel to LotR.
Bullshit. The story of Turin would make a damned good movie, though some might not like the ending quite so much. The Fall of Gondolin is pretty good too.
If you take in some of the material found in the Appendices of LotR and the Book of Lost Tales, you probably have enough for three movies.
That's because they're blithering retards. My advice is to tell them to fuck off, and if they still insist on blathering on, go Buzz Aldrin on them.
If you play Beethoven's Fifth and Seventh, I think you would have a hard time making that claim. And that's not even comparing him to Mozart or Wagner.
I don't think it's merely perception in your case. Classical music reached considerable complexity, and the modern forms in some cases are even more complex, both in chords, changes and even in the scales used. Progressive rock in many cases has tried to replicate, though not often with as much success, the complexity and diversity of classical forms. You take a band like, say, King Crimson, where Fripp and his cowriters went out of their way to use bizarre tunings, strange chord sequences ripped from jazz, classical and even early and mid-20th century avante garde. The same goes for many 1970s prog rock acts like Emerson, Lake and Palmer and Yes. Some of the progressive rock musicians, like Robert Fripp, Chris Squire, Bill Bruford, Neil Peart, Tony Banks, David Gilmour and Rick Wakeman are considered some of the most talented musicians to play "popular" music. There are still a few acts out there that follow in their steps, but by and large full blown prog rock pretty much died by the early 1980s, which is when I think you began to see the beginnings of a slide towards conformity.
But also keep in mind here that most popular musicians from the post-war period onward did not receive any kind of formal training. While that doesn't make becoming a good songwriter impossible, it makes it harder. What I will note from my knowledge of popular music over the last half century is that those songwriters who did excel were ones who often had a very wide familiarity with music. Take the Beatles. You listen to a lot of their early recordings, in particular the BBC Sessions from 1963 to 1965, you find that these guys had an enormous wealth of popular and obscure songs in many genres; rock, rockabilly, R&B, blues, jazz, show tunes, country and western, in fact they were walking encyclopedias of music from the pre-war and immediate post-war period, so when they went to pen their own songs, even the seeming trifles from early on, they could draw on that encyclopedia to come up with all sorts of odd changes and surprising chord progressions you wouldn't expect to find from four young men of seemingly limited experience.
If the grain belt shifts northward in the next century it's irrelevant that the US produces surpluses now.
Imagine a radical shift in the North American Grain Belt, and the US is now reliant on Canada to make up the difference. That is precisely the kind shift in the balance of power. Sure Canada is friendly now, but ho ho there's a trade dispute over softwood lumber or access to the Pacific fishery or the US wants to introduce some protectionist measures over steel production, but I'd Canada gets cranky, suddenly that grain don't flow so quickly south of 48th.
Within a century there may be any number of serious geopolitical wars. As much as oil and other industry-important wars may crop up, wars over water and food are the ones to watch.
1. How do you decide who you respect as far as statements about climatology? What standards do you apply?
2. Who is it that you're studying so far as arguments for AGW? Again, what standards do you apply?
Which, of course, has serious ramifications for marine environments.
What is your complaint against Mann? He published, and overall his claims have been verified, at least in the big picture.
I don't have a Facebook account because I neither have the time nor the desire to put any degree of personal data on there. It simply does not interest me, and heaven knows I post enough on the intertubes.
I think you will find most scientists shy away from attributing any particular weather system like Katrina with AGW. Statistically, it's just about impossible to pick out one weather event and say "See that one was caused by climate change!"
It's a statistical science, like radioactive decay. You can't predict when a particular alpha particle will be emitted, you can only predict at what points you should see rough percentages emitted. The same goes for AGW. You can't predict an individual storm, but what you can do is predict that storm systems will become more frequent and more powerful over time. There will still be years with fewer hurricanes and years with more hurricanes. What counts is the mean.
The problem here is that a good deal of attention is paid to be non-experts; Al Gore, journalists, populizers, who tend to make extreme or absurd claims. The actual scientists seem to rarely be the voice that is heard. It's all filtered, either by exuberant supporters or hostile critics.
Somebody is going to pay for it, now or later. Doing nothing means the middle class will eventually take it up the rear anyways.
At the end of the day, the Universe doesn`t give one single fuck about shills, Al Gore, pseudo-skeptics or any of this nonsense. If it`s happening (and the vast majority of researchers in fields related to climate says it is), then what precisely does your post mean.
This whole notion that it's sane to pose the question of AGW in terms of political affiliation or idea is beyond me. It fundamentally isn't a political question, so treating it like a political question is absolute moronic. Yes, there is a political dimension, but defining your position on it based on your political ideology is as inane and mad an activity as I can imagine.
The Universe does not give one tiny fuck about politics. Lightning will not bend towards or against you because your a Libertarian or a Conservative or a Liberal or whatever. The petty ideological beliefs of humans aren't even specks of dust on a neutron star.
What I remember most from the Bill Gates Golden Age was Microsoft-friendly magazines printing artist's renditions of Chicago and, when they finally delivered, releasing problem the worst TCP/IP stack in the history of the world; pretty much the 16bit Windows for Workgroups stack welded on to a Windows 95 and so hopelessly broken that it often required having to reinstall winsock just to get things working. I know that all too well because I was tech support for a small ISP back in the day.
I think Microsoft will be in the corporate workplace for years to come. That doesnt mean it doesn't have serious problems.
If it was just the XBox you could see it, but Microsoft has blown a lot of money trying to buy market share in the web portal/search game (how many iterations of MSN are we up to now) and the mobile business. Having deep pockets and the will to outspend your competitors doesn't guarantee success. If it did, everyone would be talking on Windows Mobile phones as they searched with Live/Bing.
The fact of the matter is that Microsoft's vast fortunes were built on its OEM sales to PC endors and corporate Exchange-Office volume licensing. Virtually nothing else they do makes money.
But as alternative platforms begin to overwhelm the PC, that victory will become increasingly empty. Being the dominant PC OS maker in a world dominated by smart devices largely running iOS or Android clearly indicates a long term problem.
Until you look at how much Microsoft has spent.
Considering how much money Microsoft has poured in to the XBox, can you really call it a success? They bought market position, to be sure, but that investment has yet to pay for itself.
I hope you die of cancer
And as for those unlucky enough to get it through a blood transfusion, they can rot too, right?