Just between you and me (and the other four Slashdotters that are apparently interested in this story), just how did things get to be where they are in the UK? This is a question I've been wanting to ask for a while. I mean, yeah, there is the constant "to combat terrorism" excuse, but I've been absolutely dismayed at some of the Big Brother/nanny state stories coming out of the UK in the last year or two. Not that we here in the States are that much behind (if in fact that's an accurate assessment), but some of what I've read here on Slashdot has been truly alarming. From what you've written, it sounds like the public there is finally beginning to bristle loudly enough to maybe scale back some of this government overreaching.
I agree with you in principle but I will be shocked -- shocked! -- (as the Casablanca line goes) if we ever get to the point where privacy is the default.
First, most people are too clueless to care about privacy. These are the folks who walk around with the "I've got nothing to hide, so why not?" mentality, the ones who can't think at any level larger or more abstract them their own self.
And then you've got corporations that will lobby ferociously against any law that mandates by-default privacy. And unfortunately there's no way that we can get privacy by default without a law. The public is not organized enough to force corporations to change their data collection practices in any meaningful way.
Do you have a legal document with the copyright holder's signature on it saying you are entitled to make a movie based on their character? If you don't, it's probably not a good idea to green-light the project.
DC Comics is owned by Warner Bros and has been since at least the early '70s. Watchmen was published in the mid '80s, before comic creators truly asserted their muscle and won creator rights, so as far as I know, DC holds the copyright to Watchmen. (I can't imagine Alan Moore owning the copyright because he would never have allowed a movie based on his work to made in the first place.)
Now if somehow the rights got away from DC/Warner Bros and they didn't realize it until they had all but finished a movie, then yeah, that's a major legal gaff and someone's head ought to roll.
So the only question that remains is why Kindle is being set up for failure? Simple incompetence? Xenophobia? Or something more subtle?
Yeah, xenophobia, I'm sure that's it. Amazon would rather not have any non-American mitts on the Kindle because... because what, the board is made up of folks who wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing that Australians or Brazilians or Italians were using their precious Kindle? My god, the very thought of it must make them quake!
Don't you think that Amazon is salivating at the prospect of cornering the international e-book market? Sure, it may be tiny now but that's a market that's only going to expand. I'm certain that Amazon would love to be in the UK, Australia, and a whole host of Asian countries, but maybe they have sound business reasons for not introducing the Kindle into those countries yet. Maybe they're negotiating with carriers to make some sort Whispernet available there. Amazon has a lot to gain if the Kindle succeeds internationally, so they must have SOME legitimate reason for keeping the Kindle US-only for now.
145,000 available books within a year of the Kindle's release isn't too shabby, IMO -- better certainly than any other e-book reader that has come to market. And that number isn't counting all the stuff you can get from Project Gutenberg and other non-Amazon sources.
As for traveling light, I'm currently reading Cryptonomicon and next up will be Neal Stephenson's new book or Peter Hamilton's Night's Dawn Trilogy. Amazon has the whole trilogy (how many pages is that?) in one "volume." It sells for less than 8 bucks on Amazon, or about what I'd pay for the the first half of The Reality Dysfunction in mass-market paperback.
We now offer a millennial opportunity for a non-transferable 10,000-year membership to The Long Now Foundation. This Membership costs ten thousand dollars
Shoot, why didn't I think of this? This is genius! On par with the guy who came up with the idea of selling star names!
And when I first heard about this book a month or two ago, I somehow thought it'd be similar in setting to A Canticle For Leibowitz. I was intending to read Canticle before Anathem for purposes of comparison, but based on Anathem's discription, I'm guessing now that's no longer necessary. Still interested in reading Canticle eventually, though.
When I first heard they were making a Watchmen movie, I cringed. I remember what a sham League of Extraordinary Gentleman was, and I couldn't see Watchmen faring much better. Seeing the trailer, along with the recent track record of movies that finally do right by their comic book inspirations -- Iron Man, the rebooted Batman and Hulk -- I'm left with some hope that it might actually be pretty good after all.
I think the less than inspiring costumes may be intentional, as if to suggest that the costumed heroes are operating at one level, while Dr. Manhattan is operating at another level entirely. Another plane of existence, in fact.
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously?
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Agreed. Over the decades, the Batman comics moved from dark to campy to dark again. Nicholson's Joker was some strange amalgam between dark and campy. Ledger's Joker on the other hand is indeed pure psychopath, the Joker as characterized by Frank Miller and Alan Moore.
Of the people I know who are familiar with the Joker character from having read comic books, all who have seen Dark Knight agree that Ledger's Joker is the best interpretation.
I was at Monticello very recently, and I saw Jefferson's grave. If I had listened closely, I probably would have heard sounds of rotational movement emanating...
Today's Republicans are not conservative, plain and simple. They're as "big government" as the Dems, the only difference is the flavor of said big government. I used to say that I leaned Republican and some issues, but now that's no longer accurate. I lean conservative on some issues, including this infuriating FISA bill.
Just to clarify, I never said anything about whether today's kids can handle Bradbury, Asimov, etc; in fact, I'm sure they can. Nor was I suggesting that we equip them with blinders. Hell, let them read anything and everything they want; they're smart, they'll figure things out. I was simply wondering whether today's kids, pre-teens especially, would find those books as entertaining as we did. What qualifies as "entertaining" changes as we get older and I also think that it changes with the generations too. Would today's kids geek out over Tron the way we did? I can't say for sure, but I'd be surprised if they did.
At first I was going to suggest The Martian Chronicles, Fahrenheit 451, and the Foundation series -- you know, the classics. Then I got to thinking a bit and the sad thing is that I'm not sure the kids today would appreciate those works as much as we did when we were their age. If they were to read those when they're slightly older or maybe even as adults, then maybe they might appreciate them more. But now? Probably not so much. I mean, we're talking about a generation that's grown up on a style of television and film different from that that we grew up with. Today, a camera angle rarely holds for more than 10 seconds before it cuts to another angle.
All this to say that I think your recommendation of the Verne novels is pretty spot on. There's more plot and more stuff happens in those Verne novels -- which are indeed great -- than in the works of Bradbury and Asimov which tend to be more contemplative and intellectual.
Replying to my own post for purposes of correction, since I don't want to speak for another person's comments. I should have said that the initial contention was interpreted to be speaking corporeally rather than symbolically.
That trial didn't take place until 2006. The sniper shootings were in 2002, and I can tell you, when we were in the midst of it, very very few people regarded the sniper shootings as ideologically inspired terrorism. It may have been conjectured on occasion, but generally speaking, everyone including all the profilers and other "experts" on television thought we were dealing, if you recall, with some lone, white crackpot. To the Washington region, this was not terrorism in the same sense as we think of with suicide bombings, it was a spree/serial killer.
As for the question of the definition of terrorism, you're getting away from the initial contention, which is what I was refuting. The initial contention
More murders are committed every year on American soil than all the American terrorist deaths in the 21st century. The difference between terrorism and ordinary murder is the intended victim - politicians.
is speaking corporeally, not symbolically or ideologically.
Well, AC, since you're the self-appointed genius here, what do you suggest? All I can do is work within the framework of a representative democracy. I call and write my representatives and I try to vote the bums out every opportunity I get. What would you have me do? Stew, however uselessly, in my contempt for Washington? Or perhaps there's a bastille I ought to be storming?
I live in the DC area and I very vividly remember what those three weeks of the Beltway snipers were like. But the snipers were not terrorists; they were spree killers. They had no political agenda or ideological goals. They may have had a terrorist-like effect on the DC area, and I'm sure they were thrilled by that, but mostly they were twisted fucks that got off on killing people.
In any case, I'm not entirely sure what your point is. You say yourself that terrorism is typically defined by the motivation or the intent of the attack -- and I agree with you on that -- and then in the next breath you then define terrorism as having to do with the intended victim. Which is it? What politician was targeted in that Sbarro's in Israel?
The difference between terrorism and ordinary murder is the intended victim - politicians.
This is a vast oversimplification. Try telling that to the families of those killed in a certain Israeli pizza shop or in the WTC.
I agree that we should not tolerate the constant creep in executive powers, all of which is being made in the name of national security, but let's not lose our perspective on the nature of terrorism either.
And about the FISA bill, make the effort, call your senators and let them know where you stand.
I remember watching something on History or Discovery a couple of years ago where they postulated that the higher density of the wood used for Stradivarius violins was attributable to the Little Ice Age. It was quite an interesting program all around.
I'm of mixed minds about this. I support reasonable copyright laws -- "reasonable" being the operative word there -- and I object to piracy on general principle, but I have to say that the practices of some companies or industries are so egregious that I have a hard time mustering any sympathy for them. Textbook publishers are a case in point. New editions every other year, absurd prices... it's really quite a racket. I remember one hydrology textbook that was about 200 pages and cost $70. I bought the book, copied every page at 10 cents per page, and returned the book the following day. Can't say that I was all that broken up about what I did. Seventy bucks for a 200 page book is ridiculous... and that was more than 10 years ago. I can't imagine what that company is asking for a similar book today.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazon has a 12-page preview and a short video segment with Neal Stephenson here
Just between you and me (and the other four Slashdotters that are apparently interested in this story), just how did things get to be where they are in the UK? This is a question I've been wanting to ask for a while. I mean, yeah, there is the constant "to combat terrorism" excuse, but I've been absolutely dismayed at some of the Big Brother/nanny state stories coming out of the UK in the last year or two. Not that we here in the States are that much behind (if in fact that's an accurate assessment), but some of what I've read here on Slashdot has been truly alarming. From what you've written, it sounds like the public there is finally beginning to bristle loudly enough to maybe scale back some of this government overreaching.
I agree with you in principle but I will be shocked -- shocked! -- (as the Casablanca line goes) if we ever get to the point where privacy is the default.
First, most people are too clueless to care about privacy. These are the folks who walk around with the "I've got nothing to hide, so why not?" mentality, the ones who can't think at any level larger or more abstract them their own self.
And then you've got corporations that will lobby ferociously against any law that mandates by-default privacy. And unfortunately there's no way that we can get privacy by default without a law. The public is not organized enough to force corporations to change their data collection practices in any meaningful way.
Do you have a legal document with the copyright holder's signature on it saying you are entitled to make a movie based on their character? If you don't, it's probably not a good idea to green-light the project.
DC Comics is owned by Warner Bros and has been since at least the early '70s. Watchmen was published in the mid '80s, before comic creators truly asserted their muscle and won creator rights, so as far as I know, DC holds the copyright to Watchmen. (I can't imagine Alan Moore owning the copyright because he would never have allowed a movie based on his work to made in the first place.)
Now if somehow the rights got away from DC/Warner Bros and they didn't realize it until they had all but finished a movie, then yeah, that's a major legal gaff and someone's head ought to roll.
So the only question that remains is why Kindle is being set up for failure? Simple incompetence? Xenophobia? Or something more subtle?
Yeah, xenophobia, I'm sure that's it. Amazon would rather not have any non-American mitts on the Kindle because ... because what, the board is made up of folks who wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing that Australians or Brazilians or Italians were using their precious Kindle? My god, the very thought of it must make them quake!
Don't you think that Amazon is salivating at the prospect of cornering the international e-book market? Sure, it may be tiny now but that's a market that's only going to expand. I'm certain that Amazon would love to be in the UK, Australia, and a whole host of Asian countries, but maybe they have sound business reasons for not introducing the Kindle into those countries yet. Maybe they're negotiating with carriers to make some sort Whispernet available there. Amazon has a lot to gain if the Kindle succeeds internationally, so they must have SOME legitimate reason for keeping the Kindle US-only for now.
145,000 available books within a year of the Kindle's release isn't too shabby, IMO -- better certainly than any other e-book reader that has come to market. And that number isn't counting all the stuff you can get from Project Gutenberg and other non-Amazon sources.
As for traveling light, I'm currently reading Cryptonomicon and next up will be Neal Stephenson's new book or Peter Hamilton's Night's Dawn Trilogy. Amazon has the whole trilogy (how many pages is that?) in one "volume." It sells for less than 8 bucks on Amazon, or about what I'd pay for the the first half of The Reality Dysfunction in mass-market paperback.
We now offer a millennial opportunity for a non-transferable 10,000-year membership to The Long Now Foundation. This Membership costs ten thousand dollars
Shoot, why didn't I think of this? This is genius! On par with the guy who came up with the idea of selling star names!
And when I first heard about this book a month or two ago, I somehow thought it'd be similar in setting to A Canticle For Leibowitz. I was intending to read Canticle before Anathem for purposes of comparison, but based on Anathem's discription, I'm guessing now that's no longer necessary. Still interested in reading Canticle eventually, though.
I've not read everything that Stephenson's written so far, but as I understand it, Cryptonomicon had the most ending-like ending.
Great endings, bad endings, no endings -- regardless, the ride with Stephenson is fun so I'm definitely going to be picking up Anathem.
Yup, Joker was in Dark Knight Returns. It's been a while since I've read Year One and I've never read the Dark Knight sequel.
When I first heard they were making a Watchmen movie, I cringed. I remember what a sham League of Extraordinary Gentleman was, and I couldn't see Watchmen faring much better. Seeing the trailer, along with the recent track record of movies that finally do right by their comic book inspirations -- Iron Man, the rebooted Batman and Hulk -- I'm left with some hope that it might actually be pretty good after all.
I think the less than inspiring costumes may be intentional, as if to suggest that the costumed heroes are operating at one level, while Dr. Manhattan is operating at another level entirely. Another plane of existence, in fact.
Agreed. Over the decades, the Batman comics moved from dark to campy to dark again. Nicholson's Joker was some strange amalgam between dark and campy. Ledger's Joker on the other hand is indeed pure psychopath, the Joker as characterized by Frank Miller and Alan Moore.
Of the people I know who are familiar with the Joker character from having read comic books, all who have seen Dark Knight agree that Ledger's Joker is the best interpretation.
In comics there's a saying -- and maybe it extends to comic-book movies, too: No one ever stays dead except for Bucky, Jason Todd, and Uncle Ben.
(And even that might no longer hold true. I think I remember someone saying that they brought back Bucky a couple of years ago.)
I was at Monticello very recently, and I saw Jefferson's grave. If I had listened closely, I probably would have heard sounds of rotational movement emanating...
Today's Republicans are not conservative, plain and simple. They're as "big government" as the Dems, the only difference is the flavor of said big government. I used to say that I leaned Republican and some issues, but now that's no longer accurate. I lean conservative on some issues, including this infuriating FISA bill.
Just to clarify, I never said anything about whether today's kids can handle Bradbury, Asimov, etc; in fact, I'm sure they can. Nor was I suggesting that we equip them with blinders. Hell, let them read anything and everything they want; they're smart, they'll figure things out. I was simply wondering whether today's kids, pre-teens especially, would find those books as entertaining as we did. What qualifies as "entertaining" changes as we get older and I also think that it changes with the generations too. Would today's kids geek out over Tron the way we did? I can't say for sure, but I'd be surprised if they did.
At first I was going to suggest The Martian Chronicles, Fahrenheit 451, and the Foundation series -- you know, the classics. Then I got to thinking a bit and the sad thing is that I'm not sure the kids today would appreciate those works as much as we did when we were their age. If they were to read those when they're slightly older or maybe even as adults, then maybe they might appreciate them more. But now? Probably not so much. I mean, we're talking about a generation that's grown up on a style of television and film different from that that we grew up with. Today, a camera angle rarely holds for more than 10 seconds before it cuts to another angle.
All this to say that I think your recommendation of the Verne novels is pretty spot on. There's more plot and more stuff happens in those Verne novels -- which are indeed great -- than in the works of Bradbury and Asimov which tend to be more contemplative and intellectual.
Replying to my own post for purposes of correction, since I don't want to speak for another person's comments. I should have said that the initial contention was interpreted to be speaking corporeally rather than symbolically.
That trial didn't take place until 2006. The sniper shootings were in 2002, and I can tell you, when we were in the midst of it, very very few people regarded the sniper shootings as ideologically inspired terrorism. It may have been conjectured on occasion, but generally speaking, everyone including all the profilers and other "experts" on television thought we were dealing, if you recall, with some lone, white crackpot. To the Washington region, this was not terrorism in the same sense as we think of with suicide bombings, it was a spree/serial killer.
As for the question of the definition of terrorism, you're getting away from the initial contention, which is what I was refuting. The initial contention
More murders are committed every year on American soil than all the American terrorist deaths in the 21st century. The difference between terrorism and ordinary murder is the intended victim - politicians.
is speaking corporeally, not symbolically or ideologically.
Well, AC, since you're the self-appointed genius here, what do you suggest? All I can do is work within the framework of a representative democracy. I call and write my representatives and I try to vote the bums out every opportunity I get. What would you have me do? Stew, however uselessly, in my contempt for Washington? Or perhaps there's a bastille I ought to be storming?
I live in the DC area and I very vividly remember what those three weeks of the Beltway snipers were like. But the snipers were not terrorists; they were spree killers. They had no political agenda or ideological goals. They may have had a terrorist-like effect on the DC area, and I'm sure they were thrilled by that, but mostly they were twisted fucks that got off on killing people.
In any case, I'm not entirely sure what your point is. You say yourself that terrorism is typically defined by the motivation or the intent of the attack -- and I agree with you on that -- and then in the next breath you then define terrorism as having to do with the intended victim. Which is it? What politician was targeted in that Sbarro's in Israel?
The difference between terrorism and ordinary murder is the intended victim - politicians.
This is a vast oversimplification. Try telling that to the families of those killed in a certain Israeli pizza shop or in the WTC.
I agree that we should not tolerate the constant creep in executive powers, all of which is being made in the name of national security, but let's not lose our perspective on the nature of terrorism either.
And about the FISA bill, make the effort, call your senators and let them know where you stand.
I remember watching something on History or Discovery a couple of years ago where they postulated that the higher density of the wood used for Stradivarius violins was attributable to the Little Ice Age. It was quite an interesting program all around.
I'm of mixed minds about this. I support reasonable copyright laws -- "reasonable" being the operative word there -- and I object to piracy on general principle, but I have to say that the practices of some companies or industries are so egregious that I have a hard time mustering any sympathy for them. Textbook publishers are a case in point. New editions every other year, absurd prices ... it's really quite a racket. I remember one hydrology textbook that was about 200 pages and cost $70. I bought the book, copied every page at 10 cents per page, and returned the book the following day. Can't say that I was all that broken up about what I did. Seventy bucks for a 200 page book is ridiculous ... and that was more than 10 years ago. I can't imagine what that company is asking for a similar book today.