1. Kim Peek has passed away; here is a tribute.
2. David Brooks on Kling and Schulz.
4. A new model of the block universe.
5. A critique of the critique of The Phantom Menace.
Assorted links
Previous post: How to win in Afghanistan
Next post: Yet more evidence for Austro-Chinese business cycle theory
Re: 4
Quantum mechanics is physics’ answer to the knowledge problem. In that respect, the new model makes a lot of sense. Also its not really all that new, some of my physics profs have been saying this for years.
“Everything in the past is a particle in the future, a wave.”
I really enjoyed the first three films as a child.
Ditto what Scoop said. I can’t think of another bad movie that so many people try so hard to defend.
Hmmm, who is taking things a bit too seriously?
Seriously? A DOCX file?
What pvh said.
I thought about reading that, but then I realized that anything published to the web it as a frickin’ DOCX plainly wasn’t worth reading.
As I said about the Obama Administration a few months back, “Gongshow Amateur Hour”.
Nice to see the IMF is up to there same old business model. Make huge loans in order to encourage big new taxes on the middle classes to pay the interest.
Re: Iceland VAT -
Now hopefully when the Icelandic economy eventually recovers, they’ll maintain the VAT at 25% and cut income and other productivity taxes to 0.
Veracitor: It’s quite clear the people of Iceland need to elect a different government.
I think you will find that they did just that if you were to explore the issue further.
Veracitor: It’s quite clear the people of Iceland need to elect a different government.
I think you will find that they did just that if you were to explore the issue further.
Ellis and Rothman suggest that their model provides a straightforward solution to the problem of the origin of the arrow of time. “The arrow of time arises simply because the future does not yet exist,” they say.
That’s a thought-provoking but ultimately unconvincing model in its current form. But it’ll be interesting to see whether Ellis and Rothman can conjure a little more substance from the idea.
What it needs, of course, are some testable predictions, things that cosmologists usually spend little time worrying about. Don’t hold your breath.
I’m thinking Ellis and Rothman are economists upstaged by physicists doing economics models, so they decided they should try their hand as physicists doing cosmic models. As a satisfying theory that conforms to one’s ideology is all that matters to economists, who needs to test any theory, and what applies in economics is good enough for cosmology. Right?
I would argue that there are, in fact, a lot of serious ideas contained in the Star Wars films, including the prequels. But that doesn’t change the fact that Lucas’ ham-fisted direction, poor plotting, lousy dialog, and obsession with omnipresent CGI in every frame totally undermines everything he was getting at with the prequels.
@capitalistimperialistpig you might want to look up the meaning of the word ‘facile’
Artistically, there shouldn’t have been any sequels to “Star Wars”, let alone prequels. The first Star Wars movie was an enjoyable space opera and anything worth exploring in the “Star Wars” universe was explored in that movie. There simply is no depth there. Already in “Empire Strikes Back” you get serious contradictions to the plot in “Star Wars”, and this snowballs through the next four movies.
If you look at things non-artistically, each of the six movies made Lucas lots of money. But then I don’t see how this is a point in their favor for the rest of us.
My semi-heretical view is that each “Star Wars” movie was better than the last. This means I differ with most fanboys in three ways: I think the first movie, not “Empire Strikes Back” was the best of the six. “Return of the Jedi” was not bad and alot better than any of the prequels, it was the most faithful movie to whatever story arc existed. “The Phantom Menace” was bad, but at least told a coherent story and had some interesting characters, so it is watchable in a way the other two prequels are not.
Aha! President of Iceland sends government’s latest plan (January 2010) to have Icelanders pay off foreigners to popular referendum! At last, a chance for rational policy!
See http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/05/iceland-president-blocks-icesave-compensation
Comments on this entry are closed.