061413 ♥ 392Founders Online
Yesterday afternoon, the National Archives launched Founders Online—a tool for seamless searching across the Papers of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton. A partnership between the University of Virginia Press and the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, you can read more about this massive undertaking at Prologue: The Papers of the Founding Fathers Are Now Online
National History Day winners had the honor of making the inaugural search, reportedly using the keyword “Cheese.”
But what kind of cheese did the Founders favor? We found at least 2 hits for “Stilton” — the “king” of cheeses. Maybe some intrepid Tumblarians can find a more egalitarian variety within?
We tread upon the mythic ground of religions and civilizations that far predate “Western” nations and Christianity; we dream of traveling amid stars that were named by Arab astronomers, using the numbers they devised to help us find our way; we retell the colonization stories that were life and death for the Irish and the English and the Inka and the Inuit; we find drama in the struggles of the marginalized and not-quite-assimilated of every society. Speculative fiction is at its core syncretic; this stuff doesn’t come out of nowhere. And it certainly didn’t spring solely from the imaginations of a bunch of beardy old middle-class middle-American guys in the 1950s.
….
So I propose a solution — which I would like to appropriate, if you will allow, from Australia’s history and present. It is time for a Reconciliation within SFF.
It is time that we all recognized the real history of this genre, and acknowledged the breadth and diversity of its contributors. It’s time we acknowledged the debt we owe to those who got us here — all of them. It’s time we made note of what ground we’ve trodden upon, and the wrongs we’ve done to those who trod it first. And it’s time we took steps — some symbolic, some substantive — to try and correct those errors. I do not mean a simple removal of the barriers that currently exist within the genre and its fandom, though doing that’s certainly the first step. I mean we must now make an active, conscious effort to establish a literature of the imagination which truly belongs to everyone.
"
Today I have an article at io9 about adaptation vs. interrogation, Elementary’s first season, and the handling of two true Baker Street Irregulars! Spoilers for the first season, and also for bees.
…But now that its first season is over, we’re realizing this show understands the Arthur Conan Doyle canon — it’s just not afraid to ask questions. Here’s why Elementary is the Sherlock Holmes we never knew we always needed.- Elementary Demonstrates the Right Way to Adapt a Classic Hero
There are, generally, two ways to adapt a work: portrayal or interrogation. The former brings canon to life faithfully, for values of ‘faithfully’ ….Interrogation takes the work into conversation with its mythos. In a crowded canon, this approach can say more about the source than a straight adaptation. It’s why Galaxy Questis the best Star Trekmovie.
I just realized while reading this article, all my favorite adaptations are Interrogations not Portrayals, and I really do think Galaxy Quest is the best Start Trek movie, It gets the optimism of the original in ways I really do not think J.J. Abrams nuTrek adaption does.
052113 ♥ 213
050713 ♥ 155This is how one pictures the unicorn of history. Its face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, it sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it in front of its hooves. The unicorn would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in its wings with such violence that the unicorn can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels it into the future to which its back is turned, while the pile of debris before it grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress.
Why Is Congress Trying to Make Our Internet Abuse Laws Worse, not Better? - Politics - The Atlantic
Some reforms to the CFAA are headed in the wrong direction.
Terms of service on websites routinely say, for instance, that users must enter only truthful information. As Judge Alex Kozinski, a Reagan appointee, wrote, the law — at least as the government reads it — means that “describing yourself as ‘tall, dark and handsome’ [on a dating website] when you’re actually short and homely [could] earn you a handsome orange jumpsuit.”
Via groklaw
(via chrischelberg)
(via chrischelberg)
But c’mon. 2.2% up, 0.1% down; you say potato, I say eliminate food stamps. And for Pete’s sake, how were Ren and Stimpy supposed to know that their paper — which has brought austerity to millions — was flawed? It wasn’t peer-reviewed.
So, no one needs to fact-check them. …
Now after publication in 2010, one economist complained that they refused to share their data. Well, of course they didn’t share their data. If they can’t use Excel, I doubt they could send an e-mail attachment. ..
But folks, Siegfried and Roy are standing by their results, saying:
CARMEN REINHART & KENNETH ROGOFF (4/16/2013): The weight of the evidence to date — including this latest comment [by Herndon] seems entirely consistent with our original interpretation of the data.
Right! Entirely consistent with their interpretation, because no matter how much the results change, the hypothesis must remain the same. That’s science!
Stephen Colbert rips apart debunked austerity economics paper
Peer review is important! “And for Pete’s sake, how were Ren and Stimpy supposed to know that their paper — which has brought austerity to millions — was flawed? It wasn’t peer-reviewed. “
