- A New Scientist article describes the hyperspace work of Burkhard Heim that the Scotsman picked up on last week It’s a more sober article than perhaps I was expecting, which points out the absence of peer review and the obscurantist qualities of Heim’s thinking. Maybe there’s something here after all. It would be awesome if there was, obviously…
- Time Out London’s website appears to have increased in quality dramatically over the last few months And now the site has all of the Time Out Film Guide’s reviews on it as well. I’m not sure it’s the most beautiful site in the world, but it’s certainly now one of the most useful for Londoners…
- Charlie Brooker compensates for all the positive reviews of King Kong with a critique of its hyperbolae… “His bowels emptied, Kong plucks the planet Jupiter out of the sky and swallows it for no reason, while fighting 15 giant crocodiles. And a robot. And a pig.” Great review. Even if you disagree.
- The UK’s “Open Rights Group” is now taking donations to support its work to protect digital rights… I should add a bit of a disclaimer on this one, in that I’ve agreed to become one of the ORG’s (unpaid) advisors. But still, I’ve donated my cash and I’m expecting all of you lot to do so as well…
- Annie Proulx talks about how she came to write ‘Brokeback Mountain’ and what she thinks of the film It’s a lovely article and fascinating – although frankly I’d read anything about Brokeback Mountain at the moment – it generated such an incredible resonance in me…
- “iWeb-Generated Source Code is Awful” Hm. This is an enormous shame, but not an enormous shock – Apple have had considerable trouble working out how to operate effectively with the web, and this doesn’t seem like an exception…
- Is Flock dead already? Fascinated to see such a melodramatic post from the creators of the Flock social browser, and also really interested to know whether they’re pushing the concept further or moving in a different direction…
Categories
One reply on “Links for 2006-01-16”
On the Brokeback Mountain theme, did you read the piece by Laura Craik in this week’s Observer Woman, calling the film a ‘porn-for-women movie’? http://observer.guardian.co.uk/woman/story/0,,1683902,00.html
It’s an interesting perspective I suppose.