THE PREPOSTEROUS BOLLOX OF THE SITUATION
-
Mila Kunis photographed by Craig McDean
-
Carey Mulligan: Carey, Carey, Quite Contrary - W by Michael Thompson, January 2012
-
-
Mila Kunis by Ruven Afanador
-
He said Star Trek is too “philosophical”? Screw that noise.
I don’t...
“Welcome to the BBFC Classification Guidelines Review online survey.
“From Friday 1 March for six weeks, anyone is able to complete the online survey, helping to contribute to the large scale public consultation exercise the BBFC carries out every 4-5 years. The Review ensures the BBFC Classification Guidelines for age rating films are in step with public opinion.
“The online survey is an important part of the Classification Guidelines Review process and we’re keen for both adults and young people to take part. The survey takes around 10 minutes to complete.
“The results of the online survey will be processed alongside the results of nationwide focus groups, telephone interviews and specialist research, giving the BBFC the views of around 10,000 members of the public. The updated BBFC Classification Guidelines will be published at the end of 2013. The previous BBFC Classification Guidelines Review was carried out in 2009…”
“Brand new covers for five of George Orwell’s works feature in a new series published today by Penguin and designed by David Pearson. The set includes a remarkable take on Orwell’s most well known novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four…
“Pearson’s adept use of type – as demonstrated in his work on Penguin’s Great Ideas series of short, influential texts – is once again at the fore of each of the designs. And that includes what is perhaps one of Penguin’s most radical covers of recent years, for Nineteen Eighty-Four, where the title and author’s name are almost completely obscured by black foiling.”
“The BBFC, who have made great (and rather disingenuous) play of the fact that they no longer cut films except when absolutely necessary (a necessity caused by their own self-imposed rules rather than any evidence of harm, I should point out), recently carried out what they laughably call ‘research’ into public attitudes towards depictions of rape, sexual and sadistic violence (so, no leading phrases there…). In this case, 35 people across London, Bristol and Dundee were asked to watched and comment on a number of recent controversial films that had either been passed uncut, cut or banned.
“Let’s think about that for a moment. 35 people in three cities – two in the South of England and one in Scotland. No serious scientific researcher or public opinion market researcher would consider this to be anywhere near the number and variety required to use to gain any level of information about public attitudes…”
(via humortrain)
“…Giles Coren…(has) just got a few words to say. It’s a piece that was supposed to go in The Times on Saturday, you see - only they wouldn’t run it…”
“The New Yorker has a Facebook page, which a lot of you like, or maybe it’s just one person with a lot of time on their hands, liking the page over and over again. But in any case, it’s a whole lotta like. We like that.
“What we don’t like is that we got temporarily banned from Facebook for violating their community standards on “Nudity and Sex,” by posting this Mick Stevens cartoon…”
Mark Kermode:
“A few weeks ago I posted that The Hunger Games had been cut to get a 12A certificate in the UK.
This started a debate about who was really responsible and whether it was censorship or marketing…”
“On TechDirt, Glyn Moody reports the outrageous news that the Australian government refuses to release any substantive information on the secret copyright enforcement meetings it held, redacting nearly the entirety of the documents before releasing them to a Freedom of Information request.”
“We’re heading to a world where there are just a handful of influential bookstores (Amazon, Apple, Nook…) and one by one, the principles of open access are disappearing. Apple, apparently, won’t carry an ebook that contains a link to buy a hardcover book from Amazon.
“That’s amazing to me. It must be a mistake, right?”
“The policy would ban the selling of ebooks that contain “bestiality, rape-for-titillation, incest and underage erotica.” Trying to apply these definitions to all forms of literary expression raise questions that can only have subjective answers. Would Nabokov’s Lolita be removed from online stores, as it explores issues of pedophilia and consent in soaring, oft-romantic language? Will the Bible be banned for its description of incestuous relationships?”
The British Board of Film Classification’s ratings report on David Lynch’s Eraserhead.
“There’s a conspiracy theory going around courtesy of one Mike Mozart that alleges that the very backers of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) legislation actually created the very piracy they are now trying to combat, as some nefarious money making/power grabbing scam.”
Click the link for the full post; bullet points are as follows:
- 1. The USA is already a functional oligarchy…
- 2. It’s impossible to be elected to high office without so much money that anyone in high office is, by definition, part of the 0.1%…
- 3. Public austerity is a great cover for the expropriation of wealth by the rich…
- 4. Starving poor people with guns and nothing to lose scare the rich…
- 5. Worse, the poor have smartphones…
- 6. The oligarchs are therefore pre-empting the pre-revolutionary situation by militarizing the police (as guard labour)…
- 7. Modern communications technologies (including the internet) provide people with a limitless channel for self-expression…
- 8. So I infer that the purpose of SOPA is to close the loop, and allow the oligarchy to shut down hostile coordinating sites as and when the anticipated revolution kicks off…
“We usually strive to come up with our own headlines for posts on Techdirt, but Joshua Kopstein’s post on Motherboard.tv has such a perfect title that we’re reusing it here: Dear Congress, It’s No Longer OK To Not Know How The Internet Works. The point, which was driving so many of us mad watching the SOPA hearings, is how head-bangingly frustrating it is to see elected officials gleefully admit they don’t understand the technology they’re about to regulate…”
