Sáb - Abril 22, 2006
The Worst President in History?
Artículo de un reconocido historiador
norteaméricano en Rolling
Stone.
Far from being the conservative he said he was, Bush has blazed a radical new path as the first American president in history who is outwardly hostile to science -- dedicated, as a distinguished, bipartisan panel of educators and scientists (including forty-nine Nobel laureates) has declared, to "the distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends."
Posted at 10:34 AM
Mié - Julio 20, 2005
James Doohan, 1920-2005
Scotty, de Star Trek
Murió
Scotty quien siempre respondía a la famosa frase "beam me up!,
Scotty".
Mi mejor recuerdo es de la película "Star Trek IV, The Voyage Home" de 1986 (soy muy joven para ser fanático de la serie original) en la que la tripulación del Enterprise vuelve al Siglo XX a salvar a las ballenas. Scotty va a una fábrica a tratar de preparar un tanque para el Enterprise, pide prestada una computadora y le dan una Macintosh Plus. Después de quedársela viendo un rato, levanta el mouse, se lo lleva a la boca y dice "Computer!..."
Mi mejor recuerdo es de la película "Star Trek IV, The Voyage Home" de 1986 (soy muy joven para ser fanático de la serie original) en la que la tripulación del Enterprise vuelve al Siglo XX a salvar a las ballenas. Scotty va a una fábrica a tratar de preparar un tanque para el Enterprise, pide prestada una computadora y le dan una Macintosh Plus. Después de quedársela viendo un rato, levanta el mouse, se lo lleva a la boca y dice "Computer!..."
Posted at 03:02 PM
Mié - Junio 29, 2005
Ronald Reagan vs. Winston Churchill
La diferencia entre los estadounidenses y los
británicos.
Una encuesta
realizada por el Discovery Channel y AOL, en la que participaron 2,4 millones de
estadounidenses arrojó que el más grande estadounidense de la historia
es Ronald Reagan. Entre los 10 primeros: George W. Bush (número 6), Bill
Clinton (7) y Oprah Winfrey (9); 6 de los 10 fueron presidentes, ningún
científico, un artista (Elvis
Presley).
La BBC hizo algo similar con los británicos en 2002. El más grande: Winston Churchill. Otros: Brunel (ingeniero, número 2), Darwin (4), Shakespeare (5), Newton (6), Lennon (7); más científicos, ingenieros y artistas que líderes políticos.
Creo que las encuestas dicen mucho de los dos gentilicios.
La BBC hizo algo similar con los británicos en 2002. El más grande: Winston Churchill. Otros: Brunel (ingeniero, número 2), Darwin (4), Shakespeare (5), Newton (6), Lennon (7); más científicos, ingenieros y artistas que líderes políticos.
Creo que las encuestas dicen mucho de los dos gentilicios.
Posted at 04:15 PM
Mié - Abril 6, 2005
YaGoohoo!gle
Agarra un poco de Yahoo! y un poco de Google,
añade agua y mezcla. Deja reposar por dos segundos y obtienes YaGoohoo!gle.
Posted at 06:20 AM
Lun - Marzo 21, 2005
Guía del migrante mexicano
Esta
guía, publicada por la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores
de México, da algunos datos sobre cómo manejarse al emigrar
ilegalmente a los Estados Unidos.
Posted at 10:12 AM
Vie - Marzo 4, 2005
Rinus Michels 1928-2005, creador del "Fútbol Total"
Michels creó el estilo de fútbol más
bonito que yo haya visto. Fue el director técnico de las selecciones de
Holanda, finalista en el mundial de 1974 (con Cruyff, Neeskens, Krol y
Rensenbrink), y luego de la que ganó en la Eurocopa 1988 (con van Basten,
Gullit y Rijkaard).
Cruyff dice que su legado fue la filosofía de que el mejor fútbol no sólo es exitoso, sino que también puede ser emocionante y bello para el expectador.
Algún día le contaré a Matías y Damián de Michels y sus jugadores, como mi papá me ha contado de Pelé.
La foto es de Michels en la Eurocopa 1988.
Cruyff dice que su legado fue la filosofía de que el mejor fútbol no sólo es exitoso, sino que también puede ser emocionante y bello para el expectador.
Algún día le contaré a Matías y Damián de Michels y sus jugadores, como mi papá me ha contado de Pelé.
La foto es de Michels en la Eurocopa 1988.
Posted at 02:33 AM
Lun - Febrero 21, 2005
Hunter S. Thompson (1937-2005)
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn
pro."
Autor de
Hells Angels, Fear and Loathing in Las
Vegas y
Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail
'72. Columnista de ESPN
y Rolling
Stone.
Releyendo algunas de sus columnas, la que escribió en ESPN el 12 de septiembre de 2001 creo que es una excelente muestra de su estilo.
In a recent piece for Rolling Stone on the 2004 presidential campaign, he called George Bush a "treacherous little freak."
Observing President Bush's poor performance in a debate with "my man" John Kerry, he wrote for the magazine, "I almost felt sorry for him, until I heard someone call him 'Mister President,' and then I felt ashamed."
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone," he once said, "but they've always worked for me."
Releyendo algunas de sus columnas, la que escribió en ESPN el 12 de septiembre de 2001 creo que es una excelente muestra de su estilo.
In a recent piece for Rolling Stone on the 2004 presidential campaign, he called George Bush a "treacherous little freak."
Observing President Bush's poor performance in a debate with "my man" John Kerry, he wrote for the magazine, "I almost felt sorry for him, until I heard someone call him 'Mister President,' and then I felt ashamed."
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone," he once said, "but they've always worked for me."
Posted at 06:56 PM
Unintelligent Design
De
la revista del New York Times (20 de febrero de 2005): algunos
"científicos" proponen enseñar una alternativa a la Evolución -
el "Diseño
Inteligente".
One beauty of Darwinism is the intellectual freedom it allows. As the arch-evolutionist Richard Dawkins has observed, ''Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.'' But Darwinism permits you to be an intellectually fulfilled theist, too. That is why Pope John Paul II was comfortable declaring that evolution has been ''proven true'' and that ''truth cannot contradict truth.''
One beauty of Darwinism is the intellectual freedom it allows. As the arch-evolutionist Richard Dawkins has observed, ''Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.'' But Darwinism permits you to be an intellectually fulfilled theist, too. That is why Pope John Paul II was comfortable declaring that evolution has been ''proven true'' and that ''truth cannot contradict truth.''
Unintelligent
Design
By JIM HOLT
Recently a school district in rural Pennsylvania officially recognized a supposed alternative to Darwinism. In a one-minute statement read by an administrator, ninth-grade biology students were told that evolution was not a fact and were encouraged to explore a different explanation of life called intelligent design. What is intelligent design? Its proponents maintain that living creatures are just too intricate to have arisen by evolution. Throughout the natural world, they say, there is evidence of deliberate design. Is it not reasonable, then, to infer the existence of an intelligent designer? To evade the charge that intelligent design is a religious theory -- creationism dressed up as science -- its advocates make no explicit claims about who or what this designer might be. But students will presumably get the desired point. As one Pennsylvania teacher observed: ''The first question they will ask is: 'Well, who's the designer? Do you mean God?'''
From a scientific perspective, one of the most frustrating things about intelligent design is that (unlike Darwinism) it is virtually impossible to test. Old-fashioned biblical creationism at least risked making some hard factual claims -- that the earth was created before the sun, for example. Intelligent design, by contrast, leaves the purposes of the designer wholly mysterious. Presumably any pattern of data in the natural world is consistent with his/her/its existence.
But if we can't infer anything about the design from the designer, maybe we can go the other way. What can we tell about the designer from the design? While there is much that is marvelous in nature, there is also much that is flawed, sloppy and downright bizarre. Some nonfunctional oddities, like the peacock's tail or the human male's nipples, might be attributed to a sense of whimsy on the part of the designer. Others just seem grossly inefficient. In mammals, for instance, the recurrent laryngeal nerve does not go directly from the cranium to the larynx, the way any competent engineer would have arranged it. Instead, it extends down the neck to the chest, loops around a lung ligament and then runs back up the neck to the larynx. In a giraffe, that means a 20-foot length of nerve where 1 foot would have done. If this is evidence of design, it would seem to be of the unintelligent variety.
Such disregard for economy can be found throughout the natural order. Perhaps 99 percent of the species that have existed have died out. Darwinism has no problem with this, because random variation will inevitably produce both fit and unfit individuals. But what sort of designer would have fashioned creatures so out of sync with their environments that they were doomed to extinction?
The gravest imperfections in nature, though, are moral ones. Consider how humans and other animals are intermittently tortured by pain throughout their lives, especially near the end. Our pain mechanism may have been designed to serve as a warning signal to protect our bodies from damage, but in the majority of diseases -- cancer, for instance, or coronary thrombosis -- the signal comes too late to do much good, and the horrible suffering that ensues is completely useless.
And why should the human reproductive system be so shoddily designed? Fewer than one-third of conceptions culminate in live births. The rest end prematurely, either in early gestation or by miscarriage. Nature appears to be an avid abortionist, which ought to trouble Christians who believe in both original sin and the doctrine that a human being equipped with a soul comes into existence at conception. Souls bearing the stain of original sin, we are told, do not merit salvation. That is why, according to traditional theology, unbaptized babies have to languish in limbo for all eternity. Owing to faulty reproductive design, it would seem that the population of limbo must be at least twice that of heaven and hell combined.
It is hard to avoid the inference that a designer responsible for such imperfections must have been lacking some divine trait -- benevolence or omnipotence or omniscience, or perhaps all three. But what if the designer did not style each species individually? What if he/she/it merely fashioned the primal cell and then let evolution produce the rest, kinks and all? That is what the biologist and intelligent-design proponent Michael J. Behe has suggested. Behe says that the little protein machines in the cell are too sophisticated to have arisen by mutation -- an opinion that his scientific peers overwhelmingly do not share. Whether or not he is correct, his version of intelligent design implies a curious sort of designer, one who seeded the earth with elaborately contrived protein structures and then absconded, leaving the rest to blind chance.
One beauty of Darwinism is the intellectual freedom it allows. As the arch-evolutionist Richard Dawkins has observed, ''Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.'' But Darwinism permits you to be an intellectually fulfilled theist, too. That is why Pope John Paul II was comfortable declaring that evolution has been ''proven true'' and that ''truth cannot contradict truth.'' If God created the universe wholesale rather than retail -- endowing it from the start with an evolutionary algorithm that progressively teased complexity out of chaos -- then imperfections in nature would be a necessary part of a beautiful process.
Of course proponents of intelligent design are careful not to use the G-word, because, as they claim, theirs is not a religiously based theory. So biology students can be forgiven for wondering whether the mysterious designer they're told about might not be the biblical God after all, but rather some very advanced yet mischievous or blundering intelligence -- extraterrestrial scientists, say. The important thing, as the Pennsylvania school administrator reminded them, is ''to keep an open mind.''
Jim Holt is a frequent contributor to the magazine.
By JIM HOLT
Recently a school district in rural Pennsylvania officially recognized a supposed alternative to Darwinism. In a one-minute statement read by an administrator, ninth-grade biology students were told that evolution was not a fact and were encouraged to explore a different explanation of life called intelligent design. What is intelligent design? Its proponents maintain that living creatures are just too intricate to have arisen by evolution. Throughout the natural world, they say, there is evidence of deliberate design. Is it not reasonable, then, to infer the existence of an intelligent designer? To evade the charge that intelligent design is a religious theory -- creationism dressed up as science -- its advocates make no explicit claims about who or what this designer might be. But students will presumably get the desired point. As one Pennsylvania teacher observed: ''The first question they will ask is: 'Well, who's the designer? Do you mean God?'''
From a scientific perspective, one of the most frustrating things about intelligent design is that (unlike Darwinism) it is virtually impossible to test. Old-fashioned biblical creationism at least risked making some hard factual claims -- that the earth was created before the sun, for example. Intelligent design, by contrast, leaves the purposes of the designer wholly mysterious. Presumably any pattern of data in the natural world is consistent with his/her/its existence.
But if we can't infer anything about the design from the designer, maybe we can go the other way. What can we tell about the designer from the design? While there is much that is marvelous in nature, there is also much that is flawed, sloppy and downright bizarre. Some nonfunctional oddities, like the peacock's tail or the human male's nipples, might be attributed to a sense of whimsy on the part of the designer. Others just seem grossly inefficient. In mammals, for instance, the recurrent laryngeal nerve does not go directly from the cranium to the larynx, the way any competent engineer would have arranged it. Instead, it extends down the neck to the chest, loops around a lung ligament and then runs back up the neck to the larynx. In a giraffe, that means a 20-foot length of nerve where 1 foot would have done. If this is evidence of design, it would seem to be of the unintelligent variety.
Such disregard for economy can be found throughout the natural order. Perhaps 99 percent of the species that have existed have died out. Darwinism has no problem with this, because random variation will inevitably produce both fit and unfit individuals. But what sort of designer would have fashioned creatures so out of sync with their environments that they were doomed to extinction?
The gravest imperfections in nature, though, are moral ones. Consider how humans and other animals are intermittently tortured by pain throughout their lives, especially near the end. Our pain mechanism may have been designed to serve as a warning signal to protect our bodies from damage, but in the majority of diseases -- cancer, for instance, or coronary thrombosis -- the signal comes too late to do much good, and the horrible suffering that ensues is completely useless.
And why should the human reproductive system be so shoddily designed? Fewer than one-third of conceptions culminate in live births. The rest end prematurely, either in early gestation or by miscarriage. Nature appears to be an avid abortionist, which ought to trouble Christians who believe in both original sin and the doctrine that a human being equipped with a soul comes into existence at conception. Souls bearing the stain of original sin, we are told, do not merit salvation. That is why, according to traditional theology, unbaptized babies have to languish in limbo for all eternity. Owing to faulty reproductive design, it would seem that the population of limbo must be at least twice that of heaven and hell combined.
It is hard to avoid the inference that a designer responsible for such imperfections must have been lacking some divine trait -- benevolence or omnipotence or omniscience, or perhaps all three. But what if the designer did not style each species individually? What if he/she/it merely fashioned the primal cell and then let evolution produce the rest, kinks and all? That is what the biologist and intelligent-design proponent Michael J. Behe has suggested. Behe says that the little protein machines in the cell are too sophisticated to have arisen by mutation -- an opinion that his scientific peers overwhelmingly do not share. Whether or not he is correct, his version of intelligent design implies a curious sort of designer, one who seeded the earth with elaborately contrived protein structures and then absconded, leaving the rest to blind chance.
One beauty of Darwinism is the intellectual freedom it allows. As the arch-evolutionist Richard Dawkins has observed, ''Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.'' But Darwinism permits you to be an intellectually fulfilled theist, too. That is why Pope John Paul II was comfortable declaring that evolution has been ''proven true'' and that ''truth cannot contradict truth.'' If God created the universe wholesale rather than retail -- endowing it from the start with an evolutionary algorithm that progressively teased complexity out of chaos -- then imperfections in nature would be a necessary part of a beautiful process.
Of course proponents of intelligent design are careful not to use the G-word, because, as they claim, theirs is not a religiously based theory. So biology students can be forgiven for wondering whether the mysterious designer they're told about might not be the biblical God after all, but rather some very advanced yet mischievous or blundering intelligence -- extraterrestrial scientists, say. The important thing, as the Pennsylvania school administrator reminded them, is ''to keep an open mind.''
Jim Holt is a frequent contributor to the magazine.
Posted at 05:14 PM
Mar - Febrero 8, 2005
El videojuego más grande del mundo
En varias partes de Europa, sólo
tienes que pararte frente a algunos edificios, marcar un número en tu
celular y el edificio se convierte en la pantalla de tu juego, que controlas con
las teclas de tu celular. Link.
En la foto, Tetris siendo jugado en el edificio de la Biblioteca Nacional de Francia.
Posted at 09:00 AM
Mar - Diciembre 28, 2004
Fotos del tsunami
Impresionantes galerías (Helmut Issels y
Soi
Easy) de imágenes de fotógrafos que presenciaron el tsunami
en Asia.
Posted at 09:42 AM
Mar - Diciembre 21, 2004
Won't get fooled again
Atrapada por su dirección
IP
Un crimen digno de CSI: la conoció por
Internet, chatearon y se enviaron e-mails, le dijo que quería comprar un
cachorro, la mató y le sacó el bebé del vientre. Hay que leerlo para
creerlo.
Posted at 10:51 PM
Dom - Noviembre 14, 2004
The Day the Enlightenment Went Out
"...surveys have shown, that many more Americans
believe in the Virgin Birth than in Darwin's theory of evolution." Publicado en
el New York Times del 4/11/2004
The Day the Enlightenment Went
Out
By GARRY WILLS
Published: November 4, 2004
Evanston, Ill.
This election confirms the brilliance of Karl Rove as a political strategist. He calculated that the religious conservatives, if they could be turned out, would be the deciding factor. The success of the plan was registered not only in the presidential results but also in all 11 of the state votes to ban same-sex marriage. Mr. Rove understands what surveys have shown, that many more Americans believe in the Virgin Birth than in Darwin's theory of evolution.
This might be called Bryan's revenge for the Scopes trial of 1925, in which William Jennings Bryan's fundamentalist assault on the concept of evolution was discredited. Disillusionment with that decision led many evangelicals to withdraw from direct engagement in politics. But they came roaring back into the arena out of anger at other court decisions - on prayer in school, abortion, protection of the flag and, now, gay marriage. Mr. Rove felt that the appeal to this large bloc was worth getting President Bush to endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (though he had opposed it earlier).
The results bring to mind a visit the Dalai Lama made to Chicago not long ago. I was one of the people deputized to ask him questions on the stage at the Field Museum. He met with the interrogators beforehand and asked us to give him challenging questions, since he is too often greeted with deference or flattery.
The only one I could think of was: "If you could return to your country, what would you do to change it?" He said that he would disestablish his religion, since "America is the proper model." I later asked him if a pluralist society were possible without the Enlightenment. "Ah," he said. "That's the problem." He seemed to envy America its Enlightenment heritage.
Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?
America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then modernity. They addressed "a candid world," as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, out of "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any more, when a poll taken just before the elections showed that 75 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters believe Iraq either worked closely with Al Qaeda or was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11.
The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble those nations less than we do our putative enemies.
Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists. Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed.
It is often observed that enemies come to resemble each other. We torture the torturers, we call our God better than theirs - as one American general put it, in words that the president has not repudiated.
President Bush promised in 2000 that he would lead a humble country, be a uniter not a divider, that he would make conservatism compassionate. He did not need to make such false promises this time. He was re-elected precisely by being a divider, pitting the reddest aspects of the red states against the blue nearly half of the nation. In this, he is very far from Ronald Reagan, who was amiably and ecumenically pious. He could address more secular audiences, here and abroad, with real respect.
In his victory speech yesterday, President Bush indicated that he would "reach out to the whole nation," including those who voted for John Kerry. But even if he wanted to be more conciliatory now, the constituency to which he owes his victory is not a yielding one. He must give them what they want on things like judicial appointments. His helpers are also his keepers.
The moral zealots will, I predict, give some cause for dismay even to nonfundamentalist Republicans. Jihads are scary things. It is not too early to start yearning back toward the Enlightenment.
Garry Wills, an adjunct professor of history at Northwestern University, is the author of "St. Augustine's Conversion."
By GARRY WILLS
Published: November 4, 2004
Evanston, Ill.
This election confirms the brilliance of Karl Rove as a political strategist. He calculated that the religious conservatives, if they could be turned out, would be the deciding factor. The success of the plan was registered not only in the presidential results but also in all 11 of the state votes to ban same-sex marriage. Mr. Rove understands what surveys have shown, that many more Americans believe in the Virgin Birth than in Darwin's theory of evolution.
This might be called Bryan's revenge for the Scopes trial of 1925, in which William Jennings Bryan's fundamentalist assault on the concept of evolution was discredited. Disillusionment with that decision led many evangelicals to withdraw from direct engagement in politics. But they came roaring back into the arena out of anger at other court decisions - on prayer in school, abortion, protection of the flag and, now, gay marriage. Mr. Rove felt that the appeal to this large bloc was worth getting President Bush to endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (though he had opposed it earlier).
The results bring to mind a visit the Dalai Lama made to Chicago not long ago. I was one of the people deputized to ask him questions on the stage at the Field Museum. He met with the interrogators beforehand and asked us to give him challenging questions, since he is too often greeted with deference or flattery.
The only one I could think of was: "If you could return to your country, what would you do to change it?" He said that he would disestablish his religion, since "America is the proper model." I later asked him if a pluralist society were possible without the Enlightenment. "Ah," he said. "That's the problem." He seemed to envy America its Enlightenment heritage.
Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?
America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then modernity. They addressed "a candid world," as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, out of "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any more, when a poll taken just before the elections showed that 75 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters believe Iraq either worked closely with Al Qaeda or was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11.
The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble those nations less than we do our putative enemies.
Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists. Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed.
It is often observed that enemies come to resemble each other. We torture the torturers, we call our God better than theirs - as one American general put it, in words that the president has not repudiated.
President Bush promised in 2000 that he would lead a humble country, be a uniter not a divider, that he would make conservatism compassionate. He did not need to make such false promises this time. He was re-elected precisely by being a divider, pitting the reddest aspects of the red states against the blue nearly half of the nation. In this, he is very far from Ronald Reagan, who was amiably and ecumenically pious. He could address more secular audiences, here and abroad, with real respect.
In his victory speech yesterday, President Bush indicated that he would "reach out to the whole nation," including those who voted for John Kerry. But even if he wanted to be more conciliatory now, the constituency to which he owes his victory is not a yielding one. He must give them what they want on things like judicial appointments. His helpers are also his keepers.
The moral zealots will, I predict, give some cause for dismay even to nonfundamentalist Republicans. Jihads are scary things. It is not too early to start yearning back toward the Enlightenment.
Garry Wills, an adjunct professor of history at Northwestern University, is the author of "St. Augustine's Conversion."
Posted at 06:11 AM
Dom - Septiembre 12, 2004
"I've seen things..."
Las 10
mejores películas de ciencia ficción.
¿Número 1? Blade Runner, de Ridley
Scott.
Los Angeles en el futuro. Un futuro en el que nunca deja de llover y que por primera vez parecía que podía ser. Harrison Ford en su mejor momento. Sean Young, perfecta, algo que más nunca logró. El origami de Edward James Olmos. El discurso de "I've seen things..." justo antes de morir de Rutger Hauer. Daryl Hannah como una bella robot/prostituta/asesina. La escena en la que Harrison Ford le aplica la prueba de empatía de Voight-Kampff a Brion James para descubrir si es replicante o humano. Un soundtrack perfecto de Vangelis.
Se puede hablar horas de Blade Runner, pero lo único que uno tiene que hacer es verla.
Los Angeles en el futuro. Un futuro en el que nunca deja de llover y que por primera vez parecía que podía ser. Harrison Ford en su mejor momento. Sean Young, perfecta, algo que más nunca logró. El origami de Edward James Olmos. El discurso de "I've seen things..." justo antes de morir de Rutger Hauer. Daryl Hannah como una bella robot/prostituta/asesina. La escena en la que Harrison Ford le aplica la prueba de empatía de Voight-Kampff a Brion James para descubrir si es replicante o humano. Un soundtrack perfecto de Vangelis.
Se puede hablar horas de Blade Runner, pero lo único que uno tiene que hacer es verla.
Posted at 06:57 PM
Dom - Agosto 29, 2004
Flashmob - The Opera
In a somewhat unorthodox addition to its autumn
television schedules, the BBC has
announced that next month it will surprise commuters by staging an
opera at an unnamed London rail station, without any warning.
"...the sudden appearance of the singing spectacle,
which melds classic music from the likes of
Madama
Butterfly,
Don
Giovanni and
La
traviata with a new, modern love story, would
"baffle commuters"." You
think?
Posted at 05:39 PM
"Switchers" políticos
Erroll Morris el director de los comerciales
"Switch" de Apple, hizo una serie de avisos
políticos con el mismo estilo de personas que votaron por Bush y
ahora votarán por Kerry.
Incluye un ex-Marine, un ex-Embajador y
ex-Asistente al Secretario de Estado, así como gente
común.
Posted at 10:48 AM
Quick Links
Calendar
| Dom | Lun | Mar | Mié | Jue | Vie | Sáb |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: abr 22, 2006 10:34 AM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: abr 22, 2006 10:34 AM