More On Web 2.0, Ayn Rand, And A Bit With A Dog. That’s What People Want.

No, no, not “moron” Web 2.0, “more on” Web 2.0. Gee, it’s like you were trying to mis-read me on purpose. Really!

I’ve read several blog posts in the past week that echo my confusion regarding Web 2.0. It seems as though I’m not the only one whose bullshit detector went off. Now Joel Spolsky has a hilarious rant up on his blog about the same topic.

Now, if only I could get him to quit griping about one of my favorite groups, Creative Commons. (In fairness, it was a minor, offhand gripe.) I just got home from Barnes & Noble, where I bought the “centennial” edition of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. I haven’t really thought about this book since high school, aside from some conversations with friends at work, and I thought it’d be a good time to see how my perspective has changed in the meantime. It’s not really centennial, in the sense that the book was published in 1957, not 1905, which is when Rand was born. But it’s as nice of a paperback edition as you can reasonably ask for, so it is forgiven for being misleadingly labeled.

Political Rant Follows; Read At Your Own Risk

Then, I realized that I can get the entire Harvard Classics and Shelf of Fiction, all 71 books’ worth, for free – they’re in the public domain. Then I thought about my favorite time-sink, Wikipedia, which has tons of content from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, all in the public domain. On the flip side, the way current copyright law is headed, my children’s children won’t have access to a much larger public domain than I have access to now, and Rand’s books probably still won’t be on the list.

As I’ve said before, I make my money with copyright, but at the same time, I happily support organizations such as Creative Commons that work to keep the associated policies under control.

And now, for the bit with a dog

I remember how nobody thought the movie Shakespeare in Love (1998) deserved to win the Academy Award for Best Picture. I don’t really have an opinion on that point, but as I was reading my latest Shakespeare bio (Will in the World), I was repeatedly impressed with some of the historical bits the movie got right. They most certainly took a ton of creative license regarding the main storyline, but a lot of the details were represented well. Don’t take the film too seriously, but it’s clearly not the junk that a lot of people were calling it at the time. Plus, it has a bit with a dog in it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *