f13.net

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270874,00.html
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lucas is currently preparing "Indiana Jones 4" with Harrison Ford, Blanchett and Shia LaBoeuf. The latter plays Ford's son, which means his mother was possibly the character Karen Allen played in "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

"I can't say," Lucas said when I brought up Allen.

Lucas says that Sean Connery still hasn't signed on, but his character, Indy's dad, is in the script. Other than that, his lips are sealed.

"Steven thinks we can keep the whole thing a secret," Lucas told me. "I explained to him that it's impossible nowadays. We can't live like that."

So then, tell me more about "Indy 4," I suggested.

"Oh no," replied Lucas with a smile.

Lucas told me he has seen all the summer movies since his company, Industrial Light and Magic, does most of the special effects. The only one they didn't work on was "Spider-Man 3." What did he think of it?

"It's silly. It's a silly movie," he said. "There just isn't much there. Once you take it all apart, there's not much story, is there?"

Well, it's not "Star Wars."

"People thought 'Star Wars' was silly, too," he added, with a wink. "But it wasn't."

Lucas, by the way, says he is readying "Clone Wars," an animated series for TV that's derived from "Star Wars." Many "Star Wars" characters appear in "Clone Wars," but voiced by other actors.

And here's a little news: Lucas tells me he will make two more live-action films based in the "Star Wars" era.

"But they won't have members of the Skywalker family as characters," he said. "They will be other people of that milieu."

The two extra films will also be made for TV and probably be an hour long each. But, like "Clone Wars," Lucas doesn't know where on TV they will land.

Hello, HBO and Showtime. It may be time to pony up.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why?

My sentiments exactly.

But since it's here, what a douchebag. Lucas that is. He criticizes Spider-Man 3 for being SILLY? Did ya SEE Episode 3, dickhead? "I HAVE THE HIGH GROUND!!!!!" Fucktard.

And why, WHY inflict two more Star Wars films on us? Haven't the children suffered enough?

Why do you always put useless news in General?

Stop making me work.

Awesome.  So if history is any indicator we'll have a Gungan-based movie about how one of those big fishys are trying to destroy the city and some kids stop it, and a crappy song & dance special about some Jedi holiday reminiscent of Easter.

Entirely worthwhile if MacGregor, Christensen, and Portman all arrive drunk and coked-up to perform their bits with visible resentment, ala Ford, Hamill, and Fischer.  God that would rule.

Also, I liked the prequels, so fuck you hoes.  Go suck the dick of whatever the latest "trendy to say you like on the web but probably about to be cancelled" sci-fi TV show is.  There's one of those like every two years.

Having said that, I can't get excited about these piles of little Star Wars spinoff projects.  I saw Vader go into the suit, and baby Luke get dropped off at the farm.  Star Wars is over.

Dibs on Boomer and Claire!

(Do they count even though both shows have been signed for another season?)

Guess I better snag Dualla, Kat and Racetrack then.

I guess that leaves me Caprica 6. ;)

If Connery gets on board you will all eat your words, for this film will rule.

THE MONKEY HAS SPOKEN!

We weren't digging on Indy. We were digging on the crappy SW spin-off projects.  MONKEY NEEDS COFFEE.


Ok, yeah that would be funny to watch, but I don't think it'd get aired these days.  "For teh childrenz".   I didn't despise the prequels either, but c'mon.  Two live-action one-hour specials, you know it's going to be another "Ewok Adventure" pile of drek.

Yes! Our plan to slowly subvert you all with hot Canadian actresses is well underway I see...

As for Lucas, that silly movie comment almost forced my morning coffee out my nose. Don't get your panties in a bunch WUA, I still have plenty of love for the prequals (sans JarJar), but to suggest that they were not exceptionally silly in spots is just ludicrous.

A Clone wars TV series. Can't wait. Figure what? Two minutes, followed by a commercial, followed by a 90 second recap of the previous two minutes, rinse and repeat?

A hundred years from now, after Lucas is dead and his estate loses copywrite on his work, some smart businessman is going to grab all his IP and actually produce something not targetted at 5 year olds and make a fortune off of it.

Because god hates us and punishes us every day for it.

SPIN-OFF. Is there any word more satisfying to the human soul?

Re: Indiana Jones rumors

There was a rumor floating around for a while that Nathan Fillion was in line to be the next Indiana Jones in future movies. 

FUCK. YES.

I like Nathan Fillon a whole lot based on his work in Firefly and Serenity.  I really want to see this guy succeed.

He's in that new show "Drive" although I've not actually seen it so I don't know how big of a role he has.  I've only seen the adverts and remembered him from the stuff you mentioned and Buffy.

You mean, "that cancelled show, 'Drive.'"  It was interesting, but not enough to keep it on the air.

Already? I don't watch TV except for Comedy Central, but if I was going to watch that show, it'd be because of Fillon.

There are 3 Star Wars movies.

I refuse to believe those other movies are Star Wars. I REFUSE I TELL YOU!!!!

Indy isn't Bond.  If they cast anyone else as him, I predict massive failure.

That line has been trotted out so many times, it's not even worth thinking about.

Any Decent Actor can play Any Decent Role.

It's that simple.

As long as they are believable in the role I'd be tempted to agree. And by that I mean not miscasting James Gandolfini as Indiana Jones.

I would actually go see that just to see how the hell it would work.

"Give me the Idol, I give you the whip, you degenerate fucking gambler."

Not when they're playing an iconic role tightly associated with another more popular actor, and they have to be accepted by the public in order for the project to be considered a success.

Nobody is going to go see "Indiana Jones" starring the Firefly guy in a hat.

As ever, you're not correct.

Nathan Fillion could totally pull off an Indiana Jones. He's got that same quality Harrison Ford brought to the role, mainly he takes a great punch and has that "going spare" look on his face whenever someone cold cocks him.

Yeah. because no remake of a film in which the original contained an actor portraying an 'iconic role' has ever been successful.

Not once.

:roll:

Malcolm Reynolds would be a splendid Indy.

However, Lucas would edit out his whip and make it a cell phone or a burrito.

That was Spielberg's loonyism.  Lucas would have the badass swordsman throw a knife that Indy would dodge through horrible digital editing where you'd see his torso stretch, THEN shoot the bastard.

The more I think about it, the more I want this to happen.  The argument that is ensuing over this is grounds for testing the theory.  :-D

There already was another Indy.  He was accepted pretty well...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103586/

I really hope they're stupid enough to make "Indiana Jones 5:  Now Starring That Guy From Firefly.  What's That?  It Was a Show.  Not Ringing a Bell?  It Was a Movie Too.  Still No Idea?  Well Never Mind.  Go Rent It.  That Guy.  Yeah, He's Indy Now."

Just so you guys can eat shit when some TV actor in a hat pretending to be Harrison Ford isn't greeted as Roger Moore playing James Bond, but as the second Darren on Bewitched.

 :roll:

You really are myopic sometimes.  Everyone knows Harrison Ford is getting very old.  There will be very little push back if they go ahead with another movie with some young guy and bill it as an Indy prequel.  As I posted above no one even blinked an eye at the quite successful Young Indiana Jones from the 90's.  Heck, I watched the show and had 0 problem accepting the actor in his role.

None whatsoever.

The Prequels contained approximately 1 and 1/3 movies worth of good, and about 1 2/3 movies worth of suck. I've watched about a third to a half of the Clone Wars animated show, and I was severely disappointed and confused as to why everyone seems to think it's so great. It was pretty much the dictionary definition of mediocre to me.

Two new telemovies? Wasn't there supposed to be a 99-episode live-action series? A series is something that I could actually see working, in the same way that Star Trek did.


As for Spider-man 3. I haven't seen it, but I imagine of ILM did the fx, he'd be gobbing it off as much as any other film ILM worked on. Lack of story? Has he seen TPM?

Young Indy was "Young Indy the TV show" and not an Indiana Jones movie.  The expectations and requirements were different.  What's more, it needed to attract a much smaller audience than a movie would.

If your syndicated television show has five million loyal viewers, it's fairly successful.  If your high-budget movie sells five million tickets on opening weekend, it grosses forty million dollars, finishes around a hundred, and is written off as a failure after doing less than half of what Raiders did all the way back in 1981.

Not to mention the bashing it would get by the nostalgic nerds and closet nerds everywhere.

Your point is, "No one will accept anyone other than Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones."

You are obviously, patently, wrong because it already happened!

As I indicated, statements like that are always wrong, since it only takes one pedant like me to say :  "I don't give a flying fuck who plays Indy as long as the Movie is good.  Fuck me, Get that Bloke off Stargate to do it and I'd be happy."

But WUA never thinks before writing;  he expects everyone to follow his own mindset, which is pretty clearly warped.

i'm such a sucker for that kind of treasure hunter adventure storytelling, that I'd happily accept an Indy series.

I wouldn't really care if it was Indy or not though (just so long as it wasn't B material, like that dumb Tia Carrere series from awhile back).

Relic Hunter sucked balls.

Worse, given the female talent in the show, it didn't suck MY balls.

:(

Mr. Roper wants to kick WUA's ass.

You probably didn't like Samurai Jack either, Commie bastard.

EDIT:yikes! I can't type for shit.

The general public won't accept anyone else as an adult Indy enough to make a successful movie, you pedantic fuck.  The fact that years ago they cast a teenager to play teenage Indy instead of Harrison Ford means what?  It's moderate success means what?

Fuck all.  Syndicated television means shit.  An audience of four or five million viewers puts you in the top ten syndicated ratings today.  If you produce a big-budget movie and it finds an audience that small, you're fired.  You might as well bring up how popular your Indiana Jones puppet show was with your kids, for all it matters.

"If they make an Indy movie with no Ford, I predict failure!"
"Well fifteen years ago a number of television viewers, insignificant by movie standards, accepted a younger man playing a younger Indy that would have been preposterous for Ford to play anyway!"

Does that give me any reason to change my prediction of failure?  No?  So who gives a shit?

Keep on Trucking.

You, apparently.

Hmmmm. I dunno. Maybe the other guy....
(http://www.forbiddenplanet.co.uk/images/D/D2536.jpg)

This is a youtube begging to be made.

WUA, I think you are giving the American public FAR too much credit. They are morons. Most of them likely wouldn't even notice it was a different actor unless Simon Cowell bitched about it.

Totally Awesome Actors to Play Indiana Jones

James Gandolfini
Kevin Klein
Brad Pitt
Benicio Del Toro
Hugh Jackman
John C. Reilly
Michael York
Bruce Campbell
Matt Frewer
Albert Brooks
Matthew Broderick

A couple of those are serious.

Bruce Campbell as Indy?

*Congratulations you win the thread*

Bruce Campbell would be an awesome Indy in the most ridiculous sense.

With Kathy Najimy as Short Round.

Yeah, there are fucking morons on these boards who don't know who Malcolm McDowell is.

Yes who can forget his best work as Alex de Large.

Well he was in "Tank Girl" too, guess he needed a paycheck  :roll:

Hey, Tank Girl/Lori Petty was kind of cute. The comic artist wasn't bad either (same guy who did the Gorillaz stuff). Also, Ice-T played a mutant Kangaroo.


Kind of hard to sit through it though, I'll agree. But it actually did a good job at recreating the comic world, unlike many films of the time. I put it in the same category as Judge Dredd.

Has everyone gone batshit crazy?!?  The world would be a far, far better place if those pieces of shit had never been made.

Hey, Tank Girl gave us the unbeliveable hotness of Naomi Watts with dark hair. Do not diss the Tank Girl.

*blinks* was she the pilot chick? I may have to go back and watch it now...

She was Jet Girl, and a damn site hotter as a raven haired beauty than a blonde. And she's hot as a blonde.

Manager of the Sex Pistols wasn't he?  :wink:

I remember reading an interview with Jamie Hewlett (the artist) at about the time the film was released when he was talking about the concept of Tank Girl with the studio.  Apparently they couldn't get their heads around why Tank Girl had a kangaroo as a boyfriend so asked Hewlett what his reasoning was.  His response was something like "Dunno.  We were drunk at the time and it seemed like a good idea."



That'll be the "put it in a deep deep pit, pour gasoline on it, set it on fire, bury it in concrete, build a towerblock on it" category then.

Connery is out. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070607/ap_en_ot/people_sean_connery)

I just now noticed that Connery retired. And the "The league of extraordinary gentlemen" was his last movie. How sad.  :cry: :crying_panda: :cry:

Huh.

That's worse than him dying. (Retiring that is).

Totally - I didn't even know that.

How depressing.

Is it me or does Connery actually look years younger than Ford in the photo on that article?

Sean Connery doesn't really exist, he's just projecting from Zeist

Aren't you supposed to be  Legion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_(demon))?  Being lesions is kind of icky.

I thought it was an avatar tie in.

I didn't either.  Shit.  That ruined my day.

Yeah, I didn't know either.  But after seeing the interview he did for LXG on "DVD on TV" I kind of understand.   He passed-over roles in both The Matrix and LOTR.. and hell, wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Connery) says it better.


Watching the interview, it was pretty obvious he was lost and fet like Hollywood had passed him by and he was trying desperately to 'get it.'  Since LXG did so horrible, he obviously felt Hollywood was beyond him and it was time to go.  Still a pity.

actually the avatar is an alias tie in, but you do win the intangible prize (exciting!)

start up the improbability drive and bring me the best damn script this side of Lesotho!

this new guy isn't so bad either.

Fairly sure Hollywood HAS lost it.  Sean wouldn't fit in Matrix or LotR.

And no, not Mr Bean.

Frankly, that's what you hire people for. If you're getting to the point where you're a little too set in your ways, too busy, or just don't give a shit enough to keep up -- hire some 20-something that'll work 23 hours a day to sort it out for you. And then if you end up in a crappy movie, blame him and fire him.

Still, what roles in the Matrix and Lord of the Rings could he have been offered? The Morpheus role would be the only one in The Matrix that could possible suit him, or maybe the Architect in the sequels. Morpheus seems too physically demanding a role, so I'm not sure what they were thinking. For LoTR it'd have to be Gandalf or Sauraman. I really don't see him as either Gandalf or Sauraman, unless he can seriously supress his accent. (I would have found it jarring, at least).

They would have written him in some dwarf part.

Simply because it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR A DWARF NOT TO BE SCOTTISH! Got to love media stereotypes.


I think him retiring really is not all that surprising. He rarely got the "good" roles in films that other actors of his generation have gotten in the last 15-20 years, as his accent almost always type-cast him in a certain mold. He didn't need the money anymore, and if he was not getting anything but "bad Bond rehash v. 5098" I can see how he would get disillusioned. It is a shame, as he does have some decent range as far as character development goes (provided they are Scotsmen).

But while I will miss him in Indiana Jones 4, we have to realize that it is a Spielberg sequel. Like all sequels produced or directed by Spielberg they progress farther along the spectrum from dramatic-action movies to pure comedy with each one.

OK I can understand why a man who is over the age of 70 doesn't get The Matrix and the roles associated with it, but Lord of the Rings? What's not to get there?

They were first published when he was 25, but started becoming popular around the 60's.  It's not like the man grew-up with a 'fantasy genre' to get acquainted with.  It's like my parents, who don't "get" video games at all.  Same deal. VGs didn't turn-up until they were in their 20's and only became popular when they were in their 30's.  I imagine there'll be something similar for me... MySpace has a good start on  being it.

He may have meant he did not 'get' what would make people think it would be a successful movie. If a fat kiwi came to you and offered you a part in a 9+ hour movie that was going to be split into 3 parts, would you take the part? Especially when it would require you to remove any other work from your calendar for 2 years? There was a lot of skepticism about those movies actually even turning a profit. It was a huge financial risk on the part of the studios to make 9+ hours of movie in one fell swoop and quite a career gamble for a number of the actors as well.

Amen brother, MySpace is something I do not "get" at all. But, the day after tomorow I will be 30, so that is to be expected.

(http://gallery.elvado.de/albums/structure/USER-RELATED/go%20away/normal_GetOffMyInternet-ba.jpg)

Denethor?  Perhaps even Theoden. 

EDIT: Apparently it was the role of Gandalf according to last November's Scotsman (http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=4&id=1747562006).

I love Sean Connery. But Gandalf? Seriously? That would have doomed the movie right there. He would have tried to play it campy because he does that when he doesn't "get" the part.

I'm sure his people would have had words.  "So tell me again, why does Gandalf get beaten by this Balrog?  Sir Connery doesn't get beaten.  Do ya think you can see your way to changing the script so that Sir Connery beats the Balrog?  And can you make sure he has a snappy one liner afterwards too?  That'd be great.  Now, about the big fight scene with Sauron..."

Sean as Gandalf would have been fucking stupid.

Chris Lee and Ian McKellen filled their roles perfectly - I wouldn't have replaced either of them with Connery.  The only casting for LotR that I thought was off was Hugo Weaving, but Connery fits a half elf less than Hugo did (who I don't think was bad, it's just that I couldn't look at him without thinking him finishing all his lines with "...Mr. Anderson").  Where else would Connery fit?  Theoden?  Denethor?  No, and no.  For Matrix, the Architect?  Maybe, but that would've been too small for him.  Morpheus?  No way. 

Connery for the part of Gimli.

That is all.

Mine is text-messaging.  I JUST WANT TO TALK, YOU DAMN KIDS!  STOP WITH THE ACRONYMS!  Also, Nextel radios.  I don't get it.

I'm only 26, but i missed the text messaging thing in school, so now it just pisses me off. I had a younger girl I was seeing try to send me text messages and then get pissed at me when I didn't get back to her after a week. Of course I specifically blocked all text messages because I hate them. My response was "Why didn't you just call me?" This spawned a 20 minute argument where it became clear she thought I was totally insane for wanting her to use her phone to actually CALL me. So I quit dating her. I'm not putting up with someone that stupid that early on.

I hope you broke up with her via a text message.

WELCOME 2
DUMPSVILLE
POPULATION U

I'm anti-talking-on-the-phone whatsoever.  I will text to my heart's content, but only with a phone that has a keyboard and thus I can spell and punctuate properly.  Damn kids and their lazy shortcuts.

I used to be like that (24 here) but then one job I had I was having to contact work ALL the time to clarify shit because the client and whoever met with them were obviously whacked out. It got very irritating having to preface every call with the "hello, etc" bullshit and then end every call with "cya later" and generally having a conversation with a person when all I want is a quick answer. SMS is perfect for that because you're not actually having a conversation. So now I use it all the time when If I just want a quick response. For example if I want to ask my brother when he's coming home (he just got his licence so has the car to go to school, I should get off my ass and buy myself one but haven't bothered yet) I just send a text because I don't actually want to talk to him right now, just get an answer.

I don't understand the kids that have fullblown conversations in text though, that shit be silly. If you send more than 3-4 messages back and forth you should call them. Especially if you're going out since you probably want to have conversations with them.

Text messages are a godsend in a crowded nightclub, no way in hell can you hear someone on the phone, much easier to send/read a text.

Yes, I would agree with that. However, most people that have pissed me off with it are people where they are trying to skip conversations because they are uncomfortable or giant pussies. This is unacceptable. If you want to ask someone out, you actually speak to them. The same goes for breaking up, asking for help, or congratulating people on a big event. Texting in those cases mostly says to me, "Hey, I wanted to say this AT you because I don't want to talk to you at all. Mostly because our relationship is meaningless."

Breaking up with someone face to face, in person, by means of a conversation is potentially hazardous to your health and should carry a health warning.  In fact that it should be made illegal. 

Breaking up should only ever be done by SMS.

Or Fax.

I think email is best for purposes such as that. Not only is it impersonal, but you may not read the email for days after it was sent. Brilliance.

Good point but I still think Fax is a good method.  Most people don't have personal faxes so you have to fax them at work meaning other people will find out before they do.

I'm in on the myspace hate. I've got a lot of reasons I won't go into related to working in a public library, but it's mostly the fact that our normal patronage can't use the internet after 3pm because the kids swarm it to hook up on myspace. We banned it in the childrens room and a day later they learned how to use proxy sites to get around it. It's like a zombie that you can't kill by stabbing the brain. If I knew a solid way to utterly block it for good, I'd do it and fuck the consequences. We're supposed to be unbiased, but when our computers are denied to people doing research, myspace should go.

And the text msg stuff...I'm older than the cell phone generation. I can see them being handy if your cars breaks down in the middle of nowhere. But going to concerts where people are sitting and text messaging each other and taking pictures rather than watching the show...I'm /glad/ I'm old and missed this generation of technology. People have become completely oblivious with cell phone technology and will think nothing of yapping a gossipy conversation /anywhere/. I need a taser or something.

Some of you people worry me and are On Notice. Breaking up via fax or email? That's douchebag territory and I hope I fell in the sarchasm. People are so impersonal these days. We have all these forms of communication to be able to avoid face to face conversations. Of course email is a great invention and I use it extensively, but I always prefer speaking to someone in person. It's kind of a joke around here that I'm the tech guy, but I am also the most likely to use the sneakernet, because I like to talk to people personally.

I was an inn over  the weekend and when my fiancee asked about a phone in the room, the guy said "Why? Everyone carries cell phones." I don't think he understands the definition of the work 'everyone'. I don't, she doesn't. Why? We borrow a family trac phone for emergencies when we travel, but we've never used it.

Ah, as usual I was not being clear.  Shooting someone a SMS with my Blackberry is great, or getting one even, but if a conversation is what you want then please call me.  If you need an immediate reply, call me.  Also these rules do not apply on a computer, where I prefer IM to actual talking in many situations.  The two big ones are when I am conversing with an Indian and when pasting code; voice is not ideal in either of those situations.

I hate MySpace because it is an affront to all good graphical design. I swear, some of the MySpace pages I've seen make me feel like my ocular cavities have been down on the docks showing the USS Nimitz's crew the time of their lives.

The best thing about MySpace is that it is so crappily implemented and resource heavy that I cannot visit it without my browser crashing. It used to be somewhat usable before old Rupert bought it out. One of the best things about having a 5+ year old computer is not having to deal with some of the crap that is considered "in" today on the internets.

I don't know if it works through a proxy, but in the hosts file add the line:

127.0.0.1 www.myspace.com

Or whatever the name is.  I don't feel like visiting the site to find out.  If it has multiple domains registered, do it for all of them.

Nah, you can easily proxy around that block. New proxies are popping up all the time. Big demand and probably a great way to spread malware.

would it be impossible to just put up signs saying "myspace...and DIE"

maybe an AIBO on the desk playing Misfits songs backwards, fake blood oozing from its lifeless maw

Signs require staff and board of directors approval...and even I am wary of putting in an outright ban as it skirts the mission statement of the library to allow free access to resources, short of porn or other really over the top stuff. In fact, we've discussed filtering and stuff like CIPA, COPA and DOPA...all of which we've outright rejected and fought against here at the library, so we lose out on thousands in federal funding because we stand behind our mission statement (and it's one of the cool things about my job, honestly).

It's a tough situation. In a perfect world, we could find funding to build a seperate teen area for them to hang out in without disturbing everyone else.

Yes, yes you did. 


I should probably have put in green, right?

No, everyone here is able to read sarcastic comments and not take them as personal affronts.

Funny.  I broke up with my first girlfriend via ICQ (no green there).  I admit it was a complete douchebag thing to do, but I was 18 at the time and didn't know any better (shit, that was over 8 years ago now).  She was psycho though, if I didn't respond to ICQ within 30 seconds she was calling me asking why I wasn't reading her messages.  I didn't exactly feel bad, and now that I'm reminiscing on that, I still don't.  She called me and screamed and yelled at me right aftwards and wanted to know why.  Then she said "yeah, you've got issues so let's break up."  I didn't even feel like arguing, I was just glad she was gone.

Hah, I've still got the logs.  Talk about a timewarp.  April 12th, 1999 3:43PM: "we need to talk."  I'd forgotten all about that.

You've still got logs and she's the psycho ?

Ok.

Well I'm firmly stuck in the generation that got mobile phones and text messages. That said I refused to use texts much till University and I still object to shitty txt spk. However as people have said it's brilliant for getting a quick reply, if you want to meet someone send them a text with a time and a place and all they need to do it send back yes. This generally works out quicker and cheaper than calling someone, unless you make the mistake of asking them to meet up and 7 or 8 messages later you've finally figures out where to go.

Also asking people out or breaking up with them by text is classless, friend of mine broke up with his girlfriend by text and I felt fucking offended on her behalf (nice girl, not a psycho).

So did you message her and offer your condolences?

Maybe limit online time when the place is crowded ? 30 minutes per user or whatever ?

Exactly.  I still admit it was a shitty thing to do and just the fact that my ICQ history goes back to 1998 and I have her in it is just bordering slightly on the "odd" side of things.  It's interesting to see how much people change over the years though.

I've had the same mIRC install for 8 or more years now.  I'm sure I turned logging on at some point.  I should probably go look to see what's accumulated in there.

Nah, I'll give it another couple of years to percolate.

We do have a policy that people can use the computers for 30 minutes, but there are some loopholes that were officially put in so we're not kicking people doing serious research off unless there's a ton of demand...and there's a ton of demand...for myspace. It sucks to boot someone doing genealogy so homey can hook up wit da bitches. Or someone writing a term paper so someone can play yahoo games. We're getting the reputation of being a place you can't get much work done, because of the people using myspace, mostly, and it's only really gotten bad in the last couple years since it became cool to do myspace. Now we long for the days when kids playing runescape were the policy abusers, because at least they would use other library resources.

No matter what policy we've instituted, people will work around and find a way to abuse it. Working with the public often sucks, especially when it comes to free internet access. Being fair means the people willing to be abusive and selfish win, generally.

Sky, why doesn't the library allocate six computers or so (my hometown public library has this) for research/wordprocessing tools? The library I frequented as a kid would lock you out if you decided to hop onto games.yahoo.whatev or whatever was the rage at the time. People who had actual work to do would go to the front desk and ask to either sit at one or get on a waiting list to use a dedicated computer.

Just a thought.

We can't police research. Folks need Internet access for research. I guess we could throw the myspace block on that, but again, we do not wish to get into the business of policing what our patrons access (because of the ease of a proxy bypass). It's a very thorny issue and nobody is comfortable with anything on it. Restricting myspace would make the library a better place overall (except to the teenagers who exclusively use the internet for that), but it goes against everything we fight for here (free (as in speech AND beer) and confidential access to information).

I must not be being clear. When I was around twelve or thirteen, I would routinely go to the public library to do a research paper. There was a room in the back where if you presented to the person at the desk that you were coming in to try and work on a paper/research/whatever, he/she would let me into the room and I could work peacefully. Granted there were around four to six computers, but it was better than having to be out next to the people who were playing distracting games and whatnot.

I just don't see that as policing what people are doing. I'm very much all about the "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it" stance, but as you have said, there are always people looking to abuse the rules.

Librarians in the US have a long history of vigorously defending privacy.  To the point that they have won several decisions all the way up to the supreme court.  They have some pretty good arguments for why it's an all or nothing endeavor.

Yes. Even if we make our lab research only, and filter internet access, there are easily-available circumventions that would render our efforts useless. And we really won't filter our internet access anyway, as it goes against our mission statement.

What I find odd is that your computer has been operating since then.  Then again, I think I have some pictures and whatnot on some dusty hard disk that's hanging off of my rig, but I don't really ever get rid of hard drives I just add more.

See.. but the way I'm reading the situation is you're fucking you mission statement as it is.  The folks doing the research are the ones who donate to libraries in the first place.  They decide they can't do research at yours, then they'll stop donating. You won't filter for the government grants, so you start to run into cashflow problems and the library closes or -worse yet for a library- can't buy new material. Game over, mission statement is now meaningless.

But then I also say: Full? Empty? What kind of an idiot drinks out of a glass containing some unknown liquid they just happened to come across.

No one has answered my question in the second post.

I think they did by way of talking about everything BUT lucas in the last 3 pages.

If you forget history, you're doomed to repeat it.

The answer to your question why? is most certainly 42.
This is significant because well, George Lucas is in direct conflict with everything in the known universe. In fact, Lucas causes so many contradictions in his movies that he is one of the most widely feared serial killers because of the resulting explosions from his contradictions.

Happy now?