Post what you're thinking about right now...

[.Orrizante]

Chuck Norris’s belly button is actually a power outlet. (really?)

[ShaD]

now that I'm trying to play TF2... my game is crashing. %@$*!

[Captain Justice]

Those vacuum cleaner-robots. Roombas?

[Whisper]

Originally Posted by Chronopolis

I'm thinking about the 30 page research papers I have to write on before the end of the semester.

The first one is on a film from Iran called "Crimson Gold". It's a close analysis of the film, its themes, cinematography, visual aesthetics, character development, and other aspects of the film.

The other paper I have to write is on examining the ethno-cultural aspects of the Japanese Internment during the Second World War, following the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I'm actually doing a close analysis of letters written between two Japanese corespondents in Wyoming.

It sucks still having to go to school, even while working full time. Boo.

I feel your pain brother. I have to watch 2:10 to Yuma or another modern Western and compare it with the current socio-political state of America. Apparently there's been a huge resurgence in Westerns in recent history and my teacher wants me to tell her why.

I had to do a capstone essay on the collapse of the German Eastern front during WWII. That was pretty interesting, the key lesson I learned is to check the date of a history book before taking it from the library. Reading a book from 1950 examining the war is very different than reading a book from this millenia.

[Wither]

Thinking about how awesome my 3 day weekend will be - video games, Teddy Grahams and beer. After getting all A's this week.

<3

[FaKToR]

Originally Posted by Whisper

I feel your pain brother. I have to watch 2:10 to Yuma or another modern Western and compare it with the current socio-political state of America. Apparently there's been a huge resurgence in Westerns in recent history and my teacher wants me to tell her why.

I don't know what the original was like, but the remake is terrible. No Country For Old Men is a million times better.

I had to do a capstone essay on the collapse of the German Eastern front during WWII. That was pretty interesting, the key lesson I learned is to check the date of a history book before taking it from the library. Reading a book from 1950 examining the war is very different than reading a book from this millenia.

Has the conventional wisdom changed that much (I guess the collapse of the Soviet union altered the information available)?

[Mr Poopy Pants]

My legs hurt like no other, and I am wondering if one of them new fangled Sapphire HD 3870 TOXICs are compatable with my non PCIe 2.0 slots.

[Chronopolis]

Originally Posted by FaKToR

I don't know what the original was like, but the remake is terrible. No Country For Old Men is a million times better.

Has the conventional wisdom changed that much (I guess the collapse of the Soviet union altered the information available)?

3:10 to Yuma was... yeah not as great as I thought it would be, considering all the hype. As for No Country, I may be alone on this, but I didn't really like it. It's not that I didn't get it, I understand all the underlying themes and everything, but It just didn't feel like a "great movie".

In terms of conventional wisdom, believe me, things really change in 50 years. I'm a history major, and when you look at texts or primary/secondary sources from years ago, you compare them to ones currently, often you get a very different perspective. Remember, texts are written with bias, and are shaped in certain ways. What the author has experienced, their knowledge, what they are experiencing at the time, all shape how a text is written. What politics, economics, and cultural aspect influence the writer? How does their location (let's say, they live in India) influence their perspective? These are questions that clearly influence what is written in a text. We live in a different generation, and I guarantee you, information, conventional wisdom, and all this stuff, differs in each passing decade. However, that's not to say that nothing stays the same, because without a doubt, certain aspects are indeed passed on. I would argue though that because we live in an constantly changing world (politically, economically, socially, culturally), so too do our texts.

[FaKToR]

Originally Posted by Chronopolis

3:10 to Yuma was... yeah not as great as I thought it would be, considering all the hype. As for No Country, I may be alone on this, but I didn't really like it. It's not that I didn't get it, I understand all the underlying themes and everything, but It just didn't feel like a "great movie".

I felt it got a little weak half way through when it suddenly changed pace for no apparent reason, but I still really liked it.

In terms of conventional wisdom, believe me, things really change in 50 years.

I agree that things can be refined and given a more detached analysis, or more information comes to light, but my line of thought was the proximity to the actual events of the war would allow for a more detailed account of what occurred because it would be easier to document and interview first hand participants. Granted that's certainly going to be colored by the rampant anti-communism at the time and the fact that WWII is seen as the "good war". I just wouldn't discount everything because it's a bit dated. Case in point John Kenneth Galbraith wrote of his analysis of the strategic bombing campaign against Germany in his book "The Affluent Society" which was published in 1958 and AFAIK it's still a reliable assessment of the impact strategic bombing had on the German war effort.

[-Thief-]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYp2Aloz-uE

and/or http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=10d_1204204698

thats about all i can think about atm

[SchizoidMan]

Originally Posted by Chronopolis

It sucks still having to go to school, even while working full time. Boo.

I hear ya bro. I'm trying to finish up my MLIS while working full time AND I've got a hyper 3-year old who's wearing me & Mrs. Schizoid down.

TF2 helps keep me sane.

[Chronopolis]

Originally Posted by FaKToR

I agree that things can be refined and given a more detached analysis, or more information comes to light, but my line of thought was the proximity to the actual events of the war would allow for a more detailed account of what occurred because it would be easier to document and interview first hand participants. Granted that's certainly going to be colored by the rampant anti-communism at the time and the fact that WWII is seen as the "good war". I just wouldn't discount everything because it's a bit dated. Case in point John Kenneth Galbraith wrote of his analysis of the strategic bombing campaign against Germany in his book "The Affluent Society" which was published in 1958 and AFAIK it's still a reliable assessment of the impact strategic bombing had on the German war effort.

I absolutely agree with you. Every text, regardless of date, is relevant to historical analysis. The fact of the matter is, both primary and secondary sources, no matter the date it was written, plays a role in helping us understand the historical past.

I wasn't saying that the texts, because of its date written, makes it irrelevant. I was simply saying that the content can often change throughout the years, something that I believe has both pros and cons to it.

[pipski]

Temeriti

[SchizoidMan]

Originally Posted by Chronopolis

I would argue though that because we live in an constantly changing world (politically, economically, socially, culturally), so too do our texts.

So what do you think about the texts in the online world, i.e. blogs, wikis, this forum, etc? How do historians define & situate the internet as text? I haven't studied history in nearly a decade so I'm not up on the current discourse regarding how the internet has influenced historiography. It would seem to me that the unprecedented speed of change in the cyber world is wreaking havoc on history and its writing.

[FaKToR]

Originally Posted by Chronopolis

I absolutely agree with you. Every text, regardless of date, is relevant to historical analysis. The fact of the matter is, both primary and secondary sources, no matter the date it was written, plays a role in helping us understand the historical past.

I wasn't saying that the texts, because of its date written, makes it irrelevant. I was simply saying that the content can often change throughout the years, something that I believe has both pros and cons to it.

Yeah I just wanted to make it clear that a dated text in history isn't the same as a dated text in biology.