Gillo Pontecorvo's 1965 film The Battle of Algiers portrays the urban warfare between Algerians and the French troops occupying their country.
The film's raw presentation of a ruthless conflict just years after it occurred left audiences enthralled.
The film is now being re-released -- and to some, it conveys a new meaning in light of the US involvement in Iraq.
Its been years since jlm first posted about this film on MemeStreams. I finally got around to watching it. The film provides a provocative and balanced look at an early conflict of a sort which has become commonplace today. The powerful use of local music and impressive bombing and riot scenes provide a level of realism I didn't expect from 1960's cinema.
Decius wrote: 1. Anyone can host identities. 2. Anyone can accept identities. 3. The identities mean something.
I figured I'd preemptively answer the obvious question this raises. The way you achieve this is by:
1. Allowing identity providers to make assertions about the identities they provide.
2. Providing identity acceptors with mechanisms for managing the list of identity providers from whom they trust assertions and what sort of assertions they trust.
--
1. Allowing identity providers to make assertions about the identities they provide.
Basically, the identity host must be able to say things like:
User Bob54 says his name is "Bob Marley." User Bob54 says his email address is "bob@gmail.com." - We tested this with a verification email on 01/01/06 and it worked. User Bob54 has been a user of our system since 01/01/06.
Preferably, the user should be able to control which assertions the provider provides to which acceptors, so that private information can be managed in the system.
2. Providing identity acceptors with mechanisms for managing the list of identity providers from whom they trust assertions and what sort of assertions they trust.
There are many possible architectures here. It may be the case that a small number of widely trusted identity providers will emerge, but unlike passport the system will be open to competition. One approach that I like is to have an entity that audits identity providers and publishes a list of ones that follow certain best practices. That entity could collect user fees from both providers and acceptors.
This presentation does a very good job of laying out the problem, but we've been talking about this problem for years. What is the solution? It doesn't seem we're going to get one out of Sxip. They have a Firefox plug that fills out website forms for you and the speaker here has gone to work for Microsoft. I'm pretty sure there were Windows apps that did what the Sxip plugin does 8 years ago.
Why hasn't identity 2.0 happened? Nobody with the money and the userbase has been willing to create a platform that solves this problem, because they don't care about part of the problem, or because they think that controlling some aspect of the architecture will make them rich. The best architecture has the following characteristics:
1. Anyone can host identities. (Passport didn't work because Microsoft was the only identity provider and no one trusted them.) 2. Anyone can accept identities. (This is why the federated identity stuff is solving a different problem.) 3. The identities mean something. (This is the problem with OpenID.)
The two most interesting developments in this space right now are:
1. RealID. Governments have traditionally been the identity providers. They handle 3 and 2 quite well. Traditionally, they've gotten around 1 by forcing people to work with them. I think its interesting and surprising that RealID hasn't happened, but I'm not going to bet against the state. At some point soon some government will issue smart cards that can be used as online credentials with a USB smart card reader. One could imagine child predator hysteria being leveraged by an enterprising group to create a social networking site that can only be accessed with government issued credentials - an environment that is "safe for children." Its a natural evolution of current laws prohibiting sex offenders from using social network sites. Providing those sites with a way to check secure government issued credentials from every user is the only way to enforce that sort of requirement.
2. Facebook. They've created an application platform that is centered around user identities. They also handle 2 and 3 well. They share problem 1, but they are attempting to overcome Microsoft's trust problems by creating an environment where privacy is carefully managed. The day when someone asks us if MemeStreams will accept Facebook credentials is fast approaching.
I'd love to be able to create a system that solves all three problems. I really don't think there are any outstanding technical barriers to doing so. The problem is that its a big project and it has no patron.
It is the unfortunate consequence of our economy that:
1. Its expensive to develop a good platform. 2. Platforms only work if they become pervasive. 3. Charging for things creates a barrier to adoption. 4. Barriers to adoption prevent platforms from becoming pervasive.
"Slacker": 15 years later | Salon Arts & Entertainment
Topic: Movies
11:31 pm EDT, May 1, 2008
There are people out there with these antennas, and they're often seen as wackos, but they're on to something. They see things before the official culture sees it. Throughout the '80s, global warming was an underground, conspiracy-theory thing, and it's still treated as a sort of paranoid idea in "Slacker." But paranoia plus a generation equals pretty much the world we're living in today.
This spring, the stoner screwball movie of 2004, “Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle,” will get a sequel. This time, because of some unfortunate confusion on an airplane between a “bong” and a “bomb,” our slacker antiheroes are shipped off to the moviemakers’ idea of the worst prison imaginable.
On April 25, on a screen near you: “Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantánamo Bay.”
RE: Q&A: Ridley Scott Has Finally Created the Blade Runner He Always Imagined
Topic: Movies
9:20 am EDT, Sep 28, 2007
k wrote:
Decius wrote: Unfortunately the theatrical release is ONLY New York and LA. I will be in New York 4 days after it stops screening there. The intent is that you almost, but didn't quite get to see it in the theater and you so you might be more likely to spring for this ridiculous 5 DVD set. Its really disappointing to see something which is supposed to be important for artistic rather than commercial reasons getting used in such a manipulative way.
Oh balls, I actually hadn't heard that. I knew it was going to be a limited release, but not that limited. That is disappointing.
What are the dates? I might find myself in NY, although I imagine tickets will be nigh impossible to acquire.
Fuck.
Its at the Zeigfeld from October 5th until the 18th. Its also on in LA at the Landmark. I emailed Landmark and asked them why they couldn't distribute the film to all their national theaters (there is one in Atlanta) and their response was that "there probably isn't enough demand" but that my email was sent to the proper authorities.
If YOU'D like to see a wider release of Blade Runner Final Cut PLEASE email Landmark and let them know! If they get enough feedback perhaps they'll take a closer look at the market for this.
Q&A: Ridley Scott Has Finally Created the Blade Runner He Always Imagined
Topic: Movies
2:55 pm EDT, Sep 27, 2007
At age 69, Ridley Scott is finally satisfied with his most challenging film. He's still turning out movies at a furious pace — American Gangster, with Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe, is due in November — building on an extraordinary oeuvre that includes Alien, Thelma & Louise, Gladiator, and Black Hawk Down. But he seems ready to accept Blade Runner as his crowning achievement. In his northern English accent, he describes its genesis and lasting influence. And, inevitably, he returns to the darkness that pervades his view of the future — the shadows that shield Deckard from a reality that may be too disturbing to face.
Some MemeStreamers are probably interested in this interview.
There is a limited theatrical release of Blade Runner this fall. I don't know what that means, but often "limited" means "not in the South East accept Austin."
I'm willing to fly somewhere to see this in a theater. Please someone post if you see more information.
