Ahaha! This is an amazing cover of Crazy In Love from Great Gatsby!
That’s right, That’s Kevin Spacey.
”Apparently he jogged up, shouted ‘PHOTOBOMB!’ and then ran off laughing. Excellent.” - Redditor ‘genteboa’
Meanwhile in the UK of the Day: British Politician Ed Balls Responds to Ed Balls Meme
The British Labour Party politician Ed Balls has finally responded to a two-year-old meme mocking that one time he accidentally tweeted his own name. After discovering a photograph of a train sign with his name written on it, Balls retweeted the photo and said “this is getting really weird.” The meme has seen a resurgence in popularity this month in anticipation of the tweet’s two-year anniversary and even spawned its own event page on Facebook.
This is kind of awesome. Can’t stop laughing.
Dear Mr. Ebert
Dear Mr. Ebert,
Thank you. I really could end this there, because there are few other words capable of encapsulating what I’m about to try to say, but it’s important for me to try - I think you’d be an advocate of that.
I love the movies. I’ve always loved the movies. I’ve always found them to be a mystical place that I can so, so easily lose myself within. A place of dreams, a place of disaster. A vicarious fantasy to achieve all of the levels of greatness in life that I either was too fearful of attempting myself, or were just, impossible to experience in reality. I’ve always loved the movies.
As such, in my years as a cinephile, I’ve admired you. How could I not? You got paid to watch movies. No. You got paid to watch movies and tell people what you thought about them. I’d be lucky to find more than one or two people who I could pay to listen to me tell them about the last movie I saw. So, naturally, I was jealous of you, of your stature in the film community, of your wit, your humor, your unfaltering honesty to which you approached your film reviews. I loved that I could disagree with you so vehemently - but I still wanted to hear what you had to say.
I long, long wanted to find my place in the small niche that film critics call home - truth is, I still do. I pursued it with vigor for some time in high school, and again in college, but neither with the dedication and devotion that was necessary. Maybe someday soon I will, and I will do it justice.
All jealousy and admiration aside for your professional career getting paid to do what so many of us just call a hobby, there was something I admired about you even more. Your spirit. For a man who made such a prosperous and revered career by virtue of your voice - to learn that you were set to lose it in your battle with cancer in 2006 must have been little short of devastating. A revelation which, for many (and likely myself included) would have forced us into isolation and utter silence - for you, it did…well, it sure felt like nothing. What voice you lost audibly, you found again digitally, and, to be blunt - you kicked ass with it.
For a professional writer in his 60’s, you took one look at technology, and in spite of (or perhaps, in light of) your illness, you embraced it with a hearty hug of admiration and understanding. Seeing it for it’s full potential, your career continued to flourish in spite of your loss of voice, and for the last seven years, you’ve been an omnipresent feature of my Facebook newsfeeds, my Twitter page, and my daily blog readings.
I will miss you, Mr. Ebert. I will miss your wit, your humor, your honesty, your attitude, your mastery of our language. Thank you for the years of your input into my theatrical experiences I had the privilege to consider, for the many years I was unable to do so with (due to not being born yet), and most importantly - thank you for your inspiration. I hope that I too can find myself so lucky as to be as fortunate in not just my career, but my life as you were in yours.
Thank you, Mr. Ebert. Thank you so much.
Under 18? Then It’s a Criminal Offense for You To Read Some News Sites
Via the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
“YOU MAY NOT ACCESS OR USE THE COVERED SITES OR ACCEPT THE AGREEMENT IF YOU ARE NOT AT LEAST 18 YEARS OLD.”
In the DOJ’s world, this means anyone under 18 who reads a Hearst newspaper online could hypothetically face jail time. But Hearst’s publications aren’t the only ones with overly restrictive usage terms. U-T San Diego and the Miami Herald have similar policies. Even NPR is guilty, saying teenagers can’t access their “services” (including the site, NPR podcasts and the media player) without a permission slip…
…Some sites must have recognized the problem and crafted their policies to only forbid users under the age of 13. These include the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the Arizona Republic. NBCNews.com uses this wording:
“By using or attempting to use the Site or Services, you certify that you are at least 13 years of age or other required greater age for certain features and meet any other eligibility and residency requirements of the Site.”
This means that inquisitive 12-year-olds who visit NBCNews.com to learn about current events would be, by default, misrepresenting their ages. That’s criminal by DOJ standards and would be explicitly illegal under the House Judiciary Committee’s proposal.
We’d like to say that we’re being facetious, but, unfortunately, the Justice Department has already demonstrated its willingness to pursue [Computer Fraud and Abuse Act] to absurd extremes. Luckily, the Ninth Circuit rejected the government’s arguments, concluding that, under such an ruling, millions of unsuspecting citizens would suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of the law. As Judge Alex Kozinski so aptly wrote: “Under the government’s proposed interpretation of the CFAA…describing yourself as ‘tall, dark and handsome,’ when you’re actually short and homely, will earn you a handsome orange jumpsuit.”
Image: Screenshot from a Twitter post by the New York Times’ Binyamin Appelbaum.
H/T: Jim Romenesko.
Wow. Just…what? Wow. Come on people.This really is a brilliant way to win young readership