I just finished Neil Gaiman's
I just finished Neil Gaiman's
American Gods. I typically pick up a book and have a reasonably good idea of what I'm going to get out of it. If it's science fiction or fantasy, it'll be a light read, probably interesting and fun, but without much depth. If it's humorous fantasy, it'll be much the same, but I'll laugh a few times (or many times, if Terry Pratchett is the author). If it's a Real Classic (tm), I'll probably feel that I should've gotten more out of it, but I'll rarely find the novel thought-provoking. That's just me; I'm not a comparative literature major.
With
American Gods, I picked it up guessing that it would be a sort of modern fantasy, probably something like Gaiman's
Neverwhere. I realized a short way in that it wasn't that at all, and I almost put it down. I kept going, though, and I'm glad I did. I didn't like it in the same way I like most books, though; instead, for the first time in a while I've read something deep, something that presents so much to consider in so many different ways that I'll probably have to read it a few more times to grasp even half of it.
It's a story of small-town America, of a life adrift, of gods both ancient and modern, of the ties of Americans to their home countries and the loss of those ties through the passage of time. It's a murder mystery, a fantasy, and a true American novel, written by a Brit. It's won awards for being a terrific horror story and the best science fiction story of the year, but it's neither a horror story nor science fiction. And it's definitely not something that can be appreciated by anyone who fails to think beyond the words written on the pages.
A Usenet signature just led
A Usenet signature just led me to read a decision from a federal district court last November in
Softman v. Adobe that contains this quote: "The Court understands fully why licensing has many advantages for software publishers. However, this preference does not alter the Court's analysis that the substance of the transaction at issue here is a sale and not a license."
The transaction in question was between Adobe and one of Adobe's distributors, but the court clearly explained that its findings apply to the eventual sale to a consumer as well. In other words, the "end user license agreement" that goes along with most software packages doesn't actually provide a license at all but instead provides the terms of a sale. It'll be interesting to see if other courts adhere to the same viewpoint.
How Appealing notes a Washington
How Appealing notes a
Washington Post editorial that sharply criticizes the Democrats in the Senate for their rejection last week of Patricia Owen's nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I couldn't agree more. I strongly disagree with Owen's views on many issues -- she's a Texas conservative -- but the precedent that the Senate is setting in rejecting nominees purely on the basis of their views is, as the Post says, very dangerous. The Senate's confirmation authority is being misused if it becomes a filter based on views rather than qualifications.
I must admit to being a bit of a hypocrite here, though -- if the nomination was to the Supreme Court rather than to an appeals court, I'd feel differently. I'm not in favor of giving a blanket OK to qualified nominees to the Supreme Court, since there is nothing to rein in a Justice whose views don't correspond with those of America as a whole (see Clarence Thomas, for example). But treating all nominations like that only serves to make a mockery of the entire nomination process and keep qualified people bottled up in hearings for years.