I listened to Carl Sagan reading it in the audiobook.
Speaking, of audiobooks, there's one of Locke Lamora too. Sadly it's not read by the author, but I find it very enjoyable anyway. So if you are dyslexic/lazy, like yours truly, you can listen to that and know what Rym and Scott will be talking about at next book club!
Speaking, of audiobooks, there's one of Locke Lamora too. Sadly it's not read by the author, but I find it very enjoyable anyway. So if you are dyslexic/lazy, like yours truly, you can listen to that and know what Rym and Scott will be talking about at next book club!
You can do it. We can't stop you. However, it is cheating, and you should feel bad.
Actually, I do. But I missed out on almost every other book club (I read Wizard of Earthsea as a child, and read Darkness the Comes Before after I listened to the review (the review made a lot more sense on the second listen, especially the trackless steppe/step, which turned out not to be a way of walking stealthily)), so I figure this is better than nothing. I also read Atlas Shrugged, can you guys feature that next?
I'm wondering that myself. The story goes like this: During my commute, in the morning, I have a habit of listening to a podcast, where that book is mentioned, on average, about once an episode in relation to American politics (the odd thing is, I'm European). So, after a few weeks, I decided I should go look it up. So I went to Wikipedia, which didn't give me much understanding. I was planning to go to Cliffsnotes, but for some reason decided that it would be cheating, and I had to at least try to read it. "100 pages", I said to myself, " then you can go use your Internet. At least this way you'll have some knowledge of Rands writing style..." I ended up enjoying the book for the style and the characters, and hating it for it's author filibusters (to the point where, after reading half way through Galts monologue (on the radio) I just skipped ahead to the end of the chapter). That took me about 3 months or so, and I'm the only one of my friends who read it, so there's on one to discuss it with.
This version looks like it will be a worthy successor. I was skeptical about it airing on commercial TV, but so far it looks okay. I'm going to be very disappoint if they introduce a "Poochie"-type character for ratings purposes.
Also, the "Simpsons" episode that aired earlier was the best one I've seen in about three years.
The Simpsons has been on an upward trend for years if my random occasional sampling of episodes is to be believed. The last season approached the glory of the s5-s10 era.
Major things I took issue with: 1) Not mentioning that there were other heliocentric theories before Copernicus 2) There was a second-long animation for explorers reaching the Americas, where the ships were very obviously Western (Despite Vikings). 3) The asteroids were too damn close together.
Also, 4) Tyson spent the last five minutes rubbing our noses in it by talking about spending an afternoon hanging out with Carl Sagan.
Cosmos was excellent. Now I'm going to go off and listen to all of the Symphony of Science videos.
I did not take issue with any of those things, but to each their own.
Any Rym, if this is true, then you are definitely on to something. You are the only person I know who both has taste and has actually seen a recent Simpsons episode. If the Simpsons gets good again, and nobody notices, then that would be a shame.
Comments
I also read Atlas Shrugged, can you guys feature that next?
During my commute, in the morning, I have a habit of listening to a podcast, where that book is mentioned, on average, about once an episode in relation to American politics (the odd thing is, I'm European). So, after a few weeks, I decided I should go look it up. So I went to Wikipedia, which didn't give me much understanding. I was planning to go to Cliffsnotes, but for some reason decided that it would be cheating, and I had to at least try to read it. "100 pages", I said to myself, " then you can go use your Internet. At least this way you'll have some knowledge of Rands writing style..." I ended up enjoying the book for the style and the characters, and hating it for it's author filibusters (to the point where, after reading half way through Galts monologue (on the radio) I just skipped ahead to the end of the chapter). That took me about 3 months or so, and I'm the only one of my friends who read it, so there's on one to discuss it with.
A better way to get through that book is to listen to the audio-book version.
Also, the "Simpsons" episode that aired earlier was the best one I've seen in about three years.
1) Not mentioning that there were other heliocentric theories before Copernicus
2) There was a second-long animation for explorers reaching the Americas, where the ships were very obviously Western (Despite Vikings).
3) The asteroids were too damn close together.
Also, 4) Tyson spent the last five minutes rubbing our noses in it by talking about spending an afternoon hanging out with Carl Sagan.
Cosmos was excellent. Now I'm going to go off and listen to all of the Symphony of Science videos.
Any Rym, if this is true, then you are definitely on to something. You are the only person I know who both has taste and has actually seen a recent Simpsons episode. If the Simpsons gets good again, and nobody notices, then that would be a shame.
http://brucegerencser.net/2014/03/fundamentalist-christian-reaction-cosmos/