text:
Review (Full LP): Paul Simon's "Stranger To Stranger"
June 6, 2016 June 6, 2016 ~ kcorsini
As previously mentioned on BourbonAndVinyl, I was never a huge Simon and Garfunkel fan. I mean, my parents owned their "Greatest Hits" album, how rock and roll could that be? However, I always liked Paul Simon's solo stuff. While he was "folky" he wasn't really a folk musician. He always had a great sense of humor that say, Pete Seeger, would never understand. There has always been an element of "world music" in his stuff, even back to his early solo days. Of course all that peaked when he went all-in with his masterpiece "Graceland."
After "Graceland" Simon was really hit and miss. The critics loved "Rhythm of the Saints" but to me it sounded like something bad happened down at the ol' International Music Food Court, like somebody dropped a tray or something. "The Capeman" thing is better left unmentioned. "You're the One" was a great and highly underrated album. He even collaborated with Brian Eno on 2006's "Surprise." Like one of Eno's other collaborators, David Bowie, I would defy you to find an artist in his later years so willing to experiment as Paul Simon. I'm not comparing Bowie and Simon's music, they come from way different places, but that spirit of, "yeah, what the hell, let's add some drum loops and a tuba," that "try anything that helps the song" spirit pervades both their work.
Nowhere was that more evident to me than on Simon's 2011 album "So Beautiful Or So What." That album was the type of a late period gem from an older artist that inspired this very blog. It had more acoustic guitar driven songs vs Simon's post-"Graceland" drums/percussion driven songs but that didn't mean there wasn't a strong, almost jazz-like experimentation to that album. I loved "Getting Ready For Christmas Day," with it's drum loop and samples of an old time preacher. None of that sounded forced from a guy who was almost 70 at the time.
All this leads me to Simon's new album, "Stranger To Stranger." He brought in some guy named Clap!Clap!, an Italian/electronic/dance artist – what that means, I'm still scratching my head over. I just see that as the equivalent of bringing Eno in on "Surprise," the guy must have added some of the percussive elements. I was nervous about the involvement of someone named Clap!Clap! but Simon's music is so diverse I don't think anybody can come in and screw it up. I also know his old producer from his Simon and Garfunkel days, Roy Halee was involved on "Stranger To Stranger." It appears Simon is looking forward and backwards at the same time.
The album opens with three very percussive/drum driven songs. "The Werewolf" has Simon's signature sense of humor, "he had a fairly decent life and a fairly decent wife, she stabbed him with a sushi knife…" It appears the monster isn't a full-moon altered lupine but the human nature inside us all. "Wristband" starts off as funny song about a rock star who gets locked out of his own show, but as you listen you realize it's a song about the struggle of the haves vs the have nots. "Street Angel" is almost a gospel song, and certain phrases in the song turn up later in the album, "I write my verse for the universe" being one…
After that opening percussion heavy trio of songs the album progresses to the beautiful middle section, which for me is the heart of this record. "Stranger To Stranger," the title track, is a beautiful ballad. There's a sax solo in the middle and the jazzy feel takes me back to the song "Still Crazy After All These Years." Maybe it's the chorus of, "I'm just jittery, I'm just jittery, it's just the way I'm dealing with my joy." This song blows me away. "Stranger to stranger, if we met for the first time… can you imagine falling in love again…" Heavy stuff. "I'm In a Parade" leaves no doubt where the parade is, it's all New Orleans Mardis Gras. "Proof of Love" is another beautiful ballad.
"The Riverbank" marks the final part of the album and a shift from a focus on love to a focus on mortality. It's not dark or morbid like say, Dylan's "Time Out of Mind." When Simon sings, "it'll be a long walk home, from the riverbank" the wisdom feels timeless. "Cool Papa Bell" takes us back down to New Orleans. I think I hear a tuba. God knows what instruments were used on this record. "Cool Papa Bell" certainly lifts the mood back up with lyrics like, "every day I'm here I'm grateful that's the gist of it… but check out my new tattoo." That song remains my favorite on an album of strong tunes. "Insomniac's Lullaby" wraps up the album. "Oh Lord don't keep me be up all night with questions I can't understand…" is something I think every night as I lay awake hoping for slumber. It's the perfect ending for this album. A gorgeous lullaby for those of us who may never sleep well.
This is a complicated record from a complicated artist. This is music in it's own category, or more succinctly, music that is impossible to categorize. It's beautiful, it's diverse, it's funny, and every listen brings me something new. It's like a surprise, long email from an old friend you haven't heard from in a while. Simon unburdens his mind on this record and we're all the better for it. I highly recommend this record. It's definitely a "dark of the night," full bourbon glass type of album… As always, pour something strong and enjoy!
Posted in classic rock, Music, new music, rock, rock and roll, rock music #classicrock#PaulSimon#rockandroll#rockmusic#StrangerToStrangerclassic rockPaul Simonrockrock and rollrock musicStranger To Stranger
< Previous RIP Muhammad Ali, Simply The Greatest, A Hero
Next > Red Hot Chili Peppers: "We Turn Red" – Song 3 From "The Getaway"
2 thoughts on "Review (Full LP): Paul Simon's "Stranger To Stranger""
Pingback: B&V's Favorite Cover Albums: Singing Other People's Songs | BourbonAndVinyl
Pingback: Review: Pearl Jam's First LP In 7 Years, 'Gigaton' – My Conflicted Thoughts | BourbonAndVinyl


Herbert Spencer's grave faces Marx's at Highgate Cemetery in London. At his memorial, Spencer was honoured for his anti-imperialism by Indian national liberation advocate and anti-colonialist Shyamji Krishnavarma, who funded a professorship at Oxford in Spencer's name.
What would the 19th century liberal, utilitarian and social Darwinist, Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), who was perhaps the most prominent, widely read and popular philosopher in the world during his lifetime - that is, in Marx's lifetime - have to say to Marxists or more generally to the left, when such liberalism earned not only Marx's own scorn but also Nietzsche's criticism? Nietzsche referred to Spencer and his broad appeal as the modern enigma of "the English psychologists." Nietzsche critiqued what he took to be Spencer's assumption of a historically linear-evolutionary development and improvement of human morality leading to a 19th century epitome; where Nietzsche found the successive "transvaluations of values" through profound reversals of "self-overcoming" (On the genealogy of morals: a polemic, 1887). Nietzsche regarded modern liberal morality not as a perfection but rather as a challenge and task to achieve an "over-man," that, failing, threatened to result in a nihilistic dead-end of "the last man" instead. Marx regarded Spencerian liberalism as an example of the decrepitude of bourgeois-revolutionary thought in decadence. Marx's son-in-law, the French socialist Paul Lafargue, wrote, just after Marx's death, against Spencer's "bourgeois pessimism", to which he offered a Marxist optimism.1 Such Marxism fulfilled Nietzsche's "pessimism of the strong." By the late 19th century, Marxists could be confident about transcending bourgeois society. Not so today.
Spencer's distinction of "militant" vs "industrial" society (The principles of sociology Vol 2, 1879-98) - that is to say, the distinction of traditional civilization vs bourgeois society - is still, unfortunately, quite pertinent today, and illuminates a key current blind-spot on the ostensible 'left', especially regarding the phenomenon of war. Spencer followed the earlier classical liberal Benjamin Constant's observation ('The liberty of the ancients as compared with that of the moderns' 1816) that moderns get through commerce what the ancients got through war; and that for moderns war is always regrettable and indeed largely unjustifiably criminal, whereas for ancients war was virtuous - among the very highest virtues. Do we moderns sacrifice ourselves for the preservation and glory of our specific "culture," as "militants" do, or rather dedicate ourselves to social activity that facilitates universal freedom - a value unknown to the ancients? Does the future belong to the constant warfare of particular cultural differences, or to human society? Marx thought the latter.
When we seek to extol our political leaders today, we do not depict them driving a tank but waking at 5 o'clock and staying up past midnight to do society's business. We do not speak of their scars earned in combat but their grey hairs accumulated in office. Not enjoying the spoils of war on a dais but getting in their daily morning jog to remain fit for work. We judge them not as cunning warriors but as diligent workers - and responsible negotiators. In our society, it is not the matter of a battle to win but a job to do. Carl Schmitt thought that this has led to our dehumanization. But few would agree.
What would have appeared commonplace to Spencer's contemporary critics, such as Nietzsche and Marx, must strike us today, rather, as profoundly insightful and indeed critical of our society. This is due to the historical regression of politics and society since Marx's time, and, moreover, to the liquidation of Marxism. What Marx would have regarded as fatally one-sided and undialectical in Spencer, would today seem adequate to the prevailing condition, in the absence of the Marxist-Hegelian dialectic. The Marxist critique of liberalism has been rendered moot, not in the sense of liberalism's actual social supersession but by historical regression. Society has fallen below the historical threshold of not only socialism but of classical liberalism - of bourgeois emancipation itself. Not only have we fallen below the criteria of Kant and Hegel that surpassed 18th century empiricism, we have fallen below its 19th century successor, positivism, as well. The question is the status today of liberalism as ideology. It is utopian. As Adorno put it, it is both promise and sham.
An emancipated society would be "positivist" - enlightened and liberal - in ways that under capitalism can only be ideologically false and misleading. Positivism should therefore be understood as a desirable goal beyond rather than a possibility under capitalism. The problem with Herbert Spencer is that he took capitalism - grasped partially and inadequately as bourgeois emancipation - to be a condition of freedom that would need yet to be really achieved. If "metaphysics," contra positivism, remains valid in capitalism, then this is as a condition to be overcome. Capitalist metaphysics is a real symptom of unfreedom. Positivism treats this as merely an issue of mistaken thinking, or to be worked out through "scientific" methodology, whereas it is actually a problem of society requiring political struggle. The antinomy of positivism vs metaphysics is not partisan but social. As Adorno observed, the same individual could and would be scientifically positivist and philosophically ontological-existentialist.
Only in overcoming capitalism through socialism could, as Marx put it, humanity face its condition "with sober senses." This side of emancipation from capital, humanity remains trapped in a "phantasmagoria" of bourgeois social relations become self-contradictory and self-destructive in capital. This phantasmagoria was both collective and individual - socialist and liberal - in character. Spencer naturalized this antinomy. His libertarian anti-statism and its broad, popular political appeal down through the 20th century was the necessary result of the continuation of capitalism and its discontents.
Spencer regarded the problem as a historical holdover of traditional civilization to be left behind rather than as the new condition of bourgeois society in capitalist crisis that Marx recognised needed to be, but could not be, overcome in Spencer's liberal terms. Marx agreed with Spencer on the goal, but differed, crucially, over the nature of the obstacle and, hence, how to get there from here. Not only Spencer's later followers (more egregiously than Spencer himself), but Marx's own, have falsified this task. It has been neglected and abandoned. We cannot assume as Marx did that we are already past Spencer's classical liberalism, but are driven back to it, ineluctably, whether we realize it or not. Only by returning to the assumptions of classical liberalism can we understand Marx's critique of it. The glare of Marx's tomb at Highgate stares down upon a very determinate object. If one disappears, they both do.


text:
Pressure mounts on Myanmar as ASEAN raises refugee crisis
Chair's statement includes 'concern' on South China Sea
Myanmar's de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi attends the ASEAN-South Korea summit in Singapore on Nov. 14. © Reuters
KATSUHIKO HARA, Nikkei Asian Review assistant politics & economy news editor November 15, 2018 04:53 JST Updated on November 15, 2018 13:58 JST | Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos
SINGAPORE -- The Association of Southeast Asian Nations called the refugee crisis in Myanmar "a matter of concern" on Wednesday, a rare departure from ASEAN's principle of noninterference in the internal affairs of members. It also reiterated concerns regarding disputes in the South China Sea.
"We discussed and received a briefing from Myanmar on the humanitarian situation in Rakhine State, which is a matter of concern," said the chairman's statement from the ASEAN summit held here Tuesday. The statement does not include the word "Rohingya," the name of the Muslim minority group fleeing alleged persecution in Myanmar.
While showing support for Myanmar toward resolving the issue, the statement also urged a commission established by Myanmar's government to "seek accountability by carrying out an independent and impartial investigation of the alleged human rights violations and related issues."
It also urged "a comprehensive and durable solution" to address the root causes of the conflict.
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad told reporters on Wednesday that more than one leader mentioned the Rohingya crisis during the ASEAN summit.
"Someone who had been detained before should know the sufferings and should not inflict it on others"
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, referring to Myanmar leader Suu Kyi
"We talked to each other about the Rohingya issue in the course of our discussion," Mahathir said. "Several people raised it ... urging to try to resolve it."
Mahathir also criticized Myanmar's de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi on Tuesday, saying, "Someone who had been detained before should know the sufferings and should not inflict it on others."
The repatriation of over 700,000 Rohingya Muslims who fled Myanmar's Rakhine State across the border into Bangladesh has been long delayed.
The rare statement by ASEAN mentioning the domestic affairs of one of its members reflects increasing impatience among Myanmar's peers about the slow progress in responding to human rights violations that have been condemned by United Nations investigators as genocide.
Muslim-majority Indonesia is believed to have raised the issue in the summit. President Joko Widodo has been taking a tougher stance over the Rohingya crisis. His effort to raise pressure on Suu Kyi's government is seen as a way to gain support from voters ahead of the presidential election next year and also to dodge criticism from opposition parties for not acting on the issue.
On Wednesday, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence met with Suu Kyi and asked her about repatriation of the Rohingya to Myanmar. "I'm also very anxious to hear about the progress that's being made regarding the Rohingya," he said.
Pence also stated in the meeting, "The violence and persecution by military and vigilantes that resulted in driving 700,000 Rohingya to Bangladesh is without excuse."
Suu Kyi responded to Pence's remark by saying, "of course, people have different points of view, but the point is that you should exchange those views and learn to understand each other better."
The mass exodus of Rohingya Muslims began in August 2017 after an attack by an insurgent group triggered a harsh military response. The continuing humanitarian crisis in temporary settlements in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh, has produced the world's fastest-growing concentration of refugees.
Myanmar's State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi, left, and U.S. Vice President Mike Pence hold a bilateral meeting in Singapore on November 14. © Reuters
Myanmar faces strong criticism from the international community. In August, a U.N. report accused Myanmar's military of conducting genocide, gang rapes of women, assault of children and the burning of entire villages in Rakhine.
On the South China Sea, the chairman's statement said members "took note of some concerns on the land reclamations and activities in the area."
While avoiding any explicit mention of China, the statement added that the situation "increased tensions and may undermine peace, security and stability in the region."
ASEAN members generally avoid politically sensitive language, preferring to stick to the "balanced diplomacy" through which the bloc seeks to maintain a comfortable distance with both Washington and Beijing.
The word "concern" was taken out of a joint statement on China's position in the South China Sea when the Philippines held the ASEAN chair in 2017, as President Rodrigo Duterte's government had improved ties with Beijing shortly beforehand.
However, it reappeared in a joint statement adopted at the last ASEAN summit in April, after Singapore took over as chair.
On North Korean denuclearization, the statement said members "welcomed the DPRK's stated commitment to complete denuclearization and its pledge to refrain from further nuclear and missile tests."
It did not specifically mention "complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization," a phrase repeatedly used by the U.S., as it was in the draft stage. But it did say that members noted "international efforts to bring about complete denuclearization in a final, fully verified manner."
ASEAN aims to express 'concern' on Rohingya crisis for first time
Bangladesh faces Catch-22 over Rohingyas

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
9 Things You Should Resolve to Finally Get Rid of This Year
You're done with this stuff. Seriously.
By Lauren Smith McDonough
Raise your hand if you're guilty of hanging onto something (or someone) even though you know it's not in your best interest. We've all been there, but enough is enough. Here are the items you should toss, habits you should quit, and friendships you should reconsider as you head into a fresh new year:
1. Electronics you retired years ago.
Instead of holding onto your past three cell phones, take to the Internet and sell them for money or donate them people who need them more than you do. All they're doing is clogging up your storage and getting older (and therefore losing their value) over time.
Another thing you should dump? VHS tapes, cassettes, or any other technology that you can almost guarantee won't be making a comeback — ever. Companies like LegacyBox can even digitize old home movies or photo albums, so you can keep the memories but ditch the clutter.
2. Books that are collecting dust on your shelf.
If you're a Kindle reader this should be a given. And even if you're not, chances are you're only holding onto hardbacks for sentimental reasons. But in the spirit of spreading good literary cheer, pass them on to someone else who can use them, like author and blogger Erica Gerald Mason plans to do: "I'm going to tuck an encouraging handwritten note inside and offer them as small presents to the cancer treatment unit of my local hospital."
3. Your energy-sucking appliances.
Staring at a dishwasher from 1980? Instead of wasting money on your energy bill, consider investing in new energy-efficient appliances — they can make a big difference in your long-term costs and are better for the environment.
4. Craft supplies you're never going to use.
So it turns out the sweater you were knitting is too complicated for your skill set (no judgement). But if you're still holding onto the yarn, we are going to advise you to check yourself. Joan Fradella has a closet full of supplies from crafts she couldn't finish, but has resolved to pack them up and donate 'em: "I can't keep storing things in the laundry room and guest closet because these are items that I will obviously never use." Well said.
5. The addictive TV in your bedroom.
It's only natural to flip on your television when you enter the room — making those devices a total time suck. Even worse? Studies show people who have TVs in their bedrooms are more likely to have sleep disorders. While you're at it, ditch all technology in this sacred space — the artificial light results in less melatonin production in the brain (the chemical that helps you fall asleep and regulates your sleep cycle), meaning you'll have a harder time dozing off.
6. Your surplus linens for guests.
Forget your wardrobe. This year, you should focus on your under-the-radar linen closet. Lauren Silverman, professional organizer and president of MOREganized, says most of her clients have too many sheets. Her rule of thumb? You only need two full sets per bed: "These can easily be stored in small bins or zippered cases under the beds for which they are designated."
As for towels, Silverman recommends keeping a few under your bathroom sink or in a basket nearby — this clears up shelf space in your linen closet for cleaning supplies and other necessities.
7. Your tax documents from 2008 or before.
According to Heather Walker, founder of Functional Spaces Organizing, as of 2016 you don't need all those archived taxes from any year before 2008 (generally speaking). They just take up space and attract cobwebs. But she does note that it's always a good idea to check with your accountant before shredding tax documents: "There are extenuating circumstances, but once you get the green light, go for it."
8. Your toxic friendships.
Don't let your passive aggressive or critical pal get to you in the new year. Not only is it a bad investment into your happiness, but research also shows that stressful social interactions could contribute to an increase in risk of high blood pressure in women. After taking steps to distance yourself, Transformation for Life Coach Judith Rapley, recommends also getting rid of clothing or gifts given to you by those individuals to help you avoid negative memories.
9. Any broken items you haven't gotten around to fixing.
Chances are, you won't. This Heather Walker, founder of Functional Spaces Organizing, knows all too well: "I was hanging on to a kids swing that had deteriorated in the sunshine over the summer. And why? Because I thought I would actually purchase some new stretch-rope and re-weave it." Guess what? She didn't. If the project doesn't immediately excited you and bring you happiness, free it up — your peace of mind is more important.
Lauren Smith McDonough Senior Editor Lauren is a senior editor at Hearst.
More From Organizing
Theses Are the Top 10 Home Organizers in the U.S.
This App Makes Organizing Storage Bins SO Easy
21 Storage Tricks for Small Bedrooms
Marie Kondo Announces The Container Store Collab
16 Tricks That Make the Most of a Small Closet
5 Different Ways to Fold a Shirt
31 Genius Products to Organize Your Kitchen
Here's How to Fold a Fitted Sheet
These Under-Sink Organizers Will Change Your Life
10 Smart Ways to Organize Your Linen Closet
30 Things You Need to Do This Month
Joanna Gaines Has The Best New Year's Resolution
Don't Let Dandelions Ruin Your Lawn This Summer
8 Things You Need To Do To Get Rid Of Mice
5 Ways to Get Rid of Fruit Flies


text:
The Mostly Mighty Thor
As a longtime Marvel Zombie, Thor has never been high on my list of the company's heroes. I've enjoyed him as a member of The Avengers but only sporadically followed his solo adventures over the years. I think it was a masterstroke on the part of creators Stan Lee and Jack Kirby to dip into the realm of gods and myth, thereby avoiding having yet another superhero birthed from an accident with radioactivity, but I've just never been that attracted to the character or the world that he hails from. I much prefer the street level Marvel heroes, like Spidey, Luke Cage, Daredevil, and Moon Knight. Compared to those earthbound types, I've always found Thor to be a hard character to relate to so given that, the God of Thunder's movie debut was the one Marvel movie I've been least excited for.
I think it was roundly agreed upon by everyone - even Thor fans - that Thor would represent the biggest challenge to Marvel Studios on the road to The Avengers. While it's easily accepted in the comics that Thor occupies the same shared universe as Iron Man and The Hulk, would the realm of Asgard be an awkward fit for the Marvel movies? Turns out the answer is no. Director Kenneth Branagh, working from a script by Ashley Edward Miller, Zack Stentz, and Don Payne (based on a story by J. Michael Straczynski Mark Protosevich), has cleared Thor's biggest hurdle - the movie fits seamlessly into the world established by Iron Man 1 and 2 and The Incredible Hulk.
Thor may possess the powers of a God and he may live in a gleaming celestial city that defies our understanding but as he explains to scientist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), what may be perceived as magic from our earthly perspective is known as science where he comes from. Or something like that. The point is, Thor is a movie that makes it possible for a guy with a magic flying hammer to stand next to a guy in an advanced suit of armor and have it make sense.
Thor also strikes the right balance between time spent on Asgard and time spent on Earth. You can't ditch Asgard altogether because that's what Thor's all about and hardcore fans don't want that mythological aspect to be shortchanged. At the same time, for most audiences, Thor has to be put in more relatable context. This has also been true of the comic all these years. I forget which comic pro said this - I think it might've been John Byrne (X-Men, Superman) - but whoever it was essentially said that you can only have Thor residing in Asgard for so long then he has to come down to Earth and punch out The Absorbing Man. If Thor isn't a part of life on Earth, as readers we're going to quickly lose interest in him.
The makers of Thor certainly get that and the movie finds most of its humor and heart once Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is banished to Earth by his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) for his crimes of arrogance. There's the expected fish out of water humor as Thor interacts with unfamiliar environments but it's all handled just right, never veering into exaggerated schitck. As a love interest, Portman is fine - if not particularly outstanding - as Jane Foster. I've read some people online claiming that the relationship between Thor and Jane isn't developed enough and that they needed another scene or two to make it believable but I disagree. All we need to believe is that Jane and Thor would be attracted to each other and that's a pretty easy sell. From Jane's perspective, she just met a God so I think she'd automatically be really interested in continuing that relationship. From Thor's perspective, Jane is a woman unlike any he's ever met so, likewise, it's easy to accept that he'd also want to continue to see much more of her (personally I think he's making a huge mistake in overlooking Kat Denning's Darcy but that's just me). So what I'm saying is that I bought Thor and Jane as a couple in the making. In fact, if there's any scenes between them that were cut for time or pacing, just leave 'em off the DVD - I'm not interested.
The other big, if less loving, relationship in this movie is between Thor and his scheming brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston). Everyone seems to agree this aspect of Thor came off great and I agree. Hiddleston makes Loki one of the most compelling villains in recent memory. He's a cunning manipulator but we also see his wounded pride and his deep-seated neediness. That Hiddleston will continue on to The Avengers as that film's arch-foe is very good news.
And having now seen Thor, I'm also much more excited by the prospect of Hemsworth interacting with his fellow Avengers than I had been before. The trailers for Thor were some of the worst in recent memory and made Hemsworth's performance look like a potential embarrassment. What a pleasant surprise, then, to discover how terrific he is here and how effortlessly he's able to bring Thor to life. He conveys Thor's youthful arrogance, his pride, his sometimes unwise thirst for battle but also the positive attributes of bravery, loyalty and kindness that make him heroic. It's a performance comparable to that of Christopher Reeve's Superman in that Hemsworth manages to imbue this God-like character with a natural affability.
On a sour note, in step with the Marvel Studios films to date, the action in Thor is just ok. It's not bad but nothing near exceptional. This is one aspect where Marvel Studios really needs to step up their game. I understand that they're out to keep their budgets from skyrocketing and I like that the strengths of their films so far have leaned on an understanding of the characters and an expert eye for casting. And yet...when you're making movies about characters who design and wear the most advanced battle armour in the world, who transform into raging Gamma-irradiated behemoths, and who are pretty much Gods, then the action ought to be at least occasionally spectacular (I will say I loved the frequently Kirby-esque production design in Thor and I'm glad many actual sets were built for Asgard rather than just relying on CGI).
In Thor, the action is comprised of a battle with a race of Frost Giants, a battle on Earth with the metallic titan known as The Destroyer, and a final throwdown on Asgard between Thor and Loki and each one of these scenes, while competent, could've have used a lot more panache. When you think of the great action scenes in comic book adaptations - like the fight between Superman and the Phantom Zone criminals in the streets of Metropolis in Superman II (1980) or the fight between Spidey and Doc Ock on the elevated train in Spider-Man 2 (2004), those are scenes where the filmmakers really went the extra mile to take the kind of excitement that comic fans have enjoyed on the page for years and bring it to life in a big way.
And while there have been opportunities to do that in all the Marvel Studio films so far, scenes like the Hulk's fight with the Abomination or Thor's fight with the Destroyer have been flatly rendered. As Marvel Studios moves forward, they have to realize that the action of their films needs to start soaring.
During Thor's end credits, the Bond-ian promise that "Thor Will Return In The Avengers" appears and, as a building block towards that impending team-up, Thor plays perfectly (some have carped that S.H.I.E.L.D. feels shoehorned in but I disagree - I think it's natural to have them show up in the manner that they do and it's not necessary to have seen any of the other Marvel movies to understand that they're a F.B.I./C.I.A.-style organization).
It's true that Thor's reentry to Midgard has hit a roadblock by the end of this film but I think that's preferable to having Thor left on Earth. I'd rather have his entrance be a big deal in The Avengers rather than have his first meeting with Tony Stark or Bruce Banner occurring in the time between this movie and The Avengers.
As a character, Thor will never be at the top of my list of favorite superheroes but this movie is definitely near the top of my list of favorite superhero adaptations. It could've used some fine tuning, yes, but it's fun and well-acted. What's more, it's my six year old son's new favorite movie and that alone tells me that Branagh and co. hammered out a winner.
Labels: Chris Hemsworth, Jack Kirby, Kat Denning, Kenneth Branagh, Natalie Portman, Stan Lee, Thor, Tom Hiddleston
The Gentlemen's Guide To Vampire Slaying
Charley Brewster's War
The Day You Count On For Terror Is Not Over
Fatal Five
Bat To The Future


At Montana Capital Car Title Loans in Irvine CA you can apply for a title loan of up to $20,000. We accept all applicants, even those with a bad credit score. Once approved for a loan, you'll keep driving your car while paying it back. Don't hesitate – Apply now!


text:
Q: How do I print char types from an array in c? int remainder;
char Hex[8];
int quotient, power;
remainder = (original_value*-1)-1;
for (int k = len; k > 0 ; k--)
{
    if (sign == 1)
    {
        power = pow(16, k-1);
        quotient = 15 - (remainder/power);
        remainder = remainder%power;
        if (quotient < 10)
            Hex[len - k] = (int)quotient;
        else if (quotient == 10)
            Hex[len - k] = 'A';
        else if (quotient == 11)
            Hex[len - k] = 'B';
        else if (quotient == 12)
            Hex[len - k] = 'C';
        else if (quotient == 13)
            Hex[len - k] = 'D';
        else if (quotient == 14)
            Hex[len - k] = 'E';
        else if (quotient == 15)
            Hex[len - k] = 'F';
    }
}

for(int k = 0; k < len; k++)
    printf("%s", Hex[k]);

I did not include the rest of the code, as this little bit should hopefully explain what I am trying to achieve.
My goal is to print out a Base 16 representation of any number that is entered by a user, but I need to save this data into an array for later use, how do I print the data within my char array (The last two lines), such that the characters display as they do in my for loop?

A: try This hope this will work and enjoy
  printf("%s", Hex[k]); ==> printf("%c", Hex[k]);

And pow to elevate a power of 2 is really sub-optimal. You should use shifts (<<)

A: Some quick and dirty code to do this looks like this;
unsigned int somevalue = 3543577;
char hexout[9];
const char *hexchar = "0123456789ABCDEF";
for(int i=7; i>=0; i--, somevalue >>= 4)
    hexout[i] = hexchar[somevalue & 0xF];
hexout[8] = 0;

printf("%s\n",hexout);

Watch out for assumption on sizeof int etc.

A: You're making it much more difficult than it needs to be.

*

*Avoid using floating point - such as pow() - when working with integral types.   It introduces a whole range of artifacts, due to limited precision of floating point.   Use operations on integral types only.

*%s format requires a zero terminated string (array of char). Hex[k] is a single character - which is a type mismatch.  printf() gives undefined behaviour if the format specifier and the   type of the corresponding argument don't match.

If you really must do this in a loop, the approach is simple.  Note I'm assuming original_value is positive, and that you don't need to keep its original value.
char Hex[9];
const char hex_digits[] = "0123456789ABCDEF";
for (int i = 0; i < 8; ++i)
{
    Hex[7-i] = hex_digits[original_value % 16];
    original_value /= 16;
}
Hex[8] = '\0';

The assumption that original_value is positive is vital because the modulo operator (original_value % 16) will produce a value between 0 and 15 inclusive, and integer division (original_value /= 16) rounds toward zero.
This will add leading zeros, so the output string for a value of 300 will be "0000012C".     I'll leave it as an exercise to work out how to get leading spaces rather than leading zeros.
You can also do the above using equivalent bitwise operations, but I'll leave that as an exercise.   I consider using basic math operations is clearer  for this exercise (most people, if asked to write some value on paper in hex, would work in terms of division and remainders, not bit fiddling).
However, the above (even trying to do it in a loop) is unnecessary.  All you really need to do is;
 char Hex[9];
 sprintf(Hex, "%08X", (unsigned)original_value);

If you want spaces instead of leading zeros, remove the 0 from the format string.
Note that I have increased the dimension of Hex by 1.   This allows for sprintf() to append a trailing zero  (and prevents undefined behaviour, since sprintf() ASSUMES the array provided is large enough to include that trailing character).  That will also allow you to print using
 printf("%s", Hex);

which keeps printing characters until a trailing zero byte is found.
If you don't want the trailing zero character in the array, obviously you need to adjust logic above.   But you also need to avoid trying to print the array as a string (e.g. using the %s format).
Bear in mind that your question ASSUMES int is a 32-bit type (a larger array would be needed for 64-bit types, for example).

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


- IF YOU COULD SEE TOMORROW. Work is scheduled to start Aug. 16 on the Tomorrowland of the future when Carousel of Progress is closed for a major overhaul - the first in its 30-year history.
Seen by an estimated 140 million visitors, Carousel is one of the best-traveled of Disney attractions. It started at the New York World's Fair of 1964-65, then moved to California's Disneyland before settling into the Magic Kingdom in 1975.
Originally sponsored by General Electric, the attraction traced the history of appliances through the home of an ageless, audio-animatronic family.
Humorist Jean Shepherd, author and narrator of A Christmas Story, has worked on a new script with Disney "imagineers" in California. Shepherd also will be the voice of the robotic father.
No longer accountable to GE, the Carousel will look at progress in other areas besides electricity and will evoke more of the eras represented.
The Carousel's final scene, set in the near future, will be updated so the marvels of modern technology are actually modern.
Disney purists need not worry that the Carousel will lose its identity. The changes look to the past as well as future.
A tribute to Walt Disney and the World's Fair will introduce the revised show, and the theme song, "Now is the Best Time of Your Life," will be replaced by the show's original theme, "There's a Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow." The tune was written by Richard and Robert Sherman, the song-writing brothers who wrote the music for Mary Poppins.
"It's a freshening of the show," said Sarona Soughers, a Disney publicist. "You're not going to come in and say, 'Wow, it's a whole new show.' "
Carousel is scheduled to reopen in November. By that time, work may have started that will change the face of Tomorrowland.
Maligned by some critics as sterile and dated, Tomorrowland will be getting a new look.
Anticipating what "tomorrow" will really look like is a difficult proposition. It runs the risk of becoming quickly dated by changing tastes and technology.
So Disney seems to be going after a look that could be described as "yesterday's tomorrows" - preliminary sketches show buildings with fins and domes and orbs and rings reminiscent of a Buck Rogers movie.
The insides are changing, too.
"Mission to Mars" is out, replaced by "Alien Encounter," in which a monstrous extraterrestrial runs amok. The Starjets will feature a new look, and a new Circlevision 360 film is planned.
Tomorrow's Tomorrowland should arrive in 1995.