Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Interview With Lucas Gonze of Webjay

samzenpus posted more than 9 years ago | from the have-some-metallica dept.

The Internet 62

Richard MacManus writes "I've published an interview with Lucas Gonze, creator of the P2P music-sharing web app Webjay. Lucas was an early developer of peer-to-peer applications and back in 2000 he created a P2P start-up called World OS (the product was called Goa). In this interview we discuss World OS / Goa, how it compared to other P2P apps such as Gnutella, the 'Internet as Platform' concept, how Webjay works, some P2P History and Decentralization Theory, and ways around the legal hassles of P2P."

cancel ×

62 comments

Bit Torrent! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10648307)

All Hail Bittorrent, down with P2p!

Re:Bit Torrent! (-1, Offtopic)

Gentlewhisper (759800) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648319)

You traitor!

Re:Bit Torrent! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10648500)

BitTorrent is a form of P2P.

Re:Bit Torrent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10651898)

No. It usees teh bitorent technology. p2p only uses teh p2p-tecknoloogy.

How in the world... (4, Insightful)

JoeLinux (20366) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648318)

Do you see p2p becoming anything other than an academic plaything? It's inherent "sometimes" nature (Sometimes you'll find the file you are looking for, sometimes it's busy/not found due to you not having the right connections) would seem to run counter to most business' requirements for reliability. How do you plan on redressing this?

Joe

Re:How in the world... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10648469)

On the other hand I dont see why the BitTorrent model with some very fast connection seeds (and some modification maybe for the seed upload algorithm to be fair to everybody regardless of their connection speed) hasnt gained more support for content distribution.

Re:How in the world... (2, Interesting)

D+iz+a+n+k+Meister (609493) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648849)

Many Earth Science types have been using the LDM [ucar.edu] for quite some time now. The LDM always struck me as the academic's BitTorrent.

Granted, the LDM is geared more towards providing data in "near real-time," as opposed to delivering static content. . .but you can download and upload from/to just about anybody else with the LDM.

This isn't that kind of interview (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10648495)

You're supposed to read the interview... not participate in it.

Anyway, if you're going to ask him questions, ask him if his parents were jhuge Star Wars fans or what.

Re:This isn't that kind of interview (1)

lucas_gonze (94721) | more than 9 years ago | (#10650830)

My parents are huge people who bitterly resented the the fact that they were going to have to take me to Star Wars.

Re:How in the world... (2)

RealAlaskan (576404) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648499)

It's inherent "sometimes" nature (Sometimes you'll find the file you are looking for, sometimes it's busy/not found due to you not having the right connections) would seem to run counter to most business' requirements for reliability.

I don't think that companies will ever use this for getting mp3s over the web. On the other hand, companies could use this to disseminate their own internal stuff. Search for ``joes spreadsheet'' on the internal p2p network, and if you don't find it, Joe is in trouble. Academics are using these networks to disseminate their papers and data sets, too, though I can't give you link to an example.

Re:How in the world... (2, Informative)

DanteBlack (656808) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648556)

P2P is certainly more than a 'play thing' it has enormous potential for distribution. Take Debian for example, they use p2p to distribute install CDs (http://www.debian.org/CD/torrent-cd/), the benefit is that they've effectibly reduced the load on their servers. The problem with p2p is that it's gotten a bad rap, by large un-named organizations, not the technology proper.

Re:How in the world... (4, Informative)

Glass of Water (537481) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648763)

Yeah, man, the basic principles of decentralization are still quite sound. I mean, how'd you get here? typing "66.35.250.150"?

The thing is, Webjay [webjay.org] (Gonze's current project, for those who skipped the article) isn't a decentralized service. It's a centralized index of audio from all over the net. It provides tools to aggregate disparate and far-flung audio into a single playlist, and lets users judge. It's pretty cool, actually, because it solves (or tries to solve) a big problem with online free music, which is that nobody wants to weed through the crap to find the good stuff.

Domain registration (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10650553)

The domain name system is not decentralized. You pay a domain registration fee because running the core DNS servers is expensive (besides Verisign making a buck). Chances are when you browse to a domain there will only be 3 or 4 layers to one of the core DNS servers, run by large communications companies. National internet authorities will feed off them and cache the domain information. Then your ISPs DNS server will feed off those on higher layers. Just because ISPs run their own servers doesn't mean DNS is decentralized. There is no way a decentralized system for something as universal as domain names could ever work.

Re:How in the world... (1)

Flaming Foobar (597181) | more than 9 years ago | (#10651553)

It provides tools to aggregate disparate and far-flung audio into a single playlist, and lets users judge. It's pretty cool, actually, because it solves (or tries to solve) a big problem with online free music, which is that nobody wants to weed through the crap to find the good stuff.

Can this ever work? Everyone I know listens to different kinds of music. I like "obscure" rock bands, my best friend is into classical and new age, another good friend listens to folk, King Tubby and such, my wife like artists such as Scooter and Phil Collins, and the people at work are into metal. I wouldn't want ANYTHING on any of their playlists, it's enough that I'm made listen to it at parties.

Re:How in the world... (1)

Glass of Water (537481) | more than 9 years ago | (#10655113)

Well, I'm not trying to sell you anything here. The simplest way to answer that question is for you to look at webjay [webjay.org] and judge for yourself, but I think there is a slight misunderstanding. The idea is that you find something you like on webjay, and there is a playlist [webjay.org] of stuff that goes with it. If you like one song in a playlist, you might like another, because somebody who made the playlist thinks that they go together. This is not a social networking site. You can look at your friends' playlists, but there's no reason to if you don't like the music.

The cool thing also is that the music is right there. There are sites like audioscrobbler [audioscrobbler.com] where you can see what people like who like what you like, but you can't actually HEAR it.

WebJay isn't "p2p" (as in Napster, Kazaa, etc.) (2, Informative)

turnstyle (588788) | more than 9 years ago | (#10649105)

For those unfamiliar with WebJay, it's worth pointing out that it's not an "app" (it's a Web site), and it's not "p2p" (at least not in the Napster, Kazaa sense of the term).

Instead, it lets you build and publish playlists that point to content served by other boxes -- it doesn't "share" anything as much as it shares pointers to those things (a big difference from conventional "p2p" apps).

Also, I believe Lucas' intent is that it only share authorized work (another big difference from conventional "p2p").

P2P web content? (0)

Yenin (793347) | more than 9 years ago | (#10649161)

I'm hoping that it's possible to implement P2P web content.

Bandwidth would be paid for by the consumer rather than the web page in question. Unfortunately pages would no longer be vulnerable to slashdotting.

Re:How in the world... (1)

lucas_gonze (94721) | more than 9 years ago | (#10650852)

By throwing nodes at the problem. The virtue of P2P is that it scales up like nothing else. The disadvantage is that you need a lot of nodes. Given enough nodes, though, there is nothing with even remotely comparable uptime.

Re:How in the world... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10652228)

I wish some of those "nodes" would get anti-virus or look at the content of some of their mislabeled or nonworking files they are sharing.

Re:How in the world... (1)

pluggo (98988) | more than 9 years ago | (#10652937)

Do you see p2p becoming anything other than an academic plaything? It's inherent "sometimes" nature (Sometimes you'll find the file you are looking for, sometimes it's busy/not found due to you not having the right connections) would seem to run counter to most business' requirements for reliability. How do you plan on redressing this?

So, let's say you want to download a file from some random FTP site. It's down. How do you propose you get the file?

Now, picture this. You're on a P2P network like this. The file you're looking for might be on multiple servers (well, client/servers; part of what makes this so cool is the lack of a distinction), which not only makes the file available, but in some P2P systems (especially BitTorrent, to a certain extent WinMX), makes the machines posessing the files' combined bandwidth available, usually resulting in a faster download.

In this respect, P2P is, IMHO, not less reliable but rather more so. If you want your file to get out to the unwashed masses, you'd better make sure it's on a reliable server. P2P increases the possible number of reliable servers; also, I think if *legal* media becomes more popular, more people will leave it online to download, not fearing a cease & desist from some RIAA buttmunch.

As for "not having the right connections," IIRC, this was why the internet (or DARPAnet) was designed the way it was, having a mesh topology (well, really a mesh metatopology with a star topology attached to each link in the mesh...) and multiple routes between hosts. That way, if the Commies took down Norad, Crystal Palace and the Pentagon still had a link (I have no idea where Norad or Crystal Palace is, but I've heard them in movies, so I figured, hell, why not. You get the idea though. :-D)

On a side note... I wonder about how IPv6 will affect P2P, especially its multicasting capabilities and HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE address space. When we are capable of connecting that many machines with their own IP address, and bandwidth and processing speed have doubled a few times more, I think P2P file sharing will look totally different, being (in some cases anyway) the rule rather than the exception. Download some public-domain music to your internet-enabled radio (or maybe a PD movie or show to your internet-ready TV), then it will be available to other users requesting this file until you get rid of it. Burn a [S]VCD or DVD{+|-}R[W] off your TV, take it to a friend's house (or out in the boonies, or anywhere else you might imagine)... we're getting Jetsons-esque technology in baby steps. But maybe baby-steps tested in a competitive worldwide community are the most effective way to get there.

Sorry for the long post... P2P and decentralization is exciting stuff to me. :-D

p2p is dying. (4, Interesting)

zerdood (824300) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648365)

P2P is becoming viewed more and more like warez. Whether or not there are thorny legal issues, it will still die. Joe User doesn't know his rights, he just listens to the propaganda.

Re:p2p is dying. (1)

sH4RD (749216) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648398)

But Open Source helps. Look at Shareaza, no RIAA threats to them yet, because you can't threaten them. Plus, certain important legal battles are finally being won in the fight for rights. Plus, (shameless plug follows), you can go open soruce and secure: WASTE [sf.net] .

Re:p2p is dying. (1)

josh3736 (745265) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648435)

Are you kidding me?

As long as joe user can get his free MP3s, he doesn't give a shit about the propoganda.

I'm almost suprised the parent didn't read "netcraft confirms it will still die."

Re:p2p is dying. (2, Insightful)

Drakonian (518722) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648762)

It is dying like all illegal things eventually do - speeding, jay-walking, drinking during the prohibition, etc?

Re:p2p is dying. (1)

duncanatlk (643480) | more than 9 years ago | (#10649149)

Mod points where art thou? Or are you just being sarcastic?

Re:p2p is dying. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10652242)

So did a drunk hit a jay-walker while speeding during prohibition and they all die? Is that why this is insightful?

Re:p2p is dying. (1)

pdboddy (620164) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648775)

Heh, P2P isn't anywhere close to dying. It's potential is too great. Like anything else we create, it can be used for what it was intented, and it can be misused.

It's an awesome way to quickly disseminate updates and patches, I am surprised that some of the bigger game companies haven't started using it to release the often large patches they put out.

And I think Joe User *does* know his rights, RIAA just needs to piss off a few more before they get stomped...

One question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10651852)

P2P is becoming viewed more and more like warez.

Is warez dying?

oh I love this one (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10648405)

"WorldOS was all vegetables and no dessert."

WTF does that mean? I love vegetables, YOU CLOD!

Re:oh I love this one (0, Offtopic)

empaler (130732) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648491)

... and remember that processed sugar shortens life expectancy. Erm, and that a study has recently proved that fat could damage the brain [newscientist.com] . No dessert? Fine by me.

FRIST PUSOT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10648414)

Lucas gone Gonzo (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10648418)

when I first read this, I thought it was going to be another negative Star Wars thread:
"Interview with Lucas gone Gonzo"

Re:Lucas gone Gonzo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10648734)

Maybe he could make a good movie, then.

Re:Lucas gone Gonzo (1)

mabinogi (74033) | more than 9 years ago | (#10651031)

With chickens!

How long can this last? (0, Flamebait)

brandonp (126) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648468)

Will they last?

--
Brandon Petersen
Get Firefox! [spreadfirefox.com]

A side thought (0)

CrazyJim0 (324487) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648514)

I came up with Gnutella independent of hearing about it. Bittorrent puts you in line, based on when you entered, but its flawed as I see it.

If the man above you has only a 1k upload time, you're stuck with the 1k download, and so is everyone below you. What if bittorrent allowed users to change their spot in the downloading based on the less upload or downloading.

I bet you could even stream television(aka the new Cable).

God spoke to me:

www.geocities.com/James_Sager_PA

Re:A side thought (4, Informative)

gordyf (23004) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648566)

BitTorrent doesn't just use a "line". You download from multiple people simultaneously, and those peope change over time, so you're not just downloading from a single person. Also, the more you upload to others, the more you'll be favored when clients are choosing who to upload to.

Re:A side thought (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648637)

Screw BitTorrent. They need the ULTIMATE P2P application that can p2p from different p2p software. Kind of like Trillion can talk to ICQ, AOL, MSN, Yahoo etc.

Re:A side thought (1)

gordyf (23004) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648684)

Shareaza tries to do this, but it kinda sucks.

Re:A side thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10648756)

you mean this? [mldonkey.org]

Re:A side thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10648846)

i tryed that bittorrent software, it is not bad, but if you dont tweak the settings the damn software will end up using you as a server much much more than a client, i dont mind sharing but as a home user i dont like running my system as a server as much as those torrent p2p's would like me to me, i have other users that i share this computer with and sometimes i have to shut it down to logoff and let others logon to their setup, not everyone runs their OS as single user, i have my desktop & preferences and others have their's...

Re:A side thought (1)

Apage43 (708800) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648610)

No, bittorrent does not work like that, you download from multiple sources. Peercast works like that, but not bittorrent.

Re:A side thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10648679)

As other posters already noted bittorrent doesnt work like that.
Actually when you (the client) connect to a tracker you will be given the addresses of typically 20 other clients.
Then based on the ability to exchange data with them the best connections will survive.
Any time you reconnect to the tracker you get another 20 new addresses. Therefore you can end up connected with everybody when a torrent has ~100-200 peers.
Having a better upload rate will result in being connected to more peers (besides from a better download speed), thus putting you "upper in the downloading" as you suggested.

Re:A side thought (1)

ozric99 (162412) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648771)

are you on crack, mate?

music industry revolution (2, Insightful)

ozloy (575210) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648814)

i'm sure it's been said before, but i haven't seen it put this way:

why don't artists just give away their music, and charge for concerts?

the cost of distributing used to be the promotion of a cd, the making of the cds, yadda. but with p2p those costs go to nothing.

artists don't make much on cd sales anyways
they make most of their money on concerts as it is.
(from what i've heard)

Re:music industry revolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10648963)

As a small time artist I can say that it is because there are hundreds of thousands of artists on only thousands of venues. MOST artists do not have the money needed to setup/promote and perform live.

A small artist may only have a few fans in any one city, making a concert a compeletly impossibility whereas that same artist may have thousands of fans world wide willing to pay for his music.

These days artists CAN make money on direct CD sales or sales through small distributers that take much less of the profit.

More than ever, people need to realize that an artist has a right to make a living doing his work, and that the best way to do that is through on-line song and music sales.

WHat yo uare proposing is a mechanism that is a throw-back to pre-internet times. That's not the way to move forward.

Re:music industry revolution (4, Insightful)

gregmac (629064) | more than 9 years ago | (#10649155)

just playing devil's advocate here, but:

why don't artists just give away their music, and charge for concerts?

the cost of distributing used to be the promotion of a cd, the making of the cds, yadda. but with p2p those costs go to nothing.


the cost of a CD is more than just distributing: it is also the manufacture of the cd (ok, this again goes to $0 when you just go via P2P), cost of recording, administrative overhead, ....

Recording music is not cheap. While yes, it is possible to setup a home recording studio fairly inexpensivly that sounds decent, to get really good quality sound you're paying lots of money (for example, a good studio mic can run thousands of dollars). Building a studio is expensive, and thus renting one is expensive. Not to mention, you have to pay your sound engineer, support staff, etc.

Also, someone's gotta figure out how you're doing with fans (which is much harder to do with P2P than CD sales). Are you popular enough in Toronto that it's worth looking into playing a concert there?

You've also got to pre-pay for a lot of the production - renting a stage if required, sound gear, lights, trucks (if touring), paying security, roadies, hotels, food..

Now, here's the big problem. Where do you get that money? Do you go to the bank and say "hey look, I need $80,000 to put on this concert.."? Perhaps mortgage your house or sell your car.. what happens if you only sell 20% of the tickets you expected, because 5 other bands that are bigger than you are playing the same city the same night (since that's the only way they can make money now)?

While I disagree a lot with the way record companies work, there's not many places that will spend $1-million on you, and if you don't "make it", just let it go..

Re:music industry revolution (2, Insightful)

ozloy (575210) | more than 9 years ago | (#10649570)

ok, so then current music industry corporates embrace p2p to get around the problems.
they provide the best p2p network with the highest quality files and broadest range
in return you lose privacy. they want to know who you listen to, where you physically are, other stuff that helps them determine which artist is the best investment

music execs invest the money for concerts on artists they think are worth it. if the concert is a success, the artist gets paid.

everything shifts from promotion of cd to promotion of concert.
all money exchange is done at the concert.

piracy issues avoided. it's not easy to download the concert experience.

plus i want to download and not feel guilty about it, damnit!
i'm hungry, gonna go eat.

Re:music industry revolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10652992)

I certainly agree that the records companies are mostly crap.... I would love it if more artists would do their own label.. or sell direct...etc.. I would even be happy to donate to artists who's music I liked....

Call me old skool, but I still like to have the real CD with the artwork etc... so I would hope artists would still sell direct online... but many smaller artists could sell mp3s or whatever to keep their costs down... if it's good I'd buy it from them...

I don't like to make excuses.. but when we all know the artist gets so little of each CD sale... then of course many people feel justified in downloading/stealing..... but if you could download the whole album and donate $5 to the artist... would you do that ??? I would... they get their money, they get to continue to exist and continue to work... and we get what we want...

I never agree with the whole 'we are losing millions' or whatever the record companies say either.... afterall ... if i download something and I like it... i'll usually go buy the album anyway.. because i want the cd...

i dunno what the answer is..... i just know that the labels' sole interest is in themselves... and they don't care about the artist or the consumer... there has to be a good way to just cut them out of the loop.. and the internet and downloading and p2p might be a very good start...

sure promotion and making people aware of new music is tough.. but it's not like labels help more than a few artists wtih that anyway... Top 20, top 40.... whatever.. that's crap... with the millions of people in the world... why do the labels force us all to listen to the same 40 songs..... radio stations.... payolla..etc...

fire the labels i say !!!

Is webjay really p2p? (1)

hdd (772289) | more than 9 years ago | (#10649136)

i thought it's just playlists collection of music/video on the web. Does that qualify as mpoint to point?

Re:Is webjay really p2p? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10651335)

No, definitely not.

But maybe mpeer to peer.

P2P as the larger Internet (1)

OccidentalSlashy (809265) | more than 9 years ago | (#10649272)

Most of the criticisms folks sling against P2P these days are surprisingly similar to the ones they addressed against the Internet about ten years ago.

Then, it was "You can't trust anyone on the internet. You can't depend on a web server being there when you need it. And you can't really get people to buy anything from you!"

I think those criticisms answered themselves with time. The Net changed business and dating forever, and now seems to be leading the U.S.A. into a great standoff between the intelligent and the stupid. (You know what I'm talking about.)

And P2P is just for copyright pirates? Get real. It's a mass movement that's going to destroy copyright as we know it. Then what will you say it's for?

Re:P2P as the larger Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10650587)

"You can't trust anyone on the internet. You can't depend on a web server being there when you need it. And you can't really get people to buy anything from you!"

Entirely true. But you can trust corporations to always have their web server there. And you can trust their contact forms. And a few even manage to sell things.

As for the great standoff? Well, you probably believe Bush wants to reinstate the draft, as if the armed forces needed idiots like you, so I can guess which side you are on.

Don't Steal Music (3, Interesting)

SiliconEntity (448450) | more than 9 years ago | (#10649475)

Gonze has a good perspective on piracy:
I don't believe there is a moral duty to stick to authorized music. I do believe that politeness is the only path to a political solution. If somebody wants me to stand on my head while listening to their music, I will either stand on my head or find other music. If somebody wants me to listen to their music, they will have to make it available under terms that I can accept.


Politeness is a winner tactic. It forces the crappy businessmen in the recording industry to stop hiding behind piracy. It makes the good guys smell serious. It's a dignified way of living. It helps musicians who respect listeners get popular at the expense of musicians who don't. The sole problem with politeness is that the technology and culture to filter up the best music libre is still immature.
In other words, don't steal music. Take music from people who give you permission to do so. It's common decency and politeness. Gonze's technology is supposed to help you find music like this which is just as good as the crap you've been stealing.

Sounds to me like it's worth a try.

Re:Don't Steal Music (1)

lucas_gonze (94721) | more than 9 years ago | (#10650804)

N.B.: I don't believe that use of unauthorized music is stealing. It's actually important to split that hair.

Don't Twist Words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10651909)

In other words, don't steal music

Wow - way to take his opinion-neutral reasoning and conflate it with the RIAA's credo.

His argument was "be polite" - as in, respect the producer's wishes - without comment on whether copying is stealing or whether copying music is morally, or should be legally, wrong.

The problem with reading between the lines is subjective interpretation. Maybe you should have tried to just interpret his words at face value.

Lucas Gonze (1)

sla291 (757668) | more than 9 years ago | (#10651428)

I've been personnally in touch with Lucas Gonze on some Creative Commons mailinglists, and he's a very nice guy.

But when I read this from his interview :

" Webjay will be history the instant somebody sues, no matter how stupid and wrong the suit is. Obviously. "

Well, that's not serious in any way... I mean how can he go on with this project, under this kind of threat ?

Isn't there a foundation like the FSF, but for P2P, which could help with at least obviously "wrong" suits ?

Re:Lucas Gonze (1)

slashdotbs (745462) | more than 9 years ago | (#10652813)

Isn't there a foundation like the FSF, but for P2P, which could help with at least obviously "wrong" suits ?

Until the U.S. has a system like Britain's, where the loser pays the legal fees, there will be stupid lawsuits.

Still, the quote reads:

" Webjay will be history the instant somebody sues, no matter how stupid and wrong the suit is. Obviously. "

It's a potential problem, sure, but it's not like a suit has been filed.

off: blink (1)

clarkie.mg (216696) | more than 9 years ago | (#10651533)

Wow, I thought the blink tag on webpages was dead.

I was wrong : http://webjay.org/about [webjay.org]

Lucas gone Gonzo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10651890)

Actually, the original Star Wars, and the prequels, could qualify as Gonzo movies. (Gonzo [gonzo.org] , not Gonzo [hottopic.com] )

Both are very stylized and both styles are based on exaggerations in attempts to evoke familiar forms (Nazism, 50's lines, etc). The Star Wars movies are all indie films and have all been shot in ways considered unconventional at the time.

If you believe the text scroll before the movies, it even qualifies on the journalism part...
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...