digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at news.bbc.co.uk

Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

news.bbc.co.uk — 'Legendary British science fiction writer Sir Arthur C Clarke has died in Sri Lanka at the age of 90.' R.I.P

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • beatnikwriter, on 03/18/2008, -1/+248A few losses this year, but this is the biggest for me.
    • hauntedchippy, on 03/18/2008, -0/+11It's a damn shame it is.
      Do you think Stephen Baxter will finish the series they were working on?
      • beatnikwriter, on 03/18/2008, -0/+12If Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time can get finished by another writer... I'm sure Baxter will do a good job.
      • wentwj, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4I seem to recall reading an interview with Baxter and Clarke after the first one came out in which they addressed just this issue. And apparently at the outset they outlined the entire story so that Baxter could conclude it. (Though I haven't ready any beyond the first one, and... I thought I heard from some other source that they altered their plan to resolve the story quicker)
    • sockpuppets, on 03/18/2008, -22/+8Dead at the senseless age of 90.
      • RobotCitizen, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2If you're 90 years old and not senseless, you're lucky.
      • trappleton, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1nobody on digg has ever seen classic SNL
    • DharmaTurtle, on 03/18/2008, -38/+6Can someone please explain to me why 2001 was such a good movie? I watched it expecting something epic, but instead I was bored nearly to the point of tears. I don't understand....
      This is a legit question, someone please answer?
      • renski13, on 03/18/2008, -3/+11It was a movie of epic proportions. Look at when it was made. In 1968 they didn't have cgi. Also the soundtrack set the mood perfectly.
        • DharmaTurtle, on 03/18/2008, -5/+6Special effects do not make the movie. Transformers, 300, for example. Advancements in SFX, sure. But that doesn't explain the huge following behind it. How was it epic? Neither does the soundtrack make the movie.
          Please, I'm really curious. I wanted to enjoy the movie, but came out with a bitter taste.
          Thanks for the attempt at an answer though.
          • skaughtm, on 03/18/2008, -2/+7how is it an epic? well, let's see. we begin at the dawn of man and finish in an era in which man has developed the ultimate in weaponry. the timeline alone spans tens of millions of years. so you're not excited with it, move on.
          • DharmaTurtle, on 03/18/2008, -12/+3So it is epic because it covers a loooooong time? So if I make a movie about the evolution of dinosaurs, which covered millions of years, it would be a great movie?

            And it doesn't explain what goes in between those thousands and thousands of years. It goes from monkeys straight to space exploration.

            And what weaponry? I don't remember any weapons. Just HAL, who kills people, but he wasn't designed to be a weapon. If we're excited about epic weaponry, Star Wars would be awesome. Which it is...

            Thanks for the attempt answer though Skaughtm!
          • renski13, on 03/19/2008, -4/+5Now you're just being childish. If you don't want to enjoy the movie it's fine with me. Go troll some other forum.
          • DharmaTurtle, on 03/19/2008, -8/+4How am I being childish? I am genuinely interested. If you can disprove my points, please, tell me!
            I sincerely want to know.
          • DharmaTurtle, on 03/19/2008, -9/+1Blade Runner.
            Of course, I'm biased towards it because I love Vonnegut, but it's my favorite movie.

            But that's beside the point. A movie doesn't have to be epic to be good.
          • meropealcyone, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2If you missed the weaponry you might want to watch the film again. Its appearance is fleeting but important, and your having missed it kind of invalidates your complaints imho. As for epic, well that refers to the themes explored: immortality; humanity's place in the Universe; death; religion; transformation; rebirth; technology versus humanism are just a few. Really - give it another chance. I mean, there are valid complaints: it's opaque; the narrative is not always easy to follow; it's overly imbued with the sensibility of the time and so on. But it's a seminal movie and deserves to be, though it needs a bit of work to be fully appreciated.
          • DharmaTurtle, on 03/19/2008, -6/+1Immortality
            I don't see this theme at all. Unless its connected to the spacebaby at the very end, in which I really don't understand this movie at all. You journey into the depths of space and become one with the universe?

            Humanity's place in the Universe:
            Okay, I can see this. Space is very large, and Kubrick did a very good job of showing us how irrelevent we are. This is a profound theme, and is very mind opening as to how little it matters what we do.

            Death:
            How is this a theme? People, die, yes, but the movie hardly concentrates on them.

            Religion:
            What religion? The monkeys in the beginning showed no signs (to me, anyway) of having a religion. Same goes for everyone else in the movie. And this is hardly a theme, in my opinion.

            Transformation/rebirth:
            Okay, I suppose this is about the spacebaby at the end. This, in my honest opinion, really isn't a theme though. It's an interesting idea yes, but its more like a motif than a theme.

            Technology vs. Humans:
            This theme is explored all the time though. Scifi horror movies are a dollar a dozen.

            I know I'm being very nitpicky, but I was vastly let down by the movie, and am just uttering what I felt upon reaching the conclusion of the movie. Thanks for answering though Mero, you're the first to try so hard.

            P.S. What weaponry did I miss?
          • meropealcyone, on 03/19/2008, -2/+0Well, death as a theme could refer to the death of one phase of human history before rebirth through the starchild. This is more explicitly seen in the book, but death is certainly thematic throughout the movie: as a consequence of the 'discovery' of weapons by the apes, as a tool of a megalomaniac computer and so on. I would say the movie certainly concentrates on it. Religion - in terms of the idea of a superior being/beings - with effectively god-like powers is equally thematic imho, and the starchild is the culmination of the movie and the process of rebirth and transformation - hardly unimportant. As for technology, you'll notice I said "tech vs humanism" not "vs humans" - I didn't mean the conflict between HAL and the astronauts, but rather was making a general comment on how technology and the human race will interact in the future (or at least the future as it was imagined in 1968).

            But really, there are no right answers. If you disagree and don't see what I see, so be it. You are certainly not alone: popular reaction was far from uniform praise when the movie was released.

            Incidentally, I think you mistakenly believe Kurt Vonnegut wrote "Blade Runner." In fact, the author was Phillp K. Dick, though the original novel was named "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"
          • DharmaTurtle, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Yeah, sorry I know its his death, but I'm not criticizing his book. I'm just of the opinion that the movie is just praised much more than it should be. I'm attacking Kubrick, not Clarke.

            But you're right, he died, and he deserves much respect. I'll be quiet now.
          • bratterscain, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1It was epic mostly for the time it came out, from what I can gather. In the 60's, religion had an even larger foothold than it does today and was a time when people thinking "we came from monkeys" was ludicrous. Of course, we didn't but that's what some religious nutters like to say to demean Darwinism. It had an impact upon me as a child and blurred the lines more between man and animal, past and future. It's a great story of man's rise to the top of the food chain.
          • oneoverzero, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3vonnegut had nothing to do with bladerunner...

            or this article.
          • bugsy187, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2@DharmaTurtle

            If you're interested in what 2001 is truly about, read the novel adapted from the screenplay. The story is about profound steps human development. The black monolith in the beginning triggers something in the minds of primates, who use the bone as a tool and kill for meat. A vast supply of nourishment is opened up for advancing the species. The bone is thrown into the air and a famous cut on action shows a bone-shaped space ship. The space vessel is the modern equivalent of a profound tool. Skipping ahead, the astronaut encounters the monolith at the end of the film, triggering the next phase of development. He's reborn as a star child.

            Kubrick approaches the subject matter with many enigmatic style choices, but sensitivity to the subject matter and craft can be seen. He could have taken a more literal approach to the narrative (at the end of the film, especially) but this would have been a heavy-handed approach. Though his cinematic choices may seem peculiar, they seem much more appropriate having read the novel.
          • sabach, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2@DharmaTurtle Blade Runner was based on a novel by Philip K. Dick. Many others here have adequately pointed out what makes 2001 a milestone of filmmaking. Two of Dr Clarke's novels that I always wanted to see filmed were Childhood's End and Rendezvous with Rama ( the latter of which may very well happen it appears).
        • jaynemother, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2The book was great.
      • radix2, on 03/18/2008, -2/+18You would need to have read the book to understand what was going on. I never thought the movie stood on its own very well personally.
        • DharmaTurtle, on 03/18/2008, -7/+1I agree. I read the book a long time ago, and don't remember disliking it as much as the movie. Don't remember liking it much either... but maybe I was too young to really appreciate it.

          The thing I dislike most about it was how long it was... was there a reason why?
          • radix2, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1I think Kubrick dwelled a long time on certain themes to build up a sense of awe and wonder (the space scenes as an example). And then he omitted/cut-out scenes that would have provided closure. I enjoyed the movie, but I didn't think it was that fantastic - too long for one :-)
          • covertbadger, on 03/19/2008, -0/+10Actually, 2001 isn't a long book at all - about 266 pages. If you read it a long time ago, I'd recommend reading it again. It's also easier to understand than the movie, so if you rewatch the film afterwards you might appreciate it more.

            In response to your question about why is the film so great - it was revolutionary at the time. In fact, there still aren't many films like it. It treats the subject matter with respect - there are no little green men and lasers. The soundtrack and direction communicated something of the majesty of space in a way that opened people's eyes. The 'dance' of the ships manoeuvring in space was almost performance art. HAL showed something of the anticipated danger of true AI, rather than being there for comedy effect (cf Twiki, C3PO, etc). At the same time, it wasn't so fantastic as to be unbelieveable, since all the technology is arguably plausible and in most cases a clear path of evolution could be seen from contemporary tech (this was just before the moon landings remember).

            I don't know if I've got any of this across. It told a huge, sweeping, significant story about the past, present, and future of the human race, and portrayed the existence of advanced alien civilization without giving any easy answers, and made it all look utterly plausible. Really though, if you don't 'get it', that's cool - it's not a film to appeal to everyone, and you have to have sympathy with the film's values to get much out of it.
          • DharmaTurtle, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3Oooo that's a really good answer Badger. Thanks! I kinda see how it portrayed the majesty of space to people along time ago.

            The things I dislike most about it though is how long it took to occur. Most of the movie was just a ship moving across a black screen, easily cut out and they didn't add to the movie or the majesty of space.

            I never realized that about the comedic robots, thanks! The best answer I've read so far.
          • RobotCitizen, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3This is often the problem when young people watch films from a previous generation that were revolutionary at the time. You've already been exposed to countless derivatives, and so when you see the original it doesn't feel like a big deal.
        • DharmaTurtle, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2In my opinion, the movie should be considered separately from the book. A good book should NOT automatically make a good movie.
          If the movie missed so many points that had to be backed by a book, then it should have been panned. In my opinion.
          • Rammsteined, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I think you mean; a good movie should not automatically make a good book. Movie came first.
      • DharmaTurtle, on 03/18/2008, -12/+3And I'm promptly buried into oblivion... :(
        It's a legit question, and I'm waiting patiently for an answer.
        • PaulOwen, on 03/18/2008, -1/+3Right,

          The reason 2001 is an epic movie is because of the idea of transcendence in scfi-fi which is a recurring theme in Clarke's novels, the special effects in the film were way before their time (A Clockwork Orange was made *after* 2001 for reference), and the reason there is less than 7 minutes of dialogue in the whole film is because it is

          a) probably because Kubrik shared the idea with Clarke that current human vocabularies wouldn't have much to say about human transcendence (because we've never experienced it), and

          b) Because of the vast distances involved, nothing much *would* happen for a large part of any film following a voyage into deep space - its not like travelling to your nearest city for the day!
          • crash331, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2I have a college paper on it somewhere, don't really feel like looking. But honestly, if you don't like it then movies as an art form really isn't for you. You may like movies for stories, effects, etc. but you never really sit down and think about a movie and examine it. Atleast that's my opinion.
          • DharmaTurtle, on 03/19/2008, -5/+1I have nothing against little dialog. I enjoyed the Bourne series, and Matt doesn't have many speaking parts.

            About the large distances, couldn't we cut out the boring parts? Like, consider, Little Miss Sunshine. They drove to California, (which is peanuts to space, I know, but it still took days) and the director didn't have 45 minutes of the guy sitting there adjusting the wheel every 5 seconds. Its cool, okay, spacetravel. But its not very interesting (to me anyway) to watch a ship move from point A to point B, especially when they don't show how the engines work or the means of propulsion. I know, I know, momentum, no friction in space, the ship is coasting, but couldn't they show it decellerating as it approaches Jupiter?
            And again, the special effects. They were awesome, yes, but the content of the movie is dreadfully dry. To me, anyway. I mean, Jar Jar of Star Wars was an achievement in SFX, and we all hate him. SFX do not make the movie, in my opinion.

            Thanks for answering though PaulOwen!
          • DharmaTurtle, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1At Crash331:
            I'm sitting down and thinking and examining the movie right now! I sincerely want to know why this is such a highly regarded movie.
            I admit though, I like my movies to have plot, characterization, coherent themes. I'm rather linear when it comes to appreciating art. Which is why I'm trying to understand why this is such a highly regarded movie. I'm trying to develop my sense of art, though that can't be done I suppose. I can try though, can't I?
            Thanks for the answer Crash!
      • ZomZom, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I suspect you are young. I am 43, and remember a time when the concepts presented in "2001" were not common. Among them were the idea that humanity might be the progeny of another intelligent species' experiment, or of their design, rather than that of a deity or merely of random chance.

        That an artificial intelligence might be created by man such that speech and reasoning might be within its grasp, but not morality. And, perhaps, that reflects upon some men.

        And, mostly, that science is seated alongside art among man's greatest endeavors.

      • chikkychappy, on 03/20/2008, -0/+0because it was both artistic and amazingly scientifically accurate (and prescient even), a very very VERY rare combination.
    • rmeddy, on 03/18/2008, -0/+53Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. R.I.P Sir Clarke.
    • stonklit, on 03/18/2008, -9/+0Really?
      • Bowman3001, on 03/18/2008, -1/+0I'm gutted.. really:(
        • hottyson, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Me too :(

          First, Da Vinci
          And now, Sir Arthur C. Clarke

          Great minds live forever in their words they have left behind.
    • Poochyfud, on 03/18/2008, -1/+4Between he and Robert Jorden, I am running out of reading material!
    • borez, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3A few losses in the last two decades , but this is easily the biggest for me.
    • counterplex, on 03/19/2008, -0/+12This is the man who amazed me with The Fountains of Paradise and Rendezvous with Rama among many others. I've always loved his hard science fiction and I'm amazed at how many people don't know that he's the father of the modern communications satellite (thanks to his idea of a geostationary orbit). I had a dream to travel to Sri Lanka to visit with him - I know friends of his from Sri Lanka - but it looks like that will not happen.

      R.I.P Mr. Clarke. May your next journey be as fantastic as the journeys you've helped us take with your imagination!
    • Chinzon, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4I am heartbroken, I mean that sincerely. I don't have many real heroes, but Sir Arthur was one of them. My favourite author, and a man who did way more than his share for the furtherment of humanity. Farewell, Sir Arthur.
    • OneLess, on 03/19/2008, -0/+10I always almost feel bad digging news like this :(

      The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
    • PatNolan, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3The world lost a true bard and visionary. May your next story be as good as the ones you gave us.
    • RTourn, on 03/19/2008, -0/+7Too bad, he didn't get a chance to go to space:(
    • Cryoniq, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2I couldn't agree more.. =(
  • Scottievm, on 03/18/2008, -0/+72A great man. I was just in the middle of rereading Childhood's End too...
    • bluehouse, on 03/18/2008, -0/+15That is one my favorite books
      • pzwhite125, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3One of my favorite books, and one of my favorite Pink Floyd songs! I learned about Clarke b/c of the Floyd actually.
    • ibanezdtx120, on 03/18/2008, -0/+6By far my favorite book of all time
    • stormgren, on 03/18/2008, -0/+9I loved that book so much I stole my username from it.
    • DrMickhead, on 03/18/2008, -0/+11Not only is it a great book, the short story that it's based on is phenomenal as well. Read Rendezvous with Rama next, it's my personal favorite of Clarke's.

      An incredible writer and incredible life was lost today. RIP.
      • jezsik, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Just don't read the sequels to Rama. (shudder)
        • jpmoney03, on 03/19/2008, -2/+2They weren't that bad.
          • DoscoJones, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Where they were good, they were Clarke. They rest was written by that other guy.
          • jezsik, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately, one scene from Rama II continues to haunt me in its overwhelming literary amateurism. The heroine wandered into a garden where she overhears the wife of another character talking to herself. The wife complains how she made some sort of important astronomical discovery as a student and her professor took credit for it and married the woman to keep her quiet. She said all this aloud, TALKING TO HERSELF! Clarke was not particularly good at writing about human interaction so he concentrated on science - that's why I like his work so much. Gentry Lee, on the other hand, is not particularly good at writing about human interaction OR science.
    • megaweapon, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4Indeed this is a fantastic book...
    • JettaMan, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2I bid you farewell on your voyage aboard Rama.
    • rdquelle, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I just picked it up yesterday. So far it hasn't disappointed. Now i just want to finish it more than ever. R.I.P. Sir Clarke.
    • ScottMcQueen, on 03/19/2008, -1/+0Sorry, I read that "I was just in the middle of rear-ending Childhood's End" :-(

      I love his works, RIP.
    • Fausterion, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Coincidentally a copy of Childhood's end sits on my desk, waiting to be read.
  • beatnikwriter, on 03/18/2008, -3/+96Although having said that, he lived to a grand age so at least it wasnt a tragedy.
    • RussellDovey, on 03/18/2008, -2/+11Yes it was. If he'd lived ten years longer he might have been able to access the first anti-aging treatments. But he didn't, so the world has lost a great mind for ever, and a great man has lost the chance to see even more of the future he helped make possible.
    • jimmiss, on 03/19/2008, -0/+5He was retired longer than I've been alive!
  • MiKLE, on 03/18/2008, -2/+107daisy d a i s y.......
    • gregoryfenton, on 03/18/2008, -1/+27In 1961, Max Mathews arranged the well-known song Daisy Bell ("Daisy, daisy") for an uncanny performance by computer-synthesized human voice, using technology developed by John Kelly of Bell Laboratories and others. Arthur C. Clarke of 2001: A Space Odyssey fame was coincidentally visiting friend and colleague John Pierce at the Bell Labs Murray Hill facility at the time of this remarkable speech synthesis demonstration and was so impressed that he used it in the climactic scene of his novel and screenplay for 2001: A Space Odyssey,[2] where the HAL 9000 computer sings the same song as astronaut Dave Bowman disables his cognitive functions.[3]

      That's from Wikipedia, but I originally read about it way back in the 80s in a book called "Hackers: Heroes of the computer revolution" which is a very interesting read should you ever locate a copy.

      The fact that HAL digs down through his race memory when his identity was being stripped away has always struck me as very emotive.
    • martinj88, on 03/18/2008, -0/+33"My god, it's full of stars.........."

      RIP
    • regeya, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3Just got the HD DVD release of that last week for my birthday. Haven't watched all of it yet. If you've only seen the movie and hated it, do make sure to read the book. Unlike other Clarke works, it's concise and very gripping. I'm looking at YOU, '3001' and the Gentry Lee collabs on...well, anything they collaborated on.
      • dynelol, on 03/18/2008, -9/+1Tell the person that got it for you to return it and get you the Bluray disc. HD DVD died.
        • ConceptJunkie, on 03/19/2008, -0/+6His player still works. Believe it or not you can still use VHS and Laserdisk too. It's not like it was made illegal or something. Get a clue.

      • tiberone, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3"If you've only seen the movie and hated it," ... then you are an idiot.
    • EpicSelekta, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3"Open the pod bay doors, HAL"
  • gothicform, on 03/18/2008, -0/+54This is terrible news :( He was a genius and will be greatly missed.
    • aajjcckk, on 03/19/2008, -8/+3Yep, big shame. Whistleblower website projectcamelot dot org was trying to interview him. Rumours were his scifi was based less on his imagination (not that I'm undermining that in any way - it was superb) and more on sci FACT, based on his contacts with "those in the know" in black projects etc.

      There was a reason he was uncannily accurate about various things in the solar system before they were officially discovered, and it wasn't coincidence.

      Also, as for the monolith on the moon in 2001, recent insiders have suggested there is indeed "something" up there on the moon, in the place Clark placed his monolith.

      Yes all sounds ridiculous I know, and 99% will dismiss this immediately, but there is A LOT more going on in the solar system than the general public is aware of, shall we say.
      • covertbadger, on 03/19/2008, -1/+11I have a question for you - is there even one single crackpot theory on this planet that you DON'T believe in?
        • gothicform, on 03/19/2008, -1/+4Yes, its obvious the story about the Titanic being sunk by an ice covered submarine piloted by an Islamic suicide cell eager to stop the Western display of the bones of Mohammed being transported to a museum in New York (the fakes are in Saudi Arabia) is not true.
      • Forbes245, on 03/19/2008, -2/+5Covertbadger, and gothicform, are you sooo insecure that you just can't wait to ridicule another? True or false, aajjcckk's comments are certainly interesting. Your remarks, on the other hand, contribute nothing. Instead they belie your own insecurities. You do not elevate your own stature by ridiculing another.
        • covertbadger, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3Go look at aajjcckk's comment history. He's a crank. I'm quite happy to ridicule him without paying mind to what it does to my status on digg, which is about as important to me as the toenail clippings I disposed of yesterday.
        • gothicform, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Yup. I think he's worthy of ridicule too.
        • aajjcckk, on 03/20/2008, -2/+1Thanks for the ridicule guys. It amuses me greatly, and I couldn't care less. I would be worried if I did not get ridiculed - it would suggest everyone believes everything that any nut on a public comment system suggests. My point though is to be a bridge between public view (Digg) and some of the stuff that's out there, that is likely true, however hard you may find it to believe. Trust me, there is a ***** of stuff I dismiss as it does not have anything to back it up.
      • hollyminkowski, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1I dug you up!
        Even if it's not true about something being on the moon where the monolith was it's a great notion and I enjoyed thinking about it.
        I only recently saw that movie for the first time... it must have seemed an amazing film long ago when it was made.
    • 5plic3r, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
  • hauntedchippy, on 03/18/2008, -0/+115Truly a colossal loss for science fiction everywhere.

    Diggers, try to find time to read Childhood's End someday.
    • adinb, on 03/18/2008, -0/+13I think its just as much a loss to Science itself. :(

      I'm just glad I had the honor hearing him speak at the keynote speech he gave at the 2001 NSS annual conference.
    • ibanezdtx120, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2Best book ever written.
    • Tomchei, on 03/18/2008, -0/+28Truly a colossal loss for science.
      We're talking Radar, Geostationary satellites, space elevator, etc...
      This guy was instrumental to our generation.
      • bratterscain, on 03/19/2008, -0/+6Not a loss, in a way. He lives on through his achievements and inspiration of ideas and technologies we still use to this day.
    • stormgren, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2Best book ever.
    • DeadlyCouncil, on 03/18/2008, -0/+6Consider it Amazon'd.
    • tehbored, on 03/18/2008, -1/+7Childhood's End is great, but I personally prefer Rendezvous With Rama.
  • Archdrude, on 03/18/2008, -0/+30I just recently saw him on television and mentioned how nice it was that he was still out there... and then this. Then again, he lived to be 90, one can't really complain about that. He'll be missed though.
  • hplasm, on 03/18/2008, -1/+31Alas time moves on over another great figure. RIP.
  • beatnikwriter, on 03/18/2008, -0/+14I think I've only read the Rama series, so I've got a mammoth bibliography to catch up on!
    • TheKillDoctor, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3Now if only they would make Rama in to a movie.... sigh...
    • renski13, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3I personally loved the Rama series. He will be greatly missed.
    • RussellDovey, on 03/18/2008, -0/+13You get to read Arthur C Clarke's books for the first time? You lucky, lucky bastard.
      • fluxion, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2i just barely read 2001, and have 2010 on the way. i'm hooked. really a damn shame to see him go, but his work will live on for many generations.
    • surian, on 03/19/2008, -0/+7Rendezvous with Rama is a classic. I would caution people on the sequels; although I wouldn't tell anyone to avoid the books. They weren't written exclusively by Arthur C. Clark, they were a collaboration with Gentry Lee. The plot line is much more character driven and, while there is a lot of Science (with a capital S) there is also an element of a "soap opera" to the books. That said, the books are good reads. Just a fair warning: the sequels are not solely Arthur C. Clark so don't expect it.
      • dn11, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Yeah, I tried to read some of the sequels and they didn't have the same impact for me. The original was perfect as it was because in the end Rama remained a mystery.
      • pineutrino, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2I found all four Rama books to be very good, but my GOD the sequels were depressing. Good quality novels, but they painted such a pessimistic view of human nature.
        • init100, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1"but they painted such a pessimistic view of human nature."

          Well, you get almost the same view just by watching and/or reading the daily news.
    • dn11, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Good places to start: Childhoods End, The Fountains of Paradise, The City and the Stars, and yes 2001 (which I avoided reading for years because I thought it would ruin the movie for me - it didn't. It is both different from the film and adds to it's themes substantially - even without the film it would be one of his most famous books IMO).
    • ExRe, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I never read the books...but I do remember the game.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAMA

      That game was pretty good.
  • Isidore, on 03/18/2008, -0/+91A giant has passed on.

    Thanks Sir Arthur
    you gave me countless periods of entertainment, education, information.
    Rest in peace.
  • foomandoonian, on 03/18/2008, -18/+2Bye Arthur.
    http://drop.io/fullofstars
  • JohnP, on 03/18/2008, -1/+37:(
  • Hefelumpman, on 03/18/2008, -0/+13A sad day indeed :(
  • Worldchrisis, on 03/18/2008, -1/+19A visionary in Sci-Fi, RIP.
  • Porch, on 03/18/2008, -33/+5Didn't know he was still alive. Dang.
  • Calcularius, on 03/18/2008, -4/+7T_T
  • Anagrama, on 03/18/2008, -0/+48Thank you, Mr. Clarke, for the gifts you've given us.
    • Frost9999, on 03/18/2008, -13/+3Umm... you should have thanked him while he was still alive.
  • Adgeman, on 03/18/2008, -0/+13Thanks for the 'Mysterious World' series; I loved the show as a child. I particularly loved the Crystal Skull.
    • valentingalea, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Me too! Wonderful days they were!
      What a great man!
  • moolaismyfriend, on 03/18/2008, -4/+126another great Humanist is gone.

    I have two favorite recent quotes from him I use allot.

    " I would defend the liberty of concenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent."

    "I have encountered a few creationists and because they were usually nice, intelligent people, I have been unable to decide whether they were _really_ mad, or only pretending to be mad. If I was a religious person, I would consider creationism nothing less than blasphemy. Do its adherents imagine that God is a cosmic hoaxer who has created that whole vast fossil record for the sole purpose of misleading mankind?"
    • PixelMagic, on 03/18/2008, -35/+5Leave it to a Digger to go out of his way (and off topic) to bash religion.
      • Optimus, on 03/18/2008, -2/+21You could always try reddit or Slashdot ;)

        edit: You probably shouldn't. Your little creationist heart would esplode.
      • moolaismyfriend, on 03/18/2008, -1/+18Hey Pal,

        I didn't go out of my way. Clarke was an ardent Humanist and this issue was at the core of his life and his writings so sorry it is not off topic pal.

    • tehmoth, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5I think he meant 'were', since clearly he wasn't a religious person. A much better quote is "The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion."
    • Y0tsuya, on 03/18/2008, -2/+4I think it's already been established that religion and theory of evolution not inherently incompatible. I group the creationists together with flat earthers, people to put on my ignore list until they need to be smacked down (as in case of Dover).
    • mikeopubco, on 03/19/2008, -13/+3Hmmmm, were some of you diggers molested by a televangilist? Boo hoo hoo. At least differentiate the fundies from the nice people who believe in a deity but don't shove it down your throat. I don't walk around calling all of you Godless inconsiderate heathens just because a few of you can't resist to smear your smug self-imposed superiority all over a news aggregate website.
      • JeffD, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2I would define any creationists as fundies, so I don't quite see your point.
      • jnosanov, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3You must be the type of person who feels that Christians are a minority in the US. Have some respect for the deceased.
  • coffee200am, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5Good Bye Mr. Clark.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qurm--C8m00&feature ...
  • Juntistik, on 03/18/2008, -0/+22Arthur, wherever you are, your books will ALWAYS have a place in my heart. RIP
  • cos2x, on 03/18/2008, -0/+9I loved his television work, especially Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious Universe. What a loss, indeed.
  • CRCulver, on 03/18/2008, -12/+4It's understandable that, as he got older, his energy to write faded, but it's a real shame that he let other people put his name on shoddy products that he essentially had nothing to do with. They say that the apalling sequels to Rendevous with Rama (an excellent work and a science-fiction classic) were basically entirely Gentry Lee's doing in spite of the prominent appearance of both names on the covers. When the sequels are so bad they can only tarnish the perception of the original (see Star Wars). This news is sad, but I hope that younger generations today will go back to the early works, ignoring all of the later publication, and see just how visionary a writer Clarke was.
    • covertbadger, on 03/18/2008, -0/+6The original Rama was pure gold, and gold doesn't tarnish. Still the best sci-fi ever written.
    • baconman01, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Even though you're dugg down, I kind of have to agree...the "Garden of Rama," etc. have nothing on Rendezvous. That said, I did read the sequels without putting them down. These did have their bright spots, but it was painfully obvious that they were not Clarke's books.
      • covertbadger, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I largely agree with CRCulver too, and dugg him up. Dunno where the hate comes from. The only point I disagree with is that the inferior sequels took anything away from the original, which for me is peerless and untouchable.
  • MrMeikel, on 03/18/2008, -0/+8He went to my 6th form, library is named after him :(
  • one1plus1one, on 03/18/2008, -0/+26Goodbye Mr. Clarke. Maybe I'll see you on the otherside one day...

    Some of the greatest memories of my own life were of reading your books, and wondering at the possibilities of what humanity might achieve, and what might be out there for us to discover.
  • uselesstosser, on 03/18/2008, -0/+13he needs more than just the "clarke belt" named after him. His mysterious world series back in the 80's was as good as the fiction upon which his fame was based.

    "It's full of stars"
  • rmeddy, on 03/18/2008, -0/+8The World Loses a Great Mind Today. R.I.P.
  • BossKey, on 03/18/2008, -0/+15A loss for us, but a well-deserved rest for him.

    He was such a rational thinker that much of his science fiction eventually became simply...science.
    See you on the other side of the Star Gate...
  • ccfoo242, on 03/18/2008, -2/+85"Will I Dream?"
    • borez, on 03/18/2008, -1/+9I can't believe somebody actually dugg down that comment?

      Shame on you

      • Klarth, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5His reuse of that line in Time's Eye made me gleeful.

        Clarke was a man of infinite subtlety. This has put an incredible downer on my day. :(
    • yaddayaddayoda, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Wish I could digg you twice. I was composed until that, but you made me lose it. RIP Sir Arthur. You will be missed.
    • hollyminkowski, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2WoW!
      Absolutely the perfect comment...bravo :-)
  • kuppoppo, on 03/18/2008, -35/+5We lost a great writer and a great human being. RIP. Check out one of his last interviews (this is in January): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
    • Ciryon, on 03/18/2008, -2/+17Do not click that link.. it's a rick-roll.. You ***** idiot kuppoppo - that was very inappropriate
      • dynelol, on 03/18/2008, -9/+4Digg is ALL ABOUT being appropriate, isn't it?
    • Icyfenix, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2damnit i dugg him up without thinking!
    • lcarsdeveloper, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Dude...not cool. There's a time and a place for that, and it's not here.
  • funkyjunk3, on 03/18/2008, -0/+22A man like no other. For those interested, here's a filmography of his works:
    http://imdb.com/name/nm0002009/

    Literature by Arthur C. Clarke:
    http://www.iblist.com/author2.htm

    good biography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke
  • kennyboy019, on 03/18/2008, -0/+41http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/sixwords. ...

    "God said, 'Cancel Program GENESIS.' The universe ceased to exist."
    Arthur C. Clarke
    Wired, November 2006

    It was supposed to be a 6 word story, but he wouldn't shorten it. I don't think anyone else could get away with that.

    Goodbye my dear friend you will be missed, but you will live on through your wonderful stories.

    Im going to go read "The Light Of Other Days" again for the 10th time...
    • pixel, on 03/19/2008, -0/+6The Light of Other Days... now that is a story forever etched in my mind
      • kennyboy019, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3Its funny you know. Its a great commentary on the loss of privacy in the digital age but its one of his lesser known stories.
        • pixel, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Agreed. Based on a much older story too (look it up on Wikipedia). But if we ALL lost our privacy, would it matter? It would make us all honest. Can you imagine however that we could bring back all who have died?

          "Arthur, about 3001, I have a question about Frank Poole and that repository on the moon..."
      • MrMongoose, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Good to know there's people out there who liked it as much as I did. Or who've even read it.
    • mistergosh, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Augusto Monterroso got away with a shorter story. It's called "El dinosaurio", or "The dinosaur".
      Anyway. I'll keep reading my Clarke books. Goodbye, old man. Your words are still full of wonder.
    • hollyminkowski, on 03/19/2008, -4/+1I just read a summary of that book...I just have to go get a copy and read it! :-)
      I have a copy of an old book of his here... The City And The Stars... I will read it...

      The Light of Other Days is a 2000 science fiction novel by Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter, which explores the development of wormhole technology to the point where information can be passed instantaneously between points in the space-time continuum.

      The wormhole technology is first used to send pure information via gamma rays, then developed further to transmit light waves. The media corporation who develops this advance can spy on anyone anywhere it chooses. A logical development from the laws of space-time allows light waves to be detected from the past. This enhances the wormhole technology into a "time viewer" where anyone opening a wormhole can view people and events from any point throughout time and space.

      When the technology is released to the general public, it effectively destroys all secrecy and privacy. The novel examines the philosophical issues that arise from the world's population (increasingly suffering from ecological and political disturbances) being aware that they could be under constant observation by anyone, or that they could observe anyone without their knowledge. Anyone is able to observe the true past events of their families and their heroes. An underground forms which attempts to escape this observation; corruption and crime are drastically reduced; nations discover the true causes and outcomes of international conflicts; and religions worldwide are forced to reevaluate their divine histories. As the underground movement grows, it utilizes a direct neural interface coupled with the unlimited communication provided by the wormhole technology to develop a group mind.

      One of the central themes of the novel is that history is biased towards viewpoints of the person who wrote it. Hence many great "historical" events often did not occur as they now are collectively remembered. For example during the book's progression; the time viewer technology shows that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman centurion and that Moses was based on a collection of stories rather than the actions of a real person.

      In a climactic time-viewing experiment at the end of the novel, a time hole is opened to the beginning of life on Earth and it is discovered that all existing life is descended from a biological sample placed by intelligent beings (labeled Sisyphans) who inhabited the Earth over three billion years ago, trying to preserve genetic samples when geological and climatic changes threatened an extinction level event.
      • MrMongoose, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Yeesh, spoiler city. Hope you didn't read that whole summary! I saw the same one before I read it and only managed to avoid the last paragraph.
        • ComradeGoby, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1I did.... Now I am sad.
        • hollyminkowski, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2You are right...sorry...I should have known better than to post that, but it just sounded so cool I wanted to share.... I'm an idiot :-(
  • Grok22, on 03/18/2008, -22/+3never heard about the child abuse charges. RIP
    • baconman01, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Is this true? If not, then go ***** yourself.
  • ShrikeBite, on 03/18/2008, -0/+28Nooooh! Not yet, you can't go! It's like having your favorite grandpa die. The coolest grandpa ever... Later Dude, you will be MISSED!!!

    PS, Rendezvous with Rama, rocked HARD!
    • jamessavik, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4>>It's like having your favorite grandpa die.

      I think that he would be greatly moved to hear that.
    • Arcesius, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Yup, okay, that's the last comment I'm reading/digging here. This is starting to make me well up =(.
  • markthegoth, on 03/18/2008, -0/+23A final odyssey awaits him, goodbye Arthur.
  • max420, on 03/18/2008, -1/+3It seems a lot of good authors are dying this year. :( Robert Jordan the man behind the Wheel of Time passed away earlier this year as well.
  • ibanezdtx120, on 03/18/2008, -0/+15He was a HUGE influence when I was growing up. Reading his books really changed my life, especially Childhood's End.
  • Owwmykneecap, on 03/18/2008, -1/+78I'm sorry Arthur, I'm afraid I can't let you do that.
    • DharmaTurtle, on 03/18/2008, -17/+2Can someone explain to me why 2001 was such a good movie? I watched it expecting something epic, but instead I was bored nearly to the point of tears. Much disappointment.
      This is a legit question, someone please answer?
      • Ramble, on 03/18/2008, -7/+1It is boring as hell but so damn innovative and symbolic too.
        • DharmaTurtle, on 03/18/2008, -5/+1Specifics please? It was innovative in the area of special effects, yes, but we don't regard Transformers in nearly the same regard we do 2001.

          What is symbolic? (Particularly the spacebaby at the end.)
          • skaughtm, on 03/18/2008, -2/+1transformers does not contain the same type of effects.
          • DharmaTurtle, on 03/18/2008, -2/+1Thanks for the second try at an answer Skaughtm.
            I know I might be coming off as haughty, but I am genuinely curious as to why people like this movie so much. I WANT to like this movie, I've heard so many good things about it. I just don't get it... so I appreciate you trying to answer.
            But again, the effects do not make the movie. Well, in my opinion anyway. Was it really so difficult to make a model of a spaceship and move it against the backdrop of a black curtain?
            Nice engineering job with the circular rooms though, I admit.
          • spawnfree, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1will you ***** off to IMDB
      • Ciryon, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2To me 2001 brings me into a trance-like state. Usually it's very hard to think about how big the universe is, why we are here and so on - but that movie does something to my mind and I drift along in space knowing all the answers. Pretty weird

        (No, I'm not on shrooms)
        • DharmaTurtle, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1Thanks for trying, but that doesn't really explain why the movie is so good. I mean, a music visualizer could bring you to a trance, and it wouldn't be as highly regarded as 2001.
          Thanks for your input though!
      • tehbored, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3Well for starters, the idea that there may be alien civilizations out there far beyond our realm of understanding. Their technlogy is not even portrayed as anything recognizable. The obelisks, or the beings who created them are, as far as humans are concerned, gods. It also brought up super advanced AI. AI that had feelings, could think for itself, make decisions. AI that was human, and more. That, and for its time, the special effects were absolutely astounding.
        • DharmaTurtle, on 03/19/2008, -3/+1I'm pretty sure that 2001 was not the first movie to introduce the idea of aliens.
          And okay, we see superadvanced technology, but we don't see what it does. Doesn't that kinda ruin the point? I could show you a rock, tell you a superadvanced race made this rock, and you would hardly be impressed until you see it do something. This doesn't really make it a good movie, in my opinion.
          This is not the first time that machines have been given human personalities and qualities. Robby the Robot, for example. Okay, Clarke took it to the extreme and make him super intelligent, but its hardly an original concept.
          Thanks for answering tehbored! I genuinely appreciate it!
          • tehbored, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1You find out what it does in 2010. That one wasn't directed by Kubrick, so the style is a bit different, but it's still good. In fact you might like it better. It may have been Stanley Kubrick's artistic style that put you off from 2001 (of course, it's also one of the reasons, if not the primary reason, that 2001 is considered to be so great).
          • carpeclunes, on 03/19/2008, -0/+22010 was terrible.
            @ Dharma, the monoliths help humans reach the next evolutionary leap. It allowed the apes to use tools and it turned Dave into a pure energy being, one that does not require a physical body. That was my interpretation of the movie.
          • init100, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1@carpeclunes

            "it turned Dave into a pure energy being, one that does not require a physical body."

            You mean like the Ascent to Transcendence in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri?
      • fluxion, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2the book captures a lot of what might be missed from the movie version. it's really far more epic a work than a film can really get across, no matter how well-done (or not) a film it is. think lord of the rings...i dont think the films could have been done much better than they were, but they still sorely lacked the depth of the story and Tolkien's universe
        • DharmaTurtle, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1In my opinion, the movie should have been reviewed separately from the book. You can't take a great book and have an automatically good movie.
          • yaddayaddayoda, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2As far as the film goes, it was epic and the first of its kind. We look back on it with decades of special effects and CGI, and it's seen as nothing noteworthy. But they INVENTED all that stuff just for this movie. It was the first movie to try and portray space travel in a realistic way. We can turn on the Interwebz and look at a live space walk, or a docking of a spaceship at a space station. In those days, they didn't even know what it would LOOK like. They even got the shadows and lighting right. It was truly visionary... and it echoes down the years through all the SF movies you've seen your entire life. Other than a couple of things like computers the size of a room, they pretty much got it right, too. We still don't have a moon base, so they missed on that one by a few decades, but we will. Maybe when they get it going it will be the Sir Arthur C. Clarke Base. (They did the same on Mars, the Carl Sagan Memorial Station is the landing site for Mars Pathfinder.)
    • jefu, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Thanks. Made me laugh in appreciation amidst my sadness for his passing.
  • wonderchemist, on 03/18/2008, -0/+39Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do
    I'm half crazy all for the love of you
    It won't be a stylish marriage
    I can't afford a carriage
    But you'll look sweet upon the seat
    Of a bicycle built for two...
    • defectDS, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Huh. I could have sworn Bonzi Buddy said "answer true" instead of "answer do." ^_^
  • kenlaw, on 03/18/2008, -0/+8Time to dig out that copy of 2001 and the Rama trilogy and mourn the loss of my favorite writer. He will be missed.
  • DavidinBoston, on 03/18/2008, -0/+57I'll bet if Clarke ever told HAL to open the pod bay doors, HAL would do so without a moment's thought, because Arthur C. Clarke was THE MAN.
  • Jadey, on 03/18/2008, -0/+17This is sad. I met him when I was a kid over in Sri Lanka, and I've since become a huge fan of his novels.
    • baconman01, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Wow...I'm really jealous. I would have loved to meet him, but I probably would have come off as just another obsessive fan.
  • AirRaven, on 03/18/2008, -0/+15Great, great man.
    There'll never be another book quite like "The City and the Stars".
    • xman2000, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5I read that last year and it is fantastic. It was his favorite book as well... :-)
    • jezsik, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3Ahh, yes, One of the first science fiction books I'd ever read. Got me hooked for life. Thanks, pal, I'm gunna miss you.
      • baconman01, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Excellent book, yes. I was trying to remember the name of it when I first read this unfortunate story, as it was one of my favorites.
  • cschaef13, on 03/18/2008, -0/+15First news to catch me off guard for once, he's the one that got me into science fiction.
    • bizchris, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2That's the way I was with Isaac Asimov back in '92. :-( I still remember the day my English teacher broke the news to me.
  • boyinshortpants, on 03/18/2008, -0/+11A great author and visionary. Mr Clarke, you will be greatly missed.
  • alricsca, on 03/18/2008, -0/+20Few people have lived such a life that they leave a perceptible mark on the civilization in which they existed. This was such a man. Now he takes his place among giants and in so doing his life and legacy will be remembered. Well Sir. Clarke, I hope when you stepped into the great beyond and opened your eyes, it was is indeed full of stars. :-)
  • AdHavoc, on 03/18/2008, -0/+8Damn, I really hope this is false... :( Arthur C. Clarke is probably tied for number one (along with ISaac Asimov who also died...) as my favourite sci-fi author of all time.
    • Orestes2718, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Check out H. G. Wells if you haven't yet - he's the only one who could shake at stick at them, and in Time Machine and War of the Worlds, he was actually better.
  • SydneyHopper, on 03/18/2008, -0/+16Didn't he invent satellites? Theoretically, at least. Now, this man has had a wonderful life; a long wonderful life, full of great intellectual insights. And he is the maker of worlds which render this one small, prosaic in comparison. I wish, with a swift turn of my mind, that I could have such kaleidoscopic visions that could bewitch inquiring minds
    • Jadey, on 03/18/2008, -0/+17He was the first to propose that the geostationary orbit be used for global communications.
    • unknownpoltroon, on 03/18/2008, -0/+10I believe he was the first to invent the CONCEPT of the telecommunications satelite, especially the geosynchronous satellites.
  • maxis185, on 03/18/2008, -44/+1It's understandable that, as he got older, his energy to write faded, but it's a real shame that he let other people put his name on http://www12.asphost4free.com/cucumberss shoddy products that he essentially http://www12.asphost4free.com/greatcucumber had nothing to do with. They say that the apalling sequels to http://www12.asphost4free.com/bestcucumbers Rendevous with Rama (an excellent work and a science-fiction classic) were basically entirely Gentry Lee's doing in spite of the prominent appearance of both names on the covers. When the sequels are so bad they can http://www12.asphost4free.com/nicecucumbers only tarnish the perception of the http://digg.com/users/maxis185 original (see Star Wars). This news is sad, but I hope that younger generations today will go back to the early works, ignoring all of the later publication, and see just how visionary a writer Clarke was.
  • symplectic, on 03/18/2008, -44/+7He's buggering cherubs in Heaven now.
    • Klarth, on 03/18/2008, -3/+6***** you.
    • borez, on 03/18/2008, -0/+6From the man who invented the communications satellite, you went with this comment?
    • drunkwally, on 03/19/2008, -10/+2This seems a reasonable comment if you know what an evil bastard clarke was. He was a pedophile that fled to sri lanka so he could continue to bugger children. He invented the communications satellite so I guess it's all ok.
      • EtherGnat, on 03/19/2008, -0/+10Too bad the charges you speak of were found baseless by the police, the accusers withdrew their allegations, and the paper that broke the story printed a retraction.
      • gummih, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1His status as the grand old man of science fiction was threatened in 1998 by allegations of child abuse. He strenuously denied them and was later cleared by an investigation.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 180 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.