So what does this mean for The Rock's competing 'Hercules' movie?
By Alex Zalben
LONDON (AP) — Readers, there is good news and bad news. Bridget Jones is back. But — brace yourselves — Mark Darcy is dead.
Fans have been shaken by the revelation, leaked ahead of publication of "Bridget Jones: Mad About The Boy," the third book in Helen Fielding's series about the diary-writing singleton. He may be fictional, but the demise of Bridget's handsome lawyer lover — played on the big screen by a smoldering Colin Firth — was headline news.
"I turned on the news and there was the Syrian crisis, and then 'Mark Darcy is dead,'" Fielding said, amazed.
"It's quite extraordinary for a fictional character to be treated as if they're alive. I sort of think, hats off to Colin, because really he inhabited that character."
The reaction is a testament to the hold of Fielding's characters on the popular imagination. In ditsy, indomitable Bridget, she created an archetype. (In Darcy she borrowed one, from the brooding Mr. Darcy of Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice").
Bridget, created for a series of 1990s newspaper columns, was a 30-something Londoner looking for love and career fulfillment while enduring the condescension of "smug marrieds" and confessing her many insecurities in her diaries: "Alcohol units 7, cigarettes 22, calories 2,145. Minutes spent inspecting face for wrinkles 230."
In "Mad About the Boy" she is still counting calories and booze, though cigarettes have been replaced by nicotine gum. Bridget is now a 51-year-old widow with two young children, convinced she will never find romance again.
Fielding said she had no choice but to kill Darcy so Bridget's story could move on.
"The book I wanted to write was not about domesticity, married life. It was about Bridget struggling with what life throws at you," Fielding said over lunch at the London gastropub where she likes to write in the daytime.
"It was Bridget being single with two children in the age of technology. And rediscovering her sexuality. She was a mother and she lost it amid the nappies and the busy-ness. I think lots of women go through that."
Breaking the news of Darcy's demise to Firth, who starred opposite Renee Zellweger in the film adaptations of "Bridget Jones's Diary" and "Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason," was surprisingly tough.
"I was really nervous, and I had to make sure that he had someone with him and they were sitting down. And then I said, 'Colin, I've got something really bad to tell you.'
"And then I suppose I just said 'You're dead,' which is an odd thing to say to anyone. And we were both upset, but at the same time we were laughing."
"Bridget Jones's Diary," published in 1996, turned Fielding from a freelance journalist into one of Britain's most successful writers. The novel and its 1999 sequel have sold 15 million copies.
For years, Fielding resisted writing another installment. She was drawn back into Bridget's world by a desire to write about the lives of middle-aged women, who often face stereotyping, just as the single Bridget did in the earlier books.
"There was the idea of 'tragic, barren spinster' because she was unmarried in her 30s," Fielding said. "It was real then. You were Miss bloody Havisham if you didn't have a boyfriend at 35. And I think the same is true of the middle-aged woman now.
"When I was in my 20s, I couldn't imagine that life would continue beyond 40, really," she added. "I couldn't imagine there would still be dating and going out and getting drunk with your friends and worrying about calls or texts that hadn't come, and what to wear."
In "Mad About the Boy," Bridget's romantic misadventures are overshadowed by loss and the fear of aging — but a strong comic vein remains.
"I think most of the things I write are a mixture of dark and light," Fielding said.
Life is "not all sailing along marvelously, nor is it 'Oh, we're in a well of despair.' People hit tough times, and then their friends get round them and cheer them up and then they keep buggering on."
As in the previous books, Bridget can lean on old friends Jude, Tom and Talitha, as well as disreputable former paramour Daniel Cleaver.
She navigates the treacherous world of online dating sites and Twitter, and acquires a 29-year-old boyfriend named Roxster.
The book also introduces Mr. Wallaker, a teacher at Bridget's son's school with whom she instantly clashes. But wait — is that a spark between them? (Hint: Fielding says her dream casting for a movie adaptation is Daniel Craig).
Bridget has always contained elements of Fielding, who is 55 and, like her character, lives in one of the nicer areas of North London with two young children. She is separated from their father, American comedy writer Kevin Curran.
There are glimpses of Bridget in the writer's quick wit and sense of the absurd — though Fielding exudes a considerably greater sense of control than her hapless heroine.
"Mad About the Boy" suffered its own Bridget Jones-style mishap when 40 pages from another book, a memoir by actor David Jason, were inserted into the British edition by mistake.
And some of the reviews have been less than glowing: not everyone hails mishap-prone, insecure Bridget as a 21st-century heroine. Guardian newspaper columnist Suzanne Moore wrote a piece headlined "Why I Hate Bridget Jones," condemning the character as "vapid, consumerist and self-obsessed" and the book as anti-feminist.
Fielding has heard that argument before.
She said that if women can't make fun of themselves, "we haven't got very far at being equal, have we?"
"And also, I think that is the way women communicate with each other, often, privately. They talk about their frailties, their mess-ups, their weaknesses, their vulnerabilities, and they are funny about it and they support each other.
"I was surprised with the first book, with the women who told me they identified with it — powerful, successful women, saying 'Oh yes, I have that problem with tights being all tangled up.' And it's not just women, either. (Prime Minister) David Cameron was in the papers not so long ago ... and he said that he'd get in a situation when he's got the kids in the back of the car and he gets a head of state on the phone: 'Will you shut up, I've got the Israeli prime minister on the phone!'
"Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy" is published in the United States by Knopf on Tuesday.
___
Jill Lawless can be reached at http://Twitter.com/JillLawless
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's Argos has entered the intensely competitive tablet computer market with a 99.99 pound ($160) own-brand product that is 16 percent cheaper than one launched by Tesco, the UK's largest retailer, last month.
Argos, owned by Home Retail, said on Tuesday its MyTablet would be targeted at teenagers, taking on a market dominated by Apple, Samsung and Amazon.
Tesco sold 35,000 Hudls in two days following its September 30 launch - the fastest-selling tablet launch ever seen at the retailer. Argos is keen to tap into this growing segment as part of its reinvention from a catalogue-led to digitally-led business.
Home Retail has posted five straight years of profit decline and hopes the change of direction for Argos will result in a 15 percent rise in sales to 4.5 billion pounds by 2018.
Like Tesco's Hudl, which is priced at 119 pounds, Argos' MyTablet has a seven-inch screen, runs Google's Android operating system, comes with pre-loaded apps and is enabled for internet browsing, TV, music, video streaming and social networking.
However, MyTablet only has 8 gigabytes of standard memory compared to 16 on the Hudl. It also has a lower resolution screen, an inferior battery life and is only available in two colours versus the Hudl's four.
Both devices will compete with Amazon's Kindle Fire, which retails for 99 pounds, Google's Nexus 7, which costs 199 pounds and Apple's iPad mini, which sells for 269 pounds.
"Millions of people have bought tablets during the last year but there is still around 75 percent of the UK population without one," said Argos managing director John Walden.
Market research company EMarketer estimates there are 19.7 million tablet users in the UK, up 39 percent year-on-year.
Both Argos and Tesco sell a range of branded tablets.
Sebastian James, CEO of Dixons Retail, Europe's second biggest electricals retailer, said last month that although there is a market in Britain for cheap, basic tablets, consumers were often left disappointed by purchases.
"We get a lot back because people use them and they say 'no, what I wanted was an iPad' and they are not," he told Reuters.
"There's a reason why an iPad is more expensive, it's just better."
($1 = 0.6271 British pounds)
(Reporting by James Davey; Additional reporting by Paul Sandle; Editing by Sophie Walker)
No one can deny that Rousimar Palhares has dominated headlines since his controversial submission win over Mike Pierce at UFC Fight Night 29, and due to the circumstances involved, much of it hasn’t been positive. Not only has the coverage focused on his unsportsmanlike and dangerous actions at UFN 29, but similar incidents from Palhares’ past as well.
Immediately following the October 9th card, manager Alex Davis was quick to defend his fighter, by saying that Palhares is not a “bad person” and that he “is not trying to hurt people.” Davis has also said that Palhares has worked on controlling himself in sparring so that he doesn’t injure training partners any more.
Now, in a follow up editorial Davis has authored for MMA Junkie.com, he argues that the media has gone too far in condemning Palhares. Here is some of what the renowned manager had to say:
I’m not defending Rousimar’s actions. He did wrong in holding Mike Pierce’s ankle that long. But this situation is being way over blown. Rousimar has already been punished. He was denied an obvious “Submission of the Night” bonus, and he was given a four-month suspension by the CABMMA. But this guy is being crucified in the court of public opinion and turned into something he is not: a mean, monstrous person who is out to hurt people. This is simply not the truth.
Next thing that will happen, is that Rousimar – through a simple, crazy media frenzy – will become such a monster that parents will tell their kids at home, “Behave, or Rousimar Palhares will come and get you.”
Come on! This has turned into one of the biggest bashing sessions in MMA history. People are gaining media at this guy’s expense; that’s whats happening.
Davis also relayed that apparently several promotions have already contacted him about signing Palhares, that the fighter will “have learned his lesson”, and that everyone at Team Nogueira “loves him.”
It is going to be interesting to see where he winds up and how he performs.
Stay tuned to MMA Frenzy.com for all your UFC and MMA news.
Front-Page Photo Credit: Jason Silva-USA TODAY Sports
Twenty years ago, sequencing the human genome was one of the most ambitious science projects ever attempted. Today, compared to the collection of genomes of the microorganisms living in our bodies, the ocean, the soil and elsewhere, each human genome, which easily fits on a DVD, is comparatively simple. Its 3 billion DNA base pairs and about 20,000 genes seem paltry next to the roughly 100 billion bases and millions of genes that make up the microbes found in the human body.
And a host of other variables accompanies that microbial DNA, including the age and health status of the microbial host, when and where the sample was collected, and how it was collected and processed. Take the mouth, populated by hundreds of species of microbes, with as many as tens of thousands of organisms living on each tooth. Beyond the challenges of analyzing all of these, scientists need to figure out how to reliably and reproducibly characterize the environment where they collect the data.
“There are the clinical measurements that periodontists use to describe the gum pocket, chemical measurements, the composition of fluid in the pocket, immunological measures,” said David Relman, a physician and microbiologist at Stanford University who studies the human microbiome. “It gets complex really fast.”
Ambitious attempts to study complex systems like the human microbiome mark biology’s arrival in the world of big data. The life sciences have long been considered a descriptive science — 10 years ago, the field was relatively data poor, and scientists could easily keep up with the data they generated. But with advances in genomics, imaging and other technologies, biologists are now generating data at crushing speeds.
One culprit is DNA sequencing, whose costs began to plunge about five years ago, falling even more quickly than the cost of computer chips. Since then, thousands of human genomes, along with those of thousands of other organisms, including plants, animals and microbes, have been deciphered. Public genome repositories, such as the one maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, or NCBI, already house petabytes — millions of gigabytes — of data, and biologists around the world are churning out 15 petabases (a base is a letter of DNA) of sequence per year. If these were stored on regular DVDs, the resulting stack would be 2.2 miles tall.
“The life sciences are becoming a big data enterprise,” said Eric Green, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, Md. In a short period of time, he said, biologists are finding themselves unable to extract full value from the large amounts of data becoming available.
Life scientists are embarking on countless other big data projects, including efforts to analyze the genomes of many cancers, to map the human brain, and to develop better biofuels and other crops. (The wheat genome is more than five times larger than the human genome, and it has six copies of every chromosome to our two.)
However, these efforts are encountering some of the same criticisms that surrounded the Human Genome Project. Some have questioned whether massive projects, which necessarily take some funding away from smaller, individual grants, are worth the trade-off. Big data efforts have almost invariably generated data that is more complicated than scientists had expected, leading some to question the wisdom of funding projects to create more data before the data that already exists is properly understood. “It’s easier to keep doing what we are doing on a larger and larger scale than to try and think critically and ask deeper questions,” said Kenneth Weiss, a biologist at Pennsylvania State University.
Compared to fields like physics, astronomy and computer science that have been dealing with the challenges of massive datasets for decades, the big data revolution in biology has also been quick, leaving little time to adapt.
“The revolution that happened in next-generation sequencing and biotechnology is unprecedented,” said Jaroslaw Zola, a computer engineer at Rutgers University in New Jersey, who specializes in computational biology.
Biologists must overcome a number of hurdles, from storing and moving data to integrating and analyzing it, which will require a substantial cultural shift. “Most people who know the disciplines don’t necessarily know how to handle big data,” Green said. If they are to make efficient use of the avalanche of data, that will have to change.
Big Complexity
When scientists first set out to sequence the human genome, the bulk of the work was carried out by a handful of large-scale sequencing centers. But the plummeting cost of genome sequencing helped democratize the field. Many labs can now afford to buy a genome sequencer, adding to the mountain of genomic information available for analysis. The distributed nature of genomic data has created its own challenges, including a patchwork of data that is difficult to aggregate and analyze. “In physics, a lot of effort is organized around a few big colliders,” said Michael Schatz, a computational biologist at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York. “In biology, there are something like 1,000 sequencing centers around the world. Some have one instrument, some have hundreds.”
David Relman, a physician and microbiologist at Stanford University, wants to understand how microbes influence human health. Image: Peter DaSilva for Quanta Magazine
As an example of the scope of the problem, scientists around the world have now sequenced thousands of human genomes. But someone who wanted to analyze all of them would first have to collect and organize the data. “It’s not organized in any coherent way to compute across it, and tools aren’t available to study it,” said Green.
Researchers need more computing power and more efficient ways to move their data around. Hard drives, often sent via postal mail, are still often the easiest solution to transporting data, and some argue that it’s cheaper to store biological samples than to sequence them and store the resulting data. Though the cost of sequencing technology has fallen fast enough for individual labs to own their own machines, the concomitant price of processing power and storage has not followed suit. “The cost of computing is threatening to become a limiting factor in biological research,” said Folker Meyer, a computational biologist at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois, who estimates that computing costs ten times more than research. “That’s a complete reversal of what it used to be.”
Biologists say that the complexity of biological data sets it apart from big data in physics and other fields. “In high-energy physics, the data is well-structured and annotated, and the infrastructure has been perfected for years through well-designed and funded collaborations,” said Zola. Biological data is technically smaller, he said, but much more difficult to organize. Beyond simple genome sequencing, biologists can track a host of other cellular and molecular components, many of them poorly understood. Similar technologies are available to measure the status of genes — whether they are turned on or off, as well as what RNAs and proteins they are producing. Add in data on clinical symptoms, chemical or other exposures, and demographics, and you have a very complicated analysis problem.
“The real power in some of these studies could be integrating different data types,” said Green. But software tools capable of cutting across fields need to improve. The rise of electronic medical records, for example, means more and more patient information is available for analysis, but scientists don’t yet have an efficient way of marrying it with genomic data, he said.
To make things worse, scientists don’t have a good understanding of how many of these different variables interact. Researchers studying social media networks, by contrast, know exactly what the data they are collecting means; each node in the network represents a Facebook account, for example, with links delineating friends. A gene regulatory network, which attempts to map how different genes control the expression of other genes, is smaller than a social network, with thousands rather than millions of nodes. But the data is harder to define. “The data from which we construct networks is noisy and imprecise,” said Zola. “When we look at biological data, we don’t know exactly what we are looking at yet.”
Despite the need for new analytical tools, a number of biologists said that the computational infrastructure continues to be underfunded. “Often in biology, a lot of money goes into generating data but a much smaller amount goes to analyzing it,” said Nathan Price, associate director of the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle. While physicists have free access to university-sponsored supercomputers, most biologists don’t have the right training to use them. Even if they did, the existing computers aren’t optimized for biological problems. “Very frequently, national-scale supercomputers, especially those set up for physics workflows, are not useful for life sciences,” said Rob Knight, a microbiologist at the University of Colorado Boulder and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute involved in both the Earth Microbiome Project and the Human Microbiome Project. “Increased funding for infrastructure would be a huge benefit to the field.”
In an effort to deal with some of these challenges, in 2012 the National Institutes of Health launched the Big Data to Knowledge Initiative (BD2K), which aims, in part, to create data sharing standards and develop data analysis tools that can be easily distributed. The specifics of the program are still under discussion, but one of the aims will be to train biologists in data science.
“Everyone getting a Ph.D. in America needs more competency in data than they have now,” said Green. Bioinformatics experts are currently playing a major role in the cancer genome project and other big data efforts, but Green and others want to democratize the process. “The kinds of questions to be asked and answered by super-experts today, we want a routine investigator to ask 10 years from now,” said Green. “This is not a transient issue. It’s the new reality.”
Not everyone agrees that this is the path that biology should follow. Some scientists say that focusing so much funding on big data projects at the expense of more traditional, hypothesis-driven approaches could be detrimental to science. “Massive data collection has many weaknesses,” said Weiss. “It may not be powerful in understanding causation.” Weiss points to the example of genome-wide association studies, a popular genetic approach in which scientists try to find genes responsible for different diseases, such as diabetes, by measuring the frequency of relatively common genetic variants in people with and without the disease. The variants identified by these studies so far raise the risk of disease only slightly, but larger and more expensive versions of these studies are still being proposed and funded.
“Most of the time it finds trivial effects that don’t explain disease,” said Weiss. “Shouldn’t we take what we have discovered and divert resources to understand how it works and do something about it?” Scientists have already identified a number of genes that are definitely linked to diabetes, so why not try to better understand their role in the disorder, he said, rather than spend limited funds to uncover additional genes with a murkier role?
Many scientists think that the complexities of life science research require both large and small science projects, with large-scale data efforts providing new fodder for more traditional experiments. “The role of the big data projects is to sketch the outlines of the map, which then enables researchers on smaller-scale projects to go where they need to go,” said Knight.
