This production was original enough that it probably was not a copyright issue. It was a film adaptation of a game, which is going to be very, very different (and different is key with copyright).
Where this project gets into trouble is with Trademark infringement. Zelda is trademarked, and owned by Nintendo. They must vigorously defend this trademark or it becomes null.
Fan fiction is generally considered fair use, it's just those trademarks that can get you in trouble. As long as nothing is sold I think you're in the clear, but once money changes hands there is infiringement on the trademark.
I could see it if they had made a good movie, but apparently it was a real tomato. Licensing it would have been a stupid thing for Nintendo to do, if it was terrible.
If the Myst movie had fucked up the Myst story, Cyan would not have loved it.
That's basically what happened here, fan makes game movie, game creator hates what fan movie does to his characters, game company kills game movie.
Zelda is Zelda because of the creative power behind it, and what the fans did didn't jive with the creative power behind Zelda. Ergo, Zelda fan movie was not disirable as it would screw up the future stories.
But generally, whenever a member of congress makes an earmark in a bill, they get called out for it by various watchdog groups.
Like hell they do, do you know there is a 400 million dollar earmark for a hospital for some state or another in the health care bill? And no matter how watchdog groups scream that earmark will not go away. Know why? Because they need that senator's (I think it's a senator, anyway) vote to pass the bill, and he won't vote without his hospital. He could give a flying fuck about the national party, he only cares about his state. Even if the only reason that is true is because they are the ones who elect him, it still holds true.
I frankly hate the practice of earmarks, I would much prefer it if individual states had to work out on their own a way to pay for things like that, but the fed gets away with it under things like the inter-state commerce clause.
Anyway, we're not going to change each other's minds about the role of government and representation on the federal level. We have different philosophies about what should be.
India seems to have come to the complete opposite conclusion with their thorium reactor.
It makes sense too, given that thorium requires no pre-processing and produces reactor-grade Uranium as its primary byproduct. By using the Uranium as well (which they have found difficult to import) they extend the life of the cores out to two years, which is practically unheard of.
It's called fail-safe, it's an engineering concept that mitigates the damage of a failure. You don't design the system to never fail, but if it fails have a catastrophy (like what happened with the Titanic), you design it so when failure approaches the system shuts itself down and contains itself by its very nature.
When you have an opportunity to use the physical properties of the material you are working with to design the fail-safe system, you are in an ideal situation.
The system described in the summery would be fail-safe, making a run-away reaction like Chernobyl impossible.
And yes, there is always a chance radiation can leak, there is also a chance the earth will be hit by an asteroid tomorrow. It isn't very likely, though, is it? In fact, the chance is so remote you'd be a fool to live your life afraid of it. With the risk so small, the reward far out-weighs it.
Or phrased differently, lack or scientific proof for or against an assertion/theory/belief doesn't make it untrue, just unproven/unprovable
That's exactly what I was getting at. That's why the only logical conclusion is no conclusion at all, hence the agnostics take the logical stance.
However, just because it cannot be reasoned with logic, or proven with science, does not necessarily make it true or untrue, and thus only the Athiest or Believer can be correct, the Agnostic cannot. He's simply being logical, which gives no answer. There is just no way to prove who is correct between the Athiest and the Believer, that's all.
The God question is sort of like dividing by zero in math. The result isn't 0, it is undefined, or sometimes referred to as "not a number", and sometimes referred to as infinity. It definitely exists, and can even be useful in certain applications, depending on how you treat it, but what it means is impossible to determine.
If a set can be the empty set, then anything is a religion. But that'd be silly. But atheism is the empty set. It is a lack of beliefs in god(s). That is not a belief, but a lack of belief. And to call atheism a religion is silly.
It's not wrong to specifically not include something in a definition - the definition of the primes specifically says 1 is not a prime.
It's actually not a lack of belief. A belief is essentially a strong conviction about something you cannot prove. Obviously there is no proof there is no god, but you certainly believe there is no God. Make your sentance active instead of active while maintaining the same meaning and your argument fails.
The Agnostic has a lack of belief, an Athiest believes in a negative. Frankly, Athiesm is far more of a religion than Agnosticism is. At least they are brave enough to admit that they just plain don't know, and tend to not really care either.
In reality, Athiests commit the inverse of the exact same logical fallacy that believers in a god must commit. You cannot hold either position without commiting the negative proof fallacy. The version that believers in a god commit is that if a premis cannot be proven false, it must be true. The version Athiests commit is that if a premise cannot be proven true then it must be false.
Both lines of reasoning are fallacious. They are also both grounded in a firm belief that a premis must be true or false with no proof to back up either side. Both sides will use the exact same evidence to prove their point, but neither side has any actual proof. The Athiests are in a particular bind on this one, because it is impossible to prove a negative. The only ones who could ever even potentially prove their case are those who believe in a god. Some might even say that takes a bit of extra faith on the part of the Athiest, given that fact. It also tends to breed a lot of zealotry in Atheists, I believe. Most Athiests I know of seem to be pretty evangelical about it anyway.
Only the Agnostics take a logical stance when it comes to god, and simply state "I dunno" and go on with their lives.
For the record, I believe in a god, the Christian God to be exact. "But wait!" you say, "you just argued that your belief system is based on a logical fallacy!" Well of course it is, that's what makes it a belief. I'm also careful not to commit the fallicist's fallacy - that is, just because an argument is fallacious does not mean the conclusion itself is false.
What you're looking for is the existential fallacy - the argument has universal premises that do not establish the truth of the conclusion.
Be mindful of the fallicist's fallacy too, when playing all these logic games - that is because an argument is fallacious, the conclusion must be false.
Truth doesn't care about logic. Sound logic can guide you toward truth, but even a broken clock gives the correct time twice a day.;)
sa-update, assuming you can run that through cpanel.
Re:Fixed in spamassassin 3.2.5-7 in Debian/Unstabl
on
SpamAssassin 2010 Bug
·
· Score: 1
I know y'all are all proud about how fast it got fixed, but in reality it was discovered over a year ago, fixed half a year ago, and was only released today.
Why? Why not at least release it yesterday so most people's daily update would pick it up and make the whole thing invisible?
Hey! Nice to see open source software gets fixed so ultra fast!:P
To be fair though, at least they released it the day it broke things, why didn't they release it by yesterday? Then the default cron job would have picked it up on most servers and nobody would have noticed.
You must have misunderstood what I was trying to say. What I meant was there would be 200 senators, 100 would be elected like today, 100 would be elected via a national poll.
But where do they come from? Do they come from Iowa? Or California? Or Minisota? Or Florida?
I hate to have to tell you this, but a Green party member from California is going to be pushing the goals of both the Green party and California. That gives California, or any state for that matter that gets this extra representative, over-representation in the Senat.
Furthermore, the purpose of the Senate is to represent the States in the federal government, not the people. That is why it is structured the way it is, and why each state has equal representation. The House of Representatives is where the people are represented, so if you were to do this anywhere it would have to be there.
However, you are still getting off track with the whole argument, because the system is designed such that it does not care who is from what party, there was in fact no concept of political parties when it was created.
The Green movement seems pretty strong in this country, and people who agree with this viewpoint are seeing their wishes fulfilled, or at least fought for constantly in congress. Same with the small government crowd, they have never stayed quiet even though the truth is they have no real direct representation either. They don't need to. Know why? Because while a Representative may be a member of a given party, he represents a DISTRICT, a small set of people. The members of the Green party, or Libertarian party, or whatever smaller party you may prefer have a direct line to their representative in congress. If they are being steamrolled on some issue or another, they can and do raise a stink in their home district, forcing their representative to represent their views when it matters most to them.
You've got to get off the idea that if a democrat is in congress then a republican, green, or libertarian is not being represented. That is false. Senators invariably represent their state first and their party second, and congressmen represent their district first and their party second. If they don't operate this way, they tend to lose the next election.
Also, there are other avenues for representation if you truly cannot be heard. Environmentalists make up a small portion of our population, and yet they were able to affect vast changes via the court system. Today environmental issues are among the top priority in government.
Libertarion views are widely known and espoused, and some members of one of the majority parties fight for them. The same is obviously true for the big government crowd and socialist crowd. So while these parties don't have a direct party representation, the individual ideas of the party members certain and demonstrably do.
The US system actually gives no preference to any individual party, or pair of parties. The dual party situation is simply a natural consequence of the requirement that the President recieve more than 50% of the vote.
In truth, political parties were one of the few major things the Founding Fathers never forsaw. They were already thinking way outside the box, but it was simply something they hadn't imagined. Fortunately, since they were already thinking outside the box, they created the process by which the 12th Ammendment could be passed. That ammendment adjusts the way the electoral college works, mitigating the damage that political parties can cause.
or the fact that he tried to mislead Congress about what he actually did?
If you can read, he claims any misleading statements he made were inadvertant, and that he has always taken responsibility for his error in judgment.
Now, if you want to call him a liar, that's one thing. What evidence do you have that he intentionally misled congress, as opposed to simply not remembering details about something that happened 20 years ago? He readily admitted his mistake when documents showed his testimony didn't match.
I'm sure you remember everything wrong you did 20 years ago with perfect detail, yes?
Now, I'm not saying he DIDN'T intentionally mislead congress, just that you shouldn't jump to that conclusion when he appears to be making an honest attempt to tell the truth.
Frankly, he'd be stupid to try to intentionally misleed congress about it, because he got caught when it happened. Of course they would be able to find out.
Which is what third parties do. Ok, lets say we have 5% of people who want a government as the green party wants it, we have 5% who want a pure free market, total civil rights libertarian government. We have 5% of people who want a communist government, 5% who want a socialist government. 20% who want a government that is centered on outside affairs and 60% who want a government that taxes heavily but gives lots of benefits. Is it fair that in that situation 40% of the population has -zero- representation in congress because the 60% got their representative and the rest got none. A fair way of doing it would be proportional representation.
You are ignoring all of the most pressing issues for your pet issues. Inter-state equality is far, far more important to the well being of the country than deciding whether we want to be green, communist, socialist, libertarian, foregn influenced, or have lots of taxes.
What you are ignoring is the fact that it is even less fair for California to determine Alaska's position in the government, and if you break the current structure away from regional delegate determination that is exactly what happens, and you have invited tyranny of the majority.
The president really only has the power to affect the masses when it comes to A) War B) Executive Orders and C) signing legislation.
That is simply bullshit. The TSA is a part of the Executive branch, and you'd have to be stupid to argue that doesn't affect the people on a daily basis. Why do you think the President is apointing a new "czar" for it? Sure, congress gets confirmation rights, but that's the only influence they have over the process. DoD, FCC, FDA, FAA, and hundreds of other government agencies are all part of the exective branch under the control of the president, and they all have a massive impact on our lives.
Just one look at the name should tell that it has, in reality, far more direct influence over our lives than the Legislative branch. Congress legislates, the Executive branch executes. When congress passes a new law, it is the Executive that sets up a new agency to enforce it. Congress doesn't execute any of its laws, it doesn't have that power. That power is the purview of the Executive. The Judicial branch is there to make sure Congress's laws are being followed by both the people and the Executive, and to ultimately decide whether or not Congress fucked up with the law in the first place.
In other words, all three branches work in conjunction, and all three branches have equal effect on our lives. However, the branch with the most direct effect is the Executive branch, not the Legislative or Judicial branches, because it actually carries out the will of the people (congress).
What we need to structure our voting systems like is to allow for reforms to allow for national elections of 100 more senators, each one would be chosen from votes allowing third parties.
That is nonsense, the vote already allows for third parties. You are completely ignoring the fact that parties come and go, and even national parties change and are not permanent. If you lock in percentages of the vote for each party, you have permanently set the relevance of that party. Because this change would require a constitutional amendment, you would never see the Green party, for example, get more than 3 representatives even if they should eventually come to represent 20% of the population.
That doesn't work, and that's why we don't divide congress up by party. You're also wrong about the purpose of the Senators. Their job is to represent the entire state, unlike members of the House of Representatives, whose job it is to represent one region of a state. Your example of Missouri helps show how this works. The heaviest populated area is at the eastern edge of Missouri, bordering Illinois. This area is divided into three districts, each getting one representative. The next most popu
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, my mistake. It's so often misused sometimes it's hard not to.
This production was original enough that it probably was not a copyright issue. It was a film adaptation of a game, which is going to be very, very different (and different is key with copyright).
Where this project gets into trouble is with Trademark infringement. Zelda is trademarked, and owned by Nintendo. They must vigorously defend this trademark or it becomes null.
Fan fiction is generally considered fair use, it's just those trademarks that can get you in trouble. As long as nothing is sold I think you're in the clear, but once money changes hands there is infiringement on the trademark.
And soon you'll discover the REAL reason nintendo killed it - it's apparently a piece of crap.
Yeah, but then how could they have used name recogniction to get a shitty movie into theaters?
I could see it if they had made a good movie, but apparently it was a real tomato. Licensing it would have been a stupid thing for Nintendo to do, if it was terrible.
From what others have said, it's more a case of it being a complete piece of shit and Nintendo not wanting it to damage the Zelda franchise.
Can't say I blame them.
If the Myst movie had fucked up the Myst story, Cyan would not have loved it.
That's basically what happened here, fan makes game movie, game creator hates what fan movie does to his characters, game company kills game movie.
Zelda is Zelda because of the creative power behind it, and what the fans did didn't jive with the creative power behind Zelda. Ergo, Zelda fan movie was not disirable as it would screw up the future stories.
But generally, whenever a member of congress makes an earmark in a bill, they get called out for it by various watchdog groups.
Like hell they do, do you know there is a 400 million dollar earmark for a hospital for some state or another in the health care bill? And no matter how watchdog groups scream that earmark will not go away. Know why? Because they need that senator's (I think it's a senator, anyway) vote to pass the bill, and he won't vote without his hospital. He could give a flying fuck about the national party, he only cares about his state. Even if the only reason that is true is because they are the ones who elect him, it still holds true.
I frankly hate the practice of earmarks, I would much prefer it if individual states had to work out on their own a way to pay for things like that, but the fed gets away with it under things like the inter-state commerce clause.
Anyway, we're not going to change each other's minds about the role of government and representation on the federal level. We have different philosophies about what should be.
This begs the question, if Google already had an app out, who did it first?
Obviously the patent process takes years.
India seems to have come to the complete opposite conclusion with their thorium reactor.
It makes sense too, given that thorium requires no pre-processing and produces reactor-grade Uranium as its primary byproduct. By using the Uranium as well (which they have found difficult to import) they extend the life of the cores out to two years, which is practically unheard of.
You know India uses thorium reactors, right?
Somebody must not have told them how impossible it was, or how many years it would take, or how it wasn't cost effective.
Stupid Indians (with a dot, not feathers).
You must have missed the one above, then. This one is funnier though.
It's called fail-safe, it's an engineering concept that mitigates the damage of a failure. You don't design the system to never fail, but if it fails have a catastrophy (like what happened with the Titanic), you design it so when failure approaches the system shuts itself down and contains itself by its very nature.
When you have an opportunity to use the physical properties of the material you are working with to design the fail-safe system, you are in an ideal situation.
The system described in the summery would be fail-safe, making a run-away reaction like Chernobyl impossible.
And yes, there is always a chance radiation can leak, there is also a chance the earth will be hit by an asteroid tomorrow. It isn't very likely, though, is it? In fact, the chance is so remote you'd be a fool to live your life afraid of it. With the risk so small, the reward far out-weighs it.
India has Thorium reactors today.
Or phrased differently, lack or scientific proof for or against an assertion/theory/belief doesn't make it untrue, just unproven/unprovable
That's exactly what I was getting at. That's why the only logical conclusion is no conclusion at all, hence the agnostics take the logical stance.
However, just because it cannot be reasoned with logic, or proven with science, does not necessarily make it true or untrue, and thus only the Athiest or Believer can be correct, the Agnostic cannot. He's simply being logical, which gives no answer. There is just no way to prove who is correct between the Athiest and the Believer, that's all.
The God question is sort of like dividing by zero in math. The result isn't 0, it is undefined, or sometimes referred to as "not a number", and sometimes referred to as infinity. It definitely exists, and can even be useful in certain applications, depending on how you treat it, but what it means is impossible to determine.
If a set can be the empty set, then anything is a religion. But that'd be silly. But atheism is the empty set. It is a lack of beliefs in god(s). That is not a belief, but a lack of belief. And to call atheism a religion is silly.
It's not wrong to specifically not include something in a definition - the definition of the primes specifically says 1 is not a prime.
It's actually not a lack of belief. A belief is essentially a strong conviction about something you cannot prove. Obviously there is no proof there is no god, but you certainly believe there is no God. Make your sentance active instead of active while maintaining the same meaning and your argument fails.
The Agnostic has a lack of belief, an Athiest believes in a negative. Frankly, Athiesm is far more of a religion than Agnosticism is. At least they are brave enough to admit that they just plain don't know, and tend to not really care either.
In reality, Athiests commit the inverse of the exact same logical fallacy that believers in a god must commit. You cannot hold either position without commiting the negative proof fallacy. The version that believers in a god commit is that if a premis cannot be proven false, it must be true. The version Athiests commit is that if a premise cannot be proven true then it must be false.
Both lines of reasoning are fallacious. They are also both grounded in a firm belief that a premis must be true or false with no proof to back up either side. Both sides will use the exact same evidence to prove their point, but neither side has any actual proof. The Athiests are in a particular bind on this one, because it is impossible to prove a negative. The only ones who could ever even potentially prove their case are those who believe in a god. Some might even say that takes a bit of extra faith on the part of the Athiest, given that fact. It also tends to breed a lot of zealotry in Atheists, I believe. Most Athiests I know of seem to be pretty evangelical about it anyway.
Only the Agnostics take a logical stance when it comes to god, and simply state "I dunno" and go on with their lives.
For the record, I believe in a god, the Christian God to be exact. "But wait!" you say, "you just argued that your belief system is based on a logical fallacy!" Well of course it is, that's what makes it a belief. I'm also careful not to commit the fallicist's fallacy - that is, just because an argument is fallacious does not mean the conclusion itself is false.
What you're looking for is the existential fallacy - the argument has universal premises that do not establish the truth of the conclusion.
Be mindful of the fallicist's fallacy too, when playing all these logic games - that is because an argument is fallacious, the conclusion must be false.
Truth doesn't care about logic. Sound logic can guide you toward truth, but even a broken clock gives the correct time twice a day. ;)
sa-update, assuming you can run that through cpanel.
I know y'all are all proud about how fast it got fixed, but in reality it was discovered over a year ago, fixed half a year ago, and was only released today.
Why? Why not at least release it yesterday so most people's daily update would pick it up and make the whole thing invisible?
Hey! Nice to see open source software gets fixed so ultra fast! :P
To be fair though, at least they released it the day it broke things, why didn't they release it by yesterday? Then the default cron job would have picked it up on most servers and nobody would have noticed.
...(like, a decade ago)...
Hopefully nobody had trouble inferring that, since it is now 2010, Y2k would have been ten years ago...
You must have misunderstood what I was trying to say. What I meant was there would be 200 senators, 100 would be elected like today, 100 would be elected via a national poll.
But where do they come from? Do they come from Iowa? Or California? Or Minisota? Or Florida?
I hate to have to tell you this, but a Green party member from California is going to be pushing the goals of both the Green party and California. That gives California, or any state for that matter that gets this extra representative, over-representation in the Senat.
Furthermore, the purpose of the Senate is to represent the States in the federal government, not the people. That is why it is structured the way it is, and why each state has equal representation. The House of Representatives is where the people are represented, so if you were to do this anywhere it would have to be there.
However, you are still getting off track with the whole argument, because the system is designed such that it does not care who is from what party, there was in fact no concept of political parties when it was created.
The Green movement seems pretty strong in this country, and people who agree with this viewpoint are seeing their wishes fulfilled, or at least fought for constantly in congress. Same with the small government crowd, they have never stayed quiet even though the truth is they have no real direct representation either. They don't need to. Know why? Because while a Representative may be a member of a given party, he represents a DISTRICT, a small set of people. The members of the Green party, or Libertarian party, or whatever smaller party you may prefer have a direct line to their representative in congress. If they are being steamrolled on some issue or another, they can and do raise a stink in their home district, forcing their representative to represent their views when it matters most to them.
You've got to get off the idea that if a democrat is in congress then a republican, green, or libertarian is not being represented. That is false. Senators invariably represent their state first and their party second, and congressmen represent their district first and their party second. If they don't operate this way, they tend to lose the next election.
Also, there are other avenues for representation if you truly cannot be heard. Environmentalists make up a small portion of our population, and yet they were able to affect vast changes via the court system. Today environmental issues are among the top priority in government.
Libertarion views are widely known and espoused, and some members of one of the majority parties fight for them. The same is obviously true for the big government crowd and socialist crowd. So while these parties don't have a direct party representation, the individual ideas of the party members certain and demonstrably do.
So I think your entire argument is senseless.
The US system actually gives no preference to any individual party, or pair of parties. The dual party situation is simply a natural consequence of the requirement that the President recieve more than 50% of the vote.
In truth, political parties were one of the few major things the Founding Fathers never forsaw. They were already thinking way outside the box, but it was simply something they hadn't imagined. Fortunately, since they were already thinking outside the box, they created the process by which the 12th Ammendment could be passed. That ammendment adjusts the way the electoral college works, mitigating the damage that political parties can cause.
or the fact that he tried to mislead Congress about what he actually did?
If you can read, he claims any misleading statements he made were inadvertant, and that he has always taken responsibility for his error in judgment.
Now, if you want to call him a liar, that's one thing. What evidence do you have that he intentionally misled congress, as opposed to simply not remembering details about something that happened 20 years ago? He readily admitted his mistake when documents showed his testimony didn't match.
I'm sure you remember everything wrong you did 20 years ago with perfect detail, yes?
Now, I'm not saying he DIDN'T intentionally mislead congress, just that you shouldn't jump to that conclusion when he appears to be making an honest attempt to tell the truth.
Frankly, he'd be stupid to try to intentionally misleed congress about it, because he got caught when it happened. Of course they would be able to find out.
Which is what third parties do. Ok, lets say we have 5% of people who want a government as the green party wants it, we have 5% who want a pure free market, total civil rights libertarian government. We have 5% of people who want a communist government, 5% who want a socialist government. 20% who want a government that is centered on outside affairs and 60% who want a government that taxes heavily but gives lots of benefits. Is it fair that in that situation 40% of the population has -zero- representation in congress because the 60% got their representative and the rest got none. A fair way of doing it would be proportional representation.
You are ignoring all of the most pressing issues for your pet issues. Inter-state equality is far, far more important to the well being of the country than deciding whether we want to be green, communist, socialist, libertarian, foregn influenced, or have lots of taxes.
What you are ignoring is the fact that it is even less fair for California to determine Alaska's position in the government, and if you break the current structure away from regional delegate determination that is exactly what happens, and you have invited tyranny of the majority.
The president really only has the power to affect the masses when it comes to A) War B) Executive Orders and C) signing legislation.
That is simply bullshit. The TSA is a part of the Executive branch, and you'd have to be stupid to argue that doesn't affect the people on a daily basis. Why do you think the President is apointing a new "czar" for it? Sure, congress gets confirmation rights, but that's the only influence they have over the process. DoD, FCC, FDA, FAA, and hundreds of other government agencies are all part of the exective branch under the control of the president, and they all have a massive impact on our lives.
Just one look at the name should tell that it has, in reality, far more direct influence over our lives than the Legislative branch. Congress legislates, the Executive branch executes. When congress passes a new law, it is the Executive that sets up a new agency to enforce it. Congress doesn't execute any of its laws, it doesn't have that power. That power is the purview of the Executive. The Judicial branch is there to make sure Congress's laws are being followed by both the people and the Executive, and to ultimately decide whether or not Congress fucked up with the law in the first place.
In other words, all three branches work in conjunction, and all three branches have equal effect on our lives. However, the branch with the most direct effect is the Executive branch, not the Legislative or Judicial branches, because it actually carries out the will of the people (congress).
What we need to structure our voting systems like is to allow for reforms to allow for national elections of 100 more senators, each one would be chosen from votes allowing third parties.
That is nonsense, the vote already allows for third parties. You are completely ignoring the fact that parties come and go, and even national parties change and are not permanent. If you lock in percentages of the vote for each party, you have permanently set the relevance of that party. Because this change would require a constitutional amendment, you would never see the Green party, for example, get more than 3 representatives even if they should eventually come to represent 20% of the population.
That doesn't work, and that's why we don't divide congress up by party. You're also wrong about the purpose of the Senators. Their job is to represent the entire state, unlike members of the House of Representatives, whose job it is to represent one region of a state. Your example of Missouri helps show how this works. The heaviest populated area is at the eastern edge of Missouri, bordering Illinois. This area is divided into three districts, each getting one representative. The next most popu