Of course, it's your prerogative to dislike the man if you see fit, and to express your personal opinion of his work. However, whether it is someone's prerogative to run a satire on the original using part of the original work, which seems to be the case here, is another question.
I hate the man, but I like the Star Wars and Indiana Jones trilogies. Anyway, I think Lucas should welcome the extra exposure, free publicity, not that he needs it at this point. It is Lucas' prerogative to allow them to perform his copyrighted work, and I sincerely believe he has nothing to lose by doing so.
...and also, don't worry about what others are parodying around with your movies. It's called "fair use".
It may be, but at first glance it is a gray area. Not all parodies are fair use, live or not. Without knowing what the theater group has planned for his copyright work, he is justifiably skeptical. Granted it probably is fair use, but Lucas does not have the time to go around checking what every person with a parody is doing. Corporate lawyers have nothing to lose by being overly zealous. Win or lose, the individual lawyers will laugh all the way to the bank.
Unfortunately, once the attack dogs (a.k.a. lawyers) are on the scent, the situation turns ugly and expensive. Hopefully when the dust settles Lucas will get enough $100 bills to burn in his fireplace to keep him warm on his large estate, and the theater group will be free to perform their act under fair use provisions. Time will tell, probably once the new DVDs sell enough and Episode III is through with its theater run.
George is worried about his legacy...well, he's killed his legacy himself.
George needs to learn that money is not everything. Piss off your hardcore fans and suddenly you find yourself in a world of shit. With the Internet to unite fanboys worldwide, he could face organized boycotts, negative reviews, and negative word of mouth advertising. I, for one, hate the man. He had some great visions and great films, but he shows his true colors over and over: greed unfettered with respect for his loyal fans.
I know this is a sarcastic comment, but in some ways there is no censorship. This article talks specifically about Internet censorship. When was the last time the FCC shut down a web site with "objectionable" material that could not be e.g. broadcast on television? If I type the word "fuck" on the Internet where children could read it, the FCC is powerless to stop me, while if I tried saying it on TV it would be edited or beeped out. Witness the web sites with that horrible atrocity, the nipple shot from the SuperBowl. I say horrible not because it was televised, but because it was so damn ugly.
Anyway, government censorship is very bad, and the U.S. does have it, but it could be worse. Thankfully, with the Internet, I have access to information I never dreamt existed a decade ago. Even when I was on AOL back then, it was AOL censorship, not the government. Either way I was restricted.
SomethingAwful posted an article about The Sims 2 recently. The idea was not only to trap people in the bathroom, but to see how many people he could kill, then throw a party with all the gravestones. It is a very entertaining read.
If you and I only watch shows presented in high quality, the advertising for poor quality stops, the advertising money stops coming, and the station either goes out of business or starts producing better quality. And since I (and you) will only watch programs presented in good to high quality, that makes me be the ultimate customer, both of the TV Station and the Advertisor.
Stop making sense. You and I want to watch good shows, most Americans are happy with crap like Fear Factor and Survivor, if the office gossip is any indication.
I love watching Discovery HD Theater, but most people (e.g. my wife) would find most shows on it boring. I hate "reality TV," a misnomer, if I want reality I will get off the couch and go outside. I find most popular shows stupid. Hence, the producers and advertisers do not get my money except for my cable subscription. I do not watch most of the crap on TV nor do I buy most of the products advertised on TV.
I mean, you don't deny college admission to the people who get 800's on the SAT even if they make the rest of the class look bad.
No, but most colleges I have been to do deny admission for test scores that low.
Of course, an SAT score of 400 or 1600 does not qualify one to represent others in government. That is the issue. Score what you want, but if you are a rich white guy you do not represent me nor do you represent 95+% of the electorate. You represent CEOs, politicians, corporate lawyers and accountants, etc.
Oh, you want to go back to 100 years ago? I hope you enjoy your 60 hour work week, slave labor conditions, goods produced by companies with monopolies that cost ungodly amounts, corporate scamming that makes Enron look like a child's game, pathetic literacy rates, etc.
Yes, the U.S. made much progress in the last 100 years, but things got worse in some ways. There is a lot of stuff that goes on now just like it did then, but the corrupt corporate masters are better at hiding it. 60 hour work weeks? Granted it is not working with heavy machinery, but 50+ hour work weeks are not unheard of, especially among salaried employees. I have worked a few myself. Monopolies are not as big of an issue now (they are there but behave better), the new threats are cartels and markets with very few players that cannot technically be called monopolies, e.g. telecommunications. While there are quite a few telcos in the country, think about what options you have in each local market.
You are correct to berate me, you do have a valid point. I agree with you that conditions are better in some ways, but are the same or worse in other ways.
Gee, I thought that winners get elected. Did you go to public school?
Candidates that win the election get elected, but that does not make them winners. If you take a step back and stop taking me literally you might understand. I went to public school for one year, private for three years. I make no claim as to whether or not that makes me smarter or better. I don't care: it is not important to me, even if it is to you.
I fail to see what that link has to do with electing the President of the United States, which is what this entire discussion is all about.
I am sorry you are offended that I want a regular working guy as my president. I feel that I am not adequately represented in my government. While I do my part at the voting booth, I also feel that I cannot effect change well enough because of a severe lack of viable choices.
I agree. Maybe we should amend the Constitution to require a candidate to be a "regular guy." For example, his net worth must be less than an arbitrary value, say $200,000, cannot have ever served on a board of a public corporation, owned a large business, have a law degree, etc.
If you look at the losers that get elected, they are all rich white men. Rather than spend their time working in factories, firing machine guns, scrubbing floors, etc. they spend their days pondering over which luxury car to drive to the country club.
Pardon me for referencing a cliched reference, but wasn't Nazi Germany also pretty harmless for a while? There's something to be said for preemptive removal of dictators. The guy violated UN sanctions for over a decade, and nobody seemed to care. After 9/11, the US government isn't taking chances.
Part of the Libertarian party platform is that the United Nations is irrelevant and the U.S. should not be part of it. From that viewpoint, who cares what resolutions the U.N. passes?
While I am a registered Libertarian, I feel the U.N. has some positive uses beyond bloated bureaucracy and incessant infighting. I would not abolish it, but I would remove its capacity to pass binding resolutions. Let the U.N. do what it does best -- humanitarian missions not involving military force.
Overall, I'm happy that the libertarians will forever remain a fringe group. That's an unpopular opinion around here, but I think the "simple solutions for all problems!" approach is naive and scary.
Yeah, because the two-party "complex solutions for all problems" approach has worked so well the last hundred years or so. Badnarik is correct when he compares the two major candidates' views, essentially saying it does not matter for whom one votes. Policy is close enough that it is the same. Look at the mess we are in. High taxes, eroded civil liberties, and a nation full of people who accept this because they know nothing else.
I hooked up high definition service a few weeks ago because one of my friends said "you can see football players' Nike swoosh on their shoes on ESPNHD." Bullshit. After three weeks I have seen ZERO high definition shows on ESPNHD, while every single PBSHD and DISCHD show has been broadcast in widescreen high definition with very few, if any, commercials. ABCHD has had a few football games and each one has been in awesome 1080i resolution with great detail. I got to see a little bit of my home team, Ohio State, win, and some of the SEC teams play but I really do not care. At the same time, ESPNHD had professional games broadcast in standard definition with the letterbox bars on the left and right side on my HDTV channel. Assholes. Give some HDTV! I am paying $10 per month!
Not that I agree with banning it, but I can appreciate some academics having trouble with the material (Atticus Finch is seen as a "nigger lover" - a quote straight from the book, btw).
Academics should be broadening the minds of tomorrow's leaders. Racism still is an issue in our country, although not as bad as it used to be. "To Kill a Mockingbird" does explore racism a little bit, and that is a good thing. Banning it for quotes such as what you mentioned is a very bad thing. That is like living in denial -- if I pretend that word does not exist, it will not (at least not in my head). Ludicrous.
When my son is old enough to go to school I will be very proactive and make sure he learns about these issues. I will encourage him to read banned books if his school acts stupid. Government censorship is evil. There are two people allowed to censor what my son sees, and the other one is my wife.
Similarly, the version of "Silence of the Lambs" I first saw was the one censored by Blockbuster.
A few people have made comments about Blockbuster censoring movies. How bad is it? I do not have a membership and have not for many years. The last time I rented a movie was a VHS cassette "formatted to fit my screen, edited for length and conent" and all that crap. Now I purchase DVDs formatted to fit my widescreen HDTV and of course the vast majority of DVDs are director's cuts, unrated version, special editions, etc. that have extra scenes and "bad stuff."
What did I miss (or not miss) by not renting from Blockbuster?
Also, if anyone hasn't heard of a decent NC-17 movie since Showgirls...
The tomato never lies: Showgirls was not a decent movie, it is thoroughly rotten.
...this one looks promising. I saw the trailer for it the other day.
It looks decent enough from the trailer for what looks like a B movie. I do not know if they are toning it down for the general audience of Internet users (i.e. includes people who cannot get into an NC-17 film), but it appears as though it is an actual movie and not just a porno on the big screen.
Too bad it does not also reverse CSS, for example, making left-align into right-align, border-left to border-right, and so on. Also, it will not mirror itself. That would have been ironic.
Saying that it is difficult to add buttons and other elements to a JPanel is ludicrous. Saying that it is confusing to organize all your event listeners and other event-driven code is a valid argument. After all, that is one of my major gripes with VB, everyone's favorite straw man.
But a lot have been burned. In fact, almost every Windows user I know that uses IE has had problems with unwanted popups, spyware, etc.
Today I logged into one of the lab computers at college and could not use IE. There was so much malware loaded up on it that when I tried to load my university's home page I got about 10 popups/unders, the page was hijacked to some fake bank site, and I eventually had to log out to get it to go away. Apparently it had been wiped and had a fresh disk image copied over within the last day or two. I may not be an IE user per se, but I got burned pretty bad given the circumstances. Of course I just moved to a different desk (could not download anything like ad-aware, it was so bad), but not everyone can "fix" the problem that easily.
Wasn't there some stat that came out recently that said some-odd 80% of Windows PCs have some sort of spyware on them? Sounds like a lot have been burned.
Not necessarily. For example, there are a lot of Windows boxes with spam relay bots but the machines' owners do not know. That does not sound like burned to me. How about toolbars or other "beneficial" utilities that silently do their malware/spyware/adware stuff in the background?
While yes hackers continue to find and exploit security holes in Explorer, let's not forget that holes would likely be found in Firefox et all as well, if the hackers decide to start concentrate on these other browsers once they have a large enough market share.
There is one gaping security hole, ahem, feature, that only IE has: ActiveX. Firefox will never have a vulnerability involving ActiveX or other proprietary Microsoft technologies because those technologies are proprietary and exclusive to IE. That is not to say that Firefox and other browsers are immune to security vulnerabilities, just that they have an inherent advantage.
Re:New standard still necessary
on
RGB to become RGBCMY
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I had never tried to think outside the RGB world because it 'technically' displays all colors, though it struck me that the colors in-between RGB will come out dimmer than they should.
No, RGB technically displays more discrete colors than our eye can see. That does not mean it "displays all colors." There are some colors RGB displays that we cannot distinguish between, and there are some colors we can distinguish that RGB cannot display.
How many other "Closed Source" companies are out there? A few anti-virus and utility companies like McAfee's and Norton's, Adobe type places, game developers, etc.
How is that relevant? A relatively small fraction of software engineers and computer scientists work on commercial software. Most of us work on systems that your average CompUSA customer will never in a million years see.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, it's your prerogative to dislike the man if you see fit, and to express your personal opinion of his work. However, whether it is someone's prerogative to run a satire on the original using part of the original work, which seems to be the case here, is another question.
I hate the man, but I like the Star Wars and Indiana Jones trilogies. Anyway, I think Lucas should welcome the extra exposure, free publicity, not that he needs it at this point. It is Lucas' prerogative to allow them to perform his copyrighted work, and I sincerely believe he has nothing to lose by doing so.
We have to take the bad with the good. As nasty as tubgirl is, at least the government does not feel compelled to "protect" us from her.
It may be, but at first glance it is a gray area. Not all parodies are fair use, live or not. Without knowing what the theater group has planned for his copyright work, he is justifiably skeptical. Granted it probably is fair use, but Lucas does not have the time to go around checking what every person with a parody is doing. Corporate lawyers have nothing to lose by being overly zealous. Win or lose, the individual lawyers will laugh all the way to the bank.
Unfortunately, once the attack dogs (a.k.a. lawyers) are on the scent, the situation turns ugly and expensive. Hopefully when the dust settles Lucas will get enough $100 bills to burn in his fireplace to keep him warm on his large estate, and the theater group will be free to perform their act under fair use provisions. Time will tell, probably once the new DVDs sell enough and Episode III is through with its theater run.
George is worried about his legacy...well, he's killed his legacy himself.
George needs to learn that money is not everything. Piss off your hardcore fans and suddenly you find yourself in a world of shit. With the Internet to unite fanboys worldwide, he could face organized boycotts, negative reviews, and negative word of mouth advertising. I, for one, hate the man. He had some great visions and great films, but he shows his true colors over and over: greed unfettered with respect for his loyal fans.
It's so nice that there's no censorship in US.
I know this is a sarcastic comment, but in some ways there is no censorship. This article talks specifically about Internet censorship. When was the last time the FCC shut down a web site with "objectionable" material that could not be e.g. broadcast on television? If I type the word "fuck" on the Internet where children could read it, the FCC is powerless to stop me, while if I tried saying it on TV it would be edited or beeped out. Witness the web sites with that horrible atrocity, the nipple shot from the SuperBowl. I say horrible not because it was televised, but because it was so damn ugly.
Anyway, government censorship is very bad, and the U.S. does have it, but it could be worse. Thankfully, with the Internet, I have access to information I never dreamt existed a decade ago. Even when I was on AOL back then, it was AOL censorship, not the government. Either way I was restricted.
SomethingAwful posted an article about The Sims 2 recently. The idea was not only to trap people in the bathroom, but to see how many people he could kill, then throw a party with all the gravestones. It is a very entertaining read.
Click here for a hyperlink to the OP's URL.
If you and I only watch shows presented in high quality, the advertising for poor quality stops, the advertising money stops coming, and the station either goes out of business or starts producing better quality. And since I (and you) will only watch programs presented in good to high quality, that makes me be the ultimate customer, both of the TV Station and the Advertisor.
Stop making sense. You and I want to watch good shows, most Americans are happy with crap like Fear Factor and Survivor, if the office gossip is any indication.
I love watching Discovery HD Theater, but most people (e.g. my wife) would find most shows on it boring. I hate "reality TV," a misnomer, if I want reality I will get off the couch and go outside. I find most popular shows stupid. Hence, the producers and advertisers do not get my money except for my cable subscription. I do not watch most of the crap on TV nor do I buy most of the products advertised on TV.
I mean, you don't deny college admission to the people who get 800's on the SAT even if they make the rest of the class look bad.
No, but most colleges I have been to do deny admission for test scores that low.
Of course, an SAT score of 400 or 1600 does not qualify one to represent others in government. That is the issue. Score what you want, but if you are a rich white guy you do not represent me nor do you represent 95+% of the electorate. You represent CEOs, politicians, corporate lawyers and accountants, etc.
Oh, you want to go back to 100 years ago? I hope you enjoy your 60 hour work week, slave labor conditions, goods produced by companies with monopolies that cost ungodly amounts, corporate scamming that makes Enron look like a child's game, pathetic literacy rates, etc.
Yes, the U.S. made much progress in the last 100 years, but things got worse in some ways. There is a lot of stuff that goes on now just like it did then, but the corrupt corporate masters are better at hiding it. 60 hour work weeks? Granted it is not working with heavy machinery, but 50+ hour work weeks are not unheard of, especially among salaried employees. I have worked a few myself. Monopolies are not as big of an issue now (they are there but behave better), the new threats are cartels and markets with very few players that cannot technically be called monopolies, e.g. telecommunications. While there are quite a few telcos in the country, think about what options you have in each local market.
You are correct to berate me, you do have a valid point. I agree with you that conditions are better in some ways, but are the same or worse in other ways.
Gee, I thought that winners get elected. Did you go to public school?
Candidates that win the election get elected, but that does not make them winners. If you take a step back and stop taking me literally you might understand. I went to public school for one year, private for three years. I make no claim as to whether or not that makes me smarter or better. I don't care: it is not important to me, even if it is to you.
http://www.nocitycouncil.com/content/ Yes, you must have gone to public school...
I fail to see what that link has to do with electing the President of the United States, which is what this entire discussion is all about.
I am sorry you are offended that I want a regular working guy as my president. I feel that I am not adequately represented in my government. While I do my part at the voting booth, I also feel that I cannot effect change well enough because of a severe lack of viable choices.
Yeah! And what about our doctors? They're all rich guys too!
Possession of an M.D. does not make one rich, neither does it entitle one to represent the public in government.
I agree. Maybe we should amend the Constitution to require a candidate to be a "regular guy." For example, his net worth must be less than an arbitrary value, say $200,000, cannot have ever served on a board of a public corporation, owned a large business, have a law degree, etc.
If you look at the losers that get elected, they are all rich white men. Rather than spend their time working in factories, firing machine guns, scrubbing floors, etc. they spend their days pondering over which luxury car to drive to the country club.
Pardon me for referencing a cliched reference, but wasn't Nazi Germany also pretty harmless for a while? There's something to be said for preemptive removal of dictators. The guy violated UN sanctions for over a decade, and nobody seemed to care. After 9/11, the US government isn't taking chances.
Part of the Libertarian party platform is that the United Nations is irrelevant and the U.S. should not be part of it. From that viewpoint, who cares what resolutions the U.N. passes?
While I am a registered Libertarian, I feel the U.N. has some positive uses beyond bloated bureaucracy and incessant infighting. I would not abolish it, but I would remove its capacity to pass binding resolutions. Let the U.N. do what it does best -- humanitarian missions not involving military force.
Overall, I'm happy that the libertarians will forever remain a fringe group. That's an unpopular opinion around here, but I think the "simple solutions for all problems!" approach is naive and scary.
Yeah, because the two-party "complex solutions for all problems" approach has worked so well the last hundred years or so. Badnarik is correct when he compares the two major candidates' views, essentially saying it does not matter for whom one votes. Policy is close enough that it is the same. Look at the mess we are in. High taxes, eroded civil liberties, and a nation full of people who accept this because they know nothing else.
plus the Sunday night ESPN games.
I hooked up high definition service a few weeks ago because one of my friends said "you can see football players' Nike swoosh on their shoes on ESPNHD." Bullshit. After three weeks I have seen ZERO high definition shows on ESPNHD, while every single PBSHD and DISCHD show has been broadcast in widescreen high definition with very few, if any, commercials. ABCHD has had a few football games and each one has been in awesome 1080i resolution with great detail. I got to see a little bit of my home team, Ohio State, win, and some of the SEC teams play but I really do not care. At the same time, ESPNHD had professional games broadcast in standard definition with the letterbox bars on the left and right side on my HDTV channel. Assholes. Give some HDTV! I am paying $10 per month!
Go Ohio State University! Michigan sucks :-)
Not that I agree with banning it, but I can appreciate some academics having trouble with the material (Atticus Finch is seen as a "nigger lover" - a quote straight from the book, btw).
Academics should be broadening the minds of tomorrow's leaders. Racism still is an issue in our country, although not as bad as it used to be. "To Kill a Mockingbird" does explore racism a little bit, and that is a good thing. Banning it for quotes such as what you mentioned is a very bad thing. That is like living in denial -- if I pretend that word does not exist, it will not (at least not in my head). Ludicrous.
When my son is old enough to go to school I will be very proactive and make sure he learns about these issues. I will encourage him to read banned books if his school acts stupid. Government censorship is evil. There are two people allowed to censor what my son sees, and the other one is my wife.
Similarly, the version of "Silence of the Lambs" I first saw was the one censored by Blockbuster.
A few people have made comments about Blockbuster censoring movies. How bad is it? I do not have a membership and have not for many years. The last time I rented a movie was a VHS cassette "formatted to fit my screen, edited for length and conent" and all that crap. Now I purchase DVDs formatted to fit my widescreen HDTV and of course the vast majority of DVDs are director's cuts, unrated version, special editions, etc. that have extra scenes and "bad stuff."
What did I miss (or not miss) by not renting from Blockbuster?
Also, if anyone hasn't heard of a decent NC-17 movie since Showgirls...
The tomato never lies: Showgirls was not a decent movie, it is thoroughly rotten.
It looks decent enough from the trailer for what looks like a B movie. I do not know if they are toning it down for the general audience of Internet users (i.e. includes people who cannot get into an NC-17 film), but it appears as though it is an actual movie and not just a porno on the big screen.
It will mirror any site for you...
Too bad it does not also reverse CSS, for example, making left-align into right-align, border-left to border-right, and so on. Also, it will not mirror itself. That would have been ironic.
Yay free market economy! The fact that we need our DVD players approved by anyone tells me the system is broken.
Took a UI class in the spring, and dear lord, even with RAD tools, i spent more time learning how to program a button than learning REAL UI issues.
Yep, that was tough.
Saying that it is difficult to add buttons and other elements to a JPanel is ludicrous. Saying that it is confusing to organize all your event listeners and other event-driven code is a valid argument. After all, that is one of my major gripes with VB, everyone's favorite straw man.
But a lot have been burned. In fact, almost every Windows user I know that uses IE has had problems with unwanted popups, spyware, etc.
Today I logged into one of the lab computers at college and could not use IE. There was so much malware loaded up on it that when I tried to load my university's home page I got about 10 popups/unders, the page was hijacked to some fake bank site, and I eventually had to log out to get it to go away. Apparently it had been wiped and had a fresh disk image copied over within the last day or two. I may not be an IE user per se, but I got burned pretty bad given the circumstances. Of course I just moved to a different desk (could not download anything like ad-aware, it was so bad), but not everyone can "fix" the problem that easily.
Wasn't there some stat that came out recently that said some-odd 80% of Windows PCs have some sort of spyware on them? Sounds like a lot have been burned.
Not necessarily. For example, there are a lot of Windows boxes with spam relay bots but the machines' owners do not know. That does not sound like burned to me. How about toolbars or other "beneficial" utilities that silently do their malware/spyware/adware stuff in the background?
While yes hackers continue to find and exploit security holes in Explorer, let's not forget that holes would likely be found in Firefox et all as well, if the hackers decide to start concentrate on these other browsers once they have a large enough market share.
There is one gaping security hole, ahem, feature, that only IE has: ActiveX. Firefox will never have a vulnerability involving ActiveX or other proprietary Microsoft technologies because those technologies are proprietary and exclusive to IE. That is not to say that Firefox and other browsers are immune to security vulnerabilities, just that they have an inherent advantage.
I had never tried to think outside the RGB world because it 'technically' displays all colors, though it struck me that the colors in-between RGB will come out dimmer than they should.
No, RGB technically displays more discrete colors than our eye can see. That does not mean it "displays all colors." There are some colors RGB displays that we cannot distinguish between, and there are some colors we can distinguish that RGB cannot display.
How many other "Closed Source" companies are out there? A few anti-virus and utility companies like McAfee's and Norton's, Adobe type places, game developers, etc.
How is that relevant? A relatively small fraction of software engineers and computer scientists work on commercial software. Most of us work on systems that your average CompUSA customer will never in a million years see.