It would be interesting to see if there were demographics on the 3000 voters. Most likely it is a younger crowd. If the comparison is actually between Star Wars: A New Hope and Serenity then I can see why Serenity won with this crowd.
Star War: ANH is cheese by today's movie standards. The acting is poor and over the top (especially on the part of Hamill and Fisher) and the special effects are laughable. The characters are flat with little depth or development simply because the actors were new to the characters. You can obviously see them grow and get better in Empire and Return.
Now with Serenity the actors were playing familiar roles that they had developed and grown while shooting Firefly. The acting is more smooth and the character interaction is much, much better because of this. Also, Serenity has had 30 years of movie effects to benefit from.
So yes, I can see why Serenity won. Now if we could bring the original ANH forward 30 years and allow it to benefit from character familiarization and improved effects (without Lucas fiddling with the story and the scenes) or if we could take Serenity back 30 years without the benefit of Firefly and using movie making techniques of the day then I think Serenity would have a hard time winning such a poll.
Let's be realistic. Star Wars is popular to the point of becoming a cultural phenomenon, and there are more Star Wars fans that are completely obsessed with the franchise than there are people who even saw Serenity. Heck, more people dressed up as Wookies last Halloween than saw Serenity.
Yes, let's be realistic. You are conveniently forgetting that Star Wars has had 6 movies and 30 years to develop and grow that fan base. Serenity has had 1 movie and a very short lived t.v. show. Star Wars didn't become a cultural phenomenon overnight. In fact, Star Wars owes a lot of its popularity and "phenomenon-ess" to Star Trek and the ground swell of fan support behind that franchise. The brown coats just need time to organize and fill their ranks.
Don't forget about the blackout that affected Ontario and the north-eastern US. That came from Canada as well according the the Americans.
Actually it didn't it started as the result of a tree on power lines in Ohio or something like that. But even after finding out it wasn't Canada's fault did the Governor of New York state or the Mayor of New York City come back to the media and apologize for bashing Canada over it? No, no they didn't.
Given that Hollywood stars have sued tabloids in the past for printing false and/or damaging articles these Wiki Magazines really seem like a bad idea. What is to stop someone from posting something complete false, degrading or career damaging in the entertainment.wiki? Who will be responsible when the affected party seeks monetary compensation for the perceived damage?
Seriously, who really cares? It is not as if there aren't any other options out there just spend your money elsewhere. If a company wants to cut themselves off from a market what is the point of pissing and moaning about it? Let them flop....who cares?
It must depend on your definition of the word "about". Is $70 about $100? Is $70k about $100k?
I am not defending Bill Gates, that's just wrong...ewwwww. But, did he state that ALL H-1B's start at about $100k? If some start in a $90k - $100k range, some start in the $80k to $90k range, and the rest are below $80k is it a lie to say they start at about $100k? I dunno. I'm back to, "It depends on your definition of 'about'."
Could those three little words prevent the IRS from taxing this particular contest? It's not like the guy actually won $138000 in cash. It's a trip, it is not income. So should Oracle have put "No cash value" somewhere in the rules of the contest and save the winner from having to pay tax?
According to that web site the iLiad is $810.00 US. For the reader.
Do you know how many novels you can buy for that much money?
I like the idea of a e-reader but I am sticking with paperbacks until and e-reader is more cost effective. At that price it looks like it will be quite a while before I buy one.
They probably got one of those poppy quarters from a few years ago and figured the painted on poppy was a listening device. I say produce the coins so the public and Canadian officials can see them or shut up. This has to be one of the most retarded stories I've read in awhile....transmitters in our coins....sheesh!!
Fine, implement new border security measures it is your border do with it what you want. But I really have to ask why the US is targeting the countries it is targeting with new security schemes such as this? Why are the British at the top of the list to have their fingerprints taken on top of the fact that airlines have to forward all that personal information about travellers as well? Shouldn't the US be targeting those countries that are hostile towards the US? How about the country that all the 9/11 hijackers came from, Saudi Arabia? If you continue to piss off all of your friends and allies don't be surprised to find that you don't have any more friends and allies some time in the near future.
Wow, she (if it really is a she, I doubt it) uses strong arm tactics to get what she wants. So if she can threaten media agencies with the DMCA out here in real life I wonder if any of the players she forced to sell their "land" will have any real legal recourse. Not that I actually care....she and her husband sound like the ultimate "living in Mom's basement" couple.
I wonder if they understand that when (and it is a matter of when and not if) Linden Labs shuts down the Second Life game all of their "possessions" go *POOF*.
Anyone know what the first, full length book printed by one of these machines was? It would be kind of cool if the developers reproduced a copy of the Gutenberg Bible as their first book on the first completed machine.
So when a non-trivial number of people believe something should be legal, then it is the onus of the opposition to give empierical REASONS why it should not be allowed.
I am fairly certain that I could find a non-trivial number of people, who would be willing to stand up and be counted, that do not believe child pornography should be legal. I doubt you would have as easy a time finding a non-trivial number of people who believe child pornography should be legal and would willing to stand up and be counted.
So, emperical data. Prove your point, otherwise its just an opinion
Hmmm...prove my point why child pornography should be illegal. Ok...go surf the web and find some of it. I won't do that for you...sorry I don't want to view it. But I am sure you can find some. After you are done viewing images of children being sodomized and raped by grown men you can come back and explain your argument again to me about why you think it should be legal.
How about the child or children victimized in the image?
I'm beginning to get a sense that a few people around here are heartless or are completely morally corrupt. It shouldn't even be questioned. Who gets harmed? Geez.....I frickin' wonder sometimes about people.
Well lets look at a definition of pornography, shall we?
The Oxford Dictionary (http://dictionary.oed.com) defines pornography as:
The explicit description or exhibition of sexual subjects or activity in literature, painting, films, etc., in a manner intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic feelings; printed or visual material containing this.
So in order to answer your first question, yes I believe that it should be illegal to make and possess the image or images of two 13-year-olds (or any children) having sex, regardless of who operated the camera.
The answers to your next two questions depends on the images themselves. Are they pornographic in nature? (see the definition of pornography above) A photograph of a nude is not necessarily pornography.
Now to clear up any further questions. The parent post to which I replied stated quite explicitly "Child pornography should be legal" and "Acts of child exploitation should be illegal, but not the images." I disagree, both the act and the images should be illegal. This person was not talking about anything other than pornographic images of children. Then the parent poster showed concern over images of their child that they were posting to the internet. I said, "If you have concerns over an image you are posting to flickr then just don't post that image." I never said the images being posted were pornography, I simply said that it is better to error on the side of caution.
Quite right, you could say it. If you believe it you should say it. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. Once again child porn should never be legal and no matter what any of you say, you cannot convince me otherwise. My opinion. You are entitled to your own.
Oh nothing really, just the fact that there's been a french takeover of the government, nobody from english Canada has gotten a proper mandate to run the country since 1965, and the federal elections have been rigged ever since that bozo Trudeau got in.
Once again, what real issues is this attempting to distract us from?
Maybe the real intent of this campaign is to keep Canadian citizens distracted from the real issues facing their country. Or perhaps to see just many rights people are willing to surrender in the name of fighting _____________.
What real issues are facing Canadians that this is attempting to distract us from? As for rights, sorry but no one has a right to child porn. If you think it is your right to view child porn please do the world a favour and take a long walk off the roof of the nearest 40 floor building.
I still don't understand the concept behind making images illegal. Granted, someone who wants to look at this kind of stuff might have a really messed up sense of morality, and probably reality as well, but I don't see how this is a legal issue before there is an actual victim.
The victim is the child in the image. The image is evidence of a crime being committed. I don't understand how you can't see a victim here. The images are illegal because its one part in the fight against child pornography. The police and the courts would love to get their hands on the people making this sick crap but that is not always possible because these images can be coming from anywhere in the world. So they also target the collectors, people who don't actively create the images but collect, trade, view, and store them in hopes of removing these sickos from society and hoping to stop the demand for this stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be interesting to see if there were demographics on the 3000 voters. Most likely it is a younger crowd. If the comparison is actually between Star Wars: A New Hope and Serenity then I can see why Serenity won with this crowd.
Star War: ANH is cheese by today's movie standards. The acting is poor and over the top (especially on the part of Hamill and Fisher) and the special effects are laughable. The characters are flat with little depth or development simply because the actors were new to the characters. You can obviously see them grow and get better in Empire and Return.
Now with Serenity the actors were playing familiar roles that they had developed and grown while shooting Firefly. The acting is more smooth and the character interaction is much, much better because of this. Also, Serenity has had 30 years of movie effects to benefit from.
So yes, I can see why Serenity won. Now if we could bring the original ANH forward 30 years and allow it to benefit from character familiarization and improved effects (without Lucas fiddling with the story and the scenes) or if we could take Serenity back 30 years without the benefit of Firefly and using movie making techniques of the day then I think Serenity would have a hard time winning such a poll.
Let's be realistic. Star Wars is popular to the point of becoming a cultural phenomenon, and there are more Star Wars fans that are completely obsessed with the franchise than there are people who even saw Serenity. Heck, more people dressed up as Wookies last Halloween than saw Serenity.
Yes, let's be realistic. You are conveniently forgetting that Star Wars has had 6 movies and 30 years to develop and grow that fan base. Serenity has had 1 movie and a very short lived t.v. show. Star Wars didn't become a cultural phenomenon overnight. In fact, Star Wars owes a lot of its popularity and "phenomenon-ess" to Star Trek and the ground swell of fan support behind that franchise. The brown coats just need time to organize and fill their ranks.
Don't forget about the blackout that affected Ontario and the north-eastern US. That came from Canada as well according the the Americans.
Actually it didn't it started as the result of a tree on power lines in Ohio or something like that. But even after finding out it wasn't Canada's fault did the Governor of New York state or the Mayor of New York City come back to the media and apologize for bashing Canada over it? No, no they didn't.
but still i find it bizarre that such progressive countries should allow such a remnant of despotism to linger for so long.
I find it equally bizarre that a progressive country, such as the US, would allow their head of state to be appointed by a court of law.
Now he will finally be able to show some expression of emotion on his face again.
Given that Hollywood stars have sued tabloids in the past for printing false and/or damaging articles these Wiki Magazines really seem like a bad idea. What is to stop someone from posting something complete false, degrading or career damaging in the entertainment.wiki? Who will be responsible when the affected party seeks monetary compensation for the perceived damage?
Seriously, who really cares? It is not as if there aren't any other options out there just spend your money elsewhere. If a company wants to cut themselves off from a market what is the point of pissing and moaning about it? Let them flop....who cares?
It must depend on your definition of the word "about". Is $70 about $100? Is $70k about $100k?
I am not defending Bill Gates, that's just wrong...ewwwww. But, did he state that ALL H-1B's start at about $100k? If some start in a $90k - $100k range, some start in the $80k to $90k range, and the rest are below $80k is it a lie to say they start at about $100k? I dunno. I'm back to, "It depends on your definition of 'about'."
As my coworker said when I told him about this, "That's not hacking it's....yakking!"
(Or yacking for those who prefer the alternate spelling)
Could those three little words prevent the IRS from taxing this particular contest? It's not like the guy actually won $138000 in cash. It's a trip, it is not income. So should Oracle have put "No cash value" somewhere in the rules of the contest and save the winner from having to pay tax?
According to that web site the iLiad is $810.00 US. For the reader.
Do you know how many novels you can buy for that much money?
I like the idea of a e-reader but I am sticking with paperbacks until and e-reader is more cost effective. At that price it looks like it will be quite a while before I buy one.
Ummm...face not faced.
Personally I thought Patrick Stewart's faced looked like plastic. It's a good idea, they just need to develop their technology and techniques.
They probably got one of those poppy quarters from a few years ago and figured the painted on poppy was a listening device. I say produce the coins so the public and Canadian officials can see them or shut up. This has to be one of the most retarded stories I've read in awhile....transmitters in our coins....sheesh!!
It would be good if something similar to the UK's OU were available in the USA, entry wise and price wise.
Well there is always Canada's Open University http://www.athabascau.ca/ and it is not restricted to just tax paying residents of Canada.
Fine, implement new border security measures it is your border do with it what you want. But I really have to ask why the US is targeting the countries it is targeting with new security schemes such as this? Why are the British at the top of the list to have their fingerprints taken on top of the fact that airlines have to forward all that personal information about travellers as well? Shouldn't the US be targeting those countries that are hostile towards the US? How about the country that all the 9/11 hijackers came from, Saudi Arabia?
If you continue to piss off all of your friends and allies don't be surprised to find that you don't have any more friends and allies some time in the near future.
Wow, she (if it really is a she, I doubt it) uses strong arm tactics to get what she wants. So if she can threaten media agencies with the DMCA out here in real life I wonder if any of the players she forced to sell their "land" will have any real legal recourse. Not that I actually care....she and her husband sound like the ultimate "living in Mom's basement" couple.
I wonder if they understand that when (and it is a matter of when and not if) Linden Labs shuts down the Second Life game all of their "possessions" go *POOF*.
Anyone know what the first, full length book printed by one of these machines was? It would be kind of cool if the developers reproduced a copy of the Gutenberg Bible as their first book on the first completed machine.
So when a non-trivial number of people believe something should be legal, then it is the onus of the opposition to give empierical REASONS why it should not be allowed.
I am fairly certain that I could find a non-trivial number of people, who would be willing to stand up and be counted, that do not believe child pornography should be legal. I doubt you would have as easy a time finding a non-trivial number of people who believe child pornography should be legal and would willing to stand up and be counted.
So, emperical data. Prove your point, otherwise its just an opinion
Hmmm...prove my point why child pornography should be illegal. Ok...go surf the web and find some of it. I won't do that for you...sorry I don't want to view it. But I am sure you can find some. After you are done viewing images of children being sodomized and raped by grown men you can come back and explain your argument again to me about why you think it should be legal.
How about the child or children victimized in the image?
I'm beginning to get a sense that a few people around here are heartless or are completely morally corrupt.
It shouldn't even be questioned. Who gets harmed? Geez.....I frickin' wonder sometimes about people.
Well lets look at a definition of pornography, shall we?
The Oxford Dictionary (http://dictionary.oed.com) defines pornography as:
The explicit description or exhibition of sexual subjects or activity in literature, painting, films, etc., in a manner intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic feelings; printed or visual material containing this.
So in order to answer your first question, yes I believe that it should be illegal to make and possess the image or images of two 13-year-olds (or any children) having sex, regardless of who operated the camera.
The answers to your next two questions depends on the images themselves. Are they pornographic in nature? (see the definition of pornography above) A photograph of a nude is not necessarily pornography.
Now to clear up any further questions. The parent post to which I replied stated quite explicitly "Child pornography should be legal" and "Acts of child exploitation should be illegal, but not the images." I disagree, both the act and the images should be illegal. This person was not talking about anything other than pornographic images of children. Then the parent poster showed concern over images of their child that they were posting to the internet. I said, "If you have concerns over an image you are posting to flickr then just don't post that image." I never said the images being posted were pornography, I simply said that it is better to error on the side of caution.
Quite right, you could say it. If you believe it you should say it. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.
Once again child porn should never be legal and no matter what any of you say, you cannot convince me otherwise. My opinion. You are entitled to your own.
NO,absolutely not. Child porn images should never be legal and nothing anyone says could convince me otherwise.
If you have concerns over an image you are posting to flickr then just don't post that image. It is pretty simple.
Oh nothing really, just the fact that there's been a french takeover of the government, nobody from english Canada has gotten a proper mandate to run the country since 1965, and the federal elections have been rigged ever since that bozo Trudeau got in.
Once again, what real issues is this attempting to distract us from?
You must be new here.
Pffft....hardly.
Maybe the real intent of this campaign is to keep Canadian citizens distracted from the real issues facing their country. Or perhaps to see just many rights people are willing to surrender in the name of fighting _____________.
What real issues are facing Canadians that this is attempting to distract us from? As for rights, sorry but no one has a right to child porn. If you think it is your right to view child porn please do the world a favour and take a long walk off the roof of the nearest 40 floor building.
I still don't understand the concept behind making images illegal. Granted, someone who wants to look at this kind of stuff might have a really messed up sense of morality, and probably reality as well, but I don't see how this is a legal issue before there is an actual victim.
The victim is the child in the image. The image is evidence of a crime being committed. I don't understand how you can't see a victim here. The images are illegal because its one part in the fight against child pornography. The police and the courts would love to get their hands on the people making this sick crap but that is not always possible because these images can be coming from anywhere in the world. So they also target the collectors, people who don't actively create the images but collect, trade, view, and store them in hopes of removing these sickos from society and hoping to stop the demand for this stuff.