That was certainly a passionate post, and I understand where you are coming from and why you said it. I think my objection, however, comes in what you said toward the end:
"The internet is difficult to regulate. Neo-nazis use it to co-ordinate their activities unchecked, and to spread as much hate-filled material through the net as possible. You can't make accessing it impossible, but you can make accessing it illegal. You can make it illegal to spread false propaganda that's only intended to harm people and cause harm. " [Boldface mine]
What is "false"?
What is "propaganda" and what are facts?
What is intended to "cause harm"?
If society could define thse concepts universally, your solution might work. Unfortunately, to take some examples from the U.S., those who support the right of a woman to have an abortion could be assailed by the Christian Right for putting out "false propaganda that's only intended to harm people and cause harm." They could say the same thing about evolution. Conversely, humanists could lay these same charges against religious thinking.
One person's "falsehood" is another person's "truth." As long as we cannot agree on standards such as these, it will always be dangerous to make certain types of statements illegal.
"The following organizations have tested XP, independently of Microsoft: CNET/ZDNET, eTesting Labs, eWeek, PC Magazine, and PC World. All these independent labs came to the same conclusion: XP meets or exceeds the performance of Win2K and Win9x. "
ROFL! Yeah, those are all real independent sites, sites that merely depend on Microsoft for their editorial and financial lives. Microsoft so dominates the stories they cover, and provides such good advertising revenue, it's in their best interests to not piss Microsoft off. And since you can tweak benchmarks in various ways, why not just take the results that echo the Microsoft party line, they can reason? It's a "real" result, isn't it? And if it keeps the Microsoft money and information access flowing, well we get to keep our jobs.
"together with such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate."
You mean like the kind of relief the Jackson court deemed appropriate? Yeah, that sure hurt M$...
This compromise is toothless. Money talks, and we know who has the most money in the world.
Myths about the anti-globalization protesters
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 2
I've been following the news about anti-WTO protests and the like, and what I've noticed is that the media is consistently portraying matters in an inaccurate way (big surprise, I know). This conflict is often portrayed as those who want free trade on one side, and those who are anti-globalization on the other side. That's just not true. They also make the claim that the protesters are only a bunch of spoiled, liberal rich kids who know nothing about conditions in the third-world countries they are supposedly protesting for. That's just not true. They also make the claim that people in the third-world are very much in favor of globalization that this is what they need to get out of poverty. That's just not true.
The reality is quite different. Although there are all sorts of groups among the protesters, including, for instance, union members protesting loss of jobs in this country, the general view of the anti-WTO crowd is NOT anti-globalization. Most agree that free trade can be a very good thing. What they are protesting is the MANNER in which free trade is being pushed.
With trade organizations taking precedence over local government regulations, environmental and labor laws are being pushed aside in the name of free trade. In such a case, there will be some people in those third-world countries who will benefit, while many common people have it even worse. Think of the child laborers making Nike shoes, for instance. The owner of the factory is doing quite well with free trade, but that 8-year-old working the machine in the corner is not having such a nice life. So the protesters are basically saying, 'Have free trade, but do it in a socially-responsible manner that upholds the worth of the individual.'
Since capitalism and free trade in a pure form doesn't really care about the worth of the individual except as the individual provides work or cash, the media lies about the situation to color people's perception of this debate. They reduce the complex arguments down to "Free Trade Bad," which is not at all the message being argued.
"Microsoft's approach regarding the spell checker dictionary and thesaurus is to not suggest words that may have offensive uses or provide offensive definitions for any words. The dictionary and spell checker is updated with each release of Office to ensure that the tools reflect current social and cultural environments."
Now there's a scary precedent! It's hard enough to come up with a consistent view of what's offensive. What's fine by me might be offensive to my neighbor. And when you are forced to "reflect current social and cultural environments", making sure you offend no one in those environments, you wind up with a lowest-common denominator effect. It's like the difference between broadcast TV and HBO. HBO can show "The Sopranos" but broadcast TV cannot without offending the advertisers who in turn don't want to offend the "current social environment" of the lowest-common denominator.
Fortunately, this is merely one product from one company, and is not yet the actual dictionary. Unfortunately, this one product totally dominates the marketplace. Scarily, Microsoft also makes a dictionary...
"The movie, music and technology industries have been trying for years, with only limited success, to agree on a standard way of protecting content from Internet and other digital piracy. A high-profile effort dubbed the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI), intended to be a private sector version of the kind of technology effort Hollings' plan outlines, collapsed largely because of disagreements between technology and content companies. "
...and because it turned out to be so easy to crack SDMI, despite their claims to the contrary. Oops...
"Hollings' plan would restart this process, this time with the force of law behind it, and apply it to all digital devices. "
Can't do it with technology? Buy a law instead. That's how the DMCA happened. You can't stop people by adding more pickable locks, so they chose to make it illegal to pick a lock, to own picks in the first place, and even to discuss how to pick locks with your buddies. Overkill, but that's how government works.
"The early draft bill would require the technology industry to come to its own decision on a copy-protection standard within 18 months, or else have the government step in to mandate a solution. "
There's a scary thought: When the private sector fails to come up with an uncrackable system, the government will step in and have a go.
"The bill would bar the sale of any "interactive digital device" that did not have the anti-piracy technology built in. It would also be illegal to remove or disable the security technology as well as to remove the piracy protections from a song, movie or other piece of content. "
And the government's solution, as I said, is to ignore the fact that they can't make it uncrackable from a technology point-of-view, and to just say, "Illegal!" every time someone tries to crack it. The idea of working with consumers to come up with a balance that can work for everyone, as with traditional "fair use" provisions, never seems to occur to them.
"Last time I checked...downloading pirated music IS stealing."
Check again. It ain't necessarily so, and the legalities of this issue are being worked out as we speak. Or perhaps I should say the buying of new laws is being handled as we speak. But under traditional copyright law (i.e. laws more than a couple of years old), fair use rules allow for some downloading. Furthermore, if you own the CD already, and decide to just grab the MP3 off Gnutella instead of ripping from your CD, that isn't illegal either.
Yes, some aspects of file sharing go too far (according to copyright laws), but not ALL downloading of music is stealing. Only the corporations want us to believe it, and sadly most of the public is buying this lie. And, of course, with new corruption to the copyright laws taking place every year, your statement may well be true someday in every sense. But it isn't right now, not while the issue is still being fought in the courts, and in the court of public opinion. So I repeat: Check again -- this issue is not as black-and-white as the corporate propaganda tells us it is.
"Besides, call me a Troll if you must, I'm actually looking forward to the Harry Potter movie as it looks, unlike Holy Wood productions, done up extremely well."
I'm curious as to your use of "besides" to start that sentence. You used it in the context of not wanting to see LoTR on opening night, and thus your meaning evidently is that Harry Potter, unlike LoTR, is unlike Hollywood and done right. Since I've yet to see anyone who has said otherwise about LoTR, and in fact most people think that LoTR is even more unHollywood-like than Harry Potter, I'm wondering what you heard that makes you think this about LoTR. From what I can tell, if you want the definition of a movie done "extremely well," look no further than what Peter Jackson has done with LoTR.
"Until... your ISP only supports Micro$oft and you HAVE to switch to get service."
A valid point, but the ISP I use (Speakeasy) is a Linux fan apparently (when I asked if they supported Linux, the tech guy got enthusiastic and said they run it too), and quite independent. Time will tell, but I suspect they would be one of the last hold-outs against this Brave New World.
The Net was here before M$ got interested, and before AOL heard of it, and before business discovered it. In fact, some of the most interesting parts of the Net are still those oddball sites totally unconnected to M$ and AOL and their like. When I want to find out information on tech stuff, I prefer homegrown sites where people passionate about tech write their true assessment of stuff, rather than some conglomerate taking advertising dollars from the same companies they are reviewing.
M$ can be the gatekeeper and it won't affect me since I don't run M$ in my home -- at all. Nor do I use AOL. They can charge whatever they want, but they won't get any money from me. And if they decide to start forcing certain sites I use to charge money, I will switch to other sites. It's nice to have CNN.com around occasionally, but there are other ways to get news. I like ESPN, but I could switch if I had to.
If 90% of the online world eventually switches to a vast wasteland of sameness controlled through subscription services, I will just be part of the 10% going to the independent sites, the fan sites, the oddball sites. That's how the Net began, and that will always be a part of the Net. You just have to search those sites out.
"The users who share copyrighted files are the ones breaking the law. "
And under existing "fair use" case law, even that is not necessarily illegal, though the industry is trying hard to propagandize us into thinking it is. Existing legal precedences say that you can make a cassette of songs for your buddy, as long as you don't sell it to him, and as long as you don't engage in mass duplication for everyone. Napster, despite the rhetoric, was merely one-to-one sharing, just done many times over. Where the legal limit should be in that case wasn't made clear, but it is not necessarily illegal to share copyrighted files in certain cases.
At least, not yet...
The good and the bad of it
on
GPS Meets PCS
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The example always given for this locater technology is 911 calls. Now, when you are calling 911, you do want them to know your location -- the sooner the better really. And I can see how this could serve a useful purpose. Politicians certainly pushed this application when stating their requirement to cell phone manufacturers.
The downside to this, of course, as we at/. are well aware, is that this is yet another step toward Big Brother. Insert the usual arguments here ["Oh c'mon, stop being so paranoid!" "Yeah, but why give them the power to abuse in the first place?"]. How far will this technology be extended? Will they start to track your location on the highways, to see if you are speeding if you get from location A to location B faster than you ought? If someone corrupt within some government agency decides they don't like you because of your idealogy (whatever it may be), can they start to track your locations at all times?
I would like this technology if it can be turned off when desired, even if it's only out of principle. I don't like having a choice taken from me, even if it is "for my own good."
"Mmm, apart from the episode where beardy Riker pulls some some deviant "chick" from an androgynous culture. Who then, admittedly, gets brainwashed back into compliance (much like the Federation do with their sinister sounding "re-education camps")"
An excellent example of an exception to my rule, but my point stands. For the most part, the other shows just don't have the time to show the depth and breadth of a planet's society. DS9 had the time, and I enjoyed watching the writers flesh out the possibilities.
I loved DS9. One of the things that bugged me about TOS and TNG is that whenever they arrived at a planet, the inhabitants were implied to be the same the world over. No nuances of society, just one big consistent group of folks (if sometimes painted blue or green...).
With DS9 we finally got to see a world (Bajor) like our own: full of different viewpoints, goals, ideals. It wasn't a homogenous society, but one fractured into various points-of-views. That depth of characterization was refreshing for Star Trek.
"I fear they will not stop until we reach orwellian levels of monitoring, banning and regulation."
Correct. And we recall from 1984 what happens even when they reach Big Brother levels of surveillance: they go after thoughts next.
"How many times do they need to be proven wrong, and how often do we need our rights reducing before these stupid (but well intending although angry) people realise they are WRONG?"
Since these people don't think they have been proven wrong yet, what makes you think they will stop? Even the victims of rights reductions often applaud their freedom being stripped away in the name of safety. If the average person doesn't even get the point, the people seeking to take rights away certainly don't see it.
Politics is a method of self-selecting away those who would actually be qualified to lead.
"CIBC World Market analyst Thomas Sepenzis said the two PC makers could lean on their extensive contacts in the corporate market to extend the market share of their hardware, and by default, the market share of Microsoft's software.
``H-P and Compaq have awesome enterprise contacts,'' he said. ''Chances are they will say 'you buy 16 e-business servers from us and we'll throw in 500 (Compaq) iPAQs or (H-P) Jornadas, and we'll support them for you.''
This is how Microsoft always wins. They do whatever they have to do to win. Get partners to give away products that push M$ software? No problem, M$ probably subsidizes HewPaq in this endeavor.
"Oh please...innocent until proven guilty indeed. Your being as "just" about things in general as the one you are accusing. At least have the decency to try to back up your claim, or get some medication for your conspiracy theory delusions. "
Back up my claims?! I basically said politics operates on influence and money. You need proof of this? It's like saying politicians lie. If you haven't caught on to this by now, no proof will suffice.
"On what grounds does the Bush administration have to unilaterally push a decision down like this, other than possibly a bucketload of cash?"
What better grounds are there when you are in government? Graft makes the world go round. I mean this sounds cynical, but isn't it basically true? M$ has been pumping money into lobbyist efforts and, no doubt, money under the table (hey, if they get dead people to write 'independent' letters to newspapers, it's a cinch they do other immoral, if not illegal, things) to ensure the Bush administration follows through on its natural political bent: Business first.
"Now you might speculate that they're lying, and that Bush actually did order this action, but to report so as fact is clearly very poor journalism."
How naive do you think we are? Of course they are lying. Candidate Bush stated during his campaign that he didn't think the government should be after Microsoft. Now that he's the boss, do you really think the Department of Justice is so stupid as to go against what the White House wants? Do you really think there were NO secret conversations, off the record, to get Justice to back off?
Bush is behind this, for that's the way the government works.
No, it's the fact that J.K. Rowling writes them for children that makes them children's books. The fact that some adults can also enjoy the books is beside the point. The target audience is kids. Or have you recently seen kids lining up at the library to hear the latest Stephen King novel read to them?
"Yes. Religious dogma are religious beliefs. No kidding - try looking it up next time."
I did, and you're wrong. Oh sure, on a surface level you could say dogma = beliefs, but that totally misses the nuances of the words. And totally misses the point of the film Dogma, which is that religious beliefs are fine, but watch out for any group that wants to impose their dogma on you. Look it up.
"Are you saying Catholics thought they were offended, but were actually mistaken ("typically flew over their head")? "
Typically, the Catholic spokespersons who did speak out against the film (not the church itself, but individuals) did not see the film. So they got offended based on hearsay, and not on reality. That's how it "flew over their head." They had the same wrong-headed ideas about what 'dogma' is than you seem to have. To repeat, Kevin Smith was NOT attacking Catholic beliefs. He was parodying dogma.
Wasn't trying to be personal or offensive, and I thank you for correcting my misunderstanding. I wasn't sure to what degree you found the movie offensive, and was merely suggesting one possible view you may have held.
Slashdot Mirror
"The internet is difficult to regulate. Neo-nazis use it to co-ordinate their activities unchecked, and to spread as much hate-filled material through the net as possible. You can't make accessing it impossible, but you can make accessing it illegal. You can make it illegal to spread false propaganda that's only intended to harm people and cause harm. " [Boldface mine]
What is "false"?
What is "propaganda" and what are facts?
What is intended to "cause harm"?
If society could define thse concepts universally, your solution might work. Unfortunately, to take some examples from the U.S., those who support the right of a woman to have an abortion could be assailed by the Christian Right for putting out "false propaganda that's only intended to harm people and cause harm." They could say the same thing about evolution. Conversely, humanists could lay these same charges against religious thinking.
One person's "falsehood" is another person's "truth." As long as we cannot agree on standards such as these, it will always be dangerous to make certain types of statements illegal.
ROFL! Yeah, those are all real independent sites, sites that merely depend on Microsoft for their editorial and financial lives. Microsoft so dominates the stories they cover, and provides such good advertising revenue, it's in their best interests to not piss Microsoft off. And since you can tweak benchmarks in various ways, why not just take the results that echo the Microsoft party line, they can reason? It's a "real" result, isn't it? And if it keeps the Microsoft money and information access flowing, well we get to keep our jobs.
Yup, real independent...
You mean like the kind of relief the Jackson court deemed appropriate? Yeah, that sure hurt M$...
This compromise is toothless. Money talks, and we know who has the most money in the world.
The reality is quite different. Although there are all sorts of groups among the protesters, including, for instance, union members protesting loss of jobs in this country, the general view of the anti-WTO crowd is NOT anti-globalization. Most agree that free trade can be a very good thing. What they are protesting is the MANNER in which free trade is being pushed.
With trade organizations taking precedence over local government regulations, environmental and labor laws are being pushed aside in the name of free trade. In such a case, there will be some people in those third-world countries who will benefit, while many common people have it even worse. Think of the child laborers making Nike shoes, for instance. The owner of the factory is doing quite well with free trade, but that 8-year-old working the machine in the corner is not having such a nice life. So the protesters are basically saying, 'Have free trade, but do it in a socially-responsible manner that upholds the worth of the individual.'
Since capitalism and free trade in a pure form doesn't really care about the worth of the individual except as the individual provides work or cash, the media lies about the situation to color people's perception of this debate. They reduce the complex arguments down to "Free Trade Bad," which is not at all the message being argued.
"One could say it is akin to Satan's "Proposal for Bennefit in Exchange for Soul" which is hailed as a great masterpiece of legalese. "
got any links?
Sure, just sign this document first and everything you wish for will be yours....
Microsoft's reply, from the article:
"Microsoft's approach regarding the spell checker dictionary and thesaurus is to not suggest words that may have offensive uses or provide offensive definitions for any words. The dictionary and spell checker is updated with each release of Office to ensure that the tools reflect current social and cultural environments."
Now there's a scary precedent! It's hard enough to come up with a consistent view of what's offensive. What's fine by me might be offensive to my neighbor. And when you are forced to "reflect current social and cultural environments", making sure you offend no one in those environments, you wind up with a lowest-common denominator effect. It's like the difference between broadcast TV and HBO. HBO can show "The Sopranos" but broadcast TV cannot without offending the advertisers who in turn don't want to offend the "current social environment" of the lowest-common denominator.
Fortunately, this is merely one product from one company, and is not yet the actual dictionary. Unfortunately, this one product totally dominates the marketplace. Scarily, Microsoft also makes a dictionary...
"The movie, music and technology industries have been trying for years, with only limited success, to agree on a standard way of protecting content from Internet and other digital piracy. A high-profile effort dubbed the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI), intended to be a private sector version of the kind of technology effort Hollings' plan outlines, collapsed largely because of disagreements between technology and content companies. "
...and because it turned out to be so easy to crack SDMI, despite their claims to the contrary. Oops...
"Hollings' plan would restart this process, this time with the force of law behind it, and apply it to all digital devices. "
Can't do it with technology? Buy a law instead. That's how the DMCA happened. You can't stop people by adding more pickable locks, so they chose to make it illegal to pick a lock, to own picks in the first place, and even to discuss how to pick locks with your buddies. Overkill, but that's how government works.
"The early draft bill would require the technology industry to come to its own decision on a copy-protection standard within 18 months, or else have the government step in to mandate a solution. "
There's a scary thought: When the private sector fails to come up with an uncrackable system, the government will step in and have a go.
"The bill would bar the sale of any "interactive digital device" that did not have the anti-piracy technology built in. It would also be illegal to remove or disable the security technology as well as to remove the piracy protections from a song, movie or other piece of content. "
And the government's solution, as I said, is to ignore the fact that they can't make it uncrackable from a technology point-of-view, and to just say, "Illegal!" every time someone tries to crack it. The idea of working with consumers to come up with a balance that can work for everyone, as with traditional "fair use" provisions, never seems to occur to them.
Check again. It ain't necessarily so, and the legalities of this issue are being worked out as we speak. Or perhaps I should say the buying of new laws is being handled as we speak. But under traditional copyright law (i.e. laws more than a couple of years old), fair use rules allow for some downloading. Furthermore, if you own the CD already, and decide to just grab the MP3 off Gnutella instead of ripping from your CD, that isn't illegal either.
Yes, some aspects of file sharing go too far (according to copyright laws), but not ALL downloading of music is stealing. Only the corporations want us to believe it, and sadly most of the public is buying this lie. And, of course, with new corruption to the copyright laws taking place every year, your statement may well be true someday in every sense. But it isn't right now, not while the issue is still being fought in the courts, and in the court of public opinion. So I repeat: Check again -- this issue is not as black-and-white as the corporate propaganda tells us it is.
I'm curious as to your use of "besides" to start that sentence. You used it in the context of not wanting to see LoTR on opening night, and thus your meaning evidently is that Harry Potter, unlike LoTR, is unlike Hollywood and done right. Since I've yet to see anyone who has said otherwise about LoTR, and in fact most people think that LoTR is even more unHollywood-like than Harry Potter, I'm wondering what you heard that makes you think this about LoTR. From what I can tell, if you want the definition of a movie done "extremely well," look no further than what Peter Jackson has done with LoTR.
A valid point, but the ISP I use (Speakeasy) is a Linux fan apparently (when I asked if they supported Linux, the tech guy got enthusiastic and said they run it too), and quite independent. Time will tell, but I suspect they would be one of the last hold-outs against this Brave New World.
M$ can be the gatekeeper and it won't affect me since I don't run M$ in my home -- at all. Nor do I use AOL. They can charge whatever they want, but they won't get any money from me. And if they decide to start forcing certain sites I use to charge money, I will switch to other sites. It's nice to have CNN.com around occasionally, but there are other ways to get news. I like ESPN, but I could switch if I had to.
If 90% of the online world eventually switches to a vast wasteland of sameness controlled through subscription services, I will just be part of the 10% going to the independent sites, the fan sites, the oddball sites. That's how the Net began, and that will always be a part of the Net. You just have to search those sites out.
And have you seen Ruby in Paradise? Excellent acting by Ashley Judd. She clearly can act, even if not every role has shown it.
"The users who share copyrighted files are the ones breaking the law. "
And under existing "fair use" case law, even that is not necessarily illegal, though the industry is trying hard to propagandize us into thinking it is. Existing legal precedences say that you can make a cassette of songs for your buddy, as long as you don't sell it to him, and as long as you don't engage in mass duplication for everyone. Napster, despite the rhetoric, was merely one-to-one sharing, just done many times over. Where the legal limit should be in that case wasn't made clear, but it is not necessarily illegal to share copyrighted files in certain cases.
At least, not yet...
The example always given for this locater technology is 911 calls. Now, when you are calling 911, you do want them to know your location -- the sooner the better really. And I can see how this could serve a useful purpose. Politicians certainly pushed this application when stating their requirement to cell phone manufacturers.
/. are well aware, is that this is yet another step toward Big Brother. Insert the usual arguments here ["Oh c'mon, stop being so paranoid!" "Yeah, but why give them the power to abuse in the first place?"]. How far will this technology be extended? Will they start to track your location on the highways, to see if you are speeding if you get from location A to location B faster than you ought? If someone corrupt within some government agency decides they don't like you because of your idealogy (whatever it may be), can they start to track your locations at all times?
The downside to this, of course, as we at
I would like this technology if it can be turned off when desired, even if it's only out of principle. I don't like having a choice taken from me, even if it is "for my own good."
An excellent example of an exception to my rule, but my point stands. For the most part, the other shows just don't have the time to show the depth and breadth of a planet's society. DS9 had the time, and I enjoyed watching the writers flesh out the possibilities.
With DS9 we finally got to see a world (Bajor) like our own: full of different viewpoints, goals, ideals. It wasn't a homogenous society, but one fractured into various points-of-views. That depth of characterization was refreshing for Star Trek.
"I fear they will not stop until we reach orwellian levels of monitoring, banning and regulation."
Correct. And we recall from 1984 what happens even when they reach Big Brother levels of surveillance: they go after thoughts next.
"How many times do they need to be proven wrong, and how often do we need our rights reducing before these stupid (but well intending although angry) people realise they are WRONG?"
Since these people don't think they have been proven wrong yet, what makes you think they will stop? Even the victims of rights reductions often applaud their freedom being stripped away in the name of safety. If the average person doesn't even get the point, the people seeking to take rights away certainly don't see it.
Politics is a method of self-selecting away those who would actually be qualified to lead.
"CIBC World Market analyst Thomas Sepenzis said the two PC makers could lean on their extensive contacts in the corporate market to extend the market share of their hardware, and by default, the market share of Microsoft's software.
``H-P and Compaq have awesome enterprise contacts,'' he said. ''Chances are they will say 'you buy 16 e-business servers from us and we'll throw in 500 (Compaq) iPAQs or (H-P) Jornadas, and we'll support them for you.''
This is how Microsoft always wins. They do whatever they have to do to win. Get partners to give away products that push M$ software? No problem, M$ probably subsidizes HewPaq in this endeavor.
"Oh please...innocent until proven guilty indeed. Your being as "just" about things in general as the one you are accusing. At least have the decency to try to back up your claim, or get some medication for your conspiracy theory delusions. "
Back up my claims?! I basically said politics operates on influence and money. You need proof of this? It's like saying politicians lie. If you haven't caught on to this by now, no proof will suffice.
"On what grounds does the Bush administration have to unilaterally push a decision down like this, other than possibly a bucketload of cash?"
What better grounds are there when you are in government? Graft makes the world go round. I mean this sounds cynical, but isn't it basically true? M$ has been pumping money into lobbyist efforts and, no doubt, money under the table (hey, if they get dead people to write 'independent' letters to newspapers, it's a cinch they do other immoral, if not illegal, things) to ensure the Bush administration follows through on its natural political bent: Business first.
How naive do you think we are? Of course they are lying. Candidate Bush stated during his campaign that he didn't think the government should be after Microsoft. Now that he's the boss, do you really think the Department of Justice is so stupid as to go against what the White House wants? Do you really think there were NO secret conversations, off the record, to get Justice to back off?
Bush is behind this, for that's the way the government works.
No, it's the fact that J.K. Rowling writes them for children that makes them children's books. The fact that some adults can also enjoy the books is beside the point. The target audience is kids. Or have you recently seen kids lining up at the library to hear the latest Stephen King novel read to them?
"Yes. Religious dogma are religious beliefs. No kidding - try looking it up next time."
I did, and you're wrong. Oh sure, on a surface level you could say dogma = beliefs, but that totally misses the nuances of the words. And totally misses the point of the film Dogma, which is that religious beliefs are fine, but watch out for any group that wants to impose their dogma on you. Look it up.
"Are you saying Catholics thought they were offended, but were actually mistaken ("typically flew over their head")? "
Typically, the Catholic spokespersons who did speak out against the film (not the church itself, but individuals) did not see the film. So they got offended based on hearsay, and not on reality. That's how it "flew over their head." They had the same wrong-headed ideas about what 'dogma' is than you seem to have. To repeat, Kevin Smith was NOT attacking Catholic beliefs. He was parodying dogma.
Wasn't trying to be personal or offensive, and I thank you for correcting my misunderstanding. I wasn't sure to what degree you found the movie offensive, and was merely suggesting one possible view you may have held.
"The Catholic Church did not say anything about the movie. Certain self-appointed individuals with a rather large (and obnoxious) agenda did. "
Point taken. Thanks for the correction.