"I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it downplayed Aslan a little bit, because of the obvious allegory involved and the fact that Disney bankrolled the film."
After thinking about it a bit, I believe they downplayed Aslan more for dramatic effect than to steer away from the Jesus angle. I mean, if you know all along that the lion is pretty much God Almighty, there's not a lot of conflict. God always wins, after all. The movie focuses on the kids, and that makes for more dramatic tension --- how are a bunch of kids going to save the world?
Oh, and I don't really think "allegory" is the best word to use. In an allegory, characters and events are symbolic of something. It's easy to see Narnia that way, but the crucial difference is that Aslan is not merely a symbol of Jesus --- he actually is Jesus.
Or so C.S. Lewis said. Of course, C.S. Lewis might have just been trying to explain away the allegory because his good buddy Professor Tolkien hated it;)
That's the problem I have with the ACLU. I'm completely opposed to them on most of their favorite issues, so I would be disinclined to ask for their help on anything, even something I do think they got right. It's probably not fair to them, but I associate them with the whole range of their positions, good and bad.
The EFF, on the other hand, stands for essentially one limited set of issues, so it's easier to make a distinction between those issues and others they may or may not agree with.
That's probably useful advice in a general sense, but I can envision examples where commenting a single line might be useful. Consider the case of a complex regular expression: not everyone can glance at one of those monsters and immediately understand exactly what it does. A comment explaining what the thing does and why would be useful to most folks.
Finally, someone posted a logical reply to all the "Why do we tolerate violence but not sex?" rhetoric.
The main part of the problem isn't so much merely with sex and/or nudity being shown; the problem is with the portrayal of casual sex as acceptable behavior. Pretty much every portrayal of sexuality you see is between people who aren't married and don't give any thought to the consequences of their actions. No one ever gets AIDS in the movies, unless it's a movie about AIDS. No one ever experiences the heartbreak of an unwanted baby, unless it's a movie specifically about that situation. That runs counter to the values millions of people want to teach their kids. We don't want them to grow up thinking it's perfectly fine and safe to screw whoever you want whenever you want, but unless you want to live as a hermit, you can hardly avoid that impression. Also, it's trivially easy to arouse someone's sexual urges, and people who don't want to be tempted with those urges at every turn simply don't want to be constantly exposed to things that have that effect.
Violence is a slightly different issue. Sure, there are a lot of situations where violence is needlessly glorified, especially in Hollywood. But violence is often necessary in real life. And the portrayal of violence, when done well, can often have the effect of turning people off to it rather than encouraging it. Seeing nudity is likely to arouse people; seeing violence is not nearly as likely to arouse irresistable violent urges. There's a very large contingent on Slashdot who argue, with good reason, that playing violent games doesn't encourage violent behavior in real life. What it comes down to is that same argument. Seeing sexually provocative material DOES encourage sexual activity; seeing violent material doesn't necessarily encourage violent behavior.
Being more opposed to sexuality than to violence is not such an irrational position as many people here like to make it.
If you have autorun on, the EULA pops up when you insert the CD. If you agree to it, the rootkit gets installed (along with all the other Sony audio player stuff and what not).
This, of course, leaves open the question of what happens if you DON'T have autorun on, or you decline the EULA and play the CD via other means.
"Eliminating the GPL means that you don't have *any* permission to use the code."
Actually, it means you don't have any permission to distribute the code. You don't have to agree to the GPL in order to use GPL code, only if you intend to distribute it (or modifications to it) to others.
"I think sometime soon people will start distributing cracks designed to install legitimately purchased software without agreeing to the EULA. I wonder if that would hold up in court."
I had a script once that would do exactly that --- run it during an install, and it would search the temp directories for anything that looked like a EULA and let you change it.
I actually prefer the DOS way of doing things. My mind associates tasks with programs more than with filetypes. If I want to burn a CD, I think in terms of what program I need to do that. If I want to listen to MP3s, I think in terms of what program I need to do that.
I end up using stuff like Winamp 2.X and Media Player Classic, because those things do exactly what I expect them to without a lot of extra fluff.
"I think one good feature to add would be to stop Anonymous users editing"
That may be, but I'll often edit a Wikipedia article on the spur of the moment to correct a spelling or grammar error I noticed. If I had to register an account and log in, I probably wouldn't take the time to do that.
"Pornography and other sexual pastimes" are not necessarily the same as "speech". There is a significant debate as to what extent "free speech" encompasses things of that nature. As long as we can freely discuss the topic of whether or not porn is free speech, then I think we still have free speech. But the availability of porn itself is a different form of "freedom" than free speech.
And heaven help people who dare to eat anything while spending significant time in a holodeck.
Imagine eating a large quantity of holographic food, digesting it,then walking out of the holodeck with the holographic substances integrated into your body...
On the other hand, that could be a really effective weight-loss plan.
Recently I watched an episode of CSI (Ok, but *I* like it) where they stated "Terminal velocity is 9.8 M/s squared". What did I say? I said "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!"
My, my, my, what DO they teach them at these schools? Anyone with a standard high-school level science education should know what's wrong with that statement. It shouldn't require a professional scientist.
Wouldn't it be logical to expect the people who write scripts for a show about the SCIENTIFIC investigation of crimes might actually know something about science?
Oh wait. I forgot. Television and logic are mutually exclusive.
I'm in Jackson, MS. It was definitely pretty bad here. I'm not sure if we got any 120 mph gusts, but I certainly wouldn't have cared to be any further south. The eye retained its structure about as far north as McComb or maybe Brookhaven (around 100 miles south of Jackson). And there was significant damage at least as far north as Starkville, MS (100 miles northeast of Jackson) --- trees down, power outages, that sort of thing. In fact, the majority of the entire state of Mississippi lost power for at least a few hours, the only exception being to the northwest, around Memphis.
When you have a storm with 140 MPH winds, it's going to take it a while to spin down even after being cut off from its power source.
I don't really know which side to root for. On the one hand, I want to see American products succeed in foreign markets. On the other hand, I don't like Microsoft and I don't want to see them succeed.
Slashdot Mirror
After thinking about it a bit, I believe they downplayed Aslan more for dramatic effect than to steer away from the Jesus angle. I mean, if you know all along that the lion is pretty much God Almighty, there's not a lot of conflict. God always wins, after all. The movie focuses on the kids, and that makes for more dramatic tension --- how are a bunch of kids going to save the world?
Oh, and I don't really think "allegory" is the best word to use. In an allegory, characters and events are symbolic of something. It's easy to see Narnia that way, but the crucial difference is that Aslan is not merely a symbol of Jesus --- he actually is Jesus.
Or so C.S. Lewis said. Of course, C.S. Lewis might have just been trying to explain away the allegory because his good buddy Professor Tolkien hated it ;)
It might not be a great English translation, but it certainly came up with some pretty believable Engrish.
That would be a good way to get fired immediately with no severance and no regrets. It's just business, after all.
The EFF, on the other hand, stands for essentially one limited set of issues, so it's easier to make a distinction between those issues and others they may or may not agree with.
That's probably useful advice in a general sense, but I can envision examples where commenting a single line might be useful. Consider the case of a complex regular expression: not everyone can glance at one of those monsters and immediately understand exactly what it does. A comment explaining what the thing does and why would be useful to most folks.
The main part of the problem isn't so much merely with sex and/or nudity being shown; the problem is with the portrayal of casual sex as acceptable behavior. Pretty much every portrayal of sexuality you see is between people who aren't married and don't give any thought to the consequences of their actions. No one ever gets AIDS in the movies, unless it's a movie about AIDS. No one ever experiences the heartbreak of an unwanted baby, unless it's a movie specifically about that situation. That runs counter to the values millions of people want to teach their kids. We don't want them to grow up thinking it's perfectly fine and safe to screw whoever you want whenever you want, but unless you want to live as a hermit, you can hardly avoid that impression. Also, it's trivially easy to arouse someone's sexual urges, and people who don't want to be tempted with those urges at every turn simply don't want to be constantly exposed to things that have that effect.
Violence is a slightly different issue. Sure, there are a lot of situations where violence is needlessly glorified, especially in Hollywood. But violence is often necessary in real life. And the portrayal of violence, when done well, can often have the effect of turning people off to it rather than encouraging it. Seeing nudity is likely to arouse people; seeing violence is not nearly as likely to arouse irresistable violent urges. There's a very large contingent on Slashdot who argue, with good reason, that playing violent games doesn't encourage violent behavior in real life. What it comes down to is that same argument. Seeing sexually provocative material DOES encourage sexual activity; seeing violent material doesn't necessarily encourage violent behavior.
Being more opposed to sexuality than to violence is not such an irrational position as many people here like to make it.
If that's what you want, I have this stick of gum from Willy Wonka that might interest you...
At the current rate of baseball miracles, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it happens next year.
Interesting. I wasn't aware until now that bbspot.com was an Onion knock-off.
This, of course, leaves open the question of what happens if you DON'T have autorun on, or you decline the EULA and play the CD via other means.
Not in Mississippi. You might get Pepsi instead, though.
Why can't you just decline the EULA and treat the CD as a normal audio CD?
Why bother getting an XBox360 to play it when you can have the (presumably infinitely moddable) PC version instead?
Actually, it means you don't have any permission to distribute the code. You don't have to agree to the GPL in order to use GPL code, only if you intend to distribute it (or modifications to it) to others.
I had a script once that would do exactly that --- run it during an install, and it would search the temp directories for anything that looked like a EULA and let you change it.
I end up using stuff like Winamp 2.X and Media Player Classic, because those things do exactly what I expect them to without a lot of extra fluff.
That may be, but I'll often edit a Wikipedia article on the spur of the moment to correct a spelling or grammar error I noticed. If I had to register an account and log in, I probably wouldn't take the time to do that.
"Pornography and other sexual pastimes" are not necessarily the same as "speech". There is a significant debate as to what extent "free speech" encompasses things of that nature. As long as we can freely discuss the topic of whether or not porn is free speech, then I think we still have free speech. But the availability of porn itself is a different form of "freedom" than free speech.
Imagine eating a large quantity of holographic food, digesting it,then walking out of the holodeck with the holographic substances integrated into your body...
On the other hand, that could be a really effective weight-loss plan.
If that one's a major hurricane, I'd better start preparing right now for the dreadful Star Trek jokes.
My, my, my, what DO they teach them at these schools? Anyone with a standard high-school level science education should know what's wrong with that statement. It shouldn't require a professional scientist.
Wouldn't it be logical to expect the people who write scripts for a show about the SCIENTIFIC investigation of crimes might actually know something about science?
Oh wait. I forgot. Television and logic are mutually exclusive.
When you have a storm with 140 MPH winds, it's going to take it a while to spin down even after being cut off from its power source.
What do you mean no one uses it? I couldn't play Sid Meier's Pirates without it!
Been there, done that.
Choices, choices...