Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie. If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book. I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.
Read up on aesthetics. Many (including myself) would point out that art is a form of expression, and its raison d'etre. You apparently wish to deny the artist self-expression.
It is not a bad movie by any stretch, but without the special effect advancement, would this movie garner any attention? Will Avatar's real legacy be laying the groundwork for better integrated CGI rather than the story told?
No. Yes. But then again, no one remembers Citizen Kane for its brilliant and well-paced unlayering of Hearst---err, I mean Kane.
Instead, they remember it for: (1) "Rosebud"; (2) making Orson Welles; and (3) its technical achievements that influenced the subsequent generations of filmmakers (see, e.g., deep focus).
I think it was aimed at the American market (possibly still guilty at killing all the indians or something) but it didn't engage me and like you the plot was obvious after about the first 10 minutes.
I'm not sure. I was talking to a friend in Australia and he said when he watched the film and someone referred to the Na'vi as "aborigines" who needed to be civilized or killed or something (I haven't seen the film yet), the entire theater full of WASPy Australians freaked out.
The film could equally be seen as targeting the massive amount of racism aimed at Australian Aborigines, no?
Hell, we could all have our own countries if we'd been born a few centuries earlier, and had the resources to carve 'em out. Doesn't make any of us the New Messiah either!
Anyway, I think my point was that it's a non-point re whether Co$ is legit or not, let alone whether the Vatican is.
I think we're using "legitimate" differently. You seem to be using it as a qualifier of religious merit. I'm using it as a qualifier of social acceptance.
I think this makes our conclusions radically different. CoS's religious merit is beside the point because we're debating its social and political influence, not whether it provides salvation. Therefore, I believe social acceptance is the more important quality in this analysis. We should, to limit the CoS's influence, seek to prevent the appearance of social acceptance from being imputed to CoS by comparing it to religions that do have social acceptance, those religions' merits be damned.
This is similar to why I believe we should try al Qaeda operatives as criminals rather than as soldiers. TO try them in military tribunals lends the aQ cause legitimacy, as if they are actually soldiers fighting for something worthy. To treat them as criminals by trying them in traditional criminal courts says to the world: These men are morally bad, and we are treating them accordingly.
It's not the actual, objective Truth that matters, but the appearance that matters. Short of divine intervention, it is appearance that empowers.
And the only reason the Co$ doesn't have its own country is because by its founding era, there weren't any available.
But I agree, conflating Co$'s evils with the Catholic church's own failings really does nothing but feed the notion that Co$ is a "religion".
It seems like we are in agreement, but I want to be nitpicky and point out that just because the CoS could have its own country doesn't mean it does. National sovereignty lends credence to an organization. The "if only I had been created earlier, I could have had national sovereignty" fact does not lend credence to an organization. So your point may be nonresponsive to the argument. However, I'm lazy, as we all are, so it's possible I could just not be thinking deeply enough about the issue.
Like it or not, Catholicism is considered to have legitimacy and be a religion. By comparing Scientology to Catholicism, you imbue Scientology with some of Catholicism's legitimacy. You'd be a fool to deny that Catholicism has legitimacy. Ever been outside your little world and seen how many adherents it has? It has its own country for friggin sake.
What surprised me is that after visiting a page entitled "Scientology Charged with Slavery, Human Trafficking," I was greeted with a summary about a civil case, not a criminal case. Color me disinterested when someone sues Scientology. Wake me when the DOJ indicts members of the Cult of Scientology.
At its root religions are unchanging, or at least the Judeo-Christian ones are meant to be.
That assertion needs some supporting evidence. Considering God gave the Israelites Laws of Leviticus and then appended 10 Commandments and then concatenated one Golden Rule over time, I'd say the religion was designed to change.
Haven't we proven enough of our theories about this world
No, because theories are never proven true. In science, nothing is ever proven true. I'm actually surprised to see such a mistake made on Slashdot! (Oh, wait, a 7-digit UID; I understand now...).
You're misconstruing the law. If you buy OS X, you buy the physical media that contains software. You cannot make a second copy of the software without permission. This is textbook copyright law.
The EULA gives you permission to make a copy.
So when you say
you don't need a license to copy an OS onto your hard drive or into RAM
Unfortunately for you, there are things called "licenses." You tend to agree to an expansive one when installing software, but not when buying a car. Accordingly, your analogy is fundamentally flawed.
I'm currently 26 years old. I've been a computer user since I was 4 or younger, when my father brought home a Tandy 1000 from Radio Shack. I'd say somewhere around 7 I became a power user (learned BASIC, learned batch scripting, learned "secret" commands in various programs, etc.). I first ran Windows 3.1 God knows when. I first ran Linux early in high school by creating a second partition on the family computer and installing Slackware without my dad's permission (or detection!).
I've used Windows since I was probably 7 or so. I've been on the Internet since I was 8 or so. I've been installing new hardware in computers since I was about 10. I've used Red Hat, Knoppix, Gentoo, Slackware, Debian, DSL, Feather Linux, and other Linux variants. I've "hacked" X-Boxes, cell phones, NSLU2s, WRT54Gs, Wiis, PlayStations, DLLs, etc. I have created open source projects and contributed to others.
I'm not 1337, but I clearly qualify as a power user.
When I worked as a web dev for a large state university, I was forced to use a Mac because that's what we had in the lab. A year later, I bought my first Mac and haven't looked back in three years.
So your implication that power users don't like Macs is facially ridiculous. Maybe power users with infinite time prefer Linux. I have a full-time job and don't have time to fiddle with things all day.
For what it's worth, my 8-year-old frankenbox (that is very nearly 100% replaced parts by now, not the original components anymore) runs Windows XP Pro (but I've toyed with shrinking that partition to only be for games, and installing some Linux variant since I only use the box once a month or so). My laptop is a MacBook Pro. My NSLU2 and WRT54g run Linux.
The first sale doctrine doesn't cover copying ever. It covers transferring the one copy you bought to another, not making copies of the one copy you bought.
Well, corporations have to file public documents with the state in which they are incorporated. These documents typically must list the initial directors (i.e., the "founders") of the corporation. As mentioned in a comment of mine above, Psystar seems to have been founded by a single person and was headquartered in a residential home in Miami in the middle of a neighborhood, right next to a Methodist Church.
Wikipedia says Psystar is a corporation in Florida. Florida says Psystar is this. The sole listed director in Psystar's corporate filings before Florida pursuant to state law is one Rodolfo Pedraza.
According to The Guardian, Psystar was originally located in a row of suburban houses until sometime in April 2008 according to Psystar's own website at the time (screenshot in the linked article). To confirm this, see my Sunbiz link above, which reveals in Psystar's Articles of Incorporation that its principal place of business is this house or one by it.
It looks like Psystar was just some guy wanting to make some money selling Hackintoshes.
And note that if any of the AoI were forged, it's likely a felony (I don't know Florida law).
This means Google is not allowed to sell out-of-print books without the author's permission, nor does it get to decide for how much the books are to be sold to them.
I actually used to frequently (I focused on IP and int'l law in law school just for my own interests). However, I've pretty much given up because there are too many armchair lawyers here who spout off inane interpretations of the law no matter how many times I provide sound refutations with links. It's like trying to turn the ocean freshwater.
Slashdot Mirror
One can rightly revile any attempt at art for not being entertaining, sufficiently original, or functional (in its use of pathos, e.g.).
Read up on aesthetics. Many (including myself) would point out that art is a form of expression, and its raison d'etre. You apparently wish to deny the artist self-expression.
No. Yes.
But then again, no one remembers Citizen Kane for its brilliant and well-paced unlayering of Hearst---err, I mean Kane.
Instead, they remember it for: (1) "Rosebud"; (2) making Orson Welles; and (3) its technical achievements that influenced the subsequent generations of filmmakers (see, e.g., deep focus).
I'm not sure. I was talking to a friend in Australia and he said when he watched the film and someone referred to the Na'vi as "aborigines" who needed to be civilized or killed or something (I haven't seen the film yet), the entire theater full of WASPy Australians freaked out.
The film could equally be seen as targeting the massive amount of racism aimed at Australian Aborigines, no?
Do you have a TV capable of circularly polarizing light clockwise and counterclockwise?
The very first comment here makes reference to the episode. So, no, you are not special.
That's "f/.22" thank you very much ;)
Such a "distributive" property of negatives does not exist in English no matter how much you want it to.
I bemoan such a lack, but it is a lack nonetheless.
I think we're using "legitimate" differently. You seem to be using it as a qualifier of religious merit. I'm using it as a qualifier of social acceptance.
I think this makes our conclusions radically different. CoS's religious merit is beside the point because we're debating its social and political influence, not whether it provides salvation. Therefore, I believe social acceptance is the more important quality in this analysis. We should, to limit the CoS's influence, seek to prevent the appearance of social acceptance from being imputed to CoS by comparing it to religions that do have social acceptance, those religions' merits be damned.
This is similar to why I believe we should try al Qaeda operatives as criminals rather than as soldiers. TO try them in military tribunals lends the aQ cause legitimacy, as if they are actually soldiers fighting for something worthy. To treat them as criminals by trying them in traditional criminal courts says to the world: These men are morally bad, and we are treating them accordingly.
It's not the actual, objective Truth that matters, but the appearance that matters. Short of divine intervention, it is appearance that empowers.
It seems like we are in agreement, but I want to be nitpicky and point out that just because the CoS could have its own country doesn't mean it does. National sovereignty lends credence to an organization. The "if only I had been created earlier, I could have had national sovereignty" fact does not lend credence to an organization. So your point may be nonresponsive to the argument. However, I'm lazy, as we all are, so it's possible I could just not be thinking deeply enough about the issue.
Like it or not, Catholicism is considered to have legitimacy and be a religion. By comparing Scientology to Catholicism, you imbue Scientology with some of Catholicism's legitimacy. You'd be a fool to deny that Catholicism has legitimacy. Ever been outside your little world and seen how many adherents it has? It has its own country for friggin sake.
What surprised me is that after visiting a page entitled "Scientology Charged with Slavery, Human Trafficking," I was greeted with a summary about a civil case, not a criminal case. Color me disinterested when someone sues Scientology. Wake me when the DOJ indicts members of the Cult of Scientology.
I take it you're not a fan of republican democracy?
That assertion needs some supporting evidence. Considering God gave the Israelites Laws of Leviticus and then appended 10 Commandments and then concatenated one Golden Rule over time, I'd say the religion was designed to change.
No, because theories are never proven true. In science, nothing is ever proven true. I'm actually surprised to see such a mistake made on Slashdot! (Oh, wait, a 7-digit UID; I understand now...).
You're misconstruing the law. If you buy OS X, you buy the physical media that contains software. You cannot make a second copy of the software without permission. This is textbook copyright law.
The EULA gives you permission to make a copy.
So when you say
you are wrong.
Unfortunately for you, there are things called "licenses." You tend to agree to an expansive one when installing software, but not when buying a car. Accordingly, your analogy is fundamentally flawed.
I'm currently 26 years old. I've been a computer user since I was 4 or younger, when my father brought home a Tandy 1000 from Radio Shack. I'd say somewhere around 7 I became a power user (learned BASIC, learned batch scripting, learned "secret" commands in various programs, etc.). I first ran Windows 3.1 God knows when. I first ran Linux early in high school by creating a second partition on the family computer and installing Slackware without my dad's permission (or detection!).
I've used Windows since I was probably 7 or so. I've been on the Internet since I was 8 or so. I've been installing new hardware in computers since I was about 10. I've used Red Hat, Knoppix, Gentoo, Slackware, Debian, DSL, Feather Linux, and other Linux variants. I've "hacked" X-Boxes, cell phones, NSLU2s, WRT54Gs, Wiis, PlayStations, DLLs, etc. I have created open source projects and contributed to others.
I'm not 1337, but I clearly qualify as a power user.
When I worked as a web dev for a large state university, I was forced to use a Mac because that's what we had in the lab. A year later, I bought my first Mac and haven't looked back in three years.
So your implication that power users don't like Macs is facially ridiculous. Maybe power users with infinite time prefer Linux. I have a full-time job and don't have time to fiddle with things all day.
For what it's worth, my 8-year-old frankenbox (that is very nearly 100% replaced parts by now, not the original components anymore) runs Windows XP Pro (but I've toyed with shrinking that partition to only be for games, and installing some Linux variant since I only use the box once a month or so). My laptop is a MacBook Pro. My NSLU2 and WRT54g run Linux.
The first sale doctrine doesn't cover copying ever. It covers transferring the one copy you bought to another, not making copies of the one copy you bought.
Well, corporations have to file public documents with the state in which they are incorporated. These documents typically must list the initial directors (i.e., the "founders") of the corporation. As mentioned in a comment of mine above, Psystar seems to have been founded by a single person and was headquartered in a residential home in Miami in the middle of a neighborhood, right next to a Methodist Church.
Wikipedia says Psystar is a corporation in Florida. Florida says Psystar is this. The sole listed director in Psystar's corporate filings before Florida pursuant to state law is one Rodolfo Pedraza.
According to The Guardian, Psystar was originally located in a row of suburban houses until sometime in April 2008 according to Psystar's own website at the time (screenshot in the linked article). To confirm this, see my Sunbiz link above, which reveals in Psystar's Articles of Incorporation that its principal place of business is this house or one by it.
It looks like Psystar was just some guy wanting to make some money selling Hackintoshes.
And note that if any of the AoI were forged, it's likely a felony (I don't know Florida law).
In Soviet Russia, YOU tube THE POLICE
I take it you're not a lawyer? First-sale doctrine.
In the US, everything is automatically copyrighted. There are no formalities required.
I actually used to frequently (I focused on IP and int'l law in law school just for my own interests). However, I've pretty much given up because there are too many armchair lawyers here who spout off inane interpretations of the law no matter how many times I provide sound refutations with links. It's like trying to turn the ocean freshwater.