This was a trilogy shot right outside the establishment orbit; filmed in Jackson's native New Zealand and funded by the independent New Line Cinema
New Line is owned by AOL Time Warner, according to New Line's About Us page. Which, oddly, also calls itself "independent" on that same page; maybe that title loses its meaning when a studio owned by one of the major studios (Warner) titles itself that way.
I try not to trust Declan's relatively yellow journalism any farther than I can throw it, but assuming his article IS accurate, it's entirely possible that Dean's views have changed in the last two years. Keep in mind that he's referring to a speech Dean made in March of 2002.
This isn't to say that Dean HAS changed his views, but when someone quotes a two-year-old speech as evidence of a person's current views, I get a little suspicious. Hasn't Dean said anything about this idea since then?
Um. Microsoft was convicted in federal court of trying to leverage their monopoly to gain control of other markets. They are a monopoly (at least in the United States) by any rational usage of the word.
Or maybe Bill reflected on their success with BASIC and did, in fact, see a day when their OS could be licensed in the same manner.
Businessmen who correctly predict how a market will change in the future are often given titles like "visionary" and so forth. Unless their predictions engender massive, disastrous failures, though, the predictions are readily forgotten. And given the number of businessmen out there, it seems likely that there will be a number of them who manage to correctly predict a lot of things -- just on pure chance. In other words, if you've got a million businessmen, and they all make random predictions, you're going to expect a couple of them to be right most of the time.
Just a tangential thought about business "brilliance," really, but perhaps relevant.
When you donate $26 freakin' billion dollars for charitable causes, like Mr. Gates has, you may complain.
Right, because no matter what horrible things someone has done, if they donate enough money to good causes, that excuses their evil actions. Quite a lot of Gates's net worth was acquired by having no discernible ethics and violating anti-trust laws. It's kind of like saying that if there's someone who robs banks but donates half of what he steals to orphans' charities, he should be commended, not vilified.
I know all the rules of football, and I still don't think it's very interesting. There's nothing wrong with liking it; I don't care if someone else likes football, but don't sit there pretending that someone who doesn't like football simply doesn't understand it.
Keep in mind that buying used CDs means you're contributing to the strength of the used CD market -- which does indirectly support the primary CD market, since the ability to sell old CDs that someone doesn't want anymore affects their decision to buy CDs in the first place.
To put it another way, if everyone knew that there was no way they would ever be able to sell their old, used CDs (because those of us who won't buy new RIAA CDs also wouldn't buy used ones), they might think twice about buying them in the first place.
Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
This says nothing about who owns it or who makes the copy: by default, only the copyright holder may make a copy. It's possible there's something in 107 through 121 that would allow people to make copies in the manner you describe. Can you please point out exactly where it is?
Section 107 doesn't: that's fair use, and making a personal copy of a copy that a friend legitimately owns is not allowed.
Section 108 doesn't: it covers copies made by libraries and archives.
Section 109 doesn't: it covers transfer of ownership of copies, not making copies.
110 has to do with performances, 111 with secondary transmissions over cable systems, 112 with ephemeral recordings, 113 deals with visual arts (sculpture, graphics, paintings).
114 talks about music recordings but there's nothing in there that says that you can make a copy if you don't own the copy you're duplicating. Mostly it talks about performance rights.
115 talks about "nondramatic musical works," but again, there's nothing allowing you to make copies in the manner you describe.
116 involves public performances, 117 is about software, 118 is about noncommercial broadcasting, 119 is about secondary transmissions again, 120 is about architectural works (e.g. copyrighted building designs), and 121 is about reproductions for blind or disabled folks.
Nothing in there appears to confirm what you said, and given that section 106 contradicts it, do you have any actual evidence that it is legal under U.S. law to make copies in the way you described?
Apparently, the "Badger Badger" song has destroyed the part of numbski's brain that can differentiate between one and seven. This disorder is also known as heptibadgeritis.
More specifically, he's guilty of proposing a false dichotomy: Either SciAm is objective, or there's some kind of nebulous science conspiracy. He neglects an obvious third option: incompetence. It's entirely possible that the SciAm writers don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, which means that they're not actually objective (they just think they are) and there's no need to posit a conspiracy. (And there may well be other options, for all I know, though I can't think of any offhand.)
(This particular false dichotomy reminds me of one of my favorite sayings: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity," which is itself a form of Occam's Razor.)
Polygraphs are useless in a scientific sense -- but they do have at least one practical use, because quite a lot of people think that polygraphs are accurate (or accurate enough). Police will often use a polygraph test to basically try and trick a suspect into revealing information that he might not have revealed otherwise -- the suspect thinks that the polygraph might catch him lying, so he 'fesses up.
The police (mostly) know that the polygraph results are not only inadmissable but are useless in their own right. They just use the public's lack of knowledge (and criminals are not typically very well-educated) in order to unearth leads that they then investigate with normal, legitimate investigation methods.
Firstly, the agnosticist rejects "proper theism" just like the atheist does, he rejects the notion of an immanent (physical) God
That's not quite accurate. An atheist doesn't necessarily *reject* the notion of a physical God; he merely asks for evidence of that particular claim about reality, just as he would for any claim about reality. As long as metaphysics doesn't enter into it, an agnostic atheist can discuss the possibility and evidence for/against a physical God all day long.
I think we do agree about the uselessness of trying to discuss metaphysics, but where we disagree is that discussions of God by necessity must incur the metaphysical realm and therefore God can never be meaningfully discussed.
(proper theism defines God as both transcendent and immanent)
Well, Christianity does. Not every religion defines their gods as such.
This is the crucial passage, an agnosticist does not assume God must exist in the metaphysical realm (nor that he doesn't exist there)
I'm a little confused -- if you can't discuss the metaphysical meaningfully, and you can't discuss God meaningfully, that implies that you think God is metaphysical. But you said that you can't assume that God is metaphysical, either. So what is it about God that makes it an invalid target for discussion?
but he thinks an atheist does it for all the wrong reasons: the atheist tries to reason about God.
Same thing: If God can't be reasoned about (according to the agnostic), what is it about God that makes it so? So far only the metaphysical has been defined as something you can't reason about, so either God is separately defined as something you can't reason about (and if so, why is it defined that way?), or God is posited as being metaphysical and *therefore* can't be reasoned about. So hopefully you see why I'm confused:)
For further elucidation, I'd ask, why exactly can't the metaphysical be discussed meaningfully?
The (hard) agnosticist thinks you can never objectively prove or disprove anything in metaphysics, so asking for proof of the existence of God would be asking the impossible.
The thing is, theists claim that God can affect our world. If that were true, then God would be part of the natural realm -- not the metaphysical (or supernatural, as some call it). So what the theists are doing is making claims about the natural world -- and even an agnostic can ask for evidence in that instance.
What we call the "metaphysical" is really a meaningless construct -- it refers to everything which is not part of reality, but considering that everything we are, know, and imagine exists within reality, it doesn't actually mean anything to try to define something exterior to reality. It's not that we simply can't know anything about the "metaphysical realm;" the "metaphysical realm" is a literally meaningless concept.
A hard agnosticist will radically refuse to discuss metaphysics because he thinks logics and reason don't apply there, while an atheist thinks he can apply logics to metaphysics and builds a logical thesis which he is willing to discuss and defend.
Well, if the only attribute an agnostic would attach to the metaphysical realm is that it's "unknowable," that's kind of paradoxical, since how can you know that it's unknowable, if it's unknowable? Pedantry aside, someone can be both an atheist and an agnostic. Certainly, if I assume that a God must exist in the metaphysical realm and therefore cannot be discussed meaningfully, then it would be irrational for me to maintain a belief in that God. Therefore I would be both an agnostic and an atheist.
Well I'm a hard agnosticist, so I support the argument that even though an atheist does not believe in (the existence of) God, he gets into arguments about the metaphysical; hence the atheist has some kind of understanding (gnosis) of what metaphysical reality is, even if he thinks of it as a void.
Not all atheists claim to have some kind of "understanding" of metaphysical reality. The thing is, theists often do make such claims, and so they present us with their vision of a metaphysical reality. If we then poke holes in the logic of their metaphysics, it doesn't mean we know anything about what the actual metaphysical reality is (assuming there is one, which there may not be). It just means we know something about logic.:)
The fact that I'm an atheist means that I hold no beliefs about the existence of God or gods, just as it means that I hold no beliefs about a set of hypothetical invisible magic unicorns who control your destiny. I'm not going to tell anyone that God can't exist, because that would be a ludicrous thing to say; but if someone makes any kind of affirmative proposition (such as, "God exists" or "the Bernoulli effect is not what gives airplanes lift"), I'm going to ask for evidence. Until I get sufficient evidence, I'm not going to hold the proposition as true, regardless of whether it's about God or aircraft.
In other words, I'm both a hard agnostic AND an atheist.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi! :)
I try not to trust Declan's relatively yellow journalism any farther than I can throw it, but assuming his article IS accurate, it's entirely possible that Dean's views have changed in the last two years. Keep in mind that he's referring to a speech Dean made in March of 2002.
This isn't to say that Dean HAS changed his views, but when someone quotes a two-year-old speech as evidence of a person's current views, I get a little suspicious. Hasn't Dean said anything about this idea since then?
Someone here on /. has an apropos sig:
"If we must become evil to fight evil, why fight it?"
Just a tangential thought about business "brilliance," really, but perhaps relevant.
Well then please specify which case or cases determined that the method of copying you described is legal.
Keep in mind that buying used CDs means you're contributing to the strength of the used CD market -- which does indirectly support the primary CD market, since the ability to sell old CDs that someone doesn't want anymore affects their decision to buy CDs in the first place.
To put it another way, if everyone knew that there was no way they would ever be able to sell their old, used CDs (because those of us who won't buy new RIAA CDs also wouldn't buy used ones), they might think twice about buying them in the first place.
Section 107 doesn't: that's fair use, and making a personal copy of a copy that a friend legitimately owns is not allowed.
Section 108 doesn't: it covers copies made by libraries and archives.
Section 109 doesn't: it covers transfer of ownership of copies, not making copies.
110 has to do with performances, 111 with secondary transmissions over cable systems, 112 with ephemeral recordings, 113 deals with visual arts (sculpture, graphics, paintings).
114 talks about music recordings but there's nothing in there that says that you can make a copy if you don't own the copy you're duplicating. Mostly it talks about performance rights.
115 talks about "nondramatic musical works," but again, there's nothing allowing you to make copies in the manner you describe.
116 involves public performances, 117 is about software, 118 is about noncommercial broadcasting, 119 is about secondary transmissions again, 120 is about architectural works (e.g. copyrighted building designs), and 121 is about reproductions for blind or disabled folks.
Nothing in there appears to confirm what you said, and given that section 106 contradicts it, do you have any actual evidence that it is legal under U.S. law to make copies in the way you described?
Apparently, the "Badger Badger" song has destroyed the part of numbski's brain that can differentiate between one and seven. This disorder is also known as heptibadgeritis.
Dude, relax. It was a joke. Nothing to do with environmentalists. :)
Mice leaving the planet... what do the mice know that we don't?
More specifically, he's guilty of proposing a false dichotomy: Either SciAm is objective, or there's some kind of nebulous science conspiracy. He neglects an obvious third option: incompetence. It's entirely possible that the SciAm writers don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, which means that they're not actually objective (they just think they are) and there's no need to posit a conspiracy. (And there may well be other options, for all I know, though I can't think of any offhand.)
(This particular false dichotomy reminds me of one of my favorite sayings: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity," which is itself a form of Occam's Razor.)
Polygraphs are useless in a scientific sense -- but they do have at least one practical use, because quite a lot of people think that polygraphs are accurate (or accurate enough). Police will often use a polygraph test to basically try and trick a suspect into revealing information that he might not have revealed otherwise -- the suspect thinks that the polygraph might catch him lying, so he 'fesses up.
The police (mostly) know that the polygraph results are not only inadmissable but are useless in their own right. They just use the public's lack of knowledge (and criminals are not typically very well-educated) in order to unearth leads that they then investigate with normal, legitimate investigation methods.
I think we do agree about the uselessness of trying to discuss metaphysics, but where we disagree is that discussions of God by necessity must incur the metaphysical realm and therefore God can never be meaningfully discussed.
Well, Christianity does. Not every religion defines their gods as such.For further elucidation, I'd ask, why exactly can't the metaphysical be discussed meaningfully?
What we call the "metaphysical" is really a meaningless construct -- it refers to everything which is not part of reality, but considering that everything we are, know, and imagine exists within reality, it doesn't actually mean anything to try to define something exterior to reality. It's not that we simply can't know anything about the "metaphysical realm;" the "metaphysical realm" is a literally meaningless concept.
Well, if the only attribute an agnostic would attach to the metaphysical realm is that it's "unknowable," that's kind of paradoxical, since how can you know that it's unknowable, if it's unknowable? Pedantry aside, someone can be both an atheist and an agnostic. Certainly, if I assume that a God must exist in the metaphysical realm and therefore cannot be discussed meaningfully, then it would be irrational for me to maintain a belief in that God. Therefore I would be both an agnostic and an atheist.The fact that I'm an atheist means that I hold no beliefs about the existence of God or gods, just as it means that I hold no beliefs about a set of hypothetical invisible magic unicorns who control your destiny. I'm not going to tell anyone that God can't exist, because that would be a ludicrous thing to say; but if someone makes any kind of affirmative proposition (such as, "God exists" or "the Bernoulli effect is not what gives airplanes lift"), I'm going to ask for evidence. Until I get sufficient evidence, I'm not going to hold the proposition as true, regardless of whether it's about God or aircraft.
In other words, I'm both a hard agnostic AND an atheist.