JerseyBoy (5)

Jolie wasn't signed onto the Lion's Gate production; she was considering the role (as were other actresses). And just because she admires the book in no way means she'd be willing to do the movie for less than her usual fee. Additionally, her agent — who gets 10% of her fee — and has great influence over what projects she accepts, would no doubt discourage her from doing the movie simply out of admiration. 10% of "admiration" is nothing, and the agent doesn't stand to gain much.

Given the lack of success of AS1 and AS2, I don't see how AS3 will create any excitement at all, outside of committed Objectivists, who will see the movie (and no doubt, like it) regardless of who stars in it.

You're saying there's something objectively depressing about dystopian presentations. If so, then these presentation must be as depressing to Gulchers as they are to non-Gulchers.

Rand had a rigidly narrow idea of mathematics (measurement), making her notion about concepts incorrect.

How does jbrenner know that "the hardest part of getting non-Gulchers excited about AS is that so much of the book appears depressing to them"? Maybe non-Gulchers simply disagree with the book.

No, codes are not subject to the laws of thermodynamics because codes are not physical things. The material substrate IN WHICH a particular code might be instantiated is, of course, subject to those laws — as is any material substrate.

Morse code is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics. The paper and ink WITH WHICH a particular instance of Morse Code might be instantiated are, of course, subject to those laws: the ink and paper must eventually deteriorate; but that doesn't mean Morse Code deteriorates. A pair of headphones and a code-keyer are subject to the laws of thermodynamics, but the code itself — which is a mapping of one symbol-set (dots and dashes) to another symbol set (the English alphabet) is non-material; hence, not subject to physical laws.

Mapping, ideas, concepts, imaginings, daydreams, musings, theories, hypotheses, etc., are not subject to thermodynamics any more than they are subject to gravity or the laws of motion.

Crystal structures are irrelevant to the basic biochemistry of life, which is a system of CODED CHEMISTRY. Living organisms make use of two alphabets — a 64-symbol set of bases in the nucleic acids, and a 22-symbol set of amino acids in the cell body. The former symbolically represents and maps onto the latter without ever directly chemically interacting with it (neither DNA nor mRNA chemically interacts with the amino acids).

Both the specificity and the complexity exhibited here is similar to the kind observed in language — which is why linguistic terms such as "code", "information", "transcription", "translation", etc. are inevitably referred to in biochemistry.

None of the really interesting apsects of life — the coded-chemistry aspects — have anything to do with crystals, crystallography, or unit cells, which in any case, are all ultimately governed by thermodynamic considerations.

Codes are not subject to thermodynamics, which is the very reason there's such a thing as "life" in the first place.

So if you were previously wondering why some doubt evolution (at least, Darwin's notion of it), the reason is that codes are products neither of chance nor determinism.

Yawn.

Nothing you've just posted — including the BS in which you compare yourself to imaginary romantic literary heroes — in any way contradicts or disproves what I posted earlier regarding crystals being repetitive and completely specified in their configurations. Ergo: their structures can be written in SIMPLE, ALGORITHMIC STEPS (e.g., "Do X, then do Y, then repeat the first two steps a millions times"). By definition, since the description of a regular crystal's structure can be compressed into algorithmic steps, it is NON-COMPLEX (or, "simple").

Look up "Kolmogorov Complexity" if you don't know what I'm talking about. You can also look up the work of Andrey Kolmogorov and Gregory Chaitin regarding algorithmic recursion and complexity.

Everything else you posted was irrelevant to the issue of biological organisms vs. crystalline "complexity." Regular crystals are completely specified and determined; biological structures (such as eukaryotic cells) are not: given a few amino acids along a polypeptide chain, there is no algorithm or repetitive unit cell or deterministic law by which you could predict what the next amino acid on the chain MUST be. And what is true of amino acids is obviously true of the nucleotides in DNA that code for them.

You make a beginner's mistake in logic: you assumed that the word "simple" (as used above) meant "easy to discover or grasp". It doesn't mean that at all. "Simple" has a precise, mathematical definition. Similarly, "complex" does not mean "difficult to discover or grasp." It, too, has a precise meaning.

Crystals are not complex: they have a regular repeating pattern that simply iterates the crystal's UNIT CELL. The emerging pattern of the crystal is not only unchanging, but predictable (i.e., completely specified), given the initial configuration of atoms in that unit cell. Thus, the configuration of every additional cell is completely specified, and thus predictable.

So a crystalline structure is not complex, but simple — simple, predictable, and completely specified. A biological organism (e.g., a cell) is completely different from the regular, ordered pattern of a crystal.

"Hypocritical" means "professing feelings or virtues one does not have; as in 'hypocritical praise')"

synonym: "insincere"
antonym: "sincere"

So the opposite of "hypocritical" is "sincere", not "non-contradictory."

Huh?

You assert that faith can be used to justify enforcement of faith upon you, but not reason?

The bloody Reign of Terror following the French Revolution was done in the name of reason, not faith. Planned famines in the Soviet Union and Maoist China were done in the name of reason, not faith. Nazi atrocities against "sub-humans" were done in the name of reason, not faith.

You seem to think that if two individuals are both committed to reason, they must necessarily agree, since reason (according to you) "has only one side." And, of course, if they seriously disagree, it must be because one party or the other was employing something other than reason to arrive at a conclusion.

Pascal's Wager does not say one should fake one's belief in God.

In his "Pensees", Pascal does not suggest that one should mouth Christian platitutudes while intellectually doubting the existence of God at the same time. He is not suggesting that one adopt the stance of a hypocrite.

A "non-contradictory life"?

I don't know what that is. Example?

Which proofs for God's existence can generally be shown to be logically false?

As for claims and evidence that are extraordinary, many people find the claims of Richard Dawkins extraordinary, yet he has never provided extraordinary evidence.

Requirements for extraordinary evidence apply equally, whether the extraordinary claims are made by a mystic or a materialist.

No.

The individual exercise of reason — not the individual pursuit of happiness — is paramount in Objectivism. Happiness is an appropriate goal for the individual to pursue; not the only permissible goal, but an appropriate goal.

I disagree that there's plenty of conflict here. Allow me to "play teacher" for a moment.

<<Can you imagine a fan of Ayn Rand who moved to Argentina to find love and live in Buenos Aires (as a substitute for living in Paris) deciding to "Go Galt" in Argentina, a cleary more "socialist" country than the USA?>>

But what's the conflict? Was anything or anyone trying to prevent the Ayn Rand fan from moving to Argentina? If not, then as it stands now, you might have an interesting situtation but not a *dramatic* one. Dramatic conflict is very specific: "X wants ______ because of _______; but he can't get ______ immediately or easily because A, B, C, D, E, F, G are trying to prevent this from happening by throwing obstacles in X's way."

<<Can you imagine multiple scenes dealing with a hysterical and violent Argentine girlfriend who tells him he must put her name on the deed of the apartment he wants to buy and send the funds from the USA to her lawyer or he will go to jail for money laundering?>>

But what's the conflict? Was he, in fact, laundering money in the US? If so, is he on the run from the law? But if not, why would someone's arbitrary and vindictive threat matter to him? Also, for what the advice is worth: violence, per se, is not drama. It can sometimes add to a scene's impact IF it is done in the pursuit of some value, such as the protagonist's motivating want, need, or desire. (As a film buff, I admit, of course, that violence photographs well! It puts the "move" in "movie"! But unless it moves the story along, it so often adds nothing.)

<<Can you imagine the same woman threatening to have him deported because he had told her that less than 30 minutes of his first arrival in Argentina he was extorted and paid a "fee" of $100 USD to the airport vet?

But what's the conflict? Dramatic conflict is: He wants, needs, desires X, but he can't get X immediately or easily because Y is throwing obstacles in his way. "Y" can be: another person's will; physical nature (storms, earthquakes, fires, etc.); or something internal to the protagonist himself (a prior value, a "tragic flaw", a lack of knowledge, etc.).

<<Can you imagine a scene where he accompanies her to a visit to the shrink she has been seeing for ten years and she spends the entire hour unloading on him because he will not follow her "instructions" and wanted to do anything on his own?>>

But what's the conflict? Dramatic conflict is: HE wants, needs, desires _______; SHE doesn't want him to get _______ because of _________. HE is the protagonist; SHE is the antagonist.

That a biotch talks trash about the protagonist to her shrink in no way throws an obstacle in his way.

<<Can you imagine a scene where she is threatened by his ipod because it is "Only for one person?">>

But what's the conflict? They're fighting over who gets to listen to an iPod? You started off with a philosophical/political/moral premise regarding "going Galt," and now we've been reduced to the characters bickering over inconsequentials.

<<Can you imagine looking for an apartment in a city where most real estate agents will do as much as they can to squeeze as much as they can out of a foreign buyer..by lying about as much as they can?>>

Sounds like New York City. But what's the conflict? Your main character has gone Galt in order to escape what he believes will be a social collapse in the US following an economic collapse, as the US follows its current arc toward socialism. That tells us what your character does NOT want. But what does he WANT? What is he pursuing?

If he's simply pursuing a desire for a kind of self-reliant "Thoreau-esque" lifestyle, away from the IRS, away from the NSA, away from ObamaCare, etc., and instead of the idyllic life he expected in Argentina he meets up with small disappointments in his love life, in his apartment searches, etc., then I believe at most what you have here is a light comedy, similar in tone to a fiction film like "Lost in America" (1985) with Albert Brooks and Julie Hagerty. If you remember, Brooks and Hagerty were a married "Yuppie" couple who wanted to be "free", so they sell everything they have, drop out of society, and drive off in their mobile home. The first problem they have (if I remember correctly) is when they temporarily stop in Las Vegas. Brooks gets up in the middle of the night looking for his wife, who has left their bed. He wanders around and finds her in a casino . . . having just gambled away their life's savings (it turns out she was a compulsive gambler and he never knew it). So now a real conflict begins for them: they have to start their lives anew completely broke.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with light comedy — and Brooks's comedy, though light, usually has some (slight) philosphical implications attached, which makes it rise slightly above pure fluff.

<<Can you imagine a scene where he flee's from the Argentine woman's apartment (for the last time) after she boxed his ears when he asked if she would watch his dog while he went to Bariloche to look at property?>>

A funny bit. But what's the conflict? How does her boxing his ears throw an obstacle in the way of his gaining his main want, need, or desire?

<<Can you imagine his relief when he meets a trustworthy real estate from Australia who helps him sell his apartment and buy the "ranchito" in the pampas?>>

Conflict? How does this pose a challenge or obstacle to his achieving his main goal?

<<Can you imagine a scene where the closing for the sale of his apartment and the purchase of the ranchito are scheduled to take place in the same room at the same time, but only the closing for the sale of the apartment takes place because a last minute lien was placed on the ranchito?>>

Conflict?

<<Can you imagine a scene where instead of riding the 650 km from Buenos Aires to the ranchito with the previous owners (who did not come to the closing but allowed him to occupy the house without papers!), he rides in the cab of the moving van with his three dogs, over $60,000 USD in a money belt, and a driver who drinks a full bottle of red wine when they stop for dinner...and then continues to drive?>>

Colorful. But where's the conflict? How does this throw an obstacle in the way of his satisfying his main want, need, or desire?

<<Can you imagine how elated he is when he meets another Argentine woman (the Florida socialite) on line (on the same website where he met the Tango dancer) and she knows who John Galt is?>>

Conflict?

<<Can you imagine multiple scenes when she leaves her 3.5 million dollar home in Boca Raton to visit him in a poorly heated and poorly insulated home in a semi rural location (with dirt streets) during the coldest and ugliest time of the year?>>

Romantic possibilities. But . . . conflict?

<<Can you imagine a scene at the regional airport (when they actually meet for the first time) and she is wheeled out of the baggage claim area in a wheel chair with her dog in her lap after requesting the wheel chair so she would receive special treatment..even though she was perfectly capable of walking?>>

Conflict? Obstacle to his main goal?

<<Can you imagine a woman getting a note from he plastic surgeon that siad she needed to have the poodle (now a "service" dog) with her (in ther lap) in the first class cabin for psychological reasons?>>

Conflict? Obstacle to his main goal?

<<Can you imagine his reaction when, after sending hundreds of emails back and forth for seven months she reveals that she is ten years older than her "stated age" on the website, is living on Social Security income, unable to borrow against her home, but still flying first class, not only to Argentina, but tooEurope as well as another South American country where she is perceived as a major player and potential investor?>>

Conflict? Obstacle to his main goal?

<<Can you imagine how much danger she has created for herself by projecting the image of a wealthy American woman, but does not have the liquidity to pay the kind of ransom which would be demanded by kidnappers?>>


Conflict? Obstacle to his main goal?

<<I did not have to imagine any of the above, and there is a grreat deal more to the "true life" story that what I've written in this post, but this is as much as I'm willing to reveal here.>>

Your series of events has romance, intrigue, humor, and adventure — everything but dramatic conflict. I still can't figure out *WHAT* your main character wants; *WHY* he wants it; and *WHO* or *WHAT* is preventing him from getting it.

See why compelling screenwriting — even in documentary — is so difficult? You have to define a main goal for the main focal character, and break that down into lots of smaller goals. Each smaller goal = one scene; each scene either moves the main character a little bit toward his main goal, or sets him back. Each scene has some new challenge or obstacle that he must meet and (if possible) overcome.

Finally: I'm not saying you shouldn't continue to make a list of the colorful, memorable moments that have occurred to you (or your protagonist). But I also encourage you to seek a single, unifying, want, need, desire, or goal that DRIVES you (or the protagonist) to act; and to root out of each colorful memory the actual obstacle to the achievement of this goal.

I've written two screenplays — one of which was optioned — and have written, produced, and directed a few (low budget) commercials. For what it's worth, I've also taught film production (including screenwriting) in Los Angeles and New York.

Some broad, general points on story construction:

For me, "story" means "drama" (or, at least, a "dramatic situation", which would also include comedy), and "drama" means "conflict".

The problem as I see it with your description thus far is that there's no conflict.

"Conflict" means the prorotagonist — the main focal character who drives the movement of the story — wants, needs, or desires some value, but cannot obtain it immediately because he is blocked by a series of obstacles he must overcome — each obstacle getting progressively more difficult to overcome. Each obstacle represents one scene, and the upshot of each scebe — i.e., the protagonist either overcomes the particular obstacle in that scene and thus advances closer toward acquiring his want, need, or desire; or he fails (temporarily) to overcome the obstacle in that particular scene and experiences a setback.

Also, each time the protagonist struggles to overcome a particular obstacle, the "main trait" of his character (or, rather, characterization) is tested and "proved". In other words, in each scene, when the the protagonist meets, struggles with, and overcomes a particular obstacle, he does so specifically because of his one, main trait, which is tested and proved, over and over again, but more intensely. The so-called "climax" of the story, therefore, represents the greatest struggle against the greatest obstacle, which most clearly tests his one main trait, and also proves to the audience that "the hero of this story is, specifically, THAT kind of person" (whatever the main trait happens to be).

I realize this is all very generic, but I can certainly provide concrete examples if you wish. The main thing to realize is that the principles of dramatic construction apply just as well to documentary as they do to fiction writing. Except, instead of inventing the dramatic conflict out of your imagination, you have observe real life and find it in reality. The job of the documentary screenwriter (or filmmaker) is to find the dramatic conflict in a real life situation, isolate it, emphasize it (through camera angle, lens choice, editing, etc.) and thus — like the fiction writer — to tell a story.

I agree with Austin Ruse.

The problem is that most university professors are leftists, so there may not be enough bullets.

Couldn't we hang a few instead?

"You are wrong on all counts. Kodachrome came out in 1935 and was certainly not too expensive to use."

I can see already that I'm wasting my valuable time challenging someone who is clueless.

We're not talking about Kodachrome. Koda-CHROME — as the suffix indicates — is a color REVERSAL process . . . meaning, no negative is created as a final result from which one strikes positive prints. We're talking about color NEGATIVE. If you don't understand the difference between color-negative film and color-reversal film (e.g., Koda-CHROME, Fuji-CHROME, Agfa-CHROME, etc.) then you understand nothing about the technical aspect of photography, and nothing about its history.

Finally, we're not talking about "art" photographers. We're talking about photo-journalists. If you don't understand the difference between the two, then you also don't understand the photography business.

The first color photographs were negative-positive process and derived from the color-theory work of physicist James Clerk Maxwell. The first color photograph ever taken, apparently, was by him. It's called "Tartan Ribbon". See:

http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/1_p/1_photog...

and,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tartan...

Bye!

I understand that there will be much less emphasis on vocabulary, and the timed essay will be expunged completely.

Essay writing, of course — which requires complete sentences that are grammatically correct, as well as arguments that are logically coherent — is the only way to test a student's integrated thinking on issues. Even better, I believe, was the old-fashioned oral examination, in which the student had to muster his or her vocabulary and argumentative skills at the moment, and was not given time to deliberate. But those days are long gone.

"There was color film already in existence when lots of these photographs were taken."

Except it was expensive to manufacture; most cameras that shot B&W were not able to shoot color negative because until Kodak invented integral tri-pack film — with the cyan/magena/yellow dye emulsion layers sandwiched together into one strip of film — color film existed as three separate strips, each strip sensitive to a primary color. Prior to Kodak's technological innovation in the 1950s, photographers — especially in photo-journalism — shot B&W mainly because of technical limitations and economics.

"It is not a case of, 'the photographer would have taken that in color if he could have'. NO HE WOULDN'T!!! Not ever! "

Sure he would. And the evidence that color was greatly desired in pictures of real life is the indisputable fact that painters used color to render scenes of real life: portraits, street scenes, social gathering scenes, etc. No great painter in the past ever chose grayscale to render realistic images.

You're just a B&W bigot. There are many such in the field of photography; and (as I've learned) mainly for one simple reason: most photographers don't know how to work with color effectively.

What Palestinian state? There is no Palestinian state. The world does not recognize any such entity. If Arabs themselves don't recognize anything called The State of Palestine, why must Israel?.

Had the Arabs living in British Mandate Palestine after World War I (when the Ottoman Empire collapsed and the Brits took over the area) agreed to a 2-state solution in 1947, there already would have been a sovereign State of Palestine for over 65 years. Instead, Arab countries around the fledgling State of Israel attacked it, hoping to "push it into the sea" (their own words), and about half a million Arabs living in Israel fled, exchanging their status as Arab citizens of Israel for that of "Palestinian refugees", living in UN-built camps.

Under the very liberal PM, Ehud Barak, Israel offered offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 5 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third. Ehud Barak also made concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have religious sovereignty over the Temple Mount.

According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference.

Barak's proposal also addressed the refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state (not to Israel, but to the new State of Palestine) and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them. Israel also agreed to give the Palestinians access to water desalinated in its territory.

Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. For him to end the conflict is to end himself, since his position as "leader of the Palestinian cause" requires a conflict.

Given these historical facts, I'm unclear why you believe any of this is a two-way street. Consider again: had the Arabs agreed to partition in 1947, they would already have had their own independent state for over 65 years. Instead, they fled Israel while other Arabs attacked it. It seems to me that what the Arabs really want is not their own state in the Middle East but the absence of a Jewish one.

The definition of human being as "a live, conscious, aware, and self-determining entity" is disingenuous. It would mean that Ayn Rand was not a human being when she was asleep, or when she was under anesthesia during her surgery for lung cancer.

Additionally, a human fetus is obviously a human being at the fetal stage, just as a teenager is a human being at the adolescent stage.

That a woman owns her body does not mean she also owns another human being temporarily living insider her to the extent that she could terminate its life. You could make the same argument about a landlord/tenant relation: just because a landlord owns his building, it doesn't follow that he can terminate the life of a tenant — even a non-rent-paying squatter — in order to evict him from his property. He can, of course, employ force to remove him from his premises, so long as he does not kill him.

Same with abortion. When technology advances enough that a woman can evict a fetus from her body without killing it — perhaps implanting it into the body of another woman — then there's no moral problem with such eviction. As it stands now, however, the eviction necessarily results in death to a human being at the fetal stage; a human being whose Right To Life has been violated.