MTG Salvation

Quote from Forgotten_Hope

During the (terrible) Earthbender scene, he's the Fire Nation guy who goes "HOW IS HE DOING THAT? There shouldn't be any Air Benders alive. KILL HIM!," which is actually one of the better acted lines of the movie.

Q: Rumor has it you're not going to make your usual cameo appearance in the film this time around?

M. Night Shyamalan: I have my eye on a tiny little part coming up, but you won't see me in the first film. Maybe the second or third.

Quote from mothlite

My opinion is that Hobbes State of Nature works as an interesting thought experiment within the limits it sets for itself. But when placed in context of modern anthropological study of human society, especially primitive human society, i think the State of Nature is outdated and not very useful at all when applied to most real world situations. I'm not sure if this is answering the question you asked, but my view is that it would have to be modified before i would ever take it as a priori, especially considering that man's state of nature is not independent from his experience. Unfortunately I don't really have the skills or knowledge to begin to suggest how that would be done.

I do not agree with your assertion, seeing as the population of man in hunter gatherer societies at any point before the adoption of agriculture (and subsequently science) was much lower than the population thereafter. There never were enough 'humble barbarians' to perish in greater numbers than 'civilized scientists'.

Quote from Wired.com »

Wired.com: What’s behind the changed pronunciation of the some of the main characters’ names, and even the term avatar?

Shyamalan: For me, the whole point of making the adaptation was to ground it deeper in reality. So I pronounced the names as Asians would. It’s just impossible to pronounce Aang the way it is used in the series. It’s incorrect! I can’t do it. So I just pronounced it correctly.

Wired.com: So the series dropped the ball on that one.

Shyamalan: Aang isn’t “Ayng,” it’s “Ahng.” Iraq isn’t “Ee-rack,” it’s “Ee-rock.” It’s an opportunity. I don’t have to make the film for little kids on Cartoon Network; I’m making it for the world. And 85 percent of the people who are going to see this movie have probably never seen the show, and I want it to be legitimate. I’m Asian. What can I do?

Quote from Wired.com »

The Kyoshi Warriors were a big part from the first season that I actually shot, and I almost put them into the movie. But then I ended up deciding to put them into the second movie, because they didn’t exist in the third act, or at the end of season one. So I almost felt that the audience would fall in love with them, and it would go nowhere. I wanted to introduce them and give them a real purpose, have them become an intricate part of the plot.

Quote from Wired.com »

Wired.com: What were the challenges in compressing the first season of Avatar: The Last Airbender, which fans have more or less memorized, into a film that lasts barely 100 minutes?

M. Night Shyamalan: It’s really about texture. In an episodic series, you really have a lot of latitude. But out of the 20 episodes of the first season, six or so of them were really just one-offs. They were adventures that simply ended, although they did have some details that were drawn into the greater narrative. But overall, those episodes weren’t important to the big strokes, which are there in the film: Aang the Avatar ran away, but now he’s found, hasn’t mastered the other elements, and has to learn them one at a time, in order. He has to go to the Northern Water tribe to learn water first. These were critical, and establishing the main characters was vital. But it was tricky to balance it all into one movie.

Quote from Emo_Pinata

If the rule was "opt out" instead of "opt in", then all that would change is which column the neutral column falls in.

Quote from OunceOfGold

What exactly is mandated choice? How is that implemented? When I filled out my driver's license, it had "Yes" or "No" and I picked one. I'm pretty sure my state is opt-in. How is that different from mandated choice?

Quote from Zaphrasz

It seems to me that if animals really do have a right to life, how you kill them is mostly irrelevant.

Quote from Zoyle

No, it means they consider it possible that morality is social construct and not something with fundamental, underlying brain architecture and chemistry. Which, honestly, is pretty possible.

Quote from Highroller

I mean, really it should be up to the people donating the money to go to the causes they see fit.

Quote from MSNBC »

SEATTLE - Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, America's two richest people, are embarking on a campaign to persuade their super-rich peers to give half their fortunes to charity in a move that could change the face of philanthropy.

The effort, if successful, could funnel a colossal amount of money into nonprofit groups. If the individuals on the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans pledged half their net worth to charity, that would amount to $600 billion, Fortune magazine says.

Fortune, in an article posted Wednesday, detailed the origin and status of the campaign, which it called "the biggest fundraising drive in history."

Several of the megarich, including Los Angeles philanthropists Eli and Edythe Broad; Silicon Valley's John and Tashia Morgridge, whose fortune came from Cisco Systems; venture capitalist John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins and his wife, Ann; and media entrepreneur Gerry Lenfest and his wife, Marguerite, have already committed to the 50 percent pledge, according to program organizers. Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates are sending e-mails and making calls to other billionaires deemed likely prospects to contribute, Fortune reported.

Buffett said it's a good bet the super-wealthy have already thought about what to do with their money. "They may not have reached a decision about that, but they have for sure thought about it. The pledge that we're asking them to make will put them to thinking about the whole issue again," the Berkshire Hathaway chairman told Fortune.

"If they wait until they're making a final will in their 90s, the chance of their brainpower and willpower being better than they are today is nil."

The campaign began just over a year ago, when Gates and Buffett — who represent a combined net worth of $90 billion, according to Forbes — invited several billionaires to a secret dinner meeting in New York. Among those attending were Hungarian-born hedge fund guru George Soros, talk-show host Oprah Winfrey, David Rockefeller, media mogul Ted Turner and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Rockefeller, of the oil tycoon family, was asked to host the exploratory meeting at the exclusive President's House at Rockefeller University. Rockefeller, now 95, told Fortune that the request was "a surprise but a pleasure."

Melinda Gates insisted that both husbands and wives be invited. Her reasoning, according to Fortune: "Even if he's the one that made the money, she's going to be a real gatekeeper. And she's got to go along with any philanthropic plan, because it affects her and it affects their kids." philanthropic

According to media reports at the time, each attendee was given 15 minutes to speak about how they saw the future global economic climate, the future priorities for philanthropy, and what they felt the elite group should do.

A second and third dinner followed in the months to come — at the New York Public Library and at the Rosewood Sand Hill hotel in Menlo Park, Calif.

At those dinners, Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, told Fortune, "No one ever said to me, 'We gave more than we should have.'"

The principals eventually settled on a goal of 50 percent of net worth, though Buffett himself is pledging 99 percent. They set up a website, givingpledge.org, about the effort.

"Millions of people who regularly contribute to churches, schools and other organizations thereby relinquish the use of funds that would otherwise benefit their own families," Buffett wrote in a statement on the website explaining his pledge. "The dollars these people drop into a collection plate or give to United Way mean forgone movies, dinners out, or other personal pleasures. In contrast,my family and I will give up nothing we need or want by fulfilling this 99 percent pledge."

"The Pledge is a moral commitment to give, not a legal contract. It does not involve pooling money or supporting a particular set of causes or organizations," the website says.

"While the Giving Pledge is specifically focused on billionaires, the idea takes its inspiration from efforts in the past and at present that encourage and recognize givers of all financial means and backgrounds. We are inspired by the example set by millions of Americans who give generously (and often at great personal sacrifice) to make the world a better place."

The giving pledge focuses for now on American billionaires, but the effort may eventually extend worldwide.

The money from the participating billionaires isn't being collected or distributed; rather, the pledge is a commitment to give.

Melinda Gates says the initial goal of the pledge campaign is to get billionaires moving in the direction of giving.

"Three to five years down the road, we need to have a significant number of billionaires signed up. That would be success," she told Fortune.

Quote from dcartist

I don't understand the tone of the OP. I can understand being a stickler for due process and raising objections when there are clear violations... But bringing that up in this situation sounds ludicrous to me. To me ( and I may be wrong here since I don't know you ) it sounds more like one or more of the following:

(1) a person who dislikes Obama and wants to cast anything he does in a negative light.
(2) oil company crony
(3) far right pro business republican
(4) a contrarian who defends anybody who is hated by the masses

the OP's presented as some sort of legal principle issue (when that argument doesn't pass the laugh test) when it really feels more like the OP is grasping at straws to defend the (deservedly) unpopular.