Question thread is for questions

Saturday.

Avatar. The show is called Avatar.

James Cameron can go fly a kite.

Avatar. The show is called Avatar.

James Cameron can go fly a kite.

Well, it's not like we can call it "The last Airbender" anymore. I see your point, and agree the Jame Cameron movie shouldn't hold dominince of the word Avatar, however...

<----------


In my mind, avatar still means "The physical embodiment of an idea or concept; a personification."

(In part so I can shout "PERSONA!" everytime I change avatars. )

Sometimes I wonder if in 200 years it will be impossible to make any news shows or movies because every word and phrase will be copyrighted by a big corporation already.

Independent works will have to use names like "Book # 2938XCS983CDXZ9" to avoid being sued by Disney.

Well, I mean, that's assuming that you can't reuse names ever. If you can, it's really more of issue of the rate new things get titles.

Since the global population is estimated to max out at around 9 billion, we shouldn't have a problem unless either space colonization or AI authors really take off.

Not that I'm a lawyer, but I do think same titles can be reused. For example, I know of two or three sci-fi/fantasy titles with the name of Glory Road, though Heinlein's version is probably the most well known. The key component is making sure that the contents are different enough so as not to be held as copyright infringement.

Of course, this sometimes doesn't stop the threat of lawsuit, and it can be cheaper/faster just to change. One of the reasons Palladium Games changed the name of an RPG it made from Nightspawn to Nightbane was legal action from Tood McFarlane. And not to mention that big companies certainly have more money to throw away...

Avatar was a boring and preachy movie.

The Last Airbender was just bad.

Avatar: The Last Airbender was great though.

I think we've just proved double negatives exist in sucky movie mathematics!

How come crazy obsessive stalkers never date each other? I mean it'd be perfect!

I can see it now. Instead of going out they both individually prepare a three course meal. They both eat outside in (different) bushes, and just stare at each other. There is an attempt at dialog, but really it's just both them talking to themselves.



I shouldn't tease stalkers so much. I kind of feel like one when I follow people on Twitter. Doubly so since I've followed my RL friends, when we talk, half the time I cut them off saying "Yeah I know, you already posted it on Twitter."

I meant more like the people who call every five minutes and are hyper possesive.

They should make like a stalkerbook, though.

I meant more like the people who call every five minutes and are hyper possesive.

They should make like a stalkerbook, though.

I've always imagined stalkers as people without SO's. I looked it up, and it essentially means "Giving unwanted attention", so yeah you can be a stalker while dating someone.



Oh, but I was happy when S.T.A.L.K.E.R. came up before stalking did.

Has anyone ever interrupted a wedding at the part when they ask if anyone has a reason they shouldn't marry? I wish I could go to a wedding that had that much drama.

I'm pretty sure I've asked what English sounds like to non english speakers.


I have found, the answer.

Why are cheetos considered the lowest form of snack? When someone is going on about how much of a loser a person is they often mention that the person eats cheetos (or perhaps just collects cheeto bags and dust). But why? Do people really turn to cheetos when their lives have been ruined? Do cheetos somehow make you less cool?