Language Creation Society Says Klingon Language Isn't Covered By Copyright 220
Reader AmiMoJo writes: Earlier this year Paramount Pictures and CBS Studios filed a lawsuit against the makers of a Star Trek inspired fan film, accusing them of copyright infringement. In their amicus brief, which actually uses Klingon language, the Language Creation Society lists many examples of how Klingon has evolved, and it specifically disputes Paramount's earlier claims that there are no human beings who communicate using the Klingon language. "In fact, there are groups of people for whom Klingon is their only common language. There are friends who only speak Klingon to each other. In fact, at least one child was initially raised as a native speaker of Klingon." As such, Paramount should not be allowed to claim copyright over the entire Klingon language, both in written and spoken form. The language is a tool for people to communicate and express ideas, something people should be allowed to do freely under U.S. law, LCS argues.
Elvish (Score:2)
Re: Elvish (Score:5, Interesting)
Tolkien actually invented the elvish languages himself, in full. A professional linguist was simply hired by the studio to flesh out the bits that James Doohan made up for the star trek movies. I'd be interested in seeing how that distinction plays out legally
Re: (Score:3)
Not really relevant to the arguments in our amicus brief. Same would apply to any conlang.
Re: (Score:3)
The other thing is, Mark Okrand (the guy who fleshed out the Klingon language) has sold books on the Klingon Language.
* The Klingon Dictionary
* Klingon for the Galactic Traveler
* Conversational Klingon (this had an accompanying Audiobook with Michael Dorn).
Unlike Tolkien, an actual effort was made to push Klingon out into the fanbase and public at large.
Now they're trying to take their ball and go home.
TOUGH SHIT.
It's like the estate of L.L. Zamenhof trying to take back Esperanto.
Also, unless Paramount and
Re: Elvish (Score:5, Informative)
Simple response to this: you can't assign IP that you don't own to begin with. ("Work for hire" is a sort of presumptive assignment doctrine.)
Our argument is that a language *can't* be copyrighted at all in the first place, so it doesn't really matter who made it or what contracts they had.
Of course, the *books* can be copyrighted, and the movies, and the scripts, etc. And they can use trademark to control what's "official" (mostly). But not the language itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Elvish (Score:3, Insightful)
What, are you Klingons or Feringi?! Just declare war on Paramount. This is coming from a Federation native. Even we wouldn't let someone charge us for our language... Ugh!
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike Tolkien, an actual effort was made to push Klingon out into the fanbase and public at large.
Strange, I know more people speaking elvish than people speaking Klingon. Funnily they dress as Klingons on fan conventions ... weird world.
Re: (Score:2)
So the studios are actually trying to steal Mark Okrand's work by suing others who are just using it. There is also the matter of allowing use for an extended period, decades without contest allowing rights to end and not copyright because a language is not copyrightable just the content created with it is ie you can not make up a word and than claim copyright on it, especially with regard to close associations with foreign languages when making up words in other languages, just changing definition does no
Can’t copyright a programming language eithe (Score:3)
There may or may not be patentable aspects of conlangs, but a language is an idea, and you can’t copyright ideas. You can copyright a BOOK on a language, but not the language itself.
Re:Can’t copyright a programming language ei (Score:4, Informative)
Can't comment on this directly because it's out of scope for us.
However, the API cases are certainly related law. I suggest you google "Charles Duan" + Klingon, Oracle, Lexmark, and/or Cisco. You'll get relevant info; he writes well, both for posts and amicus briefs.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing he's referring to MS's inclusion of code under permissive Open Source licenses, such as the BSD license. The counterpoint is that MS can't "steal" the BSD code, because it's still there for everybody to use. The MS copyright is just for the work as a whole, not the unmodified code. Without further detail, his post appears to be a variation on the common /. riff of "You can't steal ideas, because ideas aren't things; unless we don't like you. Then you stole our ideas".
Side Note (Score:2, Interesting)
FWIW: Klingon is no longer listed as one of the translatable languages on Google's "Translate" site ... no idea when it disappeared.
Paramount?
Re: (Score:2)
But it is there on Bing Translate.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? So what's the score now?
Bing: 1, Google: 434203234232368037061
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you got that number from the Google search engine, it seems to have difficulty counting, much like Youtube's servers.
LCS rep here (Score:5, Informative)
See http://conlang.org/axanar [conlang.org] for our press release giving background, links to all the case docs, and a formal legal memorandum from Dentons on conlangs & IP law.
Feel free to ask if you have any questions.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for taking the time. I don't know if you have any insight, but do you have any idea why Paramount is bringing the lawsuit? They have traditionally been tolerant of fan works.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but I can't comment on that — both because it's outside of our scope (we're strictly in this for the language aspect) and it'd be speculation.
Re:LCS rep here (Score:5, Funny)
Re:LCS rep here (Score:5, Funny)
I can't comment on any discussions of legal strategy we may or may not have had with counsel. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
The lawsuit seems to be around the "product" of a fan-fic and I think it's entirely reasonable for Star Trek to own the rights to the Star Trek universe, or for lawyers to argue that at least.
Klingon itself, however... If you're defending the language as a standalone concept can the defence cite *any* hearty examples of the language being used outside of the sci-fi universe? I saw one video on youtube of the "to be or not to be" soliloquy. But surely that's a demonstration of the quip in the show about "Ham
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the whole of Hamlet has been translated. Not just the soliloquy.
I believe we would take the same position in your hypothetical test case, though I highly doubt it would get litigated.
Re: (Score:2)
Me too. For now, we wait and see how Paramount responds.
Does the intent of the creators make a difference? (Score:2)
Take Esperanto. Clearly this falls under the "useful system" rubric; it was intended by its creator to be a useful system to exchange ideas.
Now consider a hypothetical. Suppose Paramount produced a movie about an eccentric scholar who invents a universal language. They go so far as to hire a linguist to construct the rudiments of such a language. In that case the language is constructed to give the most convincing artistic impression of a constructed language possible. It's not designed to be useful, i
You can't copyright a language (Score:5, Interesting)
In the Oracle vs. Google Java case, the judge asked the parties, "Can the Java programming language be copyrighted?"
It seemed obvious to me that the answer was no.
The definition of the Java programming language is, "the set of all Java programs".
This is an infinite set.
Therefore it cannot be fixed in a tangible medium.
Therefore it cannot be copyrighted.
It seems like a similar argument should prevail here.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't try to claim ownership of the language though, just material parts of it like the code in header files or the API definitions.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think your argument would work, for several reasons, even if it weren't factually incorrect.
The definition of the Java programming language is, "the set of all Java programs". This is an infinite set.
Only if you allow infinitely-long programs. Any finite limit on program length -- no matter how large -- means the number of possible programs is finite. Unimaginably large, but finite.
Re: (Score:2)
The word "definition" is used in different senses. The alphabet/dictionary/grammar are more properly referred to as a "specification". They help you decide whether a given character string is a valid Java program. But the language is not the specification: the language is the collection of strings that satisfy the specification.
It's like saying, what is the definition of the set of prime numbers. People will typically say something like, "the set of numbers with no divisors except for one and the number". B
This is a standards issue (Score:2)
Has Klingon ever been officially released to open source, like Swift?
Wow, raising a child with Klingon as first languag (Score:2)
... is that not a bit retarded?
Re: (Score:2)
First versus second language is not really an issue if the child is young enough. And after a certain age children will speak the same way as their peers in the same age group no matter what their parents try to do.
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, his wife spoke English with the kid, and he stopped when the kid was clearly rejecting the Klingon.
(Though also, that would probably have happened with other cases of one parent speaking one language to the kid, while understanding the dominant language used by everyone else. No reason to bother learning a language that is not necessary for communicating with anyone, including the person speaking it.)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I saw that later. The summary looked a bit weird regarding this.
Raising kids bilingual in a dominated environment works easy if both parents always talk their primary language, e.g. a friend of mine is more or less german and his wife is french. She speaks always french, to him and the kids. He speaks always german to his wife and the kids.
It is a bit weird if you see a couple talking to each other using different languages but the kids speak perfect french now (the dominant language) and with age of
Isn't copyright the wrong kind of IP protection? (Score:2)
I mean, a language is an encoding of copyrightable works, not the copyrightable works themselves.
If they wanted to protect a kind of encoding, shouldn't Paramount have applied for a patent on it before publishing a multitude of books encouraging people to use it?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. (Not that I think they could have gotten a patent, but that's another story.)
17 CFR 102(b) (Score:2)
The plaintiff has to prove that Mark Okrand's work is expressive rather than functional. Since there are many languages, and they use different words and grammar for the same things, the plaintiff may indeed be able to prove this, and they
Re: (Score:2)
Also (a) — no copyright for words.
translation needed: (Score:2)
So, how do you say "Streisand Effect" in Klingon?
Re:Child abuse (Score:4, Insightful)
Billions of children are raised on the delusion that there's a man in the sky who forbids them to masturbate and tells them to hate gay people. And you worry about something innocent such as this?
First, let's make sure all religious upbringing is classified as child abuse, then think about whether some nerdy shit is actually harmful.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll get bullied less if you have a popular delusion.
Re: (Score:3)
You get bullied less if you stand up to the bullies from the start.
Re: (Score:3)
Tell that to Latimer & Ridley.
Re: (Score:2)
You get bullied less if you stand up to the bullies from the start.
As a general rule that's fine but it depends on how rational the bully is in his victim selection process, how publicly he was stood up, how vindictive he is, how far he's willing to go and a host of other factors. If you run into the full psycho/ragetard that's going to haunt you for years it'll easily backfire like "Did that little twerp just [act of defiance]? I'm going to fucking destroy him. I'm going to make his every day a living hell." Because of that I have a feeling that advice is the least helpfu
Re: (Score:2)
Billions of children are raised on the delusion that there's a man in the sky who forbids them to masturbate and tells them to hate gay people. And you worry about something innocent such as this?
First, let's make sure all religious upbringing is classified as child abuse, then think about whether some nerdy shit is actually harmful.
If I had mod points, I'd upvote this.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had modpoints, I'd 'off-topic' the bit about the bible.
Came to read about Klingon, not scroll through 100 comments about religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Continuing your reasoning:
Severely beating ones disobedient children so they get permanent disabilities isn't a problem - as there are "cultures" where a child that brings dishonor to the family is killed, often in a horrifying and painful way.
Stalking, slandering and threatening women that doesn't want to date/have sex etc. with you is okay - in other places they throw acid on them.
Re:Child abuse (Score:4, Informative)
Genesis 38:8-10
Leviticus 18:22
Re:Child abuse (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Wet cleanup on Aisle 6!
Re: (Score:3)
So transsexuals are okay? Sounds like Iran to me.
BTW pederasts are male pedophiles that prefer boys. Gay men aren't attracted to children - but sure, there are gay pedophiles too. The linking of pedophiles with homosexuals was popular for a while but just as phrenology isn't used today that is also seen as unscientific (and false). Well unless you are Russian, they seem to like that kind of thinking over there.
Science have shown that bisexual and homosexual behavior is relatively common in nature just as in
Re: (Score:3)
[[Citation]]
It's called "the bible", look it up, specifically Genesis and Leviticus. Also check out the Quran, which is chock-full of the same hateful shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Leviticus condemns homosexuality with exactly the same strength is condemns wearing a cotton-poly shirt. Leviticus condemns just about everything, really.
There's almost no mention of homosexuality in the Bible either way. For most of human history, it simply didn't matter what you wanted to fuck, you did your part to raise a family as one of the more important duties to your tribe. The American social conservatives aren't very centered on the bible, whatever they may tell themselves, and most of the big
Re: (Score:2)
There's almost no mention of homosexuality in the Bible either way.
I know. You know what Jesus said about homosexuals? Nothing, not a single word.
-
The Quran, I don't know about what's written, but it's always the Muslims, not the Lutherans, who murdered a few more homosexuals this week by throwing them off buildings.
Be honest- the Lutherans and Christians and Baptists and all the other denominations would do the same thing if they thought they could get away with it, like they did for centuries. They can't anymore, but they did, and they would again if they got the chance.
Re: (Score:2)
The Bible also never mentions homosexuality, which isn't surprising, as the idea probably didn't exist at the time. What is mentioned is the (homo-)sexual act of 2 men lying together as a man and a women do. This is, in context, taken to mean some kind of penetrative act (anal) by one man with another. It says nothing about the sexual attraction of either participant.
Re: (Score:2)
Where specifically is masturbation proclaimed in Genesis or Leviticus as being sin??
The story in Genesis 38:8-10 is not about masturbation but about a man fulfilling his legal duty to carry on the family's name and refusing to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Where specifically is masturbation proclaimed in Genesis or Leviticus as being sin??
The story in Genesis 38:8-10 is not about masturbation but about a man fulfilling his legal duty to carry on the family's name and refusing to do that.
Well then we better email the Pope and tell him to straighten this out ASAP.
Re:Child abuse (Score:5, Insightful)
No true Scotsman falacy. If that were the case we wouldn't have laws like the ones in North Carolina and Alabama. Most Christians raise their children similar to Muslims raising theirs; if they had their way we'd all be dead.
Re: (Score:3)
No true Christians raise their children this way. I said "true" Christians.
Bullshit. That's like saying no "true" slashdot commenter ever uses the word "fuck" in a post.
-
I'm a sinner and I fall short everyday, same as you.
No, you're just deluded. You've been lied to by people you trusted and you accepted the lies they told you, which were no doubt told to them by people they trusted.
I'm not a "sinner", because "sin" is an "offense against god", and you can't offend that which does not exist.
I may or may not "fall short" sometimes, but it's not because of a fairy tale about some woman being convinced to eat a piece of fruit by a tal
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a "sinner", because "sin" is an "offense against god", and you can't offend that which does not exist.
No it is not.
If you want to argue about religions you should know the basics.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to argue about religions you should know the basics.
Perhaps it's you that needs to learn the basics. Here's something from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that should help make it clear to you:
THE DEFINITION OF SIN
Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/... [vatican.va]
Sin: An Offense Against God
http://www.sermoncentral.com/s... [sermoncentral.com]
Scriptures: Revelations 13:3-8; 16-18; 20:12-15; 12:10; 1 Corinthians 5
CHRISTIAN MORAL PRINCIPLES
Question C:In what sense is sin an offens
Re: (Score:2)
The definition of Sin is what the ancient Christians defined it.
Not what the Vatikan does.
Seems pretty fuckin' clear to me. Sin is defined as "an offense against god".
But you made several citations that show it is not. I don't get you.
Most of your links are simply sermons from priests ... their interpretation.
The original meaning of Sin is "missing the mark". Not offending god. Unless you consider not living up to someones expectations is an offense to that guy.
Like you shoot at a target with your arrow or
Re: (Score:3)
The definition of Sin is what the ancient Christians defined it.
Not what the Vatikan does.
LOL, why don't you take that up with the Pope and see what he says? Or do your opinion outweigh the Pope's?
Too funny- you religious fanatics ALWAYS seem to have your very own interpretation of what the various bible verses mean and what the commandments mean and what god really means...and every one of you lives in your own little Truth Bubble. Too fucking funny!!
But of course you are privy to The One True Interpretation and all those other people- they're just wrong. LOL!!
Re: (Score:2)
There is no definition in the bible that I'm aware of that makes a sin an offense or insult to god.
After all the catholics invented the "confession" which relieves you from all Sins you are confessing. That is either an indication that god is not offended and priest can give absolution. Or it is one of the ridiculous contradictions you are talking about.
Interpretation and all those other people- they're just wrong
No, my point is: that are interpretations as you correctly worded, hence they are not truths.
Re: (Score:2)
> True Christian vs non true Christian is arguing semantics.
Incorrect.
1. Claiming I'm the pope doesn't make me one. Hijacking a term by some people doesn't make the claim magically valid.
2. The **only** true Christian was Yeshua. He specifically said that "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." and "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious w
Re: Child abuse (Score:5, Interesting)
Every single ethnic group believes in the afterlife in some form or fashion.
At one time, every single ethnic group believed that the Earth was flat. Turns out they were wrong.
-
What will you do if you're wrong?
Ahhh, Pascal's Wager, the lamest of all "arguments" to believe in magical fairy tales.
If I'm wrong, I'll get to hang out with all the cool people- Jimi Hendrix, Christopher Hitchens, most of my friends, family, and lovers, Janis Joplin, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, Douglas Adams, Woody Allen, Mick Jagger, Kevin Bacon, Richard Burton, George Carlin, Jeremy Clarkson, Jimmy Carr, Bruce Lee, Orson Welles, Robin Williams, David Gilmour, Charlie Parker, Steve Wozniak, etc etc etc....the list goes on and on.
If your god is willing to cast those people into the pit of Hell, then fuck your god, okay? Just fuck him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> If I'm wrong, I'll get to hang out with all the cool people- Jimi Hendrix, Christopher Hitchens, most of my friends, family, and lovers, Janis Joplin, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, Douglas Adams, Woody Allen, Mick Jagger, Kevin Bacon, Richard Burton, George Carlin, Jeremy Clarkson, Jimmy Carr, Bruce Lee, Orson Welles, Robin Williams, David Gilmour, Charlie Parker, Steve Wozniak, etc etc etc....the list goes on and on.
Uhhh, many of these people are still alive. Allen, Jagger, Gilmour, Wozniak... also wh
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhh, many of these people are still alive. Allen, Jagger, Gilmour, Wozniak...
Sure, but they'll all die eventually and we're told in no uncertain terms that Hell is forever, so sooner or later I'll get to hang out with them. It's inevitable, if you believe in this particular fairy tale.
also what do you know about what they believe in their hearts? that's what matters.
What I know is that they're all self-professed atheists, and they're happy to identify as such. According to christian dogma, atheists go to Hell for the sin of not believing.
Re: (Score:2)
What I know is that they're all self-professed atheists, and they're happy to identify as such. According to christian dogma, atheists go to Hell for the sin of not believing.
Maybe they'll all change their minds at your funeral, and you'll be like lolwut?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they'll all change their minds at your funeral, and you'll be like lolwut?
I plan on outliving them all, and statistically speaking, I've got a decent shot at doing so. :)
Re: (Score:2)
At one time, every single ethnic group believed that the Earth was flat. Turns out they were wrong.
That is an assumption that is very likely false.
For everyone with good eyes and basic concepts of geometry it always was obvious that earth is anything but flat.
If your god is willing to cast those people into the pit of Hell, then fuck your god, okay? Just fuck him. That is a Christian thing. And the Islam took it over from Christianity. No idea how the Jews see it.
Most other religions don't really distingui
Re: (Score:2)
That is an assumption that is very likely false. For everyone with good eyes and basic concepts of geometry it always was obvious that earth is anything but flat.
Nooooooooooo. Nice try, but for centuries pretty much everyone believed the Earth to be flat. The bible even makes the claim:
Isaiah 40:22: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
Except the Earth is NOT a circle, it's an oblate sphere. A circle is flat, a sphere is not.
‘Within its historical context, therefore, the conception of the “earth” in Gen 1 is mo
Re: (Score:2)
The bible is about 6000 years old. Perhaps less. Written by "flat landers" living on the land.
Every sea farer knows the earth is not flat.
The babylonians, mentioned in the bible quite often: knew the earth is a sphere.
The only idiot who believed otherwise over centuries were the uneducated Christian masses.
Do you actually have religion classes in your country? And what do you learn there?
Yes, my country is filled to the brim with all sorts of cranks and simple-minded folk who believe in magical fairy tales, especially the bible.
Religion classes are not about telling fairy tells, but about
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you never learned anything about Shinto, Hinduism, Zaratustra, Yezidi, Bush Man religions, Anoriginies, Hawaiian or Vikings/Norse/Teutons or Roman or greek or Egyptian or Buddhism (insert random "nation").
It's like, super cool how you think you can read my mind and know what I have and haven't learned. :)
-
The bible is a collection of writings of various authors and we don't even know who or which groups made that "collection" to form one book from it.
The bible was written by ignorant, Bronze-Age sheep herders who lived in the desert, and most of them had never been more than about 10 miles from where they were born. That's why it's so chock-full of ridiculous errors.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the reason it is choke full with ridiculous errors is:
The got introduced by various translations from and to languages that are not related.
E.g. "Rather goes a full loaded camel through (a^H) the Needle Ear than a rich goes into heaven": sounds ridiculous unless you know that there is a small doorway in Jerusalem which is so small that camels get unloaded in front of it and reloaded after it has passed. The doorway still exists.
Or you might know that "Jesus was walking on the water" is a figurative spee
Re: (Score:2)
Or you might know that "Jesus was walking on the water" is a figurative speech for "walking along the beach". It is a wrong translation from Aramaic into Greek.
how do you square that with there being a whole fucking story about his disciples doing the same thing, and then falling in the water when they lost faith that they could walk on top of it?
Re: (Score:2)
Yhea, what a company to spend eternity with; can't wait! [no sarcasm; my list is similar though it begins with Terry Pratchett].
However, as far as I remember the Pascal wager is [also] logically unsound to begin with. Because its presumption is that we do not know if god exists or not but in the body of the argument [which is supposed to prove you that it is better to be a believer regardless] he says that god will not like [approve] of non-believers. So how do we know that god likes believers? Suddenly a p
Re: (Score:2)
You're obviously an intelligent guy. If you're willing, please read the following two links. It shouldn't take too long.
Proving God's Existence [answersingenesis.org]
Does God Exist [gotquestions.org]
Thanks, but I stopped reading comic books and fantasy novels decades ago.
And if god really does exist and faith healing works, why has god never healed an amputee?
God heals amputees in two ways (Score:2)
God heals amputees in two ways, one in the present and the other in the future. One is by leading smart men and women to develop innovative prosthetics and other means to make amputees' impairments less disabling.* The other, if prophecies in Isaiah, Revelation, and elsewhere are to be believed, is by describing his plan to resurrect the dead into rebuilt bodies to fix up the earth during the millennium after Armageddon. These rebuilt bodies would have the limbs needed for the job. This second bodily healin
Re: (Score:2)
One is by leading smart men and women to develop innovative prosthetics and other means to make amputees' impairments less disabling.
So in other words, SCIENCE, not god. And regardless, prosthetics mitigate the effects of the loss of a limb, they're not "healing".
That's a FAIL on your first stab at rationalizing the failure of your god to heal amputees. What else ya got?
-
The other, if prophecies in Isaiah, Revelation, and elsewhere are to be believed, is by describing his plan to resurrect the dead into rebuilt bodies to fix up the earth during the millennium after Armageddon.
So, just wait for the Magical Pie In The Sky After You Die, is that it? And that's if you believe in this utter nonsense, which any rational person won't.
Sorry, that's a FAIL on your second attempt at rationalizing the failure of your god to heal amputees.
-
This second bodily healing doesn't happen prematurely because God is busy illustrating a point to Satan.
Ooooooooh, tha
Re: (Score:2)
People love to cite that Columbus business because it's taught in grammar school (or at least was in my day), as part of another fairy tale. See a pattern developing here?
Re: (Score:3)
Reality is not a democracy. A bunch of people believing in something is not sufficient to declare its existence. Large numbers of people have believed all manner of absolute fucking garbage.
And to me, Pascal's Wager has to be the worst kind of cynicism. Beyond that, why should you be anything but a decent human being even if you think that when you die, that's the end of the road?
Re: (Score:2)
Reality is not a democracy. A bunch of people believing in something is not sufficient to declare its existence.
A lot of people believe in consensus reality, and then go on to believe that they can change the world by believing hard enough. But that's an incredibly arrogant belief if you accept the first part, because you have to believe that your belief is stronger than that of billions of other people. Mind-boggling.
Re: (Score:2)
> Ask yourself again: "what if I'm wrong?".
Pascal's wager.
Re: (Score:2)
Many ethnic groups do not believe in an afterlife. There are many african gods who simply manage a portfolio and have no afterlife. Some don't even have directions for believers except don't mess with their temple or they'll hurt you.
Many agnostics and atheists live lives filled with compassion, love, and a helpful attitude. I give about $2000 to charity per year, I've built houses for the homeless, sorted food at the food bank, donated money to slain police officer's families, rescued people whose cars
Re: (Score:2)
And have you considered how many inhuman creatures will outnumber humanity in heaven?
They don't go to heaven, because they don't have souls! Only humans were created with souls, everything else on the planet is here for our use and/or amusement! Haven't you read the Bible? It's a blank check to do whatever the fuck you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe rappers are marketing spell checkers these days.
Re:Child abuse (Score:5, Informative)
The father was featured in a documentary I saw a while back, but I can't remember which one. Anyway, he taught his daughter Klingon from birth and she picked it up easily and quickly, as an experiment to study language development in children and see if there was something special about natural languages compared to invented ones. At the age of about 4 she lost interest and stopped using it. Of course she spoke English too.
Re: (Score:2)
Which kind of idiots raise their children on Klingon as their main language?
The same people would name their kids after fictional characters. Baby names based on Game of Thrones are popular these days.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3200776/Oliver-Amelia-popular-names-second-year-running.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
You really think those are in the same league?
Re: (Score:3)
You really think those are in the same league?
You haven't enjoyed Game of Thrones until you heard it in the original Klingon.
Re:Children raised on it (Score:5, Funny)
Which kind of idiots raise their children on Klingon as their main language?
Klingons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which kind of idiots raise their children on Klingon as their main language?
Terrorists, that's who! It's the language they use when they conspire on the Internet.
CBS/Paramount received a subpoena from the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which issued the following statement: "You [CBS and Paramount] have invented a tool that allows terrorists to communicate to each other in the dark, secretly, and law enforcement has no way to interpret what they're saying. You were smart enough to invent the language, so you can surely modify it so that it sounds just like English if
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from nerds, obviously - Linguists.
There was a study on childhood acquisition of language where two parents raised their children as German native speakers despite neither parent being Germanic themselves - all as some bizarre experiment.
Well the advantage of learning German would be that you could travel to Europe and speak with 'real' people, I guess. But then a kid might equally grow up to attend PAX or Comicon and have 'real' conversations in Klingon.
Re: (Score:2)
Just remove the word "Klingon" and you're good to go
Just call the language "Nognilk" and tell Paramount and CBS to fuck off.
Re:Good luck with that! (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem here is dysfunctional corporate management. Many CEOs tend to let their legal dept run amok and dictate policy, rather than treating them as advisors. Whenever you find yourself suing your own fanbase, you know it is time to rein in the lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle comes to mind.
The only reason they still are getting money(from my perspective), are from old systems(up to 10 years old) not yet migrated to running something else. And then the odd case where someone, somewhere in the company, managed to buy a new product that required something from Oracle(a loose end we have now tied up so that every new project requiring something from Oracle, now has the true TCO from their bullshit license requirements when running virtualized serveres, and that's expensive.).