strawberrybird

If your focus is writing and not directing, knowing the right people is likely going to be more important than how much time you spend training for and working in the industry. In other words, you can write a screenplay while you're earning a regular salary as an engineer. But, it is important if you do that, that you have an outlet to sell your work. You will need connections. I don't think it would be out of place to suggest you take a screenwriting course or two from your local university. There, you will establish if you really have the skill you think you do; and if the professor believes you have promise they may be able to market your work or direct you to the right people. Try to find a professor who has experience in the industry, however. I am not a screenwriter myself, but I minored in creative writing in school and took screenwriting classes and my professor was a veteran of the industry with 20 years of experience including writing for Star Trek; it was invaluable.

Nice! Someone once told me "be good" and I've kept it in my vocabulary ever since. To me, it means the same thing as "do your best," or "be good" but it's a bit more casual in my ears.

What's the status of this book group concept? I'd like to participate if it's currently going on.

The movie is not in theatres anymore, at least not around here, but I thought I'd throw my two cents in anyway. The movie was disappointing. The parts I liked: Maid Marion wasn't 12 or 20, she was a realistic age for the part. The prequel nature of the story. It was interesting to see the development of the Robin Hood character. The parts I didn't like: Historical inaccuracies were littered throughout. The major one that irked me - anyone other than royalty drinking out of a glass cup. It may be a minor detail, but it was irksome. Robin Hood is an archer, so why did they put him in the position of using blades so frequently? Why would Maid Marion and her little band of misfits ever EVER go into battle? They wouldn't. The whole thing was an obvious set up for Robin Hood to have to save her. Someone else mentioned that the plot was cumbersome. While I didn't have any trouble following it, it did seem needlessly complex. It was like they were trying to explain too many things, rather than just following the basic story of the development of Robin Hood's character. Overall, I'm not sorry I saw it, but I wish I had waited for it to come out on DVD.

Wow. It's amazing that anyone can justify this sort of bill. Please don't be complacent and assume that it will be crushed. Write to your Congressional Representation and let him or her know this is unacceptable.

Thanks for posting this Hairnet. A lot of people, myself included sometimes, could benefit from these sort of preliminary questions.

This doesn't answer the original question, but I found it interesting. I was a member of a site that, in exchange for membership, ads were removed. Then, they changed their structure, removed that option, and I was suddenly bombarded with ads. I complained, requested my money back. They said, money will be refunded and we recommend you use an ad-blocker. I thought it was hilarious that the company rep was suggesting I use an ad-blocker, thereby reducing their earning potential.

Awesome story; thanks for sharing.

A couple thoughts: I think you may be confusing the concept of instinct with the concept of knowledge. Humans have many instincts. There is the fight or flight response, the sucking reflex of infants, the capacity for language. These things are all "hard-wired" into the average human brain. However, they are not knowledge. Even the capacity for language, which involves the brain, is not knowledge. In any case, the fact that humans are not born with knowledge does not mean that they do not have differences which influence their abilities. Intelligence, while not knowledge itself, can influence a person's skill. People learn in different ways, some visually, some audibly; this influences how easy or difficult it is for a person to learn a concept. Some people almost immediately understand music, while others do not. No, it does not mean that they cannot learn to play an instrument or sing in tune, but it does mean it's harder for them to do so than the person who has perfect pitch. Talented and gifted relate to a person who has characteristics enabling them to learn a particular concept or skill more quickly than the average person. These characteristics are physiological and not related to knowledge or values. So, I'm not saying that Rand was wrong - on the contrary - but that does not mean that certain people are not "talented" in a given area. Knowledge is not innate or genetic. Ability is. I do agree with one thing. And that is that many people do use the words talented and gifted to make excuses for themselves. If they want to learn, they can, it just might take longer. That's the advantage of a diversified society; we all have our talents and our abilities, we all provide different services to society, helping to contribute to a free economy.

She loves her husband, or so she says. Although the argument could potential be made that if she truly loved him, she wouldn't have had an affair. Nevertheless, this poses a side question. Can a woman love more than one man? What does love mean? I believe Rand wrote on this, but I can't recall what she said. Does this influence anything?

I apologize in advance for the length of this post. A friend posed this scenario and asked my advice: A woman is married. Her husband, who she thought was rational when she married him, has acted irrationally and based many of his decisions solely on tradition. He routinely recognizes the value of her arguments and agrees that her logic is sound but still does not act on it. She is finding it difficult to relate to him, but she still loves him. She meets another man. This man is always there for her emotionally. Objectivism is new to him and he does not follow its precepts to the letter, but he is always logical and acts honorably. She falls in love with him. She tells her husband she is in love with another man. He does not want her to have these feelings, but he acknowledges that there is nothing he can do about it and only tells her that he doesn't want her to spend time with this person anymore. She wants to stay married and she sees the reason in her husband's request, but finds it difficult to stay away from this man. One day, she has an affair. In this moment, she does not think, she just reacts physically. Later, she knows it is wrong, not because she had sex with another man (she believes that her love for him justifies her actions), but because she knows her husband does not approve and she went against his explicit wishes. She doesn't want to leave her husband for numerous reasons, but she knows that ethically she should tell him what happened. Complicating the issue is that she wants to continue her relationship with this other man. I've told her that she should act based on the consequences, but if she decides that keeping her secret is the best because otherwise it will spell the end of her marriage, is she then acting unethically? I've read most of Ayn Rand's works (fiction and nonfiction), but I'm still very much a novice objectivist and have not had any formal philosophy training. I feel my advice is woefully inadequate. Any thoughts?

A similar situation occurred not to long ago. http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view...ns/5373007.html However, in this case, a woman stole a book from a library because she did not believe other patrons should have access to the book. She felt the book was inappropriate. Rather than following the complaint process that the library had in place, she checked out the book, and wrote a letter to the library stating that she had checked out the book, was not planning to return it, and sent them a check for the cost of the book. The library took her to court stating that she stole the book. She said that she did not steal it, as she paid for it. She was fined $100 for the $21 book (essentially paying late fees and replacement fees for it). The library will replace the book. I wouldn't be surprised if she stole it again. This process is not uncommon. Many people, everyday, "steal" books from libraries to prevent others from reading them. Just thought I'd share.

I work in an office that relies on grant funding for the majority of its budget. My boss, who writes the grants, is currently working on a degree. During the grant writing process, all the office employees are pulled in to help with research, writing, editing, etc. We do research on particular topic and compose literature searches and research summaries, complete with citations and copies of articles. Frequently, my boss uses our research in the work for her degree, without crediting our contribution either as an office or individually, only rarely going back to the sources and studying them herself. Recently, I began discussing this with a coworker. We both agree this is unethical; a misuse of power, but other than the fact that she is taking credit for work that is not hers, I am unable to describe why this is unethical. I have pointed out similar unethical situations to my boss, who justifies herself by saying that it is completely common in academia to use the work of your students/employees in your own research without crediting them. I can understand that in the case of a grant proposal, which is by nature a team effort, it is not necessary to cite every individually who took part in its creation, but to then use that work for personal gain seems a misuse of power. It may be common, but I still feel it is unethical to take credit for someone else's work. Is this truly a misuse of power? Is this unethical? What statements can be made to prove the case?