Blender effect is awesome

This link is to a blender 2.5 video demo of indirect lighting effect and that is impressive.

This video by Lawrence Lessig is about fair use.

OPINION

There is a logical flaw here though. This is the perspective of a lawyer and a person who believes there is a "right" to be enforced. The concept of government is built on a lie. It is a principle of taking from people and then deciding what is right to return to them. The larger the government the more damage it does. I have heard that the big tobacco companies are killing people and I say that this is absurd. Indians developed the concept of smoking without a company to start it. It is not something that companies made happen. Alcohol damages the liver and causes health problems, so does tylenol, antibiotics, ...... Life ends in death. Copyright dependency is not something that companies make happen. they simply cooperate with the process of government, which is to take from people and distribute it to the government. The government wants money and it matters not what the source is, so long as they control it and are paid. Suing people is just another way for the government to pay the people who support them. It is a simple quid pro quo. The lawyers are simply an extension of the government control and the problem is that they have no rights. There is no document that says that government has the right to create a constitution which defines and limits the rights of others. It is without foundation. This is one of those religious things that people will kill you for however.

People get very upset when you challenge ideas that have been planted in their head by induction. The problem with this scam is that it works on almost everybody. When you combine this with religious or genetic fervor, it is an impenetrable cloud of deception. The United States was founded to allow religious freedom and to invade and kill the native population so that Europeans could consume and destroy it.

It may be my perspective since I am part native Indian that I feel this way. It is the concept of ownership that bothers me. It is not really any valid concept at all. It is a statement that a person will find something and after he has seen and fondled it, it becomes theirs for all time. I would guess it is a nesting instinct gone mad and extended to infinity. A disease, like greed where no amount of food will satisfy the hunger and so the locust eats until the world is dead. Since the natives of the Americas had no money, they were poor and could not own their own land, right? The history of man in the last few millennium is conquest and destruction. It is strictly a military occupation and it should not be called anything else. Might makes right is the old dodge.

Systems and nature evolve and I am not one to say that it is right or wrong. The idea of right is a religious one and also centered about ego. Since I do not believe there is such a thing as a singular identity, I find it difficult to extend that concept to say that by physical proximity of objects that they somehow become bound to that entity and assured by some right which extends from god and is thus also absolute.

My opinion is that it is a con, a psychological self justification (impulse) to allow the person to kill whoever they want at any scale to gain whatever they want. Simple greed cloaked in flowery speech. There is no authority that exists which owns anything except that things can be controlled by the act of force. I was using that!, bonk,bonk, you ded.

It is the concept established long ago that I could declare myself king by order of the gods and then kill my way across the world and own it. It is really effective but it is only valid when the scale of warfare is limited to swords and crude weapons. The theory does not extend well and is fraught with implementation detail that makes life hell for all except the conquering worm.

I see it as an evolutionary step however and don't assume things I do not say. Nature is a cruel monster and though this is a cruelty above the norm IMHO, it is the path nature has chosen through hills and the river flows where the land permits. It is likely not the most cruel time of all history and in fact the petty cruelty may not be sufficient to overcome the possible opponents that may arise.

In America and the allies it is said that terrorism is barbaric and insane that people would commit suicide to invade. I see no difference there. It is invasion by force and the fact that it is more barbaric and horrid implies that it might dominate. The American Indians could sit in their camps and say how barbaric the tactics of the invading people were, but in the end they were willing to spread disease, kill women and children, burn their homes, and kill their livestock to commit genocide of the peoples who lived in harmony with nature.

It was decided that all the tribes of the free world should come together at the Little Big Horn and fight the white eyed monster. Oh sorry, I meant the yellow skin terrorist at Iraq.

Nature is cruel and if this were the extent of it, that would be nothing, but the law of averages says that this is only a glimpse of the heart of darkness and I would wager heavily that what leaks from the nightmare world of the unknown will not only enchant and illuminate, but make this seem a bit like a Disney theme park in the final analysis.

I always look to ants as the creatures who in their nature have survived the longest in their form. They have a method which gives them advantage and perhaps it is that they have more brain than brawn.