I think it’s plausible right now. We have brain-computer interfaces under active research (for things like stroke recovery or limb-loss patients).

At the same time, neuroscience researchers have been able to switch off parts of the brain temporarily to study things like how the Wernicke area affects our use of language.

You could probably combine the two for something that fits the bill.

That being said, what I’m envisioning is more along the lines of “strap the victim into a chair and hook them up to a lot of fancy equipment for a reprogramming session” than “point a remote at the victim and press a button”.

Still, it’s pretty spooky to think about.

That sounds backwards to me. If companies are paying all the taxes, why would you insert a second company into the chain? Then both companies would be paying a tax portion, and your salary would be that much less than if you just had a job.

Or were you thinking that you could bamboozle the government out of the tax revenue by saying “Oops, no profit! Salaries cost too much!”? I don’t think that would work unless the entire structure was built with one directive in mind: “Reward Hollywood accounting”

The price is the price, yo

I also think a collage of bumper stickers looks tacky. I wouldn’t condemn it in such strong terms as you used, however.

Yeah, that’s true. Writing alone isn’t enough for a good movie – I’m really just saying that it’s the most important element for me.

To me, not very important. Quality of writing ranks higher for me.

I don’t think a different voice can fix a bad movie. That being said, I can’t think of any actors whose voices I can’t stand.

OTOH, Brotherhood of the Wolf does come to mind here. It’s a French movie; I’ve watched both with subtitles and dubbed. The voice actor for the English dub doesn’t quite fit the character.

his gun

Is that a fact? Are you sure? Will you recant if it comes out that the police did, in fact, plant it?

Nitpick the lawyer’s phrasing all you like; it won’t actually change any of the facts of the case, whatever they may be. Myself, I’m not going to jump to “why bother having a trial? The police arrested him; he’s clearly guilty as sin” based on a Lemmy comment!

Almost like the lawyer thinks “they didn’t follow procedure” is an easier legal argument than “the police dept is trying to frame my client”.