Given a paragraph about movies, and a set of conversational question answers about the paragraph, generate a relevant question to the topic of the paragraph. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`.

[Q]: CONTEXT: It's simply a way to be able to search the full movie title without them [quite, though I'd check with a lawyer] breaking copyright. As these days most people use internet searches rather than physically browsing disks on a shelf, it gives them better chance of a hit. It's also a way of saving them having to think up anything vaguely clever or amusing. In the old days, they used to have to come up with vaguely similar titles that would be recognisable to their intended audience.. Jurassic Poke Saving Ryan's Privates Flesh Gordon Sex Family Robinson ...I think you get the idea.  <sep>  Q: What is the significance of "This Isn't" in porn parody titles? A: It's simply a way to be able to search the full movie title without them  Q: Is that legal for them to do? A: copyright 
[A]: is there a way to tell the difference between a porn parody and the real movies?


[Q]: CONTEXT: As we see in Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (during the climactic fight between Darth Maul, Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi) and Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (when dozens of Jedi storm the arena where Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker and Padmé Amidala have been sentenced to death), Jedi have no qualms about killing those that are trying to kill them. In fact, we see that Obi-Wan Kenobi is referred to as General Kenobi in Star Wars films set after the events of the Clone Wars, so we can be reasonably sure that there is nothing prohibiting Jedi killing people in battle. However, at the point you are asking about in Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, Count Dooku is an unarmed opponent and poses little to no further threat. The Jedi way would have been to arrest him, not murder him, as Anakin himself correctly says in the quote in the question.  <sep>  Q: In Star Wars, can a Jedi kill? A: Jedi have no qualms about killing those that are trying to kill them 
[A]: Do jedis often kill their opponent?


[Q]: CONTEXT: He had visited the cafe as Harold Finch previously and made the same order with Grace. He then repeated the visit in his Professor Whistler identity and was recognised by the waitress. Samaritan could hear what the waitress said to him as well. Enough was the same for Samaritan to draw a line between the two identities. Bear in mind, in an early episode that Finch mentions how a series of almost totally unrelated facts are linked together by the Machine to determine the perpetrator of a crime. It doesn't take much if you can see and hear everything (and process it quick enough) to spot the connections. Perhaps it wasn't entirely conclusive, but nobody ever said that Samaritan insists on absolute proof before choosing an action. Once that connection was made, Samaritan could have analysed facial markers, his gait while walking, his voice records etc to achieve whatever level of proof it determined necessary to define Harold as a threat and to send its assets after him.  <sep>  Q: How did Finch's cover identity get blown? A: He had visited the cafe as Harold Finch previously and made the same order with Grace. He then repeated the visit in his Professor Whistler identity and was recognised by the waitress 
[A]:
What happened when his identity was blown?