Why can't they be nice? Two reasons. The first, simply put: it doesn't work to be nice. Shocking as it is, a lot of the people abusing trademarks, copyrights, and licensed software are doing so with the full knowledge that they're breaking the law and, moreover, they're not going to take you serious until you cram a cease and desist down their throats. Believe you me, I've tried being nice in these cases. Most recently, in the case of Mudgik: The Gathering of Heroes, which is quite obviously a CircleMUD derivative, but goes about merrily breaking the license regardless. I tried contacting the administrators of the MUD itself in a very friendly manner, asking that they come into compliance with the license (which, for those that are actually reading and wondering, is NOT a "free software" license -- it's free as in beer, not as in speech). I did this, as with any official CircleMUD business, from my circlemud.org e-mail account. I also logged into the MUD from circlemud.org to try to hunt down one of the administrators. What do I get? No response from the administrators to my e-mails, no response from the administrator of their site (admittedly, he's only had 2 days to respond thus far), and circlemud.org is banned from the MUD. Whole lot of good being nice did me. Now the situation is still unresolved and I'm embittered.
The second reason is that being nice simply doesn't suffice. There's two aspects to defending a trademark: defending it whenever there's an abuse of it and defending it loudly. The first aspect is necessary for trademarks which have to, unlike a patent and copyright (I think?!), be defended or otherwise they're considered invalid. Arbitrary defense of a trademark doesn't work. The second is to deter others from abusing the trademark -- after all, you have to pay your pack of lawyers for their services, but as long as you're willing to use them, you might as well make the fact very well known. That way Joe Blow from Indiana thinks twice about abusing your trademark.
A year apart, if I'm not dreaming. The movie was shot in Fiji, too (again, if I'm not dreaming). As far as Tom's diet: the pudge on him at the beginning was also for the movie. He's ordinarily a bit between the two extremes, there. The pudge was added because he was supposed to be the every-man, not the well-built hero nor the extremely unlikely, 900 pound hero. They probably shot the end before he gained that weight or during the weight loss, but I don't know for certain; it's hard to tell when he's no longer wearing a loin-cloth (but the fact that he was now fully clothed had its own rewards, such as no longer having to see Tom Hanks not fully clothed). Anyway, yeah, he took about a year to lose the "artificial weight" he had gained for the role to begin with, and then worked-out like mad. So it's not an amazing diet after all: it's the good ol' way of getting things done in the absence of a magic pill. That is, by simply doing them.
I remember reading an interview with one of the editor/author who admitted to her efforts to make women appear strong in these stories.
Admitted? Geez, man. Not to challenge any world-views, but it's not like she's committed some crime or done something terrible. She's presented three-dimensional characters. Is it morally or factually wrong to portray women as strong? No. This isn't a distortion of reality or the plotline, only of how you think. And that, dear boy, is a good thing. People challenging your preconceptions is positive. Sometimes you realize you weren't all that smart to begin with. Women are people, just like men, and are capable of strength and weakness, just like men. You see weak women in countries where women are considered inferior and weak. It's a cultural thing, enforced by the environment in which they're raised. It has nothing to do with biology, spirit, or, even, reality. Culture is the mutual fantasy of a sect. It's great, it gives life flavor, but sometimes it's wrong and harmful. Here's hoping that sometime in the future you can look back at you saying the comic having strong women characters is a distortion and see that you weren't quite in tune with reality, yet.
I agree, at least in part, with the fact that the movie falls a little short. On the other hand, the movie had a definite nostalgiac charm, was quite funny, and featured a little bit of insight here and there. But I suspect that a lot of people are looking for something that was never there for the movie to disclose. It seems all the more likely that Andy Kaufman was so enthralled and snared by his own persona that no-one BUT him knew what was real, what was fake, and what was inbetween.
Um, he's talking about compression artifacts, not film scratches,...
Um, no, he isn't:
There were also some specks that appeared that *looked* like film specks. The intro TI had at the beginning of the movie said that it was pure digital, but perhaps some scenes were done on film?
He's probably thinking about UDMA drives; UDMA mode 4 does indeed claim 66.7MB/s. Just to clarify, UDMA drives are not EIDE. Also, the 66MB/s is a burst transfer rate, and really not terribly relevant to the performance you'll actually see, which will be significantly less (i.e., less than 50% of that). Nothing to quote at you, but running hdparm Tt/dev/hda might be revealing. hdparm 3.5 comes with Slackware 7.0.
No-one in their right mind is criticizing Apple for wanting to make money; however, restricting the free flow of information by licensing a codec and prohibiting it to be licensed by others is reprehensible. This is an unnecessary step for Apple to take to make money and it smacks very much of an attempt to eliminate potential competitors. We all know why this is bad and wrong.
Apple has supported mklinux in the past,...
Fucking Mac/Linux addicts. This is not about Apple hating Linux, Apple hating Windows, Steve Jobs loving Disney, you loving Apple, whatever. It has NOTHING to do with Linux at all. It has everything to do with forcing a codec into a proprietary standard to prevent competition, rather than just competing better.
Where does it come from? Linux users.
Right. Everyone picks on Apple users; everyone hates Apple; no-one's fair to Apple; Slashdot is so Linux-biased; yadda, yadda, yadda. This isn't a personal issue, it has nothing to do with you as an Apple user. It has nothing to do with your imaginary matyrdom. Apple is just as subject to criticism when they take delibrate steps to prevent the Open Source community as everyone else, just as they should be.
I also think you should expand a little on that part about it being...
Then at the very least they can reimburse the guy the money he paid for the domain name transfer, if not purchase the domain for him. As it is, they deny any liability, but fail to lock the records during the transfer. I'm not even certain of why they left a five day lag. And then to say, "Well, really, we'd like to help and it really sucks, but we can't, 'cuz this guy isn't one of our customers -- he was going to be, but he isn't," is just downright onerous and contemptuous. It's indicative a flaw in how NSI conducts its business that the domain was ever open for outside registration. NSI failed to have proper supports in to protect those transferring domain names and it'd set a really poor precedent to say, "Oh well, oh hell."
Think about it: if NSI has no blame, then there's no good solution to this. Register.com can't boot its customer - the domain was open for registration, that NSI had plans for it is irrelevant, since NSI didn't make that situation apparent until after Register.com was already in contract; the guy who originally held races.com and transferred it shouldn't have to pay back anything - he's out a domain name, already; and McLanahan shouldn't have to spend $500,000 to buy a domain that should be his or have to pay money for a different domain that he didn't want to begin with. NSI bungled the transfer process by failing to lock the domain name when it'd be highly trivial to do so. That constitutes liability in my mind.
Not that I'm one to speak about religion, especially Christianity, or God, but isn't this the very image of God that Christianity and the Bible go to such lengths to portray? Not the all-forgiving, all-loving embodiement, but the vengeful, taunting God, who would hang temptation in the face of man and then spite him for taking it? The same sort of God who would, according to the Book of Job, allow Satan to torment his most upright follower over a bet? A bet by which Job lost his wife, his house, his land, his children, his stock, etc.
Again, theology isn't my forté nor of any particular interest to me, but I'm almost certain that part of the success of Christianity (and, by association, Judaism) is in this portrayal. It stifles the inquiries of, "Why would God make sex with strangers feel so good if he didn't want people to do it?" From this I imagine a Christian God something along the lines of a mother, who tells her child not to do something, where upon the child asks, "Why not?" To which the mother always replies, "Because I said so."
I can't imagine that the events, as reported, happened. Not to imply that the Anonymous Coward was fibbing, but I'm 99.98% certain this isn't exactly what happened. If his mother-in-law was sued and lost, and I have no real reason to doubt the veracity of that, it's likely that there's something more to the story that was (unintentionally) omitted. There is absolutely no way that a court would rule against a defendant in a civil case given (i) the oncoming train indicator was broken; (ii) the car, as purchased, was equipped with the "dangerous" brake system -- if the state permits the sale of such cars without mandating visible, detailed warning information, there is no way to establish she knew the brake system was "unsafe"; (iii) the road conditions near the track were substandard and inteferred with the proper braking of the car. In the US, a more likely result of this situation would be the woman suing the state for the bad road conditions, the train company for the broken indicator, and anyone else within a 5 mile vicinity.
Nobody called it "new" or "ground-breaking" -- but I dispute that having your e-mail address in the hands of spammers is "already as bad as it gets." In this situation, that's not true -- the program accepting the cookie offers up all sorts of correlative information to advertisers, and even without spam being sent in the first place. For instance, if you're on some company's e-mail support mailing list, they can set the cookie on you that way. That cookie offers potential such as relating multiple e-mail addresses accessed by the same program; or tracking your surfing via banner ads, etc. Admittedly, it isn't such a big deal for some of the more security inclined -- I don't use HTML mail, I only rarely accept cookies while browsing, etc., and so it's really a nonfactor for me. However, most of these security warnings are really targeted towards the mainstream audience, dumbed down by Microsoft's passive security tacitly encouraged for users. This is a concern for them, and maybe for a portion of the Slashdot crowd, and certainly in a field that most mainstream security warnings have long overlooked.
Note that it isn't such a big issue: backs are standard issue equipment with humans. So I assume that you have one, unless, of course, you've thrown it out?
I disagree with the general assessment of The Matrix as leaving any ideas in the general audience that are fathomable. The problem is that it takes this "VR exploitation" as its central premise, but doesn't really go anywhere with it. I.e., the world you know is fake, the real world has been taken over, so now we need to fight a lot. There's too many holes in the plot to really cause any deep thought about the issues. The smarter people, the ones capable of discerning depth, are caught up in inconsistencies and silliness. Reeves, while he did a decent job at acting the part, is annoying. "Woah," "I know Kung Fu," and, "You mean I can dodge bullets?" are just some of the mind-blowingly stupid lines littered throughout the movie. Those whom are less capable of deep-thought think about it, but not in any way that's useful or good. "Man, what if that shit was true in real life?"
Heh, yeah, that'd be cool 'cuz then we could do ka-ra-tii and shit.
Please. The Matrix was an ENTERTAINING movie, but it was little more than that. The central premise, as with most action movies, is an EXCUSE for the action that follows. The movie doesn't attempt to elaborate on the grand scheme of things, it doesn't take Neo into any situations that require more thought than, "Should I save him or should I go?" The movie attempts depth in some places, and it sometimes even exceeds in propagating the illusion of depth, such as with the Oracle, who makes it evident that there's more to the world(s) than we see. These ideas, however, aren't explained and, in most cases, aren't much more than a smarter segue between action sequences than most action movies manage.
I like The Matrix. It's a good movie. It's certainly not as bad as I had thought it was going to be, and through pure octane it kept me captive to the anti-charm of Reeves. This was the saving grace of Speed, as well. As it is, though, The Matrix is a movie with a deep premise that doesn't go anywhere with it. On the level of action movies, it's one of the best. On the level of intellectual movies, well, it doesn't hit the charts.
So what? Why should people keep this in mind? Why does it matter? It was the Representatives of the People of the State of California who mandated MTBE -- and then it was the People, who through outrage and protest, had the Representatives reverse that decision. Why should the People be stuck with this mistake? Because it was made to begin with? No, it should NOT be kept in mind, as it's not important who made the mistake, it's important that it be rectified as quickly and efficiently as possible. Having possible barriers between the resolution of such problems, for whatever reason, is UNACCEPTABLE and the only issue in this thread.
Shows what you know. Intel already admitted to the Intergalatic Department of Justice (it's iDOJ -- you can choose your flavor) that it has a monopoly and is guilty of using questionable business tactics to drive out such competitors as Zxdxntf of Kablax-2, or Gfrndl of Rumifgh. In fact, Intel even admitted in a leaked memo that it stole the name "Itanium" from Ddenddendden of Qwattle.
Or maybe I made that up? Ha! I sure had you going...
On the other hand, not knowing the interface by which you are coding and how strictly it has been followed (and, in addition, what things outside of the defined interface companies have found and used) makes writing an emulator for proprietary systems an incredibly clever and non-trivial bit of work. I'm pretty sure Nintendo didn't force 3rd party software developers to conform exactly to whatever interface it decided is standard. Indeed, much can be gained from using these things in a previously unthought of manner. This means that even after reverse engineering the NES to fetch the specs and emulate its hardware, you also have to start working on its idiosyncrasies and peculiarities in interacting with the game ROMs. In retrospect, it's an easy process. When you're working blindly for the first time, it's touch-go-fail-retry until you can manage to hack together something that even begins to work vaguely like the intended platform.
Au contraire, I don't have to obtain a license, find a new position, or do it outside. Your patent pertains to sex (in the given positions) in, "a participant's own abode." This means that I can have sex in my neighbor's house so long as it is not with my neighbors. In fact, they can even know I'm doing it and watch -- they just can't participate. And, really, that means only a change of locale for me.
To be frank (as long as I'm being the Devil's Advocate), I find your argument coming from people who have bought into the elitist bullshit that passes for art these days. Anyway, you obviously struggled for an analogy, and missed out hugely. There's a huge difference between objective, meaningful criteria (i.e., reasons to choose Linux over Windows) and a single, arbitrary criterion (i.e., it's an Atrios). I'll give you that I'm not an art critic, I don't spend my time going to art exhibits. But I can tell you if something I see is art in my eyes. Scribbles and doodles, in the majority of situations, fall well outside that sphere. And then who are you to say that I don't get it? That I don't spend time enough around this sort of "art" and therefore I don't understand and therefore am not qualified to judge it? I long for the days when art wasn't plagued by elitism, pseudo-intellectualism, and this general distaste for the "great unwashed masses."
FWIW, I certainly didn't make the art metaphor to begin with. The point I was attempting to make, which isn't necessarily my viewpoint, is simply that when someone says, 'My kid could draw that,' it's not about art but practicality and money. That is, it might be art, I might like it, but I certainly won't purchase it for some obscene fee just because a professional artist did it. And, indeed, the very fact that it's being touted as something deserving of such fees makes me all that much more jaded and uninterested.
Slashdot Mirror
The second reason is that being nice simply doesn't suffice. There's two aspects to defending a trademark: defending it whenever there's an abuse of it and defending it loudly. The first aspect is necessary for trademarks which have to, unlike a patent and copyright (I think?!), be defended or otherwise they're considered invalid. Arbitrary defense of a trademark doesn't work. The second is to deter others from abusing the trademark -- after all, you have to pay your pack of lawyers for their services, but as long as you're willing to use them, you might as well make the fact very well known. That way Joe Blow from Indiana thinks twice about abusing your trademark.
A year apart, if I'm not dreaming. The movie was shot in Fiji, too (again, if I'm not dreaming). As far as Tom's diet: the pudge on him at the beginning was also for the movie. He's ordinarily a bit between the two extremes, there. The pudge was added because he was supposed to be the every-man, not the well-built hero nor the extremely unlikely, 900 pound hero. They probably shot the end before he gained that weight or during the weight loss, but I don't know for certain; it's hard to tell when he's no longer wearing a loin-cloth (but the fact that he was now fully clothed had its own rewards, such as no longer having to see Tom Hanks not fully clothed). Anyway, yeah, he took about a year to lose the "artificial weight" he had gained for the role to begin with, and then worked-out like mad. So it's not an amazing diet after all: it's the good ol' way of getting things done in the absence of a magic pill. That is, by simply doing them.
Admitted? Geez, man. Not to challenge any world-views, but it's not like she's committed some crime or done something terrible. She's presented three-dimensional characters. Is it morally or factually wrong to portray women as strong? No. This isn't a distortion of reality or the plotline, only of how you think. And that, dear boy, is a good thing. People challenging your preconceptions is positive. Sometimes you realize you weren't all that smart to begin with. Women are people, just like men, and are capable of strength and weakness, just like men. You see weak women in countries where women are considered inferior and weak. It's a cultural thing, enforced by the environment in which they're raised. It has nothing to do with biology, spirit, or, even, reality. Culture is the mutual fantasy of a sect. It's great, it gives life flavor, but sometimes it's wrong and harmful. Here's hoping that sometime in the future you can look back at you saying the comic having strong women characters is a distortion and see that you weren't quite in tune with reality, yet.
Okay. Kidding. I watched it all the way through. But...
Bush was elected?!
That's okay; he wasn't a comedian, after all, but an entertainer.
I agree, at least in part, with the fact that the movie falls a little short. On the other hand, the movie had a definite nostalgiac charm, was quite funny, and featured a little bit of insight here and there. But I suspect that a lot of people are looking for something that was never there for the movie to disclose. It seems all the more likely that Andy Kaufman was so enthralled and snared by his own persona that no-one BUT him knew what was real, what was fake, and what was inbetween.
posted without shame
Where did the NYPD shove it today?
Um, no, he isn't:
This is unrelated to the compression artifacts.
He's probably thinking about UDMA drives; UDMA mode 4 does indeed claim 66.7MB/s. Just to clarify, UDMA drives are not EIDE. Also, the 66MB/s is a burst transfer rate, and really not terribly relevant to the performance you'll actually see, which will be significantly less (i.e., less than 50% of that). Nothing to quote at you, but running hdparm Tt /dev/hda might be revealing. hdparm 3.5 comes with Slackware 7.0.
No-one in their right mind is criticizing Apple for wanting to make money; however, restricting the free flow of information by licensing a codec and prohibiting it to be licensed by others is reprehensible. This is an unnecessary step for Apple to take to make money and it smacks very much of an attempt to eliminate potential competitors. We all know why this is bad and wrong.
Apple has supported mklinux in the past,...
Fucking Mac/Linux addicts. This is not about Apple hating Linux, Apple hating Windows, Steve Jobs loving Disney, you loving Apple, whatever. It has NOTHING to do with Linux at all. It has everything to do with forcing a codec into a proprietary standard to prevent competition, rather than just competing better.
Where does it come from? Linux users.
Right. Everyone picks on Apple users; everyone hates Apple; no-one's fair to Apple; Slashdot is so Linux-biased; yadda, yadda, yadda. This isn't a personal issue, it has nothing to do with you as an Apple user. It has nothing to do with your imaginary matyrdom. Apple is just as subject to criticism when they take delibrate steps to prevent the Open Source community as everyone else, just as they should be.
I also think you should expand a little on that part about it being...
Well, it sho' did work for Beta, didn't it?
Think about it: if NSI has no blame, then there's no good solution to this. Register.com can't boot its customer - the domain was open for registration, that NSI had plans for it is irrelevant, since NSI didn't make that situation apparent until after Register.com was already in contract; the guy who originally held races.com and transferred it shouldn't have to pay back anything - he's out a domain name, already; and McLanahan shouldn't have to spend $500,000 to buy a domain that should be his or have to pay money for a different domain that he didn't want to begin with. NSI bungled the transfer process by failing to lock the domain name when it'd be highly trivial to do so. That constitutes liability in my mind.
Not that I'm one to speak about religion, especially Christianity, or God, but isn't this the very image of God that Christianity and the Bible go to such lengths to portray? Not the all-forgiving, all-loving embodiement, but the vengeful, taunting God, who would hang temptation in the face of man and then spite him for taking it? The same sort of God who would, according to the Book of Job, allow Satan to torment his most upright follower over a bet? A bet by which Job lost his wife, his house, his land, his children, his stock, etc.
Again, theology isn't my forté nor of any particular interest to me, but I'm almost certain that part of the success of Christianity (and, by association, Judaism) is in this portrayal. It stifles the inquiries of, "Why would God make sex with strangers feel so good if he didn't want people to do it?" From this I imagine a Christian God something along the lines of a mother, who tells her child not to do something, where upon the child asks, "Why not?" To which the mother always replies, "Because I said so."
I can't imagine that the events, as reported, happened. Not to imply that the Anonymous Coward was fibbing, but I'm 99.98% certain this isn't exactly what happened. If his mother-in-law was sued and lost, and I have no real reason to doubt the veracity of that, it's likely that there's something more to the story that was (unintentionally) omitted. There is absolutely no way that a court would rule against a defendant in a civil case given (i) the oncoming train indicator was broken; (ii) the car, as purchased, was equipped with the "dangerous" brake system -- if the state permits the sale of such cars without mandating visible, detailed warning information, there is no way to establish she knew the brake system was "unsafe"; (iii) the road conditions near the track were substandard and inteferred with the proper braking of the car. In the US, a more likely result of this situation would be the woman suing the state for the bad road conditions, the train company for the broken indicator, and anyone else within a 5 mile vicinity.
Nobody called it "new" or "ground-breaking" -- but I dispute that having your e-mail address in the hands of spammers is "already as bad as it gets." In this situation, that's not true -- the program accepting the cookie offers up all sorts of correlative information to advertisers, and even without spam being sent in the first place. For instance, if you're on some company's e-mail support mailing list, they can set the cookie on you that way. That cookie offers potential such as relating multiple e-mail addresses accessed by the same program; or tracking your surfing via banner ads, etc. Admittedly, it isn't such a big deal for some of the more security inclined -- I don't use HTML mail, I only rarely accept cookies while browsing, etc., and so it's really a nonfactor for me. However, most of these security warnings are really targeted towards the mainstream audience, dumbed down by Microsoft's passive security tacitly encouraged for users. This is a concern for them, and maybe for a portion of the Slashdot crowd, and certainly in a field that most mainstream security warnings have long overlooked.
Note that it isn't such a big issue: backs are standard issue equipment with humans. So I assume that you have one, unless, of course, you've thrown it out?
Whacka, whacka, whacka...
Err...mothers are teaching their daughters how to fake orgasms, now? I've got to get in on this...
I disagree with the general assessment of The Matrix as leaving any ideas in the general audience that are fathomable. The problem is that it takes this "VR exploitation" as its central premise, but doesn't really go anywhere with it. I.e., the world you know is fake, the real world has been taken over, so now we need to fight a lot. There's too many holes in the plot to really cause any deep thought about the issues. The smarter people, the ones capable of discerning depth, are caught up in inconsistencies and silliness. Reeves, while he did a decent job at acting the part, is annoying. "Woah," "I know Kung Fu," and, "You mean I can dodge bullets?" are just some of the mind-blowingly stupid lines littered throughout the movie. Those whom are less capable of deep-thought think about it, but not in any way that's useful or good. "Man, what if that shit was true in real life?"
Heh, yeah, that'd be cool 'cuz then we could do ka-ra-tii and shit.Please. The Matrix was an ENTERTAINING movie, but it was little more than that. The central premise, as with most action movies, is an EXCUSE for the action that follows. The movie doesn't attempt to elaborate on the grand scheme of things, it doesn't take Neo into any situations that require more thought than, "Should I save him or should I go?" The movie attempts depth in some places, and it sometimes even exceeds in propagating the illusion of depth, such as with the Oracle, who makes it evident that there's more to the world(s) than we see. These ideas, however, aren't explained and, in most cases, aren't much more than a smarter segue between action sequences than most action movies manage.
I like The Matrix. It's a good movie. It's certainly not as bad as I had thought it was going to be, and through pure octane it kept me captive to the anti-charm of Reeves. This was the saving grace of Speed, as well. As it is, though, The Matrix is a movie with a deep premise that doesn't go anywhere with it. On the level of action movies, it's one of the best. On the level of intellectual movies, well, it doesn't hit the charts.
So what? Why should people keep this in mind? Why does it matter? It was the Representatives of the People of the State of California who mandated MTBE -- and then it was the People, who through outrage and protest, had the Representatives reverse that decision. Why should the People be stuck with this mistake? Because it was made to begin with? No, it should NOT be kept in mind, as it's not important who made the mistake, it's important that it be rectified as quickly and efficiently as possible. Having possible barriers between the resolution of such problems, for whatever reason, is UNACCEPTABLE and the only issue in this thread.
Shows what you know. Intel already admitted to the Intergalatic Department of Justice (it's iDOJ -- you can choose your flavor) that it has a monopoly and is guilty of using questionable business tactics to drive out such competitors as Zxdxntf of Kablax-2, or Gfrndl of Rumifgh. In fact, Intel even admitted in a leaked memo that it stole the name "Itanium" from Ddenddendden of Qwattle.
Or maybe I made that up? Ha! I sure had you going...
On the other hand, not knowing the interface by which you are coding and how strictly it has been followed (and, in addition, what things outside of the defined interface companies have found and used) makes writing an emulator for proprietary systems an incredibly clever and non-trivial bit of work. I'm pretty sure Nintendo didn't force 3rd party software developers to conform exactly to whatever interface it decided is standard. Indeed, much can be gained from using these things in a previously unthought of manner. This means that even after reverse engineering the NES to fetch the specs and emulate its hardware, you also have to start working on its idiosyncrasies and peculiarities in interacting with the game ROMs. In retrospect, it's an easy process. When you're working blindly for the first time, it's touch-go-fail-retry until you can manage to hack together something that even begins to work vaguely like the intended platform.
You have no idea how many people named Jesus are out there committing crimes right now... But probably none the NSA would be interested in.
That depends. How good of a shot are you?
Anyway, I'll be playing Q3A around the clock for the next few months. That should warp my brain enough that I come up with a "reasonable" estimate.
Au contraire, I don't have to obtain a license, find a new position, or do it outside. Your patent pertains to sex (in the given positions) in, "a participant's own abode." This means that I can have sex in my neighbor's house so long as it is not with my neighbors. In fact, they can even know I'm doing it and watch -- they just can't participate. And, really, that means only a change of locale for me.
Err...just don't tell her that.
To be frank (as long as I'm being the Devil's Advocate), I find your argument coming from people who have bought into the elitist bullshit that passes for art these days. Anyway, you obviously struggled for an analogy, and missed out hugely. There's a huge difference between objective, meaningful criteria (i.e., reasons to choose Linux over Windows) and a single, arbitrary criterion (i.e., it's an Atrios). I'll give you that I'm not an art critic, I don't spend my time going to art exhibits. But I can tell you if something I see is art in my eyes. Scribbles and doodles, in the majority of situations, fall well outside that sphere. And then who are you to say that I don't get it? That I don't spend time enough around this sort of "art" and therefore I don't understand and therefore am not qualified to judge it? I long for the days when art wasn't plagued by elitism, pseudo-intellectualism, and this general distaste for the "great unwashed masses."
FWIW, I certainly didn't make the art metaphor to begin with. The point I was attempting to make, which isn't necessarily my viewpoint, is simply that when someone says, 'My kid could draw that,' it's not about art but practicality and money. That is, it might be art, I might like it, but I certainly won't purchase it for some obscene fee just because a professional artist did it. And, indeed, the very fact that it's being touted as something deserving of such fees makes me all that much more jaded and uninterested.