Sexual intercourse is simulated when it depicts explicit sexual intercourse which gives the appearance of the consummation of sexual intercourse, normal or perverted.
The bold emphasis is mine. That seems awful vague? Why didn't they try to define perverted? Why didn't they just put: "missionary, not enjoyable to either party, no condom, and must result in the production of offspring."
Re:Search is still relevant...
on
The End of Free
·
· Score: 1
While I agree that the individual applications are nicely formatted on the iPhone, I don't really like having to switch between different applications (of course, many sites have mobile versions now as well). If I want to Google some information about a certain film director, for example, I can get to several different sites (Wikipedia, IMDB etc.) all within the browser. I don't have to close the application at all to check some other application. As I said, I think it's really a matter of personal preference. I would have to click the back button or open new windows in the browser to view several different sites. I guess to some people, this would be the equivalent of opening the IMDB app, then closing it, then opening the Wikipedia app etc. Personally, I prefer the browser, but I'm sure some people don't. I find the browser to work faster for these sort of lookups.
Search is still relevant...
on
The End of Free
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
From the article:
Smart phones in general, and the iPad more pointedly, are not driven by search.
I use my iPhone primarily for searching Google -- that's probably what I most use it for. If I'm watching a movie, reading a book, talking to someone, and I want to know some bit of information about the topic, I Google it on my phone and then view the relevant content in the browser. Of course, there is an app for that, but why would I want to install a dozen different applications (IMDB, Wikipedia etc.) when I can Google it and get the results on one page. Google is pretty good at providing what I need. I have no doubt, however, that other people use these individual apps to find the information they need. I guess it's a matter of preference.
Look at this way. Say I owned a beautiful 1967 Corvette and kept it parked in my front yard.
And you, being a Corvette enthusiast, saw my Vette from the street. You stopped and stood on the sidewalk admiring it. You liked it so much you called friends and gave them my address in case they also wanted to drive over for a gander.
There'd be nothing wrong with that. I like my '67 Vette and I keep in the front yard because I like people to see it.
But then, you entered my front yard, climbed into the front seat and drove it away.
I'm absolutely, 100% not OK with that. In fact, I'm calling the police and reporting that you stole my car.
Every jury in the land would convict you.
Yet, when it comes to copyrighted material -- news that my company spends money to gather and constitutes the essence of what we are as a business -- some people think they can not only look at it, but also steal it. And they do. They essentially step into the front yard and drive that content away.
The part in bold is my emphasis. Is he saying that facts, meaning news, can be copyrighted? That if his paper is the first to publish an article about the outcome of a sporting event, that that should be copyrighted? I agree that an article about the game shouldn't be copied verbatim to another site but copyrighting the facts is ridiculous.
Also worth a laugh is the entire analogy of the Corvette and the "news." They are very different. With the Corvette, he would no longer physically have the Corvette. With the news, he has a copy and now the thief has a copy. What has actually been stolen is the possibility that someone might only see that article on his site. It's now available in two places. This is a lot different than the Corvette. I'm not saying it makes copying articles verbatim OK, I just think the analogy is incorrect.
Imagelogr.com is an image & picture search engine. We try to index pretty much every picture & image currently available on the free internet. With our powerful search engine finding these images should be fairly easy. We also offer a few image manipulation tools to stand out from the competition.
Online "games on demand" services are the future. I'm not necessarily a fan of this but that is where everything is heading. It gives the Publishers/Distributors an unprecedented amount of control over the consumer and that is exactly what they want.
So how is this different from the iPhone not allowing any other browsers?
If Microsoft had locked down Windows so that only Microsoft approved applications from the Microsoft app store could run on Windows, then they wouldn't be facing any of this right now (because they would have presumably denied Opera for "similar features" or "feature already available in Windows" etc.)?
I'm not a fan of IE or anything but I still find it a little strange that Microsoft is being required to "promote the competition" in their own product. Perhaps Opera and every browser should be required to have a popup ballot that appears the first time you open the browser telling you about all of the other browsers you could be using. Let's start the insanity...
I've converted a bunch of 1080p BR movies down to 720p at a bitrate of around 5000kbps. I've tested all sorts of different bitrates and I can't notice a difference between 5000kbps and 8000kbps - 9000kbps etc. (other than in a few specific scenes). At 5000kbps, all of the files that I've converted have been between 3.5 GB and 5 GB. I'd say that 7.5 GB will look fine and probably a lot better than DVD. I know all of my rips look much better than any DVD that I've compared them to.
Yet, despite being well-loved and despite having been around longer than the Apple iPod, TiVo comes nowhere close to the iPod/iPhone's success. Apple sells more iPod and iPhone products in a single quarter than TiVo has sold in the entire lifetime of the company.
Why are you even comparing TiVo to the iPod. Why should it come close to the iPod/iPhone's success? They aren't competing products...Are you saying that a product is only successful if it sells the same number of units as an iPod or is as popular as an iPhone?
Imagine a Scrabble iPad game that used iPhones as letter holders. You could hold up your iPhone so that no one else could see your letters and when you were ready to make a word on the Scrabble iPad board, you could slide them on to the board by flicking the word tiles off your iPhone.' Now that would be cool.
Wasn't this in Back to the Future Part 2...along with all the other ridiculous, and pointless, "this is what we will have in the future" crap in that film.
people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once
Uhh...where did you get this information from? Most people I know watch the same movies more than once. All of my friends have a few favorite films that they would easily watch over and over (Office Space, Star Wars, Rocky Horror Picture Show etc.)
Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists. And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases, rather than decreases, their desire to hear it.
Have you heard of film studies? There are numerous journals (Cineaste, Film Comment, Film Quarterly etc.) and books etc. that discuss films in depth and I can definitely argue that "complete knowledge of the contents of a film increases, rather than decreases, the desire to see the film again and again..."
Every blog/news article that I've found about this story links to: http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx
And I can't find anything on that page that mentions C#. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong...
Just a final comment to say that I appreciate your willingness to explain and discuss this -- so many people post things and then never reply if anyone challenges or asks a question. We will have to agree to disagree on this one:D I still think there is an issue here but I don't think it is worth arguing about further (and I have to get back to work lol).
I am a Christian who believes the Bible. I therefore believe that "God created the heavens and the earth."
How does this differ from: "The Bible is the word of God. Because it tells us that God created the heavens and the earth, then God must have had some part in creating the heavens and the earth."
From what you said, I thought you were reasoning along those same lines as my above example statement (which is "begging the question"). Apparently I was mistaken and it is much more complex than that. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm trying to understand your argument.
I am a Christian who believes the Bible. I therefore believe that "God created the heavens and the earth."
I believe this is called begging the question. It's a type of logical fallacy and is not admissible in any intellectually honest debate. Please take a moment to review "begging the question." Google is your friend.
Our universe is so big and so old, that it is a thing that a God would make, not some puny planet but a tree's age old.
Have you confirmed this with a deity somewhere? How exactly do you know that this is what a God would make or are you assuming that this is what your conception of a God would make?
On second thought, I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time replying to this. I've read this 5 times and I still don't understand this sentence:
Maybe he can and he did, a simple set of equations that shape time and space into our universe that yields practically an infinity of variety, and is why we have free will.
Why exactly is free will even mentioned? Is this the age old argument that this is the best of all possible universes and that in order to be the best of all possible universes, it required free will. I won't even get into discussing that one -- it's been discredited by far brighter minds numerous times.
Slashdot Mirror
gaping privacy holes
Why would that phrase ever be used when discussing Chatroulette.
Sexual intercourse is simulated when it depicts explicit sexual intercourse which gives the appearance of the consummation of sexual intercourse, normal or perverted.
The bold emphasis is mine. That seems awful vague? Why didn't they try to define perverted? Why didn't they just put: "missionary, not enjoyable to either party, no condom, and must result in the production of offspring."
While I agree that the individual applications are nicely formatted on the iPhone, I don't really like having to switch between different applications (of course, many sites have mobile versions now as well). If I want to Google some information about a certain film director, for example, I can get to several different sites (Wikipedia, IMDB etc.) all within the browser. I don't have to close the application at all to check some other application. As I said, I think it's really a matter of personal preference. I would have to click the back button or open new windows in the browser to view several different sites. I guess to some people, this would be the equivalent of opening the IMDB app, then closing it, then opening the Wikipedia app etc. Personally, I prefer the browser, but I'm sure some people don't. I find the browser to work faster for these sort of lookups.
Smart phones in general, and the iPad more pointedly, are not driven by search.
I use my iPhone primarily for searching Google -- that's probably what I most use it for. If I'm watching a movie, reading a book, talking to someone, and I want to know some bit of information about the topic, I Google it on my phone and then view the relevant content in the browser. Of course, there is an app for that, but why would I want to install a dozen different applications (IMDB, Wikipedia etc.) when I can Google it and get the results on one page. Google is pretty good at providing what I need. I have no doubt, however, that other people use these individual apps to find the information they need. I guess it's a matter of preference.
Bending over backwards to "accommodate" someone will get you killed in Pakistan. You can only "accommodate" in the missionary position.
Look at this way. Say I owned a beautiful 1967 Corvette and kept it parked in my front yard. And you, being a Corvette enthusiast, saw my Vette from the street. You stopped and stood on the sidewalk admiring it. You liked it so much you called friends and gave them my address in case they also wanted to drive over for a gander. There'd be nothing wrong with that. I like my '67 Vette and I keep in the front yard because I like people to see it. But then, you entered my front yard, climbed into the front seat and drove it away. I'm absolutely, 100% not OK with that. In fact, I'm calling the police and reporting that you stole my car. Every jury in the land would convict you. Yet, when it comes to copyrighted material -- news that my company spends money to gather and constitutes the essence of what we are as a business -- some people think they can not only look at it, but also steal it. And they do. They essentially step into the front yard and drive that content away.
The part in bold is my emphasis. Is he saying that facts, meaning news, can be copyrighted? That if his paper is the first to publish an article about the outcome of a sporting event, that that should be copyrighted? I agree that an article about the game shouldn't be copied verbatim to another site but copyrighting the facts is ridiculous.
Also worth a laugh is the entire analogy of the Corvette and the "news." They are very different. With the Corvette, he would no longer physically have the Corvette. With the news, he has a copy and now the thief has a copy. What has actually been stolen is the possibility that someone might only see that article on his site. It's now available in two places. This is a lot different than the Corvette. I'm not saying it makes copying articles verbatim OK, I just think the analogy is incorrect.
Imagelogr.com is an image & picture search engine. We try to index pretty much every picture & image currently available on the free internet. With our powerful search engine finding these images should be fairly easy. We also offer a few image manipulation tools to stand out from the competition.
From the main page. This is pretty funny.
I guess they will stash a copy of AnyDVD somewhere in the vault as well...
Online "games on demand" services are the future. I'm not necessarily a fan of this but that is where everything is heading. It gives the Publishers/Distributors an unprecedented amount of control over the consumer and that is exactly what they want.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union
"France is a member state of the European Union."
I don't fully understand EU law though so perhaps the individual states wouldn't even have the right to ban this anyway.
So, what are they going to do once every state has a law banning sex offenders from social networks?
Looking for "left mousing" would be more accurate...
So how is this different from the iPhone not allowing any other browsers? If Microsoft had locked down Windows so that only Microsoft approved applications from the Microsoft app store could run on Windows, then they wouldn't be facing any of this right now (because they would have presumably denied Opera for "similar features" or "feature already available in Windows" etc.)?
I'm not a fan of IE or anything but I still find it a little strange that Microsoft is being required to "promote the competition" in their own product. Perhaps Opera and every browser should be required to have a popup ballot that appears the first time you open the browser telling you about all of the other browsers you could be using. Let's start the insanity...
Somehow humanity managed to move beyond Shakespeare, creating new-ish works which we prefer to his
There's only one response for this...WTF? Perhaps you prefer The Da Vinci Code to Shakespeare...but not all of us do :D
I've converted a bunch of 1080p BR movies down to 720p at a bitrate of around 5000kbps. I've tested all sorts of different bitrates and I can't notice a difference between 5000kbps and 8000kbps - 9000kbps etc. (other than in a few specific scenes). At 5000kbps, all of the files that I've converted have been between 3.5 GB and 5 GB. I'd say that 7.5 GB will look fine and probably a lot better than DVD. I know all of my rips look much better than any DVD that I've compared them to.
Yet, despite being well-loved and despite having been around longer than the Apple iPod, TiVo comes nowhere close to the iPod/iPhone's success. Apple sells more iPod and iPhone products in a single quarter than TiVo has sold in the entire lifetime of the company.
Why are you even comparing TiVo to the iPod. Why should it come close to the iPod/iPhone's success? They aren't competing products...Are you saying that a product is only successful if it sells the same number of units as an iPod or is as popular as an iPhone?
Imagine a Scrabble iPad game that used iPhones as letter holders. You could hold up your iPhone so that no one else could see your letters and when you were ready to make a word on the Scrabble iPad board, you could slide them on to the board by flicking the word tiles off your iPhone.' Now that would be cool.
Wasn't this in Back to the Future Part 2...along with all the other ridiculous, and pointless, "this is what we will have in the future" crap in that film.
Most of us on this site have never even seen a girl (other than on some porn site)...I'm not interested in seeing their iPads though...
people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once
Uhh...where did you get this information from? Most people I know watch the same movies more than once. All of my friends have a few favorite films that they would easily watch over and over (Office Space, Star Wars, Rocky Horror Picture Show etc.)
Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists. And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases, rather than decreases, their desire to hear it.
Have you heard of film studies? There are numerous journals (Cineaste, Film Comment, Film Quarterly etc.) and books etc. that discuss films in depth and I can definitely argue that "complete knowledge of the contents of a film increases, rather than decreases, the desire to see the film again and again..."
Every blog/news article that I've found about this story links to: http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx
And I can't find anything on that page that mentions C#. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong...
Just a final comment to say that I appreciate your willingness to explain and discuss this -- so many people post things and then never reply if anyone challenges or asks a question. We will have to agree to disagree on this one :D I still think there is an issue here but I don't think it is worth arguing about further (and I have to get back to work lol).
I am a Christian who believes the Bible. I therefore believe that "God created the heavens and the earth."
How does this differ from: "The Bible is the word of God. Because it tells us that God created the heavens and the earth, then God must have had some part in creating the heavens and the earth."
From what you said, I thought you were reasoning along those same lines as my above example statement (which is "begging the question"). Apparently I was mistaken and it is much more complex than that. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm trying to understand your argument.
I am a Christian who believes the Bible. I therefore believe that "God created the heavens and the earth."
I believe this is called begging the question. It's a type of logical fallacy and is not admissible in any intellectually honest debate. Please take a moment to review "begging the question." Google is your friend.
Our universe is so big and so old, that it is a thing that a God would make, not some puny planet but a tree's age old.
Have you confirmed this with a deity somewhere? How exactly do you know that this is what a God would make or are you assuming that this is what your conception of a God would make?
On second thought, I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time replying to this. I've read this 5 times and I still don't understand this sentence:
Maybe he can and he did, a simple set of equations that shape time and space into our universe that yields practically an infinity of variety, and is why we have free will.
Why exactly is free will even mentioned? Is this the age old argument that this is the best of all possible universes and that in order to be the best of all possible universes, it required free will. I won't even get into discussing that one -- it's been discredited by far brighter minds numerous times.