I live in Canada and have an Android phone and a Kindle 3. I would strongly discourage Canadians from buying a Kindle Fire. The reason is Amazon's horrible support for Apps in Canada. The Kindle has had games in the US for years, but none of them are available on the Kindle in Canada. They've also had an Android app store for a long time now with some great exclusives (Plants vs Zombies) and free games... also not available in Canada. I do not trust them to be able to bring a robust app store to the Canadian market. They've shown no capability/interest in doing so up until now. Instead, I plan to install the Kindle app on my Kobo Vox as soon as it arrives.
One word: why? Not mentioning (oops, i just did) the fact that you don't actually need a browser on your phone, but wouldn't this just open another potential hole for security flaws? We all know how browsers are continuously exploited by nasty webmasters. Would you really want to expose your phone to this?
One word: why? Not mentioning (oops, i just did) the fact that you don't actually need a browser on your computer, but wouldn't this just open another potential hole for security flaws? We all know how browsers are continuously exploited by nasty webmasters. Would you really want to expose your computer to this?
I don't know how long it was after Challenger before they launched another shuttle, but, with a crew on the Space Station, a long delay will not be possible this time.
You know, I did the review and everything. It sure looks bad after our civil servants call GW a moron. I'm just following the strong Slashdot tradition of bad spelling.
Are you using a long string and two foam cups to call Australia? I've been making regular calls to Sydney from Candada for the last couple of decades and haven't had an experioence like the one you describe in years.
One feature I've always wanted in a browser was a "View selection" option. No, I don't mean an option to view the selection source. I want to select a part of the page and be able to render only that part of the page. That would greatly help printing only the information that I am interested in.
People aren't spending money to edit their films. They're making money! CleanFlicks is making money by selling bastardized versions of an artist's work without the artist's consent.
If they were making money selling sanitized Mapplethorpe prints or Faulkner literature you would, I hope, rightly be angry about that.
Filmakers can alienate anyone they want to. They're artists. Who are you to decide what Titanic should have been filmed like. If you're upset about the content, go make your own film that people "care to see." Just don't leach off of John Cameron's effort. Although, I seem to recal that Titanic did OK at the box office.
I understand the point most are making about changes being made to movies they purchase. However, I think there's an important distinction between the services discussed.
Sunset Video is simply editing movies that the owners supply to them. While I find the concept revolting, I don't see anything to complain about. It seems like an acceptable after purchase fair use right.
CleanFlicks, on the other hand, is pure evil. They are selling edited versions of another's works. It's wrong on a number of levels.
It's censorship
It's presenting another's work as your own.
If these were books being changed prior to sale without the author's consent we'd be po'd. Imagine sanitized Faulkner, Twain, Steinbeck, Vonnegut, Nabokov, and on, and on...
At what point should we be concerned about changes to movies? Would you mind if CleanFlicks changed all of the Coke product placements to Pepsi ones because Pepsi sponsered their moral crusade?
Can they make jodie Foster's character a fundie instead of the Atheist that she played in Contact?
What if DirtyFlicks came along and digitally removed Pricess Leia's Jaba bikini or added a sex scene between Kirk and Spock in Wrath of Kahn before selling the tapes?
This is the type of issue the MPAA should stick their noses into.
In my Dungeons and Dragons days I had a lead figurine called Enchanter. Don't know who made it, but it was clearly a copy of Tim the Enchanter from the Grail. It was awesome. I had the video on pause for hours while I painted it.
I've never understood why Napster, the company, should be held responsible for the actions of its users. I can buy that users may be doing something illegal on Napster. However, I'm pretty certain there are people trading illegal stuff through the mail. I don't think the postal system has been held responsible for the actions of its users. Why should Napster?
If there were no legitimate uses for Napster than it should probably be closed down. However, that's clearly not the case here.
I remember when "Test Tube Babies" were the enemy
on
Send out the Clones?
·
· Score: 5
I am the lucky father of two beautiful children. I have friends, however, who have not been able to conceive children. If cloning can become another viable alternative for loving individuals to have families, then I am all for it.
I was a kid when the first test tube babies came along and many doomsayers were convinced that we were creating monsters. Many believed we needed laws to stop this research. Well, guess what, we weren't creating monsters, we were creating beautiful children using technology that has become universally acceptable today.
Cloning's not an ego trip or a mad experiment. It's an option, probably the final option, for couples that are not as fortunate as my wife and I have been. I sincerely hope that they will have every opportunity to find the happiness that I have found.
Johnny, hearing all the sirens: It's the phone company. They know what I did here today. Venus: What are you talking about? Johnny: They're coming to get me, man! Venus: That's paranoia, man! Johnny: Wake up, sucker, this is the phone company we're talking about! They see everything, they know everything, they got their own covert police force! I'm probably wired for sound right now! I gotta get out of here! Venus: Johnny! Johnny: Don't use my name!!
I'm trying to understand your actions against the Linux/Open Source community. Are you asking us not to use this device to visit advertiser web sites? You'd prefer that we, hundreds of thousands of net savvy internet users, go to our nearest Radio Shack store, ask for a Cue Cat, take it home, and throw it in the garbage because you, in your finite wisdom, think it is best that we don't use it? Wouldn't that be expensive for you? Would your advertisers appreciate that kind of publicity?
The problem with any of these approaches is that whatever rating system you use, someone needs to make a subjective decision about what words to use and how to rate them. Personally, I think your suggestion that "penis" is a "worse" word than "breast" is hilarious. Where would you put bum, ass, vagina, nipple? In what way can you possible quantify the relative goodness of these words? Where does someone learn that "penis" is a bad word? That frightens me!
Trying to give a positive rating to words to somehow determine the context will be next to impossible. The list would be massive. If almost every word in the English language gets a good rating, (to say nothing about foreign tongues (can I say "tongues" or is it a negative word too?)) they will drown out whatever negative meaning you find on most pages.
You have to stand back and ask yourself if you don't like censoring devices because the technical approach is flawed or because you fundamentally see censorship as a bad thing.
It greatly weakens the argument to say that I'm against censorship because all those blocker programs block breast cancer sites. Be for or against censorship because of what it is!
Whatever you do, don't try to use technology to justify an amoral position. You have to live with your conscience, not us.
Slashdot Mirror
I was always running out of fuel!
I live in Canada and have an Android phone and a Kindle 3. I would strongly discourage Canadians from buying a Kindle Fire. The reason is Amazon's horrible support for Apps in Canada. The Kindle has had games in the US for years, but none of them are available on the Kindle in Canada. They've also had an Android app store for a long time now with some great exclusives (Plants vs Zombies) and free games... also not available in Canada. I do not trust them to be able to bring a robust app store to the Canadian market. They've shown no capability/interest in doing so up until now. Instead, I plan to install the Kindle app on my Kobo Vox as soon as it arrives.
And they haven't lost control... They now have "control" of a dead project. Be careful what you wish for!
Is this how the Matrix starts? How long until the cars realize that live humans offer an unlimited supply of fuel?...
One word: why? Not mentioning (oops, i just did) the fact that you don't actually need a browser on your phone, but wouldn't this just open another potential hole for security flaws? We all know how browsers are continuously exploited by nasty webmasters. Would you really want to expose your phone to this?
One word: why? Not mentioning (oops, i just did) the fact that you don't actually need a browser on your computer , but wouldn't this just open another potential hole for security flaws? We all know how browsers are continuously exploited by nasty webmasters. Would you really want to expose your computer to this?
It quotes the Logan report saying, "the number of system-generated false positives was excessive."
Is a speedy alternative if CNN's main site bogs down
I don't know how long it was after Challenger before they launched another shuttle, but, with a crew on the Space Station, a long delay will not be possible this time.
This is awful...
This isn't a review. It's a Table of Contents! Was the book even read?
You know, I did the review and everything. It sure looks bad after our civil servants call GW a moron. I'm just following the strong Slashdot tradition of bad spelling.
Are you using a long string and two foam cups to call Australia? I've been making regular calls to Sydney from Candada for the last couple of decades and haven't had an experioence like the one you describe in years.
One feature I've always wanted in a browser was a "View selection" option. No, I don't mean an option to view the selection source. I want to select a part of the page and be able to render only that part of the page. That would greatly help printing only the information that I am interested in.
People aren't spending money to edit their films. They're making money! CleanFlicks is making money by selling bastardized versions of an artist's work without the artist's consent.
If they were making money selling sanitized Mapplethorpe prints or Faulkner literature you would, I hope, rightly be angry about that.
Filmakers can alienate anyone they want to. They're artists. Who are you to decide what Titanic should have been filmed like. If you're upset about the content, go make your own film that people "care to see." Just don't leach off of John Cameron's effort. Although, I seem to recal that Titanic did OK at the box office.
They don't have a right to see an E rated version! These aren't rights, they're desires!
It's like saying, "I have a right to read Lolita with a 40 year old Lolita in it. Therefore some publisher must be allowed to sell me that version."
Sunset Video is simply editing movies that the owners supply to them. While I find the concept revolting, I don't see anything to complain about. It seems like an acceptable after purchase fair use right.
CleanFlicks, on the other hand, is pure evil. They are selling edited versions of another's works. It's wrong on a number of levels.
- It's censorship
- It's presenting another's work as your own.
If these were books being changed prior to sale without the author's consent we'd be po'd. Imagine sanitized Faulkner, Twain, Steinbeck, Vonnegut, Nabokov, and on, and on...At what point should we be concerned about changes to movies? Would you mind if CleanFlicks changed all of the Coke product placements to Pepsi ones because Pepsi sponsered their moral crusade?
Can they make jodie Foster's character a fundie instead of the Atheist that she played in Contact?
What if DirtyFlicks came along and digitally removed Pricess Leia's Jaba bikini or added a sex scene between Kirk and Spock in Wrath of Kahn before selling the tapes?
This is the type of issue the MPAA should stick their noses into.
In my Dungeons and Dragons days I had a lead figurine called Enchanter. Don't know who made it, but it was clearly a copy of Tim the Enchanter from the Grail. It was awesome. I had the video on pause for hours while I painted it.
If there were no legitimate uses for Napster than it should probably be closed down. However, that's clearly not the case here.
I was a kid when the first test tube babies came along and many doomsayers were convinced that we were creating monsters. Many believed we needed laws to stop this research. Well, guess what, we weren't creating monsters, we were creating beautiful children using technology that has become universally acceptable today.
Cloning's not an ego trip or a mad experiment. It's an option, probably the final option, for couples that are not as fortunate as my wife and I have been. I sincerely hope that they will have every opportunity to find the happiness that I have found.
Johnny, hearing all the sirens: It's the phone company. They know what I did here today.
Venus: What are you talking about?
Johnny: They're coming to get me, man!
Venus: That's paranoia, man!
Johnny: Wake up, sucker, this is the phone company we're talking about! They see everything, they know everything, they got their own covert police force! I'm probably wired for
sound right now! I gotta get out of here!
Venus: Johnny!
Johnny: Don't use my name!!
I'm trying to understand your actions against the Linux/Open Source community. Are you asking us not to use this device to visit advertiser web sites? You'd prefer that we, hundreds of thousands of net savvy internet users, go to our nearest Radio Shack store, ask for a Cue Cat, take it home, and throw it in the garbage because you, in your finite wisdom, think it is best that we don't use it? Wouldn't that be expensive for you? Would your advertisers appreciate that kind of publicity?
Be careful what you ask for!
Thanks,
The problem with any of these approaches is that whatever rating system you use, someone needs to make a subjective decision about what words to use and how to rate them. Personally, I think your suggestion that "penis" is a "worse" word than "breast" is hilarious. Where would you put bum, ass, vagina, nipple? In what way can you possible quantify the relative goodness of these words? Where does someone learn that "penis" is a bad word? That frightens me! Trying to give a positive rating to words to somehow determine the context will be next to impossible. The list would be massive. If almost every word in the English language gets a good rating, (to say nothing about foreign tongues (can I say "tongues" or is it a negative word too?)) they will drown out whatever negative meaning you find on most pages. You have to stand back and ask yourself if you don't like censoring devices because the technical approach is flawed or because you fundamentally see censorship as a bad thing. It greatly weakens the argument to say that I'm against censorship because all those blocker programs block breast cancer sites. Be for or against censorship because of what it is! Whatever you do, don't try to use technology to justify an amoral position. You have to live with your conscience, not us.