Where do you live? I'd be curious to know if your location has any kind of requirement like we do to caption public TV. It's implemented such that you don't see it if you don't want to so it-s a win-win for everyone. I know that I once saw a Macgyver episode in Greece, open-subtitled in Greek, that I couldn't watch because I can't read Greek and I need captions... very frustrating! The only reason I could follow the story at all was because I had seen the episode before.
Why should ebay be responsible when they are not the ones who write the descriptions, are not directly selling the items, and never claimed to research the provenance?
It's a legit reason to not trust ebay, but blaming them for not doing something they never claimed to do is silly.
The end result is the same however and it's the creator's job to ensure that captions are put in. The distributor's job is just to get the finished product to the end customer. I think the actual implementation of the rule (and thank you for the link - I had forgotten that the rollover for 75% of captioning being required is next week) winds up being that distributors will refuse to air shows that don't have captioning, so that they can meet the requirement, so producers are forced to put the captions in if they want their programming to be seen by the public.
Those are live-caption shows where a stenography machine was used. Those work on phonetics which is why you see strange errors like the last one you listed. "Universe" is a less common word than the two that replaced it so the software defaulted to the strange error -- it's a computer, so it doesn't know any better. The operator can override the mistake on the fly, so perhaps you may have seen it corrected later on in the broadcast.
These sorts of things are less likely to happen if the operator has time to prepare and knows whether any unusual terminology will be used as part of the broadcast.
Another sign of live captions is that they scroll slowly across the screen word by word rather than appear all at once, and sometimes new paragraphs begin with a >>> mark.
I prefer the pre-written sort because the scrolling and errors drive me crazy but live captions are better than none.
On the other hand, consider the fact that it's normal for clothes to acquire wear as time goes on, so I don't think it would be necessary to replace the prop after every X takes. More likely, the prop actually used has small tool marks or other small variances that don't show up on camera, or could be slightly bent, or whatever, or might have an inventory tag in a spot where it can't be seen (maybe where it fits over the ear).
I think it's a plausible scenario but to know for sure if it's true or not you'd have to ask the actor.
I had no reason to doubt the actor's story as the show ended production some years ago (after a seven-year run which was pretty impressive). Some productions do allow actors to have some props when they won't be needed anymore, while selling others at auction. I think your middle paragraph is most likely, but the auction house should have clearly disclosed that the prop was a backup in the auction catalog. Still authentic but not the one that was used in front of the camera, and it sounds from the story like the auction catalog indicated that the prop sold was the one used on stage.
If someone is going to do something that doesn't accomodate the disabled, and I've ALREADY SAID that I know the technology exists, but I also said that it never gets used, don't tell me where I can and can't talk about it. The fact that I'm talking about it here doesn't mean I might not have brought up the topic elsewhere. Ignoring the disabled is a SERIOUS issue.
I also don't care if you don't think my argument has any credibility to it. I'd love to see you laugh off the problem of disability access to those of us who depend on the ADA and other similar laws including the TDCA to get the basic services we need to do the same things that "normal" people enjoy.
If you think my argument is bullshit, rebut it with actual information such as a plan to ensure that these internet-distributed shows will indeed actually carry subtitles.
Good luck - I hope whatever they're doing works. Unfortunately my problem is dead nerve cells in my cochlea caused by prenatal rubella (not listening to an ipod too loud or anything) and is going to require stem cell therapy to fix and the research is still ongoing (I know; some of it is going on at the medical school where I work).
Unfortunately, I have no faith in crowdsourcing -- if you want it done in a timely fashion (the appeal of episodic TV is gone if you miss a show and can't see it before the next one runs. YOu've missed the story, you can't follow the plot. It has to be done on the spot.
Live captioning is still done using modified stenography machines. You still need a typist to do it. Voice recognition isn't god enough yet.
No, this has to be done at the source. Just like for TV and movies.
That's my opinion too. Why should you have to spend a ton of time researching something when it's the auction house's job to do that? That's part of their pre-auction processes, and their reputation (as you can see) rests heavily on their making sure the goods are legit and doing their work. Don't auction houses have appraisers whose job includes researching the provenance of what they sell?
So who is going to know what they wore while doing a particular job than the person who wore that item of clothing/accessory as part of their job?
This guy is the guy who played the character who wore the visor (and I remember it very well, I can still visualize that particular weird fluorescent shade of green). He didn't use it just once but a number of times -- the poker game was a recurring minor subplot, and sometimes used to impart important dialogue. Sometimes it even shows up in Trek novels and I've seen the visor mentioned once in a book, I think.
Who knows better than you what wallet/purse you've carried for the last X years?
It was on your person. You repeatedly saw it up close. You remember what it looks like.
I didn't submit the story, but I'm female, on Slashdot, and a Trekkie (though not the die-hard hardcore sort, though at times I can admire people who are wholeheartedly into their hobbies, whatever they may be, including the hardcore Trekkies/Trekkers, and some of the costumers do amazing work).
The issue here isn't the specific item, the specific buyer, or the specific value. The issue is that a major auction house has sold something that wasn't what they claimed it was. This is a huge problem for them as the press they are now getting due to the high profile of the item sold (almost everyone has at least heard of Star Trek) is doing damage to their reputation. If Christie's sold a fake to this guy, how do you know that that multimillion-dollar painting you had your eye on in the next Christie's art auction isn't a fake too? So you don't buy it from them, and neither does anyone else due to the bad press, and Sotheby's gets the future business instead...
And who are you to make fun of other peoples' hobbies? Don't watch Star Trek if you don't like it, but slandering other people is yet another example of people who have really big Internet high horses and makes you look foolish. One man's piece of junk is another's treasure.
Certainly, damage to your reputation if you claim (and believe) that you have an authentic widget and then are laughed at by other people when they find out you (unintentionally) lied to them. The auction house advertises the goods as authentic and sells them as what they are claimed to be. If you sell goods that aren't as advertised, isn't that fraud?
Actually, the law REQUIRES that you have captions on your show. You can farm out the job or have someone else pay for it, but the law says that it has to be there. The mechanism to show them has had to be built into all TVs 13" or larger since 1991 (and smaller sets can have it if they want; Mom's kitchen TV at her house has a caption decoder that shows really, really small captions. I think it's cute).
The technology to do the same with digital films has been in existence for at least 5 years, and yet almost no one uses it even though captions were very very widespread even before their existence was mandated and before every TV had to include the function.
These people know that Internet distribution is never captioned, yet they are using it anyway. If you work in the TV industry you know how important captions are, and yet they're leaving us high and dry anyway. In other industries where the jobs in question didn't directly deal with TV every day, I could accept the fact that they might not know about the problem, but TV/movie studios? It's THEIR JOBS to know.
I meant it when I said that they need to be held responsible for this and directly asked what they have to say to the deaf/hard of hearing community. (in an interview reprinted online and shown on a captioned news broadcast, of course).
I have 5 out from the local library right now, and have that very book on hold -- they refused to give it to me when the computer told me it had arrived for me to pick up (4 times in a row, sheesh, one email was enough!) - but we'll see. (What's up with the "we won't give you your book yet" thing anyway? I've never had them conveniently tell me it was an "error" before).
The fact that I watch TV (and that the few shows I watch are all rerunning the same shit I've already seen) doesn't mean at all that I don't have other hobbies. I LOVE to read. Especially with a cold glass of chocolate milk at hand.
I still fail to see what your apparent powertrip penis enhancer has to do with this discussion, and it's easy to spout off and claim you have all this clever shit online, isn't it?
And that has what to do with this? It's your apartment, do whatever the hell you want in it within the bounds of the law, but learn some fucking manners when you step out that door. The world outside your mad scientist's lair works differently, and we have this thing called "respect other people and don't be an entitlement asshole" in the real world.
I'm partly deaf. Require captions to watch TV and movies. These Internet films never have captions even when the viewers can handle it (I know Quicktime Player can, I think WM Player can too, iTunes has a menu item for it).
On the other handTVs and some movie theaters do, but on TV all I'm seeing is shitty reruns that I have no interest in watching. I want to see something NEW.
How exactly does this "initiative" give me an alternative to existing TV and movies? It's just moving pictures with no story. Oh, I see lips moving, there is sound coming out, but it just sounds like Charlie Brown's teacher to me. There's a story in here somewhere? There must be because these people are whining that they're not getting paid enough to do their jobs, and they're writers. Right? Um... okay, I'm going to go and play Half-Life 2 or something else that is actually captioned. Thanks for nothing.
Telling someone "We're not going to cater to those accessible systems of distributing TV and movies anymore and we're going to switch to a system that never utilizes those options" is just plain insulting.
I'd like to see someone ask these people what they want to say to the huge segment of the population that they have alienated by proving that they don't care about disabled people.
No, I act like someone who paid for something and expects to use it and who the hell thinks this is even close to giving people CANCER?. You're acting like an entitlement bitch that thinks they can tell other people what to do with their purchases. And you can cram your "I didn't buy it but I'm going to harass you about the way you use it even though I have no right to" attitude up your ass.
What is it with modern society that other people feel they have a right to dictate things to other people? Try not being such a "gimme something for nothing" asshole, and we'll see how we get along, but as long as you think you know better than I do about what to do with things I PAID FOR, I don't give a shit about you.
And if you don't like how I talk, I don't give a shit about that either.
Slashdot Mirror
You would think, indeed, but I haven't heard of it having been done. Please do let me know if such a thing exists!
On the other hand, Christie's has appraisers on staff and/or farms out the work. Ebay doesn't.
If that is actually what happened (we weren't there), then I'm surprised a lawyer would take his case.
If they did, then why is he suing? There wouldn't be a case, would there?
Where do you live? I'd be curious to know if your location has any kind of requirement like we do to caption public TV. It's implemented such that you don't see it if you don't want to so it-s a win-win for everyone. I know that I once saw a Macgyver episode in Greece, open-subtitled in Greek, that I couldn't watch because I can't read Greek and I need captions ... very frustrating! The only reason I could follow the story at all was because I had seen the episode before.
Why should ebay be responsible when they are not the ones who write the descriptions, are not directly selling the items, and never claimed to research the provenance?
It's a legit reason to not trust ebay, but blaming them for not doing something they never claimed to do is silly.
The end result is the same however and it's the creator's job to ensure that captions are put in. The distributor's job is just to get the finished product to the end customer. I think the actual implementation of the rule (and thank you for the link - I had forgotten that the rollover for 75% of captioning being required is next week) winds up being that distributors will refuse to air shows that don't have captioning, so that they can meet the requirement, so producers are forced to put the captions in if they want their programming to be seen by the public.
Those are live-caption shows where a stenography machine was used. Those work on phonetics which is why you see strange errors like the last one you listed. "Universe" is a less common word than the two that replaced it so the software defaulted to the strange error -- it's a computer, so it doesn't know any better. The operator can override the mistake on the fly, so perhaps you may have seen it corrected later on in the broadcast.
These sorts of things are less likely to happen if the operator has time to prepare and knows whether any unusual terminology will be used as part of the broadcast.
Another sign of live captions is that they scroll slowly across the screen word by word rather than appear all at once, and sometimes new paragraphs begin with a >>> mark.
I prefer the pre-written sort because the scrolling and errors drive me crazy but live captions are better than none.
On the other hand, consider the fact that it's normal for clothes to acquire wear as time goes on, so I don't think it would be necessary to replace the prop after every X takes. More likely, the prop actually used has small tool marks or other small variances that don't show up on camera, or could be slightly bent, or whatever, or might have an inventory tag in a spot where it can't be seen (maybe where it fits over the ear).
I think it's a plausible scenario but to know for sure if it's true or not you'd have to ask the actor.
I had no reason to doubt the actor's story as the show ended production some years ago (after a seven-year run which was pretty impressive). Some productions do allow actors to have some props when they won't be needed anymore, while selling others at auction. I think your middle paragraph is most likely, but the auction house should have clearly disclosed that the prop was a backup in the auction catalog. Still authentic but not the one that was used in front of the camera, and it sounds from the story like the auction catalog indicated that the prop sold was the one used on stage.
Babble babble babble. Seriously, what the fuck are you trying to say?
If someone is going to do something that doesn't accomodate the disabled, and I've ALREADY SAID that I know the technology exists, but I also said that it never gets used, don't tell me where I can and can't talk about it. The fact that I'm talking about it here doesn't mean I might not have brought up the topic elsewhere. Ignoring the disabled is a SERIOUS issue.
I also don't care if you don't think my argument has any credibility to it. I'd love to see you laugh off the problem of disability access to those of us who depend on the ADA and other similar laws including the TDCA to get the basic services we need to do the same things that "normal" people enjoy.
If you think my argument is bullshit, rebut it with actual information such as a plan to ensure that these internet-distributed shows will indeed actually carry subtitles.
I didn't think so.
Good luck - I hope whatever they're doing works. Unfortunately my problem is dead nerve cells in my cochlea caused by prenatal rubella (not listening to an ipod too loud or anything) and is going to require stem cell therapy to fix and the research is still ongoing (I know; some of it is going on at the medical school where I work).
Unfortunately, I have no faith in crowdsourcing -- if you want it done in a timely fashion (the appeal of episodic TV is gone if you miss a show and can't see it before the next one runs. YOu've missed the story, you can't follow the plot. It has to be done on the spot.
Live captioning is still done using modified stenography machines. You still need a typist to do it. Voice recognition isn't god enough yet.
No, this has to be done at the source. Just like for TV and movies.
That's my opinion too. Why should you have to spend a ton of time researching something when it's the auction house's job to do that? That's part of their pre-auction processes, and their reputation (as you can see) rests heavily on their making sure the goods are legit and doing their work. Don't auction houses have appraisers whose job includes researching the provenance of what they sell?
So who is going to know what they wore while doing a particular job than the person who wore that item of clothing/accessory as part of their job?
This guy is the guy who played the character who wore the visor (and I remember it very well, I can still visualize that particular weird fluorescent shade of green). He didn't use it just once but a number of times -- the poker game was a recurring minor subplot, and sometimes used to impart important dialogue. Sometimes it even shows up in Trek novels and I've seen the visor mentioned once in a book, I think.
Who knows better than you what wallet/purse you've carried for the last X years?
It was on your person. You repeatedly saw it up close. You remember what it looks like.
I didn't submit the story, but I'm female, on Slashdot, and a Trekkie (though not the die-hard hardcore sort, though at times I can admire people who are wholeheartedly into their hobbies, whatever they may be, including the hardcore Trekkies/Trekkers, and some of the costumers do amazing work).
*sigh*
...
The issue here isn't the specific item, the specific buyer, or the specific value. The issue is that a major auction house has sold something that wasn't what they claimed it was. This is a huge problem for them as the press they are now getting due to the high profile of the item sold (almost everyone has at least heard of Star Trek) is doing damage to their reputation. If Christie's sold a fake to this guy, how do you know that that multimillion-dollar painting you had your eye on in the next Christie's art auction isn't a fake too? So you don't buy it from them, and neither does anyone else due to the bad press, and Sotheby's gets the future business instead
And who are you to make fun of other peoples' hobbies? Don't watch Star Trek if you don't like it, but slandering other people is yet another example of people who have really big Internet high horses and makes you look foolish. One man's piece of junk is another's treasure.
Certainly, damage to your reputation if you claim (and believe) that you have an authentic widget and then are laughed at by other people when they find out you (unintentionally) lied to them. The auction house advertises the goods as authentic and sells them as what they are claimed to be. If you sell goods that aren't as advertised, isn't that fraud?
Actually, the law REQUIRES that you have captions on your show. You can farm out the job or have someone else pay for it, but the law says that it has to be there. The mechanism to show them has had to be built into all TVs 13" or larger since 1991 (and smaller sets can have it if they want; Mom's kitchen TV at her house has a caption decoder that shows really, really small captions. I think it's cute).
The technology to do the same with digital films has been in existence for at least 5 years, and yet almost no one uses it even though captions were very very widespread even before their existence was mandated and before every TV had to include the function.
These people know that Internet distribution is never captioned, yet they are using it anyway. If you work in the TV industry you know how important captions are, and yet they're leaving us high and dry anyway. In other industries where the jobs in question didn't directly deal with TV every day, I could accept the fact that they might not know about the problem, but TV/movie studios? It's THEIR JOBS to know.
I meant it when I said that they need to be held responsible for this and directly asked what they have to say to the deaf/hard of hearing community. (in an interview reprinted online and shown on a captioned news broadcast, of course).
I have 5 out from the local library right now, and have that very book on hold -- they refused to give it to me when the computer told me it had arrived for me to pick up (4 times in a row, sheesh, one email was enough!) - but we'll see. (What's up with the "we won't give you your book yet" thing anyway? I've never had them conveniently tell me it was an "error" before).
The fact that I watch TV (and that the few shows I watch are all rerunning the same shit I've already seen) doesn't mean at all that I don't have other hobbies. I LOVE to read. Especially with a cold glass of chocolate milk at hand.
I still fail to see what your apparent powertrip penis enhancer has to do with this discussion, and it's easy to spout off and claim you have all this clever shit online, isn't it?
And that has what to do with this? It's your apartment, do whatever the hell you want in it within the bounds of the law, but learn some fucking manners when you step out that door. The world outside your mad scientist's lair works differently, and we have this thing called "respect other people and don't be an entitlement asshole" in the real world.
I'm partly deaf. Require captions to watch TV and movies. These Internet films never have captions even when the viewers can handle it (I know Quicktime Player can, I think WM Player can too, iTunes has a menu item for it).
On the other handTVs and some movie theaters do, but on TV all I'm seeing is shitty reruns that I have no interest in watching. I want to see something NEW.
How exactly does this "initiative" give me an alternative to existing TV and movies? It's just moving pictures with no story. Oh, I see lips moving, there is sound coming out, but it just sounds like Charlie Brown's teacher to me. There's a story in here somewhere? There must be because these people are whining that they're not getting paid enough to do their jobs, and they're writers. Right? Um... okay, I'm going to go and play Half-Life 2 or something else that is actually captioned. Thanks for nothing.
Telling someone "We're not going to cater to those accessible systems of distributing TV and movies anymore and we're going to switch to a system that never utilizes those options" is just plain insulting.
I'd like to see someone ask these people what they want to say to the huge segment of the population that they have alienated by proving that they don't care about disabled people.
No, I act like someone who paid for something and expects to use it and who the hell thinks this is even close to giving people CANCER?. You're acting like an entitlement bitch that thinks they can tell other people what to do with their purchases. And you can cram your "I didn't buy it but I'm going to harass you about the way you use it even though I have no right to" attitude up your ass.
What is it with modern society that other people feel they have a right to dictate things to other people? Try not being such a "gimme something for nothing" asshole, and we'll see how we get along, but as long as you think you know better than I do about what to do with things I PAID FOR, I don't give a shit about you.
And if you don't like how I talk, I don't give a shit about that either.
Whine whine whine...