People can't use the subtitles as a stand alone work:
When I was in school, I read scripts of plays. Seems analogous to a script of a movie. I agree that there is definitely more value to having a visual performance as well as the script, but the script is not valueless, and I don't see why the creator/owner of that script should not have a copyright claim to it.
Ah, but the script has much more than just the dialog, it also has movement descriptions, scene descriptions, etc. In that respect, a screenplay is more like a book, whereas a simple list of dialog (with no indication of who is saying what, since subtitles don't include character name headers) does not convey nearly the same amount or quality of information. Could you understand what was happening in, say, Terminator from a simple list of dialog between characters? Maybe it was John Conner that is saying "I'll be back", you don't know...and you have no idea where the scene changes are, so you have no locational information at all. The entire movie could be happening in a library, for all you know, unless you have the visual indicators.
You are correct, but in an age where copying is trivial, we HAVE to find new ways to fund these things. Further, the arts currently are encumbered by vast costs that dont take the current reality to heart. The ability to make one piece of art and expect to be able to sell it to 7 billion people needs to end now.
No, what they want is to sell the same piece of art to the same 1 billion people 7 times each...at the same price point as they used to charge when people would only watch media in one place, so only needed one copy.
"Oh, you want to watch that in your bathroom? That'll be another $15, please. Sorry, watching it outside around a pool doesn't count, even though it's adjacent to water: $15 again please! Thanks so much! "
Okay, maybe not quite so bad as that, but it sure seems like it some days...they device lock the digital copies (when they are even available), then the device manufacturers incorporate planned obsolescence into their device designs...real nice racket they got going there. I am so looking forward to when, in maybe 5 years or so, people realize that they have exceeded their 5 or 10 devices/downloads limit (or whatever) and if they get a new phone or tablet or television or computer, they'll have to re-purchase their entire video collection...I'll bring the popcorn.
everything they write is purely commentary on the movie, which just happens to be able to sync up with the actual video/audio. The fact that the studios eventually offer a similar product for sale is neither here nor there -- they have no copyright claim over the subtitles.
How does transcribing dialogue from a movie, translating it, and publishing the result differ from translating a book and publishing the result?
The value of the book is solely encompassed in the written contents of the book: that is how it is intended to be delivered to the audience, there is no additional information provided through other means, so a translation is in effect a copy of the entire value of the book. The value of the movie/cartoon/television show is primarily in the visual content combined with audio / sound effects. How understandable is a movie if you turn off the screen? How about if you just sit down and read the subtitles, do you get any value from the transaction? Well, other than laughing at the hokey dialog, that is...
This should clearly be considered a supplemental work, not derivative. People can't use the subtitles as a stand alone work: they also need the original video to enjoy any benefits. If anything, sites like this would tend to promote sales of the original language work, as people would not have to wait 6 months to a year (and sometimes forever) to be able to enjoy the media in their mother tongue. To illustrate the difference between supplemental and derivative, consider this: if someone manufactured a magic decoder ring that, when applied to certain pages of Harry Potter novels, would reveal secret messages (or jokes, or poems, or phrases of the day, whatever...), would that violate copyright? The person would still need the original book to apply the decoder ring to, they simply gain extra enjoyment from the media by applying the decoder ring. Heck, if they had such available, more people would be tempted to buy both the book and the ring, out of sheer curiosity. How is that harmful to the artist in any way?
Now, the fact that the *IAA refuses to sell their content in a format that allows people to overlay their own content is simply them cutting off their nose to spite their face. People will find a way. Fans will find a way.
That's a false equivalence. If I want a widget that Wal-Mart sells, it's not necessarily the case I that I need only buy Brand-X widgets. Brand-Y widgets, which Target sells, are probably just as good.
If I want to buy Game of Thrones, I can't buy some off-label Game of Thrones and get the same thing. They're not equivalent.
Ha ha, I just had a momentary vision of some sort of "Be Kind Rewind" version of Game of Thrones. Would be awesome:o)
Anti-reflection coatings by themselves are nothing new. AR coatings that are scratch-resistant might be more tricky. But I would be really impressed if they can make it anti-reflective even when covered with fingerprints.
AR coatings are based on thin layers with thicknesses tuned and accurate to 20 nm or less and well defined refractive indices, matched to the refractive index of the air on one side and the glass on the other side. It's hard if not impossible to make a coating that keeps working even with an undefined number of micrometers of skin grease on top.
My glasses (eyewear) have a very nice AR coating, but fingerprints turn it into a colorful reflector.
It probably doesn't matter so much. Almost everyone seems to insist on putting a screen protector on which mucks the whole thing up anyway.
(the only useful thing i've seen a screen protector do is hold the fragments together when it cracks, but that's like wrapping yourself in bandages all day so your guts don't fall out in the unlikely event that you get hit by a car)
Actually, if you get right kind of screen protector, it does much more than that.
Every touch device I have, this is the first thing I put on. It's great: no more annoying reflections and a greatly reduced quota of smudgy fingerprints. You still get some (it's not chicken-wing-sauce proof, that's for sure), but it is a vast improvement over the typically glossy, shiny, have-to-wipe-them-down-after-every-single-use bare screens. The protection from accidental screen scratches is simply a side benefit.
Actually, ESC dismisses an accidental popup of the start menu: how do I dismiss the start screen? Click - gesture - gesture again because the first one didn't work - curse - click
I just tried it and ESC closes the start screen as well. You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
Haha so which is it, bottom left or top left? And which one lets me stay in Desktop, even if I want to run a new program?
Reading comprehension failure. Top left goes directly to the desktop. Bottom left goes directly to the start screen. Both of these are explained when you create a new account.
Yeah yeah yeah...I did misremember that 'escape' one, I'll give you that. Sorry, I didn't actually have a Win 8 box in front of me at the time, so couldn't verify my (sometimes spotty) memory, and I was going by what I thought I remembered from six months ago...*sigh*, it sucks getting older.
Now that I checked again, it must have been the fact that there was no escape from those damn 'apps' that was so frustrating at the time (I'm sorry, alt-F4 to close just isn't intuitive at all). And I can't verify your claims on the top and bottom left hot corners, since it looks like when Classic Shell disables them, it doesn't like to give them back again (a known bug, apparently) *shrug*, I found them annoying anyways, always popping open when I didn't want them to, so I'll certainly not fight to get them back.
Actually, ESC dismisses an accidental popup of the start menu: how do I dismiss the start screen? Click - gesture - gesture again because the first one didn't work - curse - click
The Windows key swaps between Start Menu and Desktop, and left clicking in the bottom left corner ALSO swaps between Start Menu and Desktop.
No, at least it didn't for me. Clicking in the bottom left corner on the desktop switches to the start screen, to go back to the desktop you have to hunt for and find the desktop icon on the start screen. I did forget that the Win key would switch to the desktop while in the start screen, though. Woo hoo, still can't run anything without using the start screen...or papering my desktop full of shortcuts.
Perhaps most of them do (does the Image viewer have a desktop version? I couldn't find it, but I use XNView anyway): but they all default to the full-screen versions.
The Start screen versions do yes. The Desktop versions don't. You can even pin a desktop version to the start screen, and it will still open in the Desktop.
Begging the question: why two versions for every app? How long before they start yanking the desktop versions? I really hope they take a look at their install base first, and see how many people are using one or the other (or have uninstalled the metro app version, to prevent accidentally opening it)...
Haha so which is it, bottom left or top left? And which one lets me stay in Desktop, even if I want to run a new program?
Both. Bottom left is a straight swap between Start and Desktop. Top left gives you a list of all open apps (like a left-bar version of Alt+Tab), and Desktop defaults to the top of the list. And you can stay in Desktop by running new programs that you didn't download from the store. Because there's also nothing forcing you to use the store to install new programs.
As I said, it don't remember it quite working like that for me. It was easy to get into the start menu, (okay, only slightly) less easy to leave it.
And yes, I never used the 'Store'. I browsed through it a time or two, saw a lot of puff and giggle, and bade it farewell.
I think you may have deliberately missed my point here: what would your reaction be if YouTube were to decide that the only way you can view their videos (on any platform, with any browser, etc.) is full screen? Would that be, perhaps, a bit annoying? Right now you have a choice in the matter, as you damn well should. Never mind the fact that most people immediately full-screen most of their videos anyway: do you want that 'feature' forced on you, with no option to disable it?
Welcome to the Windows 8 philosophy.
Yes, it is annoying. That's why you have the option to either use the Desktop, or on an actual tablet where no Desktop option is available you can still dock two apps side-by-side. In 8.1 you'll be able to do have four or more (I still need to download the preview and they weren't clear about it in their keynote yesterday). There's no question, some of their design decisions really do suck balls. However, that's not a defense for ignorance.
Ahh..here's the rub: how do I launch my programs from the desktop (without involving the start menu at all)? By polluting my desktop with icons for every single program I install, which I have never preferred to do (although I acknowledge that many do)? Not to mention icons for all the built-in windows features, control panel, windows explorer, services manager, etc, etc. So it's icons one way...or icons the other way? C'mon now...
Yes, I know you can just 'start typing' and the magic internal search function will find and run it (if you don't have too similar a program names that is), but that is simply not how I prefer to open my programs. Type to run just feels
And I bet there were IT guys that set up that arrangement for you: just like you could do for yourself at home using drag and drop:)
I was one of the IT guys who maintained it. I know I could do it at home, but I have so few apps to make it worthwhile, indeed it'd add more pointless clicks. On the start screen I can rely on memory for where each icon is, something you can't rely upon as much for the start menu (there's a limit on how much you can pin really).
That still doesn't explain the mandatory full screen 'apps', and the decision that people don't really need an always-accessible taskbar to switch between open apps: instead they will patiently learn a multitude of non-intuitive, cryptic keyboard shortcuts and/or 'gestures' to do the same thing that a simple click at the bottom of the screen used to do.
We weren't talking about full screen apps, it's not got much to do with the start screen's suitability a start menu/desktop replacement. Asides from the Remote Desktop app and Netflix I don't particularly care for or use any. Unlike the start screen they really are optional and I can pretty much ignore it, asides from a couple of Metro settings only in the Metro control panel, and the annoyance of the Metro photo viewer being default.
I certainly don't think Windows 8 or the start screen is perfect as it stands though, I just see it as the right way forward for most (not all) users/scenarios.
Fair enough. It does seem to be the direction the industry is trending, however I do not see it as a productivity increase in any way. Basically MS is saying: "we've noticed lots of you are doing this, so lets make this mandatory, in as bulky and unattractive a format as we can manage..." I know the size of the icons on the start screen is intended to accommodate touch interfaces...but they are just plain annoying on non-touch interfaces (like probably 99% of the installed customer base)
suddenly *BAM!* take up the entire screen every time you want to launch a new program.
When you open the start menu if you then click on anything else it closes again. Therefore you can only interact with the start menu, the same as the start screen. Is there something on the rest of the desktop you need to see when using the start menu? I'm trying to get to the bottom of why you want it to take up less screen space.
Actually, ESC dismisses an accidental popup of the start menu: how do I dismiss the start screen? Click - gesture - gesture again because the first one didn't work - curse - click
Not to mention the mandatory full screen philosophy, (and therefore the loss of the quick switchability of the taskbar, and the standard close/minimize/maximize options) for core 'apps'
All the core apps support desktop mode as well. Internet Explorer, the email client, settings, RDP, Explorer... What core apps are you referring to that don't?
Perhaps most of them do (does the Image viewer have a desktop version? I couldn't find it, but I use XNView anyway): but they all default to the full-screen versions.
By making it so damn difficult to stay within the desktop environment
You find it hard to avoid moving the mouse into the bottom left corner of the screen and clicking?
by flashing this damnably annoying no way to get rid of it natively full screen nonsense (that's not dismissable, by the way, unless you choose something on it)
Top left corner takes you straight to the desktop without choosing anything. It tells you this when you first set up your user account. How long have you actually tried Windows 8 for?
Haha so which is it, bottom left or top left? And which one lets me stay in Desktop, even if I want to run a new program?
Should YouTube videos default to open in full screen mode all the time, with no user choice in the matter?
I have no idea what you are talking about. I tried opening YouTube videos in IE and Chrome and neither went fullscreen automatically. I could in fact toggle that setting at will. Even in Metro mode you can collapse the full screen video to use part of the screen (80% or 20%, but strangely not 50%).
I think you may have deliberately missed my point here: what would your reaction be if YouTube were to decide that the only way you can view their videos (on any platform, with any browser, etc.) is full screen? Would that be, perhaps, a bit annoying? Right now you have a choice in the matter, as you damn well should. Never mind the fact that most people immediately full-screen most of their videos anyway: do you want that 'feature' forced on you, with no option to disable it?
Welcome to the Windows 8 philosophy.
I think you tried Windows 8 for about 5 minutes and decided you hated it. I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with it or that parts are not annoying, but you clearly made no effort to even try and understand it.
Close. I gave it roughly a week before I pulled the plug on Metro and installed ClassicShell. And yes, I hated it.
They will much rather minimise every Window (manually - no one has noticed Windows 7's show desktop button) to open a program if it's on the desktop, only using the start menu if it's absent from desktop.
To be fair, they didn't exactly advertise the 'show desktop' shortcut for Windows 7 or Vista - they made it a blank square at the far right of the taskbar, instead of an easily identifiable icon beside the Start button. Many people thought they just took away that feature.
Don't get me wrong though, there are places for the Start Menu. I In a school I used to work at there were 100s of programs to choose from, which were put into Start Menu folders named as categories e.g. Core Programs, Graphics & Design, Maths and Science - you know, similar to the original start menu concept rather than the current one-folder-per-program-(and-you'd-better-remember-if-it-begins-with-the-company-name-or-not) jumble? This worked brilliantly, no one ever seemed to have trouble finding a program.
And I bet there were IT guys that set up that arrangement for you: just like you could do for yourself at home using drag and drop:)
But back to places where there aren't 100s of programs, and there aren't IT overlords neatly putting your programs into sensible categories, most find desktop the king for whatever reason. Microsoft gradually caught onto this, and thus (a) In XP (or was it an update for 9x?) they introduced the Quick Launch to reduce number of clicks for your commonly used programs, (b) In Windows 7 they introduced the new taskbar in an attempt to improve upon Quick Launch, and (b) in Windows 8 they introduced the Start Screen for programs you don't want to pin (or people who don't like pinning to the taskbar), which intends to improve upon the Desktop. Indeed it has faults which hopefully Windows 8.1 will fix, but the core concept agrees with usage of the desktop.
That still doesn't explain the mandatory full screen 'apps', and the decision that people don't really need an always-accessible taskbar to switch between open apps: instead they will patiently learn a multitude of non-intuitive, cryptic keyboard shortcuts and/or 'gestures' to do the same thing that a simple click at the bottom of the screen used to do.
The existing start menu is like taking all your papers, documents, and everything you own and stuffing them into that little pencil drawer on your desk. Everything is just crammed into it and its really much too small and awkward for the task of being a filing system for everything you have.
What I *especially* love about the start screen is how it pretty much makes my family wallpapers useless.
On Windows 7, I put the shortcuts around the edges of the desktop, then I can see the wallpaper subject (and smile) every time I go back to the desktop.
a) You do realize you can do that with windows 8 too. This has nothing to do with the start menu vs start screen at all.
b) Oh... so you ARE one of those peoples who has shortcuts all over their desktop.
Actually, the start menu is more like a bag of holding: it's exactly as big as you need it to be, and (if you spend some minimal amount of time on organization) everything is right there at your fingertips:) You don't have to stick your entire head in the bag to see what's in there. It's true, MS could have added some better customization options for sizing: some people might actually want to have the Start menu take up half, or even all of their viewing space instead of a discreet strip on the side. *shrug*, I've never been one of those people, I guess, I've always found the Start menu to be pretty much the ideal size for me.
BTW, how do you make the center area of the Start screen visible? Curious here, since I have never seen anyone mention a way to shift that big, blocky thick band of ugly icons out to the edges of the screen. If you meant that we can still do this within our desktop app, well...yes, that's kind of the point. That's (part of) why I prefer to use the desktop: the Start screen is just so much uglier and non-customizable in any useful manner. Who cares what the background wallpaper is if you can only ever see the outer edges, or strips between garish, eye-watering blocks? If Windows had their way, you would never see your wallpaper at all, since all of their 'apps' are full screen only, and their start screen covers over the majority of the interesting bits, leaving you with a view of sky, or grass around the edges.
As for icons on the desktop: well, my work computer is a bit crowded, but that's thanks (mostly) to my IT dept. My home computers have, maybe, an average of ten desktop icons each. They all have many more aftermarket (i.e., non-core-windows) programs installed on them, but other than a few everyday use ones, they are all accessed via the Start menu, with two or three essentials pinned right to the taskbar (Firefox and FreeCommander, typically, maybe Task Manager for a slower computer).
Can you outline a situation when it would be better not to use the entire screen for finding and starting an app? I understand fully why having multiple apps on the screen is a good thing, but when you want to start one why not immediately use the entire screen so you don't have to navigate through submenus?
Ever noticed how most users click the icons on their desktop to start applications? They know where they are by spacial memory or looking for icons, not by reading the labels. I know it annoys people who obsessively keep their desktop clear of icons and arrange their start menu meticulously like I do, but it seems to work quite well for a lot of people. The start screen is just an advanced version of that.
I *like* submenus. It lets me group my programs however I want, and any single group is accessible right from the top level (unlike the Win8 philosophy). I don't have to choose whether my computer will primarily be used for image/video, socializing, office work, gaming, development, etc. etc. and then try to arrange my program groups so that the top 30 or so programs fit onto the first page (really fun on a netbook). With the start menu, I have access to any and all of these capabilities in a maximum of four clicks (actually, 'hover' opens subfolders, so basically two clicks - start button -> application)
In my opinion, it simply breaks the flow of work to have the frigging application launch tool, an important but ultimately minor component of any useful graphical operating system, suddenly *BAM!* take up the entire screen every time you want to launch a new program. Not to mention the mandatory full screen philosophy, (and therefore the loss of the quick switchability of the taskbar, and the standard close/minimize/maximize options) for core 'apps'...I know, I know, you still have the taskbar on the 'desktop app', but that's the thing: they're trying to force their users away from all of the most useful and productive features of their core system! I pretty much yanked all of the native apps as soon as I tried them, since none of them offer any better functionality than their desktop versions, and they are just too dumbed down to be useful.
By making it so damn difficult to stay within the desktop environment , by flashing this damnably annoying no way to get rid of it natively full screen nonsense (that's not dismissable, by the way, unless you choose something on it), they are basically rickrolling their users every time (they accidentally or not) hit the Start button. Should YouTube videos default to open in full screen mode all the time, with no user choice in the matter? If you are opening a document in Word or Excel, should the file selection dialog default to full screen, thumbnail view only (oh, and with a sidescrolling grid instead of a vertical one, so that, while it will still 'work', the scroll wheel on the mouse is much less intuitive for navigation)? And you couldn't change that behavior?? How crazy would that make you? Yet that's the same thinking: if I'm selecting or viewing *something*, I might as well use the whole screen to do it...no. Just no.
If you're concerned about productivity "FULL STOP", why the fuck are you opening programs using a mouse anyhow? Win key -> type a few letters of a program name -> Enter, and you can launch anything on the system faster than you can find the item you want even in the Most Commonly Used section of the Start menu. If you have menu animations turned on (which I'm guessing you don't, but most people do) you can be launching a program before the menu finishes drawing itself.
This has existed since Vista. It took a step back in Win8, when "Apps" and "Settings" Start search results were segregated, but it was still usable there. On 8.1 they're integrated again. If you're still launching programs with the mouse and yet claiming you're only concerned about productivity and that's it, you're frankly a liar. You're just whining They Changed It And I Don't Like It like so many other people.
Alternatively, set keyboard shortcuts (possible since at least Windows 2000, still possible on Win8) for the programs you use most (for example, Ctrl+Alt+I to launch your favorite web browser, Alt+Shift+C to launch your development environment, etc. and whatever). That's faster still, once you memorize them, although it won't work on other peoples' computers.
Yes, let's discuss working with other people's computers, shall we?
You know what's installed on your computer. My parents (and some other family members), on the other hand, don't. Trying to provide the obligatory phone support for them with a Windows 8 interface was, shall we say, a wee bit frustrating on both sides of the conversation.
"No, Dad, just drag your finger onto the touchpad from the corner. Nothing? Maybe you were too fast, try again a bit slower...oh, you think you opened something by accident? *sigh* Okay, what does the screen in front of you look like now? Hmm, what color is the background? Okay, lets try that Alt-F4 thing again, but remember, hold down the alt key and only press the F4 key once this time...you did it? You're back at the screen with the boxes now? Yes, you can let the alt key go..." etc., etc., etc... Until I installed ClassicShell on their computer, that is, now they (and I) love it:o)
Sorry, but until I'm able to completely deactivate the context-destroying, time and scren real-estate wasting Start Screen altogether, Windows 8 (sans 3rd party Start Menu add-ons), is nothing more than a toy.
Yes, I understand that menus are an creeping problem when adding functionality. Yes, I understand that they're limited when implementing touch interfaces.
I DON'T GIVE A SHIT!
I don't use touch interfaces on anything larger than my phone, and even then, my current phone has a fallback to a physical keyboard. I have no use for them on a desktop or even a laptop. NONE. I'm concerned about productivity FULL STOP. A menu system enables me to do more, faster. Especially with keyboard shortcuts (many of which were completely annihilated when they removed menus altogether in 8). Managing systems remotely with the Win8/Server2012 interface is a complete pain in the balls, as the "hot corner" functionality for pulling up the various charms bars and other crap have a strong tendency to just not work, or work extremely sporadically in remote management situations. Yes yes. I could learn all the goofy new keyboard shortcuts. A menu system would still be more straightforward and functional.
Microsoft is acting like a kid who's been told to clean his room. They've basically put it off as long as they can. Now they're just going to kick some stuff under the bed and other general half-assery and hope it's sufficient.
It isn't. Period.
Oh for some mod points...this this, a million times THIS!
Start -> All Programs was a complete disaster -- lets put a hierarchy of everything installed on your computer in a small non-resizable popup menu. Sorry that was just awful. For anything you need the start MENU for, the start screen is a LOT better.
Certainly, instead of a tidy, hierarchical, collapsible interface that only takes up (maybe) a third of the screen, let's make it a mandatory full-screen, scrollable (and scrollable and scrollable) interface instead, with gigantic, cryptic, space-wasting, two-tone icons instead! Brilliant!
You're one of those people who prefer to keep all their filing in a nice big pile right on their desktop, aren't you? Sure, you have to reach around the pile every time you want to use the phone, or grab your stapler, but hey, all your papers are 'at your fingertips'! No more need to open those pesky filing cabinets, or flip through individual folders!
What I *especially* love about the start screen is how it pretty much makes my family wallpapers useless. On Windows 7, I put the shortcuts around the edges of the desktop, then I can see the wallpaper subject (and smile) every time I go back to the desktop. With Windows 8...well, I don't have many photos of my family where the important parts (faces) are pressed right against the top, bottom or either edge of the shot. Yes, I could put a photo widget in the start screen...then be constantly annoyed at the need to scroll past it to get to my shortcuts.
No, ClassicStart and Start8 have pretty much saved Microsoft's ass on this release. If I were them, I'd be asking for a reward or something...
Marriage has about as much to do with christianity as toilet paper does to taking a shit. People were shitting long before it's invent and won't stop when it goes out of style.
You're waiting for the three seashells too? I thought I was the only one!
So what is your stance on polygamous or multiple partner relationships being recognized in civil unions? I only ask because besides same-sex relationships, the only "unacceptable" relationships are ones that are obviously unacceptable. Or what about roommates simply asking for the same benefits as "married" couples?
You really want to give half of your stuff to your roommate when you move out? Although it would be cool if they had to give you half of their stuff if they moved out...might make for some looong term leases:)
Just kidding, I know what you're saying. You're basically looking for the co-habitation tax breaks, trouble is, 'marriage' carries a heck of a lot of other legal baggage with it. Who gets your life insurance if you die while living with a roommate? For some policies, if you're married or common-law, it's your spouse, period. No assign-ability otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
"Top 500 Oxymoronic Book Titles"
Eloquent Javascript, indeed...
Excellent! Now we can back up everything and send it to Mars for safekeeping!
People can't use the subtitles as a stand alone work:
When I was in school, I read scripts of plays. Seems analogous to a script of a movie. I agree that there is definitely more value to having a visual performance as well as the script, but the script is not valueless, and I don't see why the creator/owner of that script should not have a copyright claim to it.
Ah, but the script has much more than just the dialog, it also has movement descriptions, scene descriptions, etc. In that respect, a screenplay is more like a book, whereas a simple list of dialog (with no indication of who is saying what, since subtitles don't include character name headers) does not convey nearly the same amount or quality of information. Could you understand what was happening in, say, Terminator from a simple list of dialog between characters? Maybe it was John Conner that is saying "I'll be back", you don't know...and you have no idea where the scene changes are, so you have no locational information at all. The entire movie could be happening in a library, for all you know, unless you have the visual indicators.
You are correct, but in an age where copying is trivial, we HAVE to find new ways to fund these things. Further, the arts currently are encumbered by vast costs that dont take the current reality to heart. The ability to make one piece of art and expect to be able to sell it to 7 billion people needs to end now.
No, what they want is to sell the same piece of art to the same 1 billion people 7 times each...at the same price point as they used to charge when people would only watch media in one place, so only needed one copy.
"Oh, you want to watch that in your bathroom? That'll be another $15, please. Sorry, watching it outside around a pool doesn't count, even though it's adjacent to water: $15 again please! Thanks so much! "
Okay, maybe not quite so bad as that, but it sure seems like it some days...they device lock the digital copies (when they are even available), then the device manufacturers incorporate planned obsolescence into their device designs...real nice racket they got going there. I am so looking forward to when, in maybe 5 years or so, people realize that they have exceeded their 5 or 10 devices/downloads limit (or whatever) and if they get a new phone or tablet or television or computer, they'll have to re-purchase their entire video collection...I'll bring the popcorn.
everything they write is purely commentary on the movie, which just happens to be able to sync up with the actual video/audio. The fact that the studios eventually offer a similar product for sale is neither here nor there -- they have no copyright claim over the subtitles.
How does transcribing dialogue from a movie, translating it, and publishing the result differ from translating a book and publishing the result?
The value of the book is solely encompassed in the written contents of the book: that is how it is intended to be delivered to the audience, there is no additional information provided through other means, so a translation is in effect a copy of the entire value of the book. The value of the movie/cartoon/television show is primarily in the visual content combined with audio / sound effects. How understandable is a movie if you turn off the screen? How about if you just sit down and read the subtitles, do you get any value from the transaction? Well, other than laughing at the hokey dialog, that is...
This should clearly be considered a supplemental work, not derivative. People can't use the subtitles as a stand alone work: they also need the original video to enjoy any benefits. If anything, sites like this would tend to promote sales of the original language work, as people would not have to wait 6 months to a year (and sometimes forever) to be able to enjoy the media in their mother tongue. To illustrate the difference between supplemental and derivative, consider this: if someone manufactured a magic decoder ring that, when applied to certain pages of Harry Potter novels, would reveal secret messages (or jokes, or poems, or phrases of the day, whatever...), would that violate copyright? The person would still need the original book to apply the decoder ring to, they simply gain extra enjoyment from the media by applying the decoder ring. Heck, if they had such available, more people would be tempted to buy both the book and the ring, out of sheer curiosity. How is that harmful to the artist in any way?
Now, the fact that the *IAA refuses to sell their content in a format that allows people to overlay their own content is simply them cutting off their nose to spite their face. People will find a way. Fans will find a way.
That's a false equivalence. If I want a widget that Wal-Mart sells, it's not necessarily the case I that I need only buy Brand-X widgets. Brand-Y widgets, which Target sells, are probably just as good.
If I want to buy Game of Thrones, I can't buy some off-label Game of Thrones and get the same thing. They're not equivalent.
Ha ha, I just had a momentary vision of some sort of "Be Kind Rewind" version of Game of Thrones. Would be awesome :o)
Anti-reflection coatings by themselves are nothing new. AR coatings that are scratch-resistant might be more tricky. But I would be really impressed if they can make it anti-reflective even when covered with fingerprints.
AR coatings are based on thin layers with thicknesses tuned and accurate to 20 nm or less and well defined refractive indices, matched to the refractive index of the air on one side and the glass on the other side. It's hard if not impossible to make a coating that keeps working even with an undefined number of micrometers of skin grease on top.
My glasses (eyewear) have a very nice AR coating, but fingerprints turn it into a colorful reflector.
It probably doesn't matter so much. Almost everyone seems to insist on putting a screen protector on which mucks the whole thing up anyway.
(the only useful thing i've seen a screen protector do is hold the fragments together when it cracks, but that's like wrapping yourself in bandages all day so your guts don't fall out in the unlikely event that you get hit by a car)
Actually, if you get right kind of screen protector, it does much more than that.
Every touch device I have, this is the first thing I put on. It's great: no more annoying reflections and a greatly reduced quota of smudgy fingerprints. You still get some (it's not chicken-wing-sauce proof, that's for sure), but it is a vast improvement over the typically glossy, shiny, have-to-wipe-them-down-after-every-single-use bare screens. The protection from accidental screen scratches is simply a side benefit.
Glass that doesn't infect you with your own ass-germs is the sensible middle ground-ish.
you're doing it wrong
Actually, ESC dismisses an accidental popup of the start menu: how do I dismiss the start screen? Click - gesture - gesture again because the first one didn't work - curse - click
I just tried it and ESC closes the start screen as well. You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
Haha so which is it, bottom left or top left? And which one lets me stay in Desktop, even if I want to run a new program?
Reading comprehension failure. Top left goes directly to the desktop. Bottom left goes directly to the start screen. Both of these are explained when you create a new account.
Yeah yeah yeah...I did misremember that 'escape' one, I'll give you that. Sorry, I didn't actually have a Win 8 box in front of me at the time, so couldn't verify my (sometimes spotty) memory, and I was going by what I thought I remembered from six months ago...*sigh*, it sucks getting older.
Now that I checked again, it must have been the fact that there was no escape from those damn 'apps' that was so frustrating at the time (I'm sorry, alt-F4 to close just isn't intuitive at all). And I can't verify your claims on the top and bottom left hot corners, since it looks like when Classic Shell disables them, it doesn't like to give them back again (a known bug, apparently) *shrug*, I found them annoying anyways, always popping open when I didn't want them to, so I'll certainly not fight to get them back.
Actually, ESC dismisses an accidental popup of the start menu: how do I dismiss the start screen? Click - gesture - gesture again because the first one didn't work - curse - click
The Windows key swaps between Start Menu and Desktop, and left clicking in the bottom left corner ALSO swaps between Start Menu and Desktop.
No, at least it didn't for me. Clicking in the bottom left corner on the desktop switches to the start screen, to go back to the desktop you have to hunt for and find the desktop icon on the start screen. I did forget that the Win key would switch to the desktop while in the start screen, though. Woo hoo, still can't run anything without using the start screen...or papering my desktop full of shortcuts.
Perhaps most of them do (does the Image viewer have a desktop version? I couldn't find it, but I use XNView anyway): but they all default to the full-screen versions.
The Start screen versions do yes. The Desktop versions don't. You can even pin a desktop version to the start screen, and it will still open in the Desktop.
Begging the question: why two versions for every app? How long before they start yanking the desktop versions? I really hope they take a look at their install base first, and see how many people are using one or the other (or have uninstalled the metro app version, to prevent accidentally opening it)...
Haha so which is it, bottom left or top left? And which one lets me stay in Desktop, even if I want to run a new program?
Both. Bottom left is a straight swap between Start and Desktop. Top left gives you a list of all open apps (like a left-bar version of Alt+Tab), and Desktop defaults to the top of the list. And you can stay in Desktop by running new programs that you didn't download from the store. Because there's also nothing forcing you to use the store to install new programs.
As I said, it don't remember it quite working like that for me. It was easy to get into the start menu, (okay, only slightly) less easy to leave it.
And yes, I never used the 'Store'. I browsed through it a time or two, saw a lot of puff and giggle, and bade it farewell.
I think you may have deliberately missed my point here: what would your reaction be if YouTube were to decide that the only way you can view their videos (on any platform, with any browser, etc.) is full screen? Would that be, perhaps, a bit annoying? Right now you have a choice in the matter, as you damn well should. Never mind the fact that most people immediately full-screen most of their videos anyway: do you want that 'feature' forced on you, with no option to disable it?
Welcome to the Windows 8 philosophy.
Yes, it is annoying. That's why you have the option to either use the Desktop, or on an actual tablet where no Desktop option is available you can still dock two apps side-by-side. In 8.1 you'll be able to do have four or more (I still need to download the preview and they weren't clear about it in their keynote yesterday). There's no question, some of their design decisions really do suck balls. However, that's not a defense for ignorance.
Ahh..here's the rub: how do I launch my programs from the desktop (without involving the start menu at all)? By polluting my desktop with icons for every single program I install, which I have never preferred to do (although I acknowledge that many do)? Not to mention icons for all the built-in windows features, control panel, windows explorer, services manager, etc, etc. So it's icons one way...or icons the other way? C'mon now...
Yes, I know you can just 'start typing' and the magic internal search function will find and run it (if you don't have too similar a program names that is), but that is simply not how I prefer to open my programs. Type to run just feels
And I bet there were IT guys that set up that arrangement for you: just like you could do for yourself at home using drag and drop :)
I was one of the IT guys who maintained it. I know I could do it at home, but I have so few apps to make it worthwhile, indeed it'd add more pointless clicks. On the start screen I can rely on memory for where each icon is, something you can't rely upon as much for the start menu (there's a limit on how much you can pin really).
That still doesn't explain the mandatory full screen 'apps', and the decision that people don't really need an always-accessible taskbar to switch between open apps: instead they will patiently learn a multitude of non-intuitive, cryptic keyboard shortcuts and/or 'gestures' to do the same thing that a simple click at the bottom of the screen used to do.
We weren't talking about full screen apps, it's not got much to do with the start screen's suitability a start menu/desktop replacement. Asides from the Remote Desktop app and Netflix I don't particularly care for or use any. Unlike the start screen they really are optional and I can pretty much ignore it, asides from a couple of Metro settings only in the Metro control panel, and the annoyance of the Metro photo viewer being default.
I certainly don't think Windows 8 or the start screen is perfect as it stands though, I just see it as the right way forward for most (not all) users/scenarios.
Fair enough. It does seem to be the direction the industry is trending, however I do not see it as a productivity increase in any way. Basically MS is saying: "we've noticed lots of you are doing this, so lets make this mandatory, in as bulky and unattractive a format as we can manage..." I know the size of the icons on the start screen is intended to accommodate touch interfaces...but they are just plain annoying on non-touch interfaces (like probably 99% of the installed customer base)
Let me make a suggestion for your tech support needs: http://www.teamviewer.com/en/index.aspx
It has saved me tons of frustration.
Thanks! Not much help when I'm trying to troubleshoot their network connection, however...which, unfortunately, seems to constantly flake out on them.
suddenly *BAM!* take up the entire screen every time you want to launch a new program.
When you open the start menu if you then click on anything else it closes again. Therefore you can only interact with the start menu, the same as the start screen. Is there something on the rest of the desktop you need to see when using the start menu? I'm trying to get to the bottom of why you want it to take up less screen space.
Actually, ESC dismisses an accidental popup of the start menu: how do I dismiss the start screen? Click - gesture - gesture again because the first one didn't work - curse - click
Not to mention the mandatory full screen philosophy, (and therefore the loss of the quick switchability of the taskbar, and the standard close/minimize/maximize options) for core 'apps'
All the core apps support desktop mode as well. Internet Explorer, the email client, settings, RDP, Explorer... What core apps are you referring to that don't?
Perhaps most of them do (does the Image viewer have a desktop version? I couldn't find it, but I use XNView anyway): but they all default to the full-screen versions.
By making it so damn difficult to stay within the desktop environment
You find it hard to avoid moving the mouse into the bottom left corner of the screen and clicking?
by flashing this damnably annoying no way to get rid of it natively full screen nonsense (that's not dismissable, by the way, unless you choose something on it)
Top left corner takes you straight to the desktop without choosing anything. It tells you this when you first set up your user account. How long have you actually tried Windows 8 for?
Haha so which is it, bottom left or top left? And which one lets me stay in Desktop, even if I want to run a new program?
Should YouTube videos default to open in full screen mode all the time, with no user choice in the matter?
I have no idea what you are talking about. I tried opening YouTube videos in IE and Chrome and neither went fullscreen automatically. I could in fact toggle that setting at will. Even in Metro mode you can collapse the full screen video to use part of the screen (80% or 20%, but strangely not 50%).
I think you may have deliberately missed my point here: what would your reaction be if YouTube were to decide that the only way you can view their videos (on any platform, with any browser, etc.) is full screen? Would that be, perhaps, a bit annoying? Right now you have a choice in the matter, as you damn well should. Never mind the fact that most people immediately full-screen most of their videos anyway: do you want that 'feature' forced on you, with no option to disable it?
Welcome to the Windows 8 philosophy.
I think you tried Windows 8 for about 5 minutes and decided you hated it. I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with it or that parts are not annoying, but you clearly made no effort to even try and understand it.
Close. I gave it roughly a week before I pulled the plug on Metro and installed ClassicShell. And yes, I hated it.
Invalid assumption.
...are...do my feet really stink that badly?
I do the best I can... :'(
Times a million. Chas just won the entire Internet with that post.
The internet plus a lifetime supply of coffee, so he can read all of it! Way to go, Chas! :o)
They will much rather minimise every Window (manually - no one has noticed Windows 7's show desktop button) to open a program if it's on the desktop, only using the start menu if it's absent from desktop.
To be fair, they didn't exactly advertise the 'show desktop' shortcut for Windows 7 or Vista - they made it a blank square at the far right of the taskbar, instead of an easily identifiable icon beside the Start button. Many people thought they just took away that feature.
Don't get me wrong though, there are places for the Start Menu. I In a school I used to work at there were 100s of programs to choose from, which were put into Start Menu folders named as categories e.g. Core Programs, Graphics & Design, Maths and Science - you know, similar to the original start menu concept rather than the current one-folder-per-program-(and-you'd-better-remember-if-it-begins-with-the-company-name-or-not) jumble? This worked brilliantly, no one ever seemed to have trouble finding a program.
And I bet there were IT guys that set up that arrangement for you: just like you could do for yourself at home using drag and drop :)
But back to places where there aren't 100s of programs, and there aren't IT overlords neatly putting your programs into sensible categories, most find desktop the king for whatever reason. Microsoft gradually caught onto this, and thus (a) In XP (or was it an update for 9x?) they introduced the Quick Launch to reduce number of clicks for your commonly used programs, (b) In Windows 7 they introduced the new taskbar in an attempt to improve upon Quick Launch, and (b) in Windows 8 they introduced the Start Screen for programs you don't want to pin (or people who don't like pinning to the taskbar), which intends to improve upon the Desktop. Indeed it has faults which hopefully Windows 8.1 will fix, but the core concept agrees with usage of the desktop.
That still doesn't explain the mandatory full screen 'apps', and the decision that people don't really need an always-accessible taskbar to switch between open apps: instead they will patiently learn a multitude of non-intuitive, cryptic keyboard shortcuts and/or 'gestures' to do the same thing that a simple click at the bottom of the screen used to do.
The existing start menu is like taking all your papers, documents, and everything you own and stuffing them into that little pencil drawer on your desk. Everything is just crammed into it and its really much too small and awkward for the task of being a filing system for everything you have.
What I *especially* love about the start screen is how it pretty much makes my family wallpapers useless.
On Windows 7, I put the shortcuts around the edges of the desktop, then I can see the wallpaper subject (and smile) every time I go back to the desktop.
a) You do realize you can do that with windows 8 too. This has nothing to do with the start menu vs start screen at all.
b) Oh... so you ARE one of those peoples who has shortcuts all over their desktop.
Actually, the start menu is more like a bag of holding: it's exactly as big as you need it to be, and (if you spend some minimal amount of time on organization) everything is right there at your fingertips :) You don't have to stick your entire head in the bag to see what's in there. It's true, MS could have added some better customization options for sizing: some people might actually want to have the Start menu take up half, or even all of their viewing space instead of a discreet strip on the side. *shrug*, I've never been one of those people, I guess, I've always found the Start menu to be pretty much the ideal size for me.
BTW, how do you make the center area of the Start screen visible? Curious here, since I have never seen anyone mention a way to shift that big, blocky thick band of ugly icons out to the edges of the screen. If you meant that we can still do this within our desktop app, well...yes, that's kind of the point. That's (part of) why I prefer to use the desktop: the Start screen is just so much uglier and non-customizable in any useful manner. Who cares what the background wallpaper is if you can only ever see the outer edges, or strips between garish, eye-watering blocks? If Windows had their way, you would never see your wallpaper at all, since all of their 'apps' are full screen only, and their start screen covers over the majority of the interesting bits, leaving you with a view of sky, or grass around the edges.
As for icons on the desktop: well, my work computer is a bit crowded, but that's thanks (mostly) to my IT dept. My home computers have, maybe, an average of ten desktop icons each. They all have many more aftermarket (i.e., non-core-windows) programs installed on them, but other than a few everyday use ones, they are all accessed via the Start menu, with two or three essentials pinned right to the taskbar (Firefox and FreeCommander, typically, maybe Task Manager for a slower computer).
Can you outline a situation when it would be better not to use the entire screen for finding and starting an app? I understand fully why having multiple apps on the screen is a good thing, but when you want to start one why not immediately use the entire screen so you don't have to navigate through submenus?
Ever noticed how most users click the icons on their desktop to start applications? They know where they are by spacial memory or looking for icons, not by reading the labels. I know it annoys people who obsessively keep their desktop clear of icons and arrange their start menu meticulously like I do, but it seems to work quite well for a lot of people. The start screen is just an advanced version of that.
I *like* submenus. It lets me group my programs however I want, and any single group is accessible right from the top level (unlike the Win8 philosophy). I don't have to choose whether my computer will primarily be used for image/video, socializing, office work, gaming, development, etc. etc. and then try to arrange my program groups so that the top 30 or so programs fit onto the first page (really fun on a netbook). With the start menu, I have access to any and all of these capabilities in a maximum of four clicks (actually, 'hover' opens subfolders, so basically two clicks - start button -> application)
In my opinion, it simply breaks the flow of work to have the frigging application launch tool, an important but ultimately minor component of any useful graphical operating system, suddenly *BAM!* take up the entire screen every time you want to launch a new program. Not to mention the mandatory full screen philosophy, (and therefore the loss of the quick switchability of the taskbar, and the standard close/minimize/maximize options) for core 'apps'...I know, I know, you still have the taskbar on the 'desktop app', but that's the thing: they're trying to force their users away from all of the most useful and productive features of their core system! I pretty much yanked all of the native apps as soon as I tried them, since none of them offer any better functionality than their desktop versions, and they are just too dumbed down to be useful.
By making it so damn difficult to stay within the desktop environment , by flashing this damnably annoying no way to get rid of it natively full screen nonsense (that's not dismissable, by the way, unless you choose something on it), they are basically rickrolling their users every time (they accidentally or not) hit the Start button. Should YouTube videos default to open in full screen mode all the time, with no user choice in the matter? If you are opening a document in Word or Excel, should the file selection dialog default to full screen, thumbnail view only (oh, and with a sidescrolling grid instead of a vertical one, so that, while it will still 'work', the scroll wheel on the mouse is much less intuitive for navigation)? And you couldn't change that behavior?? How crazy would that make you? Yet that's the same thinking: if I'm selecting or viewing *something*, I might as well use the whole screen to do it...no. Just no.
If you're concerned about productivity "FULL STOP", why the fuck are you opening programs using a mouse anyhow? Win key -> type a few letters of a program name -> Enter, and you can launch anything on the system faster than you can find the item you want even in the Most Commonly Used section of the Start menu. If you have menu animations turned on (which I'm guessing you don't, but most people do) you can be launching a program before the menu finishes drawing itself.
This has existed since Vista. It took a step back in Win8, when "Apps" and "Settings" Start search results were segregated, but it was still usable there. On 8.1 they're integrated again. If you're still launching programs with the mouse and yet claiming you're only concerned about productivity and that's it, you're frankly a liar. You're just whining They Changed It And I Don't Like It like so many other people.
Alternatively, set keyboard shortcuts (possible since at least Windows 2000, still possible on Win8) for the programs you use most (for example, Ctrl+Alt+I to launch your favorite web browser, Alt+Shift+C to launch your development environment, etc. and whatever). That's faster still, once you memorize them, although it won't work on other peoples' computers.
Yes, let's discuss working with other people's computers, shall we?
You know what's installed on your computer. My parents (and some other family members), on the other hand, don't. Trying to provide the obligatory phone support for them with a Windows 8 interface was, shall we say, a wee bit frustrating on both sides of the conversation.
"No, Dad, just drag your finger onto the touchpad from the corner. Nothing? Maybe you were too fast, try again a bit slower...oh, you think you opened something by accident? *sigh* Okay, what does the screen in front of you look like now? Hmm, what color is the background? Okay, lets try that Alt-F4 thing again, but remember, hold down the alt key and only press the F4 key once this time...you did it? You're back at the screen with the boxes now? Yes, you can let the alt key go..." etc., etc., etc... Until I installed ClassicShell on their computer, that is, now they (and I) love it :o)
Sorry, but until I'm able to completely deactivate the context-destroying, time and scren real-estate wasting Start Screen altogether, Windows 8 (sans 3rd party Start Menu add-ons), is nothing more than a toy.
Yes, I understand that menus are an creeping problem when adding functionality.
Yes, I understand that they're limited when implementing touch interfaces.
I DON'T GIVE A SHIT!
I don't use touch interfaces on anything larger than my phone, and even then, my current phone has a fallback to a physical keyboard. I have no use for them on a desktop or even a laptop. NONE.
I'm concerned about productivity FULL STOP. A menu system enables me to do more, faster. Especially with keyboard shortcuts (many of which were completely annihilated when they removed menus altogether in 8).
Managing systems remotely with the Win8/Server2012 interface is a complete pain in the balls, as the "hot corner" functionality for pulling up the various charms bars and other crap have a strong tendency to just not work, or work extremely sporadically in remote management situations. Yes yes. I could learn all the goofy new keyboard shortcuts. A menu system would still be more straightforward and functional.
Microsoft is acting like a kid who's been told to clean his room.
They've basically put it off as long as they can.
Now they're just going to kick some stuff under the bed and other general half-assery and hope it's sufficient.
It isn't. Period.
Oh for some mod points...this this, a million times THIS!
No, ClassicStart and Start8 have pretty much saved Microsoft's ass on this release. If I were them, I'd be asking for a reward or something...
D'oh, ClassicShell , not ClassicStart. My bad.
Start -> All Programs was a complete disaster -- lets put a hierarchy of everything installed on your computer in a small non-resizable popup menu. Sorry that was just awful. For anything you need the start MENU for, the start screen is a LOT better.
Certainly, instead of a tidy, hierarchical, collapsible interface that only takes up (maybe) a third of the screen, let's make it a mandatory full-screen, scrollable (and scrollable and scrollable) interface instead, with gigantic, cryptic, space-wasting, two-tone icons instead! Brilliant!
You're one of those people who prefer to keep all their filing in a nice big pile right on their desktop, aren't you? Sure, you have to reach around the pile every time you want to use the phone, or grab your stapler, but hey, all your papers are 'at your fingertips'! No more need to open those pesky filing cabinets, or flip through individual folders!
What I *especially* love about the start screen is how it pretty much makes my family wallpapers useless. On Windows 7, I put the shortcuts around the edges of the desktop, then I can see the wallpaper subject (and smile) every time I go back to the desktop. With Windows 8...well, I don't have many photos of my family where the important parts (faces) are pressed right against the top, bottom or either edge of the shot. Yes, I could put a photo widget in the start screen...then be constantly annoyed at the need to scroll past it to get to my shortcuts.
No, ClassicStart and Start8 have pretty much saved Microsoft's ass on this release. If I were them, I'd be asking for a reward or something...
Marriage has about as much to do with christianity as toilet paper does to taking a shit. People were shitting long before it's invent and won't stop when it goes out of style.
You're waiting for the three seashells too? I thought I was the only one!
So what is your stance on polygamous or multiple partner relationships being recognized in civil unions? I only ask because besides same-sex relationships, the only "unacceptable" relationships are ones that are obviously unacceptable. Or what about roommates simply asking for the same benefits as "married" couples?
You really want to give half of your stuff to your roommate when you move out? Although it would be cool if they had to give you half of their stuff if they moved out...might make for some looong term leases :)
Just kidding, I know what you're saying. You're basically looking for the co-habitation tax breaks, trouble is, 'marriage' carries a heck of a lot of other legal baggage with it. Who gets your life insurance if you die while living with a roommate? For some policies, if you're married or common-law, it's your spouse, period. No assign-ability otherwise.