OOI, how do you propose one could civil-disobedience this law? I suppose you could set up an ISP which doesn't filter, but that takes a lot of resources and money. How could an individual defy the filter as an act of civil disobedience?
Freedom of speech doesn't necessarily entail that a particular platform must be given for that speech. E.g., if my ISP decides it doesn't want to host my site, people generally wouldn't say it's a freedom of speech issue, unless I'm prevented from ever saying that on any site.
I'm sure that if the politicians put the info on their personal websites, they could still do so - the attack seems to be against the Parliamentary website. "Parliament" is not a person, so doesn't have rights in that sense.
There is the wider issue of if and when illegal actions are justified as a means of political protest - but I don't see that there's any worry of hypocrisy or infringing anyone's speech here.
And note that they have only a few per cent of the market of phones that can run web browers (basically any old feature phone - most phones these days are smartphones, really), which is the market to consider, since we're talking about Opera Mini.
But what's a smartphone - can you give me an technical definition (i.e., not simply "high end phones") that includes the original Iphone, but not many feature phones? And given that the issue here is web browsers, it's not clear how the "smart" distinction matters, since all feature phones run web browsers too.
Apple's market share in the phone market is a few per cent. Yes, you can get higher figures if you restrict the market to just the Iphone and a few other phones, obviously - you might as well say that Apple have 100% share of Iphones - but it's not clear to me those tricks make them a monopoly.
If you want to use another browser - including Opera Mini which runs on billions of feature phones out there - you have plenty of alternative choices.
I too have heard similar things - basically, they don't sound like nice people to work with. But indeed, this is the wrong law to use. Once they have this conviction, they can go after all the other porn producers they find "disgusting", even where the conditions are perfect that everyone participating knows exactly what will be going on, and can stop it at any time. (In BDSM, the standard way to avoid any problems is with a safeword - it would seem sensible for anyone working in porn to have a clear sign they can give to indicate it to stop.)
But that's the problem with the First Amendment, isn't it? If you defend it you end up siding with unsavory characters; if you don't then it's permanently eroded; you're dammed either way.
Indeed - I think it's important to spread the idea that just because one believes something shouldn't be illegal (or more specifically, illegal under this particular crime), doesn't mean you like it. Unfortunately so many people don't seem to get this.
How does that work for non-pr0n sites where some or all of content might still be deemed "adult"?
How does that work for user-generated sites with a range of material under a single domain?
which would then allow communities whose law prohibit such materials to be sold in their community to be able to have their local IP providers block such web site extensions
And there is one problem - you still have a situation where things are censored. It may be on a more local level, but at the same time, this system makes it an awful lot easier for things to be blocked, even if the end user doesn't want that.
I take your point, but don't give them ideas! Else we'll end up where suddenly it's a crime to just look at a harmless picture, that the Government thinks you shouldn't. The UK has already started passing such laws.
If they were actually forced, then the producers should be done under charges like assault, and so on. This is not the right law to use.
But I suspect in reality, it was no more "forced" than things you see in a movie. It's the classic pro-censorship tactic - no one dares defend something that seems dodgy to them, but the precedent set will apply to a wide range of material, including things that result in no harm to others.
it would be valid under this precedent for them to sue
Note the problem is that these aren't merely civil issues, but criminal ones.
You poor chaps over the pond
Oh, it happens both sides. Here in the UK, not only do we have similar criminal laws on publication of "obscene" material, but now new laws will have you locked up for private possession of "disgusting" "extreme" pictures, even if no one else sees them.
I agree. And it's worse now that the regular Apple Slashvertisements are spilling into other areas (such as games.slashdot.org and mobile.slashdot.org, as we've had in recent days).
I already covered that argument with "microwaves or fridge freezers". To repeat, last time I looked, we didn't cover toasters on Slashdot. Is this News for Nerds, or Toaster Rumours For Random Consumer? The only toaster I expect to see here is either one that also doubles up as something like a web server, or one that's attached to an Amiga...
I used to joke that if Apple released a toaster, suddenly Slashdot would start covering it. But now I'm not sure if that's a joke or not.
you people can't believe Apple didn't make a tablet for everything and everyone
No one is saying that - but if Apple stories are going to be here, it's fair game to criticise their products. Or, next time people are criticising Microsoft, are you going to be pleading "Oh, but they make appliances, therefore you're not allowed to criticise, and should just accept their product isn't for you!"
Yes, Apple isn't for many of us - hence the criticisms. But for some reason, the constant coverage of Apple, whilst other tablets (and phones etc) are rarely covered, would imply people think that Apple is all Slashdot readers care about. So that's all the more reason to speak up.
Tablet PCs haven't been successful, and Apple was expected to perform a miracle
I'm not expecting anything from Apple - I'm sure it'll be an average product as always. But all the Apple fans and media seem to be expecting miracles from Apple, and that's what we're criticising.
But there are already tablets around too, along with phones and portable media players, that are already available (not vaporware) and cheaper. Why don't we hear about them, instead of endless stories about the Istale (it's not even released!).
And I've got to laugh at TFS's "Apple's reticence to reveal details prior to a product's launch is legendary." Last time I looked, most companies didn't reveal too many details before they lauch.
On the other hand, it's here with the Ipad that we see endless stories and media coverage, prior to launch.
There are various other tablets around, which are generally cheaper, but it seems that people are preferring either smaller devices like phones, or more featured devices like netbooks.
But don't worry, even if the Ipad flops, if tablets become more common in years to come, even if Apple are nothing to do with that, Apple fans will still be claiming it as an "Apple first". You just watch.
Note that upgrading from an e-book reader doesn't make sense, as the Ipad isn't an e-book reader (it doesn't have the e-ink technology that makes e-book readers so useful, with long battery life and very high quality display).
Ah yes, this card again. It's been commonly used since the hype about the ipad started circulating. It's brilliant - all of a sudden Apple get to be exempt from all the criticisms people make of other companies. By that logic, can we exempt Microsoft by saying Windows is just meant for "appliances"?
Yes, you're right then, it's an appliance. That's why we're criticising it. When we're criticising it for not being open etc, it's the same thing as criticising it for being a mere "appliance". Changing the words doesn't defend the criticisms.
Now sure yes, we don't criticise appliances like microwaves or fridge freezers. But last time I looked, we didn't cover those on Slashdot.
Is this News for Nerds, or Appliance Rumours For Random Consumer?
so it's not like the iPad is going to be a step back when it comes to capacity
So it offers the same storage, for more money, and takes up more space. The improvement is?
And anyone wanting something larger than a portable media player or their phone can get a netbook/tablet/etc at a fraction of the price, with vastly more storage.
I can type on my iTouch as fast as most people type on a computer (which is faster than most people write) so I'll be surprised if i cant do the same on an iPad.
Indeed, and if it's the same, it's not going to be a "game changer". For portable devices that allow you to read and enter text, the game changed years ago.
In ten years' time, I bet we'll see people claiming "Oh, Apple weren't the first, but they popularised it". Well here we can see - Apple are not popularising anything, it's the astroturfing that's generating the publicity, and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy (people claim the Ipad will be game changing, before it's even released, then years later they point to their own hype, and say, look, the Ipad did all this!)
Get a stylus for your iPad (yeah it's a little annoying it isn't included but whatever)
Actually, isn't there a problem that capacitive touchscreens (used by the Iwhatever for multitouch) isn't so good for use with a stylus? For those, you're better off with resistive touchscreens.
you just can't type by muscle memory without having a touch keyboard then maybe add a bluetooth keyboard.
Then you might as well just use any (much cheaper) phone that supports bluetooth keyboards.
I saw graffiti on the toilet doors of the Tate Modern - the only way I knew it wasn't meant to be part of the exhibitions is because there wasn't a placard explaining what the graffiti was about.
Some modern art is skillful, interesting and so on. But my general rule is that if you need a placard explaining that it's art and why it's important, it isn't very good art. For example, the exhibit that was nothing more than a standard rectangular mirror hanging on the wall (!) (if she bought that mirror, can they sue her for copyright infringement? Is my bathroom mirror infringing on her copyright?)
I think it'd be funny to just hang up some joke fake placards, next to the graffiti, or next to random doors, bits of rubbish, or other features of the building, and see how long it takes to get noticed... (Indeed, for all I know, that's what someone did with the mirror - I can't really tell.)
If anything's copyrightable, it might be the photograph, which is what the license is releasing as CC.
But in the US, a trivial reproduction of public domain material itself cannot be copyrighted. So surely claiming Creative Commons on these images is still bogus?
But what does iPad have to do with this? Even if we ignore the fact that iPad doesn't even have a stylus, writing with such is laggy and just messes up the text. You write a lot better on paper. The technology isn't there just yet.
Quite right. It's not a "game changer". This vaporware is not even released. Even if and when it is, it's not using e-ink technology; there's no significant difference to any other tablet type device that is already available.
Dear Slashdot, can we quite with the obligitary Apple product placement in every story?
Ah yes, let's include made up "projected" figures of vaporware that's not been released. Why is there any reason to think future sales of this device will surpass Nintendo's future sales, either of their current products, or others that they may release?
Okay, so we're in your society, and the big media organisations send round people with more arms than you to forcibly remove your Internet connection. What now?
The difference is that on my 5800, I make the choice whether I want Flash or not, not the manufacturer. (Just because a phone can do it, doesn't mean it can't be easily disabled if you prefer.)
I agree that there are open systems like Symbian or Android, but:
The trade-off is that you have to cater for multiple phone types rather than having one set of hardware like the iPhone or Wii.
There have now been three different Iphones, with differing hardware, so I'm not sure why this is any different to developing for more than one Nokia phone?
Slashdot Mirror
OOI, how do you propose one could civil-disobedience this law? I suppose you could set up an ISP which doesn't filter, but that takes a lot of resources and money. How could an individual defy the filter as an act of civil disobedience?
Freedom of speech doesn't necessarily entail that a particular platform must be given for that speech. E.g., if my ISP decides it doesn't want to host my site, people generally wouldn't say it's a freedom of speech issue, unless I'm prevented from ever saying that on any site.
I'm sure that if the politicians put the info on their personal websites, they could still do so - the attack seems to be against the Parliamentary website. "Parliament" is not a person, so doesn't have rights in that sense.
There is the wider issue of if and when illegal actions are justified as a means of political protest - but I don't see that there's any worry of hypocrisy or infringing anyone's speech here.
And note that they have only a few per cent of the market of phones that can run web browers (basically any old feature phone - most phones these days are smartphones, really), which is the market to consider, since we're talking about Opera Mini.
But what's a smartphone - can you give me an technical definition (i.e., not simply "high end phones") that includes the original Iphone, but not many feature phones? And given that the issue here is web browsers, it's not clear how the "smart" distinction matters, since all feature phones run web browsers too.
Apple's market share in the phone market is a few per cent. Yes, you can get higher figures if you restrict the market to just the Iphone and a few other phones, obviously - you might as well say that Apple have 100% share of Iphones - but it's not clear to me those tricks make them a monopoly.
If you want to use another browser - including Opera Mini which runs on billions of feature phones out there - you have plenty of alternative choices.
I too have heard similar things - basically, they don't sound like nice people to work with. But indeed, this is the wrong law to use. Once they have this conviction, they can go after all the other porn producers they find "disgusting", even where the conditions are perfect that everyone participating knows exactly what will be going on, and can stop it at any time. (In BDSM, the standard way to avoid any problems is with a safeword - it would seem sensible for anyone working in porn to have a clear sign they can give to indicate it to stop.)
But that's the problem with the First Amendment, isn't it? If you defend it you end up siding with unsavory characters; if you don't then it's permanently eroded; you're dammed either way.
Indeed - I think it's important to spread the idea that just because one believes something shouldn't be illegal (or more specifically, illegal under this particular crime), doesn't mean you like it. Unfortunately so many people don't seem to get this.
How does that work for non-pr0n sites where some or all of content might still be deemed "adult"?
How does that work for user-generated sites with a range of material under a single domain?
which would then allow communities whose law prohibit such materials to be sold in their community to be able to have their local IP providers block such web site extensions
And there is one problem - you still have a situation where things are censored. It may be on a more local level, but at the same time, this system makes it an awful lot easier for things to be blocked, even if the end user doesn't want that.
I take your point, but don't give them ideas! Else we'll end up where suddenly it's a crime to just look at a harmless picture, that the Government thinks you shouldn't. The UK has already started passing such laws.
If they were actually forced, then the producers should be done under charges like assault, and so on. This is not the right law to use.
But I suspect in reality, it was no more "forced" than things you see in a movie. It's the classic pro-censorship tactic - no one dares defend something that seems dodgy to them, but the precedent set will apply to a wide range of material, including things that result in no harm to others.
it would be valid under this precedent for them to sue
Note the problem is that these aren't merely civil issues, but criminal ones.
You poor chaps over the pond
Oh, it happens both sides. Here in the UK, not only do we have similar criminal laws on publication of "obscene" material, but now new laws will have you locked up for private possession of "disgusting" "extreme" pictures, even if no one else sees them.
The question is, should it be criminally obscene. Why should it?
I agree. And it's worse now that the regular Apple Slashvertisements are spilling into other areas (such as games.slashdot.org and mobile.slashdot.org, as we've had in recent days).
I already covered that argument with "microwaves or fridge freezers". To repeat, last time I looked, we didn't cover toasters on Slashdot. Is this News for Nerds, or Toaster Rumours For Random Consumer? The only toaster I expect to see here is either one that also doubles up as something like a web server, or one that's attached to an Amiga...
I used to joke that if Apple released a toaster, suddenly Slashdot would start covering it. But now I'm not sure if that's a joke or not.
you people can't believe Apple didn't make a tablet for everything and everyone
No one is saying that - but if Apple stories are going to be here, it's fair game to criticise their products. Or, next time people are criticising Microsoft, are you going to be pleading "Oh, but they make appliances, therefore you're not allowed to criticise, and should just accept their product isn't for you!"
Yes, Apple isn't for many of us - hence the criticisms. But for some reason, the constant coverage of Apple, whilst other tablets (and phones etc) are rarely covered, would imply people think that Apple is all Slashdot readers care about. So that's all the more reason to speak up.
Tablet PCs haven't been successful, and Apple was expected to perform a miracle
I'm not expecting anything from Apple - I'm sure it'll be an average product as always. But all the Apple fans and media seem to be expecting miracles from Apple, and that's what we're criticising.
But there are already tablets around too, along with phones and portable media players, that are already available (not vaporware) and cheaper. Why don't we hear about them, instead of endless stories about the Istale (it's not even released!).
And I've got to laugh at TFS's "Apple's reticence to reveal details prior to a product's launch is legendary." Last time I looked, most companies didn't reveal too many details before they lauch.
On the other hand, it's here with the Ipad that we see endless stories and media coverage, prior to launch.
There are various other tablets around, which are generally cheaper, but it seems that people are preferring either smaller devices like phones, or more featured devices like netbooks.
But don't worry, even if the Ipad flops, if tablets become more common in years to come, even if Apple are nothing to do with that, Apple fans will still be claiming it as an "Apple first". You just watch.
Note that upgrading from an e-book reader doesn't make sense, as the Ipad isn't an e-book reader (it doesn't have the e-ink technology that makes e-book readers so useful, with long battery life and very high quality display).
Talking of the size, I was amused by this specially designed pocket for the Ipad: http://gadgetynews.com/scottvest-features-ipad-pocket/
I honestly can't tell if this image is a serious clothes item, or a parody. It's like being back in the 80s!
This is an appliance, not a full-blown computer
Ah yes, this card again. It's been commonly used since the hype about the ipad started circulating. It's brilliant - all of a sudden Apple get to be exempt from all the criticisms people make of other companies. By that logic, can we exempt Microsoft by saying Windows is just meant for "appliances"?
Yes, you're right then, it's an appliance. That's why we're criticising it. When we're criticising it for not being open etc, it's the same thing as criticising it for being a mere "appliance". Changing the words doesn't defend the criticisms.
Now sure yes, we don't criticise appliances like microwaves or fridge freezers. But last time I looked, we didn't cover those on Slashdot.
Is this News for Nerds, or Appliance Rumours For Random Consumer?
If multitasking ever comes about
Feel free to join us in 1985 anytime soon...
so it's not like the iPad is going to be a step back when it comes to capacity
So it offers the same storage, for more money, and takes up more space. The improvement is?
And anyone wanting something larger than a portable media player or their phone can get a netbook/tablet/etc at a fraction of the price, with vastly more storage.
I can type on my iTouch as fast as most people type on a computer (which is faster than most people write) so I'll be surprised if i cant do the same on an iPad.
Indeed, and if it's the same, it's not going to be a "game changer". For portable devices that allow you to read and enter text, the game changed years ago.
In ten years' time, I bet we'll see people claiming "Oh, Apple weren't the first, but they popularised it". Well here we can see - Apple are not popularising anything, it's the astroturfing that's generating the publicity, and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy (people claim the Ipad will be game changing, before it's even released, then years later they point to their own hype, and say, look, the Ipad did all this!)
Get a stylus for your iPad (yeah it's a little annoying it isn't included but whatever)
Actually, isn't there a problem that capacitive touchscreens (used by the Iwhatever for multitouch) isn't so good for use with a stylus? For those, you're better off with resistive touchscreens.
you just can't type by muscle memory without having a touch keyboard then maybe add a bluetooth keyboard.
Then you might as well just use any (much cheaper) phone that supports bluetooth keyboards.
I saw graffiti on the toilet doors of the Tate Modern - the only way I knew it wasn't meant to be part of the exhibitions is because there wasn't a placard explaining what the graffiti was about.
Some modern art is skillful, interesting and so on. But my general rule is that if you need a placard explaining that it's art and why it's important, it isn't very good art. For example, the exhibit that was nothing more than a standard rectangular mirror hanging on the wall (!) (if she bought that mirror, can they sue her for copyright infringement? Is my bathroom mirror infringing on her copyright?)
I think it'd be funny to just hang up some joke fake placards, next to the graffiti, or next to random doors, bits of rubbish, or other features of the building, and see how long it takes to get noticed... (Indeed, for all I know, that's what someone did with the mirror - I can't really tell.)
If anything's copyrightable, it might be the photograph, which is what the license is releasing as CC.
But in the US, a trivial reproduction of public domain material itself cannot be copyrighted. So surely claiming Creative Commons on these images is still bogus?
But what does iPad have to do with this? Even if we ignore the fact that iPad doesn't even have a stylus, writing with such is laggy and just messes up the text. You write a lot better on paper. The technology isn't there just yet.
Quite right. It's not a "game changer". This vaporware is not even released. Even if and when it is, it's not using e-ink technology; there's no significant difference to any other tablet type device that is already available.
Dear Slashdot, can we quite with the obligitary Apple product placement in every story?
You forgot to include iPod Touch
Okay, that's an extra 20 million. You still lose.
and projected iPad sales.
Ah yes, let's include made up "projected" figures of vaporware that's not been released. Why is there any reason to think future sales of this device will surpass Nintendo's future sales, either of their current products, or others that they may release?
Okay, so we're in your society, and the big media organisations send round people with more arms than you to forcibly remove your Internet connection. What now?
The difference is that on my 5800, I make the choice whether I want Flash or not, not the manufacturer. (Just because a phone can do it, doesn't mean it can't be easily disabled if you prefer.)
I agree that there are open systems like Symbian or Android, but:
The trade-off is that you have to cater for multiple phone types rather than having one set of hardware like the iPhone or Wii.
There have now been three different Iphones, with differing hardware, so I'm not sure why this is any different to developing for more than one Nokia phone?