I sincerely doubt the next time there's a dire emergency in a school, that the maintenance guy responsible for shutting this thing down, will be willing to go running in to do it.
A Game Designer, as job description, is not the same thing as Game Programmer or Engineer. So focus on what it is exactly that you want to do. If you want to be a programmer, listen to these people talking about languages and it's hard and stuff.
If you want to be a Game Designer, it's still hard and stuff, but has little to do with programming. Instead it's about game theory, storytelling, resource management, play mechanics, architecture, lighting, and puzzle and quest building. Game design is like being a movie writer/director, and sometimes cinematographer as well. You are the one who designs the game, the story, the mechanics, the levels and level design. All those really smart programmers write the stuff you need to make your game. There are usually proprietary tools with each studio, 3d tools and scripting tools, so being flexible and skilled at quickly learning new applications is vital (good exercise is to pick up 3DMax or Maya or Photoshop, and learn how to use it cold, no documentation. Most in-house tools are sorely lacking in instructions, so get used to that.) A Game Designer is a swiss army knife of skills, but seldom is one of them programming.
And there's really no school for that.
Yes. It is a terrible idea to want a career in the entertainment industry, one of the rare GROWTH industries during this economic downturn. And it would suck to get into game design, as unlike the movie industry, is virtually union-free, removing a serious barrier for entry.
I can't imagine a worse career than one with a starting salary above $50,000, senior salaries in the six figures, doing something creative, and consistent job security.
Sounds awful.
For some reason, smokers get four or five 10-15 minute smoke breaks a day, outside of the normal break schedule (this holds even more true if the boss is a smoker). So claim smoking, then string all your alotted smoke breaks together, and go to the gym for an hour mid-day, or split it with a 30 minute walk/run, and a 30 minute self-directed calisthenic workout.
A fake unhealthy habit is your ticket to good health!
You're absolutely right. Because the last thing we need is a device that requires us to exert any effort or exercise in any way. It would be devastate the MooMoo industry.
"There's a hiccup in that process because of the [potential] writers strike. I will be good to go the moment we are in agreement with the studios. But I won't pick up a pencil while we're not."
"Next year, you're going to see a lot of new novels."
"I think some of the comments here are focusing too much on the fact that Mr. Riccitiello works for EA, and not focusing enough on the content of his statement. The fact that he works for EA has no immediate relevance to the content of his statement.."
"In China, they're giving games away for free,' he says."
Considering the appalling slave-labor work conditions in China that likely contribute to a viable give-away-free business model, and that Mr. Riccitiello works for EA, a game company notorious for working staff into the ground, high burnout rate, and low pay (including no overtime pay), I think where he works is quite relevant to the content of his statement.
During the 18th and 19th centuries there was a brief art movement, heavy on the optical illusions. Basic mathematical gridwork would create massive smears of paint along a dozen yards of wall. But stand at one end and look down the length, the mush would coalesce into the intended landscape or portrait. One of the popular parlour techniques was to create a seemingly random "swirl" of color on a flat table/canvas. The viewer would place a mirrored or polished metal cylinder or inverted cone onto the table, and the swirl would transform into a face upon the cylinder.
In other words, this trick is SO old, that if Interpol had brought H.G. Wells in for questioning about trying to tamper with a time machine museum "mock up", and Wells saw this photoshopped photo with the face swirl sitting on the inspector's desk, he would have made a cone out of an empty paper towel roll and some tinfoil, and easily revealed the identity of the suspect.
Then he would probably have recognized the face as belonging to his old nemesis Jack the Ripper, and would then quickly dismantle his makeshift viewer and begin to look for a means of escape.
Not all missing persons can be seen from space
on
Help Find Steve Fossett
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
To be fair, most missing persons are hiding in bus terminals and seedy motels. Even if it sadly takes someone of celebrity, even someone whose personal hobby is to put themselves into ridiculous danger, to develop a new form of distributed wetware computing, it's still for the better.
Maybe if someone had thought of this earlier, that unlucky family in Oregon wouldn't have been stranded in their car for a week. Or maybe, now there's a new option for the next time that does happen.
Forget SETI-at-Home. I'd much rather play "FindTheLostPeople-at-Home".
"The well known problem in explaining the origin of life is that the complexity of living creatures is so high that the time necessary to form the simplest organic living structure is too large compared to the age of the Earth. Similarly, the age of the Universe is also not sufficient for organic life to be created in a distant environment (similar to that on the Earth) and then transferred to the Earth."
That doesn't sound like it would necessarily contradict non-hand-of-god options, thanks to that following line [emphasis mine]. There was just a story this week about cometary discoveries that included the ability/possibility to incubate the molecular building blocks of life for many billions of years, even way-longer time scales than planetary formation. So between that and this story, one possibility could be that the starter bits of life didn't actually begin on a rock at all. It formed out of the in-between and just eventually landed on one.
Not quite as poetic as divine construction, but I'm sure we could find a solid bunch of writers to punch it up a bit.
not quite the cornucopia of insta-wealth it appears, to all you starving students out there.
It's only $2 bucks for all the legwork. $2 bucks, and that only once Google is happy with your hard work.
The remaining $8 bucks comes once a business "Confirms" the info is accurate. They do that either via a mail-in card, or online. In other words, a teeny tiny fraction of the businesses you hard-working stiffs collect, will likely ever follow up on this part. And among the ones who do, what do you bet that if there's any correction, ANY, then the $8 bucks is forfeit?
It's great for Google, bad for the pavement pounders. Best bet is to hire your 12 year old kids to do the leg work for you, give them the $2 bucks and a valuable lesson in hard work and communications. Then any "confirmations" that pan out, keep that for yourself.
Kids gotta learn about payroll deductions sometime.
"It is highly unlikely that any randomly selected bacterium would be a threat in any way at all to a human"
Uh-huh.
That's usually how the first chapter opens.
Remaining chapters usually rapidly deal with humanity's end, races against time, vindication of hero's heretical beliefs, improbably dramatic romantic moments, and something similar to "That's just crazy enough to work!"
Argument is aggression. Forcefully creating and defending an idea or opinion is sort of the foundation of most societies and governments. Politeness is often a hindrance to direct discourse, obfuscating truth behind veils of false niceties. Equating the written word with the violence and barbarism of movies, games, and real life, is hilarious.
And yet, interestingly to my point. With the written word, it seems anything goes. Why do none of these issues come up with the novel, or the non-fiction? Imagery many times more violent or depraved than any movie or game is written about every day, with nary a shrug. You wrote "baby rape", but why is that less appalling than you illustrating "baby rape"? Or should we begin a ban on our own imaginations?
But, as with you cleverly trying to tie "baby rape" to anyone advocating freedom of expression, there are limits. Just as, in my supposedly "aggressive" argument, I made no personal attacks nor used foul or abusive language, because there is a point where the content fails to serve the purpose. There would be no point in my trying to "flame" or outright attack someone for their opinion, as it would halt any possibility of discussion or exchange of ideas.
With games and movies and other media, there are ALREADY limits, laws banning the depiction of certain illegal acts (like your ever popular "baby rape"). Banning games that contain NONE of these already illegal things, is simply doing an "end run" around existing law, attempting to stifle free expression that is not stifled in other mediums. If you feel, and if enough people feel that all other media with similar violent content should be banned, then a law should be passed. But holding one form of media, games, up to a different standard than other forms (books, movies, sports), is inherently flawed and unfair.
You wrote: "what is it about Manhunt 2, which you have never played? How can you argue that the context of its violence is a net positive for both you individually and society as a whole when you don't even know yet what that context is? The various ratings boards around the world have played the game; you haven't. They're in a better position than you to determine the quality of content and its context."
Yes, exactly. I have never been given the opportunity to decide for myself how I feel about Manhunt2. Interestingly enough, you seem to feel comfortable condemning it while in the very same have-never-seen-nor-played-it position as I. But for a bit of clarification, the "various ratings boards around the world" have in fact, NOT PLAYED THE GAME EITHER. They can't, by virtue of how many games they have to rate and how many dozens, sometimes hundreds of hours, of gameplay many games contain. So they make their decisions based on a worksheet filled out by the game developer, sometimes some video and sample gameplay. That's it.
The ONLY position they are in is one that determines what age level a game is appropriate for. They are NOT in a position to unilaterally dictate personal morals onto me or the general populace. Neither are you, nor am I. Those boards are not public officials, no one voted for them, they do not represent any constituency. To completely ban a creative work that in any other media would not be banned, is quite simply, an overstepping of their authority.
I just want to have the choice to make my own opinion. Which as it is, has been stripped away from me by a small group of people that, for all I know, is equally offended at Huck Finn and Moby Dick.
I do not want you to be forced to play or endure something that you do not wish to. I'm just asking for the same privilege. Some might even call it a right.
So you're saying that these apparently comparably violent films recieved the same treatment as Manhunt2 in the UK? Saw and Hostel (and sequels 1,2,3 and 1,2, respectively) were outright BANNED? That's interesting, I hadn't heard that. Maybe along with your moral indignation at the cesspool that is the U.S., you could mention when that occurred?
Yes the UK is so far playing much more fast and loose with civil liberties, that is true. So I guess it isn't surprising in a country with over four MILLION closed circuit cameras keeping an eye on everything everyone ever does, that a small group of people making decisions for what consenting adults want to watch and/or play with, is considered a good idea.
As #$%*ed up as the U.S. has been lately, I think I prefer our cultural "norms" to those.
[PS: more boobies in mainstream culture in the U.S.? I couldn't agree nor wish for that more.]
"The intended audience has violent proclivities. Games with this level of realistic depictions of ultra-violence feeds those neuroses. An AO rating is perfectly appropriate."
"violent proclivities"? welcome to the human race. Watch a football game lately? How about boxing? Those are actual really-real people beating each other to a bloody pulp, resulting occasionally in actually-actual death.
Yet those spectacles are approved for all ages.
Elevating FICTIONAL violence as more harmful or indecent than ACTUAL violence is nonsensical. Unlike you, I can't speak for every single person who views or plays violent media. But I can speak for myself. I'm a well-educated, well-adjusted, non-violent adult, who often enjoys viewing or playing fictionalized media with dark and/or violent content. So far, my "neuroses" have gone hungry. My "violent proclivities" remain buried, and mostly likely fictional.
I can't stand football or boxing, though. Too violent. And actually realistic. In a really-real way.
If you don't like it, don't play it or watch it, and be a parent to your children and take responsibility for what they play and watch. But leave MY responsibility to ME.
[PS: "AO" rating effectively does not exist, since retail chains won't carry an AO game, in the same way that movie theatres won't show an "X" rated movie. Since it's thus financially impossible to release an AO rated game, that rating effectively blocks a game from being released. Which may be fine for your nanny-world, but in my really-real world, I'd rather make that choice for myself.]
"Manhunt 2 is unmistakably derived from the sadistic and malign torture porn flicks - exploitation films - like Saw and Hostel"
Really? Well both of those movies, Saw and Hostel, received "R" ratings in the U.S., considered restricted for 17 and up.
So why shouldn't Manhunt 2 receive the comparative rating (for games) of "M" for Mature, which is also identically restricted to 17 and up?
And whether or not you personally feel those movies were "maligned", they were actually quite popular with the intended audience that CHOSE to watch them. Why should your personal judgement override Manhunt 2's intended audience's CHOICE to play it?
The time traveler would have GPS capability, routed through his temporal receiver (so he's recieving the signals from the future) so he could route Amelia's signals through his receiver. Easy peasy.
It's not the detail that matters, it's the entire image that's is in view, not a corner or portion. The court didn't define "thumbnail", either. So thumbnail to one person is small viable image to another. If the original is 3000 pixels wide, is a 400 pixels enough of a reduction to be considered "thumbnail"?
For certain uses, having full resolution doesn't matter. A small version of a porn image, meant only for online viewing to begin with, may be enough to, um, function, for the viewer, degrading the value of the original. I'm not saying I agree with this, I'm just saying there's a difference between taking a paragraph from an entire novel, or a single frame from an episode of The Daily Show, and showing an image in its entirety, except smaller.
Example would be, say, the first exclusive pics of Angelina Jolie's baby. Million dollar shots. Or the first image ever of the iPhone. Priceless. But posting a tiny version online, it would still "reveal" everything that the larger version would, taking that right of publishing/profit/secrecy away from the owner. On a cellphone, a way that many many millions of people are viewing images now, a "thumbnail" is plenty big enough to see all they need to see.
I don't need to print a six foot framed print to hang over my couch. I just want to see Britney nekkid. So there's a difference.
Main difference is the protection for text and video is the ability to fairly take a portion of the entire copyrighted piece. With a still photo, even though it's a smaller version, it's still the ENTIRE image, which on the surface seems to go against the definition of "All Rights Reserved". The question a court has to consider, is if that thumbnail, that smaller version, in any way detracts or takes away anything from the original (and not just commercial, there's an artistic value to it as well.) For this case, I think specifically as a search engine function, the court says meh, you're fine.
In fact, as a test of Fair Use, it isn't clear if the wholesale simple shrinking of an image to smaller size is in itself fair game, or if it is just within the specific context of a search engine.
Makes me wonder what this means for the Google Books thingamajig.
Slashdot Mirror
I sincerely doubt the next time there's a dire emergency in a school, that the maintenance guy responsible for shutting this thing down, will be willing to go running in to do it.
A Game Designer, as job description, is not the same thing as Game Programmer or Engineer. So focus on what it is exactly that you want to do. If you want to be a programmer, listen to these people talking about languages and it's hard and stuff. If you want to be a Game Designer, it's still hard and stuff, but has little to do with programming. Instead it's about game theory, storytelling, resource management, play mechanics, architecture, lighting, and puzzle and quest building. Game design is like being a movie writer/director, and sometimes cinematographer as well. You are the one who designs the game, the story, the mechanics, the levels and level design. All those really smart programmers write the stuff you need to make your game. There are usually proprietary tools with each studio, 3d tools and scripting tools, so being flexible and skilled at quickly learning new applications is vital (good exercise is to pick up 3DMax or Maya or Photoshop, and learn how to use it cold, no documentation. Most in-house tools are sorely lacking in instructions, so get used to that.) A Game Designer is a swiss army knife of skills, but seldom is one of them programming. And there's really no school for that.
Yes. It is a terrible idea to want a career in the entertainment industry, one of the rare GROWTH industries during this economic downturn. And it would suck to get into game design, as unlike the movie industry, is virtually union-free, removing a serious barrier for entry. I can't imagine a worse career than one with a starting salary above $50,000, senior salaries in the six figures, doing something creative, and consistent job security. Sounds awful.
For some reason, smokers get four or five 10-15 minute smoke breaks a day, outside of the normal break schedule (this holds even more true if the boss is a smoker). So claim smoking, then string all your alotted smoke breaks together, and go to the gym for an hour mid-day, or split it with a 30 minute walk/run, and a 30 minute self-directed calisthenic workout. A fake unhealthy habit is your ticket to good health!
Just to determine that most people will be watching "House" reruns on their iPod.
You're absolutely right. Because the last thing we need is a device that requires us to exert any effort or exercise in any way. It would be devastate the MooMoo industry.
As Joss was quoted while talking about this:
"There's a hiccup in that process because of the [potential] writers strike. I will be good to go the moment we are in agreement with the studios. But I won't pick up a pencil while we're not."
"Next year, you're going to see a lot of new novels."
So. It's vapor now.
"In China, they're giving games away for free,' he says."
Considering the appalling slave-labor work conditions in China that likely contribute to a viable give-away-free business model, and that Mr. Riccitiello works for EA, a game company notorious for working staff into the ground, high burnout rate, and low pay (including no overtime pay), I think where he works is quite relevant to the content of his statement.
During the 18th and 19th centuries there was a brief art movement, heavy on the optical illusions. Basic mathematical gridwork would create massive smears of paint along a dozen yards of wall. But stand at one end and look down the length, the mush would coalesce into the intended landscape or portrait. One of the popular parlour techniques was to create a seemingly random "swirl" of color on a flat table/canvas. The viewer would place a mirrored or polished metal cylinder or inverted cone onto the table, and the swirl would transform into a face upon the cylinder.
In other words, this trick is SO old, that if Interpol had brought H.G. Wells in for questioning about trying to tamper with a time machine museum "mock up", and Wells saw this photoshopped photo with the face swirl sitting on the inspector's desk, he would have made a cone out of an empty paper towel roll and some tinfoil, and easily revealed the identity of the suspect.
Then he would probably have recognized the face as belonging to his old nemesis Jack the Ripper, and would then quickly dismantle his makeshift viewer and begin to look for a means of escape.
To be fair, most missing persons are hiding in bus terminals and seedy motels. Even if it sadly takes someone of celebrity, even someone whose personal hobby is to put themselves into ridiculous danger, to develop a new form of distributed wetware computing, it's still for the better.
Maybe if someone had thought of this earlier, that unlucky family in Oregon wouldn't have been stranded in their car for a week. Or maybe, now there's a new option for the next time that does happen.
Forget SETI-at-Home. I'd much rather play "FindTheLostPeople-at-Home".
So we're back to this again: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bar-art/546252526/
That doesn't sound like it would necessarily contradict non-hand-of-god options, thanks to that following line [emphasis mine]. There was just a story this week about cometary discoveries that included the ability/possibility to incubate the molecular building blocks of life for many billions of years, even way-longer time scales than planetary formation. So between that and this story, one possibility could be that the starter bits of life didn't actually begin on a rock at all. It formed out of the in-between and just eventually landed on one.
Not quite as poetic as divine construction, but I'm sure we could find a solid bunch of writers to punch it up a bit.
It's only $2 bucks for all the legwork. $2 bucks, and that only once Google is happy with your hard work.
The remaining $8 bucks comes once a business "Confirms" the info is accurate. They do that either via a mail-in card, or online. In other words, a teeny tiny fraction of the businesses you hard-working stiffs collect, will likely ever follow up on this part. And among the ones who do, what do you bet that if there's any correction, ANY, then the $8 bucks is forfeit?
It's great for Google, bad for the pavement pounders. Best bet is to hire your 12 year old kids to do the leg work for you, give them the $2 bucks and a valuable lesson in hard work and communications. Then any "confirmations" that pan out, keep that for yourself.
Kids gotta learn about payroll deductions sometime.
Uh-huh.
That's usually how the first chapter opens.
Remaining chapters usually rapidly deal with humanity's end, races against time, vindication of hero's heretical beliefs, improbably dramatic romantic moments, and something similar to "That's just crazy enough to work!"
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bar-art/546252526/in/ set-1830094/
And everything that we haven't yet adapted to, is 8 million (or more) years asleep, and about to wake up.
Poor little fellers. us, I mean.
Argument is aggression. Forcefully creating and defending an idea or opinion is sort of the foundation of most societies and governments. Politeness is often a hindrance to direct discourse, obfuscating truth behind veils of false niceties. Equating the written word with the violence and barbarism of movies, games, and real life, is hilarious.
And yet, interestingly to my point. With the written word, it seems anything goes. Why do none of these issues come up with the novel, or the non-fiction? Imagery many times more violent or depraved than any movie or game is written about every day, with nary a shrug. You wrote "baby rape", but why is that less appalling than you illustrating "baby rape"? Or should we begin a ban on our own imaginations?
But, as with you cleverly trying to tie "baby rape" to anyone advocating freedom of expression, there are limits. Just as, in my supposedly "aggressive" argument, I made no personal attacks nor used foul or abusive language, because there is a point where the content fails to serve the purpose. There would be no point in my trying to "flame" or outright attack someone for their opinion, as it would halt any possibility of discussion or exchange of ideas.
With games and movies and other media, there are ALREADY limits, laws banning the depiction of certain illegal acts (like your ever popular "baby rape"). Banning games that contain NONE of these already illegal things, is simply doing an "end run" around existing law, attempting to stifle free expression that is not stifled in other mediums. If you feel, and if enough people feel that all other media with similar violent content should be banned, then a law should be passed. But holding one form of media, games, up to a different standard than other forms (books, movies, sports), is inherently flawed and unfair.
You wrote: "what is it about Manhunt 2, which you have never played? How can you argue that the context of its violence is a net positive for both you individually and society as a whole when you don't even know yet what that context is? The various ratings boards around the world have played the game; you haven't. They're in a better position than you to determine the quality of content and its context."
Yes, exactly. I have never been given the opportunity to decide for myself how I feel about Manhunt2. Interestingly enough, you seem to feel comfortable condemning it while in the very same have-never-seen-nor-played-it position as I. But for a bit of clarification, the "various ratings boards around the world" have in fact, NOT PLAYED THE GAME EITHER. They can't, by virtue of how many games they have to rate and how many dozens, sometimes hundreds of hours, of gameplay many games contain. So they make their decisions based on a worksheet filled out by the game developer, sometimes some video and sample gameplay. That's it.
The ONLY position they are in is one that determines what age level a game is appropriate for. They are NOT in a position to unilaterally dictate personal morals onto me or the general populace. Neither are you, nor am I. Those boards are not public officials, no one voted for them, they do not represent any constituency. To completely ban a creative work that in any other media would not be banned, is quite simply, an overstepping of their authority.
I just want to have the choice to make my own opinion. Which as it is, has been stripped away from me by a small group of people that, for all I know, is equally offended at Huck Finn and Moby Dick.
I do not want you to be forced to play or endure something that you do not wish to. I'm just asking for the same privilege. Some might even call it a right.
So you're saying that these apparently comparably violent films recieved the same treatment as Manhunt2 in the UK? Saw and Hostel (and sequels 1,2,3 and 1,2, respectively) were outright BANNED? That's interesting, I hadn't heard that. Maybe along with your moral indignation at the cesspool that is the U.S., you could mention when that occurred?
Yes the UK is so far playing much more fast and loose with civil liberties, that is true. So I guess it isn't surprising in a country with over four MILLION closed circuit cameras keeping an eye on everything everyone ever does, that a small group of people making decisions for what consenting adults want to watch and/or play with, is considered a good idea.
As #$%*ed up as the U.S. has been lately, I think I prefer our cultural "norms" to those.
[PS: more boobies in mainstream culture in the U.S.? I couldn't agree nor wish for that more.]
"The intended audience has violent proclivities. Games with this level of realistic depictions of ultra-violence feeds those neuroses. An AO rating is perfectly appropriate."
"violent proclivities"? welcome to the human race. Watch a football game lately? How about boxing? Those are actual really-real people beating each other to a bloody pulp, resulting occasionally in actually-actual death.
Yet those spectacles are approved for all ages.
Elevating FICTIONAL violence as more harmful or indecent than ACTUAL violence is nonsensical. Unlike you, I can't speak for every single person who views or plays violent media. But I can speak for myself. I'm a well-educated, well-adjusted, non-violent adult, who often enjoys viewing or playing fictionalized media with dark and/or violent content. So far, my "neuroses" have gone hungry. My "violent proclivities" remain buried, and mostly likely fictional.
I can't stand football or boxing, though. Too violent. And actually realistic. In a really-real way.
If you don't like it, don't play it or watch it, and be a parent to your children and take responsibility for what they play and watch. But leave MY responsibility to ME.
[PS: "AO" rating effectively does not exist, since retail chains won't carry an AO game, in the same way that movie theatres won't show an "X" rated movie. Since it's thus financially impossible to release an AO rated game, that rating effectively blocks a game from being released. Which may be fine for your nanny-world, but in my really-real world, I'd rather make that choice for myself.]
"Manhunt 2 is unmistakably derived from the sadistic and malign torture porn flicks - exploitation films - like Saw and Hostel"
Really? Well both of those movies, Saw and Hostel, received "R" ratings in the U.S., considered restricted for 17 and up.
So why shouldn't Manhunt 2 receive the comparative rating (for games) of "M" for Mature, which is also identically restricted to 17 and up?
And whether or not you personally feel those movies were "maligned", they were actually quite popular with the intended audience that CHOSE to watch them. Why should your personal judgement override Manhunt 2's intended audience's CHOICE to play it?
The time traveler would have GPS capability, routed through his temporal receiver (so he's recieving the signals from the future) so he could route Amelia's signals through his receiver. Easy peasy.
If only she had a modern GPS unit on her.
And Dinosaurs. They'd exist today if only there were modern breeding programs at the time.
And the Hindenburg. with modern safety features, it never would have burned.
And Jack the Ripper. Modern forensics would have closed his case.
So many avertable tragedies. So few time machines.
It's not the detail that matters, it's the entire image that's is in view, not a corner or portion. The court didn't define "thumbnail", either. So thumbnail to one person is small viable image to another. If the original is 3000 pixels wide, is a 400 pixels enough of a reduction to be considered "thumbnail"?
For certain uses, having full resolution doesn't matter. A small version of a porn image, meant only for online viewing to begin with, may be enough to, um, function, for the viewer, degrading the value of the original. I'm not saying I agree with this, I'm just saying there's a difference between taking a paragraph from an entire novel, or a single frame from an episode of The Daily Show, and showing an image in its entirety, except smaller.
Example would be, say, the first exclusive pics of Angelina Jolie's baby. Million dollar shots. Or the first image ever of the iPhone. Priceless. But posting a tiny version online, it would still "reveal" everything that the larger version would, taking that right of publishing/profit/secrecy away from the owner. On a cellphone, a way that many many millions of people are viewing images now, a "thumbnail" is plenty big enough to see all they need to see.
I don't need to print a six foot framed print to hang over my couch. I just want to see Britney nekkid. So there's a difference.
Main difference is the protection for text and video is the ability to fairly take a portion of the entire copyrighted piece. With a still photo, even though it's a smaller version, it's still the ENTIRE image, which on the surface seems to go against the definition of "All Rights Reserved". The question a court has to consider, is if that thumbnail, that smaller version, in any way detracts or takes away anything from the original (and not just commercial, there's an artistic value to it as well.) For this case, I think specifically as a search engine function, the court says meh, you're fine.
In fact, as a test of Fair Use, it isn't clear if the wholesale simple shrinking of an image to smaller size is in itself fair game, or if it is just within the specific context of a search engine.
Makes me wonder what this means for the Google Books thingamajig.
"so this thing isn't designed to be serviced then."
Correct. It is being constructed as a flawless, perfect, unbreakable device that always works exactly as planned and designed.
something NASA is well known for.