Frankly, I think you must have a definition of the political which is so truncated as to encompass what takes place in a voting booth once a year and no more.
Okay, so your definition of "political" is so broad that it encompasses everything. The phrase "political parody," therefore, is meaningless. Everything is political, so every parody is political parody. Same net result. Calling it "political parody" amounts to nothing at all.
The use of the Dow Chemical logo was in a parody. THis is accepted and legitimate fair-use of said trademarks and is recognized as such by law.
Wrong. Sorry, but wrong. Posing as another individual or corporation and making false statements with the intention of harming the reputation of that individual or corporation is not protected by law. It is, in fact, illegal. It's called fraud and defamation.
So just shut down the ISP huh? THat sounds OK to you?
Yup. If the ISP won't act responsibly, the upstream provider will.
Anyway I'm tired of being trolled so that's it.
The irony of this statement is not lost on me. I'm the one being called troll, while you're the one who's too cowardly to put your own name on your posts. Read my posting history. You'll see I'm no troll. I have opinions that differ-- evidently wildly-- from yours. That's not what "troll" means.
You, on the other hand, have no posting history to which to refer. You're anonymous.
When people can be held incommunicado, with no legal representation allowed, and not even hear the charges they are accused of nor be allowed to confront their accusers in a court of law--all of which are rights enshrined in the Constitution--I'd say there was a fair bit of "Constitution trampling" going on.
These rights are only extended to citizens of the United States. Non-citizens are basically at the government's pleasure. There are no guarantees in the Constitution that apply to non-citizens.
So yes, basically the government can take any non-citizen and throw them in a bottomless pit forever. It's legal. It's distasteful, but sometimes it's necessary.
Open your eyes a bit and take a look around before engaging in discourse, you'll find it most enlightening.
In this case, you (any random citizen) are in the position of enemy.
Only if you put yourself there.
The problem with your perspective is that, even if people are doing nothing wrong, they are not "fine." Not if someone with access to the information has a reason -- political, financial, or personal -- to use that information against the surveilled.
That's why we have laws and unbelievably strong security systems in place to prevent the inappropriate use of intelligence data. First, even to get access to the data in the abstract sense, you have to be a trusted individual. Then, in order to get access to any particular piece of data, you have to convince a bunch of highly trusted individuals that you have a compelling need for that access. And then, if you make illegal use of that data, you can be found guilty of treason and sent to prison for the rest of your life, or even executed.
If somebody had a personal bone to pick with you, there would be a lot of safer and easier ways to get to you than by subverting our government's intelligence networks. You should be more afraid of giving the gas station attendant your credit card number than of somebody getting access to the NSA's database.
But you're really missing the larger point here. We have been living with signals intelligence, foreign and domestic, since the late 1940's. Were you even aware of the fact? Initiatives like TIA are more about analysis and synthesis, and getting the right data to the right agencies in a timely manner, than about new information gathering methods. If we'd had a TIA-like system in 2000, there's a reasonable chance the various government agencies might have been able to stop the 9/11 hijackers. See, we had the data, but we didn't have systems in place for getting that data into the right hands at the right time and in the right context. The data just kind of fell onto the floor. TIA is about being able to make appropriate use of the data we're already gathering.
If you feel threatened by this... well, I think that just might say more about you than it does about the government.
1. Political? What the fuck, dude? There's absolutely nothing political about Union Carbide or Dow Chemical. They're commercial concerns, not political.
2. The Dow Chemical case involved the unauthorized use of the "Dow Chemcial" trademark and the associated logo. If the offending party hadn't used the name (if they'd called it "Cow Chemical" or some other similar but noninfringing name) and logo, they'd have been in the clear.
3. The reason the issue was escalated to the Verio level was because Thing.net didn't have any sort of AUP against this kind of illegal activity. Verio, fortunately, does. So Dow went to Verio and said, "Hey, Verio, your client is violating your AUP." And Verio said, "You're absolutely right. Bad boys!" And that's that.
4. Before you cry "chilling effect" again, you might want to see the big point that's staring you right in the face, here. The creators of the so-called parody site were breaking the law. Their unauthorized use of the Dow Chemical name and logo were not protected speech. If they had said, "Dow Chemical is bad," that would have been fine. If they had said, "We're Cow Chemical, and we're bad," that would have been fine. But because they said, "We're Dow Chemical, and we're bad," they got their pee pees smacked. See?
5. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks for providing an example of my point.
If we let organizations such as the RIAA destroy our freedom of speech and cripple our ability to learn, then there will be no point to trying to protecting this place from the "axis of evil".
Oh sweet christ on a cracker. Are you even listening to what you're saying here? "If I can't have my free music downloads, we might as well just bomb ourselves back into the stone age."
No, I don't care whether or not that's what you meant. That's what you said. Maybe you need to think, for just a fraction of a second or so, before you say something so incredibly stupid, okay?
Yes. That's okay. Big secret now: we've been living with domestic and international signals intelligence gathering since the 1940's. Exactly how much has it abridged your freedom of speech, movement, or assembly? The correct answer here is zero.
The "war on terror" is being used to distract people from the constitution-trampling our fearless leader is currently engaging in.
Oh, please. "Constitution-trampling?" Get a sense of perspective. The simple fact that you can climb on your computer and post a message about "Constitution-trampling" is a sign that the Constitution is alive and well.
This is basically my problem, in a nutshell. Slashdotters-- not all of us, just a vocal and strident minority-- get on here and post sarcastic remarks about the government and about their freedoms without (1) any facts to back them up, and (2) any sense of perspective that allows them to interpret their perceived offenses in context. If I were to get my news only from Slashdot, I would think that copyright term extensions is the biggest issue facing our country today. Slashdotters don't talk about the war because they typically don't understand it, or even know that it's going on. Slashdotters don't talk about deficit spending because they typically don't know what the term means.
Personally, I think Slashdot is a textbook example of a culture of affluence. Your average Slashdotter has never wanted for anything in his life, so he can't really internalize concepts like living in fear of a terrorist attack, or being unable to feed his family. So instead we get incredibly passionate screeds on the importance of source code and the long-term dangers of copyright extension, issues that even the most cursory examination reveals to be trivial in the extreme.
Okay, way, way off-topic now. Oh, well. I guess I'm as guilty of being vocal and strident as anybody.
The chilling effects people on/. are talking about are not drivel. They are rights that are in the process of being taken away.
No, they're drivel. The two best examples I can think of both came up recently. They are the fake CNN story story (er, you know what I mean) posted earlier today, and the fake Dow Chemical web site and press release story, posted some weeks ago. In both of those cases, Slashdotters were quick to cry "chilling effect!" and "takedown!" and to decry the DMCA. It seems like in each case most people failed to take a minute and realize that the cases in question were more about trademark infringement than anything else, and that the actions taken by the offended parties were basically right. The same basic scenario arose around the whole Elcomsoft matter. Everybody cried "chilling effect!" without stopping to think that maybe what Elcomsoft did was actually wrong, and that both Adobe and, later, the government were doing the right thing in response.
Basically, the Slashdot community has zero credibility when it comes to copyright and other IP matters. This is the same core community that made Napster a household name, and everything that goes up on Slashdot is colored by that fact. No matter what any one individual-- including I, myself-- may think or say, the prevailing opinion on and of Slashdot is that kids just want to download free music and movies. Because of that fact-- or perhaps perception is a better word-- it's impossible to take any of the Slashdot uproar seriously.
But my original point, I think, still stands. If you want to argue about politics, let's argue about something that actually matters, instead of having yet another flame war about the Bono Copyright Extension Act, or whatever the hell the unbelievably trivial Slashdot issue of the day is.
Does the government want to track and record all communications sent by me?
Short answer: yes, with a but.
The government does want to track and record all communications sent by you. This is called, in military parlance, SIGINT, for "signals intelligence," and it's a doctrine that's as old as the hills. Basically SIGINT means to keep your ear to the ground and listen for signs that the bad guys are doing something that you'll wish you could have prevented. But nobody really cares about you, personally, so as long as you're not planning to hide weapons of mass destruction in your garage or anything, you're fine.
on the things that all slashdotters love: 'the Total Information Awareness project, online activism, file sharing, and the prospect of a digital counterculture.'
Speak for yourself. I for one am utterly bored with the political direction Slashdot has taken in the past couple of years. And it's not even good politics! When the issues of the day are domestic and international terrorism, the war in Afghanistan, the prospect of war in Iraq and elsewhere, the economy, or even the space shuttle, the prevailing topics of discussion on Slashdot still center around that same list of drivel: the RIAA, Microsoft, and stories about "chilling effects" that are just barely more than "we hate the government but we don't know why" flamefests.
If Slashdot wants to get political, at least get political in ways that people give a damn about. Otherwise, let's stick to the stuff that made Slashdot a fun place to hang out in the beginning: news for nerds.
"A large number of people think (the solution to) productivity has been solved," explains Thomas Gruver, group manager for the Center for Information Work.
Man, those Microsofters really do live in a different world. On what planet do they find people who think that they've got that productivity problem taken care of?
Can anyone give a positive report on iMovie 3.0.1?
Yes.
First things first: the machine I'm using to run iMovie is a dual-processor 1 GHz with 512 MB of RAM. A faster machine will undoubtedly run it better, while a slower machine will undoubtedly run it less well.
I've used iMovie 3.0.1 to import a fair amount-- about 40 minutes, I think-- of DV footage from files I had on my computer. I don't have a camera myself, so I can't comment on how well or poorly the camera interface works, but I do have lots of DVCPRO footage left over from a previous project. The footage plays back in real time from the timeline with no problems at all.
I have about 5,000 songs in my iTunes library, and the first time I clicked the "audio" button I had to wait about five seconds, maybe ten, for the list of songs to appear. After that, there was no noticeable delay.
The effects and transitions seem to work just fine. I don't think I've tried all of them, but I haven't had one fail or work in an unexpected way yet.
Integration with iPhoto is, in a word, incredible. Just click a picture, set a duration, and poof, there's a clip on the timeline.
Do I have any complaints? Not really. Sure, this is just the free iMovie; it would be nice if it supported multiple video tracks on the timeline or such, but that's what Final Cut Express is for.
So, to summarize, iMovie 3 does not really suck, and no, I have had no problems with it at all.
1) Not sharing views that are obviously correct is a sign of a lack of intelligence.
2) I most certainly am a judge of what is pro- and anti-American. I am an American, which means I get to made those decisions for myself. I have been a student of history and political philosophy throughtout my life, so I feel I am qualified to make the judgments. This is a key differentiating factor between people of character, who understand that it's possible to know what's right and what's wrong, and moral relativists, who don't. American socialists, for example, can get bent.
3) Please point out one-- one will do-- example of my complaining about lost karma. I made a remark about moderation up-thread, but as you'll note it was in the context of a "hee hee." That's hardly complaining.
1) On the Internet, international blah-blah is usually, not always but usually, a code word for "wrong-headed idiot." I'm sure there are as many smart people per capita outside the US as there are inside, but it doesn't seem like very many of them are posting messages on Slashdot.
2) In order to qualify oneself as pro-American or anti-American, one must first know what the terms mean. Socialism, for example, is anti-American. There are many Slashdotters, both American and otherwise, who fail to understand this simple concept.
3) Remember, kiddo. I say what I mean and post what I think, and let the karma fall where it may. Seems like more people agree with me than disagree with me, but I just consider that to be a happy coincidence.
You're mixing technical and legal issues. That never works too well.
These guys were using the CNN logo without permission. They were doing so in a way that was intentionally deceptive. (Whether it was intended as a parody or not isn't the point; the point is that they intended for the generated page to look like it came from CNN's site.) Whether they were doing this via a link or through other means isn't relevant. It's still infringement.
So, in other words, a link most definitely can be infringment.
Hee hee. That's pretty funny. First I posted an anti-France comment. It went unmoderated. Then I posted a pointer to a warblog. It went unmoderated. But when I posted a comment calling Slashdot a "nest of anti-American collectivist nutcases," I got moderated as a troll!
Remember, kiddies. If you value your karma, you will speak naught but good of Slashdot.
Sure, I'm happy to share. But I believe you're confused. If you're looking for morons, this this the place. It's the biggest nest of anti-American collectivist nutcases I know of.
Venkman: This city is about to face a disaster of biblical proportions. Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical?" Ray: We mean real wrath-of-God type stuff. Plagues, darkness-- Winston: The dead rising from the grave! Egon: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes-- Venkman: Riots in the streets, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
Although the real reason is more likely to be because people were actually believing that the fake stories were true.
Oh, come on. The web site generated pages that included the CNN logo! The real reason is obviously because whomever created this little toy was using the CNN logo without permission.
This falls into exactly the same category as the Dow Chemical thing from a few weeks back. Parody is fine as long as you don't actually use somebody else's logo. That crosses the line from fair use into trademark infringement.
Comments including the phrase "chilling effect" will be summarily ignored for the senseless drivel that they are.
I'm on a crusade. I intend to post a comment like this one whenever I see anybody use "virii." Please don't interpret this comment as either endorsement of or disagreement with the parent post. Moderators: with your help, we can wipe out "virii" in our lifetime!
The plural of "virus" isn't "virii." There is no such word. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."
Here's a good explanation from cdknow.com, quoted here in its entirety because the people who most need to read this won't click on a link.
The correct English plural of virus is viruses. Please consult any good dictionary before making up words.
For the purists, in Latin, there is a rarely-used plural form:
virus, viri (neuter)
(Forms: almost always restricted to nominative and accusative singular; generally singular in Lucretius, ablative singular in Lucretius)
The point of this is that even in Latin the form "viri" is rarely used. The singular form is used in most every instance. (This is from the Oxford Latin Dictionary.)
So, when considering the Latin: "virii" is incorrect and "viri" was almost never used.
Despite the fact there was little use for the plural form, there is another reason why "viri" was rarely used. The most common Latin word for "man" is "vir" with "viri" being its plural in the form used as the subject of a sentence. Thus, since "men" as the subject of a sentence would be used far more often than "venoms" (virus means venom) the "viri" word was most commonly seen as the plural of "man."
Bottom line: Don't try to make up words using a false Latin plural form. Since the word virus in its English form is now used then the English plural (viruses) should be used.
IBM made a 400 dpi monitor once and said they had no plans on marketing it because MS Windows couldn't scale properly.
You mean this one? It's 200 ppi, not 400 ppi, and they've been selling it for a couple of years now. ViewSonic also sells a version of it.
I know a radiologist who lives in Italy and works for a US-based firm-- I'm not sure if it's a hospital or a practice or what, I've never been clear on that. He has one of these monitors at home. Because he lives in Europe, during his day it's night in the US, so they email him digital images of CT's and whatnot and he reads them on this great big monitor. I've seen it in action once; it's like looking at real film on a real light-box. It's incredible.
You should buy a Mac. On a Mac, all the eye candy is offloaded to the graphics coprocessor(s), and iTunes and QuickTime player (those are like XMMS and Mplayer, only you don't have to compile them, and they always work) run smoothly, Safari (like Mozilla, but without the bloat) renders fast, Photoshop (like GIMP, but with real tools and support for CMYK) runs without bogging down, etc.
See, it seems to me that you Linux guys are just trying to reinvent the wheel, here. The problems that you all complain about-- fast graphics, a good desktop environment, media tools, and so on-- have already been solved. The near-universal insistence on using tools that are poor imitations at best can only be described as perverse.
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly, I think you must have a definition of the political which is so truncated as to encompass what takes place in a voting booth once a year and no more.
Okay, so your definition of "political" is so broad that it encompasses everything. The phrase "political parody," therefore, is meaningless. Everything is political, so every parody is political parody. Same net result. Calling it "political parody" amounts to nothing at all.
The use of the Dow Chemical logo was in a parody. THis is accepted and legitimate fair-use of said trademarks and is recognized as such by law.
Wrong. Sorry, but wrong. Posing as another individual or corporation and making false statements with the intention of harming the reputation of that individual or corporation is not protected by law. It is, in fact, illegal. It's called fraud and defamation.
So just shut down the ISP huh? THat sounds OK to you?
Yup. If the ISP won't act responsibly, the upstream provider will.
Anyway I'm tired of being trolled so that's it.
The irony of this statement is not lost on me. I'm the one being called troll, while you're the one who's too cowardly to put your own name on your posts. Read my posting history. You'll see I'm no troll. I have opinions that differ-- evidently wildly-- from yours. That's not what "troll" means.
You, on the other hand, have no posting history to which to refer. You're anonymous.
Which of us deserves to be taken more seriously?
When people can be held incommunicado, with no legal representation allowed, and not even hear the charges they are accused of nor be allowed to confront their accusers in a court of law--all of which are rights enshrined in the Constitution--I'd say there was a fair bit of "Constitution trampling" going on.
These rights are only extended to citizens of the United States. Non-citizens are basically at the government's pleasure. There are no guarantees in the Constitution that apply to non-citizens.
So yes, basically the government can take any non-citizen and throw them in a bottomless pit forever. It's legal. It's distasteful, but sometimes it's necessary.
Open your eyes a bit and take a look around before engaging in discourse, you'll find it most enlightening.
Right back atcha, AC.
In this case, you (any random citizen) are in the position of enemy.
Only if you put yourself there.
The problem with your perspective is that, even if people are doing nothing wrong, they are not "fine." Not if someone with access to the information has a reason -- political, financial, or personal -- to use that information against the surveilled.
That's why we have laws and unbelievably strong security systems in place to prevent the inappropriate use of intelligence data. First, even to get access to the data in the abstract sense, you have to be a trusted individual. Then, in order to get access to any particular piece of data, you have to convince a bunch of highly trusted individuals that you have a compelling need for that access. And then, if you make illegal use of that data, you can be found guilty of treason and sent to prison for the rest of your life, or even executed.
If somebody had a personal bone to pick with you, there would be a lot of safer and easier ways to get to you than by subverting our government's intelligence networks. You should be more afraid of giving the gas station attendant your credit card number than of somebody getting access to the NSA's database.
But you're really missing the larger point here. We have been living with signals intelligence, foreign and domestic, since the late 1940's. Were you even aware of the fact? Initiatives like TIA are more about analysis and synthesis, and getting the right data to the right agencies in a timely manner, than about new information gathering methods. If we'd had a TIA-like system in 2000, there's a reasonable chance the various government agencies might have been able to stop the 9/11 hijackers. See, we had the data, but we didn't have systems in place for getting that data into the right hands at the right time and in the right context. The data just kind of fell onto the floor. TIA is about being able to make appropriate use of the data we're already gathering.
If you feel threatened by this... well, I think that just might say more about you than it does about the government.
1. Political? What the fuck, dude? There's absolutely nothing political about Union Carbide or Dow Chemical. They're commercial concerns, not political.
2. The Dow Chemical case involved the unauthorized use of the "Dow Chemcial" trademark and the associated logo. If the offending party hadn't used the name (if they'd called it "Cow Chemical" or some other similar but noninfringing name) and logo, they'd have been in the clear.
3. The reason the issue was escalated to the Verio level was because Thing.net didn't have any sort of AUP against this kind of illegal activity. Verio, fortunately, does. So Dow went to Verio and said, "Hey, Verio, your client is violating your AUP." And Verio said, "You're absolutely right. Bad boys!" And that's that.
4. Before you cry "chilling effect" again, you might want to see the big point that's staring you right in the face, here. The creators of the so-called parody site were breaking the law. Their unauthorized use of the Dow Chemical name and logo were not protected speech. If they had said, "Dow Chemical is bad," that would have been fine. If they had said, "We're Cow Chemical, and we're bad," that would have been fine. But because they said, "We're Dow Chemical, and we're bad," they got their pee pees smacked. See?
5. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks for providing an example of my point.
If we let organizations such as the RIAA destroy our freedom of speech and cripple our ability to learn, then there will be no point to trying to protecting this place from the "axis of evil".
Oh sweet christ on a cracker. Are you even listening to what you're saying here? "If I can't have my free music downloads, we might as well just bomb ourselves back into the stone age."
No, I don't care whether or not that's what you meant. That's what you said. Maybe you need to think, for just a fraction of a second or so, before you say something so incredibly stupid, okay?
Yes. That's okay. Big secret now: we've been living with domestic and international signals intelligence gathering since the 1940's. Exactly how much has it abridged your freedom of speech, movement, or assembly? The correct answer here is zero.
The "war on terror" is being used to distract people from the constitution-trampling our fearless leader is currently engaging in.
Oh, please. "Constitution-trampling?" Get a sense of perspective. The simple fact that you can climb on your computer and post a message about "Constitution-trampling" is a sign that the Constitution is alive and well.
This is basically my problem, in a nutshell. Slashdotters-- not all of us, just a vocal and strident minority-- get on here and post sarcastic remarks about the government and about their freedoms without (1) any facts to back them up, and (2) any sense of perspective that allows them to interpret their perceived offenses in context. If I were to get my news only from Slashdot, I would think that copyright term extensions is the biggest issue facing our country today. Slashdotters don't talk about the war because they typically don't understand it, or even know that it's going on. Slashdotters don't talk about deficit spending because they typically don't know what the term means.
Personally, I think Slashdot is a textbook example of a culture of affluence. Your average Slashdotter has never wanted for anything in his life, so he can't really internalize concepts like living in fear of a terrorist attack, or being unable to feed his family. So instead we get incredibly passionate screeds on the importance of source code and the long-term dangers of copyright extension, issues that even the most cursory examination reveals to be trivial in the extreme.
Okay, way, way off-topic now. Oh, well. I guess I'm as guilty of being vocal and strident as anybody.
The chilling effects people on /. are talking about are not drivel. They are rights that are in the process of being taken away.
No, they're drivel. The two best examples I can think of both came up recently. They are the fake CNN story story (er, you know what I mean) posted earlier today, and the fake Dow Chemical web site and press release story, posted some weeks ago. In both of those cases, Slashdotters were quick to cry "chilling effect!" and "takedown!" and to decry the DMCA. It seems like in each case most people failed to take a minute and realize that the cases in question were more about trademark infringement than anything else, and that the actions taken by the offended parties were basically right. The same basic scenario arose around the whole Elcomsoft matter. Everybody cried "chilling effect!" without stopping to think that maybe what Elcomsoft did was actually wrong, and that both Adobe and, later, the government were doing the right thing in response.
Basically, the Slashdot community has zero credibility when it comes to copyright and other IP matters. This is the same core community that made Napster a household name, and everything that goes up on Slashdot is colored by that fact. No matter what any one individual-- including I, myself-- may think or say, the prevailing opinion on and of Slashdot is that kids just want to download free music and movies. Because of that fact-- or perhaps perception is a better word-- it's impossible to take any of the Slashdot uproar seriously.
But my original point, I think, still stands. If you want to argue about politics, let's argue about something that actually matters, instead of having yet another flame war about the Bono Copyright Extension Act, or whatever the hell the unbelievably trivial Slashdot issue of the day is.
Does the government want to track and record all communications sent by me?
Short answer: yes, with a but.
The government does want to track and record all communications sent by you. This is called, in military parlance, SIGINT, for "signals intelligence," and it's a doctrine that's as old as the hills. Basically SIGINT means to keep your ear to the ground and listen for signs that the bad guys are doing something that you'll wish you could have prevented. But nobody really cares about you, personally, so as long as you're not planning to hide weapons of mass destruction in your garage or anything, you're fine.
on the things that all slashdotters love: 'the Total Information Awareness project, online activism, file sharing, and the prospect of a digital counterculture.'
Speak for yourself. I for one am utterly bored with the political direction Slashdot has taken in the past couple of years. And it's not even good politics! When the issues of the day are domestic and international terrorism, the war in Afghanistan, the prospect of war in Iraq and elsewhere, the economy, or even the space shuttle, the prevailing topics of discussion on Slashdot still center around that same list of drivel: the RIAA, Microsoft, and stories about "chilling effects" that are just barely more than "we hate the government but we don't know why" flamefests.
If Slashdot wants to get political, at least get political in ways that people give a damn about. Otherwise, let's stick to the stuff that made Slashdot a fun place to hang out in the beginning: news for nerds.
"A large number of people think (the solution to) productivity has been solved," explains Thomas Gruver, group manager for the Center for Information Work.
Man, those Microsofters really do live in a different world. On what planet do they find people who think that they've got that productivity problem taken care of?
Can anyone give a positive report on iMovie 3.0.1?
Yes.
First things first: the machine I'm using to run iMovie is a dual-processor 1 GHz with 512 MB of RAM. A faster machine will undoubtedly run it better, while a slower machine will undoubtedly run it less well.
I've used iMovie 3.0.1 to import a fair amount-- about 40 minutes, I think-- of DV footage from files I had on my computer. I don't have a camera myself, so I can't comment on how well or poorly the camera interface works, but I do have lots of DVCPRO footage left over from a previous project. The footage plays back in real time from the timeline with no problems at all.
I have about 5,000 songs in my iTunes library, and the first time I clicked the "audio" button I had to wait about five seconds, maybe ten, for the list of songs to appear. After that, there was no noticeable delay.
The effects and transitions seem to work just fine. I don't think I've tried all of them, but I haven't had one fail or work in an unexpected way yet.
Integration with iPhoto is, in a word, incredible. Just click a picture, set a duration, and poof, there's a clip on the timeline.
Do I have any complaints? Not really. Sure, this is just the free iMovie; it would be nice if it supported multiple video tracks on the timeline or such, but that's what Final Cut Express is for.
So, to summarize, iMovie 3 does not really suck, and no, I have had no problems with it at all.
1) Not sharing views that are obviously correct is a sign of a lack of intelligence.
2) I most certainly am a judge of what is pro- and anti-American. I am an American, which means I get to made those decisions for myself. I have been a student of history and political philosophy throughtout my life, so I feel I am qualified to make the judgments. This is a key differentiating factor between people of character, who understand that it's possible to know what's right and what's wrong, and moral relativists, who don't. American socialists, for example, can get bent.
3) Please point out one-- one will do-- example of my complaining about lost karma. I made a remark about moderation up-thread, but as you'll note it was in the context of a "hee hee." That's hardly complaining.
1) On the Internet, international blah-blah is usually, not always but usually, a code word for "wrong-headed idiot." I'm sure there are as many smart people per capita outside the US as there are inside, but it doesn't seem like very many of them are posting messages on Slashdot.
2) In order to qualify oneself as pro-American or anti-American, one must first know what the terms mean. Socialism, for example, is anti-American. There are many Slashdotters, both American and otherwise, who fail to understand this simple concept.
3) Remember, kiddo. I say what I mean and post what I think, and let the karma fall where it may. Seems like more people agree with me than disagree with me, but I just consider that to be a happy coincidence.
You're mixing technical and legal issues. That never works too well.
These guys were using the CNN logo without permission. They were doing so in a way that was intentionally deceptive. (Whether it was intended as a parody or not isn't the point; the point is that they intended for the generated page to look like it came from CNN's site.) Whether they were doing this via a link or through other means isn't relevant. It's still infringement.
So, in other words, a link most definitely can be infringment.
Hee hee. That's pretty funny. First I posted an anti-France comment. It went unmoderated. Then I posted a pointer to a warblog. It went unmoderated. But when I posted a comment calling Slashdot a "nest of anti-American collectivist nutcases," I got moderated as a troll!
Remember, kiddies. If you value your karma, you will speak naught but good of Slashdot.
Sure, I'm happy to share. But I believe you're confused. If you're looking for morons, this this the place. It's the biggest nest of anti-American collectivist nutcases I know of.
Welcome. For more goodness, be sure to check out Little Green Footballs every day.
Ahem.
Venkman: This city is about to face a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical?"
Ray: We mean real wrath-of-God type stuff. Plagues, darkness--
Winston: The dead rising from the grave!
Egon: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes--
Venkman: Riots in the streets, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
Chirac and Hussein, yes. Those two are definitely making some kind of sweet, sweet love.
Cheese-eating surrender monkeys...
Although the real reason is more likely to be because people were actually believing that the fake stories were true.
Oh, come on. The web site generated pages that included the CNN logo! The real reason is obviously because whomever created this little toy was using the CNN logo without permission.
This falls into exactly the same category as the Dow Chemical thing from a few weeks back. Parody is fine as long as you don't actually use somebody else's logo. That crosses the line from fair use into trademark infringement.
Comments including the phrase "chilling effect" will be summarily ignored for the senseless drivel that they are.
The plural of "virus" isn't "virii." There is no such word. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."
Here's a good explanation from cdknow.com, quoted here in its entirety because the people who most need to read this won't click on a link.
More plural-of-virus resources:
perl.com, the canonical and exhaustive source
The alt.comp.virus FAQ
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer
Merriam-Webster's "Word for the Wise," January 20, 2000.
You see, I prefer to do things myself whenever possible, mainly because I'm an antisocial, and terminally mistrustful bastard.
You've just summed up the Slashdot mentality perfectly. Thank you.
IBM made a 400 dpi monitor once and said they had no plans on marketing it because MS Windows couldn't scale properly.
You mean this one? It's 200 ppi, not 400 ppi, and they've been selling it for a couple of years now. ViewSonic also sells a version of it.
I know a radiologist who lives in Italy and works for a US-based firm-- I'm not sure if it's a hospital or a practice or what, I've never been clear on that. He has one of these monitors at home. Because he lives in Europe, during his day it's night in the US, so they email him digital images of CT's and whatnot and he reads them on this great big monitor. I've seen it in action once; it's like looking at real film on a real light-box. It's incredible.
You should buy a Mac. On a Mac, all the eye candy is offloaded to the graphics coprocessor(s), and iTunes and QuickTime player (those are like XMMS and Mplayer, only you don't have to compile them, and they always work) run smoothly, Safari (like Mozilla, but without the bloat) renders fast, Photoshop (like GIMP, but with real tools and support for CMYK) runs without bogging down, etc.
See, it seems to me that you Linux guys are just trying to reinvent the wheel, here. The problems that you all complain about-- fast graphics, a good desktop environment, media tools, and so on-- have already been solved. The near-universal insistence on using tools that are poor imitations at best can only be described as perverse.