...adherents and users who will accept and will act upon constructive criticism. Generally, any constructive criticism of Linux is answered in three ways:
1. "We're not here to help newbs figure out how Linux works, do the research and solve the problem yourself."
2. "There is no problem, that's the way it's supposed to work, Linux is not (Windows, OSX,....)
3. "Yes there is a problem, but Linux is open source so fix it yourself."
Once again, because Apple doesn't want complaints that their precious phone and mp3 players are bogging down. It's all about appearance, the iPhone/Touch seems faster only because in actuality it's doing less.
In all seriousness , the reason the iPhone and the iPod Touch do not multitask is not related to hardware or software. The sole reason Apple enforces the no-multitask policy is to ensure that multiple running apps don't drag down the system. Apparently, WinCE has a tendency to be bogged down when running multiple apps and Apple wants to avoid that.
Since the iPhone does not allow for multiple programs running concurrently
What's the point of including multitasking if you cannot make it pretty and shiny? I applaud Apple for continuing the fight to keep our lives pretty and shiny rather than attempting to make our lives more efficient and easier to manage. I mean, let's be serious, isn't shiny and pretty the real reason we carry personal digital devices.
"If you're a nudist and you take a picture of yourself, is that a portrait or porn?"
Well, was it distributed? If no one knows about it, you'll never be charged. But otherwise, and assuming "you're" underage, it'll probably be a question for the jury. And if that doesn't scare you, probably nothing would.
"Right, and that law is absurd and unconstitutional, which is why we are discussing it."
I'm not responding to that. I'm responding to the completely erroneous suggestion that the threat of legal prosecution against the kids was "empty." It was not empty as the children did in fact violate the law and could be charged.
If you want to debate the utter absurdity of the law as it is currently written, that's great. Let's have that discussion.
God, you're a retard. There is a difference between explaining what the law is and what the law should be. I never commented on what the law should be. In fact I specifically stated I was not commenting on what the law should be.
What the law should be is completely irrelevant to what it is.
If a person under the age of 18 is taking and distributing sexual pictures of him or herself, he or she is committing a criminal act. He or she is creating and distributing child porn.
There is absolutely no exemption or exception under our child pornography laws for people who take and distribute pictures of themselves.
The law sees no distinction between a 40 year old man taking and distributing nude pictures of his 13 year old neighbor and the neighbor taking and distributing pictures of herself.
I'll just say this, I'm not arguing for or against the child porn laws we have in this country. All I'm saying is that as they currently exist, there is no exception under the law for creating your own child porn and distributing it yourself.
"All those were pretty much nothing but "talking" with some sound effects tossed in."
You're missing the point. It's not merely that there is talking, it's about the topic of the conversation. There is certainly a lot of talking in the Spy Kids movies. Rodriguez as the same gift for gab that Tarantino has.
When I said that Iron Man was too adult, what I meant was that the situations would only be interesting to adults, e.g., the relationship between Tony and Pepper. There was simply too many scenes with only "talking" in it. Of course, as an adult, those scenes were necessary to develop the characters and move the plot, but to a kid, it's just "wah wah wahwah wah."
In thinking about I wrote, I guess there really are superhero movies for kids. Bolt, Underdog, Incredibles, the Spy Kids series, Sharkboy and Lavagirl, the upcoming Monsters vs Aliens. Heck, even Race to Witch Mountain could be considered a superhero movie. I guess I just want my kid to be able to watch the heroes I grew up with.
When kids are recognized as being highly intelligent and gifted, parents, extended family, and teachers go out of their to coddle them. To treat them as special. To give them far greater leniency and independence than kids with normal intelligence.
Is it any shock that these kids grow up to think the rules don't apply to them?
Under the law if you divulge secrets to third parties, they're no longer secrets. So if I write three friends about a secret, heck, even one friend, the state can subpoena those letters even though they were marked as private. The same is true of Facebook. Merely marking a Facebook page as private does not change the fact that it was used to give out information to third parties.
The only exception to this is if there is some sort of privilege. Such as when the third party is a priest or your therapist and is legally obligated not to divulge your secret. Then, there's an expectation of privacy that you keep. But if you tell your friends, it's discoverable under the law. And it's been this way for centuries.
Note to the internet generation: If you want to keep secrets, don't fricken tell anyone your secrets!
Doesn't every single retail store sell products produced by other companies in return for their profits?! The fact that anyone could even think this nonsense could be patented shows how screwed up our patent system is.
The old player could only be paused for about:30. The new one can be paused indefinitely. I like the new one. I have not noticed any decrease in quality.
"First of all, performance is not at issue (it's "audio rights", which implicate a kind of derivative work),"
Whether you call it audio rights, which means the right to perform the work orally, or an audio performance, you're talking about the same result and the same thing. Let's not let semantics bog us down.
"If you were using your Kindle to read a book aloud to an auditorium full of people, public performance would be at issue."
Once again, courts have determined that the use of player pianos constitute a performance. In the exact same way, the use of the Kindle 2 to translate text to an audio format constinues a performance.
And if I did buy a Kindle 2 and used it to play loud in an auditorium full of people, I would be the person doing to public performance. Amazon could not be sued for the tickets I sold. You're talking about two entirely different things.
"First of all, the "Kindle 2" isn't violating anyone's copyright - people or entities violate copyright, not devices."
Two words: Player Pianos. Of course the pianos were not sued. The people who created and sold them and used them were sued. You can't get blood from a turnip or money damages out of an inanimate object.
"Secondly, TTS doesn't infringe on an author's right to license audio book copies, because TTS doesn't make copies (copies have to be fixed, remember?)."
God, I wish people who knew nothing about the law would simply stop smashing their fingers. The copyright on the book is fixed. The book was written down and is sitting on a shelf someplace in a fixed state. God, why are you wasting our time on this BS?!
"If TTS adds value to an e-book, then publishers simply need to increase the licensing fees for e-books, and the problem is solved."
If we agree, then what are we arguing about?! This is exactly what the president of the Authors Guild wants! For Amazon to pay for the audio license. God, was that so hard?
"I don't think this is an issue for copyright law at all."
Because what you know about copyright law comes from what you've read online. Everything you read on line is not true. Seriously.
So under your view of copyright law, I can copy and sell DVDs for personal home use without obtaining permission from the movie industry?
"I see no difference between this and a parent reading to their child. For that matter, I see no difference between this and reading out loud to oneself."
Maybe I'm talking to a Kindle 2 which has became sentient, but if you're a human there is a difference. Amazon sells the Kindle 2 and the eBooks for a profit. The Kindle 2 converts the text of the eBooks to audio, much in the same way that the player piano scroll converted the scroll to audio for a profit. The piano scroll companies had to obtain a license, and so will Amazon.
"Amazon isn't selling audio books."
You're sort of right. They are selling text based eBooks which are being converted into audio books.
"They aren't selling (a) machine (that) read copies of books." "they also sell a device... (that) translates them into sound."
Now you're just jumping into semantics. Player pianos are not technically played. But yet they still constitute a performance. Whether you call it read into audio or converted into audio, the end result is the same. An audio performance.
"This action is taken by the end-user of the book, not Amazon themselves."
No, the end user is not converting the book from text to audio, the Kindle 2 is.
"They aren't selling audio books."
Once again, you're sort of right. Amazon is selling text based eBooks which the Kindle 2 "translates" (that's your word) into audio.
"Is an actor reading a book to one single person, a performance?"
Yes. But most audio books are only listened to by a single person at a time. And it does not really matter how large the audience is, only that there is an audience. (Clearly an audience of no one would not constituent as a performance. If a bear sings a song without permission in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, is it an infringement? Nope.)
"Rendering a movie on a screen that only one person can conveniently view, is something the MPAA wouldn't try to call performance"
It is a performance, but the MPAA would not sue because the damages would be too small to deal with.
And you're forgetting that Amazon is not selling only one Kindle 2. It is hoped that thousands will sell, which each one providing audio performances which were never licensed.
"The Kindle reading a book at your home is not a commercial use."
Correct, but selling unlicensed audio books for the Kindle 2 for a profit is a commercial use and is infringement. Let's face it, DVDs watched at home do not constitute a commercial use. But the fact that they are sold does constitute a commercial use. I surely cannot start copying and selling DVDs for home use without getting permission from and paying MPAA members.
"If Amazon sold the books and Micropple sold the Kindle, who then would be the copyright infringer?"
That's easy: Micropple. Amazon's eBook do not contain any audio information (as far as I know). It's the Kindle 2 which takes the mere text and converts it to audio. It's no different from an actor reading the text of a book and converting it to his voice. The actor and the company that paid him would be responsible for the infringement. But in this case there is no actor, there is a machine doing the conversion.
Slashdot Mirror
...GM buying Ford. Adding and combining more crap has never been a solution for a failing business.
...adherents and users who will accept and will act upon constructive criticism. Generally, any constructive criticism of Linux is answered in three ways:
1. "We're not here to help newbs figure out how Linux works, do the research and solve the problem yourself."
2. "There is no problem, that's the way it's supposed to work, Linux is not (Windows, OSX,....)
3. "Yes there is a problem, but Linux is open source so fix it yourself."
To prove my point, I will be modded down.
Once again, because Apple doesn't want complaints that their precious phone and mp3 players are bogging down. It's all about appearance, the iPhone/Touch seems faster only because in actuality it's doing less.
In all seriousness , the reason the iPhone and the iPod Touch do not multitask is not related to hardware or software. The sole reason Apple enforces the no-multitask policy is to ensure that multiple running apps don't drag down the system. Apparently, WinCE has a tendency to be bogged down when running multiple apps and Apple wants to avoid that.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/03/13/iphone-20-sdk-the-no-multitasking-myth/
"bitter iPod Touch 2g owner"
Er, you mean "shiny and pretty" iPod Touch 2g owner, right?
Since the iPhone does not allow for multiple programs running concurrently
What's the point of including multitasking if you cannot make it pretty and shiny? I applaud Apple for continuing the fight to keep our lives pretty and shiny rather than attempting to make our lives more efficient and easier to manage. I mean, let's be serious, isn't shiny and pretty the real reason we carry personal digital devices.
"If you're a nudist and you take a picture of yourself, is that a portrait or porn?"
Well, was it distributed? If no one knows about it, you'll never be charged. But otherwise, and assuming "you're" underage, it'll probably be a question for the jury. And if that doesn't scare you, probably nothing would.
"The point of Child Pornography laws is to stop children getting exploited."
Exactly. But that's not how the laws are written. Which is exactly why I explained how the kids did in fact commit a crime.
"Right, and that law is absurd and unconstitutional, which is why we are discussing it."
I'm not responding to that. I'm responding to the completely erroneous suggestion that the threat of legal prosecution against the kids was "empty." It was not empty as the children did in fact violate the law and could be charged.
If you want to debate the utter absurdity of the law as it is currently written, that's great. Let's have that discussion.
"Or do you honestly believe that the 13 year old is guilty too?"
God, are you guys really this ignorant? If the guy convinces the girl to do it, she's the victim. Duh, do you even have a functioning brain?
"That's arguing FOR the child porn laws"
God, you're a retard. There is a difference between explaining what the law is and what the law should be. I never commented on what the law should be. In fact I specifically stated I was not commenting on what the law should be.
What the law should be is completely irrelevant to what it is.
If a person under the age of 18 is taking and distributing sexual pictures of him or herself, he or she is committing a criminal act. He or she is creating and distributing child porn.
There is absolutely no exemption or exception under our child pornography laws for people who take and distribute pictures of themselves.
The law sees no distinction between a 40 year old man taking and distributing nude pictures of his 13 year old neighbor and the neighbor taking and distributing pictures of herself.
I'll just say this, I'm not arguing for or against the child porn laws we have in this country. All I'm saying is that as they currently exist, there is no exception under the law for creating your own child porn and distributing it yourself.
Thanks, that was hilarious and insightful.
"All those were pretty much nothing but "talking" with some sound effects tossed in."
You're missing the point. It's not merely that there is talking, it's about the topic of the conversation. There is certainly a lot of talking in the Spy Kids movies. Rodriguez as the same gift for gab that Tarantino has.
When I said that Iron Man was too adult, what I meant was that the situations would only be interesting to adults, e.g., the relationship between Tony and Pepper. There was simply too many scenes with only "talking" in it. Of course, as an adult, those scenes were necessary to develop the characters and move the plot, but to a kid, it's just "wah wah wahwah wah."
In thinking about I wrote, I guess there really are superhero movies for kids. Bolt, Underdog, Incredibles, the Spy Kids series, Sharkboy and Lavagirl, the upcoming Monsters vs Aliens. Heck, even Race to Witch Mountain could be considered a superhero movie. I guess I just want my kid to be able to watch the heroes I grew up with.
I'd love to take my 7 year old son to a superhero movie. He saw the Fantastic Four movies, they were pretty light. But even Iron Man was too adult.
That being said, the Dark Knight really should have been rated R. It was like watching Spinal Tap being forced to pay only at 10.
When kids are recognized as being highly intelligent and gifted, parents, extended family, and teachers go out of their to coddle them. To treat them as special. To give them far greater leniency and independence than kids with normal intelligence.
Is it any shock that these kids grow up to think the rules don't apply to them?
Under the law if you divulge secrets to third parties, they're no longer secrets. So if I write three friends about a secret, heck, even one friend, the state can subpoena those letters even though they were marked as private. The same is true of Facebook. Merely marking a Facebook page as private does not change the fact that it was used to give out information to third parties.
The only exception to this is if there is some sort of privilege. Such as when the third party is a priest or your therapist and is legally obligated not to divulge your secret. Then, there's an expectation of privacy that you keep. But if you tell your friends, it's discoverable under the law. And it's been this way for centuries.
Note to the internet generation: If you want to keep secrets, don't fricken tell anyone your secrets!
... soon criminals will only have knifes. What's next? Sticks and stones?!
Doesn't every single retail store sell products produced by other companies in return for their profits?! The fact that anyone could even think this nonsense could be patented shows how screwed up our patent system is.
The old player could only be paused for about :30. The new one can be paused indefinitely. I like the new one. I have not noticed any decrease in quality.
I want to apologize for coming across as such an ass in my last comment. I should not have responded to three comments right in a row like that.
"First of all, performance is not at issue (it's "audio rights", which implicate a kind of derivative work),"
Whether you call it audio rights, which means the right to perform the work orally, or an audio performance, you're talking about the same result and the same thing. Let's not let semantics bog us down.
"If you were using your Kindle to read a book aloud to an auditorium full of people, public performance would be at issue."
Once again, courts have determined that the use of player pianos constitute a performance. In the exact same way, the use of the Kindle 2 to translate text to an audio format constinues a performance.
And if I did buy a Kindle 2 and used it to play loud in an auditorium full of people, I would be the person doing to public performance. Amazon could not be sued for the tickets I sold. You're talking about two entirely different things.
"First of all, the "Kindle 2" isn't violating anyone's copyright - people or entities violate copyright, not devices."
Two words: Player Pianos. Of course the pianos were not sued. The people who created and sold them and used them were sued. You can't get blood from a turnip or money damages out of an inanimate object.
"Secondly, TTS doesn't infringe on an author's right to license audio book copies, because TTS doesn't make copies (copies have to be fixed, remember?)."
God, I wish people who knew nothing about the law would simply stop smashing their fingers. The copyright on the book is fixed. The book was written down and is sitting on a shelf someplace in a fixed state. God, why are you wasting our time on this BS?!
"If TTS adds value to an e-book, then publishers simply need to increase the licensing fees for e-books, and the problem is solved."
If we agree, then what are we arguing about?! This is exactly what the president of the Authors Guild wants! For Amazon to pay for the audio license. God, was that so hard?
"I don't think this is an issue for copyright law at all."
Because what you know about copyright law comes from what you've read online. Everything you read on line is not true. Seriously.
"It's a private performance for personal use"
So under your view of copyright law, I can copy and sell DVDs for personal home use without obtaining permission from the movie industry?
"I see no difference between this and a parent reading to their child. For that matter, I see no difference between this and reading out loud to oneself."
Maybe I'm talking to a Kindle 2 which has became sentient, but if you're a human there is a difference. Amazon sells the Kindle 2 and the eBooks for a profit. The Kindle 2 converts the text of the eBooks to audio, much in the same way that the player piano scroll converted the scroll to audio for a profit. The piano scroll companies had to obtain a license, and so will Amazon.
"Amazon isn't selling audio books."
You're sort of right. They are selling text based eBooks which are being converted into audio books.
"They aren't selling (a) machine (that) read copies of books." "they also sell a device... (that) translates them into sound."
Now you're just jumping into semantics. Player pianos are not technically played. But yet they still constitute a performance. Whether you call it read into audio or converted into audio, the end result is the same. An audio performance.
"This action is taken by the end-user of the book, not Amazon themselves."
No, the end user is not converting the book from text to audio, the Kindle 2 is.
"They aren't selling audio books."
Once again, you're sort of right. Amazon is selling text based eBooks which the Kindle 2 "translates" (that's your word) into audio.
"Is an actor reading a book to one single person, a performance?"
Yes. But most audio books are only listened to by a single person at a time. And it does not really matter how large the audience is, only that there is an audience. (Clearly an audience of no one would not constituent as a performance. If a bear sings a song without permission in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, is it an infringement? Nope.)
"Rendering a movie on a screen that only one person can conveniently view, is something the MPAA wouldn't try to call performance"
It is a performance, but the MPAA would not sue because the damages would be too small to deal with.
And you're forgetting that Amazon is not selling only one Kindle 2. It is hoped that thousands will sell, which each one providing audio performances which were never licensed.
"The Kindle reading a book at your home is not a commercial use."
Correct, but selling unlicensed audio books for the Kindle 2 for a profit is a commercial use and is infringement. Let's face it, DVDs watched at home do not constitute a commercial use. But the fact that they are sold does constitute a commercial use. I surely cannot start copying and selling DVDs for home use without getting permission from and paying MPAA members.
"If Amazon sold the books and Micropple sold the Kindle, who then would be the copyright infringer?"
That's easy: Micropple. Amazon's eBook do not contain any audio information (as far as I know). It's the Kindle 2 which takes the mere text and converts it to audio. It's no different from an actor reading the text of a book and converting it to his voice. The actor and the company that paid him would be responsible for the infringement. But in this case there is no actor, there is a machine doing the conversion.