I neglected to mention this when I submitted the article, but I'm boycotting Sony (due to proprietary formats, DRM, and rootkits) so I wouldn't have bought a TV from them anyway.
It might be a bit more expensive now to get an LED backed display like the one I ended up getting the UN40B6000 model and I've had 0 problems with it so far. I should mention I'm picky as hell about colors and uneven lighting and I think it was worth the extra few bucks.
I've been seriously considering that model too, but I've heard that since it's "edge-lit" (the LEDs are around the edge rather than evenly-distributed across the area of the screen) that it doesn't light as evenly as truly back-lit LED displays, and also cannot selectively darken parts of the screen. You don't find that to be a problem?
Also, there's the 6-series (which is the one you have) and then there's the 7-series, which is supposed to have more of these Internet-related features I'm asking about. What capabilities does your 6-series have?
Another bonus is that it runs far cooler than the other LCDs I have seen and given equal components (read capacitors) should last a lot longer.
Ah, that's something I hadn't considered; thanks! I'm not the type of guy to spend lots of money on TVs and expect not to replace this one for at least a decade or so, so longevity and durability is an important consideration for me.
If I were spending that kind of money on television, I'd get a more basic high-resolution TV...
You don't really have a choice: TVs with these Internet features tend to also be the TVs with good traditional-TV specs (1080P, 120Hz+ refresh rate, high contrast ratio, good color accuracy, etc.). Conversely, TVs without these features tend to be the ones with crappy screens.
Besides, I have to spend at least $1200 on the TV itself whether I want to or not (to use up the whole credit). In other words, I'm hoping to spend $0-$200 out-of-pocket on this, and I'm only doing it in the first place because the current TV (which I didn't even pay for either; it was given to me!) is getting replaced under warranty. Building a new computer is completely out of the question, although running a Myth front-end either directly on the TV or on my Wii wouldn't be.
...the computer's going to be much more flexible and extensible in the future than a locked-in TV feature set.
I know; that's why I'm asking Slashdot about this. I'm hoping somebody will have a tip about a decently-active "Linux on TVs" project, so I can pick a TV based on it having features added by the community in the future.
I (the submitter of the article) actually do have a Wii already, so that's a serious possibility. In fact, I've also got the Homebrew Channel and Mplayer-CE installed on it, and can technically watch YouTube and Shoutcast video streams right now (aside from the crashes and bugginess).
I do wish there was a Mozilla or Webkit browser available on the Wii so I wouldn't have to buy Opera, though -- it's not the $5; it's the principle of not wanting to have the purchase tied to the hardware.
And another thing, which I should have mentioned in the article submission: although Netflix and Amazon support would be nice, what I really want is support for Hulu!
Believe it or not, there are SUVs that are not terribly fuel inefficient. Right now I have a Jeep Compass which is rated at 30 mpg highway and its big enough that when I need to haul stuff around, I can.
Yeah, but a vehicle that was exactly the same in every way (engine, weight, cargo volume, etc.) except that it was shaped like a minivan would get at least 1-2 more MPG on the highway.
There was no physical copy, just data being deleted
The bits on the Kindle's flash memory were just as physical as the bits on a CD, and deleting them was just as much theft as stealing a CD would have been.
Or not, at least, if you aren't willing to swallow the idea of copyright infringement being theft.
What are you, an idiot? Copyright is different from theft because it involves COPYING, not deleting! With copyright infringement, the owner still has the work of art; all he's lost is an "opportunity." With theft, the owner doesn't have the work of art anymore.
If you are, then sure, that was theft. And again, at that point, you were in possession of stolen goods and had no claim to the book either.
Only if you're too stupid to understand the difference between moving something and copying it.
Anyway, here's the fundamental concept you seem unable to grasp: copyright isn't property, but rather an abstract set of permissions. It can't be "stolen," only infringed upon. In contrast, an individual copy is property, and can be stolen.
And let's not get into the bullshit realm of you and I trying to pretend we know the legal definitions here. You are no more in a position of claiming it's legally considered theft than I am. Legally, theft has a very strict and narrow definition and I guarantee you that neither the selling or subsequent deletion of the book will be counted under legal 'theft'.
theft
n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully) and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.
Amazon.com intentionally and fraudulently deleted (i.e. "took" in the sense of "removed") the Kindle users' personal property (i.e. the copy of 1984 that they had lawfully purchased in good faith) and converted it to Amazon.com's use (to avoid having to pay damages to the copyright holder). That's theft!
Even if a particular DRM implementation doesn't have the ability to revoke information, it's still designed to control its distribution, and that by itself is enough to make it Orwellian.
Exactly! What these despotic organizations (RIAA, MPAA, BSA, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, etc.) are trying to do is to destoy the individual's right to ownership of real property (that's been the cornerstone of capitalist society since well before Adam Smith codified it) in favor of consolidated ownership of imaginary property by a few large corporations (i.e., themselves), with the end result of turning us all into digital serfs! The public is not nearly as upset about this as it should be...
It's only theft if you accept the idea that selling the book to you was also theft (i.e. you accept the infringement of intellectual property rights = theft) and if you do, then you were, ispo facto, in possession of stolen property and have no claim over it. If you don't accept that the orginal sale was theft, (i.e. you believe it was simply copy right infringement) then at most the deletion of the book could be would be a violation of the license agreement you made with Amazon.
No, you're absolutely wrong.
The original duplication (and, only incidentally, sale) was copyright infringement and not "theft" because the only thing Amazon "stole" was an abstract right to control distribution of the work.
The subsequent deletion of the copies was indeed theft and not copyright infringement because Amazon deprived the customers of the use of the physical copy they had bought, paid for, and owned.
In other words, the situations are entirely dissimilar because creating new copies and deleting existing copies are not (legally speaking) opposites of each other. Not only are holding the copyright and owning a copy are not the same thing, but the affected parties (copyright holder or copy owner) are different in each case!
What I'm trying to grasp is that Kindle owners paid to obtain a book that was believed to be in the public domain
It was Amazon that thought the book was in the Public Domain; the customers could just as well have known it was not and reasonably assumed that Amazon was licensed to distribute it.
The problem is with Kindle's always-on network connection, not e-books as such.
The problem is not with a network connection (always-on or otherwise); the problem is with DRM. This sort of Orwellian shit is exactly what DRM is explicitly designed to do!
A modular console sounds like a great seller (buy the Wii 2 now and next year, we'll make the Wii 3 board fit alongside it inside the same casing!).
Yeah, it sounds like a great idea, but that sort of thing contributed greatly to the death of Sega (i.e., with the Genesis/Sega CD/32X fiasco). Console makers probably aren't very eager to repeat that experiment!
In that case, the "derivative work" only ever exists as a transient copy in RAM, making this theory seem doubtful.
See, this is exactly what I meant when I said "it might be difficult for us techies to understand how this can be true when it's not reflected within the code itself!"
Remember, this is a legal issue, not a technological one. It doesn't matter if the derived work doesn't physically exist at the time of distribution because the law also considers the intent of the people who wrote the software. If they intended for the code to be linked (only) with the Linux kernel, then it's legally defined as a derivative work of the kernel whether such linking actually occurred or not!
It's just like all those various proposals to try to circumvent copyright law by breaking stuff up into little pieces and distributing the pieces separately. The fact that each individual piece is small enough that it's distribution should count as Fair Use is irrelevant; if you intend to re-assemble the pieces you're still committing copyright infringement.
The bottom line is really simple: it's pointless to argue whether something is or is not copyright infringement based on technological distinctions, because the law simply does not care.
The former is understandable, but if it's the latter, why should I make room for you to break the law (go over 65)? Sure, it's your choice to speed, but I don't see where I should feel bad about doing the speed limit.
Because "slower traffic keep right" is the law too, and if you fail to yield then you're breaking it!
my interstate, when you get outside the city, goes up to 65 from 55, but nobody speeds up!
The same thing happens around here too, but that's because people average 20 mph over in the 55 mph zone to begin with!
Actually, people just drive the maximum speed that seems safe and comfortable for them regardless of the speed limit; both sections of interstate feel safe and comfortable up to about 75 mph.
2. During rush hour, the problem on "surface" streets is that lights can't be long enough to allow everyone to go through during the green light
If people who arrived during the red can't get through during the subsequent green, then the intersection almost certainly has a failing LOS (level of service) and needs more lanes (or some other less-expensive modification, if possible).
3. Cops... I like cops, I appreciate cops, I have cops in the family; it's not really the cops, it's the people who drop below the speed limit simply because one is nearby.
People only feel the need to slow down around cops because they're speeding otherwise. Therefore, the real problem is that the speed limit is too low. (Note: the problem is not that people are driving "too fast" because people tend to drive at the maximum safe speed regardless of what the speed limit is. If you have a stretch of Interstate where the 85th percentile speed is 70 mph and the speed limit is 55 mph, then you could lower the limit to 20 mph or raise it to 150 mph, and that 85th % speed will remain 70 mph!)
I'm not sure; I just remember the web page where I heard about this mentioning it. I think technically you don't (you can just use Gizmo5's first-party software) but maybe Fring has native versions for the iPhone and/or Android platforms, while Gizmo5 only supports them with a web app or something?
I can understand the worry if you have some cheap device and plan that is circumventing a more expensive one, but to have a data plan you have to have a voice plan and the voice + data plans are fairly pricey.
A voice+data plan with a minimum number of minutes (but unlimited data) is considerably cheaper than one with unlimited minutes -- but that's what VoIP effectively gives you.
Even carriers here in the US have data-only plans (here's T-Mobile's). They say you can't use it with the G1, but I'm not sure what measures they have in place to enforce that...
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the good TVs apparently run Linux anyway; I might as well get the best one.
Plus, I plan to hang the thing on the wall, and I'd like to have as few extra cords and boxes as possible.
I neglected to mention this when I submitted the article, but I'm boycotting Sony (due to proprietary formats, DRM, and rootkits) so I wouldn't have bought a TV from them anyway.
I've been seriously considering that model too, but I've heard that since it's "edge-lit" (the LEDs are around the edge rather than evenly-distributed across the area of the screen) that it doesn't light as evenly as truly back-lit LED displays, and also cannot selectively darken parts of the screen. You don't find that to be a problem?
Also, there's the 6-series (which is the one you have) and then there's the 7-series, which is supposed to have more of these Internet-related features I'm asking about. What capabilities does your 6-series have?
Ah, that's something I hadn't considered; thanks! I'm not the type of guy to spend lots of money on TVs and expect not to replace this one for at least a decade or so, so longevity and durability is an important consideration for me.
Yes, that's exactly it! I should have asked you to write the article submission, apparently...
You don't really have a choice: TVs with these Internet features tend to also be the TVs with good traditional-TV specs (1080P, 120Hz+ refresh rate, high contrast ratio, good color accuracy, etc.). Conversely, TVs without these features tend to be the ones with crappy screens.
Besides, I have to spend at least $1200 on the TV itself whether I want to or not (to use up the whole credit). In other words, I'm hoping to spend $0-$200 out-of-pocket on this, and I'm only doing it in the first place because the current TV (which I didn't even pay for either; it was given to me!) is getting replaced under warranty. Building a new computer is completely out of the question, although running a Myth front-end either directly on the TV or on my Wii wouldn't be.
I know; that's why I'm asking Slashdot about this. I'm hoping somebody will have a tip about a decently-active "Linux on TVs" project, so I can pick a TV based on it having features added by the community in the future.
I (the submitter of the article) actually do have a Wii already, so that's a serious possibility. In fact, I've also got the Homebrew Channel and Mplayer-CE installed on it, and can technically watch YouTube and Shoutcast video streams right now (aside from the crashes and bugginess).
I do wish there was a Mozilla or Webkit browser available on the Wii so I wouldn't have to buy Opera, though -- it's not the $5; it's the principle of not wanting to have the purchase tied to the hardware.
And another thing, which I should have mentioned in the article submission: although Netflix and Amazon support would be nice, what I really want is support for Hulu!
By having an additional camera pointed at your eyes.
Yeah, all the NAZIs did was kill people. This wholesale destruction of our property rights is a much more fundamental, insidious problem!
Yeah, but a vehicle that was exactly the same in every way (engine, weight, cargo volume, etc.) except that it was shaped like a minivan would get at least 1-2 more MPG on the highway.
As opposed to what? Curved stupid?
The bits on the Kindle's flash memory were just as physical as the bits on a CD, and deleting them was just as much theft as stealing a CD would have been.
What are you, an idiot? Copyright is different from theft because it involves COPYING, not deleting! With copyright infringement, the owner still has the work of art; all he's lost is an "opportunity." With theft, the owner doesn't have the work of art anymore.
Only if you're too stupid to understand the difference between moving something and copying it.
Anyway, here's the fundamental concept you seem unable to grasp: copyright isn't property, but rather an abstract set of permissions. It can't be "stolen," only infringed upon. In contrast, an individual copy is property, and can be stolen.
O RLY? Read it!
Amazon.com intentionally and fraudulently deleted (i.e. "took" in the sense of "removed") the Kindle users' personal property (i.e. the copy of 1984 that they had lawfully purchased in good faith) and converted it to Amazon.com's use (to avoid having to pay damages to the copyright holder). That's theft!
Even if a particular DRM implementation doesn't have the ability to revoke information, it's still designed to control its distribution, and that by itself is enough to make it Orwellian.
He could have chosen not to testify to begin with, you know.
Exactly! What these despotic organizations (RIAA, MPAA, BSA, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, etc.) are trying to do is to destoy the individual's right to ownership of real property (that's been the cornerstone of capitalist society since well before Adam Smith codified it) in favor of consolidated ownership of imaginary property by a few large corporations (i.e., themselves), with the end result of turning us all into digital serfs! The public is not nearly as upset about this as it should be...
No, you're absolutely wrong.
The original duplication (and, only incidentally, sale) was copyright infringement and not "theft" because the only thing Amazon "stole" was an abstract right to control distribution of the work.
The subsequent deletion of the copies was indeed theft and not copyright infringement because Amazon deprived the customers of the use of the physical copy they had bought, paid for, and owned.
In other words, the situations are entirely dissimilar because creating new copies and deleting existing copies are not (legally speaking) opposites of each other. Not only are holding the copyright and owning a copy are not the same thing, but the affected parties (copyright holder or copy owner) are different in each case!
It was Amazon that thought the book was in the Public Domain; the customers could just as well have known it was not and reasonably assumed that Amazon was licensed to distribute it.
The problem is not with a network connection (always-on or otherwise); the problem is with DRM. This sort of Orwellian shit is exactly what DRM is explicitly designed to do!
Yeah, it sounds like a great idea, but that sort of thing contributed greatly to the death of Sega (i.e., with the Genesis/Sega CD/32X fiasco). Console makers probably aren't very eager to repeat that experiment!
See, this is exactly what I meant when I said "it might be difficult for us techies to understand how this can be true when it's not reflected within the code itself!"
Remember, this is a legal issue, not a technological one. It doesn't matter if the derived work doesn't physically exist at the time of distribution because the law also considers the intent of the people who wrote the software. If they intended for the code to be linked (only) with the Linux kernel, then it's legally defined as a derivative work of the kernel whether such linking actually occurred or not!
It's just like all those various proposals to try to circumvent copyright law by breaking stuff up into little pieces and distributing the pieces separately. The fact that each individual piece is small enough that it's distribution should count as Fair Use is irrelevant; if you intend to re-assemble the pieces you're still committing copyright infringement.
The bottom line is really simple: it's pointless to argue whether something is or is not copyright infringement based on technological distinctions, because the law simply does not care.
Also no externalities (see also: "tragedy of the commons").
Because "slower traffic keep right" is the law too, and if you fail to yield then you're breaking it!
The same thing happens around here too, but that's because people average 20 mph over in the 55 mph zone to begin with!
Actually, people just drive the maximum speed that seems safe and comfortable for them regardless of the speed limit; both sections of interstate feel safe and comfortable up to about 75 mph.
If people who arrived during the red can't get through during the subsequent green, then the intersection almost certainly has a failing LOS (level of service) and needs more lanes (or some other less-expensive modification, if possible).
People only feel the need to slow down around cops because they're speeding otherwise. Therefore, the real problem is that the speed limit is too low. (Note: the problem is not that people are driving "too fast" because people tend to drive at the maximum safe speed regardless of what the speed limit is. If you have a stretch of Interstate where the 85th percentile speed is 70 mph and the speed limit is 55 mph, then you could lower the limit to 20 mph or raise it to 150 mph, and that 85th % speed will remain 70 mph!)
I'm not sure; I just remember the web page where I heard about this mentioning it. I think technically you don't (you can just use Gizmo5's first-party software) but maybe Fring has native versions for the iPhone and/or Android platforms, while Gizmo5 only supports them with a web app or something?
And for a third time...