Finally, new Sony rumors

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by Marcy

Can they? I am so umimpressed with their library software. Why don't they make a web-interface, so I can use my darn browser, which is faster, more reliable and just easier to use than the crap Sony tried to pawn off on us. If Amazon, Kobo, Fictionwise, B&N, etc. can use the web to sell their books, Sony certainly can. ePub books I buy from FW are downloaded via ADE, so that isn't the problem.

I largely agree with this. While I find the software pretty easy to use, it is really just Web Browse Plus... a Web Browser-like interface, plus on-screen book reading. Since I'm primarily using the Reader software on my Mac to check/debug LRFs, I like the software. If I were reading with it, I might not... at all! I would also prefer the option to purchase AND download from a regular old browser.

However, I do believe the page number is courtesy of ADE, not Sony. Their software sucks big time, but that is one thing that is *not* their fault.

Good point... Looks like they slacked off so badly, they actually had someone else do the work for them!

The whole rootkit fiasco (which I believe was the single event which turned the Internet at large against Sony) was actually a 3rd party issue as well.

I appreciate that ePUB is not their fault, though I'm desperate for them to fix it. I actually wait with baited breath on each release to hear if the Readers still support LRF/BBeB because the ePUB support is so bad!

Guess Sony needs more in-house coding.

-Pie

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by OrcaBlue

You are quoting a terms that used by racist like EricE123, who used the "political correctness" argument to justify the used of a racial slur. This is way passed being "political correctness." I was never worry about being "political correctness". I find it blantly offensive and that what I am pointing out. That's why I say don't even use it as defend. "Political Correctness",...Ppplzzzzz.

And here is where you miss the salient question. Is it a racial slur if it's not meant as such? Is it a racial slur if the race in question does not find it offensive? Is it a racial slur if you are part of a culture that uses the term, but not as a slur?

The PC movement is a lot about words. And the reaction to the words alone (the OP is solely a racist due to the term he used) is what makes me conclude that there is some Political Correctness going on.

I never address anything specific about your case. Why are you accusing me of "not thinking" this and that? Please, read my comment for God Sakes. Have I say anything in regarding to your own experience??

First, I did not "accuse" you of anything. I asked a question. "Don't you think...?" (And to clarify, I'm not asking if you "think," as obviously you do! It's a colloquialism asking "Did you consider this important or not?")

Also, I certain did read your post. Quite carefully. The following is what I was responding to specifically:

Originally Posted by OrcaBlue

This is about how one should be more sensitive when using language that might offend others in a public forum, especially in forum such as Mobileread. It doesn't mean much when you were never a target of the derogatory label and discriminated against.

Since the above statement was directed at me I don't think I was on too much of a limb to interpret that as "you" as "addressing something specific about my case."

Blah Blah Blah..., I am sorry but "political correctness" has nothing to do with this case.

Not the "case" (the initial use of the derogatory term), but the response.

In the movie, he WAS indeed ignorant at the beginning and WAS indeed a racist. He didn't know anything about Hmong culture and think nothing of them. Not until he started interact with them; experienced their hospitality, bullsh*t from his own family, and his terminal disease; did he start to change for the better. Don't tell me that all you got from the movie and think that he was the same throughout.

Did I say that? No. I actually used the movie as a catalyst to ask questions.

I appreciate what you're saying here. Certainly I believe the character changed. But it's important to recall Clint's relationship with the barber. It occurs early in the movie, it's filled with slur after slur from both sides, and it's obvious they both care deeply for each other. So are they racists simply because they use slurs? Or is there more to them than meets the eye (or ear)?

Please don't use a movie as an example for a real life argument. Please for me....

That's like asking me to not make analogies. I seldom cite films as such, but in this case it is extremely relevant to the discussion. I could just as easily have cited a book. This is a book site, after all.

-Pie

[OrcaBlue]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

And here is where you miss the salient question. Is it a racial slur if it's not meant as such?

There is a saying, "The pen is mightier than the sword" or something like "a tongue is mightier than the blade". So my answer to you is yes "words" do matter. How one use words really count. One can use language to discriminate and oppress without lifting an arm. It was "words" that governments used during wars to dehumanized their enemies. It was words that that labeled "African America" as another species to make it acceptable to own another human-being. It was words that Nazi Germany used to portrait "Jews" as vermonts and "rats" in their war time propagandas. This is why words are so important and why we have to be careful when using it.

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Is it a racial slur if it's not meant as such?

My answer to you is no it is not. However, when someone find it particular word offensive due to the past historic usage of the term; then one should try not to use it. I find that the OP's own insistent of using the word make him a "prick" at best and a racist based on his followup comments.

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Is it a racial slur if the race in question does not find it offensive? Is it a racial slur if you are part of a culture that uses the term, but not as a slur?

I deal and judge things on a case by case basis. All these questions that you just asked is irrelevant to this discussion at hand. In this particular "case", I find it offensive to the people of Japan in general. Don't tell me that Japanese find the term non-offensive. Hence, your question is moot.

Originally Posted by EatingPie

The PC movement is a lot about words. And the reaction to the words alone (the OP is solely a racist due to the term he used) is what makes me conclude that there is some Political Correctness going on.

As I stated above, this has nothing to do with "Political Correctness". In order to fight any type of discrimination similar to those that has lead to violents in the past; one have to stay vigilant and watchful for *sshole like the OP. The OP is deemed racist for his follow up comments not just his initial use of the term. My initial respond was with a question mark, "?". Hinting that that might sound racist. If his follow up comments has been different then he wouldn't be label as such.

Originally Posted by EatingPie

First, I did not "accuse" you of anything. I asked a question. "Don't you think...?" (And to clarify, I'm not asking if you "think," as obviously you do! It's a colloquialism asking "Did you consider this important or not?")

The OP stated that he's from Europe and the term is used colloquially as non-offensive. However, several others who live in Europe confirmed the term is considered offensive there. So don't used "colloquialism" as his defense.

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Since the above statement was directed at me I don't think I was on too much of a limb to interpret that as "you" as "addressing something specific about my case."

When I used the "you", I did not intended at you directly. I meant "you" in a general meaning of the word.

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Not the "case" (the initial use of the derogatory term), but the response.

Again, you and OP defended your opinions by attacking us for being "political correctness'? That's a good tactic, instead of defending your case; why not just attack them back. Using 'political correctness' argument as a defense is the same as calling the victim the oppressor. Oh yeah, poor harryE123, he was unfairly treated. It's the same bullsh*t going on this week up in D.C. where Glen Beck reclaimming the Civil Right Movement. It's bullsh*t at its best.

Originally Posted by EatingPie

I seldom cite films as such, but in this case it is extremely relevant to the discussion. I could just as easily have cited a book. This is a book site, after all.

Hollywood films are fantasy trying to portrait only one perspective and so are books. Don't tell me you believe everything you read as long as it's published. There are more rubbish published than ever before. Don't think that books are any better.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by harryE123

Thanks for the condescending laugh Kate, it's good to know one can laugh when the joke is on them.

. .

See, Kate, it's should be all clear to you now. You can thank me later for that.

It was clear to me before.

But you're a better master of condescension than I'll ever be.

You're still using the "I can say whatever I please but you're a fascist if you object" defense.

It's getting old.

You're free to be objectionable, we're free to object. That's how freedom works.

Funny how some people don't get that.

[EatingPie]

I'm going a little out of order. But this is a terrible straw man, and it deserves foremost attention.

Again, you and OP defended your opinions by attacking us with being "political correctness'? That's a good tactic, instead of defending your case; why not just attack them back."

Wow. This is exactly the opposite of what I've done in this thread. Nowhere have I "attacked" you at any point, or made any personal insult. Nowhere have I used the term "political correctness" as a "tactic" without defining it. Nowhere have I simply "attacked you back."

I defined the term Pollitical Correctness as I see it: It is this sole reliance on use of terminology deemed "insensitive" -- rather than looking at a person's heart/intent/motive -- that I define as "Political Correctness." And all of my posts are predicated upon this definition.

However, I've seen you spefically call EricA123 "racist" multiple times, you refer to "poor EricA123" in a derogatory sense, even using profanity (he's an "assh*le"). And continueing from the above citation...

Using 'political correctness' argument as a defense is the same as calling the victim the oppressor. Oh yeah, poor EricA123, he was unfairly treated. It's the same bullsh*t going on this week up in D.C. where Glen Beck reclaimming the Civil Right Movement. It's bullsh*t at its best.

You state that he claims to be a victim, and that it's "bullsh*t." As well as making another non-sequitor by comparing him to a political event.

Also, in response to my posts, you have quoted me wildly out of context, twisting their meaning to something that I did not state, and then laugh at the new meaning you created ("Let me guess Hollywood films are now considered reality. "). You have used derogatory language in response to my statements ("blah blah blah," "Ppplzzzzz,").

As I've said, I have thick skin. I am merely illustrating the fallacy of your argument. It's a straw man of the worse kind. Not only do you misreprsent me, you claim I'm doing the things you yourself are actually doing!

As I stated above, this has nothing to do with "Political Correctness". In order to fight any type of discrimination similar to those that has lead to violents in the past; one have to stay vigilant and watchful for *sshole like the OP. The OP is deemed racist for his follow up comments not just his initial use of the term. My initial respond was with a question mark, "?". Hinting that that might sound racist. If his follow up comments has been different then he wouldn't be label as such.

I am not sure I understand you. Your immediate response to him was the following:

Racist much???

I see no "hinting" at all. In it's most common use, that is a colloquialism stating that he is racist, but phrasing it as a question. It comes from a fallacy known as the "loaded question" or "fallacy of many questions." Even if he were to answer "no," he still admits to being a racist ("no, I'm not a racist much). Colloquially, that phrasing is most often used to say a person is acting a certain way ("XYZ much?" is a way of saying "You're being an XYZ!").

So I return to my definition of Pollitical Correctness: Judging a person on a word versus their intent/heart. And calling someone a "racist" is one of the most common forms of Pollitical Correctness there is. And, as far I can tell, this is exactly what happened.

There is a saying, "The pen is mightier than the sword" or something like "a tongue is mightier than the blade". So my answer to you is yes "words" do matter. How one use the words really count. One can use language to discriminate and oppress without lifting an arm. It was "words" that governments used during war to dehumanized their enemies. It was words that that labeled "African America" as another species to make it acceptable to own another human-being. It was words that Nazi Germany used to portrait "Jews" as vermonts and "rats" in their war time propagandas. It is why words are so important and why we have to be careful when using it.

Yes, indeed, I agree with many of the things you're saying here.

I will now cite a book, Orwell's 1984. One of the ideas conveyed is that changing the language was a way to control people. I agree with this idea. And, as you point out, we have seen it many times in the past. A modern day example is calling a political rival a "Nazi" or "Hitler" as a means of association.

I also believe the PC movement is using the same idea. Change the language. Maybe there is good intention there. I am no longer "black," but "African American." However, as I have stated already, the over-emphasis on words over intent or heart creates more harm than good. On top of this, the catch-all term "racist" is a PC term coming in to use similar to calling a rival a "Nazi."

My answer to you is no it is not. However, when someone find it particular word offensive due to the past historic usage of the term; then one should try not to use it. I find that the OP's own insistent of using the word make him a "prick" at best and a racist based on his followup comments.

I will merely pause here to note, once again, your use of derogatory terms. You are not addressing an argument, you are attacking a person. You incorrectly accused me of doing this (citation at beginning of this post), when you are actually the one using personal attacks.

nI deal and judge things on a case by case basis. All these questions that you just asked is irrelevant to this discussion at hand. In this particular "case", I find it offensive to the people of Japan in general. Don't tell me that Japanese find the term non-offensive. Hence, your question is moot.

You have at least one fallacy here. A non-sequitor. It does not follow that both questions are "moot" because I cannot tell you if "the people of Japan" find the term offensive or not.

And, indeed, you did not answer the question regarding a culture that uses a term and does not consider it an offensive slur. Does that mean it is racist? This is highly relevant, since EricA123 claimed to be from one such culture.

Please note, I have actually never defended the use of the term "Jap." Feel free to re-read my posts and see. I am merely pointing out that the response to the term, calling EricA123 a racist, fits in with the PC mode: It's only the word used that matters, not the heart or intent of use.

n

The OP stated that he's from Europe and the term is used colloquially as non-offensive. However, several others who live in Europe confirmed the term is considered offensive there. So don't used "colloquialism" as his defense.

This is yet another fallacy. They could be from a different part of Europe. They could also be wrong. There were three citations in this thread, all claiming differing levels of offense at the term "jap." The only conclusion that we can make about culutures using this term is that there are varying degrees of "offense" associated with the term, depending on the culture it's used in.

EricA123 may indeed be using the term in a derrogatory manner. He also may not be. But the use of the term alone is not conclusive evidence. (This is not a defense of using the term, it is simply stating that the evidence is inconclusive based on usage alone.)

When I used the "you", I did not intended at you directly. I meant "you" in a general meaning of the word.

I have a very difficult time accepting this answer without further explanation.

This is not the case of overreaching "political correctness". So please don't use that as a defend. This is about how one should be more sensitive when using language that might offend others in a public forum, especially in forum such as Mobileread. It doesn't mean much when you were never a target of the derogatory label and discriminated against.

I still cannot read this as anything by you saying my statements are invalid unless I have experienced discrimination. If this is a general statement (directed at the general "you") please explain how the context bears that out.

Hollywood films are fantasy trying to portrait only one perspective and so are books. Don't tell me you believe everything you read as long as it's published. There are more rubbish published than ever before. Don't think that books are any better.

Once again, you are twisting my words. And, once again, another fallacy. I never stated or implied that "I believe everything I read." Nor does it follow from "more rubbish is published than ever before" that "Gran Torino is rubbish."

-Pie

[dreams]

The title of this thread is, "Finally, new Sony rumors." Let's stay on topic.

Please note that this is a discussion-based community and as such everyone is entitled to share his or her opinion politely. There are obviously differing viewpoints, and no one is going to persuade the other that they are wrong. Please acknowledge that views do differ, and move on.

Even if you personally consider another person's comment or opinion useless, please let's all remain civil and polite to each other.

Mobileread Posting Guidelines

Thank you,

Moderating Team

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Only partially exciting. Lego has lost it when they stopped selling the buckets. Apple lost it when the screwed up the antenna for the iPhone 4. They could have easily moved that bit of the antenna to the bottom or the top and the problem would have been solved. So unless September 1 gets an announcement from Sony, it's a ho-hum nothing special day.

Do you have young children? Lego have not "lost it" as far as their target market is concerned (in the UK at least) - they are massively popular. And it's smart moves like the release of mini-figures at pocket money prices that are keeping them popular. I also don't understand the comment about the bucket - Argos lists 7 different lego brick boxes.

Apple certainly didn't handle the antenna issue well, but does that mean that they've lost it, and no further announcements are of interest? I'm very interested to see what features of the iphone4 (a retina screen?) reach the ipod. It could make a significant difference to the ipod as a reading device. Also, if they make facetime devices cheap enough, that could lead to a massive take-up of video calling - we shall see.

[Ben Thornton]

As to the Sony devices, in my view the key to their success is doing deals with booksellers, making it easy to access content. Having the best "Betamax" device isn't going to be enough.

[EatingPie]

I think someone mentioned the Pearl display in the Kindle previously, but I was just thinking...

Do all Pearl displays have the underlying touch sensitivity and Kindle just has it turned off? Or is there a Pearl display model that has no touch layer underneath (obviously Amazon would want this one)? Anyone know?

-Pie

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

I think someone mentioned the Pearl display in the Kindle previously, but I was just thinking...

Do all Pearl displays have the underlying touch sensitivity and Kindle just has it turned off? Or is there a Pearl display model that has no touch layer underneath (obviously Amazon would want this one)? Anyone know?

-Pie

There's no touch sensitivity in any of the eInk screens (or in an LCD screen for that matter). That comes from a layer on top, or underneath for Wacom technology that requires a special stylus. The layer on top causes the reduced readability in the existing Sony models, although there are different technologies that don't have this impact. Presumably, Sony are planning to use one of those other technologies on top of the eInk layer, to improve readability.

[Dulin's Books]

the touch layer is added by the device maker not the display maker in this case.

Sipix now makes their display with with a capacitive layer glued to the display layer

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

the touch layer is added by the device maker not the display maker in this case.

Earlier in the thread there was a reference to this:

http://www.pvi.com.tw/en/news/news_view.php?lists=8

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Scienc...p?NewsNum=2182

[OrcaBlue]

Originally Posted by dreams

The title of this thread is, "Finally, new Sony rumors." Let's stay on topic.

Please note that this is a discussion-based community and as such everyone is entitled to share his or her opinion politely. There are obviously differing viewpoints, and no one is going to persuade the other that they are wrong. Please acknowledge that views do differ, and move on.

Even if you personally consider another person's comment or opinion useless, please let's all remain civil and polite to each other.

Mobileread Posting Guidelines

Thank you,

Moderating Team

Agree!!! I guess there will always be racists out there and this won't be the last.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Earlier in the thread there was a reference to this:

http://www.pvi.com.tw/en/news/news_view.php?lists=8

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Scienc...p?NewsNum=2182

This is indeed what I was referring to. I can't tell if all Pearl displays have the technology, or just those specifically ordered to do so.

-Pie

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

This is indeed what I was referring to. I can't tell if all Pearl displays have the technology, or just those specifically ordered to do so.

I'm sure that layer would only be added if someone wanted it, as it would add cost, complexity, and thickness to the unit.

But, remember, we won't know for a couple of days if even the new Sony Readers have that technology. There continues to be the real possibility that that "leaked screenshot" is fake and the features made up. Which would mean that the new touchscreens could be the same as the old touchscreens.