Isn't the FSF meant to be working for us rather than staying in their ivory tower dictating to us what we want?
Relevant quotes: George Orwell, 1984: "The purpose of power... is power." Also, Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Actual free software is PD. Source, executable, or both. Put a license on it, and it isn't free anymore, instead, it is conditional — that is what licenses are, sets of conditions you must meet in order to use the software according to someone who withholds rights from you unless you comply with their vision of a limited manner in which they think the software should be used. This is true now, and it has always been true.
So if you're looking for freedom, find a PD project and use it, and/or enhance it, and toss the results back in the pond as PD again. Or make a new PD project. There is nothing so inconvenient and virally destructive to the lawyers and those who use them as is PD software. On the other hand, if you support the idea of a closed software ecosystem, by all means, follow RMS; his vision is as closed as any other religious convert's is.
Yes, apparently so clear that there have been no court cases to determine what is permitted and what is the intent of it...
Look, if you're going to argue that because something gets to court, it belongs in court, then you've lost your argument before you've even come to any substantive issues. The courts, the congress and senate, the laws, and the lawyers involved with them haven't demonstrated a great deal of collective sense as to selecting what is important and what is not, and in the process, they've created a huge mess in every venue from liberty to torts to families to house-building. "Clarity" hasn't got anything to do with why speech issues end up in court. Money has considerably more to do with it, as does power.
How about speech that causes another individual to act in a way that causes themselves injury or death? How about sedition, defamation, libel or treason?
Speech is protected. Therefore, how a listener acts is their own responsibility. That's the constitution. If you don't like it, get after the amendment process. Or - and here's a unique idea - write a document or obtain a witnessed oath as to the verity of someone's statements if they're important enough to be of concern to you. We could call these things "contracts", see, and attach penalty clauses that the individual - maybe we could even commit corporations and government officials to this way - has extended themselves into liability by personal choice. So, expanding on this idea, a military person or a politician would take an oath of position - lets see, for a politician we could call it an "oath of office", how does that sound? Just off the top of my head, starting at the executive branch, some verbiage like "I swear to protect and defend the constitution" might be appropriate, what do you think? I mean, since the constitution defines what the feds do, it seems oddly appropriate. Who'da think it? Then, maybe if someone were to be given top secret data, they could sign an agreement that they would be subject to penalties if they further distributed it. The FBI could administer this, since they have expertise in this area. These ideas could work, if only they were put into practice.
[stares expectantly]
...but that is how the US Supreme Court has determined it...
And in doing so, amply demonstrating they are incompetent to read basic English. That's been precisely my point. The USSC has been acting illegitimately and unconstitutionally.
You want your doctor to exercise his free speech on you?
I certainly do. My doctor should be free to tell me whatever thinks needs telling. Which would obviously have consequences for me, said consequences I would obviously report to all my friends and family. So... what do you think my doctor is likely to tell me? Quite aside from this, there is always the option of a contract providing for standards of behavior in a particular relationship. I have zero problems with that.
You wouldn't mind if the media exercises their freedom and continually broadcasts falsehoods about you to the point that all society despises you
They do that all the time. I'm an atheist, and they lie and bluster about the implications of that all the time. If I think it is worth it to counter some of these impressions for some reason, I do so; otherwise, I ignore them, consider the source (ignorant, lowest common denominator) and move on with my life.
It isn't just me, either; The media has constantly promulgated all manner of lies about the gay community; about drugs; about sexuality in general; about alternate family structures such as polyandry and polygamy; They constantly cut down ex-felons, as a class, into sub-human terms (and the legal system follows suit, reducing the idea of paying society back for a transgression to a laughable memo
You quoted a couple of fragments of article 3. I'll address those first:
Nowhere in your quotes - or anywhere else - does the constitution say anything about "interpretation" for the supreme court. When they say that the judicial power extends to the cases, they mean that in a case of constitutional law (eg, the government abridges speech), they are the court that says "oh no you don't, because it says RIGHT HERE IN THE CONSTITUTION you can't." That's the case; did you break the law? Did you abridge speech? Yes? Then you broke the law. Nothing about interpretation. It's plain English; the intent is blindingly clear. When they say jurisdiction, they are saying that for a constitutional law case, the supreme court has standing with regard to finding facts of violation (or not) and constitutional law. Not a word about making law (that's congress) and not a word about modifying law (that's congress, too.)
That means you can't broadcast over the airwaves or hand-write something and have it protected under the 1st Amendment.
No. Speech and press are two separate issues. Communications of the citizen, and communications of the media. They are not two forms of the same thing. Speech is all forms of citizen communication; written, carved, Morse code, vocal, hand signals, etc. Otherwise, you're saying that a mute is not protected, which would be stupid. That's not interpretation; again, that's plain English. Speech is communication. And you know as well as I do that such a definition was exactly what was intended - the reason we both know it is because we're not "interpreting" it, we're reading it carefully for intent, using context and decent knowledge of English usage. "No law." Say it with me. "Congress shall make No Law." That's not "congress can make some law", and there's nothing there that lets you say "except in the situation where..." Not a bloody thing. Does this inconvenience the government? Sure, it may. Citizens too, at times. The point was, and remains, that such inconvenience is a lighter burden to bear than a government that rationalizes away your ability to communicate.
If you intentionally go in intending to misinterpret the document, you can certainly get it done. Hell, the USSC does it all the time. But if you read it and simply say to yourself, "what did they mean by this?" It is very, very rare one would come up with a confusing answer (except in the very rare case where they reference something that is not in the common man's understanding, such as my example of ex post facto law, above.) At which point, you look it up, and even that will become clear.
I am not trying to be literal in the sense of being unable to generalize. I am being literal in intent and you are conflating the two, though they are quite different. For instance, if we generalize the statement "Congress shall make no law" we end up with ideas like "and no one else should, either", rather than something completely ridiculous like "other than when it does make such law", or such as when the constitution says that an enumerated power is the feds being able to regulate interstate commerce, a very specific power, where some sophist paper-shuffler declares "it means we can regulate INTRASTATE COMMERCE! Rejoice!" That's not generalizing. That's being an idiot. Not that we have any shortage of such events.
Oh, that's right, you have no-one authorized to interpret the meaning of the Constitution, so apparently no-one can decide anything about what the Constitution means.
Christ on a damned crutch. The constitution doesn't need to be "interpreted", it isn't written in ancient Sanskrit or murky, difficult to understand prose of any sort. Just READ the darned thing; it is easily understood. If there's something that really rubs you the wrong way, start a movement to get an amendment going. But for Darwin's sake, quit trying to say that when it says yes, it means no; when it says "you may not", it means
The power to interpret the meaning of law and the constitution is granted to the Supreme Court.
Please show me where this is done in the constitution. I'll wait. Thank you. Just so you have a good starting point, article three establishes the judiciary, and doesn't say a word about this.
Notice both those sentences say the same thing (generally speaking). One would be protected fully by the first amendment, the second would be considered obscene by the FCC and the supreme court would rule you do not have the right to say it.
They would be acting entirely illegally by the highest law of the land should they so rule. What part of "congress shall make no law" is confusing you? Is it the "no" or the "law"? Or is it the part about congress? Look, if I say you, Fred Flintstone, may not steal my shoe, you simply cannot turn around and say "well, he meant that I could steal his shoe, obviously. I mean, hey, it's totally open to interpretation, isn't it?"
These interpretations ARE BINDING, AND ABSOLUTE. THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF ALLOWS FOR THIS.
No, in actual fact, it doesn't. It establishes the judiciary to try cases of constitutional law. That's all it does. Nowhere - absolutely nowhere - does it say that the supreme court has the power to "interpret" the constitution, nor does it say that any such act would be binding and/or absolute. Next time you enter an argument, gather your facts. Go read article three, which establishes the judiciary. You'll be amazed to find that not a single thing you claim is in there, or even remotely implied by what is in there.
I can't believe there are people who actually want to hear swear words on TV and therefore oppose this action by Congress
News reports? Drama? Humor? Opinion? Are you really that culturally bereft? Personally, I believe there are people as one dimensional as you portray yourself, but I attribute it to bad genes, and/or poor upbringing. So I forgive you for your stunted and blindered outlook. What I don't forgive you is your inclination to blinder me and mine because you haven't the inclination to deal with free speech.
If a character in a drama says fuck, I want to hear them say it. When the rolling aliens in "Critters" encounter the human with shotgun, one says "they have weapons", the other replies "so?" and the human shoots, blowing one away. The remaining alien emits a FUCK and runs off at a high rate of sudden common sense and it is rib-tickling funny, assuming your funny bone hasn't been pickled in something as stunting as holy water. If critters comes on the satellite, I bloody well want to see that scene as performed and intended, not censored or cut. If Cheney says "fuck you" on the floor of the senate or house (and he did), I want to hear it. If George Bush is giving the finger to people, I want to know. And yes, he did. On camera. If an artist finds that they want to include any particular language in a work of art, I want to see it, read it, hear it, whatever. Likewise any dramatic re-creation of any act whatsoever, including sex, violence, and even religion, though that is most depressing human behavior of all. I don't have any inclination at all to let people like you restrict that at the state or local level, and as far as the federal government goes, they're forbidden to, period, and that's the end of that as far as legitimacy goes.
You know what I told my boys when the George Bush and Cheney acts linked above came up? I told them that these people had inadequate manners, as could easily be understood from the positions they hold and the actions they took. I told them that these are some of the reasons why I am no fan of either of these two people holding the positions they hold today; that representing the United States of America is a task that demands great statesmen, and unfortunately, the public no longer seemed to be able to elect such people, nor were they very often given the opportunity to vote for people of that caliber. I wanted my boys to see those events; and I don't want you and people like you to be able to hide that from them.
So please. If you want to control language in your house, control how language gets into your house. Stop seeking to control it everywhere for the convenience of your own outlook. Your right to limit what people say - and hear - stops at the limits of your own minor dependents, if any.
Did your armchair civics course also explain to you that nothing in the Constitution is absolute or that everything is based on a standard of reasonableness?
And where in the constitution does it say this? Because if it isn't in there, or derived from verbiage in there, it isn't so — it's just a convenient excuse to screw things up. When something needs interpretation - such as the reference to ex post facto law - then the way to get after it is to find out what ex post facto law meant at the time of the writing of the document (see below) When the constitution uses plain English: "congress shall not" without exceptions, then whatever follows is fucking well forbidden, and does not require interpretation no matter how cleverly any sophist arguments to the contrary may be presented. Does this mean that sometimes the government may not have the power to do what it wants? Yes, it does. Does it mean that in some cases, the best possible outcome may not be obtainable? Yes, it means that too. None of which justifies "interpreting" something that was written in PFE. Plain. Fucking. English.
ex post facto law, Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), by Justice Chase:
1: Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2: Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3: Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4: Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender
If the USSC as a whole understood the above, there are a number of laws that would have been struck down. Unfortunately, this has not been the case and consequently we have some flagrantly unconstitutional laws that are about as ex post facto as a fresh turd is stinky.
And why is there not the same outrage when it's a 2nd Amendment issue? You know, the one that empowers the people and allows them to protect and defend the 1st Amendment.
No argument here. The feds have no legitimate authority to regulate any citizen's right to keep or bear arms. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is absolutely unequivocal and is not any more open to interpretation than is the speech part of the first amendment. If they want that authority, they need to amend the constitution. In the meantime, we're looking at coercive and illegal behavior by the government.
...if your interpretation were true, then there could be no federal penalty for telling our enemy in a time of war precisely what our battle plans are, because it's "protected speech."
Nonsense. That is what oaths and contracts are for. Military and political roles carry extra restrictions which the individuals involved agree to by signing various documents and taking various oaths. Any number of provisions can be taken to restrict speech voluntarily, what can't be done legitimately is the feds legislating speech itself. Period.
If you want to be cleared top secret (or any other level... including commercial secrets), you'll sign documents saying you agree both to the restrictions on distribution of those materials, and that you are aware that you are subjecting yourself to various penalties should you violate those restrictions. If that's not acceptable, then don't sign, and (a) you won't know anything of that nature, and (b) you can't say anything about what you don't know and (c) the state has no legitimate interest in regulating what you say.
It is blatantly obvious that this is exactly how it should work, also. No need arises for the government to have any authority to restrict speech; were such an actual need to arise (though I can't think of one, only the usual strawmen such as the entirely specious and trivially disposed of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" chestnut) then the constitution would need amendment.
Otherwise, we're stuck with a government that has no governing mechanism that controls what it can and cannot do. When you, and people of your mindset, attempt to argue the constitution away, what you are doing is arguing into being a rationale for a government that can do anything, because in your view, everything in the constitution is "open to interpretation" — even those parts in the plainest of English — which is a very, very dangerous point of view.
Obviously the government has taken many powers it is not authorized to have. The correct response to this (at present, IMHO) is to get up on the soapbox and make it clear that this is not authorized, and if authorization is sought, then a constitutional amendment must be created and approved according to the rules for such things.
Law is often stupid. Law is often wrong. Law can also be unconstitutional; sometimes these things are obvious (as in the case of speech), sometimes they are not (as in the case of ex post facto law — most people, including the majority of the supreme court at times, have no idea what comprises an ex post facto law.) The bottom line is that the government does have restrictions upon what it is allowed to do, and we need to see to it that they obey those restrictions. If we don't, we are as much at fault as they are.
One last thing: The constitution is a very sparse document, considering what it was intended to accomplish (provide the constituting authority for the federal government.) The fact that the authors, a group of very smart people, thought it important enough to explicitly lock out the ability to make law to suppress speech should be a huge flaming red flag to the apologists who claim that it is "OK" to suppress some speech because [insert lame {child | terrorist | pedophile | immigrant | global warming} excuse here.]
The problem is that the FCC is not a part of the Legislative branch, it is part of the Executive branch, and the Constitution clearly says that it is Congress that shall not make such a law
So... where does the constitution give the executive branch the power to make law? Aside from the fact that in this particular case, this is law made by congress. Read the FA.
And yet there are plenty of restrictions on "free" speech.
Yes, there are. And every one of them is illegitimate. There is nothing to "interpret" about Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech. anyone who thinks there is has simply demonstrated they are unqualified to read, much less "interpret" basic English. And that includes partisan, special-interest sycophants who we have had the misfortune of having appointed to the supreme court.
You seem to be of the persuasion that if it is law, it is OK. The fact is, if the constitution forbids it, and it is done anyway, it is wrong and illegitimate and coercive, and no amount of "interpretation" can make it any better. There is no authority given to abridge the freedom of speech; congress is not allowed to make any such law. End of story as far as legitimacy goes, barring constitutional amendment.
The prediction overlooks far too many inconveniences that technology hasn't yet resolved.
The need to regularly plug in the laptop. Poor battery lifetime and recharge cycle performance (but see ultracapacitors for the impending doom of the battery industry.) The need to plug in various I/O devices (hard drives, scanners, various others for various needs.) The wearing out of laptop clamshell hinges. The low quality of laptop keyboards as compared to the awesome stand-alone keyboards available. The need for mice and drawing pads. The limited screen size of a laptop (you can of course make an ultra-large screen laptop, but then it doesn't fit in your lap very well.) The room inside a desktop for various hardware add-ons, such as PCI bus hardware, or highly accelerated graphics engines. Room for multiple drives.
A few of these things - such as connectivity, which will probably go entirely wireless - will resolve themselves as technology advances. Most will not. So as an IMHO, but one with a lot of data behind it, I call nonsense on the entire proposition.
I want there to be some channels set aside that are free from the curse words, nudity, excessively adult themes, violence and so on.
Well, I want a channel on rock and mineral collecting. If there's enough demand, I'm sure the media conglomerates will produce such a channel. But it may be that what I want isn't going to happen. I don't see why what you want shouldn't be subject to the same market forces. Perhaps you can explain that to me.
Next, the authority to abridge speech is not available to the federal government, and therefore, it is not available to the FCC. Mind you they have taken the power to do this, but they still do not have the authority. See the first amendment to the constitution for why.
These are the channels that should come through my TV by default.
So make certain that you purchase a TV, DVR, or satellite system that supports the ability to limit which channels may be watched, then. I think all do, but I know most of them do.
I shouldn't have to go out of my way to block adult content
No? Why not? I have to go out of my way to block religious content that I believe would be harmful to my child, and I have taken this oh-so-heavy burden and called upon my manly powers to lift the remote and actually do so; why should you get a free pass for your beliefs?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There are no amendments to the constitution that allow the federal government (congress) to rework the meaning and intent of the first amendment. Therefore, this law is illegitimate. Because it is illegitimate, it is also without authority — no authority is provided by the constitution, therefore no authority transfers to the law. Consequently it is a law of coercion, using only force and the threat of force as the means to accomplish its goal, which is specifically abridging freedom of speech.
The 14th amendment extends the bill of rights (amendments one through ten) to the states; that is, the states must make law according to the dictates of the bill of rights, just as the federal government must. So laws abridging freedom of speech cannot be legitimately created at the state level, either.
Note that there is a path that could make this kind of action legitimate; that would require amendment of the constitution. Without such amendment, the federal government is not legally authorized to make a law of this type. Amendment is a procedure that is defined in Article Five of the constitution.
One more ironclad example of our federal government wildly out of control.
Don't know where you are getting this from, but treasury has had the right to search and seizure without warrant for well over two hundred years. It was initially instituted to prevent smuggling, and the US Coast Guard (then the Revenue Cutter Service) still conducts warrantless searches and seizures.
Please reference the amendment to the constitution which reverses the fourth amendment such that it that allows this. I am unaware of it, and the last time I read the constitution all the way through was this morning. I could have missed it, I'm sure.
If no such amendment exists, then the federal government — and by extension, the treasury department, which is part of the federal government — has no such authority. Now, they certainly have the power, but that power is 100% illegitimate and coercive, taken in the face of the constituting document that forbids such actions. The constitution is the highest law in the land; it defines the scope of permissible activities in this area without any gray areas whatsoever. "Why" is irrelevant.
FYI, legislation created by congress and rulings made by courts, no matter if they are the lowest or the highest, cannot change the constitution. Only amendment can change the constitution. See article five.
Various government agencies have been doing just what you're describing as immoral and illegal for years.
Here, let me fix your phrasing for you:
Various federal government agencies have been performing immoral and illegal acts for years.
There, now it represents the facts. Such facts include creation and enforcement of ex post facto laws, laws and actions with regard to all attempts to regulate intrastate commerce, direct suppression of free speech, laws that infringe upon the people's right to keep and bear arms, attempts to suspend habeas corpus, failure to allow citizens access to legal representation, failure to provide for public trial in the case of criminal prosecution, and a huge variety of offenses against personal liberty, such as telling you what you can put into your own body, what you can do with a consenting, informed adult, and what you may read, view, and say in the privacy of your own home, tapping the communications of US citizens without warrants... the list is long and reads like the plotting of a master criminal organization. Because that it what it represents.
Also, for what it is worth in this nightmare of constitutionally bewildered hand waving, the fourth amendment is the amendment that describes how seizure of property must be performed:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This boils down to (a) Probable cause, (b) Oath or affirmation, (c) Warrant.
The fifth also deals with takings of property for public use. When it says "due process" with regard to criminal proceedings, following the fourth, they expect you to have read the fourth as well as the fifth. So you really want to look at the fourth to see what they meant by "due process."
But... if you want to castigate the government for the 5th, then all you have to do is look at the supreme court's claim that the states can take property simply for the purpose of resale to a non-government entity with the goal of increasing tax revenue. The fifth enables takings for public use. Some real estate developer putting up buildings that are more taxable than yours is not by any stretch of the imagination putting the taken land to "public use." The relevant portion of the fifth is as follows:
...in any criminal case...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Technical details aside, we know the constitution specifically meant to prevent this. It is a general document, and so it doesn't address this particular act of injustice directly, but it certainly addresses all the issues in plain English. Secret court and determination? No. Public Trial. Seizure without said trial? No. Warrant, oath or affirmation, probable cause, right to trial. It is as plain as day if we are honest with ourselves and we recognize that the federal government's legitimate operating range is defined by the constituting authority that is the US constitution itself.
If a person does not believe that, then I am not sure what exactly they think sets the limits of the government's authority, or if they think there are any such limits.
My thought has always been that if congress declares war, then they have to go and serve as infantry on the front line, and the president, vice president, and speaker of the house have to go with them. They have to serve *in* the front line for the duration of the war, they can't be promoted, they can't win medals, and they get no leave. If they have to go in wheelchairs or with canes, that's fine, too. When the war is over, if they're still alive, the go home; no more public service. In the meantime, we elect new congresscritters and etc. I think that'd calm their asses down a little.
Although keeping the pilots safe is great, the problem enters in when you consider how cheap this makes war. I am not talking about money, but in the cost of US lives (or whoever has this level of technology.)
It has been cheap in the sense you mean since the fifties, when obliterating an opposing city required no more than the delivery of one munitions package with a nuclear weapon.
What actually makes war expensive is the ability of the enemy to respond. Your unmanned aircraft goes in, delivers some mayhem, you're thinking "great, no way to lose the pilot." In the meantime, the people you bombed arrange to blow up an LNG tanker on the Hudson river adjacent to Manhatten. That is what keeps war expensive, no matter what weapons you use, and no matter if they are manned, or not. Until or unless the will exists to obliterate the opposing side, there will be no cost-free war; the very idea is absurd.
Anyways, the good news is that libraries do exist, and aren't going away.
No, of course not, because they're protected by copyright law, which in turn grew out of article 1, section 8 of the constitution. Just there will never be a restriction on keeping and bearing arms... uh, oh, wait. OK then, like there will never be restrictions on speech... no, no, turns out there are plenty of those. Mmmm, ok, just like the feds can only take action on interstate commerce, because you know, that's an enumerated power they can't step outside... aw, no, they do that all the time. Well, it'll be like how they can't do searches or seizures without probable cause, oath or affirmation, and a warrant... oh... I guess that's no longer true. Well, of course they can't make ex post facto laws... except for the ones they've made, that is, you know, thinking of the children and such.
Wait. Why is it again libraries "aren't going away?"
If you were
to watch a film blinking at 48Hz. it would probably drive you mad in short order.
So... you're saying that all those who watch 50 Hz PAL televisions with 25 Hz interlace field rates (basically most Europeans) have been driven mad by decades of exposure to low frame rates? Is it then your postulate that this is why they are often reported to actually drink warm beer? Because they are MAD?
Anyway, you're almost right. 48 hz (double gating) has been the norm for decades, but some modern designs are gating three times. So you can find 72 hz rates in some theaters, though I've never run into one myself. The principle is the same, though; it's still only 24 hz worth of image data. All these techniques do is reduce perceived flicker. They don't help one bit with the amount of detail available for you to perceive, or with any depiction of motion, including simple pans.
Uh, this is all forgetting that most HD movies come from film which run at 24 frames per second
Hold on there, I didn't forget any such thing; I specifically said "has a quality HD signal source", I didn't say a word about film. I'm talking about actual 60 frame per second content, not ancient 24 FPS grain-ola. Film - frankly - isn't by any means a dependable source of high quality images. Aside from the frame rate being WAY too slow (they double shutter it, two flashes per frame, so your eye doesn't catch the low data rate, did you know that? Makes it 48hz instead of 24hz, but of course it adds nothing, just stops you from going into an epileptic fit), the annoying collection of minor aspect ratio changes, the poor match of the color gamut to most display systems, and the unspeakable things it does to motion, film just isn't the HD fan's friend.
Real HD content comes from cameras, machines (like the PS3) that can generate it natively, and from broadcast systems that record and reproduce it natively. For anything that was film in the first place, you're dead-stuck with data that changes every 41.6 milliseconds along with the horrifying motion blur inherent in the attempt to make two frames 41 ms apart show smooth motion, and if that satisfies you, more power to you. Me, I definitely prefer real HD content at 16 ms or so. Converting something upwards in space *or* time doesn't add quality. Either it is there in the first place, or it isn't. As more HD content comes along, I rather hope film dies a horrible death.
I will note that with a film conversion to HD at least you don't have to put up with the theater operator fouling up the focus, the film melting and/or breaking, the sound track turning into a warbly, trashy ghost of what it should be, and obviously as long as people continue to use film, the only way we're going to get to see these works is in the original form or as a conversion, but the bottom line is, Full-on HD kicks film's butt right off the planet, and the sooner motion picture folks catch on to that, the better off we'll all be.
The difference between SD (480i) and 720p HD is about the same as the difference between 720p and 1080i/p.
Wait, what? 720p is far superior to 1080i. 1080i - that "i" stands for interlace and what that does is halve the data rate - in 1/60th of a second, you get 1/2 a frame, or 1920x540, about a megapixel per 60th. You won't get the data for those same scan lines again for a 30th of a second, which means larger steps for motion. Worse, the next bunch of visual info, 1/60th of a second later, is on different lines and represents a different slice of time, so if there is motion, the data on the second frame won't line up with the first frame - a problem that HD was designed to solve, not bring us a brand new version of, by the way.
720p is 720x1240, about 90% of a megapixel per 60th, but the data is not interlaced so there is no scanline level sliding of the image as motion drives the frames out of sync for interlace.
I can't believe anyone who really cares about quality, and has a quality HD signal source, would watch 1080i if 720p is available to them. 1080i sucks. 1080p, sure. 1080p has twice the temporal resolution of 1080i, no flicker like 720p, and no interframe distortion artifacts.
Don't make the mistake of setting up a source at 1080i and then letting your display scale to 720p, either; that'll turn spatial distortions into blurs without solving any problems. Set your source to 720p and your display to 720p, and you have the best chance at the highest quality image you can get short of 1080p all the way through the system.
Congratulations. You have entirely missed the point. Of course it makes sense to harden, especially in the face of a known threat, and the more substantial the threat, the harder you want to go. But the point is that the OP's "not having a problem" with the government's crossing an unhardened boundary is shortsighted in the extreme; fine, lock your door, encrypt your drive and so forth, but in the meantime, there is no need to be saying "if your door is unlocked, it's OK for robbers to come in." Just because I send an email in the clear, I'm in no way saying that it is OK for people to read the content therein; just because my hard drive isn't encrypted, I'm not saying you can come in and examine the content of the drive. It isn't OK at all.
Frankly, the government has no legitimate tasking to be looking at any communication or data of a US citizen unless they have probable cause a crime has been committed by the specific person or person(s) they are looking at. The 4th amendment is very, very clear on this, and the government is flat out wrong to invade citizen's communications. They're supposed to be working for us. We're not their subjects; we're not their slaves; we're not suspects unless something very specific happens. Does the following seem familiar?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There's no clause there that says "unless George Bush thinks its a good idea" or "unless J Edgar Hoover found you were of a political persuasion he didn't like" or "as long as you encipher you writings" or "except if if you don't lock your door" or "if we can scare the public sufficiently about A-rabs" and so on and so forth. No searching without probable cause and a warrant. That's clear as a bell. And what are they doing? What is data, email, hard drive mining, after all? It's searching your info that you did not give permission to search, that's what it is — and furthermore, it has been understood for literally hundreds of years in this very country that your personal papers and communications are private unless you say otherwise.
The government is out of hand here. They are criminal; they are breaking the law, literally the highest law in the land. These are high crimes indeed. These boundaries are well established and any serious attempt to argue them away — I'm not talking about debate here, but intent or action(s) to destroy the boundaries themselves — just establishes the person or persons making the argument as a sophist and an enemy of liberty. A toxic citizen, or worse. There is only one legitimate way to approach this, and that is by changing the constitution; and they've not done that, so they have absolutely nowhere legitimate to stand.
Slashdot Mirror
Relevant quotes: George Orwell, 1984: "The purpose of power... is power." Also, Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Actual free software is PD. Source, executable, or both. Put a license on it, and it isn't free anymore, instead, it is conditional — that is what licenses are, sets of conditions you must meet in order to use the software according to someone who withholds rights from you unless you comply with their vision of a limited manner in which they think the software should be used. This is true now, and it has always been true.
So if you're looking for freedom, find a PD project and use it, and/or enhance it, and toss the results back in the pond as PD again. Or make a new PD project. There is nothing so inconvenient and virally destructive to the lawyers and those who use them as is PD software. On the other hand, if you support the idea of a closed software ecosystem, by all means, follow RMS; his vision is as closed as any other religious convert's is.
Look, if you're going to argue that because something gets to court, it belongs in court, then you've lost your argument before you've even come to any substantive issues. The courts, the congress and senate, the laws, and the lawyers involved with them haven't demonstrated a great deal of collective sense as to selecting what is important and what is not, and in the process, they've created a huge mess in every venue from liberty to torts to families to house-building. "Clarity" hasn't got anything to do with why speech issues end up in court. Money has considerably more to do with it, as does power.
Speech is protected. Therefore, how a listener acts is their own responsibility. That's the constitution. If you don't like it, get after the amendment process. Or - and here's a unique idea - write a document or obtain a witnessed oath as to the verity of someone's statements if they're important enough to be of concern to you. We could call these things "contracts", see, and attach penalty clauses that the individual - maybe we could even commit corporations and government officials to this way - has extended themselves into liability by personal choice. So, expanding on this idea, a military person or a politician would take an oath of position - lets see, for a politician we could call it an "oath of office", how does that sound? Just off the top of my head, starting at the executive branch, some verbiage like "I swear to protect and defend the constitution" might be appropriate, what do you think? I mean, since the constitution defines what the feds do, it seems oddly appropriate. Who'da think it? Then, maybe if someone were to be given top secret data, they could sign an agreement that they would be subject to penalties if they further distributed it. The FBI could administer this, since they have expertise in this area. These ideas could work, if only they were put into practice.
[stares expectantly]
And in doing so, amply demonstrating they are incompetent to read basic English. That's been precisely my point. The USSC has been acting illegitimately and unconstitutionally.
I certainly do. My doctor should be free to tell me whatever thinks needs telling. Which would obviously have consequences for me, said consequences I would obviously report to all my friends and family. So... what do you think my doctor is likely to tell me? Quite aside from this, there is always the option of a contract providing for standards of behavior in a particular relationship. I have zero problems with that.
They do that all the time. I'm an atheist, and they lie and bluster about the implications of that all the time. If I think it is worth it to counter some of these impressions for some reason, I do so; otherwise, I ignore them, consider the source (ignorant, lowest common denominator) and move on with my life.
It isn't just me, either; The media has constantly promulgated all manner of lies about the gay community; about drugs; about sexuality in general; about alternate family structures such as polyandry and polygamy; They constantly cut down ex-felons, as a class, into sub-human terms (and the legal system follows suit, reducing the idea of paying society back for a transgression to a laughable memo
You quoted a couple of fragments of article 3. I'll address those first:
Nowhere in your quotes - or anywhere else - does the constitution say anything about "interpretation" for the supreme court. When they say that the judicial power extends to the cases, they mean that in a case of constitutional law (eg, the government abridges speech), they are the court that says "oh no you don't, because it says RIGHT HERE IN THE CONSTITUTION you can't." That's the case; did you break the law? Did you abridge speech? Yes? Then you broke the law. Nothing about interpretation. It's plain English; the intent is blindingly clear. When they say jurisdiction, they are saying that for a constitutional law case, the supreme court has standing with regard to finding facts of violation (or not) and constitutional law. Not a word about making law (that's congress) and not a word about modifying law (that's congress, too.)
No. Speech and press are two separate issues. Communications of the citizen, and communications of the media. They are not two forms of the same thing. Speech is all forms of citizen communication; written, carved, Morse code, vocal, hand signals, etc. Otherwise, you're saying that a mute is not protected, which would be stupid. That's not interpretation; again, that's plain English. Speech is communication. And you know as well as I do that such a definition was exactly what was intended - the reason we both know it is because we're not "interpreting" it, we're reading it carefully for intent, using context and decent knowledge of English usage. "No law." Say it with me. "Congress shall make No Law." That's not "congress can make some law", and there's nothing there that lets you say "except in the situation where..." Not a bloody thing. Does this inconvenience the government? Sure, it may. Citizens too, at times. The point was, and remains, that such inconvenience is a lighter burden to bear than a government that rationalizes away your ability to communicate.
If you intentionally go in intending to misinterpret the document, you can certainly get it done. Hell, the USSC does it all the time. But if you read it and simply say to yourself, "what did they mean by this?" It is very, very rare one would come up with a confusing answer (except in the very rare case where they reference something that is not in the common man's understanding, such as my example of ex post facto law, above.) At which point, you look it up, and even that will become clear.
I am not trying to be literal in the sense of being unable to generalize. I am being literal in intent and you are conflating the two, though they are quite different. For instance, if we generalize the statement "Congress shall make no law" we end up with ideas like "and no one else should, either", rather than something completely ridiculous like "other than when it does make such law", or such as when the constitution says that an enumerated power is the feds being able to regulate interstate commerce, a very specific power, where some sophist paper-shuffler declares "it means we can regulate INTRASTATE COMMERCE! Rejoice!" That's not generalizing. That's being an idiot. Not that we have any shortage of such events.
Christ on a damned crutch. The constitution doesn't need to be "interpreted", it isn't written in ancient Sanskrit or murky, difficult to understand prose of any sort. Just READ the darned thing; it is easily understood. If there's something that really rubs you the wrong way, start a movement to get an amendment going. But for Darwin's sake, quit trying to say that when it says yes, it means no; when it says "you may not", it means
Please show me where this is done in the constitution. I'll wait. Thank you. Just so you have a good starting point, article three establishes the judiciary, and doesn't say a word about this.
They would be acting entirely illegally by the highest law of the land should they so rule. What part of "congress shall make no law" is confusing you? Is it the "no" or the "law"? Or is it the part about congress? Look, if I say you, Fred Flintstone, may not steal my shoe, you simply cannot turn around and say "well, he meant that I could steal his shoe, obviously. I mean, hey, it's totally open to interpretation, isn't it?"
No, in actual fact, it doesn't. It establishes the judiciary to try cases of constitutional law. That's all it does. Nowhere - absolutely nowhere - does it say that the supreme court has the power to "interpret" the constitution, nor does it say that any such act would be binding and/or absolute. Next time you enter an argument, gather your facts. Go read article three, which establishes the judiciary. You'll be amazed to find that not a single thing you claim is in there, or even remotely implied by what is in there.
News reports? Drama? Humor? Opinion? Are you really that culturally bereft? Personally, I believe there are people as one dimensional as you portray yourself, but I attribute it to bad genes, and/or poor upbringing. So I forgive you for your stunted and blindered outlook. What I don't forgive you is your inclination to blinder me and mine because you haven't the inclination to deal with free speech.
If a character in a drama says fuck, I want to hear them say it. When the rolling aliens in "Critters" encounter the human with shotgun, one says "they have weapons", the other replies "so?" and the human shoots, blowing one away. The remaining alien emits a FUCK and runs off at a high rate of sudden common sense and it is rib-tickling funny, assuming your funny bone hasn't been pickled in something as stunting as holy water. If critters comes on the satellite, I bloody well want to see that scene as performed and intended, not censored or cut. If Cheney says "fuck you" on the floor of the senate or house (and he did), I want to hear it. If George Bush is giving the finger to people, I want to know. And yes, he did. On camera. If an artist finds that they want to include any particular language in a work of art, I want to see it, read it, hear it, whatever. Likewise any dramatic re-creation of any act whatsoever, including sex, violence, and even religion, though that is most depressing human behavior of all. I don't have any inclination at all to let people like you restrict that at the state or local level, and as far as the federal government goes, they're forbidden to, period, and that's the end of that as far as legitimacy goes.
You know what I told my boys when the George Bush and Cheney acts linked above came up? I told them that these people had inadequate manners, as could easily be understood from the positions they hold and the actions they took. I told them that these are some of the reasons why I am no fan of either of these two people holding the positions they hold today; that representing the United States of America is a task that demands great statesmen, and unfortunately, the public no longer seemed to be able to elect such people, nor were they very often given the opportunity to vote for people of that caliber. I wanted my boys to see those events; and I don't want you and people like you to be able to hide that from them.
So please. If you want to control language in your house, control how language gets into your house. Stop seeking to control it everywhere for the convenience of your own outlook. Your right to limit what people say - and hear - stops at the limits of your own minor dependents, if any.
And where in the constitution does it say this? Because if it isn't in there, or derived from verbiage in there, it isn't so — it's just a convenient excuse to screw things up. When something needs interpretation - such as the reference to ex post facto law - then the way to get after it is to find out what ex post facto law meant at the time of the writing of the document (see below) When the constitution uses plain English: "congress shall not" without exceptions, then whatever follows is fucking well forbidden, and does not require interpretation no matter how cleverly any sophist arguments to the contrary may be presented. Does this mean that sometimes the government may not have the power to do what it wants? Yes, it does. Does it mean that in some cases, the best possible outcome may not be obtainable? Yes, it means that too. None of which justifies "interpreting" something that was written in PFE. Plain. Fucking. English.
If the USSC as a whole understood the above, there are a number of laws that would have been struck down. Unfortunately, this has not been the case and consequently we have some flagrantly unconstitutional laws that are about as ex post facto as a fresh turd is stinky.
No argument here. The feds have no legitimate authority to regulate any citizen's right to keep or bear arms. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is absolutely unequivocal and is not any more open to interpretation than is the speech part of the first amendment. If they want that authority, they need to amend the constitution. In the meantime, we're looking at coercive and illegal behavior by the government.
Nonsense. That is what oaths and contracts are for. Military and political roles carry extra restrictions which the individuals involved agree to by signing various documents and taking various oaths. Any number of provisions can be taken to restrict speech voluntarily, what can't be done legitimately is the feds legislating speech itself. Period.
If you want to be cleared top secret (or any other level... including commercial secrets), you'll sign documents saying you agree both to the restrictions on distribution of those materials, and that you are aware that you are subjecting yourself to various penalties should you violate those restrictions. If that's not acceptable, then don't sign, and (a) you won't know anything of that nature, and (b) you can't say anything about what you don't know and (c) the state has no legitimate interest in regulating what you say.
It is blatantly obvious that this is exactly how it should work, also. No need arises for the government to have any authority to restrict speech; were such an actual need to arise (though I can't think of one, only the usual strawmen such as the entirely specious and trivially disposed of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" chestnut) then the constitution would need amendment.
Otherwise, we're stuck with a government that has no governing mechanism that controls what it can and cannot do. When you, and people of your mindset, attempt to argue the constitution away, what you are doing is arguing into being a rationale for a government that can do anything, because in your view, everything in the constitution is "open to interpretation" — even those parts in the plainest of English — which is a very, very dangerous point of view.
Obviously the government has taken many powers it is not authorized to have. The correct response to this (at present, IMHO) is to get up on the soapbox and make it clear that this is not authorized, and if authorization is sought, then a constitutional amendment must be created and approved according to the rules for such things.
Law is often stupid. Law is often wrong. Law can also be unconstitutional; sometimes these things are obvious (as in the case of speech), sometimes they are not (as in the case of ex post facto law — most people, including the majority of the supreme court at times, have no idea what comprises an ex post facto law.) The bottom line is that the government does have restrictions upon what it is allowed to do, and we need to see to it that they obey those restrictions. If we don't, we are as much at fault as they are.
One last thing: The constitution is a very sparse document, considering what it was intended to accomplish (provide the constituting authority for the federal government.) The fact that the authors, a group of very smart people, thought it important enough to explicitly lock out the ability to make law to suppress speech should be a huge flaming red flag to the apologists who claim that it is "OK" to suppress some speech because [insert lame {child | terrorist | pedophile | immigrant | global warming} excuse here.]
So... where does the constitution give the executive branch the power to make law? Aside from the fact that in this particular case, this is law made by congress. Read the FA.
Yes, there are. And every one of them is illegitimate. There is nothing to "interpret" about Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. anyone who thinks there is has simply demonstrated they are unqualified to read, much less "interpret" basic English. And that includes partisan, special-interest sycophants who we have had the misfortune of having appointed to the supreme court.
You seem to be of the persuasion that if it is law, it is OK. The fact is, if the constitution forbids it, and it is done anyway, it is wrong and illegitimate and coercive, and no amount of "interpretation" can make it any better. There is no authority given to abridge the freedom of speech; congress is not allowed to make any such law. End of story as far as legitimacy goes, barring constitutional amendment.
The prediction overlooks far too many inconveniences that technology hasn't yet resolved.
The need to regularly plug in the laptop. Poor battery lifetime and recharge cycle performance (but see ultracapacitors for the impending doom of the battery industry.) The need to plug in various I/O devices (hard drives, scanners, various others for various needs.) The wearing out of laptop clamshell hinges. The low quality of laptop keyboards as compared to the awesome stand-alone keyboards available. The need for mice and drawing pads. The limited screen size of a laptop (you can of course make an ultra-large screen laptop, but then it doesn't fit in your lap very well.) The room inside a desktop for various hardware add-ons, such as PCI bus hardware, or highly accelerated graphics engines. Room for multiple drives.
A few of these things - such as connectivity, which will probably go entirely wireless - will resolve themselves as technology advances. Most will not. So as an IMHO, but one with a lot of data behind it, I call nonsense on the entire proposition.
Well, I want a channel on rock and mineral collecting. If there's enough demand, I'm sure the media conglomerates will produce such a channel. But it may be that what I want isn't going to happen. I don't see why what you want shouldn't be subject to the same market forces. Perhaps you can explain that to me.
Next, the authority to abridge speech is not available to the federal government, and therefore, it is not available to the FCC. Mind you they have taken the power to do this, but they still do not have the authority. See the first amendment to the constitution for why.
So make certain that you purchase a TV, DVR, or satellite system that supports the ability to limit which channels may be watched, then. I think all do, but I know most of them do.
No? Why not? I have to go out of my way to block religious content that I believe would be harmful to my child, and I have taken this oh-so-heavy burden and called upon my manly powers to lift the remote and actually do so; why should you get a free pass for your beliefs?
The first amendment, emphasis mine:
There are no amendments to the constitution that allow the federal government (congress) to rework the meaning and intent of the first amendment. Therefore, this law is illegitimate. Because it is illegitimate, it is also without authority — no authority is provided by the constitution, therefore no authority transfers to the law. Consequently it is a law of coercion, using only force and the threat of force as the means to accomplish its goal, which is specifically abridging freedom of speech.
The 14th amendment extends the bill of rights (amendments one through ten) to the states; that is, the states must make law according to the dictates of the bill of rights, just as the federal government must. So laws abridging freedom of speech cannot be legitimately created at the state level, either.
Note that there is a path that could make this kind of action legitimate; that would require amendment of the constitution. Without such amendment, the federal government is not legally authorized to make a law of this type. Amendment is a procedure that is defined in Article Five of the constitution.
One more ironclad example of our federal government wildly out of control.
Please reference the amendment to the constitution which reverses the fourth amendment such that it that allows this. I am unaware of it, and the last time I read the constitution all the way through was this morning. I could have missed it, I'm sure.
If no such amendment exists, then the federal government — and by extension, the treasury department, which is part of the federal government — has no such authority. Now, they certainly have the power, but that power is 100% illegitimate and coercive, taken in the face of the constituting document that forbids such actions. The constitution is the highest law in the land; it defines the scope of permissible activities in this area without any gray areas whatsoever. "Why" is irrelevant.
FYI, legislation created by congress and rulings made by courts, no matter if they are the lowest or the highest, cannot change the constitution. Only amendment can change the constitution. See article five.
Ball's in your court.
Here, let me fix your phrasing for you:
There, now it represents the facts. Such facts include creation and enforcement of ex post facto laws, laws and actions with regard to all attempts to regulate intrastate commerce, direct suppression of free speech, laws that infringe upon the people's right to keep and bear arms, attempts to suspend habeas corpus, failure to allow citizens access to legal representation, failure to provide for public trial in the case of criminal prosecution, and a huge variety of offenses against personal liberty, such as telling you what you can put into your own body, what you can do with a consenting, informed adult, and what you may read, view, and say in the privacy of your own home, tapping the communications of US citizens without warrants... the list is long and reads like the plotting of a master criminal organization. Because that it what it represents.
Also, for what it is worth in this nightmare of constitutionally bewildered hand waving, the fourth amendment is the amendment that describes how seizure of property must be performed:
This boils down to (a) Probable cause, (b) Oath or affirmation, (c) Warrant.
The fifth also deals with takings of property for public use. When it says "due process" with regard to criminal proceedings, following the fourth, they expect you to have read the fourth as well as the fifth. So you really want to look at the fourth to see what they meant by "due process."
But... if you want to castigate the government for the 5th, then all you have to do is look at the supreme court's claim that the states can take property simply for the purpose of resale to a non-government entity with the goal of increasing tax revenue. The fifth enables takings for public use. Some real estate developer putting up buildings that are more taxable than yours is not by any stretch of the imagination putting the taken land to "public use." The relevant portion of the fifth is as follows:
Technical details aside, we know the constitution specifically meant to prevent this. It is a general document, and so it doesn't address this particular act of injustice directly, but it certainly addresses all the issues in plain English. Secret court and determination? No. Public Trial. Seizure without said trial? No. Warrant, oath or affirmation, probable cause, right to trial. It is as plain as day if we are honest with ourselves and we recognize that the federal government's legitimate operating range is defined by the constituting authority that is the US constitution itself.
If a person does not believe that, then I am not sure what exactly they think sets the limits of the government's authority, or if they think there are any such limits.
My thought has always been that if congress declares war, then they have to go and serve as infantry on the front line, and the president, vice president, and speaker of the house have to go with them. They have to serve *in* the front line for the duration of the war, they can't be promoted, they can't win medals, and they get no leave. If they have to go in wheelchairs or with canes, that's fine, too. When the war is over, if they're still alive, the go home; no more public service. In the meantime, we elect new congresscritters and etc. I think that'd calm their asses down a little.
It has been cheap in the sense you mean since the fifties, when obliterating an opposing city required no more than the delivery of one munitions package with a nuclear weapon.
What actually makes war expensive is the ability of the enemy to respond. Your unmanned aircraft goes in, delivers some mayhem, you're thinking "great, no way to lose the pilot." In the meantime, the people you bombed arrange to blow up an LNG tanker on the Hudson river adjacent to Manhatten. That is what keeps war expensive, no matter what weapons you use, and no matter if they are manned, or not. Until or unless the will exists to obliterate the opposing side, there will be no cost-free war; the very idea is absurd.
Well, unless of course you're talking about politicians.
No, of course not, because they're protected by copyright law, which in turn grew out of article 1, section 8 of the constitution. Just there will never be a restriction on keeping and bearing arms... uh, oh, wait. OK then, like there will never be restrictions on speech... no, no, turns out there are plenty of those. Mmmm, ok, just like the feds can only take action on interstate commerce, because you know, that's an enumerated power they can't step outside... aw, no, they do that all the time. Well, it'll be like how they can't do searches or seizures without probable cause, oath or affirmation, and a warrant... oh... I guess that's no longer true. Well, of course they can't make ex post facto laws... except for the ones they've made, that is, you know, thinking of the children and such.
Wait. Why is it again libraries "aren't going away?"
Yes, I'm sure privacy has no value to you. That's why you post anonymously, right?
Twit.
So... you're saying that all those who watch 50 Hz PAL televisions with 25 Hz interlace field rates (basically most Europeans) have been driven mad by decades of exposure to low frame rates? Is it then your postulate that this is why they are often reported to actually drink warm beer? Because they are MAD?
Anyway, you're almost right. 48 hz (double gating) has been the norm for decades, but some modern designs are gating three times. So you can find 72 hz rates in some theaters, though I've never run into one myself. The principle is the same, though; it's still only 24 hz worth of image data. All these techniques do is reduce perceived flicker. They don't help one bit with the amount of detail available for you to perceive, or with any depiction of motion, including simple pans.
Hold on there, I didn't forget any such thing; I specifically said "has a quality HD signal source", I didn't say a word about film. I'm talking about actual 60 frame per second content, not ancient 24 FPS grain-ola. Film - frankly - isn't by any means a dependable source of high quality images. Aside from the frame rate being WAY too slow (they double shutter it, two flashes per frame, so your eye doesn't catch the low data rate, did you know that? Makes it 48hz instead of 24hz, but of course it adds nothing, just stops you from going into an epileptic fit), the annoying collection of minor aspect ratio changes, the poor match of the color gamut to most display systems, and the unspeakable things it does to motion, film just isn't the HD fan's friend.
Real HD content comes from cameras, machines (like the PS3) that can generate it natively, and from broadcast systems that record and reproduce it natively. For anything that was film in the first place, you're dead-stuck with data that changes every 41.6 milliseconds along with the horrifying motion blur inherent in the attempt to make two frames 41 ms apart show smooth motion, and if that satisfies you, more power to you. Me, I definitely prefer real HD content at 16 ms or so. Converting something upwards in space *or* time doesn't add quality. Either it is there in the first place, or it isn't. As more HD content comes along, I rather hope film dies a horrible death.
I will note that with a film conversion to HD at least you don't have to put up with the theater operator fouling up the focus, the film melting and/or breaking, the sound track turning into a warbly, trashy ghost of what it should be, and obviously as long as people continue to use film, the only way we're going to get to see these works is in the original form or as a conversion, but the bottom line is, Full-on HD kicks film's butt right off the planet, and the sooner motion picture folks catch on to that, the better off we'll all be.
Wait, what? 720p is far superior to 1080i. 1080i - that "i" stands for interlace and what that does is halve the data rate - in 1/60th of a second, you get 1/2 a frame, or 1920x540, about a megapixel per 60th. You won't get the data for those same scan lines again for a 30th of a second, which means larger steps for motion. Worse, the next bunch of visual info, 1/60th of a second later, is on different lines and represents a different slice of time, so if there is motion, the data on the second frame won't line up with the first frame - a problem that HD was designed to solve, not bring us a brand new version of, by the way.
720p is 720x1240, about 90% of a megapixel per 60th, but the data is not interlaced so there is no scanline level sliding of the image as motion drives the frames out of sync for interlace.
I can't believe anyone who really cares about quality, and has a quality HD signal source, would watch 1080i if 720p is available to them. 1080i sucks. 1080p, sure. 1080p has twice the temporal resolution of 1080i, no flicker like 720p, and no interframe distortion artifacts.
Don't make the mistake of setting up a source at 1080i and then letting your display scale to 720p, either; that'll turn spatial distortions into blurs without solving any problems. Set your source to 720p and your display to 720p, and you have the best chance at the highest quality image you can get short of 1080p all the way through the system.
Congratulations. You have entirely missed the point. Of course it makes sense to harden, especially in the face of a known threat, and the more substantial the threat, the harder you want to go. But the point is that the OP's "not having a problem" with the government's crossing an unhardened boundary is shortsighted in the extreme; fine, lock your door, encrypt your drive and so forth, but in the meantime, there is no need to be saying "if your door is unlocked, it's OK for robbers to come in." Just because I send an email in the clear, I'm in no way saying that it is OK for people to read the content therein; just because my hard drive isn't encrypted, I'm not saying you can come in and examine the content of the drive. It isn't OK at all.
Frankly, the government has no legitimate tasking to be looking at any communication or data of a US citizen unless they have probable cause a crime has been committed by the specific person or person(s) they are looking at. The 4th amendment is very, very clear on this, and the government is flat out wrong to invade citizen's communications. They're supposed to be working for us. We're not their subjects; we're not their slaves; we're not suspects unless something very specific happens. Does the following seem familiar?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There's no clause there that says "unless George Bush thinks its a good idea" or "unless J Edgar Hoover found you were of a political persuasion he didn't like" or "as long as you encipher you writings" or "except if if you don't lock your door" or "if we can scare the public sufficiently about A-rabs" and so on and so forth. No searching without probable cause and a warrant. That's clear as a bell. And what are they doing? What is data, email, hard drive mining, after all? It's searching your info that you did not give permission to search, that's what it is — and furthermore, it has been understood for literally hundreds of years in this very country that your personal papers and communications are private unless you say otherwise.
The government is out of hand here. They are criminal; they are breaking the law, literally the highest law in the land. These are high crimes indeed. These boundaries are well established and any serious attempt to argue them away — I'm not talking about debate here, but intent or action(s) to destroy the boundaries themselves — just establishes the person or persons making the argument as a sophist and an enemy of liberty. A toxic citizen, or worse. There is only one legitimate way to approach this, and that is by changing the constitution; and they've not done that, so they have absolutely nowhere legitimate to stand.