Try photographing something that is in the range of more than one color and heavily saturated (like a yellowish-orangish sunset). The matrixing algorithm that is used to reconstruct the original color from the sensor tries its best, but cannot really match a normal Bayer-based dSLR at the moment (either Canon or Nikon).
Foveon implementation is crap? What have you been smoking?
The SD14 is a 4.7 megapixel camera. It is doing very well when compared against 8 megapixel Bayer-based cameras. If that doesn't validate the technology, I don't know what does. Perhaps you're confused by the claim that it is a "14.1 megapixel" camera. That's just marketing hype, and should be ignored right out of the gate. There are 4.7 million sensor sites, meaning, spatially distinct sensors. It's a 4.7 MP sensor, period. But considered as such, it is a great technology, and as the link I just gave you shows, the color accuracy, image resolution and quality are all top notch.
Color can be removed from luminosity, but luminosity cannot be seperated from color.
That is incorrect. You'd know it if you simply thought about it; a Bayer filter (in most digital cameras today) only captures color information through red, green and blue filters. The color image that results can be converted into a luma version by a simple fractional scaling factor applied to each channel, then summed. Basically, put the image into any decent image processor, select it, and apply the software's luma extraction filter to it, and you'll have a luma image. Since this is a fact, it is obvious that you can separate luma from color. From the human perception angle, your ability to perceive brightness is separate from your ability to perceive color (due to rods and cones.) Because the sensing mechanisms are separate, it is reasonable to say that any particular color also has an independent luminosity. Knowing this, you could simply map every color against a luminosity scale, and again, extraction of luma from full bandwidth color would be trivial.
In response to the previous post, however, the fourth, unfiltered pixel would decrease color resolution by 1/4
No... not really.
First of all, the Bayer pattern is...
RG
GB
...in a square as shown. Because there are three color channels desired, and four cells in a square, and green carries the most spatial information to the eye, the green sensor is duplicated. Recovering image data from a Bayer patterned sensor involves getting luma from all four cells, adjusted for how luma looks when viewed through such filters, and interpolating R, G and B from the staggered sensors in adjacent 4-cell Bayer groups. In a Bayer grouping, you always have RGRGRGRGR.... on one line and GBGBGBGB... on the next, which also gives you vertical lines of RGRGRG.... and GBGBGB...
Giving up one of the four sites to wide-band sensitivity as Kodak proposes, the same spatial pattern still has exactly the same sensitivity to red and blue; nothing has changed there. Red and blue sensor sites still alternate at the exact same spatial rate. But the new pattern has 1/2 the spatial (not intensity) sensitivity to green (which we are most sensitive to, remember); it has the same sensitivity to luma; and it probably has considerably enhanced sensitivity to infrared and ultraviolet, though that remains to be seen, and such an advantage is not as generally useful to most photographers (though those who enjoy IR and/or UV photography will love this thing if the sensor is truly wide-band.)
But there are complications; such as, Bayer filters tend to produce significant moire patterns, and the filters applied to prevent that reduce the available spatial resolution by as much as 1/2 along each axis anyway.
I've written numerous RAW image plugins for Bayer (and other) patterns, and believe me, it isn't as simple as 1/4 the color. This is a new configuration, and I've not written code for it as yet, but I would bet my boots that when the time comes to do so, the color resolution of an image will not suffer much, if at all. You'll still have RGB info available at about twice the moire filter rate. Spatial resolution shouldn't suffer either, because luma information is still available from the new arrangement. In terms of color images, what I'm trying to figure out is what the perceived advantage is.
Thinking outside the box of color images, though, I can imagine a simple 1/4 resolution B&W mode that can do infrared and ultraviolet with the proper blocking filters... that'd be trippy.:-)
The only way I can think of to get the contents of RAM chips out is to use acid to dissolve the epoxy cases, snip the little gold wires, then veeewwy veeeewwy carefully pry the silicon off the metal base.
Then you could scrape the chips until the doped silicon, metallization and insulating deposits they contained were out, and then send that along to the judge. I'm sure she wouldn't be interested in the substrate; after all, it never held any data.
I see no need to arrest them at all. Any more than I see a need to arrest a child screaming in a McDonalds, or a man a street-corner extolling the virtues of some lifestyle, political point, or religion. Public speech on public property or on the speaker's own property should be unconditionally protected. Censorship is a sign of a weak, not to mention weakening, country.
It's still an official government document and the picture looks like me.
True. But it can no longer automatically link you to the database, because the RFID is wrecked. So instead of slowly walking through the arches with the feature-matching camera on them, they'll pull you aside and when they have the spare time, they'll hand look up your stats. Then they'll want to know why your ID isn't working, so they'll look it over. They'll find it's been crushed, and tell you that you need a new one, and send you home - so you're not going to *get* to Thailand, or Germany, until you have a working ID. You'll probably be admonished for not taking better care of it, and charged a few hundred bucks for the issuance of a new one. As soon as they get around to getting it to you, you can reschedule your flight, or boat, or whatever, and try again.
In other words, if you can think of smashing your ID, so can they, and they'll be dead certain to ensure that you are maximally encouraged to take better care of your ID. Remember: The government is not the airline. They don't have to be efficient. They don't have to make money. They don't have to see to it that you get where you want to go, on time, or at all. If you give them any trouble, instead of speeding up the process, it'll probably earn you a cavity search.
There's nothing more pitiful than ignorant bravado in the face of almost unlimited power. All it'll buy you is trouble. The more you exhibit, the more trouble you'll get. They don't have legitimate authority, but they do have power. Don't get the two confused.
They're sure as hell not going to throw all that extra power away.
No. Like a certain king you may recall, King George III. However, these quotes from filthy rebels may ring a bell:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station...
...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...
...all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...
You, your neighbour and a lot of other people instantly sharing the pics you took with your camera
One presumes that you could turn the wifi off, and/or that encryption would be an option. At the very least, you could pull the card out and put in a mundane, non radio one before you ask your significant other to pour chocolate syrup on their (or your) nipples...
Get a Class 1 radio for your computer and a Class 1 radio for your peripherals and enjoy greater range.
Computers can't always be modified - for instance, a Mac Mini is pretty much as you get it from the factory. Likewise, a bluetooth memory card isn't likely to be very easily updated with a higher power radio. WiFi, on the other hand, is designed to always have considerably more range.
I've never heard anybody complain of wear and tear on a USB cable before.
You still haven't. I was talking about the connector on the camera: "The E20 is a few years old, and the jack is definitely getting loose..."
As for wear and tear on the shutter release button, I would think that your shutter itself would fail before the release button, but what do I know?
The E20 uses the shutter button to pre-focus and to snap. It gets used many more times than the shutter itself does; every time you look at a subject, you end up pressing that button, unless you use the manual focus, which I don't, because the camera's "eye" is sharper, and faster, than mine. The remote (of which I have several spares) moves the wear (and the stability issues) off-camera. Also, just FYI, I have lots of older gear with cranky buttons that otherwise works fine. This ranges from a clock radio that has an iffy numeric keypad to a high end stereo with heavy mechanical latched mode selectors that have become unreliable.
The only saving grace for the E20 is that I will probably abandon it before it abandons me, because the tech in this area moves extremely fast. Right now, I can't decide between the Foveon/Sigma RGB per pixel technology, or the classic (and I use that word loosely) Bayer sensor tech in cameras like the Canon line; the very high luma resolution of alternating sensor filters speaks to me, but then again, so does true RGB fidelity. Such choices to have to make.:-)
Blatantly refuse to surrender your property. If the police officer would arrest you in any way, he has no standing because no criminal or civil offense has been committed
But he can, and will, arrest you anyway. That's reality. And you won't necessarily get your recording back if it depicts police wrongdoing, or anything else they think you shouldn't have.
Surrender your property, while calmly stating that you do not wish to surrender the property, but will do so involuntarily at the behest of the police officer. Immediately contact a police official to file appropriate actions, which may include the return of your property including images, disciplinary action, and court action against the officer, department, and/or other suitable entity.
Right. Same thing. Chances are you won't get your recording back. It'll be "lost" or "accidentally" erased.
You can characterize the practice any way you want, but the bottom line is the police have the power, and they're not reluctant to use it, especially when they might be in the wrong. They're following the lead of the rest of the government, which has also accrued huge amounts of power without underlying authority, and isn't the least recalcitrant about using it. As a law student, you should become quite familiar with this; it all revolves around the constitution. Of course, as a law student, the odds favor you becoming a tool of these people, sad to say.
Yes, but what value does that $1.84/month give you over a regular 2GB SD card?
It could save wear and tear on the USB connection. My Olympus E20, a 5 MP DSLR, has a tiny USB connection which I sometimes use several times a day. Plug it in, grab the photos, eject the volume, unplug it, go back to what I was doing, do it again. Photography is a hobby; if I were serious about it, I'd use it more.
The E20 is a few years old, and the jack is definitely getting loose, though it hasn't actually had a connection problem yet. It'd be nice to not have to worry about it, and use the jack for less common situations. Same thing goes for card readers. Pull the card, insert the card in the reader, read it, pull the card, insert in camera... wear. Wear and more wear. Plus a remote, but real, risk of ESD problems (High plains Montana.. dry as death during the winter, and even some parts of the summer.)
My E20 has an infrared remote to fire the shutter. When I got it, I thought... I'll never use it. Ooops. I use it all the time. Not only does it allow rock-steady shots off a tripod (no physical contact), it saves wear on the shutter button, allows me the freedom to work more directly with the subject...
I suspect that a wifi enabled camera might be more convenient than we might think. Wifi has a decent range, too, it isn't choked into 30 feet like bluetooth is. So I'd buy this, and I wouldn't doubt for a minute that it would improve my camera experience. Wouldn't it be cool if the camera could just be set to send the images back to your laptop on a continuous basis? By the time you got to it, it'd already have your stuff ready to look at. While you shoot, it uploads. Yummy! Now that I'd definitely pay for. And it's almost time for a new camera anyway. 5 megapixels isn't exactly top of the line anymore...
Yes. You've agreed that the government has the power to take land. Remember that word: take. Not 'buy,' or 'purchase,' but take. That is to take it from the previous owner, whether that person likes it or not.
No. Read it again: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. It says specifically that without just compensation, the power to take is nullified. Nor shall private property be taken - in other words, it isn't a blanket permission to take. The phrase just compensation with regard to your property cannot be simply what I think it is worth. The idea of just compensation has to mean that you, the person from whom the property is proposed to be taken, will feel that the taking is just. Any agreement that is just to one side only is not just at all. It is simply exercise of power. That's an axiom.
It is absolutely nonsensical for me to take your car, home, or library of first editions for any amount if you do not agree that the amount is just. No sensible individual would agree that the owner of property doesn't have the final word in the selling price.
Does this mean that sometimes the government might not be able to cut a deal? Yes, it does. And that's an immensely good thing. They can go around. They can go over. They can go under. They can increase or otherwise sweeten their offer. They can build elsewhere. And they should do these things.
The current stink about property takings was raised to a new level by Connecticut taking some woman's home because they weren't satisfied with the tax revenue they were getting from it, and they thought that by taking it, they could earn more. This is what happens when you interpret "just compensation" as the opinion of other people. Things get taken for arbitrary and pernicious reasons, people have their homes destroyed, and we slide further down the slope towards absolute government power. Read the constitution. READ it. It is very clear that those people were trying very hard indeed to limit the power of government. Limits and conditions abound. Whenever you see someone arguing that such-and-such a phrase in the constitution wasn't intended to limit the federal government, you can be almost certain that they are wrong, because that is what the document does from beginning to end, and to confirm this without any possibility of doubt, the authors repeatedly said that was what they were doing. The limit on taking is just compensation.
To argue that just compensation doesn't account for the owner's assessment is just plain wrongheaded, because it makes a mockery of the word "just", and whatever else you may accuse the authors of the constitution of, it is very clear they were not in the habit of mockery — they were serious as death, because death was the currency used to pay for this document. They also knew far too well the sting of uncontrolled power, and they wanted none of it.
Assuming that you're right -- you're not, btw -- then we'd have a little conundrum.
You are saying that the government can forcibly take property from people, but only if it is offered for sale, which means that it isn't being taken at all. That is a nonsensical position.
I am right, and so is the constitution. Lower law is wrong. Which is not uncommon, as I would expect you to know full well. You are using the word "forcibly", and pretending I agreed to it, but the very first thing I would point out is that "forcibly, force, coercion, threat and steal" do not appear in the 5th amendment of the constitution — but "just compensation" does. I am saying that the government can walk up to a property owner who may or may not be considering selling, and say "We want this property. We are required to provide just compensation in order to be able to acquire it. What would that be?" And the owner then says one of the following: "X in funds", "X in
Unless that commerce is interstate commerce despite remaining within the state
See, you probably didn't even have to tell us you were a lawyer; your ability to consider an absolutely absurd and contradictory argument perfectly reasonable might have done it. "Unless that is a pillow despite being a knife" "Unless that color is blue, despite being red." "Unless you actually threatened me, despite having never threatened anyone in your life."
[arguments about elevation, tunneling, ignoring going around]
I lived under the elevated in Chicago for years. Worked fine for me and them. I lived over the subway in Manhattan at 168th street and Broadway. Not only worked, it was very convenient. I've also lived underneath a highway bridge on route 209 in Milford, Pennsylvania. Used to love the sound of the trucks. Your arguments are empty.
We invest a takings power with the government
No, "we" don't. The constitution did (a group of people who never consulted either you, or me) and they limited it by requiring reasonable compensation. Again, your arguments are empty.
Or are you an ass
Ah. Here we go. Poor fellow loses argument, resorts to name calling. How tactically advanced. Work for you in court, does it?
Yeah, I've had enough cryptic, threatening ass-talk from you, thanks.
I'm truly sorry, I had no intent to be cryptic or threatening. I just thought you would understand the remark. What I was saying is that your job - lawyer - is one of using bad law against the citizens. We've seen this before, Nuremberg comes to mind. You jumped on here, all full of vim and vigor, and attempted to defend positions that support the out of control government; posting supportively about areas in which the government is radically abusing the citizens. Eventually, as evidenced by another poster's remark about a "nice dirty civil war", enough citizens will tire of this to rise up against this abuse. I doubt it'll be as radical as the advice of Shakespeare's character Dick the Butcher in Henry VI ("First, let's kill all the lawyers.") It'll probably simply be show trials, just like those in Nuremberg, and probably with the same results. It wasn't a threat, it was just an observation brought from, and supported by, history. Abuse the people, eventually, they'll get tired of it, and things generally go downhill for the abusers after that. And really, try not to be so defensive. It isn't my fault you chose to support the government's abuses; and it isn't my fault that you signed your posts with the claim that you are a lawyer. These are your claims, your positions, and frankly, if there is anger here, your best solution is to go do something more positive and quit supporting the abusers.
First let me state that the Constitution says nothing about eminent domain. This was a bit of a loose interpretation of the 5th Amendment by the Supreme Court
Here's the relevant part of the fifth, emphasis mine, other subject matter clipped:
No person shall... be deprived of... property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So the authority to offer compensation for taking land is there. The problem is that phrase "without just compensation." No such thing as "just compensation" can be established by third parties if the property is not offered for sale. The value of the property to the owner is as high as the owner says it is, and if that's too high for the buyer, they can't buy it. From there, one realizes that if just compensation is cannot be offered to the owner, then there is no power to take, only to offer.
I have, among other things, a Marantz 1300DC integrated amplifier. This is a classic piece of stereo audio gear that is both rare and interesting to some who enjoy great audio reproduction. I don't want to sell it, and I don't need to sell it. If capt. Kangarooski wants to buy it, he has two options: Offer me sufficient compensation that I will change my mind and accept, that is, I would consider his offer consider just, or else he can try to take it by force. If he can muster enough force, he may succeed; however, this does not make his action correct. It is ludicrous to say that he could ask someone who thinks they know general audio values what the value of that amp is, perhaps you, let's say, and then take the amp while giving me what you advise is your opinion of its value. The only correct action is to offer a price that I agree upon. Because that would be just. He is trying to defend the government taking by coercion; it is an indefensible position.
I suspect that you mean to say 'justices,' not 'judges.'
Yep, that'd be close, all right. Perhaps I meant injustices.
Which would be, what? The negative commerce clause?
That would be the feds marching into California and swooping down on medical marijuana users based on a commerce clause argument that 100% intrastate commerce "could be" or "could have been" interstate commerce, and so the feds claim to have jurisdiction to screw with California law, legislators, and citizens. Which they do not. The ruling and the reasoning is sophist nonsense. The constitution says in sec 8, para 1 through para 3, that The Congress shall have Power To... regulate Commerce... among the several States. That's it. No more than that. It's an enumerated power, and there is no authority implied or specified that allows mucking about with commerce internal to a state. Furthermore, the 10th amendment makes the limit explicit: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. So there you have it. They have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce, but not interstate commerce. The court is out of line, and so are the feds.
[taking property by force and coercion] Which is not a bad idea, actually; that is how governments builds roads, among other things.
That observation in no way precludes the fact that there are other ways to build roads, including ways that don't screw with people's properties at all. You can go under them; you can go around them; worst case, you can even go over them, though you certainly ought to pay for that privilege. It is wrong to steal, and it is no less wrong when the government does it.
The idea of "fair compensation" is intellectually bankrupt. If I own a piece of land, and I want to sell it, that is where it can be determined that it has a specific monetary value. The way that is done is that when you offer enough money to satisfy me, I'll let you have it.
If you don't, I won't. But if I own that property and for whatever reason, I do not want to sell it, then you cannot put a value on it that equates to "reasonable compensation." How do you compensate for my ancestors having raised generations there? How do you compensate for the view, or the fishing in my lake? How do you compensate for the fact that my brother died in that house, or that I was married there? Or that I built it by hand? Or that I lost my virginity on the living room couch?
The answer, of course, is that you can't, not that it is fair to use some number a bunch of people I didn't delegate my feelings and associations to invented based on their feelings. I'll tell you how it actually works: force and threat of force. Coercion. There isn't a reasonable step in the entire process.
So you're saying that the Constitution imposes limits on the federal government spending its money which would prohibit this? Please feel free to point them out
Sure, I'll point the problem out. It is what we call blackmail, where one party is forced to do something it does not believe is legal, ethical or otherwise proper, by another party that wields a coercive force. I'll point something else out, too: the trust the people put in the government to build and maintain a general infrastructure doesn't include the presumption that said power will be used as a weapon, nor does it include the presumption that the feds won't build roads in some states, while building in others. The collection of taxes is (barely) tolerated with the idea that said collection is done for the common good, not in order to wield a coercive force on the states. The fact that the feds do wield such coercive forces is contrary to article 1, section 8 of the
How about instead you abbreviate it to the supreme court is ruling in a way that is forbidden, many times over, by the constitution, without supporting amendment, and so they are operating illegally and contrary to their charter, instead? Because if you make that change, you'll enjoy the luxury of actually being accurate. If that's of interest to you.
Slashdot Mirror
That isn't what these third-party test results and these images, and this one, and these, and these, and these indicate. Plenty of good yellows and oranges, including saturated ones, in those examples. Sorry, I just don't think you're up to date on what they're doing with this technology.
Foveon implementation is crap? What have you been smoking?
The SD14 is a 4.7 megapixel camera. It is doing very well when compared against 8 megapixel Bayer-based cameras. If that doesn't validate the technology, I don't know what does. Perhaps you're confused by the claim that it is a "14.1 megapixel" camera. That's just marketing hype, and should be ignored right out of the gate. There are 4.7 million sensor sites, meaning, spatially distinct sensors. It's a 4.7 MP sensor, period. But considered as such, it is a great technology, and as the link I just gave you shows, the color accuracy, image resolution and quality are all top notch.
That is incorrect. You'd know it if you simply thought about it; a Bayer filter (in most digital cameras today) only captures color information through red, green and blue filters. The color image that results can be converted into a luma version by a simple fractional scaling factor applied to each channel, then summed. Basically, put the image into any decent image processor, select it, and apply the software's luma extraction filter to it, and you'll have a luma image. Since this is a fact, it is obvious that you can separate luma from color. From the human perception angle, your ability to perceive brightness is separate from your ability to perceive color (due to rods and cones.) Because the sensing mechanisms are separate, it is reasonable to say that any particular color also has an independent luminosity. Knowing this, you could simply map every color against a luminosity scale, and again, extraction of luma from full bandwidth color would be trivial.
No... not really.
First of all, the Bayer pattern is...
RG
GB
Giving up one of the four sites to wide-band sensitivity as Kodak proposes, the same spatial pattern still has exactly the same sensitivity to red and blue; nothing has changed there. Red and blue sensor sites still alternate at the exact same spatial rate. But the new pattern has 1/2 the spatial (not intensity) sensitivity to green (which we are most sensitive to, remember); it has the same sensitivity to luma; and it probably has considerably enhanced sensitivity to infrared and ultraviolet, though that remains to be seen, and such an advantage is not as generally useful to most photographers (though those who enjoy IR and/or UV photography will love this thing if the sensor is truly wide-band.)
But there are complications; such as, Bayer filters tend to produce significant moire patterns, and the filters applied to prevent that reduce the available spatial resolution by as much as 1/2 along each axis anyway.
I've written numerous RAW image plugins for Bayer (and other) patterns, and believe me, it isn't as simple as 1/4 the color. This is a new configuration, and I've not written code for it as yet, but I would bet my boots that when the time comes to do so, the color resolution of an image will not suffer much, if at all. You'll still have RGB info available at about twice the moire filter rate. Spatial resolution shouldn't suffer either, because luma information is still available from the new arrangement. In terms of color images, what I'm trying to figure out is what the perceived advantage is.
Thinking outside the box of color images, though, I can imagine a simple 1/4 resolution B&W mode that can do infrared and ultraviolet with the proper blocking filters... that'd be trippy. :-)
The only way I can think of to get the contents of RAM chips out is to use acid to dissolve the epoxy cases, snip the little gold wires, then veeewwy veeeewwy carefully pry the silicon off the metal base.
Then you could scrape the chips until the doped silicon, metallization and insulating deposits they contained were out, and then send that along to the judge. I'm sure she wouldn't be interested in the substrate; after all, it never held any data.
I love being ruled by morons, I really do.
I'm not advocating knuckling under. Check my posting history.
However, there is a huge difference between attempting to run head-on into a wall, and climbing over it, or simply taking it down brick by brick.
Steppenwolf - Monster. Great song. Prophetic and timely then, as now.
You can't become what you already are.
Time to get really nervous if you have to push your car...
I see no need to arrest them at all. Any more than I see a need to arrest a child screaming in a McDonalds, or a man a street-corner extolling the virtues of some lifestyle, political point, or religion. Public speech on public property or on the speaker's own property should be unconditionally protected. Censorship is a sign of a weak, not to mention weakening, country.
True. But it can no longer automatically link you to the database, because the RFID is wrecked. So instead of slowly walking through the arches with the feature-matching camera on them, they'll pull you aside and when they have the spare time, they'll hand look up your stats. Then they'll want to know why your ID isn't working, so they'll look it over. They'll find it's been crushed, and tell you that you need a new one, and send you home - so you're not going to *get* to Thailand, or Germany, until you have a working ID. You'll probably be admonished for not taking better care of it, and charged a few hundred bucks for the issuance of a new one. As soon as they get around to getting it to you, you can reschedule your flight, or boat, or whatever, and try again.
In other words, if you can think of smashing your ID, so can they, and they'll be dead certain to ensure that you are maximally encouraged to take better care of your ID. Remember: The government is not the airline. They don't have to be efficient. They don't have to make money. They don't have to see to it that you get where you want to go, on time, or at all. If you give them any trouble, instead of speeding up the process, it'll probably earn you a cavity search.
There's nothing more pitiful than ignorant bravado in the face of almost unlimited power. All it'll buy you is trouble. The more you exhibit, the more trouble you'll get. They don't have legitimate authority, but they do have power. Don't get the two confused.
Chains? What do you mean, chains? They told him they were strings of candy!
No. Like a certain king you may recall, King George III. However, these quotes from filthy rebels may ring a bell:
1-2 seconds in the microwave and "huh, guess you're not traveling."
There, fixed that for you. No need to thank me.
One presumes that you could turn the wifi off, and/or that encryption would be an option. At the very least, you could pull the card out and put in a mundane, non radio one before you ask your significant other to pour chocolate syrup on their (or your) nipples...
Computers can't always be modified - for instance, a Mac Mini is pretty much as you get it from the factory. Likewise, a bluetooth memory card isn't likely to be very easily updated with a higher power radio. WiFi, on the other hand, is designed to always have considerably more range.
You still haven't. I was talking about the connector on the camera: "The E20 is a few years old, and the jack is definitely getting loose..."
The E20 uses the shutter button to pre-focus and to snap. It gets used many more times than the shutter itself does; every time you look at a subject, you end up pressing that button, unless you use the manual focus, which I don't, because the camera's "eye" is sharper, and faster, than mine. The remote (of which I have several spares) moves the wear (and the stability issues) off-camera. Also, just FYI, I have lots of older gear with cranky buttons that otherwise works fine. This ranges from a clock radio that has an iffy numeric keypad to a high end stereo with heavy mechanical latched mode selectors that have become unreliable.
The only saving grace for the E20 is that I will probably abandon it before it abandons me, because the tech in this area moves extremely fast. Right now, I can't decide between the Foveon/Sigma RGB per pixel technology, or the classic (and I use that word loosely) Bayer sensor tech in cameras like the Canon line; the very high luma resolution of alternating sensor filters speaks to me, but then again, so does true RGB fidelity. Such choices to have to make. :-)
But he can, and will, arrest you anyway. That's reality. And you won't necessarily get your recording back if it depicts police wrongdoing, or anything else they think you shouldn't have.
Right. Same thing. Chances are you won't get your recording back. It'll be "lost" or "accidentally" erased.
People are arrested all the time for the most ridiculous things; and their property is taken and "lost" (see "Va. Tech photographer detained, equipment confiscated" on linked page) on an ongoing and continuous basis.
You can characterize the practice any way you want, but the bottom line is the police have the power, and they're not reluctant to use it, especially when they might be in the wrong. They're following the lead of the rest of the government, which has also accrued huge amounts of power without underlying authority, and isn't the least recalcitrant about using it. As a law student, you should become quite familiar with this; it all revolves around the constitution. Of course, as a law student, the odds favor you becoming a tool of these people, sad to say.
It could save wear and tear on the USB connection. My Olympus E20, a 5 MP DSLR, has a tiny USB connection which I sometimes use several times a day. Plug it in, grab the photos, eject the volume, unplug it, go back to what I was doing, do it again. Photography is a hobby; if I were serious about it, I'd use it more.
The E20 is a few years old, and the jack is definitely getting loose, though it hasn't actually had a connection problem yet. It'd be nice to not have to worry about it, and use the jack for less common situations. Same thing goes for card readers. Pull the card, insert the card in the reader, read it, pull the card, insert in camera... wear. Wear and more wear. Plus a remote, but real, risk of ESD problems (High plains Montana.. dry as death during the winter, and even some parts of the summer.)
My E20 has an infrared remote to fire the shutter. When I got it, I thought... I'll never use it. Ooops. I use it all the time. Not only does it allow rock-steady shots off a tripod (no physical contact), it saves wear on the shutter button, allows me the freedom to work more directly with the subject...
I suspect that a wifi enabled camera might be more convenient than we might think. Wifi has a decent range, too, it isn't choked into 30 feet like bluetooth is. So I'd buy this, and I wouldn't doubt for a minute that it would improve my camera experience. Wouldn't it be cool if the camera could just be set to send the images back to your laptop on a continuous basis? By the time you got to it, it'd already have your stuff ready to look at. While you shoot, it uploads. Yummy! Now that I'd definitely pay for. And it's almost time for a new camera anyway. 5 megapixels isn't exactly top of the line anymore...
No. Read it again: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. It says specifically that without just compensation, the power to take is nullified. Nor shall private property be taken - in other words, it isn't a blanket permission to take. The phrase just compensation with regard to your property cannot be simply what I think it is worth. The idea of just compensation has to mean that you, the person from whom the property is proposed to be taken, will feel that the taking is just. Any agreement that is just to one side only is not just at all. It is simply exercise of power. That's an axiom.
It is absolutely nonsensical for me to take your car, home, or library of first editions for any amount if you do not agree that the amount is just. No sensible individual would agree that the owner of property doesn't have the final word in the selling price.
Does this mean that sometimes the government might not be able to cut a deal? Yes, it does. And that's an immensely good thing. They can go around. They can go over. They can go under. They can increase or otherwise sweeten their offer. They can build elsewhere. And they should do these things.
The current stink about property takings was raised to a new level by Connecticut taking some woman's home because they weren't satisfied with the tax revenue they were getting from it, and they thought that by taking it, they could earn more. This is what happens when you interpret "just compensation" as the opinion of other people. Things get taken for arbitrary and pernicious reasons, people have their homes destroyed, and we slide further down the slope towards absolute government power. Read the constitution. READ it. It is very clear that those people were trying very hard indeed to limit the power of government. Limits and conditions abound. Whenever you see someone arguing that such-and-such a phrase in the constitution wasn't intended to limit the federal government, you can be almost certain that they are wrong, because that is what the document does from beginning to end, and to confirm this without any possibility of doubt, the authors repeatedly said that was what they were doing. The limit on taking is just compensation.
To argue that just compensation doesn't account for the owner's assessment is just plain wrongheaded, because it makes a mockery of the word "just", and whatever else you may accuse the authors of the constitution of, it is very clear they were not in the habit of mockery — they were serious as death, because death was the currency used to pay for this document. They also knew far too well the sting of uncontrolled power, and they wanted none of it.
I am right, and so is the constitution. Lower law is wrong. Which is not uncommon, as I would expect you to know full well. You are using the word "forcibly", and pretending I agreed to it, but the very first thing I would point out is that "forcibly, force, coercion, threat and steal" do not appear in the 5th amendment of the constitution — but "just compensation" does. I am saying that the government can walk up to a property owner who may or may not be considering selling, and say "We want this property. We are required to provide just compensation in order to be able to acquire it. What would that be?" And the owner then says one of the following: "X in funds", "X in
See, you probably didn't even have to tell us you were a lawyer; your ability to consider an absolutely absurd and contradictory argument perfectly reasonable might have done it. "Unless that is a pillow despite being a knife" "Unless that color is blue, despite being red." "Unless you actually threatened me, despite having never threatened anyone in your life."
I lived under the elevated in Chicago for years. Worked fine for me and them. I lived over the subway in Manhattan at 168th street and Broadway. Not only worked, it was very convenient. I've also lived underneath a highway bridge on route 209 in Milford, Pennsylvania. Used to love the sound of the trucks. Your arguments are empty.
No, "we" don't. The constitution did (a group of people who never consulted either you, or me) and they limited it by requiring reasonable compensation. Again, your arguments are empty.
Ah. Here we go. Poor fellow loses argument, resorts to name calling. How tactically advanced. Work for you in court, does it?
I'm truly sorry, I had no intent to be cryptic or threatening. I just thought you would understand the remark. What I was saying is that your job - lawyer - is one of using bad law against the citizens. We've seen this before, Nuremberg comes to mind. You jumped on here, all full of vim and vigor, and attempted to defend positions that support the out of control government; posting supportively about areas in which the government is radically abusing the citizens. Eventually, as evidenced by another poster's remark about a "nice dirty civil war", enough citizens will tire of this to rise up against this abuse. I doubt it'll be as radical as the advice of Shakespeare's character Dick the Butcher in Henry VI ("First, let's kill all the lawyers.") It'll probably simply be show trials, just like those in Nuremberg, and probably with the same results. It wasn't a threat, it was just an observation brought from, and supported by, history. Abuse the people, eventually, they'll get tired of it, and things generally go downhill for the abusers after that. And really, try not to be so defensive. It isn't my fault you chose to support the government's abuses; and it isn't my fault that you signed your posts with the claim that you are a lawyer. These are your claims, your positions, and frankly, if there is anger here, your best solution is to go do something more positive and quit supporting the abusers.
Of course, I meant to say: "They have the authority to regulate interstate commerce, but not intrastate commerce." Again, my apologies.
Here's the relevant part of the fifth, emphasis mine, other subject matter clipped:
So the authority to offer compensation for taking land is there. The problem is that phrase "without just compensation." No such thing as "just compensation" can be established by third parties if the property is not offered for sale. The value of the property to the owner is as high as the owner says it is, and if that's too high for the buyer, they can't buy it. From there, one realizes that if just compensation is cannot be offered to the owner, then there is no power to take, only to offer.
I have, among other things, a Marantz 1300DC integrated amplifier. This is a classic piece of stereo audio gear that is both rare and interesting to some who enjoy great audio reproduction. I don't want to sell it, and I don't need to sell it. If capt. Kangarooski wants to buy it, he has two options: Offer me sufficient compensation that I will change my mind and accept, that is, I would consider his offer consider just, or else he can try to take it by force. If he can muster enough force, he may succeed; however, this does not make his action correct. It is ludicrous to say that he could ask someone who thinks they know general audio values what the value of that amp is, perhaps you, let's say, and then take the amp while giving me what you advise is your opinion of its value. The only correct action is to offer a price that I agree upon. Because that would be just. He is trying to defend the government taking by coercion; it is an indefensible position.
Yep, that'd be close, all right. Perhaps I meant injustices.
That would be the feds marching into California and swooping down on medical marijuana users based on a commerce clause argument that 100% intrastate commerce "could be" or "could have been" interstate commerce, and so the feds claim to have jurisdiction to screw with California law, legislators, and citizens. Which they do not. The ruling and the reasoning is sophist nonsense. The constitution says in sec 8, para 1 through para 3, that The Congress shall have Power To... regulate Commerce... among the several States. That's it. No more than that. It's an enumerated power, and there is no authority implied or specified that allows mucking about with commerce internal to a state. Furthermore, the 10th amendment makes the limit explicit: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. So there you have it. They have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce, but not interstate commerce. The court is out of line, and so are the feds.
That observation in no way precludes the fact that there are other ways to build roads, including ways that don't screw with people's properties at all. You can go under them; you can go around them; worst case, you can even go over them, though you certainly ought to pay for that privilege. It is wrong to steal, and it is no less wrong when the government does it.
The idea of "fair compensation" is intellectually bankrupt. If I own a piece of land, and I want to sell it, that is where it can be determined that it has a specific monetary value. The way that is done is that when you offer enough money to satisfy me, I'll let you have it.
If you don't, I won't. But if I own that property and for whatever reason, I do not want to sell it, then you cannot put a value on it that equates to "reasonable compensation." How do you compensate for my ancestors having raised generations there? How do you compensate for the view, or the fishing in my lake? How do you compensate for the fact that my brother died in that house, or that I was married there? Or that I built it by hand? Or that I lost my virginity on the living room couch?
The answer, of course, is that you can't, not that it is fair to use some number a bunch of people I didn't delegate my feelings and associations to invented based on their feelings. I'll tell you how it actually works: force and threat of force. Coercion. There isn't a reasonable step in the entire process.
Sure, I'll point the problem out. It is what we call blackmail, where one party is forced to do something it does not believe is legal, ethical or otherwise proper, by another party that wields a coercive force. I'll point something else out, too: the trust the people put in the government to build and maintain a general infrastructure doesn't include the presumption that said power will be used as a weapon, nor does it include the presumption that the feds won't build roads in some states, while building in others. The collection of taxes is (barely) tolerated with the idea that said collection is done for the common good, not in order to wield a coercive force on the states. The fact that the feds do wield such coercive forces is contrary to article 1, section 8 of the
How about instead you abbreviate it to the supreme court is ruling in a way that is forbidden, many times over, by the constitution, without supporting amendment, and so they are operating illegally and contrary to their charter, instead? Because if you make that change, you'll enjoy the luxury of actually being accurate. If that's of interest to you.