In the event that the Government is wrong, they must destroy everything obtained and the Attorney General becomes civilly liable, iirc (for some reason Cornell's server is down).
(a) You should look up how often FISA has rejected such an application. It's an illuminating number. (b) Let's say that I watch you and your wife getting it on with a goat, because I think - I don't have proof - it might be my goat. Some private investigatorial team takes photos; they hand them to my photo developer, the guy who frames them, the guy who scans them, we fax them to goat experts everywhere, and some random number of other people who are involved with caring for my goat.
Whoops. It turns out I made a mistake. It's not my goat.
Now: How can I "un-invade" your privacy? How can I "un-expose" all those people who are now privvy to your personal affairs? How can I repair the reputation of your goat, never mind yours and your wifes? How can I stop further dissemenation of rumor, now that the information is in the hands of multiple people?
The answer, of course, is that I cannot, and neither can anyone else. That is why privacy is protected; because once violated, it is gone. You can't put it back. You can't repair it, and you can't replace it. The fact that you can sue in civil court is hardly a replacement for your goat's sense of self, now is it?
You are imagining a society without principle; I am imagining one with far more principle.
Today, government systems don't have to perform. They don't have to make a profit, they don't have to solve cases, they don't have to earn their money, they don't have to make good law, and they don't have to unmake bad law. The results are obvious if you simply look: legislators do the wrong thing. Cops beat civilians and otherwise abuse them. Your social security funds were outright stolen. Campaign promises are worthless jaw flapping. We make war on innocents. The FCC crushes free speech, both by controlling the ownership of outlets with an iron hand, and via direct censorship. The 2nd amendment has eroded to a shadow of what it was intended to accomplish. The 1st amendment now has "free speech zones" and numerous other restraints, especially in print. The commerce clause is the laughingstock of the legal community because it has not so much been eroded, as parodied. Religion and its perverse, regressive views of sexuality run rampant in legislation; discrimination is enshrined in multiple state's legislation in the guise of "protecting marriage." Manners are a thing of the past. The ability to even raise children in a reasonable fashion has succumbed to the ridiculous idea that physical punishment in response to exceeding hard boundaries is a bad thing. Even very minimal criminal behavior makes citizens completely unredeemable, condemning them to a life at the very lowest levels of earnings, respect and even insurance. ex post facto law is the rule of the day. Search and seizure w/o a warrant is now law, as is breaking and entering. Land is regularly stolen by local and federal governments without even a nod towards reasonable compensation for one's ancestral home or even your scenery. Your right to a speedy trial is gone, as is your right to representation, even a phone call. Cruel and unusual punishment - even torture - is enshrined in law (see the Military Commissions Act.) The powers of the states are being subsumed by mafia-like federal tactics; for instance, state speed limits outside the bounds of what the feds want result in the withdrawal of highway funds; we used to call such actions "bribery." Judicial limits? See the above reference commerce clause and ex post facto laws for precise examples of the complete lack of such limits. The 13th amendment enshrines slavery as a federal right, the most disgusting clause in the entire constitution. The very president of the country is breaking laws left and right, and there he sits, protected by the apathy of idiots. But hey... amendment 3 remains intact. They can't make you accept soldiers for "sleep-overs." Aren't you glad?
Your world is crashing all around your ears; why you are deaf to this, I cannot say, but I can certainly say that I am not.
A society certainly needs guidelines, and the police need them more than anyone. I'm not saying they should be without them, as you appear to be imagining; I am saying they need to be motivated to do the right thing. The current system doesn't do that (and neither do cops, naturally enough) and this is the basis forming my urge to see the system change. It is my opinion that a positive version of change could come from the conjunction of advancing technology and security forces that are highly motivated to protect the flock (rather than to write tickets or pretend that ruining some poor teenager's life for drug use or sexual experimentation across some stupid age boundary serves a purpose.) Soon, we'll actually know if people are lying or not, and that will change the entire face of criminal law, or at least, it should. I am both tired of innocents being found on death row -DEATH ROW for fucks sake - and of obvious criminals being let free because the cops can't be bothered to follow a few simple frigging rules.
As things stand, the areas that need the most coverage - ghettos and run down neighborhoods - get the least. Businesses get the most, because they leverage the system from
We will agree to disagree then, for I see no way that the passage can be read the way you say. You are adding a great deal of meaning, and words, that are not in the passage. I'm just reading the sentence for what it actually says, which is that conviction at impeachment doesn't make the subject immune from mundane procedures at law.
But it is not an ex post facto law; you seem to be confused about the meaning of the term.
No. I'm not in the least bit confused, and it is an ex post facto law. You are in error. The dictionary definition you quote isn't the legal definition. I'll use your same source, Cornell's excellent legal library.
The legal definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Supreme Court Justice Chase:
First: Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.
Second: Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed.
Third: Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.
Fourth: 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.
In this same opinion, Justice Chase goes on to say this: "The expressions "ex post facto laws," are technical, they had been in use long before the Revolution, and had acquired an appropriate meaning, by Legislators, Lawyers, and Authors. The celebrated and judicious Sir William Blackstone, in his commentaries, considers an ex post facto law precisely in the same light I have done. His opinion is confirmed by his successor, Mr. Wooddeson; and by the author of the Federalist, who I esteem superior to both, for his extensive and accurate knowledge of the true principles of Government."
You're quite right about the 2nd amendment violation, though. The idea that people had paid for their transgressions by court-inflicted punishment was quite pervasive at the time. Today's "permanent criminalization" doesn't fit very well with the thinking of those times. They really thought that people should have a chance to try again.
We should all read and become more familiar with the Constitution. It would be better for all were we to commit its words to memory.
Yes. Yes, we should. We should also be familiar with what critical terms like "ex post facto" mean, don't you agree? Otherwise, we can read it, but we won't understand it.
I don't know about you, but if I had to rely on, for example, a private sector police force to come help when something's happening,
If you'll think about it for a minute, you'll realize that the police come after you get mugged, robbed, raped, etc. At that time, you will be subject to paperwork, veiled accusations of complicity one way or another, and then reassured that there is no certainty that anything can be done. Personally, I'd rather have a private sector force who I knew was actually on my side, rather than some constitutional nightmare who is looking around my house for drugs when he should be trying to figure out who broke my window.
Police haven't done squat to stop crime since they stopped walking beats, because they're never around when anything happens. Now they're just (expensive, annoying) clean-up agents.
Unless you're talking about traffic cops. They're not the same kind of service, though, and a lot of what they do is play mommy for people who have no need of a mommy.
The system is broken.
"Your president demands payment for his services. Please send $5,000 per household to the White House immediately, or we'll call Reality Squad and make it a civil war. You have thirty seconds to comply. We do accept Visa and Master Card. Operators are standing by. Thank you, and may God Bless America."
Yeah, we call that the IRS. A "legal system" unto themselves, complete with property, freedom and funds seizures. Only it's a lot more than $5000 per household, unless you work at McDonald's. I've not had a tax bill as low as $5000 in several decades. And of course, then they use that money to invade other countries, take more rights from you, torture people, wiretap without warrants, pursue a completely unwinnable and illegitimate "drug war" (AKA the war against personal choice), bribe the states to do federal bidding (for example, the federal speed limit laws where they withhold funding if the speed limits aren't to their liking.) yeah, the IRS. A sterling bunch of characters. They take from the citizens and give to the criminals.
Only once the party is convicted through impeachment can additional prosecution commence.
According to your reasoning, Bush could climb a bell tower, aim a machine gun at the crowd of churchgoers below, mow them down in a hail of lead, and he could not be arrested. He could take a bunch of visiting boy scouts, cut them up on his desk, and eat their livers, and there wouldn't be a thing we could do about it until he was not only impeached, but also convicted in the senate.
I think your reasoning has more holes in it than a spaghetti colander.
The presence of the word "convicted" in that paragraph is only there to show that conviction at impeachment is no excuse to say that prosecution at law is not called for. They're saying that removal from office is not the only remedy, and as they don't address A before B or vice-versa, it's pretty darned clear that they weren't saying there was any requirement of that nature. Obviously, if the man is an insane murderer, he is not immune until impeached; and from there, it becomes just as obvious that when he is complicit in the torture, illegal imprisonment, and violation of 1st amendment rights of his own citizens, that he is ready, like right now, to arrest.
The only reason he won't be arrested is political cowardice.
Certainly - every time a law comes up that is a bad law, particularly with regard to the constitution, which the president is personally sworn to defend, the veto should be used. So - for instance - the veto should have been used when the ex post facto law that felons, already convicted, could not own firearms, because this adds to their punishment after conviction and is manifestly unconstitutional. There are other ex post facto violations that should have been defended as well.
The constitution says that the feds can't tell the states what laws to make in general, outside of the bill of rights and some specifics about interstate commerce. One such example would be speed limits. The federal government created a bribery mechanism via legislation that says that states that have speed limits of such-and-such character will not receive federal highway funding; that's a classic "we are your completely mafia-tized government, welcome to the machine" and that should have been vetoed right back into the evil morass it came from. But like the habeas corpus problem, the sitting president at the time (Carter) was complicit in the wrongdoing, so obviously, the veto wouldn't be used, though it should be used.
There are older reasons to veto, such as suspension of habeas corpus; that's been in place what, 700 years or so?
There was the establishment of FISA - first we tap you, THEN we get permission - talk about your bass-ackwards "regard" for rights!
The veto should be used when a reasonable bill contains bullshit riders; the congress has a particularly distasteful way of sliding completely irrelevant legislation inside other legislation they know will pass, such as military finding, that then passes regardless of merit (and it usually has none, that's why it gets inserted in other bills w/o lube.)
The veto could be one of the bastions of protecting our freedoms, and as far as I am concerned, it should be. But it isn't. That's one of the problems with the system, and it is unsolvable because citizens aren't engaged in what is going on and will not hold politicians accountable for their actions and inactions. Presidents worrying about 2nd terms and political deals are a factor here as well. One term per president would erase that factor in a hurry, though so would honest, engaged, educated voting. Not that we have any chance of that.
Far too much bad law is made. The president could stop a lot of it, and could also force the bills that come out to be one-subject only by simply saying, I'm not going to allow you to hide irrelevant law inside must-pass bills. Do it over, and do it right.
Instead, vetos are part and parcel of the "deal" mode of doing business in Washington. I accord them little respect unless used to better the lot of the citizens, just as I accord no respect to laws that serve the hysteria of the moment rather than the long-term, constitutionally delimited legitimate role of government in our society.
First of all, the post I replied to was a counter point to something I posted. Second, the goal of moderation is to raise posts up that are (a) on-topic, (b) contain remarks, information, or pointers to same, which are of high quality (as opposed to posts which say, "yeah, me too" or "GNAA.... blah blah)
Moderating well requires that you stand back from your position, presuming you have one, and reward both sides of the discussion. No more than that. When you do more, you've become partisan, and as slashdot's defaults, used by many people, will promptly hide posts that drop below the user's reading threshold, this is tantamount to suppressing opinion - which IMHO ought to disqualify a moderator forever, frankly.
Four strongly related questions for you: (1) Where are these candidates that care? (2) What "power of the vote" do you have in mind? (3) Surely it isn't choosing between the next party-picked pair of democrats and republicans? Assuming it isn't, then (4) how do you propose to get a 3rd party in there?
When you can answer those, you will have uncovered the American zeitgeist, and you'll know why we are not going to have a revolution or honest candidates for political office.
I can certainly answer them for you, but it won't have the same impact as when you understand it intuitively. The problem is that middle america and upper class america is pretty comfortable with the status quo; they don't care that the political system has gone rotten on the inside, that the two entrenched parties are machines replacing candidate A with B who has precisely the same legislative priorities, that is, being bought by lobbyists, screaming "save the children", and "praying" before every hypocritical meeting. The voting public does not care that the voting machines are crooked, they don't care that the president is making "law", that kids are dying in the middle east. What do they care about? Next week's paycheck, american idol, if their kid is doing ok in sports, and how they're going to get laid. That's it. There are exceptions, of course, but they are too few, as witness the fact that things are steadily getting worse, not better.
They're unconstitutional as Hell but Congress and SCOTUS are not doing a thing about it, and we aren't either, because...
Let me finish that for you: "We can't." USSC appointments are for life. So we're screwed for the lifetime of those people. Executive orders aren't the only signs of a USSC out of control; ex post facto law and punishment, commerce clause absurdities, 2nd amendment erosion, approval of eavesdropping without warrants (I'm referring to FISA... getting approval *afterwards* is about as messed up an idea as anything they've ever come up with), constant refusal to hear cases that deal with important issues on absurd technicalities... the USSC is composed of enemies of the constitution and the people, but you will not see anything done about it - legally, we can't, and practically, we won't.
Hey mods, consider the above remark; Bush *has* made plenty of pseudo law with his signing statements. That post was pretty damned factual, and the flamebait mod is both unfair and innapropriate.
Someone should fix the mod - this is one of slashdot's biggest problems, that people use mods to express counter opinions -- by suppressing the other opinion -- rather than actually looking for flamebait. It's why I have to browse at -1; because there are no limits on abusive moderation and perfectly good posts are likely to be buried by idiots like the ass-clown who modded that post flamebait.
I don't underestimate the veto, I estimate that presidents aren't likely to use it when it needs to be used - again, going by history. The difference between a regular majority and a veto majority is indeed considerable. The trick to getting a president to veto is they can't be trying to make deals (unlikely) they can't owe any political favors (unlikely) they can't have lobbyists whispering in their ears about post-term favors (not just unlikely, close to impossible), and they have to keep their campaign promises (not well supported by history.)
Yeah, I'm pretty cynical. But they definitely earned it.
Re:The right to privacy is underrated
on
The Privacy Candidate
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?
Not a presidential candidate. They have almost no domestic power; they can't make law, and they can't do a whole lot to stop law from passing unless it was marginal in the first place. The most important factor of a president's stance is the foreign policy stance, because there, as Bush has demonstrated, they have a lot of discretion and they can, again as Bush has demonstrated, make quite a mess. They can break the law, of course (again as Bush has demonstrated) but then again, so can anyone in the chain of command that leads to the pawn with the inductive tap, the capacitive sensor, or the digital network access. As far as the law of the land goes, it's your congresscritters and senators you need to think about.
That's not to say that I'm not happy with the stated position; I am. I'm also very much a proponent of universal healthcare, and she's demonstrated at least once that she favored it, at least at the time. Hopefully, she'll stick with that, but again, congress is where these things matter the most, and those views can't be selected "all at once." They are of course selected by lobbyists and not voters, anyway, and between insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, and lawyers, we won't be getting universal healthcare no matter if it was the raving, foaming at the mouth single issue for a presidential candidate.
Marshall said that the Executive in the execution of his powers is beyond the reach of the Supreme Court, if they are the powers granted by the Constitution and not by statute.
I don't have any problem with that. However, the constitution does not grant the ability to secretly invade a citizen's privacy without a warrant, does it? Nor does it grant the power to torture; I could go on for quite a while. The bottom line is clearly that he can be criminally charged, and that he is not, by the above court decision, "beyond the reach of the Supreme Court."
no court will try the President prior to impeachment.
And I maintain that there is no constitutional basis for this. It is the awarding of king-like powers to a position that was supposed to be about as un-king-like as the founders could figure out to make it. I fail to see even a hint of such intent in the constitution, and as I pointed out above, it seems very clear that the actual intent was precisely the opposite.
The government - and I absolutely do include the courts - is completely out of control. This is just one more hard piece of evidence that backs that assertion up.
Therefore, I do believe a citizen should be allowed to effectively opt-out of government if s/he wishes to. Of course, that means no taxes, but it also means no services. Have fun getting to work with your private highways.
Services can (and often are) paid for by use taxes, and are often state provided and implemented, not federal. Highways are paid for by fuel taxes, for instance, and schooling by land taxes. I think one needs to draw a very hard line between federal services and federal government aggression.
This whole going to war "on my behalf" is complete and utter nonsense, for instance; I do not support this, and the fact that I am paying for it is a result of coercion and nothing else whatsoever. That camel ass-sniffer isn't worth risking the life of a single American service person, nor is he worth violating the sovereignty of another country. When we do that, we're inviting the same here, and I can't go there.
Likewise the "drug war" against the citizens, government regulation of sexuality, promotion of, and participation in, religion, land thefts without even a hope of rational compensation when the taking is against the will of the landholder (how do you compensate for the taking of an ancestral home, or the loss of a particular scenic view, or the loss of an investment property that has not yet come to your intended term, or the loss of where you had your children? The presumption that "market value" is adequate for someone who does not want to sell would be hysterical, if it were actually funny. As it is, it's just tragic.)
In any case, the ability to opt out of paying for such excursions far beyond my beliefs and ethics by any legal mechanism would at least give me input to the process and it would also remove my complicity, though I argue that as my taxes are coerced from me and used to reach towards goals that disgust me, my complicity is questionable anyway.
The main problem for me is that this government does not represent my views in the vast majority of it's dealings, laws and intents; nor does any government anywhere else, as nearly as I can tell. I choose to live in peace within the country that is closest to at least having a foundation that appeals to me (the US constitution, in particular) but the fact that the constitution is basically being ignored reduces the value of its supposed foundation for the federal and state governments (state, because of the bill of rights and amendment 14.)
Also, there is soverign immunity. While the President is sitting, the only way to try him is by impeachment.
I just tried for quite a while, and I can find no mention of this in the constitution. What part is it in?
The closest thing I found was in article 1, section 3, about the Senate:
judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
What this clearly says is that the impeachment process itself can only result in getting the target tossed from office; but that the rest of the body of law, and punishment, still applies in the normal venues, that is, police, court, jail and so on. It doesn't say that the person has to be impeached before normal procedures take effect, either.
In article 2, section 4, we find this:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
...and again, what we have here is a mechanism for removal from office. There is no provision for immunity from the mundane legal process. In other words, this doesn't protect the president from a traffic ticket or a murder charge.
Here, under article 3, the judicial branch, we find:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
The above makes it clear that the courts do indeed have jurisdiction when the case involves a "public minister" and furthermore, the last part clearly sets out what to do in the case of trials of "other" kind than impeachment, meaning they were specifically thinking that law should apply to public officials (as of course it should, what, were they supposed to be idiots?) Not only that, the wording makes it clear that such trial can occur without impeachment - so impeachment does not have to come first.
This whole business of the president being "immune" smells like nonsense of the first degree to me, and I utterly fail to see any constitutional justification for it. Barring anyone pointing out something critical I've missed here, my position is that Bush is a crook, he is long past needing to be arrested for illegal wiretapping, torture, and obstruction of justice - he is the responsible party - and tried, and punished. Congress can get around to impeaching him, or not, I don't really care, but I do think the man belongs in a courtroom, facing these accusations, and frankly, I think conviction should be a doddle.
You might ask him if he (a) signed the constitution, (b) was represented by someone he voted for at the creation and instantiation of the constitution, (c) or was involved in crafting the constitution itself.
Because otherwise, it's just a 200 year old document a bunch of dead guys he didn't know cobbled up and agreed to. They don't represent him unless he says they do, either by oath or affirmation. You can't commit me to a document you design and sign; I'm only committed if I freely sign it. Coercion doesn't count.
Also... from the government's point of view, they abandoned the document some time ago. There is very little in it they take seriously these days.
Having said that, pay your taxes or they'll kick your ass. It's just that simple. It is compliance enforcement by violence and coercion; not legitimate obligation, and not agreement.
If this has changed very recently, someone let me know
It hasn't. I own a PS3, it has the latest updates, and it absolutely will not output Blue-Ray DVD's in 720p. 1080i almost certainly, but as my display system won't downscale 1080i to it's native 720, I can't really vouch for that.
And of course, the reason I know this so well is because every time I look at the thing, and consider that it is worthless to me as a Blue-Ray player, I begin to think about the price, and then I want to kick it across the room. Going to take a hell of a game to justify a $600.00(US) console, let me tell you. Fall of Man isn't it, either. Maybe a port of MechAssault I or II, or an all-new III might make me happy, but then again, I have I on the XBox, and II on the 360... I am a pixel-whore though... give me more polygons and I sit there and drool quietly...
the # shipped to north america (us+can+mex) in 2006 was 1 mil, estimated sold in US was ~490k
From your article: units may not have reached stores in time to be sold (and witness the piles of them in Best Buy last time I was in there, about two weeks ago.) Shipped != Sold.
refer to other posts about the 720p thing
I described the "720p thing" perfectly accurately. I own one, latest updates, and it does not output 720p for DVDs, only games, which is exactly what I said.
Your quote refers to the "BDA". I said Sony was balking - that's not outright refusal, that's dragging feet, that sort of thing. Get, and USE, a dictionary. The reason that I said that is because the wholly-owned Sony subsidiary Sony DADC Global that produces Blue-Ray disks has refused to master Porn DVDs. This is public, stated policy from them.
So seeing as how every part of your "rebuttal" was off the mark, perhaps you should change your reply technique to "think, research, post" — "post and wait for reply" doesn't seem to be working out for you.
Yeah, Sony has 400k+ blue-ray players available in the US in the form of PS3's at this point, all right; but first, not all of those have been sold...
And second, Sony totally blew it when they built the PS3 Blue-Ray capabilities; it can't play 720p, only 480p or 1080p, which means that a very large proportion of in-place US HDTV sets couldn't use anything but 480p, which is pretty much the same as a progressive scan standard DVD in terms of resolution. Oddly, the PS3 will do 720p for games. Just not for DVDs.
The reason that 720p is important is because for the LCD market, 1080p sets were rare until very recently. 720p was the top 'P' resolution available (it's actually the "middle" resolution in standard HDTV, 1080, 720, 480) though there are some uncommon ones and some variants, like 24 FPS stuff for 1:1 movie compatibility, and some TVs could scale 1080i down to 720p, or even display 1080i, just not 1080p.
Third, Sony's balking at allowing prawn into the format (like they did for betamax), which is (IMHO) likely to deal them another severe blow. It seems like they have developed an unmatchable expertise at shooting themselves in the foot.
(1) The heavy use of bright blue borders and all the blue and red text seems too strong. I'd prefer a more muted approach (but see above).
Ok, noted. Thank you for your gentle approach.
(2) The short blurb for WinImages talks about "photo editing, morphing and more", while the blurb for Easy Morph talks about "morphing and warping..." I don't get a good sense what I would want to use these tools for. Editing pictures for the family album?
Yes, absolutely.
Making art
Yes to that, too.
Magazine layout
It is actually very capable at this, but that's not a beginner's domain, just so you know (you probably do, but I have to say that anyway.) WinImages is one of the few tools out there that can cross between UCR and GCR print methodologies smoothly, rather than limiting you to one or the other, although it can do that too, of course. It does primo CMY and CMYK color separations, but it has its own approach and you can't just transfer the approach one might take with Photoshop, for instance, and expect it to work for you without mods. Our policies allow you to give a copy of the software to the print shop so that they can fiddle with it, if that appears to be useful (and it usually will... you just need an open minded print shop.) It does not directly do spot color, although you are certainly free to tell the printer that "this color and/or region here" is Pantone #XXX or whatever. We aren't affiliated with Pantone, hence don't support it, and that is an issue for some jobs.
Just for fun?
Actually, the most trouble we have is getting across just how powerful and flexible it is. So those are very good questions, and all of them are resounding "yes" answers. Lots of other things too. It's probably the best layered still-image editor on the planet; it has more layer control and allows MDI layer editing so you can edit many more than one layer at once, plus it has a better metaphor for flattening images. It has some astonishing tricks it can pull off with geometric warp layers as well - you can overlap things like water splashes and they'll interfere with each other, it's really pretty fun to do and it's also real-time so you can just adjust till you get the result you want and there you go. Warp layers can apply zooms, ripples, rotations, skews and quite a bit more exotic things such as kaleidoscopic distortions, and they can be stacked, live. Because these are layer effects, they are non-destructive and re-positionable, clearable, etc. And you can animate a great deal of this.
Perhaps the best way to describe it is to point out the one area it doesn't excel in, and that is what we usually think of as "painting." You can do quite a few painterly things, but to paint, you're better off with something that really does brushes crazy, and for that I always point at Paint Shop Pro for standard bitmaps, or Painter if you like natural media. Photoshop is my last choice in this area; it really doesn't do the cool stuff like PSP's specialized multi-image brushes or natural media.
Looking at the front page of your website (which is difficult to read)
What, specifically is "difficult to read" about it? It uses standard fonts. They are sans-serif, but that is pretty typical. The text stays in bounds of clear areas, is linear, and discusses subjects broken into paragraphs. Is it the words being used? The subject matter? The font size (that's probably a browser setting if so, the size is adequate here and my eyes are sadly getting old.) The page has been tested in Safari, Opera, OmniWeb, Firefox, Explorer, and Mozilla, variously under Windows, OSX and linux, and displays the same in each of them. I just kicked the text up three sizes (in OmniWeb, from the browser default) and down three sizes and the text reflow acts correctly, though I can't read it more than two sizes down without nearly touching the LCD with my glasses.
Anyway, be specific. You come up with something that I can reproduce that isn't due to some personal browser setting of yours, I'm very happy to have it fixed.
checking out the screenshots (which are a mess)
The screenshot of WinImages intentionally shows the timeline, the filmstrip, area selection tools, part of the operator toolbar, and a fairly random selection of works created or extensively modified with the software. The images were arranged so that you could see the important parts of each one, and indeed you can. Notably missing from the screenshot are operator dialogs and tool caddies. Implied by all of this, hopefully, is the idea that you can work on as many images (or layers) at one time as you like, which is true, and that effects may be animated, which is also true, and that the program has a wide range of capabilities, which is also true.
Now: What - exactly - makes this a "mess" and what - exactly - would you suggest to make it an, er, "un-mess." Or to put it another way, what part of the issues I described just above did you not "get", and how would you suggest it be arranged (as a screen shot) so that you would "get" it?
The screenshot of Easy Morph (and Morph) show the source images, the control elements that create the morphing action, some result frames in a filmstrip implying animation, and the area tools. The Morph screen shot adds more tools and onionskin controls, implying more capability, which is a correct implication. Any specific comments here? Mess? No Mess? Considered suggestions?
If your best foot forward isn't to be found within all that, I think you're expecting too much of your potential customers.
Ok, first, don't worry about our "potential customers." We're doing ok. Really. If you have improvements to suggest that aren't marketing fluff or hype, that's great, and I'll pay attention. I have ultimate control; I own the company outright. And I have emotional "skin" like an alligator and a confidence that comes from many years of dealing with these issues; you couldn't piss me off if you tried, though you can certainly cause me amusement. So you're talking to the right guy in one sense. However, I've been doing this for many years, and if there is one thing I have learned one can count on, it is that not only is the customer not always right, the lookie-loo - the person who just sits around and snipes, usually pretty ineffectively and without knowing what they're talking about - is almost always wrong. So in order to make me think you're right, you're either going to have to be obviously right, or you will need to justify your position well. No one, not you or anyone else, has any right to expect me to alter the course of my company based on throwing an opinion in my direction. Too many people depend upon me for one thing, and for another, I'm where I want to be in my life and work and so there are no temptations or insecurities you can yank on to lead me by the nose. Just so we're 100% clear.
Second, we don't put our "best foot forward." We pu
What makes the constitution legitimate? I never agreed to it
Actually, I agree with you 100%, and I mentioned this in passing elsewhere in the thread; however, these are the rock-hard preconceptions that the vast majority of the country, including the entire court system, labor under and so I generally confine my argument to that environment.
Sigh. Well, you know what an optimist calls a realist, right? A pessimist.
My position is that there are very few powers the government has voted itself that it has declined to use. I can't think of any, in point of fact. And now that they have the legislated power to drag you off the street without trial or any other inconvenient T's to cross, I expect they will indeed use it. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that they were using it even before it was law (just like the wiretapping.)
You see, they're doing what they want, regardless of law, and then when they bother to make law, they do that regardless of the constitution so that the "law" does not have to reflect any legitimate structure as regards what the founders intended and what the legitimate operations of the government are. Hence my characterization of "police state."
Slashdot Mirror
(a) You should look up how often FISA has rejected such an application. It's an illuminating number. (b) Let's say that I watch you and your wife getting it on with a goat, because I think - I don't have proof - it might be my goat. Some private investigatorial team takes photos; they hand them to my photo developer, the guy who frames them, the guy who scans them, we fax them to goat experts everywhere, and some random number of other people who are involved with caring for my goat.
Whoops. It turns out I made a mistake. It's not my goat.
Now: How can I "un-invade" your privacy? How can I "un-expose" all those people who are now privvy to your personal affairs? How can I repair the reputation of your goat, never mind yours and your wifes? How can I stop further dissemenation of rumor, now that the information is in the hands of multiple people?
The answer, of course, is that I cannot, and neither can anyone else. That is why privacy is protected; because once violated, it is gone. You can't put it back. You can't repair it, and you can't replace it. The fact that you can sue in civil court is hardly a replacement for your goat's sense of self, now is it?
You are imagining a society without principle; I am imagining one with far more principle.
Today, government systems don't have to perform. They don't have to make a profit, they don't have to solve cases, they don't have to earn their money, they don't have to make good law, and they don't have to unmake bad law. The results are obvious if you simply look: legislators do the wrong thing. Cops beat civilians and otherwise abuse them. Your social security funds were outright stolen. Campaign promises are worthless jaw flapping. We make war on innocents. The FCC crushes free speech, both by controlling the ownership of outlets with an iron hand, and via direct censorship. The 2nd amendment has eroded to a shadow of what it was intended to accomplish. The 1st amendment now has "free speech zones" and numerous other restraints, especially in print. The commerce clause is the laughingstock of the legal community because it has not so much been eroded, as parodied. Religion and its perverse, regressive views of sexuality run rampant in legislation; discrimination is enshrined in multiple state's legislation in the guise of "protecting marriage." Manners are a thing of the past. The ability to even raise children in a reasonable fashion has succumbed to the ridiculous idea that physical punishment in response to exceeding hard boundaries is a bad thing. Even very minimal criminal behavior makes citizens completely unredeemable, condemning them to a life at the very lowest levels of earnings, respect and even insurance. ex post facto law is the rule of the day. Search and seizure w/o a warrant is now law, as is breaking and entering. Land is regularly stolen by local and federal governments without even a nod towards reasonable compensation for one's ancestral home or even your scenery. Your right to a speedy trial is gone, as is your right to representation, even a phone call. Cruel and unusual punishment - even torture - is enshrined in law (see the Military Commissions Act.) The powers of the states are being subsumed by mafia-like federal tactics; for instance, state speed limits outside the bounds of what the feds want result in the withdrawal of highway funds; we used to call such actions "bribery." Judicial limits? See the above reference commerce clause and ex post facto laws for precise examples of the complete lack of such limits. The 13th amendment enshrines slavery as a federal right, the most disgusting clause in the entire constitution. The very president of the country is breaking laws left and right, and there he sits, protected by the apathy of idiots. But hey... amendment 3 remains intact. They can't make you accept soldiers for "sleep-overs." Aren't you glad?
Your world is crashing all around your ears; why you are deaf to this, I cannot say, but I can certainly say that I am not.
A society certainly needs guidelines, and the police need them more than anyone. I'm not saying they should be without them, as you appear to be imagining; I am saying they need to be motivated to do the right thing. The current system doesn't do that (and neither do cops, naturally enough) and this is the basis forming my urge to see the system change. It is my opinion that a positive version of change could come from the conjunction of advancing technology and security forces that are highly motivated to protect the flock (rather than to write tickets or pretend that ruining some poor teenager's life for drug use or sexual experimentation across some stupid age boundary serves a purpose.) Soon, we'll actually know if people are lying or not, and that will change the entire face of criminal law, or at least, it should. I am both tired of innocents being found on death row -DEATH ROW for fucks sake - and of obvious criminals being let free because the cops can't be bothered to follow a few simple frigging rules.
As things stand, the areas that need the most coverage - ghettos and run down neighborhoods - get the least. Businesses get the most, because they leverage the system from
We will agree to disagree then, for I see no way that the passage can be read the way you say. You are adding a great deal of meaning, and words, that are not in the passage. I'm just reading the sentence for what it actually says, which is that conviction at impeachment doesn't make the subject immune from mundane procedures at law.
No. I'm not in the least bit confused, and it is an ex post facto law. You are in error. The dictionary definition you quote isn't the legal definition. I'll use your same source, Cornell's excellent legal library.
The legal definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Supreme Court Justice Chase:
First: Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.
Second: Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed.
Third: Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.
Fourth: 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.
In this same opinion, Justice Chase goes on to say this: "The expressions "ex post facto laws," are technical, they had been in use long before the Revolution, and had acquired an appropriate meaning, by Legislators, Lawyers, and Authors. The celebrated and judicious Sir William Blackstone, in his commentaries, considers an ex post facto law precisely in the same light I have done. His opinion is confirmed by his successor, Mr. Wooddeson; and by the author of the Federalist, who I esteem superior to both, for his extensive and accurate knowledge of the true principles of Government."
You're quite right about the 2nd amendment violation, though. The idea that people had paid for their transgressions by court-inflicted punishment was quite pervasive at the time. Today's "permanent criminalization" doesn't fit very well with the thinking of those times. They really thought that people should have a chance to try again.
Yes. Yes, we should. We should also be familiar with what critical terms like "ex post facto" mean, don't you agree? Otherwise, we can read it, but we won't understand it.
Actually, lotteries are taxes limited to the math-impaired.
If you'll think about it for a minute, you'll realize that the police come after you get mugged, robbed, raped, etc. At that time, you will be subject to paperwork, veiled accusations of complicity one way or another, and then reassured that there is no certainty that anything can be done. Personally, I'd rather have a private sector force who I knew was actually on my side, rather than some constitutional nightmare who is looking around my house for drugs when he should be trying to figure out who broke my window.
Police haven't done squat to stop crime since they stopped walking beats, because they're never around when anything happens. Now they're just (expensive, annoying) clean-up agents.
Unless you're talking about traffic cops. They're not the same kind of service, though, and a lot of what they do is play mommy for people who have no need of a mommy.
The system is broken.
Yeah, we call that the IRS. A "legal system" unto themselves, complete with property, freedom and funds seizures. Only it's a lot more than $5000 per household, unless you work at McDonald's. I've not had a tax bill as low as $5000 in several decades. And of course, then they use that money to invade other countries, take more rights from you, torture people, wiretap without warrants, pursue a completely unwinnable and illegitimate "drug war" (AKA the war against personal choice), bribe the states to do federal bidding (for example, the federal speed limit laws where they withhold funding if the speed limits aren't to their liking.) yeah, the IRS. A sterling bunch of characters. They take from the citizens and give to the criminals.
According to your reasoning, Bush could climb a bell tower, aim a machine gun at the crowd of churchgoers below, mow them down in a hail of lead, and he could not be arrested. He could take a bunch of visiting boy scouts, cut them up on his desk, and eat their livers, and there wouldn't be a thing we could do about it until he was not only impeached, but also convicted in the senate.
I think your reasoning has more holes in it than a spaghetti colander.
The presence of the word "convicted" in that paragraph is only there to show that conviction at impeachment is no excuse to say that prosecution at law is not called for. They're saying that removal from office is not the only remedy, and as they don't address A before B or vice-versa, it's pretty darned clear that they weren't saying there was any requirement of that nature. Obviously, if the man is an insane murderer, he is not immune until impeached; and from there, it becomes just as obvious that when he is complicit in the torture, illegal imprisonment, and violation of 1st amendment rights of his own citizens, that he is ready, like right now, to arrest.
The only reason he won't be arrested is political cowardice.
Certainly - every time a law comes up that is a bad law, particularly with regard to the constitution, which the president is personally sworn to defend, the veto should be used. So - for instance - the veto should have been used when the ex post facto law that felons, already convicted, could not own firearms, because this adds to their punishment after conviction and is manifestly unconstitutional. There are other ex post facto violations that should have been defended as well.
The constitution says that the feds can't tell the states what laws to make in general, outside of the bill of rights and some specifics about interstate commerce. One such example would be speed limits. The federal government created a bribery mechanism via legislation that says that states that have speed limits of such-and-such character will not receive federal highway funding; that's a classic "we are your completely mafia-tized government, welcome to the machine" and that should have been vetoed right back into the evil morass it came from. But like the habeas corpus problem, the sitting president at the time (Carter) was complicit in the wrongdoing, so obviously, the veto wouldn't be used, though it should be used.
There are older reasons to veto, such as suspension of habeas corpus; that's been in place what, 700 years or so?
There was the establishment of FISA - first we tap you, THEN we get permission - talk about your bass-ackwards "regard" for rights!
The veto should be used when a reasonable bill contains bullshit riders; the congress has a particularly distasteful way of sliding completely irrelevant legislation inside other legislation they know will pass, such as military finding, that then passes regardless of merit (and it usually has none, that's why it gets inserted in other bills w/o lube.)
The veto could be one of the bastions of protecting our freedoms, and as far as I am concerned, it should be. But it isn't. That's one of the problems with the system, and it is unsolvable because citizens aren't engaged in what is going on and will not hold politicians accountable for their actions and inactions. Presidents worrying about 2nd terms and political deals are a factor here as well. One term per president would erase that factor in a hurry, though so would honest, engaged, educated voting. Not that we have any chance of that.
Far too much bad law is made. The president could stop a lot of it, and could also force the bills that come out to be one-subject only by simply saying, I'm not going to allow you to hide irrelevant law inside must-pass bills. Do it over, and do it right.
Instead, vetos are part and parcel of the "deal" mode of doing business in Washington. I accord them little respect unless used to better the lot of the citizens, just as I accord no respect to laws that serve the hysteria of the moment rather than the long-term, constitutionally delimited legitimate role of government in our society.
First of all, the post I replied to was a counter point to something I posted. Second, the goal of moderation is to raise posts up that are (a) on-topic, (b) contain remarks, information, or pointers to same, which are of high quality (as opposed to posts which say, "yeah, me too" or "GNAA.... blah blah)
Moderating well requires that you stand back from your position, presuming you have one, and reward both sides of the discussion. No more than that. When you do more, you've become partisan, and as slashdot's defaults, used by many people, will promptly hide posts that drop below the user's reading threshold, this is tantamount to suppressing opinion - which IMHO ought to disqualify a moderator forever, frankly.
You can read more about my thoughts on slashdot's problems with moderation here if you're curious.
Four strongly related questions for you: (1) Where are these candidates that care? (2) What "power of the vote" do you have in mind? (3) Surely it isn't choosing between the next party-picked pair of democrats and republicans? Assuming it isn't, then (4) how do you propose to get a 3rd party in there?
When you can answer those, you will have uncovered the American zeitgeist, and you'll know why we are not going to have a revolution or honest candidates for political office.
I can certainly answer them for you, but it won't have the same impact as when you understand it intuitively. The problem is that middle america and upper class america is pretty comfortable with the status quo; they don't care that the political system has gone rotten on the inside, that the two entrenched parties are machines replacing candidate A with B who has precisely the same legislative priorities, that is, being bought by lobbyists, screaming "save the children", and "praying" before every hypocritical meeting. The voting public does not care that the voting machines are crooked, they don't care that the president is making "law", that kids are dying in the middle east. What do they care about? Next week's paycheck, american idol, if their kid is doing ok in sports, and how they're going to get laid. That's it. There are exceptions, of course, but they are too few, as witness the fact that things are steadily getting worse, not better.
Let me finish that for you: "We can't." USSC appointments are for life. So we're screwed for the lifetime of those people. Executive orders aren't the only signs of a USSC out of control; ex post facto law and punishment, commerce clause absurdities, 2nd amendment erosion, approval of eavesdropping without warrants (I'm referring to FISA... getting approval *afterwards* is about as messed up an idea as anything they've ever come up with), constant refusal to hear cases that deal with important issues on absurd technicalities... the USSC is composed of enemies of the constitution and the people, but you will not see anything done about it - legally, we can't, and practically, we won't.
Hey mods, consider the above remark; Bush *has* made plenty of pseudo law with his signing statements. That post was pretty damned factual, and the flamebait mod is both unfair and innapropriate.
Someone should fix the mod - this is one of slashdot's biggest problems, that people use mods to express counter opinions -- by suppressing the other opinion -- rather than actually looking for flamebait. It's why I have to browse at -1; because there are no limits on abusive moderation and perfectly good posts are likely to be buried by idiots like the ass-clown who modded that post flamebait.
And of course, feel free to off-topic me. :/
I don't underestimate the veto, I estimate that presidents aren't likely to use it when it needs to be used - again, going by history. The difference between a regular majority and a veto majority is indeed considerable. The trick to getting a president to veto is they can't be trying to make deals (unlikely) they can't owe any political favors (unlikely) they can't have lobbyists whispering in their ears about post-term favors (not just unlikely, close to impossible), and they have to keep their campaign promises (not well supported by history.)
Yeah, I'm pretty cynical. But they definitely earned it.
Not a presidential candidate. They have almost no domestic power; they can't make law, and they can't do a whole lot to stop law from passing unless it was marginal in the first place. The most important factor of a president's stance is the foreign policy stance, because there, as Bush has demonstrated, they have a lot of discretion and they can, again as Bush has demonstrated, make quite a mess. They can break the law, of course (again as Bush has demonstrated) but then again, so can anyone in the chain of command that leads to the pawn with the inductive tap, the capacitive sensor, or the digital network access. As far as the law of the land goes, it's your congresscritters and senators you need to think about.
That's not to say that I'm not happy with the stated position; I am. I'm also very much a proponent of universal healthcare, and she's demonstrated at least once that she favored it, at least at the time. Hopefully, she'll stick with that, but again, congress is where these things matter the most, and those views can't be selected "all at once." They are of course selected by lobbyists and not voters, anyway, and between insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, and lawyers, we won't be getting universal healthcare no matter if it was the raving, foaming at the mouth single issue for a presidential candidate.
I don't have any problem with that. However, the constitution does not grant the ability to secretly invade a citizen's privacy without a warrant, does it? Nor does it grant the power to torture; I could go on for quite a while. The bottom line is clearly that he can be criminally charged, and that he is not, by the above court decision, "beyond the reach of the Supreme Court."
And I maintain that there is no constitutional basis for this. It is the awarding of king-like powers to a position that was supposed to be about as un-king-like as the founders could figure out to make it. I fail to see even a hint of such intent in the constitution, and as I pointed out above, it seems very clear that the actual intent was precisely the opposite.
The government - and I absolutely do include the courts - is completely out of control. This is just one more hard piece of evidence that backs that assertion up.
Services can (and often are) paid for by use taxes, and are often state provided and implemented, not federal. Highways are paid for by fuel taxes, for instance, and schooling by land taxes. I think one needs to draw a very hard line between federal services and federal government aggression.
This whole going to war "on my behalf" is complete and utter nonsense, for instance; I do not support this, and the fact that I am paying for it is a result of coercion and nothing else whatsoever. That camel ass-sniffer isn't worth risking the life of a single American service person, nor is he worth violating the sovereignty of another country. When we do that, we're inviting the same here, and I can't go there.
Likewise the "drug war" against the citizens, government regulation of sexuality, promotion of, and participation in, religion, land thefts without even a hope of rational compensation when the taking is against the will of the landholder (how do you compensate for the taking of an ancestral home, or the loss of a particular scenic view, or the loss of an investment property that has not yet come to your intended term, or the loss of where you had your children? The presumption that "market value" is adequate for someone who does not want to sell would be hysterical, if it were actually funny. As it is, it's just tragic.)
In any case, the ability to opt out of paying for such excursions far beyond my beliefs and ethics by any legal mechanism would at least give me input to the process and it would also remove my complicity, though I argue that as my taxes are coerced from me and used to reach towards goals that disgust me, my complicity is questionable anyway.
The main problem for me is that this government does not represent my views in the vast majority of it's dealings, laws and intents; nor does any government anywhere else, as nearly as I can tell. I choose to live in peace within the country that is closest to at least having a foundation that appeals to me (the US constitution, in particular) but the fact that the constitution is basically being ignored reduces the value of its supposed foundation for the federal and state governments (state, because of the bill of rights and amendment 14.)
I just tried for quite a while, and I can find no mention of this in the constitution. What part is it in?
The closest thing I found was in article 1, section 3, about the Senate:
What this clearly says is that the impeachment process itself can only result in getting the target tossed from office; but that the rest of the body of law, and punishment, still applies in the normal venues, that is, police, court, jail and so on. It doesn't say that the person has to be impeached before normal procedures take effect, either.
In article 2, section 4, we find this:
Here, under article 3, the judicial branch, we find:
The above makes it clear that the courts do indeed have jurisdiction when the case involves a "public minister" and furthermore, the last part clearly sets out what to do in the case of trials of "other" kind than impeachment, meaning they were specifically thinking that law should apply to public officials (as of course it should, what, were they supposed to be idiots?) Not only that, the wording makes it clear that such trial can occur without impeachment - so impeachment does not have to come first.
This whole business of the president being "immune" smells like nonsense of the first degree to me, and I utterly fail to see any constitutional justification for it. Barring anyone pointing out something critical I've missed here, my position is that Bush is a crook, he is long past needing to be arrested for illegal wiretapping, torture, and obstruction of justice - he is the responsible party - and tried, and punished. Congress can get around to impeaching him, or not, I don't really care, but I do think the man belongs in a courtroom, facing these accusations, and frankly, I think conviction should be a doddle.
You might ask him if he (a) signed the constitution, (b) was represented by someone he voted for at the creation and instantiation of the constitution, (c) or was involved in crafting the constitution itself.
Because otherwise, it's just a 200 year old document a bunch of dead guys he didn't know cobbled up and agreed to. They don't represent him unless he says they do, either by oath or affirmation. You can't commit me to a document you design and sign; I'm only committed if I freely sign it. Coercion doesn't count.
Also... from the government's point of view, they abandoned the document some time ago. There is very little in it they take seriously these days.
Having said that, pay your taxes or they'll kick your ass. It's just that simple. It is compliance enforcement by violence and coercion; not legitimate obligation, and not agreement.
When will they outlaw razor blades that only fit one razor?
While I despise DRM, this is purest bullshit.
It hasn't. I own a PS3, it has the latest updates, and it absolutely will not output Blue-Ray DVD's in 720p. 1080i almost certainly, but as my display system won't downscale 1080i to it's native 720, I can't really vouch for that.
And of course, the reason I know this so well is because every time I look at the thing, and consider that it is worthless to me as a Blue-Ray player, I begin to think about the price, and then I want to kick it across the room. Going to take a hell of a game to justify a $600.00(US) console, let me tell you. Fall of Man isn't it, either. Maybe a port of MechAssault I or II, or an all-new III might make me happy, but then again, I have I on the XBox, and II on the 360... I am a pixel-whore though... give me more polygons and I sit there and drool quietly...
From your article: units may not have reached stores in time to be sold (and witness the piles of them in Best Buy last time I was in there, about two weeks ago.) Shipped != Sold.
I described the "720p thing" perfectly accurately. I own one, latest updates, and it does not output 720p for DVDs, only games, which is exactly what I said.
Your quote refers to the "BDA". I said Sony was balking - that's not outright refusal, that's dragging feet, that sort of thing. Get, and USE, a dictionary. The reason that I said that is because the wholly-owned Sony subsidiary Sony DADC Global that produces Blue-Ray disks has refused to master Porn DVDs. This is public, stated policy from them.
So seeing as how every part of your "rebuttal" was off the mark, perhaps you should change your reply technique to "think, research, post" — "post and wait for reply" doesn't seem to be working out for you.
Yeah, Sony has 400k+ blue-ray players available in the US in the form of PS3's at this point, all right; but first, not all of those have been sold...
And second, Sony totally blew it when they built the PS3 Blue-Ray capabilities; it can't play 720p, only 480p or 1080p, which means that a very large proportion of in-place US HDTV sets couldn't use anything but 480p, which is pretty much the same as a progressive scan standard DVD in terms of resolution. Oddly, the PS3 will do 720p for games. Just not for DVDs.
The reason that 720p is important is because for the LCD market, 1080p sets were rare until very recently. 720p was the top 'P' resolution available (it's actually the "middle" resolution in standard HDTV, 1080, 720, 480) though there are some uncommon ones and some variants, like 24 FPS stuff for 1:1 movie compatibility, and some TVs could scale 1080i down to 720p, or even display 1080i, just not 1080p.
Third, Sony's balking at allowing prawn into the format (like they did for betamax), which is (IMHO) likely to deal them another severe blow. It seems like they have developed an unmatchable expertise at shooting themselves in the foot.
Ok, noted. Thank you for your gentle approach.
Yes, absolutely.
Yes to that, too.
It is actually very capable at this, but that's not a beginner's domain, just so you know (you probably do, but I have to say that anyway.) WinImages is one of the few tools out there that can cross between UCR and GCR print methodologies smoothly, rather than limiting you to one or the other, although it can do that too, of course. It does primo CMY and CMYK color separations, but it has its own approach and you can't just transfer the approach one might take with Photoshop, for instance, and expect it to work for you without mods. Our policies allow you to give a copy of the software to the print shop so that they can fiddle with it, if that appears to be useful (and it usually will... you just need an open minded print shop.) It does not directly do spot color, although you are certainly free to tell the printer that "this color and/or region here" is Pantone #XXX or whatever. We aren't affiliated with Pantone, hence don't support it, and that is an issue for some jobs.
Actually, the most trouble we have is getting across just how powerful and flexible it is. So those are very good questions, and all of them are resounding "yes" answers. Lots of other things too. It's probably the best layered still-image editor on the planet; it has more layer control and allows MDI layer editing so you can edit many more than one layer at once, plus it has a better metaphor for flattening images. It has some astonishing tricks it can pull off with geometric warp layers as well - you can overlap things like water splashes and they'll interfere with each other, it's really pretty fun to do and it's also real-time so you can just adjust till you get the result you want and there you go. Warp layers can apply zooms, ripples, rotations, skews and quite a bit more exotic things such as kaleidoscopic distortions, and they can be stacked, live. Because these are layer effects, they are non-destructive and re-positionable, clearable, etc. And you can animate a great deal of this.
Perhaps the best way to describe it is to point out the one area it doesn't excel in, and that is what we usually think of as "painting." You can do quite a few painterly things, but to paint, you're better off with something that really does brushes crazy, and for that I always point at Paint Shop Pro for standard bitmaps, or Painter if you like natural media. Photoshop is my last choice in this area; it really doesn't do the cool stuff like PSP's specialized multi-image brushes or natural media.
What, specifically is "difficult to read" about it? It uses standard fonts. They are sans-serif, but that is pretty typical. The text stays in bounds of clear areas, is linear, and discusses subjects broken into paragraphs. Is it the words being used? The subject matter? The font size (that's probably a browser setting if so, the size is adequate here and my eyes are sadly getting old.) The page has been tested in Safari, Opera, OmniWeb, Firefox, Explorer, and Mozilla, variously under Windows, OSX and linux, and displays the same in each of them. I just kicked the text up three sizes (in OmniWeb, from the browser default) and down three sizes and the text reflow acts correctly, though I can't read it more than two sizes down without nearly touching the LCD with my glasses.
Anyway, be specific. You come up with something that I can reproduce that isn't due to some personal browser setting of yours, I'm very happy to have it fixed.
The screenshot of WinImages intentionally shows the timeline, the filmstrip, area selection tools, part of the operator toolbar, and a fairly random selection of works created or extensively modified with the software. The images were arranged so that you could see the important parts of each one, and indeed you can. Notably missing from the screenshot are operator dialogs and tool caddies. Implied by all of this, hopefully, is the idea that you can work on as many images (or layers) at one time as you like, which is true, and that effects may be animated, which is also true, and that the program has a wide range of capabilities, which is also true.
Now: What - exactly - makes this a "mess" and what - exactly - would you suggest to make it an, er, "un-mess." Or to put it another way, what part of the issues I described just above did you not "get", and how would you suggest it be arranged (as a screen shot) so that you would "get" it?
The screenshot of Easy Morph (and Morph) show the source images, the control elements that create the morphing action, some result frames in a filmstrip implying animation, and the area tools. The Morph screen shot adds more tools and onionskin controls, implying more capability, which is a correct implication. Any specific comments here? Mess? No Mess? Considered suggestions?
Ok, first, don't worry about our "potential customers." We're doing ok. Really. If you have improvements to suggest that aren't marketing fluff or hype, that's great, and I'll pay attention. I have ultimate control; I own the company outright. And I have emotional "skin" like an alligator and a confidence that comes from many years of dealing with these issues; you couldn't piss me off if you tried, though you can certainly cause me amusement. So you're talking to the right guy in one sense. However, I've been doing this for many years, and if there is one thing I have learned one can count on, it is that not only is the customer not always right, the lookie-loo - the person who just sits around and snipes, usually pretty ineffectively and without knowing what they're talking about - is almost always wrong. So in order to make me think you're right, you're either going to have to be obviously right, or you will need to justify your position well. No one, not you or anyone else, has any right to expect me to alter the course of my company based on throwing an opinion in my direction. Too many people depend upon me for one thing, and for another, I'm where I want to be in my life and work and so there are no temptations or insecurities you can yank on to lead me by the nose. Just so we're 100% clear.
Second, we don't put our "best foot forward." We pu
Actually, I agree with you 100%, and I mentioned this in passing elsewhere in the thread; however, these are the rock-hard preconceptions that the vast majority of the country, including the entire court system, labor under and so I generally confine my argument to that environment.
Sigh. Well, you know what an optimist calls a realist, right? A pessimist.
My position is that there are very few powers the government has voted itself that it has declined to use. I can't think of any, in point of fact. And now that they have the legislated power to drag you off the street without trial or any other inconvenient T's to cross, I expect they will indeed use it. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that they were using it even before it was law (just like the wiretapping.)
You see, they're doing what they want, regardless of law, and then when they bother to make law, they do that regardless of the constitution so that the "law" does not have to reflect any legitimate structure as regards what the founders intended and what the legitimate operations of the government are. Hence my characterization of "police state."