No. It won't change what the software can do one bit. More particularly, I'm not the least bit interested in marketing the software on what an exceptional person can do with it (and that's why the gallery is a collection any user can contribute to.) If indeed you are as exceptional as you claim, then the 70 megs of data on the site, which contain hundreds of specific examples of various kinds would be able to speak to you, regardless of the resolution or subject matter.
In addition to the webpage, those Windows 3.1-esque giant icon buttons in the UI have got to go.
The icons are sizable, text labeled (or not), draggable into toolboxes, and keyed with color and flags for various extra functionality. Which, if you had bothered to read the site, you would know. In fact, those icons are a great deal more functional than most icons in most programs. Regarding the "3.1-esque" remark, again, this has nothing to do with the software's functionality from the user standpoint, though it does reflect how long the product has been shipping - 15 years. We don't change icons that users have gotten used to unless there is a concrete reason to do so, and fashion isn't such a reason.
Oh, and the shitty fractal terrain example images, too (it's 2007, and terragen 2 is coming. Hell, Terragen 1 from years ago looks loads better, and it's free/cheap.
The terrain render is just a visualizer, not a final renderer (as you would know if you had done anything but skim, looking for talking points.) The terrain tools in the software that are of interest to a terrain manipulator are manipulation tools; craters, exfoliation, steepness, entrainment and so forth. The tools are designed to let you modify heightfields; the pre-render is to let you see what you're doing as a heightfield without having to go back and forth between your terrain software and our manipulation software.
If you want to reach people, consider explaining why your morpher is a better option than Combustion, Fusion, Shake, or even an ancient copy of Elastic Reality from the top shelf in the closet, for example.
Depends on the people we're trying to reach, doesn't it? The more pro-level comparisons we get into, the more the average person goes "what the heck are they talking about" and as you should have figured out from the pricing, we're not the least bit interested in zeroing in on the pro market. The really good pros find us anyway, because they're actually looking to see what features are offered instead of skimming for things to bitch about without checking context, as you have done here. The average person simply goes "wow, those morphs look neat, I'd like to do that" and amazingly enough, they can, because the examples we provide are easily replicated.
Also - to an actual pro - there are plenty of clues in those examples as to why one might be interested in using our morphing software; as you have clearly singled yourself out as a pro, I'll leave those things as an exercise for you to figure out. We put the very first morphing product on a desktop PC, ever - even pre-dating the old Elastic Reality you mention - and we know a thing or two about it.
Another example is that when examining your 70+ layer modes, fully half of the first ten should really be composed of multiple operators, both to increase flexibility and to reduce clutter (why should I have to memorize, and pick from, a list of 70, if half of them are "inverted foo"? Why layers instead of nodes, for that matter, if you're touting a powerful procedural compositor with a robust scripting language?)
WinImages is optimized for speed. Discrete layer modes are considerably faster than layer modes that switch modes (and plugging in actual layer modes in response to switch modes is ri
The sixth ammendment starts of with "In all criminal prosecutions", Are we still on the same page? Nowhere in the sixth amendment does it say anything about habeas corpus?
Explain to me please, exactly what you have in mind where the government can imprison you when they do not have criminal prosecution in mind.
The sixth deals with what the government has to do once you're charged, jailed or not.
But -- since they won't let you talk to anyone under these new rules, and they won't tell anyone you're there... and this can go on indefinitely... how is any of the 6th ever going to come into play unless they decide to give it to you on an individual basis? Obviously, it can't. So by eliminating the ability to question one's imprisonment (and a bunch of other things), they're eliminated every other right you ever might have been able to lay claim to.
The way it used to be was if you were jailed, all manner of procedures kicked in. Time limits, representation, a hearing... that stuff is down the tubes because as long as it is at the whim of the government, it is no longer an assurance, it is at best a favor.
Do you see how habeas corpus bears on the sixth now? The sixth, by its very nature, elaborates and stands upon habeas corpus. Without it, the sixth is nothing.
Not really. Science has never been able to explain why anything exists at all. I very much doubt it ever will
I am not convinced that this is a reasonable question. I accept that you might think it is, but for instance, while I consider it an interesting question, I don't consider it an important one or one that we definitely have a reason to ask in a serious fashion. We do exist on some level, that is clear; but asking "why" may be as irrelevant as asking why the breeze blew a particular mote of dust in your face. So first, the question itself is "questionable", and secondly, it doesn't relate to the situation that science isn't there to disprove assertions that lack evidence; god, or pink, attic-dwelling unicorns. Science is there to deal with evidence and theory. It's a mechanism for dealing with consensual manifestations of reality. Internalized personal experiences are not consensual, even when reported; so science leaves them alone.
So that leaves either a universe without a cause or some kind of immaterial-reality/God, so the probability is looking a lot better than pink unicorns, eh?
Sorry, I don't buy either your assertion or your conclusion. The universe could be lots of things, no doubt some of which we've not yet considered. But all the evidence leans towards it being simple physical reality, and none towards any other conclusion, so I'll stick with reality rather than god or unicorns.
At this point I must make a comment on what you have written. You seem to think that this is an argument about the lack of probability and evidence for the existence of God, and foil my arguments with statements to that effect, but without addressing my responses to what I previously wrote. So I am assuming now that you tacitly, at least, agree that my responses do demonstrate the rationaility of christianity (or at least 'Catholic' christianity).
I try not to address matters that are internal to you. They are not internal to me, so they are not relevant to any argument I might make. No disrespect intended (in fact, quite the opposite.) I am perfectly willing to stipulate that Christianity is a relatively complete self-referencing system of reasoning that succeeds brilliantly in excluding physical reality from its domain. I do not, however, think that this means that it is valid in the sense of representing any form of absolute "truth." Again, quite the contrary; I see no reason whatsoever to accept its precepts until it can account for, and predict, reality. Science simply does a much, much better job at dealing with reality, hence my concerted lean in that direction. And when I say "better job", I am vastly understating my case; religion, as you say, tries to deal with something I am utterly unconvinced of, to wit, "things above nature" and fails to deal with reality at all. Science, on the other hand, deals with reality, while reality, as it were, continually "deals with me." So I need science; I have to deal with reality. I don't need religion -- "things above reality" have not "dealt with me" in any manner I have ever been able to detect.
But religions concern themselves with that which above nature.
Exactly. And I have seen nothing that indicates there is anything "above nature." We're back to pink unicorns, ghosts, elves, and channeling. I have seen nothing to indicate I need a system to deal with them, either. And it follows that no superstition needs to be enshrined in law or society, for precisely the same reasons. But I do need a system to deal with reality. That system, by its very nature, renders systems that try to describe issues "above reality" irrelevant.
The religious have more than evidence: they have proof; they just can't demonstrate it.
If it isn't consensual proof, it has no value to anyone but t
I think that "US citizens don't seem the least be inclined" to use force because the vast majority of them disagree with your assessment, that the "government is out of control" (well, at least not to the extent that calls for armed insurrection).
I think you're absolutely correct.
I think that a goodly portion of the body politic is skeptical about all the nefarious motives that have been imputed on the current administration.
Also agreed. However, as near as I can figure, the vast majority of the citizens don't have a clue what is going on. Very few people I talk to can tell me even generally what is in the constitution, much less have an informed opinion on the specifics, and how they might relate to the goings-on in Washington recently. Or about how the constitution relates to them, or how it should.
But they know what is going on re "Survivor", or the argument between Rosie and Trump.
And considering that, I suppose I'm not all that willing to leave my fate up to them.
Oh well, I guess we'll know for sure when GWB refuses to vacate the White House in January '09, eh?
I don't think our police state will change at all with the next election, nor do I seriously consider it likely that Bush will attempt to install himself as dictator, though there are days I do wonder. If Bush did refuse to leave, I'm sure he'd do it under cover of another of his pet legislators, duly writing some fabulous law that he can attach a signing statement to, smirking all the while.:)
In short, I don't think Bush is the problem. He's part of the problem in that he's a willing element of the police state, but it neither depends on him nor suffers from a dearth of candidates on either electable slate, within the corporate structure, or within the congress, judiciary and executive.
I hereby deduct one point from your diatribe's validity score for presuming that programmers are artists. I deduct another point for not addressing product issues. I deduct another point for attempting to second-guess marketing of a product you do not understand. I deduct another point for characterizing your criticism as "constructive" when it was simply an opportunity to bluster about web pages. Finally, I deduct another point for being offtopic. Your final score is zero. Thank you for playing.:)
Your comment here might imply to certain people that "the threat of overwhelming force", by which I take it you mean the deprivation of life, liberty, or property/the ability to pursue happiness, is in some way illegitimate in the context of governmental powers
To back the constitution and laws compliant with the constitution, force and threat of force are legitimate, if one accepts the constitution as having one's own endorsement (it is important to note that the constitution was written by people you didn't elect or otherwise empower to represent you, signed by people you did not give legal authority to, and enshrined as the underpinnings for the law of the land without your complicity on any level unless you have so sworn or signed such authority at some point in your life. But that's another issue.) Such use of force standing by itself (as at Kent State) or backing laws that do not comply with the constitution (as in ex post facto punishment or in service of suppressing 6th amendment guarantees), is manifestly illegitimate.
In my view, the government has no legitimate authority beyond that which is granted by the constitution and laws that comply 100% with it, or its legitimate amendments. That means that today, the government is largely acting without any authority at all; just via force and coercion. I'd be willing to go with the constitution, though I think it needs some work. Unfortunately, that's not an option. We're well beyond constitutional government.
Our very government is illegitimate, so all this talk of the rule of law is pointless anyway!
Despite your tone, you've grasped the facts. That is a correct summary. The government is out of control, we can't stop it short of using force ourselves, and US citizens don't seem the least bit inclined to go to that extreme.
If we had a legitimate government, and if Afghanistan actually had attacked us and so we were legitimately waging a legitimate war of self-defense, how would Amendment VI apply to beligerents captured in the war with Afghanistan?
It would not. The geneva convention would apply to them.
I didn't say anything about power. I said authority. The constitution serves (well, is supposed to serve) as a set of limits on, and delineations of, that authority. The problem is that the government has been engaged in a determined series of undertakings that the constitution forbids, and to avoid taking actions that the constitution requires, all without taking the required steps to modify the constitution first.
And by the way, the government's power comes from force and threat of force. Nowhere else. No matter how your poli-sci course might have endeavored to misinform you.
You've probably confused power with popular support; understandable, but incorrect nonetheless.
I think I understood your question. But the problem is we are in Afghanistan as the perpetrators of a war of aggression, fully in character as a police state, a status not authorized by our constitution. So the actual answer is, the laws of our police state apply by means of force and threat of force (as opposed to legitimate authority of government), which means in this case that they are treated as either lawful or unlawful enemy combatants as we please, and tried by a military commission as we please, and subsequently we do with them what we please. We have specifically ruled out anything from the Geneva convention and we have ruled out any other rights as might be construed as having meandered over from the American system of laws and rights as founded in the constitution. See the Military Commissions Act for details.
The constitution does not contain language that gives the nation legitimate paths to follow when we are acting illegitimately. So your question is kind of like asking a murderer if it was legitimate to hack up the victim after killing them. Those people are being held illegitimately because we cannot make aggressive war on another country legitimately, in my view. Nothing we do furthering that process can be legitimate, either.
People in Afghanistan are not subject to US law. Period. So of course the 6th amendment becomes incomprehensible when you try and apply it in such a venue. Legitimate warfare - that is, warfare in defense of the US or its allies - allows for prisoners of war, and in that case, the Geneva convention is to apply. None of this deals with terrorism, that is, the act of a foreign national acting alone or at least not endorsed by any state; we have the authority to take numerous actions within our borders legitimately, but little to take in the face of a sovereign nation other than making diplomatic entreaties for support and action. This is the way it should be. Otherwise, we are asking for Russians (for instance) to step in here whenever they want because they have deemed someone here a terrorist. Consequently, prudence requires that we take steps to control terrorism here so that we are not put in the position of having to beg another country to take actions we wish to see taken, specifically because they may not do it, or them. National sovereignty must be observed or we will have much bigger problems than we do now, and in fairly short order.
When the only thing preventing one nation from invading another is force of arms, we're back to a collection of armed camps, and that's not a direction we should be going. Unfortunately, that is the attitude of the Bush administration, as we see in the series of armed attacks made against other countries without actual provocation from those nations.
Afghanistan did not attack us, or an ally; nor did Iraq. We should not be there in a war-making capacity. Anything we do in such a capacity is illegitimate. That includes every action taken consequent to, and in support of, those actions.
All this is just one of the problems that has come about because we no longer pay heed to the constitution at a national level; our very government is illegitimate, and for my part, I am not the least bit surprised to see it undertake numerous illegitimate actions that make little or no sense, or appear to be patently unconstitutional, because that is its very nature today.
The problem for US citizens is that habeas corpus has been suspended for them by recent unconstitutional legislation, and in such a way that no challenge is possible because no one knows where they are being kept, why they were taken, or who they were taken by. Might have been a kidnapping by a ragtag group of manic Islamists as much as a taking by some nebulous "federal authority." And of course the prisoner is of no help; he has no representation, no ability to contact anyone, no prospect of a trial, or even of a speedy determination if he or she is actually an enemy combatant.
Habeas corpus is gone, and with it, every part of the 6th amendment. For US citizens, much less for those who are not. And for those who say "not when the supreme court gets after it", unfortunately, that won't stop the government from its takings and subsequent malfeasance in the meantime, will it?
To be brief, I don't consider the fact that something illegal was done in the past, to be a precedent that says that said act is now legal. In other words, I don't see that there has been any mud at all. The ability of the congress to suspend habeas corpus in time of war is written in. That's fine, as far as it goes, however we are not at war, and that's not what this law does.
Aside from that, the constitution can be changed by several methods; none of those have been pursued. Therefore, VI stands as a restatement, with no changes.
Either the government's authority comes legitimately from the constitution, or it comes from somewhere else, illegitimately, because there is no other legitimate path. In this case, it is (as per usual, I might add) the threat of overwhelming force.
And good grief man, get a spelling checker, failing other solutions. That was downright painful to read through.
If a particular person is held at Gitmo for crimes committed in Afghanistan, what sort of people will comprise the jury?
If you're presuming that I support such detainment, stop right there: I don't. However: I would presume that prisoners of a police state are subject to the laws that the police state has forced on its legitimate citizens, however, and indeed that seems to be the way it is working out.
Ultimately, I don't think that Amendment VI applies to the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the manner you're suggesting.
No, you missed the point I was trying to make. Amendment VI is habaes corpus, pretty much, (re)stated because like the rest of the bill of rights, the founders couldn't quite convince themselves that what was obvious to them, would be obvious to evil turds like Gonzales. And they were quite right. It's not a question of it "applying" to habeas corpus. Just read it. What do you think it is saying, what meaning is it passing along? Now, what does habeas corpus mean?
Under the new law, Bush can declare any non-citizen an "unlawful enemy combatant"
This is a minimizing and factually incorrect description of what the law accomplishes.
If you actually read the law, you'll see that anyone -- not just "foreigners" -- can be taken and held indefinitely while the government "makes determination whether the prisoner is an enemy combatant" at any speed it chooses to get after such a task, which means that anyone, anywhere in the USA, can be legally taken without notice, held without representation, counsel, hearing, never mind "speedy", or any other "right" as we like to think of them and as the 6th amendment lays out at least to some degree.
Most US citizens have no idea just how bad this law is. I'm delighted to see it being discussed. And yes, you're absolutely right, everyone is threatened. Just don't assume this law doesn't threaten us, the citizens of the United States, equally. It does.
the Constitution (which *is* a legal document, and from which all authority in the United States derives)
Let me fix that for you. This is not a "quibble", this is a significant change that makes your statement actually reflect reality:
the Constitution (which *is* a legal document, and from which all LEGITIMATE authority in the United States derives, whilst the rest derives from overwhelming threat of force and capitulation of its citizens to that threat)
Gonzales could have phrased his answer in a form more pleasing to the public. But he is not just "technically right". He is fundamentally right, and the principle underlying his answer is a greater defense of our liberty than a position that the Constitution is the fount of our rights.
Again, I refer you to Amendment VI:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Sure, I'll explain. You see, an article like this contains examples of earlier efforts in order to set a counter-point tone for the actual subject matter at hand. In order to retrieve (that is, understand and store in your head) the actual information being presented in the article, you have to forge ahead and read the entire presentation. This will reveal to you the entire structure of the information presented therein, and reveal to you the content that is hidden from those who only read until they find a sentence that satisfies their preconceptions, or perhaps startles them. I give you this gift of article reading technology not to obligate you, but to teach you how to fish, as it were. Now, go back, start at the beginning, and read to the end. Skip nothing. You'll be amazed at the knowledge this incredible "reading technology" opens up to you! You can even pass it on to your children some day.
No, no, don't thank me. I am a modern day knight; I live to serve.
I've been insulated from this kind of humor all my life, and frankly, it made me want to bolt. I'm trying to resist, but my capacity for remaining grounded has charged off over the horizon, transforming me from a person who inducts current events into their personality to one who follows an entirely different arc.
As the thing requires being kept above -20 to work, put it in a well-insulated box with an electric heater and see to it that the heater comes on if the temperature goes near -20. A heater working at those temperatures, and only looking for a rise of a few degrees in a very small volume, wouldn't consume much energy at all, and it can tap the ultracap for energy, or simply be plugged in. Or keep your car in a garage. Or both. Hell, around here, we have to plug in our cars now when it gets around -20, because gas engines don't work very well when they get that cold, either. My car has both battery and engine-block heaters.
Where I live (Montana) we see -40 once or twice a year in a cold year. Not yet this year, though we've been down to -20 once. I would *love* to have this kind of clean, high rate, long-lifetime energy storage available, and not just for cars. The cold, we know how to beat. Energy storage -- that's the issue.
I'm a lot more concerned about materials availability and manufacturing practicality than I am any of these supposed limits; if they can just make them so they work under limited circumstances, I'm pretty sure we can adjust the circumstances if we cannot adjust the ultracaps themselves. Electricity is particularly friendly to voltage and current conversions. The available power's the same, or at least, barring the efficiency losses of conversion, which aren't horrible. And anyone who is saying that the environment is a problem is ignoring our demonstrated ability to create just about any environment we want, wherever we want to.
Oh, I think that's a little excessive. Confiscation of your computer and a public whipping would satisfy me.
Re:Let it rest in peace!
on
AmigaOS 4
·
· Score: 1
Learned a little more; it's a PPC project, so, no, it won't work on my Macbook, which is a dual core Intel. Sigh.
Re:Let it rest in peace!
on
AmigaOS 4
·
· Score: 1
Does UAE not work on your Macbook?
Wasn't aware of it. Googling got me to the sourceforge page for the Mac version; so far (just a few minutes in) it is unclear if it is PPC, Intel, both, must be compiled, diskimage, or what. But thanks for the pointer. I'll look it over!
Re:Switching XP - Amiga
on
AmigaOS 4
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
From your eulogy:
To be honest, not even Amiga can lay claim to that title ["inventor" of microcomputer-level multitasking], as OS-9 was running on the TRS-80 Color Computer well before Amiga's release.
Actually, OS-9 was running on 6809 based GIMIX and SWTPC systems well before the Coco ever saw the light of day. I still have working SS-50 systems that run it (and FLEX.) They also ran OS9 a lot better than the Coco could, because the Coco's hardware was uber-cheap compared to the (literally) gold-plated machines from GIMIX, not to mention that the GIMIX machines could support a lot more RAM, which, as we know, is definitely an issue in a non-VM multitasking system.:)
The Altair/S100 and SWTPC/SS50 machines started everything, pretty much.
Slashdot Mirror
No. It won't change what the software can do one bit. More particularly, I'm not the least bit interested in marketing the software on what an exceptional person can do with it (and that's why the gallery is a collection any user can contribute to.) If indeed you are as exceptional as you claim, then the 70 megs of data on the site, which contain hundreds of specific examples of various kinds would be able to speak to you, regardless of the resolution or subject matter.
The icons are sizable, text labeled (or not), draggable into toolboxes, and keyed with color and flags for various extra functionality. Which, if you had bothered to read the site, you would know. In fact, those icons are a great deal more functional than most icons in most programs. Regarding the "3.1-esque" remark, again, this has nothing to do with the software's functionality from the user standpoint, though it does reflect how long the product has been shipping - 15 years. We don't change icons that users have gotten used to unless there is a concrete reason to do so, and fashion isn't such a reason.
The terrain render is just a visualizer, not a final renderer (as you would know if you had done anything but skim, looking for talking points.) The terrain tools in the software that are of interest to a terrain manipulator are manipulation tools; craters, exfoliation, steepness, entrainment and so forth. The tools are designed to let you modify heightfields; the pre-render is to let you see what you're doing as a heightfield without having to go back and forth between your terrain software and our manipulation software.
Depends on the people we're trying to reach, doesn't it? The more pro-level comparisons we get into, the more the average person goes "what the heck are they talking about" and as you should have figured out from the pricing, we're not the least bit interested in zeroing in on the pro market. The really good pros find us anyway, because they're actually looking to see what features are offered instead of skimming for things to bitch about without checking context, as you have done here. The average person simply goes "wow, those morphs look neat, I'd like to do that" and amazingly enough, they can, because the examples we provide are easily replicated.
Also - to an actual pro - there are plenty of clues in those examples as to why one might be interested in using our morphing software; as you have clearly singled yourself out as a pro, I'll leave those things as an exercise for you to figure out. We put the very first morphing product on a desktop PC, ever - even pre-dating the old Elastic Reality you mention - and we know a thing or two about it.
WinImages is optimized for speed. Discrete layer modes are considerably faster than layer modes that switch modes (and plugging in actual layer modes in response to switch modes is ri
Explain to me please, exactly what you have in mind where the government can imprison you when they do not have criminal prosecution in mind.
The sixth deals with what the government has to do once you're charged, jailed or not.
But -- since they won't let you talk to anyone under these new rules, and they won't tell anyone you're there... and this can go on indefinitely... how is any of the 6th ever going to come into play unless they decide to give it to you on an individual basis? Obviously, it can't. So by eliminating the ability to question one's imprisonment (and a bunch of other things), they're eliminated every other right you ever might have been able to lay claim to.
The way it used to be was if you were jailed, all manner of procedures kicked in. Time limits, representation, a hearing... that stuff is down the tubes because as long as it is at the whim of the government, it is no longer an assurance, it is at best a favor.
Do you see how habeas corpus bears on the sixth now? The sixth, by its very nature, elaborates and stands upon habeas corpus. Without it, the sixth is nothing.
I am not convinced that this is a reasonable question. I accept that you might think it is, but for instance, while I consider it an interesting question, I don't consider it an important one or one that we definitely have a reason to ask in a serious fashion. We do exist on some level, that is clear; but asking "why" may be as irrelevant as asking why the breeze blew a particular mote of dust in your face. So first, the question itself is "questionable", and secondly, it doesn't relate to the situation that science isn't there to disprove assertions that lack evidence; god, or pink, attic-dwelling unicorns. Science is there to deal with evidence and theory. It's a mechanism for dealing with consensual manifestations of reality. Internalized personal experiences are not consensual, even when reported; so science leaves them alone.
Sorry, I don't buy either your assertion or your conclusion. The universe could be lots of things, no doubt some of which we've not yet considered. But all the evidence leans towards it being simple physical reality, and none towards any other conclusion, so I'll stick with reality rather than god or unicorns.
I try not to address matters that are internal to you. They are not internal to me, so they are not relevant to any argument I might make. No disrespect intended (in fact, quite the opposite.) I am perfectly willing to stipulate that Christianity is a relatively complete self-referencing system of reasoning that succeeds brilliantly in excluding physical reality from its domain. I do not, however, think that this means that it is valid in the sense of representing any form of absolute "truth." Again, quite the contrary; I see no reason whatsoever to accept its precepts until it can account for, and predict, reality. Science simply does a much, much better job at dealing with reality, hence my concerted lean in that direction. And when I say "better job", I am vastly understating my case; religion, as you say, tries to deal with something I am utterly unconvinced of, to wit, "things above nature" and fails to deal with reality at all. Science, on the other hand, deals with reality, while reality, as it were, continually "deals with me." So I need science; I have to deal with reality. I don't need religion -- "things above reality" have not "dealt with me" in any manner I have ever been able to detect.
Exactly. And I have seen nothing that indicates there is anything "above nature." We're back to pink unicorns, ghosts, elves, and channeling. I have seen nothing to indicate I need a system to deal with them, either. And it follows that no superstition needs to be enshrined in law or society, for precisely the same reasons. But I do need a system to deal with reality. That system, by its very nature, renders systems that try to describe issues "above reality" irrelevant.
If it isn't consensual proof, it has no value to anyone but t
I think you're absolutely correct.
Also agreed. However, as near as I can figure, the vast majority of the citizens don't have a clue what is going on. Very few people I talk to can tell me even generally what is in the constitution, much less have an informed opinion on the specifics, and how they might relate to the goings-on in Washington recently. Or about how the constitution relates to them, or how it should.
But they know what is going on re "Survivor", or the argument between Rosie and Trump.
And considering that, I suppose I'm not all that willing to leave my fate up to them.
I don't think our police state will change at all with the next election, nor do I seriously consider it likely that Bush will attempt to install himself as dictator, though there are days I do wonder. If Bush did refuse to leave, I'm sure he'd do it under cover of another of his pet legislators, duly writing some fabulous law that he can attach a signing statement to, smirking all the while. :)
In short, I don't think Bush is the problem. He's part of the problem in that he's a willing element of the police state, but it neither depends on him nor suffers from a dearth of candidates on either electable slate, within the corporate structure, or within the congress, judiciary and executive.
I hereby deduct one point from your diatribe's validity score for presuming that programmers are artists. I deduct another point for not addressing product issues. I deduct another point for attempting to second-guess marketing of a product you do not understand. I deduct another point for characterizing your criticism as "constructive" when it was simply an opportunity to bluster about web pages. Finally, I deduct another point for being offtopic. Your final score is zero. Thank you for playing. :)
I'm not sure how that is relevant to the basic illegitimacy of the law, but yes, it is happening:
Yaser Esam Hamdi.
To back the constitution and laws compliant with the constitution, force and threat of force are legitimate, if one accepts the constitution as having one's own endorsement (it is important to note that the constitution was written by people you didn't elect or otherwise empower to represent you, signed by people you did not give legal authority to, and enshrined as the underpinnings for the law of the land without your complicity on any level unless you have so sworn or signed such authority at some point in your life. But that's another issue.) Such use of force standing by itself (as at Kent State) or backing laws that do not comply with the constitution (as in ex post facto punishment or in service of suppressing 6th amendment guarantees), is manifestly illegitimate.
In my view, the government has no legitimate authority beyond that which is granted by the constitution and laws that comply 100% with it, or its legitimate amendments. That means that today, the government is largely acting without any authority at all; just via force and coercion. I'd be willing to go with the constitution, though I think it needs some work. Unfortunately, that's not an option. We're well beyond constitutional government.
Despite your tone, you've grasped the facts. That is a correct summary. The government is out of control, we can't stop it short of using force ourselves, and US citizens don't seem the least bit inclined to go to that extreme.
It would not. The geneva convention would apply to them.
I didn't say anything about power. I said authority. The constitution serves (well, is supposed to serve) as a set of limits on, and delineations of, that authority. The problem is that the government has been engaged in a determined series of undertakings that the constitution forbids, and to avoid taking actions that the constitution requires, all without taking the required steps to modify the constitution first.
And by the way, the government's power comes from force and threat of force. Nowhere else. No matter how your poli-sci course might have endeavored to misinform you.
You've probably confused power with popular support; understandable, but incorrect nonetheless.
I think I understood your question. But the problem is we are in Afghanistan as the perpetrators of a war of aggression, fully in character as a police state, a status not authorized by our constitution. So the actual answer is, the laws of our police state apply by means of force and threat of force (as opposed to legitimate authority of government), which means in this case that they are treated as either lawful or unlawful enemy combatants as we please, and tried by a military commission as we please, and subsequently we do with them what we please. We have specifically ruled out anything from the Geneva convention and we have ruled out any other rights as might be construed as having meandered over from the American system of laws and rights as founded in the constitution. See the Military Commissions Act for details.
The constitution does not contain language that gives the nation legitimate paths to follow when we are acting illegitimately. So your question is kind of like asking a murderer if it was legitimate to hack up the victim after killing them. Those people are being held illegitimately because we cannot make aggressive war on another country legitimately, in my view. Nothing we do furthering that process can be legitimate, either.
People in Afghanistan are not subject to US law. Period. So of course the 6th amendment becomes incomprehensible when you try and apply it in such a venue. Legitimate warfare - that is, warfare in defense of the US or its allies - allows for prisoners of war, and in that case, the Geneva convention is to apply. None of this deals with terrorism, that is, the act of a foreign national acting alone or at least not endorsed by any state; we have the authority to take numerous actions within our borders legitimately, but little to take in the face of a sovereign nation other than making diplomatic entreaties for support and action. This is the way it should be. Otherwise, we are asking for Russians (for instance) to step in here whenever they want because they have deemed someone here a terrorist. Consequently, prudence requires that we take steps to control terrorism here so that we are not put in the position of having to beg another country to take actions we wish to see taken, specifically because they may not do it, or them. National sovereignty must be observed or we will have much bigger problems than we do now, and in fairly short order.
When the only thing preventing one nation from invading another is force of arms, we're back to a collection of armed camps, and that's not a direction we should be going. Unfortunately, that is the attitude of the Bush administration, as we see in the series of armed attacks made against other countries without actual provocation from those nations.
Afghanistan did not attack us, or an ally; nor did Iraq. We should not be there in a war-making capacity. Anything we do in such a capacity is illegitimate. That includes every action taken consequent to, and in support of, those actions.
All this is just one of the problems that has come about because we no longer pay heed to the constitution at a national level; our very government is illegitimate, and for my part, I am not the least bit surprised to see it undertake numerous illegitimate actions that make little or no sense, or appear to be patently unconstitutional, because that is its very nature today.
The problem for US citizens is that habeas corpus has been suspended for them by recent unconstitutional legislation, and in such a way that no challenge is possible because no one knows where they are being kept, why they were taken, or who they were taken by. Might have been a kidnapping by a ragtag group of manic Islamists as much as a taking by some nebulous "federal authority." And of course the prisoner is of no help; he has no representation, no ability to contact anyone, no prospect of a trial, or even of a speedy determination if he or she is actually an enemy combatant.
Habeas corpus is gone, and with it, every part of the 6th amendment. For US citizens, much less for those who are not. And for those who say "not when the supreme court gets after it", unfortunately, that won't stop the government from its takings and subsequent malfeasance in the meantime, will it?
To be brief, I don't consider the fact that something illegal was done in the past, to be a precedent that says that said act is now legal. In other words, I don't see that there has been any mud at all. The ability of the congress to suspend habeas corpus in time of war is written in. That's fine, as far as it goes, however we are not at war, and that's not what this law does. Aside from that, the constitution can be changed by several methods; none of those have been pursued. Therefore, VI stands as a restatement, with no changes.
Either the government's authority comes legitimately from the constitution, or it comes from somewhere else, illegitimately, because there is no other legitimate path. In this case, it is (as per usual, I might add) the threat of overwhelming force.
And good grief man, get a spelling checker, failing other solutions. That was downright painful to read through.
If you're presuming that I support such detainment, stop right there: I don't. However: I would presume that prisoners of a police state are subject to the laws that the police state has forced on its legitimate citizens, however, and indeed that seems to be the way it is working out.
No, you missed the point I was trying to make. Amendment VI is habaes corpus, pretty much, (re)stated because like the rest of the bill of rights, the founders couldn't quite convince themselves that what was obvious to them, would be obvious to evil turds like Gonzales. And they were quite right. It's not a question of it "applying" to habeas corpus. Just read it. What do you think it is saying, what meaning is it passing along? Now, what does habeas corpus mean?
This is a minimizing and factually incorrect description of what the law accomplishes.
If you actually read the law, you'll see that anyone -- not just "foreigners" -- can be taken and held indefinitely while the government "makes determination whether the prisoner is an enemy combatant" at any speed it chooses to get after such a task, which means that anyone, anywhere in the USA, can be legally taken without notice, held without representation, counsel, hearing, never mind "speedy", or any other "right" as we like to think of them and as the 6th amendment lays out at least to some degree.
Most US citizens have no idea just how bad this law is. I'm delighted to see it being discussed. And yes, you're absolutely right, everyone is threatened. Just don't assume this law doesn't threaten us, the citizens of the United States, equally. It does.
Let me fix that for you. This is not a "quibble", this is a significant change that makes your statement actually reflect reality:
Again, I refer you to Amendment VI:
Or got rid of significant amounts of bad law?
I think ol' Alberto is ignoring amendment 6:
Seems pretty clear to me.
Sure, I'll explain. You see, an article like this contains examples of earlier efforts in order to set a counter-point tone for the actual subject matter at hand. In order to retrieve (that is, understand and store in your head) the actual information being presented in the article, you have to forge ahead and read the entire presentation. This will reveal to you the entire structure of the information presented therein, and reveal to you the content that is hidden from those who only read until they find a sentence that satisfies their preconceptions, or perhaps startles them. I give you this gift of article reading technology not to obligate you, but to teach you how to fish, as it were. Now, go back, start at the beginning, and read to the end. Skip nothing. You'll be amazed at the knowledge this incredible "reading technology" opens up to you! You can even pass it on to your children some day.
No, no, don't thank me. I am a modern day knight; I live to serve.
I've been insulated from this kind of humor all my life, and frankly, it made me want to bolt. I'm trying to resist, but my capacity for remaining grounded has charged off over the horizon, transforming me from a person who inducts current events into their personality to one who follows an entirely different arc.
This temperature "issue" is a red herring.
As the thing requires being kept above -20 to work, put it in a well-insulated box with an electric heater and see to it that the heater comes on if the temperature goes near -20. A heater working at those temperatures, and only looking for a rise of a few degrees in a very small volume, wouldn't consume much energy at all, and it can tap the ultracap for energy, or simply be plugged in. Or keep your car in a garage. Or both. Hell, around here, we have to plug in our cars now when it gets around -20, because gas engines don't work very well when they get that cold, either. My car has both battery and engine-block heaters.
Where I live (Montana) we see -40 once or twice a year in a cold year. Not yet this year, though we've been down to -20 once. I would *love* to have this kind of clean, high rate, long-lifetime energy storage available, and not just for cars. The cold, we know how to beat. Energy storage -- that's the issue.
I'm a lot more concerned about materials availability and manufacturing practicality than I am any of these supposed limits; if they can just make them so they work under limited circumstances, I'm pretty sure we can adjust the circumstances if we cannot adjust the ultracaps themselves. Electricity is particularly friendly to voltage and current conversions. The available power's the same, or at least, barring the efficiency losses of conversion, which aren't horrible. And anyone who is saying that the environment is a problem is ignoring our demonstrated ability to create just about any environment we want, wherever we want to.
Oh, I think that's a little excessive. Confiscation of your computer and a public whipping would satisfy me.
Learned a little more; it's a PPC project, so, no, it won't work on my Macbook, which is a dual core Intel. Sigh.
Wasn't aware of it. Googling got me to the sourceforge page for the Mac version; so far (just a few minutes in) it is unclear if it is PPC, Intel, both, must be compiled, diskimage, or what. But thanks for the pointer. I'll look it over!
From your eulogy:
Actually, OS-9 was running on 6809 based GIMIX and SWTPC systems well before the Coco ever saw the light of day. I still have working SS-50 systems that run it (and FLEX.) They also ran OS9 a lot better than the Coco could, because the Coco's hardware was uber-cheap compared to the (literally) gold-plated machines from GIMIX, not to mention that the GIMIX machines could support a lot more RAM, which, as we know, is definitely an issue in a non-VM multitasking system. :)
The Altair/S100 and SWTPC/SS50 machines started everything, pretty much.