PDA

View Full Version : Scary stuff about Photoshop CS - it's watching you!



Stranahan
01-09-2004, 08:46 PM
Photoshop CS has code built in that scans your images to make sure you are a good person - scary stuff - read about it here...


http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/[email protected]@.2ccf3d27

Log in as guest

ikaruz
01-09-2004, 09:03 PM
I though it was a joke at first, but be sure it for real. Although I haven't tried scanning any bills yet, but I did try and open up a low-res image somebody had posted from CGTalk (http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=114118&perpage=15&pagenumber=4) and to my surprise it did not open:confused:

little5points
01-09-2004, 10:10 PM
I wish you would answer you're email, Lee :(

GruvSyco
01-09-2004, 10:41 PM
Actually once I started thinking about this, it didn't bother me so much. Potentially technology like this could be used to protect digital art from theft, a problem that seems to be getting more and more popular these days. I say make the watermarking that gets detected available for artists to put on their own work as well.

As far as circumvention goes, adobe has already stated that the current implementation is equivalent of a 1.0 release. It will, I'm sure be strengthened in the future. Not neccessarily making it impossible to circumvent but probably more difficult for the casual user.

Having said that... Adobe lost me with Activation. I usually upgrade every other version of the my adobe products but no longer. Mirage will be my paint/image editing app of choice for the future. They, like Newtek actually give you fairly free reign with your license... it's not tied to an OS or a specific machine. Companies need to stop treating legit customers like criminals... The criminals are always going to do their criminal activities, why punish the good guys in the process.

js33
01-09-2004, 11:22 PM
Damn, now the conterfieters will have to use something else. :D

Cheers,
JS

Beamtracer
01-09-2004, 11:26 PM
Photoshop CS

CS = Centralized Scanning (of your computer!)

scott_krehbiel
01-10-2004, 01:39 AM
Picture this: you go and buy a new DVD of your favorite movie,
invite a few friends over and want to watch it on your big
digital TV.

Instead of showing the movie, your TV displays a message that
the screen size limit of the DVD is smaller than your screen.

Welcome to the digital age!

This way, the movie companies could prevent people from
having a nice big-screen viewing outside of the theatre.

I mean, how does it prevent piracy that your DVD player
forces you to watch a company logo for 1 minute before
your movie? This has nothing to do with law, but it's
just corporations using the public like pawns.

Look at XM radio. What if the rest of the world was
like that? You had to have a digital access code to watch
any television station - and the station could control the
operation of your VCR. What if they could even control
the volume on your wonderful digital television, so you
couldn't mute the commercials?

The best example of the problems with the digital age:
Pop-up ads. What idiot would design a browser so that
a website could take control of your computer away from you?
Also, what idiot would design an EMail app so that incoming
email could issue commands to your computer?


Just For Argument: Imagine if you took your car to the local oil change shop
for service. 3,000 miles later, as you're driving, your
car takes over and begins driving itself to the same car repair
shop - despite your turning the wheel otherwise. It refuses
to drive anywhere else, but forces you to pay to have another
oil change before it'll let you drive again. You later find out that
the car shop had modified your car to do their bidding.
This fictional situation would not be considered a "software
upgrade" but would instead be considered a property crime.
So why is it any different when it's our computers that are
hijacked? Like with spy software. After all, isn't your computer
your personal property - no matter what OS you've licensed
to run on it?

Scott

scott_krehbiel
01-10-2004, 01:44 AM
I should clarify that I'm not against digital processing,
nor computers or anything like that.

I'm just pointing out that like Photoshop butting into
your personal affairs and Adobe playing mommy and daddy,
electronics are now doing the same thing. It really is scary.

What happens when your stove refuses to cook eggs unless
it has a signed permission slip from your doctor?

If I sound paranoid, please forgive - I'm quite exhausted
while writing this.

peace,
Scott

Adrian Lopez
01-10-2004, 02:43 AM
The scariest thing about all this, aside from unanswered questions about what prompted Adobe and Jasc to adopt such measures, is the proposed European Union law that would mandate anti-counterfeiting measures in image manipulation software (link to article (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1430993,00.asp)).

Taking into account the secretive nature of the anti-counterfeiting scheme used in Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro, a mandate to incorporate such technology could become a problem for Open Source software such as The Gimp. How do you distribute the source without revealing the secret of the scheme? How indeed do you stop people from removing the anti-counterfeiting software from an open source project?

Image manipulation software is not the place for such restrictions. A better solution, if they really need one, is to have printers print out an invisible serial number (many already do this).

grundgedanke
01-10-2004, 03:06 AM
what a luck that i am very happy and comfortable with my photoshop 6...

...and i dont think that this will change in the next couple of month / years...

i see no reason to buy me an update :)

Hervé
01-10-2004, 05:38 AM
no big deal, gossip.... ha ha ha

Hiraghm
01-10-2004, 07:48 AM
I saw this on The Screensavers yesterday. Even the show's hostess was disturbed by the implications.

Obviously, Adobe thinks they are superior to God. Even God leaves it up to the individual to choose right or wrong.
This is just another extension of the "preventive" laws I've hated for 20 years or more. Instead of letting the individual choose, and then punishing him for choosing wrong, governments, and now corporations, take measures to prevent him from choosing at all.

ballew
01-10-2004, 07:52 AM
I noticed in that forum that Adobe requires activation with Photoshop CS. Did Adobe start requiring activation on all their CS apps or was it required in ealier versions?

Craig

ikaruz
01-10-2004, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by ballew
I noticed in that forum that Adobe requires activation with Photoshop CS. Did Adobe start requiring activation on all their CS apps or was it required in ealier versions?

Craig
Adobe requires product activation only on the PC version of Photoshop. Photoshop is the only product that requires it. I'm sure next release you'll be seeing more adobe products with activation. Acutally product activation was seemless and quick after installation, don't see what the major fuss that alot of people have about it is.

Beamtracer
01-10-2004, 08:28 AM
Activation is new. Adobe didn't require it in Photoshop 7.

Adobe Photoshop has for a while scanned your computer and your network, checking to see if there are other copies of Photoshop and preventing you from loading them at the same time.

Scanning for images of money is pretty bizarre.

It plays havoc with graphic artists, slowing their machines down while it compares each image with a database of what money should look like.

The European Union were silly to introduce the Euro onto paper money that's easily copied. The US $ is even easier to counterfeit.

They should have introduced plastic polymer bank notes like some countries in the Asia Pacific region have. These notes are partially transparent and cannot be successfully copied in Photoshop.

ballew
01-10-2004, 08:44 AM
Acutally product activation was seemless and quick after installation, don't see what the major fuss that alot of people have about it is.

The problem I have is that I occassionally reformat my hard drive and do a clean install of my OS and all apps. My understanding of Adobe's activation policy is that after the second time I do this, I have to call them and try to convince them to let me use the product for which I have already paid. I don't mind security measures to foil piracy (ie dongles, etc.), but I do mind loosing control of something I have already purchased or licensed.

If I have a choice, I will spend my money elsewhere than on a product that will require activation

Craig

Alan Daniels
01-10-2004, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by GruvSyco
Actually once I started thinking about this, it didn't bother me so much. Potentially technology like this could be used to protect digital art from theft, a problem that seems to be getting more and more popular these days.

Censorship software this intrusive will definitely NOT stop with just pictures of money. Just wait until they day that someone takes a street photo, and finds that Photoshop refuses to edit the image because it happens to include a billboard with a Coca-Cola logo on it. It may sound implausible now, so fit me with a tin-foil hat if you must, but given five or ten years of technological progress, it won't sound so silly. Adobe's just testing the waters, you see. They're seeing if their customers are willing to allow Adobe to take the ability to make moral decisions away from them.

For me, the day they had Dmitry Sklyarov arrested, I decided right then and there that Adobe would never see another dime of my money, EVER. Everything Adobe's done since then has just made me feel better about my decision.

Steve McRae
01-10-2004, 09:09 AM
. . . if you just rebuild windows all you have to do is reactivate it . . . I have a image that I replace all the time on my notebook and when I install Photoshop I just re-activate it . . .

. . . while I dislike activation and this new currency protection, I quite like Adobes licencing scheme. They allow their software to be installed on 1 desktop and 1 notebook machine which compared to many companies is quite generous . . .

note: when I installed a DVD drive on my notebook, Photoshop CS wanted to call the mothership again to reactivate my product . . .

jevinstudios
01-10-2004, 09:39 AM
Government intrusion into our private lives and workplaces is becoming a part of living in the new milennium -- like it or not. We are all marked with a number (in the U.S., the Social Security number), which is used frequently to track everything from what doctors you see, who insures you and your vehicle, how much $$ you have in the bank and what you spend it on, etc. Talk about the "Mark of the Beast" -- could this be what the book of Revelations was talking about? Now, you see DCC software adapting government protection measures.

Look at NetNanny, the V-Chip, T-VO (did anyone that subscribes to this service know that T-VO tracks everything you watch, stores the data under your personal file, then puts this data on the market for sale to the same people making the commercials you block out and skip?), etc...... Even Hollywood is working to stamp every production with a copy-protection tattoo -- it ALL boils down to the flow of $$.

Color-coded terror alerts spoon-feed fear to the American public, turning us into trembling citizens afraid of our own shadow (not me, though --personally don't pay attention to this propoganda), while our civil liberties are being handed over in the name of "freedom" and national security.....

This is a very different world today than it was even 5 years ago, and I'm afraid censorship it won't stop with Adobe. This is just the beginning of a trend to capture the public, and control it's actions (do I hear the X-Files theme in the background?)....

A cool quote I saw recently really applies:

"Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither"

As money is GOD, does it surprise anyone that the government is preventing people from counterfeiting a diety?

Stranahan
01-10-2004, 09:47 AM
The problem is that it's not going to stop anyone from counterfeiting. I assume counterfeiters around the world have heard this story and are going to stick with Photoshop 7 or earlier.

I mean, duh.

So - it's not going to stop anyone from breaking the law, if they decide to break the law. There are millions of copies of image processing software out there that counterfeiters can use and if they have to kick it old school, they will.

There won't even be a dent. In fact, all the publicity might INCREASE the number of people trying it.

archiea
01-10-2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by atomman
. . .

. . . while I dislike activation and this new currency protection, I quite like Adobes licencing scheme. They allow their software to be installed on 1 desktop and 1 notebook machine which compared to many companies is quite generous . . .



really? where is that written/ thats a pretty good and ensible policy, as many people own more than one machine....

archiea
01-10-2004, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by little5points
I wish you would answer you're email, Lee :(

This is hysterical.. lee can't show his face without his past haunting him.. C'mon Lee, reply to the poor guy, he just wants his CDs from a 1999 seminar!! :D

jamesl
01-10-2004, 02:54 PM
Good thing I haven't seen a need to upgrade Photoshop since 3.0 :)

js33
01-10-2004, 03:29 PM
Man James, Only 21 posts in 14 years and now this. Still using PS 3. Next you'll tell us you still use DOS at home and create all your models by typing out the vectors in DOS edit. :D

Cheers,
JS

Stranahan
01-10-2004, 03:41 PM
Here's an article on this subject...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4578-2004Jan9.html


It quotes Stephen Burns, an all around good guy...

TyVole
01-10-2004, 03:43 PM
I've read a number of software vendors are adding this technology. I wonder if Newtek's adding it to v8.

Perhaps that's the reason for the delay. :)

jamesl
01-10-2004, 03:44 PM
so what if I DID just stumble out of a time capsule clutching copies of Dpaint IV and ADPro in my gnarled fists? :) Now leave me alone, i gotta try to find a needle for my record player...

Stranahan
01-10-2004, 03:45 PM
Here's an article on the US rules for use of currency...

http://www.treas.gov/usss/money_illustrations.shtml

(Please note that it wouldn't have been possible to make that page with Photoshop CS)

And worldwide...

http://www.rulesforuse.org

Tesselator
01-10-2004, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Activation is new. Adobe didn't require it in Photoshop 7.

Adobe Photoshop has for a while scanned your computer and your network, checking to see if there are other copies of Photoshop and preventing you from loading them at the same time.

Scanning for images of money is pretty bizarre.

It plays havoc with graphic artists, slowing their machines down while it compares each image with a database of what money should look like.


Hehe... I wonder if they know what the money here looks like?
I live in Japan and the bills here use incidence angled ink bumps
for lack of a better word, that makes it nearly impossible to print.
Money images are very usefull for a 3D artist. It's not ilegal in
Japan to scan money not to distribute the scans online. It is
illegal to print it tho.

Here's what Japanese money loos like. Notice the difference
between this and the next image. Almost holographic stamp
marks at either end, a watermark in the center an incedence
ink piles in the motief at lower left corner that doesn'e really
show up good in this "photograph" taken by my little nikon.

Tesselator
01-10-2004, 04:48 PM
Second shot:

archiea
01-10-2004, 04:50 PM
thats like $20 right?

Tesselator
01-10-2004, 04:52 PM
Here on the front of the bill you can see the incidence ink a
little better. Look just under the "2000" in the upper right
area. Tilting the bill will reveal different messages depending
on the angle of tilt. Very cool.

Tesselator
01-10-2004, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by archiea
thats like $20 right?

Yup, depending on the exchange rate.

Maybe $17.50 :D

Adrian Lopez
01-10-2004, 05:24 PM
A post by Markus Khun in Adobe's forums reveals some interesting facts about how the anti-counterfeiting scheme might work:


For those of you curious about how this algorithm detects a banknote, here is a slide of a short talk that I gave to our local research group soon after I discovered the "EURion Constellation" two years ago while experimenting with a new Xerox color photocopier and a 10 euro note:

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/eurion.pdf

The algorithm looks in the blue channel of a color image for little circles and most likely examines the distance distribution encountered. I have discovered a small constellation of just five circles (a bit like Orion with the belt starts merged) that will be rejected by a Xerox color photocopier installed next door from here as a banknote. Black on white circles do not work.

These little yellow, green or orange 1 mm large circles have been on European banknotes for many years. I found them on German marks, British pounds and the euro notes. In the US, they showed up only very recently on the new 20$ bill. On some notes like the euro, the circles are blatantly obvious, whereas on others the artists carefully integrated them into their design. On the 20 pound note, they appear as "notes" in an unlikely short music score, in the old German 50 mark note, they are neatly embedded into the background pattern, and in the new 20 dollar bill, they are used as the 0 of all the yellow 20 number printed across the note. The constellation are probably detected by the fact that the squares of the distances of the circles are integer multiples of the smallest one.

I have later been told that this scheme was invented by Omron and that the circle patter also encodes the issuing bank.

You can see the pattern in the flowers on Tesselators scan of the bill.

js33
01-10-2004, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by jamesl
so what if I DID just stumble out of a time capsule clutching copies of Dpaint IV and ADPro in my gnarled fists? :) Now leave me alone, i gotta try to find a needle for my record player...

Hehehe. I have some cassette and 8 track tapes if you want to catch up on your music. I also have a garage full of Amiga stuff if you want to get the lastest Amiga Toaster update. :D

Cheers,
JS

Tesselator
01-10-2004, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Adrian Lopez
A post by Markus Khun in Adobe's forums reveals some interesting facts about how the anti-counterfeiting scheme might work:



You can see the pattern in the flowers on Tesselators scan of the bill.


These things?:

sire
01-10-2004, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by jevinstudios
Government intrusion into our private lives and workplaces is becoming a part of living in the new milennium -- like it or not.
This is nothing new. States evolve by the need of a society for organisation. Organisation means rules. If the organisation should succeed, the rules have to be followed. Of course, a system which at the same time provides maximum liberty is the optimum. It's a ying-yang thing.


A cool quote I saw recently really applies:

"Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither"

I think it's not that easy. Would you have protested when the institution of police or judiciary has been invented? These institutions interfere in the liberty of the individual to provide security for the rest.

Another example would be building codes. They mean not everyone has the liberty to build a house as he may want, but in turn this provides security.

I'm well aware of the 1984ish dangers. And the Photoshop CS thing is just silly, as Lee has pointed out. Counterfeiters will laugh at it. However, that doesn't mean every crime prevention or data collection measures a state comes up with are necessarily thoroughly bad. Refined organisation needs refined statistics. It has its advantages. The actual problem is, the ordinary citizen can't trust the institutions in power. One can't assume that the authorities always have honest intentions, especially since after all everything is governed by the big money, not morally correct guides.


As money is GOD, does it surprise anyone that the government is preventing people from counterfeiting a diety?
What you see as the reason is true, but not the reason. The money concept can only work if it's at least hard to fake the medium. It's just logical that they go to great lengths trying to avoid it, that's how it has to be.

Adrian Lopez
01-10-2004, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Tesselator
These things?: I think so, yes. Check out the EURion document that Markus Khun linked to (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/eurion.pdf) in the post I quoted. I wonder what would happen if you added those to a non-banknote image.

sire
01-10-2004, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by js33
Hehehe. I have some cassette and 8 track tapes if you want to catch up on your music.
I guess the shellac records I have here are hard to beat - unless you have some edison phonograph wax cylinders that is... :)

But working with Photoshop 3.0, well... I wouldn't want to go further back than 5.0, when they introduced multiple undos. I already was used to this feature from Brilliance 1.0!

Elmar Moelzer
01-10-2004, 07:38 PM
You know this is really odd!
I had to do this a few years back:

http://www.mediastudio-graz.com/html/daff_eng.htm

This was all legal and I even got the original print- sorts from the Austrian national bank for this project.
I have to wonder though, how I would be able to do that now...
Some people really have to think about what they are doing before they are doing something...
CU
Elmar

GruvSyco
01-10-2004, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by Elmar Moelzer
You know this is really odd!
I had to do this a few years back:

http://www.mediastudio-graz.com/html/daff_eng.htm

This was all legal and I even got the original print- sorts from the Austrian national bank for this project.
I have to wonder though, how I would be able to do that now...
Some people really have to think about what they are doing before they are doing something...
CU
Elmar


Really nice to see people reading the referenced links in posts these days. There is no problem with it opening official images given by banks. That is the preferred method according to Adobe.

I really can't believe all this paranoia that is stemming from this.

WizCraker
01-10-2004, 08:56 PM
Adobe deserves to crash and burn after this incident. If I want to scan money and modify it I have the right to do that and no software company like Adobe has the right to dictate how artist can use images such as money.

It just pisses me off that Adobe or any other company think that they have the right to implement stupid and useless features in their software that will do more harm to the honest people that have been able to to manipulate such images in the past and are being told that they can't.

I can't type anymore it just blows my top off just thinking about it.

Adrian Lopez
01-10-2004, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by GruvSyco
Really nice to see people reading the referenced links in posts these days. There is no problem with it opening official images given by banks. That is the preferred method according to Adobe.Preferred by whom? I don't want my software to impose restrictions over manipulation of certain images. Why should I rely on the images provided by the bank? What if the images aren't suitable? What if I want to reproduce a copy of a banknote which contains a printing error? Adobe's "preferred method" would prevent me from doing so.

Besides, there are other concerns besides the ability to legally reproduce banknotes. As I said in a previous post, there are concerns about Open Source software as it relates to a proposed European Union law which would mandate anti-counterfeiting technology in image manipulation software.

CoryC
01-10-2004, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by sire


I think it's not that easy. Would you have protested when the institution of police or judiciary has been invented? These institutions interfere in the liberty of the individual to provide security for the rest.



The quote “Those who would trade safety for freedom deserve neither.” is from Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the American Constitution, the first Secretary of State, the second Vice President, and third President of the United States. He was a key figure in the creation of this country including the judiciary. With this quote he gave the argument that southern slaves were rarely murdered. All they had to do was give up their freedom and dignity to get that safety.

A few more from him:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves. "

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. "


and one he had on Lightwave 8 - "Delay is preferable to error.
"

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." - George Washington

jevinstudios
01-10-2004, 11:03 PM
CoryC -- thanks for the quotes! I saw the "liberty vs. security" one on a bumper sticker the other day, and it stuck in my melon (didn't know where it originated, tho).... Appreciate the follow-up -- excellent historical recitation!

jamesl
01-10-2004, 11:07 PM
it's paraphrased from Benjamin Franklin.

sire
01-11-2004, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by CoryC
The quote “Those who would trade safety for freedom deserve neither.” is from Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the American Constitution, the first Secretary of State, the second Vice President, and third President of the United States. He was a key figure in the creation of this country including the judiciary. With this quote he gave the argument that southern slaves were rarely murdered. All they had to do was give up their freedom and dignity to get that safety.
It's important to know these circumstances, because only in this context the sentence is understandable. Well, I deeply respect Thomas Jefferson, especially for the human rights he established. One has to consider what liberty and slavery was about back then.


"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
In reality there are huge differences in how many goods or money and therefore power each individual owns. So we have to deal with a situation of great unequality. To guarantee the equal rights Jefferson speaks about, there has to be a system which tries to provide justice, because it won't appear by itself. This system will contain laws. So laws are not always bad; they can be, they don't have to.

Liberty always sounds sweet like "you may do what you want". But this alone doesn't work. Paradoxically a state of total liberty for everyone will result in reduced liberty for most of the people. It is possible to gain power through unfair deeds. It doesn't have to be this way, but it is possible and in most cases much easier. Whithout countermeasures the society will be lead by the evil ones which don't care. This was exactly the problem which led to the revolutions of Jeffersons time. The laws have to work in harmony with the equality idea. Not all people are really equal, but the moral rules have to apply to everyone, not only to a certain group of humans. This is what equality is about. Part of it is that laws have to be fair, not to the benefit of some at the expense of others. The laws have to be for the people, not against them.

Still, sometimes some individuals will feel restricted by some laws (or the government which is responsible for them) and may say they were against them. This is logical, because if no one would ever do something which has to be forbidden by some law, there would be no need for such a law. When equal rights are top priority, this always applies to a society (many people which have to live together; equality only makes sense to a plural of elements). So Jefferson says, that the society is more important than the individual. Not the society must adapt to the individual, but the other way around. Actually this is socialism in its purest essence (not the perverted version it became in the Soviet Union etc.). As I said, a system which still provides maximum freedom for the individual is the optimum. More freedom for the individual than healthy for the rest is obviously deprecated.

Back to topic: Who will gain from the freedom to fake banknotes? Concerning Photoshop CS, of course only scanning or processing the image data is not the same as counterfeit. So in this case the interference into personal freedom goes too far (and won't work anyway, as a criminal would just use an older Photoshop version).


BTW, I am still interested if a radical liberal would protest against the institutions of the police and judiciary, because they are exactly that, a trade of liberty/freedom for safety/security. I actually consider myself quite a liberal, but maybe I am asking here for anarchist?

CoryC
01-11-2004, 10:59 AM
yes, I have seen Benjamin Franklin and sometimes George Washington attributed to that quote. Franklins reads a little different ("Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."). I have seen more attributed to Jefferson. Perhaps they both said it. They were friends.


Originally posted by sire
When equal rights are top priority, this always applies to a society (many people which have to live together; equality only makes sense to a plural of elements). So Jefferson says, that the society is more important than the individual.

Actually Thomas Jefferson would probably disagree with this statement. His writings always show that equal rights are about the person not the society.

Example: "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. "

I think it is also fair to assume from his writings that since he felt corporations were a dangerous theat to the government and the government was a dangerous threat to the people that he believed the 'aristocracy' or monied corporations were a huge threat to the individual. He did state that liberty was collective but in the sense that happiness can only be enjoyed when the entire society was free.

The interesting thing about Jefferson is that a lot of times he sounds like an idealist yet he was very realistic in the freedoms they created would erode away and government will grow stronger.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. "

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. "

Another interesting thing is that while Thomas Jefferson was one of the biggest defenders of the rights of an individual he was in no way a liberal by today's definition.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. "

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Liberty and freedom still have the same definition today as they did in the 1700's.

and speaking of Franklin, everyone should remember this one - "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. "

Stranahan
01-11-2004, 11:17 AM
I think we would all agree that if Jefferson were alive today...

1) He'd be the oldest person on earth

2) He'd use LightWave, although probably with slave labor - just like at ILM

3) He'd think this Photoshop CS thing sucks, and was as queer as a two dollar bill - which he'd know, since he's on it.

CoryC
01-11-2004, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by Stranahan
I think we would all agree that if Jefferson were alive today...

2) He'd use LightWave, although probably with slave labor - just like at ILM



Only for economic reasons. At the same time he would write about how wrong it is to enslave LW artists. He would also also have an affair with one of his modelers which would result in 6 children.

jevinstudios
01-11-2004, 12:25 PM
Ya know -- I'm really proud to be part of this community -- all you guyz are the coolest people on earth. NewTek is a damn lucky company to have this group on board!

dwburman
01-11-2004, 03:13 PM
Earlier in this thread someone mentioned a future scenario where Photoshop might refuse to open a picture because of a Coca-Cola billboard.

Sony was hit with a lawsuit over digitally altered advertising in Times Square in the Spiderman movie. The case got smacked down but this thread reminded me of it.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/000505.html

As for the money thing. I can plainly see those circles on the back of the $20 USD but didn't see them on the front.

anieves
01-11-2004, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by CoryC
yes, I have seen Benjamin Franklin and sometimes George Washington attributed to that quote. Franklins reads a little different ("Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."). I have seen more attributed to Jefferson. Perhaps they both said it. They were friends.



Actually Thomas Jefferson would probably disagree with this statement. His writings always show that equal rights are about the person not the society.

Example: "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. "

I think it is also fair to assume from his writings that since he felt corporations were a dangerous theat to the government and the government was a dangerous threat to the people that he believed the 'aristocracy' or monied corporations were a huge threat to the individual. He did state that liberty was collective but in the sense that happiness can only be enjoyed when the entire society was free.

The interesting thing about Jefferson is that a lot of times he sounds like an idealist yet he was very realistic in the freedoms they created would erode away and government will grow stronger.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. "

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. "

Another interesting thing is that while Thomas Jefferson was one of the biggest defenders of the rights of an individual he was in no way a liberal by today's definition.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. "

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Liberty and freedom still have the same definition today as they did in the 1700's.

and speaking of Franklin, everyone should remember this one - "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. "

Jefferson quotes give me chills is like he was looking into the future. You read that then see what's the Democratic agenda and it is totally the oposite. There is a war against the idea of the individual in this country (USA) actually democrats don't even like the term, they prefer "groups" instead. A free country can not exist without 1- individual rights 2- property rights.

As a matter of fact our founding fathers never intended for this country to be a "true democracy" and therefore created a represented republic.

If you study this quote in particular you will see the dangers of a true democracy.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. "

quite easy actually.
When the minority figures out that by voting for someone willing to give them stuff taken away from someone else the minority will become the majority rendering democracy useless.

If our founding fathers see what's going on today they would be royally pissed. :)

-----
socialism

\So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.

anarchy

\An"arch*y\, n. [Gr. ?: cf. F. anarchie. See Anarch.] 1. Absence of government; the state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of lawlessness; political confusion.

republic

\Re*pub"lic\ (r?-p?b"l?k), n. [F. r['e]publique, L. respublica commonwealth; res a thing, an affair + publicus, publica, public. See Real, a., and Public.] 1. Common weal. [Obs.] --B. Jonson.

2. A state in which the sovereign power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them; a commonwealth. Cf. Democracy, 2.

cap·i·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm)
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Now how would you like for the 3d industry to be "owned and operated" by government instead of private individuals?

Elmar Moelzer
01-11-2004, 03:51 PM
For GruvSyco:
I still had to scan that damn thing in OK?!!
CU
Elmar

riki
01-11-2004, 04:52 PM
The point is, you can't trust your software anymore.

I use to have my TCP IP Prefs set to allow automatic connection whenever required. Then I started noticing that certain APPS where trying to dialup when launched.

Personally I think Spyware is worse than spam and viruses combined. I've seen software on versiontracker that lets you remotely take screenshots and capture keystrokes. It might be great for bosses to keep an eye on workers but can also be used to steal sensitive information.

There was recently a case of this in two of the internet cafes, near where I live. Lots of backpackers going in to check hotmail and bank accounts not knowing that the PCs had be setup up by one of the previous users.

I need to get some good monitoring software so you can check all incoming and outgoing transimssions.

I've seen 'Deny IP' this but haven't given it a burl yet.

http://www.ithyldin.org/index_en.html

jamesl
01-11-2004, 07:05 PM
zone alarm will prevent any app from accessing the internet... and it's FREE!

Jim_C
01-11-2004, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by GruvSyco
I really can't believe all this paranoia that is stemming from this.


If you are not paranoid you are not paying attention.

archiea
01-11-2004, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Jim_C
If you are not paranoid you are not paying attention.

Now that makes for a great bumper sticker!!!!

jamesl
01-11-2004, 11:26 PM
Any government or center of power, be it political or economic, has plenty to fear from the tecnological and communications revolution that we are experiencing. We have had a situation where a minority has dictated what we watch, what we consume, how we spend. This is going away (3 major music distributors? How about 3 thousand?). Digital Rights Management reflects the death-throes of obsolete laws for an obsolete marketplace. Whether Congress, the music industry, or the movie industry realizes it yet, the balance of power has shifted. And the plain truth is that the minority, in a democracy, cannot imprison the majority (hello, kazaa!). And it's not so much that I want to steal Shrek2, it's just that i don't want you to push Charlie's Angels 3 into 4000 theaters on Labor Day.

It used to be said that a single Xerox machine could topple communist China. Well, how many of us have scanners/printers/fax machines? Think about it.

j

Stranahan
01-11-2004, 11:32 PM
Just to keep the global view at minimum (which is hard, on a night when 60 Minutes showed concrete proof that Bush, Inc had planned to invade Iraq 10 days after coming into power (and months before 9/11) - and further, that they had detailed oil maps and plans on how to divy up the booty. This isn't hysteria, it was all on paper, which they showed...from a former Bush cabinet official, Paul O'Neil..)

But I digress...

Can we take some collective letter writing action against Adobe?

Let's not taken this lying down...

jamesl
01-11-2004, 11:34 PM
And the true end to all of this will be when somebody challenges the right to copyright an algorithm... which makes as much sense as copyrighting the chemical configuration of water. Once that is broken, open source will rule.

Use Gimp to counterfiet your twenty dollar bills.

cheers,

jamesl
01-11-2004, 11:38 PM
Go Bush! Now let's get Saudi Arabia and take all the money away from those who want to kill us and our kids. (not suffering from liberal guilt).

Cheers!

Karmacop
01-11-2004, 11:45 PM
Lee, is there anyway I can get a copy of that 60mins? Can you tell me the date and who I should contact about it? Thanks.

Stranahan
01-11-2004, 11:45 PM
Paul O'Neil isn't a liberal. He was part of the Bush team. America was lied to, pure and simple - sold a war 'on terrorism' that was planned from day one, to get oil.

I know conservative icons like pill poppin' Rush Limbaugh have programmed you to think that you can dismiss anything by blaming it on 'liberals', which is about the worst thing you can call someone. But wake up - Bush has taken our freedom, driven us into the biggest deficeit ever, racked up billions in new spending...these aren't things conservatives are supposed to like. You're supposed to like freedom and fiscal responsability.

But let's all agree that this Photoshop (and Paint Shop Pro, too) thing sucks...

Stranahan
01-11-2004, 11:53 PM
60 Minutes Page - link to story - the text on this page seems to be a transcript of the story as it ran..

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

Official Goverment Bio of that raging liberal, Paul O'Neil...(who called Democrats 'socialsts' at one point)
http://www.ustreas.gov/organization/bios/oneill-e.html

Very Good Time Magazine Article
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040119-574809,00.html

Newsday Story
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usoneil0110,0,751100.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines

riki
01-11-2004, 11:53 PM
The Photoshop thing definitely sux and sets a bad precedent. If this goes unopposed it makes me wonder what's to follow.

jamesl
01-11-2004, 11:56 PM
did I call Paul Oneil a liberal? No, I said I had no liberal guilt for what will ultimately benefit our national interests. Just wait until France, Germany and Russia have to explain why they were dealing with Saddam, and then sit and wonder whether we should have sat back and let THAT funny business continue.

Machiavelli was right.

riki
01-12-2004, 12:11 AM
What's next?? Before you know it we'll have fingerprinting at airports. :)

jamesl
01-12-2004, 12:13 AM
And a right wing conspiracy would have to be pretty VAST to include the like of this fellow...

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9711/15/iraq.us/

Stranahan
01-12-2004, 12:18 AM
There's no conspirosy - it's just a fact, written down a White House agenda...they planned to invade Iraq, from the start. And oil was a big part of it.

That means that the excuses Bush gave - war on terror, WMD, and so on - were simply excuses.. They were lies, because the conclusion was foregone....decided months earlier.

You can fool some of the people all of the times...
And you can fool all of the people some of the time...
And usually, that's enough...

jamesl
01-12-2004, 12:32 AM
But Clinton wanted the same thing! Everyone wanted it! And it happened! And it's good! Weeeee! Poor Saddam...

The point was establishing a point of power in a region that is of utmost importance to the West. That means it's important to you. If you feel lied to, you are naive.

To bring it back to topic, use Gimp! F-the bozos.

j

archiea
01-12-2004, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by jamesl
But Clinton wanted the same thing! Everyone wanted it! And it happened! And it's good! Weeeee! Poor Saddam...

The point was establishing a point of power in a region that is of utmost importance to the West. That means it's important to you. If you feel lied to, you are naive.

To bring it back to topic, use Gimp! F-the bozos.

j

Well, jamesl makes a point that I was trying to make some friend recently.....

In a fawked up way, how else could bush justify going into Iraq? I wish there was a politician bold enough to say:

"we need a stronghold in that region. Iraq, from a military standpoint is feasable. At the same time we would unseat a dictator and establish a democracy. Iraqi oil makes this economically feasable as we can rebuild its infrastucture and offer contracts to american industry, while stabilizing a revenue source for the iraqi people."

I look at stuff from a standpoint of history and how it relates to actions in the past. I donlt try to take a newsline and use one viewpoint out of context to inflate my political views as many of my freinds do. I have seen this war pollarized by differnt viewpoints that use it to fuel their hatred of bush, their love of bush,their hatred of amerca, their hatred of "them"...whoever them is...

We are still living in a time where there are major clashes in culture. Where part of the world that is rich operates as an autocracy with a large portion of the population held together by religion. there are still tribal fueds and religious crusades. We are not the civilixation that we all speak about, especially now that there are no major geographical obsticles that separate us.

We made an example out of Iraq because it was both economically & militarily feasable and he posed little military threat compared to North Korea. meanwhile N korea was advertising their nuclear prowness, bulldosing through sanctions, and militarily can stand to be an offensive threat to the western US. Do you gas on a fire? no. While its clear that Nkorea was CLEALRY a greater threat to us than Iraq, its just not militarily possible to win a war with Nkorea.

In the past, especially in vietnam we tiptoed through war, almost apologetically, hoping to win a war of attrition when we could have not had underestimating the resolve of the vietemiese any moreso than we did. plus there was the limit of the military tech at the time and the nature of the theater (i.e jungle canopy).

What we have done, also, is create a great rift with our allies. We has asked the impossible of them: to embark on what wa publically an immoral war. To help a super power offensively invade a nation that posed no military threat to the US, and removed a sovereignty. I think the UN and the associated nations did the right thing... they did their job in providing the balance of power to our argument. We, in turn, jeapardised the authority and stability of the UN in the view of the world by buldosing through it...

Was it immoral in the world law to invade Iraq? I think yes. Was it the only way to unseat Saddam and try to stabilize that area of the world with a democracy as opposed to diplomacy? I think yes too.

See how this isn't so black and white?

We invaded and conquered Iraq the way many nations in history have done so to seek control and for economic purposes.. Didn't the Crusades try to convert all to catholocism? Aren't we trying to convert as well? I'm sure the Crusaders thought their mission noble too...

And youhave to recall how the middle east has been maniplated durung WWI and WWII, how it was split like a spoil of war.. this is our mess blowing up in our face.....

I can go on, but.....

jamesl
01-12-2004, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by archiea
While its clear that Nkorea was CLEALRY a greater threat to us than Iraq, its just not militarily possible to win a war with Nkorea.

Half right... it would easy to take out N Korea, but really, that's China's problem. And seeing as how China is poised to be the next Superpower, why put our necks out? China is trying to become an economic force while saving face politically (they know communism has to go out thew window) and yet the have their noisy, stupid Commy neighbor blowing trumpets and showing swords... not really what China needs right now. That problem will resolve itself...

Matt
01-12-2004, 02:09 AM
:rolleyes: I think Adobe have made a big error here, what they should be scanning for if anything is child pornography not money.

thinking about it, what are the people who design money going to use? !!!!

archiea
01-12-2004, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by jamesl
Half right... it would easy to take out N Korea, but really, that's China's problem. And seeing as how China is poised to be the next Superpower, why put our necks out? China is trying to become an economic force while saving face politically (they know communism has to go out thew window) and yet the have their noisy, stupid Commy neighbor blowing trumpets and showing swords... not really what China needs right now. That problem will resolve itself...

and what of S. korea? Did they suddenly disappear from the radar over at N korea? its NOT easy to take out N korea w/o devastating S korea.

Elemental233
01-12-2004, 04:09 AM
Hi all..

Just reading up on Cs and well, i was kinda pissed about how you cant scan money. so i thought i would try to find a work around, and well i found One. YAY! So now i can Scan Money. (Took Like 5 hours ). :rolleyes: Any ways the trick is to save the image as a PhotoShop file Format ( .PSD ) then you can convert the picture to jpeg or any other file useing photoshop cs (after alterations of course). COOL HUH. well im off to bed have fun..:o
I hope this work around works for you as it has worked for me..







(The correct way is usely the simple way, The hard part is trying to find the simple way.)

Elemental233
01-12-2004, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by riki
What's next?? Before you know it we'll have fingerprinting at airports. :)

Um dude.. there already doing it... LAME.....

wavk
01-12-2004, 04:51 AM
We should indeed oppose! I can't see people not buying the Adobe stuff, too standard, too bad. But this is really a step in the wrong direction and a waste of cpu cycles!

riki
01-12-2004, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by Elemental233
Um dude.. there already doing it... LAME.....

yeah I know already, agreed lame, but if it saves lives maybe worthwhile. maybe

navaho
01-12-2004, 05:58 AM
We have an Attorney General covering statues of nudes at 8000 dollars a robe. A president who's major inititives appear to be a mission to mars. Our tax information is being sent to India. Our library use is monitored. DMV's now send information to the Feds. The 4th admendment is basically gone. Why would anyone be surprised at Adobe talking liberty with your liberty. It's the new trend.

The hardest thing to get is freedom - it's also the easiest thing to lose.

Karmacop
01-12-2004, 07:34 AM
Thanks for the links Lee! :)

sire
01-12-2004, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by CoryC
Actually Thomas Jefferson would probably disagree with this statement. His writings always show that equal rights are about the person not the society.

Example: "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. "
This deals with majority and minority, I was talking about society and individual (which could be counted as an extreme case, however). Also it doesn't contradict what I said.

"Equal rights are about the person not the society" - wrong, they're about both. The society consists of persons. The ideal is equal rights for each of the persons which make a society. The whole society, that is. And it's "human rights" what Jefferson called it, not "american rights" or "subsociety member rights" or "special individual rights". They can't be special because they are equal for everyone. Not the rights are individual, but each person receiving them (obviously) is. You can't view society and individual apart from each other this way.

Concerning "liberal", "socialism", "anarchism"... Well, I tend to try finding and using the actual meaning of a word. Hijacked meanings are a great problem. Certain principles or thoughts then lack a corresponding word which gets understood correctly. It's kind of sabotaging the possibility of expressing (or rather communicating) these things properly. The control of language also plays an important role in the regime system of Orwell's 1984.

The Photoshop CS affair is a classic example for: Should something get stopped when it crosses the line or already when it's only close to crossing the line but doesn't really do it? Actually it's not really an interference in personal liberty if Adobe chooses to implement such an algorithm. No one is forced to use Photoshop CS. If someone thinks this implementation is a flaw of the product, he is free to not buy it and choose another one.

So the line is not crossed. It would be crossed if there was no choice. I'd say: if something gets close to the line, it's the time to raise the voice to protest, so that the matter gets noticed. But Adobe didn't already went too far. What they implemented is similar to using copy protection for the software itself. This is perfectly plausible (doesn't help much either, for that matter...).

sire
01-12-2004, 08:46 AM
Still, "does not help much" is not the same as "does not help at all"...

Rich
01-12-2004, 08:58 AM
Buying Adobe CS was one of my goals for this year but not now. Anyone know if Corel Painter does this crap? I will just show my objection and no longer buy Adobe products. I'm pissed to because I just upgraded my Premiere to Premiere Pro a couple of weeks ago. I think I will look into getting Avid Express. I am going to be watching Adobe's stock (ADBE) and see if this huge mistake they are making hurts their profits. I for one don't want to make counterfeit money but it’s just the principal of the matter. Art is about freedom of expression. Also as someone stated why not make it so that it checks for child porn. Well that is all fine and dandy but this would be abused. There would be plenty of legitimate pictures that would probably be in that category. Plus for that to work Adobe would probably make it so the software forwarded the suspect pictures to the authorities and then many of your legitimate private family pictures would be scrutinized and then there goes your privacy.

anieves
01-12-2004, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Stranahan
Just to keep the global view at minimum (which is hard, on a night when 60 Minutes showed concrete proof that Bush, Inc had planned to invade Iraq 10 days after coming into power (and months before 9/11) - and further, that they had detailed oil maps and plans on how to divy up the booty. This isn't hysteria, it was all on paper, which they showed...from a former Bush cabinet official, Paul O'Neil..)

But I digress...

Can we take some collective letter writing action against Adobe?

Let's not taken this lying down...

What's the big news about that???
Clinton had the same damn plan in 1997 but didn't have the go nads to actually do it, instead he sent 2 bombs to a pill factory right in the middle of the Lewinsky controversy just to distract from him lying under oath.

So, Bush had a plan on actually doing his job 10 days after taking office... on the other hand democrats would "ask permission" from the UN before protecting our country.

anieves
01-12-2004, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by sire
Concerning "liberal", "socialism", "anarchism"... Well, I tend to try finding and using the actual meaning of a word. Hijacked meanings are a great problem. Certain principles or thoughts then lack a corresponding word which gets understood correctly. It's kind of sabotaging the possibility of expressing (or rather communicating) these things properly. The control of language also plays an important role in the regime system of Orwell's 1984.


I don't know what dictionary your are looking up, apparently the guide to liberal definitions. Your statement leads me to belive you don't have a clue to what the meaning of those words are.

What I posted IS the real definition of those words. Research it yourself.

BTW

the definition of "the Line" will be different person to person.

Adobe, by being a privately owned company can do as they please with their software. On the other hand we live in a free enterprise coutry, if you don't like it simply don't buy the product, eventually Adobe will get it that their customers didn't like x, y or z.

in your mind Adobe crossed the line, in Adobe's mind they haven't... the line is hard to draw.

anieves
01-12-2004, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Stranahan
Paul O'Neil isn't a liberal. He was part of the Bush team. America was lied to, pure and simple - sold a war 'on terrorism' that was planned from day one, to get oil.

I know conservative icons like pill poppin' Rush Limbaugh have programmed you to think that you can dismiss anything by blaming it on 'liberals', which is about the worst thing you can call someone. But wake up - Bush has taken our freedom, driven us into the biggest deficeit ever, racked up billions in new spending...these aren't things conservatives are supposed to like. You're supposed to like freedom and fiscal responsability.

But let's all agree that this Photoshop (and Paint Shop Pro, too) thing sucks...

Paul O'Neil IS a liberal and a pissed off one after being kicked out too.

The liberal media have programmed you to belive this war was about oil, give me a break that is weak. The useless UN didn't do jack about the thousands of pple SH killed and the dozen resolutions SH broke that the UN itself passed.

How in the hell come that the US has no veto power in the UN anyways.

Yes, conservatives do belive in less government and fiscal responsability something democrats do not. I disagree with many things proposed or passed by the President but you have to face it, the naive 9 are lousy when it comes to tax cuts and national security and those 2 issues generally drive elections and those are the 2 issues the naive 9 are attacking.

This is going to be an interesting year indeed.

Quote
That means that the excuses Bush gave - war on terror, WMD, and so on - were simply excuses.. They were lies, because the conclusion was foregone....decided months earlier.
/Quote

So Clinton had the same excuses too because he said the same damn thing!

Meaty
01-12-2004, 12:10 PM
I read an interesting article in the N.Y. Times by an Op-Ed author Tom Friedman. Below is an excerpt...

I believe the French president, Jacques Chirac, knows something in his heart: in the run-up to the Iraq war, George Bush and Tony Blair stretched the truth about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction — but they were not alone. Mr. Chirac also stretched the truth about his willingness to join a U.N.-led coalition against Iraq if Saddam was given more time and still didn't comply with U.N. weapons inspections. I don't believe Mr. Chirac ever intended to go to war against Saddam, under any circumstances. So history will record that all three of these leaders were probably stretching the truth — but with one big difference: George Bush and Tony Blair were stretching the truth in order to risk their own political careers to get rid of a really terrible dictator. And Jacques Chirac was stretching the truth to advance his own political career by protecting a really terrible dictator.

automan25
01-12-2004, 12:16 PM
I believe that Adobe, despite being a private company, does bear some responsibility for the "features" it implements into it's software. The near-monopoly they hold in the image-editing market makes this so. If there was a genuinely practical alternative to Photoshop that didn't implement this counterfiting check, then this wouldn't be the case. Adobe is quite aware of this, and in my opinion, is using this knowledge to leverage their ideals.

No amount of technology, laws, or rules will keep people honest. Citizens have to compelled to be honest, and their government has to trust them and give them the freedom to do so. Punishments should only be dealt after a crime has been committed.

Meaty
01-12-2004, 12:21 PM
oh, and we (those at my office) were considering buying adobe premiere pro with a matrox card... we will now be reconsidering that purchase.

Terribly intrusive and terribly ineffective, quite a duo!

bolo
01-12-2004, 12:51 PM
i just scanned a $10 bill into photoshop CS trial version without any errors and also opened a tiff of $10 into PS CS.. so where is the issue ??

scott_krehbiel
01-12-2004, 12:53 PM
Doesn't anybody remember the capture of one of Saddam's
mobile bio-weapons manufacturing plants? Just like
in the intelligence reports, they found one.

Oh, but it didn't contain any active cultures at that time,
so it didn't count, the liberals say.

Does that mean that an unloaded gun is no longer a weapon?

Also, I'd be curious to compare the number of people that
Hitler had killed to the number believed to have been killed
by Saddam. In my view, to defend Saddam is equivalent to
defending Hitler.

Face it - Saddam had chemical weapons, which were documented
in his own video tapes. He was a threat and needed to be
extinguished.

I saw an amazing interview on Fox news. Geraldo Rivera was
talking about what he saw in Iraq. He commented on how the
news talks so much about all the bad things going on in Iraq
and they try to make the Republicans look like criminals.
Then Geraldo said "Let me tell you about all the wonderful
stuff happening over there that you'll never see on the national
news." (read Liberal media) He talked about the elections,
he talked about health care to people that had never had it,
on and on he went, saying great things that were happening,
and he kept stressing "and you'll never see this on the national
news, because they want to discredit the invasion"

Face it, national news is pure propaganda. The national news
showed video of that woman in Florida when she was basically
asleep, and they claimed that she was brain dead and that
it was cruel to keep her alive. Why didn't they show the videos
of her not only Awake, but also communicating with those in
the room, bright and smiling? The news never admitted that
this woman actually TALKS. Brain-dead people don't talk!

A basic truth becomes evident: Republicans value the sanctity of
life, and the liberals hate it. They want to discredit the protection
of life as insanity.

And if you watch most of the news broadcasts, you live in
a constant bombardment of propaganda.

Bush has already been proved true - it's just that the media
wants you to forget. Or have you forgotten how it looked
to see those towers fall and thousands of people die at once?

Rich
01-12-2004, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by bolo
i just scanned a $10 bill into photoshop CS trial version without any errors and also opened a tiff of $10 into PS CS.. so where is the issue ??

Currently it only stops you from scanning and displaying the New $20 bill

Elemental233
01-12-2004, 03:14 PM
Hey try Scanning the new US 20$ bill and save it in a photoshop file format. and tell me if CS will open it.. (.psd) I can Scan and open all canadian currancy new and old. Only if i save it in .psd format. then photoshop CS opens it fine.. For istance PICTURE001 was scaned in normally and saved as .JPEG And Picture002 was saved as A .psd first then saved as a .Jpeg.. as you can see you can only open PIcture002 In photoshop.

Elemental233
01-12-2004, 03:23 PM
Picture One

Elemental233
01-12-2004, 03:26 PM
Picture Two

Stranahan
01-12-2004, 05:13 PM
Number of people killed by Saddam Huessin

Seems like the number is a few hundred thousand -
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5773

Mass Graves
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq0503/

Horrific, but nothing close to Hitler (the number usually ascribed to Hitler is 6,00,000+) or Stalin (upwards of 10,000,000 easily) or the number of people killed in the US due to slavery (numbers hard to figure, but millions) - or other cases of genocide going on, right now.


In the Sudan, about 2,000,000 killed in the last 17 years - the don't have the world's 2nd largest oil reserves, though
http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/index.utp?content=sudan/sudan.php

Needless deaths caused by the US in Iraq
http://hrw.org/press/2003/12/us-iraq-press.htm

How Bush, Inc Uses 9/11 to further it's assault on human rights
http://humanrightswatch.org/english/docs/2004/01/04/usdom6910.htm


Our corporate driven media in the US is nothing close to liberal, and this is obvious by watching any network newscast and then listening to the BBC or just surfing around the internet.

I pity mindless conservatives who can't do anything but attack 'liberals' and repeat what Rush/Hannity and others of their ilk feed them. You don't have the facts, and you aren't interested in facts. They want simple enemies and simple slogans.

Qslugs
01-12-2004, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by anieves

Adobe, by being a privately owned company can do as they please with their software. On the other hand we live in a free enterprise coutry, if you don't like it simply don't buy the product, eventually Adobe will get it that their customers didn't like x, y or z.

in your mind Adobe crossed the line, in Adobe's mind they haven't... the line is hard to draw.


Adobe Systems (ADBE) is a publicly traded company.

http://quote.morningstar.com/Quote.html?ticker=ADBE

Also, this copy protection is alledgedly in more than just photoshop.

Cinepaint here I come.

Qslugs
01-12-2004, 05:24 PM
Oh and conservatives tend to make the most noise cause their the minority. They want to be seen and heard. (sorry couldn't resist)

Hey, isn't this a software forum? What does this say about Lightave? Is it Liberal or conservative? Oh my god.... I think it's conservative.

I am using conservative software

Stranahan
01-12-2004, 06:09 PM
LightWave is libertarian, last I heard.

anieves
01-12-2004, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Stranahan
LightWave is libertarian, last I heard.

good!;)

anieves
01-12-2004, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Qslugs
Adobe Systems (ADBE) is a publicly traded company.

http://quote.morningstar.com/Quote.html?ticker=ADBE

Also, this copy protection is alledgedly in more than just photoshop.

Cinepaint here I come.

publicly traded but it is a private company owned by private citizens. That's what that statement means. It is not owned by government.

Stranahan
01-12-2004, 06:24 PM
It being publically traded means one good strategy is to buy a few shares of stock, which makes you a stockholder - which is another good way to attack them.

This really is the kind of thing that needs to be nipped in the bud.

navaho
01-12-2004, 06:31 PM
I know I'm contributing to the off topic discussion but I can't help it.

I am a progressive liberal - thought I'd get that out of the way in case anyone was wondering. Although it should be no shock. Most right brainers are liberal.

My liberalism extends to the borders of this country and no further. I guess because of 25 years of military service. I have found folks appriciate freedom when earned and almost never when given.

I find that there is no party representing the progressive liberal view point. Although the democrats get close they have forsaken the progressive liberalism of FDR in favor of one legged green pole vaulters from Norway who's pet pandas are unable to find the right bamboo to eat in the US.

The republicans on the otherhand have turned away from fiscal conservatism and individual rights in favor of corporate welfare, handouts to the overprivileged, and restricted rights.

Both parties have contributed to the mess we find ourselves in. The democrats by turning public education into a affirmative action factory turning out kids in the correct numbers sorted by gender and race that are assured of failure due to the lack of any discoverable marks of education while the republicans have been stripmining the regulations, policies and laws protecting worker rights enacted during the FDR and Truman administrations. These actions took away the principle reasons for the success of the US during the last 50 years and the emergence of a middle class. We trashed the education system and cheapened labor. At the present rate we will be a country ruled by the elite, populated by the ignorant and owned by the multinational corporations.

What we need now is a fiscally conservative progressive liberal.

But I will along with most old time liberals help the democratic choice, if elected, plant bamboo while hoping he takes the time occasionally to promote the general welfare without regard to race, religion, gender or ethnic background.

Well that's my two cents. But one of the cents I'll have to owe you - I'm sending it to Washington to help lower the deficit.

jamesl
01-12-2004, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by Stranahan
I pity mindless conservatives who can't do anything but attack 'liberals' and repeat what Rush/Hannity and others of their ilk feed them. You don't have the facts, and you aren't interested in facts. They want simple enemies and simple slogans.

I pity those that actually think there's a great bit of difference between the two major parties in this country, and are quick to belittle a person for having a point of view contrary to their own. Not a Rush fan, guy. And you're right... Dan Rather is a conservative. Just remember to put the cap back on the glue when you're done!

Anyways, I'm a fan of your work...

j

anieves
01-12-2004, 06:50 PM
Lee, apparently you like most liberals have forgotten what happened the day of september 11.

You post articles written by writters of the most liberal papers in this country loosing inmediate credibility by following the liberal agenda. Many People in Iraq have died, freedom is not free yet you refuse to see the big picture, Iraq is free, now they enjoy many of the human rights you keep bringing up, where were thier human rights when they took women to rape rooms? where were their human rights when they threw them through plastic shredders? we take our freedoms and liberties for granted now that Iraqis know what freedom is like, it has become their newfound treasure.

Iraq has become the example for other nations seeking the same, Libia recently joined the pack. A country drops thier WMD programs and the President is called a "miserable failure" by members of your party. What is a miserable failure is Clinton refusing the custody of Osama binladen offered by the Saudis, THAT is a miserable failure putting polls ahead of national security.

The reconstruction of a country takes time it is not an overnight venture but at the end the fact is that the whole world is better off without Saddam Hussein.

BTW what is the precious UN doing about Sudan and other countries being ruled by madmen? The same thing they did with Iraq, NOTHING, waiting for Jimmy Carter and Clinton to provide them with nuclear power... sounds familiar?

anieves
01-12-2004, 06:57 PM
talk radio is great actually, you hear from both sides of the fence although I personally don't listed to Rush I rather listen to a
libertarian like Boortz:D BTW I wonder why oh why has liberal radio been "a miserable failure"...

Stranahan
01-12-2004, 07:27 PM
Nothing personal...thanks...

Stranahan
01-12-2004, 07:28 PM
And why do you assume for a second that I'm a liberal?

And which liberal papers did I quote?

I guess the Holocaust museum is a bunch of bleeding hearts, right?

Elemental233
01-12-2004, 07:39 PM
Politics.... hmmmm....... Blah! Politics Is to blame for every thing in this world... just like religion....

Stranahan
01-12-2004, 07:47 PM
Yeah, but this thing with Photoshop CS sucks...

Another good option is to buy your CS upgrade with counterfeit money..

Elemental233
01-12-2004, 08:08 PM
LOL. If iv have knowen about it i would have bought a pireted copy for like 10 bucks. so has any one scaned in a Us $20 bill yet and saveing it in as a .psd image. (just want to know if it only works with canadian money??

sire
01-12-2004, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by anieves
What I posted IS the real definition of those words. Research it yourself.
Well, I'm rather concerned in this stuff. I know your postings show what is written in dictionaries. This is obvious. However what is cataloged in dictionaries is the way some term is usually used, what a word may have become. My point was, I try to find what a word actually should mean. Socialism for example as a name for an ideology which centers around the society and how to optimize it. Liberalism as a name for an ideology which seeks for the greatest possible freedom. I want to use these terms as neutrally as possible.

Jockomo
01-12-2004, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by anieves
Lee, apparently you like most liberals have forgotten what happened the day of september 11.


Anieves, you like most conservatives have forgotten that it was not Saddam who attacked us on september 11.

Our president took that event and shifted the attention to Iraq. He stated that Iraq was a grave threat and that we could not wait to attack them.

Read it again:

Saddam and his "nuclear holy warriors" are also building a nuclear weapons program and could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year, Bush said in prime-time address.
"If we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed," the president told civic group leaders at the Cincinnati Museum Center. "Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression."

Of course now we know this to be complete bull****. The truth is Saddam was totally incapacitated of advancing any weapons programs due to constant monitoring of the US.

He said this as if it were fact. It is not.

But I can tell you one thing that is a fact. Halliburton is now making money on the rebuilding of Iraq. Coincidence? Not likely.

Meanwhile, the one who really caused 9/11 is still free. Would he still be free had our president kept the focus on him? Or let me rephrase that, would halliburton be making money in Iraq right now if we had instead concentrated on capturing Bin Laden?

sire
01-13-2004, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by Meaty
I believe the French president, Jacques Chirac, knows something in his heart: in the run-up to the Iraq war, George Bush and Tony Blair stretched the truth about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction — but they were not alone. Mr. Chirac also stretched the truth about his willingness to join a U.N.-led coalition against Iraq if Saddam was given more time and still didn't comply with U.N. weapons inspections. I don't believe Mr. Chirac ever intended to go to war against Saddam, under any circumstances. So history will record that all three of these leaders were probably stretching the truth — but with one big difference: George Bush and Tony Blair were stretching the truth in order to risk their own political careers to get rid of a really terrible dictator. And Jacques Chirac was stretching the truth to advance his own political career by protecting a really terrible dictator.
The difference is: the judgement on Chirac stretching the truth (of what his alleged intention was) is only based on an assumption, while we actually know that Bush and Blair lied. If there is no convincing argument based on true facts sustained by clear evidence to start a war, then it should not be started. Lying to the nation is denying the idea of a republic. It means the leader suspects the people he should represent would not approve his plans. True representation can't work this way.

It's absolutely unserious to treat suspicions as if they were clear facts. But this is what Bush, Blair and the writer of the above article do.


Originally posted by scott_krehbiel
Also, I'd be curious to compare the number of people that Hitler had killed to the number believed to have been killed by Saddam. In my view, to defend Saddam is equivalent to defending Hitler.
Don't be silly. Those are completely different dimensions. I am really tired of these constant Hitler comparisons. Also Hitler and Germany of the 1930s was a different situation. In 1939, Germany was really armed to the teeth. Iraq of 2002 had a lost war and more than ten years of monitored disarmament and sanctions behind.

Number of victims: Lee stated "the number usually ascribed to Hitler is 6,00,000+"; actually there is one zero missing. An estimated number of 6 millions is ascribed to the so-called holocaust (I actually prefer to call it shoa). One could add the victims of WWII to it, which Hitler essentially started, then this sums up to even 55 millions!

The first gulf war (Iran-Iraq) led to about 2 million victims. The casualities of the second one (Desert Storm) are still not clear, estimates range from a few thousands to several hundred thousands (almost entirely on the Iraq side, thus not killed by Saddam but the enemy).

Another difference between Hitler and Hussein, and not unimportant to properly assess the situations, is that the former ruled just for twelve years, whereas the latter was part of the government for almost forty years, half of the time as president.


Face it - Saddam had chemical weapons, which were documented in his own video tapes. He was a threat and needed to be extinguished.
Of course he had chemical weapons. It is also documented in various contracts with western weapon manufacturers including companies from the US. But Saddam had no threatening military potential anymore in 2002. This is documented as well. Weapon inspectors were about to remove the very last doubts when Bush stopped them doing this by starting the war. You may draw your conclusions from this...


I saw an amazing interview on Fox news.Okay, that explains something... :)

Well, of course the invasion of Iraq also had advantages. It is only strange why people like Rumsfeld in the past supported Saddam when he already was known as a cruel dictator? Why didn't the US stopped the support after the poison gas incidents in the iran-iraq war? One simply has to be skeptical and ask what the true agenda of the people around Bush is.


A basic truth becomes evident: Republicans value the sanctity of life, and the liberals hate it. They want to discredit the protection of life as insanity.
I partly agree, but actually these are not basic truths but common superficial labels. They only work because of some slight element of truth they express, but they're not entirely true in this simple form. Do you really believe "the liberals" hate the sanctity of life? Why should they?

sire
01-13-2004, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by Jockomo
Meanwhile, the one who really caused 9/11 is still free. Would he still be free had our president kept the focus on him? Or let me rephrase that, would halliburton be making money in Iraq right now if we had instead concentrated on capturing Bin Laden?
The scary thing is, it's not even proven that Usama Bin Laden actually is the one behind 9/11. Take a look at the FBI most wanted poster: http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/terubl.htm Bin Laden is wanted for: "MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH" Further below the poster states: "Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world." September 11 is nowhere mentioned! Many people could be behind the attacks, it doesn't necessarily have to be Bin Laden. The whole Bin Laden hysteria reminds me of the Immanuel Goldstein concept from "1984".

Edbittner
01-13-2004, 06:58 AM
Just another addition to my ever-growing list of reasons why I hate, (yes hate-and I'm not trying to start a flame war), Adobe. The list, too long to post here, initially started with their seemingly endless array of "upgrade" versions. Don't get me started!
Ed

Matt
01-13-2004, 07:10 AM
please can we stay on topic, discussions on iraq never go anywhere, they always create animosity, lead to a thread closed, it's pointless.

Meaty
01-13-2004, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by sire
[B]The difference is: the judgement on Chirac stretching the truth (of what his alleged intention was) is only based on an assumption, while we actually know that Bush and Blair lied. If there is no convincing argument based on true facts sustained by clear evidence to start a war, then it should not be started. Lying to the nation is denying the idea of a republic. It means the leader suspects the people he should represent would not approve his plans. True representation can't work this way.

It's absolutely unserious to treat suspicions as if they were clear facts. But this is what Bush, Blair and the writer of the above article do.

We know they lied? There is good information that they didn't just flat out lie and say there were WMD when there were none at all. Didn't they discover a pair of mobile labs? Who knows, there maybe be a mountain of WMD buried somewhere in Iraq. God knows Saddam had enough time to do it. I am guessing all those empty processing plants weren't just used for storing candy canes. There is a lot of talk on both sides of the isle. There is also a lot of intelligence which we cannot see. And there are also TONS of documents that still need to be sifted through.

I heard a political pundit talking about the Iraq conflict. I forget who it was, and i certainly cannot verify the accuracy of this. My American History is topical at best. He said that as the Civil War was underway, the initial reason the North fought was for the sake of unity, to bring the sepratists back into the Union. Once the AMAZING amount of casualties started lining up. It took a 'greater moral cause' to continue fighting. Hence the Amancipation Proclamation and Lincolns speech after the Battle of Gettysburg. Did he lie about his intentions? How does history view Lincoln? He is the man who freed the slaves. He is not as a lying "nigger lover" which he was often called. Time will tell, but I believe history will look back at George Bush as a man who took it upon himself to free Iraq from their opressive dictator, and as a man who wanted to fight the war on terror by bringing the beauty of democracy and religous tolerance to the middle east.

Anyways, I have no idea how this will turn out. I am hoping for the best as we all are.

edit: Matt is right, this is my last post, it is rather amazing how just about anything thread can turn into an Iraq thread. One little remark starts an avalanche. hehe

anieves
01-13-2004, 07:51 AM
Lee or anybody else that got offended if you did get offended by any of my posts... It wasn't my intention. But saying that the whole Iraq thing was because of oil when our oil supply from Iraq is less than 3% really aggravates me, do you know who are our main oil suppliers?. Tells me right away that a person belives everything that the liberal media says. Every of the 3 major networks in this country has strong liberal strings, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Los Angeles Times and the New York Times are all liberals. Lee you posted links (not all) written by writters of such papers and thus my comment of loosing credibility. I assumed you were a liberal because you SOUND like a liberal usind every single liberal attack used by the naive 9 but I hope you are a libertarian ;)

The Holocaust is not something to laugh about but is the greatest example of what evil can become IF WE LET IT. Hussein made the UN a laughable institution and proved the world that it was indeed useless. They pass resolutions which they inted not to enforce. Do some research and find and study the resolutions that SH violated for 12 years it is all on-line.

I am sure that you haven't heard through the liberal media that there were in fact terrorist tranning camps in Iraq with SH approval. This shouldn't surprise anybody, Saddam is a liar, a cheat and a deceitful person that knew how to manipulate the American liberal media to his advantage.

It would have been nice if Iraqis had the power to free themselves but unfortunately they didn't. They couldn't. You can not fight a tank or an assault rifle with a nail stick.

I'm going to sign off this thread by saying that I hope for stabilization of the middle east, we are all better off with one less evil in the world, don't take your freedoms from granted... usually you don't realize what you have until you loose it and speak your mind next november.

going lightwavin' now
Later

Elemental233
01-13-2004, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by anieves
This shouldn't surprise anybody, Saddam is a liar, a cheat and a deceitful person that knew how to manipulate the American liberal media to his advantage.



Somebody is watching TOO MUCH CNN.......

TSpyrison
01-13-2004, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Matt
please can we stay on topic, discussions on iraq never go anywhere, they always create animosity, lead to a thread closed, it's pointless.

Ditto..

But yet, Threads on Politics, Iraq, Mac vs PC, AMD vs Intel..
They Keep happening..

All they do is make me dislike people I otherwise might like..

mattclary
01-13-2004, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by CoryC
Example: "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. "

Thus the reason we are a "Republic" and not a "Democracy". Good post.

sire
01-13-2004, 11:44 AM
Yeah yeah, the Iraq topic... Just let me add some important things and then I will try to let it rest.

Well, the mobile labs. They got stuck in memory. Only they were not for chemical weapons. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,977916,00.html for more info.

Comparison Civil War and Iraq Invasion... I think the fundamental difference should be obvious. In the Civil War no soverein foreign country got attacked, it was an internal thing.

Okay, and Saddam's Iraq didn't comply to various UN resolutions. Well, a nearby country isn't too fond of following UN resolutions as well, only I would doubt any US president would suggest to invade Israel, although they already have nuclear weapons which they actually are not allowed to have according to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

And yes, the best way to teach the world to obey UN orders is to call the UN "irrelevant" and starting a war without their approval - which actually is illegal according to international law, but who cares.

Last, but not least, the whole oil thing is a bit more complicated. An important part of the game is that the Dollar must remain the oil currency if the US-American system of world dom... er, leadership should stay as it is. What if all the oil suddenly must be paid in Euros? The USA are the greatest energy consumers of the world; although they have quite a lot of oil themselves, it doesn't fulfill the own demand. So the US rely on heavy oil imports. Only the Dollar gets less and less attractive, greenback's value is sinking. As the USA also are the greatest debtors of the world, this is not too surprising. Measures have to be taken to keep the Dollar en vogue. It's interesting that the Iraq was one of the first important oil suppliers which changed their oil trade currency from Dollar to Euro. Now imagine the whole OPEC would follow. The USA just had to stop this, demonstrate their military power, put out the message: don't mess with Texas, and the rest of US as well! Look what happens if you endanger our domination! We want to keep living on others expenses! (I know Europe is not much better morally, before someone else mentions it...)

It's a positive side effect that a regime of cruel suppressors is wiped out. But this was not the actual reason Bush's people decided to go for it. Let's take Pakistan: it's ruled by a general which didn't get in power by election, they supported the taliban, it's an islamic country, they really have nuclear weapons, only it's an US ally, funnily enough. Just as Iraq has been some time ago... One has to find explanations that make sense.

sire
01-13-2004, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by TSpyrison
Ditto..

But yet, Threads on Politics, Iraq, Mac vs PC, AMD vs Intel..
They Keep happening..

All they do is make me dislike people I otherwise might like..
Ah, don't get too disturbed by it... I know quite a bunch of people with opinions different from mine, still I don't stop liking them. :)

TSpyrison
01-13-2004, 12:29 PM
Well, I do have friends with different views on things..
But we dont talk about it.. otherwise one of us will end up pissed off... :)

sketchyjay
01-13-2004, 02:42 PM
Wow this is a long read.

let me put on my tinfoil hat for this POV...
My only fear is just what is going on right now. A few years ago in the name of going afer child porn they striped the need of a court order to use wiretaps and enter ones home. Then with the terrorist attacks they now have added finger printing of forenigners. I suspect that some terrorist/militant organization here in the US or some religious group like in Waco will blow up something and have them add finger printing everyone going into and out of the country. Then eventually to finger printing at the Motor vehicle office, or to send packages at the post over over 10lbs. Of course this will be seemless because they will just get your prints at the DMV and put it on a magnetic bar on the back and you'll just have to swipe it to leave your recorded on everything you do. But you won't realize it because you only got finger printed once.

Unlike movies it is a slow erosion not a grand sweeping movement that will eventually turn us into something completely foreign to what Thomas Jefferson envisioned. The sad thing will be that since this is now a digital age that we will eventually have a police state that moves so fast that we won't realize exactly what we have given up because it will be fluid and real time.

Has anyone noticed that rebranding, and/or PC speak has slowly brought us to exactly what orwell envisioned in 1984. rename it and it is magically not as bad as it was. repackaging of history and information with different wording to change it's meaning and impact.

Oh, give me a sec to take my tin foil hat off...

okay, yeah that CS thing is a bit daft, think about it. If it was so easy to counterfit money that even a kid with software and a printer could do it then it is time to rething the currency. To assume the same kid won't just download some warez/shareware/freeware or one of the hunreds of other image applications (gimp, mspaint, cinemapaint etc...) is rediculous. I wonder if it is something as idiotic as the teasury not being allocated the budget to buy better currency, I hope not.

that's my .02 cents

now where is that feature list....

Jay

archiea
01-13-2004, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Elemental233
Somebody is watching TOO MUCH CNN.......

Some would say the same thing about Bush....

Elemental233
01-13-2004, 11:55 PM
Well dont they say that about all leaders.. (true)...

Any ways. has any one els just about gone loony if they hear or read the word "WMD" or "wepons of mass destruction" it has like been ingraved in to my Brain. And over used. I feel Violated.

riki
01-14-2004, 01:51 AM
aaahh you's need to watch 'CNNNN' on the ABC, those extra 'N's' makes all the diference.

Their slogan "We Report - You Believe!"

Cracks me up everytime :)

http://www.cnnnn.com/

riki
01-14-2004, 01:57 AM
This one is funny

CNNNN discovers Americans support war on Kyrgyzstan, 'wherever it may be'

re: http://www.abc.net.au/cnnnn/news/s971880.htm

Sorry to all the Americans, but 'taking the pisssss' is a National Australian past-time :)

Elemental233
01-14-2004, 03:02 AM
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahah....h ahahahahahahahaha......hahahahaahhahahahahaha..... ahahahahahahahhahahahahaha......hahahahahahahhahah ahahahahaha......hahahahhahahahahah.. god dam thats funny..... Americans support war on Kyrgyzstan ..... ahahahahhahahahahaahahhaahhaha...ahahahahhahahahah ah...
i bet they would support invadeing canada...

sandman300
07-22-2004, 12:24 AM
As a matter of fact, the US/Canada border just happens to be the longest (years and miles) undefended border in the world.
Hmmmmmm.... I think John Candy tried that once...
IMHO the US benifits from the existance of Canada as an independent country. We get a great money exchange (cheep to make movies and for vacations) and its a great buffer from Russia. I used to be a RISK fiend and I cannot tell you how many times Ive said "Thank god for Canada".:p

riki
07-22-2004, 12:43 AM
There's another News item here on CNNNN which is quiet funny.

Hamas leader denies role in ‘Lord of the Rings’ (http://www.abc.net.au/cnnnn/news/s680705.htm)

Hervé
07-22-2004, 01:05 AM
they "nailed that one onto his wheel chair.... this one was sooo angry to the rest of the world, he was a surfer before he decided to become a "quarter God"....:D

his partizans were carrying him like a chiffon's puppet..... ha ha:D

tokyo drifter
07-22-2004, 02:13 AM
What the hell? Some old thread about photoshop and I go to the last page and see an Iraq butt squeezing wrestling match?!?!?!?!!!!1111 I'm sure all of the pages in this thread are hours and hours and hours of fun times... and by fun times I mean horrible, horrible, god awful times.

There's political web sites out there folks, find them, you can shake your butt at the best of them. I'm probably one of the most politically minded people on this forum but I keep it to myself.. cause this is a freakin 3d site! duh! Just like how you wouldn't go to a Hardware store to go and chat about female mud wrestling. Well, you might, but you get the jist of it.

Hervé
07-22-2004, 02:33 AM
Get down get down.... dont be a *****...:rolleyes:

I talk about Cats Jelly Wrestling everyday with the grossery cashier... (BTW, pretty soon the world cup !)


he he, fun is fun, and politics are politics (and sometimes politics are fun....:D )

take it as it is.... funny ! that's all, nobody was injured....:D

@+

WizCraker
07-22-2004, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by riki
There's another News item here on CNNNN which is quiet funny.

Hamas leader denies role in ‘Lord of the Rings’ (http://www.abc.net.au/cnnnn/news/s680705.htm)

Now that is funny.

riki
07-22-2004, 06:46 PM
There are some funny bits in this article on an Islamic website.

Laughing Instead of Crying in Iraq (http://www.islamonline.net/english/In_Depth/Iraq_Aftermath/2004/06/article_02.shtml)

theo
07-22-2004, 08:17 PM
There seems to be an obsessing control freak (or two) in almost every thread over 5 pages long in every forum on the web.

Looks like it is Tokyo Drifter's turn on this one.

Geesh- no one has a gun to your head forcing you to read this thread, if you don't like reading junk then go away- it's not as if your rant is going to have any minute affect anyways as it is up to the moderators at the end of the day.