For giggles I went back through the last ten days of the Bryce gallery with this new criteria in mind (as opposed to just exploring the images as usual). I saw three possible offences I thought might transgress the forthcoming utopia. Since this period translated almost precisely to ten pages, you're talking essentially 3 images out of 240 posted over ten days. Is that really a problem worthy of this sort of officious intervention? I mean, seriously, submitting scene files for proof?!

How many more suspicious images do you see in that period, ICM, with your keen eye trained to this issue? Twice as many; three times as many? Call it nine images - what the hell: twelve! How big a deal is that?

The problem, such as it is, seems to be that some Renderosity members don't organise their galleries in the same way as ICM. I say that because he keeps offering his as an example of proper procedure. Well, so what? What does it matter? Who, or what, is harmed if someone puts a portrait photo in front of a Bryce backdrop and posts the result in the Bryce gallery (along with, say, "Fantasy")? Does it matter if the photo was dropped on in post or inserted via a 2D pict object within Bryce? The result is the same - what's the problem? And who is to say (fairly), other than the artist, whether the photo or the backdrop is the focus of the piece?

So some members, a tiny ratio it seems, post images in one gallery category that some other members, an even tinier minority it seems, think ought to be in another category. For this irrelevant non-problem that Renderosity has somehow managed to survive for nearly a decade, new rules are to be introduced and members images arbitrarily moved, with backroom staff discussions and file inspections part of the delightful process.

Just whose kids does this help?

"...who has an 'unmarried  daughter with child"....  so much for the religious right which she touts so much."

Thing is, she doesn't tout it so much. She's just purported to so tout it by the unhinged.

Besides which, the "religious right" in the US are generally content with the notion of unmarried mothers with child, given the origins of Jesus and all. You sure better hope that Levi is the father, otherwise you could just end up with another 2000 years of George Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...in Americaland....who knows...the people vote and then the Supreme court tells em they were wrong and choses the guy they didn't vote for to run the country...at least the way I see it from up here in Canadaland.. ...LOL

The people in UnitedStatesofAmericaland don't vote for the president, the States do (it's in the Constitution). Each state gets a number of  "Electors" based on the number of senators and representatives they have in Congress. The idea is fundamental to the Founders' intent of a federation of sovereign states, which is what the USA is. Fans of this traditional system argue that it protects the rights of smaller states, assists with the separation of powers and helps prevent an urban "tyranny of the majority".

By convention the individual state legislatures base their presidential electoral votes on the majority votes of their peoples (i.e. they ask them), but could in fact cast their votes as they wish. Most states stick with the Founders' system and cast all their Electors' votes according to the majority vote of their people (two states divide their Electors' votes proportionately).

Very occasionally (3 times in 55 elections) this system will produce a president that is legally and constitutionally elected by the States but happens to not reflect a majority of US citizens' votes if they were taken as whole. Since their votes were never intended to be taken as a whole, this discrepancy is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

George W Bush's 2000 victory was one of the three occasions, but this had nothing to do with a Supreme Court decision. That was related to the legality of the vote in the state of Florida, which happened to be the deciding state as far as the Electoral College votes went. People still argue about that and the Supreme Court divided on "party" lines. What is interesting is that the total number of disputed votes at the time was less than the number of votes subsequently found to be illegal due to being cast twice - once in New York and again in Florida. If you're wondering which way those votes were cast, suffice to say that if GWB stole that election it was only because he stole it back. He won the 2004 election clear by whatever yardstick…

In ye olden days, candidates used to stand simultaneously for both presidential and vice-presidential positions. Would make this forthcoming election interesting, that’s for sure. ;-)

(edit - fecking format shite)
(frack, copynpaste buggers things up royally)

*">> This forum is for discussions about Poser.

*Sorry, but I must disagree."

Not y(our) call, Sean. You should know by now that when one of the smiling, furry Disney characters walks up and waves at you that you should just wave back and move along.

(Which is exactly how your whole country will turn out if your guy wins. :-P~~ )

Oops.

Arse.
.

"As such, I won't play favorites left or right on an open forum...
...
...the greatest transfer of wealth in human history has taken place from the lower classes and the mythical middle classes of America, to the the most highest class."

Okaaay...

*"...I'm watching friends losing their homes and starving in the street because of this."

• Just watching? You should take video and sell it to fund more Poser content.

"She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000."

*Is that this Pat Buchanan?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcnksZ4FL3Q

*"McCain's VP pick doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Hillary."

*I quite agree. Everything Sarah Palin has achieved (including more executive experience than all the others on the tickets combined - with an 80+ approval rating) has been down to her own efforts and skills. Everything Hillary Clinton has achieved has been a result of being Mrs Bill Clinton.

*"You do you realize that McCain just turned 72, and if he died while serving as President, this giggling former beauty pagent contestant right-wing extremist who's in-bed with Big Oil would become President of the United States and LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD!??? "

*OK, so she's funny and attractive. I can see why people with Hillary C and Nancy Pelosi as female political icons would want to demean these qualities.

She's in bed with a big oil man, a Native American blue collar union member. She supports the utilization of natural resources and, sadly, the notion of "windfall tax" on profits.

As part of her right-wing extremism she ensured that state employees in same-sex civil unions received the same benefits as married couples.

I'll admit she hasn't written multiple autobiographies, even though she's into her 40s already. This could be an issue.

I've always reckoned that the first woman president and the first black president of the USA would be conservatives (as with Margaret Thatcher here in the UK). Still think so.

*"There is no contest anymore."

*Rather usefully, there is. It's called the election. A very entertaining one it's turning out to be, too.

Absolutely. Around here you can get more than one of these (only slightly ammended from the original) and still be a member of nine years "standing". (bloody hell, that's nearly a frelling decade).

The leave-stay balance is yours to assess, but you have to admit the lure of stay won't leave easily.
.

Hey, having long given up hope for awe, I'll run with shock...

Please be assured the larger text above was a formatting blunder. I seek attention as much as the next sad little centre of the universe, but generally have enough reserve to not shout about it.

(pretends not to notice 3-DArena's avatar)
.

Ahh, I drop in the Poser forum once in a blue moon and it seems there's always one of these threads running. Even the US govt gets a mention. Love it! Of course, I say "seems" because to say categorically that there is always one of these threads running would (perhaps) be seen as libellous and I'd hate to see someone laughed at by a judge.

There's always something special about a crushing of dissent thread where the dissenters feel crushed because they weren't allowed to crush a dissenter. Come along chaps, if you want to be free-speaking artist-radicals you're just going to have to learn to take it on the chin when your latest creative expression is compared unfavourably to the appearance of your mother during fornication the previous evening.

And fuck, you can even say "fuck" in the forums nowadays and not have your account suspended by someone inanely irritating who also feels the need to explain to you the benefits of a caring and sharing community (fuck that, too!). Off topic rants and political slap fests are permitted. Even I'm starting to like what they've done with the place.  Isn't competition marvellous?

"Can't we all just get along?"

Nope. Great, ain't it?

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/July/08-nsd-634.html

Nothing happening here, move right along to September 10th. All a government conspiracy. Move along now...

"Okay, so the plan is,  get ahold of my friend... dammit!  pull the data off, then format back to factory condition, and if I'm lucky finish reinstalling what was pulled off."

Just make sure you have all the data off (don't assume!) before you format. With normal methods your friend will only be able to pull off what Windows can normally see. If your data (or some of it) is hidden in a deleted partition you'll still need to use the special software to access it.

Good luck!

BTW, you may still have problems with your art software even if you can pull it off the disk. If you have previously copied the software setup files from the (lost) disks onto your hard drive then you'll be OK (just reinstall with those, assuming you have the licence key codes, etc). But if you only have the final installations in "Program Files"  then those may not work under a new install of Windows (and maybe not even with a repaired Windows, if you can pull that off). Some programs tie themselves up with a particular Windows installation to the extent they can't function without it.

A Bryce5 installation works fine by itself in its own folder transfered onto a new machine, but Bryce6 requires a fresh install.

First and most important advice - do not do anything in terms of writing to that disk until you know you have the data off of it (and backed up). Do NOT continue with the Compaq restore process. Keep that disk safe!

Then (using whatever computer you can access), download Partition Find & Mount from here:
http://findandmount.com/

This is an ace little Windows utility that does a good job of passively finding deleted partitions. The less overwriting you've done the more data it will find. The joy is, the demo version is fully operational and you'll know whether it has saved your stuff or not. If your stuff is there it will present it in the regular Windows Explorer fashion. You can even copy files off the demo mounted partitions at a painfully slow rate so you can rescue essential items for free if you have the time. If you see gigabytes of your art history is safe, believe me you will find the forty four bucks for the full version that permits regular speed copying and rewards those programmers.

I know this works because it rescued me a couple of weeks ago. The disk I had was partitioned into C: and D: , the idea being that I could reinstall Windows without affecting my data on the D:. Trouble was, my WinXP disk is from before the service packs so it didn't recognise the large hard drive size. I'd created my first partition, formatted it and installed Windows before I realised the implications. That's when I discovered by backup was kaput!

Luckily I stopped there and started researching. After a few cruddy programs I found this gem and it recovered my D: drive. All was safe on that, but the old C: drive was toast (it could see it but it was too corrupt). I quickly purchased the full version and grabbed my stuff.

The program works fine with the hard drive placed in one of those outboard USB caddies and seen in Windows as a removable drive. Hitching it up to a spare SATA/IDE channel of another PC is quicker.

Even if that prog or others can't see your old partitions or data, don't give up on it. Keep that disk safe and use another (beg, borrow or steal) to reinstall Windows. Some other technology might save the day.

*"Sad day for the Constitution...  Sad day for all of us..."

Tom, what you're looking at is a setback for your partisan position. It's actually a great day for the constitution.

It is now absolutely clear that both the executive and the legislature desire immunity for the telecomms. The unelected judiciary now has to decide whether it is going to override both the elected parts of government. That is excellent for the constitution because it places the role of the judiciary under a powerful spotlight.

The telecomms are the primary legal target in the NSA wiretapping controversy because they are an easier target than government agencies. Government opponents hope to get at national security secrets by attacking the private telecomms. Amongst those bringing the lawsuits against the telecomms are the remnants of the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, an al-Qaeda terrorist fund raising front group that is sufficiently bad enough to be banned worldwide by the United Nations. Supporters of immunity know exactly what is going on.

The Islamist enemy has stated openly that it will exploit the freedoms of the West to destroy the West. It has established itself in the liberal centres of the West, both physically and ideologically. The NSA surveillance was primarily in coastal areas like California and Oregon where the enemy is based, and it's no surprise that the judges selected by the enemy and other government opponents to hear these cases are also primarily from these areas.

FISA was introduced as an understandable reaction to corrupt government such as conducted by Nixon. But it was introduced before the complexities of the Jihad and emplacement of Islamist fifth columnists across America. FISA needs adapting and updating to the modern threat. Today was one (retrospective) step in that direction.

BTW, although Barack Obama voted against immunity in the individual bills, he voted for cloture; thus demonstrating he'll happily take more than one position on anything in order to get elected. *Change!

*Meanwhile, the New York Times outed the CIA agent who interrogated (not using waterboarding) Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. This agent and his family are now targets of the enemy.

Meanwhile, in Pakistan, relatives of British Islamist fifth columnist Shehzad Tanweer held a feast to celebrate the anniversary of the July 7th London bombings (remember those?) and the "martyrdom" of their Jihadist hero.

Meanwhile, across America and the West, as the events of 9/11 fade from the public consciousness, liberals and leftists clamour for the pretend days of September 10th when there was no enemy but Israel and United States government.

Meanwhile...

*"On the face of it all, this hardly compares with the outright eavesdropping anti-privacy the new Swedish law seems to be offering its people."

*Thing is, Quest, those opposed to the Bush administration's actions think they do compare. The warrantless NSA surveillance carried out subsequent to 9/11 operated outside of the FISA framework because the administration considered it had a "go" from Congress via the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Terrorists resolution. FISA has an "unless authorized by statute" provision and the administration considers AUMF authorisation enough. Others disagree. The only oversight for the NSA surveillance was a few congressmen being briefed on a privy council basis.

I'm OK with it because I consider the threat serious enough. I see the interception and inspection of electronic communications across the border as no different morally to the interception and inspection of physical items across the border. I do not regard either as a violation of the spirit of the constitution (which is not a suicide pact).

AUMF:
"[Be it resolved] [t]hat the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

The administration's interpretation of this as permitting open-ended warrantless wiretapping is challenged by opponents who point out that FISA permits the president to perform warrantless wiretaps for a period of only fifteen days after a full declaration of war. The opponents regard AUMF as  being less than a full declaration of war and so therefore AUMF should not permit open-ended wiretaps. But (my opinion) legally AUMF is neither more nor less than a declaration of war, it is just different - and its provisions and permissions are different.

This is one for the Supreme Court to decide. They already regard AUMF as an activation of the president's war powers. They have given the administration a pass on one aspect of anti-terror action and a fail on another. We'll see, as the issue is bound to end up before them eventually.