What's a good free Windows video editor that crops out data in the MP4 video frame?

On Oct 12, 2017, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote
(in article ):

Le Snip

I'm glad you didn't mind my little dig (-:. [My name's John by the way.]

That’s great!

*harry newton* is known to many of us the nymshifting, cross posting,
insulting troll also known as, *Aardvark*, *AArdvarks*, *Tomos Davies*,
*Chaya Eve*, *Roy Tremblay*, *Blake Snyder*, *Lionel Muller*, *Stijn De
Jong*, *John Harmon*, *Martin Chuzzlewit II*, *Raymond Spruance III*,
*Algeria Horan*, *Horace Algier*, *Karl Schultz*, *Conradt*, *Henning
Schröder*, *Liam O’Connor*, *Alphonse Arnaud*, *Danny DiAmico*, *VinnyP*,
*Juan Camilo Blanco*, and many more. So you can anticipate his reappearance
soon, clad in a fresh sock.

The only reason I am even seeing your post is the change you made to the
subject line.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 09:29:05 +0000 (UTC), harry newton
wrote:

He who is Char Jackson said on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:48:33 -0500:

I must agree with both JP Gilliver and nospam that there are many people
who make emotional decisions where they no longer can look objectively at
the problem set.

I wonder if Gvim text editor would be an example of that. ;-)

Naw, probably not.

I smiled with pleasure when I saw your note because you understood that I
am extremely efficient at typing with gvim (which I'm using at this very
moment to type my Usenet posts).

I had an opportunity to use vi yesterday and it immediately became clear
(again) why it has fallen to the wayside over the past 40 years. It used
to be the king of the hill in text editors, probably along with EMACS,
but I don't see anyone using it these days. That's just my personal
observation and not a declaration of the state of the IT world. In fact,
the last time I directly observed someone using it was possibly 10-15
years ago. Still, it exists everywhere, so more power to you for helping
to keep it alive. I'm sorry I can't join you in that endeavor.

--

Char Jackson

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 09:54:41 +0000 (UTC), harry newton
wrote:

You [John] don't seem to appreciate the efficiency of vi, but I do.
It just means we place different values on different things.

As long as you accept that the efficiency of which you speak comes as a
result of familiarity, not anything inherently efficient about the
product. If you look at it objectively, it's among the least efficient
tools, wouldn't you agree?

--

Char Jackson

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:32:01 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 01:36:53 +0000 (UTC), harry newton
wrote:

He who is nospam said on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:31:18 -0400:

One factor is overcoming familiarity-prejudice, too - some people
(probably most of us; I know I'm guilty) think the "best" is the one
they've been using for years, if not decades, and they overcome the
shortcomings (inefficiencies, but not just those) by habit that's so
ingrained they don't realise they're doing it.

true.

another effect is that if another system does what they want, but in a
slightly different way, it's automatically worse, even if it's
objectively simpler and more effective.

I must agree with both JP Gilliver and nospam that there are many people
who make emotional decisions where they no longer can look objectively at
the problem set.

I wonder if Gvim text editor would be an example of that. ;-)

Naw, probably not.

What do you think prompted me to write the first paragraph above (-:?
(To which nospam's contribution is a worthy addition.)

Thanks, John. I'm quite aware of what you were doing, but I didn't want
to be _too_ obvious or obnoxious. :-)

--

Char Jackson

"harry newton" wrote in message
news
MacArthur was sure of his point and he conveniently ignored the
complexities (which he was forced to admit and which was proven in the
subsequent congressional hearings).
MacArthur took what I'm calling the childish side of the argument.
It's the same side that the iOS apologists *always* take.
It's the same side the gun control advocates *always* take.
It's the same side the abortion-restriction advocates *always* take.
it's the same side the global-warming alarmists *always* take.

Gun control is probably one issue where US and UK will always have different
views. I suppose having been brought up in trouble-free, relatively
crime-free areas of the UK, I have never felt the *need* for a gun - or even
a knife. I suppose I tend to think of *not* having a gun as the default
state, and you need to make a damn good case to have or use one. To live in
such fear of being attacked that you accidentally kill your loved ones (as
in the case of Oscar Pistorius in South Africa) must be hell.

I freely admit that this is a one-side view. At least I can see that not
everyone will feel that way, firstly in the US where there's a culture of
owning guns (it's even in your Constitution - the Right to Bear Arms), and
secondly if you live in an area where crime and attack from housebreakers is
likely.

The nearest I've got to organised violence is when I was at university in
Bristol in the 1980s and I once took a wrong turning and ended up in the St
Pauls district which had been in the news a few weeks earlier when there had
been inner-city violence in many cities. To see burned-out cars, fragments
of bricks stren across the streets, broken windows and areas scorched by
petrol bombs is quite a shock when only a mile or so away was the peaceful
suburb where my hall of residence was and the peaceful roads that I walked
between there to university. And yet even in that area, someone tried to mug
me. I was *very* lucky that I managed to catch the guy off guard and somehow
miraculously managed to throw him to the ground, and someone came along to
help me just as he was getting up again, so he ran off. Thankfully he was
relying on surprise and strength, rather than being armed with a knife or a
gun. Thank goodness I live in an environment where weapons like that are
rare - and that I know which areas (most cities have them) to avoid at
night.

I've often thought that Britain's self-defence laws should be strengthened,
to put the onus much more on an "invader" to someone's property/back yard to
prove that they had an innocent reason to be there, rather than punishing
people who attack an "invader" because they are in fear of their lives. The
guidance is too vague and there are too many cases of people who are fed up
to their back teeth of being repeatedly broke into getting prosecuted for
fighting off attackers by using "too much force". I'm of the opinion that if
you are being attacked you hit as hard as you possibly can to avoid being
attacked again (and to send a message to anyone else) and then walk away.
There are those who continue to attack even after their assailant is
incapacitated and no longer a threat, out of revenge and retaliation, and
that is probably crossing the line.

In message , harry newton
writes:
He who is J. P. Gilliver (John) said on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:22:33 +0100:

That's an interesting one - why do you? You can get an Android 'phone
of similar or better technical spec. for a lot less than any given
iPhone; I presume that you are giving them to people who you know
need the closed and safe environment already discussed.

I have kids. I have grandkids. I have sisters. I have brothers. All of
whom have kids and grandkids galore.
Half of them (mostly the girls) *love* Apple products (especially the
pretty colors!). The other half (mostly the boys) use Android like they
would use a drill or a hammer. It's a tool to get a job done. Pretty
colors aren't meaningful to them.
Two different mentalities completely.

If you don't read this thread, you may *never* understand their mentality:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/-T7FEXIdU9Q/Dhy-LFH3AwAJ

I don't have time; this thread is consuming far too much.

When I said "why do you", I meant specifically why do you give iPhones
to your family. For the price of an iPhone, you could get an Android
one, with ten pretty coloured cases, and still have a lot of change left
over. So I presume they love Apple products for more than just the
colours, and that you understand why.
[]
Enabled _you_ to, yes. You maybe are forgetting your "muscle memory".
If there is one thing that should be obvious by now, it's that I talk,
think and type accurately and fast and voluminously.

I don't know you (and you seem to want to keep it that way) to know how
you talk; I think I can see how you think; your typing is pretty
accurate (spelling and grammar); and it's certainly voluminous. But I
don't think the fact that mine is (only slightly!) less voluminous than
yours has anything to do with the editor I'm using (which currently is
the one in my news client); I take time to think, so that works. (In
other words, I can type more than fast enough to keep up with my
thinking - and that probably applies whatever editor I'd be using.)
[]
This is likely my *last* post to this thread, as I don't like going off

[I thought the last one was ... (-:]
[bit just slagging off others (and urging me to read other threads,
which I'm sure are long and boring) deleted]

Yes, for militias, not individuals, I think. (I'm in the UK, where
there have been recent years where the number of people shot dead by
the police _nationally_ have been in single figures - I think some
years zero. I present that just for interest, not saying it's better
than the US situation!)

You have to understand something you don't seem to understand when you
mention that "militias" are your fundamental tipping point. I don't
mean that as an insult, but I will be blunt with you in the interest of
brevity.

Nope - I was just raising that as the nominal counter to the nominal
point about "it's in the constitution" that gets raised by the other
side. I never said the arguments are simple.
[]
It's like what MacArthur was arguing around Thanksgiving at the Chosin
Reservoir versus what Truman was dealing with in the coalition.

Remember, I'm in the UK; I've vaguely heard of MacArthur and Truman
(weren't they generals and/or presidents? I know Truman was a
president), but I have no idea what the Chosin Reservoir represents, at
Thanksgiving or any other time.
[]
It's the same side that the iOS apologists *always* take.
It's the same side the gun control advocates *always* take.
It's the same side the abortion-restriction advocates *always* take.
it's the same side the global-warming alarmists *always* take.
etc.

Am I to assume then that you're anti-iOS, pro-gun, pro-abortion, and
anti-warming? The middle two together are unusual, though not
impossible.
[]
Ooh, you're on hot coals there! (You're also not considering the
argument about when it becomes a sentient entity - I won't use the
emotive word "baby" - which argument also requires consideration.)

Again. There is no argument *anyone* can ever make on abortion that I
haven't heard, understood, and thought about. Not one.
I don't know if you know them all, but there is *never* going to be
progress on the abortion issue when there will *always* be two sides to
the argument.

Especially when there are _more_ than two sides (e. g. foetus' rights,
women's rights, and the libertarian view).
[]
Just like Apple is *very clever* at manipulating public opinion, in the
case of the gay-rights debate, what you'd think is the childish side of
the argument is actually the (very cleverly hidden) more refined side
of the argument.

It's sheer genius actually.
However, very few people will *understand* anything I'm saying, and

I'm finding it increasingly difficult, certainly.

even if they could, Usenet isn't the place for it (neither is email)
since there is an intense amount of detail in my suppositions.

Mine too. I dislike any view that says there are only two sides to a
debate (such as one of the Bushes saying "if you're not with us, you're
against us": such a view is likely to push me towards being against,
even if my inclination before it was said was to be with).

Some day I would hope to write a book along the lines of The Naked Ape
or Guns, Germs, and Steel, where I "explain" to the masses what
actually is happening.

Then do so! It will join all the others, of course. (My mum rather liked
The Naked Ape; I found it rather glib/smug [which _doesn't_ mean I
disagree with it, just its certainty], though haven't read it all.)

But Usenet isn't the place for deep philosophical discussions.

Agreed. That won't stop people having them here though.

So this is almost certainly my *last* post to this thread, simply
because you and I both know this thread has run its course and now the
[bit naming other people snipped]
Yes. Which makes things more difficult for we who see both sides, as
we find it more difficult to argue: those who only see one side are
much quicker to respond, which is often to their advantage. (I hate
and fear mobs of all kinds.)
[and again]
The three people exist:
1. Smart but almost always wrong because he just guesses
2. Emotional, and almost always wrong because he's driven by emotions
3. Not all that smart, but able to see a fact when it's shown to him

So which one are you (-:?
[]
So all you can do is move on, as I am doing at the end of this thread.
(Do you mean ... of this _post_?)
(Where the jackals will pounce on the dying thread as they wish.)

I've seen no sign of them so far, other than one post from Savageduck
(who may or may not be one of the people you condemn).

You just have to hope they don't vote.

I'd be wary of using the term "apologist" quite so freely: in my
experience, the person using the term in any argument is the one who
usually goes down in my estimation, _even if it is true_. Probably,
the same applies to _any_ name-calling.

The problem with people like nospam is exemplified in the thread I will
repeatedly point you to. Have you read it? If you don't call nospam an
iOS apologist after reading that thread, you have to come up with some
kind of description for someone who emphatically says 1+1=3 sans a
shred of proof and despite proof that 1+1=2.

You haven't digested what I said (or have chosen to ignore it), that
people who go around calling others names - *even if correctly* -
generally, to *me*, go down in my opinion.
[]
How do you respond to someone who *can't* understand he's dead wrong?

I try, with you ... (-:
[]
You're casting aspersions at _all_ Apple owners (yes, I saw you use
the word "propensity", but still). _Some_ Apple owners - I suspect
it's a minority, but perhaps a bigger one than you think - are
willing to pay the extra, for the convenience of knowing it will all
work together properly: they value their _time_ (not) spent on the
matter highly. To give a very imperfect analogy, you (assuming you
drive) buy fuel for your car without worrying whether it's
appropriate: I'm not talking about whether it's contaminated, but it
could be fuel that would work fine in a differently-set-up engine
than yours but wouldn't in yours, but you don't worry about that, you
just buy it. (Don't analyse that analogy - I said it's imperfect; it
just came to mind, as car analogies are popular.)

I'm currently reading Guns, Germs, and Steel, where I find it
interesting that the origin of common misconceptions is explored. What

I prefer Snopes for that (-:
[]
All I did was explain why there is a never-ending argument between
Apple apologists and people how understand facts.

Sounds like you're accusing them of having a closed mind. And I find
myself thinking about pots and kettles.
[]
while the more refined argument shows facts as they exist. Certainly this
Though I agree with you (I think) on the three examples above,
you've got to be careful not to be saying "the more refined argument
is the one that agrees with me" (-:

I never said that. In fact, in the gay-rights situation, the more
refined argument is sheer and utter genius on the part of people whom I
disagree with (on the details).

So you go with the childish argument! [I haven't actually worked out
which side you're on in that debate, though I can't say I care.]
[]
Sometimes I agree with the childish side of the argument. Sometimes I
agree with the more-refined side of the argument.

Strange; what you've been saying up to now suggests you usually despise
the childish argument (because you think those on that side can only see
one side).
[]
Want to know another never-ending argument that I know both sides of?

Not really.
[LOTS more snipped.]

Good luck. Karma to you all. See you in the Usenet afterlife!

You too. I think.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Europeans see luxury as a badge of civilisation. Whereas we [British] have
shabbiness as a badge of civilisation. - Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen, in Radio
Times 12-18 October 2013

In article , J. P. Gilliver
(John) wrote:

For the price of an iPhone, you could get an Android
one, with ten pretty coloured cases, and still have a lot of change left
over.

not with the same specs, you can't.

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 09:54:41 +0000 (UTC), harry newton
wrote:

You [John] don't seem to appreciate the efficiency of vi, but I do.
It just means we place different values on different things.

As long as you accept that the efficiency of which you speak comes as a

He won't (-:

result of familiarity, not anything inherently efficient about the
product. If you look at it objectively, it's among the least efficient
tools, wouldn't you agree?

He won't (-:

[It (vi, emacs, and similar] _is_ a good editor, and _can_ do things a
lot of others can't. But I think it's more suited to a command-line
environment.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Advertising is legalized lying. - H.G. Wells

In message .com,
Savageduck writes:
On Oct 12, 2017, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote
(in article ):

Le Snip

I'm glad you didn't mind my little dig (-:. [My name's John by the way.]

That’s great!

*harry newton* is known to many of us the nymshifting, cross posting,
insulting troll also known as, *Aardvark*, *AArdvarks*, *Tomos Davies*,
*Chaya Eve*, *Roy Tremblay*, *Blake Snyder*, *Lionel Muller*, *Stijn De
Jong*, *John Harmon*, *Martin Chuzzlewit II*, *Raymond Spruance III*,
*Algeria Horan*, *Horace Algier*, *Karl Schultz*, *Conradt*, *Henning
Schröder*, *Liam O’Connor*, *Alphonse Arnaud*, *Danny DiAmico*, *VinnyP*,
*Juan Camilo Blanco*, and many more. So you can anticipate his reappearance
soon, clad in a fresh sock.

I haven't seen any of those. (Why all the asterisks? And do you have
this as a file, ready to post?)

The only reason I am even seeing your post is the change you made to the
subject line.

So you killed on subject line rather than thread.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Advertising is legalized lying. - H.G. Wells

In article , J. P. Gilliver
(John) wrote:


*harry newton* is known to many of us the nymshifting, cross posting,
insulting troll also known as, *Aardvark*, *AArdvarks*, *Tomos Davies*,
*Chaya Eve*, *Roy Tremblay*, *Blake Snyder*, *Lionel Muller*, *Stijn De
Jong*, *John Harmon*, *Martin Chuzzlewit II*, *Raymond Spruance III*,
*Algeria Horan*, *Horace Algier*, *Karl Schultz*, *Conradt*, *Henning
Schröder*, *Liam O¹Connor*, *Alphonse Arnaud*, *Danny DiAmico*, *VinnyP*,
*Juan Camilo Blanco*, and many more. So you can anticipate his reappearance
soon, clad in a fresh sock.

I haven't seen any of those. (Why all the asterisks? And do you have
this as a file, ready to post?)

the asterisks are for bold.

does your newsreader not support *bold* /italic/ and _underline_ ?