天眼

一 | 1月16日，据外媒消息，索尼今天发布了最新的反反射相机。    WASHINGTON -- Charles and Kathleen Moore are about to have their day in the Supreme Court over a $15,000 tax bill they contend is unconstitutional.The couple from Redmond, Washington, claim they had to pay the money because of their investment in an Indian company from which, as Charles Moore, 62, said in a sworn statement, they “have never received a distribution, dividend, or other payment.”But significant parts of the story they have told to reach this point seem at odds with public records.The Moores are the public face of a high court case backed by business and conservative political interests that could call into question other parts of the U.S. tax code and rule out a much-discussed but never-enacted tax on wealth. The case is set for arguments on Dec. 5. The Moores are the latest example of plaintiffs whose lawsuits seem to simply be exercising their legal rights, but whose cases are backed by others with enormous amounts of money or a consequential social issue at stake. The Moores sought help from the anti-regulatory Competitive Enterprise Institute.Underscoring the case's importance at a recent Heritage Foundation event, lawyer Paul Clement said, "The constitutionality of a wealth tax may well be decided in the context of this case.”Details of the Moores' involvement with the company, initially called KisanKraft Machine Tools Private Limited, were first reported by Tax Notes, which caters to tax professionals. The public documents are filings with the Indian government.At issue in the case is a provision of the 2017 tax bill enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed by then-President Donald Trump. The law applies to companies that are owned by Americans, but do their business in foreign countries. It imposes a one-time tax on investors' shares of profits that have not been passed along to them, in order to offset other tax benefits. The measure is expected to generate $340 billion in tax revenues.The Moores, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and conservative think tanks, contend that the provision violates the 16th Amendment, which allows the federal government to impose an income tax on Americans.The $15,000 tax bill was for the Moores' share of KisanKraft's profits."If you haven’t received any income, how can you be required to pay income taxes?” Charles Moore asks in a video posted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.But far from being a passive investor with no influence over the company, Moore, who worked at Microsoft during his career in software development, served on KisanKraft's board of directors for five years.“The story the Moores told about Charles' involvement with KisanKraft is directly at odds with the fiduciary responsibilities of an individual holding a board seat for an Indian company,” Mindy Herzfeld, a professor of tax practice at the University of Florida law school, wrote in Tax Notes.And there are other indications of Moore's more extensive involvement with KisanKraft than his testimony indicated. The company paid for his travel to India four times and he made at least two investments beyond the $40,000 stake he put up in 2006.Moore also was prepared to invest an another roughly $250,000. That money was ultimately returned by KisanKraft, along with 12% interest.One other inconsistency is that while the Moores say they jointly invested the money, only Charles Moore's name appears in company documents.The couple and their lawyers did not disclose any of that information in legal filings in three different federal courts, including the Supreme Court.“The original declaration on which the case is built is full of lies,” said Reuven Avi-Yonah, an international tax expert at the University of Michigan law school.In a brief conversation with The Associated Press, Kathleen Moore said she and her husband would not discuss the case and referred questions to their lawyers. Andrew Grossman, the Moore's lead attorney, did not respond to messages seeking comment.The omissions, along with the Moores' failure to take advantage of other legal options that would have deferred, if not eliminated, their tax liability make Avi-Yonah and other experts in international tax law suspect the case was manufactured to get at a larger issue, the tax on billionaires that has been proposed by some prominent Democrats but never enacted.A wealth tax would apply not to the incomes of the very richest Americans, but their assets, like stock holdings, that now only get taxed when they are sold. “There really was no reason for the court to take it on, other than to send a signal to warn off the Congress from passing a billionaire tax," said Steven Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.Other provisions of the tax code could be upended by the court's decision, including measures relating to partnerships, limited liability companies and other business formations, Rosenthal said.Changes to those provisions also could affect some justices' finances. Chief Justice John Roberts holds a one-eighth interest worth up to $15,000 in an Irish partnership that owns a cottage in county Limerick, Ireland, and Justice Clarence Thomas' wife, Ginni, owns a limited liability company that generated between $50,000 and $100,000 in income last year from Nebraska real estate, according to the justices' financial disclosure forms. Two other recent Supreme Court cases advanced by conservative interests also raised questions about whether facts had been manipulated to get the disputes in front of the court. One of those involved a wedding website designer in Colorado who did not want to work with same-sex couples and a public high school football coach in Washington who wanted to pray on the field.Rosenthal said that “the ugly facts matter” and that the justices could return the Moores' case to a lower court without ruling on it.Charles Moore said in his sworn statement that he agreed to invest in the company that was being formed by his friend and former colleague at Microsoft, Ravindra “Ravi” Kumar Agrawal, because he liked the business plan and trusted his friend.“Moreover, I thought KisanKraft was formed for a noble purpose and had the potential to improve the lives of small and marginal farmers in India,” Moore said. The case had already kicked up ethical questions. Senate Democrats had asked Justice Samuel Alito to step aside from the case because of his interactions with David Rivkin, another lawyer who also is representing the Moores. The Democrats said Alito had cast doubt on his ability to judge the case fairly because he sat for four hours of Wall Street Journal opinion page interviews with an editor at the newspaper and Rivkin.Alito rejected the demands in a four-page statement issued by the court in which he said there “is no valid reason” for his recusal. ___Associated Press writer Fatima Hussein contributed to this report.___This story has been corrected to reflect that Mindy Herzfeld is a professor of tax practice at the University of Florida law school, not director of the master's program in international tax.。新的A6400具有令人印象深刻的规格和一系列新功能，包括实时眼睛自动对焦、实时跟踪和世界上最快的自动对焦。

二 | A6400的内部是一个2420万像素的APS-C Exmor CMOS传感器，带有最新一代的BioNZ X图像处理器。其最大ISO为3200（可扩展至102400）。它可以使用机械快门以每秒11帧的速度连续拍摄照片，或者静音以每秒8帧的速度连续拍摄照片。具有完整的AF/AE跟踪功能。缓冲区可以捕获多达116个jpeg帧或46个原始压缩帧。A6400的主要优点之一是它的自动对焦功能。该相机具有425相位和对比度检测自动对焦功能，覆盖了84%的图像区域。索尼声称，自动对焦系统是世界上最快的，锁定物件只需0.02秒。A6400还引入了索尼新的高级“实时眼AF”和“实时跟踪”功能。

三 | 实时眼AF是索尼眼AF技术的最新版本。

四 | 它使用基于人工智能的目标识别来检测和跟踪眼睛，提高了准确性、速度和性能。

五 | ”在所有的自动对焦模式中，相机现在可以自动检测到物体的眼睛，并用半按快门按钮激活自动对焦。在AF-C或AF-A模式下，可以选择首选的眼睛（左或右）作为焦点。选择包括自动/右眼/左眼，开关右眼/左眼功能也可以被指定为自定义功能。“索尼还将扩大动物的眼睛跟踪，这是野生动物摄影师的一个宝贵功能。该功能将在2019年夏季通过摄像头固件进行更新。实时跟踪还使用相同的基于人工智能的系统来识别主题，并确保它们被准确捕获。”实时跟踪是一种新的物体跟踪功能，跟踪焦点中最具挑战性的运动物体。在半按快门按钮时选择要跟踪的任何主题的能力提供了新的框架灵活性，允许用户更多地关注图像。如果焦点在一个人身上，那么人工智能将被用来实时检测和跟踪对象的眼睛和脸，以达到非常高的跟踪精度。A6400的背面是一个3英寸、180度倾斜的触摸屏LCD显示屏，非常适合自拍和视频博客。EVF上方是一个236万点xga Tru取景器OLED电子取景器。对于视频拍摄，A6400可以拍摄具有全像素读取和无像素合并的内部UHD 4K。索尼说，相机收集到的数据“大约是4K电影所需数据的2.4倍，然后进行过采样，以产生具有出色细节和深度的高质量4K材料。

六 | ”1080p全高清图像质量可以在120 fps和高达100 Mbps的速度下拍摄。

七 | 其他视频功能包括S-log2和S-log3、用于即时HDR工作流的混合对数伽马（HLG）图像配置文件、内置间隔计、AE跟踪（高、中、低）、斑马函数、伽马显示助手和代理记录。A6400的其他功能和规格包括弹出式闪光灯、内置Wi-Fi和NFC、八个自定义按钮（具有89种不同功能）、增强的菜单可用性、菜单帮助屏幕、照片星、坚固的镁合金机身和额定200000次循环的百叶窗。这是一张使用索尼A6400拍摄的官方照片：新的索尼A6400反反射相机将于2019年2月推出并以900美元（约6085元）的价格发货。它还将与16-50毫米f/3.5-5.6镜头（1000美元，约合6761元）或18-135毫米f/3.5-5.6镜头（1300美元，约合8789元）配套使用。