Sign In

Dek Rollins

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
6-Apr-2015
Last activity
22-Feb-2018
Posts
2603

Post History

Post
#1173182
Topic
The Dream of the Giant Fractal Woodlouse.
Time

I dreampt that I was on a bus and Joel Hodgson was there, and we met. It was cool. Then we were in some room and Joel had a computer in front of him, and a girl I know from school was there now. Joel said we had to write stories, and the girl said I was good at writing fanfiction, which confused me because I don’t write fanfiction and I’m not a terribly good writer regardless. Then Joel said “name a film by the Coens with the Rens,” and then another similar demand that I don’t remember. I was really confused and I didn’t know what he was talking about, but then I woke up.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1173082
Topic
Random Thoughts
Time

The music video to Weird Al’s “Don’t Download This Song” is a masterpiece of animation and visual storytelling.

Post
#1172823
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Dek Rollins said:

Warb is correct. The terminology should not be ignored. Virtually all guns owned by US citizens in this day and age are semi-auto. All that means is that the gun auto-cocks every time you fire. You still have to pull the trigger every time. Bump-stocks are a separate issue from the guns themselves.

Since Republicans refuse to ban them, they are absolutely not a separate issue.

Bump-stocks allow semi-auto guns to be rapid-fired with near the efficiency of full-auto. Without the bump-stock, the gun is just like every single other gun anybody uses anywhere in the US for any purpose. The banning of bump-stocks would eliminate the need to ban semi-auto when the argument is that they are equivalent to full-auto when paired with a bump-stock. This makes them separate issues in my opinion.

Post
#1172817
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Dek Rollins said:

TV’s Frink said:

Dek Rollins said:

TV’s Frink said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?

Just curious what you meant.

Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.

Like, rubber bullets?

So your solution is to keep the guns but ban real bullets?

I guess it’s not the worst idea.

That’s not my idea, I was just trying to figure out Dom’s “remove the lethal part of the guns” thing. I’m not aware of how lethal rubber bullets can be, so I don’t even know if that would be a good solution to his inquiry.

I did a quick skim on google and it seems like you can die from the impact, but it’s much less likely.

I would assume blanks would be a better idea.

Blanks don’t work the same way though. You can’t do target practice with blanks

TV’s Frink said:

“too fucking bad.”

That conversation was about making guns, as a sporting good, nonlethal. Blanks remove the use as a sporting good and are not entirely nonlethal. Therefore your argument is invalid in that context.

Post
#1172805
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warb is correct. The terminology should not be ignored. Virtually all guns owned by US citizens in this day and age are semi-auto. All that means is that the gun auto-cocks every time you fire. You still have to pull the trigger every time. Bump-stocks are a separate issue from the guns themselves.

Post
#1172796
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Dek Rollins said:

TV’s Frink said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?

Just curious what you meant.

Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.

Like, rubber bullets?

So your solution is to keep the guns but ban real bullets?

I guess it’s not the worst idea.

That’s not my idea, I was just trying to figure out Dom’s “remove the lethal part of the guns” thing. I’m not aware of how lethal rubber bullets can be, so I don’t even know if that would be a good solution to his inquiry.

I did a quick skim on google and it seems like you can die from the impact, but it’s much less likely.

I would assume blanks would be a better idea.

Blanks don’t work the same way though. You can’t do target practice with blanks, and you can still kill/hurt someone with a blank if you hold the gun at pointblank range.

Post
#1172793
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

chyron8472 said:

DominicCobb said:

I get why people like shooting automatic rifles at firing ranges. I get it.

I don’t.

Explain it to me. Why is this required as a potential pastime in this country?

Since when is any pastime “required”? A lot of people have a lot of fun shooting targets. When you add semi-auto or auto fire, it is just a different way to entertain yourself than with single-fire manual-cock guns.

Post
#1172789
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?

Just curious what you meant.

Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.

Like, rubber bullets?

So your solution is to keep the guns but ban real bullets?

I guess it’s not the worst idea.

That’s not my idea, I was just trying to figure out Dom’s “remove the lethal part of the guns” thing. I’m not aware of how lethal rubber bullets can be, so I don’t even know if that would be a good solution to his inquiry.

Post
#1172743
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

yhwx said:

The goal of a can of Pringles is to give a mildly satisfying food consumption experience. The goal of a gun is to kill. And that’s why we regulate the latter but not the former.

Exactly!

Post
#1172734
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

I never equated the effectiveness of those other things to a gun. I never alluded to the idea that I felt those were equivalent. I simply said that there are other ways for psychos to hurt the people around them.

And considering a gun as a sporting good, doesn’t a gun have just as much use as a baseball bat or a golf club? Both of which could be easily used to bludgeon someone to death. Or a sword that has no practical in-home purpose. Again, I’m not saying these objects are of equivalent effectiveness at killing people. Just pointing out that various “deadly weapons” are found everywhere in the average American home. These things sometimes have practical use, and sometimes only exist for entertainment. But the thing they have in common is that they can all be dangerous in the wrong hands.

Guns are just the most effective way to commit mass murder without anything going wrong. This of course makes them the most dangerous and that is only exemplified by the lack of a practical use.

Post
#1172676
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

We need to make thorough background checks and mental evaluations required in every state. Beyond that I don’t think any restrictions on the weapons themselves are necessary or particularly effective. The guns need to be kept out of reach of the kind of people who will commit atrocities, not out of reach of law abiding citizens. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

I know most everyone here disagrees with that sentiment, but that’s how I figure it. Pretty much every shooting that has occurred has happened because there was a neglect for making sure the wrong person doesn’t get the gun.

On another note, if they can’t get guns, they’ll make homemade explosive devices out of fertilizer and blow the school up. If they can’t do that, they’ll take the steak knife from the kitchen and stab some people.

Another problem is the media coverage being way too specific.

From 2016: https://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2016/05/04/mediashootings

Post
#1172661
Topic
The New Thread Thread
Time

Yeah I thought that was more of a “you were going to watch a movie, but you didn’t get to” type thing. Not a “you sort of watched a movie on and off and pretty much saw half of it/watched half a movie and turned it off” type thing. It doesn’t really matter if _ender’s thread gets more mileage, I was just curious for future situations.

Post
#1172621
Topic
The New Thread Thread
Time

Is there a “Last movie you saw half of” thread? Or should that stay delegated to whichever of the existing threads?

Post
#1172466
Topic
The Terminator - Color Regrade
Time

I have replaced the MEGA link with a new link to a smaller, more Blu-ray compatible MKV, now in 8 .rar parts. This MKV is only 29GB rather than 39GB like the original upload, and is fully optimized for Blu-ray. Those who have already PM’d me for the original link have been notified with the new link via PM.

Post
#1172297
Topic
Why was this user banned? thread.
Time

ray_afraid said:

Handman said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Yeah, that too, but maybe it’s not super easy to find that information for someone who wasn’t around then and is curious about it months later.

The member who was curious received a PM about it to avoid digging up that rather nasty incident for the whole forum again.

Again, I must be missing something. How/why is stating why a user was banned such a horrible thing?

I’m also confused. Solo lied about a sensitive topic to grab attention. No PTSD should come out of repeating that for those who don’t know.

Post
#1172270
Topic
Curious about plans for long term cultural legacy of the efforts here
Time

When talking about resolution and detail from digital scans of film, I think people sometimes have a flawed perception of the situation.

It may be true that 35mm negative only has 4k equivalent in detail resolution, and even lower for prints, opticals, and smaller formats, but a higher digital resolution is required to retain every visible grain in the film to the fullest. When people say 4k is overkill for 16mm, that’s not really true, because the digital resolution still needs to hold the physical image of every grain that would be visible in a projection of the film.

This post has been edited.

To the top