CatBus

The current audio track I’m using features the lossless Blu-ray audio for everything except the Castle Anthrax transition, where I switch over to your previous (analogue?) capture. There is a very slight reduction in quality there, but it’s only noticeable when you listen with the volume cranked to unreasonable levels. Other than that I’d say it’s already seamless.

But if you want to try a digital capture for what amounts to less than 10 seconds of audio and little-to-no audible improvement, I’m game.

#ShouldveInvitedStinky

I have been totally unable to take a post by stinky_dinkins out of context. It’s like parodying Björk, it can’t be done.

“I’m not dead yet” bump.

Found another possible Japanese translator, will get the files over to them and see how it goes.

TV’s Frink said:

We get so much mileage out of xhonzi typos. It makes me weep with joy.

Remember when scientists made a thing called “Biosphere 2”? It was this enclosure that theoretically behaved the way the Earth (a.k.a. Biosphere 1) did, but in a smaller, totally isolated, idealized way, controlled by the scientists. Under the best case scenario, it would be exactly like the Earth it sought to replicate, except without any factors they couldn’t control. It didn’t work very well at all and fell apart pretty fast.

Not sure what reminded me of that. Oh yeah, and my college roommate made a thing called “Pornosphere 2” but it was different.

SilverWook said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-trump-aide-sam-nunberg-called-before-grand-jury-says-he-will-refuse-to-go/2018/03/05/24c8b86a-20a9-11e8-badd-7c9f29a55815_story.html

I’m no legal expert, but I’m pretty sure blowing off a federal subpoena is a great way to get hauled off in cuffs probably while still in your pajamas.

Open contempt of court has proven to be a sure way to get a Presidential pardon, so maybe he’s just going off a different legal playbook.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Story time!

For about 13 years, my dad has made my family perform a ritual in the morning of most days. It’s changed slightly over the years, mostly just by adding more half-quoted Bible verses for us to repeat after him in meaningless succession, but for the most part it’s been consistent. He has us stand in a circle and repeat things he says for a while and do stupid poses (the latter part was added a few years ago because he watched a TED talk or something), and then he brings up Ephesians 6:10-18, or Paul’s “Armor of God” metaphor. I say metaphor, though my parents would call that heresy, as they see the “armor” as a literal set of armor that we must physically place on our bodies every day. It’s a stupid, stupid ritual based on bizarre, ungrounded theology, but any time I’ve questioned it or even just not spoken in a tone that sounded convincingly enthusiastic or reverent, he gets pissed at me for “disrespecting God.”

TL;DR, being raised under entirely literalist theology is fucking exhausting.

So, I’m a little late to the party here, but every now and then I hear someone railing against organized religion and I find myself nodding along because as an atheist that seems to fit my biases pretty well. But then every now and then I hear a story like this and I think, you know, maybe religion could use a little bit of organization after all.

My condolences on, uh, whatever the hell that was. The most important lesson is from Luke 23:37 “Save yourself!” Okay that was selective editing and just for snark, but really I hope you find a way that works for you, and a way to work with your family, that can work in the long term.

Alright, thanks all. I will now wring my hands over this in private.

Got it. So if you want to seed (as I theoretically do), you should open a port (literally port forward from your router)? If so, which port(s)? I’ve only ever opened inbound ports to whitelisted IP’s before, so opening to the world makes me twitch a bit.

Suddenly FTP’s not seeming quite so scary. It’s a mess, but a familiar mess 😉

TV’s Frink said:

Wait, so they didn’t give them a raise on accident while trying to give them guns?

They didn’t know the guns were loaded… with cash!

First Amendment, normal form:

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.

First Amendment, extended to defend Nazis:

I do not agree with your plans to murder me and my family, but I’ll defend to the death your right to make those plans.

Not all Nazis pull the trigger personally, but they are organized around the central idea that this is the endgame. In law, that’s called criminal conspiracy, and even the people who don’t pull the trigger are culpable.

I’m still of the opinion that Nazism is no more a political belief than cannibalism is a dietary regimen. And I’ve got no qualms about doing whatever’s necessary to keep society safe from cannibals, and no concern that there’s a slippery slope argument that will one day lead to vegetarians getting targeted.

Looks helpful from a configuration POV, thanks! Still need some conceptual hand-holding though. Like, when you run the software, what’s happening exactly? Obviously files are being shared P2P, but… which files? How do you control what you’re sharing? Who do they get shared with, and how is that determined? How do you get things other people share, etc? And terminology: what’s a tracker, what’s a magnet link, and so on. Are special firewall rules needed? It looks like you can throttle bandwidth on the client end, what about time-of-day rules, etc?

I get computers at a pretty deep level, so I’m not scared to experiment if I know even vaguely where to look, it’s just this particular use case I’ve never even really been anywhere near before.

TV’s Frink said:

I’d like him to suffer first.

IMO he’ll just do a fake repentance spiel before he dies like George Wallace (not sure whether it’ll be about being a sex predator or a racist or just a strong candidate for world’s worst mammal).

Mrebo said:

The idea that state militias would be compelled to use outdated technology doesn’t make sense.

The fact that state militias were thrown over for a standing army before the ink was dry on the Constitution makes a whole lot of things about the Second Amendment not make sense.

dangerous and unusual weapons

You cannot say that there is any greater chance more than these two people would now be dead if the perpetrator had used a suitcase nuke instead of a gun. You can’t.

Mrebo said:

CatBus, just as one shouldn’t ignore the beginning of the 2nd Amendment, one shouldn’t ignore the “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”

If you call “restricting scope via definition” ignoring, then we all ignore that part of the Second Amendment. Arms doesn’t even mean guns. Arms can mean chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. So what we’ve done is scale back to something less, something that the courts consider sensible. Right now that so-called sensible line is at fully-automatic weapons. It hasn’t always been there and won’t always be there. This flexible expanding and contracting line of what qualifies for Second Amendment protections is your “living document” approach, and it reached its current level only fairly recently via activist interpretation.

You could also scale the term “arms” back to what the framers of the Constitution literally meant when they wrote “arms” (your true Strict Constructionist approach, not a Scalia Fake Constructionist approach), and then you could ban everything more modern than muskets and the Second Amendment would be fine with that.

You can take the Second Amendment seriously and come up with wildly different interpretations. Part of that is because it’s so poorly worded and anachronistic.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

As a non-gun person, this is about reason and logic. It’s emotion and fear when any story involving a gun is said to prove that guns need to be banned.

The story doesn’t prove anything that wasn’t proven long ago, it just prompts questions about whether we’re going to do anything about it or kick the can down the road a few more years.

I do care about the Constitution’s protection of liberty too.

Sure, me too.

If you wish to deny people a basic right of self defense or hunting with a gun,

That assumes they have that right to begin with. It’s a legal theory, sure, but it’s not in the Constitution. And even granting some sort of basic right, there’s legal theories regarding what sort of gun, etc. e.g. very few people argue fully automatic machine guns are needed for basic self-defense today, but it hasn’t always been that way. Whether or not you’re denying the right hinges upon how you define the right.

that will take a very long time no matter what party is in power.

Agreed, the Democrats never really seemed that interested in gun control so much as looking busy.

And sometimes people are going to hurt other people. If you want to talk about how certain kinds of guns or certain kinds of people pose a danger, fine. But the OMG a gun view doesn’t seem reasonable to me.

“Certain kinds of guns” is exactly the argument I’m making. It’s just a larger subset than the subset you’d prefer to talk about. And my subset happens to include pretty much every gun used in the violent crimes making the news, so it’s just a matter of the same basic policy proposal being applicable to multiple situations, not a mindless knee-jerk response.

Mrebo said:

As a non-gun person, this is about reason and logic. It’s emotion and fear when any story involving a gun is said to prove that guns need to be banned.

The story doesn’t prove anything that wasn’t proven long ago, it just prompts questions about whether we’re going to do anything about it or kick the can down the road a few more years.

TV’s Frink said:

I just don’t understand why people love their guns so madly that they can’t listen to reason or logic.

Well, that’s half of the frustration. What we’re ultimately talking about here is an entertainment device. Like a frisbee golf course that happens to be lethal. After a few thousand people die on the frisbee golf course, people may reasonably want to shut it down.

But there are people out there who really like frisbee golf. They will say, hey, some guy got struck by lightning on a soccer field one time. And two swimmers got attacked by a shark this year alone. And yeah, all three lived, but they totally could have died. All sports are potentially lethal, why pick on this one frisbee golf course just because a few thousand people died?

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

People can’t be killed by knives and domestic violence can’t happen at a school. Learn something new everyday!

The rate of death is lower with knives than guns. Learning is a process that should never stop. And apparently non sequiturs about domestiic violence can happen anywhere at all.

You cannot say that there is any greater chance these two people who are now dead would be alive if not for the gun. You can’t.

Well, technically you’re right. I’m typing it, not saying it.

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun and it’s even harder to kill lots of people with a knife than a gun. This should be extremely obvious, but since it’s not, learn something new every day!

Well the event I’m still addressing concerns 2 people killed, not lots. In general it’s easier to kill someone with a gun, but it is easy with a knife too. The differing amount of effort is no consolation to a dead person.

When the increased time, effort, and struggle means the attempt failed on one of the intended victims, it may not console the victim (assuming there is one), but as I said earlier, the survivor may think differently.

Mrebo said:

People can’t be killed by knives and domestic violence can’t happen at a school. Learn something new everyday!

The rate of death is lower with knives than guns. Learning is a process that should never stop. And apparently non sequiturs about domestic violence can happen anywhere at all.

Mrebo said:

oojason said:

Mrebo said:

Death and violence is not going to end, subject to a total remaking of the world.

Indeed mate - though many places in the world thankfully don’t have as many (or anywhere near the number of) school shootings.

We should focus on making schools safe! For the particular story I’m commenting on, would we rather this domestic dispute happened off campus? Sure, but I don’t think that’s the most important thing that happened her. Nor would I have been more pleased if a car or knife had been used.

I’m sure the survivor(s) would have been much more pleased if a car or knife had been used.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

Death and violence is not going to end, subject to a total remaking of the world.

Of course the Republican solution is generally “therefore let’s not even try to reduce the death and violence.”

What I see in that story is a domestic dispute ended in 2 deaths. Tragic but not the kind of story indicating there is one good solution.

I’d still much rather read a story about a domestic dispute ended in 2 injuries. Same violent world, different outcome.

That’s nothing more than wishful thinking. I’d like the same thing.

I suppose it’s nice to hear you’d like a gun ban if you thought it wasn’t wishful thinking.