CatBus

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. Root problem not solved, but lives saved.

Collipso said:

Is it ever going to end?

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/03/02/us/central-michigan-university-shots-fired/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

Ask me again when the same political party doesn’t control the White House, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of state governments. I might have a better answer for you then.

dahmage said:

dahmage said:

9,531

Interestingly, it would seem that a full 17 percent of posts are either deleted or private.

PM sent.

Not really.

I just posted a new thread in the Technical HOWTO forum about torrents, as it may apply to distributing the next version of Project Threepio. Anyone with expertise in the matter please consider adding your input, because this is new territory for me. FTP I get. BitTorrent I do not.

So far I’ve pretty much managed to completely avoid even properly knowing what a torrent is, let alone doing much of anything with them. This may change.

With the next release or Project Threepio, I might try seeding it on the Organ myself (in the past, I’ve relied on volunteers). My Internet connection is no longer as tragic as it once was, and I’ve got a headless 24/7 Linux box just sitting around without much to do.

So the question is: how would I even do this? I can ssh into the box, run processes with nohup so they keep going even after I disconnect, and rtorrent is installed. I just want to seed this one thing and nothing else. What’s the best way to go about this? What’s the best way to make it persist through reboots? And so on.

SilverWook said:

It’s a typographic error that has never been corrected over the centuries. It actually refers to the Rod of Ron. Which could be interpreted as referring to adult film star Ron Jeremy. 😛

No, man. It’s the Rod of Ruin from only the best fantasy-themed board game evar!

SilverWook said:

I thought Lucas’ issue was that he didn’t see a market for dead Han Solo figures? 😛

I don’t know about other places, but those things would have flown off the shelf in my neighborhood. Especially if Han got horribly disfigured first.

And maybe some of the neighborhood kids who weren’t me would have bought some too.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.

As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.

Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.

Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.

Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.

“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.

I don’t know what vetting is involved in becoming a teacher, but it should extend beyond mental health.

Certainly giving someone the ability to teach kids geography warrants less scrutiny than giving them the ability to kill all of them. But that doesn’t mean no scrutiny.

Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.

That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.

Vet all school employees! That’s the point. Make the schools safe. It’s about mitigation, as one says.

Yes, that would demote all of them to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Risk mitigated!

I’m saying we should keep the crazies out of school employment.

I understand. I was just expanding on that, on the grounds that children’s safety shouldn’t stop at the school boundaries, and that it’s also possible to protect kids from armed school employees who manage to pass an employment vetting regimen.

As TM2YC suggests, we can’t stop bad things from happening. I don’t recall hearing a story about a teacher bringing a gun to school and shooting a student. That would be weird if such a thing were vanishingly rare even with the ready access to guns.

Sure, but if you can get rid of a rare but bad thing without downsides, I say go for it.

Not all crazy people who pose a danger to children carry weapons.

And thankfully so! The more people who pose a danger to children we can put into that category (not carrying weapons), the better. That’s harm reduction at work.

The question is how you do that without violating law abiding people’s rights.

You’re not law-abiding if you still have a gun after it’s been made illegal. Circular, yes, but all laws are like this. Law-abiding murderers became criminals when murder was outlawed, unless they stopped doing it.

We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for denying the right to a handgun.

As always, I’m approaching it from the opposite direction. We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for justifying the presence of a handgun in a classroom.

I suspect we’re both a default “No” on our questions, with a fairly high hurdle to get to “Yes”.

I don’t think there’s any justification for the handgun in the classroom. As to whether the teacher should own one (assuming he legally owns/is licensed), we need to know more. Setting the 2nd Amendment aside, requiring people to provide justification for firearm ownership runs headlong into due process and equal protection issues. I’m not sure how that shakes out but it’s a legal issue that would need to be addressed.

I ran the due process/equal protection argument past the DMV but they still wouldn’t give me a license until I passed the test.

A test may pass master. But if instead there’s a “good enough reason” standard (or as Australia says, a “genuine reason”), then we may run into issues. Consider if you needed to demonstrate a “genuine reason” to obtain a driver’s license and DMV bureaucrat decided your reason wasn’t lacking. In that situation I think there’s a good case for a due process violation.

The Constitution already specifies a “genuine reason” – being a member of your state’s well-regulated militia, a.k.a. the National Guard. But I don’t mind expanding the explicit Constitutional mandate to cover additional Constitutionally unspecified reasons, such as hunting and varmint control, though. Because I recognize guns do have practical value, in these specific capacities. But if the courts say we can’t add these additional reasons to the constitutional one because of due process or whatever, I suppose we could live pretty easily without them.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.

As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.

Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.

Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.

Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.

“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.

I don’t know what vetting is involved in becoming a teacher, but it should extend beyond mental health.

Certainly giving someone the ability to teach kids geography warrants less scrutiny than giving them the ability to kill all of them. But that doesn’t mean no scrutiny.

Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.

That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.

Vet all school employees! That’s the point. Make the schools safe. It’s about mitigation, as one says.

Yes, that would demote all of them to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Risk mitigated!

I’m saying we should keep the crazies out of school employment.

I understand. I was just expanding on that, on the grounds that children’s safety shouldn’t stop at the school boundaries, and that it’s also possible to protect kids from armed school employees who manage to pass an employment vetting regimen.

As TM2YC suggests, we can’t stop bad things from happening. I don’t recall hearing a story about a teacher bringing a gun to school and shooting a student. That would be weird if such a thing were vanishingly rare even with the ready access to guns.

Sure, but if you can get rid of a rare but bad thing without downsides, I say go for it.

Not all crazy people who pose a danger to children carry weapons.

And thankfully so! The more people who pose a danger to children we can put into that category (not carrying weapons), the better. That’s harm reduction at work.

The question is how you do that without violating law abiding people’s rights.

You’re not law-abiding if you still have a gun after it’s been made illegal. Circular, yes, but all laws are like this. Law-abiding murderers became criminals when murder was outlawed, unless they stopped doing it.

We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for denying the right to a handgun.

As always, I’m approaching it from the opposite direction. We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for justifying the presence of a handgun in a classroom.

I suspect we’re both a default “No” on our questions, with a fairly high hurdle to get to “Yes”.

I don’t think there’s any justification for the handgun in the classroom. As to whether the teacher should own one (assuming he legally owns/is licensed), we need to know more. Setting the 2nd Amendment aside, requiring people to provide justification for firearm ownership runs headlong into due process and equal protection issues. I’m not sure how that shakes out but it’s a legal issue that would need to be addressed.

I ran the due process/equal protection argument past the DMV but they still wouldn’t give me a license until I passed the test – and a car actually serves a practical purpose in addition to being a deadly weapon.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.

As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.

Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.

Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.

Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.

“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.

I don’t know what vetting is involved in becoming a teacher, but it should extend beyond mental health.

Certainly giving someone the ability to teach kids geography warrants less scrutiny than giving them the ability to kill all of them. But that doesn’t mean no scrutiny.

Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.

That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.

Vet all school employees! That’s the point. Make the schools safe. It’s about mitigation, as one says.

Yes, that would demote all of them to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Risk mitigated!

I’m saying we should keep the crazies out of school employment.

I understand. I was just expanding on that, on the grounds that children’s safety shouldn’t stop at the school boundaries, and that it’s also possible to protect kids from armed school employees who manage to pass an employment vetting regimen.

Not all crazy people who pose a danger to children carry weapons.

And thankfully so! The more people who pose a danger to children we can put into that category (not carrying weapons), the better. That’s harm reduction at work.

We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for denying the right to a handgun.

As always, I’m approaching it from the opposite direction. We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for justifying the presence of a handgun in a classroom.

I suspect we’re both a default “No” on our questions, with a fairly high hurdle to get to “Yes”.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.

As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.

Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.

Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.

Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.

“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.

I don’t know what vetting is involved in becoming a teacher, but it should extend beyond mental health.

Certainly giving someone the ability to teach kids geography warrants less scrutiny than giving them the ability to kill all of them. But that doesn’t mean no scrutiny.

Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.

That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.

Vet all school employees! That’s the point. Make the schools safe. It’s about mitigation, as one says.

Yes, that would demote all of them to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Risk mitigated!

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.

As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.

Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.

Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.

Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.

“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.

Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.

That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.

As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.

Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.

Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.

I love that my post resurrected the term “packing heat”.

My work here is done.

The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.

As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.

Also, new reports of swastikas carved into the magazines used in the attack indicate that although particular affiliations still aren’t certain, white supremacist is a pretty safe bet.

EDIT: Someone snarkily commented what is sure to be the actual NRA response to the teacher shooting incident.

They should arm the students to protect themselves from teachers.

Not sketchy, but very nearly unseemly. That’s how suspicious.

Or find a different way to break up wrestling groups equitably, something along the lines of weight classes. Gender in this case is a proxy for other things that could likely be measured and accounted for. Boys and girls, regardless of birth gender, could compete within the same group. As long as the groups were created by some reasonable capability-measuring standard, I don’t see how that would be a problem.

Same thing with firefighters. Firefighters used to exclude women because the average man has more upper body strength than the average woman. But if the department simply tests upper body strength regardless of gender, some women will pass (and some men will fail).

Awarded: One Internet.

Use it wisely.

TV’s Frink said:

It’s warmer?

That’s a hoax. It snowed there once.

A new Gallup survey paints a familiar map, but with a twist.

Basically it’s a binary political ideology by state (conservative/liberal) survey, but there are only nine liberal states. The rest of the country is shades of conservative. But regardless of how you view that distinction, it shows trends: all but four states have become more liberal over the last ten years, but many of the biggest swings were in states that were already “Blue” – they just went from being conservative Democrats to moderate or liberal Democrats. Georgia showing the biggest leftward swing of the most conservative states over the past ten years, but still more conservative than average at the moment.

Also:

However, a few states rank significantly higher on the net-conservative list than they do on the net-Republican list. These are Alaska, Idaho, Arizona and Oregon. A handful of other states – Mississippi, North Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas – rank significantly lower on net-conservatism than they do on net-Republicanism.

So Alaska, Idaho, Arizona and Oregon are states that vote for more Democrats than they should given their level of conservatism. Sounds like the libertarian effect. Mississippi, North Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas vote for more Republicans than they should given their level of conservatism. Hmm, the South, I wonder what factor could be overriding all other political considerations there?

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Everything is political nowadays, including every movie. Especially Adam Sandler movies. Corporations are increasingly eager to stake out positions aligned with liberal politics. So be it. If it means conservative-corporate alliance is fractured, then it’s win-win.

Umm… so NOT offering special discounts to NRA members is “staking out a position aligned with liberal politics”? I might buy that if they WERE offering discounts to, say, Planned Parenthood workers, or PETA members. Is that the case?

That doesn’t follow. It’s al about the reason why NRA member benefits were ended. This is clearly about politics.

Couldn’t an equivalent argument be made that the existence of NRA benefits in the first place was what was political, and that eliminating them was Delta’s way of backing out of the politics?

Changing from supporting a conservative cause to being politically neutral is still perceived as movement in a liberal direction, rightly or wrongly. Such is the team sport of politics – if you’re not with us, you’re against us.

It just occurred to me how dumb it was to offer to upload chapter stops when they are text that could be posted in a forum. So here goes–copy these and paste them into TXT files and you’ll get muxman-compatible GOUT chapter stops.

Star Wars

634
3435
8791
13451
16040
20430
27680
34761
41757
45321
49306
51917
57956
62116
65747
69688
74352
75837
79113
84537
88292
90567
92927
98028
102013
109144
114708
118469
125974
128980
134409
137874
142069
148389
152040
157260
164211
169360
171961
174670
177886
183652
192052
202123
206572
207817
210982

The Empire Strikes Back

629
3449
7666
14920
18193
23055
27087
29398
32923
35245
38180
42842
46183
52744
56351
60213
64333
66013
69065
72742
79440
82709
90044
93689
96742
102742
108668
113751
117256
121690
131037
136703
139853
141878
147545
152426
156174
160894
168416
175268
178788
181190
184960
190674
194700
202496
206283
212635
216550

Return of the Jedi

632
3457
9021
14716
22261
25056
30796
39011
44351
52416
55292
66486
69731
80071
85641
91408
94893
96468
100968
104223
111348
117873
120518
128113
135068
139318
146998
153463
154818
156588
160593
166418
172483
179191
182726
186461
188232
194091
197636
199326
204721
205661
207131
210207
213626
217961
223107
224201
227436

There are chapter stop extraction utilities that should pull the stops from an existing DVD structure. Whether that will do it in a muxman-compatible format is unknown, but usually they offer some conversion options. Those are not stored in the VOB files, but in the IFO files (I don’t know where, actually, I haven’t messed with DVD’s in a while). Once you have that, there’s a menu option in Muxman to import chapter stops from that export file and then it should just work.

If you have trouble with this, I have GOUT-timed DVD chapter stops in muxman format for the whole trilogy. However, they may not match what’s on the existing DVD5. They’re more-or-less the Blu-ray stops with stops for missing scenes removed. And they are a straight conversion from Blu-ray timecodes, so they might jump to less-than-ideal frames on a telecined DVD (or if my math was bad). If you’re interested, just PM me and I’ll upload them.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Fresh on the heels of a member of one right-wing militant group opening fire on students, another right-wing militant group is, without even pretending to seek permission, setting up armed “guards” to “protect” schools, presumably from people very much like themselves.

Assuming this is the same Oath Keepers that’s pulled stunts like these in the past, here’s the con they’re running: Some bloody event has claimed national headlines and they weren’t at it, so people continue to not care about their message. So they try to stir up another bloodbath, so that their members can use their presence at the next massacre as a media platform to spout their worldview. And this time they’re doing it at schools.

As far as I’ve seen there is no confirmation that Cruz was a member of a militant group. Early on there were reports that he participated in a white supremacist organization but that story hasn’t held up according to reports.

I guess the MAGA hat is the only solid evidence of white supremacist leanings, then.

From what I read about the Oath Keepers, there’s plenty to find objectionable but where is the evidence of the “con” to which you allude?

Follow the last link. Attempting to dump a large amount of weapons into Ferguson at that time was nothing less than dumping kerosene on a flame. I have no doubt at all their goal was to get citizens and cops shooting each other in larger numbers, and I credit the citizens of Ferguson for knowing the math on that and declining their “assistance”. Thankfully, the Oath Keepers wasted some rubles on that particular gambit.

Agreed there’s not much the schools can do, we’re back to that “reasonable” standard of intent to harm, and they seem fairly good at staying on the safe side of that line (well, safe for white guys).

Fresh on the heels of a member of one right-wing militant group opening fire on students, another right-wing militant group is, without even pretending to seek permission, setting up armed “guards” to “protect” schools, presumably from people very much like themselves.

Assuming this is the same Oath Keepers that’s pulled stunts like these in the past, here’s the con they’re running: Some bloody event has claimed national headlines and they weren’t at it, so people continue to not care about their message. So they try to stir up another bloodbath, so that their members can use their presence at the next massacre as a media platform to spout their worldview. And this time they’re doing it at schools.