CatBus

I think the Microsoft antitrust case fundamentally broke car metaphors. They just haven’t been usable since.

Chewtobacca said:

^ If I understand correctly, you are taking GOUT-synced audio and trying to match it to non-GOUT-synced video. Reversing the scripts at the start of the thread to obtain time-codes is possible, but it is likely to make your brain hurt, and it’s probably better to find another method. (It’s also kind of topic for this thread because, as you say, you are doing the opposite.)

Which releases do you have in mind anyway? I seem to recall that some people have already synced various audio mixes to the SSE and the like and posted them on the spleen.

Oh, I realize it’s off-topic, and it wasn’t intended as a derail so much as a bump. It just occurred to me while trying to do this reverse engineering that I never adequately explained why I was having such a hard time with this, so I might be missing a better solution.

This is all about subtitles for me, not audio. My basic project subtitles are NTSC GOUT-synced. So to make them sync with other projects, I put them through a Python script that assigns each release a series of timecodes and offsets. Such as, for PSB, at timecode 12:45, subtract .083 seconds (remove two frames), and so on. It’s almost always about where to subtract frames and how many to subtract, but some releases have a little padding at the beginning so there’s some positive adjustments too.

I’ve already kinda sorta manually synced against all the projects I really care about (Puggo and the initial GrindHouse/SSE releases, and PAL GOUT just for kicks… not that it matters with subtitles). They’re not frame-perfect but it’s subtitles so it still works. I’m just feeling a little dread about the upcoming ROTP release. The manual subtitle sync process is… slow, error-prone, and not so fun.

TV’s Frink said:

Hey, remember a few years back when the Democrats unleashed the IRS on the Tea Party? Turns out perhaps not so much.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/four-years-later-the-irs-tea-party-scandal-looks-very-different-it-may-not-even-be-a-scandal/2017/10/05/4e90c7ec-a9f7-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.a1c68505d272

Well, it was a scandal, but of a different sort. A change in policy (more overtly political organizations can get favorable IRS classification than before) causes a flood of new organizations jockeying to get that status. The IRS could choose to either review every case on its merits like they used to, which would slow everything down considerably with all the extra cases, or they could try to flag some organizations as needing review, and fast-track the rest. Flagging liberal and conservative keywords was truly a dumb way of going about things, but I can kinda see how someone could make that choice when there might be an even worse consequence for “no, we can’t make that deadline anymore”.

Where’s the scandal? The policy change triggering this flood of applications, that’s where.

Also, not only was the extra review applied evenly to left- and right-leaning organizations, but outright rejections were tilted against the liberal ones. Yeah, some scandal there.

TV’s Frink said:

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/06/trump-rolls-back-obamacares-contraception-rule-243537

What a serious piece of shit this guy is. Jesus.

“No abortions! Also no birth control! Just… don’t have sex anyone! Unless you’re married or something, I don’t know!”

Great strategy, Napoleon.

Then there’s this one.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/jeff-sessions-just-issued-a-guidance-memo-on-protecting?utm_term=.sdjybM9Jb5#.ewm5EJvqEz

What did he protect? The right for religious people to discriminate against people they don’t like. Yay!

More like: The right for anyone to discriminate against anyone else using religion as a pretext. But with the Sessions DOJ as the arbiter of what’s a “legitimate religious belief” and what’s not.

Which means that people will only be able to discriminate against certain other people using certain religious justifications. All the other cases will receive the same legal scrutiny as before.

So firing gay people because Old Testament overrides Jesus is now okay. Firing Klansmen because they wear sheets made of two different types of fabric is probably not going to make the cut.

Stinky is the anti-mirror Bronner.

I think.

So I’m finally posting years later with the reason I’m having such a hard time making use of the AviSynth scripts in this thread – it’s because I’m really doing the opposite process. What I’m actually trying to do is take GOUT-synced materials, and make them match the other frame references, by reading the AviSynth scripts, reversing their logic, and converting them into simple timecodes and offsets. And it gets all tangly and my brain starts hurting 😦

Well, I always find complete lack of context to be hilarious, but that’s just me 😉

Tyrphanax said:

CatBus said:

Agreed, they thought their rate was too high even though it was lower than ours. In the US, we get a multiple shooting almost every day. If that was cut in half, or even a 75% reduction, I’d say it was still too high, so I’m with the Australians on this one.

“Almost every day” is a bit of a stretch, though. =P

The recent Vegas attack was the 273rd multiple shooting in the US this year (in 275 days). “Almost every day” is not a stretch at all. I’m not sure Newsweek’s “mass shooting” description is accurate, though, which is why I avoided the term. Shootings with four or more victims, to be precise.

Tyrphanax said:

I obviously disagree with your main point, but it’s nice to have rational discussion about this issue with level-headed people. I love having my viewpoints challenged and having to really defend what I believe in - or change my views.

Respect your posts too. Good discussions are where people, for the most part, agree on the facts, but have different opinions based on that same set of facts. I like arguing like this because it’s those core value differences driving the opinions that make society interesting. I’d say a lot of things between us boil down to core value differences, and that’s actually good.

Tyrphanax said:

to defend ourselves from people who would cause us harm

There’s the main point of contention right there. Privately-owned guns simply don’t do that. When you buy a gun, in the overwhelming majority of cases it will never serve a single practical purpose (and there’s nothing wrong with that). Of the remaining extremely unlikely scenarios, it is MUCH more likely that the gun will be used, intentionally or unintentionally, to harm your family than to protect it.

The person who would cause us harm is the person bringing the gun into our homes because they mistakenly believe it makes us safer.

However, I do agree with your larger point that the second amendment forbids gun bans on any levels. I also believe it forbids bans on private ownership of chemical and biological weapons. “Arms” isn’t specific enough. It needs a repeal or at the very least a serious re-write.

TM2YC said:

"America has a gun problem that other countries don’t have but I don’t understand why we have this unique problem (True we have a sh*t-ton of guns and little control unlike these other countries but that’s clearly nothing to do with it)…

Upton Sinclair said:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!

TV’s Frink said:

Tyrphanax said:

dahmage said:

“you can get a nice Julienne using a semi-automatic rifle”

I’ve seen guys fry bacon on machine gun barrels before.

See, if the guns were made of bacon like I recommended earlier, this wouldn’t be a problem!

Cholesterol bullets of pure love.

Tyrphanax said:

CatBus said:

Tyrphanax said:

dahmage said:

Guns shouldn’t be a right.

but part of what Tyr and Jeebus seem to be advocating is that it is just to hard to force a fix that too many people fundamentally diagree with (but guns are my American RIGHT). It is true in a very pragmatic sense, but it is also very frustrating to me.

Part of what i do is software development, so i certainly tend to think in terms of ‘that old software is fundamentally wrong, lets replace it!’, and so part of me just screams against the idea of accepting something is guaranteed to yield bad outcomes. it is like keeping on using that buggy product, even though every now and then it corrupts the data. (deleted a way too long and drug out analogy that doesn’t even make sense)

All i can say is, i really do think that guns are the problem, but sure, we can also try some other solutions. But solving peoples desire to murder is even harder than just getting rid of some of the murder weapons…

I mean… you can say they shouldn’t be a right, but you’d be wrong (tee hee). It serves a symbolic and practical purpose by saying that we as a people will not be ruled by tyrants, and giving us the means to defend ourselves against that eventuality. A huge part of American identity is the Revolution and throwing off the mantle of oppression, which wouldn’t have been possible without the average American citizen being able to pick up their rifle to fight for what’s right. I like the idea of that, and considering we’re not yet at the point that we don’t elect dangerously insane senile old white men into the highest office in the land, I’d kinda like to hold onto that kind of right, personally.

Symbolic, yes. Practical, no. Gun ownership would be equally effective against the rule of tyrants in modern America if the guns in questions were made out of cardboard and depended on the owner to make banging sounds with their mouths to signal that the other people should fall down.

Again, I disagree with this. See Afghanistan in the 1980s and Vietnam in the 1960s.

That’s just a case for increasing the costs of a foreign invader such that their balance sheets no longer work out and they withdraw (i.e. asymmetrical warfare). Not really quite the same thing as your own local tyrannical government, but actually a pretty decent analogue to the US Revolution in that respect. The primary lessons of those wars in my book is not about the importance of private gun ownership, but of the importance of finding the backing of a large foreign power to turn your local unwinnable conflict into a winnable proxy war.

Guns and gun ownership are parts of an issue, sure, but a much much smaller part than the overall issue in my mind (we have more guns in the country than people, but we’ve not all been murdered yet). Tackling that issue is going to be difficult and hard, like you said, but I’d rather go after that than ban guns… and then ban knives… and then ban sticks and rocks… and then ban karate lessons… and then tackle the root cause. Let’s get the hard part done first and I think we’ll find that the smaller problems solve themselves to an extent.

Once the world rids itself of crime, hatred, and violence – sure, that’ll solve the problem. But in the meantime Australia banned and destroyed guns and their homicides have dropped significantly without having to wait nearly that long. Australia still has violence, mental illness, hatred, domestic violence, and even terrorism. It’s quite possible not a single crime was stopped by their gun ban. But the crimes that did happen had fewer victims, which is the entire point of gun bans. Frankly I’d have been much happier if all of our recent mass shooters were just as deranged and criminal as before, but were using one of those cardboard cutout guns instead of real ones. Failing to tackle the root cause never seemed so good.

Australia had almost no mass shootings until the one that prompted their ban. Australia already had much less crime/homicide than the US, even before the ban.

Agreed, they thought their rate was too high even though it was lower than ours. In the US, we get a multiple shooting almost every day. If that was cut in half, or even a 75% reduction, I’d say it was still too high, so I’m with the Australians on this one.

Australia had no Second Amendment or much of a gun culture as compared to the US. Australia has fewer people and far far fewer guns than the US and the main impact was on suicide rates.

The first couple points indicate how they managed, politically, to pass the ban when we have a much bigger problem and we can’t. As for suicide rates, I agree with your assessment. Mass shootings are not the primary downside of private gun ownership. Suicides, “simple” homicides and accidental deaths are a much worse problem, but they are so common they’re just background noise. It takes a mass shooting for people to consider that there may be a better way.

Australia is a continent surrounded by water, whereas America has two massive mostly-open borders to the north and south (and if you think the central/south American cartels are making a [literal] killing on drugs right now, just imagine if you just took all the guns from a country with a gun culture like the US has).

Mostly agree again. Most state-by-state regulations don’t work for exactly this reason, and Australia does benefit from geography. But we are the country flooding our neighbors with guns, not the other way around.

The black market on drugs simply increased the price of drugs. If the ban doesn’t work out, maybe an 800% sales tax would do the same thing. I’m fine with that.

In the end, like Scandinavia, Australia is a totally different country/culture/environment than the US, and what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander (though much like in Australia, homicides and gun crime in the US is the lowest in 50 years as well).

I didn’t actually buy into the Scandinavia metaphor to begin with–I think how well socialism works isn’t geographically defined–socialism is nothing more than democracy applied to economics, and democracies can make good and bad choices. And wrapping back to the beginning, America’s homicide rate is still higher than Australia’s, which Australians considered to be a problem worth solving, so they did.

DominicCobb said:

I just don’t think the need to defend against the government is a realistic hypothetical. To be honest, it seems to me anyway like a fantasy that gun enthusiasts like to float out to justify their enthusiasm.

I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with gun enthusiasm. I just don’t think the right to bear arms is all that important a right.

That’s pretty much where I’m at. I don’t hate guns, I personally think they’re fun. Sometimes they’re even useful. People hunt – mostly for entertainment but sometimes for practical purposes. People need to keep coyotes away from their chickens, that’s fine too. But everything else is just entertainment or you telling yourself a story about how it’s not just entertainment (and that story, ironically, is just another form of entertainment).

Pest control is important, but it just doesn’t rate on the same scale as free speech as far as I’m concerned, that’s all.

Tyrphanax said:

dahmage said:

Guns shouldn’t be a right.

but part of what Tyr and Jeebus seem to be advocating is that it is just to hard to force a fix that too many people fundamentally diagree with (but guns are my American RIGHT). It is true in a very pragmatic sense, but it is also very frustrating to me.

Part of what i do is software development, so i certainly tend to think in terms of ‘that old software is fundamentally wrong, lets replace it!’, and so part of me just screams against the idea of accepting something is guaranteed to yield bad outcomes. it is like keeping on using that buggy product, even though every now and then it corrupts the data. (deleted a way too long and drug out analogy that doesn’t even make sense)

All i can say is, i really do think that guns are the problem, but sure, we can also try some other solutions. But solving peoples desire to murder is even harder than just getting rid of some of the murder weapons…

I mean… you can say they shouldn’t be a right, but you’d be wrong (tee hee). It serves a symbolic and practical purpose by saying that we as a people will not be ruled by tyrants, and giving us the means to defend ourselves against that eventuality. A huge part of American identity is the Revolution and throwing off the mantle of oppression, which wouldn’t have been possible without the average American citizen being able to pick up their rifle to fight for what’s right. I like the idea of that, and considering we’re not yet at the point that we don’t elect dangerously insane senile old white men into the highest office in the land, I’d kinda like to hold onto that kind of right, personally.

Symbolic, yes. Practical, no. Gun ownership would be equally effective against the rule of tyrants in modern America if the guns in questions were made out of cardboard and depended on the owner to make banging sounds with their mouths to signal that the other people should fall down.

Guns and gun ownership are parts of an issue, sure, but a much much smaller part than the overall issue in my mind (we have more guns in the country than people, but we’ve not all been murdered yet). Tackling that issue is going to be difficult and hard, like you said, but I’d rather go after that than ban guns… and then ban knives… and then ban sticks and rocks… and then ban karate lessons… and then tackle the root cause. Let’s get the hard part done first and I think we’ll find that the smaller problems solve themselves to an extent.

Once the world rids itself of crime, hatred, and violence – sure, that’ll solve the problem. But in the meantime Australia banned and destroyed guns and their homicides have dropped significantly without having to wait nearly that long. Australia still has violence, mental illness, hatred, domestic violence, and even terrorism. It’s quite possible not a single crime was stopped by their gun ban. But the crimes that did happen had fewer victims, which is the entire point of gun bans. Frankly I’d have been much happier if all of our recent mass shooters were just as deranged and criminal as before, but were using one of those cardboard cutout guns instead of real ones. Failing to tackle the root cause never seemed so good.

http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/10/president-trumps-fucking-moron-tweet-presaged-tillerson.html

For the first time in over a decade, the American Bar Association has rated a federal judge nominee “not qualified”. I expect that slow pace should pick up over the next few years.

PM sent. You’re correct that the subtitles included with preservations are typically outdated and don’t include the README or the preferred SUP format subtitles.

DuracellEnergizer said:

CatBus said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

I found husezni’s posts entertaining in a sort of “plan 9 from outer space” way.

I always thought about Dr. Bronner’s soap myself.

But Dr. Bronner wanted to unite the world.

And his shift key worked more consistently too. I admit it’s not a perfect analogue.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

I found husezni’s posts entertaining in a sort of “plan 9 from outer space” way.

I always thought about Dr. Bronner’s soap myself.

Jeeze I’m out for a bit and Warb’s back and husezni’s not. Guess I really am going to eat those minstrels now.

In a more serious answer, the US has a pretty concise constitution and there’s a lot of room for interpretation and laws to fill in the gaps. The specific section leading to this is our second amendment, which is an amendment about militias (in Revolutionary times this seemed relevant), and as a consequence of the need for a militia, about the general public being able to “keep and bear arms” in service of said militia.

The long-running debate is that since militias are obviously anachronisms that have been replaced by standing armies (the closest thing we have to militias is the National Guard, which isn’t really that close at all), what is the point of an amendment about militias?

The answer is amendments to the constitution don’t have to have a point. So this right to “keep and bear arms” has been (after decades of legal wrangling) fully detached from the non-existent militia, which also means that the “well-regulated” clause about the militia has been completely ignored in favor of “completely unregulated” assumption about the arms themselves, and here we are today.

And enough people have been sold on this gun-owning fashion/lifestyle (where entertainment and hero fantasies almost fully replace any actual utility) that between them and the lobbyists for gun manufacturers, there’s no way to impose reasonable regulations on guns in the US.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Trump’s a pretty lousy Fake-Christian. I would know, I’m a pretty good one.

If his Christian followers ever turn on him, that mask will come right off, and the man will set the public image of atheists back decades. We’ll be back to explaining repeatedly that atheists are not all Russian agents, just for a new reason.

SilverWook said:

CatBus said:

boba feta said:

What’s Puggo’s next project?

I hope it involves a 16mm camera, a couple dozen friendly but non-hygienic mice, and a copy of The Phantom Menace.

Actually, skip the camera part.

If there was a 16mm scope TPM out there, I’d be amazed.

Well, my original plan was that he’d use the camera to MAKE a 16mm scope print from the Blu-ray projected on a stained shower curtain or something, and the mice would add seasoning.

But upon reflection, just siccing the mice on the TPM Blu-ray and leaving it at that seemed fine too.

SilverWook said:

I meant another Trump administration departure.

Dangit, those minstrels are coming back up.