CatBus

Hm. That was fast. It appears ROTP has lots of clearly audible detail above 2khz, and it appears IMO that the missing clinking sounds can only be explained away by a near-complete lack of frequency response above 2khz, ergo… different mix!

I think so, at least. Man, I wish I had a better audio background so I could make sweeping statements like that with more confidence.

But I haven’t even listened to the whole thing. Maybe the Emperor will say “I’ll get you, my pretties!” and it’ll make the whole thing much more obvious.

Well, I was able to filter out the clinking noises from the 1983 mix with a 2khz lowpass filter, and the resulting muffling of the audio didn’t sound different enough from the ROTP to be unambiguously wrong. A 6khz filter wasn’t enough to filter it out, though. Considering the frequency response of 16mm optical probably tapers off before a 6khz cutoff, it’s all plausibly still a limitation of the medium IMO.

To test this, I think I’ll run the ROTP mix through a 2khz highpass. If it contains audible non-hiss detail above 2khz, then I’m assuming we should have been able to hear the clinking sounds. If it’s all hiss with maybe a few barely audible bits here and there, then this was likely a false alarm.

Tomorrow I’ll run the 83 stereo mix through something like a 6khz lowpass filter and see if the clinks could have gotten trimmed out by the lack of high end (although I’m not sure where that cutoff should really be–what is it technically, 16mm optical?).

I’m not nearly done with the comparison–it seems to match the 83 stereo mix very well, but here’s an “I can’t tell!” example:

At around 22:38, while Bib Fortuna is delivering his “No bargain” line to Luke, and a little afterward as well, the 83 and 93 mixes both have the clinking sounds of chains. ROTP? Nothing, just dialogue. The reason I’m not sure is that I’m wondering if it’s possible the sounds are so high pitched that they are effectively trimmed out by either the EQ or the limits of the physical media. I’ll listen around for proof of this, but I don’t have a strong enough audio background to say this is so.

So it’s a cautious maybe, that it’s maybe a unique mix. No new dialogue or more major SFX differences so far, and I’m not done yet.

Would love confirmation from another listener.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

I liked McCain’s speech, I did not like how he voted.

McCain’s political career in a nutshell.

One of his most important and timely speeches was the anti-torture speech he delivered just before he voted to authorize torture. His chutzpah knows no bounds.

Apparently not satisfied with the fake pro-Republican numbers the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is already required by law to provide, it appears Republicans are now throwing pretense out the window and plan to direct the CBO not to provide any analysis at all, but to just rubber-stamp pre-written analysis provided by right-wing think tanks.

Or if a disreputable ne’er-do-well managed to get access to the audio on your machine, they might be able to tell you if it’s a unique mix.

On another note, this “feud” between Trump and Sessions smells. If the feud was really putting Sessions’ career in jeopardy, you’d think he’d be spending long hours in Mueller’s office, getting all his paperwork in order for the FBI, and so on. And none of that is happening, nor do I think it will.

I think Sessions is every bit as alarmed by the direction of Mueller’s investigation as Trump, but he doesn’t feel he’s able to circumvent his recusal again to get him fired–possibly because doing it a second time makes the first time look fishier, or because he can’t convince Rosenstein to write another firing memo for himself–so his only option is to get someone in charge of the DOJ who’s not recused. Wait until recess while making loud feud noises, resign, and let Trump do a recess appointment of whoever he wants, and then that guy (we’ll call him Schmudy Schmuliani) can fire Mueller and Rosenstein. Sessions is no longer AG, but maybe he can get re-hired as DAG, and even if he doesn’t, at least there’s no longer any risk of Mueller investigating him, so he’s happy.

Not sure what the defense is against this. I suppose if Mueller was investigating Schmuliani, there may be something conflict-of-interest-wise he could do there, but that’s unlikely–Sessions may feel the need to keep up the appearance of following some sort of legal procedure, but Schmuliani doesn’t. Otherwise it’s pass the investigative baton to Schneiderman, the feds are out of the investigation business for good.

EDIT: I should say the feds will be out of the Trump investigation business for good. They may investigate other things, like a new Pizzagate task force or something.

yhwx said:

Anyone else think that it’s a bit ironic (and sad) that McCain receives some of the best medical care in the world but then rushes back to potentially remove it from millions of Americans?

Not ironic considering his record. He gives good speeches, then falls in line. Only his mouth was ever a maverick.

The real question is if McConnell is pushing this vote through without knowing it will pass, because Trump wants his enemies list.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

But just because it’s mono, does that mean it’s a different mix?

No, it could be (and likely is) just a stereo downmix. However, PSB had alternate dialogue which made it pretty easy to quickly distinguish. Without alternate dialogue and sound effects, you’d really have to listen carefully for mixing differences, which were also present in PSB’s audio. Maybe it’ll be like that–a different mix with no SFX or dialogue differences.

We’ll just become progressively ruder until you notice, then, okay?

TV’s Frink said:

I missed this a few weeks ago but holy crap.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/26/lynne-patton-trump-party-planner-new-york-federal-housing-239963

Six months ago, Lynne Patton was a party planner. On Monday, she took the helm of New York’s federal housing office, a promotion she won after making enemies at the Department of Housing and Urban Development and fumbling a job as senior adviser to Secretary Ben Carson.

It pays to have been a party planner for the Trumps.

Patronage is as old as politics, but Patton’s swift rise to power has startled even some Trump administration insiders.

When President Donald Trump dispatched her to HUD in February — a month before Carson’s arrival — industry lobbyists mostly shrugged it off. But the former events planner quickly made a mark, big-footing experienced staffers and flubbing the rollout of Carson’s first public appearances as secretary, according to people close to the secretary.

During his confirmation hearing, Carson had promised to take a nationwide listening tour to get his bearings, a move widely praised by housing activists. Planning the tour fell to the professional — Patton.

It didn’t go well. The launch was barely publicized, denying the new HUD secretary news coverage as he visited his hometown of Detroit. In other cities, Carson praised programs targeted for budget cuts, a blunder that suggested he hadn’t been properly coached by staff.

In April, the secretary was ridiculed when he got stuck in an elevator at a Miami housing project. Soon after, his staff suspended the listening tour, which his own allies chalked up as a disaster.

I guess since Trump has been failing upwards his whole life, it’s a quality he admires in others too?

You laugh now, but when you start seeing dolphin ice sculptures in federal housing, you’ll change your mind.

Warbler said:

That has to be an alternative fact.

I dunno, it’s petty and juvenile. Seems legit.

Yeah, for German and English any changes are minor. I think there are a couple places where repeated lines were merged in the SUP in 9.3 (e.g. “The first transport is away!/The first transport is away!”) into a single subtitle, while in 10.0 I kept that from happening.

The changelog (such as it is, I’m not terribly detailed about it) is on page 52. If you’re interested only in a particular language/type of subtitle, that may make the answer easier.

In 10.1 we will get improvements to Brazilian Portuguese, Hebrew, Arabic, possibly Dutch, and maybe even a surprise new language, although I’m trying not to get my hopes up about that.

So this may not be news to anyone else, but it just occurred to me today.

Since the Civil Rights Act and the whole realignment of the Democratic and Republican parties in their current forms, the Republicans have always won the Presidency in spite of having fewer registered voters and less popular policies, except when the previous Republican administrations have thrown the nation into political/legal chaos (Carter), economic chaos (Obama), if a major third party spoiler candidate draws votes away from Republicans (Clinton), or if the previous Democratic administration was very popular (Clinton and Obama 2nd terms, and even explaining Gore and Clinton II’s popular wins).

So basically if Nixon never got caught, Bush II was a little smarter, and Perot never ran, I believe it would have been wall-to-wall Republicans from the moment Johnson left office (Johnson’s “We’ve lost the South for a generation” remark was correct in principle, but too conservative both numerically and geographically). Kinda depressing really. It means that the Democratic mantra of “high turnouts = Dem wins” actually means that Dems need a huge disaster to rally enough voters to win, and on the Republican side it doesn’t really matter if they run a guy who’s smart and qualified or a walking, talking shitstain, they’ll win if they can simply avoid these factors.

But it does speak well for the future, since Trump is not as good as hiding things as Nixon, is dumber than Bush II, and is sowing political/legal chaos like weeds, and may even steer the nation into economic chaos as well (it’s early in his term, after all, give him time). And if the Republicans manage to wrest control back to some pseudo-mainstream candidate like Pence or even Kasich, well, then a third party white supremacist option in the mold of Wallace/Trump could very well be in the mix.

Doesn’t do much for 2018 though. And it doesn’t take the Russian factor into account at all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-lawyers-seek-to-undercut-muellers-russia-investigation/2017/07/20/232ebf2c-6d71-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_term=.a974045f12c0

Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump’s lawyers have been discussing the president’s pardoning powers among themselves.

Trump’s legal team declined to comment on the issue. But one adviser said the president has simply expressed a curiosity in understanding the reach of his pardoning authority, as well as the limits of Mueller’s investigation.

“This is not in the context of, ‘I can’t wait to pardon myself,’ ” a close adviser said.

Of how I do revel in the fact that the President can only pardon federal crimes. RICO, money laundering, fraud, tax evasion, they can all be prosecuted by states. Schneiderman may end up being the hero in this piece too. Although Trump may be roomies with Snowden by the time it gets around to that (assuming Snowden’s place is watertight).

Are any of our veteran framecounters watching this thread? I’d be interested if Chewtobacca or Darth Mallwalker are planning to do a post-release GOUT-to-ROTP conversion script over in the GOUT sync thread.

nrasool said:

For Dems to win in 2018 who do you think should lead them? I liked Bernie, he had some fans over here in the UK like Corbyn. However a lot of people on the far right feel empowered much like over here, plus there is a lot of people not voting so who do you think should lead the Democrats now?

The party’s “leader” in non-Presidential elections is the head of the DNC, which is Tom Perez. There’s some figurehead-leadership positions, and the presumptive Speaker of the House may take a campaigning role (that’s presumably Nancy Pelosi). It’s only in Presidential election years that the figurehead is a strong enough standard-bearer to realistically be called the leader of the party as well. It’s the American system–the opposition party doesn’t usually doesn’t have a leader in the Corbyn sense, someone who’s an officeholder and clear party leader at the same time.

Also, I don’t think Dems winning in 2018 has as much to do with who’s “leading them” as how you define winning.

Under inspired, brilliant leadership, the Democrats will take over quite a lot of state governorships, and maybe a few state legislative chambers as well. They’ll also have a very remote chance of taking the House, and will lose only a few seats in the Senate.

Under lackluster, middling leadership, the Democrats will take over quite a lot of state governorships, and maybe a few state legislative chambers as well. They’ll also have no chance of taking the House, and will lose about six seats in the Senate.

And that’s all assuming voting functions more or less the way it should. As you said, the far-right feels very empowered and has had great success with overt voter intimidation and voting-related violence in the past.

TV’s Frink said:

Oooh, here we go!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/20/trump-set-a-red-line-for-robert-mueller-and-now-mueller-has-reportedly-crossed-it/?utm_term=.a39b4bca338a

Bloomberg News is reporting that the Russia investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller is zeroing in on President Trump’s business transactions.

The report quoted an anonymous source as saying that Trump’s financial ties to Russia are the focus: “FBI investigators and others are looking at Russian purchases of apartments in Trump buildings, Trump’s involvement in a controversial SoHo development with Russian associates, the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow and Trump’s sale of a Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008.” The Washington Post has not independently confirmed Bloomberg’s report.

Somebody is basically daring Trump to try to fire Mueller.

Here’s where we see what our constitutional safeguards are worth, a statement which can be expressed equally well in deadpan pessimist voice or steely, determined optimist voice.

NeverarGreat said:

TV’s Frink said:

I’d still rather live there. At least Syrian babies could get in the country and old Americans would still have healthcare.

I’m on the fence about it. On the one hand, yes, Trump has done some heinous crap and eroded the norms of political discourse, but one could argue that this had already happened in 2016. At least in this universe, the Republicans can’t constantly blame the Democrats for the state of the government (though they continue to try), and there is at least a chance that the midterms will be favorable to the Democrats.

And in early 2009 I breathed a sigh of relief, saying to myself “America survived the W administration! We’ll never have a worse administration that that!”

So this is the Obamacare plan going forward.

We are looking at the cost-sharing payments on a month-to-month basis. We made them today. We’ll make them tomorrow. But I don’t think we’ll see a long-term commitment from this administration," Mulvaney explained.

In plain English, we will continue to continue to entertain the same CSR negligence that led directly to the most recent insurance rate hikes and marketplace exits. Insurers need to predict an entire year when setting rates, so even if we decide to fund the CSR’s every month, the uncertainty that we might not will cause insurance rates to continue to go up and insurers to continue to leave the market.

Then, in retrospect, we have our sound-bite. Obamacare exploded all on its own. We funded the CSRs and the insurance markets still failed.

EDIT: Also, they would definitely fail to fund the CSR’s if any insurers decided to play politically savvy and call the administration’s bluff, failing to raise rates by enough to cover what would happen if the CSR’s weren’t funded, driving anyone out of business who doesn’t go along with the rate hike game. If it walks and talks like racketeering…

SilverWook said:

There were people standing by Nixon until the bitter end. (And probably think fondly of him today if they’re still around.) Approval ratings aren’t going to save anyone if they’ve broken the law.

Pardons can save lots of people, though, and a high enough approval rating leads to a removal-proof and even investigation-proof Senate.

The Senate can also do a lot more damage than failing to act, too. After all, what prevents the Senate from opening a select committee investigating Robert Mueller’s involvement in killing Vince Foster? The same thing that prevented the Benghazi hearings–the lack of enough chutzpah to carry out an obviously political show trial. Don’t think they won’t.

yhwx said:

https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/887745357899337728

.@KatyTurNBC to Kris Kobach: Are you saying Hillary Clinton didn’t win the popular vote?

Kobach: “We may never know the answer”

Please refer to him as Kansas’ Kris Kobach, to show his party affiliation.

This is why Trump is absolutely never going under ~29% approval, and very likely never going under ~33% among voters.

only 45% of Trump voters believe Donald Trump Jr. had a meeting with Russians about information that might be harmful to Hillary Clinton […] 32% say the meeting didn’t happen and 24% say they’re not sure.

So, with some extrapolation based on Trump’s 46% of all voters, that’s about 14% of voters who have already actively decided that denying reality is the way to go, and another 11% who would like to hear what the alternate-reality people have to say before they make up their minds on the whole reality thing. Together, that’s 25% that IMO are so deep in the tank for Trump they’ve grown gills, and they’re never coming out (because that “not sure” is almost certainly a mere pretense of objectivity, like climate change denial). Presumably there are also some hardcore Trump supporters who function in the real world, but forgive absolutely everything because Trump put Gorsuch on the Supreme Court or spoke at their family cross burning ceremony, so I’m adding a conservative 4% for that, although I’d say it’s probably higher. Trump’s approval only needs to stay above ~32% for the Senate to stay safely in Republican control through 2022.