Just watched the third installment in the trilogy (“Lie of the Land”). Hmmm, the first two were SO good… rather disappointed in the conclusion. Bill’s role in the climax was much too sappy for my taste. Same complaint(s) I had about prior series. Hoping the next episode(s) get back to clever sci-fi stories.
The alleged harms of capitalism arise only when the government intervenes. It’s Econ 101: the best economy is one that has zero intervention whatsoever.
Tell that to the environment.
This post brings back some memories from a long, long time ago. Ive got a cassette tape of myself and my best friend acting out the entire movie, special effects and all, from 1978/79ish! He was all of the Empire characters and I was relegated to being the rebels, Leia included. 😃 But Im fairly certain, somewhere in the depths of my garage is a cassette of a live theatre recording I took many years ago.
If you find it, please let us know. I’d be happy to dub it too - my MR-1 is being tuned up as we speak.
Sorry everyone, I forgot that I had planned to sync it with PG. It actually wouldn’t be that hard for me to do, and this is a good time for me as my workload is a bit lower than normal. I’ll try to do that sometime this month.
This was one of my favorite projects - easy, and really fun to listen to! It should be even better heard along with PG.
Trump doesn’t have a clue what he might want in the healthcare bill. He just wants something passed so he can “win”. If the republicans voted for single payer, Trump would sign it. If they voted for an all-out ban on health care, Trump would sign it. The details don’t affect him and so he truly doesn’t care.
Nor is he upset that the particular changes in the “skinny” repeal aren’t happening – in fact, I doubt he is even aware of what is in the “skinny” repeal, despite it being a tiny 1/2 page document written in 3rd grade English. He’s just upset because he hasn’t won yet, and because some of the republicans weren’t loyal enough to make sure he won.
moviefreakedmind said:
Real was an inappropriate word, obviously it’s very real to the people it affects.
I took your remark to mean something that I’ve been noticing over the years. I sometimes view “real” issues as either “wide” or “narrow”. A wide issue being one that seriously affects a substantial proportion (or all) of the population. A narrow issue is one that either has minimal impact, or effects a small proportion. There are also issues that are “very narrow”, that although they truly impact some people, will have absolutely no impact on 99+% of the population.
Examples of wide issues: health care, social security
Examples of narrow issues: federal funding for abortion, prayer in school
Examples of very narrow issues: transgenders in military, 10 commandments on state capitol, the death penalty
Now, I know that the death penalty certainly seems like a big deal. But, viewed coldly, I would hazard a guess that 99% of people in the U.S. will never be impacted by it regardless of its form. I’m deeply against it, but I have to admit that of all the time spent debating it, it is probably one of the things that is least likely to affect me or anyone I know. By contrast, health care legislation affects everyone I know, a lot!
We need compassion and intellect to make good decisions on all issues, whether wide or narrow. However, wide issues are generally so complex and impactful that in my opinion they deserve a greater proportion of attention than they are getting - from the public and the politicians.
Very narrow issues serve as fantastic distractions from difficult situations. For one thing, the voting public sees no distinction between a wide issue and a narrow one. In fact, they often make voting decisions entirely based on one very narrow issue, particular if it relates to religion, even if it has absolutely no impact on them at all. We’ve all met people whose decision on who to vote for was based solely on something like transgender bathrooms, even though they’ve never even met (and may never meet) a transgender person. Again, not that these aren’t real issues, and yes they certainly will seriously impact some people, and I wouldn’t begrudge someone actually affected to base their vote thusly. However, when a politician makes one of those the primary focus, they are usually doing it to manipulate and/or distract. It’s a tactic that has proven highly effective.
I’m not at all surprised that Trump would bring up transgenders in the military at this key time. It’s a great way for him to re-frenzify the support of his base lest they notice that some really big things are going to hell in a handbasket.
It took 7 years to write that? It reads like it was written by a 12 year old in a half hour. Geez, our country has slipped even further than I thought.
Warbler said:
huh? please explain.
The republicans are trying to push the bill through using an expedited process called “reconciliation”, which (among other things) prohibits filibuster. Look up the Wikipedia page on “reconciliation”.
I haven’t started the doc yet, because when I started working on it, I realized that I can’t until I know which encode I’ve decided on. I’ve got four versions that I’m putting together, and with Silverwook’s help I’ll decide which one will finally be anointed as “ROTP”.
Thanks for the information! I’ll make sure and get you the .wav files.
This whole “make one regulation, kill two” sounds cool, but makes no sense in practice. What exactly is “one” regulation? I think it’s just a gimmick to make his supporters think he’s making America grate again.
“In God We Trust” shouldn’t be on official currency anyway but don’t get me started.
I’d like to hear your argument on that. Not necessarily that I disagree. I’m just curious.
The text was added in the 50’s (along with “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance) as a way of distinguishing our nation from the godless Communist menace presented by the Soviet Union.
So first of all, it’s an anachronistic holdover from the Cold War–so even if you agree with the logic that put it on our currency, that foundational reason no longer exists. Secondly, it’s a poor descriptor of our nation, which our founders explicitly stated is not a Christian nation. And thirdly, even at the time, it was a bad way to distinguish us from the Soviets–belief in God was a much less distinguishing characteristic than the freedom to believe or not believe in God as you chose. Or democracy. Or other civil rights.
I know all the history behind it, I just don’t really care either way. I wouldn’t be too fazed if it went away, and I wouldn’t be too fazed if it didn’t go away.
Except that it sets a precedent for including God in other government functions. In fact, wasn’t it just used that way here?
Everyone has an opinion on this transgender/military issue, when I suspect that .01% of people actually know anything about it. I certainly don’t know anything about it. I’ve never known a transgender soldier. I don’t know how successful or unsuccessful they have been in the military compared to other enlistees. I don’t know how much they have cost the military compared to other soldiers. I don’t know how much they request medical care related to their status. I don’t know their rate of mental stability compared with other military personnel, etc. etc. Such numbers might reveal that it’s an issue, or they might reveal that it isn’t. So whereas everyone (including, I suspect, Trump) has formed and stated their final opinion with utter conviction, I prefer to wait until some informative data is made available. As it is, I think most people have made their decision already, along party or religious lines.
Right with you, Puggo. I would need to see what extra costs transgenders would have as soldiers and if their mental condition (which it is) would cause any complications in the military environment.
I phrased my post carefully. It’s not just what costs transgenders would have, it is how those costs compare with other soldiers. There are probably many other classes of people in the military that have associated costs, that we don’t bat an eye at. If the added cost for transgenders is comparable, then it shouldn’t be an issue just because some people think it’s icky.
Already I’m hearing pundits decry the millions of dollars spent on this or that for transgender soldiers. What I’m not hearing is how that compares with other soldiers that are atypical in various ways. For example, should the military kick out all nearsighted soldiers? I would guess that the military spends more on eyeglasses than it does on gender hormones, even for one soldier. Or, should the military kick out someone who stutters? A quick Google search shows that stutterers are sometimes teased and have trouble fitting in.
Everyone has an opinion on this transgender/military issue, when I suspect that .01% of people actually know anything about it. I certainly don’t know anything about it. I’ve never known a transgender soldier. I don’t know how successful or unsuccessful they have been in the military compared to other enlistees. I don’t know how much they have cost the military compared to other soldiers. I don’t know how much they request medical care related to their status. I don’t know their rate of mental stability compared with other military personnel, etc. etc. Such numbers might reveal that it’s an issue, or they might reveal that it isn’t. So whereas everyone (including, I suspect, Trump) has formed and stated their final opinion with utter conviction, I prefer to wait until some informative data is made available. As it is, I think most people have made their decision already, along party or religious lines.
The “we worship God” tweet implies that I am not part of the “we” that is the USA. Nice.
Loss of audio on a folddown is more likely to happen if the sound is centered, not if the sound is panned hard. That’s because the centered sound would be in both channels, but could be out of phase. Then when combined it would disappear. A hard-panned sound would not be cancelled, it would just be half as loud. Also would need to know the frequency of the chain sounds… the non-Leia examples are really quiet and high. So I would retain some skepticism until more examples are found.
A smoking gun would be a sound effect in the optical audio that isn’t in the stereo mix.
I just listened to the original .wav scans, and compared to the ROTJ audio on YouTube at the spot you mention.
The clearest difference by my ears is right at the spot when Jabba pulls back Leia into his lap. On Youtube the chain sound is clear and loud, but on the optical scan there is barely any sound at all.
Possessed is right that it could be an artifact of the mono pulldown. Would need something a bit more obvious. Thanks CatBus, for listening so carefully.
Strange, one would think that the alt-right would like the idea of putting transgenders on the front line to kill them off.
No hiss reduction, but tomorrow I’ll check CatBus’s observation in the original .wav files.
I’ve put the .ac3 audio files of the three reels online here:
http://www.hardbat.com/zaudio.zip
I’ll only leave them up for a short time. Those of you who are interested in examining them, let me know (or post here) when you’ve downloaded them so I know I can take them down. The zip file is 174Mb.
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.
Wow, don’t know how I managed to miss that. It probably would be useful then, if possible, to include a laserdisc audio track.
Promoting deception while also misquoting a famous historical figure.
My favorite response – someone posted (presumably referring in part to Trump’s disdain for his own intelligence apparatus): “imagine having all those facts at your fingertips and choosing to listen to Fox News instead.”
IIRC, didn’t the Super 8 digests appear to have the same mix?
The super8 digest for ESB had entirely different visuals!
But just because it’s mono, does that mean it’s a different mix?
Was the optical track on PSB really a different mix? I know that was the case for PG, but I thought the mono on PSB was just a folddown of the stereo. Honestly I can’t remember.
I’m also assuming there never was a mono mix of ROTJ… (right?)
… at the same time, I’ll lower the bitrate until people notice that it looks like mouse droppings.