Sign In

TM2YC

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
25-Apr-2013
Last activity
23-Jun-2018
Posts
4232

Post History

Post
#1219050
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

dahmage said:

Trump has certain goals, they haven’t really changed since his campaign.

  1. keep out foreigners
  2. tear down any climate regulation (jobs!)
  3. renegotiate any trade agreements (jobs!)
  4. tear apart the Iran nuclear deal
  5. tear apart obamacare

his tactic is being unpredictable.

None of these are his goals. They are (in his mind) ends to a means => winning.

I think Trump has a list in his draw with everything Obama did and he’s going through that ticking it off one by one when it’s been dismantled, reversed, or cancelled. There is no ideology behind his goals, just spite because Obama mocked him one time at that press dinner.

Post
#1218393
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jay said:

https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/1008902662828511232

It was bad policy when Obama and the Democrats supported it and it’s bad policy now, but it’s a travesty now because the media tells you it is and there are elections in a few months… nobody cared when it was Obama, and now suddenly it’s a national crisis. I guess hypocrisy has a short shelf life.

Agreed on the first part but the reason for it being highlighted now is not a double-standard, it is because Obama didn’t say Mexicans were all rapists and claim that Mexico was going to build the US a wall to keep themselves out. If Trump didn’t want the media to examine his border policy more closely than they did Obama’s policies, then he shouldn’t have had so many tantrums about it while screaming “Please pay attention to me!” all the time.

Post
#1210063
Topic
Terrible DVD/Blu-ray Cover Art
Time

I cannot and will not accept that Jack Reacher one is real without proof 😉. Having the “Thrilling” quote bigger than Cruise’s name defies belief. Links to where it’s being sold please.


What better way to pay tribute to the late Heath, than with this DVD boxset:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Heath-Ledger-Collection-Johnny-Depp/dp/B01I06U17M/

Clearly a labour of love for the cover designer.

Post
#1208718
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

darthrush said:

I don’t like Peterson’s views on women or the fact that he thinks there can not be art without religion.

He used to seem like a pretty reasonable guy who was a well mannered debater but slowly his ideas have been getting crazier and crazier.

Crazy pays the bills?

Ain’t that the truth. Unfortunately in this new world of clicks and likes, vocally agreeing with them makes them money, vocally disagreeing with them makes them money and even just researching what they said makes them money. Only completely ignoring them puts them out of business, something people (including us in this thread) will fail to do every time.

Post
#1207947
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

I don’t why I’m doing this but since you referenced my posts…

Jay said:

TM2YC seems to think that humans simply kill each other because that’s what we do, so if we ban the tools we use to kill, the killings will stop

I said the opposite. Humans will always want to kill each other and it will never stop, so I favour making that as difficult as possible. Statistically speaking, every person in the US has at least one gun, making murder a fantastically easy option to solve stressful situations.

Jay said:

mass killings… why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available?

When were guns less prevalent in the US than today?

Post
#1207864
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

I was going to reply but then I thought no, debating this issue is just too silly and I don’t know why I tried. I’ll just highlight this number-22-based observation and if anybody wants to debate it, then I don’t really care:

Number of school shootings in UK + Strict Gun Control = 0 in the last 22 years.

Number of school shootings in US + Almost no Gun Control = 22 since this year began.

Post
#1207841
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Tyrphanax said:

It makes me super sad when people clamor to give up rights.

What rights? Voting is a right, free-speech is a right, carrying a knife isn’t a right.

Tyrphanax said:

what’s being done to address why people want to stab other people to death?

Were humans, I’m afraid that comes as part of the package. Although things are being done anyway.

Tyrphanax said:

I doubt that access to knives is the reason people stab one another.

It’s quite difficult to stab each other without knives.

Jay said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

Ask Londoners if they feel safe with people getting stabbed every night

Broadly speaking the answer would be yes. London is one of the most populous cities in the world. One murder is statistically tiny and no danger to the majority but one is still far too many.

Except it’s 36 fatal stabbings so far this year in London.

“Except”? I never said it wasn’t 36, I never mentioned numbers.

EDIT: Oh I see what you meant. You thought I was saying one murder in the whole year, and not one murder a day, or whatever the exact average was. Seems like trying really hard to go through what I said and find something to misunderstand, so the rest can be ignored. Apologies if I wasn’t clear.

Post
#1207812
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jay said:

Ask Londoners if they feel safe with people getting stabbed every night

Broadly speaking the answer would be yes. London is one of the most populous cities in the world. One murder is statistically tiny and no danger to the majority but one is still far too many. The UK politicians, police etc are all working together to reduce it again by further restricting access to knives. That’s how you tackle a problem caused by dangerous weapons. Action, not inaction and prayer.

The current hullabaloo about London knife crime is because people desperate to disprove that guns=bad in America have latched on to the statistical blip that London had very slightly more murders in Jan+Feb than New York (once considered a “murder capital” of the world) for the first time ever. That’s conveniently ignoring that New York had roughly 3 times the murder rate of London in both of the last two years.

Post
#1204235
Topic
The Warriors (1979) 1080p HD Theatrical Cut
Time

Sort of on-topic request…

As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, I’ve been working on a Theatrical Cut Reconstruction blu-ray over on fanedit.org:

https://forums.fanedit.org/showthread.php?tid=8022

I wanted to add the TV-Cut scenes as a bonus but finding them in decent quality is tricky. Tranzor’s TV-Composite DVD (which is on the organ) looks great (a TNT watermarked source) but is digitally corrupted.

So can anybody here point me in the direction of either a copy of that DVD, a copy of the TNT broadcast in good quality, or maybe some other source? Once I’ve sourced those scenes the blu-ray will be good to go.

Thanks all.

p.s. Short demo video of the blu-ray cropping reversed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Vvj-ct0zS4

Post
#1195218
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Tyrphanax said:

TM2YC said:

In recent weeks, I keep hearing politicians and journalists saying this online data protection issue is difficult, or impossible to solve. Is forcing online companies by law to give people a genuine opt out of 3rd party data sharing really that difficult?

I’m sure if Facebook (using them as an example) surveyed all of their users and asked “would you like us to share and/or sell your private data to 3rd parties?” 0% would say yes. Yet 100% of their users have agreed to let Facebook do exactly that because it’s not possible to opt out of it and still use their service.

Simply make it illegal for these companies to share data without the express permission of the user and make it illegal to make that permission conditional on continued use of said service. I don’t know about other countries but in the UK data-protection for customers in the real-world is serious sh*t that companies can get in trouble for. So why is it okay for companies in the online world to act like it’s the wild west with people’s privacy?

It doesn’t even need to be on an international basis (it would be better if it was through), individual countries can legislate on this and the companies will obey the laws in those countries like they do across real-world borders because they want to do business in those countries.

Totally agree. The sad fact of the world is that you sometimes have to save people from themselves. Hell I’m all about privacy and yet I have a Facebook page.

But that’s my point. You didn’t have the option to save yourself. It was use the service and get screwed, or not use the service. Things like facebook, twitter, youtube and google are facts of life now. Asking people to choose between being able to use them at all and a vague possibility that their data might be used by a “trusted” 3rd party, is not a fair choice.

Post
#1195063
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Handman said:

^What I wanted to hear. It would be interesting to see how it would affect their business strategy, there is big bucks in sharing this data. In fact, I think that’s where most of these social media companies value lie.

The effect on their bottom line is not important. Many other highly profitable ways of making money are already illegal for good reasons. This should be one of them.

Post
#1195000
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

In recent weeks, I keep hearing politicians and journalists saying this online data protection issue is difficult, or impossible to solve. Is forcing online companies by law to give people a genuine opt out of 3rd party data sharing really that difficult?

I’m sure if Facebook (using them as an example) surveyed all of their users and asked “would you like us to share and/or sell your private data to 3rd parties?” 0% would say yes. Yet 100% of their users have agreed to let Facebook do exactly that because it’s not possible to opt out of it and still use their service.

Simply make it illegal for these companies to share data without the express permission of the user and make it illegal to make that permission conditional on continued use of said service. I don’t know about other countries but in the UK data-protection for customers in the real-world is serious sh*t that companies can get in trouble for. So why is it okay for companies in the online world to act like it’s the wild west with people’s privacy?

It doesn’t even need to be on an international basis (it would be better if it was through), individual countries can legislate on this and the companies will obey the laws in those countries like they do across real-world borders because they want to do business in those countries.