*beg from https://tech.slashdot.org/story/23/09/25/2255204/the-worlds-oldest-active-torrent-turns-20-years-old

So, this morning, by projection, Trump admitted he’s lost multiple classified and nuclear secrets “All over the place”.
He admitted this by making the false claim that the national archives has lost massive amounts of nuclear secrets from former presidents (all of whom turned over ALL documents and records to the national archives, not one STOLE classified documents, so of course none hid the stolen nuclear secrets and lied about having them. Never. No one but Trump…and the archives NEVER lost nuclear secrets, he’s exaggerating and misrepresenting a 20 year old report that said they could be better organized, not that any classified documents were missing.).

They haven’t….but EVERY time Trump makes an unsubstantiated accusation it turns out he is guilty of what he’s projecting. EVERY SINGLE TIME. This time it means he’s lost classified secrets.


Edit: also, Walker admits he paid (at least one of) his baby mama the $700 check she says was to pay for her abortion he insisted she have. His excuse? “She’s the mother of my (abandoned) child, of course I sent her money.” (The payment was from 2 years before she got pregnant again, this time refusing his insistence that she abort it, so she was NOT the mother of his child then).

Ready to discuss Ashley Babbitt yet?

Not smart for some/ most, agreed. Most people let some one else manage their $. Most people don't watch day to day.

I've been buying stocks for last 20 years. Took a lot of lumps. My main goal was to not to loose my shirt. A lot of lessons learned, mainly what not to do.

Main lesson learned was to find a Amazon.Target, Starbucks or Apple just as they become trendy. If you had bought and hold any of these for the last 10 years, you would be doing just fine. Tesla fits this model. Its 20 years old and finally over last 2 really planted its stake permanently as a auto maker. They are the EV leader.

That being said Tesla is easy to follow and see. There is enough active YouTube channels people reporting daily from around the world on Tesla. A person can fully understand this business and what is going on.

Other companies are more secretive and also no one really cares.


My final thought is this. IMO Tesla is at the same point as when Steve jobs introduced the iPhone in 2006.

Dont you wish you loaded up on apple back in 2006 @ $7 bucks a share? Apple close Friday was $168.

Its about the long game.

I haven't even watched this yet, but for fuck' sake... a 20 year old video???? VideoSift is DEAD.

Your video, Portrait of Lotte, from birth to 20 years old, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I don't road rage, but when I do, I use a $750 20 year old truck so I don't need to injure myself to prove my manliness.

If my wife looked like this I would shag her like the 20 year old depicted in the video.

Thoughts:

1) There has been a ban on sales of new, fully-automatic firearms ("machine guns") since 1986. That leaves some loopholes (can still buy them if they were manufactured before then, but that demand plus scarcity makes them expensive, etc.) but in general, there isn't a whole lot of uproar over that 20-year-old ban.

2) These bump-fire stocks don't technically convert a firearm into fully-automatic; the trigger is still being pulled 1 time for each bullet that comes out (semi-automatic).

3) However, they easily allow for rates of fire (bullets per minute/second) comparable to fully-automatic weapons. So, I think an unbiased and reasonable person would say that while a firearm equipped with one of these does not violate the letter of the ban on fully-automatic firearms, it does quite reasonably violate the spirit of that ban.

4) Doing anything to correct that discrepancy will require updated laws. Updating the law requires a legislature that generally supports the update and a president that agrees, or a legislature that overwhelmingly supports the update and can override a presidential veto.

5) None of that exists at the moment in the US. So, it is (perhaps coldly) logical to say that these bump-fire stocks will not be banned as an extension to the 1986 ban on full-auto firearms, at least not in the short term.

6) However, before quietly accepting that, it is worth noting that political fallout amongst those individuals in the legislature that refuse to consider updating the law is a very real possibility. Plenty of people, even on the right, even plenty of gun nuts, say that they are in favor of some degree of "common sense" gun control. Pointing out that bump-fire stocks essentially circumvent the already in-place ban on fully-automatic firearms seems like a good way to test that professed adherence to common sense.

7) Get that word out there, and pretty importantly, try to do it in a way that is as respectful towards the average "gun nut" as possible. Their minds can be swayed. Hunters, sportsmen, and even people that have guns for self defense can be persuaded with reason -- they can still do their thing even without bump-fire stocks, just like they can do their thing without fully-automatic firearms. Congresscritters probably can't be convinced, because they've already been bribed"persuaded" with campaign donations, NRA lobbyists, etc.


So, don't preach to the choir. Try to convince the people that do actually own guns. The good news? You've got "common sense" on your side.

Sounds like an exercising in rearranging the furniture on the Titanic to me.

In a world where discrimination and separatism is qualitatively and quantitatively on the rise, people in charge must be ecstatic that they can appease people without having to do anything meaningful that might piss off the extremists on the right, or "shareholders". And people are so used to being told that change is only possible through incremental adjustments that they'll eat it up like candy and think this is progress.

"People people people, if you're going to call someone a filthy tranny and throw fast food at xem on public transport, at least use the proper pronoun when you verbally abuse xem."

When there's a hole in the boat and you're taking on water, the least of your concerns should be about what language you use to describe the in-rushing water or shape of the hole, nor arguing over the colour of the material you use to repair it.

I'm sure some people will see this as a victory. Until next time they apply for a job and not get hired due to transphobia. And the manager of the company, with a gleam in their eye, begins the rejection letter with 'Dear bun/bunself', then sniggers to themselves and says "fucking trannies."

What I'm trying to say was summed nicely in a tweet i saw the other day:
ALTRIGHT/NEO NAZI: your all going to the gas chambers!!!
NEOLIBERAL: you're*

If this is the extent of what activism is able to achieve, i should say that the establishment/elite have won by pacifying and declawing the protesters. It's no longer about breaking the shackles of oppression. We can't go around breaking shackles everywhere - think of the effect on the economy? And what about people getting hit by shrapnel? No, instead the LGBTQ community will be given multi coloured chains, the black community will be given slightly longer chains, and we'll pad the shackles with silk so that everyone is much more comfortable. Don't complain about the concept of being chained, instead complain that your chain is not as nice as the next guy's chain.

It's as though the great struggle of protest and civil disobedience has been taken over by the liberal intelligentsia, and the worst kind of discrimination faced by a 20 year old middle-class university student with rainbow coloured dreadlocks and a nose piercing is the letter they receive about their student loan that begins "dear sir/madam". So they go out and march about it and think they've made progress when they get their own pronoun. In their life, in their experiences, they are treated equally in other respects, so they think they ARE fighting inequality.

But for the working class male or female transsexual who gets filthy looks and a seat isolated by themselves on public transport, to travel to their entry level job where they've been skipped over for promotion for not looking the part, or getting the right level of respect from the trans-phobic staff, getting snide whispered comments from customers about the size of their hands, getting abuse yelled at them as they travel to have a night out at the ONLY trans-friendly bar within a 20 mile radius....... I get the feeling that receiving a letter with the correct pronoun isn't exactly going to change their fucking lives.

To remove a weed, you go for the roots. Some wanker calling you him/her when you prefer bun/bunself is not the root of this problem. The problem is that they are trans-phobic, not the language - which is just the tool they use to discriminate against you. To change the language and think that you've won is a bit like redefining room temperature and claiming you've warmed everybody by a few degrees.

If you march for equal rights, fair pay, fair treatment then people are going to see that and join your protest because they also want those things. Those things will solve the problems faced by the trans community, feminists, masculinists, minorities alike! And through common goals and by supporting each other en masse for simple, unified goals like EQUALITY, progress will be made, change will happen. It is a concept called solidarity and seems to be going out of fashion, but our grandparents knew.

The objective for the establishment is to drive a wedge between groups of people so that their demands are more manageable, and they can be turned on each other. Feminists, masculinists, LGBT, everyone... can't you see how better off you'd be marching together for common values that lie at the core of what every human wants?

Wall of text, sorry... and I know it looks like i'm being insensitive. So congratulations, genuinely, for getting someone to use your preferred pronoun if that makes you feel better. But whilst people have been fighting tooth and nail to get their own pronoun (in civilised settings only), we've suffered huge leaps backwards in freedom and tolerance behind their backs whilst they were bent over intently concentrating on the finer detail of what their ideal equality looks like.

I watched this a few years back. The 20 year old kid, Davey Fallon, died not too long after this documentary was filmed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2559606/Bodybuilder-drinking-taking-cocaine-fell-death-tried-climb-bedroom-window-argument-girlfriend.html

Once I was 7 years old, my mama told me,
Go make yourself some friends or you'll be lonely,
Once I was 7 years old

It was a big, big world but we thought we were bigger
Pushing each other to the limits, we were learning quicker
By 11 smoking herb, and drinking burning liquor
Never rich so we were out to make that steady figure

Once I was 11 years old, my daddy told me,
Go get yourself a wife or you'll be lonely
Once I was 11 years old

I always had that dream, like my daddy before me
So I started writing songs, I started writing stories
Something about that glory, just always seemed to bore me
'cus only those I really love will ever really know me

Once I was 20 years old, my story got told
Before the morning sun, when life was lonely
Once I was 20 years old

I only see my goals, I don't believe in failure,
'cus I know the smallest voices, they can make it major,
I got my boys with me, at least those in favour
And if we don't meet before I leave, I hope I'll see you later

Once I was 20 years old, my story got told
I was writing about everything I saw before me
Once I was 20 years old

Soon we'll be 30 years old, our songs have been sold
We've traveled around the world and we're still roaming
Soon we'll be 30 years old

I'm still learning about life
My woman brought children for me
So I can sing them all my songs
And I can tell them stories
Most of my boys are with me
Some are still out seeking glory
And some I had to leave behind
My brother, I'm still sorry

Soon I'll be 60 years old
My daddy got 61
Remember life and then your life becomes a better one
I made a man so happy when I wrote a letter once
I hope my children come and visit once or twice a month

Soon I'll be 60 years old
Will I think the world is cold,
or will I have a lot of children who can warm me
Soon I'll be 60 years old

Soon I'll be 60 years old
Will I think the world is cold,
or will I have a lot of children who can warm me
Soon I'll be 60 years old

Once I was 7 years old, mama told me
Go make yourself some friends or you'll be lonely
Once I was 7 years old

Once I was 7 years old

I'm not sure I'd say that anyone at a university cannot be a child. In many cases, 18-20 year olds -are- children...especially if they've been subject to such conditioning as she appears to have had. Yes, she should be challenging the dogma she was taught, but I've no personal idea how difficult that is do conceive of, much less to do. Do you? That's not an accusation, but an honest question. My parent's raised me to question everything and to make decisions based on evidence. I've got no way to even estimate how difficult it would be to break out of the opposite sort of training. I can't imagine it would take less than an extreme effort.

Fully agree on the last point...I'd love to think she'll start thinking for herself, and that this might even have been the turning point. The prof was far kinder and gentler than I could have been (my frustration would have shown quite clearly), and it'd be nice to think that will pay off in the long run.

I understand your discomfort with my phrasing. My beef is with the electoral college system.

While I was getting my degree, I took some really good American History and Government classes at college. The prof in the Govt. class really went into depth explaining the electoral college to us, and to me the shittiness of that system was just shocking. For example: (none of this is news to a truly informed voter or an interested person with an internet connection, but it WAS news to me when I was ~20 years old, and I think it still would be news to a really high percentage of US voters)

* First is the very idea of an electoral college. The only way to become president of the US is to win the most electoral votes. But voters don't cast electoral votes, the people of the electoral college do. OK, the electoral college is supposed to follow the votes/will of their state/constituents (more on that next), but the fact remains that literally/practically, our votes as citizens don't matter. Only the electoral votes count. So yes, in the most literal sense ... NONE of our votes "matter".

* In general, the "electors" (the people on the electoral college) are supposed to cast their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in their state / district. I think 2 states (Nebraska and Maine?) divide up their suggested electoral votes to be as close as possible to the actual proportions of the popular vote, but that's a whole other issue. Anyway, in general the electors are supposed to cast their vote for the popular vote winner in their state. BUT, that process isn't automatic. The votes that actually matter, the electoral votes, are cast by fallible human beings -- and they might "go rogue" and vote against what they are "supposed to" do. That is called a "faithless elector". That would be bad enough if it was just some weird loophole that technically exists but has never actually happened in practice, but actually faithless electors happen fairly frequently. The only upside is that they haven't ever changed the outcome of an election. Yet.

* When we're young and in civics type classes in school, we're brainwashedtaught about Democracy as a very simple, will of the public, one man one vote system. The electoral college shits all over that. One can win the popular vote but lose on electoral votes, and that actually has happened multiple times (not just to Al Gore). In my opinion, the electoral college creates a laundry list of problems (swing states are the only ones that matter, so campaign there and ignore everybody else, etc. etc. etc.), has very few benefits (any supposed benefits of the system are tenuous at best), and is completely contrary to the core concepts of Democracy.


Without the electoral college, a blue vote in Kansas would matter, as would a red vote in Massachusetts. Or a vote for a 3rd party or independent, anywhere. With the electoral college, edge cases like any of those can be safely and easily ignored by candidates.

I think it is unlikely that Kansas would turn blue, even if all of the democrats voted. That being said, we're not a complete LOCK for red; heck, out of the 10 most recent Governors we've had before we turned into Brownbackistan it is an even split between Democrats and Republicans with 5 each. And actually the Democrats had significantly longer total number of years in the office.

So basically, I don't actually think that a vote cast on a losing candidate is "pointless", I just think that the electoral college system does a really good job of making sure that some votes are more pointless than others. It amazes me that there wasn't a MUCH bigger stink made about it when Gore "lost" in 2000, but I guess voter apathy can overcome any challenge to the system.

This is old tech. Over 20 years old, and the T72 is older (hint, names for Russian tanks are based approximately on the year they were introduced).

1) As I mentioned earlier, implementing border control for each state is never going to happen. As I also mentioned, border control has already been proven ineffective at stopping both drugs and illegal immigrants so why would guns be any different?

2) My drug analogy is perfectly valid. Drugs are banned yet they are still smuggled into the country. And no, people aren't growing cocaine or heroin in their backyard. And yes, smuggling a small packet of cocaine by hiding it in your ass is easier than smuggling a gun through the same means but guns don't have be smuggled intact. They can easily be disassembled and the individual parts smuggled separately. Many of these pieces would be small enough to hide in your ass. But this is all largely irrelevant because the bulk of drugs are not transported via anus.

3) The motivations of mass shooters is highly debatable. I'd argue that they want to feel empowered and the easiest way to do that is in schools which are undeniably the least likely places for people to be armed. If they tried to go on a shooting spree in a police station or military base or gun convention, they probably wouldn't get many kills. Instead, they'd be shot and killed by someone else and that's something no shooters seem to want (hence the reason why they always commit suicide after the spree instead of letting themselves be arrested or killed by the police). In fact, if you look at the history of school shootings in the U.S., many of the shooters were adults. The Sandy Hook shooter was 20 years old and he primarily targeted first-graders who obviously weren't his peers. When it comes to mass shootings, it's all about quantity and targeting people who can't defend themselves is the most effective way of achieving that.

4) Do you have any statistics to support your claim? I seriously doubt suicide rates plummeted in countries or states where guns were banned. Japan and South Korea both have extremely strict gun laws yet they also have some of the highest suicide rates in the world (South Korea is #3, Japan is #8, the U.S. is #33). If you weren't serious about killing yourself and just wanted attention, you wouldn't use a gun in the first place. You'd stand on the ledge of a building and wait for the news vans to appear. Like you said, guns are the quickest way to kill yourself so you wouldn't use them if you had any doubts or hesitations.