*backup=[...snipped...] from https://www.darkhorizons.com/full-trailer-gareth-edwards-the-creator/

So this is a bit incorrect. Teller-Ulam devices (aka: huge fucking nukes like the Tsar Bomba) are three-stage or more weapons. The first stage, the "atom bomb", is the initiator. The second stage is where a normal hydrogen bomb gets its "oomph" from. After a third stage is added, things get very scary very quickly:
" Each stage can be 10-100 times the size of the previous stage. The 50 Mt bomb mentioned above was a three stage weapon."
Edward Teller proposed a (theoretical) T-U bomb that would be in the gigaton range, but reasoned it was impractical because it'd blow off a huge part of the atmosphere into space.
Fun bonus fact! The actual amount of plutonium that achieved pure fission in the Hiroshima explosion was roughly the size of a grain of rice. E=MC^2 is a hell of a thing!

I never denied saying that. I'll say it again if you like.

"You common cry of curs, whose breath I hate
As reek o' th' rotten fens, whose loves I prize
As the dead carcasses of unburied men
That do corrupt my air, I banish you!"
-Shakespeare

"Swerve me? The path to my fixed purpose is laid with iron rails, whereon my soul is grooved to run."
-Herman Melville

"That Edward shall be fearful of his life,
And then, to purge his fear, I'll be thy death.
King Henry and the prince his son are gone:
Clarence, thy turn is next, and then the rest,
Counting myself but bad till I be best."
Shakespeare

"All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick. He piled upon the whale’s white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it."
-Herman Melville

“Destruction is a form of creation.”
-Graham Greene


I should probably thank @bobknight33 . Now I know why people cut the tongues out of some men.

Your video, Edward Snowden - How your cellphone spies on you, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

"Robot" on the guitar pedal doesn't seem to be a reference to anything in particular, but the "R" is lifted from the Ryobi power tools logo.

I agree with Blade Runner for the origami, Edward James Olmos' character has a thing with them.

I'd add that the shots at 3:03 and 3:20 are also straight from Buckaroo Banzai.

Let's hope that pensioner, Mr Edwards, has a nice new mansion, courtesy of Mr Plumb, and Mr Plumb is now broke, jobless, and homeless. What a total douchbag.
85mph in a 20 mph residential neighborhood one lane road, then fleeing. He should never drive again. 4.6 years is hardly long enough, imo, especially with the first 1.2 spent in prison, so really he's only restricted an extra 3.4 years.

In 2010 this was how Mike Edwards, one of the founding members of ELO died.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/08/article-2229854-15EA90C8000005DC-485_634x366.jpg

Grab some coffee. More coffee. Maybe some soilent green, too. Now, may I direct your attention at this piece by the great Edward S. Herman, who basically wrote the book on propaganda together with Chomsky.

In this piece, he takes aim at the NYT's coverage of Russia. This, of course, includes the election. It's about 2/3 into the piece, beginning with:

"The Putin connection was given great impetus by the January 6, 2017 release of a report of the Office of Director of National Intelligence (DNI), on Background of Assessing Russian Activities and Intention in Recent US Elections."

I found one thing extremely interesting in *2* separate interviews with Assange when he was asked whether or not there was any Russian involvement -- including the one with Hannity shown early in the video here:

Hannity: Did Russia give you this information? Or anyone associated with Russia?
Assange: Our source is not a state party.

Very close to verbatim that exchange appeared in a print interview a week or two ago. The resulting headlines: "Assange denies Russian Involvement in the Leaks", etc.

But look at that answer. It is very carefully worded, but it doesn't directly answer the question. "Our source is not a state party" doesn't rule out that the source is Russian. It sort of rules out a source with known associations with the government (of Russia or anywhere else), but it could be an independent / private individual at face value that got the information from state parties.

I find it odd that nobody (as far as I've seen) has brought up that carefully worded answer, when it stuck out like a sore thumb to me the first time I saw it in print.


That being said, I 100% agree with Greenwald when he suggests that accusations are not proof. And the CIA and other agencies have a massive track record of shady dealings done in the name of "national security", as defined by whoever is in charge. Taking them at their word seems pretty hopelessly naive at this point.


But beyond all of that, I honestly don't care who did the hacking and what their motivations were. The government seems happy to record and analyze everything we say and do, and to claim that people like Edward Snowden are traitors for simply telling us about it. Well, get used to some of your own goddamn medicine. If you are running for public office, you should expect that your rights to privacy are going to be challenged much more strongly than those of Joe Average. You're a person of interest -- for pretty legitimate reasons.

Assume that absolutely everything you've ever said on the record (and lots OFF the record) is going to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb. If you've got any skeletons in your closet, expect that there is a good chance they will get exposed. And probably at the worst possible time.

What should both parties take away from this? Gee, it might be a good idea to choose candidates that can stand up to at least a basic level of scrutiny. Backing slimy weasels that look great and charismatic after a quick once-over might come back to bite you in the ass.

@bcglorf
i hear ya,but that is our responsibility,not the journalist or speaker.

for example i am reading david cay johnstons book "the making of trump".
johnston is a pulitzer prize winning journalist from the la times and the washington post.who also happens to be a republican.

the fact that he is republican does not automatically equate to his investigations being rightwing,slanted or biased.

the time for putting the onus on the outlet,or the individual was destroyed by FOX and it's "fair and balanced" bullshit.

we can lament the passing of walter cronkite,wooward and bernstein and I.F stone,or edward morrow.

but those days are gone,and it is up to us..all of us..to push back the ever increasing avalanche of propaganda and fake news.

Two days ago, there was a forum/panel about freedom & democracy, where the lineup included: Jeremy Scahill, Edward Snowden, Paul Jay (of TRN), Rick Wolff, and others.

Now, I know I'm biased when it comes to the topics of surveillance, the war on terror, capitalism, etc, but that does sound like a panel worth reporting on, doesn't it? It's not frontpage stuff, sure, but a column/comment online...

Nothing, last I checked. Not a peep.

Who did report on it? RT Germany.

As far as I am concerned, RT is a valid source, as long as you remain aware of their (pro-Russia) angle. It's actually a great source for stuff on the US or the UK, most of the time. Just like I've seen good stuff on Russia in the Swiss media, unlike the red-baiting so prevelant in the WaPo these days.

Apparently he can, but I'm not a legal expert, so I'll defer to anyone who has the expertise.

So, Big Sugar was conspiring to misinform the public of the dangers of consuming their product? Sounds like the kind of thing that might be done by someone like Edward Bernays...

http://videosift.com/video/animated-book-summary-propaganda-how-to-control-people

*conspiricy *science (because of discussing how "scientific" results can be manipulated by money.) *quality

For more info on what sugar actually does, see Robert Lustig's talk, "Sugar: The Bitter Truth."

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth

What about Edward Snowden?

Most of the Syrian refugees are actually still in Syria, or just over the border in Turkey, it's a fairly small percentage of that group who have chosen to try their luck in westernised countries.

"Don't play on playground equipment when your parents are cheap bastards and buy 10 year old second hand shit after sunlight and the elements have degraded the plastic to a point where a hummingbird fart will pulverise it to dust, Edward."