Sometimes I'm very glad that I live in a country that generally doesn't give a f@$% about US Copyright and Intellectual Property.

Since that is the case, and because I also happen to derive some schadenfreude-esque pleasure from the "Streisand effect", I have decided to download and seed for the foreseeable future the 6GB worth of files for the last version of Stage 9 before the shutdown, including Windows, Linux, and VR variants.

Anyone interested in following suit can use this magnet link, although there is potential for ISP strikes/warnings if you live in the US or other places where they have a less laissez-faire approach to these things than in Thailand (where I live).

Fair use needs protection. When that fails, at least one can assist with unfettered use, even if the powers that be claim that use is illegitimate.

https://medium.com/@epigraff.payments/religion-hard-dance-3b65e222f3dd
https://medium.com/@epigraff.payments/new-shooter-2019-f072727fcfe9
https://pikabu.ru/@ sunder321 (this link breaks because of the @ just copy paste and remove the space.)

Posting the same videos from this video's channel in multiple places, but the major thing is that the videos really seem to simply be the medium for pushing audio tracks by this person:

https://audiojungle.net/user/vladimirnagrebetskiy/portfolio

*ban for self post

What I mean is that space debris travels at speeds up to 17,500 mph or slightly more, depending on what height it is orbiting at. If you place this device in the path (or near it) of a known mass of debris, it is going to have to adjust and fire that net at a speed relative to the debris. If you have the device speed up or slow down to try and match the debris speed, it is going to rise or drop it's orbit height comparatively to the adjusted speed.

That is what I am wondering, will this device be able to catch something travelling at that speed? I'm assuming it would have to try without excessive movement changes or it would require too much fuel.

I'd like to think that through the course of history this is one of those relatively small gains that millions of lives and trillions of dollars have netted us.

But... He wasn't considered a great national figure. He was considered to be a "rich bc he fucked people over constantly" con man who seemed to have less money than he claimed to have.

Do you wish you had attended Trump University? If you said you "graduated" (in quotes because students were not graded" from Trump University, would people take you seriously if you put that on a resume? Would you let someone who graduated from Trump University handle your own finances, knowing they had an education from said school alone?

I don't think so. And that's the crux of all of this. That fake University is the model on which his entire business is built. Say you're giving them the best the biggest and give them something that looks flashy; you'll net a bunch of fools without any good sense of what they're getting into, but pull back the curtain and is the cheapest X Y Z they could sell you at that price.

Similarly, his politics are all one guffaw after another.

Nuclear disarmament from North Korea! Holly shit! Awesome! Ftw! Oh... Wait... You don't have a detailed agreement... What do you mean the word "Denuclearization" doesn't mean the same thing in Korean as in English? Oh, it means they will give up all their nukes because they won't need them anymore because we will get rid of all of ours as well? It's is a made up term from the 90's ??? https://www.npr.org/2018/04/22/604789492/how-does-kim-jong-un-define-denuclearization

Wait, they still have all their nukes and are continuing to produce more? But we had a coin made and everything! And we signed that thing! How could they still be making nukes? We signed a half assed contact! He agreed to my terms that he should agree to keep his nukes until he feels like getting rid of them!

It's just Trump University in nuclear disarmament form. It's a whole bunch of pomp and circumstance. Celebration for celebrations/political sake without any substance. That's why I'm not surprised that they are still producing nuclear weapons and the dumbasses who voted for this assclown are.

This will come as a shock to Patti Labelle.

RIP. If there is an afterlife, the house band in heaven just got way better.

Hateful woman should not have been hired.
https://media.8ch.net/file_store/f15d0de02db10f4c1b38cb46035f564ba74df567b8c3f05e563c3b8ccce9edfd.png

Oh FFS. Seriously?

It's 1000x more common for people to believe the words "liberalism" and "socialism" to be seen in a derogatory light by Americans, even though the overwhelming majority of people subscribe to classical liberal ideas, such as freedom of speech, religion, and basic human rights, or in *some* socialist ideas, like a basic safety net in some way shape or form. I mean, hell, because of Glenn Beck and Fox News, there's even a move to make "Progressive", as in the "Progressive Movement" a dirty word. You know, the movement that, while it did overstep its bounds, also helped to institute meritocracy within government, cleaned up corruption, began conservation efforts, and ensured for the first time widely basic safety with food, buildings, etc.

Just stop. Nobody gives a rat's ass if you come to work and say a prayer. Trump Supporters get beaten up?! Yeah, it's almost like they're black in the South, or they're Muslims somewhere in the US. Oh poor white Christians! They've never had it so hard!

Absolutely ridiculous.

Just stop. Nobody is buying your BS.

The video showed up when I pre-viewed it before clicking submit. But after submit nothing appeared. If I view my personal Un-Sifted list is appears there and is viewable, but it's not viewable from the main page.

here's the embed
<iframe src='//players.brightcove.net/293884104/SJa0Thl7_default/index.html?videoId=5321778228001' allowfullscreen frameborder=0></iframe>

here's the direct link
http://time.com/4669507/henry-louis-gates-great-civilizations/

Thanks for asking about it.

What would you recommend for an alternative here? There are inevitably going to be seniors who don't have family available to help them, and who reach a point where they're unable to care for themselves. I can only think of four options at that point:
1) Hope there's a local charity that is willing to take care of them, has adequate funding to do so, and isn't abusive. If this is unregulated there's a high likelihood of abuse occurring, and if it is regulated then you have government involved, which appears to be something you'd oppose. There's also the issue of unequal access - if it's charitable then it's inherently not mandated, so it's nearly certain some people will not have any such charity in their area (see #3).
2) Somehow have private, non-charitable entities handle it? I've no idea how this would work, as any non-charity is pretty much by definition motivated by profit, and a profit motive plus caring for the elderly is certain to lead to abuse (perhaps not in all cases, but I'd expect it to be quite common).
3) Nothing / good luck, oldies.
4) Government intercession.

In this case, a safety net facilitated by the government strikes me as the best of the available options. The problems highlighted in the video seem likely to stem from insufficient oversight and planning. I'd wager that's due to lack of funding, as this is exactly the sort of program which would be seen as a low-risk target when budget cuts come around, at least from an electoral perspective. After all, if the people impacted by this are those who don't already have people in their life who care for and can advocate for them, and being put under guardianship removes their voting rights, then where's the harm to a politician in reducing the funding?

It seems to me that a well-funded guardianship program, with proper oversight in place, would have the best chance of minimizing the suffering of elderly individuals who can no longer care for themselves. I can understand the libertarian preference for minimal governmental interference in the lives of the public, but this strikes me as a case where that simply doesn't work. If you can think of a viable option #5, or can make a case for 1, 2, or 3 being legitimately more helpful than a well-run option #4 (which is clearly NOT what's discussed in the video), I'm absolutely open to considering it. At the same time, implementing #4 in a way which doesn't leave it vulnerable to budgetary volatility is also a not-insignificant challenge.

Damn, I'm procrastinating really well tonight. That was long.

@vil
@StukaFox
@wtfcaniuse

Obama made this mess, not our government, not Trump.

Donald Trump isn’t ripping up a treaty, he’s walking away from Barack Obama’s personal pledge. President Obama made a deal with Iran without support from Congress. Trump is pulling out of President Obama’s personal commitment, and he doesn’t need Congress’s support to do” it because Congress had nothing to do with authorizing this.

Iran can’t violate because they never signed it! Therefore, technically they’re incapable of violating. This is just a set of political documents put forth by Obama, never ratified by the Senate, not signed by the Iranians.


Iranian President Hassan Rowhani opposes a parliamentary vote on the nuclear deal reached because terms of the agreement would turn into legal obligations if passed by lawmakers. “If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to (and passed by) parliament, it will create an obligation for the government. it will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it,” Rowhani said. “Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?”



2015 — in the Obama State Department, “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),” said that the Iran deal, “is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document…” It was the final document.




State Department: Iran Deal Is Not ‘Legally Binding’ and Iran Didn’t Sign It
https://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/


White House admits it played us for fools to sell Iran deal
https://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/

Rowhani: no need for parliament vote on nuke deal
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/08/29/Rowhani-Iran-nuke-deal-doesn-t-need-parliament-approval.html

As hamsteralliance says, ContentAware uses proximity matching and relative area matching. If you tried to fill in the white space with ContentAware, it'd be full of everything except eyes. They nVidia folks used thousands of images to train the neural net (ie generate the model using training data) which has more discrete sequential or spatial relationships between features (ie. eyes go to either side of the nose, below the eyebrows, level, interpupilary distance etc etc). The neural approach ALWAYS needs training data sets - it doesn't appear to (from reading the paper) any adaptive or learning algorithm outside of the neural framework (so, it's not AI in the sense that it learns from any environmental stimulus and alters its response... that I can see anyway. The paper doesn't get into the minutiae). But I'd still date her, if only she'd have me.

I have to admit I don't really know Domino so are you basing this on changing her character (personality, powers, etc) or just her appearance?

Palette swap (pale chick with black eye to black chick with white eye) doesn't really bother me.

Also, this still looks fucking awesome.

As promised, the most promising results when polling google scholar:

"Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and Its Correlates in an Australian Twin Sample"

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/J_Bailey2/publication/12572213_Genetics_and_Environmental_Influences_on_Sexual_Orientation_and_Its_Correlates_in_
an_Australian_Twin_Sample/links/0deec518bc0435c0cd000000.pdf

Probably one of the better studies, it breaks down orientation to a scale versus straight binary, though the results are then statistical correlations and my stats classes are too long ago for me to work that back into something resembling my claims above.

"Sexual Orientation in a U.S. National Sample
of Twin and Nontwin Sibling Pairs"
http://ioa126.medsch.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/47.pdf

19 identical twins in the study with at least one twin with non-hetro orientation, within those 19 pairs, 6 showed concordance. So 6 of 19 identical twins sharing orientation, 13 of 19 not. This supports my statement above that in studies identical twins more often than not don't share homosexual orientation. This study also lists the statistical correlation of this result as 0.68, the previous studies statistical correlation was lower at 0.51(1.0 would be perfect correlation). If I'm reading the statistics remotely right, the above study then is similarly in keeping with my statement.

"Homosexual Orientation in Twins: A Report on 61 Pairs and Three Triplet Sets"
http://hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1993-homosexual-orientation-in-twins.html

Smaller sample size and different polling methodology, specifically sought out respondents of non hetro orientation. Shows a higher correlation, 25 of 38 identical twins being concordant. That's 66% concordance so opposite of my claim that more often than not they are discordant.


Running out of time here to post results. If you keep digging though it's more of the same, identical twins don't come close to showing 100% correlation, highest study of the samples I've pulled is 66%, and it's by far the highest. This is in contrast to race and gender, where you fully expect 100/100 identical twins to match.

There are a few problems they skipped.
First, that bigger pie is still finite, but we act as if it's infinite, pretending that one person having billions doesn't adversely effect others, but that's simply not true.
Second, it overlooked the fact that those countries going through industrial revolution often do so by using other non industrial countries resources, making it impossible to industrialize everywhere....we would need at least one more planet to harvest.
Third, it never pointed out that the GDP increases caused by industrial revolutions were met with massive increases in population, which decreases the per capita net worth significantly. Doubling GDP while tripling population makes the average person have less, not more.

I'm disappointed they didn't mention the French revolution, caused largely by the wealth disparity they're discussing.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau: When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.

This video seems to be a long winded version of 'a rising tide lifts all boats'.