My Pops had a prophet 2000 the mid 80's. The first home digital sampling synth. It had all these options and more to apply to either the basic hum or to any sample. It had reverb, attack, sustain, decay, multiple preset wave forms, speed (of the sample), pitch and tone, and probably 1/2 dozen more I can't recall, all in a keyboard size unit, not a full pipe organ size. The samples came or could be recorded on 3 1/2" floppies, and you could store a huge number of presets to modify them as you wished at the push of one button, not a complete retuning with multiple dials. I had fun remixing James Brown and Prince, but never learned to play well.
Amazing the advancements they made in just 15 years.

had the same thought...kinda of.

"could he have said that better or is he letting us know in advance?"

strangely sort of legendary way of going. "he fell into the grand canyon". make grandpa seem more mountain man-ish.

but maybe not...
https://www.mygrandcanyonpark.com/park/faqs/falling-to-death-grand-canyon/

As far as I know, the Icelandic people are the only ones in history to successfully redirect a lava flow (excluding Tommy Lee Jones). They got this.

[ In January 1973, Eldfell volcano on the island of Heimaey erupted an ‘a‘ā lava flow. Over the next 5 months, billions of gallons of seawater were pumped through an elaborate network of pipes laid out across the lava to cool the flow and slow its advance toward Heimaey's only harbor, the lifeline of the island and a critical economic resource for the entire country. The fragmental nature of the lava flow's surface allowed the seawater to penetrate deep into the flow and cool the lava near its core, and the advance of the flow was slowed as the flow front thickened dramatically.]

Thank you - that was an excellent article. I hadn't known how much quiet effort was going on behind the scenes, months in advance, to protect US democracy:

"an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted"

Darpa has advanced so much.

I know this is very very wrong, and I apologise in advance, but I got forwarded a picture of him (or someone similar) just after George Floyd was murdered with the caption "We're gonna need a bigger knee."

I'm happy to laugh at tragedy so long as it doesn't make you forget how awful it is.

What's up your ass? Nazi facebook got shunned and grandpa hitler wannabe got kicked off social media?

Hey, look,




I'm sorry you got duped.
But that doesn't give anyone the right to do what they did.
LETS BE CLEAR
People forced their way into the capitol building through violence. They hung up a noose https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/noose-hung-outside-capitol/ and when inside the building they were chanting 'FIGHT FOR TRUMP FIGHT FOR TRUMP FIGHT FOR TRUMP' until the president tweeted about Mike Pence's disloyalty, then they started with "WHERE IS PENCE, WHERE IS PENCE?

If you know anyone who was at the rally and stormed the capitol, please contact the FBI
https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/washingtondc/news/press-releases/fbi-seeking-information-related-to-violent-activity-at-the-us-capitol-bu
ilding
https://preview.tinyurl.com/yyq8xcba (link is too long)

They are wanted as person's of interest, suspected of terrorism.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-rioters-prison-trump-executive-order-federal (link is too long) copy+paste

$50k for anyone associated with the pipe bombs https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/08/954845870/u-s-capitol-flag-will-fly-at-half-staff-fbi-issues-rew
ard-over-pipe-bombs


------------##########------------
------------##########------------
Look, I believe that you believe what you're saying, okay?

Let me make one last red rover talk with you, maybe you'll come on back to reality.
------------##########------------
------------##########------------


Here's the argument for Georgia, laid out in point by point sections


1.--------------------------------
Do you know any Trump supporters who don't trust the election?

From 2018 so before the current bullshit; though it's worth pointing out that Trump also claims that the 2016 election that he fucking won was a fraud.

"Results from a new Grinnell College National Poll give insights into which citizens lack confidence in the November 2018 election. As it turns out, white conservatives, despite accusations of election fraud from President Trump and several outspoken conservative leaders, are neither the only groups concerned about the accuracy of the 2018 vote count nor the groups most concerned. The poll’s results also uncover how a lack of confidence in the vote count is linked with voter turnout "
https://bit.ly/2VooAMS

I would argue that's contributed to a suppression of turnout. See also # 10 on my list here.


2.--------------------------------

https://apps.npr.org/elections20-interactive/#/house

The democrats lost a chunk of seats in the house of reps.
Flip flip flip flip flip flip
All that, all the Democrat plot to steal the election? That's some 7d chess right there. Secret dem plot = elect republicans. (it's the same ticket as the presidential vote) Can't trust people who voted Republican? Is that it? Throw those votes out?


3.-------------------------------
Arguing a that a technicality should disqualify votes doesn't mean that Americans' vote count is inaccurate. And if those votes' certification is invalid, why did Republican senators and Congress people from those states take their offices on Jan 2nd?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They are voted in on the same ballot that the vote for president is cast on. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
If they genuinely think and believe it was a scam, why did they show up to Washington and take office on the basis of so-called fraudulent ballots? If those ballots are frauds, what are those Republicans doing seated in those congressional seats?

Also, if that rule change is so bad, and absentee ballots are so fraudulent and can't be trusted, why did the Republican party in that state send a absentee ballot to every Republican who voted in the last election? You'd have to throw out ~700,000 republican votes as well. Don't their votes count?


4.-------------------------------

Mitt Romney is an absolute asshole and he supports policy i strongly disagree with, but at least he's honest and seems to speak with an appeal to integrity. I think I saw his outrage at his own party spilling out of his head during the objection hearing.

But he's been an R his whole life? Cant be trusted?

Mitch McConnel is like a RPG character that someone dumped all the skill points into "fuck these rules, I'm getting my way" He will do anything, cast off nearly any rule to advance republican politics. He is against this. No one, only one man can be trusted ???

Mike pence is the most republican motherfucker around, and he does not endorse this, which party are you with?



5.------------------------------

The senators objecting were right the cases didn't progress to a hearing, and were all "without standing" or were unable to even make a claim, with Rudy going into court and when the judge flatly asks him if he's suing for fraud,
'is this a fraud case ? '

>>>>>>>>>>>>>RUDY - "NO"
"No we do not"
( O_O) ?

The judge explains that maybe he did allege fraud at some point, but not in the paper work he filed currently in front of the judge. (EVEN JUDGE JUDY DON'T ALLOW THAT SHIT)

WOULD YOU LIKE THE AUDIO OF THAT?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4925496/user-clip-alleging-fraud

Finally, after some linguistic dancing, the judge revisits the topic, bookending that clip. ”Does the Amended complaint include fraud with particularity ?"

>>>>>>>>>>>>RUDY - "NO YOUR HONOR"



6.-------------------------------------------

So all of my
X Y Z cant be trusted?
Add McConnel and Pence



7.------------------------------------------

Maybe you are taking trump literally, not seriously? You're supposed to do "seriously, not literally" i've heard. Maybe he seriously won the election...
...but not literally, actually, or in-fact.



8.------------------------------------------

So only one man can be trusted? Only one man with the power? He used to hint at not conceding, now he's hinting at no more elections.

is that the way of a democracy or a republic? NO MORE ELECTIONS, THEY CANT BE TRUSTED UNLESS I WIN
???What good are elections? Why would we need those? They're all stolen anyway right ?



9.------------------------------------------

The states that made a difference and flipped from red to blue. Red, they were already red. Red as in Republicans won previous elections there and we're in charge of the local government and election boards in each case.
REPUBLICANS CERTIFIED EACH OF THOSE STATES.
HENCE THE FLIPPING,
THEY CERTIFIED IN DECEMBER,
BEFORE THEIR REPLACEMENTS ARRIVED.


10.-----------------------------------------

Democrats have been doing the work of flipping Georgia for 30 years, for democrats, that's how they flipped the state.

[The Daily] The Georgia Runoffs, Part 1: ‘We Are Black Diamonds.’ #theDaily
https://podcastaddict.com/episode/117319937 via @PodcastAddict

They interview Stacy Abraham's here^ and she speaks at length about the decades long process to flip Georgia, and all the fundraising they did during that time

There is also a sister episode where republican campaign officials are interviewed and they discuss how they are not prepared in Georgia because they thought that state was a lock, still they could have pulled it off, but voter turnout was being suppressed because people were being told it was a fraud. There is a telling moment where the two R senators up for election in Georgia are on stage but the crowd just keeps chanting TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP to the point that they are unable to speak to the crowd
[The Daily] The Georgia Runoffs, Part 2: ‘I Have Zero Confidence in My Vote’ #theDaily
https://podcastaddict.com/episode/117362059 via @PodcastAddict

>>>>>>>>>>>Notable,
the interviewer tries and tries but can't find a republican who will say they have confidence in their vote at the Georgia rally.


>>>>>>>>>Finally<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>Finally<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>Finally<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>Finally<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>Finally<<<<<<<<<
"To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th."

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 8, 2021

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Come on.

Stop.

It's over.

You're defending people who planted pipe bombs in the capitol building of the United States of America.

It doesn't matter how you cut it, that!

THAT!

Is NOT right.








Edit: And we're actually a mixture of both a republic and a democracy. There are regular instances on the people voting on laws directly.

Whatever happens, I hope Republicans keep doing what they're doing, because they are losing every election since trump and then some ...shithead.

The election is over.

But our problems aren't.

Did the infrastructure get better? Did healthcare become affordable and available to all? Did the school system lurch forward at every possible chance? Did COVID just disappear?

That's ALL OURS.

Tired of losing DECADES of advancement because of wishes, hopes, and dedication to a Lord Savior of American when we only have Joe and Mitch to get anything done.

Suck it up buttercup. Don is done. Let's work to see no one like him ever comes again. If we become great, guys like him will be your waiter.

congratulations on your advancement

Sure...and those same people drive technologically advanced cars to computer designed buildings to enjoy technology rich events they bought tickets for on the internet....all science based acts...but if science is in conflict with their feelings, it's the devil.

Proof that religion rots your brain.

You're kidding. You can get good care (I assume anything non surgical?) For $1800 a year and you don't?!? I pay that three times over for insurance that pays almost nothing until I'm $4500 out of pocket, and compared to today's market here that's a bargain.

Here I'm lucky to have a doctor at all. We have a huge shortage, always have since I've lived here.

Do you really see it getting better without the aca? Can you tell me why, since normally any improvements wouldn't go to patients or level of care but instead to higher profits?

I sure don't recall when advancements of any kind led to lower health care costs on average...my thought was the aca just spread the pain of paying for the indigent, and gave them preventative care to lower their need for expensive treatments we pay for either way, with higher insurance rates covering care for the poor and lowering overall costs or with higher care cost, leading to higher insurance and more unhealthy poor skipping out on higher bills.

I absolutely think single payer is best. Costs can be negotiated by the entire country, leading to lower costs. Everyone gets basic care, no one skips on their bill, leading to lower costs. 20% that the insurance industry takes from every medical dollar goes away, leading to lower costs. Like other nations with universal healthcare, anyone who chooses can buy supplemental insurance that covers better, more comfortable care like private rooms or choice of top doctors, so nothing's lost for patients. The only issues I see are ideological.

The justification is simple, really. It does not matter.

I have been noticing this brashness in political appointments of officials on all levels not just in the US and I believe it stems from the advances in marketing in recent decades.

There is an obvious sub-set of obscure qualifications that are now necessary to hold office:

- do you cater to the ruling mob?
- do you have a cult following?
- do you look good on camera?
- are you willing to say anything?
- are you loyal to the grave?

So id say its a pass. An easy pass.

Everything else can be glossed over by manipulation and careful editing. And good make-up artists.

Technically correct: the Constitution does not provide specific details of how Supreme Court appointments are to be made. The fine details have been left up to the Senate and Executive (to a lesser degree, I believe). The executive branch has the right to nominate someone to the court, the Senate then has a duty to serve as a check on that. Technically there's nothing in the Constitution stating you're not allowed to advance a SC nominee weeks before an election.

It IS however, a naked partisan power grab. In 2016 one party argued, 8-9 months prior to the election, that their political opponents should not be able to have their SC nominee even get a hearing prior to the election. There was no actual precedent for this, but they insisted that the will of the electorate must be respected, and that we therefore must await the results of the election. So we did. Now 4 years later, the same party that insisted on respecting the will of the electorate in 2016 is taking precisely the opposite stance. Because last time they could potentially gain from the delay, and this time they almost certainly won't.

The CNN guy was correct: it is NOT unconstitutional to ram through a SC appointment. The authors of the Constitution didn't see fit to include that level of granularity in how the process would work. There is a process to clear this all up though: let's amend the Constitution! That's a super American thing to do! Let's establish, once and for all, the specific rules of the process. Then there won't be any back-and-forth like this about when a nominee can move ahead and when they can't. Nice and tidy.

The question then becomes: at what point in a President's term do they no longer get to nominate a replacement to the Supreme Court, when an election is pending? Should there in fact be no limit (like prior precedent, or lack thereof), and you believe that Merrick Garland should have been allowed hearings, and by extension the Amy Barrett hearings now are legit? Personally, I say we establish a cut-off to spare the political arguments in the future. Let's make it 100 days prior to the election: it's nice round number, bit over 3 months (so time for meaningful hearings and background checks), and should be after or at the end of primary season most cycles. That would of course invalidate both the 2016 and 2020 schemes by the Republicans, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

What's your take, Bob? How should this be handled? You posted the video, so I assume you have a stance on the issue?

Hmmmm...ok, that's not legislation but is what I meant. A forced buyback program is going to have issues.

1) I have no problem with companies having to answer for injuries caused by the prescribed, advertised proper use of their product. If shoes were sold as having the greatest shin kicking power, doing the most damage when you kick someone, shoe manufacturers should be sued by those who get kicked. If manufacturers haven't modeled and advertised in a way that suggests dangerous uses, the suits will lose. Lawyers don't take loser cases, so it won't be an issue imo. Special protections from liability are a problem imo.

2) I've never understood the endgame there. What is an assault rifle, and how are their capabilities special? That said, no one is clamoring for Uzis to come back. Without a legitimate reason for high capacity fast shooting rifles, and no attempts to ban semi auto rifles, I'm just not that bothered by it, but I do think it's placating not meaningful legislation.

3) I have zero issues with registration or background checks. That seems the right way to deal with "assault rifles". There's no reason it should be expensive or time consuming if records are up to date. If they make it expensive as a tax disincentive against ownership, I have a problem. Shooting isn't a cheap sport, $10-20 a year shouldn't bother those who spent $2k on one rifle.

4) No issue at all with voluntary buy backs. Involuntary buybacks are going to be a legal and practical nightmare.

5) one purchase per month, a bit much. One purchase at a time, I'm ok with, that's 3 a month, right? I'm suspicious of anyone who needs multiple guns quick before they calm down.

6) I'm all for universal background checks. I don't want nutjob and violent criminals buying guns they aren't allowed to own.

7) I'm all for not allowing those who can't handle day to day existence to buy guns. I'm even ok with TEMPORARY removal of their guns in some cases, but only if they're returned immediately after they're deemed competent.

misdemeanor hate crime? I thought hate crime was an enhancement charge that took a misdemeanor up to felony level. I'm definitely against taking gun rights away permanently for misdemeanors.

9) dunno what that is.

10) the problem is you can buy a receiver that needs to be finished, as little as one tiny drill hole is enough, with no serial number or registration. It's just a chunk of metal until it's finished. No problem with a background check for every purchase, but a maximum of one check per month seems a reasonable compromise.

11) with proper oversight and a system that ensures it's not abused, no problem for me.

12) Yes, strict guidelines and quick return seem necessary. 48 hours without a doctor stating it's necessary would work, but as of now they aren't ready for prime time on that it seems.

13) had that in cali forever, not an issue yet.

14) as designed, smart guns wouldn't be hackable, there's no reason for wireless connectivity. Battery? Make it charge itself by shaking it like some flashlights? I like the idea that guns can only be used by the owner, solves so many issues, mainly being shot with your own gun.

15) depends on what constitutes "safe". I agree, guns for home defense need to be available quickly.

16) some ghost guns are milled on professional cnc mills but unfinished. 3d printed guns, I'm not a fan. 3 shots is plenty to murder someone, and with no identification it's a near perfect weapon for crimes.
3d printing is advancing constantly. You can print in metal with fine details now on home equipment. I think it won't be long before stable guns can be printed if they aren't already.

Thanks for doing the research. I seriously doubt most could pass even a democratic congress but some would, and most won't pass court challenges, but I understand your reluctance to put that to the test.

If you're going to fight the swamp thing, I won't argue against leaving a few snakes in the black lagoon. Some opposition is healthy, but the ability to be obstructionist on every idea is gridlock. I don't see it getting better.

I think the very first one was in 65 or so showcasing rescue equipment, and it's been pretty much the same as now since 85 with two or three classes, but some serious advancements in the cars. I think our host said it wasn't televised until mid 2000's because of the disbelief from producers that people would actually do that.