At that moment, Firefox 51.0. But I've had some ciphers disabled since the early days of Logjam attacks, which included all ciphers using Diffie-Hellman without elliptic curves. That's why there was no overlap between accepted ciphers on my end and ciphers supplied by VS.

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 <<<< hoooray!
Finally some overlap. Cheers, mate.

@bcglorf

think we are talking about two separate issues,with a only a subtle overlap.

i totally agree that when it comes to russian politics,and/or state sanctioned military operations,RT tends to lean in favor of the russian state.

but in my opinion this does not detract from the works of hedges,or hartman or even abbey martin.who used to have a show "breaking the set" and "empire files".

we can view american corporate media through the same lens.

FOX=republican message of the day
MSNBC=democrat message of the day
CNN=the american state message of the day.

taken in aggregate,these corporate media outlets are all propaganda/misinformation machines.

but..taken singularly...

shep smith on FOX does some good work.
while personalities such as o'reilly,cavuto and carlson are simply demagogues.

or rachel maddow on MSNBC.
who does an excellent job of disseminating the politics behind a lot of republican shenanigans.sadly her show is incredibly biased and partisan.so while i LOVE her analysis..i realize that it is a tad bit biased and slanted.

i do not watch CNN.except when i want to know what bullshit excuse the american government may be focused on.

so i get where you are coming from,and i agree for the most part.
i simply refuse to outright ignore someone like hedges,with his credentials,because of the venue he has been relegated to in order to express his criticism.

is/does RT sometimes promote russian propaganda?
yes..of course.
does this equate to chris hedges being a russian propagandist?
no..it does not.

and i am also not necessarily disregarding your discernment and discrimination towards hedges.
we all have a metric we use when discriminating.
yours is simply different than mine.
this does not equate a moral right nor wrong,just different.

but you and i may disagree on some things,but i would like to think we have both earned each others respect.

so when you post a comment.i read it with that respect dictating the lens with which i view your words.i know that you consider your words carefully,and i think it polite to give those words the same consideration that you gave them when writing.

we can disagree,and have,but i always walk away with at least understanding WHY you may feel a certain way.

I'm surprised... I figured there would be more demographic overlap there. Liberal leaning, generally fairly young, interested in government and social issues, etc. etc.

But I guess I'm sorta the opposite of the sample group, because I have a bit of a man-crush on John Oliver but have no idea who Wendy Williams is...

The only way I could see it working as described is if the Tesla really has that good of object-detection onboard, was already tracking all objects, and was just that accurate in determining the speed of the impacted SUV and the rate of decreasing distance between it and the car that hit it.
Even if that were the case, I suspect the sensors on these cars get exponentially fidgety at longer distances and with more extreme angles (like measuring changing distance between two 'overlapping' objects directly ahead), it's really unlikely it was predicting the collision.
All that to say: Yeah, I agree. You're most probably right.

I think 'Zealous Anti-Theist' is a much better description of this person than 'atheist'. While it's likely he is atheist, his words and actions are anti-theist. There is a clear distinction between the two, even though both classes often overlap.
Let's please not give this kind of outrageous action any shred of legitimacy by calling this 'atheism'.

@ChaosEngine

So yeah, there's a lot of common ground. Of course there is: values can overlap ideologies; something that, let's say, 'the kind of feminism I dislike' refuses to allow. Everything that says women should be treated reasonably is feminism, which gives us the credibility to declare that anyone who opposes any aspect of feminist doctrine hates women.

I think the concept you're talking about is a part of the makeup of any rational person's mind, and indeed advocacy on its behalf is still necessary. I don't think the particular movement that grew around that advocacy in the latter half of the 20th century is still useful, and I say that it was flawed from the first, even as those flaws were mitigated in the short term by what it accomplished.

It's important to maintain that distinction, and I would strongly prefer that this basic concept wasn't referred to as 'feminism'. Dictionaries describe usage rather than determining reality, and in this case as in so many others I think the majority have got it horribly wrong.

edit: Something of an academic and unnecessary addendum, but I've heard Hitchens say that a few times and I always winced when he did. It's a little trite. The kind of cure he's talking about, birth control, could just as easily be effected by forcibly sterilising women after their first or second child. What he might have said, somewhat less snappily, was, "The empowerment of women, an excellent goal in itself, also handily has the effect of countering explosive population growth and adding more skilled workers to the economy."

I would say that if the yellow car was just following the line, he was in the right.

AFAIK, you can close the racing line, but not once the car behind overlaps you. In that case the Aston pulled across the yellow car and caused the accident.

BUT...

if you turn the video down to 1/4 speed, at around 2.5 seconds you can see the yellow car make a fractional turn to the right.

Jesus fucking Christ...

NOONE IS DENYING RACISM EXISTS.

The problem under discussion is CULTURAL APPROPRIATION, which is not actually a racial issue, but a cultural one. Yes, there's a difference, even though they frequently overlap.

Ugh, at this point, it feels you're just wilfully misunderstanding. @JustSaying thinks you're better than that and not a troll. I used to agree with him, but it's getting more difficult.

Fallout 1 was a technically antiquated VGA (that's right, 640x480, 256 colours) post-apocalyptic turn-based tactical RPG where you could not control you team mates during combat. It was a bit buggy (and so was F2). It was Mad Max, without cars.

And yet.

Fallout is arguably the best world-building work in the history of video games. People are probably going to dispute that, but most other games are built on pre-existing lore or works, or do not have that scope*. Fallout built its world pretty much from scratch, conflating a pre-war 1950's, golden-era, overly-optimistic world-view with the bleak desolation of the nuclear holocaust that ensued (to clarify for those who really know nothing about Fallout: in this universe a nuclear war happened in the 50s**. all that's left is from that era). Beside its content which was plentiful in and of itself, this created a contrasted, yet highly coherent and mature world (and by mature I don't just mean killing friendly NPC, I mean doing Morally Very Bad Things that don't necessarily result in graphic scenes). An open world that you could roam freely, be surprised by a new discovery that you made, and at the same time find these discoveries to fit perfectly with the game's logic. In most large games you just access new areas or are carried by the story, in Fallout you would go "Holy shit I'm in the middle of a city populated by centenarian ghouls!", shortly followed by "ho, of course it's full of ghouls, that's perfectly normal". There are not many games that have this mix of unexpected/logical and dark/humorous content.

Fallout 2 had the same ho-my-God-how-could-they-get-away-with-it VGA engine (so next to zero evolution there), but quadrupled the world map (with a minimum overlap with the one from F1) and brought it fifty or so years forward, expanding the world greatly (there are now rival quasi-city-states, and your action may influence their future), while also building on the first one: some antagonists 'classes' from F1 have now grown their own identity and became NPC, and some characters are still around -- a young character you saved in F1 went back to her settlement, became its leader, built it into a town, and is now in the process of expanding it into a new state...So Fallout 2 is basically the same game, except they did that one important thing: push the game world's boundaries even more. You could never guess what next city would be like, but you could bet it would have some crazy shit in it, and yet somehow still make sense.

That's why many people don't like Fallout 3. It is not in itself a bad game, but comparatively, it's kind of coasting. Also it's too damn easy.

I'm sorry, I got carried away, you were asking if you should play the previous ones? No, you 'should' not. But you could, and for F1 & F2 you would certainly not lose your time if you know what you're getting into. And if you don't, at least go and watch their intro on Youtube, they'll give you the feel of the world.

* Possible contenders in terms of "original video game world": Elder Scrolls (vast, but less original), Deus ex (not as large), Bioshock (same), Final Fantasy (original and vast, but not as complex). Any other idea?
** Technically not the 1950s, but in practice the 50s + a bunch of high tech gizmo.

Related quote by writer Russell Banks:

"After living in Jamaica and writing The Book of Jamaica, I accepted that I was obliged, for example, to have African American friends. I was obliged to address deliberately the overlapping social and racial contexts of my life. I'm a white man in a white-dominated, racialized society; therefore, if I want to I can live my whole life in a racial fantasy. Most white Americans do just that. Because we can. In a color-defined society we are invited to think that white is not a color. We are invited to fantasize and we act accordingly."

As has been said many times, the top menu mouseover needs a delay. I usually have a bunch of VideoSift tabs open and navigating around causes the menus to overlap the videos.

I think at some points the maps overlap each other. This is actually used in some speedruns of the game where you can destroy boxes containing med packs on one map and have them appear on the next map. Also, elevators are weird. Oh, and you'd probably run into a lot of invisible walls that extend much further out than the visible parts of the maps they belong to.

Cool. I'd be more impressed with an engine that could render that in game, especially with today's graphical detail... might be possible due to the low polygon count and lower texture quality that something like the Frostbite engine could perhaps pull it off, but with better polygon counts and texture quality would impress me.

Still the amount of work to overlap the maps at the proper spots and seal things off is fairly impressive. Undoubtedly took a great deal of time.

In that case they're using it in a very strange way. They certainly seem to be using it in a way that prevents heat build up.

I understand completely what you're saying and you're right, if the correct wavelengths are used there wouldn't be so much of an issue. I wonder if there's an overlap between the wavelength that heats the paint and the wavelength that heats the metal.