This documentary is about NSA annalist William Binney and his method to look at data. Hind sight connected the dots to 911.
NSA would rather use 911 as a trigger to get money from government for next 15 years than use William Binney Thin Thread program..

As an adjunct to this video, there is this interview with 2 BLM activists that is part of the documentary.

The awful irony is that in the documentary, Daryl has far more reasoned and polite conversations with dyed in the wool white supremacists than he does with fellow members of his race.

After the two interviewees walk out, a 3rd BLM member steps in and launches an escalating tirade, but storms out without even bothering to listen to a different viewpoint.

This is what I think is the issue. When people who proclaim that black lives matter can't even sit there and listen to the opinion of a black man, what's the fucking point?

Perhaps the most poignant part of this video is the last minute (from 10:00 onwards).

(speaking about one of the BLM members)

"He was very definite that white people could not change. How is he going to advance any agenda in this country, as diverse as it is?"

Fascinating documentary, but...

Southern style Chinese food? That sounds amazing!

Yeah I don't like how these nature "documentaries" stitch together different pieces of footage which are usually unrelated and try to turn it into some drama. I bet 90% of the shit they shoot is boring as fuck and nothing ever happens. It feels a little disingenuous, but I guess making nature entertaining to kids and families is a good thing if it gets them to notice the fact that it exists.

Also going to take it out of general circulation (off the front page) and send it to sift talk till removed. *discuss

"The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited, incidental portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary that encompasses a much broader narrative. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera."

If the documentaries are focused on the dead bodies like this one is, probably.

The girl seemed to be in a lifestyle of unthinking foolishness. She will only not drive drunk again because she probably won't ever legally drive again. I doubt even this will teach her, some people simply cannot learn.

These films did little when they used to be the norm in drivers training classes, that's why they stopped using them. They simply weren't effective.

I can deny that this film made me think about being more cautious, because I'm not a moron that doesn't understand the outcome of a bad wreck, having seen a few in person, so beating me over the head with 'wrecks can kill you' is just boring. When I saw these as a teen, while learning to drive, I was titilated by the gore, but not effected otherwise. Most teens don't fully grasp that dangerous things are dangerous to them, and a large percentage are actually drawn to the dangers.

If humans were rational and only irresponsible by accident out of naivete, you would be right, but they just aren't. You have to be pretty brain dead to not grasp that high speed car wrecks can kill without a filmstrip telling you.

I respectfully disagree. It is important to see what the result of ones action, as grim as it is.

What about documentaries of wars where you see dead bodies? Are these to be consider as you say.... snuff?

The girl was in a moment of foolishness and not thinking what could be. She will never get that distracted while she drives again.


If the girl had watched such a educational film as this she might have done different.

You can't deny that after watching this, that this makes you stop and think about being more cautious and or attentive about driving.

Why isn't this an hour long documentary?

I understand where you're coming from, but I stand by my previous posts.

Full disclosure, I never got professionally employed as a programmer / coder / software engineer. However, my Bachelors Degree was in CS, and I have many friends working in the field.

In the show Silicon Valley, Richard Hendriks is working for a large corporate entity but has an idea / personal project that he ends up spinning into a new company. He is trained as a software engineer (CS), NOT with any business or management background (MIS), yet he becomes sort of the de-facto boss / CEO (at least early in the show). He hires a small team to help him develop his product.

Given that scenario, I think the show portrays things very accurately or at least completely plausibly. He's a coder, not a manager. Programmers may understand the importance of formatting and style standards, but at least tend to not have the correct personality type to be comfortable with formally dictating those standards to a team (an activity which would generally be more in line with an MIS background).

Also, his company is small -- just a few other programmers. They are all specializing on different components of the product. So they generally aren't working on each other's code. Standards for function arguments / helper functions / etc. would have to be agreed upon to get their individual components to interact, but that is a separate issue from tabs vs spaces. It would be wise to set a style and naming convention standard and have everyone conform to it, I agree completely. But Richard isn't built for the manager / CEO position, so he either fails to recognize that or doesn't feel comfortable dictating standards to his team.

One more thing to consider is that he (Richard) essentially is the product. He's the keystone piece, the central figure. He's John Carmack, Linus Torvalds, or Steve Wozniak. Even in a very large team / corporate environment, I'd wager that more often than not the style standards that end up getting set tend to fall in line with whatever those key guys want them to be. Don't touch an id Software graphics engine without conforming to Carmack's way, or the Linux kernel without conforming to Torvald's standards. Especially if they are building something new from scratch -- which is again true in the Silicon Valley show scenario.

The show isn't a documentary on how to properly run a startup company in the real Silicon Valley, but it is generally accurate enough that it has a lot of nuances that people with a programming background can pick up on and be entertained by (even people that don't actually work professionally in the field like me). And more important, the general feel of the show can be entertaining even for people that know absolutely nothing about programming.

I saw this last year on Netflix, it's very good. It's a brutal competition, it hurts just watching the documentary.

*documentary *history *talks *promote

When i think complete bad ass, I think Alex Honnold. Everything he does is ridiculously epic. Can't wait for the documentary. Anyone know when it's suppose to come out?
*promote this sick feat.

People laugh, but apparently after watching the John McAfee documentary - he really liked doo doo on his face and in his mouth.

Trump In The Wild: A Nature Documentary has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

Anyone know if there is an actual documentary covering this?

Looks like a great movie.