We have always been a gun violence culture up until the post WW2 era. Think frontier, wild west, duels, and mafia shootouts. We glorify violence everyday, we even give sickos who shoot up groups of people mass media coverage. For a person who wants to go out in a blaze of infamy, we are custom tailored to give them their last 15 minutes of 'fame'.

Again, we have a nebulous definition of what it takes to get on the watch list. I could be placed on it simply by stating something to the effect that "I support ISIS", even though I don't. Restricting people who manage to end up on a government list is the same as removing their right to a firearm after committing a felony offense, only you have removed every single bit of their right to a legal defense. There is no due process to being placed on a US watchlist, you get put on and fuck you if it was a mistake. Maybe they'll take you off later, who knows?

I am not going to defend a slippery slope argument on this, I don't have to. It's already happened in the years since 2001. The Patriot Act, meant to be a well intended set of rules to help us protect ourselves, has been perverted to lessen quite a few of our rights. Not only our rights, but other countries. We have violated their security, spied on their people and leaders, and we perform acts of war on their territories with impugnity. All because we lost two buildings and 2,996 people; a heinous act, but one our government exploited to put us into 2 wars with a death toll to people who may not even be our enemies that dwarf our loss. In short, we fucking have the slippery slope process down to a SCIENCE.

If he pulls out a trebuchet then I really need to meet that guy's tailor. Otherwise, that's the happiest, friendliest looking fuzzy death machine I have ever seen.

I was providing a more "technology tailored" way to fool us and how it might create a great magic trick. I also love magic tricks that make use of self-created "magical" devices (his vest counts towards what I'm talking about).

As I mentioned there are probably quite a few ways to do this trick and I wholeheartedly agree with you that the most likely way the majority of this was done was via misdirection and cues. As it is true with almost everything, the simplest answer usually is the truth.

I however, became interested with he kept moving his hands (and the "cards") to the same spots or moving them, repeating, the same movement over and over again right before the "change" or flip occurred (with other things as well like the smoke--and yes, I know it was more than likely misdirection--but, sometimes smoke is just smoke ).

That is what made me think of a scanner (mostly because I'm a computer/engineering/physics hippie and I have seen scanners that can be made to look exactly like that mat; but I also have learned a bit of magic, with that instead of becoming an amateur magician I instead learned about magic and it's history instead). But, like you said and I also said above in my comment, this all can/could be done through many various schemes. Using differing ways of that same scheme/idea, the same mechanics and/or devices, with sleight of hand and a lot of misdirection (very well done too, simply because there was so very much of it needed--which Penn & Teller commended him on in their own way).

His jacket for example is obviously HIS engineered creation. It has a lot of hidden and secret functionality; in fact it may have been the underlying foundation that allowed the whole trick to work so well (you never know just what exactly is the magician's biggest helper in many tricks). That is what I love, personally, about magic is the engineering and love--the workmanship--that can go into it. Every great magician definitely has that engineering facet to their personality; they all know how to create a device that gives them just what they need. I've seen so many magical devices and how they were used and how they're made as well and I must say, it is a terribly interesting thing to learn about and see done. Sometimes you have devices made just to perform one extremely small function, just to add that little bit of "panache" to a trick...

Every magician--good and average--however do have or need one thing in common no matter what, and this refers to what you talk about (and this magician may be leagues ahead of others, making all tricks completed in that same manner seem simple and mundane compared to what he can accomplish with the exact same, extremely fundamental, aspect to magic; pulling off tricks that almost all magicians would believe to be impossible using such a standard fare of abilities and methods): agility and sleight of hand. With this comes the uses for that "god-like" speed and manipulation. Use that with engineered tools (not necessarily what I mentioned--the scanner, printer, and ink method--but, things easier to craft and more likely to be used like his vest) and it can suddenly make any of the simplest tasks (or even tricks that other magicians perform) we do everyday, extraordinary if not miraculous.

I thought I'd add my idea, because I like to figure these tricks out as well; as I'm sure many of you are as well.

Overall, if I was Penn and Teller, I'd be most impressed with his ability to keep his showmanship intact while obviously needing great concentration on the trick at the same time--not to mention he keeps showing superb sleight of hand the whole time.

So many magicians are just amazing to watch. The tools they create (which can be so complicated that you'd never believe that someone would create such a thing or something fairly complicated to complete one very easy task) sometimes never let their presence be known--if done right. But in other cases you know there is "something" helping the magician, but you can't begin to imagine what exactly he has created or what exactly it is accomplishing for him.

I do wish they'd give us a general idea how these tricks are performed, without destroying the "magic" involved. Just tell us general things, like "misdirection and a magical device", etc... They don't need to explain it into it's minutiae.

I'll always love magic and the amazing use of the mind and the body to create illusions grand and small (or "magic" that just tests the limits OF the mind or the body; feats, as it were).

When the body and mind work together in perfect unison to create such wonderful uses of sleight of hand, feats, and "magical" devices...these are the type of people that will continue--hopefully for as long as humans exist--to create magic as real as it can get. Waking up the child inside us all!

/length

Oh yeah man, radio hasn't been any kind of positive force for music for decades.

When I first came to NZ, I was really excited to discover they had rock radio stations here! In Ireland, anything not pop was all but extinct. And then I realised they played same songs all the damn time.

For me, I discover almost all my new music through word of mouth, or via Spotify discovery, and occasionally the Sift.

That is the great advance with smartphones/mobile data for me. I can drive around and hear new music or a tailored playlist.

I agree with your general point.

I personally would never consider 'replacing' the A10 with the F35.

But I still think you don't design weapons for what you need now, but to be ready for what you could need in the future.

Su-35 / Mig35, pak-fa, J-10, J-20, fighter tech is moving along in the world. The goal of systems like the F35/22 is to remain superior in any theoretical/potential future conflict. The only thing the F22/35 have to do with today's conflicts is the possibility to be shoehorned into dropping bombs on some scare crows in the middle of nowhere.

Sure, people pick on the F35 for being fat and happy - but fighters are more than turn turn turn turn shoot. They are systems to sense/detect, share info, build a battle field picture, jam opponents, strike the opponent's sensors, build situational awareness while denying the opponent his own SA. They build an environment where your forces can maneuver around enemy forces, strike key locations, and leave (without an actual fight), so that the enemy eventually finds himself with nothing left to defend, and they just quit without ever fighting. Modern fighters are an information system as much as a weapons platform.

Even in WW2 the powers learned the lesson that a good fighter is not necessarily a good pure dog fighter. The zero was the best turning fighter of the war - and it sucked. US planes would just not bother dogfighting with it. US planes would fly high above, dive down onto a zero, shoot at it, fly right by, and zoom back up. They didn't have to dogfight, because they had more speed and altitude, and the zero was helpless, it was a fighter stuck playing defense in air to air combat.

Times changed, today's tactics are not speed and altitude, they are situational awareness and detectability. It's the kind of fighting the F35 is tailored for, and it's not worth being too hard on it for not being ideal for more classical combat applications.

-scheherazade

Please re-read. I made no assumption (best or worst) about the confusing sentence, I simply said I didn't understand what was meant.
When people write in 3/4 thoughts, assuming others will complete the thought, some of us (especially those who don't think "normally") will have to question their meaning to understand. It's not about insisting they write 'tailored for me to understand', it's asking (quite respectfully I thought) to clarify, and expressing my thought on how it might be done.
What he said was "Aren't the police complicit in this scenario?", but in reference to a post that discussed multiple scenarios. I read it multiple times before replying, it didn't make sense to me and wasn't clear...were they complicit in the scenario of subjecting others to disgusting images (the last scenario discussed)? No? Is there actually murder happening that they are complicit in? No? Then clarification was required....and I thanked you for providing some.
I can't fathom why that set you off this morn., but it seems to have done so.
Please try reading it differently. Sometimes you have to take a breath in and out and read what someone else is saying.
Best advice, don't assume the worst. (which it seems you've done here).

EDIT: Some more good advice, if you intend to quote someone's statement, you should get the statement/quote right, otherwise you're paraphrasing and should use ' not ". "I think he should have said" is completely different from 'well they should have wrote it differently'. The former is my opinion, clearly, the latter is not (nor is it something I have said or written that I recall).
If someone is replying to someone else, intending to have a conversation, it's fairly important that their 'script' be tailored to the other person if they wish to actually converse and not just spout words at them.

Well guess what? People don't exist in this world to write a script tailored just for you to understand. I've seen you say this "well they should have wrote it differently" thing before. Ok. Try reading it differently. Sometimes you have to take a breath in and out and read what someone else is saying.

Best advice, don't assume the worst.

The A10 may not get to combat as quickly as an F35 - but when it arrives, it's tailor made for the job. Not a "square peg in a round hole" F35.

Designed with input from Hans Ulrich Rudel - best ground attacker pilot to have ever lived. The man was a prodigy in the air.
(note : the Ju-87 G2 that he flew, had ammo for only 24 cannon shots total. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-655-5976-04,_Russland,_Sturzkampfbomber_Junkers_Ju_87_G.jpg)

I really recommend reading his wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel

-scheherazade

I upvoted for the hilarious fake ads, not for the stupid message at the end.

If women responded to men as men responded to women in the same undressed way, they would use more almost naked men in advertising (if they're trying to sell something other than tampons, yoghurt or cleaning supplies to women). But an attractive man in a well tailored suit is eye candy for women like an attractive woman in lingerie is eye candy for men.

EDIT: I don't mean there's no sexism in advertising. Those stupid Axe/Lynx ads are exactly that, but just an attractive half naked lady, I don't think is

Mass shootings and irresponsible gun owners represent a small fraction of gun violence and as such they shouldn't be the main justification for gun laws.

The problem is that our gun culture creates an environment that makes illegal guns more available (in Mexico and urban environments, among others), and that it puts guns within reach when someone gets a violent urge (whether against themselves or others).

Laws should be tailored to help gradually change that gun culture over the long term.

Oldman was robbed for Tinker Tailor... he's always been great at big scenery chewing roles, but Tinker Tailor (fantastic movie, btw) showed he could do quiet and subtle as well.

As for Peter O'Toole, he is fantastic and was incredibly unlucky to come up against Gregory Pecks Atticus Finch (an equally worthy winner) when he was nominated for Laurence Of Arabia.

Brad Pitt is ok, but he's just not in the same class.

The NSA's Office of Tailored Access Operations has a subdivision called ANT...

Weird, because any sort of farming in that movie didn't show up until 50 minutes in. I don't know how anyone would think that seeing this movie..

You might want to actually watch the tailor.

An "Information diet" .....

Here's the deal McNeil, too often, a peep with a functioning IQ and an addiction to accumulating data and "knowledge" on the internet with no real practical application skills becomes a walking, spewing, ineffectual Trivial Pursuit robot.

What effect does the knowledge of the universe have with no practical means of affecting social, spiritual, cultural, etc. evolution? Web-access is being tailored to accommodate the Babylonian machine, not to empower the individual or society at-large.

Loathe the tactics Google has instituted, it won't change for anyone's better but for those with the keys to the web.