slapfrog

Well he also told people to give Caesar what Caesar was owed. You can justify virtually any belief by picking different parts out of those books. Dunking on self-described Christians by trying to identify the "true" Christian beliefs and pointing out their deviation from that is utterly pointless. They've been doing this with each other for the better part of two thousand years, and all it amounted to was ever more division and disagreement.

It is a religion, with many denominations.

The whole of it defies neat categorization. People who self-describe as Christians can't even universally agree which texts are authentic and holy and which are heretical frauds. The only thing they all universally share is the inclination to call themselves Christians (more than a few are eager to contest whether other self-described Christians are in fact Christians.)

One particular example: I was raised to believe that the Book of Mormon is a heretical fraud, and consequently to believe that Mormons are not real Christians (despite claiming to be.)

The whole of Revelations is certainly odd, but that doesn't stop a whole lot of people from finding some interpretation of it they can believe in. That some people might interpret it to be a warning against biometrics doesn't strike me as particularly odd, relative to the oddness of other beliefs derived from [or justified using] this book.

To test it as you suggest, you'd have to build the full containment building, which are built as domes. That dome structure should lend itself to exploiting concrete's compressive strength and minimize tensile forces. They are also specifically reinforced to increase their tensile strength, since they are primarily designed to contain explosions from within. I have little doubt that one of those domes could shrug off a Phantom crashing into them.

More generally, in order to be successful a traditional armor piercing projectile needs two traits in particular: it needs to be harder than the target, and the projectile needs to be robust enough to not disintegrate on impact. Airplanes are neither of these; they're built out of soft aluminum and are built light to maximize payload, not to be robust. Consequently I would not expect an airplane striking a reinforced concrete building to ever behave as an armor penetrating projectile would.

The part that I'm a bit skeptical of is the suggestion that shrugging off a Phantom is equivalent to shrugging off a 747, which is more than an order of magnitude heavier. Throwing an airplane at a concrete building is like throwing a wet ball of modeling clay at a glass window. Likely to splat, like that phantom did, but if your ball of clay is big enough it might go through. A large enough plane might even knock the building off its foundation, rather than penetrate the concrete.

https://www.imdb.com/interfaces/

Subsets of IMDb data are available for access to customers for personal and non-commercial use. You can hold local copies of this data, and it is subject to our terms and conditions. Please refer to the Non-Commercial Licensing and copyright/license and verify compliance.

The dataset files can be accessed and downloaded from https://datasets.imdbws.com/. The data is refreshed daily.

Each dataset is contained in a gzipped, tab-separated-values (TSV) formatted file in the UTF-8 character set. The first line in each file contains headers that describe what is in each column. A ‘\N’ is used to denote that a particular field is missing or null for that title/name. The available datasets are as follows: [...]

Or the elderly would wander off on their own to die, after they perceived themselves to be a burden.

This video shows an F-4 Phantom being slammed into a concrete wall using a rocket sled: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4wDqSnBJ-k

At about 2 minutes in they show the aftermath. The plane is just gone, while the wall is a bit discolored...

Lots of people were sending white powder to official addresses.

It turned out that anthrax came from a government lab, and was supposedly sent by a single rogue employee... though doubts linger.

There were some hoaxes and bogus scares too though of course. One of my classmates almost got suspended for having foot powder in his gym bag.. thankfully cooler heads prevailed when school officials realized the kid had athletes foot and thought to doubt how a teenage boy could have plausibly procured weaponized anthrax spores in the first place. But yes, the hysteria was palpable.

I would hope so. On the other hand, if 9 of 10 people on your team opt to leave the state and you're the one who conspicuously doesn't, maybe your choice will be perceived differently. I would hate to find myself in that sort of situation. And elsewhere in this discussion I see mutterings about staying to vote blue being pointless because of republican gerrymandering, so evidently staying-to-vote-blue isn't seen as seen as worthwhile by all.

I don't have any insight into how many Salesforce employees will take up this offer, and I think that proportion will impact how those that stay will be perceived. All I know for sure right now is I'm glad I don't live in Texas, so I don't have to make this decision for myself.

If a salesforce employee opts to stay in Texas, I wonder if that will be taken as an expression of support for the law and negatively impact their career.

Edit: I didn't expect this comment to be controversial, and I'm not sure why it is. Are the downvotes from people who think it obviously won't/shouldn't, or from people who think it obviously will/should?

Possession is 9/10th of the law? They already have them, making it easy for them to keep them.

It's a dry climate and aluminum doesn't just rot. It would obviously take some money and work to bring planes out of mothballs, and probably in some cases unrepairable damage would be discovered, but I would expect most of the planes to successfully reactivate if the need was great enough. Those that couldn't be reactivated could be cannibalized for spare parts.

Consider that the Iowa class battleships spent some decades deactivated, sitting in salt water, before being reactivated several times.

I'm pointing out a false dichotomy, why do we have to "pick our poison"? Can you explain why I should pick one? I don't want to take any poison. I want free speech and I want universal healthcare. I don't want one or the other; that's moronic. One does not preclude the other, so I want both.

Lots of industries/companies are required law to maintain records of what they do. If such requirements were imposed on media companies, it could be done by archiving source material and using nondestructive editing software that saves edit decision lists.

Laws requiring media production companies to keep these records seem implausible in America, but at least conceivable in some of countries.

Why do you think either necessarily requires the other, in either circumstance?

I suggest you read the article you linked carefully. Follow the links to the articles of each of the constituent programs, and read those articles carefully with a critical eye. Pay particular attention to the number of interceptors those programs actually have, the type of missile those systems are designed to intercept, and the locations of the installations. You can use the "measure distance" tool on google maps to plot out great arcs to get an idea of what sort of threat those installations are meant to counter.

I'll sum it up for you: The US has some defense against countries like North Korea. Not against Russia, nor even China. But don't take my word for it, read those articles carefully, paying attention to the details.

Calling the whole computer "the CPU" was very common in the 90s. I believe the author of the article deliberately misused the term to invoke 90s vibes and moods.

Edit: Also common at the time was calling monitors "the computer".

If I had to guess, Intel's marketing department played a significant role in quashing the misuse of 'CPU', with their "Intel Inside" stickers and marketing. "Intel Inside" got people to understand that an Intel CPU was something that existed inside their computer, and was not the computer itself. The general public gradually became aware that their computer was "a dell" and inside it somewhere was an Intel CPU.

If a cop asks you to stop and the only thing that makes you stop is the threat of violence I would seriously rethink who I am and my values.

People who deliberately speed don't accept speeding tickets out of civic duty. If you accidentally went five over and are embarrassed by your mistake and want to make it right by eagerly paying the fine, good for you I guess. But if you are instead deliberately doing double the speed limit because you think it's fun and don't care about the law, you are clearly not the sort of person who is inclined to willingly accept the ticket because it's the right thing to do. If you were that sort of person, you would not have been racing your car on public streets in the first place.

There is not a country on this planet in which nobody ever chooses to willingly break the law and flagrantly act in antisocial ways. And there is not a country in this world which will not eventually resort to violence when all else fails to convince a criminal to stop committing his crime. You might be thinking that if the cops don't have guns, then what they do isn't violent. But if you think that, you're obviously wrong. Unarmed well trained police will still wrestle you to the ground when all else fails. Unarmed police officers won't shoot you for refusing to comply, but they sure as shit will manhandle you to the ground and wrestle you into handcuffs. That is violence, and the implicit threat of that violence is used to convince people to go along with them peacefully in a dignified fashion.

Even moderately successful YouTubers rely on sponsorship and because there's competition for creators between platforms

The fact that you call them "Youtubers", identifying them using the trademark of one particular platform rather than a generic descriptor like "video content creator", suggests that there is not quite as much healthy competition as you claim. Most video companies other than youtube only compete with youtube in a narrow sense; a great deal of the content on youtube does not fit on tiktok's platform, which is only good for short-form content. Netflix only hosts movies or TV shows. Twitch is for livestreaming; other kinds of content don't fit into the paradigm of twitch. Vimeo has never been a good place for off-the-cuff home movies, they too try to compete with youtube only in a narrow domain, not across the board. The few generalist video hosting companies other than youtube are all jokes that are faaar behind youtube in viewer counts.

Spam is something nobody wants.

Spam is something the recipient doesn't want. What is or isn't spam is subjectively determined by each individual recipient. If spam were strictly determined by what nobody wants, requiring complete consensus, then nothing would be spam because in a world of 7 billion people there will always be one nut who welcomes the unrequested solicitation.

Even if I were to assume that all police officers are perfectly honest and reasonable, virtually anybody who is choosing to break the law would also choose to not voluntarily subject themselves to the consequences. Nobody chooses to speed down the highway then calls the local cops to confess and accept the fine. And if police sirens were nothing more than polite requests to pull over, not demands backed by implicit threats of violence, virtually nobody who is choosing to break the law would heed those requests voluntarily.

Not that you might wake up tomorrow to a towed car, a summons nailed to your door and a jail term?

Both enforced through the implicit threat of violence... What happens if I ignore a court summons? Eventually the cops will find me and wrestle me into handcuffs. And if I try to resist the tow truck driver taking my car, guess what they'll do? They'll call the cops. Or they'll put a lien against my property, which if I refuse to pay, will eventually culminate in me being wrestled out of the building.

And how exactly do you think people are kept in jails? If there were no implicit threat of violence, I'd just walk out of a jail. In many jails this would be possible, but when you do they'll send men to wrestle you into handcuffs and bring you to a jail with stronger security. And of course, they'd never have gotten me into the first jail at all, if not for their threats of violence.

If people thought the reward for talking to a firefighter was a hundred dollar fine, they wouldn't be so willing to casually chat with firefighters either.

If I choose to drive 80mph in a 60mph zone, I am also going to choose not to voluntarily stop to receive a fine for it. I don't believe the average European is any different. The implicit threat of violence in Europe might be more tenuous, indirect or vague, but it is still there. Normal people don't voluntarily fine themselves if they have another choice.

Dorner himself doesn't get much sympathy (he murdered people who weren't police, despite having grievance with the police.) But the exact circumstances of his death are probably worthy of examination, since it seems the police opted to burn him out of a building instead of wait him out in a siege (he was obviously going nowhere, and had no hostages.) He probably shot himself after the building was partially demolished and lit on fire, but what justified that demolition and fire-starting in the first place? Why were they in such a big rush to drive him out of the building?

I think they wanted him dead. They knew if they lit the building on fire, they could either shoot him when he ran out, wait for the fire to kill him, or let him kill himself. I believe the police had already decided he would not be taken alive.

If there were no implicit threat of violence, I (and most other people I think) would never stop for a cop in the first place, let alone utter a word to one.

The last time I read your account of this incident, you left this part out: "I was yelling at him quite a bit"

I can certainly sympathize with that reaction, most traffic stops are chickenshit and to be interrupted with that nonsense when in the middle of a medical emergency must be infuriating. But I think your FOIA requests looking for this file will never turn up anything, because the cop was almost certainly fucking with you. He figured you didn't like cops because you were yelling at him, not because of anything some computer file said.

It won't be over until we stop caring, accept the risk, and move on with our statistically slightly shorter lives.

Why stop there? Instead of getting pesky warrants to search apartments, the government could just contract the landlord to do the search for them. After all, the landlord owns the property and ownership trumps every other consideration in libertarian fantasy-land.

Chasing photorealism in games seems misguided to me; you have to spend much more money on artists. And at the end of the day, photorealism won't make a bad game into a good game; so that money is better spent on other aspects of the game. Furthermore, if you're committed to spending that much money making a game, it will probably have a very conservative lowest-common-denominator design to recoup as much money as possible. Who will take risks and experiment when so much money is on the line? You end up with a game that is mediocre to everybody but exceptional to few. The video game equivalent of a big budget marvel movie.