Coreece

That thought crossed my mind as well. Would it really hurt the economy tho, or just certain businesses? If people are getting more money in their paychecks due to lower withholding, they might be likely to spend more on restaurants, groceries, gas, coffee or any other daily expenses rather than one major purchases in April. More and more people seem to plan on saving it or paying off debt. Ok, so instead of buying a 75" 4k smart TV, you get a 70" 4k standard TV and a Roku Express.

Perhaps they might've had a little more dirt on those people than a few nude selfies? I don't keep up on all this garbage, but I find the timing of all this a bit peculiar. Was Bezos and his wife really on a "break" when these selfies were taken? Maybe they tried to Blackmail him before, but his refusal cost him his marriage? Maybe they really were on a break, but these photos sealed the divorce papers? Maybe they ruined his marriage and now they were going public due to non compliance? At that point, the smartest thing to do is to say fuck these guys and go public with it yourself, trying to get as much publicity as possible to offset losing 50% of your shit. Not sure if they had a prenup or not. I doubt it since she was with him since the beginning. . . Doubt this will really hurt the national enquirer in the long run tho. We've known they were a bunch of shady assholes since we were little kids. I couldn't believe that they were actually being discussed in the course of real politics to begin with. . .

The grammy's were pretty interesting last night. We had great women of music open the show with words of wisdom, like Jada, Jennifer Lopez, Lady Gaga, Alicia Keys . .and, um, Michelle Obama? When she spoke, it was like a presidential address and the people cheered as if it was some type of rally. There were also 2 references to how Michelle/Obama rules the world. I mean wtf is this? Is she running for president or is this some type of publicity B.S? Aside from that, it was a remarkable show - one of the best I've seen in awhile. It was nice to finally see one of these shows without revolving around Trump and all the political innuendo. I loved the variety and desperate attempt to unite us all through music rather alienate us even more through divisive rhetoric. It was a blessing indeed. My favorite parts of the show were Lady Gaga's speech and her thanks to God for looking out for her over the years. Also, Jennifer lopez and her Motown Medley was quite remarkable. Loved it. . .

What I find most appalling about the article is that they dig up all this info on sex trafficking just to "prove" Trump wrong, without offering any solutions. And what it pretty much comes down to is that people don't really care. Nobody gives a shit. Most of us haven't dealt with, or directly experienced human trafficking, gun crimes, abortions, drug gangs, Mexican/S.A humanitarian crises, etc. . . For the most part, people just find shit that they can throw in the other side's face, and that's as far as it ever goes. . .that's all they really care about. And what's even worse is that afterwards, they actually think that "they did their part."

The greatest generation in the history of the world was in the 90s after the rich taxes dropped to their lowest level in 50 some years. The 90s were awesome, full of hope and opportunity. A kid could walk down the street and easily find at least 3 business willing to pay $10 bucks an hour for 40+ hours. A couple years ago, people were struggling to find 20 hours at $7.50/hr. Now they struggle to find 20-30 hours at $9.50. More people working less hours - Apparently that's what a good economy is these days - and that's been the idea since Obama's last term. War in the 90s for the most part seemed to be a thing of the past, or at least something that could be dealt with from the air with minimal casualties. . .then it all went to hell again. Anyway, IMO high taxes in the 20s and then in the 40s-70s seemed to be investments for the "men that built America." Doubt that incentive exists as much today. I'm sure there will be plenty that will be happy to give that much away, but how many more will just say to hell with it, ultimately offsetting any difference?

GM just laid off a bunch of salaried workers and offered early retirement if you haven't already heard. They've hired a lot of new talent while automating tons of office work. They're focusing on autonomous vehicles. . .

Where's the delete button?

...and that's really the bottom line. Is the average/middle class person actually paying more overall? Are they paying the same? Are they paying less, but owing more in April? I don't know.

And rightly so. I have no taxes taken out except SS and medicare, and at the end of the year I end up owing thousands of dollars, those damn sons of bitches!

I'm reading it and assuming a sarcasm font was sorely missed when he wrote it. That's what makes it so much fun. I couldn't tell at first, but at least he lets us off the hook at the end of the post.

I've been staring at this quote for 10 minutes. . . I'm like totally tripping balls, man.

Wait, I thought being gay wasn't a choice.

I agree. Over hyping your argument only hardens your opposition. Nicely put. I knew you'd understand what I was trying to say.

I hate to be the one to derail your righteous pulpit. But science is on the side of GW. I wasn't referring to the actual science, I referring to exaggerations about climate change and sensationalism that ignorant people then spread like wild fire in counteractive attempts to win over skeptics, deniers, or whatever label you'd like to use. Right, that's why I called it objective. It objectively, and honestly addressed a variety of factors rather than the typical doom and gloom like the Time article I linked to, which by contrast was single-minded, apocalyptic in nature, and offered very little wrt practical solutions.

So what, you try to win them over with even more ignorance, exaggerations, sensationalism, and perhaps even outright lies, the very things that make them skeptical in the first place?

Here's a rather objective article that shows there aren't significantly more fires: https://www.ocregister.com/2017/09/14/you-may-not-believe-it-but-the-number-of-california-wildfires-has-been-going-down/ "For nearly 40 years, the number of wildfires in California has been declining." “The claim commonly made in research papers and the media that fire activity is increasing throughout the western USA is certainly an over-statement,” "The trend of fewer, but not smaller fires is apparent in recent years. State data regarding large wildfires (300 acres or more) from 2000 to 2015 show total numbers – not fire size – has been in decline" "One reason acreage may be up is from the record winter rains that replenished fuel for fires by spawning plant growth, including the return of grass that had disappeared from wildland areas throughout Southern California during the drought." "Grass fires tend to burn faster and increase the amount of acres burned, according to a 2008 paper published by UC Merced Sierra Nevada Research Institute’s Anthony Westerling." “People who have written on it tend to ascribe it to climate change, but I think we are a long way from knowing if that is what is going on,” he said. I would also add that the extra acres of replenished fuel don't pose an immediate threat, so they are left to burn while fighters focus on more populated areas. Contrast that with this: http://time.com/4985252/california-wildfires-fires-climate-change/ "Experts say we should continue to expect more extreme fires in California." "With longer fire seasons and faster-moving, increasingly aggressive wildfires, California can expect much of the same in the coming years." “These findings are profoundly serious and will continue to guide us as we confront the apocalyptic threat of irreversible climate change,” Depends where your town is. If it's a liberal town, then yes, the violent white biker gang and their cocaine is to blame! If the gang is black or MS-13, then it's those xenophobic gun loving white right wing racists that are to blame! If your town is conservative, then of course the blame is attributed to the blacks and MS-13, and rightly so. . . Personally, I think it's that crazy creepy quiet guy that crawled into that condo at end of the cul-de-sac. . .

If the temperatures hadn't been as high as they were, then they would not have had the problems they did. You can claim that the higher temps had nothing to do with climate change - but you can't credibly claim that higher temperatures didn't drive many of these problems. Sure, higher temps created many issues, like sagging lines that are more susceptible to line slap due to the typical high winds in these areas. However there were other issues like faulty utility poles, conductors and connectors. Maybe some of this was due to line sag as well, maybe not. The biggest cause of wildfires was due to contact with trees. Maybe some of these trees died because of drier conditions, maybe not. Maybe trees just eventually die. The main thing to realise here is that while PG&E is still liable for issues due to harsh weather, those issues really aren't the reasons why they are under fire. After investigation, PG&E has been referred to the district attorney for multiple violations of state law. The Paradise blaze was pretty much the last straw. Tho the temps were slightly above normal, they were still only in the upper 60s and touched the lower 70s, so line sag shouldn't have been an issue. The winds were high and the area was extremely dry for that time of year, so PG&E considered shutting down the power, but they opted not to. Also, PGE has a legal responsibility to clear trees away from their power lines. In this part of the country there is virtually no precipitation in June, July, August and September, so It really shouldn't matter that October and November were unseasonably dry, because the trees should've already been removed. Even if October and November go back to normal, there should've already been measures in place to deal with the typical 4 months of no rain, heavy winds and average temps in the 90s since it's been that way forever in these areas. Many believe it's our responsibility to clear out these trees as well, not just PGE. Unfortunately tho, it seems that all the alarm and meaningless lip service to AGW distracts us from meaningful initiatives that might actually make a difference.

Right, costs primarily due to lawsuits because of their faulty equipment that sparked 17+ major fires recently. So they file for bankruptcy to cap their liability and will most likely raise prices to cover their losses. I wonder how the whole climate change excuse will hold up in court. . .

I think the main issue is that he doesn't have access to a firewire card, so RCA is really the only option unless he sends the footage out to be converted. There's always some quality loss when using analog RCA cables, but the loss would be negligible, especially since it's standard definition footage anyway. The compression settings of the digital format you're converting to will play a more important role when it comes to quality. That's true when converting from a digital source as well. My concern would be that the VIDEO to SD device I linked above compresses 1 hour of footage into 500MB. That seems like a lot of compression to me. Not sure what that would look like. I believe the older model VIDEO to PC that connected to your computer via USB allowed you to manually set the compression rate if you needed to.

As long as your camera has RCA outputs, which it should, you can get a converter that will record directly to an SD card like the one linked below: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1442241-REG/ion_audio_video2sd_video_2_sd_standalone.html  A long while back I bought an older version of this product that would covert the video via USB to your computer, but I'm not sure if you can find it as it seems to have been discontinued. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=1272460&is=REG&fromDisList=y Personally, I think the conversion to SD in the newer model would be more convenient anyway. 

Deleted - Replied to the wrong poster.

BTW, I didn't realize I was responding to a post from January 12th. Has anyone heard from Ron? It seems he hasn't logged in since then. That would be unusual for him, right?

Billvon is the one that posted the stats on extremism that we are talking about, but I don't hear you demanding that he back up his claims with credible outside sources. In response to Ron's comments about Muslims, Billvon posted that "over the past 15 years or so there have been 23 violent attacks by islamic extremists and 62 violent attacks by right wing extremists," and therefore implied that he should be more fearful of people like himself rather than his heavily armed devout Muslim neighbor. And that's fine, but if you want to play that game, those stats also show that the rate of Islamic extremism among Muslims is significantly higher than the rate of extremism among right wingers given that Muslims only represent 1% of the population. So while it's true that it's more likely that a right winger will be the next to go on a shooting rampage, it's also true that Ron's heavily armed devout Muslim neighbor is more likely an extremist than his heavily armed conservative right wing neighbor, statistically speaking of course. This is all meaningless because the fact is that both are more likely to just be great neighbors than extremists. It's a meaningless misuse of these stats to suggest that a particular group of people are inherently more prone to violence than another group. The proper use of these stats would be to determine why the numbers are disproportionate, and studies suggest that it's because of a variety of socioeconomic issues, not just implicit bias, xenophobia or outright racism. There's a lot more that can be said about all this, but I feel we're getting a bit off topic and I noticed Bilvon's attempt to get this thread back on track, so maybe this discussion would be more fitting in another thread for another time?

Only if you think "devout Muslim" equals "Islamic extremist". I know that people like you and ron, who are terrified of people who aren't like you, this thought process is likely true. That however doesn't make it fact.  No, you're selectively quoting and missing the entire point. Some things never change, I guess. . . We are talking about the rate of extremist activity among muslims and right wingers. You also missed the point about how these stats are meaningless in the way they are being used in this thread and only bolster the division in this country.

But given those rates, his right wing extremist neighbor is more likely to be trustworthy. Your stats are actually supporting his logic. Given those rates, if there were 100+ million devout muslim neighbors in the US, this country would look and feel more like the war ridden middle east. . .maybe's there's a connection there? Or maybe all these stats are just a bunch of meaningless bullshit? It's a shame people exploit them just to bolster the division in this country. . . Well, it depends where you live. This country is still extremely segregated. If you live with a bunch of blacks you're more likely to be killed by blacks, likewise with whites by whites, muslims by muslims, guns by guns, etc, etc. . . But again, given your stats, the rate of violence is much higher for muslims than right wingers. Same for blacks, so your logic really isn't helping your argument. The fact is that these stats are meaningless in the way you are using them. The variance is most likely attributed to socioeconomic issues rather than an innate propensity toward violence.