All my [chat] for a horse!

Mazzyx

A horse, a horse! My kingdom for a horse!



https://youtu.be/pjJEXkbeL-o

Also the real one was just reburied! Yay for history.

desc

http://youtu.be/jPdzSFEVQss

I will carry this song by hand from the sinking previous chat thread and into this one

zepherin

Here is what I think of your horse.

Hakkekage

I got a nice young filly, chestnut, full o fire, y'gotta put in some more work t' tame 'er but i'll take you up on that offer

So....like do I get a key to the kingdom or is it like a deed

Gooey

i went from an 8gb iphone 4 to a 128gb iphone 6

it was magical

TTODewback

twitch is so commercialized they added taco bell emotes to promote their new breakfast additions.

desc

Damnit geth

Trace

so get ready for the Conservatives on the Supreme Court to absolutely fuck every gay/bi/pansexual person in America.

Trace

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/supreme-court-sounds-skeptical-note-marriage-equality

Experienced court watchers tend to agree: predicting the outcome of Supreme Court cases based solely on oral arguments is problematic. Justices often play devil’s advocate; they think out loud from the bench; and they challenge attorneys on points they already find persuasive, just to see how they’ll respond.

That said, many who heard this morning’s arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges came away with the impression that the high court’s conservatives were skeptical of marriage equality. NBC News’ Pete Williams reported:

The conservatives were joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered a swing vote, who asked whether the public and scholars need more time to debate changes to a practice that has been understood as between a man and a woman for centuries.

“It’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘We know better,’” Kennedy told Mary Bonauto, a lawyer representing same-sex couples, according to The Associated Press.

This is no small detail. Kennedy, considered the key swing justice in this case, reportedly emphasized historical norms, suggesting that proponents of marriage equality want to change an institution that has lasted for a “millennia.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, whom progressives also hoped to persuade, stressed a similar point, reportedly telling supporters of equal-marriage rights, “If you succeed, [the traditional definition of marriage] will not be operable. You are not seeking to join the institution. You are seeking to change the institution.” He added, “f you prevail here, there will be no more debate. The debate will close minds, and it will have consequence on how this new institution is accepted.”

According to the New York Times’ report, Justice Samuel Alito wondered aloud whether marriage between same-sex couples would lead to groups of four people getting married, while Justice Antonin Scalia said some clergy might be forced to perform wedding ceremonies against their will.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but these are lazy, ridiculous arguments. Supreme Court standards have fallen, but this is cheap nonsense, even from far-right justices. It should be obvious, for example, that marriage equality is fundamentally different from polygamy. It should be equally obvious that there’s literally nothing to suggest clergy would be forced to do anything, ever – and over a decade after same-sex marriages began in the United States, there are still zero examples of religious leaders being compelled to officiate any union.

The court’s center-left justices, meanwhile, seemed far less skeptical of the position already embraced by the American mainstream and most of the appellate courts.

Later, when the lawyer for the opponents of gay marriage began arguing, Justice Stephen G. Breyer forcefully questioned why states should be able to exclude gay people from marriage. “Marriage is open to vast numbers of people,” he said, adding that same-sex couples “have no possibility to participate in that fundamental liberty. And so we ask why.”

Several of the more liberal justices also pressed the opponents of gay marriage to say how, exactly, extending marriage to same-sex couples could harm heterosexual couples who want to marry. Justice Ginsburg was particularly blunt on that point. “You are not taking away anything from heterosexual couples” if the state allows gay couples to marry,” she said.

It seems likely that marriage equality has four votes. Whether that fifth vote will materialize remains an open question.

A final ruling is expected in June. For more, check out msnbc’s live blog, and msnbc’s Kasie Hunt reporting live from outside the Supreme Court.

Update: The audio of part one of this morning’s oral arguments is already available online.
Second Update: Not surprisingly, different observers have different reactions to what they heard. Chris Geidner, who covers the issue closely, believes the justices “appears ready to rule In favor of marriage equality.” The AP report added that Kennedy “asked skeptical questions of both sides” today.

Mazzyx

Also as the last thread was closed I posting this.

Tyson reducing use of antibiotics with chickens and planning to end all human used antibiotics by 2017

It is a start. Should move to no antibiotics except for sick chickens but like I said it is a start on reducing the overuse.

nexuscrawler

Gooey wrote: »

i went from an 8gb iphone 4 to a 128gb iphone 6

it was magical

you're literally subhuman

Hakkekage

I love the Notorious RBG

Such a BAMF

She got pancreatic cancer and was just like

FUCK YOUR CANCER I'M NOT GOING ANYWHERE

zepherin

desc wrote: »

Damnit geth

“Some say that his politics are terrifying, and that he once punched a horse to the ground. All we know is he’s called Geth.”

Sparvy

http://gfycat.com/DependentSharpHoverfly

slow mo cameras can be pretty cool

TL DR

Dynagrip

what's with these fucking jobs demanding an active top secret security clearance? i could understand if it was CIA/DoD/NSA but something like JPL seems like bullshit.

TTODewback

roflol Alito really used the "what next let them marry dogs?" argument?

Surfpossum

Trace wrote: »

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/supreme-court-sounds-skeptical-note-marriage-equality

Experienced court watchers tend to agree: predicting the outcome of Supreme Court cases based solely on oral arguments is problematic. Justices often play devil’s advocate; they think out loud from the bench; and they challenge attorneys on points they already find persuasive, just to see how they’ll respond.

That said, many who heard this morning’s arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges came away with the impression that the high court’s conservatives were skeptical of marriage equality. NBC News’ Pete Williams reported:

The conservatives were joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered a swing vote, who asked whether the public and scholars need more time to debate changes to a practice that has been understood as between a man and a woman for centuries.

“It’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘We know better,’” Kennedy told Mary Bonauto, a lawyer representing same-sex couples, according to The Associated Press.

This is no small detail. Kennedy, considered the key swing justice in this case, reportedly emphasized historical norms, suggesting that proponents of marriage equality want to change an institution that has lasted for a “millennia.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, whom progressives also hoped to persuade, stressed a similar point, reportedly telling supporters of equal-marriage rights, “If you succeed, [the traditional definition of marriage] will not be operable. You are not seeking to join the institution. You are seeking to change the institution.” He added, “f you prevail here, there will be no more debate. The debate will close minds, and it will have consequence on how this new institution is accepted.”

According to the New York Times’ report, Justice Samuel Alito wondered aloud whether marriage between same-sex couples would lead to groups of four people getting married, while Justice Antonin Scalia said some clergy might be forced to perform wedding ceremonies against their will.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but these are lazy, ridiculous arguments. Supreme Court standards have fallen, but this is cheap nonsense, even from far-right justices. It should be obvious, for example, that marriage equality is fundamentally different from polygamy. It should be equally obvious that there’s literally nothing to suggest clergy would be forced to do anything, ever – and over a decade after same-sex marriages began in the United States, there are still zero examples of religious leaders being compelled to officiate any union.

The court’s center-left justices, meanwhile, seemed far less skeptical of the position already embraced by the American mainstream and most of the appellate courts.

Later, when the lawyer for the opponents of gay marriage began arguing, Justice Stephen G. Breyer forcefully questioned why states should be able to exclude gay people from marriage. “Marriage is open to vast numbers of people,” he said, adding that same-sex couples “have no possibility to participate in that fundamental liberty. And so we ask why.”

Several of the more liberal justices also pressed the opponents of gay marriage to say how, exactly, extending marriage to same-sex couples could harm heterosexual couples who want to marry. Justice Ginsburg was particularly blunt on that point. “You are not taking away anything from heterosexual couples” if the state allows gay couples to marry,” she said.

It seems likely that marriage equality has four votes. Whether that fifth vote will materialize remains an open question.

A final ruling is expected in June. For more, check out msnbc’s live blog, and msnbc’s Kasie Hunt reporting live from outside the Supreme Court.

Update: The audio of part one of this morning’s oral arguments is already available online.
Second Update: Not surprisingly, different observers have different reactions to what they heard. Chris Geidner, who covers the issue closely, believes the justices “appears ready to rule In favor of marriage equality.” The AP report added that Kennedy “asked skeptical questions of both sides” today.

I'm getting so dang tired of MSNBC having typos in nearly every dang thing they put up Rachel Maddow deserves better than this guldarnit.

Aioua

Dynagrip wrote: »

what's with these fucking jobs demanding an active top secret security clearance? i could understand if it was CIA/DoD/NSA but something like JPL seems like bullshit.

aliens are real duh

Casual

my everything hurts

bowen

A horse you say?

Casual

IN BEFORE SOMEONE MAKES A SEX JOKE

ronya

Dynagrip wrote: »

what's with these fucking jobs demanding an active top secret security clearance? i could understand if it was CIA/DoD/NSA but something like JPL seems like bullshit.

so that HR can assign you to whatever without additional paperwork

Doodmann

We let infertile and old people marry, get rekt procreation argument.

Mazzyx

Dynagrip wrote: »

what's with these fucking jobs demanding an active top secret security clearance? i could understand if it was CIA/DoD/NSA but something like JPL seems like bullshit.

My friend works for ULA.

They do a lot of work with JPL and some of that work is satellites for the letter agencies you list so you need a clearance.

ronya

Casual wrote: »

my everything hurts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y4Bdo7Nx-U

bowen

It's really kind of upsetting that Obama was a topic when we made that horse. It's almost been a fucking decade!

zepherin

Dynagrip wrote: »

what's with these fucking jobs demanding an active top secret security clearance? i could understand if it was CIA/DoD/NSA but something like JPL seems like bullshit.

Actually CIA DoD and NSA only demand that you have the ability to get a TS/SCI. It is the contractors that demand active clearances because they don't want to pay for them. The way federal contracting is, the act of getting a clearance is so onerous it is easier to get a warm body with an active clearance and send them to school, or train them for 6 months so they have the job skills to do the job.

Surfpossum

Casual wrote: »

my everything hurts

bowen wrote: »

A horse you say?

Casual wrote: »

IN BEFORE SOMEONE MAKES A SEX JOKE

Were you tho.

Mazzyx

ronya wrote: »

Dynagrip wrote: »

what's with these fucking jobs demanding an active top secret security clearance? i could understand if it was CIA/DoD/NSA but something like JPL seems like bullshit.

so that HR can assign you to whatever without additional paperwork

Government does not function that way.

Contractors kind of do.

ronya

Mazzyx wrote: »

ronya wrote: »

Dynagrip wrote: »

what's with these fucking jobs demanding an active top secret security clearance? i could understand if it was CIA/DoD/NSA but something like JPL seems like bullshit.

so that HR can assign you to whatever without additional paperwork

Government does not function that way.

Contractors kind of do.

I defer to your superior wisdom

Casual

ronya wrote: »

Casual wrote: »

my everything hurts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y4Bdo7Nx-U

god i need that

Mazzyx

I could use a deep tissue massage.

Needed one for about a year.

nexuscrawler

Casual wrote: »

IN BEFORE SOMEONE MAKES A SEX JOKE

I'll get you next time you meddling kids

ronya

yawn. good night, sore corgis. sorgis.

japan

Oh, a horse

But I gathered all these ...

Never mind

Donkey Kong

The United States Department of Defense has carried out what it says is its most successful test yet of a bullet that can steer itself towards moving targets. Experienced testers have used the technology to hit targets that were actively evading the shot, and even novices that were using the system for the first time were able to hit moving targets. The project, which is known as Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance weapon, or Exacto, is being made for the American government's military research agency, DARPA. It is thought to use small fins that shoot out of the bullet and re-direct its path, but the U.S. has not disclosed how it works. Technology in the bullet allows it to compensate for weather and wind, as well as the movement of people it is being fired at, and curve itself in the air as it heads towards its target.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WkQ4f9G6ok

japan

I made biryani

Surfpossum

Donkey Kong wrote: »

The United States Department of Defense has carried out what it says is its most successful test yet of a bullet that can steer itself towards moving targets. Experienced testers have used the technology to hit targets that were actively evading the shot, and even novices that were using the system for the first time were able to hit moving targets. The project, which is known as Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance weapon, or Exacto, is being made for the American government's military research agency, DARPA. It is thought to use small fins that shoot out of the bullet and re-direct its path, but the U.S. has not disclosed how it works. Technology in the bullet allows it to compensate for weather and wind, as well as the movement of people it is being fired at, and curve itself in the air as it heads towards its target.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX8Z2MDYX3g

Might as well watch the real thing.

SanderJK

So in NL we heat houses on natural gas. Because we have it underground, for about 2 more decades.

This running of explosive gas into households is actually pretty safe.

But a month ago a mostly empty flat, up for demolition with rhe final tennants about to leave exploded with huge consequences, estimated €10m, and causing asbestos fallout. Nobody was seriously injured.

Today the arrested the man that was the cause.
A goddamn copper wire thief who removed bits and pieces of the gas lines. Those have a new retail value of about €5 per meter.

What the fuck.

Mazzyx

On the read out loud part of my editing.

Sorry coworkers, I am going to mumble my way through this.