"Earlier in the day, a remote-controlled vehicle located debris from the Titan submersible, including its tail cone, on the ocean floor, about 1,600 feet from the bow of the Titanic, he said."
? "The implosion âwould have generated significant broadband sound down there that the sonar buoys would have picked up,â Mauger said. Listening devices in the area, which were dropped Monday, did not hear any signs of such a catastrophic failure, he reported earlier."
Thanks - it was just a suggestion - or "insight" as you called it. "Breaking News" has become a very over-used term, which has been diluted by its constant use on news outlets like CNN and Fox. It was originally meant to refer to sudden, extraordinary events like assassinations, plane crashes, earthquakes, riots, etc. or following possible dangerous or life-threatening situations like hurricanes, tornadoes, or wildfires. Maybe it used to be called "news bulletins". It's just a term that I really get annoyed seeing or hearing anymore, I apologize if I seemed so bothered about it.
Yes! Same here in Europe. The state/corporate media are putting out headlines regularly with no real relevance to the public (but only to partisan politics, or to point fingers to other "failed states", stock declines, etc.). - It is why I posted under this thread's headline, being in a sarcastic mood, I guess.
Yet it must be "breaking news" to any American believers in (their / our) democracy, or so it seems to me. (Deleted the original post, as per your insight given.)
Thanks - it was just a suggestion - or "insight" as you called it. "Breaking News" has become a very over-used term, which has been diluted by its constant use on news outlets like CNN and Fox. It was originally meant to refer to sudden, extraordinary events like assassinations, plane crashes, earthquakes, riots, etc. or following possible dangerous or life-threatening situations like hurricanes, tornadoes, or wildfires. Maybe it used to be called "news bulletins". It's just a term that I really get annoyed seeing or hearing anymore, I apologize if I seemed so bothered about it.
This is not "Breaking News" (or any kind of news, really) at all; it's a Breitbart opinion piece about a NYT opinion piece. It probably should be in one of the "Media" threads if anywhere.
Yet it must be "breaking news" to any American believers in (their / our) democracy, or so it seems to me. (Deleted the original post, as per your insight given.)
This is not "Breaking News" (or any kind of news, really) at all; it's a Breitbart opinion piece about a NYT opinion piece. It probably should be in one of the "Media" threads if anywhere.
Yeah, I remember the Cody incident. As always in this kind of incident there are many layers of safeguards, so when something goes wrong there were many layers of failure.
One thing that has always bothered me about that incident was that multiple live rounds were fired. Blanks have very low recoil but typical cowboy hand guns have a LOT more. How is it that someone kept shooting after the first round went off? This is not a subtle difference,
From reports on the scene at least one of the re-enactors was firing a cap and ball revolver. that complicates sorting out whose gun fired the live round, but jeebus folks...
If someone deliberately put a live round on set that person needs a stretch in jail. Negligence is one thing but that just ain't funny.
The trial is going to be interesting because the armorer was a rookie, like it was her first film that she was lead for, and didn't I hear something about someone trying to sandbag her? Deliberately mixed live and dummy rounds or something I don't know what I'm talking about? Maybe that was just a preliminary defense strategy.
Anyway, it brought to mind the event a few years ago in Cody Wyoming where at the nightly "shootout" in the street in front of the Irma Hotel, one of the guns deflated a river raft half a block away. That could have easily killed a few tourists.
I vaguely remember something about the original armorer being fired or something.
Not to be a conspiracy theorist but I try to think about how the whole scenario unfolded. Why were there live rounds on set? Well, the most benign explanation I can think of is that someone brought them around so they could shoot bottles in the ample downtime. "Hey we're out here in the middle of the desert with no one around. Let's see how hard it is to actually hit something with one of these things." But then there would have to be a weird chain of events with a gun not getting unloaded ("Hurry the hell up and bring me that gun?") or getting loaded with the wrong stuff when it shouldn't have been loaded at all...
Or conspiracy theory of someone doing it intentionally. If the investigators did a good job they would have a very detailed timeline or several detailed timelines if stories diverged.
The trial is going to be interesting because the armorer was a rookie, like it was her first film that she was lead for, and didn't I hear something about someone trying to sandbag her? Deliberately mixed live and dummy rounds or something I don't know what I'm talking about? Maybe that was just a preliminary defense strategy.
Anyway, it brought to mind the event a few years ago in Cody Wyoming where at the nightly "shootout" in the street in front of the Irma Hotel, one of the guns deflated a river raft half a block away. That could have easily killed a few tourists.
Yeah, I remember the Cody incident. As always in this kind of incident there are many layers of safeguards, so when something goes wrong there were many layers of failure.
One thing that has always bothered me about that incident was that multiple live rounds were fired. Blanks have very low recoil but typical cowboy hand guns have a LOT more. How is it that someone kept shooting after the first round went off? This is not a subtle difference,
From reports on the scene at least one of the re-enactors was firing a cap and ball revolver. that complicates sorting out whose gun fired the live round, but jeebus folks...
If someone deliberately put a live round on set that person needs a stretch in jail. Negligence is one thing but that just ain't funny.
As for prop guns...it was a western. That means single-action revolvers, and you could create one that was incapable of firing a round of any kind, but that would include blanks. And if you're going to be careless enough to have a live round on set you'd probably be careless enough to have a blank-capable gun when you should have a completely inert one.
Even blanks are dangerous at the range involved in this accident. Everyone involved should have known better.
The trial is going to be interesting because the armorer was a rookie, like it was her first film that she was lead for, and didn't I hear something about someone trying to sandbag her? Deliberately mixed live and dummy rounds or something I don't know what I'm talking about? Maybe that was just a preliminary defense strategy.
Anyway, it brought to mind the event a few years ago in Cody Wyoming where at the nightly "shootout" in the street in front of the Irma Hotel, one of the guns deflated a river raft half a block away. That could have easily killed a few tourists.
I wouldn't consider him political as much as typically arrogant like most of those who seek office. I do agree with most of the rest of your assessment. I'm also completely gobsmacked that a) actual firearms are allowed on a movie set and b)if a, then why are actual ammunition allowed on a movie set. I mean they create entire cities / planets / space stations / cars / airplane ect. that don't really exist, so why not just make a prop gun... oh, wait, they do make prop guns.... GoTo: a). Why would you ever put yourself in the situation where this could occur?
The armorer on the shoot has a lot to answer for.
As for prop guns...it was a western. That means single-action revolvers, and you could create one that was incapable of firing a round of any kind, but that would include blanks. And if you're going to be careless enough to have a live round on set you'd probably be careless enough to have a blank-capable gun when you should have a completely inert one.
Even blanks are dangerous at the range involved in this accident. Everyone involved should have known better.
Like I said, he has blamed others for the accidentâand I do consider it an accident, though one he is ultimately responsible for. He hired the people who helped him make that mistake, and he made mistakes no one I ever taught gun safety to would make.
is description of what happened is utterly implausible to anyone familiar with the type of firearm used. He was goofing off with a deadly instrument he didn't understand and his actionsânot his alone, but his was the last link in a chain of mistakesâkilled someone.
I wouldn't consider him political as much as typically arrogant like most of those who seek office. I do agree with most of the rest of your assessment. I'm also completely gobsmacked that a) actual firearms are allowed on a movie set and b)if a, then why are actual ammunition allowed on a movie set. I mean they create entire cities / planets / space stations / cars / airplane ect. that don't really exist, so why not just make a prop gun... oh, wait, they do make prop guns.... GoTo: a). Why would you ever put yourself in the situation where this could occur?
