A serial killer is stalking New York, Edward X. Delaney (Frank Sinatra) is a NYPD Inspector who is assigned the mission to investigate , as he is tracking down an apparently motiveless killer . Meantime, he is worrying about his spouse (Faye Dunaway) becoming increasingly unhealthy after a kidney operation was wrong . Delaney has to investigate if the victims somehow linked and what does the brutal method of death signify. He's searching for a killer. She's searching for a miracle .... And time is running out.Thriller and exciting movie with a skill intrigue , suspense , chases , grisly killings and religious imagery . However , failing to convince due to dull and tiring scenes about the sad illness of the unfortunate wife . Concerning a simple and ordinary plot about a police inspector , nearing retirement , tracks a serial killer who is terrorizing New York . Frank Sinatra gives a nice acting as a detective who is attempting to put together the pieces of a confused case in spite of his impeding retirement and wife's sickness . Based on the bestseller novel written by Lawrence Sanders' that seems to be a lot more interesting than this picture . The picture is acceptable though the plot about the ill wife results to be entirely superflous and boring . As the relationship between the Police Inspector/Frank Sinatra and his wife/Faye Dunaway haunts the script and seems to have been inserted totally for sentimental reasons . Starring duo are accompanied by a very good support cast such as : David Dukes , George Coe , Brenda Vaccaro , Anthony Zerbe , James Whitmore , Martin Gabel , Victor Arnold , Eddie Jones , Jeffrey DeMunn and Joe Spinell.It packs an adequate musical score by Gordon Jenkins with plenty of intrigue and suspense . As well as atmospheric and appropriate cinematography by Jack Priestley . The film was well handled and professionally directed by Brian G. Hutton ; however , being a flop and failed to give cash . Hutton started his career with little and prestigious films , such as ¨Wild seed¨ and ¨The Pad¨. There after , he veered off into big budgeted and all-star movies, proving which he could handle big scale production , as ¨Where the eagles dare¨, one of the best from Alistair McLean , furthermore with ¨Kelly's heroes¨ added humor to the warlike action . His next picture was ¨High road to China¨ marked a partial return with panache to his previous form . This ¨The first deadly sin¨ faltered at the Box-office , in spite of being an entertaining thriller well starred by Frank Sinatra and with occasional touch of directorial skill , that's why is a must for Sinatra fans .
A serial killer is hunting New York City. Grizzled veteran police detective Edward Delaney (Frank Sinatra) is investigating the case. His wife Barbara (Faye Dunaway) is in the hospital. He enlists the help of ancient arms expert Christopher Langley. Sinatra is playing a tired cop who is distracted by his wife's illness. It does not make for a compelling investigation although it may be more accurate. It's a darker reserved performance. The more exciting character is eager Langley searching for the murder weapon in the local shops. He has a couple of hilarious scenes. Otherwise, this is grinding film about the grind of a grinding investigation. While I appreciate the personal aspect of the wife, it doesn't make it compelling as far as the investigation goes. Although it does not excuse the horrible insult of someone nominating Dunaway as the worst actress. The woman is in bed dying for most of the movie and that's what she gives. This is a bit of a grind to watch but it somehow maintains my attention for the most part.
It's 19th century Cuba. Luis Antonio Vargas (Antonio Banderas) is surprised that his mail order bride Julia Russell (Angelina Jolie) is that beautiful. She tells him that she deceived him with fake photos and he misled her about his wealth. They get married but later, she disappears with all of his money. Detective Walter Downs (Thomas Jane) arrives to find the real Julia for her sister Emily.This wants badly to be an erotic thriller. With the beautiful Jolie and sexy Banderas, this should be simple sexual dynamite. The problem is that the plot is slower than molasses and all the explosive eroticism in the world cannot drive this movie forward. Jolie can be extremely hot but she leaves me cold here. This movie doesn't have any excitement and certain no thrills at all.
A lot of stuff that... uh... "pushes the boundaries of copyright law" is distributed initially by various groups on the alt.binaries newsgroups [EDIT: actually FTP topsites, see comments]. This is to save bandwidth, since the entire file only needs to be uploaded once, instead of to everyone who wants it until a seeder network is established. These get downloaded by a few people who then seed them to the torrent networks.
The multiple .rars are legacy from the usenet source, since many newsgroup servers have a maximum attachment limit -- as well as the aforementioned ability to easily download a replacement or use a parity file to recover damaged parts (things get damaged a lot in newsgroups). This doesn't matter in torrents, but it's a legacy of the initial source of whatever content it is.
For the files actually downloaded in the torrent client loading the torrent file, there isn't really any reason either if it's just one large file split into several rars. For several files split into rars, there could be a use if the user only wants to download the rars containing specific files (selecting only them for download).
As files in a torrent are downloaded in small pieces, further splitting these files by rars is a waste of time (assuming the files are not compressing well, like video files etc., for HUGE text files there could be value in it I guess, but not by splitting into several rars.).
Peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing is only available using one of our paid Proton VPN Plus, Proton Unlimited, or Visionary (legacy users only) plans. If you are on a Free plan and wish to torrent, you need to upgrade to one of these plans.
2. Connect to one of our P2P servers. You can torrent while connected to any of our Plus servers, but we recommend connecting to our special P2P servers, as these are optimized for BitTorrent network traffic.
Some BitTorrent clients (such as qBittorrent and Vuze) allow you to bind the client to the VPN interface. Doing this blocks all traffic to and from the client except over the VPN interface, and is therefore a good security feature.
However, if you bind the client to your physical internet interface (for example your WiFi card), then the torrent traffic will bypass the VPN interface and your IP address for that traffic will be exposed. In this situation, we cannot guarantee that our kill switch will protect you.
In Windows, the network interface will depend on which VPN protocol you use. If you change VPN protocols, you will need also need to change the Network interface settings again in qBittorrent.
By Fred Barbash and Caren Bohan WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives has rediscovered the formula for peace, harmony and an end to gridlock after a month of partisan warfare: $8 billion worth of harbor dredging, dam and lock construction and other federal waterway improvements. The bill got only modest attention in the aftermath of a government shutdown and the technological woes of President Obama's health law when it passed last week by a vote of 417-3. No error there: 224 Republicans and 193 Democrats, at each others' throats for the past five years, joined together in what Representative Virginia Foxx called a "love feast." Pork it was not, members insisted, rejecting the old pejorative term in favor of "infrastructure" spending, and garnishing the title with another word, "reform," that's also in vogue. Nor, by members' definition, were these earmarks, the pet projects inserted by individual members that have become taboo symbols of lavish Washington spending. Whatever the jargon, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act was a reminder of the allure of traditional home-district spending and its healing power in an age of division. The bill included projects that would benefit about half of the state delegations in Congress, by a rough count. For Georgia, there was an expansion of Savannah Harbor; for Florida, improvements to the ports of Jacksonville and Canaveral, not to mention the Everglades Restoration Plan. Texas and Louisiana won approval for the dredging of the Sabine-Neches Waterway, 79 miles billed as America's "energy gateway," and "the artery of southeast Texas." Authorizations went to North Carolina, California, the Mississippi Coast, Maryland, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and the entire Great Lakes region. In voting for the measure, small-government Tea Party faction members bucked conservative organizations, like the Heritage Foundation, that held sway over them during the October showdown that shutdown the government. And liberal Democrats bucked environmentalists, who expressed concerns about provisions designed to speed up the environmental impact assessments that sometimes slow down water projects. What is more, the Senate has already approved similar - though not identical - legislation and the White House, though skeptical, is not threatening a veto. "For all the hand wringing about the inability of Republicans and Democrats to get along in Washington, there is definitely one area in which they continue to get along and that is parochial projects," said Tad DeHaven, a former Capitol Hill policy adviser and now a budget analyst at the Cato Institute. BIPARTISAN REDEMPTION A dominant theme during the debate last week was redemption. Even those who said they had concerns about the bill said they would support it because of its bipartisan sponsorship, "something all too rare in Washington these days," said Elizabeth Esty, a Democrat of Connecticut. "I am proud to say that this bill reflects the bipartisan action that my constituents expect from Congress." But Americans in search of a do-something Congress should not get their hopes up. Water bills are unique: Tea Party or not, a member of Congress cannot go home and tell the locals that he voted against a deeper port or a shored-up beach. Most vote yes, issue a press release and if possible, go down to the jetty or the dam for a photo op. "The Peoria Lock and Dam is becoming a popular place for federal legislators to conduct news conferences," the Pekin Times reported in Illinois over the weekend after the third visit from a member of Congress in a few months. So powerful are the forces behind water bills that when President George W. Bush vetoed a $23 billion version in 2007 as "fiscally irresponsible," Congress overrode him, one of only six veto overrides in 25 years. Water bills are "not inherently" partisan, said Patrick Griffin, a former White House aide and now associate director for the Center for Congressional and Presidential studies at American University. "I'm not sure I would be betting a new era of cooperation simply on that vote," he said. Plus, authorizing projects is but the first step toward actually funding them. Actual spending must be approved by appropriations enacted separately by both houses of Congress. With the appropriations process broken down and replaced by temporary crisis-mode funding showdowns, it is possible that only a fraction of the money promised will ever be spent. PROJECTS ALREADY BACKLOGGED The Army Corps of Engineers, for which the money was authorized, already has a $60 billion construction backlog, as a skeptical White House pointed out in its response to the bill's passage. Indeed, the bill passed by the House deauthorized dozens of projects that had languished for years, enabling House conservatives to say they were offsetting the cost of the new projects by sacrificing the old, justification for adding the word "reform" to the title of the bill. But the questionable future of the newer projects got lost in the torrent of press releases that poured forth from members in the days following Thursday's House vote. Hailing the Savannah project, designed to deepen the Georgia harbor for supertanker use, Georgia Representative Tom Graves, a Republican Tea Party favorite, predicted that in no time, "those supertankers will arrive at the harbor full of goods, and Georgia business will make sure they leave full." The legislation "will allow larger ships to reach our ports and energy and manufacturing centers," said Texas Representative Randy Weber of the Sabine-Neches Waterway project, which aims to deepen the channel from 40 to 48 feet to accommodate larger ships. Still, the measure brought back nostalgic glimpses of the way Congress used to operate, for better or worse, in the days when they actually appropriated money, much of it "earmarked" for pet projects of individual members. Though some members pine openly for a return to earmarks, arguing that they allowed Congress rather than the president to decide where money is spent, earmarks stand condemned, especially by conservatives, as a corrupting contribution to exploding deficits. THE UNEARMARK BILL Representative Daniel Webster of Florida contrasted this water bill with the one portrayed in the movie, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," about a naive new member who fights against a dam, and the system. Unlike the water bill in the movie, said Webster, these were not "pet projects" but rather taken from a list provided by the Army Corps of Engineers. "Gone or the days of inserting earmarks at the last minute," he said. And "gone are the days of wasting taxpayer money on pork barrel spending." Only one member, Democrat Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, had the temerity to call the projects earmarks, mostly, he admitted, because he didn't get one. "I support all of these projects," said Cleaver, but I don't have an earmark in it - and I want one." Democratic Representative Collin Peterson of Minnesota, one of the three lawmakers to vote against the bill, also felt left out. It failed to include reauthorization for a flood-control project in Roseau, Minnesota, said a spokeswoman. The bill mobilized the big-time lobbyists, hundreds of them, according to lobbyist registration data, from power-houses like Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute and the National Corn Growers Association to every county, city and even villages that stood to gain. Their show of force gave them a rare victory over the new breed of small-government ideological lobbying group, like Americans for Prosperity, which called it a "giant spending bill" and the Heritage Foundation, which condemned the measure as "an abyss of spending." Progressive Democrats came out in force to support the bill as well, despite the concerns of environmental organizations about provisions designed to speed up time consuming environmental reviews required for water projects. "This is something Congress has done many times in the past, going back almost 200 years," said Steve Ellis, vice-president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, which urged a 'no' vote. " "It's sort of a reflexive activity in many ways." It also benefited from the "hangover" of the fight that shut down the government earlier in October and nearly risked a default. "People were so fatigued by that," Ellis said. "If you read the transcript of the Congressional Record, it was everybody touting how bipartisan this is. It was "almost like they were trying to convince themselves that they can do things on a bipartisan basis and wanting to make sure that their constituents and other people thought that Washington could work." In the aftermath of the government shutdown, said American University's Griffin, there may be slightly more inclination to cooperate. On a water bill, said Griffin, it "is probably not a mortal sin to vote on the same side as the other party. It's probably just a venial sin." (Editing by Tim Dobbyn) 2b1af7f3a8