Why would anyone trusty anything from Rational Wiki? This is a site that reports Donald Trump is an honorary Cossack, based on a second hand report from a Russian tabloid of questionable veracity.
As ever, this promotes something that supports the general bias of the site, so they mention that this is a thing, and assert it strenuously, but don't put any weight on the studies that contradict the findings. There's a single link to a paper that claims "Evidence of factual backfire is far more tenuous than prior research suggests. By and large, citizens heed factual information, even when such information challenges their ideological commitments." but no mention of this in the article body.
Ironically, Rational Wiki is a victim of confirmation bias. Although to be fair, I'm pretty certain the entire site is satire.
If my hands are on the keyboard, I'll use the keyboard commands and arrow and page controls.If my hand is n the mouse I'll use the icons and the scrollwheel.
Input devices are just tools. Use whatever's appropriate.
Advertising is simply informing people of the product and its benefits.
If you're being manipulated then the problem is that you're being manipulated. Not that people are trying to sell you a product.
Without marketers, a lot of products would have no online reviews because people wouldn't know the product existed. You think the mobile phone sellers went to Apple and asked them on the off-chance whether smartphones existed? Of course not. Marketing people made sure the sellers know. And they and Apple told their customers that a helpful new phone existed.
Advertising people are special. I've known a couple, very nice people, in terrible jobs. The stories they tell themselves to justify what they do. Most of the ones I've known have eventually gotten out. And their story changes when they do.
I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with what they do. They provide something of benefit to their clients, and fund something that the people watching the ads actually wants. sure, most of us would clearly rather pay money, but its only recently we've had that option.
That Vader film certainly has a few bars of what sounds very much like the Imperial March.
The video with "all the music removed" certainly has what one might consider "music" at the start.
I mean, sure there's a serious issue with the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, and youTube's policy here is awful, but the criticisms seem a little disingenuous.
The landing area seems like it can be arranged fairly inexpensively. Essentially you need a small car park. As far as directness goes, in the US, there's a solid mass of land and large distances separating factories, but Europe and South West Asia are more densely populated and full of jagged islands and peninsulas, where this allows a direct route and a lot less loading and unloading.
I do see what you're getting at with it being a solution looking for a problem, but I think there are possible applications. An obvious application would be to shipping Airbus wings - large lightweight components over a distance of a few hundred km. I can imagine quite a few companies could use these on a ferry route, and the infrastructure requirement is far less substantial than a full airport.
Evidently not true. The LEMV required at least 300 m (1,000 ft) of runway (violating the runway-independent requirement), and a tether point with a 100 m (300 ft) clear flat area around on which to park, which prevented them from operating at most large bases and all small bases.
Lack of runway requirement is something talked about a lot in press releases, so presumably this does not have the same issues as the LEMV.
Not true. It can carry 10 tons which might sound like a lot but it isn't. A 747 can carry up to 130 tons in certain configurations.
Massive in terms of volume. 10 tonnes is, at least a usable
has a low carbon footprint,
Citation needed.
It's what the company claims. Even if they're wrong it seems a more interesting thing to talk about than the sodding length, at least.
It has a cruising speed of 70 knots. That's at best comparable to highways speeds over land. Over water it's not clear why you would prefer this to a large fixed wing aircraft for transporting goods or people.
80 knots. Which is comparable to a perfectly straight traffic free highway. But most road transport is not on perfectly straight traffic free highways.
Pray tell what the civilian use of those capabilities might be?
What is the civilian (or other) use of being 90m long? At least these are features that are interesting, which could conceivably find a use.
Yes, it is the longest. I imagine its volume and body width are amongst the highest as well. But the cool thing about this plane is it combines a plane and an airship. It requires very little in the way of runway length, has an absolutely massive cargo bay, has a low carbon footprint, is reasonably fast (nowhere near as fast as an airliner but faster than most other means of transport), the ability to fly very slowly, and offers a flight endurance measured in weeks.
Needing more of it would probably increase the supply That 7% is typically ignored, and allowed to escape, because its not economically viable to extract it.
Most people figure out how to use Photoshop without a manual. Sure sometimes software is complicated and does need to be explained, but here this seems to be being used as an excuse.
"Whining" does help. People want a good, easy to use free image processing application. They are saying why GIMP is not that application. The developers can ignore them if they choose. That's on them.
What's wrong with the GIMP GUIs? (Note that GUI is pluralized -- GIMP has several standard GUIs -- something that is not easily attainable with proprietary software).
Immediately you provide a perfectly reasonable answer to your own question.
No idea if this is still the case, but last time I used it it had windows floating all over the place, rather than a much more comfortable single window with dockable subwindows.
Not sure what the other GUIs are, but the fact that they exist shows that the default is probably terrible. Users don't want to piss about with configuring their software. They want to manipulate images.
Is there any societal benefit to a longer term? Even if the availability is exactly the same (which I seriously doubt), it seems that copyright should only be as long as is required to encourage people to publish. The aim should be as short a term as is needed to provide a benefit to creators, not the maximum term possible before the public domain becomes non-existent.
Totally agree. Also that this will only work if we implement it fully.
Ultimately we're giving people a hunk of free money. Which I'm fine with. People have a right to live, and the amount given should essentially cover food housing and other essentials. The problem is affording it. We need to adjust taxation at the same time.
If we are providing this income then there is actually no reason not to start taxing at an earlier level. If everyone has what they need then there's no moral objection to taxing any surplus at a fairly high rate. Germany's system actually works quite well here already since it is a progressive tax rate (each Euro is taxed slightly higher). But this means not only does the benefits system have to change; but so does the tax system.
We also need to be sure that this will be permanent. People will not change their way of life over a 3 year experiment.
If the works were in the public domain though, there would be a lot of people willing to invest the resources in archiving them. I can easily acquire some very obscure books from Project Gutenberg. I once found some scans of obscure 1920's pulp adventure magazines. Similar works from the 1940's are much harder to get hold of. With a 28 year term, people would certainly be putting their 1980's VHS tapes on youTube.
Quite. The intent according to the constitution is:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
While a 5 year copyright term would cover this for a lot of works, I'm guess people such as stock photograph producers and composers of background and incidental music probably rely on a couple of decades of re-use before they see a reasonable return, and those are the people we should probably be protecting.
Hardly anybody is making money from works created 75 years ago, or even the 56 years of the 1909 act. Even those that were created more than 28 years ago have made more than their original cost back if they're still in print. Most works from before 1990 are not still in print. Rather than encourage publication, copyright makes it near impossible to obtain anything created between 1923 and 1990 without the effort to either find a used copy, or go through the considerable expense of tracking down the copyright holder, and negotiating for a copy.
"why look at that the archiving of tumblr restarted how did that happen must be a bug surely a crack team of activist archivists didn't see an ip block as a small setback and then turned everything up to 11."
Huh? this is the most incomprehensible sentence since "Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?". Do I just need mode Covfefe?
Slashdot Mirror
Why would anyone trusty anything from Rational Wiki? This is a site that reports Donald Trump is an honorary Cossack, based on a second hand report from a Russian tabloid of questionable veracity.
As ever, this promotes something that supports the general bias of the site, so they mention that this is a thing, and assert it strenuously, but don't put any weight on the studies that contradict the findings. There's a single link to a paper that claims "Evidence of factual backfire is far more tenuous than prior research suggests. By and large, citizens heed factual information, even when such information challenges their ideological commitments." but no mention of this in the article body.
Ironically, Rational Wiki is a victim of confirmation bias. Although to be fair, I'm pretty certain the entire site is satire.
If my hands are on the keyboard, I'll use the keyboard commands and arrow and page controls.If my hand is n the mouse I'll use the icons and the scrollwheel.
Input devices are just tools. Use whatever's appropriate.
I saw an advertisement for a new car. I thought it looked nice. I decided I'll buy that car.
Now I have that car I'm enjoying it.
Were it not for the advertisement I would not have known about it.
No. I don't see anything wrong with it.
Advertising is simply informing people of the product and its benefits.
If you're being manipulated then the problem is that you're being manipulated. Not that people are trying to sell you a product.
Without marketers, a lot of products would have no online reviews because people wouldn't know the product existed. You think the mobile phone sellers went to Apple and asked them on the off-chance whether smartphones existed? Of course not. Marketing people made sure the sellers know. And they and Apple told their customers that a helpful new phone existed.
I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with what they do. They provide something of benefit to their clients, and fund something that the people watching the ads actually wants. sure, most of us would clearly rather pay money, but its only recently we've had that option.
I believe most of Holst's work is out of copyright.
Yes. In this case, it's a piece of music associated with a specific character. This doesn't affect the copyright status of that piece of music.
That Vader film certainly has a few bars of what sounds very much like the Imperial March.
The video with "all the music removed" certainly has what one might consider "music" at the start.
I mean, sure there's a serious issue with the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, and youTube's policy here is awful, but the criticisms seem a little disingenuous.
I think you're being a little too negative.
The landing area seems like it can be arranged fairly inexpensively. Essentially you need a small car park. As far as directness goes, in the US, there's a solid mass of land and large distances separating factories, but Europe and South West Asia are more densely populated and full of jagged islands and peninsulas, where this allows a direct route and a lot less loading and unloading.
I do see what you're getting at with it being a solution looking for a problem, but I think there are possible applications. An obvious application would be to shipping Airbus wings - large lightweight components over a distance of a few hundred km. I can imagine quite a few companies could use these on a ferry route, and the infrastructure requirement is far less substantial than a full airport.
Lack of runway requirement is something talked about a lot in press releases, so presumably this does not have the same issues as the LEMV.
Massive in terms of volume. 10 tonnes is, at least a usable
It's what the company claims. Even if they're wrong it seems a more interesting thing to talk about than the sodding length, at least.
80 knots. Which is comparable to a perfectly straight traffic free highway. But most road transport is not on perfectly straight traffic free highways.
What is the civilian (or other) use of being 90m long? At least these are features that are interesting, which could conceivably find a use.
Yes, it is the longest. I imagine its volume and body width are amongst the highest as well. But the cool thing about this plane is it combines a plane and an airship. It requires very little in the way of runway length, has an absolutely massive cargo bay, has a low carbon footprint, is reasonably fast (nowhere near as fast as an airliner but faster than most other means of transport), the ability to fly very slowly, and offers a flight endurance measured in weeks.
Needing more of it would probably increase the supply That 7% is typically ignored, and allowed to escape, because its not economically viable to extract it.
Those people can simply drive at the speed limit, thus avoiding the expense of fines.
You can probably afford the speeding tickets then.
Something like Windows CE is only a few dollars a time though, and I don't think development kits are expensive.
Not sure there's a huge benefit over Linux - possibly developer support - but the cost isn't all that restrictive.
Most people figure out how to use Photoshop without a manual. Sure sometimes software is complicated and does need to be explained, but here this seems to be being used as an excuse.
If people can't pick up and use a UI immediately, then a possible reason is that the UI is not very good rather than the users being wrong.
People who ignore criticism in this way are doomed to failure.
"Whining" does help. People want a good, easy to use free image processing application. They are saying why GIMP is not that application. The developers can ignore them if they choose. That's on them.
Immediately you provide a perfectly reasonable answer to your own question.
No idea if this is still the case, but last time I used it it had windows floating all over the place, rather than a much more comfortable single window with dockable subwindows.
Not sure what the other GUIs are, but the fact that they exist shows that the default is probably terrible. Users don't want to piss about with configuring their software. They want to manipulate images.
Is there any societal benefit to a longer term? Even if the availability is exactly the same (which I seriously doubt), it seems that copyright should only be as long as is required to encourage people to publish. The aim should be as short a term as is needed to provide a benefit to creators, not the maximum term possible before the public domain becomes non-existent.
Totally agree. Also that this will only work if we implement it fully.
Ultimately we're giving people a hunk of free money. Which I'm fine with. People have a right to live, and the amount given should essentially cover food housing and other essentials. The problem is affording it. We need to adjust taxation at the same time.
If we are providing this income then there is actually no reason not to start taxing at an earlier level. If everyone has what they need then there's no moral objection to taxing any surplus at a fairly high rate. Germany's system actually works quite well here already since it is a progressive tax rate (each Euro is taxed slightly higher). But this means not only does the benefits system have to change; but so does the tax system.
We also need to be sure that this will be permanent. People will not change their way of life over a 3 year experiment.
If the works were in the public domain though, there would be a lot of people willing to invest the resources in archiving them. I can easily acquire some very obscure books from Project Gutenberg. I once found some scans of obscure 1920's pulp adventure magazines. Similar works from the 1940's are much harder to get hold of. With a 28 year term, people would certainly be putting their 1980's VHS tapes on youTube.
While a 5 year copyright term would cover this for a lot of works, I'm guess people such as stock photograph producers and composers of background and incidental music probably rely on a couple of decades of re-use before they see a reasonable return, and those are the people we should probably be protecting.
Hardly anybody is making money from works created 75 years ago, or even the 56 years of the 1909 act. Even those that were created more than 28 years ago have made more than their original cost back if they're still in print. Most works from before 1990 are not still in print. Rather than encourage publication, copyright makes it near impossible to obtain anything created between 1923 and 1990 without the effort to either find a used copy, or go through the considerable expense of tracking down the copyright holder, and negotiating for a copy.
Huh? this is the most incomprehensible sentence since "Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?". Do I just need mode Covfefe?