You're getting upset about deals consenting adults are making.The store can easily charge me for shipping and restocking if they like. I just won't shop there. But you can and enjoy the savings.
I return about 50% of what I order. If it's a brand I've never seen before I might order 4 styles in 2 sizes each and keep one. But how bad of a customer can I be one retailer (the one where I'm the worst offender) gives me free overnight shipping?
If I buy something for $95 and it returns $100 in 1 year, than the interest rate (5%) is lower than if I but it for $85 and it returns $100 in a year (about 15%).
If it was just about season 1, yeah. It's about the characters. Remember, Sherlock Holmes was still covered by copyright (you couldn't use the character) because the last book's copyright was still valid (until a few years ago). So, you couldn't use the character in stories without a license.
The exception to that if Ford's autobiography. The man is only interesting because he gave a Dick a free pass, so when the section on what he was thinking was published by a magazine the SC called it infringement. They said, basically, nobody cares about Ford except in relation to Dick, so it wasn't fair use.
I agree with you completely. The best argument for copyright is that e.g. the Simpson's characters are over 30 now and so their images could appear on unlicensed materials now, and in unlicensed poses. So, Fox would be producing a show and others could use images from that show to make fun of it or degrade it.
At the same time, I kind of don't care, and maybe Fox should move on anyways.
Politicians aren't bought and paid for in DC, it mainly happens in your home district. DC is just the place that has to accept them after you vote them off your island.
Have you tried to edit an article recently. It's 10 times more arguing than editing. I don't have time for that shit. the process is rotten, so the product is rotten.
Yes, just be clear when you do that. Look at the pde article header. I knew what a pde was going in, now I'm confused. Also, the link to differential equation is useless and distracts.
it's generally not that bad? My most recent edits had a citation per sentence and got RVed because someone was camping out saying it was biased editing because the articles were all pushing one perspective (this is e.g. NIST documents about physics topics, not super exciting). Then an admin comes in and agrees with them and I had to raise a big stink to get it set back. It was 30 minutes of editing and hours of arguing about if adding cited work in consensus documents was OK.
OK, say that with a straight face about most physics articles. I mean Kaon is a disaster.
compare that with the actually helpful article "Ring (mathematics)". The ring article used to be for crap, but it was edited to be quite readable and now contains a lot more information. And it's not just the header, the article continues on clearly. An example of what the integers are is given. Is that wrong? no. It's also not dumbing it down.
so, there is information and there is communication. I've had text books that have no errors but are incomprehensible and others that also have no errors but are crystal clear. Same thing. Wikipedia is, often (and especially in physics) the crap textbook.
The link is to a crap explanation. Wikipedia is constantly becoming more intricate and complicated and it's a crap site now for most science if you don't want a graduate text book on a topic.
Here, grab a college text book and look up the Higgs boson and see if the explanation isn't clearer than the Wikipedia page. Actually, if you think eV/c^2 is a reasonable unit, instead ask a college student.
Hi, I have published in the field, I realize it's standard. I also realize it's bull shit in terms of accessibility. There is no reason that an encyclopedia article can't also use the SI units, similar to e.g. the electron article.
There is plenty of shit in there that is just hopelessly complex for no reason. I've argued with others about it, they always won, so I stopped showing up.
As an example, today I looked at the Higgs boson article and the talk about the rest mass in GeV/c^2. This is a bull shit unit. Let's just say that it isn't in SI. I mean, eV isn't even SI. They also don't link to any help with WTF is going on. You just have to understand the unit.
Slashdot Mirror
I get that now. They are effed.
You're getting upset about deals consenting adults are making.The store can easily charge me for shipping and restocking if they like. I just won't shop there. But you can and enjoy the savings.
I return about 50% of what I order. If it's a brand I've never seen before I might order 4 styles in 2 sizes each and keep one. But how bad of a customer can I be one retailer (the one where I'm the worst offender) gives me free overnight shipping?
No, they take a few cake crumbs every day, but retirement is a long game. The crumbs add up and mean you have a smaller slice when you retire.
If I buy something for $95 and it returns $100 in 1 year, than the interest rate (5%) is lower than if I but it for $85 and it returns $100 in a year (about 15%).
If it was just about season 1, yeah. It's about the characters. Remember, Sherlock Holmes was still covered by copyright (you couldn't use the character) because the last book's copyright was still valid (until a few years ago). So, you couldn't use the character in stories without a license.
The exception to that if Ford's autobiography. The man is only interesting because he gave a Dick a free pass, so when the section on what he was thinking was published by a magazine the SC called it infringement. They said, basically, nobody cares about Ford except in relation to Dick, so it wasn't fair use.
I agree with you completely. The best argument for copyright is that e.g. the Simpson's characters are over 30 now and so their images could appear on unlicensed materials now, and in unlicensed poses. So, Fox would be producing a show and others could use images from that show to make fun of it or degrade it.
At the same time, I kind of don't care, and maybe Fox should move on anyways.
Politicians aren't bought and paid for in DC, it mainly happens in your home district. DC is just the place that has to accept them after you vote them off your island.
So, that actually indicates that the market revised it's estimate of Tesla upwards and will give Tesla a lower interest rate next time.
Yes, they're worthless and are the reason you will have about 10% less stuff in retirement.
Have you tried to edit an article recently. It's 10 times more arguing than editing. I don't have time for that shit. the process is rotten, so the product is rotten.
I would never have sent my college students to read that mess. I'd end up having to take 30 minutes having to untangle that mess.
But the body is actually more useful, clearer, and more accessible.
Look, if you can't see the point of this article, please avoid editing Wikipedia. Sometimes you help most by sitting on the sidelines.
Wikipedia is a thing if I exist or not, and, for a lot of physics, it's insider talk and crap explanations.
Thanks for proving my point, the header of the Kaons has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.
Yes, just be clear when you do that. Look at the pde article header. I knew what a pde was going in, now I'm confused. Also, the link to differential equation is useless and distracts.
try random variable not that deep of a topic, but whoa is the header a whopper.
Go look up Kaon
it's generally not that bad? My most recent edits had a citation per sentence and got RVed because someone was camping out saying it was biased editing because the articles were all pushing one perspective (this is e.g. NIST documents about physics topics, not super exciting). Then an admin comes in and agrees with them and I had to raise a big stink to get it set back. It was 30 minutes of editing and hours of arguing about if adding cited work in consensus documents was OK.
OK, say that with a straight face about most physics articles. I mean Kaon is a disaster.
compare that with the actually helpful article "Ring (mathematics)". The ring article used to be for crap, but it was edited to be quite readable and now contains a lot more information. And it's not just the header, the article continues on clearly. An example of what the integers are is given. Is that wrong? no. It's also not dumbing it down.
so, there is information and there is communication. I've had text books that have no errors but are incomprehensible and others that also have no errors but are crystal clear. Same thing. Wikipedia is, often (and especially in physics) the crap textbook.
The link is to a crap explanation. Wikipedia is constantly becoming more intricate and complicated and it's a crap site now for most science if you don't want a graduate text book on a topic.
Here, grab a college text book and look up the Higgs boson and see if the explanation isn't clearer than the Wikipedia page. Actually, if you think eV/c^2 is a reasonable unit, instead ask a college student.
Hi, I have published in the field, I realize it's standard. I also realize it's bull shit in terms of accessibility. There is no reason that an encyclopedia article can't also use the SI units, similar to e.g. the electron article.
There is plenty of shit in there that is just hopelessly complex for no reason. I've argued with others about it, they always won, so I stopped showing up.
As an example, today I looked at the Higgs boson article and the talk about the rest mass in GeV/c^2. This is a bull shit unit. Let's just say that it isn't in SI. I mean, eV isn't even SI. They also don't link to any help with WTF is going on. You just have to understand the unit.
The least expensive Google Fi phone is $400 (with contract). I have a Nexus 5x and it's OK, not great, but OK.