Just tell them we'll add two hours to daylight savings time to make up for it.
Funny you should mention that. According to the Wikipedia entry on Woodlawn, NC right at this very moment:
Residents are soon expected to register a petition to depart from the tradition of daylight savings in North Carolina, on the grounds that the curtains will fade and cows will give birth to kittens.
Don't forget that just 3 years ago North Carolina effectively banned climate change science in order to appease coastal real estate developers
According to the Wikipedia entry on Woodlawn, NC, right now:
Residents are soon expected to register a petition to depart from the tradition of daylight savings in North Carolina, on the grounds that the curtains will fade and cows will give birth to kittens.
It's the NBA, NFL, MLB rules that cut online broadcasts of radio.
I get that. But if it wasn't what the team owners wanted, it wouldn't be a rule. It seems like they're cutting their own throats with younger fans. Yeah, they make the big TV money now, but stuff could change quickly. The NFL seems especially vulnerable, with so many fewer kids playing organized football because of head trauma.
Huh? nba.com has free radio streaming of bothe teams for each game...
Only if you're an "NBA All-Access" subscriber, which is big dough for the privilege of listening to commercials.
If I can hear a radio broadcast locally on terrestrial radio and it's paid for through commercials, why shouldn't I be able to stream that same broadcast for free? I'm still hearing all the commercials.
I can stream Blackhawks games through WGN on TuneIn radio, because Rocky Wirtz, the owner actually lives in the 21st century. But not the Bears or Bulls. The online streams of Bears and Bulls games cut out at the moment the games start.
That will probably eventually change. The major sports leagues periodically re-run the numbers on whether it'd be more profitable to just sell direct streaming subscriptions to the public, rather than sign exclusive deals with TV networks.
I think it's already changing. We may have reached the upper limit of the sports TV contract insanity. I'm thinking about how the Cubs had to scramble back to WGN last year because they couldn't get the amounts they were demanding to broadcast their games, and they are one of the premiere franchises in all of sports, in terms of widespread interest. They very nearly started the season with no TV contract at all.
Something has to change, because it's become unbelievably complicated to follow a sports team from a place besides your local area. Having to buy an >$100 package just to catch a single Bulls or Bears game on radio here on the East Coast is just crazy.
The key to this whole thing is finally killing off the forced "bundling" that the cable industry requires. Everything should be offered ala carte.
There is a very active 8mm community in the art world, doing some very interesting work. There's a guy where I live who does a good business processing Ektachrome. "Retro" is in the eye of the beholder.
Here is an article touching on the same problem from a different aspect - making a backup copy of music you bought.
Just to be devil's advocate, there is a difference between a copy of music and a photograph of a chair. You can listen to the copy of music, but you can't sit in a photograph of a chair.
But I take your point. There's no telling what's illegal in this age of intellectual property insanity.
The contribution of CO2, Methane and nitrogen are totally dwarfed by water, water vapor, the heat capacity of the oceans, and non-radiative heat motion in the atmosphere.
What are you going on about? "non-radiative heat motion"? Are you talking about the lasers moon Nazis are shooting at us?
The AC's citations were just as valid as the GP. As in, not at all. "realclimatescience dot com", an op-ed in the Telegraph, and some blog? Please. Those aren't citations, those are jacking off into a sock.
Needing use license from an artist to commercially reproduce their work is stupid?
Oh no, not at all. But needing a license to show an example of the work of a designer is quite stupid.
Taking and publishing a photo of a chair doesn't impinge on intellectual property any more than taking a photo of a book infringes on the copyrighted material within.
Now, if I want to copy and make and sell more of those chairs, then I would quite rightly need a license. But to photograph? Nah.
My opinion on the facts of the story don't change the fact that it's a very stupid and intentionally misleading headline.
No, you won't need a license to "photograph stuff you already own". You may need a license if you want to publish photographs of someone else's intellectual property.
It's still stupid, but you don't need to try to make the headline scarier than the truth. It doesn't help and it only upsets the children (see other comments).
Also if you look at the worldwide gross, it took in about $200 million
I think you're confusing it with Expandables 3, which was the movie about three middle aged women who battle food addiction and are secretly ex-Special Forces commandos who take down an international arms dealer and then learn to love and accept themselves for who they are.
I'm pretty sure Sylvester Stallone was in that one, too, playing the husband of one of the commandos. He develops botox poisoning and dies but not before having so much plastic surgery that his eyes point in two different directions and his skin looks like it's made from the Naugahyde recliner that's been in my basement since 1983.
Expendables 2 was the one where Stallone and the team decide that violence really isn't the answer and form a non-profit to promote peace in the Third World. Also, about 2/3 of the way into the film Stallone takes it in the pants from Terry Crews and the rest is about how they seek acceptance as a mixed-race couple.
The real numbers paint a picture close to what you are suggesting
So all that was your roundabout way of agreeing with me?
It will harm the economy (mainly more unemployment and higher costs),
There have been 22 increases in the minimum wage. Not a single one of them was followed by higher unemployment. In fact, history shows exactly the opposite:
Slashdot Mirror
Funny you should mention that. According to the Wikipedia entry on Woodlawn, NC right at this very moment:
According to the Wikipedia entry on Woodlawn, NC, right now:
Not making that up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I don't know if you realize this, but in North Carolina, the Democrats are Republican.
If we could genetically modify cows to fart helium 3 instead of methane, we could use their gas to power fusion reactors.
I get that. But if it wasn't what the team owners wanted, it wouldn't be a rule. It seems like they're cutting their own throats with younger fans. Yeah, they make the big TV money now, but stuff could change quickly. The NFL seems especially vulnerable, with so many fewer kids playing organized football because of head trauma.
Only if you're an "NBA All-Access" subscriber, which is big dough for the privilege of listening to commercials.
If I can hear a radio broadcast locally on terrestrial radio and it's paid for through commercials, why shouldn't I be able to stream that same broadcast for free? I'm still hearing all the commercials.
I can stream Blackhawks games through WGN on TuneIn radio, because Rocky Wirtz, the owner actually lives in the 21st century. But not the Bears or Bulls. The online streams of Bears and Bulls games cut out at the moment the games start.
I think it's already changing. We may have reached the upper limit of the sports TV contract insanity. I'm thinking about how the Cubs had to scramble back to WGN last year because they couldn't get the amounts they were demanding to broadcast their games, and they are one of the premiere franchises in all of sports, in terms of widespread interest. They very nearly started the season with no TV contract at all.
Something has to change, because it's become unbelievably complicated to follow a sports team from a place besides your local area. Having to buy an >$100 package just to catch a single Bulls or Bears game on radio here on the East Coast is just crazy.
The key to this whole thing is finally killing off the forced "bundling" that the cable industry requires. Everything should be offered ala carte.
Yeah, but the pictures looked like you could step into them. Large format portraiture is sumptuous.
Geez, that sounds more like you were possessed by Satan than food-borne illness.
I've got a Deardorff 5X7 camera that says your 120 ain't shit.
There is a very active 8mm community in the art world, doing some very interesting work. There's a guy where I live who does a good business processing Ektachrome. "Retro" is in the eye of the beholder.
That's nothing. I turn off my computer when I don't need to use the computer.
Just to be devil's advocate, there is a difference between a copy of music and a photograph of a chair. You can listen to the copy of music, but you can't sit in a photograph of a chair.
But I take your point. There's no telling what's illegal in this age of intellectual property insanity.
Absolutely not. If your citations are carefully chosen to misrepresent, then none would be better.
And none are better than using three opinion pieces to represent anything like a scientific argument, unless your science is the study of propaganda.
Don't stop him. He's on a roll.
Which argument? The one about "non-radiative heat motion"?
What are you going on about? "non-radiative heat motion"? Are you talking about the lasers moon Nazis are shooting at us?
The AC's citations were just as valid as the GP. As in, not at all. "realclimatescience dot com", an op-ed in the Telegraph, and some blog? Please. Those aren't citations, those are jacking off into a sock.
Oh no, not at all. But needing a license to show an example of the work of a designer is quite stupid.
Taking and publishing a photo of a chair doesn't impinge on intellectual property any more than taking a photo of a book infringes on the copyrighted material within.
Now, if I want to copy and make and sell more of those chairs, then I would quite rightly need a license. But to photograph? Nah.
My opinion on the facts of the story don't change the fact that it's a very stupid and intentionally misleading headline.
Thank your government.
No, you won't need a license to "photograph stuff you already own". You may need a license if you want to publish photographs of someone else's intellectual property.
It's still stupid, but you don't need to try to make the headline scarier than the truth. It doesn't help and it only upsets the children (see other comments).
I think you're confusing it with Expandables 3, which was the movie about three middle aged women who battle food addiction and are secretly ex-Special Forces commandos who take down an international arms dealer and then learn to love and accept themselves for who they are.
I'm pretty sure Sylvester Stallone was in that one, too, playing the husband of one of the commandos. He develops botox poisoning and dies but not before having so much plastic surgery that his eyes point in two different directions and his skin looks like it's made from the Naugahyde recliner that's been in my basement since 1983.
Expendables 2 was the one where Stallone and the team decide that violence really isn't the answer and form a non-profit to promote peace in the Third World. Also, about 2/3 of the way into the film Stallone takes it in the pants from Terry Crews and the rest is about how they seek acceptance as a mixed-race couple.
So all that was your roundabout way of agreeing with me?
There have been 22 increases in the minimum wage. Not a single one of them was followed by higher unemployment. In fact, history shows exactly the opposite:
http://cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blo...
On the upside, it would make it easier to get a parking place.