Why? They asked people to rate the images based on personal factors AND technical factors, and found you could get the same ratings using only technical factors. What is wrong with that?

Neither the summary nor the article say anything about determining the 'beauty' of the SUBJECT. They are only determining the beauty of the PICTURE, by looking at things like sharpness and contrast.

Did you actually read all the way through the summary? For that matter, did you even read the title? It finds beautiful PORTRAITS, not beautiful SUBJECTS. It does this by IGNORING age, sex, etc and concentrates on sharpness, contrast, and exposure. What exactly is the problem?

Huh? They merged. The new company is called Office Depot. Office Max no longer exists. What is so hard to understand?

Apparently 'no one' bought $22.7B worth of stuff last year, with EBITDA of $1.46B.

What you described is NOT a homeopathic remedy. It may be a folk remedy or some such, but it sure isn't homeopathy. For it to be homeopathic you would not take elderberry extract to cure the flu, you would take water which had drop of flu virus added to it, then diluted about a billion times.

How dare the government make it so people can live and go where they want.

There is a world of difference between making money manufacturing existing drugs and making money bringing a new drug to market. I hope you can understand that.

'Just the cost of doing the chemistry and performing the trials...' WTF makes you think that is a 'just', especially when, absent patent protection, anyone else can make the same product WITHOUT spending that money? Here is a little clue for you - the AVERAGE cost of 'just doing the chemistry and perforrming the trials' is $2.5 BILLION.

So the government invented seat belts, and no capitalist car companies had them before they were mandated, right? False.
The government invented air bags, and no capitalist car companies had them before they were mandated, right? False.
The government invented antilock brakes, and no capitalist car companies had them before they were mandated, right? False.
The government invented backup cameras, and no capitalist car companies had them before they were mandated, right? False.
The government invented lane departure and blind spot detection systems, and no capitalist car companies had them before they were mandated, right? False.

In short, you are an idiot.

Really? It 'certainly shows' that? Do you think that other counterfeiters (of money, electronics, car parts, handbags, whatever) also think the 'bona fide' things are useless?

The whole descriptions and accounts thing starts with 'this telecast is copyright by the nfl...'

I guess you never noticed that every one of the clips shown (which is what is being discussed) says 'courtesy of ...'. Guess what that means. They have permission!

And show me the SCOTUS decision that says it is OK to use someone else's copyrighted material for reporting the news. If the clip itself was news you may have a fair use argument, but the clip is never the news, it is what the clip shows that is news, so there is no fair use argument for using the clip.

No, they cant. Why do you think they can?

I am not sure why you responded to me with that. I agree with everything you said. I was just responding to the dope who said it could not be copyrighted because it was not in fixed form. It is considered in fixed form because it is being simultaneously recorded by the NFL/network.