Comment Re:Davinci Resolve Edit (Score 1) 163
Except for the whole "it costs money" part, when the submitter was obviously, specifically referring to free software.
"Oh, but DaVinci has a free color correction plugin..."
Not the same thing.
Except for the whole "it costs money" part, when the submitter was obviously, specifically referring to free software.
"Oh, but DaVinci has a free color correction plugin..."
Not the same thing.
... western leaders... I doubt they were expecting this kind of heavy handedness, er, ever again.
At least, coming from someone else, and directed at them.
Heavy-handedness is their tool to use on the proles, after all.
Why would you think artists who create music should get paid?
Because you find value in the product, duh.
If you don't care for music in general (which I've never met a human with that mentality), then no, there's no value in the music artists create.
If you do care for music, and in fact enjoy listening to it in any capacity, then you in fact do understand the value, and why they should get paid, and you're just being an troll.
Hmm... "impossible human" or troll... gee, what a tough determination to make...
I'm all for people getting paid for their work. It's usually called a job... sometimes you have to be an entrepreneur.
I do frown on people doing something once (I just had this brilliant idea - patent; I just thought of a tune - song; I wrote this neat software - copyright; etc.) and expecting to sit on their couch for the rest of their lives and have people sending them money. I call these people "the takers". They are leaches on society.
What would you call the people who create nothing of value, but demand that they have a right to steal everything of value your "the takers" group creates?
They're looking for crazies that go on shooting sprees. What they should be doing is checking EVERYONE... not just people that publish books about school shootings while working at schools.
I frankly don't have a problem with them investigating the guy so long as they do it respectfully. That said, everyone should be checked out. These mass shootings are just crazy people acting out. Nothing more.
OR, and I know this is a long shot, but they could consider accepting that a free nation is an inherently dangerous one, and either accept that individuals have a right to live their lives without constantly being spied upon by a crazy government so paranoid it makes tweekers seem like reasonable people, or find some other, "safer" country to move to.
I know - leaving other people to their business so long as it's not directly and immediately affecting you - crazy idea, right?
Has *anything* ever changed from having a bunch of people sign a change.org petition?
People have signed Change.org petitions about things, and those things have changed.
Proof of causation? No, but equally, proof that signing Change.org petitions may not be wasted effort.
Are you sure you're not thinking of "We The People" petitions?
Seems right up the ACLU's alley, First Amendment and all...
Yeah, I think we're missing a big chunk of the story. He constitutionally can't be held against his will unless he's being charged with a crime past a certain point (24 hours I think?)
Not to mention, one is typically "arrested" in conjunction with being charged with a crime, not kidnapped for "emergency medical evaluation"
Stephen King is probably lucky he lives in a different area of the northeast.......otherwise, he'd be on trial for all sorts of sick demented things.
No shit, ever bothered to read The Stand or Black House? Dark stuff there.
Non-misspelled link:
The various flight ceilings on commercial aviation might speak to that, but I seriously doubt any court is going to interpret the law as being about property rights as opposed to public safety / nuisance.
I used to seriously doubt that any court in the US would allow a lawsuit against an inanimate object, but apparently many municipal governments make fat bank doing just that, all the time, with Philadelphia leading the pack.
Now I know better than to "seriously doubt" any of the the idiotic things our legal system allows for.
Further to this. If we do see self driving vehicles any time soon I would have thought that would have been infinitely preferable to drones. Some kind of system that gets you to meet the truck - calling or texting minutes before arrival. A bay that only has your parcel in it.
A lot of parcels are shipped in standard boxes these days so that shouldn't be too difficult a system to build. It wouldn't replace a driver with odd or bulky parcels of course.
If you're going to go that route with it, society could easily start building both residential and commercial structures with built-in receptacle ports designed to mate with the port on the delivery vehicle, eliminating the "someone needs to be there to accept delivery" issue.
That is, presuming the industry standardizes the port design, rather than every single manufacturer having a proprietary one that nobody else's equipment will fit.
Drone delivery may be good for a farm out in the country where we don't want to waste time sending a truck and driver to the only order in fifty miles.
Well, except the fact that most figures I've seen show there is no efficient, cost-effective way to build a drone that can carry 50+ lbs and have over 100 miles of range.
At those rates, you'd be better off sending a dude in a truck.
And how exactly is a drone supposed to make a delivery to my apartment on the 56th floor in the middle of Manhattan?
It could deliver to the roof. Then you could go up and get it, or a robot could bring it to your apartment.
What happens when it's raining? Does the drone/robot just dump your shit in a puddle?
Anyway, this idea means building the infrastructure in to every single existing and new high-rise building, and passing the costs along to the residents.
How, again, is this supposed to be an improvement over the current method of paying some guy $12/hr to drive around dropping off boxes?
The number of UAVs it would take to replace a single FedEx or UPS truck would certainly be several orders of magnitude noisier.
Not to mention, it seems like it would be far more expensive.
What do you suppose is the annual TCO on all the drones that would be in the aforementioned, hypothetical fleet? Not just cheap toys, but robust airframes capable of carrying 50 lbs+ loads over several miles of space? Figure that up, then compare it to how much it costs to pay 1 guy $12.50/hr, or $26,000/yr, to drive a truck that runs about $10,000/yr to own.
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?
