I thought whiskey stones looked awesome, but according to basically every single Amazon review of them or similar products, they are useless... The guy at Worst Things For Sale actually crunched the numbers to show why they suck for cooling drinks down: http://theworstthingsforsale.com/2013/05/27/whiskey-stones/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congratulations, Techdirt engineers -- once again you've broken something.
In order to drive pageviews and lower the bounce rate, we'd need to actually trim the articles and thus force people to click through to the post pages -- which is exactly what the expand feature avoids. The expandable posts mean all reading can still happen on the main page, so it has no impact on pageviews or bounce rate...
Re: Re: Re: Congratulations, Techdirt engineers -- once again you've broken something.
Sentence diagrams are potentially good but, like most things in education, they are way overused and/or used completely wrongly by the school.
Doing a couple sentence diagrams throughout the course of learning about grammar would be fine -- but the focus should be on developing a keen intuitive sense for English grammar, and knowing the basic idea of how to do things more scientifically only when needed (which it rarely will be for most people). But, of course, you can't test intuition...
It's very similar to what's wrong with math class. Students are given a solution upfront, then made to use it over and over and over again until they memorize it, without ever checking to see if they understand it. And nothing is more baffling to a student than being forced to prove or solve the obvious -- tools, like a sentence diagram or a piece of mathematical notation, should emerge from problems. That's how we created them. No human being ever diagrammed a sentence until someone was faced with some really complex language and had a reason to want to parse it out in detail, just like no human being did long division until they had some numbers they couldn't divide with their brain and a few fingers.
If anything, the best way to teach sentence diagrams would be to first get students to spend a day examining sentences of increasing complexity, and encourage them to use pen & paper to help separate out the elements and draw it all out in a way that makes sense. Then, after they've developed a dozen of their own quick methods for sentence diagramming and are discovering the limitations of them, show them the standardized solution (but let them keep using their own if they like it better). Of course, such a process wouldn't fit into a standardized testing model at all.
There are people who actually don't drink, do drugs, or cheat on their spouses, you know.
No, but the vast majority of people have at some point in their life (most often high school and/or college) done a few things that right now would be considered embarrassing or scandalous for a public figure. Drinking, drugs and adultery are certainly among the most common, but there are plenty of others like questionable activism/affiliation, "deviant" sexual behaviour of some brand or another, an outburst of violence, cheating at a test or a game...
Personally, I'm not sure someone who has lived their life without any missteps is capable of understanding, much less leading, a populace made up mostly of imperfect people.
Well said. It's a bit of an awkward transition now, but I've always felt it's going to adjust our norms for the better. Often I think of this in terms of the people who freak out that kids are racking up so much incriminating evidence of their behaviour that nobody will be able to get jobs, much less run for office, in the future.
But in reality, the norms should adjust. When every candidate for a job or for office, every actor and singer and olympic athlete, has a few photos of them holding a whiskey bottle and a bong, society simply won't be able to condemn such activity so harshly. Indeed, people who don't have a little colour showing through their facade will probably seem eerily suspect (as they do already in extreme cases)
I do see your point, but on digging further into the numbers, it seems to me that the premise still holds. We don't have netflix ratings for the show unfortunately, but lets compare it to some other shows using TV ratings and piracy numbers, plus AD's ratings from when it was on Fox:
- Some selections from the top pirated shows of 2012 (when GoT was #1), with both piracy & tv numbers (all based on a single popular episode):
Hit shows on broadcast networks:
Big Bang Theory - 3.2-mil DL, 15.8-mil TV
How I Met Your Mother - 2.9-mil DL, 10.1-mil TV
House - 2.3-mil DL, 9.7-mil TV
Hit shows on specialty cable networks:
Game of Thrones - 4.2-mil downloaders, 4.2-mil TV viewers
Breaking Bad - 2.5-mil DL, 2.9-mil TV
Homeland - 2.4-mil DL, 2.3-mil TV
Dexter - 3.8-mil DL, 2.7-mil TV
So the pattern is fairly clear: broadcast networks still have far more TV viewers than downloaders, whereas cable networks have number that are close, or sometimes even fewer viewers than downloaders.
Now, we don't know how many people watched AD on Netflix... but we do know that Netflix has almost 30-million subscribers, which is about the same as HBO's audience in the U.S. -- HBO's global audience is about 115-million.
Obviously, we are lacking some of the key data points that would let us draw a *solid* conclusion about piracy rates -- but when you look at the audience size numbers and compare it to some other shows, it still seems highly likely that
Yeah, you're probably right. The copyrightable elements of a photo are things like angle, framing, composition, lighting, etc. -- all of which are not only fixed for mugshots, they are fixed so as to be as minimal and uncreative as possible, to give the clearest and most objective view of the subject matter. And the subject matter itself is the one thing that is definitively not part of a photography copyright.
The question of whether section 105 (the automatic public-domain dedication of government works) applies to state & local governments is not settled -- it's considered unclear, with the copyright office taking no official stance, and allowing registration of state materials based on the "rule of doubt" while waiting for a court to give a definitive answer (if that ever happens, which it might not)
When "doubt" is right there in the copyright office's rule for accepting such registrations, I think "unclear" and/or "fuzzy" are quite accurate depictions of the status of the law
That's now how Kickstarter works. Everyone who pledges gets something in return -- if you get 10 times the money, you have to deliver 10 times as many products. It's not free bonus money. Moreover, most projects have "stretch goals" where they promise upgrades/additional features to what they are offering if the project hits set amounts beyond the goal -- e.g. in a board game I recently backed, the additional money allowed them to add a second side to the board, upgrade certain pieces from cardboard to plastic, etc., all of which meant every single backer got MORE for their money
With a digital good, of course, you can deliver more copies of a product without increasing costs -- which is why digital goods tend to focus even more heavily on stretch goals. The Double Fine Adventure project was increased in scope based on the huge amount of money it made, allowing them to add all sorts of new features to the game.
So basically darryl, everything you said is wrong. The extra money IS used, the creators ARE trying to meet expectations (and often do) and nobody is "pocketing" anything (very few Kickstarter creators walk away with money left over -- in fact, in most cases, unforeseen costs mean they still operate the whole thing on a shoestring budget)