I used to see this happen with our old TV's at an old house with really bad grounding. I always wondered why it did that.
We could be playing a video game or movie, and set all the other tv's to channel 2 or something like that, while we played on channel 1. You could see the action on each of them. Almost 1:1 on the reaction times, albeit a little fuzzy.
Yes, but it defeats the purpose of the intent to share with as many relevant people as possible; since you have to build up that membership count in the first place.
So it really sucks when the Reddit mods get out of control from time to time over what should just be simple situations able to be remedied with a simple 'sorry'.
Hi there. You actually just kind of stepped into my ring here... sort of. Not an expert; but definitely more knowledgeable than the random person out there.
I used to work with G.E organisms. Particularly enzymes.
Long story short is this. While you are technically correct, there is a glaring issue surrounding the more... radical... kinds of G.E. See, the problem is that nothing on earth really is (at least as far as we can tell) meant to be cross bred between completely different species of plant/animal; or plants with animals...
That's not to say it is all immediately bad, harmful, dangerous, etc. BUT it does mean we should be careful we aren't causing ourselves more problems than solutions by mucking around with the genetic code of the things we eat...
And that's not just my opinion... This is just a fact of life when it comes to human nature. For every solution we come up with, we tend to find 2 to 3 more new problems to solve.
Now I don't know about you, but I prefer my food to not be causing me issues that would have never existed before except for scientists playing god with our food...
Take it or leave it, that's my stance on it. IF they can prove it is actually safe over the course of a multi-year study with full follow up procedures; then I am fine with eating it. Mostly.
If not however, then I really don't care about anyone's opinion on the matter. Because at the end of the day, there is a HUGE difference from what Norman Borlaug was doing with Wheat; and what we are doing with things like Corn today.
Where are all you people when we invented artificial fertilizer and grew the human population by 5 billion in 100 years?
Yet here we are with concern trolling over absurd scenarios where the well-meaning genetic scientist "inserts" a gene and produces some kind of killer organism. Meanwhile evolution is just out there rolling the dice every time.
> See, the problem is that nothing on earth really is (at least as far as we can tell) meant to be cross bred between completely different species of plant/animal; or plants with animals...
Everything is crossbred! You are made out of all imaginable crosses! We subsumed mitochondria!
Tell me you have never lived on a farm, without telling me you have never lived on a farm. I say this, because if you had lived on a farm; you would know it's really, really fucking difficult to spray a chemical on a bunch of weeds separately when they are infesting your entire crop...
Though I do agree with the premise that we should only be using it on the weeds, if at all. I personally don't think we should be using it at all though, because we can easily deal with all the weeds and such; by hiring laborers.
Congratulations, we just created a new job market out of an old profession that should have NEVER gone away.
P.S. Just as an FYI for anyone who figures this would be silly to do...
We already do it to some degree with crops that are better off hand picked... And there are A LOT of people who could use that job... and would have no problem doing it either.
> if you had lived on a farm; you would know it's really,
> really difficult to spray a chemical on a bunch of weeds
> separately when they are infesting your entire crop...
It's difficult, so we should let the farmers poison our children? Writing secure software is difficult, should we accept security issues so the poor devs won't have to work hard? Keeping airplanes in the sky is hard, should we let Boeing crash a passenger jet every year to save some grueling engineering work?
Farmers know that it's used not only to kill weeds but also as a desiccant just before harvest, to harvest sooner. That is likely the cause of the contamination in the food supply.
> because we can easily deal with all the weeds and such; by hiring laborers.
This, or a combination of laborers and robots. Robotic arms and cameras have come a long way – surely we can invest enough in them instead of conducting large chemical trials on the human population?
luckily these things are getting easier. with spot treatment from drones you can hit areas of crops that are affected by bugs or weeds. blanket chemicals won't be eliminated from soil prep for a long time though.
Yes, the drone approach is very tempting. But I still insist on us removing the need to use of manmade chemicals that don't exist in nature naturally... (That I am aware of...)
For instance, I am all fine and dandy with using lye soap and vinegar to kill weeds. It's not 100% effective, but it's also not going to poison you just because your potatoes happen to be near by. Lye is a tricky example, because it's not exactly always natural, but not exactly always manmade either. You can get naturally occuring sources, etc.
> Every time I looked closely at their text I could peer into their minds, and inside lay a thought process oblivious to what writing really means.
This is the literal exact basis of what we all tend to see with folk online when it comes to projecting their own thoughts and assumptions onto the text of others...
> Let’s change that. I used to misunderstand writing too, and my style suffered severely as a result. Now not only is it miles better, but I’m also a smarter human thanks to realizing the true meaning of writing. To get there, I had to spot the misconceptions I’ve been fed about writing. Reading this piece, I’m sure you’ll at least identify a couple you can build on to change your writing mindset.
Yeah... like not assuming you know everything going on in a persons head just because you read some words they wrote as a rough copy of their work...
Jeezus...
Anyways. He's right about people having that misconception about writing being easy... but I can't be bothered to read anything further due to the blowhard nature of his words he chose.
Here's a helpful trick for those of you who might need to get some firewood going but the chainsaw gave up the ghost.
It can be kind of tricky and kind of dangerous for the foot if you aren't careful; but you can split a log length wise using only your axe and some torque. Carefully work your way up the length of the log slamming the axe down into the wood in a straight line, or as straight as possible. Depending on the tree and your strength; this may take one or two passes to get it splitting apart nicely.
Worst case scenario is you start cutting off small chunks on the side; but honestly you gotta be wailing pretty hard to get that happening on a strong log.
Otherwise, once you have your first pass done, start bringing the axe down harder to finish the split; twisting the axe each time to help spread it apart. If you did it right, you should end up with two long halves of a full log. Once that is done, you can do it again with each half; and then buck it down into smaller pieces with a hand saw.
Yes, you could use the hand saw first; but this is a much faster method. Or at least I think it is. I can get through a full log in about 5 minutes or so. 10 minutes tops. Never timed it; I just know how long I can stand outside chopping wood with a pair of jeans and t-shirt in -30c weather.
This is very hard work with just an axe. You have to use wedges as well. Once you get them in, just keep hammering them in equally until the log falls apart.
A maul would be the proper tool when you've already got the log cut up into firewood length, and you can enter into the end grain. I think what GP is describing is to split the log before cutting it to length, which (as far as I'm aware) is also an unorthodox technique. A maul wouldn't be acute enough to cut into the face grain.
Ahhh, thanks. I must have read it wrong and kinda was wondering why a long description for basic wood splitting. I think you're right, they're splitting an entire tree lengthwise. I've never attempted such a thing, so have no idea what would work best. I'd probably start it with an axe, then try to finish with a maul, but that's a complete guess.
But it's just pedantry anyhow, as many people in the US use 'axe' to mean everything from hatchets to mauls to fireman's axes. I do wish people would use the correct terms in general, as it causes a ton of consumer confusion. There's a really light felling axe I like, and every bad review is a broken handle trying to split giant pieces of wood.
I'm not sure if this is going to be seen, but I was temp banned or am still shadowbanned or something?
Either or. If you do see this, yes, you are both right that I would be best to be using a maul.
But not everyone has a proper splitting maul available, and mine was kind of missing that day... So I used my 20$ timber store 'everything' axe. I should have been more specific, as you make a point of. I call it that, cause I'm not sure which kind of axe it really is, but it gets used for pretty much everything, lol.
What will likely end up happening is the more dedicated fans of the series will do what others have done with old MMO's and make their own servers and such to ensure the game stays playable.
There may be some legal issues, but once Ubisoft does this on Sep. 1st, there are some technicalities surrounding vaporware and such that make it legal to 'own' the game without ever paying for it, etc and so forth. Running servers to make it playable again as well would also be fair-game as well as I understand it.
But I am not a lawyer, so if anyone knows better please by all means say so; but keep in mind I speak from the Canadian side of the law. So there may be differences that matter.
Note this move, crappy as it is, wouldn't turn the game into "vaporware".
I think you actually mean "abandonware". But it wouldn't, either. I was part of the abandonware community for decades -- ah, good old Home of the Underdogs -- and the sad reality is that abandonware is not a legal term, and the legal owners of games long abandoned and forgotten are sometimes petty enough to actively prevent them from being made available or playable again.
It must also be said that other authors and publishers kindly make them available for free, or at least don't interfere with preservation efforts. But abandonware, as such, is not a legal thing and nobody is entitled to playing abandoned games :(
Yes. From the other side of the table, there's always an option to rerelease a game as an emulated version for instance. They don't even have to do it themselves, they can just license the IP to companies willing to take the risk.
So the rights holder have no incentive to ever declare it "abandonware" nor give up on the IP, and rights last long enough that ignoring them for decades isn't enough to make them worthless.
Yes, I meant Abandonware, thanks. Sorry about that.
Hmm... I could have sworn it was legal; but it looks like it's only legal once the copyright expires and nothing prior like failure to support...
Even then, all they have to do is do what Nintendo did with the e-shop.
That said, I think there is legal grounds to take these kinds of scenarios into court to attempt to get the laws changed. Maybe not in past decades, but the current situation with digital goods basically requires that abandonware be legal; lest we are just going to roll over and give in to these companies that only care about profits solely and only.
Yes, profits are important; but so is repaying your fanbase for their loyalty. They might not be able to keep these games running forever, but that shouldn't stop people from being able to do it for themselves.
The only game this doesn't seem to work on for me is Civilization; since I am often fixing the game now to work better or how it should have to begin with.
We could be playing a video game or movie, and set all the other tv's to channel 2 or something like that, while we played on channel 1. You could see the action on each of them. Almost 1:1 on the reaction times, albeit a little fuzzy.