I parsed this as "garage floor" and I was so confused.

It's been creaking when the temperature drops below the 30s? Huh? What? Even then, you don't lubricate a squeaky floor, you secure it.

Fecal Transplants.

Yes seriously.

It's exactly what you think. Healthy person's poop in a blender, pour into a bag, enema. (Or, if you can hold your nausea, a nasal tube that goes directly to your stomach, to hit the upper digestive tract too).

If it works, it works fuckin' instantly. You now have a healthy person's guy biome.

Also, an instant cure for c-diff poisoning and a bunch of other stuff.

Probably the lowest tech, most massively impactful treatment we've discovered for tons of stuff.

TIL.

Thanks.

> In a constant torque motor the fan would increase amp draw as it attempts to overcome the higher external static pressure.

... is that the type of fan used in whole-house HVAC systems?

... no.

[Edited to add, see below, in some cases, actually yes]

> Closing just one duct has tripped my blower fan in the past from the change in air pressure.

That's not how motor load on a fan works.

The more you block it up, the lower power the fan consumes.

This is counterintuitive to some people, but is a fact.

> This is an eloquent take on the fourth test of fair use under US Copyright law, namely "Effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Under this economic interpretation Disney's Song of the South ought to be available, and it is. Disney has refused to re-release this film and it remains under copyright until 2041.

Indeed, and that interpretation has controversy.

It's not that the copyright is invalid, but, with the goal of maintaining public access to creative works, it's not hard to make a case that you have not harmed the market for the good, if they intend not to sell it.

A more peculiar case is, remember in the 90s when Disney would stagger the release of their movies on VHS? If you didn't buy it, it might not be available for another 5 years or whatnot. How's copyright supposed to handle that?

The same way copyright handles everything: Whoever spends the most on lawyers wins :p

> Author's life + 20 years would be acceptable in my opinion. That would ensure that the author's offspring are adults and can take care of themselves.

But that's not the purpose of copyrights.

The purpose is to encourage the creation of creative works for society.

You cannot encourage new creative works from a corpse.

You have to think "At what point does the lack of a copyright future, prevent this person from creating it in the first place?"

And the answer is probably 5-10 years. You've milked it all but dry after 5-10 years.

How much money does a movie make 5-10 years after it's published? A trickle. Not enough for a studio to say "Well if it's only 5 years, we're not making the movie in the first place."

Musicians wouldn't retire or stop making albums (or good albums) so readily if they can't rely on evergreen sales of stuff they did 20, 30, 40 years ago.

Etc.

The purpose isn't "Your children should keep earning money from this."

Once upon a time there were no copyrights at all. You created something because you wanted to create it. People still made stuff.

> I am genuinely curious as to how The Internet Archive can have this clearly copyrighted material stored and served without any rights

Copyrights are actually the exception. It says "You get to be the only one who controls this, for an amount of time, before it belongs to everyone." It's just that that limit is like 75 years after the death of the creator.

One of the provisions of fair use has to do with the commercial impact of the copyright violation. I.E. How damaging you're being by distributing it.

If someone will not sell or make available the work, then it's pretty easy to argue that there is no lost commercial value. This is also true of out of print books, classic video games, etc.

The whole point of copyright law was to encourage the creation of new works, by which all of society benefits. Society benefits a lot more from the availability of "lost" works than from protecting people who are withholding it.

On a tangent, it's a bit of a joke that copyright (which used to be like, 5-10 years) existed to give a creator an encouragement to create creative works by allowing a window of time to profit from them. But, to not make it indefinite, so that creators, like Youtubers, have to constantly create new content in order to profit from it. The whole point was "More people will write books, perform plays, create maps, etc. Society is way better off." Exactly how encouraged is a creator, to create new works... 75 years after they're dead?

Post it to IMGUR and link the URL here.

Jesus fuck, has the internet become so technically illiterate? We used to be kings.

Naw, way before then. It was either Ben Johnson or Donovan Bailey that I'm thinking of.

I dislike how when you have a record, you stop playing and raise your arms. CONTINUE GETTING THE BEST RECORD.

I recall years ago someone set the world record for the 100M sprint, and they were so far ahead they raised their hands a couple strides before the finish line. Olympic world record. I was like, motherfucker, your record would be more significant if you just ran it full out. Now we'll never know how fast you could've beat it.