|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Big Toe
1
« on: March 14, 2025, 09:30 »
Your ANZUS treaty from almost 100 years ago is an analogue of the Budapest Memorandum, by which the US, Great Britain and France guaranteed Ukraine protection. No, it is not. ANZUS is an alliance agreement. The Budapest Memorandum basically is an agreement to honor the territorial integrity of the Ukraine. There is no obligation for any party to go to war with another signing state or a third party that violates this integrity. Besides, France didn't even sign the Memorandum and it is disputed whether it is legally binding at all, but even if it is, only Russia is in violation of it. The fact that the Chinese fleet freely surrounded your island, did everything it wanted, conducted reconnaissance and realized that Australia has no army, this is already Australia's defeat. At the same time, the US did absolutely nothing.
If I were you, I would already sail away from Australia as far as possible.
It wasn't "the Chinese fleet", it was only three ships and of course the USA did nothing about, because the Chinese had every right to do this and three ships can hardly be considered a threat. Personally, it is obvious to me that China is planning to occupy Australia.
An invasion attempt would be suicidal, because it would mean war with the USA and the UK at the very least and there is no way that China would be able to stage a successful invasion so far from its own borders or supply any troops that may be able to land against all odds. Not with the combined fleets and airforces of the USA, the UK and Australia as adversaries. Particularly not with the allied fleet having land based air cover in addition to a large number of aircraft carriers, whereas the Chinese could only rely on two aircraft carriers for air cover.
2
« on: March 07, 2025, 22:01 »
The UK has no army.
https://youtu.be/vgJNOY47zrg?t=2012
Apparently you are not even able to understand your own language. But that's not really a surprise.
Valerii Zaluzhnyi has illustrated NATO's overall coordination problems. He's right about that.
But he didn't explicitly say that the UK doesn't have an army.
Incidentally, the UK is ranked 6th in the Global Fire Power Index.
I don't understand why you keep spreading lies and disinformation here. It definitely doesn't help Ukraine.
43:13 - 43:15 and then there are a few more seconds where he says this.
Do you know Ukrainian or how old are you? Your post was logical from the mouth of an arrogant teenager.
There are Ukrainians around you, ask them to translate Zaluzhny's speech into German.
Regardless of what he said, the UK certainly does have an army, even if it is relatively small. It is still a bit larger than the German army, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army
3
« on: February 28, 2025, 16:01 »
I searched for "rugs" and got mountains.
http://kinkyspot.com/assets/adobesearch.jpg
Probably because those are rugged landscapes. "Rugged" and "rugs" give the same search result when I search in my portfolio. Any chance you used the keyword rugged for those mountains? If not, perhaps some synonym that caused the search to also show the picture when the user search for rugs or rugged. If you keyword in another language than English, it may have translated one of your keywords to rugged.
4
« on: January 05, 2025, 16:12 »
In fact, this is technically correct, because the AI system is very similar to a Ki image generator. In the end, not a single original pixel of your photo is retained - the image is generated block by block in a different resolution/de-noised/business.
Strictly speaking, it is no longer your image, but a completely generated image to which you no longer have the rights.
Using an AI tool for sharpening certainly does not alter a picture in a way that you lose copyright, strictly speaking or otherwise. That no pixel of the original image may be retained is hardly an argument, because that if true of a plethora of filters or other modification. If you apply a filter to a photo, so that it looks like an impressionist painting with Photoshop, no pixel is the same either. Even if you just make a picture darker or brighter or change the colour temperature, no pixel may be exactly the same afterwards, if you change it enough. But you still have the copyright.
5
« on: December 04, 2024, 15:51 »
anyone holding the same?
I am more of a cat person, so, no.
6
« on: November 21, 2024, 11:58 »
I uploaded what I consider a high commercial value image and it was reviewed and accepted in less than eight hours thus I know what's going on. ... But I now know the real deal...
As single test with a sample size of one is hardly conclusive evidence for anything.
7
« on: October 20, 2024, 13:35 »
a) AHAHAHAH HAHAHAH... Lol - well mr. braniac... Did you even READ the document you posted? I guess it must be "official" since you 'say' so - since you posted this ONE link - apparently it "must" be true? Haha. No. But - I actually DID read it (did you?) And if you go to page 11 of the 23 page document - where they quantify their data sources - they STILL say they do not have complete data (aka inaccurate measuring)... Like RIGHT FROM THEIR OWN DOCUMENT ---> "When this project started in April 2022, almost no country provided systematic information. As of February 2024, 25 of the 42 donor governments now maintain a regularly updated overview website on their military, humanitarian, or financial assistance to Ukraine"... So if that statement is accurate - they don't have complete data! You really should read the documents you try to use to back up your claims.
The most important donors like the USA, Germany or the UK certainly have provided the necessary information. It is very unlikely that some smaller countries make up for the missing 700+ billions from your claim. https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Bundeswehr-erhaelt-18-neue-Leopard-Panzer-article24145229.html
b) Going to your 2nd point - obviously well you don't actually read things, you just 'assume'... I was referring to "a1 abram tanks". But - again, how do you arrive at your statements? Since you seem to be in the 'lemme post a random link to support my statemtent' mode - I'll post a link for you "https://www.newsweek.com/cost-western-battle-tanks-m1-abrams-leopard-2-challenger-2-1776725" - apparently they only cost $6 million each as well... So - someone is pocketing some nice change if you see them going for $30 million.
To my knowledge, there is no tank called "a1 abram". There is an M1 Abrams, but that has not been delivered in large quantities. As I worte, most moder western main battle tank the Ukraine received habe been Leopards, so their price is most significant. The 6 million figure quoted for the Leopard in your link refers to older reburbished models, not brand new ones and as I wrote, they are cheaper, but there is only a very limited supply of them. The M1 Abrams cost 6 million Dollars in 1999, so it is a lot more expensive today. According to Wikipedia, the M1A2 SEP v3 Abrams costs $24 million a piece as of 2022.
8
« on: October 19, 2024, 16:26 »
Another topic on this forum that's going to go nowhere..... 
lol, oh? for the ignorant that want to stick their heads the sand, maybe. anyhoo... good day!
Believing in made up conspiracy theories is hardly the opposite of ignorance.
9
« on: October 19, 2024, 16:23 »
As for Ukraine, I already wrote in another thread (which was deleted by the enemies of democracy) that Ukraine does not need money, Ukraine only needs weapons. As a result, the Democrats spend US taxpayers' money on God knows what, and Ukraine does not receive the weapons it needs. Biden is a friend and partner of putin and the Russians.
Interesting. In "the west", "biden" is portrayed as a "dear friend of ukraine".
Question though. How much "actual" devastation have you actually seen if you live there (as opposed to how the media portrays things?) Also... apparently with canada/the usa/etc - "ukraine" seems to have gotten upwards of a MINIMUM of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS to "fight the war". One TRILLION. With a T. Do you know how many hot dogs you can buy with one TRILLION dollars?
If you just make stuff up, any conclusion drawn from it, is bound to be nonsense. The real amount of help is far lower, less than a third of what you claim: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/Lez say a "tank" costs $5 million (thats for a top notch tank, like lets say a brand spanking new tank like an a1 abrams. You could of course head over to tanks-r-us, and pick up tanks for like $250k a piece, but lets say you want a tank that has the nice leather seats and gps navigator, and you want to give the delivery guy a nice $1 million tip a piece) . That means. There "should" be like 200,000 tanks. Putting that in perspective, according to google, ALL OF RUSSIA only has about 2,000 "decent" tanks. So ukrainian forces would OUTNUMBER russian forces by ONE HUNDRED to 1 in terms of the number of tanks. Ukraine also according to google, has about 38 million people. That means there "should" be a tank for every 200 people... or - if you have a small city (say 500k people) you should see about 2,500 tanks just roaming the streets, like 4-5 tanks for every street corner... Curious - do you see ANYTHING like that...?
So much nonsense, where to begin? Well , first, a top notch tank like the Leopard 2 costs up to 30 Million Euros a piece and most modern tanks the Ukraine received are Leopards. https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Bundeswehr-erhaelt-18-neue-Leopard-Panzer-article24145229.htmlOlder model that are refurbished cost less, but there is only a limited supply of them. Even brand new tank cannot be produced at any number, because the capacity to do so is just not there. Then, of course, the war help for the Ukraine has of course not spent entirely on tank, quite the contrary. The Ukraine has received all kind of stuff, like air defense system, missiles, artillery, ammunition and much more. And, of course, you do not usually see the tanks the Ukraine did receive roaming the cities, because what would be the sense of that? They are at or near the front or held back as reserve.
10
« on: October 02, 2024, 18:04 »
It is comparable to having two people go on voyage to different places with a box containing a ring each. One ring has a ruby, the other a sapphire. When one person opens the box and finds a ring with a ruby, they know that the other person must have the ring with a sapphire. They cannot use this knowledge to transmit any information, though. If they change the stone in their ring, the stone in the other ring does not change.
This is interesting analogy. But isn't this already transmission of information? "Ring Sapphire State" has been communicated to "Ruby Ring Person" when he opened his box; instantly across arbitrary distance.
No, not really, because they do not receive the information about the other ring from the other ring, but from opening their own box and finding their own ring. Let's say the other ring has since been destroyed. Then the person with the ruby would still find a ring with a ruby in their box. And they would still know that the other person set out with a sapphire, even though they are not aware of it's destruction. So the knowledge they gain from opening the box is not affected by the other ring, but based solely on the knowledge that there were two different rings at the start and finding out about their own ring. And, of course, if the person with the ruby opens their box, they know that the other person has the sapphire (or at least started the journey with it), but the person with the sapphire is still in the dark, until they open their box themselves, because there is no information transfered.
11
« on: October 02, 2024, 16:49 »
No, We Still Can't Use Quantum Entanglement To Communicate Faster Than Light
Interesting thoughts.
No, of course not - right now. But quantum entanglement could be next frontier. Notion that 2 separate entities on quantum level are "joined on the hip" so that change on one is automatically reflected across arbitrary distance on the other is mind boggling.
You cannot do that, though. If you change the quantum state of one entity, the entanglement is broken. You can only do an experiment to find out the quantum state and then have information about the quantum state of the other entity. But the the experiment does not determine the state, it just finds out about it. Imho entanglement is therefor a misnomer. It is comparable to having two people go on voyage to different places with a box containing a ring each. One ring has a ruby, the other a sapphire. When one person opens the box and finds a ring with a ruby, they know that the other person must have the ring with a sapphire. They cannot use this knowledge to transmit any information, though. If they change the stone in their ring, the stone in the other ring does not change.
12
« on: September 27, 2024, 13:11 »
It is recommended to vaccinate against flu once a year. But I don't see such recommendations against Covid in this thread. Everyone says that it is enough to get three basic vaccinations against Covid and then not to do them. So Covid vaccinations are different from flu vaccinations.
At least here in Germany there is no general recommendation for a vaccination against the flu each year, either only for people over 60 and some other risk groups. It is basically the same for covid. I will get another shot soon, but that's just me and due to the fact that I carry several risk factors for covid. If you are in doubt, whether you should get vaccinated again, it is best to consult with a health care professional offline, with whom you can discuss your case, rather than relying on anonymous advice from people on the Internet who know nothing about your situation.
13
« on: September 27, 2024, 12:08 »
You are mistaken. However, if you don't believe you are - explain why.
What's the point? You don't believe there is a virus, inspite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. You believe that the vaccinations not only do not help but are actually designed to make you sick, inspite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary and even though that does not make any sense whatsoever in the first place. So no argument and no amount of evidence is going to convince you. b) How do you arrive at the conclusion that a "booster" is a "fact"? Do you not recall the rhetoric from the media that "its just 2 weeks to 'flatten the curve'". then "just 2 months". then "just 2 years". then initially it was "just one shot". then "just two shots". then "just two shots + booster". then just "two shots + two boosters"... then - you have people like stoker that want to get injected "annually"? Serious. Why not inject yourself once an hour ever hour by that reasoning? What "facts" are you referring to? It's not a "fact". In fact, it is pretty made up.
1. It was always clear that you need at least two shots to be fully vaccinated with most vaccines. That was certainly the case for the new mRNA vaccines with which most people here in Germany and I believe in most parts of the Western World have been vaccinated with. 2. The scientific mind, unlike the mind of Conspiracy Theorists, is open to change it's opinion when new evidence is gathered. In the case of covid, it was not clear from the beginning how well and for how long the vaccination would protect. There are some vaccines where one vaccination is enough for lifelong protection like for measles and there a other vaccinations that protect only for a period of time and even then not completly, like for influenza. It turned out that the covid vaccines fall into the latter category. And that corresponds with the disease. You usually get measles only once and are then protected for life, but you can get covid more than once, just like the flu or the common cold. You cannot expect the vaccine to provide a lifelong protection, when even the disease does not offer this protection.
15
« on: September 10, 2024, 09:02 »
But your quotation explained "how much your images are seen" , not your stats and with that your Adobe contributor position.
Why should we care about our stats and our Adobe contributor position, unless they influence the search position of our images, or in other words, how much our images are seen?
16
« on: August 22, 2024, 13:20 »
How difficult can it be to write an algorithm with a few adjustable parameters so the queue is always at maximum two weeks or whatever their desired target range is depending on the content?
I think the problem is that they are just overwhelmed with AI content and no shuffling around of resources between different queues is going to solve this problem. They very likely would have to expand the available resources. They may be reluctant to do this, because they do not know how long the current influx will remain at this level. Or perhaps they are working on tools that allow the help of AI with reviewing AI content (and possibly other content).
17
« on: July 05, 2024, 06:56 »
Perhaps nobody included Pixta in their this month. There are a number of agencies with the rating zero, so it seems the voters have made no (or very little) money with them this month, so I doubt Pixta would have been excluding due to low earnings. Two people seem to have included Canstockphoto in their vote this month..
18
« on: June 05, 2024, 16:49 »
Since a warp drive is unfortunatly impossible, aliens would have to travel at sublight speed, so it would take them more than 26,000 years to cover the distance.
Now, this is the Himalayas of arrogance or ignorance. Random dude on a microstock forum declaring what is possible and what not in the Universe and the wider reality.
Random dude has some knowledge of physics. People dealing with the subject matter professionally think otherwise:
https://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/3240.html?id=6192
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240506270015/en/New-Study-Achieves-Breakthrough-in-Warp-Drive-Design
First ot the second link: If you read this carefully, you will notice that ths is about a hypothetical drive that shares some common principles with the warp drive from Star Trek, but works only at velocities below the speed of light: "The team introduced the concept of a "constant-velocity subluminal warp drive" aligned with the principles of relativity. "Therefor, I would say that warp drive is a misnomer here, because usually warp speed is considered to be a speed greater than the speed of light. In any case, it does not solve the problem to cover large distances during space travel in a reasonable time. To the second link: This guy claims to have found some loophole in Einsteins field equations that enable travel at speed greater than the speed of light. As this goes totally against the whole point of relativity, you will forgive me, if I remain sceptical. I think, one of the reasons that physists deal with this kind of speculations is that theoretical physics seems to have reached a bit of a dead end. String theory is still unproven, we are no closer to solving the mystery of dark matter than we were 20 years ago and we have still no idea how to develop a quantum theory of gravitation. Therefore, quite a few theoretical phyisists are desperate enough to develop more fancyful theories and make outlandish claims. Even if it comes to nothing in the end, it is still a possibility to get yourself a name.
19
« on: June 05, 2024, 16:09 »
- You have ZERO proof that physical matter can achieve consciousness and perceive qualia. But you probably believe in it like in the gospel, because the mainstream was told to believe in it.
You do not believe that humans consist of physical matter? Or do you deny that humans achieved consciousness?
Where did I write something like what you imply?
1. Human bodies consist of physical matter.
There is zero evidence that humans anything else then their bodies. 2. There is absolutely ZERO proof that physical matter can achieve consciousness and perceive qualia on its own.
Many people have experienced NDEs or out-of-body experiences. I have also had an OOBE, so I know they are true.
Out-of-body experiences are but an illusion and can be artificially induced by chemicals. And please explains this: If people are able to perceice light and sound during an out-of-body experience, then why do people become blind when their eyes are injured? Why do we have eyes in the first place, if people are able to see without them during out-of-body experiences?
20
« on: June 05, 2024, 12:28 »
- You have ZERO proof that physical matter can achieve consciousness and perceive qualia. But you probably believe in it like in the gospel, because the mainstream was told to believe in it.
You do not believe that humans consist of physical matter? Or do you deny that humans achieved consciousness? - There is no proof of dark matter. And yet the mainstream accepts it. It was invented to prop up the prevalent model of the universe. But a working model, even if it fits the data, is not the same as proof. To understand what "proof" is, check how Pythagorean theorem is proven (spoiler: not by testing dozens of triangles).
So, dark matter was hypothesized in order to explain observations (data) within the assumed laws of physics. It could be right, I am not saying anything. Without dark matter/dark energy we have a gigantic anomaly within the current paradigm.
Dark matter is a rather broad concept. No one really knows what it is or whether it really exists or if there is another explanation for the observed data after all. There are a number of hyptheses what dark matter and/or dark energy consist of, but so far, none is really convincing. Most physicists probably believe in the existence of dark matter and/or dark energy, because they currently seem like the most simple explanation for the available data. However, I think most would also acknowledge the possibility that this is wrong, just like the luminiferous aether as a medium for the propagation of light turned out to be wrong.
21
« on: April 23, 2024, 11:04 »
How are we different from a herd of cows or rams? We are no different !!!
Speak for yourself!
22
« on: April 22, 2024, 16:41 »
but still the problem with the newspaper example is missing
Being nitpicky, and IANAL, maybe they're banking on 'permanance':
Under section 59(1) of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz ber Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), it is permitted to "reproduce, distribute and communicate to the public, by means of painting, drawing, photography, or cinematography, works located permanently in public streets, ways, or public open spaces".
I have no idea. It's a can of worms.
According to Wikimedia:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#Freedom_of_panorama
It's the sort of stuff that keeps lawyers in champagne, and scares the rest of us witless if we think about it for long enough.
No, the freedom of panorama (Panoramafreiheit) has nothing to do with the limits of editorial usage of photos, but is about commercial use. It means that the commercial use photos of buildings and pieces of art permanently located in a public space is not restricted by the protection of a buildings architecture or the copyright of a piece of art, like a statue. The commercial use can be prohibited due to other laws, though, for example, you cannot use a picture of a Mac Donalds restaurant commercially, because the golden M is protected as a trademark. The limits for editorial use are far wider. For example, pictures of the Wrapped Reichstag cannot be used commercially, because it was only wrapped temporarily, but photos of it could still be used editorially. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrapped_Reichstag
23
« on: April 21, 2024, 14:30 »
I could be wrong, but this just smells bad of frivolous lawsuit and something other than, illegal image use, or copyright infringing for showing the cover of a magazine, as an incidental part of a broader scene.
.
I am not so sure about that. Bild is frequently involved in lawsuits. They should have a bunch of lawyers working for them, who are experienced enough not to start a frivolous lawsuit, without any chance of success. Also, Bild as a newspaper uses editorial photos themselves all the time. They would hurt themselves if they helped set a precedence restriciting the use of editorial photos. My guess is that there may have been some photos where it is at least not absurd to assume that they might violate Bild's rights. Alamy may then have deleted all images featuring Bild as precautionary measure, even though probably only some of them have been a problem and are now trying to collect the money for the lawsuit from all the people whose photos have been deleted. This could probably successfully be contested in court, but who is going to sue them over 20 or even 100 or 200 Pounds or Euros? It is really hard to say without knowing more about what the lawsuit is actually about.
24
« on: March 27, 2024, 15:04 »
I've already clarified that these characters are not AI generated. I hired an artist to make me specific designs in high resolution with clean lines (which AI generated ones have a problem making... not to mention it's hard to make specific character design and posture you want)
I do also make AI generated images, but I always tick the box that are AI generated.
Ok, sorry, then I misunderstood you. I wonder whether the high resolution and clean lines are that important, though, if the character lacks details like mouth or nose. At least I can see neither.
25
« on: March 27, 2024, 12:44 »
Funny you ask... because there were many images and videos I've uploaded that I have no clue why would they be used and they have sold anyways.
It can happen, but I still think that a picture with a useful concept has a better chance of selling.
Concerning this picture: There are alot of little things that dsiturb me a bit about it. Not a lot of the picture is sharp, the girls or women somehow seem to be hovering over these plates or tiles and the proportions seem a bit weird. They miss a clearly defined mouth or nose and the breasts are overemphasized. The hands are weird.
Character has been used multiple times as animation and a part of an image in the past and has sold multiple times... so I doubt any of this would now matter. Now when I made figures of them they found a "problem"?
The image in question is AI generated, isn't it? My understanding is that when Adobe started accepting AI images, they accepted almost everything, even images with obvious flaws. Enough examples of that have been posted in this forum. Now they are swamped with mass produced AI images and can afford to be more selective or I should perhaps say that they cannot afford not to be more selective and images that would have been accepted a few months ago are now rejected.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
