h a l f b a k e r yYou could have thought of that.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
I had the same idea and thought it was a good one. (+) |
|
| |
Turns out it is.
See the [link] below your idea, and if I may be the first to do so.
Welcome. |
|
| |
Would this now be called a sail boat? |
|
| |
[bulb], A german company called Sky Sails do exactly what I think you describe in the idea. Have a look at the link I've provided. |
|
| |
So guy who has been here for a while now, did you know that this is widely know to exisit based on its appearance in numerous publications and on the internet? I have kindly attached a reference to the Popular Science publication and 2 other Bakers have kindly attached references to Web based sources. |
|
| |
I think your idea is un-original and un-creative and I think it should be deleted from this site because it appears to be very blatant plagiarism of others ideas and patents. Based on the fact you have been on this site for a long time now I find it nearly impossible for you to have failed to observe other ideas being criticized for lack of research of their potential idea. I also find you remiss to have failed to read the Help file that is here as if you had done so you would have found that your idea could be marked for deletion for at least 3 reasons including being unoriginal, widely known to exisit and something cool. |
|
| |
I would never think to accuse one of things such as this and so I thought I would take some time to explain my concerns to you in the hopes that you will think more clearly about your ideas in the future and take the needed steps to ensure that your idea is original and does not lend itself to an appearance of impropriety. |
|
| |
Thank you for your consideration. |
|
| |
Just because something was in Popular Science doesn't mean that the poster saw it there! Maybe, but you can't tell, and it would be polite to ask before you slap an "unoriginal" or "wasn't it cool, that thing I saw ..." tag on the idea. |
|
| |
(Admittedly, it would have been equally polite on part of the poster to do a search query before posting and maybe be a little more specific. Or, hey, come up with a title for the idea. But just because a post is weak your annotations don't have to be - especially if you, as is the case, actually know something!) |
|
| |
You are right, [jutta]. I'll edit my previous post. |
|
| |
I'm a little confused Jutta! Ideas get tagged this way all the time when they are not original and readily discoverable on the internet. This sort of idea is specifically sited in the help file under marked for deletion. |
|
| |
This idea in particular appears to be quite blatant. The Sky Sails promotional art shows a supertanker being dragged by a kite. This art appeared in at least 3 major publications that I could see(Pop Sci, NY times Mag, and New Scientist)as recently and Dec 12th(NYT) |
|
| |
What exactly would you have us say? |
|
| |
Why are the same admonitions not given to all the other times this has been done to other bakers? |
|
| |
I am confused by your comments and criticism. |
|
| |
I think it is about confirming whether the baker was just lazy, rather than a plagiary, before dropping the MFD. |
|
| |
A good way of reducing the use of MFDs thereby increasing their lethality. |
|
| |
So if a baker says "I didn't see it" we then are supposed to vote on their idea as if it were original? |
|
| |
Apparently. Although they would be well advised to delete the idea themselves. |
|
| |
I still think this non-idea needs to be deleted, but I can see how asking the poster whether it was unintentional (hint, hint - delete it!) serves the purpose of a trigger guard. |
|
| |
//WTCTTISITVGWIBNIIWR - Video game. Same thing. Also opera, musical, television miniseries, comic strip, lecture series, audiodrama, popular scientific magazine, and whatever other media you might have come across the unoriginal invention in. |
|
| |
widely known to exist - this is widely known to exist in the real world. Mere existence alone is not grounds for deletion; it needs to also be widely known. (What exactly constitutes "widely known" is subject to interpretation by the moderators.)// |
|
| |
I guess I have misunderstood the Help File then. I have had numerous ideas MFD in this way but no comment has ever been made to this point. |
|
| |
I kind of thought that with at least 3 publications and numerous website references(like 17 of the first 20 Google hits for "kite ship") would constitute at least one of these two MFD reasons. |
|
| |
I think [jutta] is saying that 'widely known to exist' is a better (more polite) reason for MFDing this kind of idea than WICTTIS..., since the poster may not have actually nicked the idea from one of those sources, but should have come across them before posting. |
|
| |
It's doubtful that the poster could have googled this up before she passed away in 1936.
'Course, that begs the question of how the poster posted the post, eh, [bulb]? |
|
| |
I do not think the debate is about whether the idea is a candidate for MFD or not, it clearly is. However, I wonder whether, intentionally or not, we have de-valued the MFD by the way we have used it in the past. |
|
| |
Perhaps the MFD as a tool is there for when two bakers cannot agree and a moderator's input is required. Maybe we can achieve the same result (the deletion of this non-idea) by drawing attention to the fact that the idea infringes one or more of the basic precepts of the site and getting the author to delete it themselves. |
|
| |
All that said, I am just guessing at the motives behind Jutta's annotation. Care to put us out of our misery Jutta? |
|
| |
Upon consideration I have edited by original annotation to be less "weak" and to ask the poster their intentions and to share information pertinent to their idea. |
|
| |
You guys are over anylizing the shit outta this. Just play nice. |
|
| |