The decision is sound, OOP mostly leads to bloated software, mind-bending and partly just plain stupid object-oriented constructions, and strongly encourages mutation. In a sense it's even based on the idea of mutating objects. Because of the dramatic increase in concurrent programming in the future strictly functional programming will be much more important than OOP. I understand that OO enthusiasts will not like to hear this, and of course OOP also has its good sides, but it is highly overrated. A good module system + immutable structures is much more important than classes and objects. If you use only immutable structures many operations with these structures can be parallelized massively without a single change to the code.
Great, pragmatic reasoning. Makes perfect sense. Let's also tie the ownership of cars to voting republican. If you still want to vote for the democrats, feel free not to buy a car. Nobody forces you to have a car. Also, books should only be distributed by Google, who will require you to sign into your Google account before obtaining a book. If you don't want to use Google, no problem---just don't read any books. Nobody forces you to read books.
However, Uncle CEO will give Big Brother the data at any time and will also expel from the Uncle CEO community any people that Big Brother doesn't like if Big Brother wishes so. So Big Brother will remain in charge.
Your argument was ok until you showed yourself as an OSS zealot by labeling OSS 'great stuff' and proprietary stuff 'shitty'. Fail.
I was referring to the sentiment of the angry developers not to my own sentiment, though. Should have been more clear about that. There are plenty of able proprietary software developers that don't have to rely on OSS libraries and write good software. If they need some functionality, they just implement it on their own. These developers are usually not angry about the GPL.
The angry ones are those that when confronted with a problem look for a library or tool (because they can't solve the problem on their own), and then get angry when the tool is under GPL. You know, the guys that essentially want to write wrappers around complicated 3rd party tools and then want to sell it as their own software. Their software tends to be less good, or, as I termed it emphatically 'shitty', and they know it. And btw, in this context it's absolutely fair to say that OSS is great stuff. If you're looking for libraries or tools that solve a particular complicated problem (e.g. kernels, curve fitting, theorem solving, databases, natural language processing, data mining, etc.) you'll nowadays find more useful libraries and tools as OSS than proprietary ones.
You are completely wrong. GPL is designed to preserve the 4 essential freedoms not just grant them once. There is nothing hypocritical about ensuring that future modifications and derivations from GPL licensed code will guarantee the same amount of freedom as the original code.
using that code in a larger proprietary code
If you want to allow that, you can use the LGPL. No problem at all. But again, there is absolutely nothing hypocritical about wanting to ensure that the 4 freedoms are respected not only once but also in future for products based on GPL code.
There have been active and extremely malicious attempts to subvert GPL with any tricks you might imagine. Companies continuously want to literally steal GPL code and use it for their own purposes. Now that's hypocritical.
True freedom is letting people do what they want.
So in your view it's okay if someone just takes your code / program and sells it under his own brand as a proprietary software package, makes lots of money, without contributing back anything to the open source community? Because that's what you're suggesting.
By the way, from your post it's clear that you haven't really heard and reflected what the purpose of the GPL is and what the 4 freedoms are. You seem to associate "freedom" with "freedom for the programmer", but that not at all what the free software idea is about. It's about freedom for each and every individual user of the software. Everyone. The GPL ensures that this freedom is granted to each and every user and that it cannot be taken away again in future. (And , of course, non-programmers can become programmers. In fact, the GPL enourages this.)
The adversaries of GPL are the real hypocrites, because they usually know very well the rationale behind the GPL (and that there is also the LGPL) and that it makes perfect sense. However, most of them are 1.) simply angry that they cannot use all the great stuff for their own shitty proprietary software, or, 2.) on the payroll of a large company that wants to keep its software proprietary in order to take away the freedom of their end users, control them, and force them into their services (paid upgrades, customer lock-in, etc.). So they invent untenable arguments and spread FUD while knowing very well that its bullshit and FUD. Yes, that's the sad truth.
I'm a developer and I'm selling programs for Mac OS, but as long as Apple decides which app to include in the app store and which not I won't buy or use an iPhone and won't develop for iOS. It's as simple as that. There should be no restrictions about which app someone can legally run on their computer, phone, or any other device they have bought, and Apple has set a bad precedent with the app store model.
Before people complain that company X can sell on their own store whatever they want: Sure they can. If others can legally open another app store for the same device, that should be fine. But locking devices/only allowing whitelisted apps should definitely be illegal, and I hope that future legislation will make it illegal (but doubt it will happen).
So people that remain calm and do not panick during an emergency will get lower priority and have to wait, whereas people that totally freak out and start to cry because the cat doesn't come down from the tree will get help immediately.
Should emergency dispatch centers be staffed by enough people that are adequately paid instead?
Like others I believe Kaku is wrong. Here is my prediction:
Within the next 20 years massively parallel processing will become more and more common, machines with a few dozens, hundreds or even thousands cores will be the rule, and programming languages / compilers will be able to automatically turn sequential programs into parallel ones whenever this is possible. Almost all practical computing problems and needs will turn out to be highly parallelizable. The impact of this change on economy will be zero. Computers will never stop to become faster and faster.
In 50 years from now or earlier our massively parallel conventional machines will be substituted by quantum computers. These will first be available to governments and big companies and within a short period of time will be miniaturized and become available and affordable to end consumers.
Are you sure you have an idea what the term "propaganda" means? For a start, it doesn't imply any commitment to truth...
There is nothing to object to propaganda that is clearly marked as such (see above comments about "Voice of America"), but if it comes in disguise then it is, of course, dishonorable.
The real problem is that the rest of the world (among many US politicians) don't give a shit about achiving victory.
The problem is you'd need about 400000 foreign soldiers in Afghanistan to "make it peaceful", and the locals would still not like the occupation. Just watch the documentaries Restrepo and Armadillo and it becomes pretty clear that at least in Afghanistan the Alliance has no fucking clue what they actually want to achieve.
In the movies you can see things like 20 year old GIs trying to negotiate the building of roads, schools, or wells with 70 year old, bearded Afghan peasants who keep mentioning that if they cooperate some Taleban will slit their throats after the handful of soldiers have left. It's a joke. In no country in the world would these twenty-something boy soldiers, who leave after a few weeks or months anyway, be taken seriously by the local mayor.
I bet W. would have parked an aircraft carrier off the coast of Libya the first day and shot down anything that moved after that, including pregnant women and children.
As someone who at least had 7 years of classical guitar lessons, even though never any super-great guitarist came out of it, I can only shake my head in dismay. Like with any other instrument, without a teacher who corrects your posture and technique you will become an absolutely horrible guitar player and the more you get used to bad technique the harder it will become to later correct it.
Of course, it's just a game... but the way they advertise it....as if t there weren't already enough lousy guitar players out there on the streets and beaches, pestering everyone with their tunes (and guitars out of tune).
There is another problem with the concept. Perhaps these mini reactors are indeed super-safe but I have my doubts. A large number of them would have to be mass-produced at low cost, and mass-production and low cost do not fare well with extremely high safety demands in the long run.
1. User buys license entitling him to use software.
2. User breaches agreement and loses license to use the software.
Wrong. First, in the vast majority of countries a user is entitled for a refund/return of the product within a certain time period IN ANY CASE. At least this holds in all European countries I know of...don't know about the US. Secondly, the user was not given a choice to read the EULA before buying the product. In that case, if he disagrees with the EULA he is definitely entitled for a refund no matter whether he agrees with the EULA or not. Third, these kinds of EULAs, the ones that are imposed on users before buying software and do not allow for refunds, are VOID in the vast majority of countries in Europe anyway. (They are considered frivolous and don't count much in court.) Again, I don't know about the US and other countries but I suspect that customer protection is not substantially worse there.
An EULA is not a "magical contract." It (mostly) works like any other contract. You can print it out, make changes as you like, and set them back to the publisher just after having bought the product in question. If he disagrees with your changes, he will have to give you your money back.
---- By answering to this post, you agree to the following EULA of this post: Everything you own belongs to the OP.
Guys, throttling p2p traffic is not the real problem here, let's not get sidetracked. That's what these companies want, they want politicians to think that only people complain that use p2p applications to pirate content.
But the reality is that "p2p" doesn't really have a well-defined meaning, the way they use it is a synonym to "file-sharing" which is utterly misleading. A LOT of other traffic will invariably also be throttled, traffic that might be needed for innovation and shaping the future of the Net. What about if I run Gnunet? Will it be throttled? What about Freenet? Is it throttled? What if I use these networks only for anonymous messaging and forums? Still throttled? Why? What if I write a new application, say a distributed end-to-end client version of Facebook, where the traffic between nodes must of course be encrypted for security reasons. Will this application run un-throttled on the ISPs network? Or, will I have to be a large company and pay lots of $$$ to make a special deal with ISPs?
I'm using Nomachine NX over ssl as a remote desktop tool for connecting from work to my home machine, so I don't have to sync files all the time. If I'm not mistaken, they are a small Italian company (there is also a free version). Will my remote desktop connection still work with acceptable speed? Will it be throttled? Why?
Innovative web innovators and small developers are the ones who will lose most from throttling in the long run. As if the constant danger of falling prey to a frivolous patent troll wasn't already enough to stifle innovation.
My recommendation: Educate your local politician. Ask your ISP A LOT of technical questions like the ones mentioned above. Write them a letter for each and every program you're using that is in some way connected to the Net. Ask them: "Do you throttle traffic from this application?" Ask again the week afterwards, and again a week later. Do not accept automated replies. (And always ask them how to contact their legal department in case "the matter needs further clarification.")
Bandwidth isn't free, and the only way ISP's can sell good speeds to everyone is by "overselling" it.
No, as others have mentioned it's plain fraud (not "overselling") based on incorrect and intentionally misleading advertising and product specs. These companies rely on the unfortunate fact that the vast majority of all customers doesn't have the money and time to sue them. The same is the case for EULAs, most of which would become completely void in many European countries due to frivolous and sometimes even illegal clauses---but the few customers who actually read them still don't have the time and money to afford civil lawsuits to settle the matter.
The Long Black Veil (J. Cash) =====================
Ten years ago on a cold dark night, someone was killed 'neath the town hall lights. There were few at the scene, but they all agreed, that the man who ran looked a lot like me.
Chorus ~ She walks these hills, in a long black veil. She visits my grave, when the night winds wail. Nobody knows, nobody sees, nobody knows, but me
The Judge said son, what is your alibi, if you were somewhere else, then you won't have to die. I spoke not a word, though it meant my life, for i'd been in the arms of my best friends wife.
Chorus*
Now the scaffold is high, and eternity's near. She stood in the crowd, and shed not a tear. But some times at night, when the cold wind moans In a long black veil, she cries over my bones
Chorus ~ She walks these hills, in a long black veil. When the cold winds blow, and the night winds wail. No body knows, no body sees. No body knows, but me.
But isn't the issue here rather whether or not the FBI was legally authorized to wiretap him and not whether they had any putative reasons for doing so? I mean, the police may have many reasons and many of them might be flawed. For example, in some regions of my home country (where I'm not living now) I would be suspicious to the police just because of the way I look and behave and because I'm not talking the local dialect , yet this would not give them sufficient grounds for wiretapping me.
Can the police in the US do anything they want when they appear to have reasons for it? Isn't there some further control, like e.g. an independent judge or panel that has to review the case, before someone can be wiretapped in the US like in most other countries?
On the website there is a showcase of the HTML5 capabilities of rendering 3D graphics in the browser. But, hey, I remember for sure that browsers had this ability in the nineties and already then nobody cared about it.
Another thing I don't understand is why there is a constant need for new standards...HTML3, XHTML, CSS, HTML4, HTML5, etc. etc. Why? To keep committees busy? To piss of browser and web developers? To make sure that overlay ads can be displayed in any browser?
I understand the benefits of XHTML over HTML. However, wouldn't it be wise at some point to just freeze the features and perhaps focus on the content instead?
If this trend of turning my browser into a slow, clunky meta operating system continues, I will revenge myself by writing my own proprietary, slick binary web protocol, implement my own browser, and distribute it among friends. And others will likely do that, too. Goodbye HTML!
This alone should be reason enough to stop this idiotic legislation and get rid of trademarks altogether. Seriously, please stop this madness! These name abominations hurt everyone's eyes and ears.
Slashdot Mirror
The decision is sound, OOP mostly leads to bloated software, mind-bending and partly just plain stupid object-oriented constructions, and strongly encourages mutation. In a sense it's even based on the idea of mutating objects. Because of the dramatic increase in concurrent programming in the future strictly functional programming will be much more important than OOP. I understand that OO enthusiasts will not like to hear this, and of course OOP also has its good sides, but it is highly overrated. A good module system + immutable structures is much more important than classes and objects. If you use only immutable structures many operations with these structures can be parallelized massively without a single change to the code.
Great, pragmatic reasoning. Makes perfect sense. Let's also tie the ownership of cars to voting republican. If you still want to vote for the democrats, feel free not to buy a car. Nobody forces you to have a car. Also, books should only be distributed by Google, who will require you to sign into your Google account before obtaining a book. If you don't want to use Google, no problem---just don't read any books. Nobody forces you to read books.
However, Uncle CEO will give Big Brother the data at any time and will also expel from the Uncle CEO community any people that Big Brother doesn't like if Big Brother wishes so. So Big Brother will remain in charge.
Your argument was ok until you showed yourself as an OSS zealot by labeling OSS 'great stuff' and proprietary stuff 'shitty'. Fail.
I was referring to the sentiment of the angry developers not to my own sentiment, though. Should have been more clear about that. There are plenty of able proprietary software developers that don't have to rely on OSS libraries and write good software. If they need some functionality, they just implement it on their own. These developers are usually not angry about the GPL.
The angry ones are those that when confronted with a problem look for a library or tool (because they can't solve the problem on their own), and then get angry when the tool is under GPL. You know, the guys that essentially want to write wrappers around complicated 3rd party tools and then want to sell it as their own software. Their software tends to be less good, or, as I termed it emphatically 'shitty', and they know it. And btw, in this context it's absolutely fair to say that OSS is great stuff. If you're looking for libraries or tools that solve a particular complicated problem (e.g. kernels, curve fitting, theorem solving, databases, natural language processing, data mining, etc.) you'll nowadays find more useful libraries and tools as OSS than proprietary ones.
You are completely wrong. GPL is designed to preserve the 4 essential freedoms not just grant them once. There is nothing hypocritical about ensuring that future modifications and derivations from GPL licensed code will guarantee the same amount of freedom as the original code.
using that code in a larger proprietary code
If you want to allow that, you can use the LGPL. No problem at all. But again, there is absolutely nothing hypocritical about wanting to ensure that the 4 freedoms are respected not only once but also in future for products based on GPL code.
There have been active and extremely malicious attempts to subvert GPL with any tricks you might imagine. Companies continuously want to literally steal GPL code and use it for their own purposes. Now that's hypocritical.
True freedom is letting people do what they want.
So in your view it's okay if someone just takes your code / program and sells it under his own brand as a proprietary software package, makes lots of money, without contributing back anything to the open source community? Because that's what you're suggesting.
By the way, from your post it's clear that you haven't really heard and reflected what the purpose of the GPL is and what the 4 freedoms are. You seem to associate "freedom" with "freedom for the programmer", but that not at all what the free software idea is about. It's about freedom for each and every individual user of the software. Everyone. The GPL ensures that this freedom is granted to each and every user and that it cannot be taken away again in future. (And , of course, non-programmers can become programmers. In fact, the GPL enourages this.)
The adversaries of GPL are the real hypocrites, because they usually know very well the rationale behind the GPL (and that there is also the LGPL) and that it makes perfect sense. However, most of them are 1.) simply angry that they cannot use all the great stuff for their own shitty proprietary software, or, 2.) on the payroll of a large company that wants to keep its software proprietary in order to take away the freedom of their end users, control them, and force them into their services (paid upgrades, customer lock-in, etc.). So they invent untenable arguments and spread FUD while knowing very well that its bullshit and FUD. Yes, that's the sad truth.
I'm a developer and I'm selling programs for Mac OS, but as long as Apple decides which app to include in the app store and which not I won't buy or use an iPhone and won't develop for iOS. It's as simple as that. There should be no restrictions about which app someone can legally run on their computer, phone, or any other device they have bought, and Apple has set a bad precedent with the app store model.
Before people complain that company X can sell on their own store whatever they want: Sure they can. If others can legally open another app store for the same device, that should be fine. But locking devices/only allowing whitelisted apps should definitely be illegal, and I hope that future legislation will make it illegal (but doubt it will happen).
So people that remain calm and do not panick during an emergency will get lower priority and have to wait, whereas people that totally freak out and start to cry because the cat doesn't come down from the tree will get help immediately.
Should emergency dispatch centers be staffed by enough people that are adequately paid instead?
Like others I believe Kaku is wrong. Here is my prediction:
Within the next 20 years massively parallel processing will become more and more common, machines with a few dozens, hundreds or even thousands cores will be the rule, and programming languages / compilers will be able to automatically turn sequential programs into parallel ones whenever this is possible. Almost all practical computing problems and needs will turn out to be highly parallelizable. The impact of this change on economy will be zero. Computers will never stop to become faster and faster.
In 50 years from now or earlier our massively parallel conventional machines will be substituted by quantum computers. These will first be available to governments and big companies and within a short period of time will be miniaturized and become available and affordable to end consumers.
Well, I think there is a clear message here. If you're a talented programmer, never ever work for Goldman Sachs!
People do not understand that propaganda does not have to be lies and frankly the best propaganda is the truth.
It's hard to see how undermining social media with thousands of fake personalities can result in a very honest and truthful endeavor...
Are you sure you have an idea what the term "propaganda" means? For a start, it doesn't imply any commitment to truth...
There is nothing to object to propaganda that is clearly marked as such (see above comments about "Voice of America"), but if it comes in disguise then it is, of course, dishonorable.
The real problem is that the rest of the world (among many US politicians) don't give a shit about achiving victory.
The problem is you'd need about 400000 foreign soldiers in Afghanistan to "make it peaceful", and the locals would still not like the occupation. Just watch the documentaries Restrepo and Armadillo and it becomes pretty clear that at least in Afghanistan the Alliance has no fucking clue what they actually want to achieve.
In the movies you can see things like 20 year old GIs trying to negotiate the building of roads, schools, or wells with 70 year old, bearded Afghan peasants who keep mentioning that if they cooperate some Taleban will slit their throats after the handful of soldiers have left. It's a joke. In no country in the world would these twenty-something boy soldiers, who leave after a few weeks or months anyway, be taken seriously by the local mayor.
I bet W. would have parked an aircraft carrier off the coast of Libya the first day and shot down anything that moved after that, including pregnant women and children.
There, fixed that for you.
Bono, is that you? Did you stop taking your medication again?
As someone who at least had 7 years of classical guitar lessons, even though never any super-great guitarist came out of it, I can only shake my head in dismay. Like with any other instrument, without a teacher who corrects your posture and technique you will become an absolutely horrible guitar player and the more you get used to bad technique the harder it will become to later correct it.
Of course, it's just a game... but the way they advertise it....as if t there weren't already enough lousy guitar players out there on the streets and beaches, pestering everyone with their tunes (and guitars out of tune).
No no, we love him...
There is another problem with the concept. Perhaps these mini reactors are indeed super-safe but I have my doubts. A large number of them would have to be mass-produced at low cost, and mass-production and low cost do not fare well with extremely high safety demands in the long run.
1. User buys license entitling him to use software.
2. User breaches agreement and loses license to use the software.
Wrong. First, in the vast majority of countries a user is entitled for a refund/return of the product within a certain time period IN ANY CASE. At least this holds in all European countries I know of...don't know about the US. Secondly, the user was not given a choice to read the EULA before buying the product. In that case, if he disagrees with the EULA he is definitely entitled for a refund no matter whether he agrees with the EULA or not. Third, these kinds of EULAs, the ones that are imposed on users before buying software and do not allow for refunds, are VOID in the vast majority of countries in Europe anyway. (They are considered frivolous and don't count much in court.) Again, I don't know about the US and other countries but I suspect that customer protection is not substantially worse there.
An EULA is not a "magical contract." It (mostly) works like any other contract. You can print it out, make changes as you like, and set them back to the publisher just after having bought the product in question. If he disagrees with your changes, he will have to give you your money back.
----
By answering to this post, you agree to the following EULA of this post: Everything you own belongs to the OP.
Guys, throttling p2p traffic is not the real problem here, let's not get sidetracked. That's what these companies want, they want politicians to think that only people complain that use p2p applications to pirate content.
But the reality is that "p2p" doesn't really have a well-defined meaning, the way they use it is a synonym to "file-sharing" which is utterly misleading. A LOT of other traffic will invariably also be throttled, traffic that might be needed for innovation and shaping the future of the Net. What about if I run Gnunet? Will it be throttled? What about Freenet? Is it throttled? What if I use these networks only for anonymous messaging and forums? Still throttled? Why? What if I write a new application, say a distributed end-to-end client version of Facebook, where the traffic between nodes must of course be encrypted for security reasons. Will this application run un-throttled on the ISPs network? Or, will I have to be a large company and pay lots of $$$ to make a special deal with ISPs?
I'm using Nomachine NX over ssl as a remote desktop tool for connecting from work to my home machine, so I don't have to sync files all the time. If I'm not mistaken, they are a small Italian company (there is also a free version). Will my remote desktop connection still work with acceptable speed? Will it be throttled? Why?
Innovative web innovators and small developers are the ones who will lose most from throttling in the long run. As if the constant danger of falling prey to a frivolous patent troll wasn't already enough to stifle innovation.
My recommendation: Educate your local politician. Ask your ISP A LOT of technical questions like the ones mentioned above. Write them a letter for each and every program you're using that is in some way connected to the Net. Ask them: "Do you throttle traffic from this application?" Ask again the week afterwards, and again a week later. Do not accept automated replies. (And always ask them how to contact their legal department in case "the matter needs further clarification.")
Bandwidth isn't free, and the only way ISP's can sell good speeds to everyone is by "overselling" it.
No, as others have mentioned it's plain fraud (not "overselling") based on incorrect and intentionally misleading advertising and product specs. These companies rely on the unfortunate fact that the vast majority of all customers doesn't have the money and time to sue them. The same is the case for EULAs, most of which would become completely void in many European countries due to frivolous and sometimes even illegal clauses---but the few customers who actually read them still don't have the time and money to afford civil lawsuits to settle the matter.
What could possibly go wrong?
The Long Black Veil (J. Cash)
=====================
Ten years ago on a cold dark night,
someone was killed 'neath the town hall lights.
There were few at the scene, but they all agreed,
that the man who ran looked a lot like me.
Chorus ~ She walks these hills, in a long black veil.
She visits my grave, when the night winds wail.
Nobody knows, nobody sees, nobody knows, but me
The Judge said son, what is your alibi,
if you were somewhere else, then you won't have to die.
I spoke not a word, though it meant my life,
for i'd been in the arms of my best friends wife.
Chorus*
Now the scaffold is high, and eternity's near.
She stood in the crowd, and shed not a tear.
But some times at night, when the cold wind moans
In a long black veil, she cries over my bones
Chorus ~ She walks these hills, in a long black veil.
When the cold winds blow, and the night winds wail.
No body knows, no body sees.
No body knows, but me.
But isn't the issue here rather whether or not the FBI was legally authorized to wiretap him and not whether they had any putative reasons for doing so? I mean, the police may have many reasons and many of them might be flawed. For example, in some regions of my home country (where I'm not living now) I would be suspicious to the police just because of the way I look and behave and because I'm not talking the local dialect , yet this would not give them sufficient grounds for wiretapping me.
Can the police in the US do anything they want when they appear to have reasons for it? Isn't there some further control, like e.g. an independent judge or panel that has to review the case, before someone can be wiretapped in the US like in most other countries?
It doesn't need to be made illegal and no additional law is needed. Make transactions only happen every second or minute, and that's it.
Isn't that how the systems work in Europe?
On the website there is a showcase of the HTML5 capabilities of rendering 3D graphics in the browser. But, hey, I remember for sure that browsers had this ability in the nineties and already then nobody cared about it.
Another thing I don't understand is why there is a constant need for new standards...HTML3, XHTML, CSS, HTML4, HTML5, etc. etc. Why? To keep committees busy? To piss of browser and web developers? To make sure that overlay ads can be displayed in any browser?
I understand the benefits of XHTML over HTML. However, wouldn't it be wise at some point to just freeze the features and perhaps focus on the content instead?
If this trend of turning my browser into a slow, clunky meta operating system continues, I will revenge myself by writing my own proprietary, slick binary web protocol, implement my own browser, and distribute it among friends. And others will likely do that, too. Goodbye HTML!
You have been warned! ;-)
With trademarks we get such great company, product, and website names as (compiled from the web):
Doostang, Twubs, Ftags, Blews, Opodo, Putacart, Plurk, Flickr, Cuil, Awind, Twitter, Flizo, Fluidux, Exaact, Galxz, Linqto, Tilili, or E-On
This alone should be reason enough to stop this idiotic legislation and get rid of trademarks altogether. Seriously, please stop this madness! These name abominations hurt everyone's eyes and ears.