If they switched to a burn rate measurement, like L/100km (that the rest of the world uses), or even Gal./100mi, then you actually could do the math in your head for how much more or less efficient the vehicle is
Let's take a closer look at your point:
2L/100km is obviously twice as efficient as 4L/100km since 4 is twice as large as 2. Easy enough to do in your head.
50km/L is obviously twice as efficient as 25km/L since 50 is twice as large as 25. Just as easy since it's the exact same math.
The problem with your idea is that you read that a 10 mpg increase in fuel efficiency doesn't represent the same percentage of increase when it's applied to different starting mpg figures (i.e. from 30mpg it's a 33% increase, but it's a 50% increase if you start with 20mpg). And that's true, but you're assuming it affects all calculations using mpg figures. The L/km measure behaves in exactly the same non-linear fashion. A 1L/100km increase in efficiency from from 3L/100km is a 33% increase but it's a 50% increase from 2L/100km. Once again, the math is exactly the same.
tl;dr L/km isn't particularly better than mpg. You just suck at doing math that you haven't practiced, so you think it's harder.
First, you clearly didn't bother looking at the linked information. The patent is about notifying the user when they type something in order to give them the chance to reconsider what they're writing. There's nothing stored at that point, which is the entire point of the patent; notifying users that they're about to violate company policy before the email gets stored and becomes a legal liability to the company.
Second, if Google's patented algorithm had been in place and had "destroy America" in the dictionary, the guy writing the tweet would have been notified after typing the phrase that he was about to tweet something that would get flagged and reviewed by the DHS. Assuming he took the advice, it would have prevented the idiots at DHS from ever seeing the joking tweet and the stupidity that followed would never have happened. That's hardly evil.
tl;dr That's not what the patent is about. Don't blame Google's patent for the DHS's stupidity.
If you'd looked at the link, you'd have seen that the patent specifically states "If the textual phrase matches a phrase in the database, the user is alerted via an in-line notification, based on the detected context of the electronic document." The patent has nothing to do with checking emails after they're sent, much less deleting them. It's for a system that would notify the user that they just typed something that the program thinks is suspicious so that the user has a chance to re-think what they're saying before hitting send.
Why quote outdated 10th century case that's probably hard to apply directly when you have so many current cases? In every case, the fees keep expanding with no reduction whatsoever in demands for stronger copyright protection.
Their character is very stony and rigid. They're very resistant to change. They're never the life of the party, but they also won't leave unless you escort them out. All in all, having one for an acquaintance is likely to be a rocky experience.
Yet another pointless post. Commit suicide already. At least you'll have improved the average intelligence of the human race, which is more than you're doing now.
I would suggest reading this and this. Preventing piracy generally doesn't do much to increase sales.
DRM may help reduce piracy in some circumstances, but the vast majority of pirates aren't going to buy the artist's content regardless of whether they can or cannot pirate it.
DRM doesn't protect the artist's profits. It just limits the potential audience that the artist could be reaching.
Of course nobody will read this and multiple idiots will respond "no it doesn't!" because they can't grasp the concept of making a mistake, even though they're in the process of making one.
You've misunderstood what the person you replied to was saying. HTML 5 already includes video with DRM, so he clearly wasn't talking about HTML 5.
What the person you replied to was referring to is that most movie studios refuse to provide licenses to stream movies unless the streams are DRM protected. It doesn't matter if it's a stupid idea or that it doesn't work, it's the way the studios choose to operate.
Also, the 'a' tag is not in any way, shape or form a video standard. Go read what an anchor tag is and maybe next time you open your mouth, you won't sound so goddamn stupid.
Only a certifiable lunatic would pass laws like the ones we have on the books.
Well, they're essentially written by an entity with multiple personality disorder who is taking advice from robber barons. Is it really surprising that they often don't make sense?
Just eliminating Flash and Javascript for example would eliminate a vast majority of the world's browsing headaches.
HTML needs an active companion language, an actual programming language
The big problems inherent to Flash and Javascript are not that they don't work. It's that both involve letting arbitrary code run on your computer and their security isn't perfect.
Replacing them with a new programming language that will run arbitrary programs on your computer is not going to solve that because a new language isn't going to have perfect security either.
With a new, active language, you'd still get annoying ads, drive-by malware downloads, pages that load a several megabytes of crappy code to display three lines of text and all of the other problems that make people hate Flash and Javascript.
This isn't some huge problem that hasn't been resolved. Whitelist the sites that actually need it and leave Javascript disabled for all other sites. It's not difficult and it takes only a few moments to do it and reload a site when you need it.
Of course that would require a few minutes of work on your part and you seem to be too busy whining to do it.
The people who modded this as insightful are morons. That quote has absolutely nothing to do with the situation with Amazon.
Amazon implemented DRM that broke some customer's access. They are not asking courts to guarantee profits, nor are they asking customers for more money to fix the DRM problem.
The Heinlein quote does not apply in any way, shape or form to the way that Amazon has screwed some of their customers over.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course not. The Amish don't want them either.
If they switched to a burn rate measurement, like L/100km (that the rest of the world uses), or even Gal./100mi, then you actually could do the math in your head for how much more or less efficient the vehicle is
Let's take a closer look at your point:
2L/100km is obviously twice as efficient as 4L/100km since 4 is twice as large as 2. Easy enough to do in your head.
50km/L is obviously twice as efficient as 25km/L since 50 is twice as large as 25. Just as easy since it's the exact same math.
The problem with your idea is that you read that a 10 mpg increase in fuel efficiency doesn't represent the same percentage of increase when it's applied to different starting mpg figures (i.e. from 30mpg it's a 33% increase, but it's a 50% increase if you start with 20mpg). And that's true, but you're assuming it affects all calculations using mpg figures. The L/km measure behaves in exactly the same non-linear fashion. A 1L/100km increase in efficiency from from 3L/100km is a 33% increase but it's a 50% increase from 2L/100km. Once again, the math is exactly the same.
tl;dr L/km isn't particularly better than mpg. You just suck at doing math that you haven't practiced, so you think it's harder.
First, you clearly didn't bother looking at the linked information. The patent is about notifying the user when they type something in order to give them the chance to reconsider what they're writing. There's nothing stored at that point, which is the entire point of the patent; notifying users that they're about to violate company policy before the email gets stored and becomes a legal liability to the company.
Second, if Google's patented algorithm had been in place and had "destroy America" in the dictionary, the guy writing the tweet would have been notified after typing the phrase that he was about to tweet something that would get flagged and reviewed by the DHS. Assuming he took the advice, it would have prevented the idiots at DHS from ever seeing the joking tweet and the stupidity that followed would never have happened. That's hardly evil.
tl;dr That's not what the patent is about. Don't blame Google's patent for the DHS's stupidity.
If you'd looked at the link, you'd have seen that the patent specifically states "If the textual phrase matches a phrase in the database, the user is alerted via an in-line notification, based on the detected context of the electronic document." The patent has nothing to do with checking emails after they're sent, much less deleting them. It's for a system that would notify the user that they just typed something that the program thinks is suspicious so that the user has a chance to re-think what they're saying before hitting send.
So you happily drink 36C beer when you go on a picnic and it's 38C out?
Why quote outdated 10th century case that's probably hard to apply directly when you have so many current cases? In every case, the fees keep expanding with no reduction whatsoever in demands for stronger copyright protection.
Their character is very stony and rigid. They're very resistant to change. They're never the life of the party, but they also won't leave unless you escort them out. All in all, having one for an acquaintance is likely to be a rocky experience.
You think that music spontaneously involves without the input of people with ideas for how to change it?
ROFLMAO
The only reason that you hear grunting is that you're apparently incapable of comprehending language.
Yet another pointless post. Commit suicide already. At least you'll have improved the average intelligence of the human race, which is more than you're doing now.
Having a common ancestor doesn't make things the same. What makes them different was the idea for how to change the common ancestor.
Your 'enlightenment' seems to involve ignoring anything that doesn't fit your world view, which doesn't 'take down' anything.
You think that dubstep and ska are the same? Are you the same as a chimpanzee? Evolving from a common ancestor does not make things identical.
Way to miss the entire point of my post. And, as if your post wasn't worthless enough, you tacked on a juvenile insult. What are you? Three?
I've never had to inject myself with an epi-pen, so it's an unimportant medication, right?
Dumbass.
Your life must feel really worthwhile now that you've added so much to the conversation.
I would suggest reading this and this. Preventing piracy generally doesn't do much to increase sales.
DRM may help reduce piracy in some circumstances, but the vast majority of pirates aren't going to buy the artist's content regardless of whether they can or cannot pirate it.
DRM doesn't protect the artist's profits. It just limits the potential audience that the artist could be reaching.
There is NOTHING new in the world, there are NO new ideas.
Which is why there's never going to be another scientific advance or discovery ever again.
Seriously... this is a dumb thing to say. Every idea was new at some point and new ideas happen all the time. The ones that are most enjoyable get repeated a lot. Then someone like you comes along to point at the repetition and loudly, proudly demonstrates their stupidity by repeating a tired cliché that's overused and has never been true at any point in the entire history of mankind.
They sort of did, though: Facebook Chat should be compatible with every XMPP client, but is not a full XMPP server.
Whooosh
video with DRM
That was supposed to be "video without DRM"
Of course nobody will read this and multiple idiots will respond "no it doesn't!" because they can't grasp the concept of making a mistake, even though they're in the process of making one.
You've misunderstood what the person you replied to was saying. HTML 5 already includes video with DRM, so he clearly wasn't talking about HTML 5.
What the person you replied to was referring to is that most movie studios refuse to provide licenses to stream movies unless the streams are DRM protected. It doesn't matter if it's a stupid idea or that it doesn't work, it's the way the studios choose to operate.
Also, the 'a' tag is not in any way, shape or form a video standard. Go read what an anchor tag is and maybe next time you open your mouth, you won't sound so goddamn stupid.
Only a certifiable lunatic would pass laws like the ones we have on the books.
Well, they're essentially written by an entity with multiple personality disorder who is taking advice from robber barons. Is it really surprising that they often don't make sense?
Show me a language and API that has no flaws and I'll add it. So far, no such thing exists and it seems fairly unlikely that it ever will.
Just eliminating Flash and Javascript for example would eliminate a vast majority of the world's browsing headaches.
HTML needs an active companion language, an actual programming language
The big problems inherent to Flash and Javascript are not that they don't work. It's that both involve letting arbitrary code run on your computer and their security isn't perfect.
Replacing them with a new programming language that will run arbitrary programs on your computer is not going to solve that because a new language isn't going to have perfect security either.
With a new, active language, you'd still get annoying ads, drive-by malware downloads, pages that load a several megabytes of crappy code to display three lines of text and all of the other problems that make people hate Flash and Javascript.
This isn't some huge problem that hasn't been resolved. Whitelist the sites that actually need it and leave Javascript disabled for all other sites. It's not difficult and it takes only a few moments to do it and reload a site when you need it.
Of course that would require a few minutes of work on your part and you seem to be too busy whining to do it.
The people who modded this as insightful are morons. That quote has absolutely nothing to do with the situation with Amazon.
Amazon implemented DRM that broke some customer's access. They are not asking courts to guarantee profits, nor are they asking customers for more money to fix the DRM problem.
The Heinlein quote does not apply in any way, shape or form to the way that Amazon has screwed some of their customers over.