Re:Consider the source... if you can understand th
on
Variety Declares VHS Dead
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I never thought I'd say this about anything, but Variety's mangling of English grates on me much more than anything I see in a typical day of browsing Slashdot.
Mostly because it's so gratuitous. Where normal people would use "comedy," they write "laffer," which in addition to not being an actual word, isn't even any shorter! They use the word "actioner," which my brain always interprets as "auctioneer" at first glance. But at least that saves some characters compared to "action movie," so I can sort of vaguely comprehend why someone might mistake it for a good idea.
Last I checked, in the last decade(decades?), just taking a ride in a stranger's car (and vice versa) was pretty much out of the question if you valued your ass.
Crime rates in general have been much lower over the last couple decades than in the decades before that, at least in the US. Why would taking a ride in a stranger's car have gotten more dangerous when everything else has gotten much safer?
I think it's more a function of increasingly pervasive news coverage. Two decades ago, there wasn't room on the nightly national news to cover the kidnapping of some teenage hitchhiker two states away from you, so if that happened you would have never heard a peep about it. Now you'll hear about it on the Internet if you're looking for that kind of story. But the fact that it's easier to find out about something now doesn't mean that it's actually happening any more often.
If you really think hitchhiking has gotten more dangerous lately, go check out this book by someone who has actually hitchhiked across the country and very much disagrees with that perception.
No argument about the wisdom of eating a healthy, balanced diet, but MSG has been a common food additive in Asia for quite a while. It is used frequently in Chinese home cooking; it is not just a restaurant thing there. Why is China only recently starting to experience an obesity problem? I don't think the evidence supports laying the blame at the feet of MSG.
Wow, I'm glad my attorney isn't such a moron. The point of the Coral Cache (you know, with an "a" in the first word -- maybe you should learn its name if you're involved in litigation over it) is to avoid flooding sites with requests. By, you know, caching their contents. Just like the name says.
That is a presupposition and not something that should be allowed by the legal system.
Absolutely! I agree completely. And in fact we're there already: the legal system does not currently determine who can participate in presidential debates. The debates are not organized by a government body -- they are organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which despite its official-sounding name, is a privately run nonprofit organization. That private organization determines which candidates are invited to participate in the debates it sponsors.
Claiming that its refusal to invite your candidate of choice to a particular debate represents a failure of the legal system doesn't really make sense, short of saying that a government body should have the power to dictate a list of required debate participants to private organizations. And if that is what you're proposing, then there are a whole lot of rather disturbing free-speech implications: What constitutes a debate? Does everyone who claims to be running for president get to participate, or if not, what's the cutoff below which you don't make it onto the official must-be-invited list? If the Greens and Libertarians have a debate on a college campus, are they required to invite the local Democrats as well? And so on.
laws have been passed to insure only members of those two parties are likely to be elected
Please go read up on Duverger's Law before you assume the two-party system is a simple result of legal barriers. It's much more complicated than that. Of course there are legal barriers as well, not denying that, but they're actually much less significant than the underlying structure of the electoral system itself.
Two registered presidential candidates with thousands of backers were forcibly ejected from the last presidential debates and not allowed to participate.
Thousands of backers don't give you a realistic shot at winning a presidential election. Tens of millions of backers do. And the last time there was an alternative candidate with significant backing (Ross Perot, 1992), guess what, he was invited to the debates. Hell, Mickey Mouse gets thousands of votes every four years; should Michael Eisner have been invited to the debates too?
Look, I'm a registered Libertarian. I am frustrated by the Republicans and Democrats too. But there is an annoying tendency for third-party supporters to sit around whining about how their people would do so much better if only artificial barriers X, Y, and Z weren't holding them back. It is counterproductive because it wastes time that could be spent solving the actual problem, which is that most of the public is unaware of what their real choices are. I've lost count of the number of people I've talked to who have no real idea what the Libertarians are all about, for example. I'm sure supporters of other small parties (American Independent, Peace and Freedom, Natural Law, etc.) have had the same experience.
Raise funds. Focus on a few small elections in areas that have a general cultural affinity to your party's platform rather than trying to run for every possible office at once and winning none of them. Once you have people in local offices, they're incumbents and they have all the advantages of incumbency come the following election, which will free up funds to focus on the next set of local elections. Eventually, if your people are as good as you say, they will be in a good position to run for state office, then national office, and their rising influence along the way will open the door to getting more supporters and more donations to fund the campaigns.
This is a general strategy that has worked out pretty well for the Green Party in Europe: focus on the local stuff first and work your way up. But for some reason, U.S. third parties would rather blow their scant funds carting presidential candidates across the country hoping to get.1% of the vote instead of the.08% they got last time. (Wow, a 25% increase since the last election! We're growing like wildfire! Uh, yeah. Right.)
If the aim is to replace commercial software with 'free' software
Which it isn't for a lot of OSS developers; the aim is to have software that does a particular job well enough. If other people find it useful too, great. If other people find it so useful that they can avoid purchasing a commercial software package or two, that's nice too. But if not, that's also fine; they're welcome to stick with the commercial packages, no harm done.
The only significant reliability complaint I have with Thunderbird is that on OSX, once or twice a day it decides to start chewing 100% of my CPU time until I quit and restart it. Nothing actually stops working, it just starts chewing CPU. Might be something to do with the fact that I have it set to talk to multiple IMAP servers, but I don't see that behavior on Windows with the same mail servers.
I admit I haven't filed a bug report on this, mostly because I can't figure out how to reproduce it. It just seems to happen when it feels like happening, which is not exactly the makings of a useful bug report.:(
As reliability complaints go, this is a pretty minor one; the software is still perfectly functional even when the bug hits, and I can finish what I'm doing and restart it at my convenience. But it's still kind of annoying.
I bought myself an elliptical trainer last year. My laptop rests comfortably on the hand grips. I bought an Easy Chair Mount with a couple extra vertical segments -- the guys who sell the mount are happy to help you figure out what you need -- and used it to mount a 21" LCD (the Dell 1600x1200 one) just in front of the trainer. It works nicely; I can read my email and do my morning Web surfing on a decent-size screen and before I know it my water bottle is empty and I've had my morning aerobic workout. It is not the cheapest setup in the universe but I've been getting a lot more exercise since it arrived, so I think it's worth the hit on my wallet.
One piece of advice, though: Avoid exercise equipment with wireless heart rate monitors. Mine has one and it constantly gets bogus signals when the laptop is resting on its console, making the automated "adjust the resistance based on your heart rate" modes next to useless for me.
Sometimes popular deviations from the norm cause languages to evolve. And sometimes an error is just an error.
The languages you name are not a result of "'mistakes' in Latin." What we know as Spanish, for example, is certainly heavily influenced by Latin. But it is not a simple derivative of Latin that appeared because people couldn't remember their declensions. Rather, Latin mixed with existing indigenous languages (which were in turn based on mixes of other, earlier languages such as Celtic). Then there was the small matter of Arabic-speaking Moors ruling much of Spain for a time, leaving behind an Arabic influence that persisted even after the speakers of the more Latin-influenced language drove the Moors out.
The histories of modern languages are actually rather interesting reading. They are more complex than you might think.
I think foreign occupations and fluid borders have contributed vastly more lasting change to languages over time than oft-repeated mistakes have, though you can certainly point to plenty of examples of the latter. For example, using "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun in English is becoming more and more accepted over time. A hundred years from now it may well be universally considered completely correct in formal written English. On the other hand, "their" and "they're" and "there" are still not interchangeable despite the best mistake-making efforts of generations of students.
Finally, if you really believe that poorly-spelled, ungrammatical writing is just fine, start learning a foreign language. Preferably one that's very distant from your native language. Then visit that language's equivalent of Slashdot and I guarantee you will deeply appreciate the people who take the time to proofread their messages. Poor grammar and spelling are not much of a problem for native speakers, but they can be huge obstacles to understanding for non-native speakers.
That's a reflection of high school teaching practices, I think.
Before I got to high school, my leisure-time writing had a very concise, to-the-point style. High school taught me that to succeed, I had to pad my 300-word essays out to 500 words. I didn't have to actually say anything more, mind you, but if I wanted a good grade I had to use more words to do it.
For all the high school's crowing about how they were preparing me for college, when I actually got into a good university and took some writing classes, my professors without fail preferred well-crafted 300-word pieces to well-padded 500-word ones.
No atheist I know takes their kids to atheist Sunday school at the local atheist anti-church, or enrolls their kids in There-Is-No-Jesus Camp, or forces their kids to close their eyes and say "lack of grace" before a meal, or reads from illustrated children's books of tales from "The Blind Watchmaker" at bedtime, or sends their kids to atheist school where they have to spend time in non-catechism class.
Claiming both atheists and Christians indoctrinate their kids to the same degree is as ludicrous as claiming the same thing about, say, mainstream Christians and the Muslim parents who send their kids to madras schools. One doesn't have to have any particular religious persuasion to see that teaching kids a relatively complex narrative (the old and new testaments) requires more time and effort on the parts of parents than not teaching them the narrative.
We've killed over 4000 Al Qeada in Iraq - accoding to Al Qeada! I say better there than here.
Not if by killing those 4000 we gain them 5000 new recruits. Which according to the President's own intelligence analysis is exactly what's happening.
Your hornet's nest analogy assumes that there is some fixed pool of terrorists out there, and our job is to hunt them down until they are all dead, after which we'll be done and there will be no more terrorists. Trouble is, terrorism is not a cause or a movement or a group that can be stamped out. It is a tactic employed in the service of a cause. As long as there are causes people are willing to die for, people will die for their causes.
Can you point to one case at any time in world history where eliminating insurgents has worked in the end? Where hunting down and killing fervent believers in a cause, people who were willing to die for their beliefs, has ultimately killed a movement, and the hunters have been able to wash their hands and declare victory?
What the "kill 'em all!" crowd doesn't get is that just about anyone can become a terrorist if they're given a good enough reason. We are over there giving a lot of people exactly that reason -- people who would not otherwise have become terrorists. We are worsening the very problem we're allegedly trying to solve, and the government's own experts on the matter have now said so in writing. I realize there are a lot of talk show hosts and bloggers who are quite certain they know more about strategic analysis than the combined staffs of the 16 intelligence agencies that contributed to the report, but I know who I'm more inclined to believe.
Suppose China suddenly invaded the US. If they started rounding up freedom fighters and shooting them in the head, would you shrug and say, "Good show guys, you win, what would you like from me?" I'm guessing not. I'm guessing for every one of your countrymen you saw turned into a "traitors eliminated!" statistic on the official state-run TV, you'd get angrier and angrier until you decided you'd had enough, those bastards were going to pay for destroying your way of life. Well, guess what, from the point of view of Al Qaeda's new recruits, that's exactly what we're doing.
Most Republicans are living in the real world, where there is a shooting war on.
Which they're doing their level best to lose in the most spectacular way possible.
Most Democrats are living in a fantasy world where they are more likely to believe Bushitler blew up the WTC than to believe UBL not only did it, but that it wasn't his first successful attack.
Ah! That explains why so many Democrats were in favor of going into Afghanistan. (Check the congressional vote record if you don't believe me.)
I could just as easily say most Republicans are living in a fantasy world where history isn't what actually happened, it's what should have happened such that the present authorities are cast in the most flattering possible light, all problems are automatically the other side's fault, all mistakes the result of meddling by the opposition.
Iraq isn't about weapons of mass destruction! Where did you get a silly idea like that? It's about spreading democracy, just like we told you from the beginning. The insurgency is in its last throes -- mission accomplished!
9/11 was all Clinton's fault, because, um, well, Lewinsky, PRESIDENT HAVING SEX, bad! Except that it was actually Saddam Hussein's fault, because he had strong ties to Al-Qaida, well, okay, not strong ties exactly, but he talked to them, well okay, he didn't talk to them exactly, but he knew about them, well okay, he kind of hated their guts more than we did, but dammit, he was breeding terrorists. We can't have Saddam breeding terrorists over there, not when we can take over and, according to our own intelligence analysts, do a much better job of breeding even more terrorists.
And if you have a problem with that, we might have a guy listening in to your phone conversations. You know, to help safeguard your freedom and privacy from those terrorists who hate freedom. (Or we might not, no way you can find out, because we won't even allow you to sue over it.)
What I want to know is, where are all the ultra right-wingers who were threatening bloody revolution in the event of all the anti-civil-liberty crap that's happening before our eyes? Was there a footnote in that threat I missed, "Offer only valid if a Democrat is in office?"
Despite Postgres being a technically superior product it lags in user acceptance and developer enthusiasm because it's not GPLed.
What evidence is there that Postgres is less popular than MySQL because of its license? People I know who choose MySQL over Postgres do so because MySQL is faster for their particular workload, or because it's easier to set up (less true now than it used to be), or because the PHP message board package they want to use is littered with MySQL-specific queries and won't work with any other database, or because their Web hosting provider supplies a MySQL database but not a Postgres one.
None of which have anything to do with the license.
Apache isn't GPLed and last I heard it was kind of popular.
I'm an atheist, and I have no trouble getting up and doing stuff other than working and making money. I think there's basically no correlation between theism and sense of purpose. Lots of believers have committed suicide out of sheer hopelessness and angst.
One could easily argue it the other way. What's the point of getting up and doing stuff when at any instant, your god of choice could decide he's bored with the universe, wipe it clean, and start over from scratch with a different set of config options? Maybe he just did, and you can't tell because he created you with a bunch of fake memories to fool you into not noticing. If you believe in an omnipotent god who does things for reasons we can't understand, you can't dismiss the possibility. Now THAT'S a bleak belief system in my book.
Yep, that seems about right. Back in the day I used to blow through console RPGs in three or four days of very little sleep. Once I got a real job and a steady girlfriend it started taking me weeks, if not longer.
As a result I have come to prefer a 10-hour-long game to a 40-hour-long one if they both have the same amount of story and/or variety. The 40-hour games are typically 5 hours of new material and 35 hours of repetitive combat to slog through to get to the good stuff.
but we have people who literally believe something will cause a suspension of the 2008 elections, allowing Bush to remain in power.
To be fair, though, I've heard that about every president since I've been old enough to know what a presidential term was. At this point I'd be surprised if there weren't people thinking that toward the end of a given president's tenure. Happily, it's always a very small minority of extreme left-wingers (the Republican President is going to declare martial law or some national emergency) or right-wingers (the Democratic President is going to cede authority to the UN in exchange for being installed as a figurehead) and not something that most people really give any thought to.
Slashdot Mirror
Mostly because it's so gratuitous. Where normal people would use "comedy," they write "laffer," which in addition to not being an actual word, isn't even any shorter! They use the word "actioner," which my brain always interprets as "auctioneer" at first glance. But at least that saves some characters compared to "action movie," so I can sort of vaguely comprehend why someone might mistake it for a good idea.
Crime rates in general have been much lower over the last couple decades than in the decades before that, at least in the US. Why would taking a ride in a stranger's car have gotten more dangerous when everything else has gotten much safer?
I think it's more a function of increasingly pervasive news coverage. Two decades ago, there wasn't room on the nightly national news to cover the kidnapping of some teenage hitchhiker two states away from you, so if that happened you would have never heard a peep about it. Now you'll hear about it on the Internet if you're looking for that kind of story. But the fact that it's easier to find out about something now doesn't mean that it's actually happening any more often.
If you really think hitchhiking has gotten more dangerous lately, go check out this book by someone who has actually hitchhiked across the country and very much disagrees with that perception.
But if that's true, then how can 9/11 be Clinton's fault? It doesn't make sense.
If he actually uses only free software, why is that logic self-serving?
Actually, I'm cool with everyone being brainwashed into empiricism.
No argument about the wisdom of eating a healthy, balanced diet, but MSG has been a common food additive in Asia for quite a while. It is used frequently in Chinese home cooking; it is not just a restaurant thing there. Why is China only recently starting to experience an obesity problem? I don't think the evidence supports laying the blame at the feet of MSG.
Wow, I'm glad my attorney isn't such a moron. The point of the Coral Cache (you know, with an "a" in the first word -- maybe you should learn its name if you're involved in litigation over it) is to avoid flooding sites with requests. By, you know, caching their contents. Just like the name says.
Absolutely! I agree completely. And in fact we're there already: the legal system does not currently determine who can participate in presidential debates. The debates are not organized by a government body -- they are organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which despite its official-sounding name, is a privately run nonprofit organization. That private organization determines which candidates are invited to participate in the debates it sponsors.
Claiming that its refusal to invite your candidate of choice to a particular debate represents a failure of the legal system doesn't really make sense, short of saying that a government body should have the power to dictate a list of required debate participants to private organizations. And if that is what you're proposing, then there are a whole lot of rather disturbing free-speech implications: What constitutes a debate? Does everyone who claims to be running for president get to participate, or if not, what's the cutoff below which you don't make it onto the official must-be-invited list? If the Greens and Libertarians have a debate on a college campus, are they required to invite the local Democrats as well? And so on.
Look, I'm a registered Libertarian. I am frustrated by the Republicans and Democrats too. But there is an annoying tendency for third-party supporters to sit around whining about how their people would do so much better if only artificial barriers X, Y, and Z weren't holding them back. It is counterproductive because it wastes time that could be spent solving the actual problem, which is that most of the public is unaware of what their real choices are. I've lost count of the number of people I've talked to who have no real idea what the Libertarians are all about, for example. I'm sure supporters of other small parties (American Independent, Peace and Freedom, Natural Law, etc.) have had the same experience.
Raise funds. Focus on a few small elections in areas that have a general cultural affinity to your party's platform rather than trying to run for every possible office at once and winning none of them. Once you have people in local offices, they're incumbents and they have all the advantages of incumbency come the following election, which will free up funds to focus on the next set of local elections. Eventually, if your people are as good as you say, they will be in a good position to run for state office, then national office, and their rising influence along the way will open the door to getting more supporters and more donations to fund the campaigns.
This is a general strategy that has worked out pretty well for the Green Party in Europe: focus on the local stuff first and work your way up. But for some reason, U.S. third parties would rather blow their scant funds carting presidential candidates across the country hoping to get .1% of the vote instead of the .08% they got last time. (Wow, a 25% increase since the last election! We're growing like wildfire! Uh, yeah. Right.)
I admit I haven't filed a bug report on this, mostly because I can't figure out how to reproduce it. It just seems to happen when it feels like happening, which is not exactly the makings of a useful bug report. :(
As reliability complaints go, this is a pretty minor one; the software is still perfectly functional even when the bug hits, and I can finish what I'm doing and restart it at my convenience. But it's still kind of annoying.
One piece of advice, though: Avoid exercise equipment with wireless heart rate monitors. Mine has one and it constantly gets bogus signals when the laptop is resting on its console, making the automated "adjust the resistance based on your heart rate" modes next to useless for me.
The languages you name are not a result of "'mistakes' in Latin." What we know as Spanish, for example, is certainly heavily influenced by Latin. But it is not a simple derivative of Latin that appeared because people couldn't remember their declensions. Rather, Latin mixed with existing indigenous languages (which were in turn based on mixes of other, earlier languages such as Celtic). Then there was the small matter of Arabic-speaking Moors ruling much of Spain for a time, leaving behind an Arabic influence that persisted even after the speakers of the more Latin-influenced language drove the Moors out.
The histories of modern languages are actually rather interesting reading. They are more complex than you might think.
I think foreign occupations and fluid borders have contributed vastly more lasting change to languages over time than oft-repeated mistakes have, though you can certainly point to plenty of examples of the latter. For example, using "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun in English is becoming more and more accepted over time. A hundred years from now it may well be universally considered completely correct in formal written English. On the other hand, "their" and "they're" and "there" are still not interchangeable despite the best mistake-making efforts of generations of students.
Finally, if you really believe that poorly-spelled, ungrammatical writing is just fine, start learning a foreign language. Preferably one that's very distant from your native language. Then visit that language's equivalent of Slashdot and I guarantee you will deeply appreciate the people who take the time to proofread their messages. Poor grammar and spelling are not much of a problem for native speakers, but they can be huge obstacles to understanding for non-native speakers.
I've installed XP on virtual machines (Parallels on my Mac, for example) using my XP license key and it has activated just fine.
Before I got to high school, my leisure-time writing had a very concise, to-the-point style. High school taught me that to succeed, I had to pad my 300-word essays out to 500 words. I didn't have to actually say anything more, mind you, but if I wanted a good grade I had to use more words to do it.
For all the high school's crowing about how they were preparing me for college, when I actually got into a good university and took some writing classes, my professors without fail preferred well-crafted 300-word pieces to well-padded 500-word ones.
Claiming both atheists and Christians indoctrinate their kids to the same degree is as ludicrous as claiming the same thing about, say, mainstream Christians and the Muslim parents who send their kids to madras schools. One doesn't have to have any particular religious persuasion to see that teaching kids a relatively complex narrative (the old and new testaments) requires more time and effort on the parts of parents than not teaching them the narrative.
Not if by killing those 4000 we gain them 5000 new recruits. Which according to the President's own intelligence analysis is exactly what's happening.
Your hornet's nest analogy assumes that there is some fixed pool of terrorists out there, and our job is to hunt them down until they are all dead, after which we'll be done and there will be no more terrorists. Trouble is, terrorism is not a cause or a movement or a group that can be stamped out. It is a tactic employed in the service of a cause. As long as there are causes people are willing to die for, people will die for their causes.
Can you point to one case at any time in world history where eliminating insurgents has worked in the end? Where hunting down and killing fervent believers in a cause, people who were willing to die for their beliefs, has ultimately killed a movement, and the hunters have been able to wash their hands and declare victory?
What the "kill 'em all!" crowd doesn't get is that just about anyone can become a terrorist if they're given a good enough reason. We are over there giving a lot of people exactly that reason -- people who would not otherwise have become terrorists. We are worsening the very problem we're allegedly trying to solve, and the government's own experts on the matter have now said so in writing. I realize there are a lot of talk show hosts and bloggers who are quite certain they know more about strategic analysis than the combined staffs of the 16 intelligence agencies that contributed to the report, but I know who I'm more inclined to believe.
Suppose China suddenly invaded the US. If they started rounding up freedom fighters and shooting them in the head, would you shrug and say, "Good show guys, you win, what would you like from me?" I'm guessing not. I'm guessing for every one of your countrymen you saw turned into a "traitors eliminated!" statistic on the official state-run TV, you'd get angrier and angrier until you decided you'd had enough, those bastards were going to pay for destroying your way of life. Well, guess what, from the point of view of Al Qaeda's new recruits, that's exactly what we're doing.
I could just as easily say most Republicans are living in a fantasy world where history isn't what actually happened, it's what should have happened such that the present authorities are cast in the most flattering possible light, all problems are automatically the other side's fault, all mistakes the result of meddling by the opposition.
Iraq isn't about weapons of mass destruction! Where did you get a silly idea like that? It's about spreading democracy, just like we told you from the beginning. The insurgency is in its last throes -- mission accomplished!
9/11 was all Clinton's fault, because, um, well, Lewinsky, PRESIDENT HAVING SEX, bad! Except that it was actually Saddam Hussein's fault, because he had strong ties to Al-Qaida, well, okay, not strong ties exactly, but he talked to them, well okay, he didn't talk to them exactly, but he knew about them, well okay, he kind of hated their guts more than we did, but dammit, he was breeding terrorists. We can't have Saddam breeding terrorists over there, not when we can take over and, according to our own intelligence analysts, do a much better job of breeding even more terrorists.
And if you have a problem with that, we might have a guy listening in to your phone conversations. You know, to help safeguard your freedom and privacy from those terrorists who hate freedom. (Or we might not, no way you can find out, because we won't even allow you to sue over it.)
What I want to know is, where are all the ultra right-wingers who were threatening bloody revolution in the event of all the anti-civil-liberty crap that's happening before our eyes? Was there a footnote in that threat I missed, "Offer only valid if a Democrat is in office?"
What evidence is there that Postgres is less popular than MySQL because of its license? People I know who choose MySQL over Postgres do so because MySQL is faster for their particular workload, or because it's easier to set up (less true now than it used to be), or because the PHP message board package they want to use is littered with MySQL-specific queries and won't work with any other database, or because their Web hosting provider supplies a MySQL database but not a Postgres one.
None of which have anything to do with the license.
Apache isn't GPLed and last I heard it was kind of popular.
One could easily argue it the other way. What's the point of getting up and doing stuff when at any instant, your god of choice could decide he's bored with the universe, wipe it clean, and start over from scratch with a different set of config options? Maybe he just did, and you can't tell because he created you with a bunch of fake memories to fool you into not noticing. If you believe in an omnipotent god who does things for reasons we can't understand, you can't dismiss the possibility. Now THAT'S a bleak belief system in my book.
As a result I have come to prefer a 10-hour-long game to a 40-hour-long one if they both have the same amount of story and/or variety. The 40-hour games are typically 5 hours of new material and 35 hours of repetitive combat to slog through to get to the good stuff.
I guess outrageously long copyright terms really do encourage artists to produce more work after they die.
You mean now I have to be skeptical of things I see online? What next? You gonna tell me the Tooth Fairy isn't real?