Yeah, because when someone casually says "I'll bet the CIA assassinates him" they're referring specifically to the Central Intelligence Agency, and nothing else. They certainly aren't using it as a general name for the USA's secret police/intelligence forces.
Hard to keep my palm off of my forehead on slashdot these days. You clearly have NO IDEA how the CIA operates.
Bluntly, to suggest the CIA assassinated someone is to suggest YOU assassinated someone. Is it possible? Absolutely! It is likely? Absolutely not! These days, if an assassination can be credibly linked back to the CIA, all of the agents involved go to jail. That wasn't always the case. Thusly, it used to be the CIA both assassinated and sponsored assassinations. These days, its all but impossible unless an immediate national security threat is identified.
Why is it you re-state what I already said and then go off stating additional "stuff", having no basis and is in fact, extremely likely to be false, moderated as "Informative", when, "Complete BS", would be more accurate.
With your logic, guys that was due to rotated back home or up for retirement and die are assassinated. In reality, for those that don't wear tin foil hats, coincidence happens all the time. Conspiracy isn't behind every tragedy.
The FACTS of the matter is, exactly as I originally stated, since Clinton, the CIA has officially been out of the assassination game. I'm not arguing its impossible for them to have assassinated anyone, but these days, doing so can land you in jail for the rest of your life - unlike all the period in time to which you refer. Meaning, everything you provide as "evidence" has exactly ZERO bearing on the matter at hand.
Then - legal and common practice and is especially well documented - as both of us said. Now - illegal and definitely NOT common practice. As far as I know, no evidence to support the CIA has assassinated anyone since Clinton; but again, hardly impossible. As I said, unless you can somehow link the person to an immediate national security threat, the chances of the CIA assassinating someone, anyone, is almost zero. So unless you have something which indicates an immediate national security threat, you are most definitely, no bones about it, wearing a tin foil hat.
You mean we are supposed to be shocked that a criminal, with an ego the size of a country might have committed yet another crime? A crime, I might add, which requires an ego the size of a country? Who could possibly imagine such a thing...
Let the police do their job. They are investigating. Or do you believe the world police have all be bought off too? The evidence, as reported thus far, does suggest there may be credibility to the police investigation.
Take a wait and see position to see what happens. Frankly, to take any other position at this time is to be a tool for one side or the other.
Of course he doesn't. Then again, its hard to see past his tin foil hat.
I'm not saying the CIA has never assassinated anyone. In fact, its well documented they have. But one, CIA assassination is currently illegal. Two, CIA operations inside the US' borders are also illegal. Three, the preferred method of operation is to encourage and even empower (finance) others who might wish to perform such actions. Basically this all means the CIA doesn't generally assassinate anyone any more. And when they do, its likely only because they have a demonstrably national security threat. This isn't a Hollywood movie after all.
And in addition to all that, for the CIA to even desire to assassinate him, which is very highly doubtful, there would need to be a clear understanding that he had obtain information which posed a significant national security threat. Oddly enough, most who seem to insist he's a likely target for CIA assassination also seem to insist the information he has and has released does not pose any type of security threat. They can't have it both ways - but then again, that's likely why they wear tin foil.
Far too many people go out of their way to confuse Hollywood with real life.
I honestly forgot about the cell phone pico projectors. But since you mention then, I don't believe they typically support better than 800x600 - at least not today. There are pico projectors which allow for full resolution HD output but they are much, much larger than a cell phone in of themselves.
and play it back at full quality when you plug in an external display.
Well, that was entirely the point of the poster to whom you originally replied. The available storage for "full quality" HD simply doesn't exist on smart phones. Today, 8-16GB is the norm. High end devices make 32GB a possibility. Even if we double it again, 64GB isn't all that much storage for high quality HD video. Which means, at the end of the day, you're focus is on creating HD content and having available, highly compressed, yet still very acceptable, re-encoded video for your pocket viewing pleasure; even if a pico projector becomes small enough and can do better than the provided display.
It's also a long term cost center. But more interestingly, even the most worthless security tools can be proven to "work" if you look at the numbers.'"
Which is roughly 1040 feet per minute for climb performance. For a lightly loaded single engine ICE, on a moderately warm day and low altitude, that's not that bad. For a twin, that's fairly anemic given that these numbers represent an almost ideal test. Of course, its climb performance may have as much to do with wing design (low lift and good cruise) than available power. But then again, 110kph is roughly 60 knph, which is slow. In comparison, a new Cessna 172 will cruise at 115 knph and have roughly the same climb rate at this. Snails and dogs with flying dog houses will pass this thing all day long and likely means they have a wing design for slow speed and good lift, which is opposite of what I originally contended.
Not to mention, there isn't much point in having maximum visual quality when the provided display can't natively present it in its full, native, glory. And really the point is just to have high quality video available in your pocket. You can still have high quality, fully enjoyable, to the full limits of your device's display, at lessor compression rates and still have it look considerably better than we have today.
Really, the important part here is recording at higher video rates more so than play back. If you want high quality playback, attempting to lipstick a pig isn't really helpful. But the ability to create high quality video for playback on other, high quality display devices (your TV or computer) is far more important.
Actually, once again you're completely wrong. What a surprise!
Most movies do make money otherwise everyone would be out of business. You're confusing accounting with profit. A fact which is often pointed out in threads such as these.
To suggestion that the movie couldn't have made more is declare yourself a complete idiot. But frankly, when it comes to discussions of piracy, the vast, vast, vast majority seem more than willing to prove they are complete idiots. The pro-pirate mantra is sickeningly stupid and completely irrational and without fail, any credible counter argument which paints them the thieves they are, is immediately moderated to death.
Needless to say, its not the least be surprising the counter argument to my post is complete bullshit.
Most android devices which are under clocked are done so for thermal (component longevity) and battery life reasons rather than stability. As long as he's not actually over clocked (clocked above component rating), stability should never be a concern.
Ramping up clocking on an already under clocked component is generally not considered over clocking.
If you negatively moderate this post, you are completely uneducated. Basic economic theory confirms everything that is stated. Negative moderation means you are uneducated and don't understand anything about economics.
So you completely agree they dramatically hurt domestic profits. I do too.
Meanwhile, in the real world, there are only so many slots at one time in theaters. This is why only a limited number of movies get made every year. The exact slot is determined by the publisher and distributor. Basically you're argument for destroying massive profits is that had they released it earlier, where there were no slots available in the theaters, making even less money would have been far more profitable. Slots for movies are commonly determined a year or more in advanced. Simply put, your theory is complete bullshit.
The reality is, every time people steal IP, the owners lose money. Period. Financial harm is always inflicted to the owners. There isn't much difference between someone stealing a car and someone stealing a movie or application. Imaginary masturbation to the contrary doesn't make it true. Stealing is stealing. Someone is always harmed. The only real difference is the amount of damage incurred. Every time you steal IP, at a minimum, you are devaluing it. As a result, the IP owners have been harmed.
The case is a classic example of why the viral bullshit put forth by in that widely publicized paper, and worshiped by uneducated pirates, is just that, complete bullshit. Stealing does not increase profits for the owners. Stealing did, on the other hand, devalue the property in question. And rather than admit, yep, we completely fucked them like a car thief (Which is exactly what happened here), you blame the loss on not releasing the movie when they would have lost even more because no one would have been able to show the movie in the first place.
If you create your own stock in a company, you devalue the worth of that company. Anyone who says otherwise is either dumb, ignorant, or lying.
If you create your own currency and pass it off as the real thing, you devalue the worth of the real currency and undermine the economy. Anyone who says otherwise is either dumb, ignorant, or lying.
If you create your own version of a movie, application, music, or other IP, you devalue the worth of the real IP and undermine its market. Anyone who says otherwise is either dumb, ignorant, or lying.
In all three examples, they are forms of fraud or theft. Legally they each have their own classification. Regardless of their exact legal classification, they are all variations of a theme; theft. Creating your own currency is stealing. Creating your own stock is stealing. Creating your own copies of IP is stealing. Stealing is stealing and people are harmed.
If you pirate movies, music, and/or applications, you are literally no better than a car thief, a counterfeiter, or white collar fraudsters. In each case, they are a thief in some way. In each case, someone is harmed.
I don't know if that's true or not but frankly, couldn't care less. What's the relevance? Such a silly comment only has relevance if one presumes Apple has created the best user interface ever, and the interface, as is now, is the best mankind will ever muster. I strongly suspect such a theory will be completely deflated come Apple's next OS update/release.
Which brings us full circle - fanboy much? As with most any zealotry, you are destined to not only look silly, but be completely wrong.
The reality is, Apple innovates little and takes ideas from everywhere. Once again we're asking extremely simple questions which surprise the hell out of fanboys such as yourself. Since Apple copies everyone else, why is it the least be surprising that everyone else might copy those same sources or even include Apple as a source of innovation? Everyone feeds off of one another and there is no escape unless you live in a bubble. Period.
Get over it. Apple is many things but innovation is rarely one of them. So next time you imply everyone is copying Apple, understand you are almost assuredly, absolutely wrong before you can even begin to voice/pen such a woefully, misconceived notion.
Why is it that when Apple copied pre-existing Android tablet manufacturers (any other devices even before them), Apple become the, "original." And now that people are following through on plans, long existing before Apple released their product, everyone else is suddenly an imitation?
Fanboy much?
Apple was not the first with a tablet. Period. Android tablets existed, and still do, long before Apple pulled the trigger. Android, while not being first with a tablet, still beat Apple by any measure. If you want to buy an imitation from Apple, go a head, but stop attempting to force your reality distortion field on everyone else.
This is another one of those articles which prove judges are idiots and unqualified for their job. This idiot judge just granted the the company complete justification for a new trial. This idiot judge just interpreted and applied another state's laws whereby he has no such authority. Period. End of discussion.
If the judge was not a complete idiot, which clearly he is, the case would have been thrown to the Texas court where the contract very clearly demands. They have no choice. It is then up to the plaintiff's lawyer to convince the Texas judge/court that the the state law is not applicable and therefore the case can move forward in a court of the plaintiff's choosing. That's what we call due process. Until this happens, due process has been denied to the company and is completely illegal.
Why is it so hard for judges to actually do their fucking job? Are there any courts left which actually have judges who can spell their own name? Holy shit that judge is a fucking idiot.
As supply dwindles the price sky rockets. As the price increases, harder to reach oil supplies become cost effective. As price continues to rise, alternative forms of oil (including synthetic) scavenging and processing become cost effective which lowers pressure on traditional sources of oil. As demand grows a new market is created which continues to lower pressure and establishes alternate sources.
Basically saying, we will never run out of oil. Our economic model ensures that will never happen. The real question is, at what price point do alternative oil and fuel sources become economically viable? Most economists believe that number starts at a *sustained* $120 per barrel and higher. And oddly enough, recent semi-recent oil prices seem to bare that out. When oil was holding at such high prices there was suddenly much vigor in producing alternate forms of fuel, oil, and energy. Prices fell before the market could deliver on long term replacements. Again, stressing the need for sustained high prices before the market can justify significant research into alternative solutions.
Over all, I don't disagree with the substance of your reply.
it was supposed to "enable non-programmers to write code"
This is very important. The problem is, those same non-programmers believe they can design databases too.
Consequently, its syntax is quirky and overly verbose
There is a standard which reduces the vast majority of syntax quirkiness. Much of the quirkiness exists not from the SQL standard but from various SQL RDBMS which do not follow the standard.
I've frequently heard SQL is overly verbose but have never bought into that. Can you provide an example of SQL which is overly verbose and an imaginary, more concise example, which still meets "non-programmer" demands in readability?
In my own opinion, people confuse "overly verbose" with having many options. Again, in my opinion, many people don't understand the many nuances of various SQL clauses and is likely the root of the "overly verbose" argument.
Don't get me wrong, SQL is not perfect. There are certainly some oddities in the SQL standard. At the same time, I'm hard pressed to think of any technology by committee which doesn't have faults. Furthermore, I can't think of any significant technology base which is perfect.
All of this begs the question. The real question is why we use a technology that is so sensitive to bad schema design? Why use a technology that has such a high baseline overhead? Why use a technology that is so tedious? Why use a technology that is so hard to test?
Because fairly consistently, for the past forty years, every time someone says they've created something better than SQL and released to the market, the market proves them woefully and completely wrong. As such, as much as people piss and moan about SQL, SQL has consistently proven to be an excellent, general purpose solution and amazingly poorly understood by the masses. And solutions such as MySQL has only made things worse. That's not to say there are not superior niche solutions, only that SQL is one of the few database technologies which has continued to survive for decades as a general purpose solution, and rightfully so.
Its like the world suddenly doing their own plumbing, framing, and mechanical work and then proudly exclaiming the state of architecture and the car industry stinks because the world is falling apart around them. In reality, that means we need far more qualified DBAs and far fewer people who can barely spell, "SQL", designing and condemning the world around us.
Its literally been years since I've run into a qualified DBA, despite the fact "DBA" was part of their title. Turns out, being able to spell, "DBA" is all too often enough to qualify one for such a position. And don't get me started on the all the more common case of people who don't even know what a DBA does and yet they are responsible for actually creating the schema/data model.
The reason you drink only beer, no matter your objections and thoughts on the matter is that you're relatively sure it won't infect you with an illness.
This is true almost universally around the world, and especially in Europe, if only 150 or so years back. For many, breakfast was stale bread soaked with bear followed by a coffee to counteract drinking that beer. And if you were lucky, it might be followed with an egg, a sausage, or maybe even a meat pie of some type. Not to mention, many old beers recipes are far more nutritionally rich and dense than the common breads of the area. For many cultures throughout history, beer, rather than plumbing, was the cure for poor sanitation and dirty water.
Beer drinking plus the industrial revolution resulted in many a dismemberment and/or death. Coffee is widely regarded as the cure for beer+industrial revolution woes, allowing for a widening of the gene pool and perhaps a chance at middle age.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you steal from a cable/satellite operator, then its a criminal offense.
Yeah, because when someone casually says "I'll bet the CIA assassinates him" they're referring specifically to the Central Intelligence Agency, and nothing else. They certainly aren't using it as a general name for the USA's secret police/intelligence forces.
Hard to keep my palm off of my forehead on slashdot these days. You clearly have NO IDEA how the CIA operates.
Bluntly, to suggest the CIA assassinated someone is to suggest YOU assassinated someone. Is it possible? Absolutely! It is likely? Absolutely not! These days, if an assassination can be credibly linked back to the CIA, all of the agents involved go to jail. That wasn't always the case. Thusly, it used to be the CIA both assassinated and sponsored assassinations. These days, its all but impossible unless an immediate national security threat is identified.
Why is it you re-state what I already said and then go off stating additional "stuff", having no basis and is in fact, extremely likely to be false, moderated as "Informative", when, "Complete BS", would be more accurate.
With your logic, guys that was due to rotated back home or up for retirement and die are assassinated. In reality, for those that don't wear tin foil hats, coincidence happens all the time. Conspiracy isn't behind every tragedy.
The FACTS of the matter is, exactly as I originally stated, since Clinton, the CIA has officially been out of the assassination game. I'm not arguing its impossible for them to have assassinated anyone, but these days, doing so can land you in jail for the rest of your life - unlike all the period in time to which you refer. Meaning, everything you provide as "evidence" has exactly ZERO bearing on the matter at hand.
Then - legal and common practice and is especially well documented - as both of us said.
Now - illegal and definitely NOT common practice. As far as I know, no evidence to support the CIA has assassinated anyone since Clinton; but again, hardly impossible. As I said, unless you can somehow link the person to an immediate national security threat, the chances of the CIA assassinating someone, anyone, is almost zero. So unless you have something which indicates an immediate national security threat, you are most definitely, no bones about it, wearing a tin foil hat.
Yesterday it not today. Get over it.
LOL!!!!
You mean we are supposed to be shocked that a criminal, with an ego the size of a country might have committed yet another crime? A crime, I might add, which requires an ego the size of a country? Who could possibly imagine such a thing...
Let the police do their job. They are investigating. Or do you believe the world police have all be bought off too? The evidence, as reported thus far, does suggest there may be credibility to the police investigation.
Take a wait and see position to see what happens. Frankly, to take any other position at this time is to be a tool for one side or the other.
Of course he doesn't. Then again, its hard to see past his tin foil hat.
I'm not saying the CIA has never assassinated anyone. In fact, its well documented they have. But one, CIA assassination is currently illegal. Two, CIA operations inside the US' borders are also illegal. Three, the preferred method of operation is to encourage and even empower (finance) others who might wish to perform such actions. Basically this all means the CIA doesn't generally assassinate anyone any more. And when they do, its likely only because they have a demonstrably national security threat. This isn't a Hollywood movie after all.
And in addition to all that, for the CIA to even desire to assassinate him, which is very highly doubtful, there would need to be a clear understanding that he had obtain information which posed a significant national security threat. Oddly enough, most who seem to insist he's a likely target for CIA assassination also seem to insist the information he has and has released does not pose any type of security threat. They can't have it both ways - but then again, that's likely why they wear tin foil.
Far too many people go out of their way to confuse Hollywood with real life.
I honestly forgot about the cell phone pico projectors. But since you mention then, I don't believe they typically support better than 800x600 - at least not today. There are pico projectors which allow for full resolution HD output but they are much, much larger than a cell phone in of themselves.
and play it back at full quality when you plug in an external display.
Well, that was entirely the point of the poster to whom you originally replied. The available storage for "full quality" HD simply doesn't exist on smart phones. Today, 8-16GB is the norm. High end devices make 32GB a possibility. Even if we double it again, 64GB isn't all that much storage for high quality HD video. Which means, at the end of the day, you're focus is on creating HD content and having available, highly compressed, yet still very acceptable, re-encoded video for your pocket viewing pleasure; even if a pico projector becomes small enough and can do better than the provided display.
It's also a long term cost center. But more interestingly, even the most worthless security tools can be proven to "work" if you look at the numbers.'"
and a climb rate of approximately 5.3 m/sec.
Which is roughly 1040 feet per minute for climb performance. For a lightly loaded single engine ICE, on a moderately warm day and low altitude, that's not that bad. For a twin, that's fairly anemic given that these numbers represent an almost ideal test. Of course, its climb performance may have as much to do with wing design (low lift and good cruise) than available power. But then again, 110kph is roughly 60 knph, which is slow. In comparison, a new Cessna 172 will cruise at 115 knph and have roughly the same climb rate at this. Snails and dogs with flying dog houses will pass this thing all day long and likely means they have a wing design for slow speed and good lift, which is opposite of what I originally contended.
Not really encouraging and far from exciting.
Not to mention, there isn't much point in having maximum visual quality when the provided display can't natively present it in its full, native, glory. And really the point is just to have high quality video available in your pocket. You can still have high quality, fully enjoyable, to the full limits of your device's display, at lessor compression rates and still have it look considerably better than we have today.
Really, the important part here is recording at higher video rates more so than play back. If you want high quality playback, attempting to lipstick a pig isn't really helpful. But the ability to create high quality video for playback on other, high quality display devices (your TV or computer) is far more important.
You can google Bing and bing Google, but please do not google Google - you WILL break the Internet!
The majority of movies don't make money
Actually, once again you're completely wrong. What a surprise!
Most movies do make money otherwise everyone would be out of business. You're confusing accounting with profit. A fact which is often pointed out in threads such as these.
To suggestion that the movie couldn't have made more is declare yourself a complete idiot. But frankly, when it comes to discussions of piracy, the vast, vast, vast majority seem more than willing to prove they are complete idiots. The pro-pirate mantra is sickeningly stupid and completely irrational and without fail, any credible counter argument which paints them the thieves they are, is immediately moderated to death.
Needless to say, its not the least be surprising the counter argument to my post is complete bullshit.
Don't professors generally assume that you took all the time available to you and didn't procrastinate?
Likely explains why they are a professor and not actually working in the real world.
The culprit was that the movie sucked plain and simple.
Most movies do suck, plain and simple, but they still make money hands of fist. The majority of movies completely debunk your theory.
Most android devices which are under clocked are done so for thermal (component longevity) and battery life reasons rather than stability. As long as he's not actually over clocked (clocked above component rating), stability should never be a concern.
Ramping up clocking on an already under clocked component is generally not considered over clocking.
Absolutely it is not. Its a dedicated video application. The application was available long before YouTube even offered HTML5.
If you negatively moderate this post, you are completely uneducated. Basic economic theory confirms everything that is stated. Negative moderation means you are uneducated and don't understand anything about economics.
So you completely agree they dramatically hurt domestic profits. I do too.
Meanwhile, in the real world, there are only so many slots at one time in theaters. This is why only a limited number of movies get made every year. The exact slot is determined by the publisher and distributor. Basically you're argument for destroying massive profits is that had they released it earlier, where there were no slots available in the theaters, making even less money would have been far more profitable. Slots for movies are commonly determined a year or more in advanced. Simply put, your theory is complete bullshit.
The reality is, every time people steal IP, the owners lose money. Period. Financial harm is always inflicted to the owners. There isn't much difference between someone stealing a car and someone stealing a movie or application. Imaginary masturbation to the contrary doesn't make it true. Stealing is stealing. Someone is always harmed. The only real difference is the amount of damage incurred. Every time you steal IP, at a minimum, you are devaluing it. As a result, the IP owners have been harmed.
The case is a classic example of why the viral bullshit put forth by in that widely publicized paper, and worshiped by uneducated pirates, is just that, complete bullshit. Stealing does not increase profits for the owners. Stealing did, on the other hand, devalue the property in question. And rather than admit, yep, we completely fucked them like a car thief (Which is exactly what happened here), you blame the loss on not releasing the movie when they would have lost even more because no one would have been able to show the movie in the first place.
If you create your own stock in a company, you devalue the worth of that company. Anyone who says otherwise is either dumb, ignorant, or lying.
If you create your own currency and pass it off as the real thing, you devalue the worth of the real currency and undermine the economy. Anyone who says otherwise is either dumb, ignorant, or lying.
If you create your own version of a movie, application, music, or other IP, you devalue the worth of the real IP and undermine its market. Anyone who says otherwise is either dumb, ignorant, or lying.
In all three examples, they are forms of fraud or theft. Legally they each have their own classification. Regardless of their exact legal classification, they are all variations of a theme; theft. Creating your own currency is stealing. Creating your own stock is stealing. Creating your own copies of IP is stealing. Stealing is stealing and people are harmed.
If you pirate movies, music, and/or applications, you are literally no better than a car thief, a counterfeiter, or white collar fraudsters. In each case, they are a thief in some way. In each case, someone is harmed.
Wow, and I thought I was anti Apple.
I'm not anti-Apple in the least. I'm anti-lie, anti-disinformation, and anti-reality distortion field. There is a huge difference.
I don't know if that's true or not but frankly, couldn't care less. What's the relevance? Such a silly comment only has relevance if one presumes Apple has created the best user interface ever, and the interface, as is now, is the best mankind will ever muster. I strongly suspect such a theory will be completely deflated come Apple's next OS update/release.
Which brings us full circle - fanboy much? As with most any zealotry, you are destined to not only look silly, but be completely wrong.
The reality is, Apple innovates little and takes ideas from everywhere. Once again we're asking extremely simple questions which surprise the hell out of fanboys such as yourself. Since Apple copies everyone else, why is it the least be surprising that everyone else might copy those same sources or even include Apple as a source of innovation? Everyone feeds off of one another and there is no escape unless you live in a bubble. Period.
Get over it. Apple is many things but innovation is rarely one of them. So next time you imply everyone is copying Apple, understand you are almost assuredly, absolutely wrong before you can even begin to voice/pen such a woefully, misconceived notion.
Why is it that when Apple copied pre-existing Android tablet manufacturers (any other devices even before them), Apple become the, "original." And now that people are following through on plans, long existing before Apple released their product, everyone else is suddenly an imitation?
Fanboy much?
Apple was not the first with a tablet. Period. Android tablets existed, and still do, long before Apple pulled the trigger. Android, while not being first with a tablet, still beat Apple by any measure. If you want to buy an imitation from Apple, go a head, but stop attempting to force your reality distortion field on everyone else.
This is another one of those articles which prove judges are idiots and unqualified for their job. This idiot judge just granted the the company complete justification for a new trial. This idiot judge just interpreted and applied another state's laws whereby he has no such authority. Period. End of discussion.
If the judge was not a complete idiot, which clearly he is, the case would have been thrown to the Texas court where the contract very clearly demands. They have no choice. It is then up to the plaintiff's lawyer to convince the Texas judge/court that the the state law is not applicable and therefore the case can move forward in a court of the plaintiff's choosing. That's what we call due process. Until this happens, due process has been denied to the company and is completely illegal.
Why is it so hard for judges to actually do their fucking job? Are there any courts left which actually have judges who can spell their own name? Holy shit that judge is a fucking idiot.
The argument works like this.
As supply dwindles the price sky rockets. As the price increases, harder to reach oil supplies become cost effective. As price continues to rise, alternative forms of oil (including synthetic) scavenging and processing become cost effective which lowers pressure on traditional sources of oil. As demand grows a new market is created which continues to lower pressure and establishes alternate sources.
Basically saying, we will never run out of oil. Our economic model ensures that will never happen. The real question is, at what price point do alternative oil and fuel sources become economically viable? Most economists believe that number starts at a *sustained* $120 per barrel and higher. And oddly enough, recent semi-recent oil prices seem to bare that out. When oil was holding at such high prices there was suddenly much vigor in producing alternate forms of fuel, oil, and energy. Prices fell before the market could deliver on long term replacements. Again, stressing the need for sustained high prices before the market can justify significant research into alternative solutions.
Over all, I don't disagree with the substance of your reply.
it was supposed to "enable non-programmers to write code"
This is very important. The problem is, those same non-programmers believe they can design databases too.
Consequently, its syntax is quirky and overly verbose
There is a standard which reduces the vast majority of syntax quirkiness. Much of the quirkiness exists not from the SQL standard but from various SQL RDBMS which do not follow the standard.
I've frequently heard SQL is overly verbose but have never bought into that. Can you provide an example of SQL which is overly verbose and an imaginary, more concise example, which still meets "non-programmer" demands in readability?
In my own opinion, people confuse "overly verbose" with having many options. Again, in my opinion, many people don't understand the many nuances of various SQL clauses and is likely the root of the "overly verbose" argument.
Don't get me wrong, SQL is not perfect. There are certainly some oddities in the SQL standard. At the same time, I'm hard pressed to think of any technology by committee which doesn't have faults. Furthermore, I can't think of any significant technology base which is perfect.
All of this begs the question. The real question is why we use a technology that is so sensitive to bad schema design? Why use a technology that has such a high baseline overhead? Why use a technology that is so tedious? Why use a technology that is so hard to test?
Because fairly consistently, for the past forty years, every time someone says they've created something better than SQL and released to the market, the market proves them woefully and completely wrong. As such, as much as people piss and moan about SQL, SQL has consistently proven to be an excellent, general purpose solution and amazingly poorly understood by the masses. And solutions such as MySQL has only made things worse. That's not to say there are not superior niche solutions, only that SQL is one of the few database technologies which has continued to survive for decades as a general purpose solution, and rightfully so.
Its like the world suddenly doing their own plumbing, framing, and mechanical work and then proudly exclaiming the state of architecture and the car industry stinks because the world is falling apart around them. In reality, that means we need far more qualified DBAs and far fewer people who can barely spell, "SQL", designing and condemning the world around us.
Its literally been years since I've run into a qualified DBA, despite the fact "DBA" was part of their title. Turns out, being able to spell, "DBA" is all too often enough to qualify one for such a position. And don't get me started on the all the more common case of people who don't even know what a DBA does and yet they are responsible for actually creating the schema/data model.
Funny. Insightful. Informative. So many options with your post. I'm sure at least one moderator will get it figured out.
The reason you drink only beer, no matter your objections and thoughts on the matter is that you're relatively sure it won't infect you with an illness.
This is true almost universally around the world, and especially in Europe, if only 150 or so years back. For many, breakfast was stale bread soaked with bear followed by a coffee to counteract drinking that beer. And if you were lucky, it might be followed with an egg, a sausage, or maybe even a meat pie of some type. Not to mention, many old beers recipes are far more nutritionally rich and dense than the common breads of the area. For many cultures throughout history, beer, rather than plumbing, was the cure for poor sanitation and dirty water.
Beer drinking plus the industrial revolution resulted in many a dismemberment and/or death. Coffee is widely regarded as the cure for beer+industrial revolution woes, allowing for a widening of the gene pool and perhaps a chance at middle age.