Almost all modern cars make significant fuel economy sacrifices for power. The power of modern engines is considerably greater than it was a generation ago, and this came at the cost of fuel economy. What happened was that fuel economy stayed the same as a generation ago, but power went up 50% or more. They could have instead increased fuel economy by 50% and kept the power level the same, but people wanted more powerful engines. This continues to be the case. I am amazed that a modern family sedan produces 250HP or more.
I personally would like a 7 seater station wagon with a pitiful weak engine and great fuel economy. As long as I can get to 60 MPG in 12 seconds or less, I'm fine with that. When I want to go fast, and have fun, I'll ride a motorcycle; any and every motorcycle is 100x more enjoyable to drive than any and every car, so why waste your time trying to drive a car fast when you can do it so much more easily, cheaply, and thrillingly on a motorcycle?
Why do you waste your time on piece-of-shit cages? Be a real man and get a motorcycle. They are 100x more thrilling than any car. And you will still get 35+ MPG on the highway. Yeah, they're more dangerous... but that's part of the thrill. If you can't hack it, stick with a Volvo and put some easy listening music in your CD player or something.
Awesome. I'm watching Top Chef in NZ which is just about 1/3 of the way through season 5. And now you've exposed who the winner is. Thanks for spoiling it for me. Thanks alot, jerk.
I think your premise is somewhat flawed. I don't know the whole history of copyright but I imagine that it came about as a legally enforced concept around the time that copying works actually became practical.
In short: there was no need for copyright back when only the publishers owned printing presses. This fact should not be construed as implying that copyrights are not necessary when everyone owns "printing presses" (i.e. computers, printers, cd-burners, etc), as you have done.
I agree completely. I am currently living in New Zealand and our first rental place had some Fisher and Paykel piece of crap washer, which is I believe a New Zealand brand but takes after European brands (everything in New Zealand is either European (mainly UK)-inspired, or American-inspired, NZ taste seems to be a mix between the USA and UK). It was constantly beeping and had flashing LEDs and many settings and was just as you described, it felt overly complicated and yet also didn't wash clothes all that well. And then the stupid thing broke and all it would do was beep incomprehensible tones and flash incomprehensible lights.
So when we moved into our house, we took the time and extra money necessary to find a used American-made Whirlpool washer. Big, solid, and sturdy. No electronics, just a couple of mechanical dials. The thing feels bulletproof, and I don't worry about fragile and pointless electronics breaking. It washes clothes in less than half to time that the F&P piece of crap did, and does a better job of it to boot. I am sure that it uses more water and electricity too, which is unfortunate...
First time in a looong time I've responded to a sub-1000 id BTW.
Please explain that one to me. How do long copyrights cause stagnation in society? If anything I would expect them to encourage the creation of new works, because the copyrighted work in question will always cost money, so there is always room to compete with it. But if the copyright expires, the work becomes free, and thus unprofitable to compete with. So I would expect more people to be involved in creating new works if there is a market for creating competitors to already-copyrighted works. If there is no such market, more people will be satisfied with the free options available to them and seek out fewer new works to enjoy.
Also, you don't *need* copyrighted works; you may want them, but you don't need them. You don't actually need to see lots of new movies and play lots of new games, if you don't have the cash or will to pay for them. You can do other things with your time, or you can find free alternatives. Nobody *owes* you their copyrighted work, so if you don't like the terms of the person who created their work, then go find something else to watch/play/listen to/read/do.
I'm kind of ambivalent about copyright. I used to also have this sense of indignation that companies are trying to extend the terms of copyright to such an extent. But lately I've been thinking more and more that if something is created by someone else and they don't want to give it to me, then really I shouldn't try to take it from them, I should go off and find something else to do.
But I'm open to hearing ideas about why I'm wrong, so please, inform me.
But I don't buy it. At all. I'm not convinced that Apple bases any of its strategy on being a niche player. Maybe some of its fans cite its underdog status as an attractive aspect of the company, but I don't see how Apple pushes that idea. Being a niche player in the computer industry is never a good thing and Apple must know that. Ubiquity of the platform is orders of magnitude more beneficial to the product because prospective buyers don't want to buy into a system that will become obsolete, and ubiquity is a much better guarantee of a platform sticking around than being a niche product is.
The hardware manufacturers can call foul all they want to. I see no reason whatsoever that Apple would have to change its business model if they got significantly bigger. What kind of foul would hardware manufacturers be calling that they wouldn't aready have been calling against Microsoft's virtual monopoly on desktop operating systems?
I don't see where all this legislation you are talking about would come from. Microsoft has been the subject of some of this but they've just about shrugged all of it off and it's made almost no impact on them. Did they have to change their business model as you're suggesting Apple will? Absolutely not.
OK, so maybe Apple will have to change OSX to be more enterprise friendly. They might do this if they have 1% market share or 100% market share. I don't see how that's relevent to Apple having to change their business model if they get too big, it seems like an entirely unrelated product strategy decision.
I see no basis for your points about Mac commercials having to change. The fact that you've called them "pretentious" reveals your bias, and to be quite honest, since every point you've made has no logical basis or meaningful justification, I'd have to conclude that you're simply wishing that it's impossible for Apple to succeed, and trying to turn that wish into an argument. And it isn't working...
To address your final statement: so what if a new underdog fills Apple's previous underdog role? You said that Apple can't grow to beyond 30%. How is the fact that if Apple does grow beyond 30%, someone else could take their old 10% market share and underdog position, proof that Apple couldn't grow beyond 30%?
As I said previously, I saw no justification for the notion that Apple can't grow beyond 30% market share. And I still see no such justification.
Can you explain why Apple can't take more than 30% market share and still continue to exist as Apple? I don't understand what you are saying. It just doesn't parse. What is Apple with a 40% market share? Banana? I don't get it.
Seriously. Apple can grow to 100% market share, and still be Apple. Please explain why this statement which seems obviously true to me, is in fact false.
Re:Parents choose their baby's name
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
But retards like yourself aren't even a necessary evil. They are entirely unnecessary, but sadly, quite common.
As you speculated, it's a "not wanting to miss out on the news" thing. I filtered kdawson for about a day but got paranoid that I was missing some interesting stories.
kdawson is a terrible editor, and makes poor choices about which articles to post to Slashdot, but of course he sometimes posts good stories too. The problem is that the signal to noise ratio is so low with him. It's irritating to have to scan through so many crappy summaries just to find the few good ones. But I don't want to miss out on the few good ones, so I don't filter him.
If kdawson were gone, then presumably someone with better judgement would take his place, and they'd still post the good stories that he would have posted, but wouldn't post nearly as many of the bad ones. That's what I want to happen, it's why I wrote to CmdrTaco, it's the point I tried to make with him, and it's what I was utterly unable to convince him of. So kdawson and his 8-crappy-stories-to-every-1-good-story-that-you-don't-want-to-miss contributions to Slashdot are unfortunately here to stay.
The only editor I ever filtered was JonKatz. He never posted a single good story, so I knew I wasn't missing anything when I filtered him out.
I complained to CmdrTaco a year ago or so about kdawson's terrible editing and article judgement. The site would be SOOO much better without him. But CmdrTaco stood up for him, arguing that he does "a pretty good job".
I lost alot of faith in Slashdot that day. I only continue to read out of habit. But I skip more articles now and I get a chuckle when I see lame stories posted by lame editors with sub-100 comments. I only wish that *no one* would read and comment on the lame stories (I should be taking my own advice here!) so that maybe the Slashdot editor cabal would get the hint.
That is, in all sincerity, ridiculous. NOBODY is going to willingly go to jail just to get healthcare and a free TV. The only reason I can see someone going to jail willingly is if there is some threat to their life on the outside that they will be protected from on the inside. Even then, 99% of people would probably try to flee from whoever is threatening them and hide rather than going to jail for protection.
I'm talking about standard common usage of the word, not legal definitions. I think that most laypeople when they discuss topics like this use common words with generally accepted meanings, and don't limit themselves to the highly specialized meanings of words as used in legal contexts.
And in common parliance, it is perfecly reasonable to call copyright infringement 'theft'. If it weren't, you wouldn't know what people were talking about when they used that word in the context of copyright infringement.
By the way, I certainly agree that 'copyright infringement' is a more precise phrase to use. But I don't see the problem in using the more informal 'theft' either. It is just as reasonable a use of the word as is saying 'You stole my heart'.
So if someone said, "He stole my innocence", you would sit there and argue with them about the nature of the word 'theft' and how it doesn't actually apply in this situation because innocence is not a physical object you can take from someone.
And when someone says, "She stole my idea!", you would also argue with them about how it's not really theft, rather than understanding the meaning of the words they are using.
I think that's ridiculous. The word 'theft' has many shades of meaning and is used in many situations, all with a common thread: taking something away from them against their will. It doesn't have to be a physical object.
Like it or not, 'theft' when used in conjunction with copyright infringement has valid meaning, and people use the term and are quite clear in their meaning, all the time. Trying to argue against the use of the word in this context is pointless.
My point is simply that the concepts embodied in the word "theft" can reasonably be applied to copyright infringement, to the extent that most people use the terms "theft" and "infringement" when talking about copyright violations interchangably. And they don't do it because the RIAA/MPAA has somehow brainwashed them or forced them to. They do it because, as I pointed out, it's a reasonable use of the term "theft".
People who try to pedantically argue that copyright infringement is not theft when the author of the copyrighted work loses revenue due to the copying, are just trying to play semantic games with words that are in common use in order to try to diminish the seriousness of the crime.
I don't engage in copyright infringement. If I want something that is copyrighted, I pay for it. If I am unwilling to pay for it, I simply find an alternative that I am willing to pay for. I don't steal it. It's really not that hard to obey copyright law. You don't HAVE to watch every new movie that comes out, or play every new game. You can watch/play a few of them, and do something more useful with yourself the rest of the time.
Wrong. That is not a reasonable definition of the word theft. Taking something away from someone against their will is theft. So taking someone's sole right to produce copies of their work, a right granted to them by law, is theft.
I'm not sure your logic makes any sense. Let's see here:
What's "stolen" is B's sole right to produce copies. What's "robbed" is B's sole right to produce copies. (this makes sense) What's "treasoned" is B's sole right to produce copies. (this makes no sense) What's "raped" is B's sole right to produce copies. (similarly meaningless) What's "murdered" is B's sole right to produce copies. (likewise)
That's how "theft" is different. It's a concept which makes sense in the context of having your ability to profit off of your works taken away from you by someone else.
I mean, if someone breaks into your car in the middle of the night and takes it away, is that really "theft"? I mean, you can still use your car if you want to. What's that you say? You have no idea where the car is? So I guess technically they didn't "steal" your car, they just shared it with you and misplaced it. You still own it, it's not stolen, it's just misplaced. So "stealing" a car isn't "theft", it's just "sharing and misplacing".
Do you see how ridiculous it is to try to argue against reasonable definitions of the word "theft"?
Let's make it simple: taking something away from someone without their consent is theft. Copyright violation is therefore theft because you are taking away exclusive copy rights (that's funny - "copy rights" "copyright" - perhaps there is some deeper meaning here you need to meditate on?) against their will.
Not to mention that 10 seconds per key is ridiculous and the GP knows it, but is exaggerating just to try to make a point. Since his entire argument is based on patently and obviously stupid premises (17 minutes to put the keys onto one keyboard? Give me a break), there really isn't any need to try to refute his arguments. They are self-refuting.
Times must have changed. When I was in Beijing in 2001 for 9 months, 3 yuan would buy you a nice meal (not a fancy meal, but a nice one). In the countryside, 3 yuan would go significantly further.
Of course this is so obvious that I shouldn't even be typing it, but in most games you are supposed to have FUN. So if this guy's fun is shooting people in the nuts, then he's playing the game as he's 'supposed to'.
I'm not a violent person and I don't seek out violence in video games, but I really did take a perverse pleasure in hitting people in the groin with a sledgehammer in Fallout. I always tried to finish them with a critical hit to the groin. I don't know why, it just seemed hilarious and evil in a fun way to me.
You sound very wedded to relational database technology, to the point where you are impugning other technologies based on preconceptions and strawmen. It isn't very hard to understand that BerkeleyDB is a simple persistent hashtable (with some support for automatically updating indexes with newly hashed values). I am not a database expert at all but I can't imagine how you could store name/value pairs with less overhead. Now if the data storage semantics you require are no more sophisticated than key/value pair, or if the logic to wrap key/value pairs sufficiently to work with your application is sufficiently simple, then I cannot even imagine that anything would be more streamlined than BerkeleyDB for this purpose.
Note that I am not saying that every type of data storage problem is best addressed by BerkeleyDB. I'm just talking about simple key/value pairs. If you said that most applications requiring a database need more sophisticated data access mechanisms than key/value pair, I wouldn't argue. But to argue that within this limited domain, something as straightforward as BerkeleyDB wouldn't be the most efficient solution, must come simply from an unwillingness to divorce yourself from relational database technology.
And with regards to locks, you do realize that BerkeleyDB is developed by a professional software company that seems to know pretty well what they are doing? Do you really think that with data access mechanisms as simple as a persisted hashtable, they can't implement very efficient locking? Do you really think that in this very simple type of database, it's not possible to achieve fast operation by 50 or more concurrent readers/writers?
As a final point, I am pretty sure that MySQL was originally developed as a layer on top of BerkeleyDB. People were in love with MySQL because it was so fast. And it was a wrapper around BerkeleyDB. Doesn't that indicate that BerkeleyDB itself used without a wrapping layer might even be faster? Once again note, that this is only for some kinds of applications. I am not claiming that every huge database application could use BerkeleyDB sanely.
I have no background knowledge on this, but here in New Zealand they just started putting advertisements on TV asking people to have their young daughters (pre-teen I believe) vaccinated for cerviacal cancer.
Since they just started doing this, I am going to assume that the vaccine was recently developed.
But there's really no arguing against the kind of wilful ignorance that the GP post is exhibiting, is there?
Sure MP3 is pronouncable. You pronounce it M - P - 3.
Acronyms like MP3 have been around forever. They don't even exist on the same plane of ugliness that "Ogg" occupies. Yeah maybe R2D2 and C3PO are 'ugly' to pronounce but we've been used to number/letter combos for technical designations for a LONG time.
Every time I say MP3 I feel like I am talking about something technical. Every time I say Ogg I feel like I am a retarded caveman.
They should rename Ogg "AshFox". That would be a big improvement. Seriously. I mean, you chose "AshFox" because it sounds cool right? I notice you didn't choose "OggGurp" or some other stupid sounding word, even though you seem to be arguing that such a name is just as good.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost all modern cars make significant fuel economy sacrifices for power. The power of modern engines is considerably greater than it was a generation ago, and this came at the cost of fuel economy. What happened was that fuel economy stayed the same as a generation ago, but power went up 50% or more. They could have instead increased fuel economy by 50% and kept the power level the same, but people wanted more powerful engines. This continues to be the case. I am amazed that a modern family sedan produces 250HP or more.
I personally would like a 7 seater station wagon with a pitiful weak engine and great fuel economy. As long as I can get to 60 MPG in 12 seconds or less, I'm fine with that. When I want to go fast, and have fun, I'll ride a motorcycle; any and every motorcycle is 100x more enjoyable to drive than any and every car, so why waste your time trying to drive a car fast when you can do it so much more easily, cheaply, and thrillingly on a motorcycle?
Why do you waste your time on piece-of-shit cages? Be a real man and get a motorcycle. They are 100x more thrilling than any car. And you will still get 35+ MPG on the highway. Yeah, they're more dangerous ... but that's part of the thrill. If you can't hack it, stick with a Volvo and put some easy listening music in your CD player or something.
Awesome. I'm watching Top Chef in NZ which is just about 1/3 of the way through season 5. And now you've exposed who the winner is. Thanks for spoiling it for me. Thanks alot, jerk.
Huh. Sounds like those publishers are providing more value than you are giving them credit for.
I think your premise is somewhat flawed. I don't know the whole history of copyright but I imagine that it came about as a legally enforced concept around the time that copying works actually became practical.
In short: there was no need for copyright back when only the publishers owned printing presses. This fact should not be construed as implying that copyrights are not necessary when everyone owns "printing presses" (i.e. computers, printers, cd-burners, etc), as you have done.
I agree completely. I am currently living in New Zealand and our first rental place had some Fisher and Paykel piece of crap washer, which is I believe a New Zealand brand but takes after European brands (everything in New Zealand is either European (mainly UK)-inspired, or American-inspired, NZ taste seems to be a mix between the USA and UK). It was constantly beeping and had flashing LEDs and many settings and was just as you described, it felt overly complicated and yet also didn't wash clothes all that well. And then the stupid thing broke and all it would do was beep incomprehensible tones and flash incomprehensible lights.
So when we moved into our house, we took the time and extra money necessary to find a used American-made Whirlpool washer. Big, solid, and sturdy. No electronics, just a couple of mechanical dials. The thing feels bulletproof, and I don't worry about fragile and pointless electronics breaking. It washes clothes in less than half to time that the F&P piece of crap did, and does a better job of it to boot. I am sure that it uses more water and electricity too, which is unfortunate ...
First time in a looong time I've responded to a sub-1000 id BTW.
Please explain that one to me. How do long copyrights cause stagnation in society? If anything I would expect them to encourage the creation of new works, because the copyrighted work in question will always cost money, so there is always room to compete with it. But if the copyright expires, the work becomes free, and thus unprofitable to compete with. So I would expect more people to be involved in creating new works if there is a market for creating competitors to already-copyrighted works. If there is no such market, more people will be satisfied with the free options available to them and seek out fewer new works to enjoy.
Also, you don't *need* copyrighted works; you may want them, but you don't need them. You don't actually need to see lots of new movies and play lots of new games, if you don't have the cash or will to pay for them. You can do other things with your time, or you can find free alternatives. Nobody *owes* you their copyrighted work, so if you don't like the terms of the person who created their work, then go find something else to watch/play/listen to/read/do.
I'm kind of ambivalent about copyright. I used to also have this sense of indignation that companies are trying to extend the terms of copyright to such an extent. But lately I've been thinking more and more that if something is created by someone else and they don't want to give it to me, then really I shouldn't try to take it from them, I should go off and find something else to do.
But I'm open to hearing ideas about why I'm wrong, so please, inform me.
Yeah, I thought that's about what you'd say.
But I don't buy it. At all. I'm not convinced that Apple bases any of its strategy on being a niche player. Maybe some of its fans cite its underdog status as an attractive aspect of the company, but I don't see how Apple pushes that idea. Being a niche player in the computer industry is never a good thing and Apple must know that. Ubiquity of the platform is orders of magnitude more beneficial to the product because prospective buyers don't want to buy into a system that will become obsolete, and ubiquity is a much better guarantee of a platform sticking around than being a niche product is.
The hardware manufacturers can call foul all they want to. I see no reason whatsoever that Apple would have to change its business model if they got significantly bigger. What kind of foul would hardware manufacturers be calling that they wouldn't aready have been calling against Microsoft's virtual monopoly on desktop operating systems?
I don't see where all this legislation you are talking about would come from. Microsoft has been the subject of some of this but they've just about shrugged all of it off and it's made almost no impact on them. Did they have to change their business model as you're suggesting Apple will? Absolutely not.
OK, so maybe Apple will have to change OSX to be more enterprise friendly. They might do this if they have 1% market share or 100% market share. I don't see how that's relevent to Apple having to change their business model if they get too big, it seems like an entirely unrelated product strategy decision.
I see no basis for your points about Mac commercials having to change. The fact that you've called them "pretentious" reveals your bias, and to be quite honest, since every point you've made has no logical basis or meaningful justification, I'd have to conclude that you're simply wishing that it's impossible for Apple to succeed, and trying to turn that wish into an argument. And it isn't working ...
To address your final statement: so what if a new underdog fills Apple's previous underdog role? You said that Apple can't grow to beyond 30%. How is the fact that if Apple does grow beyond 30%, someone else could take their old 10% market share and underdog position, proof that Apple couldn't grow beyond 30%?
As I said previously, I saw no justification for the notion that Apple can't grow beyond 30% market share. And I still see no such justification.
Can you explain why Apple can't take more than 30% market share and still continue to exist as Apple? I don't understand what you are saying. It just doesn't parse. What is Apple with a 40% market share? Banana? I don't get it.
Seriously. Apple can grow to 100% market share, and still be Apple. Please explain why this statement which seems obviously true to me, is in fact false.
But retards like yourself aren't even a necessary evil. They are entirely unnecessary, but sadly, quite common.
As you speculated, it's a "not wanting to miss out on the news" thing. I filtered kdawson for about a day but got paranoid that I was missing some interesting stories.
kdawson is a terrible editor, and makes poor choices about which articles to post to Slashdot, but of course he sometimes posts good stories too. The problem is that the signal to noise ratio is so low with him. It's irritating to have to scan through so many crappy summaries just to find the few good ones. But I don't want to miss out on the few good ones, so I don't filter him.
If kdawson were gone, then presumably someone with better judgement would take his place, and they'd still post the good stories that he would have posted, but wouldn't post nearly as many of the bad ones. That's what I want to happen, it's why I wrote to CmdrTaco, it's the point I tried to make with him, and it's what I was utterly unable to convince him of. So kdawson and his 8-crappy-stories-to-every-1-good-story-that-you-don't-want-to-miss contributions to Slashdot are unfortunately here to stay.
The only editor I ever filtered was JonKatz. He never posted a single good story, so I knew I wasn't missing anything when I filtered him out.
That explains alot.
I complained to CmdrTaco a year ago or so about kdawson's terrible editing and article judgement. The site would be SOOO much better without him. But CmdrTaco stood up for him, arguing that he does "a pretty good job".
I lost alot of faith in Slashdot that day. I only continue to read out of habit. But I skip more articles now and I get a chuckle when I see lame stories posted by lame editors with sub-100 comments. I only wish that *no one* would read and comment on the lame stories (I should be taking my own advice here!) so that maybe the Slashdot editor cabal would get the hint.
That is, in all sincerity, ridiculous. NOBODY is going to willingly go to jail just to get healthcare and a free TV. The only reason I can see someone going to jail willingly is if there is some threat to their life on the outside that they will be protected from on the inside. Even then, 99% of people would probably try to flee from whoever is threatening them and hide rather than going to jail for protection.
I'm talking about standard common usage of the word, not legal definitions. I think that most laypeople when they discuss topics like this use common words with generally accepted meanings, and don't limit themselves to the highly specialized meanings of words as used in legal contexts.
And in common parliance, it is perfecly reasonable to call copyright infringement 'theft'. If it weren't, you wouldn't know what people were talking about when they used that word in the context of copyright infringement.
By the way, I certainly agree that 'copyright infringement' is a more precise phrase to use. But I don't see the problem in using the more informal 'theft' either. It is just as reasonable a use of the word as is saying 'You stole my heart'.
So if someone said, "He stole my innocence", you would sit there and argue with them about the nature of the word 'theft' and how it doesn't actually apply in this situation because innocence is not a physical object you can take from someone.
And when someone says, "She stole my idea!", you would also argue with them about how it's not really theft, rather than understanding the meaning of the words they are using.
I think that's ridiculous. The word 'theft' has many shades of meaning and is used in many situations, all with a common thread: taking something away from them against their will. It doesn't have to be a physical object.
Like it or not, 'theft' when used in conjunction with copyright infringement has valid meaning, and people use the term and are quite clear in their meaning, all the time. Trying to argue against the use of the word in this context is pointless.
My point is simply that the concepts embodied in the word "theft" can reasonably be applied to copyright infringement, to the extent that most people use the terms "theft" and "infringement" when talking about copyright violations interchangably. And they don't do it because the RIAA/MPAA has somehow brainwashed them or forced them to. They do it because, as I pointed out, it's a reasonable use of the term "theft".
People who try to pedantically argue that copyright infringement is not theft when the author of the copyrighted work loses revenue due to the copying, are just trying to play semantic games with words that are in common use in order to try to diminish the seriousness of the crime.
I don't engage in copyright infringement. If I want something that is copyrighted, I pay for it. If I am unwilling to pay for it, I simply find an alternative that I am willing to pay for. I don't steal it. It's really not that hard to obey copyright law. You don't HAVE to watch every new movie that comes out, or play every new game. You can watch/play a few of them, and do something more useful with yourself the rest of the time.
Wrong. That is not a reasonable definition of the word theft. Taking something away from someone against their will is theft. So taking someone's sole right to produce copies of their work, a right granted to them by law, is theft.
I'm not sure your logic makes any sense. Let's see here:
What's "stolen" is B's sole right to produce copies.
What's "robbed" is B's sole right to produce copies. (this makes sense)
What's "treasoned" is B's sole right to produce copies. (this makes no sense)
What's "raped" is B's sole right to produce copies. (similarly meaningless)
What's "murdered" is B's sole right to produce copies. (likewise)
That's how "theft" is different. It's a concept which makes sense in the context of having your ability to profit off of your works taken away from you by someone else.
I mean, if someone breaks into your car in the middle of the night and takes it away, is that really "theft"? I mean, you can still use your car if you want to. What's that you say? You have no idea where the car is? So I guess technically they didn't "steal" your car, they just shared it with you and misplaced it. You still own it, it's not stolen, it's just misplaced. So "stealing" a car isn't "theft", it's just "sharing and misplacing".
Do you see how ridiculous it is to try to argue against reasonable definitions of the word "theft"?
Let's make it simple: taking something away from someone without their consent is theft. Copyright violation is therefore theft because you are taking away exclusive copy rights (that's funny - "copy rights" "copyright" - perhaps there is some deeper meaning here you need to meditate on?) against their will.
Peace to you, pilgrim.
Not to mention that 10 seconds per key is ridiculous and the GP knows it, but is exaggerating just to try to make a point. Since his entire argument is based on patently and obviously stupid premises (17 minutes to put the keys onto one keyboard? Give me a break), there really isn't any need to try to refute his arguments. They are self-refuting.
Times must have changed. When I was in Beijing in 2001 for 9 months, 3 yuan would buy you a nice meal (not a fancy meal, but a nice one). In the countryside, 3 yuan would go significantly further.
Of course this is so obvious that I shouldn't even be typing it, but in most games you are supposed to have FUN. So if this guy's fun is shooting people in the nuts, then he's playing the game as he's 'supposed to'.
I'm not a violent person and I don't seek out violence in video games, but I really did take a perverse pleasure in hitting people in the groin with a sledgehammer in Fallout. I always tried to finish them with a critical hit to the groin. I don't know why, it just seemed hilarious and evil in a fun way to me.
You sound very wedded to relational database technology, to the point where you are impugning other technologies based on preconceptions and strawmen. It isn't very hard to understand that BerkeleyDB is a simple persistent hashtable (with some support for automatically updating indexes with newly hashed values). I am not a database expert at all but I can't imagine how you could store name/value pairs with less overhead. Now if the data storage semantics you require are no more sophisticated than key/value pair, or if the logic to wrap key/value pairs sufficiently to work with your application is sufficiently simple, then I cannot even imagine that anything would be more streamlined than BerkeleyDB for this purpose.
Note that I am not saying that every type of data storage problem is best addressed by BerkeleyDB. I'm just talking about simple key/value pairs. If you said that most applications requiring a database need more sophisticated data access mechanisms than key/value pair, I wouldn't argue. But to argue that within this limited domain, something as straightforward as BerkeleyDB wouldn't be the most efficient solution, must come simply from an unwillingness to divorce yourself from relational database technology.
And with regards to locks, you do realize that BerkeleyDB is developed by a professional software company that seems to know pretty well what they are doing? Do you really think that with data access mechanisms as simple as a persisted hashtable, they can't implement very efficient locking? Do you really think that in this very simple type of database, it's not possible to achieve fast operation by 50 or more concurrent readers/writers?
As a final point, I am pretty sure that MySQL was originally developed as a layer on top of BerkeleyDB. People were in love with MySQL because it was so fast. And it was a wrapper around BerkeleyDB. Doesn't that indicate that BerkeleyDB itself used without a wrapping layer might even be faster? Once again note, that this is only for some kinds of applications. I am not claiming that every huge database application could use BerkeleyDB sanely.
I have no background knowledge on this, but here in New Zealand they just started putting advertisements on TV asking people to have their young daughters (pre-teen I believe) vaccinated for cerviacal cancer.
Since they just started doing this, I am going to assume that the vaccine was recently developed.
But there's really no arguing against the kind of wilful ignorance that the GP post is exhibiting, is there?
Sure MP3 is pronouncable. You pronounce it M - P - 3.
Acronyms like MP3 have been around forever. They don't even exist on the same plane of ugliness that "Ogg" occupies. Yeah maybe R2D2 and C3PO are 'ugly' to pronounce but we've been used to number/letter combos for technical designations for a LONG time.
Every time I say MP3 I feel like I am talking about something technical. Every time I say Ogg I feel like I am a retarded caveman.
They should rename Ogg "AshFox". That would be a big improvement. Seriously. I mean, you chose "AshFox" because it sounds cool right? I notice you didn't choose "OggGurp" or some other stupid sounding word, even though you seem to be arguing that such a name is just as good.