The author of this article is an asshole who doesn't understand how computers work. To paraphrase him: "I want it, and I want it now. Period. PERIOD." Sometimes even with computer technology as advanced as it is, applications need time to load. A splash screen says "Don't worry Mr. Computer User, this program has successfully launched and is now loading." Without the splash, you'd sit and wonder if the program was loading or not... and then probably launch it a second time before it was finished loading, further slowing the process.

Minority Report, anyone?

John Doe downloaded a song using Limewire. Obviously it was Limewire's fault for allowing John Doe to acces the music.

CNET hosted downloads of Limewire. Obviously it was CNETs fault for allowing John Doe to access Limewire.

Google linked to CNET. Obviously it was Google's fault for allowing John Doe to access CNET.

AT&T delivered Google to John Doe's house via wire. Obvously it was AT&Ts fault for allowing John Doe to access Google.

BHP Billiton produced the wire that allowed AT&T to connect with John Doe. Obviously is was Billiton's fault for allowing John Doe to access AT&T.

Obviously we stem this at the source and make sure copper producers don't do business with the likes of AT&T. This will be the only real and lasting solution.

The US Constitution was designed to prevent people from being subject to the whims of lawmakers a thousand miles away. Powers not specifically delineated therein are to be delegated to the states. This is why the federal government should not be doing 90% of what they do.

You have a valid point--that SOPA has come about in part because millions of individuals willfully disregard the law and disrespect copyright. I can get behind you on this point. However, you must also remember that there is a fundamental difference between stealing something and copying it. Theft involves taking something away from someone else. When you steal an item, the original owner loses possession of that item, and he can no longer gain the benefit of that item's utility. When you copy an item, the owner retains ownership of his copy and can continue to utilize it. In this way, infringing copyright is not the same as stealing. Equating copyright infringement with theft confuses the issue by drawing a parallel which is not entirely valid.

Bingo.

Here's a fun lesson for everyone else: If interpretation (A) is absurd, seek interpretation (B).

It appears obvious to me that the author did not intend to communicate what many of you are attributing to her.

Nice troll.

The words the author used were "has never happened in the history of the planet," not "has never occurred on this planet before." You might want to reacquaint yourself with the various possible meanings of the word "history" before you inaccurately restate what the author has said.

Such a claim is not only suspect, it is ridiculous. That fact alone should cause you to reexamine what the author has written and reconsider your interpretation before you decry her for it.

Or perhaps you didn't read what the author wrote. The author did not use the same words that you are using to communicate her ideas. Obviously no scientist would make a claim such as the claim that you are attributing to her.

What the author meant was: we have no previous record of or analysis suggesting an event of this kind and magnitude.

What you interpreted was: an event of this kind and magnitude has never previously occurred.

I believe you misinterpret her meaning as the parent post does... the word "history" is not usually used to mean simply "the past," but rather refers to available information about past events.

Humanity doesn't have a complete record of planetary events... and the history that we do have does not include an event like this. I do not believe that the author was intending to imply that the phenomenon she witnessed had categorically never previously occurred. She was merely stating that humanity has not, to date, observed such an event.

This is a classic semantic disconnect: The difficulty you have with the author's statement revolves around the usage and meaning of of the word "history."

According to Wikipedia, "history is the discovery, collection, organization, and presentation of information about past events." Thus, by it's very nature history is a human construct, and constrained by the time period during which humans have been recording data.

When she uses the word "history" in the context of the article, the author is referring to all of the records that are known to exist from the beginning of human record keeping. And so far, in the human era, nothing like this event has ever before been recorded.

If the author had phrased it "in the past" rather than "in the history of the planet," her implication would jibe with the inference you have made about her meaning.

It might be helpful for you to think of the word "history" as equivalent to the phrase "recorded history." It is a redundant phrase as the word "history" denotes "recorded," but the mental exercise could help you to avoid this same semantic dilemma in the future.

Also for completeness: it is true that the word "history" is sometimes used in common language to connote simply "the past," and dictionaries will recognize this--however, in most contexts it is not used this way.

Amen.

I was a little bit upset about it at first because I get on average around 2 DVDs every month and it meant I would have to drop down from my $10 streaming + 1 DVD plan to the $8 streaming only plan. At $8/mo it will be cheaper for me to buy outright the kind of content I was renting from them by mail. Observe:

Generic 26 Episode Anime Series
Netflix now: $6 extra to watch and return 1 DVD at a time over 3 months
Netflix soon: $24 extra to watch and return 1 DVD at a time over 3 months
Amazon.com: $26 to get 6 DVDs at once and keep them forever

Stated more directly:
400% of what I pay now to continue the same service
433% of what I pay now to skip all the queuing & shipping bullshit and own the content myself, permanently

The latte comment is both ignorant and arrogant and will absolutely exacerbate the already evident outrage. I am now wary about patronizing a company that has decided to mock me for being a tightwad rather than legitimately addressing the above-illustrated economic problem they have created for themselves.

I responded the same way ito the OP. There is far too much of this type of thinking in any crowd. I wouldn't limit it to us geeks.


I do agree with him, though, and I can make a parallel to the games industry that many of us here will understand: quality is about more than just eye-candy. Once you get past a certain level of optical titillation; tone, plot, and character development, like gameplay and control, become more important than increasing the eye-candy. It isn't that the eye-candy is bad, rather that eye-candy can never rescue a film from lack of attention to these other things. It's the reason I will never pay to see a film directed by Michael Bay and the reason I cringe every time I see a flashy new game advertising its terrible framerate by displaying in-game footage on national TV.

I am willing to take it a step further than the OP: I posit that the commercial success of 3D will not last. I will admit I base this conclusion on my own viewpoint: seeing a movie in 3D only means seeing a movie with a needlessly inflated price tag. Like buying an HDTV or upgrading my movie collection to Blu-Ray, the increase in quality is just not enough to significantly impact my viewing experience. And I think there are more of us than there are of them.

I say we take it one step further and kill all humans. Cleaner and simpler.

I had assumed this was why they changed their name from "Sci Fi" to "Syfy" a few years ago. Based on the programming they were airing back then, it was apparent to me that they didn't feel their science fiction platform was sustainable.

This same phenomenon has occurred with a sizable percentage of cable stations over the course of the last decade or so. Turns out, in the world of TV , niche marketing is a less viable strategy than had been originally thought.

Remeber when MTV abandoned the music-only format and found success aiming for the lowest common denominator? Other stations have followed, moving farther and farther from their niche roots and closer and closer to the mainstream. Anyone remember old school Discovery channel--shows about science and nature? Now they have Mythbusters and American Chopper. These stations are only doing what they feel is necessary to compete with the broadcast networks for advertising dollars.