What I want to know is when discrimination became an inherently dirty word. It's meaning is simple: to draw a distinction between things. As a programmer, I need to be able to discriminate between a language that might be good for NLP (say, Lisp) and one that might be good for making a game (say, C++). As an eater, I need to be able to discriminate delicious foods (a rare steak) and foods that might kill me (peanuts). As a drinker, I need to be able to discriminate between a good drink (Johnnie Walker Black Label) and piss-in-a-can (Bud Light).

But as soon as I start talking about people, discrimination is dirty. But you don't mind if we discriminate between men and women and give them separate (but equal! (sometimes)) bathroooms. You don't mind if we discriminate between children (compulsory education) and senior citizens (receiving social security). You even don't mind if we discriminate between white people (most US presidents) and a black guy (Obama, The First Black President).

Now, I'm not saying that this means black people should sit in the back of the bus or be banned from various restaurants. There are bad types of discrimination, too. But you can't just hide behind that word as if it proves that something is wrong. Teenage boys driving muscle cars pay more for their insurance than 40-something soccer moms driving mini vans because they are more likely to have damages. You and I have both been genetically "blessed" to be a little large, so we both impose more fuel costs on the airlines. There is no good reason they shouldn't charge us more except for the fact that the population would get upset over this "discrimination".

I really don't see what you're getting at at all....

Do you want me to look at the pirates' side of the game? It doesn't change, regardless of how the MPAA plays.

Do you want me to look at the pirates as first movers? That doesn't make any sense.

Do you want me to try to minimise profits for the MPAA? That doesn't make sense in terms of them wanting to do well, but it at least would make sense for why they are continuing on as they are.

Do you want me to look at the MPAA seeing eliminating piracy as better than making profits? The game presented here still remains unchanged as far as the pirates are concerned, though the MPAA's new strategy is to stop creating anything.

So, to be blunt, what the hell do you mean?

I think you are missing the point entirely. I specifically stated that I wasn't trying to argue that the pirates are justified, and yet you're responding as if I had. I just said that the copyright system was broken, and that your statement had exemplified how and why it was broken. Now, I know I did state that the copyright holders were a bigger problem than the pirates, but I was not doing this from the standpoint that pirates were not a problem, nor that the copyright holders were losing themselves more money, nor anything else where your response would have made sense.

Look at this from a game theoretical perspective (yeah, I'm one of those). The MPAA moves first and they can either sell the movie in a cheap and convenient format or not. If they do not, they get no profit from it and then the pirates get the option to put the movie on file sharing sites or not. We have proven that they will by the fact that this is the state we're in. Now, say the MPAA does sell the movie in a cheap and convenient format online. They start making money from this (I know I'd certainly purchase cheap, high-quality, DRM-free movies if the MPAA let me). The pirates then, again, put the movie on file sharing sites, doing exactly what they're doing now.

So, the MPAA, knowing how the pirates will move, have two options. They can continue not selling cheap, convenient movies and make 0 profit or they can start selling them and start making some non-zero profit. The rest of the game doesn't change a smidge.

There is a stark difference between a parent setting such rules for their children and a state doing it on their behalf, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best.

This attitude here is how we got where we are today. Copyright law was intended to promote culture by creating a temporary artificial monopoly as an incentive to create new things, which would, after a short and reasonable time, become the property of the public. Notice how that term is no longer short and reasonable and how the only works newer than the 1920s to enter into public domain have been only done so by specific requests of the authors (and rarely, at that) and you'll notice exactly how the system is broken. Now, I'm not here to root for the pirates (though I'd be lying if I said I didn't root for them at least somewhat in general), but it's clear that the copyright owners refusing to adapt are a far larger problem than the pirates.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but copies of high quality DRM-free movies are already available on every file sharing site. It's not as if the MPAA offering the same would change anything with regards to that. But it would offer them a way to get a slice of the potential profits here, from the people who pirate just because they think $20 is too much for a film, or the ones who want to watch a film now and don't want to wait or whatever.

That only means we can't get an absolutely optimal solution in polynomial time. Fortunately, we are able to get a solution arbitrarily close to optimal in polynomial time. Find the correct balance of time vs. optimality and BAM that NP-completeness isn't really a huge concern.

Now you're just putting words into his mouth. Nobody's expecting linear scaling, here! That is an entirely different question.

Absolute craziness is that I've heard the term used to refer to people in, say, Britain. I think Americans might be a bit overzealous in their attempts not to offend.

And has been replaced by a less precise word? I'm still curious what word I'm supposed to use to refer to the group containing my Siberian, Chinese, Pakistani, and Indian friends, since Asian seems to have been hijacked for no good raisin.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" and "if you return here you will be considered trespassing on our property" are all it really takes. And, for that matter, only one or the other is really necessary.

Wow I think I need sleep. I read that first line as "I haven't finished baking Apple pie." Can I have some? I'm kind of hungry.

I used to run Super Windows 64... I mean 64-bit XP, right up until the day I installed the 7 RC. Never had any issues with drivers, had very few software compatibility issues (all entirely with older games, not that 7 has been doing any better with them), and it generally ran like a dream. That said, 7 gave me a nice little performance boost (thank you hybrid SLI), so I'm happy with getting better performance on a shinier system.

But that would certainly not be the way that best suits you in this case.

Most of what you say is true. Fortunately, we are able to harness entropy sources to achieve truly random results. It's quite useful.