You think that the language choice is what makes or breaks performance at the internet mega-site level? I'm starting to get a suspicion that you might not know what you're talking about.

Aldus lived in a different reality. Mass production was just getting started then, but it's in full-swing now. We're really good at making things but not as good at repairing things. That should make sense - you can automate making because it's the same every time. You cannot automate repairing because different things break, or the same thing breaks but in different ways.

This is the same principle that leads to things like 0-ohm resistors. The gains from automation are so big that they swamp any extra cost here and there for extra components, etc.

It used to take days of labor to make a sock and hours to mend one. Now it takes seconds of labor to make one and... hours to mend one. Replacing instead of repairing isn't wasteful, it's efficient.

The next one will be way faster and have a better camera and higher resolution and more options, right?

That sounds awful!

The problem with setting up your own FTP server (and all the other services you'll need) isn't *expense*. It's *expertise*. Now, if you don't HAVE the expertise, then it's pretty expensive because you need to hire someone, or deal with the costly results of trying when you don't know how (i.e., getting hacked).

Well, that's your theory. Another theory would be that users upgrade because the new stuff isn't "shiny," it's faster, lighter, higher resolution has a better camera and is in all ways better.

That's MY theory, and it has the advantage of explaining the fact that folks with replaceable batteries upgrade at pretty much the same rate. You know, my theory fits the data.

Your theory lets you hate Apple and feel superior to iOS owners though, so I guess it fits your needs well enough even if it doesn't fit the data..

No one's got in-house talent for everything. If you're a media company, are you really going to do a better job of putting together a cloud to host your stuff than a dedicated cloud provider does?

Do you fix your own car and cook your own food? Did you BUILD your own car and GROW your own food? Do you understand comparative advantage at all?

What does "testosterone-fueled haze" even MEAN? Like, if I wanted to get into one, what would I have to do? Other than be male, which presumably our heroic REAL software engineers already are?

Are you suggesting that this mythical beast of "brogrammer" is injecting testosterone hormone?

Or is the simple act of going to the gym sufficient to produce the "haze?" How much gym is necessary? Is it possible to be in shape but avoid the "haze?"

Or is this just a bunch of fucking name-calling nonsense?

How about you get over YOURSELF, and realize that not everyone's needs are your needs?

Ugh - false dichotomy. Woz and Jobs were both necessary. Take one out of the equation and there's no Apple, period. We might as well argue whether sodium or chlorine is the "hero element" in salt.

Our country has a tradition of bitching about unnecessary restrictions on freedom.

You might say that our preference for freedom is a cause of rather than a result of our first-world status!

Yes. We do need real data to test the hypotheses that the helmets are helping or that rule changes have made things better.

It's called science. You get baseline data, form hypotheses, change things, and then test the change in outcome. If you don't like or understand science that's cool, but you're in the wrong place.

Do you shoot planes that fly over your house too? What personal definition of airspace are you using to justify your vandalism?

A market economy working would be where airlines advertised the experience levels of their pilots and customers chose between more experience and cheaper flights. This isn't that. This is the government choosing a new equilibrium for everyone. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it's pretty obviously not market economy at work.

You're a partisan hack. The change came before the election and probably would have come regardless of who was in charge. The FAR/AIM was a pretty fucking long document back when Bush II was in charge, and it was pretty long when Bush I was in charge and it was pretty long when Reagan was in charge...

Are you sure that trains are more viable? The US is pretty big. We have a lot of rail, but we use it for freight. We could use it for transport too, but we'd probably have to lay more (and better) track. That means buying land and building track. What land, and track where? Should we build up the route from Detroit to Pittsburgh? Would have made sense 40 years ago, but probably not today. California wants to build a route between SF (and Silicon Valley) and LA. That seems to make sense now, but will it make sense in 20 years if/when the rail is actually complete?

By comparison, say you wanted to increase the routes between SF and LA by air. You'd just fly more planes. Maybe SFO or LAX would need to build an extension to a terminal or add a parking garage, but the cost of that should be nothing compared with 500 miles of high-speed rail, right? You probably don't even need new runways - just run the route with larger planes.

Trains are awesome and they're obviously a major part of transit in high-density areas like NYC and most of Europe. Air travel has advantages though. You don't need to build jetways in the sky to add capacity. If you want to get from NYC to London or LA to Sydney, trains just don't seem like a good decision. Planes fly around mountains, but rail has to go (expensively) through them. Etc, etc.