TheLogothete

That first link has been discussed many times on HN and the consensus always is that the author is extremely ignorant.

It's an enterprise product. It has orders of magnitude more features than postgres or mysql.

It is pretty ignorant to label someone as troll because you do not agree with him.

And just FYI, this style of "discourse" is exactly the reason why TTIP negotiations should not be made public. A politician can rip apart through all the logic here and the public will eat it up.

He accentuates some research as the be-all, end-all authority on the matter. Of course it is a valid argument to point out that a study can be fabricated to give arbitrary conclusions.

Plot twist: the study is not actually on topic.

I have only glanced at this, but it seems that it is about optins for discounts at retailers. Not quite what we are discussing here, is it?

Also, I can make a study and get whatever results I wish. Talk about fallacies.

My challenge stands. Go ahead, start a search engine and charge people to use it.

If I think really hard, I can find one exception to every rule.

I imply that the marketplace will never allow you to charge money for something which can be given for free and monetized with ads.

Which company is not dependent on advertising?

Then start a search engine and ask people to pay per query.

This is not a technical problem. It's a people problem. People, in general, don't want to pay for content. Never will.

I find discussions on HN about advertising very amusing. If advertising would magically disappear tomorrow, most of the people visiting this site would be jobless.

Something to think about.

Actually the pyramids were built exactly because of the pharoahs. Try building one now. You can't. Because there is no divine inspiration demanding the people do it.

As far as I know, people from Microsoft recommend to snapshot the images and just roll back to avoid the 90 period.

There is a startup in my country which tries to help the situation.

http://www.beesmarttechnologies.com/

These data are for academics only.

And how do you think every country came up with their agendas for the negotiations?

Are you absolutely sure that you know how the current process works? Or you just read some articles here and there and concocted the story in your head?

I say there is enough time, you say there isn't.

What is left to say?

How can every country's MPs change the agreement? How does this work in practice? Have you thought this through?

The UN example is especially apt. Are you sure you are not arguing my point?

Also, this is getting very tiresome. Representatives have enough time to familiarize themselves with the draft and decide what to vote. This whole "the secret cabal is making treaties without you" is nothing more than sensationalist FUD. Only the negotiations are in secret. As they should be.

It is a very different playing field. In one case you have agenda for the UK, in the other you have for the UK and Romania. Local forces will escalate the tension and break up all talks.

Perhaps your opinion will change when you try to negotiate something of significance, on a large scale.

In fact, I don't care that Einstein told it. Or didn't.

I quoted it because it sums my thesis pretty well. People are very, very stupid. You cannot count on them not being swayed by some pretty words and blowing the whole treaty out of the water with some misguided protests.

Perhaps if you frequent HN, you don't know how stupid people are, because you only talk to the the smartest 10%.

Really? People debate the negotiation of international treaties? Can you point 2 or 3, please, since my memory is not what it used to be.

No, this is not what I am saying. I'm saying that you have unrealistic expectations. You expect the general populous, the media and the opportunistic politicians to act in a perfectly rational way. In this world of yours, taking things out of context, twisting them, playing on people's emotions, narcissism and fear cannot block the ALMIGHTY logic.

Taking the condescending approach is much saner than the alternative when everybody is very naive.

You are comparing domestic and international legislation...

I don't think you've read the comments you are replying to.

Negotiators make proposals which might seem outrageous. Nobody thinks they will get drafted. It is a step towards getting a concession from the opposing side. Just like in the movies. One side starts at 4000, the other at 1,000 and they meet at 2,500.

You just completely ignored how the real world works. It might seem sound and logical in your head - and to be honest, it is - but it is just not how it works out in reality.

You seem to think we live in this perfect world where only rational things happen and everyone is well read and educated. Unfortunately, we do not and please open your eyes already. Thank you.

How do you know it's working?

How did you come with this dichotomy?

Human stupidity is infinite, not our inventiveness.

Einstein's words, not mine.