1010010111

Because I believe they acquired IMDb many years ago and would have the final say in how the data may be used.

Wow. Props to AMZN. How long have these files been available?

I prefer to use my own choice of parsing tools and database software and really appreciate provision of raw files like this.

But I'm not sure what the purpose of requiring attribution is if the data can only be used for personal use. Assuming we comply with the license and do not share the data, who else besides the user is going to see it?

If a user builds a better movie database with this data, he must not share it with the world or even his neighbor. Sorry, them's the rules.

I anticipated this response. That is why I emphasize _grand scheme_. Short term, I agree with you. Long term, I do not.

Exactly.

It is only when the annoyance levels reach a breaking point that the FB alternatives will be made as user-friendly as FB and brought to the attention of the masses. One will emerge as dominant. And the cycle begins again.

Every itch gets properly scratched, eventually.

The automatic transmission does not cause a species' extinction. People's actions cause extinctions. The title is perhaps revealing about how we think and how we rationalise or justify our actions.

What makes solutions like NAT* and IPv6 necessary is the concept of the "backbone". In spite of all its benefits, it also has tradeoffs too.

When everything has to pass through centralised "core" routers for enormous segments of the network, it limits how we can work with addresses.

It forces us to allocate addresses in blocks (the larger ones within which most of the individual addresses remain unused). And it creates problematically large routing tables for those "core' routers.

As with everything, there are both costs and benefits to doing things this way. There are always tradeoffs with any approach, whether it is centralised or decentralised. So arguments can go on to infinity about the "best" way. There is no such thing. There are just different alternatives, each with their own costs and benefits. And there's human consensus.

And there are the inevitable workarounds, some of them pure "hacks".

NAT* and IPv6 are a natural result of having a "backbone", "core routers", gigantic ever-growing routing tables and large address allocation minimums.

It's a design breakthrough. What's inside, the inexpensive, mass-produced components, is more or less the same as what's in all the competing devices. But the design, the packaging, is a breakthrough.

What's problematic about this Apple popularism and Apple's hermetically sealed approach to selling computing devices is that it does not encourage, let alone even permit, people to learn about what's on the inside and how it works. These are computing devices, not refrigerators.

And in the _grand scheme_ of things, that inhibits progress. It limits the potential pool of competitors and innovators.

Though it preserves the competitive advantage of businesses like Apple, Intel and others. Increased consumer uptake fueled by elegant design certainly furthers what they can do. But the incentives for them to innovate are limited. Do the minimum. Reap the maximum. That's just smart business.