"The book follows Englishman Arthur Dent as he wakes up to find that Earth is about to be demolished to make way for a space highway."

It was a hyperspace bypass. As far as I am aware that is neither "space" nor a "highway". I guess it is a "kind of space" but I just feel that this is a terrible way to describe it by the authors of the article.

However, I could be wrong, I have been multiple times in the past.

Bypass in context refers to the development of the motorway system in the UK. It was sometimes deemed necessary to demolish existing villages, or similar, so that a new motorway would follow a shorter path.

Specifically, the bypass would be a section of roadway that "bypassed" pre-existing routes.

I feel like the bypass reference is a very English joke, and therefore doesn't fully translate.

Bypasses exist in the US. I can’t believe they are never created in other countries that build highways.

Fair. To explain my thinking; in the UK we have lot less land area, so generally bypasses are pretty controversial, and when Adams was writing the books a lot of them were being created and it was very much in the public consciousness as an issue of the time.

Of course; it could be the same over there :D So my theory could also be wrong.

I don't believe it is double standards to ban one thing and not another, if that was the case then progress would never be made with anything. Maybe banning the wholesale production of meat is a bit more complex than banning a few restaurants serving one particular cruel foodstuff? I have worked in chicken factories, and I can say without reservation that these places are not nice. I still eat chicken though.

I'm still working on a replacement for a still-in-use a2k distributed database front-end (moved the data to mysql a few years back), it's taking forever, it's a huge project I spent over ten years on, and now another ten year trying to replace it.

I wholeheartedly agree and think this pretty much every day. Additionally, I still have my best links ever thread back from the early naughts on my personal website (be sure to put protections up to full-on, I haven't tested those links since back then (the site is still almost alive)). https://sensibilium.com/writings/the-profane-dog/#best-links...

This is a perfect example of how prohibition doesn't work. When alcohol was illegal in the USA, the only drinks you could really get a hold of was whiskey, moonshine and other high percentage beverages.

When illegal, the dealers want to be the ones with the best (strongest) product on the market.

Once made legal, the lower percentage drinks became available such as wine and beer, and they became the best selling and most popular type of drink. Drink that doesn't smash them across the face by the end of the night.

The same will (and is) true in regards to weed legalisation, the powers that be will harp on about weed these days being too strong, and shouldn't be legalised for that very reason, yet it has been shown that stronger drugs is an effect of a ban on the sale of these products.

The sooner it is legalised, the better, as I will be able to go to a shop and have all the available information at hand to help me make the best decision for my anxiety requirements. Instead, atm, I have to go to a dealer, who sells all the finest buds, but I have nothing to go on other than look, smell, and anecdotal evidence from someone who's main purpose is sell all her flowers, not ensure her customer is getting the right product for her needs.

>Whereas if it was de-copyrighted it would lose that value -- everybody could just copy it.

I think you have the whole process upside down. Digital media already has no value, and it can already be copied freely.

The changes in the law that Disney and other copyright maximalists are doing is attempting to re-value digital media. So, the only option open to them is to push for ever more draconian laws simply to protect their broken and outdated business models.

Reminds me of a certain programme. "...under broadcasting restrictions he must inhale helium to subtract credibility from his statements." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOUeauLWEaE

After reading the "Welcome" page, this post should probably be deleted, even though I think it is at least vaguely relevent, but is effectively comedy. Sorry about that.