>My complaint is that neither of these things is coming back in a relevant way.

Where is this directed? It sounds like a criticism of Lisp, Forth, Self, etc, but please correct. The fact that the ignorant masses flocked to C and Unix doesn't grant them one _iota_ of merit. C isn't even a good low-level language. And look at the most popular platform of them all - the web browser, if you want a good laugh.

This is true of any new system. There is a huge complexity in supporting even the standards that most people would consider basic. Just to surf the web you need TCP/IP, HTTP(S), HTML, JavaScript, JPEG, etc. Implementing all of these from scratch is a huge pain.

What is true of any new system? I don't know what point you're trying to make.

Too bad. The browser is becoming general purpose with asm.js, WebGL etc. You can't hold back progress.

I think you might have misunderstood my point.

What's so great about the "security model" of the browser? It's a patch work of horrible decisions.

Nothing at all. It's shit.

But one security model is better than having two security models.

If the components are sufficiently isolated, I'd much rather have many smaller components (with individual security models) than one monolithic system.

That's why e.g. the Unity3d plugin is so great. A complete 3D engine (with state of the art graphics, the ability to load almost any 3d format on earth, ...) does not belong into the browser. I don't want that code on my work PC.

OTOH, its great to have the ability to run games in the browser. The performance is much better than WebGL (because it contains compiled code, and because it is a complete, tuned, engine and not just an opengl implementation). And it's fairly safe, since it's built with Mono/.NET, you don't have problems with shellcode injection etc..

So.. stay with the shit model forever? Good idea! NaCl is part of an effort to fix all this bullshit, and it's at least sort of going in the right direction.

Jesus, another gender-hustling article. Getting past that, it's not clear that in general the changes were beneficial. They increased the variety of facilities in the local park which, surprise surprise, increased its utilization. We have a similar park down the road from us and it's great. Other than that can we say it really worked? For example:

>Circular, grassy areas dot the courtyards, allowing parents and children to spend time outside without having to go far from home.

What is the overwhelming benefit of this? Is there a problem walking to the local park? Perhaps they don't have enough parks - in which case surely increasing the number and quality of parks is the correct remedy. Is Vienna really so violent that people should be encouraged to hide away around their houses even more than they already do? Courtyards are nice, but maybe they should detail why this is a net benefit before trying to tout its success.

This bit of double-think is mildly entertaining:

>Planners also run the run the risk of reinforcing stereotypes in attempting to characterize how men and women use city space.

The entire purpose of the project was to come up with generalisations about women and then code that into infrastructure projects, but they're so cowed by the PC thugs that they can't even say it plainly - even though the project presumably meets with approval of the same PC police. Yeesh.

Depending on your requirements the remote end can be responsible for ensuring that you receive and acknowledge the wake up. Once you hit your own timeout you might do any number of things, not necessarily repoll the other end.

Also a side question: does me commenting in this thread make it less likely to sink? Because this is the kind of submission that needs to be aborted in the womb.

Ah the language.

How effortlessly, out of all of the possible selections of colloquialisms and metaphors one could select, the ease of cognitive flow.

Maybe, just maybe there is an itsy bitsy bit of merit in her commentary?

You didn't answer my question.

Plebs are never assessed on merit because they don't have any. So you get better treatment for one pleb or another pleb because of what school they went to or their gender, but in the end it's all just interchangeable plebs anyway. If you have real talent ("tech bloggers" need not apply) and a bit of a spine then that is going to be the dominant factor in your success. But we see so many stories these days about how various little plebs aren't getting some perceived due that it's becoming a degenerate force.

You are literally calling most people in the world 'plebs'. What is wrong with you?

It may be incorrect, but how is it "regressive"? This is a common argumentative tactic: to suggest that one side (your side) is on the side of progress. Can you disprove it?

When will we get over this complex? Who cares if a bunch of easily-swayed people go here or go there? Reserve your little social engineering projects for hard barriers. The field is already overrun enough with Johnny-come-lately dilettantes without legitimizing the idea that we need to pander to people who have zero passion for computers. When did computing become the property of the rabble and their endless clamoring for personal advantages ("rights", "equality")?