I can still write C code in emacs and compile with the same makefile under gcc if I wanted to. I can still call the same POSIX libraries.

And you can still write C code in Notepad and compile with the same makefile under nmake if you want to. You can still call the same Win32 libraries. They haven't gone anywhere.

The marketing is all on the shiny new stuff, sure, but nobody's forcing you to use it at gunpoint, any more than they're forcing you to switch to Ruby on Rails or Erlang in the FOSS world.

Frankly, there is no valid reason for starting a new program in C in this day and age.

A few years ago I would have agreed with you, but these days I'm not so sure. Even if you would have stayed away from templates, virtuals, exceptions, RTTI and other features that obviously impact size/speed, I can think of several possible reasons to stay in C:

1. C is the lingua franca of languages; if you write a module in C, pretty much everything else can call it without too much effort. A C++ API, on the other hand, can't easily be called from anything except C++ (and preferably C++ built with the same compiler and options). Yes, you can hide your C++ implementation behind a C interface, but that's not free.

2. C++ tooling is improving (LLVM's Clang in particular looks very promising) but basic text-processing tools work a lot better for a language without overloads etc. Think grep, ctags and the like.

3. C++ is a huge language, and people tend to settle into their own subsets and idioms to make it manageable. For a solo project that's fine. For a big group project, especially one without a recognized benevolent dictator, it's a recipe for pain.

Ford chewed on this problem for 12 years and ran dozens of experiments. As a result of Ford's experiments, he and his fellow industrialists lobbied Congress to pass 40 hour a week labor laws. Not because he was nice. Because he wanted to make the most money possible. We like to think of a 40 hour work week as a 'liberal policy' when in fact it was hard headed capitalism at its finest.

I've seen that factoid quoted before, and never understood it. If Ford thought he'd benefit from a 40-hour limit, why wouldn't he just impose a 40-hour limit on his own employees? Why lobby for legislation that would grant the same benefits to his less-enlightened competitors?

Surely the hard-headed capitalist approach would have been to let the slave-drivers put themselves out of business through lower productivity.

First, this isn't Adobe Reader, thank Zod. It's Google's own implementation.

Second, I have (entirely speculative) doubts that the bundling of Flash is happening on its own merits. I suspect a quid pro quo was agreed, whereby Google bundles Flash and offers moral support against Steve Jobs, and in return Adobe extends Flash to support the new WebM video format. This extends its reach to (most) users of IE and Safari, neither of which will be adding native support.

Getting enough people to use your social network so that you reach the critical mass Facebook has is the tough part.

Or maybe just the luck part. I think a kind of weak anthropic principle applies when talking about network-effect successes. They succeeded as a matter of a posteriori necessity, because otherwise people wouldn't be sitting around talking about why they succeeded.

Oh, I agree; it's not a yes/no thing. I posted that because GGP seemed to want random tracks for racing games, and in my very limited experience of racers learning the tracks is probably the single biggest aspect of mastering the game.

I've been saying this for years! Random level generation in first person shooters, racers, and platformers doesn't seem terribly complex to me. Why hasn't anyone introduced this into a game yet?

When nothing repeats, there's no scope for learning, and learning is a big part of what makes games fun.

Thanks for the informative post.

Are you able to shed any light on the liability situation re the recently introduced Verified by Visa and Mastercard's equivalent ClickSafe? My bank seems to be pushing this quite hard, and it's sending my paranoia off the charts. As far as I can make out, the CC company persuades merchants to participate by removing their liability for fraudulent cardholder-not-present transactions, and my strong suspicion is that they're going to use it as a pretext for pushing liability all the way back to the consumer.

The scheme itself appears to be almost worthless, offering some protection against stolen cards but none whatsoever against black-hat websites (or keyloggers and the like), and I haven't been able to get anything remotely resembling a straight answer from the bank.

I blame Mattel for changing the Scrabble rules to allow proper nouns. Within a couple of weeks of them doing it we have a volcano in Eyjafjallajokull, and the Kyrgyz president fleeing the country. Coincidence, I think not.

Actually, if you look at it purely in monetary terms, spam is probably a bigger problem in the United States than terrorism. Obviously, spam rarely kills anyone, but in terms of murder, terrorism is not as significant a driver of tragedy in America as the US government would like you to think.

Ah, Latin. While we geeks think we're clever with "PEBKAC" and "ID-10-T error", doctors have been using Latin to the same effect for centuries. As have lawyers and clergy.

The new 2.5 blender will have a fully customizable UI. So all those Maya fans can have a maya like interface. Really when people say the hate the interface, what they really mean is that its not like last the 3d app i took the time to learn. And no 3d app is easy to learn.

However standardizing UI's is not a bad thing either. I just don't like the idea of standardizing and the expense of never improving things, or trying new ideas and work flows. A fully customizable UI is a good idea in that respect.

For the record, I don't know what all the fuss about Blenders UI is about. I have always found UI's in just about everything hard to get started with, but easy after a while, blender included. Intuitive does not mean what most UI standards and UI designers really think it means.

If you're intrigued by this sort of thing, there's a fantastic SF short by Ted Chiang called "Liking What You See: A Documentary". It's about the consequences and ethics of suppressing a person's ability to recognise (and thus be biased by) physical attractiveness. One of the best things I've ever read.

It's collected in his "Stories of Your Life and Others".

Speaking for myself... nothing. I haven't printed anything either at the office or at home for at least five years. Not out of any technophile or tree-hugging principles; I just haven't felt the need.

Watts' blog is biased, uninformative, and basically uninteresting, so... you link instead to the Toronto Star quoting that same blog, and quote the quote of that blog just for good measure?

At least the Star's description - resisting and obstructing, not assault - is an improvement on the Slashdot one.

The ML post, I'll grant, was exaggerating a little for the sake of snark.