Frameworks, Platforms, Languages.... which to choose for "longevity" isn't the right question.
  Ask First: How long is the product's lifetime?
  Will the tools used be supportable over that period? Most business applications don't live more than 10 years. Mostly because the data requirements completely change over that time.

Regardless of tools, if you really want to avoid the future "big rewrite" make sure the system is partitioned - all the way through the persistence/data layers. You should be able to someday migrate it in pieces.

Tagging isn't anything. It's a construct within a semantic web design; a common-language-everywhere issue. Essentially, you want everyone to agree to a tagging vocabulary, or morph things into it using automation. Why not just ask everyone to speak Esperanto?

My questions for OP...
why use words of any language?
why isn't everything online (include video, images, sound) simply act like a tag with "search the web with this input"?
isn't the best database of tags the web itself? in that case, isn't our best query a search engine?

Both. Scarcity will disappear for a larger portion of the population, but imo wealth is already just consuming higher-end versions of the same toys.
There will be a point where labor+logistics within the country will be a equation, but fuel costs and overseas instability will have to rise.
Such as
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/making-it-in-america/308844/
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/a-simple-graph-showing-the-american-manufacturing-worker-is-suddenly-an-incredible-bargain/266339/

But survey results from executives seem to disagree
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/Industries/Process-Industrial-Products/manufacturing-competitiveness/mfg-competitiveness-index/index.htm?id=us_furl_pip_gcmi_121412

The biggest question I have is just how many shops will be able to re-awaken manufacturing at large-scale if/when. One of several common concerns:
http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/2012/08/28/4-key-roadblocks-to-u-s-manufacturing-competitiveness/

I think we're talking about two different things. NLP breaks down into the "hard AI" problem for any sufficiently complex conversation.
See my other response above in this thread.

Having re-read the article, this "dictionary without a dictionary" is a frozen-in-time corpus, which won't be able to *converse* with people because it's built from written text, which is dramatically different. Now, if this body of statistical word association was tied into just the language of a single town, and everyone's spoken conversations in that town for the past 10 years, then it might be easier for those particular people to use this tool, but still far from using "natural" language.

Each time I've researched NLP solutions, the full sensory experience is ultimately found to play a role in full context and meaning. This begins in a very tight locale, and expands outward, or hopping around locations/time as part of context.

Instead, when most solutions attempt to pick a "general corpus" of a language, they pick such a general version of the language that contextual associations are difficult to follow for any conversation. Even the most ubiquitous vocabulary, such as in national broadcast news, there are assumptions that point all the way back to simplistic models of our experiences via sight/hearing, taste/smell, touch/movement and planning/expectation. Even in our best attempts, nothing such as metaphor or allusion is followed well, and only the most robotic - formal - language understood. This interaction is certainly nothing "natural".

I don't believe NLP problems will be (as easily) solved until we begin to solve the "general stimulus" for input, storage, searching and recall across the senses that humans have - their true "natural" habitat that language is describing. So that when apple goes from "round" to "red" to "about 4in" to "computer" to "beatles" to "not yet in season here" to "sometimes bitter" to "my favorite of grandma's pies", etc - and onward, like potential quantum states until the rest of the conversation collapses most of them - we may be able to get a computer to really understand natural language. This isn't possible in just the manipulation of pieces of text and pointers.

Dawkins' quotes and intentions are often cherry-picked toward their most limited form, but from what I've read, he questions why smart people, who reflect on their faith, continue to embrace it. Usually, people select only a few tenets of a faith - one must since all are self-contradictory in some way. So for most people it usually boils down to The Golden Rule, plus some added flavoring of ceremonial icing.

I believe Dawkins would rather people examine their faith, and not allow it to suffice for an answer in any scientific exploration. Once it does, that person is willingly embracing an artificial limit. As exploration continues, that limit manifests itself as "ignorance" in comparison. If there was a faith that refused to divide, label or abandon portions of society and stuck merely to the myth of an afterlife, we'd be far along the path to agreement. The last step on this path Dawkins takes, as most atheists, is to connect the scientific inquiry to the myths of the afterlife and reason that nothing has presented any overwhelming evidence thus far. Hence, one more position: no myth is correct.

Religions never stay to just the position of postulating a myth as a story. They demand concrete actions in the here & now, which - though well-intentioned - only continue to label, divide, compel, coerce and finally, limit man's curiosity. One only need to look at the huge campaigns to teach ID myths as science to see how a generation of people raised without the knowledge of how evolution works will severely limit advances in the physical sciences. This is a damn shame, all in the name of something that could instead be a fascinating story.

The Abrahamic religions, popular today, are severely limiting. The polytheistic religions predating them even more so, and the Naturalistic religions predating them even more so. So it seems we're heading toward a less-limiting worldview, but it certainly seems to be a slow crawl. Dawkins is perhaps showing us that our beliefs in the mysterious don' t have to restrict any discussion, propose any behavior, or demand any sacrifice. They are no more useful than a science fiction movie in doing so - entertaining and yet not relevant to any real journey of discovery: Research, Inquiry, Postulation, Experiment, Revision, Discussion. Religions always seems to want to curtail something in that process.

Once the FAA puts these designs through the wringer, it'll be much the same involved certification process as current aircraft. Time, money and commitment keep most people out of recreational aircraft now, I doubt any of that will change. These are just overpriced new designs.
    http://www.faa.gov/pilots/become/

Hmm. I think I've heard this comment before. Usenet, then dialup hubs, then "blogging", then forums, each used to be in this position. They still exist. Yes, these populations were tech savvy and FB is drop-dead easy, but the next product will have to be even easier.

  I can't predict the future, but FB will leak members as the market fragments. Something will eclipse them entirely for it's core featureset, eventually. There's no way commercial companies can compete with the try-anything openness of the general web. Whatever does, it will have to (at least initially) tie-in to FB to bridge the gap. FB itself would dislike this but they may have no choice. Behold the Age of Social-Dashboards.

Sell the SUV and buy a modern subcompact. You'll get better results than your eSUV idea.

This "conversion kit" you want to build is missing the core problem, which you describe in your initial paragraphs: people needlessly buy an SUV when they don't need it.

Electric-based transportation needs more than a little motor and a battery. You need an entire charging infrastructure, commonly-available parts, service expertise, etc. All this is much harder than simply asking people to drive less or drive a smaller vehicle. Your "kit" will mostly just confuse people initially or eventually as they manage this large pile of new technology that will be obsolete before the vehicle is end-of-life'd.

Then again, you may let the market decide, and once insurance companies & governments are tired of paying for environmental impact of massive carbon dumping, they may push for lower-carbon outlets, which eventually makes its way to market bias towards your idea. By then, however, we'll be driving super-light electric vehicles on more-efficient surfaces with a standardized battery form-factor and repair/replace bays all over the landscape.

Not only am I declining to contribute, I'm asking you to abandon this silly project. You are just making landfill.

This seems alarmist. Phone penetration to market is slowing, but device adoption is based on capability, not a simple "have" vs "have not". The adoption rates fluctuate with all economic trends, but as new devices come out - people buy them. Ever was so. Even now, the market is not based on selling someone their first phone.

    So in 2 or 3 years, we'll have faster devices with something cooler: (facial recognition, mini projectors, live translation, gesture interfaces, instant collaboration tools) and everyone will buy it.
    Surely you're not conceited enough to think your generation is the era where all prophecies comes to pass? You can be forgiven, it's a common mistake - but recognize that we're headed to places you cannot dream up still.

Because surely going from mid-30% marketshare to 1% marketshare is a sure way to keep their company afloat?

Although truly "new" ideas are a rare breed - don't be deterred. Build this yourself using all your skills and use it as a lesson. If you use a group, it might be more fun but just don't sub-out the interesting parts. Learn about them.

Start with the core and work outward
- movement of an object in space
- applying single-point and universal gravity
- collision detection
- concurrent animations
- 2D crash physics
- some graphics

Then story out something to power some gameplay
- characters / features
- scoring
- co-op/vs online ideas

Of course, the core has been done - but really this is for you to learn the basics. Once you do this, someday you can go from an actually novel idea to a game in less time. Who knows, down the road you may have a really good idea. My best wishes go out to you to persevere!

If you read your own link, it posits that the vid MAY be a viral ad, much like a SIMILAR one previously turned out to be shelling for a movie.

However, this vid has not been in any way associated with an ad campaign. It's just a CGI mockup with what seems like a real track and fake cars. This implies the publishers went through considerable effort to create it physically, but failed to achieve their goal.

Overall, this is deceptive and only does them a disservice.

A "true 3D" stage would be no better. If the stage showed the same perspective to every viewer, the director could still present unified artistic cinematography. Without that, your position in the audience matters a lot, which is antithetical to the experience.

Showing this unified perspective, scale is constantly changed (the movie will zoom/tilt/pan as necessary), so a stage that has micro/macro shifts will be somewhat jarring. The blur of foreground/background linked to parallax would need to stay the same to avoid headaches, but this would give the audience a unified scaling issue, as every displayed shot would be within the same range. Imagine an ocean scene, then zooming in on a shrimp (oh no, it's GIANT) and then zooming out (look, a TINY shark). I think the current forced perspective of 3D is phony enough to disrupt this linkage - and gives us the headaches.

Help Us Obi Wan.