Texmacs is great, I have used it and it performs the features I described better than LyX.
I am coming from a perspective of how LyX handles input, however, and while admittedly that too is similar I think LyX is far more polished, customisable and holds a bright future =)

I think Sage will ultimately serve projects where CAS integration is more vital and soluble - my reference to 'notebook' is closer to the traditional kind, but with greater readability by strangers :) LyX and Sage are likely to forever serve different paths which is why I think improving features in both would be quite interesting. I use the example of Maxima over other CAS languages because it is probably easier to integrate in more environments.

LyX is the fastest interface I have come across for mathematical syntax, due to the great foundations and comprehensive input mapping. It would be lovely to be able to use generally as a notebook, especially if there were some upgrades to the rudimentary CAS (computer algebra system) support included up to V2.

One feature fundamental to this goal is the parsing of respective CAS languages, obviously, in particular multi-line expressions. In the case of Maxima, I experimented with LyX -> LaTeX -> Maxima conversion in manual steps, playing with SnuggleTeX, but apart from requiring generous amounts of scripting being a java library this is not the most straightforward way to interact with LyX or Maxima.

If someone were to start a project to improve on LyX's CAS integration this would interest me greatly and I would look forward to contributing. The idea of ultimately converging to plain-readable interactive scientific documents together with projects like Sage to me is truly exciting, and I hope that LyX's interface can be part of it.

> I'm treating this like a game and I hope everyone else is too.

So, in other words, you exist to devalue an object. This is regardless of what intrinsic properties it might otherwise hold.
Do you always actively put yourself in the company of pure investors, marketers and thrillseekers?

If people want to debunk the value of bitcoin, they can be right, and at the same time primarily debunk the value of humanity while optionally using themself as the example.

Agreed, the issue here is transparency however. Whatever happened to the SourceForge style "link goes to site owned by our corporate overlords" disclaimer? At the very least, acknowledge your potential conflict of interests, Slashdot.

To be clear, in this particular case the hardware shouldn't be illegal, the service (as imagined in various posts here) should be. Google is endangering more technology than they believe they can buy.

It's a social/legal one. Consider the far SF future where people start to campaign for robot rights. Without knowing what is being processed inside their head, can you trust a pair or two of walking eyes to be roaming the streets with human beings? Or should that right be automatically denied...

More likely, with time the according awareness and judgement of technology should bring along regulations for socially governing their use. Passive, ubiquitous technology can't be punished, only the makers/users. This will be the only deterrent against this type of dystopia, and debate crucial for its progress.

There will never be a shortage of sites/services which you'd enjoy spreading contributions over, but information on which ones are affected by contributions the most is unfortunately a lot harder to find. Nobody wants to overpay for a service, but those against sponsorship models would like reward honesty and transparency in an organisation's dealings. Donations must be able to fight deceit, not aide it. Websites should make transaction statistics clearer, along with a breakdown of exactly what those funds will be necessary for. Just a simple red/black indicator would be a effective way to empower the visitor's choice of how and when they should donate.

At the current time, making one signficant contribution to a website in need is more efficient than a spread of blind microtransactions with higher brokerage fees. As witnessed through the rise of Kickstarter, better transparency and response will drive an effective display of will from self-organised masses.

What about a chair? Outside of Redmond that is...

Maybe because some of us are still proponents of 'computers', not content-sipping machines. Awareness of computing means more than getting work done or being entertained, it also involves some learning about the nature of how we do these things can and should change over time. Combined with ideas of open access this is important issue; we should all at least be aware of our ability to govern our processing needs, whether we enjoy the idea or not.

Are we at the point now that every 'ios and web' coder must consider a default 'UX' for every touchable object on the planet? Or do they really think the 'UX' of killing is to be regarded a major sales point for modern military budgets.

Is it too hard to accept that users still create a large part of their own experience learning any device and is not something which needs to be self-built in, unlike a UI? Where exactly are we aiming to hurl our technological consciousness back towards?

The correct regulations should certainly be in place to deny the kind of sponsorship model responsible for web ads in the first place.

It certainly has utility-like status, and should be awarded the same protection/regulations as other essential utilities we have come to take for granted over time. It is also unique that it is largely manpower limited and can quickly evolve through the spread of ideas alone. Why not allow search to return to its birthplace, in the hands of academic institutions? Governments should pool funds to create working sets of networks, with various policies drafted by the respective committees. Research should be collaborative and shared like other academic realms.

Search should be considered as an educational utility, at least on some basic social level. And on this level it should be tax-payer funded.

Travel great distances, you mean. There is no other intraconnected, uniformly expanding 'land' like Linux.