Though "corn" has meant any kind of grain for most its history, it has now come to mean "maize" in America. This has been standard usage and not just slang for well over 100 years. If someone says "corn" in the US, it never means "wheat," "rye," "barley," "rice," or "millet." In an international context, it is most clear to use "maize," but to call "maize" "corn" in America is no less correct than to call a fluffy wheat bun leavened with baking soda a "biscuit."

I hate to burst your bubble, but the word for the plant in question, whether spelled "maize," "mais," or "maiz," comes from Spanish, which originally borrowed it from the language of the Caribbean Taíno people. All European languages got some form of that word via Spanish. The words "corn," "korn," and "grain" are related and much older in European tradition. Also, maize comes several colors, including white and purple.

Are you saying it's reasonable to expect a grain product to look like the grain when it first came off the plant? By that logic, you should look more askance at bread as you do at corn flakes.

I call your "research" into question since you seem to have come to several conclusions which are completely incorrect. You are correct that two Kelloggs experimented with grains including wheat before trying maize. You are incorrect when you say that "corn flakes" were ever made of anything but maize. In America, "corn" never means wheat or any grain other than maize. The original flakes of wheat were called "granose."

You are also incorrect when you say that it was a non-Kellogg who added sugar. In fact, corn flakes were originally marketed by Will Keith Kellogg's Battle Creek Toasted Corn Flake Company and contained added sugar from the beginning.

Will's brother John Harvey Kellogg, who was not part of the business, was not in favor of adding sugar. John's objection to adding sugar had little to do with modern ideas. He thought spicy or sweet foods would increase sexual urges.

I'd never seen a statistic of 22%, which sounds high based on my experience. 12% sounds much more plausible to me.

Don't forget that the common goal was not something lofty like scientific discovery, but to beat the commies. So, it may have not been a partisan issue in the US, but it was a political agenda.

Anyone who's eaten manioc (also known as cassava) and sweet potatoes knows that they're plants with starchy tubers and that's where the similiarities end. Not knowing the difference could be deadly since much cassava is of the "bitter" variety and must be carefully prepared to remove dangerous levels of cyanide.

People who've made up their minds about something often jump on things they think support their position. If you'd read the article, you'd know that's one of the human tendencies that often leads leading to bad science. Science is a process and set of tools for avoiding such human mistakes but since it's humans implementing it, it's a constant struggle.

I still say it has nothing to do with Make. I guess I shouldn't have replied to a post responding to an AC.

There are millions of replacements for make, which is part of the problem. I doubt there will ever be one canonical replacement, but Scons is a good choice for many projects IMHO. I'm trying to replace the use of make where I work with Scons, which especially makes sense we use Python for the application code. I think a Scheme-extensible replacement for make could be a very good thing, but adding more languages to the ugliness of Make is not the way to go.

Where in the announcement of Make 4.0 is there any mention of Lua?

You're really overthinking things. This is all you need.

Yes, you are missing something. The point of GPUs is to efficiently calculate pixel values to show on the screen. Specific algorithms can be implement in hardware or software and GPU hardware has been moving toward exposing more generic functionality for years, which WebCL can make available to Javascript code. It's the game engine or libraries used by the game engine that worry about low level details about how to talk to the GPU, whether that happens via OpenGL, WebGL, Direct3D, WebCL or something else.

You're exactly right. When OpenID was getting started, I was quite hopeful that it would prevent lock-in and walled gardens. I used my myOpenID account. I also experimented with Google and Yahoo as providers. I was dismayed that while a number of small web sites were and are OpenID consumers, none of the big ones have allowed that. Eventually, I realized that's simply because it's not in the interest of a company with a large number of users to allow people to use outside accounts to log in. They know they can increase their power by restricting how users interact.

I was similarly dismayed when Facebook implemented an XMPP (Jabber) service but didn't federate, defeating the primary strength of the Jabber system. I was happy for many years that at least Google was interested in interoperability, but they've now shown they're little different from Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and all the other behemoths in that regard.

OpenID is an open standard which has been implemented by many sites, one of which is myOpenID. myOpenID was one of the earliest OpenID services. Lots of companies now provide OpenIDs for anyone with an account. However, the overall vision of having one OpenID with which one can log in to all one's online accounts hasn't happened. You can't use your Google account to log in to Facebook or your Microsoft account to log in to Twitter. It's not really surprising janrain is giving up.