roman_mir: You. Are. My. Hero.

If she doesn't know she ate meat then how does she know it's the meat that made her sick?

Couldn't it have been salmonella on her spinach?

Running an app in a browser is already a heavyweight solution. Using Javascript instead of a real (i.e. native) programming language is already a heavyweight solution. The web is neat, but it could be vastly better than it is. How?
By getting rid of Javascript all together and replacing it with something native (i.e. C++ running under a run-time similar to NaCl).
Pre-compiling HTML and CSS to some kind of bytecode rather than parsing it all down from text.
Then bundle all that up into a single compressed package per-page and ready to go. The packages would be signed with a crypto key so that you know it came from the site you're navigating to and has the contents that it claims to have.

I'm not a security expert, but a crypto hash like this should be possible, right? Anyway let's not pretend like the current mess on the web is totally secure.
I'm not a code guru, but running a native binary should get much better performance than Javascript I don't care how optimized modern JS interpreters/JITs are (and I know they've done some amazing things with them).
I'm not an HTML/CSS guru, but surely it'd be faster to parse bytecode than plain text.

Worried that the web will turn into a wasteland without the ability to read the source code of web pages? First, when was the last time you looked at the source to anything without being paid to do so? Second, browsers could simply de-compile the markup bytecode and display it-- it's not anywhere close to as complex as real code.
Worried about security holes? The native run-time would simply not support functions that allow you to work outside the browser's resources (i.e. the file system). Worried about pointers etc? Fine, use ref counting or a GC language like Go or Rust. Anyway, do you worry about that stuff right now? The browser you're using ALREADY is completely written in C or C++.
I don't want to come across as being an iconoclast or as trying to sound like I'm better or more know more than the guys currently building the infrastructure. I'm just putting this stuff out there as an idea that I hope is a good one or at least not a terrible one.

Try Dillo. It doesn't support Javascript though.

Discounting gangland violence seems appropriate to me because why should we care about those who die while disobeying the law and actively undermining our society? The point of law and order is to safeguard members of society while they obey and contribute.

Except for the Queen?

Like Solyndra?

I don't think you have the childrens' best interests at heart, you monster.

Citation required.

I don't see anywhere in Reagan's executive order that says government agencies can spy on citizens. It says other agencies have to give info to the CIA if they want it. Nowhere does it even mention the word "collection"... Or am I missing something?

Please explain how banning certain guns, or certain kinds of guns, doesn't infringe upon the second amendment yet banning certain books, or kinds of books, does infringe upon the first amendment. If you think that neither case is one of infringement then please explain how any part of the Bill of Rights is meaningfully binding to the government. If no part of the Bill of Rights is meaningfully binding to the government then please explain in what sense do you care about freedom or the safeguarding of freedom If you do not care about freedom or the safeguarding of freedom then please explain why anyone should listen to your opinion regarding how a free society should be governed.

Citation required. And I don't mean some bullshit link to a blog.

Basically, what you just said was "I don't think you should have the right to do things that make me uncomfortable" and that's very immature of you. It seems that you don't actually care about real freedom. You want to live in a nanny state where the mob pounces on anything and anyone that falls short of the pravda du jour. Little do dunces and fools like you suspect that pravda is subject to change. It suits you for now, but it's not hard to imaging it turning really ugly very quickly.

What is more free than being able to defend oneself (against bullies, rapists, thieves, and/or government thugs)? This should sum things up.

You knew it was a beheading video... and you CHOSE to watch it. Now you're trying to say that someone else should take responsibility for the things you view. How about just letting someone else take responsibility for your entire life and be done with it? Get off the internet and go bury your head in the sand, child, real life is much too rough for you.

Herb Sutter responded to this on his blog (Sutter's Mill): http://herbsutter.com/2013/08/...