...theirs seems like the right approach. It is certainly a better one than Dart. They've gone out of their way to be as compatible as possible, and really are making it practical for people to adopt the upcoming standards earlier. I really don't see what about this to get so up in arms about. Javascript does need improvements, and this is the best approach to that I've seen so far.

I balance my desire to get there faster with the desire to avoid tickets. Conveniently, I can do this fairly accurately because I know the rate I get tickets and the cost of those tickets, based on 20 some years of driving, and getting a ticket once every several years.

On the other hand, I have no real data on bad things that could happen to me by virtue of giving up personal data to a company like Google. Nothing ever has happened bad, to my knowledge. I doubt the chances of something bad happening are high at all.

That is a totally different thing than speeding and tickets....one is a well-known risk that can be calculated and balanced against other priorities fairly easily, the other is just a theoretical risk.

How is it stupid to not care about privacy, especially if you can't give a single tangible reason it harms them?

I mean, I guess you could say I value privacy in the sense that I don't go to nudist colonies because I, like many people, consider what I look like naked to be private information. But that doesn't mean I am going to call someone "stupid" because it doesn't bother them if other people see them naked.

Yes, we all know he was engineer for Pink Floyd, but seriously, isn't his name most known for his own stuff? (Eye in the Sky, etc)

Ok, so you've basically said Javascript sucks so just get used to it. I think that is excellent advice if the goal is for him to be miserable.

There is lots of cool stuff in Javascript that isn't in C++, I started with C and then C++ myself, and I find Javascript incredibly liberating. I'm not going to go through all the different things I like about it, others have done that before. My only point is that treating it so negatively is, from a psychological point of view, the worst kind of advice.

This would be awesome for the first person to use it. They'd have a pretty sweet advantage in finding a spot.

Once everyone has it, it will doubtfully make a difference.

Even if it isn't a competitor now, it could certainly become one. "Built into the OS" isn't so much a good thing, although having access to everything it needs, is. If this service can do the hard part, it isn't that big a deal for Android to add API's to allow apps like this to work as seamlessly as Siri.

I don't agree with the OP, but I also don't agree with calling affirmative action "racist." Racism isn't just treating different races differently, a typical definition (wikipedia) is "the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination".

Affirmative action is the opposite, it is based on the idea (flawed or not) that 1) groups should be treated the same, 2) the current situation is that they are not, and 3) the most effective way to move things toward equal treatment is to compensate by giving extra advantages to those who are otherwise disadvantaged due to racism.

Whether or not you agree with this, it is not racist. But it does indeed distort the free market, which often is a bad thing.

You are assuming the supply of each movie is fixed. They can change the supply by modifying the number of theaters each is shown in. Movies that are unpopular play for shorter periods.

I think it would be smart if theaters did variable pricing, but it wouldn't necessarily mean Mission Impossible would be more expensive (since it would probably play longer). But in the most efficient world, there would be lower prices in play to lessen the number of empty seats, which could be considered waste.

That's absolutely untrue. For it to be a commodity, the consumer should not care which item they buy, they should only care about price. Are you going to see Young Adult simply because it is 50 cents cheaper than Mission Impossible? Probably not. Hence, not commodity.

Probably because dec 31, 2011 is in lots of legal contracts. If you eliminate that date, you have a lot more chances for people to try to weasel their way out of contracts, and more work for courts.

For how many thousands of years have there been greater than one billion people on the planet?

About 0.2 thousand, actually.

Your employer also has the right to give all the raise or bonus money to the guy who is more willing to comply. I'm not saying it is right, but it is reality.

Actually that's a really smart thing to do from a bandwidth point of view. There are all kinds of reasons not to do that (some of those are gradually disappearing, since now Google's crawler is starting to run some javascript to build the page as the user will see it), but if you are concerned about bandwidth, having javascript build your page for you is a very good way to do it.

Yeah but you are missing the point. The important thing is, the more donations come in to a particular cause, the more money they should be spending on that particular cause. If they have any credit (which obviously, the Red Cross does), they can do this before the "cash" is technically available.