I want to correct you on two confusions. First, while setTimeout relies on a timer, but once the event occurs, the user handler is executed synchronously within the primary thread, and its semantics don't allow for parallel execution without serious side effects. You can use setTimeout to simulate cooperative tasking, but not for implementing actual multi-core concurrency.

And second: Web Workers is gradually being adopted by browsers, which is the tool for implementing concurrency: a safe alternative to raw threading. This is a threaded and simplified implementation of the Actor pattern, a background thread that you feed some input, and it's executed isolated in parallel and then returns results in an event back to your primary thread.

Don't confuse a language with the browser API, and don't assume languages and APIs are frozen in time. Other things coming to JS/HTML these days are audio processing, video playback and even OpenGL (WebGL), as you may know, so I'd say JS is keeping up with the times adequately.

The definitions I've read say that if end users have free access to the video, then it remains royalty free. Including if he has other products or ads on the site. If the guy wants to sell the video itself for, say $0.49 over PayPal, he may have to give a fraction of a cent to MPEG LA.

The introduction of yet another semi-functional Flash alternative is doing nothing to change this position, as it's a practical position, not one of open source ideology. Having it in Java makes this even less interesting to Apple.

Steve Jobs, like any other mobile maker, can have full access to the actual Flash player source code, if he only wanted it. Maintaining an independent port is not cheaper than simply fixing the one Adobe provides.

Adobe (back then Macromedia) used to ship Flash in two version: native binary and Java version in the days when Java applets were popular. They stopped developing it around the time Flash 4 was out, because the tables have turned: Java applets were going down, while Flash was going up.

The article never mentions any reason as to why this player was developed, and I'm struggling to come up with a reason myself, as it's easier to port the native runtime to any platform, than maintain an independent copy in a constant "catch up" mode.

The handset design might have to change a little to accomodate the bigger batteries, but it seems perfectly doable.

Shhh... Keep quiet. We're currently really busy copying Apple and failing faster than you can say "and one more thing".

I'm also torn.

When people on this site are presented with information that conflicts their sanitized ideal of "FOSS vs the evil corporations", they just declare the conflict and refuse to analyze it, or reconcile it with their world view.

At least they're saying something.

The supposedly educated, enlightened and tolerant citizens of the free world have been a bit too tolerant with the illegal wars crafted by their governments lately.

WikiLeaks' attempt at change may be rather clumsy and poorly thought-out. The only alternative your put on the table is the status quo. As long as these wars continue, every single day more innocent civilians are murdered, than these leaks would have contributed in total.

It may be a rather cynical thing to ask, but try to match your outrage at least roughly to the number of victims produced by a particular action.

Eveyone keeps quoting the "do not evil" mantra, but we have something a lot more solid on Google's own site:

Source: http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html

I'm not taking sides, and the details have not been announced, but it better not go 180 on the statement above.
By the way, the official press releases from the companies are set to be out on bad-news-Friday. Not a good sign...

I entirely agree with your sentiment. We've watched over the years Microsoft turn into what they hate (IBM), and now we get to watch Google turn into what they hate (Microsoft). That said, if you want Etherpad on your own server, Etherpad's full open source code is available.

You may be hitting the wrong blogs. What I read, coincided with my own opinion: interesting technology, but little advantage over competition, and high complexity, means you won't see mainstream adoption over basics like email.

Of course, maybe I unintentionally looked for blogs to match my own opinion. So.. what were you looking for ;) ?

And there's another side to this story. How would 2D DVD/BR copies of these movies sell? There's no significant market penetration of home 3D cinema equipment to consider otherwise, and that's a significant part of the profits of movies in the last 15 years.

The only data we have is on Avatar, which sells great regardless of the format, because it has gained vast popularity and mindshare around the fact it's the first mainstream, high budget, live-action 3D blockbuster to hit the cinema in years. There's only one "first" in a category, and no other movie would enjoy this side effect, just by being 3D.

What I really want to see is, how much would a Resident Evil 3D: The 2D DVD, and Saw 3D: The 2D DVD would sell, especially as those are built entirely around 3D gimmick shots.

The problem with that "if" you're constructing is that merely a diversion from a real discussion. Anyone could easily list a number of other historical "ifs" to sharply counteract yours. And by doing so both sides of the conversation would achieve absolutely nothing, beside cheap entertainment.

We have the current situation in which WikiLeaks is acting, we see how they're acting, and we see how affected people and organisations are reacting to them, today, and in reality.

If you want to say WikiLeaks has done wrong in reality then, of course, list your concrete factual points, and we may or may not agree with you. No "ifs", time machines and historical paradoxes required.

WikiLeaks is in its essence just a Wiki site. A web site. It's clear that publishing text is in no way unique to that site, you can do it on any site. Hopefully the government isn't saying that free communication is the real threat to national security.

WikiLeaks didn't commit any of the acts in the leaked documents, it wasn't their job or responsibility for keeping those documents secret, and they didn't leak the documents from their origin: some unknown source did on their own will, and sent them to WikiLeaks.

All WikiLeaks did was take those documents, make a cursory check of authenticity, and publish them.

Of course, by doing so, they become an easy target for people who are willing to turn heads away from the actual problems that lead to projects like WikiLeaks, and instead blame the messenger.

The real problem (for certain people) is that WikiLeaks is now a vivid symbol nurturing an environment where people may not simply do something because it was ordered from above, and especially if it's in conflict with basic human rights and morals.

But by loudly blaming WikiLeaks for the created situation, they only serve to further strengthen the very symbol they want to destroy. Somewhat ironic. As long as WikiLeaks is on everyone's target, and not their anonymous sources, more and more whistle-blowers will choose to trust them with their data.

You seem confused a little. The marketing/branding event "Windows XP" happened 9 years ago, yes. But the last time Microsoft updated Windows XP was few days ago, and they update it for today's threats, not those from 9 years ago.

Do you remember we had SP1, SP2 and SP3? SP2 was six years ago, pretty big update. SP3 is from only two years ago.

Of course, Windows Vista/7 can be more secure in some select scenarios, due to some select features it introduced. It's not as black as white as you want it to be.

P.S. Greek phalanxes and Apache helicopters are separated by about 3000 years, not 9 years, you get scores for drama, but I gotta take them back for lac of accuracy.