America is dying, correlating drop will be seen among all sites but drugs, prostitution, and guns.

Without principles being held or leaders with a vision, everything devolves. (Devo saw this back in the 80s.)

Thank me later...

The subject says it all. WTF?

Nope. You're confused. Climate change is neutralized by allowing the ice caps to melt which will cool the atmospheric affects of centuries of industrialism.

Nuclear will never be an option, because you just can't get free energy out of the universe. Nuclear energy is essentially an attempt to get free energy out of the creation of the universe that NO SCIENTIST UNDERSTANDS. Do you get it?

If the universe is a 6 dimensional Kalabi-Yau manifold, you don't know if all those galaxies are really just re-reflections of ONE galaxy in a hall of mirrors. The 3d view of space and the idea that there are billions of other suns like ours could be a complete clusterfuck of your own warped and simple-minded model of reality which you never explained.

Please, science hasn't even explained why isotopes exist that are radioactive while others are not. THEY DON'T KNOW. But, you, grasshopper, know that energy isn't free AND you know that cheap energy to this wasteland of civilization is the WORST idea ever.

Try free love rather than free energy. But this time, with Truth. Do you have enough of it?

It's not a cost issue. There are very few adepts at good software architecture -- and there's not much supply of them, because most businesses are content with bloatware ("if it runs, that's all the customer cares about").

Most developers aren't well-experienced of the subject matter of their software (like business masters, database table architecture, or scientific programming), and are either engineers and over-engineer their code with poor architecture (which then later gets modified and bloated by people who aren't as proficient) or simply aren't good architects because they were content with code that worked, not high-minded ideals like elegance.

Elegance has been defined in software coding, btw, and it is measurable. See the wiki page on the github Singularity project, if you're interested.

As the ice caps melt, it will cool down climate change caused by industrialism. There is also a religious plan to restore paradise, which will save trillions of dollars of energy waste for heating/cooling as Earth returns to a temperate climate. If you don't believe or have Truth, you are part of the problem.

Nothing is killing new music: there just isn't anything interesting going on. Good music requires a zeitgeist, of sorts. The Internet revolution has been co-opted by Javascript, so that's all folks. The last hope to fix humanity has now turned into magazine rack of 10,000 magazines. Good luck with whatever other chance you had.... the Messiah, nuclear power, what?

Try the singularity/github.

It lends itself to re-use by encapsulation. Secondarily, through inheritance the program's archictecture can be understood.

Learn the GOOP.

Lolz. You have no proof of that and look at the groupthink that followed you below...

If you wanted to be free of disease, you'd have needed to clear your cities of disease. You're being stupid, because INEVITABLY you should and WILL have diseases if your world is DISEASED. Now shut the fuck up.

How lame. Please tell me it isn't true. An aware hacker can assimilate the knowledge or defeat the routines of a virus through the adaptive immune system. You may need to answer the question of your origin, though. Proper health does depend on a strong foundation. Your bones know where they came from, but if you defeat them with a false belief, there goes the strength of your immunity.

Can one trust the medical model of health? The plague affected Christians after Jesus was erected as a false idol effectively equal to GOD. How can a little non-living bug overpower a living, mentally aware human -- unless the virus knows something the human doesn't? My theory is that people who die with debt owed to them by the remaining who live create viruses out of their tissue and spread it into the world, unconsciously as a protective mechanism against injustice.

It's nutty, I know, but no more than the CDC's version that a little bug can wipe you out because of some random DNA -- as if you're immune system has never encountered such possibilities.

I'll try again. Go has some useful constructs and probably does advance the state-of-the-art in areas, but there's no need to invent a new language. Just fix the existing language until it gravitates towards "prime": the theoretically-optimal language.

It's always better to start a new branch from the trunk of a tree than to start a new language with the same goals as a bush trying to be higher than the original tree.

Why did you tell me if I wanted to suck your dick offline?

Anyway, I missed a paragraph break in the first paragraph (after second sentence). And "epistemics" is defined on the wikiwikiweb, so is "refactoring", if you're a total nuub.

Other than that, when you don't understand something, you're just supposed to suck it up and say so, not give me pictures of your "little man" (...;^).

Which does raise an interesting question: is there a useful requirement or spec besides turing-completeness that makes a language most useful? Can a minimal turing complete language do OOP? I don't think so. So, then, what are the language requirements for extensibility? Pointers (named or not), asm-level byte code, program blocks of some kind that can be named and referenced, perhaps that's all....?

No, you don't understand the programming language theory I'm suggesting. Is Unix in the stone age, because it's low-level? You can add compile-time analysis of your code to do all of your high-level constructs (like memory management), and there's no drawback, like your interpreted language will have. Understand? You can add all of your high-level epistemic constructs without compromising anything.

You might be right, though. In order for C to be architecturally extensible, you might need to refactor the language. Like its block notation, for-loop syntax, and so forth, so that it is more general and more elegant. But it's worth the pain, isn't it?