I don't know about the GP, but it's no mystery why Republicans disagree with me: the party is dominated by people who are incompetent, power hungry, and, at times, simply corrupt. And since they have excellent PR people working for them, plus wealthy funders to pay for PR, they can convince enough people to vote for them to remain in power.
Unlike the bastion of liberal justice, the Democrat party, with stalward heroes like:
- Hillary Clinton, wife of the corrupt ex-President who committed treason for campaign contributions - Ted Kennedy, drunkard, thief, murderer - John Kerry, lying hypocrite, war profiteer, politically wed (quite literally), all-around sleaze bag
Need I point out to you that taking things that are not rightfully your's is considered theft, and as this is the modus operandi of the Democrat party (and increasingly so, the Republican party), both are, by definition, "evil"?
Both parties are full of shit. You "my party is better than mine" types make me fucking sick, because they're both pretty fucking bad.
Public schools haven't been fashioned to instruct children facts and how to learn for decades, and things are just culminating to the point where they've stopped pretending to do so.
No, the order of the day at public schools is social compliance through political correctness. Bad grades aren't handed out, but you are publicly chastized for not doing well (ie, towing the line).
the concept of color vision being able to evolve is, i think, somewhat humorous. it makes the assumption - or even the argument - that evolution has motivated by external, intelligent forces. how else is a creature's DNA going to know to change to allow the creature to better adapt to outside stimulus if the creature doesn't know the outside stimulus exists? IE, if the creature is color blind, where does the DNA receive input that there is color?
Seems that there were a lot of ignorant assumptions made to create that theory. I'm not saying there's "creation" in the traditional sense, just that there's got to be something external from the creature - or something unknown - which impacted the change.
Creativity is working within a set boundry. By moving the boundry back a bit and giving more room to work with, you're not increasing the creativity level or the quality of the output, just the canvas on which that creativity can paint.
In the case of the game industry, when was the last time a fairly creative game came out that was also well done? I've not been quite attentive, because honestly I've not seen much in years which even sparks my interest, aside from the first Max Payne, Deus Ex, Galactic Civilizations 1 and 2, the remake of the Sid Myers Pirates!, and maybe a couple others I can't immediately think of. But all those are fairly "old" ideas that were implimented well (as opposed to most of their genres): FPS with a story arc tacked on amd RPGs.
"Humans" will survive 100 years with no problem. Even with a global thermonuclear war, there would still be remnants who would survive, wandering about the ruins of our societies.
The real question (and the one I think he intended to ask, whether he knew it or not) was: "How will Western Society survive the next 100 years?" The answer to this question, ironically, is the opposite of your answer to his question: less, or no birth control in the West, and an increased birth rate.
Right now, we - the United States and the majority of Europe - are faced with massive immigration from 3rd world countries, most of which do not share our standards on anything. Many of these people are Muslims (and regardless of what you may think, the religion holds no respect for anyone outside of it). Then there are the strong anti-American and anti-Western sentiments being displayed by the groups of illegal aliens in the United States. Roll it all together, and we're talking about a pretty nasty race war pending.
There is, and always has been, a dirth of good, kind, intelligent, or useful people. Sorry; it's a sad fact of reality. Chances are, most of your (and my) ancestors were just "average joes", living a work-a-day life, having unhappy marriages to ugly spouses with frequent fights, and dying with children who have a love/hate relationship with them - if they're lucky.
Because, if the majority of people were good, they'd not be so quickly forgotten.
Hmm. Well, I'm thoroughly "white", but I'm roughly 1/4th Sicilian, 1/4th Irish (through English conquest), and about 1/2 "Dutch/Norse/English American", with a dash of Native American thrown in.
My wife is about 3/8ths German, 1/8th Sioux (Native American), 1/4th Irish, and the rest she's not really sure about.
So, while our children might not be as "genetically sound" as someone of Eskimo/Black breeding, they're certainly going to be well blended...
If I recall correctly, quite a few existing projects started off as a "one man project". One person had a dream, and then others liked it, so started helping.
The thing about gun control is that while it might not be gun elimination in intent, that is the functional end result.
1) Gun control law is passed putting restrictions on ownership. Being that these things are put forth by the government, the costs are extensive - whether through paperwork or money. 2) Due ot the high paperwork/money cost, people who just casually owned firearms and those who did not want to be on a government list stopped purchasing them. 3) All of the smaller companies who made affordable firearms go out of business - because what's the point of buying a "cheap" gun if you've got to go through the headache of all that paperwork or pay all that money for licensing fees? 4) Due to lack of competittion, the big manufacturers can raise their prices. Only the rich, obsessive/compulsive collectors, and those who make a living from firearms (ie gunsmiths, etc.) can afford firearms now. 5) The government, seeing that there is no popular demand for firearms, senses an opportunity and puts taxes on the "evil baby killing" gun industry. The cost of firearms increases. 6) Gunsmiths can no longer get enough work to stay in business as hardly anyone owns guns anymore. The industry stagnates due to government taxation. 7) The last firearm manufacturer closes its doors. 8) The government bans all "antique firearms" as they are a potential danger to the safety of those shooting them. Ironically, enough time has passed from when the last firearm was produced in the country to make every firearm an "antique" - because, as everyone knows, firearms become antiquated after 25 years. Or, at least, that's what the law said. 9) Violent crimes increase, including those perpetrated with the use of firearms. 10) Totalitarian control errupts, in part result to the expanding crime rates. 11) Your daughter is raped, arrested, and executed for not complying with the will of the local magistrate.
Outside big cities, I imagine there is probably pretty close to 1 gun for each home, yes.
Though, you have to realize that the statistics are pretty skewered if you're just looking at the numbers. I know of people who own hundreds of firearms - not of the "saturday night special" variety, and they're not dealers. Owning and shooting firearms (which are, traditionally in America, works of art and fine craftsmanship) regularly seems to result in those people owning a half dozen different "guns" within the first year or two of the hobby's start.
It's not that hard..22LR (for "plinking") pistol and rifle, large caliber pistol (defensive, competitive, or recreational shooting), shotgun (bird hunting), middle or large caliber bolt action rifle (varmints, hunting, longer range targets), semi-auto rifle (more of the same, possibly different target role for hunting)...
For a firearm enthusiast, being restricted to "just one" gun would be a nightmare; it's like restricting a mechanic to "just one" wrench.
That's a nice perspective for a world where everyone respects things like popular image.
Pragmatically, that's an idiotic view of reality. The tyrant - whether it's the tyrant breaking down your door at 3am to rape and murder, the one in the employ of a corrupt politician, or the one with goals of world domination - does not care about that shit.
Quite simply, a tyrant will view the fact that you are unarmed as willful victimhood and an invitation for such treatment. History testifies to this.
It is impossible to teach a child to respect guns and make sure the children know what guns can do if the children have never seen a gun in their life. I'm not talking about guns on TV, or plastic toy guns; I'm talking about real, honest to god, firsthand or secondhand experience.
Otherwise, it's just a detatched, intellectual understanding, "guns can kill people", "guns are dangerous" and other various useless factoids and opinions (like "guns are immoral"). When they see the damage that a gun can do to cans, sheet metal, watermellons, animals, etc. the realization is abit more useful.
Unfortunately, most liberals seem to think it's sufficient in teaching a child about guns to teach them just those things. The only thing such behavior services is one's own fear; not society, not your children, and not yourself.
It's ironic... those who are armed (that is, respectable citizens) are often much more reserved in using force (of any kind) against a perpetrator when asked a hypothetical question, but those who go through their lives unarmed tend to be quick on the uptake of violence. Sad, what hypocricy lives within...
A shield isn't a weapon. It's a shield. Or is body armor a weapon, too? Should people have to register their body armor?
Are you telling me that, were a woman to have a rapist coming at her, in her house, and she were to hold a gun up and say, "stop, or i'll shoot", and the rapist were to not stop, resulting in her shooting her, this would not have been a valid case of self defense? If not, what would it be? Murder?
It's not the way in which a tool is used that makes it a defensive or an offensive weapon. If I use a gun to hammer a nail in, it's not a weapon, it's a hammer. If I bludgeon someone with a hammer, it's a weapon. It's not what an item is that makes it defensive or offensive, it's in what kind of situation it's employed.
Or are you the kind of idiot that thinks the only kind of defense can be passive, otherwise it's offensive?
A firearm, at most, should have two physical safeties (and that's stretching it) which the user can manipulate. Throwing electronics into the mix will attract nobody. When conventional firearms have an expected MTBF of at least 3,000 or so using mechanical means - and htat's with firearm designs which have, on a fundamental level, been tested for almost centuries. And those are very rarely anything more than a "failure to fire" or casing ejection problem. Too much more unreliability than that in
A design principle of firearms is, "make it work consistently with as few parts as possible" - because, invariably, something will break with too many small parts. We're dealing with machines which routinely undergo very abrupt percussional impact. Firearm optics need to be specifically designed to withstand such force. The hardening required for the electronics for such devices would be expensive. And that doesn't even bring up the necessity to then have two sources of ammunition: the ammunition, and the electronic source to power the damn thing. I know I sure as hell wouldn't want to use such a (bulky and failure prone) device for target practice, let alone trust my life to such a device in a defensive role. What if the battery dies while it's sitting on the shelf? (Of course, if you think guns shouldn't be used for self defense, as many intellectual urbanites do, that's not a problem; "the police will be there to help you!" and other such nonsense arguments apply.)
How about they get just one gun with electronic components working, to market, and financially profitable first instead of jumping the gun with this newfangled (and functionally worthless) technology? What incentive is there? There is none. The cost of ammunition alone would be perversely prohibitive.
(Here's a hint: it will never happen unless required by law, and then still very infrequently.)
I believe that this is the eventual goal of people creating this technology: ban all guns by making them too expensive to own. It makes sense, because for in order for this technology ot become viable, it's going to require some sort of law in place to enforce the use of bulltes which match a specific gun. God, I can't evne begin to imagine how much that'd be (normal ammunition is already about a quarter a round, give or take).
Personally, I just format my pages to be able to run at 8x6 (on the low end) and ideally at 1024x768. This seems to be what most people do. Generally speaking, any design that looks decent at 1024x768 is going to at least work at a higher resolution, if not look decent. I tend to just use relative size variables (to the window size) as opposed to absolute, and it's "good enough" for me. It seems to me to be what most CSS designs do, and from my impression of things, it's going to be good enough for 90% of web browsers (as I imagine very few people consistently use a resolution over, say, 1280x1024, as 17" and sometimes 19" monitors are now the norm).
But then, I'm not much of a web developer; mostly just an IT student with a muse.
And yeah, my generation, to a large extent, is sick of the "free love" movement's lies and bullshit. Many men of my generation are clueing into how men and women are wired and acting like men instead of children.
So hopefully, we'll at least see a partial turnaround.
I blame the (now female-dominated) psych analysists. A person can do themselves a world of favors by researching what psych was like 40+ years ago and apply its principles to their own lives, if only in part.
We've gone from "not being able to control your emotional displays is a sign of weakness" to "emotional displays are a sign of being in touch with your inner self" in the blink of an eye, and society is worse off for it.
Here's another question... I must've missed the original thread.
Why not just create a specific server-side language which is browser agnostic and plan for it to be implimented by a specific date, starting over and making it the web 'standard' with several stages in its implimentation? This way we could, in stages, get rid of all the bloat that's resulting in web developer difficulties now. The mess of combining functionality and appearance in separate programming components - sometimes as many as 3 or 4 different languages/syntaxes - is seemingly wrongheaded to me.
Have it be a language which creates browser-targetted syntax so that it doesn't matter which browser it's being viewed in - it'll display identically based on the server's determination.
Have it come into play in stages. First stage would be server support of the language; not such a stretch in terms of accomlishment, as apache is the primary server online. The timeline for browser implimentation of the spec would be somewhat down the line from that, as IE is the big player. Then, over a period of several years simply drop support for old browsers - shouldn't be too hard, as FF now comes with 'automatic update' functionality, and with most of the stuff being done server side, there shouldn't be too much of a bandwidth issue to upgrade the browsers.
It would be no different than the internet "starting over", not too different than how things all started back when Mosaic was made. Really, it's asinine to still be using HTML in 2006+, when it was originally designed as a minimal markup language for term papers...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about the GP, but it's no mystery why Republicans disagree with me: the party is dominated by people who are incompetent, power hungry, and, at times, simply corrupt. And since they have excellent PR people working for them, plus wealthy funders to pay for PR, they can convince enough people to vote for them to remain in power.
Unlike the bastion of liberal justice, the Democrat party, with stalward heroes like:
- Hillary Clinton, wife of the corrupt ex-President who committed treason for campaign contributions
- Ted Kennedy, drunkard, thief, murderer
- John Kerry, lying hypocrite, war profiteer, politically wed (quite literally), all-around sleaze bag
Need I point out to you that taking things that are not rightfully your's is considered theft, and as this is the modus operandi of the Democrat party (and increasingly so, the Republican party), both are, by definition, "evil"?
Both parties are full of shit. You "my party is better than mine" types make me fucking sick, because they're both pretty fucking bad.
Public schools haven't been fashioned to instruct children facts and how to learn for decades, and things are just culminating to the point where they've stopped pretending to do so.
No, the order of the day at public schools is social compliance through political correctness. Bad grades aren't handed out, but you are publicly chastized for not doing well (ie, towing the line).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're not talking about children. We're talking about colleges and businesses.
the concept of color vision being able to evolve is, i think, somewhat humorous. it makes the assumption - or even the argument - that evolution has motivated by external, intelligent forces. how else is a creature's DNA going to know to change to allow the creature to better adapt to outside stimulus if the creature doesn't know the outside stimulus exists? IE, if the creature is color blind, where does the DNA receive input that there is color?
Seems that there were a lot of ignorant assumptions made to create that theory. I'm not saying there's "creation" in the traditional sense, just that there's got to be something external from the creature - or something unknown - which impacted the change.
Sagan is an avowed anti-creationist. Not so much an evolutionist, but an evolutionary athiest. Denying the possibility of a creator is his primary MO.
It seems convenient for him that he might make this argument.
I think you misunderstand "creativity".
Creativity is working within a set boundry. By moving the boundry back a bit and giving more room to work with, you're not increasing the creativity level or the quality of the output, just the canvas on which that creativity can paint.
In the case of the game industry, when was the last time a fairly creative game came out that was also well done? I've not been quite attentive, because honestly I've not seen much in years which even sparks my interest, aside from the first Max Payne, Deus Ex, Galactic Civilizations 1 and 2, the remake of the Sid Myers Pirates!, and maybe a couple others I can't immediately think of. But all those are fairly "old" ideas that were implimented well (as opposed to most of their genres): FPS with a story arc tacked on amd RPGs.
Unfortunately, SH is asking the wrong question.
"Humans" will survive 100 years with no problem. Even with a global thermonuclear war, there would still be remnants who would survive, wandering about the ruins of our societies.
The real question (and the one I think he intended to ask, whether he knew it or not) was: "How will Western Society survive the next 100 years?" The answer to this question, ironically, is the opposite of your answer to his question: less, or no birth control in the West, and an increased birth rate.
Right now, we - the United States and the majority of Europe - are faced with massive immigration from 3rd world countries, most of which do not share our standards on anything. Many of these people are Muslims (and regardless of what you may think, the religion holds no respect for anyone outside of it). Then there are the strong anti-American and anti-Western sentiments being displayed by the groups of illegal aliens in the United States. Roll it all together, and we're talking about a pretty nasty race war pending.
There is, and always has been, a dirth of good, kind, intelligent, or useful people. Sorry; it's a sad fact of reality. Chances are, most of your (and my) ancestors were just "average joes", living a work-a-day life, having unhappy marriages to ugly spouses with frequent fights, and dying with children who have a love/hate relationship with them - if they're lucky.
Because, if the majority of people were good, they'd not be so quickly forgotten.
Eh, well, my ancestory traces back to Napoleon Bonaparte. Would you classify him as a stud? :P
Yep. The large morasses of population centers in India, China, and Africa (and elsewhere, but mainly there) kinda skew the perspective substantially.
You've got to also make too many assumptions about global migration.
Hmm. Well, I'm thoroughly "white", but I'm roughly 1/4th Sicilian, 1/4th Irish (through English conquest), and about 1/2 "Dutch/Norse/English American", with a dash of Native American thrown in.
My wife is about 3/8ths German, 1/8th Sioux (Native American), 1/4th Irish, and the rest she's not really sure about.
So, while our children might not be as "genetically sound" as someone of Eskimo/Black breeding, they're certainly going to be well blended...
If I recall correctly, quite a few existing projects started off as a "one man project". One person had a dream, and then others liked it, so started helping.
The thing about gun control is that while it might not be gun elimination in intent, that is the functional end result.
1) Gun control law is passed putting restrictions on ownership. Being that these things are put forth by the government, the costs are extensive - whether through paperwork or money.
2) Due ot the high paperwork/money cost, people who just casually owned firearms and those who did not want to be on a government list stopped purchasing them.
3) All of the smaller companies who made affordable firearms go out of business - because what's the point of buying a "cheap" gun if you've got to go through the headache of all that paperwork or pay all that money for licensing fees?
4) Due to lack of competittion, the big manufacturers can raise their prices. Only the rich, obsessive/compulsive collectors, and those who make a living from firearms (ie gunsmiths, etc.) can afford firearms now.
5) The government, seeing that there is no popular demand for firearms, senses an opportunity and puts taxes on the "evil baby killing" gun industry. The cost of firearms increases.
6) Gunsmiths can no longer get enough work to stay in business as hardly anyone owns guns anymore. The industry stagnates due to government taxation.
7) The last firearm manufacturer closes its doors.
8) The government bans all "antique firearms" as they are a potential danger to the safety of those shooting them. Ironically, enough time has passed from when the last firearm was produced in the country to make every firearm an "antique" - because, as everyone knows, firearms become antiquated after 25 years. Or, at least, that's what the law said.
9) Violent crimes increase, including those perpetrated with the use of firearms.
10) Totalitarian control errupts, in part result to the expanding crime rates.
11) Your daughter is raped, arrested, and executed for not complying with the will of the local magistrate.
Outside big cities, I imagine there is probably pretty close to 1 gun for each home, yes.
.22LR (for "plinking") pistol and rifle, large caliber pistol (defensive, competitive, or recreational shooting), shotgun (bird hunting), middle or large caliber bolt action rifle (varmints, hunting, longer range targets), semi-auto rifle (more of the same, possibly different target role for hunting)...
Though, you have to realize that the statistics are pretty skewered if you're just looking at the numbers. I know of people who own hundreds of firearms - not of the "saturday night special" variety, and they're not dealers. Owning and shooting firearms (which are, traditionally in America, works of art and fine craftsmanship) regularly seems to result in those people owning a half dozen different "guns" within the first year or two of the hobby's start.
It's not that hard.
For a firearm enthusiast, being restricted to "just one" gun would be a nightmare; it's like restricting a mechanic to "just one" wrench.
That's a nice perspective for a world where everyone respects things like popular image.
Pragmatically, that's an idiotic view of reality. The tyrant - whether it's the tyrant breaking down your door at 3am to rape and murder, the one in the employ of a corrupt politician, or the one with goals of world domination - does not care about that shit.
Quite simply, a tyrant will view the fact that you are unarmed as willful victimhood and an invitation for such treatment. History testifies to this.
Yep.
It is impossible to teach a child to respect guns and make sure the children know what guns can do if the children have never seen a gun in their life. I'm not talking about guns on TV, or plastic toy guns; I'm talking about real, honest to god, firsthand or secondhand experience.
Otherwise, it's just a detatched, intellectual understanding, "guns can kill people", "guns are dangerous" and other various useless factoids and opinions (like "guns are immoral"). When they see the damage that a gun can do to cans, sheet metal, watermellons, animals, etc. the realization is abit more useful.
Unfortunately, most liberals seem to think it's sufficient in teaching a child about guns to teach them just those things. The only thing such behavior services is one's own fear; not society, not your children, and not yourself.
Yep, I agree with you completely, sir.
It's ironic... those who are armed (that is, respectable citizens) are often much more reserved in using force (of any kind) against a perpetrator when asked a hypothetical question, but those who go through their lives unarmed tend to be quick on the uptake of violence. Sad, what hypocricy lives within...
A shield isn't a weapon. It's a shield. Or is body armor a weapon, too? Should people have to register their body armor?
Are you telling me that, were a woman to have a rapist coming at her, in her house, and she were to hold a gun up and say, "stop, or i'll shoot", and the rapist were to not stop, resulting in her shooting her, this would not have been a valid case of self defense? If not, what would it be? Murder?
It's not the way in which a tool is used that makes it a defensive or an offensive weapon. If I use a gun to hammer a nail in, it's not a weapon, it's a hammer. If I bludgeon someone with a hammer, it's a weapon. It's not what an item is that makes it defensive or offensive, it's in what kind of situation it's employed.
Or are you the kind of idiot that thinks the only kind of defense can be passive, otherwise it's offensive?
Probably not. He probably simply wasn't taught anything about firearms in his history classes; public education and all.
Sorry, no.
A firearm, at most, should have two physical safeties (and that's stretching it) which the user can manipulate. Throwing electronics into the mix will attract nobody. When conventional firearms have an expected MTBF of at least 3,000 or so using mechanical means - and htat's with firearm designs which have, on a fundamental level, been tested for almost centuries. And those are very rarely anything more than a "failure to fire" or casing ejection problem. Too much more unreliability than that in
A design principle of firearms is, "make it work consistently with as few parts as possible" - because, invariably, something will break with too many small parts. We're dealing with machines which routinely undergo very abrupt percussional impact. Firearm optics need to be specifically designed to withstand such force. The hardening required for the electronics for such devices would be expensive. And that doesn't even bring up the necessity to then have two sources of ammunition: the ammunition, and the electronic source to power the damn thing. I know I sure as hell wouldn't want to use such a (bulky and failure prone) device for target practice, let alone trust my life to such a device in a defensive role. What if the battery dies while it's sitting on the shelf? (Of course, if you think guns shouldn't be used for self defense, as many intellectual urbanites do, that's not a problem; "the police will be there to help you!" and other such nonsense arguments apply.)
How about they get just one gun with electronic components working, to market, and financially profitable first instead of jumping the gun with this newfangled (and functionally worthless) technology? What incentive is there? There is none. The cost of ammunition alone would be perversely prohibitive.
(Here's a hint: it will never happen unless required by law, and then still very infrequently.)
I believe that this is the eventual goal of people creating this technology: ban all guns by making them too expensive to own. It makes sense, because for in order for this technology ot become viable, it's going to require some sort of law in place to enforce the use of bulltes which match a specific gun. God, I can't evne begin to imagine how much that'd be (normal ammunition is already about a quarter a round, give or take).
It's not like Kent State doesn't already have a bad reputation for being a cesspool for hippie leftist commie sympathizers or anything...
Personally, I just format my pages to be able to run at 8x6 (on the low end) and ideally at 1024x768. This seems to be what most people do. Generally speaking, any design that looks decent at 1024x768 is going to at least work at a higher resolution, if not look decent. I tend to just use relative size variables (to the window size) as opposed to absolute, and it's "good enough" for me. It seems to me to be what most CSS designs do, and from my impression of things, it's going to be good enough for 90% of web browsers (as I imagine very few people consistently use a resolution over, say, 1280x1024, as 17" and sometimes 19" monitors are now the norm).
But then, I'm not much of a web developer; mostly just an IT student with a muse.
And yeah, my generation, to a large extent, is sick of the "free love" movement's lies and bullshit. Many men of my generation are clueing into how men and women are wired and acting like men instead of children.
So hopefully, we'll at least see a partial turnaround.
Bingo!
I blame the (now female-dominated) psych analysists. A person can do themselves a world of favors by researching what psych was like 40+ years ago and apply its principles to their own lives, if only in part.
We've gone from "not being able to control your emotional displays is a sign of weakness" to "emotional displays are a sign of being in touch with your inner self" in the blink of an eye, and society is worse off for it.
Here's another question... I must've missed the original thread.
Why not just create a specific server-side language which is browser agnostic and plan for it to be implimented by a specific date, starting over and making it the web 'standard' with several stages in its implimentation? This way we could, in stages, get rid of all the bloat that's resulting in web developer difficulties now. The mess of combining functionality and appearance in separate programming components - sometimes as many as 3 or 4 different languages/syntaxes - is seemingly wrongheaded to me.
Have it be a language which creates browser-targetted syntax so that it doesn't matter which browser it's being viewed in - it'll display identically based on the server's determination.
Have it come into play in stages. First stage would be server support of the language; not such a stretch in terms of accomlishment, as apache is the primary server online. The timeline for browser implimentation of the spec would be somewhat down the line from that, as IE is the big player. Then, over a period of several years simply drop support for old browsers - shouldn't be too hard, as FF now comes with 'automatic update' functionality, and with most of the stuff being done server side, there shouldn't be too much of a bandwidth issue to upgrade the browsers.
It would be no different than the internet "starting over", not too different than how things all started back when Mosaic was made. Really, it's asinine to still be using HTML in 2006+, when it was originally designed as a minimal markup language for term papers...