I don't mean to denigrate with my opening comments, so much as observe this particular rant is not exactly dignified. There is a graceful way to present this po

I don't mean to denigrate with my opening comments, so much as observe this particular rant is not exactly dignified. There is a graceful way to present this point of view, and this isn't it. I agree that he's clear that the PARC view won, but he (and this is the critical Raskin similiarity) is deluded about why they won, and that is because the PARC type ideas are what people want. Additionally I would argue his view is "merely" an application layer you could build with the PARC derived structure, while the opposite is not the case, assuming it could be implemented at all. The main lesson I get from this kind of thing is a life spent pontificating without delivering products, even in the form of research products, is basically a waste. Even if those products are in some sense misguided it's better to have something concrete to argue about that can be built upon, stolen from, or discarded than a lot of ideas which never get done. I guess with that I go back to my other windows and get back to work as it's a trap that is very tempting for me to fall into.