Great. Now learn what the term modern means.

"There seems to be this attitude out there that pot is harmless, and that's just not the case in my experience. In moderation, it's probably safe. But chronic use- long term use at high doses- seems to really fuck people up."

There seems to be this attitude out there that oxygen is harmless, and that's just not the case in my experience. In moderation, it's probably safe. But chronic use- long term use at high doses- seems to really fuck people up."

"The War on Drugs has been a a smashing success - it's put millions of people whom the power structure wanted to imprison in prison, diverted billions of dollars to those in the power structure, and helped subsidize honest-to-God warfare in South America and Mexico- and still, too small of a subset of Americans realize this."

Just a little accuracy upgrade to your well thought out post.

"I doubt the war on drugs was only targeted towards Marijuana."

Since people aren't Marijuana you would be right. The War on Drugs is a misnomer. It has always been a losing war against the US Citizens, and more specifically a subset of the US citezenry that valued morals and freedom of choice over laws designed to create a ruling class and a subjegated class. This is not to say that there are no immoral drug users of course, but the all too often successful attempt to paint drug use as immoral was never about helping people, and has always been about excercising control over them. In truth: Drugs have done some good things for US.

""CISC functionality" is the ability to execute a given CISC instruction set with acceptable performance."

When you start off with a broken definition, everything you say about it becomes suspect.

"you can choose to use fewer transistors in one place on a chip in favor of more transistors in another place,"

That's a phenomenally stupid thing to say, and represents a complete lack of understanding of circuit design in general.

"You may happen to execute some functions slower, and other functions faster, but if the net result is faster execution of the code actually run on the machine, you have a better implementation."

This statement represents a complete lack of understanding of benchmarking.

"For existing architectures, the reason they don't do it is that it would require changes to the instruction format, which, for most instruction set architectures, would be a royal pain."

Again, that is just phenomenally stupid, and alludes to the idea that the designers are lazy, as well as ignoring the fact the nothing about chip design is anything other than "a royal pain."

" For ARM, they were already introducing a 64-bit variant of the instruction set, and didn't have to maintain binary compatibility."

Do you even think about what you write before you write it?

Just accept that your attempts to sound like you have a clue failed miserably, and you have been called on it. You haven't made a coherent point in the entire post, and you need to let qualified designers make decisions rather than playing "armchair designer."

"I said nothing about keeping all the same functionality, if by "functionality" you mean"

The problem is that you were assuming you are the only one speaking in this thread. The discussion was about adding more registers in a CISC architecture, and so CISC functionality is the context. When you ask what "the same functionality means" that is absurd. You can't implement a subset of the functionality and still have the same functionality.

I'll put this in simpler terms. Smart people design CPUs and they don't add a bunch of registers even though that would be useful. The reason they don't do it is because of the additional chip real estate it would cost in an already over-taxed landscape, not because they are lazy or haven't though of the idea.

And as you agree by your own admission, they never spread misinformation about it :-)

Well if you read it in a post on Slashdot it must be true! No shills ever post here and try to spread misinformation about Linux! Well, er, I mean, you're the only one.

Yes. You merely "interpret" it as suggestions that were written by well meaning old men who didn't really understand what it was that they were trying to say.

We really don't want to see any pics of any loose lips, thank you very much!

No Fly List 1, Rule 1: If your name was ever Cat Stevens, even for a moment, you're on the list. There are no exceptions!

No. That's correct. You can't add registers, keep the same functionality, and add all the circuitry to suport said functionality by reducing functionality and taking away regsiters. Who would have thought?

"Now, simply shut the fuck up and let the REAL nerds discuss."

ROTFLMAO. That's pretty funny there #1252108 :-)

What you can't seem to grasp is even a layman could figure out how ridiculous your claim is with absolutely no understanding of the differences between RISC and CISC.

Rockgoon the PHB: How comes we cantz just adz us a bunch more registerz on the same die size with the same functionality?

Skilled CPU Designer: But PHBoss, we already have the die saturated with as much functionality as we can! We'd love to add more registers, but we'd have to increase our available instruction set even more, which would require more decoder logic, and adding 20 more registers would require additional pipelines, and a host of other logic. We already are using all the capacity we have! That is one of the reasons we are always trying to move to smaller and smaller fab processes!

Rockgoon the PHP: That's ridiculous! You guys just never thought of it! Admit it! You're lazy! There's plenty of room! Just get rid of some uneeeded circuits! You are the classic example of the guy that learned one fucking little thing and then imagined an entire imaginary universe from it!

In other words, yes, you are half an idiot savant. The first half :-)

That's absolutely correct, unless of course you count the fact that you can't create a CISC CPU with just as many registers that can be used to store data, manipulate data, etc sans a cache hit as a RISC CPU given the same die size, which is another way of saying you are an idiot who quoted half my sentence and then tried to make it look like I merely said "CISC can't have lots of registers!".

Actually, like most people I have only heard what is reported about her. I have since gone ahead and tried to watch her video Ms. Male Character – Tropes vs Women, and having watched as much of it as I can stomach, I still blame the idiots for their response, but not as much as I used to.