Nice... However it does not implement castling.

Earlier you made the following statement:

That is what is under debate. Is it true that all security is "security through obscurity"? There is a difference between understanding how an encryption algorithm works (obscuring an algorithm), and knowing a particular key to decrypt ciphertext using that same algorithm (obscuring an input to that algorithm).

For instance, it is possible to understand how the Diffie-Hellman algorithm works works -- meaning it is not obscure -- and yet still be unable to decipher the contents of a message encrypted via that algorithm. In this example, as in many others, the workings of an encryption algorithm need not be obscure in order to be considered secure.

In the sense that algorithms rely on their inputs, such as private keys, to be kept hidden (obscure), you would be correct. But since the phrase "security through obscurity" typically refers to the algorithm, and not its inputs, it would be misleading to claim that all security is "security through obscurity".

Right, but you should be sure to use the proper units.

1GB equals exactly 1,000,000,000 bytes by definition.

1GiB (notice the 'i') is the one that equals 1,073,741,824 bytes.

Well, hey, the moment the majority of Americans decide to quit buying stuff that's made in China, Apple will set up factories in the US.

But I don't see that happening any time soon, as most people prefer low cost above all else. Blame consumers, not Apple.

Then again, Siberia would be an excellent place to hide a body, no?

Hans Reiser, is that you?

What Lunix Nutcase meant was that you can write C code for practically any processor out there. The same can't be said for Java. And yes, C is portable; all you have to do is make use of ifdef statements to use the right code for architecture-specific code.

Not to mention, it's not $100 million, it's actually $3 million...

Seems like anytime you get into the millions, people seem to stop caring about how accurate their numbers are in an argument