NT was originally a next generation OS/2 not a next generation Windows. IBM and Microsoft worked together on 16-bit OS/2 1.x. They decided to work separately in parallel on the 32-bit x86 specific OS/2 2.x (IBM) and on the cross platform portable OS/2 3.x, aka NT OS/2 (Microsoft). NT OS/2 was eventually rebranded as Windows NT. NT was a re-write, but it started as a re-write for OS/2.

That doesn't change the fact that there are in fact 83 million Xbox 360s and 80 million Playstation 3s in the hands of consumers.

Didn't you read the next line that I wrote? I inserted it above for reference.

Apple, IBM and Motorola began working together on the PowerPC in 1991 when PC's were using the 486.
The RISC core and micro ops that I referred to were introduced in the Pentium Pro (P6) in 1995, not the Pentium (P5).

This was fixed a year or so ago with iOS 7, maybe earlier? iOS devices can be remotely configured and updated. Coincidentally I just watched a WWDC video that mentioned this, I'm pretty sure it was from last year's WWDC not the recent one.

Apple, IBM and Motorola partnered for the PowerPC CPU. It worked out. PowerPC ultimately lost to Intel but that wasn't so much a PowerPC failure as it was that Intel worked friggin miracles with the x86 architecture. No one ever imagined they could get x86 to the performance levels that they did. I suppose technically they did not. Intel actually went to RISC but its hidden in the core of the CPU and only the legacy x86 api is exposed. x86 instructions are translated to risc core micro operations and these microps are what actually executes.

Most people looked at the RISC v CISC debate as one or the other, Intel thought they'd do both in one chip. CISC may be more expensive to work with but Intel certainly can afford to go the more expensive path.

It worked out great for Microsoft. Microsoft NT began life as OS/2 NT, the portable cross-platform version of OS/2. As IBM and Microsoft went their separate ways OS/2 NT was renamed Windows NT.

Plumping has been at that point for many decades. At least since the 1950s in the U.S, or whenever teflon tape was invented. :-)

The truth is not what you think it is. Swiss banks do in fact give up information on the accounts of US citizens to the US government. Its simply a matter of the Swiss banks wanting to continue to do business in the US.

The other poster is correct. Your presence in another country is in fact subject to that country's judicial decrees. If you wish to not comply then you need to remove your presence from the country. This does not nullify the original judicial decree, it merely renders it unenforcible unless your country wishes for it to be enforced.

In practice they actually do so. If the company fails to comply with country A then they are at risk from being barred from doing business in A. This is how the US government got the Swiss banks to give up info on US citizen's accounts.

You seem to misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that votes are the true currency of politics. That money is secondary, it is merely a tool to persuade the indifferent. Expensive media campaigns do little to change the opinion of informed and motivated voters. The Virginia primary is an example, the winner spent $100,000. The loser spent $5,000,000 and the loser was an incumbent and a powerful party leader.

In other words if one wants to change politics then inform and motivate voters. If you want to maintain the status quo by focusing on the wrong thing then focus on money.

Because the post I responded to said "And, physicians and regulators are already looking at ways to integrate that information into a broader plan of care." :-)

That is not how the trial lawyers work. They are not defacto regulators in most cases. The are far more often just parasites and are very much like the patent trolls, just using the legal system to extort money. They will sue doctors who did receive correct data from a device and who made a medically well informed decision. They will use the fact that the device is not FDA certified to sow FUD and confuse and mislead a jury who is clueless about medicine and devices. Every once in a while they will find a gullible jury and get a payday, and insurance companies/doctors will just give them money to go away even when their suits are baseless.

The first consumer at-home glucose monitoring device (hardware and software) that I found on walmart's website is an FDA approved device according the the FDA's website.

I honestly doubt physicians will base medical decisions on data from non-FDA approved devices. That is an enormous opening for the trial lawyers and their malpractice lawsuits.

Similarly I doubt Apple will be promoting its consumer oriented devices for use in patient care, well in the medical data acquisition and telemetry sense, as opposed to doctors accessing data/records via iPads. Apple will probably "prohibit" such use in its licensing agreement. Apple's pockets are way too deep and they would just make themselves a perfect target for trial lawyers if consumer grade devices were used in medical data acquisition.

Ultimately there will be mobile medical data acquisition and telemetry devices from traditional medical equipment vendors and it will be FDA approved.

Of course, maybe Apple will come out with an FDA approved model eventually, a non-consumer grade device ?

I agree, pharma distribution is nationwide so federal oversight seems reasonable.

The point you address is one that is often misunderstood. When most people say the federal government should not be involved in activity X they often mean that a more local level of government should be involved. I other words a level that is (1) more knowledgable of the local environment that activity X is taking place in and (2) is more accountable to local voters.

With respect to (1) in particular, many problems have a local component. A good solution in one part of the country may be a poor solution in another. That is why many people are highly skeptical of one-size-fits-all solutions from Washington DC.

For EU readers, consider an EU based organization usurping control over some activity from your national government. That's sort of the situation with the US federal government. The US is too large and too diverse for many on-size-fits-all solutions.