Are you seriously trying to claim an IBM mainframe is not a 'modern computer'? What possible definition of 'modern' are you using?

If you are really serious about it, buy the IBM zPDT (Personal Development Tool). Let's you run z/OS, z/VM, and z/VSE on a PC (legally). A little pricey (about $5K for the tool, and $900/yr subscription for the software), but comes with a whole bunch of mainframe environments and tools.

CICS is not a database layer, it is a transaction manager. The database layer is IMS or DB2. And CICS is callable from languages other than COBOL.

tease:

gently pull or comb (something tangled, especially wool or hair) into separate strands.

I would genuinely like to know how you, as an 'experienced kernel developer', know, using only the information you said (backtrace, etc), that the reason the USB stack is trying to write to NULL is NOT because something stomped all over storage, possibly including the storage stack.

What's worse than a forced reboot? A reboot that should have happened but was ignored, wiping out not only the last hours work, but your entire disk.

>99% of users would have absolutely no idea what choice to take. And no matter which they chose, they probably will wind up losing something. So why make it appear that it is the users fault if they lost data (by making the 'wrong' choice)?

Yeah, just suspend that thread that is in the USB stack. What could possibly go wrong? It's not like it could interefe with a filesystem o a USB device, right?

And remember, just because a certain piece of code DETECTED a problem does not mean that that piece of code CAUSED the problem. Thread 'A' craps all over storage, thread 'B' attempts to use storage and crashes, and you give the user to just let thread 'A' continue? Brilliant!

Nothing fishy. It is a hugely profitable product at $150, not at $9. TI has no doubt long ago paid all the sunk costs, etc for this product and can now, if they wanted, sell the product for very close to the marginal cost. So any competitor that comes in has to match that price (probably discounted even more because they don't have the TI brand), for a product that has a very limited market with no real upside at all. Or, said competitor could invest in some desirable product that has a future and competitors who really can't afford to drop the price much.

Just because some competitor has the ability to enter the market does not mean it is a wise business decision for them to do so.

Free market does not 'require' competition. Do you have any evidence that there exists a 'competitor' who wishes to make a clone of this calculator, but is being prevented from doing so? No, you do not. Just because only one player chooses to play in a given market does not mean that the market is not free.

OK, plow into someone on the way home tonight. Your insurance company will pay their bills. That'll show em.

Seriously, what kind of idiotic thinking is that?

Don't know about this app, but Progressive and State Farm do tell you what they monitor. State Farm (at least) also provides you with a 'dashboard' so you can see the data, along with how it will affect your rates.

Progressive monitors hard braking, miles driven per day, and how often you drive between midnight and 4AM.

State Farm monitors braking, acceleration, left and right turns, time of day vehicle is driven, and speed over 80MPH

Your own analogy illustrates the problem with that approach. Putting your purse in the trunk may stop an opportunistic theif from strolling by, seeing your purse, and taking it. It does absolutely nothing to protect against a determined theif who has a strong suspicion that there is something of value stored in the vehicle. But in the case of online data, people here are taking the position that the user must protect against determined foes. It would be like telling everyone that the proper thing to do is always put your purse in Ft Knox. Of course, nobody will actually do that because it is totally impractical.

The answer is that we need to let go of the idea that the ancient idea of passwords is sufficient. It obviously is not.

The very first paragraph of IBMs z/Architecture Principles of Operation:

The architecture of a system defines its attributes as seen by the programmer, that is, the conceptual structure and functional behavior of the machine, as distinct from the organization of the data flow, the logical design, the physical design, and the performance of any particular implementation. Several dissimilar machine implementations may conform to a single architecture. When the execution of a set of programs on different machine implementations produces the results that are defined by a single architecture, the implementations are considered to be compatible for those programs.

What enterprise class entry level server can you get 'fully loaded', including a supported proprietary operating system and proprietary development tools for $500 to $1000?

What an idoitic statement. First, if something has a 50% chance of happening then it is certainly not 'inevitable'. Second, divorce is not a random event, so comparing it to a coin toss is exceedingly stupid. Passwords aside, we already 'share accounts'. We have joint checking and savings accounts, a joint mortgage, joint ownership of the house, joint ownership of a timeshare, file joint tax returns, etc. What is so different about joint online accounts? Nothing.

Haha! Good one! If the speed limits are higher then the idiots will not be juking and jiving. Yeah, right. Can I have some of what you are having?

Fact is, not matter what the speed limit, idiots will think they are too low for their superior skills. They will also always think others are driving too slow, and will do just as much juking and jiving, except at a higher speed. And nothing can go wrong with that, right?

Also, raising the speed limit does not mean people will drive any faster. This has been shown in several studies. So if most people are not going to go faster just because the speed limit is raised that means the superior ones will still be dodging the same people.