Oh my god that's so unreasonable, especially compared to the rest of Europe!

Not this compiler-inserted backdoor crap again... Look, an assembler could insert a backdoor as well. And any of the developers could insert a backdoor. Did you read the entire source code? Even if you did, do you think you could find a cleverly hidden backdoor?

Besides, all you need to do to get rid of the hidden compiler backdoor (assuming there is one) is write your own compiler, use it to compile the suspected compiler, then use the generated compiler to compile itself, and presto, the backdoor is gone. Writing an interpreter instead of a compiler is also an option. Since you only need to do this whole process once, your compiler doesn't need to do any smart optimization and it's acceptable for the whole process to take some time (a week? a month? who cares).

Most kids are going to have access to a normal computer anyway, which would include a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. They can use ssh access or some kind of remote desktop to control their RasPi. No extra support hardware required, apart from a power supply, a sd card (they're dirt cheap) and a UTP cable to connect it to a switch/router. Your 'well past $200' estimate is completely ridiculous.

Except that you could have used the exact same technique in java, recycling the same object.

> So if you code in Java there is no way to compile parts of it to get a needed speed boost.

Modern VMs already compile when you need a speed boost.

> The last time I coded a low latency system (in C++) we disabled timer interrupts to the Linux OS to prevent the process getting swapped out

Did that really make a meaningful difference? I imagine the interrupt handlers would have very little code and would never ever result in pages getting swapped out.

Yeah it's all rather disappointing really, but at least we know that gains in processor speed won't some day break our crypto (assuming it has no other weaknesses).

For some interesting numbers check out http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/the_doghouse_cr.html

What's your point? By the same logic you could build a tank that will ignore the puny bullets of smart guns and dumb guns alike. It won't be cheap, but you can do it.

> I was once a programer when i was in High School. Since then I've noticed and been told friend who are programers/coders that programming languages now are sloppy when it comes to memory.
Garbage-collection performs better when there is more memory available, and many modern languages use garbage-collection. Then we have JIT, which requires a bytecode-compiler and a bytecode-interpreter to be in memory (unless you compile the whole program on startup). Basically we're trading memory for things like safety, platform-independence, and performance (e.g. when caching data). Which usually makes a lot of sense and works very well for powerful systems with a lot of RAM, but not so much in other situations.

> I've heard also that old languages like Basic, C and other were better at keeping memory processing needs to a minimum.
What do you mean by 'memory processing needs'?

> Would a modern language using the smaller memory/processing requirement help things with ever need come with more efficient chip?
Sorry, I can't parse 'help things with ever need come with more efficient chip'.

If you're asking if a theoretical language that uses less memory and (magically) less processing power would remove the need for more efficient chips the answer is 'no'. The advantages of being more efficient are cumulative so until we arrive at the point where our phones have 100-year battery times having both would always be better than having one or none.

> If all my options are pay taxes and live in country A, OR go to hellhole country B where I will get killed but don't pay taxes, then you're not really giving me the option.
Have you considered that maybe the world is trying to tell you something? Do you see a pattern? If every place without taxes is a hellhole where you'll get killed, maybe that means something. Perhaps the place you imagine, one that has no taxes but is not a hellhole, cannot exist in the real world?

> Nor did you ever intend on giving me the choice, because you gave me no avenue for recourse via this system you call democracy.
Sure we do, just vote for politicians who support having no taxes at all. If there aren't any, become such a politician and get elected. Doesn't work? Guess what, most people don't agree with your point of view and democracy works as planned.

> Now that I think about it, what you propose is actually a protection racket. "Live in my neighbourhood and get my protection, give me protection money for it, though."
That is how public services work, yes. What separates them from protection rackets would be that the government actually offers you something useful in return, and you get to affect policy by voting.

> Heck, you don't even allow us to claim a piece of unused land in the middle of nowhere as our own to govern as we wish with like-minded individuals.
Countries don't like to lose territory. Are you truly surprised they don't allow you to just 'claim' a piece of land? Suppose you had your hypothetical tax-free country, how would you feel if another guy just walked in and just claimed it as its own? I imagine the situation would quickly turn the place into something one might refer to as a hellhole.

> You don't even allow us the chance to BUY that land from you. How is that freedom? How are you giving us an option/choice?
Do you think everything should be for sale? Replace 'land' by 'slaves', or 'nuclear bombs', or 'smallpox'. The same whiny 'argument' applies. You have the freedom to attempt to change your country through democratic means. That is the freedom/option/choice you have. Freedom does not mean you can do whatever you want.

> Personally, I think the only real alternative is giving people direct control over government spending.
By all means, vote for someone who will change your country like that.

> Give me a bunch of damn sliders and categories so I can fine-tune the damn budget how I see fit by assigning my tax money to each cause/agency/whatever.
By all means, go ahead. It will be hilarious to observe.

> Give me a bunch of damn sliders and categories so I can fine-tune the damn budget how I see fit by assigning my tax money to each cause/agency/whatever.
I suppose this will leave the unemployed to pay the unemployment benefits?

> People aren't nearly as selfish and greedy as you think, when given the chance and responsibility.
Perhaps most are not, but they are irrational and will act often against their own best interests when given the chance. Many people will refuse to spend any money on things that don't benefit them or their close friends/family directly. A part of me wishes you get what you want, so that in 10 years we'll be able to use you as an example why this doesn't work at all.

> Give anti-tax people a feasible alternative.

Sure, they can go live in Somalia. If that option somehow appears 'unfeasible' perhaps you should provide a definition of 'feasible' that is compatible with a realistic situation.

Yes, yes it does.

When you also use '.' for method calls and accessing fields of a struct, using '::' instead of '.' for namespaces doesn't seem like a bad idea.

> Then there's the asinine stuff like omitting a semicolon to return the value of an expression...

I was a little sceptical at first as well, but it's actually surprisingly nice once you get used to it. You can still use 'return someValue;' if you like, but it will look a silly. I for one really miss this feature when I have to touch other languages again. Don't knock it till you try it.

> The fact that no human being could live 800 years also disproves this account, unless the guy expects "god-level magic" to be an acceptable explanation.

If you accept the premise 'god creates the universe from nothing', 'god enables a human to live 800 years' is not really that far-fetched, is it?

> So the majority of citizens live in countries that have the death penalty and actively use it. The list of countries that have abolished it includes many small nations with low population numbers. It isn't fair that you use that number to support your stance on the death penalty, because those low-population states get extra representation in the results.

Except that GP said most governments. If schneidafunk wanted to make this into a popularity contest rather than (by accident?) presenting a verifiable statement (which just so happens to be very false) perhaps they should have said so, rather than implying that most countries in the world would resort to worse barbarism than is currently practised in the USA.

It seems the USA like to pretend they are somehow better than the rest of the world. It would be nice to see them hold themselves to standards that are equal or higher than the rest of the world.