The reference CISC platform, the "competition", at the time was the VAX. Same arguments, different target.

The US already found a way to tax Bitcoins, as an asset. They announced this earlier this year.

I believe that miners have to record income on the day they received coins from mining operations and that sellers have to record a gain/or loss at they time they sell/trade coins. This means that when you buy that cup of coffee you have to note the price difference between when you acquired the coins and when you bought the coffee, and report that gain/loss.

No. Wall Street will speculate on anything that can possibly be sold at a profit. Intrinsic value and low risk are not required, read up on the origins of the recent banking crisis.

All this means is that there is a short term potential for profit by trading in crypto. Any actual value or utility in crypto would be irrelevant to Wall Street.

Unfortunately I became recently acquainted with mine. The ring is actually in the trunk with the spare tire and jack, to be screwed into place when needed, when pulled onto the flatbed tow truck. Its only installed for the tow to avoid it being damaged during normal driving and bottoming out.

The Pentium 75 Mhz was the real rebranding/remarking king due to its often successful "overclocking". The story goes something like this. There is a single production line for the Pentiums of speeds ranging form 75 to 120 Mhz. Intel tests the chips at 75, 90 and 120 Mhz to determine the speed an individual chip is capable of running at. Note that these tests are far beyond what over clockers can do, often involving specialized hardware probes and such. Normally chips are tested until they fail and branded for the highest speed that they properly executed at. However when orders for Pentium 75 exceeded inventories the testing was abbreviates, chips were only tested at 75 and branded and sold as such if the test was successful. These chips were never tested at 90 or 120 Mhz and many of these chips would have successfully passed testing and been branded at these higher speeds had they been tested at these speeds. The Pentium 75 became legendary for overclocking, and remarking by third parties.

Actually it is. Modern performance tuning has a lot to do with cache misses and such. CISC can allow for more instructions per cache hit. The strategy of a hybrid type design, CISC external architecture and RISC internal architecture definitely has some advantages.

That said, the point of RISC was not solely execution speed. It was also simplicity of design. A simplicity that allowed organization with less money and resources than Intel to design very capable CPUs.

Arizona tried to ignore 55 and not enforce it in certain areas where they thought higher speeds were appropriate and safe. The feds got annoyed and tried to cut highway funding for Arizona. So Arizona started enforcing the 55 mph speed limit. A friend got pulled over and received a ticket, not for speeding -- a moving violation that would put points on his drivers license and raise his insurance rate, but for "improper use of finite resources" -- an infractions that did not show up on one's driving record. In other words he received a ticket for "wasting gas" not speeding.

You are mistaken. President Kennedy, although he may not have been President yet, once warned about local and state governments accepting federal money. He expressed concern that federal money may bring federal meddling and control over local affairs. In particular he was speaking about education.

Most Democrats and Republicans agreed with Kennedy's opinion. I think the general consensus at the time was to use federal money only for one time expenses, like the construction of a school, but not for ongoing expenses like maintenance of the school or teacher salaries.

In 1919 Lt Col Eisenhower, yes the later Supreme Allied Commander of WW2 and the 1950s President of the US, led a convoy of 24 vehicles from the east coast to the west coast. 9 vehicles were lost, 21 men were injured and unable to continue.

Joking aside, early cars broke down frequently and the horse was a very common towing option. In these early days people didn't necessarily drive themselves, many paid their mechanic to act as their driver. If a person drove themselves they were probably a hobbyist mechanic.

Realized net gains and net losses. I believe virtual coin losses can be applied against virtual coin gains, even the IRS would not be so insane as to not allow this. I expect the problem is applying net virtual coin losses against regular income. The issue also appears with stocks, only up to $3,000 of realized net losses can be applied against regular income if I remember correctly.

Every US based bitcoin user is going to be asked about their bitcoin activities ... by the IRS since the IRS has figured out how to tax bitcoins, as an asset.

Seriously, this is no joke. As an asset you will be expected to declare a gain or loss on the coins you used to purchase that cup of coffee. The gain or loss with respect to the change of value between the day you received those coins and the day you used them in the purchase.

This is why it is incredibly important whether the IRS considers bitcoins to be a currency or an asset. As an asset the reporting requirements would seem to become similar to that of buying, selling and trading stocks. Its not at all like spending dollars.

Only you are mixing alloc/new and garbage collection. My point is that whether an operating system offers malloc/new or garbage collection (manual or automatic memory management) to its applications is irrelevant. In either case it ultimately drills down to a kernel, and this drilling down to a kernel is irrelevant to the applications. The application code could care less if the kernel is linux, bsd, mach, hurd, etc ... The kernel is as abstract and as irrelevant to the application code as the hardware itself.

Your are wrong. Even Andrew Tanengaum says that the definition of an operating systems is fuzzy because it does several different things. Abstracts the hardware, manages resources and provides an API that application programs are written for. That operating systems have evolved and the simple kernel/user mode distinction of years past no longer works. That it is legitimate to define an operating system from both bottom up and top down perspectives. You are simply taking a narrow bottom up perspective, and a further narrowed monolithic perspective on top of that. Android provides an API, it manages memory (automatically), it schedules threads, it performs I/O, etc. Android fits one of Tanenbaum's definitions of an operating system. Tanenbaum specifically refers to Java-based operating systems.

You guess wrong yet again. Its not the utility of the kernel that matters. Its the visibility of the kernel, the necessity of one particular kernel. Linux is an implementation detail under Android. Android could be ported to use a different POSIX based kernel and applications would not know or care. Why? Because Android is an operating system from an application perspective.

That is an amusing dodge. What developer's call their software only matters when it fits your narrow definition.

Actually I have a background in writing low level kernels, in porting c runtime environments to these custom environments. I know about memory management from the hardware up.

What I don't have is an overly narrow concept of operating systems, a viewpoint stuck on some quiz once taken in an operating system class that expected a student to regurgitate a 1970s list of OS components.

Android is no less of an OS for delegating some low level operations to the host linux kernel than a microkernel based OS that delegates some low level functions to its microkernel. Is Debian no longer an OS when it delegates low level functions to HURD?

Many professors in MBA programs are not career academics. My marketing professor spent the first ten years of his career as an electrical engineer. The professor in my new product development class had been a mechanical engineer. We made heavy use of statistics and mathematical modeling in his class, I was very pleasantly surprised. My entrepreneurship professor had launched five successful startups in the medical industry. All these and some other professors had real jobs, moved into management, got an MBA and eventually decided to get a PhD and teach.

Some classes were taught by non-PhD's like Balmer, adjunct professors. Business law was taught by an actual practicing attorney. Negotiations was taught by a sitting federal judge.

There were some career academics, but those were generally for classes that were major academic disciplines, economics (micro and macro classes) and math (stats class) for example.