In Mexico City, at the end of the primary school, ~1988, we did learn how to extract square roots (and covered the basis for "higher" roots). Of course, it was not something we used since; in secondary school we went on with algebra, and didn't do much more pure arithmetics since. But square roots are useful to at least estimate without computers.

I cannot understand why such a setup isn't more common. My workstation has two monitors: One of them in portrait (900x1440) and the second in landscape (1900x1080). I mostly use the portrait one to write texts and browse the Web. The landscape one is where I usually code or sysadmin from. And, of course, other stuff finds its place in different ways.

Of course. But when doing a course on data structures, kids are expected to develop the skills needed to write pieces of code that might seem trivial to you — But in practice are the result of tens of years of work. I quite enjoy reading 1960s computer science papers precisely because of that.

I teach Operating Systems. My course depends on Algorithms and Data Structures. Believe me, even though the students just finished the course mentioned in this note (of course, in a different university, different country even), it is obvious in their assignments they have not yet interiorized many of the things they are supposed to have learnt. I could probably fill a book explaining the different implementations of lists or trees I have seen, or the myriads of antipatterns I read on a regular basis. And that's what university is for.

In "real" works, of course, they can answer open-book to all exam^Wsituations. They can copy code from teh intarwebz. They can compare code. But first, they have to understand and interiorize the concepts.

Legal issues make clear the splitting point of that hair.

Using that exact library means you include it from your project source and acknowledge it as a complete piece of work. If your work is developed openly, you usually list it as a dependency (and acknowledge the authors — And get the ability to link to updated versions. Free updates, yay!) or hard-include it in your tree (but still acknowledging authorship); if it is developed in a closed model, you can either do it or not, but if $boss comes to ask why every time a frobnicator is quuxed you get shizzles, you can point to an outside-acquired code.

If you just copy-pasted a funciton as yours, there are many negative side effects. Besides, of course, opening yourself to lawsuits and whatnot.

You are completely right, I was over-optimistic in my numbers. So, thanks for pushing the point even more so!

Even if your 3GHz 4 cores have a decent amount of cache and can perform their computations without going down the memory bus bottleneck? Remember, the bottleneck would be even worse, because you didn't mention the memory would be twice as fast as well. And, of course, the rest of the buses and peripherials would also be affected, so all waits for memory and for external I/O would, for become effectivly doubly as expensive, as seen by the processors.

Of course, you could say that it'd be nice to have all of the computer's components continue increasing in speed. Well, that'd bring another problem: Motherboard sizes. Because at 6GHz, light speed becomes a limit as well: If, speaking in round numbers, light travels ~300,000,000 meters per second, then it takes 3.33x10^-9 seconds for it to travel one meter. At 6GHz, light travels 50cm per clock cycle. I know I'm comparing apples and oranges here, as electrons don't "move" along the wire, but still — Signals will only travel fractions of that distance on an electronic circuit.

Yes, it could be easier to keep both cores happily going along without programmers having to learn to master concurrency. But we are hitting physical barriers, They do not give way easily.

Of course, you don't know Joey Hess. Being one of the most equanimous, quiet hard-working, involved-everywhere guys I have had the privilege to work with (I am a DD since 2003, and Joey has been one of my role models in the project... Of course, even if our skillsets are quite different) He is not quitting because of "not getting his way".

If you want to smuggle data out of a well-guarded network perimeter, you can use one or several covert channel techniques. You seem to send out innocent traffic, but secrets are encoded in it. So, in a sense, the risk is not having an infected computer — But a compromised employee.

Covert channels are useful for future Snowdens. And, of course, they have been proven unavoidable.

Banning firearms will not finish the problem, but will very likely decrease it.

I know that single-account experiences are not statistically important, but anyway, it's not the only time I have heard such an account — And all I know is what I (or my close ones) have lived.

My family in Argentina were robbed at home, at gunpoint. The robbers asked them to hand over (in this order) firearms, jewels and money.

If firearms are harder to come by, they will not be likely to be found in a regular person's home. Of course, the black market will still have them — But the black market will have higher prices for them. Fewer wrongdoers will be able to get their hands on weapons.

If you add to this programs such as one implemented in my city, where the local government asks you to (voluntarly) hand over any guns you have paying for them in more useful goods (such as a computer, or even cash), the amount of guns in the street decreases. That means, the amount of armed people decreases. And the price for individual guns (let alone "specialty" guns, which should just be banned outside of army use) goes up. Everybody wins.

I cannot repeal laws in a country where I am not a citizen. But sadly, the USA blindness on this topic has impacted our lives.

I am Mexican. Believe whatever you want, but during my lifetime, I have not seen a single firearm besides those in control of the security force (and a very old rifle used for hunting, ~25 years ago, in quite a rural setting).

However, our territory is very vast and varied. And you have surely heard we do have violence problem. And you most likely heard about stupid "research" USA programs, such as "Fast and Furious", where guns were *knowingly to the USA authorities* smuggled out of the USA and into Mexico, to help "trace the paths"of the druglords.

Our druglords buy uncontrolled firearms (both "regular" and high-power) in the USA, and use them here. So, yes, I do have basis for complaining on the status quo.

To stick the head out of a XVIII-century mindset and acknowledge the 2nd Amendment is a useless historic relic that nowadays only injures society?

When the netbook craze began (2008), I bought a 9" Acer Aspire One, for roughly US$400. That was my main laptop (and, during vacations, my main computer. Yes, I work at a university, so six weeks of vacations every year).

One year ago, I decided it was time to renew. I bought its sucessor, the 10" Acer Aspire One. For US$350. And it's my main computer outside of my office. I am really happy with it.

I have just bumped up its memory (2GB6GB). Besides that, I'm more than satisfied with what I got. I have recommended it to my family — Nowadays, my wife has one, and I have taken three more to her family (mother and two brothers). We are all quite happy with them (except for the sister that insisted on keeping Windows 8).

So, yes, US$400 for a good five year use... Is about US$80 per year. Quite acceptable!

The society needs solidarity. If I get more money than others, a fraction of my income should go to help set a minimum base from where the society as a whole can work. Many people are poor, not because they are lazy or disorganized, but because they started with insurmountable differences in regard to what we like to call the middle class. Having people below the poverty line is not good for the society — If I want crime not to raise, I should invest in not having them hate or envy me because of my better luck.

Of course, I can only do my bit of helping; I live as what in my country would be middle class, maybe even middle-upper. But the more you earn, the better you can endure a higher percentage of it going to help others. And, of course, the more that will end up being.

Completely agree — and complementing my other comment on this thread, just a tiny bit above right now, the main reason why my country (Mexico) is stuck is that ~60% of the economy is informal — So no taxes are collected. and, of course, for the corresponding ~60% of the population living in that economy, there is no social services (health, retirement, etc) that the rest of us do have. Which are not great, granted, but they can be real life savers.

Because they happen at very different moments in time, and have very different meanings. And, of course, because their impact in society are very different.

I live in Mexico. The poorest ~half of the country have to pay very little taxes, if anything. Income tax for workers on low wages is very low. And we have VAT exemption on many prime-need items (i.e. unprocessed food, medicines, books). Income tax raises slowly, then steeply; VAT is flat 16% for everything else.

I am far from rich, but pay a fair share of taxes. And of course, the more you earn, the more you complain about how much you have to pay.