Technically speaking, computer science was being conducted long before the existence of a computer.

George Boole published his (Boolean) algebra studies in 1854. Logic circuits started as mathematical expressions, not originating with computing machines. Charles Babbage had no computer to work with when he designed the first Analytical Engine, followed by the Difference Engine (which was never built). Turing defined the computer in 1936, before one actually existed. There was quite a body of algorithmic and binomial research before the first (modern) computing machine (Say Attasanoff-Berry in 1939).

I have happily put together my latest desktop a year ago, returning after many years from abandoning the personal construction route. I figured at the time that it wasn't possible to extract significant price or performance advantages, with the introduction of Intel's Core2 hardware supremacy and box stores relentless commodification of the PC. So my purchased PC machines after that point weres desktops, and then laptops replacing the desktop.

Nowadays, I believe the motivating benefit are the performance advantages in selectively-purchased hardware, like SSDs, multi-terabyte drives, cutting edge graphic cards, and i7/Xeon CPUs. Yeah sure, you can select those features into a pre-ordered box, but it doesn't result in price savings or "optimal" hardware.

As for putting together computers, its "same as it ever was". Its even less ideosyncratic than 8 years ago. But you're still stuck learning the new part connectors, BIOS/UEFI details, hardware trends, etc. Along with the great suggestions like pcper.com, I'll throw in pcpartspicker.com. I recommend it, not so much for the construction articles, but for the database of consumer computer components. It gives you an idea of the prevailing prices of specific parts, and a handy personal page of your parts purchases. You can also then sift through other people's construction sheets and compare your purchases.

Yeah, I envy your plunge into workstations. Its significantly expensive hobby though, much more so than gaming machines.

seL4 is probably a subset of MACH. It wouldn't be an insurmountable problem to port HURD to run on top of seL4. What might be exceptionally difficult would be to rewrite HURD to take advantage of seL4's design, to produce a more "correct" version of a microkernel based OS.

IIRC, the HURD effort to replace MACH with L4 had nothing to do with difficulty salvaging HURD code to run on top of L4. It had to do with known security flaws with inter process communications in MACH and the original L4 implementation. There was a grad student looking to replace MACH with a prototype secure variant of L4 called coyotos, which was eventually abandoned.

Fuck HURD. HURD was a failure. HURD was a vanity project Richard Stallman wanted implemented to undercut the popularity of the fledgling linux OS. He abandoned his cheerleading effort for it over a decade ago. (I doubt Stallman even contributed code to the original HURD implementation.) Since then, its been whored out to every grad student looking to use it as a platform for their thesis. The whole academic drive towards microkernel OS is obsolete research, like using PROLOG to implement AI systems. Microkernels have been supplanted by hypervisors and secure ipc implementations. Really, if HURD worked, what would it be doing that would make it uniquely valuable when compared to all current operating systems?

Personally, I wish I could avert my eyes from this collision between two behemoth machines trapped in an event horizon.

Sorry, patents close to expiration.

The Russians can't pull the same crap the Chinese might still be able to do. They aren't the Soviet Union anymore, with an encapsulated economy. They operate as a capitalist nation, and they're not going to be able to "copy/clone" hardware, like they used to. They'll be shutdown economically by the WTO. They're going to have to leverage outdated designs that have copyright close to expiration. What they should do is partner on some level with the Chinese, so they at least can access modern fabrication facilities and techniques.

And no one will even speak the true threat the NSA poses to the world.

No one rational thinks that Merkel represents a credible ally of Al Queda. Its all about finding out what Merkel is doing, in order to surreptitiously or politically thwart Germany's political or financial actions which the NSA disapproves of. The NSA will undermine the democratically elected will of any nation, all in the name of US "security". Its not the first time the US tried to do this. Just ask Iran and Chile.

There is no jury trial in a FISA court.

Do you even think its possible to field a jury with the security clearances required to expose them to the information presented at a trial?

Incorrect. I'm pointing out that not everyone can perform like Jobs, and its obvious he was an industry anomaly. Most CEOs are more like Ballmer; they are managers, not pioneers, and they don't get the credit when they do a good job, or steer the best possible result in a losing cause. I use the basketball analogy to point out that there can be a lot of basketball superstars, and not match the performance of a Michael Jordan. That doesn't make them failures, and it doesn't make Ballmer a failure for not matching Jobs' performance.

Who cares? We've already established that Jobs is a uniquely successful CEO. Jobs is the anomaly, not the standard expectation of a successful CEO.

No its not, especially if you're old enough to have seen the history firsthand.

There certainly was sort of an odd chauvinism among the mainframe/minicomputer group against personal computing. Luckily, the newbs to the industry didn't even bother listening to the "professionals".

Ironically, I'd have to agree with the Beeb on this one, even if it may be a propaganda newscast. They're absolutely right; if you don't know enough about 3D materials & basic firearms, you could end up blinding yourself, or damaging you hand. I could definitely see a teenager trying this, using their parents/brother's/friend's 3D printer.

But we all know the march of technology is inexorable.

Don't you also think its unfair to conclude Ballmer was a failure based on what Jobs was able to do? Its like saying Patrick Ewing was a failure because Michael Jordan was always in the way. (Except when MJ wasn't, and Ewing still failed, to the Rockets and the Pacers. Ewing was still a player to be reckoned with for most of his career, even if I think of Hakeem Owajuan as moreso, as well as having a higher opinion of Charles Barkley, Reggie Miller, and Shaq.)

Its unfair to compare Ballmer's tenure to Microsoft's peak in market cap, because that peak occurred before 2000, crashed real hard during the the 2000 bubble. Based on when Ballmer took over, and when he left, it only lost a fraction of its market cap at the time. Basically, Ballmer guided Microsoft into mediocrity, not really growing its value. But that's not the mark of a failure, considering that Sun Microsystems, Palm, etc. don't even exist today. IBM increased in market cap over the past 10 years, but it was a huge player in tech over a decade ago, and now is kind of a market afterthought. Where's the contempt for Sam Palmisano?

Lets face it, not every company can have a Steve Jobs for CEO. Does that make every tech company that didn't quadruple its market share a failure?

Believe me, I see the branding and false dichotomies. And I wouldn't even be a supporter of the liberalism that causes many liberals to be disenchanted with Obama. I'm just annoyed at the hero worship and demonizing that's used to frame Obama. Its neither. And I'm sick of the operation of the current Republican party which makes it near impossible for me to consider voting for any of their politicians. But that leaves me with these defective Democrats.

He sure acts like a Republican. Pass a Republican health insurance bill (ACA). Protects national spying programs and secret security police at the expense of individual rights. A few other details that escape my memory... Obama runs the country the way a Nixon or a (either) George Bush would.

Its more than just a great idea in principle. Its a way "money" becomes an accepted form of currency exchange.

From the 18th century, paper money issued by a government was "backed" a specific amount of gold. Once you could exchange the piece of paper for goods, as if it were gold, that was the establishment of paper money. Coins didn't require quite a conceptual hurdle, because minted coins had a specific amount of gold or other precious metal smelted into the coin. That is what's called specie currency.

In the 19th & 20th century, gov'ts would "back" their paper currency with some other form of valued commodity, if backing it with gold became to prohibitively costly. Its how the Nazi's broke the inflationary cycle caused by them printing out papermarks (german dollars). The bank printing rentenmarks backed the paper with the physical assets owned by the bank.

The dumbass cryptocurrency hipsters are so in love with their dream of bitcoin working as a governmentless currency, they fail to realize is that bitcoin is not money. Its not used as an exchange medium for goods (to a significant amount). bitcoin has no intrinsic value, like fiat currency.

What Rand Paul suggests would be what bankers have done for centuries in order to make a "new" currency acceptable. Granted, you're stuck with a form of centralized authority (but it doesn't have to be governmental) "backing" the currency with something of tangible value, but cryptocurrency fans would still be able to have decentralized transactions of bitcoin, without require active participation of a government.

What is this AHCA you're talking about? There's the PPACA, or ACA. Are you talking about your screwed up Florida system of health insurance?

The cost has doubled and tripled because gov't has been regulating all aspects of the medical industry before the PPACA, and its aided pharmaceutical companies and hospitals (and doctors) to gouge the crap out of customers. In every other developed country, they all get medical care, while sufficiently containing costs. The US has the most inefficient health care system in the world. That means we pay 2.5x more money for the same treatment as other countries. But its the greatest system in the world, if you're rich.