Because, after all, if you're in a plane (even if it's hijacked), you shouldn't be allowed to call 911 or your loved ones on your cell phone.

Every time I think Congress couldn't get any stupider, they prove me wrong.

An armed society is a polite society. When you know someone is probably able to kill you (justified or not), you tend to be much more polite to them. Take away people's ability to restrain rude fucks, and the rude fucks run riot through the life you're trying to live.

"Honestly, officer, the car thinks I'm my wife going to a salon appointment, and the cruise control was trying to get me there on time!"

"The car sped up just as some blonde bimbo passed me in a Corvette convertible. I have no idea why..."

Mr. Nye, we are not your (government's) employees, nor do we donate our labors to the government. If you want multimedia records of our children's excitement about their technical education, go out there and record it yourself, on your own dime. Our children are not your property, and they do not take orders from you.

The #1 lesson in "good citizenship" you seem to treasure for our children, is how to say "piss off" to self-important government bureaucrats.

Piss off.

Sincerely,
ChipMonk

You are conflating freedom of movement with the privilege of driving a car. They are not the same, and have never been the same. People in Manhattan can explain the difference very well.

So does this mean we can finally hold Microsoft accountable for all the crap they've foisted on the taxpayers through government purchases?

And the Intel 80286 and later models, when in protected mode, is a perfect example. When an interrupt gate switches from an outer ring to an inner ring (usually 4 to 0), the task segment gets the suspended task's stack pointer, and the stack pointer for the new ring is also loaded from the task segment.

(This isn't the case so much now, with AMD64/EM64T, and the earlier advent of SYSENTER/SYSCALL and SYSEXIT/SYSRET.)

That system has been terminated, due to too many exceptions.

It doesn't matter if it's running "machine code," in a JVM, in an LLVM, or in interpreted Bash. That's the Church-Turing thesis. The only difference is how the source code is examined.

From the homepage of OpenCOBOL:

OpenCOBOL translates COBOL into C and compiles the translated code using the native C compiler. You can build your COBOL programs on various platforms, including Unix/Linux, Mac OS X, and Microsoft Windows.

So would that be COBOL running on C?

Remember, you're talking to nerds and geeks. Boogers are more easily available to them.

And yet, here's the "Anti-Dog-eat-dog rule" come to life.