Hi troll, have a sandwich.

Linux *is* better, faster, and more reliable.

Adding instructions is another way to take advantage of the (up until recently) ever increasing density of integrated circuits.

The intel instruction set may not be ideal in many ways, but intel has done a pretty good job advancing the state of microprocessor design and execution for 40 years now, don't you think? I mean they've driven desktop processors all the way to their end game, all the way to the end of Moore's Law. And you act like they've hamstrung the computer industry or something.

Also your notion that slavishly adhering to some 30 year old RISC principles is somehow the only or best way to make processors is ill informed.

"Most humans cannot 'grok' the entire Intel instruction set" is patently false - anyone can understand it, it's well documented; but most people, most coders even, don't *need* to understand it and therefore spend their mental energy acquiring information that is more useful to them.

You have not provided every possible rationale for your statement, nor all of the supporting references.

I accuse you of not providing all of the info, and therefore attempting to manipulate people.

You are therefore, by your own logic, anti-democratic, simply wrong, and a fraud.

The embedded environment in which we've deployed haxe over Flash would like to have a word with you about whether or not "JITed code is good enough" ...

Admittedly, my company does not represent the average Haxe development environment; Haxe is very much targeted towards small scale developers working on mobile apps.

But my point is that Native vs. interpreted vs. JITed is not moot in all circumstances, and can be quite relevant depending upon the context.

And for what it's worth, Haxe generated native binaries have very few dependencies on the runtime, and generally only depend upon runtime facilities which are either guaranteed, or virtually guaranteed, to be a part of the target runtime.

"legal scammer" is an oxymoron, but I suspect you know that.

I also suspect that you know there is a real difference between legal forms of investment, with which you will find associated every kind of good and bad person in the world, but predominantly "normal" people availing themselves of opportunities to invest their money as they see fit, and generally with protections and expectations of security that are in the vast majority of cases respected.

Then you have bitcoin, where you have an extremely high chance that the person on the other end of your transaction is a scammer, unless you know them personally. And where, almost any discussion in any forum invites the participation of every kind of greedy do-nothing imaginable, along with the aforementioned outright thieves and scum.

I say this from experience. There is almost no aspect to my involvement in bitcoin that wasn't flavored to some degree, usually to a large degree, by the scumminess of the average bitcoin participant.

It cannot skip the native C++ step. The cpp target of haxe always generates C++ code and always compiles it to produce a native binary.

Almost every aspect of Bitcoin is just seeping with get rich quick scammers, schemers, and thieves and just general disgusting lowlifes. Whatever money I might have made by holding onto my bitcoins, it was worth to lose just to get out of Bitcoin and not have to associate myself with that den of scum and villianry anymore.

Enslave? The people voted. They want to become part of Russia. Let them.

If other states voted that they wanted to be part of Russia, I'd think that was fine too.

If Russia started invading countries to annex them, well that would be different.

But I thought I already said it was a case by case basis sort of thing??? Were you expecting some kind of absolutism answer after I already said that?

"As comedian Chris Rock once said: Shaq is rich. The guy who pays Shaq is wealthy."

Can you explain what that statement means to you? Because you clearly are interpreting something that I don't see. That statement looks mostly meaningless to me.

"So yes, it sucks ass that the US invaded Iraq, but do you seriously want the US to sit in the corner and refuse to come out when Russia starts enlarging itself with trumped up referendums, because a decade ago it did a naughty thing?"

Speaking for myself, I'd say it's a "case by case basis" sort of a thing. I don't believe in absolutes; there is no single policy that we should always employ regardless of situation.

And in this case, I'd say we should do nothing. It's a complex enough situation in which there is a majority of people making a collective decision, and it can be carried out on peaceful terms, so let it be so.

Sorry, shows how ignorant I am of how things have progressed in the bitcoin world after having stopped participating a couple of years ago. I was under the impression that turning bitcoins into anything else was difficult, but obviously I am not well informed. I tried selling a couple of fractional bitcoins on eBay and just got scammed (losing about $200 worth to thieves with stolen accounts). That's all I've done to try to liquidate them. I'll investigate the options you mentioned, thanks.

A couple of years ago when I first read the bitcoin whitepaper and was very impressed and excited (how can you read that and *not* be impressed and excited?) I proposed a slight change to the bitcoin protocol to add support for messages querying for "elided" blocks, i.e. a means for querying a peer for blocks only relevant to a given transaction (the history of all addresses relevant to and leading up to that transaction). The elided blocks would just be the full details necessary to allow a client to validate a transaction, with the Merkel tree being used to elide most of the data.

With a feature like this, a client would not need to download the entire block chain, they'd just need a) enough of the block chain to be able to validate elided blocks which wouldn't be much, and b) a peer willing to answer elided block queries for them. Since answering an elided block query takes real work (you have to have the entire block chain indexed in such a way as to make answering such a query efficient, which means storing alot of data, with proper indexes, and proper software, and connecting to the bitcoin transaction firehose, with the cost associated with that), I included a mechanism that would facilitate allowing the peer to 'charge' you for this service, using the same pseudo-anonymity of regular bitcoin.

The idea being that a client should not have to trust a third party to handle their transactions for them, which is the only feasable way to do bitcoin transactions now unless you want to download 15 GB - not really feasable in most circumstances - and connect to the firehose - also not feasable in most circumstances, and would be much less so were bitcoin to actually become used with any real transaction volume on a global scale. For a small fee (probably cents per transaction I would guess) you could use a system that didn't require you to trust any peers (unlike the current "we'll hold your wallet for you and do your transactions on your behalf" services that seem to have proliferated to make bitcoin actually feasable for clients).

I started to write it, but then gave up on it because I lost interest. All I got out of it was a couple of bitcoins I bought for fun, that made me about 2 grand (on paper of course, I never sold them and I don't really think it's possible to actually liquidate bitcoins into real money without serious work and headache).

* white label tablets. Presumably built and sold in China, elsewhere.

White label tablets are sold in China, but also everywhere else. Rebranded as Aldi / Staples / Wal-Mart or what have you.

We need to recognize that premium android might as well be a different OS than white label android. The apps will be different, the languages will be different, the monetization will be different, the fragmentation will be different.

What are you talking about? I have a white-box Chinese Android tablet. It came with Android 4.2, gmail, Play store, google maps, etc. All of the no-name (Aldi Branded / Walmart / etc) tablets I've seen are the same.

For all intensive purposes premium android is as removed from white label android as it is from kindle.

Totally incorrect. The cheaper manufacturers actually provide a better android experience as they're using 'pure' android rather than putting shitty touch-wiz / sense style overlays & attempting to sign you up for a million stupid Samsung / etc services.

Oh - and you say "for all intents and purposes". Think about it. Intensive purposes makes no sense in the context this phrase is typically used in.

While I agree that the only reason to put acetominophen into opiates is to ensure that the drug cannot be taken beyond a certain dosage without damaging the patient's liver, I do wonder if the reason really is just a vindictive desire to harm addicts as others are stating.

More logical to me is the conclusion that the authorities just want doctors to have to be careful with their prescriptions. If there were no acetominophen doctors could be pretty liberal in how they prescribe dosages with little consequence. But add some acetophinophen, and now doctors have to be very aware that there is a certain maximum dosage built into the drug, and they cannot prescribe at a higher dosage without risking being fined or jailed or sued or whatever it is that happens to doctors that mis-prescribe dangerous drugs.

I suspect that the powers that be have decided that the maximum reasonably beneficial dosage of an opiate is X mg per day, and so they require that enough acetominophen be added so that X mg per day is also the maximum safe dosage. In doing so they limit the ability of any doctor to prescribe more than what they had believed was the maximum beneficial dose. Likely they chose X mg per day because studies shows that it was the dosage that would be beneficial in the majority of cases, and don't see the need for anyone to go above X mg per day and unnecessarily take a larger risk of addiction.

That sounds more reasonable to me than just wanting to hurt addicts.

I don't use illegal drugs and have no interest in doing so but ... right on. I fully support your right to use whatever substance you want on yourself in whatever way you choose. I agree that the language surrounding the drug debate is heavily skewed towards the presumption of a certain anti-drug viewpoint, and I think it's unfortunate that most people are incapable of the strength of resolve necessary to put their own personal fears aside and engage in the discussion on drugs in a logical, open minded manner.