Error Correction Codes (aka Forward Error Correction) are typically more efficient for high-error channels than error detection (aka checksum and retransmit), which is why 10Gbps Ethernet uses Reed-Solomon rather than CRC in previous Ethernet standards: it avoids the need to retransmit.
I had the same questions about how this is going to work, though. What is the machine code going to look like and how will it allow the programmer to check for errors? Possibly each register could have an extra "error" bit (similarly to IA-64's NaT bit on its GP registers). E.g., if you do an "add" instruction, it checks the error bits on its source operands and propagates them. So long as you only allow false positives and false negatives, it would work, and could be relatively efficient.
The classifications weren't totally meaningful to begin with, but CISC has essentially died. I don't mean there aren't CISC chips anymore--any x86 or x64 chip can essentially be called "CISC"--but certainly no one's designed a CISC architecture in the past decade at least.
RISC has essentially won and we've moved into the post-RISC world as far as new designs go. VLIW, for instance, can't really be considered classical RISC, but it builds on what RISC has accomplished.
The grandparent's point is a good one: people thought RISC would never succeed; they were wrong.
It's your fault that a someone decided to break the law and steal your property?
If you haven't taken adequate steps to secure it, yes. If you leave broken glass all over your property and don't put up any warning signs, someone can trespass or break in and successfully sue you for damages. Not in criminal law, but in common law you typically have an obligation even with your own private property.
In reality you're probably not likely to get sued for having someone break in and steal your gun and commit a crime. If you had a gun in a display case publicly visible from the street and made it very obvious you had no security (door was wide open?) maybe you could be, I don't know. This German law seems to be specific to Wi-Fi, but it's not out of line with other laws and precedents.
I was with you up until "are a bit too easy to misplace". Is your only motivation the small form factor of USB sticks? You can always get a bigger form factor, or just glue some floppy-disk-shaped plastic onto it, to make it hard to lose.
I think being able to have the USB stick flush (or internal) with the computer would be moderately cool, though. I don't know if it's cool enough to try and force the industry to decide on a standard form factor
If you're too lazy to actually come up with unique passwords for each site and you happen to have OpenSSL installed (who doesn't?), you can automatically figure out all your passwords only having to remember one.
Come up with a base password, for the sake of argument let's say ABCDEF. For each site, append the name of the site to your base password. E.g., for Slashdot, it's ABCDEFslashdot. "echo ABCDEFslashdot | openssl sha1" yields your password of 040b6c2fb4d5858ad21810deb8e9ee2eb804e2a7. From that password it is intractable to determine what your base password was and hence what your other passwords are.
Some sites require special characters or, even worse, have maximum password lengths (which would suggest they're storing your password in plaintext, yikes). Fuck those sites.
That was the worst video demo I've seen in recent memory. None of the purported applications were interesting at all.
Quick, you want to pause the music you're playing. Which would be easier? (1) Hitting a pause button on your laptop; (2) Hitting a pause button on your headphones; (3) Putting an accelerometer in your headphones; (4) Finding the exact tiny square on your desk such that if you put your headphones down there and maybe fiddle with it for a couple seconds so it's in the proper orientation to be picked up by a camera? I don't see much future in option #4.
The scanning was pretty bad, too. Even manually taking a picture of a photo or piece of paper, where I'm directly overhead and fiddling with the lighting, it's hard to get a good result. When that started I thought "wow that picture is going to look like absolute shit" and it turned out even worse than I thought. Even at 480p you could the picture was unusable for anything, virtually unrecognizable even.
The worst was the "tapping", though. It actually requires you to break your own finger bones just to register a "tap"?
As long as we're going to reinvent the wheel again, we might as well try making it round this time. - Mike Dennison