Ha Ha! As a Java programmer, I approve this message. It's a little exaggerated but nonetheless true. You get safety but you have to pay for it with RAM.

"and Developers Don't Want to Deal With It." They'd rather deflect the blame to the programmers, even when the best programmers still make these mistakes. The Linux kernel has had its fair share of buffer overruns and "out of bounds" security issues and it is written by good programmers. It's even read and reviewed by good programmers. But, the bugs are still there. The problem is inherent to the language because it is a machine-level problem and C gives you access to the machine. The way forward is not to throw out the language, but to recognize the cause of the problem and fix it. That's what we do when we find a bug. So the language needs to be updated, at least as an optional feature, so that it is capable of detecting these kinds of problems. This is not the kind of problem where you can just say, "managers need to hire better programmers." It's been 20+ years and that hasn't worked! It's way past time to fix the problem. You could say developers are negligent because they know the problem exists and refuse to do anything because they just want to redirect the blame away from their favorite language. This is not the fault of businesses because they've already recognized the need for languages that don't have this problem (Java, Python, PHP, Perl). It is the fault mostly open source developers who insist on using C without fixing the problem.

Did anyone notice that all the lines are commented out? Every line is preceded with "//", as in the highlighted line: // HANDLE __stdcall GetCurrentProcess();

These guys are the first people I'd choose to hire if I had a position to hire them for. I want to work with people who are willing to fight against deception and corruption. They value the good of the people, that's you and me, above everything else, even their own job.

Google and Yahoo can only hire from the available, qualified workforce. Anyone who has been through a degree in Computer Science knows that very few women choose that career path. It's not Google or Yahoo's fault that women don't choose computer careers. I know women who have chosen an IT career path and they are just as competent as the men. Personally, I gladly welcome more women to go into IT and become qualified. But, most women seem to think that IT is too geeky for them. People who write these articles completely miss the real facts. They spread more misinformation and become part of the problem rather than the solution.

I assume you're more polite and compassionate when you communicate with your associates on Internet 2 about the mysteries of the universe than with us low-lifers who all must be spammers and haters.

What I meant to say was that your idea is good and maybe LDAP could be adapted to provide the very service you're talking about.

Yes, and LDAP can already to things like this.

Well, I hope HP is smart enough to do what you're saying. But, you just need to look at Windows 8 to see how stupid some companies can be when it comes to providing user interfaces that are substantially different.

Those are good points. But, on my home network, where I have both Windows and Linux machines, I don't have DNS. mDNS doesn't work reliably on Windows; it just quits working altogether sometimes. And WINS/samba is hard to configure on Linux so that it works well with Windows machines. So, I always end up using IP addresses. In addition WOW! forced me to add another 192.168.0.0 subnet where I already had a 192.168.1.0 subnet and have to keep it because WOW!'s Wiffee has a very short range. I will have to setup a DNS server I guess. I can do that, but most people can't. There really isn't a good solution for diverse home networks. I guess if you have all Apples or all Windows, you're fine. If I could get to all Linux machines, mDNS would be a good solution. Maybe when Skyrim and Diablo run on Linux...

I think reducing the length of the address by using a larger number of symbols (a larger number base) would make it easier to remember. My brain can remember the meaning of the symbols in a larger symbol pool easier than it can remember a longer string of symbols. The numeric meanings of the symbols in a larger set of symbols only needs to be memorized once. Then you have increased the efficiency and power of your numeric symbol system. Whereas if you use a longer string of symbols, you have to memorize more data every time you see a new number. In other words, if you put in a little extra work up front, it will pay off over time.

What a waste of time, with all the people developing operating systems today. Why would they create a barrier to adoption by introducing an unnecessary learning curve that requires people to learn yet another way to use a computer?

IPv6 addresses are so long that you can't remember them long enough to read the address from one machine and type it into another. I understand it requires a long number to have a large enough address space. But, it seems unworkable from a human perspective. No I haven't thought of a better solution. I'm just saying that this is a significant usability problem and a barrier to adoption.

It certainly is for me. And I appreciate Microsoft for helping out by releasing Windose 8.x and Soreface.

I agree. Their malware products don't detect malware and they consume a large percentage of machine resources doing it. You have to buy Malware Bytes AntiMalware to get good malware detection.