Don't usually respond to ACs, but you truly deserve recognition for this effort. Your comments are thorough, concise, and do not needlessly nitpick or belittle the GP (sure you refer to the GP as small minded, but considering the criticism is on, as you repeatedly point out, a single, simple aspect of a complex problem, I do not find that particularly condescending).

Although, I do think part of your comment could have been phrased more humorously. Here is what I recommend as one possible replacement:

Makes me wonder who you would be blaming in those precious, all critical 60 days of yours, if neither he or MS released info about it, and your systemS got totally owned. The Google employee because he didn't release the info so people could have protected their systems if MS failed, or MS for having the security whole in the first place and being snail slow (sorry to all the true snails out there) in fixing (if they did) the flaw.

I don't see how anyone could think this is flamebait. My personal analysis of your comments indicates you are making a well reasoned argument about the culture Microsoft has created, which may have been the cause of this difficulty, and that is valid, and not intended to draw flames (though it would clearly do so from some readers). If I had points, I'd counter the disparagement, but I figure this is an adequate response.

I've learned to write code with the assumption that my bugs would not get caught by the programming language, so I'd better make sure I catch them, or at least know what they are so I can publish them (in the event I cannot be bothered to write code to catch the bug, as in my FP128 converter for the C=64). I've also never understood the logic behind structuring program memory with the heap, code, stack model; that puts the code above the heap, which grows from the bottom, and below the stack, which grows from the top, thus making buffer overflows easy. I'd rather build an application so the stack is below the program and the heap is above. I also never consider myself finished with anything I haven't thoroughly tested and found all the reasonable bugs in (I don't release code because I'm not a programmer, I just dabble from time to time).

Anyway, I commend you for having the courage to make such a comment, even in an environment that is becoming increasingly hostile toward those who speak the truth.

Your point was well stated. I'm not interested in Windows 7; I switched my core system to Ubuntu in 2007, from XP, and haven't looked back. I would like to say, however, I've never been impressed with the menu structure in any Microsoft product, especially in Office; I use WordPerfect still, and I can't see a day I'd ever consider switching to Word, or dealing with any of Microsoft's new menu systems.

You are correct. Then again, this is a kdawson article, so that it made it here isn't that big a surprise. I also note that the title of the article is the same as the title of the discussion here.

I downloaded the Itanium manuals to check it out; I was extremely unimpressed. It's too complex, in my opinion, with too many limiting restrictions (such as the 4 register source limitation for 22- or 64-bit adding). I also can't imagine why anyone would think using a 128-bit opcode that represents up to three instructions is a good idea.

I am designing a 64-bit CPU based loosely on the 68000 (the instruction set is completely incompatible with anything currently in existence, but is very simple, yet very powerful). The advantage is that my CPU's bit width can be expanded all the way out to 262144 (256k-bit) without making any changes to the instruction set. When the bit width is expanded, simply activating the currently dormant bit size selectors is all that needs to be done. Opcodes are 64-bit, and represent only a single instruction; the instruction decoder should be very simple. It also uses sensible security concepts, without relying on anything like Intel's horrible segments. Obviously, my design will not make current industry leaders happy, but at least backward compatibility would be easier without sacrificing security.

Agreed. I also hate how Windows Vista and Windows 7 renamed things for no apparent reason; there should be a direct link to "Network Connections"/"Change Adapter Settings" in the control panel window, not buried in the "Network and Sharing Center", and I can't for the life of me figure out why they changed the name in the first place; "Network Connections" makes so much more sense, in my opinion. Needless to say, I love the way Apple's Network settings are presented in the GUI; a few clicks (with a sudo prompt), and I can literally adjust to any common situation, including setting a Static IP.

Well stated. I wish more people understood economics in this way. Much of what the government mandates in the market is bad for business and the economy in the long run, even if it looks like it might benefit everyone here and now. Personally, I think our economy would benefit if the government did away with all of the regulations covering the unpredictable (which usually results in excess paperwork and punishes people for the unavoidable), and carefully enforced the laws that cover larger, reasonable regulations. The founding fathers envisioned a nation where everyone takes part, and the law protects everyone equally, giving each of the three branches of the federal government oversight over the other two, and giving the citizens oversight over all three (through the voting process). I also wish more people would actually read the constitution so they can see what the federal government has the authority to do, and what is explicitly forbidden.

To plagiarize and misquote two of my favorite TV series, (Red Dwarf, then M*A*S*H):

An excellent plan sir, with just two minor drawbacks. That would be efficient and it would make sense.

>Actually, I don't think it does, as I stated in the other post. You're proposing a protectionist system, and historically those don't work well. My proposal is to lower the cost of labor such that manufacturers choose to stay here and can remain in business.

You're stating THAT they historically don't work well - but not considering WHY that is. Do the same issues that led to past failures still apply today ? Can we change them ? These are questions one needs to ask - you cannot learn from history without being able to view it in the context of the present.

>Thing is, you're effectively ensuring that there WILL be less work by artificially raising the cost of labor; therefore businesses will attempt to minimize it. It's economic law.

One of the issues with this type of proposal (that is raising the cost of labor, such as through "Minimum Wage" laws) is the worth of some labor will always be low; a job that requires few skills, for example, is not worth as much as a job that requires a master's degree. Forcing employers to pay their employees an artificially high wage for low skill labor causes that employer to look for people who are worth the pay (people who are reliable, efficient, etc).

Eliminating a minimum wage, however, provides employers much greater latitude in hiring decisions. They can hire more people to perform the same low skilled labors, and promote those who show they have good work habits. Artificially raising wages does not increase the amount of capital available to distribute to employees, and that is one important reason your type of proposal inevitably fails. Would you rather pay seven eager teenagers 3.00 an hour, with the flexibility to replace them as needed, or three desperate, college graduates 7.25 an hour for the same labor?

Amen. I, too, have had few problems with my Mac, and I am pleased to say since getting almost completely rid of Windows, I find myself becoming far less frustrated in all my computing experiences.

Since you have something genuinely interesting to say, I'll say I support your point of view; Mac OS X is a very well written and has one of the friendliest interfaces I've ever used. I would like to see certain OSS software products designed to work better on OS X, such as GIMP (I'm not particularly happy with Apple's X11, since it seems to have issues when I put my computer to sleep), which is why I still use Ubuntu more on my computer (and when I next upgrade, I'll be downloading GIMP from the repository). But overall, I enjoy my Mac. Now if only I could use WordPerfect without having to VM into Windows.

Sorry about replying to myself, I just realized I'd forgotten to reletter my fourth point D); I'd originally made it my third point.

Why are you so angry because I pay a little more, for convenience, by buying an Apple product?

There are generally only a few possible answers to this: The person is A) a shill, B) jealous, C) someone who had a bad experience with Apple and now blames them and can't see how anyone else could possibly like them or possibly C) an idiot who has heard bad things about Apple, but can't be bothered to research their side of the story.

I personally can't see any reason to spend the extra money it costs to purchase any of Microsoft's software because I've been repeatedly burned by their poor quality, which is why I'm writing this on a Mac, and only use Windows in a VM so I can use a Windows only application that has no direct equivalent on either Mac or Linux (my other machine runs Ubuntu). I was willing to pay a little extra for my Mac because of the convenience, though, so I am supporting your view.

Now look at Apple, everything (well, maybe not the Apple TV) they drop into the market is gobbled up like it's the best thing ever.

That's not quite the way I'd put it. While Apple's merchandise generally makes a big impression on the market, from what I've seen, they are more willing to admit failure and adjust accordingly when a product does poorly than Microsoft does (I won't bother with any examples, since I'm sure most can think of several).

Well stated. I've never understood how anyone can argue that government welfare is charity; charity is literally giving of ones excess to help those in need. The government has no money of its own, and particularly no excess, so anything it does with the money it gains to benefit what it regards as a poor person (almost always managed via some form of taxation), cannot be regarded as charity by any stretch of the imagination. Interesting how many people fail to understand this simple economic principle. Thank you.