You have some insight, but not into how compilers work, nor how good programmers improve code. It has been a very long time since I wrote any C, but it was writing much of a (non-optimizing) C compiler. It must be said though that one reason I didn't finish it was looking at all the cool ways to optimise :)

If I were writing/designing a BIOS (which I must admit I am glad I am not) I would also pick C as the "best" language for the job. I'd then write the cleanest possible implementation of the design, using assembler only where absolutely necessary - which would likely be for platform dependent bits in >90% of the cases anyway.

The code need not be fast (as long as it performs), and it need not be tiny. But it needs to be 100% accurate, and sufficiently well documented to be easily readable.

By not using assembler, developer time until now has been relatively low. No premature optimisation has taken place. The next step is profiling, for which a benchmark suite is set up. This suite will ALSO be used to test that alternative implementations return the same results!

In parallel, the BIOS would be used in Virtual Machines; no ROMs need to be created, to get a good picture of how often various functions are called.

On the basis of this, it can be decided where to focus optimisation efforts. The historical target used to be primarily to get size down to 64k, since the 8088/6 booted to F000:FFF0. Assuming this is still a primary issue on many platforms, the first point of call for optimisation is to reduce any "big" functions - like those which use large (lookup) tables as their easiest/cleanest implementation (an obvious example might be the ascii characters in raster format).

Simply writing multiple versions of a routine in a HL language and then profiling may be enough to achieve the desired performance level (IIRC Jon Bentley wrote on this as one of his "Programming Pearls"), but even then an improvement may be possible by going right down to the silicon.

Admittedly it takes people like John Carmack and Michael Abrash to get everything out of it, but if everybody has a week to optimise a 20 line C "inner loop" function for speed, those who can read the produced assembler will do better than those who cannot, and those who can edit it will do even better.

Of course, over 20,000 lines of code, the C expert will manage better in a month, since rather than fixing 4 functions to perfection, they may be fixing 20 to 95%.

One final thing to note: optimising C compilers are known to have occasional bugs in their optimisation. When you are going to eventually write something to a (flash) ROM responsible for booting your computer, that is not an acceptable risk. That means that you don't want to rely purely on an optimising compiler to do your work for you.

Yes, a 1048576-node supercomputer, 1 billion wire taps, and root access to the internet.

My apologies for being blunt, but you are completely mistaken, for one simple reason: your ideal government is not ideal for others, such as those who support the entirety of the UDHR (which includes stuff like access to medical care, and had it been written in the light of current technology, would probably have a clause relating to the freedom to access the web).

In my opinion - and it is of course only an opinion - the only way to get close to some kind of utopia politically is a system which recognises all political views as valid. The best way to do that is to decentralize government as much as possible. That may mean "more" government in a way, but it is done at a far more local level - your street, neighbourhood, or town, rather than state/federal.

I disagree that A) a national government should protect citizens from foreign invasion, but then I don't like the idea of sovereignty of nations. Rather, I would prefer to see multiple blocs have sufficient military power but also sufficient political power for negotiation within a UN-type construction to be able to take action on people such as Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe. To rephrase: Invading Iraq and taking control would have been much easier if done with the full support of the UN.

There is little difference between your B) and D), unless you meant physical harm. But the best way to prevent crimes with victims is to educate, in my opinion: both the victim (how not to get stung), but also the criminal (be that a rogue stock trader or a drug addict fencing your car radio). Zero tolerance is an awful policy to have at the million+ people level, but with total decentralization, it is not a problem.

For example, if public transport is available then it is realistically possible to have residential areas be alcohol-free (in addition to whatever other drugs you want to decriminalize). Similarly, it would allow larger areas (1M+ cities/states) to officially be against such things as gay marriage and abortion, yet guarantee the rights of minorities all the same. My thinking here is not that there be ghettos for gays, but rather that those less tolerant do have clear options where their local environment is as they prefer.

As to C) I'm all for backing currencies with something tangible, but despite the fact that I would prefer to live in a high-quality commune (kibutz/5-star hotel cross), I simply don't understand the obsession with gold. The true value of man's endeavours is the "average labour hour", but that's rather hard to make a currency out of. Instead, I'd propose that every level of government is run similarly to a company or charity, and that currency should be based on a basket mutual fund. This might have 5-10% precious and useful metals, but also similar percentages of land and real estate, futures on essential foods, etc.

My ideal government would have people like Ron Paul continuing in their day jobs, but spending a day per week, plus a week per quarter, plus perhaps a month per year as volunteers (paid standard wage plus costs). A position such as "president" might be full time, with limitations (even 8 years is too much!), but national/state senate/representatives would have only roughly 1/4 FTU "working" on politics.

I do agree that it should not be the top level government to implement this, at all. They are OK for national defence and serious crime, as well as co-ordination and describing ideals, but most other things should be handled at (much) lower levels. For example, if it decided that broadband is equivalent to a basic right, then the federal government should not try to implement it by itself, but rather provide a forum for states (which in turn provide forums for the next level down) to discuss best practices, so that they have the knowledge to negotiate with commercial providers for.

It is very hard for individuals to "beat" large corporate entities, but if every level of government from the micro level of 1000 people all the way up to the world's entire population were to be an entity under the direct control of the stakeholders, you have all the benefits of both capitalism and social democracy.

I hope that makes some sense, much too late here ;) Summary: Not so much less government, as a new approach using the technology we now have available, such as forums.