GDB's not the only debugger out there. I think the real limitation is lack of debug methodology in general. I've discovered numerous features of proprietary debuggers just by thinking "I wish the tool could do X" only to find out that it already could.

Me too. Though it's more expensive than flash memory, it can support a much higher number of erase cycles.

If you'd prefer to read something with more rigor: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=Z...

No, the binaries may be easier to disassemble, but it's still machine code. I don't have to include the assembly source if I don't want to.

Yes, in much the same way that any given number could be random, pseudorandom or nonrandom given its context, it can also be in violation or accordance with copyright law depending on its legal context.

Don't confuse a random number with the value returned by a function that returns nondeterministic values with a somewhat predictable pattern.

Alternatively, they just spend more money to reelect those politicians until their positions switch. It's not like SOPA proponents won over those constituents to win the support of their reps. Or is this supposed to be a principled stand?

On his 12/13 post, he gave a floor. Presumably it's in the same ballpark as well.

Minus some money for PayPal charges etc, I have a profit around $200,000 (after taxes $75.58). This is less than I would have been paid by a large company to simply perform the show and let them sell it to you

Then it's the photons that are visible.

A circle is a set of points, and a point is an abstract concept. Having a photon centered on a point does not make the point visible.

Also, a circle is an infinite set of points, so even if points were visible, you couldn't have a real circle without infinite points.

By that definition, nothing is visible. You never see anything except photons.

Visible means "able to be seen." You can see things that emit or reflect light. Abstract concepts don't emit or reflect light.

Real objects can only approximate a circle. The pedantic definition of a circle in this context is being used to make the point that you can't make a perfect circle with pixels.

No. If you made an abstract object that emitted light, like the "linear light source" I hypothesized, it would be a perfect circle, and visible. It doesn't exist, of course, but if it did, it would be visible... ;-)

That's true; and sometimes, that definition is useful, as it is here.

Richard Feynman spoke well and humorously on this topic: http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpYhM4x4PmY

Software is just massively complex. Some day, someone will come along with the resources to redo large parts of the technology stack "correctly." If they do it right, it may even be an improvement. But make no mistake, the investment required will be massive.

So until we hit a major technical wall, why bother? Why optimize prematurely until we're bumping up against atoms?

Yes, Joel is very funny, but not in an overbearing, obvious way.

In an old essay on software specs [1] he states: one of the easiest ways to be funny is to be specific when it's not called for

I've noticed that he does this a lot. All the time. Sometimes too much, like in hginit.com, which I did not find that amusing. But most of the time he is spot on.

[1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000033.html