I (highly trained and experienced musician) reject the premise. I find it a little more difficult to whistle in tune than to sing; in both cases, most of the difficulty is in knowing where the pitch is, rather than in making the muscles produce it. Of course practice is everything. (And how, in these days, did a paper get published with the word "poor" in its title?!)
You apparently disagree with the author's view. So what is yours? If money (N.B: "money," not "value") is not created by the government and secondarily by banks, how is it created?
Of course he is right -- on that level it is too obvious to state. I was picking up on the connotations of "birth" and "death", which somehow really itched me. Never mind.
I have seen the Windows source code. This absolutely cannot be done. The output of the first pass will be howling gibberish. They are talking about a million lines per man-month, which assumes that only about 1% of the code will require thoughtful post-editing. Screaming nonsense.
"Intel x86" means the ISA. They are not talking about the ISA.
They are talking about what might be called the "common-practice" PC platform. They constantly say "overly complex", but without specifying any metric, even a comparative one. What they really mean is "unfit for purpose". Suppose we agree that it is unfit for purpose: the reasons are down to other factors as well as complexity, or even the management of complexity.
Neglecting the fact that any platform that has evolved incrementally through so many generations would necessarily look very, very much like what we find, they make the point that the excessive points of failure and attack are down to the excessive number of handoffs between responsibilities. The list of those responsibilities has grown over time; it already includes irreconcilable responsibilities; it will continue to grow. Which of them would you exclude? Which are excessive? Unnecessary? Illegitimate? Who would say? These are not technical questions and they do not have technical answers.
The point is that the addition of each successive responsibility invalidated the previous architecture. Who was it said that you cannot retrofit security? If security is what you want, then define it -- now, once, for all time -- and get it right, up front. Else your efforts will be wasted. Do you say that no definition can remain valid forever? Very well, when (not if) the definition of security changes, you must (in general) start fresh. An incremental approach would be as if you were trying to retrofit some more security, and that wouldn't work even if "security" were a one-dimensional spectrum, which it isn't.
What they seem to miss is that the number of attack vectors does not scale with the number of implementation components or the number of contributors to the supply chain, or even to the platform definition. It scales with the number of requirements. If you want fewer attack vectors, you must have fewer requirements. And then we see that this applies to all aspects of computing systems, not just security.
They will only become all the more determined to vote for the Republican Party, because it is the party that promises them (someday, by and by) a permission structure to take direct revenge against their class enemies -- not the real ones, but the ones that they prefer to imagine.
Neither party has done much trust-busting recently [1], and farmers specifically call out the monopolies squeezing them in the video. It seems you're basing you assertion, that they don't know who their economic enemies are, on mistaken stereotypes.
The problem farmers are facing is that prices of their goods cratered this year due to reduced demand caused directly by retaliatory tariffs on all their goods. A trade war orchestrated by the person they voted for and who is waging a trade war nobody asked for or needs.
The Supreme Court cannot be replaced without replacing the Constitution. This only shows that there are also many other reasons to replace the Constitution. But the level of stress that would be needed to trigger that process would make it impossible.
The fact that the court consists of one Chief Justice and eight associate justices is a matter of statute, 28 U.S. Code § 1. Absolutely nothing in the Constitution requires that. Congress could change that at any time.
The tipping point whether Tolkien's work was to survive occurred in the 1960s, before the emergence of most of the things that the author draws analogies with.
(1970: my high-school English teacher, inevitably asked his opinion of Tolkien, replied, "He's all right, if you like furry toes.")
reply