My car is quiet, there's little enough vibration that I seriously can't tell. By the time there's wind noise I'm sure to be going too fast :) If everyone is going 15mph over the speed limit, I wouldn't know. Seriously. Sure I can tell within +/-15mph, but that's way too imprecise. I need to be within 1mph of the target speed.

It's already solved. There's no reason to keep the human in the loop for speed control. None.

I drive with my left foot on the brake and right foot on the accelerator at all times. I don't even know where the cruise control cancel is, frankly said. I never use it.

I don't care about results with people who drive with their feet off the pedals, as is usually done with CC, and when they are not in a learned, trained and periodically tested external scan pattern at all times. I've learned to treat the road out there as if everyone was hostile and unpredictable. It pays dividends :)

I've also yet to see a simulator that provides anything remotely approaching the experience of driving a real car. Usually, all sorts of minor and important things are wrong. Contrast and luminance isn't what you normally get, the display gains are wrong (the image doesn't move the same visual angle as the simulated car does), etc. Every time I drove in high-end simulators, I had to readapt to driving in the real world. I'd tend to think that such studies, when done on real drivers who then have to get in their own car and drive home, are actually dangerous and subject to too little IRB scrutiny.

Nobody is on such path. As in, nobody who needs the money badly enough to spoof their IPs to pull off scams worth peanuts.

There's no such thing as IP spoofing on TCP/IP traffic. Get real.

Copyright and trademark aren't the same thing. Don't mix them up. It makes the argument sound silly.

Copyright and trademarks are different concepts, with different laws applying to each. Most trademarks are ineligible for copyright protection, for example. Oh, and trademarks can be registered in the U.S. for a particular purpose only. Feel free to read what is the scope of Disney's mickey mouse trademarks.

I disagree. Having to look at the speedo just to keep your car going at a certain speed is a distraction. I'd much more likely be looking out the windshield while I drive, instead of on the instrument cluster. Cars aren't planes. I use cruise control down to 20mph in the school zones and consider the "wisdom" not to use it at low speeds or in city traffic to be at odds with reality. There's nothing sedating about regular cruise control. It lets me focus on the road ahead and on the other cars instead of pretending to be a fucking speed servo.

Sorry, I had a brain fart :/

If only most of the internet wasn't delivered by terrestrial fiber... Satellites, they are useful for many things, but not for internet for the most of us, not really.

"My point was that you should already know your data types." And you do. And the compiler does. It's somewhat silly to have to repeat yourself and type in the type twice. A literal has a fixed, known type, by definition. Types are also known and fixed in other circumstances, such as function return types. This becomes especially handy when a method returns a parametric type that may be hard to write. I've personally written expression template code where the specialized concrete type is a few lines long.

Do you really claim you'd rater write [4 lines of type] foo = bar(); instead of auto foo = bar()? Even for shorter types, it can be arduous.

This for (std::vector::const_iterator a = b.begin(); a != b.end(); ++a) vs for (auto a = b.begin(); a != b.end(); ++a)

Just write a function that checks the argument types and does what you wish.

Even then that's an infinite set, since one orbital parameter (a.k.a. the orbital slot) is free. An orbit isn't a path in the sky, it's a vector in the space of orbital parameters. You can't ignore the orbital spot and pretend that all geostationary orbits are the same - all those satellites would sit on each other, then :)

I did generalize it, assuming that any orbit with a 24h period is geostationary. Perhaps that was ill advised :)

Ahh, you think that most obscure tapes (think electrical tape) are IR-transparent? You're nuts.

I'm sorry, you're a moron. Sure it's arbitrary, since two orbital parameters are free and the term geostationary refers to an infinite set of orbits. Yet everyone understands that it's about the radius. Perhaps the title should have said "within the geostationary orbital radius".

They don't come from a lawyers office just because there's a lawyer's signature on them. The entire fucking document is forged, how hard is that to see? The legal firm had as much to do with them as the court did. It's entirely a fabrication, using some real names.