Native code in Windows is mostly written in both C and C++, in that you will see both .c and .cpp files, but since all DLL interfaces in Windows are C interfaces (C++ interfaces basically require you to be using the same compiler, though you can use COM to wrap C++ classes to build portable OO interfaces), even the .cpp files tend to be more C-like than C++-like.

There are C++ developers at Microsoft who do very ninja C++ things. But for the most part, people using .cpp files might as well be using C - many people just use .cpp so that they can declare variables in the middle of a scope. Some people have a class they internally use to do state management or implement some algorithm.

Basically, the common reason for use of .cpp is to get language features that increase readability. Very little in richly decorated in C++-but-not-COM faces outward, even in small internal components. I won't say none, because I never conducted an audit to check.

Source: me, worked in Windows for 4 years and change.

Rubber hose cryptography is not unbeatable, but you need to build around that expectation.

More likely:
If my notaries disagree, let me know. Then you can make a decision - whether it's the BOFA problem (thousands of certs), or a genuine anomoly.

Ignoring the lack of a #4, #1 is not always present, and #2 may be confused with #3.

Here's the reality: You fucking sue the TSA if they ever do this to your possessions. The TSA should be experts on bombs, and it should be their job to be professionals at identifying bombs. The fact that they can't only proves their negligence.

You don't get to decide whether something is or isn't dangerous when you haven't got a 12-year old's knowledge of electronics.

you realize that neither of those have anything to do with opendns?

I just realized how bloody important it is to educate the fucktards of east texas.

Someone should really start a software patent education program in east texas and pay people to attend.

Clean-on-access is a little strange, but not that uncommon.

I'm sure they did.

I used an 'infringing' data structure in 1997, when I was 16 and a novice C developer playing with a small beowulf cluster.

These structures are so unbelievably common it blows my mind that the prior art did not make the courtroom lynch the plaintiffs. That this was decided in favor of the Bedrock patentwhores (which is a far better term than patent trolls, I feel) has made me a very sad panda.

What are we all working for, when some dickhead hires a lawyer and sues everyone for a 35-year old idea?

the patent is 1999

You must be rather special to have failed to realize I am not talking about the burner.

This is the kind of awesomeness that won't be possible anymore under First to File, which some asshats are very keen on switching to.

Can we find documentation to this effect? (regulatory requirements on baseband firmware, sensor-capabilities of baseband hardware on any specific device).

It'd be tremendously interesting to dig into and discover the mechanism by which this capability works, if it indeed exists. My guess would be that device manufacturers are onboard, or that the standards mandate this sort of capability. Either way, something like that should destroy the public trust.

What about the radio firmware? On my phone, the baseband image is several megabytes, and very proprietary. I can't even know its capabilities because the manufacturer hasn't released any details.

Probably is the serial killer.