Here's a few I took on my way to work...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesswift/sets/72157622435317234/

1) Invent some plausible sounding but utterly fake treatment.
2) Persuade people to try it.
3) Highlight anecdotal evidence that it works, which you are guaranteed to get due to phenomenon like 'Regression toward the mean'
4) Profit!

Finally a provably viable step 3.

This appears to be an excellent use of crowd sourcing by Google to get the whole world modeled in 3d.

"so I'd expect that a 50$ pill could have a bigger placebo effect than a 5$ pill of identical composition, provided that the patients know it."

Probably. It's been known for years that two pills of quantity X are more effective than one pill of quantity 2X due to placebo.

http://sdk.nikonimaging.com/apply/

D5000, D3x, D90, D700, D40, D60, D3, D300, D200, D80
And NEF (RAW) files

"compiling on your server, you are doing something wrong."

I do 'make -j16' all the time on a server.

"You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!" - Richard Feynman

I don't read that as calling for a bubble, rather he is pointing out that Greenspan is trapped and must create another one to sustain the already inflated valuations. This implies that he's putting off a problem rather than dealing with it. Which does seem to be what subsequently happened.

Might not have a home planet.
They could have completely evolved in space from a small stowaway creature in some space-faring specie's giant vessels.
Or they could have been engineered as an ultimate weapon in an ancient war.
And so on...

You're doing it wrong.

zarthrag didn't ask for the points for his/her post.

I don't think they are making it worse. There is a certain class of changes that are possible but not practical which they can't do but, imho, it is wrong to assume that because of that any changes that are additions are making any problems worse.

The additions and changes currently in the draft so far will only make my job easier. An that's what I really want. Improvements to a difficult and far from perfect language that is an industry standard.

I'm not interested in defending the language against other languages here. The next c++ will be better though. That I am sure of.

But it's not really a legacy language yet. There really is no strong contender to replace it. There are certainly problems for which it is not suitable and nevertheless will be used to solve but that's not a problem of c++. And, again at the risk of repeating myself, the changes in the next standard will make it easier to write better programs in c++.

I wouldn't exactly say 'a joy' but yes, type safe generic programming is pretty powerful in c++ and not what the GP seems to describe it as.
Those tricks of using templates to do compile time computation are not examples of what templates are really used for.

However, only a mad man would defend c++ syntax.
Get past that and it's not so bad at all.

" how many years before we can trust that most compilers can use it effectively... two, three?"

FYI, you can use a lot of it already http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
It's a fair bet that by the time it's signed off most of it will be available in gcc and you'll have an 'effective' implementation.

How quickly your shop upgrades compilers is a different problem.

"It does not add anything that is not already possible"

I can understand why this might seem so but, whilst a lot of it is standardising things that have become popular in the real world, which is a good thing imho, rvalue references are an example of something new which is currently impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B0x#Rvalue_reference_and_move_semantics

One of the requirements of the standardisation body is to continue to support the billions of lines of code out there in the real world.
Given that, removing features is almost impossible to do.