Yes! Absolutely!

While we are at it, can we please ban other passengers from cars, especially children! They cause all sorts of distractions.

I also suggest banning all roadside signage, 'loud' paint jobs on cars, personalised number plates, DEFINATELY in car entertainment, anything within visibility of the road that can create light glare.

Oh, and could we PLEASE remove all the cup holders, what the hell are drivers doing eating or drinking in their cars?

And while we are at it, how about teaching people to drive, and removing the licenses of people without the required skills?

I leave it up to you to guess where I am taking the piss, and what is deadly serious. it may not be as easy as you think.

No, no it doesnt.. or are you perhaps planning to use a vehicle with no gearbox?

HP is all that matters (not just peak HP of course, but HP across your used engine rpm range)
BECAUSE you have a gearbox... and therefore can choose run operate in the rev range you want.

'Torque is what matters' is the cry of the ye olde V8 lovin redneck.. but provably stupid.

I think the answer is 'because the previous poster doesnt know what they are talking about', mostly.

Having said that, making a great chassis DOES require a lot more than using fancy construction techniques - they may or may not have got it right.

Yes, and it was them who changed the name, with no public input and rather shall we say 'shaky' reasoning, no?

This, exactly this.

Governments everywhere are printing money hand over fist and giving it to the banks to lend out (which they love).
This keeps people with mortgages happy (a lot of voters) as interest rates stay low.
This erodes the savings of anyone who dares not spend spend spend, which makes retailers and 'investment' sellers happy.
This forces savers money into the 'economy' to help subsidise everyones sins of excess.

This, however cannot last. It is highly inflationary (every wondered why there is not that much inflation? because it is being offset by
a continuing slump in many other areas, combined with an ever increasing cooking-of-the-books on how inflation is calculated.

That must make their operations damn difficult.

I mean I can only assume that they must also cease operation if there are any large birds in the area (a duck, goose, hawk, eagle, etc would do at least as much
damage to them if hit).

Must make fighting forest fires very difficult..

Then C++ is almost certainly not the language for you, unless it is a pure learning experience.

Really.. C++ is a relatively high commitment language, and performance is one of its mainstays, however you dont feel you will spend much time optimising it?
If you cannot look quite quickly over the descriptions of Boost/ASIO and see what they do (and dont) bring to the table, then you will be fighting a very
uphill battle.

The reference to TCP/IP being 'done for you' is worrying.. do you think people program raw TCP in C++?

If you value your project at all then I would suggest C++ is not sounding like your solution.. especially if you need cross
platform. Your reasons seem almost to be reasons NOT to use an unfamiliar language.

As almost everything else has equal or better cross platform support, it seems to me like you need to look more closely to what you mean/need by
'granularity' and perhaps change your mentality using familiar languages, and the solutions for problems in those areas.

Agree 100%.

Someone has obviously not heard of Amdahl's law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law
Or thought about the issues with power consumption, data distribution, security, reliability, fault tolerance, and just about anything else.

That and the fact that IoT is NOT about active processing in devices (thats only an enabler to it), it is about the centralisation of control
of those devices 'in the cloud', for whatever benifit that is supposed to bring (mostly to the bottom line of the suppliers by selling you a
service rather than a device usually).

Smart devices have been around for a long time, and their average computational power is meager, to say the least.

What I suspect is confusing the parent poster (and I agree with you that they are completely wrong) is that these days, with the
'everyone has the god given right to a university degree!' mentality, people are getting degrees in all sorts of complete crap, and
when you add alongside that the fact that universities have worked out they make money by turning over the maximum number
of students (hence it is in their advantage to make it as easy as absolutely possible to graduate) what we end up with is a huge
devaluing of the average value of a degree.

Once upon a time having a degree in many areas really meant something, and a bunch of companies WANTED you. Now it means
next to nothing since just about any monkey can get one, hence the employers dont want to pay through the nose just for the
degree, you have to have something else to actually show some value/usefulness/talent.

The AVERAGE starting salary of graduates is therefore hugely eroded, because there are many more lower value graduates now.
The good graduates are damaged by this, but not to the same extent.

The only solution is for society as a whole to get over its 'you are a failure if you dont get a degree' alongside universities operating on
turnover based economics, and we may actually one day see a return to their true purpose (training those more special minds that
need such exposure), and then perhaps technical colleges can also return to what they once did (train the middle ground of practical
workers), and apprenticeships can be seen as the right fit for yet a different set of workers.

But I wouldn't hold your breath, that would take a sensible approach - good luck with that.

So the result is that the value of a 'degree' is reduced, but thats the fault of the universities themselves.

Way to intentionally try and mislead readers!

824,297 is the total number of cellular sites opensignal has data for, ON THE PLANET.
It is estimated all operators in the UK have around 23,000 cell sites (including microcells).
There appear to be between 100 and 150 TOTAL sites in London.

So no, they could catch a fair bit of all of the trafic in say Central London with those, lets
say one per embassy zone, a couple around Parliment, one for the Queen, etc - they could
drag a nice little bit of data for their colonial cousins with those..

Oh, wait, how foolish of me, they are only used to fight active terrorist groups who are working
to kill us all! how easy to forget.

No.. He was quite clearly attacking the idea of taxes as a source of charity and wealth redistribution.. Not all taxes.
If you cannot see the difference then you have no place in any discussion about taxes.. Except as an example of the problem.
The point is very clearly that poorly run private charity is easily fixed (move your donations). Publicly run charity is next to impossible to fix and rapidly devices into a self serving politically motivated disaster.

1 - as others have pointed out, you are barking up the wrong tree - these are bussard ramjets, not the type you are thinking of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet

2 - normal ramjets are alive and well and very functional thank you very much - not even new tech.
Several countries have been using RAMJETS for some time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos

3 - what I suspect you are thinking about SCRAMjets (supersonic combustion..), while rare, are also functional now and have passed
the point of being considered a scam as they once were, for example you can watch one here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K_rzuSuqIg
The Russians and Indians seem quite happy with their SCRAMJETS : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos-II

Your first claim is false. Any storage can act as a backup, including printing things out. You are making a personal judgement over quality.
Your second claim is false. Recycled backups are perfectly valid and highly used (for example cycled daily backups as part of a tape rota).

What you mean in the first claim is that a hard drive may not be THE most reliable form of backup storage (but then, its not the least either).

What you mean in the second claim is that a backup should act as a separate snapshot of data, and only be updated at known timepoints, not continuously.

Hard Drives are validly used in a range of backup systems,. including some rather high ends ones.
RAID, however, is not a backup.

So, you somehow think your anecdote of not seeing something cancels someones anecdote of it happening?
I can only hope you never ever have anything to do with statistical analysis.

Ever seen a rape? Well, I guess they never happen then! (get the idea moron?).

The original poster never claimed his anecodes proved anything..

Exactly.

I would be almost certain these are "So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" style questions.

Still, the media will love it.