I've already covered this.

As an aside, you should have already abstracted away the details of that type-specifier via at least a typedef. In other words, your argument is a straw man.

See here.

That's precisely the point, now isn't it...

You are begging the question; you are assuming the contract; you are programming by [implicit] convention—that which plagues dynamic typing.

That is to say, such informal programming tends to be practical in these cases, but don't confuse that practicality with correctness.

That's begging the question; that's assuming the contract; that's the "programming by [implicit] convention" that plagues dynamic typing.

That is to say, such informal programming tends to be practical in these cases, but don't confuse that practicality with correctness.

There's no "again" about it.

You're not repeating it; rather, you're specifying it.

Specifying the type is establishing a contract for the following code. This can be very worthwhile.

Of course, you could have achieved the same by declaring the variable inside the for-loop; keep things looking simple via a local typedef outside the for-loop:

typedef std::vector::const_iterator CIT;
for (CIT cit = MemVec.cbegin(); cit != v.end(); ++cit) {
        if (LookForPatterm(*cit))
                return true;
}
return false;

Adam Smith called such an intelligence the "Invisible Hand".

From the article:

Bruce, there's a reason why the gun is called The Great Equalizer.

Indeed, in the grand scheme, you are suggesting that we take guns out of the hands of the individual, and put them solely in the hands of the State; that sounds like a transfer of power from the Weak to the Strong...

Carl Sagan, in Cosmos:

What does ‘inanimate’ mean? The problem is that people are always making this bizarre differentiation between ‘animate’ and ‘inanimate’, when really there is just matter interacting with matter; some sets of interactions are more complex and organized (or, shall we say, repetitive and sustained) than other sets of interactions. Indeed, sometimes that complexity and organization is so great that we call it ‘life’ and even ‘intelligent life’, but it’s all one and the same:

Matter interacting with matter.

When you eat some metal such as calcium, that calcium may become incorporated in your bones. Is that calcium all of a sudden ‘animated’ and ‘living’? Is the water that you drink somehow ‘animated’ because it flows through your brain cells?

A child is a continuation of that complex interaction between matter that we call the parent.

The variation may be random (whatever that really means). The selection is not random.

The whole process, evolution by variation and selection (yes, "abiogenesis" is as specious as the notion of "nonliving" matter), is decidedly not random.

I reject your notion that evolution is unrelated.

Both variation and selection are still at work, even on "inanimate" objects.

This concept was considered in Star Trek: Deep Space 9's "Hard Time", in which Miles O'Brien spends a few hours being subjected to the experiences of a couple decades or so in prison.

Just because you can does not mean it's supported.

Guess what? It's not supported.