I'm fluent in C. I understand C statics fine. What gets me is their interaction with classes and instances and...

I'm not complaining about templates mainly because I'm keeping my fingers the hell out of them!

It's not? Interviews aren't supposed to be full of nothing but softball questions.

Don't get me started on Boost. It's caused me more than a little headache all by itself...like, say, trying to build a specific version against a specific version of OS X.

As I said, I learned about it by hacking on it. That's my point: you can't discover that kind of thing by hacking. With that said, got any suggestions about where I pick up what you think are the basics?

I learned C++ the hard way: by hacking on a million-LOC program. It's taught me to loathe the language. It's big, complex, and incomprehensible. I once spent three days chasing a bug through a twisty little maze of templates, all different. I routinely struggle with the implications of static vs. not, member variables vs. globals vs. statics, functions that are part of a class vs. those that aren't... Getting code to even compile is often an exercise in trying something, running the build process, then trying something else, lather, rinse, repeat. It's left me frustrated enough to want to drive to College Station and scream at the walls.

All of this has left me wishing for the days of C, in which I'm quite fluent.

Nevertheless, the world seems (perhaps overly) enamored of C++, and I'm probably going to have to deal with it. How do I learn to at least tolerate it, if not like it, instead of actively hating it?

What the story doesn't mention is that, compared to Skype 2.8, the Skype 5/6 user interfere sucks. Users have been complaining ever since it was rolled out, and Skype's answer has always been to use 2.8.

Fortunately, there's a way to make the old version not check for updates: use your local DNS or hosts file to address ui.skype.com to 127.0.0.1. The update check fails, and Skype 2.8 runs, fat, dumb, and happy. I'm pretty sure this works for older versions of 5 or 6, as well.

This is just another spammer and net criminal enabler. The EFF has long fought against efforts to end spam. Encouraging wide-open net access with no accountability is just another step down that road.

The EFF: enabling spammers since the 1990s.

Tor has only ever been an enabler for spammers and other criminals, making it possible for them to hide their tracks. Time to get rid of it.

Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with CAGW advocates, not skeptics. You're seeking to overturn the world's economic system and replace it with government control. That extreme a change requires strong proof, and it's just not there.

And I note the standard Slashdot moderation is in full effect: "I disagree with it, therefore it must be trolling."

Science isn't decided by consensus. It's decided by predictive power and explanatory power. Nothing else. CAGW has neither.

I'm an atheist.

damned autocorrect.

that should be "the same old tired leftist government takeover of economies".

I'll believe in CAGW when the scientists quit fudging the numbers and it still shows it...when they can explain historical data that contradicts the theory...and when they can explain why the warming has stopped for the last couple of decades.

As it is, he fudging is so blatant that "climate science" is nothing of the sort...it's a Trojan horse for the same lod tired leftist government takeoff of economies. That trick never works.

All right, so Adelson evades the ban by paying the Times' owners $3 billion for the paper, runs his piece - indistinguishable from a full-page ad - and then sells the paper back to the owners for $3 billion less the price of a full-page ad.

There's still plenty of ways - available only to the rich - to evade your ban. You're not helping your claimed problem, you're making it worse.