And it works incredibly well. The TGV had several high speed derailment that all caused only minor injuries.

It includes the world's fastest derailment at 294kph (182mph) where only one person was slightly injured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_accidents

It's also a matter of trust, I think.

Wikileaks works because its sources trust it to keep their identity secret. If there was a breach of confidentiality, this trust would evaporate and people would stop leaking confidential material through wikileaks.

In france when we want to use a shorter word we say "borne" (ie "marker", as in the markers every km on the side of the road), although people say kilomètre just as often. I never really thought of it as being a mouthful, maybe we're just used to it.

Does it says "your business is appreciated" in a robotic voice once you're done?

April's fools is not about making jokes, it's actually about trolling. Slashdot's strategy of spamming rubbish fake news is actually quite effective for that, as people whine about it in every thread.

I'm enjoying the comments from behind my longer and bigger amount of karma that makes slashdot offers me the option to be rid of the ads intended for lesser beings.

If C# is more cumbersome, then perhaps there's a way to make it less so while keeping flexibility and power.

I only can see two clear advantages to c# over c++: garbage collection and reflection. Everything else boils down to syntactic preferences or minor features. And there's a lot of useful things that c# is missing compared to c++.

I'm sure in time both things will make their way into C++ in a way or another (garbage collection is half-way there).

I don't think that D is a good answer to the shortcomings of C++. I'm not a fan of the "let's add in everything and the kitchen sink" approach.

And yet despite all the hype I find C# incredibly more cumbersome and verbose and when I'm at work I truly can't wait to get home to work on my c++ hobby project. Part of it will be in javascript too, because it is better for some of the parts of my project.

There is no such thing as an universally simpler and better language, and some of c++ features that people love to hate such as RAII, templates (not those half-assed generics that c# offers) and operator overloading permit to make some complicated things much simpler than anything you can achieve in most of those more recent languages.

It's easy to wrap std::list to do that yourself. What you propose would mean that if you get a list passed from some other opaque part of the code you have no way to predict whether size will be O(1) or O(n), because it may or may not be the result of a splice.

Plus like it is now allows the spec to make simple and clear complexity promises (list::size() is O(n), splice is O(1)) without having to specify how the implementation should work in too much detail.

So merely opening the box should turn a brand new item into a used one? It doesn't really make sense, because for all intent and purpose it is still brand new when the store sells it to another customer.

It's covered by warranty just the same, and they make sure it's in pristine condition (except occasional mishaps like what might have happened in TFA) before repackaging it and putting it back on the shelves.

If they had to sell returned items as used, then they wouldn't bother having a return policy in the first place. This is the "price" you pay for being able to return items.

Or

3 - someone brought the computer, returned it and got a refund for whatever reason, and they omitted to wipe the drive when they repackaged it.

People often don't realize that as a downside of the ability to return items, the stuff they purchase might actually have been previously sold and then returned.

They can filter out false positives by considering only multiple reports at the same locations.

"If you aren't Blizzard, don't attempt a project as big as Blizzard's titles. "Schuster, bleib bei deinen Leisten" is an old German proverb, meaning "stick to what you are able to handle". Being too ambitious doesn't help anyone and will just end up in a disaster - happened many times, especially in the gaming industry."
Well, AoC's failure was not caused merely by a funding problem. After all we did have 5 years, and a lot of good people. I think it was mostly a combination of being shy on some things, like not being willing to rewrite the engine and tools from scratch instead of reusing the crap from anarchy online.

And there was also kind of a poor philosophy of trying to add too many feature in the game right at release instead of doing fewer things but doing them well (like blizzard originally did with WoW).

For instance, the guild city raid thing should have been cut from release (it just wasn't ready) and released in a polished form in an expansion pack imo.

[i]"Ship it when it's done."[/i]

There were more than 110 people working full time on AoC at the time I left funcom, most of them working in Oslo with salaries adjusted for the high cost of life there. That's expensive as hell.

Unless you're blizzard and swimming in money, you have to rely on external sources of funding for that kind of project, and if you need to push the release back, you have to convince them to pour in more money instead of cutting their losses and pulling out.

I thought Steve Ballmer had patended that.