No, just NO.

From a performance perspective, you immediately run across thunking between C# and C++/CLI, not to mention the API idiocies like not being able to sent a buffer from C++ to the network directly (you have to write a loop and send integer sized chunks at a time, then at the end send the final few bytes).

So unless you want to screw yourself well, just avoid C++/CLI. You'll thank me later.

. Since you mentioned you have existing libraries, etc - QT certainly seems to be very beneficial here. With the QSharedPointer types (weak, strong, etc) and concurrency functionality (QtConcurrent, QtFuture) it seems to have the main tools you're looking for, and it will integrate well with other projects in that bringing in an existing library won't be much of an issue (well, unless it's a MSVC COM or something like that; those would need to be re-written). The main caveat is that it's a little harder to share Qt code in a static way (e.g libmyqtlib.a) from a Qt project to a non-Qt project; at least, I haven't tried that. Most just use a dynamic linker which works fine to do that.

There's also a very health e-mail list and forums at qt-project.org that you can use to ask questions and get answers reasonably fast. I can't say the same for Boost, where each library may have its own list if anything at all.

The QT Event Loop actually makes concurrency far easier. You can start each thread with its own event loop, and just pass objects back and forth between the threads using Signals/Slots. The Qt Signal/Slot automanages moving the objects between the event loops, and it all just works.

So you can easily have one thread that just reads data from disk, while 5 other threads receive the data to process, all using Qt signal/slots and not give a lick about which thread it's running in.

Furthermore, if you need to reduce it to one thread to debug, you can easily do so by changing which thread stuff lives in. So concurrency issues become easy to diagnose.

Of course, there are also several Concurrency frameworks within Qt as well - QtConcurrent, QtFutures, etc. - so if you have massive parallism capabilities you can just use those instead. They're all very easy to use.

Also, Qt integrates well with Boost. You can even use the Boost Signal/Slots (choose your version) if you like.

I would disagree. Even in a daemonized application the Qt (WxWidgets, Gtk, and Boost) signal/slot system works wonders.

Like with anything else, it can be abused, but it is by far superior to alternatives like the Message Maps (Gtk, MSVC, WxWidgets).

But you still have to care about what's coming from the right - namely pedestrians as you're still required to stop for them.

Between that and pollsters having questions and multiple-choice answers that were designed to give a desired answer...

Seriously, I had a Democrat pollster back 2005-2006 that asked a question regarding Bush and Iraq. The question was designed to give a very specific answer I didn't agree with, and I flat out told them that. But the kid doing the poll didn't have any way to record that in the poll. We discussed it for a few minutes. Last poll I ever got...

And you obviously do not even comprehend what I and others are saying - you cannot impose your right over someone else's equal right just because you want them to enter into a contract with you. You cannot force them to. It's that simple.

At no point did I make an argument for using a religious basis for that.

So until you can actually understand the argument at hand refrain from commenting further because you're not making any points that you have not already repeated, and not contributing to the conversation.

Please also look up reverse discrimination and think of how it applies.

Only because it's a public service. They could use that as a means of judging your character and saying "I don't like you " and thereby not enter into a contract with you to provide a private service - and that's perfectly legal.

Correct, you don't. But you also don't have the right to force someone into a business transaction either.

You cannot force someone to enter into a contract. And a simple reason of "I don't like the person" is sufficient and not discriminatory in any way.

There is a difference in service between someone coming in a picking a cake off the shelf, and a cake that is being pre-ordered to certain specifications for a specific date and time, possibly (though not necessarily) including delivery.

In the first, the cake is on the shelf and the buyer walks in, picks it up, and pays for it. No contract has been entered. For a bakery or restaurant this falls under public service as long as the doors are open to the public. If the doors are not open to the public then there is no public service and this service is hence not available. It has a different burden under the law than private services do.

In the second, a contract is used to ensure that both parties understand what is being provided, by whom, when, and how. This is a private service provided by the business, and the business is allowed to have a greater choice with whom it provides private services to since they are contracted services. If they for any reason (of which there are many legal reasons, and some illegal reasons) choose not to enter the contract then they do not have to provide the private service. Illegal reasons are the discriminatory reasons - race, sex, etc - while legal reasons are pretty much anything else, including "I don't like you".

You cannot force someone to enter into a contract, and a simple thing of "I don't like the other person" is sufficient and non-discriminatory. No reason must be provided for why you don't want to enter into the contract either.

And since you mentioned a bakery, I'll assume you mean the one in Oregon that went through this in the courts. Their failure was to try to argue religious reasons; they should have just stuck to basic contract law and avoided that whole part of the issue, even if the other side pushed. They never stated a reason when they denied the contract; nor were they required to. They went a step further and actually provided references of other bakeries in the area. They could have used any number of legal reasons to not enter the contract, and they should have. Because the case was really much simpler than what it was made out to be.

And honestly, the outcome is not one I find favourable either simply because of that - you cannot force someone into a contract. Doing so is trying to eviscerate someone else's rights for your own - which is just as wrong.

The practice of one's "religious liberty" which you claim to support also means being able to live it in daily life. Operating one's business in line with one's religious liberty is simply living out their religious liberty.

Now, aside from the that issue, everyone - business and individual alike - has the right to enter or not enter into a contract. You cannot force someone to enter into a contract - that is actually illegal, and voids the contract (by law) as there is no mutual agreement. This is the challenge often used against EULA's - that there is no mutual agreement by both parties, that one side is dictating the terms in their entirety. The issue has been that various LGBT individuals have been trying to force companies into entering contracts that the company - for unspecified reasons - chose not to enter. One side wanted the contract, the other did not; there was no mutual agreement and no signed contract. The reasons for doing so were not stated.

If a reason that was illegal was given, then I'd 100% agree with you. But the reasons were not given, nor were they required to give a reason. Religious liberty does not even need to enter into the picture, and honestly I wouldn't want to do business with an individual that turned around and sued over such frivolity anyway - something completely orthogonal to sexuality or religion, and something 100% allowed by the law.

Stop. And think. Then reverse the question and you've got the problem with the line of thinking you're following and all its illogic fallacies. Neither side has the right to deny the other their right, both of which are equal.

The "right" issue should never have entered into the equation because it the real issue was much simpler, but completely ignored because it wouldn't survive at any level of the judicial system.

It could probably be more effective since you could run a standard visual analysis run, then make another pass with IR/X-Ray/etc filters to check for defects that the human eye can't see, of course that's assuming you couldn't load the drone to do them all at the same time.

In fact, this kind of thing will probably be very beneficial to airlines running next-gen technologies like Carbon Fibre body/wings (e.g Boeing 787) as you need these kinds of analysis to see the problems long before they're visually apparent so you could fix them earlier when it's cheaper to do so.

I have done the same; however, in translation of New Testament (since you really need Hebrew for the Old Testament) the only complaint I have is when translators push some doctrine into the translation, as is often the case when see the word "predestined". However, even then it's few and far between that that is done.

I did too - which I completed with 4 semesters of Ancient Greek for a minor (nearly a second major, 1 class short) that I enjoyed more than I did my CS major, in part because it was harder, even though I didn't do as well grade-wise.

Some of the schools I looked at considered the Computer Languages sufficient to satisfy the foreign language requirement for their CS students.

The drop of foreign language is especially pronounced in Engineering programs. But it all depends on the school and how much they're trying to cram in in the 4 year degree.

The USA provides education K-12, normally paid for by local taxes but increasingly being federally subsidized; but beyond that nothing is nor should be guaranteed.

The real problem, in this respect, is employers requiring a college level or higher degree where one is not really necessary. Yes, it's useful to help weed-out candidates, but it may also cost some really good potential employees. If students refused to play the "degree game", then colleges/etc would be forced to lower tuitions, and businesses would be forced to consider more people without degrees, and more people would get put to work.

Of course, you'd then also have a number of companies complaining that they can't get qualified workers so the H1-B visa program should be expanded...which is why this really all comes down to how do you properly help a free market regulate itself to encourage the employment qualifications that avoid all the above issues?

Not an easy question to resolve. But guaranteeing a college education will not resolve it, only make it worse as a college level education will simply become the new High School Diploma.

Typically, the non-STEM students are allowed to take "lower" matches - like Business Math, Math 101 - that provide cursory overview of the subject; and STEM students are often opted out of several areas (usually foreign languages) to keep them in the 4 year graduation time frame.