I agree. C++ has really seen something of a renaissance in the last few years with C++ 11 and 14. CPU core speed has flattened, and people are realizing that efficiency isn't really something that can be ignored in many cases. Moreover, C++ is and always has been a very portable language, as you can compile it on just about every platform imaginable.

Nowadays, you can write C++ and be assured that you'll rarely have to even think about explicit memory management or leaks. Moreover, what really surprised me was how I actually now prefer the simpler, more versatile, and more predictable referece-counted paradigm over managed memory and garbage collection. The lack of a destructor mechanism means that releasing resources in a predictable manner tends to be a bit less elegant because it's handled in a different way. In C++, memory is just like any other resource.

A lot of people talk about the complexity of C++. There are a couple of things to remember. C++ IS a pretty big and complex language of course, but you don't necessarily have to actually deal with much of that complexity in many circumstances. First, a lot of complexity is related to it's own backwards compatibility both with C and it's own early features. Unless you're maintaining or interfacing with old code, many of those features are largely irrelevant when writing modern C++. If that's not the case, you either have some exceptional circumstances, a very old codebase, or you're not really using the language correctly. Second, C++ can be viewed as two different languages: one suited for library writers, and one for library users (or application programmers). Writing C++ for use in languages can actually be rather difficult - it should be viewed as expert-level language skills. However, C++ actually makes it extremely easy to use a library. And in fact, a well designed library should actually be very difficult to use incorrectly, especially when compared to C.

The language definitely has it's strengths and weaknesses, and I certainly wouldn't recommend it for everything. I'd say C++ starts to really shine when you talk about extremes. If you need your program on a lot of different platforms, need it to run extremely fast, or it has to run with extremely limited constraints, or it's an exceptionally large and complex program, then C++ may be a good fit.

Obligatory XKCD.

As of January 2015, the U6 rate is at 11.3%, from a high of 17.1% in 2009-10. U6 includes discouraged workers (U4 and up) and even "underemployed" workers (part-timers that would prefer to be full time), and so is probably a bit high if you're talking about actual unemployment. No, we're absolutely not at record levels of unemployment.

Moreover, no one uses "percentage of working age people not working" as an unemployment metric (unless you want to inflate the figure), because that includes people who choose not to work, such as spouses of full time workers, students, or those who retire early.

How about the baby boomers? Awesome, more wildly inaccurate statistics. It's not great news, but it's a far cry from what you indicated:

* 33 percent of Boomers have put aside less than $50,000
* Baby Boomers have saved an average of $262,541, about a third of the $805,398 they predict they’ll need at retirement.

I'm not claiming things aren't tough out there, but just pulling made-up statistics out of the air isn't going to inspire confidence in your arguments.

"Phishing" actually makes a bit of sense, as in an attempt to snare victims with a false lure of sorts, such as a phony website. "Spear phishing" is a logical extension of this, a very directed phishing attack made at a particular company, or even a specific person, used to gain corporate access. I thought those were sort of clever, and gave us an accurate way to describe those very common attacks.

This one... yeah, not so much.

According to Wikipedia:

Let's just call it what it is: a specific type of phishing attack.

"Remember the BMG rootkit fiasco."

Exactly. I'm not trusting in their ethics... just that they're not so incredibly stupid as to try the same disastrous plan a second time.

Naturally there's going to be a limit with the current silicon-based technology. At that point, we'll probably see attempts to work in other directions, such as moving into the realm of 3D, using new materials like graphene, silicon-germanian, or even pure germaniam (which could allow for lower voltages, and thus less consumption, tunneling, and leakage), or other techniques that no one has even contemplated yet.

It should be interesting to see whether they'll succeed or not, and what that will mean for the tech industry either way.

That's because it's nearly impossible to predict specific future technologies with any accuracy. A century ago, no one could have even dreamed of the job I currently have. A decade ago, "mobile app developers" didn't even exist, at least not in any real quantity.

Regarding the demise of Moore's Law. I'd like to share with you a quote from a year 2000 paper entitled "The End of Moore's Law?"

Most new chips are at 22-28 nanometers now, 14nm chips are gearing up, and 10nm is in the pipeline. It's always amusing to read those types of papers with the benefit of hindsight. Even now you can find 2014 papers saying that 28nm is the last node in Moore's Law.

Most people suck at predicting the future.

Prediction: They'll remake these games for the current gen consoles, and when they do, they'll make several mistakes.

1) They'll release new instruments that aren't compatible with the old.
2) All the DLC songs people paid for won't be transferable to the new game.
3) The game will essentially be exactly the same, just with shinier graphics and a few new features no one cares about.

Results: All the old fans are angry, and sales will be lukewarm compared to previous generation sales. Executives will blame the declining market on the poor reception rather than their own greed.

How about educating them on the real history and telling them about your personal disagreement with the new planetary designations?

Personally, as I remember reading about how Pluto was non-spherical and had an overlapping orbit, and thought that it was rather odd for a planet. When I learned about other similar objects that were *not* considered planets, it also seemed fairly odd to me. I never gave it *much* thought of course, and just figured Pluto was to remain a "planet" purely for historical reasons.

When Pluto was reclassified, I was surprised, not because I disagreed with the reclassification, but because I thought the historical precedent and simple "nostalgia factor" would be too difficult to overcome. That it wasn't is actually encouraging to me, in terms of that scientific body, because it demonstrated a willingness to challenge their own assumptions and biases, and to move beyond them when evidenced suggested that they should do so.

I'm in a many-years-long battle with my PS3, which may be the best example of my irrational stubbornness that I can think of. Every time I play a Blu-ray disk, it asks me if I want to give it internet access. Every. Damn. Time. Why even make a setting called "BD Internet Connection: Allow/Confirm"? Seriously, I can't just set it to "no"?

For years now, each time that question comes up, I select "no" and think to myself "Screw you, Sony!" There's no way to rationally explain it, but hell will freeze over before I select "yes".

Now I just have another reason to keep selecting "no". Faith in my cause renewed, the battle continues...

And you know what annoys them? Your insistence on harassing them about trying to use their computer more "optimally" when what they're doing works just fine. Moreover, you're actually wrong.

Frankly, I think it's probably better for most people to use search than typing urls anyhow. A search captures their intent better than an actual URL in most cases. Consider the case of a single mistyped letter. The actual search will likely correct this error automatically. A URL with a mistyped letter may well be a scam or malware site. In fact, the indirection of "search as address" is also a handy safety filter, as search providers like Google have the resources to scan and block sites with active malware being hosted on them.

Even if you discount all those factors, the point remains: Is it really worth bothering people about a few seconds of wasted time when they're still getting the same results? Save your battles for the important stuff.

I agree, a mouse is horrible to draw with. A few people have mentioned Wacom tables. There are even models available with a built-in screen, for example, which makes it pretty easy for anyone to draw right on it with little training. It's normally used mostly by digital artists, but I could see it being useful for digital whiteboard sessions as well. It's also superior to tablets in that it's optimized for pen use rather than finger touches, which makes it much more precise for actually drawing.

That was my first thought as well. "It uses Java (probably an older, unpatched version), so of course it's got massive security holes." But seriously, does anyone think there's even a remote chance that in 2015, malware is going to be transported by Blu-ray disc? This is an interesting tech demo, and it's always good to be aware of the potential of these things, but it doesn't seem to be a likely threat vector.

Based on my own experience, CS classrooms don't really need to be high tech. You can hold them anywhere, as long as you have a laptop computer with a projector attachment. The labs are where things always got crowded, and that may be what's currently limiting CS enrollment.

This would mean that the total number of enrolled students wouldn't increase, but the specific number of CS students from the population of the campus could increase as a percentage of all majors. This makes some sense, because to increase the total student population, you can't just add a CS building. You'd also need to add dorms, dining facilities, etc. So, even if the goal is to increase the number of CS students, they might not actually need any new classrooms if the total student population is staying relatively stable.

You could very well be right, of course, but I'm not sure you should necessarily assume the worst. I'm just tossing out a possible hypothesis.

Yeah, exactly. I didn't phrase that very clearly.