The are a good modern alternative (and cheaper than a BBC was, back in the day!). The LPC1768 has the same amount of RAM as the BBC and a bit more flash than the BBC had space on a floppy disk, and has analogue and digital I/O pins, as well as serial (which the BBC had with RS-423), and a few things the BBC lacked (Ethernet and USB).

I also use Safari, though I'm still pissed off with them for combining the URL bar and search box (which means that I keep typing one-word search terms and having it try to resolve them as domains, which then go in my history and so become the subject of autocomplete. The only way to avoid it is to get into the habit of hitting space at the end of a search, which is no saving on hitting tab at the start to jump to the search box). Chrome doesn't properly integrate with the keychain. I use Firefox on Android (self destructing cookies makes it the first browser I've used with a sane cookie management policy), but overall the UI for Safari does exactly what I want from a browser: stay out of the way.

TFS is nonsense though. Developers don't know what's going to be in the next version of Safari? Why don't they download the nightly build and see?

Meh. When I was an undergrad, you really needed to understand netmasks if you wanted to set up a network for multiplayer games. Now, it's much easier (although Windows makes it stupidly hard to create an ad-hoc WiFi network. No idea how people think it's ready for the desktop), and you can do a lot without caring. I can't remember the last time I needed to know about them.

The point of this is not to enforce it, it's so that you can justify doing the right thing to management in the name of standards compliance.

Not true. Go back and re-read the GPL. You are required to release your code under a license that places no more restrictions on it than the GPL. You must also license the combined work under the GPL. It is, however, completely fine to take a few files of GPL'd code, combine them with some BSDL'd code files (as long as those files are not a derived work of the GPL'd code) and ship the resulting program under the GPL. If someone else takes only the BSDL'd files for use in another project then they are not bound by the GPL.

There are two ways in which the GPL is 'viral'. The first is that you cannot change the license of something that you do not own, so any derived works retain the copyright and license of the original. The second is that the GPL is a distribution license and, if you wish to retain the right to distribute it, then you must not distribute it in a way that does not pass on the freedoms listed in the license (meaning that the combined work must grant all of the permissions as the GPL'd parts).

The test says that the class with private members and no setters is intended to be immutable after creation, so that's not a problem. Having a single linked list for the entire grid (rather than a list of lists) is completely insane though. I'd expect a student who actually knew what he or she was doing to be more confused than one that would end up writing code with horrible algorithmic complexity. Looking at the rest of the test, it's not much better. If this is what AP tests look like in the USA, then I'll make sure not to weight it very highly when looking at applicants next academic year.

The problem is when the initial conditions are concentrated ownership. If the hypothetical impoverished country has a feudal system (or similar) where all of the land is owned by a few dozen lords. Now the Americans going over there buy land from the lord in relatively small parcels, allowing him to turn his wealth into liquid form and removing the land that his serfs lived on. So what do the serfs do? They didn't own the land and they're now displaced. They weren't lucky enough to be born owning land so they get nothing.

It's not like most of the people in the original poster's example chose not to own a house. They rent because they didn't inherit enough wealth to own somewhere to live.

The C++11 specification was explicitly written to permit garbage collection and includes standard library functions for providing hints to a garbage collector.

C++ is never the right tool for the job, but for a lot of jobs the right tool doesn't exist and C++ will work.

No it doesn't. It depends on the ABI and the CPU that you're using, but the compiler makes no difference at all.

Not true. In C++11 you have std::make_shared, which allocates an object and the metadata block for a std::shared_ptr in a single block, giving you a lower-overhead mechanism for creating a std::shared_ptr. C++14 also introduced std::make_unique, which doesn't save anything over calling new and then casting to a std::unique_ptr, but make it possible to write code without any need to directly call new. In C++14, there is absolutely no reason to see a new or delete in the code outside of the standard library implementation. If you're writing one then you're doing it wrong.

If an object has a single unique owner, then std::unique_ptr has no run-time overhead and will ensure that the object is correctly deleted even in the presence of exceptions. I agree with the grandparent: any object that isn't allocated on the stack should be created with std::make_shared or std::make_unique.

If you can't be replaced, then you can't be promoted. Do you really want to be maintaining the same program for the rest of your life? And do you want to have a reference that says 'no one can understand this guy's code' when you leave for the next job?

And then only if backed up by realistic macrobenchmarks. There are a lot of things in C++ that have interesting performance characteristics (templates allow more inlining, so make microbenchmarks faster but can cause you to run out of i-cache and make the whole program slower, virtual functions prevent inlining unless the compiler can do devirtualisation, but are actually slightly faster to call than cross-library calls via a PLT if they're not inlined). Generally, algorithmic improvements will make a bigger difference than any language feature. The main reason for using templates should be to eliminate copy-and-paste coding, not to improve performance.

How did they control for biases coming from parents? Research that I've read shows that gender stereotypes start to be instilled within the first few days after a child is born. Unless they're testing with children that have never seen a toy of any kind before, then the toy experiments are not detecting biological biases, they're picking up on a mix of inherited and learned responses. There's a lot of very bad science done to try to claim that there are things that girls like and things that boys like, ignoring the fact that the things that girls like vary wildly between countries and even over time in the same country (for example, blue was a girls' colour and ping a boys' colour in most of Europe until 1-2 centuries ago, and horses have swung between the two as a stereotypical interest several times).