Are you implying their breasts and noses are genetically rather than surgically shaped? Based on what?

Didn't. Or isn't supposed to But scientists are human. They do have to eat. Which means they have to work for profit or for hand outs. And then it's just the matter of who's motivated to give the hand outs (grants).

I don't know too many deniers. Plenty of skeptics though. And the more ad hominems are used to defend "science" (for example, by calling skeptics "deniers"), the less scientific credibility these positions have.

Who'd pay for it? If you can't establish credibility, you can't get paid. If you question paid-for consensus, you get shut down as not credible. It's catch 22. Unless you show that a lot of grant money goes to credible efforts to actively disprove the hypothesis, you can't claim that it's been tested and vetted. You need to show me where you have grants which actually motivate contrarian evidence. An no, oil company payments don't count. Because receiving those immediately discredits the researchers. So can you show me government sponsored research aimed at disproving AGW and done by researchers who are paid more only if they can successfully challenge some of the standing hypothesis? No? Only grant money if they provide further evidence supporting government control and intervention? Nough said.

Why is it a "problem" with the market? People getting what they want instead of what sociologists' (sorry, psychopaths') believes of what they need? That's how "satisfaction" is defined -- getting what you want. The fact that strangers, who would rather be entertained by troubles in your relationship than see you be genuinely content, don't get to enjoy the show of your relationship fiascos is not a "problem."

Well, at least, that's what they'll claim. And they'll, of course, attempt to use their clout as "the science guys" to claim that their deductions are accurate. They might even get some legitimate linguists researchers on their side. Grant money buys a lot of consensus.

welcome our stylistic overlords

You are an armature. Making mark-and-sweep mission critical actually requires a trick which DOES include keeping track of all memory you grab from the heap. Relying on gc is only something you can afford to do with low-frequency-creation-destruction objects. Just so you understand, I have written systems which relied on GC-based languages and which had to create and destroy objects faster than GC could handle them. And the way I did it did not make the system grow to the worst-case-scenario use pooling. Tell me I am a sissy to my face... cause my code will run circles around your code :P

Only if you think that a program "does" stuff. If you think of the actions in the program as secondary to what is being accomplished, OO reduces the attention span foot print.

You are a bad person. I mean it. From the bottom of my heart. You think that 20 seconds of your typing is worth 20 minutes of my reading.

entirely optional. and can be turned off at compile time.

only part of runtime if you want it to be.

utter unadulterated nonsense. you have multiple ways of handling memory allocation. you can have custom memory management schemes. C standard library pretty much is guaranteed to cause memory fragmentation.

if it's an issue, than don't make them global. there are standard (ie, language guaranteed) ways to control their run order... they come directly from C, btw, so not sure if you know both languages as well as you think

You have more control over which parts to speed up in C++ than you do in C.

inline keyword

ability to have functors (cludgy syntax and actually misnomer, but it is a huge functionality necessity which is missing from C and is present even in the earliest versions of C++)

rich compile-time semantics

you asked for 3....

No, no, you have it all wrong. FSF is all about free bunnies and sunshine.

That's a weird way of saying "no commercial android developers".

Nope, the atheist Mao still holds the record (with 100 million). The 2nd highest goes to atheist Stalin with 60 million. If you claim that Hitler was Catholic acting on behalf of the church (something that he himself never claimed), then you might have a claim for the 3rd place for the church.

McCain wasn't born on a ship at sea. He was born on a US military base in Panama. Today US considers US military bases sovereign territory akin to embassies. It is ambiguous whether such consideration was given to US bases at the time of McCain's birth.

But everything about Romney was born in America. Including his religion.