I see.

Maybe trying to "drive like a granny" for a month could even improve your driving habits...

Update: I see the UK has recently changed it's squatting laws. They had a terrible problem with organized squatters who knew all their legal rights (and often posted them on the front door for the owners to read...)

This.

Actively looking out of the window, reacting to what's there, planning ahead. That's all there is too it.

Look as far ahead down the road as you can see, not just at the rear end of the car you have in front of you.

Good luck with that if they ever get into your house. They often have all sorts of legal protection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting

Of the few times I've driven in the USA I noticed that people merge onto the freeways from ramps without eve looking.

If you're driving along in the right hand lane when they want to merge they'll just shove you out of the way. It happened several times and I had to get out of their way or crash.

Maybe I was doing it wrong and I was supposed to know they all do that or something. I dunno.

Maybe it's like crossing the street in Rome. You can stand there all day at a pedestrian crossing and nobody will stop to let you cross. The trick is just to walk out into the street in the middle of traffic. The drivers are expecting it so they stop and let you cross. It's scary the first few times you do it but you soon get the hang of it.

"Brakes", the word is "brakes"...

Nope.

It should be "drivers who actively look out of the window, regularly check their mirrors, etc. and respond to things like bends in the road at a prudent distance (not half way around them)."

This thing needs an eye tracker as much as it needs an accelerometer.

This is just to reel in some customers. As soon as it gets popular they'll start requiring it 24/7 to avoid people gaming it.

Won't work.

Not so long as being "tough on crime" wins votes.

Worse: The really, really bad people in prison enjoy having all these non-violent young men in there to torture and rape. It's like handing them lollipops.

Nope.

In VC++ they're objects which are range-checked, become invalid if the container changes in a way that invalidates them, etc. There's no way to set them to 'null'. You can't assign an iterator for one container the value of an iterator from a different container. Operator[] also behaves like at() (will throw an exception if the index is out of range).

In short: Anything that can be checked, is (and has been by default since VC++2008), even in 'release' compiles.

You can have 'raw pointers' if you want them (extra speed!) but you have to ask for them with a special #define.

See: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa985896(v=vs.90).aspx

I wouldn't say they were smarter than good assembly programmers but they do a good enough job and they allow you to refactor your code much more easily than when you use assembly language.

Tweaking your code and data structures can give more of a speed boost than having tight inner loops but assembly language makes it very difficult to fiddle with code in this way. The equivalent of changing a couple of lines in a C++ header file on a large program might create a week's work in assembler.

Bill Gates still uses BASIC and Mark Zuckerberg uses its bastard offspring (Python). You have to excuse them for not knowing about any data structure other than the integer-indexed array.

In C++ I can define a container with an operator[] that starts wherever I want it to.

Why does nobody do it? Because we use proper iterators when we want to iterate a collection of data.

It might be a good time to short bitcoin stock though.