Ish.

I would not trust C++ for safety-critical work as MISRA can only limit features, it can't add support for contracts.

There have been other dialects of C++ - Aspect-Oriented C++ and Feature-Oriented C++ being the two that I monitored closely. You can't really do either by using subsetting, regardless of mechanism.

IMHO, it might be easier to reverse the problem. Instead of having specific subsets for specific tasks, where you drill down to the subset you want, have specific subsets for specific mechanisms where you build up to the feature set you need.

Oh, absolutely. These days, I spend so much time checking the output from computers, it would normally have been quicker to do searches by hand. This is... not useful.

I can fully understand that.

I dunno. China is a "market socialist" system -- which is a contradiction in terms. If China is socialist, then for practical purposes Norway and Sweden have to be even *more* socialist because they have a comprehensive public welfare system which China lacks. And those Nordic countries are rated quite high on global measures of political and personal freedom, and very low on corruption. In general they outperform the US on most of those measures, although the US is better on measures of business deregulation.

It makes no sense to claim Chinese courts have a lot of power, although it may seem that way â" itâ(TM)s supposed to seem that way. One of the foundational principles of Chinese jurisprudence is party supremacy. Every judge is supervised by a PLC â" party legal committee â" which oversees budgets, discipline and assignments in the judiciary. They consult with the judges in sensitive trials to ensure a politically acceptable outcome.

So it would be more accurate to characterize the courts as an instrument of party power rather than an independent power center.

From time to time Chinese court decisions become politically inconvenient, either through the supervisors in the PLC missing something or through changing circumstances. In those cases there is no formal process for the party to make the courts revisit the decision. Instead the normal procedure is for the inconvenient decision to quietly disappear from the legal databases, as if it never happened. When there is party supremacy, the party can simply rewrite judicial history to its current needs.

An independent judiciary seems like such a minor point; and frankly it is often an impediment to common sense. But without an independent judiciary you canâ(TM)t have rule of law, just rule by law.

Hereâ(TM)s the problem with that scenario: court rulings donâ(TM)t mean much in a state ruled by one party. China has plenty of progressive looking laws that donâ(TM)t get enforced if it is inconvenient to the party. There are emission standards for trucks and cars that should help with their pollution problems, but there are no enforcement mechanisms and officials have no interest in creating any if it would interfere with their economic targets or their private interests.

China is a country of strict rules and lax enforcement, which suits authoritarian rulers very well. It means laws are flouted routinely by virtually everyone, which gives the party leverage. Displease the party, and they have plenty of material to punish you, under color of enforcing laws. It sounds so benign, at least theyâ(TM)re enforcing the law part of the time, right? Wrong. Laws selectively enforced donâ(TM)t serve any public purpose; theyâ(TM)re just instruments of personal power.

Americans often donâ(TM)t seem to understand the difference between rule of law and rule *by* law. Itâ(TM)s ironic because the American Revolution and constitution were historically important in establishing the practicality of rule of law, in which political leaders were not only expected to obey the laws themselves, but had a duty to enforce the law impartially regardless of their personal opinions or interests.

Rule *by* law isnâ(TM)t a Chinese innovation, it was the operating principle for every government before 1789. A government that rules *by* law is only as good as the men wielding power, and since power corrupts, itâ(TM)s never very good for long.

The problem in California is that private lawyers realized they could sue almost anybody for failure to warn about carcinogen risk. The result was that everybody (both private individuals, companies, and government facilities) stuck a warning on virtually anything. The initial intention of the law was good but very badly worded.

...and thanks for all the fish.

If this were remotely true then wind turbines would be getting smaller each year.

Not sure what you are getting at, but the landing strip does not have to be right at the base of the windmill. Trucks will still be used to move the blades from where the airplane lands to there. The distance is a lot shorter however.

I'm not very clear why helicopters can't be used though.

You seem incapable of reading comments before writing your fantasy about what they say.

Actually you better have a stealth airplane. And everybody on board better turn off their phones.

Someone pointed out some differences in Idiocracy: a primary plot point was that the President actively recruited a cabinet member for intelligence, without knowing what that cabinet member would recommend, and willingly followed the possibly unexpected advice provided by that cabinet member, and actively and accurately observed and judged results both when the cabinet member made a correct and when they made an incorrect decision.

"USENET died when ISPs noticed few users actually used it" - it also died a bit when deja-news was bought by google, turning it into google groups. ISPs were now thinking (incorrectly, of course) that they were paying for some Google branded service...that was coincidentally getting less use directly because Google was offering a web page interface to the same data.

So it was a gradual fade-out at the ISPs initially as people started trying web-bb's (never totally caught on, and survivers like SJGames' illuminati board have really low participation for the readership, really). The fadeout accelerated when Google replaced the usage of the service AND the impression it was an open, distributed system into Google one that Google alone should be paying for.