yannickt

If you use smart pointers in your code (std::unique_ptr, std::shared_ptr), you will rarely have to call delete. A unique_ptr for example owns an object through a pointer; the pointer is automatically deleted when the unique_ptr goes out of scope. shared_ptr retains shared ownership through reference counting; the pointer is deleted when the reference count reaches zero.

> This 'all for money' thing is just shortsighted and naive.

Money matters and Money is everything are two very different mindsets, and I doubt the GP is advocating the latter.

Christianity has a long and strong track record of intolerance, but I don't think it can be disputed that Islam does much more damage today. One out of three (!) British Muslims aged 16 to 24 believe that Muslim apostates should be executed [1]. In many Islamic countries, "crimes" like apostasy, adultery, or homosexuality are punishable by stoning or death, and such punishment is state sanctioned. This level of intolerance was commonplace in Christianity in the past, but it is virtually unheard of in predominantly Christian countries today.

[1] http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Apostasy#Helpful_Hints_f...

Your post reminded me of an article Steve McConnell wrote in 1996 about consulting at Microsoft.

"While Microsoft was still involved with OS/2, the OS/2 development group requested that the company install a washer and dryer in their building so that they wouldn't have to go home to do their laundry. Although the group never got its washer and dryer, the message was clear: this team wanted to work. It didn't ask for promotions, more money, bigger offices, or fancy carpet; it asked for management to remove every conceivable roadblock so that it could concentrate on shipping a product."

Source: http://www.stevemcconnell.com/articles/art05.htm

Perks are an effective retention strategy only if they enable an already motivated employee to get more work done. And for the employee to be motivated, the work has to be rewarding.

"Could you imagine [..] key person departing -- happening while Jobs was running the show?"

Avie Tevanian, Jon Rubinstein, Tony Fadell and Bertrand Serlet, all key people at various points in the history of Apple, left while Jobs was still in charge. I wouldn't read too much into this.

"The biggest selling point here (in Canada)"

I hope Fiber comes to Canada, but I fear protectionist legislation will get in the way.

"Most tech companies in Kanata, for example, do not list on SO"

I think that is true of most tech companies anywhere. SO was just one point of comparison. The point is there seems to be a lot more jobs in the US in quantity and variety, and I think this disparity paints an unpleasant picture given the number of tech workers that are trained in Canada.

Repeat the same exercise on Monster (for example), where recruiters, Canada or US, do post jobs, and you will find that the disparity is even more pronounced.

Not to mention even if said cool shops were thriving - and few are -, there aren't nearly enough of them to hire, say, the 5000 workers that RIM is about to let go. As of this writing, StackOverflow lists:

- 31 jobs in Toronto; - 4 jobs in Montreal; - 2 jobs in Ottawa; - 2 jobs in Vancouver.

These cities account for probably more than 60% of the Canadian IT workforce.

Contrast that with: - 28 jobs in Austin; - 91 jobs in Seattle; - 55 jobs in Boston; - 143 jobs in SF; - 170 jobs in NYC.

There is something very wrong with this picture, especially when you consider that Canadian universities produce a huge number of CS/CE/SE graduates every year.

I think the larger issue here is that there aren't enough of these companies to hire the best Canada-trained developers on a long term basis; the most talented end up leaving for greener pastures (usually US). When they stay they often choose to work remotely for a foreign company, or locally for a satellite office, rather than contributing more directly to the local economy.

I think you are vastly overestimating the impact Facebook had on the so-called Arab spring. Internet penetration in that part of the world is not high enough for social media to trigger an uprising at that scale. Also, just because a dictator is overthrown doesn't mean things automatically change for the better. See Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and much of subsaharan Africa.

I misrepresented your argument, and I apologize for it.

The difference is that science doesn't tell you to dogmatically follow axioms per se. For example, the constancy of the speed of light is an axiom of Einstein's theory of relativity. Evidence that disproves said constancy would eventually lead to revising the theory, just as Newton's axioms were eventually replaced by Einstein's relativity. That's not dogmatic following.

On the other hand, the virgin birth of Jesus (for example) is a dogma of Christianity. From what we know about our world, a virgin birth is not possible, not with the technology that was available at the time the Bible was written. Christians still accept this tenet of Christianity at face value, despite the ample evidence against it (evidence they would never ignore in other aspects of their lives). That's dogmatic following.

What I mean is there are no articles of faith in science. There is no equivalent of "Jesus was born of a virgin". Science doesn't tell you that "E=MC2" is never to be questioned. The phenomenon you describe exists, but I don't think you will find justification for it in a scientific text. But you will find justification for religious dogma in the religious texts themselves.

What you are describing is simply human fallibility. There is no dogma in science. Science does not mandate that anything be set in stone, never to be questioned, doubted or disputed. And when the "old guard" is made irrelevant, that happens through the scientific method itself.

"It's probably more accurate to refer to this more aggressive public movement as antitheism"

I disagree that this "movement" is aggressive. It is only perceived as aggressive because people are not used to having their religion publicly questioned, and held to the same standards of rational scrutiny as other products of human thought. I also disagree that it is "probably" anti-theist. The "new atheists" sometimes ridicule theists, but concede that merely believing in a personal god is fairly harmless in itself. I think they are definitely anti-dogma.

"However, I think that anyone who dismisses religion as worthless is blind or stupid."

We've learned a great deal about our world and our nature since the primary texts of the most established religions have been written. People who dismiss religion are not denying the value and wisdom in it, but are bringing to our attention that this wisdom is discoverable, and maybe better understood, outside of religion. More importantly, religion comes with dogma, which causes a great deal of harm and suffering. Much more relevant than "worth" is the fact that religion can be a very dangerous weapon in the hands of people who cannot dissociate the wisdom from the dogma.

Another algorithms book that is IMO more approchable and more practical than CLRS is "Algorithms in C++" by Sedgewick.

What are the classes of problems that interest you? What is the standing of C++ in the communities involved in solving these problems? For example, if you are interested in HPC, graphics programming or systems programming, and would like to pursue these areas professionally, then not knowing C++ may pose a problem.

The reviews for the hardcover edition are mostly positive: http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Apple-Americas-Admired-Secretiv...

I've read the book. I haven't read many books about Apple and I enjoyed it; hardcore Apple fans may have a different opinion. My major take away was Apple's cult of secrecy. We all "know" that Apple is secretive, but I never would have guessed the lengths they could go to prevent leaks - assuming the author's research is accurate. I don't think I would enjoy working in that kind of environment, personally.

It is also not type safe.

"fundamental flaws in its design"

It would be pretty hard to fix them without breaking backward compatibility.

"Apple's innovation was the capacitive multi-touch screen and finger-friendly interface."

Which is exactly why it resembled none of the smartphones that preceded it. That innovation was a monumental game changer.

"You get a betting advantage."

Actually you don't. The investment industry understands very well that people will naively invest based on superior historical performance, so they use that history to sell investment products. One example of a popular rating system is the Morningstar Rating which rates a fund, stock, or manager based on performance over e.g. 3, 5, 10 years. But that history is public information that most investors use already, so it cannot convey a betting advantage.

"you will make money when the person really was a smart investor"

Statistically speaking, you will run out of money long before you find this hypothetical smart investor. Also, note that the smart investor has not necessarily been "successful" in the past. He could very well have been accumulating shares or fund units while prices were falling, anticipating that they will rise in the future.

Point is, unless you know why that investor is smart, you are essentially leaving it all to chance.

The only thing you can measure is past performance. In investing, past success is not a guarantee of future long term success. Long Term Capital Management had two Nobel laureates among its partners. The fund was extremely successful in its first few years (~40% yearly return with little volatility), but then lost over four billion in just a few months, and eventually closed.

Your "correct strategy" is actually not incompatible with his statement, so long as you have most of your assets invested in stocks if you have a long term horizon.

The challenge is identifying "someone like him" before the fact. But if you could do that, then you would know why he's been so successful and you'd be able to do it all by yourself. Most funds do not beat the market in the long term (> 10 years) after costs, and for the same asset allocation, someone who just invests in the market (e.g. through low-cost index funds) will do much better than the average professional manager.

I never advised anything of the sort. You're putting words in my mouth.

I did not lie, you seem to be the one with an axe to grind and you haven't proven anything.

What I wrote about fees charged by index funds is perfectly accurate. For instance:

- the Vanguard Total stock Market Index Fund charges 0.07%;

- the Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund charges 0.45%;

- the Schwab S&P 500 Index Fund charges 0.09%;

- the Fidelity Spartan 500 Index Fund charges 0.10%.

Of course most mutual funds charge much more, precisely because they are actively managed. Index funds are passively managed, involve very little trading, and as a result charge much less.

I never, ever advocated that people give up on investing, and I think you're the one in need of an education.

This is a great point. Most people I know largely overestimate their risk tolerance, and go from aggressive to conservative at the first hint of a market crash.