You just proved the point. Cars were and are not better in all respects than horses. They're faster and more comfortable and haul more stuff, but they take way more energy and cost more, they require expensive roads and infrastructure, and contribute to our sedentary lifestyle.
Now of course society decided that the advantages of cars outweigh the disadvantages. The same thing will happen with electric (or fuel cell) cars. The electric cars will likely never be better than gas cars at absolutely everything. However they already are better than gas cars at some things (running costs, noise, efficiency, emissions, complexity, etc) and are rapidly evolving. At some point the disadvantages will be outweighed by the advantages.
Your three things aren't good points for comparison. The Tesla roadster out-accelerates many sport cars, so the "faster" won't be a problem. There is potential for "easier to maintain" because an electric car has fewer moving parts. Go farther is something you will likely never achieve, but that's ok. I think that will be one of the things we will learn to live without. If you want to drive across the country, rent a gas car. For the other 98% of trips, drive the electric.
>> Changing would cost billions (probably 10s or hundreds of billions) and take a decade or more.
Why? Unless you're trying to put in quick chargers that can take the extremely high current, then charging infrastructure consists of putting in some regular outlets in parking garages and lots. Not a huge infrastructure. As others have mentioned, it's really just the last 10-50m of cable. If the cars appear, the infrastructure will be quick to follow.
>> On top of that, you have the problem of making the user pay for that power.
Indeed. Your employer might offer it as a benefit to attract good people, or they may charge for it. Same with hotels. Same with appartments. Same with businesses (just like wireless internet works now in coffee shops).
>> The infrastructure for an electric car doesn't exist.
Of course it doesn't. My point is it won't take long for it to appear. The "infrastructure" is not at all complex and could be added to any place in a matter of days or weeks.
>> AC, radio, and stop and go driving. Electric might be better than gas at stop and go, but it will still be hell on the battery. Most of the energy will be wasted by the brakes.
Regen braking recovers some of that (~30%), the radio doesn't take much power, however the AC could be a real problem (might need to just open the windows if you're really stuck for a long time).
>> I own a car. I'm not going to own one and rent another, unless its a no-option situation (read: car is in the shop and I have to drive). Nobody is.
In other words "I see the world one way, therefore everyone else sees it exactly like me". I don't see a problem with renting a certain type of car when you need it. Just like you might rent a truck or van when you have to move something large. By your logic it would be smarter to just drive a uhaul van everywhere, then you never have to rent one of the damn things.
>> If I'm going to spend 10s of thousands on a car, its going to be able to drive me everywhere I want to go.
This is where you're missing the point. Once the technology is there, you will be spending less on the electric car than the gas one. Maybe this Nissan isn't it yet, we won't know until it's here, but that time will come.
>> If it can't, then no one will buy it.
Plenty of people will buy it (or the next one), from reasons of convenience, cost, style, and environmental conscience. Perhaps you won't yet, but running gas cars only increases in cost and likely at some point it will be worth the switch (can't run the AC for 5 hours at a standstill, but hey I save $2000/year).
Japanese import, right hand drive. Here in BC, Canada it is allowed to import foreign vehicles after they are 15 years old. The cars most commonly come from Japan where they are driven sparingly, so many of them have very few miles on them.
That's your best example? One weird diversion to talking about pie? I have no idea why he would go off on a tangent like that, but it's nothing compared to Bush's mistakes (there are whole compilations of those on youtube). So even if the media actually did ignore his mistakes (given that a pie discussion if the best you could come up, that's pretty much proven wrong), then youtube should provide an accurate picture.
>> 1)I don't have an outlet in my parking space. Not even the home one, much less at lots near work. Most people in dense urban areas don't.
You don't think that would change? BC Transit just added outlets for charging electric bikes at a lot of their light rail stations. If people started driving electric cars then charging stations would materialize (progressive companies would install them at work for example).
>> 1a)I don't always park at home even over night. Sometimes I'm at a girlfriend's, sometimes I'm at a hotel in another city. Neither would have an outlet even if I had one in #1.
Your girlfriend is Amish? Hotels are very likely to start offering a charging service if electric cars were available.
>> 2)When there's an accident on a bridge, I can take 2 hours to drive home. I wouldn't trust it to keep a charge for that long idling.
Umm... Idling? Are you kidding? What exactly do you think will idle on an electric car? Running AC full blast might be a problem (could be alleviated with solar cells, like the prius already has), but the other power drains (minimal lighting, radio) won't drain the batteries significantly.
>> 3)I want the option of being able to drive farther. I want to be able to drive an hour or two out of the city on a weekend, or take a road trip. This car doesn't have that. So I'll need another car anyway. I don't have room for two in my garage. So add 100-150 a month for a parking spot to the price.
If you do a road trip every weekend, then yes I agree an electric car wouldn't work for you. But if you do a road trip only occasionally, then there are many car sharing services (ZipCar) or even better, car sharing co-ops, and also plenty of rental agencies. You don't have to own two cars just because you occasionally want to drive far.
>> 4)I don't always drive to work. Occasionally I drive to work (20 mi), to a concert venue after work (40 mi), then home (30 mi). That's cutting it too close.
Even assuming none of those places had a charging opportunity, the second generation electric cars will be perfect for you, since they will surely add that extra 20 miles of range.
>> 5)I'm forgetful. If I forgot for even 1 evening to plug it in I'd be in trouble. That's not acceptable. It needs to be able to go at least a week without plugging in.
I suppose you'll just have to suck it up and turn your brain on for a change. A minor inconvenience in the big picture I think.
Diesel engines work without spark plugs -- they compress the air before injecting fuel; the compressed air is so hot that the fuel ignites by itself.
My truck has spark plugs, and every "consumer grade" diesel engine I have ever seen has them. So where did you hear of this non-sparking engine?
Like others have mentioned, those are glow plugs, and they are really only necessary to start the engine when it's cold out. I've driven a Mitsubishi Pajero diesel that had no glow plugs. Works just fine, but starting at anything past -10degC is not fun. Takes about a solid minute of cranking and what looks like a volcanic eruption of black smoke before it'll decide to run. Luckily they're running on 24v so it can handle the extended cranking.
>> Think of network sockets, file access, threads, and a bunch of other things that quite frankly are annoying to do in C or C++.
You're just using the wrong C++ libraries. Using Qt I can do all the things you mentioned and just about everything else in the C# and Java class libraries. Cross platform, without the performance and resource penalty of a virtual machine. Also the final product will appear more native on more platforms than C# or Java.
Also because of Qt's design, I barely have to bother with memory management in my GUI apps. So far I'm averaging one delete statement per 1000 lines of code. Everything else is cleaned up automatically. If I thought a bit harder about my design I could probably get rid of most of those deletes as well.
>> First, do you use a cross-platform toolkit, or do you write a true native GUI for every platform and just keep the backend in common?
I'd say considering in how bad of shape Chromium on Linux and Mac are, it's pretty damn clear that writing separate GUIs is the wrong approach. Skype is another example of an app that gets is completely wrong. They have separate "native" GUIs for each platform, and each platform is completely different than any other. If I know how to do something in Windows, I won't have a hope in hell of explaining how to do that to a mac user of Skype because the GUI and features available are wildly different on each platform.
In contrast, have a look at the screenshots of the arora browser. http://code.google.com/p/arora/wiki/Screenshots Written in Qt, less than 10,000 lines of code, and probably far less than a tenth of the effort has gone into it as has been put into the chrome GUIs (it was written as a Qt example, and now there's just a couple guys contributing to it in their spare time). It's not perfect, but it shows that you can get very nice looking cross platform software that integrates well into each platform with a modern cross-platform toolkit. With the resources behind chrome, it would be easy to polish off the remaining small issues and add whatever platform specific code is necessary for the more advanced features.
Then there's my personal experience. I write some custom apps for a niche market, strictly in my spare time (but it is profitable). Last week a client casually asked if he could run my app on his Mac. Of course, I say, and within an hour of figuring out how to set up a development environment on OS X I had a 98% fully working version of my program on a mac (~10,000 lines of code). If I had made the mistake of writing my GUI in a native toolkit, the port would have been a complete rewrite, and completely impossible for me to do in my spare time (since most functionality is GUI related (it's a diagramming tool)). Thanks to Qt I develop for one platform and get the others essentially for free. Nothing else can match that (aside from Java, which is pretty horrible for client side apps).
>> am a Chromium developer, and if you don't think Qt apps "speak with a foreign accent", especially on Mac
Mac is a bit of a special case. The new Qt is built on cocoa which should fix most of these issues.
Anyway Mac is not even an issue here. Right now you get ZERO support for Mac with the current approach to Chrome development. On windows is looks foreign (not bad, but definitely not like any other app). On Linux, the browser is alpha at best, and because of GTK won't integrate properly into anything but Gnome. With Qt you could have built the Windows version and the Linux, and Mac versions almost at the same time. You could still concentrate on Windows and make it perfect, but at least the Linux and Mac versions would exist. There might be little niggles, especially on the Mac, but that is way better than complete failure to deliver anything.
>> Small differences drive you crazy.
BS. I've been writing Qt software (Windows end users mostly) and have never received a single complaint about look and feel. Qt fits in just great. Maybe the complaints were true at one point, but not for years.
Look at the arora browser. A full webkit browser for all three platforms in less than 10KLOC. Its not perfect everywhere, but it shows what can be done with Qt. If you need something platform specific you can add it for each platform separately. That's still way less work than doing the whole GUI separately three times.
VSE is ok. The editor is alright (although, what's the keyboard shortcut to jump between header and implementation?) and it is pretty lightweight, with a nice debugger.
However what prevents me from using it is the Intellisense is horrible. It might work alright if you restrict yourself to MS libraries, but for anything else (even your own classes) it's the most inconsistent piece of shit I've ever seen. On many different computers and configurations, Intellisense never works 100% for third party libraries or my own code. It'll get either half the methods, or none of them, or all of them once, then lose them again. Same with the function list on top. Half of the time it's empty and you can't jump to a specific function.
So I jumped ship to QtCreator (since I mostly use Qt anyway). Even for non-qt projects, the usability and efficiency of the IDE is miles ahead of VSE. The only big downside is that while it can compile with the msvcc compiler, it can't integrate the MS debugger, so for projects that require a microsoft compiler, it's not the best.
>> Most of those vitamins are artificial ones and added back in after pasteurization.
Not in natural orange juice. The only ingredient is orange juice.
>> Drinking orange juice for its vitamin content, is literally paying a few thousand-percent markup on vitamin pills.
Drinking coke is like paying a few thousand percent markup on.. well, nothing. Sugar and water and cancer causing chemicals. Why not just drink some water and eat some charcoal for the same effect?
The point of drinking orange juice is because it tastes good (so does coke). But with orange juice I get the added benefit of potassium, vitamin c, and some other good stuff, so I don't even have to take a multivitamin (there's no point if you eat healthy you know).
>> Little difference between orange juice and cola, really. If you like one over the other fine, but it's close to a wash nutritionally
Not really. Cola is sugar water with nothing of nutritional value besides that. Orange juice (the real stuff) has a lot of vitamins and minerals in it that your body makes use of. Sugar content is also high, but that's not the only factor.
People doing evil things for money is not what makes conspiracy theories so unlikely to be true. People do evil things for money all the time. People do evil things for free all the time, so we certainly don't need the added incentive of money.
Where the train goes off the rails is where a conspiracy theory requires that massive numbers of people are keeping their mouths shut about some grand plan that they're a small part of. That can be done for a short time, but eventually every secret that has more than about 3 people in on it comes out.
That doesn't make boost more standard than Qt. The parts of boost that end up in the standard will be more standard than Qt (of course then they will no longer be part of boost).
Everything that is in boost is not a standard. If it was in the standard it wouldn't be in boost.
>> 1) replace Qt memory management with TR1::shared_ptr (or boost).
Why? To add another dependency?
>> 2) replace Qt collections with STL collections.
Collection classes are already API compatible. Feel free to not use the Qt ones.
>> 3) replace Qt threads with boost::threads.
Again, zero logic here. Boost is just another C++ library. It is not any more or less standard than Qt.
>> 4) replace Qt signals and slots with boost::signals.
Qt Signals have a lot of advantages over boost signals (and some disadvantages). Until boost signals can do everything Qt signals can, replacing them would be stupid.
>> In other words, make Qt play nice with STL and boost, which are the foundations for developing C++ code these days.
The STL doesn't provide anywhere close to enough for modern application development and it never will. So why should I use part of it when it will never be enough? I'd much rather use Qt for everything and have one consistent API that works nicely together and has fantastic documentation. I haven't used boost or the stl for anything serious in quite a while. For the development I do, the stl is obsolete.
I've never used QtUiTools and I use Designer all the time. I don't see any reason to create the UI at runtime. I just do the single inheritance model and everything gets converted to C++ at compile time.
None of those run on as many platforms as Qt does. And all of them look out of place on all the platforms they run on (except for SWT, which looks ok on Windows and Gnome, but runs badly on Linux).
The trick is to get a used car with over 100000 miles on it, that has been demonstrably maintained. Yes lots of cars at about 100-150k need some expensive work, but once that's been done they are still good.
I'd much rather have a car with 170k on it that has had its clutch, alternator, water pump replaced than a car with 120k without that work.
Yeah, it would be awesome if roads were also private. Then we could pay 100 tolls on our way to work. That would be so much better than the government holding their gun to our head to make us pay for their stupid roads.
If Amtrak was private, fares would have to be much higher, people wouldn't take the train, and the whole network would collapse. There goes another non-car option. But hey, poor people can sit their poor asses at home right?
And of course not all private companies are failing, but some pretty massive ones (banks, car companies) are failing in a spectacular way, so it's exactly the same. Now you have to bail them out as a taxpayer, and they get to keep the profits. At least with Amtrak you get reduced fares for your money. With GM you get nothing, and the execs get a bonus. So much better, I agree.
That's insane. I just paid $585 CAD for a year's insurance. The difference is I'm 25 while it looks like you were 19 or 20 from that insurance paper, so I have a 40% discount. Also I just go for the basic insurance + 2mil liability, instead of comprehensive, which makes a huge difference. Also declared value of $2k instead of $17k for the car.
So the insurance is a tenth of what you paid, then I pay about $32 per tank (gets me about 550km) and no car payments.
Car ownership can be expensive, but it doesn't have to be. I used to be a member of the local car share for a few years, which was pretty nice, but I figured I could actually get away owning a car for the same amount (since I was previously renting cars for longer trips).
You, (and it seems a lot of people on this article) are somehow thinking the article is saying shoes are bad. If you actually read it, you'll see that's not what they claim at all.
The article only says that expensive running shoes don't do anything for your speed or injury probability. Of course some kind of shoe will help protect against harsh surfaces, even the example ultrarunners were wearing basic sandals. The point is that spending $200 on running shoes is a stupid waste of money, because proper technique is the only way to avoid injuries, and the more padding you have, the more you can run badly without being forced to change.
Slashdot Mirror
>> Right! What do you call it when the government takes over industry? Is that not the textbook definition of communism?
No, not even remotely. I suggest you actually look at a textbook before making ridiculous claims.
By the way, you do realize that the massive bailout of banks was under Bush, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008
Hilarious how people now think that this is something only Obama does.
You just proved the point. Cars were and are not better in all respects than horses. They're faster and more comfortable and haul more stuff, but they take way more energy and cost more, they require expensive roads and infrastructure, and contribute to our sedentary lifestyle.
Now of course society decided that the advantages of cars outweigh the disadvantages. The same thing will happen with electric (or fuel cell) cars. The electric cars will likely never be better than gas cars at absolutely everything. However they already are better than gas cars at some things (running costs, noise, efficiency, emissions, complexity, etc) and are rapidly evolving. At some point the disadvantages will be outweighed by the advantages.
Your three things aren't good points for comparison. The Tesla roadster out-accelerates many sport cars, so the "faster" won't be a problem. There is potential for "easier to maintain" because an electric car has fewer moving parts. Go farther is something you will likely never achieve, but that's ok. I think that will be one of the things we will learn to live without. If you want to drive across the country, rent a gas car. For the other 98% of trips, drive the electric.
>> Changing would cost billions (probably 10s or hundreds of billions) and take a decade or more.
Why? Unless you're trying to put in quick chargers that can take the extremely high current, then charging infrastructure consists of putting in some regular outlets in parking garages and lots. Not a huge infrastructure. As others have mentioned, it's really just the last 10-50m of cable. If the cars appear, the infrastructure will be quick to follow.
>> On top of that, you have the problem of making the user pay for that power.
Indeed. Your employer might offer it as a benefit to attract good people, or they may charge for it. Same with hotels. Same with appartments. Same with businesses (just like wireless internet works now in coffee shops).
>> The infrastructure for an electric car doesn't exist.
Of course it doesn't. My point is it won't take long for it to appear. The "infrastructure" is not at all complex and could be added to any place in a matter of days or weeks.
>> AC, radio, and stop and go driving. Electric might be better than gas at stop and go, but it will still be hell on the battery. Most of the energy will be wasted by the brakes.
Regen braking recovers some of that (~30%), the radio doesn't take much power, however the AC could be a real problem (might need to just open the windows if you're really stuck for a long time).
>> I own a car. I'm not going to own one and rent another, unless its a no-option situation (read: car is in the shop and I have to drive). Nobody is.
In other words "I see the world one way, therefore everyone else sees it exactly like me". I don't see a problem with renting a certain type of car when you need it. Just like you might rent a truck or van when you have to move something large. By your logic it would be smarter to just drive a uhaul van everywhere, then you never have to rent one of the damn things.
>> If I'm going to spend 10s of thousands on a car, its going to be able to drive me everywhere I want to go.
This is where you're missing the point. Once the technology is there, you will be spending less on the electric car than the gas one. Maybe this Nissan isn't it yet, we won't know until it's here, but that time will come.
>> If it can't, then no one will buy it.
Plenty of people will buy it (or the next one), from reasons of convenience, cost, style, and environmental conscience. Perhaps you won't yet, but running gas cars only increases in cost and likely at some point it will be worth the switch (can't run the AC for 5 hours at a standstill, but hey I save $2000/year).
Japanese import, right hand drive. Here in BC, Canada it is allowed to import foreign vehicles after they are 15 years old. The cars most commonly come from Japan where they are driven sparingly, so many of them have very few miles on them.
That's your best example? One weird diversion to talking about pie? I have no idea why he would go off on a tangent like that, but it's nothing compared to Bush's mistakes (there are whole compilations of those on youtube). So even if the media actually did ignore his mistakes (given that a pie discussion if the best you could come up, that's pretty much proven wrong), then youtube should provide an accurate picture.
>> 1)I don't have an outlet in my parking space. Not even the home one, much less at lots near work. Most people in dense urban areas don't.
You don't think that would change? BC Transit just added outlets for charging electric bikes at a lot of their light rail stations. If people started driving electric cars then charging stations would materialize (progressive companies would install them at work for example).
>> 1a)I don't always park at home even over night. Sometimes I'm at a girlfriend's, sometimes I'm at a hotel in another city. Neither would have an outlet even if I had one in #1.
Your girlfriend is Amish? Hotels are very likely to start offering a charging service if electric cars were available.
>> 2)When there's an accident on a bridge, I can take 2 hours to drive home. I wouldn't trust it to keep a charge for that long idling.
Umm... Idling? Are you kidding? What exactly do you think will idle on an electric car? Running AC full blast might be a problem (could be alleviated with solar cells, like the prius already has), but the other power drains (minimal lighting, radio) won't drain the batteries significantly.
>> 3)I want the option of being able to drive farther. I want to be able to drive an hour or two out of the city on a weekend, or take a road trip. This car doesn't have that. So I'll need another car anyway. I don't have room for two in my garage. So add 100-150 a month for a parking spot to the price.
If you do a road trip every weekend, then yes I agree an electric car wouldn't work for you. But if you do a road trip only occasionally, then there are many car sharing services (ZipCar) or even better, car sharing co-ops, and also plenty of rental agencies. You don't have to own two cars just because you occasionally want to drive far.
>> 4)I don't always drive to work. Occasionally I drive to work (20 mi), to a concert venue after work (40 mi), then home (30 mi). That's cutting it too close.
Even assuming none of those places had a charging opportunity, the second generation electric cars will be perfect for you, since they will surely add that extra 20 miles of range.
>> 5)I'm forgetful. If I forgot for even 1 evening to plug it in I'd be in trouble. That's not acceptable. It needs to be able to go at least a week without plugging in.
I suppose you'll just have to suck it up and turn your brain on for a change. A minor inconvenience in the big picture I think.
Diesel engines work without spark plugs -- they compress the air before injecting fuel; the compressed air is so hot that the fuel ignites by itself.
My truck has spark plugs, and every "consumer grade" diesel engine I have ever seen has them. So where did you hear of this non-sparking engine?
Like others have mentioned, those are glow plugs, and they are really only necessary to start the engine when it's cold out. I've driven a Mitsubishi Pajero diesel that had no glow plugs. Works just fine, but starting at anything past -10degC is not fun. Takes about a solid minute of cranking and what looks like a volcanic eruption of black smoke before it'll decide to run. Luckily they're running on 24v so it can handle the extended cranking.
>> Think of network sockets, file access, threads, and a bunch of other things that quite frankly are annoying to do in C or C++.
You're just using the wrong C++ libraries.
Using Qt I can do all the things you mentioned and just about everything else in the C# and Java class libraries. Cross platform, without the performance and resource penalty of a virtual machine. Also the final product will appear more native on more platforms than C# or Java.
Also because of Qt's design, I barely have to bother with memory management in my GUI apps. So far I'm averaging one delete statement per 1000 lines of code. Everything else is cleaned up automatically. If I thought a bit harder about my design I could probably get rid of most of those deletes as well.
Just because you don't get it doesn't mean everyone else doesn't get it.
>> First, do you use a cross-platform toolkit, or do you write a true native GUI for every platform and just keep the backend in common?
I'd say considering in how bad of shape Chromium on Linux and Mac are, it's pretty damn clear that writing separate GUIs is the wrong approach. Skype is another example of an app that gets is completely wrong. They have separate "native" GUIs for each platform, and each platform is completely different than any other. If I know how to do something in Windows, I won't have a hope in hell of explaining how to do that to a mac user of Skype because the GUI and features available are wildly different on each platform.
In contrast, have a look at the screenshots of the arora browser. http://code.google.com/p/arora/wiki/Screenshots Written in Qt, less than 10,000 lines of code, and probably far less than a tenth of the effort has gone into it as has been put into the chrome GUIs (it was written as a Qt example, and now there's just a couple guys contributing to it in their spare time). It's not perfect, but it shows that you can get very nice looking cross platform software that integrates well into each platform with a modern cross-platform toolkit. With the resources behind chrome, it would be easy to polish off the remaining small issues and add whatever platform specific code is necessary for the more advanced features.
Then there's my personal experience. I write some custom apps for a niche market, strictly in my spare time (but it is profitable). Last week a client casually asked if he could run my app on his Mac. Of course, I say, and within an hour of figuring out how to set up a development environment on OS X I had a 98% fully working version of my program on a mac (~10,000 lines of code). If I had made the mistake of writing my GUI in a native toolkit, the port would have been a complete rewrite, and completely impossible for me to do in my spare time (since most functionality is GUI related (it's a diagramming tool)). Thanks to Qt I develop for one platform and get the others essentially for free. Nothing else can match that (aside from Java, which is pretty horrible for client side apps).
>> am a Chromium developer, and if you don't think Qt apps "speak with a foreign accent", especially on Mac
Mac is a bit of a special case. The new Qt is built on cocoa which should fix most of these issues.
Anyway Mac is not even an issue here. Right now you get ZERO support for Mac with the current approach to Chrome development. On windows is looks foreign (not bad, but definitely not like any other app). On Linux, the browser is alpha at best, and because of GTK won't integrate properly into anything but Gnome. With Qt you could have built the Windows version and the Linux, and Mac versions almost at the same time. You could still concentrate on Windows and make it perfect, but at least the Linux and Mac versions would exist. There might be little niggles, especially on the Mac, but that is way better than complete failure to deliver anything.
>> Small differences drive you crazy.
BS. I've been writing Qt software (Windows end users mostly) and have never received a single complaint about look and feel. Qt fits in just great. Maybe the complaints were true at one point, but not for years.
Look at the arora browser. A full webkit browser for all three platforms in less than 10KLOC. Its not perfect everywhere, but it shows what can be done with Qt. If you need something platform specific you can add it for each platform separately. That's still way less work than doing the whole GUI separately three times.
VSE is ok. The editor is alright (although, what's the keyboard shortcut to jump between header and implementation?) and it is pretty lightweight, with a nice debugger.
However what prevents me from using it is the Intellisense is horrible. It might work alright if you restrict yourself to MS libraries, but for anything else (even your own classes) it's the most inconsistent piece of shit I've ever seen. On many different computers and configurations, Intellisense never works 100% for third party libraries or my own code. It'll get either half the methods, or none of them, or all of them once, then lose them again. Same with the function list on top. Half of the time it's empty and you can't jump to a specific function.
So I jumped ship to QtCreator (since I mostly use Qt anyway). Even for non-qt projects, the usability and efficiency of the IDE is miles ahead of VSE. The only big downside is that while it can compile with the msvcc compiler, it can't integrate the MS debugger, so for projects that require a microsoft compiler, it's not the best.
Well it is just the first release with vi support. It will likely improve (and it's open source).
>> Most of those vitamins are artificial ones and added back in after pasteurization.
Not in natural orange juice. The only ingredient is orange juice.
>> Drinking orange juice for its vitamin content, is literally paying a few thousand-percent markup on vitamin pills.
Drinking coke is like paying a few thousand percent markup on.. well, nothing. Sugar and water and cancer causing chemicals. Why not just drink some water and eat some charcoal for the same effect?
The point of drinking orange juice is because it tastes good (so does coke). But with orange juice I get the added benefit of potassium, vitamin c, and some other good stuff, so I don't even have to take a multivitamin (there's no point if you eat healthy you know).
>> Little difference between orange juice and cola, really. If you like one over the other fine, but it's close to a wash nutritionally
Not really. Cola is sugar water with nothing of nutritional value besides that. Orange juice (the real stuff) has a lot of vitamins and minerals in it that your body makes use of. Sugar content is also high, but that's not the only factor.
People doing evil things for money is not what makes conspiracy theories so unlikely to be true.
People do evil things for money all the time. People do evil things for free all the time, so we certainly don't need the added incentive of money.
Where the train goes off the rails is where a conspiracy theory requires that massive numbers of people are keeping their mouths shut about some grand plan that they're a small part of. That can be done for a short time, but eventually every secret that has more than about 3 people in on it comes out.
That doesn't make boost more standard than Qt. The parts of boost that end up in the standard will be more standard than Qt (of course then they will no longer be part of boost).
Everything that is in boost is not a standard. If it was in the standard it wouldn't be in boost.
>> 1) replace Qt memory management with TR1::shared_ptr (or boost).
Why? To add another dependency?
>> 2) replace Qt collections with STL collections.
Collection classes are already API compatible. Feel free to not use the Qt ones.
>> 3) replace Qt threads with boost::threads.
Again, zero logic here. Boost is just another C++ library. It is not any more or less standard than Qt.
>> 4) replace Qt signals and slots with boost::signals.
Qt Signals have a lot of advantages over boost signals (and some disadvantages). Until boost signals can do everything Qt signals can, replacing them would be stupid.
>> In other words, make Qt play nice with STL and boost, which are the foundations for developing C++ code these days.
The STL doesn't provide anywhere close to enough for modern application development and it never will. So why should I use part of it when it will never be enough? I'd much rather use Qt for everything and have one consistent API that works nicely together and has fantastic documentation. I haven't used boost or the stl for anything serious in quite a while. For the development I do, the stl is obsolete.
I've never used QtUiTools and I use Designer all the time.
I don't see any reason to create the UI at runtime. I just do the single inheritance model and everything gets converted to C++ at compile time.
None of those run on as many platforms as Qt does. And all of them look out of place on all the platforms they run on (except for SWT, which looks ok on Windows and Gnome, but runs badly on Linux).
You should tell my customers that. I've never received a single complaint about look&feel on my Qt4 software in 4 years.
The trick is to get a used car with over 100000 miles on it, that has been demonstrably maintained. Yes lots of cars at about 100-150k need some expensive work, but once that's been done they are still good.
I'd much rather have a car with 170k on it that has had its clutch, alternator, water pump replaced than a car with 120k without that work.
Yeah, it would be awesome if roads were also private. Then we could pay 100 tolls on our way to work. That would be so much better than the government holding their gun to our head to make us pay for their stupid roads.
If Amtrak was private, fares would have to be much higher, people wouldn't take the train, and the whole network would collapse. There goes another non-car option. But hey, poor people can sit their poor asses at home right?
And of course not all private companies are failing, but some pretty massive ones (banks, car companies) are failing in a spectacular way, so it's exactly the same. Now you have to bail them out as a taxpayer, and they get to keep the profits. At least with Amtrak you get reduced fares for your money. With GM you get nothing, and the execs get a bonus. So much better, I agree.
That's insane. I just paid $585 CAD for a year's insurance. The difference is I'm 25 while it looks like you were 19 or 20 from that insurance paper, so I have a 40% discount. Also I just go for the basic insurance + 2mil liability, instead of comprehensive, which makes a huge difference. Also declared value of $2k instead of $17k for the car.
So the insurance is a tenth of what you paid, then I pay about $32 per tank (gets me about 550km) and no car payments.
Car ownership can be expensive, but it doesn't have to be. I used to be a member of the local car share for a few years, which was pretty nice, but I figured I could actually get away owning a car for the same amount (since I was previously renting cars for longer trips).
You, (and it seems a lot of people on this article) are somehow thinking the article is saying shoes are bad. If you actually read it, you'll see that's not what they claim at all.
The article only says that expensive running shoes don't do anything for your speed or injury probability. Of course some kind of shoe will help protect against harsh surfaces, even the example ultrarunners were wearing basic sandals. The point is that spending $200 on running shoes is a stupid waste of money, because proper technique is the only way to avoid injuries, and the more padding you have, the more you can run badly without being forced to change.