You are no longer allowed to "touch" files without proper permission..
To be fair, you already need to have permission to "touch" a file. Granted you could argue whether it is the file or the filesystem which grants you permission to touch the file. So to be politically correct you need the file's affirmative consent to either "look" at the file or to "touch" the file, otherwise the system's CoC "spiritual guide" ("cocd", sorry I meant "cocsg") may bring you before an extrajudicial tribunal for misconduct and "euthanize" your shell.
*Laughs* Goes back to working on some 300+ Slackware VMs.
BTW, the site only lists 2 vulnerabilities for CentOS since 2012, so I don't think it uses as complete a dataset as you think. As an example there has been at least 10 high severity OpenSSL vulnerabilities which affected CentOS since 2012 and neither of the 2 CentOS vulnerabilities listed on site you provided are for OpenSSL packages.
What 163,696 square mile area of the US has a lower rate? You can combine states, just keep the area the same. That's what matters for raw numbers, and population density or number of people in an area is what matters for raw rates. Still, just find an equivalently sized area with a lower simple rate. Try it. Then find the same with an equivalently sized base population. Try it.
According to the census data, Texas and Alaska both have had higher population growths than California (Alaska since 1940 and Texas since 1990). These are the two states larger than California. Additionally New Mexico (since 1990), Arizona (since 1950), Nevada (since 1950), Colorado (since 1990), Oregon (since 1990), and Wyoming (since 2000) have all had higher population growths than California. In fact the all of the 10 largest states (other than Montana) have a historically higher population growth, according to most recent census data, than California.
California has the largest population, however the runners up (Texas and Florida) have higher population growth than California.
No one is talking about loan forgiveness. What the article is about the mess they and society are in.
Here are the facts:
1. If you have a HS diploma you will live with your parents until 40 and have a life of poverty. HR won't give you the chance to build your resume outside of your grocery store or McDonalds. It kind of forces you to go to a trade school or a university of you want a non horrible sucky life. Don't bother talking about your friend Jon or yourself if you developed computer skills in the late 1990s. That was abnormal and still a very minority statistic.
I'm calling BS. Sure I work as a Unix systems administration and I came into the field in 2000, however 4 out of 5 people in my department with ages ranging from 22 - retirement do not have college degrees. The people in other departments (wireline installers, telephony switch engineers, sales team, etc) I work with routinely make $75K - $130K and most (if not all) do not have college degrees. My uncles who work in various blue collar jobs (1 is a machinist, 1 is a carpenter, and 1 is a factory worker) only have high school diplomas and all make $70k+.
On the flip side I have two siblings with college degrees who make <$30k due to decisions they have made.
True enough, but it's also true that incoming students are not well-qualified to figure out whether their education will result in good value for their money. An 18-year-old is taking on loans to pay for school because "everyone" says it's important. Or an older student is taking on loans to enable a career change because their existing setup isn't working out for them. Meanwhile, the school is like "Oh, yes, you absolutely need this, and here are some people to help pay for it."
If an 18 year old is not well qualified to figure out whether their education will result in good value, then wouldn't it be safe to argue they are not well qualified to figure out the election issues of the day? Sign contracts without consent of a legal guardian? Make medial decisions?
18 year olds are either responsible enough to be adults or they are not responsible enough to be adults. They cannot play both sides of the fence. If they agreed to the term of the loan, they should be held accountable to the terms. Growing up, the young adult should have had better instruction/guidance on finances and responsibility from an authority figure such as a parent or at a minimum a teacher, however agreeing to the loan was ultimately the young adult's decision.
DPDK helps to optimize the networking stack for specific hardware combinations (namely Intel CPUs used with Intel NICs). DPDK is intended to reduce the processing load of software based network in addition to lowering network latency. The development kit consists of user space libraries for software packages like Open vSwitch and kernel modules. The software stack's user libraries interface with the stack's kernel modules which make use of special features in the NIC's firmware.
My impression is that it is used primarily in software packages which provide networking services for hypervisors. For example Open vSwitch in a KVM hypervisor.
However if crypto toolkits would finally implement and actually validate certificates using "DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities" (DANE), then all of this is moot since the DNS operator for a site would be able to specify which specific TLS key is being used by the site with a few DNS records. A government entity wouldn't be able to man in the middle a TLS connection without either cracking the TLS keys themselves or by compromising the the root DNS server keys.
if (hardcore_attitude &&
(Christian || Muslim || yadayada))
denounce();
You too are falling into the same self denunciation. The idea that denouncing someone for having a "hardcore attitude" without nuance is in my mind also a hardcode attitude and adding "extra_denounce" for a person's religion is also repugnant.
The last time I checked, the judge does not add extra time to a prison sentence during sentencing due to the defendant being Christian, Muslim, or "yadayada". However I do believe that the judge usually has some leeway in terms of the sentencing depending upon the nuances of the case. So I say again, reducing individuals and groups to a single binary conditional is a very hardcore attitude.
...anyone who describes someone as the lesser because of race/religion/sexuality/etc pretty easily falls into a category of undesirables...
Maybe you're a Nazi, maybe a hardcore Christian, maybe a hardcore Muslim, maybe some sort of other extremist. I don't care. They're all scum to me.
You just described hardcore Christians and maybe hardcore Muslims as scum due to their religion. Does this not make you an undesirable by your own reasoning? Perhaps the world is more nuanced than you allow for in your reasoning and perhaps degenerating an entire group due to either stereotypes or lack of understanding of a group's beliefs is not wise nor fair.
My kids don't see the packaging for the toys they have since most of them came from rummage sales and thrift stores, they also do not watch TV (we actually do not have one). As for the picture books they read, the picture books of trucks, tractors, and air craft don't show people (male or female), the picture books of people are of either babies or family members, but the bulk are books have animal characters like "Piggie and Elephant" which as far as I can tell do not assign a gender to either character. That doesn't change that the fact that my daughter almost always picks up "Our Alaska Family" which shows pictures of various Alaskan babies from around the state and that my son sticks mostly to the book which has big pictures of machines with their names (but no people).
Also, wouldn't the visual cues about gender roles really only have an affect on their behavior if they are self aware enough to know that they are a boy or girl? At 16 months of age, I'm not sure they are self aware enough to know they are different sexes let alone which sex they are.
I agree. My wife and I have 16 month old fraternal twins. One girl and one boy. We also have two older sons and an older daughter.
The twins are always (due to their age) in the same play environment, wether it be the play room, living room, their bed room, or in the back yard. She gravitates towards dolls, picture books of people, and wants to be held/cuddled a lot. He gravitates towards cars, dump trucks/loaders, blocks, picture books of trucks and construction sites, and only wants to be held if it involves tumbling, tossing, and spinning. This is not to say they don't have significant similarities, however there are also significant differences, especially in how they choose to play when by themselves. As I said, they are always in the same play environment where they can choose for themselves which toys they want.
So from my limited observation, little boys and little girls appear to have different play patterns which then will not surprise me if when they are adults they have different interests.
Both MD5 and SHA-1 are perfectly good hashing algorithms for non-cyptographic purposes. Removing them make me think that the Alpine folks don't know exactly what they are doing.
Based on how the summary is worded,
And in addition, "MD5 and SHA-1 hashes have been removed from APKBUILDs, being obsoleted by SHA-512.
I'm guessing they replaced MD5 and SHA1 hashes for validating their repositories. Since both MD5 has collision vulnerabilities and SHA1 is starting to have attacks as well, it is probably wise to obsolete these hashes in favor of a new hash. Even Git developers are starting to make plans to move away from SHA1.
MUSL and busybox (FYI, busybox is GPL) fit better with the first of the Alpine Linux's stated design goals which are "Small, simple, and secure." MUSL's dynamic libc is only 527K where as glibc is 7.9M. Static hello program is 13K with MUSL and 662K with glibc. Busybox is less than 1M, however coreutils is >13M, vim is >28M, GNU sed/awk is > 2M, etc. MUSL and Busybox make a smaller system than GNU libc, GNU coreutils, and other GNU userspace programs replaced by busybox.
Another cool thing about Alpine is it doesn't use GNU.
And if that were even remotely true, it would be interesting.
Alpine Linux uses MUSL libc and busybox unlike the majority of Linux distros which use GNU for the vast majority of it's user space (i.e. GNU libc, GNU coreutils, GNU sed, GNU awk, etc). Alpine Linux does appear to use GRUB and has GNU gcc and GNU binutils. However for a Linux system, completely abandoning GNU gcc/binutils is not practical since the Linux kernel cannot yet be built with LLVM/CLANG.
So I guess it would have been more appropriate to say that Alpine Linux is not *GNU/Linux* since it is not anymore GNU/Linux than it is *OpenSSL/Linux* or *Dropbear/Linux*.
That leaves... Javascript used for different website apps. I would be surprised if anything much of anything else was published through this program.
Instead of spouting off your ignorant (and incorrect) opinion about what is on code.gov, why didn't you just take 30 seconds to go there and have look before posting?
I did go look through the repository to see if anything interesting caught by eye and he is not far off the mark. It appeared to be mostly web APIs and web apps.
If a C string array needs to be NULL terminated, then a 16 byte array only has 15 bytes of usable string storage. How am I artificially adjusting the buffer length by telling strncpy() to copy at most 15 bytes of data?
Let's take another approach. Let's assume I need to copy of C string into a fixed length array as might happen with a binary protocol. If strncpy() automatically NULL terminated the string, then I would be unable to use every byte of the fixed width field as one byte would always be consumed by the superfluous NULL terminating character (unless, of course, I write my own function).
In its current form, strncpy() can be used for copying strings into fix length fields or into another string array without the need of two functions.
For example, strncpy() doesn't actually do what any reasonable person would assume it does. Using it in the wrong "obvious" way can result in bugs that won't easily be found during testing. There are hundreds more land mines like that sprinkled throughout the C ecosystem, and they all need to be reviewed repeatedly before one can be considered an experienced developer.
Knowing the prototype of "char * strncpy(char * dst, const char * src, size_t len);", my assumption would be that strncpy() would copy up to 'len' bytes of data from the 'src' pointer to the 'dst' pointer which probably does not include a NULL terminator if the 'src' string is longer than 'len'. As such, as a programmer I should pass 'dst_len - 1' as 'len' so I can ensure the 'dst' string is NULL terminated by calling "dst[dst_len-1] = '\0';" immediately after calling strncpy().
If this is an unreasonable assumption, what is a reasonable assumption?
The 4.6 kernel series is already end of life, 4.7 is only marked stable, and 4.8 hasn't yet been released.. Currently Linux Kernel 4.4 is the latest longterm Linux kernel and is projected to be supported until Feb. 2018. With the exception of kernel 3.2, support will end for the other Linux longterm kernels either this year or next year.
If you are creating a long term support release of a Linux distro, it makes sense to choose a longterm support kernel over either an EOL kernel release or an unreleased kernel (which likely bring its own set of issues). If the distro did choose to kernel without long term support, they would be on the hook for back porting critical patches into the kernel. Since they did choose a long term kernel release, they can focus on what sets Mint apart, maintaining their Cinnamon interface, rather than maintaining a custom kernel release.
Looking at the math, if a McDonalds location is making fries from 11:00 am until 10:00 pm daily, a $15/hour wage would be about $1,155 per week or about $54,750 per year. Using your argument that a single employee is not dedicated to making only fries at a single location, lets say only about 1/3 of a man-hour per business hour, that still is about $18,250 per year in wages for making and bagging fries. However with the same assumptions at $8/hour is only $9,7333 per year in wages for making and bagging fries.
So a $15/hour wage alone would pay for a $35,000 robot in 2 years and an $8/hour wage would do the same in 3.6 years.
If you increase the business day to 14 hours (11am - 1:00am), the numbers become:
$15/hour wage @ 14 hour days = $25,550/year to make fries or 1.4 years to pay for a $35k robot
$8/hour wage @ 14 hour days = $13,626/year to make fries or 2.6 years to pay for a $35k robot
Keep in mind that the above figures do not cover the costs in addition to wages for hiring employee such as unemployment insurance and other benefits.
Not my job. Try looking at the Canadian government web site.
Again, not my problem if you don't understand the consequences of the existence of treaties you sign.
It is not my job to explain the binding force of treaties on US law, however I'll do it anyway so you'll see that treaties may be be as cut and dry in the US as they are in Canada. As a side note, I would be surprised if your diplomats did not understand the binding force of different treaties with the US on US law.
A constitutional treaty is capable of extending beyond the term of the president which negotiated the treaty and the senators who ratified it. A constitutional treaty also has the ability to legislate in areas which are constitutionally within the sole authority of the individual states. A constitutional treaty is relatively rare in the United States.
A congressional-executive agreement only requires a simple majority of congress and the agreement of the president. These agreements are the same as any other legislation passed by congress and are likewise limited in scope to the authority vested in both the legislative and executive branches of the government.
A sole-executive agreement is entirely within the president's discretion. However this agreement is limited in power to only the authority vested in the president and cannot extend beyond the president's term in office without the authorization of the president's successor.
In summary, a constitutional treaty can ban capital punishment on foreign nationals tried within the states even though Congress does not have the power to outright ban capital punishment. A congressional-executive agreement can impose tariffs and other taxes upon imported good since taxation is within the authority of congress, however a congressional-executive agreement cannot ban capital punishment. An sole-executive agreement can lift sanctions the president enforces (he controls the military), but he cannot impose tariffs, taxes, or guarantee monetary compensation since these authorities belong to Congress and not the president. Additionally, the president cannot make an agreement which violates US law.
Since I've taken the time to explain how treaties affect US law, maybe you can throw us a bone and tell us the name of this supposed treaty which grants Canadians within US borders exemptions from the DMCA.
>Implying those borg have ever had a sense of humor.
Nay, I say we hang them with 8-tracks.
The tape in an 8-track cartridge would never hold enough weight to hang them properly.
I say we spread them across eight tracks and use a Train (TM) as a Milling Machine (TM) to make Meat Loaf (TM) out of them, then cover them with Beattles (TM) that will eat the evidence so the Police (TM) can't put us on Deathrow (TM).
Anyone who deserves execution does not deserve a quick, painless termination, they deserve to suffer as much as possible. The only way to make it better is to make them suffer like their victims, and their victims are NOT JUST THE PEOPLE THEY KILLED, but also all the people left behind.
The point of the judicial system is not to exact revenge, but to protect society. I stand with the teachings (CCC 2267) of the Catholic Church on this issue.
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."
The law mentioned in the video is the Gun Control Act of 1968 which was a passed in 1968. 1968 was in the 20th century, not the 18th century. More to your argument, it was passed 34 years after the Communications Act of 1934, not 150+ years before the Communications Act of 1934.
1968 was in the 20th century or the nineteen hundreds.
1768 was in the 18th century or the seventeen hundreds.
Slashdot Mirror
You are no longer allowed to "touch" files without proper permission. .
To be fair, you already need to have permission to "touch" a file. Granted you could argue whether it is the file or the filesystem which grants you permission to touch the file. So to be politically correct you need the file's affirmative consent to either "look" at the file or to "touch" the file, otherwise the system's CoC "spiritual guide" ("cocd", sorry I meant "cocsg") may bring you before an extrajudicial tribunal for misconduct and "euthanize" your shell.
*Laughs* Goes back to working on some 300+ Slackware VMs.
BTW, the site only lists 2 vulnerabilities for CentOS since 2012, so I don't think it uses as complete a dataset as you think. As an example there has been at least 10 high severity OpenSSL vulnerabilities which affected CentOS since 2012 and neither of the 2 CentOS vulnerabilities listed on site you provided are for OpenSSL packages.
What 163,696 square mile area of the US has a lower rate? You can combine states, just keep the area the same. That's what matters for raw numbers, and population density or number of people in an area is what matters for raw rates. Still, just find an equivalently sized area with a lower simple rate. Try it. Then find the same with an equivalently sized base population. Try it.
According to the census data, Texas and Alaska both have had higher population growths than California (Alaska since 1940 and Texas since 1990). These are the two states larger than California. Additionally New Mexico (since 1990), Arizona (since 1950), Nevada (since 1950), Colorado (since 1990), Oregon (since 1990), and Wyoming (since 2000) have all had higher population growths than California. In fact the all of the 10 largest states (other than Montana) have a historically higher population growth, according to most recent census data, than California.
California has the largest population, however the runners up (Texas and Florida) have higher population growth than California.
No one is talking about loan forgiveness. What the article is about the mess they and society are in.
Here are the facts: 1. If you have a HS diploma you will live with your parents until 40 and have a life of poverty. HR won't give you the chance to build your resume outside of your grocery store or McDonalds. It kind of forces you to go to a trade school or a university of you want a non horrible sucky life. Don't bother talking about your friend Jon or yourself if you developed computer skills in the late 1990s. That was abnormal and still a very minority statistic.
I'm calling BS. Sure I work as a Unix systems administration and I came into the field in 2000, however 4 out of 5 people in my department with ages ranging from 22 - retirement do not have college degrees. The people in other departments (wireline installers, telephony switch engineers, sales team, etc) I work with routinely make $75K - $130K and most (if not all) do not have college degrees. My uncles who work in various blue collar jobs (1 is a machinist, 1 is a carpenter, and 1 is a factory worker) only have high school diplomas and all make $70k+.
On the flip side I have two siblings with college degrees who make <$30k due to decisions they have made.
True enough, but it's also true that incoming students are not well-qualified to figure out whether their education will result in good value for their money. An 18-year-old is taking on loans to pay for school because "everyone" says it's important. Or an older student is taking on loans to enable a career change because their existing setup isn't working out for them. Meanwhile, the school is like "Oh, yes, you absolutely need this, and here are some people to help pay for it."
If an 18 year old is not well qualified to figure out whether their education will result in good value, then wouldn't it be safe to argue they are not well qualified to figure out the election issues of the day? Sign contracts without consent of a legal guardian? Make medial decisions?
18 year olds are either responsible enough to be adults or they are not responsible enough to be adults. They cannot play both sides of the fence. If they agreed to the term of the loan, they should be held accountable to the terms. Growing up, the young adult should have had better instruction/guidance on finances and responsibility from an authority figure such as a parent or at a minimum a teacher, however agreeing to the loan was ultimately the young adult's decision.
DPDK helps to optimize the networking stack for specific hardware combinations (namely Intel CPUs used with Intel NICs). DPDK is intended to reduce the processing load of software based network in addition to lowering network latency. The development kit consists of user space libraries for software packages like Open vSwitch and kernel modules. The software stack's user libraries interface with the stack's kernel modules which make use of special features in the NIC's firmware. My impression is that it is used primarily in software packages which provide networking services for hypervisors. For example Open vSwitch in a KVM hypervisor.
My Alpine Linux systems doesn't have a GNU userspace on them because don't need it. The base is still Busybox/Musl Libc/Linux. Just saying.
However if crypto toolkits would finally implement and actually validate certificates using "DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities" (DANE), then all of this is moot since the DNS operator for a site would be able to specify which specific TLS key is being used by the site with a few DNS records. A government entity wouldn't be able to man in the middle a TLS connection without either cracking the TLS keys themselves or by compromising the the root DNS server keys.
You too are falling into the same self denunciation. The idea that denouncing someone for having a "hardcore attitude" without nuance is in my mind also a hardcode attitude and adding "extra_denounce" for a person's religion is also repugnant.
The last time I checked, the judge does not add extra time to a prison sentence during sentencing due to the defendant being Christian, Muslim, or "yadayada". However I do believe that the judge usually has some leeway in terms of the sentencing depending upon the nuances of the case. So I say again, reducing individuals and groups to a single binary conditional is a very hardcore attitude.
...anyone who describes someone as the lesser because of race/religion/sexuality/etc pretty easily falls into a category of undesirables...
Maybe you're a Nazi, maybe a hardcore Christian, maybe a hardcore Muslim, maybe some sort of other extremist. I don't care. They're all scum to me.
You just described hardcore Christians and maybe hardcore Muslims as scum due to their religion. Does this not make you an undesirable by your own reasoning? Perhaps the world is more nuanced than you allow for in your reasoning and perhaps degenerating an entire group due to either stereotypes or lack of understanding of a group's beliefs is not wise nor fair.
My kids don't see the packaging for the toys they have since most of them came from rummage sales and thrift stores, they also do not watch TV (we actually do not have one). As for the picture books they read, the picture books of trucks, tractors, and air craft don't show people (male or female), the picture books of people are of either babies or family members, but the bulk are books have animal characters like "Piggie and Elephant" which as far as I can tell do not assign a gender to either character. That doesn't change that the fact that my daughter almost always picks up "Our Alaska Family" which shows pictures of various Alaskan babies from around the state and that my son sticks mostly to the book which has big pictures of machines with their names (but no people).
Also, wouldn't the visual cues about gender roles really only have an affect on their behavior if they are self aware enough to know that they are a boy or girl? At 16 months of age, I'm not sure they are self aware enough to know they are different sexes let alone which sex they are.
I agree. My wife and I have 16 month old fraternal twins. One girl and one boy. We also have two older sons and an older daughter.
The twins are always (due to their age) in the same play environment, wether it be the play room, living room, their bed room, or in the back yard. She gravitates towards dolls, picture books of people, and wants to be held/cuddled a lot. He gravitates towards cars, dump trucks/loaders, blocks, picture books of trucks and construction sites, and only wants to be held if it involves tumbling, tossing, and spinning. This is not to say they don't have significant similarities, however there are also significant differences, especially in how they choose to play when by themselves. As I said, they are always in the same play environment where they can choose for themselves which toys they want.
So from my limited observation, little boys and little girls appear to have different play patterns which then will not surprise me if when they are adults they have different interests.
Both MD5 and SHA-1 are perfectly good hashing algorithms for non-cyptographic purposes. Removing them make me think that the Alpine folks don't know exactly what they are doing.
Based on how the summary is worded,
And in addition, "MD5 and SHA-1 hashes have been removed from APKBUILDs, being obsoleted by SHA-512.
I'm guessing they replaced MD5 and SHA1 hashes for validating their repositories. Since both MD5 has collision vulnerabilities and SHA1 is starting to have attacks as well, it is probably wise to obsolete these hashes in favor of a new hash. Even Git developers are starting to make plans to move away from SHA1.
MUSL and busybox (FYI, busybox is GPL) fit better with the first of the Alpine Linux's stated design goals which are "Small, simple, and secure." MUSL's dynamic libc is only 527K where as glibc is 7.9M. Static hello program is 13K with MUSL and 662K with glibc. Busybox is less than 1M, however coreutils is >13M, vim is >28M, GNU sed/awk is > 2M, etc. MUSL and Busybox make a smaller system than GNU libc, GNU coreutils, and other GNU userspace programs replaced by busybox.
About Alpine>
C standard library comparisons
Another cool thing about Alpine is it doesn't use GNU.
And if that were even remotely true, it would be interesting.
Alpine Linux uses MUSL libc and busybox unlike the majority of Linux distros which use GNU for the vast majority of it's user space (i.e. GNU libc, GNU coreutils, GNU sed, GNU awk, etc). Alpine Linux does appear to use GRUB and has GNU gcc and GNU binutils. However for a Linux system, completely abandoning GNU gcc/binutils is not practical since the Linux kernel cannot yet be built with LLVM/CLANG.
So I guess it would have been more appropriate to say that Alpine Linux is not *GNU/Linux* since it is not anymore GNU/Linux than it is *OpenSSL/Linux* or *Dropbear/Linux*.
More appropriately it is *MUSL/Linux*.
That leaves... Javascript used for different website apps. I would be surprised if anything much of anything else was published through this program.
Instead of spouting off your ignorant (and incorrect) opinion about what is on code.gov, why didn't you just take 30 seconds to go there and have look before posting?
I did go look through the repository to see if anything interesting caught by eye and he is not far off the mark. It appeared to be mostly web APIs and web apps.
If a C string array needs to be NULL terminated, then a 16 byte array only has 15 bytes of usable string storage. How am I artificially adjusting the buffer length by telling strncpy() to copy at most 15 bytes of data?
Let's take another approach. Let's assume I need to copy of C string into a fixed length array as might happen with a binary protocol. If strncpy() automatically NULL terminated the string, then I would be unable to use every byte of the fixed width field as one byte would always be consumed by the superfluous NULL terminating character (unless, of course, I write my own function).
In its current form, strncpy() can be used for copying strings into fix length fields or into another string array without the need of two functions.
What distribution has the libc libraries and headers available without the corresponding documentation?
For example, strncpy() doesn't actually do what any reasonable person would assume it does. Using it in the wrong "obvious" way can result in bugs that won't easily be found during testing. There are hundreds more land mines like that sprinkled throughout the C ecosystem, and they all need to be reviewed repeatedly before one can be considered an experienced developer.
Knowing the prototype of "char * strncpy(char * dst, const char * src, size_t len);", my assumption would be that strncpy() would copy up to 'len' bytes of data from the 'src' pointer to the 'dst' pointer which probably does not include a NULL terminator if the 'src' string is longer than 'len'. As such, as a programmer I should pass 'dst_len - 1' as 'len' so I can ensure the 'dst' string is NULL terminated by calling "dst[dst_len-1] = '\0';" immediately after calling strncpy().
If this is an unreasonable assumption, what is a reasonable assumption?
The 4.6 kernel series is already end of life, 4.7 is only marked stable, and 4.8 hasn't yet been released.. Currently Linux Kernel 4.4 is the latest longterm Linux kernel and is projected to be supported until Feb. 2018. With the exception of kernel 3.2, support will end for the other Linux longterm kernels either this year or next year.
If you are creating a long term support release of a Linux distro, it makes sense to choose a longterm support kernel over either an EOL kernel release or an unreleased kernel (which likely bring its own set of issues). If the distro did choose to kernel without long term support, they would be on the hook for back porting critical patches into the kernel. Since they did choose a long term kernel release, they can focus on what sets Mint apart, maintaining their Cinnamon interface, rather than maintaining a custom kernel release.
On a related note, Alpine Linux and Slackware Linux also chose the 4.4 kernel.
Looking at the math, if a McDonalds location is making fries from 11:00 am until 10:00 pm daily, a $15/hour wage would be about $1,155 per week or about $54,750 per year. Using your argument that a single employee is not dedicated to making only fries at a single location, lets say only about 1/3 of a man-hour per business hour, that still is about $18,250 per year in wages for making and bagging fries. However with the same assumptions at $8/hour is only $9,7333 per year in wages for making and bagging fries.
So a $15/hour wage alone would pay for a $35,000 robot in 2 years and an $8/hour wage would do the same in 3.6 years.
If you increase the business day to 14 hours (11am - 1:00am), the numbers become:
$15/hour wage @ 14 hour days = $25,550/year to make fries or 1.4 years to pay for a $35k robot
$8/hour wage @ 14 hour days = $13,626/year to make fries or 2.6 years to pay for a $35k robot
Keep in mind that the above figures do not cover the costs in addition to wages for hiring employee such as unemployment insurance and other benefits.
Not my job. Try looking at the Canadian government web site.
Again, not my problem if you don't understand the consequences of the existence of treaties you sign.
It is not my job to explain the binding force of treaties on US law, however I'll do it anyway so you'll see that treaties may be be as cut and dry in the US as they are in Canada. As a side note, I would be surprised if your diplomats did not understand the binding force of different treaties with the US on US law.
Although under international law, a US Treaty, a US congressional-executive agreement, and a sole-executive agreement are all the same, within the United States they have significant legal differences.
A constitutional treaty is capable of extending beyond the term of the president which negotiated the treaty and the senators who ratified it. A constitutional treaty also has the ability to legislate in areas which are constitutionally within the sole authority of the individual states. A constitutional treaty is relatively rare in the United States.
A congressional-executive agreement only requires a simple majority of congress and the agreement of the president. These agreements are the same as any other legislation passed by congress and are likewise limited in scope to the authority vested in both the legislative and executive branches of the government.
A sole-executive agreement is entirely within the president's discretion. However this agreement is limited in power to only the authority vested in the president and cannot extend beyond the president's term in office without the authorization of the president's successor.
In summary, a constitutional treaty can ban capital punishment on foreign nationals tried within the states even though Congress does not have the power to outright ban capital punishment. A congressional-executive agreement can impose tariffs and other taxes upon imported good since taxation is within the authority of congress, however a congressional-executive agreement cannot ban capital punishment. An sole-executive agreement can lift sanctions the president enforces (he controls the military), but he cannot impose tariffs, taxes, or guarantee monetary compensation since these authorities belong to Congress and not the president. Additionally, the president cannot make an agreement which violates US law.
Since I've taken the time to explain how treaties affect US law, maybe you can throw us a bone and tell us the name of this supposed treaty which grants Canadians within US borders exemptions from the DMCA.
>Implying those borg have ever had a sense of humor.
Nay, I say we hang them with 8-tracks.
The tape in an 8-track cartridge would never hold enough weight to hang them properly.
I say we spread them across eight tracks and use a Train (TM) as a Milling Machine (TM) to make Meat Loaf (TM) out of them, then cover them with Beattles (TM) that will eat the evidence so the Police (TM) can't put us on Deathrow (TM).
Anyone who deserves execution does not deserve a quick, painless termination, they deserve to suffer as much as possible. The only way to make it better is to make them suffer like their victims, and their victims are NOT JUST THE PEOPLE THEY KILLED, but also all the people left behind.
The point of the judicial system is not to exact revenge, but to protect society. I stand with the teachings (CCC 2267) of the Catholic Church on this issue.
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."
The law mentioned in the video is the Gun Control Act of 1968 which was a passed in 1968. 1968 was in the 20th century, not the 18th century. More to your argument, it was passed 34 years after the Communications Act of 1934, not 150+ years before the Communications Act of 1934.
1968 was in the 20th century or the nineteen hundreds.
1768 was in the 18th century or the seventeen hundreds.