adsr

> You can easily decompile it, and without copyright nobody can tell you want you are allowed to do with it.

Easy to decompile, is not the same as easy to deobfuscate, understand and create deriviative work from. The entire point of GPL or any license is to tell what's allowed to do, that means you can share source code, and have legal means backing you up.

> How would you profit from the work if you can't "sell" the work?

You are the one who say that you can not sell the work. Of course you can, but it may not be relevant to the question of profits here since we are talking about source code, it may be incorporated in an existing system or service or even in a hardware product just to give some examples.

> in how many other disciplines do you expect compensation for finite effort for infinite time?

It's not infinite, it is restricted to a finite time. You do not get compensation unless you sell a product, selling that product it self takes work and investments. The amount you get paid, and if there are any reoccuring payments depends on the terms you are able to negotiate with who ever it is you sell to. It has nothing to do with copyright.

On the contrary I think that's an even higher incentive to close source, obfuscate binaries and add DRM etc. And while someone may be able to copy the binary, they can not create derivative work from it.

It's still going to be a fight, but it will be fought outside of the court rooms without support of the law. To me that sounds like a step backwards, because even more than today that's a fight where a resource heavy megacorp will have an upper hand.

I don't like the idea of someone that creates something great without compensation, put it out for free, only to have the work taken by some large corporation that manages to profit from the work due to large marketing budgets, sales channels and existing customers, while the author remains uncompensated. So it's not an incentive to open source and share personal projects either.

What about FOSS licenses, anyone can simply ignore what for example GPL says and do as they please with the code without copyright. There is simply no case there to fight if it were to happen.

On the other hand you could say that this function returning 'false' isn't really an error, and that the idiom is similar to the isdigit(), isalpha() etc type functions in ctype.h. And fwiw, bool is a thing in C99 with stdbool.h, although this function returns an int.

Alternatively (assuming dst isn't a pointer):

    rv = strlcpy(dst, src, sizeof(dst));
    check(rv == strlen(dst), "Error, src string truncated");

Or perhaps more clear:

    strlcpy(dst, src, sizeof(dst));
    check(strlen(src) == strlen(dst), "Error, src string truncated");

I see, thanks! That's pretty funny. :D

I can figure out how to look up these projects myself. The point is, if you are going to give examples on error handling be more specific. I don't need any general "life lessons" here, the point is it looked like you were trying to make a point, without having one. I.e you did not actually have any examples, you only made it appear so.

I don't think that is anything out of the ordinary, besides if pw->pw_name is longer that sizeof(li->username) it will get truncated. I was more thinking of error checking macros and error handling.

Basically the remark was that the comment went from discussing error handling, to the (much) broader scope of 'C and C++ done "right"', and as an example 5 complete, large open source projects were dumped for us to find the examples ourselves.

Do you have any specific examples? Just picking one randomly and the first error checking code I saw looked like this:

  if (ctx->main_conf == NULL) {
     return NGX_CONF_ERROR;
  }

My point was that web applications would typically have access to more data per default, in a world with no native apps with all your applications in "the cloud" more of your data would likely also be in the hands of others. I don't think they are orthogonal concerns at all.

Regarding the Coding horror link here though, I do agree with the point about native applications that essentially are repackaged web pages.

I don't see why trusting random strangers with data is a good default, in fact so good that it should be the only option. I don't see why anyone but advertising firms and the like would actually want such a future.

There is a patch available for iOS 6 as well.

Fair enough, and there's now two alternatives to confirm with.

The article contains a similar test: https://www.imperialviolet.org:1266

That may be, but most of that markup is probably in the part it self, if you compare to a steel tube of the same dimension you'll see an indication of that. I was going by the current price the metal trades for, that is, a ballpark figure as something to "begin to imagine" what it could cost based on the material alone.

A kg is about $7 at the moment it seems, so suppose that's 5 kg then $35.

Let me ask you, with 10k commonly used characters doesn't that lead to shorter texts? Kind of like how higher base numbers can encode larger numbers with fewer digits, in that case the longer encoding of UTF-8 could be made up for by using fewer characters. Or am I wrong about this assumption?

As an example, suppose that there are one character that denotes the word 'house', if that single character is encoded using five bytes it takes the same amount of space as the english encoding.

The same thing is possible on OS X with kextload/unload and kextutil. Moving the extension to a "disabled" folder and so on, and you have a camera without a driver.

I would say that it's still notable even if it relies on root access, since it's been previously believed that this was not possible with software at all.

I wonder how practical this would be in reality, the frequency response of a typical built-in PC speaker and microphone should be severely limited. And in addition to this there would probably also be quite a big problem with background noise, which would get worse as the distance between the machines gets larger. I guess you could use error correction and handshakes to retransmit corrupted data, but that would limit the transmission speed even further.

Ok I see, makes sense. Anyway, nice hands on tutorial, I like it. :) Thanks

Just wanted to mention that this console is available in Safari as well, presumably a consequence of webkit.

I don't see that at all, in fact the author in one of the comments admits to be a formalist, which is what I gathered from the answer as well.

Is 0.0001% really that useful for drawing any conclusions at all. I mean it's one in a million.

I find it to be an interesting philosophical question, I've been quite affected by some ideas from logical positivism, specifically what a meaningful statement is and just how limiting that can be. Using Occam's razor to reason about the existence of xrays before they where observed would lead you to believe that they don't exist, and rightly so, I think as a scentific method it's very helpful.

I view the scientific method to be an instrument to gain knowledge with a common criteria for evidence, not something that represents absolute truth, which in my oppinion is not within reach outside of logic and maths and other self contained systems. But there is a trade off there, in that they by themselves can not produce anything but tautologies without empirical observations as a basis for the premises, unless you believe in synthetic a priori.

Of course claims about an after life are based on faith, that's true regardless if the claim is that there is or is not an after life.

I certainly think the idea of using a calendar instead looks more useful, as presented here. It does put you closer to actually DO what is on the list as it includes planning and time considerations. Perhaps a To-Do list is useful not to forget the things you must do, before you actually add it to a calendar. But I often find a pen and paper to be more suitable for that.

Thanks, that's true but my comment was mostly a response to the "three million zeroes and a single four" as a valid random sequence comment. I wasn't suggesting it as a generic method to test the quality of a PRNG.

Couldn't you run the same test (say) a few thousand times, then look at the distribution of numbers? Statistically they should be distributed evenly and be equally likely to appear for large enough runs.

Any number or group of numbers that are consistently over/under represented should point to a bias as far as I can tell.

And it's at Zpool 28 already.

Have you looked at Zevo? It's at Zpool 28 on OS X.

Regarding OpenZFS, I thought it was quite surprising that the FreeBSD version wasn't used as a basis for a port, I imagined they had more in common.