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.

Based on how the summary is worded,

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

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*.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.