Actually, you can "extend" a C-style string just fine in C - just replace the NULL byte with another byte. It's a common error in C programs to miss the NULL byte.

This works because C doesn't do boundary checks and will gladly let you overwrite your stack or heap.

Unlike Java, C doesn't try to protect you from yourself.

Because in that case you should call the computer manufacturer and get a copy of the installation disks to restore onto the new drive with.

While I'm aware most people don't, if I was buying a Windows computer, I wouldn't buy it without the restore disks for that exact reason. HP charges $19 for the disks; BestBuy will make the disks for you for a small fee too.

In the end, there is zero reason to have to re-buy the Windows OS in order to help your customers.

P.S You can only use an OEM License with an OEM installation; so a Retail installation set won't work with the OEM license on the box. If you're a support shop then you should have a copy of the OEM installation for your own uses any way. That's just good business. If you're doing it on your own for Friends and Family, then just take the extra time to get it from the OEM (e.g HP, Asus, Lenovo, etc) when you run into the issue.

They started doing that with Vista. Win7 and WIn8 do that as well. so that's not new.

Not sure about Free; though they could have changed policy since last I checked (late 1990's) when it was:

1. First 2 minutes were free
2. $99 USD per minute after that

There's a reason why no one calls MS for support outside of Partner agreements, MSDN, etc. ;-)

Hopefully they've changed the policy since then.

Which is why I don't allow them out of my local network, and never setup their "remote access" functionality. in fact, it's explicitly disabled.

No, I'm not ignoring any of that. Just pointing out that with respect to the OP of this thread which remarked about having people inspect the safety of the firearms (f.e kept in safe, trigger locks, etc) that that would have never flown with those who wrote the Consistitution - namely because they did have to live with some of that under the English Rule where soldiers could decide that you or your property needed to be searched for whatever reason they came up with. This is explicitly why we have the 4th Amendment (no Warrantless Searches) and limits on Property Seizure.

Look at how people fought at that time. If someone wanted to join in, they had to be able to fight. That typically meant they had to bring their own weapons - the military generally did not provide one for them. This was true even in the Civil War, though by that point the military did start providing some as there was more funding towards it. If you didn't have one, then you had to "borrow" one from someone else who had more than one available.

If you could't fight, or couldn't arm yourself appropriately then you were of little to no use in the militia; though you might have gotten deployed for recon, scouting, or other intelligence operations.

While IANAL, in the US the legal issue is basically that you cannot remove a right (must less one specifically called out in the Constitution) to protect the minority, if only (at minimum) inconveniencing the majority.

The Founding Fathers would not have allowed home inspections of firearms. In their minds, it was not the government's business how many or what kind of firearms you had. It was a civic duty to have a firearm to start with as that qualified you to be part of the militia (even if you didn't have a firearm you could still join, but then you had to find someone to give you one).

No they don't. But they work well to load the coffers and scare everyone else into paying up, especially when the other party is gagged on the topic as part of the settlement, which is what MS tends to do - so even if they pay out (B&N) then the other party can't counter MS's story as to why, etc.

May be, may be not. Even so, they could do so by sealing the filing so only the parties in the case can read it; all it takes is for Microsoft to claim trade secret, harm to its business, etc for that to happen. And the judges in Seattle (or WA for that matter) are typically in their back pocket for one reason or another - it's a very friendly state towards MS, but then, MS pours a lot into funding various public things (f.e education) there too so there's the whole "don't bite the hand that feeds you" thing going on there.

Reading the FAQ and TFA, this is more about BusyBox than the Linux Kernel.

And well, anyone dealing with a proprietary product should know better by now than to include BusyBox in their product without also providing the code for it as BusyBox has a very good history of winning court cases of this type.

Now, while the initial thing was regarding BusyBox, they are also trying to go and push against Tivoization with GPLv2 trying to gain access to "vmkernel" from VMware ESXi. Linus has had a long history of allowing Tivoization, so that might not get through the courts so clearly, but it's a second prong of attack they are using. Expect nVidia and any other proprietary driver maker to possibly join in on that prong - whether arguing for VMware's position or trying to curtail a court ruling that would expand beyond this particular case (since it's basically about an ESXi OS that uses Linux in some form) from impacting other driver manufacturers (f.e nVidia) that simply provide a binary blob for use with their hardware to customers. It should be pretty easy to make the differentiation between the two groups; but you never know what a judge will do.

IANAL, but that's what I see.

Well, having used VMware Workstation 8 and 9, I can was able to download and modify the Linux drivers provided by VMware, necessary to fix some kernel related bugs (http://clocksmind.blogspot.com/2013/04/vmware-workstation-8-and-linux-kernel-38.html) as kernels changed over time but VMware simply didn't keep up with compatibility.

So frankly, I'm a little surprised but then, may this is for a different edition or something.

Or the democrats, liberals, communists, facists, socialists...

oh, wait...is there anyone left to use the technology?

...is that HOAs are just as big if not a bigger impediment to solar as many ban them from their communities.