would make it easy to reexport this file system, e.g. Over http or smb.

A reasonable solution would be ability to set max results and disabling next/prev. All desired results would show up in the search directory (if you can assume that results beyond some point are useless).

While I'm sure some sales will be driven by this, I don't believe its going to be enough to move the needle. If anything, it'll push Amazon and Google to provide better offerings with their respective devices.

Literally every device in my entertainment system can independently access Netflix: the TV itself, the Apple TV, the Blu-Ray player, and the Xbox. Two of those devices' remotes have dedicated Netflix buttons on their remotes.

So you're right that this is probably not going to drive sales. But that's only because they've saturated the market already, not because they aren't relevant to how a lot of people watch TV.

Most Netflix subscribers (edit from people) just want to watch Netflix on their TV. If you're buying a new TV, the easiest way to do that is to get one that supports Netflix out of the box.

If all you want to watch on your screen is Netflix, why buy a TV (defined by being a monitor with a TV tuner built in) at all?

Citation required please.

My grandpa has a Netflix account. If he wants to buy a tv that can play Netflix, It's so much easier for me to tell him "buy a TV with the Netflix logo" than "buy a TV and then buy either chromecast/Apple tv/roku."

I think it's a safe assumption that most Netflix streaming subscribers already have a way to watch Netflix where they want it, whether that's on their TV, on some other device, or both. In some cases, when that's on a TV, its directly through the TV, but in many cases its through a Chromecast, DVD/BD player, AppleTV/Roku, etc., etc., etc.

If they are looking to replace the TV, then, in all cases except where the existing TV is also where the Netflix app is, all they need to do is replace the TV with any TV/monitor that works with their existing mechanism, which probably means "has an HDMI port". Which isn't a really difficult challenge.

The only time the friction is reduced for an existing customer by a TV with an integrated Netflix app is when they are adding a new location, or replacing an existing TV where they were already relying on an on-TV app.

If you disagree with the GPL then you disagree with copyright law. The GPL is only as powerful as current copyright law allows it to be.

Don't hate on the GPL, it's satire. Hate on the last century of corporate-lobbied legislation that has granted unprecedented levels of power to copyright: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Sta.... E.g. Mickey Mouse still isn't in the public domain!

Its quite possible to believe that existing copyright law represents exactly what government should do to manage IP in that domain and not believe that the GPL represents a choice people should make about how to use the rights provided under copyright law. (Note: I am not saying, in this post that I hold either part of that opinion, only that it is not inconsistent.) So I disagree with your claim "If you disagree with the GPL then you disagree with copyright law."

Believing that government should permit something is different than supporting the choice to actually use that permission in any particular way.

If one supports the level of power that current copyright law provides for authors, then you must support the fact that any particular author wields it. If you think the author is abusing power, then that means the current copyright law is too broad, and if it's too broad you ultimately don't agree with the law.

No, if one supports the level of power that current copyright law provides for authors, then you must support the fact that it is legal for any particular author to wield that power within those bounds.

That doesn't mean you have to support every particular choice about how it is wielded, just as one's support for the freedom of speech from government censorship doesn't mean one supports every utterance that is outside the scope of what government may prohibit given that freedom.

If one's support for the government policy is on a utilitarian basis (as one example of a framework of support that might apply), one can support the government policy while opposing an action it allows simply because one believes any policy which would effectively constrain the action which one does not prefer would have other harms which outweigh the benefits of preventing the action at issue.

I never wrote you have to support how it's wielded but that it is wielded. Your freedom of speech analogy doesn't apply to what I wrote.

I agree with your last point, but I think that's exactly the job of lawmakers. Once you've found an abuse of the law, you refine the law. You don't just throw your hands up and say "well the pros outweigh the cons." Legislation isn't futile. In this specific case, copyright law has only grown more powerful without any significant negative feedback.

All I'm saying is, if you feel there is something wrong with the GPL, well it's not the only instance of copyright abuse and maybe you should focus on copyright law itself, not the GPL.

Except that by "improve the world", you actually mean "make a quick(er) buck for ourselves".

By the same logic, your company charging for their software (or not open-sourcing it) is "outright harmful" to people who want to use your company's software to make themselves a quick buck for themselves.

Except that you can at least read and learn from the GPL code when making your own implementation. Somehow I doubt your GPL-hostile employer is taking even that small step toward improving the world.

The way you feel when you can't use GPL code in your startup

Is the same way I feel when I can't use Mickey Mouse or Mario for a toy in my toy company.

It's more like you start a new pizza company and you're not allowed to use Stallman's Pizza Cookbook, which has some recipes you like. You can still hash out the recipes by yourself, with much annoying time and effort (and wasted food). Stallman's just not letting you benefit from his cookbook, because he thinks all pizza should be free.

If recipes, then the metaphor makes no sense. You can use the "recipe" that is LibreOffice to produce "pizza" that is work products that people would pay for (such as a lawyer drafting contracts, a consultant making spreadsheets, etc). Nothing in the GPL stops someone from profiting from the output of a GPL'd program.

If pizza, then I can only assume the "recipes" would be programs that produce programs, such as compilers or parser-generators. In that case the metaphor also falls apart, since GNU programs of that type have license exceptions that make the output of those programs (and the additional compilation files needed to run like libc and bison include files) usable without following the GPL.

No, you'd just have to share your recipes whenever you sold the pizza. You can still charge for the pizza (or not) if you want - and the guy who buys it from you can sell it or give it away or whatever.

check out type traits: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types and std::enable_if: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/enable_if

"concepts lite" is a proposal to add syntactic sugar for type traits as well as enhance them a bit.

in general this is how C++ does things now: first add library-level solutions as far as possible, then add language-level syntactic sugar once the usage and implementation is fully understood.

    template<typename T>
    typename std::enable_if<std::is_trivial<T>::value, T>::type
    getValue(std::array<char, sizeof(T)> bytes) {
        T toret;
        std::memcpy(&toret, bytes.data(), sizeof(toret));
        return toret;
    }

btw, was your usage of trivial a pun? if so, that's amazing. we need more type traits puns.