csirac2

It's not courtesy if it's non consensual, same way that wealth redistribution isn't charity

I truly don't understand what you are talking about. When I was in primary school, and perhaps in no small part due to some prosopagnosia, I was unable to determine the gender of my peers reliably. This occasionally resulted in violence as I misgendered peers.

Do you live in a part of the world where you can use whatever pronouns you want on people?

If no, what exactly are we disagreeing about?

standing for

Can you explain what, exactly, it is that you're standing for?

There's nothing to feel, these people are neither male or female and would indeed deserve a specific pronoun, but pragmatism would make it as logical as making all cars fit for one-armed people

That's why they generally choose one or the other? Occasionally, someone will prefer a "non-standard" pronoun but I have never faced someone that didn't accept "they" (which, by the way, was my coping strategy in my childhood - when in doubt, use "they"! This was in pre-internet era of regional Queensland, Australia, where we barely had dictionaries, let alone knew what a pronoun even was)

You've obviously put a lot of energy and thought into this issue but I'm not exactly sure what the issue /is/

Can I just say what a genuinely fascinating perspective you have there

That pronouns are somehow an exercise of power that must be submitted to, and not just a common courtesy because we're not all sensitive snowflakes

And that this is in any way remotely comparable to being tortured and killed for religious beliefs

I wonder how you feel about the nearly 1.7% of people born intersex that you meet and definitely work with, that have been newborns treated by your own GP... occupying possibly the "wrong" pronoun according to whatever this week's definition of Definitely Binary means

I'm sure people getting tortured and killed for religious beliefs will definitely relate to this discussion

If you want to bring up CS101 so badly, surely turing machines and lambda calculus would be more relevant.

The actually interesting claim is that somebody has found a practical use for Interaction Combinators as a computing model for putting GPUs to work.

I don't disagree that Python's place in the ecosystem ("generalist" - i.e. load-bearing distro fossilization in everything from old binary linux distros, container layers, SIEM/SOAR products, serverless runtimes...) leads to much packaging complexity that R just doesn't have

However, Python (1991) is only 2 yrs older than R (1993)

Technologists certainly tend to seek solutions, and find blame in technology or the application of it. Getting technology right is necessary, but not sufficient.

In the end, the world is much bigger than the tech we build & consume.

... Does this statement come from having actually used things like Hadoop on Sun Grid Engine or any of Sun's other products? Or... what? What knowledge are you drawing on?

Edit: I mean, this is the company that gave us the 8 Fallacies of distributed computing, as they were 20yrs ago

I wish folks would use the taint mode they might already have. At some point taint checking bugs stopped being release blockers in core ruby & perl, but having worked through moving a couple of large codebases to surviving strict taint checking in prod, it's one of the most memorable systematic things we have to avoid (I think most?) of the bugs in the class that this is trying to solve.

Obviously, we want solutions that will remediate existing code unmodified, and I guess enabling taint mode isn't in that category.

I wonder what bugs taint checking wouldn't catch, that this would.

Worryingly, the 2015 paper didn't seem to have anything about measuring the mass of the device before and after the experiment.

An old radar technician asked me to take a look... apparently "boiling" waveguides are a thing when it comes to high-power RF.

FWIW Firefox manages to use W^X in their JIT (the experimental patch back in 2011 had a very interesting idea: one process w writing out to memory mapped RW, another process with the same mapped executable): http://jandemooij.nl/blog/2015/12/29/wx-jit-code-enabled-in-...

I think we "outsider" engineers forget (or miss the point on) why amateur radio enjoys the spectrum privileges it does: education, technical investigations, research... things that further the art and community. There's a large contingent of hams just listening.

Encrypted meaningless noise on the air would be a "selfish" waste of spectrum incompatible with the neighbourly spirit espoused by most amateur radio organizations and hams themselves, not to mention damaging to the self-policing they're supposed to do.

I alsl expect it wouldn't be "allowed" to persist as a hobby in its current form in many parts of the world if you added the threat of casual encrypted communications, beyond the reach of CALEA-type intercept capabilities into the mix.

For me, I find it interesting to see which site sells my email address to unrelated marketers/spammers.

Agreed; also in .au, the last time I presented a cheque (in 2011) the poor newbie teenage bank teller strained to recall his training. He processed it ok, but panicked so badly he accidentally handed it back. The branch manager drove out to my workplace to retrieve it from me in person...

I've just read https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-cddl... - and whilst I still think the Conservancy is being reasonable, I can also see now how Canonical might have navigated itself toward its current position without being merely insane, malicious or self-serving.

Thank you for your patience.

The conservancy's current level of input to the debate is appropriate. They're clearly not expending resources they don't have for this discussion. Also, they spent years with VMWare before it finally began legal action. What we have now is a discussion.

It sounds as if you don't think there should be discussion at all. "These licenses are incompatible but screw it, ship it anyway" is shitty behavior we expect from noname WiFi router OEMs.

Apart from idealistic purity, what has that effort actually done? Has it given us access to source code we don't already have?

If we wanted a Linux that could be used like this, it'd be LGPL. That is exactly what the LGPL is for. Really. It's that simple.

I absolutely think people should think twice before blindly depending on or mashing up GPL software - at the moment they don't, and that's how we get these messes.

It's an important landmark in the history of the GPL and I find it completely weird that anyone would expect the conservancy to remain silent on it. In terms of their long-time resourcing problem, that's got nothing to do with this case and everything to do with VMWare pulling out all the stops to get their existing support pulled.

I rather suspect if the conservancy cared about their long-term survival and keeping everybody happy that much they simply wouldn't have pursued the VMWare case.

I see your point more clearly now, I guess we still differ on priorities. Having such a key player within the open source community normalize GPL violation seems somewhat urgent to me - if the current level of interest from the conservancy is overkill, what level of engagement would you consider appropriate?

It's "you can't provide binaries without also providing source code", not "you can't do binaries".

Edit: It's "without also providing source code under the terms of the GPL " - this is a nuance of the GPL's attempt at re-defining a term of art - "derived work". And yes, it deviates from Copyright law norms. Whether a court will consider only the meaning as understood traditionally, or whether they will simply treat the confusingly implied broader definition as a mere additional term of the license which must be enforced, I have no idea.

Would you prefer them to spend their resources chasing down the violations where the offender provides no source code, or the violations that can be sidestepped by typing 'make' into a terminal?

Who says they're expending resources on Canonical? They've left NVidia alone, because they don't ship GPL'd software. They're spending on VMWare, because they ship a hacked Linux distro with proprietary blobs bolted on.

In the case of Canonical, they're letting them know they're trying to do LGPL things with a Linux that is actually GPL.

Edit2: GPLv2 says:

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you;

So distributing CDDL'd source and asking the user to do "make zfs.ko" is fine.

rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

This, among other places in GPLv2 is where they have problems with binaries.

"distribute the binary, not okay; distribute the source + tell user to 'make', okay"

That's literally what the GPL says. Look, I'm not a GPL zealot. The only thing even vaguely worth releasing, I've released 2-clause BSD.

But we can't just pick which bits of a license we feel good about and ignore the bits we don't - that doesn't exactly make a strong case for potential GPL violators to give a shit about copyright.

It's crappy behaviour from Canonical. I think there's another strategic motive here, they know they're stretching things a lot here but perhaps they see this as a catalyst to finally see some movement on ZFS licensing by various parties (or maybe they're acting on VMWare's behalf by sucking energy away from SC's VMWare case)

It's not their fault that people have a completely fucked up interpretation of "derivative work" that includes any combination of two completely separately developed works.

Indeed, "derivative work" is a well-understood term of art in Copyright law. So the courts will have to decide if that's truly what they will interpret, or will they take the redistribution & usage restrictions of the GPL as a separable matter.

I read it as pointing out that it's not up to Canonical to defacto re-license other people's work. Only the copyright holder can do that.

NVidia doesn't ship GPL'd code, and GPL distros don't ship NVidia code. It's the user who downloads it and doesn't redistribute it.

This is entirely unlike VMWare, who really did make and ship their own butchered linux distro with big binary blobs planted right in the middle.

I've read that - no mention of LGPL or why people are still bothering with it, if the GPL already does what the LGPL was designed to do.

My head is exploding. If this doesn't violate the GPL... what was the whole point of the LGPL again?

Having worked with a few asian/eastern engineers, I do believe that a number of things conspire against western maths education: our culture doesn't value mathematics competency (in some circles people are even afraid to admit to an interest); the way we teach maths here in .au is bloody awful (standardized tests make teachers hate their jobs); and teaching generally is a much less respected/lower-paid profession relative to other occupations compared to better-performing countries (so our quality of teachers is much worse).

The spirit of amateur radio rights in most jurisdictions is that of an open/public communications medium that any licensed person can join in on (it has twitter-like aspects in that sense). Education and technical investigations are also usually encouraged.

In that sense, encryption might be viewed at the very least as being selfish by some; and at the worst, some jurisdictions would start having to think differently about threats on ham radio bands.

EDIT: Ordinary differential equations, yes - we do here in .au, at least in Maths C (advanced maths) in Queensland. Partial differential equations, the kind that are very useful in the kinds of physics simulations discussed - not so much.

And even with that background, our foreign lecturers were regularly disappointed at our lack of mathematics competency in University ("Now I have to waste the next 4 weeks teaching you things we learnt in highschool in my home country before I can move on to what this subject is actually about").

These were Asian/Indian and a Ukrainian lecturer, that I recall.

I feel like I'm stating the obvious so perhaps I'm missing something, but FDE only protects anything when a computer is off or a volume is otherwise not mounted.

Eg. your average shoulder surfing/xscreensaver unlock bypassing jerk, hacker or piece of malware isn't going to bother checking if an already mounted filesystem happens to be on an encrypted block device and voluntarily decide not to copy all your private keyfiles.

But he talks about GPG directories. And then says he uses drive encryption... To protect his passwords? No, these sentences don't make sense.

Ouch; I also run ad blockerd, or I might've tried to find a more reasonable page to post (turns out there's a decent blog post with basically the same information).

Here's a recording of what it transmits (just a carrier, probably modulated by voltage fluctuations from the solar panels as it tumbles): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxqwZ42NyLw

This is basically the crux of it:

"You gave me the rights to produce a project without giving me the rights any downstream recipient needed to do the same thing. I made it clear that that wasn't going to work, and you made it clear that you weren't going to clarify your policy."