csirac2

9 ms·

31.
by csirac2 11y ago
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 clea
32.
by csirac2 11y ago
Well, no. I think what Matt is talking about here is Canonical slapping Ubuntu's trademark policies all over something that is largely derived from other people's software . Hence the fine line of having some pretense of complyin
33.
by csirac2 11y ago
From [1]: "Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need
34.
Free software that is impractical to redistribute, isn't (Canonical IP policy)(mjg59.dreamwidth.org)
3 points by csirac2 11y ago|5 comments
35.
by csirac2 11y ago
That sounds fantastic. I no longer work in bioinformatics but regularly keep in touch with some of my old colleagues. Definitely going to speak in person about this with them.
36.
by csirac2 11y ago
I think you underestimate the diversity of genome research activities, technologies and methods out there :) It's such an incredibly fragmented field; sure, many ad-hoc pipelines eventually become productized beyond a pile of scripts a
37.
by csirac2 11y ago
I love her work, QubesOS is great. Yet it never ceases to amaze me how few citations there are to other academic work in this domain :) "Provably" secure operating systems seem to go back to at least the 1960s in the literature. B
38.
Intel x86 considered harmful (Joanna Rutkowska) [pdf](blog.invisiblethings.org)
1 points by csirac2 11y ago|2 comments
39.
by csirac2 11y ago
I think focusing on the intelligence aspects is a bit of a distraction. The court in question was asked whether there was a case to be heard at all ("does this safe harbor thing really do what it says on the tin?") and the outcome
40.
by csirac2 11y ago
A big part of the decision was actually a bit more mundane - the fact that EU citizens couldn't access the same legal recourse for a breach with foreign operators under safe harbor as they could for EU ones. And so the safe harbor agre
41.
by csirac2 11y ago
Unikernel frameworks like Mirage either provide all those features, or in the case of drivers, are just targeting virtio/veth/etc. paravirtualized devices offered by the hypervisor. So the domU doesn't have any abstraction to
42.
by csirac2 11y ago
I'm no stranger to the GPL. I had a project which spent 9 months arguing with legal in a large institution to support 6 months work involving an independent open source contractor to work on a GPL'd thing. But it is a restrictive
43.
by csirac2 11y ago
It seems the ECJ has plenty of room to invalidate the invalidation [1], but I find this case fascinating in that the courts may be put into an impossible situation of reconciling civilian privacy law against foreign intelligence activities
44.
by csirac2 11y ago
Both are to blame. Neither are to blame. Much of the success of Linux has been attributed to the GPL. It certainly had a role to play in opening up WRT firmware. The truth is that the GPL is a pretty restrictive license. I don't think
45.
Full Duplex Radios – throughput gain for 802.11ac (2013) [pdf](web.stanford.edu)
1 points by csirac2 11y ago|0 comments
46.
by csirac2 11y ago
> I wanted to know why I couldn’t work out how much food (carbohydrate) I was about to eat, measure my blood glucose, and then calculate my insulin dose based on those and other factors. Ouch. I suppose carb ratios weren't so big
47.
by csirac2 11y ago
If you can bring yourself to get past the SDx marketing bandwagon, the paper covers multi-battery and multi-chemistry systems. Laptops aren't the obvious use-case for this. Given that Tesla is involved, they're thinking more along
48.
by csirac2 11y ago
Statistically though, these approaches can really reduce cycle count - even if they sometimes get it wrong. But it's not just anticipating demands by learning past behaviour. There's also the problem in any multi-battery system (w
49.
by csirac2 11y ago
This is a useful [white]paper in the sense that it has everything in one place, but the disgusting overuse of "software-defined" means I had to overcome a fully pegged internal B.S. meter while trying to read it. What I mean is: s
50.
by csirac2 11y ago
FWIW there's a recap in Ars with a response from the FCC. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/09/fcc-op...
51.
by csirac2 11y ago
> ...makes me wonder about the future, since the trend for pretty much every category of device is towards "cheaper/integrated products". You mention that some SoCs blur the lines already. Yes, that's a legitimate c
52.
by csirac2 11y ago
FCC is talking about the radio firmware blobs which drive the radio MCU/DSP chip. That is where you have the capability to drive the device out-of-spec. Not (necessarily) the Linux environment it is being driven from. This is a discr
53.
by csirac2 11y ago
> Are you saying the manufacturers will come up with some way of locking down their radio firmware that still permits something like OpenWRT to be installed on a router (or Linux on a laptop, for that matter)? Why would they bother when
54.
by csirac2 11y ago
The economics of farming certainly do seem different in the US. Is land really that much cheaper/higher-yielding? Is that why hobby farms in the US can break-even on such small areas? Or is the difference just in the subsidies they get
55.
by csirac2 11y ago
> Which, in practice, includes the OS of a laptop or the firmware of a router, as discussed in the article. The article is continuing to imply that the FCC is explicitly banning alt firmware for 5GHz WiFi devices. That is only the case i
56.
by csirac2 11y ago
Contrary to the common interpretation, I've yet to see where in the new rules it is required that manufacturers implementing the new 5GHz U-NII device software security requirements is required to forbid 3rd-party firmware. Yes, there
57.
by csirac2 11y ago
This goes beyond just frequency and power conformance. There's power negotiation, interference avoidance, instantaneous occupied bandwidth, instantaneous vs average power limits, spread spectrum/freq hopping performance, radar avo
58.
by csirac2 11y ago
Do you have a link for that? I'd like to see it... It's the very same document - I'd encourage everyone to read it in full. There are only 3 pages of content after all: "Software Security Requirements for U-NII
59.
by csirac2 11y ago
The FCC responded to Ars saying that the line about DD-WRT was clumsily worded. I'm under the impression that if the OEM/importer demonstrates in their filing that their proof of conformance documentation will always be representa
60.
by csirac2 11y ago
FWIW I haven't seen anything in the new rules (admittedly I have focused on SDR and U-NII regs) which pretends to cover anything but intentional radiators (i.e. transmitters).

More ›