kevinoid

Could someone clarify: What's the standard? Is it adopting EFF's DNT policy https://www.eff.org/dnt-policy? Is it hosting any privacy policy at /.well-known/dnt-policy.txt? Do any tools or browsers use that URL or display it to users? Has anyone else adopted this standard?

I don't understand the advantages, could you clarify?

- In what way are RESTyped definitions lighter? A Swagger definition is just a JSON or YAML file and can be used without shipping any additional code (e.g. by https://github.com/swagger-api/swagger-js).

- Swagger only requires a build step when the definition is used to generate code. Definitions can be distributed via NPM (e.g. https://www.npmjs.com/package/appveyor-swagger).

Edit: I realized you were talking about RESTyped being lighter/nobuild compared to Swagger Codegen specifically for TypeScript because it is written in TypeScript. Seems reasonable.

It looks like the FICLONE ioctl was chosen over the copy_file_range syscall[1] for use in coreutils due to concerns about copy_file_range not preserving holes.[2] I agree, it would be interesting to know how these compare, both in filesystem implementation coverage and performance.

1. https://lwn.net/Articles/659523/

2. https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=24399

Sometimes. It depends whether you have the time[1] package installed.

1. https://packages.debian.org/sid/time

This is a great list, it looks useful!

In addition to clib[1] mentioned in this list, there's also CCAN[2]. It's another collection of small C libraries, but unlike clib and this list, the libraries are maintained as a single project (for better or worse).

I'd love to see some more convergence on library search and package management for C. I was glad to see clib and CCAN consider coordinating.[3] Hopefully that effort will eventually bear fruit.

1. https://github.com/clibs/clib 2. https://ccodearchive.net/ 3. https://github.com/clibs/clib/issues/69

For those interested in commemorating in person, there are events planned in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, NYC, and SF https://info.thoughtworks.com/celebrate-aaron-2016 and Seattle https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/celebrate-aaron-swartz-2016

The standardized ones are described in the Shell & Utilities section of POSIX:2008/SUSv4 online at http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/

Are you referring to https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=708423 ? If so, it was fixed in December 2013 and doesn't affect the current Debian release (Jessie), although it does affect the previous release (Wheezy) and there is an open request to backport the fix https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=781496

This is an elegant solution with a lot of good properties: Equal population balancing, politically unbiased, reasonably understandable by the layman, typically geographically compact districts. But where's the discussion of the desirable and undesirable properties in a districting algorithm and how this algorithm achieves or doesn't achieve these properties?

specialist already mentioned maximal competetiveness, ROFISH mentioned clustering due to natural features. Is regional or ethnic representation important, or is it an undesirable bias? How about travel distance (either for voters or campaigners)? I'm sure you guys can think of others you'd like to see or to avoid. Feel free to suggest some, I'm curious.

There is a little more information at http://rangevoting.org/SplitLR.html but did I miss the real weighing of the tradeoffs and advocacy for this particular method above all others?

Edit: Found a discussion of the theoretical issues at http://rangevoting.org/TheorDistrict.html which touches on some, but not all of the points raised.

In addition to several of the ones already mentioned by others, I'd include Free as in Freedom - http://faif.us/ - It covers legal and policy issues in technology (particularly FOSS), rather than technology directly, but I think it fits your question. I find it provides some good depth on issues that aren't covered as fully or as often as on other podcasts, if you are interested in legal issues.

Could anyone comment on how this compares to The Linux Documentation Project <http://tldp.org/>? It seems like there's a lot of overlap in objective. Why was it necessary to create a competing project (if it is competing) rather than combine effort on expanding TLDP?

I feel your pain. I actually ported Duplicity to Windows about 3 years ago for a client, but the code was never merged (or commented on).[1]

In the end, that client decided that it was easier to use a commercial package, given their typical use case. Tried Carbonite (didn't work, support unhelpful) but settled on JungleDisk. YMMV.

1. https://code.launchpad.net/~kevinoid/duplicity/windows-port

> The spec says you must be able to change it.

This is true for x86, ARM has the opposite requirement. Presumably esolyt was referring to the Windows 8 Hardware Certification Requirements: Client and Server Systems[1] which state "On an ARM system, it is forbidden to enable Custom Mode." and "Disabling Secure Boot must not be possible on ARM systems." (page 122) which prevents booting to an OS not signed by Microsoft.

1. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/hh7...

Sure. How about adding "This does not require registration in advance." (Or "previous registration" or "a previous account" or whatever is clearest). The problem is users searching for "Create Account" instead of "Sign In" when there is no "Create Account".

Edit: Sorry, on review this post was tangential to the point to which you were responding (about why the email is needed). It was targeted more at the point about user confusion by the login process.

You can be "personally in control of the trusted root CA" using SecureBoot. Just replace the Platform Key with your own key.[1] Or am I misunderstanding your objection?

1. http://blog.hansenpartnership.com/owning-your-windows-8-uefi...