So in other words, everyone should bend over and take it now that MS has taken control of all desktop PCs for the purpose of laying another speedbump in front of pirates (who are just more likely to switch to something else?) And Linux should handicap itself to make it more convenient for Microsoft? The Linux kernel changes fast, sometimes there are vulnerabilities in it, Linux shouldn't have to slow itself to a glacial pace on par with commercial OSes to make MS' conquest easier. Microsoft should just ditch the requirement for secure boot by default, and man up and accept that they don't get root on the world's PCs to deal with pirates, just like everybody else.
Fair enough but I don't consider secure boot to be a "nice thing." This whole situation is awful and unnecessary, MS has backed the makers of all non-commercial OSes into a corner to deal with a vanishingly rare threat, and if MS thought a secured bootloader could have any impact on piracy they're dumber than I thought.
I wonder if his gimmick was being an annoying gay porn deity who randomly showed up to mess with the protagonists or a purveyor of fancy gay porn-related gadgets.
"Be careful with this, agent Hunkyman, be sure to keep it well-lubricated while operating. Now for some training, I will be your target..."
The more enlightened countries of the world should pool their resources to build a secret satellite that can project huge images on the moon, and will run Muslim-offensive material directed at the more backwards parts of the world until the extremists have all been desensitized to offense towards their religion. We'll start with simple, non-offensive stick-figures labelled "The Prophet Mohammed" just flashed once a week, and move onto stuff like this running all night long until the riots stop:
And what will the average noob user do? Hit Enter to use their computer or use a Windows recovery disk* to fix the bootloader? And if they do hit Enter and the computer apparently works fine, what do you think they'll do then?
*Not sold with many PCs, must be burned from the hard disk
They didn't seem to have any problem setting up boot sector viruses without UEFI secure boot, so if they can get a signed bootloader, why should they now? And signing the startup chain will remove even MORE user freedoms, it's a chicken-and-egg problem that won't end until the OS is at least as locked down as iOS.
Boot sector viruses are the rarest form of virus, require root permissions to infect, and aren't especially hard to remove. And we've handed over a big chunk of freedom and made things worse for everyone to fight this minor annoyance (yeah right). This is worse than the computer equivalent of the PATRIOT act.
On servers you'll just have to disable the secure boot feature, no problem for sysadmins, and anyone running a home server should have the skill to do the same, although this could give MS and advantage on HTPCs and home servers run by noobs.
Exactly. Malware authors can use this. So we've come full-circle and only gained a big heap of complexity. Which is the best we could hope for once this idiotic idea got going.
I do consider those (although the only one I can think of that he's admitted to is gay rights). There are many areas where he hasn't practiced what he's preached but hasn't come out and said that his opinion or position has changed (transparency, war in Afghanistan, IP issues) - and I consider failure to meet a goal or hypocrisy to be worse than a (slowly or consistently) changing position.
Since you're being lazy or obtuse or looking through glasses that are rose-tinted to the point of opacity, here, have a spoon-feeding:
These are the most blatant, undeniable, concrete examples, but there are plenty more where he bends sweet lady truth into a pretzel that could be considered flip-flopping, such as:
You've been intentionally avoiding them. Tax plans, abortion, health care, opinions on the "47%," it takes a thick layer of willful ignorance or perhaps a carefully filtered media intake to not notice what he's doing.
If Romney were elected you bet he WOULD carry forward the same policies without a ton of negative press, just like Obama. Bush Jr. got so much negative press because he was the first to do these awful things, but that cherry is popped now.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought he renounced his fascist views and became more of a libertarian some time after writing Starship Troopers?
Scummiest? There's SEO, insurance, used car sales, telecoms, social media, curated computing...real estate might not be in the top 20.
So in other words, everyone should bend over and take it now that MS has taken control of all desktop PCs for the purpose of laying another speedbump in front of pirates (who are just more likely to switch to something else?) And Linux should handicap itself to make it more convenient for Microsoft? The Linux kernel changes fast, sometimes there are vulnerabilities in it, Linux shouldn't have to slow itself to a glacial pace on par with commercial OSes to make MS' conquest easier. Microsoft should just ditch the requirement for secure boot by default, and man up and accept that they don't get root on the world's PCs to deal with pirates, just like everybody else.
Fair enough but I don't consider secure boot to be a "nice thing." This whole situation is awful and unnecessary, MS has backed the makers of all non-commercial OSes into a corner to deal with a vanishingly rare threat, and if MS thought a secured bootloader could have any impact on piracy they're dumber than I thought.
Since the cover's blown maybe we can call them "muslim fetus stem cells" this time.
I wonder if his gimmick was being an annoying gay porn deity who randomly showed up to mess with the protagonists or a purveyor of fancy gay porn-related gadgets.
"Be careful with this, agent Hunkyman, be sure to keep it well-lubricated while operating. Now for some training, I will be your target..."
The Linux Foundation bought the key from Microsoft you know. It's not an unofficial workaround.
I should note that the above link is NSFW.
The more enlightened countries of the world should pool their resources to build a secret satellite that can project huge images on the moon, and will run Muslim-offensive material directed at the more backwards parts of the world until the extremists have all been desensitized to offense towards their religion. We'll start with simple, non-offensive stick-figures labelled "The Prophet Mohammed" just flashed once a week, and move onto stuff like this running all night long until the riots stop:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/
With no single place to focus their rage, they'll distribute their riots to various western embassies and should be easier to manage.
Can I haz?
And what will the average noob user do? Hit Enter to use their computer or use a Windows recovery disk* to fix the bootloader? And if they do hit Enter and the computer apparently works fine, what do you think they'll do then?
*Not sold with many PCs, must be burned from the hard disk
They didn't seem to have any problem setting up boot sector viruses without UEFI secure boot, so if they can get a signed bootloader, why should they now? And signing the startup chain will remove even MORE user freedoms, it's a chicken-and-egg problem that won't end until the OS is at least as locked down as iOS.
Boot sector viruses are the rarest form of virus, require root permissions to infect, and aren't especially hard to remove. And we've handed over a big chunk of freedom and made things worse for everyone to fight this minor annoyance (yeah right). This is worse than the computer equivalent of the PATRIOT act.
Yes you'll have to press a key to approve the Linux bootloader, every time it boots. Not kidding, RTFA.
Apple is attacking the consumer's expectation of software freedom. You can't go any lower that that without a brain implant.
On servers you'll just have to disable the secure boot feature, no problem for sysadmins, and anyone running a home server should have the skill to do the same, although this could give MS and advantage on HTPCs and home servers run by noobs.
Not yet:
https://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7702
But there's no reason it can't.
You target MS before Apple? That's like shooting at a vicious pomeranian nipping at your heels while a wolf is leaping for your throat.
Exactly. Malware authors can use this. So we've come full-circle and only gained a big heap of complexity. Which is the best we could hope for once this idiotic idea got going.
I do consider those (although the only one I can think of that he's admitted to is gay rights). There are many areas where he hasn't practiced what he's preached but hasn't come out and said that his opinion or position has changed (transparency, war in Afghanistan, IP issues) - and I consider failure to meet a goal or hypocrisy to be worse than a (slowly or consistently) changing position.
Since you're being lazy or obtuse or looking through glasses that are rose-tinted to the point of opacity, here, have a spoon-feeding:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mitt-romneys-top-contradicting-comments/story?id=14805513
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82058.html
These are the most blatant, undeniable, concrete examples, but there are plenty more where he bends sweet lady truth into a pretzel that could be considered flip-flopping, such as:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/09/mitt-romney-lies-newt-gingrich-super-pac-ads_n_1195119.html
I think we need some of that new quantum state measurement tech to figure out his position on abortion:
http://americablog.com/2012/10/romney-flip-flops-twice-on-abortion-in-one-day.html
DON'T LOOK:
https://www.google.com/search?q=romney+flip-flop
You've been intentionally avoiding them. Tax plans, abortion, health care, opinions on the "47%," it takes a thick layer of willful ignorance or perhaps a carefully filtered media intake to not notice what he's doing.
See also: Talladega Nights "how I see Jesus" scene & extras.
"I see Romney as a borderline-fascist"
"I see Romney as a moderate"
"I like to think of Romney as a libertarian"
"I always thought of him as a RINO"
Obama made concrete promises and failed to live up to them, Romney promises something different every time he opens his mouth.
If Romney were elected you bet he WOULD carry forward the same policies without a ton of negative press, just like Obama. Bush Jr. got so much negative press because he was the first to do these awful things, but that cherry is popped now.
Hope this isn't region-restricted like Amazon music store and Beatport! I could really use this!