The KRACK vulnerability was fixed on every OS before it was made public. That was the whole prerequisite to it being made public. You might as well congratulate your girlfriend on waiting to get an STD until after she had sex.
All harassment is, by definition, repetitive. All correct definitions of the word require the behavior to be repetitive. It is literally the definition of the word. Again, claiming a single incident can qualify is an attempt to redefine the word. It would be like if I called you intelligent; I would be attempting to use it to mean moron, but I would be using the word incorrectly. You would continue to be a moron.
"So it made sense for OEMs to make sure Windows ran well, even if other OSs didn't."
This had nothing to do with the hardware "running well" and is strictly about drivers (software.) Secure boot is an optional UEFI module. You can have UEFI without secure boot. Also, UEFI is software, not hardware. It offers the same features for Linux as Windows, and there are Linux distributions that support it. Winmodems were "Windows Only" because of lack of documentation and drivers; there was nothing about the hardware that made it work better with Windows than any other OS. In every case it was about getting software to support the hardware. At no time did a hardware engineer say "hey, we should do it this way so Windows works better" because, again, software supports hardware (or not), not the other way around.
You are clearly one of those easily confused people who didn't notice when Microsoft starting trying to make it the hardware's fault when they didn't support it properly. "Do ARM processors support Windows?" News Flash: There is no processor technology that supports a particular OS. Originally VAX was designed so that VMS could support virtual addressing in hardware, but there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING about Windows that is innovative, or that Intel considered when designing their processors. They have processor technologies the OS is free to leverage, not techniques that leverage software. Saying they "support Windows" better is stupid, and ignores the fact that Linux, the BSDs, and MacOS are far superior systems.
My point is people are trying to say it is automatically sexual harassment, but again, harassment is a pattern not an incident. The idea that "people feel they can't say no" and that is the problem of the pursuer rather than the pursued is ludicrous. Even prostitutes can say no.
Hardware wasn't optimized to run Windows. That is ridiculous. I would agree with the other stuff you said of course, but keeping x86 / UEFI doesn't encourage lockdown either. The point is lockdown is a function of marketing and politics that leverages consumer ignorance, and is not tied to any processor.
There is no cut and dry black and white to any of this. I know of people who are married with children who met in that environment. Love is not scientific and it doesn't follow rules. Every time you try to lay out rules that apply you will necessarily fail. Many bosses have met and married their employees for example. It's not the scenario it's the people. Women have also warned to men they initially wouldn't consider, and gone cold on men they were totally into. Life doesn't work by rules.
They had a license, but they didn't use it. They violated the terms so the license is null and void in this case. Tanenbaum is wrong when he says it is proof the license confers maximum benefit, since again, they didn't adhere to the terms of the license.
He has already publicly stated he had no idea the code was being used and that they contacted him for support which he would not have given if he knew what it was for, so no need to ask what has already been proffered.
I think the big win here is that Intel is distributing license violating code in an encrypted form and now the question is what other violations are there. Since the only way to determine that is to give access to the decryption mechanism to actually be able to look at it....you see where I'm going with this.
Sure, but there is no law against changing ones mind. If enough people were to talk to Tanenbaum about why it actually IS a big deal he might be persuaded. They DiD for a fact violate. Tanenbaum can choose to do nothing, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. A thief who gets a pass from the victim is still a thief even if he never gets prosecuted for the crime.
You should have logged in. You could have won the internet in the "Most Stupid and Misinformed Post" category. Hint: Tanenbaum argued that Linux should take the Minix / Microkernel approach which Linux rejected in favor of a monolithic approach.
The locking down on ARM has nothing to do with any limitations of UEFI on ARM. It was a move by Microsoft... a choice to remove choice... because they knew they could get away with it. They can do it on x86 just as easily from a technical perspective and many of us expect them to in the not too distant future if they think they can get away with it.
First of all Spacey's case would be pedophelia, and any of the cases where there was forced sex would be rape. Sexual harassment involved harassment. While rape can be a single incident harassment must occur over a period of time by definition.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. That's still software not supporting the hardware. There is no end run around it.
Yeah ... that's the point.
Great. Now if you would just take the final step and go "no computer" we would all appreciate it. Thanks.
The KRACK vulnerability was fixed on every OS before it was made public. That was the whole prerequisite to it being made public. You might as well congratulate your girlfriend on waiting to get an STD until after she had sex.
All harassment is, by definition, repetitive. All correct definitions of the word require the behavior to be repetitive. It is literally the definition of the word. Again, claiming a single incident can qualify is an attempt to redefine the word. It would be like if I called you intelligent; I would be attempting to use it to mean moron, but I would be using the word incorrectly. You would continue to be a moron.
And yet it isn't sexual harassment unless, as was my original point, you change the definition of harassment. As always, you are a fucking idiot.
This had nothing to do with the hardware "running well" and is strictly about drivers (software.) Secure boot is an optional UEFI module. You can have UEFI without secure boot. Also, UEFI is software, not hardware. It offers the same features for Linux as Windows, and there are Linux distributions that support it. Winmodems were "Windows Only" because of lack of documentation and drivers; there was nothing about the hardware that made it work better with Windows than any other OS. In every case it was about getting software to support the hardware. At no time did a hardware engineer say "hey, we should do it this way so Windows works better" because, again, software supports hardware (or not), not the other way around.
You are clearly one of those easily confused people who didn't notice when Microsoft starting trying to make it the hardware's fault when they didn't support it properly. "Do ARM processors support Windows?" News Flash: There is no processor technology that supports a particular OS. Originally VAX was designed so that VMS could support virtual addressing in hardware, but there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING about Windows that is innovative, or that Intel considered when designing their processors. They have processor technologies the OS is free to leverage, not techniques that leverage software. Saying they "support Windows" better is stupid, and ignores the fact that Linux, the BSDs, and MacOS are far superior systems.
Do me a favor. The next time you see a post from me just keep moving. You've wasted enough of my time with your asinine posts.
My point is people are trying to say it is automatically sexual harassment, but again, harassment is a pattern not an incident. The idea that "people feel they can't say no" and that is the problem of the pursuer rather than the pursued is ludicrous. Even prostitutes can say no.
Your last name wouldn't be "withyourcockout" by any chance would it?
That's my point dumbfuck.
Hardware wasn't optimized to run Windows. That is ridiculous. I would agree with the other stuff you said of course, but keeping x86 / UEFI doesn't encourage lockdown either. The point is lockdown is a function of marketing and politics that leverages consumer ignorance, and is not tied to any processor.
There is no cut and dry black and white to any of this. I know of people who are married with children who met in that environment. Love is not scientific and it doesn't follow rules. Every time you try to lay out rules that apply you will necessarily fail. Many bosses have met and married their employees for example. It's not the scenario it's the people. Women have also warned to men they initially wouldn't consider, and gone cold on men they were totally into. Life doesn't work by rules.
I bet it's not the only time she used it to help her to cheat.
I'm guessing you aren't a runner. Running with a large phone in your pocket is, shall we say, less than ideal.
He doesn't care who knows his name. Haven't you Hurd? :^)
They had a license, but they didn't use it. They violated the terms so the license is null and void in this case. Tanenbaum is wrong when he says it is proof the license confers maximum benefit, since again, they didn't adhere to the terms of the license.
He has already publicly stated he had no idea the code was being used and that they contacted him for support which he would not have given if he knew what it was for, so no need to ask what has already been proffered.
I think the big win here is that Intel is distributing license violating code in an encrypted form and now the question is what other violations are there. Since the only way to determine that is to give access to the decryption mechanism to actually be able to look at it ....you see where I'm going with this.
Sure, but there is no law against changing ones mind. If enough people were to talk to Tanenbaum about why it actually IS a big deal he might be persuaded. They DiD for a fact violate. Tanenbaum can choose to do nothing, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. A thief who gets a pass from the victim is still a thief even if he never gets prosecuted for the crime.
You should have logged in. You could have won the internet in the "Most Stupid and Misinformed Post" category. Hint: Tanenbaum argued that Linux should take the Minix / Microkernel approach which Linux rejected in favor of a monolithic approach.
The locking down on ARM has nothing to do with any limitations of UEFI on ARM. It was a move by Microsoft ... a choice to remove choice ... because they knew they could get away with it. They can do it on x86 just as easily from a technical perspective and many of us expect them to in the not too distant future if they think they can get away with it.
First of all Spacey's case would be pedophelia, and any of the cases where there was forced sex would be rape. Sexual harassment involved harassment. While rape can be a single incident harassment must occur over a period of time by definition.
Once again you show that you know nothing about net neutrality.