Funny how every post that starts like this always turns out to be biased drivel filled with logical fallacies. It's usually something crazy, like claiming that your opponents are only attacking you because they secretly think you're right, or they have to be stupid to disagree with you... That's not objective, it isn't critical thinking, it isn't an intelligent argument.
This is a cop out; unless there is a simple way for users to install their own keys, this is something that will further restrict how people can use their computers.
There is. UEFI isn't new, nor is secure boot. The only thing new is MS wanting to make it . There's a process for adding keys. Or the vendor can just pay $99 to Verisign like Fedora's doing. Even if you think that isn't "simple" enough, the feature can just be disabled on x86 machines.
No, *MOTHERBOARD* manufacturers can add other keys. If you can't even boot to an alternative OS, there's no way in hell you could _CHANGE_ the damned keys, unless there was a vulnerability.
So please stop your FUD.
UEFI is the new BIOS, you don't need to boot into any alternative OS to manage it. For x86 systems, there is absolutely a means to change or add keys. This is widely-known and reported. Check your facts.
You should probably do your homework. Microsoft's key will already be on Windows 8 Ready computers, that doesn't mean they control all of the secure boot keys. Companies can generate their own keys. They can run their own key servers. This is just uninformed FUD.
Except as described in this statement, personal information you provide will not be transferred to third parties without your consent.
Skip that part?
Regardless, the GP asked for a citation of it happening, not whether or not the EULA allowed it. AFAIK, the only things that "phone home" are voluntary error reporting and WGA validation - and I remember something about the latter having been removed.
Most people complaining about DNC violations are talking about exemptions, like charities, companies you do business with or did in the last 6 months, offers from those companies' partners, etc. Legitimate businesses are pretty good about DNC - heck, a lot of them will even scrub their own internal lists against the DNC, even though they're allowed to solicit to you as a customer. There are plenty of actual violations, definitely, but getting unsolicited cold-calls is the exception.
A vendor can also run their own licensing server. Or they can provide keys for you to add. Allowing people to piggyback on their own licensing server is just a courtesy - they're not in control over secure boot keys, their key is just already present on Win8-ready computers.
they must be smoking the same waky-tabaky that Comrade Obama is smoking, that has him asserting that he's spent less than any president in modern history, or somesuch bat-s**t insane claim like that..
Off-topic, but that's a matter of easily-verified fact. Government spending is lower than is has been in the last five administrations. If you disagree with policy or actions, go right ahead, that's the point of democracy, but waving that off as "bat-s**t insane" is simply denial.
The day I go to buy a machine and find that I'm locked out of putting MY CHOICE of OS on it, is the day I get PISSED!!!
Too pissed to go into "BIOS" and turn off the secure boot feature? Because that's all you need to do.
What? It's not the cost of the OS, it's not per-machine, it's not the users paying. The company pays, once, to get their software signed. How much that cost relates to the average cost of a machine or the cost of a licensed OS is completely and utterly irrelevant.
I'd blame the drama over this just on the article, but the summary's definitely got some FUD to it as well. For x86 systems, all you need to do is turn off the feature. And that's if you insist on running unsigned software - it's not like there isn't an open and inexpensive process to get signed.
... Blackberry. Aside from encrypting phone calls themselves, everything you're asking to do is something even a basic Curve will do out of the box - encrypting the phone storage and SD card, requiring a password to install apps. And that's without using any enterprise tools to manage the devices and security policies across the board, remotely.
What's the fallacy, so that I may repair my argument?
You're not just playing the "think of the children" card, which is bad enough, but you're stretching that out another level and attributing societal instability to people getting fat off of soda and leaving their kids behind. You're not just appealing to consequences, but indirect consequences with tons of other causes and variables. You're linking large sodas to fat people, to orphans, to child neglect, to societal instability. Not everyone who drinks large sodas does so to the point of getting fat. Not every fat person dies sooner or unexpectedly. Not all fat people who do die sooner/unexpectedly have kids to leave behind. Not all of the kids left behind are done so without being provided for.
What does piss me off is Burger King. I went there and decided to get a drink with my meal and they basically don't carry anything I'd drink. I'm thirsty as hell and I'm forced to drink one of their awful choices. I'm not a Pepsi or Coke guy and beyond that, they had nothing diet.
Aside from finding it really hard to believe that they had nothing diet (and no sugarfree iced tea or lemonade), I'm sure they had water. Both in the machine an in bottles.
But I certainly wouldn't argue that artificial sweeteners have any high ground just because they make zero calorie drinks.
Even if it had been one modem and line, being able to use multiple channels for downstream and upstream traffic was pretty much the point of DOCSIS 3.0. Assuming the network itself has the bandwidth, getting higher speeds is really just a matter of using more lanes - for 4700 Mbps down, I think that'd be around 90. It'd be cool and all, but raising the max bandwidth of a DOCSIS 3.0 device doesn't really take much other than network capacity and a modem that will use that many channels - channel bonding isn't new.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone intelligent...
Funny how every post that starts like this always turns out to be biased drivel filled with logical fallacies. It's usually something crazy, like claiming that your opponents are only attacking you because they secretly think you're right, or they have to be stupid to disagree with you... That's not objective, it isn't critical thinking, it isn't an intelligent argument.
They don't. They can publish their own keys, they can operate their own key servers. Licensing through Verisign is just one of many options.
If each end user has to do it, then yes, it is insurmountable in practice.
Where did you even get that idea??? We're talking about the producers of the software registering a key, once. It has nothing to do with the users.
But now, the problem will involve getting the new operating system's key into the UEFI environment.
Yes, registering with MS for $99 (which goes entirely to Verisign) is an insurmountable problem.
The only thing new is MS wanting to make it a prerequisite for Win 8.*
This is a cop out; unless there is a simple way for users to install their own keys, this is something that will further restrict how people can use their computers.
There is. UEFI isn't new, nor is secure boot. The only thing new is MS wanting to make it . There's a process for adding keys. Or the vendor can just pay $99 to Verisign like Fedora's doing. Even if you think that isn't "simple" enough, the feature can just be disabled on x86 machines.
No, *MOTHERBOARD* manufacturers can add other keys. If you can't even boot to an alternative OS, there's no way in hell you could _CHANGE_ the damned keys, unless there was a vulnerability.
So please stop your FUD.
UEFI is the new BIOS, you don't need to boot into any alternative OS to manage it. For x86 systems, there is absolutely a means to change or add keys. This is widely-known and reported. Check your facts.
You should probably do your homework. Microsoft's key will already be on Windows 8 Ready computers, that doesn't mean they control all of the secure boot keys. Companies can generate their own keys. They can run their own key servers. This is just uninformed FUD.
"Microsoft Certificate Was Used To Sign Flame Malware" != "Counterfeit Microsoft Certificate Was Used To Sign Flame Malware"
Except as described in this statement, personal information you provide will not be transferred to third parties without your consent.
Skip that part?
Regardless, the GP asked for a citation of it happening, not whether or not the EULA allowed it. AFAIK, the only things that "phone home" are voluntary error reporting and WGA validation - and I remember something about the latter having been removed.
I would like to know if they will have representatives to ensure dancing does not occur.
The career placement team at Geneva College is very excited about this prospect.
I, for one, welcome (y)our new mayonnaise-on-fries-eating cover band overlords.
Most people complaining about DNC violations are talking about exemptions, like charities, companies you do business with or did in the last 6 months, offers from those companies' partners, etc. Legitimate businesses are pretty good about DNC - heck, a lot of them will even scrub their own internal lists against the DNC, even though they're allowed to solicit to you as a customer. There are plenty of actual violations, definitely, but getting unsolicited cold-calls is the exception.
Sure, maybe it's those biased liberal bastards hiding them. Or they've been doing it for years and it's no longer news.
NEWS AT 11: Woman protesters still speaking out against Afghanistan conflict that started 11 years ago, have painted new signs.
Andromeda on Collision Course With the Milky Way
I knew Kevin Sorbo couldn't drive.
A vendor can also run their own licensing server. Or they can provide keys for you to add. Allowing people to piggyback on their own licensing server is just a courtesy - they're not in control over secure boot keys, their key is just already present on Win8-ready computers.
they must be smoking the same waky-tabaky that Comrade Obama is smoking, that has him asserting that he's spent less than any president in modern history, or somesuch bat-s**t insane claim like that..
Off-topic, but that's a matter of easily-verified fact. Government spending is lower than is has been in the last five administrations. If you disagree with policy or actions, go right ahead, that's the point of democracy, but waving that off as "bat-s**t insane" is simply denial.
The day I go to buy a machine and find that I'm locked out of putting MY CHOICE of OS on it, is the day I get PISSED!!!
Too pissed to go into "BIOS" and turn off the secure boot feature? Because that's all you need to do.
it's cheaper than any realistic alternative would have been
You mean like including a switch on the motherboard that allows an OS to be installed?
But that is there. In the UEFI (read: "BIOS") settings.
What? It's not the cost of the OS, it's not per-machine, it's not the users paying. The company pays, once, to get their software signed. How much that cost relates to the average cost of a machine or the cost of a licensed OS is completely and utterly irrelevant.
I'd blame the drama over this just on the article, but the summary's definitely got some FUD to it as well. For x86 systems, all you need to do is turn off the feature. And that's if you insist on running unsigned software - it's not like there isn't an open and inexpensive process to get signed.
... Blackberry. Aside from encrypting phone calls themselves, everything you're asking to do is something even a basic Curve will do out of the box - encrypting the phone storage and SD card, requiring a password to install apps. And that's without using any enterprise tools to manage the devices and security policies across the board, remotely.
What's the fallacy, so that I may repair my argument?
You're not just playing the "think of the children" card, which is bad enough, but you're stretching that out another level and attributing societal instability to people getting fat off of soda and leaving their kids behind. You're not just appealing to consequences, but indirect consequences with tons of other causes and variables. You're linking large sodas to fat people, to orphans, to child neglect, to societal instability. Not everyone who drinks large sodas does so to the point of getting fat. Not every fat person dies sooner or unexpectedly. Not all fat people who do die sooner/unexpectedly have kids to leave behind. Not all of the kids left behind are done so without being provided for.
What does piss me off is Burger King. I went there and decided to get a drink with my meal and they basically don't carry anything I'd drink. I'm thirsty as hell and I'm forced to drink one of their awful choices. I'm not a Pepsi or Coke guy and beyond that, they had nothing diet.
Aside from finding it really hard to believe that they had nothing diet (and no sugarfree iced tea or lemonade), I'm sure they had water. Both in the machine an in bottles.
But I certainly wouldn't argue that artificial sweeteners have any high ground just because they make zero calorie drinks.
Ignoring that this is completely fallacious, you don't see the massive difference between what someone does to themselves and what they do to a child?
Even if it had been one modem and line, being able to use multiple channels for downstream and upstream traffic was pretty much the point of DOCSIS 3.0. Assuming the network itself has the bandwidth, getting higher speeds is really just a matter of using more lanes - for 4700 Mbps down, I think that'd be around 90. It'd be cool and all, but raising the max bandwidth of a DOCSIS 3.0 device doesn't really take much other than network capacity and a modem that will use that many channels - channel bonding isn't new.