Or perhaps they know what science is about, but considered any attempt to condense it into a short video that would meet their brief to be a futile effort. Most careers, presented honestly, look very unappealing. Science consists of many hours of stareing at screens, examining numbers and writing papers - at the end of which you have a very slim chance of making a major breakthrough and going down in history, and a much higher chance of one day having a newly discovered species of nematode named in your honor.
I notice that the F is for 'fair' not 'free.' Noncommercial users, espicially free software, tend to get excluded as they can't afford the royalty. This is why Firefox doesn't support h264 video.
Thick and yellow sounds like a modified form of processed cheese with an unthickening agent (Canola oil maybe) to make it easier to handle. Much like one of those cheese-in-a-can products which, not being in the US, I have never had the misfortune to encounter. If I am correct, then the production process does involve cheese, in the distant ancestry of the product you sold.
Of course it's a conspiracy. That doesn't mean it's wrong. Those conspiracy nutters can be so crazy, when a real conspiracy comes along people tend to reject the idea out of hand.
You want the purpose stated? Ok. I believe that the reason Microsoft is promoting Secure Boot is because it raises barriers to installing an OS that isn't supported by the OEM. Barriers that are trivial to a large OS vendor, but a serious impediment to niche players. I also believe that Microsoft is playing somewhat fair right now, by mandating that users do have the option of disabling secure boot and running the signing service, but that there is no guarantee they will continue to do so in future - and, once the technology is established, it would be in their own best interest (from a purely business point of view) to change their policy in these areas. I also believe that this new policy was inspired by the success of tablets, which have shown that locked-down hardware designed to be capable of running only an approved OS can still be accepted by the majority of users and achieve commercial success. Thus the requirement that Windows on ARM not only be locked using the ARM equivilent of Secure Boot, but that the user not be giving any access to remove this lock - just as is currently the case in almost all smartphones and tablets. I support of this I point out that the security benefits of secure boot could be achieved in a far simpler manner (simple read-only flagging on sensitive areas of storage that could only be disabled through the EFI configuration, or a hash of the bootloader code taken before loading which will cause a warning upon modification and require manual acceptance of the new value) without the need to impose a key signing and OEM-endorsement-of-OS mechanism that creates this undesireable market distortion, and that were security alone the true intent of Secure Boot then this would have been the approach taken. Intel may have started with on Secure Boot with good intentions, but Microsoft realised they could turn the technology into a new way to hinder their competition.
Something like a config option - 'Enable OS installation for one boot cycle.'
If the purpose of secureboot were just to secure the boot process, that's all it'd take. The whole system of key signing is a rather obvious attempt to squeeze all the little players out of the game so the big boys can seize more power and profits.
They can use their own keys, yes - but then they have to convince every OEM to include support for those keys in their computer firmware. A giant like Red Hat may be able to pull that off with some of them, but the smaller and niche single-purpose distros wouldn't have a hope. Just imagine a five-man team of noncommercial hobbyists writing to the likes of Dell and asking for their key to be incorporated in future laptops... they wouldn't even get a reply.
The MBR lock actually only works for OSs that go through the BIOS calls. That means DOS and... well, that means DOS. The MBR-infecting viruses dated from the DOS days and spread via infected floppy. Leave one in your drive when you turn on the computer and it'd write to your MBR, and then to any floppy inserted.
Somehow I doubt that division gets much respect within Microsoft. The XBox may be a success, but less so Zune, and Windows mobile. Be it smartphone or tablet, Microsoft barely exists in that field.
Apple is antitrust-proof because they don't control upwards of ninety percent of a market like MS do with desktop OSs. The biggest concern of antitrust is using market dominance in one area to forcibly dominate in another - the textbook (literally, used in textbooks) example being Microsoft using their dominance of desktop OSs to promote their web browser so effectively they they all but destroyed any competition. The iPhone may be the single most popular smartphone, but it still makes up less than half of smartphones in use - and if they don't have a dominant position, they can't be accused of abusing it.
My parents kept catching me too, so they started taking away the light-bulb. Then I got a lamp, and they took that. I got a torch under the covers, and they found it. Eventually I learned to read by the faint glow of the sodium streetlight - with eyes fully dark-adjusted, just about bright enough to make out words.
"If you had kids WITHOUT understanding that the next 20-25 years of your life were going to be about them, and not you, you're an idiot."
But a lot of people *are* idiots. Plenty of unwanted children around ("I didn't know you had to take the pill every day!"), as well as plenty of people who just got caught up in the romantic dream of a happy family life to the point they didn't realise it wouldn't always be a joy.
"Also, it's not like someone's pushing porn or pictures of dead bodies on the kids." On the internet? There are no obvious cues of age. People do not realise kids are kids, and so they do not receive the effect of the Great Taboo from the real world that causes all explicit or sexual subjects to be dropped upon their arrival. There are plenty of places on the internet where porn is exchanged quite casually.
Their capabilities may be limited, but do not underestimate their persistence. How many hours are they willing to spend going through pages of results looking for a site not blocked?
That sounds though like just the type of thing Microsoft may use as an excuse to refuse to sign, and they control the one key that you can be confident all computers will accept.
Except that it *isn't* for DoD stuff or mainframes or even virtual machines (Where it'd be utterly useless anyway, as the host could twiddle whatever bits it wanted in the VM memory at any time). Microsoft are mandating that Secure Boot be available and enabled by default on all Windows 8 OEM machines, including those sold to people for home use.
A more accurate translation would be 'murder.' Many later translations actually use that word. There is a difference: Kill would be a blanket prohibition, while murder accepts that killing may not be murder if a more specific law states that it is not. The old testament has plenty of those.
The more cynical might render it as 'Thou Shalt Not Kill Without My Permission.'
In order to compete with Microsoft, they have to beg Microsoft to sign their bootloader? UEFI's secure boot was dubious idea at best, and Microsoft has just hijacked it into a way to greatly inconvenience all the competition under the excuse of security against a threat that barely exists. Red Hat and Fedora might be able to jump through these hoops and beg Microsoft for permission to compete (Which I sure will involve a hefty signing fee for 'administrative costs') but how are the hundreds of smaller distros and niche distros supposed to exist? Right now the only concession made to them is that Microsoft generously permits for secure boot to be disabled (though only on x86, not ARM) - and who here trusts them not to reverse that policy in a few years?
It is the bootloader that needs signing. The problem is that any bootloader capable of loading more than one (signed) kernel would defeat the purpose of secureboot. I mean the official purpose, protection against rootkits, not the actual purpose.
Such an architecture could be useful for implimenting a fixed network for hardware acceleration. You could run your network in software on a supercomputer for a few months to train it, then write the weights into a hardware chip as you describe. But for AI purposes, it's important that the network be able to learn - which means at the very least changing weights, and ideally the ability to form new connections. So you need a nightmare-to-design interconnect, and it must be self-modifying.
I can see uses for the train-software-run-hardware idea though. Simple little things, like a component for phones and cameras that detects faces fast and low-power enough to run the autofocus even on video. Or a 'find the road signs' chip in a self-driving car. Or a UAV's self-stabilizing control.
The 'China does best' is just in relation to China's well-deserved reputation as a major manufacturer of counterfeit goods and low-cost imitations of successful products. As the companies being coppied from are not Chinese, the government sees no reason to spend too much money on policing this particular crime.
Slashdot Mirror
Or perhaps they know what science is about, but considered any attempt to condense it into a short video that would meet their brief to be a futile effort. Most careers, presented honestly, look very unappealing. Science consists of many hours of stareing at screens, examining numbers and writing papers - at the end of which you have a very slim chance of making a major breakthrough and going down in history, and a much higher chance of one day having a newly discovered species of nematode named in your honor.
I notice that the F is for 'fair' not 'free.' Noncommercial users, espicially free software, tend to get excluded as they can't afford the royalty. This is why Firefox doesn't support h264 video.
Thick and yellow sounds like a modified form of processed cheese with an unthickening agent (Canola oil maybe) to make it easier to handle. Much like one of those cheese-in-a-can products which, not being in the US, I have never had the misfortune to encounter. If I am correct, then the production process does involve cheese, in the distant ancestry of the product you sold.
Of course it's a conspiracy. That doesn't mean it's wrong. Those conspiracy nutters can be so crazy, when a real conspiracy comes along people tend to reject the idea out of hand.
You want the purpose stated? Ok. I believe that the reason Microsoft is promoting Secure Boot is because it raises barriers to installing an OS that isn't supported by the OEM. Barriers that are trivial to a large OS vendor, but a serious impediment to niche players. I also believe that Microsoft is playing somewhat fair right now, by mandating that users do have the option of disabling secure boot and running the signing service, but that there is no guarantee they will continue to do so in future - and, once the technology is established, it would be in their own best interest (from a purely business point of view) to change their policy in these areas. I also believe that this new policy was inspired by the success of tablets, which have shown that locked-down hardware designed to be capable of running only an approved OS can still be accepted by the majority of users and achieve commercial success. Thus the requirement that Windows on ARM not only be locked using the ARM equivilent of Secure Boot, but that the user not be giving any access to remove this lock - just as is currently the case in almost all smartphones and tablets. I support of this I point out that the security benefits of secure boot could be achieved in a far simpler manner (simple read-only flagging on sensitive areas of storage that could only be disabled through the EFI configuration, or a hash of the bootloader code taken before loading which will cause a warning upon modification and require manual acceptance of the new value) without the need to impose a key signing and OEM-endorsement-of-OS mechanism that creates this undesireable market distortion, and that were security alone the true intent of Secure Boot then this would have been the approach taken. Intel may have started with on Secure Boot with good intentions, but Microsoft realised they could turn the technology into a new way to hinder their competition.
Something like a config option - 'Enable OS installation for one boot cycle.'
If the purpose of secureboot were just to secure the boot process, that's all it'd take. The whole system of key signing is a rather obvious attempt to squeeze all the little players out of the game so the big boys can seize more power and profits.
They can use their own keys, yes - but then they have to convince every OEM to include support for those keys in their computer firmware. A giant like Red Hat may be able to pull that off with some of them, but the smaller and niche single-purpose distros wouldn't have a hope. Just imagine a five-man team of noncommercial hobbyists writing to the likes of Dell and asking for their key to be incorporated in future laptops... they wouldn't even get a reply.
"So turn off UEFI Secure Boot."
And how long before Microsoft and/or the OEMs start saying you can't do that?
The MBR lock actually only works for OSs that go through the BIOS calls. That means DOS and... well, that means DOS. The MBR-infecting viruses dated from the DOS days and spread via infected floppy. Leave one in your drive when you turn on the computer and it'd write to your MBR, and then to any floppy inserted.
Somehow I doubt that division gets much respect within Microsoft. The XBox may be a success, but less so Zune, and Windows mobile. Be it smartphone or tablet, Microsoft barely exists in that field.
Apple is antitrust-proof because they don't control upwards of ninety percent of a market like MS do with desktop OSs. The biggest concern of antitrust is using market dominance in one area to forcibly dominate in another - the textbook (literally, used in textbooks) example being Microsoft using their dominance of desktop OSs to promote their web browser so effectively they they all but destroyed any competition. The iPhone may be the single most popular smartphone, but it still makes up less than half of smartphones in use - and if they don't have a dominant position, they can't be accused of abusing it.
My parents kept catching me too, so they started taking away the light-bulb. Then I got a lamp, and they took that. I got a torch under the covers, and they found it. Eventually I learned to read by the faint glow of the sodium streetlight - with eyes fully dark-adjusted, just about bright enough to make out words.
Today, I wear -5.00-strength glasses.
"If you had kids WITHOUT understanding that the next 20-25 years of your life were going to be about them, and not you, you're an idiot."
But a lot of people *are* idiots. Plenty of unwanted children around ("I didn't know you had to take the pill every day!"), as well as plenty of people who just got caught up in the romantic dream of a happy family life to the point they didn't realise it wouldn't always be a joy.
Just wait until they do the project on birds.
He'll last about a day in the real world then. Lying is an essential life skill.
"Also, it's not like someone's pushing porn or pictures of dead bodies on the kids." On the internet? There are no obvious cues of age. People do not realise kids are kids, and so they do not receive the effect of the Great Taboo from the real world that causes all explicit or sexual subjects to be dropped upon their arrival. There are plenty of places on the internet where porn is exchanged quite casually.
Their capabilities may be limited, but do not underestimate their persistence. How many hours are they willing to spend going through pages of results looking for a site not blocked?
That sounds though like just the type of thing Microsoft may use as an excuse to refuse to sign, and they control the one key that you can be confident all computers will accept.
Except that it *isn't* for DoD stuff or mainframes or even virtual machines (Where it'd be utterly useless anyway, as the host could twiddle whatever bits it wanted in the VM memory at any time). Microsoft are mandating that Secure Boot be available and enabled by default on all Windows 8 OEM machines, including those sold to people for home use.
That sounds plausible.
A more accurate translation would be 'murder.' Many later translations actually use that word. There is a difference: Kill would be a blanket prohibition, while murder accepts that killing may not be murder if a more specific law states that it is not. The old testament has plenty of those.
The more cynical might render it as 'Thou Shalt Not Kill Without My Permission.'
In order to compete with Microsoft, they have to beg Microsoft to sign their bootloader? UEFI's secure boot was dubious idea at best, and Microsoft has just hijacked it into a way to greatly inconvenience all the competition under the excuse of security against a threat that barely exists. Red Hat and Fedora might be able to jump through these hoops and beg Microsoft for permission to compete (Which I sure will involve a hefty signing fee for 'administrative costs') but how are the hundreds of smaller distros and niche distros supposed to exist? Right now the only concession made to them is that Microsoft generously permits for secure boot to be disabled (though only on x86, not ARM) - and who here trusts them not to reverse that policy in a few years?
It is the bootloader that needs signing. The problem is that any bootloader capable of loading more than one (signed) kernel would defeat the purpose of secureboot. I mean the official purpose, protection against rootkits, not the actual purpose.
Such an architecture could be useful for implimenting a fixed network for hardware acceleration. You could run your network in software on a supercomputer for a few months to train it, then write the weights into a hardware chip as you describe. But for AI purposes, it's important that the network be able to learn - which means at the very least changing weights, and ideally the ability to form new connections. So you need a nightmare-to-design interconnect, and it must be self-modifying.
I can see uses for the train-software-run-hardware idea though. Simple little things, like a component for phones and cameras that detects faces fast and low-power enough to run the autofocus even on video. Or a 'find the road signs' chip in a self-driving car. Or a UAV's self-stabilizing control.
The 'China does best' is just in relation to China's well-deserved reputation as a major manufacturer of counterfeit goods and low-cost imitations of successful products. As the companies being coppied from are not Chinese, the government sees no reason to spend too much money on policing this particular crime.