You sign the new kernel with the same signing key as the previous one.
But, that's not how it works. It's the kernel loader that's signed for Secure Boot, and then the kernel loader is free to use any further verification it likes of what it loads, what it checks, and how.
Part of why Secure Boot is "no more secure" in most configurations, because you're just certified that you're booting GRUB/whatever in most circumstances, which can be misconfigured to be quite open (which is what most people want - just a way to boot a free OS using a signed bootloader).
But even if it was signed, it doesn't mean that it can't be unique to the machine in question, it's just a matter of using a chain of certificates, but that's out of "Secure Boot"'s hands and into the hands of the kernel loader configuration.
And it's STILL BORING. They all finish within hundreds of a second of each other and spend most of the race sitting waiting for a "legal" overtaking opportunity and gaming the race-order.
I'd much rather that they said "Ok, you can only use a 1.0 litre engine, whatever you get out of it, and we only have safety restrictions not any particular "type" of engine / fuel / devices". At least then the engineering has some immediate real world relevance, the cars will be within driver's skill to handle, and you might actually win based on expertise rather than carbon-copying every other car out on the track so that you all finish with the blink of an eye of each other.
Formula One is now one of the dullest "sports" I've ever witnessed, nearly on a par with cricket. Put mute on and tell me that it doesn't just look like someone parading a line of new vehicles around a test track to try to auction them off.
Boring electric vehicles that have almost no "top speed" and can accelerate faster than just about anything on the planet.
I have always suspected, and it's now being borne out, that being "into" fast cars was nothing to do with performance, or handling, or engineering. It was about making loud noises and getting dirty and feeling manly.
Now that every car on the road can do 130mph, nobody cares. Now that electric cars/bikes out-accelerate everything else, nobody cares. Now that even Harley Davidson have electric models, nobody cares.
It was never about the engineering. It was about making noise, and being seen to make noise.
Formula One is as boring as fuck, since they keep making silly rules to dial everything back to "safety". Noisy cars are boring as fuck, since every decent car is whisper silent and can out-perform all the others. Even convertibles - why on EARTH is it at all fashionable to show the world that you can't afford air-con and would rather have every bug smacking you in the face?
Fact is, the ICE's days are numbered. Environmental factors, cost, wear on parts, etc. Almost every car on the road is technically better than a Formula One car from my parent's generation. You can't really speed anyway because of the cameras, and even when you do, they are designed so that it doesn't actually feel fast at all (a dangerous combination).
How about we get over "WOAH! CARS ARE BIG AND LOUD AND NOISY AND LOOK AT ME COMING!", finally? Most kids these days have zero interest in cars, for the same reason they have zero interest in computers - the point are which they were "amazing" was in the previous generation. Now everything's a Formula 1, and you can't do anything with it.
My technician bought himself a brand new car last year. Was telling me all about specs, sporty wheels, such-and-such-a-limited-edition, etc. Spent a fortune. Turned out that, when we checked the specs, the car I had bought a few years before outperformed every spec he gave but didn't look like a terrible boy-racer tricked-out car from the 80's, could carry 5 and a ton of luggage, and was whisper-quiet internally.
Cars are no longer the must-have teenager item. They have Uber if they want to go somewhere. As such, those still clinging to that idea are clinging to a childhood, not to a fascination with engineering. We've been using sub-standard engines for decades because nobody "wanted" an electric car. Now that they do, they win on almost every metric.
P.S. I don't like electric cars, but because of practicality - purchase cost, replacement cost, range. My father was also a motor engineer for decades, built all his own tricked-out cars, did all kinds of stuff in his youth, massive garage dedicated to the hobby, etc. He bought a second-hand Volvo last year.
Cars are just utility vehicles now. And so the sporty ones make no sense. And a battery-powered Harley will beat just about anything away at the lights. Fact is, nobody really cares any more except the guy who bought the Harley because of the Harley name.
And in any decent legal system, such clauses are meaningless.
You cannot waive your statutory legal or consumer rights, and claiming that just because people could have "not bought from us" means they can never take you to court is ludicrous on the face of it.
Unfortunately, some countries just haven't yet caught on.
Not teaching religion is exactly how such ignorance can propagate. You teach religion, in part, to show that every religion claims to have the "one true God", that every religion has the same basic rules and even comparable texts, and that every religion claims to be distinct and "punish" believers of those other religions.
Education is about learning these kinds of things, maybe you would have had an epiphany earlier if it were taught properly (i.e. including multi-diety religions alongside the monotheistic ones).
But in the same way that we don't let history majors teach maths, or science teachers to teach religion, it should be ENCLOSED WITHIN THE SUBJECT. It is against the law, in my country, to put too heavy an emphasis on personal religion outside of natural classroom discussions. A science teacher who was also a creationist, for example, would not be able to teach anything other than the approved sciences. They may be able to express a personal opinion if approached, but they would not be able to launch into a long discussion with the whole class about such things.
The problem is not "religion", or teaching such. It's about separation of lessons. If your state-approved expertise is in science, and you're hired to teach science, then you teach science. If you state-approved expertise is in religion studies, and you're hired to teach religious studies, then you teach religious studies.
The creep of political influence, even parental influence (who on average are less qualified than the teachers), into what gets taught in each lesson is the problem, and illegal in many countries.
There is no way on Earth that anyone should be teaching anything about any god whatsoever in a science class. Or, if they are, science teachers should be allowed to insist that Bible lessons include sections on how much bollocks the "science" in the Bible is.
Gosh, I wonder why people don't really choose to use a browser that's a replacement for a previously atrocious browser from the same company, that was foisted upon people resulting in monopoly lawsuits, that choose just about every non-standard and insecure method of rendering a page that it possibly could, that only ever runs on a single operating system, is again bundled so you can't avoid it and pesters the shit out of you on upgrades to make it the default AGAIN, and really doesn't do anything that other browsers don't do, while also NOT doing quite a lot of things that other browsers do.
You could easily get a thousand cars in range of an ordinary wifi point. And if they're updating 10 times a second, that's a lot of bandwidth to share over unreliable channels. We're not talking about a cellular protocol which involves huge powerful masts, but a vehicle-to-vehicle protocol hosted in a metal box talking to nearby metal boxes.
However, even aside from that, if EVERY car has a transmitter and receiver for this, whether or not anything is on the same channels, someone will find an abuse for it - especially if they think it might be broadcasting their speed or location to others. And every one will implement it differently, meaning that they will be vulnerable to just the same kind of problems as Wifi has historically (e.g. de-auth attacks, etc.) as well as their own special brand of coding around it.
It's not that it won't work. It will work right up until the point that a malicious actor decides they want to interfere with it and then, being wireless, it's almost immediately useless. As specified - if you can manage to hack your own car, what's stopping it advertising - on demand - that it's about to collide with others, in an attempt to make them move out of the way, or into the path of a police car?
Unless this protocol has been designed from the ground up to account for malicious actors, compromise of one model's systems, etc. then it's useless. But it will get into the field long before it gets properly abused, when it's then much harder to fix.
I mean, you don't need to design for that, right? Just lob everything in, make it do cool stuff, wait for everyone to attack it, THEN think about how it could be misused. Then hang onto that for a few years until someone dies or people start to complain a lot, and try to retro-bolt-on some rubbish security theatre to devices already out in daily use that never talk home.
And then realise that if you have millions of cars talking together reliably, over some public frequency, it fucks up everything in a large radius, especially around things like traffic jams, and so never works as intended anyway.
Or we could just... turn the roads into private railways. Which is basically what the whole self-driving thing is aiming towards anyway.
I often run suspicious files through AV websites like TotalVirus.com
You'd be AMAZED how much old stuff sitting in my inbox for 5 years won't be picked up by big-name anti-virus suites even with "heuristics".
And if you tweak it by just one byte (e.g. javascript viruses and changing a code-path ever-so-slightly), it'll usually zoom through ALL of them.
Sorry, but AV is just a constantly out-of-date database of things that MILLIONS of people have already caught, that is used as a lookup for every file access. In terms of protecting your computer, it's useless (or WannaCry wouldn't have happened, even on non-updated machines). In terms of doing so efficiently, it's absolutely atrocious.
Which is one reason why the newer Tesla updates turn the car off if you keep ignoring it.
Seriously, in legal terms, any idiot ignoring loud visual and audio warnings is being a dickhead and will go to jail for it. There is NO warning in a car that you are "expected to ignore", and all of them you can be sent to jail for if you ignore to this extent (yes, even engine warning lights, or seatbelts, if you end up crashing). You ignore it, that's your fault for being an idiot.
And, come on, the warning was basically FUCKING DRIVE YOU IDIOT.
If you're "recreating your configuration", it means your backups are incomplete.
You have to expect to never get that item back, most thieves will just wipe it and sell it on really quickly. They are also not loathe to just destroy it if they can't get rid of it safely or if they think it might be being tracked.
If you encrypt EVERYTHING (why would you only encrypt a small part?), they can never access it. P.S. this also makes them more likely to wipe it, or just destroy it for parts.
Amazing how people miss the really simple stuff.
Thinking that even a BIOS-controlled talkback mechanism has any sort of decent success rate is really naive. Most of this stuff is never seen again.
Why would an Apple CEO have "a level of expertise" on climate?
Come to that, why would the president, either?
Neither of them should be discussing it between themselves in any serious business fashion. That's pretty much the entire problem in a nutshell.
Apple could provide computers or services that scientists could use to make a decision to inform a president's political direction. Other than that, I'm not even sure why you'd bring it up, even.
You mean the things that collapse and move all the time, like the shelf on Everest that disappeared earlier this year, and which are incredibly difficult for staff to access and get parts / repairs done up there?
Try somewhere geologically stable instead, and if you put it underground, make sure the water has a path that doesn't lead straight to your main archive. We've been mining and building cellars for millennia on city-wide scales, and always managed to work it out before.
Er... actually... almost all the recent security advice is NOT to do that with passwords. People are catching up and even domestic security agencies are recommending to stop that nonsense to government agencies, etc.
Don't write it down - that's subjective. Granddad at home, where someone burgling him will get hold of his Facebook password that's used to look at grandkid photos? Yeah, not an issue. Office workers sharing logins in an open book? Not a good idea.
In fact, I recommend that every workplace writes down all the critical passwords (domain recovery, etc.), seals them in a book (literally SEALED, shrinkwrap, signed on top of seals, etc.) and then puts it in a safe. In an emergency it's invaluable. My caveat is - if I ever discover that book open without my prior permission, or an actual emergency that leaves me incapacitated (and I will check it regularly) - I walk out the door.
So, actually, "best practice" was best practice for the time. That you don't update your best-practice knowledge is more important.
It's been YEARS since I had to slot in an expansion card or do anything particularly complicated. I specifying desktops and servers and expect my suppliers to supply the right bits (I don't mind putting them in, so long as they are certified compatible by my supplier).
However, the problem I have is with this:
"Computers just got so cheap that it's just not worth the time to fix them or upgrade them any more."
Apparently, not so. My laptop cost half the price of a MacBook, many years ago. And still out-smarts it. And can, in fact, run MacOS (with VMWare). And it does so in such a way that the MacOS runs just as fast as I've ever seen a Mac run it, while also running Windows and my other stuff in the background.
The problem I have here is that this Apple is out-gunned by an older, cheaper laptop from someone who doesn't even bother to go upgrading their hardware. The only things I've done are add a 1Tb SSD (to the second empty drive bay), and change the wireless card for an 802.11ac (from 802.11n). The RAM was maxed on purchase. I'm not even sure you can upgrade the graphics or processor, I'm not even tried to look, but I suspect it's impossible.
That's what I'm talking about when I complain about Apple. Not only are they overpriced, they are outgunned, and you can do NOTHING to fix it. Even a bog-standard laptop has more upgradeability and power, without paying anywhere near the same price. And every "unique feature" of an Apple device I can get - MacOS just runs.
I *do* manage Macs, Mac "servers" (Mac Mini's with a software upgrade, nowhere near being server-grade hardware!), blade servers, storage arrays, as well as hundreds of PCs, laptops, Chromebooks and iPads. And I still don't "get" the Apple thing at all.
I've been pressing to ditch the Apple hardware for years. We're slowly getting there as people realise we can buy 3 PC's for every Mac, 2 Chromebooks for every iPad and servers with proper hardware for every Mac Mini, and then also skip a myriad problems in the process and get hardware that works faster and harder for that price.
It's almost as powerful as the laptop I bought many years ago, though it obviously has a later generation of processor. It might even be "as upgradeable" but I think it's unlikely unless it has a SODIMM slot underneath a flap on the back of the case (you shouldn't need to "dismantle" in order to "upgrade").
You mean like EVERY OTHER TECHNOLOGY, both before and after it?
Nothing much cine-wise survives more than a generation. Even home DVD's are being lost and won't be around forever. The current generation don't even understand "storage" as being something they have in their home attic, it's all digital and all in the cloud and on throwaway devices.
And, can I just say, the other poster below has it right. Nobody really cares. There are thousands of photos in my parent's attic. I know maybe a handful of people in them. There are cine movies about protest marches that happened in the 60's, amateur shot and you wouldn't know that if someone hadn't told you who was there.
The value of most of that stuff - including sentimentality and value to nation's archive - is so minimal as to be zero. This is why people clear out dead people's houses and throw most of it away, keeping only a memento or two that they know the story of. Go to any antiques market and you'll see thousands upon thousands of old photos and postcards. They're basically valueless. And nobody buys "home" photo of someone unless it's aesthetically pleasing. Some postcard of a guy you don't know, in uniform, in the standard pose, from the first world war, literally goes for the price of the stamp on the back.
Archives wouldn't touch the vast, vast, vast majority of it. And hence most of it will always be lost. The same story since the days of the ancient Egyptians. Those people who were historically important will have stuff preserved. Everyone else is just incidental and all their possessions and records will be lost to time.
People would pay millions for a lost tape of Dr Who. Literally millions wouldn't care a jot for their own family's home movies past a generation or two. And, no, the fact they don't preserve it making them rarer doesn't mean the ones that are preserved are more valuable. Value comes from both rarity and desire for it. And nobody cares about those things.
Go look at archives like the BFI, there to preserve film from the very earliest days of recording. They have films of historical interest. That's about it. Really, really, really early recordings, reports of the war, that's it. In terms of home movies, unless it's somehow extremely unusual (e.g. filmed before anyone else even had a camera), it's not even considered.
The situation will only get worse as digitisation takes over. from things you might still find in a shed after 50 years and get partially working again.
Was the cost of adding and then removing that DRM really worth the "extra" sales (even if fabricated statistical anomalies) that it supposedly makes possible?
I'm guessing not.
The problem with DRM is not "wanting to protect our sales". It's that it is universally, always, completely counterproductive.
Performance concerns aside, just the hassle associated with licensing that stuff must surely be more than any potential lost sales from piracy if it only buys you a week of grace. Pirates aren't paying for the game on Day rather than wait five days because it has DRM. They're getting the game when it becomes available on the pirate channels.
I really can't think that any cost-benefit analysis of this could possibly show an advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that I know a lot about it but...
You sign the new kernel with the same signing key as the previous one.
But, that's not how it works. It's the kernel loader that's signed for Secure Boot, and then the kernel loader is free to use any further verification it likes of what it loads, what it checks, and how.
Part of why Secure Boot is "no more secure" in most configurations, because you're just certified that you're booting GRUB/whatever in most circumstances, which can be misconfigured to be quite open (which is what most people want - just a way to boot a free OS using a signed bootloader).
But even if it was signed, it doesn't mean that it can't be unique to the machine in question, it's just a matter of using a chain of certificates, but that's out of "Secure Boot"'s hands and into the hands of the kernel loader configuration.
And it's STILL BORING. They all finish within hundreds of a second of each other and spend most of the race sitting waiting for a "legal" overtaking opportunity and gaming the race-order.
I'd much rather that they said "Ok, you can only use a 1.0 litre engine, whatever you get out of it, and we only have safety restrictions not any particular "type" of engine / fuel / devices". At least then the engineering has some immediate real world relevance, the cars will be within driver's skill to handle, and you might actually win based on expertise rather than carbon-copying every other car out on the track so that you all finish with the blink of an eye of each other.
Formula One is now one of the dullest "sports" I've ever witnessed, nearly on a par with cricket. Put mute on and tell me that it doesn't just look like someone parading a line of new vehicles around a test track to try to auction them off.
Not in any proper education system.
Even if you're in a faith school (game over anyway), UK law says that religious lessons have to include all the major faiths.
Boring electric vehicles that have almost no "top speed" and can accelerate faster than just about anything on the planet.
I have always suspected, and it's now being borne out, that being "into" fast cars was nothing to do with performance, or handling, or engineering. It was about making loud noises and getting dirty and feeling manly.
Now that every car on the road can do 130mph, nobody cares. Now that electric cars/bikes out-accelerate everything else, nobody cares. Now that even Harley Davidson have electric models, nobody cares.
It was never about the engineering. It was about making noise, and being seen to make noise.
Formula One is as boring as fuck, since they keep making silly rules to dial everything back to "safety". Noisy cars are boring as fuck, since every decent car is whisper silent and can out-perform all the others. Even convertibles - why on EARTH is it at all fashionable to show the world that you can't afford air-con and would rather have every bug smacking you in the face?
Fact is, the ICE's days are numbered. Environmental factors, cost, wear on parts, etc. Almost every car on the road is technically better than a Formula One car from my parent's generation. You can't really speed anyway because of the cameras, and even when you do, they are designed so that it doesn't actually feel fast at all (a dangerous combination).
How about we get over "WOAH! CARS ARE BIG AND LOUD AND NOISY AND LOOK AT ME COMING!", finally? Most kids these days have zero interest in cars, for the same reason they have zero interest in computers - the point are which they were "amazing" was in the previous generation. Now everything's a Formula 1, and you can't do anything with it.
My technician bought himself a brand new car last year. Was telling me all about specs, sporty wheels, such-and-such-a-limited-edition, etc. Spent a fortune. Turned out that, when we checked the specs, the car I had bought a few years before outperformed every spec he gave but didn't look like a terrible boy-racer tricked-out car from the 80's, could carry 5 and a ton of luggage, and was whisper-quiet internally.
Cars are no longer the must-have teenager item. They have Uber if they want to go somewhere. As such, those still clinging to that idea are clinging to a childhood, not to a fascination with engineering. We've been using sub-standard engines for decades because nobody "wanted" an electric car. Now that they do, they win on almost every metric.
P.S. I don't like electric cars, but because of practicality - purchase cost, replacement cost, range. My father was also a motor engineer for decades, built all his own tricked-out cars, did all kinds of stuff in his youth, massive garage dedicated to the hobby, etc. He bought a second-hand Volvo last year.
Cars are just utility vehicles now. And so the sporty ones make no sense. And a battery-powered Harley will beat just about anything away at the lights. Fact is, nobody really cares any more except the guy who bought the Harley because of the Harley name.
And in any decent legal system, such clauses are meaningless.
You cannot waive your statutory legal or consumer rights, and claiming that just because people could have "not bought from us" means they can never take you to court is ludicrous on the face of it.
Unfortunately, some countries just haven't yet caught on.
Not teaching religion is exactly how such ignorance can propagate. You teach religion, in part, to show that every religion claims to have the "one true God", that every religion has the same basic rules and even comparable texts, and that every religion claims to be distinct and "punish" believers of those other religions.
Education is about learning these kinds of things, maybe you would have had an epiphany earlier if it were taught properly (i.e. including multi-diety religions alongside the monotheistic ones).
But in the same way that we don't let history majors teach maths, or science teachers to teach religion, it should be ENCLOSED WITHIN THE SUBJECT. It is against the law, in my country, to put too heavy an emphasis on personal religion outside of natural classroom discussions. A science teacher who was also a creationist, for example, would not be able to teach anything other than the approved sciences. They may be able to express a personal opinion if approached, but they would not be able to launch into a long discussion with the whole class about such things.
The problem is not "religion", or teaching such. It's about separation of lessons. If your state-approved expertise is in science, and you're hired to teach science, then you teach science. If you state-approved expertise is in religion studies, and you're hired to teach religious studies, then you teach religious studies.
The creep of political influence, even parental influence (who on average are less qualified than the teachers), into what gets taught in each lesson is the problem, and illegal in many countries.
There is no way on Earth that anyone should be teaching anything about any god whatsoever in a science class. Or, if they are, science teachers should be allowed to insist that Bible lessons include sections on how much bollocks the "science" in the Bible is.
Turn-about is fair-play.
Because none of that has fuck-all to do with her skills in the mathematics?
Even in a bet - she would have known the odds of losing.
"Woman can't be famous scholar, because she likes a bit on the side"? Really?
Go look at Hawking's personal life, nobody questions that.
Gosh, I wonder why people don't really choose to use a browser that's a replacement for a previously atrocious browser from the same company, that was foisted upon people resulting in monopoly lawsuits, that choose just about every non-standard and insecure method of rendering a page that it possibly could, that only ever runs on a single operating system, is again bundled so you can't avoid it and pesters the shit out of you on upgrades to make it the default AGAIN, and really doesn't do anything that other browsers don't do, while also NOT doing quite a lot of things that other browsers do.
I can't possibly work it out.
You could easily get a thousand cars in range of an ordinary wifi point. And if they're updating 10 times a second, that's a lot of bandwidth to share over unreliable channels. We're not talking about a cellular protocol which involves huge powerful masts, but a vehicle-to-vehicle protocol hosted in a metal box talking to nearby metal boxes.
However, even aside from that, if EVERY car has a transmitter and receiver for this, whether or not anything is on the same channels, someone will find an abuse for it - especially if they think it might be broadcasting their speed or location to others. And every one will implement it differently, meaning that they will be vulnerable to just the same kind of problems as Wifi has historically (e.g. de-auth attacks, etc.) as well as their own special brand of coding around it.
It's not that it won't work. It will work right up until the point that a malicious actor decides they want to interfere with it and then, being wireless, it's almost immediately useless. As specified - if you can manage to hack your own car, what's stopping it advertising - on demand - that it's about to collide with others, in an attempt to make them move out of the way, or into the path of a police car?
Unless this protocol has been designed from the ground up to account for malicious actors, compromise of one model's systems, etc. then it's useless. But it will get into the field long before it gets properly abused, when it's then much harder to fix.
Ah, just slap in some security later.
I mean, you don't need to design for that, right? Just lob everything in, make it do cool stuff, wait for everyone to attack it, THEN think about how it could be misused. Then hang onto that for a few years until someone dies or people start to complain a lot, and try to retro-bolt-on some rubbish security theatre to devices already out in daily use that never talk home.
And then realise that if you have millions of cars talking together reliably, over some public frequency, it fucks up everything in a large radius, especially around things like traffic jams, and so never works as intended anyway.
Or we could just... turn the roads into private railways. Which is basically what the whole self-driving thing is aiming towards anyway.
You wish.
I often run suspicious files through AV websites like TotalVirus.com
You'd be AMAZED how much old stuff sitting in my inbox for 5 years won't be picked up by big-name anti-virus suites even with "heuristics".
And if you tweak it by just one byte (e.g. javascript viruses and changing a code-path ever-so-slightly), it'll usually zoom through ALL of them.
Sorry, but AV is just a constantly out-of-date database of things that MILLIONS of people have already caught, that is used as a lookup for every file access. In terms of protecting your computer, it's useless (or WannaCry wouldn't have happened, even on non-updated machines). In terms of doing so efficiently, it's absolutely atrocious.
Angry Birds wasn't a new concept either.
Occasionally, someone does jump on these things and make them work properly.
Personally, I think the problem is that you want me to interact. If I'm watching TV it's because I *don't* want to interact.
Fuck his kids. They're already doomed.
I'm much more concerned about other people who aren't doing stupid things.
Which is one reason why the newer Tesla updates turn the car off if you keep ignoring it.
Seriously, in legal terms, any idiot ignoring loud visual and audio warnings is being a dickhead and will go to jail for it. There is NO warning in a car that you are "expected to ignore", and all of them you can be sent to jail for if you ignore to this extent (yes, even engine warning lights, or seatbelts, if you end up crashing). You ignore it, that's your fault for being an idiot.
And, come on, the warning was basically FUCKING DRIVE YOU IDIOT.
Yup.
If you're "recreating your configuration", it means your backups are incomplete.
You have to expect to never get that item back, most thieves will just wipe it and sell it on really quickly. They are also not loathe to just destroy it if they can't get rid of it safely or if they think it might be being tracked.
If you encrypt EVERYTHING (why would you only encrypt a small part?), they can never access it. P.S. this also makes them more likely to wipe it, or just destroy it for parts.
Amazing how people miss the really simple stuff.
Thinking that even a BIOS-controlled talkback mechanism has any sort of decent success rate is really naive. Most of this stuff is never seen again.
Why would an Apple CEO have "a level of expertise" on climate?
Come to that, why would the president, either?
Neither of them should be discussing it between themselves in any serious business fashion. That's pretty much the entire problem in a nutshell.
Apple could provide computers or services that scientists could use to make a decision to inform a president's political direction. Other than that, I'm not even sure why you'd bring it up, even.
Idiot.
4-6km at 10-20,000 mph is a near miss. That's literally seconds away, or a tiny angle error because you completely destroy both objects in question.
Even in aviation terms, that kind of distance is probably needing reporting for most places. 4-6km isn't exactly "far away" at even aircraft speed.
In orbit, it's just downright dangerous.
You mean the things that collapse and move all the time, like the shelf on Everest that disappeared earlier this year, and which are incredibly difficult for staff to access and get parts / repairs done up there?
Try somewhere geologically stable instead, and if you put it underground, make sure the water has a path that doesn't lead straight to your main archive. We've been mining and building cellars for millennia on city-wide scales, and always managed to work it out before.
Er... actually... almost all the recent security advice is NOT to do that with passwords. People are catching up and even domestic security agencies are recommending to stop that nonsense to government agencies, etc.
Don't write it down - that's subjective. Granddad at home, where someone burgling him will get hold of his Facebook password that's used to look at grandkid photos? Yeah, not an issue. Office workers sharing logins in an open book? Not a good idea.
In fact, I recommend that every workplace writes down all the critical passwords (domain recovery, etc.), seals them in a book (literally SEALED, shrinkwrap, signed on top of seals, etc.) and then puts it in a safe. In an emergency it's invaluable. My caveat is - if I ever discover that book open without my prior permission, or an actual emergency that leaves me incapacitated (and I will check it regularly) - I walk out the door.
So, actually, "best practice" was best practice for the time. That you don't update your best-practice knowledge is more important.
Company that sells bricks sells more bricks when they sell bricks that people want to buy.
Honestly, I should sell my services as a consultant.
I agree with almost everything you say.
It's been YEARS since I had to slot in an expansion card or do anything particularly complicated. I specifying desktops and servers and expect my suppliers to supply the right bits (I don't mind putting them in, so long as they are certified compatible by my supplier).
However, the problem I have is with this:
"Computers just got so cheap that it's just not worth the time to fix them or upgrade them any more."
Apparently, not so. My laptop cost half the price of a MacBook, many years ago. And still out-smarts it. And can, in fact, run MacOS (with VMWare). And it does so in such a way that the MacOS runs just as fast as I've ever seen a Mac run it, while also running Windows and my other stuff in the background.
The problem I have here is that this Apple is out-gunned by an older, cheaper laptop from someone who doesn't even bother to go upgrading their hardware. The only things I've done are add a 1Tb SSD (to the second empty drive bay), and change the wireless card for an 802.11ac (from 802.11n). The RAM was maxed on purchase. I'm not even sure you can upgrade the graphics or processor, I'm not even tried to look, but I suspect it's impossible.
That's what I'm talking about when I complain about Apple. Not only are they overpriced, they are outgunned, and you can do NOTHING to fix it. Even a bog-standard laptop has more upgradeability and power, without paying anywhere near the same price. And every "unique feature" of an Apple device I can get - MacOS just runs.
I *do* manage Macs, Mac "servers" (Mac Mini's with a software upgrade, nowhere near being server-grade hardware!), blade servers, storage arrays, as well as hundreds of PCs, laptops, Chromebooks and iPads. And I still don't "get" the Apple thing at all.
I've been pressing to ditch the Apple hardware for years. We're slowly getting there as people realise we can buy 3 PC's for every Mac, 2 Chromebooks for every iPad and servers with proper hardware for every Mac Mini, and then also skip a myriad problems in the process and get hardware that works faster and harder for that price.
Content matters.
Your branding doesn't.
Shocking that.
Just a shame it doesn't apply to everything.
Cor.
It's almost as powerful as the laptop I bought many years ago, though it obviously has a later generation of processor. It might even be "as upgradeable" but I think it's unlikely unless it has a SODIMM slot underneath a flap on the back of the case (you shouldn't need to "dismantle" in order to "upgrade").
I still don't get the Apple thing at all.
You mean like EVERY OTHER TECHNOLOGY, both before and after it?
Nothing much cine-wise survives more than a generation. Even home DVD's are being lost and won't be around forever. The current generation don't even understand "storage" as being something they have in their home attic, it's all digital and all in the cloud and on throwaway devices.
And, can I just say, the other poster below has it right. Nobody really cares. There are thousands of photos in my parent's attic. I know maybe a handful of people in them. There are cine movies about protest marches that happened in the 60's, amateur shot and you wouldn't know that if someone hadn't told you who was there.
The value of most of that stuff - including sentimentality and value to nation's archive - is so minimal as to be zero. This is why people clear out dead people's houses and throw most of it away, keeping only a memento or two that they know the story of. Go to any antiques market and you'll see thousands upon thousands of old photos and postcards. They're basically valueless. And nobody buys "home" photo of someone unless it's aesthetically pleasing. Some postcard of a guy you don't know, in uniform, in the standard pose, from the first world war, literally goes for the price of the stamp on the back.
Archives wouldn't touch the vast, vast, vast majority of it. And hence most of it will always be lost. The same story since the days of the ancient Egyptians. Those people who were historically important will have stuff preserved. Everyone else is just incidental and all their possessions and records will be lost to time.
People would pay millions for a lost tape of Dr Who. Literally millions wouldn't care a jot for their own family's home movies past a generation or two. And, no, the fact they don't preserve it making them rarer doesn't mean the ones that are preserved are more valuable. Value comes from both rarity and desire for it. And nobody cares about those things.
Go look at archives like the BFI, there to preserve film from the very earliest days of recording. They have films of historical interest. That's about it. Really, really, really early recordings, reports of the war, that's it. In terms of home movies, unless it's somehow extremely unusual (e.g. filmed before anyone else even had a camera), it's not even considered.
The situation will only get worse as digitisation takes over. from things you might still find in a shed after 50 years and get partially working again.
Question:
Was the cost of adding and then removing that DRM really worth the "extra" sales (even if fabricated statistical anomalies) that it supposedly makes possible?
I'm guessing not.
The problem with DRM is not "wanting to protect our sales". It's that it is universally, always, completely counterproductive.
Performance concerns aside, just the hassle associated with licensing that stuff must surely be more than any potential lost sales from piracy if it only buys you a week of grace. Pirates aren't paying for the game on Day rather than wait five days because it has DRM. They're getting the game when it becomes available on the pirate channels.
I really can't think that any cost-benefit analysis of this could possibly show an advantage.