Unless it is well marked it will not prevent the thief from taking it.
It will only from making as much as they thought they might.
The damage to power networks and facilities will still happen.
I was recently in attendance in a chat room where I noticed several people's connections info seemed to include IPV6 addresses (hexadecimal separated by ':' ) When I asked one of them how they were liking IPV6, they responded that they did not even know they were using IPV6, that they were using their iPhone to join the chat room.
The elf jobs are secure, who do you think maintains the complicated system that delivers raw material to the nano-replicator on the sleigh in flight?
Those gifts belong to Santa until he gives them. He can give them to whomever he chooses. You are just sour grapes because you only got a lump of non-environmentally friendly coal.
Except it is not a zero sum game. The average income itself is not set in stone. It can rise.
If 10 people are making 1000 each. and one gets a raise, none of the others are forced to take a pay cut.
If 10 people are making 1000 each and one gets fired, the rest don't get an automatic raise.
If 10 people are making 1000 each and a new one gets hired (now 11 people) the are no pay cuts for the original workers.
Well was the patient old? Did they have some other problem or sickness? Just taking some pill, no matter how popular, will
not prevent one from getting old! What other details about about this patient are we not being told..
Nice Idea, the watchers would never let it happen.
BTW the watched in a panopticon don't get to watch as well. "The concept of the design is to allow an observer to observe (-opticon) all (pan-) inmates of an institution without them being able to tell whether or not they are being watched."(Wikipeda)
I thinks this comes under the heading of "Whatever rule you make should apply equally to all people, including you"
http://www.gobolinux.org/
Combines executables and necessary libraries each in their own directory under '/programs' Uses links to show files in traditional places.
Certs can be managed if your OEM doesn't suck. eg. Sign your own custom Linux kernel if you want
There is no evidence that this functionality will be provided. There is no requirement that it must be.
Linux users will be lucky to even be able to un-securly boot their OS.
Secure boot can be disabled, again assuming your OEM doesn't suck
Or not, A large percentage of the market doesn't care and just runs windows, a big part of that market segment is corporate IT, who doesn't want you bringing in
your Ubuntu Live Boot CD ROMs and circumventing their settings and security. If I as an end user sitting at a desk in an office can turn off secure boot I can then run my Live Boot CD and have complete access to the desktop machine I am on, and be able to run all manner of packet sniffers and other tools.
For the Home user, the tech support group wants you to only run windows so they don't have to train their techs. In one instance I almost bought a DELL, until
I was told that installing Linux on it voids my warranty, even if I remove the Linux before seeking support. There are all kinds of reasons the Manufacturer would want it locked on
IT would have a shit storm if they couldn't manage this
Not if it's already the setting they would prefer.
Server admins would have a shit storm if they couldn't manage this
See above.
Someone would lose a job at Dell/HP/Gateway/etc if the end user couldn't manage this
Once again - If corporate IT is not opposed, and they would not be for the majority of their desktop machines,
they will buy these like hotcakes. Since they buy more machines than we do, they control what the OEMs do
I have yet to hear a logical argument against secure boot, just lots of emo and fud.
The better requirement to encourage both Microsoft and The OEMs to support is being able to securely add keys to the key store - In such a way that actual physical presence is required at the machine. For example one must press a physical button on the motherboard during boot to enable the update of the key store.
So basically, the hardware manufacturers that go for locked secure boot will see drops in sales, I guess.
I sure wont buy it if I can't use what I want on it. That's stupid.
And he OEMs will loose sleep over the fact that you or I won't buy one. Not. They don't care - Linux is only a small percentage of the market, why cater to them and loose Microsoft?
First - Microsoft says "The OEMs have to ship with secure boot enabled, but we don't tell them they have to let the user disable secure boot - that is up to them". But think what would it mean if the user could not disable secure boot or add new keys for the OS of their choice? Who would benefit? Seems to me Microsoft would benefit greatly if the user were locked in to a Microsoft OS. They would benefit because their rival, Linux, would no longer be installable on a great many machines.
If the OEM allow the disabling of secure boot, Microsoft wins over Linux again -- " Why would you want to run that OS - It is not secure. We are. " To those who
run Linux at home it might not be a big deal, but I would hate to be the guy explaining to his boss why they are using a less secure system when they had been attacked.
Will OEMs care about all our (Linux users) bluster - sure we can boycott any machine that locks secure boot, and has no provision for adding keys but how big is the Linux installed base compared to the Windows installed base. Why would an OEM add a few extra cents worth of parts to be able to cater to a small market segment? A few cents adds up over hundreds of thousands of motherboards built over the life of a design.
Several factors mitigate this however
1) LAMP servers are not used day to day to surf the web and exchange email.
2) Usually the operator of the server will do as many of the tasks as possible as a non-administrative user,
(This prevents a virus from spreading as fast)
3) Usually the operator of the LAMP server will be computer savvy.
4) In a large number of cases the LAMP server is run from a read-only image, or can be quicky re-imaged
from a protected source - if malware gets a foothold.
All of these are also true for an IIS server.
The "unauthorized parties" will use a $5.00 wrench to beat you until you tell them the password
or as in the case of Great Britain, throw you in jail until you remember it.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless it is well marked it will not prevent the thief from taking it. It will only from making as much as they thought they might. The damage to power networks and facilities will still happen.
I was recently in attendance in a chat room where I noticed several people's connections info seemed to include IPV6 addresses (hexadecimal separated by ':' ) When I asked one of them how they were liking IPV6, they responded that they did not even know they were using IPV6, that they were using their iPhone to join the chat room.
By eating organic cardboard and drinking distilled water you will not live any longer...
but it will seem like forever!
But traditionally they can only do that 11 times. Also, not only Doctors, but Masters.
One must also say that it only happens to "the right kind of doctor".
oops you said "Before" - Lockerbie?
No, But only because the other passengers beat them down, while they tried to light their shoe or underwear.
The elf jobs are secure, who do you think maintains the complicated system that delivers raw material to the nano-replicator on the sleigh in flight?
Those gifts belong to Santa until he gives them. He can give them to whomever he chooses. You are just sour grapes because you only got a lump of non-environmentally friendly coal.
Except it is not a zero sum game. The average income itself is not set in stone. It can rise. If 10 people are making 1000 each. and one gets a raise, none of the others are forced to take a pay cut. If 10 people are making 1000 each and one gets fired, the rest don't get an automatic raise. If 10 people are making 1000 each and a new one gets hired (now 11 people) the are no pay cuts for the original workers.
Well was the patient old? Did they have some other problem or sickness? Just taking some pill, no matter how popular, will not prevent one from getting old! What other details about about this patient are we not being told..
what? oh? Not patient, Patent
never mind.
I never drink any water anyway.
Nice Idea, the watchers would never let it happen.
BTW the watched in a panopticon don't get to watch as well. "The concept of the design is to allow an observer to observe (-opticon) all (pan-) inmates of an institution without them being able to tell whether or not they are being watched."(Wikipeda)
I thinks this comes under the heading of "Whatever rule you make should apply equally to all people, including you"
http://www.gobolinux.org/ Combines executables and necessary libraries each in their own directory under '/programs' Uses links to show files in traditional places.
Certs can be managed if your OEM doesn't suck. eg. Sign your own custom Linux kernel if you want
There is no evidence that this functionality will be provided. There is no requirement that it must be. Linux users will be lucky to even be able to un-securly boot their OS.
Secure boot can be disabled, again assuming your OEM doesn't suck
Or not, A large percentage of the market doesn't care and just runs windows, a big part of that market segment is corporate IT, who doesn't want you bringing in your Ubuntu Live Boot CD ROMs and circumventing their settings and security. If I as an end user sitting at a desk in an office can turn off secure boot I can then run my Live Boot CD and have complete access to the desktop machine I am on, and be able to run all manner of packet sniffers and other tools.
For the Home user, the tech support group wants you to only run windows so they don't have to train their techs. In one instance I almost bought a DELL, until I was told that installing Linux on it voids my warranty, even if I remove the Linux before seeking support. There are all kinds of reasons the Manufacturer would want it locked on
IT would have a shit storm if they couldn't manage this
Not if it's already the setting they would prefer.
Server admins would have a shit storm if they couldn't manage this
See above.
Someone would lose a job at Dell/HP/Gateway/etc if the end user couldn't manage this
Once again - If corporate IT is not opposed, and they would not be for the majority of their desktop machines, they will buy these like hotcakes. Since they buy more machines than we do, they control what the OEMs do
I have yet to hear a logical argument against secure boot, just lots of emo and fud.
Way to make a logical mature argument yourself.
The better requirement to encourage both Microsoft and The OEMs to support is being able to securely add keys to the key store - In such a way that actual physical presence is required at the machine. For example one must press a physical button on the motherboard during boot to enable the update of the key store.
Microsoft claim that the customer is in control of their PC. That's true, if by "customer" they mean "hardware manufacturer".
Microsoft's major customer is the corporate IT account, not the home user.
So basically, the hardware manufacturers that go for locked secure boot will see drops in sales, I guess. I sure wont buy it if I can't use what I want on it. That's stupid.
And he OEMs will loose sleep over the fact that you or I won't buy one. Not. They don't care - Linux is only a small percentage of the market, why cater to them and loose Microsoft?
First - Microsoft says "The OEMs have to ship with secure boot enabled, but we don't tell them they have to let the user disable secure boot - that is up to them". But think what would it mean if the user could not disable secure boot or add new keys for the OS of their choice? Who would benefit? Seems to me Microsoft would benefit greatly if the user were locked in to a Microsoft OS. They would benefit because their rival, Linux, would no longer be installable on a great many machines.
If the OEM allow the disabling of secure boot, Microsoft wins over Linux again -- " Why would you want to run that OS - It is not secure. We are. " To those who run Linux at home it might not be a big deal, but I would hate to be the guy explaining to his boss why they are using a less secure system when they had been attacked.
Will OEMs care about all our (Linux users) bluster - sure we can boycott any machine that locks secure boot, and has no provision for adding keys but how big is the Linux installed base compared to the Windows installed base. Why would an OEM add a few extra cents worth of parts to be able to cater to a small market segment? A few cents adds up over hundreds of thousands of motherboards built over the life of a design.
Too bad you are not friends with everyone.
http://smallbasic.com/
There's absolutely no such thing as a Free Market. There is, by extension, no such thing as Free Trade either.
But if the only laws the government makes are to prevent cartels and mobs, but no other law, isn't there then a "Free Market"?
I suspect that the level of operator training may be somewhat higher too, even if it is on the job training.
Several factors mitigate this however 1) LAMP servers are not used day to day to surf the web and exchange email. 2) Usually the operator of the server will do as many of the tasks as possible as a non-administrative user, (This prevents a virus from spreading as fast) 3) Usually the operator of the LAMP server will be computer savvy. 4) In a large number of cases the LAMP server is run from a read-only image, or can be quicky re-imaged from a protected source - if malware gets a foothold. All of these are also true for an IIS server.
The "unauthorized parties" will use a $5.00 wrench to beat you until you tell them the password or as in the case of Great Britain, throw you in jail until you remember it.
It's probably easier to train willing exiles, er colonists than it is to find trained and ready people willing to take the one way trip.
So you can brick the processor? So I can replace the processor.