Err, it's not the "detroit model." It's the "we're going to impose unreasonable costs on you in an attempt to make you look bad and justify shutting you down" model. Forcing the USPS to maintain a fund for worker retirement up to 75 years from now is completely and totally unreasonable and serves only one purpose.
Once again, we have a glimpse into the true objective with UEFI: to prevent, or at least discourage, users from installing alternative (i.e. non-Microsoft) operating systems.
Which is why you can install several Linux distributions on to platforms with Secure Boot enabled, and why you can freely replace and change the keys on x86 platforms, right?
Microsoft locking down Surface RT via secure boot is no more or less bad than Android vendors locking down their devices via TrustZone, a signed u-boot checking a signed kernel.
believe what Microsoft and their associates say
Given that "their associates" basically make up the hardware industry, the only thing you can do is believe it until it's not true then file the lawsuit.
Those of us with some sense of fiscal sanity generally call that "investing".
As an individual, I cannot invest in that manner. I can only hope that my interests align with the investors at some point and I get what I want. But rarely does that ever actually happen.
Crowdsourcing is unrelated to investing.
Crowdfunding is unrelated to investing, but it does let me push towards the goal of getting what I want when all the investors turn it away because the return on investment isn't a percentage they approve of.
And they are putting their reputation on the line.
With crowd funding, there's no motivation to make a good product, just one that barely meets the promised specifications, while spending as little of that advance money as possible.
Or sometimes the product is already done and designed, but the funding will allow for addition of a few features and an actual production run. If they can meet what they promise and still show a profit, well, good for them I suppose.
The only places crowd funding make sense is where the traditional investment or bank loan options don't work... Products with a very small following that will only barely turn a profit NEED crowd funding to reduce the risk of a failure.
Which could easily be the vast majority. And even this handset thing could be a flop. They may never even go forward with it if the indiegogo fails. IMO, it's a great way to let early adopters throw their hat into the ring and let Canonical go through the process once before investing big into it.
A gift is when one party gives something to the other party without anything expected in return.
Legally it isn't even a gift, as it's taxed at disbursement time.
I expect something in return. I am not guaranteed to get it. And if I don't, then I will keep that in mind if they ever try to do another kickstarter type project. It's an investment in whatever the person who started the drive is pitching, and the ultimate cost is in their reputation. Succeed and your reputation looks good, fail and people will question your future efforts.
In the meantime, I have backed many projects that have succeeded. And I'm happy to do so, as it lets things with very narrow target audiences actually come to fruition.
Not to mention that with a device based on a more "standard" Linux, booting other "standard" Linux platforms should actually be a fairly painless step.
Yeah, how dare companies attempt to crowd source things! Damn, I just put up $200 to a Japanese animation studio so they could extend a sequel to a short they did, what madness is this!? Haven't people realized that rather than showing support for things they like and want, they should just shut up and take what's given to them?
Obviously, we're all supposed to just buy whatever Android, iOS, or Windows Phone is on the market. Choice? What nonsense!
Secure Boot itself isn't the problem. MS flexed their monopoly and made Secure Boot mandatory across the industry. The problem with RT devices is that they mandated that on ARM you can't turn it off. That's the real problem.
these days assuming your users are unfamiliar and uncomfortable with technology seems laughable.
They know their uses are familiar and comfortable with it, but only on the most superficial of levels. They'll happily integrate a device into their lives but don't actually understand it past the outward facing veneer. What they do is discourage further understanding via walled gardens, DRM, and other lockouts.
Umm.. isn't it impossible to have land that isn't deeper than sea level?
By definition, that is land. My guess is that you meant to ask if it is impossible to have land below sea level, and the answer is no. Much of New Orleans and Death Valley in the US are below sea level, they just happen to be surrounded by natural (and some artificial) barriers that keep the water out.
My understanding of the point is that the ice in question is standing on solid land below the ocean's surface, which means that its volume is not currently reflected by the height of the oceans today. In addition, the land is sloped towards the rest of the ocean so, should the ice in question calve off it will enter the ocean rather than simply cracking but staying put.
But how is that not the same as what we do when we call him a bigot?
When we call him a bigot, we realize that he is attacking a group of people blindly for a property out of their control and highlight this. In a world dominated by his values, those people are criminalized and imprisoned, and I can only imagine that being the start. In "our" world those people, and he, are free to live their lives as they see fit.
You obviously don't run Firefox constantly open for months at a time.
No, I let it update periodically which necessitates closing it. Sometimes I even reboot so my system can install patches.
if the browser can't handle addons without crashing and consuming all memory
So the browser is supposed to be capable of solving the halting problem?
One of the addons that I know that has some problems is the Flash Player plugin
That's not an addon. That's a plugin. Mozilla has isolated it via the plugin host but it is still its own, closed source executable. How the hell can you possibly hold Mozilla to task for problems in flash?
Here, let me fix this for you:
Just fix the damn browser please. And by fix I mean do the impossible and solve other people's problems.
How is it Microsoft's fault that the FOSS community is unable to come up a signing organization that OEMs are willing to add?
Because it was laid out poorly from the beginning. Had the key architecture not been left up to an ad-hoc distribution mechanism and, instead, been firmly rooted in the UEFI Foundation, then said signing organization could have gone to the UEFI Foundation and gotten a key without involving Microsoft.
Instead, it was ad-hoc and as a result anyone who wanted their key on the platforms had to go get a key from Verisign and run around to all the OEMs and beg to have it included. This would have been hard for Canonical, never mind all of the smaller vendors out there. So instead, Canonical, Redhat and SuSE (who account for the majority of the Linux user base) jumped in bed with Microsoft and left everyone else flapping in the wind, to be frank. Net result is that Microsoft now has de-facto control over the signing process and the rest of the Linux world has to work around with binary only shims.
To be more accurate, Microsoft's system vendor requirements for Windows 8 on ARM (Windows RT) require that it not be possible to turn off secure boot. Nothing about secure boot inherently makes it impossible to turn off. Microsoft is simply forcing their will on the OEMs who then take that control away from you.
The best thing to do is to let Windows RT die in the market.
In that the end user can install their own key, sign their own software, and boot from that?
Maybe. If the device you're booting from has its option rom signed by Microsoft and you remove their key, can you boot from the device anymore? My educated guess is no (you can't truly get away from Microsoft) and you are forced to trust Microsoft even if you don't want to because hardware OEMs can only ever assume one key is available due to the (poor) architecture.
This simplifies the generation of a hostile patch but, unless I'm mistaken, this still requires injecting the hostile patch into the Play Store via a trusted account or by convincing some sap to side load it.
third party application stores – especially loosely regulated Android markets in the former Soviet republics and China could be fooled into hosting a malicious application that exploits the APK vulnerability he said.
Gee, 3rd party stores in China and Russia being completely lax on security matters? Go figure.
But it is, fundamentally, the core of the story here isn't it? After all, that includes your own personal device, let alone anyone else. Apple yanks your chain and makes you pay just for the privilege of letting your app touch even your own hardware.
Tethered jailbreaks they do not care about because they draw ideas (and sometimes hire people) from the jailbreak community.
Ripe bullshit. Not that they don't steal ideas from the jailbreak community, but that they don't care about tethered jailbreaks. That would imply a lax attitude towards security from Apple, and I don't believe that for a moment.
The only basis by which I can see it being -not- a warranty violation is via the Moss-Magnusson act. Mind you, I've argued the same point but no one has ever taken it to court. So you can't claim this.
Kind of odd Apple Haters keep bringing this up, when even Congress told them it wasn't true... do you have a mental deficiency that keeps you from processing new information?
Do you? You like spouting things without any sort of backup, I don't recall Congress ever making a statement that Jailbreaking didn't violate the warranty.
Once again the Apple Haters show they know nothing and care even less for normal people.
Don't worry, you're such a blitzed Apple Zealot you're a perfect fit for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Err, it's not the "detroit model." It's the "we're going to impose unreasonable costs on you in an attempt to make you look bad and justify shutting you down" model. Forcing the USPS to maintain a fund for worker retirement up to 75 years from now is completely and totally unreasonable and serves only one purpose.
Ah yes, the rationalization and justification of hypocrisy. All good when Money is what Matters.
Which is why you can install several Linux distributions on to platforms with Secure Boot enabled, and why you can freely replace and change the keys on x86 platforms, right?
Microsoft locking down Surface RT via secure boot is no more or less bad than Android vendors locking down their devices via TrustZone, a signed u-boot checking a signed kernel.
Given that "their associates" basically make up the hardware industry, the only thing you can do is believe it until it's not true then file the lawsuit.
As an individual, I cannot invest in that manner. I can only hope that my interests align with the investors at some point and I get what I want. But rarely does that ever actually happen.
Crowdfunding is unrelated to investing, but it does let me push towards the goal of getting what I want when all the investors turn it away because the return on investment isn't a percentage they approve of.
And they are putting their reputation on the line.
Or sometimes the product is already done and designed, but the funding will allow for addition of a few features and an actual production run. If they can meet what they promise and still show a profit, well, good for them I suppose.
Which could easily be the vast majority. And even this handset thing could be a flop. They may never even go forward with it if the indiegogo fails. IMO, it's a great way to let early adopters throw their hat into the ring and let Canonical go through the process once before investing big into it.
Legally it isn't even a gift, as it's taxed at disbursement time.
I expect something in return. I am not guaranteed to get it. And if I don't, then I will keep that in mind if they ever try to do another kickstarter type project. It's an investment in whatever the person who started the drive is pitching, and the ultimate cost is in their reputation. Succeed and your reputation looks good, fail and people will question your future efforts.
In the meantime, I have backed many projects that have succeeded. And I'm happy to do so, as it lets things with very narrow target audiences actually come to fruition.
Not to mention that with a device based on a more "standard" Linux, booting other "standard" Linux platforms should actually be a fairly painless step.
And in the end I'll get a product! Holy shit, it's like there's an actual transaction taking place!
But it's not a gift!
Are you offering something in return? Somehow I doubt it!
Because every company needs investors, right? Why can't those investors just be the first customers looking to get in early? How is this a bad thing?
What the fuck does this matter? Isn't something like this a perfect gauge for early-adopter interest?
Yeah, how dare companies attempt to crowd source things! Damn, I just put up $200 to a Japanese animation studio so they could extend a sequel to a short they did, what madness is this!? Haven't people realized that rather than showing support for things they like and want, they should just shut up and take what's given to them?
Obviously, we're all supposed to just buy whatever Android, iOS, or Windows Phone is on the market. Choice? What nonsense!
Secure Boot itself isn't the problem. MS flexed their monopoly and made Secure Boot mandatory across the industry. The problem with RT devices is that they mandated that on ARM you can't turn it off. That's the real problem.
They know their uses are familiar and comfortable with it, but only on the most superficial of levels. They'll happily integrate a device into their lives but don't actually understand it past the outward facing veneer. What they do is discourage further understanding via walled gardens, DRM, and other lockouts.
Wait what?
By definition, that is land. My guess is that you meant to ask if it is impossible to have land below sea level, and the answer is no. Much of New Orleans and Death Valley in the US are below sea level, they just happen to be surrounded by natural (and some artificial) barriers that keep the water out.
My understanding of the point is that the ice in question is standing on solid land below the ocean's surface, which means that its volume is not currently reflected by the height of the oceans today. In addition, the land is sloped towards the rest of the ocean so, should the ice in question calve off it will enter the ocean rather than simply cracking but staying put.
Esophageal cancer isn't something that crops up in a mere nine months.
When we call him a bigot, we realize that he is attacking a group of people blindly for a property out of their control and highlight this. In a world dominated by his values, those people are criminalized and imprisoned, and I can only imagine that being the start. In "our" world those people, and he, are free to live their lives as they see fit.
They are not the same in the slightest.
No, I let it update periodically which necessitates closing it. Sometimes I even reboot so my system can install patches.
So the browser is supposed to be capable of solving the halting problem?
That's not an addon. That's a plugin. Mozilla has isolated it via the plugin host but it is still its own, closed source executable. How the hell can you possibly hold Mozilla to task for problems in flash?
Here, let me fix this for you:
Because it doesn't leak and crash all the time. Check your add-ons.
Because it was laid out poorly from the beginning. Had the key architecture not been left up to an ad-hoc distribution mechanism and, instead, been firmly rooted in the UEFI Foundation, then said signing organization could have gone to the UEFI Foundation and gotten a key without involving Microsoft.
Instead, it was ad-hoc and as a result anyone who wanted their key on the platforms had to go get a key from Verisign and run around to all the OEMs and beg to have it included. This would have been hard for Canonical, never mind all of the smaller vendors out there. So instead, Canonical, Redhat and SuSE (who account for the majority of the Linux user base) jumped in bed with Microsoft and left everyone else flapping in the wind, to be frank. Net result is that Microsoft now has de-facto control over the signing process and the rest of the Linux world has to work around with binary only shims.
To be more accurate, Microsoft's system vendor requirements for Windows 8 on ARM (Windows RT) require that it not be possible to turn off secure boot. Nothing about secure boot inherently makes it impossible to turn off. Microsoft is simply forcing their will on the OEMs who then take that control away from you.
The best thing to do is to let Windows RT die in the market.
Maybe. If the device you're booting from has its option rom signed by Microsoft and you remove their key, can you boot from the device anymore? My educated guess is no (you can't truly get away from Microsoft) and you are forced to trust Microsoft even if you don't want to because hardware OEMs can only ever assume one key is available due to the (poor) architecture.
This simplifies the generation of a hostile patch but, unless I'm mistaken, this still requires injecting the hostile patch into the Play Store via a trusted account or by convincing some sap to side load it.
Gee, 3rd party stores in China and Russia being completely lax on security matters? Go figure.
Never seen one. I would happily be proven wrong, though I doubt I will.
Last I checked, the $99 fee was the primary toll between you and hardware in all ways, shapes and form.
But it is, fundamentally, the core of the story here isn't it? After all, that includes your own personal device, let alone anyone else. Apple yanks your chain and makes you pay just for the privilege of letting your app touch even your own hardware.
Ripe bullshit. Not that they don't steal ideas from the jailbreak community, but that they don't care about tethered jailbreaks. That would imply a lax attitude towards security from Apple, and I don't believe that for a moment.
The only basis by which I can see it being -not- a warranty violation is via the Moss-Magnusson act. Mind you, I've argued the same point but no one has ever taken it to court. So you can't claim this.
Do you? You like spouting things without any sort of backup, I don't recall Congress ever making a statement that Jailbreaking didn't violate the warranty.
Don't worry, you're such a blitzed Apple Zealot you're a perfect fit for them.