Those who believe that science can do more than offer a theory that fits the evidence do not understand the philosophical foundations of science or the limitations of inductive methods.
That's assuming we really need more.
Sooner or later on your philosophical and metaphysical travels, you will find, as I did, that you have to make a leap of blind faith.
A leap of blind faith? Blind faith in what?
One cannot reason around this, and ignorance and scientifistic hand-waving do not provide an alternative, though they may be convincing to some.
An alternative to what? I get the feeling you're suggesting I'm "missing" something, but I'm not sure what.
No, you wouldn't. I note elsewhere that it should be possible to safely and securely install keys automatically from a read-only volume. You know, one that was pre-fabricated or required direct, manual intervention to set up.
Someone could do that, though. After all, the APIs aren't copyrightable so pull a LibreOffice: establish a foundation, swap out the trademarks, and move on.
Verisign maybe? Someone already established in the industry that isn't obviously biased?
How about the Linux/BSD/Haiku/ReactOS/Hurd community pick a 3rd party or just one of themselves?
And have to run around and convince all the hardware vendors to include them, only to be ignored readily? I suspect the only reason Redhat had success was precisely because they are Redhat.
the dancing bunnies problem.
Ah yes, better to spew some FUD and not approach the problem rather than think of a way it could be done safely. Blame the user and use it as a justification to impose even more onerous restrictions. Why not use it as a justification to bar disabling UEFI or changing keys? Because MS knows they'd get nailed to the wall for being anti-competitive. Again.
True, I forgot about the resizer utility. Mostly it brings to mind how bootcamp refused to work if I had pre-planned and partitioned the device accordingly ahead of time, insisting that the only way it could work is to take space from the HFS+ utility. I don't recall using the installer however, but I never installed Windows on the unit.
Bootcamp was only necessary because Windows XP needed the legacy BIOS to function. Windows 7 and most modern Linux distributions will readily boot from EFI systems.
I installed Ubuntu 12.04 on my 2006 Macbook recently, with the intent of doing so without having a trace of OS X on the system. The amd64+mac ISO they have installed cleanly without a single problem, and boots directly into Ubuntu without needing Bootcamp or OS X on the platform.
The same will not be possible on PCs once Windows 8 ships. It will be a pain in the ass for anyone not blessed by Microsoft.
The UEFI spec (which Microsoft has a HUGE hand in writing these days) explicitly denies the ability to automatically install keys. They could have made it possible to do so, say by requiring it happen from read-only media, but they didn't.
It's left vague enough that it's virtually guaranteed to be an enormous pain in the ass to enable secure boot for any platform not explicitly blessed by Microsoft.
UEFI is not a problem, because I'll just continue to do what I've been doing for almost two decades: building my own servers and workstations from individual components.
Your motherboard will come with Microsoft's key and default to secure boot.
if at some point in the future a client asks me to migrate all of their existing workstations and servers from Windows to Linux, then UEFI may make that difficult.
Because there were several other paths they could have chosen to work with secure boot, but this was the most efficient?
Most efficient? Hardly.
One thing MS could have done was ensured, for the sake of not appearing totally anti-competitive, was to put a 3rd party in charge of the process, include guidelines in UEFI for how keys could automatically be installed safely, and specify a minimum functionality set for "custom mode" so using Linux and Windows securely on the same machine isn't a binary choice.
It is deliberately inefficient, and it puts Microsoft in a position of power. They'll happily take a loss for such control, as we've seen in the past.
Then you aren't the target market for the app store.
And if you aren't the target market for the App Store, better hope Apple never pulls Gatekeeper out.
The App store is for common joe six pack who frankly doesn't need to editing their apache config files in the first place.
Deliberately crippling software so that its utility is limited in the name of "security," even if it hinders the end-user's ability to use it, is stupid as fuck.
My guess is that in the future you'll need a Mac Developers account to access the core features of OSX if you want to do any customizations.
I expect this too. And then we can mock anyone who suggests that OS X is an open platform.
If they know what they're doing they're ok. Fedora is doing this for the rest of their users.
Which is part of the goal. Raise the bar, make it harder to migrate away from the platform. I suspect we'll see zero real security improvements on Microsoft's end as a result of this but lots of complaints and comments on various Linux forums asking why they can't boot their Linux USB key or ISO.
Or as Microsoft would prefer you believe, "insecure mode." You know, because it's scary if you aren't "secure." Also, there's no guidelines whatsoever on how "custom mode" works, which will probably result in a lot of BIOSes having "off" as the only custom mode option rather than the ability to install new keys.
All of this is utter nonsense, quite frankly, and persists for no good reason (and keeping lawyers employed is not a good reason.) If there's ever been an entity where it is not merely acceptable but utterly essential to mark as being subhuman, it is the corporation.
It should be for corporations the inverse as it is for actual humans in this country: while people are free to do as they wish unless explicitly prohibited, corporations should not be able to do anything unless explicitly permitted. Otherwise they abuse the rights we as citizens have and eventually leverage that confusion (and other associated nonsense) to even greater heights of power above actual people.
Please. Sony is part and parcel of all the RIAA/MPAA lawsuits against people violating their copyright. Yet one of their public representatives is concerned about someone enforcing the terms of the GPL and seeks a way to "protect" people from them.
They wanted an alternative not because it was superior but because it would allow for a legal dodge to avoid licensing compliance.
As if enforcing GPL compliance (you know, respect for the license terms applied to a software product) was a bad thing. Oh right, it's the GPL. That makes violating it a worthy cause to be supported and championed.
But nonetheless it is hypocritical for someone at Sony, a company whose executives start frothing at the mouth when they get wind of someone violating their copyrights, to lead an effort to make it easier for others to violate GPL licenses and get away with it. It's good for them but not for you.
The funniest part about that Talk page is that "JimTheFrog" is, according to his user page:
Jim Taylor is Head of Technology and Product Development for UltraViolet/DECE, the online entertainment equivalent to DVD and Blu-ray.
So basically, that entire talk page is about the lead of that DRM-centric disaster defending what is fundamentally a customer-hostile technology. I'd call him a shill but he's probably tasked with "maintaining the message" on places like Wikipedia to make UltraViolet seem less fundamentally shitty than it is. And his dickish attitude towards Linux seems unsurprising, given that he
Slashdot Mirror
That's assuming we really need more.
A leap of blind faith? Blind faith in what?
An alternative to what? I get the feeling you're suggesting I'm "missing" something, but I'm not sure what.
False.
Agnostic means that you don't believe it's possible to know. Atheist means you hold no belief.
No, you wouldn't. I note elsewhere that it should be possible to safely and securely install keys automatically from a read-only volume. You know, one that was pre-fabricated or required direct, manual intervention to set up.
It might, if no one steps up to manage it.
Someone could do that, though. After all, the APIs aren't copyrightable so pull a LibreOffice: establish a foundation, swap out the trademarks, and move on.
Verisign maybe? Someone already established in the industry that isn't obviously biased?
And have to run around and convince all the hardware vendors to include them, only to be ignored readily? I suspect the only reason Redhat had success was precisely because they are Redhat.
Ah yes, better to spew some FUD and not approach the problem rather than think of a way it could be done safely. Blame the user and use it as a justification to impose even more onerous restrictions. Why not use it as a justification to bar disabling UEFI or changing keys? Because MS knows they'd get nailed to the wall for being anti-competitive. Again.
True, I forgot about the resizer utility. Mostly it brings to mind how bootcamp refused to work if I had pre-planned and partitioned the device accordingly ahead of time, insisting that the only way it could work is to take space from the HFS+ utility. I don't recall using the installer however, but I never installed Windows on the unit.
Wanna see OpenJDK get a lot of investment?
Bootcamp was only necessary because Windows XP needed the legacy BIOS to function. Windows 7 and most modern Linux distributions will readily boot from EFI systems.
I installed Ubuntu 12.04 on my 2006 Macbook recently, with the intent of doing so without having a trace of OS X on the system. The amd64+mac ISO they have installed cleanly without a single problem, and boots directly into Ubuntu without needing Bootcamp or OS X on the platform.
The same will not be possible on PCs once Windows 8 ships. It will be a pain in the ass for anyone not blessed by Microsoft.
The UEFI spec (which Microsoft has a HUGE hand in writing these days) explicitly denies the ability to automatically install keys. They could have made it possible to do so, say by requiring it happen from read-only media, but they didn't.
It's left vague enough that it's virtually guaranteed to be an enormous pain in the ass to enable secure boot for any platform not explicitly blessed by Microsoft.
Your motherboard will come with Microsoft's key and default to secure boot.
Precisely.
Most efficient? Hardly.
One thing MS could have done was ensured, for the sake of not appearing totally anti-competitive, was to put a 3rd party in charge of the process, include guidelines in UEFI for how keys could automatically be installed safely, and specify a minimum functionality set for "custom mode" so using Linux and Windows securely on the same machine isn't a binary choice.
It is deliberately inefficient, and it puts Microsoft in a position of power. They'll happily take a loss for such control, as we've seen in the past.
And if you aren't the target market for the App Store, better hope Apple never pulls Gatekeeper out.
Deliberately crippling software so that its utility is limited in the name of "security," even if it hinders the end-user's ability to use it, is stupid as fuck.
I expect this too. And then we can mock anyone who suggests that OS X is an open platform.
Which is part of the goal. Raise the bar, make it harder to migrate away from the platform. I suspect we'll see zero real security improvements on Microsoft's end as a result of this but lots of complaints and comments on various Linux forums asking why they can't boot their Linux USB key or ISO.
Up shit creek without a paddle, while hoping people can work through their BIOS screens to turn off secure boot.
The process could not be owned by Microsoft, which would be a start.
Or as Microsoft would prefer you believe, "insecure mode." You know, because it's scary if you aren't "secure." Also, there's no guidelines whatsoever on how "custom mode" works, which will probably result in a lot of BIOSes having "off" as the only custom mode option rather than the ability to install new keys.
I try to avoid it as much as possible. It's quite easy if you try.
Care to go into detail, or are you trying to draw stupid parallels and hoping no one notices?
All of this is utter nonsense, quite frankly, and persists for no good reason (and keeping lawyers employed is not a good reason.) If there's ever been an entity where it is not merely acceptable but utterly essential to mark as being subhuman, it is the corporation.
It should be for corporations the inverse as it is for actual humans in this country: while people are free to do as they wish unless explicitly prohibited, corporations should not be able to do anything unless explicitly permitted. Otherwise they abuse the rights we as citizens have and eventually leverage that confusion (and other associated nonsense) to even greater heights of power above actual people.
Spoken like a true apologist. The correct answer is fuck Hollywood and their customer-hating ways.
Please. Sony is part and parcel of all the RIAA/MPAA lawsuits against people violating their copyright. Yet one of their public representatives is concerned about someone enforcing the terms of the GPL and seeks a way to "protect" people from them.
They wanted an alternative not because it was superior but because it would allow for a legal dodge to avoid licensing compliance.
As if enforcing GPL compliance (you know, respect for the license terms applied to a software product) was a bad thing. Oh right, it's the GPL. That makes violating it a worthy cause to be supported and championed.
But nonetheless it is hypocritical for someone at Sony, a company whose executives start frothing at the mouth when they get wind of someone violating their copyrights, to lead an effort to make it easier for others to violate GPL licenses and get away with it. It's good for them but not for you.
Please, that has nothing to do with what the OP posted.
Line it's pockets? Were they actually getting monetary judgements or just source code and GPL compliance?
No, that was Tim Bird of Sony, who wanted to create "toybox" as a means of replacing Busybox so that GPL violations of the kernel harder to detect.
The funniest part about that Talk page is that "JimTheFrog" is, according to his user page:
So basically, that entire talk page is about the lead of that DRM-centric disaster defending what is fundamentally a customer-hostile technology. I'd call him a shill but he's probably tasked with "maintaining the message" on places like Wikipedia to make UltraViolet seem less fundamentally shitty than it is. And his dickish attitude towards Linux seems unsurprising, given that he