As long as we're talking about quite young children, I agree completely. My step-brother at age 5 watched Power Rangers all the time and he was a menace, kicking and punching people at random in imitation of the rangers, with no understanding that he was hurting people. After banning the show for a couple months he got better. Fast forward a few years, and he started taking karate classes with absolutely no problems because 1) he was older and better understood real-world consequences and 2) the sensei for the class taught his students about appropriate uses for violence.
Very young children don't understand the difference between reality and fantasy, and they don't understand the idea of consequences. By age eleven this should all be sorted out. The difference between the graphical representation of a punch in a fighting game and punching someone in real life should be absolutely clear. If it isn't, something went wrong, and this distinction will probably never be clear and the kid is going to be screwed up for life and probably dangerous, no matter what video games they play.
I'm not saying you should let your hypothetical 11-year-old play FEAR; there are perfectly good reasons for not allowing that. What I am saying is that if you won't let your 11 year old play FEAR because you are afraid he might carry the behaviors in the game over into reality, then what you are afraid of is that your child is a psychopath.
Or, from another perspective, maybe these medieval asshats will be less likely to think that they'll get away with attacking America if they know that even a Democratic Party president will see to it that the military pays them a proper visit, such as after the WTC was first bombed in 1993.
The threat of attack will not be a deterrent, since provoking attack was entirely the point.
I do think kickstarting democracy in Iraq and hoping that Iraq's example is enough to put the Iranian political dissidents over the top and bring down their dictatorship, followed by the rest of the region, is our best chance of permanent peace in the Middle East.
If you think Iraq is causing Iranians want to follow that example, you're nuts. As nuts as Saddam who thought the Arab Iranians would support him when he invaded Iran. If anything, Iraq is becoming more like Iran as Iranian-backed clerics gain more power there. Please, please, please tell me that your domino theory doesn't involve invading Iran to give them a nudge if they don't follow along with the program.
It's just a damn shame some people would rather see Iraq and Afghanistan go up in flames than for President Bush to receive any credit for their success.
Funny, I thought the ones wanting to see Iraq and Afghanistan in flames and the ones crediting Bush with "success" were the same people. I mean, it is starting wars and the results thereof that we're crediting him with, right?
You did a good thing. Metroid Prime is not one of those games with a "use by" date, so getting it a couple years late at a fifth the price is fine. That's how I picked up Super Metroid, though the bastard still cost $30, what with being the most popular used SNES game besides Mario Kart. Both are games that I will enjoy playing a decade from now.
Which is actually a nice thing about buying used games -- by the time it hits the used stores and is low in price, you will know whether or not it is a classic that will stand the test of time.
LoL so you are ok with censoring people in this regard.....where does it stop?
Lol, you aren't paying attention at all. First, my point was that you can't censor people in this regard, and I don't want to try. Second, the ones being censored are the ones advertising a GLBT guild, and I'm against that. If it's okay to spout "lol ur ghey" all day long, then advertising a place where that doesn't happen should be okay too.
If 1 dude calls another a Bitch I would not consider that to be harrasment of women or female dogs.
Yeah? Well maybe you should ask some women what they think. And if one white dude calls another white dude a nigger, you think that's fine too and no black person would be offended? Or maybe "Mic" is more your alley... As long as you aren't referring to an Irish person, there are only Irish people around, they shouldn't be offended, right?
Hint: Using a pejorative term for a group of people is going to offend that group of people even if you aren't directly targeting it at them, since the whole basis of your insult is implying that the person you are insulting is part of that group.
Welcome to the game. If you build a better mousetrap, someone will come up with a better mouse. This will then force someone to come up with an even better mousetrap, and so repeats the cycle.
But building a better mousetrap is rather difficult, which is why we have the saying about it.
The problem is that this "cycle" is so overwhelmingly stacked in favor of the attacker that treating it like some kind of treadmill you just have to have the dedication to stay on is foolhardy and doomed to fail. The problem of disabling an incoming missle is inherently orders of magnitude more difficult than the problem of landing a missle in the vicinity of a target.
It's always been this way in the battle between attack and defense. Knights' armor was easily penetrated by the English longbow. Once the cannon was invented, the reign of the castle ended almost overnight. Or look at a modern day example: The M1A1 Abrams, with all that technology first deployed in the 90s, has pretty good survivability against should-carried infantry weapons invented in the 60s, or cobbled-together explosives made in some insurgent's garage. Against a similarly modern weapon system, like an A-10's cannon, that super-advanced armor might as well not be there for how easily it is breached.
The way you stop a nuclear missle assault is not with a techonological shield that can never keep up due to its inherent disadvantage. You do it with psychology -- make the opponent not want to launch the missle. This is the basis for MAD, and it has been proven to be effective. Unlike this missle defence shield which fails even the most optimistic of tests rigged in its favor.
The sad part is that for the only enemy against whom MAD won't work -- rogue terrorist groups not tied to a nation they don't want to see remodelled into a glass parking lot -- are also the ones against whom missle defense will never work either, because they won't use missles.
The only benefit of a "missle defense shield" is that it keeps military contractors employeed and makes people who don't want to think too hard about this kind of thing anyway feel safe. Worth every penny, if you ask me!
There's really nothing to see here, unless you think the system never works the way it's supposed to.
The President of the United States just got done telling us that he doesn't think this is the way it's supposed to work. According to him, he doesn't need warrants.
In the end, they ended up only getting a warrant to take some of the computers, anyways, not all of them. But the fact that they got a warrant at all is more likely to be an indication that they had just cause to take the computers in the first place than it is that the judge that issued it was corrupt.
Which I'd just like to point out for everyone paying attention means that if the authorities don't get a warrant it is an indication that they don't have just cause.
The only reason this is a story is because we just watched our President tell us that he okay'ed spying on people without a warrant, but we should just trust him that the spying was with just cause. This article is merely a poignant counter example showing how things are supposed to work in a free nation, no matter what the charming not-Texan says.
I wonder what makes it different than most other MMOGs? Maybe he means he won't be using any of the advancements made in the genre in the last ten years? Or maybe it will make your progress dependent on suicidal AIs whose inevitable deaths costs you dearly won progress?
Or maybe he just means he'll sink incredible amounts of cash into a project that ends up being years late and when finally loosed upon the world is so beneath expectations that it vanishes quietly within months, only to be heard of in derisive jokes?
If they harrass you for that, just tell them that... You[I] have taken up the cause to use "Fuck" in order to minimize the negativity and abuse of someone's sexual orientation by using the word "Gay" as an explitive in order to foster a better virtual reality for all manner of gamer.
If "nigger" or "wetback" was the favorite insult of half the population of the WoW universe, then I would be equally insulted if Bliz's suggested that having a "black/hispanic friendly" guild was creating an issue that did not already exist.
Child is an ambiguous term. In the USA "child porn" includes visual depictions of 17 year olds. Also not everyone is the same - many children have mental capacities and maturity levels surpassing most slashdotters[1] or adults.
Many (most?) adults don't appear to understand the actions and ramifications of "said actions" too. I'm sure you yourself would know examples.
Thus to address your concerns, should we require people to obtain licenses and relevant counselling/education before they are allowed to perform said actions? And prohibit such actions if done by unlicensed practitioners?
I understand your reasoning. However, let me just clear something up. 18 is not the age at which you (supposedly) magically understand the ramifications of actions like being in a porn movie. 18 is the age at which society stops caring if you don't understand the ramifications of such and leaves you to screw your life up as you wish.
This is why a 17 year old, no matter how mature and clueful, is prohibited from doing certain things and an 18 year old, no matter how immature and clueless, is not. 18 years is your government-enforced "safety period", and after that the restraints come off. That's all.
What they are saying is that they don't want controversial out-of-game crap interfering with the game. If I had a guild called "Tauren for Bush" or "Nike Is Awesome" or "Hey, Remember That Show Alf?" or "I Like Chinese" it'd get renamed, because it's Blizzard's policy that real-world stuff not intrude into in-game names. If I started talking politics in general chat, and someone bothered to report me to a GM, I'd get a suspension. Why should officially gay-friendly guilds be any different?
Because this issue is already intruding into the game. Have you actually listened to General chat? Anti-gay sentiment is virtually omni-present. "Fag" is insult #1, and you can barely go a full chat-window worth of text without seeing it, and you know how bad it would be if someone admitted to being gay. Blizzard knows this, which is why they used the excuse they do -- people admitting they were gay would only amplify the level of abuse which already exists, and which the GBLT guild was supposed to be a way to escape from.
I'm typically very pro-gay rights, but it bugs me when people try to make it sound like it's illegal discrimination every time somebody doesn't want to talk about GLBT issues.
But people are talking about it, in an extremely negative way.
I swear, if every 3rd line of Barrens chat was "Fuck u nigger" would you be saying it's just a case of nobody wanting to talk about race issues? Sure would sound to me like race issues had already been brought up, and by the racists themselves! But since it's just faggots getting insulted, it's "not talking about it" to let people say whatever they want as long as it's anti-gay. As soon as someone wants to express pro-gay sentiment, then they're bringing up issues that don't belong in the game. I see how it is.
I would have to think that the group of people who see "gay friendly" as "Satan friendly" would have a higher percentage of people who think that any kind of RPG is Satan worship. These people are going to complain and protest no matter what, just because it's an RPG.
Yes, that was hyperbolic. I am referring to the large class of homophobes who see tolerance for homosexuality as an assault on heterosexuality. The ones who saw the 14th Ammendment ruling against the Texas sodomy law as an endorsement of sodomy. The ones who have no problem with violent or fantasy movies and video games, but would see a GBLT guild as Blizzard being pro-gay and thus anti-them.
Yes, of course it's bullcrap. I mean, listen to what they are actually saying. They are saying that granting homosexuals a guild that is explicitly friendly towards them would cause these people to be a target of harassment. So they are saying that WoW is an environment that is inherently hostile towards homosexuals, and the only thing stopping a homosexual from being harassed is that nobody knows they are. Joining a "GBLT friendly" guild would be like "coming out of the closet", and the only way to stay safe is to stay in the closet.
Just like in real life. And having a support group in real life is a bad idea for the same reasons, people might find out who you really are and harass you. So keep it a secret and don't get any support... that's obviously the answer to intolerance. [/bitter sarcasm]
Yet it's exactly how WoW isn't real life that makes this argument even more stupid. Having a GBLT-friendly guild is exactly how you would get around harassment in WoW. If you have your guildmates, then you don't need to worry about random strangers to try to get groups. If someone outside your guild trys to harass you for being in your guild, then you just/ignore them. I/ignore jackasses all the time, and once you've done that what on earth can they do to you?
If you penetrate the crap and look at what Bliz's real motivations are, I'm pretty sure that really they don't want to be seen as truly "gay friendly" for fear of losing the demographic who sees "gay friendly" as basically "Satan friendly". Yet they don't want to lose the actual gay-friendly demographic either, so they toss out this half-assed excuse for why this is really all about tolerance and preventing harassment.
But then I have talked to Japanese teens (who should be in their mid-20's now) who thought Japan won World War II. So there.
Well there are American teens who don't know where Native Americans are from (not "Indians", Native Americans). So ha! We're still ahead in the War on Knowing Stuff.
The story goes that the Nintendo President told Ballmer to "suck my tiny yellow balls". Nintendo says that this is a hoax, the interview with Wired where this story was allegedly told never happened, and they seem to have a good enough sense of humor about it to make me think 1) it really is a hoax and 2) if MS tried to buy Nintendo (assuming they haven't already) the response would practically if not literally be the same.
Wasn't there a part where it says that if you distribute binaries for a "Trusted Computing" platform that have to be signed in order to run, you also have to distribute the keys required to sign them?
The only reference to anything like a key is in Section 6. Non-source Distribution: "Distribution of the Corresponding Source in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented, unencumbered by patents, and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying."
Which just means the source distribution itself can't be encrypted in a way that the user can't open. I see nothing that says the recipient needs to be able to sign the code for use on a specific system that requires it.
And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available, for example. I wouldn't do it.
I don't see anything in the draft that would require Linus to release his private signing keys. That would be insane if it were true, but it isn't.
The clarification on the licensing of the kernel (GPL v2 only and ever) is useful, though.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as we're talking about quite young children, I agree completely. My step-brother at age 5 watched Power Rangers all the time and he was a menace, kicking and punching people at random in imitation of the rangers, with no understanding that he was hurting people. After banning the show for a couple months he got better. Fast forward a few years, and he started taking karate classes with absolutely no problems because 1) he was older and better understood real-world consequences and 2) the sensei for the class taught his students about appropriate uses for violence.
Very young children don't understand the difference between reality and fantasy, and they don't understand the idea of consequences. By age eleven this should all be sorted out. The difference between the graphical representation of a punch in a fighting game and punching someone in real life should be absolutely clear. If it isn't, something went wrong, and this distinction will probably never be clear and the kid is going to be screwed up for life and probably dangerous, no matter what video games they play.
I'm not saying you should let your hypothetical 11-year-old play FEAR; there are perfectly good reasons for not allowing that. What I am saying is that if you won't let your 11 year old play FEAR because you are afraid he might carry the behaviors in the game over into reality, then what you are afraid of is that your child is a psychopath.
Or, from another perspective, maybe these medieval asshats will be less likely to think that they'll get away with attacking America if they know that even a Democratic Party president will see to it that the military pays them a proper visit, such as after the WTC was first bombed in 1993.
The threat of attack will not be a deterrent, since provoking attack was entirely the point.
I do think kickstarting democracy in Iraq and hoping that Iraq's example is enough to put the Iranian political dissidents over the top and bring down their dictatorship, followed by the rest of the region, is our best chance of permanent peace in the Middle East.
If you think Iraq is causing Iranians want to follow that example, you're nuts. As nuts as Saddam who thought the Arab Iranians would support him when he invaded Iran. If anything, Iraq is becoming more like Iran as Iranian-backed clerics gain more power there. Please, please, please tell me that your domino theory doesn't involve invading Iran to give them a nudge if they don't follow along with the program.
It's just a damn shame some people would rather see Iraq and Afghanistan go up in flames than for President Bush to receive any credit for their success.
Funny, I thought the ones wanting to see Iraq and Afghanistan in flames and the ones crediting Bush with "success" were the same people. I mean, it is starting wars and the results thereof that we're crediting him with, right?
Question is, what will happen first?
Why are you using the future tense, as if the question isn't answered already?
You did a good thing. Metroid Prime is not one of those games with a "use by" date, so getting it a couple years late at a fifth the price is fine. That's how I picked up Super Metroid, though the bastard still cost $30, what with being the most popular used SNES game besides Mario Kart. Both are games that I will enjoy playing a decade from now.
Which is actually a nice thing about buying used games -- by the time it hits the used stores and is low in price, you will know whether or not it is a classic that will stand the test of time.
LoL so you are ok with censoring people in this regard.....where does it stop?
Lol, you aren't paying attention at all. First, my point was that you can't censor people in this regard, and I don't want to try. Second, the ones being censored are the ones advertising a GLBT guild, and I'm against that. If it's okay to spout "lol ur ghey" all day long, then advertising a place where that doesn't happen should be okay too.
If 1 dude calls another a Bitch I would not consider that to be harrasment of women or female dogs.
Yeah? Well maybe you should ask some women what they think. And if one white dude calls another white dude a nigger, you think that's fine too and no black person would be offended? Or maybe "Mic" is more your alley... As long as you aren't referring to an Irish person, there are only Irish people around, they shouldn't be offended, right?
Hint: Using a pejorative term for a group of people is going to offend that group of people even if you aren't directly targeting it at them, since the whole basis of your insult is implying that the person you are insulting is part of that group.
Welcome to the game. If you build a better mousetrap, someone will come up with a better mouse. This will then force someone to come up with an even better mousetrap, and so repeats the cycle.
But building a better mousetrap is rather difficult, which is why we have the saying about it.
The problem is that this "cycle" is so overwhelmingly stacked in favor of the attacker that treating it like some kind of treadmill you just have to have the dedication to stay on is foolhardy and doomed to fail. The problem of disabling an incoming missle is inherently orders of magnitude more difficult than the problem of landing a missle in the vicinity of a target.
It's always been this way in the battle between attack and defense. Knights' armor was easily penetrated by the English longbow. Once the cannon was invented, the reign of the castle ended almost overnight. Or look at a modern day example: The M1A1 Abrams, with all that technology first deployed in the 90s, has pretty good survivability against should-carried infantry weapons invented in the 60s, or cobbled-together explosives made in some insurgent's garage. Against a similarly modern weapon system, like an A-10's cannon, that super-advanced armor might as well not be there for how easily it is breached.
The way you stop a nuclear missle assault is not with a techonological shield that can never keep up due to its inherent disadvantage. You do it with psychology -- make the opponent not want to launch the missle. This is the basis for MAD, and it has been proven to be effective. Unlike this missle defence shield which fails even the most optimistic of tests rigged in its favor.
The sad part is that for the only enemy against whom MAD won't work -- rogue terrorist groups not tied to a nation they don't want to see remodelled into a glass parking lot -- are also the ones against whom missle defense will never work either, because they won't use missles.
The only benefit of a "missle defense shield" is that it keeps military contractors employeed and makes people who don't want to think too hard about this kind of thing anyway feel safe. Worth every penny, if you ask me!
Please. I play WoW regularly, and what I am describing is what you see in general chat. If you don't see it, then YOU are the one who is full of shit.
And as if it's any better if it's "U are a @#!@@$!", as if you don't know what they are saying, as if it isn't still offensive.
Three lost sales, maybe?
That's 75% of their GUN revenue! What's left will barely be enough for the bananas to pay the monkey who made it!
There's really nothing to see here, unless you think the system never works the way it's supposed to.
The President of the United States just got done telling us that he doesn't think this is the way it's supposed to work. According to him, he doesn't need warrants.
THAT is why this is a story.
In the end, they ended up only getting a warrant to take some of the computers, anyways, not all of them. But the fact that they got a warrant at all is more likely to be an indication that they had just cause to take the computers in the first place than it is that the judge that issued it was corrupt.
Which I'd just like to point out for everyone paying attention means that if the authorities don't get a warrant it is an indication that they don't have just cause.
The only reason this is a story is because we just watched our President tell us that he okay'ed spying on people without a warrant, but we should just trust him that the spying was with just cause. This article is merely a poignant counter example showing how things are supposed to work in a free nation, no matter what the charming not-Texan says.
do i have 2 explain why that dosnt work to u, u f4g0t?
I wonder what makes it different than most other MMOGs? Maybe he means he won't be using any of the advancements made in the genre in the last ten years? Or maybe it will make your progress dependent on suicidal AIs whose inevitable deaths costs you dearly won progress?
Or maybe he just means he'll sink incredible amounts of cash into a project that ends up being years late and when finally loosed upon the world is so beneath expectations that it vanishes quietly within months, only to be heard of in derisive jokes?
No, wait, that would be just like most MMOGs.
What they are trying to stop is Orgrimmar and Ironforge (Main capital cities for non-Azerothians) turning into huge (gay) bashing centers.
That's the problem. They already are. Blizzard is pretending this isn't the case to justify their policy, and it stinks.
If they harrass you for that, just tell them that... You[I] have taken up the cause to use "Fuck" in order to minimize the negativity and abuse of someone's sexual orientation by using the word "Gay" as an explitive in order to foster a better virtual reality for all manner of gamer.
What about the neuters, you insensitive clod?!
If "nigger" or "wetback" was the favorite insult of half the population of the WoW universe, then I would be equally insulted if Bliz's suggested that having a "black/hispanic friendly" guild was creating an issue that did not already exist.
Child is an ambiguous term. In the USA "child porn" includes visual depictions of 17 year olds. Also not everyone is the same - many children have mental capacities and maturity levels surpassing most slashdotters[1] or adults.
Many (most?) adults don't appear to understand the actions and ramifications of "said actions" too. I'm sure you yourself would know examples.
Thus to address your concerns, should we require people to obtain licenses and relevant counselling/education before they are allowed to perform said actions? And prohibit such actions if done by unlicensed practitioners?
I understand your reasoning. However, let me just clear something up. 18 is not the age at which you (supposedly) magically understand the ramifications of actions like being in a porn movie. 18 is the age at which society stops caring if you don't understand the ramifications of such and leaves you to screw your life up as you wish.
This is why a 17 year old, no matter how mature and clueful, is prohibited from doing certain things and an 18 year old, no matter how immature and clueless, is not. 18 years is your government-enforced "safety period", and after that the restraints come off. That's all.
What they are saying is that they don't want controversial out-of-game crap interfering with the game. If I had a guild called "Tauren for Bush" or "Nike Is Awesome" or "Hey, Remember That Show Alf?" or "I Like Chinese" it'd get renamed, because it's Blizzard's policy that real-world stuff not intrude into in-game names. If I started talking politics in general chat, and someone bothered to report me to a GM, I'd get a suspension. Why should officially gay-friendly guilds be any different?
Because this issue is already intruding into the game. Have you actually listened to General chat? Anti-gay sentiment is virtually omni-present. "Fag" is insult #1, and you can barely go a full chat-window worth of text without seeing it, and you know how bad it would be if someone admitted to being gay. Blizzard knows this, which is why they used the excuse they do -- people admitting they were gay would only amplify the level of abuse which already exists, and which the GBLT guild was supposed to be a way to escape from.
I'm typically very pro-gay rights, but it bugs me when people try to make it sound like it's illegal discrimination every time somebody doesn't want to talk about GLBT issues.
But people are talking about it, in an extremely negative way.
I swear, if every 3rd line of Barrens chat was "Fuck u nigger" would you be saying it's just a case of nobody wanting to talk about race issues? Sure would sound to me like race issues had already been brought up, and by the racists themselves! But since it's just faggots getting insulted, it's "not talking about it" to let people say whatever they want as long as it's anti-gay. As soon as someone wants to express pro-gay sentiment, then they're bringing up issues that don't belong in the game. I see how it is.
I would have to think that the group of people who see "gay friendly" as "Satan friendly" would have a higher percentage of people who think that any kind of RPG is Satan worship. These people are going to complain and protest no matter what, just because it's an RPG.
Yes, that was hyperbolic. I am referring to the large class of homophobes who see tolerance for homosexuality as an assault on heterosexuality. The ones who saw the 14th Ammendment ruling against the Texas sodomy law as an endorsement of sodomy. The ones who have no problem with violent or fantasy movies and video games, but would see a GBLT guild as Blizzard being pro-gay and thus anti-them.
Yes, of course it's bullcrap. I mean, listen to what they are actually saying. They are saying that granting homosexuals a guild that is explicitly friendly towards them would cause these people to be a target of harassment. So they are saying that WoW is an environment that is inherently hostile towards homosexuals, and the only thing stopping a homosexual from being harassed is that nobody knows they are. Joining a "GBLT friendly" guild would be like "coming out of the closet", and the only way to stay safe is to stay in the closet.
/ignore them. I /ignore jackasses all the time, and once you've done that what on earth can they do to you?
Just like in real life. And having a support group in real life is a bad idea for the same reasons, people might find out who you really are and harass you. So keep it a secret and don't get any support... that's obviously the answer to intolerance. [/bitter sarcasm]
Yet it's exactly how WoW isn't real life that makes this argument even more stupid. Having a GBLT-friendly guild is exactly how you would get around harassment in WoW. If you have your guildmates, then you don't need to worry about random strangers to try to get groups. If someone outside your guild trys to harass you for being in your guild, then you just
If you penetrate the crap and look at what Bliz's real motivations are, I'm pretty sure that really they don't want to be seen as truly "gay friendly" for fear of losing the demographic who sees "gay friendly" as basically "Satan friendly". Yet they don't want to lose the actual gay-friendly demographic either, so they toss out this half-assed excuse for why this is really all about tolerance and preventing harassment.
Uh, okay, "HungWeiLo", but this is pretty funny:
But then I have talked to Japanese teens (who should be in their mid-20's now) who thought Japan won World War II. So there.
Well there are American teens who don't know where Native Americans are from (not "Indians", Native Americans). So ha! We're still ahead in the War on Knowing Stuff.
The story goes that the Nintendo President told Ballmer to "suck my tiny yellow balls". Nintendo says that this is a hoax, the interview with Wired where this story was allegedly told never happened, and they seem to have a good enough sense of humor about it to make me think 1) it really is a hoax and 2) if MS tried to buy Nintendo (assuming they haven't already) the response would practically if not literally be the same.
Are you telling me that "Ubuntu" isn't a house-hold name? Blasphemy!
Hardware producers won't license the Trusted Computing technology unless they can be assured that the media companies are happy. And they won't be.
Which has what to do with GPL v3 vs GPL v2? Nothing. They will not be happy with either version.
Wasn't there a part where it says that if you distribute binaries for a "Trusted Computing" platform that have to be signed in order to run, you also have to distribute the keys required to sign them?
http://gplv3.fsf.org/draft
The only reference to anything like a key is in Section 6. Non-source Distribution:
"Distribution of the Corresponding Source in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented, unencumbered by patents, and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying."
Which just means the source distribution itself can't be encrypted in a way that the user can't open. I see nothing that says the recipient needs to be able to sign the code for use on a specific system that requires it.
And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to
require people to make their private signing keys available, for example.
I wouldn't do it.
I don't see anything in the draft that would require Linus to release his private signing keys. That would be insane if it were true, but it isn't.
The clarification on the licensing of the kernel (GPL v2 only and ever) is useful, though.