>Last time I looked they were transparently rendered and cached as bitmaps anyway.
When was this, in the 3x days?
Open dolphin. Grab the slider. Watch as the icons in Dolphin magically resize as you move the slider back and forth at to completely arbitrary sizes that aren't limited to powers of 2.
I have said time and again on here that Apple took the concept of a repository from Linux distros and perverted it into something it shouldn't be. There is no way to add other trusted "stores," i.e, repos to IOS devices. You can't even add Amazon, for example - forget about adding non-commercial repos. This is not what the repo concept is in the Linux world is.
If you had actually ever used Linux from one of the major distros, you would understand this and why it's liked so much and why people like me also despise the concept of the single Apple Store.
The only way to really get more freedom is to root an IOS device, and I always recommend against this for the technologically inept, because of the danger of bricking.
It's also why I don't own an IOS device.
But who a I kidding, you're a self-admitted paid wintroll, and you'll just brush this off as "not typical"
>The strict game-console-style lockdown is only for Windows RT.
As if this makes it ok.
An ARM computer is just as much a real computer as one with an IA64 processor in it, especially when the new ARM processors coming out support 64 bit computing
Why shouldn't I be able to put Linux or any other OS compiled for ARM on an ARM machine? An ARM laptop running Linux would be a nice thing with longer battery life than what can be found with Intel processors. Why do I have to supplicate and offer $$ to Redmond, from where I did not acquire the OS?
Brushing this off as if it doesn't matter "because you Linux guys only care about i386 and IA64" is disingenuous.
And like I said earlier, just because one company (apple) does it, doesn't mean it's OK for other companies to follow suit. Apple perverted the concept of a repository. This is not supposed to be a blueprint for other companies.
You don't need to infect the boot to hose the user. It's so much easier to hose the user through normal channels - piracy, troans, spyware, annoyware (toolbars, etc) and "legitimate" software that has "we'll hose you when we like" in the privacy statement that never gets read.
Step 1. Take a popular software package. Bundle malware with it that passes the top 10 scanners. Step 2. Upload to usenet, direct download sites, and torrents. Step 3. Wait. Step 4. Botnet. There isn't even a ????????? here.
>The free option allows you to generate your own key.
With a UEFI Secure Boot that requires a Microsoft signed key, how does one generate a self-signed key that works?
>you're safe from hypervisor malware attacks.
This is an unrealistic attack and to present it as plausible and likely is laughable, since more mundane and common attacks are far more likely to be an actual problem. It's like recommending that I go outside every day with a hardhat to avoid falling meteors when the actual threat to my safety is people speeding through the neighborhood and not stopping at stop signs as I attempt to cross the street.
>I'm sure that if the linux community stops shouting
We should never stop shouting.
>official distro keys
The point of Linux for a lot of people is the ability to do your own kernels, your own bootloaders and your own software. This is the key to the rapid evoloution of Linux. Requiring everyone who does this to supplicate at the Altar of Redmond and give burnt offerings of $99 USD, is nuts, insulting, and is clearly an attack designed to take the steam out of the innovation in the Linux world. Fuck that noise.
>you'll find that a lot of the manufacturers will start pre-installing those keys
That's a really big IF there, especially since it's known that Microsoft is willing to strong-arm everyone it can.
>business range machines
I don't feel like paying for enterprise support for my own personal laptop, and I should not have to just to be able to install my own OS.
" Microsoft requires OEMs shipping Windows 8 to provide both options for the user to turn secure boot off completly AND for the user to install new keys of their choice."
A half truth is a whole lie.
Stop lying.
The other half of the truth is that on ARM devices, Secure Boot is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED AND MUST NEVER BE TURNED OFF
If you could generate a self-signed key for free, then I would have less of a problem with this.
But to get a key, you have to pay a notary and prostrate yourself before Microsoft and get their blessing, for 99 bucks. It's a tax on kernel builders and hobbyists who compile their own kernels with experimental patches - a tax on progress for BSD, Linux, Haiku, everyone who isn't Microsoft. It's also a hoop to jump through deliberately engineered to scare the less informed and to make it inconveniient to use a different OS for end users.
It doesn't protect end users one bit, because boot loading malware is scarce these days since it's just easier to attack the user with his own permissions, never bothering to escalate from userspace to kernel space. Because it's "good enough." There are enough dumb users out there that will click on anything to get a purple cow for Farmville that engineering a boot hijacker is too much like work for the botnet herder. Basically because there is no antivirus out there that can protect a computer from Layer 8 dumbassery.
It's a tax, an inconvenience, and it does absolutely nothing in reality to protect the end user.
I find it disappointing that instead of actively fighting secure boot and making a BIG PUBLIC STINK about it and embarrassing everyone involved in implementing this, the community is aquiescing to the concept and "working with it."
Stallman is right, guys, and anyone endorsing Trusted Computing 2.0 by either actively participating in the distribution of it, or tacit approval needs to be publicly humiliated and embarassed into doing the right thing.
Secure boot was never about protecting the end user.
>However, we got something you might translate as "Citation Right", that is: you're allowed to cite a certain amount of a published (and copyrighted) work without infringing on any copyright. The debate therefore is often "how much is a reasonable amount". Clearly "citing" whole articles wouldn't be assumed reasonable.
Just so you know this is part of what we in the US consider fair use.
Tack on parody and whatnot and you have the full definition of fair use in the US.
Fair use in the US does not mean copying whole articles, and that's not what search engines and indexers do, the ones that don't want to be sued into oblivion, that is.
What these publishers are upset about is citing a few sentences from the lede as part of the reference. A blind link without what the article is about is just nuts, and that's what the publishers are insisting on - no quotation at all. You can't depend on a headline.
If the publishers are going to reduce indexing to uselessness through lawsuits, then by all means the indexers and search engines should stop indexing the ones who sue. It's not about "excessive compliance" or spite as some publishers have said, it's how far removing fair use and citation rights removes value from everyone, even the publishers themselves.
The publishers are in posession of the Monkey's Paw. They can make all the wishes and demands they want - they are not free from unintended consequences.
Do you know how much of a stupid douchebag you are? Do you really? Do you even know one whit about the history of your own country? Were you skipping class that day in US history, out back, smoking weed with your stoner friends?
If there is no right to fair use, then all indexing is per-se illegal, and search providers pulling out of any and all indexing of publishers that sue it is justified.
There are battles worth fighting and battles against one's own feet with a loaded Uzi on automatic fire. The publishers have extra bullets just to make sure.
Publishers: "Hurr! Give us moneys to index us!" Search providers: "No, it's fair use." Publishers: "We will sue!" Search providers: "Go ahead" Court: "It's not fair use. Pay them." Search providers: "Sure thing, but after this, no indexing" Publishers: "We'll sue!" Search providers: "For what, exactly, complying with the court order?" Court: "by not indexing, they're not infringing" Publishers: "WAAAAA IT'S NOT FAIR!"
Yet you failed to read the following sentence where I said:
"but in general, the default is no logging for these services."
I know all about bots. We had them in telnet chats back in the 90s. But the *default* is no bots. If you are paranoid, tunnel ytalk or home-rolled voip over ssh. But while even that leaves one open to the person on the other end logging, the default is much more forgetful than the default modes of a web forum, usenet, blog, bbs, etc.
Everyone goes through the phase where one learns (or not) the difference between persistent public communication, and forgetful (I'm glad you used this term) communication.
IRC is forgetful Telnet chats are forgetful IMs and VOIP can be forgetful, depending on the service.
The caveat is that everything that is over the internet can be logged by one of the participating parties, but in general, the default is no logging for these services.
Everything that is a modern version of email, usenet, and BBSes are not forgetful. The default is that everything is a "permanent." It was laughable that people got their panties in a twist when DejaNews suddenly showed up - as if nobody ever saved usenet posts for fun and profit before DejaNews existed. The hand-wringing over FB and other persistent communication is just more of the same.
The people who can't distinguish between these services are the ones who have a problem.
I have the advantage in that I learned this shit back in the 80s.
>IRL
Wait... wait... with the availability of cameras everywhere, even embedded into eyeglasses with direct upload to Internet services, I have to say that your assumed "forgetful" drunken conversation down at the pub about how you lust after Justin Bieber, after ten gin gimlets, is going to be archived for fun and profit, for all posterity.
>Well, it worked quite well for the first half or more of the US history....we had more rights than we do now for the main thing...
Like what? Be specific. Because this is just vague hand-waving.
>Drug laws
I believe in "evolution in action" (it should all be legal, regulated, and taxed, OTC, even heroin, and if you're dumb enough to OD, well, bye.) but I'm not willing to break up the Union over it.
> Federal law trumps state law.
Of course. It says so in the Constitution. It's called the Supremacy clause. Article VI, Clause 2. Don't like it? Fight for a Constitutional amendment. I think that this is a bad idea, though. State nullification of federal law the road to balkanization and madness.
>gulf coast oil spill clean up > No...we have to fight for that money...
Because without some friction the invitation to fraud is too much. And even so, there has been fraud anyway.
As a side note, none of the oil spills in the Gulf were the Fed's fault. The Deepwater Horizon spill was because of engineering shortcuts. If you are pushing for less regulation over how we drill for oil, I have to look at you and ask you what your major malfunction is, because oil is not the only business that depends on the Gulf.
>regulating oil drilling on what is essentially federal land. >upset about this.
But navigable waterways are federal land, not state land. Louisiana does not own the Mississippi, nor should it. Navigable waterways are a common resource for *everybody.*
>feds take too much of a cut
Oh please. What about all the oil subsidies we friggin' paid for *years*? I'm not even sure we ever stopped paying them.
>implying that states would charge less for oil, coal, mineral, and timber leases on federal land.
Hohohoho. You underestimate the megalomania of what would be 50 tinpot dictatorships.
By the way, as a New Englander, I resent the fact that these statements are made without regards to the contribution that we up here also pay into which gets brushed aside and we get called "un-american" by the mouth breathers. It's my country too, ya know. While I don't like where some of my money goes, I recognize that this is a trade-off for the overall benefits we have as a country (E. Pluribus Unum) instead of a squabbling collection of indepenent states fighting against each other. I'm also not willing to sign a petition to secede from the Union like a lot of idiots.
President Obama may have his own executive chef now, but when his family and personal guests eat whatâ(TM)s coming out of the kitchen, heâ(TM)ll have to foot the bill himself. Luckily for him, though, the government picks up the tab if heâ(TM)s having a state function at the White House, which could get pricey since the White Houseâ(TM)s website touts that its five chefs can crank out dinner for 140 or hors dâ(TM)oeuvres for over a thousand people.
Does someone really keep track? Apparently, the White House functions like a luxury hotel in this regard. At the end of each month, the president receives a bill for his food and incidental expenses
In other words, if it's work related, he doesn't have to pay, but day to day food is billed to him.
This shit is googleable. You should try it some time.
Slashdot Mirror
>Last time I looked they were transparently rendered and cached as bitmaps anyway.
When was this, in the 3x days?
Open dolphin. Grab the slider. Watch as the icons in Dolphin magically resize as you move the slider back and forth at to completely arbitrary sizes that aren't limited to powers of 2.
Go back to 4chan /g/.
--
BMO
I have said time and again on here that Apple took the concept of a repository from Linux distros and perverted it into something it shouldn't be. There is no way to add other trusted "stores," i.e, repos to IOS devices. You can't even add Amazon, for example - forget about adding non-commercial repos. This is not what the repo concept is in the Linux world is.
If you had actually ever used Linux from one of the major distros, you would understand this and why it's liked so much and why people like me also despise the concept of the single Apple Store.
The only way to really get more freedom is to root an IOS device, and I always recommend against this for the technologically inept, because of the danger of bricking.
It's also why I don't own an IOS device.
But who a I kidding, you're a self-admitted paid wintroll, and you'll just brush this off as "not typical"
So whatever.
--
BMO
>but give other companies a free pass.
No. Fuck you.
Take your sweeping generalization and shove it squarely up your ass, RS.
--
BMO
>The strict game-console-style lockdown is only for Windows RT.
As if this makes it ok.
An ARM computer is just as much a real computer as one with an IA64 processor in it, especially when the new ARM processors coming out support 64 bit computing
Why shouldn't I be able to put Linux or any other OS compiled for ARM on an ARM machine? An ARM laptop running Linux would be a nice thing with longer battery life than what can be found with Intel processors. Why do I have to supplicate and offer $$ to Redmond, from where I did not acquire the OS?
Brushing this off as if it doesn't matter "because you Linux guys only care about i386 and IA64" is disingenuous.
And like I said earlier, just because one company (apple) does it, doesn't mean it's OK for other companies to follow suit. Apple perverted the concept of a repository. This is not supposed to be a blueprint for other companies.
--
BMO
You didn't read past his first sentence.
You don't need to infect the boot to hose the user. It's so much easier to hose the user through normal channels - piracy, troans, spyware, annoyware (toolbars, etc) and "legitimate" software that has "we'll hose you when we like" in the privacy statement that never gets read.
Step 1. Take a popular software package. Bundle malware with it that passes the top 10 scanners.
Step 2. Upload to usenet, direct download sites, and torrents.
Step 3. Wait.
Step 4. Botnet. There isn't even a ????????? here.
Infected boots are a minuscule problem.
--
BMO
>but iOS devices which are even worse get a pass
No they don't, not from the technorati. The lumpenproletariat don't care, but that's because they don't know and don't want to know.
Just because Apple does it doesn't make it right for Microsoft to do it.
"Timmy, stop hitting Audrey on the playground! It's not nice!"
"But moooom, Bobby was hitting Audrey too!"
Fucking schoolyard mentality.
--
BMO
>The free option allows you to generate your own key.
With a UEFI Secure Boot that requires a Microsoft signed key, how does one generate a self-signed key that works?
>you're safe from hypervisor malware attacks.
This is an unrealistic attack and to present it as plausible and likely is laughable, since more mundane and common attacks are far more likely to be an actual problem. It's like recommending that I go outside every day with a hardhat to avoid falling meteors when the actual threat to my safety is people speeding through the neighborhood and not stopping at stop signs as I attempt to cross the street.
>I'm sure that if the linux community stops shouting
We should never stop shouting.
>official distro keys
The point of Linux for a lot of people is the ability to do your own kernels, your own bootloaders and your own software. This is the key to the rapid evoloution of Linux. Requiring everyone who does this to supplicate at the Altar of Redmond and give burnt offerings of $99 USD, is nuts, insulting, and is clearly an attack designed to take the steam out of the innovation in the Linux world. Fuck that noise.
>you'll find that a lot of the manufacturers will start pre-installing those keys
That's a really big IF there, especially since it's known that Microsoft is willing to strong-arm everyone it can.
>business range machines
I don't feel like paying for enterprise support for my own personal laptop, and I should not have to just to be able to install my own OS.
Go away.
--
BMO
"Or else he'll post ad-hominem personal attacks about you on his blog"
And this matters why?
--
BMO
" Microsoft requires OEMs shipping Windows 8 to provide both options for the user to turn secure boot off completly AND for the user to install new keys of their choice."
A half truth is a whole lie.
Stop lying.
The other half of the truth is that on ARM devices, Secure Boot is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED AND MUST NEVER BE TURNED OFF
Shill.
--
BMO
If you could generate a self-signed key for free, then I would have less of a problem with this.
But to get a key, you have to pay a notary and prostrate yourself before Microsoft and get their blessing, for 99 bucks. It's a tax on kernel builders and hobbyists who compile their own kernels with experimental patches - a tax on progress for BSD, Linux, Haiku, everyone who isn't Microsoft. It's also a hoop to jump through deliberately engineered to scare the less informed and to make it inconveniient to use a different OS for end users.
It doesn't protect end users one bit, because boot loading malware is scarce these days since it's just easier to attack the user with his own permissions, never bothering to escalate from userspace to kernel space. Because it's "good enough." There are enough dumb users out there that will click on anything to get a purple cow for Farmville that engineering a boot hijacker is too much like work for the botnet herder. Basically because there is no antivirus out there that can protect a computer from Layer 8 dumbassery.
It's a tax, an inconvenience, and it does absolutely nothing in reality to protect the end user.
Yet you see no problem with this.
--
BMO
There was a time when the community embarassed Intel into not putting serial numbers into their processors.
I miss that time.
We have become soft.
--
BMO
But to get your own key, you have to shell out 99 bucks.
That's fucking galling. It's a tax.
--
BMO
I find it disappointing that instead of actively fighting secure boot and making a BIG PUBLIC STINK about it and embarrassing everyone involved in implementing this, the community is aquiescing to the concept and "working with it."
Stallman is right, guys, and anyone endorsing Trusted Computing 2.0 by either actively participating in the distribution of it, or tacit approval needs to be publicly humiliated and embarassed into doing the right thing.
Secure boot was never about protecting the end user.
--
BMO
>However, we got something you might translate as "Citation Right", that is: you're allowed to cite a certain amount of a published (and copyrighted) work without infringing on any copyright. The debate therefore is often "how much is a reasonable amount". Clearly "citing" whole articles wouldn't be assumed reasonable.
Just so you know this is part of what we in the US consider fair use.
Tack on parody and whatnot and you have the full definition of fair use in the US.
Fair use in the US does not mean copying whole articles, and that's not what search engines and indexers do, the ones that don't want to be sued into oblivion, that is.
What these publishers are upset about is citing a few sentences from the lede as part of the reference. A blind link without what the article is about is just nuts, and that's what the publishers are insisting on - no quotation at all. You can't depend on a headline.
If the publishers are going to reduce indexing to uselessness through lawsuits, then by all means the indexers and search engines should stop indexing the ones who sue. It's not about "excessive compliance" or spite as some publishers have said, it's how far removing fair use and citation rights removes value from everyone, even the publishers themselves.
The publishers are in posession of the Monkey's Paw. They can make all the wishes and demands they want - they are not free from unintended consequences.
--
BMO
"Give me your tired, your poor"
>French
Do you know how much of a stupid douchebag you are? Do you really? Do you even know one whit about the history of your own country? Were you skipping class that day in US history, out back, smoking weed with your stoner friends?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Lazarus
Fuck you, very much.
--
BMO
If there is no right to fair use, then all indexing is per-se illegal, and search providers pulling out of any and all indexing of publishers that sue it is justified.
There are battles worth fighting and battles against one's own feet with a loaded Uzi on automatic fire. The publishers have extra bullets just to make sure.
--
BMO
How would that even be winnable?
Publishers: "Hurr! Give us moneys to index us!"
Search providers: "No, it's fair use."
Publishers: "We will sue!"
Search providers: "Go ahead"
Court: "It's not fair use. Pay them."
Search providers: "Sure thing, but after this, no indexing"
Publishers: "We'll sue!"
Search providers: "For what, exactly, complying with the court order?"
Court: "by not indexing, they're not infringing"
Publishers: "WAAAAA IT'S NOT FAIR!"
This already happend in Belgium.
--
BMO
It's like nobody reads past that line to the qualifying sentence.
You should go back and sue your reading teachers for doing a piss poor job.
Context, how does it fuckin' work?
--
BMO
Yet you failed to read the following sentence where I said:
"but in general, the default is no logging for these services."
I know all about bots. We had them in telnet chats back in the 90s. But the *default* is no bots. If you are paranoid, tunnel ytalk or home-rolled voip over ssh. But while even that leaves one open to the person on the other end logging, the default is much more forgetful than the default modes of a web forum, usenet, blog, bbs, etc.
--
BMO
Everyone goes through the phase where one learns (or not) the difference between persistent public communication, and forgetful (I'm glad you used this term) communication.
IRC is forgetful
Telnet chats are forgetful
IMs and VOIP can be forgetful, depending on the service.
The caveat is that everything that is over the internet can be logged by one of the participating parties, but in general, the default is no logging for these services.
Everything that is a modern version of email, usenet, and BBSes are not forgetful. The default is that everything is a "permanent." It was laughable that people got their panties in a twist when DejaNews suddenly showed up - as if nobody ever saved usenet posts for fun and profit before DejaNews existed. The hand-wringing over FB and other persistent communication is just more of the same.
The people who can't distinguish between these services are the ones who have a problem.
I have the advantage in that I learned this shit back in the 80s.
>IRL
Wait... wait... with the availability of cameras everywhere, even embedded into eyeglasses with direct upload to Internet services, I have to say that your assumed "forgetful" drunken conversation down at the pub about how you lust after Justin Bieber, after ten gin gimlets, is going to be archived for fun and profit, for all posterity.
--
BMO
>Well, it worked quite well for the first half or more of the US history....we had more rights than we do now for the main thing...
Like what? Be specific. Because this is just vague hand-waving.
>Drug laws
I believe in "evolution in action" (it should all be legal, regulated, and taxed, OTC, even heroin, and if you're dumb enough to OD, well, bye.) but I'm not willing to break up the Union over it.
> Federal law trumps state law.
Of course. It says so in the Constitution. It's called the Supremacy clause. Article VI, Clause 2. Don't like it? Fight for a Constitutional amendment. I think that this is a bad idea, though. State nullification of federal law the road to balkanization and madness.
>gulf coast oil spill clean up
> No...we have to fight for that money...
Because without some friction the invitation to fraud is too much. And even so, there has been fraud anyway.
As a side note, none of the oil spills in the Gulf were the Fed's fault. The Deepwater Horizon spill was because of engineering shortcuts. If you are pushing for less regulation over how we drill for oil, I have to look at you and ask you what your major malfunction is, because oil is not the only business that depends on the Gulf.
>regulating oil drilling on what is essentially federal land.
>upset about this.
But navigable waterways are federal land, not state land. Louisiana does not own the Mississippi, nor should it. Navigable waterways are a common resource for *everybody.*
>feds take too much of a cut
Oh please. What about all the oil subsidies we friggin' paid for *years*? I'm not even sure we ever stopped paying them.
>implying that states would charge less for oil, coal, mineral, and timber leases on federal land.
Hohohoho. You underestimate the megalomania of what would be 50 tinpot dictatorships.
By the way, as a New Englander, I resent the fact that these statements are made without regards to the contribution that we up here also pay into which gets brushed aside and we get called "un-american" by the mouth breathers. It's my country too, ya know. While I don't like where some of my money goes, I recognize that this is a trade-off for the overall benefits we have as a country (E. Pluribus Unum) instead of a squabbling collection of indepenent states fighting against each other. I'm also not willing to sign a petition to secede from the Union like a lot of idiots.
--
BMO
Dang, someone posted a troll and got called on it. And you don't like it. Well, tough.
Deal with it.
--
BMO
>Actually they don't pay for their own food when they are at the white house
Actually, you're wrong.
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/21928#ixzz2DXCKJM57
In other words, if it's work related, he doesn't have to pay, but day to day food is billed to him.
This shit is googleable. You should try it some time.
--
BMO
Explain what this would accomplish.
I see a lot of people hopping up and down about states rights, but no actual exposition of what that would mean.
What do you expect to get out of states rights? What practical results would you get out of this?
--
BMO
You know what?
I'll just let you talk. Tell everyone here exactly what you think.
Expound on this "stealing" thing that you think is going on.
--
BMO