I have read the synopsis 4 (four) times and I didn't get shit.
Of course, TFA sheds some light on the whole thing, but really... work on your short version, guys, because what's in here makes no sense.
If you had just clicked the green button the machine would have understood it for you.
If they know what they're doing they're ok. Fedora is doing this for the rest of their users.
Though most Linux users will be brave enough to do this for themselves, those who are on the fence or who want to try something besides Windows may not be willing to futz with the UEFI (formerly known as BIOS) boot config.
I boot through EFI, which isn't this new fangled 'secure' UEFI... and yes, it's secure enough. My comment was targeted at the marketing mindset that MS will be pushing to try to convince non-Windows users that without MS's blessing your OS is no longer 'secure'.
Good thing Microsoft's way includes a required option in the UEFI setup to turn off secure boot. This whole story is horribly misleading.
So they must turn off secure booting in order to run another operating system. The DMCA implications aside, I'm not sure which is worse for the consumer: a 'secure boot' of Windows or a 'non-secure' boot of any other operating system?
You are correct, but MS is using its dominance to control hardware vendors. A 'licensed' secure boot certificate - licensed from MS - is what will allow Fedora to boot using the secure UEFI boot mechanism.
Red Hat is willing to pay to be licensed to be able to run on the new hardware. They are going out of their way so you can run Fedora on the new hardware. And you want to ditch them because of it? Remind me never to buy you a beer.
I don't understand how Microsoft is as fault here. Isn't it the hardware manufacturers that are locking out everyone but Microsoft? Shouldn't the hw people be the ones to make the platform open?
You have to do it MS's way or they won't let you sell hardware with Windows on it. MS controls the certificates used in the secure UEFI boot process. You either do it MS's way or you do it your own way... without any MS products to pre-install.
Just such things make me think that the default setting for software created with public money should be released with source code anyhow, barring context-specific reasons that it shouldn't be.
So that countries who have not spent money can use it for free?
I, for one, do not want the overpriced, often delayed, over managed & under performing software my taxes pay for to be 'free' for anyone, any company or any country. Let them overpay and wait for their own.
In my day those were called secret launches. They all turned out to be weather satellites so none of us were worried.
Don't be surprised if some of the 'tests' actually launch something for the military. It's not like they have to be worried that someone is going to see what they're doing up there.
I agree about the safety point. Exploration isn't about safety. When Columbus set out to find a trade route to India he knew some motherfuckers would die on the way over. But he went anyway because he knew there would be some major dubloons in it for him if he made it. Of course it helped that he was backed by a gold-hungry monarchy and not a democracy that would rather vote for free cheese and tax breaks. But I digress.
If governments thought that there was money to be made in space (mining, harvesting, conquering and pillaging, etc) they'd be putting anyone they could into vehicles that were 'good enough' and sending them out to bring back the bounty. In Columbus' day (and for hundred of years after) people's lives weren't worth much. People were even were at risk of being attacked by waring armies or marauders or even their own king's men on a daily basis. Sadly this remains true in some parts of the world.
Launching a two stage rocket to orbit is not exciting. Being able to build a tin can with a propulsion module is not exciting. I congratulate SpaceX for having done it, but it's not a major step forward in space technology.
It's pretty damn exciting if you are the company doing it. Just because most people take these things for granted doesn't mean we should dismiss the level of SpaceX's accomplishment. Hell, launching a new car company is pretty drab to most, but it is still a technological feat and is beyond the ability of most people who have ever lived (or ever will).
I've always thought that the national space agencies were on the wrong path for decades. They always seem to aim for increased security and safety. I think spaceflight has gone over the top: the costs of increased safety are just not worth it. Commercial enterprises are excellent at making a proper risk assessment: certain risks are simply acceptable. This attitude is likely to reduce costs, which is what we need.
If you're going to send people into space then reducing risks is your primary objective. Astronauts spend years in training and are a very specialized group. If you play it lose with their lives you're not going to have many 'volunteers', and the time between missions will always be increasing.
Since the shuttle was the primary means for getting people into space and delivering goods to the space station safety had to be paramount. Doing it with unmanned rockets reduces all the costs associated to the delivery. If one (or more) SpaceX rockets explodes on its way to the space station the costs of security and safety will not seem excessive.
I wonder what THAT license agreement is going to look like...
"Click 'OK' to let us do what we want or you'll never be able to access Facebook from your phone. Please don't ask about the details because frankly, you don't want to know."
If Facebook is working on a phone they will learn what Google learned when they released their first phone: customers expect and demand customer support. Facebook is not prepared to provide customer support any more than Google was.
Re:First priciples are the best for grilling
on
Grilling For Geeks
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
As someone who fixes things for friends and family, I find the first principle for great grilling is let them cook for you to make up for some of the countless hours you've spent helping them.
I did run for office, and was arguably the most intelligent, and least funded of the candidates.
I'm sorry you didn't succeed, but don't let one loss stop you from trying again. Getting elected requires a business plan for raising funds and gallons of tenacity.
I support our troops, though I don't support all of our government's policies or actions. Not everything is black and white no matter what you or Immanuel Kant says. Your right to define everything as good or bad, black or white, etc is as important as my right to disagree, though you would call be brainwashed for thinking there are shades of grey. From where I stand Immanuel Kant has done his share of brainwashing considering there are more facts and nuances to everything than he, you, or I will ever know or understand.
If you disagree so strongly with the practices and policies of the US then why don't you run for office, get elected and change them?
Finally, an Olympics logo that accurately represents how little I care about the Olympics. They used to be meaningful, but they've devolved into just another international political dog and pony show.
So tell me what about the Korean war or Vietnam had anything to do with protecting our country?
They were about protecting our allies. I certainly don't think they were a great idea but I can separate those who fought and died from the politicians who sent them into battle.
Furthermore what about the countless other lives that we have ended, and the countless populations that we have stolen from, in order to live in the extravagance that we enjoy today?
Once again you're equating the policies and practices of the government with the sacrifices made by those who serve in the military. They are not one and the same.
Brainwashed!
Things are not as black & white as agreeing with you or being brainwashed. It's that type of attitude that leads to conflicts... which lead to wars.
Besides, the holiday has become nothing more than a day to fill young minds with propaganda about how EVERYONE is a hero no matter what, just for BEING IN the military.
We drafted soldiers into WWI, WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam. Tens of thousands of them were killed, and many more were injured. I thank them and honor them for their service to our country. Subsequent military actions were staffed by men and women who volunteered to serve and protect our country. Thousands of them have been killed, and many more have been injured. I thank them and honor them for their service to our country.
I don't agree with all our government's policies regarding war, nation building, military spending, etc, but I can certainly distinguish between those in power that hatch these policies from those that fight, suffer and die because of them.
A civics lesson for you: the Whitehouse does not have the power to make laws. That is the exclusive domain of the Congress. You see, we have this little thing called "separation of powers"...
Very true... but the devil is in the details. The White House can draft legislation that is then sponsored by a member of congress just like 100's of lobbyists do.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there any way they can apply this to summaries and stories on /.? I'd be willing to read that summary ... and maybe even that story.
I have read the synopsis 4 (four) times and I didn't get shit.
Of course, TFA sheds some light on the whole thing, but really... work on your short version, guys, because what's in here makes no sense.
If you had just clicked the green button the machine would have understood it for you.
If they know what they're doing they're ok. Fedora is doing this for the rest of their users.
Though most Linux users will be brave enough to do this for themselves, those who are on the fence or who want to try something besides Windows may not be willing to futz with the UEFI (formerly known as BIOS) boot config.
I boot through EFI, which isn't this new fangled 'secure' UEFI ... and yes, it's secure enough. My comment was targeted at the marketing mindset that MS will be pushing to try to convince non-Windows users that without MS's blessing your OS is no longer 'secure'.
Good thing Microsoft's way includes a required option in the UEFI setup to turn off secure boot. This whole story is horribly misleading.
So they must turn off secure booting in order to run another operating system. The DMCA implications aside, I'm not sure which is worse for the consumer: a 'secure boot' of Windows or a 'non-secure' boot of any other operating system?
You are correct, but MS is using its dominance to control hardware vendors. A 'licensed' secure boot certificate - licensed from MS - is what will allow Fedora to boot using the secure UEFI boot mechanism.
Red Hat is willing to pay to be licensed to be able to run on the new hardware. They are going out of their way so you can run Fedora on the new hardware. And you want to ditch them because of it? Remind me never to buy you a beer.
I don't understand how Microsoft is as fault here. Isn't it the hardware manufacturers that are locking out everyone but Microsoft? Shouldn't the hw people be the ones to make the platform open?
You have to do it MS's way or they won't let you sell hardware with Windows on it. MS controls the certificates used in the secure UEFI boot process. You either do it MS's way or you do it your own way ... without any MS products to pre-install.
You're not going to wave your cellphone over a stripper.
You are if you're using four square to me mayor of that stripper ;-) The fun is finder her QR code.
Just such things make me think that the default setting for software created with public money should be released with source code anyhow, barring context-specific reasons that it shouldn't be.
So that countries who have not spent money can use it for free?
I, for one, do not want the overpriced, often delayed, over managed & under performing software my taxes pay for to be 'free' for anyone, any company or any country. Let them overpay and wait for their own.
I'm wiling to bet Apple goes after this right away. iTunes uses 'gifting' and I don't think Apple would ever settle with Amazon.
Unpublished Launches?
In my day those were called secret launches. They all turned out to be weather satellites so none of us were worried.
Don't be surprised if some of the 'tests' actually launch something for the military. It's not like they have to be worried that someone is going to see what they're doing up there.
I agree about the safety point. Exploration isn't about safety. When Columbus set out to find a trade route to India he knew some motherfuckers would die on the way over. But he went anyway because he knew there would be some major dubloons in it for him if he made it. Of course it helped that he was backed by a gold-hungry monarchy and not a democracy that would rather vote for free cheese and tax breaks. But I digress.
If governments thought that there was money to be made in space (mining, harvesting, conquering and pillaging, etc) they'd be putting anyone they could into vehicles that were 'good enough' and sending them out to bring back the bounty. In Columbus' day (and for hundred of years after) people's lives weren't worth much. People were even were at risk of being attacked by waring armies or marauders or even their own king's men on a daily basis. Sadly this remains true in some parts of the world.
Launching a two stage rocket to orbit is not exciting. Being able to build a tin can with a propulsion module is not exciting. I congratulate SpaceX for having done it, but it's not a major step forward in space technology.
It's pretty damn exciting if you are the company doing it. Just because most people take these things for granted doesn't mean we should dismiss the level of SpaceX's accomplishment. Hell, launching a new car company is pretty drab to most, but it is still a technological feat and is beyond the ability of most people who have ever lived (or ever will).
I've always thought that the national space agencies were on the wrong path for decades. They always seem to aim for increased security and safety. I think spaceflight has gone over the top: the costs of increased safety are just not worth it. Commercial enterprises are excellent at making a proper risk assessment: certain risks are simply acceptable. This attitude is likely to reduce costs, which is what we need.
If you're going to send people into space then reducing risks is your primary objective. Astronauts spend years in training and are a very specialized group. If you play it lose with their lives you're not going to have many 'volunteers', and the time between missions will always be increasing.
Since the shuttle was the primary means for getting people into space and delivering goods to the space station safety had to be paramount. Doing it with unmanned rockets reduces all the costs associated to the delivery. If one (or more) SpaceX rockets explodes on its way to the space station the costs of security and safety will not seem excessive.
I wonder what THAT license agreement is going to look like...
"Click 'OK' to let us do what we want or you'll never be able to access Facebook from your phone. Please don't ask about the details because frankly, you don't want to know."
If Facebook is working on a phone they will learn what Google learned when they released their first phone: customers expect and demand customer support. Facebook is not prepared to provide customer support any more than Google was.
As someone who fixes things for friends and family, I find the first principle for great grilling is let them cook for you to make up for some of the countless hours you've spent helping them.
When?[citation needed]
I'm sure there are instances after this one, but Jesse Owens springs to mind.
I did run for office, and was arguably the most intelligent, and least funded of the candidates.
I'm sorry you didn't succeed, but don't let one loss stop you from trying again. Getting elected requires a business plan for raising funds and gallons of tenacity.
I support our troops, though I don't support all of our government's policies or actions. Not everything is black and white no matter what you or Immanuel Kant says. Your right to define everything as good or bad, black or white, etc is as important as my right to disagree, though you would call be brainwashed for thinking there are shades of grey. From where I stand Immanuel Kant has done his share of brainwashing considering there are more facts and nuances to everything than he, you, or I will ever know or understand.
If you disagree so strongly with the practices and policies of the US then why don't you run for office, get elected and change them?
Finally, an Olympics logo that accurately represents how little I care about the Olympics. They used to be meaningful, but they've devolved into just another international political dog and pony show.
So tell me what about the Korean war or Vietnam had anything to do with protecting our country?
They were about protecting our allies. I certainly don't think they were a great idea but I can separate those who fought and died from the politicians who sent them into battle.
Furthermore what about the countless other lives that we have ended, and the countless populations that we have stolen from, in order to live in the extravagance that we enjoy today?
Once again you're equating the policies and practices of the government with the sacrifices made by those who serve in the military. They are not one and the same.
Brainwashed!
Things are not as black & white as agreeing with you or being brainwashed. It's that type of attitude that leads to conflicts ... which lead to wars.
Besides, the holiday has become nothing more than a day to fill young minds with propaganda about how EVERYONE is a hero no matter what, just for BEING IN the military.
We drafted soldiers into WWI, WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam. Tens of thousands of them were killed, and many more were injured. I thank them and honor them for their service to our country. Subsequent military actions were staffed by men and women who volunteered to serve and protect our country. Thousands of them have been killed, and many more have been injured. I thank them and honor them for their service to our country.
I don't agree with all our government's policies regarding war, nation building, military spending, etc, but I can certainly distinguish between those in power that hatch these policies from those that fight, suffer and die because of them.
A civics lesson for you: the Whitehouse does not have the power to make laws. That is the exclusive domain of the Congress. You see, we have this little thing called "separation of powers"...
Very true ... but the devil is in the details. The White House can draft legislation that is then sponsored by a member of congress just like 100's of lobbyists do.