People like to be Johhny Historians. "Oh, lol lol, _this_ guy is just crazy, I mean look at all these other people who said shit that turned out totally silly and wrong [knowing wink]!!"
Bullshit. Lots of people who have made such statements turned out to be right, but people just remember the ones like Ballmer made because they happened to be wrong.
In this case, he's more than likely right. On the one hand Apple has hordes of loyal dipshits who will buy anything they shovel them and who want a monoculture. These fucksticks would throw away their TVs and get in lines for a $2000 50" Apple TV in a heartbeat.
The thing is, however, that a TV isn't _about_ the interface. You watch the content, you only interact with it to set up recordings or change channels. Speech recognition is lame in such a concept, you're going to sit there like a god damn idiot yelling at your TV?
So I give him a 70% chance of being right. The 30% chance is due to the idiocy of Applebots, which I may be underestimating.
There is no such "hard data". There is a mixed bag of studies pointing any way you choose to make your argument. That's where this thing we non-Aspergers people call "common sense" comes in. In the absence of hard data, we use our life experience and basic reasoning skills to determine how we make decisions.
But I, for one, welcome our new donkey-porn watching child overlords.
I don't need data, because there isn't any. "Show me the data" is fine when it comes to something where the data exists. It's intellectually lazy when it comes to a discussion like this.
I've seen it harm someone I knew when I was growing up. She was pregnant at 12 and never quite became well adjusted. That's not evidence, but neither are you.
Would you say it harms a child to watch a donkey make love to a woman, then be beheaded and the blood sprayed all over the child? Say.. a 6 year old? Surely you have evidence that it would be harmful if you indeed think it would be, right?
Ahh, how the facile application of the scientific method and the general nerd's refrain of "show me the evidence, N'glaven!" when applied to complex subjects of human development and psychology.. how it amuses me.
Let me ask you.. do you think a parent who denigrates his child consistently is bad for a child? What about sexual abuse? How about consensual sex and childbirth by a 12 year old girl? Would you guess that being raised to hate gays is bad for kids? Being raised watching 4 hours of TV a day? Eating TV dinners 4 times a day?
No, you probably don't. Some may have some weak evidence supporting them, most probably no good studies have been done. How do you do a study on something like that and have it be reproducible, consistent, etc...?
I support your decision to not be a parent. Common sense: it's fundamental.
Porn, and I mean real porn not Playboy or nonsexual nudity, is bad for some kids, probably not bad for others. I know it's bad for at least some kids because I've seen it (pregnant at 12, STDs, generally aimless and fucked up adulthood). So therefore as a parent I would not allow it and work very hard to ensure it's not seen until they're old enough to outsmart me (good luck).
There is no evidence either way. And I'll see your story and point do a dozen others where kids (especially girls) found their dad's porn and turned into raging whores by 12 years old.
Would you also posit that sexual abuse of a child is also not harmful? Exposure to porn (real porn, not just nudity) is a form of sexual abuse in children (real children.
What did I expect, I guess, coming to Slashdot to comment about parenting to a bunch of neckbeard dweebs.
Listen to you, same old "durr, porn's not bad for kids!" nonsense. Please have kids and show them porn all the time. I'm sure they'll turn out _great_, though you being in prison might actually help them in the long term.
False. Come on. Work with me here, the freaking _linked article_ refutes this! I mean really, this place is risible enough with all the rampaging neckbeards who don't know what they're talking about (80%), spreading lies (10%) and generally FUDDing it up (10%).
Seriously, don't be part of the problem. Educate yourself and make _real_ points. Microsoft must be _one of_ the trusted keys. Nothing prevents other keys.
Most hardware you'll be able to buy towards the end of the year will be Windows 8 certified. That means that it'll be carrying a set of secure boot keys, and if it comes with Windows 8 pre-installed then secure boot will be enabled by default. This set of keys isn't absolutely fixed and will probably vary between manufacturers, but anything with a Windows logo will carry the Microsoft key[1].
They are doing no such thing. Microsoft is not forcing vendors to ship computers with only MS approved keys, in fact vendors could include Fedora keys as the author of the article mentioned.
So maybe you're not stupid, and you're just lying. If that's the case I apologize for calling you stupid.
Aww, modded down by angry, clueless nerds. I'll just post again.
This is nonsense, the editorial on this article is gibberish.
First, secure boot is a legitimate concern. If you can guarantee a specific boot loader, you have a trust base to build a more secure system.
Second, you can install any OS you want. Just turn off secure boot, it's perfectly valid to do so. Just understand that now your boot foundations are untrusted, just like they are now on almost all PCs.
And what kind of person is going to install Fedora but can't be bothered how to boot into their BIOS and click "Yes, allow me to install other operating systems [X]"? Generally you can even install your keys, just like you can with SSL certs that you might trust.
Finally, Microsoft is doing Fedora a _favor_ here. Fedora is, as actual author indicated, totally free to get their own keys added. Microsoft isn't the problem here, but as usual the breathless, bloviating editorial text tries to make them out to be.
Shut up, neckbeard. You really sound stupid considering the technical issues involved here. Secure boot is a valid feature, any OS can still be installed by anyone. It's much ado about nothing.
You don't know what you're talking about, but thanks for broadcasting such so I know to ignore your bloviating in the future. Neither MS nor Redhat/Fedora is doing anything even remotely wrong here.
Clueless neckbeard dweeb:
OMG Fedora is paying MS $99 to have a nicer user experience to save their users 30 seconds of going in and disabling secure boot or manually installing Fedora keys!?!! OMG, I IZ BREATHLESS AND ENRAGED!!!
Fucking neckbeards. Ironically they have a reputation for being good in IT/software but at least 50% of them are semi computer-illiterate dim bulbs.
Because MS isn't fucking doing anything. You can still install whatever OS you want on your PC, Fedora can still get their own keys added by hardware vendors. Microsoft is being nice enough to help Fedora out. This is all much ado about nothing by people who don't have the foggiest idea of what's going on but see "M$" and instantly go full retard.
Antitrust complaint against whom?! The hardware vendors? "Reality"? The simple fact is trusted boot is a very valid security feature, and there's no amount of clueless whining people can do to change that. If you want to install Linux, you can absolutely do so - spend 30 seconds to go into the BIOS and say "Allow untrusted boot". Very simple.
This is nonsense, the editorial on this article is gibberish.
First, secure boot is a legitimate concern. If you can guarantee a specific boot loader, you have a trust base to build a more secure system.
Second, you can install any OS you want. Just turn off secure boot, it's perfectly valid to do so. Just understand that now your boot foundations are untrusted, just like they are now on almost all PCs.
And what kind of person is going to install Fedora but can't be bothered how to boot into their BIOS and click "Yes, allow me to install other operating systems [X]"? Generally you can even install your keys, just like you can with SSL certs that you might trust.
Finally, Microsoft is doing Fedora a _favor_ here. Fedora is, as actual author indicated, totally free to get their own keys added. Microsoft isn't the problem here, but as usual the breathless, bloviating editorial text tries to make them out to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Lie. Lie, lie lie. Why are you lying? Microsoft requires that their key be included, it does not require that no other key can be included.
Lol, exactly. It's amazing how good they (Nintendo) are at some things and how ridiculously bad they are at others.
Bullshit. Lots of people who have made such statements turned out to be right, but people just remember the ones like Ballmer made because they happened to be wrong.
In this case, he's more than likely right. On the one hand Apple has hordes of loyal dipshits who will buy anything they shovel them and who want a monoculture. These fucksticks would throw away their TVs and get in lines for a $2000 50" Apple TV in a heartbeat.
The thing is, however, that a TV isn't _about_ the interface. You watch the content, you only interact with it to set up recordings or change channels. Speech recognition is lame in such a concept, you're going to sit there like a god damn idiot yelling at your TV?
So I give him a 70% chance of being right. The 30% chance is due to the idiocy of Applebots, which I may be underestimating.
Nice list of criticisms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_violence_research
And if you're a kneejerk "Wikipedialol"er, you can check the attributed sources.
Like I said, lots of studies confirming the link, lots not confirming.
That said, common sense again dictates that it would be harmful to let your kid watch nonstop Chucky and Saw.
There is no such "hard data". There is a mixed bag of studies pointing any way you choose to make your argument. That's where this thing we non-Aspergers people call "common sense" comes in. In the absence of hard data, we use our life experience and basic reasoning skills to determine how we make decisions.
But I, for one, welcome our new donkey-porn watching child overlords.
I don't need data, because there isn't any. "Show me the data" is fine when it comes to something where the data exists. It's intellectually lazy when it comes to a discussion like this.
I've seen it harm someone I knew when I was growing up. She was pregnant at 12 and never quite became well adjusted. That's not evidence, but neither are you.
Would you say it harms a child to watch a donkey make love to a woman, then be beheaded and the blood sprayed all over the child? Say.. a 6 year old? Surely you have evidence that it would be harmful if you indeed think it would be, right?
No, I'm in that loony, crazy camp who thinks 7 year olds shouldn't be watching triple penetration midget porn.
Crazy, I know.
Ahh, how the facile application of the scientific method and the general nerd's refrain of "show me the evidence, N'glaven!" when applied to complex subjects of human development and psychology.. how it amuses me.
Let me ask you.. do you think a parent who denigrates his child consistently is bad for a child? What about sexual abuse? How about consensual sex and childbirth by a 12 year old girl? Would you guess that being raised to hate gays is bad for kids? Being raised watching 4 hours of TV a day? Eating TV dinners 4 times a day?
No, you probably don't. Some may have some weak evidence supporting them, most probably no good studies have been done. How do you do a study on something like that and have it be reproducible, consistent, etc...?
I support your decision to not be a parent. Common sense: it's fundamental.
Porn, and I mean real porn not Playboy or nonsexual nudity, is bad for some kids, probably not bad for others. I know it's bad for at least some kids because I've seen it (pregnant at 12, STDs, generally aimless and fucked up adulthood). So therefore as a parent I would not allow it and work very hard to ensure it's not seen until they're old enough to outsmart me (good luck).
There is no evidence either way. And I'll see your story and point do a dozen others where kids (especially girls) found their dad's porn and turned into raging whores by 12 years old.
Would you also posit that sexual abuse of a child is also not harmful? Exposure to porn (real porn, not just nudity) is a form of sexual abuse in children (real children.
What did I expect, I guess, coming to Slashdot to comment about parenting to a bunch of neckbeard dweebs.
Lol@You. Porn != nudity. Again, show your kids a cool double penetration scene, I'm sure they'll be _fine_.
Evidence.. What a bunch of risible bullshit. Human psychology and development is at best a pseudoscience, so there can be no evidence either way.
I've witnessed a child exposed to porn, she grew up to be a shiftless whore who caught herpes, crabs by the time she was 12.
Listen to you, same old "durr, porn's not bad for kids!" nonsense. Please have kids and show them porn all the time. I'm sure they'll turn out _great_, though you being in prison might actually help them in the long term.
Common sense: look into it some time.
False. Come on. Work with me here, the freaking _linked article_ refutes this! I mean really, this place is risible enough with all the rampaging neckbeards who don't know what they're talking about (80%), spreading lies (10%) and generally FUDDing it up (10%).
Seriously, don't be part of the problem. Educate yourself and make _real_ points. Microsoft must be _one of_ the trusted keys. Nothing prevents other keys.
Most hardware you'll be able to buy towards the end of the year will be Windows 8 certified. That means that it'll be carrying a set of secure boot keys, and if it comes with Windows 8 pre-installed then secure boot will be enabled by default. This set of keys isn't absolutely fixed and will probably vary between manufacturers, but anything with a Windows logo will carry the Microsoft key[1].
They are doing no such thing. Microsoft is not forcing vendors to ship computers with only MS approved keys, in fact vendors could include Fedora keys as the author of the article mentioned.
So maybe you're not stupid, and you're just lying. If that's the case I apologize for calling you stupid.
This is nonsense, the editorial on this article is gibberish.
First, secure boot is a legitimate concern. If you can guarantee a specific boot loader, you have a trust base to build a more secure system.
Second, you can install any OS you want. Just turn off secure boot, it's perfectly valid to do so. Just understand that now your boot foundations are untrusted, just like they are now on almost all PCs.
And what kind of person is going to install Fedora but can't be bothered how to boot into their BIOS and click "Yes, allow me to install other operating systems [X]"? Generally you can even install your keys, just like you can with SSL certs that you might trust.
Finally, Microsoft is doing Fedora a _favor_ here. Fedora is, as actual author indicated, totally free to get their own keys added. Microsoft isn't the problem here, but as usual the breathless, bloviating editorial text tries to make them out to be.
Shut up, neckbeard. You really sound stupid considering the technical issues involved here. Secure boot is a valid feature, any OS can still be installed by anyone. It's much ado about nothing.
Begging the question. Microsoft does not control the keys.
You don't know what you're talking about, but thanks for broadcasting such so I know to ignore your bloviating in the future. Neither MS nor Redhat/Fedora is doing anything even remotely wrong here.
Clueless neckbeard dweeb:
OMG Fedora is paying MS $99 to have a nicer user experience to save their users 30 seconds of going in and disabling secure boot or manually installing Fedora keys!?!! OMG, I IZ BREATHLESS AND ENRAGED!!!
Fucking neckbeards. Ironically they have a reputation for being good in IT/software but at least 50% of them are semi computer-illiterate dim bulbs.
Because MS isn't fucking doing anything. You can still install whatever OS you want on your PC, Fedora can still get their own keys added by hardware vendors. Microsoft is being nice enough to help Fedora out. This is all much ado about nothing by people who don't have the foggiest idea of what's going on but see "M$" and instantly go full retard.
One should avoid going full retard at all costs.
Bullshit. Microsoft is doing nothing wrong, Fedora is free to get their own keys and the end-user is free to just turn off secure boot.
You know nothing of what you speak.
False and/or a lie. You are and will continue to be able to run whatever OS you want on your PC.
That switch already exists. You can install any OS you want on your machine.
What now?
Antitrust complaint against whom?! The hardware vendors? "Reality"? The simple fact is trusted boot is a very valid security feature, and there's no amount of clueless whining people can do to change that. If you want to install Linux, you can absolutely do so - spend 30 seconds to go into the BIOS and say "Allow untrusted boot". Very simple.
You clearly don't understand the nature of the issue, and it's not blackmail. Please stop being so clueless if at all possible.
Article is only slightly breathless and hysterical, summary is just plain ridiculous.
This is nonsense, the editorial on this article is gibberish.
First, secure boot is a legitimate concern. If you can guarantee a specific boot loader, you have a trust base to build a more secure system.
Second, you can install any OS you want. Just turn off secure boot, it's perfectly valid to do so. Just understand that now your boot foundations are untrusted, just like they are now on almost all PCs.
And what kind of person is going to install Fedora but can't be bothered how to boot into their BIOS and click "Yes, allow me to install other operating systems [X]"? Generally you can even install your keys, just like you can with SSL certs that you might trust.
Finally, Microsoft is doing Fedora a _favor_ here. Fedora is, as actual author indicated, totally free to get their own keys added. Microsoft isn't the problem here, but as usual the breathless, bloviating editorial text tries to make them out to be.