|
Authored by: TiddlyPom on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 08:09 AM EDT |
Secure boot (through UEFI) is one of the biggest threats to Linux yet and we are
marching towards a situation where hardware manufacturers can deny us the
opportunity to boot Linux on the platforms that we want to.
Se
e "Less Freedom is no freedom"
Even more worrying is the though that
governments could then use "secure boot" as a means of preventing people from
booting any other code than that 'authorized' by the state. In other words we
can prevent you from running Linux on your laptop simply because we don't want
you to - after all if the operating system does not have the relevant government
back doors in it then you must be a terrorist or child molester -
right?
This is an attack on fundamental freedoms - and with Red Hat/Fedora and Canonical/Ubuntu capitulating to Microsoft over the use of secure keys -
it means that ultimately Microsoft can CONTROL whether Linux can run on 'their'
hardware (even though the hardware is generic and not tied exclusively for
Windows).
I know that WE have known about the problem for ages (plenty
of people will be saying 'I told you so'). It is time that the wider public
knew about this too otherwise Microsoft's conquest of the consumer computer
industry will be complete.
--- Support Software Freedom - use GPL
licenced software like Linux and LibreOffice instead of proprietary software
like Microsoft Windows/Office or Apple OS/X [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 09:16 AM EDT |
Don't know if this has been noted, but the Apple vs Motorola case was dismissed
with prejudice on Friday: link
(infoworld.com). Any opinions? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sproggit on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 09:41 AM EDT |
The BBC News web site is currently carrying this article
about 4 people who are being charged after making a protest about Climate Change
outside Buckingham Palance last Sunday.
What's interesting about this
is that the article goes on to say that the individuals are being charged under
provisions of the Serious Organised
Crime & Police Act of 2005.
Say what?
How could it
be that an Act of Parliament designed to provide the legal foundation for the
Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) could include something relating to
protests? Believe it or not, this story gets even more bizarre...
Part
Four of the Act is entitled, "Public order and conduct in public places etc" and
includes provisions relating to this as a general area of criminal activity. Section 132
of the Act criminalises unauthorised demonstrations within a "Designated Area".
Then, Section
138 of the Act goes on to clarify that anywhere within a "straight-line"
distance of 1 kilometre of Parliament Square, or any other area deemed
relevant by the Home Secretary shall be a designated
area.
Obviously, Buckingham Palace (site of the arrests in question)
falls within the 1km radius of the nearest point of Parliament Square and thus
the arrest of the 4 individuals was entirely lawful...
But here's the
weird bit. How on earth did we get "protests at Parliament Square" added to the
Serious Organised Crime Act??? Isn't "Serious Organised Crime" things
like drug cartels, gang labour, organised crime syndicates and the like?
Well, of course it is. So why did the provisions against protests make
it into SOCA?
The on-line documentation does not reveal the true
reason. I can speculate that it just so happened that when, a few years ago, we
had issues of protests at Parliament Square, MPs decided that they did not like
to see protesting citizens right outside their offices and chose to stop it by
enacting laws to outlaw such behaviour (for, cynically speaking, a government
would not want to be seen to be back-tracking on policy just because someone had
the temerity to protest...).
But that brings a problem. The issue is
that it takes a sitting government a lot of time and effort to spin up to
writing a new law. First it has to be declared in the Queen's Speech at the
opening of the next parliament. Then drafts have to be prepared by committee,
various and multiple readings of the law by both chambers (House of Commons,
House of Lords) and finally enactment via Royal Ascent.
All of which
takes time.
So, what do you do when you're a sitting government and
are publicly embarrassed by a group of citizens who choose to protest right on
your doorstep? Answer, make a quick change to a law that's already going through
the enactment process, to get your ideas in a little bit faster. Hence we have
public protests covered by SOCA.
Is it appropriate? Probably not. Was
it really necessary? Only to those who didn't like being reminded that what they
were doing was unpopular. What's the result? Another potentially distorted law
going on to the statute in the UK.
One of the things I find to be a
challenge when I discuss this with fellow UK citizens is that 99% of people
don't understand why this could be a problem. They don't see that the vastly
complex and unwieldy laws cost us a fortune to enforce. They don't always
understand that hugely complicated systems of benefits and deductions, of taxes
and allowances, require us to have a small army of civil servants to make sense
of it, and cost us a fortune to administer. Nor do they see the potential for
injustice and mistakes when we try to implement such laws.
This isn't
a "party political" issue, nor is it unique to the UK. It seems to be a problem
across the world, where a sitting government "tweaks" legislation to suit their
own purpose.
What a shame that no potential candidate, no aspirant
political opposition, is willing to step up to the plate and commit to doing
something to sort out the awful mess of laws by which we are governed...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JamesK on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 10:03 AM EDT |
Microsoft has alienated its hardware partners and will
soon be rolling out a version of Windows that many people already dislike. Will
the Linux desktop finally get its shot for the big-time? --- The
following program contains immature subject matter. Viewer discretion is
advised. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Why should Linux move to the desktop? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 11:21 AM EDT
- Why should Linux move to the desktop? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 11:41 AM EDT
- Why should Linux move to the desktop? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 11:45 AM EDT
- Why should Linux move to the desktop? - Authored by: JamesK on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 11:47 AM EDT
- Why should Linux move to the desktop? - Authored by: greed on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 11:49 AM EDT
- Why should Linux move to the desktop? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT
- I Love my *REAL* keyboard and my dual large screens! (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 12:41 PM EDT
- Why should Linux move to the desktop? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 02:44 PM EDT
- Linux doesn't move, it's inanimate - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 01:00 AM EDT
- Five to Ten Minute Boot Time??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 02:20 AM EDT
- Why should Linux move to the desktop? - Authored by: globularity on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 04:26 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 01:43 PM EDT |
Today, the Dutch Secretary of Security and Justice and the Minister of Economic
Affairs have confirmed to Parliament that the Dutch Cabinet will not sign the
Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), No Matter What The EU Bodies Will
Decide[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- ACTA - Authored by: stegu on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 08:00 AM EDT
- ACTA - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 04:44 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 01:44 PM EDT |
Source: Microsoft Passes On Motorola Settlement
for Patent Lawsuit
In the latest move in the Microsoft-Motorola
patent lawsuit, Motorola, now owned by Google, reportedly asked for a 2.25
percent royalty on all Xbox 360s sold to walk away from litigation, but
Microsoft turned down Motorola’s settlement offer. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 02:21 PM EDT |
These twisted signals use orbital angular momentum (OAM) to cram
much more data into a single stream. In current state-of-the-art transmission
protocols (WiFi, LTE, COFDM), we only modulate the spin angular momentum (SAM)
of radio waves, not the OAM. If you picture the Earth, SAM is our planet
spinning on its axis, while OAM is our movement around the Sun. Basically, the
breakthrough here is that researchers have created a wireless network protocol
that uses both OAM and SAM.
Sebastian Anthony, ExtremeTech[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: qrider70 on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 05:34 PM EDT |
Because Netflix is not providing subtitles or captioning for Deaf and hard
of hearing users (in violation of ADA and other laws), NAD (and other
plaintiffs working with NAD) are now in the process of suing Netflix so that
Deaf and hard of hearing consumers are able to fully enjoy the information
available on the internet. Hopefully, this will help other providers of online
streaming and the content providers themselves to take into consideration the
needs of those of us who are not able to access their programming without
subtitles.
NAD is a Deaf-led national organization that represents the
needs of
Deaf people in the United States who function as a linguistic
community
where American Sign Language is the preferred language of
communication.
Deaf organizations at the state and local levels contribute to
the decision-
making process of the NAD.
There are other organizations
that represent the needs and views of
those who are hard of hearing and prefer
to function more as a hearing
person. In this instance, having subtitling or
captioning available is a shared
interest for both Deaf and hard of hearing
individuals.
Link [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 11:54 PM EDT |
'"Apparently, a few weeks ago...Microsoft held executive-
level reviews with
Windows 8 tablet OEMs to get even further
details on OEM launch and marketing
plans and pricing." Then
a few weeks after those meetings, Surface was
launched, the
first time for Microsoft to bring out a PC device in its
roughly
40-year history.` link [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Chromatix on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 02:29 AM EDT |
Someone got stuck in jail for an extra couple of days because the bank could not
confirm that his bail payment had been made. BBC [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 03:48 AM EDT |
not law yet thank heaven [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BJ on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 02:17 PM EDT |
Story on Slashdot
bjd
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 02:27 PM EDT |
Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity
In the wake
of the Flashback botnet which targeted Mac computers, Apple has removed a
statement from its messages on its website that Mac operating system X (OS X)
isn't susceptible to viruses.
Apple removed the previous statement "It
doesn't get PC viruses" and replaced it with "It's built to be safe," and
"Safeguard your data. By doing nothing" with "Safety. Built
in."
Hamish Barwick, Computerworld-Australia[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jvillain on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 03:00 PM EDT |
MPEG-LA is tooling up for a whole new generation of patent encumbered video. Got
a useless patent you haven't been able to get any one to bite on? Make a case
for using it here.
Story [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 04:09 PM EDT |
I just had a thought, don't laugh, sometimes the impossible is possible.
What if patents were only granted to applications that could show some value to
the citizenship as a whole. First they would have to PROVE that they are worth
the monopoly protection that having a patent gives them before gaining that
protection. I think that would end virtually all obvious or otherwise obtuse
claims. After all, isn't that what patents are for, extending knowledge by
providing temporary protection of new ideas? Why pay the price for little or no
benefit?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
Abolish the Bar
Exam
by Allen Mendenhall
--- a small fish in an even smaller pond [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 07:56 PM EDT |
Second, once we will have identified and discussed
these possible clarifications, I would intend to make a second request for
consent to the European Parliament. Whether the Parliament will consider it
under this legislature or the subsequent one, will be for you to
decide.
This is an extraordinary admission. De Gucht says that
even if the European Parliament unequivocally refuses to ratify ACTA next week,
he will simply ignore that result, and re-submit it at a later
date.
Glyn Moody, Techdirt[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 08:18 PM EDT |
I know this is an old lawsuit, but the California Supreme Court is in the
process of reviewing it. http://calpubrec.org/oclawsuit/
On April 21, 2009 the Sierra Club (SC) filed suit in Orange County
Superior Court against the County of Orange (OC) to obtain GIS parcel mapping
data under the California Public Records Act (PRA). The Sierra Club had
requested this data several times in writing, and OC denied the request each
time. The trial court denied the Sierra Club's request for a court order
compelling Orange County to disclose the GIS parcel data under the PRA. The
Sierra Club filed an appeal on August 27, 2010. The Court of Appeal heard oral
arguments on March 18, 2011 and filed its opinion, ruling against the Sierra
Club on May 31, 2011. On September 14, 2011 the California Supreme Court granted
review.
In case anyone is wondering the parcel data is an Oracle
database that works with the GIS called ArcGIS. So, any database that is being
used by a GIS magically turns into software!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 10:33 PM EDT |
Glo
wing
Embers
The Myth of the Nation State Requirement, Todd Heberlein Net
Squared, Inc.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Slashdotted? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 03:58 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 04:41 AM EDT |
Arguments rejected by court but fine slightly reduced. It's still massive. That
opens the door for escalation penalties in other anti-trust action.
See here:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18606813[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|