If the end user can arbitrarily sign code themselves that is bootable then it kind of defeats the purpose of secure boot.
They can & it doesn't. They can change the platform key to become the platform owner & control the public keys they keep in the code signing databases. Secure Boot gives the platform owner control over authorized code signers of boot processes.
That’s true today, but there’s no guarantee it will be true in the future.
It's in the specification.
The platform key establishes a trust relationship between the platform owner and the platform firmware. The platform owner enrolls the public half of the key (PKpub) into the platform firmware. The platform owner can later use the private half of the key (PKpriv) to change platform ownership or to enroll a Key Exchange Key. See “Enrolling The Platform Key” and “Clearing The Platform Key” for more information.
The platform owner clears the public half of the Platform Key (PKpub) by deleting the Platform Key variable using UEFI Runtime Service SetVariable(). The data buffer submitted to the SetVariable() must be signed with the current PKpriv - see Variable Services for details. The name and GUID of the Platform Key variable are specified in Globally Defined Variables. The platform key may also be cleared using a secure platform-specific method. When the platform key is cleared, the global variable SetupMode must also be updated to 1.
It's a matter of clearing the platform key & enrolling your own platform key. I've done this before.
Typically, computers with Secure Boot let us clear the platform key from the boot menu. (You can choose to purchase only those that do.) Some computer vendors ship Secure Boot in setup mode or let the customer provide public keys to ship preloaded.
Secure Boot has always been for enabling the owner to enforce integrity of the boot process through cryptographic signatures. Linus Torvalds thought the feature makes sense.
Linus: I actually think secure boot makes a lot of sense. I think we should sign our modules. I think we should use the technology to do cryptographic signatures to add security; and at the same time inside the open source community this is so unpopular that people haven’t really worked on it.
It’s true that secure boot can be used for horribly, horribly bad things but using that as an argument against its existence at all is I think a bit naive and not necessarily right. Because if you do things right then it’s a really good thing. I would like my own machine to have the option to not boot any kernel, or boot loader, that is not signed by this signature.
Maybe read about the French revolutionary National Assembly & where political left came from?
Yes: crack open a history book.
Liberalism was the original leftism: see the French revolutionary National Assembly. It doesn't intrinsically have anything to do with capitalism. In general, liberalism is neither left nor right. It promotes individualism. Historically, it progressed from humanism.
leftism begins at anti-capitalism
Not the political science definition.
General definitions & the historical development of liberalism are academic.
liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.
Some of the earliest liberal practices are found in the US Declaration of Independence, which predates the French revolution spreading the practice of liberal ideals throughout Europe. The US declaration pretty much rehashes core tenets of liberal philosophy
Note how capitalism isn't mentioned anywhere: it's nonessential. Capitalism predates & isn't liberalism. Liberalism is moral & political philosophy, not an economic one.
The philosophy is a natural progression of humanist philosophies from the Renaissance through the Protestant Reformation & the Enlightenment that stress the importance of individuality, secular reasoning, & tolerance over dogma & subservience to unaccountable authority. To address unaccountable authority based on dogma & traditions, English & French philosophers defined legitimate authority based on humanist morality pretty much as expressed in the US declaration. They argued that political systems thrive better with limits & duties on authority & an adversarial system of institutional competition whether in separation of powers, adversarial law system with habeas corpus & right to jury trial, competitive elections, dialogue, or economic competition.
1700s
When the liberals were the leftists?
If we rely on the logic of the German approach, we wouldn’t be able to call the thing a thing until its too late. The point being made is that if you wait long enough to be able to a full historical analysis, you’ve effectively become an apologist for genocide on the basis of a lack of evidence.
Untrue: it's a matter of accurate wording. "The evidence so far indicates they're potentially…" or "For all we know, they could be…" gets the same idea across without violating integrity concerning degree of certainty or knowledge.
Providing material support to Israel is no different from providing material support to Nazi Germany
Technically & literally false: they are different. A lawyer can challenge the falsehood.
Providing material support to Israel is bad for the same reasons providing material support to any genocidal state including Nazi Germany is bad
Providing material support to Israel is providing material support to a genocidal state
Providing material support to Israel is as bad as providing material support to a feebler Nazi Germany
All technically correct or opinion.
Claiming shit is true before we have the evidence to justify it is invalid & another way to state you're claiming shit you don't actually know: you're spouting shit. Spouting shit is fine in cool countries that respect liberty. However, Germany is not one of them. Spouting the wrong shit in Germany is legally risky: apparently, the law parses words with autistic literalism.
By punishing verbal laziness, the law doesn't necessarily "support genocide". It is coercing you to stop being a slob & express yourself with (annoying?) accuracy.
Cool non-answer. What part of civility rules typical across lemmy such as dbzer0's own
Don’t be shitty. i.e. telling people to kill themselves, or bad-jacketing is bannable.
allows exceptions for unhinged promotion of violence against commenters whom we unreasonably allege or "bad-jacket" as Zionist? Uncivil denunciations of Zionism are uncivil; therefore, moderators enforcing civility must prosecute. No evidence was given the moderators penalize civil denunciations of Zionism. Enforcing civility doesn't imply Zionism.
This is basic logic. Denying basic logic implies staggering stupidity or dishonesty.
What part of science is guilt by association fallacy? Rash judgement is at odds with science. Did you know criminals can associate with noncriminals?
To flip this around, ostracizing others "out of safety" for associating with ex-convicts (who had been processed & released to society) is morally compromised & dishonest, ie, immoral. Talking to someone who did something wrong doesn't imply you did something wrong. Neither does taking their money. Indulging fallacies is not a hallmark of scientific thought & is more consistent with the repressive, medieval thought scientists fought very hard to overcome.
Sages of major religions famously associated with undesirables: outcasts, untouchables, murderers, dangerous felons, etc.
By the "logic" of that announcement, communities should have banned Buddha & Jesus (also mentioned in the Epstein files).
Those that didn't were "deplorable" for "not taking firm action to protect" members "in light of" blanket "allegations" that fail to specifically accuse them.
If they were sanctimonious enough, they too could have done "more".
Post needs text alternative for image of text.
Images of text break much that text alternatives do not.
Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.
he repeatedly used technicalities and weaseley language to refuse to admit it
see
Yet, Mosseri repeatedly said he was not an expert in addiction in response to Lanier’s questioning.
Even if a nonexpert claims something is clinical addiction, they're a nonexpert & their word is meaningless. For a credible statement, they'll need to admit relevant evidence instead of ask a nonexpert.
Imagine being asked for a medical diagnosis when you're not a qualified physician. It's perfectly fair to point out you're not an expert on the matter & point out your awareness of distinctions between imprecise conventional language & precise, scientific definitions.
No one is obligated to volunteer dubious claims to antagonize themselves on the stand just because you want them to.
It's an atrocious, pointlessly complicated system resulting in convoluted project histories prone to confusion. Trunk-based development with sensible tags of releases & hotfixes achieves the same thing without the junk complexity. Git flow isn't overkill, it's just ill-conceived.
Seems like these failures suing them & demanding government paternalism
don't know how to effectively limit access/use parental controls as tech CEOs claim to do.