I lost a lot of weight after reading "The Hackers Diet" He was a real help to me.

"There are other ways to lock down your system in Linux, which will leave it pretty much unhackable, such as signed binaries (the signature of binaries being checked with each execution), kernel and module signing, and a properly configured bootloader along with secure boot turned on"

This is an extension of exactly those mechanisms. The thing being addressed here is a huge gap in that security chain: currently if you're taking Secure Boot seriously, then nearly everything in the boot chain is signed...*except the initramfs*. Which can't be signed because it's generated locally on your machine. What is the initramfs? Well, it's an entire operating system in a box, basically, which gets run and does arbitrary stuff *defined within itself* on every boot.

So, uh...if everything in the boot chain is signed except the initramfs, how secure is boot? Answer: not very at all. That's why this effort exists.

I think if you take a step back, the overall debate about the whole effort to enable a truly secure boot on Linux is a 'hole hawg' problem: http://www.team.net/mjb/hawg.h... . People who hate all this stuff are Hole Hawg users. They reckon they know what they're doing (maybe they really do!), they don't think boot chain security is an issue for them, and every attempt to make it possible just smells funny to them because it's trying to achieve a thing they don't want.

But not everybody wants the Hole Hawg. IT admins, for instance, definitely don't want the people carrying around their company's sensitive data to have a Hole Hawg. They want that stuff safe. For those purposes, it really is important that we make it possible to have a truly secure boot environment on Linux (or at least one that's not wildly *less* secure than competing operating systems, which right now it kind of is).

I get that people worry this stuff will start out optional but somehow magically become compulsory. All I can say is there's really no reason for anyone to want that. It's plausible in the case of a proprietary monopoly OS that this feature comes with a handy side of control for the OS company, but that's much harder in the F/OSS world. If we somehow tried to make it so Fedora or RHEL didn't boot without all the secure boot features turned on (and why would we, anyway?), anyone could still create a clone which was the same thing but...without that. I also can't see really any benefit we'd get from requiring that. And you can note that Fedora and RHEL have supported Secure Boot for about a decade as of this point, and we certainly aren't requiring that that be enabled.

This could get interesting. Maybe I'll start cross posting my blog here - see if we can get something going. Though I can't lie - I'm doubting it will catch on. :)

I've had this issue with controllers for as long as I've owned my ps4

There isn't really any proof that Waymo vehicles are driverless, only that the driver isn't in the vehicle. If you compare a dozen dubiously driverless vehicles to a million collecting data every moment and already doing a pretty good job at autonomy, which do you think will succeed?

The fact that the driver is not in the vehicle does not mean that there is no driver.

I believe that this was figured out in the amateur observer community before NASA confirmed it. I saw it go by in my twitter feed. Not sure I can find it now...

Linear Energy Transfer

It's not radioactive. When high-energy particles strike it, they break apart into lower-energy particles that are more harmful. So, you need enough shielding to catch the particles that break apart in the top layer of your shielding.

While radiation mostly results in transient errors, it can also cause latch-ups that blow a gate off of the die. For rad-hard equipment in space this is mitigated by silicon-on-insulator fabrication, so that you can't have a latch-up between the substrate and a silicon feature.

We could have REAL ZOMBIES! YEAH!

:-)

I hear you. Going to be an interesting future, if we live.

Someone who broke their neck and was suffering from paralysis. You can control a chair or exoskeleton. People who can not hear today have cochlear implants, this is not all that different and might (eventually) work better. Or speak, or see. Other people who are disabled in various ways.

Oops. To continue: I'm just not seeing that it is so hard to access. But then, I use a Linux desktop, which has always come with a proper PDF renderer, there has never been a need to download "Acrobat".

Web pages use SVG to render vector graphics. It uses the exact same imaging model as PDF and is implemented in all modern browsers. The web in general has taken a lot of lessons from Adobe because Warnock and Geshke, in the PostScript Red Book, got so much right about how to build an image model that many GUI developers are still learning today. If you start with a PDF, it should be possible to machine-translate it to SVG and present it as a web page.

PDF exists because it is trivial to generate it from the document renderer meant for printing. Although I have once in a while run into an improperly scaled PDF meant to be printed 8-up, I'm just not

Lithium battery fires are in the news because they are new. There are many more gasoline fires every day.