An even better one is:

"We're fiterling to get a copy of all your porn, so we can hold something over your head when we find it expedient. Now go make us rich."

The problem is that, when you propose what you propose to a security nerd (as I am), they'll respond with a list of demands to completely cover the entire security umbrella (what about physical access? what about multi-factor authentication? what about ... etc) that will make you want to renege on your proposal. Too many requirements, too entangled with hardware and people.

What security nerds often fail to realize is that sometimes, *some* security is good enough. Not all situations involve wiring millions of dollars while living under a dictatorship because you have AIDS (exagerated example).

Take for example https. Yes, it's supposed to protect you from people who aren't who they claim to be, and yes, it would be nice if there was some international, reliable arbitrage of that. However, a) it doesn't always work and b) it prevents people from implementing completely reliable alternatives and using self-signed certs (or no certs at all - just do some Diffie-Hellman and only have confidentiality). Which, under many, many circumstances is _good_enough_.

It isn't about the kernel - it's about the boot loader. And yes, I agree that there should be a dip switch on the motherboard that disables secure boot (letting this know to the boot loaders, so that they won't boot potentially).

"It's a tax, an inconvenience, and it does absolutely nothing in reality to protect the end user."

Yes it does, it's just that you don't see it. Probably because the end user scenarios that you can think of, don't involve it. But when a box is properly tamper-evident, secure boot does a whole lot to a particular class of machines. For most purposes, it throws a big spanner in the works of the whole 'if you have access to the hardware, you have access to everything' mantra.

Because secure boot actually has real, nice consequences, open source or not?

And - could you really fit her into your basement somewhere.

She uses 'I was like', 'they were like' an awful lot. That, to me, is not the sign of an intelligent person.

And you consider 5 years a long time? I think that just shows that you don't work with SCADA systems.

It sound like you need someone at marketing. Or product management.

Since I don't believe in any god, to me, that's completely indistinguishable. God IS 'opinions about god'.

As the grandparent said: god is the problem. Not the solution.

It's funny how your post and your sig contradict each other. /Got no stick in this fire.

I'm sure that Apple still aren't swayed by the power of this particular judge - after all, all he can do is increase the fine by something that still will not be significant compared to Apple's bottom-line, but all the eyes of the world are now moving in Apple's direction. And what Apple first thought was a great joke, turns out to be more like a joke that silences the party.

The reason the guy doesn't want the email to leak is because it deals with an ongoing tender. Which he lost, but if you know companies like that, they're not going to take it lying down.

Someone with a name like that, is bound to be awesome!

They could have broken privacy laws with this but if they didn't: what if, based on the evidence that they had, they just simply thought the boy was being a major asswipe? There is no *obligation* to use Skype, right?