If the bootloader could not be modified from within the running OS, pray tell, how would one reconfigure it to boot anything else? Special mode is a "special" running OS, why wouldn't every OS that wants to modify the boot loader deem itself special?

While that may be true, GRUB has been booting Microsoft Windows for years now. It may have a lot of requirements, but obviously those requirements have been met.

What you might have forgotten is that boot loaders can simply call other boot loaders. It's call chaining, and it is exactly how GRUB boots Micorsoft Windows. You boot to GRUB, which might configure a thing or two (like hide Linux partitions), and then it boots NTLDR (or whatever the latest Microsoft loader is) and the Microsoft boot loader then satisfies all those requirements for the Microsoft Windows operating system.

I won't link, but consider a mail forwarding service. They receive a letter, the might move it internally through a few mail boxes, and then eventually ship it out to you at your new address. What they don't know is that the new address could also be a mail forwarding service. Chaining two mail forwarding services together will still get the mail to the final destination address.

The above example pertains to boot loaders, except that you have the first boot loader set the environment to "boot something" which happens to not be an operating system (actually boot loaders can not differentiate between an OS and a boot loader, because at that level, there are just programs). Without the motherboard configured to only boot signed boot loaders, any number of intermediate boot loaders could be inserted which could then hijack the booting process, perhaps even to the point where they boot a pre-infected (by some means) operating system.

Hopefully this clears things up a bit. I know that boot loaders are only somewhat understood, even by those who use Linux quite a bit. I don't even pretend to be an expert, but it is clear to me that if you want to assure that a certain operating system is booted as it was delivered by the distributor, you need to control the entire boot process from power on to the kernel launch.

Linux's security model protects itself well post-kernel launch, but even Linux could be subverted by sloppy controls over the booting process.

Yes, it would defeat the purpose, because if the boot loader isn't signed, then you could replace the boot loader with one that didn't even worry about signed kernels.

The official purpose is to lock down a computer such that you can be assured that it boots off of the intended software. It is not only protection against rootkits, but that is one item it could help with.

The issue now is that there is no way to differentiate between approved software and unapproved software. Signing is an elegant, tried, and stable solution for identifying origin of software. However, signing requries that your keys are distributed with hardware that guarantees it will only work with binaries that can be unlocked with your keys.

Fedora attempted to distribute their keys to all the major motherboard manufacturers; however, even with positive feedback from the hardware manufacturers, it became clear to Fedora that they would not have their keys in every UEFI secure boot system. So they had to make a choice. Either one would need Microsoft Windows as a prerequisite to install Fedora (by launching to Windows and disabling the secure boot system), or they could use a $99 a lifetime key signing portal to sign their bootloader with a key that is guaranteed to be present (due to Microsoft's market presence) so UEFI could boot Fedora install media without launching Windows.

I think Fedora found the right solution, despite the fact that there is a horrible history with Microsoft. After all, the alternative is to require running Microsoft Windows to disable UEFI. Getting an installation boot loader signed once is far less intrusive than requiring a launch of Windows, I mean, you would have to buy a copy of Windows to install Fedora.

Of course, one might argue that PCs ship with the secure boot option of UEFI disabled by default. This still might happen; however, nearly everyone wants the shipped operating system to be the one that boots, so it is not clear how disabling secure boot would assure people that they are booting what they bought.

Allusion to a sinister purpose without even describing it is blatant fearmongering. There might be a ulterior motive, there might not be an ulterior motive. If you really suspect ulterior motives, have the balls to detail them.

If Microsoft didn't want any other operating system to boot, then they wouldn't even have offered the bootloader signing portal. If they didn't want Linux to boot, then they would have altered the terms of service to be incompatible with the legal protection structure surrounding Linux. They didn't do either, and their price seems so low that I wonder if the service is being offered "at cost".

The idea that our military attacks peaceful targets that don't even bother to defend themselves is beyond ridiculous. You should be ashamed for insuinuating such. You are demeaning the job of the military, and belittling the risk they are taking on your behalf.

Whether you desire the military to be active in a particular location or not, give them the respect due to a person who is willing to follow out the wishes of our government, despite their personal feelings, in the hope that we do make the world a better place.

Don't worry, this topic deserves about three more submissions before even Slashdot deems it not worthy of a repeat.

The electronics must be small, they mustn't be very heavy, and the must do something that is computationally expensive (signal isolation in a noisy background), combined with amplification, all in a custom fitting (to your ear) enclosure.

On the other hand, you have people stating that a mass marketed device which is identical for a run of over 11 million last quarter, with ability to use bigger (lower cost) components, bought in bulk (by the millions) is cheap, so this custom device should be too.

Basically they are expensive for all the reasons the article poster is ignoring, which reduces the article to "I want one cheaper, waahhhhaaahhh!!!"

A long time ago, houses were significantly smaller, and parties often extended into the bedroom. In fact, bedrooms became an extension of the entertainment of the house, leading to a number of changes. One of these was the purchase of luxury bedroom furnishings, because it was a further display of wealth, and the other was maintaining a clean and tidy bedroom (including a made bed), because you never know when the party would spill over to the living spaces.

Now houses are constructed quite differently, and the chance of a party spililng over into the living spaces is minimal. Perhaps made beds are passe, but so are many items and behaviours that we still maintain as a nod to our heritage.

The sad part is that as they learn how to fence, or use the eppe, they will learn that all of the cool fantasy action attack swordplay mainly consists of swinging one's sword around in ways that maximise visual appeal, while minimizing ability to guard or strike one's opponents.

Considering that one of the first things I see my 10 year old cousin do with a sword is a full circle swing raising the sword over the head, I would imaging that to be successful, this startup would be under a lot of pressure to emulate fantasy style swordplay. After all, he still can't understand why I can strike him every time with a shorter plastic sword; because I don't move my sword about much.

So are they going to build a true fencing simulation, or a hollywood battle simulation? One choice does advance the state of sword play, the other advances the state of our ability to escape reality.

If you have the ability to be a gardener, rest assured that someone out there doesn't. How much of your crop should you give to them? Should you take anything in return? You can't escape ethics.

Just because it's natural, doesn't mean it's not pollution by our standard of living.

I have a biology degree, and after hearing your description, I'm reminded of something like the sulfur pools of Yellowstone Park.

The world can only support so much biomass. Eventually, most of the energy to create that biomass comes from the sun. Since we only capture solar energy on the surface fo the planet, we are limited in the amount of energy that can be theoretically harvested sustaniably. I do not relish a world where we start to make biomass decisions to support mechanical systems for the sole purporse of transportation, especially when we know we have more efficent (per person) mass transportation technology dating back a couple of generations, but we're too self-important to use it.

If you feel the military is inheritly evil, go to a country that doesn't have one.

The military is comprised of a couple million citizens. You should remind yourself that those people come home, drink milk and eat vegetables too. I doubt that dairy farmers or vegetable farmers are concerned with supporting the military. Who are you to discriminate against a few million people, just because you have an issue with the majority of your population permitting or demanding that a few hundred people put them in harm's way.

Whether you fully agree with the military's current actions or not, you benefit from the military. Odds are excellent that you are undereducated as to how you benefit, and thus are acting from a point of limited visibility. Certainly the military doesn't have to do any particular mission overseas; however, if it does no missions overseas, eventually it will be doing such missions within the State.

Odds are, like most problems that children have, the problems lie in the parents. Either they overestimate their ability to educate, or overestimate the shool system's inability to do their job, or have some personal fear that prevents them from putting their child in exposure to ideas they find distasteful.

Fixing the problem in the parents for the benefit of the child is not a real option, the parents will first have to acknowledge that they have a problem, then fix it. By then the child might be much older, and the opportunity to fix an issue will be compounded by time.

Without the parent's acknowledgement that the situation needs changed greatly, the only means that seems parent friendly is to hire a local tutor or (preferably) school teacher to ammend the oversight. To make this most likely to succeed, I suggest that you direct the scheduling of the tutoring on the tutor's turf, preferably in a manner that prevents parental involvement. While certainly the parents most likely want their child to succeed, their ignorance, fear, or loss of face might prompt them to interfere with the remediation.

If concrete was so much cheaper than wood, we would definately be using more of it here in hurricane central. It isn't, so it doesn't really matter how simple or complex the process is, the prices would likely go up.

Any one person can live in a 150+ year old home built from wood, but everyone cannot find such a home, there aren't enough to go around. While your home still exists, do you really believe that every contemporary of that home is still housing someone?

The reason that you see cameras mounted to take front photos is so they can associate the crime (red light running, etc) with the person; because, our legal system doesn't have a means to provide service against a car, but they do have the means to provide service against a person. It also defeats the primary defense which is to argue that while it might be your car, you were not the person committing the crime. Unless the accuser provides evidence that the person commited the crime, the courts are quite happy to dismiss.

While ruleing out other agencies is useful, it doesn't mean that a certain agency did the work. It only narrows the field, and while you might be right; you might also have overlooked the party responsible.

Environments do sustain themselves; however, they do not always sustain the populations within the environment. That might seem like a fine distinction; but, please pay attention to it, as we humans are the largest (and therefore the most likely to be upset by change) consumers of the environment.

If wood disappears, housing costs will triple as we move to steel beam or concrete construction. The wood houses tend to disenigrate in 50 to 70 years, and economical concrete supplies are already limited, so a sustained loss of wood means massive disruption in building due to lack of traditional materials. New materials can be used, but there are not a lot of great options. If there were, we would already be using them.

If the environment creeps upwards a degree or two, vegatation will still suffer and rebound. During that transition, there will be a vegatation problem. Plants tolerate extreme temperature, but they cannot migrate; so, when a plant dies of heat or drought, it takes time before other plants that can handle the extremes can be estabilshed. The resulting loss of biomass directly translates into less plant respiration, which cools the earth crust by forcing evaoporation.

I live in Redneck Central, was raised here, and I have a Biology degree. I'll go out on a limb here and state that most Rednecks are quick to dismiss any argument that inconveniences them. That doesn't mean they are stupid, but they do have a tendancy to not invest much time in thinking about issues that extend beyond the self. The envrionment is funny, you can dismiss it when there is plenty of land that is not impacted, and that works well for Rednecks; however, when you run out of pristine environment, problems incurr. It is not any particular Billy Bob that is destroying the environment on a grand scale singlhandedly, it is that a few hundred million Billy Bobs are all assuming that their impact is so small, each with a centerist view of the world, that they cannot all understand that if they all act in unison to consume just a little less, it is hundreds of millions of fewer demand on an environment that is already providing them with more biomass and derivatives than nearly any other animal receives.

I too don't have a dog in the game. I'm not even on the same contient.

If BT wants to move into my neighborhood (which seems unlikely) then why should my neighborhood pay _anything_ to bring their equipment up to my existing standards? As long as my neighborhood's standards are not designed to foster unfair competition, it is up to BT to conform with the existing code.

If a home builder wants to build in a community, they don't get an "assistance" to bring their quality in line with the local code and regulations.