By eating organic cardboard and drinking distilled water you will not live any longer...

but it will seem like forever!

But traditionally they can only do that 11 times. Also, not only Doctors, but Masters.

One must also say that it only happens to "the right kind of doctor".

oops you said "Before" - Lockerbie?

No, But only because the other passengers beat them down, while they tried to light their shoe or underwear.

The elf jobs are secure, who do you think maintains the complicated system that delivers raw material to the nano-replicator on the sleigh in flight?

Those gifts belong to Santa until he gives them. He can give them to whomever he chooses. You are just sour grapes because you only got a lump of non-environmentally friendly coal.

Except it is not a zero sum game. The average income itself is not set in stone. It can rise. If 10 people are making 1000 each. and one gets a raise, none of the others are forced to take a pay cut. If 10 people are making 1000 each and one gets fired, the rest don't get an automatic raise. If 10 people are making 1000 each and a new one gets hired (now 11 people) the are no pay cuts for the original workers.

Well was the patient old? Did they have some other problem or sickness? Just taking some pill, no matter how popular, will not prevent one from getting old! What other details about about this patient are we not being told..

what? oh? Not patient, Patent

never mind.

I never drink any water anyway.

Nice Idea, the watchers would never let it happen.

BTW the watched in a panopticon don't get to watch as well. "The concept of the design is to allow an observer to observe (-opticon) all (pan-) inmates of an institution without them being able to tell whether or not they are being watched."(Wikipeda)

I thinks this comes under the heading of "Whatever rule you make should apply equally to all people, including you"

http://www.gobolinux.org/ Combines executables and necessary libraries each in their own directory under '/programs' Uses links to show files in traditional places.

There is no evidence that this functionality will be provided. There is no requirement that it must be. Linux users will be lucky to even be able to un-securly boot their OS.

Or not, A large percentage of the market doesn't care and just runs windows, a big part of that market segment is corporate IT, who doesn't want you bringing in your Ubuntu Live Boot CD ROMs and circumventing their settings and security. If I as an end user sitting at a desk in an office can turn off secure boot I can then run my Live Boot CD and have complete access to the desktop machine I am on, and be able to run all manner of packet sniffers and other tools.

For the Home user, the tech support group wants you to only run windows so they don't have to train their techs. In one instance I almost bought a DELL, until I was told that installing Linux on it voids my warranty, even if I remove the Linux before seeking support. There are all kinds of reasons the Manufacturer would want it locked on

Not if it's already the setting they would prefer.

See above.

Once again - If corporate IT is not opposed, and they would not be for the majority of their desktop machines, they will buy these like hotcakes. Since they buy more machines than we do, they control what the OEMs do

Way to make a logical mature argument yourself.

The better requirement to encourage both Microsoft and The OEMs to support is being able to securely add keys to the key store - In such a way that actual physical presence is required at the machine. For example one must press a physical button on the motherboard during boot to enable the update of the key store.

Microsoft's major customer is the corporate IT account, not the home user.

And he OEMs will loose sleep over the fact that you or I won't buy one. Not. They don't care - Linux is only a small percentage of the market, why cater to them and loose Microsoft?

First - Microsoft says "The OEMs have to ship with secure boot enabled, but we don't tell them they have to let the user disable secure boot - that is up to them". But think what would it mean if the user could not disable secure boot or add new keys for the OS of their choice? Who would benefit? Seems to me Microsoft would benefit greatly if the user were locked in to a Microsoft OS. They would benefit because their rival, Linux, would no longer be installable on a great many machines.

If the OEM allow the disabling of secure boot, Microsoft wins over Linux again -- " Why would you want to run that OS - It is not secure. We are. " To those who run Linux at home it might not be a big deal, but I would hate to be the guy explaining to his boss why they are using a less secure system when they had been attacked.

Will OEMs care about all our (Linux users) bluster - sure we can boycott any machine that locks secure boot, and has no provision for adding keys but how big is the Linux installed base compared to the Windows installed base. Why would an OEM add a few extra cents worth of parts to be able to cater to a small market segment? A few cents adds up over hundreds of thousands of motherboards built over the life of a design.