Yup. From the start of the ruling:

"We transferred the case to this court on our own motion. [FN3] We now conclude that the answer to the reported question is, "Yes, where the defendant's compelled decryption would not communicate facts of a testimonial nature to the Commonwealth beyond what the defendant already had admitted to investigators.""

So: don't admit the disks are yours, don't admit you know they're encrypted, don't admit you can decrypt them. (Of course, "don't say anything at all", the old standby, covers all of those, thus once more proving its value.)

"The details of the Imitation Game aren't secret, or even hard to find, and yet no one seems to reference it."

Except, well, at least four of the stories I've seen on the Turing test this week. It really doesn't seem that obscure.

"Kevin Warwick gives the bot a thumbs up"

That's a point *against*, not a point in favour.

Adam's Law of British Technology Self-Publicists: if the name "Sharkey" is attached, be suspicious. If the name "Warwick" is attached, be very suspicious. If both "Sharkey" and "Warwick" are attached, run like hell.

So, either they got attacked by someone who was able to both deface the website and *sign code with their GPG key*, or the announcement is genuine.

I think the obvious response is precisely identical in either case...

yeah, it may be worth adding a note about that on the download page...but one of the things that'll be done as part of fedora.next is a complete revamp of that site area, so i'll wait till that's in planning to suggest the idea. thanks.

It's not just about the install image, it's actually about building useful stuff into each product (and also allowing the same things to be configured in different ways in the different products, which is another part of why they can't just be package sets). For instance, the 'role' management for Server: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki... .

That's what the *live* installer does - because that's all a live installer can do, really, unless you make a live image with a DVD-size package repository, which not many people really seem to want.

The *non live* installer still lets you choose the deployed package set.

The three product approach isn't simply about the deployed package set, though. It involves really rather a lot more than that. Hard to go into details in a Slashdot comment, but see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki... .

Er...no and no? That wasn't a question about her reason for leaving, it was just a general question about Fedora's future.

Disclaimer: I work for RH, but I have nothing at all to do with any of this stuff (I work on Fedora).

AFAICS, the WSJ alleges #2, but we are very clearly stating that WSJ is wrong and it's just #1 (we'll support your RHEL install no matter what you have running on top of it, just like we always have, we just won't support the OpenStack bit if it's not RH OpenStack, or whatever the hell we call it, I don't know.)

"How many of us liked shop? How many young people should be training for skilled manufacturing and service jobs rather than getting history or political science degrees?"

I don't know, perhaps you could ask someone who could give you an answer based on prior experience - like an economic historian?

Carpenter Who Cut Off His Fingers Makes "Robohand" With 3-D Printer, Cuts Off Other Fingers With 3-D Printer

"The next time your mail goes down, should we know the name of the guy whose code flaw may have caused that?""

Two words for you: "git blame".

A leading contender for the Francis Fukuyama Award For Public Fatuousness.

Wow, it's always a tough competition, but this may win "Ridiculous Slashdot Headline Of The Week".

Logic 101, folks. Let's recap that headline:

"TCP/IP Might Have Been Secure From the Start If Not For the NSA"

Now, what's the story here? One of TCP/IP's designers had access to some then-bleeding-edge crypto *that was part of an NSA project*, but couldn't include it in TCP/IP because it was secret.

Now, can we support the idea that "if not for the NSA" that crypto could have gone into TCP/IP? No, because "if not for the NSA" that crypto *wouldn't have fucking existed at all*. The NSA wrote it. So the choices are "code written, but not available for use" or "code not written at all". Practical difference for the purposes of TCP/IP: zip.

Ah, ISWYM. Sorry, Slashdot threading always makes it tricky to figure context :/

Now I see the context, I agree with you, and nothing in the debate seems to have suggested that's his position.