Forgot your password?

Comment: He walked into this one (Score 1) 560

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.)

Comment: Warwick (Score 1) 309

by AdamWill (#47204621) Attached to: Was Turing Test Legitimately Beaten, Or Just Cleverly Tricked?

"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.

Comment: Re:Divide and get conquered (Score 1) 53

by AdamWill (#47061235) Attached to: Robyn Bergeron Stepping Down As Fedora Project Leader

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: .

Comment: Re:Good luck (Score 1) 53

by AdamWill (#47061061) Attached to: Robyn Bergeron Stepping Down As Fedora Project Leader

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 .

Comment: Re:What? (Score 1) 111

by AdamWill (#47013917) Attached to: Why Should Red Hat Support Competitors' Software?

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.)

Comment: I don't know... (Score 1) 367

by AdamWill (#46835841) Attached to: Skilled Manual Labor Critical To US STEM Dominance

"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?

Comment: Good lord, the logic (Score 2) 149

by AdamWill (#46666197) Attached to: TCP/IP Might Have Been Secure From the Start If Not For the NSA

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.

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?