That's not to say that the F-35 doesn't have it's problems, but the J-31 isn't even the same league as the F-22.
Mandatory. On non-ARM systems, the platform MUST implement the ability for a physically present user to select between two Secure Boot modes in firmware setup: "Custom" and "Standard". Custom Mode allows for more flexibility as specified in the following:
It shall be possible for a physically present user to use the Custom Mode firmware setup option to modify the contents of the Secure Boot signature databases and the PK. This may be implemented by simply providing the option to clear all Secure Boot databases (PK, KEK, db, dbx) which will put the system into setup mode.
If the user ends up deleting the PK then, upon exiting the Custom Mode firmware setup, the system will be operating in Setup Mode with SecureBoot turned off.
The firmware setup shall indicate if Secure Boot is turned on, and if it is operated in Standard or Custom Mode. The firmware setup must provide an option to return from Custom to Standard Mode which restores the factory defaults.On an ARM system, it is forbidden to enable Custom Mode. Only Standard Mode may be enabled."
x86 devices can still install whatever they want, barring this extra hoop to turn off Secure Boot. Like I said earlier, Fedora just wants to ship their image with a signed loader so the users don't have to go through that hoop.
While Microsoft have(sic) modified their original position and all x86 Windows machines will be required to have a firmware option to disable this or to permit users to enrol their own keys, it's not really an option to force all our users to play with hard to find firmware settings before they can run Fedora.
ARM (essentially tablet) devices are locked down completely - which is absolutely no different than what Apple does right now on the iPad.
That was what I meant. Curious that so many people didn't seem to understand that it would work that way, and that they'd be within their right as a sovereign nation to decide which treaties they'll be party to.
As it stands, they are party to that treaty, and are complying with it.
Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
Iran has fun flaunting this one. See also: Natanz, Fordo
Brought to you by the D.P.R.K
Sorry, but your tag is showing.
Iran is a sovereign nation and if they wish to produce nuclear weapons because they feel threatened by their neighbors (Israel, a nuclear power) or as a deterrent then that is their prerogative.
Not exactly. Iran is a signatory of the NPT.
Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture.
It's their prerogative to do so should they first decide to withdraw from the NPT, similar to what North Korea did.
Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.