Re: A rose by any other name...
Uh-oh. Somebody's triggered ...
62 posts • joined 10 Nov 2010
This Hodgson turd is getting somewhat of a reputation around these parts. For example, he announced, upon Trump's election* (about which the less said the better), Hodgson announced that he'd be ready to send his inmates south to help build the infamous wall.
Sigh. Why do conservatives have to be such arseholes?
I just went through that exercise and found the same thing (kernel source 4.4):
> /usr/src/linux$ find . -name Kconfig | xargs grep "select KEYS"
> ./fs/cifs/Kconfig: select KEYS
> ./fs/ext4/Kconfig: select KEYS
> ./fs/f2fs/Kconfig: select KEYS
> ./fs/nfs/Kconfig: select KEYS
> ./init/Kconfig: select KEYS
> ./net/ceph/Kconfig: select KEYS
> ./net/rxrpc/Kconfig: select KEYS
> ./security/integrity/evm/Kconfig: select KEYS
Looks like selecting any of CIFS, ext4 encryption, f2fs encryption, nfs v4, System Data Verification (whatever that is), Ceph, RxRPC or EVM will select CONFIG_KEYS. Which probably means that, if you build your own kernels, simply turning off CONFIG_KEYS is not an option.
I don't think so. Note the "ANSWER: 0" bit:
~$ dig malcolmturnbull.com.au mx
; <<>> DiG 9.9.5-12-Debian <<>> malcolmturnbull.com.au mx
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 65357
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4000
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;malcolmturnbull.com.au. IN MX
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
malcolmturnbull.com.au. 900 IN SOA brenda.ns.cloudflare.com. dns.cloudflare.com. 2019221722 10000 2400 604800 3600
;; Query time: 120 msec
;; SERVER: xx.xx.xx.xx#53(xx.xx.xx.xx)
;; WHEN: Fri Oct 09 11:02:46 EDT 2015
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 115
And even if they do find this Holey Grail (misspelling intentional), what are they going to do about all the current crypto systems that they can't crack? Make them illegal?
Yeah, that's gonna work. The horse has not only left the stable, it's half-way across the valley by now.
> Although Telstra makes their money mostly from mobiles, they - and many others - seem to be unaware how these devices work, or why people need secure connections - especially in public.
Knowing Telstra (having worked for one of their predecessors), I think you're giving them too much credit here. More likely they just don't care.
> and they don't believe at least that Red Hat has the resources to do it (right)
I don't believe that Red Hat has the resources (or even the will) to do *anything* right. The only thing they seem to be good at is producing badly-written implementations of poorly-thought-out concepts, usually by individuals who have the social skills of a newt.
Examples (over the years):
Yes. And that explains why they were the other way around in New Zealand (see above post).*
*Yes, yes, I'm aware that Australia, for one, had it the same way around as British phones. I worked** for Australia's overseas telecommunications entity long ago. They had to add special stuff in their exchanges to handle NZ phone numbers.
** if that's the word, of course.
My wife's car has one of those Onstar thingys that supposedly includes a phone. The thing point-blank refuses to understand me (although, to be fair, I _am_ an Australian living in Massachusetts). Sometimes I've been reduced to flat-out screaming at the thing, to no avail. Lucky I wasn't driving at the time.
The silly part is that all it has to do is recognise numbers from zero to nine, and it can't even do that reliably.
"Call it vengence, call it revenge, its a primal human emotion"
- much like the "primal human emotion" that caused the perpetrator to commit the crime in the first place. Face it, you're no better than they are.
I like to think that humanity should be above that kind of thing. Put the perp away where he/she can't hurt anybody else and leave it at that. The right to live is the most basic human right of all, and nobody -- nobody -- has the right to take it from you.
If you want revenge, you're perfectly welcome to take it out on the perpetrator. As long as you're willing to face a murder charge yourself, of course.
I've read that some of that is due to some (FAA?) requirement that stall recovery should involve a specified maximum loss of height -- to the point where some pilots undergoing checks got reluctant to push the stick too far forward, lest they exceed that maximum. True, stall recovery should involve losing as little height as possible, but specifying a maximum height loss gets counter-productive.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019