And yet, the primary use-case for file system encryption is to protect data at rest, from someone with physical access to the disk. It seems odd to draw the line at physical security so arbitrarily -- that you'd be willing to encrypt your entire root file system and then throw your hands in the air when it comes to securing a tiny boot partition.
I mainly encrypt in case of theft, /boot contains nothing valuable. / contains a lot of information about my configuration, and installed packages, as well as the key to /home
Yeah, encrypting for theft or so you have piece of mind while the machine is off but in sight is a completely valid use case.
It all depends on your threat model. In the case someone is taking the machine from me while it is off (ie: most theft or legal problems), I have a chance given FDE.
In case someone has physical access to the machine without me around, I have little to no chance, no matter what I do.
A threat model which includes an attacker having potential physical access to a machine to perform an evil maid or other blackbag cryptanalysis is a threat model which is very difficulty to accommodate, and indeed replaced boot files are just the start of your problems.
A threat model without this however, has no reason to necessitate secure boot.
As such, I see no gain in using UEFI or SecureBoot as this guide outlines. It worries me that the author didn't consider a realistic threat model when writing this guide.
This guide also suggests:
> Unless you have concerns about physical security, it is fine to write down your passphrases and keep them in a safe place away from your work desk.
So it's highly confusing what sort of threat model the author had envisioned this to be written for.
What, are you so sure about that? You don't want to own property for a living, using nothing more than a legal title to take ownership of the goods and services produced by those who happen to work on that property, pay them less than the market value of those goods, and use the difference to buy titles to even more property? And then rely on the state to protect that property -- with extreme violence if necessary --- all without having to even step foot on its premises? Are you mad? I'd love to be able to do that!
But what's the point of starting a business if it can't generate revenue? Getting to that point definitely takes capital; even if you've already built the product, the marketing and sales costs of introducing a new product in an existing large market are significant. Otherwise you're just gambling with the opportunity cost of your time on the hope of an effective word-of-mouth campaign.
That's all true, but the question is why is this more prevalent among programmers than any other group. That opportunity cost is really quite cheap for most programmers, especially if you just enjoy the work. Worst case scenario, you can add something to your resume.
With salaries of over $100k available to programmers, I'd say the opportunity cost of a startup venture is pretty high. It takes years of determination and time for a startup to pay off, and most do not.
This blanket assumption is probably why you're being down-voted. The easiest way to avoid this is by supporting your statements with as many facts as possible.
A simple google search proved that this is not at all the case, for example, and that Republicans show much stronger support of police unions.
This is Chicago, we really have no republicans in power.
The downvotes are just knee-jerk stupidity because the MSM doesn't report much on union abuse and unions largely get a free pass in the US for political reasons. Democrats won't go after them as they more or less pay for Democratic campaigns.
As a non-American, I find it interesting how so many Americans (especially online commenters) refer to other Americans only as liberal/Democrat or conservative/Republican these days.
Is America that polarized? Or, are the people with more complex views (i.e., having both liberal and conservative viewpoints) just less likely to speak out?
America is that polarized, and when people with more nuanced views speak up, they tend to get shouted down immediately by the "side" that sees some aspect of "the other side"'s views in the nuance, drowning them out in the noise.
Want to make a nuanced point in a discussion about gun control? You're probably from Kenya, too. Want to make a subtle distinction in a debate about investment banks, or energy policy? You must hate poor people, or the planet, or...
Net, we (or at least I) tend not to get involved in political discussions, as I'm almost invariably going to have to spend more time arguing about how I'm not actually a filthy lib'ral or whatever, than about the point I'd wanted to make in the first place, so fuck it. You guys have fun shouting yourselves hoarse and slapping yourselves on the back for how hateful you can be towards random strangers on the internet.
I guess it depends on exactly how "Libertarian" a view one is espousing.
"Why should I have to pay for a fire department? My house isn't on fire!" Yeah, that guy needs to move to Somalia. Not so he can experience what that degree of government-free state is actually like, but rather so the rest of us don't have to put up with that kind of idiocy.
Just because you can't conceive up voluntary methods of community-funded fire-protection services, doesn't mean the concept is "idiotic".
I'm going to pass on getting into another Freedom discussion, seeing as you're already off to referring to certain ideas as "idiocy". Hardly the platform for a decent, logical debate on the topic.
Who funds the "community-funded" fire protection services if not the community? That is, the people who would stand to benefit from those services, should they ever find their house on fire.
The most "libertarian" example of a community funded fire service I've ever heard of is the one where you pay "dues" to the fire department, and they'll come put out the fire if your house ever catches. If you don't, they'll come up to your property line and make sure the fire doesn't spread, but otherwise just stand there, watching your shit burn.
This actually happens, and I have exactly zero sympathy for the people who don't pay in.
That's what I'm talking about when I say "idiocy": people who claim to be Libertarian, but whose attitude is more, "Fuck you, I've got mine!" punctuated by, "Oh, shit! Someone expend community resources to help me with this!" You don't get to have it both ways; either you contribute meaningfully to the upkeep of the society whose membership you wish to benefit from, or you don't get to benefit from participation in that society.
EDIT: Sorry, I guess, if my tone is dismissive or offensive. I'm just sick to death of people walking around, talking a "Taxes Я theft!" position, but who expect to benefit from the things that those taxes pay for.
If it were up to me, I'd make owning property with a "party wall" contingent upon membership in some form of home-owner's association, the dues of which are used to pay the dues to such a community fire brigade, as well as things like insurance on the common parts of the building, and such.
I'm not sure how you'd handle delinquency in paying those dues, but it would probably be somehow legally actionable.
EDIT: It's probably somewhat moot, anyway, as the overwhelming majority of these dues-based fire brigades exist in predominantly rural areas, where party walls aren't typically a thing.
"Or, are the people with more complex views (i.e., having both liberal and conservative viewpoints) just less likely to speak out?"
In my experience it's more that people with complex viewpoints get some combination of shouted down by zealots on either side or sick of arguing with ideologues who aren't capable of having rational discussion with an open mind.
Basically the "us against them" message has been sold the members of both parties and prevents intelligent discourse.
The issue with having complex views is that minority opinion doesn't really matter in a democracy. So people gravitate towards one of two largest pieces of the pie and tie their beliefs in to match that pie.
Even if someone subscribes to say "85%" of "most liberal beliefs and ideologies" they're still a liberal/Democrat and will be held to believe 100% of the "commonplace beliefs".
This is why all Republicans are blanket-washed as religious nutcase, global warming denying bigots. While all the Liberals are caricatures of 1984's Thought Police.
I think you're replying to the wrong comment? drzaiusapelord was the poster who suggested that partisan views would be a barrier to reform.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that a lack of political opposition in any circumstance, regardless of the party itself, will lead to anti-democratic behavior.
The real issue is that police overwhelmingly enjoy an uncritical view by the voting public such that no politician can afford not to support them. What needs to disappear is the misplaced support for police among the public.
If you're downvoting, is it because of the "machine politics" expression, or because the person's point is invalid? It seems like a valid counterpoint to the statement that the CPD was not, in fact, influenced by the Republican governor.
No, the webmail users lose because they have acclimated themselves to using a dumb terminal system which makes full confidentiality at least an order of magnitude more work to achieve. A user who is 100% unwilling to switch away from webmail will accomplish that security goal with just as little success as a steadfast fast-food patron pursing a healthy-eating goal.
Yeah, sorry, that's not how this works. Y'see, you're sending emails to people using webmail (I mean, if you're a nominally functional human being). So your emails are insecure, too, because you are insisting on something that is fundamentally not compatible with how normal people use computers in 2015.
This is a community thing. You need to give to get them to give. And you're not giving.
This article was exactly on point. If you think this is off-base then you've been living in a reddit filter bubble; the dialogue there is skewed toward outright slander and misogyny from the most juvenile perspective.
This person is speculating about the office politics of a site they actively dislike. I doubt that they have given it any thought, or even have any knowledge on the topic.
Insofar as they went along with the overall thrust of the "blackout", yes; that is support of a mysoginist agenda. However /r/science tried to sit on the fence by claiming they had to make their subreddit private due to its frequent collaboration with /r/IAma -- a reason which was nonsensical. None of this began until Reddit's administration indicated its intention to begin banning certain subreddits. The mindless culture of harassment and hate which has festered on reddit over the last couple of years couldn't tolerate a woman of color being behind this perceived attack on their majority-young-white-male "freedom". It's a joke to think that any of this would have happened with a white male as CEO.
How about an older white male, from a business background, who was openly trying to institute censorship and monetization and was unabashedly ignorant of Reddit culture? I'm fairly confident that a CEO like that would have been significantly more hated by Redditors. The issue wasn't race or gender, it was culture.
I'm not claiming the hatred for my hypothetical white male CEO would follow the same narrative pathways. I'm claiming that it's easy to imagine reddit hating a white male CEO as much or more than Ellen Pao.
I won't disagree that race and gender were used as part of that hatred, that's obviously the case. I think, though, that it's easy to mix up whether things are tools that people use to attack someone they already hate vs. reasons for hating them in the first place. I don't honestly know which it was in this case, but it's not hard for me to imagine that it was the former.
I agree that the Reddit "hivemind" does not hate a woman just for being a woman, and they can definitely hate a white man. I still think they are more likely to hate a woman. The hate against Ellen Pao started with her lawsuit which is related to her gender.
To take a hypotetical, let's say Reddit's CEO was a gay man who had sued a previous employer for something related to discrimination based on sexual orientation. I think Redditors would have been less negative about that, as Reddit is very pro gay rights. Then, when Victoria was fired I think the anger would have been less directed at the CEO personally and more towards the admin team as a whole, or at Reddit's owners.
We could also compare the recent banning of /r/fatpeoplehate with /r/jailbait earlier. People were upset about that too, but I cannot remember outright hate directed at the CEO personally.
I do agree with you about the racist posts. That seems like it's just a tool used to attack her.
If the trial based on sexual orientation was still as obviously fraudulent as pao's trial was then the result would be largely the same I think.
After reading up on the trial to me it seemed rather obvious that the suit was fraudulent and had no basis in reality. The jury quickly reached a unanimous agreement on almost all of the counts as well with little room for debate on most of the issues at hand. As far as I recall they just spent a bit of time on the details regarding one specific thingamabob.
FPH ban had some hate against pao but not on this level as far as I recall (wasn't really in the drama then). The jailbait shebangle is before my time so dunno there.
This combined with the various ethical misadventures of her and her homosexual husband (which would actually help them considerably from an ethical viewpoint considerably if the CEO was actually a gay male as then it wouldn't be an obvious sham marriage).
>I still think they are more likely to hate a woman.
Well sure. If 3% of people are virulently sexist (against women) and none or fewer are sexist against men, the overall sentiment leans towards sexism – especially when they're loud about it. But the opinions of the fringe should not indict the actions of the rest of the people on their side. I do not believe that most or even a substantial portion of the 200,000 people who signed the petition to remove Pao were motivated primarily by misogyny or racism.
