Can we please stop linking to that FAQ about Trusted Computing? Talk about spreading FUD all over the place.
After having done a paper on TC I would really recommend that people read the specs (a bit dry), or the book?
Read "The Diamond Age" as well and see if TC can fit into the idea from there of anonymous, secure communications. You're not going to reach level 20 of Cryptnet without something like it.
If you've got the time then have a look at it from another perspective and wash a bit of the FUD off.
Deliver pizza, be a Kourier, practice your sword fighting, stake your claim in the Metaverse, buy your own Rat-thing, live in Mr Lee's Greater Hong Kong, work for the Feds, tool up with goo guns, ride your bike, design an avatar, be a rock star.
Or declare yourself a nuclear state and hi-jack a submarine.
Trusted Computing only really becomes a problem when the owner of the computer is not the 'owner' of the Trusted Computing Module.
Whilst BIOS manufacturers could restrict what operating systems can run on their hardware I don't see why they would. They could do it tomorrow if they wished but I don't see that happening. I fail to see why Trusted Computing would bring this about. Booting into a different operating system would simply cause the TCM to restrict your access to any encrypted data, which (assuming you're the TCM owner) you would have encrypted yourself anyway.
Stallman's talk of your computer downloading new policies sounds preposterous. It is indeed possible for a TP to do such a thing, but again your computer could do it tomorrow. Computing technology follows the Enthusiast to Business to Consumer lifecycle. At the moment the Enthusiasts are complaining because they want full control of their new kit. The benefits of TPs to business could be huge but I can't think of one company that would adopt a new technology if they thought that they could be denied access to their information at the whim of their software provider (at least now, after they all got burned by Office upgrades). Once the technology reaches the consumer level then people will care even less. I bought my toaster to make crispy bread and my console to play games. Why should I care that the console maker doesn't want me to run Linux?
If you want a system that won't eat your dog, marry your sister or one of the other terrors Stallman predicts then get yourself a Mac and an iPod. Apple aren't in the TCG and their DRM seems to please most people. You can't play Ogg on your 'pod but that can't be helped.
Right. Stallman bashing, TC supporting and Apple worshiping. Mods: start your fingers.
I thought one of Microsoft's arguments in the anti-trust case was that competitors could always reverse engineer the Win APIs (I'm not MS bashing, I just can't think of any other cases).
Wired have the story here. One of the reasons cited for the retailers not wanting the prices posted is that "15 cents on a Furby can equate to $1 million" and they don't want other stores altering their prices before Friday. Makes sense.
Have you ever heard of this thing called "HTML"? If you use this "HTML" stuff to design your website, it will be able to be read by blind people. If on the other hand, you use flash, or put all your textual content in.gif files or something it won't be.
Good point. I mean, if the guy running autopr0n cares about blind people, then why can't the rest of us? eh?
If you would like to write software for non-geeks to use then I would recommend the above book.
Tog has a unique writing style though, so you should check out his website first and read a few articles.
For those of you who don't yet know of Tog, he was the Human Interface Evangslist at Apple.
The book, as the Amazon review states, does not describe a methodology or a set of guidelines but a state of mind. The mindset that Tog describes is one that I personally think the open source movement could benefit from.
All I know is that once I had finished the book I couldn't help but look at all software differently.
I'm going to have to start chipping out some glass knives. And wiring up a pacemaker. And buying a sidecar.
Then we'll see how long those gargoyles last.
Re:Favourite minimalist band.
on
lowercase music
·
· Score: 1
I knew Lens Cleaner were doing a cover. Now I know where to look for the original.
The convenience offered by an I.D. card is too great to ignore. This is the ideal application, the card can verify your age to buy drinks, and could be used to stop you driving your car after a heavy night out boozing.
As ever the real problem doesn't lie in whether or not there exists a record of you being somewhere at somewhen but who can get at that information and how easily.
Given the strong feelings against the collection of this data any government that allows easy access (or, heaven forbid, sells) to the data will be thrown out on their ear.
It's important to remember that there will have to be human interaction at some point. No robot will come and arrest you. Think face matching in casinos. The computers just bring suspects to the attention of operators, who then make the decision. Provided that a human makes the final choice on what action to follow there should be cause for complaint.
So everyone is cool with this then? I haven't seen a major/. story of Tivo aka Big Brother. Shouldn't this be under YRO?
An important thing to remember is that all that the statistics are telling them is that a TV was tuned into a particular channel at a particular time. Big Brother Behaviour (TM) would involve them watching you watch them. For all they know your pet could have stood on the remote.
Personally I would prefer to watch ads that are customised for me. If that's what's paying for the show I'm watching then they may as well be interesting.
Think of it like this: They have a table with your name and account number on. They have another that records what programmes were watched by what account number. The only real problem appears when the two are put together; and even then it depends who is going to receive the information and how easy it is for them to get it.
Slashdot Mirror
You've got 20 minutes to buy it at its prelaunch price! (£10, $17.50, 14)
Buy now! http://store.introversion.co.uk/
I thought we were about to see a new mobile that had no screen and would pick the next person to phone at random.
Can we please stop linking to that FAQ about Trusted Computing? Talk about spreading FUD all over the place.
After having done a paper on TC I would really recommend that people read the specs (a bit dry), or the book?
Read "The Diamond Age" as well and see if TC can fit into the idea from there of anonymous, secure communications. You're not going to reach level 20 of Cryptnet without something like it.
If you've got the time then have a look at it from another perspective and wash a bit of the FUD off.
Deliver pizza, be a Kourier, practice your sword fighting, stake your claim in the Metaverse, buy your own Rat-thing, live in Mr Lee's Greater Hong Kong, work for the Feds, tool up with goo guns, ride your bike, design an avatar, be a rock star.
Or declare yourself a nuclear state and hi-jack a submarine.
Is anyone else glad that we got an explanation as to what an odd or an even number is? ;)
Trusted Computing only really becomes a problem when the owner of the computer is not the 'owner' of the Trusted Computing Module.
Whilst BIOS manufacturers could restrict what operating systems can run on their hardware I don't see why they would. They could do it tomorrow if they wished but I don't see that happening. I fail to see why Trusted Computing would bring this about. Booting into a different operating system would simply cause the TCM to restrict your access to any encrypted data, which (assuming you're the TCM owner) you would have encrypted yourself anyway.
Stallman's talk of your computer downloading new policies sounds preposterous. It is indeed possible for a TP to do such a thing, but again your computer could do it tomorrow. Computing technology follows the Enthusiast to Business to Consumer lifecycle. At the moment the Enthusiasts are complaining because they want full control of their new kit. The benefits of TPs to business could be huge but I can't think of one company that would adopt a new technology if they thought that they could be denied access to their information at the whim of their software provider (at least now, after they all got burned by Office upgrades). Once the technology reaches the consumer level then people will care even less. I bought my toaster to make crispy bread and my console to play games. Why should I care that the console maker doesn't want me to run Linux?
If you want a system that won't eat your dog, marry your sister or one of the other terrors Stallman predicts then get yourself a Mac and an iPod. Apple aren't in the TCG and their DRM seems to please most people. You can't play Ogg on your 'pod but that can't be helped.
Right. Stallman bashing, TC supporting and Apple worshiping. Mods: start your fingers.
I thought one of Microsoft's arguments in the anti-trust case was that competitors could always reverse engineer the Win APIs (I'm not MS bashing, I just can't think of any other cases).
I have a sneaky feeling we may well see Apple's own version of the Clicker in 10.3.
Wired have the story here. One of the reasons cited for the retailers not wanting the prices posted is that "15 cents on a Furby can equate to $1 million" and they don't want other stores altering their prices before Friday. Makes sense.
Tog has come up with a similar idea.
The Bluetooth solution mentioned elsewhere can be found here.
Tog has a unique writing style though, so you should check out his website first and read a few articles.
For those of you who don't yet know of Tog, he was the Human Interface Evangslist at Apple.
The book, as the Amazon review states, does not describe a methodology or a set of guidelines but a state of mind. The mindset that Tog describes is one that I personally think the open source movement could benefit from.
All I know is that once I had finished the book I couldn't help but look at all software differently.
I'm going to have to start chipping out some glass knives. And wiring up a pacemaker. And buying a sidecar.
Then we'll see how long those gargoyles last.
Thanks!
As ever the real problem doesn't lie in whether or not there exists a record of you being somewhere at somewhen but who can get at that information and how easily.
Given the strong feelings against the collection of this data any government that allows easy access (or, heaven forbid, sells) to the data will be thrown out on their ear.
It's important to remember that there will have to be human interaction at some point. No robot will come and arrest you. Think face matching in casinos. The computers just bring suspects to the attention of operators, who then make the decision. Provided that a human makes the final choice on what action to follow there should be cause for complaint.
Personally I would prefer to watch ads that are customised for me. If that's what's paying for the show I'm watching then they may as well be interesting.
Think of it like this: They have a table with your name and account number on. They have another that records what programmes were watched by what account number. The only real problem appears when the two are put together; and even then it depends who is going to receive the information and how easy it is for them to get it.