Gee, why does this sound so much like Trusted Computing for Hominids??
In similar schemes, there's Proposition 69 on the fall California state ballot: this would provide for [I quote from the state election info booket] DNA sampling of 1) all adults and juveniles convicted of any felony offense 2) all adults and juveniles convicted of any sex offense, or of an attempt to commit such an offense (not just felonies) 3) all adults *arrested* for or charges with felony sex offenses, murder, or voluntary manslaguhter (or the attempt to commit such offenses) 4) and starting in 2009, all adults *arrested* for or charge with ANY felony offense.
Which means you go into the state DNA database *whether you're guilty or not*. And while there are provisions supposed to let those found innocent get their sample removed from the database, when have you ever known a gov't to turn loose of any hold it has over its people, once it gets a good grip?
And wouldn't it be easier if everyone was just DNA'd and microchipped at birth, like it or not?:/~
That very question has crossed my mind, if only because I regard each of my machines as having an "identity" and "personality" that is largely tied up with the hardware.
Poor Borg has had the most trauma; it started life as my original "what do I do with all these leftover parts?" system, a 386DX40 and whatever else fell on my head or got obsoleted out of Dink. Over time the original case got sold to a client, the motherboard got shifted to another case and eventually replaced with what had been Dink's second motherboard (a salvaged P90), and by now I'm not sure there's an "original" part left other than maybe the floppies. But I still think of it as the *same* system, maybe because it ran the *same* software throughout its sad life.
That illustrates the issue... is it the hardware, the OS, the apps, or the whole, that defines a "single system" in the eyes of the OS/application vendor? as you imply, the question is open to whatever interpretation a vendor feels will best serve their interest, which may well be quite contrary to the consumer's interest.
So you set it up so the server only allows one connection at a time to any given work. This can be done, yes? that way, only one person could view any given book at any given moment, exactly like in a hardcopy library.
Dink (this here one-486's unglorious name) still retains its original case (but not PSU), some cables, sound card (tho it's now the 2nd sound card, for use in DOS), and both floppies. Everything else has been gradually swapped out over time. -- I bought a $400 19" monitor for everyday use, but the workbench gets whatever old CRT still produces something resembling a picture.
As to my "upgrade policy" -- the general rule is, every time I have a system's case open for any reason, any part that I happen to have an upgrade for handy gets upgraded (often as not, the handy parts are salvage). If I'm doing a *serious* upgrade or building a new machine, I start with the best motherboard I can afford at the time (with as little integrated as possible.. given a choice, I prefer Tyan), and initially skimp, if need be, on parts that are easily upgraded later. If the foundation is sound, you thus get far more longevity from the total unit, at very minimal cost.
[back to the nominal topic!] If OS X were currently available for x86, I'd probably try it on Levity or Fever, tho I expect they might be a bit bottom-end for the purpose, given that Levity is adequate for MDK 7.2, but not "crisp".
One of these days I need to build me a whole new monkey...
I should have been more specific; the one I'm most familiar with is MacOS8.5, and it was everything I've ever disliked about a GUI or an OS, all in one handy package!! and I expect that OS X's fundamental GUI is still pretty much the same, if prettier (Mac users being, in my observation, somewhat more reactionary about UI changes than Windows users), but having a better OS under it should improve its behaviour. (And I do like what I've seen of BSD.) So if OS X were available for x86, I'd at least give it a serious look.
But -- not if I had to invest in all new hardware. (Especially since I didn't much like the Apple hardware I've had my hands on.) But if I could build my own box starting from a naked motherboard and CPU -- well, that's a lot more feasible, even given the constraints of what devices OS X supports. (After all, how hard would it be to read the "supported device" list, and pick up the required parts at the swap meet or from my junk box?)
BTW, I don't care much about "pretty" as a feature... my desktop tends to be as plain and functional (IOW, non-distracting and glare-free) as it's possible to make it.
"But probably 90% of the world buys brand-name PCs with monitors."
Actually, according to the last several years worth of stats compiled by the companies that compile such stats, name-brand PCs hover at around 50% of the complete-system market. Clone PCs have about 45% of the market (and growing, while OEMs have been slowly losing ground). The remaining 5% is comprised of Apple and other non-x86 manufacturers.
The machine I'm using this instant started life as a 486DX2-66, over 10 years ago. Through various incremental upgrades (two major, lots of minor), it was finally maxed out as a P3, back in 2000. Combined cost for all the upgrades -- about $500. If I'd had to buy the two major upgrades as whole new machines, the total cost would have been around $2000.
Where did all the old parts go? into incrementally upgrading other older computers, in which I consequently have essentially zero cost.
As to the nominal topic... while I personally prefer Windows (or KDE as a passable second choice), and I detest the Mac interface, I *do* like BSD. If I could run OS X on x86 hardware, I'd be far more inclined to give OS X a chance to prove itself. But so long as it requires investing in a big chunk of hardware... it ain't gonna happen here.
However, back to the concept of upgrades... given that Apple makes most of their money on hardware, what about the idea of selling "barebones" Macs? Those could be inexpensively and "incrementally upgraded" by the user by the simple expedient of plugging in last year's used x86 components, would run OS X without any hoop-jumping, and would be a lot more attractively priced to those of us accustomed to the low cost of x86 hardware.
I'm not sure such an approach would be economically viable for Apple, but... anyone with a solid picture of Apple's economics want to try running the numbers?
A couple years ago, Tripod nuked a lot of sites for no visible reason (mine and several friends' sites included). I finally figured out that their TOS-compliance-bot (aimed at getting rid of warez dumps) was taking down any site that included ANY file that was not directly linked from an HTML document. So if you had so much as an orphaned menu graphic, your site got removed for "TOS violations".
Goes to show how silly automated takedowns can be, even when entirely internal to the host in question.
[Stuff like this is why I only use Tripod as a last-ditch mirror, so to me it was more annoying than fatal -- tho I did whine at them until they fixed their damned bot and restored the affected sites.]
That was kinda my thought... how much is your time worth? if you have to spend four hours collecting 600 pages, another four hours printing it, go forth and buy two more inkjet carts, etc, etc... it's cheaper to just buy the damn thing (at least for anything that's in a standard marketing pipeline like Amazon). Or go to an ebooks newsgroup and REQ it, if you're that desperate.
BTW, in my preferred old braindead Netscape 3.04 (js and images off), which doesn't have a clue how to render Google's strange HTML, the link to the real image is displayed right there in plain text, and I can copy/paste that link, then have my way with the directly-fetched image.
And ISTM that saving or printing the odd handful of pages falls under normal fair use anyway (assuming we still HAVE fair use after the latest round of copyright restrictions). So instead of going to all that trouble, why not just restrict how many pages are available (or which ones) from any given book, so you can only collect a "fair use worth" of such page images anyway?? (or better yet, a "fair use worth" of plain old text.)
Talk about everyone going to more effort than it's worth...
It doesn't have a clue how to render Google's new print.google.com thing that people are in an uproar about in another/. article. So what do I see? the link to the actual image, as plain text right in front of my nose, which I can then copy, paste into the address bar, and see a perfectly good page image (that I can do anything I want with).
This old Moz v1.5 that I've been using (when I use a browser of that family) seems to ignore context-menu disablers; RClick/SaveAs works fine everywhere I've taken it. It doesn't seem to have any js setting re context menus, either. Nor do I get any of the annoying dialogs.
LOL! Nah, not that a P3 is much more respectable these days... I just like old NS3's speed, control, and simplicity. Also, every other browser I've tried finds SOME way to annoy me that I don't find tolerable for more than brief stretches.
Ironically, I had to install the prefbar toolbar on Moz to get some of the same control over how I surf that I enjoy with NS3.:/
If your dialup is as slow as mine, rooting thru a dumpster to save 5 megs of download time starts to look pretty good!!:(
Well, it would look good if that Firefox installer was on the AOL CD, anyway... if it's just a lousy IE installer, running away screaming is much more attractive:)
So, just because a given type of fraud occurs via internet, it somehow deserves a much harsher penalty than ordinary meatspace fraud??
Isn't that exactly what most of us here have been railing against -- making internet-enabled and/or IP-related crime a special case?!
In meatspace, a typical criminal penalty is a fine of 3 times the cost to the defrauded party, and direct restitution of immediate monetary loss (NOT of some potential or imaginary loss). In cyberspace, it could come to thousands of times that much -- for the same level of fraud.
BTW, all but one of the phishers I've bothered to track down have been in Korea, or rarely in eastern Europe. The only American IP address was some dork on a cable modem.
(From your comment I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or not, but for the sake of discussion I took it seriously:)
Not only that, but what if, say, the OS covertly phones home with all sorts of info you didn't give it explicit permission to report? is that spyware, or just "good clean activation fun" ??
And I had the thought... are we so sure it's such a good idea to criminalize each and every type of PITA? might not this create more issues than it solves, akin to the CAN-SPAM Act?
There is already a law (aimed at virus authors) that makes it illegal to covertly install anything on another person's computer that impairs its functionality. (I think we can all agree that spyware impairs the average system's functionality.)
There are already laws against fraud, and phishing is nothing more than a specialized type (aka subset) of fraud.
I RTFA (the Yahoo link, anyway), but I didn't see how this new law is superior to those existing general-case laws. Seriously, any legal types here care to give us a reasoned analysis?
Not to mention, I'd like to know how this will affect phishing sites in.. oh, say, Korea...
I just went off and read (well, skimmed) one of your links, http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimat ur/... he mentions micropayments, particularly for websites; that anyone could charge for anything, and the required-to-view-it TC browser could enforce said micropayments.
I predict a new generation of internet fraud, consisting of bogus-content sites that look good enough to pay for access, so you do, only to find there's nothing there.
Such a scam could be recycled endlessly, retooling as needed to match the most-popularly-searched topic de jour. Even a few hundred thousand hits would generate significant income (probably on a par with what spammers made before filtering).
My brain hurts, and is starting to drip out my ears...
I see another problem: what about when I need to use several programs to thump on a given project? (I do that all the time with images and HTML; in fact I may have a given web page and its various components open in as many as a dozen apps at once, from ancient to modern, and sometimes edit parts on two different computers.) Now, if a person is using some TC apps and some non-TC apps to work on a single project, once the TC app has had its grubby paws on a data file, ISTM that the non-TC app isn't going to be able to read the file anymore (unless there's a non-TC-format export function in the TC app). This could cause chaos where embedded objects are involved...
And the upshot is that migration to all-TC apps is "encouraged" by incidental failures of data interoperability.
Isn't there a Windows version of MPlayer? I'da swore I saw such a thing... anyway, if there is, couldn't it be substituted for ALL the plethora of plugins now required for the same functionality in Firefox on Windows??
Once you activate the chip it uses that secret to effectively seize ownership of your machine. You chip can then have secret conversations with other people or other chips - conversations you can't read or alter. You chip can then effectively hand over ownership of your machine to other people.
There's another reason to maintain a separate non-TC system -- simple privacy. Who's to say that the secret conversations can't be anything the gov't wants them to be, including copies of your data files? which in a totalitarian country, could be fatal to the user.
Um... on that note, can these TC chips be remotely updated, without so informing the nominal system owner? (or is there any reason they can't be designed to be remotely updated?)
Another thought, the result of refitting my tinfoil hat: for email to have a snowball's chance of being even as "private" as it ordinarily is today (such as that is), people would have to use PGP or the like. However, the TC chip could see that happen and could intercept the PGP key, yes? if so, those "secret conversations" could include pilfering of PGP keys and flagging its users as "up to something".
Ya know, I'm real glad I still use an old-fashioned dialup BBS, which doesn't need the internet to operate, nor to exchange email with its other users. Yeah, it's a restricted system, but so are most resistance cells.:/
Hmm... so the result, using non-TC backup software, would be a dirtree with some real files and some garbage?
Howeeeeever... Backup software normally uses proprietary compression; I'm thinking that a TC-aware backup program likely would encrypt one and all, and your non-TC files would be SOL.
And having seen Windows flipflop ordinary file attributes for no good reason, how can we trust a TC OS to *never* fuck up and thereby wrongfully encrypt non-TC files??
My various sites presently get ~35k visitors per year, and my buddy Chrome Oxide gets +100k/yr. If even a fraction follow a link to a distillate-of-TC-comments page, that's a few more progressively-paranoid folk.:) Well, I'll try to get to it (in my copious free time, of course:)
[checking] What? no one has yet registered "trustedcomputingsucks.com" ?!!
Slashdot Mirror
Gee, why does this sound so much like Trusted Computing for Hominids??
:/~
In similar schemes, there's Proposition 69 on the fall California state ballot: this would provide for [I quote from the state election info booket]
DNA sampling of
1) all adults and juveniles convicted of any felony offense
2) all adults and juveniles convicted of any sex offense, or of an attempt to commit such an offense (not just felonies)
3) all adults *arrested* for or charges with felony sex offenses, murder, or voluntary manslaguhter (or the attempt to commit such offenses)
4) and starting in 2009, all adults *arrested* for or charge with ANY felony offense.
Which means you go into the state DNA database *whether you're guilty or not*. And while there are provisions supposed to let those found innocent get their sample removed from the database, when have you ever known a gov't to turn loose of any hold it has over its people, once it gets a good grip?
And wouldn't it be easier if everyone was just DNA'd and microchipped at birth, like it or not?
OS X cost me a buck at a yard sale -- still shrinkwrapped.
That very question has crossed my mind, if only because I regard each of my machines as having an "identity" and "personality" that is largely tied up with the hardware.
... is it the hardware, the OS, the apps, or the whole, that defines a "single system" in the eyes of the OS/application vendor? as you imply, the question is open to whatever interpretation a vendor feels will best serve their interest, which may well be quite contrary to the consumer's interest.
Poor Borg has had the most trauma; it started life as my original "what do I do with all these leftover parts?" system, a 386DX40 and whatever else fell on my head or got obsoleted out of Dink. Over time the original case got sold to a client, the motherboard got shifted to another case and eventually replaced with what had been Dink's second motherboard (a salvaged P90), and by now I'm not sure there's an "original" part left other than maybe the floppies. But I still think of it as the *same* system, maybe because it ran the *same* software throughout its sad life.
That illustrates the issue
So you set it up so the server only allows one connection at a time to any given work. This can be done, yes? that way, only one person could view any given book at any given moment, exactly like in a hardcopy library.
Egads, are you sure you're not me? :)
:) Dink, Gremlin, and Argo run all the time.
Dink (this here one-486's unglorious name) still retains its original case (but not PSU), some cables, sound card (tho it's now the 2nd sound card, for use in DOS), and both floppies. Everything else has been gradually swapped out over time. -- I bought a $400 19" monitor for everyday use, but the workbench gets whatever old CRT still produces something resembling a picture.
As to my "upgrade policy" -- the general rule is, every time I have a system's case open for any reason, any part that I happen to have an upgrade for handy gets upgraded (often as not, the handy parts are salvage). If I'm doing a *serious* upgrade or building a new machine, I start with the best motherboard I can afford at the time (with as little integrated as possible.. given a choice, I prefer Tyan), and initially skimp, if need be, on parts that are easily upgraded later. If the foundation is sound, you thus get far more longevity from the total unit, at very minimal cost.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rividh/pc/the_borg.htm
[back to the nominal topic!] If OS X were currently available for x86, I'd probably try it on Levity or Fever, tho I expect they might be a bit bottom-end for the purpose, given that Levity is adequate for MDK 7.2, but not "crisp".
One of these days I need to build me a whole new monkey...
I should have been more specific; the one I'm most familiar with is MacOS8.5, and it was everything I've ever disliked about a GUI or an OS, all in one handy package!! and I expect that OS X's fundamental GUI is still pretty much the same, if prettier (Mac users being, in my observation, somewhat more reactionary about UI changes than Windows users), but having a better OS under it should improve its behaviour. (And I do like what I've seen of BSD.) So if OS X were available for x86, I'd at least give it a serious look.
... my desktop tends to be as plain and functional (IOW, non-distracting and glare-free) as it's possible to make it.
But -- not if I had to invest in all new hardware. (Especially since I didn't much like the Apple hardware I've had my hands on.) But if I could build my own box starting from a naked motherboard and CPU -- well, that's a lot more feasible, even given the constraints of what devices OS X supports. (After all, how hard would it be to read the "supported device" list, and pick up the required parts at the swap meet or from my junk box?)
BTW, I don't care much about "pretty" as a feature
"But probably 90% of the world buys brand-name PCs with monitors."
Actually, according to the last several years worth of stats compiled by the companies that compile such stats, name-brand PCs hover at around 50% of the complete-system market. Clone PCs have about 45% of the market (and growing, while OEMs have been slowly losing ground). The remaining 5% is comprised of Apple and other non-x86 manufacturers.
The machine I'm using this instant started life as a 486DX2-66, over 10 years ago. Through various incremental upgrades (two major, lots of minor), it was finally maxed out as a P3, back in 2000. Combined cost for all the upgrades -- about $500. If I'd had to buy the two major upgrades as whole new machines, the total cost would have been around $2000.
... given that Apple makes most of their money on hardware, what about the idea of selling "barebones" Macs? Those could be inexpensively and "incrementally upgraded" by the user by the simple expedient of plugging in last year's used x86 components, would run OS X without any hoop-jumping, and would be a lot more attractively priced to those of us accustomed to the low cost of x86 hardware.
... anyone with a solid picture of Apple's economics want to try running the numbers?
Where did all the old parts go? into incrementally upgrading other older computers, in which I consequently have essentially zero cost.
As to the nominal topic... while I personally prefer Windows (or KDE as a passable second choice), and I detest the Mac interface, I *do* like BSD. If I could run OS X on x86 hardware, I'd be far more inclined to give OS X a chance to prove itself. But so long as it requires investing in a big chunk of hardware... it ain't gonna happen here.
However, back to the concept of upgrades
I'm not sure such an approach would be economically viable for Apple, but
A couple years ago, Tripod nuked a lot of sites for no visible reason (mine and several friends' sites included). I finally figured out that their TOS-compliance-bot (aimed at getting rid of warez dumps) was taking down any site that included ANY file that was not directly linked from an HTML document. So if you had so much as an orphaned menu graphic, your site got removed for "TOS violations".
Goes to show how silly automated takedowns can be, even when entirely internal to the host in question.
[Stuff like this is why I only use Tripod as a last-ditch mirror, so to me it was more annoying than fatal -- tho I did whine at them until they fixed their damned bot and restored the affected sites.]
Hmm... you have a point. Now where can I find a rich uncle??
(Who can then buy loose the old NS3 codebase that I *really* want!!)
That was kinda my thought... how much is your time worth? if you have to spend four hours collecting 600 pages, another four hours printing it, go forth and buy two more inkjet carts, etc, etc... it's cheaper to just buy the damn thing (at least for anything that's in a standard marketing pipeline like Amazon). Or go to an ebooks newsgroup and REQ it, if you're that desperate.
BTW, in my preferred old braindead Netscape 3.04 (js and images off), which doesn't have a clue how to render Google's strange HTML, the link to the real image is displayed right there in plain text, and I can copy/paste that link, then have my way with the directly-fetched image.
And ISTM that saving or printing the odd handful of pages falls under normal fair use anyway (assuming we still HAVE fair use after the latest round of copyright restrictions). So instead of going to all that trouble, why not just restrict how many pages are available (or which ones) from any given book, so you can only collect a "fair use worth" of such page images anyway?? (or better yet, a "fair use worth" of plain old text.)
Talk about everyone going to more effort than it's worth...
Oh, another plus from old NS3:
/. article. So what do I see? the link to the actual image, as plain text right in front of my nose, which I can then copy, paste into the address bar, and see a perfectly good page image (that I can do anything I want with).
It doesn't have a clue how to render Google's new print.google.com thing that people are in an uproar about in another
This old Moz v1.5 that I've been using (when I use a browser of that family) seems to ignore context-menu disablers; RClick/SaveAs works fine everywhere I've taken it. It doesn't seem to have any js setting re context menus, either. Nor do I get any of the annoying dialogs.
:)
Not that I'm complaining
LOL! Nah, not that a P3 is much more respectable these days... I just like old NS3's speed, control, and simplicity. Also, every other browser I've tried finds SOME way to annoy me that I don't find tolerable for more than brief stretches.
:/
Ironically, I had to install the prefbar toolbar on Moz to get some of the same control over how I surf that I enjoy with NS3.
When they ask why you're leaving the country, tell 'em, "To get away from AOL!"
If your dialup is as slow as mine, rooting thru a dumpster to save 5 megs of download time starts to look pretty good!! :(
:)
Well, it would look good if that Firefox installer was on the AOL CD, anyway... if it's just a lousy IE installer, running away screaming is much more attractive
I still use eBay with Netscape *3* (images and js off), I shit you not. So it looks pukey, who cares, since it's tons faster.
(Then again, I still use NS3.04 as my everyday browser and mail client, for a whole bunch of reasons.)
So, just because a given type of fraud occurs via internet, it somehow deserves a much harsher penalty than ordinary meatspace fraud??
:)
Isn't that exactly what most of us here have been railing against -- making internet-enabled and/or IP-related crime a special case?!
In meatspace, a typical criminal penalty is a fine of 3 times the cost to the defrauded party, and direct restitution of immediate monetary loss (NOT of some potential or imaginary loss). In cyberspace, it could come to thousands of times that much -- for the same level of fraud.
BTW, all but one of the phishers I've bothered to track down have been in Korea, or rarely in eastern Europe. The only American IP address was some dork on a cable modem.
(From your comment I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or not, but for the sake of discussion I took it seriously
Not only that, but what if, say, the OS covertly phones home with all sorts of info you didn't give it explicit permission to report? is that spyware, or just "good clean activation fun" ??
And I had the thought... are we so sure it's such a good idea to criminalize each and every type of PITA? might not this create more issues than it solves, akin to the CAN-SPAM Act?
There is already a law (aimed at virus authors) that makes it illegal to covertly install anything on another person's computer that impairs its functionality. (I think we can all agree that spyware impairs the average system's functionality.)
There are already laws against fraud, and phishing is nothing more than a specialized type (aka subset) of fraud.
I RTFA (the Yahoo link, anyway), but I didn't see how this new law is superior to those existing general-case laws. Seriously, any legal types here care to give us a reasoned analysis?
Not to mention, I'd like to know how this will affect phishing sites in.. oh, say, Korea...
I just went off and read (well, skimmed) one of your links, http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimat ur/ ... he mentions micropayments, particularly for websites; that anyone could charge for anything, and the required-to-view-it TC browser could enforce said micropayments.
I predict a new generation of internet fraud, consisting of bogus-content sites that look good enough to pay for access, so you do, only to find there's nothing there.
Such a scam could be recycled endlessly, retooling as needed to match the most-popularly-searched topic de jour. Even a few hundred thousand hits would generate significant income (probably on a par with what spammers made before filtering).
My brain hurts, and is starting to drip out my ears...
I see another problem: what about when I need to use several programs to thump on a given project? (I do that all the time with images and HTML; in fact I may have a given web page and its various components open in as many as a dozen apps at once, from ancient to modern, and sometimes edit parts on two different computers.) Now, if a person is using some TC apps and some non-TC apps to work on a single project, once the TC app has had its grubby paws on a data file, ISTM that the non-TC app isn't going to be able to read the file anymore (unless there's a non-TC-format export function in the TC app). This could cause chaos where embedded objects are involved...
And the upshot is that migration to all-TC apps is "encouraged" by incidental failures of data interoperability.
Isn't there a Windows version of MPlayer? I'da swore I saw such a thing... anyway, if there is, couldn't it be substituted for ALL the plethora of plugins now required for the same functionality in Firefox on Windows??
There's another reason to maintain a separate non-TC system -- simple privacy. Who's to say that the secret conversations can't be anything the gov't wants them to be, including copies of your data files? which in a totalitarian country, could be fatal to the user.
Um... on that note, can these TC chips be remotely updated, without so informing the nominal system owner? (or is there any reason they can't be designed to be remotely updated?)
Another thought, the result of refitting my tinfoil hat: for email to have a snowball's chance of being even as "private" as it ordinarily is today (such as that is), people would have to use PGP or the like. However, the TC chip could see that happen and could intercept the PGP key, yes? if so, those "secret conversations" could include pilfering of PGP keys and flagging its users as "up to something".
Ya know, I'm real glad I still use an old-fashioned dialup BBS, which doesn't need the internet to operate, nor to exchange email with its other users. Yeah, it's a restricted system, but so are most resistance cells. :/
Hmm... so the result, using non-TC backup software, would be a dirtree with some real files and some garbage?
:) Well, I'll try to get to it (in my copious free time, of course :)
Howeeeeever... Backup software normally uses proprietary compression; I'm thinking that a TC-aware backup program likely would encrypt one and all, and your non-TC files would be SOL.
And having seen Windows flipflop ordinary file attributes for no good reason, how can we trust a TC OS to *never* fuck up and thereby wrongfully encrypt non-TC files??
My various sites presently get ~35k visitors per year, and my buddy Chrome Oxide gets +100k/yr. If even a fraction follow a link to a distillate-of-TC-comments page, that's a few more progressively-paranoid folk.
[checking] What? no one has yet registered "trustedcomputingsucks.com" ?!!