and when the user types in ptt:h/1/290816...a/dinm and uses drag-and-drop/cut'n'paste to rearrange the letters and then press enter, your keystroke logger knows all about that, right?
I'm sure it works well for you, but don't put all your trust in it. It's ridiculously easy to fool something like that - ridiculously easy.
Wouldn't it be better to use policies and actually restrict their actions, as opposed to trying to half-ass guess when they're doing something wrong so you can send out the heavies? It's kinda like an automated CCTV system that looks for people in black/white striped tops, wearing masks and carrying black bags with dollar signs on... The sort of students who know how to get round stuff like that are the ones you want to be watching. Ironic, really... By using that approach to security, you've made yourself less secure.
Bush is a horrible example of a politician and statesman. He has crass timing and shows no respect to issues that demand the deepest respect.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it agreed between the parties to not use 9/11 as a political springboard during re-election? What footage features prominently in GWB's ads? Exactly. He's about the US when it suits him, and about himself all other times. He'll never go out on a limb to help the US, unless there's a lucrative deal involved. He's the epitome of the professional politician - the self-interested, self-serving greedy individual.
They've done more stupid things in the past... I mean, they regularly blow the crap out of their own armed forces, so I hardly think they care much about anyone else!;)
Don't forget - you choose what software is on your PC, so you and only you decide what's "trusted" on your computer.
Not a fan of Windows? Don't install it. Hey-presto! Microsoft are not trusted on your PC.
If we get rid of this damned hysteria that surrounds this truly useful technology, we'll be able to enjoy its uses sooner. If everyone keeps bitching about how it's going to let the feds climb into your ass, we might never see it.
There isn't one "trust provider". Microsoft won't have any more rights to get into a TC'd up computer than you will. They provide the layer, and you install whatever software you want on top of it.
Do Via dictate what OS you use, simply because they made your chipset? No - it's the same with TC.
YOU are the trust provider. If you don't trust microsoft, don't install windows. Without that installed, Microsoft can't touch you. In fact, without Windows installed, they're not trusted by your computer AT ALL.
This is why it's getting a bad press - these facts are not made public as much as the "ooh! bill gates can see you in your underwear!" hysteria. TC is defined not by the hardware you use, but by the software you choose to install. No Windows? No Microsoft.
Mod chips (like the ones for the PS2) are detected when you play online, and the service disconnects you.
That's one point of trusted computing people don't mention much - It doesn't stop you from running dodgy apps or hacking your machine to pieces, but it tells anyone you interact with that the integrity of your application through which you're interacting has been violated.
The way you decide what software sits on your box won't change. If you don't trust Microsoft, don't put their software on your box. If their software's not on your machine, Microsoft can't do squat. Effectively, your machine doesn't trust Microsoft. How can you be against that?:-P
Trusted computing != microsoft sitting on your machine, stealing your pr0n and sending it to the feds. It means giving the software of your choice the ability to look out for itself, and to vouch for your computer and itself.
For someone to be pissy and scared of trusted computing means they haven't given it more than 2 seconds thought and are suffering a knee-jerk reaction. If you're into IT, you're gonna love TC when you see it. If you're paranoid, it'll scare the pants off you, then you'll love it once you realise just what it can do for you:-P
Did you actually read the article? (what am I thinking... this is/.)
That's the whole idea of trusted computing (amongst other things), is allowing a trusted remote service to know full well that the computer its talking to is on the level. It's based in hardware, and is drenched in encryption and intelligent process control.
The trusted computing will provide more security than you've got now, by far. And if you don't like it, you can turn it off. It's that simple. No-one's going to force you to use it, unless you want to run their software. That seems fair enough to me.
What on earth does WWII have to do with trusted computing? It's a way to remove a lot of the blind faith people have in computers. Which, funnily enough, is the same blind faith that ends up screwing everyone when something goes wrong.
To the paranoid, trusted computing is "evil". To those with their heads screwed on properly, it's just another tool in their belt.
I'm not having a go at you, but the hysteria/. and other sources have built up around this topic. The same things were said about Intel's CPU-ID thing, which turned out to be absolutely nothing. The IT industry has a great track record of blowing things out of all proportions. Millennium bug, anyone?
You seem to be forgetting we only get under 10mb/s (average) to the home. There's a huge gap between 10mb/s and 10,000mb/s, so they don't have to adopt the top speed to make it interesting for customers - just a small increase (say, up to 20mb/s) would be a phenomenal service to offer. They can then use the 10gb/s links to feed the smaller ones, keeping everyone happy.
Sure - if they can pre-load IE, then let them do it. I've got a gig of ram, so the odd meg here and there isn't a worry. What I'm concerned with (as a web developer) is when I go to "run" and type in www.google.com and press enter, I want to see the site in under a second. So far, the only thing I've found or used that does that is IE...
No, ID3-tag-reading is not vital to the OS, but it's a great feature that lots of people use. Themes and sounds aren't vital to an operating system, but people are pissed when they're not there.
Winamp's a good audio player, which can exist quite happily next to WMP. Are you suggesting they include every single player ever devised with Windows? BSPlayer is still weak compared to Zoom player. Either way, they all use the same WMP code to play video... That's still going to have to remain to let other software run. Which, effectively, means all Microsoft can do is remove the shortcut to WMP. If Microsoft really did remove every trace of WMP, all the other decent players in Windows would stop working.
OEMs don't include Mozilla because no-one wants Mozilla... People who buy PCs from OEMs aren't interested in open source. They like IE because IE works, and is fast.
You do know it's possible to move a web server instantaneously, don't you? You can even switch locations instantly (across town/country/continent/world). Server break-ins and uptime are only a problem if you don't have the resources and equipment in place to facilitate a speedy transition to a redundant system.
It's not like paper ballots, as you can look at your paper ballot and see where the cross is. It's very hard to look at a magnetic stripe and see what's encoded on it. Try - it's tricky:-P
The problem with using computers to do a recount is they can be "influenced" as much as electronic voting machines. Because of that, running a recount is pointless, as the same corrupt code is run again, producing the same corrupt output. Or, the same corrupt cards are read again, producing the same corrupt output...
I know what you're saying, but there's still far, FAR too much that can be messed around with, in a completely undetectable fashion.
Windows Media Player is more than just a player. It's a critical part of Windows. It contains the libraries that let Windows know about different audio files (playlength, bitrate, etc.). It generates the preview thumbnails in your folders, and populates the extra columns in explorer (ID3 tag reading).
It's not as if Quicktime or Real Player are good players anyway. The only thing out there that's any good is Zoom Player, and that uses the Media Player's libraries to play.
It seems all they're going to do is remove the link to "Windows Media Player" in the start menu...
Claiming Microsoft are stopping people integrating their browsers over IE is plain ridiculous. They've included specific controls into Windows to allow users to set their preferred applications for different tasks. All you have to do is click a button and whatever browser you want will be the default. It's comments like that which show how much you really know about Windows... I'm not having a go, it's just an observation. And, on the subject of browsers - IE is still the fastest one on Windows. I've tried every open source alternative I can find, and they're all slower by a lot. I'm using Mozilla FireWhatever now, but I had to turn it off as it took seconds to load. Whereas IE, part of the OS itself (providing many HTML-based services), loads instantly. Until that's changed, I'm sticking to IE. I want to escape IE, but nothing's as fast yet.
Windows XP lets you change everything on the GUI, while still maintaining a consistant appearance across all applications. That's a feat yet to be managed on Linux, owing to the disparate ways people make apps. I'm not being rude, but apps can (and do) vary incredibly on linux.
Saying you can just use another window manager in linux, while saying you can't do the same in Windows is a bit dubious - it's the same process in both OSs... I can't see why you think Windows shouldn't be allowed to do that. WindowBlinds and a multitude of other GUI additions are available which sculpt the GUI even further, while still maintaining hardware acceleration. The choices are endless.
I'm not ragging on Linux - I just think that most people who use linux as their main computers have missed out on the subtle, yet deeply important technological advances in use in windows. Things like a system-wide codec system really make it useful to home users, not to mention directX which still hasn't been topped in Linux. Device-independent hardware acceleration, like directx, is what Linux needs. Once that's accomplished, it'll be more ready for mainstream use.
Your statistics are pretty misleading. Macs account for about 4% of desktop users. Of course more people run DOS. With an approx. 90% lead in the market, any niche group is going to be comparably larger than anything else.
People do choose the easy option. It's human nature. Only when personal beliefs or ideology get in the way does that change. I don't think the ethos of open source has reached far enough into peoples homes for that to influence their purchasing.
True, not everyone chooses the easy option, but close to 99.9% does, which is enough to make it almost certain.
If they use the right encryption and safety measures, why won't that be secure?
Most electricity systems (heck, most systems in general) are already connected to the net in some way.
Just being connected to the net doesn't mean you're instantly going to get cracked. Look at microsoft.com - a server everyone and their dog wants to crack into. It has external access, and yet is still up and running, profanity-free. With the right technology and people to put it in place, it's secure enough for almost anything.
Where's the guarantee the machine-readable candidate is the same as the human-readable one? Even if they were, who's saying the machine that reads the ballot is impartial? With electronic voting, the sheer fact it's electronic (and therefor invisible to us) means there will always be doubts.
But, paper ballots are also out-of-sight for most of their lifespan, apart from the counting...
But where's your record of who you voted for? What if the results are disputed? How can the result be proved? Do they just put the cards through the same code again? How do you know the machine didn't write in whoever it wanted for your vote? It's not like you can read the magnetic stripe/nvram yourself...
I'm not nitpicking, just wondering about solutions to most of the shortcomings perceived in evoting...:)
That's a tiny amount of failures considering the uptake. All the times I've used it (and I have an inate ability to fry almost any computer I touch) it's not failed me.
All I meant by my last statement is that unless linux offers something to assure users their computer is easily fixable when something goes wrong (and something always does go wrong - that's just machines in general), people being people will go for the easy option. Unfortunately, that's Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure it works well for you, but don't put all your trust in it. It's ridiculously easy to fool something like that - ridiculously easy.
Wouldn't it be better to use policies and actually restrict their actions, as opposed to trying to half-ass guess when they're doing something wrong so you can send out the heavies? It's kinda like an automated CCTV system that looks for people in black/white striped tops, wearing masks and carrying black bags with dollar signs on... The sort of students who know how to get round stuff like that are the ones you want to be watching. Ironic, really... By using that approach to security, you've made yourself less secure.
Bush is a horrible example of a politician and statesman. He has crass timing and shows no respect to issues that demand the deepest respect.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it agreed between the parties to not use 9/11 as a political springboard during re-election? What footage features prominently in GWB's ads? Exactly. He's about the US when it suits him, and about himself all other times. He'll never go out on a limb to help the US, unless there's a lucrative deal involved. He's the epitome of the professional politician - the self-interested, self-serving greedy individual.
They've done more stupid things in the past... I mean, they regularly blow the crap out of their own armed forces, so I hardly think they care much about anyone else! ;)
Napalm.
Not a fan of Windows? Don't install it. Hey-presto! Microsoft are not trusted on your PC.
If we get rid of this damned hysteria that surrounds this truly useful technology, we'll be able to enjoy its uses sooner. If everyone keeps bitching about how it's going to let the feds climb into your ass, we might never see it.
Do Via dictate what OS you use, simply because they made your chipset? No - it's the same with TC.
YOU are the trust provider. If you don't trust microsoft, don't install windows. Without that installed, Microsoft can't touch you. In fact, without Windows installed, they're not trusted by your computer AT ALL.
This is why it's getting a bad press - these facts are not made public as much as the "ooh! bill gates can see you in your underwear!" hysteria. TC is defined not by the hardware you use, but by the software you choose to install. No Windows? No Microsoft.
That's one point of trusted computing people don't mention much - It doesn't stop you from running dodgy apps or hacking your machine to pieces, but it tells anyone you interact with that the integrity of your application through which you're interacting has been violated.
The way you decide what software sits on your box won't change. If you don't trust Microsoft, don't put their software on your box. If their software's not on your machine, Microsoft can't do squat. Effectively, your machine doesn't trust Microsoft. How can you be against that? :-P
Trusted computing != microsoft sitting on your machine, stealing your pr0n and sending it to the feds. It means giving the software of your choice the ability to look out for itself, and to vouch for your computer and itself.
For someone to be pissy and scared of trusted computing means they haven't given it more than 2 seconds thought and are suffering a knee-jerk reaction. If you're into IT, you're gonna love TC when you see it. If you're paranoid, it'll scare the pants off you, then you'll love it once you realise just what it can do for you :-P
That's the whole idea of trusted computing (amongst other things), is allowing a trusted remote service to know full well that the computer its talking to is on the level. It's based in hardware, and is drenched in encryption and intelligent process control.
The trusted computing will provide more security than you've got now, by far. And if you don't like it, you can turn it off. It's that simple. No-one's going to force you to use it, unless you want to run their software. That seems fair enough to me.
What on earth does WWII have to do with trusted computing? It's a way to remove a lot of the blind faith people have in computers. Which, funnily enough, is the same blind faith that ends up screwing everyone when something goes wrong.
To the paranoid, trusted computing is "evil". To those with their heads screwed on properly, it's just another tool in their belt.
I'm not having a go at you, but the hysteria /. and other sources have built up around this topic. The same things were said about Intel's CPU-ID thing, which turned out to be absolutely nothing. The IT industry has a great track record of blowing things out of all proportions. Millennium bug, anyone?
You seem to be forgetting we only get under 10mb/s (average) to the home. There's a huge gap between 10mb/s and 10,000mb/s, so they don't have to adopt the top speed to make it interesting for customers - just a small increase (say, up to 20mb/s) would be a phenomenal service to offer. They can then use the 10gb/s links to feed the smaller ones, keeping everyone happy.
Sure - if they can pre-load IE, then let them do it. I've got a gig of ram, so the odd meg here and there isn't a worry. What I'm concerned with (as a web developer) is when I go to "run" and type in www.google.com and press enter, I want to see the site in under a second. So far, the only thing I've found or used that does that is IE...
Winamp's a good audio player, which can exist quite happily next to WMP. Are you suggesting they include every single player ever devised with Windows? BSPlayer is still weak compared to Zoom player. Either way, they all use the same WMP code to play video... That's still going to have to remain to let other software run. Which, effectively, means all Microsoft can do is remove the shortcut to WMP. If Microsoft really did remove every trace of WMP, all the other decent players in Windows would stop working.
OEMs don't include Mozilla because no-one wants Mozilla... People who buy PCs from OEMs aren't interested in open source. They like IE because IE works, and is fast.
Just because an open source company does something "nice" doesn't mean to say they did it because they're open source. It means absolutely nothing.
You do know it's possible to move a web server instantaneously, don't you? You can even switch locations instantly (across town/country/continent/world). Server break-ins and uptime are only a problem if you don't have the resources and equipment in place to facilitate a speedy transition to a redundant system.
err... didn't SCO dabble in open source, if my memory serves me correct? :-P
The problem with using computers to do a recount is they can be "influenced" as much as electronic voting machines. Because of that, running a recount is pointless, as the same corrupt code is run again, producing the same corrupt output. Or, the same corrupt cards are read again, producing the same corrupt output...
I know what you're saying, but there's still far, FAR too much that can be messed around with, in a completely undetectable fashion.
It's not as if Quicktime or Real Player are good players anyway. The only thing out there that's any good is Zoom Player, and that uses the Media Player's libraries to play.
It seems all they're going to do is remove the link to "Windows Media Player" in the start menu...
Claiming Microsoft are stopping people integrating their browsers over IE is plain ridiculous. They've included specific controls into Windows to allow users to set their preferred applications for different tasks. All you have to do is click a button and whatever browser you want will be the default. It's comments like that which show how much you really know about Windows... I'm not having a go, it's just an observation. And, on the subject of browsers - IE is still the fastest one on Windows. I've tried every open source alternative I can find, and they're all slower by a lot. I'm using Mozilla FireWhatever now, but I had to turn it off as it took seconds to load. Whereas IE, part of the OS itself (providing many HTML-based services), loads instantly. Until that's changed, I'm sticking to IE. I want to escape IE, but nothing's as fast yet.
Saying you can just use another window manager in linux, while saying you can't do the same in Windows is a bit dubious - it's the same process in both OSs... I can't see why you think Windows shouldn't be allowed to do that. WindowBlinds and a multitude of other GUI additions are available which sculpt the GUI even further, while still maintaining hardware acceleration. The choices are endless.
I'm not ragging on Linux - I just think that most people who use linux as their main computers have missed out on the subtle, yet deeply important technological advances in use in windows. Things like a system-wide codec system really make it useful to home users, not to mention directX which still hasn't been topped in Linux. Device-independent hardware acceleration, like directx, is what Linux needs. Once that's accomplished, it'll be more ready for mainstream use.
People do choose the easy option. It's human nature. Only when personal beliefs or ideology get in the way does that change. I don't think the ethos of open source has reached far enough into peoples homes for that to influence their purchasing.
True, not everyone chooses the easy option, but close to 99.9% does, which is enough to make it almost certain.
Most electricity systems (heck, most systems in general) are already connected to the net in some way.
Just being connected to the net doesn't mean you're instantly going to get cracked. Look at microsoft.com - a server everyone and their dog wants to crack into. It has external access, and yet is still up and running, profanity-free. With the right technology and people to put it in place, it's secure enough for almost anything.
But, paper ballots are also out-of-sight for most of their lifespan, apart from the counting...
Your first point requires people to have a drivers license to vote... not very all-encompassing ;)
I'm not nitpicking, just wondering about solutions to most of the shortcomings perceived in evoting... :)
Where's the paper trail? How are recounts done?
All I meant by my last statement is that unless linux offers something to assure users their computer is easily fixable when something goes wrong (and something always does go wrong - that's just machines in general), people being people will go for the easy option. Unfortunately, that's Windows.