In Ten Years, Will You Own a PC, or Vice-versa?

[bluegray V]

Me sorry, but me not sure what to make of this now. 

You'll notice that it is still not in conspiracy section. Also note the little smiley face that was supposed to be an indication that I was joking.

Another good page to read about TC:
http://www.eff.org/Infrastructure/trusted_computing/20031001_tc.php

[qrios]

Let's just change the thread name then. 

Being owned by a PC still sounds like a conspiracy. Stays an interesting thread though.

[Anacoluthon64]

No I understand the implications. But that will only happen if TC is taken to the extremes that you are talking about. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I don't think people are going to let that happen.

There are no extremes for TC to be taken to.  Either a piece of hardware or software is TC compliant, or it is not.  If it isn't, it will be rejected by a TC platform.  If it is, you can't use it on anything other than a TC platform, and then only with the proper authorisation via a set of keys.  That's the whole point of TC.

And vinyl is still not dead. A lot of albums are still released on vinyl for DJ's and collectors. It is still with us because there is a market for it.

I know, I'm a collector.  But it's a very tiny specialist market, not one frequented by the general listener.

How many illegal Zimbabweans are there in surrounding countries?

Compared to how many people remain in Zimbabwe?  Negligible.

Why do they have to keep up with the latest technology? All they need is something that is usable.

Because anything much less has a profound effect on the viability of data exchange and processing.  You wouldn't attempt to play Doom on a 386, even though in theory you could.  Another example: at the office you have a shiny new Hexium P9-64 QuadCore TC machine and you want to send your friends a brief e-mail reminder at their homes about your upcoming birthday braai.  Problem is, they've all got dodgy old October 2006 vintage AMD 64-bit games machines sitting at home.  They can't receive, let alone open or read, your e-mail because it was composed on a TC platform running a TC e-mail client.  That's the reality.

I'm sure that without any opposition it could very well happen.

Agreed.

'Luthon64

[Anacoluthon64]

Let's just change the thread name then. 

Being owned by a PC still sounds like a conspiracy. Stays an interesting thread though.

Okay, yes, it was a poor choice of title.

'Luthon64

[Anacoluthon64]

Another good page to read about TC:
http://www.eff.org/Infrastructure/trusted_computing/20031001_tc.php

Good link, thanks.  I'll just quote the conclusion:

Conclusion
We recognize that hardware enhancements might be one way to improve computer security. But treating computer owners as adversaries is not progress in computer security. The interoperability, competition, owner control, and similar problems inherent in the TCG and NCSCB approach are serious enough that we recommend against adoption of these trusted computing technologies until these problems have been addressed. Fortunately, we believe these problems are not insurmountable, and we look forward to working with the industry to resolve them

[bluegray V]

Some more on Microsoft and the new vista EULA:
"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that..."

[Anacoluthon64]

Aah yes, The Register.  Their off-the-wall irreverence is always a delight to read.

Okay, so you never actually own your M$ OS; you just get to use it for a while after handing over wads of cash.  In practice, it probably won't make much of a difference to the end-user anyway, but obviously that will very much depends on how far M$ will choose to go in its attempts to uphold the clauses of the EULA.  My own experience (several, in fact) is that M$'s customer support is atrocious, at least in SA: if they reply at all, it is in the form of useless touchy-feely rhetoric instead of helpful information.

[DERAIL]There's an analogous ownership situation in SA law that few people are aware of concerning what are called "precious metals" and "precious stones" (these are legal terms, hence the inverted commas): you don't actually ever own gold or platinum or diamonds in SA.  You own only the value of the commodity in question.  The subtle distinction is that the law makes provision for the State at any time and without prior notice to grab your jewels and gold coins and reimburse you the value in the ruling currency.  This has never yet happened, but was written into the law as an emergency measure for raising funds in the event of a prolonged war or other threat to the State's health.[/DERAIL]

'Luthon64