From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C5CEA1.941AAD80
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   You are the one that keeps injecting DRM in every other sentence.  =
Try sticking to the truth and it may be possible to have a meaningful = conversation.

Rich

  "Geo"  wrote in message
news:434c6e29{at}w3.nls.net...
  Dream on Rich, if passwords were enough MS wouldn't be pushing Intel =
for hardware DRM that can't be removed because it's in the cpu.

  Geo.
    "Rich"  wrote in message news:434a84db{at}w3.nls.net...
       I'm saying what I wrote.  Your previous statement is irrelevant =
to your claims of DRM and also false.  Your new fiction is nonsense too.

    Rich

      "Geo"  wrote in message =
news:434a407e{at}w3.nls.net...
      You are saying I can take a pentium D machine and vista and have =
it boot without the special mode or you are claiming that and your =
definition of DRM are different somehow?

      Geo.
        "Rich"  wrote in message news:4349cae3{at}w3.nls.net...
           Irrelevant to your claims of DRM and also false.

        Rich

          "Geo"  wrote in message =
news:4349c91d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
          None of those are a mandatory part of the boot process.

          Geo.
            "Rich"  wrote in message news:4349439c{at}w3.nls.net...
               No more or less than passwords, TLS/SSL, smart cards, =
tokens, or anything else someone wants to make a mandatory part of any =
process they choose.

            Rich

              "Geo"  wrote in message =
news:434921c2$1{at}w3.nls.net...
              But the feature being discussed can not only "be used" for =
DRM, it can be used to FORCE DRM on those who don't want it and to =
prevent competition on the OS market by not allowing an OS that doesn't =
force drm to be used.

              Geo.
                "Rich"  wrote in message =
news:434839da$1{at}w3.nls.net...
                   My objection to your use of the term DRM is that it =
doesn't apply and diverts the discussion away to off topic, often silly, =
emotionally charged claims.  A claim that something could be used for = DRM
could apply to anything as there is no limit to what someone might = use. 
Passwords can be used for DRM.  They are today.  TLS/SSL can be = used for
DRM.  It is today. Smartcards, tokens, or anything to identify = the entity
to which rights were granted can be used.

                   None of this helps for secure boot whose purpose is =
to validate the software environment and has no need to identify the = user
or the machine.

                Rich

                  "John Beckett"
 =
wrote in message news:7roek156s13jun0lt9u808ahvmc20pbmrj{at}4ax.com...
                  "Rich"  wrote in message =
news::
                  >    Your reply falls apart immediately after "as you =
well know".
                  >  In fact you have it exactly backwards.

                  Maybe you're answering in automatic mode??

                  Just because I mentioned the terms "Geo" and
"DRM" in =
the same message
                  does not mean I am supporting all or any of Geo's =
assertions re DRM.

                  In fact, I was pointing out that trusted computing is =
capable of good
                  things, and I predict that with the rising =
sophistication of malware,
                  companies really will need trusted computing systems =
for their laptops if
                  the laptops are allowed to connect to the normal =
company network.

                  I claim that the same features of trusted computing =
that provide the
                  benefit of secure remote access are also capable of =
providing DRM. I am
                  not commenting on whether that is good or bad.

                  I would appreciate a clear correction if I have made a =
mistake in the
                  above (i.e. which words are wrong, and briefly why).

                  > What you approve is up to you and if you use it can =
provide you with
                  > a degree of trust not available without secure boot.

                  I understand that.
                  =20
                  > Many of george's opinions on DRM are ...

                  That's an issue for another thread, IMHO.

                  John

------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C5CEA1.941AAD80
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   You are
the one that keeps =
injecting=20
DRM in every other sentence.  Try sticking to the truth and it may = be=20
possible to have a meaningful conversation.
 
Rich
 

  "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:434c6e29{at}w3.nls.net...
  Dream on Rich, if passwords were =
enough MS=20
  wouldn't be pushing Intel for hardware DRM that can't be removed =
because it's=20
  in the cpu.
   
  Geo.
  

    "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:434a84db{at}w3.nls.net...
       I'm
saying what I =
wrote. =20
    Your previous statement is irrelevant to your claims of DRM and also =

    false.  Your new fiction is nonsense too.
     
    Rich
     
    

      "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>=20
      wrote in message news:434a407e{at}w3.nls.net...
      You are saying I can take a =
pentium D machine=20
      and vista and have it boot without the special mode or you are =
claiming=20
      that and your definition of DRM are different =
somehow?
       
      Geo.
      

        "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:4349cae3{at}w3.nls.net...
          
Irrelevant to your =
claims of=20
        DRM and also false.
         
        Rich
         
        

          "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote =
in message=20
          news:4349c91d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
          None of those are a
mandatory =
part of the=20
          boot process.
           
          Geo.
          

            "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:4349439c{at}w3.nls.net...
               No more or =
less than=20
            passwords, TLS/SSL, smart cards, tokens, or anything else =
someone=20
            wants to make a mandatory part of any process they=20
            choose.
             
            Rich
             
            

              "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
=
wrote in=20
              message news:434921c2$1{at}w3.nls.net...
              But the feature being =
discussed can=20
              not only "be used" for DRM, it can be used to FORCE DRM on =
those=20
              who don't want it and to prevent competition on the OS =
market by=20
              not allowing an OS that doesn't force drm to be =
used.
               
              Geo.
              

                "Rich" <{at}> wrote in
message news:434839da$1{at}w3.nls.net...
                   My =
objection to your=20
                use of the term DRM is that it doesn't apply and diverts =
the=20
                discussion away to off topic, often silly, emotionally =
charged=20
                claims.  A claim that something could be used for =
DRM could=20
                apply to anything as there is no limit to what someone =
might=20
                use.  Passwords can be used for DRM.  They are =

                today.  TLS/SSL can be used for DRM.  It is =
today.=20
                Smartcards, tokens, or anything to identify the entity =
to which=20
                rights were granted can be used.
                 
                   None of =
this helps for=20
                secure boot whose purpose is to validate =
the software=20
                environment and has no need to identify the user or the=20
                machine.
                 
                Rich
                 
                
                  "John Beckett" <FirstnameSurname{at}com=">mailto:FirstnameSurname{at}compuserve.com.omit">FirstnameSurname{at}com=
puserve.com.omit>=20
                  wrote in message news:7roek156s13=
jun0lt9u808ahvmc20pbmrj{at}4ax.com..."Rich"=20
                  <{at}> wrote in message >   =20
                  Your reply falls apart immediately after "as you well=20
                  know".>  In fact you have
it exactly=20
                  backwards.Maybe you're answering in
automatic=20
                  mode??Just because I mentioned the
terms "Geo" =
and=20
                  "DRM" in the same messagedoes not mean I am =
supporting all=20
                  or any of Geo's assertions re DRM.In fact, I =
was=20
                  pointing out that trusted computing is capable of=20
                  goodthings, and I predict that with the rising=20
                  sophistication of malware,companies really will =
need=20
                  trusted computing systems for their laptops ifthe =
laptops=20
                  are allowed to connect to the normal company =
network.I=20
                  claim that the same features of trusted computing that =
provide=20
                  thebenefit of secure remote access are also =
capable of=20
                  providing DRM. I amnot commenting on whether that =
is good=20
                  or bad.I would appreciate a clear correction =
if I have=20
                  made a mistake in theabove (i.e. which words are =
wrong,=20
                  and briefly why).> What you
approve is up =
to you=20
                  and if you use it can provide you with> a =
degree of=20
                  trust not available without secure boot.I =
understand=20
                  that. > Many of
george's opinions on =
DRM are=20
                  ...That's an issue for another thread,=20
                  =
IMHO.John=
<=
/HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C5CEA1.941AAD80--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5