From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0067_01C5CF88.BED74CD0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   I have no aversion to DRM.  I have an aversion to some idiot trying =
to inject it into every discussion despite it having no relevance.  =
Trying to change the topic doesn't make your silly attempts any more =
credible.

Rich

  "Geo"  wrote in message
news:434db6a4{at}w3.nls.net...
  You have a real aversion to the DRM monkier, so does MS. What is it =
they call that stupid windows update copyprotection thing, Genuine =
Advantage? WTF is that supposed to mean, it's DRM/copyprotection plain =
and simple, why not call it what it is?

  Geo.=20
    "Rich"  wrote in message news:434c8152{at}w3.nls.net...
       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_0067_01C5CF88.BED74CD0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   I have no
aversion to =
DRM.  I=20
have an aversion to some idiot trying to inject it into every discussion = despite=20
it having no relevance.  Trying to change the topic doesn't make =
your silly=20
attempts any more credible.
 
Rich
 

  "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:434db6a4{at}w3.nls.net...
  You have a real aversion to the DRM =
monkier, so=20
  does MS. What is it they call that stupid windows update =
copyprotection thing,=20
  Genuine Advantage? WTF is that supposed to mean, it's =
DRM/copyprotection plain=20
  and simple, why not call it what it is?
   
  Geo. 
  

    "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:434c8152{at}w3.nls.net...
       You
are the one that =
keeps=20
    injecting DRM in every other sentence.  Try sticking to the =
truth and=20
    it may be possible to have a meaningful conversation.
     
    Rich
     
    

      "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>=20
      wrote 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=20
      it's 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=20
        false.  Your new fiction is nonsense too.
         
        Rich
         
        

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

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

              "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
=
wrote in=20
              message news:4349c91d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
              None of those are a =
mandatory part of=20
              the 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=20
                someone 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=20
                  can not only "be used" for DRM, it can be used to =
FORCE DRM on=20
                  those who don't want it and to prevent competition on =
the OS=20
                  market by not allowing an OS that doesn't force drm to =
be=20
                  used.
                   
                  Geo.
                  

                    "Rich" <{at}> wrote in
message news:434839da$1{at}w3.nls.net...
                       My =
objection to=20
                    your use of the term DRM is that it doesn't apply =
and=20
                    diverts the discussion away to off topic, often =
silly,=20
                    emotionally charged claims.  A claim that =
something=20
                    could be used for DRM could apply to anything as =
there is no=20
                    limit to what someone might use.  Passwords can =
be used=20
                    for DRM.  They are today.  TLS/SSL can be =
used for=20
                    DRM.  It is today. Smartcards, tokens, or =
anything to=20
                    identify the entity to which rights were granted can =
be=20
                    used.
                     
                       None =
of this helps=20
                    for secure boot whose purpose is to validate=20
                    the software environment and has no need to =
identify=20
                    the user or the 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=20
                      all or any of Geo's assertions re DRM.In =
fact, I=20
                      was pointing out that trusted computing is capable =
of=20
                      goodthings, and I predict that with the rising =

                      sophistication of malware,companies really =
will need=20
                      trusted computing systems for their laptops =
ifthe=20
                      laptops are allowed to connect to the normal =
company=20
                      network.I claim that the same features of =
trusted=20
                      computing that provide thebenefit of secure =
remote=20
                      access are also capable of providing DRM. I =
amnot=20
                      commenting on whether that is good or =
bad.I would=20
                      appreciate a clear correction if I have made a =
mistake in=20
                      theabove (i.e. which words are wrong, and =
briefly=20
                      why).> What you approve is
up to you =
and if you=20
                      use it can provide you with> a degree of =
trust not=20
                      available without secure boot.I
understand =

                      that. > Many of
george's opinions =
on DRM=20
                      are ...That's an issue for
another thread, =

                      =
IMHO.John=


------=_NextPart_000_0067_01C5CF88.BED74CD0--

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