At 17:41 +0100 18/4/07, Gordon Joly wrote:
At 15:48 +0100 18/4/07, Ian Forrester wrote:
-
There's huge value in Frameworks. No matter what you may think about
Rails, you can't call them all bad. :)
Ian
A framework is a higher level of abstraction. Most of the time, there
On 05/03/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05/03/07, George Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5) It runs on more archs than you can shake a stick at
I know where there is an Arm board, do I need to shake a stick at it?
Does Real Player run on Arm? There's always someone who has an obscure
On 11/02/07, Michael Sparks wrote:
On Saturday 10 February 2007 22:28, Tim Thornton wrote:
Your machine will do what you tell it to. It's just that there are
secrets you can't access.
Regarding the point above, that's the issue here. Whilst you're happy
with
owning a computer
On 09/02/07, Nic James Ferrier wrote:
Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe it to be orthogonal to DRM. In the trusted computing
space,
your secrets are secret, as are mine. I can trust your computer not
to
reveal my secrets to you, and you can trust that I can't get at
yours
On 09/02/07, vijay chopra wrote:
There's not a single benefit that treacherous computing brings that
cannot
be solved another way, in your example you can hold secrets via any
number of numerous encryption methods, my home PC has a whole
encrypted
partition for data security. Why do I need a
On 10/02/07, Michael Sparks wrote:
On Friday 09 February 2007 18:26, Tim Thornton wrote:
...
I can trust your computer not to reveal my secrets to you,
Do you not see how this is a bad thing - how this can be abused?
I buy a car. It does what I tell it (well it would if I drove). I buy
On 10/02/07, Michael Sparks wrote:
The TPM was designed with this in mind, and each TPM has its own
keys.
Because they're internal to the TPM and can't be extracted by
software,
you can have confidence in the TPM's authenticity.
This is wy off topic, but how does a remote third party
On 10/02/07, Nic James Ferrier wrote:
You work in the industry and you've only met one person who uses
it. So why are firms still putting it in their products? Surely a
motherboard would be cheaper without it?
Of course it's cheaper not to install a TPM, but it's chicken and egg -
to take
On 08/02/07, Nic James Ferrier wrote:
Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, this /is/ an implementation problem, and can be overcome with a
trusted hardware element on the platform. At that stage, the hoop
will be more than simply running some code.
Do you work for ARM?
I do
On 06/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And yet it's still used...
Doesn't that say something?
It says that record execs are stupid, but we all knew that already.
I was going more for a it might be broken by
Hi Dave
On 08/02/07, Dave Crossland wrote:
On 08/02/07, Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deterring the general public from blatant file-sharing.
It fails at this purpose.
I disagree. It fails at preventing all of the public from sharing files.
Firstly, file sharing in itself. Most
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:32:11 -
Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The set-to-record from trailer is a great idea - and you're right, should
be possible / doable. The problem is, i think, that CRID isn't widely used
across the whole industry - i don't know if TV anytime is used by
12 matches
Mail list logo
