Harold,
I appreciate your effort on my behalf however it still is not what
one would call a reliable academic (and peer reviewed) source just
because it is current hosted on (somebody's personal pages on) an
academic institution's webspace. It even refers to itself as "an
obscure technical post to a security mailing list."
On the other hand most of guy's sources are from the horse's mouth
and providing he has paraphrased them correctly (I've not read the
sources) the argument is compelling. I agree with the POV being put
across and am suitably disgusted with MS and to a lesser extent Apple
on the whole 'Trusted Computing' concept.
Tom
PS when an article states: "it's possible that there may be some
inaccuracies present" about itself, it is safe to say it cannot be
referenced as an academic source for any kind of paper whether it is
for an assignment or a journal.
On 7 Mar 2007, at 21:29, Harold Fuchs wrote:
Tom Chilton wrote:
>> MIT "academic" enough?
>
> Unfortunately not, as far as I can tell none of these sources have
> undergone an independent review process, but rather are MIT's
> strategy for 'dealing' with the (*ahem* problem of) Vista. However
> they are useful and appreciated nonetheless.
>
> Tom
>
Slightly more off topic than the original thread subject but also
more telling ...
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Oh, and "academic" too ;-)
--
Harold Fuchs
London, England
Please reply *only* to [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
