| |TitusMr Gradenko
No If they're dancing around the truth now, they'll be dancing around the truth from here on out. Put 'em in the bozo-bin with their corporate brethren.
Intel doublespeak? Oh I see it now.!
Doublespeak=telling twice as many lies.First by covering it.So it doesnt look like shit.Then spraying it to mask the odor.So it doesn't smell like shit.The spin doctors are having a hard time convincing people that smell is of roses.Yet the flys (media) are strangely attracted to it.Proving its shit
| |said by Skippy25:Well then Skippy boy. Read this .
Just out of curiousity I am wondering what the implications are if Intel embeds DRM?
Product makers have every right to insert DRM into their products to restrict it's 'use' if they choose. Obviously software based is not very good as it is easily broken and "patches" are easily distributed. So what is wrong with Intel making this a hardware based solution which will be much harder to crack and certainly harder to distribute?
I guess what I am missing is how this will actually effect a normal user in a bad way.
Then you will understand how this will actually effect a normal user in a bad way.
Sort of like if I surrender all my rights.How will that affect a normal citizen in a bad way.Perhaps this will be easier to understand.Ask your self. How will a trojan actually affect a normal user in a bad way.? Think man think.
| |POBRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
Re: So what's the issue?
said by Skippy25:Yunno what they say about opinions, dontcha skippy boy.
Good or bad, that was an aweful lot like reading the pre Y2k articles -Lots of "theories and opinions" as to what could
| Skippy has a point. Intel does have a right to distribute said chip. Hmm.. well, maybe not..|
This is no different than selling a car that was unable to go faster than the speed limit, ever. Think about it. They embed RFID chips in the road, then they require all cars to have RFID readers, and those cars will obey the embedded speed limits. So noone can break the law. That would stop all speeding, so we wouldn't need speed traps. Of course, the police would still need to have cars that could go faster than the speed limit. Cause the only ones who would have cars that could go faster than the speed limit would be criminals who hacked their RFID readers in their cars. They'll need to pass new laws to spy on people who speak about bypassing the RFID, cause that would be illegal. Hmm, oh, wait, they already DID pass a law that supresses free speech (DCMA). Well, then they'll just need to require everyone to register with a DNA databank, so when you get in your car, you need to pee in a cup, and it can compare you with a list of know dissidents, oops, I mean, hackers, who 'could' hack RFID's, and the governement could follow those unpatriotic people. The Peoples Republic of these United States knows whats best for us all, and the Patriot Act II will ensure that we remain safe. The fact that the **AA's are buying congress, and trying to force their view of what a computer can legally do is just the natural evolution of a democracy, really. And if you disagree, well, you must be a terrorist, cause only terrorist want to use their computers in a manner that's unfriendly to the **AA's.
Bottom line is that DRM = Digital RESTRICTIONS, Not RIGHTS. The concept of adding DRM to the hardware adds ZERO VALUE to the computer. ZERO, ZILCH, NADA. Everyone knows it except the public. But as you can see from the desperate spin control intel is putting out, having the public know is the last thing they want.
Re: So what's the issue?
said by "G_Poobah":You are aware, that most cars sold today, have not only built-in "speed limiters" in their computer (meaning, won't go above 'X' speed - not without "chipping" the computer), but also, they include "black box" functionality, in order to log your driving habits. No doubt, that when you go in for your yearly "safety" inspection, they will download your entire driving history for that year into their computer. If that information includes physical location information, that could be superimposed on a map - well, better hope that your travels don't look "suspicious" to anyone. Oh yeah, some states ARE now proposing or implementing RFID transponders into inspection stickers as well. I also know that at least CA is doing likewise with a "remote kill switch" for cars - the cops would just have to point a device at your car, hit a button, and your car drifts to a halt, right then and there. So much for a Constitutionally-affirmed "right to travel".
This is no different than selling a car that was unable to go faster than the speed limit, ever.
That all being said - I don't think that *all* "DRM" is bad - DRM enables control. The question is, WHO is given that control. If the user is given complete control over their own machines, and allowed to control their own media works, then I don't have a huge problem with that - it could actually spur the development of a reliable micro-payment scheme for smaller content distributers. (Meaning you and me - imagine getting paid a cent every time someone read one of your posts!)
But if only the bigger corporations / gov't agencies, are given "control" over a user's machine, what it creates, what it is allowed to view - then that is essentially technological *slavery*, and also a widespread platform for post-facto censorship efforts.
In short - it seems directly analogous to the concept of the ownership and control over private property - if the "end-user" is allowed to own and control, then no problem. But if only the "plantation owner" is allowed to control it, then that is a real problem. And that seems to be where things are headed, unfortunately.
Re: So what's the issue?
said by Anonymous_:All we have to do is buy a computer that does not use the newer chip in question.
hey all we got to do is buy an older computer