Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Microslosh vision of the future

  • From: Alif The Terrible
  • Date: Mon Aug 12 22:06:00 2002

On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> Thus spake "Alif The Terrible" <>
> > On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, gg wrote:
> > >
> > > Guess my home P.C. will no longer be an intel platform......hello mighty
> >
> > I guess you didn't actually read this, did you?  It makes no difference what
> > you use at home, if that machine can't talk to the rest of the world.
> 1. There will be CPU vendors that won't require Palladium-signed code

CPU vendors will build cpu's to meet demand.  If non-palladium cpu's are not
in demand, they will not produce them.  As it stands now, x86 (like it or
not, and personally, I do not) is rapidly becoming the Lone Platform.B

> 2. There will be OSes that won't require Palladium-signed code
Again, this will depend completely on non-technical issues at first, however,
since Palladium provides a framework in which the execution of such
"non-approved" code is [theoretically] controllable entirely by a third party
(regardless of intent, which we could all argue back and forth all day long
without resolution), this scenario, coupled with DMCA provisions IS
possible.  If I were a large monopoly, I would for certain want to do this -
it is in my financial self-interest.
> 3. There will be applications that won't require Palladium-signed code

TCPA as described currently, could well require you or I to submit our own
(self-written) code for signing prior to execution.  If this signing is
financially prohibitive, and for an open source project even a tiny fee for
each change IS prohibitive, then these applications will cease to exist.

> 4. There will be IETF protocols that won't require Palladium-signed code
Youre missing the point: this isn't about the IETF requiring
Palladium-signed code, this is about Palladium processors requiring signed

> 5. The Net will not require Palladium-signed code

No, but to talk to any Palladium processor across the net WILL require
palladium signed code, and therefore...

> and most importantly:
> 6. This article is completely incorrect on how Palladium will work.

I would refer those interested to minds far better informed than you or I for
reference: there is a current debate going on between some rather respected
cryptographers, and a Palladium proponent using the "AARGH!" anonymous
remailer, on the cypherpunks lists.  The archives are available to catch up,
if you are so inclined.  Currently, the consensus is not promising.

> S  

J.A. Terranson

If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
first place...

Discussion Communities

About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home

Merit Network, Inc.