Microsoft still tinkering with secure-computing design

TalkBack 45 of 55:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Hope That Day Never Comes

devices such as the keyboard, protect application data from modification, encrypt storage and allow for attestation, which lets organizations that "own" content on a person's computer ascertain whether the data or software has been modified.
""""

Here you have it. A 'persons'' computer. Never mind the reality between that define and 'end-user. For one you will not be able to create the specifications rational to security without first recognizing that there is in fact 'person in place of 'end-user.

The rational as is used at present is the facet of trading perspective from 'person to user,then taking user to be subordinate to the facet of mechanical implementation,or functionality - that of another person,then trading that 'this is business relationship. However you have not yet been noticed that the person the business agreement indemnifies is anything but 'person of use. The reality this only predecates a fashion of 'usury via the means computer,or microsoft,or whoever decides of wich,or when a ''persons participation is to take place. It does not rationalize in any way the validity that the 'place of person is ALWAYS REALITY TO PERSON. That 'person cannot simply vanish at the distinguishment of 'end-user blissfully hiding mechanism' to accomadate business and yet not redeem this reality.

Here is an example:

I had ordered a CD from microsoft. I had found following doing so that the mailing address had left off some detailed information of wich would be necesary to deliver the cd. For example there would be no such delivering without the given articulation of apartment streetaddress without apartment number.

When end-user is used it is said as if delivering to person,the basis of wich person 'IS" is doing so for that whole entity of relationship (building without apt #).

What the business contract does and does so knowingly is use this type of generalization to person in 'end-user,and retain factual 'place of person to be given to the business where person would be a knowledged field of premise and priority of functioning . The frame of reason to person in the edicate of 'end-user has no deliverable address for 'person. No 'identity of reference to regard the factual 'place,or realistic value of 'human identity-. This does so purposely. So that the value of 'person,wether the choice of competition among 'contract free commerce,and 'goods cannot be taken as common place to the initiative of that persons role to it.

A business contract cannot for example define a 'persons role when they are patronage to choose among different effects. When for example privacy is defined by that contract,it cannot detail so by indemnifying itself and denying the privacy wich is the domain of persons only.

Businesses are persons true.But they are not the same respect in detail of commerce as respect of home and effect. Not even constitutionaly does one expect to be required to involve themselves with civil afadavid in order to redeem the character role of commerce wich is payment,receipt and good. So business wants that person all to themselves. While the mechanism to do so is far from the relationship of wich a mechanism ,in its place should hold as variable for the persons.

As it stands at the moment,many logical agreements based on 'privacy statement agreements can be taken to court and found to be 'illegal contracts. Since the agreement itself weighs itself against the commerce of good,and a persons privacy,in a sort of hostage arrangement via the mechanisms wich to take part in the commerce.

The mechanism works that way because the programmers have programed it to do so. This being the propriety of either person in 'end-use ,yet not soul respect of 'person based on fair sale of 'goods.

Mostly in digital goods.If it is in the mechanism that the propriety can create 'clause of agreement,deeming the constitutional environment wich pertains to persons is being denied,as hostage that right can be held against the practice. Or at least if it can be pointed out,to be said to be a lesser prefered practice.

There are economic alternatives to these contractual arrangements. But it still has all an addition of person. Everything from IP to 'end-use has to do with 'person. Somehow some better 'fair commerce has got to convene to create the relevance for them. To replace the value of 'usury with 'good(s),and receipt.

If you mail it end-use it will never reach the address of wich its 'person of use was intended to reach. In commerce or in mechanisms wich need the perspective to operate correctly via programming initiative.

The delivery mechanism has been tampered with.So that there is not a person with 'end-use.

.just talking.

Posted by: ParadigmOdyssey   Posted on: 05/05/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Finally, an Easier Way for Small and Mid-Sized Companies to Run Their Business Applications: IBM Smart Business IBM From the PC to the Internet to every piece of hardware and software in ... Download Now
• File System Auditor Version 2.0.8 ScriptLogic File System Auditor? allows administrators to audit file access, generate ... Download Now
• The New Generation of System X Servers: Lower datacenter costs through server refresh IBM Join Intel and IBM for a deep dive into the new Intel Xeon Processor 5500 ... Download Now