Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Yep! (ja seker, het is Nederlands taal.)
Weby, the smart card readers will have to be device-authenticated NOW. There is no bifurcation between device and person authentication -- no separation between a phase 1 and phase 2 in implementation. It's all concurrent as regards the need for the TPM. The card readers need to be trusted on the IP network today.
The IHub WAVX message board has long been a virtualized IT-based community existing as the top layer sitting on a constantly changing ad hoc physical layer of IP networked PCs. Using the author's description, we Wavoids fit the ideal or ultimate example of IT 'virtualization'... a computational abstraction that is reified in, connects to, and utilizes data (information) from the physical layer without regard to how, where, when, or in what static form it originates or exists. So much for one Wavoid's view of idealized 'virtualization'. :^)
The answer to the question in your second paragraph is the same as that for the Wave TPM management software, developer tools, and server-side software: Wave's back office transactional software exists today, and works -- that of others has to be developed, tested, evaluated, and validated. In other words, with regard to the transactional engine, Wave has the competitive lead and first mover advantage. Regarding transactional revenue and the E2100, you are laboring under a misapprehension. The so-called 'transactional engine was the server-side transaction accounting back office infrastructure, not the E2100 chip. That feature remains the same even though the E2100 is replaced by the TPM. In other words, the transactional revenue model has not changed.
short answer: no (as there is no pretension to deploy a globally architected computational/networked infrastructure in which all connected or networked elements are integrated and autonomously managed. In the trusted computing eco-system, the constituent computational elements, agents, devices, etc., interact with each other on the basis of distributed 'trust', and there is no global, centralized, autonomous management of the entire infrastructure or system , as is the case with the cited IBM architecture).
AWK, you have done a most important thing in this post, as there is something which most on the board continue to fail to appreciate. You have clarified and emphasized how important the role of POLITICS is inside the computer industry in determining the pace at which technology advances and improvements find their way into general public use. The slow pace of technology advances usually seems vexingly and irrationally glacial, whenever one subtracts, or ignores, the factor of intra-industry POLITICS. A major short-coming of Wavoids seems to be their proclivity to fail to acknowledge, or understand, or in many cases, to accept the role that intra-industry POLITICS plays in either slowing or accelerating the rate of technology deployment to the consuming public. Your post makes this point painfully clear. Unfortunately, most good visionaries are not also the best politicians!
yipeeee!!!
My guess, and it's ONLY a guess, is that some variant close to your first alternative obtains. I get the sense that the bulk of Wave's software development to date is based on, or draws heavily from, the GVTPM abstraction... the API's, the developers' tools, the TPM management software, etc. It looks like the GVTPM is the abstract formalization of the 'state of the art' and includes elements that might have been licensed, along with the results of developmental work that cannot be licensed, but which constitute 'trade secrets' or intangible goodwill, in the legal sense, which serve to give Wave a central role in the trusted computing space, and a tremendous competitive lead over any potential competitors. JMO, of course!
because a router constantly directs data packets in a data stream to different endpoint devices on its associated network, a 'trusted router' ('trusting router' is actually a better descriptive term) will verify that an endpoint device (or a downstream device) is trustable, before routing a data packet to it. this is a rough description of what is involved.
So there's something more here than 'the normal kaeretsu connection'.... So, I still don't get the guvna's point. More Sunday night negativity, or what?
How do you define "direct connection"? Consolidation at the financial accounting level, or what?
even better, wavoids are not even adopters... we are visionaries and innovators, as until recently there wasn't even anything to adopt, in the sense that marketing analysts use the four-stage product innovation and deployment typology.
The GVTPM is not a product. It is a software architectural abstraction.
You are right on, AWK. Failure is merely the price of success!
I underrstand your point. I guess I have very little esteem for contemporary so-called 'journalism' -- whether technology-related or the general media. Hence, I tend to tolerate their lack of professionalism.
you are over-reacting, awk. microsoft may have 'aligned itself with' the TNC standard, but, i think the author's point is that such 'alignment' fell short of enthusiastic support, which strategic reticence is typical behavior for microsoft.
kirei-no nami!
java virtual machine.
My guess is that the increase in projected expense relates to projected cost of the R&D that will be expended in 'tweaking' the software to match the customization requirements of new OEMs. This process was discussed by SKS in the last conference call.
As frustrating as it may be, "reasonable 'guesses'..." are not a defense in an SEC prosecution alleging a false or mis-leading representation of a material fact.
awk, I really don't think you want SKS to give you a definitive projection on the date of break-even, because I really doubt that you, and many other wavoids here, are willing to accept the consequences such as purported securities law violations, real or imagined, that an incorrect projection would certainly attract.
Do you mean that an innocent bystander can't call the cops?
He used the criterion of having SKU's for the 50 million 'in hand'. This would seem to negate any inference that any BRCM or Winbond contracted-for units were included.
Like you, I bought all the way up to the $50's, and all the way down to the $0.60's. I have a truckload today, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, no regrets. Patience WILL equal Pro$perity!
Great post LadyX, and the dollar sign is back!!!
Regards from Scorpio (in Whitewater).
This is what VT and anti-virus
software is all about:
The TPM monitors the real-time, run(ing)-time integrity of the anti-virus software in the virtualized partition, such that it is isolated from the running applications in the other virtualized partitions -- it's just a secure vault concept which ensures that the anti-virus software cannot be accessed, damaged, or manipulated by malevolent software inserted into the OS by hackers, malware, out-of-date anti-virus updates, etc.
Obviously a joke, so continue laughing.
You seem to miss the more important point -- running anti-virus software in one of the secure virtualized partitions is but one of the possible uses of these partitions. Some uses
will generate an incentive to purchase an upgrade, and some will not. It will depend on the particular enterprise's needs and I.T. and business operations usage model.
I guess
Does this end the 'third party hardwarere versus software' controversy...?
Does the SEC do the de-listing, or the Exchange???
You're wrong. Nothing in Intel's statement either implicity or explicitely says that the third party solution is a hardware (support) solution. The clearer implication is that the third party application is a software application, most likely Wave's ETS or similar product(-s).
Mutually isolated execution spaces (designed to be inherently 'secure') are what Intel's VT is all about... stuff your virus or other similar applications into those virtualized partitions, where they can execute out of harm's way, and you have what Intel PR'ed with Symantec today.
Never said it was... au contraire!
Sure you do... (LOL)
The last part of your lucid explication is 'right on'! However, this part, the most relevant one today, is incorrect. "might estatablish" should be changed to "has
established (a safe place)" to reflect that it has has already happened. That is what the Symantec/Intel use of virtualized secure partitions, as announced today, is all about. So, you should scrap and re-write this last paragraph of your post:
QUOTE
Next the industry might establish a safe place to execute trusted applications
in hardware on the client side and elsewhere on the edges of all IT networks.
Wave would hope to provide corresponding lifecycle-management tools.
ENDQUOTE
You are correct, but dutch got the SIGNIFICANCE right in his post.
I have unbridled optimism, but if I have to explain it, you won't sense it.
I think the sp will strengthen, as calmer heads begin to discern and understand the real significance of today's Intel debut of VT in an actual saleable platform. The positive implications for Wave are both tangible and significant, even if not a part of today's Intel PR.
vPro is the beachhead to soften the eventual overall market. The condiment for the eventual consumer DRM ham sandwich.