Do P4 chips have serial numbers?
Ron House
Intel were reported to be "quietly" withdrawing serial numbers. Does
anyone know if they actually did this?
--
Ron House ho...@usq.edu.au
http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house
Pete Ulrich
"Ron House" <ho...@usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3D17F287...@usq.edu.au...
I think the code is still in there but the facility to read it and export it
has been/can be disabled. If you have a newer system, check your BIOS for a
'Processor Serial Number' switch.
Alex Johnson
>
> The last I heard about the chip serial number stoush was in 2000, when
> Intel were reported to be "quietly" withdrawing serial numbers. Does
> anyone know if they actually did this?
My understanding is that the feature is still in every chip that comes
out of intel, but they disable it in some way before shipping. It's
like everything in the corporate world: you never take out a feature
you added...at best you leave it in and just don't let the rest of your
product talk to it. Microsoft probably has the most orphaned code still
being shipped, but I bet almost everybody has something. Never know
when you want to re-enable it...and taking it out might break
something. Managers are always afraid of that possibility.
Alex
--
My words are my own. They represent no other; they belong to no other.
Don't read anything into them or you may be required to compensate me
for violation of copyright. (I do not speak for my employer.)
WatchingU
Yes, Virginia, there is a serial number.
:)
bill davidsen
| The last I heard about the chip serial number stoush was in 2000, when
| Intel were reported to be "quietly" withdrawing serial numbers. Does
| anyone know if they actually did this?
Still there, and if there is a BIOS which supports the chip and doesn't
give the option to disable it, I haven't used it. Once disabled you have
to power cycle (says Intel) or cold boot (network claims).
People have posted that there is a secret way to enable it, but since no
one has actually posted such a thing and many other "undocumented
instructions" have come to light, I would bet that there isn't any such
thing and never was in a production CPU.
--
bill davidsen <davi...@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Programming without software engineering is like sculpting with a chain
saw. The very talented can produce a work of art, the mediocre wind up with
a misshapen lump in a pile of rubble, and in neither case does the end
result have more than a passing resemblance to the original intent.
Joe Pyles
http://support.intel.com/support/processors/pentium4/sb/1059005053674851-prd483.htm
Nikolaos Tampakis
wrote:
>The Pentium 4 DOES NOT support the processor serial number.
>
>http://support.intel.com/support/processors/pentium4/sb/1059005053674851-prd483.htm
>
What that page *actually* says is:
"Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 processors do not support the processor serial
number feature introduced by the Pentium(R) III processor"
So it might support a (new) serial number feature introduced by the
Pentium(R) 4 processor...
Regards
Nikos Tampakis
Joe Pyles
though it doesn't support the Pentium 3 serial number, Intel has a
double secret serial number for the Pentium 4 that we're not being
told about. They probably keep a record of them at Area 51 in Nevada.
Keith R. Williams
> Hi 15FA3B219CC7355!
>
> Yes, Virginia, there is a serial number.
Really?! ...another reason not to buy anything from Intel!
----
Keith
Nikolaos Tampakis
wrote:
>OK, so if your really really paranoid, you start thinking that even
>though it doesn't support the Pentium 3 serial number, Intel has a
>double secret serial number for the Pentium 4 that we're not being
>told about. They probably keep a record of them at Area 51 in Nevada.
>
Right on! ;)
Regards
Nikos Tampakis
Tony Hill
wrote:
>The last I heard about the chip serial number stoush was in 2000, when
>Intel were reported to be "quietly" withdrawing serial numbers. Does
>anyone know if they actually did this?
No, the P4 does not have a serial number. To quote straight from the
source:
http://support.intel.com/support/processors/pentium4/sb/1059005053674851-prd483.htm
"Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 processors do not support the processor serial
number feature introduced by the Pentium(R) III processor."
Keith R. Williams
hi...@uoguelph.ca says...
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 04:33:11 +0000, Ron House <ho...@usq.edu.au>
> wrote:
> >The last I heard about the chip serial number stoush was in 2000, when
> >Intel were reported to be "quietly" withdrawing serial numbers. Does
> >anyone know if they actually did this?
>
> No, the P4 does not have a serial number. To quote straight from the
> source:
> http://support.intel.com/support/processors/pentium4/sb/1059005053674851-prd483.htm
Are you *sure*! I heard that the CIA (or wuz it the NSA)
demanded they keep it in there to track Bin Laden.
Hmmm, it could have been Bin Gates wanted it. ;-)
> "Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 processors do not support the processor serial
> number feature introduced by the Pentium(R) III processor."
...and you trust them!
----
<append> George MacD's siggy
George Macdonald
wrote:
>In article <segkhu859bscmckfu...@4ax.com>,
>hi...@uoguelph.ca says...
>
>> "Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 processors do not support the processor serial
>> number feature introduced by the Pentium(R) III processor."
>
>...and you trust them!
I guess it depends on what "support" means.:-)
Rgds, George Macdonald
"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Nevada Jack
they did with the P3...how would you ever make a claim for warrany if the
CPU did not have a serial number?
Jack
"Tony Hill" <hi...@uoguelph.ca> wrote in message
news:segkhu859bscmckfu...@4ax.com...
ha...@somewhere.com
for all to read.
Hans
Keith R. Williams
NOSPAMXX...@lvcm.com says...
> The P4 has a Serial Number...Intel does not track the number for the P4 as
> they did with the P3...how would you ever make a claim for warrany if the
> CPU did not have a serial number?
Ummm, I buy a product and have proof that I purchased it... Why
does the damned thing require a serial number readable by anyone
on the planet?
No, I don't like serial numbers. No I don't like the idea of
paying M$ every time I add components to my computer. No, I
don't like *anyone* to be able to track my computer, or what I do
with it.
Consumers had nothing to gain with Intel's scheme and *lots* to
lose. I hope they got the message, but there seems to be a
difference of opinion on the final results.
----
Keith
Keith R. Williams
SPAM^noth...@garden.net says...
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 21:58:47 -0400, Keith R. Williams <k...@attglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <segkhu859bscmckfu...@4ax.com>,
> >hi...@uoguelph.ca says...
> >
> >> "Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 processors do not support the processor serial
> >> number feature introduced by the Pentium(R) III processor."
> >
> >...and you trust them!
>
> I guess it depends on what "support" means.:-)
Cigarette and blindfold?
> "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
I knew you couldn't resist! ;-)
----
Keith
Keith R. Williams
says...
> All Intel chips have serial numbers. They're printed on the packages
> for all to read.
They're not printed on the Inet for all to read. Yes, consumer
law requires serial numbers to be printed on valuable items (IIRC
>$250). It does *not* require that that number be accessible to
anyone, anytime.
Bottom line: Intel screwed the pooch. I was at the IDF when
Intel announced the serial number. The attendees were *shocked*.
No, it was a horrible idea. Berhaps one person liked it (W.
Gates), but the rest of consumerville said *NO F'N WAY*.
If Intel is sneaking it in, they deserve to go bankrupt! The
consumer has spoken!
----
Keith
Tony Hill
<NOSPAMXX...@lvcm.com> wrote:
>The P4 has a Serial Number...Intel does not track the number for the P4 as
>they did with the P3...how would you ever make a claim for warrany if the
>CPU did not have a serial number?
All chips will have some sort of serial number printed on the actual
chip (probably on a sticker). The P4 does NOT have the "Processor
Serial Number", or PSN feature that was introduced (to a rather poor
reception) with the PIII. The PSN is an electronic serial number
embedded on the processor itself which could be read by software
(assuming this feature hadn't been disabled in the BIOS... though in
the end it almost always was disabled here). The idea was to send
this serial number to web-sites as a sort of identification thing to
"enhance security". Of course, it was rather useless for it's
intended purpose (easily faked through software if someone bothered
trying) and could potentially pose some privacy concerns (though most
of the concern were overstated to say the least). In my mind it was
just a plain old useless feature that never should have been included
in the first place, and it was a smart move by Intel to dumb it.
Sajjad Lateef
> The last I heard about the chip serial number stoush was in 2000, when
> Intel were reported to be "quietly" withdrawing serial numbers. Does
> anyone know if they actually did this?
Intel procs *may* have a serial number. However, the chip may not
allow one to read the serial number (which effectively means
that we cannot tell if the chip has a serial number or not).
There was a big scandal when Intel announced this feature (early
PIII era) and it was quickly turned off in future chips.
Intel microprocessors have a CPUID instruction which allows
one to read the serial number if the 'Processor Serial Number'
feature is turned on in that chip. To read more about the CPUID
instruction, search for AP-485 on http://support.intel.com .
I cannot read the serial number off a P4 1.8Ghz or a PIII 1Ghz chips
(the only two computers I have access to currently).
To verify on Windows, download cpu-z from http://www.cpuid.com
and check if 'processor serial number' is enabled (yes). If yes,
then you can read the serial number off the chip.
To verify on Linux, cat /proc/cpuinfo and see if 'psn' is one
of flags. If you see a 'psn' in the flags, then you can read
the serial number.
I don't work for intel. This is what I know from my own
research. YMMV, etc.
Sajjad
Lenny
> > No, the P4 does not have a serial number.
> Are you *sure*! I heard that the CIA (or wuz it the NSA)
> demanded they keep it in there to track Bin Laden.
You're joking, right?
A processor serial number can't be used to track bin laden, it's simply
impossible.
Keith R. Williams
y...@wish.haha says...
You're new here, right? You're new to the USENET too? Perhaps
you might want to listen and watch before jumping into a
newsgroup. It's the way things work.
No, the article was not intended to be taken literally nor was
the Bin Gates part. ...good grief!
BTW, Quote-and-respond (with attributions) is the norm on the
USENET. Get used to it.
----
Keith
Lenny
> You're new here, right? You're new to the USENET too?
Your assumptions are rash and incorrect.
Keith R. Williams
y...@wish.haha says...
>
> > You're new here, right? You're new to the USENET too?
>
> Your assumptions are rash and incorrect.
Ok, then that leaves the only other alternative. ...you're
terminally humor challenged. QED
----
Keith
Lenny
> Ok, then that leaves the only other alternative. ...you're
> terminally humor challenged. QED
Considering how many loons there are on the net, it's best not to post stuff
connecting processor serial IDs and Bin Laden and then assume people's going
to think it's a funny joke. It could well be meant to be taken seriously as
well.
Oh, and you really can't use QED the way you did. First you have to
formulate a theory and then back it up with proof, neither of which you
accomplished. ;-)
Neil Bradley
news:MPG.178584d05...@enews.newsguy.com...
> In article <JcGS8.49514$Ok1.3...@news2.west.cox.net>,
> NOSPAMXX...@lvcm.com says...
> > The P4 has a Serial Number...Intel does not track the number for the P4
as
> > they did with the P3...how would you ever make a claim for warrany if
the
> > CPU did not have a serial number?
> Ummm, I buy a product and have proof that I purchased it... Why
> does the damned thing require a serial number readable by anyone
> on the planet?
It isn't readable by anyone on the planet - only applications that go off
and read it can. Do you know of one? You also need an application that
associate your personal information with that serial number to be tracked or
identified.
> No, I don't like serial numbers.
Then get rid of your hard drives and network cards. Hard drives have had
them since early IDE drives came available (10 years ago or so), and
ethernet cards have had unique IDs in them (MAC addresses) since their
inception. The unique CPU serial # is no more and no less "destructive" than
the hard drive serial number or the MAC address on your network card. So you
should be just as worried about those devices as the CPU. When was the last
time the MAC address on your NIC or serial # (which is unique from drive to
drive, BTW) on your hard drive has released personal information or allowed
you be tracked in a way that has compromised your security or in any way
been detrimental to you? The CPU, network card, and hard drives are all
field serviceable components.
> No I don't like the idea of
> paying M$ every time I add components to my computer. No, I
> don't like *anyone* to be able to track my computer, or what I do
> with it.
Avoid putting your machine online and you're completely OK.
> Consumers had nothing to gain with Intel's scheme and *lots* to
> lose.
Like what, exactly?
-->Neil
Keith R. Williams
nb_no...@synthcom.com says...
> "Keith R. Williams" <k...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.178584d05...@enews.newsguy.com...
> > In article <JcGS8.49514$Ok1.3...@news2.west.cox.net>,
> > NOSPAMXX...@lvcm.com says...
> > > The P4 has a Serial Number...Intel does not track the number for the P4
> as
> > > they did with the P3...how would you ever make a claim for warrany if
> the
> > > CPU did not have a serial number?
> > Ummm, I buy a product and have proof that I purchased it... Why
> > does the damned thing require a serial number readable by anyone
> > on the planet?
>
> It isn't readable by anyone on the planet - only applications that go off
> and read it can. Do you know of one? You also need an application that
> associate your personal information with that serial number to be tracked or
> identified.
...which is "anyone on the planet". It was a *bad* idea and did
nothing for the end-users security.
> > No, I don't like serial numbers.
> Then get rid of your hard drives and network cards. Hard drives have had
> them since early IDE drives came available (10 years ago or so), and
> ethernet cards have had unique IDs in them (MAC addresses) since their
> inception.
Agreed, but it's a *little* different. Network cards and disk-
drives are expected upgrades. CPUs are not. No, I don't like
software that is locked to these either. In fact I'd rather have
a dongle than this crap! Yes, I had 80K worth of PC software
node-locked to a dongle. I didn't' like the situation, but it
was far better than a CPU lock.
> The unique CPU serial # is no more and no less "destructive" than
> the hard drive serial number or the MAC address on your network card.
Nonsense.
> So you should be just as worried about those devices as the CPU.
Nonsense.
> When was the last
> time the MAC address on your NIC or serial # (which is unique from drive to
> drive, BTW) on your hard drive has released personal information or allowed
> you be tracked in a way that has compromised your security or in any way
> been detrimental to you? The CPU, network card, and hard drives are all
> field serviceable components.
Both of these can be spoofed. MACs are not unique and are user
settable on most cards. Likely the CPUID can be spoofed too, but
I don't see a way to change it. ...and it *is* unique.
No, I don't like the trend at all. If software *must* be chained
to a user, none of these is a good solution.
> > No I don't like the idea of
> > paying M$ every time I add components to my computer. No, I
> > don't like *anyone* to be able to track my computer, or what I do
> > with it.
>
> Avoid putting your machine online and you're completely OK.
...and a year later...
> > Consumers had nothing to gain with Intel's scheme and *lots* to
> > lose.
>
> Like what, exactly?
Money! I paid for a WinLicence and I should be able to use it on
whatever widget I choose. I should *not* be required to register
with the WinPolice!
Security, my left cheek! It had nothing to offer the user. That
was a huge discussion at the IDF when they rolled it out. Intel
was rather surprised that they had some people who knew something
about security in their midst (then again they're always
surprised when someone else knows something).
...yes, I've done some significant security work. The CPUID was
an abomination! Useless and intrusive makes for a bad idea in a
free society.
...perhaps you work for RIAA?
----
Keith
Neil Bradley
off
> > and read it can. Do you know of one? You also need an application that
> > associate your personal information with that serial number to be
tracked or
> > identified.
> ...which is "anyone on the planet". It was a *bad* idea and did
> nothing for the end-users security.
I've never found an application that actually uses the serial #. Have you?
I can't say whether or not it did anything for the end user's security
since I'm not aware of any apps that use it, but just about the only thing
I know for a fact it did is allow resource tracking in large companies. I
am aware of some larger IT departments using it to track CPUs and
machines. For the end user, it's effectively a noop - or at least has been
so far. I don't think that was the main thrust of it, tho, according to a
quote from an appropriate Intel rep:
-----------
Q2: What are the benefits of the processor serial number? A2: In business,
Corporate I.T. departments can use it to track assets and manage systems
and information in a more efficient manner to help reduce total cost of
ownership. For consumers, the potential of the Internet promises new ways
to shop online, manage their lives, and access and share information. Used
in combination with other identifiers such as passwords and user names,
hardware features such as processor serial number can provide added
confidence.
------------
However, I will give you a challenge. I have a machine running Pentium
IIIs with the serial #s enabled - not one, but two CPUs, at IP address
207.202.141.81. Tell me what they are!
> > Then get rid of your hard drives and network cards. Hard drives have
had
> > them since early IDE drives came available (10 years ago or so), and
> > ethernet cards have had unique IDs in them (MAC addresses) since their
> > inception.
> Agreed, but it's a *little* different. Network cards and disk-
> drives are expected upgrades. CPUs are not.
Really? Lots of people upgrade their processors and/or motherboards. I did
countless times as well as lots of other people! People are more likely to
upgrade their CPUs than their NICs. I have many machines that are still
using the 100Mb/sec network cards that I installed 3 years ago, but I
can't say that a single one of my machines has the same CPU that it
started with 3 years ago - all of which are Pentium IIIs.
> No, I don't like
> software that is locked to these either. In fact I'd rather have
> a dongle than this crap! Yes, I had 80K worth of PC software
> node-locked to a dongle. I didn't' like the situation, but it
> was far better than a CPU lock.
I don't like software that does this, either. Windows XP looks at the CPU
serial #, the MAC addres, the system's configuration, and the hard drive
when determining if you've moved/switched machines, and that alone has
kept me from
> > The unique CPU serial # is no more and no less "destructive" than
> > the hard drive serial number or the MAC address on your network card.
> Nonsense.
How is it nonsense? Whether a software app pulls a unique number from the
machine's MAC address, hard drive, or CPU, it can be used in an identical
fashion. It makes no logical sense to be worried about one and not the
other two.
> > So you should be just as worried about those devices as the CPU.
> Nonsense.
How can a unique number on one device (teh CPU) be any more or less
"destructive" than a unique number (MAC address) on another? Unique
numbers are unique numbers.
> > When was the last
> > time the MAC address on your NIC or serial # (which is unique from
drive to
> > drive, BTW) on your hard drive has released personal information or
allowed
> > you be tracked in a way that has compromised your security or in any
way
> > been detrimental to you? The CPU, network card, and hard drives are
all
> > field serviceable components.
> Both of these can be spoofed. MACs are not unique and are user
> settable on most cards.
MAC Addresses are unique and are not settable by the end user. That's the
whole point of a MAC address. The only time MAC address spoofing comes in to
play is when it's broadcast over a network. If you can fake a MAC address,
you can fake a CPU ID, too.
> > > Consumers had nothing to gain with Intel's scheme and *lots* to
> > > lose.
> > Like what, exactly?
> Money! I paid for a WinLicence and I should be able to use it on
> whatever widget I choose. I should *not* be required to register
> with the WinPolice!
I agree wholeheartedly! But you cannot worry about the CPUID instruction
and unique serial # when you've got at least two other devices in your
machine that already have unique serial #s. You need to put them all on the
same level, and how the CPU serial # can be a big deal and the other two
can't is just plain irrational and illogical.
> ...yes, I've done some significant security work.
Then you should know better than to get worked up over an insignificant
unique serial # when there are two other serial #s in your machine that can
be used in an identical, unique manner! ;-) Another link to further
illustrate the facts:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/8119.html
The whole thing is an emotional reaction, not a rational one. Not a single
person has actually come up with a scenario where it's a HARMFUL thing!
Phrases like "it compromises my security" and "it's not for an open society"
are bantered about by the ignorant with no understanding of what it is.
> The CPUID was
> an abomination! Useless and intrusive makes for a bad idea in a
> free society.
I think you mean the serial number, not CPUID. CPUID Is the instruction to
get at the serial # as well as a zillion other things.
> ...perhaps you work for RIAA?
Dear god, no... You may as well have called me a Neo-Nazi! ;-) My point is
not that I'm in love with the serial #. It's just not the "huge security
risk" that the pundits think it is - not any more of a security risk than
the MAC address or hard disk serial # present in every single machine with
said hardware.
-->Neil
George Macdonald
<nb_del...@synthcom.com> wrote:
>> > It isn't readable by anyone on the planet - only applications that go
>off
>> > and read it can. Do you know of one? You also need an application that
>> > associate your personal information with that serial number to be
>tracked or
>> > identified.
>> ...which is "anyone on the planet". It was a *bad* idea and did
>> nothing for the end-users security.
>
>I've never found an application that actually uses the serial #. Have you?
The point is you wouldn't necessarily know that some application "uses" the
serial #... nor what it was using it for.
>I can't say whether or not it did anything for the end user's security
>since I'm not aware of any apps that use it, but just about the only thing
>I know for a fact it did is allow resource tracking in large companies. I
>am aware of some larger IT departments using it to track CPUs and
>machines. For the end user, it's effectively a noop - or at least has been
>so far. I don't think that was the main thrust of it, tho, according to a
>quote from an appropriate Intel rep:
"noop" - meaning no-op of course... "snoop" seems more likely.:-)
<<snip>>
>> > Then get rid of your hard drives and network cards. Hard drives have
>had
>> > them since early IDE drives came available (10 years ago or so), and
>> > ethernet cards have had unique IDs in them (MAC addresses) since their
>> > inception.
>> Agreed, but it's a *little* different. Network cards and disk-
>> drives are expected upgrades. CPUs are not.
>
>Really? Lots of people upgrade their processors and/or motherboards. I did
>countless times as well as lots of other people! People are more likely to
>upgrade their CPUs than their NICs. I have many machines that are still
>using the 100Mb/sec network cards that I installed 3 years ago, but I
>can't say that a single one of my machines has the same CPU that it
>started with 3 years ago - all of which are Pentium IIIs.
The CPU upgrade market is certainly limited compared with other hardware
upgrades - more an enthusiast group... and one which is not so likely to be
catered to by system vendors. In fact a CPU unique ID would be a
convenient mechanism to disallow independent user CPU upgrades. Consider
also that hard drives are almost expected to fail sometime; (hot) swappable
RAID-1 is not uncommon... and I'd add that I've had to change NICs because
of some problem, either in the NIC itself or with a new switch/hub. You
are also ignoring the notebook market where hard disk and NICs are
extremely easy to change, the latter being almost routine in many
situations... even with a built-in NIC where a dock is used. The notebook
sector is >50% of all PC sales in some regions.
>> No, I don't like
>> software that is locked to these either. In fact I'd rather have
>> a dongle than this crap! Yes, I had 80K worth of PC software
>> node-locked to a dongle. I didn't' like the situation, but it
>> was far better than a CPU lock.
>
>I don't like software that does this, either. Windows XP looks at the CPU
>serial #, the MAC addres, the system's configuration, and the hard drive
>when determining if you've moved/switched machines, and that alone has
>kept me from
>
>> > The unique CPU serial # is no more and no less "destructive" than
>> > the hard drive serial number or the MAC address on your network card.
>> Nonsense.
>
>How is it nonsense? Whether a software app pulls a unique number from the
>machine's MAC address, hard drive, or CPU, it can be used in an identical
>fashion. It makes no logical sense to be worried about one and not the
>other two.
I don't know why it's so difficult to see how the use of a CPU unique ID
has the potential to be more disruptive than I/O device IDs. The CPU
defines your computer more than the others which may even be dynamically
configured in or out of the system. Possibly you're limiting your view to
current practices - and to the desktop arena at that.
>> > So you should be just as worried about those devices as the CPU.
>> Nonsense.
>
>How can a unique number on one device (teh CPU) be any more or less
>"destructive" than a unique number (MAC address) on another? Unique
>numbers are unique numbers.
For a start, I/O device ID retrieval needs I/O instructions to be executed
to configured and recognized devices. The CPU is at the top of the
hierarchy of all the devices in your system and a simple single CPU
instruction is all that's needed to invoke whatever malfeasance is desired.
The scope for abuse by hardware, OS, software vendors and network services
is huge. Just because mechanisms are not in place right now does not mean
the door should be opened for it in the future.
>> > When was the last
>> > time the MAC address on your NIC or serial # (which is unique from
>drive to
>> > drive, BTW) on your hard drive has released personal information or
>allowed
>> > you be tracked in a way that has compromised your security or in any
>way
>> > been detrimental to you? The CPU, network card, and hard drives are
>all
>> > field serviceable components.
>> Both of these can be spoofed. MACs are not unique and are user
>> settable on most cards.
>
>MAC Addresses are unique and are not settable by the end user. That's the
>whole point of a MAC address. The only time MAC address spoofing comes in to
>play is when it's broadcast over a network. If you can fake a MAC address,
>you can fake a CPU ID, too.
Nope - MAC adresses, as discussed elsewhere in this thread *can* be changed
on *some* network cards. This is not spoofing - it is changed in a flash
memory right on the "card".
>> > > Consumers had nothing to gain with Intel's scheme and *lots* to
>> > > lose.
>> > Like what, exactly?
>> Money! I paid for a WinLicence and I should be able to use it on
>> whatever widget I choose. I should *not* be required to register
>> with the WinPolice!
>
>I agree wholeheartedly! But you cannot worry about the CPUID instruction
>and unique serial # when you've got at least two other devices in your
>machine that already have unique serial #s. You need to put them all on the
>same level, and how the CPU serial # can be a big deal and the other two
>can't is just plain irrational and illogical.
See above - they are *not* at the same "level".
<<snip>>
>Dear god, no... You may as well have called me a Neo-Nazi! ;-) My point is
>not that I'm in love with the serial #. It's just not the "huge security
>risk" that the pundits think it is - not any more of a security risk than
>the MAC address or hard disk serial # present in every single machine with
>said hardware.
Within the scope of current system, OS, software etc. frameworks it is not
a "huge security risk". To ignore the opportunities it presents for newly
developed abuses and security breaches is myopic.
Rgds, George Macdonald
Rob Stow
>
> The CPU upgrade market is certainly limited compared with other hardware
> upgrades more an enthusiast group...
The number or businesses that are replacing their systems
every two or three years is falling while the number that
replaces them on a 4+ year cycle is growing. CPU upgrades
play an important role in the ability of businesses to
squeeze another two years out of their desktops.
IDG.net had a report on this trend late last year as part
of their discussion of why MicroSoft felt the need to change
their corporate licensing policies in order to maintain revenues.
If I recall the numbers correctly, they stated that the
percentage of corporate and government desktops that had at
LEAST a cpu upgrade increased from 4% per year in 1996 to
24% in 2000 - which means several million fewer new computers
sold and hence millions fewer OEM Windows licenses sold by
MicroSoft.
Rob
----------------------------------------------------------------
rob.stow is my name
sk.sympatico.ca provides me with this e-mail account
If you can't figure it out from there ask Mommy for help.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mail from the the following are assumed to be spam and are
deleted by my filters:
hotmail.com, ziplip.com, excite.com, bellsouth.net, yahoo.com
George Macdonald
<read.my...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>George Macdonald wrote:
>
>>
>> The CPU upgrade market is certainly limited compared with other hardware
>> upgrades more an enthusiast group...
>
>The number or businesses that are replacing their systems
>every two or three years is falling while the number that
>replaces them on a 4+ year cycle is growing. CPU upgrades
>play an important role in the ability of businesses to
>squeeze another two years out of their desktops.
>
>IDG.net had a report on this trend late last year as part
>of their discussion of why MicroSoft felt the need to change
>their corporate licensing policies in order to maintain revenues.
>If I recall the numbers correctly, they stated that the
>percentage of corporate and government desktops that had at
>LEAST a cpu upgrade increased from 4% per year in 1996 to
>24% in 2000 - which means several million fewer new computers
>sold and hence millions fewer OEM Windows licenses sold by
>MicroSoft.
Somewhat unrelated but what has M$ done to increase their revenues for CPU
upgrades?
Rob Stow
Microsoft used to sell "Upgrade" licenses for Windows, Office, etc,
to corporations for around 1/4 to 1/3 of the new version's retail
price. Now corporations either have to buy into MicroSoft's
"License 6.0" scheme or pay full retail price for all upgrades.
Many large corporations have reported that the "License 6.0"
scheme will result in them sending 40% to 110% more to MicroSoft.
Among other things, License 6.0 requires the subscriber to use
only the latest version of Windows on _ALL_ of his systems.
Hence, even if you and your users are happy with Windows 98 and
you have upgraded their machines instead of replacing them with
new machines - with WinXP OEM licenses - you still end up having
to buy a Windows XP license for them. (You can continue to run
Win98 on those machines but you will still have effectively paid
for a WinXP license.)
Rob
>
> Rgds, George Macdonald
>
> "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
--
Keith R. Williams
nb_del...@synthcom.com says...
> > > It isn't readable by anyone on the planet - only applications that go
> off
> > > and read it can. Do you know of one? You also need an application that
> > > associate your personal information with that serial number to be
> tracked or
> > > identified.
> > ...which is "anyone on the planet". It was a *bad* idea and did
> > nothing for the end-users security.
>
> I've never found an application that actually uses the serial #. Have you?
Nope. But I'm not omniscient either. The fact is that this
"feature" *cannot* improve security and will in fact reduce
*privacy* is enough to make me reject it. The "technology" has
no benefit for me, so it's done. ...stick a fork in it!
> I can't say whether or not it did anything for the end user's security
> since I'm not aware of any apps that use it, but just about the only thing
> I know for a fact it did is allow resource tracking in large companies.
I did more than a couple of years designing security hardware
(FIPS-140 level-4). The serial number had *nothing to do with
security for the user. Sure, M$ could use it. ...why is that
important to me?
> am aware of some larger IT departments using it to track CPUs and
> machines. For the end user, it's effectively a noop - or at least has been
> so far. I don't think that was the main thrust of it, tho, according to a
> quote from an appropriate Intel rep:
Nonsense. Yes, some IT departments *may be using the ID. Most
are using other tools. I have no problem with my employer
tracking their assets.
Let me ask you a parallel question: Are you willing to have a
"National ID"? ...even if it to "protect" you? I'm not!
> -----------
> Q2: What are the benefits of the processor serial number? A2: In business,
> Corporate I.T. departments can use it to track assets and manage systems
> and information in a more efficient manner to help reduce total cost of
> ownership.
Fine! I'll not buy such a processor.
> For consumers, the potential of the Internet promises new ways
> to shop online, manage their lives, and access and share information. Used
> in combination with other identifiers such as passwords and user names,
> hardware features such as processor serial number can provide added
> confidence.
That is sheer nonsense! CPUID does *nothing* to enhance the end-
users security. It does the exact opposite!
> ------------
>
> However, I will give you a challenge. I have a machine running Pentium
> IIIs with the serial #s enabled - not one, but two CPUs, at IP address
> 207.202.141.81. Tell me what they are!
That's simply a *stupid* argument. Because I choose to be a
lawful citizen doesn't mean that I could not break into the the
local pawn-shop. No, I choose the be lawful.
OTOH, have you read your WinLicence!? Yikes! I Prefer to be
anonymous.
> > > Then get rid of your hard drives and network cards. Hard drives have
> had
> > > them since early IDE drives came available (10 years ago or so), and
> > > ethernet cards have had unique IDs in them (MAC addresses) since their
> > > inception.
> > Agreed, but it's a *little* different. Network cards and disk-
> > drives are expected upgrades. CPUs are not.
>
> Really? Lots of people upgrade their processors and/or motherboards. I did
> countless times as well as lots of other people!
You and me both. We're a minority. ...in fact the minority I'm
trying to protect! If I have a license for Win3x, I should be
able to use it as long as I wish! That's not in M$' plan.
> People are more likely to upgrade their CPUs than their NICs.
Not true. I've had more NIC upgrades at work than I've had CPUs.
I've had more memory upgrades and disk upgrades than either
(though I do them myself). Significant CPU upgrades are harder
these days.
> I have many machines that are still
> using the 100Mb/sec network cards that I installed 3 years ago, but I
> can't say that a single one of my machines has the same CPU that it
> started with 3 years ago - all of which are Pentium IIIs.
Aren't you "special"!
> > No, I don't like
> > software that is locked to these either. In fact I'd rather have
> > a dongle than this crap! Yes, I had 80K worth of PC software
> > node-locked to a dongle. I didn't' like the situation, but it
> > was far better than a CPU lock.
>
> I don't like software that does this, either. Windows XP looks at the CPU
> serial #, the MAC addres, the system's configuration, and the hard drive
> when determining if you've moved/switched machines, and that alone has
> kept me from
This is *EXACTLY* what we're talking about. Sheesh!
I will *not* go to WinXP! At work I do that they want (Win2K,
for now). At home (Win2K is very reasonable) I do what I want.
I will *not* lock my hardware into XP!
> > > The unique CPU serial # is no more and no less "destructive" than
> > > the hard drive serial number or the MAC address on your network card.
> > Nonsense.
>
> How is it nonsense? Whether a software app pulls a unique number from the
> machine's MAC address, hard drive, or CPU, it can be used in an identical
> fashion. It makes no logical sense to be worried about one and not the
> other two.
The others are fluid! I change disk drives and LANS. The CPUID
is *seen* to be fixed.
You've also forgotten the net presence. I don't want to be
identified on the net at all (on the USENET I *CHOOSE* to be).
THe CPUID is a far better identifier than any other.
The bottom line is that it does *nothing* for my security and
everything for the attacker.
>
> > > So you should be just as worried about those devices as the CPU.
> > Nonsense.
>
> How can a unique number on one device (teh CPU) be any more or less
> "destructive" than a unique number (MAC address) on another? Unique
> numbers are unique numbers.
MAC addresses are *not* unique. Nearly so, but it's not unique.
Access is not standard and the address can be changed on most
modern cards.
> > > When was the last
> > > time the MAC address on your NIC or serial # (which is unique from
> drive to
> > > drive, BTW) on your hard drive has released personal information or
> allowed
> > > you be tracked in a way that has compromised your security or in any
> way
> > > been detrimental to you? The CPU, network card, and hard drives are
> all
> > > field serviceable components.
> > Both of these can be spoofed. MACs are not unique and are user
> > settable on most cards.
>
> MAC Addresses are unique and are not settable by the end user.
Wrong! They are *not* guaranteed unique, and *are* changeable by
the end user.
> That's the
> whole point of a MAC address. The only time MAC address spoofing comes in to
> play is when it's broadcast over a network. If you can fake a MAC address,
> you can fake a CPU ID, too.
The MAC address is *not* spoofed! It is *not* broadcast. It
only has meaning on the local subnet. No fakes!
>
> > > > Consumers had nothing to gain with Intel's scheme and *lots* to
> > > > lose.
> > > Like what, exactly?
> > Money! I paid for a WinLicence and I should be able to use it on
> > whatever widget I choose. I should *not* be required to register
> > with the WinPolice!
>
> I agree wholeheartedly! But you cannot worry about the CPUID instruction
> and unique serial # when you've got at least two other devices in your
> machine that already have unique serial #s. You need to put them all on the
> same level, and how the CPU serial # can be a big deal and the other two
> can't is just plain irrational and illogical.
Nope! The CPUID has no place. It serves me nothing. The MAC
has meaning. THe CPUID has none.
>
> > ...yes, I've done some significant security work.
>
> Then you should know better than to get worked up over an insignificant
> unique serial # when there are two other serial #s in your machine that can
> be used in an identical, unique manner! ;-) Another link to further
> illustrate the facts:
Wrong, Grasshopper! I know enough that I'm being lied to. I was
there (at the IDF) when Intel announced the CPUID/SN. THere were
*many* of us that screamed about it. They couldn't state *one*
reason why it would enhance security. It has *nothing* to do
with security, but everything to do with registration. I don't
like registering with government, much less any corporation.
Yes, sometimes it's necessary (employment), but not to *PURCHASE*
a widget.
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/8119.html
You're lacking for sources if you use the "register". That's
like reading "Dilbert". Interesting, perhaps relevant, useless.
> The whole thing is an emotional reaction, not a rational one. Not a single
> person has actually come up with a scenario where it's a HARMFUL thing!
> Phrases like "it compromises my security" and "it's not for an open society"
> are bantered about by the ignorant with no understanding of what it is.
Nope. Anyone with any crypto training recognized this as a
*DUMB* idea. It does nothing for the consumer.
> > The CPUID was
> > an abomination! Useless and intrusive makes for a bad idea in a
> > free society.
>
> I think you mean the serial number, not CPUID. CPUID Is the instruction to
> get at the serial # as well as a zillion other things.
Samo! What's your point.
>
> > ...perhaps you work for RIAA?
>
> Dear god, no... You may as well have called me a Neo-Nazi! ;-)
I just did! ...and I'm serious! What's the point! It serves me
*NOTHING*, yet I'm paying for it.
> My point is
> not that I'm in love with the serial #. It's just not the "huge security
> risk" that the pundits think it is - not any more of a security risk than
> the MAC address or hard disk serial # present in every single machine with
> said hardware.
It is more of a security risk than you imagine. MACs are not
infallible and are public. Hard disk IDs are fungible (how many
do you have?).
I don't like another infringement on any privacy I have left.
----
Keith
Microfrost
<snip>
> Let me ask you a parallel question: Are you willing to have a
> "National ID"? ...even if it to "protect" you? I'm not!
Isn't that what a Social Security Number is? :-> I'm with you on
everything else, though...
--
Jarod Prosise (a.k.a. Microfrost)
Remove the last 3 "T"s when replying by e-mail.
Linux Registered User #237513 at http://counter.li.org
Keith R. Williams
microf...@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Keith R. Williams" <k...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1792bd9cd...@enews.newsguy.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Let me ask you a parallel question: Are you willing to have a
> > "National ID"? ...even if it to "protect" you? I'm not!
>
> Isn't that what a Social Security Number is? :->
Well, it was not "intended" as such. At least it was not *sold*
as such. Perhaps I should have said "National ID Card". I've
long lost my SS card. No, I don't like the thought of having
checkpoints and "let me see you're papers pleeeese!".
> I'm with you on everything else, though...
I doubt it! ;-) ...but thanks.
----
Keith
The little lost angel
<k...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> Isn't that what a Social Security Number is? :->
>
>Well, it was not "intended" as such. At least it was not *sold*
>as such. Perhaps I should have said "National ID Card". I've
>long lost my SS card. No, I don't like the thought of having
>checkpoints and "let me see you're papers pleeeese!".
It won't be so cumbersome really.
My country has already completed the transition to using smart
cards for mass public transport (train and buses), I expect to see
cabs accepting smart cards as well. The same card works for all three.
Private vehicles have something called an In-vehicle Unit that
carries a cash card that pays for entry into certain areas.
Pretty soon I expect our identity cards to be converted wholly
into smart card types for these sort of purpose and paper money/coins
to become obsolete... probably outlawed.
Did I also mention that satellite/GPS tracking of buses and
taxis have been implemented for "convenience of commuters), and the IU
is tagged to each specific vehicle.
There are also rumours that the government will be putting
sensors on every single stretch of road and charge per km instead of
having gantry gates like we do now.
Did anybody read 1984? :P
Microfrost
> In article <0euW8.29998$P%6.23...@news2.west.cox.net>,
> microf...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> > "Keith R. Williams" <k...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1792bd9cd...@enews.newsguy.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Let me ask you a parallel question: Are you willing to have a
> > > "National ID"? ...even if it to "protect" you? I'm not!
> >
> > Isn't that what a Social Security Number is? :->
>
> Well, it was not "intended" as such. At least it was not *sold*
> as such. Perhaps I should have said "National ID Card". I've
> long lost my SS card. No, I don't like the thought of having
> checkpoints and "let me see you're papers pleeeese!".
Gotcha.
> > I'm with you on everything else, though...
>
> I doubt it! ;-) ...but thanks.
OK, let me be more specific ;-> ... everything about how the Pentium serial
#s had no real consumer value, except possibly for inventory tracking.
George Macdonald
<read.my...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
Kinda begs the question as to how much "corporations" are willing to put up
with.
>Among other things, License 6.0 requires the subscriber to use
>only the latest version of Windows on _ALL_ of his systems.
>Hence, even if you and your users are happy with Windows 98 and
>you have upgraded their machines instead of replacing them with
>new machines - with WinXP OEM licenses - you still end up having
>to buy a Windows XP license for them. (You can continue to run
>Win98 on those machines but you will still have effectively paid
>for a WinXP license.)
But none of the above prevents me from refusing to pay for license 6.0 and
upgrading my CPUs while continuing to run Win98 or Win2K... and paying M$
nothing. Mind you I'm convinced that M$ is on the verge of withdrawing all
perpetual use licensing possibilities and charging a mandatory annual
license fee. The stock pyramid has, at best, become static and is not
providing the income it used to. When all income generation options fail,
as they surely will, I don't see how they can avoid lay-offs much longer.
Keith R. Williams
l...@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com says...
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 21:48:33 -0400, Keith R. Williams
> <k...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Isn't that what a Social Security Number is? :->
> >
> >Well, it was not "intended" as such. At least it was not *sold*
> >as such. Perhaps I should have said "National ID Card". I've
> >long lost my SS card. No, I don't like the thought of having
> >checkpoints and "let me see you're papers pleeeese!".
>
> It won't be so cumbersome really.
"not cumbersome?" That's certainly a nice way of putting
totalitarian rule. ;-!
We are a *free* people (at least in theory). I want to make that
last for a while longer. I do *not* want to give up rights to
other *people*. That's the whole point of the "under God" issue.
...and the purpose behind our founding fathers work.
> My country has already completed the transition to using smart
> cards for mass public transport (train and buses), I expect to see
> cabs accepting smart cards as well. The same card works for all three.
Fine, "you" want big-brother to know which tooth-paste you use.
I'd rather such personal things were strictly my business. We're
in very different societies. Your ancestors gave up rights that
ours defined as "inalienable". I prefer to keep the
"inalienable" part. Others here see being free as irrelevant.
> Private vehicles have something called an In-vehicle Unit that
> carries a cash card that pays for entry into certain areas.
Yeah, they have the EX-passes here. Then they want to ticket
people for driving too fast based on distance ("revenue
enhancement"). The courts can subpoena records to prove were
"you" were (note that your car has the pass). Then there is the
whole ditty about pass *by* a toll road and getting charged.
Nope, I'll pass (and *no* EZ about it).
> Pretty soon I expect our identity cards to be converted wholly
> into smart card types for these sort of purpose and paper money/coins
> to become obsolete... probably outlawed.
You're already sheeple. Unfortunately, we're going that way.
> Did I also mention that satellite/GPS tracking of buses and
> taxis have been implemented for "convenience of commuters), and the IU
> is tagged to each specific vehicle.
No, but they're doing that too. I'm glad I'll be dead in 20
years. I don't want to see the results.
> There are also rumours that the government will be putting
> sensors on every single stretch of road and charge per km instead of
> having gantry gates like we do now.
Cheers! It sounds like you're having a *fine* time! ;-)
>
> Did anybody read 1984? :P
Not lately. It expired some years ago. ;-)
----
Keith
The little lost angel
<k...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> My country has already completed the transition to using smart
>> cards for mass public transport (train and buses), I expect to see
>> cabs accepting smart cards as well. The same card works for all three.
>
>Fine, "you" want big-brother to know which tooth-paste you use.
>I'd rather such personal things were strictly my business. We're
>in very different societies. Your ancestors gave up rights that
>ours defined as "inalienable". I prefer to keep the
>"inalienable" part. Others here see being free as irrelevant.
<snipped>
I guess I wasn't sarcastic enuff :Pppp
>You're already sheeple. Unfortunately, we're going that way.
ME?!
My friends, my family call me paranoid when I pointed out just
exactly what GPS on buses and cabs mean with id'tagged smart cards...
and I don't mean knowing when the next bus will arrive.
For some unfortunate reasons, most people around me, save a
few friends, seem to care or even think of the implications of all
these new tech implementations in my country means to their freedom.
I can't go online without somebody watching (they even have
people monitoring local site forums, AND the soc.culture.singapore,
maybe everybody who posts online). For all I know, they already have a
file on me :D
Now I find that soon I won't be able to go anywhere without
Big Brother knowing exactly which transport I took, where I got on,
where I got off, what I bought and where I bought it.
Some of my friends and I have decided we're going to start
swapping smart cards everytime we meet, just to confuse the hell out
of the trackers.
<snipped>
>Cheers! It sounds like you're having a *fine* time! ;-)
*grinz*
>> Did anybody read 1984? :P
>
>Not lately. It expired some years ago. ;-)
Well, I'm writing an updated version, probably going to call
it Singapore 2020. (He wrote it in 1948 *grinz*)
Tony Hill
(George Macdonald) wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 12:09:18 -0600, Rob Stow
><read.my...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>price. Now corporations either have to buy into MicroSoft's
>>"License 6.0" scheme or pay full retail price for all upgrades.
>>Many large corporations have reported that the "License 6.0"
>>scheme will result in them sending 40% to 110% more to MicroSoft.
>
>Kinda begs the question as to how much "corporations" are willing to put up
>with.
When they don't have much choice, an awful lot. That being said, I
can assure you that a lot of corporations must be looking at Linux
quite seriously, despite some of it's shortcomings. Particularly now
that StarOffice 6.0/Open Office 1.0 is out. I have to say that if I
were in charge of the IT department for a corporation, I'd be
seriously looking at the possibility of using Linux on the desktop.
Less familiar to some perhaps, but MUCH easier to maintain on a large
scale and allows for more control and customization. A number of
corporations/government organizations have already switched over.
Right now I see Linux as being just slightly past the level of NT 4.0,
ie stable, effective platform for running business applications, and
allowing a lot of maintenance improvements vs. Win9x, but still
lacking in a few odd places here and there. For example, it can still
be kinda tricky to get new hardware to work in Linux on some systems
(not nearly as bad as it is for NT 4.0, which is terrible in this
regard). It can also be kinda tricky to get Linux systems in a common
network with a variety of other systems (NT 4.0 had a slight edge
here).
If Linux ever reaches the Win2K level, Microsoft could have some
troubles.
>>Among other things, License 6.0 requires the subscriber to use
>>only the latest version of Windows on _ALL_ of his systems.
>>Hence, even if you and your users are happy with Windows 98 and
>>you have upgraded their machines instead of replacing them with
>>new machines - with WinXP OEM licenses - you still end up having
>>to buy a Windows XP license for them. (You can continue to run
>>Win98 on those machines but you will still have effectively paid
>>for a WinXP license.)
>
>But none of the above prevents me from refusing to pay for license 6.0 and
>upgrading my CPUs while continuing to run Win98 or Win2K... and paying M$
>nothing. Mind you I'm convinced that M$ is on the verge of withdrawing all
>perpetual use licensing possibilities and charging a mandatory annual
>license fee. The stock pyramid has, at best, become static and is not
>providing the income it used to. When all income generation options fail,
>as they surely will, I don't see how they can avoid lay-offs much longer.
I don't think that lay-offs are that big of a problem for MS. From
what I understand, they have a fairly high turn-over rate (among their
programmers at least), so simply stopping to hire new employees would
suffice. Most people I've talked to who worked at MS simply couldn't
take it for more then a few years, and moved on to other, more relaxed
companies. Perhaps things have changed in Redmond though.
Keith R. Williams
l...@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com says...
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 23:45:25 -0400, Keith R. Williams
> <k...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> My country has already completed the transition to using smart
> >> cards for mass public transport (train and buses), I expect to see
> >> cabs accepting smart cards as well. The same card works for all three.
> >
> >Fine, "you" want big-brother to know which tooth-paste you use.
> >I'd rather such personal things were strictly my business. We're
> >in very different societies. Your ancestors gave up rights that
> >ours defined as "inalienable". I prefer to keep the
> >"inalienable" part. Others here see being free as irrelevant.
> <snipped>
> I guess I wasn't sarcastic enuff :Pppp
Sarcasm doesn't do well in print, but I understood your point.
>
> >You're already sheeple. Unfortunately, we're going that way.
> ME?!
"You" is also plural (as I meant it). Your country has obviously
decided that a benevolent dictatorship is better than an educated
republic. I have big problems with this, but we're on the same
road, I fear.
> My friends, my family call me paranoid when I pointed out just
> exactly what GPS on buses and cabs mean with id'tagged smart cards...
> and I don't mean knowing when the next bus will arrive.
Understood. The same issues exist here. Though you're
apparently further down that greasy slope. Ugly thing when you
you give up your humanity to those who "know" better.
> For some unfortunate reasons, most people around me, save a
> few friends, seem to care or even think of the implications of all
> these new tech implementations in my country means to their freedom.
Apparently they don't want freedom. They want protection. Bad
news! Freedom does include the right to fail, which scares many.
The other side of the coin is that it allows one to succeed.
Many would rather live off the successful rather than live on
their own.
> I can't go online without somebody watching (they even have
> people monitoring local site forums, AND the soc.culture.singapore,
> maybe everybody who posts online). For all I know, they already have a
> file on me :D
That is scarry indeed! If "they" found out how much power you're
going to "waste" in your testing, they may show you the gallows!
You'd better obey the rules and find a man and cook dinner! <rdh>
> Now I find that soon I won't be able to go anywhere without
> Big Brother knowing exactly which transport I took, where I got on,
> where I got off, what I bought and where I bought it.
I do that with my wife. I ant to know *exactly* where she's been
and who with! She has to ask *me* before she can talk to her
boss! Ok, I have to ask her if I can spend the money *I* earn,
but... ;-)
> Some of my friends and I have decided we're going to start
> swapping smart cards everytime we meet, just to confuse the hell out
> of the trackers.
You'll rot in the tower! Innovation and resistance cannot be
tolerated!!
<*><*> This is the SGA (Singapore Intellegence <*><*>
<*><*> Administration). This message is being <*><*>
<*><*> monitored for quality purposes. <*><*>
> >> Did anybody read 1984? :P
> >
> >Not lately. It expired some years ago. ;-)
>
> Well, I'm writing an updated version, probably going to call
> it Singapore 2020. (He wrote it in 1948 *grinz*)
Send me a proof (free of course ;-)! I'll write a glowing
review! ;-)
----
Keith
The little lost angel
<k...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>"You" is also plural (as I meant it). Your country has obviously
>decided that a benevolent dictatorship is better than an educated
>republic. I have big problems with this, but we're on the same
>road, I fear.
This is NOT what I call a benevolent dictatorship. Personally
I believe a benevolent and decisive dictator/monarch can bring a
society forward rapidly. We had a pretty good and decisive premier who
did took us quite far in the early years. Though I still won't call
him benevolent, given the way he dealt with political oppositions.
Unfortunately, it isn't so at the moment. The current crop of
leadership seems more keen on boosting their ego, saving faces and
covering their ass and milking the citizens for all we're worth. It
isn't even decisive or for the good for the nation anymore.
>Apparently they don't want freedom. They want protection. Bad
>news! Freedom does include the right to fail, which scares many.
>The other side of the coin is that it allows one to succeed.
>Many would rather live off the successful rather than live on
>their own.
I'd rather try and fail, then never know if I could have done
it. At least if I failed, I never have to deal with endless
recurrences of what-ifs running in my mind. Which is probably why I
quitted my regular day job and is on my own now :D
>That is scarry indeed! If "they" found out how much power you're
>going to "waste" in your testing, they may show you the gallows!
Nah, they will just bill me for the power. They are more
interested in getting my money than wasting time putting me in jail,
unless I am threatening their rule or something.
>You'd better obey the rules and find a man and cook dinner! <rdh>
*ROFLMAO*
But hey! I DO cook, nothing too fanciful but pretty decently,
and my mate's more keen on places like Canada, England, Australia
instead of sticking around to watch my country's self destruction in
about 10 to 20 years.
>I do that with my wife. I ant to know *exactly* where she's been
>and who with! She has to ask *me* before she can talk to her
>boss! Ok, I have to ask her if I can spend the money *I* earn,
>but... ;-)
That's not fair! In my partnership, I get to make noise about the
money BUT I don't have to report my status :PpppP