DLR wrote:
> Danny Burstein wrote:
>> " Attorney General Eliot Spitzer today filed a federal lawsuit
>> charging leading manufacturers of computer memory chips with
>> price-fixing.
>> " New York's lawsuit charges that beginning in approximately 1998, the
>> chip manufacturers made a secret agreement to raise the prices of
>> their memory chips, known in the industry as 'dynamic random access
>> memory chips' or 'DRAM.' DRAM chips are used to hold data and
>> temporary instructions available for quick access while the computer
>> or other digital product is in use. Many of the chips are sold to
>> computer manufacturers, known in the industry as original equipment
>> manufacturers or 'OEMs,' for use in computers and other products...
>> rest:
>> http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2006/jul/jul13b_06.html
> Couldn't be that the heads of these billion dollar companies all quit
> acting stupid and decided to make a profit on less sales than try an
> continually grow market share while loosing money.
> Noooo. Spitzer is too smart to go after an industry loosing money and
> tell them it's illegal to raise prices.
> Open non-monopolistic markets do always mean lower prices.
Argh.
Open non-monopolistic markets do NOT always mean lower prices.
^^^
Path: telecom-digest.org!ptownson
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:00:47 -0700
From: Jack Hamilton <jfh@acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Microsoft Kills Off 'My Private Folder' Application
Reply-To: jfh@acm.org
Message-ID: <telecom25.263.12@telecom-digest.org>
Organization: Copyright (c) 2006 by Jack Hamilton.
Sender: editor@telecom-digest.org
X-URL: http://telecom-digest.org/
X-Submissions-To: editor@telecom-digest.org
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 25, Issue 263, Message 12 of 17
Lines: 67
Mark Hachman <extremetech@telecom-digest.org> wrote:
> Mark Hachman - ExtremeTech and Natali Del Conte - PC Magazine
> If you've heard of Microsoft Private Folder 1.0, forget it. As of 2:30
> p.m. Pacific Time on Friday, it no longer exists.
> Microsoft quietly added the free encryption utility earlier this
> month, and then just as quietly deleted it. The utility allowed users
> to encrypt and store files inside a private folder.
I would trust TrueCrypt, an open source encryption tool, much more
readily than I would trust something from Microsoft. TrueCrypt
http://www.truecrypt.org/ has gotten rave reviews, and in my limited
experience with it seems to be one of those rare programs that just does
the right thing.
> "Private Folder 1.0 was designed as a benefit for customers running
> genuine Windows," a Microsoft spokesperson said in a
> statement. "However, we received feedback about concerns around
> manageability, data recovery and encryption, and based on that
> feedback we are removing the application."
> While it lasted, the software created a "My Private Folder" on a
> user's desktop by installing a Private Folder Service. Inside the
> folder, files were apparently encrypted and locked with a password.
> The problem was that the password assigned to the folder was binding
> so losing or forgetting it locked users out of their data permanently.
> "There are lots of passwords out there and with this, if you forget it
> then there was no way to get back into it," said the Microsoft
> spokesperson.
If you really want cryptography, that's the way it has to work. What,
you want trap doors?
[...]
> PCMag Says...
> [Editor's Note: This was written when Private Folder was live,
> obviously.] I was afraid it would be just a pretty user interface for
> one of the many folder-encryption possibilities already present in
> Windows. It's more than that - it runs a service in the background to
> allow encryption/decryption, and it pushes you to use a strong
> password. Looks like you can't change the password ex post facto, so
> make it good. I'm not terribly impressed.
> Right after I installed the Private Folder service my system slowed to
> a crawl, with over 90% of CPU usage devoted to svchost.exe (meaning
> *some* service was hogging the CPU). And when I uninstalled it, the
> CPU-hogging stopped. Coincidence? -- Neil Rubenking
Right now there are 5 instances of svchost running on my computer. I
have no idea what any of them are doing ot what started them.
Jack Hamilton
jfh@acm.org
Children of the future age,
Reading this indignant page,
Know that in a former time
Love, sweet love, was thought a crime.
-Blake
DLR (news23@raleighthings.com)