|
Agreed. Looking back at my original post, I realize that I probably should have pointed out this distinction explicitly.
Re: Delerak.
Go back, reread the definition of a war of aggression. Notice how your concept of a war of aggression is obviously different from mine (and the UNs). There's nothing to debate.
Re: Tavish.
That's true. A TCP, as an abstract concept, is simply a way for a aremote user to build a secure chain of trust on a machine that should (in principle) be impervious to compromise. This is great for distributed/grid WANs such as SETI@home, and will probably allow for a proliferation of cooperative networks (e.g., public distributed compile farms, which would otherwise be subject to attacks by member nodes with cracked clients).
It is, however, a double-edged sword, and I'm not convinced that it's necessary or even desirable for home boxes.
|