Here is one way to do it - IBM Secure Execution for Linux: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/li...

The key is 'insecure computer', not 'cloud'. There is a difference. You can have a secure computer as part of the cloud, and that secure computer will not let the 'someone else' access your secrets.

The NYT has their own style guide. https://issuu.com/josebarbosa4...

Page 168: F.A.A. for the Federal Aviation Administration

The FTC doesn't have the power to deny mergers. The only thing they can do is take legal action to get a court to deny the merger. That is what they are doing here (and have done in plenty of other cases).

FDIC does not protect against being hacked, it protects against the bank becoming insolvent. The bank probably has other, independent, insurance against being hacked or robbed, but it isn't the FDIC.

Backups of what? Your brain? Did you even read the post you responded to?

If you're that paranoid you shouldn't have any passwords anyway because you shouldn't be using any online stuff. After all, the same 'authorities' could just break the encryption of whatever connections you have and steal your passwords that way.

Of course not, and nobody claims otherwise. However, do you think the actual cost of manufacturing the chip increases significantly when features are added? It does not. The majority of the cost is in the development of the chip, not the manufacturing. And with configurable features, the customers who actually want the feature pay for that cost instead of charging people who do not want the feature. So the counter to your question is: would the overall product line (not individual chips) be profitable if they only charged the 'base' price? The answer is no.

Amazing. You claim 'the deal stinks', then go on to say exactly why it doesn't stink. Much mainframe software is priced by the capacity of the machine it is running on. Thus, mainframes allow you to closely tailor the capacity of the machine to your actual workload. This saves you money on both the hardware (even more importantly) the software. If your workload increases, you can instantly add capacity. One of your data centers got knocked offline? Instantly add capacity to the other one. Buying a new machine to replace one? If your workload hasn't changed you can configure it for exactly the same capacity and not have to pay higher software costs. The only reason your apps would 'stop working' is if some moron decided to increase the capacity of machine without updating the software licenses.

You're converting your apps to Java, which doesn't use the ISV software? Add some zIIPs, they will run Java, but not 'traditional' workload, so they don't count towards the capacity of the machine. Moving to Linux? Add some IFLs, they won't IPL z/OS, but you can run your Linux apps (always at full speed) without increasing the capacity of the machine.

That implies they implemented the security features as security by obscurity, and all you have to do is 'figure it out'. My guess is they do it with signed config files, verified and acted on in the silicon.

Same guy. He wasn't a 'hardware guy' in the sense of designing circuitry, he (along with Gene Amdahl and Gerrit Blaauw) designed the S/360 architecture. In fact, he was the guy who decided that the unit of storage would be eight bits. He also coined the term 'computer architecture'. Later he led the development of OS/360.

"Probably a breach of contract or even a crime"? Where do you come up with this crap? In 40 years of car buying I have never signed "a contract" (other than for financing) in order to purchase a car. And what "crime" do you imagine you could possibly have committed (other than by either making the car unsafe or tampering with emission controls)?

They are not outlawing algorithms. You need a permit to operate a power plant, and they aren't issuing those for fossil-fuel plants that are used for mining operations.

CICS is not from 1969 you idiot. Yes, the first version may have been released then. I'm pretty sure the stuff referenced in this case (like XML files) was not in the product in 1969. And I would argue that allowing your customers to keep using their old code, while simultaneously allowing them to use new technologies as they are introduced requires a lot of innovation. On the other hand, merely copying what someone else has already done (like MF is accused of) requires no innovation at all.

Defending your IP is not, per se, anti-competitive no matter how large your market share is. Using your IP to engage in OTHER anti-competitive behavior may be a problem. Furthermore, this case is not about 'mainframes', it is about a piece of software. ALL copyright holders have a 'dominant position' for their product. So no, enforcing your copyrights is not anti-competitive behavior.