Talk:Fritz-chip

message: Why is it called "Fritz" in the first place? Is that a backronym of some sort? 212.144.209.130 21:54, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

message: As an example of why I find this article dubious, just consider the following paragraph:
----
The Longhorn operating system from Microsoft will probably support Fritz; it is said to be scheduled for 2006 release. The "specialized software" that will enable compatibility with Fritz-chip hardware is code-named Nexus. In Longhorn, Nexus will be the last of the authorized software in the chain of trust. Nexus will then let other programs get access to the secure environment that Fritz enables. Such programs will be called "Nexus Aware". Such programs will be nearly impossible to debug or modify. Nexus is intended to be open source, so that people can trust that Microsoft doesn't have any backdoors in the software. Some say that the only reason for Microsoft deciding to make Nexus open source is that most countries' laws require it to be.
----
1.	‘will probably’, ‘is said to be’, ‘some say’: I would use the same wording to spread rumours
2.	the ‘will probably’ becomes an affirmative ‘will’ shortly after the first sentence
3.	all this has been shelved: http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/dailyarchives.jhtml?articleId=18841713&_requestid=148561
So really I don’t understand what the point of writing an article for something which claims to be an encyclopaedia is, if the article is just like any piece of ZDnet…
An article about TCPA which has had specifications published would seem a better start. And moving the political discussion after the technical description rather than having them incorporated to the definition would be more rigorous.
Similar remarks apply to most of the articles related to this issue. None of them manage to separate clearly politics and speculation for technical description. It’s not because it’s an evil technology that it should be presented as such from the start!
Therefore, and to use the same wording, 'some say this article is not neutral!'
My 2 cents.
:Given that MS changes plans (ie, feature sets in projected software) unpredictably, and the software finally released is sometimes not as projected at various times, use of contingent phrases such as 'it is said' and 'will probably' is about as clear as one can be if not privy to internal MS planning. Much is unclear about how things will actually be when (and if) NEXUS, TC, NGSCB, Palladium, etc etc are actually implemented and released. This is, however, a major public policy topic in re computing, intellectual property law and policy, cryptography, and so on, so it deserves to be addressed in WP. I for one, would appreciate some assistance in separating the (unavoidable for much of this) speculation from technical (but not too) description, so anyone who can help ... 
:Some edits today have cleaned up some of the facts alleged to be NPOV here. Perhaps they are sufficient? ww 15:42, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality, not 

message: No response having been made to edits intended to reduce NPOV worries some weeks ago, I'm removing the tag. ww 20:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: rmv NPOV tag

message: I've deleted most of the article.  The information here is already presented in a more up-to-date fashion at Trusted Computing, which is the correct title for the technology.  "Fritz-chip" was never more than a moniker used by critics of the technology put forth by Sen. Hollings.  The article now represents this fact.  Warrens 23:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted most of the article 

message: I have removed the WikiProject tag, as this article is either a redirect or deleted. If you oppose, please restore the tag. Thank you, fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 16:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Computing