Lpc2000

Michael,

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, it seems to be common these 
days to forgo the scientific method in favour of the presence of 
conspiracy as an answer for everything. The methodology is simple 
enough:

- make a claim, unsupported by any direct evidence. For 
example, "LPC2000 CRP is insecure", "Apollo was a fraud: man never 
walked on the moon", "the Pyramids were built by Aliens rather than 
an ancient Egyptian culture".

- quote some spurious "facts" (that may or may not be true in 
themselves), that given a particular world view seem to support the 
claim (when in fact there's usually a far more plausible explanation 
for each of the facts quoted)

- wrap up the "facts" in pseudo-scientific language and apparent 
methodology to create a semblance of authority

- explain gaps in evidence for the claim as part of a conspiracy to 
hide the "truth"

- hold the trump card in that you're asking anyone opposed to you to 
prove something that can't be proven (you can never demonstrate that 
CRP is secure; only demonstrate that it is insecure)

Unfortunately, guys, we're on to a loosing battle in trying to use 
facts or evidence to counter this: since the claim doesn't rely on 
them, they'll be ignored or dismissed. Best chill out I think, and 
move onto something else of more relevance to the group as a whole. 

By the way, I'm willing to be proven wrong on this: all we need is 
some evidence.  

One final point, Jaya, you've implied that you work as an academic: 
are you willing to say where? 

Brendan

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Rubitschka" 
<rubitschka@...> wrote:
>
> Dear John
> 
> You dont even need to be a fan to find these discussions without a 
proof 
> tiresome.
> Ploticans and sometimes lawers behave this way, by simle 
repetition a 
> accusation without
> proof becomes truth.This worked even in the ancient Rome, f.e. 
Cicero 
> against Catelina.
> Fortunatly engineers are not infected by this strange virus ;-)
> 
> Cheers
> Michael
> 
> 
> >From: "John Heenan" <l10@...>
> >Reply-To: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com
> >To: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [lpc2000] Re: re lpc2100_fan's objection to CRP thread
> >Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:53:30 -0000
> >
> >The attacks on the integrity of the CRP are really, really 
tiresome.
> >
> >Still nothing concrete, except now using (probably private)
> >statements as credible from Philips that they themselves have
> >acknowledged are incorrect and have apologised for.
> >
> >If I was a member of Jaya's academic Department I would be in 
mortal
> >fear of the Department receiving letters from the lawyers of 
Philips.
> >
> >I wonder if Jaya would care to reveal where his research grants 
are
> >coming from.
> >
> >Fact 1. JTAG hardware operates independently. Nothing JTAG does,
> >including reset signals, will make the slightest bit of difference
> >unless the signals JTAG passes are not blocked and so are allowed 
to
> >act. Simple invertor and OR logic gates are perfectly adequate to
> >block signals.
> >
> >Fact 2. The boot loader decides if CRP (Code Read Protection) is
> >enabled and so decides if it will allow signals from JTAG to act.
> >
> >Fact 3. Even if CRP is an afterthought, so what if it works.
> >
> >Fact 4. A lot of contradictory statements from Philips have been
> >quoted including an apology and clarification (P3) that parallel
> >programming uses either JTAG and/or ISP.
> >
> >Fact 5. Use of an incomplete statement (C1); admitted to be in
> >a 'different context' that contradicts directly Philips apparently
> >later clarification in Fact 3. Reuse of C1 as C5.
> >
> >
> >John Heenan
> >
> >