[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Separate trusted computing designs

From: Marcus Brinkmann
Subject: Re: Separate trusted computing designs
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 12:00:58 +0200
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.7 (Sanjō) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.4 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)

At Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:28:13 +0200,
Christian Stüble <address@hidden> wrote:
> Am Freitag, 1. September 2006 04:41 schrieb Jonathan S. Shapiro:
> > On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 01:24 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > I have a definition, but I do not know if you will find it useful.
> > > It's the best I can come up with, and it works surprisingly well in
> > > practice.  Here it comes:
> > >
> > >  A free choice is one that can be made independent of any other
> > >  choices.
> >
> > It seems to me that what you are describing is an *independent* choice.
> > A free choice is one that is made without coercion. A choice between two
> > discrete options, each having costs and benefits, remains a free choice.
> That's the reason I asked. What is the definition of coercion then?

Coercion is the act of making somebody do something that they do not
want to do.

I do not understand what you mean with the terms "free choice" or even
"choice", so I won't comment further.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]