Unfortunately this is virtually impossible. Every Space shuttle is almost completely taken apart, and then reassembled, and lots of parts are replaced, EVERY time it goes on a mission (there is a reason why it costs between 50-500 mil to send the shuttle up there ONCE). What you are suggesting is basically taking a second shuttle with them, but then with all the extra load of extra parts, the shuttle wouldn't even lift off. It's simply not possible. Most of these repairs could under no circumstances be performed in space, or while the craft is in use.
The real idea is, that if you find something bad enough that you doubt the craft would make it back safely, send up another spaceshuttle to dock with it, or have the space shuttle dock at the space station and unload it's crew, or have a Soyuz or two pick up the crew. There are options to get the crew home safely even if we think the craft won't make it. But repairing a space craft with billions of highly specialized parts in space? Not any time soon...
According to the government census there are over 290 million people living in the US. But your statistics are way off. That particular spammer didn't send an email to every person in the US. Secondly, not every spam sent, is received, there are also duplicates. The percentage of people invoved vs those that complained are probably much higher though, but still probably just a few percent, which is a LOT. Why? Because, how many SPAMs do you actually complain to the FTC about? Then you'll see how large this number actually is, even if it's a small percentage.
While you make a good point, the term of choice today ("cleaned things up") can be interpreted either way. It can be seen in such a way that she made DoubleClick be non-invasive, delete information they weren't supposed to have etc., OR it could also mean she figured out how to do what they want to do without breaking laws and calming down the privacy groups at the same time. My personal feeling is that it's probably a mix of both, but I would bet the the heavier side is on the latter interpretation. That's what scares me about someone like this getting into a position like this. Yes, she 'cleaned things up' at DoubleClick.. but that doesn't really say which side she's fighting for. It's a dubious choice at best.
While the Dvorak(only)-labeled version is currently out of stock (not out of production.. they are just waiting on the factory), they do have a DUAL labeled version (ie both DVORAK and QWERTY labeled). All versions come with the ability to switch from DVORAK to QWERTY (and back), and if you have a version that only has either labeling, you can get a set of alphabet stickers with it for free that work very well.
And I can only second that getting this keyboard will help your aching fingers. I love it;)
(disclaimer: yes, i do maintain their website... so i am associated with them. nevertheless i think it's a great keyboard. get one!)
Although your reply is somewhat off-topic to what this thread was about, the webcam solution IS an enhancement of a normal quarantine - an additional way to ensure people are sticking to it. The only other way is really to put these people in jail or prision, neither of which are really designed to hold potentially highly infectious people in large quantities, aside from the enormous cost factor.
Secondly until we know what's going on it definitely is that important. The only other option could result in: "Oops, a million people died, maybe we should have taken this more seriously." And.. obviously that's what the WHO is trying to prevent.
You're completely missing the point. Measels are understood, can be treated and even vaccinated against. They don't spread easily. This desease has infected tons of hospital staff and even killed WHO employees. These are people that are used to dealing with sick people, and still they are getting sick. That's a problem. It's not just a matter of the mortality rate, but also how infectious it is. And this one seems to be quite easily transmitted. If a single person with SARS goes in supermarket and sneezes nicely, infects 10 people, who infect 100 people and so on, then that one ass that broke the quarantine, could literally kill thousands by their (just like your) ignorance. Sure people die in much larger numbers of other deseases, but until we understand this virus or whatever it is better, this is exactly what should happen. The WHO and the CDC are doing a great job trying to tame this one.
Actually that was a discounted price. The standard M$ fee for a support call is $250/incident, usually less than an hour. Go look it up. Someone posted links to their pricing page.
You're probably right that I generalized, and I don't doubt at all that there are tons of very bright people working at M$. But I'm not spewing out popular opinion either. I've had to spend hours with techs on the phone. And yes, you're right for the general stuff they could always figure things out. But when it came to weird ADO behaviours and events not firing in the right order, and so on... they just weren't able to figure it out, and that pisses me off because they can look at the code (right?). And trust me my boss did not like it when I had to tell them that I just can't guarantee them that the $3 mil app we were working on, will work on any windows with any version of IE, or worse, even if it had the latest drivers and IE, I still just didn't know. Sometimes it just did not work. Anyways we had some support contract that cost us an average of $150/hr... at least that's what I was told. Dunno I didn't work in billing, I just had to get approval and fill out 2 forms, get signatures, explain why I need to call, etc. before calling someone who couldn't help me. I spent days like that and you can imagine the frustration. And my boss' look when they couldn't help us. It's because of issues like this that windows programs have weird workaround artifacts, like timers that go off all the time to make sure things are still in order etc. And then M$ releases a patch, and the work around breaks the app. Trust me, it's a developers nightmare.
So in conclusion, I'm sorry I put all you techs in the same category, but in my personal experience, I didn't get answers to the really tough questions. With OSS I also have the advantage, that if the author of the code can't help me, someone in the mailing list usually can, or at least point in the right direction.
Re:Software Support
on
Duke3d in Linux
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
These guys are usually actually willing to give great support with odd problems. In general I have received MUCH better support from the OSS community, then what i get for paying $150/hr to a brain-less M$ support tech. Why would they provide support for a product that they know isn't done or even beta ready, has tons of known problems and after all, has been in development for 4 days? I think this is very reasonable. And when was the last time YOU talked to the actual coder of a piece of software at M$ or other commercial software company? In the OSS community, if you really have a bug or weirdness, they are usually more then willing to exchange emails with you directly. AND this is FREE. What are you complaining about?
A 100% size difference huh? So like you delete the file and still have the data? And don't tell me you meant the percentage in respect to the final size, that's bass ackwards. It's like the 100% compression tools found on most unix implementations. It's called rm.
but "security through obscurity and good coding" is probably better than "security though good coding" alone.
still holds up. You just assumed in your reply that the code may in fact not be good/secure code. If it is though, then obscurity is an added security benefit. The compromise way might work for this one: keep the code secret, but let a reputable security companies review it. Personally (even though I don't like that scheme) I think that is actually more secure.
Damn I'm glad we still have people willing to counter these uninformed and misguided 'poor-saddam' voices. And who the heck moderated this post as Troll? Whoever that was, you should have your/. account deleted for such groce abuse of the moderation system. The post was a direct reply to the very topic of this dicussion. If you don't like what was said, REPLY. Disagreement != Troll. Can we please mod parent up a bit?
You are not being treated like a criminal when the government puts up traffic cams to monitor intersections, and I'm not even going to respond to the 'rat in a cage' analogy - you know that's bs. You are free and and you do get PLENTY of freedoms and respect (especially in the US) simply because of that.
"Stay out of my business, and I'll stay out of yours."
Ok then, let's keep the government out of ALL your business, like maintaining roads, catching traffic offenders and criminals, providing emergency services, funding public utilties like water and phone in remote areas, etc. - yeah that'll work. But seriously, you have to realize that we live in a society: a group. You are not and cannot be a lone individual unaffected by rules that arise out of necessity when living in a (rather large) group. Quite contrary to your perception ("This basic precent is part of what allows society to function.") is completely wrong. Society functions BECAUSE we are willing to live by rules (and are thus able to work together), MOST of which greatly benefit you, and yes SOME of which cut into your privacy.
Also, to imply that putting up cameras in public places is equivalent to "waiving all right to privacy" is a groce exaggeration. This doesn't give anybody permission to stop and search you, interrupt you in any way, or prevent you from doing anything (unless what you are doing is illegal, in which case your argument is no longer about privacy). In fact you could make the argument, that video surveilance will lessen police actions like stopping and searching innocent individuals, because they don't need to anymore. They can see you didn't do anything.
And lastly, try not to mix the issues of surveillance, and security of the accumulated data. Of course any government database that's not protected sufficiently (by laws and security measures) is somewhat of a threat to privacy, but that is IMHO not a reason to say that surveillance in public places is bad.
In general I agree with people that a certain amount of privacy must be guaranteed, such as privacy in your own home (where surveillance in the form of wiretaps etc is a completely different issue, that I am strongly against). But cameras in public places have very many useful functions ranging from security to commercial applications, while you loose virtually no privacy. But I will agree that there might not be enough legislation in this area to ensure limits on commercial applications and storage of such data by non-government entities.
I think you're forgetting that when you walk out in PUBLIC (it's called that for a reason) you are no longer PRIVATE. Anybody walking around, driving by etc, can see you, identify you, take pictures of you - whatever. Just because a technical device that produces images of you to protect you from thieves or idiots running red lights sees you, does not mean you're being investigated. In fact I bet you there are a lot of women out there who don't mind being watched by a camera in a parking lot just 'walking to their car'. Sure who want's to constantly be under surveillance, but then again remember, we ALL have those little things that we do but aren't supposed to. If they witness them on everyone, they still can't do anything about it. If you have a problem with being seen in public, don't go there. Basic privacy is and should be a right. In your home, in your car, in your clothes. And you should have the freedom to express yourself any way you want. That doesn't mean you have the right to remain anonymous at all times. You've never had it, and you'll never get it.
Actually the pictures taken by cameras for running red lights are oftentimes so bad that you cannot tell who's driving the car. Think about it: reflections from the window, the upper portion of the window is tinted more often than not, the window isn't straight so the distortians aren't symmetric, people usually look at the road, not the cameras overhead, headlights, weather etc. What they can usually see is the license plate, and that because it has a special coating that makes it highly reflective, and there are laws requiring you to illuminate it on your car. The rest of the picture is more of a: oh-yeah-it's-the-right-make-and-model-and-that-som ewhat-looks-like-a-middle-aged-man-driving. Also the 3d face fingerprint needs special equipment that takes pictures from more than one angle at the same time, ie something that will virtually never happen with traffic cameras.
Until someone decides that's a help to terrorists and a National Security Concern. Why is it again that cameras in public places are an issue? They wouldn't interfere with benign things I'd imaginge(because there'd be 1000s of incidents every hour - much more than any agency could or would want to handle). And if they WANT to watch you, they don't need public cameras... soo? I guess the only bad part would be if they could automate the monitoring and build huge databases. But it's a long way (and an expensive one at that) down the road where the average traffic camera can do face recognition in cars driving by at 25 MPH...
I guess it's no longer an issue now that they decided to "keep their choice [of OpenBSD] private for security reasons".
Btw, there is a difference between not making your OS very easily detectable and not letting anybody see the source so they could check it.
Any security expert will tell you that obscurity is not a good model for security, BUT it is a helpful first barrier. Just look how well it's working for MS. There are probably hundreds of bad bugs in their code, but very very few people will be able to exploit them (THE UNKNOWN ONES), because you can't just download the code look through it and find a bug and attack. I'm definitely not agreeing with this model, but something like making your machines unable to be OS-fingerprinted IS a useful security measure that will at least make things more difficult for the attacker, even though it could be considered as 'ADDITIONAL security through obscurity'.
"The Cyber Warning Information Network, a key part of the Bush administration's National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, will use a secure, private IP network separate from the public Internet, according to officials.
umm.. if it's a completely separate network from the internet.. how is it going to have ANY effect whatsoever? I mean they won't even be able to look at what's out there! Am i missing something here?
If I read this right, then the shape they are describing can pretty much not be thought of as a three dimensional object. And I don't think there would be any way to look at it and make it resemble anything like a doughnut. I think the best description was in the article itself:
This object is essentially impossible to visualize: it is the equivalent, in a way, [to] a cube whose opposite sides are somehow glued together.
Then again...three doughnuts whose surfaces rotate, one for each dimension, in the same spot at the same time, and movement would be rotation of the surface of those doughnuts... Nah, sorry. I can't visualize it.
The issue is not that they track their own merchandise. That makes sense and by all means they should. And yes, there are a lot of benefits to this technology.
The problem is, that unlike regular tags, they don't stop working when you leave the store. They'll keep working for years, probably outliving the product that they are attached to or integrated into. Sure if it's simply attached, no problem, remove it. But companies are already starting to embed them into products. And now, ANYONE with an RFID reader can, (once they associate your product with you - but that's easy) track you and your product. For life. That's what people feel uncomfortable about, especially when there is not much legislation on this whole data collection/sharing and so on (in the US at least).
Just think about it: Do you want your boss to know which pair of underwear you're wearing today? Or that you're wearing the same pants for 2 weeks now? Or where you shop? I don't. And all he'd need would be an RFID reader.
You assume incorrectly. They can be read over and over again, and if they are embedded in something stable like inside your tires, or inside the handle of the shaver, then it will basically never break, unless you manage to get some strong electrical current or RF to damage the electronics (household microwaves will). The article says something about putting the tags on the box, but some companies are already embedding them inside their products were you can't easily remove them (expensive sporting equipment for example). The issue then becomes that once they start tracking that data (and if you think about how corporations work.. they will) and connect it with your payment data and whatever else they can gather on you (like making you slide your id through a card reader to proove your age) and voila we live in a world where corporations know more about you then yourself. Marketing companies would love this. And a system like that is incredibly prone to abuse, especially without and real legislation for it. Your boss can install an RFID tag reader at the door and check if you wear the same underwear every day. Oh joy.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately this is virtually impossible. Every Space shuttle is almost completely taken apart, and then reassembled, and lots of parts are replaced, EVERY time it goes on a mission (there is a reason why it costs between 50-500 mil to send the shuttle up there ONCE). What you are suggesting is basically taking a second shuttle with them, but then with all the extra load of extra parts, the shuttle wouldn't even lift off. It's simply not possible. Most of these repairs could under no circumstances be performed in space, or while the craft is in use.
The real idea is, that if you find something bad enough that you doubt the craft would make it back safely, send up another spaceshuttle to dock with it, or have the space shuttle dock at the space station and unload it's crew, or have a Soyuz or two pick up the crew. There are options to get the crew home safely even if we think the craft won't make it. But repairing a space craft with billions of highly specialized parts in space? Not any time soon...
According to the government census there are over 290 million people living in the US. But your statistics are way off. That particular spammer didn't send an email to every person in the US. Secondly, not every spam sent, is received, there are also duplicates. The percentage of people invoved vs those that complained are probably much higher though, but still probably just a few percent, which is a LOT. Why? Because, how many SPAMs do you actually complain to the FTC about? Then you'll see how large this number actually is, even if it's a small percentage.
While you make a good point, the term of choice today ("cleaned things up") can be interpreted either way. It can be seen in such a way that she made DoubleClick be non-invasive, delete information they weren't supposed to have etc., OR it could also mean she figured out how to do what they want to do without breaking laws and calming down the privacy groups at the same time. My personal feeling is that it's probably a mix of both, but I would bet the the heavier side is on the latter interpretation. That's what scares me about someone like this getting into a position like this. Yes, she 'cleaned things up' at DoubleClick.. but that doesn't really say which side she's fighting for. It's a dubious choice at best.
Ya, but it's precendent that points out that it's not needed. I fail to see how this helps your argument.
While the Dvorak(only)-labeled version is currently out of stock (not out of production.. they are just waiting on the factory), they do have a DUAL labeled version (ie both DVORAK and QWERTY labeled). All versions come with the ability to switch from DVORAK to QWERTY (and back), and if you have a version that only has either labeling, you can get a set of alphabet stickers with it for free that work very well.
;)
And I can only second that getting this keyboard will help your aching fingers. I love it
(disclaimer: yes, i do maintain their website... so i am associated with them. nevertheless i think it's a great keyboard. get one!)
Secondly until we know what's going on it definitely is that important. The only other option could result in: "Oops, a million people died, maybe we should have taken this more seriously." And .. obviously that's what the WHO is trying to prevent.
You're completely missing the point. Measels are understood, can be treated and even vaccinated against. They don't spread easily. This desease has infected tons of hospital staff and even killed WHO employees. These are people that are used to dealing with sick people, and still they are getting sick. That's a problem. It's not just a matter of the mortality rate, but also how infectious it is. And this one seems to be quite easily transmitted. If a single person with SARS goes in supermarket and sneezes nicely, infects 10 people, who infect 100 people and so on, then that one ass that broke the quarantine, could literally kill thousands by their (just like your) ignorance. Sure people die in much larger numbers of other deseases, but until we understand this virus or whatever it is better, this is exactly what should happen. The WHO and the CDC are doing a great job trying to tame this one.
Actually that was a discounted price. The standard M$ fee for a support call is $250/incident, usually less than an hour. Go look it up. Someone posted links to their pricing page.
You're probably right that I generalized, and I don't doubt at all that there are tons of very bright people working at M$. But I'm not spewing out popular opinion either. I've had to spend hours with techs on the phone. And yes, you're right for the general stuff they could always figure things out. But when it came to weird ADO behaviours and events not firing in the right order, and so on... they just weren't able to figure it out, and that pisses me off because they can look at the code (right?). And trust me my boss did not like it when I had to tell them that I just can't guarantee them that the $3 mil app we were working on, will work on any windows with any version of IE, or worse, even if it had the latest drivers and IE, I still just didn't know. Sometimes it just did not work. Anyways we had some support contract that cost us an average of $150/hr... at least that's what I was told. Dunno I didn't work in billing, I just had to get approval and fill out 2 forms, get signatures, explain why I need to call, etc. before calling someone who couldn't help me. I spent days like that and you can imagine the frustration. And my boss' look when they couldn't help us. It's because of issues like this that windows programs have weird workaround artifacts, like timers that go off all the time to make sure things are still in order etc. And then M$ releases a patch, and the work around breaks the app. Trust me, it's a developers nightmare.
So in conclusion, I'm sorry I put all you techs in the same category, but in my personal experience, I didn't get answers to the really tough questions. With OSS I also have the advantage, that if the author of the code can't help me, someone in the mailing list usually can, or at least point in the right direction.
These guys are usually actually willing to give great support with odd problems. In general I have received MUCH better support from the OSS community, then what i get for paying $150/hr to a brain-less M$ support tech. Why would they provide support for a product that they know isn't done or even beta ready, has tons of known problems and after all, has been in development for 4 days? I think this is very reasonable. And when was the last time YOU talked to the actual coder of a piece of software at M$ or other commercial software company? In the OSS community, if you really have a bug or weirdness, they are usually more then willing to exchange emails with you directly. AND this is FREE. What are you complaining about?
ok i'm a dumbass. nevermind. mod me flamebait.
A 100% size difference huh? So like you delete the file and still have the data? And don't tell me you meant the percentage in respect to the final size, that's bass ackwards. It's like the 100% compression tools found on most unix implementations. It's called rm.
still holds up. You just assumed in your reply that the code may in fact not be good/secure code. If it is though, then obscurity is an added security benefit. The compromise way might work for this one: keep the code secret, but let a reputable security companies review it. Personally (even though I don't like that scheme) I think that is actually more secure.
What? THEY WERE UN IMPOSED, and part of a cease fire agreement, that Saddam signed!
Damn I'm glad we still have people willing to counter these uninformed and misguided 'poor-saddam' voices. And who the heck moderated this post as Troll? Whoever that was, you should have your /. account deleted for such groce abuse of the moderation system. The post was a direct reply to the very topic of this dicussion. If you don't like what was said, REPLY. Disagreement != Troll. Can we please mod parent up a bit?
You are not being treated like a criminal when the government puts up traffic cams to monitor intersections, and I'm not even going to respond to the 'rat in a cage' analogy - you know that's bs. You are free and and you do get PLENTY of freedoms and respect (especially in the US) simply because of that.
"Stay out of my business, and I'll stay out of yours."
Ok then, let's keep the government out of ALL your business, like maintaining roads, catching traffic offenders and criminals, providing emergency services, funding public utilties like water and phone in remote areas, etc. - yeah that'll work.
But seriously, you have to realize that we live in a society: a group. You are not and cannot be a lone individual unaffected by rules that arise out of necessity when living in a (rather large) group. Quite contrary to your perception ("This basic precent is part of what allows society to function.") is completely wrong. Society functions BECAUSE we are willing to live by rules (and are thus able to work together), MOST of which greatly benefit you, and yes SOME of which cut into your privacy.
Also, to imply that putting up cameras in public places is equivalent to "waiving all right to privacy" is a groce exaggeration. This doesn't give anybody permission to stop and search you, interrupt you in any way, or prevent you from doing anything (unless what you are doing is illegal, in which case your argument is no longer about privacy). In fact you could make the argument, that video surveilance will lessen police actions like stopping and searching innocent individuals, because they don't need to anymore. They can see you didn't do anything.
And lastly, try not to mix the issues of surveillance, and security of the accumulated data. Of course any government database that's not protected sufficiently (by laws and security measures) is somewhat of a threat to privacy, but that is IMHO not a reason to say that surveillance in public places is bad.
In general I agree with people that a certain amount of privacy must be guaranteed, such as privacy in your own home (where surveillance in the form of wiretaps etc is a completely different issue, that I am strongly against). But cameras in public places have very many useful functions ranging from security to commercial applications, while you loose virtually no privacy. But I will agree that there might not be enough legislation in this area to ensure limits on commercial applications and storage of such data by non-government entities.
I think you're forgetting that when you walk out in PUBLIC (it's called that for a reason) you are no longer PRIVATE. Anybody walking around, driving by etc, can see you, identify you, take pictures of you - whatever. Just because a technical device that produces images of you to protect you from thieves or idiots running red lights sees you, does not mean you're being investigated. In fact I bet you there are a lot of women out there who don't mind being watched by a camera in a parking lot just 'walking to their car'. Sure who want's to constantly be under surveillance, but then again remember, we ALL have those little things that we do but aren't supposed to. If they witness them on everyone, they still can't do anything about it. If you have a problem with being seen in public, don't go there. Basic privacy is and should be a right. In your home, in your car, in your clothes. And you should have the freedom to express yourself any way you want. That doesn't mean you have the right to remain anonymous at all times. You've never had it, and you'll never get it.
Actually the pictures taken by cameras for running red lights are oftentimes so bad that you cannot tell who's driving the car. Think about it: reflections from the window, the upper portion of the window is tinted more often than not, the window isn't straight so the distortians aren't symmetric, people usually look at the road, not the cameras overhead, headlights, weather etc. What they can usually see is the license plate, and that because it has a special coating that makes it highly reflective, and there are laws requiring you to illuminate it on your car. The rest of the picture is more of a: oh-yeah-it's-the-right-make-and-model-and-that-som ewhat-looks-like-a-middle-aged-man-driving. Also the 3d face fingerprint needs special equipment that takes pictures from more than one angle at the same time, ie something that will virtually never happen with traffic cameras.
Until someone decides that's a help to terrorists and a National Security Concern. Why is it again that cameras in public places are an issue? They wouldn't interfere with benign things I'd imaginge(because there'd be 1000s of incidents every hour - much more than any agency could or would want to handle). And if they WANT to watch you, they don't need public cameras... soo?
I guess the only bad part would be if they could automate the monitoring and build huge databases. But it's a long way (and an expensive one at that) down the road where the average traffic camera can do face recognition in cars driving by at 25 MPH...
Heh.
I guess it's no longer an issue now that they decided to "keep their choice [of OpenBSD] private for security reasons".
Btw, there is a difference between not making your OS very easily detectable and not letting anybody see the source so they could check it.
Any security expert will tell you that obscurity is not a good model for security, BUT it is a helpful first barrier. Just look how well it's working for MS. There are probably hundreds of bad bugs in their code, but very very few people will be able to exploit them (THE UNKNOWN ONES), because you can't just download the code look through it and find a bug and attack. I'm definitely not agreeing with this model, but something like making your machines unable to be OS-fingerprinted IS a useful security measure that will at least make things more difficult for the attacker, even though it could be considered as 'ADDITIONAL security through obscurity'.
umm.. if it's a completely separate network from the internet.. how is it going to have ANY effect whatsoever? I mean they won't even be able to look at what's out there! Am i missing something here?
If I read this right, then the shape they are describing can pretty much not be thought of as a three dimensional object. And I don't think there would be any way to look at it and make it resemble anything like a doughnut. I think the best description was in the article itself:
Then again...three doughnuts whose surfaces rotate, one for each dimension, in the same spot at the same time, and movement would be rotation of the surface of those doughnuts... Nah, sorry. I can't visualize it.
Alright, I'll bite.
The issue is not that they track their own merchandise. That makes sense and by all means they should. And yes, there are a lot of benefits to this technology.
The problem is, that unlike regular tags, they don't stop working when you leave the store. They'll keep working for years, probably outliving the product that they are attached to or integrated into. Sure if it's simply attached, no problem, remove it. But companies are already starting to embed them into products. And now, ANYONE with an RFID reader can, (once they associate your product with you - but that's easy) track you and your product. For life. That's what people feel uncomfortable about, especially when there is not much legislation on this whole data collection/sharing and so on (in the US at least).
Just think about it: Do you want your boss to know which pair of underwear you're wearing today? Or that you're wearing the same pants for 2 weeks now? Or where you shop? I don't. And all he'd need would be an RFID reader.
You assume incorrectly. They can be read over and over again, and if they are embedded in something stable like inside your tires, or inside the handle of the shaver, then it will basically never break, unless you manage to get some strong electrical current or RF to damage the electronics (household microwaves will). The article says something about putting the tags on the box, but some companies are already embedding them inside their products were you can't easily remove them (expensive sporting equipment for example). The issue then becomes that once they start tracking that data (and if you think about how corporations work.. they will) and connect it with your payment data and whatever else they can gather on you (like making you slide your id through a card reader to proove your age) and voila we live in a world where corporations know more about you then yourself. Marketing companies would love this. And a system like that is incredibly prone to abuse, especially without and real legislation for it. Your boss can install an RFID tag reader at the door and check if you wear the same underwear every day. Oh joy.
If I type in the very subject of this article, Google seems to come up with good answers...