Right now the smallest -- and I mean THE smallest -- RFID tag I've seen (I work with them on a daily basis... yes, the ePC tags that Wal-Mart has asked for) is 3 inches long and a half-inch wide. I've got another one from a different manufacturer that's 1.5 inches square. We're not talking about things that are hard to find and remove here.
Why are they so huge? Antennas.
Yes, the tags themselves will continue to get smaller and cheaper. But the antennas aren't going to get any smaller; they have to be large, so that the tag can pick up the 925MHz signal from the reader to power itself on and transmit a signal back.
"Oh, but eventually they'll be woven into your clothes, right?" Well, do you know anyone involved in the textile industry? Ask them about how much it would cost to weave an antenna into a polo shirt. Right now the embroidery machines that are used to put the little guy on a horse are so expensive, that if you don't already have a contract to make them, you can't get a loan from the bank or investors to buy them at your factory. (Girlfriend's uncle runs a factory that makes polo shirts, that's how I know.) We're not talking about something cheap or simple here.
Be realistic about the technology here. Because of the need for large antennas, what's realistic with RFID technology is that even at the product level the tags will be large and easily removed from the item by the consumer or at the register. They'll attach it to the box, not the product, where it'll have a better chance of being picked up by the reader.
You can make the tags smaller, but you can't make the antennas smaller without cranking up the readers' power to levels that would nuke your testicles. That isn't going to happen.
Realistically, the Orwellian RFID nightmare is impossible.
No really... go download it. It's good. It has music by Pinion on it. And me. Even though I haven't used a tracker to write stuff in years.
It's odd though... all that tracker usage taught me quite a bit about music production. Little tricks and tips that I stole from folks like Purple Motion and Necros that've even impressed professional studio engineers I've met.
Rad Man's put a lot of effort into this puppy. Those of you raggin' on him for not producing "art" need to back off; he's the one who did all of the crap putting these packs together that no one else wants to do. That shit takes work.
OK, enough rambling, why are you still reading this and not downloading the pack? Go do it now!
As for "copying is not theft," well, you can go ahead and believe that, but I still feel like I'm robbed. What you, me, or anyone else believes about what is and is not theft doesn't mean I can't feel robbed.
Of course I don't really feel all that robbed since I have a site with all of the listed music that says "Please Steal This Music" anyhow.:)
Another question to ask is... why does SCO protest so much? Given their modus operandi thus far, it would seem to suggest that their insistence that Linux vendors indemnify their customers is something that would benefit SCO more than anyone else......Perhaps by giving them juicier targets for lawsuits: The vendors themselves.
Foreseeing doom with their plans with IBM, perhaps they want more well-monied targets to pick from, to attempt their strategy a second time. Sue someone with cash, who was foolish enough to indemnify their customers, who might actually settle out-of-court or buy out SCO.
I think the main thing is that we geeks in general focus more on certain types of facts instead of others.
Has the dot-com bubble bursting taught you nothing? People who invest -- intelligent as they are -- largely ARE capable of being fooled. Not forever, but for a long time. And be sure you understand -- the big-time investors were not the ones harmed by the dot-com bubble bursting. The trick is to recognize when you're being played for a fool.
Perception of facts is what drives the world far more than the actual facts. Galileo screwed up -- not by believing that the world revolved around the sun, because he was right, but by believing that being right on that fact was the most important thing. Far more important than being right is how you relate to people, and how you are remembered.
Walter: "Am I wrong?" The Dude: "You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an ASSHOLE!"
What's going on here is that SCO has gotten people talking. They've got a few people believing that SCO might have a chance or a point. They've got a few companies that are competitors with Linux throwing money their way. And there are big-time professional investors who recognize that all of the noise SCO makes will make it into a good SHORT-TERM investment opportunity. (And by short-term, I mean "Less than 5 years.") Not because SCO is right or wrong, but because they will incur support from Microsoft, attention from the industry, and increase the public-perceived value with all of the noise they make -- at least for a while.
Humans are ultimately as manageable as code, and can be engineered as such. The difference between a human and a transistor is that where a change in the reality of a signal is what causes a transistor to change its state, it is a change in a person's perception of reality that causes a person to change his or her mind. Thus it is perception that governs the world.
Try and think of it in these terms if it makes you feel more comfortable: We give a transistor, within a certain margin of error, a threshold for detecting whether a signal is low or high. In truth it's not whether that signal is low or high that matters, but whether that semiconductor detects that the signal is low or high. It's not the real voltage that matters, but that the circuit "thinks" there's a change.
In other words, the driving factor behind the stock price of SCO is not the existence or nonexistence of code that may or may not have been copied, but rather people's perceptions of the case, which change from week to week... along with SCO's claims.
Ultimately, SCO will probably get squashed like a bug in this case -- not because of the strength of their argument, but more simply because of the strength of IBM's legal team. But that doesn't mean they'll go out of business. That doesn't even mean their stock price won't get a short-term kick in the ass, like you note that it received. Geeks know what they did, and see the end result. But in the meanwhile, there might be a nice ride you want to catch a hold of.
Unless your morals, like mine, prevent you from investing in scuzzy companies.
"Graphics almost have to be technically impressive to be good, whereas music often is better when it's a bit primitive."
I agree with you and the author that music is a key to having a game still connect after all of these years -- I certainly felt that way when playing Exult (an Ultima VII remake) last year.
But the statement that graphics MUST be technically impressive is nonsense. The graphics in Diablo are primitive, but they still look beautiful today. The focus on nice-looking 2D instead of bad-looking 3D really paid off there. It's a good example of good art trumping old technology. LucasArts' Grim Fandango is another good example. Or the Myst series.
How is it a company with 3% market share can get 80% of the fucking press?
Because they're more interesting. They've had a hell of a year.
Besides, Microsoft has been sitting on their laurels. Groklaw has an interesting bit where PJ notes that Investor's Business Daily made up their "Top Ten Tech Stories of the Year" list without mentioning Microsoft a single time in any context. This isn't because the "regular" PC world is losing relevance, but more just that there isn't much going on in the "regular" PC world.
But... that's what happens when one company is in charge of most of what people do: Nothing. Why should they do anything? They've got 80% of the world using their stuff.
According to Paul Ehlrich's 1968 book "The Population Bomb" we would of been eating each other by now for lack of food.
What happened was twofold.
1. Food production technology continued to improve. 2. Several billion people were never born.
And what's really happening is that we're getting better at distributing and producing food faster than we are at making babies. What's more, countries like China and India that have imposed reproduction limitations are, combined with a desire to have male children, going to see their populations plummet if the measures remain effective.
Which is why I think the more effective argument isn't the population growth as much as the "all eggs in one basket" issue. Sure, the probability of getting hit by a large enough asteroid is small, but it only takes one...
Do we really care if there is bacterial life on mars any way?
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer:
It is highly likely that human beings as a species will outgrow the Earth's resources. At that point we can either enact draconian measures to limit reproduction, or more realistically, we can begin to reach out to other worlds. One added benefit of reaching out to other worlds is that it prevents the old "all your eggs in one basket" problem: If an asteroid takes out Earth or something, humanity gets wiped out. I'd like to keep the species going... I like humans.
With fava beans and a nice chianti.
Anyway, knowing more about the universe outside of this globe makes us better able to move beyond. For my money, the sooner, the better.
Ultimately space exploration is for the same cause as environmentalism to me: It's about our continued survival and growth as a species.
She also had a bit of fun in class by pointing out all the problems with her own "study", such as the question of what portion of the population was buried in graves that still exist. Such problems are rife in every such statistical claim.
Sounds like a good teacher to me. The world needs more of 'em.
I'd like to hear comments from folks this has happened to, and what did you do as a result?
You polish off your resume, highlight your successes at the last job (you've done a great job of that in this posting here), and sell yourself to the next company.
Once you get to that next company, see that you give small (no more than 1 paragraph), regular (weekly, semimonthly, monthly) "status reports" that detail your accomplishments each month, so that the PHB's SEE what you've done for them, the value you've generated, and are constantly reminded of what you've done for them.
Continue until next layoff.
Repeat until retirement.
And above all, don't take it personally. It's hard for geeks to do so, but a professional detachment is a must.
the RIAA can still subpoena your personal info. they just are prohibited from doing so without first formally filing a lawsuit against every john/jane doe they wish to sue.
Yeah, but here's the beauty of it: Without being able to subpoena the ISP, how the heck are they gonna know who to sue?:)
All the info they have is "Verizon customer #47273" with no idea who the heck that might be.
Maybe PJ on Groklaw will have a better explanation... Tho' lately she's been patting herself on the back (and deservedly so) with all the awards Groklaw's getting.
"The tone generators were a hybrid of FM generation (i.e. sawtooth waveform etc.) plus a limited amount of sampled data."
No, the MT-32 most certainly did NOT use FM synthesis, which is tech that is solely owned by Yamaha. It was a combination of pure analog synthesis and digital waveforms.
Since I am from Sweden I can tell you that this was exactly the case here. Microsoft has a trademark on "Windows", since it is not considered to be a generic word. Simple as that.
Shit, I was just making a wild guess. I didn't actually expect to be right!
And while I'm at it, if we step outside Trademark law and the courts and consider the name Lindows for what it actually is, there can be only one reason for why that perticular name came to be. Morally Microsoft is actually right in this case.
I agree with you... IF we also agree that "Windows" is not so generic. Put it this way -- in Sweden, the courts are right, but in the USA, the courts are also right to throw out Microsoft's suit. Now if Lindows were selling a product called Lindows XP, then there'd be trouble in the USA. That would be a more obvious breach. Or if the name "Windows" had been slightly altered in the USA, such as "Windoze," and then Michael Robertson had started a company called "Lindoze." This is why Miller Lite beer is not Miller Light beer.
What it really comes down to is that Microsoft made a bad marketing decision in selecting a name that was too generic. This isn't the only time they've made that mistake. If I make a word processor called Word, for example, Microsoft is not going to be able to use the courts to get me to change the name, because the name is just too generic.
I think ten parties would be great, although realistically four or five are about all that the average voter could keep straight anyway. Some would inevitably be rather marginal, but still could shift the course of an election.
We already are in this situation; there are four or five parties around -- the Greens, the Libertarians, Ross Perot's little gang, and a few smaller groups like Natural Law -- and they've had a major impact on two recent presidential elections. Perot took votes away from Bush Sr in '92, and a few years back the Greens had a pretty substantial handful of votes.
What's odd is some of the things folks have suggested here have already happened -- the Democrats and Republicans use the Greens and United We Stand to eject their more reactionary/radical elements into, so that they can stay close enough to the center to hold onto support with the mainstream.
I think a reason that MS is having more success in Europe is language. Consider this: You wouldn't consider trademarking "The Road." It's... the frickin' road. But then say "El Camino," and at least we Americans who are old enough immediately think of a certain miniature pickup truck.
If you're in a country where English is a second or outright foreign language, "Windows" might thus seem to be more like something you could trademark. And "Lindows" might seem to be an obvious attempt to capitalize on the name, as if another car company had released a pickup truck called "Los Caminos."
The fact is, despite what/. would have you think, no one is 'well-informed' about this case. It is a huge tangle of intellectual property law, contract law, and source code. No single person really knows what SCO can prove, what IBM can prove, where the code came from, where it is now or who owns what. There's plenty of speculation, and I personally wouldn't buy into SCO, but investors like to gamble -- and given the fact that SCO (David) is taking taking on IBM (Goliath) I guess the conclusion is they must have some kind of case. Darl's putting up a BIG front, and that's what investors look for.
Not only is that what investors are looking for, they're also looking for PR's and analyses, and SCO's doing pretty well with those, too. There's also a "David and Goliath" feel that may appeal. Few people really invest logically to begin with!
Now PJ at Groklaw has been covering this case very well. She's a paralegal, so analyzing the law is her strong suit. She's not exactly unbiased (very pro-Linux) but she has access to the facts and the ability to analyze it properly. She doesn't know what's going to happen, and can't speculate on some things that only a lawyer can do, but I would say that she and those who follow her site regularly (RSS feed for those of you who use newsreaders) are well-informed, and as well-informed as anyone.
Look, if I play D&D, does that mean I'm going to get involved in the occult? Well, I haven't yet. But if I already were involved in the occult, D&D would have a special attraction for me.
If I listen to Heavy Metal, will I start to worship Satan? Hardly. But Satanists who listen to music are probably not going to be listening to Amy Grant now, are they?
Now if I am a violent person with a substantial gun collection, which video game do you think I'm going to play?
a. Pikmin b. Yoshi's Island c. Counter Strike d. Bejeweled
I think it's more accurate to say that the correlation between violence and violent TV programs/violent video games/violence in movies is that violent people are going to be more attracted to those forms of entertainment than other forms. A person who plays Quake isn't a problem; a person who ONLY plays games that lets him shoot people in nasty ways may have an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Right now the smallest -- and I mean THE smallest -- RFID tag I've seen (I work with them on a daily basis... yes, the ePC tags that Wal-Mart has asked for) is 3 inches long and a half-inch wide. I've got another one from a different manufacturer that's 1.5 inches square. We're not talking about things that are hard to find and remove here.
Why are they so huge? Antennas.
Yes, the tags themselves will continue to get smaller and cheaper. But the antennas aren't going to get any smaller; they have to be large, so that the tag can pick up the 925MHz signal from the reader to power itself on and transmit a signal back.
"Oh, but eventually they'll be woven into your clothes, right?" Well, do you know anyone involved in the textile industry? Ask them about how much it would cost to weave an antenna into a polo shirt. Right now the embroidery machines that are used to put the little guy on a horse are so expensive, that if you don't already have a contract to make them, you can't get a loan from the bank or investors to buy them at your factory. (Girlfriend's uncle runs a factory that makes polo shirts, that's how I know.) We're not talking about something cheap or simple here.
Be realistic about the technology here. Because of the need for large antennas, what's realistic with RFID technology is that even at the product level the tags will be large and easily removed from the item by the consumer or at the register. They'll attach it to the box, not the product, where it'll have a better chance of being picked up by the reader.
You can make the tags smaller, but you can't make the antennas smaller without cranking up the readers' power to levels that would nuke your testicles. That isn't going to happen.
Realistically, the Orwellian RFID nightmare is impossible.
That could be converted to haiku:
Now all don't just hate;
Now all laugh at SCO.
Hope the money lasts.
If you bought it that recently, the one-year warranty should still be in effect.
Take it to an Apple Store, or fedex it to Apple (after calling 'em up for an RMA), and wait a week.
I did that when mine went out not 3 months in. Haven't had any problems since.
Dude! Subliminal, your tunes kicked ass in the pack!
No really... go download it. It's good. It has music by Pinion on it. And me. Even though I haven't used a tracker to write stuff in years.
It's odd though... all that tracker usage taught me quite a bit about music production. Little tricks and tips that I stole from folks like Purple Motion and Necros that've even impressed professional studio engineers I've met.
Rad Man's put a lot of effort into this puppy. Those of you raggin' on him for not producing "art" need to back off; he's the one who did all of the crap putting these packs together that no one else wants to do. That shit takes work.
OK, enough rambling, why are you still reading this and not downloading the pack? Go do it now!
Yeah, but it's not MP3.com any more now, is it?
:)
As for "copying is not theft," well, you can go ahead and believe that, but I still feel like I'm robbed. What you, me, or anyone else believes about what is and is not theft doesn't mean I can't feel robbed.
Of course I don't really feel all that robbed since I have a site with all of the listed music that says "Please Steal This Music" anyhow.
This is theft, pure and simple.
Oh well... I guess any exposure is good exposure.
Another question to ask is... why does SCO protest so much? Given their modus operandi thus far, it would seem to suggest that their insistence that Linux vendors indemnify their customers is something that would benefit SCO more than anyone else... ...Perhaps by giving them juicier targets for lawsuits: The vendors themselves.
Foreseeing doom with their plans with IBM, perhaps they want more well-monied targets to pick from, to attempt their strategy a second time. Sue someone with cash, who was foolish enough to indemnify their customers, who might actually settle out-of-court or buy out SCO.
I think the main thing is that we geeks in general focus more on certain types of facts instead of others.
Has the dot-com bubble bursting taught you nothing? People who invest -- intelligent as they are -- largely ARE capable of being fooled. Not forever, but for a long time. And be sure you understand -- the big-time investors were not the ones harmed by the dot-com bubble bursting. The trick is to recognize when you're being played for a fool.
Perception of facts is what drives the world far more than the actual facts. Galileo screwed up -- not by believing that the world revolved around the sun, because he was right, but by believing that being right on that fact was the most important thing. Far more important than being right is how you relate to people, and how you are remembered.
Walter: "Am I wrong?"
The Dude: "You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an ASSHOLE!"
What's going on here is that SCO has gotten people talking. They've got a few people believing that SCO might have a chance or a point. They've got a few companies that are competitors with Linux throwing money their way. And there are big-time professional investors who recognize that all of the noise SCO makes will make it into a good SHORT-TERM investment opportunity. (And by short-term, I mean "Less than 5 years.") Not because SCO is right or wrong, but because they will incur support from Microsoft, attention from the industry, and increase the public-perceived value with all of the noise they make -- at least for a while.
Humans are ultimately as manageable as code, and can be engineered as such. The difference between a human and a transistor is that where a change in the reality of a signal is what causes a transistor to change its state, it is a change in a person's perception of reality that causes a person to change his or her mind. Thus it is perception that governs the world.
Try and think of it in these terms if it makes you feel more comfortable: We give a transistor, within a certain margin of error, a threshold for detecting whether a signal is low or high. In truth it's not whether that signal is low or high that matters, but whether that semiconductor detects that the signal is low or high. It's not the real voltage that matters, but that the circuit "thinks" there's a change.
In other words, the driving factor behind the stock price of SCO is not the existence or nonexistence of code that may or may not have been copied, but rather people's perceptions of the case, which change from week to week... along with SCO's claims.
Ultimately, SCO will probably get squashed like a bug in this case -- not because of the strength of their argument, but more simply because of the strength of IBM's legal team. But that doesn't mean they'll go out of business. That doesn't even mean their stock price won't get a short-term kick in the ass, like you note that it received. Geeks know what they did, and see the end result. But in the meanwhile, there might be a nice ride you want to catch a hold of.
Unless your morals, like mine, prevent you from investing in scuzzy companies.
Silly morals.
"Graphics almost have to be technically impressive to be good, whereas music often is better when it's a bit primitive."
I agree with you and the author that music is a key to having a game still connect after all of these years -- I certainly felt that way when playing Exult (an Ultima VII remake) last year.
But the statement that graphics MUST be technically impressive is nonsense. The graphics in Diablo are primitive, but they still look beautiful today. The focus on nice-looking 2D instead of bad-looking 3D really paid off there. It's a good example of good art trumping old technology. LucasArts' Grim Fandango is another good example. Or the Myst series.
Because they're more interesting. They've had a hell of a year.
Besides, Microsoft has been sitting on their laurels. Groklaw has an interesting bit where PJ notes that Investor's Business Daily made up their "Top Ten Tech Stories of the Year" list without mentioning Microsoft a single time in any context. This isn't because the "regular" PC world is losing relevance, but more just that there isn't much going on in the "regular" PC world.
But... that's what happens when one company is in charge of most of what people do: Nothing. Why should they do anything? They've got 80% of the world using their stuff.
Well, how about it?
What happened was twofold.
1. Food production technology continued to improve.
2. Several billion people were never born.
And what's really happening is that we're getting better at distributing and producing food faster than we are at making babies. What's more, countries like China and India that have imposed reproduction limitations are, combined with a desire to have male children, going to see their populations plummet if the measures remain effective.
Which is why I think the more effective argument isn't the population growth as much as the "all eggs in one basket" issue. Sure, the probability of getting hit by a large enough asteroid is small, but it only takes one...
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer:
It is highly likely that human beings as a species will outgrow the Earth's resources. At that point we can either enact draconian measures to limit reproduction, or more realistically, we can begin to reach out to other worlds. One added benefit of reaching out to other worlds is that it prevents the old "all your eggs in one basket" problem: If an asteroid takes out Earth or something, humanity gets wiped out. I'd like to keep the species going... I like humans.
With fava beans and a nice chianti.
Anyway, knowing more about the universe outside of this globe makes us better able to move beyond. For my money, the sooner, the better.
Ultimately space exploration is for the same cause as environmentalism to me: It's about our continued survival and growth as a species.
Why not consider all possibilities?
;)
In all likelihood, the Beagle 2's landing made the crater.
Sounds like a good teacher to me. The world needs more of 'em.
You polish off your resume, highlight your successes at the last job (you've done a great job of that in this posting here), and sell yourself to the next company.
Once you get to that next company, see that you give small (no more than 1 paragraph), regular (weekly, semimonthly, monthly) "status reports" that detail your accomplishments each month, so that the PHB's SEE what you've done for them, the value you've generated, and are constantly reminded of what you've done for them.
Continue until next layoff.
Repeat until retirement.
And above all, don't take it personally. It's hard for geeks to do so, but a professional detachment is a must.
Good luck on your job search!
Yeah, but here's the beauty of it: Without being able to subpoena the ISP, how the heck are they gonna know who to sue?
All the info they have is "Verizon customer #47273" with no idea who the heck that might be.
Maybe PJ on Groklaw will have a better explanation... Tho' lately she's been patting herself on the back (and deservedly so) with all the awards Groklaw's getting.
"The tone generators were a hybrid of FM generation (i.e. sawtooth waveform etc.) plus a limited amount of sampled data."
No, the MT-32 most certainly did NOT use FM synthesis, which is tech that is solely owned by Yamaha. It was a combination of pure analog synthesis and digital waveforms.
Shit, I was just making a wild guess. I didn't actually expect to be right!
I agree with you... IF we also agree that "Windows" is not so generic. Put it this way -- in Sweden, the courts are right, but in the USA, the courts are also right to throw out Microsoft's suit. Now if Lindows were selling a product called Lindows XP, then there'd be trouble in the USA. That would be a more obvious breach. Or if the name "Windows" had been slightly altered in the USA, such as "Windoze," and then Michael Robertson had started a company called "Lindoze." This is why Miller Lite beer is not Miller Light beer.
What it really comes down to is that Microsoft made a bad marketing decision in selecting a name that was too generic. This isn't the only time they've made that mistake. If I make a word processor called Word, for example, Microsoft is not going to be able to use the courts to get me to change the name, because the name is just too generic.
We already are in this situation; there are four or five parties around -- the Greens, the Libertarians, Ross Perot's little gang, and a few smaller groups like Natural Law -- and they've had a major impact on two recent presidential elections. Perot took votes away from Bush Sr in '92, and a few years back the Greens had a pretty substantial handful of votes.
What's odd is some of the things folks have suggested here have already happened -- the Democrats and Republicans use the Greens and United We Stand to eject their more reactionary/radical elements into, so that they can stay close enough to the center to hold onto support with the mainstream.
Could be worse!
I think a reason that MS is having more success in Europe is language. Consider this: You wouldn't consider trademarking "The Road." It's... the frickin' road. But then say "El Camino," and at least we Americans who are old enough immediately think of a certain miniature pickup truck.
If you're in a country where English is a second or outright foreign language, "Windows" might thus seem to be more like something you could trademark. And "Lindows" might seem to be an obvious attempt to capitalize on the name, as if another car company had released a pickup truck called "Los Caminos."
Not only is that what investors are looking for, they're also looking for PR's and analyses, and SCO's doing pretty well with those, too. There's also a "David and Goliath" feel that may appeal. Few people really invest logically to begin with!
Now PJ at Groklaw has been covering this case very well. She's a paralegal, so analyzing the law is her strong suit. She's not exactly unbiased (very pro-Linux) but she has access to the facts and the ability to analyze it properly. She doesn't know what's going to happen, and can't speculate on some things that only a lawyer can do, but I would say that she and those who follow her site regularly (RSS feed for those of you who use newsreaders) are well-informed, and as well-informed as anyone.
Look, if I play D&D, does that mean I'm going to get involved in the occult? Well, I haven't yet. But if I already were involved in the occult, D&D would have a special attraction for me.
If I listen to Heavy Metal, will I start to worship Satan? Hardly. But Satanists who listen to music are probably not going to be listening to Amy Grant now, are they?
Now if I am a violent person with a substantial gun collection, which video game do you think I'm going to play?
a. Pikmin
b. Yoshi's Island
c. Counter Strike
d. Bejeweled
I think it's more accurate to say that the correlation between violence and violent TV programs/violent video games/violence in movies is that violent people are going to be more attracted to those forms of entertainment than other forms. A person who plays Quake isn't a problem; a person who ONLY plays games that lets him shoot people in nasty ways may have an issue.
I would think that this is obvious.