You mean OnStar. OnStar has a GPS built in. I believe LoJack works differently by transmitting a signal that specially equipped police cars pick up when the are within a certain distance of the LoJack transmitter. Whereas OnStar is pleased as punch to send your location to the GM OnStar location.
If your truly paranoid -- don't buy a vehicle with OnStar. While it has its uses, and I'm glad my mother-in-law has it in case something goes wrong while she's by herself, I sure don't want it in my car.
I wonder how many requests for support the OnStar office gets to track cars? The use of the information from OnStar equipped vehicles are not reported on very often.
I've been saying this was the direction wireless carriers were going to go for several years. Even wrote an article on LinuxTelephony about it September, 1999.
Once the carriers are able to deliver real data bandwidth, then using data-centric technologies to transfer voice will make more sense and will ultimately prevail.
Two things, supposedly the feature can be disabled by sites, but do you really believe the browser will honor the command to turn the feature off? Maybe the first version, but upgrades and updates will likely "enhance" that feature and mean that it will be enabled regardless of what the site wants, because "users want the feature".
Not that I'm paranoid.
In any event, what if one of the licenses for text/web/documents were extended. They could still allow for open use of the content on other servers, but no modification of the data displayed to end users from specific servers. In other words, I could allow the content to be copied, modified, redisplayed by others, but I do not allow modifications to the content to be displayed to end users served directly from my server.
Combine with the license rules in the web server that does not allow Internet Explorer XP access to the site since it violates this license.
Does anyone think there would be any value in something like this?
I know from a commercial standpoint I would not want my customers leaving my site for a competitor's site just because Microsoft liked the competitor and linked one of the words in my document to their site.
Geowork's claims are so broad, that even by their own wording in their document, the potential for infringment falls on a wide range of people and products. List in their "white paper" is WAP-Enabled Wireless Telecom Services, WAP-Enabled Mobile Devices, WAP Microbrowsers, WAP-Enabled Servers, WAP Application Development Tools, Packaged WAP Applications, Custom WAP Applications and Consulting, WAP ASPs, and WAP sites. It would appear the mean to go after anyone and everyone doing anything WAP related, including content providers. What I want to know is if they plan on hitting the carriers themselves for licenses (and royalties). It would appear that for WAP Forum members with less than $1 million in revenue, they have to negotiate their own license with Geoworks for the application license. There appears to be no such limitation for platform licenses, which means EVERYONE, regardless of size, will have to cough up 20,000 plus 10% royalties. It just raised the price a minimum of 10% for WAP platforms. Second, non-WAP Forum members will have to negotiate for their own licenses, and risk getting charged a much higher license fee. As if that weren't bad enough, has anyone checked out the WAP Forum membership fees? Try 27,500 a year for one level, and 7,500 a year for the other. Either way, the small business, non-profit, or open-source project is the one that faces being shut out from this area. Does anyone have any doubt this is what Microsoft referred to when they talked about patent law and its affect on stalling Linux and other open source projects that compete against Microsoft?
Slashdot Mirror
You mean OnStar. OnStar has a GPS built in. I believe LoJack works differently by transmitting a signal that specially equipped police cars pick up when the are within a certain distance of the LoJack transmitter. Whereas OnStar is pleased as punch to send your location to the GM OnStar location.
If your truly paranoid -- don't buy a vehicle with OnStar. While it has its uses, and I'm glad my mother-in-law has it in case something goes wrong while she's by herself, I sure don't want it in my car.
I wonder how many requests for support the OnStar office gets to track cars? The use of the information from OnStar equipped vehicles are not reported on very often.
I've been saying this was the direction wireless carriers were going to go for several years. Even wrote an article on LinuxTelephony about it September, 1999.
Once the carriers are able to deliver real data bandwidth, then using data-centric technologies to transfer voice will make more sense and will ultimately prevail.
Two things, supposedly the feature can be disabled by sites, but do you really believe the browser will honor the command to turn the feature off? Maybe the first version, but upgrades and updates will likely "enhance" that feature and mean that it will be enabled regardless of what the site wants, because "users want the feature". Not that I'm paranoid. In any event, what if one of the licenses for text/web/documents were extended. They could still allow for open use of the content on other servers, but no modification of the data displayed to end users from specific servers. In other words, I could allow the content to be copied, modified, redisplayed by others, but I do not allow modifications to the content to be displayed to end users served directly from my server. Combine with the license rules in the web server that does not allow Internet Explorer XP access to the site since it violates this license. Does anyone think there would be any value in something like this? I know from a commercial standpoint I would not want my customers leaving my site for a competitor's site just because Microsoft liked the competitor and linked one of the words in my document to their site.
Geowork's claims are so broad, that even by their own wording in their document, the potential for infringment falls on a wide range of people and products. List in their "white paper" is WAP-Enabled Wireless Telecom Services, WAP-Enabled Mobile Devices, WAP Microbrowsers, WAP-Enabled Servers, WAP Application Development Tools, Packaged WAP Applications, Custom WAP Applications and Consulting, WAP ASPs, and WAP sites. It would appear the mean to go after anyone and everyone doing anything WAP related, including content providers. What I want to know is if they plan on hitting the carriers themselves for licenses (and royalties). It would appear that for WAP Forum members with less than $1 million in revenue, they have to negotiate their own license with Geoworks for the application license. There appears to be no such limitation for platform licenses, which means EVERYONE, regardless of size, will have to cough up 20,000 plus 10% royalties. It just raised the price a minimum of 10% for WAP platforms. Second, non-WAP Forum members will have to negotiate for their own licenses, and risk getting charged a much higher license fee. As if that weren't bad enough, has anyone checked out the WAP Forum membership fees? Try 27,500 a year for one level, and 7,500 a year for the other. Either way, the small business, non-profit, or open-source project is the one that faces being shut out from this area. Does anyone have any doubt this is what Microsoft referred to when they talked about patent law and its affect on stalling Linux and other open source projects that compete against Microsoft?