Google has no part in the design or implementation of QR codes
I never claimed they had. I said that they have shopped a *reader* for them. The reader they ship does not contact Google's servers. That's the only reason I mentioned Google at all. Google is not relevant other than that. Your continued hammering on Google is simply incomprehensible.
If you had, by now, you would have at least pointed out some scenarios that QR codes enable but MS tags don't.
I'm not trying to promote either QR or Datamatrix codes, at this point I'm simply responding to your increasingly hysterical anti-Google flames with "this isn't about Google".
Me: "EVEN GOOGLE doesn't require you to go back to the servers to read 2d barcodes. You: "but google is evil" Me: "and yet despite that, they don't require you do do that" You: "google does all this nasty stuff" Me: "The product we're talking about doesn't do that, and there's other readers than google's" You: "google google google! And google!" Me: "I'm not depending on those google products, the one that I might use doesn't have that problem" You: "google's other products, blah blah" Me: "why are you talking about google all the time" You: "that's not even a google product!" Me:...
Read Stanislaw Lem's review of Gigamesh in "A Perfect Vacuum" and you will understand more about the whole genre of "hard works" than any amount of ordinary criticism will ever teach you.
Google products don't have these characteristics? Read what I've written about image search above.
OK, let me try typing slower:
THE GOOGLE PRODUCT THAT IS COMPARABLE TO THIS PARTICULAR MICROSOFT PRODUCT DOESN'T HAVE THIS CHARACTERISTIC.
I submitted this story in the hope of discussing cool applications of such technology.
Good for you. So why aren't you discussing it instead of drawing attention to my objections by engaging in a long and pointless thread where you deliberately misinterpret everything I post?
You have exactly the same 'commercial interference from and dependence on' Google when you use their search engine. Surely you still use Google search?
I'm not publishing (printing on product boxes, or whatever) information that depends on Google Search behaving in any particular way, nor do customers go through Google Search as an essential step to look up the data that I am publishing.
You keep bringing up problems as if I'm saying "Google is good, Microsoft is bad". I'm not. I'm saying "Microsoft's product has these characteristics, other products (EVEN INCLUDING GOOGLE, WHO IS NOTORIOUS FOR DATA MINING) don't have these characteristics."
Google isn't the only player in the 2d barcode scanner game, friend.
You have all the information you need to make a fully informed decision whether to use the service or not.
Indeed. So why do you keep coming up with red herrings when I thereby give the reasons I don't think it's a good idea to use it?
Coyote chases Roadrunner, triggers the shotgun trap he set up, BOOM! He's a splatter on the ground. Next scene he's chasing the roadrunner again.
How much violence does fifty years of violent cartoons confront you with? Do we have kids thinking that the only way to kill someone for real is to douse them in paint remover? "I firmly believe that Roger Rabbit had no idea at the time he hatched this plot that if he killed his parents, they would be dead forever."
Given their history, they shouldn't be free to just withdraw from a lawsuit without prejudice just because they can't force the suit through in the right court.
Commercial interference from and dependence on Microsoft's servers.
I've been clotheslined by too many big companies to want to depend on ANY of them keeping a "free, commercial" online service up without using it for commercial advantage. Which is, of course, their right.
When you publish a tag using MS's service, the data you provide (as the advertiser) is the same that you would provide to Google, when you (as the advertiser) publish ads on the web, thorough Google's web ad service.
What the hell does "Google's Web Ad Service" have to do with anything?
I'm talking about comparing Microsoft's proposed mechanism for providing machine-readable tags on physical objects with Google's proposed mechanism for providing machine readable tags on physical objects. Google has other products and services, sure, but this is the one that is similar to the one under discussion.
that's less than the data (ip address, tag-id, response) that MS may be logging when you look up a tag?
I've already pointed out that I'm talking about the data you make available to Google or Microsoft when you publish a tag (print it on a piece of paper or package). If you can't read, that's not my problem.
When you publish the tag, the data you give to MS -- that is exactly the same as the data you give to Google if you advertise through them.
When I publish a tag that someone's going to read using Google's tag reader I don't have to advertise through them, because the tag is complete and self-contained. All I do is print a picture on paper, that's it. Google isn't in the loop any more than if I print "www.example.com" in plaintext on a billboard.
Doesn't negate the fact that 100s of millions of people use web mail, so they exercise much more trust in an entity than this tagging scheme requires.
Millions of people respond to spammers as well. Why do I have to jump over the cliff too?
Any email you receive is 'sent mail' on someone else's server.
And finally, to address your privacy concerns about the web service -- the data you are sending to MS when looking up a tag,/i>
I'm talking about the data you give to MS when you publish a tag. That's data you don't have to give to Google unless you choose to use Google advertising services.
the data you give any webmail provider when you use webmail
I run my own mailserver, which I access using SSL and SSH.
but get all up in arms over sending a tag number, ipaddress to MS, and receiving some data back?
You mean "over giving a company that's documented in court-case after court-case as using anything they can get hold of for anti-competitive activity a list of all your customers"?
Google's version of this encodes the URL directly in the tag. Google doesn't have any control over the content of the tag. Unless the person printing the tag chooses to send the data to google, google will never see it. If I want to publish a tag that someone can use from an Android phone or anything else using Google's applet, without Getting google into the loop, I can do that. I can do it without involving any Google products, Google patents, Google copyrights, Google APIs, Google anything, and they need never know about it... and it will also work for people using any of the other programs, created by different people using different software... that handle (say) Datamatrix codes.
Low-res cellphone cameras, from a moving vehicle pointing at a billboard,
I'll give up that use case in exchange for not having drivers trying to snapshot billboards running into me.
UPCs don't store a phone numbers, vCards, URLs, or messages.
That was a side comment, there's plenty of other technologies already in widespread use.
Kinda like search ads served by google [...]
And yet Google's own version of this doesn't include that extra data-mining step.
How were you planning to look up that UPC if you weren't online btw?
I don't need to get to Microsoft to call a phone number encoded in a 2d barcode. I don't need Microsoft to be accessible to use someone else's site. And don't tell me "Microsoft won't be down" for something that's peripheral to their business after last Friday's debacle.
"Gray Market" traditionally doesn't imply "illegal", but rather "unapproved". If you buy a product overseas because the manufacturer doesn't want to sell it in the US (yet) or or want to charge more in the US, that's "gray market". Some people use the term to refer to any mechanism for any mechanism for bypassing restrictions manufacturers restrictions, others limit it to imports.
Have you ever found a phone application which can read UPC barcodes?
I haven't looked, I don't have a smartphone. People do this routinely in Japan with 2d barcodes on cellphones. In the US there's plenty of apps that read all kinds of barcodes for phones, including a couple that use standard 2d barcodes to do the same thing Microsoft's doing here, and Google has one that doesn't require a round trip to a central server (Google doing LESS data mining than Microsoft?). There's certainly no technical issue reading UPC codes with a camera, Delicious Library does it.
I suspect that people getting into the UPC space are gunshy of the CueCat effect.
iTunes Plus is, what, a year and a half old? And this was never any kind of secret. And I'm sure that's not the only tracking info in the file... when you download iTunes Plus it does a heck of a lot of computation on the file after it's downloaded.
You think Amazon's downloader doesn't do the same thing, easily visible or not?
Oh, they're playing silly games even before we get that far...
Let's see... the second link has a nice deceptive picture of the two technologies not to scale, but printed against each other so it looks like the color coded one is smaller. Then there's an actual scale comparison, but the Microsoft one is only an encoded link, so it contains less data than the tags it's compared with. There's no reason you can't swipe your iPhone over a UPC and look it up online (I've done that with my cue-cat).
And of course "A nice side-effect of this is also the ability for publishers to gather reporting data on how many times it was seen." Nice. Right. Plus, Microsoft gets that data as well. And of course it's got all the downsides of any cloud technology... if the server's down or you're not online you're stuck.
Despite limited information in the supplier channels and typical secrecy with new Apple products, insiders have confirmed that the iPhone nano is not yet in the testing labs at AT&T, Marshal says, leading him to believe that the launch will most likely be with a non-US carrier.
PalmOS 5 is really a new OS, one that was never fully documented... they never had full native ARM support because they were waiting for PalmOS 6, and they lost a lot of functionality that was waiting on full ARM support.
While waiting they released one Linux-based device, and another one that they cancelled before release.
Slashdot Mirror
First - at no point did I say anything negative about Google.
OK, make that "at this point I'm simply responding to your increasingly irrelevant attempts to make this about unrelated Google products".
No, you have to wonder if they have the guts to pull the plug or drastically change one of Jobs's initiatives if it should become necessary.
Google has no part in the design or implementation of QR codes
I never claimed they had. I said that they have shopped a *reader* for them. The reader they ship does not contact Google's servers. That's the only reason I mentioned Google at all. Google is not relevant other than that. Your continued hammering on Google is simply incomprehensible.
If you had, by now, you would have at least pointed out some scenarios that QR codes enable but MS tags don't.
I'm not trying to promote either QR or Datamatrix codes, at this point I'm simply responding to your increasingly hysterical anti-Google flames with "this isn't about Google".
I didn't misinterpret anything
Me: "EVEN GOOGLE doesn't require you to go back to the servers to read 2d barcodes. ...
You: "but google is evil"
Me: "and yet despite that, they don't require you do do that"
You: "google does all this nasty stuff"
Me: "The product we're talking about doesn't do that, and there's other readers than google's"
You: "google google google! And google!"
Me: "I'm not depending on those google products, the one that I might use doesn't have that problem"
You: "google's other products, blah blah"
Me: "why are you talking about google all the time"
You: "that's not even a google product!"
Me:
I'm sorry, I can't type any slower than this.
Read Stanislaw Lem's review of Gigamesh in "A Perfect Vacuum" and you will understand more about the whole genre of "hard works" than any amount of ordinary criticism will ever teach you.
Google products don't have these characteristics? Read what I've written about image search above.
OK, let me try typing slower:
THE GOOGLE PRODUCT THAT IS COMPARABLE TO THIS PARTICULAR MICROSOFT PRODUCT DOESN'T HAVE THIS CHARACTERISTIC.
I submitted this story in the hope of discussing cool applications of such technology.
Good for you. So why aren't you discussing it instead of drawing attention to my objections by engaging in a long and pointless thread where you deliberately misinterpret everything I post?
You have exactly the same 'commercial interference from and dependence on' Google when you use their search engine. Surely you still use Google search?
I'm not publishing (printing on product boxes, or whatever) information that depends on Google Search behaving in any particular way, nor do customers go through Google Search as an essential step to look up the data that I am publishing.
You keep bringing up problems as if I'm saying "Google is good, Microsoft is bad". I'm not. I'm saying "Microsoft's product has these characteristics, other products (EVEN INCLUDING GOOGLE, WHO IS NOTORIOUS FOR DATA MINING) don't have these characteristics."
Google isn't the only player in the 2d barcode scanner game, friend.
You have all the information you need to make a fully informed decision whether to use the service or not.
Indeed. So why do you keep coming up with red herrings when I thereby give the reasons I don't think it's a good idea to use it?
Coyote chases Roadrunner, triggers the shotgun trap he set up, BOOM! He's a splatter on the ground. Next scene he's chasing the roadrunner again.
How much violence does fifty years of violent cartoons confront you with? Do we have kids thinking that the only way to kill someone for real is to douse them in paint remover? "I firmly believe that Roger Rabbit had no idea at the time he hatched this plot that if he killed his parents, they would be dead forever."
Given their history, they shouldn't be free to just withdraw from a lawsuit without prejudice just because they can't force the suit through in the right court.
I guess Chris Moriarty's novel "Spin Control", where a good deal of the biomass for a long-term space mission was silkworms, was ahead of the curve.
Commercial interference from and dependence on Microsoft's servers.
I've been clotheslined by too many big companies to want to depend on ANY of them keeping a "free, commercial" online service up without using it for commercial advantage. Which is, of course, their right.
You said you had privacy concerns because of data passing through Microsoft's tag service.
No, I didn't actually say that.
When you publish a tag using MS's service, the data you provide (as the advertiser) is the same that you would provide to Google, when you (as the advertiser) publish ads on the web, thorough Google's web ad service.
What the hell does "Google's Web Ad Service" have to do with anything?
I'm talking about comparing Microsoft's proposed mechanism for providing machine-readable tags on physical objects with Google's proposed mechanism for providing machine readable tags on physical objects. Google has other products and services, sure, but this is the one that is similar to the one under discussion.
that's less than the data (ip address, tag-id, response) that MS may be logging when you look up a tag?
I've already pointed out that I'm talking about the data you make available to Google or Microsoft when you publish a tag (print it on a piece of paper or package). If you can't read, that's not my problem.
When you publish the tag, the data you give to MS -- that is exactly the same as the data you give to Google if you advertise through them.
When I publish a tag that someone's going to read using Google's tag reader I don't have to advertise through them, because the tag is complete and self-contained. All I do is print a picture on paper, that's it. Google isn't in the loop any more than if I print "www.example.com" in plaintext on a billboard.
Doesn't negate the fact that 100s of millions of people use web mail, so they exercise much more trust in an entity than this tagging scheme requires.
Millions of people respond to spammers as well. Why do I have to jump over the cliff too?
Any email you receive is 'sent mail' on someone else's server.
Yep, and I keep that in mind when I send mail.
Read the terms of service and privacy policy
Whose?
And finally, to address your privacy concerns about the web service -- the data you are sending to MS when looking up a tag,/i>
I'm talking about the data you give to MS when you publish a tag. That's data you don't have to give to Google unless you choose to use Google advertising services.
the data you give any webmail provider when you use webmail
I run my own mailserver, which I access using SSL and SSH.
but get all up in arms over sending a tag number, ipaddress to MS, and receiving some data back?
You mean "over giving a company that's documented in court-case after court-case as using anything they can get hold of for anti-competitive activity a list of all your customers"?
Google's version of this encodes the URL directly in the tag. Google doesn't have any control over the content of the tag. Unless the person printing the tag chooses to send the data to google, google will never see it. If I want to publish a tag that someone can use from an Android phone or anything else using Google's applet, without Getting google into the loop, I can do that. I can do it without involving any Google products, Google patents, Google copyrights, Google APIs, Google anything, and they need never know about it... and it will also work for people using any of the other programs, created by different people using different software... that handle (say) Datamatrix codes.
Low-res cellphone cameras, from a moving vehicle pointing at a billboard,
I'll give up that use case in exchange for not having drivers trying to snapshot billboards running into me.
UPCs don't store a phone numbers, vCards, URLs, or messages.
That was a side comment, there's plenty of other technologies already in widespread use.
Kinda like search ads served by google [...]
And yet Google's own version of this doesn't include that extra data-mining step.
How were you planning to look up that UPC if you weren't online btw?
I don't need to get to Microsoft to call a phone number encoded in a 2d barcode. I don't need Microsoft to be accessible to use someone else's site. And don't tell me "Microsoft won't be down" for something that's peripheral to their business after last Friday's debacle.
"Gray Market" traditionally doesn't imply "illegal", but rather "unapproved". If you buy a product overseas because the manufacturer doesn't want to sell it in the US (yet) or or want to charge more in the US, that's "gray market". Some people use the term to refer to any mechanism for any mechanism for bypassing restrictions manufacturers restrictions, others limit it to imports.
Have you ever found a phone application which can read UPC barcodes?
I haven't looked, I don't have a smartphone. People do this routinely in Japan with 2d barcodes on cellphones. In the US there's plenty of apps that read all kinds of barcodes for phones, including a couple that use standard 2d barcodes to do the same thing Microsoft's doing here, and Google has one that doesn't require a round trip to a central server (Google doing LESS data mining than Microsoft?). There's certainly no technical issue reading UPC codes with a camera, Delicious Library does it.
I suspect that people getting into the UPC space are gunshy of the CueCat effect.
iTunes Plus is, what, a year and a half old? And this was never any kind of secret. And I'm sure that's not the only tracking info in the file... when you download iTunes Plus it does a heck of a lot of computation on the file after it's downloaded.
You think Amazon's downloader doesn't do the same thing, easily visible or not?
OK, where's the submarine patent?
Oh, they're playing silly games even before we get that far...
Let's see... the second link has a nice deceptive picture of the two technologies not to scale, but printed against each other so it looks like the color coded one is smaller. Then there's an actual scale comparison, but the Microsoft one is only an encoded link, so it contains less data than the tags it's compared with. There's no reason you can't swipe your iPhone over a UPC and look it up online (I've done that with my cue-cat).
And of course "A nice side-effect of this is also the ability for publishers to gather reporting data on how many times it was seen." Nice. Right. Plus, Microsoft gets that data as well. And of course it's got all the downsides of any cloud technology... if the server's down or you're not online you're stuck.
First three entries, and I'm already objecting to the list...
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation
CWE-116: Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output
CWE-89: Failure to Preserve SQL Query Structure (aka 'SQL Injection')
But CWE-89 is a special case of CWE-116.
So is CWE-78: Failure to Preserve OS Command Structure (aka 'OS Command Injection')
Either that, or it's not on the way at all. :)
PalmOS 5 is really a new OS, one that was never fully documented... they never had full native ARM support because they were waiting for PalmOS 6, and they lost a lot of functionality that was waiting on full ARM support.
While waiting they released one Linux-based device, and another one that they cancelled before release.
And then they dropped PalmOS 6.
And now we have this new WebOS.
I think the GP talked about WebDav: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebDAV
WebDAV is a bad solution to a mostly non-existent problem that REST solves a lot more cleanly.