I worked in the plastic card industry writing firmware for PVC card printers/encoders. Assume 100 DMVs per state (5000 DMVs total), comes to about $63,000 in equipment (biometrics + printer/encoder), and I think I'm being a little generous with the DMVs, especially with states like Delaware.
Consumables (cards, color ribbons) are another thing. (Smartcards are pretty cheap at about or less than $1 a card if memory serves me right)
Where in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or even the Declaration of Independence does it say that business is protected against competition or themselves for that matter?
I think you have it backwards, where in the Constitution does it say that congress can't pass laws to protect a business?
Don't delude yourself, The Constitution only protects a handful of rights, the rest are free game for congress to take away.
I'm sure there are a couple of good lawyers/law students who could draft legislation detailing the requirements of a clear summary.
YES IT IS: IWJMED - I WATCH JUDGE MATHIS EVERY DAY
on
Worst Buy
·
· Score: 2
False arrest is ALSO when someone calls the cops and intentional makes false accusations to mislead the cops to arresting you.
He should take them to Judge Mathis. I know there's only a $5000 limit, but Judge Mathis is one sneeky Mofo who knows how to get the truth out of people.
Don't let his Ghetto Justice fool you, Judge Mathis is a brilliant man.
If you want people to listen to you, then you should give them enough credit to provide them with the information and rationale that you used to come to your conclusions rather than just telling us parrots what to repeat.
Aside from your first two points (which I more than happy to agree with) 1. UWB does use the spectrum 2. UWB does have a carrier
Can you back up your last couple of assertions?
You go on to tell us that we should be using COFDM or 802.11 instead of UWB. I'm nothing close to an expert, but even I can see that 802.11 and UWB are for different type of applications.
UWB - Very Short Range, Very High Bandwidth (100-500 Mbit/sec up to 30ft) 802.11 - Wireless LAN (10 Mbits/sec up to 300 ft)
Why should I replace UWB with 802.11 when I can use both?
1. What is COFDM? 2. What kind of bandwidth, range can I get out of it? 3. Why isn't the industry pushing COFDM? 4. How expensive is it to integrate COFDM onto a small device, such as a PDA? 5. What's the spacial capacity? 6. How much power does it use?
SPATIAL CAPACITY, a gauge of operational efficiency important when comparing short-range wireless systems, favors UWB technology. Measured in kilobits per second per square meter (kbps/m2), spatial capacity focuses not only on bit rates for data transfer but on bit rates available in the confined spaces defined by short transmission ranges.
Ultrawideband communications systems would share the same problem except that they deliberately operate at power levels so low that they emit less average radio energy than hair dryers, electric drills, laptop computers and other common appliances that radiate electromagnetic energy as a by-product. This low-power output means that UWB's range is sharply restricted--to distances of 100 meters or less and usually as little as 10 meters. For well-chosen modulation schemes, interference from UWB transmitters is generally benign because the energy levels of the pulses are simply too low to cause problems.
A typical 200-microwatt UWB transmitter, for example, radiates only one three-thousandth of the average energy emitted by a conventional 600-milliwatt cell phone.
100-500 Mbits/sec can pretty much serve as a wireless bus for most of your components. With that kind of speed, you could physically seperate your (CPU+Memory) (Harddrive) (Monitor)
Not to mention all of the wireless possibilities linking to Home Entertainment system, Car, Access Control Devices, Etc.
Given Intel's goals to make UWB cheap as they're trying to fabricate it on CMOS it would be everywhere where wires used to be.
Think about it: Short-wave radios fabricated on a chip that are capable of 100-500 Mbits/sec.
1. Your PDA would be your CPU + Memory
2. You could put your harddrive in your coat pocket.
3. When you walk towards a monitor, you could wirelessly dock to it or the neighboring keyboards/mice.
This is actually an old article, but I honestly believe if Intel gets this right, UWB is going to be HUGE.
Here's another article: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-840393.ht ml
Re:Virtual Machines are the Answer
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 2
386. Ask anyone who tried to play a dos4gw game on their 286.
Protected mode existed on the 286, but Intel didn't provide a way to get out of protected mode (IBM wrote a hack which essentially reset the CPU), hence why no one bother writing a DOS extender for the 286. Borland Pascal was the only development environment take advantage of it (As far as I can remember).
You're right though. The 386 had all the right features and enhancements to make protected mode a REAL option.
Virtual Machines are the Answer
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Viruses, Spy Software, Trojans, etc.
Every operating system should have a sandbox that looks like the rest of your computer where you run programs you don't trust. When the program tries to install itself perminately or hook itself into a DLL, it will only do it to that particular sandbox.
This sort of protection has been supported by Intel since the 286, why is it we still don't use virtual machines for security purposes?
I always thought Apple did a fine job creating a consumer product which made computers a great tool for most people.
However, I have a problem with your point with applications. Yes, there are over 20,000 applications for the Mac, however 20000 applications isn't that much.
How many applications do you need?
I'm willing to wager that there are thousands of minor industries for whom there is no Mac software available for, let alone any software for the niche solutions for those industries.
It's not so much of how many, but which applications do you need? With a PC, I can probably find 30-50 property management applications which will integrate with a variety of magnetic encoders and printers for platic key cards (Think Hotels, Cruise ships, etc). Having worked in that industry, I can't recall a single app for the Mac that works with plastic key cards. (Not to say there isn't one)
Just because you only need 20,000 applications to choose from, doesn't mean the rest of us are fine with that.
Don't get me wrong, most people don't need more than 10 applications. You're arguments hold up for most consumers, but that's where it ends.
This is where Microsoft comes in. They have a semi trusted brand (to Jo Sixpack anyway), and enough developers running 'microsoft based solutions' to pull it off.
I agree with everything you've said. The original poster seemed to imply that Microsoft would, by default, have a monopoly in authentication services.
Microsoft *has* gained monopolies in different technology sectors, but they've accompilished this in the past by either bundling it with the OS, pushing it via OEM channels, or provided *some* superior experience by integrating it with another product. However, this doesn't gaurantee success, especially if the technology has very little value to people in the first place.
Each one of these advantages is very difficult for other software companies to duplicate.
What I was suggesting was:
1. Passport has very little value to people, especially compared to a brower, OS, or productivity suite.
2. Microsoft may force one to use passport down the line, but they aren't with.NET. Even though they do force it with other products (MSN Messenger), it's integration will be limited to Internet services.
3. If the Passport model becomes popular, AOL and Yahoo will quickly follow up with thier own implementations.
My Point: The "Microsoft is going monopolize the world via a cheap authentication scheme" theory has too many holes and needs to be overhauled if anybody cares to revisit it, which isn't to say that Microsoft doesn't have a truely ingenious idea for monopolizing the world, that we haven't thought of...
Microsoft is looking for a steady revenue stream, but there are some points you need to address that I think you're ignoring.
1. Microsoft is already implementing licensing schemes, "coercing" people to upgrade.
2. Microsoft would rather have software check registration keys each time it's used via Internet, than remotely hosting software. (IT'S MUCH CHEAPER THAN HOSTING, AND LESS RISKY)
3. Passport hasn't been successful. It's a way for you to log into all your favorite websites with your hotmail account, but it requires that websites take advantage of it. It's not unique, because any website with a competitant programmer could implement thier own Passport.
4. Passport is as integrated with.NET as Jxta (Sun's Peer-to-Peer software) is integrated with Java. Translation: They're not even integrated. You could make you're own passport clone with Perl and Apache if you chose to do so.
From what I understand talking to a friend, there are basically a few ways of doing remote desktops.
Screenshots
This method includes scraping the screen, compressing the bitmap and transferring it across the pipe. (I believe VNC uses this method)
Intercepting Graphics Libraries
This method requires the software intercept calls to the operating system's graphics libraries. Rather than capturing large bitmaps, this method aims to be more efficient by capturing the basic drawing instructions themselves. I believe Citrix uses this method, I could be wrong.
Widgets
Rather than capturing screens or graphics instructions, this method standardizes basic user interface components and thier respective events. When the user click on a button, it sends a message to the server telling it you clicked the button. The server may send the client messages, telling it to hide the button, or give a textbox a new value.
From what I understand, this is how X-Windows works.
Question 1: What sort of method is this guy looking for? Question 2: What method(s) should *WE* be working on? Question 3: Does anybody have any other methods they would like to share?
1..NET is a Java clone with multiple language support.
2. "Web Services" is not software on demand like Java applets, it's a server application that uses SOAP to talk to the client rather than DCOM or CORBA. (Reason for SOAP: Uses port 80 to get through firewalls, making server application accessible throughout internet)
3. Passport is just a lousy password authentication Web Service with additional lousy extras.
What this guys seems to be looking for is a really efficient implementation of XWindows.
I think we're going about this all wrong, why should industry the military and government care that much about SPAM if it isn't a problem for them too?
Maybe we should be sharing the spam with those who have the power to stop it, or those who's voices will be heard.
We should be putting these people's email address on lists which constantly send offers for penis enlargement. So much so that it interferes with thier work and they start asking for people's heads.
How would this make an open source operating system less susceptible to hosting a stealth component, or how would this prevent stealth components from piggy backing during an installation?
I can understand why an open source product may be less susceptible. Heck, Why would anyone even try to add a stealth component to an open source app? Why are you even answering the loosly phrased original question when the answer is obvious?
Before you crap out an idea, maybe you can establish some context as what you're talking about. Try using a first sentence or a snippet from the main article to highlight the points that you are agreeing with, because I can't tell if you're accidentally posting in the wrong thread or if you're opinions are just stupid.
This is one area where open source software can really pull ahead of Microsoft. Provide excellent documentation of the software and the coding as well. That's all folks.
How would this make open source less susceptible to hosting a stealth component, or how would this prevent stealth components from piggy backing during an installation?
It seems that you think this is a security issue that can be solved like MS Outlook holes which allow scripts to propigate email. Unfortunately, all operating systems are susceptible to stealth code sneaking along with trusted software. There's really nothing you can do about it other than legal recourse.
Slashdot Mirror
I worked in the plastic card industry writing firmware for PVC card printers/encoders. Assume 100 DMVs per state (5000 DMVs total), comes to about $63,000 in equipment (biometrics + printer/encoder), and I think I'm being a little generous with the DMVs, especially with states like Delaware.
Consumables (cards, color ribbons) are another thing. (Smartcards are pretty cheap at about or less than $1 a card if memory serves me right)
Listen up people! This guy figured out that corruption is a daily occurance, and I thought that corruption only happened when the news reported it.
Apparently, There's nothing we can do, so we should stop ranting and just get used to it like an impotent 3rd world child worker who has no options.
So let's break it up. There's nothing to see here...
Where in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or even the Declaration of Independence does it say that business is protected against competition or themselves for that matter?
I think you have it backwards, where in the Constitution does it say that congress can't pass laws to protect a business?
Don't delude yourself, The Constitution only protects a handful of rights, the rest are free game for congress to take away.
You *never* had the rights you thought you did...
...and never forget it.
Congress ALREADY gave them the ability to implement DRM (Copy protection) technology and convict anybody who breaks that DRM technology.
This industry hasn't even done a decent job taking advantage of the DMCA, which is PLENTY sufficient and then some.
I'm sure there are a couple of good lawyers/law students who could draft legislation detailing the requirements of a clear summary.
False arrest is ALSO when someone calls the cops and intentional makes false accusations to mislead the cops to arresting you.
He should take them to Judge Mathis. I know there's only a $5000 limit, but Judge Mathis is one sneeky Mofo who knows how to get the truth out of people.
Don't let his Ghetto Justice fool you, Judge Mathis is a brilliant man.
If you want people to listen to you, then you should give them enough credit to provide them with the information and rationale that you used to come to your conclusions rather than just telling us parrots what to repeat.
.2 mW, (Range) 10m, (Spacial Capacity) 1000kbs/m^2
Aside from your first two points (which I more than happy to agree with)
1. UWB does use the spectrum
2. UWB does have a carrier
Can you back up your last couple of assertions?
You go on to tell us that we should be using COFDM or 802.11 instead of UWB. I'm nothing close to an expert, but even I can see that 802.11 and UWB are for different type of applications.
UWB - Very Short Range, Very High Bandwidth (100-500 Mbit/sec up to 30ft)
802.11 - Wireless LAN (10 Mbits/sec up to 300 ft)
Why should I replace UWB with 802.11 when I can use both?
1. What is COFDM?
2. What kind of bandwidth, range can I get out of it?
3. Why isn't the industry pushing COFDM?
4. How expensive is it to integrate COFDM onto a small device, such as a PDA?
5. What's the spacial capacity?
6. How much power does it use?
SPATIAL CAPACITY, a gauge of operational efficiency important when comparing short-range wireless systems, favors UWB technology. Measured in kilobits per second per square meter (kbps/m2), spatial capacity focuses not only on bit rates for data transfer but on bit rates available in the confined spaces defined by short transmission ranges.
SPACIAL CAPICITY SPECS
IEEE 802.11b - (Power) 50 mW, (Range) 100m, (Spacial Capacity) 1kbs/m^2
BLUETOOTH - (Power) 1 mW, (Range) 10m, (Spacial Capacity) 30kbs/m^2
IEEE 802.11a - (Power) 200 mW, (Range) 50m, (Spacial Capacity) 55kbs/m^2
UWB - (Power)
Seriously, UWB emits less radiation than a hair dryer and 1/3000 of a cell phone.
1/3000 of a cell phone.
Ultrawideband communications systems would share the same problem except that they deliberately operate at power levels so low that they emit less average radio energy than hair dryers, electric drills, laptop computers and other common appliances that radiate electromagnetic energy as a by-product. This low-power output means that UWB's range is sharply restricted--to distances of 100 meters or less and usually as little as 10 meters. For well-chosen modulation schemes, interference from UWB transmitters is generally benign because the energy levels of the pulses are simply too low to cause problems.
A typical 200-microwatt UWB transmitter, for example, radiates only one three-thousandth of the average energy emitted by a conventional 600-milliwatt cell phone.
100-500 Mbits/sec can pretty much serve as a wireless bus for most of your components. With that kind of speed, you could physically seperate your (CPU+Memory) (Harddrive) (Monitor)
Not to mention all of the wireless possibilities linking to Home Entertainment system, Car, Access Control Devices, Etc.
Given Intel's goals to make UWB cheap as they're trying to fabricate it on CMOS it would be everywhere where wires used to be.
Avoiding Interference
Think about it: Short-wave radios fabricated on a chip that are capable of 100-500 Mbits/sec.
t ml
1. Your PDA would be your CPU + Memory
2. You could put your harddrive in your coat pocket.
3. When you walk towards a monitor, you could wirelessly dock to it or the neighboring keyboards/mice.
This is actually an old article, but I honestly believe if Intel gets this right, UWB is going to be HUGE.
Here's another article:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-840393.h
386. Ask anyone who tried to play a dos4gw game on their 286.
Protected mode existed on the 286, but Intel didn't provide a way to get out of protected mode (IBM wrote a hack which essentially reset the CPU), hence why no one bother writing a DOS extender for the 286. Borland Pascal was the only development environment take advantage of it (As far as I can remember).
You're right though. The 386 had all the right features and enhancements to make protected mode a REAL option.
Viruses, Spy Software, Trojans, etc.
Every operating system should have a sandbox that looks like the rest of your computer where you run programs you don't trust. When the program tries to install itself perminately or hook itself into a DLL, it will only do it to that particular sandbox.
This sort of protection has been supported by Intel since the 286, why is it we still don't use virtual machines for security purposes?
I always thought Apple did a fine job creating a consumer product which made computers a great tool for most people.
However, I have a problem with your point with applications. Yes, there are over 20,000 applications for the Mac, however 20000 applications isn't that much.
How many applications do you need?
I'm willing to wager that there are thousands of minor industries for whom there is no Mac software available for, let alone any software for the niche solutions for those industries.
It's not so much of how many, but which applications do you need? With a PC, I can probably find 30-50 property management applications which will integrate with a variety of magnetic encoders and printers for platic key cards (Think Hotels, Cruise ships, etc). Having worked in that industry, I can't recall a single app for the Mac that works with plastic key cards. (Not to say there isn't one)
Just because you only need 20,000 applications to choose from, doesn't mean the rest of us are fine with that.
Don't get me wrong, most people don't need more than 10 applications. You're arguments hold up for most consumers, but that's where it ends.
How on earth did this get modded up to a +4 interesting?
1. It's simple
2. 2 people learned something
3. It encouraged more/correct information...
This is where Microsoft comes in. They have a semi trusted brand (to Jo Sixpack anyway), and enough developers running 'microsoft based solutions' to pull it off.
.NET. Even though they do force it with other products (MSN Messenger), it's integration will be limited to Internet services.
I agree with everything you've said. The original poster seemed to imply that Microsoft would, by default, have a monopoly in authentication services.
Microsoft *has* gained monopolies in different technology sectors, but they've accompilished this in the past by either bundling it with the OS, pushing it via OEM channels, or provided *some* superior experience by integrating it with another product. However, this doesn't gaurantee success, especially if the technology has very little value to people in the first place.
Each one of these advantages is very difficult for other software companies to duplicate.
What I was suggesting was:
1. Passport has very little value to people, especially compared to a brower, OS, or productivity suite.
2. Microsoft may force one to use passport down the line, but they aren't with
3. If the Passport model becomes popular, AOL and Yahoo will quickly follow up with thier own implementations.
My Point: The "Microsoft is going monopolize the world via a cheap authentication scheme" theory has too many holes and needs to be overhauled if anybody cares to revisit it, which isn't to say that Microsoft doesn't have a truely ingenious idea for monopolizing the world, that we haven't thought of...
Spend some time mulling that over...
All of that goes without saying...
A Java clone with a lot of extras
Microsoft is looking for a steady revenue stream, but there are some points you need to address that I think you're ignoring.
.NET as Jxta (Sun's Peer-to-Peer software) is integrated with Java. Translation: They're not even integrated. You could make you're own passport clone with Perl and Apache if you chose to do so.
1. Microsoft is already implementing licensing schemes, "coercing" people to upgrade.
2. Microsoft would rather have software check registration keys each time it's used via Internet, than remotely hosting software. (IT'S MUCH CHEAPER THAN HOSTING, AND LESS RISKY)
3. Passport hasn't been successful. It's a way for you to log into all your favorite websites with your hotmail account, but it requires that websites take advantage of it. It's not unique, because any website with a competitant programmer could implement thier own Passport.
4. Passport is as integrated with
From what I understand talking to a friend, there are basically a few ways of doing remote desktops.
Screenshots
This method includes scraping the screen, compressing the bitmap and transferring it across the pipe. (I believe VNC uses this method)
Intercepting Graphics Libraries
This method requires the software intercept calls to the operating system's graphics libraries. Rather than capturing large bitmaps, this method aims to be more efficient by capturing the basic drawing instructions themselves. I believe Citrix uses this method, I could be wrong.
Widgets
Rather than capturing screens or graphics instructions, this method standardizes basic user interface components and thier respective events.
When the user click on a button, it sends a message to the server telling it you clicked the button. The server may send the client messages, telling it to hide the button, or give a textbox a new value.
From what I understand, this is how X-Windows works.
Question 1: What sort of method is this guy looking for?
Question 2: What method(s) should *WE* be working on?
Question 3: Does anybody have any other methods they would like to share?
I've written this over and over again.
.NET is a Java clone with multiple language support.
1.
2. "Web Services" is not software on demand like Java applets, it's a server application that uses SOAP to talk to the client rather than DCOM or CORBA. (Reason for SOAP: Uses port 80 to get through firewalls, making server application accessible throughout internet)
3. Passport is just a lousy password authentication Web Service with additional lousy extras.
What this guys seems to be looking for is a really efficient implementation of XWindows.
Especially if it causes them to lose advertisers who want a cheeper way to reach people.
I think we're going about this all wrong, why should industry the military and government care that much about SPAM if it isn't a problem for them too?
Maybe we should be sharing the spam with those who have the power to stop it, or those who's voices will be heard.
We should be putting these people's email address on lists which constantly send offers for penis enlargement. So much so that it interferes with thier work and they start asking for people's heads.
Let me rephrase... I meant to write
How would this make an open source operating system less susceptible to hosting a stealth component, or how would this prevent stealth components from piggy backing during an installation?
I can understand why an open source product may be less susceptible. Heck, Why would anyone even try to add a stealth component to an open source app? Why are you even answering the loosly phrased original question when the answer is obvious?
Before you crap out an idea, maybe you can establish some context as what you're talking about. Try using a first sentence or a snippet from the main article to highlight the points that you are agreeing with, because I can't tell if you're accidentally posting in the wrong thread or if you're opinions are just stupid.
This is one area where open source software can really pull ahead of Microsoft. Provide excellent documentation of the software and the coding as well. That's all folks.
How would this make open source less susceptible to hosting a stealth component, or how would this prevent stealth components from piggy backing during an installation?
It seems that you think this is a security issue that can be solved like MS Outlook holes which allow scripts to propigate email. Unfortunately, all operating systems are susceptible to stealth code sneaking along with trusted software. There's really nothing you can do about it other than legal recourse.