See, in Linux, I can be logged in all the time as a non-root, non-administrative user. If I need to do some admin type activity, I type "sudo/etc/init.d/someservice restart". Done. For that brief half-second I'm using admin privileges, but that's it. Under Windows there generally isn't a way to do that unless you are fully logged-in as an admin user. Because of this I can conveniently be a non-admin user under Linux, but under Windows it's a huge pain to be a non-admin user
Style and quality, sure. You pay double(?) the price of a GAP garment, and it lasts 10% longer. Sure, it's out of style by then anyhow, so anybody who would buy Prada anyhow has already discarded it, but let's ignore that.
Which is more retarded, $500 shoes or a $500 computer case with neon lights and plexiglass windows? Personally, I think both are dumb, but it's really an individual choice. If you hang around with people that are impressed with $500 shoes, then maybe that $500 is an investment in your social stature. On the other hand, 99% of the world would think you're a moron for wasting money like that. The same case could be made for the computer case.
As for which one is more likely to get you laid -- that depends on your social circle too. If you hang around with shoe fetishists, or shallow people who a) can tell the difference between a $80 shoe and a $500 shoe b) care c) use that as a reason to screw you, then hey, those shoes just might get you laid. Seems unlikely to me, but maybe such people exist. On the other hand, if your glowey computer case encloses a computer, it can get you to wonderful sites like Craig's List, Nerve, and other personals sites where you can chat with other lonely and/or horny people. In that case, my money's on the computer case.
So, if I get this correctly, "Anonymous Coward" is a member of the patent bar, but is concerned enough that someone would somehow think that an informative posting on slashdot is going to be interpreted as accepting the entire Slashdot readership as clients.
To me, this is about as silly as "Warning: Do Not Spray In Eyes" on a can of deodorant.
Bah. I've never signed a stock employment contract yet. Some claimed they owned all the IP I produced, related to the company's work or not, done on my time or theirs. That's simply BS.
The easiest way for them to swallow the fact they need to change it is to say that legally you can't sign that paper. For example, you have an ongoing relationship with a former client and your contract with them says that you're required to patch bugs for them. But you've also agreed to sign over the IP of those patches to the client as well. If you signed the stock agreement your new company would own the IP of those patches too. So you legally can't do it.
If you phrase it that way, they'll see that you're not being unreasonable, and aren't trying to screw them over. They'll probably also see that you know your legal obligations and don't treat them lightly. Because of this, they'll probably be willing to make the change. So when they do make the change, make sure it's not too restrictive and lets you own the IP of any love songs you write to your gerbil on your own time.
This one is "the game that liscensed the Thief title". It's not being produced by the guys at Looking Glass studios, because Looking Glass no longer exists. Don't expect it to have anything to do with the other Thief games.
TiVo can't do that -- it doesn't have access to that information. Even if the signal went through your TiVo it would only have bits -- it wouldn't know the title, or any other incriminating info. If you have to worry about any media device sending info beyond keystrokes it would be your PC, especially if you're running commercial software on MS Windows.
Btw, "your're"? It's bad enough that you use the wrong "there" homonym for "they're broadcasting illegal information". But "your're" instead of "your"? C'mon!!! At least try!
Your rite! Less letter's is better. Who needs 'light' when you can have 'lite'? And who wants 2 type HTTP_REFERRER when you can u's HTTP_REFERER? Heck, why do they even cal it HTTP? That's 2 many T's, it should be HTP_REFERER!
Actually, I have 2 computers with firewire ports but not USB 2.
And I've seen the UI for the iRiver ones. The iPod is far superior, even if you're just counting pixels.
As for dragging and dropping files to it -- it does sound like a hard drive. I personally prefer the way my iPod does it. I plug it in, and it automatically transfers my songs, playlists, and even song ratings over (plus it synchronizes my contacts and calendars as well).
And how's the UI? How well does it integrate with your computer's music management tools? Does it also work as an address book? A hard drive? Does it have Firewire as well?
People don't just buy iPods based on the hardware, they also pay for the industrial design, the UI and the ease with which it integrates with their computer, etc.
Rarely, if ever, have I seen something that rivals (or even approaches) Apple in those areas.
Careful though. If you criticize Bush on either not capturing bin Laden, or on not finding WMD, don't be suprised if, at the opportune moment, those problems are solved, just in time for Bush to be swept into office.
I wouldn't put it past them to hide any WMD discovery, or any capture of Osama until it was politically useful.
The huge deficit, the increase in government spending, and the overall fiscal irresponsibility is another matter though.
My iBook doesn't have a PS/2 port, nor does my PS2, nor does my X-Box. So the MS Natural keyboard works great for my PC but my options are very limited for the other 3.
Besides, the good USB keyboards are also USB hubs, so they provide a convenient set of extra USB ports. I also like not having to be careful not to plug the keyboard into the mouse port.
PS/2 is fine for a standard keyboard on a PC, but I think USB is better in every way.
I'm with you there. I still have one of the original Microsoft Natural keyboards. No silly function keys, sturdy as hell, but (alas) PS/2 interface.
As for the mouse, I dunno, I'm a right-hand mouse user. Maybe it's just the design of the mice, but when I try to use a mouse left-handed... I don't do too well.
Those of us who have to program large programs in C often have the misfortune of having to use complex constant/#define names: FOO_BAR_ENABLE_ON_BOOT, etc. For that, the caps lock key is very, very useful. On the other hand, as and Emacs user, I sure do use Control more than I use caps lock. I'd be fine with moving Ctrl up to where caps lock now sits, but I don't think I'd buy a keyboard without a caps-lock somewhere.
Let's look at the physics. If you're in a room where a flashbang goes off, you not only get the direct light from the flashbang, but light off all the walls, from your entire field of vision. On the other hand, if you're watching through a scope, you only get the light coming through the scope, and that would presumably be dimmed by distance, and filtered through the lenses.
A magnifying glass in the sun can produce a very bright spot because it takes about say 30cm^2 of light and puts it in a 1mm^2 area. A normal scope, on the other hand, can at most take say 5cm^2 of light and reduce it to the size of a pupil, 2-5mm^2. Now if the flashbang went off really close to the scope's lens, it would be worse for the sniper than for someone without a scope at the same distance, however I imagine the closed room is far worse.
Thanks for the links, but I still disagree on them. First of all, they're not exactly impartial sources -- hell, you even referenced
the mothership of RFID fearmongers. The clothing tags they talk about in all the articles are attached to the clothing, but not inconspicuously weaved into them: "an antenna-bearing chip smaller than a grain of rice that's attached to the clothes' labels". It's pretty easy to rip off a label, I do it for comfort pretty often. That's a longshot from one hidden by being weaved into the cloth.
As for the tires -- GREAT! Being able to track tires like that should do wonders for safety. I have doubts that the tags will be readable at any great distance though. Besides, tracking cars is already pretty easy due to things called license plates. All kinds of red light cameras all over the world currently snap pictures of people running red lights, and use the license plate to ID them.
Now Gillette -- they ordered a few hundred million tags -- what makes you think they actually want to put them on the handle, as you claimed? Wouldn't it make more sense to put them on the packaging, so they're easier to track? Besides, Gillette doesn't care about rasors -- they sell rasor blades. In my informed opinion, there's no way they'll fit an RFID tag on the individual blades, the read range would be tiny, and it would be impractical. On the other hand, they might put one on the blade package -- is that really so bad?
Finally, there's the "significant distances" part. Under ideal conditions, you'll be lucky to get a read at more than 8 metres. With a wall in the way, or anything metal, or even metal too nearby, you'll get interference. I'm not saying it's impossible -- heck, there are devices that can see what's on your computer screen through a wall. On the other hand, the ability to do that is a long way off.
Year by year, privacy is changing. In the 1500s most people lived in small towns, where everybody knew everybody's business. On the other hand, you could be pretty sure that if you were inside your house with the doors closed, nobody could see inside. These days, most people enjoy relative anonymity inside their cities, and can buy things over the Internet without anybody knowing what they're doing. But, at the same time, credit cards can track purchases, and lots of electronic surveilance is now possible.
Sometimes when you gain convenience, you lose privacy. If I could get RFID-enabled tires, I'd love it. I could use an RFID reader to make sure that the tires were new from the factory, not refurbished ones from a car that had been in a wreck. Sure, there's some chance that someone might then track my car, but these days it's pretty remote. If it ever became a concern, I'd either change tires often, or buy RFID-tagless tires. When something threatens your privacy, you generally have an alternative. Phone taps? Get encrypted phones. Email snooping? Use PGP/GPG. People reading your computer screen over your shoulder? Get a privacy screen. HTTP cookies bother you? Use Privoxy. I'm sure the same will be true for RFID.
The fight shouldn't be about the availability of RFID tags, and RFID-tagged products, it should be about keeping your options open. It shouldn't be illegal to remove your underwear tags -- if they ever show up. It shouldn't be illegal to get non-RFID-tagged tires.
Anyhow, this is the type of debate I think is useful, where both people are informed, and backing up what they say. (Btw, if you doubt any of the engineering stuff I'm saying I can try to find a way to back it up, but it's out of first-hand knowledge, so I don't have references on hand). I just hate it when people say "RFID is eeeevil because it lets the Government track your Cornflakes!!!"
"If there are individual readers for each one, build a device that incorporates all of them try one at a time until you get an expected result." Sorry, it doesn't work like that. You can't just tape them all together. See, the problem is that they're all emitting and reading RF, and if you have more than one active at a time, you'll get nasty interference. The fact is, it is hard to build a device that does multiple frequencies and protocols.
"But what makes you think anti-collision is even necessary for my argument?" Anti-collision is necessary for any reader on any of the of the protocols you mentioned. Otherwise if you have two tags in the field and your reader tries to read the tags in the field, they'll both try to answer at the same time and interfere with eachother (collide). AC is one of the hard parts of any shared medium communication, be it aloha-net, ethernet or RFID.
Anyhow, you don't have to be an RF engineer to participate in RFID discussions. But if you're completely misinformed about the subject, then you're just spreading FUD, and that's what I object to.
Let's go back to your original post.
"They don't have batteries, which is the only reason for their limited range. They get power directly from the radio waves." Half-true. Some RFID tags are powered or active, some are unpowered or passive.
"They are now weaving them into of clothing, they are inside your tires, and in the handle of your razor." They are not weaving them into clothing. I challenge you to find me one quote where they say they're doing that. I think that rumour may have started when a
Wired article claimed that "Prada already embeds RFID inventory tags into its clothing". But a little research shows that is simply a tag that they put on in one particular store, which is probably removed when it is sold, and it is
very visible to the customer: "Pick up any pair of shoes or handbag or dress and you'll find a clear RFID tag, with the antenna and chip clearly visible." See, it's the antenna that's difficult. Sure, the RFID chip is tiny, but the antennas are pretty big, normally on the order of 10cm by 3cm or so, so weaving it into clothing just wouldn't work. As for tires and rasors, I sincerely doubt that that's the case either -- see, both of those have huge amounts of metal in them which would interfere with RFID reading. But find me a link that proves that's being done and maybe I'll believe you.
"And almost any RFID tag can be read by almost any RFID reader". I hope I've disabused you of this notion. Most RFID tags can only be read with the associated reader. A small subset of RFID tags follow one of the EPC specs, and can be read by different readers, but very few readers are multi-protocol ones.
Now do you see why I was upset? There's really nothing to your original post other than FUD, and I just attacked the most obvious and egregious instance.
There's no problem discussing RFID, but there is with spreading FUD. If you worry about your boss knowing whether you changed your underwear you can certainly say "I worry that in a few years if manufacturers start embedding RFID tags in clothing and not disabling it at checkout, it might be possible for someone like my boss to know if I changed my underwear". See how that's different from:
The concern is that they don't deactivate themselves. And almost any RFID tag can be read by almost any RFID reader. So your boss can start checking how often you change your underwear, and indirectly can track you around the building by the tags in your clothing.
I agree that there is a potential for abuse of RFID technology. If RFID tags ever start being put on or inside consumer goods, it would be good to make sure that they're either removed or deactivated at checkout. There will p
What I meant to say is that the protocols are generally not published. Sure, there are many standards that are published, but your average "Mobil Speedpass", keyless entry pass, garage entry pass, etc. are generally using unpublished, custom protocols with custom readers. Very few people currently use the various ISO standard protocols. (And BTW, EPC isn't a standard, it's a set of standards including Class 0, 1 and 2 among others). The frequencies aren't the issues. Sure, you need radio hardware that does all the frequencies you need to do in a multi-frequency reader, but the vast majority of readers use very simple, protocol-specific analog circuits.
What makes you so sure "it's not so hard to scan a few frequencies and try a few protocols"? Have you ever implemented an anti-collision search for any of those standards you mention? Do you have any idea what the hardware and software requirements of doing a multi-protocol reader are? The protocol is nothing like a simple 'ping-pong', whatever that is. The tough part is the "anti-collision" part. What happens when there are two tags in the field? How do you ensure that only one tag responds so you can read it without RF interference?
You're talking out of your ass. Admit it and either accept that you're scared of technology you don't understand, or learn about it then comment. Until then stop talking about things you don't know about.
"Almost any RFID tag can be read by almost any RFID reader????" You sir, have no clue what you're talking about. As a general rule, tags and readers are made by the same company. The RF protocols used are generally not published, and so it is very rare that a reader from Company A can read a tag from company B.
If you're going to freak out about RFID tags, at least get some of your facts straight.
Not the
bough. It's not a tree. The analogy is to a ship. When
one armed ship wants to warn another ship, a common way to do it is to fire a shot across their bow (the front of the ship). This is a warning that is very difficult to ignore. Firing a warning shot across a large branch of a tree is... well... less effective.
That was my first thought. But, like other posters have mentioned, it looks like the
KDE one and the
XP one as well. The main reason it seems more like the
OS X one to me is that the labels are to the right of the icons and that list can be customized, like it can in OS X. Anyhow, if everybody else is doing it, it must be a good design, so take it and tweak it a wee bit!
Interesting choice of phrase: "Their jobs". Who says the jobs are theirs? The jobs belong to whoever managers decide to give them to. The managers often make shortsighted decisions, sure, but that's life. If your salary requirements, low as they may be, have priced you out of a job... fight it, or accept it and move on. Most of the world either works at jobs they hate, or jobs that barely pay them enough to get by. Geeks were lucky to avoid that for a while, but maybe that time is over. *shrug* Learn new skills, move, live more cheaply, deal with it.
At the time the constitution was written, the "assault weapons of the day" could still only fire a handful of rounds every minute. In a one-on-one or one-on-many confrontation, the guy with the musket would be lucky to kill one person. With today's assault weapons, someone could kill dozens.
Can you really be so sure of the intention of the people who wrote the constitution?
What happens in 100 years when you can buy handheld "super-seekers" that fire 1000 heat-seeking rounds per second. One person with their finger held down could kill a small town in 10 seconds or so. Do you think the people responsible for the 2nd amendment would approve of everybody walking around with one of those?
Human beings make mistakes and have poor judgement. That's just a sad fact, and until that changes, I think it should be difficult for a human to wipe out hundreds more. If someone wants to carry a sword, or nunchakus, or a switchblade, I say let them. Deadly as those are, the damage they do is somewhat limited. If someone wants to carry a musket from the time when the constitution was signed, let them do that too. But if someone wants to walk the streets carrying a fully-automatic machine gun, why the hell should I accept that? My confidence in the ability of the average person to keep a cool head, to keep the safety on, and overall, to keep from going apeshit is pretty low. Just like the law steps all over your freedom to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, it should also step all over your freedom to carry a modern assault weapon. Stick with the assault weapons of the 1700s.
So in your ideal country, McDonalds is covered in blood, and you just have to hope that most of it isn't yours or your family's. In my ideal country the only danger posed by McDonalds is from the food.
Would you call Britain a totalitarian society? It's more free than the US on many levels, and the murder rate is far lower. There are freedoms that make the US great, and there are many freedoms lacking in the US as well. I just don't happen to think that the freedom to buy guns is one of the things that makes it great.
Did you even read that article you linked to? This gun nut had about 5 loaded guns lying around and it was dumb luck that the guy with the sword didn't kill him before he remembered he had one in his pocket.
If anything, that proves my point. First of all, if swords were legal, you'd stand a decent chance of not being killed if someone attacked you. Second of all, having a loaded gun in your pocket doesn't prevent you from being stabbed multiple times by a lunatic.
If the guy had had his own sword, he probably would have fared better. A sword is much more useful than a gun at parrying somebody's attack.
Slashdot Mirror
See, in Linux, I can be logged in all the time as a non-root, non-administrative user. If I need to do some admin type activity, I type "sudo /etc/init.d/someservice restart". Done. For that brief half-second I'm using admin privileges, but that's it. Under Windows there generally isn't a way to do that unless you are fully logged-in as an admin user. Because of this I can conveniently be a non-admin user under Linux, but under Windows it's a huge pain to be a non-admin user
Style and quality, sure. You pay double(?) the price of a GAP garment, and it lasts 10% longer. Sure, it's out of style by then anyhow, so anybody who would buy Prada anyhow has already discarded it, but let's ignore that.
Which is more retarded, $500 shoes or a $500 computer case with neon lights and plexiglass windows? Personally, I think both are dumb, but it's really an individual choice. If you hang around with people that are impressed with $500 shoes, then maybe that $500 is an investment in your social stature. On the other hand, 99% of the world would think you're a moron for wasting money like that. The same case could be made for the computer case.
As for which one is more likely to get you laid -- that depends on your social circle too. If you hang around with shoe fetishists, or shallow people who a) can tell the difference between a $80 shoe and a $500 shoe b) care c) use that as a reason to screw you, then hey, those shoes just might get you laid. Seems unlikely to me, but maybe such people exist. On the other hand, if your glowey computer case encloses a computer, it can get you to wonderful sites like Craig's List, Nerve, and other personals sites where you can chat with other lonely and/or horny people. In that case, my money's on the computer case.
So, if I get this correctly, "Anonymous Coward" is a member of the patent bar, but is concerned enough that someone would somehow think that an informative posting on slashdot is going to be interpreted as accepting the entire Slashdot readership as clients.
To me, this is about as silly as "Warning: Do Not Spray In Eyes" on a can of deodorant.
Bah. I've never signed a stock employment contract yet. Some claimed they owned all the IP I produced, related to the company's work or not, done on my time or theirs. That's simply BS.
The easiest way for them to swallow the fact they need to change it is to say that legally you can't sign that paper. For example, you have an ongoing relationship with a former client and your contract with them says that you're required to patch bugs for them. But you've also agreed to sign over the IP of those patches to the client as well. If you signed the stock agreement your new company would own the IP of those patches too. So you legally can't do it.
If you phrase it that way, they'll see that you're not being unreasonable, and aren't trying to screw them over. They'll probably also see that you know your legal obligations and don't treat them lightly. Because of this, they'll probably be willing to make the change. So when they do make the change, make sure it's not too restrictive and lets you own the IP of any love songs you write to your gerbil on your own time.
I think they mean next summer at the north pole.
This one is "the game that liscensed the Thief title". It's not being produced by the guys at Looking Glass studios, because Looking Glass no longer exists. Don't expect it to have anything to do with the other Thief games.
TiVo can't do that -- it doesn't have access to that information. Even if the signal went through your TiVo it would only have bits -- it wouldn't know the title, or any other incriminating info. If you have to worry about any media device sending info beyond keystrokes it would be your PC, especially if you're running commercial software on MS Windows.
Btw, "your're"? It's bad enough that you use the wrong "there" homonym for "they're broadcasting illegal information". But "your're" instead of "your"? C'mon!!! At least try!
Your rite! Less letter's is better. Who needs 'light' when you can have 'lite'? And who wants 2 type HTTP_REFERRER when you can u's HTTP_REFERER? Heck, why do they even cal it HTTP? That's 2 many T's, it should be HTP_REFERER!
Actually, I have 2 computers with firewire ports but not USB 2.
And I've seen the UI for the iRiver ones. The iPod is far superior, even if you're just counting pixels.
As for dragging and dropping files to it -- it does sound like a hard drive. I personally prefer the way my iPod does it. I plug it in, and it automatically transfers my songs, playlists, and even song ratings over (plus it synchronizes my contacts and calendars as well).
And how's the UI? How well does it integrate with your computer's music management tools? Does it also work as an address book? A hard drive? Does it have Firewire as well?
People don't just buy iPods based on the hardware, they also pay for the industrial design, the UI and the ease with which it integrates with their computer, etc.
Rarely, if ever, have I seen something that rivals (or even approaches) Apple in those areas.
Careful though. If you criticize Bush on either not capturing bin Laden, or on not finding WMD, don't be suprised if, at the opportune moment, those problems are solved, just in time for Bush to be swept into office.
I wouldn't put it past them to hide any WMD discovery, or any capture of Osama until it was politically useful.
The huge deficit, the increase in government spending, and the overall fiscal irresponsibility is another matter though.
My iBook doesn't have a PS/2 port, nor does my PS2, nor does my X-Box. So the MS Natural keyboard works great for my PC but my options are very limited for the other 3.
Besides, the good USB keyboards are also USB hubs, so they provide a convenient set of extra USB ports. I also like not having to be careful not to plug the keyboard into the mouse port.
PS/2 is fine for a standard keyboard on a PC, but I think USB is better in every way.
I'm with you there. I still have one of the original Microsoft Natural keyboards. No silly function keys, sturdy as hell, but (alas) PS/2 interface.
As for the mouse, I dunno, I'm a right-hand mouse user. Maybe it's just the design of the mice, but when I try to use a mouse left-handed... I don't do too well.
Those of us who have to program large programs in C often have the misfortune of having to use complex constant/#define names: FOO_BAR_ENABLE_ON_BOOT, etc. For that, the caps lock key is very, very useful. On the other hand, as and Emacs user, I sure do use Control more than I use caps lock. I'd be fine with moving Ctrl up to where caps lock now sits, but I don't think I'd buy a keyboard without a caps-lock somewhere.
Let's look at the physics. If you're in a room where a flashbang goes off, you not only get the direct light from the flashbang, but light off all the walls, from your entire field of vision. On the other hand, if you're watching through a scope, you only get the light coming through the scope, and that would presumably be dimmed by distance, and filtered through the lenses.
A magnifying glass in the sun can produce a very bright spot because it takes about say 30cm^2 of light and puts it in a 1mm^2 area. A normal scope, on the other hand, can at most take say 5cm^2 of light and reduce it to the size of a pupil, 2-5mm^2. Now if the flashbang went off really close to the scope's lens, it would be worse for the sniper than for someone without a scope at the same distance, however I imagine the closed room is far worse.
Thanks for the links, but I still disagree on them. First of all, they're not exactly impartial sources -- hell, you even referenced the mothership of RFID fearmongers. The clothing tags they talk about in all the articles are attached to the clothing, but not inconspicuously weaved into them: "an antenna-bearing chip smaller than a grain of rice that's attached to the clothes' labels". It's pretty easy to rip off a label, I do it for comfort pretty often. That's a longshot from one hidden by being weaved into the cloth.
As for the tires -- GREAT! Being able to track tires like that should do wonders for safety. I have doubts that the tags will be readable at any great distance though. Besides, tracking cars is already pretty easy due to things called license plates. All kinds of red light cameras all over the world currently snap pictures of people running red lights, and use the license plate to ID them.
Now Gillette -- they ordered a few hundred million tags -- what makes you think they actually want to put them on the handle, as you claimed? Wouldn't it make more sense to put them on the packaging, so they're easier to track? Besides, Gillette doesn't care about rasors -- they sell rasor blades. In my informed opinion, there's no way they'll fit an RFID tag on the individual blades, the read range would be tiny, and it would be impractical. On the other hand, they might put one on the blade package -- is that really so bad?
Finally, there's the "significant distances" part. Under ideal conditions, you'll be lucky to get a read at more than 8 metres. With a wall in the way, or anything metal, or even metal too nearby, you'll get interference. I'm not saying it's impossible -- heck, there are devices that can see what's on your computer screen through a wall. On the other hand, the ability to do that is a long way off.
Year by year, privacy is changing. In the 1500s most people lived in small towns, where everybody knew everybody's business. On the other hand, you could be pretty sure that if you were inside your house with the doors closed, nobody could see inside. These days, most people enjoy relative anonymity inside their cities, and can buy things over the Internet without anybody knowing what they're doing. But, at the same time, credit cards can track purchases, and lots of electronic surveilance is now possible.
Sometimes when you gain convenience, you lose privacy. If I could get RFID-enabled tires, I'd love it. I could use an RFID reader to make sure that the tires were new from the factory, not refurbished ones from a car that had been in a wreck. Sure, there's some chance that someone might then track my car, but these days it's pretty remote. If it ever became a concern, I'd either change tires often, or buy RFID-tagless tires. When something threatens your privacy, you generally have an alternative. Phone taps? Get encrypted phones. Email snooping? Use PGP/GPG. People reading your computer screen over your shoulder? Get a privacy screen. HTTP cookies bother you? Use Privoxy. I'm sure the same will be true for RFID.
The fight shouldn't be about the availability of RFID tags, and RFID-tagged products, it should be about keeping your options open. It shouldn't be illegal to remove your underwear tags -- if they ever show up. It shouldn't be illegal to get non-RFID-tagged tires.
Anyhow, this is the type of debate I think is useful, where both people are informed, and backing up what they say. (Btw, if you doubt any of the engineering stuff I'm saying I can try to find a way to back it up, but it's out of first-hand knowledge, so I don't have references on hand). I just hate it when people say "RFID is eeeevil because it lets the Government track your Cornflakes!!!"
"If there are individual readers for each one, build a device that incorporates all of them try one at a time until you get an expected result." Sorry, it doesn't work like that. You can't just tape them all together. See, the problem is that they're all emitting and reading RF, and if you have more than one active at a time, you'll get nasty interference. The fact is, it is hard to build a device that does multiple frequencies and protocols.
"But what makes you think anti-collision is even necessary for my argument?" Anti-collision is necessary for any reader on any of the of the protocols you mentioned. Otherwise if you have two tags in the field and your reader tries to read the tags in the field, they'll both try to answer at the same time and interfere with eachother (collide). AC is one of the hard parts of any shared medium communication, be it aloha-net, ethernet or RFID.
Anyhow, you don't have to be an RF engineer to participate in RFID discussions. But if you're completely misinformed about the subject, then you're just spreading FUD, and that's what I object to.
Let's go back to your original post.
"They don't have batteries, which is the only reason for their limited range. They get power directly from the radio waves." Half-true. Some RFID tags are powered or active, some are unpowered or passive.
"They are now weaving them into of clothing, they are inside your tires, and in the handle of your razor." They are not weaving them into clothing. I challenge you to find me one quote where they say they're doing that. I think that rumour may have started when a Wired article claimed that "Prada already embeds RFID inventory tags into its clothing". But a little research shows that is simply a tag that they put on in one particular store, which is probably removed when it is sold, and it is very visible to the customer: "Pick up any pair of shoes or handbag or dress and you'll find a clear RFID tag, with the antenna and chip clearly visible." See, it's the antenna that's difficult. Sure, the RFID chip is tiny, but the antennas are pretty big, normally on the order of 10cm by 3cm or so, so weaving it into clothing just wouldn't work. As for tires and rasors, I sincerely doubt that that's the case either -- see, both of those have huge amounts of metal in them which would interfere with RFID reading. But find me a link that proves that's being done and maybe I'll believe you.
"And almost any RFID tag can be read by almost any RFID reader". I hope I've disabused you of this notion. Most RFID tags can only be read with the associated reader. A small subset of RFID tags follow one of the EPC specs, and can be read by different readers, but very few readers are multi-protocol ones.
Now do you see why I was upset? There's really nothing to your original post other than FUD, and I just attacked the most obvious and egregious instance.
There's no problem discussing RFID, but there is with spreading FUD. If you worry about your boss knowing whether you changed your underwear you can certainly say "I worry that in a few years if manufacturers start embedding RFID tags in clothing and not disabling it at checkout, it might be possible for someone like my boss to know if I changed my underwear". See how that's different from:
I agree that there is a potential for abuse of RFID technology. If RFID tags ever start being put on or inside consumer goods, it would be good to make sure that they're either removed or deactivated at checkout. There will p
What I meant to say is that the protocols are generally not published. Sure, there are many standards that are published, but your average "Mobil Speedpass", keyless entry pass, garage entry pass, etc. are generally using unpublished, custom protocols with custom readers. Very few people currently use the various ISO standard protocols. (And BTW, EPC isn't a standard, it's a set of standards including Class 0, 1 and 2 among others). The frequencies aren't the issues. Sure, you need radio hardware that does all the frequencies you need to do in a multi-frequency reader, but the vast majority of readers use very simple, protocol-specific analog circuits.
What makes you so sure "it's not so hard to scan a few frequencies and try a few protocols"? Have you ever implemented an anti-collision search for any of those standards you mention? Do you have any idea what the hardware and software requirements of doing a multi-protocol reader are? The protocol is nothing like a simple 'ping-pong', whatever that is. The tough part is the "anti-collision" part. What happens when there are two tags in the field? How do you ensure that only one tag responds so you can read it without RF interference?
You're talking out of your ass. Admit it and either accept that you're scared of technology you don't understand, or learn about it then comment. Until then stop talking about things you don't know about.
"Almost any RFID tag can be read by almost any RFID reader????" You sir, have no clue what you're talking about. As a general rule, tags and readers are made by the same company. The RF protocols used are generally not published, and so it is very rare that a reader from Company A can read a tag from company B.
If you're going to freak out about RFID tags, at least get some of your facts straight.
Not the bough. It's not a tree. The analogy is to a ship. When one armed ship wants to warn another ship, a common way to do it is to fire a shot across their bow (the front of the ship). This is a warning that is very difficult to ignore. Firing a warning shot across a large branch of a tree is... well... less effective.
That was my first thought. But, like other posters have mentioned, it looks like the KDE one and the XP one as well. The main reason it seems more like the OS X one to me is that the labels are to the right of the icons and that list can be customized, like it can in OS X. Anyhow, if everybody else is doing it, it must be a good design, so take it and tweak it a wee bit!
Interesting choice of phrase: "Their jobs". Who says the jobs are theirs? The jobs belong to whoever managers decide to give them to. The managers often make shortsighted decisions, sure, but that's life. If your salary requirements, low as they may be, have priced you out of a job... fight it, or accept it and move on. Most of the world either works at jobs they hate, or jobs that barely pay them enough to get by. Geeks were lucky to avoid that for a while, but maybe that time is over. *shrug* Learn new skills, move, live more cheaply, deal with it.
At the time the constitution was written, the "assault weapons of the day" could still only fire a handful of rounds every minute. In a one-on-one or one-on-many confrontation, the guy with the musket would be lucky to kill one person. With today's assault weapons, someone could kill dozens.
Can you really be so sure of the intention of the people who wrote the constitution?
What happens in 100 years when you can buy handheld "super-seekers" that fire 1000 heat-seeking rounds per second. One person with their finger held down could kill a small town in 10 seconds or so. Do you think the people responsible for the 2nd amendment would approve of everybody walking around with one of those?
Human beings make mistakes and have poor judgement. That's just a sad fact, and until that changes, I think it should be difficult for a human to wipe out hundreds more. If someone wants to carry a sword, or nunchakus, or a switchblade, I say let them. Deadly as those are, the damage they do is somewhat limited. If someone wants to carry a musket from the time when the constitution was signed, let them do that too. But if someone wants to walk the streets carrying a fully-automatic machine gun, why the hell should I accept that? My confidence in the ability of the average person to keep a cool head, to keep the safety on, and overall, to keep from going apeshit is pretty low. Just like the law steps all over your freedom to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, it should also step all over your freedom to carry a modern assault weapon. Stick with the assault weapons of the 1700s.
So in your ideal country, McDonalds is covered in blood, and you just have to hope that most of it isn't yours or your family's. In my ideal country the only danger posed by McDonalds is from the food.
Would you call Britain a totalitarian society? It's more free than the US on many levels, and the murder rate is far lower. There are freedoms that make the US great, and there are many freedoms lacking in the US as well. I just don't happen to think that the freedom to buy guns is one of the things that makes it great.
Did you even read that article you linked to? This gun nut had about 5 loaded guns lying around and it was dumb luck that the guy with the sword didn't kill him before he remembered he had one in his pocket.
If anything, that proves my point. First of all, if swords were legal, you'd stand a decent chance of not being killed if someone attacked you. Second of all, having a loaded gun in your pocket doesn't prevent you from being stabbed multiple times by a lunatic.
If the guy had had his own sword, he probably would have fared better. A sword is much more useful than a gun at parrying somebody's attack.