It takes real-world practical research to make it "Work Well". The technology is only going to get better and more accurate. Just because it's not perfect today, dosen't mean that putting the system in place is good.. Because Facial recognition -will- get as good as the human eye/brain, if not better.
And even in the hands of the "City of Boston" it's not going to be long until a cop can type in your Social Security Number or DL number or Name, have it bring up your Photo ID picture, and then scan archives of these video recordings, and see where you've been. Forget RFID, this is much more dangerous.
Actually, as was noted before, these are the people who wrote kazaa. They then sold it and the company that bought it, put the spyware in.
I'm not to worried, though. I've been running skype for months, and it's a beautiful program. With their proclaimed "No Spyware/No Spam" statement prominant on the webpage, I dount I'm in for surprises.
One, no matter the EULA, putting in adware or spyware could be prosecutable as false advertising, not to mention the massive PR hit.
Two, They are moving towards a services-based buisness plan. This means that the majority of their income will be made by selling the ability to call regular phones (or from phones to skype users), voice mail, and similiar services. They get the benifit of reputation and branding, as well as the cash from services.
even then, the shock that will stun a healthy adult, could still kill a small child or a middle-aged individual that has a pacemaker or hypertention.
Even people stunned by rubber bullets, pepper spray or tazers, still go to the hospital immediately to get checked out. Imagine a large crowd of people "stunned". The police are still liable for every one of their deaths, and such a large number of people will easially overwhelm a hospital.
You obviously have never watched a single cartoon in your life.
Homework: Go watch the entire Trigun series, followed by at least six hours of Ninja Turtles, and then finally finish up with a good honest helping of He-Man.
Microsoft's issue, as noted above, is the fact that they work really hard to force people to pay for their product, even if they don't use it. And then force those that do, to become more and more dependant on their products through exclusion of third-party options.
Google wants to simply run a script that will place ads based upon keywords found in your email. They have to put that "will not guarentee deletion of your email" in there due to backups and the way their clustering system works.
Google has earned my trust, Microsoft has earned my distrust.
Agreed. But of course, the larger companies is where the cash is. Your average home user would begrudgingly go without (or at least say he is) then pay a large licensing fee. However, large companies would get whole departments covered "just in case".
IBM, Big Blue, batting in Linux's court. This will likely be the case that stands as precedence for or against the GPL, and with such a giant behind Linux, I don't think SCO will win.
If they had a chance, they would have pressed their fist into using the law to compel licensing, instead of sending "invoices" and pressuring companies to provide 'insurance' against their lawsuits.
With the right leverage (such as the kind that IBM has) this could easially compel strong legal backing for the GPL, something it could definately use.
This is only a bit more open version of what many companies have done for years.
Ever notice how Dreamweaver and Photoshop never really came with much anti-piracy measures beyond the basic serial-number?
The idea is self-training specialization. A million people pirate Photoshop, and train themselves in it's use. They then get hired by companies for those skills. the company is then obligated to go with Photoshop because "Everyone knows how to use it". Ka-ching. Instant secured licenses.
Sure, you're not gonna make Cash off of the end-users who can't afford the triple-digit licensing fee, but you have companies who will order a seperate license for Each user on the Graphic Arts team, their laptops, their desktop computers, and a few extra in case they want to hire a few more people.
It's a beautiful business plan that involves the users, sets a standard and guarentees a secured market for -years-, and in the end, makes everyone happy!
The problem is, Verisign -Will- make money. What advertiser isn't gonna scramble to get an ad on the sitefinder page or raise their search listing a couple of points higher.
Here, we have a company that has full control over where people go to when they make a wrong turn and don't go where they were intending. Instead of a Dead-end sign (which they can then choose to use google, yahoo, or any other search engine) they're presented with one in front of them.
The core issue is not weather this will be profitable. It will. But it does so by literally stealing hits for other search engines by excersizing Verisign's control on the.com and.net domains (the most used on the internet).
This is where, no matter the complaining of sysadmins or us geeks, the real issue lies. It just put to waste the millions of advertising dollars Yahoo has spent, and the millions of dollars Google has spent to improve it's search engine.
History has shown that human nature will make Sitefinder work by capitalizing on people's laziness. They'll type in the name of the site they're looking for instead of deciding to go to that other search engine they saw on TV or heard their computer knowladgable friends talk about.
Untill I switched numbers, it got as bad as 10-20 a WEEK. That's 2-3 a day. Usually when I was asleep or eating. Also known as "Prime Time" when most people are likely to be at home. This usually was about the time I finally got home from my job, which is much more involved then yours.
5 mins x 20 = 100 minutes a week (average). 100x52 =5200 mins a year, or 86.6 hours. That's a -lot- of time listening to telemarketing.
It's not your fault my number's on a call list, you are correct. Nor is it mine. And your company may remove my number from your "call" list...
However, your company likely got my number from another company, who's sold it to a dozen other companies in addition to yours. While You may remove it upon request, I really don't enjoy having to sit through a marketing advertisement, then deal with the "Are you Sure you want us to remove your number? You'll be missing out on blah blah offers and special discounts that we offer and future promotions blah blah" that a good amount of companies have their Telemarketing Reps go through.
Yes, you might Lose you highly annoying job of being one of a dozen or more people that harassed myself and others. How selfish of me to not want to be annoied at all hours by marketing calls!
Goodness, you're right, your lucrative job that pays you "more then most of us" (as you so ostentatiouslly put it) in which you call me up offering myself stuff I don't want and pressure me to spend the miniscule amount of cash I may have (since I didn't whore myself out harassing people and actually worked for a living) should be preserved at all cost!
You had to work so exceptionally hard gaining a useful skillset (like the mechanic in your example, who spent years learning about cars and how to fix them) of sitting down and following a script./SARCASAM
I still don't pity you, and you're not doing a good job of convincing me to do so. I still see no reason why I care that you might actually have to develop marketable skills, instead of calling me.
so, just because it's easy for us to get your company to stop calling us, makes it right for you to do so?
How about the other companies that your company sells it's "Do not call" list too? I may have been taken off of your list, but now (as is the same problem with email spam) my number is verified as a working number that has a human behind it.
You chose to become a telemarketer. Frankly, I find no pity for you. You filled out the application, you went into the interview, you sold your soul. Not my problem. You're paid the extra $3.00/hour so instead of flipping burgers, you can sit on your unkilled laborer's rear and harass me. Sorry, but you're deserving of the abuse you get, because of your choice of careers.
Another Problem I've thought about, would be that of identity theft. The less information you have out there, the less people can pretend to be you. With your 'Smart Card' idea, If you were pickpocketed, or lose your wallet, you immediately lose control over every information.
if you're going to control information, you have to reduce, not compress into a chip, the amount of information about you that can be looked up.
The problem is: the Tighter you control information about yourself, the less modern convieniences you have. Technically, you don't have to give your job your social security number. They don't HAVE to hire you. You don't have to give personal information to anyone. Of course, you don't HAVE to have a credit card, bank account, etc.
Personally, I think that one should have the ability to choose weather or not any personal information is able to be viewed and by whom. If I'm Joe Paranoid, I want the ability to turn off all access to any information about me by anyone.
Of course this will be giving up the ability to have credit cards, GPS emergency tracking or driving directions.. But if I'm willing to lose these 'convieniences', It should be my choice..
How can you accurately and with a 100% success rate, judge who's "on the edge" and who is out to break something? I don't know about you, but I went to school, and kids would try everything they could to break the rules for personal gain. If half the kids in school knew how to, they would do exactly as this kid did, with the intent to steal tests. change grades, and the like. As anyone who knows computers (and others know they are talented in this manner)have experienced, people come up and ask- "Hey, can you break into the schools computers? Can you change my grades?"
How are they going to go easy on this kid, when most other kids would see an easy time as a slap on the wrist, an excuse to be smarter and not get caught next time. some kids, you must be hard on, or they don't learn. Others, if you're harsh, they kill themselves. It's hard on the school Administrators.
I can say this from personal experience. I, too, broke past meager security at school, out of curiosity. Not destructivly, Witout any intent of harming one byte of data. And I didn't. No matter how much I expressed that, it didn't stop the school from choosing the strongest course of action. It scared the hell out of me when they took my fingerprints, read me my rights, and dragged my ass into court. Myself and my two friends (whom were also involved) were ordered to pay restitution, and a deferred 30 day jail sentance. All in the name of exploration. I didn't kill myself, and the thought never entered my mind. However, I now know a _lot_ more about the specifics of law and computer crime. I know closer where the boundry lies, and this has helped me in the long run.
Now, I'm an adult, in an IT job, and my experience has given me the direction I needed to focus my abilities and realise one simple fact. "You can Explore without Breaking Laws."
I break into my own network every month, from outside computers, testing my own security. I watch Bugtraq, and apply several of the suggestions to the network I'm employed to keep mantained. I didn't kill myself.
You're Right. The dumbass that I am forgot that magical thing known as formatting. And later examinations suggest that I was being stupid, and it was MODF(My Own Damn Fault) that I was unable to view the webpage. Apologies.
Slashdot Mirror
It takes real-world practical research to make it "Work Well". The technology is only going to get better and more accurate. Just because it's not perfect today, dosen't mean that putting the system in place is good.. Because Facial recognition -will- get as good as the human eye/brain, if not better.
Cameras Have plenty of Tracking Ability
And even in the hands of the "City of Boston" it's not going to be long until a cop can type in your Social Security Number or DL number or Name, have it bring up your Photo ID picture, and then scan archives of these video recordings, and see where you've been. Forget RFID, this is much more dangerous.
Actually, as was noted before, these are the people who wrote kazaa. They then sold it and the company that bought it, put the spyware in.
I'm not to worried, though. I've been running skype for months, and it's a beautiful program. With their proclaimed "No Spyware/No Spam" statement prominant on the webpage, I dount I'm in for surprises.
One, no matter the EULA, putting in adware or spyware could be prosecutable as false advertising, not to mention the massive PR hit.
Two, They are moving towards a services-based buisness plan. This means that the majority of their income will be made by selling the ability to call regular phones (or from phones to skype users), voice mail, and similiar services. They get the benifit of reputation and branding, as well as the cash from services.
even then, the shock that will stun a healthy adult, could still kill a small child or a middle-aged individual that has a pacemaker or hypertention.
Even people stunned by rubber bullets, pepper spray or tazers, still go to the hospital immediately to get checked out. Imagine a large crowd of people "stunned". The police are still liable for every one of their deaths, and such a large number of people will easially overwhelm a hospital.
Darl?
Is that you?
(J/K!)
I don't think it's possible to Character Assainate Strong Bad, or Whugthree.
Who's Whugthree?
You obviously have never watched a single cartoon in your life.
Homework: Go watch the entire Trigun series, followed by at least six hours of Ninja Turtles, and then finally finish up with a good honest helping of He-Man.
I don't use Microsoft Products, actually.
Microsoft's issue, as noted above, is the fact that they work really hard to force people to pay for their product, even if they don't use it. And then force those that do, to become more and more dependant on their products through exclusion of third-party options.
Google wants to simply run a script that will place ads based upon keywords found in your email. They have to put that "will not guarentee deletion of your email" in there due to backups and the way their clustering system works.
Google has earned my trust, Microsoft has earned my distrust.
No, because the "illegal" code is in the Linux kernel. Not in the GNU appplications, or any of the BSD's, etc.
I'll reply to all of these together. You're correct that IBM is doing it for it's own goals.
But when the gestapo is after your rapist, you don't exactly hide him in the closet.
Lesser of the two evils, eh? Might as well root for the one that has the same goal, if not for the same reason.
Agreed. But of course, the larger companies is where the cash is. Your average home user would begrudgingly go without (or at least say he is) then pay a large licensing fee. However, large companies would get whole departments covered "just in case".
Pretty cool, if you think about it.
IBM, Big Blue, batting in Linux's court. This will likely be the case that stands as precedence for or against the GPL, and with such a giant behind Linux, I don't think SCO will win.
If they had a chance, they would have pressed their fist into using the law to compel licensing, instead of sending "invoices" and pressuring companies to provide 'insurance' against their lawsuits.
With the right leverage (such as the kind that IBM has) this could easially compel strong legal backing for the GPL, something it could definately use.
This is only a bit more open version of what many companies have done for years.
Ever notice how Dreamweaver and Photoshop never really came with much anti-piracy measures beyond the basic serial-number?
The idea is self-training specialization. A million people pirate Photoshop, and train themselves in it's use. They then get hired by companies for those skills. the company is then obligated to go with Photoshop because "Everyone knows how to use it". Ka-ching. Instant secured licenses.
Sure, you're not gonna make Cash off of the end-users who can't afford the triple-digit licensing fee, but you have companies who will order a seperate license for Each user on the Graphic Arts team, their laptops, their desktop computers, and a few extra in case they want to hire a few more people.
It's a beautiful business plan that involves the users, sets a standard and guarentees a secured market for -years-, and in the end, makes everyone happy!
The problem is, Verisign -Will- make money. What advertiser isn't gonna scramble to get an ad on the sitefinder page or raise their search listing a couple of points higher.
.com and .net domains (the most used on the internet).
Here, we have a company that has full control over where people go to when they make a wrong turn and don't go where they were intending. Instead of a Dead-end sign (which they can then choose to use google, yahoo, or any other search engine) they're presented with one in front of them.
The core issue is not weather this will be profitable. It will. But it does so by literally stealing hits for other search engines by excersizing Verisign's control on the
This is where, no matter the complaining of sysadmins or us geeks, the real issue lies. It just put to waste the millions of advertising dollars Yahoo has spent, and the millions of dollars Google has spent to improve it's search engine.
History has shown that human nature will make Sitefinder work by capitalizing on people's laziness. They'll type in the name of the site they're looking for instead of deciding to go to that other search engine they saw on TV or heard their computer knowladgable friends talk about.
You're incorrect. It is "They're". That would be a contraction.
Untill I switched numbers, it got as bad as 10-20 a WEEK. That's 2-3 a day. Usually when I was asleep or eating. Also known as "Prime Time" when most people are likely to be at home. This usually was about the time I finally got home from my job, which is much more involved then yours.
/SARCASAM
5 mins x 20 = 100 minutes a week (average).
100x52 =5200 mins a year, or 86.6 hours. That's a -lot- of time listening to telemarketing.
It's not your fault my number's on a call list, you are correct. Nor is it mine. And your company may remove my number from your "call" list...
However, your company likely got my number from another company, who's sold it to a dozen other companies in addition to yours. While You may remove it upon request, I really don't enjoy having to sit through a marketing advertisement, then deal with the "Are you Sure you want us to remove your number? You'll be missing out on blah blah offers and special discounts that we offer and future promotions blah blah" that a good amount of companies have their Telemarketing Reps go through.
Yes, you might Lose you highly annoying job of being one of a dozen or more people that harassed myself and others. How selfish of me to not want to be annoied at all hours by marketing calls!
Goodness, you're right, your lucrative job that pays you "more then most of us" (as you so ostentatiouslly put it) in which you call me up offering myself stuff I don't want and pressure me to spend the miniscule amount of cash I may have (since I didn't whore myself out harassing people and actually worked for a living) should be preserved at all cost!
You had to work so exceptionally hard gaining a useful skillset (like the mechanic in your example, who spent years learning about cars and how to fix them) of sitting down and following a script.
I still don't pity you, and you're not doing a good job of convincing me to do so. I still see no reason why I care that you might actually have to develop marketable skills, instead of calling me.
I see...
so, just because it's easy for us to get your company to stop calling us, makes it right for you to do so?
How about the other companies that your company sells it's "Do not call" list too? I may have been taken off of your list, but now (as is the same problem with email spam) my number is verified as a working number that has a human behind it.
You chose to become a telemarketer. Frankly, I find no pity for you. You filled out the application, you went into the interview, you sold your soul. Not my problem. You're paid the extra $3.00/hour so instead of flipping burgers, you can sit on your unkilled laborer's rear and harass me. Sorry, but you're deserving of the abuse you get, because of your choice of careers.
But don't Pantents have to be defended, or they lose it, specifically to prevent something like this from happening?
weee
Okay! Let's see how he does on the slashdot scale!
Informative = 0
Intersting = 0
Insightful = 0
Troll = -5
Flaimbait = -5
This story would have been modded down so far if it were in the slashdot forums, that None of us would have ever seen it! Now that's "+1, Intersting!"
Oh Hush... ;-}
Another Problem I've thought about, would be that of identity theft. The less information you have out there, the less people can pretend to be you. With your 'Smart Card' idea, If you were pickpocketed, or lose your wallet, you immediately lose control over every information. if you're going to control information, you have to reduce, not compress into a chip, the amount of information about you that can be looked up.
The problem is: the Tighter you control information about yourself, the less modern convieniences you have. Technically, you don't have to give your job your social security number. They don't HAVE to hire you. You don't have to give personal information to anyone. Of course, you don't HAVE to have a credit card, bank account, etc.
Personally, I think that one should have the ability to choose weather or not any personal information is able to be viewed and by whom. If I'm Joe Paranoid, I want the ability to turn off all access to any information about me by anyone.
Of course this will be giving up the ability to have credit cards, GPS emergency tracking or driving directions.. But if I'm willing to lose these 'convieniences', It should be my choice..
How can you accurately and with a 100% success rate, judge who's "on the edge" and who is out to break something? I don't know about you, but I went to school, and kids would try everything they could to break the rules for personal gain. If half the kids in school knew how to, they would do exactly as this kid did, with the intent to steal tests. change grades, and the like. As anyone who knows computers (and others know they are talented in this manner)have experienced, people come up and ask- "Hey, can you break into the schools computers? Can you change my grades?"
How are they going to go easy on this kid, when most other kids would see an easy time as a slap on the wrist, an excuse to be smarter and not get caught next time. some kids, you must be hard on, or they don't learn. Others, if you're harsh, they kill themselves. It's hard on the school Administrators.
I can say this from personal experience. I, too, broke past meager security at school, out of curiosity. Not destructivly, Witout any intent of harming one byte of data. And I didn't. No matter how much I expressed that, it didn't stop the school from choosing the strongest course of action. It scared the hell out of me when they took my fingerprints, read me my rights, and dragged my ass into court. Myself and my two friends (whom were also involved) were ordered to pay restitution, and a deferred 30 day jail sentance. All in the name of exploration. I didn't kill myself, and the thought never entered my mind. However, I now know a _lot_ more about the specifics of law and computer crime. I know closer where the boundry lies, and this has helped me in the long run.
Now, I'm an adult, in an IT job, and my experience has given me the direction I needed to focus my abilities and realise one simple fact. "You can Explore without Breaking Laws." I break into my own network every month, from outside computers, testing my own security. I watch Bugtraq, and apply several of the suggestions to the network I'm employed to keep mantained. I didn't kill myself.
You're Right. The dumbass that I am forgot that magical thing known as formatting. And later examinations suggest that I was being stupid, and it was MODF(My Own Damn Fault) that I was unable to view the webpage. Apologies.