I think there's a little of both going on. Consider that the 'ThinkPad' name has been a part of IBM for many moons indeed. Suddenly shuffling that name off to Lenovo, a name that I doubt anyone outside of laptop manufacturing circles even knew existed, is bound to cause a bit of a dent.
The 'misconception' in this situation is two-part. First, Lenovo has, to the best of my knowledge, been building ThinkPads for IBM for at least the last decade or so. Assuming my understanding is accurate, anyone who's ever bought a ThinkPad has already bought a Lenovo-built system.
The second part is the idea that quality will be lower on Chinese-manufactured products. While this is certainly true in many cases (think cheap hand tools), I don't see it happening here because, again, Lenovo has been building ThinkPads all along. Why would they risk damaging their own market, and possible collateral damage to IBM's rep, by starting to cut corners?
'Brand loyalty' is a tricky thing. Advertising companies know this, and I think IBM and Lenovo are learning that all over again. The bitter truth of the matter is that the US has sold off an awful lot of its manufacturing base to China, and other foreign investors, most definitely including computer hardware.
I may not like this trend, but I cannot deny that I have taken advantage of it many times. The motherboards I've been using for the past decade or so (Tyan, usually) were all manufactured in Chinese factories.
Another example: The surround receiver I just bought (Harman Kardon AV635) was designed in the US, but actually built in China. Used to be that H-K built ALL their amps, tuners, etc. right here in the US.
In short: How, exactly, does one AVOID Chinese-made electronics? There are darn few US-based electronics manufacturers left, and most of those are in specialty or 'niche' markets.
Even if an electronic product is made entirely in the US, by a US company, take a look inside. Chances are really good that you'll find transistors from Japan, capacitors from Korea or China, and plastic parts from Lord only knows where.
It's (unfortunately) unavoidable. The whole thing reminds me a bit of a Monty Python animation which shows a secretary drowning in a rising wave of Chinese.
The best anyone can do is what should always be done: Carefully evaluate multiple brands against your requirements, and pick the best one for the job.
Let me start out by saying that I think the FCC's action is pure bull-cookies, and an indication that they care more about deep-pocketed lobbyists from the DMA than they do about the public interest that they are, allegedly, supposed to serve.
Now, with that said, it is obvious that the government (notably the current excuse for an administration) is going to do whatever they want. That being the case, I feel that anyone who owns or operates a FAX machine has every right to protect against waste of their paper and toner in any way they deem appropriate.
On unpublished numbers being short-sighted: I disagree. Consider: Voice phone numbers are still a primary point of contact for most businesses that I know of, as are E-mail boxes. If you need the FAX number of some business you're trying to correspond with, it's easy enough to simply ask for it. There's no real need I can see for the business in question to simply plaster it all over the place.
Let me also address some other (admittedly valid) counterpoints that have been raised. Let's start with "wardialers" or similar automated telemarketing machinery. It's easy enough to get hold of a generator, better known as a Telezapper, which will help to discourage robotic dialing systems.
Sure, the telemarketing jerks are aware of such devices, but they're still caught between a rock and a hard place where configuring their equipment is concerned. Set up their equipment to ignore the SIT signal, and they run the risk of trashing their database with thousands of numbers that really are disconnected.
To those who get FAX calls even though they have an unpublished number (and there is a big difference between "unlisted" and "unpublished" -- see below): If it's such a chronic problem, explain to the local telco what's happening, and ask for a new number. At least two telcos I've had service from to date (SBC and Qwest) are pretty understanding about such things. The last number change I had to get around a problem like that was done at no charge.
As an aside: An "unlisted" number is one that does not appear in the paper directory, but is available through the online directories and directory-assistance services.
An "unpublished" number does not appear in any public directory, and is between you, the telco, and whoever you give the number to.
Give your FAX number only to those you trust, period. If someone then abuses it, it'll be easier to track down where the abuse stemmed from, and take appropriate action.
There will always be those who will want to see a movie in the commercial theaters. These are most likely folks who have chosen, for whatever reason, not to invest in home theater setups. There's no problem with that at all.
There will also be those who couldn't be paid to set foot into a commercial theater. These are folks who have chosen to go the home-theater route, however much they chose to spend, and who are tired of screaming kids, sticky floors, and inconsiderate boobs who don't seem to know where the 'Off' switch is on their cellphone or pager. There's no problem with this mindset either.
So, with that in mind: Go ahead and do simultaneous release of DVD and in-theater. Let the paying consumer choose what format they want to see the movie in. Even better, get the rental outlets to pick up on it when the DVD hits. That way, if it looks too good to be true (as 'Robots' did to me... Lord, what a dud!), it'll be low-risk to the buying public to find out.
Heck, simultaneous release might even provide motivation for the studios to put out better movies. If they do such a release, and it bombs, the loss will be much greater than if they just did a theatrical release, so the motivation will be "Do a better job!"
...you simply give phony information on the application. The stores I've got the things with don't care, and don't do any sort of identity check prior to issuing the things.
Example: My own card references a PO box in Berkeley, CA that hasn't been used in years, the wrong Zip code for that box, and a name borrowed from one of the pioneers of the Amateur Radio Service.
Granted, the stores may eventually change their rules to get the silly cards, but I'd wager there'll still be ways to 'beat the system' as it were.
The tech industry as a whole (I'm talking not just about IT, but also electronics and, more specifically, electronics engineering and manufacturing) has only itself to blame for what is a very real problem.
As at least one other poster has pointed out, the idea of job stability in the long term (as in staying with, and progressing with, a single company for one's entire career) has gone straight out the window. What companies have forgotten is that many people (myself included) WANT job stability as part of the package.
It's a vicious cycle. Offshore workers in engineering and manufacturing don't pay taxes in the US, they don't send their kids to school in the US, and they don't buy their groceries, homes, TVs, or whatever else they want in the US.
This means a lot fewer tax dollars for the very educational institutions that are supposed to be turning out science and engineering graduates. Fewer graduates means that tech firms feel they have to resort to hiring in India, China, or wherever the talent they need is (and why they don't make use of local engineers and techies who have ALREADY been laid off is a complete mystery to me), which means even more offshore workers, and the cycle continues.
A few months back, Intel CEO Andy Grove wrote an editorial in one of the electronics industry trade journals, moaning and complaining about how our schools need to do a lot better in turning out the engineers that Intel and the rest of the industry need.
The very next day, I read a small sideline article in the business section of the local paper, saying that Intel was opening a new engineering center in India that was going to employ at least a few thousand locals.
Nowhere in these articles did I find any mention that Intel was going to go out and rehire engineering or tech people that it had previously laid off. How many ex-engineers and techies -- very highly skilled ex-engineers and techies -- are working as baristas and grocery-baggers these days?
Whenever I hear the name Andy Grove now, one word consistently comes to mind: Hypocrite.
Know what, though? There's a hidden irony, and it is one that is, one day, going to come back to bite the crap out of the companies that insist on selling themselves and our country's manufacturing base out to offshore interests.
The standard reasoning for going offshore is to save money. There are all kinds of 'official' reasons for doing so, but it usually just comes down to greed on the part of the corporate bigwigs.
When you ship work offshore, you start raising the standard of living in the countries that you're opening branches in. You're giving lots of locals a steady job and income, which raises spending and the tax base. Things in that country start getting more expensive (in other words, inflation creeps in as it does with any functioning economy).
What do you think is going to happen when the standard of living in whatever country gets high enough? It's going to get just as expensive to manufacture offshore as it was ONshore. Any savings that were once gained from offshoring are going to evaporate.
I'm just waiting and watching (from a very stable position in civil service, thankfully) for the whole structure of offshoring and outsourcing to implode under its own weight, and I'm willing to bet that the companies that once embraced the idea won't be able to handle it any better than they handled the dot-bomb meltdown.
...those of us who find HD-anything unwatchable, due to a visual impairment?
I may have normal vision, but my wife does not. She's legally blind, in fact. Most of her center vision is gone, and she depends wholly on what's left in her peripherals. Also, her color sense works differently from someone with normal sight. Yellows appear green to her, as one example, under certain lighting conditions.
We've looked at HDTV's vs. regular sets, and neither one of us were impressed. The HD picture, while noticeably sharper to my sight, had very visible (and annoying) artifacts around the edges of objects.
As for my wife, the increased contrast and sharpness of the image was actually painful for her to look at. In fact, it started a migraine that lasted the rest of that day.
Who is to say that HD-DVD or BluRay will be any improvement?
Now, I will grant that there could have been other reasons why this particular side-by-side demo we looked at didn't work out. The HD set might have been misadjusted, or of questionable quality, or the source material used for the demo may have been compromised in some way.
However, the end result is the same. Unless BOTH of us can see a clear and immediate benefit to "upgrading," one that CLEARLY justifies the increased cost, we're not touching ANY of the HD technology with a 3.048 meter pole (or, for that matter, a 1.2 meter Italian).
We both grew up with regular TV, and VHS, and Laserdiscs (which I still have a whole shelf of), and regular DVDs. Though we're not watching VHS any more, except for the occasional home-movie type of thing, all of the above work perfectly well for us. We're HAPPY with what we have. Better yet, DirecTV has assured us that their receivers will continue to work with analog sets just fine.
The DRM (I think of it as Digital RESTRICTIONS management) is only one more reason for us not to be "early adopters." Once the new systems are "De-CSS'd" to the point where my Fair Use rights are not compromised, then (and ONLY then) will we consider the new format(s), whatever they may turn out to be, as an option.
If the day comes when the studios stop issuing movies on regular DVD, well, we may just stop buying movies if no other viable alternative presents itself.
Here's my challenge to the industry. Come up with something that doesn't give sight-impaired folk a headache, that doesn't require a second mortgage to buy, and that won't try to tell its owner what they can or cannot make backup copies of.
Until then, well... taking a lengthy stroll off a limited-length floating platform comes to mind.
Others have already (accurately) pointed out that you're setting a Herculean task for yourself, and I wish you the best possible fortune in your efforts.
With that said: Something I've noticed by its absence in the 'Computers for Beginners' books that I've looked at is, for lack of a better term, encouraging the reader to excercise common sense (and SPECIFYING what some of those common-sense items consist of), as well as encouraging 'healthy' paranoia.
As one example: Any experienced computer geek knows that it's just Good Common Sense to choose a hard-to-guess password that has nothing to do with a pet's name, a relative's birthdate, or any other easily-guessable info. While many beginners books say to do this, they don't say why in terms that strike home with the reader.
EXPLAIN why! Explain that the world at large (including the Internet) is indeed a place where Bad Things WILL happen to you if you let them and that, contrary to what they may believe, there exist miscreants who are indeed "out to get" anyone that they can in any way that they can.
More specifically: Explain that doing things like picking a tough-to-guess password, enabling security on a wireless access point or router, or not clicking on file attachments on first impulse, is no different from locking your house when you leave or locking your car when it's parked in public areas and you're not going to be in it.
In other words, you should emphasize that properly using a computer and the Internet is simply an extension of taking and accepting FULL RESPONSIBILITY for one's own actions.
This includes taking responsibility for knowing that anything with a power cord on it needs to be plugged in to an active power outlet to work, knowing that power strips don't work when they're plugged into themselves, and that NOTHING works during a power outage (unless you're tied in to a UPS with a battery bank the size of the local Wal-Mart, or a backup generator).
That responsibility is, I think, the most critical lesson that should be taught. It's also going to be the toughest to drive home. Given our current culture, you'd probably have an easier time teaching your readers quantum physics!
I still think there's hope, though, for those who "get it." With that in mind, please try to install at least SOME sense of this in your readers. If they can adjust their mindset along those lines, the rest will come much more easily.
True, perhaps, but I would add that attempting to do so in any case is pretty pointless.
For starters, the RF-based units all have a little indicator labeled 'RFI,' which is driven by a built-in interference detector. If a strong RF field is detected nearby, outside of that specifically produced by the SMD, the indicator will light and tip off the operator that something is definitely suspicious with the target in question.
Where the LIDAR units (the IR laser-based ones) are concerned, they lock on so quickly that by the time the target's detector (if any) is tripped, the speed has already been acquired.
I'd still like to see them re-try the experiment. Just to see what would happen.
Considering that part of my job is repairing and certifying police radar and LIDAR units, I have to ask...
When you did the episode where you were debunking the myth that hanging a CD or something similar from the rear-view mirror would confuse SMDs (Speed Measuring Devices): Did you ever consider (or try) taking the microwave source/horn assembly from a junked radar unit, and mounting it in the car so it was facing forward (through the windshield) and powered up?
Or, alternatively, how about having someone in the passenger seat operating an identical radar unit to the one being used by whoever's measuring the vehicle speed?
With that said, let me add that neither technique would be very effective (if at all) in actually fooling radar units (the receiving unit would probably just interpret the approaching signal as a really strong return echo), but I would like to see you repeat the experiment under such conditions. I'd be curious to know how the SMD reacts.
Gotta hand it to the Redmond Empire. They've come up with some whack-job ideas in times past (anyone remember 'Bob?'), but this one gives new meaning to 'whack-job.' I can't believe that M$ thinks people would actually be dumb enough to fall for this, even if the OS was offered at no cost (which would, most likely, be the counter-factor to get people to try it).
I suppose the ads will feature characters like Clippy and Bonzi Buddy, doing a song-and-dance for each product. Brrr.....
Ah. Thank you. I was unaware that this had started with the ICAO.
That being the case, let me revise my statement: I'm upset that our current administration wanted to ignore the encryption part, but I'm glad that public pressure had the desired effect.
Let me state right up front that, technological and potential privacy issues aside, I don't think this is going to make passports any more secure. I further believe the arrogance shown by the U.S. towards other countries in this matter ("You WILL convert to this same standard if you want your citizens to be able to visit our country") is absolutely typical of our current administration.
In other words, I don't agree with it.
WITH THAT SAID: Allow me to point out a few facts, based on previously-published material and my own knowledge of RFID technology.
First and foremost: What no one seems to have noticed (it may not have been reported in TFA, which I've yet to read) is that the State Department is, reportedly, going to weave their idea of a Faraday Cage right into the covers of the new passports in the form of a metallic-filament weave. Bruce Schneier mentions this on his site already.
This should, in theory, effectively counteract any sort of attempt to read the thing remotely when the passport is closed. If you're really paranoid about it, you can place your passport into an ESD Shielding Bag, available from most electronic component distributors such as Allied Electronics,DigiKey, or Mouser.
On the subject of long-distance remote reading: I doubt very much we're going to see, as one other poster pointed out (paraphrasing), "criminals with laptops and a portable reader under their coat" any time soon. For starters, the return emission from most passive RFID chips of the low and mid-frequency ranges (125-148kHz and 13.56MHz) is very weak. The chip would require a significant amount of close-up RF energy to excite it, and a large antenna and high-quality receiver to pick up the return signal.
Going further along those lines: Remember that RF field strength decreases quickly, as you move away from the source, according to the Inverse Square Law. The main reason that the low and mid-freq chips are only readable up to about 3 feet away is because, in order to have them work from further away, you'd need a transceiver the size of a large HF ham radio setup, and equally large (and obvious) antennas (the lower the frequency, the physically larger the antenna has to be).
For a criminal to effectively read such chips with portable equipment, they'd have to be standing more than close enough to the security folk to attract unwanted attention.
While I have found some references to the State Dept. having been able to read the test passports from 30 feet away with "special equipment," I also recall that this equipment was hardly portable, and required direct connection to AC power to be operable at all. In other words, it needed a lot more power than an easily-portable battery source could provide, and it was hardly what I would call surreptitious. Based on that stated range, I have reason to believe that the DoS was using 915MHz RFID tags for their test. Such tags are, according to this list, very much readable from at least 25 feet away.
I've been unable to locate any references on which specific frequency or type of RFID chip will be used in US passports (anyone else have any references on that?) Despite that, I think it's premature to draw conclusions based solely on the news articles to date. News articles do not, after all, make for a technical white paper.
I would suggest that those who get the new passports, and that have the technical know-how, try to read them with an appropriate RFID reader. Try different distances and angles, see if you can actually read the thing with the cover closed and (if possible) try a variety of d
More seriously... Sure, you don't need Ma Bell... Until you try to dial 911 for a heart attack or some similar nastiness from your VoIP line, and the call ends up in a dispatch center three states over. Seconds really do count in an emergency, and trying to get the call back to the right place is going to eat plenty of them.
And how about that cool VoIP phone? Works great... as long as you have AC power handy. No, much better than the old POTS phones, which were not at all dependent on your local power, and work as long as the central office has its power (and it will... have you ever seen the battery bank for a typical CO? I have. Their generators are no slouch either).
I predict much finger-pointing, harsh words, and saber-rattling will come out of this fracas, and the end result will most likely benefit no one. What a joke...
Roe Roe Roe your OS, Gently Up The Creek, SCSIly SCSIly SCSIly SCSIly, Life is Full of Geeks!
(The preceding silliness is purely fictional. No penguins were harmed in the making of this filk. Any resemblance or references to actual penguins, living or dead, is not my problem).
Slashdot Mirror
I think there's a little of both going on. Consider that the 'ThinkPad' name has been a part of IBM for many moons indeed. Suddenly shuffling that name off to Lenovo, a name that I doubt anyone outside of laptop manufacturing circles even knew existed, is bound to cause a bit of a dent.
The 'misconception' in this situation is two-part. First, Lenovo has, to the best of my knowledge, been building ThinkPads for IBM for at least the last decade or so. Assuming my understanding is accurate, anyone who's ever bought a ThinkPad has already bought a Lenovo-built system.
The second part is the idea that quality will be lower on Chinese-manufactured products. While this is certainly true in many cases (think cheap hand tools), I don't see it happening here because, again, Lenovo has been building ThinkPads all along. Why would they risk damaging their own market, and possible collateral damage to IBM's rep, by starting to cut corners?
'Brand loyalty' is a tricky thing. Advertising companies know this, and I think IBM and Lenovo are learning that all over again. The bitter truth of the matter is that the US has sold off an awful lot of its manufacturing base to China, and other foreign investors, most definitely including computer hardware.
I may not like this trend, but I cannot deny that I have taken advantage of it many times. The motherboards I've been using for the past decade or so (Tyan, usually) were all manufactured in Chinese factories.
Another example: The surround receiver I just bought (Harman Kardon AV635) was designed in the US, but actually built in China. Used to be that H-K built ALL their amps, tuners, etc. right here in the US.
In short: How, exactly, does one AVOID Chinese-made electronics? There are darn few US-based electronics manufacturers left, and most of those are in specialty or 'niche' markets.
Even if an electronic product is made entirely in the US, by a US company, take a look inside. Chances are really good that you'll find transistors from Japan, capacitors from Korea or China, and plastic parts from Lord only knows where.
It's (unfortunately) unavoidable. The whole thing reminds me a bit of a Monty Python animation which shows a secretary drowning in a rising wave of Chinese.
The best anyone can do is what should always be done: Carefully evaluate multiple brands against your requirements, and pick the best one for the job.
Keep the peace(es).
I meant to say 'SIT generator.' I have no idea why Slashdot's system left out the 'SIT' portion.
Let me start out by saying that I think the FCC's action is pure bull-cookies, and an indication that they care more about deep-pocketed lobbyists from the DMA than they do about the public interest that they are, allegedly, supposed to serve.
Now, with that said, it is obvious that the government (notably the current excuse for an administration) is going to do whatever they want. That being the case, I feel that anyone who owns or operates a FAX machine has every right to protect against waste of their paper and toner in any way they deem appropriate.
On unpublished numbers being short-sighted: I disagree. Consider: Voice phone numbers are still a primary point of contact for most businesses that I know of, as are E-mail boxes. If you need the FAX number of some business you're trying to correspond with, it's easy enough to simply ask for it. There's no real need I can see for the business in question to simply plaster it all over the place.
Let me also address some other (admittedly valid) counterpoints that have been raised. Let's start with "wardialers" or similar automated telemarketing machinery. It's easy enough to get hold of a generator, better known as a Telezapper, which will help to discourage robotic dialing systems.
Sure, the telemarketing jerks are aware of such devices, but they're still caught between a rock and a hard place where configuring their equipment is concerned. Set up their equipment to ignore the SIT signal, and they run the risk of trashing their database with thousands of numbers that really are disconnected.
To those who get FAX calls even though they have an unpublished number (and there is a big difference between "unlisted" and "unpublished" -- see below): If it's such a chronic problem, explain to the local telco what's happening, and ask for a new number. At least two telcos I've had service from to date (SBC and Qwest) are pretty understanding about such things. The last number change I had to get around a problem like that was done at no charge.
As an aside: An "unlisted" number is one that does not appear in the paper directory, but is available through the online directories and directory-assistance services.
An "unpublished" number does not appear in any public directory, and is between you, the telco, and whoever you give the number to.
Keep the peace(es).
They'll probably get good directions to the British Institute for Psychoceramics...
"OH NO! NOT THE MAGNET...!!"
;-)
You're not the only one who can pull out good 'Futurama' quotes...
Two words: Unpublished numbers.
Give your FAX number only to those you trust, period. If someone then abuses it, it'll be easier to track down where the abuse stemmed from, and take appropriate action.
I'm for simultaneous release.
There will always be those who will want to see a movie in the commercial theaters. These are most likely folks who have chosen, for whatever reason, not to invest in home theater setups. There's no problem with that at all.
There will also be those who couldn't be paid to set foot into a commercial theater. These are folks who have chosen to go the home-theater route, however much they chose to spend, and who are tired of screaming kids, sticky floors, and inconsiderate boobs who don't seem to know where the 'Off' switch is on their cellphone or pager. There's no problem with this mindset either.
So, with that in mind: Go ahead and do simultaneous release of DVD and in-theater. Let the paying consumer choose what format they want to see the movie in. Even better, get the rental outlets to pick up on it when the DVD hits. That way, if it looks too good to be true (as 'Robots' did to me... Lord, what a dud!), it'll be low-risk to the buying public to find out.
Heck, simultaneous release might even provide motivation for the studios to put out better movies. If they do such a release, and it bombs, the loss will be much greater than if they just did a theatrical release, so the motivation will be "Do a better job!"
Keep the peace(es).
...you simply give phony information on the application. The stores I've got the things with don't care, and don't do any sort of identity check prior to issuing the things.
Example: My own card references a PO box in Berkeley, CA that hasn't been used in years, the wrong Zip code for that box, and a name borrowed from one of the pioneers of the Amateur Radio Service.
Granted, the stores may eventually change their rules to get the silly cards, but I'd wager there'll still be ways to 'beat the system' as it were.
...this project will cause sales of TV B Gone devices to skyrocket.
;-)
Mine works very well, thank you. If my local Safeway pulls this crap, I expect to put the little widget to good use.
What makes you think it's a Wyoming call? ;-)
If you take the time to look it up in the Callbook, or in the FCC records, you will find that I'm based in Washington state.
What was it you found amusing? I'm curious.
The tech industry as a whole (I'm talking not just about IT, but also electronics and, more specifically, electronics engineering and manufacturing) has only itself to blame for what is a very real problem.
As at least one other poster has pointed out, the idea of job stability in the long term (as in staying with, and progressing with, a single company for one's entire career) has gone straight out the window. What companies have forgotten is that many people (myself included) WANT job stability as part of the package.
It's a vicious cycle. Offshore workers in engineering and manufacturing don't pay taxes in the US, they don't send their kids to school in the US, and they don't buy their groceries, homes, TVs, or whatever else they want in the US.
This means a lot fewer tax dollars for the very educational institutions that are supposed to be turning out science and engineering graduates. Fewer graduates means that tech firms feel they have to resort to hiring in India, China, or wherever the talent they need is (and why they don't make use of local engineers and techies who have ALREADY been laid off is a complete mystery to me), which means even more offshore workers, and the cycle continues.
A few months back, Intel CEO Andy Grove wrote an editorial in one of the electronics industry trade journals, moaning and complaining about how our schools need to do a lot better in turning out the engineers that Intel and the rest of the industry need.
The very next day, I read a small sideline article in the business section of the local paper, saying that Intel was opening a new engineering center in India that was going to employ at least a few thousand locals.
Nowhere in these articles did I find any mention that Intel was going to go out and rehire engineering or tech people that it had previously laid off. How many ex-engineers and techies -- very highly skilled ex-engineers and techies -- are working as baristas and grocery-baggers these days?
Whenever I hear the name Andy Grove now, one word consistently comes to mind: Hypocrite.
Know what, though? There's a hidden irony, and it is one that is, one day, going to come back to bite the crap out of the companies that insist on selling themselves and our country's manufacturing base out to offshore interests.
The standard reasoning for going offshore is to save money. There are all kinds of 'official' reasons for doing so, but it usually just comes down to greed on the part of the corporate bigwigs.
When you ship work offshore, you start raising the standard of living in the countries that you're opening branches in. You're giving lots of locals a steady job and income, which raises spending and the tax base. Things in that country start getting more expensive (in other words, inflation creeps in as it does with any functioning economy).
What do you think is going to happen when the standard of living in whatever country gets high enough? It's going to get just as expensive to manufacture offshore as it was ONshore. Any savings that were once gained from offshoring are going to evaporate.
I'm just waiting and watching (from a very stable position in civil service, thankfully) for the whole structure of offshoring and outsourcing to implode under its own weight, and I'm willing to bet that the companies that once embraced the idea won't be able to handle it any better than they handled the dot-bomb meltdown.
Break out the popcorn...
...those of us who find HD-anything unwatchable, due to a visual impairment?
I may have normal vision, but my wife does not. She's legally blind, in fact. Most of her center vision is gone, and she depends wholly on what's left in her peripherals. Also, her color sense works differently from someone with normal sight. Yellows appear green to her, as one example, under certain lighting conditions.
We've looked at HDTV's vs. regular sets, and neither one of us were impressed. The HD picture, while noticeably sharper to my sight, had very visible (and annoying) artifacts around the edges of objects.
As for my wife, the increased contrast and sharpness of the image was actually painful for her to look at. In fact, it started a migraine that lasted the rest of that day.
Who is to say that HD-DVD or BluRay will be any improvement?
Now, I will grant that there could have been other reasons why this particular side-by-side demo we looked at didn't work out. The HD set might have been misadjusted, or of questionable quality, or the source material used for the demo may have been compromised in some way.
However, the end result is the same. Unless BOTH of us can see a clear and immediate benefit to "upgrading," one that CLEARLY justifies the increased cost, we're not touching ANY of the HD technology with a 3.048 meter pole (or, for that matter, a 1.2 meter Italian).
We both grew up with regular TV, and VHS, and Laserdiscs (which I still have a whole shelf of), and regular DVDs. Though we're not watching VHS any more, except for the occasional home-movie type of thing, all of the above work perfectly well for us. We're HAPPY with what we have. Better yet, DirecTV has assured us that their receivers will continue to work with analog sets just fine.
The DRM (I think of it as Digital RESTRICTIONS management) is only one more reason for us not to be "early adopters." Once the new systems are "De-CSS'd" to the point where my Fair Use rights are not compromised, then (and ONLY then) will we consider the new format(s), whatever they may turn out to be, as an option.
If the day comes when the studios stop issuing movies on regular DVD, well, we may just stop buying movies if no other viable alternative presents itself.
Here's my challenge to the industry. Come up with something that doesn't give sight-impaired folk a headache, that doesn't require a second mortgage to buy, and that won't try to tell its owner what they can or cannot make backup copies of.
Until then, well... taking a lengthy stroll off a limited-length floating platform comes to mind.
Others have already (accurately) pointed out that you're setting a Herculean task for yourself, and I wish you the best possible fortune in your efforts.
With that said: Something I've noticed by its absence in the 'Computers for Beginners' books that I've looked at is, for lack of a better term, encouraging the reader to excercise common sense (and SPECIFYING what some of those common-sense items consist of), as well as encouraging 'healthy' paranoia.
As one example: Any experienced computer geek knows that it's just Good Common Sense to choose a hard-to-guess password that has nothing to do with a pet's name, a relative's birthdate, or any other easily-guessable info. While many beginners books say to do this, they don't say why in terms that strike home with the reader.
EXPLAIN why! Explain that the world at large (including the Internet) is indeed a place where Bad Things WILL happen to you if you let them and that, contrary to what they may believe, there exist miscreants who are indeed "out to get" anyone that they can in any way that they can.
More specifically: Explain that doing things like picking a tough-to-guess password, enabling security on a wireless access point or router, or not clicking on file attachments on first impulse, is no different from locking your house when you leave or locking your car when it's parked in public areas and you're not going to be in it.
In other words, you should emphasize that properly using a computer and the Internet is simply an extension of taking and accepting FULL RESPONSIBILITY for one's own actions.
This includes taking responsibility for knowing that anything with a power cord on it needs to be plugged in to an active power outlet to work, knowing that power strips don't work when they're plugged into themselves, and that NOTHING works during a power outage (unless you're tied in to a UPS with a battery bank the size of the local Wal-Mart, or a backup generator).
That responsibility is, I think, the most critical lesson that should be taught. It's also going to be the toughest to drive home. Given our current culture, you'd probably have an easier time teaching your readers quantum physics!
I still think there's hope, though, for those who "get it." With that in mind, please try to install at least SOME sense of this in your readers. If they can adjust their mindset along those lines, the rest will come much more easily.
Happy typing.
True, perhaps, but I would add that attempting to do so in any case is pretty pointless.
For starters, the RF-based units all have a little indicator labeled 'RFI,' which is driven by a built-in interference detector. If a strong RF field is detected nearby, outside of that specifically produced by the SMD, the indicator will light and tip off the operator that something is definitely suspicious with the target in question.
Where the LIDAR units (the IR laser-based ones) are concerned, they lock on so quickly that by the time the target's detector (if any) is tripped, the speed has already been acquired.
I'd still like to see them re-try the experiment. Just to see what would happen.
Keep the peace(es).
Considering that part of my job is repairing and certifying police radar and LIDAR units, I have to ask...
When you did the episode where you were debunking the myth that hanging a CD or something similar from the rear-view mirror would confuse SMDs (Speed Measuring Devices): Did you ever consider (or try) taking the microwave source/horn assembly from a junked radar unit, and mounting it in the car so it was facing forward (through the windshield) and powered up?
Or, alternatively, how about having someone in the passenger seat operating an identical radar unit to the one being used by whoever's measuring the vehicle speed?
With that said, let me add that neither technique would be very effective (if at all) in actually fooling radar units (the receiving unit would probably just interpret the approaching signal as a really strong return echo), but I would like to see you repeat the experiment under such conditions. I'd be curious to know how the SMD reacts.
Thanks much.
...no matter how "targeted" it is.
Gotta hand it to the Redmond Empire. They've come up with some whack-job ideas in times past (anyone remember 'Bob?'), but this one gives new meaning to 'whack-job.' I can't believe that M$ thinks people would actually be dumb enough to fall for this, even if the OS was offered at no cost (which would, most likely, be the counter-factor to get people to try it).
I suppose the ads will feature characters like Clippy and Bonzi Buddy, doing a song-and-dance for each product. Brrr.....
"Independent study" is an oxymoron if Microsoft funded, or otherwise is affiliated with, the company that generated the report.
This is nothing more than sabre-rattling by the Redmond Empire (yet again, I would add).
...He starts asking questions about something called the 'Genesis Device,' or some twerp named 'Kirk?'
RUN....!
Let me put it this way. Think of the saying "Too many cooks spoil the broth."
I've already entered a gripe about this in my journal. Yes, it's a minor quibble, but is a little consistency too much to ask?
I submitted this exact same story yesterday.
/. is practicing a double-standard.
It was rejected.
Interesting that it's newsworthy all of a sudden, though I have to wonder why
Go ahead and mod this down if you want. I couldn't care less.
Ah. Thank you. I was unaware that this had started with the ICAO.
That being the case, let me revise my statement: I'm upset that our current administration wanted to ignore the encryption part, but I'm glad that public pressure had the desired effect.
Keep the peace(es).
Let me state right up front that, technological and potential privacy issues aside, I don't think this is going to make passports any more secure. I further believe the arrogance shown by the U.S. towards other countries in this matter ("You WILL convert to this same standard if you want your citizens to be able to visit our country") is absolutely typical of our current administration.
In other words, I don't agree with it.
WITH THAT SAID: Allow me to point out a few facts, based on previously-published material and my own knowledge of RFID technology.
First and foremost: What no one seems to have noticed (it may not have been reported in TFA, which I've yet to read) is that the State Department is, reportedly, going to weave their idea of a Faraday Cage right into the covers of the new passports in the form of a metallic-filament weave. Bruce Schneier mentions this on his site already.
This should, in theory, effectively counteract any sort of attempt to read the thing remotely when the passport is closed. If you're really paranoid about it, you can place your passport into an ESD Shielding Bag, available from most electronic component distributors such as Allied Electronics, DigiKey, or Mouser.
On the subject of long-distance remote reading: I doubt very much we're going to see, as one other poster pointed out (paraphrasing), "criminals with laptops and a portable reader under their coat" any time soon. For starters, the return emission from most passive RFID chips of the low and mid-frequency ranges (125-148kHz and 13.56MHz) is very weak. The chip would require a significant amount of close-up RF energy to excite it, and a large antenna and high-quality receiver to pick up the return signal.
Going further along those lines: Remember that RF field strength decreases quickly, as you move away from the source, according to the Inverse Square Law. The main reason that the low and mid-freq chips are only readable up to about 3 feet away is because, in order to have them work from further away, you'd need a transceiver the size of a large HF ham radio setup, and equally large (and obvious) antennas (the lower the frequency, the physically larger the antenna has to be).
For a criminal to effectively read such chips with portable equipment, they'd have to be standing more than close enough to the security folk to attract unwanted attention.
While I have found some references to the State Dept. having been able to read the test passports from 30 feet away with "special equipment," I also recall that this equipment was hardly portable, and required direct connection to AC power to be operable at all. In other words, it needed a lot more power than an easily-portable battery source could provide, and it was hardly what I would call surreptitious. Based on that stated range, I have reason to believe that the DoS was using 915MHz RFID tags for their test. Such tags are, according to this list, very much readable from at least 25 feet away.
I've been unable to locate any references on which specific frequency or type of RFID chip will be used in US passports (anyone else have any references on that?) Despite that, I think it's premature to draw conclusions based solely on the news articles to date. News articles do not, after all, make for a technical white paper.
I would suggest that those who get the new passports, and that have the technical know-how, try to read them with an appropriate RFID reader. Try different distances and angles, see if you can actually read the thing with the cover closed and (if possible) try a variety of d
And what color would this 'dye' be? ;-)
More seriously... Sure, you don't need Ma Bell... Until you try to dial 911 for a heart attack or some similar nastiness from your VoIP line, and the call ends up in a dispatch center three states over. Seconds really do count in an emergency, and trying to get the call back to the right place is going to eat plenty of them.
And how about that cool VoIP phone? Works great... as long as you have AC power handy. No, much better than the old POTS phones, which were not at all dependent on your local power, and work as long as the central office has its power (and it will... have you ever seen the battery bank for a typical CO? I have. Their generators are no slouch either).
I predict much finger-pointing, harsh words, and saber-rattling will come out of this fracas, and the end result will most likely benefit no one. What a joke...
Oh, so THAT's why my daily spam load suddenly dropped by about 35% or so...
Roe Roe Roe your OS,
Gently Up The Creek,
SCSIly SCSIly SCSIly SCSIly,
Life is Full of Geeks!
(The preceding silliness is purely fictional. No penguins were harmed in the making of this filk. Any resemblance or references to actual penguins, living or dead, is not my problem).