"Biometrics is a unique identifier, not a secret" ...
"As a lot of you have heard, authentication/verification systems usually work with something you know (password, pin), something you have (token, smart card, mag card) or something you are (biometric). The best systems use all of the above."
Ok, but here in consumerland biometrics will never take off unless they can replace both the "are" and the "have". There will be resistance to using systems that make purchases more difficult, rather then the reverse. For rather obvious reasons, I really hope that biometrics never becomes something you "have". Given that I really can't see where biometrics will find their niche.
Seems to me the real customers are people like credit card companies, not actual consumers.
Exactly. I don't even use the "membership cards" as I really don't think that 2-3% off is worth (potentially) having someone know what/when/where & in what combinations I buy stuff. Not that I'm some sort of conspiriacy freak, I just think that if someone wants personal info (they already have all the store/chain wide info they can imagine, why pay me for mine?) they'd better be paying me one hell of a lot more then that.
Not only that, but anyone who ever has to duplicate a form, or maintain documents. This kind of stuff, in word, is an awfull (pun intended) lot like trying to write webpages that print well.
I'll remember that when your resume comes in. The ability to make some text look good, despite whatever you seem to have heard, is a rather important component of most people's employability factor.
"No, no... the assumption was that because you read slashdot, you don't read the Washington Post."
Heh - I was actually just in D.C. (never been there before) and bought a copy of the (phone book that calls it's self a) newspaper (of course, never done that either) with that article in it. I still haven't finished the paper, but I rather enjoyed that article in the airport. Nifty.
mmm, that's why I chose this pice of plastic from walmart. It's a sliding plastic drawer and, while you can't see it in my shitty pix, the 'outside' of the drawer has been lined with aluminium mesh fro an old screen door.
No - it would mean that "only those who truly love them", and can afford to, will produce them.
Want to see it from a different POV? Ask an amature athlete about what they go through so you can cheer, for a couple of days, every four years.
Mod me, kick me, whatever, but IP _is_ property, it's just not turning out to be such a great product. The real problem here isn't copyright - it's monopolistic (due to high barrier of market entry) abuse of copyright.
I'm not totally sure what the alternative is but I don't think a publisher should be able to own copyrights. Save, of course, those situations where producer & publisher are one in the same - with special consideration/protection against "work for hire".
Re:Why does /. have to concentrate on this film?
on
LoTR Takes 4 Oscars
·
· Score: 1
Why stop there?
We also have:
ZERO attempt to show the title character as anything but a weack confused lunatic
ZERO attempt to mention of his years of (sort of) working travelling to Europe & his attempts at "world citizenery"
ZERO attempt to show the progress of his recovery as a rational person - one moment he's a raving mad man, the next he's teaching classes
ZERO mention of the fact that one of his son's now suffers from such paranoid delusions
ZERO mention of the fact that he was considered a rather strong, charismatic character who was by turns charming & and a complete (domineering) asshole. A far more complex person then the movie would sugest.
and
NEAR ZERO attempt to mention his long time mistress & her son
NEAR ZERO attempt to mention how important he was
NEAR ZERO attempt to show how much his friends (well, the people who repsected his ability) tried to help him in the early years of his illness.
NEAR ZERO attempt to sugest that he may have been awarded his nobel much earlier (for the same work) is he hadn't been crazy.
in which case, wasn't 3mile island a success? Sure something _could_ have happened, but nothing really did. The safe guards in place were sufficient to avoid disaster, and they've only gotten better. So what exactly is the problem with 3mile island?
Are you kidding?
Html gave "publishers" a standards based (mostly) means of publishing low bandwidth hyperlinked content. Saying that html doesn't "give you anything" would be more like complaining that an index for a non alphabetical encyclopedia didn't "add anything" to the product.
And I'm sorry, but I don't think I've _ever_ seen a good example of flash "prettifying" content without reducing accessability for all users.
"How is it that Piro can rant on what amounts to his personal weblog and people take notice?"
Perhaps because there is a significant audience that appreciate both his manga & his rants as "content". I'm guessing here, I don't read MT, and i prefer my rants alillt emore structured, a little less "rantish".
"First off, he doesn't cover the.com bombs at all! He only covers one specific model of offering a service for free and then turning it pay afterwards"
Hmm, well, let's see if we can't define a few type's of.com's
A)"Companies" with no product
B)"Companies" with useless/worthless products
C)"Companies" with unoriginal products (ie, reworked mailorder)
D)"Companies" who sell other peoples content (ie, searchengines, auction houses etc)
E)"Companies" with nich markets & nearly managable costs
A&B are gone. C got bought out by "brick & mortar" giants. D are just starting to break even, but must be truly massive to even work at all (ie, Ebay & Amazon). Leaving just E as the last surviving member of the "the-intenet-is-going-to-allow-every-small-publish er/market-to-thrive-in-a-global-economy" dream of the early/mid 90's.
Given the above, I think the "was free, but now requires a subscription" model (really the "I guess add revenue just won't cut it" model) covers a fairly large chunk of the.com's still worth worrying about.
"This wasn't a planned business model. It was the result of the necessity to recoup some lost revenue. So right off Piro is dead wrong."
Of course it wasn't planned, but if you cast a critical eye on the whole mess it's pretty clear that a real "planned" business model had nothing to do with it at all. Nobody, really, had a business model worth shit. But just because they were "bad" or "poorly thought out" or "required some tweaking (read, major surgery)" doesn't mean they weren't models. They just sucked ass.
"There is _NOTHING_ worthwhile about this rant by Piro."
No? When a self sufficient (or close) content provider says you really can't charge for a product that (by hook or by crook) is largely traded for non monetary rewards I would think, considering that amount of hate mail Valenti must get, there would be those who think that the rant is rather important after all.
Nothing that makes me THINK or QUESTION about the subject of the.COM failure."
Well, I rather think that's your problem, eh? Nobody around here is interested in "making you think"
Oh, and BTW, I'd rather read someone who's actively creating, rather then one who thought that "disenchanted" was a usefull trademark/logo. Im pretty good at being disenchanted all on my own - I don't need any help. Thank you.
I think you've nearly touched on an important point:
We don't really need systems that are any faster, unless they're orders of magnitude faster.
What we need now (until some bloke figures out something new & spiffy to tax a P10 or an athlon whatever) are systems that are rather more flexible. Right now cost is a pretty significant limit agent, as is reliability.
Come to think of it what we really need are appliances that cost $99, work more reliably then my toaster & can, with minimal fuss & expense relapce my worprocessor, PVR, fax, email station, cd burning station etc.
Re:I'm doubtful
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I tend to agree. I'd like to see something using AI play in a poker game. Can AI ever simulate bluffing? Or analyze the expressions on the other player's faces to determine if perhaps that they are bluffing, and call the bluff? Human intelligence can do thiss, but I'm not sure if something this complex exists now, or ever will.
hmmm.
How good, do you think, would your human intelligence be at figuring, say, a dolphin's bluff? Or some completely alien intelligence? What about a hypothetical being with little or no physical being/experience, like a computer?
Personally, I think you'd fail miserably. I've had the good fortune to come to know a Persian family rather well (over the last 10-ish years). I have immense dificulty knowing when Hooshang is "yanking my chain", simply because my cultural heritage doesn't happen to share a whoe lot with that of a nomadic theocracy.
seems a bit much to expect competancy from the other side of the fence, eh?
Sorry 'bout the late reply.
I just thought it was asking a little too much to expect that a little experience with a file manager would begat experience enough to puzzle out Nedry's, what, 2000000 lines of code in 30 secondf;)
Slashdot Mirror
"Biometrics is a unique identifier, not a secret"
...
"As a lot of you have heard, authentication/verification systems usually work with something you know (password, pin), something you have (token, smart card, mag card) or something you are (biometric). The best systems use all of the above."
Ok, but here in consumerland biometrics will never take off unless they can replace both the "are" and the "have". There will be resistance to using systems that make purchases more difficult, rather then the reverse. For rather obvious reasons, I really hope that biometrics never becomes something you "have". Given that I really can't see where biometrics will find their niche.
Seems to me the real customers are people like credit card companies, not actual consumers.
"a way to get into your identity."
Exactly. I don't even use the "membership cards" as I really don't think that 2-3% off is worth (potentially) having someone know what/when/where & in what combinations I buy stuff. Not that I'm some sort of conspiriacy freak, I just think that if someone wants personal info (they already have all the store/chain wide info they can imagine, why pay me for mine?) they'd better be paying me one hell of a lot more then that.
check : http://progressive.stream.aol.com/wbonline/reloade d_teaser_1_640.mov
mmm, it's comments like that that almost make me wish I had a "send this comment to my congressman" button
Not only that, but anyone who ever has to duplicate a form, or maintain documents. This kind of stuff, in word, is an awfull (pun intended) lot like trying to write webpages that print well.
I'll remember that when your resume comes in. The ability to make some text look good, despite whatever you seem to have heard, is a rather important component of most people's employability factor.
"No, no... the assumption was that because you read slashdot, you don't read the Washington Post."
Heh - I was actually just in D.C. (never been there before) and bought a copy of the (phone book that calls it's self a) newspaper (of course, never done that either) with that article in it. I still haven't finished the paper, but I rather enjoyed that article in the airport. Nifty.
"For years I've been using the THE INTERNET TOP 100 SF/FANTASY LIST [geocities.com] as my reference as to what science fiction I should be reading"
My guess is you won't be using it again until at least june....
mmm, that's why I chose this pice of plastic from walmart. It's a sliding plastic drawer and, while you can't see it in my shitty pix, the 'outside' of the drawer has been lined with aluminium mesh fro an old screen door.
http://fiftyfly.mine.nu/cam/
No - it would mean that "only those who truly love them", and can afford to, will produce them.
Want to see it from a different POV? Ask an amature athlete about what they go through so you can cheer, for a couple of days, every four years.
Mod me, kick me, whatever, but IP _is_ property, it's just not turning out to be such a great product. The real problem here isn't copyright - it's monopolistic (due to high barrier of market entry) abuse of copyright.
I'm not totally sure what the alternative is but I don't think a publisher should be able to own copyrights. Save, of course, those situations where producer & publisher are one in the same - with special consideration/protection against "work for hire".
I'd argue that it was the French revolution that enabled the idea of personal freedom.
Computers, OTOH, have changed nearly everyone's lives (whether they know it or not) regardless of the nature of their opressor^H^H^H^H^H^H government
Switch? naw, _mod_ : http://media.tangent.org/ ;p
We also have:
- ZERO attempt to show the title character as anything but a weack confused lunatic
- ZERO attempt to mention of his years of (sort of) working travelling to Europe & his attempts at "world citizenery"
- ZERO attempt to show the progress of his recovery as a rational person - one moment he's a raving mad man, the next he's teaching classes
- ZERO mention of the fact that one of his son's now suffers from such paranoid delusions
- ZERO mention of the fact that he was considered a rather strong, charismatic character who was by turns charming & and a complete (domineering) asshole. A far more complex person then the movie would sugest.
andin which case, wasn't 3mile island a success? Sure something _could_ have happened, but nothing really did. The safe guards in place were sufficient to avoid disaster, and they've only gotten better. So what exactly is the problem with 3mile island?
What about that, eh?
Html gave "publishers" a standards based (mostly) means of publishing low bandwidth hyperlinked content. Saying that html doesn't "give you anything" would be more like complaining that an index for a non alphabetical encyclopedia didn't "add anything" to the product.
And I'm sorry, but I don't think I've _ever_ seen a good example of flash "prettifying" content without reducing accessability for all users.
Really? One of my stations runs XINE under 'drake 8.1 juuuust fine.
Perhaps because there is a significant audience that appreciate both his manga & his rants as "content". I'm guessing here, I don't read MT, and i prefer my rants alillt emore structured, a little less "rantish".
Hmm, well, let's see if we can't define a few type's of .com's
- A)"Companies" with no product
- B)"Companies" with useless/worthless products
- C)"Companies" with unoriginal products (ie, reworked mailorder)
- D)"Companies" who sell other peoples content (ie, searchengines, auction houses etc)
- E)"Companies" with nich markets & nearly managable costs
A&B are gone. C got bought out by "brick & mortar" giants. D are just starting to break even, but must be truly massive to even work at all (ie, Ebay & Amazon). Leaving just E as the last surviving member of the "the-intenet-is-going-to-allow-every-small-publisGiven the above, I think the "was free, but now requires a subscription" model (really the "I guess add revenue just won't cut it" model) covers a fairly large chunk of the .com's still worth worrying about.
Of course it wasn't planned, but if you cast a critical eye on the whole mess it's pretty clear that a real "planned" business model had nothing to do with it at all. Nobody, really, had a business model worth shit. But just because they were "bad" or "poorly thought out" or "required some tweaking (read, major surgery)" doesn't mean they weren't models. They just sucked ass.
No? When a self sufficient (or close) content provider says you really can't charge for a product that (by hook or by crook) is largely traded for non monetary rewards I would think, considering that amount of hate mail Valenti must get, there would be those who think that the rant is rather important after all.
Well, I rather think that's your problem, eh? Nobody around here is interested in "making you think"
Oh, and BTW, I'd rather read someone who's actively creating, rather then one who thought that "disenchanted" was a usefull trademark/logo. Im pretty good at being disenchanted all on my own - I don't need any help. Thank you.
I think you've nearly touched on an important point:
.
We don't really need systems that are any faster, unless they're orders of magnitude faster
What we need now (until some bloke figures out something new & spiffy to tax a P10 or an athlon whatever) are systems that are rather more flexible. Right now cost is a pretty significant limit agent, as is reliability.
Come to think of it what we really need are appliances that cost $99, work more reliably then my toaster & can, with minimal fuss & expense relapce my worprocessor, PVR, fax, email station, cd burning station etc.
hmmm.
How good, do you think, would your human intelligence be at figuring, say, a dolphin's bluff? Or some completely alien intelligence? What about a hypothetical being with little or no physical being/experience, like a computer?
Personally, I think you'd fail miserably. I've had the good fortune to come to know a Persian family rather well (over the last 10-ish years). I have immense dificulty knowing when Hooshang is "yanking my chain", simply because my cultural heritage doesn't happen to share a whoe lot with that of a nomadic theocracy.
seems a bit much to expect competancy from the other side of the fence, eh?
Correction - aren't they an aluminium film sandwiched in plastic? ;)
Sorry 'bout the late reply. ;)
I just thought it was asking a little too much to expect that a little experience with a file manager would begat experience enough to puzzle out Nedry's, what, 2000000 lines of code in 30 secondf
"But having Timewarner promoting linux would be a GREAT thing."
Heh, maybe then we might be able to avoid horrors like the Jurassic Park line, "It's a Unix system!!..."
I smurf that
May he RIP