This is an age-old question, and one that will never be answered, I'm afraid. Is it better to give up privacy rights for the sake of better communication and collaboration between law enforcement agencies? How is this different than local police creating their own database of case files? What does it mean to have the right to privacy? These are questions that have never fully been answered, I'm afraid. The first problem is that the US Constitution currently does not , and yet it's the one right that we constantly want protected.
The other problem is that, even if the Constitution guaranteed the right to privacy, it would only guarantee that right to it's citizens. If someone chooses to break the laws governing the citizenry, they are then rejecting the citizenry. Does that mean that they are no longer citizens? Socrates felt so, as outlined in Plato's The Apology of Socrates. But is that so? Has that been determined? I am unaware of any court case or legislation that guarantees the citizenship of convicted criminals, nor of any that revokes their citizenship.
I think the first thing that needs to be done with regards to privacy concerns is to amend the constitution to allow for the right to privacy. Once this is complete, then the privacy advocates will have a platform on which to base their objections that is rooted within the Constitution. From there, other concerns can be addressed, such as the citizenship status of convicted criminals.
That being said, I support any collaboration between law enforcement agencies in protecting the citizenry, and do not see any abuses that have not already been in place since Government has been in place. The question is, are there any statistical evidence to support the collaboration in the apprehension and conviction of law breakers vs. the eventual mistakes and abuses that are feared?
This is great news, and something that I wish a lot of companies would implement as well. What's really interesting is the comparison. I'm looking forward to the results, and see which vendor is chosen.
Of course, this brings up another question: Just how much is this going to cost the taxpayer? Granted, it should be spent regardless as government information about private citizens (i.e., social security numbers) should be protected at all costs, but if the final cost structure is less than many companies estimate, it could mean an implementation of this same scale across the business world. Imagine, no more calls or letters from your bank/credit union that your financial information and social security number has been stolen.
It's a really nice design, but how does it function? Their website (www.lumus-optical.com) doesn't specify beyond potential application. Does it allow you to clip onto existing glasses, or do you have to use their display as well? It has a clean display in comparison to the My Vu specs (www.myvu.com), but there doesn't seem to be a lot more to it. Does it have built in audio, does it have a bulky adapter/controller? I for one would like to see more information on the website.
Assuming these questions are answered to my satisfaction, I'd be happy to look into it in conjunction with a decent video playing PDA/cell phone. Integrate the bluetooth keyboard, and you have a real mobile computer.
This is very interesting, but it doesn't explain what is being filtered, and how it is being filtered. Assuming the signals that are being filtered are radio waves, that would indicate that the processor would need to be powerful enough to catch the weak waves (as indicated in the article), while still providing enough power to filter out the noise.
I trust the astronomists already know how to do this, but it would be interesting to see what the process would be.
Then it brings up the other question: What else can this processor be used for? If it needs to be produced in the millions to make it financially viable, where else will it be sold?
Perhaps it could be used to filter out wireless microwave radio signals, allowing for better reception in a cell phone, security within a wireless network through filtering, and elsewhere. Imagine having a hard-coded chip that will filter out background wireless "noise" and look for a specific signal from a wireless signal. Assuming it couldn't be easily hacked, it could potentially provide some excellent security to wireless networks.
This is interesting, considering the Leopard release of iCalendar Server for OS X Server v. 10.5. Granted it talks about.mac integration now, but as long as it can sync with other iCalendar software (iCal Server, Google Calendar, Yahoo Calendar, etc.), the product becomes that much more impressive. That alone will be good news for current Mac users that want to have direct calendar updates without the hassle of syncing their calendar.
The other thing I liked was the mention of iChat Video Conferencing from the handset to a PC. That's something I have wanted with the Pocket PC for ages, and even various video phones. They have a camera, why couldn't they do video conferencing? With 3G wireless networks and phones that can take advantage of it, the technology is finally in place. That would make the iPhone worth it for me alone.
I had been trying to get cell-phone free for the past two years, and it looks like Apple is going to make that harder for me with this release.
The article had an excellent point - this will dramatically influence space exploration plans for extended stays on the moon. But how much does it impact it? 25% of the current lunar bombardment is still a bombardment. How had NASA and other space agencies planned to protect the Astronauts?
This means the increase in bombardment rate doesn't present a new issue, it just compounds the issue by four. What has been be the best suggestion to protect against bombardment, and how is it effected by this increase in frequency? Would it be an underground base, powerful and well-placed magnetic fields, or a domed location with a shell dense enough to withstand the impacts? That's the one question that isn't answered by the article.
I would be interested to hear from NASA on the proposed methods of protecting the base and it's occupants from these "little rocks".
In answer to question two, it could easily have been too expensive financially for the average Egyptian to use concrete, when brick making was so simple. It could easily have been an economic problem.
Keep in mind that the Egyptian culture made the Pharoh the owner of everything, including all resources. Those resources were distributed to the common folk to satisfy their needs. If buildings needed to be built, most likely they were built as inexpensively as possible.
Granted, this argument relies on one of two points:
1. The ingredients for concrete were more scarce than the ingredients for mud bricks.
2. The process for combining concrete was more labor intensive than creating bricks.
Good question. The answer to that would be the lack of reinforced concrete. Concrete is a very durable material, but designed to only withstand compression. Because of it's makeup, it's not as durable as stone unless it's been reinforced by something that can handle the tension required to keep it together (like steel rods).
Think of bricks. Yes, you can build a brick out of mud or clay, and it will work find on it's own. But in order to use it to build structures that were strong, they needed to include a material that can handle tension. Hence the ancient world would use straw. The plant fibers would provide enough strength in tension to build brick buildings.
But what of other concrete structures you may ask? True, the Romans did build a number of concrete structures that were quite large (note the Pantheon), but they used varying types of concrete with different density levels. This allowed for better construction. But even then, the foundation needed to be stone.
Advertising within a game has been a great money-maker for gaming publishers for a while now, and I can understand why they would want to have this data. If they are going to spend money on the ad, they want to make sure it generates revenue. But I like the development of Bunnyfoot in another way: It ultimately gives the power to the gamers to decide where and when the ads will show up.
Imagine if the gaming community had collectively decided to ignore the ads throughout the games, which was then recorded with Bunnyfoot's technology. Or, even better, they chose to react negatively to each ad. Perhaps the in-game advertisement industry will suffer and dwindle.
Granted, it would require a level of concentration that most would rather devote to the game, and would then ruin the game-play experience. This would then lead to a short-term frustration to the gamer, who may decide to just move on with the game and accept the ads as they come up. But imagine if they refused to enjoy the game? The gaming company would lose market share on a failed game, which would prompt them to find out why. If they find that it's because of in-game ads, then the next game will have less.
In order for this to work, it would take a lot of education of gamers, and a coordination of effort. Can the gaming community organize themselves to the point that gaming companies will start rethinking in-game ads? And perhaps the better question is, do they really want to?
Many others have commented on this already, but this announcement shouldn't be a problem, and for two reasons: The tags come off, and they are only monitoring what is being sold, not what is coming in the shop.
Because the tags are not embedded, it's not a lasting concern. Remove the tags, you are wearing any other garment. I fail to see the worry with this implementation.
And, because the monitoring is simply for automated stock taking, there is no ulterior motive. Anyone that has worked in the Retail business has either experienced stock taking, or has had to make the hard decision of which product to stock for potential buyers. For Brick and Mortar stores, it is essential to keep the overhead to a minimum. This allows the shop to do so with technology.
But the real question is, will this be the final step? How long will it be before someone does start embedding RFID tags into clothing? It would definitely make it easier to track clothing from the factory to the consumer. Clothing manufacturers may want to do that to find out which part of their global marketplace needs to be targeted the most. An innocent enough reason, and unless it's tied to a record of the purchase, it's still not tied to you.. yet. But then Social Security cards were initially just to track who was eligible for Social Security benefits, and not to track your credit history.
So while this is a great idea for stock taking, it's a good idea to decide where the line should be drawn, and make sure that line is not crossed.
The article is great, because it does outline the major problem facing permanent settlement on the Moon: radiation. But there are some other necessities that need to be addressed, like reinforcing of the magnetic field during solar flares, the crater's proximity to other elements for the production of power and water, and the need for solar power.
While it's a great start, it doesn't answer all the questions, which leaves scientists and future lunar explorers with a great question: Do they build up a complex network of sites, or continue to try to find the ideal spot?
With increasing pressure from other countries to get to the Moon first, as well as additional programs to settle the moon as a research outpost, the pressure is on. So while this is a great find, and will augment any magnetic solution that mankind could come up with, it's only part of the puzzle. That being said, it is an important part of the puzzle.
I don't remember reading anything about terrorism in the article (unless you consider Malcolm X a terrorist). I think Fanatic fits the bill better.
It's not surprising that Mac is the platform of choice in this movie.. most serious independent film makers use the Mac platform, and it does have a near-religious fervor around it (having worked in a shop at a community college where the boss was a fervent Mac supporter). Mac just does better than any Intel platform I know of for video compression, editing, and rendering. Just like Linux is ideal for server-based apps, and Windows is ideal for crashing your box (^_^). It's nice to know that there is someone out there that can find the funny side of the fanaticism.
You obviously didn't read any of the articles. Perhaps if you had gone beyond the title, you would have seen the points of view that Forbes was trying to show. They are gearing to a financial market that has little to no experience with Linux, except for "scare stories" that have been published about the "Linux Cult".
Because the article is directed to those with the preconception of Linux as a "Cult OS" (like Cult Classic movies), it first attracts their attention addressing this misconception, and then corrects it with the following articles about Linux, both pros and cons.
Frankly, this is classic journalism at it's finest.
What did MSNBC say again?
on
Forbes on Linux
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This is a far cry from what MSNBC reported not too long ago about Linux failing as an OS. It's nice to see a *credible* news source fill in an objective series of articles, and not just print anything that Redmond dictates.
It is about time that programmers realize that embedded systems are not desktops. Hard drives are not an option with these things.
More attention needs to be placed not only on making smaller programs perform better, but getting the program to perform closer to the hardware specs. This is what programming used to do with Assembler.
Don't you think that everyone is being just a bit too paranoid? If anything, stronger encryption should be sought after by the goverment, instead of banning it or requiring back doors. You would think that it would be obvious to anyone that opening back doors in anything can do more harm than good (I wouldn't want a back door in encrypted tax information being sent, that is for sure!).
Also, I don't think that encryption development can be banned totally. The US relies on encryption too heavily, and I don't think the business sector will allow such a threat to their transactions to exist for long. Ending strong encryption would be detrimental to all of the US leading industries, and hurt the US economy even more, as other nations' industries, either actively or passively, could and probably would find a way to use this gaping hole in security for their purposes.
The whole argment just seems like a contradiction to all the talk of increasing security everywhere. What good is it to beef up manpower if terrorists can break communications poorly encrypted?
Slashdot Mirror
This is an age-old question, and one that will never be answered, I'm afraid. Is it better to give up privacy rights for the sake of better communication and collaboration between law enforcement agencies? How is this different than local police creating their own database of case files? What does it mean to have the right to privacy? These are questions that have never fully been answered, I'm afraid. The first problem is that the US Constitution currently does not , and yet it's the one right that we constantly want protected.
The other problem is that, even if the Constitution guaranteed the right to privacy, it would only guarantee that right to it's citizens. If someone chooses to break the laws governing the citizenry, they are then rejecting the citizenry. Does that mean that they are no longer citizens? Socrates felt so, as outlined in Plato's The Apology of Socrates. But is that so? Has that been determined? I am unaware of any court case or legislation that guarantees the citizenship of convicted criminals, nor of any that revokes their citizenship.
I think the first thing that needs to be done with regards to privacy concerns is to amend the constitution to allow for the right to privacy. Once this is complete, then the privacy advocates will have a platform on which to base their objections that is rooted within the Constitution. From there, other concerns can be addressed, such as the citizenship status of convicted criminals.
That being said, I support any collaboration between law enforcement agencies in protecting the citizenry, and do not see any abuses that have not already been in place since Government has been in place. The question is, are there any statistical evidence to support the collaboration in the apprehension and conviction of law breakers vs. the eventual mistakes and abuses that are feared?
This is great news, and something that I wish a lot of companies would implement as well. What's really interesting is the comparison. I'm looking forward to the results, and see which vendor is chosen.
Of course, this brings up another question: Just how much is this going to cost the taxpayer? Granted, it should be spent regardless as government information about private citizens (i.e., social security numbers) should be protected at all costs, but if the final cost structure is less than many companies estimate, it could mean an implementation of this same scale across the business world. Imagine, no more calls or letters from your bank/credit union that your financial information and social security number has been stolen.
It's a really nice design, but how does it function? Their website (www.lumus-optical.com) doesn't specify beyond potential application. Does it allow you to clip onto existing glasses, or do you have to use their display as well? It has a clean display in comparison to the My Vu specs (www.myvu.com), but there doesn't seem to be a lot more to it. Does it have built in audio, does it have a bulky adapter/controller? I for one would like to see more information on the website.
Assuming these questions are answered to my satisfaction, I'd be happy to look into it in conjunction with a decent video playing PDA/cell phone. Integrate the bluetooth keyboard, and you have a real mobile computer.
This is very interesting, but it doesn't explain what is being filtered, and how it is being filtered. Assuming the signals that are being filtered are radio waves, that would indicate that the processor would need to be powerful enough to catch the weak waves (as indicated in the article), while still providing enough power to filter out the noise.
I trust the astronomists already know how to do this, but it would be interesting to see what the process would be.
Then it brings up the other question: What else can this processor be used for? If it needs to be produced in the millions to make it financially viable, where else will it be sold?
Perhaps it could be used to filter out wireless microwave radio signals, allowing for better reception in a cell phone, security within a wireless network through filtering, and elsewhere. Imagine having a hard-coded chip that will filter out background wireless "noise" and look for a specific signal from a wireless signal. Assuming it couldn't be easily hacked, it could potentially provide some excellent security to wireless networks.
This is interesting, considering the Leopard release of iCalendar Server for OS X Server v. 10.5. Granted it talks about .mac integration now, but as long as it can sync with other iCalendar software (iCal Server, Google Calendar, Yahoo Calendar, etc.), the product becomes that much more impressive. That alone will be good news for current Mac users that want to have direct calendar updates without the hassle of syncing their calendar.
The other thing I liked was the mention of iChat Video Conferencing from the handset to a PC. That's something I have wanted with the Pocket PC for ages, and even various video phones. They have a camera, why couldn't they do video conferencing? With 3G wireless networks and phones that can take advantage of it, the technology is finally in place. That would make the iPhone worth it for me alone.
I had been trying to get cell-phone free for the past two years, and it looks like Apple is going to make that harder for me with this release.
The article had an excellent point - this will dramatically influence space exploration plans for extended stays on the moon. But how much does it impact it? 25% of the current lunar bombardment is still a bombardment. How had NASA and other space agencies planned to protect the Astronauts?
This means the increase in bombardment rate doesn't present a new issue, it just compounds the issue by four. What has been be the best suggestion to protect against bombardment, and how is it effected by this increase in frequency? Would it be an underground base, powerful and well-placed magnetic fields, or a domed location with a shell dense enough to withstand the impacts? That's the one question that isn't answered by the article.
I would be interested to hear from NASA on the proposed methods of protecting the base and it's occupants from these "little rocks".
In answer to question two, it could easily have been too expensive financially for the average Egyptian to use concrete, when brick making was so simple. It could easily have been an economic problem.
Keep in mind that the Egyptian culture made the Pharoh the owner of everything, including all resources. Those resources were distributed to the common folk to satisfy their needs. If buildings needed to be built, most likely they were built as inexpensively as possible.
Granted, this argument relies on one of two points:
1. The ingredients for concrete were more scarce than the ingredients for mud bricks.
2. The process for combining concrete was more labor intensive than creating bricks.
Good question. The answer to that would be the lack of reinforced concrete. Concrete is a very durable material, but designed to only withstand compression. Because of it's makeup, it's not as durable as stone unless it's been reinforced by something that can handle the tension required to keep it together (like steel rods).
Think of bricks. Yes, you can build a brick out of mud or clay, and it will work find on it's own. But in order to use it to build structures that were strong, they needed to include a material that can handle tension. Hence the ancient world would use straw. The plant fibers would provide enough strength in tension to build brick buildings.
But what of other concrete structures you may ask? True, the Romans did build a number of concrete structures that were quite large (note the Pantheon), but they used varying types of concrete with different density levels. This allowed for better construction. But even then, the foundation needed to be stone.
Advertising within a game has been a great money-maker for gaming publishers for a while now, and I can understand why they would want to have this data. If they are going to spend money on the ad, they want to make sure it generates revenue. But I like the development of Bunnyfoot in another way: It ultimately gives the power to the gamers to decide where and when the ads will show up.
Imagine if the gaming community had collectively decided to ignore the ads throughout the games, which was then recorded with Bunnyfoot's technology. Or, even better, they chose to react negatively to each ad. Perhaps the in-game advertisement industry will suffer and dwindle.
Granted, it would require a level of concentration that most would rather devote to the game, and would then ruin the game-play experience. This would then lead to a short-term frustration to the gamer, who may decide to just move on with the game and accept the ads as they come up. But imagine if they refused to enjoy the game? The gaming company would lose market share on a failed game, which would prompt them to find out why. If they find that it's because of in-game ads, then the next game will have less.
In order for this to work, it would take a lot of education of gamers, and a coordination of effort. Can the gaming community organize themselves to the point that gaming companies will start rethinking in-game ads? And perhaps the better question is, do they really want to?
Many others have commented on this already, but this announcement shouldn't be a problem, and for two reasons: The tags come off, and they are only monitoring what is being sold, not what is coming in the shop.
Because the tags are not embedded, it's not a lasting concern. Remove the tags, you are wearing any other garment. I fail to see the worry with this implementation.
And, because the monitoring is simply for automated stock taking, there is no ulterior motive. Anyone that has worked in the Retail business has either experienced stock taking, or has had to make the hard decision of which product to stock for potential buyers. For Brick and Mortar stores, it is essential to keep the overhead to a minimum. This allows the shop to do so with technology.
But the real question is, will this be the final step? How long will it be before someone does start embedding RFID tags into clothing? It would definitely make it easier to track clothing from the factory to the consumer. Clothing manufacturers may want to do that to find out which part of their global marketplace needs to be targeted the most. An innocent enough reason, and unless it's tied to a record of the purchase, it's still not tied to you.. yet. But then Social Security cards were initially just to track who was eligible for Social Security benefits, and not to track your credit history.
So while this is a great idea for stock taking, it's a good idea to decide where the line should be drawn, and make sure that line is not crossed.
The article is great, because it does outline the major problem facing permanent settlement on the Moon: radiation. But there are some other necessities that need to be addressed, like reinforcing of the magnetic field during solar flares, the crater's proximity to other elements for the production of power and water, and the need for solar power.
While it's a great start, it doesn't answer all the questions, which leaves scientists and future lunar explorers with a great question: Do they build up a complex network of sites, or continue to try to find the ideal spot?
With increasing pressure from other countries to get to the Moon first, as well as additional programs to settle the moon as a research outpost, the pressure is on. So while this is a great find, and will augment any magnetic solution that mankind could come up with, it's only part of the puzzle. That being said, it is an important part of the puzzle.
I don't remember reading anything about terrorism in the article (unless you consider Malcolm X a terrorist). I think Fanatic fits the bill better.
It's not surprising that Mac is the platform of choice in this movie.. most serious independent film makers use the Mac platform, and it does have a near-religious fervor around it (having worked in a shop at a community college where the boss was a fervent Mac supporter). Mac just does better than any Intel platform I know of for video compression, editing, and rendering. Just like Linux is ideal for server-based apps, and Windows is ideal for crashing your box (^_^). It's nice to know that there is someone out there that can find the funny side of the fanaticism.
Interesting that T-Mobile (was Voicestream) has dropped the Nokia 9290 for this product and the Pocket PC Phone Edition. Too bad.
You obviously didn't read any of the articles. Perhaps if you had gone beyond the title, you would have seen the points of view that Forbes was trying to show. They are gearing to a financial market that has little to no experience with Linux, except for "scare stories" that have been published about the "Linux Cult".
Because the article is directed to those with the preconception of Linux as a "Cult OS" (like Cult Classic movies), it first attracts their attention addressing this misconception, and then corrects it with the following articles about Linux, both pros and cons.
Frankly, this is classic journalism at it's finest.
This is a far cry from what MSNBC reported not too long ago about Linux failing as an OS. It's nice to see a *credible* news source fill in an objective series of articles, and not just print anything that Redmond dictates.
It is about time that programmers realize that embedded systems are not desktops. Hard drives are not an option with these things.
More attention needs to be placed not only on making smaller programs perform better, but getting the program to perform closer to the hardware specs. This is what programming used to do with Assembler.
Don't you think that everyone is being just a bit too paranoid? If anything, stronger encryption should be sought after by the goverment, instead of banning it or requiring back doors. You would think that it would be obvious to anyone that opening back doors in anything can do more harm than good (I wouldn't want a back door in encrypted tax information being sent, that is for sure!).
Also, I don't think that encryption development can be banned totally. The US relies on encryption too heavily, and I don't think the business sector will allow such a threat to their transactions to exist for long. Ending strong encryption would be detrimental to all of the US leading industries, and hurt the US economy even more, as other nations' industries, either actively or passively, could and probably would find a way to use this gaping hole in security for their purposes.
The whole argment just seems like a contradiction to all the talk of increasing security everywhere. What good is it to beef up manpower if terrorists can break communications poorly encrypted?