The mine or boobytrap would have to emit RF energy to see the RFID. It would be easy to detect that signal, giving away the fact that the mine or boobytrap was in the area.
It's simple physics. RFID signal must go both ways - from the mine to the RFID tag and back. The emissions from the boobytrap to a boobytrap detector are one way. You can detect the boobytrap before it can detect you. This is a well-known fact for counterdetection. E.g., you can detect a radar signal well-before the radar can see you.
When the Concord was being developed, the US did have a SST program. However, it was cancelled because it did NOT make economic sense. Read Mary Goldring's article. The problems she mentions are the same ones that killed the US program.
Setting up macs on a home network is trivial with Rendezvous. I turn on the Mac for the first time, it tells me it see a DCHP server, and asks if I want to use it. I say yes. It also asks me what I want to call the computer. I give it a name, say Freddie. I'm done setting up the network.
I can now go to any other Mac computer in the house and say I want to mount Freddie's harddrive. A dialog appears and it automatically sees Freddie. I enter the name and password and its mounted.
If I have turned on the sharing music option for iTunes on Freddie, I can open iTunes on another computer and it will see Freddie's shared music.
...potentially give the Feds the authority to tap the entire Internet...
In this particular instance, we are talking about a publically available website. Something that any member of the general public can see. Whether we are talking about a website or someone exercising their dog in a public park, the government can observe any activities that the general public can view. They can read the website, or watch you exercise your dog in the park, no special considerations required.
Or are you concerned about something besides tapping?
A quick google search turned up a study on the costs of printing scholarly books. The numbers are a few years old, but things probably haven't changed much. About halfway through the article they give production costs for various size runs of handcover and paperback books. A production run is about 1-3 cents per page for paperbacks. They estimate the per book cost for a typical 2,000 book run with a 3-color cover to be $1.50 per paperback. A 3,000 book run to be $1.20. Both costs are well under half of the price a a typical paperback. This supports the argument that other costs such as editting, advertising, author pay, etc. drive the cost of a book, not the cost of printing.
I think an earlier poster raised a valid point, how much can they lower the price. True, they don't have manufacturing costs of printing. But I'll be willing to bet that actual printing costs are a small part of the actual cost of a book. My experience is that labor is the biggest single cost in a product. So I imagine paying the author, advertising, editors, cover artists, etc. cost more than the actual printing of the book. Since those costs are the same regardless of whether a book is dead tree or digital, I doubt they can reduce the price by a factor of 10. I guessing a factor of 2 at best.
Jumping to conclusions is always a bad idea. He's not an illegal alien. Born and bred in American. As WASP as you can be. I use him for two reasons. He does very good work. And he is extremely trustworthy.
This won't work for everyone. For example, I have a guy I use for painting. He runs his business out of his home, and isn't listed in the phone book. Every couple of years, I give him a call. If he did what you recommended, I would never be able to find him. A loss of business for him.
My point, for some people in some businesses, your approach is adequate. For others, it is not. And number portability is important. It all depends on how frequently your repeat customers call you.
Don't get me wrong. Clearly there are some people the capability mentioned in the article would appeal to. However, I believe they are in the minority. I don't think it applies to MOST people. Using my previous example, do you think your mother or father wants a dual-boot computer. Do most businesses?
For the vast majority of people, the problem is not being able to try the new OS. The problem is getting them to want to try the new OS. People like things that are familiar. They use Windows at home because they use Windows at work. Add to this the clones at CompUSA say to buy Windows.
Does anyone think their mother or father would switch because of what this article discusses?
Conversely, is this going to get businesses to try a new OS? No. If a business wants to try a new OS, in general, they can afford a machine dedicated to the new OS to try it out.
In my view, there is a tendency on Slashdot to overestimate the number of people who build their own systems. I work with many technically literate people. A large number of whom are willing to install wireless networks, put an new video card in their computers, etc.
But very few build whole computers from scratch. They don't view it as worth their effort. They would rather buy an off-the-shelf system, and maybe add a little memory. A year down the road put in a bigger hard drive...
My point, the vast majority of technically literate people DON'T build their own from scratch.
...Whether or not it has been removed is IMMATERIAL for purposes of this case...
Yes it is material. This is a civil case, not a criminal. In civil cases, attempting to right a wrong is important. If SCO is succeeds, it will affect any penalties levied against SGI. Probably diminishing them significantly.
You need to define taxes. If you look at history, they way they have taxed things in this country has changed over the years. Income and sales taxes are relatively recent inventions. But before them, there tended to be outrageous duties on imported goods. Or look at American history. Read about the excise, poll, and property taxes of the revolutionary era. The revolution was based on outrageous taxes on legal documents, aka the Stamp Act, and the more famous tea tax.
Dowling is complaining about exactly the same thing as you - a monopolist abusing his powers. Look at it from his point of view, a large organization - the government - comes in. It used its deep pockets -- tax revenue -- to undercut his price structure. Selling the product at a loss. Dowling is unable to compete with someone who is willing to give the product away. He goes out of business.
This is very similar to what Microsoft did to Netscape. And it is generally agreed that Microsoft was in the wrong. What the government is doing in Baltimore has similar ramifications.
Calling people names is an age-old tradition in the US. Although I agree with the other poster who says the vast majority of the name-calling occurs in the OP-ED section (where it belongs).
As for calling Microsoft products crap - I don't know the page view statistics for Slashdot, but I bet it rivals the readership of major American newspapers. And Microsoft products are routinely called crap here.
Al Jazeera was a victim of a DDoS attack perpetuated by overzealous supporters of the war. The DDoS was illegal, and the perpertrators should be penalized.
So many people who scream first amendment forgot this crucial point -- the first amendment limits what the government can do. A DDoS attack against Al Jazeera by the GOVERNMENT is a first amendment violation. A DDoS attack by INDIVIDUALS is not - although it is illegal.
I agree with the parent. Unrestricted freedom of speech is rare. For example, in France it is against the law to disparage the Prime Minister. The English newspaper the Sun had to pay a fine when it recently called Chirac a worm. There are other examples in the democracies of Europe.
Just one more reason why maintaining freedom of speech in the U.S. requires constant vigilance.
...If they've got probable cause, they can do just about anything...
This is where you are wrong. The courts have ruled previously that freedom of the press requires that journalists have a reasonable requirement for confidential sources and meetings. For example, without whistleblowers, it is difficult to fight government corruption. Therefore, under the First Amendment, the press has some protection against being forced to divulge sources and information.
It isn't clear what they did differently from the others who have tried this. Yes, I understand theirs is not a linear engine like Lockheed's. But I doubt the older versions that are discussed in the article were linear. Is there something else that is different? New materials? Some other breakthrough?
While Dell is a successful company, I don't think of them when it comes to emerging technologies. As he said, "Dell looks for large markets where there are inefficiencies or high mark-ups..." This sounds like the stable, mature technologies. Wouldn't some company on the bleeding edge been a better choice?
...the government thought it was important/useful...
The assumption you are making is that the highest levels of government decided this was important, and then changed their mind. When the opposite is true. Some employees at DARPA thought it would be an interesting research project. When the news hit the fan, and Congress and the public heard about, the highest levels of government took an interest and said, "What are you doing? Stop it." This sort of thing happens in any organization.
...It's clear that the F.T.C. has been engaging in regulatory imperialism and ruled outside it's area....
Congress created the FTC, and Congress can change the FTC's mission. Congress explicitedly told the FTC to create the Do-Not-Call list. Hence, they did not stray outside their area.
...milions of lost jobs in an important industry...
It has been pointed out that this claim is hyperbole. Most people who work for call banks work for a specific company. For example, a bank which calls its own customers. Such calls are still legal.
...thats capiatalism you know...
But that is laisse faire captialism, which we don't have in this country.
I will agree that the Constitution is vague in several areas. But I think there are a few relevant points. First of all, terms such as Congress and the Judicary existed before the Constitution was written. Prototypes already existed in the colonial and British governments. It is safe to assume that the writers of the Constitution built on this, and assumed that some things were understood without explicitedly spelling them out. Furthermore, some of these roles were further defined by the Federalist papers which described the intents of the authors.
Following this, it is generally accepted that Congress and not the Judicary have the powers I discussed.
The Supreme Court has ruled previously that freedom of speech does not entitle you to force people to listen to your message. This was brought up years ago. Basically the concern is that if you could force people to listen you could interfere with those people trying to peacably assemble, another constitutional right (e.g., disrupt a meeting of political opponents by forcing them to listen to your speech, and thus preventing them from conducting business). Since the Do Not Call list consists of people asserting their right not to listen, I think the telemarketers will have a difficult time winning.
Slashdot Mirror
It's simple physics. RFID signal must go both ways - from the mine to the RFID tag and back. The emissions from the boobytrap to a boobytrap detector are one way. You can detect the boobytrap before it can detect you. This is a well-known fact for counterdetection. E.g., you can detect a radar signal well-before the radar can see you.
When the Concord was being developed, the US did have a SST program. However, it was cancelled because it did NOT make economic sense. Read Mary Goldring's article. The problems she mentions are the same ones that killed the US program.
I can now go to any other Mac computer in the house and say I want to mount Freddie's harddrive. A dialog appears and it automatically sees Freddie. I enter the name and password and its mounted.
If I have turned on the sharing music option for iTunes on Freddie, I can open iTunes on another computer and it will see Freddie's shared music.
It doesn't get any simplier than this.
In this particular instance, we are talking about a publically available website. Something that any member of the general public can see. Whether we are talking about a website or someone exercising their dog in a public park, the government can observe any activities that the general public can view. They can read the website, or watch you exercise your dog in the park, no special considerations required.
Or are you concerned about something besides tapping?
A quick google search turned up a study on the costs of printing scholarly books. The numbers are a few years old, but things probably haven't changed much. About halfway through the article they give production costs for various size runs of handcover and paperback books. A production run is about 1-3 cents per page for paperbacks. They estimate the per book cost for a typical 2,000 book run with a 3-color cover to be $1.50 per paperback. A 3,000 book run to be $1.20. Both costs are well under half of the price a a typical paperback. This supports the argument that other costs such as editting, advertising, author pay, etc. drive the cost of a book, not the cost of printing.
I think an earlier poster raised a valid point, how much can they lower the price. True, they don't have manufacturing costs of printing. But I'll be willing to bet that actual printing costs are a small part of the actual cost of a book. My experience is that labor is the biggest single cost in a product. So I imagine paying the author, advertising, editors, cover artists, etc. cost more than the actual printing of the book. Since those costs are the same regardless of whether a book is dead tree or digital, I doubt they can reduce the price by a factor of 10. I guessing a factor of 2 at best.
Jumping to conclusions is always a bad idea. He's not an illegal alien. Born and bred in American. As WASP as you can be. I use him for two reasons. He does very good work. And he is extremely trustworthy.
My point, for some people in some businesses, your approach is adequate. For others, it is not. And number portability is important. It all depends on how frequently your repeat customers call you.
Don't get me wrong. Clearly there are some people the capability mentioned in the article would appeal to. However, I believe they are in the minority. I don't think it applies to MOST people. Using my previous example, do you think your mother or father wants a dual-boot computer. Do most businesses?
Does anyone think their mother or father would switch because of what this article discusses?
Conversely, is this going to get businesses to try a new OS? No. If a business wants to try a new OS, in general, they can afford a machine dedicated to the new OS to try it out.
But very few build whole computers from scratch. They don't view it as worth their effort. They would rather buy an off-the-shelf system, and maybe add a little memory. A year down the road put in a bigger hard drive...
My point, the vast majority of technically literate people DON'T build their own from scratch.
Yes it is material. This is a civil case, not a criminal. In civil cases, attempting to right a wrong is important. If SCO is succeeds, it will affect any penalties levied against SGI. Probably diminishing them significantly.
You need to define taxes. If you look at history, they way they have taxed things in this country has changed over the years. Income and sales taxes are relatively recent inventions. But before them, there tended to be outrageous duties on imported goods. Or look at American history. Read about the excise, poll, and property taxes of the revolutionary era. The revolution was based on outrageous taxes on legal documents, aka the Stamp Act, and the more famous tea tax.
This is very similar to what Microsoft did to Netscape. And it is generally agreed that Microsoft was in the wrong. What the government is doing in Baltimore has similar ramifications.
As for calling Microsoft products crap - I don't know the page view statistics for Slashdot, but I bet it rivals the readership of major American newspapers. And Microsoft products are routinely called crap here.
So many people who scream first amendment forgot this crucial point -- the first amendment limits what the government can do. A DDoS attack against Al Jazeera by the GOVERNMENT is a first amendment violation. A DDoS attack by INDIVIDUALS is not - although it is illegal.
Just one more reason why maintaining freedom of speech in the U.S. requires constant vigilance.
This is where you are wrong. The courts have ruled previously that freedom of the press requires that journalists have a reasonable requirement for confidential sources and meetings. For example, without whistleblowers, it is difficult to fight government corruption. Therefore, under the First Amendment, the press has some protection against being forced to divulge sources and information.
It isn't clear what they did differently from the others who have tried this. Yes, I understand theirs is not a linear engine like Lockheed's. But I doubt the older versions that are discussed in the article were linear. Is there something else that is different? New materials? Some other breakthrough?
While Dell is a successful company, I don't think of them when it comes to emerging technologies. As he said, "Dell looks for large markets where there are inefficiencies or high mark-ups..." This sounds like the stable, mature technologies. Wouldn't some company on the bleeding edge been a better choice?
The assumption you are making is that the highest levels of government decided this was important, and then changed their mind. When the opposite is true. Some employees at DARPA thought it would be an interesting research project. When the news hit the fan, and Congress and the public heard about, the highest levels of government took an interest and said, "What are you doing? Stop it." This sort of thing happens in any organization.
Congress created the FTC, and Congress can change the FTC's mission. Congress explicitedly told the FTC to create the Do-Not-Call list. Hence, they did not stray outside their area.
It has been pointed out that this claim is hyperbole. Most people who work for call banks work for a specific company. For example, a bank which calls its own customers. Such calls are still legal.
But that is laisse faire captialism, which we don't have in this country.
Anyone want to bet these Congressman have telemarketers in their districts?
Following this, it is generally accepted that Congress and not the Judicary have the powers I discussed.
The Supreme Court has ruled previously that freedom of speech does not entitle you to force people to listen to your message. This was brought up years ago. Basically the concern is that if you could force people to listen you could interfere with those people trying to peacably assemble, another constitutional right (e.g., disrupt a meeting of political opponents by forcing them to listen to your speech, and thus preventing them from conducting business). Since the Do Not Call list consists of people asserting their right not to listen, I think the telemarketers will have a difficult time winning.