There was a commercial a few years back that had that idealistic future look to it. Camera follows this guy in a trenchcoat as he roams the store, picking up items, and putting them in his pockets. As a viewer, you think he is shoplifting, especially as he makes his way to the door, past the traditional cashiers. As he walks out of the store, a pylon ejects a receipt that he grabs. What happened? Everything had been tagged, and the store knew who he was, including CC number, etc. and billed his CC for everything he had picked up in the store.
I am guessing that is what you mean by EPOS. While the idea in the commercial is tempting, it is still very very far off. While sensors/scanners can track item movement, they cannot tell if a specific item has been paid for or not - at least not with current technology.
Currently, you go to a register which scans your UPC bar code. That bar code is not unique to that specific item. It is only unique to what it is. A RFID, on the other hand, is unique in its identifier to every specific item that it is attached to. As you purchase something, the computer record might indicate that you purchased a 20 oz Coke, but could not identify which 20 oz Coke you bought. The exiting scanner could tell that you left the store with Coke bottle #9p2311j32 of batch #88720 bottled 7 days ago, delivered 2 days ago. It cannot be absolutely certain that you paid for it. Did you drink one in the store, hide one in your jacket, have the cashier scan the empty bottle then trash it?
The technology in the stores needs to be updated, and that takes time and money. Perhaps the first step in consolidating information is to replace UPC scanners with RFID scanners. But like I have said before, any solution is going to have to be totally thought out, and is going to take time to implement.
Exactly, and from the article, it sounds like Israel has not only done this before, but has a theme in mind for how he would approach the situation. Of course, every store would be a variation on the theme, but it would be rather similar nonetheless.
A $3500 take isn't much, especially considering that you aren't going to get full value on it when you pawn it off or sell it on e-bay. However, there are hundreds of stores just like that one in large cities, and perhaps thousands in a state. $3500 a day for a few hours work, isn't bad at all, considering some people barely make that much in a month. If you are patient enough, smart enough, and mix it around enough, you could probably get away with it for many many years pulling this job on a regular basis.
The question, unfortunately, is philosophy. If you are smart enough to regularly defraud hundreds of businessess, then you would either have a difficult time justifying your actions to yourself (your conscience), or you would have to acknowledge to yourself that you are an evil, evil person. And who wants to look at themselves in the mirror every day thinking that? That there is no redeeming factor to your life and existance.
Man, I gotta write a journal entry about some of my philosophical meusings sometime. Especially when it comes to perceptions about good and evil.
However, you are correct. If they could find out when (very important), they have other tools at their disposal to investigate with. CCTV being one. With it, they could track the guy as he walks in, canvases the place, goes in the back to the break room, finds a uniform, and his "official document", goes to the warehouse, runs his act, gets his merchandice, walks through the store with the merchandice, stopped by the assistant manager, and finally through the front door.
Unfortunately, all of this costs money. And businesses are all about keeping as much of it as they can. No one is going to spend thousands of dollars to purchase a security system capable of archiving months or years of security cam footage unless they have been hit hard enough to justify it.
While your theory is wonderful, the realities of the situation make this to be as close to a perfect crime as possible today.
Since we are talking RFID, let me throw this one out at ya. Lets say that the store has RFID readers all throughout their warehouse and store. Once a day (say midnight after all sales reports have been completed), the readers in the building send a "pulse" asking all RFID tags to report in. Inventory is taken on a nightly basis, and compared to sales reports with a discrpancy report printed for management to look over when they arrived the next morning. All automated, and done on a very timely manner. Management asks the appropriate team leaders to double check the discrepancies, and if anything turns up missing, it is handed over to security for them to review - best possible response time, less than 48 hours. Anyone can archive tapes for that long.
The possible situation listed above would help out a lot, but I still fear that such a solution is 2 to 5 years out. As well, there are many other concerns and problems that would have to be handled. For example, when a RFID leaves the building, how do we know the item it is attached to has been paid for?
Thats just it though. The way he engineered it, they NEVER would have known that he was the one who stole those computers. They would have been looking for some disgruntled employee taking some stock home after closing up, or accounting/inventory miscalculation, or ANYTHING other than him. He presented himself to be an employee with a legitimate reason for taking those computers out of the store.
He presented a possible occurance, and explained it twice. Once to the stock boy, once to an assistant manager. Neither of them bothered to take a look at the "official papers" that he had folded up in his breast pocket, and he claimed that he had gotten those papers and authorization from accounting. Yet no one checked his story.
This is the goal of social engineering. To use the system so that you can get what you want without raising suspicions.
Lets just say, for arguments sake, that they did a full store inventory within the next 3 months, and found a discrepency. Where would you start investigating it? You wouldn't know when it happened. You wouldn't know how it happened. And because of how he pulled it off, no one would ever remember him. He blended in so well, and so convincingly, that by the time they finished their shift, they wouldn't have even been able to remember what he looked like. He was completely forgetable, and no one would have been the wiser. And if he was seen walking out of the store with a pallet full of computers by a video camera (assuming they kept tapes for that long), they would have seen him approached by an assistant manager who let him walk out of the store with the merchandice! And again, that is where the social engineering would have continued to work, anyone reviewing said tape would have seen him being checked out by the assistant manager, assumed the assistant manager was doing his job, and that there was a legitimate reason for him to take those computers out (even though the reviewer never heard the conversation). And 10 to 1 odds, the reviewer wouldn't even check with accounting to see if anyone was authorized to take 5 computers out of the store that day.
Well, that's the problem. People don't want to know about viruses, trojans, zombies, etc. They want their desktop. They want their applications. They want it to "just work."
Consider the phone. People just want to be able to pick up the receiver, dial the number, and talk to their friend/family/co-worker/etc... They don't want a phone switch in their house, sitting under their desk. They don't want all of the burdens involved in maintaining complex hardware.
I'm willing to bet that the first person/company who can provide people with a computing experience without a computer stands to make a lot of $$$. If they can provide the system maintenance, installation of applications, protection from viruses, protection from hardware failure - they will be able to open a huge market, and cash in.
This is where I think Linux will prove pivotal, because this is where we lead Microsoft. Our thin client paradigm is so different, that we lead in many areas. Consider how Microsoft does thin clients - 256 colors only, 800x600 max, 8 fps - all rendered on the terminal server where the "picture" of the desktop is sent down the wire to the thin client who displays the "picture" and sends feedback of mouse clicks and key presses to the terminal server. Linux, and X, render everything on the X terminal, and send back and forth on the pipe application information. What does this all mean? You can play quake 3 on a linux X terminal but you couldn't on a Microsoft solution. And it would take YEARS to fix that gap. We lead here, and we could exploit it if we jumpped on this opportunity.
Did I say World Domination? Oops...now you all know my plans...
If the CD was purchased and then shared. How is the sharer committing copyright infringement.
You know, that is a question I want answered. Lets say I ripped my entire CD collection to my computer, but because human nature is greedy, I installed Kazaa to download more music. It set up an upload directory where I ripped all my songs so I am sharing my music collection that I legally purchased. I start using Kazaa, but I never find anything worth downloading, but Kazaa continues to run in the background, thousands of songs being shared that I might not even be aware are being shared. In fact, if I do not understand how Kazaa works, I might think that every song on there that is available to download is there for my legal consumption (this is why RIAA, MPAA have been on "educational compaigns"). If I get sued by the RIAA, could I use the following defense:
All of the songs on my computer are legal fair use copies from my CD library. The RIAA is guilty of "breaking into" my computer and gaining "unauthorized access" to my library using exploits provided by Kazaa software.
After all, I'm not the one making the copies of my songs - the downloaders are. I suppose the RIAA could accuse me of contributing to copyright infringement, but if I do not fully understand the workings of Kazaa or their network, can I sucessfully plead innocence?
Imagine, if you will, that you are starting out with a small family, and you want to protect them by not allowing channels with questionable content into your home. This way you can get HBO Family without worry about your children flipping the channel and seeing an execution, Sopranos style, on regular HBO.
Hell, its a lot easier then programming your V-chip.
You can select, add, and remove channels from month to month depending on your wishes or desires, while allowing you to only pay for what you want to watch!
Like most people who have posted here, most current television shows do not interest me, but every once in a while something comes on that I do want to watch. As well, most movie channels still show content that I enjoy to watch. So to be able to only pay for what I want to watch, and not have to pay for crap that I will never watch, is a big win for the consumer.
Re:Good... down with Real
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 1
The message here for Real should be really simple. Make your player as easy to get as possible. Require two clicks to download. Content is King. Annoying software is not.
EXACTLY! Real is already making its money off the server software! The more people with their client, the more valuable their server software will be. They should be bundling it with other downloadable software (like they did with Netscape), advertising their software on every download site, giving everyone every chance to get their software with no alterior motives whatsoever! Oh, and hey, if you would like to get a better player, better quality audio and video - ya, we sell that too.
I think what we've got to aim for is a legal system that preserves the goals of the Copyright Act while accommodating, to the extent possible, the human impulse to share the cultural creations we love.
How many times have you sung, "Happy Birthday" to a friend or family member? Did you know that even though the person who wrote that song is long dead and gone and will never write another song, his estate is still collecting royalties on that song for every public performance? That is the reason why popular television shows, movies, even restaurants sing something other than "Happy Birthday" to celebrate someone's birthday. Even though the song has permiated every level of our culture, we are denied its ubiquitous use in our culture. The idea of copyright was to encourage the original author to create. If they are dead, how can they create? This is why I believe our copyright system is so messed up.
I ought to copy Disney's "Snow White" onto DVD and sell it to the public. And when I have my day in court, tell the judge that I would be happy to pay any royalties to Walt Disney, if he would come to court to accept them.
I think you are unduly worried. In all matters, the government tries to be fair to all parties involved, as well as show concern to its constituents.
For example: It costs $90 to register a corporation (in my state) and $15 annually to maintain that registration. No matter if you have earnings over $1B or just over $100. There is no favoratism, and concern is shown for the smaller low income company.
Even in the article the author of the report cites concern for open source: "We need to better understand the potential impact of new product liability laws, particularly on smaller software makers and open-source providers." -- Ron Moritz, chief security strategist for Islandia, N.Y.-based Computer Associates and chairman of the taskforce that released the plan.
I could have modded you down as a troll, but I thought it would be better to debunk your reactionary rhetoric. The best way to make sure that what you think might happen won't happen is to get involved in politics. Write your representative, and senators and share with them your concerns. But most importantly VOTE THIS NOVEMBER!
Good points. As well, lawyers are not allwed in small claims court, it is just me, the person I am accusing of doing me wrong and the judge, with damages of around $500 max (I would definately do more research before walking in there, of course). If I was claiming damages of $50(cost of game) + $30(frustration, time, etc), do you really think they would fly their CEO or the tech who banned me out there to defend against an $80 claim in small claims? Heck no. Free game + dinner on them! (assuming I could collect...)
However, reading on their forum, I did manage to get some great answers to some of my original questions. You are banned from the master server browser. Which means that you can use alternate means to connect to the game servers (GameSpy, IP given to you by a friend, etc). You are only banned from the Epic Master Server Browser which will inhibit your ability to connect, but not stop you altogether (so it isn't as damaging as we had been led to believe). As well, server operators have the choice of honoring the ban recommendations of the master server, but by default that is not enabled. If Epic did decide to defend against my small claims suit, they could easily argue that access to the master server is not critical to playing online, and is a service they provide with limitation. If I cheat, they can remove access because of my abuse of that service, without stopping my ability to play online. Heck, if I were a judge I would rule in their favor.
First off, let me clarify, I hate cheaters. I run an ethics guild, and one of our rules is don't cheat. So I have no desire to see on-line cheaters flourish.
BUT
If you spent $50 on a computer game, only to have one of the major reasons you paid for it disabled by the manufacturer, wouldn't you be shouting bloody murder? Especially if they singled you out personally? I know I would be furious! Chances are, I would go down to the courthouse and file a claim in small claims court the next day.
Question is, is there a better way to handle this other than a permanent ban from the master server? (Someone mentioned a set of cheating servers. I think I would be OK if those were the only servers you had access to once you were banned/restricted)
Better yet, does the master server just work for browsing playable servers, and could you bypass it with clients like GameSpy, or is it more like how Half-Life used WON to check WonIDs?
That is a really good point, and I would also suggest layering your power backup infrastructure. Many of the costs associated with providing acceptable power to the building we purchased was figured into the cost of building maintainance. We layered the power with an external generator (gets tested once a month - enough diesel stored on site for 72 hours of operation), a building-wide UPS (room dedicated to lead acid batteries), and a rackmounted UPS in every rack in our server room.
The building-wide UPS powers a special outlet in every cubicle that everyone's computer is plugged into. If the power goes out, the lights may go out while the external generator gets up to speed, but the computers stay on (although we do have some employees who like to move things around - we find out who they are at the next power outage).
The advantages of this are that the UPS doesn't get used very often, and when it does, it is only for a short period. However, if there are major power problems, we can stay up for a relatively long period of time.
Such as, going from '98 to XP, and trying to figure out the networking components. Drastic changes there...
But there were a lot of overhauls in the GUI, and how it expected the user to get around. If you are an expert in getting through the desktop, and desktop navigation, a major overhaul like that will slow you down until you can re-find your way around.
Again, the problem is change, and how quickly we can adapt. If I am an expert (debatable, I know) then what about those who are casual users? "I know I saw a way to change that in '98, but it doesn't seem to be here in XP. Maybe you can't change that in XP. XP sucks!"
If you laughed (smiled, smirked, etc) at that hypothetical situation, replace '98 with some older version of KDE/Gnome, and XP with a newer version of KDE/Gnome. Then you will see why it is important to remember the end user in your initial design, and when you make significant changes. This is one reason why I like Gnome's HIG. A lot of the end user concerns have been taken care of by people who are more knowledgable on that subject than myself. It allows me to focus on what I need to do, yet provide something that is relatively intuitive for new users to learn. Talk about a win/win situation.
Funny how Linux has surpassed Apple on the desktop (# of users).
So many people say that the desktop war is long over. I think those who are involved with Gnome, KDE, etc. will tell you that the battle has just started to warm up. This is a war of attrition, and in an enviornment where Gnome releases on a strict 6 month schedule - you can't wait 4 years between a desktop release (Win XP, 2001 - Longhorn, 2005 [estimated]). Apple isn't far off with their once a year incremental releases, but IMHO they charge too much for such relatively small changes.
In the end, I think what will attract people to Linux in droves will be the seperation of OS and desktop. Consider this: How frustrating was it for you to start up XP for the first time after 6+ years of the Win95 desktop, and the minor changes that subsequent versions brought, and not be able to find the options and settings you are familiar with? For those in IT, consider this: How many technophobes do you know in your company who cringe every time you tell them that you are going to change something on their computer? Not everyone is as comfortable with change as those of us who work with computers all the time. Being able to upgrade the OS underneath the GUI - priceless. Or GUIs who define and stick to conservative Human Interface Guides (like Gnome) and as a result the desktop does not change from version to version - worth much more than any TCO study from Redmond.
Wow, this rant is going all over the place - please be patient, I have one more point to touch upon: Ever see those Computer Associates commercials on TV with the cardboard cutout of a salesman stalking the IT guy? The commercial where the salesman keeps asking over and over again, "So, how much software would you like to buy today?" Kinda reminds me of our Microsoft rep. Last week our company got a specialized piece of software from Adobe. The software itself didn't cost too much, but what surprised me is what came in the box with the CD - a hardware key. Their software would not work without this device plugged into the parrallel port of my computer. It is moves like the previous two examples that make me think - The world will be a lot more beautiful when OSS rules the world. I don't know of a single person who enjoys typing in those 25 digit software keys. Hardware keys? WTF? How much do those raise the cost of the software? Not to mention that while in theory you can just keep adding more and more hardware keys to a computer, in reality, you can only use a very limited number at a time. You thought it was tough juggling software keys in a database for 3K users - imagine juggling physical computer components! "I'm sorry, you can't run Acrobat today. Joe borrowed the key yesterday, is out sick today, and we can't find it in his desk."
I guess the old saying is true: the harder you try to hold onto something, the more it slips out of your fingers. This is so true of several industries of our time. MPAA (although not so much as others), RIAA (mostly subversive, but signs of an open revolt), Software Industry (one look at Linux, and you can see it is in full revolt). How much you wanna bet that in 5 years, those who weren't watching will be asking, "Microsoft? I don't understand what the big deal was all about." And consider this: We've all seen rabid die hard Apple fans, but has Microsoft ever engendered any of it's users to its cause?
It doesn't look all that different from Mac hardware. Could you run AmigaOS on Mac hardware? What seperates newer Amigas from other modern computers? Is Amiga just a name now?
The parent poster is saying some very smart things - listen. If you are absolutely certain this is the direction you want to go, consider possibly an ad-hoc network of wireless cards in everyone's computer. This will allow all of you to network with each other without installing anything permanent. I would purchase your own wireless card, and encourage the other tennants to purchase their own wireless cards that they can take with them when they leave. If not that many bite, you can perhaps offer to subsidize their purchase - but be patient with your friends before blurting out, "I'll buy your card for ya!" If it is important to play with you, they will find a way.
Beyond that, you have way too much money to throw away. I would find more intelligent uses for it. Consider the parent post. Unless you own the building, and want to provide something nice for all your tennants, I wouldn't invest in much outside of your appartment. Encourage others to join you in going wireless to play together, but don't run wires all over a building that you don't own.
Because the vast majority of the gaming world lives in the northern hemisphere (Japan, USA, Europe, etc.), and unfortunately the minority gets overlooked. Sorry about that.
WRONG!
It is because Valve's headquarters are located in the northern hemisphere. They speak in terms of their locality, and assume readers will convert to their own locality. Same is true of television/radio stations that broadcast across time lines. They state where they are located, and use their locality to broadcast information. As a listener/viewer, you are to convert the information given you depending on your relative position to them. Same with Press Releases which all include information stating when, where, and about the company. So when Valve, L.L.C. of Kirkland Washington states that it will be ready for a summer release, you must take that into account when converting information released by that company depending on your relative position to where that company is located/where the press release was released. Being in the southern hemisphere, summer=winter, fall=spring, etc.
Now if some world famous austrailian company were to make announcements, then the rest of the world would have to make the conversions to their locality.
...you could have spent $100B on NASA, getting people back to the moon and to Mars and been remembered forever. Instead you chose to spend $100B on bombing Iraq, to be reviled forever.
You know, I wonder if that had some kind of factor to this decision. That GWB took a look at how he would be remembered by future generations, especially if he lost this election, and realized he didn't like what he saw - First attack on the United States since Pearl Harbor, erosion of constitutionally granted rights, 2 wars, an ugly occupation, an economy that just will not recover, and critics that grow louder as election time grows nearer. Maybe he saw a gambit like this as his only means of redeaming himself in the court of public opinion. That if he sets us out on a long term project, like going to Mars, then perhaps he will be remembered more favorably in the long term - even if he doesn't look so good in the short term.
He was 15 when he broke the DVD encryption and now he is still only around 19. He doesn't need to work for a living yet.
That is going to be one hell of a resume when he finally decides to get a job. I can see it now:
Boss: Hello everyone, I would like to introduce you to our new intern Jon. When he was 15, Jon wrote a program that allowed him to watch DVDs on Linux, and when he was 20 he wrote a program that allowed him to listen to music downloaded from Apple's iTunes on Linux. Jon: Hi! Boss: Too bad none of you slackers have ever done anything worth mentioning. Mike who sits next to the copier: I've done something important! Boss: Oh yea? What's that? Mike who sits next to the copier: I've replaced the toner when the copier ran out. Paper too! Boss: (muttering) Someone in HR hates me. I just know it.
Get to work on eliminating spammers and much of our current crop of computer-related woes will just GO AWAY. The only people who would hate for this to happen are the spammers, the hired guns, and companies like Symantec...
What happens in December 2006 is that all television stations must be broadcasting in Digital, as well, every new television being sold must be able to natively receive the digital signals.
I am not sure when television stations will stop broadcasting in analog - whether or not they will be required to continue broadcasting in analog until a certain date specified by the FCC, or if it is up to their discresion as to when the pull the plug.
While common sense would say, "pull the plug sooner rather than later" (to save on transmitter maintenanace, cost of electricity required to power the transmitter, FCC wants to use the recently vacated bandwidth, etc) to do so may be damaging to their viewership who have yet to transition to digital. After all, I know there will be millions of Americans who will say "Why replace it if it ain't broke?"
Here is the real kicker; if you thought that digital signal transmission from the television staion = HDTV, be prepared for disappointment. Just because the signal is digital, doesn't mean that they are using the HDTV portion of the new specification. Digital broadcasts will facilitate the ability to broadcast in HDTV, but it will not mandate it. If you thought everything was going to be gorgeous 720p or 1080i in 3 years - you are mistaken. Be prepared for many years of 480p broadcasts for a long while.
If all that talk about needing a broadcast flag to facilitate "high quality programming" didn't make sense before, perhaps you weren't looking at the big picture. (Ok, kinda corny)
Couple of problems with your link. First, you are linking to a press release - basically a marketing ploy by Sun saying, "Hey! Look at what we are doing! Don't forget about us!" Although it doesn't happen all the time, I'm sure the Slashdot editors would prefer to get links to other news sources instead of just links to corporate propaganda.
Secondly, how is what they are developing with their chip multithreading technology any different from what Intel has already PRODUCED with their HyperThreading enabled processors? Intel HT chips are not only already on the market, but being used in production machines. Sun's processors, on the other hand, won't ship until next year.
I'm sorry, but this is NOT "News for Nerds", and it was correctly rejected. To be honest, I'm surprised that this got moderated up. After all, when you submit a story the submission page states, "Note: grousing about rejected submissions is Offtopic and usually gets moderated that way. It happens, don't take it personally."
If you are looking at going for multi-channel sound, may I suggest going with a name you already trust? I happened to be at CEDIA this year in Indianapolis and had the pleasure of listening to a new system that Klipsch is going to introduce on or about the 24th of October, THX Ultra2 speakers. According to the Indianapolis Star, The system, called THX Ultra2, includes seven speakers and two subwoofers and literally surrounds the listeners. If the sound in movies is as important to you as your music, then you should give these speakers a serious look. I know I am drooling.
Slashdot Mirror
There was a commercial a few years back that had that idealistic future look to it. Camera follows this guy in a trenchcoat as he roams the store, picking up items, and putting them in his pockets. As a viewer, you think he is shoplifting, especially as he makes his way to the door, past the traditional cashiers. As he walks out of the store, a pylon ejects a receipt that he grabs. What happened? Everything had been tagged, and the store knew who he was, including CC number, etc. and billed his CC for everything he had picked up in the store.
I am guessing that is what you mean by EPOS. While the idea in the commercial is tempting, it is still very very far off. While sensors/scanners can track item movement, they cannot tell if a specific item has been paid for or not - at least not with current technology.
Currently, you go to a register which scans your UPC bar code. That bar code is not unique to that specific item. It is only unique to what it is. A RFID, on the other hand, is unique in its identifier to every specific item that it is attached to. As you purchase something, the computer record might indicate that you purchased a 20 oz Coke, but could not identify which 20 oz Coke you bought. The exiting scanner could tell that you left the store with Coke bottle #9p2311j32 of batch #88720 bottled 7 days ago, delivered 2 days ago. It cannot be absolutely certain that you paid for it. Did you drink one in the store, hide one in your jacket, have the cashier scan the empty bottle then trash it?
The technology in the stores needs to be updated, and that takes time and money. Perhaps the first step in consolidating information is to replace UPC scanners with RFID scanners. But like I have said before, any solution is going to have to be totally thought out, and is going to take time to implement.
:-D
Exactly, and from the article, it sounds like Israel has not only done this before, but has a theme in mind for how he would approach the situation. Of course, every store would be a variation on the theme, but it would be rather similar nonetheless.
A $3500 take isn't much, especially considering that you aren't going to get full value on it when you pawn it off or sell it on e-bay. However, there are hundreds of stores just like that one in large cities, and perhaps thousands in a state. $3500 a day for a few hours work, isn't bad at all, considering some people barely make that much in a month. If you are patient enough, smart enough, and mix it around enough, you could probably get away with it for many many years pulling this job on a regular basis.
The question, unfortunately, is philosophy. If you are smart enough to regularly defraud hundreds of businessess, then you would either have a difficult time justifying your actions to yourself (your conscience), or you would have to acknowledge to yourself that you are an evil, evil person. And who wants to look at themselves in the mirror every day thinking that? That there is no redeeming factor to your life and existance.
Man, I gotta write a journal entry about some of my philosophical meusings sometime. Especially when it comes to perceptions about good and evil.
IF they keep a video archive that long.
However, you are correct. If they could find out when (very important), they have other tools at their disposal to investigate with. CCTV being one. With it, they could track the guy as he walks in, canvases the place, goes in the back to the break room, finds a uniform, and his "official document", goes to the warehouse, runs his act, gets his merchandice, walks through the store with the merchandice, stopped by the assistant manager, and finally through the front door.
Unfortunately, all of this costs money. And businesses are all about keeping as much of it as they can. No one is going to spend thousands of dollars to purchase a security system capable of archiving months or years of security cam footage unless they have been hit hard enough to justify it.
While your theory is wonderful, the realities of the situation make this to be as close to a perfect crime as possible today.
Since we are talking RFID, let me throw this one out at ya. Lets say that the store has RFID readers all throughout their warehouse and store. Once a day (say midnight after all sales reports have been completed), the readers in the building send a "pulse" asking all RFID tags to report in. Inventory is taken on a nightly basis, and compared to sales reports with a discrpancy report printed for management to look over when they arrived the next morning. All automated, and done on a very timely manner. Management asks the appropriate team leaders to double check the discrepancies, and if anything turns up missing, it is handed over to security for them to review - best possible response time, less than 48 hours. Anyone can archive tapes for that long.
The possible situation listed above would help out a lot, but I still fear that such a solution is 2 to 5 years out. As well, there are many other concerns and problems that would have to be handled. For example, when a RFID leaves the building, how do we know the item it is attached to has been paid for?
Thats just it though. The way he engineered it, they NEVER would have known that he was the one who stole those computers. They would have been looking for some disgruntled employee taking some stock home after closing up, or accounting/inventory miscalculation, or ANYTHING other than him. He presented himself to be an employee with a legitimate reason for taking those computers out of the store.
He presented a possible occurance, and explained it twice. Once to the stock boy, once to an assistant manager. Neither of them bothered to take a look at the "official papers" that he had folded up in his breast pocket, and he claimed that he had gotten those papers and authorization from accounting. Yet no one checked his story.
This is the goal of social engineering. To use the system so that you can get what you want without raising suspicions.
Lets just say, for arguments sake, that they did a full store inventory within the next 3 months, and found a discrepency. Where would you start investigating it? You wouldn't know when it happened. You wouldn't know how it happened. And because of how he pulled it off, no one would ever remember him. He blended in so well, and so convincingly, that by the time they finished their shift, they wouldn't have even been able to remember what he looked like. He was completely forgetable, and no one would have been the wiser. And if he was seen walking out of the store with a pallet full of computers by a video camera (assuming they kept tapes for that long), they would have seen him approached by an assistant manager who let him walk out of the store with the merchandice! And again, that is where the social engineering would have continued to work, anyone reviewing said tape would have seen him being checked out by the assistant manager, assumed the assistant manager was doing his job, and that there was a legitimate reason for him to take those computers out (even though the reviewer never heard the conversation). And 10 to 1 odds, the reviewer wouldn't even check with accounting to see if anyone was authorized to take 5 computers out of the store that day.
Well, that's the problem. People don't want to know about viruses, trojans, zombies, etc. They want their desktop. They want their applications. They want it to "just work."
Consider the phone. People just want to be able to pick up the receiver, dial the number, and talk to their friend/family/co-worker/etc... They don't want a phone switch in their house, sitting under their desk. They don't want all of the burdens involved in maintaining complex hardware.
I'm willing to bet that the first person/company who can provide people with a computing experience without a computer stands to make a lot of $$$. If they can provide the system maintenance, installation of applications, protection from viruses, protection from hardware failure - they will be able to open a huge market, and cash in.
This is where I think Linux will prove pivotal, because this is where we lead Microsoft. Our thin client paradigm is so different, that we lead in many areas. Consider how Microsoft does thin clients - 256 colors only, 800x600 max, 8 fps - all rendered on the terminal server where the "picture" of the desktop is sent down the wire to the thin client who displays the "picture" and sends feedback of mouse clicks and key presses to the terminal server. Linux, and X, render everything on the X terminal, and send back and forth on the pipe application information. What does this all mean? You can play quake 3 on a linux X terminal but you couldn't on a Microsoft solution. And it would take YEARS to fix that gap. We lead here, and we could exploit it if we jumpped on this opportunity.
Did I say World Domination? Oops...now you all know my plans...
If the CD was purchased and then shared. How is the sharer committing copyright infringement.
You know, that is a question I want answered. Lets say I ripped my entire CD collection to my computer, but because human nature is greedy, I installed Kazaa to download more music. It set up an upload directory where I ripped all my songs so I am sharing my music collection that I legally purchased. I start using Kazaa, but I never find anything worth downloading, but Kazaa continues to run in the background, thousands of songs being shared that I might not even be aware are being shared. In fact, if I do not understand how Kazaa works, I might think that every song on there that is available to download is there for my legal consumption (this is why RIAA, MPAA have been on "educational compaigns"). If I get sued by the RIAA, could I use the following defense:
All of the songs on my computer are legal fair use copies from my CD library. The RIAA is guilty of "breaking into" my computer and gaining "unauthorized access" to my library using exploits provided by Kazaa software.
After all, I'm not the one making the copies of my songs - the downloaders are. I suppose the RIAA could accuse me of contributing to copyright infringement, but if I do not fully understand the workings of Kazaa or their network, can I sucessfully plead innocence?
Imagine, if you will, that you are starting out with a small family, and you want to protect them by not allowing channels with questionable content into your home. This way you can get HBO Family without worry about your children flipping the channel and seeing an execution, Sopranos style, on regular HBO.
Hell, its a lot easier then programming your V-chip.
You can select, add, and remove channels from month to month depending on your wishes or desires, while allowing you to only pay for what you want to watch!
Like most people who have posted here, most current television shows do not interest me, but every once in a while something comes on that I do want to watch. As well, most movie channels still show content that I enjoy to watch. So to be able to only pay for what I want to watch, and not have to pay for crap that I will never watch, is a big win for the consumer.
The message here for Real should be really simple. Make your player as easy to get as possible. Require two clicks to download. Content is King. Annoying software is not.
EXACTLY! Real is already making its money off the server software! The more people with their client, the more valuable their server software will be. They should be bundling it with other downloadable software (like they did with Netscape), advertising their software on every download site, giving everyone every chance to get their software with no alterior motives whatsoever! Oh, and hey, if you would like to get a better player, better quality audio and video - ya, we sell that too.
I think what we've got to aim for is a legal system that preserves the goals of the Copyright Act while accommodating, to the extent possible, the human impulse to share the cultural creations we love.
How many times have you sung, "Happy Birthday" to a friend or family member? Did you know that even though the person who wrote that song is long dead and gone and will never write another song, his estate is still collecting royalties on that song for every public performance? That is the reason why popular television shows, movies, even restaurants sing something other than "Happy Birthday" to celebrate someone's birthday. Even though the song has permiated every level of our culture, we are denied its ubiquitous use in our culture. The idea of copyright was to encourage the original author to create. If they are dead, how can they create? This is why I believe our copyright system is so messed up.
I ought to copy Disney's "Snow White" onto DVD and sell it to the public. And when I have my day in court, tell the judge that I would be happy to pay any royalties to Walt Disney, if he would come to court to accept them.
I think you are unduly worried. In all matters, the government tries to be fair to all parties involved, as well as show concern to its constituents.
For example: It costs $90 to register a corporation (in my state) and $15 annually to maintain that registration. No matter if you have earnings over $1B or just over $100. There is no favoratism, and concern is shown for the smaller low income company.
Even in the article the author of the report cites concern for open source: "We need to better understand the potential impact of new product liability laws, particularly on smaller software makers and open-source providers." -- Ron Moritz, chief security strategist for Islandia, N.Y.-based Computer Associates and chairman of the taskforce that released the plan.
I could have modded you down as a troll, but I thought it would be better to debunk your reactionary rhetoric. The best way to make sure that what you think might happen won't happen is to get involved in politics. Write your representative, and senators and share with them your concerns. But most importantly VOTE THIS NOVEMBER!
Good points. As well, lawyers are not allwed in small claims court, it is just me, the person I am accusing of doing me wrong and the judge, with damages of around $500 max (I would definately do more research before walking in there, of course). If I was claiming damages of $50(cost of game) + $30(frustration, time, etc), do you really think they would fly their CEO or the tech who banned me out there to defend against an $80 claim in small claims? Heck no. Free game + dinner on them! (assuming I could collect...)
However, reading on their forum, I did manage to get some great answers to some of my original questions. You are banned from the master server browser. Which means that you can use alternate means to connect to the game servers (GameSpy, IP given to you by a friend, etc). You are only banned from the Epic Master Server Browser which will inhibit your ability to connect, but not stop you altogether (so it isn't as damaging as we had been led to believe). As well, server operators have the choice of honoring the ban recommendations of the master server, but by default that is not enabled. If Epic did decide to defend against my small claims suit, they could easily argue that access to the master server is not critical to playing online, and is a service they provide with limitation. If I cheat, they can remove access because of my abuse of that service, without stopping my ability to play online. Heck, if I were a judge I would rule in their favor.
First off, let me clarify, I hate cheaters. I run an ethics guild, and one of our rules is don't cheat. So I have no desire to see on-line cheaters flourish.
BUT
If you spent $50 on a computer game, only to have one of the major reasons you paid for it disabled by the manufacturer, wouldn't you be shouting bloody murder? Especially if they singled you out personally? I know I would be furious! Chances are, I would go down to the courthouse and file a claim in small claims court the next day.
Question is, is there a better way to handle this other than a permanent ban from the master server? (Someone mentioned a set of cheating servers. I think I would be OK if those were the only servers you had access to once you were banned/restricted)
Better yet, does the master server just work for browsing playable servers, and could you bypass it with clients like GameSpy, or is it more like how Half-Life used WON to check WonIDs?
That is a really good point, and I would also suggest layering your power backup infrastructure. Many of the costs associated with providing acceptable power to the building we purchased was figured into the cost of building maintainance. We layered the power with an external generator (gets tested once a month - enough diesel stored on site for 72 hours of operation), a building-wide UPS (room dedicated to lead acid batteries), and a rackmounted UPS in every rack in our server room.
The building-wide UPS powers a special outlet in every cubicle that everyone's computer is plugged into. If the power goes out, the lights may go out while the external generator gets up to speed, but the computers stay on (although we do have some employees who like to move things around - we find out who they are at the next power outage).
The advantages of this are that the UPS doesn't get used very often, and when it does, it is only for a short period. However, if there are major power problems, we can stay up for a relatively long period of time.
Such as, going from '98 to XP, and trying to figure out the networking components. Drastic changes there...
But there were a lot of overhauls in the GUI, and how it expected the user to get around. If you are an expert in getting through the desktop, and desktop navigation, a major overhaul like that will slow you down until you can re-find your way around.
Again, the problem is change, and how quickly we can adapt. If I am an expert (debatable, I know) then what about those who are casual users? "I know I saw a way to change that in '98, but it doesn't seem to be here in XP. Maybe you can't change that in XP. XP sucks!"
If you laughed (smiled, smirked, etc) at that hypothetical situation, replace '98 with some older version of KDE/Gnome, and XP with a newer version of KDE/Gnome. Then you will see why it is important to remember the end user in your initial design, and when you make significant changes. This is one reason why I like Gnome's HIG. A lot of the end user concerns have been taken care of by people who are more knowledgable on that subject than myself. It allows me to focus on what I need to do, yet provide something that is relatively intuitive for new users to learn. Talk about a win/win situation.
Funny how Linux has surpassed Apple on the desktop (# of users).
So many people say that the desktop war is long over. I think those who are involved with Gnome, KDE, etc. will tell you that the battle has just started to warm up. This is a war of attrition, and in an enviornment where Gnome releases on a strict 6 month schedule - you can't wait 4 years between a desktop release (Win XP, 2001 - Longhorn, 2005 [estimated]). Apple isn't far off with their once a year incremental releases, but IMHO they charge too much for such relatively small changes.
In the end, I think what will attract people to Linux in droves will be the seperation of OS and desktop. Consider this: How frustrating was it for you to start up XP for the first time after 6+ years of the Win95 desktop, and the minor changes that subsequent versions brought, and not be able to find the options and settings you are familiar with? For those in IT, consider this: How many technophobes do you know in your company who cringe every time you tell them that you are going to change something on their computer? Not everyone is as comfortable with change as those of us who work with computers all the time. Being able to upgrade the OS underneath the GUI - priceless. Or GUIs who define and stick to conservative Human Interface Guides (like Gnome) and as a result the desktop does not change from version to version - worth much more than any TCO study from Redmond.
Wow, this rant is going all over the place - please be patient, I have one more point to touch upon: Ever see those Computer Associates commercials on TV with the cardboard cutout of a salesman stalking the IT guy? The commercial where the salesman keeps asking over and over again, "So, how much software would you like to buy today?" Kinda reminds me of our Microsoft rep. Last week our company got a specialized piece of software from Adobe. The software itself didn't cost too much, but what surprised me is what came in the box with the CD - a hardware key. Their software would not work without this device plugged into the parrallel port of my computer. It is moves like the previous two examples that make me think - The world will be a lot more beautiful when OSS rules the world. I don't know of a single person who enjoys typing in those 25 digit software keys. Hardware keys? WTF? How much do those raise the cost of the software? Not to mention that while in theory you can just keep adding more and more hardware keys to a computer, in reality, you can only use a very limited number at a time. You thought it was tough juggling software keys in a database for 3K users - imagine juggling physical computer components! "I'm sorry, you can't run Acrobat today. Joe borrowed the key yesterday, is out sick today, and we can't find it in his desk."
I guess the old saying is true: the harder you try to hold onto something, the more it slips out of your fingers. This is so true of several industries of our time. MPAA (although not so much as others), RIAA (mostly subversive, but signs of an open revolt), Software Industry (one look at Linux, and you can see it is in full revolt). How much you wanna bet that in 5 years, those who weren't watching will be asking, "Microsoft? I don't understand what the big deal was all about." And consider this: We've all seen rabid die hard Apple fans, but has Microsoft ever engendered any of it's users to its cause?
It doesn't look all that different from Mac hardware. Could you run AmigaOS on Mac hardware? What seperates newer Amigas from other modern computers? Is Amiga just a name now?
The parent poster is saying some very smart things - listen. If you are absolutely certain this is the direction you want to go, consider possibly an ad-hoc network of wireless cards in everyone's computer. This will allow all of you to network with each other without installing anything permanent. I would purchase your own wireless card, and encourage the other tennants to purchase their own wireless cards that they can take with them when they leave. If not that many bite, you can perhaps offer to subsidize their purchase - but be patient with your friends before blurting out, "I'll buy your card for ya!" If it is important to play with you, they will find a way.
Beyond that, you have way too much money to throw away. I would find more intelligent uses for it. Consider the parent post. Unless you own the building, and want to provide something nice for all your tennants, I wouldn't invest in much outside of your appartment. Encourage others to join you in going wireless to play together, but don't run wires all over a building that you don't own.
Because the vast majority of the gaming world lives in the northern hemisphere (Japan, USA, Europe, etc.), and unfortunately the minority gets overlooked. Sorry about that.
WRONG!
It is because Valve's headquarters are located in the northern hemisphere. They speak in terms of their locality, and assume readers will convert to their own locality. Same is true of television/radio stations that broadcast across time lines. They state where they are located, and use their locality to broadcast information. As a listener/viewer, you are to convert the information given you depending on your relative position to them. Same with Press Releases which all include information stating when, where, and about the company. So when Valve, L.L.C. of Kirkland Washington states that it will be ready for a summer release, you must take that into account when converting information released by that company depending on your relative position to where that company is located/where the press release was released. Being in the southern hemisphere, summer=winter, fall=spring, etc.
Now if some world famous austrailian company were to make announcements, then the rest of the world would have to make the conversions to their locality.
...you could have spent $100B on NASA, getting people back to the moon and to Mars and been remembered forever.
Instead you chose to spend $100B on bombing Iraq, to be reviled forever.
You know, I wonder if that had some kind of factor to this decision. That GWB took a look at how he would be remembered by future generations, especially if he lost this election, and realized he didn't like what he saw - First attack on the United States since Pearl Harbor, erosion of constitutionally granted rights, 2 wars, an ugly occupation, an economy that just will not recover, and critics that grow louder as election time grows nearer. Maybe he saw a gambit like this as his only means of redeaming himself in the court of public opinion. That if he sets us out on a long term project, like going to Mars, then perhaps he will be remembered more favorably in the long term - even if he doesn't look so good in the short term.
He was 15 when he broke the DVD encryption and now he is still only around 19. He doesn't need to work for a living yet.
That is going to be one hell of a resume when he finally decides to get a job. I can see it now:
Boss: Hello everyone, I would like to introduce you to our new intern Jon. When he was 15, Jon wrote a program that allowed him to watch DVDs on Linux, and when he was 20 he wrote a program that allowed him to listen to music downloaded from Apple's iTunes on Linux.
Jon: Hi!
Boss: Too bad none of you slackers have ever done anything worth mentioning.
Mike who sits next to the copier: I've done something important!
Boss: Oh yea? What's that?
Mike who sits next to the copier: I've replaced the toner when the copier ran out. Paper too!
Boss: (muttering) Someone in HR hates me. I just know it.
Get to work on eliminating spammers and much of our current crop of computer-related woes will just GO AWAY. The only people who would hate for this to happen are the spammers, the hired guns, and companies like Symantec...
*sniff* *sniff* Do I smell a conspiracy?
I believe you are mistaken.
What happens in December 2006 is that all television stations must be broadcasting in Digital, as well, every new television being sold must be able to natively receive the digital signals.
I am not sure when television stations will stop broadcasting in analog - whether or not they will be required to continue broadcasting in analog until a certain date specified by the FCC, or if it is up to their discresion as to when the pull the plug.
While common sense would say, "pull the plug sooner rather than later" (to save on transmitter maintenanace, cost of electricity required to power the transmitter, FCC wants to use the recently vacated bandwidth, etc) to do so may be damaging to their viewership who have yet to transition to digital. After all, I know there will be millions of Americans who will say "Why replace it if it ain't broke?"
Here is the real kicker; if you thought that digital signal transmission from the television staion = HDTV, be prepared for disappointment. Just because the signal is digital, doesn't mean that they are using the HDTV portion of the new specification. Digital broadcasts will facilitate the ability to broadcast in HDTV, but it will not mandate it. If you thought everything was going to be gorgeous 720p or 1080i in 3 years - you are mistaken. Be prepared for many years of 480p broadcasts for a long while.
If all that talk about needing a broadcast flag to facilitate "high quality programming" didn't make sense before, perhaps you weren't looking at the big picture. (Ok, kinda corny)
Couple of problems with your link. First, you are linking to a press release - basically a marketing ploy by Sun saying, "Hey! Look at what we are doing! Don't forget about us!" Although it doesn't happen all the time, I'm sure the Slashdot editors would prefer to get links to other news sources instead of just links to corporate propaganda.
Secondly, how is what they are developing with their chip multithreading technology any different from what Intel has already PRODUCED with their HyperThreading enabled processors? Intel HT chips are not only already on the market, but being used in production machines. Sun's processors, on the other hand, won't ship until next year.
I'm sorry, but this is NOT "News for Nerds", and it was correctly rejected. To be honest, I'm surprised that this got moderated up. After all, when you submit a story the submission page states, "Note: grousing about rejected submissions is Offtopic and usually gets moderated that way. It happens, don't take it personally."
If you are looking at going for multi-channel sound, may I suggest going with a name you already trust? I happened to be at CEDIA this year in Indianapolis and had the pleasure of listening to a new system that Klipsch is going to introduce on or about the 24th of October, THX Ultra2 speakers. According to the Indianapolis Star, The system, called THX Ultra2, includes seven speakers and two subwoofers and literally surrounds the listeners. If the sound in movies is as important to you as your music, then you should give these speakers a serious look. I know I am drooling.