Some people seem to think anything RFID has to be bad. This proves that doesn't have to be the case. These folks are open about the use of the RFIDs and they use it to provide real value to the customer. There's nothing wrong with that at all.
Compare/contrast to Wal-Mart which isn't open about the use of RFIDs and doesn't give the customer anything of value when they're installed. Since the customer knows nothing about the RFIDs, they don't have real choice in whether they want "to participate" in potentially privacy invading information gathering. Prada, by being open about the tags, alows the customer to simply shop somewhere else if they don't like them.
I just don't get it. What's the point of playing an online game if you have to cheat to win?
I think it's the great sense of satisfaction you get from knowing you're skilled enough to download a cheat. I don't know about you, but when I get just the right "english" on a downloaded cheat it's like both my feets are floating in the air. I feel the rush of super nitrous adrenalin as I watch the download status bar. When it's actually installed on my computer the warm wet sensation in my pants tells me I'm truly in heaven.
I think it's funny that they "enhance" the mirrors with a flashing display instead of simply hooking up some video cameras so your "mirror" would display the blind spot in the first place.
I like the radar, but with cameras so cheap and common you'd think no one should have a blind spot anymore.
BTW, looking over your sholder in heavy traffic is dangerous. Yeah, you currently need to do it, but if it could be avoided it would save a lot of rear-end accidents.
Or better yet, why not a real warranty, like the kind you get with your toaster.
The government could simply make a word ("warrentemail" for example) and a law that includes the exact legal definition of the word as it relates to email.
The legal definition would state that all people that put this word in the subject line of their email warrant that either a)the email is for personal, non-business purposes only or b) if it is for business purposes then the sender has a preexisting relationship with the recipient, much like the do-no-call list specifies.
The law would also specify a $10,000 tax for domestic use or a $10,000 tariff for international use with 20% of all tax or tariff going to any improper recipient. It would apply to anyone who used the word but didn't meet the correct legal criteria. It would apply to each improper email sent.
Then everyone just makes a simple filter to filter out everyone that does not include this word in their subject line.
Result - No new infrastructure cost. Very minor burden on personal use. Very minor burden on legitimate business use. No burden on anyone who doesn't use the word. Major burden on anyone who spoofs the word. Major incentive for both private and public parties to catch and prosecute offenders. Actual criminal offenses for offenders that don't pay up because tax evasion is a federal offense.
"Maybe you are not as a good Network administrator as you think.
That was my immediate thought. "
This is addressed to both you and the parent. I'm not going to try to defend my skills as a network admin but you might want to check out my reasons for it.
First of all I honestly don't know a lot about Macs so I'd have to say I'm a lousy network admin there. I was easily able to get it hooked up on my home LAN both wired and wirelessly to the internet, but a lot of things, especially as they relate to system internals, are really brand new to me.
The second reason is the real problem though: Everyone seems to be saying connecting Macs to PCs is a piece of cake. So shouldn't I be able to do it without much of a problem? I shouldn't have to be a very good network admin at all, should I?
How can you folks write this stuff with a straight face? You say this stuff takes no kind of skill at all and that that's why it's superior. You say it doesn't take much time. But then when someone has a problem you point to lack of skill. What gives? Why can't you just admit it can be frustrating at times for newbies, just like most other technologies.
The printer issue appeard to be related to unrliable Mac drivers from Lexmark. Gimp drivers saved the day. I just can't even figure out what's going on with the file sharing. It looks like everthing _should_ work thenI get an error 5000. My server says the authentication is good, but we just don't see it on the Mac.
Funny thing is, I'm a network administrator by trade (Windows network) and I've bought books to help out with the Mac. I'm definately not one of the technophobes talked about in the article. If I wanted to have a homogeneous network there would be no problem, but I live in a Windows world and she lives in a Mac world and we have to learn to get along.
The point of the post is that you don't have to dink around for hours to get a Mac to work
The only reason this would be true is if your Mac world never interacted with the the rest of the world. The moment you try to interact, the hours start zooming by.
My girlfriend moved in last year. She's a Mac person. First she wanted to use my wireless network. It wasn't too bad, but most of ther WEP terminoligy was different so it took a little time. Then she wanted to use my networked printer. HHOOUURRSS later she could, but she still complains about the settings. Now she wants to get to my shared files. HHHHHOOOOUUUURRRSSSS later she still cant, even though the event logs clearly show she's authenticating.
My point isn't that Macs aren't good, it's just that they have lousy manners when it comes to working with others. If you want to ignore the fact that the rest of the world is actively trying to connect to each other then by all means please continue with your "Macs are easy!" fantasy. However, if you want to include the rest of us in your world then please acknowledget that they're every bit as complicated as, well, the rest of world.
It's easier than most people think technologically. It's the fact that governments and businesses want to track us that makes it difficult.
1. Why do merchants need my name to sell me goods? Anonymous smart cards and PINS would be secure and convenient for both parties but wouldn't require personal data.
2. Why does my bank keep records of who I paid in a form readable by them. After all, the records (theoretically )only exist to settle disputes. Shouldn't I have the only key?
3. Ditto with phone records and Smart Tag records. They could easily be encrypted as they're created and then only opened with my authorization.
4. Why does your ISP keep logs at all? If they simply dumped the data then there's no trail. It would actually save them money on backups and storage while preserving my ability to surf where I want privately.
5. They say the driver's license exists only to make sure everyone can control their automobile in a safe manner. So why do they need to know where I live to do that? If they give me the driving test and then link the license to biometric data that gives a simple yes, he's the guy he says he is, or no, he isn't then they have no conceivable need for my address, phone number or even name.
You can go on and on. Records can be encrypted with you holding the key. Records can simply not be kept to begin with. You can assure you are the rightful holder of documents through a biometric yes/no on the document itself.
So I ask you the question: If all this is possible (trivially with today's technology) then why are they seeking more data instead of trying to get rid of data points? The answer is simple: Control. I submit we should be electing officials who have less of a desire to control us. It's what our fore-fathers would have wanted.
Having seperate missions would give us a little healthy diversity.
For instance, it's good to have the Soyuz available whenever we have to ground the shuttle. The Mir was cool when we didn't have any kind of space station.
We also get a boost from some healthy competition. Would we have made it to the moon if not for the desire to beat the Russians there?
If we really do want to get to Mars, I'll bet we get there faster with multiple programs.
You want what privacy or ease of use? Privacy? Dump your credit cards, and all other forms of digital clutter so you can complain less...
This would be a great solution if it didn't make you a second-class citizen. Want to fly? Must have ID. Want to rent a car? Must have credit card. Want to conduct business? Must have a phone.
To rent my apartment I had to go through a credit check. To eat for the same price as my neighbor I had to give my info to the grocery store.
It's not merely convenience. We're effectively being forced to do this to participate in society.
Hell yeah! It's clear the RIAA and other large copyright holders feal, for some reason, that they're above the law. It's like a guy who gets his wallet stolen going out and stealing the criminal's girlfriend's car. It may feal good and all, but it's still theft and you'll still be held acountable when your case hits the courts.
TW
layer 2. It can be made up of a substantial collection of other works and therefor be a "database".
layer 3. The individual works can be "inventions" and thus patended.
So, if someone "gives" you a "work" and says "do anything you want with it", kind of like the GPL or BSD license might say, then you have a dilema. Do you trust them and do whatever you want? Or are you forced to look for a copyright, look for a patend _and_ look for a database property right before you use it. Or maybe get sued.
At least they put in a computer program exemption.
To expand on this: If the third world wasn't going to buy the software anyway (likely) and the MS development costs stay the same (very likely since the have so many customers) then the total cost of the "donation," from Microsofts perspective, is the cost of shipping CDs and paper.
The key here is that the new MS users probably wouldn't have been MS users at all if MS had not "given" them the license so MS doesn't lose out on any revenue because of the "gift". Also MS doesn't have any added costs (above the CDs) because it had already developed the product. billion vs 1 million acutal? Yeah, the numbers look good to me.
One of the reasons NT/2000 took off was that people were able to reuse the skills they had gained running their home desktop computers to also run the server. I can see this server taking off in small Apple shops for the same reason.
Why learn a different platform for the servers if you don't need to?
That's what makes using DRM (which this is, basically) vs. using open source such a battle. You can't simultaneously have modifiable source code and un-modifiable DRM.
Possibility 1: Because open source flourishes, DRM will be marginalized.
Possibility 2: Because DRM flourishes, open source will be marginalized.
Possibility 3: There is no possibility 3. One or the other is going to be slowly die down to irrelevance. Right now open source actually seems to be winning. I hope it stays that way.
Why the fuck would you ever want to carry that much in cash? Haven't you heard of "credit cards" or "checkbooks" in the USA?
Yeah, credit cards and checks are a good thing. Much better than carrying large quantities of cash. It's just so ridiculous carrying large amounts of cash that the police should be able to grab it at will.
Heck, who needs nine computers in their house? It's ridiculous too! Maybe the cops should confiscate those as well?
In fact, the cops should be able to grab anything suspicious. They should define "suspicious" as anything "unusual". People with mohawks should have their hair took and god help you if you should happen to be dancing in the street with an iPod.
Maybe if I paint my car hot pink it should be inpounded. My bible too. Because who on earth would be reading on of those _in public_ anyway. I must be hiding drugs in it.
"but for most people 'archieve' simply means 'stored in a format my program can read.'"
Actually this is very dangerous. Will the next version of Outlook Express support reading that format? What about the version after that? Using open standards dramatically increases the chance that you'll be able to read that archive later on when you need it.
The original epIV cantina scene had some pretty gritty elements to it. It was well done and people loved it, despite obvious science blunders (parsecs anyone?). Compare that to the bar scene near the beginning of epII. The epII scene wasn't nearly as good (even though I happen to think it was one of the better scenes in the movie).
Even if Lucas had shown no improvement since he worked on epIV the fans would be quite happy. Instead he's show a marked devolution in style, truth and warmth of his characters and even many of his action sequences. He certainly doesn't compare with the best of his peers, but neither does he compare with himself of 20+ years ago no matter what style he believes he's working in.
"As the director, the man's actually still pretty good."
Watch epII and Minority Report back to back. They both were made a virtually the same time so they both had the same CG technology available. Watch the big-fight-in-a-factory scene that is present in both. There is no comparison. epII is cartoony and almost amaturish by comparison to to the work of Spielberg.
You can compare scenes throughout epI and epII to similar sceens in other movies with similar results. Lucas is a mediocre director at best. A number of good directors would produce much better movies than Lucas if they had the same high quality actors and technology available on epI & II, even if they were saddled with the same script.
I'll take the bait. If drivers, etc weren't an issue (big if) then:
1. Entertainment pc - video's, music, etc that also has email, web and a few games. The Linux versions of these apps sure look a lot more customizable to the small form factor than most of the Windows versions.
2. Take it with you PC - Dupe your full-size Linux environment on the mini computer and borrow the keyboard, video and mouse when you get to your client site. Why lug a laptop bag?
3. Presentation PC - you can do it with XP, why not with Linux?
4. Development PC - Long commute? Want to code on the metro? No Problem.
In short, most anything you'd want to do on this thing with XP you might also want to do with Linux. You might as well have asked, why bother with XP?
The thing that makes this form factor so appealing is the same thing that makes the iPaq so appealing, but the iPaq had too many compromises as far as storage, speed and OS. This box dispenses with most of those compromises in a nice, pocketable form factor. The desire for Linux is just a desire to dispence with the last of those compromises.
Slashdot Mirror
Some people seem to think anything RFID has to be bad. This proves that doesn't have to be the case. These folks are open about the use of the RFIDs and they use it to provide real value to the customer. There's nothing wrong with that at all.
Compare/contrast to Wal-Mart which isn't open about the use of RFIDs and doesn't give the customer anything of value when they're installed. Since the customer knows nothing about the RFIDs, they don't have real choice in whether they want "to participate" in potentially privacy invading information gathering. Prada, by being open about the tags, alows the customer to simply shop somewhere else if they don't like them.
TW
I think it's the great sense of satisfaction you get from knowing you're skilled enough to download a cheat. I don't know about you, but when I get just the right "english" on a downloaded cheat it's like both my feets are floating in the air. I feel the rush of super nitrous adrenalin as I watch the download status bar. When it's actually installed on my computer the warm wet sensation in my pants tells me I'm truly in heaven.
Please respect my Mad Downloading Skillz.
TW
The tarrif.
I think it's funny that they "enhance" the mirrors with a flashing display instead of simply hooking up some video cameras so your "mirror" would display the blind spot in the first place.
I like the radar, but with cameras so cheap and common you'd think no one should have a blind spot anymore.
BTW, looking over your sholder in heavy traffic is dangerous. Yeah, you currently need to do it, but if it could be avoided it would save a lot of rear-end accidents.
TW
Or better yet, why not a real warranty, like the kind you get with your toaster.
The government could simply make a word ("warrentemail" for example) and a law that includes the exact legal definition of the word as it relates to email.
The legal definition would state that all people that put this word in the subject line of their email warrant that either a)the email is for personal, non-business purposes only or b) if it is for business purposes then the sender has a preexisting relationship with the recipient, much like the do-no-call list specifies.
The law would also specify a $10,000 tax for domestic use or a $10,000 tariff for international use with 20% of all tax or tariff going to any improper recipient. It would apply to anyone who used the word but didn't meet the correct legal criteria. It would apply to each improper email sent.
Then everyone just makes a simple filter to filter out everyone that does not include this word in their subject line.
Result - No new infrastructure cost. Very minor burden on personal use. Very minor burden on legitimate business use. No burden on anyone who doesn't use the word. Major burden on anyone who spoofs the word. Major incentive for both private and public parties to catch and prosecute offenders. Actual criminal offenses for offenders that don't pay up because tax evasion is a federal offense.
TW
The idea isn't to actually use the language but rather to learn it to help you understand other languages.
It's like learning Latin. Nobody actually uses it, but it can give you a deeper understanding of the languages that are based on it.
TW
"Maybe you are not as a good Network administrator as you think.
That was my immediate thought. "
This is addressed to both you and the parent. I'm not going to try to defend my skills as a network admin but you might want to check out my reasons for it.
First of all I honestly don't know a lot about Macs so I'd have to say I'm a lousy network admin there. I was easily able to get it hooked up on my home LAN both wired and wirelessly to the internet, but a lot of things, especially as they relate to system internals, are really brand new to me.
The second reason is the real problem though: Everyone seems to be saying connecting Macs to PCs is a piece of cake. So shouldn't I be able to do it without much of a problem? I shouldn't have to be a very good network admin at all, should I?
How can you folks write this stuff with a straight face? You say this stuff takes no kind of skill at all and that that's why it's superior. You say it doesn't take much time. But then when someone has a problem you point to lack of skill. What gives? Why can't you just admit it can be frustrating at times for newbies, just like most other technologies.
TW
It was Jaguar.
The printer issue appeard to be related to unrliable Mac drivers from Lexmark. Gimp drivers saved the day. I just can't even figure out what's going on with the file sharing. It looks like everthing _should_ work thenI get an error 5000. My server says the authentication is good, but we just don't see it on the Mac.
Funny thing is, I'm a network administrator by trade (Windows network) and I've bought books to help out with the Mac. I'm definately not one of the technophobes talked about in the article. If I wanted to have a homogeneous network there would be no problem, but I live in a Windows world and she lives in a Mac world and we have to learn to get along.
TW
The only reason this would be true is if your Mac world never interacted with the the rest of the world. The moment you try to interact, the hours start zooming by.
My girlfriend moved in last year. She's a Mac person. First she wanted to use my wireless network. It wasn't too bad, but most of ther WEP terminoligy was different so it took a little time. Then she wanted to use my networked printer. HHOOUURRSS later she could, but she still complains about the settings. Now she wants to get to my shared files. HHHHHOOOOUUUURRRSSSS later she still cant, even though the event logs clearly show she's authenticating.
My point isn't that Macs aren't good, it's just that they have lousy manners when it comes to working with others. If you want to ignore the fact that the rest of the world is actively trying to connect to each other then by all means please continue with your "Macs are easy!" fantasy. However, if you want to include the rest of us in your world then please acknowledget that they're every bit as complicated as, well, the rest of world.
TW
It's easier than most people think technologically. It's the fact that governments and businesses want to track us that makes it difficult.
1. Why do merchants need my name to sell me goods? Anonymous smart cards and PINS would be secure and convenient for both parties but wouldn't require personal data.
2. Why does my bank keep records of who I paid in a form readable by them. After all, the records (theoretically )only exist to settle disputes. Shouldn't I have the only key?
3. Ditto with phone records and Smart Tag records. They could easily be encrypted as they're created and then only opened with my authorization.
4. Why does your ISP keep logs at all? If they simply dumped the data then there's no trail. It would actually save them money on backups and storage while preserving my ability to surf where I want privately.
5. They say the driver's license exists only to make sure everyone can control their automobile in a safe manner. So why do they need to know where I live to do that? If they give me the driving test and then link the license to biometric data that gives a simple yes, he's the guy he says he is, or no, he isn't then they have no conceivable need for my address, phone number or even name.
You can go on and on. Records can be encrypted with you holding the key. Records can simply not be kept to begin with. You can assure you are the rightful holder of documents through a biometric yes/no on the document itself.
So I ask you the question: If all this is possible (trivially with today's technology) then why are they seeking more data instead of trying to get rid of data points? The answer is simple: Control. I submit we should be electing officials who have less of a desire to control us. It's what our fore-fathers would have wanted.
TW
Having seperate missions would give us a little healthy diversity.
For instance, it's good to have the Soyuz available whenever we have to ground the shuttle. The Mir was cool when we didn't have any kind of space station.
We also get a boost from some healthy competition. Would we have made it to the moon if not for the desire to beat the Russians there?
If we really do want to get to Mars, I'll bet we get there faster with multiple programs.
TW
But nobody says you have to live in this society. Pick another one, or just move into the wilds of Canada and forget society...
....or stay in this one and try to change it from within.
There's that whole baby and bathwater saying, but I hear it's kind of a cliche...
TW
You want what privacy or ease of use? Privacy? Dump your credit cards, and all other forms of digital clutter so you can complain less...
This would be a great solution if it didn't make you a second-class citizen. Want to fly? Must have ID. Want to rent a car? Must have credit card. Want to conduct business? Must have a phone.
To rent my apartment I had to go through a credit check. To eat for the same price as my neighbor I had to give my info to the grocery store.
It's not merely convenience. We're effectively being forced to do this to participate in society.
TW
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Hell yeah! It's clear the RIAA and other large copyright holders feal, for some reason, that they're above the law. It's like a guy who gets his wallet stolen going out and stealing the criminal's girlfriend's car. It may feal good and all, but it's still theft and you'll still be held acountable when your case hits the courts. TW
I love the potential triple-layer cake.
layer 1. A "work" itself can be copyrighted.
layer 2. It can be made up of a substantial collection of other works and therefor be a "database".
layer 3. The individual works can be "inventions" and thus patended.
So, if someone "gives" you a "work" and says "do anything you want with it", kind of like the GPL or BSD license might say, then you have a dilema. Do you trust them and do whatever you want? Or are you forced to look for a copyright, look for a patend _and_ look for a database property right before you use it. Or maybe get sued.
At least they put in a computer program exemption.
TW
To expand on this: If the third world wasn't going to buy the software anyway (likely) and the MS development costs stay the same (very likely since the have so many customers) then the total cost of the "donation," from Microsofts perspective, is the cost of shipping CDs and paper.
The key here is that the new MS users probably wouldn't have been MS users at all if MS had not "given" them the license so MS doesn't lose out on any revenue because of the "gift". Also MS doesn't have any added costs (above the CDs) because it had already developed the product. billion vs 1 million acutal? Yeah, the numbers look good to me.
TW
Nt started out in small businesses too. We may yet find that these work great in large businesses 5 - 10 years from now.
TW
One of the reasons NT/2000 took off was that people were able to reuse the skills they had gained running their home desktop computers to also run the server. I can see this server taking off in small Apple shops for the same reason.
Why learn a different platform for the servers if you don't need to?
TW
Check your dictionary and look for the word repression.
Or simply check my post and look for "possibility 2"
:-)
TW
That's what makes using DRM (which this is, basically) vs. using open source such a battle. You can't simultaneously have modifiable source code and un-modifiable DRM.
Possibility 1: Because open source flourishes, DRM will be marginalized.
Possibility 2: Because DRM flourishes, open source will be marginalized.
Possibility 3: There is no possibility 3. One or the other is going to be slowly die down to irrelevance. Right now open source actually seems to be winning. I hope it stays that way.
TW
Why the fuck would you ever want to carry that much in cash? Haven't you heard of "credit cards" or "checkbooks" in the USA?
Yeah, credit cards and checks are a good thing. Much better than carrying large quantities of cash. It's just so ridiculous carrying large amounts of cash that the police should be able to grab it at will.
Heck, who needs nine computers in their house? It's ridiculous too! Maybe the cops should confiscate those as well?
In fact, the cops should be able to grab anything suspicious. They should define "suspicious" as anything "unusual". People with mohawks should have their hair took and god help you if you should happen to be dancing in the street with an iPod.
Maybe if I paint my car hot pink it should be inpounded. My bible too. Because who on earth would be reading on of those _in public_ anyway. I must be hiding drugs in it.
TW
"but for most people 'archieve' simply means 'stored in a format my program can read.'"
Actually this is very dangerous. Will the next version of Outlook Express support reading that format? What about the version after that? Using open standards dramatically increases the chance that you'll be able to read that archive later on when you need it.
TW
Then compare Lucas to Lucas.
The original epIV cantina scene had some pretty gritty elements to it. It was well done and people loved it, despite obvious science blunders (parsecs anyone?). Compare that to the bar scene near the beginning of epII. The epII scene wasn't nearly as good (even though I happen to think it was one of the better scenes in the movie).
Even if Lucas had shown no improvement since he worked on epIV the fans would be quite happy. Instead he's show a marked devolution in style, truth and warmth of his characters and even many of his action sequences. He certainly doesn't compare with the best of his peers, but neither does he compare with himself of 20+ years ago no matter what style he believes he's working in.
TW
"As the director, the man's actually still pretty good."
Watch epII and Minority Report back to back. They both were made a virtually the same time so they both had the same CG technology available. Watch the big-fight-in-a-factory scene that is present in both. There is no comparison. epII is cartoony and almost amaturish by comparison to to the work of Spielberg.
You can compare scenes throughout epI and epII to similar sceens in other movies with similar results. Lucas is a mediocre director at best. A number of good directors would produce much better movies than Lucas if they had the same high quality actors and technology available on epI & II, even if they were saddled with the same script.
TW
I'll take the bait. If drivers, etc weren't an issue (big if) then:
1. Entertainment pc - video's, music, etc that also has email, web and a few games. The Linux versions of these apps sure look a lot more customizable to the small form factor than most of the Windows versions.
2. Take it with you PC - Dupe your full-size Linux environment on the mini computer and borrow the keyboard, video and mouse when you get to your client site. Why lug a laptop bag?
3. Presentation PC - you can do it with XP, why not with Linux?
4. Development PC - Long commute? Want to code on the metro? No Problem.
In short, most anything you'd want to do on this thing with XP you might also want to do with Linux. You might as well have asked, why bother with XP?
The thing that makes this form factor so appealing is the same thing that makes the iPaq so appealing, but the iPaq had too many compromises as far as storage, speed and OS. This box dispenses with most of those compromises in a nice, pocketable form factor. The desire for Linux is just a desire to dispence with the last of those compromises.
TW