Don't all chinese citizens have to configure their browsers to go through: block-free-speech.proxy.china.gov ?
Nah. I'm browsing this site from China right now. Geez there's a lot of misconceptions about this place! And a lot of people in this discussion showing their absolute ignorance of anything outside the good old US of A.
Me: You could launch the whole ISS with ONE Saturn V You: BZZZT. The "entire" ISS is going to be 300 tons and cover a football field.
Bzzzt yourself. Then you do it with three Saturn Vs. Saturn V threw 118 tonnes to LEO. The point is still the same - doing in the Shuttle in 10 tonne increments is idiotic.
Strip the orbiter off, make the Ares booster (sometimes called "Shuttle C") with existing hardware and you have a latter-day Saturn V. That is what should be used to launch ISSs or Mars missions. And that was my original point. You simply can't take "Shuttle Math" and apply it to anything approaching what is the "proper way" to get to space.
In fact, if you developed a Saturn V class launcher from scratch it would still be cheaper than using the Shuttle to take the ISS up and bolt it together. How do we know how much it would cost to develop and launch a Saturn V? We've done it once already, in 1966!
But I guess you didn't do any research before you posted, right? And links to slashdot don't count as research! God, I wish they did, I'd have some kind of PhD already!:)
It's all been costed. You CANNOT compare the shuttle. But if you want to, the Shuttle is a 100 tonne launch platform, that brings 90 tonnes back in the shape of the orbiter. It's stupidly inefficient. You could launch the whole ISS with ONE Saturn V. Now do your maths based on 100 tonnes to LEO. Better still, do your math on the 140 tonne to LEO booster you could get if you stripped the Shuttle off the STS and re-configured it slightly.
Bottom Line: $20 billion is real. The numbers have been done by experts, not back of the napkin stuff like the ISS. And $20 Billion buys you a ten year program with 3 shots to Mars, crew of four each shot, total of 18 Man-Years on the surface. Woohoo! Let's go!
You're right. The horribly wrong thing was Dick wanting to shut down the American space program. It wasn't his show, started by the Democrats and all that, and so the Apollo program was gutted, just when the interesting stuff was about to happen. This was then compounded by a horribly wrong choice. Dick gave NASA a choice. The Space Shuttle, or Mars.
NASA, to their eternal shame, looked at the question like this:
Shuttle = thousands of ground crew, "new" technology so big R&D budget, immediate, locked in "market" (discourage booster innovation - be the only sattelite launcher), etc.
Mars = much smaller ground crew, "old" technology (you could get there with a Saturn V), long-term, no "cashflow".
So they picked the Shuttle. It looked like the right thing to do. So now, in 2002, we have a 100 tonne lifter that brings 90 tonnes back to earth in the shape of that stupid orbiter. We have all our "space going eggs" in one basket, the 1970's tech Shuttle. We have the ISS, the largest boondoggle of all time, up there to give the shuttle something to do. And we still don't have a Mars Mission.
Of course this is history told with an eye to making a good story and not completely 100% accurate, but it's good enough to illustrate the point, which is accurate: NASA had a choice and they chose Shuttle.
[Exeunt Ghost and HAMLET] HORATIO He waxes desperate with imagination. MARCELLUS Let's follow; 'tis not fit thus to obey him. HORATIO Have after. To what issue will this come? MARCELLUS Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. HORATIO Heaven will direct it. MARCELLUS Nay, let's follow him.
Every time a "New Doctor Who" is suggested, the obigatory 1,000 comments about "but it was the shaky sets that made it cool" are made.
Geez! Some folks need a new meme! Wherever you sit on the TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY continuum, they're all great shows, different strokes for different folks.
IMO there is plenty of space in "Doctor Who" for some fantastic new stuff. And it doesn't have to be cheezy to be great! I watched Dr Who when I was 8 - 12 and it certainly wasn't cheezy to me, in fact a lot of it was damn scary and thought provoking. I can see a wonderful "New Doctor Who" being all that and more, for an adult audience and more.
Another pet peeve? People who think that talented writers have only one style. Just because they hire a writer from Buffy, DOES NOT MEAN that a "New Doctor Who" would resemble Buffy in the slightest. Writing talent is writing talent. Do you enjoy Bradbury for his science fiction or his gothic horror stories, or the gothic horror science fiction he also writes, to choose one bad example off the top of my head.
Re:Auto respond with "remove and unsubscribe"
on
Anti-Spammers Wage E-War
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This will rarely work as you intend. Sure, it will clean some spam out of your inbox. But most spam, as the article describes, is sent by professional spammers. These people almost ALWAYS change the "Reply To" field on the email. And you still paid for the download, either with real money or your precious time.
Because they fool around with the headers, that "remove and unsubscribe" email you sent goes nowhere. Unless of course your script is digging down into the body for the "real" email - but then in the spam I get it's mostly phone numbers "A Degree in 1 Day!" etc.
I'm surprised you haven't noticed the bounces in your inbox "User Doesn't Exist" etc.
Nice try, wish it worked for more than a small percentage of spam, but it won't. It may even _increase_ the amount of spam you get, as it verifies your address is "live".
This, and several other even less plausible recent "possible attack" stories look to me like a classic "cover your arse" move from the White House. The conversation in the "war-room" probably went something like this:
Flak 1: "Hey, we're really getting pasted over the fact that we "knew about" 9-11 and didn't warn anyone." Solemn pause as the room thinks. Scratching of heads, etc. Flak 2: "I know, let's warn everyone about every possible type of attack, so that if and when the next one occurs we can say..." Flak 1: "... I told you so?! That's brilliant! Bob, call your guy at the Post and see if you can sell that cyber attack story. Frank, get the Times on the phone, tell them... oh you'll think of something! Ted, start posting stories on Slashdot; those hackers suck up every meme that's going..." Scene of chaos as flunkies run in every direction to Flak 1's barked commands.
Did you read the article I linked to? It looked to me like product placement payments are on a similar fine legal line as payola. And notice that it isn't actually "payola" in the original article either, it's the promoter interface between record companies and radio stations.
I guess I should have been more careful not to conflate things - but I kinda thought I was clear if you read the original article and the one I linked to.
You don't disagree with my points, actually, you are disagreeing with points that you made up yourself.
1. You say: The record companies are not making that much in total, anyway.
If cds didn't make money, these large corporations wouldn't be in the business, and they wouldn't be buying other record lables.
I never said they weren't making ANY money, or even that they weren't profitable. Perhaps you can actually read my post and the links I provided..
2. Saying 90% albums don't make a profit is no excuse for not paying artists. 90% of movies don't make money, but how come actors and directors get paid even if a movie flops? Of course the record companies are going to say that profits are slim, what do you expect them to say: "Yeah we made a lot of money off our releases this quarter, luckily our artists have shitty contracts."
Actually, artists DO get paid if the record makes money or not. Your point is just silly. Go do some research. Start here and learn a bit about recording contracts.
3. The analogy to supermarkets is incorrect, if I don't like the selection at a supermarket, I can shop at another one, anyone can set up a store to sell niche products.
You defeat your own point here. Anyone can set up a radio station to play niche music, and they do. Anyone with the kind of money to start a niche store can, that is... same point same argument. I agree!
In the two "entertainment congomerates" I have had the "pleasure" of working for, everyone except seniors flew coach everywhere. I should know, I shlepped around the world for them....
So which company was it where the techies flew first class? Sounds like an urban myth to me.
Let it first be said that I have no love for the music industry, nor do I work for them (anymore)!
But I feel I should have a go at putting some numbers that I was once quoted out there for/.teers to shoot down. Here goes.
The music industry in the US releases about 30,000 albums every year in total. That's about 600 a week. You can verify this figure plenty of ways - including looking on the web. Now here's where the figures start to be pulled out of someone's arse. It's been said to me by people who should know that some number way smaller than 10% of these releases actually make money. This is the missing information that people like Courtney leave out of their diatribes against those bloodsuckers in "the industry".
So when records go off like a bomb, and record companies sit there raking in the profits, don't forget that these profits go to pay for the other 90% of albums that didn't make any cash.
The record companies are not making that much in total, anyway. Their annual reports are online, so you can check this stuff too.
Basically, I'm just a bit bored with hearing the same old charges raised and accepted without any support
So on to payola. Again, this is essentially a storm in a teacup, with lots of missing information that never seems to get presented. For example, payola is the same story as in the supermarket game.
Did you know that supermarkets make more money from placing the product on their shelves than they do from taking it off their shelves (ie selling it to you and me)? Standard stuff. So it is with payola. The radios make more money playing the music than squeezing in the ads. That's how they can afford to play that "nonstop hour of music" or whatever at lunchtime!
Of course record companies, or anyone, need to pay to get their products placed! I don't know why anyone thinks it is any different! The radios are businesses, and they can play what they like, so they play what is in their shareholders interests to play.
Flame away, but I don't understand the shocked gasps that always follows this kind of "revelation", just like I don't understand how people get away with painting the record companies as ravening beasts, when a simple look at the balance sheet tells you they are out there makin' deals just like every other business since the dawn of time. If they were super-profitable, don't you think everyone would be doing it?
Since both the designs mentioned in the article seem to be fully scalable, we come back to the age-old lowest common denominator of power:
How many people can hold the handle that turns the crank? Or in modern terms, how much juice can you reasonably throw at these beautiful monsters!?
So with this in mind, I don't think it's too off-topic to mention this article which talks about the gutting of funding for fuel cells. Or this student research paper site which talks about the inherent economy of different sources of energy in various terms. (Warning! They are pro-nuclear, so YMMV!) Also, if you are interested in where this topic takes you you should stop off here to follow up on whatever takes your fancy as far as energy production goes. They've got a veritable mountain of info. Check out their hydrogen economy stuff.
Whoever thought up the names of the two machines needs to get a grant or something! Green Destiny, mmmmmmm! Q, grooowwwl!
"Web Thinkers"? I think not. These chumps are just people who could afford to go to some conference.
I've heard "big business is taking over the web" since the day I first installed Mosaic. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.
Most big business, as everyone here who's worked for one or contracted for one knows, can't even UNDERSTAND the web let alone take the thing over. Sure, there's some big companies making some plays, but the web is wise to that stuff.
Sorry, just don't buy this kid of FUD.
And "we have to have more bandwidth" is hardly a comment worthy of someone billed as a "web thinker". Of course we all need more bandwidth. We also all need to eat healthy and take excercise. There's "health thinker" conferences for people who say these things as if they are new ideas, too!
The Guardian simply made available an "instant publishing service" called their website. Whoever the user was in Zimbabwe who clicked on the link to see the story - that user is the publisher.
And since the Zimbabwe government is clearly in breach of their "duty of care" to their citizens by allowing them to put themselves in legal jeopardy by visiting web sites (to meet their duty of care responsibilities they would have to block those websites), then as the Guardian I would simply counter-sue Zimbabwe on behalf of its citizens under whatever trade practises legislation exists in Zimbabwe. Or alternatively under a "nuisance suit" law if they have one.
Oh, by the way, in case it's not completely obvious, IANAL. And the above is probably full of holes, but there it is.
It's not marketing. The publishers changed the name because they figured American children were too stupid to know what a Philosopher was. Even though the "Philosopher's Stone" is a "real" idea from history....
They've been doing this for years. Note that I am not saying that American children are stupid! But that's what book publishers think...
This has been incredibly well documented - but I'll leave the google search to the interested reader.
For most of the last couple of years I worked on Clarence St right across from "Matrix Alley" as it has come to be called, just down the hill towards Darling Harbour from the QVB.
They shut down this part of the city regularly during the filming of the first one and this latest one, and it caused few if any problems, although one bicycle in the immediate area did go under during that time it had nothing whatsoever to do with the filming.
Of course it did wonders for productivity as we'ed crowd to the windows whenever some kind of limo/minivan would pull up to try and catch a glimpse of someone famous, all the while trying to be cool and say how we "weren't really that interested" and stuff. Heh.
Now that the "Eastern Distributor" is finished it's actually pretty easy to divert traffic out of the center of the city, so I really think the byline of "Shut Down Sydney" is going a bit far.
Sounds like a publicity machine in overdrive to me.
There are no privacy issues whatsoever.
on
Hong Kong's Octopus
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Octopus as it currently works is completely anonymous.
I have one in my wallet at the moment. One of the best things about it, is that I can charge it up with HKD1000 or so, and then just leave it in my wallet. Then, whenever I am in HK (once a month or more) I can just get on and off the subway, buy lunches and newspapers and more, without the hassle of carrying currency every single trip, no making change, no collecting coins, etc. It's wonderful.
And let me stress again, it's completely anonymous. You buy the cards with cash; you refill them with cash.
That's not to say that some future system will have "opt in for a special deal" features, which you can accept/reject just like you accept/reject loyalty cards. In fact, having some sort of personalisation may enable you to make a phone call to cancel your card should it be stolen. And that would be a good thing.
I can't help but think much of the knee-jerk negativity in here is simple jealousy. Octopus is a fantastically popular, totally secure, wonderfully convenient system. Perhaps some posters secretly wish that their local governments had the balls to introduce something as clever.
Also, it's OLD NEWS. The system has been running for ages.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah. I'm browsing this site from China right now. Geez there's a lot of misconceptions about this place! And a lot of people in this discussion showing their absolute ignorance of anything outside the good old US of A.
You: BZZZT. The "entire" ISS is going to be 300 tons and cover a football field.
Bzzzt yourself. Then you do it with three Saturn Vs. Saturn V threw 118 tonnes to LEO. The point is still the same - doing in the Shuttle in 10 tonne increments is idiotic.
Strip the orbiter off, make the Ares booster (sometimes called "Shuttle C") with existing hardware and you have a latter-day Saturn V. That is what should be used to launch ISSs or Mars missions. And that was my original point. You simply can't take "Shuttle Math" and apply it to anything approaching what is the "proper way" to get to space.
In fact, if you developed a Saturn V class launcher from scratch it would still be cheaper than using the Shuttle to take the ISS up and bolt it together. How do we know how much it would cost to develop and launch a Saturn V? We've done it once already, in 1966!
But I guess you didn't do any research before you posted, right? And links to slashdot don't count as research! God, I wish they did, I'd have some kind of PhD already! :)
Or go to this site.
It's all been costed. You CANNOT compare the shuttle. But if you want to, the Shuttle is a 100 tonne launch platform, that brings 90 tonnes back in the shape of the orbiter. It's stupidly inefficient. You could launch the whole ISS with ONE Saturn V. Now do your maths based on 100 tonnes to LEO. Better still, do your math on the 140 tonne to LEO booster you could get if you stripped the Shuttle off the STS and re-configured it slightly.
Bottom Line: $20 billion is real. The numbers have been done by experts, not back of the napkin stuff like the ISS. And $20 Billion buys you a ten year program with 3 shots to Mars, crew of four each shot, total of 18 Man-Years on the surface. Woohoo! Let's go!
NASA, to their eternal shame, looked at the question like this:
Shuttle = thousands of ground crew, "new" technology so big R&D budget, immediate, locked in "market" (discourage booster innovation - be the only sattelite launcher), etc.
Mars = much smaller ground crew, "old" technology (you could get there with a Saturn V), long-term, no "cashflow".
So they picked the Shuttle. It looked like the right thing to do. So now, in 2002, we have a 100 tonne lifter that brings 90 tonnes back to earth in the shape of that stupid orbiter. We have all our "space going eggs" in one basket, the 1970's tech Shuttle. We have the ISS, the largest boondoggle of all time, up there to give the shuttle something to do. And we still don't have a Mars Mission.
Of course this is history told with an eye to making a good story and not completely 100% accurate, but it's good enough to illustrate the point, which is accurate: NASA had a choice and they chose Shuttle.
[Exeunt Ghost and HAMLET]
HORATIO He waxes desperate with imagination.
MARCELLUS Let's follow; 'tis not fit thus to obey him.
HORATIO Have after. To what issue will this come?
MARCELLUS Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
HORATIO Heaven will direct it.
MARCELLUS Nay, let's follow him.
Now that is an insightful post! Why post it anon!? You've absolutely hit the nail on the head!
Geez! Some folks need a new meme! Wherever you sit on the TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY continuum, they're all great shows, different strokes for different folks.
IMO there is plenty of space in "Doctor Who" for some fantastic new stuff. And it doesn't have to be cheezy to be great! I watched Dr Who when I was 8 - 12 and it certainly wasn't cheezy to me, in fact a lot of it was damn scary and thought provoking. I can see a wonderful "New Doctor Who" being all that and more, for an adult audience and more.
Another pet peeve? People who think that talented writers have only one style. Just because they hire a writer from Buffy, DOES NOT MEAN that a "New Doctor Who" would resemble Buffy in the slightest. Writing talent is writing talent. Do you enjoy Bradbury for his science fiction or his gothic horror stories, or the gothic horror science fiction he also writes, to choose one bad example off the top of my head.
Because they fool around with the headers, that "remove and unsubscribe" email you sent goes nowhere. Unless of course your script is digging down into the body for the "real" email - but then in the spam I get it's mostly phone numbers "A Degree in 1 Day!" etc.
I'm surprised you haven't noticed the bounces in your inbox "User Doesn't Exist" etc.
Nice try, wish it worked for more than a small percentage of spam, but it won't. It may even _increase_ the amount of spam you get, as it verifies your address is "live".
He's right - it isn't. But it damn well should be.
If ever there was a sentence that motivates you to support anti-spamming groups, the spammer's words above should be it.
If I didn't ask for it I don't want it.
I joined up just now. You?
Flak 1: "Hey, we're really getting pasted over the fact that we "knew about" 9-11 and didn't warn anyone." ... oh you'll think of something! Ted, start posting stories on Slashdot; those hackers suck up every meme that's going..."
Solemn pause as the room thinks. Scratching of heads, etc.
Flak 2: "I know, let's warn everyone about every possible type of attack, so that if and when the next one occurs we can say..."
Flak 1: "... I told you so?! That's brilliant! Bob, call your guy at the Post and see if you can sell that cyber attack story. Frank, get the Times on the phone, tell them
Scene of chaos as flunkies run in every direction to Flak 1's barked commands.
Something like that, right?
I guess I should have been more careful not to conflate things - but I kinda thought I was clear if you read the original article and the one I linked to.
You can easily arrive at the one in ten rule yourself, if you do a little web research. It's surely the leaast controversial thing I said!
1. You say: The record companies are not making that much in total, anyway. If cds didn't make money, these large corporations wouldn't be in the business, and they wouldn't be buying other record lables.
I never said they weren't making ANY money, or even that they weren't profitable. Perhaps you can actually read my post and the links I provided..
2. Saying 90% albums don't make a profit is no excuse for not paying artists. 90% of movies don't make money, but how come actors and directors get paid even if a movie flops? Of course the record companies are going to say that profits are slim, what do you expect them to say: "Yeah we made a lot of money off our releases this quarter, luckily our artists have shitty contracts."
Actually, artists DO get paid if the record makes money or not. Your point is just silly. Go do some research. Start here and learn a bit about recording contracts.
3. The analogy to supermarkets is incorrect, if I don't like the selection at a supermarket, I can shop at another one, anyone can set up a store to sell niche products.
You defeat your own point here. Anyone can set up a radio station to play niche music, and they do. Anyone with the kind of money to start a niche store can, that is... same point same argument. I agree!
I'd mod you +1 funny if I could!
So which company was it where the techies flew first class? Sounds like an urban myth to me.
But I feel I should have a go at putting some numbers that I was once quoted out there for /.teers to shoot down. Here goes.
The music industry in the US releases about 30,000 albums every year in total. That's about 600 a week. You can verify this figure plenty of ways - including looking on the web. Now here's where the figures start to be pulled out of someone's arse. It's been said to me by people who should know that some number way smaller than 10% of these releases actually make money. This is the missing information that people like Courtney leave out of their diatribes against those bloodsuckers in "the industry".
So when records go off like a bomb, and record companies sit there raking in the profits, don't forget that these profits go to pay for the other 90% of albums that didn't make any cash.
The record companies are not making that much in total, anyway. Their annual reports are online, so you can check this stuff too.
Basically, I'm just a bit bored with hearing the same old charges raised and accepted without any support
So on to payola. Again, this is essentially a storm in a teacup, with lots of missing information that never seems to get presented. For example, payola is the same story as in the supermarket game.
Did you know that supermarkets make more money from placing the product on their shelves than they do from taking it off their shelves (ie selling it to you and me)? Standard stuff. So it is with payola. The radios make more money playing the music than squeezing in the ads. That's how they can afford to play that "nonstop hour of music" or whatever at lunchtime!
Of course record companies, or anyone, need to pay to get their products placed! I don't know why anyone thinks it is any different! The radios are businesses, and they can play what they like, so they play what is in their shareholders interests to play.
Flame away, but I don't understand the shocked gasps that always follows this kind of "revelation", just like I don't understand how people get away with painting the record companies as ravening beasts, when a simple look at the balance sheet tells you they are out there makin' deals just like every other business since the dawn of time. If they were super-profitable, don't you think everyone would be doing it?
How many people can hold the handle that turns the crank? Or in modern terms, how much juice can you reasonably throw at these beautiful monsters!?
So with this in mind, I don't think it's too off-topic to mention this article which talks about the gutting of funding for fuel cells. Or this student research paper site which talks about the inherent economy of different sources of energy in various terms. (Warning! They are pro-nuclear, so YMMV!) Also, if you are interested in where this topic takes you you should stop off here to follow up on whatever takes your fancy as far as energy production goes. They've got a veritable mountain of info. Check out their hydrogen economy stuff.
Whoever thought up the names of the two machines needs to get a grant or something! Green Destiny, mmmmmmm! Q, grooowwwl!
"Web Thinkers"? I think not. These chumps are just people who could afford to go to some conference.
I've heard "big business is taking over the web" since the day I first installed Mosaic. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.
Most big business, as everyone here who's worked for one or contracted for one knows, can't even UNDERSTAND the web let alone take the thing over. Sure, there's some big companies making some plays, but the web is wise to that stuff.
Sorry, just don't buy this kid of FUD.
And "we have to have more bandwidth" is hardly a comment worthy of someone billed as a "web thinker". Of course we all need more bandwidth. We also all need to eat healthy and take excercise. There's "health thinker" conferences for people who say these things as if they are new ideas, too!
Not trolling, just stating the blinding obvious!
The Guardian simply made available an "instant publishing service" called their website. Whoever the user was in Zimbabwe who clicked on the link to see the story - that user is the publisher.
And since the Zimbabwe government is clearly in breach of their "duty of care" to their citizens by allowing them to put themselves in legal jeopardy by visiting web sites (to meet their duty of care responsibilities they would have to block those websites), then as the Guardian I would simply counter-sue Zimbabwe on behalf of its citizens under whatever trade practises legislation exists in Zimbabwe. Or alternatively under a "nuisance suit" law if they have one.
Oh, by the way, in case it's not completely obvious, IANAL. And the above is probably full of holes, but there it is.
I suspect this is a troll, but anyway...
It's not marketing. The publishers changed the name because they figured American children were too stupid to know what a Philosopher was. Even though the "Philosopher's Stone" is a "real" idea from history....
They've been doing this for years. Note that I am not saying that American children are stupid! But that's what book publishers think...
This has been incredibly well documented - but I'll leave the google search to the interested reader.
Indeed it doesn't! Meant "we'd" of course. Well done to you.
and I previewed and everything... sigh
For most of the last couple of years I worked on Clarence St right across from "Matrix Alley" as it has come to be called, just down the hill towards Darling Harbour from the QVB.
They shut down this part of the city regularly during the filming of the first one and this latest one, and it caused few if any problems, although one bicycle in the immediate area did go under during that time it had nothing whatsoever to do with the filming.
Of course it did wonders for productivity as we'ed crowd to the windows whenever some kind of limo/minivan would pull up to try and catch a glimpse of someone famous, all the while trying to be cool and say how we "weren't really that interested" and stuff. Heh.
Now that the "Eastern Distributor" is finished it's actually pretty easy to divert traffic out of the center of the city, so I really think the byline of "Shut Down Sydney" is going a bit far.
Sounds like a publicity machine in overdrive to me.
I have one in my wallet at the moment. One of the best things about it, is that I can charge it up with HKD1000 or so, and then just leave it in my wallet. Then, whenever I am in HK (once a month or more) I can just get on and off the subway, buy lunches and newspapers and more, without the hassle of carrying currency every single trip, no making change, no collecting coins, etc. It's wonderful.
And let me stress again, it's completely anonymous. You buy the cards with cash; you refill them with cash.
That's not to say that some future system will have "opt in for a special deal" features, which you can accept/reject just like you accept/reject loyalty cards. In fact, having some sort of personalisation may enable you to make a phone call to cancel your card should it be stolen. And that would be a good thing.
I can't help but think much of the knee-jerk negativity in here is simple jealousy. Octopus is a fantastically popular, totally secure, wonderfully convenient system. Perhaps some posters secretly wish that their local governments had the balls to introduce something as clever.
Also, it's OLD NEWS. The system has been running for ages.