They seem to care enough to stop me from building my own player. It seems they will sue people who distribute DVD decoders (see MPAA vs 2600) or build DVD decoders (MPAA vs Jon). So I think your claim that they "don't care" if I cannot build a player is entirely false.
I'm confused, I didn't say the content industry doesn't care about people making their own players! They care VERY much. Heres my quote "the content industry doesn't care if you can't build your own player". Where did I say that the content industry doesn't care about you making your own player??
The industry is going to lobby for legislation that locks us into their vision of how the world should be. And they dont care if you or I don't like it.
You have stated: "So I think your claim that they "don't care" if I cannot build a player is entirely false." So you think Valenti cares that I cannot build my own player? He doesn't care a bit. His responses to numerous issues prove my point. For example, when given the argument that engineers couldn't build their own HD recievers because of the current legal enviornment he responded, "Let's say there are a thousand [engineers]. But there are 284 million people in this country. You can't have public policy that is aimed at 100,000 people [engineers] when the other multi-multi-millions are also involved. You can't do it that way." Thus I think its pretty clear that Valenti in particular DOES NOT CARE THAT YOU CAN'T BUILD YOUR OWN PLAYER/DECODER/WHATEVER.
You are being foolish. I'm on an aeroplane. I have my laptop with me and a DVD movie. You're telling me I should lug around a $20 hi-fi DVD player and the television to go with it instead of using Totem on my laptop? Be realistic.
Your being foolish, you are attributing a belief to me that I simply do not hold. My comments were in reference to Valenti's responses. I agree that it would be nice to take my laptop running Linux on a plane to watch DVDs on. My point is that Valenti will argue that 99% of the population can get by with the alternatives (Windows/portable players/etc.) why can't techies?
Even ignoring the logistic impossibility of your suggestion, there is a deeper problem here that seems to be beyond the comprehension of literalists such as yourself. The MPAA has had the laws written such that is illegal for any entity to build a DVD player except those entities that the MPAA approves. This wasn't done with copyright, or patent, or trade secret. The MPAA invented a new law called the DMCA and they are abusing that law to establish a cartel. Yet another way for the MPAA to further increase their power. You should be raging against the machine, instead of bleating like a well-trained consumer.
I agree with you entirely, but well-trained consumer I am not. Again, you have foolishly attributed to me, views of others that I simply paraphrased.
I think the point is entirely that the player has already been built (for example, Totem) but the "congress-criters" have made it illegal to use or distribute afore-mentioned player.
No the point is that the distribution of the player is illegal because we as the tech community have been inadequate at communicating our arguments in the language of those that make the laws.
But your amusing portrayal of the debate as being between crying babies and level-headed "congress-criters" has certainly made up for the lack of merit in your argument. Very entertaining
I have never claimed that politicians are level headed. I have only claimed that we need to phrase our arguments in such a way that it appeals to the lawmakers no matter their intellectual ability or capacity for reason.
The issue is that the content industry is preventing geeks from building their own players.
Read my entire post, my point is the content industry doesn't care if you can't build your own player. Didn't you notice Velenti's argument? Basically whenever the issue came up he countered with something like "so what, buy a player". With $20 DVD players around, no congress-criter is going to buy your argument. They WILL however, buy legal and economic arguments. Throw around terms like fair use and the constitution and you have a much better chance at getting heard than saying "ohhhh noooo I can't build my own player whaaaaaa".
If you want to use the "I can't build my own player" translate it into "because I can't build my own player innovation is stifled therefore preventing this country from reaping the economic and technological potential of further improvements." Conservatives need to know there is a potential financial penalty for their policies. Liberals need to know that policy is hurting the little guy while promoting the big guy (big media companies).
Fair use was not mentioned once in the article and there was no grilling going on.
I think this interview demonstrates a serious advocacy problem in our community. We are talking over these people. Geekspeek and "oh no I can't play movies on Linux" whining isn't going to convince anyone. The content industry doesn't HAVE to sell anything to geeks. We need to be speaking legaleese; fair use, the constitution, the framer's intentions and promotion of innovation rather than "But today, you still cannot on the market actually buy a licensed DVD player for Linux."
Oil will become too expensive for use in automobiles. Now, companies like GM have faked electric vehicle efforts only to revert back to good ole oil. Because of the Big Company reluctance to supply EVs en masse, clever companies will eventually step in and supply bolt-in EV retrofit kits and you'll be able to plug in that 84 Rabbit instead of gassing it up.
Eventually, the BigMotorCos will have to supply EVs. The EV1 was great in the respect that it required very little maintenance (no oil changes, air filters, spark plugs, head gaskets, transmission, etc).
I have trouble jumping on the EV bandwagon because I'm not sure its as environmentally friendly as we'd like to believe. Where do you think the majority of your electricity comes from?
EVs may make sense if more environmentally friendly power sources were utilized but even those have downsides. Hydro-electric = dams = disruption of natural habitat. Solar = pollution in production of solar cells. I'm not sure about any downsides with wind but in north western Iowa and southern Minnisota complaints have ranged from the asthetic nature of the turbines to their affect on the avian population (some liberal senator doesn't like them because hes affraid it'll kill birds).
By implication, are folks who violate copyright by downloading various roms more legally liable if StarROMs' business model succeeds?
I'd imagine so, and I don't like it.
It would make any fair use claims even more laughable.
The fourth criterion of fair use is:
"the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work."
That all said, I'll wager that when the "DotCom Boom" was happening, many of the "other 6 of the 7" got into IT for the money. If you don't love what you do then get out of it.
I think you've hit the mark here. At the hieght of the dotbomb craze I noticed a large percentage of kids from my rural South Dakota hometown going into IT related fields. Aside from the point that these people had little introduction to technology other than the Apple IIes in the class room, I can't seem to remember many showing any interest in technology.
In contrast, I bought a IBM PS1 with paper route money when I was 11 or 12 and have been tinkering ever since. I'd imagine the rest of the people here that love what they do have similar experiances.
Slander was written by Ann Coulter. Coulter is an inveterate liar. I mean, all political pundits stretch the truth a bit, but Coulter lies shamelessly, frequently, and implausibly. She'll claim anything about anyone she hates, she'll fabricate insane facts that can be disproven in 5 minutes on lexis-nexis, and she is constantly being caught in her idiotic lies. Hell she fabricates footnotes constantly, gets caught in her lies, but nobody really says anything a) because her loyal readers tend to be on the stupider side of the species, so they eat the lies and believe them, and b) she's so much of a joke that none of her enemies wastes too much time with her. Don't believe me? See if anyone ever corroborated her little idiocy over Bush and Gore's grades. To call any Coulter book "well-documented" betrays an incredible misunderstanding about how this frothy-mouthed, right-wing, borderline psychopath works.
Sounds like an all out attack, I'll cede you the point if you can back up your claims. I'd rather see evidence than accusations.
Not that I care much, but your post seems to be one of those, "I'm right and your wrong" statements that stifles our democracy by choking off the dialog we so desperately need.
Wing-warping is hardly a good method compared to ailerons, elevators and rudder. It isn't extendable to higher MTOWs. Try to get it to work on anything not made of fabric or some other composite.
Also their first 12 second flight is hardly what can be called 'sustained' by any disinterested observer. It's too short to know whether it was controlled or just happened by accident.
Your right 1 flight proves nothing. But the clincher is that they did it again, and again and again, and...
Thats the scientific method at work. During the birth of flight Pearse kept his discoveries to himself. Therefore, Pearse's ship is more like the bastard son of aviation no one wants to talk about.
But the important fact to me is that the Wrights are the people who fundamentaly changed the course of manned flight. Pearse had no impact on that course because he never told anyone.
Further, the Wrights, from what I understand, took a far more thorough and scientific approach which helped further aviation more than any of Pearse's discoveries (had they been known). The Wrights established pioneering methods for testing airfoils, measuring lift, and controling flight.
In addition, scientific discoveries are judged on the critera of reproducibility. The Wrights experiments were indeed reproducible by themselves and others.
First they are claiming that EVERYONE has seen their code. Now they are preventing those same people from seeing what they already have. Isn't this an admission there is nothing to see?
In other words, because of the openness of Linux, their code is already available to anyone. They have nothing to gain by keeping it secret now UNLESS it has always been secret.
Their opposition to human cloning, including for stem cell research, has the same origin as their opposition to abortion: they consider eggs and embryos as living, human beings.
I tend to agree. At the very least an embryo is a potential human being. I think that it is much more than potential. Psychology still ponders the nature versus nurture issue. However, the reality is that human personality is a mixture of the two. Humans are endowed with certain genetic dispositions to personality. In fact, if we knew more about those genetic dispositions it would be theoretically possible for us to scientifically "imagine" the personality of the "potential" person encapsulated in the embryo.
I think the above is an interesting theory and may make a good premise for a scifi novel.
Theres a difference though, its the difference between facts and opinions. When I read a news paper the only place I expect to find bias is the opinion section. I expect facts from a paper. When I listen to talk radio, I expect bias and am in critical thinking mode. I expect opinion and am ready for it.
The problem is that the fact source media is trying to give opinions (through headlines, spin, etc.). Conversly, perhaps consumers of opinion source media are interpreting opinion as fact.
No so-called "liberal" news organization does this type of top-down bias.
Thats not what I've heard, I've heard plenty of stories about execs at the other news outlets falling in lock step on the Iraq war coverage when it was unpatriotic to question the war.
I never claimed Fox WASN'T flawed. I claimed there are no sources that aren't. I would also like to try to emphasize the importance of at least understanding all sides of an issue, you don't have to agree. Ideally all sources would provide a balance of viewpoints and I don't see that happening, so its neccessary to "average" the coverage of many sources.
Personally, I like that Fox is biased. Thats why I watch it. Are you going to tell me that the other networks don't have their own bias? I think its philosophically impossible to anhialate bias. Take the Slashdoters for example, if we were all network/cable news anchors, its likely that the news would look alot closer to what Slashdot news does now than what the mainstream news does. Hey Slashdot is biased against Microsoft, are you telling me I shouldn't come here because of it? We are all biased, some stories are more interesting to us, personally, than others. And we all try to affirm our preconcived notions, whether consiously or unconsiously. Don't tell me that reporters don't suffer from human nature.
The theory is that I can get closer to the truth if I do a 50% Fox 25%, CNN 25%, 25% NPR (Or any other combination, say the Wall Street Journal vs the LA Times). Bias is a fact of life, the problem arises when you become complacent and stop thinking critically. Every story from any source has an angle, its your job to identify the angle and make your analysis of truth accordingly.
As another post showed you, Microsoft is part of the Bluetooth coalition.
http://www.bluetooth.com/sig/membership.asp
I bet there are some Microsoft lackeys subscribing to some Linux development news groups, does that make them supporters? Heaven forbid, there may even be some of them posting on Slashdot...
You might want to check you claim about Microsoft a bit better. Microsoft has been shipping a Bluetooth keyboard/mouse combo for Windows for at while.
Well just a second there professor...
The Microsoft keyboard/mouse, although really cool, is a half assed offering as far as Bluetooth support goes. Basically, it works as advertised but does nothing more. The Bluetooth stack shipped with the keyboard and mouse, does not support the interoperability that is Bluetooth's strength. Users are forced to hack the software in order to add functionality (by swapping stacks) or chuck the BT module that came with the keyboard and mouse.
But thats not the half of it. Microsoft's handheld support has been so pathetic, that even though it has finally shipped a built in stack in Windows Mobile 2K3, OEM's like HP and Dell have opted to fry the MS stack and go with someone elses. Further, Windows XP has JUST got builtin Bluetooth, and the functionality supported is minimal.
I think 3rd party software has the potential to drive Bluetooth adoption on the WINTEL and Pocket PC platforms but theres no reason to develop when the technology is still in disarray. What 3rd party developer would want to develop for Bluetooth on a Windows device when there is no common API? (As a side note: Palm's BT API is decent)
I've put in a request with my boss to get a Free2Move RS232 converter to experiment with. Theyre a little cheaper than the BrainBoxes converters.
Aside from the cost of the BrainBoxes stuff, I've been fairly satisfied with the performance. The plan is to start selling/recommending the BrainBoxes stuff to our customers (unless of course a cheaper alternative is found).
Can you comment any more about the difficulties you are having with Free2Move? moc.oohay_@_12341ekim
Re:How about read distances?
on
NYT on RFID
·
· Score: 1
But are any of the tags that work well in multi-read situations available in bulk for under a $1 and can hang out on (or in) a cow for three years? I think as soon as someone figures out a better way to read the tags than a cheap AM type radio circut that RFID may be useful. After all a GPS reciver picks up much weaker signals and does far more with them than a typical rfid reader which cost 10 times what a GPS reciver will.
Not sure about the price of multi reads but durability is simply a question of packaging. No probs with the durability of the single read tags that I have used (Allflex, Destron Ferring, etc.).
RFID readers are only expensive because the respective companies are trying to recoup their design costs. Not because of the cost of materials. Its an economics of scale problem, theres not alot of demand for readers yet.
Re:How about read distances?
on
NYT on RFID
·
· Score: 1
I'll worry about this when someone makes a reader that works well when several tags are in the field at one time.
I work with these tags nearly every day. The ag type will not work when several tags are in close proximity and the read range is poor. However, there are tags that will do collision detection/avoidance to allow several tags to be read at the same time and I have heard of amped up tags that have incredible read ranges.
Pair of dictator assasinations for some civil wars!
And the best part of the game would be to keep one of each type so all the other players are just one card away from cornering their market and wondering what the #$%#.
The democratic voters are those who care more about others than the republicans do...
As far as wealth issues go, the views of BOTH the Democrats AND the Republicans are overly simplistic.
Democrats see poverty and think that it can be earased through handouts in the form of social programs.
Republicans see poverty and think the answer is jobs created by giving tax breaks to job creators.
Handouts CAN lead to freeloading. And trickle down theory CAN turn into a tinkle down.
The reality is that Republicans and Democrats are both right and both wrong.
To find the solution people need to stop pissing on each other's ideas and create a dialog for change.
Slashdot Mirror
They seem to care enough to stop me from building my own player. It seems they will sue people who distribute DVD decoders (see MPAA vs 2600) or build DVD decoders (MPAA vs Jon). So I think your claim that they "don't care" if I cannot build a player is entirely false.
I'm confused, I didn't say the content industry doesn't care about people making their own players! They care VERY much. Heres my quote "the content industry doesn't care if you can't build your own player". Where did I say that the content industry doesn't care about you making your own player?? The industry is going to lobby for legislation that locks us into their vision of how the world should be. And they dont care if you or I don't like it.
You have stated: "So I think your claim that they "don't care" if I cannot build a player is entirely false." So you think Valenti cares that I cannot build my own player? He doesn't care a bit. His responses to numerous issues prove my point. For example, when given the argument that engineers couldn't build their own HD recievers because of the current legal enviornment he responded, "Let's say there are a thousand [engineers]. But there are 284 million people in this country. You can't have public policy that is aimed at 100,000 people [engineers] when the other multi-multi-millions are also involved. You can't do it that way." Thus I think its pretty clear that Valenti in particular DOES NOT CARE THAT YOU CAN'T BUILD YOUR OWN PLAYER/DECODER/WHATEVER.
You are being foolish. I'm on an aeroplane. I have my laptop with me and a DVD movie. You're telling me I should lug around a $20 hi-fi DVD player and the television to go with it instead of using Totem on my laptop? Be realistic.
Your being foolish, you are attributing a belief to me that I simply do not hold. My comments were in reference to Valenti's responses. I agree that it would be nice to take my laptop running Linux on a plane to watch DVDs on. My point is that Valenti will argue that 99% of the population can get by with the alternatives (Windows/portable players/etc.) why can't techies?
Even ignoring the logistic impossibility of your suggestion, there is a deeper problem here that seems to be beyond the comprehension of literalists such as yourself. The MPAA has had the laws written such that is illegal for any entity to build a DVD player except those entities that the MPAA approves. This wasn't done with copyright, or patent, or trade secret. The MPAA invented a new law called the DMCA and they are abusing that law to establish a cartel. Yet another way for the MPAA to further increase their power. You should be raging against the machine, instead of bleating like a well-trained consumer.
I agree with you entirely, but well-trained consumer I am not. Again, you have foolishly attributed to me, views of others that I simply paraphrased.
I think the point is entirely that the player has already been built (for example, Totem) but the "congress-criters" have made it illegal to use or distribute afore-mentioned player.
No the point is that the distribution of the player is illegal because we as the tech community have been inadequate at communicating our arguments in the language of those that make the laws.
But your amusing portrayal of the debate as being between crying babies and level-headed "congress-criters" has certainly made up for the lack of merit in your argument. Very entertaining
I have never claimed that politicians are level headed. I have only claimed that we need to phrase our arguments in such a way that it appeals to the lawmakers no matter their intellectual ability or capacity for reason.
The issue is that the content industry is preventing geeks from building their own players.
Read my entire post, my point is the content industry doesn't care if you can't build your own player. Didn't you notice Velenti's argument? Basically whenever the issue came up he countered with something like "so what, buy a player". With $20 DVD players around, no congress-criter is going to buy your argument. They WILL however, buy legal and economic arguments. Throw around terms like fair use and the constitution and you have a much better chance at getting heard than saying "ohhhh noooo I can't build my own player whaaaaaa".
If you want to use the "I can't build my own player" translate it into "because I can't build my own player innovation is stifled therefore preventing this country from reaping the economic and technological potential of further improvements." Conservatives need to know there is a potential financial penalty for their policies. Liberals need to know that policy is hurting the little guy while promoting the big guy (big media companies).
Fair use was not mentioned once in the article and there was no grilling going on.
I think this interview demonstrates a serious advocacy problem in our community. We are talking over these people. Geekspeek and "oh no I can't play movies on Linux" whining isn't going to convince anyone. The content industry doesn't HAVE to sell anything to geeks. We need to be speaking legaleese; fair use, the constitution, the framer's intentions and promotion of innovation rather than "But today, you still cannot on the market actually buy a licensed DVD player for Linux."
Oil will become too expensive for use in automobiles. Now, companies like GM have faked electric vehicle efforts only to revert back to good ole oil. Because of the Big Company reluctance to supply EVs en masse, clever companies will eventually step in and supply bolt-in EV retrofit kits and you'll be able to plug in that 84 Rabbit instead of gassing it up. Eventually, the BigMotorCos will have to supply EVs. The EV1 was great in the respect that it required very little maintenance (no oil changes, air filters, spark plugs, head gaskets, transmission, etc).
I have trouble jumping on the EV bandwagon because I'm not sure its as environmentally friendly as we'd like to believe. Where do you think the majority of your electricity comes from?
EVs may make sense if more environmentally friendly power sources were utilized but even those have downsides. Hydro-electric = dams = disruption of natural habitat. Solar = pollution in production of solar cells. I'm not sure about any downsides with wind but in north western Iowa and southern Minnisota complaints have ranged from the asthetic nature of the turbines to their affect on the avian population (some liberal senator doesn't like them because hes affraid it'll kill birds).
Mod up parent Where are my mod privileges when I need them?
I'd imagine so, and I don't like it.
It would make any fair use claims even more laughable.
The fourth criterion of fair use is: Title 17 USC, Section 107
Claiming that the ROMs no longer have monetary value becomes tougher when people are making money selling them.
That all said, I'll wager that when the "DotCom Boom" was happening, many of the "other 6 of the 7" got into IT for the money. If you don't love what you do then get out of it.
I think you've hit the mark here. At the hieght of the dotbomb craze I noticed a large percentage of kids from my rural South Dakota hometown going into IT related fields. Aside from the point that these people had little introduction to technology other than the Apple IIes in the class room, I can't seem to remember many showing any interest in technology.
In contrast, I bought a IBM PS1 with paper route money when I was 11 or 12 and have been tinkering ever since. I'd imagine the rest of the people here that love what they do have similar experiances.
dude this is slashdot we dont use any types of punctuation marks because we are too busy coding where do you think you are elementary school
; ;
What are you talking about
I use punctuation all the time
People are much more likely to accept something as a fact if it comes from 'a scientist'.
Or if they read it on Slashdot.
Slander was written by Ann Coulter. Coulter is an inveterate liar. I mean, all political pundits stretch the truth a bit, but Coulter lies shamelessly, frequently, and implausibly. She'll claim anything about anyone she hates, she'll fabricate insane facts that can be disproven in 5 minutes on lexis-nexis, and she is constantly being caught in her idiotic lies. Hell she fabricates footnotes constantly, gets caught in her lies, but nobody really says anything a) because her loyal readers tend to be on the stupider side of the species, so they eat the lies and believe them, and b) she's so much of a joke that none of her enemies wastes too much time with her. Don't believe me? See if anyone ever corroborated her little idiocy over Bush and Gore's grades. To call any Coulter book "well-documented" betrays an incredible misunderstanding about how this frothy-mouthed, right-wing, borderline psychopath works.
Sounds like an all out attack, I'll cede you the point if you can back up your claims. I'd rather see evidence than accusations.
Not that I care much, but your post seems to be one of those, "I'm right and your wrong" statements that stifles our democracy by choking off the dialog we so desperately need.
Wing-warping is hardly a good method compared to ailerons, elevators and rudder. It isn't extendable to higher MTOWs. Try to get it to work on anything not made of fabric or some other composite.
...
Thats the scientific method at work. During the birth of flight Pearse kept his discoveries to himself. Therefore, Pearse's ship is more like the bastard son of aviation no one wants to talk about.
And you call yourself a slashdot reader??? Air Force to Test Aeroelastic Wings
Also their first 12 second flight is hardly what can be called 'sustained' by any disinterested observer. It's too short to know whether it was controlled or just happened by accident.
Your right 1 flight proves nothing. But the clincher is that they did it again, and again and again, and
But the important fact to me is that the Wrights are the people who fundamentaly changed the course of manned flight. Pearse had no impact on that course because he never told anyone.
Further, the Wrights, from what I understand, took a far more thorough and scientific approach which helped further aviation more than any of Pearse's discoveries (had they been known). The Wrights established pioneering methods for testing airfoils, measuring lift, and controling flight.
In addition, scientific discoveries are judged on the critera of reproducibility. The Wrights experiments were indeed reproducible by themselves and others.
First they are claiming that EVERYONE has seen their code. Now they are preventing those same people from seeing what they already have. Isn't this an admission there is nothing to see?
In other words, because of the openness of Linux, their code is already available to anyone. They have nothing to gain by keeping it secret now UNLESS it has always been secret.
Their opposition to human cloning, including for stem cell research, has the same origin as their opposition to abortion: they consider eggs and embryos as living, human beings.
I tend to agree. At the very least an embryo is a potential human being. I think that it is much more than potential. Psychology still ponders the nature versus nurture issue. However, the reality is that human personality is a mixture of the two. Humans are endowed with certain genetic dispositions to personality. In fact, if we knew more about those genetic dispositions it would be theoretically possible for us to scientifically "imagine" the personality of the "potential" person encapsulated in the embryo. I think the above is an interesting theory and may make a good premise for a scifi novel.
Theres a difference though, its the difference between facts and opinions. When I read a news paper the only place I expect to find bias is the opinion section. I expect facts from a paper. When I listen to talk radio, I expect bias and am in critical thinking mode. I expect opinion and am ready for it. The problem is that the fact source media is trying to give opinions (through headlines, spin, etc.). Conversly, perhaps consumers of opinion source media are interpreting opinion as fact.
No so-called "liberal" news organization does this type of top-down bias.
Thats not what I've heard, I've heard plenty of stories about execs at the other news outlets falling in lock step on the Iraq war coverage when it was unpatriotic to question the war.
I never claimed Fox WASN'T flawed. I claimed there are no sources that aren't. I would also like to try to emphasize the importance of at least understanding all sides of an issue, you don't have to agree. Ideally all sources would provide a balance of viewpoints and I don't see that happening, so its neccessary to "average" the coverage of many sources.
Personally, I like that Fox is biased. Thats why I watch it. Are you going to tell me that the other networks don't have their own bias? I think its philosophically impossible to anhialate bias. Take the Slashdoters for example, if we were all network/cable news anchors, its likely that the news would look alot closer to what Slashdot news does now than what the mainstream news does. Hey Slashdot is biased against Microsoft, are you telling me I shouldn't come here because of it? We are all biased, some stories are more interesting to us, personally, than others. And we all try to affirm our preconcived notions, whether consiously or unconsiously. Don't tell me that reporters don't suffer from human nature.
The theory is that I can get closer to the truth if I do a 50% Fox 25%, CNN 25%, 25% NPR (Or any other combination, say the Wall Street Journal vs the LA Times). Bias is a fact of life, the problem arises when you become complacent and stop thinking critically. Every story from any source has an angle, its your job to identify the angle and make your analysis of truth accordingly.
As another post showed you, Microsoft is part of the Bluetooth coalition. http://www.bluetooth.com/sig/membership.asp
...
I bet there are some Microsoft lackeys subscribing to some Linux development news groups, does that make them supporters? Heaven forbid, there may even be some of them posting on Slashdot
You might want to check you claim about Microsoft a bit better. Microsoft has been shipping a Bluetooth keyboard/mouse combo for Windows for at while.
Well just a second there professor...
The Microsoft keyboard/mouse, although really cool, is a half assed offering as far as Bluetooth support goes. Basically, it works as advertised but does nothing more. The Bluetooth stack shipped with the keyboard and mouse, does not support the interoperability that is Bluetooth's strength. Users are forced to hack the software in order to add functionality (by swapping stacks) or chuck the BT module that came with the keyboard and mouse.
But thats not the half of it. Microsoft's handheld support has been so pathetic, that even though it has finally shipped a built in stack in Windows Mobile 2K3, OEM's like HP and Dell have opted to fry the MS stack and go with someone elses. Further, Windows XP has JUST got builtin Bluetooth, and the functionality supported is minimal.
I think 3rd party software has the potential to drive Bluetooth adoption on the WINTEL and Pocket PC platforms but theres no reason to develop when the technology is still in disarray. What 3rd party developer would want to develop for Bluetooth on a Windows device when there is no common API? (As a side note: Palm's BT API is decent)
I've put in a request with my boss to get a Free2Move RS232 converter to experiment with. Theyre a little cheaper than the BrainBoxes converters.
Aside from the cost of the BrainBoxes stuff, I've been fairly satisfied with the performance. The plan is to start selling/recommending the BrainBoxes stuff to our customers (unless of course a cheaper alternative is found).
Can you comment any more about the difficulties you are having with Free2Move?
moc.oohay_@_12341ekim
But are any of the tags that work well in multi-read situations available in bulk for under a $1 and can hang out on (or in) a cow for three years? I think as soon as someone figures out a better way to read the tags than a cheap AM type radio circut that RFID may be useful. After all a GPS reciver picks up much weaker signals and does far more with them than a typical rfid reader which cost 10 times what a GPS reciver will.
Not sure about the price of multi reads but durability is simply a question of packaging. No probs with the durability of the single read tags that I have used (Allflex, Destron Ferring, etc.).
RFID readers are only expensive because the respective companies are trying to recoup their design costs. Not because of the cost of materials. Its an economics of scale problem, theres not alot of demand for readers yet.
I'll worry about this when someone makes a reader that works well when several tags are in the field at one time.
I work with these tags nearly every day. The ag type will not work when several tags are in close proximity and the read range is poor. However, there are tags that will do collision detection/avoidance to allow several tags to be read at the same time and I have heard of amped up tags that have incredible read ranges.
Yeah thats what I was thinking too (wheres my mod points),
:)
I'd hope the article didn't count Linux boxes getting attacked by scripts looking for IIS vulnerabilities
Pair of dictator assasinations for some civil wars!
And the best part of the game would be to keep one of each type so all the other players are just one card away from cornering their market and wondering what the #$%#.
The democratic voters are those who care more about others than the republicans do...
As far as wealth issues go, the views of BOTH the Democrats AND the Republicans are overly simplistic.
Democrats see poverty and think that it can be earased through handouts in the form of social programs. Republicans see poverty and think the answer is jobs created by giving tax breaks to job creators.
Handouts CAN lead to freeloading. And trickle down theory CAN turn into a tinkle down.
The reality is that Republicans and Democrats are both right and both wrong.
To find the solution people need to stop pissing on each other's ideas and create a dialog for change.