Then why do they put a password on the screen saver at all?
I've always seen it as a minimal amount of security/privacy against the casual passerby in an office setting... for example, when the user takes a coffee break. I don't recall it ever being touted as "real" security... but I expect it to be fixed shortly anyway.
1) What the hell does choice of streaming media have to do with trust?
It's called a "joke" and it involves something called "humor". Well, it involved an attempt at "humor", by making an absurd criticism in order to parody other posts which seemed to be making what I condidered absurd assertions of a NASA/Apple conspiracy of some sort.
You might also note that I immediately undermined my own (equally ridiculous and paranoid) argument by noting that the testing involved RedHat, not Windows, and made the equally wild assertion (which you missed apparently) that they only do streaming media -- an oblique swipe at the nutcases that claim the moon landings were shot on a set in Arizona (or wherever).
Even if taken way too seriously (as you seem to have) by ignoring the advice to "Lighten up" ("take this humorously")) all it amounted to was a side-gripe of mine about NASA providing media streams (paid for in small part by my tax dollars) using proprietary formats that I choose not to use.
That's the explanaion of the last 5% of my post that you chose to latch on to. I suspect one of us is humor-impaired.
Alas, difficulties in cross-platform benchmarking rear their ugly head: Scalar Code:
G4 using Absoft F90 v8: f90 -s -O -lU77 -N11
P4 using Portland Group F90 v4.0-3: pgf90 -byteswapio -tp p7 -O1 The author did apparently make an effort to use the compiler and flags best suited for each architecture if I read this correctly....
Note that the higher level of optimization (-O2) and SSE/SSE2 options in the Portland compiler degraded Jet3D performance on the P4 system, and were therefore not used.
I don't know how much I trust NASA tho. Afterall, they only do RealMedia and WindowsMedia streaming media. Perhaps there's some bias there in favor of Windows (yes, I realize that the testbed P4 system ran Red Hat. Lighten up)
Saddam Hussein "earned" billions of dollars and not long ago commanded the 4th largest military in the world.
This is as meaningless and irrelevant as the analogus statements made about Gates. "Earning money" is not a character reference unless the money was earned honorably. Where Gates falls on that scale is a subject for debate, but citing his wealth out of that context is meaningless as far as I'm concerned.
It seems unimpressive to me. It's not difficult to attain 1200-1500 feet with small, multi-staged rockets even using just Estes "D" and "C" engines....Imagine a cluster of Beow^H^H^H^HD-12-0's...
Re:Interesting technology
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 1
If done as you describe - deactivation at point of sale - I'd have little or no problem with RFID in retail. Like everyone else, I prefer to pay less and within the store or suppliers' warehouse it's quite possible that there would be savings - both direct in not having to conduct manual inventories (or at least not as often) and indirect, in being able to reduce stock on-hand and implement tighter just-in-time ordering.
There appear to already be uses that go beyond this, however:
Michelin, which manufactures 800,000 tires a day, is going to insert RFID tags into its tires . The tag will store a unique number for each tire, a number that will be associated with the car's VIN (Vehicle Identification Number)
...The Register, 27-June-03
It's applications like this that worry me.
Yes, stores currently track non-cash purchasing habits. I choose to allow my local supermarket to track my cash purchases as well by using a card for what you describe as a loyalty program. The key word there is choose. I allow them to do this in exchange for discounts on various items. I still have that choice if RFID tags are disabled at the point of sale. If stores were required by law to disable them as described, I'd have little to say about the subject.
Even if the tags on CDs had all the capabilities of RFID tags and were not deactivated at the cash register, I'd still have little problem with it because it's not an integral part of the product and I can easily see it and discard it when I get home.
I personally agree with your trustworthiness remarks, but the problem here is that we're not talking about inividually trustworthy people making these decisions. Were that the case, it would go a long way toward easing my concern.
I think we've beaten this dead horse pretty thoroughly. *looks around for the next horse*
Re:Interesting technology
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 1
I think you said it best with:
So, perhaps you are right, and I am simply too trusting. Perhaps I am right, and you are simply too distrusting. More probable is that it is somewhere in the middle
That sums things up rather well. I prefer to err on the side of caution here, perhaps, while you see this as progress in terms of the valuable and legitamate applicatons of RFID.
I perhaps have a more jaundiced eye, however, when it comes to trusting the government to not "do the wrong thing". In any given application, unique identifiers may or may not be needed. I see very few potential applications that require the granularity of assigning unique idnetifiers (to cite a deliberately extreme exampe) to candybars. At the other end of the spectrum we have automobiles -- already adequately identified with VINs. Where, if anywhere, does RFID tagging at the individually-unique level of specificity fit in?
In clothing stores we already have bulky dye-tags that can "only be removed at the register" without damaging the item to the point of near-uselessness. I have no problem with this (unless the nitwit clerk forgets to remove it, and the nitwit customer (i confess...) doesn't notice until he gets home). If we are to have RFID tags in retail, PLEASE let the first application be in conjunction with the dye-tags so that I can be alerted to the error of the cashier BEFORE I get home... I'm skeptical about RFID tags as an anti-shoplifting measure for this reason -- if the minimum-wage cashier isn't able to reliably remove a dye-tag the size of a walnut, I should rely on them to deactivate (with a burst of microwaves or some such) the tag embedded invisibly somewhere in the waistband of the jeans I buy? **END RANT**
We disagree on the potential surveilance applications, obviously. My concern is largely that once we accept RFID tags as part of day-to-day life, can we ever be sure they are not being used to invade our privacy in regards to the types of books we read, the sorts of stores we patronize, the places we go and people we associate with? Paranoid? Possibly, although I prefer the term "cautious". To me, this potential danger outweighs the convenience and efficiency RFID might provide to retailers. Wholesalers using them to identify pallets in a warehouse? No problem, though I suspect that barcode would be more efficient.
I'd be a lot more comfortable with the whole idea if there were a law (with substantial penalties) that prohibited retailers from retaining any post-sale information that is not currently available to them absent RFID, and would require that tags be destroyed at the time of purchase. I certainly don't condone shiplifting, and favor any reasonable measures to reduce it! You and I both end up paying for such thefts, and I'm all in favor of the merchant having reduced losses that he doesn't need to pass on to his customers. I'm not willing to accept even the possibility of unwillingly providing data to anyone for any purpose after the sale is completed, though. I see that as my being used without my consent.
I still think that the short range of present tags can be overcome with a relatively small investment in receiver technology. In pondering the widespread deployment of RFID, we need to consider potential abuses, probable advancements in the technology, and take a hard look at the (marginal, in my opinion) benefits.
Franky, I don't trust the government any more. I won't list the reasons; you either know them and are concerned too, or don't believe they are genuine reason for worry. In either case, such a debate would be wildly off-topic here. If you know of a more suitable forum, I *would* be interested in debating such.
Feh, It's later than I think; time to sleep.
Re:Interesting technology
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 1
They already "walked up" in regards to financial transactions above a certain size (it used to be $10K but I seem to recall it being lowered. Might be mistaken on that detail, though).
I am not confident that they won't "walk up" in other areas as well, especially in such individually harmless matters as "John Doe bought blue jeans at Wal-Mart #763 on 30-JUN-03" using Visa card ####-####-####-####. String all these "harmless" things together, though, and you have pretty tight surveilence on everyone.
Re:Interesting technology
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 1
Because you begin the third paragraph with "Seriously", I take all prior as tongue-in-cheek as I hope it was intended. In that spirit, I respond... semi-seriously.
Ok, if you want to go into the consipiracy theory bit, then here we go... The FBI wouldn't use RFID because it's already deprecated technology. They would instead send in their Microsoft (ie, root of all evil) developed spy roaches equiped with the newest micro camera/audio recorder.
I suppose most any law-enforcement investigation can be broadly categorized as a conspiracy... people cooperating in secret. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though.
Did you miss the economic points in my last post? Assuming that such "roaches" were to exist (and are not a result of delerium tremens...) they'd likely be rather expensive little beasties. And subject to frequent crashing and viral infections/worms (... a roach with worms. not a pleasant thought...), if we accept your view* of Microsoft. Not a reliable or cost effective (hypothetical) technology at present, IMO.
Oh, and deprecated how? Details, please. A couple of posts ago you seemed rather enthusiastic about it as a new technology that people were foolish to be concerned about. I guess things move rather quickly nowadays...
These would communicate directly to the agents outside wearing their new invisibility cloaks.
A plain unmarked white van would suffice and be much cheaper. Hyperbole, my friend. In any case, if we take the usatoday.com article you cite as gospel, it's in develpment and might not pan out. I've read elsewhere about "active camouflage" and have doubts. How about shadows cast by the wearer, for example? While such might be useful on a confused battlefield, I've not seen any suggestion that it would be helpful in close-up surveillance under "calm" conditions.
(the roaches are just for hard evidence) with their X-ray [wired.com] glasses (the real ones, not those clunky things used in the airport).
No comment, except to point out that the glasses you imagine would likely be rather obtrusive given a reasonable projection of todays' publicly available technology. I might be wrong there; I didn't anticipate the F-117. Your wired.com link is to the "clunky" device that you, um, deprecated. Got a better one?
As to the capabilty (and range) of RFID and the transmitters required to trigger the tags, I speak from a glancing familiarity with HF and UHF receiver design (very glancing, from trying to be an informed consumer a number of years back). No magic, no area 51, no black helicopters. Simple economics: you get what you pay for. In RF (and microwave, I presume) receivers sensitivity and range depend on narrow bandpass and a number of other things that increase performance require parts of tighter tolerance, circuits or more complexity, and better quality control.
And all this because a group of dissenters wants to cook up wild stories about black helicopters. What do you think?
I think you're mistaken, and perhaps somewhat naive. I proposed two scenarios in which widespread deployment of uniquely identifying RFID tags created a potential for abuse, without requiring a dense and expensive infrastructure. I for one am not a member of any "dissident" group; I'm merely expressing personal concerns. Things like this give me pause and make me want close oversight and limits on law enforcement organizations.
*** SERIOUSLY ***
Seriously, RFID as surveillance sucks. You still have to be within feet of the device. And anyone will be able to buy equipment to look for devices searching for a signal. Just not very practical for subterfuge. The gov't has much nicer toys.
I'm sure they do. They'd like to keep them secret too, I imagine, for use in warfare if nothing else. Rather diffucult if they try people usin
Re:Interesting technology
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Perhaps you lack the imagination to envision sinister uses of these. I wish I did. I'll give a couple of examples that might help you.
(1) Visiting places of dissent: There is no need for the cooperation of the organizers of the meeting. The FBI simply does a secret break-in (as allowed under the PATRIOT act) and installs a reader and equipment to record the RFID numbers seen. They retrieve it later, and then track (from the tag manufacturer down) those numbers to the individuals that appeared (not certain, the product could have been a gift, or loaned, etc) to be at the meeting. Using cash might avoid this, but do you recall how you paid for those shoes six months ago?
(2) RFID tags in money: if this comes to pass, I don't imagine that a law requiring a bank to record the identity and currency serial numbers of all people making cash withdrawals - either by teller or ATM. Say I withdraw $100 in 20's, then loan that to a friend who (unknown to me) uses it to buy crack. The police bust the dealer, track the bills, convince a nitwit judge (plenty of those around, it seems...) that that constitutes "probable cause" to issue a search warrant. Perhaps you're fond of your door being broken down at 3AM, but I am not.
Note that neither of the above uses require the deployment of a large network of receivers covering "every 4 square feet"
I'm also doubtful that the police (FBI, whoever) would be using commercial-grade RFID receivers, which are designed in part to be inexpensive for merchants. I strongly suspect that better-engineered (more expensive) receivers and directional antennae would greatly increase the range of the receivers well beyond the two feet cited. That's with present-day technology, as well. If there is a demand from law enforcement for a cheap longer (eg, 50 feet) range receiver, I don't think it would take that long to develop that... and with it the ability to inventory an entire houseful of RFID-tagged products from the outside.
If I walk into your store and pick up a candy bar, slipping it into this foil pouch I have in my coat pocket (high frequency tags work on microwave frequencies (up to 2.4GHz) and can't see well through metal), then without a unique ID, the system just loses a signal, it can't track what it doesn't see. With a unique ID, the system would start screaming "Candy bar #17 just disappeared!"
Maybe. It seems that either way there will need to be some collision-resolution method when the candybars respond, though, so it should be possible (I'd think) to simply count the number of (non-UID) candybars responding. The fact that it was candybar #17 is irrelevant *if* the RFID chip is deactivated upon purchase.
The foil pouch bit is interesting (and in retrospect obvious) though. Would this mean that metallic decorative shopping bags would be outlawed in stores as a "burglary tool" or the equivalent? I'm pretty sure other shoplifting devices (false sided boxes and the like) already are...
Regardless of how original an idea might be, USPTO should be required to consider the economic impact of granting a patent. Patents are often a useful thing and used properly do spur innovation by rewarding inventors, but that needs to be balanced against harm to others. That balance seems to be sorely lacking at times.
I wonder if there's any way for victims of patent extortion involving patents which have later been overturned can engage in a class action lawsuit against USPTO and force a more careful review of patent applications to eliminate nonsense like this? Let alone recovering damages... Somehow I think it's likely that they've made themselves immune from such, however.
Power without accountability is not the same as taxation without representation, but it has a similar sour taste...
I don't see how the lack of a unique ID would destroy inventory control or shoplifitng deterrence applications.
As a merchant I'd be interested in knowing how many left-handed widgets I have, or that someone is walking out with one of them without paying. Knowing which particular widgets is marginally useful at best (perhaps to aid in stock rotation of perishable widgets, but no other example springs to my mind)
I can configure that -- by maxing out every option in ways that are ridiculous. Unless you want a desktop, a gaming machine and a rackmount server all in one box.
That $13,730.90 pricetag would include an iPod (not part of the system, merely offered for sale along with it), *two* 23-inch flat panel displays, 802.11g WAP (also not part of the system proper), the Raden 9800 Pro upgrade, maxed out disk and memory, 802.11g and Bluetooth, Fibre Channel, 5.1 speakers and cables, and other non-hardware extras like extended warrantee and.Mac.
Oh, and a deletable 56k modem. But that might actually be useful for faxing, I suppose... although anyone who needs or can affod such a box almost certainly already has a fax machine if they need one.
Get real. The sole purpose in configuring a machine such as this is to jack up the price to create/exagerate what you perceive is a lack of value-for-money in the Apple line.
Perhaps there is something to the criticism; perhaps not. But by making your point this way, you shoot yourself in the foot. So you work for SCO, perchance?
I can see drawing an analogy between email and postal mail and requiring the saving of that correspondence, but IM is better treated as telephone conversation -- which apparently isn't required to be saved.
I was under the impression (perhaps incorrect or outdated) that Apple wasn't even going to be an official exhibitor at MWNY 2003. I'll assume I was mistaken and stand corrected.
I still think the point is valid, though, concerning the potential release or announcement of new hardware. The PowerMac line hasn't been updated in quite a while and I doubt Steve Jobs would allow anyone else to make any important new hardware announcements (PPC970 boxen? One hopes...)
You're also correct that New York is actually a more sensible location for the East Coast Expo, given the concentration of advertising, television, print media there. I don't have to like it though. Damn you. But they are in fact moving to Boston in 2004... which Jobs objected to vigorously.
... that a major advantage of this (aside from the internet access/geek factor) is the fact that warm and cool air is provided at a cost less than idling the engine.
A big benefit in pollution reduction there, I'd think...
I don't think we can rely on Apple's past behavior at WWDC to predict what will happen this time around.
Due to a spat with IDG over moving MWNY back to Boston, Apple isn't participating in MWNY this year -- the usual forum for new hardware introductions. So I think all bets are off.
Being located near Boston, Apple annoyed me a lot with this...
Slashdot Mirror
New? The undated linked article appears describe a vulnerabilty that was promptly patched nearly a year ago.
It's called a "joke" and it involves something called "humor". Well, it involved an attempt at "humor", by making an absurd criticism in order to parody other posts which seemed to be making what I condidered absurd assertions of a NASA/Apple conspiracy of some sort.
You might also note that I immediately undermined my own (equally ridiculous and paranoid) argument by noting that the testing involved RedHat, not Windows, and made the equally wild assertion (which you missed apparently) that they only do streaming media -- an oblique swipe at the nutcases that claim the moon landings were shot on a set in Arizona (or wherever).
Even if taken way too seriously (as you seem to have) by ignoring the advice to "Lighten up" ("take this humorously")) all it amounted to was a side-gripe of mine about NASA providing media streams (paid for in small part by my tax dollars) using proprietary formats that I choose not to use.
That's the explanaion of the last 5% of my post that you chose to latch on to. I suspect one of us is humor-impaired.
More relevant, perhaps, are the figures in the raw MFLOPS graph:
Alas, difficulties in cross-platform benchmarking rear their ugly head:Scalar Code:
G4 using Absoft F90 v8: f90 -s -O -lU77 -N11
P4 using Portland Group F90 v4.0-3: pgf90 -byteswapio -tp p7 -O1
The author did apparently make an effort to use the compiler and flags best suited for each architecture if I read this correctly....
I don't know how much I trust NASA tho. Afterall, they only do RealMedia and WindowsMedia streaming media. Perhaps there's some bias there in favor of Windows (yes, I realize that the testbed P4 system ran Red Hat. Lighten up)
Probably with about as little impact. *sighs*
The stupid are not a protected group such as the physically disabled, racial minorities, women, people of various "unpopular" religions...
Well, that too. witness RIAA and company...
This is as meaningless and irrelevant as the analogus statements made about Gates. "Earning money" is not a character reference unless the money was earned honorably. Where Gates falls on that scale is a subject for debate, but citing his wealth out of that context is meaningless as far as I'm concerned.
Imagine a Beow^H^H^H^Hcluster of D-12-0's. Yes, replying to my own post is lame, but I wanted to correct myself before others did.
It seems unimpressive to me. It's not difficult to attain 1200-1500 feet with small, multi-staged rockets even using just Estes "D" and "C" engines. ...Imagine a cluster of Beow^H^H^H^HD-12-0's...
There appear to already be uses that go beyond this, however:
It's applications like this that worry me.Yes, stores currently track non-cash purchasing habits. I choose to allow my local supermarket to track my cash purchases as well by using a card for what you describe as a loyalty program. The key word there is choose. I allow them to do this in exchange for discounts on various items. I still have that choice if RFID tags are disabled at the point of sale. If stores were required by law to disable them as described, I'd have little to say about the subject.
Even if the tags on CDs had all the capabilities of RFID tags and were not deactivated at the cash register, I'd still have little problem with it because it's not an integral part of the product and I can easily see it and discard it when I get home.
I personally agree with your trustworthiness remarks, but the problem here is that we're not talking about inividually trustworthy people making these decisions. Were that the case, it would go a long way toward easing my concern.
I think we've beaten this dead horse pretty thoroughly. *looks around for the next horse*
I perhaps have a more jaundiced eye, however, when it comes to trusting the government to not "do the wrong thing". In any given application, unique identifiers may or may not be needed. I see very few potential applications that require the granularity of assigning unique idnetifiers (to cite a deliberately extreme exampe) to candybars. At the other end of the spectrum we have automobiles -- already adequately identified with VINs. Where, if anywhere, does RFID tagging at the individually-unique level of specificity fit in?
In clothing stores we already have bulky dye-tags that can "only be removed at the register" without damaging the item to the point of near-uselessness. I have no problem with this (unless the nitwit clerk forgets to remove it, and the nitwit customer (i confess...) doesn't notice until he gets home). If we are to have RFID tags in retail, PLEASE let the first application be in conjunction with the dye-tags so that I can be alerted to the error of the cashier BEFORE I get home... I'm skeptical about RFID tags as an anti-shoplifting measure for this reason -- if the minimum-wage cashier isn't able to reliably remove a dye-tag the size of a walnut, I should rely on them to deactivate (with a burst of microwaves or some such) the tag embedded invisibly somewhere in the waistband of the jeans I buy? **END RANT**
We disagree on the potential surveilance applications, obviously. My concern is largely that once we accept RFID tags as part of day-to-day life, can we ever be sure they are not being used to invade our privacy in regards to the types of books we read, the sorts of stores we patronize, the places we go and people we associate with? Paranoid? Possibly, although I prefer the term "cautious". To me, this potential danger outweighs the convenience and efficiency RFID might provide to retailers. Wholesalers using them to identify pallets in a warehouse? No problem, though I suspect that barcode would be more efficient.
I'd be a lot more comfortable with the whole idea if there were a law (with substantial penalties) that prohibited retailers from retaining any post-sale information that is not currently available to them absent RFID, and would require that tags be destroyed at the time of purchase. I certainly don't condone shiplifting, and favor any reasonable measures to reduce it! You and I both end up paying for such thefts, and I'm all in favor of the merchant having reduced losses that he doesn't need to pass on to his customers. I'm not willing to accept even the possibility of unwillingly providing data to anyone for any purpose after the sale is completed, though. I see that as my being used without my consent.
I still think that the short range of present tags can be overcome with a relatively small investment in receiver technology. In pondering the widespread deployment of RFID, we need to consider potential abuses, probable advancements in the technology, and take a hard look at the (marginal, in my opinion) benefits.
Franky, I don't trust the government any more. I won't list the reasons; you either know them and are concerned too, or don't believe they are genuine reason for worry. In either case, such a debate would be wildly off-topic here. If you know of a more suitable forum, I *would* be interested in debating such.
Feh, It's later than I think; time to sleep.
I am not confident that they won't "walk up" in other areas as well, especially in such individually harmless matters as "John Doe bought blue jeans at Wal-Mart #763 on 30-JUN-03" using Visa card ####-####-####-####. String all these "harmless" things together, though, and you have pretty tight surveilence on everyone.
I suppose most any law-enforcement investigation can be broadly categorized as a conspiracy... people cooperating in secret. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though.
Did you miss the economic points in my last post? Assuming that such "roaches" were to exist (and are not a result of delerium tremens...) they'd likely be rather expensive little beasties. And subject to frequent crashing and viral infections/worms (... a roach with worms. not a pleasant thought...), if we accept your view* of Microsoft. Not a reliable or cost effective (hypothetical) technology at present, IMO.
Oh, and deprecated how? Details, please. A couple of posts ago you seemed rather enthusiastic about it as a new technology that people were foolish to be concerned about. I guess things move rather quickly nowadays...
A plain unmarked white van would suffice and be much cheaper. Hyperbole, my friend. In any case, if we take the usatoday.com article you cite as gospel, it's in develpment and might not pan out. I've read elsewhere about "active camouflage" and have doubts. How about shadows cast by the wearer, for example? While such might be useful on a confused battlefield, I've not seen any suggestion that it would be helpful in close-up surveillance under "calm" conditions.
No comment, except to point out that the glasses you imagine would likely be rather obtrusive given a reasonable projection of todays' publicly available technology. I might be wrong there; I didn't anticipate the F-117. Your wired.com link is to the "clunky" device that you, um, deprecated. Got a better one?
As to the capabilty (and range) of RFID and the transmitters required to trigger the tags, I speak from a glancing familiarity with HF and UHF receiver design (very glancing, from trying to be an informed consumer a number of years back). No magic, no area 51, no black helicopters. Simple economics: you get what you pay for. In RF (and microwave, I presume) receivers sensitivity and range depend on narrow bandpass and a number of other things that increase performance require parts of tighter tolerance, circuits or more complexity, and better quality control.
I think you're mistaken, and perhaps somewhat naive. I proposed two scenarios in which widespread deployment of uniquely identifying RFID tags created a potential for abuse, without requiring a dense and expensive infrastructure. I for one am not a member of any "dissident" group; I'm merely expressing personal concerns. Things like this give me pause and make me want close oversight and limits on law enforcement organizations.
*** SERIOUSLY ***
I'm sure they do. They'd like to keep them secret too, I imagine, for use in warfare if nothing else. Rather diffucult if they try people usin
(1) Visiting places of dissent: There is no need for the cooperation of the organizers of the meeting. The FBI simply does a secret break-in (as allowed under the PATRIOT act) and installs a reader and equipment to record the RFID numbers seen. They retrieve it later, and then track (from the tag manufacturer down) those numbers to the individuals that appeared (not certain, the product could have been a gift, or loaned, etc) to be at the meeting. Using cash might avoid this, but do you recall how you paid for those shoes six months ago?
(2) RFID tags in money: if this comes to pass, I don't imagine that a law requiring a bank to record the identity and currency serial numbers of all people making cash withdrawals - either by teller or ATM. Say I withdraw $100 in 20's, then loan that to a friend who (unknown to me) uses it to buy crack. The police bust the dealer, track the bills, convince a nitwit judge (plenty of those around, it seems...) that that constitutes "probable cause" to issue a search warrant. Perhaps you're fond of your door being broken down at 3AM, but I am not.
Note that neither of the above uses require the deployment of a large network of receivers covering "every 4 square feet"
I'm also doubtful that the police (FBI, whoever) would be using commercial-grade RFID receivers, which are designed in part to be inexpensive for merchants. I strongly suspect that better-engineered (more expensive) receivers and directional antennae would greatly increase the range of the receivers well beyond the two feet cited. That's with present-day technology, as well. If there is a demand from law enforcement for a cheap longer (eg, 50 feet) range receiver, I don't think it would take that long to develop that... and with it the ability to inventory an entire houseful of RFID-tagged products from the outside.
The foil pouch bit is interesting (and in retrospect obvious) though. Would this mean that metallic decorative shopping bags would be outlawed in stores as a "burglary tool" or the equivalent? I'm pretty sure other shoplifting devices (false sided boxes and the like) already are...
I wonder if there's any way for victims of patent extortion involving patents which have later been overturned can engage in a class action lawsuit against USPTO and force a more careful review of patent applications to eliminate nonsense like this? Let alone recovering damages... Somehow I think it's likely that they've made themselves immune from such, however.
Power without accountability is not the same as taxation without representation, but it has a similar sour taste...
As a merchant I'd be interested in knowing how many left-handed widgets I have, or that someone is walking out with one of them without paying. Knowing which particular widgets is marginally useful at best (perhaps to aid in stock rotation of perishable widgets, but no other example springs to my mind)
I can configure that -- by maxing out every option in ways that are ridiculous. Unless you want a desktop, a gaming machine and a rackmount server all in one box.
That $13,730.90 pricetag would include an iPod (not part of the system, merely offered for sale along with it), *two* 23-inch flat panel displays, 802.11g WAP (also not part of the system proper), the Raden 9800 Pro upgrade, maxed out disk and memory, 802.11g and Bluetooth, Fibre Channel, 5.1 speakers and cables, and other non-hardware extras like extended warrantee and .Mac.
Oh, and a deletable 56k modem. But that might actually be useful for faxing, I suppose... although anyone who needs or can affod such a box almost certainly already has a fax machine if they need one.
Get real. The sole purpose in configuring a machine such as this is to jack up the price to create/exagerate what you perceive is a lack of value-for-money in the Apple line.
Perhaps there is something to the criticism; perhaps not. But by making your point this way, you shoot yourself in the foot. So you work for SCO, perchance?
Or maybe Marathon Man. Hmms... dentists seem to get a bad rap in a number of movies. I wonder how they pissed off the RI^H^HMPAA?
I can see drawing an analogy between email and postal mail and requiring the saving of that correspondence, but IM is better treated as telephone conversation -- which apparently isn't required to be saved.
I still think the point is valid, though, concerning the potential release or announcement of new hardware. The PowerMac line hasn't been updated in quite a while and I doubt Steve Jobs would allow anyone else to make any important new hardware announcements (PPC970 boxen? One hopes...)
You're also correct that New York is actually a more sensible location for the East Coast Expo, given the concentration of advertising, television, print media there. I don't have to like it though. Damn you. But they are in fact moving to Boston in 2004... which Jobs objected to vigorously.
A big benefit in pollution reduction there, I'd think...
Now where did I leave my Preparation X?
Due to a spat with IDG over moving MWNY back to Boston, Apple isn't participating in MWNY this year -- the usual forum for new hardware introductions. So I think all bets are off.
Being located near Boston, Apple annoyed me a lot with this...