The intended/advertised/suggested-use would be to block all noise... Wouldn't that be far more useful, so that the only sound I hear would be what I'm listening to?
However, actual physical realities come into play, and as I understand it, active noise cancellation simply isn't that good, yet.
Actually, they don't do a fantastic job of blocking voices. In my experience it's actually easier to hear conversations using noise canceling headphones then without, since the headphones cancel out the other background noise.
My experience has been that sales guys don't get it -- They usually have little concept of professionalism, and even less respect for corporate structure unless it helps them to make the sale at all costs.
If sales is allowed to rule the roost, it's usually a sign of a corporate structure that doesn't wow me.
If sales is kept reined in, I'm a happy guy.
If someone asks me to use a Gmail account for a specific need, I don't have a problem with that -- It's when they use it exclusively...
I have no issue at all if a company decides to outsource to Google for their mail hosting. My issue is only when a company doesn't decide that, but an employee does.
If the company outsources to Gmail, I don't have a problem with that.
I can access all my mail from my desktop mail client (Outlook, including mail folders Calendars, Tasks, Notes, Contacts; Thunderbird including mail folders and contacts; most other mail clients), 100% of the same is available via the webmail interface.
I also have access my mail from any WML capable device including mail folders, I can access all of my content from any XHTML capable device.
I also have email pushed to my Treo and available online and offline (offline access being limited to messages retrieved when I was online, of course), including all my mail folders, my Calendar, Tasks, Notes, and Contact list.
And all of that on a Win32 install-out-of-the-box mail server.
Correct again. That's just as strong an indication of corporate incompetence.
If they can't even hire someone to run a mail server, and/or can't afford the hardware (including drives) and/or outsource it, they're probably not in a position to support the products they're selling, and may not even be around in the future to offer upgrades.
Conversely, if I'm looking at spending a rather significant amount of money and find a sales droid using a gmail address rather then their corporate email address, I consider that a disqualifying condition for that company.
I consider it somewhere between a commentary on the company's ability to manage their own infrastructure, inability to manage information securely, or just plain stupidity on the part of their sales droid.
Either way, if there is a significant budget involved, I move on.
You're replying to the wrong person, I didn't address where the calculation is done.
However, the work can be done on the client OR the sending server (I know, because I can turn on hashcash stamping on my outbound mail, and/or process hashcash stamps inbound)
Sure, that's all fine and dandy, it will just push spammers to build larger and larger zombies to do the work. Making zombies CPU-bound causes infected users' PCs to get even slower, causing them to buy even more powerful CPUs, making the problem even worse.
Potentially... But at least as far as the current "crack" goes, the passport itself needs to be visible first. This means I can forge a passport if I can see it, with or without RFID.
All that being said, I'd much rather they drop data from the RFID, just include an identifier (be it RFID, barcode, serial number printed inside the passport, whatever) that lets the border guard look up your information from their database electronically -- This is far more secure, since it raises the bar from being able to duplicate a physical item to additionally being able to compromise the passport database, plus it virtually completely eliminates the possibility of data being stolen.
1) A hammer won't do a ton of good against your average RFID. Try a microwave.
2) The passport isn't readable withing being able to look at information printed inside the passport. The only thing the RFID does is give a digitally signed version of the passport to verify against the printed paper.
My question is rather simple: Why is the same information being stored electronically on the passport as is printed on it?
A much safer and more secure method would be to simply include a unique ID on the RFID, and have passport agents reference that ID against their database and pull up a copy of the passport as it was issued.
This would completely eliminate the risk of someone tampering with or altering a passport, and it almost completely eliminates the risk of data theft too.
Given that the cost of the service is starting at $14.95, your business' margins are much too thin to survive. If you planned a business around a service staying free when the company was up-front and said the service would only be free until a specific date, then YOU are too stupid to survive.
If the relationship isn't worth $14.95/year (That's $1.24/month, or a whopping $0.04/day) then once again, perhaps it's not meant to be.
I guess the difference, in my mind, is that users of the free SkypeOut are no worse off today then they were the day before the freebie started. With something chemically addictive, a user is far worse off then they were a day before their first freebie.
Slashdot Mirror
That, or if you can leave stuff behind on the machines, use an IMAP account and let the server do the hard work...
The intended/advertised/suggested-use would be to block all noise... Wouldn't that be far more useful, so that the only sound I hear would be what I'm listening to?
However, actual physical realities come into play, and as I understand it, active noise cancellation simply isn't that good, yet.
Control? No...
Accountability, reliability, data security and privacy come to mind.
Then perhaps you have poor choice in cell phones and/or networks?
While I don't disagree, I really look forward to being able to email or IM in-flight...
Actually, they don't do a fantastic job of blocking voices. In my experience it's actually easier to hear conversations using noise canceling headphones then without, since the headphones cancel out the other background noise.
My experience has been that sales guys don't get it -- They usually have little concept of professionalism, and even less respect for corporate structure unless it helps them to make the sale at all costs.
If sales is allowed to rule the roost, it's usually a sign of a corporate structure that doesn't wow me.
If sales is kept reined in, I'm a happy guy.
If someone asks me to use a Gmail account for a specific need, I don't have a problem with that -- It's when they use it exclusively...
I have no issue at all if a company decides to outsource to Google for their mail hosting. My issue is only when a company doesn't decide that, but an employee does.
If the company outsources to Gmail, I don't have a problem with that.
I can access all my mail from my desktop mail client (Outlook, including mail folders Calendars, Tasks, Notes, Contacts; Thunderbird including mail folders and contacts; most other mail clients), 100% of the same is available via the webmail interface.
I also have access my mail from any WML capable device including mail folders, I can access all of my content from any XHTML capable device.
I also have email pushed to my Treo and available online and offline (offline access being limited to messages retrieved when I was online, of course), including all my mail folders, my Calendar, Tasks, Notes, and Contact list.
And all of that on a Win32 install-out-of-the-box mail server.
*shrugs*
Each to their own.
It says I care about professionalism...
Correct again. That's just as strong an indication of corporate incompetence.
If they can't even hire someone to run a mail server, and/or can't afford the hardware (including drives) and/or outsource it, they're probably not in a position to support the products they're selling, and may not even be around in the future to offer upgrades.
Conversely, if I'm looking at spending a rather significant amount of money and find a sales droid using a gmail address rather then their corporate email address, I consider that a disqualifying condition for that company.
I consider it somewhere between a commentary on the company's ability to manage their own infrastructure, inability to manage information securely, or just plain stupidity on the part of their sales droid.
Either way, if there is a significant budget involved, I move on.
You're replying to the wrong person, I didn't address where the calculation is done.
However, the work can be done on the client OR the sending server (I know, because I can turn on hashcash stamping on my outbound mail, and/or process hashcash stamps inbound)
Sure, that's all fine and dandy, it will just push spammers to build larger and larger zombies to do the work. Making zombies CPU-bound causes infected users' PCs to get even slower, causing them to buy even more powerful CPUs, making the problem even worse.
It's a vicious circle.
Then you'd be surprised -- Read up on hashcash, the algorithms are specifically designed to take a relatively long period of time on modern CPUs.
Yeah, fair enough. I'll get it on the wishlist for my IMAP server...
None. Nadda. Zilch.
Luckily hashcash is basically stillborn, spammers can implement it almost as easily as your average user.
At least it's a painless upgrade, but as a hardcore IMAP user I'm not seeing a ton of usefulness.
As far as I can tell labels don't work at all if you use IMAP, multiple machines, multiple clients, and have more then one folder.
Okay, simplify... smartcard instead of RFID.
And it's a good theory, as long as the RFID is safe, and secure. It's not.
Perhaps smartcards would be a better route to go?
Potentially... But at least as far as the current "crack" goes, the passport itself needs to be visible first. This means I can forge a passport if I can see it, with or without RFID.
All that being said, I'd much rather they drop data from the RFID, just include an identifier (be it RFID, barcode, serial number printed inside the passport, whatever) that lets the border guard look up your information from their database electronically -- This is far more secure, since it raises the bar from being able to duplicate a physical item to additionally being able to compromise the passport database, plus it virtually completely eliminates the possibility of data being stolen.
1) A hammer won't do a ton of good against your average RFID. Try a microwave.
2) The passport isn't readable withing being able to look at information printed inside the passport. The only thing the RFID does is give a digitally signed version of the passport to verify against the printed paper.
My question is rather simple: Why is the same information being stored electronically on the passport as is printed on it?
A much safer and more secure method would be to simply include a unique ID on the RFID, and have passport agents reference that ID against their database and pull up a copy of the passport as it was issued.
This would completely eliminate the risk of someone tampering with or altering a passport, and it almost completely eliminates the risk of data theft too.
Given that the cost of the service is starting at $14.95, your business' margins are much too thin to survive. If you planned a business around a service staying free when the company was up-front and said the service would only be free until a specific date, then YOU are too stupid to survive.
If the relationship isn't worth $14.95/year (That's $1.24/month, or a whopping $0.04/day) then once again, perhaps it's not meant to be.
I guess the difference, in my mind, is that users of the free SkypeOut are no worse off today then they were the day before the freebie started. With something chemically addictive, a user is far worse off then they were a day before their first freebie.
Were it chemically addictive, I might agree. Since all it's doing is saving a little long distance charges, I'm not quite seeing the analogy.