It's interesting because it provides a lesson in software design - arbitary limits will trip you up eventually. It's not as if nobody knew to avoid them before, though.
Well, don't boy bands work on similar principles to reproductive success? I'd suggest a large proportion of purchasers of boy band singles and albums wanted to reproduce with them. So past sales must measure percieved "fitness"
What of the strange costumes in the '80s? Well, Zahavi's handicap principle surely comes into play here. Throw in some songbird research and you're done.
I know that the various other examples I gave aren't RFID. I was using them to illustrate an important point - companies have used every tool at their disposal so far to collect data on customers, these systems are affordable and viable, so we should expect RFID to be no different.
Information storage is cheap. The RFID readers, as the article I posted earlier shows, will be placed in-store and at the exits *anyway*. If you expect shops to throw away this information unless they're forced to goes against all previous experience.
There are also plenty of chances to associate this tracking data with you. Even if you pay cash, what happens if you have your access card with you, or a bank card with RFID, or any other piece of plastic that somebody decided a regular contact chip or magnetic strip wasn't good enough? The RFID readers will get these numbers as a "side-effect" of reading your shopping. And you're not anonymous any more.
As far as I'm concerned, it's my choice whether I like a company or not, and whether I allow them my information, and how much. I can choose to take a loyalty card or not. I can't choose to be RFID-tracked, though. Whatever the shop implements, I'm stuck with.
No, we don't have to wait for abuse. What I am asking for is an example of how it can be abused. Once you leave the store with the RFID, how in the hell are they going to track you?
For example, if you buy clothes (which most larger supermarkets now offer), you may well be wearing them when you return to the store. Combine this with RFID readers in the shops to "prevent shoplifting" (which could just as easily be prevented by putting those items at the checkout), and you now have shops which can, if they wanted to, track customer's every movement. Just like mobile phone companies already do.
So, we're supposed to sit back and wait until somebody *actually* abuses RFID, and only then start complaining? Ever heard of prevention is better than cure?
We know through spyware and loyalty cards that businesses are keen to track their customers. Since they've always done it in the past, it is plainly obvious they'll do it in the future.
As businesses can't be relied upon to destroy chips themselves, I'll be forced to buy a RFID reader, plus whatever is needed to terminate the chips, assuming that can be done without destroying the product. This time and money wasted will take a big chunk out of the supposed "benefits" to me. I suspect shops will in reality take the benefits, and pass them on to themselves.
He's lucky he didn't try to list the inconsistencies between the various Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy editions. Now *there's* a task to drive you insane.
Even if SCO's FUD value is low at present, the simple act of Microsoft visibly propping them up in one way or another should be enough to give it a boost. After all (in the minds of PHBs everywhere), why would Microsoft be so keen to back it if the "problems with Linux" aren't true? And another slice of FUD is served.
Why would MS touch it with a 10-foot poll? They got enough negative press for orchestrating the BayStar deal, there's no way in hell they want anything to do with SCO at this point.
So your theory is that Microsoft avoids evil monopolistic practices because it gives them a bad press..?
Of course these arguments exist - I am not challenging for them to be produced, merely pointing out that they need to be used for the argument of "theft vs copyright infringement" to be a persuasive one.
Take the example of a Ford Galaxy. Suppose I was to call it a "stupid souped-up van".
If the reply was "Aha! It is not a van, it is a MPV!" that doesn't really tell me anything. It wouldn't change my opinion of the essential van-ness of them, just because it was given a fancy name.
If the reply was "Not really, it's main purpose is taking passengers, it has different ride and handling, etc." then that tells me *why* I should care about the difference. I have also learnt by implication it is a different thing.
If people are told something has a different name, but not shown why it is important, then they won't change their opinion of it, and it will be a wasted effort.
No one's trying to say it's better or worse than theft
I believe that whenever people make this point, they *are* trying to show there's a difference between the two, otherwise, why argue the point?
Before the Computer Misuse Act was passed in the UK, people were prosecuted for pretty much the same offences under the crime of "dishonestly abstracting electricity". Same crime, different name.
There's nothing wrong with insisting the right name is used, but to most people it will seem like a minor point. To persuade people, the debate needs to be focused on the real differences - the actual vs percieved loss, the fact not every copy is a lost sale, and so on.
Yeah, they usually have a nice clear space round them as people look the other way, pretend they haven't noticed, and take a sudden new interest which involves moving in another direction.
The shouting loony doesn't notice this, and thinks he's going to convince everyone.
Why do we have to follow the conceptual desktop UI that MS has laid out?
We don't. However, if we want to help people make the switch from Windows to Linux, then making the basics familiar is a good idea. That is clearly irrelavant to you, so you picked a different DE. Hurray for choice, no need to complain about the options that were wrong for you.
A single button under which everything is nested seems unnecessary - there have to be better ideas out there.
Windowmaker moves this from the bottom-left of the screen to the right mouse button. It's really not that different. At least Linux desktops put games under "Games", not like on Windows where we have Half-Life next to Print Artist because Sierra wants us to know they published them both.
Yes, but suing somebody for libel won't eliminate the damage that's been done. You'd have gone through a long and inconvenient process to clear your name.
Obviously, the people recieving these notices won't have as much damage done to them, but they still have to sort out a mess when they've done nothing wrong.
Just because a method of getting compensation for what happened exists doesn't mean that the initial act wasn't wrong.
I don't see what's wrong with falsely accusing somebody of something
So is it OK if I come round to your town, and put up 1000 posters of your picture with the caption "Pedophile"? You'll soon discover there's plenty of harm that can come from a false accusation.
Salt Lake County is looking at a system whereby employees would decide whether the e-mail is a "non-record" (spam or personal; delete whenever you want);
Slashdot Mirror
It's interesting because it provides a lesson in software design - arbitary limits will trip you up eventually. It's not as if nobody knew to avoid them before, though.
Ahh, you had to spoil it for me! There I was, thinking my six-figure ID was suddenly worth something, and I have my illusion shattered! How could you?
Darwinian history of boygroups
Well, don't boy bands work on similar principles to reproductive success? I'd suggest a large proportion of purchasers of boy band singles and albums wanted to reproduce with them. So past sales must measure percieved "fitness"
What of the strange costumes in the '80s? Well, Zahavi's handicap principle surely comes into play here. Throw in some songbird research and you're done.
I know that the various other examples I gave aren't RFID. I was using them to illustrate an important point - companies have used every tool at their disposal so far to collect data on customers, these systems are affordable and viable, so we should expect RFID to be no different.
Information storage is cheap. The RFID readers, as the article I posted earlier shows, will be placed in-store and at the exits *anyway*. If you expect shops to throw away this information unless they're forced to goes against all previous experience.
There are also plenty of chances to associate this tracking data with you. Even if you pay cash, what happens if you have your access card with you, or a bank card with RFID, or any other piece of plastic that somebody decided a regular contact chip or magnetic strip wasn't good enough? The RFID readers will get these numbers as a "side-effect" of reading your shopping. And you're not anonymous any more.
As far as I'm concerned, it's my choice whether I like a company or not, and whether I allow them my information, and how much. I can choose to take a loyalty card or not. I can't choose to be RFID-tracked, though. Whatever the shop implements, I'm stuck with.
No, we don't have to wait for abuse. What I am asking for is an example of how it can be abused. Once you leave the store with the RFID, how in the hell are they going to track you?
For example, if you buy clothes (which most larger supermarkets now offer), you may well be wearing them when you return to the store. Combine this with RFID readers in the shops to "prevent shoplifting" (which could just as easily be prevented by putting those items at the checkout), and you now have shops which can, if they wanted to, track customer's every movement. Just like mobile phone companies already do.
So, we're supposed to sit back and wait until somebody *actually* abuses RFID, and only then start complaining? Ever heard of prevention is better than cure?
We know through spyware and loyalty cards that businesses are keen to track their customers. Since they've always done it in the past, it is plainly obvious they'll do it in the future.
As businesses can't be relied upon to destroy chips themselves, I'll be forced to buy a RFID reader, plus whatever is needed to terminate the chips, assuming that can be done without destroying the product. This time and money wasted will take a big chunk out of the supposed "benefits" to me. I suspect shops will in reality take the benefits, and pass them on to themselves.
And as for governments not wishing to store information on its citizens in a huge database, exactly what planet have you been living on?
He's lucky he didn't try to list the inconsistencies between the various Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy editions. Now *there's* a task to drive you insane.
Would this be the part where I point out your fascination of the stupidity of somebody fascinated with the fascination of stupidity?
What about SuSE Openexchange?
Even if SCO's FUD value is low at present, the simple act of Microsoft visibly propping them up in one way or another should be enough to give it a boost. After all (in the minds of PHBs everywhere), why would Microsoft be so keen to back it if the "problems with Linux" aren't true? And another slice of FUD is served.
Why would MS touch it with a 10-foot poll? They got enough negative press for orchestrating the BayStar deal, there's no way in hell they want anything to do with SCO at this point.
So your theory is that Microsoft avoids evil monopolistic practices because it gives them a bad press..?
well, if it's 6666 it's not evil then, is it?
Well, if you chack the authorative source on such matters, Landover Baptist Church, you'll find any number with three consecutive sixes is evil.
When Karma Whoring, posting as Anonymous Coward makes the whole thing pointl...
... waitaminute ...
OK, forget I said that.
Of course these arguments exist - I am not challenging for them to be produced, merely pointing out that they need to be used for the argument of "theft vs copyright infringement" to be a persuasive one.
Take the example of a Ford Galaxy. Suppose I was to call it a "stupid souped-up van".
If the reply was "Aha! It is not a van, it is a MPV!" that doesn't really tell me anything. It wouldn't change my opinion of the essential van-ness of them, just because it was given a fancy name.
If the reply was "Not really, it's main purpose is taking passengers, it has different ride and handling, etc." then that tells me *why* I should care about the difference. I have also learnt by implication it is a different thing.
If people are told something has a different name, but not shown why it is important, then they won't change their opinion of it, and it will be a wasted effort.
No one's trying to say it's better or worse than theft
I believe that whenever people make this point, they *are* trying to show there's a difference between the two, otherwise, why argue the point?
Before the Computer Misuse Act was passed in the UK, people were prosecuted for pretty much the same offences under the crime of "dishonestly abstracting electricity". Same crime, different name.
There's nothing wrong with insisting the right name is used, but to most people it will seem like a minor point. To persuade people, the debate needs to be focused on the real differences - the actual vs percieved loss, the fact not every copy is a lost sale, and so on.
It must be said zero times.
If you wish to make the point that "copyright infringement" is less worse than "stealing", use your time to say *why*.
Giving it a new name says nothing at all.
There was no immediate reply to an e-mail sent to Cash Link Systems on Saturday.
There was, however, an unusually large number of junk emails arriving.
Graphics like this didn't appear on home computers until at least the early to mid 90's
Driller (scroll down) was out in 1987. It wasn't nearly as fast, but it *was* solid 3D.
Ever seen a streetcorner preacher before?
Yeah, they usually have a nice clear space round them as people look the other way, pretend they haven't noticed, and take a sudden new interest which involves moving in another direction.
The shouting loony doesn't notice this, and thinks he's going to convince everyone.
Why do we have to follow the conceptual desktop UI that MS has laid out?
We don't. However, if we want to help people make the switch from Windows to Linux, then making the basics familiar is a good idea. That is clearly irrelavant to you, so you picked a different DE. Hurray for choice, no need to complain about the options that were wrong for you.
A single button under which everything is nested seems unnecessary - there have to be better ideas out there.
Windowmaker moves this from the bottom-left of the screen to the right mouse button. It's really not that different. At least Linux desktops put games under "Games", not like on Windows where we have Half-Life next to Print Artist because Sierra wants us to know they published them both.
Yes, but suing somebody for libel won't eliminate the damage that's been done. You'd have gone through a long and inconvenient process to clear your name.
Obviously, the people recieving these notices won't have as much damage done to them, but they still have to sort out a mess when they've done nothing wrong.
Just because a method of getting compensation for what happened exists doesn't mean that the initial act wasn't wrong.
I don't see what's wrong with falsely accusing somebody of something
So is it OK if I come round to your town, and put up 1000 posters of your picture with the caption "Pedophile"? You'll soon discover there's plenty of harm that can come from a false accusation.
When is Slashdot going to get -1, Complaining About Mod System?
Salt Lake County is looking at a system whereby employees would decide whether the e-mail is a "non-record" (spam or personal; delete whenever you want);
So, no, we don't have to keep spam.