Great statement, I agree totally. Of course, the best part of this comment is the word "dumbfuckery"! I laughed hysterically in my office when I read that one.:)
That's riddiculous. Sun isn't going anywhere any time soon. There server hardware is as solid as a rock. They make great workstations. JAVA is quickly becoming the most popular programming language around. Solaris, although losing some ground to Linux, is still one of the most reliable OS's out there. Even lesser-used technologies such as JINI are quickly gaining ground in their markets. To say that Sun is going to be out of business soon is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Sun is a $30 Billion company. They're sitting on over $5 billion in cash. They could purchase every Linux company out there in cash with no problem.
It might be fair to say that things like Solaris are in trouble, due to the fact that Linux is being adopted more and more. But to say that Sun is in trouble is hardly an accurate statement.
Nice. Very nice. Sleek, stylish, powerful. This is what a PDA is MEANT to be in order to succeed in the commercial world. It might not be styled for business use, but this one will definitely turn some heads in the commercial realm.
I've often thought that Linux-on-the-desktop is a loosing battle. But, Linux-on-the-palmtop is definitely a battle that the Linux community could win. The biggest hurdle that needs to be overcome, however, is the "geek factor". Many of us techies design devices that WE would use. Here is a perfect example of a device that the typical consumer would find attractive. Build a stylish-looking device, design a pretty GUI, write intuitive applications, adhere to standards (such as vCard, vCal, etc.) so data can be shared across device platforms, and provide the ability to sync with existing software (i.e. Outlook on both Win and Mac, Netscape, Evolution, etc.) and a Linux-based PDA could DEFINITELY make some big inroads.
The Zaurus is a nice little machine, but it won't make a splash. No one is going to buy it outside of the Linux community. But, if Sharp were to go all out and do something like this, Linux would definitely become more mainstream in the handheld market.
One of the coolest things about the latest version of PGP (Corporate Desktop, I believe) is its support for smartcards. I have a Rainbow iKey, but it's pretty much useless for personal use because I don't have a certificate compatible with the device. With the newest version of PGP I could store PGP certs/keys on my iKey. It would be great if this kind of support was built into GnuPG. I'd LOVE to be able to use my iKey for PGP on Linux or for token-based authentication
Does this report take into account the use of free software among students? Maybe students don't need to pirate XP/Office/Photoshop/etc. because they're using Linux/StarOffice/Gimp/etc.
Here here! The smartest thing in this post is "it doesn't make them unaccountable for their actions". They most certainly are accountable for their actions, and I'm glad you pointed that out. I'm so sick and tired of people always trying to blame their misdeeds on society, their childhood, etc. While I do feel that these individuals are responsible for their actions, I also think that there could be other contributing factors to their behavior. The media is one. Perhaps a lack of involvement by their parents is another. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I really think it's important that parents play an active role in their children's lives (even when their kids don't want them to). One of the things that came out right after Columbine was the question of how could those parents not know what's going on in their own house? Perhaps it's because they didn't care to find out.
I agree, that the accountability lies squarely on the heads of the individuals who pulled the trigger. I also think, however, that we can't just say that they came up with the sick and twisted ideas completely without influence.
Say what you will, but I personally believe that there is some correlation between violent video games and real-life behaviors. Kids, especially teenagers, are very impressionable. Studies have shown that the brains of teenagers go through changes more drastic than those of any other age group. (This is one of the reasons why alcohol consumption in teens is believed to be more dangerous than in adults.)
When young people are that impressionable, in an already emotional state (all of us remember the strange mood swings of being a teen), and are then bombarded wtih scenes of graphic violence, is there any wonder why they react in such a manner?
When young people are presented with, what seem to be, earth-shattering problems (breakups with a girlfriend, divorce of parents, failures at school, etc.) and at the same time they are watching television shows, movies, and video games in which violence is the answer to all of life's problems, these kids can be influenced subconciously to believe just that.
This is not to say that ALL violence in video games and movies caused ALL of the violence in our society, or that it causes violence in ALL teenagers who view it. I played Doom, Quake, et al all through high school. I'm a big Steven Segal fan and watched all of his movies when I was a teen. But, I've never acted out violently. Nor do the thousands of other teenagers who view the exact same types of thing each year. However, we can't rule out that it could be that these specific individuals WERE in fact influenced by the media they were watching.
Nobody said that Pixar needed Disney. In fact, I think it's the other way around. Disney is always interested in acquiring content and Pixar is definitely the best CG house out there. If Disney could purchase Pixar and still maintain the same type of relationship with Pixar's animators (e.g., let them do their own thing) it could mean a lot of revenue to the company
One has to wonder what effect this may have on Disney's relationship with Pixar. After all, Steve Jobs is the CEO of both. I've always hoped that Disney would purchase Pixar. They do great work and would be a valuable addition to Disney. Buy them, and then leave them alone. Don't interfere in that division.
But, with Eisner making these comments could the already difficult relationship between Disney and Pixar become even more strained?
Hmmm...Maybe it's just me, but I don't think it looks that great. I think it looks like crap. As far as PDA/phone combos go, I think that this model from Samsung looks great. Plus, it's got the useable size and shape necessary for both PDA and phone use, unlike the new blackberry.
Not hardly. I deal with a lot of business clients. Sometimes, I can meet with someone one week and not remember them the next. With this, I could take some notes in my PDA about what we talked about (especially useful when you're schmoozing the clients) and they would appear the next time I talked to them. I can definitely see the use for this. Maybe this kind of information is unnecessary for friends or family, but it has definite appeal to the business community.
The privacy concerns depend on where the information comes from. If it comes from a centralized database, then yes. But, if the user (the owner of the goggles) chooses the information to assign to a person then there aren't any big concerns. For instance, I could choose to display their name, birthday, wedding anniversary, and their favorite restaurant. It would be information that I already know, this would just allow me to access it more readily. In a way, it would act like a face-recognizing entry in my PDA, brining up all of the information I've already collected about that person.
As much as I hate to admit it, Microsoft is right about this one. I was talking to a friend who is a lawyer, and he said this could technically fall under the clause that states cannot make rules that apply to other states. It's similar to the laws that say if I'm married in one state, I'm married in another. They have to recognize that. Well, it's unconstitutional for Maryland to make laws that would affect Georgia.
This is just what I was told, so I'm going by that. I'm not an expert on the Constitution so I don't know.
Well, Morpheous, Napster, et al are all Windows based clients. Does that mean Microsoft is at fault for allowing their OS to run such subversive software? Hmmm....Bill vs. RIAA. I wonder who would win.
What will be the ramifications if the GPL doesn't hold up in court? If the GPL hasn't been challenged in court thus far, this could have far reaching implications within the Linux community. If the GPL doesn't hold up, does that mean Microsoft is free to take large chunks of GPL'd software and make it proprietary?
One of the things I love most about America is our right to free speech. The ability to live in a country where we can publicly speak out against injustice and oppression is priceless. Where would our nation, and even the world be if Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not free to challenge his people to practice nonviolent protest?
However, the issue of free speech is not so cut and dry. I hope that most people will agree with me that COMPLETELY free speech is NOT a good thing. For example, what if a witness was free to lie when testifying at a trial? Laws against purgery are technically "curbing" free speech. However, these kinds of restrictions are necessary in order to promote justice and freedom for all. Laws against slander, libel, death threats, and the proverbial "yelling fire in a crowded theater" fall into the same category. These laws are designed to protect the general public from the misuse of free speech.
So where do issues like pornography and hate speech fall? The question is, if purgery is prohibited in order to protect the public, could hate speech be prohibited for the same reason? And, exactly what constitutes "free speech"? I'm certainly no expert on the Constitution, but I believe that the first ammendment was put into place not to allow citizens to say and act whatever and however they please, but rather to act as a guard against the kind of oppression that was found in England at the time.
"Free speech" was intended to allow citizens to protest the actions of government when government overstepped its bounds, or was acting improperly. A prime example of this is the civil rights movement. I don't believe that the first ammendment was intended to protect individuals who want to post child pornography on the Internet.
And, although it's rather controversial these days, I don't believe it protects those who want to make copies of DVDs and CDs and distribute them over the net or to their friends. That is an issue of "Fair Use", not free speech.
There's nothing that I hate more (about e-mail, at least) than receiving 10-20 spam messages from Asia per day. But, I still believe that targeted advertising is a good idea. I'd much rather receive advertisements about Linux software, the latest PDA models, discounts on trips to Walt Disney World, B.B. King's new CD, and the latest martial arts tournament than I would random ads that come across my TV, inbox, or browser. Why do I see commercials for feminine hygeine products when I'm watching football? I certainly am not going to run out and buy any!
Targeted advertising is a great idea. But, only if it's done appropriately. I don't want Visa informing companies of my spending habits. I don't want my bank notifying companies of where I use my debit card. But, I wouldn't mind signing up for a service and telling them which categories of products I'm interested in. The way I see it, if I'm going to be bombarded with advertisements, I'd rather them be something I'm interested in. That's why I don't mind Amazon.com's tracking system. On more than one occasion I've purchased the products they've recommended for me, because they were generally something I was interested in.
Valid points. Of course, just because the author's past and qualifications are a bit questionable, it doesn't mean the book has to suffer. I read it in college in a semester when I was taking both "Television in American Culture" (best course I've ever taken) as well as "Philosophy of Human Interaction" so it was really interesting to see a lot of the philosophies I was studying applied to another area I was studying.
This is almost as good a social commentary as a study on The Simpsons. I believe the book is called "The DO'H of Homer". EXCELLENT reading. What's even more amazing is that there is all of this philosophical depth and yet none of it was planned. There are some excerpts that you can read on Amazon.com so you should check it out.
Think of your computer being like your car. Sure, there are some drivers who want to take it a step further. They might tweak their engines, swap out components, etc. all in order to make their cars the best they can be. However, most people are happy with their car the way it is. When you buy a car, everything is there for you. Most drivers don't want or need to know about the innerworkings of a car, let alone what to do when something fails.
We can apply this to OS's by comparing the OS to your transmission. I know ABSOLUTELY nothing about cars. That's why the transmission in my car is fine with me. If something goes wrong, I take it to the shop. If it completely dies on me, I buy a new car. I don't have the expertise - nor do I want to learn how - to rebuild my transmission. The average computer user doesn't want to worry about their OS. It's just supposed to be there and work. Installing a new OS is like rebuilding a transmission, and the average end user doesn't want to do it.
That is why Linux cannot succeed on the desktop until several events happen. 1) Linux must be installed at the OEM level. Computer have to come with it preinstalled. 2) The GUI has to be completely object oriented, easy to use, and easy to configure. News flash: XFree86 is NONE OF THE ABOVE. Look at how Apple took BSD to the masses. They didn't try and build an interface for X Windows. They built one ON TOP of BSD. That's what Linux must do. We can't rely on X Windows because it has too many shortcomings. 3) Applications 4) Unique features and enhancements not found on any other platform. As it stands right now, very little is innovative within the Linux community. Sure, the way things are done might be innovative. But, it all boils down to the Linux community trying to duplicate the things that Microsoft and Apple have already done. If Linux is truly to succeed, there needs to be some reason for users to switch.
This bothers me. On the one hand, most Slashdot readers will say, "This violates my privacy. The government has no right to use packet sniffers, etc. to view my Internet traffic." On the other hand, they praise hackers who utilize similar (if not the same) tools, by saying, "These people show the insecurities in Windows NT, etc." How come we praise the hackers for doing something we condemn the government for?
How can someone expect PRIVACY when they are walking down a PUBLIC street? By definition, privacy doesn't exist. How can you expect to have privacy when you are out there for all the world to see? Am I allowed to walk around naked in my house? Yes, because I am in the PRIVACY of my own home. Am I allowed to walk around naked on the streets of Baltimore? No, because I am out in PUBLIC. I am all for privacy rights. I don't believe the government should tap my phone. I don't believe they should track my purchases. I don't believe they should outlaw software that allows me to encrypt my e-mail. However, if I am out in public and there are cameras watching me it's no more of an invasion of my privacy than someone sitting on a bench watching me.
The travesty here is not that we HAVE security cameras everywhere. It's that we live in a society where we NEED security cameras everywhere.
I think this is a great idea, myself. I wrote a paper in college about how wireless devices will change the future, what effect pervasive computing will have, about blahblahblahblah. Anyway, one of the points I made was that your refrigerator will use these RFID tags to determine what you have and don't have in your fridge. It could evaluate your buying and consumption habits for you automatically. That way, you take your Linux-based handheld to the grocery store and automatically download your fridge-generated shopping list. That was just one of the scenarios I presented, but I think that RFID tags will go a long way in making computing ubiquitous.
...since I was "endowed by" my "creator with certain unaliable rights" including "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness". America is a nation of laws; laws which are designed to ensure the safety and liberty of its citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
Great statement, I agree totally. Of course, the best part of this comment is the word "dumbfuckery"! I laughed hysterically in my office when I read that one. :)
That's riddiculous. Sun isn't going anywhere any time soon. There server hardware is as solid as a rock. They make great workstations. JAVA is quickly becoming the most popular programming language around. Solaris, although losing some ground to Linux, is still one of the most reliable OS's out there. Even lesser-used technologies such as JINI are quickly gaining ground in their markets. To say that Sun is going to be out of business soon is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Sun is a $30 Billion company. They're sitting on over $5 billion in cash. They could purchase every Linux company out there in cash with no problem.
It might be fair to say that things like Solaris are in trouble, due to the fact that Linux is being adopted more and more. But to say that Sun is in trouble is hardly an accurate statement.
Nice. Very nice. Sleek, stylish, powerful. This is what a PDA is MEANT to be in order to succeed in the commercial world. It might not be styled for business use, but this one will definitely turn some heads in the commercial realm.
I've often thought that Linux-on-the-desktop is a loosing battle. But, Linux-on-the-palmtop is definitely a battle that the Linux community could win. The biggest hurdle that needs to be overcome, however, is the "geek factor". Many of us techies design devices that WE would use. Here is a perfect example of a device that the typical consumer would find attractive. Build a stylish-looking device, design a pretty GUI, write intuitive applications, adhere to standards (such as vCard, vCal, etc.) so data can be shared across device platforms, and provide the ability to sync with existing software (i.e. Outlook on both Win and Mac, Netscape, Evolution, etc.) and a Linux-based PDA could DEFINITELY make some big inroads.
The Zaurus is a nice little machine, but it won't make a splash. No one is going to buy it outside of the Linux community. But, if Sharp were to go all out and do something like this, Linux would definitely become more mainstream in the handheld market.
One of the coolest things about the latest version of PGP (Corporate Desktop, I believe) is its support for smartcards. I have a Rainbow iKey, but it's pretty much useless for personal use because I don't have a certificate compatible with the device. With the newest version of PGP I could store PGP certs/keys on my iKey. It would be great if this kind of support was built into GnuPG. I'd LOVE to be able to use my iKey for PGP on Linux or for token-based authentication
Does this report take into account the use of free software among students? Maybe students don't need to pirate XP/Office/Photoshop/etc. because they're using Linux/StarOffice/Gimp/etc.
Here here! The smartest thing in this post is "it doesn't make them unaccountable for their actions". They most certainly are accountable for their actions, and I'm glad you pointed that out. I'm so sick and tired of people always trying to blame their misdeeds on society, their childhood, etc. While I do feel that these individuals are responsible for their actions, I also think that there could be other contributing factors to their behavior. The media is one. Perhaps a lack of involvement by their parents is another. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I really think it's important that parents play an active role in their children's lives (even when their kids don't want them to). One of the things that came out right after Columbine was the question of how could those parents not know what's going on in their own house? Perhaps it's because they didn't care to find out.
I agree, that the accountability lies squarely on the heads of the individuals who pulled the trigger. I also think, however, that we can't just say that they came up with the sick and twisted ideas completely without influence.
Say what you will, but I personally believe that there is some correlation between violent video games and real-life behaviors. Kids, especially teenagers, are very impressionable. Studies have shown that the brains of teenagers go through changes more drastic than those of any other age group. (This is one of the reasons why alcohol consumption in teens is believed to be more dangerous than in adults.)
When young people are that impressionable, in an already emotional state (all of us remember the strange mood swings of being a teen), and are then bombarded wtih scenes of graphic violence, is there any wonder why they react in such a manner?
When young people are presented with, what seem to be, earth-shattering problems (breakups with a girlfriend, divorce of parents, failures at school, etc.) and at the same time they are watching television shows, movies, and video games in which violence is the answer to all of life's problems, these kids can be influenced subconciously to believe just that.
This is not to say that ALL violence in video games and movies caused ALL of the violence in our society, or that it causes violence in ALL teenagers who view it. I played Doom, Quake, et al all through high school. I'm a big Steven Segal fan and watched all of his movies when I was a teen. But, I've never acted out violently. Nor do the thousands of other teenagers who view the exact same types of thing each year. However, we can't rule out that it could be that these specific individuals WERE in fact influenced by the media they were watching.
Nobody said that Pixar needed Disney. In fact, I think it's the other way around. Disney is always interested in acquiring content and Pixar is definitely the best CG house out there. If Disney could purchase Pixar and still maintain the same type of relationship with Pixar's animators (e.g., let them do their own thing) it could mean a lot of revenue to the company
One has to wonder what effect this may have on Disney's relationship with Pixar. After all, Steve Jobs is the CEO of both. I've always hoped that Disney would purchase Pixar. They do great work and would be a valuable addition to Disney. Buy them, and then leave them alone. Don't interfere in that division.
But, with Eisner making these comments could the already difficult relationship between Disney and Pixar become even more strained?
Hmmm...Maybe it's just me, but I don't think it looks that great. I think it looks like crap. As far as PDA/phone combos go, I think that this model from Samsung looks great. Plus, it's got the useable size and shape necessary for both PDA and phone use, unlike the new blackberry.
Not hardly. I deal with a lot of business clients. Sometimes, I can meet with someone one week and not remember them the next. With this, I could take some notes in my PDA about what we talked about (especially useful when you're schmoozing the clients) and they would appear the next time I talked to them. I can definitely see the use for this. Maybe this kind of information is unnecessary for friends or family, but it has definite appeal to the business community.
The privacy concerns depend on where the information comes from. If it comes from a centralized database, then yes. But, if the user (the owner of the goggles) chooses the information to assign to a person then there aren't any big concerns. For instance, I could choose to display their name, birthday, wedding anniversary, and their favorite restaurant. It would be information that I already know, this would just allow me to access it more readily. In a way, it would act like a face-recognizing entry in my PDA, brining up all of the information I've already collected about that person.
As much as I hate to admit it, Microsoft is right about this one. I was talking to a friend who is a lawyer, and he said this could technically fall under the clause that states cannot make rules that apply to other states. It's similar to the laws that say if I'm married in one state, I'm married in another. They have to recognize that. Well, it's unconstitutional for Maryland to make laws that would affect Georgia.
This is just what I was told, so I'm going by that. I'm not an expert on the Constitution so I don't know.
Well, Morpheous, Napster, et al are all Windows based clients. Does that mean Microsoft is at fault for allowing their OS to run such subversive software? Hmmm....Bill vs. RIAA. I wonder who would win.
What will be the ramifications if the GPL doesn't hold up in court? If the GPL hasn't been challenged in court thus far, this could have far reaching implications within the Linux community. If the GPL doesn't hold up, does that mean Microsoft is free to take large chunks of GPL'd software and make it proprietary?
One of the things I love most about America is our right to free speech. The ability to live in a country where we can publicly speak out against injustice and oppression is priceless. Where would our nation, and even the world be if Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not free to challenge his people to practice nonviolent protest?
However, the issue of free speech is not so cut and dry. I hope that most people will agree with me that COMPLETELY free speech is NOT a good thing. For example, what if a witness was free to lie when testifying at a trial? Laws against purgery are technically "curbing" free speech. However, these kinds of restrictions are necessary in order to promote justice and freedom for all. Laws against slander, libel, death threats, and the proverbial "yelling fire in a crowded theater" fall into the same category. These laws are designed to protect the general public from the misuse of free speech.
So where do issues like pornography and hate speech fall? The question is, if purgery is prohibited in order to protect the public, could hate speech be prohibited for the same reason? And, exactly what constitutes "free speech"? I'm certainly no expert on the Constitution, but I believe that the first ammendment was put into place not to allow citizens to say and act whatever and however they please, but rather to act as a guard against the kind of oppression that was found in England at the time.
"Free speech" was intended to allow citizens to protest the actions of government when government overstepped its bounds, or was acting improperly. A prime example of this is the civil rights movement. I don't believe that the first ammendment was intended to protect individuals who want to post child pornography on the Internet.
And, although it's rather controversial these days, I don't believe it protects those who want to make copies of DVDs and CDs and distribute them over the net or to their friends. That is an issue of "Fair Use", not free speech.
There's nothing that I hate more (about e-mail, at least) than receiving 10-20 spam messages from Asia per day. But, I still believe that targeted advertising is a good idea. I'd much rather receive advertisements about Linux software, the latest PDA models, discounts on trips to Walt Disney World, B.B. King's new CD, and the latest martial arts tournament than I would random ads that come across my TV, inbox, or browser. Why do I see commercials for feminine hygeine products when I'm watching football? I certainly am not going to run out and buy any!
Targeted advertising is a great idea. But, only if it's done appropriately. I don't want Visa informing companies of my spending habits. I don't want my bank notifying companies of where I use my debit card. But, I wouldn't mind signing up for a service and telling them which categories of products I'm interested in. The way I see it, if I'm going to be bombarded with advertisements, I'd rather them be something I'm interested in. That's why I don't mind Amazon.com's tracking system. On more than one occasion I've purchased the products they've recommended for me, because they were generally something I was interested in.
Valid points. Of course, just because the author's past and qualifications are a bit questionable, it doesn't mean the book has to suffer. I read it in college in a semester when I was taking both "Television in American Culture" (best course I've ever taken) as well as "Philosophy of Human Interaction" so it was really interesting to see a lot of the philosophies I was studying applied to another area I was studying.
This is almost as good a social commentary as a study on The Simpsons. I believe the book is called "The DO'H of Homer". EXCELLENT reading. What's even more amazing is that there is all of this philosophical depth and yet none of it was planned. There are some excerpts that you can read on Amazon.com so you should check it out.
Think of your computer being like your car. Sure, there are some drivers who want to take it a step further. They might tweak their engines, swap out components, etc. all in order to make their cars the best they can be. However, most people are happy with their car the way it is. When you buy a car, everything is there for you. Most drivers don't want or need to know about the innerworkings of a car, let alone what to do when something fails.
We can apply this to OS's by comparing the OS to your transmission. I know ABSOLUTELY nothing about cars. That's why the transmission in my car is fine with me. If something goes wrong, I take it to the shop. If it completely dies on me, I buy a new car. I don't have the expertise - nor do I want to learn how - to rebuild my transmission. The average computer user doesn't want to worry about their OS. It's just supposed to be there and work. Installing a new OS is like rebuilding a transmission, and the average end user doesn't want to do it.
That is why Linux cannot succeed on the desktop until several events happen. 1) Linux must be installed at the OEM level. Computer have to come with it preinstalled. 2) The GUI has to be completely object oriented, easy to use, and easy to configure. News flash: XFree86 is NONE OF THE ABOVE. Look at how Apple took BSD to the masses. They didn't try and build an interface for X Windows. They built one ON TOP of BSD. That's what Linux must do. We can't rely on X Windows because it has too many shortcomings. 3) Applications 4) Unique features and enhancements not found on any other platform. As it stands right now, very little is innovative within the Linux community. Sure, the way things are done might be innovative. But, it all boils down to the Linux community trying to duplicate the things that Microsoft and Apple have already done. If Linux is truly to succeed, there needs to be some reason for users to switch.
This bothers me. On the one hand, most Slashdot readers will say, "This violates my privacy. The government has no right to use packet sniffers, etc. to view my Internet traffic." On the other hand, they praise hackers who utilize similar (if not the same) tools, by saying, "These people show the insecurities in Windows NT, etc." How come we praise the hackers for doing something we condemn the government for?
That poor girl. Kathleen Taco? It just doesn't have a nice ring to it.
How can someone expect PRIVACY when they are walking down a PUBLIC street? By definition, privacy doesn't exist. How can you expect to have privacy when you are out there for all the world to see? Am I allowed to walk around naked in my house? Yes, because I am in the PRIVACY of my own home. Am I allowed to walk around naked on the streets of Baltimore? No, because I am out in PUBLIC. I am all for privacy rights. I don't believe the government should tap my phone. I don't believe they should track my purchases. I don't believe they should outlaw software that allows me to encrypt my e-mail. However, if I am out in public and there are cameras watching me it's no more of an invasion of my privacy than someone sitting on a bench watching me.
The travesty here is not that we HAVE security cameras everywhere. It's that we live in a society where we NEED security cameras everywhere.
I think this is a great idea, myself. I wrote a paper in college about how wireless devices will change the future, what effect pervasive computing will have, about blahblahblahblah. Anyway, one of the points I made was that your refrigerator will use these RFID tags to determine what you have and don't have in your fridge. It could evaluate your buying and consumption habits for you automatically. That way, you take your Linux-based handheld to the grocery store and automatically download your fridge-generated shopping list. That was just one of the scenarios I presented, but I think that RFID tags will go a long way in making computing ubiquitous.
...since I was "endowed by" my "creator with certain unaliable rights" including "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness". America is a nation of laws; laws which are designed to ensure the safety and liberty of its citizens.