They also claim the technology will revolutionise the way people interact with their environment.
Blabitty bla bla. Show me the flying cars and renewable energy sources. Until then, I'll interact with my environment how and when I want to....or they could just wave their NFC phone at a smart film poster to automatically buy a ticket.
Great! Shorter lines at the movie theatre. You all go waive your phones at inanimate objects. I'll go talk to a real person. What about checking for the age of the ticket purchaser? oh yeah, your soon to be mandatory government ID will have that info in an RFID tag as well.
Alternatively, it could help a user to use their mobile phone as an e-wallet.
wonderfull! now a theif can just waive my wallet in front of a smart billboard and buy anything he wants? need two forms of RFID for that purchase? lucky him, he just stole my cellphone too.
yeah yeah, you say i have a nice origami tinfoil hat on. But what exactly are these "innovations" doing for society? It's cool that this stuff can technically be done. It doesn't mean it should permeate our entire daily lives.
From the story submission: "called Near Field Communication, that could be a threat to Bluetooth." From the article: "NFC won't replace Bluetooth or infrared."
way to go editors! way to go A.C. who submitted the story! jeebus, if people could be honest, truthfull and accountable this world would be such a better place.
It's all about the right to use what you bought in a way that you want. Why should I have to use an iPod with a Mac or Windows? Why should I be forced to use only a subset of it's abilities if I don't use an Mac or Windows? I don't have to use bread made by General Electric in my toaster made by General Electric. I bought the bread, I bought the iPod....wouldn't they be torn to shreds by angry Slashdotters?
some, yes, probably. why live by mob rule though? fair use is fair use, no matter who's using it.
if a cellphone is a neccesity for work, either they should provide you with one, or provide you with a pager. if none of those options are suitable to your management, then you should notify them that productivity and response time will be greatly reduced.
quitting because you can't use your personal cell phone is just redamndiculous. i'd fire you for thinking otherwise!;)
quitting because you aren't provided with tools to complete your duties is another issue altogether.
yeah, maybe people don't. And maybe these same people never realized that you can use a third party garbage collector in C++, if that is what you want to do. Maybe these people don't know about C++ STL, or how to use constructors and destructors in a way that can eliminate much of the resource management problems that C-like C++ code has.
language wars... what a fun subject to follow:) Freakin' Java can bite me. Java.is.way.to.verbose in code style for my liking.
Hey man, just because Linux is Open-sourced, doesn't mean that apps (read: potential spyware) that runs on it is open-source. Do you think Oracle opensourced their DB when they released it for linux?
You are right. But the orininal poster seemed be talking about Free software. Software is "Free", if, among other things, source code is freely available. I'm well aware of binary distribution of applications for Linux. I was speaking theoretically, to continue the original posters use of "Free".
However, it is my opinion that if you can stick to a policy of running only Free software, you can reduce the chances of running such malware by accident.
Agreed, they probably wouldn't. but IF the code were available, then someone would have an easier time figuring out what is causing the problems on someone's computer and it would be almost trivial to make a fix for it. I think IF code were available, it would reduce the problem somewhat.
However, what chance is there that some adware company would release Free Software? They'd most likely package it up in someone elses binary like they already do.
In the case of linux though, and many other multiuser, access controlled systems, the bad effects would sort of be minimalized in that unless you were acting as some priviledged user when you installed the adware, it wouldn't effect every user, just you.
Not really. "Free" software implies source code is available. With source code available, I would be able to determine when, from where, and to where any data it collects is going. I can also remove that part of the code, recompile it, distribute patches that remove that part of the code for other people, and so on. People would then be free to use my modifications instead.
Only if the software in question is closed source, and hence not Free, would this situation continue. In a Free situation, it is possible that some people might not use my modified version, but with enough people knowledgeable about it, it could become the version people are mostly refered to.
probably, but we're starting to see in legislature what we've been seeing in software patents for a long time now. "breaking and entering.. on the internet" or "illegal wiretap... through web page" or whatever else. I would imagine we do have laws to govern some of this already, but that doesn't force lobby groups to give the government more money. i'm too suspicious anymore to think money isn't the motive behind most of government.
Companies like Claria and WhenU, for example, are legal adware providers, although each has been involved in high-profile lawsuits over their software. Both companies still face pending legal action.
Not to be a troll, but this is why there are operating systems like OSX. Granted, you'll have to be running Apple hardware, but luckily for you Apple hardware + Apple software usually works happily together.
Linux is still a hobbyists or a computer nerds system, in my opinion. I'm not entirely sure we need to push it into the mainstream. I suspect MS will do all it needs to disenfranchise a lot of it's more technically savvy users in the next few years, and quite a few of it's non-technical users. The popularity and accesibility of OSX, as well as the customizable, tinkering community (could apply to OSX as well) of Linux will reap the benefits of an increased user base.
wasn't volvo saying that they were goign to start shipping cars with their hoods weilded shut? hilarous. Make spec's known, but make the interface to that computer unreachable.
Just because it CAN be used for something else doesn't mean it is.
which doesn't mean it won't be in the near future. if you want to regulate or in some way crack down on the software implementations of p2p that are used for violating copyrights, that is fine as long as it is done in a respnosible manner. But if you want to make it illegal for me to write a p2p software system that is not in any way related to unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials, then that is absolutely wrong.
i think this is pretty interesting. It's similar to saying, "I didn't break in to that persons house to aquire their property, the door was wide open." Pardon my law knowledge.. terminology may be incorrect, but this is sort of like Breaking and Entering (plus theft) versus Trespassing (plus theft).
Is there a difference between trespassing a "wide open" system which you aren't supposed to be in, and "cracking" ones way into a secured system which you aren't supposd to be in?
You're connecting "piracy", something inherantly illegal by definition, with peer-to-peer. p2p is a technology that can be used for so many different things, that lumping them together is naive.
so many geeks want what to be legal? piracy? sharing mp3's? p2p? they are 3 separate things, only one of which I care about, as a geek, and that is p2p. Which I don't even use. Once i tried bit torrent to d/l slackware, but it didn't work.
please, for the sake of reality, don't lump 3 vastly different things into one thing that the general public sees as illegal. p2p != sharing mp3s. p2p != piracy. sharing mp3's is not always even equal to piracy.
generalizations are like premature optimizations... the root of all evil.
So who will get it right (right for me, anyway) and have a regular size battery that lasts atleast 12 hours instead of a smaller, lighter battery that lasts the same as any other laptop? give me this Sharp laptop and that kind of battery built in (instead of having to go buy another battery) and I might be in the market for a laptop.
leave your minor OCD behind the firewall! ok, kidding, don't take that seriously.
10 minutes is way to long, especially if you were one of the first 100 posts. those get modded up/down faster than others. 1 minute might be more reasonable as it allows for errors to be caught after submission but doesn't allow for big changes after moderation.
errors or no errors, editing posts isn't suitable here, in my opinion. If you really care about your errors, just slow down, preview, read it backwards (helps catch spelling errors), copy and paste it into a program that can grammar/spell sheck for you, or whatever. you have the tools to proofread, just use them.
io for one don't care abou tmy tpying mistakes. ha! i'll just leave those typos in there to prove it:)
I can copy and paste between Konqueror and xterm running Emacs, and between any other 2 applications for that matter. If no one else can copy and paste, then they must be doing something wrong (wrong key combinations to access the copy buffer?).
The cut/copy/paste issue has been vastly overblown. it's like comparing MS security features of windows for workgroups to their 2003 Server.
You're not entirely right, you're even somewhat wrong. But mostly, you've over-generalized. mainly, i think you're giving a lot less credit to the sensibility of the common slashdotter. I also don't think it is as simple as your initial statement. I think it's vastly more complex. I would wager that most people would be willing to pay some amount for a copy of a movie. those people would not want, however, to be restricted to never making a copy of that movie for themselves to do what they want with it for their own use. For some reason, the industry wants to punish those people for the wrong doings of people illegally aquiring the material.
I expect someone self-righteous jackass who thinks everyone owes them a free ride will come along moderate this down
Slashdot Mirror
They also claim the technology will revolutionise the way people interact with their environment.
...or they could just wave their NFC phone at a smart film poster to automatically buy a ticket.
Blabitty bla bla. Show me the flying cars and renewable energy sources. Until then, I'll interact with my environment how and when I want to.
Great! Shorter lines at the movie theatre. You all go waive your phones at inanimate objects. I'll go talk to a real person. What about checking for the age of the ticket purchaser? oh yeah, your soon to be mandatory government ID will have that info in an RFID tag as well.
Alternatively, it could help a user to use their mobile phone as an e-wallet.
wonderfull! now a theif can just waive my wallet in front of a smart billboard and buy anything he wants? need two forms of RFID for that purchase? lucky him, he just stole my cellphone too.
yeah yeah, you say i have a nice origami tinfoil hat on. But what exactly are these "innovations" doing for society? It's cool that this stuff can technically be done. It doesn't mean it should permeate our entire daily lives.
From the story submission: "called Near Field Communication, that could be a threat to Bluetooth."
From the article: "NFC won't replace Bluetooth or infrared."
way to go editors! way to go A.C. who submitted the story! jeebus, if people could be honest, truthfull and accountable this world would be such a better place.
It's all about the right to use what you bought in a way that you want. Why should I have to use an iPod with a Mac or Windows? Why should I be forced to use only a subset of it's abilities if I don't use an Mac or Windows? I don't have to use bread made by General Electric in my toaster made by General Electric. I bought the bread, I bought the iPod. ...wouldn't they be torn to shreds by angry Slashdotters?
some, yes, probably. why live by mob rule though? fair use is fair use, no matter who's using it.
if a cellphone is a neccesity for work, either they should provide you with one, or provide you with a pager. if none of those options are suitable to your management, then you should notify them that productivity and response time will be greatly reduced.
;)
quitting because you can't use your personal cell phone is just redamndiculous. i'd fire you for thinking otherwise!
quitting because you aren't provided with tools to complete your duties is another issue altogether.
yeah, maybe people don't. And maybe these same people never realized that you can use a third party garbage collector in C++, if that is what you want to do. Maybe these people don't know about C++ STL, or how to use constructors and destructors in a way that can eliminate much of the resource management problems that C-like C++ code has.
:) Freakin' Java can bite me. Java.is.way.to.verbose in code style for my liking.
language wars... what a fun subject to follow
"We're back to the times when men were men and wrote their own device drivers."
-- Linus Torvalds
These kind of drivers?
Above message is especially redundant, and not even funny. It's an exact duplication of a post from a previous functional programming thread on /.
Hey man, just because Linux is Open-sourced, doesn't mean that apps (read: potential spyware) that runs on it is open-source. Do you think Oracle opensourced their DB when they released it for linux?
You are right. But the orininal poster seemed be talking about Free software. Software is "Free", if, among other things, source code is freely available. I'm well aware of binary distribution of applications for Linux. I was speaking theoretically, to continue the original posters use of "Free".
However, it is my opinion that if you can stick to a policy of running only Free software, you can reduce the chances of running such malware by accident.
Well, Prohibition was between 1919 and 1933.
Agreed, they probably wouldn't. but IF the code were available, then someone would have an easier time figuring out what is causing the problems on someone's computer and it would be almost trivial to make a fix for it. I think IF code were available, it would reduce the problem somewhat.
However, what chance is there that some adware company would release Free Software? They'd most likely package it up in someone elses binary like they already do.
In the case of linux though, and many other multiuser, access controlled systems, the bad effects would sort of be minimalized in that unless you were acting as some priviledged user when you installed the adware, it wouldn't effect every user, just you.
Not really. "Free" software implies source code is available. With source code available, I would be able to determine when, from where, and to where any data it collects is going. I can also remove that part of the code, recompile it, distribute patches that remove that part of the code for other people, and so on. People would then be free to use my modifications instead.
Only if the software in question is closed source, and hence not Free, would this situation continue. In a Free situation, it is possible that some people might not use my modified version, but with enough people knowledgeable about it, it could become the version people are mostly refered to.
1: Download adware
2: Sue
3: Profit!!!!
Sorry pal, but on the Internet, adware downloads you...
Mmmm, is there a Wisconsin bit i can set in my TCP/IP headers?
probably, but we're starting to see in legislature what we've been seeing in software patents for a long time now. "breaking and entering.. on the internet" or "illegal wiretap... through web page" or whatever else. I would imagine we do have laws to govern some of this already, but that doesn't force lobby groups to give the government more money. i'm too suspicious anymore to think money isn't the motive behind most of government.
Companies like Claria and WhenU, for example, are legal adware providers, although each has been involved in high-profile lawsuits over their software. Both companies still face pending legal action.
What are they smoking? Claria is spyware.
lol. oh c'mon, mod this up!
Not to be a troll, but this is why there are operating systems like OSX. Granted, you'll have to be running Apple hardware, but luckily for you Apple hardware + Apple software usually works happily together.
Linux is still a hobbyists or a computer nerds system, in my opinion. I'm not entirely sure we need to push it into the mainstream. I suspect MS will do all it needs to disenfranchise a lot of it's more technically savvy users in the next few years, and quite a few of it's non-technical users. The popularity and accesibility of OSX, as well as the customizable, tinkering community (could apply to OSX as well) of Linux will reap the benefits of an increased user base.
wasn't volvo saying that they were goign to start shipping cars with their hoods weilded shut? hilarous. Make spec's known, but make the interface to that computer unreachable.
Just because it CAN be used for something else doesn't mean it is.
which doesn't mean it won't be in the near future. if you want to regulate or in some way crack down on the software implementations of p2p that are used for violating copyrights, that is fine as long as it is done in a respnosible manner. But if you want to make it illegal for me to write a p2p software system that is not in any way related to unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials, then that is absolutely wrong.
No, this statement is naive.
explain why, i'm listening...
i think this is pretty interesting. It's similar to saying, "I didn't break in to that persons house to aquire their property, the door was wide open." Pardon my law knowledge.. terminology may be incorrect, but this is sort of like Breaking and Entering (plus theft) versus Trespassing (plus theft).
Is there a difference between trespassing a "wide open" system which you aren't supposed to be in, and "cracking" ones way into a secured system which you aren't supposd to be in?
Almost good. How about,
What do you think needs to be done to ensure that our rights of Fair Use are preserved in this digital age?
please.
You're connecting "piracy", something inherantly illegal by definition, with peer-to-peer. p2p is a technology that can be used for so many different things, that lumping them together is naive.
so many geeks want what to be legal? piracy? sharing mp3's? p2p? they are 3 separate things, only one of which I care about, as a geek, and that is p2p. Which I don't even use. Once i tried bit torrent to d/l slackware, but it didn't work.
please, for the sake of reality, don't lump 3 vastly different things into one thing that the general public sees as illegal. p2p != sharing mp3s. p2p != piracy. sharing mp3's is not always even equal to piracy.
generalizations are like premature optimizations... the root of all evil.
So who will get it right (right for me, anyway) and have a regular size battery that lasts atleast 12 hours instead of a smaller, lighter battery that lasts the same as any other laptop? give me this Sharp laptop and that kind of battery built in (instead of having to go buy another battery) and I might be in the market for a laptop.
leave your minor OCD behind the firewall! ok, kidding, don't take that seriously.
:)
10 minutes is way to long, especially if you were one of the first 100 posts. those get modded up/down faster than others. 1 minute might be more reasonable as it allows for errors to be caught after submission but doesn't allow for big changes after moderation.
errors or no errors, editing posts isn't suitable here, in my opinion. If you really care about your errors, just slow down, preview, read it backwards (helps catch spelling errors), copy and paste it into a program that can grammar/spell sheck for you, or whatever. you have the tools to proofread, just use them.
io for one don't care abou tmy tpying mistakes. ha! i'll just leave those typos in there to prove it
I can copy and paste between Konqueror and xterm running Emacs, and between any other 2 applications for that matter. If no one else can copy and paste, then they must be doing something wrong (wrong key combinations to access the copy buffer?).
The cut/copy/paste issue has been vastly overblown. it's like comparing MS security features of windows for workgroups to their 2003 Server.
You're not entirely right, you're even somewhat wrong. But mostly, you've over-generalized. mainly, i think you're giving a lot less credit to the sensibility of the common slashdotter. I also don't think it is as simple as your initial statement. I think it's vastly more complex. I would wager that most people would be willing to pay some amount for a copy of a movie. those people would not want, however, to be restricted to never making a copy of that movie for themselves to do what they want with it for their own use. For some reason, the industry wants to punish those people for the wrong doings of people illegally aquiring the material.
I expect someone self-righteous jackass who thinks everyone owes them a free ride will come along moderate this down
nice overused tactic to get people to mod you up.