The article linked to by this parent regarding the "RFID Blocker Tag" is mostly full of shit.
From the article:
"The blocker tag system is software-based and relies on technology developed by RSA researchers that prevents RFID readers from gathering data from other tags in their immediate vicinity. Without it, any RFID reader could query any tag, enabling retailers or other companies to read the tags on any merchandise a customer may be carrying."
As someone who works in the industry as an RFID technology integrator I can tell you that this is simply not true.
- Different tag types can use very different frequencies depending on their target application.
- Tags from different manufacturers (TI, Phillips, Tagsys, Checkpoint) are seldom, if ever, interoperable with competitors' hardware.
- Often, a manufacturer produces several tag types and each one can require the reader to have different firmware for each type.
- Even if tags from two different manufacturers both comply with the current applicable RFID ISO standards (15693, or subset 18000-3) there really is no such thing as an "interoperable tag." The standard has been developing since 1999 but to date still does not define memory size, security method, or data format. So each manufacturer essentially "rolls their own" resulting in proprietary systems.
It's a known fact that the best way to control an FPS is with mouselook. People who don't use mouselook are called "keyboarders" (even people using gamepads or joysticks) and are usually painfully obvious to mouse users. I remember my freshman year playing QuakeWorld in my dorm against other guys on my hall. One of em' insisted on using his gamepad - even though he repeatedly got owned badly because he turned so damn slowly compared to the mouse users.
Don't say that too loudly. If Microsoft hears what an advantage using a keyboard/mouse is they'll start banning XFPS users from xbox live.
My roommates bought the game, crashes and freezes on his ati card. Forums are saying it is happening quite a bit on ati cards. Seems like the developers didn't take into account half the video card market.
I find that to be utterly insulting. They had the same problem with KotOR I & ATI cards. Bioware consistently blamed it on ATI's catalyst drivers but I always thought that was a weak failure to accept responsibility. Now granted the sequel has a new developer but that's garbage to not fix what is essentially a known, existing bug.
With all that said, if it isn't compatible with my current games, I'm definitely going to hold off buying it until I see what the cell processor infrastructure has to offer. Why buy a console that can't play all my games until I can compare the Xbox Next, the PS3, and the Nintendo Revolution.
I see the "backwards-compatability" issue from a different perspective. For the most part, I wish console-makers would forget about investing resources in making their "next-gen" consoles backward compatible. Just concentrate on optimizing your hardware for the generation it belongs to. Something will be sacrificed in order to make your xbox1 games play on your xbox2. You know what else, all your "current games" will still be 100% playable on your "current system." Don't forget tha backwards-compatability adds to the overall pricetag.
Depending on the details of the sports collective bargaining agreement - licensing of league properties (team names/logos, stadia) may be separate from that of the players names.
I know this has been the case with MLB in other areas. Ever gotten those free baseball cards in a cereal box or something? You know, the ones with the team logos airbrushed off the players' caps. That was because the company producing the cards had permission from the players union, but not MLB.
And what happens when you crank up that power on that RFID antenna/reader? The tag doesn't know distances, it responds to a sufficent amount of radio energy, and its response goes to the end of the universe. Even if it's infeasible to activate the tag at a certain distance, some with a sufficently large enough antenna can read it at that distance.
That's not entirely accurate...first, the tag isn't just "responding" to the RF energy - it uses it to transmit. That response does not extend infinitely. Rather, it is limited by the strength of the induced current (which, for legal implementations (in the US) is FCC regulated).
So most of the RFID that's being proposed is battery operated? This would have to be, since getting within 2-8 inches isn't enough for even Wal-Mart to read you as you exit the store.
No, it's a mixed bag really. For shipping & inventory applications active RFID tags are typically used (at the pallet/shipping container level). At the per-item level, passive tags are normally used - this is simply a cost/performance issue. In shipping applications I have seen, even with active tags, an "RFID tunnel" is usually needed (antennae on top, bottom, left and right) to ensure successful tag reads at significant distances. This is because the amount of current induced is very dependent on tag orientation (think right-hand rule of E&M) - if the induction circuit is not perpendicular to the RF field, no current will be induced. The way that WalMart and others used passive tags for security typically involves burst detection of a single EAS, or theft bit. This is *much* easier to detect than reading the entire byte required to store the item id and allows greater detection ranges (~15-25 inches). This is combined with the fact that two security gates that are in alignment with each other produce a coupling (Josette) effect that can amplify the signal. Also, bear in mind that when someone steals something from WalMart and the security gates detect the theft and sound the alarm, it does not know that "Item X" was just stolen, it simply knows that an item with security still turned on just went by.
According to Bruce Schnider (sp? the cryptology guy) unpowered RFIDs have been read at much greater distances than they were designed for with the right equipment.
You're right about that. Human innovation will always push the continuous improvement cycle, often quite dramatically (look at what you can do for WiFi with a coffee can and some coax). For the most part I think we need to demand proper regulation of the technology.
As a strong privacy advocate, regular supporter of the EFF and a tech in the RFID industry I would like to comment on some of the false assumptions that are being made (here and elsewhere) about RFID.
People are assuming RFID technology has a whole lot more capability than it actually does. Let's look at the issue of sensing range/proximity. The most common (and least expensive) type of tags are passive RFID tags. Passive RFID tags have no battery or on-chip power source. They are powered via current induction by (typically) 13.56MHz RF. Because they have no internal power source their read/write range is very limited (read: 2-8 inches from an RFID antenna/reader combination). Greater read distances can be achieve by using an active (battery powered) tag but even then you're looking at a range of a few feet. It is not a very realistic speculation that active tags would be used on any scale for human implants because of cost *and* the need to replace the implant when the battery dies.
I also think it's rather funny that a lot of people in this forum have "joked" about getting out aluminum foil or tinfoil hats to hide from the RFID gestapo. What many people don't realize is foil (or any metal) does a magnificent job of blocking RFID. There is no need for the mythical RFID blocker tag. Not that I encourage thisbut all anyone would have to do to circumvent RFID retail security for example would be to put all the items you'd like to shoplift in a foil lined bag. RFID's not that strong - no need for a Faraday cage here. You may joke, but this is a case where tinfoil hats would actually work (bring on more jokes).
I will not argue over the benfits or detriments of using RFID. I work with the stuff every day, and I'm still not convinced. What I will argue over is unrealistic paranoia. If I have to hold an RFID antenna so close to you that I can physically touch you, just to read the tag - what is the real concern? I can track you more effectively using my eyes and you're license plate. There's sure to be plenty of bullshit RFID implementations from here on out but worry about how illogical the implementation is, not that the technology is inherently evil.
I do this at my job quite a bit...I recommend capturing the pages at 300dpi grayscale and then converting/saving them as bitonal tiffs. That way Acrobat (6.0 for sure, not certain about earlier versions) can automatically apply Group4 compression to them (compression used by faxes). This will reduce your filesize tremendously. Converting the grayscale scans to bitonal is fairly simple...
in Photoshop: first run auto contrast under the Image menu, then Image>Mode>Bitmap (options: 50% threshold, output resolution = 300 dpi).
If you feel the quality is too low try capturing at a higher resolution (but still output to 300 in your bitonal conversion).
If you don't have that much to do this is perfectly practical to do yourself on a flatbed (don't forget black construction paper for the double sided scans). If you have more than a hundred, I'd recommend outsourcing to a service provider.
*begin shameless sales pitch*
Coincidentally, I'm a digital imaging project coordinator so anyone feel free to send me a PM if you have any work of this nature you'd like to farm out.
Yes, you do - but that's okay. I'm a digital imaging professional and I use Photoshop every day. I could not do my job without it. I think all can probably agree that Photoshop is the best available tool when it comes to digital imaging. What I don't agree with, however, is laebeling Photoshop, or any tool for that matter, as "professionals only." I feel that everyone has a right to want to use the best tool for the job. Granted, if they can't afford the price tag - that's their problem; but I can't agree with the parent's logic that if you are a professional you can afford it, if you're not a professional you don't need it or shouldn't use it.
I've been told countless times by Best Buy sales people that they do not make any commission on the goods they sell. I happen to suspect, due to the extraordinary lengths they go to trying to sell extended warranties and service contracts that they must recieve a commission form these. Can anyone out there confirm or deny?
But surely the music industry actually actually downloads the shared file, and makes sure it's copyrighted material.
I don't feel so good about that assumption. This doesn't *specifically* apply to the RIAA but last year our company recieved a cease & desist letter from Warner Bros. saying _someone_ was illegally using our corporate network to share a divx rip of "Austin Powers: Goldmember." Had they actually checked they would have found that it was actually a misnamed rip of Paramount's "Zoolander." I would not be suprised if that kind of thing doesn't still happen. Think about the amount of resources they would have to use to actually check all the files they're accusing people of illegally sharing. Not something a bot could do.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, if Ninetendo is willing to release it as open source (rtfa).
The article linked to by this parent regarding the "RFID Blocker Tag" is mostly full of shit.
From the article:
"The blocker tag system is software-based and relies on technology developed by RSA researchers that prevents RFID readers from gathering data from other tags in their immediate vicinity. Without it, any RFID reader could query any tag, enabling retailers or other companies to read the tags on any merchandise a customer may be carrying."
As someone who works in the industry as an RFID technology integrator I can tell you that this is simply not true.
- Different tag types can use very different frequencies depending on their target application.
- Tags from different manufacturers (TI, Phillips, Tagsys, Checkpoint) are seldom, if ever, interoperable with competitors' hardware.
- Often, a manufacturer produces several tag types and each one can require the reader to have different firmware for each type.
- Even if tags from two different manufacturers both comply with the current applicable RFID ISO standards (15693, or subset 18000-3) there really is no such thing as an "interoperable tag." The standard has been developing since 1999 but to date still does not define memory size, security method, or data format. So each manufacturer essentially "rolls their own" resulting in proprietary systems.
Don't say that too loudly. If Microsoft hears what an advantage using a keyboard/mouse is they'll start banning XFPS users from xbox live.
My roommates bought the game, crashes and freezes on his ati card. Forums are saying it is happening quite a bit on ati cards. Seems like the developers didn't take into account half the video card market.
I find that to be utterly insulting. They had the same problem with KotOR I & ATI cards. Bioware consistently blamed it on ATI's catalyst drivers but I always thought that was a weak failure to accept responsibility. Now granted the sequel has a new developer but that's garbage to not fix what is essentially a known, existing bug.
With all that said, if it isn't compatible with my current games, I'm definitely going to hold off buying it until I see what the cell processor infrastructure has to offer. Why buy a console that can't play all my games until I can compare the Xbox Next, the PS3, and the Nintendo Revolution.
I see the "backwards-compatability" issue from a different perspective. For the most part, I wish console-makers would forget about investing resources in making their "next-gen" consoles backward compatible. Just concentrate on optimizing your hardware for the generation it belongs to. Something will be sacrificed in order to make your xbox1 games play on your xbox2. You know what else, all your "current games" will still be 100% playable on your "current system." Don't forget tha backwards-compatability adds to the overall pricetag.
...I can tune my car to the specifications of the racers I've unlocked in F-Zero X. Finally my Nissan Pathfinder will be able to drift around corners!
Depending on the details of the sports collective bargaining agreement - licensing of league properties (team names/logos, stadia) may be separate from that of the players names.
I know this has been the case with MLB in other areas. Ever gotten those free baseball cards in a cereal box or something? You know, the ones with the team logos airbrushed off the players' caps. That was because the company producing the cards had permission from the players union, but not MLB.
...are one of the best features of this game.
And what happens when you crank up that power on that RFID antenna/reader? The tag doesn't know distances, it responds to a sufficent amount of radio energy, and its response goes to the end of the universe. Even if it's infeasible to activate the tag at a certain distance, some with a sufficently large enough antenna can read it at that distance.
That's not entirely accurate...first, the tag isn't just "responding" to the RF energy - it uses it to transmit. That response does not extend infinitely. Rather, it is limited by the strength of the induced current (which, for legal implementations (in the US) is FCC regulated).
So most of the RFID that's being proposed is battery operated? This would have to be, since getting within 2-8 inches isn't enough for even Wal-Mart to read you as you exit the store.
No, it's a mixed bag really. For shipping & inventory applications active RFID tags are typically used (at the pallet/shipping container level). At the per-item level, passive tags are normally used - this is simply a cost/performance issue. In shipping applications I have seen, even with active tags, an "RFID tunnel" is usually needed (antennae on top, bottom, left and right) to ensure successful tag reads at significant distances. This is because the amount of current induced is very dependent on tag orientation (think right-hand rule of E&M) - if the induction circuit is not perpendicular to the RF field, no current will be induced. The way that WalMart and others used passive tags for security typically involves burst detection of a single EAS, or theft bit. This is *much* easier to detect than reading the entire byte required to store the item id and allows greater detection ranges (~15-25 inches). This is combined with the fact that two security gates that are in alignment with each other produce a coupling (Josette) effect that can amplify the signal. Also, bear in mind that when someone steals something from WalMart and the security gates detect the theft and sound the alarm, it does not know that "Item X" was just stolen, it simply knows that an item with security still turned on just went by.
According to Bruce Schnider (sp? the cryptology guy) unpowered RFIDs have been read at much greater distances than they were designed for with the right equipment.
You're right about that. Human innovation will always push the continuous improvement cycle, often quite dramatically (look at what you can do for WiFi with a coffee can and some coax). For the most part I think we need to demand proper regulation of the technology.
As a strong privacy advocate, regular supporter of the EFF and a tech in the RFID industry I would like to comment on some of the false assumptions that are being made (here and elsewhere) about RFID.
People are assuming RFID technology has a whole lot more capability than it actually does. Let's look at the issue of sensing range/proximity. The most common (and least expensive) type of tags are passive RFID tags. Passive RFID tags have no battery or on-chip power source. They are powered via current induction by (typically) 13.56MHz RF. Because they have no internal power source their read/write range is very limited (read: 2-8 inches from an RFID antenna/reader combination). Greater read distances can be achieve by using an active (battery powered) tag but even then you're looking at a range of a few feet. It is not a very realistic speculation that active tags would be used on any scale for human implants because of cost *and* the need to replace the implant when the battery dies.
I also think it's rather funny that a lot of people in this forum have "joked" about getting out aluminum foil or tinfoil hats to hide from the RFID gestapo. What many people don't realize is foil (or any metal) does a magnificent job of blocking RFID. There is no need for the mythical RFID blocker tag. Not that I encourage thisbut all anyone would have to do to circumvent RFID retail security for example would be to put all the items you'd like to shoplift in a foil lined bag. RFID's not that strong - no need for a Faraday cage here. You may joke, but this is a case where tinfoil hats would actually work (bring on more jokes).
I will not argue over the benfits or detriments of using RFID. I work with the stuff every day, and I'm still not convinced. What I will argue over is unrealistic paranoia. If I have to hold an RFID antenna so close to you that I can physically touch you, just to read the tag - what is the real concern? I can track you more effectively using my eyes and you're license plate. There's sure to be plenty of bullshit RFID implementations from here on out but worry about how illogical the implementation is, not that the technology is inherently evil.
WTF? The article mentions nothing about bleeding eyes?!
While we're all giving suggestions here's mine -
I do this at my job quite a bit...I recommend capturing the pages at 300dpi grayscale and then converting/saving them as bitonal tiffs. That way Acrobat (6.0 for sure, not certain about earlier versions) can automatically apply Group4 compression to them (compression used by faxes). This will reduce your filesize tremendously. Converting the grayscale scans to bitonal is fairly simple...
in Photoshop: first run auto contrast under the Image menu, then Image>Mode>Bitmap (options: 50% threshold, output resolution = 300 dpi).
If you feel the quality is too low try capturing at a higher resolution (but still output to 300 in your bitonal conversion).
If you don't have that much to do this is perfectly practical to do yourself on a flatbed (don't forget black construction paper for the double sided scans). If you have more than a hundred, I'd recommend outsourcing to a service provider.
*begin shameless sales pitch*
Coincidentally, I'm a digital imaging project coordinator so anyone feel free to send me a PM if you have any work of this nature you'd like to farm out.
*end shameless sales pitch*
MY mother made my Stormtrooper costume out of empty Clorox (tm) bleach bottles & black pantyhose.... I just said that out loud, didn't I?
why so big? isn't 10 the default standard for most written communication?
RTFA - it said one of their goals was to "increase readability." All that dishonesty must be bad for the eyes....
I think I hear it differently than you do
Yes, you do - but that's okay. I'm a digital imaging professional and I use Photoshop every day. I could not do my job without it. I think all can probably agree that Photoshop is the best available tool when it comes to digital imaging. What I don't agree with, however, is laebeling Photoshop, or any tool for that matter, as "professionals only." I feel that everyone has a right to want to use the best tool for the job. Granted, if they can't afford the price tag - that's their problem; but I can't agree with the parent's logic that if you are a professional you can afford it, if you're not a professional you don't need it or shouldn't use it.
"If you're not a professional you don't need it and it's not being marketed to you anyway. Get Paintshop or become a graphic artist."
That's a pretty elitist statement.
...to this statement in the article:
"The company will be working with Apple to add support for Microsoft's superior Windows Media Audio (WMA) format to the iPod by mid-year."
As an iPod user I am now furious that Apple has been oppressing me with an inferior audio format for so long. Dude, I shoulda' got a Dell.
I've been told countless times by Best Buy sales people that they do not make any commission on the goods they sell. I happen to suspect, due to the extraordinary lengths they go to trying to sell extended warranties and service contracts that they must recieve a commission form these. Can anyone out there confirm or deny?
I don't feel so good about that assumption. This doesn't *specifically* apply to the RIAA but last year our company recieved a cease & desist letter from Warner Bros. saying _someone_ was illegally using our corporate network to share a divx rip of "Austin Powers: Goldmember." Had they actually checked they would have found that it was actually a misnamed rip of Paramount's "Zoolander." I would not be suprised if that kind of thing doesn't still happen. Think about the amount of resources they would have to use to actually check all the files they're accusing people of illegally sharing. Not something a bot could do.