...The same problems would exist. The Mac OS isn't immune, it may be true that it's harder to crack but if it were to have 95% of the market I can guaratee it will be cracked open just like windows and other MS software (IE) has been. Regardless of any good or bad software MS has made, they're the highest profile software firm out there.
But frankly, the most recent attacks on MS software aren't as bad as they are made out to be. I've hardly seen any problems and on the Windows systems I run, it's been smooth sailing. Now if I started seeing repeated attacks and they were successful in compromising the systems, I'd change my mind, but that's not happening. As it is I haven't even seen that many attempts.
It seems Matrics has been having more success lately, so of course, file a patent so everyone (including Matrics) has to pay you. Of course this will affect others as well I presume, like Alien. Don't know though, but I'll be following this and if I find something good from one of our research project's contacts I'll try to post it. I should see some interesting arguments and discussions going on now. haha.
Guaranteed this won't slow RFID down any, it'll just put back the progress because it will increase the costs enough that people will just have to wait longer before they want to invest.
The different being that the rovers won't need visitors to check them out. They're just designed to keep running until they die. I think the idea mentioned by others about letting Europe pay to drive em around a bit might not be a bad idea. As long as they continue to operate someone should be trying to use them for at least a little while longer. They're too capable and too valuable to park just because we couldn't pay someone to push a joystick (I know, oversimplifying but the big part is done, the rovers were built and they are safely on mars).
I could see carrying a storage device which one must simply slide in to a slot and it will read off that and restore the state it was operating in. Unfortunately, as you say, this would require dedicated computing stations and a standardized format, or an elaborate reader and emulation system to be able to perform this on already existingstandalone Windows, Mac, etc. systems.
There's a lot of things that will make this difficult, however if for example someone brought it out for Windows or whatever it would be good to see the idea get tested, and Windows would certainly provide the biggest user base and variety in equipment to test it on.
So there's a lot of things that need to be done for people to consider it as a spacecraft. Does that make it a lesser accomplishment?
As far as re-entry, there's nothing to prevent future shuttle type craft from taking an example from this and taking the time to slow down so it doesn't fall apart during re-entry. Thats one of the things that has some people excited. It hasn't really been done before, and they've shown that if you re-enter slow enough there's no problems with overheating. Some people are saying this is how a future shuttle might be designed, it would allow itself to slow enough for re-entry such that it wouldn't require expensive ceramic tiles.
Space doesn't start at 100km, but this is a lot closer than any small, and inexpensive venture such as this, has been. You can just as easily argue semantics against this being a spacecraft as you can for it.
Do you actually have a point or would you just like to argue semantics? It made it to space, it survived re-entry. For what, $20 million as the total cost of their research? Maybe for another $10 million they would have been able to provide something that could stay in space, but that wasn't their goal (and even then it would still be cheap).
What is your definition of a spacecraft? Would not being able to enter and exit space be the main requirement? By all acounts, staying in space is among the easier of the tasks that faces the shuttle. That can be seen even by the disasters we've [unfortunately] experienced, they've been destroyed going up or coming back, not in orbit.
Man, you're head is shoved so far up you must not even need a heater in the winter.
It has maneuvering thrusters, it has an O2 cannister because they have to carry their oxygen somehow. The cabin is pressurized however. If it were a bigger ship on a longer mission, of course it would be different. And finally, reentry. We've been re-entering the earth at breakneck speeds because it's the simplest physically (although not technically). Who's to say it's right? If someone can design a ship that can slow down enough on re-entry to not need any consumable tiles or heat shields, I say bravo to them. It looks like these guys are on to something.
It's a spacecraft, it's a bigger accomplishment than you'll ever achieve, and even with its problems, for the small cost they put in to it, the first flight in to space was an incredible success.
Same shit, different pile. I've been saying the same thing for a long time.
Personally, I haven't downloaded MP3s in ages, got bored with it. Too much hassle. I buy CDs from artists I like or respect and want to support, and I prefer the smaller labels. I never downloaded just MP3s for something I would have actually bought, so the RIAA didn't lose any money from me.
The majority of the MP3 downloading I did was for sampling an album before I bought it. If I didn't want to buy the album, I damn sure didn't feel a reason to keep the MP3s.
I don't download movies though, don't have the patience, and I don't download software partly for the same reason. Also if you download software you gotta deal with finding appropriate cracks and other things. The difference with software versus MP3s for me is that more people are downloading and using illegal software that they otherwise would have had to buy (MS Office and Photoshop have traditionally been big examples that I've seen). People in certain areas need Photoshop, but cannot afford that absurd price tag and will obviously choose to use it illegally. People in other areas need Office (now there's alternatives) so they would download it illegally. I know companies where illegal copies of software are used all over the place, the problem is with the pricing for many people. There are necessary tools, and usually people are willing to spend a considerably larger amount of money on something that's a necessary tool, but many software prices step beyond even that range to just absurdly overpriced, and people simply won't pay it.
There's a tricky situation that needs to be looked at, but it's not the P2P that's at fault. At RIT I'd say the majority of the software trading I know of does go over the network, but if that weren't there it's just as easy for people to burn CDs and DVDs, and I know many people that prefer that method for transferring apps.
Hopefully the software (and movie) industries don't go apeshit like the RIAA did, but it's hard to tell what they'll end up doing.
Compared to the regular iPod (not mini) the iRiver iHP (now H series) spanks it silly in sound quality and battery life, not to mention audio features and connectivity. Same size too.
Good to see at least one person agrees with my view of it.
As far as I'm concerned it would have been more suspenseful if the guy you wanted to win was the underdog, but when they're both pretty much gods, they can beat the snot out of each other until hell freezes over with no result.
People might be more cynical now, maybe not. But I don't think the original SW was bad. Of course I'm not madly in love with all the LOTR had to offer, although they were good.
The latest Star Trek movie (Nemesis) seemed to be a better movie to reach out to the masses than most previous films, it was less trekky and more just sci-fi fun. Not an award winner but not horrible.
The original matrix was cool IMO, broke new ground in special effects and had a lot of interesting ideas and messages in it. However they needed to leave it at that. I don't really think they had a trilogy thought out, they did the first, it was successful so they pimped out the 2nd and 3rd to follow, without giving them much thought.
Amen. The second was bad, the third was unthinkable. They totally destroyed what was and could have been a really cool series and a lot of fun.
After a while it became really painful to watch those CGI'd smith and neo fights that would just drag on forever and had action similar to what a 10 yr old might daydream during english class. It went beyond the "matrix" physics and just became absurd. Everyone was so powerful there was no suspense.
I do agree with you. If data is the primary concern of the company than this is an issue they must be wary of. Of course I suspect before too long we'll see more and more dummy terminals being given to people that cannot burn CDs and have no accessible accessory ports.
Camera phones are a problem too, where images could be taken and sent or saved for later on the phone. Just one of many reasons why I do not want a camera phone. I'd like to be able to take mine with me. It's also the reason that many people I know do not want a camera on their PDA, if it takes photos they can't use it at work to take notes, schedule and do other things.
On many tags there's no transmitter to disable. Some generate a current from the magnetic field generated by the reader and that's enough to read the chip and send a signal back. In fact these are of most interest to industry right now.
Others are similar to chaff, they are a pattern of materials or metallic strands that simply reflect a certain pattern (like sonar) back to the reader which can be decoded. These are like barcodes, containing very limited information, but enough to tell the cash register what you're holding is a carton of milk and not a dozen eggs. (these usually hold under 30 bits of info).
They can be used to track your movements. But so can a cell phone. What's your point? I'll ship you a new tin foil hat for only $4.99. What's your address?
RFID scanning is the equilvilent of an illegal search.
How so? How is scanning an RFID on a piece of luggage any different from the barcode scanning they do now? Technically different, the purpose is the same.
They claim it's for inventory and supply chain purposes but they're lying. Hardly, being in research in RFID, I'm pretty well informed on whats going on and there's genuine interest in lowering the amount of lost luggage in the case of airports. Manufacturers and supply chains realize it's easier to detect a package leaving a factory or warehouse if all it has to do is pass through a doorway to have its tag read, rather than having a barcode optically scanned. If this technology is implemented across the system it can become much more efficient. Now maybe you can call me biased, but my primary interest is printable electronics although I've done some research work in RFID.
RFID offers minimal advantages over barcodes for inventory purposes and does nothing for supply chains, as when goods are purchased, the transaction is logged anyway. Really? Have you any clue what you're talking about? Consider the airport, a major reason luggage gets lost is because the barcode fails to get scanned. The luggage gets misdirected or dumped off the line and someone has to go deal with it manually. If RFIDs are used you won't fail to "see" the tag, passing through the field generated by the reader is all that needs to happen. It's similar to the theft detection they have at department stores. Sure more information could be stored, such as who owns the bag, but its the same concept.
On the supply chain products can be tracted without having to find a barcode, and with certain RFID tech the tag can be internal in the package, making it difficult to damage and remove, resulting in a package that's harder to steal ultimately because it's identity is harder to remove. For inventory/shipping you can not only scan and find out what's in the shelves, but if a note needs to be added to the product so the receiver knows about a certain condition, it could be stored in a chip on the RFID. You can track it's progress by recording the security checkpoints, inventory tracking stations it passes through and saving it to the chip.
RFID tags have now been developed to survive washing, when the clothes they're in are placed in the machine. This isn't new. The paranoia surrounding it isn't new either, but it's still rediculous. the small RFID tags that would be needed to avoid detection and removal by a consumer would cost to much. You would really have to want to track someone to do this. The larger RFIDs (2" x 3") like on some packaging are cheaper, but easy to spot and remove. These 2x3" tags are likely to appear on the back of those paperboard tags that hang off of shirts, ie removable. Nobody has installed them in clothing and currently the only people interested in that is the Army for friend or foe detection and unit tracking. Even better though, there are chipless RFIDs for simple detection (they don't carry data, they're the RF equivalent of a simple ID # as carried by many barcodes)
Yes, there are ways they can track you using RFIDs if they really wanted to. They could put it in your luggage and track you aroudn the world or around the country. But they can track you when you make credit card purchases, they could theoretically track you if you have a cell phone. The threat isn't new, but the obsession with it has changed to RFIDs. There's a whole lot of benign industries that see the use in barcodes. There's a few conspiracy theorists like yourself that have to pee your pants whenever anything new comes out.
Even stranger then really. A private organization (like a private school, or even a controlling body at a public school) should have say over activities happening on campus. They've even got rules at some schools about no businesses out of dorm rooms, they'll find ways to continue to regulate wifi and other things as well.
This is going to be interesting for the FCC to enforce though with lots of little guys wanting to do their own thing.
If you're on the school's property they still have the right to say no private wifi signals. I know RIT has done this, except they say it's because they need clear airwaves while they test the network they're setting up.
Either way, the campus can have final say.
Ultimately though, who the hell gave the damn FCC all this power. Gah!
Finally, Apple isn't selling 2 year outdated displays. The contrast range is still somewhat depressingly low, but the rest of the specs are a good improvement. Brightness could be better as well, these clearly aren't going to be ideal for media work (just like the old apple LCD displays, contrary to popular opinion).
Theoretically it could be weighted and lowered in to earth's atmosphere by a satellite. Lowering it slowly would avoid the atmospheric resistance and thus not burn it up (similar to how SpaceShipOne survived the return portion of its flight).
In fact, in my mind reeling it out like a rope ladder from a high window is the smartest and easiest thing to do, the only catch would be watching the weather. But they plan to build this in a weather-friendly area anyway, so while it seems bizarre I suspect it's totally feasible.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, just wow. All the Windows and Mac systems are on the network (internet access), and running pretty much 24/7.
...The same problems would exist. The Mac OS isn't immune, it may be true that it's harder to crack but if it were to have 95% of the market I can guaratee it will be cracked open just like windows and other MS software (IE) has been. Regardless of any good or bad software MS has made, they're the highest profile software firm out there.
But frankly, the most recent attacks on MS software aren't as bad as they are made out to be. I've hardly seen any problems and on the Windows systems I run, it's been smooth sailing. Now if I started seeing repeated attacks and they were successful in compromising the systems, I'd change my mind, but that's not happening. As it is I haven't even seen that many attempts.
It seems Matrics has been having more success lately, so of course, file a patent so everyone (including Matrics) has to pay you. Of course this will affect others as well I presume, like Alien. Don't know though, but I'll be following this and if I find something good from one of our research project's contacts I'll try to post it. I should see some interesting arguments and discussions going on now. haha.
Guaranteed this won't slow RFID down any, it'll just put back the progress because it will increase the costs enough that people will just have to wait longer before they want to invest.
The different being that the rovers won't need visitors to check them out. They're just designed to keep running until they die. I think the idea mentioned by others about letting Europe pay to drive em around a bit might not be a bad idea. As long as they continue to operate someone should be trying to use them for at least a little while longer. They're too capable and too valuable to park just because we couldn't pay someone to push a joystick (I know, oversimplifying but the big part is done, the rovers were built and they are safely on mars).
I could see carrying a storage device which one must simply slide in to a slot and it will read off that and restore the state it was operating in. Unfortunately, as you say, this would require dedicated computing stations and a standardized format, or an elaborate reader and emulation system to be able to perform this on already existingstandalone Windows, Mac, etc. systems.
There's a lot of things that will make this difficult, however if for example someone brought it out for Windows or whatever it would be good to see the idea get tested, and Windows would certainly provide the biggest user base and variety in equipment to test it on.
So there's a lot of things that need to be done for people to consider it as a spacecraft. Does that make it a lesser accomplishment?
As far as re-entry, there's nothing to prevent future shuttle type craft from taking an example from this and taking the time to slow down so it doesn't fall apart during re-entry. Thats one of the things that has some people excited. It hasn't really been done before, and they've shown that if you re-enter slow enough there's no problems with overheating. Some people are saying this is how a future shuttle might be designed, it would allow itself to slow enough for re-entry such that it wouldn't require expensive ceramic tiles.
Space doesn't start at 100km, but this is a lot closer than any small, and inexpensive venture such as this, has been. You can just as easily argue semantics against this being a spacecraft as you can for it.
Or perhaps the proposed space elevator would be a more economical means once built.
Do you actually have a point or would you just like to argue semantics? It made it to space, it survived re-entry. For what, $20 million as the total cost of their research? Maybe for another $10 million they would have been able to provide something that could stay in space, but that wasn't their goal (and even then it would still be cheap).
What is your definition of a spacecraft? Would not being able to enter and exit space be the main requirement? By all acounts, staying in space is among the easier of the tasks that faces the shuttle. That can be seen even by the disasters we've [unfortunately] experienced, they've been destroyed going up or coming back, not in orbit.
Man, you're head is shoved so far up you must not even need a heater in the winter.
It has maneuvering thrusters, it has an O2 cannister because they have to carry their oxygen somehow. The cabin is pressurized however. If it were a bigger ship on a longer mission, of course it would be different. And finally, reentry. We've been re-entering the earth at breakneck speeds because it's the simplest physically (although not technically). Who's to say it's right? If someone can design a ship that can slow down enough on re-entry to not need any consumable tiles or heat shields, I say bravo to them. It looks like these guys are on to something.
It's a spacecraft, it's a bigger accomplishment than you'll ever achieve, and even with its problems, for the small cost they put in to it, the first flight in to space was an incredible success.
Same shit, different pile. I've been saying the same thing for a long time.
Personally, I haven't downloaded MP3s in ages, got bored with it. Too much hassle. I buy CDs from artists I like or respect and want to support, and I prefer the smaller labels. I never downloaded just MP3s for something I would have actually bought, so the RIAA didn't lose any money from me.
The majority of the MP3 downloading I did was for sampling an album before I bought it. If I didn't want to buy the album, I damn sure didn't feel a reason to keep the MP3s.
I don't download movies though, don't have the patience, and I don't download software partly for the same reason. Also if you download software you gotta deal with finding appropriate cracks and other things. The difference with software versus MP3s for me is that more people are downloading and using illegal software that they otherwise would have had to buy (MS Office and Photoshop have traditionally been big examples that I've seen). People in certain areas need Photoshop, but cannot afford that absurd price tag and will obviously choose to use it illegally. People in other areas need Office (now there's alternatives) so they would download it illegally. I know companies where illegal copies of software are used all over the place, the problem is with the pricing for many people. There are necessary tools, and usually people are willing to spend a considerably larger amount of money on something that's a necessary tool, but many software prices step beyond even that range to just absurdly overpriced, and people simply won't pay it.
There's a tricky situation that needs to be looked at, but it's not the P2P that's at fault. At RIT I'd say the majority of the software trading I know of does go over the network, but if that weren't there it's just as easy for people to burn CDs and DVDs, and I know many people that prefer that method for transferring apps.
Hopefully the software (and movie) industries don't go apeshit like the RIAA did, but it's hard to tell what they'll end up doing.
Compared to the regular iPod (not mini) the iRiver iHP (now H series) spanks it silly in sound quality and battery life, not to mention audio features and connectivity. Same size too.
I don't know, but it's beginning to worry me. This guy reaches new levels of uninformedness every week,
Good to see at least one person agrees with my view of it.
As far as I'm concerned it would have been more suspenseful if the guy you wanted to win was the underdog, but when they're both pretty much gods, they can beat the snot out of each other until hell freezes over with no result.
Woo, that's suspenseful.
People might be more cynical now, maybe not. But I don't think the original SW was bad. Of course I'm not madly in love with all the LOTR had to offer, although they were good.
The latest Star Trek movie (Nemesis) seemed to be a better movie to reach out to the masses than most previous films, it was less trekky and more just sci-fi fun. Not an award winner but not horrible.
The original matrix was cool IMO, broke new ground in special effects and had a lot of interesting ideas and messages in it. However they needed to leave it at that. I don't really think they had a trilogy thought out, they did the first, it was successful so they pimped out the 2nd and 3rd to follow, without giving them much thought.
Not while I was watching it (i was too much in shock) but now that everyone's mentioning it, yes. It was very DBZish.
Amen. The second was bad, the third was unthinkable. They totally destroyed what was and could have been a really cool series and a lot of fun.
After a while it became really painful to watch those CGI'd smith and neo fights that would just drag on forever and had action similar to what a 10 yr old might daydream during english class. It went beyond the "matrix" physics and just became absurd. Everyone was so powerful there was no suspense.
I do agree with you. If data is the primary concern of the company than this is an issue they must be wary of. Of course I suspect before too long we'll see more and more dummy terminals being given to people that cannot burn CDs and have no accessible accessory ports.
Camera phones are a problem too, where images could be taken and sent or saved for later on the phone. Just one of many reasons why I do not want a camera phone. I'd like to be able to take mine with me. It's also the reason that many people I know do not want a camera on their PDA, if it takes photos they can't use it at work to take notes, schedule and do other things.
On many tags there's no transmitter to disable. Some generate a current from the magnetic field generated by the reader and that's enough to read the chip and send a signal back. In fact these are of most interest to industry right now.
Others are similar to chaff, they are a pattern of materials or metallic strands that simply reflect a certain pattern (like sonar) back to the reader which can be decoded. These are like barcodes, containing very limited information, but enough to tell the cash register what you're holding is a carton of milk and not a dozen eggs. (these usually hold under 30 bits of info).
They can be used to track your movements. But so can a cell phone. What's your point? I'll ship you a new tin foil hat for only $4.99. What's your address?
RFID scanning is the equilvilent of an illegal search.
How so? How is scanning an RFID on a piece of luggage any different from the barcode scanning they do now? Technically different, the purpose is the same.
They claim it's for inventory and supply chain purposes but they're lying.
Hardly, being in research in RFID, I'm pretty well informed on whats going on and there's genuine interest in lowering the amount of lost luggage in the case of airports. Manufacturers and supply chains realize it's easier to detect a package leaving a factory or warehouse if all it has to do is pass through a doorway to have its tag read, rather than having a barcode optically scanned. If this technology is implemented across the system it can become much more efficient. Now maybe you can call me biased, but my primary interest is printable electronics although I've done some research work in RFID.
RFID offers minimal advantages over barcodes for inventory purposes and does nothing for supply chains, as when goods are purchased, the transaction is logged anyway.
Really? Have you any clue what you're talking about? Consider the airport, a major reason luggage gets lost is because the barcode fails to get scanned. The luggage gets misdirected or dumped off the line and someone has to go deal with it manually. If RFIDs are used you won't fail to "see" the tag, passing through the field generated by the reader is all that needs to happen. It's similar to the theft detection they have at department stores. Sure more information could be stored, such as who owns the bag, but its the same concept.
On the supply chain products can be tracted without having to find a barcode, and with certain RFID tech the tag can be internal in the package, making it difficult to damage and remove, resulting in a package that's harder to steal ultimately because it's identity is harder to remove. For inventory/shipping you can not only scan and find out what's in the shelves, but if a note needs to be added to the product so the receiver knows about a certain condition, it could be stored in a chip on the RFID. You can track it's progress by recording the security checkpoints, inventory tracking stations it passes through and saving it to the chip.
RFID tags have now been developed to survive washing, when the clothes they're in are placed in the machine.
This isn't new. The paranoia surrounding it isn't new either, but it's still rediculous. the small RFID tags that would be needed to avoid detection and removal by a consumer would cost to much. You would really have to want to track someone to do this. The larger RFIDs (2" x 3") like on some packaging are cheaper, but easy to spot and remove. These 2x3" tags are likely to appear on the back of those paperboard tags that hang off of shirts, ie removable. Nobody has installed them in clothing and currently the only people interested in that is the Army for friend or foe detection and unit tracking. Even better though, there are chipless RFIDs for simple detection (they don't carry data, they're the RF equivalent of a simple ID # as carried by many barcodes)
Yes, there are ways they can track you using RFIDs if they really wanted to. They could put it in your luggage and track you aroudn the world or around the country. But they can track you when you make credit card purchases, they could theoretically track you if you have a cell phone. The threat isn't new, but the obsession with it has changed to RFIDs. There's a whole lot of benign industries that see the use in barcodes. There's a few conspiracy theorists like yourself that have to pee your pants whenever anything new comes out.
OH, I can read. Really. :-/
Even stranger then really. A private organization (like a private school, or even a controlling body at a public school) should have say over activities happening on campus. They've even got rules at some schools about no businesses out of dorm rooms, they'll find ways to continue to regulate wifi and other things as well.
This is going to be interesting for the FCC to enforce though with lots of little guys wanting to do their own thing.
If you're on the school's property they still have the right to say no private wifi signals. I know RIT has done this, except they say it's because they need clear airwaves while they test the network they're setting up.
Either way, the campus can have final say.
Ultimately though, who the hell gave the damn FCC all this power. Gah!
Finally, Apple isn't selling 2 year outdated displays. The contrast range is still somewhat depressingly low, but the rest of the specs are a good improvement. Brightness could be better as well, these clearly aren't going to be ideal for media work (just like the old apple LCD displays, contrary to popular opinion).
Theoretically it could be weighted and lowered in to earth's atmosphere by a satellite. Lowering it slowly would avoid the atmospheric resistance and thus not burn it up (similar to how SpaceShipOne survived the return portion of its flight).
In fact, in my mind reeling it out like a rope ladder from a high window is the smartest and easiest thing to do, the only catch would be watching the weather. But they plan to build this in a weather-friendly area anyway, so while it seems bizarre I suspect it's totally feasible.
Yeah the site wasn't bad, but the intro was almost too lame, even though it was simple (which is nice).
A conference for hackers? Cool. A lameass, poorly done intro to a website? Uncool.
That same lameass intro on an intro to a hackers site; bizarre and saddening.