Prayers to Burma

This is a discussion on Prayers to Burma within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; The technology you spoke of was actually RFID. And according to your own source, the information on it is already ...

  1. #61
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,714
    The technology you spoke of was actually RFID. And according to your own source, the information on it is already on the paper passport.

    Starting in early 2006, the U.S. Department of State will begin issuing passports with 64-kilobyte RFID (radio frequency identification) chips that will contain the name, nationality, gender, date of birth, and place of birth of the passport holder, as well as a digitized photograph of that person.
    But RFID is not a "tracking chip." The idea was to make the passport harder to forge, not to pinpoint my location. RFID does not do that inherently; the only reason you can use it to track anything is because of the reader. The location is inferred from where an RFID tag is scanned The RFID chip would not contain my current residence or be able to tell anyone where my travel destination is, nor my hotel reservations or favorite places to eat. All convenient places to kill me, but it doesn't work quite like that. Now if you go on to read this article, you find that there was a legitimate concern about the security (the information could be picked up by strangers using a remote scanner, an invasion of my privacy), but put down the kool-aid.

  2. #62
    Reverse Engineer maxorator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by citizen View Post
    The technology you spoke of was actually RFID. And according to your own source, the information on it is already on the paper passport.
    Tracking chips aren't supposed to carry any information. They send radio signals. Though the US government "promised" they won't use it for tracking, I see no other reasons why the chip has to send out radio signals.

    This topic sounds like a continuation to the last one...
    "The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore

  3. #63
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,714
    Identification is not tracking.

  4. #64
    Reverse Engineer maxorator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    2,318
    Sending radio signals is an overkill way to identify people (unless it is used for something more).
    "The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore

  5. #65
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by maxorator View Post
    Tracking chips aren't supposed to carry any information. They send radio signals. Though the US government "promised" they won't use it for tracking, I see no other reasons why the chip has to send out radio signals.

    This topic sounds like a continuation to the last one...
    The purpose is automated registration. The radio signals arent strong enough to be tracked by satellites, so its effectiveness as a tracking chip is dubious at best. I suppose they could stick a receiver on every corner of every city in the world and track you, but I doubt that is goin to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Gosh! I can't believe this has derailed so much and I'm still part of it.
    Yeah, its really turning into barrens chat.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  6. #66
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,487
    This thread seems to have reached its end... thankfully, I guess. However it would be unfair to not reply to Dave_Sinkula efforts. I thank you for your links. I didn't reply earlier because I wanted to take a close look at them.

    However the "evidence" that is contested on those links is exactly what the Commission found to not constitute any evidence. So, I'm unsure what to say.

    I know there was, and probably still there is in some circles, a debate in US about said September 11 Commission and the validity of its findings. But that's the nature of every Commission. What one eventually does is side with the results that better fit with their beliefs at that time. But there is much more to Saddam possible links to Al-Qaeda than simply so-called evidence that is later dismissed and best guesses or even faith. There is an historical, social and regional evidence that was always ignored, being more convenient to make the link especially because it can't be proved or disproved.

    On the subject of terrorism however, it can be said Saddam may have provided direct support to Hamas. Hamas however is not an arm of Al-Qaeda. Islamic based terrorist groups do indeed join efforts sometimes even when they share different doctrines, as one of the papers you presented argued. If there is one thing they hate more than each other is the US, and one thing they hate more than the US, is Israel. However, this doesn't turn Hamas into Al-Qaeda.

    The "with ties to Al-Qaeda" is the most used expression since Sept. 11 when referring to extremist groups. I wonder how many people actually filter that phrase and look at it objectively. It's quiet irrelevant that some group has ties or not to Al-Qaeda when the message being transmitted is that they are a terrorist group. And it offends my intelligence every time the media uses that expression. It actually annoys me. It's almost an impossibility for any extremist islamic group to not have "ties" with Al-Qaeda. And what are these "ties"? Support, training, personnel, sympathy, exchanged letters, intelligence, requests never fulfilled? What exactly?

    We will never know if Saddam supported Al-Qaeda. Strong evidence suggest not. Some evidence suggest yes. Using logic alone, I defend no. It makes no sense to me. And then there is the problem of exactly how strong is this an argument against Saddam. Because in that context, US would have had to declare war on:

    Saudi Arabia
    Libya
    Iran
    Pakistan
    Syria
    Possibly even Sudan and Egypt
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21