brin: RFID tags
http://securityfocus.com/columnists/169 RFID Chips Are Here RFID chips are being embedded in everything from jeans to paper money, and your privacy is at stake. By Scott Granneman Jun 26 2003 09:15AM PT Bar codes are something most of us never think about. We go to the grocery store to buy dog food, the checkout person runs our selection over the scanner, there's an audible beep or boop, and then we're told how much money we owe. Bar codes in that sense are an invisible technology that we see all the time, but without thinking about what's in front of our eyes. Bar codes have been with us so long, and they're so ubiquitous, that its hard to remember that they're a relatively new technology that took a while to catch on. The patent for bar codes was issued in 1952. It took twenty years before a standard for bar codes was approved, but they still didn't catch on. Ten years later, only 15,000 suppliers were using bar codes. That changed in 1984. By 1987 - only three years later! - 75,000 suppliers were using bar codes. That's one heck of a growth curve. So what changed in 1984? Who, or what, caused the change? Wal-Mart. When Wal-Mart talks, suppliers listen. So when Wal-Mart said that it wanted to use bar codes as a better way to manage inventory, bar codes became de rigeur. If you didn't use bar codes, you lost Wal-Mart's business. That's a death knell for most of their suppliers. The same thing is happening today. I'm here to tell you that the bar code's days are numbered. There's a new technology in town, one that at first blush might seem insignificant to security professionals, but it's a technology that is going to be a big part of our future. And how do I know this? Pin it on Wal-Mart again; they're the big push behind this new technology. Right now, you can buy a hammer, a pair of jeans, or a razor blade with anonymity. With RFID tags, that may be a thing of the past. So what is it? RFID tags. RFID 101 Invented in 1969 and patented in 1973, but only now becoming commercially and technologically viable, RFID tags are essentially microchips, the tinier the better. Some are only 1/3 of a millimeter across. These chips act as transponders (transmitters/responders), always listening for a radio signal sent by transceivers, or RFID readers. When a transponder receives a certain radio query, it responds by transmitting its unique ID code, perhaps a 128-bit number, back to the transceiver. Most RFID tags don't have batteries (How could they? They're 1/3 of a millimeter!). Instead, they are powered by the radio signal that wakes them up and requests an answer. http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/337/1/1/ Most of these broadcasts are designed to be read between a few inches and several feet away, depending on the size of the antenna and the power driving the RFID tags (some are in fact powered by batteries, but due to the increased size and cost, they are not as common as the passive, non-battery-powered models). However, it is possible to increase that distance if you build a more sensitive RFID receiver. http://news.com.com/2100-1020-995744.html RFID chips cost up to 50 cents, but prices are dropping. Once they get to 5 cents each, it will be cost-efficient to put RFID tags in almost anything that costs more than a dollar. http://news.com.com/2010-1069-980325.html Who's using RFID? RFID is already in use all around us. Ever chipped your pet dog or cat with an ID tag? Or used an EZPass through a toll booth? Or paid for gas using ExxonMobils' SpeedPass? Then you've used RFID. Some uses, especially those related to security, seem like a great idea. For instance, Delta is testing RFID on some flights, tagging 40,000 customer bags in order to reduce baggage loss and make it easier to route bags if customers change their flight plans. http://www.rfidjournal.com/index.php/article/articleview/468/1/1/ Three seaport operators - who account for 70% of the world's port operations - agreed to deploy RFID tags to track the 17,000 containers that arrive each day at US ports. Currently, less than 2% are inspected. RFID tags will be used to track the containers and the employees handling them. http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/26/1/1/ The United States Department of Defense is moving into RFID in order to trace military supply shipments. During the first Gulf War, the DOD made mistakes in its supply allocation. To streamline operations, the U.S. military has placed RFID tags on 270,000 cargo containers and tracks those shipments throughout 40 countries. http://news.com.com/2100-1017-984391.html On a smaller level, but one that will instantly resonate with security pros, Star City Casino in Sydney, Australia placed RFID tags in 80,000 employee uniforms in order to put a stop to theft. The same idea would work well in corporate PCs, networking equipment, and handhelds. http://www.alientechnology.com/news/The_Internet_of_Things.htm In all of these cases,
Re: SCOUTED: Religiousness associated with less depression
Thank you Ronnn! Religion is a crutch. Surprise!!! On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:53:22 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: http://byunews.byu.edu/releases/release.aspx?y=archive03m=Junf=re ligdepress Contact: Grant Madsen (801) 422-9206 Religiousness associated with less depression, says BYU/U. of Miami study PROVO, Utah (June 17, 2003)-A new study by Brigham Young University researchers reveals that greater religiousness is associated with fewer symptoms of depression, with religiousness defined broadly as any attitude, belief or behavior involving spiritual or religious content. The findings suggest that religiousness may provide certain types of religious people with a buffer against depression, says Timothy Smith, a BYU associate professor of counseling psychology and lead researcher on the study. Joining Smith are Michael E. McCullough, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Miami, and Justin Pole, a BYU graduate student. Published in the latest issue of the American Psychology Association's Psychological Bulletin, the research is an analysis of 147 previous studies that examined religiousness and depression. The results were similar across gender, age or ethnicity and apply regardless of religious denomination. Religiousness was defined broadly as any attitude, belief, motivation, pursuit or behavior involving spiritual or religious content or processes. Ken Pargament, a professor of psychology at Bowling Green State University and author of The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, Practice, says the study adds to the growing understanding of the mental health benefits of religion. This is a sophisticated, up-to-date, balanced approach to the study of religion and one critical dimension of mental health, says Pargament. Furthermore, it moves the field forward by identifying specific forms of religion that are tied to both increases and decreases to the risk of depression. These findings underscore what is common sense to most people -- religion contributes to health and well being. Now we are beginning to learn how and why. Other findings revolved around the distinction between what the researchers called intrinsically and extrinsically motivated religiousness. Intrinsic motivation means practicing religion for religion's sake -- praying, meditating and serving because of a sincere belief that doing so is correct. Extrinsically motivated people practice religion for social reasons -- they see church as a chance to build non-faith-based social networks or think, This is what religion can do for me. The study found that those who practice religion based on extrinsic motivations or who engage in negative religious coping, like blaming God for difficulties, are associated with higher levels of symptoms of depression. For those undergoing stressful life events, the researchers found that the buffer against depression is even stronger. One would think, 'The greater the stress, the greater the depression,' says Smith. But that's not necessarily the case for the intrinsically motivated religious person. Possible explanations for this include the idea that stress may prompt people to turn to religion, to become stronger in their faith in the face of trials. They are turning to God, pleading for help, seeking counsel from scriptures or pastors. Some of the reasons that those who are religious for intrinsic reasons may enjoy a buffer against depressive symptoms and stress include the traditional use of less alcohol and drugs, belief in spiritual intervention and support and belief in an afterlife. Take the example of death. Some religions teach doctrines about an afterlife that may provide a coping mechanism that relieves stress, says Smith. If people truly believe in those teachings and hold to them during times of stress, they can get through the ordeal with less trauma than the non-religious or externally motivated religious person. Additionally, religion tends to teach principles of altruism, which research has shown to be a buffer against depression, says Smith. Self-focus, on the other hand, has been shown to be a factor that tends to increase feelings of depression. The project was supported by grants from the John Templeton Foundation, the Campaign for Forgiveness Research, TP Industrials Inc., and the Religious Research Association. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SCOUTED: Religiousness associated with less depression
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Religiousness associated with less depression, says BYU/U. of Miami study There was also a study at Madeson which showed that budists (an others who meditated a lot) were more happy. I can't find it, but maybe someone else can. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 08:51:17AM -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: years Austral France Germany Japan Sweden Switzrl UK US World - 1900-20 7.8 1.0-4.9 9.4 7.9-9.4 0.2 2.5 0.8 1920-40 12.8 1.8 6.1 6.4 3.6 6.9 5.9 8.0 7.2 1940-60 6.0 3.8 5.7-2.7 8.6 7.2 8.3 9.7 8.8 1960-80 2.7 0.0 0.6 5.9 1.1 2.5 2.5 2.4 3.2 1980-00 8.412.810.7 4.817.510.212.311.2 9.4 - 1900-2000 equities 7.5 3.8 3.6 4.5 7.6 5.0 5.8 6.7 5.8 - 1900-2000 Real GDP 3.3 2.4 2.8 4.1 2.6 2.7 1.9 3.3 2.9 - 1900-2000 Real GDP 1.6 2.0 1.8 3.0 2.0 1.8 1.4 2.0 2.1 per cap - Since no one has commented on it yet, I wanted to point out that the above data seem to contradict the conventional wisdom that Dan mentioned about America's system intrinsically promoting faster growth than Europe. Note that for equity returns 1900-2000, the US leads France, Germany, Switzerland, and UK, but Sweden beats the US, and UK is close behind the US. But as you can see, this is not an unbiased comparison, because during the first half of the century, Europe was more devastated by wars than America. Even so, Sweden and UK had equity returns close to America's. Note that during 1900-2000, France, Germany, Switzerland, and Sweden approximately matched the US in real GDP per capita growth (and Japan beat the US by a significant margin), but France and Germany had much lower equity returns than the US over this time period. Evidently an economy as a whole can recover nicely from the devastation of war, but the stock-holders take it on the chin. For a better comparison, look at 1960-1980. Switzerland and UK equity returns both slightly beat those of the US. And in 1980-2000, France, Sweden, and UK all beat US in equity returns. I'm not going to type in all the data, but for 1980-2000 real equity returns, Belgium was 11.4, Denmark 12.0, Ireland 12.7, Italy 10.1, Netherlands 16.1, and Spain 13.5. All but Italy beat the US. If we look at real annualized equity returns from 1960-2000, the US beats 7 European countries but loses to 4. The US certainly does NOT stand out as generating much higher real equity returns than Europe during 1960-2000. 9.2 Ireland 9.1 Sweden 8.1 Netherlands 7.3 UK 6.8 US 6.5 Switzerland 6.4 France 6.3 Denmark 5.7 Belgium 5.6 Germany 5.2 Spain 1.9 Italy -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:08:03AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: I was reading a different table and the text. I think I misread the slope as the total productivity. Its interesting that Brad's paper has the US staying in front of those countries in productivity. France is at 98% of the US productivity in '98. Since the trend since then has been superior US productivity, we see the difference there. Another, more important difference relating to per capita GDP is the hours worked by Americans. Here's the '98 data for that: France 580 Germany 670 Italy 637 United Kingdom 682 12 West Europe 657 Ireland 672 Spain 648 United States 791 That is odd that Angus Maddison's Level of GDP per hour worked in 1998 differ so much from IMF's GDP per hour in 2001. It certainly shouldn't have changed so much in 3 years. I think your point about hours worked is important. Using Maddison's 791 hours and un-normalizing the IMF data on that basis, hours worked per head (Maddison) and average hours worked (IMF) looks like - IMF Maddison country - 791 791 US 638 682 UK 611 637 Italy 584 580 France 551 670 Germany - Maddison's number is 22% higher for Germany, 7% higher for UK, 4% higher for Italy, and 1% lower for France. IMF does not specify whether the average hours worked is per capita, or per employed worker. Maddison's numbers are specified as per head (per capita), and per employed worker numbers should be higher than per capita numbers (due to unemployment). But IMF's numbers are generally LOWER than Maddison's, so something strange is going on. Also, Maddison appears to use the logical formula GDP per hour = GDP per capita / hours worked per capita whereas the IMF chart appears to do some correction for labor force participation which isn't clear to me. It looks like IMF's data may have resulted from some weird manipulation, whereas Maddison's data seem reasonable to me. (Or the number of hours worked per capita by Germans went down 22% between 1998 and 2001) -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: RFID tags
On 28 Jun 2003 at 1:04, The Fool wrote: With RFID about to arrive in full force, don't be lulled at all. Major changes are coming, and not all of them will be positive. The law of unintended consequences is about to encounter surveillance devices smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. I've allready seen a demonstration of a device which could read all RFID chips within two meters, and selectively kill an area. RFID chips, to be blunt, are too small to be EMP-resistant. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: RFID tags
From: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 28 Jun 2003 at 1:04, The Fool wrote: With RFID about to arrive in full force, don't be lulled at all. Major changes are coming, and not all of them will be positive. The law of unintended consequences is about to encounter surveillance devices smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. I've allready seen a demonstration of a device which could read all RFID chips within two meters, and selectively kill an area. RFID chips, to be blunt, are too small to be EMP-resistant. Alien technologies has a prototype that disconnects key components when it detects a power surge. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: br!n: RFID tags
On 28 Jun 2003 at 11:33, The Fool wrote: From: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 28 Jun 2003 at 1:04, The Fool wrote: With RFID about to arrive in full force, don't be lulled at all. Major changes are coming, and not all of them will be positive. The law of unintended consequences is about to encounter surveillance devices smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. I've allready seen a demonstration of a device which could read all RFID chips within two meters, and selectively kill an area. RFID chips, to be blunt, are too small to be EMP-resistant. Alien technologies has a prototype that disconnects key components when it detects a power surge. Yeah, but it acts too slowly versus the device in question. Also, they're looking into a microwave-beam option for just that kind of defence. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SCOUTED: Religiousness associated with less depression
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you Ronnn! Religion is a crutch. Surprise!!! Crutch? I believe the phrase you were looking for is, useful tool. Reggie Bautista _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SCOUTED: Religiousness associated with less depression
On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 01:38:25PM -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you Ronnn! Religion is a crutch. Surprise!!! Crutch? I believe the phrase you were looking for is, useful tool. A crutch is only a useful tool if part(s) of your body is disabled. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SCOUTED: Religiousness associated with less depression
On Saturday, June 28, 2003, at 08:05 pm, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 01:38:25PM -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you Ronnn! Religion is a crutch. Surprise!!! Crutch? I believe the phrase you were looking for is, useful tool. A crutch is only a useful tool if part(s) of your body is disabled. Or you can use it to gull the gullible if you are a con man :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
