At 12:04 AM 10/5/03 -0400, Bryon Daly wrote:
[snip]
Thirded. I hate the razor/razor blade marketing some of these companies
do with their printers and ink cartridge pricing, which results in
astronomical costs per page for some of these printers, and also cases
where a set of ink cartridges
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 12:04 AM 10/5/03 -0400, Bryon Daly wrote:
Epson printers for sure are chipped (eeprom, not RFID, tho) to make them
hard to refill. The eeprom tracks how much ink is used, so the printer
knows when the cartridge is near empty*, and refuses to print
On 5 Oct 2003 at 0:04, Bryon Daly wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So they do exist? O.K.. (But aren't there kits to refill
the cartridges, then?)
I don't know if this is currently in use or was simply being
mentioned as a possibility, but I read something awhile
At 12:04 AM 10/5/03 -0400, Bryon Daly wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So they do exist? O.K.. (But aren't there kits to refill
the cartridges, then?)
I don't know if this is currently in use or was simply being mentioned as
a possibility, but I read something awhile back
At 10:11 PM 9/30/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote:
Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 29 Sep 2003 at 23:37, David Hobby wrote:
destroy by washing machines and dryers. Or how about the printers
that require specific brand ink cartridges that must have a chip
from their own products to work (printer
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So they do exist? O.K.. (But aren't there kits to refill
the cartridges, then?)
I don't know if this is currently in use or was simply being mentioned as a
possibility, but I read something awhile back about the chips in the
cartridge keeping a
In a message dated 9/29/2003 9:52:44 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RFID itself isn't robust enough. Other RFID-like techs might be in
the future. We'll see...
Andy
Dawn Falcon
Insurance companies insist that RFID golf balls become mandatory for any golf
On Tuesday, September 30, 2003, at 01:42 am, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 01:28:19AM +0100, William T Goodall wrote:
On Monday, September 29, 2003, at 11:44 pm, Erik Reuter wrote:
Good point, very true. Of course, one could also wear false
fingerprints. The problem of quickly and
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 11:10:42PM -0400, David Hobby wrote:
I wasn't that worried about resolution, just signal to noise
ratio.
They are related. Good luck resolving fine details with a low S/N.
The other issue that comes up is having the system target
the eyes of a moving person.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 12:09:16PM +0100, William T Goodall wrote:
You make being chipped a necessary form of identification for
obtaining a bank account, getting a job, hiring or buying a car,
purchasing rail, bus or air tickets, obtaining medical treatment,
claiming pensions or other
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:04:43PM -0500, The Fool wrote:
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 08:39:24PM -0500, The Fool wrote:
You put the chips in their clothes,
easy to scan and remove
They can put them in riveted buttons, shoe soles, and the like such
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 11:07:16PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know about getting people to consent to implants, however
in animals such as dogs the implants are known to move through the
tissues which makes it very difficult to remove (I seem to recall the
vet saying even in a
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
snip
As for removal - it would be much easier to insert
a rice-grain sized
chip deep into the abdomen (say) than it would be
to surgically remove it.
Could you elaborate? Since these things are
(obviously) designed to
Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 29 Sep 2003 at 23:37, David Hobby wrote:
destroy by washing machines and dryers. Or how about the printers
that require specific brand ink cartridges that must have a chip
from their own products to work (printer ink is 17 times more
expensive than
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 12:02:26AM -0400, David Hobby wrote:
Betting that dark glasses really are dark at all reasonable
wavelengths.
You'd lose that bet. Most dark tinted glass passes light above about
1000-1100nm.
Oh. Good to know. Just to clarify,
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 08:43:14AM -0400, David Hobby wrote:
Oh. Good to know. Just to clarify, that's around 10,000
Angstroms, and above means of longer wavelength?
Yes. The tinting is usually done with a semiconducting material, so
light with wavelength longer than the bandgap
-Original Message-
From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 6:55 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: The Eyes Have It
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 08:43:14AM -0400, David Hobby wrote:
Oh. Good to know. Just to clarify, that's
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 09:21:37AM -0700, Chad Cooper wrote:
There is also polarization that may help,
No, polarized lenses cannot help stop a system from imaging of the
eyes. Polarized lenses only block horizontally polarized light. The
vertically polarized light will pass through just fine,
On Monday, September 29, 2003, at 11:44 pm, Erik Reuter wrote:
Good point, very true. Of course, one could also wear false
fingerprints. The problem of quickly and accurately identifying people
is a difficult one, and one that likely won't be solved soon.
They could use those chips they put in
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 01:28:19AM +0100, William T Goodall wrote:
On Monday, September 29, 2003, at 11:44 pm, Erik Reuter wrote:
Good point, very true. Of course, one could also wear false
fingerprints. The problem of quickly and accurately identifying people
is a difficult one, and one
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 01:28:19AM +0100, William T Goodall wrote:
On Monday, September 29, 2003, at 11:44 pm, Erik Reuter wrote:
Good point, very true. Of course, one could also wear false
fingerprints. The problem of quickly and accurately
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 08:39:24PM -0500, The Fool wrote:
You put the chips in their clothes,
easy to scan and remove
their money,
money is not unique to the holder -- can't identify someone
their tires,
pedestrians don't carry tires
their keys,
wouldn't work well if encased in a metal
Erik Reuter wrote:
No idea. Like you, I wonder about resolution. It seems it would take
some really good (expensive) optics to get adequate resolution from a
distance.
Especially if it's a moving target.
Doug
___
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 08:39:24PM -0500, The Fool wrote:
You put the chips in their clothes,
easy to scan and remove
They can put them in riveted buttons, shoe soles, and the like such that
you would have to damage your clothing in a significant way
How do you get people to consent to have chip implants? And if they
don't consent, how do you keep them from removing them?
--
Erik Reuter
I don't know about getting people to consent to implants, however
in animals such as dogs the implants are known to move through
the tissues which
On 29 Sep 2003 at 20:42, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 01:28:19AM +0100, William T Goodall wrote:
On Monday, September 29, 2003, at 11:44 pm, Erik Reuter wrote:
Good point, very true. Of course, one could also wear false
fingerprints. The problem of quickly and accurately
So you think that would be the method? Just pick a wavelength
where glasses/contacts are probably transparent, and work there.
No idea. Like you, I wonder about resolution. It seems it would take
some really good (expensive) optics to get adequate resolution from a
distance.
The Fool wrote:
their keys,
wouldn't work well if encased in a metal key, and if it is on the
surface it is easy to remove
From my experience they are keys with large black plastic encasings.
Either way, they are required by the new cars to be able to start them.
Yes, but
On 29 Sep 2003 at 23:37, David Hobby wrote:
destroy by washing machines and dryers. Or how about the printers
that require specific brand ink cartridges that must have a chip
from their own products to work (printer ink is 17 times more
expensive than vintage champagne).
I would
On 29 Sep 2003 at 20:39, The Fool wrote:
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 01:28:19AM +0100, William T Goodall wrote:
On Monday, September 29, 2003, at 11:44 pm, Erik Reuter wrote:
Good point, very true. Of course, one could also wear false
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030515.html
Iris Recognition Could Mean the End of Physical Privacy
By Robert X. Cringely
Security and privacy always seem to be in the balance when we think about
emerging digital technologies. Encryption vies with detection. Entire
industries are
Marc Erickson wrote:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030515.html
again. Morton's system can identify iris patterns through dark glasses or
contact lenses and can do so almost instantly for thousands of people
Sorry, I don't believe it. I guess you could use infrared
or
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 12:02:26AM -0400, David Hobby wrote:
Betting that dark glasses really are dark at all reasonable
wavelengths.
You'd lose that bet. Most dark tinted glass passes light above about
1000-1100nm.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
33 matches
Mail list logo
