Security

Stainless steel wallet review: One year later

A stainless steel wallet seems pretty nice when it's sparkly and new. How is it a year later?

A stainless steel wallet seems pretty nice when it's sparkly and new. How is it a year later?


About a year ago, I ordered a stainless steel wallet from ThinkGeek and reviewed it for TechRepublic:

I decided to spend a few bucks on something made out of materials that should, in theory, be very durable. While I'm at it, I could get something that blocks RFID, has a slim profile, looks good, and serves as the subject for a security product review.

I chose a stainless steel wallet from Stewart/Stand.

It is an effective RFID blocking, durable, and uniquely stylish wallet. In the ThinkGeek product page, it is described as "Buttery Smooth Steel in your Pocket", and the smooth, slick texture of it really is surprisingly luxurious to the touch:

You might think that steel would be hard on your jeans pocket, but in fact these wallets have the texture of silk and are woven from micro fibers of stainless steel.

How does it stand up to the test of time? A year later, I am ready to tell you how it has fared.

I have a relatively sparing tendency when it comes to storing things in my wallet. Unlike my Significant Other, I do not collect movie ticket stubs in my wallet, and I have always preferred keeping change in a front pocket rather than in a wallet. I try to travel light when it comes to my wallet, and avoid the all-too-common back pocket bulge as much as is reasonable. This has stood me in good stead using a wallet woven from 25,000 steel threads that are each a third the thickness of a sheet of standard writing paper, which is simply not flexible enough to be well-suited to such pack-rat abuse.

Unfortunately, while its texture is smooth and silky as advertised, it has still proven a bit harder on my pants than previous wallets. This is the first time I have had a wallet with enough rigidity that a corner of it has worn a small hole through the back pocket of two pairs of jeans that are otherwise still in reasonably good shape aside from a touch of fading.

A small blemish has developed in the surface near an edge, where some kind of repeated pressure appears to have created a dent of sorts. I really do not know how that has come about -- no obvious cause has presented itself. It also shows some slight imprint from the cards I habitually keep in it, but nothing particularly notable.

The really remarkable thing about the wallet, however, is that nothing more untoward has happened. The texture is just as silky and cool as the day I took it out of the box, and it is just as sturdy as well. There are no signs of the kind of wear that would indicate a loss of durability.

I am still happy with my purchase, a year later, and would recommend it to anyone who has an interest in a fairly unique, RFID-blocking, beautiful wallet, as long as the person has eighty dollars to spare.

If you do not have eighty dollars to spare, do not particularly care about the beauty of your wallet, and do not mind replacing the wallet more often, perhaps the RFID blocking duct tape wallet is more your speed.

Meanwhile, I will enjoy showing off my stainless steel wallet to my fellow TechRepublic writers and community members at TR Live 2010 in Louisville, Kentucky.

About

Chad Perrin is an IT consultant, developer, and freelance professional writer. He holds both Microsoft and CompTIA certifications and is a graduate of two IT industry trade schools.

178 comments
NexS
NexS

I didn't see the original blog. But I saw this when it was published. After weighing up pros and cons I've come to the decision: I want one. But I want someone else to pay for it. ]:)

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

I just buy a $10 card wallet and use that, but then all I carry in my wallet is a couple of credit cards, a couple of ID cards, my license, and my medical cards.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

not exactly a tricky object to reproduce. And if you have those cards, you are probably better of carrying loads of cash and pieces of paper with your personal Id on them instead, it just seems safer after reading Apotheon's BS....er, I mean facts. :D

apotheon
apotheon

. . . it was. Now it's over. Kentucky is where TR keeps its offices, by the way.

jdclyde
jdclyde

I have the enhanced ID that allows me to cross over into Canada without a passport as long as I am not flying. (no idea why it doesn't apply to flying)

santeewelding
santeewelding

I got all the keys I carried down to just three, once. That was once. The wallet is like yours. Minimalist. Learned how to carry it, though, on my other side after a lifetime, because of the 45 parked over the first side.

NexS
NexS

I'd open it expecting a Chuck Norris to pop out and punch my in the nose or something. Or, even worse, yell at me in face-to-face cryptics. I would be caught dictionary-less.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

You can get stylish antique ones too. Just check that your cards fit.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

It's the same by sea or air, you need different documents for travek, Driving across allows easier passage. I have an immigration ISD, permanent resident, landed etc. However, I only need it if flying or sailing across, driving across it isn't needed. Maybe it has something to do with travelling with others in a means where you could cpasize a ship or down an airplane vs a private car where you can't harm hundreds or thousands, not sure, just a guess.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Hallo-o? It's a driver's license... You need a pilot's license to fly! :p

Slayer_
Slayer_

I'll don't understand why handguns are even legal, they have no purpose except to do evil and illegal things. That's as stupid as the police radar detector laws, it's legal to sell em and buy em, but its not legal to have one or use it.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

You carry a .45?! Wow, that is exciting! Do you get wood while thinking about it as you gingerly walk down the street, ready to take on all the muggers and rapists? It must give you a real feeling of safety in such a scary, dangerous and crime filled country. Many citizens in Baghdad arm themselves too, with automatic weapons, but most don't bother; they just carry on with their lives and don't seem live with the same fears of their neighbours that Americans do. Then again, that's Baghdad not America.

NexS
NexS

He doesn't get wet, the water get Chuck Norrised.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

something godawful, in a godawful way, when opened? The same technology can be applied, to deliver your cryptics with a screech of doom. But Chuck Norris? Did I miss something?

santeewelding
santeewelding

Probably all you would hear when you opened it would be little, high-pitched squeaks.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

It certainly seems important enough to you for you to keep rambling on and on without more than theoretical nonsense. as for what points you have missed, it's like trying to explain trig to someone with ADD.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

The one who refuses to post facts or proof of his bizarre assertions demands you present proof to your own. Better get right on that then.

apotheon
apotheon

Skimming is easy. The difficult part is getting ready to do it. Once that hurdle is overcome, it's all over -- much like discovering a "new" vulnerability in MS Windows suitable to exploitation by mobile malicious code. It takes real knowledge and expertise to find the vulnerabilities, but once that has been accomplished, millions of systems are trivially compromised. Even when that particular exploit of the vulnerability is dealt with by AV vendors, another is easily developed and used to victimize millions more, because the underlying vulnerability itself is generally never touched by Microsoft. This is where you think like a vendor, regardless of how long it may have been since you were a vendor: you don't consider the unplanned and unintended, but only what is expected when the technology is first developed and marketed. edit: Speaking of skimming, I've gotten tired of your endless ranting. I just skimmed. Let me know, in short snippets, if I missed anything important. No, better yet, let someone else let me know if I overlooked something important. I'm sure you think it's all important.

apotheon
apotheon

Provide a link to where this supposedly happened, AnsuGisalas. In the meantime, I'll just chalk you up as another troll, since I don't actually play the game you assign to me, but you very obviously and clearly do so right now.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

You're all just so many specimens to me. Me:[i]Intriguing... now where's that ether jar...[/i]

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I see you have experience Santee and yet you seem oblivious that apotheon plays the same game, though far less eloquently. YOu comment about superficial comments without any hard proof and reasoning, that is ALL I ever get from Apotheon. Santee is easy to ignore, his posts don't make sense to most. What I find amusing is how Apotheon is requesting the defense of hard evidence, facts and proof from Santee, however when he is faced with it and can't offer the same (even when reoeatedly asked) he does teh same thing you see in Santee, superficial rambling without any fact or substance to suport it. I'd therefore conclude that you are in the GREY pawn trying to resolve check between black and white. Never gonna happen, they are very much alike in many ways. They will both expect and demand proof but fail to provide it themselves when asked. I usually ignore both of them, but apotheon decided to make this one personal and forget he's supposed to be offering qualified, professional insight instead. as for root canal, I'd take that over a lot of things. I have an unbelievably good dentist, last two roots canals I was in the bar or at th erace track within a half hour of leaving, never felt a single tinge of pain during or after, but a major releif to have it done. Just watch TV, while they work. Enjoy the hot towel treatment and the shoulder and facial massage that reduzes the freezing effect, from his REALLY hot hygenists, and be on my way. One of them was supposed to be really tricky too, oral surgeon and a half dozen stiches, no worries, again a great dentist! Damn, I'd take that over most other problems any time.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I don't think like a vendor at all, I KNOW how vendors [i]think[/i] and I use that to my advantage, but I don't think like a vendor at all/ I also don't think like an overly paranoid security tech wannabe. The problem with IT is that the people in the field think it's a universal pass of excellence. If you are an IT administrator then you are also a well versed business telecom administrator and know the marketplace, therefore you are also the security master for all things GEEK. Just because the clueless often see 'the computer guy' as the person who usually GETS what is going on with all technology, it doesn't mean they are actuially versed on anything the speak about, beyond their direct certifications. Most people think that certified mechanic is automatically a diagnostic technician as well(all he needs is one of those computer thingy's to hook up to the car, he must be as good as any other!). But I can promise you that more than 80% of todays mechanics are absoluutely CLUELES when it comes to emissions diagnosis. Many emissions techs are not good with drive train disgnosis etc. A cert means NOTHING beyond the field it is directly related to, and often nothing even then. So just because you have read some utter garbage, have played out the RFID fear card from day one, and have a blog on TR it doesn't mean you have teh foggiest clue what you are on about. Are you RFID certified too? Have you formerly studied the technology you claim to know about in depth? I have from a non vendor specific approach, just the strengths and limitations of teh technology itself. I have THEN recommended or denounced vendors product lines for a particular application,based on their product's ability or ineffectiveness with the technology as applied in a given situation. It' not even remotely close to the approach you feel I have taken, working for a vendor and drinking the coolaid. That's not it at all, not even vaguely. It certainly isn't the approach you have taken which is to accept what you read in magazines or hear 'on the street'. None of your 'claims' stand up to even the lsightest scrutiny. Face it, you THINK you know what you are on about and probably know more about RFID basics than many, despite your comments that illustrate otherwise, but you certainly know nothing about RFID when actually faced with a discussion of the real world successes and failures, the strengths and limitations. RFID almost never got off teh ground as it took so long to prove it actually worked and could consistently be read, now placement of fized readers to ensure accurate reads will be a variable of milimeters, yet you spew the fear of people wandering through airports and streets, collecting people's personal data and using it, what utter horsesh1t you parrot. My point is, while skimming IS possible,it is a LOT Harder than you think and, IF collected, it is generally useless info anyway. Someone wanting your personal information can obtain it through FAR simpler and more cost effective methods already. Don't flatter yourself in thinking they would go to such lengths to target your ID.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

You want me to counter your superficial claims with hard research and evidence, that you can then superficially dismiss? You have yet to prove that you're worth my time and effort. Three times I've spent time arguing with you only to get what amounts to "I don't think so". That's enough. If you don't put in any effort at all, don't expect any in return.

apotheon
apotheon

Vendors think about what the technology is supposed to do. Security experts and malicious security crackers think about how the technology can be abused. There's no cure for the way you think that does not lie within yourself. I'm obviously not going to be the one to help you realize this. Good luck.

apotheon
apotheon

As usual, people who actually disagree with me on the subject of the right to keep and bear arms ultimately end up twisting terms and generally ignoring or distorting my arguments, leaving what I have said unaddressed or treating it as though it was different than what I actually said. I am particularly annoyed with AnsuGisalas' response, where words with obvious meaning were ripped from their moorings such that, if taken in his terms, come to mean nothing of any use whatsoever. I have no interest in pursuing this matter any further in this subthread. Have a good one, without me.

apotheon
apotheon

If you think you can demonstrate that the defenders of the right to keep and bear arms do so in contradiction of the intent of the founders, you should start by disputing my arguments in depth with logic and evidence as your weapons. Simply making claims that the two are contradictory, while ignoring my analysis of the subject on grammatical and logical grounds, is the opposite of an effective argument. . . . and I haven't even dipped into the extent of historical evidence about the actual, stated and obvious intent of the founders at the time that the Bill of Rights was ratified. I'm certain that the best you'll be able to do, if you're really good, is cast doubt on the logical necessity of my interpretation, bringing us back to square one. At that point, my rejoinder would surely consist of a laundry list of the evidence left strewn about of what the founders actually meant -- which was that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, period, and that the primary reason for that was as a check on government's power (much like the immediately preceding amendment's primary reason for being). nota bene: The Second Amendment was opposed by some of those founders, not on the grounds that it was wrong, but on the grounds that it was unnecessarily cluttering, because property rights already encompass the right to keep and bear arms.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

While I was just trying to wreak a pun, I appreciate getting wiser in the process. Santee: I'm afraid most of your subtleties are lost on me - over here, people say little, but when they do speak, it's clear as crystal, perkele. EDIT_Perkele: I thought you wanted to make headway. Don't keep me in check if you want to see what I can say about how it is that you are. BTW: I wonder, why do you not react to that direst of questions "What do you mean?". After all, being is base ontology. Meaning on the other hand, talks of motive.

santeewelding
santeewelding

Ansu displays familiarity with American English (I could swear he learned it here), there are still some things he is not wise to. Me? I know this. I use it on him; including more, far-reaching things. Keeps the boy in check.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Vista? Isn't that just cruel? ... or is this something not MS-based? :p I have a similar idea... I think a 6 month basic course of First-aid, Rescue, Firefighting and Self-defense and basic fitness (all civilian level) would be a good basis for all citizens of age, Military and other services can then base their recruiting on that, getting to build on those basics. 18-year olds aren't fit for service straight out of school anyway, leading to many costly discharges based on physique.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

modern or obsolete, the universal militia does not qualify as "regulated" in any sense. This is not a failing of government or the individual, but a gradual change in the outlook of society in general. That change was already in progress in the 50s and 60s, but was most likely greatly accelerated by my own generation. I'm a firm believer in universal service. Every capable citizen should perform at least two years of service between the ages of 18 and 22, whether it's military, public health, Peace Corps, VISTA, Park Service, whatever. No exemptions. All time beyond initial training to be served more than 1000 miles from home of record: no home-town assignments. A one-time deferment for acquiring a baccalaureate degree, then service in an area related to your degree. Government tuition loans may be prorated or forgiven for additional service beyond the mandatory two years. There is no longer a sense of community in the US, not even between neighbors. Unless we resurrect that sense of community, the Unites States that exists at its 300th birthday will not resemble the United States of 100, or even 200, years earlier. Sorry. Hot-button.

Slayer_
Slayer_

Those things certainly don't protect the state, and Americans have more than proven they cannot handle their guns. I think it's time for the constitution to be changed. Or you know, just go on and keep mindlessly shooting eachother.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Chaos is my element. This is it. I tend to try to reduce it though, I strive for a more complex world than the pure stuff. Pure chaos is boring, as is pure order. Also, devoid of beauty.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Let me get this straight: You allow modern definitions of arms, but not a modern definition of a well regulated militia? Both terms cover military technologies, subject to change and refinement. And this was the apparent intent of the writers. They did not prescribe a carta blanca, that not-a-limiting-condition of yours should at the very least show that. They were wont to write self-modifying code, what with "cruel and unusual" and all - sadly they were not politically jaded enough to take into account deliberate twisting by following generations. But back to your argument; you not only refuse change on the part of "well regulated militia", you regress it beyond what it was at the time of its writing (because, the present state of affairs is not a "well regulated militia" even in that sense). "Well regulated militia", even when retraced to "wohl temperiert" - as you insist, denying the cunning of these icons - still entails training in that most important aspect of the use of force - when not to. Then, and now. You appear to spout something that can only be described as a gunpeddler's wet dream. Can you bear a AT-4 into the Capitol? No? Can you bear an uzi into a supreme court session? No?!? That's infringement! Unconstitutional! Unconstitutional!

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

I'd say, that the intent of your founding fathers on that point has been raped. Thoroughly. Like the Bible on the Monarch's Divine Right to Rule. The ones defending the constitutional right to bear arms seem to be defending that right against the intent and wording of the very sentence from which it springs.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

So far Apotheon, I am the ONLY one here who has offered facts to support my comments, NOT YOU. All you have offered is unqualified CLAIMS, not I. Where is YOUR proof, where are YOUR LINKS and FACTS? UP your a**? Please explain to me how a passive, GEN2 tag, the type used in ID, can be errantly read from a distance when even the best readers commonly fail when more than foot away from clear access to the tag. I have never said it wasn't possible to pick up RFID signals, NEVER. I simply said that you need a reader with the correct code to shake hands with the tag, the encryption code to decompile it, and the READER capable of such. The lab test with a credit card in an envelope was proven flawed. My point is, instead of being paranoid about your RFID cards, why not just pay better attention to your normal security measures. AGAIN, sigh, these criminals can obtain the same and more information, even from the most 'secure' and 'safe; folks, with relative ease, perhaps some IT geek would get off on it, but criminals have far easier ways to gather such info, in greater quality and at lower costs, with less effort. Someone can break into a server too, but are most thefts of such info found due to people writing down passwords, blabbing info, etc. Most such breaches are inside jobs by people WITH the info.

apotheon
apotheon

Claims of special knowledge are smoke -- not substantive arguments.

santeewelding
santeewelding

Gainsays in latter-day terms what you just did, Chad -- couldn't have done better, myself, by the way -- they (Ansu, Nick, et ali) will have to themselves study the matter all the way back to Magna Carta and before, then, come forward, every iota the way.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Apotheon made assertions. I PROVED them wrong PROOF, nto opinion, not my argument, PROOF. He claims it's all lies and offers NOTHING to substantiate his claims. He's just being a tosser. You can prve me wrong if I am wrong, it's easy to do when FACTS are available. Chad just decides he'll SAY I am a liar and offer nothing to substantiate it. Don't call me a liar unless you are willing to stpe up to the plate and prove it. I am sure even you, being much milder mannered, wouldn't accept such slander.

apotheon
apotheon

The 'universal militia' fails the 'well-regulated' qualification and does not, in fact, remotely qualify as "regulated." Wrong. You're using a latter-day, connotatively corrupted definition of "regulated", which is not the definition relevant to the context of the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Consider this parallel statement: "The importance of a well-trained swim team to a strong showing at the Olympics being but one justification, the right of the people to have privately owned swimming pools shall not be infringed." In perfect keeping with the actual meaning of the Second Amendment, the Civilian Marksmanship Program was created to ensure that private citizens have access to weapons well suited to militia purposes, so that they may be trained in their use and have them available should the need arise for defense of a free society -- from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Congress understood this more than a hundred years ago, but it seems nobody understands it any longer. Note that this is actually the version of the Amendment that was ratified by the States: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Paraphrased: "A well trained universal militia is necessary to the security of a free society, and as such, the right of the whole of the people to keep and bear arms suitable to militia purposes shall not be infringed."

apotheon
apotheon

santeewelding: I think I covered that, actually. See my comments about the various meanings of "regulated". AnsuGisalas: Please just say, directly, what you mean -- so I don't have to make assumptions about it.

apotheon
apotheon

Oz, you're a damned liar. apotheon also feels that I struck the first blow with personal insults, which I did not. Your very first "contribution" to this entire discussion was insulting in form, and pretty obviously in intent, as well. I has said NOTHING of the sort to him and yet he struck first, no matter what he thinks I said, just read the posts it's in black and white. "tinfoil hat" "paranoid" Stop lying. EVEN THEN, I replied with more facts to support my comments I'm not sure whether you're lying here or just don't understand that assertions of expertise are not the same as "facts". If the latter, "idiot" is not an insult: it's just descriptive. Own up to one or the other, then -- liar or idiot. AGAIN no personal insults Still lying: "hysteria" implying I know nothing except credulous belief of whatever is printed in disreputable publications Your entire argument has always consisted first and foremost of ridicule and insult. This is why you piss me off. His reply to those facts was to ignore offering proof of his own I have long ago learned that repeating what I have said to you many times will get me nowhere -- especially in response to you giving me "proof" of your own points such as "Having sold teh technology and systems, I understand their limitations," which proves nothing except that you can make claims of special knowledge. I can't be arsed to even read the rest of your dissembling and balderdash. It's always the same. On to someone a bit more interested in honest discussion. JamesRL: You two are more alike than you know, not necessarily in knowledge but in attitudes and communications styles. Maybe in terms of being direct and abrasive. Certainly not in matters of honesty, attention to detail, and interest in the logical validity of an argument. You both seem to enjoy the fight. I actually quite dislike it. I also quite dislike leaving any doubt in the minds of readers when someone like Oz comes along and lies his way toward impressing himself with his claimed special knowledge. Frankly, I don't know that I should even believe he has ever worked with RFID deployments. I think at this point, agree that you aren't going to agree. Move on to another topic. And walk away and put all the personal stuff behind you. If that was all it was -- disagreement -- I'd be happy to do so. My bigger problem with him is his dishonesty and purely destructive aims. I'm about ready to drop it anyway, though. As I said, I actually rather dislike "the fight", and I'm feeling pretty well worn out. edit: formatting

JamesRL
JamesRL

I've met both of you. I've known both of you for some time. I've disagreed with both of you, and in some cases, I've been pretty pissed. You two are more alike than you know, not necessarily in knowledge but in attitudes and communications styles. You both seem to enjoy the fight. But if there was a point to the endless back and forth, there are very few peers who are watching the thread to try and figure it out, because any interesting tidbits are being drowned out bu the personal stuff. The signal to noise is almost all noise and no signal. I think at this point, agree that you aren't going to agree. Move on to another topic. And walk away and put all the personal stuff behind you. James

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Apotheon is supposed to be someone competent in writing security features, though he completely misrepresents the capabilities of a newer technology, due to a fear of the sky falling. Apotheon only has this viewpoint because he drinks the IT cool aid that his favorite geek rags throw at him. The information is incorrect, misleading and not technologically accurate, as his writings are expected to be. apotheon also feels that I struck the first blow with personal insults, which I did not. We exchanged a few posts with no issues until he finally closed his reply to me with calling me an 'idiot' http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=332713&messageID=3319115&tag=content;leftCol I has said NOTHING of the sort to him and yet he struck first, no matter what he thinks I said, just read the posts it's in black and white. EVEN THEN, I replied with more facts to support my comments, explanations of how his claims are simply false and not a reality and AGAIN no personal insults, just disagreement with his claims of people walking past you and collecting information (RIIIGHT!). http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=332713&messageID=3319539&tag=content;leftCol His reply to those facts was to ignore offering proof of his own, to have another personal attack toward me and dismiss my FACTUAL and PROVEN comments by saying "MILITARY GRADE ENCRYPTION" proves I didn't know what I was talking about.Calling the sources of those facts [i]"idiot, non-technical reporters "[/i] That in itself proves AGAIN he doesn't know what he's talking about. A blig writer on TR with zero credibility in the field he chooses to 'educate' people on. I offered sources of that terminology, which include the US military and crytpyographers, proving once again and without personal insults, that Apotheon was not properly versed on the technology his is talking about. These PROVEN FACTS of the technology and terminology that I presented, he deemed [i]"kind of baseless, insulting, counterproductive BS"[/i] COUNTERPRODUCTIVE? How about setting the facts straight and proving them as factual? He just continued with his flames and personal attack, providing counterarguments that stand up like a paper towel in a bathtub. He then reworded my entire comment, so he could actually rebut SOMETHING that was never said at all, again with his personal insults. He has a history of doing this and many have seen it and given up even trying to speak with him, yet I like a challenge of trying to speak to someone who is clueless and yet tries to appear educated on a subject he knows little to nothing about. But hey, I understand that's all my fault, I was trolling, calling him names and he offered all the facts and proof behind his comments. Read what you want into it but you might want to try wearing glasses and actually reading what was said from beginning to end if you wish to judge it. This isn't the first time he has been proven wrong and thumbed his nose at the facts while never once offering a productive, factual counter argument. He just likes to start a thread and then have minions buy into it, as if he knows what he's on about. Often he does know, as I have recognized in my posts here and, as I have proven here over and over again, sometimes he does not. He just gets upset when he's proven to be wrong. Unlike yourself, many of us have seen this from him for years now, he's just a TR peer who was given an opportunity to write about his field of specialty (server security), which certainly isn't RFID, no matter how hard he tries to bash the real facts offered. In fact his ramblings here only stand to prove his lack of experience and knowledge of the subject he is trying to correct me on. His comments just don't hold up to the FACTS, which you can easily verify yourself too.

Juanita Marquez
Juanita Marquez

I personally tend to disregard most things someone says if they don't have a fundamental grasp and use of civility; I'm old-fashioned that way...and now I remember why I tend to automatically skip most of his posts. No matter how "intelligent" or "knowledgeable" someone may or may not be, the TechRepublic denizens are ultimately responsible for feeding or starving the trolls. Even if a troll has set up permanent... as in years... shop under our bridge, and has worthwhile comments from time to time, or allies or familiarity, the fact of the matter is as long as people play enabler or baiter, he will respond with personal attacks. Cut him off at the knees by not responding. Once he hits puberty and/or reads a book on manners, perhaps he will find himself ready to play well with the grownups...and more of us will learn useful tidbits when we don't have to waste time ignoring half of what he says. I think I could find what he says at least interesting to consider if I didn't have to sort through all the "I'm a l33t3r h4X0r than th0u and U n Ur M0m suk!!1!! kthxbY3!!1"

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

fails the 'well-regulated' qualification and does not, in fact, remotely qualify as "regulated." We can argue interpretations all day long, but that interpretation should be of the [b]entirety[/b] of the amendment, not this clause or that.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

more reasonable that way. Would've otherwise been quite sloppy on the part of the writer - to put two unconnected statements together and cap it with what amounts with a therefore clause. For no apparent reason, as the present interpretation goes. Inexcusably sloppy, because; commas are not cheaper than full stops. :p :D

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

...when what was meant by its authors no longer has relevance to its users.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

nor have you given me reason not to, and it's been a lot longer than 5 years too.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

By the time I am finished with calls to Austria and Germany tonight/this morning, sent and approved proofs etc. it will be 4AM. I just finished watching a 3hr Stephen Hawking lecture where he recounted his life and times in the world of physics. Wide awake! I'll snooze until noon though, then have cars to see to.

santeewelding
santeewelding

We are both in the same time zone. Go to bed. Before I savage your ass.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Compared to your own lack of verbiage that drives so many equally nuts. Pot, kettle, black.

apotheon
apotheon

There's a term of art in American politics and Constitutional law that applies here: "universal militia". That refers to every able-bodied man of the age of majority. Further, taking your repunctuation, you seem to have missed the fact that a prefatory, explanatory clause ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,") is not the same thing as a limiting clause. Finally, translating "the right of the people" as a reference to a "protection" of the state's right to do something is not only contrary to every other use of the term "the people" in the Constitution, but also contrary to simple common sense. Many others, including the NRA and the cold, dead hands crowd, and the Supreme Court, see it somewhat differently. FTFY

santeewelding
santeewelding

But, I relented, there being even more to it: as in, "regulated", which, in the day, meant something else...I'm sure you know. I don't think he does. Not a clue.

apotheon
apotheon

It says a "well regulated" militia is necessary to the protection of freedom. Regulation has meanings other than "organized" and "restricted". Further, the statement about the necessity of a militia is presented as a prefatory, explanatory clause, and not as a limiting clause. Learning to read is important when trying to argue a point about what a point of Constitutional law means, y'know.

apotheon
apotheon

Have you said anything in the last five years that wasn't unbelievably vile?

santeewelding
santeewelding

I offered no commentary. I left that for you, in that, you have a way of overextending yourself.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

They guy can barely speak, talk about a yokel! ook him quite a few rounds to hit it too, didn't know latrine lickers were given guns too! No wonder the Iraqi's laugh at the US and nobody else wants to fight near you. Haaaa, aaaaas a spowkesmayan fer tha YOUnatid Stayets Meyultery. And what's his BS about not getting tech support while he protects your freedom? Is HP supposed to shut the doors, hold the phones and ship a tech to Iraq to help him out when he can't print porn pictures? Why doesn't he ask an Iraqi, they are probably asnwering his tech support calls anyway. What a numpty, dork, laughing stock spokesman for the US meyultery. Talk about full of himself. Totaltwat, what a muppet!

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

[i]A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[/i] The comma between 'militia' and 'being' has been giving people fits for decades, but everybody ignores the comma between 'arms' and 'shall'. A little lexicographical research will show that a comma between verb and noun was the rule in the late 18th century. Updating the punctuation to modern standards changes it to read: [i]A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/i] My interpretation? We have a well-regulated militia; it's called the "National Guard." Want to own a weapon? Join the Guard. Many others, including the NRA and the cold, dead hands crowd see it somewhat differently.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

People can't carry handguns legally over here, and nobody needs to. The NRA of course will claim that there is no causal relationship. But once a society has come to the point where the odds of being the victim of a violent crime becomes tangible the Old West's foolkiller comes back into play. You can't freely walk in a lion pen either. So I reserve judgement. I would of course give you all the freedoms that comes with a less violent society, but you can only make that happen yourselves, and only if enough of you want to. And that's one reason the NRA speaks so loudly. BTW: doesn't it specifically say something like "in a well-organized militia"?

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

And if you think I don't understand how to play it, you are fooling yourself.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Claims are all you have proposed, nothing more. Facts are all I have propsed, nothing more. A round wheel rolls better than a square wheel. That is not a claim, it is a fact.

apotheon
apotheon

It is only for posterity's sake that I respond to say: I find it odd that you so easily conflate the terms "claim" and "prove" when speaking of words that spill from your virtual lips.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

How everybody is perfectly willing to construe your posts as blithe agreement, nay encouragement, of what it is that they do. Let me know if you need my services.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

but obviously trying to remain lofty is more his style. TIMBEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

He is a contributor to TR, his role is to write security blogs due to his extensive experience with network security. He has taken that to being a low end blog writer that equates to the Enquirer of IT or Jerry Springer Show of network security. This is round 2, the first time the miracle wallet was introduced due to this security nightmare I challenged him and proved his claims to be false. He just calls me names and refrains from admitting his information was misleading to people who just may seek such articles online. People assume he is well versed on everything he discusses, offer industry facts. Most of the time that's true, but when yuo start throwing out the lies, be prepared to be chanllenged on them and support your own false claims. He started back ages ago rambling on about RFID security as if he knew what he was doing. In reality he was merely spewing somone else's absolytely baseless rubbish. Again he got whiny when proven wrong. http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=613&tag=leftCol;post-1821 [i]"It has been suggested, for instance, that a person?s nationality, detected in proximity to an explosive device, could be used to trigger the device. It?s a simple way for a terrorist to make sure a bomb targets at least one person of a targeted nationality."[/i] [i]There are some things you can do all by yourself to [b]reduce your vulnerability to the dangers of RFID chips in your wallet.[/b] [/i] Talk about chicken little. He figures instead of proving it and being correct, it's better to repost a sensational story that will be sought out online, making his post more popular and seemingly credible too. It;s rubish and he's been spewing it with two years of Jerry Springer style commentary now. He's just pi$$ed that now, when he tried the big, trnedy lie again, he was caught out on it and can't prove his stand because it has no ground. It's people like that twhich perpetuate thee blogs he gets his own facts from, it's like cancer and creates a negative industry stir over nothing just to make people's online presence more popular.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Would you give a damn about the actions of a person like that? If so - why?!?

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I agree about tryign to change someone's 'opinion'. If you have a faith of belief, it can't be changed with a few opposing words, even if that belief is in Santa Claus. We are not discussing opinion though, we are discussing technology, it's limitations and the facts behind it; this is about proof, not conclusions. Apotheon DOES have a history of endless debates (as do I) except his debates always resort to his getting personal with the direct character insults and nothing to support them. He also has a history of twisting and turning until he appears to have the correct viewpoint, even though it opposes where he started. I'm not the first and won't be teh last. There are many regular peers, some now former regulars, taht simply had it with him because he makes assertions that he expects to be taken as facts but doesn't stand up when facts are presented. On TR say what you want, when you want, as long as it isn't a personal insult such as calling someone an idiot. Slam their opinion, slam their views, but not the person themselves. WHen called on that, be prepared to prove it, supply your facts and sources. I did, I also called him out on it, long before I started to directly insult him as a result of his own direct insults. SO I offer proof, he calls me an idiot and a liar, but has no proof or facts of his own, just more endless flaming wihout counter proof to support his debate. He can get bent. Prove me wrong, it's allowed, I understand it, I could be wrong. But don't hide behind your computer calling me a liar and an idiot when I have provided proof and you have failed to do so. And if, as you suggested, it really was a street brawl, it would have been over long ago and he wouldn't be posting for a while, at least until he got some feeling back in his appendages.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Input: "this little twaddle of a muppet is saying I am an idiot and am wrong and full of BS, when I am clearly the one who is correct"... Read it again, but imagine it's from Apotheon. Then answer to that. ... Or don't. That's no way to argue, unless one is an agent provocateur, a plant from the opposition; a living breathing straw-man so to speak. Whose side are you on, anyway? I'm new to these parts - that's a given. But I think you need to take yourself a lot less seriously, especially on things you're serious about. That's what you have in common with Apotheon when you get worked up. You both are annoyed that others don't see things as you do yourself, perceiving this state of affairs as some kind of horrible abberation or cyst. And that [i]you[/i] must operate on it, and make it better. You see yourselves too much, and your surroundings too little. You will not learn. Not in that mode at least. But, hey, who am I to talk? :p ]:) Lighten up, though. Both of you. Take and give yourselves a good hard whack of the humble stick, it's the one that one size up from the ugly stick. And then give me a couple too; the last one is wearing off - obviously - since I'm here giving out advice. PS. To Apotheon, sorry for the buckshot that came your way... there are degrees of everything, and I have not seen you go to quite that level, nor do I suspect you would. But people can err in many ways and still err in the same direction - so I think this was justified. If you two had been brawling in the street, you can bet the officer breaking it up will be none too pleased with either of you. Regardless of the nuances of style and who started it. Takes two.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

However I really don't care who people are, where they come from, what their religion is, they are all really the same, good and bad, no matter where you go.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Everybody knows that the turbany ones are Sikhs... and that, while they are fearsome, only the prime ministers of India have actual reason to fear.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

But this little twaddle of a muppet is saying I am an idiot and am wrong and full of BS, when I am clearly the one who is correct, can be validated and have provided such myself. Now THAT pickles my nads! Now, twaddler, has learned I was right about Military Standards and simply denounces the value of such, while pretending he is correcting me. It's that full circle shite where people investigate and find themselves wrong, then try to change their view. In doing so they in turn try to switch the view of who they are debating so it feels like THEY had the correct view all along. It's ignorant, it's WEAK as hell, spineless and it really gets on my tlts. Then they pretend they are clever for devising such a diaphanous contrivance. I don't care if you side with me or not, I'm up to a debate of fact and proof but conformity for teh sake of it is just not my motive (you should know that). But don't call me a liar and an idiot when you aren't prepared to prove otherwise and I can prove my reasons for my comments. Then he calls me names for just 'making it all up', while I provided links the sources of my assertion? There's an old system of debate that goes way back on TR; go ahead and have your say but, if you are challenged, be prepared to offer your sources for scrutiny. The flaming and inabiilty to offer counter proof, especially when repeatedly asked for it, is just pathetic. I have, he hasn't, and yet I am the ogre here? What a #^$%@& clown! Too bad computers took the vis a vis out of social groups and made the effete, unsubstantial and paltry so unyeildingly audacious.

santeewelding
santeewelding

Would you please sharpen your language and lose this bit about, "wrong", and its moral import? You, too, display much too much attention to soul. And, as to milspec, I claim some little familiarity.

apotheon
apotheon

santeewelding: Can we, for the moment, be content with the fact it's steel with a relatively high chromium content that should not corrode under even fairly extreme weather conditions, and might be termed CRES? The wallet isn't exactly designed to hold an edge like a good knife. I know what you mean about "aircraft aluminum", as a term similar in its precision to "military grade encryption".

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Face it, it simply doesn't exist, Apotheon says so.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

You haven't even left the locker room. I have offered substantial proof and facts for ALL of my comments, on the contrary you haven't offered a SINGLE PIECE or proof to support your claims I am wrong. I don't know who's game you are playing but you aren't even on teh right field. WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS AND WHICH OF MY FACTS CAN YOU PROVE WRONG? Don't have any FACTS? Can't prove anything wrong? Didn't think so. You are hopeless, no matter how much yuo posture and pose, you still have't offered ANY substance in your endless lies and flames, NOT ONE FACT NOT ONE PIECE OF PROOF AT ALL. you don't even recognize the terminoligy yuor own DoD uses, and yet you STILL claim such terms don't exist because you read the Snale Oil blog. face it Apotheon, you have been PROVEN WRONG over and over again, and yet hav not a leg to stand on with your rebuttals. If you had proven some FACTS, perhaps we'd have a discussion; as your posts resort to nothing nore than constant character attacks and ignoring facts to itemize individual and rather irrelevant comments on the subject, yuo are simply a waste here [b]WHERE IS YOU PROOF, WHERE ARE YUOR FACTS?[/b] Try standing up and dropping your pants, you might find them, we all know where YOUR facts come from. I can prove ANYTHING I've said abotu RFID technology. I have proven twice if not thre etimes that MGE is a real term used by YOUR military. YOU have denied that, not researched facts and have nothign of sugstance to offer. NOTHING AT ALL, you have COMPLETELY FAILED!

santeewelding
santeewelding

Mine was not a stray question. I am met frequently in my work with the expression, "aircraft-grade aluminum". It means nothing. It is market-speak. Sorta like, military-grade.

apotheon
apotheon

santeewelding: I don't recall off the top of my head. I'll see if I can find out again, and get back to you. I did look into it at the time I got the wallet, but it was a while ago, and it has since slipped my mind. Oz: There's a big difference between printing an RFID tag on aluminum and trying to get radio signals to pass through spaces too small for the friggin' radio waves to fit. If you knew anything about the physics of the subject, you might have realized that. Next time you find yourself looking at a microwave oven, ask yourself why the glass in the door looks the way it does. It might prompt you to learn something for a change, rather than just making assumptions and using those assumptions as "proof" of some misbegotten point.

apotheon
apotheon

If you ever said anything concrete about the technology, we might have something to discuss. Since you never have (and have simply made assertions based on claims of special knowledge), all your posturing means nothing. Thanks for playing, Oz.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

What the hell are you talking about? Did you know TExas Instruments and Zebra are making tags that can be printed right ON aluminum cans and read by RFID readers? So much for your impenetrable wallet! The problem with RFID for soda cans is more to do with the cost and the liquid than the can these days. I'm not talking about 2nd gen tags either, the stuff you fear. Perhaps you can design an AQUA wallet! Of course you knew that alread, you know all about it. Well you've actually proven that you know little to nothing on the subject but claim I don't to make yourself appear more credible. But enough with facts, it's not fair to do that, it only stifles your attempt to spew your unqualified opinion. You have lots to say on a subject you clearly know little about, beyond the basic consumer information and heresay available to anyone today, but absolutely NOTHING factual to support it.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

You don't understand what you read, FACT. You have to rearrange comments ot mean what you THINK they mean, however are very wrong in doing so. I have spent a lot of time in the US with one of the world's 6 top RFID designers, some of teh first people to ever make RFID actually work in the real world, for YOUR military to use, incorporating MILITARY ENCRYPTION STANDARDS, which you love so much. I have studied the benefits, limitations, applications and real world, working installations and their issues, in great depth, to bring the same level of knowledge to Canadian distribution channels and implementers. I have trained resellers such as Bell and Telus on proper implementation in the government and issues with RFID, where and when it works, where and when it doesn't. I also have the certs to support it, DO YOU? No, just a articles and blogs you eagerly leech onto. I dont 'CARE what RFID project have come across your desk, I've watched clueless idiots, like you, who feel they because they know IT then they know RFID installs, for years now. I have also flown in teh experts to help resolve their VERY expensive mistakes, with many companies dropping it altogether as it was implemented by an IT department that didn't have a clue what they were doing. It's like VoIP, every tech thinks he understands the needs and requirements for business voice communications now, just because it is IT based. That's why 3-Com had a bitch of a time getting out of the gate, poorly implemented systems due to IT fools who thought 3-Com had to be the best solution, even though they were brand new to the segment. [i]"RFID deployments vary quite a bit, thus leading to your assertion that they're all so very much more secure than alternatives that there's no use worrying about their security. Such generalizations are meaningless when, in practice, all "RFID" means is that radio frequency detection technologies are in use. Anything else is a matter of specific implementation."[/i] Horsesh1t! Application differs, however the technology is government regulated and meets stringent standards, whether for Toys R Us or the US Marines. MS Server technology is MS server technology, no matter who deploys it. Software can differ, applications differ, even the way it is used and implemented can differ but the base technology is the same, or does MS now create custom server software based on each individual company's needs? How long is the wait list to upgrade to upgrade to one of the handful of MS server OS's now? thirty years? forty? Do they rewrite all the code for each company or just parts of it? As for gettig sucke dinto a discussion with trolls, no matter how much you try to defend your lack of knowledge on teh subjkect, no matter how bad yuo try to take my own comments and completely rewrite them to mean something else, no matter how WRONG your rebuttal comments are, you are simply pissed that someone else knows FAR more about teh subject that you and you are being pinpointed as someone speaking without qualification. once again you have gone on and on, flaming me, reiterating what I said so that you have some form of rebuttal but without a SINGLE fact to prove you know what you are talking about, not ONE. you just flame me and offer vague BS and generalizations without substance that simply proves without a doubt that you are in way over your head on this subject. het call me a troll! good one now you can ignroe my comments and pretend you are above them, while pretending you know what you are talking about. I offered facts, proof and can offer more facts and proof to show you are clueless on the subject, You on the other hand offer pot shots, repost my comments by completely rewriting them and offer NOTHING, NOTHING AT ALL to support your BS, not one single piece of factual evidence at all. But YOU think you are being clever? Get a real life, you are merely a fool trying to appear current.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

You mean to say that you are so simple minded that you see some relevance in Nick's post? I made a comment, slandering and dismissing gun owners as being less of a man. Nick's brilliant retort was no more clever than, "yeah, YOU are!" There are so many better comebacks he could have put forward that would have actually been somewhat witty and humorous at my expense. I would have had a field day if that comment was toward me, however I won't offer my own rebuttals to my own pot shots at people. The dim remain dark, as always.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

If you had any clue what you were on about, you might actually have a voice worth hearing.

santeewelding
santeewelding

For me to hazard a guess? (you do not want to know)

santeewelding
santeewelding

What stainless was it? 304? 316? ELC? I didn't see anything mentioned. I wondered, because of what I do for a living.

apotheon
apotheon

Ironically, your statements are full of unfounded spin and blatant, substanceless insults -- and you betray a surprising lack of attention to detail. Aluminum? Really? Let me know when you want to say something that doesn't just make you look unreasonably biased, dishonest, mean-spirited, and stupid, all at once.

apotheon
apotheon

Secret knowledge? Absolute horsesh1t. Talk about PROVEN FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE THAT IS NO SECRET TO THE RFID WORLD, compared to BS that some IT writers spews based on third party information. "I'm talking about how I'm part of an exclusive club of which you cannot possibly be a member (despite the fact I know nothing about what technology implementation projects might have come across your desk), and thus have sekrit knowledge you can't possibly have." It's weird how you contradict yourself with almost every virtual breath. I have supported my comments with fact, you have not, simply opinions and heresay. "I have asserted that I have facts in evidence somewhere, but haven't shared any verifiable sources of evidence with anyone, and I'm offended you don't just take my word for it. Meanwhile, I will conveniently ignore the content of previous discussions on the subject." Your hypocrisy is impressive. Just becvause you don't know much about the subject you are ATTEMPTING to educate people on, it doesn't mean you have to resort to name calling when others actually do know better. "I'm assuming you don't know anything about the subject without actually asking for the source of any knowledge you claim, because you disagree with me, and that simply will not stand. Also: I object to what I will call name-calling, despite the fact that I was clearly the first person in this discussion calling people names." Yep. Hypocrisy. Nice, how you can be consistent about some things, at least. That doesn't mean you know what you are talking about with respect to RFID though "I refuse to actually ask about what RFID related projects might have come across your desk, because it's easier to make wild assumptions and pretend that actually arguing a valid point is irrelevant to being 'right'." I've even told you in a past discussion that I was involved in some RFID systems development and deployment, but apparently that's too inconvenient a fact to fit into your worldview. Willful ignorance becomes you. I have the real-world system design, testing and implementation experience that you clearly lack with this specific technology. "I love repeating my mistaken assumptions." How many times do you feel you are required to repeat the same claims about what someone else does or doesn't know, without any reason for believing it other than a point of disagreement? How many RFID solutions have you provided your client? "I finally decided to ask the question, but it's clearly rhetorical, because it comes after all my claims about how you don't know anything. Also, as proven throughout my comments, I apparently care so little for correctness and precision that I don't even pay any attention to my browser's spell checker." Define "solutions", and I'll see if I can give you a rough number. On the other hand, I don't give a crap how many "solutions" you've provided for anyone. I care about whether you can construct a valid, cogent argument. Thus far, you can't. So -- you are thus far self-contradictory, doubly hypocritical, and relentlessly willfully ignorant, to say nothing of regularly resorting to such fallacies as argument by ridicule and argument from authority. What tags types and antenna's did you use? Who's readers are implemented and why? What back end encryption and PKI process is incorporated? What types of tag printers/encoders are they using and why? What problems arose during implementation that you had to resolve in order to get accurate reads? The very fact that you asked all these questions proves an interesting fact that you seem intent on ignoring: RFID deployments vary quite a bit, thus leading to your assertion that they're all so very much more secure than alternatives that there's no use worrying about their security. Such generalizations are meaningless when, in practice, all "RFID" means is that radio frequency detection technologies are in use. Anything else is a matter of specific implementation. Yeah I know, not a bloody clue. No -- you clearly do not know. Someone please explain to me why I bother to get sucked into "discussion" with trolls.

apotheon
apotheon

Oz . . . it boggles my mind that you have the gall to attack someone else for a brief dismissal, in response to your own utterly absurd lack of relevance and reasonability within this discussion. How does flying into a flurry of childish insults give you the high ground from which to snipe at someone who just tells you where to stick it? . . . and why did you not notice that Nick's comment need not have anything at all to do with whether you carry a gun? Oh, I know; because somewhere along the line you seem to have traded in your brain for a crappy attitude.

santeewelding
santeewelding

You can be demolished with but the lift of a little finger. I'll sit back and watch Nick do it, if he so deigns. I would be surprised if he does. As for me, I toy with you. The difference between your exuberant ass and your plain elbow are clearly, to me, not apparent to you. Makes no sense for me or anyone else to point them out. That is why you persist. _____ etu

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Talk about a nonsenscial, grade two, comeback. LOL. I know you are but what am I? :D As for me knowing better, I do from listening to the half men on this thread that love the fact they have a gun, as if it offers them some form of security nobody else has. Guns provide you with NO security at all, it is all in your head. Guns merely give the insecure some feeling of security in the real world, where they suffer from constant fear of their insignificance. I was referring to people who carry guns, which you know I do not do. Your comeback offers the wit and humour of a child in a playground. Try again, but try and at least come up with SOMETHING relevant or logical next time.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

This wallet was designed to [i]" to keep your money and credit cards safe -- from rain, perspiration, spills and even identity thieves."[/i] Note the identity theives is an afterthought, a marketing angle due to the unsupported RFID industry hype. [i] "It's a good conversation piece and elicits a lot of comments," says Paul Stewart-Stand, the designer's brother and business partner. "People see it at a dinner party and want to know where they can get one." While developing the wallet, [b]Theo Stewart-Stand inadvertently discovered[/b] an even more unique benefit. It turns out the stainless steel used in the wallet protects from the latest concern in identity theft."[/i] So he read some delusional BS about about RFID, perhaps one of your columns! And saw a GREAT new marketing angle to add ot his cool looking aluminum wallet design, not just spill proof but now he gets to prey on those that live in fear too! [i]Many new ID products, such as no-swipe credit cards, corporate access key cards and the newest U.S. passports, include radio frequency identification, or RFID, tags that allow scanners to rapidly access information. [/i] True, many cards are using new, faster scanning techniques, but corporate access key cards though? That's aomost ALWAYS magnetic proximity reading, not RFID, due to cost and effectiveness. This is then followed by the completely incorrect myth of RFID tags as used in ID. "Unfortunately, identity thieves can also use [b]simple, out-of-sight scanning devices[/b] to steal data from RFID tags, [b]gathering your personal and financial information in one quick scan before you even open your wallet or bag.[/b]" Absolute poppycock! ID cards use a passive tag, a tag with NO antenna and no ability to actually "transmit" a signal. Passive tagging requires an almost clear line of sight, even a passport would need to be opened to the tags page in order to accurately read it, in MOST cases, unless using a very high end reader. Even a really good reader, can only read a passive RFID tag on ID or a passport up to about 30cm, 1 foot. In order to read that tag, you need to have the reader contact, wake, handshake and then read the encrypted data. If your reader does not have the correct ID/PIN code, the tag will not respond and offer data. These tags used in ID will often change that PIN each time it is scanned also, that data is sent to the host computer for the next recognition. So some guy haging around the train station with a reader, will not be gathering heaps of personal data as people walk by, it simply does NOT happen, the tags do not respond to any reader, no matter what SciFi books you've read. As far as credit cards are concerned, there was a lab test done where someone pulled obvious data from a NEW, INACTIVE, credit card in an envelpe. First of all it is inactive, secondly most cards actually offer up a dummy number that does not match the number embossed on the card anyway, that number can be used only in connection with the verification PIN if the reader sends teh correct PIN to the card the card will allow it's REAL tag information to be read, while again encrypted . Even if read, it's useless information. You can't steal that data and just play it back and expect it to work. You have been drinking the lab rat's CoolAid and have been blinded from reality by fear mongers.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Never poke fun of an American's gun, it is generally an insult to the masculinity of the more insecure and defensive. When a guy gets old or has no wood to begin with, at least he can carry a gun to least FEEL like a man, even if he pales in comparison to one.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Way better than Tylenol or Ibuprofin. You should ask you mom for some next time you have a headache it works wonders.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Secret knowledge? Absolute horsesh1t. Talk about PROVEN FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE THAT IS NO SECRET TO THE RFID WORLD, compared to BS that some IT writers spews based on third party information. I have supported my comments with fact, you have not, simply opinions and heresay. Just becvause you don't know much about the subject you are ATTEMPTING to educate people on, it doesn't mean you have to resort to name calling when others actually do know better. I COULD possibly accept Santee's off topic nonsense at face value, then again yuo COULD actually study and learn the reality of the topic you are trying to write about. As i said before, I would not even begin to contest yoru knowledge of server security, your hands on experience and knowledge supercedes my own limited experience by decades. That doesn't mean you know what you are talking about with respect to RFID though, as your clueless commentary illustates all too well itself. in this case, I think I would be the one who has experienced, studied, tested in real world situations, performed the troubleshooting and problem identifying tasks, understand the many players in the market, those that are credible and those that are not. I have the real-world system design, testing and implementation experience that you clearly lack with this specific technology. How many RFID solutions have you provided your client? What tags types and antenna's did you use? Who's readers are implemented and why? What back end encryption and PKI process is incorporated? What types of tag printers/encoders are they using and why? What problems arose during implementation that you had to resolve in order to get accurate reads? Yeah I know, not a bloody clue.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I think it's more to save himself changing his underwear everytime he sees a turban. FEAR, it makes the nation stay atoned.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Ifi teh whole idea of gun protection, as most claim it, is to thwart others by having them KNOW you are armed and not worth accosting, why conceal it at all. Why not walk around with your gun in your hand, waving it at sketchy passersby so they KNOW not to mess with you? Or is it preferred to just pull it out in surprise when attacked. AHA, LOOK WHAT I HAVE, PILGRIM!!! Americans and guns, always a funny topic. " A 1911 is probably well concealable on him " Or a straw and a handful of peas.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

And for what purpose would you want a firearm that's poorly concealable and has a poor range, when you could have a firearm that has a good range, or a firearm that has good concealability? It tries to sit in a chair into which no pistol was ever meant to sit, at the same time failing to sit well in the chairs in which pistols should sit. Scaring the crap out of people works best at very short ranges, it just isn't as effective at 25m as it is at 5m. Basic psychology I guess. So a big weapon is also a grabbing hazard at short ranges. Just like a baseball bat is less useful than a sap for actual use (actual use outside of the domain of baseball of course). Santee, I assume you have it for purposes of encouraging/promoting changes of underwear?

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Is that what you were aiming at? Productive, aren't you?

santeewelding
santeewelding

Making such a leap, there can be no explanation; nor, will there be.

apotheon
apotheon

The DE .50 is a range queen -- and it excels in that role. It takes a pretty big guy to use such a thing for practical concealed carry. Maybe Nick Nielsen should consider it as an option, but santeewelding isn't nearly big enough for that. A 1911 is probably well concealable on him as long as he's willing to make some wardrobe concessions. As long as you're using what you have for purposes for which it's well-suited, I have no problem with it. To some extent, the person is one of the factors that comes into play in determining the practical purposes of a given firearm. I personally have no use for the DE .50, though.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

If he's that bored, I'm pretty sure there's a chicken house within a few miles that needs a good mucking-out. Better he should shovel it than post it.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

I take it you think a .50 is a good idea? If you notice, I make no explicit judgement on .45's - nor the potential circumstances under which a person might feel the need to acquire and carry one. I reserve judgement on those, pending information, and a reason to judge. Here, I have neither.

apotheon
apotheon

. . . this kind of baseless, insulting, counterproductive BS from people who don't understand what they're saying annoys me even more.

apotheon
apotheon

You are a real jackass today, Oz. Try having a well-reasoned discussion with someone for a change, rather than resorting to meaningless, empty ridicule and your BS hand-waving about how you have Sekrit Knowledge that happens to fly in the face of proven results. It might change your life.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

What with the Desert Eagle half-an-inch being so hyped. It's fitting... there's been a study to show that half-inchers tend to prefer half-inchers. Compensational. :p

Editor's Picks