Slashdot Mirror

Can someone provide a reference for this? Googling for "LDH cholesterol Italy" doesn't turn up anything useful.

On the other hand, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/health/09canc.ht ml?ex=1148097600&en=1832c1470567bcd5&ei=5070 tells of a mutation in mice that renders them immune to cancer.

Why would the government get involved if it was AT&Ts own monitoring system?

>patterns of calls alone is likely not enough

Your real-world observation confirms what one academic just claimed:

opinion piece about limits of graph theory (New York Times, sorry)

March 14, 1992: Vice President Dan Quayle, who heads the space council, made public a space policy directive approved by President Bush that assigns "major roles" to the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy...

What? President George H. W. Bush got support for a big NASA budget to put men on Mars and then diverted the money to defense and energy contractors? Must've been a fluke. That could never happen again in a million years!

January 15, 2004: President seeks $1 billion more in NASA funding

Saying "the desire to explore and understand is part of our character," President Bush Wednesday unveiled an ambitious plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020 and use the mission as a steppingstone for future manned trips to Mars and beyond.

March 14, 1992: Vice President Dan Quayle, who heads the space council, made public a space policy directive approved by President Bush that assigns "major roles" to the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy...

What? President George H. W. Bush got support for a big NASA budget to put men on Mars and then diverted the money to defense and energy contractors? Must've been a fluke. That could never happen again in a million years!

January 15, 2004: President seeks $1 billion more in NASA funding

Saying "the desire to explore and understand is part of our character," President Bush Wednesday unveiled an ambitious plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020 and use the mission as a steppingstone for future manned trips to Mars and beyond.

Read the fucking constitution and look up some judicial records before you open your big, dumb mouth please. The law is very specific about protecting journalistic sources, there is supposed to be no way around it.

No it is not. While most (if not all) states have "shield laws" to protect journalists and their sources, there is not federal equivalent. This is why NY Times reporter Judith Miller went to jail for refusing to disclose her sources. Here is a NY Times editorial advocating a shield law, but there still is not one yet. Perhaps you should do some research before slinging terms like "big, dumb mouth".

I agree. As much as I enjoy high technology, there's also something satisfying about a completely self-sufficient product; even if the bombs started dropping tomorrow, the EMP killed all the circuits and all the oil dried up, they're still as useful and usable as today.

We're getting to the point, though, where the cost of a player isn't that significant. I saw something interesting at Border's the other day; they're now selling audiobooks pre-loaded on a small MP3 player. They're called Playaway and they come with headphones and batteries included. It's a bit more expensive, but audiobooks always were overpriced, and it's really not that much of a difference in price. There are some faults - the battery life isn't quite enough for a full book and the audio quality is about what you'd expect - but the technology will improve, as it always does.

It's not hard to imagine a future where all media has its own integrated playback unit.

I submitted this story http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/science/12dna.ht ml?_r=1&oref=slogin last week. rejected (:-( Basically, if he submittes his DNA, they will be able to track his (future) children, as well as any siblings and possibly cousins that he may have. (As well as his parents)

Which leads to a possible out for him. His parents should claim trade secret on their DNA, and thus his. You could argue that his parents rights to privacy are being trampled, because they commited no crime, but share DNA with him.

Holy "Demolition Man" Batman!!!, in the future, the goverment needing the services of a 1337 hacker, could recreate Adrian from his DNA. Of course, when they were done with him, they'd destroy his body until it was needed again.

In an opinion piece on 19 Feb 2006, Kristoff of the New York Times all but called for a boycott on Yahoo. He thought that Google got a bum rap, Cisco and Microsoft were sleazy (but nothing like Yahoo), and that Yahoo was a national disgrace.

Kristoff: "...nobody should touch Yahoo until it provides financially for the families of the three men it helped lock up and establishes annual fellowships in their names to bring Web journalists to America on study programs."

I think Kristoff's suggestion sounds doable.

Pay only link: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F6 0815F63B5A0C7A8DDDAB0894DE404482&n=Top%2FOpinion%2 FEditorials%20and%20Op-Ed%2FOp-Ed%2FColumnists%2FN icholas%20D%20Kristof

The website that coordinates the Yahoo boycott follows:
http://www.booyahoo.com/

Booyahoo has a link which details some of the alternatives to Yahoo services (hotmail, etc.) Some Slashdot users may want to help flesh it out.

Wikipedia lists some of the Yahoo owned sites and services (to avoid?):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!

Stephen McArthur in his Orwell's Grave blog notes that the NYT article written yesterday (that the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility sent a fax on Wednesday stating they could no longer look into the warrantless eavesdropping program of the NSA because the NSA wouldn't give them the security clearance) gives evidence that "for the first time in its history, security clearances have been denied to OPR personnel by the National Security Agency, itself," and that "The Bush administration can take credit for the first-ever refusal of this kind."

"It's not a wiretapping program, it's simply a compilation, according to the report here, of numbers that phone companies maintain," said Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

He compared it to "mail covers" and "pen registers," techniques long used by law-enforcement authorities to record the addresses on letters or calls made by individuals under investigation. No warrant is needed for such efforts, but the government must certify with a court that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing investigation.

Not that I have the time, but let's us address your questions:

is the u.s. trying to capture territory?

Capture vs. control... it's one thing to fly the US flag, it's another to own the government that runs a country, especially one rich in desired fossil fuels. Do you see much of a difference?

is the u.s. actively and methodically commiting genocide?

Not really, but neither were the Nazi's for the first few years. Although never as blatant, I can see the US falling into a pattern of eugenics.

is u.s. military action taken with the belief of safeguarding national interests (whether real or perceived)?

Yes, and so was Germany's. At least to the people. After the fire at Reichstag, Hitler declared that the Poles had invaded and started the fire. Terrorism, he called it. Did people percieve the invasion of Poland as safeguarding national interests? You bet.

would concepts such as diversity, human rights, and multiculturalism exist if hitler had not been confronted and allowed to dominate the entirety of europe and asia?

Yes. This issue was being pushed long before Nazi Germany, starting early with slavery, then a series of suffrage movements in the US. To assume that the issues of multiculturalism would not exist without WWII is a pretty thin argument.

does the u.s. system have safeguards not allowing any individual to retain too much power?

In theory, but the Patriot Act is just the first in a series of laws passed that do indeed shift the balance of power towards the executive. With the judicial scared to step up and reject the "State Secrets" privledge, and Congress voting strictly upon party lines, the balance of power is quite obviously not working the way it was supposed to.

will the u.s. have a new leader in 2008?

One can hope - will that leader still be in the same pocket that GW Bush is? That remains to be seen.

will new congressmen be elected prior to that?

Sure. Will the balance of power shift? If all new congressmen were elected but the Republican party remained in the majority, nothing much would change at all.

are people leaking national security information being executed?

Yes and no. Leaking information when a government employee with security clearance is considered treason and is punsishable by death. Executions have been carried out in this country. And for the first time ever, normal citizens are being prosecuted under federal espionage acts for recieving leaked information. See this.

what about the outspoken 2 star generals?

For now, we still retain a degree of free speech. Besides, they're not saying anything that anyone didn't already know.

what particular, concrete examples can you provide of u.s. citizen privacy rights being infringed by government excess?

Illegal wiretapping, prosecuting citizens under the Espionage Act of 1917 (which will chill free speech and freedom of the press if won.) There are two. How about this story? CAAPS? Carnivore?

for all the hubub of late, there has not been one specific report of actual, identifiable privacy infringement.

Bullshit. FBI retrieval of airline information after 9/11, NSA boxes in AT&T POPs, etc., etc., etc. Check the ACLU website (of which I am NOT a member) for a whole series of lawsuits against illegal government action against its citizens.

Look, the point is, the US is heading in the wrong direction, at almost blazing speed. The US tries to hold countries accountable for human rights violations while explicitly exempting CIA agents from the same rules. This is why the international community is becoming more and more careful about what US actions it backs.

Current direction = BAD. Not a whole lot of argument to be made against that.

There's an interview on the NYTimes site:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/technology/10war craftqa.web.html

It has info on the race, profession choices, and much more. Very interesting read.

Facinating results with potentially huge implications, but according to the New York Times (login required, use BugMeNot), none of the results from this lab have been replicated elsewhere; despite discovering this cancer-resistant mouse three years ago, they haven't shared it with any other lab, so both papers on the topic are from the same people/lab. Not that I don't believe them, but a discovery like this which is so unlike anything seen before clearly needs to be independently verified.

"The service will begin sometime this summer, with prices beginning at about $1 for some television programs and increasing to about the price of a DVD or video rental for full-length movies."

Thank god the airlines are thinking of doing something about that.

You're wrong

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2004/Jun/97247.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0 DE3D71738F936A35754C0A960948260
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0 DE6DA163FF930A35757C0A960948260
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2003/07/23/st ory560336209.asp
http://www.americas.org/item_16224

Shut up now.

You're wrong

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2004/Jun/97247.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0 DE3D71738F936A35754C0A960948260
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0 DE6DA163FF930A35757C0A960948260
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2003/07/23/st ory560336209.asp
http://www.americas.org/item_16224

Shut up now.

It's the legal argument of the United States, Great Britan, and France, that 688 is indeed relevant to 678...

Yes, and it's a BS argument; 688 has nothing to do with Kuwait, and 678's authorization of military force was for the U.N. to use force to resolve that situation, not for member nations to intervene in Iraq's internal affairs. (I don't think it's been France's argument for a long time, either.)

You'll note that, back in 1991, the legality of the no-fly zones wasn't questioned, even Saddam Hussein acknowledged their legitimacy until 1998

There was objection long before 1998. The New York Times editorialized against them in 1992. Iraq objected before 1998: "Iraq does not recognize the no-fly zone because it was not a UN job," Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, 1993. Also in 1993, the U.N.'s legal department announced that it could find no authorization for the NFZs.

Objections were muted, though, since the U.S. and Britain would simpy veto any condemnation of the NFZs.

but to call it illegal in 2002 what was praised as a humanitarian mission in 1991 is absurd.

Many people were not praising it as a humanitarian mission.

Heh-heh. The N.Y. Times posted copies of the court's opinion and Apple's '91 Trademark Agreement with the Beatles.

I think I remember this documentary having a section on that lake: http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v _id=34649

Cannot link to the Globe's article, so here is its mention in NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/05/opinion/05fri1.h tml?hp

FT(linked)FA:Charlie Savage at The Globe reported recently that Mr. Bush had issued more than 750 "presidential signing statements" declaring he wouldn't do what the laws required. Perhaps the most infamous was the one in which he stated that he did not really feel bound by the Congressional ban on the torture of prisoners.

The Bluesecurity concept is one approach, but I was thinking that going after companies like Bank of America, SBC Communications and Sprint who actually sponsor the sending of spam may be more productive.

I'm sure this will make many moderators unhappy, and they will call it a troll even though the points made are well-documented. However, it needs to be said: The problem is unhappiness. Unhappiness causes obesity and other diseases.

If you kill other people, you should expect that it will make you unhappy. If you are a U.S. taxpayer, you have killed hundreds of thousands of people in the past 10 years. Sure, you didn't kill them yourself, but you paid someone to do it: The U.S. government.

There is so much U.S. government violence that it is not possible for one person to to document it all. However, here is an article that gives a few examples: History surrounding the U.S. wars with Iraq: Four short stories. The U.S. government has invaded 24 countries since the Second World War!

Other reasons people in the U.S. are unhappy:

The U.S. is the most viciously sexist developed society. Any day on U.S. TV you can see women being violent toward men, in situations in which it is expected you will take it as a joke. Most men in the U.S. don't recognize the adversarial behavior of U.S. women for what it is. Most men in the U.S. think that the anger of U.S. women is "justified"; they aren't really partners with their wives, their relationship is "yes dear". "Yes dear" does not help women be happy; it only gives them further opportunity to act out their anger. Sociologists have done 17 studies, all of which show that women are responsible for slightly more domestic violence than men.

A huge percentage of young men in the U.S. spend a large part of their time playing computer games. That usually means they spend a large part of their time pretending to kill other people. Think about it: That can't be good. The years from 3 to 33 are years when people learn to socialize. For example, that's when people learn to deal with the problems of a sexist society. In the later years, people learn to accept more responsibility and to be managers and other leaders of society. They learn how to know and express their own needs and to think about and satisfy the needs of others at the same time. People who fill many hours playing games don't spend those same hours learning about themselves and others, and the world. How could they expect to be happy?

The state and federal governments in the U.S. have a higher percentage of their citizens in prison than any country in the world. Vice-President Cheney's company is building prisons for the U.S. government.

The U.S. government pays more for secret surveillance than any country in the world, ever. There are the NSA, CIA, FBI, and several other U.S. government agencies who are authorized to operate in any country of the world, and kill people there. U.S. taxpayers are not allowed to know even the names of some of the agencies. They are expected to pay, but they are not allowed to know how the money is spent.

If you consider conflict of interest, the U.S. government is the most corrupt in the developed world. See this article: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. Is it any wonder that two men whose families and friends and business associates have investments in oil and weapons companies have started a war and raised the price of gasoline?

Those are a few of the reasons why people are unhappy in the United States. People overeat when they are unhappy. Overeating is one of the reasons that people in the U.S. have medical problems.

--
... waiting for anrtx.tacoda.net. Why?

"If you're looking at the Dollar Menu in terms of how much food you get it really appears as a good bargain," said Connie Schneider, a nutrition adviser for Fresno County in California. "But if you're looking at it as how many nutrients are you getting for a dollar, it's the least economical."

And yet, America still has the largest number of immigrants per year, anywhere from 1 to 2 million.

"Even allowing for immigration, the United Nations projects that the population of the current European Union members will fall by around 7.5million over the next 45 years. There has not been such a sustained reduction in the European population since the Black Death of the 14th century. (By contrast, the United States population is projected to grow by 44 percent between 2000 and 2050.)" source

Wow, looks like a horrible place to life. If our education sucks, hear care sucks, economy sucks, blah blah, its a wonder why millions flock here? Studies like this are FUD, and immature troglodytes like you love them because they reinforce their perception of the world. Go play in your sandbox.

~nate

"But figures from the US show that Apple, the dominant legal download business in Europe and the US, retains just 4 cents from each 99-cent (55p) track sale while 'mechanical copyright' holders - generally the record labels, who own copyright in the song's recording - take 62 cents or more. Music publishers take the rest - about 8 cents."

But what price is "fair"? Apple says it is 99 cents a song. Of this, Apple gets a sliver--4 cents--while the music publishers snag 8 cents and the record companies pocket most of the rest. Even though record companies earn more per track from downloads than CD sales, industry execs have been pushing for more. One option is a tiered pricing model, with the most popular tunes selling for as much as $3. After all, the music honchos reason, people pay up to $3 for cell-phone ring tones, mere snippets of songs.

I used it because it's amusing and makes the point. If some pissy pedant couldn't see the forest but for a toothpick, I'd just use a different amusing example of why names are important and culturally sensitive. Say, this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/specials/hongkong/062797hon gkong-services.html

Wow, 10%, not quite.

According to this link, losing Apple will account for 2% of IBM's chip sales and IBM's overall chip sales make up only 2-3% of their overall sales revenue company wide. Losing any business is bad but looking big picture, this specific instance had very little impact on IBM.

>As the targets of the program are terrorist or their affiliates

How do you know? How can you know? How can any of us know?

There is no judicial review, even by a secret court. There are no checks and balances.

The FBI agents following up on NSA reports said they were a waste of time and the FBI director questions the wiretaps's legality.

>there is no privacy provision in the Constitution

Doesn't have to be. The Bill of Rights isn't meant as an exhaustive list. That's why there's a Ninth Amendment, to stop people from saying a right doesn't exist because there's no provision for it in the Constitution.

>The NSA wiretap (as in the press) is on communications between suspected terrorists/affiliates OVERSEAS and someone in the US.

OK, so you trust this Administration. I'll skip that debate and ask instead: how will you feel waking up on January 20, 2009, and finding all this power in the hands of Hillary?

And as usual, the policy makers conveniently forget that the vast majority of sexual abuse of children is commited by immediate family members or other close acquaintances. Uncle Charley didn't need the Internet to "read bedtime stories" to little Chip, but apart from pedophile priests (who also didn't use the Internet), the common, garden-variety child molestor doesn't make the papers.

Unless he's killed by a vigilante, of course. (as an off-topic aside, one of the men killed was forced to register because he had been convicted of misdemeanor statuatory rape 40 years ago after sleeping with his girlfriend 2 weeks before her 16th birthday. For that he was killed. See what can happen with bad data retention policies?)

full article

http://movies2.nytimes.com/2006/04/27/movies/27fre e.html

"If anyone manages to go, I'd love to see some real reviews of it."

http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v _id=345768

Putting aside your personal feelings on copyright, that review is enough to make me want to stay away from it. As the review points out, I would be better served by reading Lessig's blog, among others.

Here's a few more:

• Rapping Ruling: Eminem Wins a Summary disposition.
• "Something" in the Way He Rules: George Harrison song parody.
• Dr. Suess goes to Court

And yeah, they're pretty bad.

This closely related and hopeful New York Times Magazine article came out a couple of weeks ago. You need to subscribe (for free) to read it though.

HDTV is in 19% of American households: Early Salvos in the High-Definition DVD Format War One in five in less than five years. It took ten years for color tv to become mass market.

But HDTV isn't your grandad's 21" RCA. Movies @ 1280i are more than "pretty" when projected on your $2000 56" Widescreen Panasonic The theatrical experience is what sells.

The players may cost hundreds of dollars. But HD-DVD at Amazon.com is $20-$25 for mainstream titles like Apollo 13. The conplete Firefly bundled with Serenity in HD will set you back $50.

A story in yesterday's New York Times put HDTV in 19% of American households. Early Salvos in the High-Definition DVD Format War

HD in one in five homes in under five years. That's an astonishing rate of adoption. Not just for HD, but for very large wide-screen projection and multichannel digital sound. $1000-$2000 at entry level.

Amazon.com is shipping Phantom of the Opera on HD-DVD for $20, Serenity for $25. Apollo 13 for $25. You do not pay a premium for HD content if you buy from Amazon or rent from Netflix.

The potential domestic market for HD on disk is the same market which paid $290 million for tickets to see Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire in its initial theatrical release.

American Internet firms typically arrive in China expecting the government to hand them an official blacklist of sites and words they must censor. They quickly discover that no master list exists. Instead, the government simply insists the firms interpret the vague regulations themselves. The companies must do a sort of political mind reading and intuit in advance what the government won't like. ... As a result, Internet executives in China most likely censor far more material than they need to. The Chinese system relies on a classic psychological truth: self-censorship is always far more comprehensive than formal censorship. By having each private company assume responsibility for its corner of the Internet, the government effectively outsources the otherwise unmanageable task of monitoring the billions of e-mail messages, news stories and chat postings that circulate every day in China. The government's preferred method seems to be to leave the companies guessing, then to call up occasionally with angry demands that a Web page be taken down in 24 hours. "It's the panopticon," says James Mulvenon, a China specialist who is the head of a Washington policy group called the Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis. "There's a randomness to their enforcement, and that creates a sense that they're looking at everything."

The true first is the community of Hermiston, Oregon (or, more technically accurately, Morrow county, and a little bit of Umatilla county,) has had a true 100% coverage over 600 square miles. Read the NY Times article (use BugMeNot's suggested user/pass combo of 'spambobby' and 'password', they work.).

I wonder if the technology they'll be using for the Laser TVs will be any use because the new Mitsubishi model coming out next year is supposed to have almost zero width trim.

The article suggests students are slow to adopt digital textbooks because they can't resell them at the end of the semester.

But why should students do this at all? As one law school textbook author has suggested, why not include the price of textbooks in tuition? As he notes, "It's easy for prices to drift upward when the person choosing the product doesn't really care how much it costs."

Yes, tuition would have to go up accordingly, but once the textbooks came out of the school's funds instead of the students', professors would have to justify their textbook recommendations, instead of putting down a bunch of "required texts" that they refer to only lightly, if at all. Perhaps if such a scheme was in place, schools would find that it is in their interest to push digital textbooks more aggressively to keep down the costs of maintaining an inventory of textbooks from semester to semester.

Click here.

Kristof of the New York Times has basically called for a Yahoo boycott (I think he said they should be "shunned" until they make reparations with the families of the imprisoned and set up a scholarship fund for Chinese journalists.) Kristof also opined that Google received a "bum rap".

(Feb 16 op ed, purchase req: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F6 0815F63B5A0C7A8DDDAB0894DE404482&n=Top%2FOpinion%2 FEditorials%20and%20Op-Ed%2FOp-Ed%2FColumnists%2FN icholas%20D%20Kristof )

Alternatives to Yahoo include www.myway.com, an internet porthole that eschews banner ads. ("No banners. No popups. No kidding.")

Boycott Yahoo blog: http://www.booyahoo.blogspot.com/

The obvious solution to this is to use unwilling subjects, such as in the Cincinnati radiation tests.

Somewhat OT: Check out Parallels, as mentioned in the New York Times (scroll halfway down). It's like VMWare for Macs.

from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/magazine/23googl e.html?pagewanted=9&_r=1

I expected Zhao to be much angrier with the American Internet companies than he was. He was surprisingly philosophical. He ranked the companies in order of ethics, ticking them off with his fingers. Google, he said, was at the top of the pile. It was genuinely improving the quality of Chinese information and trying to do its best within a bad system. Microsoft came next; Zhao was obviously unhappy with its decision, but he said that it had produced such an easy-to-use blogging tool that, on balance, Microsoft was helping Chinese people to speak publicly. Yahoo came last, and Zhao had nothing but venom for the company.

"Google has struck a compromise," he said, and compromises are sometimes necessary. Yahoo's behavior, he added, put it in a different category: "Yahoo is a sellout. Chinese people hate Yahoo."* The difference, Zhao said, was that Yahoo had put individual dissidents in serious danger and done so apparently without thinking much about the human damage. (Yahoo did not respond to requests for comment.) Google, by contrast, had avoided introducing any service that could get someone jailed. It was censoring information, but Zhao considered that a sin of omission, rather than of commission.

*bold is mine.

If the chinese people hate Yahoo, then they will have no reason to use Yahoo. If they won't use Yahoo, Yahoo is not going to make any money. Therefore, for what reason is Yahoo in business in China? They're bleeding money in China and support in the United States.

While maybe not about Iraq, the US government is currently involved in the largest, most far reaching classification nightmare since Nixon. Aside from having made up dozens if not hundreds of new sensitive but unclassified classifications of documents that exempt millions of documents from the FOIA despite their unclassified status, the government was recently caught re-classifying some 55,000 historical documents out of the National Archive for no apparent reason other than to cover up historical embarassment on the part of the government.

Classification and secrets in this country are on par with several countries that we criticize for this very thing. The wind is slowly being taken out of the sails of the FOIA, and our right to know as citizens is being whittled away at an unbelievably alarming rate.

This is the most secret administration in the history of the US. Not only have they classified millions of new documents at a cost of billions to the taxpayer that normally would have been declassified in the past (1950s budget information for the CIA, for instance) but the secret re-classification of tens of thousands of documents that have been public for years is a scary, scary precident.

Take the words of the Memorandum of Understanding issued in regards to the now uncovered secret reclassification of documents from the national archive: "It is in the interests of both the CIA and the National Archives and Records Administration to avoid the kind of public notice and researcher complaints that may arise from removing from the open shelves for extended periods of time records that had been public available."

The GP was hardly out of perspective.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/magazine/23googl e.html?ex=1303444800&en=972002761056363f&ei=5090&p artner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Your comment made it into the New York Times.

... paying to someone to clean all the spyware and/or reinstall the operating system and applications, according to The New York Times (
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/technology/17spy .html , http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24690 ).