What I suspect is that the mobile hotspot is probably part of a bundle of data features that tie into other parts of the system that would be difficult-to-impossible to do in another car with just a Mifi.
For example, mobile data would enable traffic updates, map updates, periodic polling for recall info, reporting car operation data or problems to the manufacturer or dealer, etc.
I can see getting an email or a phone call from a service adviser telling me "your car is indicating trouble codes for $car_system, this is a warranty item, would you like to schedule an appointment for service?"
If the issue is device RAM, why would a wipe (which nukes flash and persistent settings) be any kind of fix at all? And if it was a fix, what would make it only short-term?
I can see memory corruption/leaks causing issues over time for a device that is never restarted (I can remember this on my 3Gs on early 3.0 releases) but restarts always fixed those issues and regular restarts (ie, every morning or whatever) kept them from occurring at all.
For a wipe to only be a short-term fix would imply that iOS 4 is corrupting settings or flash over time, which seems unlikely, and if it was it would stand a chance (at least logically) of impacting 3GS and 4G hardware as well.
"This stupid computer shit is a waste of time. Put in that closet with the water and no air conditioning."
(Equipment fails)
"What the fuck do you mean you can't be out here by noon to fix this shit? This is critical to my business, if its not fixed by noon I am out of business."
We usually advise against it if possible, but some of that is consulting CYA; when clients are new to virtualization they are often very sensitive to perceived performance differences between physical and virtual systems. A new virtual environment where someone decided they wanted 8 Windows machines with 8 GB RAM running in 32 GB physical RAM usually gets too far oversubscribed, swaps hard (on a SAN) and the customer complains mightily.
Usually we find that a little tuning of VMs makes sense, since you don't have to robotically give every x32 system 4 GB RAM or every x64 system 8 or 16 GB RAM. "Detuning" the RAM from individual VMs is almost always possible and allows you to keep your VMs RAM sum running within the total physical RAM and avoid the possibility of swapping.
In many ways it's less of an issue than it was, say, a few years ago, too. The CPUs have gotten so powerful that it actually makes sense to buy less CPU per node but buy more nodes (and hence more RAM). The bonus generally being overall more RAM, generally better performance (since I/O is distributed) and greater HA capacity.
Sales even tells me lately that it's cheaper to buy two nodes x 32 GB and a single node x 64GB of RAM.
Yes, I've made use of this myself and have also seen it done similarly in films where the keypad is sprayed with a UV luminescent spray; when illuminated you can easily see which keys are pressed and which aren't.
The obvious "solution" is to require all buttons be pressed (ie, 6 button keypad means 6 digit combinations). One of my gun safes uses an Ilco mechanical lock and you have to push all the buttons; it does allow you to cut the "length" of the combination by using two-button presses as a single combination "digit" but you still have to press all the buttons. The added bonus to combinations is they increase the number of button presses possible when trying to brute force the combination.
I think you're mostly right but I also think you're arguing against human nature at the same time.
It's in a woman's nature to want to be physically attractive, to compete against other women to be "most" attractive -- this has been going on far longer than just our very recent contemporary mass-media society and represents part of the biological imperative for reproduction.
That being said, I think deliberate sexual manipulation by women is kind of pathetic and usually very short-sighted; a hot piece of ass is like cut flowers -- it has a very short shelf life and after the bloom fades they usually end up in the trash.
It would do men good to not allow themselves to be so easily manipulated by it, too, but I think men's inability to control themselves is largely what's behind repressive social rules and laws that hinder women.
I think the idea is that the mission has a defined length of time (ie, you won't be gone from resupply for that long) and that if the batteries last for 1/4 of your mission, 6 is enough power for the entire mission plus extra for delays or problems. You're also not dependent on recharging which takes time and depends on a battery working. With spares, you just replace a battery and if it doesn't work, you take another.
A charger might be a reasonable thing to have for very long missions or for units attached to a mechanical company of some kind. Otherwise it's time-consuming to use and doesn't solve anything if batteries have failed and won't or can't be charged. Further, the only reliable power source in the field is solar power which doesn't help the charging time or the cost of the equipment.
How do we know this has anything at all to do with any high minded ideals at all?
How do know this isn't more about politically loyal and financially compliant entities being allowed to continue operating and disloyal entities or those on some enemies list are being shut down?
As a scenerio, assume that while China's GDP numbers look good there's some slow contraction going on as the economies in the West continue to suck and manufactured goods purchases slow. This leads to rocky business environment and getting rid of the competition makes sense. To keep loyalists loyal, the party thins the heard. The survivors tithe to the party, make money and show their loyalty.
Convenient and high-minded rationales are sold to the people and the west.
Why do I remember reading some long article (NY Times? New Yorker?) about intrigue on the HP board. It may have been Fiorina related, but I seem to recall something to do with cell phone records, etc.
The rules regarding theft of property and the use of lethal force (which in today's language is nearly any force, not just the use of firearms or dangerous weapons) have really changed radically since the mid-1960s.
Prior to the mid-1960s, the law appeared fairly soundly on the side of theft victims. I trolled the back issue database of the NRA's "Armed Citizen" column and was surprised to see a ton of stories from about 1965 and earlier where theft victims shot thieves *in the back* as they ran or even *drove* away, often killing them and getting absolutely no resistance from the police.
Since then there have been a number of legal changes but I also think there has been an increasing pacification of society and a concomitant attitude that "it's only stuff" and it can be replaced by insurance or whatever.
I'm sure this has something to do with the proliferation of "stuff" people own; the more we own, the more is at risk of theft, but at the same time, the more we own, the less value any of it has to us, let alone life/death value.
At any rate, its an interesting to think it was perfectly acceptable to shoot a man in the back for stealing your wallet 50 years ago and now it's considered homicide.
It wasn't that long ago that stealing a man's horse was a hanging offense, and in most circumstances you were given wide latitude to use deadly force to defend yourself against theft, precisely because loss of resources like a horse could imperil a person's life.
Our era of bounty and consequence-free living is nearly over, though, so you can rest easy, it won't be long before we will be living in an era where these guys will get what they have coming to them.
The initial denial was more about being able to prep a response as well as find out if it was true. My guess is some small number of testers knew the final product had some attenuation of signal but that got written off as 'normal' very early on. I also bet that there was probably a lot of talk of anti-Apple conspiracy, AT&T's network, etc, so a root cause with the phone hardware/design probably wasn't considered a major factor.
I think the media blitz and the free bumpers were both an acknowledgment that there was some attenuation but a chance to defend themselves. My guess is that ALL phones really do have some attenuation -- I had awful signal problems with my Motorola Q and that was on Verizon -- that's not just Apple propaganda. The free bumpers was just a way to make people feel better.
Canning the guy? Well, maybe the buck had to stop with someone. While Jobs is probably a micromanaging asshole, I think he's also smart enough to not play RF engineer. While he probably sets some lofty goals for the phone and accepts/rejects some design aspects, the actual engineering gets left to people who know how. It's likely this guy was a victim of his own hubris and had some skin in the game as far as the phone design, antenna design, etc, and perhaps even suppressing signal attenuation or dismissing it as trivial.
I think anyone in technology has worked on a large project and kind of known that there was some glitch but also known that they'd get blamed for it, there was no time, resources or overall appetite to slow a project to fix the glitch and every reason to believe it would lead to little or no problems IF it became an issue down the road.
And there's always the fact that the attenuation may be extremely unusual -- I've talked to a number of iPhone 4 users and none can complain beyond the usual complaints of all cell phone users in terms of signal strength, etc. His firing could be over something else and this timing was just coincidence.
Cert vendors can play games, but don't they just sign public keys? AFAIK, SSL certificate request doesn't include the private key, so a CA doesn't have it. Don't they just sign it for validity and provide some authentication that the cert buyer is who they claim to be?
Even if SSL cert vendors *did* get private keys, there's nothing stopping the paranoid from using self-signed certs which with the right encryption would be highly resistant to tampering or interception.
I can see where hardening the device would help, but I don't see UAE or the Saudis hacking hardware at the same time.
It sounds like Blackberry's security advantage is really limited and it's more about corporate control, provisioning, etc. than security as "interception of communications" versus SSL-equipped handhelds.
Assuming you have a BES server in your organization...
Blackberries, AFAIK, send their data encrypted via the cell provider (RIM has servers on site?), then to RIM's central hub, and then to your BES server at your office, with high-grade end-to-end encryption.
"We're more secure" I think is their selling point.
How is that more secure, than say, an iPhone/Android communicating to an Exchange server directly over the internet but using quality SSL (ie, 2048 bit key, 128 bit AES, etc)?
Is direct, over the Internet communication with SSL encryption somehow not an issue for the Saudis or the other Arab nations? Is it somehow less secure against eavesdropping?
I can imagine there are some tertiary security issues (ie, with BES you wouldn't expose Exchange's SSL port to the internet), but I'm thinking the basic encryption between the handheld and the server.
Isn't the part of the problem that these "ad networks" and the tangled webs of ad brokers, resellers, agencies, service providers, programmers, designers, etc that result the person offering the ad may well be thrice removed from the ad's actual creator, the company being advertised, etc?
For example, if I'm a small agency that wants to place banner ads, I'm not going to bother trying to place them directly with web sites, I go through a network. Now I may go through a small network that places its ads in a larger one. At this point, who is really paying attention to where the ads come from or who they belong to?
Obviously people who buy a car for racing performance have different needs and expectations, but I'd also bet they have different cars and something far more mundane (even if mundane is defined as an AMG S65) for actual driving.
I'd be surprised where 400 hp wouldn't be generally enough -- I "get by" with a 320 hp V8 in my Volvo, and while far from a performance car I'm not sure what I'd do with the extra second another 100 hp would buy me. As it stands now I can be over 80 mph at the end of almost any freeway entrance ramp in my urban area which is almost too fast to merge without nailing the car in front. It'd be fun to hit 120 MPH at the end of the entrance ramp, but you'd be on the brakes instantly to not annihilate the car in front since almost never do you get a wide-open lane.
On open stretches (generally only way outside the urban areas) its fun to nudge 100, but the fine for 25 MPH over the limit is something on the order of $500 and I think they made over a 100 MPH a gross misdemeanor here. A friend with a Bentley Continental GT got nailed at 120 MPH and spent a little money on an attorney, getting his license back, insurance -- peanuts to him, but he still gripes about the hassle.
Ha, you wouldn't be satisfied with a Ferrari. Pick up any rich guy car magazines and note the ads for Ferraris. It's astonishing how many are available with under 20k miles, yet are advertising extensive service on engines, brakes and transmissions.
Owning a Ferrari is like dating a supermodel who is bipolar and addicted to cocaine and heroin. It looks good in public and when it isn't broken, it's fun as hell to drive, but after it spends more time in the shop than on the road you can't wait to get rid of it.
I'd take only 5 Hyundai Genesis V8s in exchange for 1 Ferrari. With a 385 HP V8, it's more power than all but the most recent Ferraris and more performance than you can likely get away with using in almost any part of the US.
It's an IRS violation to cheat on it, and there's a penalty IIRC for underpayment of taxes on your 1040, and I'm sure chronic underwithholding, especially substantial underwithholding will make you a big, fat audit risk. It's also a headache to underwithhold if it results in a large tax bill at the end of the year and it wasn't planned.
Your company doesn't verify it because they're not required to; it's not their liability.
There are people who do it and make it work, but it takes some planning and effort and the net gain isn't huge in most cases, but I appreciate the principles of the anti-tax crowd for being against being taxed on income before you've possessed it.
The problem with the standard deduction is similar; you almost always pay too much and the overpayment amounts to an interest-free loan to the Federal government.
ANY mandatory deduction is a tax on your income before you have it. This means you were unable to invest or earn any reward on about 33% of your income. What if you could earn a 2% rate of return on a 1/3 of your income before giving that 1/3 to the government? That's $3k per year on a $150k income -- that's real money you never have the chance to earn because the government takes it before you can work with it.
Your employer withholds taxes because the IRS requires them to, it has nothing to do with convenience for you or the employer. I'm sure the ultimate reason the IRS chooses to mass withhold (ie, make it the default) is that if they didn't, nobody would save for taxes and 98% of the country would be looking to setup a payment plan because they couldn't afford to pay an entire year's taxes at once.
I'm sure it also evens out cash flow for the government to take money in continuously throughout the year, although I wonder if we wouldn't have more honest government budgeting if the government actually had to "save" its money and could only spend what it really had in the bank.
I thought withholding accomplished that for you -- they take what they think they're owed before you ever see your pay.
At that point, the main motivations for filing an in income tax return are to avoid prison/fines for failing to file an income tax return and to claim your tax refund since the government makes sure the amount they take what they're owed, and then some.
Does this mean as actual paying subscribers to a private residence?
Or does this mean "providing internet access to" some large group of people who primarily use internet cafes, cell phones or some other shared access method?
Slashdot Mirror
It's also not hard to see games where masturbation or stimulation are required.
What I suspect is that the mobile hotspot is probably part of a bundle of data features that tie into other parts of the system that would be difficult-to-impossible to do in another car with just a Mifi.
For example, mobile data would enable traffic updates, map updates, periodic polling for recall info, reporting car operation data or problems to the manufacturer or dealer, etc.
I can see getting an email or a phone call from a service adviser telling me "your car is indicating trouble codes for $car_system, this is a warranty item, would you like to schedule an appointment for service?"
If the issue is device RAM, why would a wipe (which nukes flash and persistent settings) be any kind of fix at all? And if it was a fix, what would make it only short-term?
I can see memory corruption/leaks causing issues over time for a device that is never restarted (I can remember this on my 3Gs on early 3.0 releases) but restarts always fixed those issues and regular restarts (ie, every morning or whatever) kept them from occurring at all.
For a wipe to only be a short-term fix would imply that iOS 4 is corrupting settings or flash over time, which seems unlikely, and if it was it would stand a chance (at least logically) of impacting 3GS and 4G hardware as well.
Indiana Jones? It's usually like being motherfucking Fred Sanford.
"This stupid computer shit is a waste of time. Put in that closet with the water and no air conditioning."
(Equipment fails)
"What the fuck do you mean you can't be out here by noon to fix this shit? This is critical to my business, if its not fixed by noon I am out of business."
Is there a disconnect?
We usually advise against it if possible, but some of that is consulting CYA; when clients are new to virtualization they are often very sensitive to perceived performance differences between physical and virtual systems. A new virtual environment where someone decided they wanted 8 Windows machines with 8 GB RAM running in 32 GB physical RAM usually gets too far oversubscribed, swaps hard (on a SAN) and the customer complains mightily.
Usually we find that a little tuning of VMs makes sense, since you don't have to robotically give every x32 system 4 GB RAM or every x64 system 8 or 16 GB RAM. "Detuning" the RAM from individual VMs is almost always possible and allows you to keep your VMs RAM sum running within the total physical RAM and avoid the possibility of swapping.
In many ways it's less of an issue than it was, say, a few years ago, too. The CPUs have gotten so powerful that it actually makes sense to buy less CPU per node but buy more nodes (and hence more RAM). The bonus generally being overall more RAM, generally better performance (since I/O is distributed) and greater HA capacity.
Sales even tells me lately that it's cheaper to buy two nodes x 32 GB and a single node x 64GB of RAM.
Yes, I've made use of this myself and have also seen it done similarly in films where the keypad is sprayed with a UV luminescent spray; when illuminated you can easily see which keys are pressed and which aren't.
The obvious "solution" is to require all buttons be pressed (ie, 6 button keypad means 6 digit combinations). One of my gun safes uses an Ilco mechanical lock and you have to push all the buttons; it does allow you to cut the "length" of the combination by using two-button presses as a single combination "digit" but you still have to press all the buttons. The added bonus to combinations is they increase the number of button presses possible when trying to brute force the combination.
I think you're mostly right but I also think you're arguing against human nature at the same time.
It's in a woman's nature to want to be physically attractive, to compete against other women to be "most" attractive -- this has been going on far longer than just our very recent contemporary mass-media society and represents part of the biological imperative for reproduction.
That being said, I think deliberate sexual manipulation by women is kind of pathetic and usually very short-sighted; a hot piece of ass is like cut flowers -- it has a very short shelf life and after the bloom fades they usually end up in the trash.
It would do men good to not allow themselves to be so easily manipulated by it, too, but I think men's inability to control themselves is largely what's behind repressive social rules and laws that hinder women.
I think the idea is that the mission has a defined length of time (ie, you won't be gone from resupply for that long) and that if the batteries last for 1/4 of your mission, 6 is enough power for the entire mission plus extra for delays or problems. You're also not dependent on recharging which takes time and depends on a battery working. With spares, you just replace a battery and if it doesn't work, you take another.
A charger might be a reasonable thing to have for very long missions or for units attached to a mechanical company of some kind. Otherwise it's time-consuming to use and doesn't solve anything if batteries have failed and won't or can't be charged. Further, the only reliable power source in the field is solar power which doesn't help the charging time or the cost of the equipment.
How do we know this has anything at all to do with any high minded ideals at all?
How do know this isn't more about politically loyal and financially compliant entities being allowed to continue operating and disloyal entities or those on some enemies list are being shut down?
As a scenerio, assume that while China's GDP numbers look good there's some slow contraction going on as the economies in the West continue to suck and manufactured goods purchases slow. This leads to rocky business environment and getting rid of the competition makes sense. To keep loyalists loyal, the party thins the heard. The survivors tithe to the party, make money and show their loyalty.
Convenient and high-minded rationales are sold to the people and the west.
Why do I remember reading some long article (NY Times? New Yorker?) about intrigue on the HP board. It may have been Fiorina related, but I seem to recall something to do with cell phone records, etc.
The rules regarding theft of property and the use of lethal force (which in today's language is nearly any force, not just the use of firearms or dangerous weapons) have really changed radically since the mid-1960s.
Prior to the mid-1960s, the law appeared fairly soundly on the side of theft victims. I trolled the back issue database of the NRA's "Armed Citizen" column and was surprised to see a ton of stories from about 1965 and earlier where theft victims shot thieves *in the back* as they ran or even *drove* away, often killing them and getting absolutely no resistance from the police.
Since then there have been a number of legal changes but I also think there has been an increasing pacification of society and a concomitant attitude that "it's only stuff" and it can be replaced by insurance or whatever.
I'm sure this has something to do with the proliferation of "stuff" people own; the more we own, the more is at risk of theft, but at the same time, the more we own, the less value any of it has to us, let alone life/death value.
At any rate, its an interesting to think it was perfectly acceptable to shoot a man in the back for stealing your wallet 50 years ago and now it's considered homicide.
It wasn't that long ago that stealing a man's horse was a hanging offense, and in most circumstances you were given wide latitude to use deadly force to defend yourself against theft, precisely because loss of resources like a horse could imperil a person's life.
Our era of bounty and consequence-free living is nearly over, though, so you can rest easy, it won't be long before we will be living in an era where these guys will get what they have coming to them.
Could it be that there's truth on both sides?
Here's my guess:
The initial denial was more about being able to prep a response as well as find out if it was true. My guess is some small number of testers knew the final product had some attenuation of signal but that got written off as 'normal' very early on. I also bet that there was probably a lot of talk of anti-Apple conspiracy, AT&T's network, etc, so a root cause with the phone hardware/design probably wasn't considered a major factor.
I think the media blitz and the free bumpers were both an acknowledgment that there was some attenuation but a chance to defend themselves. My guess is that ALL phones really do have some attenuation -- I had awful signal problems with my Motorola Q and that was on Verizon -- that's not just Apple propaganda. The free bumpers was just a way to make people feel better.
Canning the guy? Well, maybe the buck had to stop with someone. While Jobs is probably a micromanaging asshole, I think he's also smart enough to not play RF engineer. While he probably sets some lofty goals for the phone and accepts/rejects some design aspects, the actual engineering gets left to people who know how. It's likely this guy was a victim of his own hubris and had some skin in the game as far as the phone design, antenna design, etc, and perhaps even suppressing signal attenuation or dismissing it as trivial.
I think anyone in technology has worked on a large project and kind of known that there was some glitch but also known that they'd get blamed for it, there was no time, resources or overall appetite to slow a project to fix the glitch and every reason to believe it would lead to little or no problems IF it became an issue down the road.
And there's always the fact that the attenuation may be extremely unusual -- I've talked to a number of iPhone 4 users and none can complain beyond the usual complaints of all cell phone users in terms of signal strength, etc. His firing could be over something else and this timing was just coincidence.
Cert vendors can play games, but don't they just sign public keys? AFAIK, SSL certificate request doesn't include the private key, so a CA doesn't have it. Don't they just sign it for validity and provide some authentication that the cert buyer is who they claim to be?
Even if SSL cert vendors *did* get private keys, there's nothing stopping the paranoid from using self-signed certs which with the right encryption would be highly resistant to tampering or interception.
I can see where hardening the device would help, but I don't see UAE or the Saudis hacking hardware at the same time.
It sounds like Blackberry's security advantage is really limited and it's more about corporate control, provisioning, etc. than security as "interception of communications" versus SSL-equipped handhelds.
Assuming you have a BES server in your organization...
Blackberries, AFAIK, send their data encrypted via the cell provider (RIM has servers on site?), then to RIM's central hub, and then to your BES server at your office, with high-grade end-to-end encryption.
"We're more secure" I think is their selling point.
How is that more secure, than say, an iPhone/Android communicating to an Exchange server directly over the internet but using quality SSL (ie, 2048 bit key, 128 bit AES, etc)?
Is direct, over the Internet communication with SSL encryption somehow not an issue for the Saudis or the other Arab nations? Is it somehow less secure against eavesdropping?
I can imagine there are some tertiary security issues (ie, with BES you wouldn't expose Exchange's SSL port to the internet), but I'm thinking the basic encryption between the handheld and the server.
He should get a much more severe punishment, including a massive fine payable to the victim.
Faking this kind of thing should be a 10 year minimum stretch plus a minimum 100,000 dollars payable to the victim.
Isn't the part of the problem that these "ad networks" and the tangled webs of ad brokers, resellers, agencies, service providers, programmers, designers, etc that result the person offering the ad may well be thrice removed from the ad's actual creator, the company being advertised, etc?
For example, if I'm a small agency that wants to place banner ads, I'm not going to bother trying to place them directly with web sites, I go through a network. Now I may go through a small network that places its ads in a larger one. At this point, who is really paying attention to where the ads come from or who they belong to?
Obviously people who buy a car for racing performance have different needs and expectations, but I'd also bet they have different cars and something far more mundane (even if mundane is defined as an AMG S65) for actual driving.
I'd be surprised where 400 hp wouldn't be generally enough -- I "get by" with a 320 hp V8 in my Volvo, and while far from a performance car I'm not sure what I'd do with the extra second another 100 hp would buy me. As it stands now I can be over 80 mph at the end of almost any freeway entrance ramp in my urban area which is almost too fast to merge without nailing the car in front. It'd be fun to hit 120 MPH at the end of the entrance ramp, but you'd be on the brakes instantly to not annihilate the car in front since almost never do you get a wide-open lane.
On open stretches (generally only way outside the urban areas) its fun to nudge 100, but the fine for 25 MPH over the limit is something on the order of $500 and I think they made over a 100 MPH a gross misdemeanor here. A friend with a Bentley Continental GT got nailed at 120 MPH and spent a little money on an attorney, getting his license back, insurance -- peanuts to him, but he still gripes about the hassle.
Ha, you wouldn't be satisfied with a Ferrari. Pick up any rich guy car magazines and note the ads for Ferraris. It's astonishing how many are available with under 20k miles, yet are advertising extensive service on engines, brakes and transmissions.
Owning a Ferrari is like dating a supermodel who is bipolar and addicted to cocaine and heroin. It looks good in public and when it isn't broken, it's fun as hell to drive, but after it spends more time in the shop than on the road you can't wait to get rid of it.
I'd take only 5 Hyundai Genesis V8s in exchange for 1 Ferrari. With a 385 HP V8, it's more power than all but the most recent Ferraris and more performance than you can likely get away with using in almost any part of the US.
It's an IRS violation to cheat on it, and there's a penalty IIRC for underpayment of taxes on your 1040, and I'm sure chronic underwithholding, especially substantial underwithholding will make you a big, fat audit risk. It's also a headache to underwithhold if it results in a large tax bill at the end of the year and it wasn't planned.
Your company doesn't verify it because they're not required to; it's not their liability.
There are people who do it and make it work, but it takes some planning and effort and the net gain isn't huge in most cases, but I appreciate the principles of the anti-tax crowd for being against being taxed on income before you've possessed it.
The problem with the standard deduction is similar; you almost always pay too much and the overpayment amounts to an interest-free loan to the Federal government.
ANY mandatory deduction is a tax on your income before you have it. This means you were unable to invest or earn any reward on about 33% of your income. What if you could earn a 2% rate of return on a 1/3 of your income before giving that 1/3 to the government? That's $3k per year on a $150k income -- that's real money you never have the chance to earn because the government takes it before you can work with it.
Your employer withholds taxes because the IRS requires them to, it has nothing to do with convenience for you or the employer. I'm sure the ultimate reason the IRS chooses to mass withhold (ie, make it the default) is that if they didn't, nobody would save for taxes and 98% of the country would be looking to setup a payment plan because they couldn't afford to pay an entire year's taxes at once.
I'm sure it also evens out cash flow for the government to take money in continuously throughout the year, although I wonder if we wouldn't have more honest government budgeting if the government actually had to "save" its money and could only spend what it really had in the bank.
I thought withholding accomplished that for you -- they take what they think they're owed before you ever see your pay.
At that point, the main motivations for filing an in income tax return are to avoid prison/fines for failing to file an income tax return and to claim your tax refund since the government makes sure the amount they take what they're owed, and then some.
Except that farm-raised boar is called "pork" and there's already a low market price associated with it.
Does this mean as actual paying subscribers to a private residence?
Or does this mean "providing internet access to" some large group of people who primarily use internet cafes, cell phones or some other shared access method?