So how much time do you really want to waste staking out a phone that they could simply dump in a bin for a week until it's out of charge.
Also, I have no insight into how accurate the position could be determined in 3D space if one were so inclined as to make cell phones do that. In that case you may be able to narrow it down significantly.
All the carriers need to agree to share a database, and there's no reason the US couldn't share the database with anyone in a country that uses the same cellular technology.
Falsely placing a phone on the system as stolen could be dealt with as fraud, which it would be.
The US population is only about 310 million, and I live in a city of 400k people (not in the US thankfully), spread out over about 400 square kilometres. A significant portion of the population (most of the students and most of the seniors) live in high rise complexes in specific areas. Typically not more than a dozen floors or so, but once you get over about 4 floors it's a matter of how dense, not whether or not it counts as urban for our purposes.
http://www.nmhc.org/Content.cfm?ItemNumber=55508 provides figures for housing. Of just the renters (not owners) about 50% of them living buildings with 2 or more units, and that numbers about 50 million people. Just renting. the last chart (State Distribution of Apartment Residents, 2010) averages out to about 10% of the population living in apartments, but split units would pose a similar problem.
I'd go so far as to give the percent of the US population living in non uniquely identifiable buildings as somewhere around 50 million but definitely not more than 80 million and much more likely to be close to the 50 million number, or about 1/6th of the population.
My point is even if that's how things are done in the US, there's no overarching reason why those thresholds need to be where they are. Past decisions without connection to modern technological capability don't help anyone, other than lawyers.
I don't see why the fourth amendment particularly matters. You are (supposedly) protected from unreasonable searches, but the discussion has centred around what should count as reasonable, which is where the discussion should be. Besides that, I'm not making any particular claim as to what it should or should not be, because without a sense of how accurate a phone locator could be in 3D space (if they were required to be included to a particular tolerance for example) it's non starter of a discussion.
If the flat is really large you could probably pin it down more precisely too.
Besides that find my iPhone is a specific implementation of a solution to a problem, that doesn't mean you couldn't construct a better, less privacy invasive and more viable solution as well.
So what's the correct error range? 2 units? 1? 1 with 3 inhabitants? We're arguing degree here.
If you can pin down to a specific house with 1 resident, and that's legal, everything else is a matter of where you want to set the threshold for reasonable. I specifically left the statement open ended for that reason.
Right, the trick is that the phone has to be taken to a location that you can uniquely identify, or be given to a person you can uniquely identify.
The problem with any sort of GPS tracking is that it has an error range. If you can pin down that the phone is in my building, but the building has 120 units in it. Is it really worth search 120 units for a 500 dollar phone? Actually maybe it is, if in the long run you set the precedent that the police will hunt you down and arrest you if you steal a 500 dollar phone, but it might not be. Different people will have different tolerances for these things.
One of my friends in san francisco had his iphone stolen with find my iphone on it. The guy who stole it took it to his own house. And as the article states if the police can real time track it guess what? Right. That guy got caught. Take it to an apartment, or an area with a lot of tightly grouped living spaces and you're SOL.
All of which goes to show that all of the phone carriers need to have a stolen device list that will disable stolen phones.
I'm actually surprised Switzerland, France, Israel and a few others don't have citizenship taxes as well. For those countries citizenship entitles you to a whole lot of protection internationally (from extradition, for your investments etc.). Some countries (notably poor ones) don't have citizenship taxes but they are supreme assholes about what you can take in and out of the country.
Having a citizen who doesn't pay taxes can pose real problems, and having citizenship in certain countries provides a lot of privileges (e.g. having citizenship in any EU country lets you work and immediately claim residency in any EU country sort of thing, I think it's more complex than that though). I remember a few years ago when there was an evacuation of foreigners from Lebanon Canada was cooperating with brazil to get each others nationals out (no idea why brazil). The problem with this plan is that it was costing a shit load of money to get people out, and not all of them would be able to pay it back even if you demanded it of them. So who's footing the bill? Those of us who pay taxes back in canada. Now that's a bizarre rare event and shit happens, but if you can use your citizenship as a shield to get away from something you did elsewhere that does incur a cost to the government.
For most countries it's probably not worth it for the relatively small amount of money they'd get. But I would have expected that a few other places would have had citizenship taxes.
Facebook had been valuing itself based on some sort of private exchange (I'm not up on US rules for these things so forgive me if I'm slightly off). people who owned facebook shares were borrowing against them and selling them in this somewhat private (completely legal) exchange which is where they came up with the price.
Now the problem is that retail investors were used to IPO's being massively undervalued and immediately going up up up after launch. Google tried to avoid that by using a dutch auction, and it worked out better than a traditional IPO, but not as well as facebooks scheme of privately trading it first, then publicly trading it.
Then comes the 'public' part of the whole show. Institutional investors were (rightly) concerned about zuckerbergs control, general disinterest in talking to them and no one really having a good way to predict future revenue. Sure they disclosed that there is a growing collection of mobile users, and they haven't figured out how to make money on mobile yet. But that is A: not news and B: not particularly helpful. For a small time retail investor, who has no control anyway, they couldn't care less about zuckerberg having >50% of the voting power or not, and they have no way to guess what mobile revenue could be. Institutionals care quite a lot about control, and will throw and MBA at guessing mobile revenue and presume their made up bullshit has some connection to reality.
You have to pay taxes on overseas income if you are canadian resident, and you have to specially disclose if you have foreign assets over 100k or some number around there. If you are a non resident in canada you still have to file income taxes on income earned in canada, which can then be dealt with through the ungodly myriad of tax treaties.
However, if you are *living* out of canada for more than 6 months you are no longer a resident, and do not pay taxes. You also are not automatically covered for health insurance.
*liviing* is important. You can spend 6 months out of canada and still be considered living in canada if you don't have a residence out of the country, and meet the criteria for strong ties within canada (and don't spend 6 months outside of canada in the same place I would presume).
As far as I know the only two countries in the world with citizenship tax are eretria and the US. (http://renunciationguide.com/Citizenship-Based-Taxation-International-Comparison.html) Although I grant that that source is a bit sketchy. Wikipedia says the same thing (that the source is sketchy and quotes the same information).
Well not just remotely access, you need to remotely have administrator access, or have otherwise compromised the machine.
Which makes this a half MS and half RSA problem. If your software absolutely must run on windows, no matter how unsuitable windows is for the task, then you rely on microsoft API's and general OS features/security etc. If they don't secure their secure device API properly then there is only so much you can do, equally if they don't document how to properly use/connect to a secure device API you're equally screwed.
It also reduces the RSA token problem to the same problem as everything else in security. If machine isn't properly secured, both with regular software updates/AV/Firewalling, and from users clicking on random files with administrator privileges then anything else you do is basically pointless.
There is a fairly interesting question of what legal rights she has to facebook ownership based on their relationship, whether or not they count as common law (which given that they've been living together for some time they might) and what that would imply, if the timing of the marriage specifically would include or exclude her from being able to claim a chunk of assets etc.
Not that the article addresses any of those. But those would make for an interesting/. article because they apply equally well whether your company just IPO'd at 100 billion dollars or 100 000 dollars, and happen to be topical based on current events.
The article basically says 'have a prenup because Donald Trump says so'. The interesting questions are all about what could or could not be in the prenup given their current (and past) status. Sure, he could probably have written in an exclusion that she can't make any future claims against any inheritance he has from his parents. But that's a boring pittance compared to how much money he just made.
Usually what they do is simply return different results depending on where you're from and people don't know differently. I presume they have either stopped doing that in general or in this case there's no clear agreement even based on where you are what the official name is. (Obviously in Iran it's the 'persian gulf' but the US, EU and UN may not have any official position on the matter as it's not a territorial dispute, it's just a terminology dispute).
Even if they do have an officially recognized name the relevant data entry guy at google might not have bothered to look it up, or google just doesn't care all that much and figured this was at least likely to make everyone equally mad.
And then they won't buy iphones the next time around. If you really like how Siri 1.0 behaves, and hate Siri 2.0 someone who comes along with a non iPhone Siri clone you may find it worthwhile to switch.
Facebook has managed to behave the way it does for the same way Wiretapping laws didn't apply to Skype for a long time, as long as you're a bit player in the business no one gives a shit what you do. As Facebook has gotten big governments have started to take notice. The bigger they are, and the more public they are the more likely governments are to take notice, and if rules don't exist they'll write new ones.
Governments are slow to react to change, that's the nature of the beast, and they have a lot of things on legislative plates that always seem far more pressing than whatever problem I think they should be addressing today. But that's beside the point, piss enough enough important representatives with TSA groping, Privacy Violations (wait until some important senators kid gets stalked via facebook and see how quickly the rules change), or whatever else and see just how quickly government can write new laws. And being publicly traded valued at 100 billion dollars means you don't have a lot of excuses about 'we can't afford to run our business like that' and if you don't comply your shareholders and the government will not be pleased.
Not yet anyway. If someone else comes out with a better equivalent to Siri, or Siri starts producing terrible results that aren't for gimmicky questions people will drop it like a rock.
Imagine if you could inject ads directly into Siri for example, queries would give preferential results based on the location you queried from and common terms were bid for (say optometrist, and the highest bidding optometrist within 10Km would get their result) that could, in the long run, seriously undermine the credibility of a project like Siri. Right now it's experimental, it can fail humourously and no one gets to fussed about it. But if there are competitors on the market, that could be a problem.
Well that's the case with all advertising, it's hard to know if, or how it ever directly pays off. For some things (like cars) you don't seriously expect someone is going to buy a car because they saw it on TV or Facebook or because GM owns a sports stadium. You're trying to create some hard to define 'brand awareness' so that when people think of cars they think GM, and give them enough of a sense of what you offer that they'll show up at a showroom.
It sounds silly to say 'think GM' when buying a car, but it isn't. You want people to think GM is doing well enough that they can afford advertising, that they're in tune with whatever market facebook connects to (1/7th of the planet, and probably half the people in the world who are able to drive), in the case of a stadium you're creating the false impression they're being good corporate citizens, that sort of thing. If people don't see you advertising but they see someone else's then they assume you don't really have anything worth selling.
In terms of internet advertising in general I think this is tricky. Just because you don't click on an ad doesn't mean you didn't see it, and doesn't mean it isn't contributing to your 'think GM when buying a car'. But if people are using ad blocking software they may not even be seeing your ad, so you get nothing out of it. Some people are completely overwhelmed by 'computers' and trying to advertise to them is about as useful as sending out GM fliers to nursing home patients. So I could see that facebook ads for cars may be worthless. That doesn't mean facebook ads for everything are worthless, or if they maybe need to use a different advertising approach on facebook (different size or style of ads, celebrity pitches, that sort of thing), but my guess is that Facebook ads don't have a lot of return for things that aren't related to Facebook, which is why, at least around here, it has only been this year that we finally started seeing ads that weren't extremely sketchy, and right now we don't see very many ads for things that aren't facebook related (although right now it's showing me a Diablo III ad).
I'm not up on US pension law, so I'm not really sure I understand what would have happened had GM outright collapsed. There is some sort of pension plan I think, that stands on its own, but was presumably underfunded, so the government would have been on the hook for some of that as an insurer, and then having people in poverty who were no longer receiving pension benefits.
But I would think overall people on GM pensions would have been screwed no matter what, especially if they had defined benefit plans, there was no way GM could continue to pay them with their finances in the state they were.
considering he almost got the company broken up for anti trust? Ya, probably he was. Playing with fire, or in MS's case government regulators is the sort of thing a CEO should try and avoid.
How had that been working out for the car companies prior to 2008? If you build a new car factory you don't build it in michigan or ontario if you could avoid it. You build it in the south or another country and leave detroit a wreck of a city.
GM's biggest value would have been its patent portfolio, and probably a handful of engineers. Everyone else would have been on the unemployment rolls because if you have to build in the US, you would rather build in the south, if you don't have to build in the US you build in mexico, japan, china, germany etc.
As it was GM did go bankrupt, the government managing it meant it was a relatively orderly transition, workers took huge pay cuts, without hugely long periods of unemployment, and the factories were kept where they were rather than being abandoned so people didn't have to move to try and find jobs etc.
His point I think is that the Iraqi's personally pirate the Windows OS in some non trivial percent, and if the US military is compelled to pay for it they can charge a pile more money.
Slashdot Mirror
So how much time do you really want to waste staking out a phone that they could simply dump in a bin for a week until it's out of charge.
Also, I have no insight into how accurate the position could be determined in 3D space if one were so inclined as to make cell phones do that. In that case you may be able to narrow it down significantly.
This.
All the carriers need to agree to share a database, and there's no reason the US couldn't share the database with anyone in a country that uses the same cellular technology.
Falsely placing a phone on the system as stolen could be dealt with as fraud, which it would be.
The US population is only about 310 million, and I live in a city of 400k people (not in the US thankfully), spread out over about 400 square kilometres. A significant portion of the population (most of the students and most of the seniors) live in high rise complexes in specific areas. Typically not more than a dozen floors or so, but once you get over about 4 floors it's a matter of how dense, not whether or not it counts as urban for our purposes.
http://www.nmhc.org/Content.cfm?ItemNumber=55508 provides figures for housing. Of just the renters (not owners) about 50% of them living buildings with 2 or more units, and that numbers about 50 million people. Just renting. the last chart (State Distribution of Apartment Residents, 2010) averages out to about 10% of the population living in apartments, but split units would pose a similar problem.
I'd go so far as to give the percent of the US population living in non uniquely identifiable buildings as somewhere around 50 million but definitely not more than 80 million and much more likely to be close to the 50 million number, or about 1/6th of the population.
My point is even if that's how things are done in the US, there's no overarching reason why those thresholds need to be where they are. Past decisions without connection to modern technological capability don't help anyone, other than lawyers.
I don't see why the fourth amendment particularly matters. You are (supposedly) protected from unreasonable searches, but the discussion has centred around what should count as reasonable, which is where the discussion should be. Besides that, I'm not making any particular claim as to what it should or should not be, because without a sense of how accurate a phone locator could be in 3D space (if they were required to be included to a particular tolerance for example) it's non starter of a discussion.
http://proximityone.com/urbanpopulation.htm
About 80% of the US population is Urban, but that would include suburban population as well and I can't find the data for which is which
And ya, if the phone can provide data to within one apartment for example, why wouldn't you use that?
If the flat is really large you could probably pin it down more precisely too.
Besides that find my iPhone is a specific implementation of a solution to a problem, that doesn't mean you couldn't construct a better, less privacy invasive and more viable solution as well.
So what's the correct error range? 2 units? 1? 1 with 3 inhabitants? We're arguing degree here.
If you can pin down to a specific house with 1 resident, and that's legal, everything else is a matter of where you want to set the threshold for reasonable. I specifically left the statement open ended for that reason.
Right, the trick is that the phone has to be taken to a location that you can uniquely identify, or be given to a person you can uniquely identify.
The problem with any sort of GPS tracking is that it has an error range. If you can pin down that the phone is in my building, but the building has 120 units in it. Is it really worth search 120 units for a 500 dollar phone? Actually maybe it is, if in the long run you set the precedent that the police will hunt you down and arrest you if you steal a 500 dollar phone, but it might not be. Different people will have different tolerances for these things.
One of my friends in san francisco had his iphone stolen with find my iphone on it. The guy who stole it took it to his own house. And as the article states if the police can real time track it guess what? Right. That guy got caught. Take it to an apartment, or an area with a lot of tightly grouped living spaces and you're SOL.
All of which goes to show that all of the phone carriers need to have a stolen device list that will disable stolen phones.
Er... why?
I'm actually surprised Switzerland, France, Israel and a few others don't have citizenship taxes as well. For those countries citizenship entitles you to a whole lot of protection internationally (from extradition, for your investments etc.). Some countries (notably poor ones) don't have citizenship taxes but they are supreme assholes about what you can take in and out of the country.
Having a citizen who doesn't pay taxes can pose real problems, and having citizenship in certain countries provides a lot of privileges (e.g. having citizenship in any EU country lets you work and immediately claim residency in any EU country sort of thing, I think it's more complex than that though). I remember a few years ago when there was an evacuation of foreigners from Lebanon Canada was cooperating with brazil to get each others nationals out (no idea why brazil). The problem with this plan is that it was costing a shit load of money to get people out, and not all of them would be able to pay it back even if you demanded it of them. So who's footing the bill? Those of us who pay taxes back in canada. Now that's a bizarre rare event and shit happens, but if you can use your citizenship as a shield to get away from something you did elsewhere that does incur a cost to the government.
For most countries it's probably not worth it for the relatively small amount of money they'd get. But I would have expected that a few other places would have had citizenship taxes.
Therein lies the problem.
Facebook had been valuing itself based on some sort of private exchange (I'm not up on US rules for these things so forgive me if I'm slightly off). people who owned facebook shares were borrowing against them and selling them in this somewhat private (completely legal) exchange which is where they came up with the price.
Now the problem is that retail investors were used to IPO's being massively undervalued and immediately going up up up after launch. Google tried to avoid that by using a dutch auction, and it worked out better than a traditional IPO, but not as well as facebooks scheme of privately trading it first, then publicly trading it.
Then comes the 'public' part of the whole show. Institutional investors were (rightly) concerned about zuckerbergs control, general disinterest in talking to them and no one really having a good way to predict future revenue. Sure they disclosed that there is a growing collection of mobile users, and they haven't figured out how to make money on mobile yet. But that is A: not news and B: not particularly helpful. For a small time retail investor, who has no control anyway, they couldn't care less about zuckerberg having >50% of the voting power or not, and they have no way to guess what mobile revenue could be. Institutionals care quite a lot about control, and will throw and MBA at guessing mobile revenue and presume their made up bullshit has some connection to reality.
In canada we do not no.
You have to pay taxes on overseas income if you are canadian resident, and you have to specially disclose if you have foreign assets over 100k or some number around there. If you are a non resident in canada you still have to file income taxes on income earned in canada, which can then be dealt with through the ungodly myriad of tax treaties.
However, if you are *living* out of canada for more than 6 months you are no longer a resident, and do not pay taxes. You also are not automatically covered for health insurance.
*liviing* is important. You can spend 6 months out of canada and still be considered living in canada if you don't have a residence out of the country, and meet the criteria for strong ties within canada (and don't spend 6 months outside of canada in the same place I would presume).
As far as I know the only two countries in the world with citizenship tax are eretria and the US. (http://renunciationguide.com/Citizenship-Based-Taxation-International-Comparison.html) Although I grant that that source is a bit sketchy. Wikipedia says the same thing (that the source is sketchy and quotes the same information).
Well not just remotely access, you need to remotely have administrator access, or have otherwise compromised the machine.
Which makes this a half MS and half RSA problem. If your software absolutely must run on windows, no matter how unsuitable windows is for the task, then you rely on microsoft API's and general OS features/security etc. If they don't secure their secure device API properly then there is only so much you can do, equally if they don't document how to properly use/connect to a secure device API you're equally screwed.
It also reduces the RSA token problem to the same problem as everything else in security. If machine isn't properly secured, both with regular software updates/AV/Firewalling, and from users clicking on random files with administrator privileges then anything else you do is basically pointless.
There is a fairly interesting question of what legal rights she has to facebook ownership based on their relationship, whether or not they count as common law (which given that they've been living together for some time they might) and what that would imply, if the timing of the marriage specifically would include or exclude her from being able to claim a chunk of assets etc.
Not that the article addresses any of those. But those would make for an interesting /. article because they apply equally well whether your company just IPO'd at 100 billion dollars or 100 000 dollars, and happen to be topical based on current events.
The article basically says 'have a prenup because Donald Trump says so'. The interesting questions are all about what could or could not be in the prenup given their current (and past) status. Sure, he could probably have written in an exclusion that she can't make any future claims against any inheritance he has from his parents. But that's a boring pittance compared to how much money he just made.
Usually what they do is simply return different results depending on where you're from and people don't know differently. I presume they have either stopped doing that in general or in this case there's no clear agreement even based on where you are what the official name is. (Obviously in Iran it's the 'persian gulf' but the US, EU and UN may not have any official position on the matter as it's not a territorial dispute, it's just a terminology dispute).
Even if they do have an officially recognized name the relevant data entry guy at google might not have bothered to look it up, or google just doesn't care all that much and figured this was at least likely to make everyone equally mad.
And then they won't buy iphones the next time around. If you really like how Siri 1.0 behaves, and hate Siri 2.0 someone who comes along with a non iPhone Siri clone you may find it worthwhile to switch.
And might be why they won't do it.
Facebook has managed to behave the way it does for the same way Wiretapping laws didn't apply to Skype for a long time, as long as you're a bit player in the business no one gives a shit what you do. As Facebook has gotten big governments have started to take notice. The bigger they are, and the more public they are the more likely governments are to take notice, and if rules don't exist they'll write new ones.
Governments are slow to react to change, that's the nature of the beast, and they have a lot of things on legislative plates that always seem far more pressing than whatever problem I think they should be addressing today. But that's beside the point, piss enough enough important representatives with TSA groping, Privacy Violations (wait until some important senators kid gets stalked via facebook and see how quickly the rules change), or whatever else and see just how quickly government can write new laws. And being publicly traded valued at 100 billion dollars means you don't have a lot of excuses about 'we can't afford to run our business like that' and if you don't comply your shareholders and the government will not be pleased.
Not yet anyway. If someone else comes out with a better equivalent to Siri, or Siri starts producing terrible results that aren't for gimmicky questions people will drop it like a rock.
Imagine if you could inject ads directly into Siri for example, queries would give preferential results based on the location you queried from and common terms were bid for (say optometrist, and the highest bidding optometrist within 10Km would get their result) that could, in the long run, seriously undermine the credibility of a project like Siri. Right now it's experimental, it can fail humourously and no one gets to fussed about it. But if there are competitors on the market, that could be a problem.
Well that's the case with all advertising, it's hard to know if, or how it ever directly pays off. For some things (like cars) you don't seriously expect someone is going to buy a car because they saw it on TV or Facebook or because GM owns a sports stadium. You're trying to create some hard to define 'brand awareness' so that when people think of cars they think GM, and give them enough of a sense of what you offer that they'll show up at a showroom.
It sounds silly to say 'think GM' when buying a car, but it isn't. You want people to think GM is doing well enough that they can afford advertising, that they're in tune with whatever market facebook connects to (1/7th of the planet, and probably half the people in the world who are able to drive), in the case of a stadium you're creating the false impression they're being good corporate citizens, that sort of thing. If people don't see you advertising but they see someone else's then they assume you don't really have anything worth selling.
In terms of internet advertising in general I think this is tricky. Just because you don't click on an ad doesn't mean you didn't see it, and doesn't mean it isn't contributing to your 'think GM when buying a car'. But if people are using ad blocking software they may not even be seeing your ad, so you get nothing out of it. Some people are completely overwhelmed by 'computers' and trying to advertise to them is about as useful as sending out GM fliers to nursing home patients. So I could see that facebook ads for cars may be worthless. That doesn't mean facebook ads for everything are worthless, or if they maybe need to use a different advertising approach on facebook (different size or style of ads, celebrity pitches, that sort of thing), but my guess is that Facebook ads don't have a lot of return for things that aren't related to Facebook, which is why, at least around here, it has only been this year that we finally started seeing ads that weren't extremely sketchy, and right now we don't see very many ads for things that aren't facebook related (although right now it's showing me a Diablo III ad).
I'm not up on US pension law, so I'm not really sure I understand what would have happened had GM outright collapsed. There is some sort of pension plan I think, that stands on its own, but was presumably underfunded, so the government would have been on the hook for some of that as an insurer, and then having people in poverty who were no longer receiving pension benefits.
But I would think overall people on GM pensions would have been screwed no matter what, especially if they had defined benefit plans, there was no way GM could continue to pay them with their finances in the state they were.
Doesn't MS pay a dividend now, that it didn't before? That might mean the share price isn't growing put you're getting yearly cash in your pocket.
If you look at some other posts, he's tripled revenue, almost quadrupoled profits. He just hasn't done anything decisively awesome.
Granted, he's a supreme chair flinging asshole, so that probably doesn't help his reputation.
considering he almost got the company broken up for anti trust? Ya, probably he was. Playing with fire, or in MS's case government regulators is the sort of thing a CEO should try and avoid.
or investors who valued the company based on some future projected value in 2001 and it's finally catching up to that.
Which is about the same reason why facebook with 5 billion in revenue is being valued at 100 billion dollars.
How had that been working out for the car companies prior to 2008? If you build a new car factory you don't build it in michigan or ontario if you could avoid it. You build it in the south or another country and leave detroit a wreck of a city.
GM's biggest value would have been its patent portfolio, and probably a handful of engineers. Everyone else would have been on the unemployment rolls because if you have to build in the US, you would rather build in the south, if you don't have to build in the US you build in mexico, japan, china, germany etc.
As it was GM did go bankrupt, the government managing it meant it was a relatively orderly transition, workers took huge pay cuts, without hugely long periods of unemployment, and the factories were kept where they were rather than being abandoned so people didn't have to move to try and find jobs etc.
His point I think is that the Iraqi's personally pirate the Windows OS in some non trivial percent, and if the US military is compelled to pay for it they can charge a pile more money.