How do you report a Garmin map bug?
on
Open US GPS Data?
·
· Score: 1
We have Garmin GPS device. The first day we got it, I discovered a bug in the map. It had our house located approximately a block away from where it is and on the opposite side of the street.
The same bug shows up on Yahoo, MapQuest, and Google. Not surprising, since they all use they same source from maps.
With this - and my experience trying to address it - in mind, it was interesting to read the following in the original article:
"Garmin International spokesman Jake Jacobson says the GPS maker has to receive a request or complaint and go through a thorough process before maps can be changed."
I have searched the Garmin site - though not recently - to find a place to report a map error to no avail. I guess it is easy to never get a request or complaint if there is no way to report it:-)
Turns out that the father of one of families at our children's schools was involved in early map generation efforts. Turns out that by and large - at least in the point in time - they weren't going out and getting a GPS fix on each map point.
Rather, they were getting fixes on key points and then using a algorithim to determine the GPS fix for the other map points. When a street follows the expected algorithim, then they are golden. When like our street, it does not, then things break down.
The issue on our street is highly variable lot frontage on the street and the layout of the street from low to high being reversed. The two factors end up with the Garmin determined points being completely scrambled.
This is a big pain when I ask a driver to take me to the airport. Even though I tell them that their GPS device is completely wrong, they always end up going to the wrong house:-)
It is clear this judge is failing to consider the framers intent in giving the Federal Government the power (one of its enumerated powers) to pass copyright and patent law:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
Constitution of the United States of America Article 1, Section 8
The question I would pose to the appeals court would be how does allowing someone to copyright a cease and desist letter lead to the progress of science and useful arts?
Blame our good friends at the IRS and FASB for the required $20 upgrade for iPod Touch users.
The issue here is good old revenue recognition.
For the iPhone, Apple has an ongoing revenue stream (the monthly fee they get) against which they can charge the cost of this upgrade.
For new iPod Touches, it is built into the price.
But for old iPod Touches, Apple doesn't have a revenue stream against which they can charge the cost of the upgrade. Therefore, they had two choices: 1) do not recognize all of the revenue from an iPod Touch sale and use it to match the cost of the upgrade, or 2) charge for the upgrade.
Revenue recognition around upgrades (vs. bug fix releases) is a major issue for software companies. The complexity of trying to set aside a chunk of revenue and match that against expenses is nasty. It is just easier - unless you have a revenue stream - to charge a nominal amount for the upgrade.
This proposal isn't like most out there (small fry buying company 10 times their size, etc.) which are completely outside the realm of possibility.
ADBE's market cap is 16% (27 Billion) of AAPL's market cap (167 Billion). APPL has $15 Billion in cash on the books, so this couldn't be an all cash deal, but it could be a mix of stock and cash or an all stock deal.
It is worth considering an AAPL acquisition of ADBE. Of course, AAPL would have to offer a premium. If I was putting together the deal, I would offer 1 AAPL share for 4 ADBE shares and $10 a share in cash.
This would value ADBE at 46.75 + $10 = $56.75 a share. This is an 18% permium to today's price. That is a reasonable premium on ADBE's current valuation.
This is a perfect example of why I always, always, always get a local copy of anything I find hot and interesting. Court decisions are also always in PDF. Just download the puppy and hold onto it.
If it is a web page, and you have the full Acrobat, then use the web capture facility to get a copy of it and store it away.
The web is wonderful. But it has more opportunities to be "corrected" than the Soviet Union did during the Stalin's purges of the 30s and 40s.
Actually, most Windows users are trained to get new hardware when they get a new US. For the average user, the difficulty of a Windows OS upgrade leads to them just junking the old and going to the new.
Apple is capitalizing on this by offering migration services at its Apple Stores. Just drop off the old Mac or PC when you buy a new one, and they will move everything over for you and get it configured right.
""According to an article on OSWeekly.com, Apple missed a big opportunity by not releasing Leopard soon. They could've taken advantage of Vista's losing streak and one upped Microsoft, the author suggests."
But in the conclusion to the article, the author says:
"With all things considered, did Apple make a serious mistake by delaying Leopard's release until October? I don't think so. By allowing more time to work on it, Apple has shown that they want to make sure that Leopard is as good as it can be, and if people really want the next version of OS X, then they're going to buy it regardless of when it comes out. In addition, instead of having to try to steal some of Microsoft's thunder, Apple will have the public's complete attention when Leopard drops in October. Apple is confident about the release, and they should be. Why should they try to fit in with Microsoft's schedule?"
The author comes to a completely different conclusions than the teaser suggests.
This article is an incredibly juicy example of lying with facts...it is like shooting fish in a barrel, which has been drained of water:-)
I just wish I had more time to dig into it and address it in totality...
Ok, here are a few issues:
Confusing prevention and solution The argument for CCTV is that it helps prevent and solve crimes, but the only statistics presented here concern the solution of crime. We don't have any comment on the crime rates (and the mix of crimes committed) prior to cameras or in comparing area to area.
For example, I understand that the UK, like the US, has criminalized a wide range of activities in the last few years. So we need to account for this fact.
No correlation between area and camera coverage (or population) Nothing tells me about the number of cameras per person or per square meter. All I get is that this area has 1,500 cameras, this area 575. I have no way to compare coverage to closure rates.
No examination of demographics, closure rates, and crime rates Even as a Yank, I know that several of the areas listed as having few cameras are as my Brit friends would put it, "Posh". What do I know about the others? Nothing, but I need to know to do a reasonable analysis.
While some will dispute it (if my cousin is arrested, and you take his finger prints, you have him; if you take his DNA, you have me), the reality is that DNA is analogous to finger prints.
The issue isn't controlling the collection of DNA, I would be fine with it being collected as are finger prints as a standard and more precise identifier of individuals, but rather access to and the uses to which the information can be put.
If - and this is the big if - you required that a DNA match (vs. DNA collection) be tied to a warrant involving a crime, then you would have a comfortable balance between 4th Amendment Rights and appropriate Police Powers.
If you hold that collection of DNA requires a Court Order, then you need to face the logical conclusion that the same should apply to finger prints.
My concern with the DNA data bank is that someone - say my insurance company - will access it for non-Police purposes without my consent. I don't have a problem with the Police accessing it under the authority of a Court Order. If we had such a data bank, it would short circuit the spurious paternity claims which we have seen as of late, because we could require that a paternity claim require a DNA match to be validated vs. the under oath claim of the mother (or father).
As David Brin said, "Privacy is dead, get over it!" I think our focus should be on creating the appropriate zones of privacy which we control. We will do this best on the access vs. collection end. The data will be collected. Let's ensure that it is collected accurately and that access is protected.
Wow, interesting to see everyone getting hot and bothered about a private company laying out conditions for employment and getting into a tizzy that those requirements infringe
Let's be clear here: the US Constitution and Bill of Rights (those freedoms on which our country is founded to quote one poster) was designed to protect the citizens and States from the Federal Government. It enumerated a list of rights which were expressly delegated to the Federal Government by the People and the States as well as a set of rights which were unalienable.
The US Constitution isn't about protecting me from someone else. Yes, the 14th and 15th Amendment and the "appropriate legislation" clauses allows the creation of the various Civil Rights Legislation, but at the end of the day there exist things it is perfectly legal (though maybe not fair, nice, or polite), which it would be illegal for the Federal Government to do.
I just love folks that are all for Libertarian Ideals for themselves, but when others exercise their Libertarian Ideals (freedom to contract) get all hot and bothered. You can't have it both ways. Chose which one you want.
The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the US Constitution) was put in place to make explicit those things which the Federal Government could not do.
Originally, Madison and other framers argued that this was not necessary, because the US Constitution stated only those things the Federal Government was allowed to do. The other rights (privileges and immunities), which had not been delegated to the Federal Government, were reserved to the States or the People. They finally decided that there were certain rights which were critically inalienable, that they must be enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Remember that the States in the United States were sovereign countries coming together into a Union. The States were extremely careful about which rights they were willing to delegate to the Federal Government and that is why the US Constitution enumerates a list of things the Federal Government can do. The presumption is that anything else is off limits.
Up until the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. If you read pre-civil war cases, you will find that just because you had a right under the Bill of Rights, it didn't mean that you had it in your State of residence. With the 14 and 15th Amendments, we see the emergence of a legal doctrine called "incorporation" under which the Bill of Rights is brought to bear on the States. In fact, up until the late 19th Century a number of the States still supported a specific Church (for example the Congregational Church in Mass.) using tax payer monies.
The idea that the Federal Government is delegated a specific enumerated list of powers has gradually been lost with the most significant damage occurring from the New Deal court forward (around 1936 or so). This erosion has rendered the 9th and 10th Amendments essentially meaningless and impotent. This was accomplished with a - in my opinion - misreading and application of the Commerce Clause, the 14th and 15th Amendments, and a misunderstanding of "Necessary and Proper".
This state of affairs has shifted us from a presumption of liberty on the part of individuals and States who have delegated and/or transferred certain specific and enumerated rights to the Federal Governments and where the Federal Government has a limited and enumerated list of things it can do, to one where the Federal Government can do anything which it isn't forbidden to do by the Bill of Rights.
For more on this topic, I highly recommend:
America's Constitution: A Biography by Akhil Reed Amar
The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction by Akhil Reed Amar
Restoring the Lost Constitution by Randy E. Barnett
Actually, even in an "At Will" state there are significant restrictions on the ability to fire folks. Refusing to commit a crime and then being fired for it, if one of those things that will get the state and federal departments of labor engaged with all of their attention.
It is called "wrongful discharge". Bad things to be facing as an employer. If they create an environment that forcing you to resign it is called "retaliation" and creating a "hostile work enviroment". Again bad, very bad, things to be facing as an employer.
Be sure and document what you were asked to do and why you were asked to do it. Be sure and write any letters, etc., on your own time and your own equipment. Be sure and create a paper trail with date and time stamps. Start keeping a log of what you were asked to do, what you did, and then what was done to you.
Of course, be sure that your hands are clean before this happens. Ensure that your work system doesn't have you visiting porn sites during working hours, etc.
No way in hell would I follow this directive. If you are a public company (i.e. traded on a US stock exchange), I would do the following:
1. I would communicate, in writing, in a notarized communication that I will not follow an order to break a law and that I expect that my company will comply with applicable employment law and not retaliate against me for my refusal.
Get a the notary to notarize that the copy of the letter you have is the same as the original you presented to them. What you want is a record of the letter which you submitted.
In this letter I would also communicate my recommendation to either license Office (find the most economical way to do it) or install OpenOffice.
I would be sure to detail in this letter the details of the order to break a law. Who gave it, when, the reason they gave me, etc.
2. I would send a copy of this letter to the Whistle Blower hot line for your company along with the Board of Directors.
3. Send all copies by registered mail. Get that receipt with the signature on it.
If you are a private company, I would:
1. I would communicate, in writing, in a notarized communication that I will not follow an order to break a law and that I expect that my company will comply with applicable employment law and not retaliate against me for my refusal.
Get a the notary to notarize that the copy of the letter you have is the same as the original you presented to them. What you want is a record of the letter which you submitted.
In this letter I would also communicate my recommendation to either license Office (find the most economical way to do it) or install OpenOffice.
I would be sure to detail in this letter the details of the order to break a law. Who gave it, when, the reason they gave me, etc. I would be sure and detail in this letter the details of the order to break a law.
2. Send all copies by registered mail. Get that receipt with the signature on it.
If you end up getting fired or a "hostile workplace" is created, I would:
1. Send a letter to both your state department of labor and the Federal EDD outlining the situation and including a copy of the communication.
2. Contact the BSA with the details of the situation.
3. Retain an employment attorney and go after a big settlement.
And no matter where you are, I would start looking for a job. A company that will break the law to control expenses is going to do it in other places. You don't want to be there when it blows up.
This is a problem faced by many company. The solution is a reverse split. This is just a stock split in reverse.
In a stock split, your 1 share becomes maybe 10 shares. That share which was selling for $100 is now 10 shares each selling for $10 (note: I didn't say worth, when it comes to stocks price and worth are two different things).
In a reverse split, your 10 shares become 1 share. That share which was selling for $1.00 is now 1/10 of a share selling for $10.00.
BTW, given the importance of corporations and equity compensation in the tech industry, it would be worth making sure you have at least a 101 level of education in this area.
It is incidents like this and so many others (the police arressting people for taking a picture of their actions, etc.) which cry out for David Brin's "Transparent Society"http://www.davidbrin.com/tschp1.html.
Bring on the cameras! Just give the ordinary citizens the right to access the feeds and observe and watch those who are the watchers. If a police officer knew a live feed of their activities was going out via the web, don't you think they would be a little bit more carefully in how they treat people?
The parent of this post says, "Let's reduce our emissions now, before I have to go and paint my roof bright white."
Actually, painting your roof bright white is a great idea on a number of front. The most common roof color - black or extremely dark - makes your roof a wonderful heat sink. It gathers heat which it radiates at night both into the surrounding environment (keeping temperatures up) and into your house.
A bright white roof will improve your household comfort, reduce "urban hot spots", and reduce energy spent on heating and cooling. All of these are net positives no matter where you stand on global warming. If you believe in global warming having man made causes, they are double net positives. There is a reason that the traditional "Mediterranean" house and roof color is white!
Even better than the white roof, would be a grass roof similar to what you see on the new Chicago City Hall. It gives you everything the white roof does in spades plus it gives you great winter benefits and is a "carbon" sink.
Sacramento, CA (AP) In a surprise move, the California Legislature passed and sent to the Governor that a bill which will require the placement of stickers on all locks throughout the state of California stating, "Hey, Stupid...if you don't use this thing correctly, someone can easily break into your house!"
* SARCASM OFF * If the manufacturers of WiFi gear hadn't shipped things in an unsecured state, of course this wouldn't be necessary. My believe is that all hardware and software should be "locked down" out of the box and that softening things up should require a deliberate act on the part of the user. But I also do believe that people need to take responsibility for configuring their gear correctly.
Actually, I think that they don't know what they are doing.
I am a experienced software and quality engineering manager with 20 plus years of post-college experience. I also put myself through school writing systems for UC Santa Cruz's Administrative Information Systems group in the earlier to mid-80s.
I recently went through a round of 18 interviews at a large web software company. Early on I had an interview with a young, smart, and energetic guy. In the interview he told me that he had worked at Microsoft and then had come to this company. Based on his comments I pegged him as having 4-6 years of experience.
We were discussing N-Tier web applications (point of information, I worked on my first N-Tier web application in 1994). In the course of discussing load balancing for this mythical application, I made a reference to "round robin DNS". At this point our interviewer stopped the interview dead and said, "Do you even know what DNS does?". I then patiently explained what DNS does and how it works, but it was clear that he didn't come back to a strong level of comfort with me. What disturbed me, is he didn't ask me, "What is round robin DNS? Why would you use it?"
A couple of weeks later - in the same loop of interviews - I was speaking to an engineering lead with a decade and a half to two decades of experience. We were going through the same questsion and I this time I spoke about load balancing and perhaps using an F5 (which we had used at my previous employer), but made a comment, "I had to catch myself there, and make sure I didn't refer to "round robin DNS", that got me in trouble with someone earlier..."
My experienced lead jumped on that comment and said, "Round robin DNS! Wow, haven't heard that one mentioned in quite a while!" He then drilled down on how we used round robin DNS and situations in which I would use it in contrast to a more intelligent load balancer like an F5.
I honestly believe that a number of companies have created an environment and hiring process that is perfect for getting the best of "new blood". These processes can be and are driven by high qualitative inputs, but don't attempt to bring in qualitative factors. They are able to hire for skills, knowledge, and to a degree talent. They can't hire for experience. The systems breakdown when attempting to hire experienced people and technical leaders (managers, directors, etc.).
Going into the hiring process at this company, I spoke to several of my friends who work there. They said upfront in unison, "Jordan we don't know how to hire managers and experienced people here. I have seen fantastic technical leaders get rejected for no reason I can grok. Be warned. It might now be fun."
Simply put, these folks are lacking in wisdom. They don't know what they don't know. Because they think they know everything of value (which is everything they learned in University and their early work experience) and are running their BS detectors at maximum output, they trigger on anything thing that doesn't fit what they know and assume you are BSing them.
Stock repurchases serve the shareholders by reducing the number of shares outstanding and therefore the number of folks who get to share the pie.
For example, imagine a company with 100 shares outstanding each trading at approximately $25.00 a share (sound similar to MSFT?). Now, the executives and board of our little enterprise, let's call it M Co. (ticker MCOX) feel that the intrinsic value of a share of MCOX is really $50.00 a share. We are also sitting on a pile of cash right now. A grand total of $3000. Looking at how we could alloacte our capital, we see that the return on buying MCOX shares is quite good.
So, we decide to authorise a share buy back of MCOX of $1,750. We go into the market and start buying up MCOX share at $25 a share until we run out of money. No, for the purpose of this exercise, let's assume that our purchases don't drive up the price of MCOX, so we are able to purchase 50 shares of MCOX for a grand total of $1,750.
Once we purchase the shares we have two options. The first is to hold them as an asset of the company, which means that they still counted in per share metrics like EPS or Book Value per share. Or we can retire the shares (essentially cancel them), so that they don't count. The board of MCOX decides to retire all of the shares we repurchase.
Now prior to our share repurchase program, earnings were $250 or 2.50 per share ($250/100 shares outstanding). The next year, earnings still clock in $300 a share, but our earnings per share are now $6.00 per share ($300/50). One major of valuation of a company is the P/E or price earnings ratio. Our P/E prior to our share buy back was 10 ($25.00 stock price divided by $2.50 in earnings), but following the buy back (assuming the price doesn't rise) our P/E is now 4.17.
Stocks tend to have a mean P/E to which they return unless some transformative event occurs. Assuming that our historical mean P/E is 10, what it was before the stock buy back, then our stock price would move from $25 to $60 per share in order to maintain that P/E ratio (vs. the $30 it would be if we hadn't executed our stock buy back). The board has now juiced the returns for our shareholders in a big way.
A couple of other facts that you should know:
1. Historically, long term capital gains have been taxed much lower (15-25%, depending on the year) than dividends which were taxed as ordinary income (say, depending on the year, anywhere from 30 to 50%). Therefore, it was better to increase the stock price and let shareholders take their gains that way vs. paying out a dividend from the prespective of tax efficiency.
2. When companies issue stock options to employees and those stock options are exercised the number of shares outstanding are increased. If a company doesn't want to dilute its existing shareholders (and work the magic outlined above in reverse), they will buy back an equal number of shares in the market. Countering the effects of dilution via share buy backs is a tool that has been used by Apple, Adobe, Intel, and Microsoft in the past. It is also a place a lot of cash has been used with no benefit to shareholders (these share buy backs tend to just help the company tread water with respect to shares outstanding).
This is the reason that MSFT is buying back it shares. It is hoping to reduce the number outstanding and therefore "shrink" the number of folks who are sharing the pie. Shareholders like this and see it as a good thing.
Curiously, until the return to mean kicks in, it actually makes it easier to execute an LBO, since their are fewer shares outstanding and there the market capitalization is lower. LBO artists have been known to take a position, lobby for a rich share buy back, and then attempt to execute an LBO on their now smaller market capitalization victim.
Microsoft's current market cap is USD 263 billion. Based on comments made by Ballmer and Gates they see Microsoft as substantially undervalued, trading at a discount of as much as 50% to intrinsic value. This means that they would put a price tag of around USD 520 billion or half a trillion dollars. This intrinsic valuation is supported by a number of value investors.
Assuming you can issue 8% bonds - probably looking at something more like 10% given the magnitude of the leverage - you would be looking at USD 40 billion a year in interest. That would leave you with only USD 4 billion in revenue to run the MSFT machine.
Yes, a bold LBO artist could cut a lot of expenses at MSFT. They could free up tremendous amounts of cash flow to be used in debt service and payment. But I don't think they can take free cash flow from USD 14 billion to USD 40 billion.
Let's assume you could free up USD 26 billion in cash flow from cost cutting and exiting businesses, then you have to answer the next question. Where are you going to find someone to lend you half a trillion dollars (this is twice one year's US Federal deficit at current rates (give or take))? No single bank or investment company could pull off a loan of this size. The Chinese government, which has probably the largest USD foreign reserves (around USD 150 billion) couldn't do it. Warren Buffett and BRKA couldn't do it (they would be short around USD 400 to 450 billion).
You would have to assemble a consortium or syndicate to get the financing. Now, that isn't all that unusual in the LOB arena. Folks like to diversify their risk, so they will come in for a piece of the action, but not the whole thing. But to do this deal, you would need to bring Warren Buffett and China to the table and you would still be short USD 200-250 billion. And they aren't going to be willing to bet the farm on one investment.
The simple fact is you aren't going to find a collection of folks that are going to be willing to take the risk of making a collective USD 500 to 550 billion bet where there is any perception of risk.
Of course, this doesn't take away from the fact that MSFT could do a lot to improve its returns to shareholders. Cutting back some of MSFT's investments makes sense. Perhaps MSFT should be organized into four divisions: Desktop Operating Systems, Applications, Servers, and Microsoft Ventures.
The free cash flow - or owner's earnings - from the first three would be mostly paid out to shareholders via a combination of stock buy backs and increased dividends.
A small amount would flow to Microsoft Ventures, which would fund "great ideas" out of Microsoft as separate businesses. They would come in as the primary (or lead) venture capitalist, but the idea would have to get others onboard as well. Microsoft would have the right of first refusal on any buyouts/IPOs of venture investments. Some percentage would be rolled back into Microsoft, while others would die, be bought by others, or go IPO. Microsoft Ventures would then distribute these earnings as "special dividends" to the shareholders.
Excuse me, but am the only person who noticed that this "experiment" has no control population, no experimental population, no placebos, etc...
I believe what we have here is a medical study on the longitudinal form...they have been run before (I recall one at Harvard which tracked 40,000 men for several decades, if memory serves me right) with quite large populations.
I agree that XOR and ROT13 are encryption systems which end up decrypting the cipher text when re-encrypted. But I will be honest that I wasn't thinking of them, but rather of "real" encryption systems (i.e. more robust), when I thought about systems where double encryption could lead to the cipher text being less secure than it was with one level of encryption.
I think the get mistake which spawned this discussion is that people tend to think of encryption as "lock boxes" for information. In the real world, if I put something in a safe and then put that safe in another safe, my stuff is twice as secure. But the analogy breaks down and I am not twice as safe.
The length of the key (64-bits, 128-bits) at a simple level describes the complexity or "hardness" of the encryption. Enrcypting with a 64-bit key will give you one level of "hardness" and 128-bit will give you another, greater, level of hardness.
If you encrypt twice with a 64-bit key you will just be taking a plain text file and encrypting it and then taking your encrypted file and encrypting it once again. To break encryption on this file, getting access to the plain text, you would need to break 64-bit encryption twice.
While this would be more of a challenge than breaking 64-bit standalone encryption, it wouldn't be equivalent to the security of a 128-bit key. The difficulty of breaking 128-bit encryption isn't 2 times 64-bit encryption. It is actually greater - I can't quantify it without additonal research, hopefully someone who can recall it off the top of their head can chime in with the details.
Now, breaking a doubly encrypted file would present some interesting challenges. The most obvious is that your plaintext for the first layer of encryption is anything but plaintext. Confirming that one set of encrypted text is right one vs. some other set of encrypted text would definitely be a challenge. It would make it difficult to determine if you had found the right key to decrypt your first layer of encryption.
As an aside, I do remember reading about code systems where double encryption acutally made the result encryption less secure. I don't remember the details, but now my brain is itching and I will have to do some research. Thanks!
Several years ago in an excellent book "The Transparent Society:How Technology Will Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom, David Brin argued convincingly, that "privacy is gone, get over it!", and that in trying to hang onto it, we put our freedom at risk. For we would put ourselves in the position that those in authority/power would be able to hide their actions and those of us who aren't would be on the short end of the stick.
In the society envisioned by Brin, this street would have been covered by cameras, the homeowners would be able to dump their feeds into the grid for observation by others, and all of the officers and their vehicles would have cameras. And all of us would be free to examine the feed in real-time or pull materials out of the archive. In fact, the "surveillance" Brin envisions would provide the kind of check that articles such as this do.
I will be honest, I would be more than willing to live in Brin's world - with the checks it would give us on those in authority - and the privacy zones it would grant us (need to read the book to get the full details).
Several years ago in an excellent book The Transparent Society:How Technology Will Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom, David Brin argued convincingly, that "privacy is gone, get over it!", and that in trying to hang onto it, we put our freedom at risk. For we would put ourselves in the position that those in authority/power would be able to hide their actions and those of us who aren't would be on the short end of the stick.
In the society envisioned by Brin, this street would have been covered by cameras, the homeowners would be able to dump their feeds into the grid for observation by others, and all of the officers and their vehicles would have cameras. And all of us would be free to examine the feed in real-time or pull materials out of the archive. In fact, the "surveillance" Brin envisions would provide the kind of check that articles such as this do.
I will be honest, I would be more than willing to live in Brin's world - with the checks it would give us on those in authority - and the privacy zones it would grant us (need to read the book to get the full details).
Slashdot Mirror
We have Garmin GPS device. The first day we got it, I discovered a bug in the map. It had our house located approximately a block away from where it is and on the opposite side of the street.
:-)
:-)
The same bug shows up on Yahoo, MapQuest, and Google. Not surprising, since they all use they same source from maps.
With this - and my experience trying to address it - in mind, it was interesting to read the following in the original article:
"Garmin International spokesman Jake Jacobson says the GPS maker has to receive a request or complaint and go through a thorough process before maps can be changed."
I have searched the Garmin site - though not recently - to find a place to report a map error to no avail. I guess it is easy to never get a request or complaint if there is no way to report it
Turns out that the father of one of families at our children's schools was involved in early map generation efforts. Turns out that by and large - at least in the point in time - they weren't going out and getting a GPS fix on each map point.
Rather, they were getting fixes on key points and then using a algorithim to determine the GPS fix for the other map points. When a street follows the expected algorithim, then they are golden. When like our street, it does not, then things break down.
The issue on our street is highly variable lot frontage on the street and the layout of the street from low to high being reversed. The two factors end up with the Garmin determined points being completely scrambled.
This is a big pain when I ask a driver to take me to the airport. Even though I tell them that their GPS device is completely wrong, they always end up going to the wrong house
Yours,
Jordan
It is clear this judge is failing to consider the framers intent in giving the Federal Government the power (one of its enumerated powers) to pass copyright and patent law:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
Constitution of the United States of America
Article 1, Section 8
The question I would pose to the appeals court would be how does allowing someone to copyright a cease and desist letter lead to the progress of science and useful arts?
The clear answer is it does not.
This should be the challenge to this decision.
Cheers -
Jordan
Blame our good friends at the IRS and FASB for the required $20 upgrade for iPod Touch users.
The issue here is good old revenue recognition.
For the iPhone, Apple has an ongoing revenue stream (the monthly fee they get) against which they can charge the cost of this upgrade.
For new iPod Touches, it is built into the price.
But for old iPod Touches, Apple doesn't have a revenue stream against which they can charge the cost of the upgrade. Therefore, they had two choices: 1) do not recognize all of the revenue from an iPod Touch sale and use it to match the cost of the upgrade, or 2) charge for the upgrade.
Revenue recognition around upgrades (vs. bug fix releases) is a major issue for software companies. The complexity of trying to set aside a chunk of revenue and match that against expenses is nasty. It is just easier - unless you have a revenue stream - to charge a nominal amount for the upgrade.
This proposal isn't like most out there (small fry buying company 10 times their size, etc.) which are completely outside the realm of possibility.
ADBE's market cap is 16% (27 Billion) of AAPL's market cap (167 Billion). APPL has $15 Billion in cash on the books, so this couldn't be an all cash deal, but it could be a mix of stock and cash or an all stock deal.
It is worth considering an AAPL acquisition of ADBE. Of course, AAPL would have to offer a premium. If I was putting together the deal, I would offer 1 AAPL share for 4 ADBE shares and $10 a share in cash.
This would value ADBE at 46.75 + $10 = $56.75 a share. This is an 18% permium to today's price. That is a reasonable premium on ADBE's current valuation.
Yours,
Jordan
This is a perfect example of why I always, always, always get a local copy of anything I find hot and interesting. Court decisions are also always in PDF. Just download the puppy and hold onto it.
If it is a web page, and you have the full Acrobat, then use the web capture facility to get a copy of it and store it away.
The web is wonderful. But it has more opportunities to be "corrected" than the Soviet Union did during the Stalin's purges of the 30s and 40s.
Yours,
Jordan
Actually, most Windows users are trained to get new hardware when they get a new US. For the average user, the difficulty of a Windows OS upgrade leads to them just junking the old and going to the new.
Apple is capitalizing on this by offering migration services at its Apple Stores. Just drop off the old Mac or PC when you buy a new one, and they will move everything over for you and get it configured right.
Yours,
Jordan
In the teaser CowboyNeal says:
""According to an article on OSWeekly.com, Apple missed a big opportunity by not releasing Leopard soon. They could've taken advantage of Vista's losing streak and one upped Microsoft, the author suggests."
But in the conclusion to the article, the author says:
"With all things considered, did Apple make a serious mistake by delaying Leopard's release until October? I don't think so. By allowing more time to work on it, Apple has shown that they want to make sure that Leopard is as good as it can be, and if people really want the next version of OS X, then they're going to buy it regardless of when it comes out. In addition, instead of having to try to steal some of Microsoft's thunder, Apple will have the public's complete attention when Leopard drops in October. Apple is confident about the release, and they should be. Why should they try to fit in with Microsoft's schedule?"
The author comes to a completely different conclusions than the teaser suggests.
In the future, please read the article!
Jordan
This article is an incredibly juicy example of lying with facts...it is like shooting fish in a barrel, which has been drained of water :-)
I just wish I had more time to dig into it and address it in totality...
Ok, here are a few issues:
Confusing prevention and solution
The argument for CCTV is that it helps prevent and solve crimes, but the only statistics presented here concern the solution of crime. We don't have any comment on the crime rates (and the mix of crimes committed) prior to cameras or in comparing area to area.
For example, I understand that the UK, like the US, has criminalized a wide range of activities in the last few years. So we need to account for this fact.
No correlation between area and camera coverage (or population)
Nothing tells me about the number of cameras per person or per square meter. All I get is that this area has 1,500 cameras, this area 575. I have no way to compare coverage to closure rates.
No examination of demographics, closure rates, and crime rates
Even as a Yank, I know that several of the areas listed as having few cameras are as my Brit friends would put it, "Posh". What do I know about the others? Nothing, but I need to know to do a reasonable analysis.
Yours,
Jordan
While some will dispute it (if my cousin is arrested, and you take his finger prints, you have him; if you take his DNA, you have me), the reality is that DNA is analogous to finger prints.
The issue isn't controlling the collection of DNA, I would be fine with it being collected as are finger prints as a standard and more precise identifier of individuals, but rather access to and the uses to which the information can be put.
If - and this is the big if - you required that a DNA match (vs. DNA collection) be tied to a warrant involving a crime, then you would have a comfortable balance between 4th Amendment Rights and appropriate Police Powers.
If you hold that collection of DNA requires a Court Order, then you need to face the logical conclusion that the same should apply to finger prints.
My concern with the DNA data bank is that someone - say my insurance company - will access it for non-Police purposes without my consent. I don't have a problem with the Police accessing it under the authority of a Court Order. If we had such a data bank, it would short circuit the spurious paternity claims which we have seen as of late, because we could require that a paternity claim require a DNA match to be validated vs. the under oath claim of the mother (or father).
As David Brin said, "Privacy is dead, get over it!" I think our focus should be on creating the appropriate zones of privacy which we control. We will do this best on the access vs. collection end. The data will be collected. Let's ensure that it is collected accurately and that access is protected.
Yours,
Jordan
Wow, interesting to see everyone getting hot and bothered about a private company laying out conditions for employment and getting into a tizzy that those requirements infringe
Let's be clear here: the US Constitution and Bill of Rights (those freedoms on which our country is founded to quote one poster) was designed to protect the citizens and States from the Federal Government. It enumerated a list of rights which were expressly delegated to the Federal Government by the People and the States as well as a set of rights which were unalienable.
The US Constitution isn't about protecting me from someone else. Yes, the 14th and 15th Amendment and the "appropriate legislation" clauses allows the creation of the various Civil Rights Legislation, but at the end of the day there exist things it is perfectly legal (though maybe not fair, nice, or polite), which it would be illegal for the Federal Government to do.
I just love folks that are all for Libertarian Ideals for themselves, but when others exercise their Libertarian Ideals (freedom to contract) get all hot and bothered. You can't have it both ways. Chose which one you want.
Yours,
Jordan
Actually, you are the one who is off base here.
The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the US Constitution) was put in place to make explicit those things which the Federal Government could not do.
Originally, Madison and other framers argued that this was not necessary, because the US Constitution stated only those things the Federal Government was allowed to do. The other rights (privileges and immunities), which had not been delegated to the Federal Government, were reserved to the States or the People. They finally decided that there were certain rights which were critically inalienable, that they must be enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Remember that the States in the United States were sovereign countries coming together into a Union. The States were extremely careful about which rights they were willing to delegate to the Federal Government and that is why the US Constitution enumerates a list of things the Federal Government can do. The presumption is that anything else is off limits.
Up until the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. If you read pre-civil war cases, you will find that just because you had a right under the Bill of Rights, it didn't mean that you had it in your State of residence. With the 14 and 15th Amendments, we see the emergence of a legal doctrine called "incorporation" under which the Bill of Rights is brought to bear on the States. In fact, up until the late 19th Century a number of the States still supported a specific Church (for example the Congregational Church in Mass.) using tax payer monies.
The idea that the Federal Government is delegated a specific enumerated list of powers has gradually been lost with the most significant damage occurring from the New Deal court forward (around 1936 or so). This erosion has rendered the 9th and 10th Amendments essentially meaningless and impotent. This was accomplished with a - in my opinion - misreading and application of the Commerce Clause, the 14th and 15th Amendments, and a misunderstanding of "Necessary and Proper".
This state of affairs has shifted us from a presumption of liberty on the part of individuals and States who have delegated and/or transferred certain specific and enumerated rights to the Federal Governments and where the Federal Government has a limited and enumerated list of things it can do, to one where the Federal Government can do anything which it isn't forbidden to do by the Bill of Rights.
For more on this topic, I highly recommend:
America's Constitution: A Biography by Akhil Reed Amar
The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction by Akhil Reed Amar
Restoring the Lost Constitution by Randy E. Barnett
Yours,
Jordan
Hi Brave Guy -
Actually, even in an "At Will" state there are significant restrictions on the ability to fire folks. Refusing to commit a crime and then being fired for it, if one of those things that will get the state and federal departments of labor engaged with all of their attention.
It is called "wrongful discharge". Bad things to be facing as an employer. If they create an environment that forcing you to resign it is called "retaliation" and creating a "hostile work enviroment". Again bad, very bad, things to be facing as an employer.
Be sure and document what you were asked to do and why you were asked to do it. Be sure and write any letters, etc., on your own time and your own equipment. Be sure and create a paper trail with date and time stamps. Start keeping a log of what you were asked to do, what you did, and then what was done to you.
Of course, be sure that your hands are clean before this happens. Ensure that your work system doesn't have you visiting porn sites during working hours, etc.
Yours,
Jordan
Hi -
No way in hell would I follow this directive. If you are a public company (i.e. traded on a US stock exchange), I would do the following:
1. I would communicate, in writing, in a notarized communication that I will not follow an order to break a law and that I expect that my company will comply with applicable employment law and not retaliate against me for my refusal.
Get a the notary to notarize that the copy of the letter you have is the same as the original you presented to them. What you want is a record of the letter which you submitted.
In this letter I would also communicate my recommendation to either license Office (find the most economical way to do it) or install OpenOffice.
I would be sure to detail in this letter the details of the order to break a law. Who gave it, when, the reason they gave me, etc.
2. I would send a copy of this letter to the Whistle Blower hot line for your company along with the Board of Directors.
3. Send all copies by registered mail. Get that receipt with the signature on it.
If you are a private company, I would:
1. I would communicate, in writing, in a notarized communication that I will not follow an order to break a law and that I expect that my company will comply with applicable employment law and not retaliate against me for my refusal.
Get a the notary to notarize that the copy of the letter you have is the same as the original you presented to them. What you want is a record of the letter which you submitted.
In this letter I would also communicate my recommendation to either license Office (find the most economical way to do it) or install OpenOffice.
I would be sure to detail in this letter the details of the order to break a law. Who gave it, when, the reason they gave me, etc.
I would be sure and detail in this letter the details of the order to break a law.
2. Send all copies by registered mail. Get that receipt with the signature on it.
If you end up getting fired or a "hostile workplace" is created, I would:
1. Send a letter to both your state department of labor and the Federal EDD outlining the situation and including a copy of the communication.
2. Contact the BSA with the details of the situation.
3. Retain an employment attorney and go after a big settlement.
And no matter where you are, I would start looking for a job. A company that will break the law to control expenses is going to do it in other places. You don't want to be there when it blows up.
Yours,
Jordan
This is a problem faced by many company. The solution is a reverse split. This is just a stock split in reverse.
In a stock split, your 1 share becomes maybe 10 shares. That share which was selling for $100 is now 10 shares each selling for $10 (note: I didn't say worth, when it comes to stocks price and worth are two different things).
In a reverse split, your 10 shares become 1 share. That share which was selling for $1.00 is now 1/10 of a share selling for $10.00.
BTW, given the importance of corporations and equity compensation in the tech industry, it would be worth making sure you have at least a 101 level of education in this area.
Yours,
Jordan
It is incidents like this and so many others (the police arressting people for taking a picture of their actions, etc.) which cry out for David Brin's "Transparent Society"http://www.davidbrin.com/tschp1.html.
Bring on the cameras! Just give the ordinary citizens the right to access the feeds and observe and watch those who are the watchers. If a police officer knew a live feed of their activities was going out via the web, don't you think they would be a little bit more carefully in how they treat people?
Yours,
Jordan
The parent of this post says, "Let's reduce our emissions now, before I have to go and paint my roof bright white."
Actually, painting your roof bright white is a great idea on a number of front. The most common roof color - black or extremely dark - makes your roof a wonderful heat sink. It gathers heat which it radiates at night both into the surrounding environment (keeping temperatures up) and into your house.
A bright white roof will improve your household comfort, reduce "urban hot spots", and reduce energy spent on heating and cooling. All of these are net positives no matter where you stand on global warming. If you believe in global warming having man made causes, they are double net positives. There is a reason that the traditional "Mediterranean" house and roof color is white!
Even better than the white roof, would be a grass roof similar to what you see on the new Chicago City Hall. It gives you everything the white roof does in spades plus it gives you great winter benefits and is a "carbon" sink.
Yours,
Jordan
Sacramento, CA (AP)
In a surprise move, the California Legislature passed and sent to the Governor that a bill which will require the placement of stickers on all locks throughout the state of California stating, "Hey, Stupid...if you don't use this thing correctly, someone can easily break into your house!"
* SARCASM OFF *
If the manufacturers of WiFi gear hadn't shipped things in an unsecured state, of course this wouldn't be necessary. My believe is that all hardware and software should be "locked down" out of the box and that softening things up should require a deliberate act on the part of the user. But I also do believe that people need to take responsibility for configuring their gear correctly.
Actually, I think that they don't know what they are doing.
I am a experienced software and quality engineering manager with 20 plus years of post-college experience. I also put myself through school writing systems for UC Santa Cruz's Administrative Information Systems group in the earlier to mid-80s.
I recently went through a round of 18 interviews at a large web software company. Early on I had an interview with a young, smart, and energetic guy. In the interview he told me that he had worked at Microsoft and then had come to this company. Based on his comments I pegged him as having 4-6 years of experience.
We were discussing N-Tier web applications (point of information, I worked on my first N-Tier web application in 1994). In the course of discussing load balancing for this mythical application, I made a reference to "round robin DNS". At this point our interviewer stopped the interview dead and said, "Do you even know what DNS does?". I then patiently explained what DNS does and how it works, but it was clear that he didn't come back to a strong level of comfort with me. What disturbed me, is he didn't ask me, "What is round robin DNS? Why would you use it?"
A couple of weeks later - in the same loop of interviews - I was speaking to an engineering lead with a decade and a half to two decades of experience. We were going through the same questsion and I this time I spoke about load balancing and perhaps using an F5 (which we had used at my previous employer), but made a comment, "I had to catch myself there, and make sure I didn't refer to "round robin DNS", that got me in trouble with someone earlier..."
My experienced lead jumped on that comment and said, "Round robin DNS! Wow, haven't heard that one mentioned in quite a while!" He then drilled down on how we used round robin DNS and situations in which I would use it in contrast to a more intelligent load balancer like an F5.
I honestly believe that a number of companies have created an environment and hiring process that is perfect for getting the best of "new blood". These processes can be and are driven by high qualitative inputs, but don't attempt to bring in qualitative factors. They are able to hire for skills, knowledge, and to a degree talent. They can't hire for experience. The systems breakdown when attempting to hire experienced people and technical leaders (managers, directors, etc.).
Going into the hiring process at this company, I spoke to several of my friends who work there. They said upfront in unison, "Jordan we don't know how to hire managers and experienced people here. I have seen fantastic technical leaders get rejected for no reason I can grok. Be warned. It might now be fun."
Simply put, these folks are lacking in wisdom. They don't know what they don't know. Because they think they know everything of value (which is everything they learned in University and their early work experience) and are running their BS detectors at maximum output, they trigger on anything thing that doesn't fit what they know and assume you are BSing them.
Yours,
Jordan
Stock repurchases serve the shareholders by reducing the number of shares outstanding and therefore the number of folks who get to share the pie.
For example, imagine a company with 100 shares outstanding each trading at approximately $25.00 a share (sound similar to MSFT?). Now, the executives and board of our little enterprise, let's call it M Co. (ticker MCOX) feel that the intrinsic value of a share of MCOX is really $50.00 a share. We are also sitting on a pile of cash right now. A grand total of $3000. Looking at how we could alloacte our capital, we see that the return on buying MCOX shares is quite good.
So, we decide to authorise a share buy back of MCOX of $1,750. We go into the market and start buying up MCOX share at $25 a share until we run out of money. No, for the purpose of this exercise, let's assume that our purchases don't drive up the price of MCOX, so we are able to purchase 50 shares of MCOX for a grand total of $1,750.
Once we purchase the shares we have two options. The first is to hold them as an asset of the company, which means that they still counted in per share metrics like EPS or Book Value per share. Or we can retire the shares (essentially cancel them), so that they don't count. The board of MCOX decides to retire all of the shares we repurchase.
Now prior to our share repurchase program, earnings were $250 or 2.50 per share ($250/100 shares outstanding). The next year, earnings still clock in $300 a share, but our earnings per share are now $6.00 per share ($300/50). One major of valuation of a company is the P/E or price earnings ratio. Our P/E prior to our share buy back was 10 ($25.00 stock price divided by $2.50 in earnings), but following the buy back (assuming the price doesn't rise) our P/E is now 4.17.
Stocks tend to have a mean P/E to which they return unless some transformative event occurs. Assuming that our historical mean P/E is 10, what it was before the stock buy back, then our stock price would move from $25 to $60 per share in order to maintain that P/E ratio (vs. the $30 it would be if we hadn't executed our stock buy back). The board has now juiced the returns for our shareholders in a big way.
A couple of other facts that you should know:
1. Historically, long term capital gains have been taxed much lower (15-25%, depending on the year) than dividends which were taxed as ordinary income (say, depending on the year, anywhere from 30 to 50%). Therefore, it was better to increase the stock price and let shareholders take their gains that way vs. paying out a dividend from the prespective of tax efficiency.
2. When companies issue stock options to employees and those stock options are exercised the number of shares outstanding are increased. If a company doesn't want to dilute its existing shareholders (and work the magic outlined above in reverse), they will buy back an equal number of shares in the market. Countering the effects of dilution via share buy backs is a tool that has been used by Apple, Adobe, Intel, and Microsoft in the past. It is also a place a lot of cash has been used with no benefit to shareholders (these share buy backs tend to just help the company tread water with respect to shares outstanding).
This is the reason that MSFT is buying back it shares. It is hoping to reduce the number outstanding and therefore "shrink" the number of folks who are sharing the pie. Shareholders like this and see it as a good thing.
Curiously, until the return to mean kicks in, it actually makes it easier to execute an LBO, since their are fewer shares outstanding and there the market capitalization is lower. LBO artists have been known to take a position, lobby for a rich share buy back, and then attempt to execute an LBO on their now smaller market capitalization victim.
Yours,
Jordan
Actually, MSFT - even in theory - isn't a candidate for an LBO. Even if MSFT was a company with a USD 2-3 billion market cap, it wouldn't be possible to get financing and maintain it. Microsoft's topline revenue is USD 44 billion http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=ci&cid=35 8464 and free cash flow is USD 14 billion http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=ci&cid=35 8464.
Microsoft's current market cap is USD 263 billion. Based on comments made by Ballmer and Gates they see Microsoft as substantially undervalued, trading at a discount of as much as 50% to intrinsic value. This means that they would put a price tag of around USD 520 billion or half a trillion dollars. This intrinsic valuation is supported by a number of value investors.
Assuming you can issue 8% bonds - probably looking at something more like 10% given the magnitude of the leverage - you would be looking at USD 40 billion a year in interest. That would leave you with only USD 4 billion in revenue to run the MSFT machine.
Yes, a bold LBO artist could cut a lot of expenses at MSFT. They could free up tremendous amounts of cash flow to be used in debt service and payment. But I don't think they can take free cash flow from USD 14 billion to USD 40 billion.
Let's assume you could free up USD 26 billion in cash flow from cost cutting and exiting businesses, then you have to answer the next question. Where are you going to find someone to lend you half a trillion dollars (this is twice one year's US Federal deficit at current rates (give or take))? No single bank or investment company could pull off a loan of this size. The Chinese government, which has probably the largest USD foreign reserves (around USD 150 billion) couldn't do it. Warren Buffett and BRKA couldn't do it (they would be short around USD 400 to 450 billion).
You would have to assemble a consortium or syndicate to get the financing. Now, that isn't all that unusual in the LOB arena. Folks like to diversify their risk, so they will come in for a piece of the action, but not the whole thing. But to do this deal, you would need to bring Warren Buffett and China to the table and you would still be short USD 200-250 billion. And they aren't going to be willing to bet the farm on one investment.
The simple fact is you aren't going to find a collection of folks that are going to be willing to take the risk of making a collective USD 500 to 550 billion bet where there is any perception of risk.
Of course, this doesn't take away from the fact that MSFT could do a lot to improve its returns to shareholders. Cutting back some of MSFT's investments makes sense. Perhaps MSFT should be organized into four divisions: Desktop Operating Systems, Applications, Servers, and Microsoft Ventures.
The free cash flow - or owner's earnings - from the first three would be mostly paid out to shareholders via a combination of stock buy backs and increased dividends.
A small amount would flow to Microsoft Ventures, which would fund "great ideas" out of Microsoft as separate businesses. They would come in as the primary (or lead) venture capitalist, but the idea would have to get others onboard as well. Microsoft would have the right of first refusal on any buyouts/IPOs of venture investments. Some percentage would be rolled back into Microsoft, while others would die, be bought by others, or go IPO. Microsoft Ventures would then distribute these earnings as "special dividends" to the shareholders.
Yours,
Jordan
Excuse me, but am the only person who noticed that this "experiment" has no control population, no experimental population, no placebos, etc...
I believe what we have here is a medical study on the longitudinal form...they have been run before (I recall one at Harvard which tracked 40,000 men for several decades, if memory serves me right) with quite large populations.
Let's get our terminology right...
Yours,
Jordan
Hey Ydra -
I agree that XOR and ROT13 are encryption systems which end up decrypting the cipher text when re-encrypted. But I will be honest that I wasn't thinking of them, but rather of "real" encryption systems (i.e. more robust), when I thought about systems where double encryption could lead to the cipher text being less secure than it was with one level of encryption.
I think the get mistake which spawned this discussion is that people tend to think of encryption as "lock boxes" for information. In the real world, if I put something in a safe and then put that safe in another safe, my stuff is twice as secure. But the analogy breaks down and I am not twice as safe.
Yours,
Jordan
The length of the key (64-bits, 128-bits) at a simple level describes the complexity or "hardness" of the encryption. Enrcypting with a 64-bit key will give you one level of "hardness" and 128-bit will give you another, greater, level of hardness.
If you encrypt twice with a 64-bit key you will just be taking a plain text file and encrypting it and then taking your encrypted file and encrypting it once again. To break encryption on this file, getting access to the plain text, you would need to break 64-bit encryption twice.
While this would be more of a challenge than breaking 64-bit standalone encryption, it wouldn't be equivalent to the security of a 128-bit key. The difficulty of breaking 128-bit encryption isn't 2 times 64-bit encryption. It is actually greater - I can't quantify it without additonal research, hopefully someone who can recall it off the top of their head can chime in with the details.
Now, breaking a doubly encrypted file would present some interesting challenges. The most obvious is that your plaintext for the first layer of encryption is anything but plaintext. Confirming that one set of encrypted text is right one vs. some other set of encrypted text would definitely be a challenge. It would make it difficult to determine if you had found the right key to decrypt your first layer of encryption.
As an aside, I do remember reading about code systems where double encryption acutally made the result encryption less secure. I don't remember the details, but now my brain is itching and I will have to do some research. Thanks!
Yours,
Jordan
All -
Several years ago in an excellent book "The Transparent Society:How Technology Will Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom, David Brin argued convincingly, that "privacy is gone, get over it!", and that in trying to hang onto it, we put our freedom at risk. For we would put ourselves in the position that those in authority/power would be able to hide their actions and those of us who aren't would be on the short end of the stick.
In the society envisioned by Brin, this street would have been covered by cameras, the homeowners would be able to dump their feeds into the grid for observation by others, and all of the officers and their vehicles would have cameras. And all of us would be free to examine the feed in real-time or pull materials out of the archive. In fact, the "surveillance" Brin envisions would provide the kind of check that articles such as this do.
I will be honest, I would be more than willing to live in Brin's world - with the checks it would give us on those in authority - and the privacy zones it would grant us (need to read the book to get the full details).
All -
Several years ago in an excellent book The Transparent Society:How Technology Will Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom, David Brin argued convincingly, that "privacy is gone, get over it!", and that in trying to hang onto it, we put our freedom at risk. For we would put ourselves in the position that those in authority/power would be able to hide their actions and those of us who aren't would be on the short end of the stick.
In the society envisioned by Brin, this street would have been covered by cameras, the homeowners would be able to dump their feeds into the grid for observation by others, and all of the officers and their vehicles would have cameras. And all of us would be free to examine the feed in real-time or pull materials out of the archive. In fact, the "surveillance" Brin envisions would provide the kind of check that articles such as this do.
I will be honest, I would be more than willing to live in Brin's world - with the checks it would give us on those in authority - and the privacy zones it would grant us (need to read the book to get the full details).