Runner-up in this category [Most Invasive Company] was banking firm Lloyds TSB, which has been demanding that customers present themselves at their local branch office with proper photo ID or face having their bank accounts frozen
No, this is a cunning new form of phishing. The address given for their local branch is actually a crude cardboard replica of that branch and when they present their photoID it is run through a scanner and copied so that the picture can be altered and it can be used to access your real account.:-)
While it would be nice to think that a similar service might be implemented here in New Zealand, the chances are virtually zero for one reason:
Copyright.
The TV broadcasters consider their program listings to be their intellectual property and that they're protected by copyright.
Similar copyright cases (both here and in Australia) have been won by the companies which publish other collections of data such as telephone directories (example)
Anyone who attempts to publish TV program schedules without the permission of the broadcaster (and they charge like wounded bulls for giving such permission) will be set upon by multiple teams of corporate lawyers.
Of course someone intent on providing a scheduling service for a Tivo-like system could always try and buy the rights to publish those listings but I bet you any money you like that those rights would come with the caveat that ad-blocking was forbidden. After all, advertising revenues are the lifeblood of a free-to-air broadcaster so they're not about to allow someone to provide a service that cuts ads are they?
Personally I think someone should fight the broadcasters over their copyright claims -- after all, copyright is supposed to protect the presentation, wording and format of data, not the facts on which that data is based.
If I create listings from scratch and simply include the program title, genre, start and finish times then that information should not be covered by any form of copyright.
But, fighting the corporate sharks costs lots of money so I doubt we'll see a test-case here in NZ anytime soon.
This is so true, especially if you're in an industry or have a hobby that would otherwise require using safety glasses.
I do a lot of machining and quite regularly my glases save my eyes from small, hot fast-moving chips of metal. A look at the lenses shows numerous pits and scratches where they've deflected bits of metal that would have otherwise caused a very painful and potentially vision-altering injuries.
And while it's all very well to say that those who don't need corrective lenses can always just wear safety glasses -- we all know that this doesn't always happen. It's all to easy to think that it'll be okay to do that 10-second job with the grinder or smite just one hammer blow without hassling with safety-glasses -- but it only takes an instant to regret that decision.
And what's worse, I still wear those large, unfashionable glasses that were trendy in the '80s because (unlike contemporary styles) they offer the maximum eye-protection.
Although glasses can be a real pain sometimes (fogging up when you walk into a warm humid room in winter, being less than useless in the rain, falling off your head when you're hanging upside down while working on some expensive peice of machinery, etc -- for me the positives of eyeware outweigh the negatives, especially when you consider the worst-case outcome of corrective surgery.
It would appear that New Zealand's recording industry would rather have customers breaking the law with their blessing than to have the law changed to allow format-shifting.
Remember, here in New Zealand we're not allowed to copy our music or video disks for any reason -- there isn't even a personal fair-use provision in our copyright law.
Check out the interview with the head of NZ's recording industry body RIANZ (who also just happens to be the head of Sony NZ) and listen to him sanctioning lawbreaking but defending the laws he advocates breaking.
If you're 50 years old, then you're old enough that you should have known better than to pull a stunt like this in the first place
Well excuse me for trying to bring a quite real threat to the public's attention.
I initially attempted to do this with this article but, although I received some feedback, it clearly wasn't reaching a large audience.
That article also produced a lot of people who claimed it couldn't be done and that I was full of hot air -- so the only way to prove my case and to properly inform the public of this threat was to go ahead and do what I said any terror group could do.
You call it a "stunt", I call it proving my case.
Read into this; now that you've pissed off the USA, which is providing a big chunk of your nation's security
But why are they pissed off?
Before I started the project I emailed the FBI and DARAP to tell them what I was planning and why. I also invited them to make any comments they might have and offered them full access to the results of my work.
What did I get in return -- an automated reply from the FBI thanking me for my email and nothing at all from DARPA.
Based on that response, it's pretty natural to think that those organizations in the US charged with the security of the nation didn't have a problem with my project. Surely they'd be smart enough to simply say "we'd really rather you didn't do this" -- but no such response was forthcoming.
Then, when the project serves its goal of raising public awareness, they get all snotty -- is that my fault?
Perhaps they're simply embarrassed now that it's clear they have no answer to such a threat -- which was the entire point of my argument. The only weapon against an LCCM is public awareness.
I hate to say this, but it sounds as if you really did this to yourself
Maybe I did -- but I'm not completely stupid and I have leared lessons from this:
1. Do not take a patriotic stance and contact the Secret Service when information possibly from a sponsor of terror comes into your possession.
2. Do not actively cooperate with the secret service and help them to obtain more information.
3. If the government gives you clearance to sell technology with a military application to a nation deemed to be a sponsor of terror, do not question this -- simply go ahead with the transanction.
4. Do not put the interests of your country (overseas investment, new jobs, export earnings, a valuable foothold in an explosive new industry) ahead of your own. Think only of your own bank balance in all transactions.
5. Do not turn down offers of money from the government as they will not thank you or even consider that by not accepting that money you are in effect in credit to that amount.
6. Do not trust the government to act ethically, moraly or even legally when they wish to achieve some end.
7. Do not work your ass off and sell your house to pay a tax debt while being fooled into believing that regular and reliable servicing such a debt to the point where it is almost completely repaid will stop the taxman from bankrupting you for no apparent reason.
Unfortunately I feel very sad that these are the lessons I have learned.
Sure, I'm not without fault -- I should have filed my returns and paid all my tax right on time.
But the overal lesson here is that it's pointless trying to remedy such a transgression -- if you ever find yourself behind in your taxes (and you've got a missile in your garage) simply sell all your assets, take a really good holiday then come back and file for bankruptcy.
Sorry to reply to my own post but exactly how long were you behind in taxes
In my case the IRD appear to have thrown their own rule book out the door so they felt happy to pile on enormous penalties and refuse to waive them even though they were in breach of the law.
When an Ernst Young tax accountant challenged them on this and requested a meeting as my appointed representitive, they refused to talk with him.
What's more, although I was punished for my own tardy record-keeping, the IRD directly ignored the order of the courts on a number of separate occasions when directed to fix errors in their records.
How bad were their errors?
Well they even got my name wrong and, despite being advised of this and ordered to correct it on THREE separate occasions, by two district court judges and one high-court judge, they still hadn't done so when they applied to bankrupt me.
In fact, the bankruptcy was issued in the wrong name! Yet, in an unprecedented move, the judgement of the High Court was apparently ammended by a clerk who simply changed the name after the event.
On an earlier occasion, the IRD were also harshly berated by the court for not properly accounting for a very large (over)payment I had been made but which not credited to my account.
In fact, their whole approach to this case was unprofessional and, even when I'd gotten all my filing up to date (a year before they filed the bankruptcy move) and paid all but a small amount of the money I was supposed to have owed, their records were still in a shambles.
It seems that nobody, not even the deputy PM or the Minister for Revenue cared about this minor fact -- which again leaves me believing that this was nothing to do with debt recovery and all about scuttling an embarrassing crusise missile project.
Made a point that according to NZ gov't you could sell away to the Iranians -- making them look stupid
So making the government look stupid is a crime punishable by impoverishment?
Took the proceeds from the $200K and didn't pay your tax debt, didn't set aside savings or investments for your family and spent the money building something you don't need and lots of people don't want
Not correct. Most of the $200K was spent repaying loans and other costs I'd incurred while building up 7am.com. Work it out -- $200K for 3-years of 18-hour days, 7 days a week with little income. You can build up a lot of debt during that time and $200K doesn't go far repaying it.
It's also worth noting that in the two years following the one in which I received payment for 7am.com, I paid $135K in tax on taxable income of $200K.
That sounds like an awful lot doesn't it?
That's because only a small percentage of that was actual *tax*, the rest was a mountain of interest and penalties that the tax department piled on with glee.
It's worth noting that (because there's no capital gains tax in New Zealand) there was little tax actually owing on the sale of the company. The penalty bill was many, many times the actual tax -- and at the time they bankrupted me, I'd paid the vast majority of that off.
Refused to go on the dole
Yes, like most people I'd rather work for a living than sponge off others. The only problem is that the government has effectively forbidden me from earning a living because there aren't really a whole lot of jobs going for missile designers here in NZ. That's why I'm looking further afield.
His previous income was building 7am.com from scratch. He then sold it for handsome profit back the dot com days
Not quite correct. I sold 7am.com for NZ$200K -- which is hardly a "handsome profit" on the three years of 18 hour days, 7 days a week it took to build it up to the world's most widely syndicated web-based news service (which it was when I sold it).
If you watch the video clip you'll see that I was offered $1m for 7am.com but turned it down because I wanted to keep the operation (and jobs/income) in New Zealand. I'm not a "money-centric" guy and it was more important to me that 7am.com didn't just disappear off to the USA because, at the time, it was this country's most highly traffiked and successful internet venture.
Under his own admission, he didn't pay the tax he should have, but was paying it off over installments. It was several hundred thousand I believe
Again, not quite correct.
I at the time I was bankrupted, I had paid *all* the tax I owed and was well on the way to settling the bill for penalties and interest that had been lumped on top. It's also worth noting that my bankruptcy was a breach NZ tax law and (as verified by an Ernst Young tax expert) I was actually entitled to have the penalties and interest waived.
When it came to applying for funding from the government for another project, the Inland Revenue called in the debt in a lump sum
Wrong again. I applied for and had approved, a $36K government-funded grant to help with the development of my jet engine technology. I *did not* uplift this grant, prefering instead to use my own money because I knew there was significant risk associated with the success of the R&D I was undertaking and felt that money would be better spent on health or education.
The IRD's "calling in a debt" had nothing to do with the grant -- except that if I *had* taken the grant, I would have been able to pay most of the penalties and interest with it -- but the government doesn't run a ledger so I got no credit for not uplifting the $36K they offered me.
He couldn't pay so they filed for bankruptcy
Wrong again -- I could pay, I was paying (I made a $20K payment just weeks before the IRD moved to bankrupt me and was just 9-12 months from settling the entire balance.
It is this move on the part of the IRD that makes the whole situation smell. Why would they (after happily accepting my regular payments for some time, and I never missed a payment) suddenly call in the debt just a few months short of full repayment?
Did it look as if I would default? No, I had just paid them a significant percentage of the outstanding amount in a lump sum and had just signed a deal which guaranteed I'd be receiving many times the amount of the debt in just a few short months.
The only reason anyone can come up with is that this wasn't about recovering a debt -- it was about stopping my embarrassing cruise-missile project.
The missile was a hobby that he is now turning too for actual income.
Wrong again. The missile project was an attempt to wake people up to the fact that, as homeland defense becomes increasingly effective, terrorists could well turn to their own hi-tech weapons, and that those weapons could be built in a garage.
Am I selling missiles now? No, I'm simply selling my skills and experience -- just like everyone does when they're looking for a job.
Dude, this will kill you before it kills your server. So dont worry. And no one is interested in mirroring your acts of terrorism, leading to the future deaths of many innocent people so that you can become famous rich bastard
Clearly you didn't watch the video. Which of my actions do you consider would lead ot the deaths of many innocent people?
1. Contacting the SIS (secret service) with information about suspicious offers made to me?
2. Not taking an offer worth US$100K to sell information to a state considered to be a sponsor of terrorism -- even though the NZ government gave me the okay to do so?
And if my goal was to become a "rich bastard", why did I turn down far more lucrative offers to strike a deal that meant far less money in my pocket but more jobs and export earnings for NZ?
By the way, the most frightening thing about your threats is the fact you can't even spell New Zealand properly:-)
Actually, as you'll see if you watch the video, I *did* turn over suspicious communications to the SIS (the NZ Secret Service) and cooperated with them at their request.
However, since my support of them wasn't reciprocated I formally withdrew that support following the bankruptcy.
I'm buggered if I'm going to be an unpaid employee of a government that would do what they've done to my family.
My attitude now is that I'll simply ignore any communications that I discover to be associated with any potentially undesirable group.
Great you support terrorists ! We shall shoon be visting you. Die you bastard - The CIA
Oh yeah, I tried to raise pubilc awareness of the risk posed by LCCMs and offered detailed information on all my work to both DARPA and the FBI because I support terrorists.
You say you are all that patriotic but you are bankrupt because you did not pay your taxes!
That is actually wrong.
I paid every cent of the tax I owed (in fact I over-paid). I was bankrupted over a huge sum of penalties and interest that (under NZ law, and as verified by an Ernst Young tax expert), should have been waived.
However, I was repaying even these penalties (I paid a lump sum of $20,000 just weeks before the bankruptcy) and if (like most other taxpayer) I'd been alowed to continue with these repayments, the debt would have been cleared completely within 9-12 months.
In effect, the government/tax-ma refusedto let me pay those interests and penalties -- why would they do that?
DO you realize that your work is going to kill thousands of innocent people
Where's your support for that argument?
And you seem to have a very short memory (or didn't attend history classes at school).
Just think back to August 6 and 9 of 1945.
As I said, there is probably no country on the face of the planet which hasn't engaged in some form of terrorism (defined as the killing of innocent men, women and children in the name of a cause).
As I've stated -- I'd much rather focus on civilian applications for RPV/UAV technologies and there are plenty of them. I'm hoping that if someone does want my services, this is what they'll be concentrating on.
From the looks of it, he's building a modern V-1, an dteh tech used is not vastly different from that used in model aircraft. larger scale perhaps, but even taht is questionable when you look at some of the large scale a/c (sucha sthe B-52) modellers have built
This is exactly the point I was trying to make when I embarked on the DIY Cruise Missile project.
It's not rocket science and almost anyone could do it if the set their minds to it.
Besides, why build a cruise missile, which requires you stayin in one place and buying a bunch of stuff taht may arouse the interest of teh authorities when you could steal a biz jet, deliver a larger payload, and do the planning in dispersed locations?
Actually, my other point was that you could build one of these things *without* attrating a lot of attention or rousing the interest of the authorities. There's nothing involved in the construction of an LCCM that would ring alarm bells anywhere.
And your chances of using a hijacked or hired business jet to deliver a payload would seem to be pretty limited if this story is any indicator.
With a flight time of less than 10 minutes to its target and a small radar signature, an LCCM would have a much higher probability of success without the need for martyrdom.
No, I didn't say that Israel was a terrorist nation, I simply said I wouldn't accept offers from that country.
I don't like the way Israel (or Palestians) have conducted themselves in that part of the world and would therefore not like to be party to that type of eye-for-an-eye kind of stupidity.
This will probably kill my server (perhaps someone can throw it on bit-torrent or mirror it) but there's a video clip on my website from a news and current affairs program here in New Zealand that documented my case.
I'm Bruce Simpson, the subject of this discussion and I'd like to address some of the comments and points that have been raised here.
Question: If I'm so damned clever, why don't I have a job? Answer:
Well, I'm 50 years old, which (even here in NZ) is past the age when it becomes difficult to just walk into a any job because, regardless of your qualifications there's always someone younger who's standing in line ahead of you.
What's more, although I have a lot of experience in a wide number of a synergistic (from a missile building persective) nature, there are plenty of people around who know more and are better at these individual fields than I am.
If an employer is looking for a good programmer, a good electronics design engineer, a good airframe designer, or a good engineer, there are plenty better than me.
My strength is that I have sufficient depth of knowledge and skill in each area to bring a very broad perspective to bear on the particular problems associated with the job of designing and building a cheap cruise missile (or UAV). In effect, I can do the job of four or five people with more efficiency and insight than such a team might.
When I have an idea, I can bring all my different areas of competence to bear on it and produce a result in a fraction the time it takes for a team of several individuals to do the same.
The problem is, there are no companies in NZ looking for this synergy of skills.
Unfortunately, this country has little or no interest in things military -- hell, the first thing the current government did when it gained power was to pretty much gut our air force by disbanding its air-defense capabilies.
This saw all our best avionics engineers, Air Force pilots and maintenance people disappear to greener pastures.
In fact, our Air Force is so run down that even its transport aircraft now break down with regular monotony. Any government that believes that an air capability is an unimportant part of defense is crazy.
As a result of this "head in the sand" attitide, Australia and the USA are both pretty pissed off with New Zealand because it can no longer pull its full weight in ANZUS, the alliance between the three parties.
But back to jobs. The town I live in is a small rural center which is largely supported by a timber mill. In recent times there have been a number of lay-offs at that mill and unemployment levels are quite high here. The reality is that not only are their *no* jobs for hi-tech workers but I couldn't even get a job flipping burgers at McDonalds due to the queue of applicants ahead of me.
Question: why not move to a bigger city? Answer:
Well that's pretty hard to do when you're living hand-to-mouth without any money to spare. Moving is an *expensive* operation and rents in the big cities are typically three or four times that of the smaller centers. It simply wouldn't be possible for me to move without having several thousand dollars in my pocket to cover the move, rent and other costs until that first pay check came in (assuming that I could even then find a job).
I could support myself however, if I were allowed to remain self-employed -- but that's not possible due to the restrictions placed on my activities by the government.
Question: won't I be killed by Mossad/CIA/whatever? Answer:
I doubt it -- but if I am, at least my wife gets to claim on my life-insurance policy:-)
In the past few weeks, everything that could go wrong has gone wrong so there have been times when I have to admit that I simply wouldn't care if I became the target of some hitman -- yeah, it's really been that bad!
But seriously, I don't think anyone will try to rub me out (even though a couple of alleged Mossad members were arrested here in NZ for trying to fraudulently obtain an NZ passport).
Question: why don't I get a job with a big aerospace company? Answer:
Unshielded transmission line will create signals that interfere with radio service.
Not necessarily so.
Unshielded balanced feeders have been widely used ever since the introduction of RF transmission and the losses can be lower than a sheilded cable if done properly. Leakage will always be slightly higher -- but can still be extremely low providing the lines are balanced properly.
Many years ago I built a balanced unsheilded RF link that was over a mile long on a farm for a CB radio. With an input power of 500mW and a matched dummy load on the other end, the leakage from that feeder was so low as to be almost undetectable beyond a few tens of yards.
I expect that the problem the BPL trials are having is that the power circuits are not balanced at the RF frequencies (or harmonics thereof) that are being used.
Achieving and maintaining high levels of balance across the entire spectrum being used is probably going to be a *major* problem that will stand in the way of this technology.
Uhh, the methanol itself wont compress as a liquid, but who cares? Throw some gas in there, compress it, and turn the can upside down to spray it in.
Not quite as simple as it might seem...
Firstly, given that fuel cells are *extremely* sensitive to impurities you have to make sure that the gas you're using won't actually disolve in methanol (as CO2 does in water for instance) and that, should some gas actually enter the cell, it won't cause any harm.
Since most inert gases (argon, zenon, neon, etc) only liquefy at extremely high pressures and/or low temperatures, you're going to either need a larger gas reservoir with which to pressurise the fuel capsule or rely on significantly higher pressures -- which then pose regulation and safety issues.
I take it you dont do any of even the simplest problemsolving/engineering
No, of course not. You can see that by visiting my websites at:
Butane can be a self-pressurizing fuel to allow for easy refuling (as with butane lighters etc). It's *because* methanol is already a liquid that this option can't be used!
The tiny fuel cell uses 2cc of concentrated methanol to provide 20 hours of power at 100 milliwatts, max.
"Concentrated methanol"???
Pure methanol perhaps, but I don't believe you can concentrate methanol at all.
With regard to refilling. This will be done with a can of compressed methanol
Errr.. another point of error: being a liquid at normal temperature, methanol is virtually incompressible.
This process will be very similar to the way that butane cigarette lighters are refilled and have been for more than 30 years. Just for the record, butane is much more flamable/explosive than methanol
No, there's another *huge* difference -- at normal temperature/pressures, butane is a gas so it can be compressed for storage and refil (even to the extent that it becomes a liquid). No such option is available with methanol.
Is it incompetence on the part of the creator of that page or is it because I'm surfing from outside the USA and DARPA figure it's not a good idea for potential terrorists to see what's going on with this challenge?:-)
Slashdot Mirror
What's with this requirement that teams must be US citizens or at least lead by a US citizen?
:-)
Are DARPA afraid that some foreigners might win or something?
Surely this would be like Junkyard wars where the best competitions are those involving teams from all around the globe?
Geez, I'd have a go but I'd want to do it flying my own country's flag.
Runner-up in this category [Most Invasive Company] was banking firm Lloyds TSB, which has been demanding that customers present themselves at their local branch office with proper photo ID or face having their bank accounts frozen
:-)
:-)
No, this is a cunning new form of phishing. The address given for their local branch is actually a crude cardboard replica of that branch and when they present their photoID it is run through a scanner and copied so that the picture can be altered and it can be used to access your real account.
Boy, some people are so stupid
While it would be nice to think that a similar service might be implemented here in New Zealand, the chances are virtually zero for one reason:
Copyright.
The TV broadcasters consider their program listings to be their intellectual property and that they're protected by copyright.
Similar copyright cases (both here and in Australia) have been won by the companies which publish other collections of data such as telephone directories (example)
Anyone who attempts to publish TV program schedules without the permission of the broadcaster (and they charge like wounded bulls for giving such permission) will be set upon by multiple teams of corporate lawyers.
Of course someone intent on providing a scheduling service for a Tivo-like system could always try and buy the rights to publish those listings but I bet you any money you like that those rights would come with the caveat that ad-blocking was forbidden. After all, advertising revenues are the lifeblood of a free-to-air broadcaster so they're not about to allow someone to provide a service that cuts ads are they?
Personally I think someone should fight the broadcasters over their copyright claims -- after all, copyright is supposed to protect the presentation, wording and format of data, not the facts on which that data is based.
If I create listings from scratch and simply include the program title, genre, start and finish times then that information should not be covered by any form of copyright.
But, fighting the corporate sharks costs lots of money so I doubt we'll see a test-case here in NZ anytime soon.
This is so true, especially if you're in an industry or have a hobby that would otherwise require using safety glasses.
I do a lot of machining and quite regularly my glases save my eyes from small, hot fast-moving chips of metal. A look at the lenses shows numerous pits and scratches where they've deflected bits of metal that would have otherwise caused a very painful and potentially vision-altering injuries.
And while it's all very well to say that those who don't need corrective lenses can always just wear safety glasses -- we all know that this doesn't always happen. It's all to easy to think that it'll be okay to do that 10-second job with the grinder or smite just one hammer blow without hassling with safety-glasses -- but it only takes an instant to regret that decision.
And what's worse, I still wear those large, unfashionable glasses that were trendy in the '80s because (unlike contemporary styles) they offer the maximum eye-protection.
Although glasses can be a real pain sometimes (fogging up when you walk into a warm humid room in winter, being less than useless in the rain, falling off your head when you're hanging upside down while working on some expensive peice of machinery, etc -- for me the positives of eyeware outweigh the negatives, especially when you consider the worst-case outcome of corrective surgery.
Most of us were snipped shortly after birth
Fear not... help is at hand!
Uh huh, that's what it was, sloppy coding that leads to one's new virus being very difficult to analyze and fight...
:-)
This would also explain why Microsoft Windows or Internet Explorer doesn't show up as a virus
It would appear that New Zealand's recording industry would rather have customers breaking the law with their blessing than to have the law changed to allow format-shifting.
Remember, here in New Zealand we're not allowed to copy our music or video disks for any reason -- there isn't even a personal fair-use provision in our copyright law.
Check out the interview with the head of NZ's recording industry body RIANZ (who also just happens to be the head of Sony NZ) and listen to him sanctioning lawbreaking but defending the laws he advocates breaking.
It's a masterpiece of hypocrisy
If you're 50 years old, then you're old enough that you should have known better than to pull a stunt like this in the first place
Well excuse me for trying to bring a quite real threat to the public's attention.
I initially attempted to do this with this article but, although I received some feedback, it clearly wasn't reaching a large audience.
That article also produced a lot of people who claimed it couldn't be done and that I was full of hot air -- so the only way to prove my case and to properly inform the public of this threat was to go ahead and do what I said any terror group could do.
You call it a "stunt", I call it proving my case.
Read into this; now that you've pissed off the USA, which is providing a big chunk of your nation's security
But why are they pissed off?
Before I started the project I emailed the FBI and DARAP to tell them what I was planning and why. I also invited them to make any comments they might have and offered them full access to the results of my work.
What did I get in return -- an automated reply from the FBI thanking me for my email and nothing at all from DARPA.
Based on that response, it's pretty natural to think that those organizations in the US charged with the security of the nation didn't have a problem with my project. Surely they'd be smart enough to simply say "we'd really rather you didn't do this" -- but no such response was forthcoming.
Then, when the project serves its goal of raising public awareness, they get all snotty -- is that my fault?
Perhaps they're simply embarrassed now that it's clear they have no answer to such a threat -- which was the entire point of my argument. The only weapon against an LCCM is public awareness.
I hate to say this, but it sounds as if you really did this to yourself
Maybe I did -- but I'm not completely stupid and I have leared lessons from this:
1. Do not take a patriotic stance and contact the Secret Service when information possibly from a sponsor of terror comes into your possession.
2. Do not actively cooperate with the secret service and help them to obtain more information.
3. If the government gives you clearance to sell technology with a military application to a nation deemed to be a sponsor of terror, do not question this -- simply go ahead with the transanction.
4. Do not put the interests of your country (overseas investment, new jobs, export earnings, a valuable foothold in an explosive new industry) ahead of your own. Think only of your own bank balance in all transactions.
5. Do not turn down offers of money from the government as they will not thank you or even consider that by not accepting that money you are in effect in credit to that amount.
6. Do not trust the government to act ethically, moraly or even legally when they wish to achieve some end.
7. Do not work your ass off and sell your house to pay a tax debt while being fooled into believing that regular and reliable servicing such a debt to the point where it is almost completely repaid will stop the taxman from bankrupting you for no apparent reason.
Unfortunately I feel very sad that these are the lessons I have learned.
Sure, I'm not without fault -- I should have filed my returns and paid all my tax right on time.
But the overal lesson here is that it's pointless trying to remedy such a transgression -- if you ever find yourself behind in your taxes (and you've got a missile in your garage) simply sell all your assets, take a really good holiday then come back and file for bankruptcy.
Sorry to reply to my own post but exactly how long were you behind in taxes
In my case the IRD appear to have thrown their own rule book out the door so they felt happy to pile on enormous penalties and refuse to waive them even though they were in breach of the law.
When an Ernst Young tax accountant challenged them on this and requested a meeting as my appointed representitive, they refused to talk with him.
What's more, although I was punished for my own tardy record-keeping, the IRD directly ignored the order of the courts on a number of separate occasions when directed to fix errors in their records.
How bad were their errors?
Well they even got my name wrong and, despite being advised of this and ordered to correct it on THREE separate occasions, by two district court judges and one high-court judge, they still hadn't done so when they applied to bankrupt me.
In fact, the bankruptcy was issued in the wrong name! Yet, in an unprecedented move, the judgement of the High Court was apparently ammended by a clerk who simply changed the name after the event.
On an earlier occasion, the IRD were also harshly berated by the court for not properly accounting for a very large (over)payment I had been made but which not credited to my account.
In fact, their whole approach to this case was unprofessional and, even when I'd gotten all my filing up to date (a year before they filed the bankruptcy move) and paid all but a small amount of the money I was supposed to have owed, their records were still in a shambles.
It seems that nobody, not even the deputy PM or the Minister for Revenue cared about this minor fact -- which again leaves me believing that this was nothing to do with debt recovery and all about scuttling an embarrassing crusise missile project.
Made a point that according to NZ gov't you could sell away to the Iranians -- making them look stupid
So making the government look stupid is a crime punishable by impoverishment?
Took the proceeds from the $200K and didn't pay your tax debt, didn't set aside savings or investments for your family and spent the money building something you don't need and lots of people don't want
Not correct. Most of the $200K was spent repaying loans and other costs I'd incurred while building up 7am.com. Work it out -- $200K for 3-years of 18-hour days, 7 days a week with little income. You can build up a lot of debt during that time and $200K doesn't go far repaying it.
It's also worth noting that in the two years following the one in which I received payment for 7am.com, I paid $135K in tax on taxable income of $200K.
That sounds like an awful lot doesn't it?
That's because only a small percentage of that was actual *tax*, the rest was a mountain of interest and penalties that the tax department piled on with glee.
It's worth noting that (because there's no capital gains tax in New Zealand) there was little tax actually owing on the sale of the company. The penalty bill was many, many times the actual tax -- and at the time they bankrupted me, I'd paid the vast majority of that off.
Refused to go on the dole
Yes, like most people I'd rather work for a living than sponge off others. The only problem is that the government has effectively forbidden me from earning a living because there aren't really a whole lot of jobs going for missile designers here in NZ. That's why I'm looking further afield.
Hardly something to criticise is it?
His previous income was building 7am.com from scratch. He then sold it for handsome profit back the dot com days
Not quite correct. I sold 7am.com for NZ$200K -- which is hardly a "handsome profit" on the three years of 18 hour days, 7 days a week it took to build it up to the world's most widely syndicated web-based news service (which it was when I sold it).
If you watch the video clip you'll see that I was offered $1m for 7am.com but turned it down because I wanted to keep the operation (and jobs/income) in New Zealand. I'm not a "money-centric" guy and it was more important to me that 7am.com didn't just disappear off to the USA because, at the time, it was this country's most highly traffiked and successful internet venture.
Under his own admission, he didn't pay the tax he should have, but was paying it off over installments. It was several hundred thousand I believe
Again, not quite correct.
I at the time I was bankrupted, I had paid *all* the tax I owed and was well on the way to settling the bill for penalties and interest that had been lumped on top. It's also worth noting that my bankruptcy was a breach NZ tax law and (as verified by an Ernst Young tax expert) I was actually entitled to have the penalties and interest waived.
When it came to applying for funding from the government for another project, the Inland Revenue called in the debt in a lump sum
Wrong again. I applied for and had approved, a $36K government-funded grant to help with the development of my jet engine technology. I *did not* uplift this grant, prefering instead to use my own money because I knew there was significant risk associated with the success of the R&D I was undertaking and felt that money would be better spent on health or education.
The IRD's "calling in a debt" had nothing to do with the grant -- except that if I *had* taken the grant, I would have been able to pay most of the penalties and interest with it -- but the government doesn't run a ledger so I got no credit for not uplifting the $36K they offered me.
He couldn't pay so they filed for bankruptcy
Wrong again -- I could pay, I was paying (I made a $20K payment just weeks before the IRD moved to bankrupt me and was just 9-12 months from settling the entire balance.
It is this move on the part of the IRD that makes the whole situation smell. Why would they (after happily accepting my regular payments for some time, and I never missed a payment) suddenly call in the debt just a few months short of full repayment?
Did it look as if I would default? No, I had just paid them a significant percentage of the outstanding amount in a lump sum and had just signed a deal which guaranteed I'd be receiving many times the amount of the debt in just a few short months.
The only reason anyone can come up with is that this wasn't about recovering a debt -- it was about stopping my embarrassing cruise-missile project.
The missile was a hobby that he is now turning too for actual income.
Wrong again. The missile project was an attempt to wake people up to the fact that, as homeland defense becomes increasingly effective, terrorists could well turn to their own hi-tech weapons, and that those weapons could be built in a garage.
Am I selling missiles now? No, I'm simply selling my skills and experience -- just like everyone does when they're looking for a job.
Dude, this will kill you before it kills your server. So dont worry. And no one is interested in mirroring your acts of terrorism, leading to the future deaths of many innocent people so that you can become famous rich bastard
:-)
Clearly you didn't watch the video. Which of my actions do you consider would lead ot the deaths of many innocent people?
1. Contacting the SIS (secret service) with information about suspicious offers made to me?
2. Not taking an offer worth US$100K to sell information to a state considered to be a sponsor of terrorism -- even though the NZ government gave me the okay to do so?
And if my goal was to become a "rich bastard", why did I turn down far more lucrative offers to strike a deal that meant far less money in my pocket but more jobs and export earnings for NZ?
By the way, the most frightening thing about your threats is the fact you can't even spell New Zealand properly
Actually, as you'll see if you watch the video, I *did* turn over suspicious communications to the SIS (the NZ Secret Service) and cooperated with them at their request.
However, since my support of them wasn't reciprocated I formally withdrew that support following the bankruptcy.
I'm buggered if I'm going to be an unpaid employee of a government that would do what they've done to my family.
My attitude now is that I'll simply ignore any communications that I discover to be associated with any potentially undesirable group.
If the SIS want my help, they can pay me for it.
Great you support terrorists ! We shall shoon be visting you. Die you bastard - The CIA
Oh yeah, I tried to raise pubilc awareness of the risk posed by LCCMs and offered detailed information on all my work to both DARPA and the FBI because I support terrorists.
Great logic!
You say you are all that patriotic but you are bankrupt because you did not pay your taxes!
That is actually wrong.
I paid every cent of the tax I owed (in fact I over-paid). I was bankrupted over a huge sum of penalties and interest that (under NZ law, and as verified by an Ernst Young tax expert), should have been waived.
However, I was repaying even these penalties (I paid a lump sum of $20,000 just weeks before the bankruptcy) and if (like most other taxpayer) I'd been alowed to continue with these repayments, the debt would have been cleared completely within 9-12 months.
In effect, the government/tax-ma refusedto let me pay those interests and penalties -- why would they do that?
DO you realize that your work is going to kill thousands of innocent people
Where's your support for that argument?
And you seem to have a very short memory (or didn't attend history classes at school).
Just think back to August 6 and 9 of 1945.
As I said, there is probably no country on the face of the planet which hasn't engaged in some form of terrorism (defined as the killing of innocent men, women and children in the name of a cause).
As I've stated -- I'd much rather focus on civilian applications for RPV/UAV technologies and there are plenty of them. I'm hoping that if someone does want my services, this is what they'll be concentrating on.
From the looks of it, he's building a modern V-1, an dteh tech used is not vastly different from that used in model aircraft. larger scale perhaps, but even taht is questionable when you look at some of the large scale a/c (sucha sthe B-52) modellers have built
This is exactly the point I was trying to make when I embarked on the DIY Cruise Missile project.
It's not rocket science and almost anyone could do it if the set their minds to it.
Besides, why build a cruise missile, which requires you stayin in one place and buying a bunch of stuff taht may arouse the interest of teh authorities when you could steal a biz jet, deliver a larger payload, and do the planning in dispersed locations?
Actually, my other point was that you could build one of these things *without* attrating a lot of attention or rousing the interest of the authorities. There's nothing involved in the construction of an LCCM that would ring alarm bells anywhere.
And your chances of using a hijacked or hired business jet to deliver a payload would seem to be pretty limited if this story is any indicator.
With a flight time of less than 10 minutes to its target and a small radar signature, an LCCM would have a much higher probability of success without the need for martyrdom.
No, I didn't say that Israel was a terrorist nation, I simply said I wouldn't accept offers from that country.
I don't like the way Israel (or Palestians) have conducted themselves in that part of the world and would therefore not like to be party to that type of eye-for-an-eye kind of stupidity.
This will probably kill my server (perhaps someone can throw it on bit-torrent or mirror it) but there's a video clip on my website from a news and current affairs program here in New Zealand that documented my case.
Question: If I'm so damned clever, why don't I have a job?
Answer:
Well, I'm 50 years old, which (even here in NZ) is past the age when it becomes difficult to just walk into a any job because, regardless of your qualifications there's always someone younger who's standing in line ahead of you.
What's more, although I have a lot of experience in a wide number of a synergistic (from a missile building persective) nature, there are plenty of people around who know more and are better at these individual fields than I am.
If an employer is looking for a good programmer, a good electronics design engineer, a good airframe designer, or a good engineer, there are plenty better than me.
My strength is that I have sufficient depth of knowledge and skill in each area to bring a very broad perspective to bear on the particular problems associated with the job of designing and building a cheap cruise missile (or UAV). In effect, I can do the job of four or five people with more efficiency and insight than such a team might.
When I have an idea, I can bring all my different areas of competence to bear on it and produce a result in a fraction the time it takes for a team of several individuals to do the same.
The problem is, there are no companies in NZ looking for this synergy of skills.
Unfortunately, this country has little or no interest in things military -- hell, the first thing the current government did when it gained power was to pretty much gut our air force by disbanding its air-defense capabilies.
This saw all our best avionics engineers, Air Force pilots and maintenance people disappear to greener pastures.
In fact, our Air Force is so run down that even its transport aircraft now break down with regular monotony. Any government that believes that an air capability is an unimportant part of defense is crazy.
As a result of this "head in the sand" attitide, Australia and the USA are both pretty pissed off with New Zealand because it can no longer pull its full weight in ANZUS, the alliance between the three parties.
But back to jobs. The town I live in is a small rural center which is largely supported by a timber mill. In recent times there have been a number of lay-offs at that mill and unemployment levels are quite high here. The reality is that not only are their *no* jobs for hi-tech workers but I couldn't even get a job flipping burgers at McDonalds due to the queue of applicants ahead of me.
Question: why not move to a bigger city?
Answer:
Well that's pretty hard to do when you're living hand-to-mouth without any money to spare. Moving is an *expensive* operation and rents in the big cities are typically three or four times that of the smaller centers. It simply wouldn't be possible for me to move without having several thousand dollars in my pocket to cover the move, rent and other costs until that first pay check came in (assuming that I could even then find a job).
I could support myself however, if I were allowed to remain self-employed -- but that's not possible due to the restrictions placed on my activities by the government.
Question: won't I be killed by Mossad/CIA/whatever? :-)
Answer:
I doubt it -- but if I am, at least my wife gets to claim on my life-insurance policy
In the past few weeks, everything that could go wrong has gone wrong so there have been times when I have to admit that I simply wouldn't care if I became the target of some hitman -- yeah, it's really been that bad!
But seriously, I don't think anyone will try to rub me out (even though a couple of alleged Mossad members were arrested here in NZ for trying to fraudulently obtain an NZ passport).
Question: why don't I get a job with a big aerospace company?
Answer:
Unshielded transmission line will create signals that interfere with radio service.
Not necessarily so.
Unshielded balanced feeders have been widely used ever since the introduction of RF transmission and the losses can be lower than a sheilded cable if done properly. Leakage will always be slightly higher -- but can still be extremely low providing the lines are balanced properly.
Many years ago I built a balanced unsheilded RF link that was over a mile long on a farm for a CB radio. With an input power of 500mW and a matched dummy load on the other end, the leakage from that feeder was so low as to be almost undetectable beyond a few tens of yards.
I expect that the problem the BPL trials are having is that the power circuits are not balanced at the RF frequencies (or harmonics thereof) that are being used.
Achieving and maintaining high levels of balance across the entire spectrum being used is probably going to be a *major* problem that will stand in the way of this technology.
You Americans could learn a lot from the rest of the world when it comes to getting more MPGs.
:-)
Just do what we do -- use a bigger gallon!
Low-tech solutions to hi-tech problems
Uhh, the methanol itself wont compress as a liquid, but who cares? Throw some gas in there, compress it, and turn the can upside down to spray it in.
Not quite as simple as it might seem...
Firstly, given that fuel cells are *extremely* sensitive to impurities you have to make sure that the gas you're using won't actually disolve in methanol (as CO2 does in water for instance) and that, should some gas actually enter the cell, it won't cause any harm.
Since most inert gases (argon, zenon, neon, etc) only liquefy at extremely high pressures and/or low temperatures, you're going to either need a larger gas reservoir with which to pressurise the fuel capsule or rely on significantly higher pressures -- which then pose regulation and safety issues.
I take it you dont do any of even the simplest problemsolving/engineering
No, of course not. You can see that by visiting my websites at:
aardvark.co.nz/pjet
and
interestingprojects.com
(BFG)
Who's the dumbass?
Butane can be a self-pressurizing fuel to allow for easy refuling (as with butane lighters etc). It's *because* methanol is already a liquid that this option can't be used!
Read the context of my comments.
The tiny fuel cell uses 2cc of concentrated methanol to provide 20 hours of power at 100 milliwatts, max.
:-)
"Concentrated methanol"???
Pure methanol perhaps, but I don't believe you can concentrate methanol at all.
With regard to refilling. This will be done with a can of compressed methanol
Errr.. another point of error: being a liquid at normal temperature, methanol is virtually incompressible.
This process will be very similar to the way that butane cigarette lighters are refilled and have been for more than 30 years. Just for the record, butane is much more flamable/explosive than methanol
No, there's another *huge* difference -- at normal temperature/pressures, butane is a gas so it can be compressed for storage and refil (even to the extent that it becomes a liquid). No such option is available with methanol.
It's starting to smell like snake oil
Why is it that when I click on the link (titled: www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge) at the bottom of the page at http://www.grandchallenge.org/media.html I get a "page not found" error?
:-)
Is it incompetence on the part of the creator of that page or is it because I'm surfing from outside the USA and DARPA figure it's not a good idea for potential terrorists to see what's going on with this challenge?