Cary police investigators have theorized that Brad Cooper, an engineer in Voice over Internet Protocol, had the expertise and ability to use the router to stage a remote call from his home phone to his cellphone so that it appeared that Nancy Cooper, 34, was alive on the morning that she disappeared
That's an awfully complex way of doing it. You could accomplish the same thing with a simple modem. I'm disinclined to believe the prosecutions simply because any phone engineer would not need a router.
I too don't understand what is so special about this router.
Well he probably had his own router at home anyway. There is nothing special about VOIP or SIP phones that require anything beyond what is available in your average user grade home router. Even for simulating a call from a remote location; opening a simple inbound SSH port would allow you to make an outgoing call by launching a soft-phone clients on a computer in the house.
On the other hand, the prosecution seem to be arguing crime of passion in the early hours after she was partying with neighbors, and at the same time that he had the foresight to borrow a router specifically for this task.
It's amazing that everybody is focusing on the router without realizing what made the router the perfect device for this task, assuming the prosecution's theory is true: there's no paper trail for it.
Could he have faked a call using any one of some dozen other possible methods, some simpler, some more complicated? Probably. Without leaving a trail? Probably not. If he were to go out and buy any suitable equipment, he'd have to dispose of it afterwards. He'd leave a paper trail if he purchased it with a credit or debit card, or an ATM transaction in the period in question that would establish his location at a certain point in the timeline. I suppose he could have been prepared in advance with cash, but then you'd also have to assume the cops are going to canvas electronics stores in the region with his photo if they're following up on the faked call scenario and think he purchased equipment to pull it off.
Some of the suggestions have involved ideas like using an analog modem, presumably triggered by VNC or some other method of remote control. That would leave traces in logfiles on his equipment at home that he'd have to scrub. A VOIP telephone adapter, like those provided by operators like Vonage, could have been used, but then the service provider would have those records, and again, he'd have equipment belonging to him to dispose of.
This "borrowed" router has no receipt. He can deny ever having touched it, and if they can't find the router, the only issue is credibility. Whether using it amounts to shooting a canary with a howitzer doesn't matter-- but it was never something owned by him, there's no document showing him having it in his possession. The real question here is, why isn't there a logfile somewhere that shows how the call was originated? Even if the router itself is missing, it had to be connected to a softswitch somewhere in order to originate the call, and there should be a CDR somewhere that shows what SIP account was used and from what IP address the session was initiated from, assuming that is how this was achieved. Doesn't the prosecution have to show the chain of events? Or are they just trying to say "yeah, he's a smart guy, he had access to techie stuff, so the call must have been faked"?
"Global subscriber base" just means "all the subscribers you have in the world"; meaning, without restricting to any particular country or group of countries. It's the most inclusive description. If you said "all North American subscribers" it would be just as accurate, but not as complete, as the phrase alone would not tell you whether or not Netflix had subscribers outside North America, and so you would not necessarily know that the North American figure was the complete one. Describing the subscriber base as "global" lets the reader know, with a single word, that this is all of a company's subscribers, everywhere, regardless of where they do or do not do business, so it's a good figure to use to compare companies.
It doesn't say anything whatsoever about what countries Netflix is in or not in. The only companies it makes sense not to talk about "global subscribers" are companies that have subscribers only in a single country; but even then you need to give two pieces of information in the place of one: you have to give the total subscribers in that area, and then you need to define the area.
Beyond that, presumably Netflix eventually plans to expand beyond North America.
The proposed ban was not against use in government communications. They need pass no law to achieve that, an executive order would be enough. The proposed ban was against any and all encrypted communications within the territory of Russia where the government has no key escrow. That includes Skype, Gmail, SSL, and plenty of other things.
There's no education issue here, unless what you mean is that they want to 'educate' Russian students about the benefit of alternatives to Skype and Gmail that the Russian government can intercept.
The document is produced by Guy Hottel and addressed to the director of the FBI.
In the document, Hottel writes that the information referred to in the document was provided to a special agent whose name is redacted. So we've already got a chain of four links here: the FBI Director, Guy Hottel at Strategic Air Command, the unnamed Special Agent, and the SA's source, whose name is also redacted after the preposition "by" in the first sentence.
Inside that, we have the contents of the report, which is that an Air Force investigator, also unnamed, stated that three bodies and three objects were recovered. The SA's source may have been the investigator, or an intermediary, the document isn't entirely clear on that. However, the long redacted portion of the first sentence after the word "by" would seem to indicate information beyond a mere name; perhaps a title, organization, or other contextual information. Such such information was redacted in the first paragraph, but the title "investigator" and the organization name "Air Force(s)" would seem to indicate that these two individuals are distinct. So that would give us five individuals: FBI Director, Guy Hottel, the Special Agent, his informant, and the Air Force investigator.
Everything in the document is essentially preceded by: The FBI acknowledges that SAC reports that a Special Agent says that an informant told him that an Air Force investigator stated... and it's all three years after the alleged events in New Mexico.
There's a word for this. It's "hearsay". In this case, it's four times removed from the only person who is actually named in the document: Guy Hottel at SAC. Putting hearsay in a document doesn't make the contents official; it's just acknowledgement on the part of FBI that people made statements-- in this case, some people made statements about what other people told them that other people told them that other people told them, with three of the individuals involved unnamed.
The important part of the document is the last paragraph-- what the Special Agent did as a result of the informant's statement: "no further investigation was attempted". In other words, it wasn't credible enough to even bother looking into.
The only question here is why Slashdot's editors, more than sixty years later, aren't as astute as that Special Agent.
The big question I see with this is just how clean does the water going in have to be?
Sunlight is free, but clean water is not.
Not very, according to the article:
"Nocera says his team has been operating the device for a week, using water from the nearby Charles River in Cambridge, without any drop in efficiency."
There's an important distinction to be made between an appropriate response and an understandable one. The NIMBY reaction is an understandable response, and it's the analogue of the one you describe: it's saying that potential cons for you outweigh actual pros for everyone else (including you).
There's also nothing wrong with proprietary executables, expect maybe for OSS geeks.
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but getting totally fucked over by allowing myself to become dependent on orphanware, is how I became an "OSS geek." Proprietary executables have serious practical real-world disadvantages.
Free software isn't a religion; it's a rational strategic reaction. My Amiga went years without an OS update. OS/2 too. My current work machine can't run a lot of software because it has an obsolete version of Mac OS X and there is no upgrade for this hardware.
Ouch. You went from AmigaOS to OS/2? Wow. Talk about hard luck. Great systems, but brutal market consequences.
What Apple hardware really doesn't have any upgrade path, aside from the XServe?
having a company that has an astronomical value and millions of members who don't seem to give a shit about anonymity, then yes, I'd say that makes Zuckerberg right and this guy wrong.
Yep, let the market decide what's "right" and "wrong".
I'd say yes, when the context being used is about the market itself. Poole is saying that the market wants anonymity, and Facebook's value proposition is that people want to share information, and that if you have to err, you err on the side of sharing too much rather than too little.
Within this narrow context, where "the market" means "the potential audience for content and services available on the Internet", Poole has a point, which is that anonymity has value, but his counterpoint, that Facebook has "got it wrong" because of the value it places on sharing information, has little merit.
The article goes on to point out how 4chan uses Facebook Connect signups in some areas for "weeding our your more casual trolls"-- so I guess he sees the value in some amount of personal information, shared with some people.
As for the Cuban government, it's not perfect, but it's not a "dictatorship" under the common meaning of the word nowadays. People aren't arrested there for just disagreeing. There is no torture. People aren't kept in jail without trial. There are elections, and if we can discuss their fairness and the weird system they use, it's not the case only in Cuba (hint, 2000 election in the USA). There is no forced labor camps. Police don't open fire on protests.
Those are all fine and good, but aren't the defining aspects of a dictatorship. Concentration of political power and a lack of true democratic institutions-- independent legislature and judiciary, checks and balances, organized opposition, among other things. These things may correlate with human rights, an absence of torture, and freedom of speech, but neither one causes or guarantees the other. A benevolent despot can provide all those things and still be a despot; it's just rare.
Yeah, and the dumb thing is, it's not like we haven't seen this happen before.
"Arcades are dying! Games are moving into the home!" "PC games are dying! Games are moving to the consoles!" "Consoles are dying! Games are moving to the smartphones!"
This can also be applied to statements that "Game Company X is dying!" "Game genre Y is dying!", etc. The game's industry does love its' doomsayers.
Meanwhile, while arcades actually did die, sort of, neither PC games nor home consoles seem to have. A few trends get set, and followed, because the industry's direction is set by clueless managers who follow the market leader religiously. The prophecies are occasionally self fulfilling, particularly when it comes to moving on to the next console generation, which often has the feel of a mass migration.
Here's the useful rule to apply: If someone says "X mode of gaming is dying", ask them what they think will replace it. If they answer something that isn't up to the task, they're surely wrong. At best, in lieu of "dying" the mode of gaming in question will undergo a dry spell, or be reduced in importance.
Being greatly reduced in importance, and/or underoing a protracted dry spell, would fit the definition of "dying" in the context of most of these statements.
Arcades did, for all intents and purposes, die.
Before there were consoles or handhelds, there was only PC gaming. Now the audience for video gaming extends to consoles and handhelds, and those platforms have bigger audiences. PC gaming isn't nonexistent, but neither are arcades. Both are reduced in importance, and arguably undergoing a protracted dry spell. Arcades, one could say, entered their dry spell much earlier, and it has been quite long, with a few exceptions. I think it's only natural that the largest budgets migrate towards the largest addressable markets, which explains some big studios shifting their emphasis to the console, either by doing crossplatform releases, or discontinuing PC support to move to consoles, and also a bit of a return to PC games done by small companies or individuals-- flash-based games created by small studios, or games like Minecraft made by an individual.
Whether the increase in the market for mobile and handheld games will have a similar impact on consoles remains to be seen, but that doesn't invalidate the idea in advance.
It's 1 gb/s FIXED. 100 mbps mobile. That's not hugely far off from WiMax 1 and LTE. And besides, it has much more to do with the modern implementation of new wireless communication techniques than just speed.
Those are also theoretical, and therein lies the problem. The theoretical mobile limits for 802.16e and LTE version 1 aren't far off from what the ITU set as '4g'. However the actual, practical speeds delivered by early deployments of each in real-world situations varied quite a bit and weren't dramatically greater than what was achievable under the best circumstances with 3G technologies like HSDPA.
The crap hits the fan where WiMax, out of the gate early, is out in deployment while the LTE camp harps on WiMax not being 4G because it doesn't meet the standard. The ITU comes out and says neither do, and then says BOTH do, and everybody walks away confused and/or dissatisfied.
Nothing in the world says "I love you" quite so much as stolen merchandise. I'm so head over heels for my wife that I'm about to go out and knock over a convenience store.
Okay, just don't check into FourSquare when you get there.
First off, it's 'Deckard', not 'Dekkard' and not 'Dekker' and not 'Decker'.
Second, while the film leaves the question open, there isn't much point to the entire exercise if there isn't at least some doubt, or a significant possibility of Deckard being a replicant. It's also a very open question why Gaff gives him the unicorn if he's human; there's no reason to believe Deckard ever spoke of his dreams to anyone.
I'm not so sure a specific 'enemy' actually needs to be named or actually demonstrate that a known party classified as such actually had access to the data.
Yeah, I suppose it's not necessary to mention any specific enemy. I can never remember whether it's Oceania or East Asia anyway.
I'd have thought the real danger would be of Anonymous using the virus to discover-- or perhaps to claim to have discovered-- the origin of the Stuxnet virus, or information about what was being planned with Stuxnet by those Anonymous obtained it from.
The 'dumbphone' segment of the market is where there is no margin on devices, that are sold cheaply, subsidized, or given away for free or nearly free, and where the lowest ARPU clients are.
That's an odd definition of 'dominate' unless the only thing you're interested in is counting phones. I suppose some people might be interested in just counting the phones, and not looking at anything else...
You seem to be confusing real dashboard GPS units with cellphones.
They are far from the same. A typical Dashboard GPS has all the maps onboard. They also offers route defaults that favor major roads (shortest time), and these never lead you into trouble other than temporary weather or construction delays. Maps may become obsolete over several years. Roads just don't change that frequently.
And these dashboard units are seldom ever "Wrong" as to your location, and don't rely on any cellular signals. There are the occasional blind spots (city canyons), but these are temporary. If you go thru a tunnel you may lose signals, but the better GPS units realize this, and realize you really can't get lost in a tunnel, and simply revert to estimation till you emerge from the tunnel.
As for wide open desert spaces, the dashboard GPS units don't fail. Common sense fails.
I don't think anyone was attributing these "failures" to the GPS giving an incorrect location-- just giving an impassable route. The story notes that some GPS units have roads that have been inaccessible for 40 years, and yes, some roads, especially unpaved ones, do change that often.
"Lost" in this case does not refer to not knowing where you are, because whether you are navigating with a map or a GPS or by dead reckoning, knowing where you are is only the first step in trying to get from where you were to where you want to be. Dashboard GPS units, good ones, also have preferences that choose between shortest and fastest routes, allow for various avoidances and preferences for highways. Judicious use of such options would certainly eliminate some of these errors, where a marginal route is given for a destination simply because it is the shortest.
Another problem would seem to by that while mapping applications have lots of different kinds of metadata to assign to roads-- speed limits, traffic, road conditions, hazards like construction, there doesn't seem to be any flag for a road being unpaved in an area where passability shifts often and where local environmental conditions are extremely hazardous. Such a feature might be useful, as would be the kind of communication the article describes between people who know the areas (park rangers) and geolocation services vendors.
Slashdot Mirror
Was the router owned by Heisenberg?
Maybe... and then again, maybe not.
Cary police investigators have theorized that Brad Cooper, an engineer in Voice over Internet Protocol, had the expertise and ability to use the router to stage a remote call from his home phone to his cellphone so that it appeared that Nancy Cooper, 34, was alive on the morning that she disappeared
That's an awfully complex way of doing it. You could accomplish the same thing with a simple modem. I'm disinclined to believe the prosecutions simply because any phone engineer would not need a router.
I too don't understand what is so special about this router.
Well he probably had his own router at home anyway. There is nothing special about VOIP or SIP phones that require anything beyond what is available in your average user grade home router. Even for simulating a call from a remote location; opening a simple inbound SSH port would allow you to make an outgoing call by launching a soft-phone clients on a computer in the house.
On the other hand, the prosecution seem to be arguing crime of passion in the early hours after she was partying with neighbors, and at the same time that he had the foresight to borrow a router specifically for this task.
It's amazing that everybody is focusing on the router without realizing what made the router the perfect device for this task, assuming the prosecution's theory is true: there's no paper trail for it.
Could he have faked a call using any one of some dozen other possible methods, some simpler, some more complicated? Probably. Without leaving a trail? Probably not. If he were to go out and buy any suitable equipment, he'd have to dispose of it afterwards. He'd leave a paper trail if he purchased it with a credit or debit card, or an ATM transaction in the period in question that would establish his location at a certain point in the timeline. I suppose he could have been prepared in advance with cash, but then you'd also have to assume the cops are going to canvas electronics stores in the region with his photo if they're following up on the faked call scenario and think he purchased equipment to pull it off.
Some of the suggestions have involved ideas like using an analog modem, presumably triggered by VNC or some other method of remote control. That would leave traces in logfiles on his equipment at home that he'd have to scrub. A VOIP telephone adapter, like those provided by operators like Vonage, could have been used, but then the service provider would have those records, and again, he'd have equipment belonging to him to dispose of.
This "borrowed" router has no receipt. He can deny ever having touched it, and if they can't find the router, the only issue is credibility. Whether using it amounts to shooting a canary with a howitzer doesn't matter-- but it was never something owned by him, there's no document showing him having it in his possession. The real question here is, why isn't there a logfile somewhere that shows how the call was originated? Even if the router itself is missing, it had to be connected to a softswitch somewhere in order to originate the call, and there should be a CDR somewhere that shows what SIP account was used and from what IP address the session was initiated from, assuming that is how this was achieved. Doesn't the prosecution have to show the chain of events? Or are they just trying to say "yeah, he's a smart guy, he had access to techie stuff, so the call must have been faked"?
"Global subscriber base" just means "all the subscribers you have in the world"; meaning, without restricting to any particular country or group of countries. It's the most inclusive description. If you said "all North American subscribers" it would be just as accurate, but not as complete, as the phrase alone would not tell you whether or not Netflix had subscribers outside North America, and so you would not necessarily know that the North American figure was the complete one. Describing the subscriber base as "global" lets the reader know, with a single word, that this is all of a company's subscribers, everywhere, regardless of where they do or do not do business, so it's a good figure to use to compare companies.
It doesn't say anything whatsoever about what countries Netflix is in or not in. The only companies it makes sense not to talk about "global subscribers" are companies that have subscribers only in a single country; but even then you need to give two pieces of information in the place of one: you have to give the total subscribers in that area, and then you need to define the area.
Beyond that, presumably Netflix eventually plans to expand beyond North America.
I think Douglas Adams answered this question best. There are three reasons:
1) Ignorance
2) Stupidity
and
3) Nothing else.
The proposed ban was not against use in government communications. They need pass no law to achieve that, an executive order would be enough. The proposed ban was against any and all encrypted communications within the territory of Russia where the government has no key escrow. That includes Skype, Gmail, SSL, and plenty of other things.
There's no education issue here, unless what you mean is that they want to 'educate' Russian students about the benefit of alternatives to Skype and Gmail that the Russian government can intercept.
You fail reading comprehension.
The document is produced by Guy Hottel and addressed to the director of the FBI.
In the document, Hottel writes that the information referred to in the document was provided to a special agent whose name is redacted. So we've already got a chain of four links here: the FBI Director, Guy Hottel at Strategic Air Command, the unnamed Special Agent, and the SA's source, whose name is also redacted after the preposition "by" in the first sentence.
Inside that, we have the contents of the report, which is that an Air Force investigator, also unnamed, stated that three bodies and three objects were recovered. The SA's source may have been the investigator, or an intermediary, the document isn't entirely clear on that. However, the long redacted portion of the first sentence after the word "by" would seem to indicate information beyond a mere name; perhaps a title, organization, or other contextual information. Such such information was redacted in the first paragraph, but the title "investigator" and the organization name "Air Force(s)" would seem to indicate that these two individuals are distinct. So that would give us five individuals: FBI Director, Guy Hottel, the Special Agent, his informant, and the Air Force investigator.
Everything in the document is essentially preceded by: The FBI acknowledges that SAC reports that a Special Agent says that an informant told him that an Air Force investigator stated... and it's all three years after the alleged events in New Mexico.
There's a word for this. It's "hearsay". In this case, it's four times removed from the only person who is actually named in the document: Guy Hottel at SAC. Putting hearsay in a document doesn't make the contents official; it's just acknowledgement on the part of FBI that people made statements-- in this case, some people made statements about what other people told them that other people told them that other people told them, with three of the individuals involved unnamed.
The important part of the document is the last paragraph-- what the Special Agent did as a result of the informant's statement: "no further investigation was attempted". In other words, it wasn't credible enough to even bother looking into.
The only question here is why Slashdot's editors, more than sixty years later, aren't as astute as that Special Agent.
The big question I see with this is just how clean does the water going in have to be?
Sunlight is free, but clean water is not.
Not very, according to the article:
"Nocera says his team has been operating the device for a week, using water from the nearby Charles River in Cambridge, without any drop in efficiency."
Which is to say, not particularly clean.
I don't think you can issue a proper DMCA takedown notice by telephone... not even if it's a "hotline".
There's an important distinction to be made between an appropriate response and an understandable one. The NIMBY reaction is an understandable response, and it's the analogue of the one you describe: it's saying that potential cons for you outweigh actual pros for everyone else (including you).
I suppose that means you routinely check your shoes for microphones before you buy them, right?
Oh, come on. We've been here before. Stallman loves to talk shit.
You don't change the world by being meek, mild, and reasonable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi
You sure about that? Sure, it's not easy, but I don't think changing the world ever is, no matter how you do it.
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but getting totally fucked over by allowing myself to become dependent on orphanware, is how I became an "OSS geek." Proprietary executables have serious practical real-world disadvantages.
Free software isn't a religion; it's a rational strategic reaction. My Amiga went years without an OS update. OS/2 too. My current work machine can't run a lot of software because it has an obsolete version of Mac OS X and there is no upgrade for this hardware.
Ouch. You went from AmigaOS to OS/2? Wow. Talk about hard luck. Great systems, but brutal market consequences.
What Apple hardware really doesn't have any upgrade path, aside from the XServe?
I'd like to see how many "members" 4chan has. I'll bet it's quite a bit more than Facebook, especially if you look at the active ones.
Depends on which image galleries you're looking at. I'd guess, quite a few.
having a company that has an astronomical value and millions of members who don't seem to give a shit about anonymity, then yes, I'd say that makes Zuckerberg right and this guy wrong.
Yep, let the market decide what's "right" and "wrong".
I'd say yes, when the context being used is about the market itself. Poole is saying that the market wants anonymity, and Facebook's value proposition is that people want to share information, and that if you have to err, you err on the side of sharing too much rather than too little.
Within this narrow context, where "the market" means "the potential audience for content and services available on the Internet", Poole has a point, which is that anonymity has value, but his counterpoint, that Facebook has "got it wrong" because of the value it places on sharing information, has little merit.
The article goes on to point out how 4chan uses Facebook Connect signups in some areas for "weeding our your more casual trolls"-- so I guess he sees the value in some amount of personal information, shared with some people.
As for the Cuban government, it's not perfect, but it's not a "dictatorship" under the common meaning of the word nowadays. People aren't arrested there for just disagreeing. There is no torture. People aren't kept in jail without trial. There are elections, and if we can discuss their fairness and the weird system they use, it's not the case only in Cuba (hint, 2000 election in the USA). There is no forced labor camps. Police don't open fire on protests.
Those are all fine and good, but aren't the defining aspects of a dictatorship. Concentration of political power and a lack of true democratic institutions-- independent legislature and judiciary, checks and balances, organized opposition, among other things. These things may correlate with human rights, an absence of torture, and freedom of speech, but neither one causes or guarantees the other. A benevolent despot can provide all those things and still be a despot; it's just rare.
Yeah, and the dumb thing is, it's not like we haven't seen this happen before.
"Arcades are dying! Games are moving into the home!"
"PC games are dying! Games are moving to the consoles!"
"Consoles are dying! Games are moving to the smartphones!"
This can also be applied to statements that "Game Company X is dying!" "Game genre Y is dying!", etc. The game's industry does love its' doomsayers.
Meanwhile, while arcades actually did die, sort of, neither PC games nor home consoles seem to have. A few trends get set, and followed, because the industry's direction is set by clueless managers who follow the market leader religiously. The prophecies are occasionally self fulfilling, particularly when it comes to moving on to the next console generation, which often has the feel of a mass migration.
Here's the useful rule to apply: If someone says "X mode of gaming is dying", ask them what they think will replace it. If they answer something that isn't up to the task, they're surely wrong. At best, in lieu of "dying" the mode of gaming in question will undergo a dry spell, or be reduced in importance.
Being greatly reduced in importance, and/or underoing a protracted dry spell, would fit the definition of "dying" in the context of most of these statements.
Arcades did, for all intents and purposes, die.
Before there were consoles or handhelds, there was only PC gaming. Now the audience for video gaming extends to consoles and handhelds, and those platforms have bigger audiences. PC gaming isn't nonexistent, but neither are arcades. Both are reduced in importance, and arguably undergoing a protracted dry spell. Arcades, one could say, entered their dry spell much earlier, and it has been quite long, with a few exceptions. I think it's only natural that the largest budgets migrate towards the largest addressable markets, which explains some big studios shifting their emphasis to the console, either by doing crossplatform releases, or discontinuing PC support to move to consoles, and also a bit of a return to PC games done by small companies or individuals-- flash-based games created by small studios, or games like Minecraft made by an individual.
Whether the increase in the market for mobile and handheld games will have a similar impact on consoles remains to be seen, but that doesn't invalidate the idea in advance.
It's 1 gb/s FIXED. 100 mbps mobile. That's not hugely far off from WiMax 1 and LTE. And besides, it has much more to do with the modern implementation of new wireless communication techniques than just speed.
Those are also theoretical, and therein lies the problem. The theoretical mobile limits for 802.16e and LTE version 1 aren't far off from what the ITU set as '4g'. However the actual, practical speeds delivered by early deployments of each in real-world situations varied quite a bit and weren't dramatically greater than what was achievable under the best circumstances with 3G technologies like HSDPA.
The crap hits the fan where WiMax, out of the gate early, is out in deployment while the LTE camp harps on WiMax not being 4G because it doesn't meet the standard. The ITU comes out and says neither do, and then says BOTH do, and everybody walks away confused and/or dissatisfied.
Nothing in the world says "I love you" quite so much as stolen merchandise. I'm so head over heels for my wife that I'm about to go out and knock over a convenience store.
Okay, just don't check into FourSquare when you get there.
Dekkard was a human and Han shot first.
First off, it's 'Deckard', not 'Dekkard' and not 'Dekker' and not 'Decker'.
Second, while the film leaves the question open, there isn't much point to the entire exercise if there isn't at least some doubt, or a significant possibility of Deckard being a replicant. It's also a very open question why Gaff gives him the unicorn if he's human; there's no reason to believe Deckard ever spoke of his dreams to anyone.
But yes, Han did shoot first.
I'm not so sure a specific 'enemy' actually needs to be named or actually demonstrate that a known party classified as such actually had access to the data.
Yeah, I suppose it's not necessary to mention any specific enemy. I can never remember whether it's Oceania or East Asia anyway.
Not really. CounterStrike is sort of an old game.
Other fun facts about the universe: The universe contains no population, no money, and no sex*.
(*Actually there is quite a lot of this.)
Corollary: sex is entropy.
Corollary to the corollary: Slashdot is immune to entropy.
I'd have thought the real danger would be of Anonymous using the virus to discover-- or perhaps to claim to have discovered-- the origin of the Stuxnet virus, or information about what was being planned with Stuxnet by those Anonymous obtained it from.
The 'dumbphone' segment of the market is where there is no margin on devices, that are sold cheaply, subsidized, or given away for free or nearly free, and where the lowest ARPU clients are.
That's an odd definition of 'dominate' unless the only thing you're interested in is counting phones. I suppose some people might be interested in just counting the phones, and not looking at anything else...
You seem to be confusing real dashboard GPS units with cellphones.
They are far from the same. A typical Dashboard GPS has all the maps onboard.
They also offers route defaults that favor major roads (shortest time), and these never lead you into trouble other than temporary weather or construction delays. Maps may become obsolete over several years. Roads just don't change that frequently.
And these dashboard units are seldom ever "Wrong" as to your location, and don't rely on any cellular signals. There are the occasional blind spots (city canyons), but these are temporary. If you go thru a tunnel you may lose signals, but the better GPS units realize this, and realize you really can't get lost in a tunnel, and simply revert to estimation till you emerge from the tunnel.
As for wide open desert spaces, the dashboard GPS units don't fail. Common sense fails.
I don't think anyone was attributing these "failures" to the GPS giving an incorrect location-- just giving an impassable route. The story notes that some GPS units have roads that have been inaccessible for 40 years, and yes, some roads, especially unpaved ones, do change that often.
"Lost" in this case does not refer to not knowing where you are, because whether you are navigating with a map or a GPS or by dead reckoning, knowing where you are is only the first step in trying to get from where you were to where you want to be. Dashboard GPS units, good ones, also have preferences that choose between shortest and fastest routes, allow for various avoidances and preferences for highways. Judicious use of such options would certainly eliminate some of these errors, where a marginal route is given for a destination simply because it is the shortest.
Another problem would seem to by that while mapping applications have lots of different kinds of metadata to assign to roads-- speed limits, traffic, road conditions, hazards like construction, there doesn't seem to be any flag for a road being unpaved in an area where passability shifts often and where local environmental conditions are extremely hazardous. Such a feature might be useful, as would be the kind of communication the article describes between people who know the areas (park rangers) and geolocation services vendors.