At the end of the day it is all rather mute. The real point is doing an appropriate cost benefit analysis, the presumed benefit being the prevention of an illegal immigrant crossing the border undetected versus the cost of preventing this from happening. This can of course be further extrapolated out to thousands of illegal border crossings the the actual true impact upon the security of the United States.
Obviously once politics and corporate greed take over, it is readily apparent any realistic analysis is being tossed out in favour of exaggerations and straight out bullshit.
A more contentious solution might be for the US to consider applying a fiscal penalty to Mexico for each illegal immigrant returned, thus both countries might more readily work together to secure their mutual border. Perhaps even a reward system for the 'detection' not capture (that should be done by properly trained officers for obvious reasons) of persons illegally crossing the border.
The real focus should be on how much in total is being spent on securing that border, what can be done to minimise current expenditures and what is the realistic harm caused by illegal border crossings in order to put a cap upon expenditure.
Of course the immunisation implied by this patent would also be illegal because people have the right of refusal to any treatment and this patent of course denies that right. Then of course their are allergies, each allergen being pretty much unique to each human individual, such that any pharmacological treatment can have negative and even deadly results to a percentage of the population. So the problem becomes how can you target the treatment to only those people that accept it and avoid those people who refuse it.
In this case the patent is a typical across the board bullshit patent, that the software industry is so famous. They are patenting the idea, an idea that has already been publicly expressed upon many occasions prior to this, except no greedy self serving ass hat patented.
They are not patenting a single application of the but the whole concept for which there is of course prior art, the expression of that concept. Whilst they might be entitled to a patent for an actual application of the concept they are not entitled to steal from the public an already openly publicly expressed concept. Their greed and deceit, apparently does know no bounds.
Want real speculation, how about this. Will M$ bring all of it's legal, investigative and it's ability to provide cash incentives to seek fiscal redress for the way in which access the source code was used to publicly destroy the image of it's operating system security.
Many countries have recently announced their intent to drop the Windows Operating system due to the security weakness and exploitability as demonstrated by the Stuxnet virus, this will likely end up costing M$ billions of dollars in lost income. If M$ can prove access to it's source code was exploited by government to break the security of the program, regardless of the damage done to the public's perception of the security of the program, than M$ is fully entitled to damages done by the purposeful and malevolent attack upon one of it's core revenue streams.
I believe Raplh Nader called right at the beginning http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo and of all people Fox not-News is coming to the defence of Uncle Tom Obama.
In fact is has gotten worse in the last two years with irradiate and grope, activist pre-emptive arrests, continued exemption from basic legal rights for foreigners in foreign lands (blowing up suspects, who were not innocent until proven guilty as well as their neighbours whom I assume are now guilty by association).
Methinks you do not understand the political spectrum at all, centre politics is very conservative (as in actually conservative not Republican conservative) ie, strict adherence to laws, always constrain change and risk by adding more laws, don't go to war, minimise imports, be more isolationist. The centre left was to add social welfare to that ie. universal health care, minimum wage based upon liveability, fair trade to take precedence over free trade, all people treated equally under the law, social welfare net to reduce societal stresses and crime, more open government and more involvement of the electorate in government.
The hardcore left is a meaningless term, mainly used as an insult against the centre left implying that they are radical far left revolutionaries, especially when they provide valid reasoning for their policy stances, which don't allow for insane selfish greed.
The tool argument is completely illogical, tools do not have a memory, tools do not have applications, tools do not communicate, tools do not turn malicious and tools can last quite a long time.
Who owns the data is the biggest problem, the employee owns their computer and thus they own everything on it. The reality is, it is often the software that costs far more than the hardware, so you free open source software as the default.
If you want your employees to look after the hardware better, than let them know they get to keep it when it is replaced at the end of it's taxation life cycle.
When it comes to budgeting the hardware and software, you need to add it to the employees productivity and generate a combined value. Bean counter seem to forget that prior to computers and everyone typing out their own reports you had typing pools, that typed out reports even given to them verbally or hand written. Charts and tables that took days are now down in hours in a spread sheet. Drawings that took weeks are now done in days.
Computers are an overhead with a per employee cost and, a set replacement cycle for hardware, networks and software. To save money try to keep to off the shelf hardware and software, use free open source software, pay attention to consumable (ink, paper) and tie computer costs to productivity gains.
They don't want to hire more guards, there are no corporate profits in provide more government border agents. Think about 53 miles with with three shifts of guards spaced 100 yards apart, getting paid say $25,000 per year, that billion dollars would pay for 14 years worth of wildly excessive security.
They would loath that solution, corporate executives wouldn't get their multi million dollar bonuses, lobbyists wouldn't get their multi million dollar fees, politicians wouldn't get the multi million dollar campaign contributions and right wing employers wouldn't get the cheap illegal immigrant labour.
Mind boggling, P.S. you don't spend a billion dollars securing 53 miles and then decide it's a bad idea, you should be able figure that out before spending that money. It would appear that Napolitano has managed to achieve the Peter Principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle and, has rise to her level of incompetence.
Being a little older and having seen the implementation of no mobile phones through to low cost cell phones, the biggest drive has been in time saving. Where personal leave the office to carry out the job function, the ability of the office to readily communicate with them and their ability to make a call without having to find a phone booth and in many areas put themselves at risk to make a call. The principle has been to save time and thus reduce staff numbers by having more flexible staff.
Knee jerk reaction without analysis is stupid. Waste a couple of hours a week with communications lags and delays as well as fiddling about trying to get a parking space and find a working public phone in a safe location soon pay for a cell phone and then some.
The advantage of being readily able to contact mobile staff far outweighs the cost. Basically a big self promoting idiot has made a grand public play and given six months will pay the consequences for knee jerk ill informed decision. Analysis first, then planning, then announcement and finally implementation, only fools announce and implement and then manage by failure (save cents to spend dollars).
If California is serious about saving real money than they should focus upon the elimination of replication of services across the state, so state based policing not county, state based education not county, state based emergency services not county. The driven reason for that, is a major reduction in administrative services whilst still expanding actual provision of public service. So a reduction in county taxation and an increase in state taxes, whilst providing a more equal distribution of taxes across the state, without any substantive increase in average tax paid.
Once you get past one childs death as a result of fraudulent for profit research and many many others who needlessly suffered, do numbers really count. Life imprisonment for one or hundreds, does it really make that much difference.
Give to both would have been the better answer. If current hardship strains your generosity than definitely give to those more in need when those donations are managed by larger reputable organisations the aid will most likely get to where it is most needed, let your own conscience choose.
The most urgent aid will be provided by the Australian Government, once things have settled down then aid can be more accurately targeted at those in need (donations a little latter than earlier can better fill in gaps of assistance provided by the Australian government).
In Australia the demand by the Australian people is that the government must provide 'ALL' the assistance required, ahead of military spending, ahead of corporate aid, ahead of making the rich richer, Australian charity is there to just fill the gaps in government aid and foreign aid while welcome should not in any way be necessary (if it is then the Australian government will have been deemed to have failed).
Extradition will also still be covered by the validity of the accusation. Would the two women involved still make the same claims and can they be called to testify. Also what happens if Julian Assange takes the simply expediency of walking into an Australian Embassy ie Australian territory and seeks protection. What happens if he avoids extradition and the UK decides to deport him to Australia as an undesirable person.
Thanks to some cables regarding Australia which shows excessive alignment between certain Australian politicians and the US government (A government that has lied to the Australia government to involve it in a war that cost Australian lives), what happens to Julian Assange is a leadership issue and a successful extradition from Australia would likely result in a change of leadership and a cancellation of extradition.
Overall in it's arrogance and the ego of the Individuals the US has succeeded in making the biggest possible mess out of the cable release it could possibly have done. Like a child throwing a temper tantrum with no focus on outcomes, no realistic view of the situation, no planning to achieve goals, just blindly reacting circumstance driven by nothing but childish emotion.
How about what does the CEO do, Mike Jones has 47% less people to manage, I wonder if they cut his salary by 47% for obviously being a failure.
This is not the only internet site that Newscorp bought and screwed up by strangling the chicken. Greed, desire to control users, need to force feed Newscorp propaganda and their attitude to truth versus lies 'meh' which is more profitable, means when it comes to the internet Newscorp will continue to fuck up (the truth always comes out and bites them on the arse).
Well that is the real problem, they are simply lying and fraudulently trying to sell something they do not have. Now they can most certainly create the infrastructure that would support the bandwidth but for psychopathic corporate executives it is not as profitable as lying. So modern reality corporations will lie to inflate profits as a matter of course, they will also pay lobbyists to bribe politicians to cripple government consumer protection organisations in order to protect those lies.
Your salacious insinuation that I have associated with falsely claimed instantiations of 'Anonymous' again repeat the same factual inaccuracy that 'Anonymous' exist as a group, and not simply as a activism promotional meme, basically 'Anonymous' is nothing more than an open use promotional meme, anything else is a lie.
My interpretation of current sociological interactions in digital political activism are my own and that in this instance they differ from mass media interpretation which far to often deceitfully serves government rather than questioning it and adhering to the truth does not insinuate any other actions on my part, it does however demonstrate government and mass media willingness to work together to promote a lie in order to illegally attack those that don't agree with them.
'Anonymous' will not be doing anything, 'Anonymous' does not exist as a group, you can not join 'Anonymous', no one represents 'Anonymous' and, no individual or group runs 'Anonymous'.
'Anonymous' is a political activism meme, individuals can either choose or not choose to carry out any particular activity in the name of 'Anonymous' and any activity they choose to do in the name of 'Anonymous' has no connection with any other individual chooses to do in the name of 'Anonymous'.
All activities carried out in the name of 'Anonymous' are done upon an individual basis and might or might not align with any current 'Anonymous' activism meme being carried out using the title 'Anonymous'. This analysis is based upon truth and in order to protect person whom might choose to conduct legal and honest political activism from any whom might choose to push the bounds of the law, from a corrupt interpretation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act.
Whilst organisation and individuals might euphemistically refer to anonymous as a group it is categorically not accurate.
The reality is the public will soon realise this cap is not about downloading but screwing people when they make video calls and don't realise how quickly they are chewing up the cap, as you can only make video calls via the internet (double billing upload and download).
Reality "most of the methane released" LIE, most of the methane released that was deposited on the sea floor in close proximity to the blow out. So misleading science right of the get go, simple logic, the rig blew up because of a blow out ie, a large volume of methane gas escaped from the well head, rose to the surface caught fire and exploded.
So did amphibious bacteria consume the methane the rose from the sea floor and escape to the atmosphere, logically the majority of the methane released (as the rig would never have exploded if that were no true}, no. So misleading science created to generate an illusion of the environment cleaning the oil blow out rather than the truth of the environment being damaged for decades to come by the oil blow out.
So marketing science or better know as junk science paid for by corporation as a misleading exercise in marketing.
Even more impressive when you consider 12 to 24 month phone contracts, so consider all those customer still locked in that can not swap over. Subscriber numbers will continue to grow as those contracts expire. So really ouch, for the other phone 'software' companies, new phones contracts for alternates to android must be really plummeting.
Me thinks you have never heard of things like, greed and patents. The two things most holding up the development of better solar panels and better batteries. If governments were really serious are pollution, they would do what they did during wars, suspend patents in the affected technologies and directly sponsor development, after better technology has been developed (by consolidating different technological developments) they can sort out corporate greed.
Even worse money is being spent on blocking development of better solar panels and batteries by corporations who investment are in polluting energy generation technologies, from blocking government involvement to burying developments.
Unless of course the US dollar keeps losing value. When the OLPC announcement came out the US dollar was worth about $1.60 Australian now it is pretty much on par, so it is a real question whether the OLPC has hit it's price target or not. To be fair based up logical reason, the OLPC can not be blamed for the failing US economy and so the reasonable answer is the are much closer to the price goal than just number would indicate.
So will the OLPC project now reach for a $50 price target based upon adjusted US dollar cross rate valuations (perhaps $200 unadjusted based upon continued Republican corporate economic vandalism).
That makes no sense as in a Democracy the majority define the laws, all of the laws. In a democracy you can not be protected by laws that the majority have not agreed to. Also note that a true democracy, requires that all people vote and that all people base that vote upon full true knowledge of the consequence of that vote.
You can not have a true democracy if all the people do not have access to vote, you can not have true democracy where lies are able to distort understanding of the consequence of that vote. You are a human being and as such a part of human society, you are bound by that human society it creates and defines you, without it you are a grunting, ignorant creature stumbling about naked, cold, wet and, diseased waiting to be eaten by far more primitively successful predators. Democracy gives you a voice, suck it up when the majority chooses to ignore it and that is still far better than screaming in primal rage without even a fur loin cloth or flint stone knife to protect you. (ignore the sociopath and narcissistic view of humans preying upon humans that is based upon a genetic anti-social mental defect propagated as desirable by a mass media run by psychopaths and manned by narcissists).
All of that has very little to do with Googles predilection for privacy invasion likely driven more by the private perversions of individuals in googles corporate food chain and data base engineers and the perceived power and erotic rush they get when they can invade and control other peoples lives, so the perverted minority working against the majority. Simple private data laws are required, covering regular detailed notification of private data held to the person the information is about and the right of the person to request the data be deleted or corrected and auditing of those laws.
Let's be realistic, the problem to be solved is simply the means required by a person to identify themselves for various purposes. So a single electronic card that can be used for all purposes, including identification, licensing for various activities, purchasing and even medical, is reasonable as long as it remains voluntary.
So a person who chooses to, can consolidate their identification requirements. Flip side is to make it more acceptable there would have to be some very severe penalties for privacy invasion based abusing the electronic id cards, forged cards, hacking the cards and even against foreign countries with 'political prostitutes as secretaries of state' abusing those electronic ID cards for espionage purposes.
Of course when you become reliant upon one card for all your needs (identification, licensing, shopping and travel), losing it could be a real nightmare without rapid replacement facilities, really rapid, hours not days. It also seems that treaties between countries will be require covering the breaking of laws by agents of one country in other country, covering penalties for infringement so that electronic ID cards are not abused for illegal espionage purposes.
It also appears that the major players involved were already pretty aware of the risk of that particular well, including a vary favourable insurance policy by Transocean (no cost cutting here), buying a oil clean up company by Halliburton and many insiders selling BP stock.
No type of warning systems could have saved this particular rig from a major gas blowout with only one spark required to ignite it. It could have however saved the crew if they could have abandoned the rig prior to ignition.
Greed feeding stupidity, driving too many cost cutting, bonus boosting short cuts, all protected by failing regulatory and inspection standards. In this it is pretty clear that quite a few corporate executives were fully aware of the risks and decided to cash in on them rather than fix the problem. So the investigation should also cover, who was aware of the problems with the rig and what actions did they take based upon that awareness (did they seek to profit or did they seek to minimise harm) and as such as accessories prior to the fact how liable are they for the consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
At the end of the day it is all rather mute. The real point is doing an appropriate cost benefit analysis, the presumed benefit being the prevention of an illegal immigrant crossing the border undetected versus the cost of preventing this from happening. This can of course be further extrapolated out to thousands of illegal border crossings the the actual true impact upon the security of the United States.
Obviously once politics and corporate greed take over, it is readily apparent any realistic analysis is being tossed out in favour of exaggerations and straight out bullshit.
A more contentious solution might be for the US to consider applying a fiscal penalty to Mexico for each illegal immigrant returned, thus both countries might more readily work together to secure their mutual border. Perhaps even a reward system for the 'detection' not capture (that should be done by properly trained officers for obvious reasons) of persons illegally crossing the border.
The real focus should be on how much in total is being spent on securing that border, what can be done to minimise current expenditures and what is the realistic harm caused by illegal border crossings in order to put a cap upon expenditure.
Of course the immunisation implied by this patent would also be illegal because people have the right of refusal to any treatment and this patent of course denies that right. Then of course their are allergies, each allergen being pretty much unique to each human individual, such that any pharmacological treatment can have negative and even deadly results to a percentage of the population. So the problem becomes how can you target the treatment to only those people that accept it and avoid those people who refuse it.
In this case the patent is a typical across the board bullshit patent, that the software industry is so famous. They are patenting the idea, an idea that has already been publicly expressed upon many occasions prior to this, except no greedy self serving ass hat patented.
They are not patenting a single application of the but the whole concept for which there is of course prior art, the expression of that concept. Whilst they might be entitled to a patent for an actual application of the concept they are not entitled to steal from the public an already openly publicly expressed concept. Their greed and deceit, apparently does know no bounds.
Want real speculation, how about this. Will M$ bring all of it's legal, investigative and it's ability to provide cash incentives to seek fiscal redress for the way in which access the source code was used to publicly destroy the image of it's operating system security.
Many countries have recently announced their intent to drop the Windows Operating system due to the security weakness and exploitability as demonstrated by the Stuxnet virus, this will likely end up costing M$ billions of dollars in lost income. If M$ can prove access to it's source code was exploited by government to break the security of the program, regardless of the damage done to the public's perception of the security of the program, than M$ is fully entitled to damages done by the purposeful and malevolent attack upon one of it's core revenue streams.
Let's not make stuff up, here are the US military pay rates http://www.us-army-info.com/pages/ranks.html.
I believe Raplh Nader called right at the beginning http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo and of all people Fox not-News is coming to the defence of Uncle Tom Obama.
In fact is has gotten worse in the last two years with irradiate and grope, activist pre-emptive arrests, continued exemption from basic legal rights for foreigners in foreign lands (blowing up suspects, who were not innocent until proven guilty as well as their neighbours whom I assume are now guilty by association).
Methinks you do not understand the political spectrum at all, centre politics is very conservative (as in actually conservative not Republican conservative) ie, strict adherence to laws, always constrain change and risk by adding more laws, don't go to war, minimise imports, be more isolationist. The centre left was to add social welfare to that ie. universal health care, minimum wage based upon liveability, fair trade to take precedence over free trade, all people treated equally under the law, social welfare net to reduce societal stresses and crime, more open government and more involvement of the electorate in government.
The hardcore left is a meaningless term, mainly used as an insult against the centre left implying that they are radical far left revolutionaries, especially when they provide valid reasoning for their policy stances, which don't allow for insane selfish greed.
The tool argument is completely illogical, tools do not have a memory, tools do not have applications, tools do not communicate, tools do not turn malicious and tools can last quite a long time.
Who owns the data is the biggest problem, the employee owns their computer and thus they own everything on it. The reality is, it is often the software that costs far more than the hardware, so you free open source software as the default.
If you want your employees to look after the hardware better, than let them know they get to keep it when it is replaced at the end of it's taxation life cycle.
When it comes to budgeting the hardware and software, you need to add it to the employees productivity and generate a combined value. Bean counter seem to forget that prior to computers and everyone typing out their own reports you had typing pools, that typed out reports even given to them verbally or hand written. Charts and tables that took days are now down in hours in a spread sheet. Drawings that took weeks are now done in days.
Computers are an overhead with a per employee cost and, a set replacement cycle for hardware, networks and software. To save money try to keep to off the shelf hardware and software, use free open source software, pay attention to consumable (ink, paper) and tie computer costs to productivity gains.
They don't want to hire more guards, there are no corporate profits in provide more government border agents. Think about 53 miles with with three shifts of guards spaced 100 yards apart, getting paid say $25,000 per year, that billion dollars would pay for 14 years worth of wildly excessive security.
They would loath that solution, corporate executives wouldn't get their multi million dollar bonuses, lobbyists wouldn't get their multi million dollar fees, politicians wouldn't get the multi million dollar campaign contributions and right wing employers wouldn't get the cheap illegal immigrant labour.
Mind boggling, P.S. you don't spend a billion dollars securing 53 miles and then decide it's a bad idea, you should be able figure that out before spending that money. It would appear that Napolitano has managed to achieve the Peter Principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle and, has rise to her level of incompetence.
Being a little older and having seen the implementation of no mobile phones through to low cost cell phones, the biggest drive has been in time saving. Where personal leave the office to carry out the job function, the ability of the office to readily communicate with them and their ability to make a call without having to find a phone booth and in many areas put themselves at risk to make a call. The principle has been to save time and thus reduce staff numbers by having more flexible staff.
Knee jerk reaction without analysis is stupid. Waste a couple of hours a week with communications lags and delays as well as fiddling about trying to get a parking space and find a working public phone in a safe location soon pay for a cell phone and then some.
The advantage of being readily able to contact mobile staff far outweighs the cost. Basically a big self promoting idiot has made a grand public play and given six months will pay the consequences for knee jerk ill informed decision. Analysis first, then planning, then announcement and finally implementation, only fools announce and implement and then manage by failure (save cents to spend dollars).
If California is serious about saving real money than they should focus upon the elimination of replication of services across the state, so state based policing not county, state based education not county, state based emergency services not county. The driven reason for that, is a major reduction in administrative services whilst still expanding actual provision of public service. So a reduction in county taxation and an increase in state taxes, whilst providing a more equal distribution of taxes across the state, without any substantive increase in average tax paid.
Once you get past one childs death as a result of fraudulent for profit research and many many others who needlessly suffered, do numbers really count. Life imprisonment for one or hundreds, does it really make that much difference.
Give to both would have been the better answer. If current hardship strains your generosity than definitely give to those more in need when those donations are managed by larger reputable organisations the aid will most likely get to where it is most needed, let your own conscience choose.
The most urgent aid will be provided by the Australian Government, once things have settled down then aid can be more accurately targeted at those in need (donations a little latter than earlier can better fill in gaps of assistance provided by the Australian government).
In Australia the demand by the Australian people is that the government must provide 'ALL' the assistance required, ahead of military spending, ahead of corporate aid, ahead of making the rich richer, Australian charity is there to just fill the gaps in government aid and foreign aid while welcome should not in any way be necessary (if it is then the Australian government will have been deemed to have failed).
Extradition will also still be covered by the validity of the accusation. Would the two women involved still make the same claims and can they be called to testify. Also what happens if Julian Assange takes the simply expediency of walking into an Australian Embassy ie Australian territory and seeks protection. What happens if he avoids extradition and the UK decides to deport him to Australia as an undesirable person.
Thanks to some cables regarding Australia which shows excessive alignment between certain Australian politicians and the US government (A government that has lied to the Australia government to involve it in a war that cost Australian lives), what happens to Julian Assange is a leadership issue and a successful extradition from Australia would likely result in a change of leadership and a cancellation of extradition.
Overall in it's arrogance and the ego of the Individuals the US has succeeded in making the biggest possible mess out of the cable release it could possibly have done. Like a child throwing a temper tantrum with no focus on outcomes, no realistic view of the situation, no planning to achieve goals, just blindly reacting circumstance driven by nothing but childish emotion.
How about what does the CEO do, Mike Jones has 47% less people to manage, I wonder if they cut his salary by 47% for obviously being a failure.
This is not the only internet site that Newscorp bought and screwed up by strangling the chicken. Greed, desire to control users, need to force feed Newscorp propaganda and their attitude to truth versus lies 'meh' which is more profitable, means when it comes to the internet Newscorp will continue to fuck up (the truth always comes out and bites them on the arse).
Well that is the real problem, they are simply lying and fraudulently trying to sell something they do not have. Now they can most certainly create the infrastructure that would support the bandwidth but for psychopathic corporate executives it is not as profitable as lying. So modern reality corporations will lie to inflate profits as a matter of course, they will also pay lobbyists to bribe politicians to cripple government consumer protection organisations in order to protect those lies.
Your salacious insinuation that I have associated with falsely claimed instantiations of 'Anonymous' again repeat the same factual inaccuracy that 'Anonymous' exist as a group, and not simply as a activism promotional meme, basically 'Anonymous' is nothing more than an open use promotional meme, anything else is a lie.
My interpretation of current sociological interactions in digital political activism are my own and that in this instance they differ from mass media interpretation which far to often deceitfully serves government rather than questioning it and adhering to the truth does not insinuate any other actions on my part, it does however demonstrate government and mass media willingness to work together to promote a lie in order to illegally attack those that don't agree with them.
'Anonymous' will not be doing anything, 'Anonymous' does not exist as a group, you can not join 'Anonymous', no one represents 'Anonymous' and, no individual or group runs 'Anonymous'.
'Anonymous' is a political activism meme, individuals can either choose or not choose to carry out any particular activity in the name of 'Anonymous' and any activity they choose to do in the name of 'Anonymous' has no connection with any other individual chooses to do in the name of 'Anonymous'.
All activities carried out in the name of 'Anonymous' are done upon an individual basis and might or might not align with any current 'Anonymous' activism meme being carried out using the title 'Anonymous'. This analysis is based upon truth and in order to protect person whom might choose to conduct legal and honest political activism from any whom might choose to push the bounds of the law, from a corrupt interpretation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act.
Whilst organisation and individuals might euphemistically refer to anonymous as a group it is categorically not accurate.
'BING'.
The reality is the public will soon realise this cap is not about downloading but screwing people when they make video calls and don't realise how quickly they are chewing up the cap, as you can only make video calls via the internet (double billing upload and download).
Reality "most of the methane released" LIE, most of the methane released that was deposited on the sea floor in close proximity to the blow out. So misleading science right of the get go, simple logic, the rig blew up because of a blow out ie, a large volume of methane gas escaped from the well head, rose to the surface caught fire and exploded.
So did amphibious bacteria consume the methane the rose from the sea floor and escape to the atmosphere, logically the majority of the methane released (as the rig would never have exploded if that were no true}, no. So misleading science created to generate an illusion of the environment cleaning the oil blow out rather than the truth of the environment being damaged for decades to come by the oil blow out.
So marketing science or better know as junk science paid for by corporation as a misleading exercise in marketing.
Even more impressive when you consider 12 to 24 month phone contracts, so consider all those customer still locked in that can not swap over. Subscriber numbers will continue to grow as those contracts expire. So really ouch, for the other phone 'software' companies, new phones contracts for alternates to android must be really plummeting.
Me thinks you have never heard of things like, greed and patents. The two things most holding up the development of better solar panels and better batteries. If governments were really serious are pollution, they would do what they did during wars, suspend patents in the affected technologies and directly sponsor development, after better technology has been developed (by consolidating different technological developments) they can sort out corporate greed.
Even worse money is being spent on blocking development of better solar panels and batteries by corporations who investment are in polluting energy generation technologies, from blocking government involvement to burying developments.
Unless of course the US dollar keeps losing value. When the OLPC announcement came out the US dollar was worth about $1.60 Australian now it is pretty much on par, so it is a real question whether the OLPC has hit it's price target or not. To be fair based up logical reason, the OLPC can not be blamed for the failing US economy and so the reasonable answer is the are much closer to the price goal than just number would indicate.
So will the OLPC project now reach for a $50 price target based upon adjusted US dollar cross rate valuations (perhaps $200 unadjusted based upon continued Republican corporate economic vandalism).
That makes no sense as in a Democracy the majority define the laws, all of the laws. In a democracy you can not be protected by laws that the majority have not agreed to. Also note that a true democracy, requires that all people vote and that all people base that vote upon full true knowledge of the consequence of that vote.
You can not have a true democracy if all the people do not have access to vote, you can not have true democracy where lies are able to distort understanding of the consequence of that vote. You are a human being and as such a part of human society, you are bound by that human society it creates and defines you, without it you are a grunting, ignorant creature stumbling about naked, cold, wet and, diseased waiting to be eaten by far more primitively successful predators. Democracy gives you a voice, suck it up when the majority chooses to ignore it and that is still far better than screaming in primal rage without even a fur loin cloth or flint stone knife to protect you. (ignore the sociopath and narcissistic view of humans preying upon humans that is based upon a genetic anti-social mental defect propagated as desirable by a mass media run by psychopaths and manned by narcissists).
All of that has very little to do with Googles predilection for privacy invasion likely driven more by the private perversions of individuals in googles corporate food chain and data base engineers and the perceived power and erotic rush they get when they can invade and control other peoples lives, so the perverted minority working against the majority. Simple private data laws are required, covering regular detailed notification of private data held to the person the information is about and the right of the person to request the data be deleted or corrected and auditing of those laws.
Let's be realistic, the problem to be solved is simply the means required by a person to identify themselves for various purposes. So a single electronic card that can be used for all purposes, including identification, licensing for various activities, purchasing and even medical, is reasonable as long as it remains voluntary.
So a person who chooses to, can consolidate their identification requirements. Flip side is to make it more acceptable there would have to be some very severe penalties for privacy invasion based abusing the electronic id cards, forged cards, hacking the cards and even against foreign countries with 'political prostitutes as secretaries of state' abusing those electronic ID cards for espionage purposes.
Of course when you become reliant upon one card for all your needs (identification, licensing, shopping and travel), losing it could be a real nightmare without rapid replacement facilities, really rapid, hours not days. It also seems that treaties between countries will be require covering the breaking of laws by agents of one country in other country, covering penalties for infringement so that electronic ID cards are not abused for illegal espionage purposes.
It also appears that the major players involved were already pretty aware of the risk of that particular well, including a vary favourable insurance policy by Transocean (no cost cutting here), buying a oil clean up company by Halliburton and many insiders selling BP stock.
No type of warning systems could have saved this particular rig from a major gas blowout with only one spark required to ignite it. It could have however saved the crew if they could have abandoned the rig prior to ignition.
Greed feeding stupidity, driving too many cost cutting, bonus boosting short cuts, all protected by failing regulatory and inspection standards. In this it is pretty clear that quite a few corporate executives were fully aware of the risks and decided to cash in on them rather than fix the problem. So the investigation should also cover, who was aware of the problems with the rig and what actions did they take based upon that awareness (did they seek to profit or did they seek to minimise harm) and as such as accessories prior to the fact how liable are they for the consequences.