Because transporting information is a hell of a lot cheaper than transporting electricity.
The only product Google sells is digital information. Transporting data is dirt cheap. So Google could care less where the data is, as long as they can access it quickly.
Transporting electricity requires big cables made of very expensive metals. Power transmission systems are massive and require a lot of maintenance. They are affected by wind, ice, and lightening. The amount of power Google uses is not at all trivial to have run into urban or suburban areas. Worse yet, when electricity is transmitted, a lot of it leaks out along the way.
Compared to electricity, transporting information is dirt cheap. Data can be transported by much less expensive and much smaller fiber optic cables. Fiber optics require a lot less maintenance than power lines. Lightening strikes, ice, and high winds don't usually have any impact on fiber backbones. Better still, comparatively tiny amounts of electricity are needed to maintain data integrity over long distances. And unlike power transmission, the valuable stuff being transmitted doesn't leak out along the way.
All Google cares about is getting the information back and forth between its users. So it really doesn't matter where the data center is. Electricity is even cheaper at places like Canada's James Bay project. I suspect the only reason Google doesn't go to places like that is the difficulty in getting quality staff to work so far north and so far from "civilization".
No, I don't think there is a technically feasible way to retain anonymity while providing the type of data wanted by researchers and clickstream corporations.
The reason is because the researchers and clickstream companies don't just want the raw data of what is occurring on a given network. They want to be able to track individual web browsing habits of particular users. They don't need to know who "user 123" is, but they need to be able to differentiate "user 123's" web browsing habits from "user 999's".
The ISPs deliver this so called anonymity by replacing a user's IP address with a random code. But this sort of IP replacement provides only a facade of anonymity because the code stays the same for all of any given user's web searches. And many typical web surfing habits can easily reveal the real name of the 'anonymized' user. In doing so, gives anyone with this 'anonymized' data the real name and real web browsing habits of most any person in the data.
For instance, when 'anonymized' user-123 visits his or her home page at a social networking site, they typically log in. A search through the 'anonymized' data for such log-in strings could immediately identify the real name of the 'anonymized' user. The same could happen when user-123 reviews a movie at Amazon or writes a post in any web forum. Even if user-123 used pseudonyms everywhere on the internet, his or her identity could be obtained in other ways. If user-123 were to search for a variety of local services, restaurants, shops, or services, a social engineer could probably work out their real identity. Simply using an online mapping service to get directions from one's house would remove the anonymity and link a real name to all the browsing history of that 'anonymized' user.
Few internet users consider that companies are analyzing every single move they make on the internet. But US based ISP's routinely sell all of this 'anonymized' data to a variety of Clickstream companies.
Yes, I suppose the ISP's could try to screen out information from social networking sites. But could they remove all reference to all sites with web forums? Could they filter all sites where users write product reviews? There are so many of those sort of sites and they change so frequently that filtering all that content from the 'anonymized' logs would seem completely unfeasible.
Those type of sites often make up the majority of many user's browsing habits. So if visits to 'identifier' sites were removed from the data, the minimal remaining data would probably be of little use to the clickstream companies and researchers.
The fact is that users of this data are really analyzing the web browsing habits of specific, individual users. Because of this, I cannot think of any feasible method to keep the data useful for clickstream companies and researchers while guaranteeing any real level of user anonymity. Your ISP is probably selling your web browsing logs today, and this data is so poorly anonymized that anyone with the data could probably figure out exactly who you are.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you live in the US, it's likely that logs of all your web activity are being sold to clickstream companies. The data logs being sold by the ISPs seem to use the exact same sort of inadequate anonymity practices as were used by AOL.
The problem is that no matter how well the data is cloaked, a users browser habits can easily make the anonymity worthless. As has been seen in the case of NetFlix and AOL, it's easy to figure out whom a person is by simply looking at anonymized logs. A single visit to a social networking site is often enough to make a good guess. But when a specific anomized IP address visits the same page of social networking sites, or edits social their profile at a social networking site, or reviews an item at a vendor site, the real identity of that "anonymized" IP address is completely confirmed.
Simply cloaking an IP address will never provide anonymity. But the companies that purchase your web surfing logs would have no use for logs that weren't attached to a single user. Unless the ISPs were to keep track of and filter out every single vendor site which revealed a user's real name, there would seem to be no safe way to anonymize user logs. Since there are countless numbers of web forums, vendors, and social networking sites, it would seem technically impossible to truly provide any safe level of anonymity for user logs. Selling these logs is just a bad practice that needs to be stopped.
Nice achievements. But I really like the autonomous aircraft systems being built at BYU.
The BYU autonomous aircraft can fly in precise aerobatic formations. And unlike the examples above, they BYU planes seem to have all of their autonomous control electronics on-board the aircraft.
There are actually some very positive side effects of Movie Science.
For instance, both the Columbine killers and the recent London "bombers" had an entirely false belief that propane cooking cylinders would explode like grenades. In reality, the cylinders are purposefully designed to rupture without causing a fragmentary explosion.
The recent London "bombers" even seemed to believe that any car set alight would produce a large explosion. In truth, cars burn all the time, it is very, very rare for any road vehicle of any sort to explode. In fact, none of the London "bombers" schemes had any real potential of a large explosive effect.
For this, I think it's fair to say we can thank good old Movie Science. As long as ignorant villians keep believing what they see on TV, we'll be all the safer for it.
If mission control thinks a manned landing too risky, they'll just hook up the remote system and send down the can without the spam. Another Shuttle will be sent up in 6 or 8 weeks and take the whole lot of them home.
This would probably be another large setback to the ISS and to the astronaut corps. The "rescue mission" would probably depart with just 2 or 3 astronauts. And if the Endeavour was lost on re-entry, it would probably doom the shuttle program.
Sucks to be an astronaut these days. Chances of dying, 1 in 59, and you're lucky to get a single ride every 10 years.
On the other hand, SpaceX may get be getting some rush orders for Falcon 9's and Dragons.
There have only been 118 shuttles launched, two haven't returned. So the odds of dying in the shuttle are actually 1 in 59.
It's no wonder these guys wanted a drink before takeoff. But that in no way justifies NASA letting them drink before takeoff. The really troubling part is that to be drunk at take-off, they must have done their drinking in the locked down, pre-flight crew quarters. WTF?
Personally, I'm troubled by the reports that many of our astronauts are very heavy drinkers. I'm no tea totaler, but I don't drink on the job either. These guys and gals are not college kids, most are in their 30's, 40's and 50's. If they still feel the need to go out partying every night, maybe they should find another profession.
There are THOUSANDS of people in line for each of their jobs. Astronauts are supposed to be the best of the best. The culling process is supposed to be brutal. These revelations make NASA's astronaut selection process look a lot like an "old boys network".
Blue collar workers are routinely given drug and alcohol tests. Employees of our Intelligence Agencies are not given clearances if they are found to be heavy drinkers, even off the job. It seems to me that astronauts should be held to at least the standards of truck drivers, and should probably be held to the higher standards of our Intelligence Agency workers.
There are tens of thousands of Americans who would jump at the chance to be an astronaut. Very few would have a problem making it to work sober.
No, T Mobile To Go does not have a monthly charge.
I only mentioned a "monthly" aggregated rate as a comparison figure to traditional cell phone plans. I just took the amount of the initial payment and divided by 12.
T Mobile doesn't have the same policies in the US as they do in Europe. For instance, the expiration period here in the US is longer than you have. And unlike Europe, US carriers charge the same for incoming and outgoing calls. (yes, we are charged for received calls) This plan is not the most cost effective for those who make frequent use of a cell phone. (but it's not terribly expensive either). You have to consider that a lot of people don't use their cell phones very often. I know quite a number of people who use less than 2 hours of cell phone minutes per month. I know some who use much, much less. For anyone who doesn't use their phone a lot but still wants a cell phone, my research indicates that this is the best and cheapest product available.
Here in the US, the purchase of $100 worth of minutes gives a customer "Gold Status". Once a customer has achieved Gold Status, their minutes will not expire for one year (and they receive something like a 15% minute bonus on all purchases). One of the best features is that the purchase of any more minutes moves the expiration clock 1 year forward.
For those who rarely use their cell phone, the optimal practice is to purchase a $100 card at the time of activation. This gives the customer 1150 minutes. (1000 minutes + the 15% Gold Reward bonus). If the customer does not use 1150 minutes within the first year, they need only purchase a $10 card before the end of their 1st year. Their clock will be extended by one year and all their unused minutes will be carried over.
After two years, a customer's aggregated monthly rate could be as little as $6 per month. (Once again, this "monthly rate" is just an example for comparison purposes, there is no actual monthly fee).
If your mom won't use her cell phone more than 1 to 2 hours per month, she does not need a cell phone plan, she needs a pre-paid cell phone.
I've researched this for some relatives of mine, I decided on T Mobile's pre-paid plan. It's called "T Mobile To Go". T Mobile pre-paid plans don't have any monthly charges and only require 1 purchase per year to retain unused minutes. For those who make seldom use of a cell phone, it offers an aggregated monthly rate of $12 per month or less.
T Mobile always has deals for pre-paid phones. Often you'll be able to get a basic phone and 1 year (1100 minutes) of service for less than $130. You can purchase online or at one of their stores.
Most pre-paid cellular plans charge a monthly fee by burning minutes whether the phone is used or not. T Mobile's pre-plan doesn't do this. And under T Mobile, once a customer has purchased $100 worth of minutes, those minutes won't expire for 1 year. More importantly, after that initial $100 purchase, any future minutes purchased will not expire for a year from the date of last purchase.
So to keep a T Mobile pre-paid account active, one only needs purchase another cheap, $10 card before the year expires. All existing minutes will be carried over. (after having purchased those initial $100 of minutes)
I'm not huge fan of T-Mobile, they have issues just like the rest of the carriers. But their pre-paid plan is superior to any of the others I've researched.
For someone who uses less than 100 minutes per month, the aggregated monthly cost of a pre-paid T Mobile phone can be less than $12 per month, even less after the first year.
We'll only see a conviction for the outing of Plame when White House staffers stop perjuring themselves and stone-walling the investigation.
In other words, never...
The real reason Libby was prosecuted is lost on many of the administration's defenders. Many have deluded themselves into believing that Libby's prosecution was some sort of political witch hunt.
This would have to be the first political witch-hunt in history where a Republican politico was prosecuted by a Republican prosecutor, sentenced and jailed by a Republican Judge, and refused bail by an appelate court, the majority of whom were Republicans.
Libby's prosecution wasn't a witch-hunt. Libby was prosecuted because he blocked Fitzgerald's investigation. Libby lied and stone-walled, preventing Fitzgerald from ever getting to the bottom of why Plame was outed.
The "why" is very important. This is because the Intelligence Identities Protection Act only allows prosecution of those who knowingly reveal the identity of a covert agent. Fitzgerald had to prove they knew, but he couldn't reach that level of proof without honest testimony from those involved.
But because Libby lied to the grand jury and FBI, because Karl Rove stone-walled and nearly found himself similarly prosecuted for perjury, Fitzgerald was unable to get enough proof to prosecute any IIPA violations.
Libby's lies probably saved some in the administration from prosecution under the IIPA. That is why Libby was prosecuted for perjury and why no one has been (or probably ever will be) charged for outing Plame under the IIPA.
You're well behind on your news. The CIA revealed in May of this year that Plame most certainly DID qualify as covert under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
The portion of the act grabbed onto by many right-wing radio talk show hosts in the past few years has been the extra-US service portion. It states that in order to qualify as covert, an agent has to have served outside the US in the 5 years previous to the outing.
Well, news flash, Plame did serve overseas in the 5 years prior to her outing. She traveled overseas at the specific behest of the CIA many, many times during the 5 years prior to her outing. Sometimes she even traveled under an assumed name.
Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
"The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/
Plame was not only covert at the time of her outing, by working overseas for the CIA whilst under cover, she was most definitely covert under the terms of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
I'd almost guarantee what you saw was inferior and hastily remixed, 1992 "Director's Cut".
The director's cut is the only version shown on TV and is the only version to ever be made available on DVD.
I and many others find the original theatrically released version of Blade Runner to be a far superior film. The differences between the two versions are massive. Substantive changes are present in nearly half the scenes of the movie, including the ending.
Other than the huge shift in the ending, the key difference between the two cuts is the absence of the detective noir style voice-overs. All of Harrison Ford's voice overs were removed from the director's cut. Some claim the voice overs were put in over Ridley Scott's objections, but evidence at the time of filming strongly contradicts this. (see the excellent Paul Sammon book "Future Noir - The making of Blade Runner" for the specifics)
Plainly put, the voice overs give the movie a far different feel and do a far better job of explaining the environment in which the film takes place. Had I not seen the theatrical cut, I would have found the director's cut to be quite vague.
Do yourself a favor, search the bittorrent sites for the original theatrical cut. Or wait for the October release of the 25 year anniversary package. It's been reported that an HD version of the theatrical cut will be one of the included versions.
The original theatrical version is simply a much better film.
There is massive resultant difference in an M (+17) rating and an AO (+18) rating. The stated age difference is just an aside. The AO isn't about keeping the game out of the hands of 17 year olds, it's about keeping it out of the hands of 10 year olds.
The mass market retailers sell M rated titles. These retailers have proven they cannot be bothered to verify the age of their customers. As I posted above, I know 10 year old kids who've purchased M (+17) games from the WalMarts, Circuit City's and Best Buy's of the world.
Since the merchants can't be bothered to police themselves, the only way to keep truly adult content out of the hands of small children is to give that truly adult content an adult rating. WalMart doesn't sell NC-17 and they don't sell AO. The retailers actually want this, because they don't want to have to bother with the age checks, or more likely, the resultant bad press when their staff don't bother to check ages.
I have a question for you. The mass market retailers don't sell porn, don't sell NC-17 movies. I very much doubt Nintendo would allow hard core sex porn games, even if the ESRB gave them a low rating. So if you're ok with those companies not selling hard core sex-porn, why are you surprised or angry that they refuse to sell hard core violence-porn?
Yes, violence porn exists. Butcher movies are an example, as was the first Manhunt. Personally, I feel extreme violence is FAR more harmful to small children than is a bit of sex. And from what I've seen, Manhunt 2 falls directly into the violence-porn category. Sure, Rockstar has the right to make violence porn, sex porn, or whatever the hell they want. Just as Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have a right to pass it up. Rockstar could have and could still make the game for the PC and totally avoid the ratings board.
Another point of clarification. Were Nintendo to have allowed this game on the Wii, Nintendo would have effectively been selling it. The way the console licensing business is set up, the console manufacturers take a cut of every game sold for their hardware. So were this game to be released on Wii, Nintendo would be one of the profit participants. Nintendo couldn't just allow it to be sold, they would be "selling" it themselves.
Even people who love porn don't find it hard to see why a children's toy company like Nintendo won't sell hard core sex-porn games. I don't understand why so many gamers find it hard to see why Nintendo doesn't want to sell hard core violence-porn?
You're mad at Nintendo because they didn't make an exception for Manhunt 2?
It's either that or you've chosen today as the day to get angry at a policy Nintendo has had for over a decade.
If you want to boycott Nintendo for their no-AO policy, fine, great. But put your money where your mouth is. Sony and Microsoft have IDENTICAL policies regarding AO games. If you think Nintendo's AO policy is wrong, each of the console manufacturers are equally wrong.
So if you're serious about your boycott and are not going to be a complete hypocrite, you'll have to boycott all versions of the Playstation and all Playstation games (Sony gets money from every game sold). you'll also have ot boycott all versions of the X-Box and all X-Box games (Microsoft gets money from each game sold). And since Microsoft makes Windows, you'll have to boycott purchasing any future versions of Windows, Office, or even using Hotmail. And any Sony TV's, DVD players...
Sounds great, as long as your gaming needs are satisfied by playing Solitaire under Ubuntu.
I also think you've received some bad information regarding games licensing on consoles. Game licensing didn't start with the DMCA. The DMCA was only passed in 1999. Console game licensing was in place since nearly the beginning. At various times, unlicensed video games have been produced. A lot of court battles were fought in the early '90s regarding unlicensed videogames. But back then, reverse engineering was legal and consoles were much simpler.
Today, consoles are hugely more complex and the dev kit often takes longer to produce than does the design of the hardware. Even if the DMCA had never been passed, the console manufacturers would still be within their rights to use heavy encryption to prohibit unlicensed games. Even if the encryption were removed, the lack of a dev kit would likely prevent most publishers from even attempting development on today's complex consoles.
But the bottom line here is this. If you boycott Nintendo but give Sony and Microsoft a pass, you're a complete hypocrite.
Nintendo didn't make a decision to ban Manhunt 2. Neither did Sony.
The truth is that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have all had long standing policies against licensing any AO rated games for their consoles. It's their console, it's their rules. These rules long preceded Manhunt. Every game developer signed on the dotted line. They know an AO rated game cannot be released on a console, yet Rockstar seemingly ignored these business realities.
I have the first Manhunt game and have read descriptions of the new title. I believe the first Manhunt probably deserved an AO rating. The first Manhunt is little more than a snuff film in game form. I played it for an hour and put it on the shelf. Even though the game disgusted me, I don't think it should have been banned.
But this new Manhunt has taken the snuff film to another level. In the Wii version of Manhunt 2, gamers can perform the physical acts as they would be performed in real life. You don't strangle someone by pushing buttons, you strangle them by strangling them. It can realistically be described as a "snuff film simulator".
I'm not in favor of censorship, but I am in favor of honest ratings. This game seems to fully deserve the Adults Only rating it has received. Why is it ok for 18 year olds but not 17 year olds? It's not. The problem is that the clerks at BestBuy, Circuit City, and Wal Mart routinely sell adult media to kids. I know 10 year olds who've purchased M rated titles at those stores. Bottom line, AO keeps the title from little kids, the M rating doesn't.
Few are outraged that those stores refuse to sell hardcore porn, why are so many people outraged those stores and the family-oriented Nintendo refuse to sell very adult, snuff-film games?
Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Best Buy, Circuit City, Wal Mart all are fully within their rights to set limits on the products they choose to sell. This isn't censorship, its the free market at work. If they feel it would hurt their business to sell porn and snuff films, fine. I don't have a problem with it, because in the internet age, there are nearly unlimited delivery options for digital content.
The truth is, NOTHING is keeping Rockstar from releasing the full version of their snuff film simulator in all its murderous glory. Rockstar could port it to the PC and sell it directly, through Steam, or Gametap. Of course, they won't sell many copies, and they won't sell to a lot of kids.
Were I running Rockstar, whomever approved the final product for the consoles would probably be sacked. Not because of the outrage, but because the AO rating was inevitable, making this a truly awful business decision.
There is one very good use for the money, advertising.
After a certain point, the only way to grow a brand is through advertising.
The Firefox adoption rate amount techies (and friends and families of techies) has probably peaked. The only way non-techies will learn the benefits of Firefox is through mass market advertising.
Some will probably be agast at the thought of open source revenue being funneled to mass market, for-profit companies. But I believe these ends justify these means.
Advertising could result in a tremendous growth in Mozilla's adaption. This growth in market share would in turn result in ever larger revenues.
Even so, the ends are not revenues, the ends are market share. And with ever larger market share come larger revenues. With larger revenues, Mozilla could afford to spend/donate ever larger amounts of funds to worthy projects. They could even specify that the marketing budget be limited to a certain dollar figure or percentage of revenue.
Without advertising, Firefox will probably continue a slow growth curve over the next few years. But the days of rapid increases in Firefox's install base are probably over unless there is some form of advertising.
I'm guessing the winner of this contest will produce a tiny car with a very lightweight aluminum chassis, maybe strengthened with mass produced carbon fiber tubes. It will run a small turbo diesel engine, perhaps at constants revs with a hybrid battery system and regenerative brakes. It will run on small low friction tires and do very poorly in crash tests.
I suspect any of the large auto manufacturers could make this car today. They don't bother because there's such a small market for this sort of vehicle.
That said, I like this X-Prize. It will show the public that high-mileage cars are possible. It will offer convincing proof that the auto manufacturers are exaggerating when they protest higher CAFE standards. It may even light a fire under a few of the auto giants to build some cars approaching this efficiency.
The fact that he could have deferred much of the tax burden was just a side point. The important question isn't why he didn't care to defer the taxes. The important question is why should he care to abandon this prize many years before it was necessary for him to do so.
Virgin Galactic isn't going to launch their first commercial flight for at least two years. Since his potential for tax liability is directly connected to his actual receipt of the prize, he wouldn't owe any tax until after he had taken the flight into space. Something he could have refused up until the very last moment.
So why did he abandon any hope of this voyage two full years (and likely more) before the prize could possibly have been redeemed and before he would have incurred any tax burden? He had no reason to rush things, yet he did. His financial situation could improve dramatically in the next two years.
I simply think it's odd he gave up his chance so many years before it was necessary. It suggests there is more to this story.
This guy either had very bad tax advice or is using the tax code as an excuse to wimp out of a somewhat dangerous experience.
As the article and any decent tax account would tell him, he would not be responsible for any tax unless and until he actually accepted the ride into space. This means he could have put off on any decision on whether to accept the prize until the very last minute. At least as far as the tax man is concerned.
The only craft that matches the specs of those announced in the contest press release are those of the Virgin Galactic SpaceShip 2. And since Virgin Galactic's commercial craft is a minimum of 2 years from sending customers into space, he had at least that much time to defer his decision. His financial situation could be much improved by then. Since space craft are rarely delivered on schedule, he would likely have had even more time to defer his decision.
Then there's the possibility that he could have worked his way out of paying much of any tax at all. As others have suggested, if he could have taken some on professional duties in the form of writing about his voyage, he could have partially or wholly written off his tax burden.
So why did this guy refuse the prize two or more years before it would have had any financial impact on him? Why didn't he look into any professional options for writing off the tax? Good question. My guess is either very bad tax advice or sheer lack of courage.
Try to buy maps for TomTom 5... Can't do it can you? Try to find out how recent the map data is for the various updated maps they are selling. You won't find that either. If you already have TomTom Nav 5 and want the new maps, what should you do? It's a bit clearer now, but for months it was not.
Through trial and error I found out that purchasing new maps for TomTom 5 required a complete software update to TomTom 6. But TomTom refused to say whether version 6 would even run on all the devices that ran system 5. Once again, through trial and error (purchase and hope), I found that that the new update did run on my device. TomTom either didn't take the time to test their software on existing supported devices or they never bothered to put this information on their mess of a web site.
Until very recently, you couldn't even purchase the TomTom navigator 6 software upgrade directly from their site, even though the full product had been shipping to resellers for months.
TomTom's web site and their entire support infrastructure seems almost an afterthought to them. I do think they've got a promising product, but the product's poor menu design and awful support truly holds back what could be a good product.
I'll be shocked if TomTom get out in front of this issue and proactively try to alert their customer base to the problem.
TomTom does produce a decent product, but they are the epitome of Slack Bastards when it comes to supporting their goods.
It's impossible to reach TomTom on the phone, they tend not to answer e-mail, and their web site is such a muddle that finding updates and information is nearly impossible. They don't even have a user forum. Their web site is so convoluted, even finding out how and where to purchase map updates is an exercise in extreme tedium.
Other than their awful support, TomTom has one other major problem. Their menu navigation is simply awful. TomTom requires far too many selections to access the most common of funcitons. The conventional wisdom of good UI design recommends no common function be more than 3 clicks away from the home menu. In TomTom, one must often dig 6 or 8 levels into the menus to reach the most common of tasks. This is a big problem for a device that is typically used at the same time one is operating a motor vehicle.
I've tried a bunch of GPS street navigation packages and cannot really recommend any of them, each of them have big problems and are works in progress. TomTom would be the best of those currently available if they would just hire some support staff and greatly simplify their overly complicated menu structure. Until they do that, I can't recommend their product.
Randomizing the clock of systems serving Tor traffic would render this attack worthless.
Since this and other such attacks are based on analyzing very small changes in the target system clock, even a tiny amount of randomization or pseudo randomization would be effective.
The key to sinking Sony is not just to purchase their subsidized console. It's to do that while dissuading a massive proportion of these subsidized PS3 owners from buying PS3 games.
There is a way to accomplish this, but I suspect it will not be easily or quickly accomplished. Sony's Achilles heel in all of this is not the underpriced PS3, it's the PS3's game-disc copy protection scheme. To have any hope of sinking Sony, a torpedo will have to be directly aimed at that copy protection.
In a best case scenario (or worst, depending on your perspective), a comprehensive crack of Sony's game-disc copy protection would be released at the very instant PC-based Blue Ray burners drop to a reasonable price, say $300. This game-cracking software should be so easy to use that any punter with a PC and a Blue Ray burner could easily make copies of Sony's only profit center, the game discs. To truly sink Sony, this crack shouldn't require swapping discs or modifying hardware. The cracking software should be very easy to use, completely effective, and comprehensive across all of the PS3 line.
If such a comprehensive crack were released after Sony had shipped say, 5 million PS3 units, it would be nearly impossible for Sony to "fix". Of course, if Sony have done their work correctly, the execution of this will be supremely difficult.
Sony has almost certainly used some sort cryptographic hash to sign the game discs. So unless Sony has left a gaping hole in their copy protection system, a massive effort would be required to unravel the keys. If I were to suggest an avenue of attack, it would not be a brute force assault against the cryptographic keys. I think a far more productive attack would be a signal analysis of the PS3 chipset. Just such an analysis managed to crack the Xbox keys.
It's a big job, but if someone out there really has it in for Sony, this would sink Sony right to the bottom.
Why would you think these Spammers would only spam land lines? Why should they?
When they can just set up their systems to dial random numbers beneath known prefixes. Even old modem based auto-dialers can listen for a voice then transfer to a live operator.
The spammers will randomly hit numbers all across the country, Phone, Fax, and yes, even Cell. And because they'll be calling from the other side of the planet, the calls will happen all day and most of the night. They won't know whether they're calling a cell or a landline, and they won't care.
That is, if the Telcos let it happen. I wouldn't worry too much about this, because the US Telcos won't let this happen. If they even let it start happening, their customers would go into full riot.
And if (when) VOIP phone spam starts happening, I expect every major landline Telco, Cell Phone company and even major US VOIP vendors will firewall third world VOIP callers.
Yes, it will suck for people in the third world trying to make cheap calls to the US. But these companies make almost no revenue from incoming third world calls. They phone companies will firewall half of the planet, and 99.x% of their customers will thank them.
Slashdot Mirror
Because transporting information is a hell of a lot cheaper than transporting electricity.
The only product Google sells is digital information. Transporting data is dirt cheap. So Google could care less where the data is, as long as they can access it quickly.
Transporting electricity requires big cables made of very expensive metals. Power transmission systems are massive and require a lot of maintenance. They are affected by wind, ice, and lightening. The amount of power Google uses is not at all trivial to have run into urban or suburban areas. Worse yet, when electricity is transmitted, a lot of it leaks out along the way.
Compared to electricity, transporting information is dirt cheap. Data can be transported by much less expensive and much smaller fiber optic cables. Fiber optics require a lot less maintenance than power lines. Lightening strikes, ice, and high winds don't usually have any impact on fiber backbones. Better still, comparatively tiny amounts of electricity are needed to maintain data integrity over long distances. And unlike power transmission, the valuable stuff being transmitted doesn't leak out along the way.
All Google cares about is getting the information back and forth between its users. So it really doesn't matter where the data center is. Electricity is even cheaper at places like Canada's James Bay project. I suspect the only reason Google doesn't go to places like that is the difficulty in getting quality staff to work so far north and so far from "civilization".
No, I don't think there is a technically feasible way to retain anonymity while providing the type of data wanted by researchers and clickstream corporations.
The reason is because the researchers and clickstream companies don't just want the raw data of what is occurring on a given network. They want to be able to track individual web browsing habits of particular users. They don't need to know who "user 123" is, but they need to be able to differentiate "user 123's" web browsing habits from "user 999's".
The ISPs deliver this so called anonymity by replacing a user's IP address with a random code. But this sort of IP replacement provides only a facade of anonymity because the code stays the same for all of any given user's web searches. And many typical web surfing habits can easily reveal the real name of the 'anonymized' user. In doing so, gives anyone with this 'anonymized' data the real name and real web browsing habits of most any person in the data.
For instance, when 'anonymized' user-123 visits his or her home page at a social networking site, they typically log in. A search through the 'anonymized' data for such log-in strings could immediately identify the real name of the 'anonymized' user. The same could happen when user-123 reviews a movie at Amazon or writes a post in any web forum. Even if user-123 used pseudonyms everywhere on the internet, his or her identity could be obtained in other ways. If user-123 were to search for a variety of local services, restaurants, shops, or services, a social engineer could probably work out their real identity. Simply using an online mapping service to get directions from one's house would remove the anonymity and link a real name to all the browsing history of that 'anonymized' user.
Few internet users consider that companies are analyzing every single move they make on the internet. But US based ISP's routinely sell all of this 'anonymized' data to a variety of Clickstream companies.
Yes, I suppose the ISP's could try to screen out information from social networking sites. But could they remove all reference to all sites with web forums? Could they filter all sites where users write product reviews? There are so many of those sort of sites and they change so frequently that filtering all that content from the 'anonymized' logs would seem completely unfeasible.
Those type of sites often make up the majority of many user's browsing habits. So if visits to 'identifier' sites were removed from the data, the minimal remaining data would probably be of little use to the clickstream companies and researchers.
The fact is that users of this data are really analyzing the web browsing habits of specific, individual users. Because of this, I cannot think of any feasible method to keep the data useful for clickstream companies and researchers while guaranteeing any real level of user anonymity. Your ISP is probably selling your web browsing logs today, and this data is so poorly anonymized that anyone with the data could probably figure out exactly who you are.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you live in the US, it's likely that logs of all your web activity are being sold to clickstream companies. The data logs being sold by the ISPs seem to use the exact same sort of inadequate anonymity practices as were used by AOL.
The problem is that no matter how well the data is cloaked, a users browser habits can easily make the anonymity worthless. As has been seen in the case of NetFlix and AOL, it's easy to figure out whom a person is by simply looking at anonymized logs. A single visit to a social networking site is often enough to make a good guess. But when a specific anomized IP address visits the same page of social networking sites, or edits social their profile at a social networking site, or reviews an item at a vendor site, the real identity of that "anonymized" IP address is completely confirmed.
Simply cloaking an IP address will never provide anonymity. But the companies that purchase your web surfing logs would have no use for logs that weren't attached to a single user. Unless the ISPs were to keep track of and filter out every single vendor site which revealed a user's real name, there would seem to be no safe way to anonymize user logs. Since there are countless numbers of web forums, vendors, and social networking sites, it would seem technically impossible to truly provide any safe level of anonymity for user logs. Selling these logs is just a bad practice that needs to be stopped.
I can only wonder why the EFF and other organizations haven't made a bigger deal about this. These ISPs are selling all of their user's web logs. I cannot imagine any effective way the ISP's could ever anonymize this data. More info: http://wanderingstan.com/2007-03-19/is_comcast_selling_your_clickstream_audio_transcript http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070315-your-isp-may-be-selling-your-web-clicks.html
Nice achievements. But I really like the autonomous aircraft systems being built at BYU.
The BYU autonomous aircraft can fly in precise aerobatic formations. And unlike the examples above, they BYU planes seem to have all of their autonomous control electronics on-board the aircraft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfLwbW-R3IE
There are actually some very positive side effects of Movie Science.
For instance, both the Columbine killers and the recent London "bombers" had an entirely false belief that propane cooking cylinders would explode like grenades. In reality, the cylinders are purposefully designed to rupture without causing a fragmentary explosion.
The recent London "bombers" even seemed to believe that any car set alight would produce a large explosion. In truth, cars burn all the time, it is very, very rare for any road vehicle of any sort to explode. In fact, none of the London "bombers" schemes had any real potential of a large explosive effect.
For this, I think it's fair to say we can thank good old Movie Science. As long as ignorant villians keep believing what they see on TV, we'll be all the safer for it.
The Discovery was given remote landing capability in 2006. I would be shocked if the Endeavour didn't have this same capability.
3 0/0458246&from=rss
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/
If mission control thinks a manned landing too risky, they'll just hook up the remote system and send down the can without the spam. Another Shuttle will be sent up in 6 or 8 weeks and take the whole lot of them home.
This would probably be another large setback to the ISS and to the astronaut corps. The "rescue mission" would probably depart with just 2 or 3 astronauts. And if the Endeavour was lost on re-entry, it would probably doom the shuttle program.
Sucks to be an astronaut these days. Chances of dying, 1 in 59, and you're lucky to get a single ride every 10 years.
On the other hand, SpaceX may get be getting some rush orders for Falcon 9's and Dragons.
There have only been 118 shuttles launched, two haven't returned. So the odds of dying in the shuttle are actually 1 in 59.
It's no wonder these guys wanted a drink before takeoff. But that in no way justifies NASA letting them drink before takeoff. The really troubling part is that to be drunk at take-off, they must have done their drinking in the locked down, pre-flight crew quarters. WTF?
Personally, I'm troubled by the reports that many of our astronauts are very heavy drinkers. I'm no tea totaler, but I don't drink on the job either. These guys and gals are not college kids, most are in their 30's, 40's and 50's. If they still feel the need to go out partying every night, maybe they should find another profession.
There are THOUSANDS of people in line for each of their jobs. Astronauts are supposed to be the best of the best. The culling process is supposed to be brutal. These revelations make NASA's astronaut selection process look a lot like an "old boys network".
Blue collar workers are routinely given drug and alcohol tests. Employees of our Intelligence Agencies are not given clearances if they are found to be heavy drinkers, even off the job. It seems to me that astronauts should be held to at least the standards of truck drivers, and should probably be held to the higher standards of our Intelligence Agency workers.
There are tens of thousands of Americans who would jump at the chance to be an astronaut. Very few would have a problem making it to work sober.
No, T Mobile To Go does not have a monthly charge.
I only mentioned a "monthly" aggregated rate as a comparison figure to traditional cell phone plans. I just took the amount of the initial payment and divided by 12.
T Mobile doesn't have the same policies in the US as they do in Europe. For instance, the expiration period here in the US is longer than you have. And unlike Europe, US carriers charge the same for incoming and outgoing calls. (yes, we are charged for received calls) This plan is not the most cost effective for those who make frequent use of a cell phone. (but it's not terribly expensive either). You have to consider that a lot of people don't use their cell phones very often. I know quite a number of people who use less than 2 hours of cell phone minutes per month. I know some who use much, much less. For anyone who doesn't use their phone a lot but still wants a cell phone, my research indicates that this is the best and cheapest product available.
Here in the US, the purchase of $100 worth of minutes gives a customer "Gold Status". Once a customer has achieved Gold Status, their minutes will not expire for one year (and they receive something like a 15% minute bonus on all purchases). One of the best features is that the purchase of any more minutes moves the expiration clock 1 year forward.
For those who rarely use their cell phone, the optimal practice is to purchase a $100 card at the time of activation. This gives the customer 1150 minutes. (1000 minutes + the 15% Gold Reward bonus). If the customer does not use 1150 minutes within the first year, they need only purchase a $10 card before the end of their 1st year. Their clock will be extended by one year and all their unused minutes will be carried over.
After two years, a customer's aggregated monthly rate could be as little as $6 per month. (Once again, this "monthly rate" is just an example for comparison purposes, there is no actual monthly fee).
If your mom won't use her cell phone more than 1 to 2 hours per month, she does not need a cell phone plan, she needs a pre-paid cell phone.
I've researched this for some relatives of mine, I decided on T Mobile's pre-paid plan. It's called "T Mobile To Go". T Mobile pre-paid plans don't have any monthly charges and only require 1 purchase per year to retain unused minutes. For those who make seldom use of a cell phone, it offers an aggregated monthly rate of $12 per month or less.
T Mobile always has deals for pre-paid phones. Often you'll be able to get a basic phone and 1 year (1100 minutes) of service for less than $130. You can purchase online or at one of their stores.
http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/phones/prepaid.aspx
Most pre-paid cellular plans charge a monthly fee by burning minutes whether the phone is used or not. T Mobile's pre-plan doesn't do this. And under T Mobile, once a customer has purchased $100 worth of minutes, those minutes won't expire for 1 year. More importantly, after that initial $100 purchase, any future minutes purchased will not expire for a year from the date of last purchase.
So to keep a T Mobile pre-paid account active, one only needs purchase another cheap, $10 card before the year expires. All existing minutes will be carried over. (after having purchased those initial $100 of minutes)
I'm not huge fan of T-Mobile, they have issues just like the rest of the carriers. But their pre-paid plan is superior to any of the others I've researched.
For someone who uses less than 100 minutes per month, the aggregated monthly cost of a pre-paid T Mobile phone can be less than $12 per month, even less after the first year.
We'll only see a conviction for the outing of Plame when White House staffers stop perjuring themselves and stone-walling the investigation.
In other words, never...
The real reason Libby was prosecuted is lost on many of the administration's defenders. Many have deluded themselves into believing that Libby's prosecution was some sort of political witch hunt.
This would have to be the first political witch-hunt in history where a Republican politico was prosecuted by a Republican prosecutor, sentenced and jailed by a Republican Judge, and refused bail by an appelate court, the majority of whom were Republicans.
Libby's prosecution wasn't a witch-hunt. Libby was prosecuted because he blocked Fitzgerald's investigation. Libby lied and stone-walled, preventing Fitzgerald from ever getting to the bottom of why Plame was outed.
The "why" is very important. This is because the Intelligence Identities Protection Act only allows prosecution of those who knowingly reveal the identity of a covert agent. Fitzgerald had to prove they knew, but he couldn't reach that level of proof without honest testimony from those involved.
But because Libby lied to the grand jury and FBI, because Karl Rove stone-walled and nearly found himself similarly prosecuted for perjury, Fitzgerald was unable to get enough proof to prosecute any IIPA violations.
Libby's lies probably saved some in the administration from prosecution under the IIPA. That is why Libby was prosecuted for perjury and why no one has been (or probably ever will be) charged for outing Plame under the IIPA.
The portion of the act grabbed onto by many right-wing radio talk show hosts in the past few years has been the extra-US service portion. It states that in order to qualify as covert, an agent has to have served outside the US in the 5 years previous to the outing.
Well, news flash, Plame did serve overseas in the 5 years prior to her outing. She traveled overseas at the specific behest of the CIA many, many times during the 5 years prior to her outing. Sometimes she even traveled under an assumed name.
Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
"The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/
Plame was not only covert at the time of her outing, by working overseas for the CIA whilst under cover, she was most definitely covert under the terms of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
I'd almost guarantee what you saw was inferior and hastily remixed, 1992 "Director's Cut".
The director's cut is the only version shown on TV and is the only version to ever be made available on DVD.
I and many others find the original theatrically released version of Blade Runner to be a far superior film. The differences between the two versions are massive. Substantive changes are present in nearly half the scenes of the movie, including the ending.
Other than the huge shift in the ending, the key difference between the two cuts is the absence of the detective noir style voice-overs. All of Harrison Ford's voice overs were removed from the director's cut. Some claim the voice overs were put in over Ridley Scott's objections, but evidence at the time of filming strongly contradicts this. (see the excellent Paul Sammon book "Future Noir - The making of Blade Runner" for the specifics)
Plainly put, the voice overs give the movie a far different feel and do a far better job of explaining the environment in which the film takes place. Had I not seen the theatrical cut, I would have found the director's cut to be quite vague.
Do yourself a favor, search the bittorrent sites for the original theatrical cut. Or wait for the October release of the 25 year anniversary package. It's been reported that an HD version of the theatrical cut will be one of the included versions.
The original theatrical version is simply a much better film.
There is massive resultant difference in an M (+17) rating and an AO (+18) rating. The stated age difference is just an aside. The AO isn't about keeping the game out of the hands of 17 year olds, it's about keeping it out of the hands of 10 year olds.
The mass market retailers sell M rated titles. These retailers have proven they cannot be bothered to verify the age of their customers. As I posted above, I know 10 year old kids who've purchased M (+17) games from the WalMarts, Circuit City's and Best Buy's of the world.
Since the merchants can't be bothered to police themselves, the only way to keep truly adult content out of the hands of small children is to give that truly adult content an adult rating. WalMart doesn't sell NC-17 and they don't sell AO. The retailers actually want this, because they don't want to have to bother with the age checks, or more likely, the resultant bad press when their staff don't bother to check ages.
I have a question for you. The mass market retailers don't sell porn, don't sell NC-17 movies. I very much doubt Nintendo would allow hard core sex porn games, even if the ESRB gave them a low rating. So if you're ok with those companies not selling hard core sex-porn, why are you surprised or angry that they refuse to sell hard core violence-porn?
Yes, violence porn exists. Butcher movies are an example, as was the first Manhunt. Personally, I feel extreme violence is FAR more harmful to small children than is a bit of sex. And from what I've seen, Manhunt 2 falls directly into the violence-porn category. Sure, Rockstar has the right to make violence porn, sex porn, or whatever the hell they want. Just as Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have a right to pass it up. Rockstar could have and could still make the game for the PC and totally avoid the ratings board.
Another point of clarification. Were Nintendo to have allowed this game on the Wii, Nintendo would have effectively been selling it. The way the console licensing business is set up, the console manufacturers take a cut of every game sold for their hardware. So were this game to be released on Wii, Nintendo would be one of the profit participants. Nintendo couldn't just allow it to be sold, they would be "selling" it themselves.
Even people who love porn don't find it hard to see why a children's toy company like Nintendo won't sell hard core sex-porn games. I don't understand why so many gamers find it hard to see why Nintendo doesn't want to sell hard core violence-porn?
You're mad at Nintendo because they didn't make an exception for Manhunt 2?
It's either that or you've chosen today as the day to get angry at a policy Nintendo has had for over a decade.
If you want to boycott Nintendo for their no-AO policy, fine, great. But put your money where your mouth is. Sony and Microsoft have IDENTICAL policies regarding AO games. If you think Nintendo's AO policy is wrong, each of the console manufacturers are equally wrong.
So if you're serious about your boycott and are not going to be a complete hypocrite, you'll have to boycott all versions of the Playstation and all Playstation games (Sony gets money from every game sold). you'll also have ot boycott all versions of the X-Box and all X-Box games (Microsoft gets money from each game sold). And since Microsoft makes Windows, you'll have to boycott purchasing any future versions of Windows, Office, or even using Hotmail. And any Sony TV's, DVD players...
Sounds great, as long as your gaming needs are satisfied by playing Solitaire under Ubuntu.
I also think you've received some bad information regarding games licensing on consoles. Game licensing didn't start with the DMCA. The DMCA was only passed in 1999. Console game licensing was in place since nearly the beginning. At various times, unlicensed video games have been produced. A lot of court battles were fought in the early '90s regarding unlicensed videogames. But back then, reverse engineering was legal and consoles were much simpler.
Today, consoles are hugely more complex and the dev kit often takes longer to produce than does the design of the hardware. Even if the DMCA had never been passed, the console manufacturers would still be within their rights to use heavy encryption to prohibit unlicensed games. Even if the encryption were removed, the lack of a dev kit would likely prevent most publishers from even attempting development on today's complex consoles.
But the bottom line here is this. If you boycott Nintendo but give Sony and Microsoft a pass, you're a complete hypocrite.
Nintendo didn't make a decision to ban Manhunt 2. Neither did Sony.
The truth is that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have all had long standing policies against licensing any AO rated games for their consoles. It's their console, it's their rules. These rules long preceded Manhunt. Every game developer signed on the dotted line. They know an AO rated game cannot be released on a console, yet Rockstar seemingly ignored these business realities.
I have the first Manhunt game and have read descriptions of the new title. I believe the first Manhunt probably deserved an AO rating. The first Manhunt is little more than a snuff film in game form. I played it for an hour and put it on the shelf. Even though the game disgusted me, I don't think it should have been banned.
But this new Manhunt has taken the snuff film to another level. In the Wii version of Manhunt 2, gamers can perform the physical acts as they would be performed in real life. You don't strangle someone by pushing buttons, you strangle them by strangling them. It can realistically be described as a "snuff film simulator".
I'm not in favor of censorship, but I am in favor of honest ratings. This game seems to fully deserve the Adults Only rating it has received. Why is it ok for 18 year olds but not 17 year olds? It's not. The problem is that the clerks at BestBuy, Circuit City, and Wal Mart routinely sell adult media to kids. I know 10 year olds who've purchased M rated titles at those stores. Bottom line, AO keeps the title from little kids, the M rating doesn't.
Few are outraged that those stores refuse to sell hardcore porn, why are so many people outraged those stores and the family-oriented Nintendo refuse to sell very adult, snuff-film games?
Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Best Buy, Circuit City, Wal Mart all are fully within their rights to set limits on the products they choose to sell. This isn't censorship, its the free market at work. If they feel it would hurt their business to sell porn and snuff films, fine. I don't have a problem with it, because in the internet age, there are nearly unlimited delivery options for digital content.
The truth is, NOTHING is keeping Rockstar from releasing the full version of their snuff film simulator in all its murderous glory. Rockstar could port it to the PC and sell it directly, through Steam, or Gametap. Of course, they won't sell many copies, and they won't sell to a lot of kids.
Were I running Rockstar, whomever approved the final product for the consoles would probably be sacked. Not because of the outrage, but because the AO rating was inevitable, making this a truly awful business decision.
There is one very good use for the money, advertising.
After a certain point, the only way to grow a brand is through advertising.
The Firefox adoption rate amount techies (and friends and families of techies) has probably peaked. The only way non-techies will learn the benefits of Firefox is through mass market advertising.
Some will probably be agast at the thought of open source revenue being funneled to mass market, for-profit companies. But I believe these ends justify these means.
Advertising could result in a tremendous growth in Mozilla's adaption. This growth in market share would in turn result in ever larger revenues.
Even so, the ends are not revenues, the ends are market share. And with ever larger market share come larger revenues. With larger revenues, Mozilla could afford to spend/donate ever larger amounts of funds to worthy projects. They could even specify that the marketing budget be limited to a certain dollar figure or percentage of revenue.
Without advertising, Firefox will probably continue a slow growth curve over the next few years. But the days of rapid increases in Firefox's install base are probably over unless there is some form of advertising.
I'm guessing the winner of this contest will produce a tiny car with a very lightweight aluminum chassis, maybe strengthened with mass produced carbon fiber tubes. It will run a small turbo diesel engine, perhaps at constants revs with a hybrid battery system and regenerative brakes. It will run on small low friction tires and do very poorly in crash tests.
I suspect any of the large auto manufacturers could make this car today. They don't bother because there's such a small market for this sort of vehicle.
That said, I like this X-Prize. It will show the public that high-mileage cars are possible. It will offer convincing proof that the auto manufacturers are exaggerating when they protest higher CAFE standards. It may even light a fire under a few of the auto giants to build some cars approaching this efficiency.
The fact that he could have deferred much of the tax burden was just a side point. The important question isn't why he didn't care to defer the taxes. The important question is why should he care to abandon this prize many years before it was necessary for him to do so.
Virgin Galactic isn't going to launch their first commercial flight for at least two years. Since his potential for tax liability is directly connected to his actual receipt of the prize, he wouldn't owe any tax until after he had taken the flight into space. Something he could have refused up until the very last moment.
So why did he abandon any hope of this voyage two full years (and likely more) before the prize could possibly have been redeemed and before he would have incurred any tax burden? He had no reason to rush things, yet he did. His financial situation could improve dramatically in the next two years.
I simply think it's odd he gave up his chance so many years before it was necessary. It suggests there is more to this story.
This guy either had very bad tax advice or is using the tax code as an excuse to wimp out of a somewhat dangerous experience.
As the article and any decent tax account would tell him, he would not be responsible for any tax unless and until he actually accepted the ride into space. This means he could have put off on any decision on whether to accept the prize until the very last minute. At least as far as the tax man is concerned.
The only craft that matches the specs of those announced in the contest press release are those of the Virgin Galactic SpaceShip 2. And since Virgin Galactic's commercial craft is a minimum of 2 years from sending customers into space, he had at least that much time to defer his decision. His financial situation could be much improved by then. Since space craft are rarely delivered on schedule, he would likely have had even more time to defer his decision.
Then there's the possibility that he could have worked his way out of paying much of any tax at all. As others have suggested, if he could have taken some on professional duties in the form of writing about his voyage, he could have partially or wholly written off his tax burden.
So why did this guy refuse the prize two or more years before it would have had any financial impact on him? Why didn't he look into any professional options for writing off the tax? Good question. My guess is either very bad tax advice or sheer lack of courage.
Try to buy maps for TomTom 5... Can't do it can you? Try to find out how recent the map data is for the various updated maps they are selling. You won't find that either. If you already have TomTom Nav 5 and want the new maps, what should you do? It's a bit clearer now, but for months it was not.
Through trial and error I found out that purchasing new maps for TomTom 5 required a complete software update to TomTom 6. But TomTom refused to say whether version 6 would even run on all the devices that ran system 5. Once again, through trial and error (purchase and hope), I found that that the new update did run on my device. TomTom either didn't take the time to test their software on existing supported devices or they never bothered to put this information on their mess of a web site.
Until very recently, you couldn't even purchase the TomTom navigator 6 software upgrade directly from their site, even though the full product had been shipping to resellers for months.
TomTom's web site and their entire support infrastructure seems almost an afterthought to them. I do think they've got a promising product, but the product's poor menu design and awful support truly holds back what could be a good product.
I'll be shocked if TomTom get out in front of this issue and proactively try to alert their customer base to the problem.
TomTom does produce a decent product, but they are the epitome of Slack Bastards when it comes to supporting their goods.
It's impossible to reach TomTom on the phone, they tend not to answer e-mail, and their web site is such a muddle that finding updates and information is nearly impossible. They don't even have a user forum. Their web site is so convoluted, even finding out how and where to purchase map updates is an exercise in extreme tedium.
Other than their awful support, TomTom has one other major problem. Their menu navigation is simply awful. TomTom requires far too many selections to access the most common of funcitons. The conventional wisdom of good UI design recommends no common function be more than 3 clicks away from the home menu. In TomTom, one must often dig 6 or 8 levels into the menus to reach the most common of tasks. This is a big problem for a device that is typically used at the same time one is operating a motor vehicle.
I've tried a bunch of GPS street navigation packages and cannot really recommend any of them, each of them have big problems and are works in progress. TomTom would be the best of those currently available if they would just hire some support staff and greatly simplify their overly complicated menu structure. Until they do that, I can't recommend their product.
Randomizing the clock of systems serving Tor traffic would render this attack worthless.
Since this and other such attacks are based on analyzing very small changes in the target system clock, even a tiny amount of randomization or pseudo randomization would be effective.
A few thousand of these running in parallel may offer methods for creating meaningful amounts of antimatter.
The key to sinking Sony is not just to purchase their subsidized console. It's to do that while dissuading a massive proportion of these subsidized PS3 owners from buying PS3 games.
There is a way to accomplish this, but I suspect it will not be easily or quickly accomplished. Sony's Achilles heel in all of this is not the underpriced PS3, it's the PS3's game-disc copy protection scheme. To have any hope of sinking Sony, a torpedo will have to be directly aimed at that copy protection.
In a best case scenario (or worst, depending on your perspective), a comprehensive crack of Sony's game-disc copy protection would be released at the very instant PC-based Blue Ray burners drop to a reasonable price, say $300. This game-cracking software should be so easy to use that any punter with a PC and a Blue Ray burner could easily make copies of Sony's only profit center, the game discs. To truly sink Sony, this crack shouldn't require swapping discs or modifying hardware. The cracking software should be very easy to use, completely effective, and comprehensive across all of the PS3 line.
If such a comprehensive crack were released after Sony had shipped say, 5 million PS3 units, it would be nearly impossible for Sony to "fix". Of course, if Sony have done their work correctly, the execution of this will be supremely difficult.
Sony has almost certainly used some sort cryptographic hash to sign the game discs. So unless Sony has left a gaping hole in their copy protection system, a massive effort would be required to unravel the keys. If I were to suggest an avenue of attack, it would not be a brute force assault against the cryptographic keys. I think a far more productive attack would be a signal analysis of the PS3 chipset. Just such an analysis managed to crack the Xbox keys.
It's a big job, but if someone out there really has it in for Sony, this would sink Sony right to the bottom.
Why would you think these Spammers would only spam land lines? Why should they?
When they can just set up their systems to dial random numbers beneath known prefixes. Even old modem based auto-dialers can listen for a voice then transfer to a live operator.
The spammers will randomly hit numbers all across the country, Phone, Fax, and yes, even Cell. And because they'll be calling from the other side of the planet, the calls will happen all day and most of the night. They won't know whether they're calling a cell or a landline, and they won't care.
That is, if the Telcos let it happen. I wouldn't worry too much about this, because the US Telcos won't let this happen. If they even let it start happening, their customers would go into full riot.
And if (when) VOIP phone spam starts happening, I expect every major landline Telco, Cell Phone company and even major US VOIP vendors will firewall third world VOIP callers.
Yes, it will suck for people in the third world trying to make cheap calls to the US. But these companies make almost no revenue from incoming third world calls. They phone companies will firewall half of the planet, and 99.x% of their customers will thank them.