Here's a scenario: Let's say two crystals are quantum entangled. In this state, a binary message can be sent (buy/don't buy) from Washington DC and arrive in Chicago at the same time, defeating the law of the speed of light.
Thea actual information was already transmitted; they just had a single decision gate to jump through *at some time* that was triggered right then.
Using this method, traders around the world can get that little edge on the competition.
Now feel free to poke holes in my plausible theory, as it's pretty obvious that's not what happened here.
Completely true. The oddity here is that a long-in-the-tooth company like Apple with no real quick growth solutions is being traded like a small VC stock; pretty much anyone expecting short term ROI on AAPL is either very optimistic, or very deluded. AAPL is not worth what it's trading at -- but it's still a solid stock for the long haul, barring extensive mismanagement of their funds (which should have plenty of warning signs prior to collapse).
Re:Anyone else feel like they're having a stroke?
on
Boot To Zork
·
· Score: 1
Shh... don't give the plot away for next season!
Although a big difference is that witnesses attested to seeing scars on him inflicted prior to regeneration. Others stated that he said that he shouldn't be touched until regeneration was complete, and that they didn't recognize him at first, until they heard his voice (so outward appearance changed, but vocal chords stayed the same?).
The other bit that's debated of course, is how much, if any, of the "bible" (assuming KJV-style or derivatives here) was written by who it says it's written by, how much of it was written later, how much is literal, and what the actual purpose was for each of the "books" to be written in the first place, as well as the intention for grouping those specific works together as they were. You'll find as many conclusions as you will possibilities, some founded in research, some in faith, some in lore, and some in knee-jerk "common sense" reaction.
You actually raise a good point. The tickets should be given at the point where the person fails to act when the light goes green -- at which point they are texting while stopped in the middle of the road at a green light. This would also be much safer, as when the cop turns on his lights, the person actually has somewhere to go to clear the intersection.
As for one rule for cops, one for plebs -- if everyone was required to take a defensive driving course and was trained in operating scanners/radios while driving, and was not given a license unless they showed competence in those things, then I'd subscribe to the "one rule" thing. As it is, we have separate rules for cops, and hold them to a higher standard -- which they do break with a statistical regularity, just like pleb drivers do. But unless we're raising the standard for pleb drivers to match the standard for cops, I'm perfectly happy with them having a different set of standards/rules. I just wish commercial vehicle licenses also required that level of driving awareness/skill training/testing.
It's not just about jerks... a lot of texters can and have caused accidents.
And yet...
The rate of traffic accidents have been steadily declining during the period when texting has been becoming popular.
...and this shows that correlation is not causation. By this I don't mean that texting doesn't cause traffic accidents, but that while we are having a steep increase in texting-related accidents, we're having an even sharper decline in accidents caused by other things.
I think part of this could be chalked up to the increasing ubiquitousness of the cell phone -- it's a lot easier for someone to call a cab or text a friend after a few drinks now, for example, than it was back in the days of payphones, when people would decide "I just had a few; it's not worth the bother to find a payphone."
What we really need is a universal dock in vehicles where all mobile devices can connect and charge, and let the interface that's been designed to interoperate with driving be the only thing available, and only make the functions available that are safe while driving. This doesn't mean everyone will use it, but I bet most people would -- most people think "I'll just get my texting done at the stoplight where it's safe" not realizing that this isn't really safe from a vehicle operation and road stafety standpoint, even if it stops them from doing potentially deadly maneuvers with their vehicle.
Unfortunately for AAPL, its investors and its long term business, the number of sales of the phone in the first three days is good really for only one thing -- this month's revenue.
I'd disagree. If any of these are new customers, these sales drive more people to the App Store, and from there to iCloud and Apple Ads.
These days, only a portion of Apple's money comes from selling hardware and software; they also sell ads and metrics. iCloud gives them an AMAZING metrics base, and if they've got another 4 million users out of these three days, that's 4 million more data points they can aggregate and sell to advertisers and marketers.
That improves their marketing value, which in turn improves the ROI.
Why did you think Apple was tying the ad revenue model and the iCloud integration so tightly into all their operating systems these days? It's where the money's at.
the internet connection is absent from Russia and China.
I feel much safer now because of their online frauds, firewalls and persecution.
That shows the underwater cables. There aren't any underwater cables from Russia to the Americas; also, there's a pretty large clump of cables running from China to California and Washington State. I'm not sure why you think it's absent.
Yes; that's why I find the unforseeable future so fascinating. It all comes down to actually knowing what Tea, Earl Grey, actually *is* in a most complete way. We've got a long way to go to get there.
In the next Star Wars movie the rebels will fling themselves at the stormtrooper pigs with a giant slingshot.
Star Wars: Angry Bespin As Cloud City is antigrav-supported, this will wreak havoc on the drone-slings, but our heroes will overcome the convoluted physics model to fling themselves at the stormtrooper pigs in first-person 3D!*
*note, for copyright reasons, they'll fling themselves using a fedora and bull whip instead of a slingshot.
We could make replica parts (in plastic) that once painted you'd have a hard time telling they weren't the real thing just from looking at them.
So you're saying you've passed off fake stuff as geniune? Lets just say I don't want my brake rotor to only 'look' real...
Actually you can print metal.
At home? In your family room? I wouldn't recommend that... Yes there are printers that can do that stuff, but you simply aren't going to have them be usable by the average person in their home.
...not for very long, at least. You'd need a sealed room with a good venting system to do that for any period of time. Plus, there's the materials costs -- that's quite the upfront investment. Great for prototyping when you're investing in a large run from the factory, but not so great when you're doing 1-offs with no further ROI.
That reminds me of one of the other interesting areas for 3D printers: biological 3D printers. One day, we'll be able to print our own foods from a base set of proteins, vitamins, minerals and fibers. But I doubt it'll be any cheaper than just going to a restaurant -- the only difference will be quality control and exact control over shape and texture. Of course, restaurants will be 3D printing too, so there may not be much of a difference.
We're going to have self driving cars, which will never kill people on purpose. Killer robots? We;;, they may be driving some of those cars one day "Here at Robo-Drive, Our Chauffeurs are Killer!";-)
This does raise a good point: the "killer robots" of the future will likely not be humanoid -- those autonomous vehicles will BE the killer robots; just look at Knight Rider for an example of a "friendly" autonomous robot. Of course, there will also be drones, as well as small insect-like robots with flocking or hive minds -- why send in a humanoid robot holding a gun when you can send in 500 scorpion-like robots and a few thousand wasp-like robots -- all with a deadly sting?
What gets me is that as soon as you introduce robots to the equation, you often completely remove the need to kill in the first place.
Why not just send in immobilizing robots that do something like shock them, blind them, knock them out (via chemical or physical means), break their arms and legs, or something similar? If we can target individual combatants with no risk of lost life on our side, why is there a need to kill?
Robots could immobilize an entire enemy force. This does, of course, make cleanup messier, as you have to actually deal with the people instead of leaving them as someone else's problem of dead corpses, but someone could even come along and administer a lethal injection to each one that checks out to be an actual enemy combatant.
This minimizes the damage done when a false target is selected, as the people can just be released (although they may be temporarily blinded or need time for their cleanly-broken bones to re-set).
> A careful reading of the directive finds that it lists some broad and imprecise criteria and requires senior officials to certify that these criteria have been met if systems are intended to target and kill people by machine decision alone. [emphasis mine]
(I think I've seen that movie...) What could possibly go wrong?
I wonder if they'd be running Windows for Killer Robots?
Personally, I respect the fact that he's savvy enough to realize that further development at this time would be a losing venture. Better to mothball for now and have some RoI in the future than to keep operating and have all the funds vanish into the gaping maw of operational expenses.
If something could end the EU is this kind of actions from UK, how you continue in something based on mutual trust when that trust is not deserved? This century Axis of evil has changed actors, but once again are a few countries (some of them inside Europe, some of them outside) vs the rest of the world, just wait for their next moves if you are still not doped enough.
What many people forget is that you can have more than two axes. Along with the Axis of Evil, we've now got the Axis of Fascists, the Axis of Slime, and the Axis of "not as bad as them".
In other news, China must be laughing, as they don't have to even nudge anything to let all this take place and have everything fall into their lap. Doesn't mean they're not positioning themselves favourably though.
Belgacom also services N. Africa and parts of the middle east, not just Belgium itself and people roaming in Belgium. So the network is a juicy target for anyone wanting to indiscriminately sift through calls to/from these areas as well as those in Belgium itself.
The Royal House of Belgium was imposed on the Belgians by the English and the Germans, who were affraid of too much French influence in the country.
Leopold I van Saxen-Coburg was born in Coburg (Bavaria, Germany), he was the uncle of Queen Victoria (who was also part of the Saxe-Coburg family, they changed their name into Windsor to sound less German).
Congo was the _personal property_ of his son, Leopold II. After the outrage on how he treated the Africans, he "donated" it to the Belgian state as a colony. As a Belgian colony, Congo was not worse of than any other colony at the time (which is bad enough).
a King who seems- by all accounts- to have been the forerunner of Adolph Hitler
Leopold II did not want to exterminate the Africans (unlike Hitler who wanted to exterminate all Jews, Gypsies, gays and the mentally ill); he just wanted to make as much profit as possible. His way to make profit was cruel; but as much as I (an anonymous Belgian) hate him, comparing him to Hitler is trivializing the holocaust.
Just a reminder that another one of the colonies was Rwanda -- the situation there shows that Leopold II did not want to exterminate Africans, but he DID take a nation and separate the people there into two "races" based on looks and set up a "genetic" breeding program. Those Rwandans with European-looking features were allowed to marry each other and hold positions of power; those without European-looking features (darker skin, flatter nose, lower cheekbones, more protruding forehead) were excluded from this society and were pretty much only allowed to work as grunt labourers. And so we got the Tutsis and Hutus, and the bloody carnage the country is still recovering from.
Researchers use the computer to specify the laser beam shape they require and to programme it into the LCD. By this means, one laser can swiftly produce many different beam shapes. Previously, changing the shape of a laser beam required physically replacing the curved mirror in the laser. As the mirror has to be carefully aligned, this is a time consuming process.
This will be of immense benefit to mankind.
Once I fit one of these in the back of my car it will spell out messages for drivers following me to read; e.g. Your Turn Signal Has Been On For The Past 3 Miles.
And here I thought you were going to say "Once I fit one of these on the back of my shark...."
An English major wrote it. It uses a computer-controlled LCD instead of a curved mirror. There are benefits, TFA isn't very good at explaining them because the guy who wrote the article either didn't understand the concepts or really sucks at communicating them. You really have to look hard through the overabundance of redundant marketspeak verbiage to grok it.
I doubt an English major wrote it -- it looks an awful lot like a Communications major wrote it; an English major wouldn't use an overabundance of redundant marketspeak, but would instead make all sorts of obscure references in fairly terse but accurate English.
So Brazil will tap and decrypt all internet traffic to enforce this rule?
As I said, they have no need to tap and decrypt all internet traffic. All they have to do is get the inbound and outbound router data summaries. If all the country's traffic going TO those servers matches the encrypted data going FROM those servers to some location in the US, and all encrypted traffic FROM those servers in the US matches the traffic coming out from the server, it's pretty obvious that nothing's being stored there. Brazil owns the upstream and downstream routers, so this is trivial to check.
The reason for this is that unlike the US, Brazil has limited backbone connects to the rest of the world. This is part of what they're trying to fix. Here's a picture that explains it fairly well: http://www.gigaomnimedia.com/images/cable-capacity.jpg As you can see, other than one small line via Argentina to Spain, all of Brazil's international traffic goes through the New York or California trunks.
They're still better off than Australia though, on all things Internet-related.
Hmm. A physical presence? No, they just need a VPN service in country so it LOOKS like they are there. Isn't that what all the users do so that it looks like they are in Canada and can watch all the curling events that aren't allowed outside of Canada? Or maybe that was TV shows that aren't allowed outside of the US. But anyway, Google and Facebook can just rent a nice, fast, VPN service in country and they will have a presence there as far as these politicians will ever know.
This is Brazil we're talking about -- the politicians might not know, but their tech advisors will -- it's trivial to trace where the bulk traffic to sites like Google and Facebook is being routed. They'll actually need to set up a datacenter there. Management has no need to be in the country, but the data sure does. If that data goes to a VPN and then is routed out of the country to the US, that'll show up in the routing logs (traffic in = encrypted traffic out, and vice versa).
That kind of thing would likely work in many countries, but Brazil has been intentionally beefing up their tech sector over the last decade, and now they generally know what they're doing (and what their citizens are doing).
Interestingly, Facebook Brazil is based out of Ireland, not the US; where the actual data is stored, I have no idea -- but I bet Brazil does.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a scenario:
Let's say two crystals are quantum entangled. In this state, a binary message can be sent (buy/don't buy) from Washington DC and arrive in Chicago at the same time, defeating the law of the speed of light.
Thea actual information was already transmitted; they just had a single decision gate to jump through *at some time* that was triggered right then.
Using this method, traders around the world can get that little edge on the competition.
Now feel free to poke holes in my plausible theory, as it's pretty obvious that's not what happened here.
Completely true. The oddity here is that a long-in-the-tooth company like Apple with no real quick growth solutions is being traded like a small VC stock; pretty much anyone expecting short term ROI on AAPL is either very optimistic, or very deluded. AAPL is not worth what it's trading at -- but it's still a solid stock for the long haul, barring extensive mismanagement of their funds (which should have plenty of warning signs prior to collapse).
Shh... don't give the plot away for next season!
Although a big difference is that witnesses attested to seeing scars on him inflicted prior to regeneration. Others stated that he said that he shouldn't be touched until regeneration was complete, and that they didn't recognize him at first, until they heard his voice (so outward appearance changed, but vocal chords stayed the same?).
The other bit that's debated of course, is how much, if any, of the "bible" (assuming KJV-style or derivatives here) was written by who it says it's written by, how much of it was written later, how much is literal, and what the actual purpose was for each of the "books" to be written in the first place, as well as the intention for grouping those specific works together as they were. You'll find as many conclusions as you will possibilities, some founded in research, some in faith, some in lore, and some in knee-jerk "common sense" reaction.
You actually raise a good point. The tickets should be given at the point where the person fails to act when the light goes green -- at which point they are texting while stopped in the middle of the road at a green light. This would also be much safer, as when the cop turns on his lights, the person actually has somewhere to go to clear the intersection.
As for one rule for cops, one for plebs -- if everyone was required to take a defensive driving course and was trained in operating scanners/radios while driving, and was not given a license unless they showed competence in those things, then I'd subscribe to the "one rule" thing. As it is, we have separate rules for cops, and hold them to a higher standard -- which they do break with a statistical regularity, just like pleb drivers do. But unless we're raising the standard for pleb drivers to match the standard for cops, I'm perfectly happy with them having a different set of standards/rules. I just wish commercial vehicle licenses also required that level of driving awareness/skill training/testing.
And yet...
The rate of traffic accidents have been steadily declining during the period when texting has been becoming popular.
...and this shows that correlation is not causation. By this I don't mean that texting doesn't cause traffic accidents, but that while we are having a steep increase in texting-related accidents, we're having an even sharper decline in accidents caused by other things.
I think part of this could be chalked up to the increasing ubiquitousness of the cell phone -- it's a lot easier for someone to call a cab or text a friend after a few drinks now, for example, than it was back in the days of payphones, when people would decide "I just had a few; it's not worth the bother to find a payphone."
What we really need is a universal dock in vehicles where all mobile devices can connect and charge, and let the interface that's been designed to interoperate with driving be the only thing available, and only make the functions available that are safe while driving. This doesn't mean everyone will use it, but I bet most people would -- most people think "I'll just get my texting done at the stoplight where it's safe" not realizing that this isn't really safe from a vehicle operation and road stafety standpoint, even if it stops them from doing potentially deadly maneuvers with their vehicle.
Unfortunately for AAPL, its investors and its long term business, the number of sales of the phone in the first three days is good really for only one thing -- this month's revenue.
I'd disagree. If any of these are new customers, these sales drive more people to the App Store, and from there to iCloud and Apple Ads.
These days, only a portion of Apple's money comes from selling hardware and software; they also sell ads and metrics. iCloud gives them an AMAZING metrics base, and if they've got another 4 million users out of these three days, that's 4 million more data points they can aggregate and sell to advertisers and marketers.
That improves their marketing value, which in turn improves the ROI.
Why did you think Apple was tying the ad revenue model and the iCloud integration so tightly into all their operating systems these days? It's where the money's at.
the internet connection is absent from Russia and China.
I feel much safer now because of their online frauds, firewalls and persecution.
That shows the underwater cables. There aren't any underwater cables from Russia to the Americas; also, there's a pretty large clump of cables running from China to California and Washington State. I'm not sure why you think it's absent.
Yes; that's why I find the unforseeable future so fascinating. It all comes down to actually knowing what Tea, Earl Grey, actually *is* in a most complete way. We've got a long way to go to get there.
In the next Star Wars movie the rebels will fling themselves at the stormtrooper pigs with a giant slingshot.
Star Wars: Angry Bespin
As Cloud City is antigrav-supported, this will wreak havoc on the drone-slings, but our heroes will overcome the convoluted physics model to fling themselves at the stormtrooper pigs in first-person 3D!*
*note, for copyright reasons, they'll fling themselves using a fedora and bull whip instead of a slingshot.
We could make replica parts (in plastic) that once painted you'd have a hard time telling they weren't the real thing just from looking at them.
So you're saying you've passed off fake stuff as geniune? Lets just say I don't want my brake rotor to only 'look' real...
Actually you can print metal.
At home? In your family room? I wouldn't recommend that... Yes there are printers that can do that stuff, but you simply aren't going to have them be usable by the average person in their home.
...not for very long, at least. You'd need a sealed room with a good venting system to do that for any period of time. Plus, there's the materials costs -- that's quite the upfront investment. Great for prototyping when you're investing in a large run from the factory, but not so great when you're doing 1-offs with no further ROI.
That reminds me of one of the other interesting areas for 3D printers: biological 3D printers. One day, we'll be able to print our own foods from a base set of proteins, vitamins, minerals and fibers. But I doubt it'll be any cheaper than just going to a restaurant -- the only difference will be quality control and exact control over shape and texture. Of course, restaurants will be 3D printing too, so there may not be much of a difference.
No worries, mate. What could possibly go wrong?
We're going to have self driving cars, which will never kill people on purpose. Killer robots? We;;, they may be driving some of those cars one day "Here at Robo-Drive, Our Chauffeurs are Killer!" ;-)
This does raise a good point: the "killer robots" of the future will likely not be humanoid -- those autonomous vehicles will BE the killer robots; just look at Knight Rider for an example of a "friendly" autonomous robot. Of course, there will also be drones, as well as small insect-like robots with flocking or hive minds -- why send in a humanoid robot holding a gun when you can send in 500 scorpion-like robots and a few thousand wasp-like robots -- all with a deadly sting?
What gets me is that as soon as you introduce robots to the equation, you often completely remove the need to kill in the first place.
Why not just send in immobilizing robots that do something like shock them, blind them, knock them out (via chemical or physical means), break their arms and legs, or something similar? If we can target individual combatants with no risk of lost life on our side, why is there a need to kill?
Robots could immobilize an entire enemy force. This does, of course, make cleanup messier, as you have to actually deal with the people instead of leaving them as someone else's problem of dead corpses, but someone could even come along and administer a lethal injection to each one that checks out to be an actual enemy combatant.
This minimizes the damage done when a false target is selected, as the people can just be released (although they may be temporarily blinded or need time for their cleanly-broken bones to re-set).
> A careful reading of the directive finds that it lists some broad and imprecise criteria and requires senior officials to certify that these criteria have been met if systems are intended to target and kill people by machine decision alone. [emphasis mine]
(I think I've seen that movie...) What could possibly go wrong?
I wonder if they'd be running Windows for Killer Robots?
Subject 8572 has initialed combative...
Action: Activate weapons system. Terminate subject
Divide Overflow
Abort, Retry, Fail?
Just remember to run if you see a blue screen.
Will we call these new autonomous weapons "Asimov Cocktails"?
Personally, I respect the fact that he's savvy enough to realize that further development at this time would be a losing venture. Better to mothball for now and have some RoI in the future than to keep operating and have all the funds vanish into the gaping maw of operational expenses.
If something could end the EU is this kind of actions from UK, how you continue in something based on mutual trust when that trust is not deserved? This century Axis of evil has changed actors, but once again are a few countries (some of them inside Europe, some of them outside) vs the rest of the world, just wait for their next moves if you are still not doped enough.
What many people forget is that you can have more than two axes. Along with the Axis of Evil, we've now got the Axis of Fascists, the Axis of Slime, and the Axis of "not as bad as them".
In other news, China must be laughing, as they don't have to even nudge anything to let all this take place and have everything fall into their lap. Doesn't mean they're not positioning themselves favourably though.
Belgacom also services N. Africa and parts of the middle east, not just Belgium itself and people roaming in Belgium. So the network is a juicy target for anyone wanting to indiscriminately sift through calls to/from these areas as well as those in Belgium itself.
The Royal House of Belgium was imposed on the Belgians by the English and the Germans, who were affraid of too much French influence in the country.
Leopold I van Saxen-Coburg was born in Coburg (Bavaria, Germany), he was the uncle of Queen Victoria (who was also part of the Saxe-Coburg family, they changed their name into Windsor to sound less German).
Congo was the _personal property_ of his son, Leopold II. After the outrage on how he treated the Africans, he "donated" it to the Belgian state as a colony. As a Belgian colony, Congo was not worse of than any other colony at the time (which is bad enough).
a King who seems- by all accounts- to have been the forerunner of Adolph Hitler
Leopold II did not want to exterminate the Africans (unlike Hitler who wanted to exterminate all Jews, Gypsies, gays and the mentally ill); he just wanted to make as much profit as possible. His way to make profit was cruel; but as much as I (an anonymous Belgian) hate him, comparing him to Hitler is trivializing the holocaust.
Just a reminder that another one of the colonies was Rwanda -- the situation there shows that Leopold II did not want to exterminate Africans, but he DID take a nation and separate the people there into two "races" based on looks and set up a "genetic" breeding program. Those Rwandans with European-looking features were allowed to marry each other and hold positions of power; those without European-looking features (darker skin, flatter nose, lower cheekbones, more protruding forehead) were excluded from this society and were pretty much only allowed to work as grunt labourers. And so we got the Tutsis and Hutus, and the bloody carnage the country is still recovering from.
If you weren't replying to me, I'd mod you up. This is what it really boils down to.
Researchers use the computer to specify the laser beam shape they require and to programme it into the LCD. By this means, one laser can swiftly produce many different beam shapes. Previously, changing the shape of a laser beam required physically replacing the curved mirror in the laser. As the mirror has to be carefully aligned, this is a time consuming process.
This will be of immense benefit to mankind.
Once I fit one of these in the back of my car it will spell out messages for drivers following me to read; e.g. Your Turn Signal Has Been On For The Past 3 Miles.
And here I thought you were going to say "Once I fit one of these on the back of my shark...."
I fail to see how that's digital
An English major wrote it. It uses a computer-controlled LCD instead of a curved mirror. There are benefits, TFA isn't very good at explaining them because the guy who wrote the article either didn't understand the concepts or really sucks at communicating them. You really have to look hard through the overabundance of redundant marketspeak verbiage to grok it.
I doubt an English major wrote it -- it looks an awful lot like a Communications major wrote it; an English major wouldn't use an overabundance of redundant marketspeak, but would instead make all sorts of obscure references in fairly terse but accurate English.
So Brazil will tap and decrypt all internet traffic to enforce this rule?
As I said, they have no need to tap and decrypt all internet traffic. All they have to do is get the inbound and outbound router data summaries. If all the country's traffic going TO those servers matches the encrypted data going FROM those servers to some location in the US, and all encrypted traffic FROM those servers in the US matches the traffic coming out from the server, it's pretty obvious that nothing's being stored there. Brazil owns the upstream and downstream routers, so this is trivial to check.
The reason for this is that unlike the US, Brazil has limited backbone connects to the rest of the world. This is part of what they're trying to fix.
Here's a picture that explains it fairly well:
http://www.gigaomnimedia.com/images/cable-capacity.jpg
As you can see, other than one small line via Argentina to Spain, all of Brazil's international traffic goes through the New York or California trunks.
They're still better off than Australia though, on all things Internet-related.
Hmm. A physical presence? No, they just need a VPN service in country so it LOOKS like they are there. Isn't that what all the users do so that it looks like they are in Canada and can watch all the curling events that aren't allowed outside of Canada? Or maybe that was TV shows that aren't allowed outside of the US. But anyway, Google and Facebook can just rent a nice, fast, VPN service in country and they will have a presence there as far as these politicians will ever know.
This is Brazil we're talking about -- the politicians might not know, but their tech advisors will -- it's trivial to trace where the bulk traffic to sites like Google and Facebook is being routed. They'll actually need to set up a datacenter there. Management has no need to be in the country, but the data sure does. If that data goes to a VPN and then is routed out of the country to the US, that'll show up in the routing logs (traffic in = encrypted traffic out, and vice versa).
That kind of thing would likely work in many countries, but Brazil has been intentionally beefing up their tech sector over the last decade, and now they generally know what they're doing (and what their citizens are doing).
Interestingly, Facebook Brazil is based out of Ireland, not the US; where the actual data is stored, I have no idea -- but I bet Brazil does.
This is Canada, they use a chicken cannon.
Not since the government pulled funding to Air Farce.... now you can only use a chicken cannon on New Year's Eve.
He needs one of these:
http://www.dyson.com/Fans/FansAndHeaters/Fans.aspx
They're great for climate change.