People that want their parcels to actually make it to their homes, because they ordered stuff. People that don't take the trouble to erase all cookies, log out of facebook and whatnot before they start messing up reviews with fake entries. There are so much things identifying you online that once they have your real data, they'll follow you regardless of the amount of bogus you fill in, unless you simply don't order online and don't do any social networking, use search engines and such.
Just quoting someone else without knowing what you are talking about doesn't make you right. Come up with scientific reasoning using trigonometry and publicly available specs for GPS to prove your point, or keep your mouth shut, please.
Triangulation (without altitude) works with three points if you have one unknown transmitter and three known receivers. This is the other way around. Using just two receivers would give you two possible locations, without altitude. The other way around, in a real life situation with moving sats and a round planet, you need more data sources to get anything near to accurate results. It may very well be that given enough time, you can get somewhat accurate lat/long information from just 3 transmitters, but you'll be suffering to get altitude positioning correct if they are all in more or less the same horizontal plane. The trajectories of GPS sats are such, that you will in practice need more than three sats to accurately determine your position and still have global coverage with less than 30 sats orbiting the planet.
So in theory, using one location and stationary sats, aided with other navigational means, you may be able to get lat/long with just 2 sats and alt with 3, but in practice, you need 4.
GPS satellites are already being replaced. So far, three IIF sats have made it into orbit. As usual with US military operations, things happened late and extremely over budget, but things are happening and the chance that the system fails due to not enough operational sats is rather small.
Nobody ever had that opportunity, so they can't lose it. Besides, what devices are we talking about? My car? My television? My guitar amp? Sure, I have a few computers, but only a small minority of those is running some form of windows and only because of legacy reasons, not for anything current or a current windows version. My phone has a battery life of a week and is not hindered by rogue apps or illegible screens in bright sunlight, because that's what it is, a phone. This is trying to blackmail people with a possible loss of something they never had before and never will have, nor should they ever want it. You don't want to lose all your computing power if for some reason there is a vulnerability in the thing they all have in common or a vendor goes belly up.
I'd say nerds were aware of these flaws a long time ago. They chose not to make the whole world aware of this, since it helped catch criminals that continued to used these tools. this is probably only news for the criminals using the tools, which will probably mean that catching them will be more difficult in the future.
They start planning this years, years and years ahead. It is not uncustomary to have decided on a hardware platform five years before launch. Since there's a lot at stake for these bigger missions to succeed, they usually don't take risks and put stuff up there that hasn't proven itself. Maybe some evolution like a higher clock rate or more memory or something like that, but a new processor architecture gets tried on other things that have redundancy, lower cost or less exposure and preferably a combination of those.
I have been discussing some technology that was possibly put in an instrument on a weather/climate sat with the primary investigator of the then current mission and named to be the one of the next mission as well. This was around 2007. They had to choose the technology then, so they could work on plans and get funding around now. Once they get their funding, it will still be three to five years before it goes up there. Back then, due to the reliability demands they had for the sensor and the relative unproven state of using CMOS sensors for photon capture (common used in digital consumer cameras in 2007) they chose to go with the previous solution, that was in the current instrument. That means that they will probably launch a pre-CMOS sensor equipped instrument around 2015, because that was the best option available to them when it was decision time.
Unless we change the way we "go to space" in a radical way, I don't see the latest and greatest tech make it in missions like this. It's up there, sure it is, but only a handful people know it is and they don't want their precious black ops budget exposed or taken away from them. Once the statistics they get from the successes and failures (failing in secret "testing missions" once in a while is allowed) to a rating that makes it commercially viable to sell the tech to civilian usage, plus the state of technology used for espionage and military use is such that there isn't any tactical threat to do so, more modern tech will be used for missions like this.
AAPL could also buy TomTom, one of the main suppliers of maps for IOS6. According to TomTom, their data is fine, but the integration of their data and other sources seems to be causing Apples problems on IOS6. Nokia has the legacy weight of a phone division, while TomTom is barely making any hardware themselves these days and is only into maps and services related to that. At the current price point, TomTom would be far more interesting for AAPL than NOK would be.
TomTom already has an extreme amount of experience in making map applications work on several platforms and they have a foot in the door with several car manufacturers that use TomTom data and applications on their on-board systems. This would give them an entrance in a market they currently are not in. How would you think "iTunes on your car" and "iOS apps on your car" would sound to most people? The first car to offer that would no doubt get a lot of publicity and sales, unless it was a true lemon. TomTom could very well be their entrance into that market and Nokia only has Navteq maps and a bunch of patents as a valuable asset. The patents are being sold off rapidly to fund the rest of the company, so the merit of that is rapidly diminishing. Putting a suffering phone division against the Navteq bit, you don't have a lot of value left I think.
So what does it make people that didn't vote for this guy? From what I gather, about 10 Million people live there. Of those, roughly 25 are under 18. That gives us about 7.5M people eligible to vote. I have a strong doubt that over 3.75M people voted for this guy.
Also, with the way USA democracy works, chances are that it was either this guy or just one other guy. It could very well be that the other guy was the worse option of the two.
Democracy sometimes means that a minority chooses the less bad of 2 horrible options, not the best candidate for the job.
Why should the government asses the bid? I'd say it's up to the company to come up with the money and take their losses. They most likely have other routes that are profitable to compensate. Any wise board always calculates a percentage of their budget as "unforseen" and this is just one of these cases. Or did they use the same spreadsheet for those other lines as well?
Why bother recruiting people if you can just hire bots, or herd your own? Why go for 100 small ones if just a few bigger ones will yield you the same number of victims?
These seem like either very inexperienced criminals, or indeed, as someone else suggested, scammers that want to rip off botnet herders, not banks. You don't involve people in your gang if you don't absolutely need them. You don't train them, unless you absolutely need them to know things. The less people know as little as possible, the smaller the chance you will get caught. Causing a racket by recruiting up to 100 herders does not fit that MO.
There are some arguments missing from your otherwise rather good observation.
First, China's environmental laws are such that building a factory in western countries will cost quite some extra money, due to the pollution and CO2 compensation that will have to be dealt with. This will make it less interesting to build in the west, if you're in it for the money.
Second, anything you build in China, will have all the technology of not just the product, but also the assembly copied. They will surely try to copy your western factory and products, but it will be quite a bit harder for them to do industrial espionage when the industry isn't in their own country. This will make it more interesting to not produce in China, or any other country that will benefit from copying your technology.
To encourage car use, lose the safety belt, air bags and bumpers.
I live in the Netherlands, where helmets for cyclists aren't mandatory and we have a lot of cyclists. Yes, compared to the number of cyclists we have we do not have a significantly higher injury/death rate than in the USA, but we do have a lot of injuries and deaths non the less. Drivers are more aware of cyclists here, but the ones that do get hit, often have head injuries. Helmets save lives, just like car driver awareness does. Don't think you can substitute one for the other and make the world a better place. As long as drivers will hit cyclists, the cyclists that get hit have a better survival/injury rate if they wear a helmet, period.
Google is known to comply with local law and not display video's that are in violation of several nations laws, when requested to do so by the local authorities. After Thailand blocked youtube, they removed any video that could be insulting to Thailands king Bhumibol, to give an example. Similar actions to remove or at least block content have been taken in several countries after legal and sometimes economical pressure from the country. I'm sure that a next step from Brazil would be to name Google a criminal organization and block all their services for the entire country. It may not be the very next step, but eventually it will get to that point.
The most likely thing that will happens next is that Google will then comply because they can't afford to loose the business if it gets to that. Don't be evil, unless you are losing too much money. My analysiss of Google leaving China is that it wasn't about censorship, they complied to that for quite a while, but about too much effort for the money they were allowed to make by the Chinese government. They were being forced to censor *and* squeezed for the amount of cash they were allowed to pull out of the Chinese economy. The latter made applying the censorship just too much work to be profitable enough.
Then why do I still need to fucking restart gnome-shell every day? (yes, I know, it's the plugins, but it's totally unworkable without them and they claim to do a quality check before allowing them into the "app store"). Why Can't I arrange my workspaces the way I want to and assign hot keys to them? Why do I need to hack my way into the system to get something mundane like Xscreensaver working? All those features were in gnome2 already, there was a lot of mischief about these starting from gnome3 3.0 and they still haven't been fixed. Yet, somehow, they found time to add a bloody world clock to the gnome3 core? Come on, this is ridiculous, it was ridiculous starting from 3.0 and it will remain ridiculous until they stop this and fix the broken code and missing features they already had in gnome2.
The speed he will be falling at will be higher than what would result to "supersonic" speed at ground level. However, with the thin atmosphere being so thin high up, he will not actually reach the speed of sound.
Run flat tires will pop and hiss if you stick a sharp object through the side plies or if you really feel like you have to prove something, the thread, but will not flatten so much that they can't be driven to the next service point. Tires that are "bullet proof" essentially aren't, but have an inner ring of special reinforced plastic constructed when the tire is half on the rim. Those still pop from the bullets, but hardly drop to the ground at all, giving you even more time/speed to get away from danger and to the next tire replacement location.
Putting a knife in an inflated car tire requires a lot more force than most people think. I think it's a lot more probable that the young punk trying to do this tried to stick a wide blade into a regular tire and found out that you need to use an ice pick or similar object to actually have enough strength in your arm to penetrate it.
You may not notice, but if you drive on a dry road in winter, your tires will warm up. This means that in winter, you will often have cold tires that are under inflated when you step into your car after a cold night, but will warm up and be on pressure after 10-20 minutes of driving. I don't see how a TPMS is going to deal with that in any other way than indicate the tires are under inflated until they heat up, because they technically are. The TPMS has no way to see how long, fast or sporty you are going to drive and even if it does, it still should warn you since cold, under inflated tires will give you less grip than you may expect.
In Europe, people tend to take the car less than in the USA. Cars tend to be smaller and more fuel economical. In other words, $10 a gallon which is where we're at right now in some countries, isn't that much of an influence on the average driver as it would be in the USA. People get on bicycles or use public transport already, just to avoid the traffic jams or because it's more convenient for shopping anyway. That doesn't apply to all of Europe, but for areas where you would expect electrical cars it usually does. Governments tend to give big tax breaks on electrical and hybrid cars and that does work for business drivers that tend to get leased cars as part of their job benefits. Those lease cars are heavily taxed in a lot of countries and electricals and hybrids get large tax exempts usually. Most people driving these cars don't care about the environment, they just want a tax break so they get a cheaper car.
No they don't. If all you feed them is grass, they get the runs, which is what most diary cows have. They actually evolved to eat a rather diverse mixture of a lot of plants, including grass. Wild cows tend to eat some grass and a lot of other herbs and plants and produce more horse-like manure. Feeding cows something else might not even be worse for them than feeding them grass, or corn for that matter.
Does it matter what virus scanner you use how long your computer keeps working? Are you one of those people that throw their computer out if it gets a virus or gets too slow to use it? You might want to invest in making backups and learning how to reinstall your computer. Actually speeding up a windows install by cleaning out the registry and dumping old files might be a bit too advanced for the starting user, but at least you can learn how to reinstall a system and put your data back.
You are comparing people that are very conscious and strict about their diet that happen to have one (debated unhealthy) habit to the average of a very unhealthy nation of people.
If you were to compare honestly, you would take a large sample of vegans of all ages, gender, income group and compare those to people equally concious about what they eat but meat eaters. Factor in the same distribution of age, gender, income group, since vegans tend to be either religious (Buddhist monks for instance) or not poor and living in western countries.
I think you will find that the vegans will not be healthier in general. They may be healthier on specific diseases related to eating meat and unhealthier on factors related to missing essential nutrients that are common in animal produced food but are hard to get in your diet if you are vegan. From what I understand from dietary scientists I happen to know, is that the diseases typically linked to eating meat will probably be a lot more rare than (developmental) diseases from not eating meat in the entire group of tested people. This probably is never truly researched in a way that I propose here, so maybe someone not related to vegan or meat food industries will be willing to sponsor adequate research? Maybe they will find new diseases, or causes for diseases or symptoms not yet discovered.
Slashdot Mirror
People that want their parcels to actually make it to their homes, because they ordered stuff. People that don't take the trouble to erase all cookies, log out of facebook and whatnot before they start messing up reviews with fake entries. There are so much things identifying you online that once they have your real data, they'll follow you regardless of the amount of bogus you fill in, unless you simply don't order online and don't do any social networking, use search engines and such.
Just quoting someone else without knowing what you are talking about doesn't make you right. Come up with scientific reasoning using trigonometry and publicly available specs for GPS to prove your point, or keep your mouth shut, please.
Triangulation (without altitude) works with three points if you have one unknown transmitter and three known receivers. This is the other way around. Using just two receivers would give you two possible locations, without altitude. The other way around, in a real life situation with moving sats and a round planet, you need more data sources to get anything near to accurate results. It may very well be that given enough time, you can get somewhat accurate lat/long information from just 3 transmitters, but you'll be suffering to get altitude positioning correct if they are all in more or less the same horizontal plane. The trajectories of GPS sats are such, that you will in practice need more than three sats to accurately determine your position and still have global coverage with less than 30 sats orbiting the planet.
So in theory, using one location and stationary sats, aided with other navigational means, you may be able to get lat/long with just 2 sats and alt with 3, but in practice, you need 4.
GPS satellites are already being replaced. So far, three IIF sats have made it into orbit. As usual with US military operations, things happened late and extremely over budget, but things are happening and the chance that the system fails due to not enough operational sats is rather small.
Nobody ever had that opportunity, so they can't lose it. Besides, what devices are we talking about? My car? My television? My guitar amp? Sure, I have a few computers, but only a small minority of those is running some form of windows and only because of legacy reasons, not for anything current or a current windows version. My phone has a battery life of a week and is not hindered by rogue apps or illegible screens in bright sunlight, because that's what it is, a phone. This is trying to blackmail people with a possible loss of something they never had before and never will have, nor should they ever want it. You don't want to lose all your computing power if for some reason there is a vulnerability in the thing they all have in common or a vendor goes belly up.
I'd say nerds were aware of these flaws a long time ago. They chose not to make the whole world aware of this, since it helped catch criminals that continued to used these tools. this is probably only news for the criminals using the tools, which will probably mean that catching them will be more difficult in the future.
High voltage to the chest, works best when used with conductive gel. They have apparatuses for that called a defibrillator.
They start planning this years, years and years ahead. It is not uncustomary to have decided on a hardware platform five years before launch. Since there's a lot at stake for these bigger missions to succeed, they usually don't take risks and put stuff up there that hasn't proven itself. Maybe some evolution like a higher clock rate or more memory or something like that, but a new processor architecture gets tried on other things that have redundancy, lower cost or less exposure and preferably a combination of those.
I have been discussing some technology that was possibly put in an instrument on a weather/climate sat with the primary investigator of the then current mission and named to be the one of the next mission as well. This was around 2007. They had to choose the technology then, so they could work on plans and get funding around now. Once they get their funding, it will still be three to five years before it goes up there. Back then, due to the reliability demands they had for the sensor and the relative unproven state of using CMOS sensors for photon capture (common used in digital consumer cameras in 2007) they chose to go with the previous solution, that was in the current instrument. That means that they will probably launch a pre-CMOS sensor equipped instrument around 2015, because that was the best option available to them when it was decision time.
Unless we change the way we "go to space" in a radical way, I don't see the latest and greatest tech make it in missions like this. It's up there, sure it is, but only a handful people know it is and they don't want their precious black ops budget exposed or taken away from them. Once the statistics they get from the successes and failures (failing in secret "testing missions" once in a while is allowed) to a rating that makes it commercially viable to sell the tech to civilian usage, plus the state of technology used for espionage and military use is such that there isn't any tactical threat to do so, more modern tech will be used for missions like this.
AAPL could also buy TomTom, one of the main suppliers of maps for IOS6. According to TomTom, their data is fine, but the integration of their data and other sources seems to be causing Apples problems on IOS6. Nokia has the legacy weight of a phone division, while TomTom is barely making any hardware themselves these days and is only into maps and services related to that. At the current price point, TomTom would be far more interesting for AAPL than NOK would be.
TomTom already has an extreme amount of experience in making map applications work on several platforms and they have a foot in the door with several car manufacturers that use TomTom data and applications on their on-board systems. This would give them an entrance in a market they currently are not in. How would you think "iTunes on your car" and "iOS apps on your car" would sound to most people? The first car to offer that would no doubt get a lot of publicity and sales, unless it was a true lemon. TomTom could very well be their entrance into that market and Nokia only has Navteq maps and a bunch of patents as a valuable asset. The patents are being sold off rapidly to fund the rest of the company, so the merit of that is rapidly diminishing. Putting a suffering phone division against the Navteq bit, you don't have a lot of value left I think.
So what does it make people that didn't vote for this guy? From what I gather, about 10 Million people live there. Of those, roughly 25 are under 18. That gives us about 7.5M people eligible to vote. I have a strong doubt that over 3.75M people voted for this guy.
Also, with the way USA democracy works, chances are that it was either this guy or just one other guy. It could very well be that the other guy was the worse option of the two.
Democracy sometimes means that a minority chooses the less bad of 2 horrible options, not the best candidate for the job.
Why should the government asses the bid? I'd say it's up to the company to come up with the money and take their losses. They most likely have other routes that are profitable to compensate. Any wise board always calculates a percentage of their budget as "unforseen" and this is just one of these cases. Or did they use the same spreadsheet for those other lines as well?
What's your account name?
*clicketyclicketyclicketyclick*
Sorry, we don't have an account by that name.
Now, you were saying what again?
BOFH
Why bother recruiting people if you can just hire bots, or herd your own? Why go for 100 small ones if just a few bigger ones will yield you the same number of victims?
These seem like either very inexperienced criminals, or indeed, as someone else suggested, scammers that want to rip off botnet herders, not banks. You don't involve people in your gang if you don't absolutely need them. You don't train them, unless you absolutely need them to know things. The less people know as little as possible, the smaller the chance you will get caught. Causing a racket by recruiting up to 100 herders does not fit that MO.
There are some arguments missing from your otherwise rather good observation.
First, China's environmental laws are such that building a factory in western countries will cost quite some extra money, due to the pollution and CO2 compensation that will have to be dealt with. This will make it less interesting to build in the west, if you're in it for the money.
Second, anything you build in China, will have all the technology of not just the product, but also the assembly copied. They will surely try to copy your western factory and products, but it will be quite a bit harder for them to do industrial espionage when the industry isn't in their own country. This will make it more interesting to not produce in China, or any other country that will benefit from copying your technology.
To encourage car use, lose the safety belt, air bags and bumpers.
I live in the Netherlands, where helmets for cyclists aren't mandatory and we have a lot of cyclists. Yes, compared to the number of cyclists we have we do not have a significantly higher injury/death rate than in the USA, but we do have a lot of injuries and deaths non the less. Drivers are more aware of cyclists here, but the ones that do get hit, often have head injuries. Helmets save lives, just like car driver awareness does. Don't think you can substitute one for the other and make the world a better place. As long as drivers will hit cyclists, the cyclists that get hit have a better survival/injury rate if they wear a helmet, period.
Google is known to comply with local law and not display video's that are in violation of several nations laws, when requested to do so by the local authorities. After Thailand blocked youtube, they removed any video that could be insulting to Thailands king Bhumibol, to give an example. Similar actions to remove or at least block content have been taken in several countries after legal and sometimes economical pressure from the country. I'm sure that a next step from Brazil would be to name Google a criminal organization and block all their services for the entire country. It may not be the very next step, but eventually it will get to that point.
The most likely thing that will happens next is that Google will then comply because they can't afford to loose the business if it gets to that. Don't be evil, unless you are losing too much money. My analysiss of Google leaving China is that it wasn't about censorship, they complied to that for quite a while, but about too much effort for the money they were allowed to make by the Chinese government. They were being forced to censor *and* squeezed for the amount of cash they were allowed to pull out of the Chinese economy. The latter made applying the censorship just too much work to be profitable enough.
Then why do I still need to fucking restart gnome-shell every day? (yes, I know, it's the plugins, but it's totally unworkable without them and they claim to do a quality check before allowing them into the "app store"). Why Can't I arrange my workspaces the way I want to and assign hot keys to them? Why do I need to hack my way into the system to get something mundane like Xscreensaver working? All those features were in gnome2 already, there was a lot of mischief about these starting from gnome3 3.0 and they still haven't been fixed. Yet, somehow, they found time to add a bloody world clock to the gnome3 core? Come on, this is ridiculous, it was ridiculous starting from 3.0 and it will remain ridiculous until they stop this and fix the broken code and missing features they already had in gnome2.
The speed he will be falling at will be higher than what would result to "supersonic" speed at ground level. However, with the thin atmosphere being so thin high up, he will not actually reach the speed of sound.
I'd be very happy if they had those snakes at the local doctors office and they could be trained to crush my kidney stones. Man... this hurts.
Run flat tires will pop and hiss if you stick a sharp object through the side plies or if you really feel like you have to prove something, the thread, but will not flatten so much that they can't be driven to the next service point. Tires that are "bullet proof" essentially aren't, but have an inner ring of special reinforced plastic constructed when the tire is half on the rim. Those still pop from the bullets, but hardly drop to the ground at all, giving you even more time/speed to get away from danger and to the next tire replacement location.
Putting a knife in an inflated car tire requires a lot more force than most people think. I think it's a lot more probable that the young punk trying to do this tried to stick a wide blade into a regular tire and found out that you need to use an ice pick or similar object to actually have enough strength in your arm to penetrate it.
You may not notice, but if you drive on a dry road in winter, your tires will warm up. This means that in winter, you will often have cold tires that are under inflated when you step into your car after a cold night, but will warm up and be on pressure after 10-20 minutes of driving. I don't see how a TPMS is going to deal with that in any other way than indicate the tires are under inflated until they heat up, because they technically are. The TPMS has no way to see how long, fast or sporty you are going to drive and even if it does, it still should warn you since cold, under inflated tires will give you less grip than you may expect.
In Europe, people tend to take the car less than in the USA. Cars tend to be smaller and more fuel economical. In other words, $10 a gallon which is where we're at right now in some countries, isn't that much of an influence on the average driver as it would be in the USA. People get on bicycles or use public transport already, just to avoid the traffic jams or because it's more convenient for shopping anyway. That doesn't apply to all of Europe, but for areas where you would expect electrical cars it usually does. Governments tend to give big tax breaks on electrical and hybrid cars and that does work for business drivers that tend to get leased cars as part of their job benefits. Those lease cars are heavily taxed in a lot of countries and electricals and hybrids get large tax exempts usually. Most people driving these cars don't care about the environment, they just want a tax break so they get a cheaper car.
No they don't. If all you feed them is grass, they get the runs, which is what most diary cows have. They actually evolved to eat a rather diverse mixture of a lot of plants, including grass. Wild cows tend to eat some grass and a lot of other herbs and plants and produce more horse-like manure. Feeding cows something else might not even be worse for them than feeding them grass, or corn for that matter.
Does it matter what virus scanner you use how long your computer keeps working? Are you one of those people that throw their computer out if it gets a virus or gets too slow to use it? You might want to invest in making backups and learning how to reinstall your computer. Actually speeding up a windows install by cleaning out the registry and dumping old files might be a bit too advanced for the starting user, but at least you can learn how to reinstall a system and put your data back.
How is this different in architecture from HP's WebOS?
You are comparing people that are very conscious and strict about their diet that happen to have one (debated unhealthy) habit to the average of a very unhealthy nation of people.
If you were to compare honestly, you would take a large sample of vegans of all ages, gender, income group and compare those to people equally concious about what they eat but meat eaters. Factor in the same distribution of age, gender, income group, since vegans tend to be either religious (Buddhist monks for instance) or not poor and living in western countries.
I think you will find that the vegans will not be healthier in general. They may be healthier on specific diseases related to eating meat and unhealthier on factors related to missing essential nutrients that are common in animal produced food but are hard to get in your diet if you are vegan. From what I understand from dietary scientists I happen to know, is that the diseases typically linked to eating meat will probably be a lot more rare than (developmental) diseases from not eating meat in the entire group of tested people. This probably is never truly researched in a way that I propose here, so maybe someone not related to vegan or meat food industries will be willing to sponsor adequate research? Maybe they will find new diseases, or causes for diseases or symptoms not yet discovered.