They only pay tax on profit, before the profit they will pay fortunes in branding expenses to a company in a tax free zone. Just like star bucks.

Next loop hole please....

Hey, for anyone that likes hook turning. I have a nova canopy for sale, hardly used, maybe only 20 jumps on it :-)

Kim

Just recently, when I went to use the tom tom app on an iPhone to navigate to a contact. It displayed a popup that asked for permission to share your contacts. I refused permission and it removed the previously working navigate to contacts option. Clearly this is just spite as it's not necessary to share your contacts to navigate to it. I don't use navigate to contacts now but if I knew about this behavior before I had bought it I would never buy this app. That's just plain evil and spiteful and nasty.

DON''T buy tom tom navigator!!!!

Exactly! If the device itself is compromised you simply can't build a secure service on top of it. End of story.

At least. That is what I believe I'd like to see a compelling argument as to this is not the case. The same comment applies to the whisper systems app, what is the argument that implies that the platform itself is safe?

Sorry, I mean vp8.

I've been an early adopter of this protocol incorporating it into my security product within a couple of months of it coming out. However, it does appear that VP9 is not supported properly by Google's own browser. Now I've been serving up webm files as files and not via a streaming server so this may be influencial here.

Some things I've noticed (all with serving files not streaming):

* Android doesn't reliably play webm files. It seems to timeout in non-deterministic ways, except if the file is very large in which case it pretty much deterministically doesn't start. On small files it can "sometimes" startup and play when viewed on Android.

* Unless the file is very small then playing back a webm file on Chrome either via the web or via a file URL results in the frame rate dropping. Record video and encode it at 5 frames per second and play it back for a small file and it appears to play back at 5 frames per second. Record 15 minutes of video and it plays only about one frame every second. WTF??

* An early version of chrome played back webm files (Small) with the correct frame rate. Just the other day I installed the latest version of chrome on Linux and now the frame rate is dropped to about 1 frame per second again for all files though. I have to use another machine with an older version of chrome now to play back my video :-(

I can't for the life of me imagine why there are these frame rate problems years after it's introduction, I don't see that with H264 videos. If it's related to playing files that are not served by a streaming server then why pretent that you can play these?
It appears as if they don't seriously address the adoption of this protocol themselves so it's no wonder if others are hesitant.

The easiest way is to combine it with running an event based system in parallel such as the hydra control freak. This will let you record just the events based on
sensors placed in the correct places external to the camera. You can then view just the events very easily and if one warrants further investigation relate the time back to your 24/7 based recorder. Using PIR, IR beam or other systems in the protected zone will provide much more reliable intruder detection that trying to do video content analysis, particularly at night.

Exactly! They are falling behind so need to brain wash them sooner.

But I'm fine with it so long as they teach linux 2 years earlier than microsoft products. Maybe even if they teach linux at all, but I've never heard of anyone learning
linux at school at the same time or earlier than microsoft.

Linux is embedded in a great many products in the world and Microsoft collects a lot of money in license fees from those installations. A lot more than 20,000 I'd say.

The problem with loser pays is that almost any court case can simply be beyond the means of a small company unless they are able to defer payment of legal first (If he's gambling on being right). So destruction by lawyer firmly remains a viable tactic for big company versus small.

Alternatively make the government pay for all legal fees. After all, they make up the complex legal system in the first place. Maybe if this was in place they would try and make the system simpler. Let the combined cost of the legal system wash out in the tax structure as a cost to society.

Another approach is to regulate that the amount of legal fees paid to each side has to be the same. If one party wishes to spend more on legal fees then they have to supplement the other party by the same amount.

9 nanograms of explosive found on his hand :-)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl/