If he wanted to remain anonymous perhaps he should not have used his own name? It was only a matter of time and enough interest to investigate given that starting point. And if Newsweek found him so easily, and if he's held a security clearance as reported, it's reasonable to believe the government has known who he since pretty much whenever the question first popped up. His life is in no more danger today than last week.

You intentionally cut off the quote. "I would like to ask him about Bitcoin. This man is Satoshi Nakamoto." And plenty of cops are geeks, probably around the same as any other job. I used to have a bunch of them show up the LAN parties we'd do in the early 2000's.

+1. The only reason there aren't more greedy bastards is due to the limited opportunities to act as one. Ask any communist how that worked out for them.

Likely better than the aluminum used today.

Just the possibility of playing NetWars on my car's intranet has me all in a tizzy.

Can confirm unable to charge PEV with my laptop's USB port. Epic fail on the part of the manufacturer.

And Diffserv operates at layer 3, assuming TCP/IP. QoS definitely does not take place only or even primarily at layer 7.

Edit: Total cost for OSMAnd and OpenStreetMaps for offline navigation: $0

A couple points:

1) You do not need a data connection to use GPS navigation. You do need to obtain offline maps and an app that can use them. I typically use OSMAnd with OpenStreetMaps when I'm traveling internationally to avoid data roaming charges.

2) I'm old enough to have grown up with Thomas Guides, and then printing out directions from MapQuest after that, and trying to figure out your next turn with them is far more distracting than using a GPS nav app. Looking at a paper map while driving should be considered at least as dangerous, if not more so.

That's also illegal, at least on the freeways. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vct...

In California stopping on the shoulder to talk on the phone will also result in a ticket. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

It's legal to refuse to do business with any individual. It's illegal to refuse to do business with an entire class of people, simply because they're a member of that class.

In Arizona being gay is not a class. So this law is attempting to solve a "problem" that doesn't actually exist.

In terms of religion, there's a big difference between beliefs and practices. Any and all beliefs are legal in the USA. Practices must exist within the law.

Well, your last sentence was correct. Some Christians (I'm looking at you, Southern Baptists) used to preach that being black was the Mark of Cain and used it to justify first slavery and then racism. To purposefully legalize this behavior is stupidity of the first order. As the law is written, a business in Arizona could use the Mark of Cain argument to refuse to do business with blacks.

I imagine a gay CEO isn't too enthused about doing business with a state that thinks it's ok to refuse to do business with someone because they're gay. It's a two-way street, Arizona.

True, but from a practical perspective the exchanges are a mandatory part of the system.