I wonder if the world would have heard of this event if that helicopter hadn't have crashed. When that helicopter crashed and left a section of somewhat identifiable wreckage, the US lost capability for plausible denial. They had to tell the world.

I also have to wonder if, given the number of helicopters (two modified Black Hawks and two Chinooks), the original mission was just a capture mission. With this kind of carrying capacity, they could have removed everyone in the compound that wasn't killed in the initial raid. They would have landed the SEAL team first with the stealth Black Hawks, pulled out the Black Hawks and then followed that up a while later with a Chinook or two to pull out captives and the SEAL team. With no-one alive in the compound, the US would have had some degree of plausible deniability. On top of that, they'd have a large number of presumably senior al-Quaeda members to interrogate.

Instead, the crashed helicopter would have taken out a large chunk of the LZ (leaving no landing space for a Chinook), it would have taken up crew to dispose of the wreckage and tend to any wounded from the crash. Combine this with an already limited timeframe and being stuck with only one aircraft to remove the SEAL team and Bin Laden, and this may have suddenly become a kill mission.

e911 requires mobile phones to be capable of identifying their location. No-one is suing the government about that.

Telecommunication companies have been about to identify individual phones (through IMEI) and track their movements through cell tower triangulation. No-one is suing them about that.

Yet Google make a phone when location services have to be activated by the user, and they get sued. The key difference between them an Apple is that activation of the location services. It seems Apple users don't get a choice. I suspect these two ladies a) haven't owned Android phones very long (they're just in it to make some money off Google); and b) have some kind of distant tie to Apple (extremely convenient that this happens right after Apple's Location Services scandal).

I'm willing to bet that, as this is an opt-in service, this lawsuit won't go far.

So they're rolling out a *new* two factor authentication system? That implies that there was an old one.... Was it RSA? Could the two events be linked?

I doubt he would have, especially if he has had legal advice. That is a sure way to lose the case, and get the book thrown at him, even if it is just a civil case.

On the other hand, as a security researcher, he would most likely have had everything encrypted (if he is smart). There is nothing I can see in the injunction that says he must turn over encryption keys (ie. the knowledge in his head - not a document). I am not a lawyer, but I don't believe he can be compelled to do that for a civil case and if he were compelled, he could plead the fifth. Sony would have a bunch of encrypted files that they would have to break into - performing the similar actions that they are accusing Geohot of.

He could follow the injunction to the letter and hand over his computer, and Sony would still get nothing effectively. He would have technically provided the data to them, and I cannot see anything an the injunction that says the data must be provided unencrypted and in a particular format. Sony would then have to convince the court why they have the right to break Geohot's encryption - not an easy proposal.

MS want to go after Android. With an ex-MS man at the helm of Nokia, I'm not surprised they have pushed this deal through (especially since MS have managed to piss of their other handset manufacturers, and they have in turn jumped to Android). It may hurt Android market share very briefly, but I'll wager it won't be for very long before Nokia dumps WinPhone7 if this deal even goes through.

MS is trying to play catch-up with Apple and Android, and is losing badly. Wasn't Elop complaining the other day that Nokia was stuck playing catch-up? How can throwing their lot in with MS help them? Unless Elop is playing this deal with MS, so he has a magic bullet against Apple, I can't see their market position getting any better.

I do have to wonder if this deal is more about solving Nokia's legal battles with Apple. Surely MS will happily hand over patent licenses if Nokia is going to make WInPhone7 devices. Not only would this potentially void some of Apple's patent claims against Nokia, but even if Apple won in the ITC, the devices it is seeking an injunction against will not be around much longer. On top of that, MS would see a handy market boost if the ITC found in favour of Nokia and placed an injunction against the GSM iPhone. There is a reason Apple is trying to kill GSM and pick up CDMA: they probably see they aren't going to win the GSM patent lawsuits that Nokia have filed against them. In terms of the Apple vs Nokia battle, Nokia aligning themselves with Microsoft is an almost perfect match. I'd say that there is a whole lot more going on behind the scenes of this deal, in terms of patent cross-licensing, but Nokia won't reveal that until they get in a courtroom.

Given the sharholder and employee revolt against this decision, Elop may not be around much longer to see it through.

I wonder what is going to become of Nokia's battle with Apple. Will Nokia and MS enter into patent cross-licensing agreements? Presumably they would if Nokia was to make and sell WInPhone7 devices. Not only would this potentially void some of Apple's patent claims against Nokia, but even if Apple won in the ITC, the devices it is seeking an injunction against will not be around much longer.

MS want to go after Android, and with an MS man at the helm of Nokia, it is a pretty big win for WinPhone7. This may hurt Android market share for a little bit, but I'll wager it won't be for very long.

However, MS is playing catch-up with iOS and Android and is losing badly. Wasn't Elop complaining the other day that Nokia was stuck playing catch-up? How can throwing their lot in with MS help them? Unless Elop is playing this deal with MS, so he has a magic bullet against Apple, I can't see their market position getting any better.

Maybe this deal won't be around much longer if there is a shareholder revolt against this decision.

It is a known fact (maybe not widely known) that a very large propotion of engine wear occurs in the first few seconds after startup. When the engine is stopped, gravity pulls oil back down to the sump, and the oil pump takes thise seconds after startup to redistribute oil around the engine to vital moving parts. I also suspect that will increse the thermal shock loading on the engine, especially as the O rings will suffer a much greater number of heating/cooling cycles than in a regular engine.

The conspiracy theorist in me says that this is just a way for manufacturers to increase their revenues for ongoing maintenance (as these engines WILL need far more regular maintenance cycles) while selling it to consumers as being environmentally friendly. I doubt Ford will let anyone aside from their dealers touch these engines.

A far better solution would be to make the engines super efficient at idle (whether this is by shutting down cylinder firing or by other low friction means). This would keep the oil in the engine moving, and would keep the engine relatively warm.

In the days before electronic hearing aids, they used ear trumpets.

It looks odd to us because noone uses them anymore, but back then they would have been common for deaf people.

She is probably listening to the film crew telling her what to do.

Apologies. You are correct. The board is a custom part, and I doubt that you will find replacements from anyone but Apple, so they still have vendor lock-in, and Apple can easily EOL parts, so there is still a degree of planned obsolescence.

The MacBook Air is a pretty poor example to choose as a shift to SSDs. In the MacBook Air, the SSD chips are soldered to the logic board. It is not like there is a choice on what kind of drive can be installed. When 64GB isn't enough, there is no way to upgrade. When the SSD gets a fault, there is no drive to swap out - it would be time for a new logic board. With NAND Flash having a finite lifetime, soldering the SSDs to the logic board is a prime example of planned obsolescence. When the SSD dies (when, not if), there is only Apple to turn to, so Apple effectively has vendor lock-in as well, but we have come to expect that from Apple.

Marketing isn't going to shift far away from traditional hard drives any time soon. Yes, prices for NAND flash is dropping but there are disadvantages to using flash: low capacities (compared with HDDs), relatively low write performance and a finite lifetime of write cycles (yes wear levelling does help, but doesn't eliminate the core of the problem).

So, this stolen identity was used to create a website in the same business area as the company you work for? You have an unusual name, and someone has managed to find out and use detailed information about you to buy the domain? This sounds like an inside job. Is there someone at your workplace that really doesn't like you and is making grabs for your job? I'd call the police (if they haven't been called before now), and get myself a lawyer. This sounds a little more calculating than some spammer ripping off your ID. At the very least this sounds like some serious fraud.

Unfortunately, I cannot find a link to the actual study, so it is impossible to tell if their methods really are accurate. However, I do believe that only 1000 of the most highly seeded files is not an accurate representation of all BitTorrent traffic. In fact that very requirement that they be the highest seeded sets up a bias within this study. A study of 100,000 randomly selected files from as many trackers as they can find would yeild far more acurate results.
Who knows? Maybe this is what they did originally and their results were not as cut and dried as their corporate backers wanted. I note that the Internet Commerce Security Lab at the University of Ballarat doesn't detail their "collaborative partnerships within industry" on the website.

Unfortunately Engadget can be just as bad, especially in the way they treated their readers and commenters in the time leading up to the iPad release.

I disagree with a blog treats their readership like children (effectively saying we needed time-out), while at the same time sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring the comments of the vast majority of their readership. Shutting down the commenting system of your blog to remove offensive and threatening comments is one thing. Carrying on with the behaviour that triggered those comments and censoring any vaguely critical views is another. I do not like being treated like a child, especially when I'm not at fault.

It is their blog: they can do what they want, and I will just move somewhere else.