Is not the patent itself, or even patent holding companies (to some extent).

What I do have an issue with is those holding companies going after the end users. To me that is double dipping. I purchase a product that does "X" made by "Company Y". Y purchases components and licenses the technology needed to manufacture/perform X, that is the end of it, the patent holder has received his/her pound of flesh.

Going after End users is essentially asking to be paid multiple times for the same product/technology instance.

The Internet was fun while it lasted....

Well, hence my ( ) statement, yes they are operating in the US, but my response was to the poster who rattled off a list of US locations. Once the NSA became aware of a domestic issue, they are supposed to/should have notified the FBI and let the FBI do their thing. The ineptitude of the FBI is also a topic for another time.

As I said earlier, my point was strictly about jurisdiction, not about methods, and who was breaking what laws.

Where did I say that, where did I even imply that. My statement was simply about jurisdiction, not about methods.

And in every one of those places, the NSA has no (well is not supposed to anyways) purview. Domestic issues are meant to be handled by the FBI.

The NSA and CIA mandates are to operate outside the US, so yes, I have no issues whatsoever with the NSA spying on everyone and there mother outside the US, just like those same countries spy on everyone else. We just got caught with our hands in the cookie jar. Operating within the US is supposed to be illegal, although it appears no one in power wants to enforce the mandates.

My bad, I posted before I read the article. I was thinking that they used keys.

There is no need to drill the outer shell, apparently it is not difficult to buy keys for ATM machines online, dress as a repair man and no one thinks twice. Failure by some institutions to utilize maintenance logs and scheduling for ATM repairs.

Google the subject, he performed this attack live at both Blackhat and Defcon 18. It was definately an eye opener, and one of the reasons I tend to avoid those rental ATM's you see in mom and pop stores, and restaurants/bars...

yes I realize that even the major Bank ATM's are susceptible, but at least with a major bank you have some recourse if you have issues.

You are correct, I was actually thinking active suspension which would have helped Senna, but for some reason wrote traction control. Active suspension was banned for level playing ground reasons.

Exactly, I did not say that it did not exist, I said that it was still in its infancy, and not widely in use. The calculations required in a supercar is a little different than trying to keep your BMW 3 series from sliding around when you hit a puddle.

Stability control or ESC was introduced around 94. Consider computing power and the requirements to develop advanced electronics. Look at the difference between computing process progress between 1994 and 2004, and then look at the processing power progress between 2004 and today. We have made significantly more process in the last 10 years over the previous 10.

Also, the point of impact was the fuel tank, hence bursting into flames.

Really, you are going to compare a 10 year old race car (remember, for Porsche to compete in the GT series, they had to make a bunch of them road going and sell them to the public, so this is a race car with lights) to a modern car with more electronics than a small datacenter.... Because that is apples to apples comparison...

Who said they were racing, racing had already been ruled out. Additionally, speculation has it that they were going slightly over the limit when they reached the end of the road which drops to a 15 mph limit and a sharp turn (maybe the speed drop should be further up the road).

Keep in mind that the CGT handles much better at 150mph then it was at 40mph. A simple bump in the road while braking would easily cause teh CGT to lose control, and unfortunately, it appears the point of impact was also the gas tank.

Some nerds, like myself, are also avid auto enthusiasts...

You post so far explains the car most elegantly. It should be added that the design of the fuel tank and it's location in the CGT is what made this accident, even at low speeds so deadly. Based on pictures, and what I have read elsewhere, the point of impact was right where the fuel tank was, rupturing it and spilling gas near the engine, which was most likely the ignition source.