Then, as I also suggested, if that is the case one bogus "traffic is great" on the 450 would nullify all the slow reports and stop reroute get. The trick is to figure out what false data results in stopping the rerouting. Ultimately, the goal is to make Waze unreliable so people stop trusting its suggestions.

I concur, but such a test case to help define the bar has ramifications beyond just Sony,

True. The question I would ask is "Are the leaked documents covering a matter of public concern?" In other words, is there a public interest served by publishing Sony's private internal documents or does Sony's right to privacy prevail?

Possibly, but rather than stop them show them as moving much slower, not stopped, than others or show many cars moving quickly thorough the nearby freeway.; as the TFA says Waze relies on using many reports to deduce actual traffic conditions. At some point, Waze has to decide what is real and what is fake data - if you have X cars moving slowly through the area and another X or 1.5 X going slower, which is real? The goal is to get them to decide the side street is slower than other alternatives and not offer it, so showing it to be a worse alternative to others is all that appears to be needed.

The challenge would be to spoof the GPS signal and get enough fake reports to make it work without actually having to move devices through the street.

If it looks for passive movement data, why not create a bunch of accounts and put some old cell phones to good use broadcasting traffic data? Hook them up to wireless, use a VPN if needed to mask the IP, and show "cars" stopped. You could add in accident reports to make it more realistic. Maybe even some VMs running an iPhone simulator to increase the number of spoofed cars. Remember, technology is your friend if used correctly; just don't get any on you...

Which is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to a US Court requiring them to turn over the data if they have it. It used to be, in the age of paper, that stuff could be kept off-shore making it essentially unreachable; especially since no one might even now it existed unless someone told the authorities. Now, a US corporations data is essentially one big collection of stuff to be made available on demand; and refusal to turn it over could result in fines and contempt charges. In the end, he with the biggest stick wins.

Very true. Submarines are very complex craft that operate in a very hostile environment, and driving one takes skill, practice and teamwork. Flying along the ocean floor may sound fun and straightforward, and it is until you accidentally hit something and Davy Jones starts letting his water into your people tank.

Link:http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AK...">

Of course it is. How else could they sell this:P>

Be sure to read the reviews to understand why this cable is superior to others...

And I can imagine the judge's response: "Guilty. Next."

Say no more....

With all the focus on Title IX, and no doubt uncertainty around just what the law might require, or how it would be interpreted, relative to online classes MIT may have chosen the safest possible path to avoid problems. In the end, while the ma weigh the impact of removing the material on learning, they will act to protect the institution.

My guess is insurance companies only worry about it after an accident; they simply can say "Sorry, not covered..." and walk away so their is no need to try to ferret out drivers in advance.

This is a classic case of someone assuming something has value, that can be extracted from a user, simply because it is available or used. Google probably aggregates a lot more news then ever gets read; to assume that is a signal that their is value in the content being used. In reality, it is used because it is free, much like the free papers you see in many cities. People will read them if they are free but if they have to pay then they pass. As a result, papers give out free editions to reach an audience and subsidize it with ads. Google is essentially doing part of that by providing access to the news, and by taking that away the publishers will lose the eyeballs for their ads.

The real question is will they go back and demand that lawmakers "fix" this by forcing Google to aggregate and pay or realize their basic assumption is wrong and abolish the law? I'd bet on some variant of the former.

Correct. Choosing a software license is not a moral decision.