I can't see this working, because there are many pairs of jurisdictions x,y such that jurisdiction x will not require that all drones and drone control modules have geofencing for prohibited locations in jurisdiction y and vice versa, I don't think drone control modules will have enough memory to store the geofence for every prohibited location on the planet, and even if it did, people would find ways to build controllers without the restrictions. This is just another example of a law that's going to be completely ignored by lawbreakers anyway.

It doesn't read real to a native english speaker. To a native english speaker it reads like something that's been mangled through translation software with south-east asian grammatical constructs. So again - I call this as a fake, and consider that it most likely came from South Korea or Japan. However, it's not a Sony generated fake, because a Sony generated fake would be more intelligently produced than this - it would use normal english grammatical constructs.

There's repeated incidents of phrasing in the document that gramatically and linguistically just doesn't read right for American English Corporate Speak. It contains phrases that read as if they've been translated from English into a different language and back again, and that's not how Corporate America produces their PR documents!

I'm going to call this a Fake Faq. It doesn't read like a corporate MS document, it reads to me like the best attempt of someone who doesn't write any sort of Corporate PR at all and is about as close to Redmond as (broadly speaking) the width of the Pacific Ocean to try and mimic what they think Corporate American English PR would be written like, and they got it very wrong. Having said that, I'm sure that in the environment that I suspect this fake faq document was produced in, it's likely to be widely accepted as gospel by those who want to believe such things. In the primarily English speaking world, I think anyone with an understanding of grammar and linguistics at the level of an average 13 year old would spot that it's a fake faq straight away.

Is it possible that the hijacker was selling calls to other people, possibly immigrants, maybe even illegals. If so, the numbers called may have no direct connection to the hijacker, rather each olne of them may know a different someone who knows the hijacker. So you could be looking for the common factor between the people who made the calls to the numbers that you have. I'm not sure that it will be easy to find that common factor. After all, you have Jim and Bill and Fred's numbers; Sue called Jim, Anne called Bill, Jenny called Fred; Sue, Anne and Jenny all know Henry .... so if you have Jim and Bill and Fred's numbers, and don't even know whether Henry exists or not, how do you find Henry?

If you want a secure computing environment, don't connect your computer to anything! Also keep it in a faraday cage, and make sure the power supply lines are filtered so they can't carry signals out through the cage.

So he wants to tie up technology development in the USA while the rest of the world leaps ahead? Sounds like a brilliant plan to me, seeing as I'm not in the USA. ;) I guess at least it stops patent wars if it's illegal to invent new technology. Sounds like another payday for the lawyers though. And whoever said "existing business models" are legally immune to future changes. Slave traders had an "existing business model" once upon a time. Lots of shop floors got automated. Business models change, technology advances, adapt and survive, or die like the dinosaur you aspire to be!

Presenting security certifications from Trust, Mcafee and Norton says nothing about how they'll use personal data. It just means that they might be less susceptible to hacking (but I personally doubt it) than companies without similar certifications.

From the mentioned study: "The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45);" If you sample 1000 randomly chosen women of reproductive age, you would expect some proportion of them to be using some form of contraception such as an iud, oral contraceptive, slow release implant or similar which would block contraception. Some of them will probably be pregnant already. None of those women is likely to conceive as a result of being raped, and of the remainder, it is unlikely that on any given day more than 25% would be at a point in their menstrual cycle to be fertile. I don't have all the numbers to hand, but I suspect that if you remove all the "can't get pregnants" from the pool of potential rape victims, you may find that the 5% of who fall pregnant is a much higher % of those who could potentially get pregnant from being raped. How many couples do we hear about who try for 6 or more months before they succesfully conceive? That's less than a 17% chance of contraception, assuming all other possible negative factors are deliberately eliminated. If only 1 in 4 rape victims is in a fertile window in her monthly cycle, then 5% of all rape victims of reproductive age suggests 20% of those who could potentially conceive are ending up pregnant as a result of the rape, and if other negative factors are taken into account, I suspect that the actual rate of conception amongst rape victims who could potentially conceive is even higher.

$60 a year for doing what? Nothing? Surely marking a number as unlisted in the subscriber database is a once-off 30 activity of at most 5 minutes. So who's being paid $720 an hour for doing it?

bah, commented to totally the wrong thread. I am a noob!

Go back to the original spec. If it's not working per the spec, that's a bug, fix it free. If they want a change to something that is working per the spec, that's a chargeable change.

I first used apple macs at the start of the 90's, they had a-v software back then (although afair it was generally pd developed and bbs distributed) ... but it was signature based a-v detection so I'd guess that apple macs had viruses in the wild 20+ years ago ....

True apple fans upgrade before the warranty expires!

The debris hits the Soyuz and not the main station?