backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 51 comment(s) - last by tanishalfelven.. on Dec 3 at 1:57 PM

The Alphasat I-XL, designed by Astrium. Note the massive antenna reflector.  (Source: EADS Astrium)
Britain is developing one whopper of a telecom satellite

Weighing it at six metric tons, the Alphasat I-XL will be one of the largest commercial satellites in existence upon its completion. The satellite, sponsored by London based industrialist Inmarsat, will provide high-speed internet service in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

Inmarsat maintains a high-speed global broadband network, called BGan.  BGan is made up of already large I-4 satellites, but it is falling behind broadband demands and needed an even bigger satellite partner to anchor the network. 

That’s where the I-XL comes roaring into the picture.  It will support over five times the capability of its predecessors.  The satellite will allow business people to get half-megabit internet connections on land and sea, anywhere in the world, no matter how remote.  It is attracting significant support from journalists, disaster relief workers, the maritime industry, and the petroleum industry.  The system uses laptop size terminals to catch the signal.

EADS Astrium has been tasked with providing the brains for this brawny satellite.  The firm is enthused about the new business venture with Inmarsat.  They feel their signal processing and central processing capabilities will give the satellite an unbeatable edge.

"This satellite will access additional spectrum and it will be able to supply approximately five times the communications capacity of a single Inmarsat 4 satellite.  With advances we've made, we've been able to pack an awful lot more electronics within the existing volume. It is a technology step forward in terms of the brains of the satellite which is built in the UK," said Dave Robson from EADS Astrium, the firm designing the satellite's signal processing.

Astrium will also be manufacturing the spacecraft chassis and is partnering with Thales Alenia Space for this part of the work.

The European Space Agency (ESA) and France's space agency, CENS, are collaborating on the project to provide a sufficient platform to support the satellite's needs. The new platform is dubbed “Alphabus” and is designed to help Europe stay competitive in the commercial satellite market.   Inmarsat will be its first commercial customer.  The Alphabus platform can support satellites of up to eight tons and 18 kW of payload power.  It also is looking to implement ion thrusters in the future to provide a more efficient boost for large satellites in order to help them stay in orbit.

The I-XL features a beefy 12m aperture antenna reflector.  Its mission length is 15 years, and it will require a hearty 12 kW of power during this time.
 
The price tag of the I-XL for Inmarsat will be around 260m €.  The Alphabus platform, whose bill is being footed by 16 participating states, will cost around 440m €.

Due to the massive size, the I-XL will likely have to launch on an Ariane 5 rocket, Europe's premier launch vehicle.  A launch target of 2013 has been set.

For more space news, check out DailyTech's coverage of JAXA's high definition earth-rise and moon pictures, and the November 2007 international space updates.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
States
By mendocinosummit on 11/26/2007 9:43:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Alphabus platform, whose bill is being footed by 16 participating states , will cost around 440m €.


So, are EU partners loosing their nationality and becoming more of a common nation than a economic union?




RE: States
By CSMR on 11/26/2007 9:54:58 AM , Rating: 5
Your question may still stand but state has been a correct word for a nation since at least the 19th century.


RE: States
By mendocinosummit on 11/26/2007 9:59:21 AM , Rating: 2
I have usually heard it as the State, our State, and such. I have never heard it as grouping 16 nations and then calling them states, but the EU could be leaning that way.


RE: States
By Etsp on 11/26/2007 11:00:00 AM , Rating: 3
if I remember correctly, you are 100% correct. The word states with a lowercase s refers to the states in the United States, the word States with an uppercase S refers to a sovereign nation.


RE: States
By wordsworm on 11/26/07, Rating: -1
RE: States
By Ringold on 11/26/2007 11:38:17 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
sovereign nation, if such exists


I can understand the leftist view that perhaps we should all just hug, but asides from a couple satellite states, such as Syria-Iran, or whatever a place like Guam may be defined as, there are plenty of nations that don't call and ask permission to pass pieces of legislation X, Y, and Z, whatever they may be. They may be good neighbors and gauge the impact on international relations that any big pieces of legislation may pass, but they dont have to ask permission.

Unlike in the EU, which already shares a great deal of regulation that Brussels essentially must rubber stamp. Switzerland, in particular, still relishes the fact that they aren't bowing to socialists such as yourself and yielding their right of self determination to some distant capital, as their recent elections suggest.

The entire Arab world would also likely bristle at your view; sovereignty to them is relatively new, and being so recently removed from the colonial yoke I don't reckon they'll be following your party line for quite a long time.

Wow. Praising the middle east as a place that may preserve freedom. That's a bloody first.


RE: States
By Haven Bartton on 11/26/2007 12:39:20 PM , Rating: 2
That's interesting as even Canada still passes every bill under the eyes of the Governor General, who is appointed as the Queen's proxy. But I don't think there's ever been any reason to back out of this arrangement, really.


RE: States
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/26/2007 11:34:59 AM , Rating: 2
More specifically:

Nation is the definition assigned to a group of people that may cross sovereign borders. A perfect example of this is Canada, which is a two nation state.


RE: States
By Janooo on 11/26/2007 12:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
As far as I know Canada has more than two nations.


RE: States
By Ringold on 11/26/2007 12:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
And America probably has a hundred nations, if you ask the opinion of surviving natives.

Sounds to me like this is heading in to a politically correct Neverland :P


RE: States
By Sahrin on 11/26/2007 2:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
Look on the bright side; it'll never get old!


RE: States
By Missing Ghost on 11/26/2007 11:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about? What are the two nations? I don't see how you could split 10 provinces and 3 territories as "two nations"....


RE: States
By drebo on 11/26/2007 9:55:54 AM , Rating: 2
It's a generic term. It doesn't have the same meaning in a context outside of the US.


RE: States
By wordsworm on 11/26/2007 10:30:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's a generic term. It doesn't have the same meaning in a context outside of the US.
It used to be that the states in the US were independent nations. When they came together under a single federal power, it was called 'the United States.' So, nothing has really changed. It's just that many people get confused.


RE: States
By Oregonian2 on 11/26/2007 1:18:03 PM , Rating: 3
Well... except that the U.S. was supposed to be a much looser federation of the states. The U.S. Federal government staged a creeping coup that has usurped much of the power that was supposed to be with the states and has "taken over the joint". And it continues to slowly by slowly continue to take away state power (and it's doing so goes to the federal supreme court which is a laugh.. chickens in the coop appealing to the fox'es court).


RE: States
By Ringold on 11/26/2007 11:29:30 AM , Rating: 2
It's in unguarded moments of honesty, I believe, when the truth tends to come out. Calling them states rather than nations is if nothing else a subconcious admission that the European Union is, by rather undemocratic means, but for the good of the people , becoming as you said a single grouping of previously sovereign nations.

Once this new "treaty" is "ratified" the process will be nearly complete, save for a unified military and other knick-nacks, but the United States didn't have a particularly unified military structure until, what, The Spanish-American war, or was it WW1 when it was first fielded?


RE: States
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/26/2007 11:40:39 AM , Rating: 2
Depends. During the Spanish-American war it became unified, but it wasn't until WW1 that we expanded it into the different branches and it became the basis of what we have today. WW2 truly defined the American military and all branches of service. The next large scale war will also encompas the U.S. Space Force, which is currently part of the U.S. Air Force and based in Vandenburg, California.


RE: States
By Ringold on 11/26/2007 12:24:58 PM , Rating: 2
That's about what I thought, I just wasn't sure when units stopped be formed along state lines.

quote:
The next large scale war will also encompas the U.S. Space Force


It wasn't easy for the Air Force to spin itself off, and the Marines have always had to fight for their survival. That'll be interesting to see how a US Space Force ultimately comes in to being.

Me, I'd rather see it come under the auspices of the Navy, but Star Trek and Star Wars play in that bias quite a bit.. General of the Space Fleet? Hmm..


RE: States
By Merry on 11/26/2007 12:29:21 PM , Rating: 2
It's in unguarded moments of honesty, I believe, when the truth tends to come out.....

At the risk of sounding like a bit of a flame baiter here, what the hell does that have to do with the question in hand.

Also you clearly dont know very much of the EU reform treaty, which is extending the role of the European Parliament (democratically elected) over the council (rather secretive - but still indirectly elected) via the use of QMV, indeed this process has been occurring throughout the past 15 years, so if anything the EU is getting more democratic. I would think there are a few institutional reforms within the treaty too, mainly due to the recent enlargements.

As for the state of integration, it is no-where near the level you infer, nor will it ever be.

As i said, rant aside, this has nothing to with the question in hand. I'm just pretty tired of reading your ill-informed right wing rants on the comments sections of topics which clearly have nothing to do with such matters.

p.s Before you call that a 'left wing rant' i'm actually not even remotely left wing.


RE: States
By Ringold on 11/26/2007 1:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
You've obviously got no idea what you're talking about.

In terms of being undemocratic, you must've missed the part where voters rejected this steaming pile of garbage the last time and would likely do so again. So what has the solution been? They aren't going around as America's founding fathers did debating in town halls across the realm to articulate the virtues of the treaty and writing sophisticated columns; that would be nearly impossible, given its intentional heft and complexity.

Instead, the plan is that Sarkozy and Brown will ratify it only in parliament (the reason why they at least try to call it a treaty rather than a constitution, which is what it in fact is). The people present a problem? Then ignore the people.

As for the level of integration, how can you think it would never be? The trend to date says you're absolutely wrong; there's no indication at all that the process of transfering more and more sovereign rights to Brussels is slowing down. It's a slow and steady path towards a centralized government. I again bring up the fact that the United States, for much of its early history, wasn't as integrated as even this treaty will make the EU. The idea that the federal government could dictate local policy to the level this treaty will do would've been blasphemy, and probably would've sent the South Carolina Congressional delegation storming for the exit, whacking every yankee along the way with their canes. (Ah, the good old days)

quote:
I'm just pretty tired of reading your ill-informed right wing rants


First, I shall substantiate all that I have said with a respectable internationally circulated nominally moderate publication:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?...
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?...
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory...

All that from a single edition. Every edition, almost, details the latest democratic outrage that is this 'treaty'.

In case you can't see that as a non-subscriber, I shall quote:

quote:

Once, EU leaders had dreamed of a very different debut for their newest treaty. The Lisbon text is what remains of a project to give the union its own constitution, filled with sweeping declarations and symbols. That, of course, was before voters in two founding nations of the EU, France and the Netherlands, voted no to the constitution.

Desperate to avoid further referendums, EU leaders rushed for the safety of the old ways: cramming the innovations of the constitution into an unreadable treaty, designed for rapid approval by national parliaments. The leaders have what they wanted, a new treaty, but glumness is natural. Dreams of an uplifting, revolutionary arrival (think New Age birthing pool, taped whale song and candles) ended up as the legal equivalent of a nasty forceps delivery.

--

SURREALISM works well in art, not in politics. When René Magritte wrote “Ceci n'est pas une pipe” under a picture of a pipe, it was funny. On October 18th the leaders of the European Union took the constitution that voters in France and the Netherlands had rejected in 2005, changed the odd phrase, muddled the odd concept and presented the Lisbon “reform treaty” to the world, boldly declaring “Ceci n'est pas une constitution”—so there is no need for it to be put to any difficult referendums. Still more surreal has been the reaction: nobody other than a few British Eurosceptics really seems to care. Continental voters who once howled about the treaty have shrugged their shoulders; after barely a week many of the conjurors in Brussels have already given up the subterfuge, reassuring everybody that it is a constitution, after all.

Whatever your views on the treaty, this is a farce —and it has consequences stretching far beyond Europe. This, after all, is the world's biggest economy; in ten years' time the mishmash agreed upon in Lisbon could have a huge impact on how the EU acts (see article). At the very least, it marks an important opportunity missed. According to the Laeken declaration of 2001, this process was supposed to simplify the EU's legal architecture, hand some powers back to member states and make the project intelligible to the voters. It has ended up doing the opposite—and its obfuscation will come back to hurt the EU in the long term, especially in Britain.

Sludge, pure and simple
The new treaty's opacity is not an accident: it is its raison d'être. Having failed to persuade voters with grand phrasing and unusual candour (the original constitution declared that EU laws had “primacy” over those of mere nations), European leaders reverted to their previous strategy: cramming a long list of innovations and amendments into an unreadable legal text. The aim was to craft something that could be presented as just another EU treaty, amending previous ones. That in turn allows government leaders to say it is suitable for swift ratification by national parliaments (a deadline of early 2009 has been set), without the need for pesky referendums. So far only Ireland is to hold a national vote on the Lisbon treaty.

Reducing the rejected constitution to a simple package of internal reforms would have been a fine response to the voters' rebuffs in France and the Netherlands. But it is hard to claim the union is in chaos without these improvements (revealingly, the proposed voting changes will not take full effect until 2017). And the treaty still includes the worst part of the constitution—a sweeping list of misguided good intentions and alleged social rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is an open invitation for EU judges to meddle. Even if other treaties have transferred more sovereign power to the centre (the acid test when it comes to referendums), this one still does a bit of that. Scrapping national vetoes in at least 50 areas of decision-making may make sense, and matter less than Eurosceptics claim, but it plainly hands more power to Brussels; that is what politicians need to justify, not spin away


To summarize: It's a constitution. There will likely be no vote. It hands power to Brussels. It lays the foundation, just the way the US constitution did, for a stronger federal government by creating an intitially weak one (no longer a rotating presidency, and now an official talking-head for EU foreign policy).

You can either bang your head against the wall and continue to call me ill-informed, inform me (and everyone else) when the glorious referendum will in fact take place before the voters of aforementioned nation, or somehow try to spin this in a direction that would sooth Eurosceptics.


RE: States
By Strunf on 11/26/2007 1:56:36 PM , Rating: 2
Voters rejected what ?
The Spanish said YES as did the Luxembourg... so we 2 Yes and 2 No on referendums.

For the rest blah blah you elected the people that represent you and the fact they take decisions with out consulting you doesn't make it undemocratic, if that was the case then there's not a single fully democratic country in the world. The French like everyone else just get what they deserve after electing whomever they voted for.


RE: States
By Merry on 11/26/2007 2:18:14 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly that.

And to Ringold. I study the EU mate. Its my course. I think that kind of puts me in a better position than you.

And thats all I have to say on it. As i said before none of this bears any relation to the news topic


RE: States
By masher2 (blog) on 11/26/2007 2:22:06 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone who says the EU will "never" achieve a certain level of integration has failed to learn from history. The founding fathers of nearly all federated nations would be shocked and dismayed to see how their creations have matured over the years, and how much more integrated they've become over what they originally planned.


RE: States
By Ringold on 11/26/2007 2:30:14 PM , Rating: 3
That's a wonderful way of avoiding trying to explain away the issues The Economist raised. "I know more then you, therefore, lets not waste time discussing the matter."

Hey. Sort of like the politicians in a few national parliaments, no?

By the way, I study economics, but I don't think I've ever said "I know it all, you know nothing, and therefore won't respond" to all the socialist rants around here.


RE: States
By Ringold on 11/26/2007 2:27:57 PM , Rating: 3
Nobody mentioned tiny Luxembourg, did they?

It makes it undemocratic when politicians vote against the will of the people in the nations that rejected it. I don't expect Europeans to understand the problem of "mightier than thou" blue-bloods making decisions above the heads of voters on issues of such import, but as an American the problem is self-evident.


RE: States
By mendocinosummit on 11/27/2007 2:16:14 AM , Rating: 2
I loves this!


RE: States
By BitJunkie on 11/27/2007 7:20:58 AM , Rating: 2
It does appear as though European nations are drifting into a federation with a few of the European political elite and thinkers setting the agenda and direction.

Europeans are perhaps a little too pragmatic in some ways, if you dive in to the detail of the constitution and the way that it has been brought about this pragmatism has resulted in many compromises and acts of convenience. The reason why this has not been challenged strongly is perhaps because there is a general opinion that a closer union of European states is a noble and positive goal to aim for, but that achieving this will require a lot of compromise and finessing of the political systems.

Europe is not starting with a blank sheet of paper in the same way the US did in the early days - the US consitution was a document of its time and reflects many things - perhaps most significant were the interdependence of the new and developing states, external political pressures and a geniuine desire to create a better "world" than could be found in Europe at the time.

The main problem that I can see is that most of my peers and I in the UK, who have first degree and higher education, have never questioned our political system, been educated in the pros and cons of said system or reminded of our civic duties, rights, responsibilites etc. We essentially do not have a clear framework aound which we can debate or discuss these issues in the UK, as we don't in fact have a constitution *cough*. This is perhaps why public opinion is swayed by the press in our country. Fundamental issues to do with nationhood become secondary to other local politics. This is also a wider problem in the EU ref: the "non" vote in France, which in real terms was a vote of confidence in the French Government and not the EU Constitiution.

I have read a good few of your posts and you are clearly conservative in your politics and shaped by your American view of how a free-market should operate. I can understand why you view our European politics with some scorn - but to understand "Europe" it is perhaps worth look back at formative years of the Union. The main objective were to promote harmony, free trade and movement and avoid a repetition of the very destructive two wars of the early 20th Centuary.

To a large extent these objectives have been achieved but it will continue to require a considerable effort to align views, expectations, political systems that are older and more established than your nation (that's not meant to be patronising btw). It is in my view a more challenging exercise than bringing together the US's fledgling states that were unshackled by such established systems and could move freely in any direction they chose.

In summary: EU politics are shaped by pragamtism and compromise rather than elegance and rigourous democratic processes, so yes, you are correct but an understanding of the drivers behind why you are correct can help understand why this isn't being challenged quite as strongly as one might expect.


RE: States
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/26/2007 1:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
Egads, see what you did? By not knowing that the term "state" is used in international law and other circles to refer to nations (the terms are interchangeable) you got people arguing about military consolidation in the US around 1898 rather than this satellite.

Remember, the article is about a communications satellite?!


RE: States
By jbartabas on 11/26/2007 2:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
Just a detail, but the article seems to suggest that the member states (States :-P ) it is about here are ESA member states, not EU.
ESA has nothing to do with EU, beside the fact that most of the concerned States are part of both entities (ESA deals directly with gvt's of member states, EU deals with states through a few dedicated entities which are the European parliament, council and commission).


RE: States
By Chernobyl68 on 11/26/2007 6:50:05 PM , Rating: 2
ever heard of the State Department?


mother of all
By tanishalfelven on 11/26/2007 9:50:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
British Engineers Design Mother of All Satellites


so this will be a fat bloated inefficient satellite which will yell at all other satellites to do their quite down.




RE: mother of all
By LaughinAtYa on 11/26/2007 10:49:59 AM , Rating: 1
"...to do their quite down"

???

Not half as bloated and inefficient as your
grasp of the English language.


RE: mother of all
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/26/2007 11:41:37 AM , Rating: 2
he meant to say "to quiet down".


RE: mother of all
By tanishalfelven on 12/3/2007 1:57:31 PM , Rating: 1
thanks
that is when i meant.
apparently lack of sleep don't mix well with DT post.


RE: mother of all
By Xenoterranos on 11/26/2007 11:27:15 AM , Rating: 2
Geez, did your mom not hug you enough or something?


RE: mother of all
By heffeque on 11/26/2007 12:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
Talking about inefficient. Have you checked how Rolls Royce is doing against the US unified aviation motors lately ;-) I wonder why they had to unify forces and I wonder why american motors are still the most inefficient in the world in general. Hmmm... BTW, how's the dollar doing? (yes, I'm going to get voted down. I know truth hurts)


RE: mother of all
By Ringold on 11/26/2007 1:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
BTW, how's Euro-zone unemployment doing?

What's this got to do with even his first post? :P

Though I wonder about the first post as well


RE: mother of all
By jbartabas on 11/26/2007 2:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
Must be a Brit who took it too personally :-D I thought the first post was just a joke, a play on words ... but I may be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time we'd see childish national pride & over-inflated patriotic ego expressed here ...


RE: mother of all
By heffeque on 11/26/2007 6:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I'm half Spanish (from Spain, not latin america) and half from the US, and I'm currently living in Slovenia thanks to an Erasmus student exchange program. I was just feeding the troll (and trolling a little myself too).


That's it?
By RjBass on 11/26/2007 10:29:38 AM , Rating: 2
"The satellite will allow business people to get half-megabit internet connections on land and sea, anywhere in the world, no matter how remote."

Maybe it's just me and I don't know enough about this, but half-megabit really doesn't seem all that good to me.




RE: That's it?
By wordsworm on 11/26/2007 10:37:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe it's just me and I don't know enough about this, but half-megabit really doesn't seem all that good to me.


Have you tried your internet connection at sea or in your RV? I'll bet you bananas to dollars that 1/2 MB/s is much better than what you can get in those areas at the moment. If they can get that at a good price, I'll be able to have high speed Internet on a remote island, or where ever I wish to go. For people like me, this is awesome stuff. I think the current rate for this stuff is about $2,000 to set up and $300+/month - last time I checked. If they can drop that to about $50/month and about $150ish for setup, I'd probably be OK with that.


RE: That's it?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/26/2007 11:57:22 AM , Rating: 2
It's 1/2 mbit. Not 1/2MB (MegaByte). Your speed would look like 64KB/s theoretical maximum. Now chop 10-15% off the top (Since your real maximum is never close to theoretical) and your looking at about 55KB/s. Not bad compared to 56k, its roughly ISDN speeds (older ISDN)


RE: That's it?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/26/2007 2:18:31 PM , Rating: 1
> "Not bad compared to 56k, its roughly ISDN speeds (older ISDN)"

Standard 2B+D ISDN (which I still use as backup for my DSL connection) is 128Kb/sec, or about 1/4 of what this is supposed to be.

I'm excited about this, particularly if there's a cheap option for maritime use, as an unlimited use connection at that speed would cost more than $9000/month, last time I checked.


RE: That's it?
By mikefarinha on 11/26/2007 10:38:21 AM , Rating: 2
half-meg may not be super fast but it is pretty good for the range that they are claiming... you gotta start somewhere.


RE: That's it?
By Screwballl on 11/26/2007 1:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
Compared to wired connections that get 2Mb (megabit) and up its not bad. Also since many satellite services such as the one-way service we sell at work, average download speeds are around 200-300kbps which is 3.5megabit connection....
so 500kb connection is not that great compared to the other options but will allow some sort of connection in remote areas that do not have current internet access.

One thing I am wondering is, it says worldwide internet connection. So is it saying these satellites link together to allow connections elsewhere since one satellite only covers so much area on the planet surface???

Will be interesting to see how this plays out as most high speed connections should be around 5-50Mb by the time this is launched.


RE: That's it?
By Etsp on 11/26/2007 2:23:21 PM , Rating: 2
uhm... 200-300kbps is 0.2mbps-0.3mbps. I don't know where you got the 3.5mbps from.

I think they are talking about a singular satellite, and if thats true, it's obviously impossible to access it from anywhere in the world, I'd say at best about 1/3 of the world would be feasible, but more likely 1/4 of the world would be able to connect to it.


Typo in article
By jbartabas on 11/26/2007 1:57:01 PM , Rating: 3
France's space agency is not CENS but CNES.




investing
By paydirt on 11/26/2007 9:30:47 AM , Rating: 2
Be careful about investing in a company like this. If one of their satellite launches goes bad, it would be disastrous. For some history of a U.S. satellite company, Iridium is now bankrupt...




World Wide Web
By derwin on 11/26/2007 9:46:01 AM , Rating: 2
I am sure this is not the key to such a thing, but this reminds me of the dream of having broadband speed anywhere you go. Once those "laptop size" receivers get scaled down, everbody could have a wireless card or cell phone connected to a satellite like this.




XL?
By sidhu663 on 11/26/2007 7:49:42 PM , Rating: 2
does the XL in I-XL stand for extra large?




States ?
By swizeus on 11/27/2007 7:29:27 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, i read a few United Nation's resolution and definitions that said bla bla is controlled by states and what i tink about states in that statement is nations or countries under United nations...




"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki