My Tech Blog

Impossible Foods, one of the leading "alternative meat" producers, made huge waves in the food industry when it came up with a way of isolating and using “heme” molecules from plants to mimic the blood found in animal meat (also comprised of heme), bringing a new depth of flavor to its vegetarian burger. This week at the CES tech show, the company is presenting the next act in its mission to get the average consumer to switch to more sustainable, plant-based proteins: it unveiled its version of pork — specifically ground pork, which will be sold as a basic building block for cooking as well as in sausage form. It’s a critical step, given that pork is such a popular meat around the world.

A plant-based pork substitute has been launched in Las Vegas by Impossible Foods. The firm behind the Impossible Burger says it hopes to appeal to a global audience with its latest vegetarian-friendly meal, which it unveiled at the CES tech show. The company hopes the product will help it break into China. But one expert said it might find that a challenge. The first product to feature the foodstuff - the Impossible Sausage - will be available next week at 67 Burger King restaurants in the US, in a sandwich-based dish called the Croissan'wich.

Rival firm Beyond Meat has offered a lab-produced sausage product since 2018, but California-based Impossible Foods is also offering a ground pork substitute that it says can be used in a wide range of traditional recipes. The new products are designed to comply with kosher and halal rules followed by some observers of the Jewish and Islamic faiths.

The firm's sausage and plant-based pork products, like its ground beef substitute, are made using heme (or "haem" in British English) - a molecule derived from plants that contains iron and that resembles blood. Heme is found in real meat but can be produced without farming animals. The new products also contain no gluten, animal hormones or antibiotics.

"Now we're accelerating the expansion of our product portfolio to more of the world's favourite foods," said Patrick Brown, Impossible Foods' founder and chief executive, adding: "We won't stop until we eliminate the need for animals in the food chain and make the global food system sustainable." There was certainly a great deal of excitement at the unveiling of Impossible Pork, in a trendy Las Vegas hotel restaurant. Music pumped and beverages flowed while guests were presented with a beautiful selection of bite-sized food samples - pork katsu, sweet and sour pork meatballs, pork dim sum and pork noodles. None of which contained a shred of actual pork, of course.

There were, however, mutterings that the strong sauces used cleverly disguised the taste of the plant-based "meat" itself. Critics described the “Impossible Pork” as having that lighter, dryer texture of traditional meat alternatives like Quorn – and lacking the heaviness, the richness of meat that meat lovers savour. But this is perhaps the idea - apparently Impossible Pork contains around half the calories of sausage meat and is also considerably lower in fat.

Impossible Foods said its synthetic pork product would suit a variety of Asian dishes - from spring rolls to dumplings or wontons. Pork, the most widely consumed meat in the world, is in huge demand in Asia. China alone produces and consumes more of the meat than any other country. Until recently, China was also home to around half the world's farmed pigs - but millions of them have died or been culled due to the spread of African Swine Fever, a viral disease that infects pigs. There is no known cure.

You might assume that the United States is on the cutting edge of money transfers. However, unlike other countries, the U.S. payment system lags in terms of real-time settlement.

While a pizza can be delivered in less than 30 minutes, a bank transfer can take days to show up in your account. The Federal Reserve intends to change that — and consumers demand it. The Federal Reserve Board recently announced a plan for the Federal Reserve Banks to "develop a new round-the-clock real-time payment (RTP) and settlement service" called the FedNow Service. Estimated to arrive in 2023 or 2024, FedNow plans to revolutionize the American payment system to support faster RTP.

The flexibility of RTP is important for households on a tight budget that engage in expensive check-cashing services, high-cost borrowing or unnecessary overdraft fees. Small businesses will benefit from immediate access to their funds instead of resorting to short-term financing in a pinch. Recipients have peace of mind that once their funds are received, they are secure and permanent. Unlike checks, RTP settlements cannot be recalled or bounced before final clearing, which seems like a win-win scenario for banks and users. So why is the U.S. taking so long to move toward RTPs?

Unfortunately, the current payment system process hails from the Fed's creation early in the 20th century, an era when checks were literally bundled together and sent to the Federal Reserve for clearing. In the early 1970s, when the number of paper checks exceeded what could be processed efficiently, the automated clearinghouse (ACH) was established. At first, the ACH system used magnetic tape and diskettes that had to be physically transported in order to exchange files. In 1994, the Fed mandated that all institutions send files electronically, but settlement still took a day or more.

Today, banks continue to rely heavily on mainframe and legacy applications to manage their growing businesses. In fact, according to research conducted by IBM (via Forbes), 92 of the top 100 banks use the mainframe to provide banking services to their customers. Although mainframes are fantastic at computing millions of transactions in seconds, they struggle to communicate with modern systems. The banking industry's applications are decades old and designed for a batch world. Integrations between modern systems and mainframes that are written in older coding languages are complicated, time-consuming and costly. Moving from a batch structure to a real-time transfer system requires a complete transformation of the banking industry's IT structure.

Another risk for RTP is fraud. Under the current system, a check recipient is responsible for the financial risk of depositing a fraudulent check. Accounts are easily overdrawn due to depositing a bad check. A shift toward RTP puts the onus on the banks to spot fraud in real time. Banks have the financial liability associated with fraud without the days or weeks necessary to roll back a transaction. To prevent fraud in real time, regulatory checks such as anti-money laundering (AML) and know your customer (KYC) — which normally take place over a series of days — would need to be done in seconds. An RTP means that once that payment is sent, it's gone instantly and can't be taken back.

Alternatively, services like Venmo and Zelle already operate in real time because they're closed systems. Venmo requires a Venmo-validated account. Zelle requires a validated bank account before any transfers can take place. Effectively, all AML, KYC and fraud checks take place prior to allowing any transaction. Conversely, FedNow will act as an open system, working much like an instant check. Any person at any bank could send money to any other person at any other bank. To combat fraud, the bank's legacy applications would need to instantly communicate with third-party security vendors and verification services — something the legacy systems simply aren't designed to do.

Airbnb has secured a victory in its fight to avoid more regulation by city authorities. The accommodation-booking service Airbnb does not need an estate agent's licence to operate in France, Europe's top court has ruled. Had the court ruled the other way it would have served as a precedent for other EU regulators. 

The ruling is a boost for the company ahead of of its stock market listing next year. Airbnb is fighting claims from city authorities around the world, including Paris, Amsterdam and Barcelona, that its services are changing the face of neighbourhoods and that it should come under heavier regulation. Airbnb, which is registered in Ireland, told Bloomberg the court decision would allow it to “move forward and continue working with cities on clear rules”. “We want to be good partners to everyone and already we have worked with more than 500 governments to help hosts share their homes, follow the rules and pay tax,” the company said in a statement.

The Luxembourg court rejected the claims of the Association for Professional Tourism and Accommodation (AHTOP) that Airbnb should face the same accounting, insurance and financial obligations as traditional providers of real estate. The French tourism association had complained that Airbnb, a service designed to let people rent out spare rooms or entire properties to holiday-makers on a short-term basis, did not comply with French property laws. In particular, the association complained that Airbnb was acting as an estate agency without a licence, breaching a local act known as the Hoguet Law. 

Airbnb is not the only tech firm to have confused lawmakers with how it should be regulated. In many cases, the choice sits between regulating these companies with the same rules that apply to their non-digital counterparts, versus regulating them like an e-commerce platform, which usually means lighter controls. In this particular case, Airbnb argued that it was protected by EU laws on "electronic commerce".

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)'s decision was based on its determination that the essential feature of Airbnb was its structured lists that enabled hosts to connect with people seeking accommodation along with “a tool to facilitate the conclusion of contracts”. The court said such an “intermediation service” that puts potential guests in contact with professional or non-professional hosts offering short-term accommodation services must be classified as an “information society service” under directive 2000/31, rather than a property broker because:

Airbnb's platform was not simply an "ancillary" or add-on service to a wider property business;

property owners were able to offer their homes for rent through other channels;

Airbnb did not set or cap the rent charged by home-owners.

In addition, it said the French authorities had failed to inform the European Commission about the Hoguet Law at the time the EU directive on electronic commerce was being prepared. It suggested France's "failure to fulfil its obligation" could be used as a defence in future court cases.

The judges involved made mention of a recent case in which Uber was found to be acting as a transport company rather than a information society service leading to tighter regulatory oversight. They drew a distinction between Airbnb and Uber on the basis of how much control the property-booking app had over transactions on its service. Why is this important? Well, in December 2017, the CJEU ruled that car-sharing company Uber was a taxi firm and not simply an "information society service". But the CJEU said the case against Airbnb was "unlike" the one made against Uber, because it could not establish that Airbnb had a "decisive influence" over the accommodation offered on its platform. Airbnb does not determine the rental price charged for property, and lets customers choose which home to rent. In contrast, Uber sets the fare for rides in its app, and assigns each passenger a driver.

However, Quentin Michelon, a spokesman for AHTOP, said the battle to regulate Airbnb was not lost. He said: “We filed our complaint in 2015, and France has since introduced new regulations that apply also to Airbnb. Eventually Airbnb is going to be regulated in France, just not as a real estate agent at this point.”

YouTube star PewDiePie has announced he is taking a break from the platform, saying he is "feeling very tired". The 30-year-old Swedish star, real name Felix Kjellberg, found fame with video game commentaries and was at one point the world's highest earning YouTuber. But he was more recently involved in controversies around accusations of racism and anti-Semitism. "Early next year I'll be away for a little while. I'll explain that later," PewDiePie said in a video post. "I'm taking a break from YouTube next year. I wanted to say it in advance because I made up my mind. I'm tired. I'm feeling very tired. I don't know if you can tell," PewDiePie said, laughing.

Disney cut ties with him in 2017 after some videos he released were found to contain Nazi references or anti-Semitic imagery. He accepted the material was offensive, but said he did not support "any kind of hateful attitudes". PewDiePie had been linked to Disney through Maker Studios, a company with a network of YouTube stars. Later that year, he apologised for using the N-word during a live stream. And last year, he apologised again for reposting a meme which appeared to mock Demi Lovato's hospital treatment for a suspected drug overdose.

Earlier this year, PewDiePie, who currently has 102 million subscribers, was overtaken as the biggest YouTube channel in the world by Bollywood record label T-Series, which now has more than 121 million subscribers. T-Series is a 35-year-old Mumbai-based music label and film production company. Some 15% of the firm's revenues of $100m come from its YouTube channel, which is run by 13 people out of the firm's seven-storey headquarters in the heart of Mumbai's entertainment district. But the 28-year-old Swede then mounted a challenge to Gulshan Kumar's T-Series, to retain his status as the YouTuber with the most subscribers.

Since then, the competition has been raging on. Both PewDiePie and T-Series have moren subscribers than Ed Sheeran and Taylor Swift  on the video sharing platform, which has nearly two billion monthly users worldwide. PewDiePie is currently gaining on average more than 220,000 new subscribers per day, while T-Series gets on average about 178,000 a day, according to website SocialBlade. Fans of PewDiePie have hacked tens of thousands of printers to print out messages and posters urging people to subscribe to him. Reports say they also hacked the Wall Street Journal with a note that the newspaper would be sponsoring PewDiePie in an attempt to beat T-Series in the race for subscribers. The Swedish YouTuber's fans have set up online petitions demanding the removal of the Indian label from YouTube "as it is a threat to individual creators" and described it as a "monolithic dictatorship of YouTube analytics" and a "greedy corporation".

The kerfuffle over amassing followers on the Google-owned video sharing platform appears to have, at once, amused and befuddled executives at T-Series. "I have not told my artists to put up supportive messages to boost our followers on our channel. We are not in that game," says Kumar, a boyish-looking second-generation music baron. "Thanks to this controversy, our label has now global eyeballs. Everybody's approaching us. International artists want to work with us. Forget about the rankings - our reach is the highest," he says. And the dust up with PewDiePie couldn't have possibly come for a better time for the label. Next month, its YouTube channel will launch a music video of Guru Randhawa, one of its most popular singers, featuring the Florida-born rapper Pitbull. 

There are specific types of back injuries that runners tend to get, as opposed to weight lifters or gymnasts. First, there is a big difference between an Olympic weight lifter and the typical person who lifts weights. If we take the typical lifter, then generally their pain will be linked to discogenic disorders with several possible pathways, quite often fissures through the annulus[an intravertebral disc’s outer layer] caused by repeated and loaded spine flexion due to poor form, inappropriate recovery and exercise selection, and more. Gymnasts usually fall into categories from excessive motion, for example spondylolistheses [the slipping of vertebrae from their natural position].

Recreational runners usually do not have specific pain pathways for low-back pain from running itself. Some distance runners tend to become thoracic kyphotic [where the thoracic spine rounds forward] as they age, which may be problematic for some. But most recreational runners have asymmetric hips leading to chronic spine stress or they have gotten too heavy with loading in the weight room.

So I wouldn't recommend any sort of strength or mobility training for runners as a group, only for each individual runner. If they present with back pain, they should have a thorough assessment performed to root out the cause and address it. Then build the foundation they are lacking for pain-free running. For example, if they have height loss at a single joint and micromovements in shear that are triggering pain, then building their core muscles is usually helpful. Sometimes there will be an emphasis on core stiffness, other times it may be to mobilize a psoas muscle on one side, or it may be to simply change what they are doing in the weight room or perhaps give them a lumbar support for sitting at work, a sit-stand workstation, or more. Again it depends on the individual.

There is some evidence that running improves intervertebral-disc health. So, runners would be less likely to develop back pain or spine problems than other sports. I don’t know of many professional golfers, for example, who do not have some pain to manage. But I know lots of runners where back pain is not an issue for training or performance.

Now, in some cases, your doctor might advise you to turn to inversion tables. Hanging inversions relieve back pain. The idea is that hanging upside down from a bar from cuffs attached to your ankles—so-called gravity boots—or on an inversion table that tilts you back relieves nerve pressure in the spine by creating more space between the vertebrae. But any relief from traction on its own is hardly ever permanent.

In a study Professor Stuart McGill, the world-famous spine specialist, conducted, laying on an inversion table for 15 minutes helped the spine decompress and expand between one and five centimeters. However, the effects were short-lived. The spine returned to its preinversion length after 20 minutes of walking. Worse, if you have an injury, it may cause more pain by making the spine unstable or making a herniated disk worse. However, if you don’t have back issues and like the head rush, it probably won’t hurt if you do it a few minutes at a time.

So what technology can runners use to recover from back pain? Riffing off the idea of acupressure, a Pranamat delivers a kind of pleasure-pain massage to your back, shoulders, neck, waist, hips and feet. It’s covered in tiny rose-bud spikes that manipulate the fascia – the connective tissue beneath your skin that wraps the muscles. This stimulates blood flow and essential part of the recovery process, reducing inflammation. Lying on the prickly mat and pill is an odd experience at first but soon becomes hugely relaxing and strangely pleasant.

"China is betting on AI and investing in AI and deploying AI on a scale no other country is doing," says Abishur Prakash, a futurist and author of books about the effect of artificial intelligence (AI) on geopolitics. As developments in AI accelerate, some in the US fear that the ability of China's powerful central government to marshal data and pour resources into the field will push it ahead. The country has announced billions in funding for start-ups, launched programmes to woo researchers from overseas and streamlined its data policies. It has announced news-reading robots and AI-powered strategy for foreign relations. Perhaps most alarming to the US are its efforts to incorporate it into its military.

In the last few years, Washington has toughened oversight of Chinese investments, banned US firms from doing business with certain Chinese companies and increased criminal prosecution of alleged technology theft. "What the Trump administration is doing is a sign... the US knows that its geopolitical power will be redefined and reconfigured by this era," said Mr Prakash, who works at the Toronto-based Center for Innovating the Future.

These developments come amid political tension between the two nations. Yet, some analysts worry the US response is counterproductive, arguing that cutting off access to US microchips, for example, could simply accelerate Chinese efforts to develop their own alternatives.

The Trump administration has imposed tariffs on billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods - retaliation for "unfair" practices it says are aimed at giving China an advantage in the field. The White House has also pressed universities to review their relationships with Chinese partners and threatened to restrict student visas. It is even said to be looking at rules against certain US investments in China - once nearly unthinkable in free-market America. The actions are aimed at preserving US leadership in technologies expected to determine economic and military power for generations to come. "That China will grow to be an economy as large as ours may be inevitable; that we aid their mercantilist strategy through free trade and open investment in our technology sector is a choice," US Department of Defense officials wrote in a widely cited 2018 report.

But the US-China rivalry will not end with a trade deal. The contest for supremacy between the US and China spreads across trade, tech, defence and soft power. The US and China race to capitalise on advances in machine learning, facial recognition and other forms of artificial intelligence. The US may have more experience building tech companies, but China may have the advantage when it comes to AI applications relying on big data sets - and points to the medical field as an example. The US have had electronic medical records for over 20 years but they still have not put together all the records in the country to run machine-learning algorithms on those. The US has been inhibited by privacy concerns, as well as a fractured, for-profit industry. In China, it's a different situation. If the government decides that it's going to have country-wide electronic medical records... then it's going to happen.

Can the US and China work together, instead of competing with each other, to invent and apply cutting-edge technology? Cross-border collaboration is facing increasing scrutiny, given rising political tensions. Last year, Chinese investment in the US dropped to $4.8bn (£3.7bn) - its lowest level since 2011 - while US investment in China dipped from $14bn to $13bn, according to the Rhodium Group's annual report. High-profile Chinese firms, like insurance giant Anbang and Kai-Fu Lee's Sinovation Ventures, have reportedly sold or scaled back US operations, while China's Huawei and ZTE have suffered serious losses after being subject to US bans. In US academic circles, universities are rethinking their ties to China, while US firms doing business in China have also grown more cautious.

When the Pentagon first tendered the so-called Jedi contract in March 2018, the stakes couldn't have been higher. The Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure project would give the military a cloud computing system that could handle 3.4 million demanding users, many of whose lives depended on it working correctly. Rather than share the responsibility between several companies - as the likes of Oracle and IBM had keenly hoped - the Department of Defense decided that this was to be a "winner takes all" contract. One project, one provider, $10bn (£7.6bn). Experts considered it an opportunity beautifully "gift wrapped" for Amazon. Its Amazon Web Services (AWS) was already the biggest cloud platform in the world, entrusted with sensitive data belonging to millions of clients. Among them, the Central Intelligence Agency. A court challenge would come from Oracle - the database firm - slowing progress, but the contract looked set to land in the lap of Jeff Bezos.

Except, it didn't. Against expectations, the Department of Defense awarded the contract to Microsoft. Now, Amazon is going head-to-head with the Trump administration, arguing that the President himself unfairly interfered with the selection process out of spite for Jeff Bezos due to his ownership of the Washington Post. So far in 2019, AWS has generated $25bn in sales, generating more income for Amazon than it makes from retail in the whole of North America. In that context, the Jedi contract - worth $10bn over 10 years - would be a meaningful but not critical entry on its balance sheet.

But what has Amazon so incensed is what the Pentagon's decision might mean for future, similar contracts. Much like the firm had hoped its involvement with the CIA would give it a shoe-in for Jedi, it is thought that other US departments, also in need of modernisation, will follow the Pentagon's lead. It is believed that Amazon's protest would not result in the overturning of the Jedi decision. And, as a result, Microsoft - which today controls 17% of the cloud market - would be poised to capitalise. This is a game-changer for Microsoft, as this will have a ripple effect for the company's cloud business for years, and speaks to a new chapter of Microsoft winning in the cloud v Amazon. With more than $1tn in cloud spending predicted in the upcoming decade, this initial $10bn loss could ultimately prove incredibly costly. A stinging defeat.

Jeff Bezos's problems began to emerge in July, when President Trump told reporters that he'd heard "people" were unhappy with the way the Pentagon contract had been handled. Among those people were executives at Oracle, who had been aggressively lobbying the president, arguing the decision to award Jedi to just one company amounted to a "conspiracy" that would create a cloud monopoly. "I'm getting tremendous complaints about the contract with the Pentagon and with Amazon; they're saying it wasn't competitively bid," the President said. He added: "I will be asking them to take a look at it very closely to see what's going on."

On 1 August, it was announced the decision on Jedi had been put on hold. The new Defense Secretary, Mark Esper, said he would re-examine the process, though later recused himself after it emerged his son had worked for one of the companies in the running, thought to be IBM (which, at this point, had already been eliminated).  On 25 October, Jedi was awarded to Microsoft. Last month Amazon filed an appeal in federal court, details of which were unsealed by a judge this week. Amazon said the Pentagon's decision came not through a fair assessment of capabilities, but was "the result of improper pressure from President Donald J Trump, who launched repeated public attacks to steer the Jedi contract away from AWS to harm his perceived political enemy - Jeffrey P Bezos".

Google has become the latest big tech firm to move into banking by offering current accounts. The firm said it plans to partner with banks and credit unions in the US to offer "smart checking" accounts. It said the service, to be launched via Google Pay, will allow users to add Google's analytic tools to traditional banking products. The move follows offerings of credit cards, payment systems and loans by Facebook, Uber, Apple and Amazon.

While the products and arrangements differ, the tech giants entering the world of banking share an underlying motive: making themselves indispensable. They are all competing for consumer attention and for their ecosystem and platform to win. Amazon's credit card and business loans are also aimed at boosting its e-commerce business, while Uber Money is providing credit cards, debit accounts and money tracking tools to serve the company's taxi operations. Facebook has said its Facebook Pay service will complement its messaging tools.

And both Google and Apple, which has teamed up with Goldman Sachs' new consumer arm, Marcus, on a credit card as part of its Apple Pay and Wallet service, want to to make iPhones and Androids essential. Wading into financial services will also provide Google and Facebook information for their advertising business, helping to track what ads lead to purchases.

The moves into banking are likely to add to the debates over the tech giants, which are already facing probes related to competition, data protection and privacy. Some officials have also expressed worry about gaps in financial oversight as growing activity occurs outside of traditional banking. And in recent days, New York announced it would investigate Apple, after accusations that its credit card relied on "sexist" algorithms. But tech firms take regulatory concerns seriously. In many cases, they are working with traditional banks - a sign they are aware of the potential issues.

Google said its US partners, which reportedly include Citigroup, would start to offer the accounts by 2020. "We believe our partners' regulatory and financial know-how is a great complement to our experience in building helpful tools and technology for our users," it said in a statement. Amazon has offered small business loans since 2011 and launched its credit card with JP Morgan Chase in 2017.

But in some ways, the flurry of announcements by companies this year, is a sign that the US is late to the party. In China and some other countries, the tech firms moved quickly into banking, motivated by the need to fill the gaps left by traditional finance industry that created hurdles for their businesses, whether they were e-commerce firms or food delivery companies. In the US, however, the need was less pressing, thanks in part to the ubiquity of credit cards and other "good enough" solutions. Big tech payment services provided by the likes of Alibaba's Ant Financial and Tencent's WeChat account for roughly 16% of China's GDP, compared to less than 1% in the US, according to the Bank for International Settlements, an organisation backed by 60 of the world's central banks. Last month, Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg evoked the threat of Chinese competition while defending his firm's interest in developing a cryptocurrency before Congress last month. "I view the financial infrastructure in the US as outdated," he said.

As the tech companies start to make use of their massive reach, close customer relationships and giant data sets, banks have woken up to the threat, leading to collaborations and other uneasy "frenemy" arrangements. With tech firms moving beyond credit cards, regional banks may feel left behind, while smaller financial technology firms are forced out or acquired.

Disney's new online streaming service, Disney+, has been hit by technical issues on its first day. There have been many reports on social media about problems accessing the service and some users have shared screenshots of error messages. Via Twitter, Disney said the launch was a success, though, with demand having "exceeded our highest expectations". But glitch-tracker Down Detector recorded nearly 8,300 complaints about Disney+ over a 15-minute period starting at 14:00 GMT (09:00 EST). Disney said it was "working quickly" to resolve issues with the service. Disney+ offers a catalogue of Disney films along with exclusive content. It is not yet offered worldwide, but is being rolled out to the US, Canada and the Netherlands first. 

There’s no question Disney produces incredible entertainment. The firm has had us laughing, crying and falling in love with its characters for almost 100 years. But the launch of its eagerly-anticipated streaming service Disney+ means the legendary House of Mouse will need to be able to compete not just on programming, but technology too. "We're making a huge statement about the future of media and entertainment and our continued ability to thrive in this new era,” chief executive Bob Iger said on a call with his shareholders last week. 

They’d just been informed of a 66% drop in profits, and a 50% rise in costs, mostly attributed to the move to streaming. Creating the Disney+ platform has been, and will continue to be, a hugely costly exercise - with no guarantee the rewards will ever materialise. On the tech side, in 2017 the firm spent $1.58bn (£1.22bn) - in addition to $1bn it had already invested - to gain control of BamTech, a Manhattan-based streaming media specialist that previously helped US broadcaster HBO set up its streaming services.

To make sure it has a strong enough library, Disney has been on an unprecedented acquisition spree that has made it into the world’s largest media company. It included a $71.3bn deal to snap up 21st Century Fox, which included the 20th Century Fox studio, National Geographic, a large stake in pre-existing streaming service Hulu, and TV channel FX - giving Disney exclusive rights to stream The Simpsons, among other things. Perhaps the biggest draw on launch day was The Mandalorian, a live-action Star Wars series exclusive to Disney+, reportedly created at a cost of more than $100m. 

Having exclusive streaming rights to Star Wars, Marvel and The Simpsons - not to mention complete control of its own lucrative creations, like Frozen - will make Disney+ a major competitor to other major film and TV streaming services - including Netflix and Amazon Prime. But that alone won’t be enough to recoup the tens of billions of dollars in investment. Disney has estimated that before the effort can break even, it needs in the region of 60 to 90 million monthly subscribers. Netflix - which has had a 12-year headstart - currently has 61 million paying customers globally.

Some media industry analysts predict Disney+ will attract some 8 million paid subscribers by the end of this calendar year, thanks to aggressive marketing and a deal with Verizon that will see some of its customers given free access to Disney+. The Verizon arrangement is a direct attempt to fight Apple’s decision to give away a free year of its service, Apple TV+, when a person buys a new Apple device. And, if anyone knows how to market itself, it’s Disney. The New York Times has referred to efforts to promote Disney+ as a “kingdom-wide” onslaught: Anchors on local TV stations owned by Disney referenced the launch; staff in Disney’s retail stores wore t-shirts; buses at theme parks promoted the exclusive shows.

During a time-out in Monday’s Seattle v San Francisco American Football game, commentators on ESPN - owned by Disney - mused how The Mandalorian would be “huge” for their families. An exclusive clip from the series was shown during the half-time show.

Have you heard of cloud gaming? Your game runs on a powerful computer somewhere else and you just connect to it. It means players can access big, processor-hungry games on simple devices - cheap tablet computers, even. While such a set-up has been possible for some time, cloud gaming will soon be available from Google, and Microsoft as well. This month Google will launch its Stadia service in the US, UK, Europe and Canada, and Microsoft has just begun previewing its Project xCloud. Nvidia is also preparing its GeForce Now streaming product. And Sony already supplies games on-demand via PlayStation Now to PS4 consoles and PC's. Some of these services involve monthly subscription costs, and in Stadia's case, gamers are being encouraged to buy a new controller (£59.99 each). It connects directly via wifi to the game you're playing, rather than being plugged into a device in your home that then sends the controller data over the internet. But the key element with all these services is that fundamental shift away from running games on hardware in your home, to running them on a beefed-up server somewhere else instead. By offering this flexible, play-anywhere option, some think it could mean the death of the home video games console.

The first home video games console that could connect to a TV was the Magnavox Odyssey, released in 1972. Today, the market for consoles is sizeable. If you add up all the PS4, Xbox One and Nintendo Switch devices that have been sold, you get roughly 180 million units. But the number of people around the world who buy such devices hasn't been growing and has remained at that level for 15, 20 years. On the other hand, cloud gaming is an attempt to make video games more accessible, potentially having a democratising effect and opening games up to a wider audience. It may also appeal to people who already enjoy games but who might be spending less and less time on them because of other commitments.

Now, cloud gaming of this type has already been attempted, 10 years ago, with a service called OnLive. It was reasonably successful, perhaps even ahead of its time, but it went the way of the dodo. Partly because back then internet infrastructure was not as robust as it is today, and connection speeds were slower. It cost too much to stream the content, and that left the company behind the service with very little room to manoeuvre in terms of acquiring content. And that content, is make or break. Services like Stadia and xCloud will be vying to have exclusive rights to the biggest games. Currently, few exclusives have been announced for Stadia, for example, which has not gone unnoticed. As with Netflix or Amazon Prime Video, these rights deals could mean everything in terms of popularity with the target audience. Consoles also rely on exclusivity to some extent - these tie-ups are already de rigueur in the industry. Cloud services may find themselves competing for exclusivity not just with each other but with the traditional console market too.

There are also technical hurdles. When playing most video games, it's essential to have constant, uninterrupted control, and clear video output of the game world. A dodgy internet connection means your killer move at the key point in a battle might not transmit in time - costing you your virtual life. It's a problem known as input lag. Google's wi-fi controller is an attempt to conquer it by transmitting commands directly to the game server. Having a good internet connection will soon be the only barrier to gaming - but your bandwidth might depend on how close you happen to live to the nearest cloud gaming data centre. 

Netflix Inc. has provided a sneak peek at some new original movies and series that will be released in December. The new releases include a number of holiday-themed titles, Netflix’s answer to AT&T Inc.’s T, -0.15%  HBO megahit series “Game of Thrones” and one of “several” movies in which the streaming video service is attempting to create some Oscar buzz. Netflix’s announcement comes after Apple Inc. debuted its competitor, Apple TV+ on Friday, and about a week before Walt Disney’s Disney+ launches on Nov. 12. Read more about what’s coming in November.

Here are the drop dates for some of the Netflix shows coming next month, and many with still-undetermined relief dates, with brief descriptions:

Dec. 5

• “A Christmas Prince: The Royal Baby”

Netflix completes its first-ever movie trilogy with the upcoming movie: “It’s Christmastime in Aldovia — and a royal baby is on the way!”

• “V-Wars” (Season 1)

A “thriller” series starring Ian Somerhalder and Adrian Holmes about a doctor who transforms his best friend into a vampire.

Dec. 6

• “Magic for Humans” (Season 2)

Justin Williams returns for more magic tricks in what looks to be a “very Christmassy season.”

• “Marriage Story”

Netflix is “aiming at the Oscars” with this movie starring Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver about a divorced couple trying to keep a working relationship.

• “Triad Princess”

A Chinese language series about a woman who defies her mafia-affiliated father’s wishes by becoming an undercover bodyguard.

Dec. 13

• “6 Underground”

A movie starring Ryan Reynolds and Michael Bay about six “untraceable” agents unable to move on from their pasts.

Dec. 18

• “Soundtrack” (Season 1)

A “very High School Musical-esque” series connecting lives of random people.

Dec. 20

• “The Two Popes”

Another Netflix “Oscar hopeful” starring Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Pryce about when Pope Francis was set to succeed Pope Benedict.

• “The Witcher” (Season 1)

A series starring Henry Cavill that Netflix dubs as its “first big answer to ‘Game of Thrones’” is about a mercenary monster hunter.

• “Lost in Space” (Season 2)

The Robinson family looks to leave the alien planet they crash-landed on.

Dec. 30

• “The Disastrous Life of Saiki K.: Reawakened” (Season 1)

The whole cast and crew of the anime brand returns in a six-episode series.

To be announced

• “You” (Season 2)

Joe travels across the U.S. for his next victim.

• “Home for Christmas” (Season 1)

Swedish series about a 24-day hunt for a partner to bring home for Christmas.

• “Christmas in the Wild”

About a woman jilted by her husband about to embark on an African safari, starring Rob Lowe and Kristen Davis.

• “The Knight Before Christmas”

A “romantic” Christmas movie starring Vanessa Hudgens.

• “Hot Chocolate Nutcracker”

A “Shondaland” documentary series that goes behind the scenes of the Debbie Allen Dance Academy

• “A Cinderella Story: Christmas Wish”

A remake of the Disney classic.

• “Holiday Secrets: Miniseries”

A German miniseries to be released “sometime in the holiday season” about three Christmases, three women and three generations.

Last but not least, in the “We’re not sure on this one” category:

• “Stranger Things Christmas Special” (?)

A behind-the-scenes video of the third season included a Christmas set: “With the absence of Christmas in Season 3, are we due a Christmas episode?”

Netflix shares rallied 2.1% to $292.86 on Monday. They have lost 4.8% over the past three months while rallying 9.4% year to date. In comparison, the S&P 500 index SPX, +0.37%  has gained 8.2% the past three months and run up 22.8% this year.

Identity theft is at an all-time high in the UK. The UK's fraud prevention service CIFAS recorded 190,000 cases in the past year, as our increasingly digitised lives make it easier than ever for fraudsters to get their hands on our personal information. So how should we keep our identities secure online? The first line of defence is, more often than not, a password.

But these have been in the news lately for all the wrong reasons. Facebook admitted in April that the passwords of millions of Instagram users had been stored on their systems in a readable format - falling short of the company's own best practices, and potentially compromising the security of those users. Late last year, question-and-answer website Quora was hacked with the names and email addresses of 100 million users compromised. And Yahoo! recently settled a lawsuit over the loss of data belonging to 3 billion users, including email addresses, security questions and passwords. 

No wonder that Microsoft announced last year that the company planned to kill off the password, using biometrics or a special security key. IT research firm Gartner predicts that by 2022, 60% of large businesses and almost all medium-sized companies will have cut their dependence on passwords by half. Passwords are the easiest approach for attackers, because people tend to use passwords that are easy to remember and therefore easy to compromise. Not only would getting rid of passwords improve security, it would also mean IT departments would not have to spend valuable time and money resetting forgotten passwords. "There is an annual cost of around $200 (£150) per employee associated with using passwords, not including the lost productivity," says Mr Tooley. "In a large organisation that's a really significant cost." 

Another substitute to passwords is facial recognition. When rumors were first heard that Apple’s iPhone X would not have a fingerprint sensor, aspiring fraudsters could be forgiven for a moment of encouragement. Alas, that hope was short-lived, as we now know that facial recognition is used in its place. “Magic 8-Ball, does this mean that facial biometrics are  here to stay for mobile authentication?” It is decidedly so. Apple Face ID is here. The trendsetting device maker has opted for 3-D facial recognition technology in place of fingerprints for the newest iPhone. Facial recognition for authentication has existed for several years. However, Apple’s seal of approval further confirms the powerful security features of the underlying biometric technology that make it possible. As with fingerprints before it, Apple promises to usher in broad market adoption of facial recognition for mobile authentication.

But why stop at face recognition? Fraudsters will undoubtedly try to spoof biometric authentication security measures. Fortunately, modern biometrics are equipped with technologies that assess the “liveness” of the user. They make it difficult for a fraudster to use a video or audio recording of a victim to impersonate them. A multimodal approach applies different biometric modalities such as face, voice, and keystroke dynamics to increase security. The additional biometric data not only improves biometric performance in terms of fewer false matches and non-matches. It also contributes to liveness detection. Facial recognition can be added to other modalities for improved performance and liveness detection. For example, a user can type in a passphrase while looking into the camera. The authentication engine simultaneously analyzes keying cadence and facial geometry, making it more biometrically accurate as well as more difficult to spoof. Or, the app may request a random spoken series of numbers while capturing the facial image. The two can be matched and analyzed for liveness in concert. The chances of spoofing that are slim…

For any commuter the prospect of being whisked to and from work in a fraction of the time it usually takes is pretty irresistible. No traffic jams, no train delays and no cold platforms - what's not to love? This is the promise of more than a hundred companies developing electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft. Like helicopters they don't need a runway, but unlike helicopters they promise to be quiet and cheap.

Yet the dream seems to be some way off. Industry experts say that taxi services using such aircraft won't be a mass-market phenomenon until the 2030s. So what is the hold up? Can they fly far enough? There are good reasons why the eVTOL industry is focussing on short hops in and out of cities. Firstly, there are plenty of potential customers in cities; secondly, eVTOL aircraft can't fly very far. Most have batteries that can allow them to fly for around half an hour. In the case of Germany's Volocopter this amounts to a range of about 22 miles (35km) with a maximum speed of around 68mph (110km/h).

Other companies have boosted range by adding wings. So companies like Germany's Lilium have an aircraft which can take off vertically but can also tilt its wings and engines and fly more like a regular plane. Lilium expects its aircraft to have a range of 185 miles (300km).

Vertical Aerospace in the UK is also working on eVTOL with wings that it hopes will fly more than 100 miles. But the industry would still dearly love to see a breakthrough in battery technology which would make all these prototypes much more useful aircraft.

If you are planning an air taxi service then you are going to need somewhere convenient for your aircraft to take off or land, and also charge or swap their batteries - what the industry likes to call vertiports. That presents several challenges. In big cities space is already limited. Heliports already exist but might not be ideally located or able to cope with extra traffic. Some buildings might have suitable rooftops, but they are likely to be expensive to use. Even if sites are identified, they would still need to comply with planning regulations, which don't even exist yet.

One of the big selling points of eVTOL aircraft is that they are relatively quiet. While hovering they should make just a quarter of the noise of a helicopter. So that might ease the concerns of those living near a vertiport, but you could still imagine people objecting to a continuous stream of air traffic. And just one accident might create widespread opposition to having landing zones in heavily populated areas. Aviation regulators in Europe and the US are currently working out the standards they want these new aircraft to meet. Once agreed an eVTOL aircraft is likely to go through years of testing before it meets them, a process likely to cost hundreds of millions of pounds. "Most eVTOL manufacturers I have been talking to are trying to get certification by 2023," said Darrell Swanson, who runs his own consultancy specialising in the eVTOL industry, to the BBC. In their favour, electric aircraft are much simpler than helicopters or passenger jets, so mechanically there is much less to go wrong. 

Several aircraft designs have multiple motors, so they can fly even if one motor fails. Uber, which has an eVTOL project called Uber Air, says that flying taxi services only need to be safer than driving a car, perhaps twice as safe. But the public and regulators might expect safety standards closer to those of airlines. Another question that has not really been answered is how eVTOL aircraft will perform in bad weather. To save weight they will be very light, which could make flying in windy conditions bumpy or dangerous. Yet a taxi service that has to shut down on a windy day would not be much use in many places in the world. 

Netflix Inc. was founded in 1997 by Reed Hastings and Marc Rudolph as a service that allowed users to rent movies on DVD through the internet and have them mailed to their doors. Now, 21 years later, Netflix is primarily a provider of online streamable content including TV shows, movies, and documentaries. Netflix is one of the dream stories of the great bull market, its shares rising nearly 6-fold in the past five years and gaining about 35% despite the turbulent market in 2019. All seems well in Netflix's fantasy land of movies and entertainment.

But trouble has been brewing beneath the surface as the leader in streaming entertainment faces rising competition, slowing subscriber growth, and continuing cash burn. The next three months will prove to be its most challenging yet. Soon, Netflix will be competing with Disney+, HBO Max and Apple TV+ - all companies with enormous brand recognition and a strong desire to take their own slice of streaming’s riches. The entrance of these well-financed players in the market will force Netflix to spend more money on original content and squeeze profits, analysts say. That rising competition will test whether Netflix can stop burning cash and build a sustainable model. To outgrow its competitors, Netflix has already put a lot of money into original and exclusive content creation. All in all, the company is taking a gamble and borrowing more money than its making with the hopes of future growth. Netflix’s highest ever cash flow (or the amount of cash Netflix generates from its normal business operations minus what it spends on large projects) is  $279 million. That was in 2009 before the company expanded globally. By 2012, Netflix dipped into a negative cash flow that has only gotten worse. In 2017, the cash flow was around $-2.01 billion, and by 2018, it's  expected to hit $-2.79 billion. 

On Wednesday, Netflix wrote to investors to tell them that competition would be a good thing. The rising tide of streaming services would just tempt more people away from “linear TV”, as they term it, and into streaming services.

“Just like the evolution from broadcast TV to cable, these once-in-a-generation changes are very large and open up big, new opportunities for many players,” the company told investors.

“For example, for the first few decades of cable, networks like TBS, USA, ESPN, MTV and Discovery didn’t take much audience share from each other, but instead, they collectively took audience share from broadcast viewing.”

Netflix pointed to the fact that its growth rate in the US and Canada had been almost identical in the past six years, despite only one of those markets - the US - having a significant competitor in Hulu.

That may be the case, but Netflix’s argument neglects to address what will be different about what it can offer subscribers in the years ahead. Netflix’s back catalogue is in the process of being slowly picked to pieces, with competitors taking back shows and movies that they agreed to put on Netflix at a time when they didn’t have a streaming product of their own.

So how CEO Reed Hastings can maintain U.S. subscriber growth in the face of rising competition from rivals such as Walt Disney Co. (DIS), and how Netflix will maintain its rapid expansion abroad, where Netflix gets most of its growth? Are price hikes on its services eroding demand as the company tries to reduce its rate of cash burn ?

The  $141 billion  company operates on a subscription-based model and now boasts over  125 million members in over 190 countries, watching more than 125 million hours of Netflix content per day. Along with  5.15 million added users  this year, the company announced it had  88%  more original content on the site in just one year.  But Netflix has to overcome a new skepticism about its prospects. "Subscriber growth is no longer enough. Netflix needs to prove it can monetize its original content before competition (with decades of monetization success) takes more market share. Time is running out for Netflix’s current business model to work," said David Trainer, an analyst at investment research firm New Constructs LLC, in a May column in Barron's.

Just over two years ago, China announced an audacious plan to overtake the US and lead the "world in AI [artificial intelligence] technology and applications by 2030". It is already widely regarded to have overtaken the EU in many aspects. But now its plans may be knocked off course by the US restricting certain Chinese companies from buying technologies developed or manufactured in the States.

Washington's justification is that the organisations involved have made products used to commit human rights abuses against China's Muslim ethnic minorities. But it is notable that those on its blacklist include many of China's official "national AI champions", among them:

Megvii - an image recognition software developer sometimes referred to as being the world's most valuable AI start-up

iFlytek - a voice recognition specialist

Hikvision - one of the world's biggest CCTV systems manufacturers

SenseTime - a start-up that makes AI services for use in smart city, transport and education applications

Yitu - a developer of machine vision and voice recognition tools

Like the telecoms firm Huawei before them, they now face major disruption as a consequence of the Trump administration's intervention. That is, in part, because they are reliant on US-based know-how. SenseTime, for example, formed an alliance with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) last year to jointly fund research projects. And Yitu recently worked with researchers at the University of California San Diego to develop algorithms to diagnose illnesses in children.

The move also threatens to jeopardise the companies' ability to attract foreign investment. The Bloomberg news agency has already suggested that a planned $1bn flotation by Megvii could be derailed as a consequence. But perhaps most crucially, the blacklisting threatens to cut off the supply of computer chips and other components that Hikvision requires to build its surveillance cameras, and the others need to train their algorithms.

The US is the undisputed leader in semiconductors. Whether it's CPUs (central processing unit) and GPUs (graphics processing units) from tech giants including Intel and Nvdia, or chips that specialise in AI-related tasks from lesser-known firms such as Ambarella and ON Semiconductor - American firms provide the tech that underpins the Chinese tech firms' progress. This dependence has not gone unnoticed. At present only 16% of the semiconductors used within China are made in the country, and only half of those by local companies - according to a report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

But the study notes that Beijing aims to boost that figure to 40% by the end of next year, and raise it to 70% by 2025. "For decades, building indigenous Chinese chips has been an aspiration of the government," Matt Sheehan, author of The Transpacific Experiment - a book about China and the US's tech ties - told the BBC. "Moves like the entity lists have turned that aspiration into an imperative for the government, but also potentially a matter of life or death for private Chinese companies (…) That doesn't mean they'll succeed at it any time soon. This is one of the most complex engineering tasks out there, one that often requires decades of accumulated in-house knowledge and experience (...) But it does seem that China's own AI chip start-ups will not be short of cash or new orders any time soon."

Over recent weeks, first Huawei and then Alibaba have unveiled computer server chips specially designed to carry out machine learning tasks at high speed. Xiaomi has also said it is working on a similar product. Meanwhile, smaller start-ups have secured hundreds of millions of dollars worth of funds for other types of AI processors, such as chips for self-driving cars or processors for "intelligent robots". For now, US firms are also developing specialised AI chips. Nonetheless, China's development of well-funded AI chip start-ups and advancements in chip design indicate it may be able to close at least some of the gap.

Earlier this year, the excitement among crypto-buffs was palpable. Facebook, the world’s largest social network, revealed it was planning to launch a digital coin in the near future. They were getting their hopes up. Until last Friday. 

Payments firm PayPal has become the first company to pull out of an alliance that is trying to launch Facebook's digital currency Libra. PayPal made the announcement in a statement on Friday, but did not specify what had prompted the decision. Libra, and its digital wallet Calibra, were revealed by Facebook in June. But the cryptocurrency has been criticised by regulators, and both France and Germany have pledged to block it from Europe. PayPal said it "[remained] supportive of Libra's aspirations" but had chosen to focus on its own core businesses. The firm was one of the original members of the Libra Association, a group of 28 companies and non-profits helping to develop Libra. Its other members include payments company Visa, ride-hailing app Uber and humanitarian charity Mercy Corps. In response to PayPal's withdrawal, Libra Association said it was aware that attempts to "reconfigure the financial system" would be hard. "Commitment to that mission is more important to us than anything else," it said in a statement. "We're better off knowing about this lack of commitment now." 

At its unveiling this year, Facebook said its cryptocurrency will be transferrable with zero fees via its own apps, as well as on messaging products including Messenger and WhatsApp. The new currency could be used to reward users for watching ads on Facebook's platform and spent at major retailers. Presumably any merchant with an account on these platforms could transact in the cryptocurrency with customers who also have accounts—for anything, such as online purchases, and physical-world purchases such as groceries and restaurants. Facebook is working with merchants to accept the token as payment, and may offer sign-up bonuses. There have also been reports that Facebook wants to roll out physical devices for ATMs so users can exchange traditional assets for the cryptocurrency. Facebook said Libra would be independently-managed and backed by real assets, and that paying with it would be as easy as texting.

But there have been concerns about how people's money and data will be protected. There's a risk that Facebook might use the technology to spy on users' spending habits: "There is no doubt that Facebook is treading into new and risky territory with this move," said Steve Giguere, global solution architect at software and microchip firm Synopsys, speaking to newspaper The Sun. "The risks associated with this concept will be surrounding the identity of the user's 'wallet', which associates a certain value of crypto to a person (…) Some of the major breaches around crypto have been hacks into wallet applications or even into mobile devices which can gain access and trigger unwanted transactions to anonymous wallets which can be immediately cashed out or laundered through other crypto exchanges (…) As the fruits of this research are undoubtedly years away still, Facebook will have to clean up its act with regards to its handling of personal data before we can expect the common public to put our money where our data is." The Group of Seven advanced economies warned in July that it would not let Libra proceed until all regulatory concerns had been addressed. Central bank chiefs, including the UK's Mark Carney, have also voiced scepticism, and US President Donald Trump has tweeted he is "not a fan" of the currency. 

Sceptics have also voiced concerns over the potential volatility of the currency. But Facebook argues that the cryptocurrency will be a stablecoin — a token designed to have a stable price to prevent discrepancies and complications due to price fluctuations during a payment or negotiation process. Facebook has spoken with financial institutions regarding contributing capital to form a $1 billion basket of multiple international fiat currencies and low-risk securities that will serve as collateral to stabilize the price of the coin. Facebook is working with various countries to pre-approve the rollout of the stablecoin. 

Despite receiving significant attention in the financial and investment world, many people do not know how to buy the cryptocurrency Bitcoin with cash, but doing so is as simple as signing up for a mobile app. There are advantages for buying Bitcoin with cash, if you take the necessary precautions. Unlike using a regular Bitcoin exchange, cash purchases usually don’t require you to unnecessarily reveal information by submitting a ton of documents to verify your identity. This tactic is a lot safer, given the rising risk of identity theft. Another reason is speed, because there’s no waiting for the arrival of bank transfers, or for verification by an exchange. Deposits usually take 1 to 3 business days, while verification can take 1 to 3 weeks. When Bitcoin’s price is skyrocketing, even a few days can equate to a lot of money So how to go about buying Bitcoin with Cash ?

The majority of Bitcoin’s trading volume occurs off-exchange. This is actually a good thing; If cryptocurrency only becomes tradable with state approval, then it’s reduced to little more than a new form of fiat currency. Therefore, all serious Bitcoiners should gain some kind of experience with peer-to-peer trading. If your local government ever cracks down on Bitcoin, it’s good to have a Plan B in place…

If you have trusted friends who own some bitcoin they’re willing to sell, you can obtain Bitcoin by giving them cash in person. To make such trusted friends, consider attending Bitcoin conferences or meetings in your area. To locate these events, search Meetup or Facebook for local Bitcoin groups. Another thing to remember, unless you plan to meet near an ATM, is to make sure you bring the agreed-upon amount of cash. Also make sure to bring your phone or laptop with an installed Bitcoin wallet. If you only bring an address, you won’t be able to verify receipt of your coins.

Another method is to use Bitcoin ATMs (BTMs) that accept cash and in return send you Bitcoins to your Bitcoin address. They are a convenient way to trade 24/7. Although BTMs have become more and more popular since their introduction some years ago, there are still many regions without one. The best way to locate a nearby BTM is to use the CoinATMRadar. When you click on a BTM on this site, you will see a display with its precise location, fees, limits, and ID requirements (if any). The site will also provide contact details for the operator. You should notate these details, in case there are any issues. When you go to the BTM, remember to also take your Bitcoin wallet or address! Also, just like when using a regular ATM, be on the lookout for suspicious characters who are lying in wait.

It's also possible to buy bitcoins by making a cash deposit at the bank. Find a seller in your area who accepts cash. Agree with them on the amount of coins you want. With this method, the seller provides their bank details. You then visit the relevant bank, and fill in a deposit form. Sellers may specify a particular bank. You then make a cash deposit to the seller’s account via the bank teller, and the coins will then arrive in your wallet. This method is more reliable and physically secure than meeting with a stranger. Specifically, the seller has no way of knowing which bank you’ll be using. In the US, there are two more services which specialize in arranging and securing bank deposit purchases: BitQuick and Liberty X (which require smartphones). You can prove to the escrow service that you made a payment by photographing or scanning your bank deposit receipt. In the event of a dispute, with proper proof, they’ll release the seller’s coins to your Bitcoin address.