Slashdot Mirror

Not to mention that much of the lower half of the Atlantic seacoast is subsiding at a rate around 3-4mm per year.

Ahh no.
https://e360.yale.edu/features...

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/...

Recent research indicates that global mean sea level, or the average height of the world’s oceans, has been increasing by 3 millimeters (.1 inches) per year on average since 1993, when satellites first started measuring it. But along the U.S. East Coast north of Cape Hatteras, rates of sea level rise were found to be some three to four times higher than the global average over certain periods.

That sentence contained so many internal contradictions that it's not even wrong. Congratulations! You have created the perfect troll post to give an actual physicist an aneurysm!

Portland cement and related processes are certainly a major source of CO2, but they aren't "the major source." See https://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/10/195/2018/essd-10-195-2018.pdf and https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/05/09/emissions-from-the-cement-industry/. About 5% of total CO2 production is due to cement and related materials.

China and a handful of other nations have a near monopoly on the materials needed to make wind and solar power cheap

How do you come to that retarded idea?

https://www.worldatlas.com/art...
https://www.statista.com/stati...

Solar panels are made out of: sand!

No, solar panels are made of silicon and the USA produces very little of it. The kind the USA does produce is predominately low grade used in producing steel and aluminum.
https://minerals.usgs.gov/mine...

Wind turbines from carbon fiber positioned on steel masts.

And with rare earth magnets on top of those steel masts.
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/...

Mining rare earth metals means also digging up a lot of other nasty minerals, like thorium and uranium, that unless there is a market for them they can contaminate the environment. What on earth could we possibly do with all this uranium and thorium? I'm just tossing out an idea here, nuclear power?

The USA does not have the capacity to produce solar panels, and has limited capacity to produce windmills, without imported materials. On the other hand the USA already produces several nuclear power plants every year to supply it's nuclear powered navy. Increasing the capacity to produce nuclear power in the USA is near trivial, we need only remove the political barriers to larger production. To produce more wind and solar in the USA would take years and billions of dollars to build the plants that can turn sand into PV panels and ore into rare earth magnets.

The monopoly that China has on silicon and rare earth metals is not in the raw material in the ground, it's in the factories that turn that raw material into something valuable. Overturning that monopoly will take lots of money and time in making factories.

The entire world is relying on China to play nice for it's supply of wind and solar power. By destroying their ability to produce domestic nuclear power these nations place a very vital resource, energy, at the whimsy of China. Much of Europe is now reliant on Chinese solar and Russian natural gas for energy. If there is ever a trade dispute then I can expect to see Europe get real dark and cold.

Nukes can work for cement

Well, sort of. Even if you powered the kilns with nuclear power, you would still have to deal with the CO2 emissions that come directly from the heated limestone, which is roughly HALF of the overall carbon emissions involved in cement production.

Source: http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2...

That is not how I read GP's comment at all. As I see it they are making clear, strong claims about particle physics and string theory.

that's why i provided references, plus1entropy. i missed the ones about string theory, here are some:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads...
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~...

which leads to this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Physi...

and that last one is particularly poignant, as it's by someone for whom the work that they set out to do just.. wasn't fun. they had a goal, but they'd forgotten the journey.

the other one quotes the observer.

here's another one: https://backreaction.blogspot.... which points out that the "bang-per-buck" is firmly on the "please for god's sake pull the plug" side.

i'm struggling to find the original article, but i believe this last post comes fairly close. basically i'm pointing out that it's not *my* idea(s). i didn't reference *any* of *my* work. these are *other people's* opinions - ones that are becoming increasingly common, that's all.

Here is one of those said puzzle wallpapers

If individual-level genetic data is available (as is the case for at least 23andme), then it can be de-anonymised.

Dr. Erlich also identified a new genetic privacy loophole that allows inferring surname of individuals from simple Internet searches using genetic data.

http://datascience.columbia.ed...

If you have individual level genetic data, fewer than 50 common variants should be enough to uniquely identify a person.

Thank God Americans don't hack :v

They probably don't - they're not good enough, being too busy with their Ethnicity and Race Studies classes

Hey, they do have to learn how to say, "Do you want fries with that?"

There's a huge amount of inertia within the military (or government for that matter), which makes it really slow to adapt to and take advantage of changes. Technological progress is the very epitome of change, so the two make very poor bedfellows. It works much better if they simply hire someone to handle the technological part for them.

In the mid-1990s my company was doing some ship model testing. We rented the tow tank at the U.S. Navy's David Taylor Research Center (now David Taylor Model Basin). One morning I arrived at the center and saw a bunch of what looked like washing machines piled up at the tow tank entrance. I asked our Navy guide what they were.

"Hard drives"
"Whoa. How old are they?"
"I dunno, early '70s I think."
"Wow. What's their capacity?
"About 10 MB."
"So they've been sitting in your warehouse all this time, and you finally decided to throw them out?"
"Oh no, we were using them up til yesterday. Our requisition for new hard drives finally came through."
"..."

Not exactly the kind of organization you want building cutting-edge data storage solutions for themselves.

If you really want to limit CO2 output, you need to find a better way to make concrete, or outlaw portland cement.

Yes, people are in fact looking at that: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or....

Cement is only about 5% of global carbon dioxide emissions, though, so at the moment it's not the driver. ( http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2... )

People are looking at alternatives: https://phys.org/news/2015-09-...

I'm reading Gelman and Hill: Data analysis using regression and multilevel / hierarchical models... actually for several months now, mostly a few pages before I go to bed. It's well written, fascinating material with nice examples. At first I was just interested in the general topic, lately I've started building my own regression models in R (very easy once you get used to it) with publicly available data. So yes, you have to be some kind of data nerd to appreciate the book... but that's what you get for asking on Slashdot.

So what is the relation between El Nino and climate changes already?

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2...

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

https://e360.yale.edu/features...

So, Climate scientists think El Nino reduces hurricane probability and intensity. Some predict AGW will double El Nino frequency. Some predict Hurricane frequency and intensity will increase due to AGW.

Nice to see its all figured out.

So what is the relation between El Nino and climate changes already?

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2...

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

https://e360.yale.edu/features...

The greatest contributor to CO2 is carbon monoxide.

For the sake of charity I'm forced to assume that this is not what you meant to say. Carbon monoxide has a negligible influence on climate. It absorbs little energy directly and only persists in the atmosphere for about a month. See the summary here, or the full paper here.[pdf]

This is why some people are skeptical.

I hope that by "some people" you are excluding yourself from the group of people who would take a page of celebrity quotations as a credible argument of any sort. "Some people" are "skeptical" because they have no use for objective reality. Mostly they have no idea what they're even saying, and they refuse to expose themselves to enough information about the subject to make a remotely sensible objection. Saying, "AGW isn't happening," is a non-statement. Humans are dumping huge amounts of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, which will result in warming. If you're disputing that fact, what part are you disputing? That humans are releasing gigatons of carbon, or that it's a greenhouse gas? Keeping in mind that the heat properties of CO2 can be verified in your basement. What part of thermodynamics is wrong? What term is missing from our radiative transfer equations? What hidden mechanism would transfer excess heat from the Earth? It's like saying that gravity is wrong -- it's not a claim in itself, and it's not to say that you're automatically a crackpot, but you do need to account for a couple contrary observations in your theory, and your explanation should probably be better than "I dunno, but it's still wrong!"

Personally, I maintain some hope that AGW will turn out to be milder than anticipated. The 3.7 W/m^2 is a pretty hard lower bound due to thermodynamics, but the H2O feedbacks allow for a fairly wide range of scenarios. It would be nice if Dr. Lindzen's Iris hypothesis were credible. As things are, however, there's just not a lot of room for alternate theories. Any unknown effects would have to be extremely large to offset the warming signal, and extremely subtle to not have been noticed to date in any of the atmospheres that we have studied. Given that our atmospheric physics equations describe extraterrestrial atmospheres well, including the atmosphere of the Sun, the amount of special pleading that would be required seems effectively infinite.

6 months to 2 years in 2011 : http://www.clca.columbia.edu/2...

Hello traveler and welcome to 2010. A lot has changed in the 30 years since you were in a coma. It's not all going to be good. For instance:
- The UK is leaving the EU. Yeah surprise I know they just joined when you were last awake.
- The depression everyone is talking about is not the great depression but a more recent one.
- An internet (this giant network of computers (things that do work for people) ) search engine is sucking up the world's data and selling it to advertisers.
- Donald Trump is president of the USA.
- The worlds most valuable company sells overpriced mobile phones and people happily queue to buy them.
- No really! Donald Trump, THE Donald Trump is president.

But it's not all bad. One of the good things is the Energy Payback Period for manufactured solar cells has dropped from 40 years to less than half a year. Probably even lower now as this article is already 7 years old http://www.clca.columbia.edu/2....

Anyway if you don't like that article you can use that search engine thing I was talking about (it's called Google BTW (that's how the cool kids say "By The Way" these days) ) to search that internet thing I was talking about for more references about how wrong and outdated your views are.

Oh and for a brief period the best rapper was a white person. But don't worry it went back to ... normal.

While I don't disagree with you, that link is entirely garbage.

Pick a different one. They all say something similar. http://www.clca.columbia.edu/2...

The GP's assertion is something from back in the 80s.

do nonsense math (a very unnatural ability for a computer)

That's not true!

I think they've done a good job at that by diverting water from the croplands to some fish somewhere.

This actually worries me more than AGW. And AGW worries me a lot. The situation needs addressed. But we aren't a country that can address much any more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

BTW, most of CA already is a desert.

Exactly. Its a situation where the weather is pretty good, lots of sunshine, OK soil, but not much water. They've wrecked their local sources and when you get soil subsidance like this, http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~... https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land... you've probably made the water table recharge either impossible or a tens of thousands of years effort.

Then we have the river diversion issues. Already the Colorado no longer reaches the sea. Most impressive to stop that river.

If I had a say in how water use in California is handled, I'd say you start with the Sunshine. That's not likely to go away any time soon. So that's good. But the next issue is that water. It has to be used better, and more efficiently. I'm seeing a lot of farming under glass, so to speak. If you are going to use water, you have to meter it out and limit evaporation. If you are going to ship water from another state, you need to keep the damn stuff covered. Gotta watch how we deliver it to the plants though, because drip irrigation is great for saving water but you eventually salinate the soil. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Inte... https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

We are perhaps a dog that likes to shit in it's dinner bowl.

Not Even Wrong

Neither. Why: 1) Most power is still generated by burning fossil fuels. You're just moving your tailpipe elsewhere.

Half true. Points to consider:
(1) "most" is not "all"
(2) electric power is capable of transitioning to solar, and in fact car charging is a good application for solar,
(3) there is economy of scale. Large power plants are more efficient in producing energy, even from fossil fuel sources, than small engines (like car engines). This should be obvious: if car engines were more efficient than gas turbines, a power plant would consist of a million car engines. Large converters can use bottoming cycles to utilize the low-grade waste heat. Cars, on the other hand, just reject the waste heat; it's not worth the effort to do a bottoming cycle on such a small engine.

2) Cars don't contribute anywhere near as much to greenhouse gasses as we are led to believe. Cow farts are actually the #1 source.

Nope, not even close. You are right that methane is a better infrared absorber than carbon dioxide, but cows just don't produce that much methane. Methane-- all sources-- produces about 15% of the anthropogenic contribution to greenhouse warming, and cows produce only a small portion of that.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/cours...

The rest of the post consists mostly of unsourced assertions.

> I use ethnicity for the most part just because of the silly destruction of the term race.

The term "race" isn't being destroyed. It isn't even changing. All that's changed is that you are running into the limits of your grade-school understanding of the world. Time to grow up. Biology has always been a small and completely arbitrary part of race. For example, it wasn't until just a little over 100 years ago that the Irish and Italians were considered "white." You know that phrase "Tall, dark and handsome?" - That was never about black men, it was about europeans. People who were not white then but are now.

Here's Ben Franklin expounding on the concept of whiteness as commonly understand at the time:

That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.

Furthermore, the one group of people who consistently think race is not genetic? Actual geneticists.
For example, Dr Craig Venter, you might have heard of him, he created the Human Genome Project.
Venter had this to say 16 years ago:

''Race is a social concept, not a scientific one''

FYI, "ethnicity" and "race" - they are basically the same thing.

ethnicity
noun
        The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.

A somewhat similar solution is to virtualize your laptop/phone. The kernel you boot with on either is nothing but a placeholder to run the virtualization software. Create an encrypted image on local storage that you can upload to a cloud provider and, on it, install all of your apps and operate the phone as usual. Securely wipe the encrypted image before leaving the country and download again after arriving in the host country. Our phones are now powerful enough to do this. Technology for Android has already been developed to do this: http://systems.cs.columbia.edu....

well, look for the numbers, the data all out there. let me help you until you find out how to use google http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2...

it is well known, if you've read other articles about EV buses, that the upfront cost of an EV bus is higher but lifetime costs of electric is a less than diesel with the benefit of a better smelling city. http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2...

I was disappointed that the article didn't provide links to NASA's and NOAA's findings.

The Goddard Institute for Space Science data is here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis...

A press release from Columbia University about the findings is here:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/...

Many reported that Dr Mao was successful in growing teeth back in 2010.

http://www.rexresearch.com/mao...
http://www.popsci.com/science/...
https://www.davidwolfe.com/ste...
http://www.dentistryiq.com/art...

Interesting, the original press release ( http://cumc.columbia.edu/news/... ) has been scrubbed from the university site.

Fact One: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It is more transparent to frequencies of visible light than frequencies of infrared light.

Fact Two: The total content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing as a result of human activities. The two largest sources are the burning of fossil fuels, and the production of concrete.

Fact Three: The exact amount of greenhouse effect of existing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is unknown. We only know that it must be some magnitude greater than zero. See Fact One.

Fact Four: Adding still-more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can only increase the existing greenhouse effect. See Fact One.

Question: On what basis could it be called a "good thing" to keep increasing the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

This is more clear, more thoughtful and more direct than anything published written about climate change. The kind of presentation made above is what separates someone who is just thinking clearly from everyone else who tips into serious confirmation bias like a giant stack of plates with each conversation adding a plate. I wish the majority of points made on subjects, especially those being hotly debated, were made this way.

This is more of an addendum to the just-above msg, than a reply.
Fact One: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It is more transparent to frequencies of visible light than frequencies of infrared light.
Fact Two: The total content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing as a result of human activities. The two largest sources are the burning of fossil fuels, and the production of concrete.
Fact Three: The exact amount of greenhouse effect of existing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is unknown. We only know that it must be some magnitude greater than zero. See Fact One.
Fact Four: Adding still-more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can only increase the existing greenhouse effect. See Fact One.
Question: On what basis could it be called a "good thing" to keep increasing the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Thank you for subscribing to Human Facts!

Did you know? A human female is born with all the eggs she'll ever have during her lifetime. That means that you, dear AC, were technically halfway into the world while your mother was still in your grandmother's womb!

Stay tuned for tomorrow's installment of Human Facts, "Why Natalie Portman may calcify but won't ever petrify."

http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~u...

"So how could any decent, intelligent person not support [Instant Runoff Voting]? One answer is that situations can arise in which IRV results are clearly unreasonable"

The undivided like-minds approach tends to exacerbate Alexis de Tocqueville's Tyranny of the Majority. That's not a good thing either, because every individual is in the minority for at least some issues they care about and its not good for large numbers to drown those causes out.

If we do a flat popular vote, then the will of the voters will be distorted to urban areas with greater concentrations of individuals who are easier to appeal to in large masses. If we maintain the status quo, we distort the will of the voters to swing states with statistically divided political opinions (most which are located in the Eastern US), and, to a lesser extent, rural areas. Since our government is a democratic republic, and our federal government was crafted to be the government of -these- united states, an election by the states seems a more fitting choice.

In addition, concentrating voting power within districts offers a mathematical advantage to the power of a single vote over a flat voting method. (Good examples: Florida with the 2000 election, or Wisconsin and Pennsylvania with this 2016 election.)

Now, I'd love to see an amendment that changes every state's electoral vote tally to Maine and Nebraska's method of 2 electors for the state winner, plus 1 elector per winner of each congressional district. It would need to be accompanied with subdivisions that 1) prevent gerrymandering, and 2) removal the actual electoral college, changing to a basic point system, to eliminate faithless electors.

Sucralose can cause bloating and diarrhea. In my experience it's fine in beverage-sweetener quantities, but in foods, especially snack foods, I might consume more than I really want to contend with.

If the users are trying to replace their whole diet with these bars, they certainly could consume enough to have some sucralose-related difficulties.

http://goaskalice.columbia.edu...

People need to stop thinking in terms of groups and group rights and concentrate on what is right for individuals. That's the real problem. TPTB have spent the last 60 years dividing people into subgroups and ethnicities and pitting them against each other to create the emotional tension to create partisan followers fueled by hate and resentment for their fellow Americans.

There's a famous quote about fascism coming to America wrapped in the flag, meaning that fascism will come wrapped in a package appearing to be the exact opposite. The author of that quote did not have a crystal ball and could not have foreseen that fascism was coming to the US, not wrapped in patriotism and the flag, but as "diversity" and "safe spaces." Today we have kids who are being forced to attend "re-education" for "gender misconduct" for referring to themselves as "handsome," kids being punished for sexual harassment for not knowing the name of the female lab assistant in their class, and major universities sponsoring "no whites" events. Communicating views and beliefs that do not conform to the globalist agenda of a borderless world is verboten and can get you permanently banned from the social communication networks of the day. Google will exact monetary penalties from users who express forbidden opinions by "demonetizing" their YouTube videos.

The irony is that fascism and neo-apartheid has landed in the US and it's not coming from conservative Republicans (where most of us alive for the moral crusades of the 1980's imagined it would come from), but from those who label themselves as "progressive."

Read this. The pruning of synapses that normally occurs in brains of children and adolescents doesn't happen in brains of people with autism, resulting in brains with a much larger number of connections between neurons. Autist brains are wired differently on a fundamental level, and autism is linked to several genes that are known to affect synapses.

Your anecdotes have no relevance here.

Sex, drugs, rock-n-roll?

Maybe some of those people died from Autoerotic Asphixiation. It's common for the family to ascribe it to suicide when a family member checks out that way.

You're absolutely right, but I thought this was a solved problem? From memory (aka wrong) the old Skype client used to operate in a number of modes, and if a client found it could accept inbound connections it would act as a relay server and help hosts to find each other. I read a paper on the protocol once and it seemed very clever. This work is from 2006, and there is much more available. Anyway, keep in mind that's all for the old original Skype protocol, the new stuff under Microsoft is all centralized and different.

So anyway, I wonder if an entirely decentralized, fair, simple, protocol exists for hosts to locate each other. I guess the BitTorrent guys have done a lot of similar work, yet I believe their system definitely does not route connections through other hosts, mostly because no one wants to foot the bill for TBs of bandwidth.

But VOIP and instant messaging are quite different beasts, with considerably less bandwidth requirements.

"The can be contacted is the part that is missing for many networks today."

This comment of yours keeps bugging me...I grew up believing that this *was the internet* and perhaps today's network is a rather different beast indeed...

There's more information at Wyden's press release.

In addition to Senators Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., the original cosponsors are Sens. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., Steve Daines, R-Mont., and Jon Tester, D-Mont. I would hope Bernie Sanders would support the bill but I don't personally know how much one can read into him not being an original cosponsor.

The above press release includes a link to a readable (warning, PDF) 1-page summary. The last sentence lists other supporters/commenters of the bill:

For more information, see comments by ACLU, Google, EFF/Access, OTI, CDT, NACDL, the security researchers Bellovin, Blaze, and Landau, and the Agenda Books from the U.S. Courts.

"Even if the most ridiculous of climate models it will take 100s of years for the sea level to rise 10s of feet."

Except if their models which you have already called rediculous, are wrong. I fully expect to be fleeing sea level rise in my lifetime, and I didn't ten years ago.

The reason is that people think of climate change as a linear progression, when really it is probably non-linear. In which case we may see severe results in the next 10-20 years if we haven't already started to see them.

"The fact that it can go erratically, and often abruptly, from the neighborhood of one center to the other is the essence of a chaotic behavior. This property manifests itself as a sensitivity to initial conditions : any small imprecision in the knowledge of one parameter will make it impossible to know where the system is going to be after some finite time: in other words, it is unpredictable."

http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/r...

People like you, who are all like "not my problem! future generations will adapt" may be surprised what the next few years have in store for us all. You doubt the climate models being accurate, I do as well. Just in the other direction. More chaos, sooner.

http://www.thespec.com/opinion...

Still better then fossil fuels, which have done a great job of poisoning the environment.

"Although natural gas burning emits less fatal pollution and GHGs than coal burning, it is far deadlier than nuclear power, causing about 40 times more deaths per unit electric energy produced."
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2...
Or just search for "deaths from nuclear or fossil fuel waste".

Heck, it's bad enough that people are getting heavy metal poisoning just from eating too much fish.
http://www.consumerreports.org...
"eat fish heavy metal poisoning"

Yes, he did. That's his own website by the way... See note 1 of the paper - he confirms his prediction with a 40 year span.

From Hansen's own website, see note 1 where he confirms the basic statement, with the clarification it was 40 years, not 20. So he still have 12 years maximum to have a flooded West Side Highway - which I think we can all agree simply won't happen (9 feet, 10 inches of sea level rise in 12 years).

Eh? Speak up, sonny. My source-code control system is making me deaf.

and we know how "secure" Skype was
http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~s...

looking at the Skype binary its obvious that even MS cant see inside the box as their "enhancements" are tacked around the original encrypted binary.

just remake the original Skype like it was, ie firewall traversal, p2p, ee encryption, crystal clear audio/video oh and this time fully open source (unlike this Wire).

If only we could get some decent peer review. Maybe it was different back then?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
http://www.economist.com/news/...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ha...
http://retractionwatch.com/201...
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21s...
https://www.theguardian.com/sc...

It would help if any of the climate models demonstrated some degree of predictive ability. The difference between model projections and reality have grown to ridiculous proportions.

Let's look at that. The very first numerical greenhouse effect model was Manabe and Wetherald 1967-- That's the classic, the model from which pretty much all current climate models stem. Since the paper was submitted in 1966, that's 50 years ago-- definitely long enough to see how well the prediction worked. They predicted that the climate sensitivity to CO2 (assuming constant relative humidity) was 2.3C. Comparing that to the actual carbon dioxide, for the rise from 320 ppm to 400 ppm (here) using the Arrhenius relation, we get 0.74C for the temperature rise from 1966 to 2015. The measured temperature rise (here) is 0.7C, with the error bars in the figure 0.1C.

Looks like not merely a good prediction, but an outstandingly accurate prediction.

For comparison, the current IPCC 5th Assessment report estimate of sensitivity is that it is the range 1.5C to 4.5C with "high confidence", so Manabe and Wetherald's value of 2.3 is still is the range of current estimates.

There is a point about security that all the glib commenters here (disable fingerprint allow PIN blah blah ) get wrong: real security is very hard to get right. As Steve Bellovin points out, the Needham-Schroeder key exchange protocol was published in 1978. It took seventeen years to find a flaw in it that allows a man-in-the-middle attack. It was "proven" mathematically correct, too. Still think Apple should just disable fingerprint auth on the iPhone 6? Then you're a fool who has no business commenting on cryptography. If you really want to do cryptography and get it right, you need to approach the subject with a large serving of humble pie.

Apple is damned if they do and damned if they don't here. Bricking the cryptographically secure device when hardware tampering is detected is the right thing to do.

The confusion of place names in this region affects even how to address postal mail. See the excellent discussion on the various place names in Frank's Compulsive Guide to Postal Addresses.

(n.b.: Frank's agrees that "SCOTLAND is one of the countries of Britain.")

Why is this presented as an issue of copyright instead of trademark? It seems, to me, that the amount of copyright infringement falls well within fair use.

How in the world could you consider this fair use?

The three top items on "opposing fair use" are
*Commercial activity
*Profiting from the use
*Entertainment

https://copyright.columbia.edu...

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/ov...