When you set an iPhone unlock code, you have an option for "Custom Alphanumeric Code", "Custom Numeric Code" and "4-Digit Numeric Code". Which of these you choose probably makes a big difference to how many passwords are possible.
Apple made their bed when they advertised the iPhone as a way to defeat the police.
I guess that's one way of looking at it. Myself, I saw it more as Apple saying "here's a big lock you can use to keep your private information private from everyone*". Judging by how the market has acted since, I'd say the people have given their approval.
* No, you can't just let the good guys in, it doesn't work that way. Either there's a screen door on the submarine or there isn't.
Hardware key storage should wipe itself after so many failed attempts.
/sigh, RTFA... This is exactly what happens after 10 bad entries. So the gov't wants Apple to write them software to let them bypass the wipe and continue brute forcing the unlock code.
This is exactly what they want to do... The problem is the phone will wipe itself after 10 failed attempts, so the gov't wants Apple to write them software to bypass the wipe and continue the brute force attack. I'm the only person I've ever met who has more than a 4 digit code to unlock my phone, and I don't even have anything to hide!
Well, yeah, but that's not what they're doing. They're trying to brute force the unlock code, which without this software will wipe the phone after 10 failed unlock attempts. If the guy only has a 4 digit code, this will take considerably less than "hundreds of billions of years", or even (probably) the time it would take to get coffee.
Interesting but flawed analogy. While a road exists only in one country at a time for a given location, a site on the internet "exists" in as many countries that have a connection to the 'net. To refine your analogy to conform to this situation, suddenly the road exists in all countries at once. How do you propose to legally (everywhere) drive on both sides of the road at the same time?
You keep using that word "her". I don't think that word means what you think it means. So what is the difference between "saying" something to this software and typing it into MS Word? Would it be different if it was typed into Cortana? What if something rude was dictated into Word? I feel like I'm feeding a troll here but I need to say... Should this guy turn out to be your boss (or future potential boss), loan officer etc., your sanctimonious judgement of other people will probably not win you any brownie points. What he does with his slutty virtual assistant when you're not around is probably none of your #&^*ing business.
I think an earlier post referenced this article where the US gov't ran a kiddie porn site it took over. You've got a point though, there's no good way to obtain such material. Are we still stretching definitions so drawings count?
Completely depends on your situation. If your job is a one-off and you don't expect to use it again soon, the cheap solution is probably the way to go. If, OTOH, you are doing this for a living / all day you probably don't care about the extra expense. Better tools will produce better results for a much longer period of time.
The stated goal of communism is the elimination of money, social class and the state among other things. The purported goal of Feminism is gender equality. The original purpose of RICO law was the prosecution of mob bosses. Sometimes reality should speak more loudly than the dictionary when it comes to ideology, especially when it comes to one person relating their individual experiences.
You can ban guns fitting other criteria. e.g. "using gun powder".
Except that tiny problem where you've just raped the shit out of any reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment. You may want to re-read it if you've forgotten what it says. If you don't like it, get it changed. We've done it before. Don't resort to sneaky back door tactics to circumvent the Constitution. BTW, you may also want to work on your definition of the word minority.
He can clearly say whatever he wants. Remember the old saw about "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose"? He's advocating the suppression of free speech and penalization for just being exposed to the wrong kind of speech. We're saying the action of the government to restrict our constitutional rights should be restricted, which is not at all the same thing as limiting his freedom to advocate the aforementioned idiocy.
Here, second hit on Google by searching on "police cannibal child". I'm probably on some list now, thanks a lot!:-) To the main point, the problem here is he hadn't actually done anything illegal. It's really important we only punish criminals. In order for someone to be a criminal they have to have committed a crime. Nail him on the DB search, having a taillight out or not trimming his trees properly (this is Cali after all) but find an actual crime to prosecute him for!
Regardless of how it started, it's been adopted by an awful lot of feminists and is still being used by them NOW. Google #killallmen. Look at who is using it and how old the hits are, I double dog dare you!
As for the facts and verifiable statements / actions of feminists you blithely dismiss, I salute you. Not just everyone can take that many solid examples of something and pretend that calling them "clap trap" means they have been refuted.
If a university were to "...choose to provide a public forum...", it would seem to me that would make it by definition public.
This would be so regardless of what you think the university should or should not be doing.
What will happen when the footage and audio captured repeatedly shows that the police were in the right, that they acted reasonably, and that it was in fact the other party/parties who were in the wrong?
Exactly the same thing as if you were to review the footage of red light cameras filming cars stopping at an intersection correctly. Nothing. This is because it's how things are supposed to work. Ideally people should always stop in time for a red light and police should always act reasonably towards the people they are there to protect. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world (shocker, I know). People occasionally run red lights and cops sometimes abuse people. For your own well being BTW, please disabuse yourself of the notion that all people must / should act rationally when presented with solid evidence contrary to their preconceived notions. You'll sleep better at night!
That was the crazed ranger with the rat familiar, wasn't it? Let's look it up...
Some of Minsc's dialog includes Boo in it. For example:
"Go for the eyes Boo, GO FOR THE EYES!! RrraaaAAGHGHH!!!"
"Camaraderie, adventure and steel on steel. The stuff of legends! Right Boo?".
"Ahh, we are all heroes, you and me and Boo, hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!"
Completely off topic but yeah I remember that. I also remember rolling a ranger who had a pet bird. I walked onto a map and it was insta-gibbed for some huge amount of damage. Boom! Permanent loss of 2 constitution points!
Funny you should mention Gamergate. Scroll down to the list of signatories at the bottom of the linked article and see if you notice any patterns in the names of the supporting entities.
If someone wants to kill all the jews and you give them a public forum to speak, you're not being tolerant, you're being the opposite of tolerant. You're granting them a way to spread and amplify their message.
In our society, it's vitally important that ignorance gets exposed in public. This includes people saying ignorant things you don't agree with. Fortunately, you can avail yourself of the very same public forums to espouse your own views in opposition. As soon as we have people deciding who can talk in public and who can't, we've lost something important. We have employed censors. If we can bring the stupid to light, we get a situation like the Westboro Baptist Church. They still get to shout their message from the rooftops and they earn all the derision they receive.
Slashdot Mirror
When you set an iPhone unlock code, you have an option for "Custom Alphanumeric Code", "Custom Numeric Code" and "4-Digit Numeric Code". Which of these you choose probably makes a big difference to how many passwords are possible.
Apple made their bed when they advertised the iPhone as a way to defeat the police.
I guess that's one way of looking at it. Myself, I saw it more as Apple saying "here's a big lock you can use to keep your private information private from everyone*". Judging by how the market has acted since, I'd say the people have given their approval.
* No, you can't just let the good guys in, it doesn't work that way. Either there's a screen door on the submarine or there isn't.
Hardware key storage should wipe itself after so many failed attempts.
/sigh, RTFA... This is exactly what happens after 10 bad entries. So the gov't wants Apple to write them software to let them bypass the wipe and continue brute forcing the unlock code.
This is exactly what they want to do... The problem is the phone will wipe itself after 10 failed attempts, so the gov't wants Apple to write them software to bypass the wipe and continue the brute force attack. I'm the only person I've ever met who has more than a 4 digit code to unlock my phone, and I don't even have anything to hide!
Well, yeah, but that's not what they're doing. They're trying to brute force the unlock code, which without this software will wipe the phone after 10 failed unlock attempts. If the guy only has a 4 digit code, this will take considerably less than "hundreds of billions of years", or even (probably) the time it would take to get coffee.
Interesting but flawed analogy. While a road exists only in one country at a time for a given location, a site on the internet "exists" in as many countries that have a connection to the 'net. To refine your analogy to conform to this situation, suddenly the road exists in all countries at once. How do you propose to legally (everywhere) drive on both sides of the road at the same time?
You keep using that word "her". I don't think that word means what you think it means.
So what is the difference between "saying" something to this software and typing it into MS Word? Would it be different if it was typed into Cortana? What if something rude was dictated into Word?
I feel like I'm feeding a troll here but I need to say... Should this guy turn out to be your boss (or future potential boss), loan officer etc., your sanctimonious judgement of other people will probably not win you any brownie points. What he does with his slutty virtual assistant when you're not around is probably none of your #&^*ing business.
It's not even news for nerds!
Are you kidding? This is about women getting naked and sending pics of themselves to a geek.
This is awesome!
A Russian wench?
Wouldn't a Russian mail order bride be much cheaper if you were already IN Russia?
Would you leak nudes to Edward Snowden? Yes / No
I approve of his actions. Why would I want to inflict upon him pics of a large, nude, hairy man?
I think an earlier post referenced this article where the US gov't ran a kiddie porn site it took over. You've got a point though, there's no good way to obtain such material. Are we still stretching definitions so drawings count?
Completely depends on your situation. If your job is a one-off and you don't expect to use it again soon, the cheap solution is probably the way to go. If, OTOH, you are doing this for a living / all day you probably don't care about the extra expense. Better tools will produce better results for a much longer period of time.
First thing I thought... How noisy / manpower efficient is it compared to firing up a jeep or a dirt bike?
The stated goal of communism is the elimination of money, social class and the state among other things.
The purported goal of Feminism is gender equality.
The original purpose of RICO law was the prosecution of mob bosses.
Sometimes reality should speak more loudly than the dictionary when it comes to ideology, especially when it comes to one person relating their individual experiences.
You can ban guns fitting other criteria. e.g. "using gun powder".
Except that tiny problem where you've just raped the shit out of any reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment. You may want to re-read it if you've forgotten what it says. If you don't like it, get it changed. We've done it before. Don't resort to sneaky back door tactics to circumvent the Constitution. BTW, you may also want to work on your definition of the word minority.
He can clearly say whatever he wants. Remember the old saw about "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose"? He's advocating the suppression of free speech and penalization for just being exposed to the wrong kind of speech. We're saying the action of the government to restrict our constitutional rights should be restricted, which is not at all the same thing as limiting his freedom to advocate the aforementioned idiocy.
Here, second hit on Google by searching on "police cannibal child". I'm probably on some list now, thanks a lot! :-) To the main point, the problem here is he hadn't actually done anything illegal. It's really important we only punish criminals. In order for someone to be a criminal they have to have committed a crime. Nail him on the DB search, having a taillight out or not trimming his trees properly (this is Cali after all) but find an actual crime to prosecute him for!
Regardless of how it started, it's been adopted by an awful lot of feminists and is still being used by them NOW. Google #killallmen. Look at who is using it and how old the hits are, I double dog dare you!
As for the facts and verifiable statements / actions of feminists you blithely dismiss, I salute you. Not just everyone can take that many solid examples of something and pretend that calling them "clap trap" means they have been refuted.
So feminists, if you're really for equality
Don't look at what they say, look at what they do.
If a university were to "...choose to provide a public forum...", it would seem to me that would make it by definition public.
This would be so regardless of what you think the university should or should not be doing.
What will happen when the footage and audio captured repeatedly shows that the police were in the right, that they acted reasonably, and that it was in fact the other party/parties who were in the wrong?
Exactly the same thing as if you were to review the footage of red light cameras filming cars stopping at an intersection correctly. Nothing. This is because it's how things are supposed to work. Ideally people should always stop in time for a red light and police should always act reasonably towards the people they are there to protect. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world (shocker, I know). People occasionally run red lights and cops sometimes abuse people.
For your own well being BTW, please disabuse yourself of the notion that all people must / should act rationally when presented with solid evidence contrary to their preconceived notions. You'll sleep better at night!
That was the crazed ranger with the rat familiar, wasn't it?
Let's look it up...
Some of Minsc's dialog includes Boo in it. For example:
"Go for the eyes Boo, GO FOR THE EYES!! RrraaaAAGHGHH!!!"
"Camaraderie, adventure and steel on steel. The stuff of legends! Right Boo?".
"Ahh, we are all heroes, you and me and Boo, hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!"
Completely off topic but yeah I remember that.
I also remember rolling a ranger who had a pet bird. I walked onto a map and it was insta-gibbed for some huge amount of damage. Boom! Permanent loss of 2 constitution points!
He'll show you what he wears under his kilt. Please do as he says.
Funny you should mention Gamergate. Scroll down to the list of signatories at the bottom of the linked article and see if you notice any patterns in the names of the supporting entities.
If someone wants to kill all the jews and you give them a public forum to speak, you're not being tolerant, you're being the opposite of tolerant. You're granting them a way to spread and amplify their message.
In our society, it's vitally important that ignorance gets exposed in public. This includes people saying ignorant things you don't agree with. Fortunately, you can avail yourself of the very same public forums to espouse your own views in opposition. As soon as we have people deciding who can talk in public and who can't, we've lost something important. We have employed censors. If we can bring the stupid to light, we get a situation like the Westboro Baptist Church. They still get to shout their message from the rooftops and they earn all the derision they receive.