Do you REALLY think having Nokia put out an Android, which has become a sharktank of cutthroat razor thins margins and which already had 3 major phone builders, Samsung,HTC, and LG
Guess what? The same manufacturers ALSO were selling WP (7 at the time) phones. Do you go inside the tiger cage in the zoo to escape the tiger on your way to work?
This is the cost people who cannot build their own OS and have it accepted by the general public, have to pay. It isn't and doesn't have to be special for Nokia.
But, like Samsung tried with Bada, at least Nokia could have tried to choose one of its own next-generation OSes, sell it along with Android, and when it got some sales momentum with its own OS, ditched Android. They had cash reserves to last a few quarters with some losses where stock markets wouldn't have panicked if they saw Nokia is trying something. Samsung's Bada didn't pick up because Samsung has never been good at building OSes and ecosystems, and it didn't need Bada that badly because it is great at the margins game. Nokia couldn't do the same with WP - the devil wanted Nokia's soul.
If it's own OS never picked up, of course Nokia would have been relegated to competing on razor thin margins. Nothing special about it, just part of the rules of the game in the handset industry.
If you still refust to support your argument of teaching being easy despite your failures being demonstrated repeatedly, I am glad the debate has ended.
Privileges to people born to baby boomers (or in general in a society with lots of kids per couple). They had a RAIK (redundant array of independent kids) so they didn't worry if one or two kids killed themselves.
Fear? Interesting way to put it, but I don't quite agree. See, if there was no merit in the a "product", people would not have been using it, and using one of its competitors. Given that rational people are using a particular product, obviously they like something in it. Now if you change the existing product, and all the same people still keep using it without complain, that means their original decision to use the product was not based on a rational analysis of the features but was based on the name of the product.
That people complain on change proves that all the people were not using the product merely because of the name of the product.
We could tomorrow imprison all left handed people and when they complain we can tell them they just fear change.
Again no evidence of teaching ( especially children) being "easy". Learning more from non-professionals absolutely doesn't mean teaching is easy.
For example, I am learning from you that there are people hell bent on drawing false conclusions if they match their preconceived notions. I am not learning what you're attempting to" teach ". Can't afford that in a school, can we? Children there don't even realize learning what things is good for them, then they haven't yet learnt how to learn, how to keep their attention focussed on a particular subject.
Bear in mind that good answers can pull in reputational increases over a number of years; one of my answers from 3 years ago pulled in a vote yesterday. It's a long-haul game.)
the ability to derive formulas is almost completely worthless outside of the world of applied mathematics
What? It is worthless inside the world of applied mathematics. It is applied, for a reason. Just memorize or look up formulas and apply, and you are practicing applied mathematics.
That aside, it is important to understand what is an theorem and what is an axiom, and why. That doesn't work without proof.
Heck, you were attempting to teach, right there in your post, and I responded right back with some teaching of my own.
And neither of you succeeded. If trying and not succeeding makes an art easy, everyone who can count up to 21 (even icorrectly) without taking off their socks is a mathematician.
Not complicated. Not specialized
To try. Highly complicated, highly specialized to succeed.
The proof is the math. The practical applications are applications of math. So just accept that you want applications being taught and not math itself.
Which is ok, but pretending that math application is math won't help anyone.
But that is the whole point, isn't it? To make blanket data acquisition difficult. One of the reasons why judicial approval is required (aka warrant) so that the executive cannot search the whole population in a blanket "search" of their "secrets".
So if decryption difficulty replaces judicial oversight, it sort of serves half the purpose of a warrant.
PS : Yes, the other reason for warrants is so that executive doesn't target someone because they are the opposing political party. That is not mitigated by this, so I accept your point in this limited way.
While I don't disagree with the central theme of your post, but
since that one didn't return valid data.
This is not the information they necessarily have. That is to say, they cannot necessarily make sure whether that decrypted data was "valid" or not.
The real reason why duress password is unlikely to work is - they read and possibly reverse-engineer the software into you are putting passwords. And can figure out it has an option of 2 (or more) passwords, and keep hitting you until you reveal all.
There is space for multiple theories in this world. What if another theory is that suddenly getting a lot of money as compared to what the person has seen so far, is also bad for money management skills?
To restore the balance, duh! See, using PC, the less talented and impecunious kids will develop their limited talent to greater degree, possibly to become less impecunious.
Using iPads, the talented and rich kids will learn to follow the one overarching lord - Apple, to less develop their considerable talents and eventually get poorer.
Good plan to increase revenue for your corporate overlords - as they don't allow anyone to even see the guidelines without first ponying up for the paid account.
Constitutions don't think so, except when it comes to religion. How come institutions of states are not so trusting when it comes to finance/taxes, criminal law, utility bill payment etc.?
Possibility of abuse comes up as an objection to so many laws, and so much of a law's verbiage goes to prevent abuse: one would think everyone is a liar! Except when it comes to religion, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you REALLY think having Nokia put out an Android, which has become a sharktank of cutthroat razor thins margins and which already had 3 major phone builders, Samsung,HTC, and LG
Guess what? The same manufacturers ALSO were selling WP (7 at the time) phones. Do you go inside the tiger cage in the zoo to escape the tiger on your way to work?
This is the cost people who cannot build their own OS and have it accepted by the general public, have to pay. It isn't and doesn't have to be special for Nokia.
But, like Samsung tried with Bada, at least Nokia could have tried to choose one of its own next-generation OSes, sell it along with Android, and when it got some sales momentum with its own OS, ditched Android. They had cash reserves to last a few quarters with some losses where stock markets wouldn't have panicked if they saw Nokia is trying something. Samsung's Bada didn't pick up because Samsung has never been good at building OSes and ecosystems, and it didn't need Bada that badly because it is great at the margins game. Nokia couldn't do the same with WP - the devil wanted Nokia's soul.
If it's own OS never picked up, of course Nokia would have been relegated to competing on razor thin margins. Nothing special about it, just part of the rules of the game in the handset industry.
If you still refust to support your argument of teaching being easy despite your failures being demonstrated repeatedly, I am glad the debate has ended.
You haven't thought about it much. Unknown languages are deciphered all the time. Those with weird grammar and scripts.
The statement of Sherlock Holmes - "What one man can invent, another can discover" - applies to invented language.
So we need cryptography, where the statement doesn't apply.
There might now be a lot of money, but you would be loved
Gitmo love.
I just proved that you have repeatedly failed in teaching in this very thread. I am not talking about my own abilities at all.
Privileges to people born to baby boomers (or in general in a society with lots of kids per couple). They had a RAIK (redundant array of independent kids) so they didn't worry if one or two kids killed themselves.
Now explain to me how it is not a fear of change?
Fear? Interesting way to put it, but I don't quite agree. See, if there was no merit in the a "product", people would not have been using it, and using one of its competitors. Given that rational people are using a particular product, obviously they like something in it. Now if you change the existing product, and all the same people still keep using it without complain, that means their original decision to use the product was not based on a rational analysis of the features but was based on the name of the product.
That people complain on change proves that all the people were not using the product merely because of the name of the product.
We could tomorrow imprison all left handed people and when they complain we can tell them they just fear change.
Have they deducted your salary for failing to protect your corporate overlords' "reputation" online?
And the higher your Reputation, the more things you can do
Examples? Not of how low reputation harms you, but of how high reputation helps.
indeed, if your reputation is too low, you cannot even leave a comment on someone else's question or answer
And leaving comment helps me how?
I understand dick waving, but is there a point to StackOverflow "Reputation" too?
Again no evidence of teaching ( especially children) being "easy". Learning more from non-professionals absolutely doesn't mean teaching is easy.
For example, I am learning from you that there are people hell bent on drawing false conclusions if they match their preconceived notions. I am not learning what you're attempting to" teach ". Can't afford that in a school, can we? Children there don't even realize learning what things is good for them, then they haven't yet learnt how to learn, how to keep their attention focussed on a particular subject.
Bear in mind that good answers can pull in reputational increases over a number of years; one of my answers from 3 years ago pulled in a vote yesterday. It's a long-haul game.)
Do they pay you for votes?
The students' names often had Tildes in them or were just "Geo(&YNT".
Encrypted data in base 73 for student privacy. Duh!
the ability to derive formulas is almost completely worthless outside of the world of applied mathematics
What? It is worthless inside the world of applied mathematics. It is applied, for a reason. Just memorize or look up formulas and apply, and you are practicing applied mathematics.
That aside, it is important to understand what is an theorem and what is an axiom, and why. That doesn't work without proof.
Heck, you were attempting to teach, right there in your post, and I responded right back with some teaching of my own.
And neither of you succeeded. If trying and not succeeding makes an art easy, everyone who can count up to 21 (even icorrectly) without taking off their socks is a mathematician.
Not complicated. Not specialized
To try. Highly complicated, highly specialized to succeed.
The proof is the math. The practical applications are applications of math. So just accept that you want applications being taught and not math itself.
Which is ok, but pretending that math application is math won't help anyone.
They can go back to making tyres and woodpulp. They were rather good at it.
So, your sorry ass is outed as a shill. What is the compensation they are paying for selling your soul?
But that is the whole point, isn't it? To make blanket data acquisition difficult. One of the reasons why judicial approval is required (aka warrant) so that the executive cannot search the whole population in a blanket "search" of their "secrets".
So if decryption difficulty replaces judicial oversight, it sort of serves half the purpose of a warrant.
PS : Yes, the other reason for warrants is so that executive doesn't target someone because they are the opposing political party. That is not mitigated by this, so I accept your point in this limited way.
While I don't disagree with the central theme of your post, but
since that one didn't return valid data.
This is not the information they necessarily have. That is to say, they cannot necessarily make sure whether that decrypted data was "valid" or not.
The real reason why duress password is unlikely to work is - they read and possibly reverse-engineer the software into you are putting passwords. And can figure out it has an option of 2 (or more) passwords, and keep hitting you until you reveal all.
The guidelines page (from https://developer.apple.com/appstore/guidelines.html) gives error : "The Apple ID you signed in with does not have permission to view this page." with a free account.
Try again.
There is space for multiple theories in this world. What if another theory is that suddenly getting a lot of money as compared to what the person has seen so far, is also bad for money management skills?
To restore the balance, duh! See, using PC, the less talented and impecunious kids will develop their limited talent to greater degree, possibly to become less impecunious.
Using iPads, the talented and rich kids will learn to follow the one overarching lord - Apple, to less develop their considerable talents and eventually get poorer.
Good plan to increase revenue for your corporate overlords - as they don't allow anyone to even see the guidelines without first ponying up for the paid account.
Constitutions don't think so, except when it comes to religion. How come institutions of states are not so trusting when it comes to finance /taxes, criminal law, utility bill payment etc.?
Possibility of abuse comes up as an objection to so many laws, and so much of a law's verbiage goes to prevent abuse: one would think everyone is a liar! Except when it comes to religion, of course.
Maybe we need to just grow up and realize we are never going to live in a perfect world where nothing bad happens
Yes, there should be a law for this.