It is true that you can do it online, but think about the average cell phone user for a moment. Now ask yourself if an average cell phone user know what an MEID is.
In fact, there are probably dozens of possible ways. The first several that come to mind are:
A key escrow service like the one you mention (though this has significant security implications, as you mentioned, and Apple stopped doing that for precisely those reasons)
Remove the requirement that the phone be unlocked with a passcode instead of a fingerprint after 24 hours (remember, the parent's finger will unlock the device in this case)
An option to email an emergency unlock key (barcode) during activation that can later be scanned with the camera
A per-device unlock key created upon activation, kept in two parts (or n parts) on opposite sides of the globe (and thus out of the reach of any single legal system)
A clearly described, hard-coded back door based on the serial number that users can choose to enable or disable
The most critical piece, in almost every case, is user choice.
By that same logic, passing a law saying that Christians aren't allowed to drive cars on Sunday would not be violating Christians' right to the free exercise of religion because driving is not a religious act, but merely one possible means to get to a location where they might choose to exercise that right. As soon as you decide to interpret the Bill of Rights that loosely, it loses all meaning and relevance.
Why would the network care if you change handsets? Can't you just buy a new phone from the local tech-shop and swap the SIM over?
There are two main systems for providing cellular voice communication in the U.S.: GSM and CDMA. GSM, as used in most of the world, uses a SIM card to determine which cell towers it should connect through, and then uses a database that maps the SIM card's identifier to a subscriber account. CDMA uses an MEID, which is an identifier that is baked into the device itself (similar to an IMEI). The towers/billing systems then use a database that maps the device's MEID to an account number. As a result, your account is quite literally tied to a specific physical device, not to a card that can be moved from device to device.
To add further complexity, many CDMA-based devices do actually have a SIM card, but it is used exclusively for talking to the LTE portion of cell towers (or when roaming overseas) and is not used for primary voice communications or for 3G data.
In the UK, all phones use GSM, which means that you can move service to a new device by moving the SIM card. The phone company actually has to do stuff on their side to switch service to a new CDMA device, which usually requires a phone call to their customer service team. So there's a decidedly nonzero cost to switching to new devices. With that said, they could probably set up an automated system if they wanted to drive the cost down into the single-digit cents range instead of the single-digit dollar range. There's just not enough competition in the pathetic U.S. cellular service market to force them to bother.
I'd also like to add, that legislation like this may not end up solving the problem it's designed to solve; it may just create a new Black Market for cellphones, or increase the size of it if one already exists. Purchases from shady sellers, and thefts of cellphones might well increase.
Not to mention that not everybody has a legal form of ID, which means that prepaid SIM cards, which are mostly bought by the poor, will become out of reach by many people who can't afford anything else. This has the potential to cause major problems for a small minority of people who are already marginalized. If our government is going to start mandating IDs for additional things that are critical for getting and keeping jobs, it is absolutely essential that those IDs be gratis and that government make it possible for people to obtain those IDs at times of day and on days of the week that do not require the working poor to take time off of work to get or renew them.
IMO, Lightroom is a pretty solid photo management option. Of course, if you buy it, you're trusting that Tom Hogarty will remain in charge of Lightroom development, and won't bow to pressure from on high to move it to a subscription model like the rest of their products.:-)
The Exclusion Zone isn't actually that dangerous now; they've been allowing some tourism and scientific research for a long time now. There's a big difference between "safe place to live and raise a family" versus "safe place to visit for a few hours/days/weeks".
As I understand it, they limit where you can go, because some spots still are reasonably hot. That's why they don't allow tourists in there without a guide, unless that has changed recently.
Read the second half of the establishment clause. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". How is banning Muslims from coming to the United States not preventing them from exercising their religious beliefs?
There's no definitive way to determine whether someone is Muslim short of asking them and hoping that they aren't lying.
total nonsense. There is a US consulate in the countries from which people immigrate with a staff of local people who investigate visa applicants. The "fee" for a work visa is ~$10k, so there is budget. You probably imagine hoardes of people streaming over the border on which no humans could do due dilligence, but it's like saying there's no definitive way for the IRS to determine what taxes you owe except by asking you and hoping.
You're assuming that a would-be Islamic jihadist who is trying to immigrate to the U.S. with the intent to harm its citizens would be a member of a moderate Islamic community that would cooperate with the staff of such a consulate in investigating that person. That's wishful thinking if I ever heard it.
You, like most people, are misunderstanding several parts of that line.
I don't think I am. I think you're only reading the first half of it. The complete line is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It seems pretty clear to me that banning a religion is prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I can't think of any plausible situation where it wouldn't be.
And not just originally. Remember when the first containment building was falling apart and dropping big chunks of concrete that were raising clouds of radioactive dust, and they had to build another one over the top of it? Yeah. They've already got a history of mismanaging the site. Now we're supposed to believe that they're going to do it right in the future? Nofuckingway.
In fairness to the Ukrainians and their Soviet colleagues, the first containment building was built around what amounted to a highly active, exposed nuclear pile. The work had to be done by robots that were controlled remotely, because once they put enough parts of the sarcophagus in place, it had the effect of reflecting the neutrons rather than absorbing them, effectively moving it closer to critical mass and thus making the pile much more radioactive. As a result, no human could safely do work on the sarcophagus in person for more than a few tens of seconds without dying of radiation poisoning. It's a bloody miracle they were able to build it at all.
Even if the masks are suitable, they might prevent you from inhaling radioactive particulates, but if you end up in the wrong place in the hot zone, you're still cooked.
I'd imagine that the "construction" for something like this will consist of prefab bunkers brought in on trucks and hauled off with a crane. That's really the only sane way to do it.
Funny how Harry Reid didn't have any problem with Yucca Mountain while it was in planning and construction, and then threw himself on the tracks when it came to actually using the place.
Building things creates jobs. Using them doesn't.:-)
They're just afraid that they won't be able to get their cars through Trump's wall that Mexico is going to pay for....
But in all seriousness, yes, being called out by a loud enough voice does make a difference, whether that voice is Trump, a major media outlet, a million Likes on Facebook, or whatever. In fact, public shaming is just about the only thing that has ever been even slightly effective at making corporate leaders behave like non-sociopaths.
If Trump would stick to that sort of vocal activism—being a mouthpiece for the oppressed and downtrodden—instead of threatening to actually run the country, he could do a heck of a lot more good, IMO.
Can anyone tell me why temporarily banning Muslim immigration from conflict areas is a bad idea? Seems like a common-sense approach to me.
For all the reasons others have already posted, plus:
It violates our constitutional prohibition on establishment of a religion.
There's no definitive way to determine whether someone is Muslim short of asking them and hoping that they aren't lying.
You could, at least ostensibly, ban all immigration from those parts of the world, without regard to religious beliefs, but you cannot reasonably ban just Muslims. Beyond being pretty much impossible, it just isn't the right thing to do.
What does installation have to do with code signing? Windows generally pops up a scare dialog if you try to run an unsigned app. And if the admin configures the machine properly, as you should for an airgapped machine, it won't let you run an unsigned app at all. So this sort of attack just shouldn't be possible on current versions of Windows or OS X if the admins configured the systems properly.
Or are you saying that you reboot the machine from a separate OS installed on the USB drive? In which case, if a user of an airgapped system is doing that, you have much bigger problems....:-)
Okay, I suppose there's the possibility of them signing the app with a legitimate signing cert (which would then get revoked as soon as somebody noticed its use in signing malware, but an air-gapped machine wouldn't be able to DL the CRL or query the OCSP server)... but you'd think people would notice that the app stopped working when used on a non-air-gapped machine, and would start asking questions....
Macbook ti g4, Macbook White c2d. IPhonen 3,4 and 4s. All dead within 12 months.
Weird. The white MacBooks were generally pretty solid unless you had a Seagate 5400 RPM hard drive, in which case, yeah, those lasted about nine months in my experience. That was a really bad year for Seagate. Now if you'd said a white iBook G3, I'd have nodded and perhaps made a snarky comment about a working one being worth a fortune because they're so rare....
Actually, what it shows is that Apple is better at managing their supply chain than those other companies. Most companies release a product on a particular date, and stores end up stuck with an overstock of the previous year's models, which they then clear out at bargain-basement prices. Apple has their own stores, and a third of phone sales (and, I think, an even higher percentage of computer sales) happen in-house. That means that they can start reducing their supply ahead of time and try to end up with few or no products on the shelf when the next model appears.
Couple that with Apple's generous trade-in program, where if you buy a computer within a certain period of time before a new model ships, you can either trade it in for the new model or get a partial refund, and you end up with a situation where nobody discounts the previous generation of products.
The resale value stays reasonably high because they continue to be highly usable products for many years, and most people assume that people are trading up to get a better model, rather than because there's something wrong with them (unlike, for example, cars, where a decent number of people trade up because they expect the engine to fall out on the ground...).
That's in part because most criminals foolishly believe that they won't ever get caught, and in part because a large percentage of those crimes are committed by people in situations where they don't have enough time to act rationally, e.g. crimes of passion, having a gun on them when they rob a store and getting surprised by an off-duty cop, etc. If somebody said to them, "Look, if you bring that gun with you, there's a chance you'll have to use it, and you could get the death penalty," some percentage of them would probably not bring the gun.
Um... that is precisely what people mean when they say that the difference disappears when correcting for other factors. The difference still exists when you look at life-long income. Nobody has disproven that.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. On Sprint, moving the SIM does not seem to work, because I tried that first when I moved to my iPhone 6S from my iPhone 5.
It is true that you can do it online, but think about the average cell phone user for a moment. Now ask yourself if an average cell phone user know what an MEID is.
In fact, there are probably dozens of possible ways. The first several that come to mind are:
The most critical piece, in almost every case, is user choice.
By that same logic, passing a law saying that Christians aren't allowed to drive cars on Sunday would not be violating Christians' right to the free exercise of religion because driving is not a religious act, but merely one possible means to get to a location where they might choose to exercise that right. As soon as you decide to interpret the Bill of Rights that loosely, it loses all meaning and relevance.
There are two main systems for providing cellular voice communication in the U.S.: GSM and CDMA. GSM, as used in most of the world, uses a SIM card to determine which cell towers it should connect through, and then uses a database that maps the SIM card's identifier to a subscriber account. CDMA uses an MEID, which is an identifier that is baked into the device itself (similar to an IMEI). The towers/billing systems then use a database that maps the device's MEID to an account number. As a result, your account is quite literally tied to a specific physical device, not to a card that can be moved from device to device.
To add further complexity, many CDMA-based devices do actually have a SIM card, but it is used exclusively for talking to the LTE portion of cell towers (or when roaming overseas) and is not used for primary voice communications or for 3G data.
Verizon uses CDMA. There is no SIM card (except for the one used to provide LTE data, where applicable).
In the UK, all phones use GSM, which means that you can move service to a new device by moving the SIM card. The phone company actually has to do stuff on their side to switch service to a new CDMA device, which usually requires a phone call to their customer service team. So there's a decidedly nonzero cost to switching to new devices. With that said, they could probably set up an automated system if they wanted to drive the cost down into the single-digit cents range instead of the single-digit dollar range. There's just not enough competition in the pathetic U.S. cellular service market to force them to bother.
Not to mention that not everybody has a legal form of ID, which means that prepaid SIM cards, which are mostly bought by the poor, will become out of reach by many people who can't afford anything else. This has the potential to cause major problems for a small minority of people who are already marginalized. If our government is going to start mandating IDs for additional things that are critical for getting and keeping jobs, it is absolutely essential that those IDs be gratis and that government make it possible for people to obtain those IDs at times of day and on days of the week that do not require the working poor to take time off of work to get or renew them.
IMO, Lightroom is a pretty solid photo management option. Of course, if you buy it, you're trusting that Tom Hogarty will remain in charge of Lightroom development, and won't bow to pressure from on high to move it to a subscription model like the rest of their products. :-)
As I understand it, they limit where you can go, because some spots still are reasonably hot. That's why they don't allow tourists in there without a guide, unless that has changed recently.
Read the second half of the establishment clause. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". How is banning Muslims from coming to the United States not preventing them from exercising their religious beliefs?
You're assuming that a would-be Islamic jihadist who is trying to immigrate to the U.S. with the intent to harm its citizens would be a member of a moderate Islamic community that would cooperate with the staff of such a consulate in investigating that person. That's wishful thinking if I ever heard it.
I don't think I am. I think you're only reading the first half of it. The complete line is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It seems pretty clear to me that banning a religion is prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I can't think of any plausible situation where it wouldn't be.
Or an ambulance driver. At least with deliveries, when they screw up, the only thing cold is your pizza.
In fairness to the Ukrainians and their Soviet colleagues, the first containment building was built around what amounted to a highly active, exposed nuclear pile. The work had to be done by robots that were controlled remotely, because once they put enough parts of the sarcophagus in place, it had the effect of reflecting the neutrons rather than absorbing them, effectively moving it closer to critical mass and thus making the pile much more radioactive. As a result, no human could safely do work on the sarcophagus in person for more than a few tens of seconds without dying of radiation poisoning. It's a bloody miracle they were able to build it at all.
Even if the masks are suitable, they might prevent you from inhaling radioactive particulates, but if you end up in the wrong place in the hot zone, you're still cooked.
I'd imagine that the "construction" for something like this will consist of prefab bunkers brought in on trucks and hauled off with a crane. That's really the only sane way to do it.
Building things creates jobs. Using them doesn't. :-)
They're just afraid that they won't be able to get their cars through Trump's wall that Mexico is going to pay for....
But in all seriousness, yes, being called out by a loud enough voice does make a difference, whether that voice is Trump, a major media outlet, a million Likes on Facebook, or whatever. In fact, public shaming is just about the only thing that has ever been even slightly effective at making corporate leaders behave like non-sociopaths.
If Trump would stick to that sort of vocal activism—being a mouthpiece for the oppressed and downtrodden—instead of threatening to actually run the country, he could do a heck of a lot more good, IMO.
For all the reasons others have already posted, plus:
You could, at least ostensibly, ban all immigration from those parts of the world, without regard to religious beliefs, but you cannot reasonably ban just Muslims. Beyond being pretty much impossible, it just isn't the right thing to do.
What does installation have to do with code signing? Windows generally pops up a scare dialog if you try to run an unsigned app. And if the admin configures the machine properly, as you should for an airgapped machine, it won't let you run an unsigned app at all. So this sort of attack just shouldn't be possible on current versions of Windows or OS X if the admins configured the systems properly.
Or are you saying that you reboot the machine from a separate OS installed on the USB drive? In which case, if a user of an airgapped system is doing that, you have much bigger problems.... :-)
Okay, I suppose there's the possibility of them signing the app with a legitimate signing cert (which would then get revoked as soon as somebody noticed its use in signing malware, but an air-gapped machine wouldn't be able to DL the CRL or query the OCSP server)... but you'd think people would notice that the app stopped working when used on a non-air-gapped machine, and would start asking questions....
Weird. The white MacBooks were generally pretty solid unless you had a Seagate 5400 RPM hard drive, in which case, yeah, those lasted about nine months in my experience. That was a really bad year for Seagate. Now if you'd said a white iBook G3, I'd have nodded and perhaps made a snarky comment about a working one being worth a fortune because they're so rare....
Actually, what it shows is that Apple is better at managing their supply chain than those other companies. Most companies release a product on a particular date, and stores end up stuck with an overstock of the previous year's models, which they then clear out at bargain-basement prices. Apple has their own stores, and a third of phone sales (and, I think, an even higher percentage of computer sales) happen in-house. That means that they can start reducing their supply ahead of time and try to end up with few or no products on the shelf when the next model appears.
Couple that with Apple's generous trade-in program, where if you buy a computer within a certain period of time before a new model ships, you can either trade it in for the new model or get a partial refund, and you end up with a situation where nobody discounts the previous generation of products.
The resale value stays reasonably high because they continue to be highly usable products for many years, and most people assume that people are trading up to get a better model, rather than because there's something wrong with them (unlike, for example, cars, where a decent number of people trade up because they expect the engine to fall out on the ground...).
Yeah, that's what I meant by the very core of its design. It is like editing video on a bottom-end laptop with all the ports glued shut.
That's in part because most criminals foolishly believe that they won't ever get caught, and in part because a large percentage of those crimes are committed by people in situations where they don't have enough time to act rationally, e.g. crimes of passion, having a gun on them when they rob a store and getting surprised by an off-duty cop, etc. If somebody said to them, "Look, if you bring that gun with you, there's a chance you'll have to use it, and you could get the death penalty," some percentage of them would probably not bring the gun.
Um... that is precisely what people mean when they say that the difference disappears when correcting for other factors. The difference still exists when you look at life-long income. Nobody has disproven that.