With that said, I'm glad I went around the one at the Arc de Triomphe at 2 in the morning instead of during rush hour. When roundabouts even start to approach eight lanes, they get terrifying pretty quickly. They're awesome for two-lane roads, though, and serviceable for four, depending largely on traffic patterns.
Humans suck at driving. The problem is that 99.999% of the time, you can be borderline incompetent at driving and you'll still get there safely, because things only go wrong on rare occasions. Most of the time, at city street speeds, you could glance at the road for two seconds out of every ten, and you wouldn't crash, because there just isn't much happening. There are situations, however, in which humans are physically incapable of being good drivers. For example:
Fatigue/falling asleep at the wheel (computers don't get tired)
Distractions (both driver-initiated and external, e.g. rubbernecking at a wreck site; computers don't get distracted)
Sudden, unexpected traffic stops in front of you (human reaction time is a large fraction of a second, versus microseconds)
Backing out of a parking place into traffic (limited human vision versus ability to simultaneously monitor cameras pointed in every direction)
Intoxication
Cardiac arrest/seizure/narcolepsy/other medical issues or events
And in some cases, each of those situations can result in a crash with a human driver, depending mostly on luck. Computers, by contrast, won't exhibit any of those physical failings, and thus won't crash in any of those situations, typically.
So the key question is whether they will crash more often in other situations where a human wouldn't (e.g. when nothing is going wrong). As long as that answer is no, then they will likely be safer than human drivers.
Regardless, automation can kinda sorta mostly run trains and other vehicles on fixed guideways in a pristine environment most of the time without failing. That's about the state of things and it's not changing all that fast despite the constant droning from the "futurists" who have been wrong about absolutely everything ever.
That's just not true at all. Google's self-driving cars have clocked over a million miles on the roads, with basically no at-fault crashes. That's a far cry from barely being able to work in a pristine environment on a fixed guideway. It has some ability to recognize pedestrian behavior, avoid obstacles in the road, handle traffic lights (as long as it knows to look for them at a particular intersection), etc. It does require a lot of pre-mapping of the terrain so that it knows where to watch for traffic lights, roughly where lanes are, etc., but still, they've gone way beyond a subway system on a fixed track as you imply.
Assuming that they are safer than the average driver, it is almost a certainty. Most car insurance companies are mutual companies, which means they aren't trying to make a profit. If those vehicles are actually safer, those insurance companies will quickly add discounts to encourage further adoption so that everyone's rates will eventually go down. And any non-mutual insurance companies will be forced to follow suit if they want to remain competitive.
This is the best way to investigate such problems. I am sure the real experts are doing already doing it. There is nothing mysterious or sensational like hacking going on here. Just plain overvoltage problem causing weak old power-electronics to fail.
That would be my first guess as well. If it is happening in one spot consistently, though, I'd expect something more subtle, like AC phase problems. For example, if the power company changed the routing of the lines without telling anybody, you could perhaps get a big voltage spike when the train switches from one power rail to the next, assuming you ended up with a situation where AC from one rail was getting combined with AC from another rail inside the vehicle.
It likely describes every Apple employee who was hired prior to about 2008 or so. The stock has been nearly flat since early 2012, give or take some dips and spikes. It is up a paltry 20%, compared with, for example, MA, which has more than doubled in that same time period. But the sign-on bonuses (RSUs, options) for people who started just a year earlier are worth quite a bit, as are their employee stock purchase plan contributions. The farther back they were hired prior to 2012, the less they have to care about their financial well-being.
Suppose someone put away 6% of their earnings in AAPL, at 85% of the six-month endpoint price. In the first half of 2009, that person put $10,000 in AAPL at a split-adjusted price of about $10.20. So 980 split-adjusted shares, which would be worth about $103k now. Repeat that pattern every six months....
But.. there is exactly one company called Apple, and people spend years and years trying to get a job at Apple.
There's some prestige associated with working there, I suppose, but that prestige remains even if you leave. It is a great company to have on your résumé, because it makes it a lot easier to get other jobs. In many ways, the most important reason to work for Apple is to have worked for Apple, rather than because working there is so amazing that you can't imagine working anywhere else. I mean sure, for the first few years, most Apple employees do feel that way, but eventually that wears off, and after that, it's just a job—a job doing cool things, mind you, but still no different than any other job doing similar sorts of work.
Neither Feinstein nor Boxer represents the Silicon Valley tech folks at all. Boxer is Hollywood's senator, and Feinstein is the senator for the valley's military industrial complex. All the Republicans would have to do is run moderates who don't have a history of bankrupting major tech companies and who aren't running on an anti-gay platform, and both of our senators would be gone.
This reaction by Feinstein isn't even surprising. It is quite typical. This Feinstein quote says everything:
“It’s obviously controversial, so I can’t tell you. It’s just that I have a basic fundamental belief this is very important and that no American company should be above the law.”
How does that even make sense? If what they're doing is legal, then they aren't being above the law, and if it isn't, then you don't need this law. ???
In grade school I was tested on my times tables etc. That is a useful skill to have!
You're still missing the point. I'm not saying that memorizing the times tables isn't important. I'm saying that teaching them as something to be memorized is the worst possible way to teach them, and that testing the times tables by testing for rote memorization is unnecessary and inefficient. If I were teaching multiplication, I'd let students use index cards for their times tables. I would then immediately jump into multi-digit multiplication.
The thing is, if you understand how to do multiplication, and if you know your times tables, you won't have trouble computing 75 x 13 quickly. If you don't, you will. And even if you're using an index card, if you're actually using all those single-digit products regularly, you'll end up memorizing them eventually. This is doubly true if you use speed drills where you get prizes or whatever for answering the problems more quickly. Students will end up practicing on their own in an effort to do better on the speed drills, and that effort will result in them remembering the times tables more and more, and relying on the cards less and less, until those memory aids no longer matter.
Also, students should learn to count. Even if you don't remember that 9 x 9 = 81, you can count it out. Adding 9 is like adding 10 and subtracting 1. So 9 + 9 = 19 - 1 = 18. That's 2 x 9. Add another 9 is 28 - 1 = 27, which is 3 x 9. Once you fully grasp what multiplication really means, you can solve problems even if you don't have a full memory of the multiplication tables. And in my mind, that sort of coping skill is the more valuable approach, because it is useful even in extreme cases. Quick, without a calculator, and without multiplying it out the long way, what's 99 x 39? It's 99 less than 99 x 40, which is 40 less than 100 times 40. Five seconds of subtraction later, you get 3861.
When I ran a nuclear plant you better believe it was important that I was rigorously tested on both memorization and understanding.
I'll grant you that for emergency procedures, memorization can be important because of time constraints. Most people's jobs don't involve making split-second decisions that can destroy three counties if they make the wrong call, though, so this is the exception that proves the rule.
You can. Arrange a 32 hour work week. Take a sabbatical. Become a contractor and set your own schedule. These are all things that can be done.
In theory. In practice, most employers want full-time employees who are there five days a week. Most companies don't offer sabbaticals. If those were realistic options, there wouldn't be so many people complaining.
As for contracting, that's nice in theory, and it might pay the bills if you can manage to keep a continuous stream of contracts, but that often requires a huge amount of time that you aren't getting paid for. And if you don't keep the stream full, you'll end up struggling to pay the bills. Also, when you do have contracts, there's a deadline associated with them, so you can't always plan vacations as far ahead as you would when working for a normal employer.
Laptops are the ultimate weapon. You can easily cause a concussion by swinging one like a baseball bad. Or strap a laptop or iPad to your chest and back for instant body armor. And a floppy disk makes a decent throwing star, though not nearly as lethal. You can easily weaponize an automobile by driving it through a shopping mall. And so on. Almost anything can be a weapon in the hands of somebody who wants to use it as one.
That's why you require the corporation, by law, to lease bare fibers to anyone who is willing to pay, without prejudice, and without any restrictions or limitations.
No, you're all misunderstanding me completely. The municipal broadband should not be an ISP. It should be a wire provider. There should be no competition from the private sector, because having multiple sets of wires is inherently less efficient than one, and a nonprofit entity owning the wires, assuming it is managed even semi-competently, guarantees that the cost per customer will be as cheap as it can be without sacrificing basic principles like universal service.
In other words, the competition should be between ISPs who lease lines from the city. There need not be a municipal ISP to keep costs down, and realistically, it is probably better to not have one, because that avoids favoritism in line repairs.
Erm, the municipalities are the ones who gave the cable and phone companies monopolies in the first place. Why are you trying to solve a government-created problem with more government control? Europe and Asia have better Internet than the U.S. not because of more government control, but because they were smart enough to regulate their Internet in a way which creates more competition.
Europe and Asia mostly have government-owned wires. It is impossible to have functioning competition in wire providers. The barrier to entry is too large, and incumbent providers have too much ability to undercut any newcomer into bankruptcy. The result is that most competing cable/phone/Internet providers fail within the first five years, with the only real exception being providers that don't have to provide their own lines.
We tried a similar thing with DSL for a while - forcing local phone companies to lease their lines to other DSL providers for the same price as their own DSL service. It worked on the pricing side. What sank it was (at least in my area) Verizon gave priority to fixing physical line problems when the line used their DSL service. Getting them to fix a line problem when using a 3rd party DSL service was like pulling teeth - they'd keep blaming the DSL company for the problem. In the face of that kind of malfeasance, the only solution is to entirely prohibit the company who owns the pipe from selling what's sent through the pipes.
Which is exactly what I proposed. And statistically speaking, it works best when that line provider is non-profit. In practice, the only way to guarantee that it stays that way is for the wire provider to be a municipal nonprofit owned by the local government.
No, the best method is an exam with all essay questions or, for science/math, all questions that require you to apply your knowledge. If a watch helps you cheat in any meaningful way, that means the exam is based on pure rote memorization of facts, which pretty much means you've missed the entire point of teaching the material in the first place.
No, the legislation and red tape should actually get more extensive. The last thing we need is for yet another random company to lay its own fiber in these various places, because even if it has different problems than the existing behemoths, it will still have significant problems, and they will get worse over time.
What is needed is for the cities themselves to lay the fiber, and to own the fiber, and to lease it in a non-preferential way to any ISP that wants to provide service. That way, as one company starts to abuse its power, another can trivially set up shop, steal customers away en masse, and competitively force the existing players to behave themselves.
In other words, what we need is a nationwide ban on new installation of privately owned fiber except for long-haul fiber runs (defined as fiber runs that cross city boundaries and are leased-line services, rather than providing actual Internet service). Require that all new installations be community-owned, and leased out to ISPs in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
Ugh, so flagrant violation of NN it's sickening. And defending it by saying 'omigosh, its OUR OWN intranet!' It's a good defense, and precisely why content providers need to be separated from internet providers, or be forced to play by NN rules. This is exactly what NN exists to prevent. Almost feels like Comcast looked at pro-NN discussion and decided to pick the most blatant violation they could find and do it.
Comcast has always pulled this shady crap. They make sure first-party services are unaffected by whatever crazy bandwidth shaping ruins third-party services in what is almost certainly a very deliberate attempt to push people towards their own first-party services. This is just business as usual for Comcast....
Let's just hope the consequences are enough to discourage the behavior, rather than be an 'acceptable price of doing it.'
IMO, there's only one acceptable set of consequences, and that is forcing Comcast to spin off their physical infrastructure into a separate company so that multiple ISPs and cable companies can freely lease those lines and compete against Comcast.
No, it should include sites wholly owned by the ISP, too. There's no reason Comcast's video-on-demand service should get preferential treatment over Netflix. There's no reason Comcast's own VoIP service should get preferential treatment over Skype. The main point of Net Neutrality was precisely to prevent first-party services by monopoly ISPs from engaging in unfair competition against third-party services. ISPs favoring one third-party service in exchange for monetary compensation has always been of secondary concern.
This is yet another reason why all fiber pulls should be done by the government and owned by the community. The government will provide the physical connectivity to the low-cost housing units and high-end housing units alike, and then require all companies to offer service to anyone who is willing to pay, without prejudice. The entire reason the problem exists in the first place is because the governments are allowing for-profit businesses to deploy physical infrastructure in areas that are profitable, rather than rolling out universal municipal fiber on their own. Profit motives have no place in infrastructure.
Realistically, there's only one way to get competition in broadband, and that's with municipal fiber, owned by the community, maintained through fees charged to the ISPs that lease it to service homes and businesses. The profit motive gets removed from the picture when it comes to the actual line costs and maintenance, which means maintenance is likely to actually get done instead of getting deferred until things break, and the barrier to entry drops massively because companies don't have to maintain their own lines, which means more competitors providing service.
Assuming I understand the hardware correctly, you're conflating two unrelated keys:
The disk encryption key is generated whenever the OS is installed or the flash is "wiped", as you say. On 5c and earlier, this is stored on the flash part; on 5s and later it is stored in a separate coprocessor (secure enclave).
The device hardware key (device ID) consists of 256 physical fuses inside the CPU. These fuses are burned out randomly during the manufacturing process, and cannot be read externally except by part of the CPU while using it to encrypt other data.
When the disk is decrypted, your passcode is entangled with that permanent hardware key, and used to decrypt the disk encryption key. This means that having the data from the flash part is insufficient because you don't have that 256-bit hardware key. However, the 256-bit hardware key cannot change, because it consists of physical fuses. Therefore, if you externally copy the data from the flash parts and restore it, or otherwise mimic writes temporarily, then you're effectively preventing the device from being able to wipe the disk encryption key after n unsuccessful attempts, so the next time it boots after you restore the flash data, you'll have another n tries to guess the password.
That attack probably won't work with the 5s, of course, because of the coprocessor/secure enclave, but that doesn't apply when you're talking about the 5c.
Yes, pedantically, an algorithm doesn't have to be used with a computer, but in practice, when we talk about algorithms in the context of computer science, we're talking about those algorithms in the context of a computer program, rather than, for example, instructions for assembling IKEA furniture....
Two-Thirds of All Federal Spending Went to Entitlement Programs in 2014 [heritage.org]
Of course, Social Security and Medicare are not part of the federal budget They're an entirely separate organization funded from an entirely separate income source. We pay into those programs in exchange for a promise of income or health coverage later, which means these programs cost the government nothing, because every penny in those trust funds is owed back to the people who paid into it, and thus cannot legitimately be used for anything else other than the operation of those programs.
If it is broader than software, then it's really a computer engineering or electrical engineering curriculum. The line might get a little fuzzy around the edges, but the line is still there.
For example, right now, I'm teaching a CS class that deals with C programming on Arduino, which combines a basic electronics course with a basic CS course. We call it a CS course because you have to categorize it as either CS or EE for curriculum purposes, but in reality, it is a combination of a CS course and an EE course. It isn't strictly CS.
Slashdot Mirror
Must have been an American driver. :-)
With that said, I'm glad I went around the one at the Arc de Triomphe at 2 in the morning instead of during rush hour. When roundabouts even start to approach eight lanes, they get terrifying pretty quickly. They're awesome for two-lane roads, though, and serviceable for four, depending largely on traffic patterns.
Humans suck at driving. The problem is that 99.999% of the time, you can be borderline incompetent at driving and you'll still get there safely, because things only go wrong on rare occasions. Most of the time, at city street speeds, you could glance at the road for two seconds out of every ten, and you wouldn't crash, because there just isn't much happening. There are situations, however, in which humans are physically incapable of being good drivers. For example:
And in some cases, each of those situations can result in a crash with a human driver, depending mostly on luck. Computers, by contrast, won't exhibit any of those physical failings, and thus won't crash in any of those situations, typically.
So the key question is whether they will crash more often in other situations where a human wouldn't (e.g. when nothing is going wrong). As long as that answer is no, then they will likely be safer than human drivers.
That's just not true at all. Google's self-driving cars have clocked over a million miles on the roads, with basically no at-fault crashes. That's a far cry from barely being able to work in a pristine environment on a fixed guideway. It has some ability to recognize pedestrian behavior, avoid obstacles in the road, handle traffic lights (as long as it knows to look for them at a particular intersection), etc. It does require a lot of pre-mapping of the terrain so that it knows where to watch for traffic lights, roughly where lanes are, etc., but still, they've gone way beyond a subway system on a fixed track as you imply.
Assuming that they are safer than the average driver, it is almost a certainty. Most car insurance companies are mutual companies, which means they aren't trying to make a profit. If those vehicles are actually safer, those insurance companies will quickly add discounts to encourage further adoption so that everyone's rates will eventually go down. And any non-mutual insurance companies will be forced to follow suit if they want to remain competitive.
That would be my first guess as well. If it is happening in one spot consistently, though, I'd expect something more subtle, like AC phase problems. For example, if the power company changed the routing of the lines without telling anybody, you could perhaps get a big voltage spike when the train switches from one power rail to the next, assuming you ended up with a situation where AC from one rail was getting combined with AC from another rail inside the vehicle.
It likely describes every Apple employee who was hired prior to about 2008 or so. The stock has been nearly flat since early 2012, give or take some dips and spikes. It is up a paltry 20%, compared with, for example, MA, which has more than doubled in that same time period. But the sign-on bonuses (RSUs, options) for people who started just a year earlier are worth quite a bit, as are their employee stock purchase plan contributions. The farther back they were hired prior to 2012, the less they have to care about their financial well-being.
Suppose someone put away 6% of their earnings in AAPL, at 85% of the six-month endpoint price. In the first half of 2009, that person put $10,000 in AAPL at a split-adjusted price of about $10.20. So 980 split-adjusted shares, which would be worth about $103k now. Repeat that pattern every six months....
There's some prestige associated with working there, I suppose, but that prestige remains even if you leave. It is a great company to have on your résumé, because it makes it a lot easier to get other jobs. In many ways, the most important reason to work for Apple is to have worked for Apple, rather than because working there is so amazing that you can't imagine working anywhere else. I mean sure, for the first few years, most Apple employees do feel that way, but eventually that wears off, and after that, it's just a job—a job doing cool things, mind you, but still no different than any other job doing similar sorts of work.
Neither Feinstein nor Boxer represents the Silicon Valley tech folks at all. Boxer is Hollywood's senator, and Feinstein is the senator for the valley's military industrial complex. All the Republicans would have to do is run moderates who don't have a history of bankrupting major tech companies and who aren't running on an anti-gay platform, and both of our senators would be gone.
This reaction by Feinstein isn't even surprising. It is quite typical. This Feinstein quote says everything:
“It’s obviously controversial, so I can’t tell you. It’s just that I have a basic fundamental belief this is very important and that no American company should be above the law.”
How does that even make sense? If what they're doing is legal, then they aren't being above the law, and if it isn't, then you don't need this law. ???
So the government really is trying to take our guns.... :-D
You're still missing the point. I'm not saying that memorizing the times tables isn't important. I'm saying that teaching them as something to be memorized is the worst possible way to teach them, and that testing the times tables by testing for rote memorization is unnecessary and inefficient. If I were teaching multiplication, I'd let students use index cards for their times tables. I would then immediately jump into multi-digit multiplication.
The thing is, if you understand how to do multiplication, and if you know your times tables, you won't have trouble computing 75 x 13 quickly. If you don't, you will. And even if you're using an index card, if you're actually using all those single-digit products regularly, you'll end up memorizing them eventually. This is doubly true if you use speed drills where you get prizes or whatever for answering the problems more quickly. Students will end up practicing on their own in an effort to do better on the speed drills, and that effort will result in them remembering the times tables more and more, and relying on the cards less and less, until those memory aids no longer matter.
Also, students should learn to count. Even if you don't remember that 9 x 9 = 81, you can count it out. Adding 9 is like adding 10 and subtracting 1. So 9 + 9 = 19 - 1 = 18. That's 2 x 9. Add another 9 is 28 - 1 = 27, which is 3 x 9. Once you fully grasp what multiplication really means, you can solve problems even if you don't have a full memory of the multiplication tables. And in my mind, that sort of coping skill is the more valuable approach, because it is useful even in extreme cases. Quick, without a calculator, and without multiplying it out the long way, what's 99 x 39? It's 99 less than 99 x 40, which is 40 less than 100 times 40. Five seconds of subtraction later, you get 3861.
I'll grant you that for emergency procedures, memorization can be important because of time constraints. Most people's jobs don't involve making split-second decisions that can destroy three counties if they make the wrong call, though, so this is the exception that proves the rule.
In theory. In practice, most employers want full-time employees who are there five days a week. Most companies don't offer sabbaticals. If those were realistic options, there wouldn't be so many people complaining.
As for contracting, that's nice in theory, and it might pay the bills if you can manage to keep a continuous stream of contracts, but that often requires a huge amount of time that you aren't getting paid for. And if you don't keep the stream full, you'll end up struggling to pay the bills. Also, when you do have contracts, there's a deadline associated with them, so you can't always plan vacations as far ahead as you would when working for a normal employer.
Laptops are the ultimate weapon. You can easily cause a concussion by swinging one like a baseball bad. Or strap a laptop or iPad to your chest and back for instant body armor. And a floppy disk makes a decent throwing star, though not nearly as lethal. You can easily weaponize an automobile by driving it through a shopping mall. And so on. Almost anything can be a weapon in the hands of somebody who wants to use it as one.
If we don't, the wrong Rigelian could win.
That's why you require the corporation, by law, to lease bare fibers to anyone who is willing to pay, without prejudice, and without any restrictions or limitations.
No, you're all misunderstanding me completely. The municipal broadband should not be an ISP. It should be a wire provider. There should be no competition from the private sector, because having multiple sets of wires is inherently less efficient than one, and a nonprofit entity owning the wires, assuming it is managed even semi-competently, guarantees that the cost per customer will be as cheap as it can be without sacrificing basic principles like universal service.
In other words, the competition should be between ISPs who lease lines from the city. There need not be a municipal ISP to keep costs down, and realistically, it is probably better to not have one, because that avoids favoritism in line repairs.
Europe and Asia mostly have government-owned wires. It is impossible to have functioning competition in wire providers. The barrier to entry is too large, and incumbent providers have too much ability to undercut any newcomer into bankruptcy. The result is that most competing cable/phone/Internet providers fail within the first five years, with the only real exception being providers that don't have to provide their own lines.
Which is exactly what I proposed. And statistically speaking, it works best when that line provider is non-profit. In practice, the only way to guarantee that it stays that way is for the wire provider to be a municipal nonprofit owned by the local government.
No, the best method is an exam with all essay questions or, for science/math, all questions that require you to apply your knowledge. If a watch helps you cheat in any meaningful way, that means the exam is based on pure rote memorization of facts, which pretty much means you've missed the entire point of teaching the material in the first place.
No, the legislation and red tape should actually get more extensive. The last thing we need is for yet another random company to lay its own fiber in these various places, because even if it has different problems than the existing behemoths, it will still have significant problems, and they will get worse over time.
What is needed is for the cities themselves to lay the fiber, and to own the fiber, and to lease it in a non-preferential way to any ISP that wants to provide service. That way, as one company starts to abuse its power, another can trivially set up shop, steal customers away en masse, and competitively force the existing players to behave themselves.
In other words, what we need is a nationwide ban on new installation of privately owned fiber except for long-haul fiber runs (defined as fiber runs that cross city boundaries and are leased-line services, rather than providing actual Internet service). Require that all new installations be community-owned, and leased out to ISPs in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
Comcast has always pulled this shady crap. They make sure first-party services are unaffected by whatever crazy bandwidth shaping ruins third-party services in what is almost certainly a very deliberate attempt to push people towards their own first-party services. This is just business as usual for Comcast....
IMO, there's only one acceptable set of consequences, and that is forcing Comcast to spin off their physical infrastructure into a separate company so that multiple ISPs and cable companies can freely lease those lines and compete against Comcast.
No, it should include sites wholly owned by the ISP, too. There's no reason Comcast's video-on-demand service should get preferential treatment over Netflix. There's no reason Comcast's own VoIP service should get preferential treatment over Skype. The main point of Net Neutrality was precisely to prevent first-party services by monopoly ISPs from engaging in unfair competition against third-party services. ISPs favoring one third-party service in exchange for monetary compensation has always been of secondary concern.
This is yet another reason why all fiber pulls should be done by the government and owned by the community. The government will provide the physical connectivity to the low-cost housing units and high-end housing units alike, and then require all companies to offer service to anyone who is willing to pay, without prejudice. The entire reason the problem exists in the first place is because the governments are allowing for-profit businesses to deploy physical infrastructure in areas that are profitable, rather than rolling out universal municipal fiber on their own. Profit motives have no place in infrastructure.
Realistically, there's only one way to get competition in broadband, and that's with municipal fiber, owned by the community, maintained through fees charged to the ISPs that lease it to service homes and businesses. The profit motive gets removed from the picture when it comes to the actual line costs and maintenance, which means maintenance is likely to actually get done instead of getting deferred until things break, and the barrier to entry drops massively because companies don't have to maintain their own lines, which means more competitors providing service.
Assuming I understand the hardware correctly, you're conflating two unrelated keys:
When the disk is decrypted, your passcode is entangled with that permanent hardware key, and used to decrypt the disk encryption key. This means that having the data from the flash part is insufficient because you don't have that 256-bit hardware key. However, the 256-bit hardware key cannot change, because it consists of physical fuses. Therefore, if you externally copy the data from the flash parts and restore it, or otherwise mimic writes temporarily, then you're effectively preventing the device from being able to wipe the disk encryption key after n unsuccessful attempts, so the next time it boots after you restore the flash data, you'll have another n tries to guess the password.
That attack probably won't work with the 5s, of course, because of the coprocessor/secure enclave, but that doesn't apply when you're talking about the 5c.
Yes, pedantically, an algorithm doesn't have to be used with a computer, but in practice, when we talk about algorithms in the context of computer science, we're talking about those algorithms in the context of a computer program, rather than, for example, instructions for assembling IKEA furniture....
Of course, Social Security and Medicare are not part of the federal budget They're an entirely separate organization funded from an entirely separate income source. We pay into those programs in exchange for a promise of income or health coverage later, which means these programs cost the government nothing, because every penny in those trust funds is owed back to the people who paid into it, and thus cannot legitimately be used for anything else other than the operation of those programs.
If it is broader than software, then it's really a computer engineering or electrical engineering curriculum. The line might get a little fuzzy around the edges, but the line is still there.
For example, right now, I'm teaching a CS class that deals with C programming on Arduino, which combines a basic electronics course with a basic CS course. We call it a CS course because you have to categorize it as either CS or EE for curriculum purposes, but in reality, it is a combination of a CS course and an EE course. It isn't strictly CS.