Though the FBI might want to use the new tool to help solve outstanding criminal cases, doing so would also make the process subject to discovery during criminal trials
- No multitouch. - No integrated NFC - I'd rather lean on a wall mounted TV than a $9k big tablet. Also, the surface is often a wall on which we project, so its leaning-on resilience is pretty much unmatched by any display after cave painting.
It's not the same, but I think it's close enough to grant a cost comparison. x9 for multitouch, feels a bit steep.
How is that not rendered obsolete by one of those thingies you stick to the side of a standard 80" TV to make it tactile-like?
I don't see what this gargantuan iPad adds to a system built on: - a very large cheap tv. - one of those side-sensor thingies. - simple software to coalesce the image and sensor output.
I don't know what those sensor thingies cost (we have them lying around in drawers and I just pick one up when needed), but they can't fall remotely close to $8K.
Often the stupid believe a stupid idea is good but has never been considered for X reasons, without realizing everyone else already considered and discarded the stupid idea a long time ago.
The problems is that sometimes others, even more stupid, are in awe of the new fantastic idea. And thusly entire political parties are formed.
Congratulations, that's probably the stupidest thing you'll say all day.
On the other hand, you seem to believe people smarter than you should shut up to let retards express themselves, so I suppose you're very happy with the idiocy of your comment.
People cost money. Better people cost more money Lawyers are people. Apple has more money than the DOJ. Therefore Apple has better Lawyers than the DOJ.
Can you find the flaw in this reasoning? Can you suggest an additional statement that would correct that flaw?
Correct! The flaw is in the third statement. Lawyers are not people. The correction is to add the following statement: In the context of The Judicial System, a suit filled with human shaped excrement, counts as people.
Has Forbes any kind of business relation with Slashdot? I can't find another explanation for the repetitive insistance on linking to it.
It this behavior is going to continue, paid links should at least be identified, so those of us who won't ever whitelist Forbes in our adblocks don't have to hover every link to avoid opening the Forbes spam over and over again.
it's not as if there's any information on government employees' phones which isn't already in the hands of the Chinese, Russians, and various criminal syndicates.
It has to be frustrating, from a Chinese hacker point of view. You do your job, hack the super important secret agency chief's phone... And everything you get is a dupe because the guy in the next cubicle already hacked the thing last week.
Hopefully, Slashdot has prepared him for years to deal with the frustration of reading the same "new data" over and over.
and watch the phone format itself after they fail.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the answer from a 6 digit Slashdot member. It manages an almost perfect balance between trollish and imbecilic, while leaving no doubt about the fact he didn't RTFA.
At 5 digits, his reply would be a dupe of a previous one, and you'd understand he doesn't even understand the concept of the article.
At 4, the comment would just be an anagram of both "first post" and a bodily fluid.
Reading a 3 digits comment would be akin to hearing the voice of God.
At 2 digits, the words shape the chaos into reality.
Not even Gods speak about single digit comments. And when they do it's in weakly whispers. For such power is better to leave asleep.
You find it weird that law should stop people from taking certain actions and newer forbid people from speaking? Really?
You must have been flabbergasted the first time you heard "Sticks and stones may break my bones. But words will never harm me."
For pretty much everyone else, the difference between action and speech is pretty clear and the identification of speech-like actions as one or the other is the only contentious point. Is writing an action? Or speech. And drawing? Painting?...Coding?
The problem is even harder with coding, as it's easy to identify it as speech but it does cause actions. As code is specifically a language invented to precisely describe action.
The solution, as I personally see it, is to build a computer that interprets speech as code.
Slashdot Mirror
"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should." - Lt. Col. Carlos A. Keasler
Though the FBI might want to use the new tool to help solve outstanding criminal cases, doing so would also make the process subject to discovery during criminal trials
Only if the use is admitted in court. They can use it in warrantless surveillance without a problem.
Has your credit card number been stolen? Enter it here to find out!
341 9207 4491 1246
How long does it take to have an answer?
They were obviously applying Torvalds' Secret Sauce.
They even pushed it one step further: Willing is for willers. Does just Do.
- No multitouch.
- No integrated NFC
- I'd rather lean on a wall mounted TV than a $9k big tablet. Also, the surface is often a wall on which we project, so its leaning-on resilience is pretty much unmatched by any display after cave painting.
It's not the same, but I think it's close enough to grant a cost comparison. x9 for multitouch, feels a bit steep.
That can also be done with the describes setup, a cheap webcam, and software. Mix the cam stream with the main image at a low opacity%.
Never used that mixed image idea, but I remember someone suggesting it for some scrum something I clearly didn't pay enough attention to.
How is that not rendered obsolete by one of those thingies you stick to the side of a standard 80" TV to make it tactile-like?
I don't see what this gargantuan iPad adds to a system built on:
- a very large cheap tv.
- one of those side-sensor thingies.
- simple software to coalesce the image and sensor output.
I don't know what those sensor thingies cost (we have them lying around in drawers and I just pick one up when needed), but they can't fall remotely close to $8K.
"How do you deal with the effects of electromagnetic radiation?"
"You interpose a material that stops it"
http://cdn.instructables.com/F...
Thank you. I needed that laugh to end the work week.
And thusly, the tie goes off and the weekend starts.
Has it ever been used to push any mass whatsoever in space? No? It's fictional.
Following your definition, you're either fictional or surprisingly resistant to radiation, void, combustion and, presumably, landing at high speeds.
Wow...
To think that your vote counts as much as normal people's...
Sometimes thinking the unthinkable is stupid.
Exactly.
Often the stupid believe a stupid idea is good but has never been considered for X reasons, without realizing everyone else already considered and discarded the stupid idea a long time ago.
The problems is that sometimes others, even more stupid, are in awe of the new fantastic idea. And thusly entire political parties are formed.
Seriously. Shut the fuck up. Fucking pedants.
Congratulations, that's probably the stupidest thing you'll say all day.
On the other hand, you seem to believe people smarter than you should shut up to let retards express themselves, so I suppose you're very happy with the idiocy of your comment.
If executing one man per month reduced car accidents to 0, should the government approve such execution?
Jeff Kaufman should be a bit more careful on his analysis on decisions that involve actively sacrificing some human beings to save others.
The logic is sound, if people were cattle.
The keyboard cache in iOS 9 does not contain a list of keystrokes typed by the user, or anything similar."
Shouldn't that be ", nor anything similar"?
#Apple has way better lawyers than the DOJ.
People cost money.
Better people cost more money
Lawyers are people.
Apple has more money than the DOJ.
Therefore Apple has better Lawyers than the DOJ.
Can you find the flaw in this reasoning? Can you suggest an additional statement that would correct that flaw?
Correct! The flaw is in the third statement. Lawyers are not people. The correction is to add the following statement:
In the context of The Judicial System, a suit filled with human shaped excrement, counts as people.
(b1)
(b2) --- (b2)
These are sobering findings.
(b3)
(b2)she said.
In (b1) sobering finds you.
individuals considered as potential security threats
a.k.a. the citizens
By the way, are you allowed to have a beer on the Chicago public transit? If so, that's fantastic!
Remember, it's America. If you're anywhere else, you might not call that "beer".
I don't think anyone would stop you from drinking lightly colored water in any European subway.
Google Translated version:
https://translate.google.com/t...
Has Forbes any kind of business relation with Slashdot? I can't find another explanation for the repetitive insistance on linking to it.
It this behavior is going to continue, paid links should at least be identified, so those of us who won't ever whitelist Forbes in our adblocks don't have to hover every link to avoid opening the Forbes spam over and over again.
it's not as if there's any information on government employees' phones which isn't already in the hands of the Chinese, Russians, and various criminal syndicates.
It has to be frustrating, from a Chinese hacker point of view. You do your job, hack the super important secret agency chief's phone... And everything you get is a dupe because the guy in the next cubicle already hacked the thing last week.
Hopefully, Slashdot has prepared him for years to deal with the frustration of reading the same "new data" over and over.
and watch the phone format itself after they fail.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the answer from a 6 digit Slashdot member. It manages an almost perfect balance between trollish and imbecilic, while leaving no doubt about the fact he didn't RTFA.
At 5 digits, his reply would be a dupe of a previous one, and you'd understand he doesn't even understand the concept of the article.
At 4, the comment would just be an anagram of both "first post" and a bodily fluid.
Reading a 3 digits comment would be akin to hearing the voice of God.
At 2 digits, the words shape the chaos into reality.
Not even Gods speak about single digit comments. And when they do it's in weakly whispers. For such power is better to leave asleep.
One of the biggest lies we tell our children.
For the last time. Our kids do get hurt when hit with rocks and stones, Superman.
While we're at it. Your "Parachute-less skydiving: Learn by example." course was a nasty joke.
You find it weird that law should stop people from taking certain actions and newer forbid people from speaking? Really?
You must have been flabbergasted the first time you heard "Sticks and stones may break my bones. But words will never harm me."
For pretty much everyone else, the difference between action and speech is pretty clear and the identification of speech-like actions as one or the other is the only contentious point. Is writing an action? Or speech. And drawing? Painting? ...Coding?
The problem is even harder with coding, as it's easy to identify it as speech but it does cause actions. As code is specifically a language invented to precisely describe action.
The solution, as I personally see it, is to build a computer that interprets speech as code.