I agree it's a semantic argument. To reduce it to a single term is a disservice to the ones to be educated.
If you were to reduce it down to a single ( inaccurate ) term like these educators seem to have done, the States are not the sovereign entity while the Federal Government is. Thus, to me, the sovereign entities description takes precedence and the label "federation" should apply.
However, if you wanted to focus on state rights and distance yourself from the Federal Government, you may want to apply the label "republic".
I agree and to reduce it to a single term is a disservice to the ones to be educated.
But... If you were to reduce it down to a single ( inaccurate ) term like these educators seem to have done, would you describe the United States government to be a federation or a republic? The States are not the sovereign entity while the Federal Government is. Thus, to me, the sovereign entities description takes precedence.
First, "constitution-based federal republic" is what should be taught. To reduce it to a single term is wrong and a disservice to the children to be educated. It's an over simplification that gives a distorted view. It only making it harder for the poor bastard who has to come behind them and actually teach what our system of government really is.
But... If you were to reduce it down to a single ( inaccurate ) term like these educators seem to have done, would you describe the United States government to be a federation or a republic? The States are not the sovereign entity while the Federal Government is. Thus, to me, the sovereign entities description takes precedence.
Actually it's a constitution-based federal republic. The CIA World Factbook says so.
It's perfectly acceptable to use more than one word to describe something.
I thought I said that. Isn't "the United States Government is "Federation". Each State is a constitutional republic." very similar to, if not the same as "constitution-based federal republic"?
In fact, if you to use word order to determine importance and structure, "federal" comes before "republic" ( after "constitution-based" of course ) and reflects the order of Nation then State. So if you had to choose a single word to ( inaccurately ) describe the U.S. Government, "Federation" takes precedence. Just calling the United States Goverment a Republic is still wrong.
But that's more a question of how they are organized not how much voting influence each has.
How they are organized, not their voting influence determines the proper term though. To call the United States Government anything other than what it is, a federation, is wrong and a disservice to the people you are trying to educate.
Never said it couldn't be but the keyword "Accuracy".
More accurately, the correct term for the United States Government is "Federation". Each State ( emphasis on "State" ) is a constitutional republic.
Honestly, if you are going to teach our system of Government to our children don't do a half-ass job and get the wrong on the fundamental level of the Nation's actual political structure and gloss it over with the political structure on the state level.
I loath to repeat myself but Slashdot tends to bury conversations you don't follow directly.
More accurately, the correct term for the United States Government is neither democracy or republic. It is a federation. Each State ( emphasis on "State" ) is a constitutional republic.
The correct term for the United States Government is neither Democracy or Republic. The United States is a federation. i.e. "Federal government of the United States". Each State ( emphasis on "State" ) is a constitutional republic.
Never read the comic. Still liked the movie. It all depends on what you expect to get out of the movie before going into it. I expected a dark comic and that's what I got.
It helps to properly adjust your standards before watching the film. All I expected was big robots fighting in Transformers 2 and that's what that I got. Now if I had expected a coherent plot, entering the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum in D.C. and walking out a hanger door into an Arizona bone yard would bother me. Nor did I let the fact that the script writer's for Avatar forgot to do a search and replace for "unobtainium" before they released the final draft bother me. I expected a 300 million dollar remake of "Dances with Ferngully" and that's what I got. In all, I got something out of each movie to entertain me.
In short, it helps if you set your standards really really low.
"The article didn't say was that the phone needed to be jailbroken by the original owner to start the process."
I meant that in the literal sense. That the article never states that the phone needs to be jailbroken by the original owner to start the process. In the context of a response to the parent post titled "Relies on Jailbreaking" and what is the norm for Jailbreaking an iPhone entails and the lack of detail in where it fits in the process within the parent post. So I state it. I even post a quote from the white paper that says it does not. I though I was being pretty clear. Obviously not. Some people have reached the conclusion that I am implying that the phone needed to be jailbroken by the original owner to start the process.
I can't help but laugh at the irony considering the intent of my original post.
It's also interesting to see the-glass-is-half-full and the-glass-is-half-empty effect as my original post was modded up for a while. Some people apparently used the rest of my post to push the meaning of the first sentence into it's literal meaning. Others saw the conflict and pushed it into the implied meaning.
I did RTFA ( before I originally posted ) and I apologize. I had an "OMG! There's an argument on the internet!" moment.
"The article didn't say was that the phone needed to be jailbroken by the original owner to start the process."
I meant that in the literal sense. That the article never states that the phone needs to be jailbroken by the original owner to start the process. In the context of a response to the parent post titled "Relies on Jailbreaking" and what is the norm for Jailbreaking an iPhone entails and the lack of detail in where it fits in the process within the parent post. So I state it. I even post a quote from the white paper that says it does not. I though I was being pretty clear. Obviously not. Some people have reached the conclusion that I am implying that the phone needed to be jailbroken by the original owner to start the process.
I can't help but laugh at the irony considering the intent of my original post.
It's also interesting to see the-glass-is-half-full and the-glass-is-half-empty effect as my original post was modded up for a while. Some people apparently used the rest of my post to push the meaning of the first sentence into it's literal meaning. Others saw the conflict and pushed it into the implied meaning.
Part of the process is powering down and removing the SIM card to isolate the phone so it can't be accessed remotely by anything and prevent the phone from receiving the wipe command. Would your suggestion brick the phone with the SIM card removed? If it would, that's a suitable alternative.
BTW, I tried Norton Security for Android. The "Clear Data" button under app management cleared the remote wipe passwords too.
But what the article didn't say was that the phone needed to be jailbroken by the original owner to start the process.
That's because, as the linked paper makes quite clear, this isn't true.
Why do you stop reading at that point? Does "Only that Jailbreaking is part of the process." trigger some synaptic response where the text becomes invisible?
Are people so intent in proving someone else wrong on this forum that they latch onto a single statement and ignore the rest? Never mind, I know the answer to that question already.
But what the article didn't say was that the phone needed to be jailbroken by the original owner to start the process. Only that Jailbreaking is part of the process. Someone may infer that from your statement and that is not the case.
Context asshole. Quit living in a soundbite world.
I should also point out that the attacker's first move is to power down the phone and remove the SIM card to prevent remote control and receiving the wipe command.
In addition to having physical access, The paper assumes that the phone has not received a wipe command, that the phone is not jailbroken and is running the latest firmware 4.2.1.
- Realize you've misplaced your phone - Do the pocket pat down - Retrace your steps a little to confirm you've misplaced your phone - Get someplace where you can send the wipe command.
In the described situation, device encryption commonly should provide protection against attacks from the outside. If the device is still turned on — e.g., not run out of battery meanwhile —, we assume that no remote wipe6 command was received in the meantime (e.g, theft remained unnoticed, no network connection, etc.). In any case, the attacker turns off the device and removes the SIM card to prevent a further remote control.
But what the article didn't say was that the phone needed to be jailbroken by the original owner to start the process. Only that Jailbreaking is part of the process. Someone may infer that from your statement and that is not the case.
For evaluating the practical strength of iOS device encryption security, we assume an attacker with physical access to the device, e.g. accomplished by theft or when finding a lost device. The assumed device is protected with a strong passcode, which is unknown to the attacker. The complexity of the passcode does not play a role for this evaluation, but is assumed to prevent an attacker from gaining access by simply guessing. Also, it is assumed that the device has not been jailbroken and so all original iOS protection mechanisms are in place.
When the device is found, it is assumed to be in the locked4 state with activated data protection5. An unlocked device would provide the possibilities for user space exploits and could reveal more secrets. However, this leakage could not be accounted to the protection mechanism we wanted to evaluate.
The attacker’s PC used to gain access to passwords has not been synchronized with the attacked device before. Therefore no secrets can be used by the attacker that are created between the owner’s PC and his device.
In the described situation, device encryption commonly should provide protection against attacks from the outside. If the device is still turned on — e.g., not run out of battery meanwhile —, we assume that no remote wipe6 command was received in the meantime (e.g, theft remained unnoticed, no network connection, etc.). In any case, the attacker turns off the device and removes the SIM card to prevent a further remote control. In this described state, we have conducted our tests with iPhone 4 and iPad WiFi+ 3G hardware with the latest firmware 4.2.1.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree it's a semantic argument. To reduce it to a single term is a disservice to the ones to be educated.
If you were to reduce it down to a single ( inaccurate ) term like these educators seem to have done, the States are not the sovereign entity while the Federal Government is. Thus, to me, the sovereign entities description takes precedence and the label "federation" should apply.
However, if you wanted to focus on state rights and distance yourself from the Federal Government, you may want to apply the label "republic".
I agree and to reduce it to a single term is a disservice to the ones to be educated.
But... If you were to reduce it down to a single ( inaccurate ) term like these educators seem to have done, would you describe the United States government to be a federation or a republic? The States are not the sovereign entity while the Federal Government is. Thus, to me, the sovereign entities description takes precedence.
First, "constitution-based federal republic" is what should be taught. To reduce it to a single term is wrong and a disservice to the children to be educated. It's an over simplification that gives a distorted view. It only making it harder for the poor bastard who has to come behind them and actually teach what our system of government really is.
But... If you were to reduce it down to a single ( inaccurate ) term like these educators seem to have done, would you describe the United States government to be a federation or a republic? The States are not the sovereign entity while the Federal Government is. Thus, to me, the sovereign entities description takes precedence.
*Proceeds to stack more mud*
Actually it's a constitution-based federal republic. The CIA World Factbook says so.
It's perfectly acceptable to use more than one word to describe something.
I thought I said that. Isn't "the United States Government is "Federation". Each State is a constitutional republic." very similar to, if not the same as "constitution-based federal republic"?
In fact, if you to use word order to determine importance and structure, "federal" comes before "republic" ( after "constitution-based" of course ) and reflects the order of Nation then State. So if you had to choose a single word to ( inaccurately ) describe the U.S. Government, "Federation" takes precedence. Just calling the United States Goverment a Republic is still wrong.
And if you look up Federalism, you also see the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism
Gotta' also work on that "Prime Directive" thing...
But that's more a question of how they are organized not how much voting influence each has.
How they are organized, not their voting influence determines the proper term though. To call the United States Government anything other than what it is, a federation, is wrong and a disservice to the people you are trying to educate.
Never said it couldn't be but the keyword "Accuracy".
More accurately, the correct term for the United States Government is "Federation". Each State ( emphasis on "State" ) is a constitutional republic.
Honestly, if you are going to teach our system of Government to our children don't do a half-ass job and get the wrong on the fundamental level of the Nation's actual political structure and gloss it over with the political structure on the state level.
I loath to repeat myself but Slashdot tends to bury conversations you don't follow directly.
More accurately, the correct term for the United States Government is neither democracy or republic. It is a federation. Each State ( emphasis on "State" ) is a constitutional republic.
The correct term for the United States Government is neither Democracy or Republic. The United States is a federation. i.e. "Federal government of the United States". Each State ( emphasis on "State" ) is a constitutional republic.
Accuracy?
The United States is neither. It's a Federation. Why the hell do you think it's called "The Federal Government"?
This pretty much sums up my feelings on the franchise.
http://video.adultswim.com/robot-chicken/luke-learns-the-truth.html
Never read the comic. Still liked the movie. It all depends on what you expect to get out of the movie before going into it. I expected a dark comic and that's what I got.
It helps to properly adjust your standards before watching the film. All I expected was big robots fighting in Transformers 2 and that's what that I got. Now if I had expected a coherent plot, entering the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum in D.C. and walking out a hanger door into an Arizona bone yard would bother me. Nor did I let the fact that the script writer's for Avatar forgot to do a search and replace for "unobtainium" before they released the final draft bother me. I expected a 300 million dollar remake of "Dances with Ferngully" and that's what I got. In all, I got something out of each movie to entertain me.
In short, it helps if you set your standards really really low.
Are you talking about electronic rape rape or just electronic rape?
I will repost my response to Cronock
"The article didn't say was that the phone needed to be jailbroken by the original owner to start the process."
I meant that in the literal sense. That the article never states that the phone needs to be jailbroken by the original owner to start the process. In the context of a response to the parent post titled "Relies on Jailbreaking" and what is the norm for Jailbreaking an iPhone entails and the lack of detail in where it fits in the process within the parent post. So I state it. I even post a quote from the white paper that says it does not. I though I was being pretty clear. Obviously not. Some people have reached the conclusion that I am implying that the phone needed to be jailbroken by the original owner to start the process.
I can't help but laugh at the irony considering the intent of my original post.
It's also interesting to see the-glass-is-half-full and the-glass-is-half-empty effect as my original post was modded up for a while. Some people apparently used the rest of my post to push the meaning of the first sentence into it's literal meaning. Others saw the conflict and pushed it into the implied meaning.
I did RTFA ( before I originally posted ) and I apologize. I had an "OMG! There's an argument on the internet!" moment.
"The article didn't say was that the phone needed to be jailbroken by the original owner to start the process."
I meant that in the literal sense. That the article never states that the phone needs to be jailbroken by the original owner to start the process. In the context of a response to the parent post titled "Relies on Jailbreaking" and what is the norm for Jailbreaking an iPhone entails and the lack of detail in where it fits in the process within the parent post. So I state it. I even post a quote from the white paper that says it does not. I though I was being pretty clear. Obviously not. Some people have reached the conclusion that I am implying that the phone needed to be jailbroken by the original owner to start the process.
I can't help but laugh at the irony considering the intent of my original post.
It's also interesting to see the-glass-is-half-full and the-glass-is-half-empty effect as my original post was modded up for a while. Some people apparently used the rest of my post to push the meaning of the first sentence into it's literal meaning. Others saw the conflict and pushed it into the implied meaning.
Part of the process is powering down and removing the SIM card to isolate the phone so it can't be accessed remotely by anything and prevent the phone from receiving the wipe command. Would your suggestion brick the phone with the SIM card removed? If it would, that's a suitable alternative.
BTW, I tried Norton Security for Android. The "Clear Data" button under app management cleared the remote wipe passwords too.
Uninstalled.
But what the article didn't say was that the phone needed to be jailbroken by the original owner to start the process.
That's because, as the linked paper makes quite clear, this isn't true.
Why do you stop reading at that point? Does "Only that Jailbreaking is part of the process." trigger some synaptic response where the text becomes invisible?
Are people so intent in proving someone else wrong on this forum that they latch onto a single statement and ignore the rest? Never mind, I know the answer to that question already.
#1 - "The article didn't say was that the phone needed to be jailbroken by the original owner to start the process."
True or False?
#2 - "Only that Jailbreaking is part of the process."
True or False?
#3 - "Someone may infer that from your statement and that is not the case."
Subjective.
[ Quoted text showing #2 to be true ]
But what the article didn't say was that the phone needed to be jailbroken by the original owner to start the process. Only that Jailbreaking is part of the process. Someone may infer that from your statement and that is not the case.
Context asshole. Quit living in a soundbite world.
I should also point out that the attacker's first move is to power down the phone and remove the SIM card to prevent remote control and receiving the wipe command.
In addition to having physical access, The paper assumes that the phone has not received a wipe command, that the phone is not jailbroken and is running the latest firmware 4.2.1.
http://www.sit.fraunhofer.de/en/Images/sc_iPhone%20Passwords_tcm502-80443.pdf
6 min is well under the amount of time to:
- Realize you've misplaced your phone
- Do the pocket pat down
- Retrace your steps a little to confirm you've misplaced your phone
- Get someplace where you can send the wipe command.
From the Paper: http://www.sit.fraunhofer.de/en/Images/sc_iPhone%20Passwords_tcm502-80443.pdf
But what the article didn't say was that the phone needed to be jailbroken by the original owner to start the process. Only that Jailbreaking is part of the process. Someone may infer that from your statement and that is not the case.
From the paper: http://www.sit.fraunhofer.de/en/Images/sc_iPhone%20Passwords_tcm502-80443.pdf