There's also the basic problem with your understanding of how a law is determined to be Constitutional. Laws are only unconstitutional if the Constitution disallows for something. The Constitution doesn't have to specifically allow me to write a blog (and it doesn't). Rather, if a law was made that no one could write blogs, that law would be found to be unconstitutional because the Constitution outright bans that sort of law.
You've flipped the argument, which isn't how the Constitution works. You're arguing that the Constitution is a document which allows laws, instead of being a document that bans laws. You're trying to argue that the Constitution says nothing about allowing social security and therefore social security is not a valid law, but in fact the burden of proof is on you to find where the Constitution bans social security. That's how the legal system in this country works, and is how the Constitution is observed.
Here's what I don't get. - You acknowledge the Congress has the power to make law. - You acknowledge the income tax.
So you've acknowledged that social security is constitutional, as if the two above facts are constitutional, so is social security.
I'm not saying you don't have an opinion. You're welcome to believe social security is a bad thing. But don't fart and tell me it was actually Thomas Jefferson's fart.
Again, all this seems to come down to is there are certain things the Constitution makes possible you like, and other things you don't like. That doesn't make the tea party special. That makes them the exact same thing as every other political party.
Fundamentally incorrect. Just because a technology improves does not mean the Constitution prevents its implementation.
I don't see this in the constitution. I however, see navy clearly spelled out.
However, I challenge anyone to find Social Security in the Constitution.
Let's short circuit my straw man and get to the real meat of this.
The constitution didn't give women the right to vote. Blacks were considered 3/5ths of a person. There were no Presidential term limits.
"But!" says the tea partier "The constitution gives us the ability to modify it! The founding fathers intended that to deal with future situations that they couldn't foresee! All those things were all good amendments!" And the tea partier would be right.
But then we get to other amendments. The amendments, that for example, give the government the power to create programs such as social security (Amendment 16). Or we get into topics like the Constitution permiting the repealment of the second amendment, entirely legally and under the system the founding fathers set up. "No!" says the tea partier. "We can't do this things! These things weren't intended by the founding fathers! They wrote the constitution specifically as they did as a guidepost for this country!"
And this is when the tea party ceases to be an organization that is an advocate for the founding father or the constitution. Like any other political organization, they have ideas they like, and ideas they don't like. The difference is, they use the founding fathers as puppets for their goals when it suits them. The Constitution says nothing about protecting the skies, yet sane and reasonable people agree that it probably implies that would be ok, even though the founding fathers had never seen an airplane. The Constitutional also says nothing for or against social security, and in fact a later amendment permits it. We, as a country, have decided that the Constitution allows for social security as well. Yet to a tea partier, the air force is totally ok 100% implied by the constitution (even though it says nothing specifically about an air force) yet social security is not (even though the Constitution also says nothing about permitting an air force.)
Unfortunately, the constitution gives the army no justification for patrolling the skies.
A reasonable person would say that the army should be able to extend their abilities, but I'm just following the platform here. No justification in the constitution for protecting the skies. Not even a mention of the sky in the whole document!
This was a chance to stop the hemorrhaging. This chance is gone. The problem will only get worse.
It was not a reasonable amount of time to put together a balanced budget. One does not convince others their roof needs fixing by setting their house on fire.
It's not the users that are the problem its the dev teams because if you're writing for Apple you only need to test on few handsets & tablets. However, if you're writing for Android you need to test on fucking hundreds of different hand sets because each manufacturer has fucked with the OS. So either apps don't get written for android or if they do they normally get approx 100th the testing apps get on Apple.
Except if you were actually a developer working in the real life world (I am, on an app with 2 million daily active users) you'll know that that is not at all necessary. There are device-specific bugs, but they're rare, and in the most part we rotate testing on about 6 devices, and use bug reporting libraries to catch the rest. Our crash-rate is a tenth of the iOS team's crash-rate.
Then, to be perfectly honest, your iOS team sucks.
I've worked on a lot of dual platform projects and recently launched my own Android app. We've definitely found plenty of device specific issues (one app I work on deals with cameras, which is a giant device specific rabbit hole on Android.) We use Nexus devices, we code things the right, Google recommended way, and things still break. On the app I just released, I had a custom keyboard (that comes on many Android devices) cause problems because it was simply refusing flags that the stock keyboard handled fine, and it also broke some text input because it sent different text events from the stock keyboard. And I wasn't doing anything special. It was a WebView.
Sure, you can release an iOS app with bugs as well. But as long as your developers are good, it's really really hard to have those sorts of issues on iOS.
Is it just me, or is "sensible adult conversation" rather condescending?
I read it more as a reaction to the extreme-libritarian branch that says we should not have any sort of intelligence gathering or spy program at all.
The adult conversation is acknowledging that there are US citizens who will need to be monitored without them knowing, and that while the present system isn't doing the job, we'll need to agree on a way to do that without throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Still working off my memory here, but it's also why Halo 2 got no Mac port. Bungie had only promised Halo 1 to calm the hordes, once they had fulfilled that promise they dropped the Mac platform. And after Halo 2 they dropped Windows as well, but Halo 2 for Windows was clearly a way to push Vista.
Actually, it was briefly mentioned as a Mac exclusive, at which point Microsoft bought Bungie and it shifted to the XBox. Afterwards, Gearbox was hired to port it over to the Mac and PC several years later, something that was never promised by Redmond in the beginning, so I doubt the people you knew who waited for it really cared all that much in the first place.
It was announced at Macworld, but it was always a Mac/PC game. Also Bungie post buyout promised there would still be a Mac/PC version, although at the time they sounded like they would be doing the port, so Gearbox doing the port was the only surprise. I'm trying to find the original link, but it's hard to get through Google. Mac gamers were furious when it happened, and Bungie tried to calm them down by saying it would still ship for Mac/PC as promised.
I'll post if I can find a link to Bungie's quote on the matter when they were bought out. But I remember it because I was a Mac gamer at the time.:)
You do realize that the PC and Mac versions were released about 2 years after the XBox version, right?
Yes, I do. But Halo for Mac and PC was announced before the Xbox version. So everyone knew it wouldn't be exclusive when the Xbox was released. I knew a lot of people who waited.
It needs one killer game that you can't get elsewhere. Do you think Halo would have done what it did for the XBox if it was also available for the PS2?
Yes, there is no way Halo could have done as well on the Xbox if it had shipped on otherplatforms too.
Not just can be, it usually is faster. At least, once it's been JITed. We just ran some XML serialization/deserialization tests, and the java implementation was much faster than the C++ one...eventually. The first several hundred iterations it was slower, but after that the Just In Time compiler optimized it, and it easily won.
For long running computations, like scientific calculations for instance, Java is really good. The problem is we perceive how fast something is based on our wait time. Every time you boot a java applications it takes a long time for it to get started relative to a C++ applications. A quick command line java application might be orders of magnitude slower than a comparable C++ one. And that delay kind of permeates our intuitions about which is faster.
Lot's of possible factors here... What compiler was used for C++?
It seems like this post is taking about the advantages of JIT, not the advantages of Java. C and C++ can be done JIT as well. You've got Microsoft's managed version, and things like LLVM. In addition, there are other languages built on top of the JVM.
The reason Java is still alive and well is because it is the OO language most schools, universities and colleges teach in their CS classes.
I transferred and finished my degree at a different school than I started at. I knew they were a good school when they refused to transfer any credits for any class that was taught in Java.
It was hard for me to believe that MY state would pay such huge sums of money for thousands of dubiously-effective devices that are known to shatter when dropped. There's no way not to sound like a snob saying this, but I can't see many public school students being particularly careful with these tablets. The students at my school took classes in handling our laptops, paid for them with our own money, and STILL pay out the ass fixing the things every year because so many of them do not respect computers. I haven't read the literature on tablets in education, but I didn't think this was a cost-effective program and I predicted that 50% of the tablets would be MIA or KIA by the end of the first school year. I'm glad I won't get to a chance to prove myself right, but it's a shame that nobody at any point in the process of rolling out these tablets questioned the feasibility of it all.
Having worked in a one to one deployment, there's an easy way to deal with this: make the students get their own insurance on the laptops. Damage is paid for, and students get to pay a deductible.
Sure, eventually the insurance company will figure out they got a bad deal, and students will still break their machines and complain when they're forced to pay a deductible, but students eventually get tired of paying for breakage, and even if they break things it's not on the state's dime.
After years of doing this with laptops I heard my former employer switched to iPads, and things have gotten pretty quiet. Less moving parts to break, and even when they do break, the iPad goes in a box back to Apple, insurance pays for repairs, and a new one shows up. Most complicated thing that IT techs have to do during the year is put the iPad back in the box to send it back, and then open the box when it arrives.
The mistake these people made was buying a solution that was unproven and likely had poor MDM. Don't rely on a solution that claims it's damage proof, just plan on kids breaking them in the first place and work from there.
For one thing, they'll presumably be enforcing the laws they're paid to enforce, and not the laws local people don't care about. So more likely to be patrolling to discourage burglars and muggers than sitting at the side of the road with a donut and a radar gun.
No, and this is where things get dangerous... They're be enforcing what they're paid to enforce, laws or not. Don't like the people down the street that are legally and peaceably assembling? Send your private enforcement crew for some intimidation and gun waving!
At least the police are accountable to everyone. This sounds more like the mafia, or at least the road down to that path (which is historically the origin of the mob). Of course why fix the police for everyone when you're rich enough to hire private security!
Uh-huh. Nice monument there. It would be a shame if someone barricaded it off. The shutdown is revealing government's true nature - a bunch of petty extortionists. Give us money, or we'll shut down things that you like. Not because we can't afford it - it will actually cost us money - but because we can.
This whole argument seems like political grandstanding to me.
Like it or not, physical access to monuments needs to be secured. If you don't have to money to secure the monument on the inside, you've got to keep people out. For an extreme example, see the Cairo Museum during the Egyptian Revolution.
And regardless, I'm surprised so many conservatives were planning to go to national parks this weekend! Who knew?
Enterprise profiles are better than that. The device doesn't have to be registered. You can put your app on any device that has downloaded your certificate from wherever you've hosted it.
Downside: If you use it for too many phones outside of your Enterprise and Apple gets wind they'll revoke your certificate.
But how was I supposed to know that I have to go through different ages?
I guess an introduction would have helped. Espescially as I liked a few similar games.
The video in the room next to the dock (and the letter sitting outside) both explained this. The books in the library with the brothers trapped inside also asked you to go through the different ages and retrieve them pages (which is the story given game part you seemed to have missed, or Myst!)
Anyone targeting data stored on a phone would come armed with a Faraday cage bag. You can buy them commercially, designed for "law enforcement" with the goal of preventing remote wipes. Some even come with a cable entry grommet so you can keep the phone powered and data-rape it without removing it from the bag, just in case the user enabled full device encryption.
Of course any Slashdotter knows that once someone has local access anything stored locally is basically crackable anyway. So if one had information they really wanted secure it would likely be on a remote server anyway, which a device can't get to in a Faraday cage.
That's also what makes the passcode and fingerprinting debate a bit silly. If someone like the government physically had your device, they need neither the passcode or the fingerprint. They have the abilities to dissect the device and pull any info off, encryption or not.
It's a bit much for casual purposes; but it effectively demonstrates that Apple's little toy is just another fingerprint sensor (albeit a more attractive one than the usual little stripe-thing) with no more resistance to an under-a-hundred-bucks, probably a few bucks per print, in quantity, attacks than any of the others.
Still beats no passcode at all against a casual attacker; but it sounds like the CCC technique works just fine with digital reproductions (ie, you don't need the original thumbprint to use as a mold, or develop with cyanoacrylate vapor, or anything like that) so it's fuck up once, have your fingerprint on file for however long it stays roughly the same, which is never terribly encouraging.
I think every Slashdotter's wet dream is that they need to keep to keep their phones safe against a CSI style government interrogation, but this is really just for anti-theft or corporate secrets. The passcode expires in 48 hours anyway, and a business has remote wipe, so it's just a backup in another chain of security measures. And the fingerprint ready is really meant as a convenience for people who are too lazy to set a passcode at all, which is undeniably less safe.
You know what a government is going to do if they have you and your phone? Take your finger, and press it to your phone, which legally they can compel (or physically force) you to do. All this talk about "Oh, what if the government has your fingerprint on file?" Please. That's overthinking it.
Stripping out skeuomorphism and intentionally not trying to make applications look nice are two different things. The flaw with your line of reasoning is the idea that skeuomorphism is the only way to make an app look attractive. Decades of user interface work would disagree with that.
It's perfectly possible to create a sensible, usable, and attractive flat UI.
Slashdot Mirror
There's also the basic problem with your understanding of how a law is determined to be Constitutional. Laws are only unconstitutional if the Constitution disallows for something. The Constitution doesn't have to specifically allow me to write a blog (and it doesn't). Rather, if a law was made that no one could write blogs, that law would be found to be unconstitutional because the Constitution outright bans that sort of law.
You've flipped the argument, which isn't how the Constitution works. You're arguing that the Constitution is a document which allows laws, instead of being a document that bans laws. You're trying to argue that the Constitution says nothing about allowing social security and therefore social security is not a valid law, but in fact the burden of proof is on you to find where the Constitution bans social security. That's how the legal system in this country works, and is how the Constitution is observed.
Here's what I don't get.
- You acknowledge the Congress has the power to make law.
- You acknowledge the income tax.
So you've acknowledged that social security is constitutional, as if the two above facts are constitutional, so is social security.
I'm not saying you don't have an opinion. You're welcome to believe social security is a bad thing. But don't fart and tell me it was actually Thomas Jefferson's fart.
Again, all this seems to come down to is there are certain things the Constitution makes possible you like, and other things you don't like. That doesn't make the tea party special. That makes them the exact same thing as every other political party.
Fundamentally incorrect. Just because a technology improves does not mean the Constitution prevents its implementation.
I don't see this in the constitution. I however, see navy clearly spelled out.
However, I challenge anyone to find Social Security in the Constitution.
Let's short circuit my straw man and get to the real meat of this.
The constitution didn't give women the right to vote. Blacks were considered 3/5ths of a person. There were no Presidential term limits.
"But!" says the tea partier "The constitution gives us the ability to modify it! The founding fathers intended that to deal with future situations that they couldn't foresee! All those things were all good amendments!" And the tea partier would be right.
But then we get to other amendments. The amendments, that for example, give the government the power to create programs such as social security (Amendment 16). Or we get into topics like the Constitution permiting the repealment of the second amendment, entirely legally and under the system the founding fathers set up. "No!" says the tea partier. "We can't do this things! These things weren't intended by the founding fathers! They wrote the constitution specifically as they did as a guidepost for this country!"
And this is when the tea party ceases to be an organization that is an advocate for the founding father or the constitution. Like any other political organization, they have ideas they like, and ideas they don't like. The difference is, they use the founding fathers as puppets for their goals when it suits them. The Constitution says nothing about protecting the skies, yet sane and reasonable people agree that it probably implies that would be ok, even though the founding fathers had never seen an airplane. The Constitutional also says nothing for or against social security, and in fact a later amendment permits it. We, as a country, have decided that the Constitution allows for social security as well. Yet to a tea partier, the air force is totally ok 100% implied by the constitution (even though it says nothing specifically about an air force) yet social security is not (even though the Constitution also says nothing about permitting an air force.)
Unfortunately, the constitution gives the army no justification for patrolling the skies.
A reasonable person would say that the army should be able to extend their abilities, but I'm just following the platform here. No justification in the constitution for protecting the skies. Not even a mention of the sky in the whole document!
Don't see anything about an Air Force!
Although I do see combating piracy. I would like to hear more about the Tea Party's policies on combating high seas pirates.
This was a chance to stop the hemorrhaging. This chance is gone. The problem will only get worse.
It was not a reasonable amount of time to put together a balanced budget. One does not convince others their roof needs fixing by setting their house on fire.
It's not the users that are the problem its the dev teams because if you're writing for Apple you only need to test on few handsets & tablets. However, if you're writing for Android you need to test on fucking hundreds of different hand sets because each manufacturer has fucked with the OS. So either apps don't get written for android or if they do they normally get approx 100th the testing apps get on Apple.
Except if you were actually a developer working in the real life world (I am, on an app with 2 million daily active users) you'll know that that is not at all necessary. There are device-specific bugs, but they're rare, and in the most part we rotate testing on about 6 devices, and use bug reporting libraries to catch the rest. Our crash-rate is a tenth of the iOS team's crash-rate.
Then, to be perfectly honest, your iOS team sucks.
I've worked on a lot of dual platform projects and recently launched my own Android app. We've definitely found plenty of device specific issues (one app I work on deals with cameras, which is a giant device specific rabbit hole on Android.) We use Nexus devices, we code things the right, Google recommended way, and things still break. On the app I just released, I had a custom keyboard (that comes on many Android devices) cause problems because it was simply refusing flags that the stock keyboard handled fine, and it also broke some text input because it sent different text events from the stock keyboard. And I wasn't doing anything special. It was a WebView.
Sure, you can release an iOS app with bugs as well. But as long as your developers are good, it's really really hard to have those sorts of issues on iOS.
Is it just me, or is "sensible adult conversation" rather condescending?
I read it more as a reaction to the extreme-libritarian branch that says we should not have any sort of intelligence gathering or spy program at all.
The adult conversation is acknowledging that there are US citizens who will need to be monitored without them knowing, and that while the present system isn't doing the job, we'll need to agree on a way to do that without throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Still working off my memory here, but it's also why Halo 2 got no Mac port. Bungie had only promised Halo 1 to calm the hordes, once they had fulfilled that promise they dropped the Mac platform. And after Halo 2 they dropped Windows as well, but Halo 2 for Windows was clearly a way to push Vista.
Actually, it was briefly mentioned as a Mac exclusive, at which point Microsoft bought Bungie and it shifted to the XBox. Afterwards, Gearbox was hired to port it over to the Mac and PC several years later, something that was never promised by Redmond in the beginning, so I doubt the people you knew who waited for it really cared all that much in the first place.
It was announced at Macworld, but it was always a Mac/PC game. Also Bungie post buyout promised there would still be a Mac/PC version, although at the time they sounded like they would be doing the port, so Gearbox doing the port was the only surprise. I'm trying to find the original link, but it's hard to get through Google. Mac gamers were furious when it happened, and Bungie tried to calm them down by saying it would still ship for Mac/PC as promised.
I'll post if I can find a link to Bungie's quote on the matter when they were bought out. But I remember it because I was a Mac gamer at the time. :)
You do realize that the PC and Mac versions were released about 2 years after the XBox version, right?
Yes, I do. But Halo for Mac and PC was announced before the Xbox version. So everyone knew it wouldn't be exclusive when the Xbox was released. I knew a lot of people who waited.
It needs one killer game that you can't get elsewhere. Do you think Halo would have done what it did for the XBox if it was also available for the PS2?
Yes, there is no way Halo could have done as well on the Xbox if it had shipped on other platforms too.
doesn't look all that different from an old-school $3.95 6250 BPI magnetic tape reel
Or a ring, bracelet, flying saucer, hoola hoop, donut, or a million other things that are round. What is your point?
News flash! Round things look like other round things! How could Apple not have seen this coming!?!?
Not just can be, it usually is faster. At least, once it's been JITed. We just ran some XML serialization/deserialization tests, and the java implementation was much faster than the C++ one...eventually. The first several hundred iterations it was slower, but after that the Just In Time compiler optimized it, and it easily won.
For long running computations, like scientific calculations for instance, Java is really good. The problem is we perceive how fast something is based on our wait time. Every time you boot a java applications it takes a long time for it to get started relative to a C++ applications. A quick command line java application might be orders of magnitude slower than a comparable C++ one. And that delay kind of permeates our intuitions about which is faster.
Lot's of possible factors here... What compiler was used for C++?
It seems like this post is taking about the advantages of JIT, not the advantages of Java. C and C++ can be done JIT as well. You've got Microsoft's managed version, and things like LLVM. In addition, there are other languages built on top of the JVM.
The reason Java is still alive and well is because it is the OO language most schools, universities and colleges teach in their CS classes.
I transferred and finished my degree at a different school than I started at. I knew they were a good school when they refused to transfer any credits for any class that was taught in Java.
It was hard for me to believe that MY state would pay such huge sums of money for thousands of dubiously-effective devices that are known to shatter when dropped. There's no way not to sound like a snob saying this, but I can't see many public school students being particularly careful with these tablets. The students at my school took classes in handling our laptops, paid for them with our own money, and STILL pay out the ass fixing the things every year because so many of them do not respect computers. I haven't read the literature on tablets in education, but I didn't think this was a cost-effective program and I predicted that 50% of the tablets would be MIA or KIA by the end of the first school year. I'm glad I won't get to a chance to prove myself right, but it's a shame that nobody at any point in the process of rolling out these tablets questioned the feasibility of it all.
Having worked in a one to one deployment, there's an easy way to deal with this: make the students get their own insurance on the laptops. Damage is paid for, and students get to pay a deductible.
Sure, eventually the insurance company will figure out they got a bad deal, and students will still break their machines and complain when they're forced to pay a deductible, but students eventually get tired of paying for breakage, and even if they break things it's not on the state's dime.
After years of doing this with laptops I heard my former employer switched to iPads, and things have gotten pretty quiet. Less moving parts to break, and even when they do break, the iPad goes in a box back to Apple, insurance pays for repairs, and a new one shows up. Most complicated thing that IT techs have to do during the year is put the iPad back in the box to send it back, and then open the box when it arrives.
The mistake these people made was buying a solution that was unproven and likely had poor MDM. Don't rely on a solution that claims it's damage proof, just plan on kids breaking them in the first place and work from there.
For one thing, they'll presumably be enforcing the laws they're paid to enforce, and not the laws local people don't care about. So more likely to be patrolling to discourage burglars and muggers than sitting at the side of the road with a donut and a radar gun.
No, and this is where things get dangerous... They're be enforcing what they're paid to enforce, laws or not. Don't like the people down the street that are legally and peaceably assembling? Send your private enforcement crew for some intimidation and gun waving!
At least the police are accountable to everyone. This sounds more like the mafia, or at least the road down to that path (which is historically the origin of the mob). Of course why fix the police for everyone when you're rich enough to hire private security!
Uh-huh. Nice monument there. It would be a shame if someone barricaded it off. The shutdown is revealing government's true nature - a bunch of petty extortionists. Give us money, or we'll shut down things that you like. Not because we can't afford it - it will actually cost us money - but because we can.
This whole argument seems like political grandstanding to me.
Oh, the government shut down a monument? You mean you can't look at it? Oh you can, you just can't go up and touch it. Because that never ends badly...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/30/woman-found-with-can-green-paint-may-have-defaced-lincoln-memorial-prosecutors/
Like it or not, physical access to monuments needs to be secured. If you don't have to money to secure the monument on the inside, you've got to keep people out. For an extreme example, see the Cairo Museum during the Egyptian Revolution.
And regardless, I'm surprised so many conservatives were planning to go to national parks this weekend! Who knew?
Enterprise profiles are better than that. The device doesn't have to be registered. You can put your app on any device that has downloaded your certificate from wherever you've hosted it.
Downside: If you use it for too many phones outside of your Enterprise and Apple gets wind they'll revoke your certificate.
But how was I supposed to know that I have to go through different ages?
I guess an introduction would have helped. Espescially as I liked a few similar games.
The video in the room next to the dock (and the letter sitting outside) both explained this. The books in the library with the brothers trapped inside also asked you to go through the different ages and retrieve them pages (which is the story given game part you seemed to have missed, or Myst!)
Why is this a gamechanger? We already had a videogame playing system that was upgradeable like a PC. It's called "A PC."
Because Windows 8 sucks, and this is Valve putting more wood behind the Linux arrow.
And their support of OpenGL has benefits for Mac gamers too, I might add.
Anyone targeting data stored on a phone would come armed with a Faraday cage bag. You can buy them commercially, designed for "law enforcement" with the goal of preventing remote wipes. Some even come with a cable entry grommet so you can keep the phone powered and data-rape it without removing it from the bag, just in case the user enabled full device encryption.
Of course any Slashdotter knows that once someone has local access anything stored locally is basically crackable anyway. So if one had information they really wanted secure it would likely be on a remote server anyway, which a device can't get to in a Faraday cage.
That's also what makes the passcode and fingerprinting debate a bit silly. If someone like the government physically had your device, they need neither the passcode or the fingerprint. They have the abilities to dissect the device and pull any info off, encryption or not.
It's a bit much for casual purposes; but it effectively demonstrates that Apple's little toy is just another fingerprint sensor (albeit a more attractive one than the usual little stripe-thing) with no more resistance to an under-a-hundred-bucks, probably a few bucks per print, in quantity, attacks than any of the others.
Still beats no passcode at all against a casual attacker; but it sounds like the CCC technique works just fine with digital reproductions (ie, you don't need the original thumbprint to use as a mold, or develop with cyanoacrylate vapor, or anything like that) so it's fuck up once, have your fingerprint on file for however long it stays roughly the same, which is never terribly encouraging.
I think every Slashdotter's wet dream is that they need to keep to keep their phones safe against a CSI style government interrogation, but this is really just for anti-theft or corporate secrets. The passcode expires in 48 hours anyway, and a business has remote wipe, so it's just a backup in another chain of security measures. And the fingerprint ready is really meant as a convenience for people who are too lazy to set a passcode at all, which is undeniably less safe.
You know what a government is going to do if they have you and your phone? Take your finger, and press it to your phone, which legally they can compel (or physically force) you to do. All this talk about "Oh, what if the government has your fingerprint on file?" Please. That's overthinking it.
Didn't these clowns watch the keynote?
-jcr
I am totally shocked someone in the tech industry would launch a project without fully understanding the original problem. SHOCKED I SAY.
Stripping out skeuomorphism and intentionally not trying to make applications look nice are two different things. The flaw with your line of reasoning is the idea that skeuomorphism is the only way to make an app look attractive. Decades of user interface work would disagree with that.
It's perfectly possible to create a sensible, usable, and attractive flat UI.