If you have a gender-balanced population, and you add an extra 5% that is 75% M, your M/F ratio changes to 102.5/100. The real-life impact of Amazon expanding is almost necessarily lower than that. If you go to TFA and then click through to the original blog post, you can see that the 130/100 estimate is largely based on other factors, but the author goes out of his way to blame Amazon, who according to my estimate is only a minor contributing factor to an existing trend. And of course, he has a wildly inaccurate clickbait title on top of his piece, happily copied by GeekWire and Slashdot. I'm more and more starting to feel that if bloggers want to enjoy the same legal protection a journalists, they should be required to have some journalistic standards in return. Call it a favor to society in turn for a favor from society. And the same goes for actual journalists. Once upon a time, they were the protectors of democracy, while all that remains now is a privileged class that works for the public image of the higest bidder and has limited accountability.
That's a simple example and I'm too lazy, but you could easily improve upon it if you try. Picking one city and one temperature like that is an extension of the "weather's not climate" fallacy. So don't fall for that statistical trick again.
Another important thing that few people do is distinguishing between a hypothesis, and a well-supported theory, because people promoting their hypothesis will rarely inform you. Do that and you will be much smarter.
I'm really starting to think you have memory issues. You're still acting as if that cartoon is my only source of data, ignoring all my other links. There is a rising trend in the average surface temperature on earth, and if you focus on records at individual places, a large majority has a rising trend too. Ice sheets are declining all over the world, glaciers are retreating all over the world. Nobody is contesting that (but you, apparently). Saying rising temperatures are a hypothesis, rather than a well-supported theory, is dishonest to say the least. Deniers used to try to make that point 30 years ago. When that position became untenable, they retreated to saying it's it's the sun, not greenhouse gases. That has became untenable too, and they have been diversifying into a whole bunch of arguments, every one as wrong as the next one. Try to keep up.
Also, in teaching, it is often advantageous to give an example. A few degrees rise in average surface temperature doesn't speak to the imagination much, and ill-informed people are going to cherry-pick one particular cold winter out of a long record to try to disprove it. To show how silly that is, Randall Munroe picked one particular city as an example, to illustrate the wider trend more clearly. He also chose to start in the 1970 because that's where we have the most data and the trend is most spectacular; as I said before, it's still there if you go back to the 1920s or so (when the human-induced rise in CO2 levels became big enough to have a statistically significant influence). If you go out of your way to find a data point that goes against the trend (which is not all that difficult given the large fluctuations) then it is you who are cherry-picking and committing a fallacy.
This is just crappy news outlets fluffing up stories and putting sensational headlines above it. Just 2 sentences down from what you cited in from that daily mail (bleh) article:
He did say the authorities still believe that the two April 5 signals, one of which was held for 2 hours and 20 minutes - are consistent with black-box locator beacons.
So piecing this together with other data, on April 5 at 4:45PM (GMT; this would be the morning of April 6 in Australia), they had their pinger locator at 3000m depth and had a strong signal at 33.5kHz (yes that's a lower than it should be but still within somewhat plausible limits given factors such as the fact that its batteries weren't doing great), which they detected continuously for 2 hours and 20 minutes. Later that day, they got a weaker signal (to weak to be taken serious on its own) at exactly the same frequency at a shallower depth. All the information over the few days that preceded and followed (including the Chinese measurement, which prompted Ocean Shield to search in that area in the first place) is consistent with a pinger at great depth that is quickly exhausting the last bit of juice in its battery. And it's roughly consistent with the original satellite analysis by the company that operates the satellites, has all the data the researchers in TFA don't have, and has a financial incentive in providing accurate results (they're currently trying to market satellite-based flight tracking). Also of note is that highly scattered debris on the sea floor that may be partially covered with mud and is not emitting any signal anymore is very hard to find. And that people are still pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars in searching a wider area around where these pings are detected. You must be assuming these people are too stupid to properly analyze their data...
And based your argument on a cherry-picking cartoon
I told you why I thought there's no cherry picking there, and asked you to specify what cherry-picking you think is being done. Your answer was just another ad hominem: "show you understand statistics". And your last post doesn't answer the question either: you're just handwaving it away with the vague an imprecise statement "anyone could write a similar cartoon going the other way, just by cherry-picking different data points" but you're again ignoring the graph in question CLEANLY HAS A VALUE FOR EVERY YEAR SINCE 1970. You must have some pretty severe filters on your brain.
Yeap, that puts you in the complete moron category. Sorry about that.
Since the attempted character assassination and insults don't seem to be going to stop any time soon, I think it's time to start fighting back with some of my own (no whining please, you had it coming for a long while). You see, this is interesting: I replied to a post that was more than a week old (because I'm a busy scientists and don't often have time to read non-work-related articles, but it looked interesting and I really wanted to read it), and just a little bit over 1 hour later, I get a reply back, prominently claiming you almost forgot about me! If so, how come you reply almost within the hour, on that week-old-post, after having posted dozens more posts in other discussions? Either you're going though pages and pages of old posts every few hours to check for replies, or you have a crawler that does so for you. And why would you do all that effort without being paid for it? Could it be that maybe you are? That would explain your profuse use of shilling tactics in this discussion. Tell me, are other people in your organization pumping your karma by making insightful posts in computer-related discussions so that you can yell harder in the climate-related ones, or are you doing that all by yourself? Also, are you in the same organization as those other well-known/. shills that have been called out in the past? Because your style is strikingly similar... And are you going to ask one of them to mod this post down, or would that only blow your cover even further?
To anyone who claims this is infeasible: bullshit. In spite of some heated (and misinformed) opinions that are being vented in the media, this ruling does not specify that Google has to automatically erase all unwanted results; it only has to erase specific unwanted results upon request by the user. Given a proper legal framework (which will probably be there; the EU is not a common law jurisdiction), this is far less far-reaching than DMCA take-downs, which are already supported by pretty much every company out there.
Disclaimer: I'm neither talking about the philosophical implications of this law nor about the potential for abuse, just about technical feasibility. Though as far as abuse potential is concerned, I cannot imagine it being much worse than the DMCA...
Citation doesn't say the "signals didn't actually match the frequency of a black box pinger". All news reports I saw said they did match. And the frequency of the pingers is chosen to be not easily confused with other sources. Also, on a world map, these dots in your link look quite dense, but the world is huge; if you're out there on a ship, they're very sparse. Also, they're buoys - one would think these searching ships would be aware of their presence...
Oh yeah, I almost forgot about you. You're the guy who thinks anyone who says anything negative about global warming scientists, automatically means they are anti-science.
No, I never said anything like that. You are the one who went fullad hominem calling me names like "idiot", "retard" and "moron", just because I was poking holes in your false conception that the Stefan–Boltzmann law somehow would rule out the greenhouse effect. That was what I was referring to with "denial of basic physics".
So, are you going to remain a true believer, or ask to look at the evidence?
You're firmly in "troll" realm now. I did discuss your "evidence" at length in my previous post (as well as my other posts in this topic). Or did that go over your head? Because you've pretty much dodged all my questions and arguments in most of this discussion, attacking the source of the questions and arguments instead. I don't think it is I who needs to take off their blinders and look at the evidence...
Yeah, that article contains good arguments in the sense that they're worth talking about, unlike the stupid denial of basic physics you have been professing. The scientists recognize the greenhouse effect and recognize the basic validity of climate models. They are trying to find an explanation for an observed inaccuracy in past predictions (the famous temporary slowdown in warming - please do note that the trend is still warming). Their explanation consists of slight inaccuracies in the data that have been fed to the model. Other explanations have subsequently been proposed , and while the topic is still subject to debate, heat getting trapped in the depths of the pacific ocean currently seems to be gaining traction as the most prevalent hypothesis, which is worrisome because once this finite heat reservoir is saturated, the heating will pick up with a vengeance (see links at the end of this post for mainstream media reports that quote the authors on making this same point).
And to close, for those who don't like to dig through highly technical papers or simply don't have access, herearethree mainstream media reports on that last article. This is science at work, people. It advances through hypothesis and counter-hypothesis, and you cannot just go cherry-picking one report that seems to confirm your political bias without following the further developments of the story...
OK, I'll bite: what does "liberal" have to do with this? "This is something I don't like, and liberals are something I don't like, hence this must be something liberal?"
To clue you in, fixing issues like drought, drug trade, poaching, blood diamonds, genocide in Africa is more often seen on a liberal agenda than the conservative one, and if conservatives want to do something, it is usually something like:
(1) Some intervention that directly benefits the US (actually, nowadays it's more "benefits the oil or weapon industry that paid for our campaign")
(2) Let the magic of the free market do its thing
(3) ???
(4) oh never mind, we already had our profit at step (1) and now our term in office is over, suckers!
This reeks of postmodernism or theology, in a bad way. I suspect they may be applying certain logical steps in ways they shouldn't be applied or confusing terminology somewhere. Like someone getting confused about certain qualitative statements in thermodynamics and coming to conclusions that are absurd from a statistical mechanics point of view - it happens in the classroom all the time. From a microscopic POV, the brain is all weighted connections and sigmoid transfer functions, and even if it's more complicated than that, one could still argue that all room-temperature ordinary matter physics can be approximately computed given an arbitrarily large amount of computing power. I refuse to accept that laws of physics that are computable would give rise to emergent behavior that is incomputable. Unless I'm the one who is confused about the meaning of the term "computable"...
Uh... I'm invoking... uhm... the reverse true Scotsman fallacy. Yeah, that's the ticket: either everyone in this thread loses it, or nobody does. Oh look a squirrel! Wait... what were we talking about again? Global warming, right?
Going a few sentences up: "Every iOS device has a dedicated AES 256 crypto engine built into the DMA path
between the flash storage and main system memory." So all one needs to do to bypass that encryption layer is access the data through the DMA path (which I'd imagine to be a set of copper lines on the PCB). So no specialized equipment that interacts physically with the silicon necessary. And note that the user's passcode does not come into play at this level. More info here.
I finally got to the bottom of it. We were indeed both right in a way. There are two layers of encryption, one that is always on, and a second one that is only engaged through the Apple Data Encryption API. However, for the one that is always on, the decryption is also always on (without the user needing to enter their passcode), so it might just as well not be there (except for the remote disk wipe feature). There's nothing a hardware hacker needs to do to bypass the always-on decryption, so from that point of view, only the Apple Data Encryption API layer counts.
Okay, I had a closer look at p. 8-9, and together with information from yet another source, I have to concede it's slightly more complicated than stuff not being encrypted at all and "ripping directly from the flash ships" being possible. Yes, the whole "disk" is behind one layer of encryption, but all a person with hardware access has to do to get around this is access the flash chips through the regular DMA data path (which in many scenarios may be simper than reading directly from the flash chips anyway) in order to ensure the AES hardware automatically and transparently decrypts everything. Everything, except the data that is hidden behind the second layer of encryption, which is where the Apple Data Encryption API comes in. Still, while my observations were not formally correct, my main point remains valid: it is trivial for a hardware hacker to retrieve all the data that is not protected though the Apple Data Encryption API (only e-mail in a stock install), and this has been known since April 2013.
Yeah, and if you skim through that document for a few minutes, it becomes clear that the encryption is not applied to the whole disk, and that only apps that use the Apple Data Encryption API benefit from it. The only app that does this in a stock configuration is the e-mail one, so I stand by what I wrote. More about this here and in the 2 links in my previous post.
Yeah, that's what you'd think if you were to skip the fine print. In truth, the "disk encryption" in iOS 4 is not full disk encryption. An app has to specifically request for its data to be encrypted through the Apple Data Encryption API, and of the default apps, only the e-mail one does that. More details in the two links in my last post (which date from the first half of 2013 and are specifically talking about iOS 4). I assume they did this for performance and battery life reasons.
I got more than one answer such as yours, so if this many geeks are still deluded about the nature of the "disk encryption", then perhaps I am mistaken and this is not a non-story after all.
The AC nailed it; this is an utter non-story. Last time I checked, locking an iPhone does not enable full-disk encryption. Raise your hand if you thought the iPhone contains some magical Steve Jobs fart that would prevent someone with hardware access (leave alone Apple with hardware access!) from ripping the unencryped data (which, in a default setup, is essentially everything exceptyour e-mail) from the flash chips. And yes, hardware access is necessary even if it isn't explicilty stated in the summary. Anyhow, those that did raise their hands earlier, please hand in your geek card and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Slashdot Mirror
I forgot to mention, the prize comes with a job offer from a major US political campaign group or media outlet (right, like there is any difference).
Sorry sir, I'm not in charge of the Ig Nobel Prices. Tell you what, I'll give you a "contextomy of the month" price.
Yup, Apple is still the undisputed king of vendor lock-in. More so than Microsoft and Google, I would say (though they're also doing their best).
If you have a gender-balanced population, and you add an extra 5% that is 75% M, your M/F ratio changes to 102.5/100. The real-life impact of Amazon expanding is almost necessarily lower than that. If you go to TFA and then click through to the original blog post, you can see that the 130/100 estimate is largely based on other factors, but the author goes out of his way to blame Amazon, who according to my estimate is only a minor contributing factor to an existing trend. And of course, he has a wildly inaccurate clickbait title on top of his piece, happily copied by GeekWire and Slashdot. I'm more and more starting to feel that if bloggers want to enjoy the same legal protection a journalists, they should be required to have some journalistic standards in return. Call it a favor to society in turn for a favor from society. And the same goes for actual journalists. Once upon a time, they were the protectors of democracy, while all that remains now is a privileged class that works for the public image of the higest bidder and has limited accountability.
That's a simple example and I'm too lazy, but you could easily improve upon it if you try. Picking one city and one temperature like that is an extension of the "weather's not climate" fallacy. So don't fall for that statistical trick again.
Another important thing that few people do is distinguishing between a hypothesis, and a well-supported theory, because people promoting their hypothesis will rarely inform you. Do that and you will be much smarter.
I'm really starting to think you have memory issues. You're still acting as if that cartoon is my only source of data, ignoring all my other links. There is a rising trend in the average surface temperature on earth, and if you focus on records at individual places, a large majority has a rising trend too. Ice sheets are declining all over the world, glaciers are retreating all over the world. Nobody is contesting that (but you, apparently). Saying rising temperatures are a hypothesis, rather than a well-supported theory, is dishonest to say the least. Deniers used to try to make that point 30 years ago. When that position became untenable, they retreated to saying it's it's the sun, not greenhouse gases. That has became untenable too, and they have been diversifying into a whole bunch of arguments, every one as wrong as the next one. Try to keep up.
Also, in teaching, it is often advantageous to give an example. A few degrees rise in average surface temperature doesn't speak to the imagination much, and ill-informed people are going to cherry-pick one particular cold winter out of a long record to try to disprove it. To show how silly that is, Randall Munroe picked one particular city as an example, to illustrate the wider trend more clearly. He also chose to start in the 1970 because that's where we have the most data and the trend is most spectacular; as I said before, it's still there if you go back to the 1920s or so (when the human-induced rise in CO2 levels became big enough to have a statistically significant influence). If you go out of your way to find a data point that goes against the trend (which is not all that difficult given the large fluctuations) then it is you who are cherry-picking and committing a fallacy.
Yeah, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Correlation combined with a physical mechanism (which you unsuccessfully attacked before), however, is strong evidence. Dismissing it is every bit as fallacious.
Here's a more to-the-point example... were you talking about cherry-picking before?
Sssht... you'll wake up the resident Windows 98 die hards.
He did say the authorities still believe that the two April 5 signals, one of which was held for 2 hours and 20 minutes - are consistent with black-box locator beacons.
So piecing this together with other data, on April 5 at 4:45PM (GMT; this would be the morning of April 6 in Australia), they had their pinger locator at 3000m depth and had a strong signal at 33.5kHz (yes that's a lower than it should be but still within somewhat plausible limits given factors such as the fact that its batteries weren't doing great), which they detected continuously for 2 hours and 20 minutes. Later that day, they got a weaker signal (to weak to be taken serious on its own) at exactly the same frequency at a shallower depth. All the information over the few days that preceded and followed (including the Chinese measurement, which prompted Ocean Shield to search in that area in the first place) is consistent with a pinger at great depth that is quickly exhausting the last bit of juice in its battery. And it's roughly consistent with the original satellite analysis by the company that operates the satellites, has all the data the researchers in TFA don't have, and has a financial incentive in providing accurate results (they're currently trying to market satellite-based flight tracking). Also of note is that highly scattered debris on the sea floor that may be partially covered with mud and is not emitting any signal anymore is very hard to find. And that people are still pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars in searching a wider area around where these pings are detected. You must be assuming these people are too stupid to properly analyze their data...
Oh yeah, you also think polar vortices are a result of global warming.
The opposite of what I said...
And based your argument on a cherry-picking cartoon
I told you why I thought there's no cherry picking there, and asked you to specify what cherry-picking you think is being done. Your answer was just another ad hominem: "show you understand statistics". And your last post doesn't answer the question either: you're just handwaving it away with the vague an imprecise statement "anyone could write a similar cartoon going the other way, just by cherry-picking different data points" but you're again ignoring the graph in question CLEANLY HAS A VALUE FOR EVERY YEAR SINCE 1970. You must have some pretty severe filters on your brain.
Yeap, that puts you in the complete moron category. Sorry about that.
Since the attempted character assassination and insults don't seem to be going to stop any time soon, I think it's time to start fighting back with some of my own (no whining please, you had it coming for a long while). You see, this is interesting: I replied to a post that was more than a week old (because I'm a busy scientists and don't often have time to read non-work-related articles, but it looked interesting and I really wanted to read it), and just a little bit over 1 hour later, I get a reply back, prominently claiming you almost forgot about me ! If so, how come you reply almost within the hour, on that week-old-post, after having posted dozens more posts in other discussions? Either you're going though pages and pages of old posts every few hours to check for replies, or you have a crawler that does so for you. And why would you do all that effort without being paid for it? Could it be that maybe you are? That would explain your profuse use of shilling tactics in this discussion. Tell me, are other people in your organization pumping your karma by making insightful posts in computer-related discussions so that you can yell harder in the climate-related ones, or are you doing that all by yourself? Also, are you in the same organization as those other well-known /. shills that have been called out in the past? Because your style is strikingly similar... And are you going to ask one of them to mod this post down, or would that only blow your cover even further?
To anyone who claims this is infeasible: bullshit. In spite of some heated (and misinformed) opinions that are being vented in the media, this ruling does not specify that Google has to automatically erase all unwanted results; it only has to erase specific unwanted results upon request by the user. Given a proper legal framework (which will probably be there; the EU is not a common law jurisdiction), this is far less far-reaching than DMCA take-downs, which are already supported by pretty much every company out there.
Disclaimer: I'm neither talking about the philosophical implications of this law nor about the potential for abuse, just about technical feasibility. Though as far as abuse potential is concerned, I cannot imagine it being much worse than the DMCA...
Citation doesn't say the "signals didn't actually match the frequency of a black box pinger". All news reports I saw said they did match. And the frequency of the pingers is chosen to be not easily confused with other sources. Also, on a world map, these dots in your link look quite dense, but the world is huge; if you're out there on a ship, they're very sparse. Also, they're buoys - one would think these searching ships would be aware of their presence...
Oh yeah, I almost forgot about you. You're the guy who thinks anyone who says anything negative about global warming scientists, automatically means they are anti-science.
No, I never said anything like that. You are the one who went full ad hominem calling me names like "idiot", "retard" and "moron", just because I was poking holes in your false conception that the Stefan–Boltzmann law somehow would rule out the greenhouse effect. That was what I was referring to with "denial of basic physics".
So, are you going to remain a true believer, or ask to look at the evidence?
You're firmly in "troll" realm now. I did discuss your "evidence" at length in my previous post (as well as my other posts in this topic). Or did that go over your head? Because you've pretty much dodged all my questions and arguments in most of this discussion, attacking the source of the questions and arguments instead. I don't think it is I who needs to take off their blinders and look at the evidence...
Yeah, that article contains good arguments in the sense that they're worth talking about, unlike the stupid denial of basic physics you have been professing. The scientists recognize the greenhouse effect and recognize the basic validity of climate models. They are trying to find an explanation for an observed inaccuracy in past predictions (the famous temporary slowdown in warming - please do note that the trend is still warming). Their explanation consists of slight inaccuracies in the data that have been fed to the model. Other explanations have subsequently been proposed , and while the topic is still subject to debate, heat getting trapped in the depths of the pacific ocean currently seems to be gaining traction as the most prevalent hypothesis, which is worrisome because once this finite heat reservoir is saturated, the heating will pick up with a vengeance (see links at the end of this post for mainstream media reports that quote the authors on making this same point).
To corroborate what I said, the article you're linking to was published in the "opinion & comment section". "Commentary articles are opinionated pieces that focus on a topical issue in climate research that is relevant to policy, the economy or society". In other words, this part of the journal is to stir up discussions. And discussions there are. Here are two articles in the same journal that cite yours:
This one says that even though the heating is slower, it's still getting hotter (yeah, it's also a commentary).
This is the famous paper that proposes a mechanism behind the observation that heat is being stored in the Pacific at an increasing rate (full peer-reviewed article).
And to close, for those who don't like to dig through highly technical papers or simply don't have access, here are three mainstream media reports on that last article. This is science at work, people. It advances through hypothesis and counter-hypothesis, and you cannot just go cherry-picking one report that seems to confirm your political bias without following the further developments of the story...
Could we have a citation on that please?
OK, I'll bite: what does "liberal" have to do with this? "This is something I don't like, and liberals are something I don't like, hence this must be something liberal?"
To clue you in, fixing issues like drought, drug trade, poaching, blood diamonds, genocide in Africa is more often seen on a liberal agenda than the conservative one, and if conservatives want to do something, it is usually something like:
(1) Some intervention that directly benefits the US (actually, nowadays it's more "benefits the oil or weapon industry that paid for our campaign")
(2) Let the magic of the free market do its thing
(3) ???
(4) oh never mind, we already had our profit at step (1) and now our term in office is over, suckers!
This reeks of postmodernism or theology, in a bad way. I suspect they may be applying certain logical steps in ways they shouldn't be applied or confusing terminology somewhere. Like someone getting confused about certain qualitative statements in thermodynamics and coming to conclusions that are absurd from a statistical mechanics point of view - it happens in the classroom all the time. From a microscopic POV, the brain is all weighted connections and sigmoid transfer functions, and even if it's more complicated than that, one could still argue that all room-temperature ordinary matter physics can be approximately computed given an arbitrarily large amount of computing power. I refuse to accept that laws of physics that are computable would give rise to emergent behavior that is incomputable. Unless I'm the one who is confused about the meaning of the term "computable"...
Correction: what I wrote is not fully correct but my main point remains valid.
Uh... I'm invoking... uhm... the reverse true Scotsman fallacy. Yeah, that's the ticket: either everyone in this thread loses it, or nobody does. Oh look a squirrel! Wait... what were we talking about again? Global warming, right?
Going a few sentences up: "Every iOS device has a dedicated AES 256 crypto engine built into the DMA path between the flash storage and main system memory." So all one needs to do to bypass that encryption layer is access the data through the DMA path (which I'd imagine to be a set of copper lines on the PCB). So no specialized equipment that interacts physically with the silicon necessary. And note that the user's passcode does not come into play at this level. More info here.
I finally got to the bottom of it. We were indeed both right in a way. There are two layers of encryption, one that is always on, and a second one that is only engaged through the Apple Data Encryption API. However, for the one that is always on, the decryption is also always on (without the user needing to enter their passcode), so it might just as well not be there (except for the remote disk wipe feature). There's nothing a hardware hacker needs to do to bypass the always-on decryption, so from that point of view, only the Apple Data Encryption API layer counts.
Correction: what I wrote is not fully correct but my main point remains valid.
Okay, I had a closer look at p. 8-9, and together with information from yet another source, I have to concede it's slightly more complicated than stuff not being encrypted at all and "ripping directly from the flash ships" being possible. Yes, the whole "disk" is behind one layer of encryption, but all a person with hardware access has to do to get around this is access the flash chips through the regular DMA data path (which in many scenarios may be simper than reading directly from the flash chips anyway) in order to ensure the AES hardware automatically and transparently decrypts everything. Everything, except the data that is hidden behind the second layer of encryption, which is where the Apple Data Encryption API comes in. Still, while my observations were not formally correct, my main point remains valid: it is trivial for a hardware hacker to retrieve all the data that is not protected though the Apple Data Encryption API (only e-mail in a stock install), and this has been known since April 2013.
Yeah, and if you skim through that document for a few minutes, it becomes clear that the encryption is not applied to the whole disk, and that only apps that use the Apple Data Encryption API benefit from it. The only app that does this in a stock configuration is the e-mail one, so I stand by what I wrote. More about this here and in the 2 links in my previous post.
Yeah, that's what you'd think if you were to skip the fine print. In truth, the "disk encryption" in iOS 4 is not full disk encryption. An app has to specifically request for its data to be encrypted through the Apple Data Encryption API, and of the default apps, only the e-mail one does that. More details in the two links in my last post (which date from the first half of 2013 and are specifically talking about iOS 4). I assume they did this for performance and battery life reasons.
I got more than one answer such as yours, so if this many geeks are still deluded about the nature of the "disk encryption", then perhaps I am mistaken and this is not a non-story after all.
The AC nailed it; this is an utter non-story. Last time I checked, locking an iPhone does not enable full -disk encryption. Raise your hand if you thought the iPhone contains some magical Steve Jobs fart that would prevent someone with hardware access (leave alone Apple with hardware access!) from ripping the unencryped data (which, in a default setup, is essentially everything except your e-mail) from the flash chips. And yes, hardware access is necessary even if it isn't explicilty stated in the summary. Anyhow, those that did raise their hands earlier, please hand in your geek card and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.