... but I find myself far too flooded with feelings that almost qualify as psychotic jealousy about your working hours (while still being paid as a full time worker) to be able to answer your question productively.
When does Apple say it's for anybody's protection?
It's their fee. Plain and simple.
Apple is a for-profit company, not a charity. They are allowed to profit from charging for whatever they think that people might want, and they are reasonably entitled to charge as much as they believe the market can bear.
Because if so, locking it down isn't locked down at all, since it can be unlocked with a simple jailbreak.
And if not, then I fail to see why Apple should be terribly worried about jailbreaking at all if it can permanently lock down a phone... since people who do jailbreak are voluntarily creating a situation where a thief could profit by stealing their phone where they otherwise would not.
And of course... it's a false proposition anyways, since there are definitely things that people will hide even though there's nothing wrong with them. Genitalia come to mind as a most obvious immediate example of this. They are not hidden because there is anything necessarily wrong with them, they are hidden simply because they are private. Building any sort of policy around the premise that if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide is about as horrifyingly destined for disaster as what happened to the Jews during World War 2.
To be fair, I've personally witnessed benchmarks where Java's memory allocation and garbage collection outperform C++'s default new operator behavior (with appropriate deletes so that there are no memory leaks) by a huge margin.
However, modifying the C++ version to utilize custom new and delete operators for the necessary classes to cater to the specific demands of such an application once again pushes the C++ version's performance ahead of Java, as expected. The difference in runtime speed, however, is not as great as you might think. In the case I witnessed where this was done, the Java version took only about 20% longer to complete.
It has long been established in logic that there are things which are true which cannot be proven. Free will may be an example of one of those things.
Nonetheless, until science can show conclusively otherwise, we may as well presume that free will exists, since based on what we *do* know, we appear to behave as though we have it, even though we can't specifically explain it.
Note that, in most jurisdictions, possession of stolen property IS a crime, regardless of whether or not you actually know that the property is stolen. If the DA is very busy, or honestly believes that you did not knowingly purchase stolen property, you will just lose said property. If they think you should have known, you may very well be faced with criminal charges.
Of course... and there's absolutely no reason I can think of to handle stolen cell phones any differently than this.
People don't get mugged for phones much out here in Australia, all you have to do is report the phone stolen and its blacklisted.
What's to stop somebody from reporting *YOUR* phone as stolen to inconvenience you?
Yes, there are people in the world that are demented enough that doing something like that would be enjoyable.... all they'd need to know is your phone number.
What we need is central industry DB that a stolen phone is registered to. Once registered to this DB no carrier in US would allow on their network.
Apple, Google, Blackbery would ban these devices from their servers also.
You could have stopped right there. That alone would have negated a lot of the incentive of stealing phones in the first place.
If anyone buys a phone without checking and later it is found to have been slolden then they get to share in the charges from the person who committed crime. If he killed or maimed they get charges as accessories.
That rings far too much like "guilty until proven innocent".
It's stolen property... handle it identically to that. The possessor surrenders it to the authorities at their own expense.
If something never happened, then there can't be any record of it.... that would *INCLUDE* human memory. To erase all record of something having existed would also entail erasing all human memory of its existence as well.
A person who commits a crime may not legally be recognized guilty until tried, but that doesn't mean they aren't guilty of doing what they did.
Any more than a person who didn't commit a criminal act, but ends up being found guilty in a court is actually guilty of the crime that he was accused of.
But the question that comes to immediately to mind is that since he did not provide that decryption key himself, what evidence is there that the people who allegedly decrypted some of his drives did not plant such incriminating evidence there themselves? Especially since they seemed to want to use its presence as a basis to get him to decrypt more drives.
Slashdot Mirror
... but I find myself far too flooded with feelings that almost qualify as psychotic jealousy about your working hours (while still being paid as a full time worker) to be able to answer your question productively.
Roughly the same way you handle people losing keys to their home.
When does Apple say it's for anybody's protection?
It's their fee. Plain and simple.
Apple is a for-profit company, not a charity. They are allowed to profit from charging for whatever they think that people might want, and they are reasonably entitled to charge as much as they believe the market can bear.
Because if so, locking it down isn't locked down at all, since it can be unlocked with a simple jailbreak.
And if not, then I fail to see why Apple should be terribly worried about jailbreaking at all if it can permanently lock down a phone... since people who do jailbreak are voluntarily creating a situation where a thief could profit by stealing their phone where they otherwise would not.
It is if each of those combinations has to be manually reported... you know, as in a police report?
And of course... it's a false proposition anyways, since there are definitely things that people will hide even though there's nothing wrong with them. Genitalia come to mind as a most obvious immediate example of this. They are not hidden because there is anything necessarily wrong with them, they are hidden simply because they are private. Building any sort of policy around the premise that if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide is about as horrifyingly destined for disaster as what happened to the Jews during World War 2.
It's my understanding that such projects are not part of the Wayland project itself.
To be fair, I've personally witnessed benchmarks where Java's memory allocation and garbage collection outperform C++'s default new operator behavior (with appropriate deletes so that there are no memory leaks) by a huge margin.
However, modifying the C++ version to utilize custom new and delete operators for the necessary classes to cater to the specific demands of such an application once again pushes the C++ version's performance ahead of Java, as expected. The difference in runtime speed, however, is not as great as you might think. In the case I witnessed where this was done, the Java version took only about 20% longer to complete.
The Java version used *WAY* more memory, however.
It has long been established in logic that there are things which are true which cannot be proven. Free will may be an example of one of those things.
Nonetheless, until science can show conclusively otherwise, we may as well presume that free will exists, since based on what we *do* know, we appear to behave as though we have it, even though we can't specifically explain it.
... or die trying?
Wayland doesn't even support remote rendering anyways, so you can't render on a different system than the one running the application.
Which is what they amount to by inventing an entirely new system anyways.... So the difference is...?
Wayland does do remote rendering at all (considered outside of Wayland's scope, iirc).
... in 3... 2... 1...
Of course... and there's absolutely no reason I can think of to handle stolen cell phones any differently than this.
What's to stop somebody from reporting *YOUR* phone as stolen to inconvenience you?
Yes, there are people in the world that are demented enough that doing something like that would be enjoyable.... all they'd need to know is your phone number.
You could have stopped right there. That alone would have negated a lot of the incentive of stealing phones in the first place.
That rings far too much like "guilty until proven innocent".
It's stolen property... handle it identically to that. The possessor surrenders it to the authorities at their own expense.
If something never happened, then there can't be any record of it.... that would *INCLUDE* human memory. To erase all record of something having existed would also entail erasing all human memory of its existence as well.
Even more, how does the sender know that they even sent it in the first place?
If it never existed, how could there be any memory of its use?
How... unhelpful.
A person who commits a crime may not legally be recognized guilty until tried, but that doesn't mean they aren't guilty of doing what they did.
Any more than a person who didn't commit a criminal act, but ends up being found guilty in a court is actually guilty of the crime that he was accused of.
But the question that comes to immediately to mind is that since he did not provide that decryption key himself, what evidence is there that the people who allegedly decrypted some of his drives did not plant such incriminating evidence there themselves? Especially since they seemed to want to use its presence as a basis to get him to decrypt more drives.
How do you export commercial space travel?
So what does that mean for the people who aren't in China or Russia or the USA?