I believe that actual point at which "moribund" was final was during the Eisenhower administration. And it's not yet "morbid", it's just that there is no determinable action which could correct the course. American Democracy has been moribund since at least the Civil War, though the rate of change in that direction was slow up until WWII. (Admittedly there were fast and slow periods.) One crucial change was direct election of Senators. That stripped the states of any major control over the federal government. Another was the income tax, which permitted vast expansion of federal powers. Note that there were good reasons for both actions, but the immediate reasons were not sufficient to justify the long-term consequences.
In a similar vein, the federal control of health care, which is pretty much necessitated by the legal structure of the country. (You are a citizen of the US, not of some particular state. And even cities care prohibited from having a residence requirement for local assistance, which means that no city can afford to be more generous than any other.) But the long term consequences are increased federal control over the populace. (Well, it's already approaching total, i.e., as much as they choose to exert, so that may be a fair trade off at this point.)
This is a part of a more global tendency of governments among humans. If government is more likely than chance to end up in the hands of those who strive to gain control, the extent of the government's control over everything it touches is only limited by it's communication and decision capabilities. Note that this does not say whether or not it will be "benevolent", but even if it is, it is the government (i.e., those individuals who act in control of the government) that will decide which actions are benevolent, not the recipients of those actions.
Do note, however, that compiling rather than interpreting, code doesn't automatically make it faster. Most attempts to compile Python that I've seen, e.g., use the same PyObject routines that the interpreter does. This means that you can speed up things like for loops, but anything fancy, like generators, doesn't gaim much, as the interpreter already uses pretty much optimized methods.
Thiis is something that is too often not understood. If what you're doing is mainly invoking things that are distant from assembler, you don't gain that much by using a compiler...it can even slow you down in some cases. (Still, it would be nice to see whether a compiler could actually speed up python much over, say, PyPy. Pyrex/Cython gets around some of the limitations by allowing variables to be declared as cints, but that's not really Python. And if you stick to straight Python, IIRC, you don't see much gain.)
Sorry to correct you, but it bothered me, in decreasing amounts, for the first 6 months that I used Python. (OTOH, I was also bothered by Ruby's @, @@, and $ annotations. That bothers me for a day or so every time I come back to the language, whereas Python's whitespace no longer bothers me...but I do use tabs rather than spaces, despite opposition on the mailing list. It's perfectly safe and grammatical as long as you don't mix spaces and tabs in the initial whitespace.)
IIUC, Ruby2 *is* thread-safe. It's just that its libraries aren't. So the native implementation maintains a GIL. OTOH, there are a couple or three implementations that DON'T have a GIL. One of which (JRuby?) runs on the JVM.
Given the history of MS, I would expect him to end up in a worse spot.
Java has been GPLed, and Oracle has pretty much lost the law suit claiming copyright on the API documentation (IIUC). So Java just needs to be forked NOW. (I believe that this is in process.)
MS has given no indication that they will ever release C#, and certainly they have refused to release certain parts of.NET. So I expect that C# will end up wholly proprietary. (After all, they *are* the copyright holders, so they can release new versions under any license they choose.)
Scrap the conditional. They *are* interpreted languages. So was BC-Algol. So are many versions of Lisp and Scheme.
But do note that just because one implementation of a language is interpreted, doesn't mean that the language is inherently interpreted. UCSD Pascal was an interpreted language. FPC Pascal is not. Lisp 1.5 was an interpreted language. SBCL Lisp is not.
It's true that I haven't heard of any compiled versions of Python, Ruby, or Smalltalk, but that's not proof that they are impossible. (Pyrex comes close WRT Python, as possibly does Cython...but IIUC it's WRT Python2, not Python3.)
Currently my language of choice is D (Digital Mars D), but I sure envy Python it's collection of libraries. And most of the time I'll try to use Python first.
I'm afraid that I consider C a nest of bug-prone constructs. And C++ isn't any better. (I really dislike the STL and boost isn't that much better. Dealing with unicode in either language is too much pain to bother with. (C *is* useful as a glue layer to foreign libraries. C++ doesn't even have that utility.) And pointers are one of the worse aspects, second only to non-range-checked arrays, with free casting of RAM locations in third only because it's rarer.
They should solve the time-zone problem by always reporting Greenwich Mean Time. Then it would be a simple problem. Do I think it worth updating a web page every second? No. But the reported answer is stupid. If it's an OS dependent clock, then it WILL be inaccurate. (I suppose it could load the initial time at page load time, and update it based on the system clock, but that's also a rather silly approach. OS features should be handled by the OS. That solution would mean that OS updates would be likely to break the clock on the page, a continual problem.)
So the answer is not to display the current time, but to display the GMT at which the page was last (re-)loaded. And that could be done with static HTML.
OTOH, whatever they do about this, somebody will complain. So the answer they made is as good as any...except for lying about the reason. (But probably some techie gave up trying to explain the problem to a PR guy...so the PR guy invented a reason.)
This doesn't mean that I accept the decision. I consider it a corrupt and abusive decision that ignores the constitution.
I refuse to accept any government that acts in such a way as a just government. There are many judicial decisions that corrupt and inspire disregard for the law. This is one of them. It those charged with upholding the law won't obey it, why should they expect anyone else to, except out of fear? And that's the society we've ended up with. Nobody respects the law, though many fear it. And it's because the government and others charged with enforcing the law ignore the constitution, which is what all of our laws are supposed to be founded on. When people don't believe the laws are just (and who does that has their eyes open) then people don't respect the law.
Even assuming that he actually did perform legally, I don't find that an excuse. I also don't believe it to be true.
Neither party ever surrenders the nefarious powers granted them by the other party. Both are vile. I'm not always sure that they are intentionally evil, but it often seems so.
FWIW, I believe that my summary of the difference between the two parties still stands: "The difference is that the Democrats want you to like them." That you don't like someone doesn't mean that he doesn't want you to like him. People who want you to like them will generally be more careful to hide the shameful things that they do. Not necessarily successfully, however.
See earlier post. Apply the fine to the management of the agency being fined, not to the agency. (Personally I think it should be pro-rata, with half the fine being assessed against the top management, half the rest against his top subordinants, half the rest against their top subordinants, etc. When you get out of management, if the entire fine isn't covered, scale all the fines up until it IS covered. I feel undecided against confidential personnel. They aren't officially management, but sometimes they have nearly as much decision authority, so I think they should probably be included, but perhaps only at half the level of managers at the same distance from the top.
I think you're confusing copyright and patent law. I'll admit that you might just be drawing an analogy, however.
OTOH, remember that the RIAA bought special laws that gave them the right to claim those huge damages. I'll grant that they were strengthened by (corrupt? stupid?) court decisions, but the older forms of the copyright law would not have enabled them to have a profitable business suing people.
The (corrupt? stupid?) court decisions that I'm aware of were the ones that allowed ephemeral copies to be considered the same as permanent copies. I suspect that this was actually a stupid decision, but I don't find this certain. (I believe that those were eventually thrown out, but not until after a large body of precedent was established that could not have been formed without them. And the precedent was largely maintained...IIUC much of it was formally independent of the original ruling, even though the decisions that established it were based on the original ruling.
OTOH IANAL. I could easily have misunderstood the details of what was going on. Perhaps the courts aren't really as corrupt and stupid as they appear. (But consider what's involved in rewriting some old code that uses some subroutines that were written in assembler. Perhaps if I actually understood their problems I'd be more sympathetic. But from my point of view it looks as if calling them stupid is giving them the benefit of the doubt.)
Those "corporations which generate and use a large number of patents" generate a HUGE number of trivial, stupid, or even bogus patents BECAUSE there is no "flood penalty". Yes, the ones you mention also generate a large number of reasonable patents. But because of the rules of the game they generate an incredibly large number of stupid and trivial patents. There needs to be SOME sort of "flood penalty". Perhaps it could be partially offset for every item that you produce that you validly claim is using any particular one of the patents (which no patent being allowed to be claimed more than once for the offset), but that seems to be a pernicious incentive to claim trivial patents. Perhaps there could be a limit on the number of patents that you can claim as enforceable. (You get to hold all your patents, but you must list no more than, say, 100, that you are allowed to enforce in that year. You can change the list once a year...or maybe you can switch 3 patents/month after you reach the limit.
I'll admit that the details of how this should be designed are not well thought out. Perhaps patents should be non-transferable, and only issued to some individual human. This, of course, would tend to impact employment contracts, but IIUC the current employment contracts already generally contain extensively overreaching claims on all patents you create while employed. So this probably wouldn't get any worse. But sub-licensing needs to be made explicitly illegal. Each license should need to approval of the inventor. And there should be provision for invalidating a patent (with fines and revocation of prior license agreements) if a non-inventor is listed as the inventor. (Multiple people could be listed as the inventor, if it was the work of a team, but they should each be granted independent license).
Additionally, independent invention should be recognized and allowed, with each of the independent inventors being granted a separate patent. No more arbitrary picking of winners when two or three people invent something independently before a patent was granted. And if four independent inventions occur, the patent should be automatically be invalidated as "obvious to those skilled in the art".
I'll admit that I'm dubious about the entire patent system anyway. It appears to be designed to increase centralization of power and control into as few hands as possible. SOME sort of inventor's bounty needs to be available, but I think patents are a bad idea on how to do that. If I were king, I might put more thought into it, but since I have no implementation authority I haven't puzzled out what the right system should be.
Sorry, but you've got that wrong. The punishment doesn't need to be severe, but needs to be relatively certain. A minor punishment that you are fairly certain will be applied is much more effective than a severe punishment that is quite uncertain. And heavy punishments are typically applied much more sparingly.
Since the system is still in the proposal stage, there can be no reasonable claim that it is implmented in the way described. Therefore it is clear that the original statement was a statement of belief about how it would be implemented.
It would be nice if there weren't a lot of evidence in support of their attitude.
"Aura" is insufficiently well defined to be definitively matched against any possible scientific discovery. It's also so poorly defined that many people match it against "Kirilian Phtography"...but they don't and can't convince others who think it's something else (or that it doesn't exist).
FWIW, it's so poorly defined that the use of the term "aura" to describe portions of the experience of migraine headaches or epileptic seizures as "aura" isn't definitively a different usage.
Remember that you only get the Bene Gesserits and Mentats after the Butlerian Jihad. First you destroy the thinking machines, then you create people as replacements. Also note that the Bene Gesserit skills are due to a *combination* of training and genetics. (Not sure about Mentats, but it's probably true for them also. There's an early comment about Paul being capable of being trained as a Mentat, which clearly implies that most folk weren't.)
So perhaps this only becomes possible after a bit of genetic engineering of the human species.
(OTOH, don't confuse real life with stories. Stories only need to try to be internally consistent and interesting. Reality is differently constrained.)
Don't be sure this can be used with perscription glasses. The current version of Google Glass can't. (They did say that they would be looking into solving the problem in a few years, but...)
Also, that picture looked... ugly. Their current version clearly needs a lot of work before it's a consumer device. (It also looked heavy, which would translate into uncomfortable.) And the way it hides your eyes is socially distancing...though I suppose that doesn't matter if you never talk to anyone in person. (Think movie stars. The function of the dark glasses is less to protect their eyes than to socially distance them. They remove the dark glasses when interacting with equals.)
A signing key should not be kept on a disk, but it often is, for convenience. In which case I don't see the concern about that being handled. (And if it were kept on a usb stick, and they knew about that, I expect they would have demanded *that*.)
So, perhaps, depending one various possibilities, they have dealt with my first concern. (I'm not really convinced. If they plant evidence, as police have been known to do, how do you show that's what happened? They could claim you had just erased it from your copy.)
The appropriate approach would require handing over a signed decrypted copy of the disk image, so that alterations could be detected. And publish the public key. This should be done with a fresh key value that is held be, perhaps, the judge, or perhaps this should be done in layers, with one signing key being held by the accused and a second held by the judge.
So there are reasonable procedures, but I have seen no sign that such are being used. Don't blind yourself by thinking only of this case. This is merely an early instance of prosecution where decryption of storage is required. (And I'm still not convinced that the whole thing isn't a violation of the 5th ammendment, even given my modified approach.)
I'm sorry, but while I can accept that that's the way the coruts are ruling, I can't accept that as valid constitutionally. To me it looks horribly corrupt and subject to tremendous potentiality for abuse. (If I have to give you the evidence, then I don't have it to prove my innocence. If I give you access to my signing key, then you can forge messages and claim they came from me. etc.)
I cannot follow your reasoning. If I am coerced into giving you evidence that you use to incriminate me, then that is self incrimination. The extends to allowing you access to things you physically possess, but which you don't know how to use/access. The extension is straight-forward and appears to me to be self-evidently logical. You appear to be denying this, but I can't understand on what valid grounds. (Because it makes my job easier does not count as a valid ground.)
You're assuming that this wouldn't reveal, say, mistakes on his income tax filings.
I suspect that he did something to get *someone* powerful angry with him. It may or may not have anything to do with anything that has been mentioned. If they are angry enough, and powerful enough, then this could force him to reveal his signing key, which would allow messages ostensibly from him to be forged.
Sorry, I don't see the judge as being anywhere close to the right side of the law as stated by the constitution. The more I think about it, the more corrupt this order looks. If they've got evidence, use it to try him, don't coerce self-incrimination.
Also, if it *is* incriminating, why doesn't that make the 5th amendment MORE applicable, rather than less? This sounds like a combination of stupid, abusive, and unconstitutional all at once.
I believe he exaggerated how thoroughly you need to apply the dust. Just be sure you get places that the cockroaches will walk should be enough. Under the stove, refrigerator, on the shelves, etc. And don't remove it.
Mind you, I'm sure his approach would work, I just think it's probably overkill based on what I've heard previously. You do, however, need to be sure the boric acid remains in place, because you will be continually reinfested from where-ever the original infestation came from.
P.S.: Boric acid is not non-toxic, though it's also not terrible. But keep it away from food. Wash your hands after handling it, avoid breathing the dust, etc. If you put any on food handling surfaces, be sure they are well washed before you again use them for food handling.
Nobody's been able to do it yet, but that's not proof. I've heard arguments as to why it's impossible, but I'm not physicist enough to understand them enough even to say whether they were convincing or not. The last time I tried to understand that area there was a general agreement that it couldn't be done, but there were several qualified physicists that felt that it hadn't been proven.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that actual point at which "moribund" was final was during the Eisenhower administration. And it's not yet "morbid", it's just that there is no determinable action which could correct the course. American Democracy has been moribund since at least the Civil War, though the rate of change in that direction was slow up until WWII. (Admittedly there were fast and slow periods.) One crucial change was direct election of Senators. That stripped the states of any major control over the federal government. Another was the income tax, which permitted vast expansion of federal powers. Note that there were good reasons for both actions, but the immediate reasons were not sufficient to justify the long-term consequences.
In a similar vein, the federal control of health care, which is pretty much necessitated by the legal structure of the country. (You are a citizen of the US, not of some particular state. And even cities care prohibited from having a residence requirement for local assistance, which means that no city can afford to be more generous than any other.) But the long term consequences are increased federal control over the populace. (Well, it's already approaching total, i.e., as much as they choose to exert, so that may be a fair trade off at this point.)
This is a part of a more global tendency of governments among humans. If government is more likely than chance to end up in the hands of those who strive to gain control, the extent of the government's control over everything it touches is only limited by it's communication and decision capabilities. Note that this does not say whether or not it will be "benevolent", but even if it is, it is the government (i.e., those individuals who act in control of the government) that will decide which actions are benevolent, not the recipients of those actions.
Do note, however, that compiling rather than interpreting, code doesn't automatically make it faster. Most attempts to compile Python that I've seen, e.g., use the same PyObject routines that the interpreter does. This means that you can speed up things like for loops, but anything fancy, like generators, doesn't gaim much, as the interpreter already uses pretty much optimized methods.
Thiis is something that is too often not understood. If what you're doing is mainly invoking things that are distant from assembler, you don't gain that much by using a compiler. ..it can even slow you down in some cases. (Still, it would be nice to see whether a compiler could actually speed up python much over, say, PyPy. Pyrex/Cython gets around some of the limitations by allowing variables to be declared as cints, but that's not really Python. And if you stick to straight Python, IIRC, you don't see much gain.)
Sorry to correct you, but it bothered me, in decreasing amounts, for the first 6 months that I used Python. (OTOH, I was also bothered by Ruby's @, @@, and $ annotations. That bothers me for a day or so every time I come back to the language, whereas Python's whitespace no longer bothers me...but I do use tabs rather than spaces, despite opposition on the mailing list. It's perfectly safe and grammatical as long as you don't mix spaces and tabs in the initial whitespace.)
IIUC, Ruby2 *is* thread-safe. It's just that its libraries aren't. So the native implementation maintains a GIL. OTOH, there are a couple or three implementations that DON'T have a GIL. One of which (JRuby?) runs on the JVM.
Given the history of MS, I would expect him to end up in a worse spot.
Java has been GPLed, and Oracle has pretty much lost the law suit claiming copyright on the API documentation (IIUC). So Java just needs to be forked NOW. (I believe that this is in process.)
MS has given no indication that they will ever release C#, and certainly they have refused to release certain parts of .NET. So I expect that C# will end up wholly proprietary. (After all, they *are* the copyright holders, so they can release new versions under any license they choose.)
Scrap the conditional. They *are* interpreted languages. So was BC-Algol. So are many versions of Lisp and Scheme.
But do note that just because one implementation of a language is interpreted, doesn't mean that the language is inherently interpreted. UCSD Pascal was an interpreted language. FPC Pascal is not. Lisp 1.5 was an interpreted language. SBCL Lisp is not.
It's true that I haven't heard of any compiled versions of Python, Ruby, or Smalltalk, but that's not proof that they are impossible. (Pyrex comes close WRT Python, as possibly does Cython...but IIUC it's WRT Python2, not Python3.)
Currently my language of choice is D (Digital Mars D), but I sure envy Python it's collection of libraries. And most of the time I'll try to use Python first.
I'm afraid that I consider C a nest of bug-prone constructs. And C++ isn't any better. (I really dislike the STL and boost isn't that much better. Dealing with unicode in either language is too much pain to bother with. (C *is* useful as a glue layer to foreign libraries. C++ doesn't even have that utility.) And pointers are one of the worse aspects, second only to non-range-checked arrays, with free casting of RAM locations in third only because it's rarer.
They should solve the time-zone problem by always reporting Greenwich Mean Time. Then it would be a simple problem. Do I think it worth updating a web page every second? No. But the reported answer is stupid. If it's an OS dependent clock, then it WILL be inaccurate. (I suppose it could load the initial time at page load time, and update it based on the system clock, but that's also a rather silly approach. OS features should be handled by the OS. That solution would mean that OS updates would be likely to break the clock on the page, a continual problem.)
So the answer is not to display the current time, but to display the GMT at which the page was last (re-)loaded. And that could be done with static HTML.
OTOH, whatever they do about this, somebody will complain. So the answer they made is as good as any...except for lying about the reason. (But probably some techie gave up trying to explain the problem to a PR guy...so the PR guy invented a reason.)
This doesn't mean that I accept the decision. I consider it a corrupt and abusive decision that ignores the constitution.
I refuse to accept any government that acts in such a way as a just government. There are many judicial decisions that corrupt and inspire disregard for the law. This is one of them. It those charged with upholding the law won't obey it, why should they expect anyone else to, except out of fear? And that's the society we've ended up with. Nobody respects the law, though many fear it. And it's because the government and others charged with enforcing the law ignore the constitution, which is what all of our laws are supposed to be founded on. When people don't believe the laws are just (and who does that has their eyes open) then people don't respect the law.
Even assuming that he actually did perform legally, I don't find that an excuse. I also don't believe it to be true.
Neither party ever surrenders the nefarious powers granted them by the other party. Both are vile. I'm not always sure that they are intentionally evil, but it often seems so.
FWIW, I believe that my summary of the difference between the two parties still stands: "The difference is that the Democrats want you to like them." That you don't like someone doesn't mean that he doesn't want you to like him. People who want you to like them will generally be more careful to hide the shameful things that they do. Not necessarily successfully, however.
See earlier post. Apply the fine to the management of the agency being fined, not to the agency. (Personally I think it should be pro-rata, with half the fine being assessed against the top management, half the rest against his top subordinants, half the rest against their top subordinants, etc. When you get out of management, if the entire fine isn't covered, scale all the fines up until it IS covered. I feel undecided against confidential personnel. They aren't officially management, but sometimes they have nearly as much decision authority, so I think they should probably be included, but perhaps only at half the level of managers at the same distance from the top.
I think you're confusing copyright and patent law. I'll admit that you might just be drawing an analogy, however.
OTOH, remember that the RIAA bought special laws that gave them the right to claim those huge damages. I'll grant that they were strengthened by (corrupt? stupid?) court decisions, but the older forms of the copyright law would not have enabled them to have a profitable business suing people.
The (corrupt? stupid?) court decisions that I'm aware of were the ones that allowed ephemeral copies to be considered the same as permanent copies. I suspect that this was actually a stupid decision, but I don't find this certain. (I believe that those were eventually thrown out, but not until after a large body of precedent was established that could not have been formed without them. And the precedent was largely maintained...IIUC much of it was formally independent of the original ruling, even though the decisions that established it were based on the original ruling.
OTOH IANAL. I could easily have misunderstood the details of what was going on. Perhaps the courts aren't really as corrupt and stupid as they appear. (But consider what's involved in rewriting some old code that uses some subroutines that were written in assembler. Perhaps if I actually understood their problems I'd be more sympathetic. But from my point of view it looks as if calling them stupid is giving them the benefit of the doubt.)
Those "corporations which generate and use a large number of patents" generate a HUGE number of trivial, stupid, or even bogus patents BECAUSE there is no "flood penalty". Yes, the ones you mention also generate a large number of reasonable patents. But because of the rules of the game they generate an incredibly large number of stupid and trivial patents. There needs to be SOME sort of "flood penalty". Perhaps it could be partially offset for every item that you produce that you validly claim is using any particular one of the patents (which no patent being allowed to be claimed more than once for the offset), but that seems to be a pernicious incentive to claim trivial patents. Perhaps there could be a limit on the number of patents that you can claim as enforceable. (You get to hold all your patents, but you must list no more than, say, 100, that you are allowed to enforce in that year. You can change the list once a year...or maybe you can switch 3 patents/month after you reach the limit.
I'll admit that the details of how this should be designed are not well thought out. Perhaps patents should be non-transferable, and only issued to some individual human. This, of course, would tend to impact employment contracts, but IIUC the current employment contracts already generally contain extensively overreaching claims on all patents you create while employed. So this probably wouldn't get any worse. But sub-licensing needs to be made explicitly illegal. Each license should need to approval of the inventor. And there should be provision for invalidating a patent (with fines and revocation of prior license agreements) if a non-inventor is listed as the inventor. (Multiple people could be listed as the inventor, if it was the work of a team, but they should each be granted independent license).
Additionally, independent invention should be recognized and allowed, with each of the independent inventors being granted a separate patent. No more arbitrary picking of winners when two or three people invent something independently before a patent was granted. And if four independent inventions occur, the patent should be automatically be invalidated as "obvious to those skilled in the art".
I'll admit that I'm dubious about the entire patent system anyway. It appears to be designed to increase centralization of power and control into as few hands as possible. SOME sort of inventor's bounty needs to be available, but I think patents are a bad idea on how to do that. If I were king, I might put more thought into it, but since I have no implementation authority I haven't puzzled out what the right system should be.
Sorry, but you've got that wrong. The punishment doesn't need to be severe, but needs to be relatively certain. A minor punishment that you are fairly certain will be applied is much more effective than a severe punishment that is quite uncertain. And heavy punishments are typically applied much more sparingly.
Since the system is still in the proposal stage, there can be no reasonable claim that it is implmented in the way described. Therefore it is clear that the original statement was a statement of belief about how it would be implemented.
It would be nice if there weren't a lot of evidence in support of their attitude.
"Aura" is insufficiently well defined to be definitively matched against any possible scientific discovery. It's also so poorly defined that many people match it against "Kirilian Phtography"...but they don't and can't convince others who think it's something else (or that it doesn't exist).
FWIW, it's so poorly defined that the use of the term "aura" to describe portions of the experience of migraine headaches or epileptic seizures as "aura" isn't definitively a different usage.
Remember that you only get the Bene Gesserits and Mentats after the Butlerian Jihad. First you destroy the thinking machines, then you create people as replacements. Also note that the Bene Gesserit skills are due to a *combination* of training and genetics. (Not sure about Mentats, but it's probably true for them also. There's an early comment about Paul being capable of being trained as a Mentat, which clearly implies that most folk weren't.)
So perhaps this only becomes possible after a bit of genetic engineering of the human species.
(OTOH, don't confuse real life with stories. Stories only need to try to be internally consistent and interesting. Reality is differently constrained.)
Don't be sure this can be used with perscription glasses. The current version of Google Glass can't. (They did say that they would be looking into solving the problem in a few years, but...)
Also, that picture looked ... ugly. Their current version clearly needs a lot of work before it's a consumer device. (It also looked heavy, which would translate into uncomfortable.) And the way it hides your eyes is socially distancing...though I suppose that doesn't matter if you never talk to anyone in person. (Think movie stars. The function of the dark glasses is less to protect their eyes than to socially distance them. They remove the dark glasses when interacting with equals.)
A signing key should not be kept on a disk, but it often is, for convenience. In which case I don't see the concern about that being handled. (And if it were kept on a usb stick, and they knew about that, I expect they would have demanded *that*.)
So, perhaps, depending one various possibilities, they have dealt with my first concern. (I'm not really convinced. If they plant evidence, as police have been known to do, how do you show that's what happened? They could claim you had just erased it from your copy.)
The appropriate approach would require handing over a signed decrypted copy of the disk image, so that alterations could be detected. And publish the public key. This should be done with a fresh key value that is held be, perhaps, the judge, or perhaps this should be done in layers, with one signing key being held by the accused and a second held by the judge.
So there are reasonable procedures, but I have seen no sign that such are being used. Don't blind yourself by thinking only of this case. This is merely an early instance of prosecution where decryption of storage is required. (And I'm still not convinced that the whole thing isn't a violation of the 5th ammendment, even given my modified approach.)
I'm sorry, but while I can accept that that's the way the coruts are ruling, I can't accept that as valid constitutionally. To me it looks horribly corrupt and subject to tremendous potentiality for abuse. (If I have to give you the evidence, then I don't have it to prove my innocence. If I give you access to my signing key, then you can forge messages and claim they came from me. etc.)
I cannot follow your reasoning. If I am coerced into giving you evidence that you use to incriminate me, then that is self incrimination. The extends to allowing you access to things you physically possess, but which you don't know how to use/access. The extension is straight-forward and appears to me to be self-evidently logical. You appear to be denying this, but I can't understand on what valid grounds. (Because it makes my job easier does not count as a valid ground.)
You're assuming that this wouldn't reveal, say, mistakes on his income tax filings.
I suspect that he did something to get *someone* powerful angry with him. It may or may not have anything to do with anything that has been mentioned. If they are angry enough, and powerful enough, then this could force him to reveal his signing key, which would allow messages ostensibly from him to be forged.
Sorry, I don't see the judge as being anywhere close to the right side of the law as stated by the constitution. The more I think about it, the more corrupt this order looks. If they've got evidence, use it to try him, don't coerce self-incrimination.
Also, if it *is* incriminating, why doesn't that make the 5th amendment MORE applicable, rather than less? This sounds like a combination of stupid, abusive, and unconstitutional all at once.
I believe he exaggerated how thoroughly you need to apply the dust. Just be sure you get places that the cockroaches will walk should be enough. Under the stove, refrigerator, on the shelves, etc. And don't remove it.
Mind you, I'm sure his approach would work, I just think it's probably overkill based on what I've heard previously. You do, however, need to be sure the boric acid remains in place, because you will be continually reinfested from where-ever the original infestation came from.
P.S.: Boric acid is not non-toxic, though it's also not terrible. But keep it away from food. Wash your hands after handling it, avoid breathing the dust, etc. If you put any on food handling surfaces, be sure they are well washed before you again use them for food handling.
I don't believe they did. OTOH, the theory is still in the development stage, so perhaps that's just in a part they haven't seen yet.
Are you certain that it can't be done?
Nobody's been able to do it yet, but that's not proof. I've heard arguments as to why it's impossible, but I'm not physicist enough to understand them enough even to say whether they were convincing or not. The last time I tried to understand that area there was a general agreement that it couldn't be done, but there were several qualified physicists that felt that it hadn't been proven.