You sound like one of those increasingly rare managers who understand how to manage a team. When did everyone forget that one of the main purposes of a manager is to protect the team from anything that interferes with their ability to work effectively?
If I can't remove it myself with, at worst, a commonly available screwdriver then it's not removable in my book. The idea is that if I drain or damage my battery, I can put a new one in without a lot of fuss.
Implementing AML in a safe and privacy-protecting way is, as far as I am concerned, a trivial exercice for Apple engineers.
You are clearly not a security engineer. Implementing anything that can communicate with others in a safe and privacy-protecting way is the exact opposite of a "trivial exercise".
It's actually a very, very hard thing to do even for those who are at the top of the field.
The problem is not what's available, the problem is what people buy.
As long as we're oversimplifying, I'll just assert that lots of people buy crap because crap is what's affordable. Healthy food is expensive. If I'm broke and hungry, I'll eat whatever I can afford. How healthy it is becomes irrelevant.
There is no way only 25% trust Trump, that makes no logical sense
You're right.
For a man who can't open his mouth without uttering at least one outrageous and plainly obvious lie, it makes no logical sense that the figure is that high.
True, but there is vast room for improvement. Those RNGs, like other ones such as the inverter scheme mentioned above, aren't truly random -- they're just close enough to be practical.
The higher the quality of random numbers that we can economically produce, the higher the quality of crypto we can have.
it's unlikely investors will simply ignore this risk
I wish I were optimistic enough to agree with this, but I think history shows pretty clearly that investors tend to favor solid near-term monetary gains over avoiding ephemeral long-term loss.
Have we really degenerated to the point where it's only valid to assert personal rights if you can show there is harm involved if they aren't asserted?
Slashdot Mirror
You sound like one of those increasingly rare managers who understand how to manage a team. When did everyone forget that one of the main purposes of a manager is to protect the team from anything that interferes with their ability to work effectively?
If I can't remove it myself with, at worst, a commonly available screwdriver then it's not removable in my book. The idea is that if I drain or damage my battery, I can put a new one in without a lot of fuss.
By the way -- $80?? That's simply insane.
The Surface is clearly not a good purchase. It has Windows 10 on it.
You may be confusing precision (the number of decimal places) with accuracy (how well that number corresponds with reality).
Those are two different things and a high degree of precision does not imply a high degree of accuracy.
Implementing AML in a safe and privacy-protecting way is, as far as I am concerned, a trivial exercice for Apple engineers.
You are clearly not a security engineer. Implementing anything that can communicate with others in a safe and privacy-protecting way is the exact opposite of a "trivial exercise".
It's actually a very, very hard thing to do even for those who are at the top of the field.
It was a philosophical statement: that there is such a thing as fundamental human rights.
is an unalienable right of all humans not just Americans
As granted by whom? I'm seriously you asking this question.
Here's the serious answer: "inalienable rights" means rights you have by merely existing. They are not "granted" by anybody.
Rights that are "granted" aren't rights at all. They are privileges.
I think it says "could save countless lives". That's a speculative statement and as such, is obviously true. It could. Doesn't mean it has.
We are talking about activation in emergency situations. Off otherwise.
That's the intention. Does the implementation guarantee that's the case?
There are android phones out there that are, (don't get value-judgment on imperfect, its a neutral term here) imperfect substitutes for iPhones.
Sure. And there are Android phones out there that are superior to iPhones, too.
How are they ensuring that AML can't be abused by random hackers, corporations, or governments?
It's unavoidable because what is "best" depends on what your needs are, and that varies from person to person.
Bingo.
When I retire, I will currently get ~$1500 per month, every month, until I die.
Lucky you!
Most of the people I know don't expect to ever be able to retire.
Yes, the moral thing is to just let people die because they're not wealthy. Makes sense.
These days it's rare for a cereal box not to claim it's a healthy option, even if it's sugar coated crap.
You mean there are still people who actually believe the stuff printed on packaging has any relation to truth? Amazing.
The problem is not what's available, the problem is what people buy.
As long as we're oversimplifying, I'll just assert that lots of people buy crap because crap is what's affordable. Healthy food is expensive. If I'm broke and hungry, I'll eat whatever I can afford. How healthy it is becomes irrelevant.
"Europe" is an awfully big place. There are several European nations that seem to do better on these points than the US.
Just looking at his actions doesn't make him look any better at all.
There is no way only 25% trust Trump, that makes no logical sense
You're right.
For a man who can't open his mouth without uttering at least one outrageous and plainly obvious lie, it makes no logical sense that the figure is that high.
Kill yourself for the good of the nation!
True, but there is vast room for improvement. Those RNGs, like other ones such as the inverter scheme mentioned above, aren't truly random -- they're just close enough to be practical.
The higher the quality of random numbers that we can economically produce, the higher the quality of crypto we can have.
If this can be effectively commercialized, it would be a game-changer (no pun intended).
I wish I were optimistic enough to agree with this, but I think history shows pretty clearly that investors tend to favor solid near-term monetary gains over avoiding ephemeral long-term loss.
Where is the harm when someone is de-anonymized?
Have we really degenerated to the point where it's only valid to assert personal rights if you can show there is harm involved if they aren't asserted?