Do you really think it is fair to not have the family participate in the revenue LOTR made?
Yes, I really think it is fair that the family not receive money for what granddad did. They should make their own way in the world, not ride on the fruits of his labor. It's fine to give your descendants a leg up in the world, but not to support them for generations. Yes, I'm also in favor of steep estate taxes.
Well, the latter think "this will probably happen to me if I live long enough". A 1% annual chance over a 100-year lifespan works out to a 63% lifetime chance.
Which qualifies as "probably", as in "more likely than not".
But you didn't say "probably", you said "eventually".
Yes, scaling it is very hard. Not as bad as you make it out to be, but very hard. So hard that we don't really know how to do it. Which was my original point.
You're still confusing socialism and communism. They're not the same thing. I won't attempt to explain the difference, though, because it will be a waste of my time. You won't get it until you care enough to do the research yourself.
So then, what is their purpose and why should anyone miss them?
Learn the answer to this, and you will begin to understand why a large percentage of Americans disagree with you on this issue. I'm not going to try to answer the question, though, because you'll ignore anything I say. Unless you make the effort to learn for yourself, you'll never get it.
The vast, vast majority of civilian-owned rifles -- of all sorts -- have never killed any school kids. Most of them have never killed anything at all, and never will.
Keeping that back door secure is impossible. That private key would then be worth multiple billions of dollars to organized crime, terrorists, or similar folks.
There are already keys with that sort of value. Consider the firmware signing keys for major phone OSes. The keys that the FBI wanted Apple to use to subvert the security of the San Bernardino shooter's phone.
I think his point is that the only reason that works now, is because one person - like you - ever has access to the key. Once you allow any of the millions of police officers, lawyers and judges out there to get a copy - even a temporary one - then one of them will turn out to be corrupt, and provide the bad guys the information they need.
You should never allow any human access to a copy of the key. You allow them controlled, limited access to secure hardware that holds the key and will use it to perform operations on request, but will never give release a copy.
You want to balance the breeding rate? It's easy enough to do
It's even easier than that. You know what you need to do? Nothing at all. It's already done.
Barring significant life extension, we're already on track for population decline. In fact, the total number of babies born every year has already peaked and is falling, and has been for almost two decades. The only reason the global population is still growing is because the demographic distribution is skewed young. The total number of young people isn't increasing any more, but the total population is growing as upper age brackets get "filled out".
Based on current trends, the population will hit a peak of around 10B, around 2050, and will never grow any larger than that. Depending on how rapidly the human race gets better-educated and wealthier, we may never even reach 10B, and numbers will almost certainly begin to fall after the peak. This will actually become a problem, as it already is in a few countries. Denmark has begun doing public service advertising to encourage couples to have babies, because the population is declining and it's a problem.
If you want to accelerate this trend, don't bother with free birth control, focus instead on making the poorest parts of the world better-educated -- especially the women! -- and wealthier. Education and wealth are negatively correlated with birth rates.
Under socialism, that prediction (and society's response based on those predictions) would be handled by some centralized collective state - read: a small cabal of incompetent and corrupt elites, creating a single point of failure.
You're conflating socialism with communism.
It's also worth pointing out that quite a lot of libertarians support the notion of a Basic Income, so you don't necessarily have to reach for socialism either.
The difference between people who understand statistics and people who don't is that people who don't understand statistics see a 1% annual chance and think, "This will never happen to me," whereas people who do understand statistics think, "This will eventually happen to me if I live long enough," and plan accordingly.
Well, the latter think "this will probably happen to me if I live long enough". A 1% annual chance over a 100-year lifespan works out to a 63% lifetime chance.
I don't think random chance is a great model for evaluating the likelihood of your job being automated, though.
You can't do this in the US either. Not sure where you get your info from but maybe research a little before you spout next time.
Sure you can so long as it is a private sale (except for a handful of states that regulate private sales). Typically only FFLs have to do background checks.
I'm not even American and I know this.
What you "know" is wrong. Fully automatic rifles (aka machine guns) are very tightly regulated, in three ways.
First, the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) requires that anyone attempting to purchase a fully automatic weapon must obtain a tax stamp from the federal government. The cost of the tax stamp isn't too bad, $200, since the price was set in the 1934 law and has never been increased, but the legal process to obtain one is long, and arduous, and definitely includes thorough background checks by both federal and local law enforcement. There are also stringent requirements on storage and movement... if you want to transport your machine gun across state lines you have to notify the federal government, for example.
Second, the Hughes amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act bans the transfer of any machine gun to a civilian, unless it was already in civilian hands before the law was passed. This means there is a fixed -- and fairly small -- supply of fully automatic weapons in civilian hands. Fixed supply and growing demand means growing prices. The price of a fully automatic Colt AR-15, for example, is upwards of $25,000.
Third, eleven states simply ban them entirely, so it's impossible to legally own one if you live in one of those states.
The result of these restrictions is that fully-automatic weapons are owned only by wealthy collectors with spotless backgrounds.
Now, if you want to talk about semi-automatic rifles, the story is very different. You can pick up Ruger 10/22 about $200 at any gun store, and at many department stores that sell guns, like Wal-mart. If you buy it from a store, of course you'll have to have an instant background check. If you buy one in a private sale, you won't.
So, what you said is accurate if you refer to semi-automatic, rather than fully automatic rifles. This terminology distinction isn't a nit. The legal and practical differences are enormous.
I've devolved straight to MOTHERFUCKER NO. I'm not debating, not engaging, not explaining why you don't need that and won't get that.
That works when you have the power to say no, which isn't the case in this situation. If Congress enacts a law requiring backdoors, companies will have to choose between complying as best they can, or just exiting the business, which means they'll comply. It's crucial to debate, to engage, to explain, to prevent that from happening. We must make people understand why this is a bad idea, and just saying "it's impossible" won't work, because the other side can find someone to show that we have the cryptographic tools to make it work, in theory.
So we need to actually explain the real reasons it's infeasible, not try to fake it with half-truths, and definitely not just refuse to engage.
I know that's hard. And it's messy and painful. But it's reality.
So now the Federal Government has the magic keys to encryption. Why would anyone from a foreign country buy your product, especially anyone with any government or corporate level, given that they know the US can easily decrypt anything?
That's not a real problem. It would be easy enough to turn off the access switch -- or enable it for use by the relevant foreign government. Which, BTW, creates some real moral concerns. Even if you believe that western, democratic governments can be trusted (a big, big "if"), there are other countries that absolutely will abuse the hell out of it.
Yes, it may be technically possible, but it's totally not feasible.
Certainly, which is why it would be crucial not to give the keys to law enforcement. Perhaps the courts should hold them. Even better, there should be a multi-party access control system, so that court officials, law enforcement officials and probably the device maker all have to agree before the keys can be used... and even then the actual key material should live in secure hardware that will never divulge it, so the multi-party access control only provides temporary use of the keys. The access control and key security are a big parts (but by no means all) of the ridiculously-hard key management problem.
The problem is once you have humans, especially a lot of humans, there's way too much opportunity for corruption. You say you need multiple parties? Well, small town America where the judge, sheriff, bailiff may descend from the same family already eliminates 3 parties from the list, because they are good friends with the mayor and their representative. Company representative? Well, let's say people managed to steal Apple's source code and it leaked out eventually, so all it takes is one intern.
Yep, it's very, very hard. The claim that it's impossible is bunk, but the claim that we can do it is also bunk.
I call BS on this, and even on your so-called credentials. "A lead cryptographic security engineer on the world's largest operating system" -- you do crypto for Minix?
Android. You think Minix is the world's largest operating system? I guess I should have been clear that by "largest" I meant "most users".
FWIW, what I do on Android is strong authentication, hardware-backed crypto and device encryption. I'm the owner of the auth and HW crypto subsystems, and contribute significantly to device encryption. In terms of Android components, I own keystore, gatekeeper and keymaster. I also do a lot of work on biometrics. If you're skeptical, feel free to look through the Android commit logs, especially in system/keymaster, system/security/keystore, system/vold, hardware/interfaces/keymaster, system/gatekeeper and frameworks/base/keystore/java/android/security/keystore.
Of course, it's possible that this swillden is not that swillden, so if you're insistent on disbelieving me, there's nothing I can do to dissuade you.
Once law enforcement has access to backdoor keys
Certainly, which is why it would be crucial not to give the keys to law enforcement. Perhaps the courts should hold them. Even better, there should be a multi-party access control system, so that court officials, law enforcement officials and probably the device maker all have to agree before the keys can be used... and even then the actual key material should live in secure hardware that will never divulge it, so the multi-party access control only provides temporary use of the keys. The access control and key security are a big parts (but by no means all) of the ridiculously-hard key management problem.
To add a back door that law enforcement can use, just make one of those keys the matching public key. The algorithms don't even have to change.
Yep.
Keeping that back door secure is impossible. That private key would then be worth multiple billions of dollars to organized crime, terrorists, or similar folks.
There are already keys with that sort of value. Consider the firmware signing keys for major phone OSes. The keys that the FBI wanted Apple to use to subvert the security of the San Bernardino shooter's phone.
Any bypass, back door or master key, no matter how well designed, perfectly implemented, or zealously protected, fundamentally weakens the encryption they claim to support.
The FBI is asking for something infeasible, and probably a bad idea even if it were feasible (see my comments here), but this is not true. Modern cryptography provides us with ready tools to do this sort of thing. Escrowing of keys, protected by public key encryption, is very well understood. It's actually pretty common in enterprise system configurations for the crucial keys on employee devices to be escrowed with the enterprise to enable it to recover data from the device in the event of employee unavailability (death, termination, etc.). What the FBI wants is fundamentally the same thing, but on a vastly larger scale.
And it's the scale that makes it infeasible. Secure key management is hard even on a small scale, and it gets exponentially harder with scale and with the number of parties involved. In addition, there are all kinds of hard-to-handle corner cases. In the enterprise case, those are addressed with a combination of fiat -- employees must do whatever needs to be done to enable the key escrow -- and acceptance that sometimes stuff happens and data gets lost. In the FBI's scenario, the first of those is impossible and the second is unacceptable. Enterprises don't generally have to contend with employees deliberately subverting the escrow system.
So, yes, this is a bad idea, but not because it's fundamentally impossible as you say, but because it's just way too hard. Especially since we haven't managed to figure out how to secure consumer devices at all yet.
As a lead cryptographic security engineer on the world's largest operating system, I think I have pretty clear visibility into the problems and potential solutions... and the truth is that while there's no information-theoretic reason why a law-enforcement access system couldn't be built while keeping the systems secure from everyone else, I have zero confidence in the industry's ability to do it in the foreseeable future.
The truth is that we have not been able to build truly strong security into consumer devices yet. We're getting closer. The work that Apple has done is excellent, and I think the Pixel 2 is even better, but the fact is that devices still get popped with monotonous regularity. The most we've been able to achieve so far is to raise the cost of extracting data from them, as the FBI found out when they were able to pay for the extraction of the data on the San Bernardino shooter's phone.
The FBI is asking industry to "innovate" in the same way that NASA might ask SpaceX to innovate by producing a fully reusable direct-to-Mars-and-back passenger spacecraft. Sure, there's no reason it's physically impossible, but we're quite some distance from being able to get live people to Mars at all. The FBI wants to build a secure back door while we're still working out how to make sure the hinges are mounted on the inside of the front door and the lock isn't easily pickable.
All of this, of course, is addressing the question of technical feasibility. A separate, and perhaps even more important, question is whether or not it should be done even if it could, and what sorts of protections it would require. Mobile devices are repositories of far more personal information than any other single, non-living source has ever been. I think something more than a simple search warrant should be required -- again, assuming it were even possible.
And Motorola still hasn't finished their rollout of Android O to Moto X4's
To be fair, Oreo is tough. It's a massive change in how the system and vendor layers interact, which a huge pile of new requirements. This is all to the good in the long run, since the change should make future upgrades dramatically easier. But Oreo is hard for OEMs.
I'm interested to see how the P rollout goes. It will be the first test of Oreo's Project Treble.
A needle ear is the end of the needle where put the thread through for sewing. You never used a needle?
Ah, you're a German speaker. The German word is Nadelöhr, so you're figuring that since ohr is "ear", öhr is also "ear". I don't think it is, though. I checked a couple of German/English dictionaries, and with two different German-speaking colleagues (one from Berlin, one from Vienna) and both agree that öhr is not the same as ohr.
In English, however, there is no question. The hole in a needle is an eye.
Oh, and yes, I learned to sew, both hand-stitching and with a machine, some 40 years ago:-)
But I don't know the story, neither in german/english or original greek. But I thought Petrus was fishing in a boat, or not? He was asked to walk to Jesus literally over the water, not?
My point is that the notion that it's a stroll along the beach doesn't fit at all.
You could read the story. It's very short. In fact, here you go:
Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. Later that night, he was there alone, and the boat was already a considerable distance from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it. Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear. But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.” “Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.” “Come,” he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!” Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”
Walking on the water is a phrase that means: strolling along the beach.
So, Peter's lack of faith caused him to sink in sand? Or fall sideways into the water? Seems awfully hard to fail at strolling on the beach. I guess maybe that wind that scared him pushed him into the water.
I've heard that "mistranslation" theory before, but it simply does not fit with the rest of the story. Unless you're saying it was the author of Matthew who heard the wrong translation and made the rest of the story up to fit. But if you assume that, you may as well not bother with the mistranslation part and just claim the whole thing was made up out of whole cloth. That would be a more logically consistent position.
A rich man can not go to paradise because a camel can not go through a needle ear: the needle ear is a small passage in Jerusalem, a full loaded camel does not fit threw it. So they get partly unloaded when they need to pass.
This is correct. Though it's usually translated as "the eye of a needle", not "the needle ear". What would a needle ear even be?
I'm not sure what you mean by "more concerning" because it has been shown in multiple videos that even extremely accurate masks made from professional molds of the face DO NOT WORK with FaceID.
A colleague of mine did it. Got a high-quality mask of his own face made, and another colleague was able to unlock the test device while wearing it.
Several other groups have done it as well, and published about it.
Slashdot Mirror
En route to success, however, I expect at least a couple nice fireballs and some corresponding unfortunate setbacks.
Yeah, some great YouTube videos are coming :-)
Do you really think it is fair to not have the family participate in the revenue LOTR made?
Yes, I really think it is fair that the family not receive money for what granddad did. They should make their own way in the world, not ride on the fruits of his labor. It's fine to give your descendants a leg up in the world, but not to support them for generations. Yes, I'm also in favor of steep estate taxes.
Nope.
Which qualifies as "probably", as in "more likely than not".
But you didn't say "probably", you said "eventually".
Yes, scaling it is very hard. Not as bad as you make it out to be, but very hard. So hard that we don't really know how to do it. Which was my original point.
You're still confusing socialism and communism. They're not the same thing. I won't attempt to explain the difference, though, because it will be a waste of my time. You won't get it until you care enough to do the research yourself.
So then, what is their purpose and why should anyone miss them?
Learn the answer to this, and you will begin to understand why a large percentage of Americans disagree with you on this issue. I'm not going to try to answer the question, though, because you'll ignore anything I say. Unless you make the effort to learn for yourself, you'll never get it.
The vast, vast majority of civilian-owned rifles -- of all sorts -- have never killed any school kids. Most of them have never killed anything at all, and never will.
Keeping that back door secure is impossible. That private key would then be worth multiple billions of dollars to organized crime, terrorists, or similar folks.
There are already keys with that sort of value. Consider the firmware signing keys for major phone OSes. The keys that the FBI wanted Apple to use to subvert the security of the San Bernardino shooter's phone.
I think his point is that the only reason that works now, is because one person - like you - ever has access to the key. Once you allow any of the millions of police officers, lawyers and judges out there to get a copy - even a temporary one - then one of them will turn out to be corrupt, and provide the bad guys the information they need.
You should never allow any human access to a copy of the key. You allow them controlled, limited access to secure hardware that holds the key and will use it to perform operations on request, but will never give release a copy.
You want to balance the breeding rate? It's easy enough to do
It's even easier than that. You know what you need to do? Nothing at all. It's already done.
Barring significant life extension, we're already on track for population decline. In fact, the total number of babies born every year has already peaked and is falling, and has been for almost two decades. The only reason the global population is still growing is because the demographic distribution is skewed young. The total number of young people isn't increasing any more, but the total population is growing as upper age brackets get "filled out".
Based on current trends, the population will hit a peak of around 10B, around 2050, and will never grow any larger than that. Depending on how rapidly the human race gets better-educated and wealthier, we may never even reach 10B, and numbers will almost certainly begin to fall after the peak. This will actually become a problem, as it already is in a few countries. Denmark has begun doing public service advertising to encourage couples to have babies, because the population is declining and it's a problem.
If you want to accelerate this trend, don't bother with free birth control, focus instead on making the poorest parts of the world better-educated -- especially the women! -- and wealthier. Education and wealth are negatively correlated with birth rates.
Under socialism, that prediction (and society's response based on those predictions) would be handled by some centralized collective state - read: a small cabal of incompetent and corrupt elites, creating a single point of failure.
You're conflating socialism with communism.
It's also worth pointing out that quite a lot of libertarians support the notion of a Basic Income, so you don't necessarily have to reach for socialism either.
The difference between people who understand statistics and people who don't is that people who don't understand statistics see a 1% annual chance and think, "This will never happen to me," whereas people who do understand statistics think, "This will eventually happen to me if I live long enough," and plan accordingly.
Well, the latter think "this will probably happen to me if I live long enough". A 1% annual chance over a 100-year lifespan works out to a 63% lifetime chance.
I don't think random chance is a great model for evaluating the likelihood of your job being automated, though.
Who would want to play a game like that?
You can't do this in the US either. Not sure where you get your info from but maybe research a little before you spout next time.
Sure you can so long as it is a private sale (except for a handful of states that regulate private sales). Typically only FFLs have to do background checks.
I'm not even American and I know this.
What you "know" is wrong. Fully automatic rifles (aka machine guns) are very tightly regulated, in three ways.
First, the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) requires that anyone attempting to purchase a fully automatic weapon must obtain a tax stamp from the federal government. The cost of the tax stamp isn't too bad, $200, since the price was set in the 1934 law and has never been increased, but the legal process to obtain one is long, and arduous, and definitely includes thorough background checks by both federal and local law enforcement. There are also stringent requirements on storage and movement... if you want to transport your machine gun across state lines you have to notify the federal government, for example.
Second, the Hughes amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act bans the transfer of any machine gun to a civilian, unless it was already in civilian hands before the law was passed. This means there is a fixed -- and fairly small -- supply of fully automatic weapons in civilian hands. Fixed supply and growing demand means growing prices. The price of a fully automatic Colt AR-15, for example, is upwards of $25,000.
Third, eleven states simply ban them entirely, so it's impossible to legally own one if you live in one of those states.
The result of these restrictions is that fully-automatic weapons are owned only by wealthy collectors with spotless backgrounds.
Now, if you want to talk about semi-automatic rifles, the story is very different. You can pick up Ruger 10/22 about $200 at any gun store, and at many department stores that sell guns, like Wal-mart. If you buy it from a store, of course you'll have to have an instant background check. If you buy one in a private sale, you won't.
So, what you said is accurate if you refer to semi-automatic, rather than fully automatic rifles. This terminology distinction isn't a nit. The legal and practical differences are enormous.
I've devolved straight to MOTHERFUCKER NO. I'm not debating, not engaging, not explaining why you don't need that and won't get that.
That works when you have the power to say no, which isn't the case in this situation. If Congress enacts a law requiring backdoors, companies will have to choose between complying as best they can, or just exiting the business, which means they'll comply. It's crucial to debate, to engage, to explain, to prevent that from happening. We must make people understand why this is a bad idea, and just saying "it's impossible" won't work, because the other side can find someone to show that we have the cryptographic tools to make it work, in theory.
So we need to actually explain the real reasons it's infeasible, not try to fake it with half-truths, and definitely not just refuse to engage.
I know that's hard. And it's messy and painful. But it's reality.
So now the Federal Government has the magic keys to encryption. Why would anyone from a foreign country buy your product, especially anyone with any government or corporate level, given that they know the US can easily decrypt anything?
That's not a real problem. It would be easy enough to turn off the access switch -- or enable it for use by the relevant foreign government. Which, BTW, creates some real moral concerns. Even if you believe that western, democratic governments can be trusted (a big, big "if"), there are other countries that absolutely will abuse the hell out of it.
Yes, it may be technically possible, but it's totally not feasible.
I believe that's what I said :-)
The problem is once you have humans, especially a lot of humans, there's way too much opportunity for corruption. You say you need multiple parties? Well, small town America where the judge, sheriff, bailiff may descend from the same family already eliminates 3 parties from the list, because they are good friends with the mayor and their representative. Company representative? Well, let's say people managed to steal Apple's source code and it leaked out eventually, so all it takes is one intern.
Yep, it's very, very hard. The claim that it's impossible is bunk, but the claim that we can do it is also bunk.
I call BS on this, and even on your so-called credentials. "A lead cryptographic security engineer on the world's largest operating system" -- you do crypto for Minix?
Android. You think Minix is the world's largest operating system? I guess I should have been clear that by "largest" I meant "most users".
FWIW, what I do on Android is strong authentication, hardware-backed crypto and device encryption. I'm the owner of the auth and HW crypto subsystems, and contribute significantly to device encryption. In terms of Android components, I own keystore, gatekeeper and keymaster. I also do a lot of work on biometrics. If you're skeptical, feel free to look through the Android commit logs, especially in system/keymaster, system/security/keystore, system/vold, hardware/interfaces/keymaster, system/gatekeeper and frameworks/base/keystore/java/android/security/keystore.
Of course, it's possible that this swillden is not that swillden, so if you're insistent on disbelieving me, there's nothing I can do to dissuade you.
Once law enforcement has access to backdoor keys
Certainly, which is why it would be crucial not to give the keys to law enforcement. Perhaps the courts should hold them. Even better, there should be a multi-party access control system, so that court officials, law enforcement officials and probably the device maker all have to agree before the keys can be used... and even then the actual key material should live in secure hardware that will never divulge it, so the multi-party access control only provides temporary use of the keys. The access control and key security are a big parts (but by no means all) of the ridiculously-hard key management problem.
To add a back door that law enforcement can use, just make one of those keys the matching public key. The algorithms don't even have to change.
Yep.
Keeping that back door secure is impossible. That private key would then be worth multiple billions of dollars to organized crime, terrorists, or similar folks.
There are already keys with that sort of value. Consider the firmware signing keys for major phone OSes. The keys that the FBI wanted Apple to use to subvert the security of the San Bernardino shooter's phone.
Any bypass, back door or master key, no matter how well designed, perfectly implemented, or zealously protected, fundamentally weakens the encryption they claim to support.
The FBI is asking for something infeasible, and probably a bad idea even if it were feasible (see my comments here), but this is not true. Modern cryptography provides us with ready tools to do this sort of thing. Escrowing of keys, protected by public key encryption, is very well understood. It's actually pretty common in enterprise system configurations for the crucial keys on employee devices to be escrowed with the enterprise to enable it to recover data from the device in the event of employee unavailability (death, termination, etc.). What the FBI wants is fundamentally the same thing, but on a vastly larger scale.
And it's the scale that makes it infeasible. Secure key management is hard even on a small scale, and it gets exponentially harder with scale and with the number of parties involved. In addition, there are all kinds of hard-to-handle corner cases. In the enterprise case, those are addressed with a combination of fiat -- employees must do whatever needs to be done to enable the key escrow -- and acceptance that sometimes stuff happens and data gets lost. In the FBI's scenario, the first of those is impossible and the second is unacceptable. Enterprises don't generally have to contend with employees deliberately subverting the escrow system.
So, yes, this is a bad idea, but not because it's fundamentally impossible as you say, but because it's just way too hard. Especially since we haven't managed to figure out how to secure consumer devices at all yet.
As a lead cryptographic security engineer on the world's largest operating system, I think I have pretty clear visibility into the problems and potential solutions... and the truth is that while there's no information-theoretic reason why a law-enforcement access system couldn't be built while keeping the systems secure from everyone else, I have zero confidence in the industry's ability to do it in the foreseeable future.
The truth is that we have not been able to build truly strong security into consumer devices yet. We're getting closer. The work that Apple has done is excellent, and I think the Pixel 2 is even better, but the fact is that devices still get popped with monotonous regularity. The most we've been able to achieve so far is to raise the cost of extracting data from them, as the FBI found out when they were able to pay for the extraction of the data on the San Bernardino shooter's phone.
The FBI is asking industry to "innovate" in the same way that NASA might ask SpaceX to innovate by producing a fully reusable direct-to-Mars-and-back passenger spacecraft. Sure, there's no reason it's physically impossible, but we're quite some distance from being able to get live people to Mars at all. The FBI wants to build a secure back door while we're still working out how to make sure the hinges are mounted on the inside of the front door and the lock isn't easily pickable.
All of this, of course, is addressing the question of technical feasibility. A separate, and perhaps even more important, question is whether or not it should be done even if it could, and what sorts of protections it would require. Mobile devices are repositories of far more personal information than any other single, non-living source has ever been. I think something more than a simple search warrant should be required -- again, assuming it were even possible.
And Motorola still hasn't finished their rollout of Android O to Moto X4's
To be fair, Oreo is tough. It's a massive change in how the system and vendor layers interact, which a huge pile of new requirements. This is all to the good in the long run, since the change should make future upgrades dramatically easier. But Oreo is hard for OEMs.
I'm interested to see how the P rollout goes. It will be the first test of Oreo's Project Treble.
A needle ear is the end of the needle where put the thread through for sewing. You never used a needle?
Ah, you're a German speaker. The German word is Nadelöhr, so you're figuring that since ohr is "ear", öhr is also "ear". I don't think it is, though. I checked a couple of German/English dictionaries, and with two different German-speaking colleagues (one from Berlin, one from Vienna) and both agree that öhr is not the same as ohr.
In English, however, there is no question. The hole in a needle is an eye.
Oh, and yes, I learned to sew, both hand-stitching and with a machine, some 40 years ago :-)
But I don't know the story, neither in german/english or original greek. But I thought Petrus was fishing in a boat, or not? He was asked to walk to Jesus literally over the water, not?
My point is that the notion that it's a stroll along the beach doesn't fit at all.
You could read the story. It's very short. In fact, here you go:
Walking on the water is a phrase that means: strolling along the beach.
So, Peter's lack of faith caused him to sink in sand? Or fall sideways into the water? Seems awfully hard to fail at strolling on the beach. I guess maybe that wind that scared him pushed him into the water.
I've heard that "mistranslation" theory before, but it simply does not fit with the rest of the story. Unless you're saying it was the author of Matthew who heard the wrong translation and made the rest of the story up to fit. But if you assume that, you may as well not bother with the mistranslation part and just claim the whole thing was made up out of whole cloth. That would be a more logically consistent position.
A rich man can not go to paradise because a camel can not go through a needle ear: the needle ear is a small passage in Jerusalem, a full loaded camel does not fit threw it. So they get partly unloaded when they need to pass.
This is correct. Though it's usually translated as "the eye of a needle", not "the needle ear". What would a needle ear even be?
https://web.stanford.edu/~diam...
I'm not sure what you mean by "more concerning" because it has been shown in multiple videos that even extremely accurate masks made from professional molds of the face DO NOT WORK with FaceID.
A colleague of mine did it. Got a high-quality mask of his own face made, and another colleague was able to unlock the test device while wearing it.
Several other groups have done it as well, and published about it.