because I'm going to wait a couple years and then stalk you through every thread, and replay those words back to you. Congratulations on learning nothing from: "No wifi, less space than a Nomad, Lame".
Until then, here's some Econ 101:
1. There's a big difference between not turning a profit because noone wants to buy your crap and not turning a profit because you can't manufacture products fast enough to keep up with demand and every $ of revenue is reinvested into expanding capacity.
2. You can't make a product fail by hating the company's CEO.
In face Face ID won't work unless your eyes are open and you are looking at the phone, so you have that option in your silly scenario.
But the real answer is that in both cases you press the lock button 5 times quickly while the phone is in your pocket and the phone will require a passcode to continue.
Actually the real answer is that noone cares that much about getting into your phone. Because you are irrelevant.
They never got Appleâ(TM)s help. Kinda blows your little theory up, doesnâ(TM)t it?
An iPhone is a digital safe. Safe companies are well within their rights to make a safe without backdoorsâ"and thatâ(TM)s what Apple is trying to do.
Occasionally the government has a good reason to crack a safe, but the law is such that the safe company only has to help if thereâ(TM)s no other reasonable option.
> Apple was basically arguing that they should not be compelled to give the owner of a phone access to information on the phone in the case of a (potential) dire emergency.
Apple had several arguments, the most powerful of which was that the government had not proven that Apple was the only party which had sufficient expertise to crack the phone--the law only gives the government authority to force a company to aid in this type of situation when there's no reasonable alternative.
But if it makes you feel better about yourself to concoct some sort of anti-Apple fiction, then please do. Maybe you won't need to kick a puppy on the way home then.
Apple has never given any indication that they'd be willing to fork over user data. They've fought harder for user privacy than any other company.
No, not because they are better human beings, but because *that's what their business model demands*.
They make money by selling physical devices and they are judged by how well those devices work. They have every financial incentive to improve the actual user experience.
You clearly derive a lot of your self-worth from your membership in that club. A lot of people need the validation of their peers; tribalism is a human instinct.
But, have you considered joining any clubs that aren't based on hate? Ultimately you'll be happier.
You're basically saying, "we should spend a lot of money having smart people plug a million different holes". That's the current strategy and it has failed at everything other than making cyber-security 'specialists' wealthy.
That strategy is the digital equivalent of storing your valuables scattered throughout a mall, and then hiring enough mall cops on Segways to cover all the doors. Unsurprisingly, the right strategy is the digital equivalent of storing your valuables in a good safe, with one door that has a time-lock on it and is guarded by people with guns.
The three steps of effective security are:
1. Identify the secrets
2. Get rid of as many as possible. For example, if you only need SSNs as an identify verification mechanism (like in the Equifax web case) then *only* store one-way encrypted versions (i.e., can't un-encrypt). Don't store credit card info, make the user re-enter their credit card info and only use it for that one transaction. Encourage things like Apple Pay for faster transactions.
3. For the tiny amount of remaining secrets, store them on an essentially air-gapped machine, with the only electronic access being through an extremely restricted transaction-based custom protocol, where every transaction is independently authorized, logged, the transaction rate is limited, and all secrets are stored encrypted with different encryption keys per customer.
It made a lot of sense to me, and reaffirmed by previous suspicions that all misogynistic ACs on/. are repressed sexual deviants.
Do you see now why "I saw a video on the internets" isn't considered peer-reviewed scientific evidence?
Slashdot Mirror
this isn't "facial recognition" using the built-in video camera. In fact it doesn't use the video camera at all.
because I'm going to wait a couple years and then stalk you through every thread, and replay those words back to you. Congratulations on learning nothing from: "No wifi, less space than a Nomad, Lame".
Until then, here's some Econ 101:
1. There's a big difference between not turning a profit because noone wants to buy your crap and not turning a profit because you can't manufacture products fast enough to keep up with demand and every $ of revenue is reinvested into expanding capacity.
2. You can't make a product fail by hating the company's CEO.
In face Face ID won't work unless your eyes are open and you are looking at the phone, so you have that option in your silly scenario.
But the real answer is that in both cases you press the lock button 5 times quickly while the phone is in your pocket and the phone will require a passcode to continue.
Actually the real answer is that noone cares that much about getting into your phone. Because you are irrelevant.
But we both know that you don't really *believe* that Tesla is going to fail, you just really, really want them to.
They never got Appleâ(TM)s help. Kinda blows your little theory up, doesnâ(TM)t it?
An iPhone is a digital safe. Safe companies are well within their rights to make a safe without backdoorsâ"and thatâ(TM)s what Apple is trying to do.
Occasionally the government has a good reason to crack a safe, but the law is such that the safe company only has to help if thereâ(TM)s no other reasonable option.
Thatâ(TM)s why Apple won.
> Apple was basically arguing that they should not be compelled to give the owner of a phone access to information on the phone in the case of a (potential) dire emergency.
Apple had several arguments, the most powerful of which was that the government had not proven that Apple was the only party which had sufficient expertise to crack the phone--the law only gives the government authority to force a company to aid in this type of situation when there's no reasonable alternative.
But if it makes you feel better about yourself to concoct some sort of anti-Apple fiction, then please do. Maybe you won't need to kick a puppy on the way home then.
Face ID can't be tricked by showing it an image, not even a 3D image, because it doesn't work using optical imaging.
so maybe they'll just barely scrape by. But please, by all means, short TSLA. Thanks for the free money.
EVs get 3-4 miles/kWh. Learn math.
Tesla cars don't exist? Solar roofs? If that's all vapor then it is truly spectacular vapor.
The problem is that you have requirements that the rest of the world doesn't care about.
And nuclear plants have absolutely no expense involved in maintenance or refurbishment.
TOY vs. TOOL is a matter of perspective
Real geeks use whatever they want to use and couldn't care less what the smug wannabe technorati on /. thinks.
...nothing? crickets...seriously it took 2 seconds to completely decimate your stupid argument.
http://www.hydrocarbons-techno...
Try again.
Apple has never given any indication that they'd be willing to fork over user data. They've fought harder for user privacy than any other company.
No, not because they are better human beings, but because *that's what their business model demands*.
They make money by selling physical devices and they are judged by how well those devices work. They have every financial incentive to improve the actual user experience.
You clearly derive a lot of your self-worth from your membership in that club. A lot of people need the validation of their peers; tribalism is a human instinct. But, have you considered joining any clubs that aren't based on hate? Ultimately you'll be happier.
Are you worried you'll get booted from the "I hate Apple" club if you admit you don't care about the headphone jack?
and no part of it is operating "all the time".
Are you claiming that the Tesla model S is a hoax?
"Sir Scott Baker Review Of Extradition Treaty Find UK-US Treaty Not Biased Against Britons"
You're basically saying, "we should spend a lot of money having smart people plug a million different holes". That's the current strategy and it has failed at everything other than making cyber-security 'specialists' wealthy.
That strategy is the digital equivalent of storing your valuables scattered throughout a mall, and then hiring enough mall cops on Segways to cover all the doors. Unsurprisingly, the right strategy is the digital equivalent of storing your valuables in a good safe, with one door that has a time-lock on it and is guarded by people with guns.
The three steps of effective security are:
1. Identify the secrets
2. Get rid of as many as possible. For example, if you only need SSNs as an identify verification mechanism (like in the Equifax web case) then *only* store one-way encrypted versions (i.e., can't un-encrypt). Don't store credit card info, make the user re-enter their credit card info and only use it for that one transaction. Encourage things like Apple Pay for faster transactions.
3. For the tiny amount of remaining secrets, store them on an essentially air-gapped machine, with the only electronic access being through an extremely restricted transaction-based custom protocol, where every transaction is independently authorized, logged, the transaction rate is limited, and all secrets are stored encrypted with different encryption keys per customer.
It made a lot of sense to me, and reaffirmed by previous suspicions that all misogynistic ACs on /. are repressed sexual deviants.
Do you see now why "I saw a video on the internets" isn't considered peer-reviewed scientific evidence?