Yes they did - but the message the Paris investigators found which led them to perform the raid on Wednesday was recovered from an unencrypted phone and not from traffic capture.
Don't get me wrong, I support zero knowledge encryption where possible, but having access to the phone contents reportedly did allow investigators to make headway in France.
Interesting concept of "deep sixing" you have there, if you consider that his first Star Trek film was the first ST film to win an Academy Award, as well as winning numerous other awards, was financially successful and received very positive reviews. His second Star Trek film was even more financially successful than his first, received very favourable reviews and has been the spring board for the first Star Trek TV series in over a decade.
I only hope the new Star Wars films fail as badly!
Considering pretty much all other news sites are covering the story from the aspect that providing an Android compatibility layer has more legal issues than not (considering the unsure outcome of the Oracle vs Google API case - if MS went ahead with a compat layer and Oracle won then both Oracle and Google could take issue with it) and that providing a compatibility layer cheapens the Universal Windows Platform MS has been touting for WP10, Im not entirely sure where the angle taken in TFS has come from - seems its more sensational anti-MS stuff than anything else really...
No, I don't "conveniently ignore" that at all, that is entirely the very basis for my point - we are trying to push out coding into a more general population at all ages, and yet here we have Tim Cook saying most people only need a device on which you cannot code. Those two things do not gel.
I take it you missed the entire Tim Cook comment of "Why would you buy a PC?" at the iPad Pro retail launch? Tim Cook doesn't think you should buy a PC when instead you could buy an iPad Pro.
So I'm not "nuts" at all, I'm simply taking on board what Tim Cook has actually said.
And I disagree with you on both the Surface Pro and Surface Book, as I own both and love both - but what that really means is any device I pick up at home, I can open a code editor on and hack away. Which I cannot do on the iPad Pro. I can also resort to full tablet mode with no issues. Which I cannot do on a Macbook, Macbook Air or Macbook Pro.
People keep saying that the Surface Pro and Books are compromises - I haven't yet run into a compromise on either.
Don't get me wrong - some people don't need the level of content creation that a full PC or Mac will give you, and in those circumstances a dedicated tablet will work fine for those people. But for me, the compromise is the hard delineation between a dedicated tablet OS and application set and a dedicated desktop OS and application set - I want both available to me on the one device.
With the current push by various tech companies to get girls and women into tech and coding, Apple have decided that people really want a device that you cannot do any serious coding on. So yeah, that works...
That title definitely makes this book sound like it takes a balanced and objective viewpoint of the situation, with both sides of the argument covered.
Its at the national level because its basically the US government saying "*we* won't interfere with miners property rights". That doesn't conflict with someone else interfering with miners property rights.
I've traveled a lot in Africa (Botswana, Uganda, Kenya, Namibia to name a few) and mud constructions are still pretty much the norm for most villages - concrete or modern construction is sometimes utilised, but oftentimes a family simply cannot afford those construction methods - so they resort to mud bricks which have been kiln dried. The only consistent modern material used is corrugated metal for the roof.
Bitcoin - lots of investigation from the SEC et al, rules laid out and restrictions put in place.
Uber - don't we pretty much have at least one story a week about Uber being banned in particular locations after failing to follow requirements for taxi services already in place?
AirBnB - massive legal issues, banned in NYC for a time, required to implement hotel taxes.
I don't think any of the examples are actually examples of things outrunning the government successfully.
Our healthcare providers buy drugs and equipment at market rates, the only difference is that that cost is borne by general taxation rather than direct payment by the recipient of any care, so what's your problem? Your precious healthcare and pharma companies still get paid, just not directly by the sick.
Kids should be introduced to programming using marble runs and physical switches or conditionals. Get them interested in the toy aspect, introduce rewards for working out how to achieve goals, and gradually introduce virtual modelling of the physical layout as complexity increases - they will gradually move completely to the virtual model, and then you can introduce the next stage of exposing the code when managing click and drag objects becomes a hassle.
Actually, neither the X-35 nor the X-32 were representative of the final product at all - the X-32 had a completely different wing to the design Boeing submitted in their final offer (the X-32 had a delta wing while the final offering had a conventional wing and tailplane), and the X-35 only kept a vague visual similarity in its transition to the F-35.
Nothing other than the general look from the X-35 was carried over to the F-35 - even the engine, high speed turboshaft and lift fan were developed from scratch. Internally, the structure of the F-35 has a completely different layout, with the main structural member being changed and thus all the load bearing values changing.
The X-35 was built purely to win the competition, as was the X-32. There is nothing you could take off the X-35 and find on the F-35, the two aircraft have no commonality at all.
Even with older stealth technologies in the F-117 and the B-2, the tactics involved in deploying them recognised they did not eliminate chances of detection but rather reduced the effectiveness of fixed position radar installations to the point where their coverage no longer overlapped, so the entry route into the denied area was planned around those gaps between radar sites which weren't supposed to be there. It wasn't a case of the B-2 could simply fly straight at the defenders radar grid without detection, as there is always a point where the radar energy is enough that you will get a detectable return off of the aircraft regardless, even if its only a few miles out.
So the problem you are describing is not new, and has always been part of the cat and mouse game that is stealth and radar.
Firstly, the B-1B only has supersonic dash capability at low Mach - it lost the ability for sustained high Mach flight during its redesign between Carter and Reagan (specifically, it no longer has variable intakes so high Mach airflows are out of the question). Its a fine platform, but its also devilishly expensive to operate, having more than twice the per-flight-hour cost of the B-52.
The B-2 is also a fine platform, but its also very very expensive, and incredibly maintenance heavy. It requires specialist hangars and maintenance routines due to the age of its stealth technology, while more modern techniques means aircraft such as the F-22 and F-35 require much less preventative and ongoing maintenance solely for its stealth capabilities.
When it comes to dropping bombs, the B-52 is still the most cost effective, and has the lowest per-flight-hour cost of any heavy bomber currently in the USAF capability range - the point of the LRS-B contract is to produce a much more cost effective aircraft to replace both the B-2 and B-1B, bringing costs much more in line with those of the B-52.
No, because stealth technology isn't a single thing and radar technology isn't a single thing - both evolve over time. Older stealth technology may be defeated, but improved technologies become available, just the same as detection technologies evolve in attempts to defeat stealth.
Actually, its not just speculation - the program is already fairly mature as all competitors have flown demonstrator scale versions and developed their entries to a higher level than normally required to. As an example, both the F-22 and F-35 programs were awarded based off of non-representative demonstrators, and the actual production examples were then developed from scratch after the contracts were awarded - in this case, the competitors were required to fly demonstrators based on the production examples, and were fully funded to that goal. The winner now gets to continue development on to full scale.
Why the change in approach? Because its run by a different office than normal acquisitions - the LRS-B contract competition was run by the Rapid Capabilities Office, which also handled such programs as the X-37 and thus isn't bound to the normal acquisition rulebook.
The current understanding of the contract within the military aviation industry and community is that the bomber is not supersonic, doesn't even have supersonic dash capabilities, and is intended to have better stealth characteristics than anything currently developed - looks like they are going for mainly stealth as a defensive measure, with a good dose of active and passive ECM capabilities to make up the difference.
Here we have 100 bombers delivered under contract for the cost of developing the F-35 with no aircraft delivered. I wonder if it will actually happen tho...
Well, first of all the original currency used was Euros, and second of all even the issuer of a currency doesnt get to decree what happens between two people on another continent, regardless of what currency they do use. Its a private transaction that doesnt involve you.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes they did - but the message the Paris investigators found which led them to perform the raid on Wednesday was recovered from an unencrypted phone and not from traffic capture.
Don't get me wrong, I support zero knowledge encryption where possible, but having access to the phone contents reportedly did allow investigators to make headway in France.
Interesting concept of "deep sixing" you have there, if you consider that his first Star Trek film was the first ST film to win an Academy Award, as well as winning numerous other awards, was financially successful and received very positive reviews. His second Star Trek film was even more financially successful than his first, received very favourable reviews and has been the spring board for the first Star Trek TV series in over a decade.
I only hope the new Star Wars films fail as badly!
Considering pretty much all other news sites are covering the story from the aspect that providing an Android compatibility layer has more legal issues than not (considering the unsure outcome of the Oracle vs Google API case - if MS went ahead with a compat layer and Oracle won then both Oracle and Google could take issue with it) and that providing a compatibility layer cheapens the Universal Windows Platform MS has been touting for WP10, Im not entirely sure where the angle taken in TFS has come from - seems its more sensational anti-MS stuff than anything else really...
Its Microsoft, thats more than enough for some people to FUD the place up...
No, I don't "conveniently ignore" that at all, that is entirely the very basis for my point - we are trying to push out coding into a more general population at all ages, and yet here we have Tim Cook saying most people only need a device on which you cannot code. Those two things do not gel.
I take it you missed the entire Tim Cook comment of "Why would you buy a PC?" at the iPad Pro retail launch? Tim Cook doesn't think you should buy a PC when instead you could buy an iPad Pro.
So I'm not "nuts" at all, I'm simply taking on board what Tim Cook has actually said.
And I disagree with you on both the Surface Pro and Surface Book, as I own both and love both - but what that really means is any device I pick up at home, I can open a code editor on and hack away. Which I cannot do on the iPad Pro. I can also resort to full tablet mode with no issues. Which I cannot do on a Macbook, Macbook Air or Macbook Pro.
People keep saying that the Surface Pro and Books are compromises - I haven't yet run into a compromise on either.
Don't get me wrong - some people don't need the level of content creation that a full PC or Mac will give you, and in those circumstances a dedicated tablet will work fine for those people. But for me, the compromise is the hard delineation between a dedicated tablet OS and application set and a dedicated desktop OS and application set - I want both available to me on the one device.
With the current push by various tech companies to get girls and women into tech and coding, Apple have decided that people really want a device that you cannot do any serious coding on. So yeah, that works...
In the UK this is called the "Sanctions List", and is available here: http://hmt-sanctions.s3.amazon...
Here is the official HM Treasury website page for it: https://www.gov.uk/government/...
Is there such a thing as a trusted source?
That title definitely makes this book sound like it takes a balanced and objective viewpoint of the situation, with both sides of the argument covered.
Its at the national level because its basically the US government saying "*we* won't interfere with miners property rights". That doesn't conflict with someone else interfering with miners property rights.
It isn't new, its been available to the police and government since the first iteration of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act in 2000.
I've traveled a lot in Africa (Botswana, Uganda, Kenya, Namibia to name a few) and mud constructions are still pretty much the norm for most villages - concrete or modern construction is sometimes utilised, but oftentimes a family simply cannot afford those construction methods - so they resort to mud bricks which have been kiln dried. The only consistent modern material used is corrugated metal for the roof.
None of the examples are particularly good:
Bitcoin - lots of investigation from the SEC et al, rules laid out and restrictions put in place.
Uber - don't we pretty much have at least one story a week about Uber being banned in particular locations after failing to follow requirements for taxi services already in place?
AirBnB - massive legal issues, banned in NYC for a time, required to implement hotel taxes.
I don't think any of the examples are actually examples of things outrunning the government successfully.
Our healthcare providers buy drugs and equipment at market rates, the only difference is that that cost is borne by general taxation rather than direct payment by the recipient of any care, so what's your problem? Your precious healthcare and pharma companies still get paid, just not directly by the sick.
Not at all - Snowden isnt wanted for rape and other crimes. Assange has just been stupid and is trying to make it political to save his own ass.
Kids should be introduced to programming using marble runs and physical switches or conditionals. Get them interested in the toy aspect, introduce rewards for working out how to achieve goals, and gradually introduce virtual modelling of the physical layout as complexity increases - they will gradually move completely to the virtual model, and then you can introduce the next stage of exposing the code when managing click and drag objects becomes a hassle.
Baby steps. Literally.
Actually, neither the X-35 nor the X-32 were representative of the final product at all - the X-32 had a completely different wing to the design Boeing submitted in their final offer (the X-32 had a delta wing while the final offering had a conventional wing and tailplane), and the X-35 only kept a vague visual similarity in its transition to the F-35.
Nothing other than the general look from the X-35 was carried over to the F-35 - even the engine, high speed turboshaft and lift fan were developed from scratch. Internally, the structure of the F-35 has a completely different layout, with the main structural member being changed and thus all the load bearing values changing.
The X-35 was built purely to win the competition, as was the X-32. There is nothing you could take off the X-35 and find on the F-35, the two aircraft have no commonality at all.
Even with older stealth technologies in the F-117 and the B-2, the tactics involved in deploying them recognised they did not eliminate chances of detection but rather reduced the effectiveness of fixed position radar installations to the point where their coverage no longer overlapped, so the entry route into the denied area was planned around those gaps between radar sites which weren't supposed to be there. It wasn't a case of the B-2 could simply fly straight at the defenders radar grid without detection, as there is always a point where the radar energy is enough that you will get a detectable return off of the aircraft regardless, even if its only a few miles out.
So the problem you are describing is not new, and has always been part of the cat and mouse game that is stealth and radar.
Firstly, the B-1B only has supersonic dash capability at low Mach - it lost the ability for sustained high Mach flight during its redesign between Carter and Reagan (specifically, it no longer has variable intakes so high Mach airflows are out of the question). Its a fine platform, but its also devilishly expensive to operate, having more than twice the per-flight-hour cost of the B-52.
The B-2 is also a fine platform, but its also very very expensive, and incredibly maintenance heavy. It requires specialist hangars and maintenance routines due to the age of its stealth technology, while more modern techniques means aircraft such as the F-22 and F-35 require much less preventative and ongoing maintenance solely for its stealth capabilities.
When it comes to dropping bombs, the B-52 is still the most cost effective, and has the lowest per-flight-hour cost of any heavy bomber currently in the USAF capability range - the point of the LRS-B contract is to produce a much more cost effective aircraft to replace both the B-2 and B-1B, bringing costs much more in line with those of the B-52.
No, because stealth technology isn't a single thing and radar technology isn't a single thing - both evolve over time. Older stealth technology may be defeated, but improved technologies become available, just the same as detection technologies evolve in attempts to defeat stealth.
Actually, its not just speculation - the program is already fairly mature as all competitors have flown demonstrator scale versions and developed their entries to a higher level than normally required to. As an example, both the F-22 and F-35 programs were awarded based off of non-representative demonstrators, and the actual production examples were then developed from scratch after the contracts were awarded - in this case, the competitors were required to fly demonstrators based on the production examples, and were fully funded to that goal. The winner now gets to continue development on to full scale.
Why the change in approach? Because its run by a different office than normal acquisitions - the LRS-B contract competition was run by the Rapid Capabilities Office, which also handled such programs as the X-37 and thus isn't bound to the normal acquisition rulebook.
The current understanding of the contract within the military aviation industry and community is that the bomber is not supersonic, doesn't even have supersonic dash capabilities, and is intended to have better stealth characteristics than anything currently developed - looks like they are going for mainly stealth as a defensive measure, with a good dose of active and passive ECM capabilities to make up the difference.
Here we have 100 bombers delivered under contract for the cost of developing the F-35 with no aircraft delivered. I wonder if it will actually happen tho...
Well, first of all the original currency used was Euros, and second of all even the issuer of a currency doesnt get to decree what happens between two people on another continent, regardless of what currency they do use. Its a private transaction that doesnt involve you.