Want to type a passphrase on an iPhone keyboard? Go ahead. The phone will be very secure since nobody including you will be able to activate it.
Under Touch ID and Passcode on a phone, you can specify that the phone will be wiped after ten tries to unlock it. That means an attacker has a 1% chance of guessing a random passcode before the phone is wiped. If that isn't sufficient, use a longer passcode.
In other words, when someone complains of corporate misconduct, the corporation should do its best to punish the complainer and everyone else in sight, and leave the customer base in a state of fear lest someone else dare complain. I'm sure you can get children to turn in their parents for re-education if you do it right.
False. They suppressed climate research, and funded campaigns to get climate science vilified.
they produced energy at the lowest possible cost is all.
Corporations have an obligation to stay legal while reducing costs. The oil companies didn't. They deliberately lied to keep their profits coming. That's fraud.
Also, it isn't the lowest possible cost to all. There's a whole lot of externalities going on that really should be folded into their prices to allow the market to work properly.
So, you're pretty well off and live at a high elevation? So you will only be hit financially by the disruption? Or you're old and expect to die soon? Most people have a dog in the fight whether they know it or not.
Not entirely. Presumably the pension funds were invested in fossil fuels for financial reasons, and the divestment they're doing will result in lowered returns. The boatload of cash can be used in part to offset that.
We've got some reasonable predictions on that. In fact, the sort of extreme weather global warming helps cause has already had some pretty expensive effects.
I'd assume that ACO would be advertising their relatively clean processes, and not lying about the effects of what they sell. That would make them pretty much immune from these lawsuits.
The best way to come up with better alternatives is to economically encourage them, and discourage fossil fuels. Then we can let the market decide.
Right now, fossil fuel companies are rich partly because everybody on the planet pays some of their costs. If we find a way to assign the costs appropriately, that will spur the market for non-fossil-fuel energy and vehicles.
And, in the meantime, we know that some of them have been lying for profit, which is usually called "fraud". These companies have known about global warming for a long time, and have been funding people to deny it.
The fossil fuel providers have been lying about the harm they do in the process. Apparently the political right doesn't care about paying for the damage they cause, or telling the truth.
That kinda depends on your definition of "pollution", doesn't it? It's clearly causing harm.
No one considers the CO2 itself to be toxic at any atmospheric concentrations.
Sure it is. We're not going to hit those concentrations, but I'm not sure that raising it below that rate is harmless to people.
This lawsuit is politics, pure and simple.
Of course it is, but that's not a bad thing. Fossil fuel companies have been making profits partly because they get to externalize a lot of the costs they cause, and the proper way to internalize these costs is government intervention, hence politics.
One advantage of Apple is that it uses expert opinions as to how to set things so people can't mess them up. It's part of "just works". Apple is not, repeat not, going to allow you to set your phone to a mode where it crashes instead of slows down. This isn't just a matter of battery life, it's a matter of avoiding crashes.
Now, you may not want Apple making decisions for you, for very good reasons. In that case, I'd suggest buying something else.
No, the increased energy in the atmosphere causes more extreme weather. Check out any of the scientific sources.
Global warming is not normally going to cause something previously impossible to happen. Its effect on weather is statistical, so some more extreme events are more likely to happen and/or more likely to be severe.
You and I are not typical smartphone buyers, and probably lots of our friends aren't either. (My phone is about 7mm, according to my calipers. Making it 1cm thick would be increasing the thickness 50%, and it would no longer easily fit into all the pockets I keep it in.)
iPhones have their memory encrypted with AES-256. I think they can handle the encryption. One of the reasons Rijndael was chosen for AES was its relatively low computer impact compared to some other algorithms.
Moreover, you were talking about using different ciphers based on desired security. If you've got AES, why use anything else?
Slashdot Mirror
Want to type a passphrase on an iPhone keyboard? Go ahead. The phone will be very secure since nobody including you will be able to activate it.
Under Touch ID and Passcode on a phone, you can specify that the phone will be wiped after ten tries to unlock it. That means an attacker has a 1% chance of guessing a random passcode before the phone is wiped. If that isn't sufficient, use a longer passcode.
The ones I had required extending the antenna in order to work halfway decently.
You can sue companies for lying about bad effects of their products. It worked against tobacco companies.
In other words, when someone complains of corporate misconduct, the corporation should do its best to punish the complainer and everyone else in sight, and leave the customer base in a state of fear lest someone else dare complain. I'm sure you can get children to turn in their parents for re-education if you do it right.
False. They suppressed climate research, and funded campaigns to get climate science vilified.
Corporations have an obligation to stay legal while reducing costs. The oil companies didn't. They deliberately lied to keep their profits coming. That's fraud.
Also, it isn't the lowest possible cost to all. There's a whole lot of externalities going on that really should be folded into their prices to allow the market to work properly.
In other words, let he who is without sin file the first lawsuit? It's stupid to sue someone for fraud if you're a customer?
So, you're pretty well off and live at a high elevation? So you will only be hit financially by the disruption? Or you're old and expect to die soon? Most people have a dog in the fight whether they know it or not.
Not entirely. Presumably the pension funds were invested in fossil fuels for financial reasons, and the divestment they're doing will result in lowered returns. The boatload of cash can be used in part to offset that.
We've got some reasonable predictions on that. In fact, the sort of extreme weather global warming helps cause has already had some pretty expensive effects.
Sure it did. We don't care about them. We weren't there to be affected.
What we've got right now is very rapid warming that will disrupt human civilization. That we should care about.
I'd assume that ACO would be advertising their relatively clean processes, and not lying about the effects of what they sell. That would make them pretty much immune from these lawsuits.
And so we see Slashdotters strongly advocating that people be punished if they say anything about corporate fraud. How nice.
The best way to come up with better alternatives is to economically encourage them, and discourage fossil fuels. Then we can let the market decide.
Right now, fossil fuel companies are rich partly because everybody on the planet pays some of their costs. If we find a way to assign the costs appropriately, that will spur the market for non-fossil-fuel energy and vehicles.
And, in the meantime, we know that some of them have been lying for profit, which is usually called "fraud". These companies have known about global warming for a long time, and have been funding people to deny it.
The fossil fuel providers have been lying about the harm they do in the process. Apparently the political right doesn't care about paying for the damage they cause, or telling the truth.
And we'd like you (or someone involved) to pay for the costs of fossil fuels.
There are ways to help the poor that don't involve allowing people to seriously damage the planet and lie about it for profit.
That kinda depends on your definition of "pollution", doesn't it? It's clearly causing harm.
Sure it is. We're not going to hit those concentrations, but I'm not sure that raising it below that rate is harmless to people.
Of course it is, but that's not a bad thing. Fossil fuel companies have been making profits partly because they get to externalize a lot of the costs they cause, and the proper way to internalize these costs is government intervention, hence politics.
Alternately, perhaps the court enforced the law as written. There have been some pretty unpopular decisions because of that.
The voices inside your head aren't as tuned into Apple internal communications as you think.
One advantage of Apple is that it uses expert opinions as to how to set things so people can't mess them up. It's part of "just works". Apple is not, repeat not, going to allow you to set your phone to a mode where it crashes instead of slows down. This isn't just a matter of battery life, it's a matter of avoiding crashes.
Now, you may not want Apple making decisions for you, for very good reasons. In that case, I'd suggest buying something else.
No, the increased energy in the atmosphere causes more extreme weather. Check out any of the scientific sources.
Global warming is not normally going to cause something previously impossible to happen. Its effect on weather is statistical, so some more extreme events are more likely to happen and/or more likely to be severe.
You and I are not typical smartphone buyers, and probably lots of our friends aren't either. (My phone is about 7mm, according to my calipers. Making it 1cm thick would be increasing the thickness 50%, and it would no longer easily fit into all the pockets I keep it in.)
iPhones have their memory encrypted with AES-256. I think they can handle the encryption. One of the reasons Rijndael was chosen for AES was its relatively low computer impact compared to some other algorithms.
Moreover, you were talking about using different ciphers based on desired security. If you've got AES, why use anything else?
I'm going by what little I've seen in real life. You seem to be going from a particular simple theory.
The parties tend to separate along geographical lines, urban being heavily Democrat, suburbs and rural tending more Republican. That evens things out.