The iPhone 5s doesn't store the fingerprint itself, it just stores specific data points. Apple states that the fingerprint data is stored a secure portion of the A7, and it never uploaded to iCloud, or stored on Apple's servers, and never leaves the iPhone itself.
Also, I'd be very surprised if the stored data isn't hashed.
The fingerprint reader in the iPhone 5s uses a capacitive sensor, not an optical one, so Schneier's proposed hack wouldn't work.
Also, Apple requires you to create a PIN code when you enable the fingerprint sensor. If it's been 48 hours since you used the fingerprint sensor to authenticate, you have to use the PIN instead. Likewise, if you've just restarted the iPhone, you have to use the PIN for your first authentication, you can't use the fingerprint sensor.
He's got a lot of stupid ideas:
A new transportation system that would cost billions to build, would be completely uneconomical for patrons to use, and has a high risk of death with even the slightest malfunction at 4,000 MPH. An electric car which costs nearly $100,000 and is likely to lack the necessary infrastructure to use over long distances for years, if ever. A money transfer system which acts like a bank, but whose customers have no FDIC protections, but lots of horror stories. A private space agency which couldn't make it without government subsidies and assistance. YEAH, he's the NEW Steve Jobs all right!
I'm not disputing that Amazon's ultimate intention is to drive all competitors out of business so they can charge whatever they want for E-books. I'm just saying that Amazon was charging $9.99, and Apple comes along and suddenly that same E-book is $14.99. That's not good for consumers, it's bad for consumers.
Jobs suggested to Mossberg that prices would increase from $9.99 to $14.99. Now, just how did he know that? Was it a coincidence, or was Jobs actively trying to raise E-book prices so Apple could get their cut?
Competition is supposed to drive prices down, not up. I know, Amazon was keeping prices artificially low, but the consumer was benefitting from that, at least in the short- to medium-term.
So, what happens if Apple never launches the iBookstore? Prices at Amazon stay at $9.99 for several more years, and consumers keep millions of dollars of their own money when they buy E-books.
I don't fault Apple's executives for this. Steve Jobs was the CEO when this decision was made, and the emails produced in court demonstrate he supported this move.
Jobs had a long history of illegal behavior. In the late 90s, he terminated lifetime support for several lines of PowerPC Macs, and both the FTC and a private class action sued Apple to regain the support.
Jobs never thought the laws applied to him, and now Apple is reaping the benefits of such a strategy.
I love Apple's products (no really, I do), and I make my living supporting them, but anticompetitive behavior is a crime against capitalism itself. It hurts us all.
As soon as Apple entered the market, E-book prices went UP. If Apple had truly represented more competition, as they claimed in court, prices should have gone down. The prices went up because Apple illegally colluded with others to fix a higher price (perhaps so they could get their 30% cut).
The court should fine Apple something meaningful. How about the $140B they have in cash? Distribute that to everyone who bought E-books. Or put Tim Cook in jail for anticompetitive behavior. No CEO would ever do anything anticompetitive again if they knew they might personally go to jail.
I would even support a corporate death penalty for Apple if it sets a precedent: engage in anticompetitive behavior, and the government will terminate your company for good.
White collar criminals are different from blue collar criminals in that they usually consider the consequences of getting caught. Only with serious and meaningful punishment can we stop anticompetitive behavior going forward. Let's begin with Apple.
This is what drives me crazy about some iPhone owners. They haven't used a jailbroken iPhone, they haven't used a Pre, and they haven't used an HTC HD2. They claim that multitasking can't be implemented on the iPhone because it would either slow the iPhone down, or greatly diminish battery life. Well, I've used all these phones, and it's possible to multitask on a jailbroken iPhone without it slowing down, and without destroying battery life. Other phones listed above manage to implement true multitasking without sacrificing battery life.
It IS possible to do it. Apple has some of the greatest engineering talent around. Are we supposed to believe that HTC or the former iPhone engineers at Palm can extend battery life but Apple can't? If Apple isn't implementing true multitasking, I can only assume it's because they don't want to for their own reasons.
During the demonstration, Scott Forstall indicated that apps in the background enter a "quiescent state, using no CPU" on the device. How is this multitasking? Apple is completely suspending any background apps, while allowing only specific background processes (local notification, location, audio, etc.) to run. For example, I'd like Tweetie to download tweets in the background, or NetNewsWire to download articles in the background. From the presentation, it looks like the only way this could occur in the background is for me to launch the app, manually begin downloading data, and then exit to some other app or the task manager. If those apps utilize the task completion feature in OS 4, they'll finish on their own. That's OK, but I'd much rather have them downloading that data at predetermined intervals, like a mail client does. If we had true multitasking, those apps would actually be running in the background, and could do this.
On a totally unrelated note, how do we quit apps in the new task manager? Hold down the icon until we get an "x" in the upper left corner of the icon? I didn't see any differentiation in the presentation between switching and app and closing an app.
Actually, Windows users are getting something OS X users aren't getting: malware. In addition, there are no viruses which affect OS X.
That said, I much prefer Microsoft's approach to security compared to Apple's. Microsoft takes security seriously, Apple not so much.
Apple's hardware (desktop and laptop) sales amounted to 42% of its revenue according to the most recent annual report, but that report included hardly any iPhone revenue (for comparison, iPod sales were only $2B less than hardware sales).
Jobs has to know that Apple is going to be out of the hardware business one day; he knows that OS X is the important part. Why else would Apple be deriving more revenue each year from software, services, iPod, and iPhone? He'll license the OS, but it may take a few more years until Mac hardware accounts for only 20% of revenue.
I too wrote Steve, and he emailed me the same thing: I think this is a joke.
I can only imagine how many people are emailing him about this. Given his nature, I have to believe he knows that Apple's legal department and representatives aren't involved.
We purchased two iPhones on Friday night. No one tells you that if you're not a current AT&T customer, and you're not transferring a phone number from another carrier, you'll need to "pre-qualify" _in person_ at an AT&T store. Naturally, this was inconvenient, but we did it. By Saturday afternoon, one of the iPhones was activated, but it's now Sunday morning, and the other one still isn't activated.
They could have explained this procedure when we purchased the phones, but even the support people at AT&T don't know what's going on; they can't seem to give us a consistent answer, other than to ask us to wait. Well, it's been 36 hours since we first activated online, and still nothing. It doesn't seem possible that AT&T's activation system is still overwhelmed a day and a half later.
OK, but let's say that I want to develop an iPhone app to track my vehicle mileage and maintenance? Or develop a light text editor that can also read Word files? Or develop a portable iPhone version of iWork's Pages or Keynote so I can make basic edits? Or an app to enter financial data, which will automatically sync with Quicken on my computer when I reconnect?
I think all of these solutions would work best as standalone applications, and could benefit from read _and_ write access to iPhone's data store. But as far as I can tell from the WWDC Keynote, they won't be able to write to the data store, and will require an internet connection just to run (because they're hosted on a server somewhere).
I just don't think Apple's solution is that great. As a Treo owner, I know what happens when you let third-party developers write for your phone (it can crash), but I think Apple could avoid that by more careful QA; after all, Nintendo doesn't allow any games to be released for its consoles until it meets their standards. Why couldn't Apple do the same?
Where are iLife '07 and iWork '07? Where's Charts? Where is the screen-sharing/remote-control functionality in iChat? Where is the ability to run Windows apps from the desktop? Where is virtualization in OS X Server?
I know a lot of these were rumored, but to be missing all of them? It just seems a little strange. Am I the only one to be underwhelmed by the Keynote? Mac users were told that Leopard had been delayed, but that it would be worth the wait. And Back to Mac _is_ a feature that was worth waiting for, but I'd hardly say the secret features lived up to the hype. This is not a brand-new Finder, it's a Finder with a few tweaks. This is not a brand-new Dock, it's a dock with a mirrored shelf. And while it could be helpful to quickly preview documents rather than launching them, I would have settled for speeding-up Spotlight instead. And truly, while it may be good for Apple down the road, do Mac developers (or users for that matter) care about Safari on Windows?
I'm certain that some developers are ecstatic about the OS being 64-bit, but most of their apps aren't going to use 4 GB files. I recognize that Time Machine may be the best addition to an OS in years; backing-up is the one thing that most users never get around to implementing until it's too late.
I dunno, I guess I was just expecting more from the "secret features" we had been told to expect.
In California, you cannot be salaried for more than 40 hours per week, and an employer must compensate you for any overtime worked over 40 hours per week. Most employers either do not know this, or feign ignorance, and so the vast majority of employees can always sue for overtime whenever they feel like it.
The Wage Orders in California determining who is exempt and who is not are very strict, and deal with accountants, attorneys, physicians, people working in Hollywood, etc. You can still be classified as exempt even if there isn't a wage order governing your profession or vocation, but there are several tests which your position must satisfy, and it must satisfy them all.
Obviously, those who are covered by wage orders do not get paid overtime in any event. You can hire an attorney for $40K per year and work them 120 hours per week, and it's perfectly legal in California.
OK, I see that they're profitable over $30 per barrel, but I was wondering specifically about Shell's costs. I had read that with costs twice as high as they anticipated, Shell was wondering if the oil sands would be profitable. I don't see any reference to this news in your post.
I seem to remember reading an article in the past few months that the oil sands in Canada were ending up costing Shell twice what they thought it would cost to extract and refine due to some unexpected problems. If that is true, how can the oil sands end up being "very profitable?" Shouldn't they be less profitable?
I hate to use an ad hominem fallacy to respond to an ad hominem fallacy, but generally speaking, I've found conservatives unable to engage in honest, logical debate when it comes to Bush. So I'll give the charges above a try.
One can very easily argue that Bush is illegitimately elected, both in 2000 (when the Supreme Court ordered an end to the vote counting, ensuring that many votes were never tallied) and in 2004 (as claimed by the RFK and Salon rebuttal articles referenced above).
I've only heard Bush quip once about how much easier it would be if he were a dictator, but that was obviously intended as humor. As far as I know, there's no evidence of this that he genuinely wants this.
As commander in chief of U.S. forces, Bush has ordered troops to engage in two separate wars, resulting in the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians, not to mention all the military (U.S., U.K., and all other countries) deaths. Doesn't this qualify as a mass murderer? Those Iraqis just got in the way, and they died for it? Did they deserve to die?
The highest court in the United States, from which there is no appeal, has already ruled that the military tribunals setup by Bush violate the Geneva Convention. This looks to me as if Bush is a de facto war criminal.
If we want honest government, and want to avoid another traitor in the White House, conservatives and Republicans need to logically and calmly argue their positions, no matter how indefensible they may be, and be willing to admit how many of their beliefs stem from elitism, bigotry, and hatred of those who are unlike them (not the right color, religion, social or economic strata). I don't have any problem with people of deplorable moral character, so long as they don't try to hide it from the rest of us.
Actually, I already tried that. I contacted The Hague, offering to deliver George W. Bush to them so he could be tried for his war crimes. I even offered to fly him first class! Unfortunately, they weren't interested.
So I called the FBI, and offered to deliver George W. Bush to them, safe and sound, for prosecution for violating the Geneva Convention, the Constitution, FISA, and whatever else their investigation turns up. Unfortunately, I never heard back from them either.
I'm fairly certain that the President is immune from criminal prosecution while he is in office, so the only way to try him is to remove him from office first. But that can't happen without impeachment in the House and a trial in the Senate.
I guess what I'm saying is we can't arrest a sitting President; it's illegal. A citizen has no authority to arrest a sitting President, even if he is George W. Bush.
One person, one vote died the moment the courts decided that money equals speech. Suddenly, corporations (which shouldn't be entitled to protected speech at all, because they aren't citizens, but that's another rant) are affecting elections with their lobbying efforts, and they can't even vote. Shouldn't lobbying be limited to those who can vote?
Anyway, money cannot equal free speech, because free speech is supposed to equalize. If I put my views into a 30 second spot to be nationally broadcast, there is no way you're views can get equal distribution without you also being able to purchase advertising time.
Oh there's nothing at all wrong with broadcasting fiction, as long as you don't call it non-fiction by claiming that it was "based in part on the 9/11 report." See, you're not actually indicating which parts are fictional and which parts are factual, and thus you engage in intentional deception, especially when you attempt to get it into our schools. But this is America, and lying isn't again the law..unless you're making money from the lie, which is fraud.
In my mind, fraud is enough of a reason to pull ABC's license, let alone invite a charge of election tampering.
I would question any GA statistic which lumps VFR and IFR flight plans together. IFR is an inherently safer way to fly, because you're routed around obstacles and traffic by ATC. Sure, it takes longer to take off, but you're much safer in the air.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd doubt it. Everyone just wants to wallow in their ignorance.
I already mentioned this several minutes ago!
The iPhone 5s doesn't store the fingerprint itself, it just stores specific data points. Apple states that the fingerprint data is stored a secure portion of the A7, and it never uploaded to iCloud, or stored on Apple's servers, and never leaves the iPhone itself.
Also, I'd be very surprised if the stored data isn't hashed.
The fingerprint reader in the iPhone 5s uses a capacitive sensor, not an optical one, so Schneier's proposed hack wouldn't work.
Also, Apple requires you to create a PIN code when you enable the fingerprint sensor. If it's been 48 hours since you used the fingerprint sensor to authenticate, you have to use the PIN instead. Likewise, if you've just restarted the iPhone, you have to use the PIN for your first authentication, you can't use the fingerprint sensor.
You meant, "If I WERE independently wealthy..."
Stormy forgot to use the subjunctive!
Damn, I forgot to post this troll anonymously.
He's got a lot of stupid ideas: A new transportation system that would cost billions to build, would be completely uneconomical for patrons to use, and has a high risk of death with even the slightest malfunction at 4,000 MPH. An electric car which costs nearly $100,000 and is likely to lack the necessary infrastructure to use over long distances for years, if ever. A money transfer system which acts like a bank, but whose customers have no FDIC protections, but lots of horror stories. A private space agency which couldn't make it without government subsidies and assistance. YEAH, he's the NEW Steve Jobs all right!
I'm not disputing that Amazon's ultimate intention is to drive all competitors out of business so they can charge whatever they want for E-books. I'm just saying that Amazon was charging $9.99, and Apple comes along and suddenly that same E-book is $14.99. That's not good for consumers, it's bad for consumers. Jobs suggested to Mossberg that prices would increase from $9.99 to $14.99. Now, just how did he know that? Was it a coincidence, or was Jobs actively trying to raise E-book prices so Apple could get their cut? Competition is supposed to drive prices down, not up. I know, Amazon was keeping prices artificially low, but the consumer was benefitting from that, at least in the short- to medium-term. So, what happens if Apple never launches the iBookstore? Prices at Amazon stay at $9.99 for several more years, and consumers keep millions of dollars of their own money when they buy E-books.
I don't fault Apple's executives for this. Steve Jobs was the CEO when this decision was made, and the emails produced in court demonstrate he supported this move. Jobs had a long history of illegal behavior. In the late 90s, he terminated lifetime support for several lines of PowerPC Macs, and both the FTC and a private class action sued Apple to regain the support. Jobs never thought the laws applied to him, and now Apple is reaping the benefits of such a strategy.
I love Apple's products (no really, I do), and I make my living supporting them, but anticompetitive behavior is a crime against capitalism itself. It hurts us all. As soon as Apple entered the market, E-book prices went UP. If Apple had truly represented more competition, as they claimed in court, prices should have gone down. The prices went up because Apple illegally colluded with others to fix a higher price (perhaps so they could get their 30% cut). The court should fine Apple something meaningful. How about the $140B they have in cash? Distribute that to everyone who bought E-books. Or put Tim Cook in jail for anticompetitive behavior. No CEO would ever do anything anticompetitive again if they knew they might personally go to jail. I would even support a corporate death penalty for Apple if it sets a precedent: engage in anticompetitive behavior, and the government will terminate your company for good. White collar criminals are different from blue collar criminals in that they usually consider the consequences of getting caught. Only with serious and meaningful punishment can we stop anticompetitive behavior going forward. Let's begin with Apple.
This is what drives me crazy about some iPhone owners. They haven't used a jailbroken iPhone, they haven't used a Pre, and they haven't used an HTC HD2. They claim that multitasking can't be implemented on the iPhone because it would either slow the iPhone down, or greatly diminish battery life. Well, I've used all these phones, and it's possible to multitask on a jailbroken iPhone without it slowing down, and without destroying battery life. Other phones listed above manage to implement true multitasking without sacrificing battery life. It IS possible to do it. Apple has some of the greatest engineering talent around. Are we supposed to believe that HTC or the former iPhone engineers at Palm can extend battery life but Apple can't? If Apple isn't implementing true multitasking, I can only assume it's because they don't want to for their own reasons.
During the demonstration, Scott Forstall indicated that apps in the background enter a "quiescent state, using no CPU" on the device. How is this multitasking? Apple is completely suspending any background apps, while allowing only specific background processes (local notification, location, audio, etc.) to run. For example, I'd like Tweetie to download tweets in the background, or NetNewsWire to download articles in the background. From the presentation, it looks like the only way this could occur in the background is for me to launch the app, manually begin downloading data, and then exit to some other app or the task manager. If those apps utilize the task completion feature in OS 4, they'll finish on their own. That's OK, but I'd much rather have them downloading that data at predetermined intervals, like a mail client does. If we had true multitasking, those apps would actually be running in the background, and could do this. On a totally unrelated note, how do we quit apps in the new task manager? Hold down the icon until we get an "x" in the upper left corner of the icon? I didn't see any differentiation in the presentation between switching and app and closing an app.
In fairness, we have been using Dells for our business for years, and we have several hundred of them. I wouldn't characterize them as junk.
Actually, Windows users are getting something OS X users aren't getting: malware. In addition, there are no viruses which affect OS X. That said, I much prefer Microsoft's approach to security compared to Apple's. Microsoft takes security seriously, Apple not so much.
Apple's hardware (desktop and laptop) sales amounted to 42% of its revenue according to the most recent annual report, but that report included hardly any iPhone revenue (for comparison, iPod sales were only $2B less than hardware sales). Jobs has to know that Apple is going to be out of the hardware business one day; he knows that OS X is the important part. Why else would Apple be deriving more revenue each year from software, services, iPod, and iPhone? He'll license the OS, but it may take a few more years until Mac hardware accounts for only 20% of revenue.
I too wrote Steve, and he emailed me the same thing: I think this is a joke. I can only imagine how many people are emailing him about this. Given his nature, I have to believe he knows that Apple's legal department and representatives aren't involved.
We purchased two iPhones on Friday night. No one tells you that if you're not a current AT&T customer, and you're not transferring a phone number from another carrier, you'll need to "pre-qualify" _in person_ at an AT&T store. Naturally, this was inconvenient, but we did it. By Saturday afternoon, one of the iPhones was activated, but it's now Sunday morning, and the other one still isn't activated.
They could have explained this procedure when we purchased the phones, but even the support people at AT&T don't know what's going on; they can't seem to give us a consistent answer, other than to ask us to wait. Well, it's been 36 hours since we first activated online, and still nothing. It doesn't seem possible that AT&T's activation system is still overwhelmed a day and a half later.
OK, but let's say that I want to develop an iPhone app to track my vehicle mileage and maintenance? Or develop a light text editor that can also read Word files? Or develop a portable iPhone version of iWork's Pages or Keynote so I can make basic edits? Or an app to enter financial data, which will automatically sync with Quicken on my computer when I reconnect?
I think all of these solutions would work best as standalone applications, and could benefit from read _and_ write access to iPhone's data store. But as far as I can tell from the WWDC Keynote, they won't be able to write to the data store, and will require an internet connection just to run (because they're hosted on a server somewhere).
I just don't think Apple's solution is that great. As a Treo owner, I know what happens when you let third-party developers write for your phone (it can crash), but I think Apple could avoid that by more careful QA; after all, Nintendo doesn't allow any games to be released for its consoles until it meets their standards. Why couldn't Apple do the same?
Am I missing something here?
Where are iLife '07 and iWork '07? Where's Charts? Where is the screen-sharing/remote-control functionality in iChat? Where is the ability to run Windows apps from the desktop? Where is virtualization in OS X Server?
I know a lot of these were rumored, but to be missing all of them? It just seems a little strange. Am I the only one to be underwhelmed by the Keynote? Mac users were told that Leopard had been delayed, but that it would be worth the wait. And Back to Mac _is_ a feature that was worth waiting for, but I'd hardly say the secret features lived up to the hype. This is not a brand-new Finder, it's a Finder with a few tweaks. This is not a brand-new Dock, it's a dock with a mirrored shelf. And while it could be helpful to quickly preview documents rather than launching them, I would have settled for speeding-up Spotlight instead. And truly, while it may be good for Apple down the road, do Mac developers (or users for that matter) care about Safari on Windows?
I'm certain that some developers are ecstatic about the OS being 64-bit, but most of their apps aren't going to use 4 GB files. I recognize that Time Machine may be the best addition to an OS in years; backing-up is the one thing that most users never get around to implementing until it's too late.
I dunno, I guess I was just expecting more from the "secret features" we had been told to expect.
In California, you cannot be salaried for more than 40 hours per week, and an employer must compensate you for any overtime worked over 40 hours per week. Most employers either do not know this, or feign ignorance, and so the vast majority of employees can always sue for overtime whenever they feel like it.
The Wage Orders in California determining who is exempt and who is not are very strict, and deal with accountants, attorneys, physicians, people working in Hollywood, etc. You can still be classified as exempt even if there isn't a wage order governing your profession or vocation, but there are several tests which your position must satisfy, and it must satisfy them all.
Obviously, those who are covered by wage orders do not get paid overtime in any event. You can hire an attorney for $40K per year and work them 120 hours per week, and it's perfectly legal in California.
OK, I see that they're profitable over $30 per barrel, but I was wondering specifically about Shell's costs. I had read that with costs twice as high as they anticipated, Shell was wondering if the oil sands would be profitable. I don't see any reference to this news in your post.
I seem to remember reading an article in the past few months that the oil sands in Canada were ending up costing Shell twice what they thought it would cost to extract and refine due to some unexpected problems. If that is true, how can the oil sands end up being "very profitable?" Shouldn't they be less profitable?
I hate to use an ad hominem fallacy to respond to an ad hominem fallacy, but generally speaking, I've found conservatives unable to engage in honest, logical debate when it comes to Bush. So I'll give the charges above a try.
One can very easily argue that Bush is illegitimately elected, both in 2000 (when the Supreme Court ordered an end to the vote counting, ensuring that many votes were never tallied) and in 2004 (as claimed by the RFK and Salon rebuttal articles referenced above).
I've only heard Bush quip once about how much easier it would be if he were a dictator, but that was obviously intended as humor. As far as I know, there's no evidence of this that he genuinely wants this.
As commander in chief of U.S. forces, Bush has ordered troops to engage in two separate wars, resulting in the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians, not to mention all the military (U.S., U.K., and all other countries) deaths. Doesn't this qualify as a mass murderer? Those Iraqis just got in the way, and they died for it? Did they deserve to die?
The highest court in the United States, from which there is no appeal, has already ruled that the military tribunals setup by Bush violate the Geneva Convention. This looks to me as if Bush is a de facto war criminal.
If we want honest government, and want to avoid another traitor in the White House, conservatives and Republicans need to logically and calmly argue their positions, no matter how indefensible they may be, and be willing to admit how many of their beliefs stem from elitism, bigotry, and hatred of those who are unlike them (not the right color, religion, social or economic strata). I don't have any problem with people of deplorable moral character, so long as they don't try to hide it from the rest of us.
Actually, I already tried that. I contacted The Hague, offering to deliver George W. Bush to them so he could be tried for his war crimes. I even offered to fly him first class! Unfortunately, they weren't interested.
So I called the FBI, and offered to deliver George W. Bush to them, safe and sound, for prosecution for violating the Geneva Convention, the Constitution, FISA, and whatever else their investigation turns up. Unfortunately, I never heard back from them either.
I'm fairly certain that the President is immune from criminal prosecution while he is in office, so the only way to try him is to remove him from office first. But that can't happen without impeachment in the House and a trial in the Senate.
I guess what I'm saying is we can't arrest a sitting President; it's illegal. A citizen has no authority to arrest a sitting President, even if he is George W. Bush.
One person, one vote died the moment the courts decided that money equals speech. Suddenly, corporations (which shouldn't be entitled to protected speech at all, because they aren't citizens, but that's another rant) are affecting elections with their lobbying efforts, and they can't even vote. Shouldn't lobbying be limited to those who can vote? Anyway, money cannot equal free speech, because free speech is supposed to equalize. If I put my views into a 30 second spot to be nationally broadcast, there is no way you're views can get equal distribution without you also being able to purchase advertising time.
Oh there's nothing at all wrong with broadcasting fiction, as long as you don't call it non-fiction by claiming that it was "based in part on the 9/11 report." See, you're not actually indicating which parts are fictional and which parts are factual, and thus you engage in intentional deception, especially when you attempt to get it into our schools. But this is America, and lying isn't again the law..unless you're making money from the lie, which is fraud.
In my mind, fraud is enough of a reason to pull ABC's license, let alone invite a charge of election tampering.
I would question any GA statistic which lumps VFR and IFR flight plans together. IFR is an inherently safer way to fly, because you're routed around obstacles and traffic by ATC. Sure, it takes longer to take off, but you're much safer in the air.
Personally, I always fly IFR.