There's mounting evidence, from this study and a few others, that no amount of blood testing will ever find anything, yet there is still a medical reason.
This was in the early 1980's. I barely missed out on the Ritalin craze that came afterward.
No, I don't know any scientific data from the 1980's and 90's that predicted a 2 ft/year sea level rise. Please add your references.
Al Gore made a comment that sea levels would rise 20 feet in his 2006 movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," that the global warming critics like to hype to death. Any comment by Al Gore should be taken with a hefty amount of sea salt.
Some of the most memorable images from Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, are the graphics that show how rising ocean levels will dramatically alter our planet's coastlines. As Greenland's ice sheets collapse, Gore predicts that our shores will be flooded and sea-bordering cities will sink beneath the water leaving millions of people homeless. His narration tells the audience that, due to global warming, melting ice could release enough water to cause at 20-foot rise in sea level "in the near future."
[...] who knew they'd be buying into a worthless investment.
A smart speculator would look at the scientific data for rising water levels and buy worthless properties that will eventually become new water front properties.
[...] but I don't get how fat can ever be a sign of parental abuse.
I think the principle wanted to fat shame me by making a big deal about my weight in front of my parents, and his plan fell apart after my skinny parents walked through the door. You really can't fat shame skinny parents for having a fat kid, especially when a half-dozen blood tests come back negative for any medical causes.
What IS it about fat people where they get enraged when someone points out they're fat?
What IS it about skinny people that they appoint themselves as self-righteous pricks by offering unsolicited, and often inappropriate, advice to fat people? A friend insisted that I run seven miles a day even though it would blow out my knees. A coworker insisted that I drink water all the time even though I drink more water than him. Another coworker insisted in front of other coworkers at a meeting that I get lap-band surgery even though we weren't talking about my weight.
Everyone can not only see, but see exactly how fat you are as well.
I don't have a problem with being fat. I'm on a low carb diet, work out at the gym and drink plenty of water. I'm doing what I can do without killing myself in the process. Seems like skinny people are insecure around me because I'm not insecure or ashamed of being fat. I put that nonsense behind me years ago.
That's a Roman Catholic teaching. The seven deadly sins were never discussed in my non-denominational church. As I pointed out to someone else, gluttony requires gluttonous behavior. I ate a lot less than many of the skinny people at church. As the lead evangelist once pointed out, ordering a Diet Coke doesn't make your Big Mac less fattening.
That's funny because the word "gluttony" never came up in any conversations. Probably because I ate less than a lot of skinny people in my church. You can't have gluttony without gluttonous behavior.
I think very few people genuinely believe that it's "all moral failing"
If you're overweight and in a church, you're be surprised by how many members are willing to disciple you about your stomach rather than your heart. Your stomach won't lead you into sin like your heart will. But the stomach is low-hanging fruit that self-righteous pricks like to harass people about because they're not that good at talking about the heart.
Instead of just saying that the naturally skinny differ "in the genes", researchers might start investigating different subsystems, such as the digestive, to see how changes in them might mitigate weight gain.
A sixth grade school principle tried to make a case against my parents that they were abusing me because I was a fat kid. He called them into his office for a conference meeting. His mouth fell open when he met them. My parents were "naturally skinny" and weren't fat people as the principal thought they were. That particular meeting went south in a hurry. I went through several years of blood tests but the doctors could never find a medical reason for why I was bigger than my parents.
A known way around the encryption, if you backup to iCloud, is to reset the password on the iCloud account and restore the iCloud backup to a new device.
From what I read, the iCloud backup — which Apple provided to the FBI — was a month old prior to the attack.
But the fact that they would push at all implies that it is not a trivial process and, perhaps, a non-zero chance of failing and wiping the device by accident.
A defense attorney could challenge the data recovery admission as evidence in public court, forcing the FBI to reveal exactly how they were able to unlock the phone to recover the data. The government does not like reveal sensitive information in public courts, which often withdraws the evidence and/or let the case collapse. The workaround is to set a legal precedent that would force companies like Apple to do the data recovery for them.
Apple is facing a specific order to decrypt a specific iPhone in a specific legal case.
Apple has previously cooperated with warrants to unlock iPhones for the authorities, but that was before they changed the encryption method to better protect user data hackers and spies. If Apple develops an unlock tool for this specific case, what prevents it from being used for every legal case in the future?
I like the idea that no one — not even the government — can browse through the encrypted data on my iPhone. The Founding Fathers used encryption to protect their own communications from the British government. In fact, under some bills being considered by various national governments today, they would have gone to prison for using encryption technology.
The fact that Apple can somehow push software onto an existing iPhone that allows the federal government to decrypt the data on that phone without the key seems like a fundamental flaw in iOS.
That's the FBI's position. Apple says it can't be done.
The keys on the new phones are only five digits. They should be able to find the key in a matter of seconds.
Except you have only ten attempts to enter the correct five digits before the data is automatically wiped. A security feature that prevents a brute force attack to unlock the iPhone.
The government may have to reveal the technical details on how they acquire the data from a locked cellphone. Given a choice between revealing sensitive information in public court or letting the case collapse, the government will almost always let the case collapse. There is no guarantee that a judge would allow the data recovery to be admissible. If a legal precedent is established, Apple can unlock the phone without the government revealing anything.
As someone else point, no crisis should ever go to waste. The government had limited success in convincing Fortune 500 companies in putting a back door into their products. Which is why they need a legal precedent in the courts.
You literally have no idea what you are talking about.
I think your reading comprehension skills are failing.
Linux isn't windows. SSH isn't tied to your GUI experience.
If the video update hoses the installation (i.e., it doesn't boot), SSH won't be running. As for Windows, I never had a video update that hoses the installation.
Yeah, having to reinstall the entire system is such a major "improvement" over having to reinstall a video driver (which is automatized to begin with).
Redoing FreeNAS takes five minutes. Redoing Ubuntu and Samba took three hours (180 minutes). Think about that. Five minutes versus 180 minutes. Which one is faster?
Oh the places the cognitive dissonance of some peeps takes them when trashing linux.
Most people expect an automated driver update not to hose the entire operating system.
Apple doesn't want to admit that they can flash new firmware to the locked device even though everyone knows they can.
According to one legal analyst, the FBI and NSA already have this capability. What the government is looking for in this court case is a legal precedent to force companies to do this for them and make the data recovery admissible in court.
Slashdot Mirror
There's mounting evidence, from this study and a few others, that no amount of blood testing will ever find anything, yet there is still a medical reason.
This was in the early 1980's. I barely missed out on the Ritalin craze that came afterward.
You know, like what happened along the US east coast in the 1980's and 90's when the "sea level will be 20ft higher" by 1990 and 2000'.
As we say on the West Coast, "What are you smoking and where can I get some?"
No, I don't know any scientific data from the 1980's and 90's that predicted a 2 ft/year sea level rise. Please add your references.
Al Gore made a comment that sea levels would rise 20 feet in his 2006 movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," that the global warming critics like to hype to death. Any comment by Al Gore should be taken with a hefty amount of sea salt.
Some of the most memorable images from Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, are the graphics that show how rising ocean levels will dramatically alter our planet's coastlines. As Greenland's ice sheets collapse, Gore predicts that our shores will be flooded and sea-bordering cities will sink beneath the water leaving millions of people homeless. His narration tells the audience that, due to global warming, melting ice could release enough water to cause at 20-foot rise in sea level "in the near future."
http://scienceline.org/2008/12/ask-rettner-sea-level-rise-al-gore-an-inconvenient-truth/
[...] who knew they'd be buying into a worthless investment.
A smart speculator would look at the scientific data for rising water levels and buy worthless properties that will eventually become new water front properties.
[...] but I don't get how fat can ever be a sign of parental abuse.
I think the principle wanted to fat shame me by making a big deal about my weight in front of my parents, and his plan fell apart after my skinny parents walked through the door. You really can't fat shame skinny parents for having a fat kid, especially when a half-dozen blood tests come back negative for any medical causes.
What IS it about fat people where they get enraged when someone points out they're fat?
What IS it about skinny people that they appoint themselves as self-righteous pricks by offering unsolicited, and often inappropriate, advice to fat people? A friend insisted that I run seven miles a day even though it would blow out my knees. A coworker insisted that I drink water all the time even though I drink more water than him. Another coworker insisted in front of other coworkers at a meeting that I get lap-band surgery even though we weren't talking about my weight.
Everyone can not only see, but see exactly how fat you are as well.
I don't have a problem with being fat. I'm on a low carb diet, work out at the gym and drink plenty of water. I'm doing what I can do without killing myself in the process. Seems like skinny people are insecure around me because I'm not insecure or ashamed of being fat. I put that nonsense behind me years ago.
Bah, you forgot you the 7 deadly sins!
That's a Roman Catholic teaching. The seven deadly sins were never discussed in my non-denominational church. As I pointed out to someone else, gluttony requires gluttonous behavior. I ate a lot less than many of the skinny people at church. As the lead evangelist once pointed out, ordering a Diet Coke doesn't make your Big Mac less fattening.
I think your forgetting about gluttony.
That's funny because the word "gluttony" never came up in any conversations. Probably because I ate less than a lot of skinny people in my church. You can't have gluttony without gluttonous behavior.
I think very few people genuinely believe that it's "all moral failing"
If you're overweight and in a church, you're be surprised by how many members are willing to disciple you about your stomach rather than your heart. Your stomach won't lead you into sin like your heart will. But the stomach is low-hanging fruit that self-righteous pricks like to harass people about because they're not that good at talking about the heart.
Instead of just saying that the naturally skinny differ "in the genes", researchers might start investigating different subsystems, such as the digestive, to see how changes in them might mitigate weight gain.
A sixth grade school principle tried to make a case against my parents that they were abusing me because I was a fat kid. He called them into his office for a conference meeting. His mouth fell open when he met them. My parents were "naturally skinny" and weren't fat people as the principal thought they were. That particular meeting went south in a hurry. I went through several years of blood tests but the doctors could never find a medical reason for why I was bigger than my parents.
That if we don't want to gain weight, we should all move to Florida?
Uh, no. Southern Florida is supposed to be underwater in the next half-century.
I'm also curious to know how Apple can tell that a phone's password has been changed.
A password change on the iPhone would change the password for the linked iCloud account and get recorded as a log entry on Apple servers.
A known way around the encryption, if you backup to iCloud, is to reset the password on the iCloud account and restore the iCloud backup to a new device.
From what I read, the iCloud backup — which Apple provided to the FBI — was a month old prior to the attack.
But the fact that they would push at all implies that it is not a trivial process and, perhaps, a non-zero chance of failing and wiping the device by accident.
A defense attorney could challenge the data recovery admission as evidence in public court, forcing the FBI to reveal exactly how they were able to unlock the phone to recover the data. The government does not like reveal sensitive information in public courts, which often withdraws the evidence and/or let the case collapse. The workaround is to set a legal precedent that would force companies like Apple to do the data recovery for them.
Apple is facing a specific order to decrypt a specific iPhone in a specific legal case.
Apple has previously cooperated with warrants to unlock iPhones for the authorities, but that was before they changed the encryption method to better protect user data hackers and spies. If Apple develops an unlock tool for this specific case, what prevents it from being used for every legal case in the future?
I like the idea that no one — not even the government — can browse through the encrypted data on my iPhone. The Founding Fathers used encryption to protect their own communications from the British government. In fact, under some bills being considered by various national governments today, they would have gone to prison for using encryption technology.
The fact that Apple can somehow push software onto an existing iPhone that allows the federal government to decrypt the data on that phone without the key seems like a fundamental flaw in iOS.
That's the FBI's position. Apple says it can't be done.
The keys on the new phones are only five digits. They should be able to find the key in a matter of seconds.
Except you have only ten attempts to enter the correct five digits before the data is automatically wiped. A security feature that prevents a brute force attack to unlock the iPhone.
The US Government can probably do this legally if the get a warrant to "search" the phone.
If they can unlock the phone with a warrant, why are they suing Apple to unlock the phone for them?
And why would it not be admissible if they do it?
The government may have to reveal the technical details on how they acquire the data from a locked cellphone. Given a choice between revealing sensitive information in public court or letting the case collapse, the government will almost always let the case collapse. There is no guarantee that a judge would allow the data recovery to be admissible. If a legal precedent is established, Apple can unlock the phone without the government revealing anything.
Why would they want to go to court?
As someone else point, no crisis should ever go to waste. The government had limited success in convincing Fortune 500 companies in putting a back door into their products. Which is why they need a legal precedent in the courts.
You literally have no idea what you are talking about.
I think your reading comprehension skills are failing.
Linux isn't windows. SSH isn't tied to your GUI experience.
If the video update hoses the installation (i.e., it doesn't boot), SSH won't be running. As for Windows, I never had a video update that hoses the installation.
Who were you referring to?
A legal analysis (yes, my bad for using the word analyst) from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Yeah, having to reinstall the entire system is such a major "improvement" over having to reinstall a video driver (which is automatized to begin with).
Redoing FreeNAS takes five minutes. Redoing Ubuntu and Samba took three hours (180 minutes). Think about that. Five minutes versus 180 minutes. Which one is faster?
Oh the places the cognitive dissonance of some peeps takes them when trashing linux.
Most people expect an automated driver update not to hose the entire operating system.
Edward Snowden is not a legal analyst.
I wasn't referring to him.
Apple doesn't want to admit that they can flash new firmware to the locked device even though everyone knows they can.
According to one legal analyst, the FBI and NSA already have this capability. What the government is looking for in this court case is a legal precedent to force companies to do this for them and make the data recovery admissible in court.