workers don't have the freedom to just leave their jobs, no matter how bad the conditions
Hmm... I've had about a dozen jobs in my life and every one of them I left voluntarily - seemed pretty free to me.
If workers are not free to leave their jobs, how do you explain the notoriously high turnover rates at, for example, fast food outlets? Were all these people fired? If so, how do they get another job after answering "Why did you leave your prior job?" with "I was fired". If what you say is true, a successful McDonald's should retain workers for thirty years.
What is stopping you from taking your ideas to market? If you're smart and insightful to have such great ideas, surely you can find a job that only requires <= 50 hours of work a week. Then, you can rent a cheap apartment with a couple other people to keep costs down and develop your ideas on "your own time". All you've risked really is your time -- and you get more of that every minute.
Although, I think I may see your problem... Successful entrepreneurs know they have to take products not ideas to market. Also, successful entrepreneurs are willing to take the risks that you seem unwilling to take -- and if they fail, to get up and try again. You probably just don't have what it takes to be "the man" so you'll probably always end up working for "the man". Either get used to it or put on your big boy pants.
However, each of those programs will slowly be reintroduced because "basic income" isn't enough to provide adequate nutrition to children (WIC returns) or housing (section 8 returns) or medical care (medicaid returns) or phones (lifeline phones/rates return) or that disability is too disheartening on the "basic income" (Social Security disability program returns). As well, it will soon be determined that those who don't "need" the basic income really shouldn't get it (after all, does an tech who is already making twice the basic income really "need" more?). I'd give it thirty years before the system looked pretty much like it does today -- except "just not bothering to work" would actually be a viable option for many.
0$ -- since every person can simply request their deposit back (perhaps because the price of the car goes up or Tesla can't deliver in a reasonable timeframe or...)
It's not $14b - only $1,000 per car so it's only $350m by the most generous interpretation. Those putting down their $1,000 have NO obligation to ever give Tesla another dime and Tesla has an obligation to return the money on demand for quite some time so, arguably, it's really $0b. Tesla can't book these deposits as revenue.
Court's have not declared that welfare is something that government must provide (i.e., that it is some sort of "right") to non-incarcerated individuals. We could wipe out all welfare, medicaid, the PPACA, SNAP, government rental assistance, Social Security, and Medicare etc. virtually overnight if the majority wanted to do so and there wouldn't be anything the courts could do about it if the legislation was carefully crafted (so there were no loopholes or ambiguities in the wording for freeloaders to exploit).
Prisoners, being under the involuntary care of the state, do have additional "rights" to minimal living standards. Generally courts use the prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" to declare, for example, that a prisoner on death row has a right to a government funded liver transplant since he, obviously, can't pursue that medical care on his own on account of him being incarcerated.
Courts have ruled that medical care and nutrition in prison at the state's expense is required -- hence it is a "right" a prisoner has. Not so with social phone calls in most (any?) jurisdictions.
Getting rid of metering and caps is not free. When the minimum data plan costs $300/month (but has no caps or metering) that won't help poor people very much which is topic of this article according to the headline.
When incremental usage of something is "free", people will almost always consume more of it - sometimes usefully, sometimes wastefully, sometimes just to be jerks. Without caps and metering, most people would stream 4K video whenever it was available -- even if they were viewing it on a 5 inch screen. They wouldn't bother to stop a movie they were bored with and decided to go to bed -- that would take one touch and that's effort, instead they would just toss the phone on the charging pad and go to bed - the movie will have exited all by itself by the next morning and may have saved the user one touch. Some people, in a lame attempt to make the NSA work harder, would join a network of other like minded people who just send/receive data from one another at full throttle 7/24 except when they want to actually use their device for something useful.
I know it's a shock to some, but cell towers, antennas, access to frequencies for mobile networks really do cost providers real money and, since they can't provide any service to anyone if they don't at least break even financially, they must pass those costs on to the customer. The amount of such infrastructure required is somewhat proportional to usage in modest to high density usage areas.
Making social phone calls is a privilege, not a right, in prison. It's not a "basic". Food is a basic, air is a basic, basic medical care is a basic. Social phone calls are not a basic, Snicker's bars are not a basic, TVs in cell are not a basic.
At least in the state I live, no prisoner is required to work. They choose to. Apparently even prisoners would rather work to keep themselves busy and to earn some luxuries. Seems like a win-win. Besides, it's career training for one of the many jobs for making license plates after they get out. Oh, wait...
Where better to place a solar panel factory where there are few people
Oh, I don't know -- a place where there qualified skilled workers (or workers at all)??? Schools for the children of those workers??? Good medical facilities for workers' families???
Why not just move software development from the SF/South Bay to the middle of the desert? After all, the cost of living would be less so salaries could be less which would make the companies that make that move more competitive.
If we are going to have a world powered by solar energy then we would necessarily need a solar panel factory powered by solar panels.
Of course, as we will need data centers, homes, aluminium smelting plants(?), and car "fast" recharging stations powered by solar.
No, but unless it is off grid there will always be doubt on its ability to be practical.
Perhaps, but only to those who don't accept math. Sure, the alternative medicine and anti-vaxer and creationist crowds will doubt the math, but they will never buy into anything "fancy" anyway.
Can you think of a better way to do that than have a factory that runs off of the panels it produced?
Yes, because that's a completely insufficient test. Just do the math, the "speeds and feeds". The fact that it's expensive to build and staff a high tech manufacturing plant somewhere that also has square miles of cheap land to fill with solar panels doesn't prove anything. As well, the fact that a solar panel plant can run off of its own output doesn't "prove" anything. If it can't do that, simple math will prove that it can't so it would be a waste of effort and an unnecessary impact on the environment to "disprove" it. The ability to do what you suggest isn't sufficient to prove viability so it's a waste of money to do it.
Your argument that if solar panel factories are not powered by solar power alone, they have "proven" solar can't stand alone or compete with other energy sources makes no sense - in fact, it's a nonsensical conclusion.
Consider if a solar panel factory could produce 1 square mile of solar panels per day from "scratch" but would require 100 square miles of solar panels to power it. In the first hundred days of operation, the plant would produce enough panels to power production for more than 20 years at no additional energy cost. However, it might be impractical to site the solar panel factory where there were 100 square miles of land with good solar exposure available where panels could be installed. So, the first 100 days of production could be shipped to the nearest underpopulated sunny area, installed, and connected to the grid (along with any necessary infrastructure upgrades). The solar plant can then just draw its power from the grid. The fact the factory is drawing from the grid doesn't mean it's not practical.
You need to compare the kWh required to produce a panel with the kWh it will generate during its 20+ year lifetime. Obviously the energy to produce one panel needs to be a fairly small percentage of the lifetime power produced by that panel in "average" conditions for solar panels to make economic sense (99% would be uneconomical, 1% would certainly be economical from an energy usage standpoint -- other costs may, however, make the latter case uneconomical).
This is a problem. They have some sort of "Computer Science" in Fourth/Fifth grade in a school I'm familiar with. What is it? Excel and Word! I've not met the teacher, but I suspect they have no idea what "Computer Science" is (of course it doesn't help that in High School the AP "Computer Science" test has virtually nothing to do with Computer Science).
I'd like to see most of what is claimed as "Computer Science" in K-12 be properly labeled either "Application Usage" (sort of like shop classes of old) or "Programming". There's no shame in learning "Programming" instead of "Computer Science" when you're ten years old -- but it's best to honestly tell the student what it is that they are learning.
Importantly it also exposes students to the general field of software and some may discover they have a natural talent for it and like and excel at it. Some will of course figure this out on their own, but in lower income, lower education households/cultures, such "self discovery" is probably less likely due to limitations of their environment.
How do you know if you're in this state? How long does it take to "stabilize" your release? If stabilization is a major effort, you're[sic] code isn't quality.
In large complex enterprise systems with multiple features being introduced, I've found that most of the stabilization effort goes to addressing design not coding quality. Usually during design, someone didn't think of or fully understand an interaction between components in some uncommon cases (such as simultaneous hardware failure and session abort). Sure there are coding bugs and most of the bug reports from QA could be classified as arising from coding bugs, but the amount of effort spent on those generally pales in comparison to the "one session hangs once a week when running full stress (with pseudorandom fault injection) 7/24 on 500 nodes and we can't figure it out from the traces or logs" type of bugs.
It isn't about effort or intelligence. It's about supply and demand and the impact of doing a good vs. a great job.
Anyone who is not severely disabled can clean a toilet so the supply of those with that capability dramatically exceeds the demand and the pay is low. If the toilet is not cleaned perfectly or it takes one person 5% longer to clean it than another, the impact on the organization owning the toilet is not perceivable so there's little reason to pay someone much more because they are a little better at the job.
However, very few people have the native skills (and education/experience) to run a giant company like GE. More importantly, a "good" CEO of such a company might result in corporate performance being only 95% of what a "great" CEO would have -- and that can result in an aggregate loss to investors in the billions of dollars and aggregate loss of thousands of worker's jobs. Thus, like when picking a quarterback for an NFL team, companies will pay a great deal more for the best possible CEO rather than settling for the second best possible CEO -- and this makes perfect financial sense.
When selecting a gardener, would you pay 50% more for one that do only a slightly better job? Probably not, even if you were wealthy. On the other hand, when selecting a neurosurgeon to perform complex and dangerous brain surgery on you, would you pay 50% more for one that would do a slightly better job? Likely yes if you could possibly afford it.
When dealing with standardized patties, how can you tell if a human or a machine "flipped" it? Can you really taste the spit the human added to it and, more importantly, do you really like that taste and is that taste consistent across chefs?
This is Carls Jr -- like their competitors, humans don't hand grind the meat and hand form the patties carefully compressing them "just right" -- places that do that charge a whole lot more than an extra 30 cents.
Machines likely will likely result in a more uniform and, on the average, superior result. This situation is similar to a primary reason that so many routine production welding jobs have been relegated to machines - they simply do a better and, most importantly, a more uniform/consistent job.
some people don't trust the government to make good decisions
Indeed. Certainly if someone trusts the government to make good decisions on who does/does not "need" guns, they should trust the government to have a backdoor to every encryption scheme. If you need a gun to defend yourself and you don't have one, you may end up dead. It's rare for someone to wrongfully die because the government had access to more information during the course of either preventing terrorist acts or apprehending terrorists.
California passed Prop 13 in 1978 to address this very issue. This proposition caused all property assessments to be reset to their 1975 values. It also limits increasing of assessments to not more than 2% a year. Property can be reassessed when ownership changes or if the property is improved (for example, adding a bedroom and bath results in the assessment being increased by the current value of the two new rooms). Various other laws have been passed over the years that extend Prop 13's reach (for example, if ownership changes because a parent died and passed the house to their child, the child gets to keep the artificially low assessment).
This creates odd situations where there are two identical homes, right next to each other, both worth $1.5M but one person (who bought their house in 1978) is paying $1,000 a year in property taxes and their neighbor (who bought their house recently) is paying $12,000 a year in property taxes.
Can they get equivalent people as easily elsewhere? I don't know the answer to that in this case, but I've been a hiring manager for engineering over the years both in the Bay Area and other areas and the quantity of high quality applicants was, overall, significantly higher in the Bay Area than any other area I was in.
Although, as a matter of public policy, I believe 'sex offender' lists are overly broad and perhaps completely inappropriate, the "do your time, that should be the end of it" logic for eliminating them is fallacious. Being put on the lists is now part of the penalty for offenders. Although, an argument can certainly be made that crimes committed before being put on the lists was part of the penalty should not cause an offender to be added to the lists (ex post facto and all that).
Being "put on the list" for life is not qualitatively different from various lifetime restrictions on firearms possession for felons being part of the penalty. Nor is it qualitatively different than the fact that many employers (probably including the CIA, police departments, and FBI who prefer to develop their own felons in their own images rather than hire pretrained felons) will not hire an ex-felon being part of the penalty.
"Being put on the list" is one thing that suspects try to avoid and is part of the plea bargaining process (again, a questionable process, but it's not been declared illegal) and suspects will sometimes cop to a lesser offense more to avoid being put on the list than to reduce prison time.
In effect, adding being "put on the lists" to the impact of being convicted of some crime is rather like sentencing the offender to x years in prison followed by a lifetime of restricted probation. I wonder if those on the list would prefer to spend the rest of their lives in prison? I've had neighbors who were on the lists and I'm pretty sure they prefer being on the lists to being imprisoned for life.
No, Bloomberg is big money (worth 8x as much as Trump; self-made instead of standing on grandpa's and daddy's shoulders; probably given away more money that Trump has; pilots his own helicopter, not just owns them; can speak coherently about issues rather than just retreating to "I'm smart"; has some political executive experience from being mayor of the nation's largest city for 12 years).
Trump had better hope that Bloomberg doesn't enter the race (I don't think he will unless it looks like Sanders has a good chance at the Democrat nomination and that is looking unlikely).
See, you were special -- you didn't get an award like everyone else. Although they should have given you an award for being so special that you didn't get an award. Oh, wait, these were awards for no special reason. This is confusing.
(In my view, participants should get t-shirts, winners should get awards.)
Yes, YOU (the consumer) can probably only wipe it. If you open the phone, use JTAG et al, you can almost certianly do much more. You notice Cook didn't say "we can't do this", instead he said something like "it would be a bad idea for us to do this".
BTW, the court order indicates the phone is a 5C so has the A6 SOC, not a 5S (or later) with A7 or later. I believe more of security, including some of the unlock logic, moved into the chip/firmware in A7 but was more accessible in A6 models.
The order prohibits installing a new version of iOS - so that obviously is not the expected solution.
I'm sure that FBI has a number of iPhone/iOS experts at it's disposal and also knows much more about iPhones and iOS based on disclosures from Apple than the general public has. It's pretty clear the FBI (who, obviously, wrote the court order the judge signed - as is the norm in cases like this) is pretty sure Apple can do this because they have provided quite specific instructions on one way to do it.
Apple's reasonable technical assistance may include, but is not limited to: providing the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File ("SIF") that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory ("RAM") and will not modify the iOS on the actual phone, the user partition or system partition on the device's flash memory.
So, an ordinary install of a crippled version of iOS would not meet the requirements anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... I've had about a dozen jobs in my life and every one of them I left voluntarily - seemed pretty free to me.
If workers are not free to leave their jobs, how do you explain the notoriously high turnover rates at, for example, fast food outlets? Were all these people fired? If so, how do they get another job after answering "Why did you leave your prior job?" with "I was fired". If what you say is true, a successful McDonald's should retain workers for thirty years.
What is stopping you from taking your ideas to market? If you're smart and insightful to have such great ideas, surely you can find a job that only requires <= 50 hours of work a week. Then, you can rent a cheap apartment with a couple other people to keep costs down and develop your ideas on "your own time". All you've risked really is your time -- and you get more of that every minute.
Although, I think I may see your problem... Successful entrepreneurs know they have to take products not ideas to market. Also, successful entrepreneurs are willing to take the risks that you seem unwilling to take -- and if they fail, to get up and try again. You probably just don't have what it takes to be "the man" so you'll probably always end up working for "the man". Either get used to it or put on your big boy pants.
However, each of those programs will slowly be reintroduced because "basic income" isn't enough to provide adequate nutrition to children (WIC returns) or housing (section 8 returns) or medical care (medicaid returns) or phones (lifeline phones/rates return) or that disability is too disheartening on the "basic income" (Social Security disability program returns). As well, it will soon be determined that those who don't "need" the basic income really shouldn't get it (after all, does an tech who is already making twice the basic income really "need" more?). I'd give it thirty years before the system looked pretty much like it does today -- except "just not bothering to work" would actually be a viable option for many.
0$ -- since every person can simply request their deposit back (perhaps because the price of the car goes up or Tesla can't deliver in a reasonable timeframe or ...)
It's not $14b - only $1,000 per car so it's only $350m by the most generous interpretation. Those putting down their $1,000 have NO obligation to ever give Tesla another dime and Tesla has an obligation to return the money on demand for quite some time so, arguably, it's really $0b. Tesla can't book these deposits as revenue.
Court's have not declared that welfare is something that government must provide (i.e., that it is some sort of "right") to non-incarcerated individuals. We could wipe out all welfare, medicaid, the PPACA, SNAP, government rental assistance, Social Security, and Medicare etc. virtually overnight if the majority wanted to do so and there wouldn't be anything the courts could do about it if the legislation was carefully crafted (so there were no loopholes or ambiguities in the wording for freeloaders to exploit).
Prisoners, being under the involuntary care of the state, do have additional "rights" to minimal living standards. Generally courts use the prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" to declare, for example, that a prisoner on death row has a right to a government funded liver transplant since he, obviously, can't pursue that medical care on his own on account of him being incarcerated.
Courts have ruled that medical care and nutrition in prison at the state's expense is required -- hence it is a "right" a prisoner has. Not so with social phone calls in most (any?) jurisdictions.
Getting rid of metering and caps is not free. When the minimum data plan costs $300/month (but has no caps or metering) that won't help poor people very much which is topic of this article according to the headline.
When incremental usage of something is "free", people will almost always consume more of it - sometimes usefully, sometimes wastefully, sometimes just to be jerks. Without caps and metering, most people would stream 4K video whenever it was available -- even if they were viewing it on a 5 inch screen. They wouldn't bother to stop a movie they were bored with and decided to go to bed -- that would take one touch and that's effort, instead they would just toss the phone on the charging pad and go to bed - the movie will have exited all by itself by the next morning and may have saved the user one touch. Some people, in a lame attempt to make the NSA work harder, would join a network of other like minded people who just send/receive data from one another at full throttle 7/24 except when they want to actually use their device for something useful.
I know it's a shock to some, but cell towers, antennas, access to frequencies for mobile networks really do cost providers real money and, since they can't provide any service to anyone if they don't at least break even financially, they must pass those costs on to the customer. The amount of such infrastructure required is somewhat proportional to usage in modest to high density usage areas.
Making social phone calls is a privilege, not a right, in prison. It's not a "basic". Food is a basic, air is a basic, basic medical care is a basic. Social phone calls are not a basic, Snicker's bars are not a basic, TVs in cell are not a basic.
At least in the state I live, no prisoner is required to work. They choose to. Apparently even prisoners would rather work to keep themselves busy and to earn some luxuries. Seems like a win-win. Besides, it's career training for one of the many jobs for making license plates after they get out. Oh, wait...
Oh, I don't know -- a place where there qualified skilled workers (or workers at all)??? Schools for the children of those workers??? Good medical facilities for workers' families???
Why not just move software development from the SF/South Bay to the middle of the desert? After all, the cost of living would be less so salaries could be less which would make the companies that make that move more competitive.
Of course, as we will need data centers, homes, aluminium smelting plants(?), and car "fast" recharging stations powered by solar.
Perhaps, but only to those who don't accept math. Sure, the alternative medicine and anti-vaxer and creationist crowds will doubt the math, but they will never buy into anything "fancy" anyway.
Yes, because that's a completely insufficient test. Just do the math, the "speeds and feeds". The fact that it's expensive to build and staff a high tech manufacturing plant somewhere that also has square miles of cheap land to fill with solar panels doesn't prove anything. As well, the fact that a solar panel plant can run off of its own output doesn't "prove" anything. If it can't do that, simple math will prove that it can't so it would be a waste of effort and an unnecessary impact on the environment to "disprove" it. The ability to do what you suggest isn't sufficient to prove viability so it's a waste of money to do it.
Your argument that if solar panel factories are not powered by solar power alone, they have "proven" solar can't stand alone or compete with other energy sources makes no sense - in fact, it's a nonsensical conclusion.
Consider if a solar panel factory could produce 1 square mile of solar panels per day from "scratch" but would require 100 square miles of solar panels to power it. In the first hundred days of operation, the plant would produce enough panels to power production for more than 20 years at no additional energy cost. However, it might be impractical to site the solar panel factory where there were 100 square miles of land with good solar exposure available where panels could be installed. So, the first 100 days of production could be shipped to the nearest underpopulated sunny area, installed, and connected to the grid (along with any necessary infrastructure upgrades). The solar plant can then just draw its power from the grid. The fact the factory is drawing from the grid doesn't mean it's not practical.
You need to compare the kWh required to produce a panel with the kWh it will generate during its 20+ year lifetime. Obviously the energy to produce one panel needs to be a fairly small percentage of the lifetime power produced by that panel in "average" conditions for solar panels to make economic sense (99% would be uneconomical, 1% would certainly be economical from an energy usage standpoint -- other costs may, however, make the latter case uneconomical).
This is a problem. They have some sort of "Computer Science" in Fourth/Fifth grade in a school I'm familiar with. What is it? Excel and Word! I've not met the teacher, but I suspect they have no idea what "Computer Science" is (of course it doesn't help that in High School the AP "Computer Science" test has virtually nothing to do with Computer Science).
I'd like to see most of what is claimed as "Computer Science" in K-12 be properly labeled either "Application Usage" (sort of like shop classes of old) or "Programming". There's no shame in learning "Programming" instead of "Computer Science" when you're ten years old -- but it's best to honestly tell the student what it is that they are learning.
Agreed.
Importantly it also exposes students to the general field of software and some may discover they have a natural talent for it and like and excel at it. Some will of course figure this out on their own, but in lower income, lower education households/cultures, such "self discovery" is probably less likely due to limitations of their environment.
In large complex enterprise systems with multiple features being introduced, I've found that most of the stabilization effort goes to addressing design not coding quality. Usually during design, someone didn't think of or fully understand an interaction between components in some uncommon cases (such as simultaneous hardware failure and session abort). Sure there are coding bugs and most of the bug reports from QA could be classified as arising from coding bugs, but the amount of effort spent on those generally pales in comparison to the "one session hangs once a week when running full stress (with pseudorandom fault injection) 7/24 on 500 nodes and we can't figure it out from the traces or logs" type of bugs.
It isn't about effort or intelligence. It's about supply and demand and the impact of doing a good vs. a great job.
Anyone who is not severely disabled can clean a toilet so the supply of those with that capability dramatically exceeds the demand and the pay is low. If the toilet is not cleaned perfectly or it takes one person 5% longer to clean it than another, the impact on the organization owning the toilet is not perceivable so there's little reason to pay someone much more because they are a little better at the job.
However, very few people have the native skills (and education/experience) to run a giant company like GE. More importantly, a "good" CEO of such a company might result in corporate performance being only 95% of what a "great" CEO would have -- and that can result in an aggregate loss to investors in the billions of dollars and aggregate loss of thousands of worker's jobs. Thus, like when picking a quarterback for an NFL team, companies will pay a great deal more for the best possible CEO rather than settling for the second best possible CEO -- and this makes perfect financial sense.
When selecting a gardener, would you pay 50% more for one that do only a slightly better job? Probably not, even if you were wealthy. On the other hand, when selecting a neurosurgeon to perform complex and dangerous brain surgery on you, would you pay 50% more for one that would do a slightly better job? Likely yes if you could possibly afford it.
When dealing with standardized patties, how can you tell if a human or a machine "flipped" it? Can you really taste the spit the human added to it and, more importantly, do you really like that taste and is that taste consistent across chefs?
This is Carls Jr -- like their competitors, humans don't hand grind the meat and hand form the patties carefully compressing them "just right" -- places that do that charge a whole lot more than an extra 30 cents.
Machines likely will likely result in a more uniform and, on the average, superior result. This situation is similar to a primary reason that so many routine production welding jobs have been relegated to machines - they simply do a better and, most importantly, a more uniform/consistent job.
Indeed. Certainly if someone trusts the government to make good decisions on who does/does not "need" guns, they should trust the government to have a backdoor to every encryption scheme. If you need a gun to defend yourself and you don't have one, you may end up dead. It's rare for someone to wrongfully die because the government had access to more information during the course of either preventing terrorist acts or apprehending terrorists.
California passed Prop 13 in 1978 to address this very issue. This proposition caused all property assessments to be reset to their 1975 values. It also limits increasing of assessments to not more than 2% a year. Property can be reassessed when ownership changes or if the property is improved (for example, adding a bedroom and bath results in the assessment being increased by the current value of the two new rooms). Various other laws have been passed over the years that extend Prop 13's reach (for example, if ownership changes because a parent died and passed the house to their child, the child gets to keep the artificially low assessment).
This creates odd situations where there are two identical homes, right next to each other, both worth $1.5M but one person (who bought their house in 1978) is paying $1,000 a year in property taxes and their neighbor (who bought their house recently) is paying $12,000 a year in property taxes.
Can they get equivalent people as easily elsewhere? I don't know the answer to that in this case, but I've been a hiring manager for engineering over the years both in the Bay Area and other areas and the quantity of high quality applicants was, overall, significantly higher in the Bay Area than any other area I was in.
Although, as a matter of public policy, I believe 'sex offender' lists are overly broad and perhaps completely inappropriate, the "do your time, that should be the end of it" logic for eliminating them is fallacious. Being put on the lists is now part of the penalty for offenders. Although, an argument can certainly be made that crimes committed before being put on the lists was part of the penalty should not cause an offender to be added to the lists (ex post facto and all that).
Being "put on the list" for life is not qualitatively different from various lifetime restrictions on firearms possession for felons being part of the penalty. Nor is it qualitatively different than the fact that many employers (probably including the CIA, police departments, and FBI who prefer to develop their own felons in their own images rather than hire pretrained felons) will not hire an ex-felon being part of the penalty.
"Being put on the list" is one thing that suspects try to avoid and is part of the plea bargaining process (again, a questionable process, but it's not been declared illegal) and suspects will sometimes cop to a lesser offense more to avoid being put on the list than to reduce prison time.
In effect, adding being "put on the lists" to the impact of being convicted of some crime is rather like sentencing the offender to x years in prison followed by a lifetime of restricted probation. I wonder if those on the list would prefer to spend the rest of their lives in prison? I've had neighbors who were on the lists and I'm pretty sure they prefer being on the lists to being imprisoned for life.
No, Bloomberg is big money (worth 8x as much as Trump; self-made instead of standing on grandpa's and daddy's shoulders; probably given away more money that Trump has; pilots his own helicopter, not just owns them; can speak coherently about issues rather than just retreating to "I'm smart"; has some political executive experience from being mayor of the nation's largest city for 12 years).
Trump had better hope that Bloomberg doesn't enter the race (I don't think he will unless it looks like Sanders has a good chance at the Democrat nomination and that is looking unlikely).
See, you were special -- you didn't get an award like everyone else. Although they should have given you an award for being so special that you didn't get an award. Oh, wait, these were awards for no special reason. This is confusing.
(In my view, participants should get t-shirts, winners should get awards.)
Yes, YOU (the consumer) can probably only wipe it. If you open the phone, use JTAG et al, you can almost certianly do much more. You notice Cook didn't say "we can't do this", instead he said something like "it would be a bad idea for us to do this".
BTW, the court order indicates the phone is a 5C so has the A6 SOC, not a 5S (or later) with A7 or later. I believe more of security, including some of the unlock logic, moved into the chip/firmware in A7 but was more accessible in A6 models.
The order prohibits installing a new version of iOS - so that obviously is not the expected solution.
I'm sure that FBI has a number of iPhone/iOS experts at it's disposal and also knows much more about iPhones and iOS based on disclosures from Apple than the general public has. It's pretty clear the FBI (who, obviously, wrote the court order the judge signed - as is the norm in cases like this) is pretty sure Apple can do this because they have provided quite specific instructions on one way to do it.
The court order specifically specifies that:
So, an ordinary install of a crippled version of iOS would not meet the requirements anyway.