Why not? According to the newly-passed law, I can deny services to people who's religious beliefs do not agree with mine. It seems like the people of NC think that's okay...
Yes, for one WiFi base-station, distance doesn't tell you where you are--just how far you are. I could be five feet to the north, south, east, west, above, or below the WiFi base-station.
For that, you would probably need a few more and compare those values.
First, in answer to the actual question, I don't think the FBI should be required to tell Apple how they're doing it--mostly because they're not doing it. Some other company is doing it. So, as another poster put it, if the FBI can be forced, the answer is, "We hired XYZ company to do it. Talk to them and leave us out of it."
I value human lives a lot and each preventable death is a death too many.
Which is not a bad way to feel. The problem is with that word: "preventable."
"Preventable" is usually assessed in hindsight. "Oh, if only we'd known, we could have prevented this." Yes, if you knew everything that was going to happen, you could prevent a lot of bad things from happening. Unfortunately, outside of fiction, it's rare that we know anything. And therein lies the problem.
Imagine that the police suspect I am the culprit in a string of bank robberies. If that is true, then my phone/computer/tablet may have information that would lead to my arrest and conviction. Of course, my phone/computer/tablet may not have that information and I may still be guilty. Or it may not have that information and I may be still be innocent. Is giving up your privacy worth catching a possible bank robber?
Well, it's not like I'm murdering people. I'm taking money from a corporation. But, let's be honest here, people have been known to be killed in bank robberies. So by stopping me from robbing banks, you could possibly be preventing somebody from being killed down the line. Or not, depending on whether I am the bank robber and whether or not I have incriminating evidence on my phone/computer/tablet.
As you can see, it's starting to get a bit hazy. There's lots of ifs, maybes, and possiblies in those paragraphs.
In the world of fiction, we usually know who the bad guy is and it's a race to see if the good guy figures out the bad guy's dastardly scheme before the bad guy can do it. We cheer for the brave cop who knows who the bad guy is and has to take the law into his own hands when the police department can't seem to understand how dangerous this guy is and how we need to take care of him right now. Of course, in fiction, the hero is always right, the bad guy is usually killed, and the attractive woman is rescued.
The real world has quite a bit more grey than most fiction.
I'm a librarian. There's a state law that says I can't throw out a person who walks into my office carrying a weapon. Because second amendment. But my federal/state representative can do so because safety.
So some people's safety trumps the second amendment while other people's safety does not.
Actually, I just wracked my brain on this. I may not be remembering correctly--it may have responded that "Life is an unknown option," which was also somewhat profound.
Suppose I'm driving a train and a motorist decides that those gates don't apply to them. It's not like the train stops on a dime. Does this mean that I'm at fault? Does this mean that we should lower all train speeds to a tenth of a mile per hour so that they could reasonably stop in the event that a pedestrian enters their path?
This is one of those things that, I think, bothers citizens both for and against gun-control is the blatant hypocrisy.
According to some politicians, a person should be able to carry a gun anywhere. But what if I want to carry a gun into your office? "Oh, we have rules against that." But what if someone wants to carry a gun into my office? "Well, you have to let them do that. Second amendment and all..."
So why is your office different from my office? "Well, you see, sometimes people get emotional about things." And they don't in my office? "Well, maybe they do, but second amendment. You just have to suck it up. Maybe you should go buy a gun for self-defense." Why can't you do that as well?
In the end, it boils down to, "Well, some of us are more deserving of safety than others."
But the best defense against a liberal with a gun is a conservative with a gun. I would imagine that if the liberals start shooting, the conservatives will make quick work of them.
I know it's a crazy idea, but maybe if Apple built their own servers, they wouldn't have to worry about that. Maybe they could even sell a few of them to other companies.
...or a phone whose battery gets so hot it starts a fire?
Just in case you're not being facetious, a "burner phone" is a phone that you might only use once or a few times before switching to another one. The idea is that by the time the good guys figure out the number you're using and get a warrant to listen to those calls, you've already switched to a different phone and they have to start the whole process all over again.
Slashdot Mirror
I would imagine not. On the other hand, there are other ways of storing energy than batteries (like hydrogen fuel cells).
Get the electric airplane engine working. Let someone else worry about storing the electricity to power it.
Why not? According to the newly-passed law, I can deny services to people who's religious beliefs do not agree with mine. It seems like the people of NC think that's okay...
...they used a die.
Yes, for one WiFi base-station, distance doesn't tell you where you are--just how far you are. I could be five feet to the north, south, east, west, above, or below the WiFi base-station.
For that, you would probably need a few more and compare those values.
Have you actually tried both?
...and petrified, while covered in hot grits.
First, in answer to the actual question, I don't think the FBI should be required to tell Apple how they're doing it--mostly because they're not doing it. Some other company is doing it. So, as another poster put it, if the FBI can be forced, the answer is, "We hired XYZ company to do it. Talk to them and leave us out of it."
I value human lives a lot and each preventable death is a death too many.
Which is not a bad way to feel. The problem is with that word: "preventable."
"Preventable" is usually assessed in hindsight. "Oh, if only we'd known, we could have prevented this." Yes, if you knew everything that was going to happen, you could prevent a lot of bad things from happening. Unfortunately, outside of fiction, it's rare that we know anything. And therein lies the problem.
Imagine that the police suspect I am the culprit in a string of bank robberies. If that is true, then my phone/computer/tablet may have information that would lead to my arrest and conviction. Of course, my phone/computer/tablet may not have that information and I may still be guilty. Or it may not have that information and I may be still be innocent. Is giving up your privacy worth catching a possible bank robber?
Well, it's not like I'm murdering people. I'm taking money from a corporation. But, let's be honest here, people have been known to be killed in bank robberies. So by stopping me from robbing banks, you could possibly be preventing somebody from being killed down the line. Or not, depending on whether I am the bank robber and whether or not I have incriminating evidence on my phone/computer/tablet.
As you can see, it's starting to get a bit hazy. There's lots of ifs, maybes, and possiblies in those paragraphs.
In the world of fiction, we usually know who the bad guy is and it's a race to see if the good guy figures out the bad guy's dastardly scheme before the bad guy can do it. We cheer for the brave cop who knows who the bad guy is and has to take the law into his own hands when the police department can't seem to understand how dangerous this guy is and how we need to take care of him right now. Of course, in fiction, the hero is always right, the bad guy is usually killed, and the attractive woman is rescued.
The real world has quite a bit more grey than most fiction.
Always interesting how a party can be motivated to do the impossible when you force them to think about it hard enough.
Next thing you know, they'll put men on the moon...
True. So again, here's my argument:
I'm a librarian. There's a state law that says I can't throw out a person who walks into my office carrying a weapon. Because second amendment. But my federal/state representative can do so because safety.
So some people's safety trumps the second amendment while other people's safety does not.
Really? Suppose my office is in a public library?
Actually, I just wracked my brain on this. I may not be remembering correctly--it may have responded that "Life is an unknown option," which was also somewhat profound.
If I remember correctly, I believe they also had a "What is life?"
Wow...that was a long time ago.
As I understand it, this is also the heaviest load ever delivered to ISS. Not sure that's a big deal, but...
Unfortunately, physics tends to disagree.
Suppose I'm driving a train and a motorist decides that those gates don't apply to them. It's not like the train stops on a dime. Does this mean that I'm at fault? Does this mean that we should lower all train speeds to a tenth of a mile per hour so that they could reasonably stop in the event that a pedestrian enters their path?
This is one of those things that, I think, bothers citizens both for and against gun-control is the blatant hypocrisy.
According to some politicians, a person should be able to carry a gun anywhere. But what if I want to carry a gun into your office? "Oh, we have rules against that." But what if someone wants to carry a gun into my office? "Well, you have to let them do that. Second amendment and all..."
So why is your office different from my office? "Well, you see, sometimes people get emotional about things." And they don't in my office? "Well, maybe they do, but second amendment. You just have to suck it up. Maybe you should go buy a gun for self-defense." Why can't you do that as well?
In the end, it boils down to, "Well, some of us are more deserving of safety than others."
...but, but, but an armed populace is a polite populace. Why would that happen?
I'm sure the Trump supporters will be carrying bazookas just in case the Establishment tries to steal the nomination [...]
So the Establishment will bring bigger guns. This could be pretty amusing...
But the best defense against a liberal with a gun is a conservative with a gun. I would imagine that if the liberals start shooting, the conservatives will make quick work of them.
The public is so uneducated that they make it hard to fund nuclear [...]
But they're actual okay with "nucular"...
I assume he is, since Ted Cruz would be the Christian's choice. After all, God told his wife to tell him to run. Of course, maybe he should have mentioned some other things...
I know it's a crazy idea, but maybe if Apple built their own servers, they wouldn't have to worry about that. Maybe they could even sell a few of them to other companies.
Nah. Crazy idea. Forget I mentioned it.
...or a phone whose battery gets so hot it starts a fire?
Just in case you're not being facetious, a "burner phone" is a phone that you might only use once or a few times before switching to another one. The idea is that by the time the good guys figure out the number you're using and get a warrant to listen to those calls, you've already switched to a different phone and they have to start the whole process all over again.
Would you really want to fly on an airplane built by "Boom" Aerospace?
That's even worse than Boeing (bo-ing!)
On my desk my Mac has 2 Thunderbolt -> DVI adapters sticking out of the, power adapter and a USB -> Ethernet adapter.
But they make the coolest adapters...
How will I cross the street?
You'll call up an autonomous car, obviously!
"Hello, car. Please take me across the street."