Well, I guess they're finally going to have get off their lazy asses and learn to walk on land like the rest of us. Don't even get me started about those whales.
That said, they do need to keep things moving along. You don't maintain high revenue and buzz doing rehashes of something you've already done.
If they get the smartwatch right in terms of design and software, it could be useful, but they absolutely need to not only do that, but somehow bring back a device that just about everyone has stopped wearing, ironically due to smartphones like the iPhone. Seems like they're trying to turn buggywhips into car keys.
I actually think that something like smart glasses is a form factor that people still use and which would be more convenient than a wrist watch. If you are able to do something with eye tracking, it could even be controlled conveniently. And being something that is close to the eye, it can actually offer *more* screen real estate, rather than less. Not to mention the immersion factor of being able to effectively give you a HUD.
Obviously, it can't look as stupid and glaring as Google Glass, but I don't believe we can't do better than that.
This could be hugely helpful by lowering errors, thus increasing effective bandwidth. And that could have relatively large incremental benefits. Unfortunately, everyone keeps getting hung up on the FTL possibilities which do not exist.
The point is that it is *not* a communication technology. You can't communicate with entanglement. Period. You can use it to support something like encryption, however, but the communication needs to come from a different method.
However, if you want to have something that passes through the Earth like it isn't there, you want neutrinos. However, the problem with neutrinos is that being something that barely reacts with the entire mass of the Earth, you're not going to be able to actually detect them on your transmitter either. At least not unless there is some manner of efficiently detecting neutrinos in (relatively) small devices that we are as yet unaware of. As it stands, there are millions of neutrinos that pass through the Earth every second, and probably only like a few hundred of them actually interact with any atom in the entire mass of the planet.
We don't know everything about the universe. We also should discuss the possibility of FTL.
What is wrong with this is that we've already discussed entanglement in regard to FTL and we already know it doesn't work that way. This is like looping around to the same wrong answer time and time again. Let's move on to something that hasn't been ruled out.
Yeah, not sure that this crap is. We already know that entanglement is useless for communication and we know why. Why do people keep pushing this click-baity misinformation? Stop constantly re-confusing people.
Prosecutor: "Oh my, we suspect you of having child porn on this hard drive. Unlock it or go to jail." You: "That's not my hard drive." Prosecutor: "We have testimony from your sister and other people who state that you own the computer that this hard drive was taken from. We also found unencrypted files on the machine which indicate that you have used that computer in recent memory. We also have evidence from your event logs that the drives were checked by the OS on a number of occasions into the past. So, how would you explain how these hard drives ended up in your enclosure, without your knowledge and attached to your operating system? Bear bear in mind that we have testimony that you personally accessed those drives in the recent past." You: "I can't unlock it, that's not my hard drive." Prosecutor: "Right. Your honor, we move that the respondent be held in contempt of court for failing to produce evidence in his possession as ordered by the warrant."
You can't, but unless you sustained a head trauma, if there is testimony or evidence that you were looking at the contents just the other day, the court will have some reason to believe that you remembered it the next day or even the next week.
Presumably, if they did a good job, the police hopefully got some evidence that the encrypted store had been decrypted recently so he can't use that excuse as readily. And since they had his sister involved, it is possible she can corroborate that to the point that forgetting the password is considered unlikely.
I read the article for some hint that he said he didn't know it, but it reads to me like he is simply refusing to comply and providing reasons. That doesn't mean he can't say he forgot it later, but nothing implies that he says he has forgotten it.
And honestly, if they have seen that the file was accessed relatively recently, it would probably be relatively easy to prove that he must have known it and is holding out on them. Indeed, the sister may have testified that he was looking at the files only just the other day.
A court can require you to turn over evidence that you have in your possession. The fact that it happens to be the defendant is actually not the point.
You are protected against self-incrimination, but if you were in a car accident and you ran away, you wouldn't be protected from not producing your vehicle, even if you had locked it and hidden it in your garage. That is because the very car itself is not incriminating. It's the evidence that could be derived from the car that would be incriminating, perhaps, but you're not self-incriminating by producing it, as the existence of the car does not prove anything and it isn't necessarily tied to you (someone else might have been driving, etc.).
In this case, the court does not "know" that he has committed a crime, but has seen evidence that there may be contraband in the encrypted filestore. Those files themselves are not immediately incriminating for the defendant, because even if they were contraband, they would have to be tied to the defendant for the defendant to be found guilty of a crime. For all we know, the files were added to the filestore by the sister who supposedly saw the images.
Granted, the process of tying him to the images would be relatively straightforward, but producing the decrypted files is not an admission of guilt.
The one thing that I think the defense rests on is that the self-incrimination is not that there is contraband, but that his very knowledge of how to decrypt a filestore with that material on it is linking the defendant to the contraband. In other words, simply finding those files, unencrypted on his hard drive might have a defense of "someone put them there", but his ability to decrypt the files would mean that not only did he have the files, but he processed the files. It's sort of like a crime is known to have been committed with the gun in the conservatory, and you admitting that you had the combination to the rather solid and undamaged gun safe where the murder weapon was known to be stored.
I don't recall suggesting it was fair. Only that superdelegates were irrelevant. And they are for this contest. It's pointless to cry about them, as they haven't cost Sanders this primary. And I'd prefer to get upset about the things that actually matter, without crying about things that ended up not even being an issue.
But if you pressed me, I'd still have to see I don't see a way Sanders was going to win anyway, at least this year. He lacks critical support in some important Democratic constituencies. Adding independents to it got him where he is today, but it's not enough. As long as he plays the long game, this doesn't have to be a flash in the pan for him, but he's not getting any younger.
Sanders has a message that resonates, and did some good grassroots work, but his game in a lot of important places isn't where it needs to be for a win. If he works hard to build up an organization that can challenge the status quo over the next few years, we'll see.
Mind you, I am not saying she's not corrupt. You might have me confused with someone who plans on voting for her in the next election. I'm not. If someone like Trump or Cruz wins, it just means that I find a nice third party candidate on Election Day, or I just skip it entirely. 2016 is literally taking every candidate that I said I'd never vote for and filling the ballot with them.
However, winning is winning. Unless someone changes the electoral system in the Democratic party, she's winning and probably will win. Yes, it is a game that doesn't have a 1:1 relation to voters or even fairness. That only means that the election is a game that happens to reward what she's doing.
People need to stop giving a shit about what is "fair" and start giving a shit about the actual game being played, because the game's rules aren't changed by complaining about them if you're unrepresented.
Was there ever a more electable left wing challenger on the Democratic side? Left wingers, they certainly have. Electable ones? Eh. Sanders is actually the best they've got, and he's done well for himself. Considering that Sanders, despite being a socialist crank, has been in the Senate for years, I certainly don't consider him to have been the least electable candidate out there on the left fringe.
I'm sure that come next election the Millenials will either have turned the country Socialist or they will have gotten 10 years older and gone the way of the hippies. Sanders will have a better chance next election, if he hasn't retired or died by then.
In this race, it is irrelevant. She's winning without superdelegates. By about a 200 delegate margin.
Sanders may have the deck stacked against him, but it has nothing to do with superdelegates.
Even superdelegate Bill Clinton has said he'd vote for Sanders if he won fair and square. But he's not winning.
Don't get me wrong, I know both parties are backroom dealers, but let's stop talking about something that is already pointless. It was a bogeyman early on, but now we're 40 states voted and out of the way. It's pretty much done. Let's move on.
Its a trade off. Stopping Trump in an underhanded or backroom way could break the party. It might be a worthy sacrifice, but the Republican party will not survive that screw-job if they make that move.
I expect that unless everyone else quits and releases their delegates to Cruz (and even then, the rules don't always allow such direction), the Republican Party will have Trump as their candidate.
There is only one scenario that could take it away from Trump at this point, something that makes Trump unelectable, like a criminal charge or some sort of very dirty scandal. That is the only way you're walking out of the convention without Trump as the candidate unless you can line up every remaining delegate, including Kaisch's and Rubio's behind Cruz.
I'm not sure what would be worse, Cruz or Trump. Cruz is not good in the sense he's going to get his ass handed to him and he's a jerk. And Trump is bad, because he's Trump and because he actually has a chance to beat Clinton. I don't think he will, but if something nasty comes out about Clinton at the wrong time, she could be vulnerable. Trump would not hesitate to attack her directly and very hard if she shows any vulnerability.
I'll say one thing for Trump, he's definitely not pulling any punches, and some of them are landing. Clinton is pretty much the "default" status quo candidate, which is damning her with faint praise. If anything weakens her, she could find herself in a world of hurt and in the general election, there are independents out there who aren't owned by her which could make a difference.
Perhaps so, but in this race it's irrelevant. Clinton is beating Sanders in non-superdelegates as well. If they removed the superdelegates, the best Sanders would get is forcing Clinton to the convention while not being mathematical winner. She'd still be the leader by a solid margin. I sincerely doubt that Sanders would walk out of the Democratic convention as the winner in that event if he was still losing by the margin he is in non-superdelegates.
Now if Clinton wasn't getting real votes out there in the field, I'd see the point of bringing that up constantly, but she's currently the "for real" leader in the race.
Yes, it is hard to establish facts without authority. For anything that you are not personally an expert or at least experienced with, you have to rely on someone else telling you what is true. Sometimes you can personally go and verify those statements, but frequently our best means of determining whether something is false are the collisions between two or more people disagreeing about a fact. And then it becomes a matter who you trust more and what method you use to bestow your trust.
For instance, you might believe that "blue" is actually the color that most people consider "orange". In that case, you're probably best going along with "blue" as what everyone else thinks it is.
However, if everyone agrees what color "blue" looks like, but you are the only one who can accurately measure wavelengths, then if you said that the color that everyone considers to be "blue" has a wavelength of 450–495 nm, you would be right even if everyone else on Earth disagreed with you.
So, Wikipedia and other mass democratic decision making methods probably work very well when it is more important to be practical or share a common experience. Or when a large number of people can somehow be objective about something due to practicality.
When you must apply specialized skills or knowledge, however, democracy falls right apart as a method of decision making. Look at the AGW debate. There is this talk of a "consensus of scientists" or such and such a fact, but at the same time, it oddly easy to be critical of it. The reason for that is that we're attempting a democratic method of truth seeking when it really should be determined by someone who actually has the skills, tools, and knowledge to make an informed decision.
However, this democratic method becomes important because AGW is not really a science issue, it is a policy issue. The question isn't really about AGW, it is about how there is an attempt by one side or another to cause governments to take control of the issue. If this wasn't a fight over government money or regulation, I believe a lot fewer people would amp up their resistance to the science and the scientists.
In terms of Wikipedia, removing the "gatekeepers" entirely was never going to work. Most people don't know facts, they trust authority. I think, then, that where Wikipedia gets it wrong is that they didn't simply reform the gatekeeping, they removed it and replaced it with democracy. And that's the same issue that things like AGW have. You need gatekeepers, you just need to make sure they are skilled and not complacent or more concerned about their "career" than the truth of their calling.
I also think he's talking shit, but it is important to also remember that companies that make huge profits at one time, don't keep their position over numerous years by remaining static. This guy's idea may be crap and his sound byte only calculated to get him a little attention, but that doesn't mean that Apple can point to their stack of cash and believe that no one outside of Apple has anything to teach them. That's how companies as big as Apple find themselves owned a few years down the line.
I totally agree. Why actually execute an attack, with all the infrastructure setup that entails, when you can just pretend to be a feared attacker and have none of that cost? If they don't pay up, you didn't lose anything. If they do? Your margins are very, very good.
Obviously, this falls apart if few enough people pay up that your costs for discovering them are higher than your returns. So, there has to at least be a minimum effort to craft your threat in a convincing way.
I think there are some places where increased warming would make arid areas even more arid, such as the growth of the Sahara Desert.
But I think it will be uneven. Some places will get more moisture, and some places will get less. Basically, in those places where warming has already created a desert, expect that the effect will be magnified. Where it has increased rainfall, it will further increase rainfall.
Of course, I didn't say you *need* to believe in God, but that if we're going to go off the rails like this, you *might as well*.
Honestly, someone who can program an entire universe is a better candidate for the whole God thing than some whitebeard in the sky, anyway. As for the more extreme characteristics of such a being, I agree that the possibilities are endless and include limited beings, but they could also include an Omniscient, Almighty, Perpetual and/or Infinite Being too.
In any event, it's this sort of thing that annoys me about scientists. When they talk about science, they clearly know what they're talking about. When they go off the rails and start pronouncing about everything, from the economy to religion, and are considered to be authoritative there, I start getting annoyed. Nothing like making shit up to counter the stuff you think is made up.
The iPhone 5c was well known to have a lesser encryption capability. So, you're not really hearing anything different, you're just hearing nuance which has been overblown. They wouldn't be able to use the same capability on even the 5s.
And this could be manipulation, but honestly, if your operational security methods are sane, you don't go on public statements from people like Clapper. You just assume he's fucking with you and use tried and true methods for security.
For instance, the Paris bombers didn't use encryption at all. They didn't need to. It is hard enough to find people who use plain old unencrypted burn phones. Clapper's probably trying to get them to use encryption which will then highlight them as someone to watch.
Remember, if you're yelling at someone in a different language, no one needs to be able to understand your conversation to have an inkling that you may be foreign. In this case, if you use encryption, they're now able to see someone standing out in the crowd yelling something that is interesting. At that point, they merely follow the signal to its source and use the pipe wrench method of interrogation to get their passwords.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I guess they're finally going to have get off their lazy asses and learn to walk on land like the rest of us. Don't even get me started about those whales.
Galactus does not rant, puny human. He hungers.
That said, they do need to keep things moving along. You don't maintain high revenue and buzz doing rehashes of something you've already done.
If they get the smartwatch right in terms of design and software, it could be useful, but they absolutely need to not only do that, but somehow bring back a device that just about everyone has stopped wearing, ironically due to smartphones like the iPhone. Seems like they're trying to turn buggywhips into car keys.
I actually think that something like smart glasses is a form factor that people still use and which would be more convenient than a wrist watch. If you are able to do something with eye tracking, it could even be controlled conveniently. And being something that is close to the eye, it can actually offer *more* screen real estate, rather than less. Not to mention the immersion factor of being able to effectively give you a HUD.
Obviously, it can't look as stupid and glaring as Google Glass, but I don't believe we can't do better than that.
This could be hugely helpful by lowering errors, thus increasing effective bandwidth. And that could have relatively large incremental benefits. Unfortunately, everyone keeps getting hung up on the FTL possibilities which do not exist.
The point is that it is *not* a communication technology. You can't communicate with entanglement. Period. You can use it to support something like encryption, however, but the communication needs to come from a different method.
However, if you want to have something that passes through the Earth like it isn't there, you want neutrinos. However, the problem with neutrinos is that being something that barely reacts with the entire mass of the Earth, you're not going to be able to actually detect them on your transmitter either. At least not unless there is some manner of efficiently detecting neutrinos in (relatively) small devices that we are as yet unaware of. As it stands, there are millions of neutrinos that pass through the Earth every second, and probably only like a few hundred of them actually interact with any atom in the entire mass of the planet.
We don't know everything about the universe. We also should discuss the possibility of FTL.
What is wrong with this is that we've already discussed entanglement in regard to FTL and we already know it doesn't work that way. This is like looping around to the same wrong answer time and time again. Let's move on to something that hasn't been ruled out.
TLDR: No.
Next story please.
Yeah, not sure that this crap is. We already know that entanglement is useless for communication and we know why. Why do people keep pushing this click-baity misinformation? Stop constantly re-confusing people.
Actually, it would go something like this.
Prosecutor: "Oh my, we suspect you of having child porn on this hard drive. Unlock it or go to jail."
You: "That's not my hard drive."
Prosecutor: "We have testimony from your sister and other people who state that you own the computer that this hard drive was taken from. We also found unencrypted files on the machine which indicate that you have used that computer in recent memory. We also have evidence from your event logs that the drives were checked by the OS on a number of occasions into the past. So, how would you explain how these hard drives ended up in your enclosure, without your knowledge and attached to your operating system? Bear bear in mind that we have testimony that you personally accessed those drives in the recent past."
You: "I can't unlock it, that's not my hard drive."
Prosecutor: "Right. Your honor, we move that the respondent be held in contempt of court for failing to produce evidence in his possession as ordered by the warrant."
You can't, but unless you sustained a head trauma, if there is testimony or evidence that you were looking at the contents just the other day, the court will have some reason to believe that you remembered it the next day or even the next week.
Presumably, if they did a good job, the police hopefully got some evidence that the encrypted store had been decrypted recently so he can't use that excuse as readily. And since they had his sister involved, it is possible she can corroborate that to the point that forgetting the password is considered unlikely.
I read the article for some hint that he said he didn't know it, but it reads to me like he is simply refusing to comply and providing reasons. That doesn't mean he can't say he forgot it later, but nothing implies that he says he has forgotten it.
And honestly, if they have seen that the file was accessed relatively recently, it would probably be relatively easy to prove that he must have known it and is holding out on them. Indeed, the sister may have testified that he was looking at the files only just the other day.
A court can require you to turn over evidence that you have in your possession. The fact that it happens to be the defendant is actually not the point.
You are protected against self-incrimination, but if you were in a car accident and you ran away, you wouldn't be protected from not producing your vehicle, even if you had locked it and hidden it in your garage. That is because the very car itself is not incriminating. It's the evidence that could be derived from the car that would be incriminating, perhaps, but you're not self-incriminating by producing it, as the existence of the car does not prove anything and it isn't necessarily tied to you (someone else might have been driving, etc.).
In this case, the court does not "know" that he has committed a crime, but has seen evidence that there may be contraband in the encrypted filestore. Those files themselves are not immediately incriminating for the defendant, because even if they were contraband, they would have to be tied to the defendant for the defendant to be found guilty of a crime. For all we know, the files were added to the filestore by the sister who supposedly saw the images.
Granted, the process of tying him to the images would be relatively straightforward, but producing the decrypted files is not an admission of guilt.
The one thing that I think the defense rests on is that the self-incrimination is not that there is contraband, but that his very knowledge of how to decrypt a filestore with that material on it is linking the defendant to the contraband. In other words, simply finding those files, unencrypted on his hard drive might have a defense of "someone put them there", but his ability to decrypt the files would mean that not only did he have the files, but he processed the files. It's sort of like a crime is known to have been committed with the gun in the conservatory, and you admitting that you had the combination to the rather solid and undamaged gun safe where the murder weapon was known to be stored.
I don't recall suggesting it was fair. Only that superdelegates were irrelevant. And they are for this contest. It's pointless to cry about them, as they haven't cost Sanders this primary. And I'd prefer to get upset about the things that actually matter, without crying about things that ended up not even being an issue.
But if you pressed me, I'd still have to see I don't see a way Sanders was going to win anyway, at least this year. He lacks critical support in some important Democratic constituencies. Adding independents to it got him where he is today, but it's not enough. As long as he plays the long game, this doesn't have to be a flash in the pan for him, but he's not getting any younger.
Sanders has a message that resonates, and did some good grassroots work, but his game in a lot of important places isn't where it needs to be for a win. If he works hard to build up an organization that can challenge the status quo over the next few years, we'll see.
I don't claim she's winning. She *is* winning.
Mind you, I am not saying she's not corrupt. You might have me confused with someone who plans on voting for her in the next election. I'm not. If someone like Trump or Cruz wins, it just means that I find a nice third party candidate on Election Day, or I just skip it entirely. 2016 is literally taking every candidate that I said I'd never vote for and filling the ballot with them.
However, winning is winning. Unless someone changes the electoral system in the Democratic party, she's winning and probably will win. Yes, it is a game that doesn't have a 1:1 relation to voters or even fairness. That only means that the election is a game that happens to reward what she's doing.
People need to stop giving a shit about what is "fair" and start giving a shit about the actual game being played, because the game's rules aren't changed by complaining about them if you're unrepresented.
Was there ever a more electable left wing challenger on the Democratic side? Left wingers, they certainly have. Electable ones? Eh. Sanders is actually the best they've got, and he's done well for himself. Considering that Sanders, despite being a socialist crank, has been in the Senate for years, I certainly don't consider him to have been the least electable candidate out there on the left fringe.
I'm sure that come next election the Millenials will either have turned the country Socialist or they will have gotten 10 years older and gone the way of the hippies. Sanders will have a better chance next election, if he hasn't retired or died by then.
Okay, trying again...
In this race, it is irrelevant. She's winning without superdelegates. By about a 200 delegate margin.
Sanders may have the deck stacked against him, but it has nothing to do with superdelegates.
Even superdelegate Bill Clinton has said he'd vote for Sanders if he won fair and square. But he's not winning.
Don't get me wrong, I know both parties are backroom dealers, but let's stop talking about something that is already pointless. It was a bogeyman early on, but now we're 40 states voted and out of the way. It's pretty much done. Let's move on.
Its a trade off. Stopping Trump in an underhanded or backroom way could break the party. It might be a worthy sacrifice, but the Republican party will not survive that screw-job if they make that move.
I expect that unless everyone else quits and releases their delegates to Cruz (and even then, the rules don't always allow such direction), the Republican Party will have Trump as their candidate.
There is only one scenario that could take it away from Trump at this point, something that makes Trump unelectable, like a criminal charge or some sort of very dirty scandal. That is the only way you're walking out of the convention without Trump as the candidate unless you can line up every remaining delegate, including Kaisch's and Rubio's behind Cruz.
I'm not sure what would be worse, Cruz or Trump. Cruz is not good in the sense he's going to get his ass handed to him and he's a jerk. And Trump is bad, because he's Trump and because he actually has a chance to beat Clinton. I don't think he will, but if something nasty comes out about Clinton at the wrong time, she could be vulnerable. Trump would not hesitate to attack her directly and very hard if she shows any vulnerability.
I'll say one thing for Trump, he's definitely not pulling any punches, and some of them are landing. Clinton is pretty much the "default" status quo candidate, which is damning her with faint praise. If anything weakens her, she could find herself in a world of hurt and in the general election, there are independents out there who aren't owned by her which could make a difference.
Perhaps so, but in this race it's irrelevant. Clinton is beating Sanders in non-superdelegates as well. If they removed the superdelegates, the best Sanders would get is forcing Clinton to the convention while not being mathematical winner. She'd still be the leader by a solid margin. I sincerely doubt that Sanders would walk out of the Democratic convention as the winner in that event if he was still losing by the margin he is in non-superdelegates.
Now if Clinton wasn't getting real votes out there in the field, I'd see the point of bringing that up constantly, but she's currently the "for real" leader in the race.
Yes, it is hard to establish facts without authority. For anything that you are not personally an expert or at least experienced with, you have to rely on someone else telling you what is true. Sometimes you can personally go and verify those statements, but frequently our best means of determining whether something is false are the collisions between two or more people disagreeing about a fact. And then it becomes a matter who you trust more and what method you use to bestow your trust.
For instance, you might believe that "blue" is actually the color that most people consider "orange". In that case, you're probably best going along with "blue" as what everyone else thinks it is.
However, if everyone agrees what color "blue" looks like, but you are the only one who can accurately measure wavelengths, then if you said that the color that everyone considers to be "blue" has a wavelength of 450–495 nm, you would be right even if everyone else on Earth disagreed with you.
So, Wikipedia and other mass democratic decision making methods probably work very well when it is more important to be practical or share a common experience. Or when a large number of people can somehow be objective about something due to practicality.
When you must apply specialized skills or knowledge, however, democracy falls right apart as a method of decision making. Look at the AGW debate. There is this talk of a "consensus of scientists" or such and such a fact, but at the same time, it oddly easy to be critical of it. The reason for that is that we're attempting a democratic method of truth seeking when it really should be determined by someone who actually has the skills, tools, and knowledge to make an informed decision.
However, this democratic method becomes important because AGW is not really a science issue, it is a policy issue. The question isn't really about AGW, it is about how there is an attempt by one side or another to cause governments to take control of the issue. If this wasn't a fight over government money or regulation, I believe a lot fewer people would amp up their resistance to the science and the scientists.
In terms of Wikipedia, removing the "gatekeepers" entirely was never going to work. Most people don't know facts, they trust authority. I think, then, that where Wikipedia gets it wrong is that they didn't simply reform the gatekeeping, they removed it and replaced it with democracy. And that's the same issue that things like AGW have. You need gatekeepers, you just need to make sure they are skilled and not complacent or more concerned about their "career" than the truth of their calling.
Up with the proletariat!
VOTE TRUMP 2016
I assume this is satire, because the irony is dripping from those two statements.
I also think he's talking shit, but it is important to also remember that companies that make huge profits at one time, don't keep their position over numerous years by remaining static. This guy's idea may be crap and his sound byte only calculated to get him a little attention, but that doesn't mean that Apple can point to their stack of cash and believe that no one outside of Apple has anything to teach them. That's how companies as big as Apple find themselves owned a few years down the line.
I totally agree. Why actually execute an attack, with all the infrastructure setup that entails, when you can just pretend to be a feared attacker and have none of that cost? If they don't pay up, you didn't lose anything. If they do? Your margins are very, very good.
Obviously, this falls apart if few enough people pay up that your costs for discovering them are higher than your returns. So, there has to at least be a minimum effort to craft your threat in a convincing way.
I think there are some places where increased warming would make arid areas even more arid, such as the growth of the Sahara Desert.
But I think it will be uneven. Some places will get more moisture, and some places will get less. Basically, in those places where warming has already created a desert, expect that the effect will be magnified. Where it has increased rainfall, it will further increase rainfall.
Of course, I didn't say you *need* to believe in God, but that if we're going to go off the rails like this, you *might as well*.
Honestly, someone who can program an entire universe is a better candidate for the whole God thing than some whitebeard in the sky, anyway. As for the more extreme characteristics of such a being, I agree that the possibilities are endless and include limited beings, but they could also include an Omniscient, Almighty, Perpetual and/or Infinite Being too.
In any event, it's this sort of thing that annoys me about scientists. When they talk about science, they clearly know what they're talking about. When they go off the rails and start pronouncing about everything, from the economy to religion, and are considered to be authoritative there, I start getting annoyed. Nothing like making shit up to counter the stuff you think is made up.
The iPhone 5c was well known to have a lesser encryption capability. So, you're not really hearing anything different, you're just hearing nuance which has been overblown. They wouldn't be able to use the same capability on even the 5s.
And this could be manipulation, but honestly, if your operational security methods are sane, you don't go on public statements from people like Clapper. You just assume he's fucking with you and use tried and true methods for security.
For instance, the Paris bombers didn't use encryption at all. They didn't need to. It is hard enough to find people who use plain old unencrypted burn phones. Clapper's probably trying to get them to use encryption which will then highlight them as someone to watch.
Remember, if you're yelling at someone in a different language, no one needs to be able to understand your conversation to have an inkling that you may be foreign. In this case, if you use encryption, they're now able to see someone standing out in the crowd yelling something that is interesting. At that point, they merely follow the signal to its source and use the pipe wrench method of interrogation to get their passwords.
Probably because moral stands don't give you any increased skill in operating a large government agency.