It's not about the device, it's about the people inside the device. They still need the cues to avoid injury and/or motion sickness, just as examples. It was explained in the very first sentence.
Sounds like 2 different models to me. Also, those don't look like Acer model numbers, which usually follow ####-####. It also sounds like a case of you not paying attention to what you're buying and relying on the model number to identify same or similar units. For reference, that'll burn you with a Mac, as well; A1398 covers all 15" MacBook Pro Retina models since they were released in 2012, with CPUs ranging from 3rd gen 2.6GHz (or 4th gen 2.2GHz, roughly equivalent in performance) to 4th gen 2.8GHz i7's, 8 or 16GB of RAM, 1 to 2 GB of VRAM, and 256GB to 1TB of storage. That's 21 models, spanning 5 years, identified by a single model number.
It's really sad, because OS X has the potential to be the best OS for the widest variety of uses.
Right now, all 3 majors have their strengths and weaknesses that make them roughly equal for general purpose computing; it's only when you start specializing that one OS outshines another. I currently have 3 daily-use laptops, one running each OS (I settled on Kubuntu for the 2011 MBP yesterday) and two of those are MacBook Pros, so let's not start throwing the word "fanboy" around.
With Snow Leopard, OS X had shed most of its weaknesses and actually very quickly became my preferred OS, but Apple broke that with Lion and has been fucking it up ever since. I need a stable system that can run commercial software (there is some that I have to use as it is industry standard and what my clients expect), so Linux is out. Stability being the deciding factor, Windows has it right now. I'd choose Linux with a Windows VM if not for the fact that the software in question benefits greatly from GPU acceleration, which is sorely lacking in any of the Type-2 hypervisors (they'll do translation, but the break things like CUDA, so they're fine for light gaming but they suck for real work). While I could use a Type-1, I'd have to be willing to accept crap graphics performance in Linux in order to assign the GPU to Windows.
While I do prefer having a native POSIX shell at my fingertips, Linux can't run what I need it to run and OS X becomes less stable with each update, so I'm stuck with Cygwin for a POSIX shell (or, I can SSH into one of my servers). If the software I need ever makes its way to Linux, I'll be there in a heartbeat; unless OS X returns to the stable, efficient, and reliable powerhouse it once was. I'm not holding my breath for either of those things to happen, though; I'm too busy holding my ankles for Microsoft at the moment.
So you own every app in the store, then? I kid, of course. But not really.
You see, my point was that Android users make purchases, as well; that I was also able to highlight a couple of iOS users who do not, well, that was just icing. It's also true that Android users are more likely to make in-app purchases, so any study that only refers to purchased apps, well, that study is flawed. I haven't seen one yet (admittedly, I haven't looked) that compares both types of purchases, so I'm genuinely curios how that would pan out.
I don't put GUIs on my servers... ew. Though I have done X forwarding to Windows before and it did work well. But yeah... no need anymore. I was referring to command line utilities; the ones I haven't installed yet are basic, but not critical: ping (I can use Windows native ping), host, and dig. It's easier for me to SSH into the Lunix server in my cabinet for those than it is for me to run through the Cygwin installer again. If I remember next time I'm updating Cygwin or need to install some more critical utility, they'll get installed then.
Hopefully someone finds your post helpful, as it really does contain some good info.
plus if you're employed as a developer you can justify an expensive mac over whatever bottom of the barrel junk you'd have got otherwise
That's funny, I'm (self)employed as a developer and I do have 2 Macs. I'm considering which distro to install on the older one, while the Retina collects dust. I got tired of the wireless dropping and they keyboard freezing and requiring me to sleep and wake the machine to be able to keep using it. I got tired of it thermal throttling every time I look at it funny. I got tired of it, in general. What's really funny about it is that the Windows PC that replaced it in November (which I actually bought to replace the Windows laptop I was using for testing, which died) cost $800 less, is actually a 3mo older model than the Retina, and still has better specs and build quality than current MacBook Pro models.
My PC (MSI Ghost Pro GS60 custom): Intel i7-4720HQ (2.6Ghz), 16GB DDR3L, 500GB m.2 SSD RAID (2x256) and 1TB 7200RPM HDD, nVidia Geforxe GTX970M w/ 6GB GDDR5, 15" 4k display
Best MacBook Pro Available today: Intel i7-4980HQ (2.8Ghz), 16GB DDR3L, 1TB m.2 SSD, AMD Radeon R9 M370X w/ 2GB GDDR5, 15" 2.8k display
That's a marginally faster CPU of the same generation (2 generations behind by now) in today's Mac, compared to a two year old PC. If you really want to see something you're not gonna believe, go look up a comparison of the GPUs; you'll only find the 2GB version of my GPU in comparison, which is fine, it's a lot more fair to the Mac. The Mac configured to marginally beat my PC on CPU and fail in every other respect? $3199. My PC? $1799. And remember, the PC is a 2yr old model. As far as size and weight, the PC wins on both; slightly thinner, not quite as deep, a hair wider, and about a half pound lighter. Build quality? It's not carved from a single block of aluminum, but it is an all aluminum shell, fused to insulating (and strengthening; it'll bounce back from some impacts that would permanently dent a Mac) plastic on the insude; the only external plastic is the keyboard, inner bezel around the screen, and a snap-on piece under the screen. This machine goes to hell and back with me quite frequently and has not a mark on it.
But, you say, I've sought the most expensive MacBook Pro for my comparison. Well, yes, I was trying to build a better one than my 2yr old PC; it's not my fault I failed at that. but sure, let's compare the base model, which is only $2499 (so $700 more expensive, rather than $1400). Drop the CPU clock to 2.5Ghz (mine is now faster) and cut the SSD down to 500GB (I now have the larger SSD, not just greater overall storage capacity). Done.
Oh, you meant the REALLY base model? In fairness, we'll stick to 15". Drop the CPU clock to 2.2Ghz, halve the SSD again, down to 256GB, and lose the AMD GPU as that one's Intel only. And pay $200 more than my 2 year old model.
The best MacBook Pro might beat my 2 year old PC model in one or two benchmarks (and be completely destroyed in all the rest), if it doesn't thermal throttle itself back to 1.8Ghz under the load. Yo usee, that's the other thing my PC has that my MacBook Pro does not: proper thermal design. My PC will run FurMark and CPU Burn simultaneously and not reach the temperatures my MacBook Pro reaches at idle. So not only doey my hardware start out faster, it stays faster and, because it's not living in a mostly sealed hotbox, will last longer.
So, tell me again how all PCs are bottom of the barrel junk?
And, for reference, the current GS models (I'm not even getting into the real high-end, the GS line is MSI's mid-range gaming laptop; that's right, this year's best MacBook Pro is trounced by MSI's mid-range model from 2 years ago) include this year's CPUs, DDR4, and SSDs that are a little more than twice as fast (2.2GB/sec transfer vs the 1GB/sec transfer I get on my current m.2 RAID).
I've had wireless issues on a grand total of one Windows laptop and it was the result of poor driver support in Windows 7. Compared to every MacBook and MacBook pro I've encountered with one exception, and I'm not talking about my own machines, but also my wife's, my former boss and coworkers', my friends, family, random people in coffee shops (if they have a Mac there regular enough there that I see them a few times, yes, I'll see them with wireless issues). Linux, well, I haven't had wireless issues in Linux since '03, though a friend of mine has; he refuses to let me look at it (says he has to do it himself) but I'm pretty sure he simply didn't install the package.
mac hardware lets you run all three major OS's (osx + windows + linux) on a single piece of hardware.
I think you meant to say:
OS X tries to prevent you from running all the major OSes on anything but Mac hardware
You can do it on any x86 hardware, you just have to hack around DSMOS, which serves literally no purpose other than to prevent OS X from running on anything but a Mac.
Sadly, as part of my job involves the use of several Windows- and OSX-only Adobe applications, the only OS I can't fully do my job on is Linux. Combined with hardware issues on every Mac laptop I've encountered, that puts me on Windows with Cygwin for POSIX compatibility. It's not perfect, but I can SSH for the couple utilities I haven't taken the time to fully set up in Cygwin yet.
I'd like to say that I'll try another Mac when it comes time to replace the Retina, but honestly I'll just hold out for Adobe to bring their applications to Linux.
I have to say, the above is true. I've seen wireless issues with every MacBook and MacBook Pro I, or anyone I know, has owned, with the sole exception of my 2011 17" MacBook Pro, which is now on its 3rd GPU. My former boss' 2010 MacBook Pro and the 2012 MacBook Pro that replaced it had a hell of a time staying connected to the office wireless, while nobody else in the office had issues... in the office, at least. My current 2014 MacBook Pro Retina has bouts of inability to connect to any wireless, anywhere for longer than a few minutes without needing to have wireless turned off, be put to sleep, woken, then wireless turned back on. I'll be fine for months, then exhibit this issue for a week or two. At least with Linux it either works consistently, or it doesn't work at all (in my experience, at least).
I gave this some more thought and, actually, it's just as secure* to leave the public key somewhere writable, given that the OS (and the bootloader) verify signatures prior to execution. If they key is modified by the user, the system would simply become inoperable, as the signatures of the installed binaries would no longer validate against the available key. There would be no way to install a malicious update in this way, as the bootloader is not writable and its binaries are signed with the key that was just overwritten. Of course, when you consider the footnote below, it is obvious why this is still a bad idea, but from a user experience and product durability viewpoint, not anything to do with data security or system integrity. In fact, it highlights, quite effectively, just how secure such a system is; it becomes inoperable at the first sign of tampering.
* In terms of ability to install a compromised update. Leaving the key writable would allow a malicious or naive user, or a malicious application, to render the system inoperable, as binaries would no longer be signed with what the system considers to be a valid key.
So you'd rather there was no recourse for the inevitability of the signing key being compromised? That's like putting a lock on your door that you can never change; it is possible to lose or copy a key, that would just be moronic. Nobody ever said (though teh dave did incorrectly imply) that the authorized key would have to reside somewhere user-writable in order to be updated. As proof of this, I present the iOS system partition, which is not user writable without jailbreaking; and all bets are off if you jailbreak, anyway.
The ignorant really should refrain from comment. And by ignorant, I mean of the text right in front of their eyes.
To elaborate, in case you're actually ignorant of how iOS updates or private key signing work: the bootloader boots into one of several modes, either directly to the OS (wherein the system partition is locked down), or into update mode or DFU mode, where it can write to the system partition. Now, since the bootloader controls this, and the bootloader does the writing, it is actually the bootloader that verifies the signature of each binary in the update (as well as the update as a whole) prior to writing to the system partition (the OS does verify signatures at runtime, as well, but we're talking about updates right now). When you consider that the keypair used for signing updates is asymmetric, and only the public key (which can't be used to sign, only to verify the signature) needs to reside on the device, it is perfectly acceptable to allow the bootloader to store the public key in the system partition, where it may be read, but not written by the user. More likely, however, is that the public signing key is stored on the (encrypted) bootloader partition. Now, here is where teh dave was half right: the public key to decrypt the bootloader is burned into ROM; since, again, this is asymmetric, it can only be used to decrypt the bootloader. Bootloader updates on iOS devices are done via images, which come from Apple already encrypted, meaning updating the bootloader would require both keys, as you would need to be able to create the encrypted bootloader image, but you would also need to sign the update.
Now, it is completely possible that both keys might be compromised... in the same way it's completely possible that you or I might wake up tomorrow and learn that we've been elected King of the World. Sure, it could happen, but unless a whole lot of stupidity is involved (like putting the same person or persons in control of both keys, or storing them on the same system or systems), it's unlikely enough that it needn't be thought about. Certainly much less likely than the single signing key being compromised.
And, again, if you admit the data exists (it does, they found it, and unless you can get it thrown out, you're going away), but clarify that the data only existed on your encrypted phone, you force the FBI to either admit they can crack the encryption, or withdraw the evidence as erroneous. They can't make up the source of the information if you can make it clear that only a single source exists for the information.
This is a common defense when parallel construction is used as the basis for a prosecution. If the defense knows, and can prove, that the prosecution (or law enforcement) obtained evidence illegally, or through means they wouldn't want brought up in open court, they lay that information on the table and, suddenly, the evidence disappears. Failing that, after it is explained (in open court and as a matter of public record) how the evidence was really obtained, the judge throws it out.
I'm proud of you for knowing what parallel construction is. I really am. But I'm a bit concerned that you think it's bulletproof.
Funny, neither the 2000 Civic and Corolla the Mazda 6 replaced (we're a 1 car household now, no need for two, really) had ABS. The 99 corolla the 2000 corolla replace didn't, either; nor did the 91 Accord the 99 Corolla replaced. You might be right about the 2102 Mazda models having ABS, I'll be honest here and say I never really looked; but I do know they also use TPMS, as they don't complain if you replace the wheels such that the overall diameter is one or two inches larger or smaller, but they do complain if you don't move the bolt-mounted valve stems to the new wheels when doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about the device, it's about the people inside the device. They still need the cues to avoid injury and/or motion sickness, just as examples. It was explained in the very first sentence.
The post you are replying to just explained why that is incorrect.
I hope you didn't really miss the joke...
Sounds like 2 different models to me. Also, those don't look like Acer model numbers, which usually follow ####-####. It also sounds like a case of you not paying attention to what you're buying and relying on the model number to identify same or similar units. For reference, that'll burn you with a Mac, as well; A1398 covers all 15" MacBook Pro Retina models since they were released in 2012, with CPUs ranging from 3rd gen 2.6GHz (or 4th gen 2.2GHz, roughly equivalent in performance) to 4th gen 2.8GHz i7's, 8 or 16GB of RAM, 1 to 2 GB of VRAM, and 256GB to 1TB of storage. That's 21 models, spanning 5 years, identified by a single model number.
It's really sad, because OS X has the potential to be the best OS for the widest variety of uses.
Right now, all 3 majors have their strengths and weaknesses that make them roughly equal for general purpose computing; it's only when you start specializing that one OS outshines another. I currently have 3 daily-use laptops, one running each OS (I settled on Kubuntu for the 2011 MBP yesterday) and two of those are MacBook Pros, so let's not start throwing the word "fanboy" around.
With Snow Leopard, OS X had shed most of its weaknesses and actually very quickly became my preferred OS, but Apple broke that with Lion and has been fucking it up ever since. I need a stable system that can run commercial software (there is some that I have to use as it is industry standard and what my clients expect), so Linux is out. Stability being the deciding factor, Windows has it right now. I'd choose Linux with a Windows VM if not for the fact that the software in question benefits greatly from GPU acceleration, which is sorely lacking in any of the Type-2 hypervisors (they'll do translation, but the break things like CUDA, so they're fine for light gaming but they suck for real work). While I could use a Type-1, I'd have to be willing to accept crap graphics performance in Linux in order to assign the GPU to Windows.
While I do prefer having a native POSIX shell at my fingertips, Linux can't run what I need it to run and OS X becomes less stable with each update, so I'm stuck with Cygwin for a POSIX shell (or, I can SSH into one of my servers). If the software I need ever makes its way to Linux, I'll be there in a heartbeat; unless OS X returns to the stable, efficient, and reliable powerhouse it once was. I'm not holding my breath for either of those things to happen, though; I'm too busy holding my ankles for Microsoft at the moment.
What glorious times we live in.
So you own every app in the store, then? I kid, of course. But not really.
You see, my point was that Android users make purchases, as well; that I was also able to highlight a couple of iOS users who do not, well, that was just icing. It's also true that Android users are more likely to make in-app purchases, so any study that only refers to purchased apps, well, that study is flawed. I haven't seen one yet (admittedly, I haven't looked) that compares both types of purchases, so I'm genuinely curios how that would pan out.
I don't put GUIs on my servers... ew. Though I have done X forwarding to Windows before and it did work well. But yeah... no need anymore. I was referring to command line utilities; the ones I haven't installed yet are basic, but not critical: ping (I can use Windows native ping), host, and dig. It's easier for me to SSH into the Lunix server in my cabinet for those than it is for me to run through the Cygwin installer again. If I remember next time I'm updating Cygwin or need to install some more critical utility, they'll get installed then.
Hopefully someone finds your post helpful, as it really does contain some good info.
plus if you're employed as a developer you can justify an expensive mac over whatever bottom of the barrel junk you'd have got otherwise
That's funny, I'm (self)employed as a developer and I do have 2 Macs. I'm considering which distro to install on the older one, while the Retina collects dust. I got tired of the wireless dropping and they keyboard freezing and requiring me to sleep and wake the machine to be able to keep using it. I got tired of it thermal throttling every time I look at it funny. I got tired of it, in general. What's really funny about it is that the Windows PC that replaced it in November (which I actually bought to replace the Windows laptop I was using for testing, which died) cost $800 less, is actually a 3mo older model than the Retina, and still has better specs and build quality than current MacBook Pro models.
My PC (MSI Ghost Pro GS60 custom): Intel i7-4720HQ (2.6Ghz), 16GB DDR3L, 500GB m.2 SSD RAID (2x256) and 1TB 7200RPM HDD, nVidia Geforxe GTX970M w/ 6GB GDDR5, 15" 4k display
Best MacBook Pro Available today: Intel i7-4980HQ (2.8Ghz), 16GB DDR3L, 1TB m.2 SSD, AMD Radeon R9 M370X w/ 2GB GDDR5, 15" 2.8k display
That's a marginally faster CPU of the same generation (2 generations behind by now) in today's Mac, compared to a two year old PC. If you really want to see something you're not gonna believe, go look up a comparison of the GPUs; you'll only find the 2GB version of my GPU in comparison, which is fine, it's a lot more fair to the Mac. The Mac configured to marginally beat my PC on CPU and fail in every other respect? $3199. My PC? $1799. And remember, the PC is a 2yr old model. As far as size and weight, the PC wins on both; slightly thinner, not quite as deep, a hair wider, and about a half pound lighter. Build quality? It's not carved from a single block of aluminum, but it is an all aluminum shell, fused to insulating (and strengthening; it'll bounce back from some impacts that would permanently dent a Mac) plastic on the insude; the only external plastic is the keyboard, inner bezel around the screen, and a snap-on piece under the screen. This machine goes to hell and back with me quite frequently and has not a mark on it.
But, you say, I've sought the most expensive MacBook Pro for my comparison. Well, yes, I was trying to build a better one than my 2yr old PC; it's not my fault I failed at that. but sure, let's compare the base model, which is only $2499 (so $700 more expensive, rather than $1400). Drop the CPU clock to 2.5Ghz (mine is now faster) and cut the SSD down to 500GB (I now have the larger SSD, not just greater overall storage capacity). Done.
Oh, you meant the REALLY base model? In fairness, we'll stick to 15". Drop the CPU clock to 2.2Ghz, halve the SSD again, down to 256GB, and lose the AMD GPU as that one's Intel only. And pay $200 more than my 2 year old model.
The best MacBook Pro might beat my 2 year old PC model in one or two benchmarks (and be completely destroyed in all the rest), if it doesn't thermal throttle itself back to 1.8Ghz under the load. Yo usee, that's the other thing my PC has that my MacBook Pro does not: proper thermal design. My PC will run FurMark and CPU Burn simultaneously and not reach the temperatures my MacBook Pro reaches at idle. So not only doey my hardware start out faster, it stays faster and, because it's not living in a mostly sealed hotbox, will last longer.
So, tell me again how all PCs are bottom of the barrel junk?
And, for reference, the current GS models (I'm not even getting into the real high-end, the GS line is MSI's mid-range gaming laptop; that's right, this year's best MacBook Pro is trounced by MSI's mid-range model from 2 years ago) include this year's CPUs, DDR4, and SSDs that are a little more than twice as fast (2.2GB/sec transfer vs the 1GB/sec transfer I get on my current m.2 RAID).
I've had wireless issues on a grand total of one Windows laptop and it was the result of poor driver support in Windows 7. Compared to every MacBook and MacBook pro I've encountered with one exception, and I'm not talking about my own machines, but also my wife's, my former boss and coworkers', my friends, family, random people in coffee shops (if they have a Mac there regular enough there that I see them a few times, yes, I'll see them with wireless issues). Linux, well, I haven't had wireless issues in Linux since '03, though a friend of mine has; he refuses to let me look at it (says he has to do it himself) but I'm pretty sure he simply didn't install the package.
You're arguing a point I wasn't trying to make. You claim "iOS is the reason that they use OS X"; I was pointing out that the summary disagrees.
mac hardware lets you run all three major OS's (osx + windows + linux) on a single piece of hardware.
I think you meant to say:
OS X tries to prevent you from running all the major OSes on anything but Mac hardware
You can do it on any x86 hardware, you just have to hack around DSMOS, which serves literally no purpose other than to prevent OS X from running on anything but a Mac.
On my iPad: all free apps
On my Android: $150 in paid apps
My wife? All free apps on both platforms. That's 1 for android and 0 for iOS.
Sadly, as part of my job involves the use of several Windows- and OSX-only Adobe applications, the only OS I can't fully do my job on is Linux. Combined with hardware issues on every Mac laptop I've encountered, that puts me on Windows with Cygwin for POSIX compatibility. It's not perfect, but I can SSH for the couple utilities I haven't taken the time to fully set up in Cygwin yet.
I'd like to say that I'll try another Mac when it comes time to replace the Retina, but honestly I'll just hold out for Adobe to bring their applications to Linux.
I have to say, the above is true. I've seen wireless issues with every MacBook and MacBook Pro I, or anyone I know, has owned, with the sole exception of my 2011 17" MacBook Pro, which is now on its 3rd GPU. My former boss' 2010 MacBook Pro and the 2012 MacBook Pro that replaced it had a hell of a time staying connected to the office wireless, while nobody else in the office had issues... in the office, at least. My current 2014 MacBook Pro Retina has bouts of inability to connect to any wireless, anywhere for longer than a few minutes without needing to have wireless turned off, be put to sleep, woken, then wireless turned back on. I'll be fine for months, then exhibit this issue for a week or two. At least with Linux it either works consistently, or it doesn't work at all (in my experience, at least).
Except that the summary also says that more people develop for Android than for iOS.
I gave this some more thought and, actually, it's just as secure* to leave the public key somewhere writable, given that the OS (and the bootloader) verify signatures prior to execution. If they key is modified by the user, the system would simply become inoperable, as the signatures of the installed binaries would no longer validate against the available key. There would be no way to install a malicious update in this way, as the bootloader is not writable and its binaries are signed with the key that was just overwritten. Of course, when you consider the footnote below, it is obvious why this is still a bad idea, but from a user experience and product durability viewpoint, not anything to do with data security or system integrity. In fact, it highlights, quite effectively, just how secure such a system is; it becomes inoperable at the first sign of tampering.
* In terms of ability to install a compromised update. Leaving the key writable would allow a malicious or naive user, or a malicious application, to render the system inoperable, as binaries would no longer be signed with what the system considers to be a valid key.
So you'd rather there was no recourse for the inevitability of the signing key being compromised? That's like putting a lock on your door that you can never change; it is possible to lose or copy a key, that would just be moronic. Nobody ever said (though teh dave did incorrectly imply) that the authorized key would have to reside somewhere user-writable in order to be updated. As proof of this, I present the iOS system partition, which is not user writable without jailbreaking; and all bets are off if you jailbreak, anyway.
The ignorant really should refrain from comment. And by ignorant, I mean of the text right in front of their eyes.
To elaborate, in case you're actually ignorant of how iOS updates or private key signing work: the bootloader boots into one of several modes, either directly to the OS (wherein the system partition is locked down), or into update mode or DFU mode, where it can write to the system partition. Now, since the bootloader controls this, and the bootloader does the writing, it is actually the bootloader that verifies the signature of each binary in the update (as well as the update as a whole) prior to writing to the system partition (the OS does verify signatures at runtime, as well, but we're talking about updates right now). When you consider that the keypair used for signing updates is asymmetric, and only the public key (which can't be used to sign, only to verify the signature) needs to reside on the device, it is perfectly acceptable to allow the bootloader to store the public key in the system partition, where it may be read, but not written by the user. More likely, however, is that the public signing key is stored on the (encrypted) bootloader partition. Now, here is where teh dave was half right: the public key to decrypt the bootloader is burned into ROM; since, again, this is asymmetric, it can only be used to decrypt the bootloader. Bootloader updates on iOS devices are done via images, which come from Apple already encrypted, meaning updating the bootloader would require both keys, as you would need to be able to create the encrypted bootloader image, but you would also need to sign the update.
Now, it is completely possible that both keys might be compromised... in the same way it's completely possible that you or I might wake up tomorrow and learn that we've been elected King of the World. Sure, it could happen, but unless a whole lot of stupidity is involved (like putting the same person or persons in control of both keys, or storing them on the same system or systems), it's unlikely enough that it needn't be thought about. Certainly much less likely than the single signing key being compromised.
You were saying?
And, again, if you admit the data exists (it does, they found it, and unless you can get it thrown out, you're going away), but clarify that the data only existed on your encrypted phone, you force the FBI to either admit they can crack the encryption, or withdraw the evidence as erroneous. They can't make up the source of the information if you can make it clear that only a single source exists for the information.
This is a common defense when parallel construction is used as the basis for a prosecution. If the defense knows, and can prove, that the prosecution (or law enforcement) obtained evidence illegally, or through means they wouldn't want brought up in open court, they lay that information on the table and, suddenly, the evidence disappears. Failing that, after it is explained (in open court and as a matter of public record) how the evidence was really obtained, the judge throws it out.
I'm proud of you for knowing what parallel construction is. I really am. But I'm a bit concerned that you think it's bulletproof.
Funny, neither the 2000 Civic and Corolla the Mazda 6 replaced (we're a 1 car household now, no need for two, really) had ABS. The 99 corolla the 2000 corolla replace didn't, either; nor did the 91 Accord the 99 Corolla replaced. You might be right about the 2102 Mazda models having ABS, I'll be honest here and say I never really looked; but I do know they also use TPMS, as they don't complain if you replace the wheels such that the overall diameter is one or two inches larger or smaller, but they do complain if you don't move the bolt-mounted valve stems to the new wheels when doing so.
Mazda uses TPMS in models without ABS. My 6 and my friend's 3, both 2012 models, for example.
Less traffic.
Sadly, the above statement is true.
I think this was meant to be funny, not as a troll. I could be wrong, but it did make me laugh.
This is exactly what the mastermind behind the BART hacks would say.
I kid, of course. But seriously.
gas taxes are supposed to be going to road maintenance (even though they tend to be used to subsidize mass transit)
The irony being, if they make mass transit attractive enough that people actually start using it, the gas taxes dry up.