(c) understand that having a kid is not worth the hassle, and (d) take action in avoiding procreation. It's green and helps the earth, to boot.
I'm assuming that you are glad that your parents didn't feel the same way instead of having you?
Fingerprints are left behind all the time so it would be trivial for someone to obtain.
That depends on the situation. If you find a phone lying on a bus seat and decide you're keeping it, then unless you lift the print from the phone itself you are just shit out of luck. If you don't even know who the phone belongs to, you're not going to be able to get a print. Also if you steal a phone, say out of a woman's open purse, you aren't going to be able to get prints from anywhere other than the phone, either. What are you going to do, find out where she lives, break into her house, find a dirty glass and lift a print from it? It's not like people are going to keep government secrets on their phone. If you do, you're dumb as a box of bricks. Phone security is there to keep credit card numbers from casual thieves in the event that you lose your phone. If the cops or the government have you in custody and are trying to get into your phone, you've got much bigger things to worry about.
"Has anyone else verified that the suppose hack really does work? Isn't a bit premature to claim Apple is lying off a single youtube video?"
No, but everyone is acting as if you can't fake a youtube video, so this claim must be enough for them.
Why this is deserving of an article I don't know.
It's not. I've been doing that with Chrome since it first came out.
Why would a German associate the 4th of July with fireworks? There's no reason, it's not his national day.
Then why would non-U.S. citizens even answer? If the question was about which programming language do you use, and I don't program, why would I participate?
Think of how much more interesting ham radio would be if the ARRL was anything like the NRA...
That will only happen when people find a way to start killing other people with amateur radios. Then membership numbers will skyrocket.
Does anyone seriously not believe the famous numbers stations as already an ultra-low-throughput form of encrypted transmission? Whether you send the data as electrical bits, RF, carrier pigeons, or a recording of Angelina Jolie saying "zero" and "one" over and over and over really has no relevance to the underlying meaning. Either it already breaks the law, or it doesn't.
Totally true. But I've never heard a numbers station in a ham band. Hams can't just operate everywhere in the shortwave spectrum. There are certain frequency "bands" they can use. The numbers stations aren't within these bands.
I am not interested in supporting censorship, which is what you're doing when you pay your fees. See ya.
What "fees"? $15 for a 10 year license? It's not about censorship. It's called acting civilized, having respect towards each other, and having an environment where even kids can participate.
Well depends on the type of encryption. I can read off a series of numbers that are a one time pad encrypted message and get the same effect. If they are talking about full on scramble and sounding like white noise (for more bw). Then yeah I could see how that could be an issue.
I don't know why your post was scored so low, because I see the point you are making, but you are wrong. Reading off a series of numbers from a one time pad IS illegal and exactly the same as a full on scramble of the signal. There's no difference whatsoever. The law is that you can't obscure the meaning of a message, and both of those examples do just that.
Yes the FCC will absoultly revoke your HAM license, if you make a habit of breaking the rules.
Get on Broadcastify.com, go to "Los Angeles county", and scroll down to the W6NUT repeater. Listen to that for a couple of days and tell me they will take your license for breaking the rules. That repeater has absolutely dripped with filth for decades, and nobody does anything about it. They SHOULD, and the FCC CAN, but they don't.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
