1. Police seize iPhone
2. Police arrest owner.
3. Police tell owner to unlock the phone.
4. Owner refuses.
5. Police grab finger, press to button/fingerprint reader.
6. Phone is unlocked.
What encryption?
Won't last. Someone will forget his passcode about 8 seconds after the iOS 8 goes public. Then comes the flood of unhappy customers locked out of their unbreakably encrypted phones. "Sorry, we can't help you" won't be accepted as an answer.
There will either be a back door or a user revolt.
Here's the other thing. This is either a fool's errand or bullshit/wild exaggeration. It's probably impossible and certainly impractical to make a complete map of the internet.
I find "distrust compassion" to be somewhat contradictory to "Never be a spectator of unfairness."
But I supposed Hitchens is aware of and is reasonably comfortable with the contradiction.
Though it is complicated by the government service issue, there are ways to measure performance...
- Salt the case load with fictitious, bogus applications intended to be declined. In fact, this can both detect work that is disingenuous, and start applying some quality checks. Applications that are so flawed as to be obvious can be expected to fall through as approved if examiners are just phoning it in.
- Break up the review process, no insight into the next step for any examiner. At some point, some examiners will be doing too little work to keep up, or the backlog will inspire some investigation. Perhaps.
- This is an oldie. Full tracking of the examiner's work, down to the keystroke.
- Even older, time to put up the performance chart. Peer pressure will probably not work in Civil Service, but it's a valiant try nonetheless.
Now, the real trick is how to measure performance. That scares me.
There's no need to salt the system with bogus applications. Simply review a sample of each employees work.
It's possible that they thought that was what they were doing, but it wasn't what they were really doing, at least not if they got hurt in Iraq or Afghanistan after 2002. Nevertheless, I have sympathy for them because they got seriously screwed over the the government.
Among other lots of good reasons.
Other examples:
* make it more disease resistant
* make it grow in more convenient places (my back yard, for example)
* self-roasting beans?
There are vaccines for many of the most dangerous viruses. That's why nobody gets smallpox any more and very few people get polio or measles.
Well, I guess even Art Bell isn't always wrong.
But there's far more than just the government keeping you from getting useful news out of US news sources. They focus on what's cheap to produce and give you a steaming pile of it: sports "news", uninteresting "human interest" stories, commercials disguised as news, etc.
It's interesting that you imagine this kind of behavior to be a new thing. As someone previously stated, this is what some reporters stoop to in order to get "access" that they hope other reporters won't have. It looks like Dilanian did it the wrong way, allowing the CIA to become his editors.
And if a news organization uses information from the government sources carefully, it can occasionally get information that you might not otherwise hear. Certainly what the CIA says about something that the CIA probably knows about is part of what the public ought to know, but it needs to be prefaced with something like, "according to official CIA sources" so the readers know they're reading what the government wants them to hear.
adjustments:
At any time, half of it is iluminated, forming the equivalent normal illuminated area of 3500km x 200km. Supposing the area utilization within the band is 90%, that's 630,000 square kilometers or 630E9 square meter. Assuming they're Si-heterostructure cells, they can produce 126 terawatts. Then the problem becomes not do you have enough power, but can you get it to Earth in a practical manner?
Yes, that is exactly what is going on. That's the only way to put anything like these supposed values on companies that don't produce revenue.
If you've used WhatsApp, you already have one.
1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.
