Deliver to everyone with all the original features, including face recognition, and let the chips fall where they may.

As for the hate, thank Google's broken dependence invite system. That needs to be forced out of Google by some means.

Those shouldn't be abandoned for long if space technology goes further back than Apollo.

On the other hand, other manufacturers (like Lenovo) are better at letting you make a return(within 30 days) for those kind of conditions.

That, and they're engineered to use standard parts, not exotic and maintenance-hostile ones.

It doesn't matter if it's "faster", but it doesn't matter if it's a proprietary solution. The more standard solution will win out at Apple's expense.

When it has more specific component options (read: MXM-based graphics, better displays, and less garish chassis), then it might be realistic to call that "assemble your own".

Apple doesn't do SecureBoot, they just make their devices a PITA to maintain.

Between pentalobes, glue-fastened glass, components in hard-to-reach locations, and active hostility towards self-maintenance, Apple could claim prior art on the concept of SecureBoot.

Portable devices from traditionally locked down platforms don't really have that option. For those that do exist, they're usually built with older/low-end parts.

That doesn't help when the issue requires direct hardware access.

See my first point. The Raspberry Pi is a 2nd-tier device that has still-unresolved USB issues.

While it could be a coincidence, but it seems that these policies seem to share too many similarities in timing and direction.

Perhaps he can figure out why Toyotas end up going places like brick walls, or going forward when you don't want to ;)

The more realistic scenario is that the individuals tasked with bringing him in or taking him (or any misguided "journalists") out would receive that kind of protection and more.

Perhaps some good citizens would be more than happy to call his bluff and ensure that national security gets taken seriously.

Staffing agencies and other forms of contingent employment operate in a manner not unlike labor unions. Unfortunately, it is still possible for a job to require you to sign with one instead of going direct, which RTW prevents with labor unions. With that in mind, applying labor laws to contingent employment, especially RTW, would replace the benefit-dodging incentive with a benefit-providing one.

That's a rarer bird than a good full-time job. Realistically, the only enitity that has any good experience is the agency itself.

This is a bigger reason why staffing agencies should be subject to the same laws as labor unions - even if it means that joining a staffing agency isn't a condition for accepting work at a given organization. If it really is about "flexibility" and not benefit-dodging "disposability", then they would welcome the challenge of competing with better forms of work.

The IT/tech world doesn't take well to third party representation, whether it is a staffing agency or a labor union - for the same reasons.

It seems like it's a preventative measure against legislation that would affect staffing agencies.

If they bring in those individuals, they can effectively immunize against the others that aren't brought in from the cold.

Luck, and pumping information to the FSB are the only things keeping him alive, trophy status being a side effect. Illegal disclosures from beyond the grave would only hurt the people doing them.

Do not expect that these deeds will go unpunished by subsequent administrations or that the odds will be in his unending favor.

I do and still end up seeing the same things. Once something gets hit by the ugly stick of globalization, it doesn't matter what you pay - the result is a lesser product.