If you'd like to assert that falsifiability isn't required
You're the one doing the asserting that a falsifiable statement *is* required for science. I'm not required to prove a negative.
It is not and never has been a requirement for science. It's a belief of the philosopher Karl Popper, and nothing more.
The first smartphone was the Nokia Communicator. 1996.
the base requirement for science - the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
So you keep incorrectly saying. Karl Popper did not define science.
"less talk, more experimental proof"
Where's yours?
Why are you constantly trolling climate discussions when you've been proved wrong so many times? No one bothers wasting their time on you any more.
Gotcha. Security shouldn't be layered or redundant. As long you've got one method that should be secure your good right.
There's a difference between relying on code and relying on hardware encryption.
Are you really willing to put all your trust in truecrypt
Good lord no. That's code.
That's not religion. That's common sense.
Science often proves common sense wrong.
But that's a false choice. There is a 3rd option... do both.
There's a fourth option: do both of those, then get a witch-doctor to shake some chicken bones at it.
Going through pointless rituals, just in case, and because it won't do any harm, is religion, not computer science.
Who told you that the coders who wrote OpenSSL were computer scientists?
I'm not talking about coding. It's hardware encryption. Once the key has been overwritten with another key, nothing is going to unencrypt that data. Nothing.
But just like the Macintosh vs Wintel battles of the 80s-90s, the cheaper substitutes will tend to win out over the long run in mind and marketshare as the lower cost devices gain in quality
If that were true, Commodore would have won, not the PC. PCs were expensive back then. Not as expensive as Macs but far more expensive than PET/C64/Amiga.
The hard part for Apple is to keep churning out super innovative products like the original Macintosh, Mac OS X, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad, and maybe the iWatch-or-whatever-they'll-call-it.
Not really. None of those have been the very first of their category. Apple's secret is hard work following a particular set of design principles, not lucky flashes of inspiration.
How do they throw away the keys? If they're just zeroing the area with the identity/security info it might not be that much more secure.
It's hardware decryption. The key only ever exist within the SOC. Throwing away the decryption key means overwriting it with a new one. There is no possibility of recovery.
"Zeroing the storage space" probably does not overwrite anything on flash storage. Flash is very resistant to writing anything to a block unless it has to, as there are limited numbers of writes before the the block becomes unusable. Writing random data will, but at a cost of significant time. And it's still less secure than deleting the key of an encrypted drive.
Racism, which you proposed to ban earlier [slashdot.org] is exactly that â" a thought... To avoid such semantic problems in the future, do try to use more precise terms.
Here's one. Fuck off you pretentious turd with a persecution complex.
You're a great advert for the IQ level of Android users.
'Tis but a scratch!
It's just a flesh wound!
Your personal phone preferences are irrelevant. This is a discussion of a specific feature of iOS and a weakness of Android.
"Banning racism"... That's a good one. You can't ban thoughts â" not yet, anyway. At most, you can prohibit some manifestations of those thoughts...
Thoughts are irrelevant. Only actions impinge on others. And in civilised countries racist actions are already banned.
that's not the reason for the Blacks' poverty. You see, Asians are targets of racism too â" in America. Jews were targets of racism in Europe for centuries â" and remain in certain places. Yet, neither of those two groups are worse off, on average, than the surrounding population at large. In fact, they tend to be better off â" despite the racism.
Not in the same way. Black racism consists of the assumption that they are criminal, violent and or stupid. Theses are not the assumptions about Asians or Jews. Which means they don't suffer the same disadvantages in the employment market that blacks do.
There are complex cultural differences too, but their existence doesn't mean that the racism element isn't significant and probably prominent.
One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.
