Comment Re:Not surprising. (Score 2) 725
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.
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.
That's not a fact, that's an assertion.
No, it's a fact.
Show me your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement that excludes natural climate change at any rate over 50%.
Drivel.
Oh, so if someone posts 100m data points they are credible and when one only mentions one single life experience it is not?
Do you know what a straw-man is?
Sorry, but being anti-science isn't the sole purview of the far right.
Indeed you do get the occasional progressive fruit-cake too. But the right have a real talent for it.
First, you admit here that species actually exist.
Admit? No part of the argument is the existence of species. There's no "admission" here. it was never in contention. But a species is no longer the best level to consider evolution at.
As I noted in response to serviscope_minor, there are other examples of macroscopic phenomena which don't make sense to consider only in terms of the smallest scale that contains the phenomena.
There's sound, and there's music. Your contention is that evolution is like music, not sound. That's wrong, because music is about a subjective appreciation of art. And evolution, like sound, is a purely objective physical process. Music only exists at a macroscopic level. Evolution exists at the gene level.
That you observe the outcomes of gene selection at the species level rather then the gene level is a function of what your senses are capable of perceiving not what is actually happening. You also may notice that iron goes rusty, and to you that means it turns from grey to reddish brown. But what's really happening is happening at the molecular level.
But it can also experience higher level selection (such as survival being dependent on morphological properties such as size, speed, or physical appearance) which can depend on a subtle mix of large numbers of genes acting together.
Correct. But the way those high level features continue is through selection of those genes individually. There is no other level that selection works at. If a gene finds itself in an lifeform that has an advantage in part because the action of that gene in combination with other genes, then it will be more likely to successfully reproduce. Period.
This file will self-destruct in five minutes.
