If your company requires your phone to not be rooted you can't install any code that requires rooting. This doesn't affect GPLv3 anything, it can even still be shipped with GPLv3 code as long as it's user space/the device can be rooted by the owner (be it you, or your company), even if you opt not to do it.

GPLv3 requires that any GPLv3 code shipped on the device needs to be able to be replaced by modified versions, it doesn't require the device to be in a state ready to accept such modifications without additional intervention.

GPLv3 means it is not going to be distributed with a device that can't be unlocked. "Installation instructions" for a Nexus device: enable third party sources and install .apk for user space, unlock device, root, install whatever you want. That's all you need to provide.

It's not completely useless, in such a system fixing security issues would not just prevent future attacks but also neutralize compromises without rebuilding the whole thing from a trusted source. Current: your system gets exploited, you now may have untrusted executable code in the system, fixing the original exploit doesn't do much. Signed: your system gets exploited, you now may have untrusted data on your system ready to re-exploit at runtime, fixing the original exploit renders said data inert (like it should have been in the first place).

You haven't seen anyone using "BSD's back scratcher" because what it actually means is that it was made from BSD wood. Some people like seeing their wood carved into back scratchers and seeing their name in the booklet everyone throws away without reading, I don't get it, but I don't have a problem with it. Why they feel the need to complain that those who insist that back scratchers made from their wood come with schematics ready for laser cutting are somehow less helpful is beyond me.

Freezing shouldn't ruin the crust if you defrost on the counter and put it in a hot oven for a few as needed.

Seriously, if you don't like Omnifarious' comment, move on. No need to make a fuss about it!

OP was selectively emphasizing their quote to support the argument that only the full key can be considered a clue to the key, this is not the case outside of perfect implementations. It's the difference between determining that a one-time pad was (attempted to be, if one insists on defining away errors) used and giving up because it's impossible to decrypt and attempting to crack it on the basis that knowing the definition doesn't tell you everything about the message in front of you.

So, Debian was not in fact generating weakened DSA keys when they messed up the RNG in OpenSSL? The spec requires proper entropy, thus the keys though seemingly compatible weren't DSA keys at all?

All cakes are perfect, there is no such thing as a chewy cake as it falls outside of the definition. It's impossible to make a cake wrong, it's only possible to not make a cake. In fact, it's impossible to do anything wrong, there are no true errors.

It's like saying that long division performed with an error is not long division any more, and that therefore it's impossible to get wrong results with long division. Then furthermore defending such a position on the basis that "division" is right in the name and getting incorrect results means that you weren't dividing at all, but rather something else entirely.

And since it doesn't have anything regarding the nature of the pad in the name it doesn't matter. Semantically though you can read it as "cleartext only needs to be padded once" just as well, which is why the semantic argument is nitpicking. It's either possible to misapply one-time pads or it isn't, that one misapplication might be implied in the name doesn't change that.

You are of course right, a "Scotsman" who ever set foot outside of Scotland wouldn't be a true Scotsman no more, it would take the Scot out of them and that's clearly in the name.

If you tried to bake a cake with a recipe and/or knowledge of what ingredients go into a cake and how to put them together, but mis-measured the eggs/used high-protein flour and so ended up with a shitty cake I would cry no-true-Scotsman when someone said you weren't making a cake.

Yes, otherwise there is no possibility of consider improper use at all.

No, you're not using it properly, no reason to define it away with true-Scotsmanning (would apply to the random part just as well anyway).