They can't literally make you tell them what they want to know, but they absolutely can punish you for refusing to comply with a subpoena, unless the testimony would require you to incriminate yourself, which the disclosure of a password does not if the fact that you possess relevant, incriminating information is a foregone conclusion. That was the decision in Boucher, from your own link.

Several courts have ruled contrary to this in the last two years, but these have only been in cases where investigators didn't know what they were looking for and simply wanted the passwords on general principles. The more general the search was, the more self-incriminating disclose of passwords became, and thus unconstitutional; and contrarily, if the government can show that you received incriminating information or it's obvious or reasonable that specific, incriminating information exists on your media, they can subpoena you to decrypt it.

Thank god we have Android Dalvik, where I can use my existing Java ME codebase. Oh wait.

We're going from Obj-C to Swift, this seems like a pretty lateral move from a "cross platform" perspective. I would have thought the Great Java Wars had taught everyone that true cross-platform development is a chimera that isn't worth either the vendor or developer's effort. Platform vendors compete on features -- cross platform is antithetical to competition on features.

What are you, 60?

TFA is actually mostly a Cocoa application stack guide. Discussion of the actual distinguishing features of Swift is minimal -- in fact I think the only thing they even passingly mention is unwrapping of Optionals. Otherwise it's just "How to build an iOS app"

but if the information is in the person's head, then he can't be forced to reveal it.

That's not how it works.

That's a $500 lease payment and basically in line with a BMW 3 Series, not exactly demotic pricing but there's a lot of people shopping for something in that range, particularly after tax creds and discounting gasoline.

the entire enterprise of philosophy is some sort of academic scam

It pretty much is once you understand it.

That's what Neil DeGrasse Tyson said.

Because every possible distance gets tested...

Umm, you realize this is a photograph and not a ray-tracing exercise?

Parallax isn't going to hide something like that on a device of that size.

This is a function of focal length and subject distance.

We demand strict orthographic projection in all marketing materials!

But how many people with LA degrees have mastered these?

The idea that the aim of education should be professional mastery and specialization is very modern and has significant detractors, particularly among those who would say that it simply turns the University into a factory that produces graduates like goods.

Also this debate happens in the context of middle-class university education. The children of the rich are absolutely still getting rigorous liberal arts educations, as this seems to be a prerequisite for politics and leadership, for people who look forward to living rich and full lives, and not merely being a useful commodity for someone else to consume.

PS. On (3), I don't think it's any accident that the government of the People's Republic of China is made up of engineers to a large extent, or that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and many Iranian politicians are engineers, or that many members of the Muslim Brotherhood (including Ayman al-Zawahiri) are medical doctors.

STEM fields give intelligent people a way of working in the world that will not fundamentally challenge their philosophy or beliefs.

... employees with STEM degrees have critical thinking skills *and* STEM degrees. Just sayin'.

Hrmmm. Just some random thoughts, as someone with a film degree that also codes and has a highly technical job -- I am a sound designer and a recording engineer. I will to some extent generalize, but that's what we're doing here.

1) I've noticed that people can have really extensive technical knowledge but really not have any concept of social context or even the social utility of what they do. Indeed they'll often argue that the social utility is meaningless when compared to some teleological "search for knowledge," which is portrayed as valueless and objectively good, and questions of economy and competing interests are morally inferior.

2) STEM people can be total philistines. They'll often deride art and creative pursuits as somehow less essential or necessary than the cause of science and progress. They don't seem to understand that "progress" itself is a moral concept deeply embedded within a complex philosophical value system, and indeed a lot of STEM people know nothing of philosophy or epistemology, and think the entire enterprise of philosophy is some sort of academic scam. I love me some Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but he's completely put the foot in his mouth on several occasions when he thinks he's talking about philosophy of science, and I loved the new Cosmos but his depictions of certain historical events, particularly about Giordano Bruno, were glib and lacked rigor or sensitive knowledge.

3) I've noticed that a lot of people with an engineering or medical background are subject to many forms of woo, quackery and crank ideas. Whenever someone prints a list of "scientists" who oppose Evolution/Global Warming/Old Universe, take your pick, the list is generally chock full of engineer Ph.Ds.

4) Relatedly, I've noticed a lot of engineers are dilettantes who tend to see all problems in the world as simply problems of applied computer science, who don't respect professional expertise or knowledge, or respect the fact that things in the world can fundamentally differ in kind from the problems of science and engineering.

5) Some STEM people can be highly dogmatic, if you ever get into an argument with one over some point they will not let go of, eventually they'll resort to some form of scientism, and insist that the thing you believe is false because its existence cannot be falsified. An important part of exposing yourself to art and creativity is acknowledging that you can't prove beauty exists falsifiably, and everyone can argue over wether this or that tulip is beautiful, but beauty exists.

It's easy to throw together a new language and compiler.

It happens often enough, but I don't know if I'd describe it as "easy."

enum Vertigo {
  case Uni
  case Dos
  case Tres
  case Catorce // FIXME
}