I can and do vote here in Canada, and in our upcoming election we have an option (NDP) who have promised to repeal the horribly flawed bill C51 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-terrorism_Act,_2015). I encourage all like minded Canadians to get out and vote this fall.
If that were actually true that saving lives or keeping people safe were their true priority, they could be vastly more effective by spending their money on reducing the highway traffic fatality rate. Over 30,000 people die on the roads of America every year. Reduce that by 10% and you'll save the equivalent of a 9/11 attack *every* year.
Of course safety and saving lives is not their primary purpose -- it's entrenching their power structures. The ability to pry into everyone's communications and files is (in their opinion) essential to that.
I was thinking about whether they planted a self propagating back-door into LLVM/CLANG, but that seems fragile as both CLANG and LLVM can be compiled with other compilers (recent versions of MSVC and GCC for example) -- that would likely clear out a hidden back door unless they have compromised *all* the compilers. (And I certainly wouldn't put that past them.)
(Waves to friendly NSA/CIA/CSIS/GCHQ analyst.)
Interesting -- why are you "rebuilding" the team? The events leading to that may (or may not -- what do I know?) have something to do with the quality of your candidates.
As an aside, I worked on a C++ compiler (20 years ago at IBM), but it was the code generator & optimizer. There are plenty of moving parts in a C++ compiler that are pretty far away from C++ features like templates and stl (exceptions and lambdas on the other hand do poke their way pretty deep). You have to go and learn them -- working on a compiler back-end written largely in C (or the C like subset of C++) will not teach them to you. But I can still to this day read a hex dump and disassemble x86 instructions in my head. (not as quickly or fluently for less commonly used encodings as I used to, I'll admit)
But I'm close to the 50 year old mark -- I'm pretty grateful to have an interesting and rewarding job -- I'm quite happy that I'm not looking for work these days.
(Although Apple pings me a couple of times a year
They use their state's seizure laws where the proceeds don't go directly into the police beer fund.
I watched this movie recently, and I had all but forgotten "All You Zombies" -- while watching it I realized the story seemed very familiar, and when one character uses the phrase "All You Zombies" it all came crashing back. (I last read it 35 years ago)
It is easily the best film treatment of any Heinlein work I've seen -- not that this sets the bar all that high -- but it was a good movie -- IMDB rates it at 7.5, and I'd agree with that.
The acting is *very* good, particularly from Sarah Snook.
The story itself was *way* ahead of it's time in many ways.
They filed over 4 years ago. If they haven't got a working search engine by now based on this, they never will. 4 years is forever in internet time.
Never mind that any search engine using this is very unlikely to make a dent in google.
I think their strategy is to "shame" google et al into doing more -- "look, see we got a patent on a means of eliminating piracy, proving that it *IS* possible, therefore you have to do more to prevent piracy."
Ignoring the fact that the existence of a patent proves nothing about whether the invention actually *works*. (I say this as someone who holds a number of patents -- all of mine work -- I filed them after I had them coded and working. But it would have been just as easy to make all of it up and code nothing.)
I've got a 3 year old iPhone 4S. Never broken the glass on it, but it does have some minor scratching on the display.
I'm not surprised Apple went with gorilla glass -- sapphire is very hard, but also brittle -- cornings product is a bit softer, but much more resilient.
I'll probably be upgrading to a 6 sometime in the next month or so.
I award you 9.5 out of 10 troll points for that post -- brilliantly subtle, and almost guaranteed to draw people into your semantic argument.