No, keys are small enough to store without needing cold storage.
Another implementation would be to encrypt each item with a unique key and destroy the keys, rather than the underlying item, in a delete event, such that not even forensic tools would have a reasonable chance at recovery once the key-storage media has been re-written.
They shouldn't have laid off Ted.
I guess it depends on the scope of applications, but I expect that typical apps will still use the radio to update data, but as they go native on the watch they'll start to do processing on the watch itself.
We'll have to wait and see, it really depends on what sort of apps end up being popular.
The issue is that, at the moment, no apps are really running on the Apple Watch itself, but rather, the display is basically streamed over Bluetooth from the connected iPhone. Once apps run on the watch itself, the situation will change.
Now whether it ends up being better or worse is anyone's guess, it will probably depend on the apps and implementation details, but I would expect that for most apps, it won't reduce power consumption.
The other interesting thing with placebos is that they're typically only effective for a limited period of time, whereas real medication typically can reach a point of stability.
I saw a study that attempted to counteract this by putting both the control and experiment groups on a placebo, and telling the experiment group that they were on a placebo, the known-placebo was still more effective than an untreated patient, but the effect wasn't as strong and didn't last as long. What I'd like to see studied is the reverse, put both groups on a known-effective treatment, but tell the experiment group that they are on a placebo and see what happens.
Sure, you can't use a "true" placebo here, but you can compare against currently accepted treatments and get useful results, as long as you lie and tell your control group that they're getting something new (while in reality, maintain the existing treatment baseline)
This isn't substantially different than using a placebo, although in some cases it may prevent a true double-blind study since the treatment protocols for the new drug may be different or obvious to the user.
With the advantage that, if successful, the device can be turned on at a later date. Whether this is feasible or not, is anyone's guess, but it could be built into the study such that at 50% of the way into the study, the switch is flipped (with the intention of learning whether people who's devices previously worked, and now stop, still receive ongoing benefit from their overall improved health, or whether only the online use of the device is effective)
I doubt terminating his account would remove any existing data, although it may well reduce the amount of additional data that gets exposed going forward. It doesn't solve the problem.
Or just walk away.
While true, this solution doesn't allow one to protect their own data which is also exposed.
Screw it, let's just do straight up Markov chains to generate patents, see if anyone notices.
No fun name like GRINCH? Not interested. Try harder.
No, I mostly ignore it. But this *is* still
Sure. But it's in the item that started every thread in this discussion, so by definition, it's on-topic anywhere in this
Except that the