Laws tend to get more complex over time, not less. I get the clear idea from the text that the authors would like to be able to hit up companies for fines at will, and this law will allow them to do it.

I've read a lot of this regulation and I think it's probably impossible to comply with. It's also very light on technical guidance for compliance. There are only a few passing mentions of encryption and nothing at all about particular standards. In other words, there is no specific requirement to encrypt data in transit or at rest, but rather a vague suggestion that encryption in general might be a good idea. On the other hand, with respect the right to be forgotten, which is really a right to request erasure, it's unclear whether deleting keys to encrypted data constitutes erasure. It could be read to require actually writing over all the copies of the bits.

Yes, better to do the right thing in the end. Even better to do the right thing to begin with. It's a good reason to be leery of him.

Newsweek: Google and Microsoft Back Apple on Encryption Battle With FBI

fuck you

The article doesn't claim that web apps are as good as native. It claims that standards are advancing rapidly and that they *will* be as good as native, at which point the benefits of the web become compelling.

no, that's not what FFOS is. FFOS takes web sites and packages them up as apps that are delivered through a store and they run locally on the device, something like Cordova apps. The story (and I ought to know because I wrote it) discusses actual mobile web sites, e.g.. m.slashdot.org as opposed to a Slashdot app. It's not hard to give the app experience by putting an icon on the screen and running the browser full-screen

I might be able to see it through the blizzard here

How do they insulate themselves from generic competition by stopping sales of their own brand name? If it's off-patent and there's demand then generic companies will offer it. If there's a sufficient advantage to the new one then doctors will order it in spite of the cost.

If he thinks he can make it successful as a commercial enterprise, why shouldn't he?

(This is the graph that has been all shaft and no blade for the last 12 years or so.) Didn't the "overwhelming scientific consensus" believe in that not too long ago?

I think this has been known for many decades

Nothing comes *from* your network. It comes from Apple directly to the Comcast local offices and there to the last mile.