Android phones require a password/phrase to use full encryption. A four digit PIN is not enough. Is iOS different?
Android phones require a password/phrase to use full encryption. A four digit PIN is not enough. Is iOS different?
Use a nonsensical sentence, break normal grammatical patterns, throw in foreign words, etc.
I don't know about iPhones, but Android full-encryption requires using a password, not four digit pin.
Thanks, didn't know that. I don't know enough about encryption to know what that gains, but it's interesting.
Apparently that is the government's main request, that Apple somehow disable that auto-wipe feature so they can brute force it.
These are not like PGP passphrases which are entire sentences; most people only use a couple of words.
I thought of creating a passphrase in a different language, but (at least then) that input screen has to come so early in the boot process that no alternate keyboards were available.
The decryption key is stored nowhere on the phone. It is taken directly from the user tapping it in. This is not like a login password which is matched against user input; it literally is the raw decryption key.
MIT Railroad Club?
Probably Zog the Wheek Maker too.
Someone has lost a lot of history.
I suppose neither of you clowns has ever heard of sarcasm, and your parents disabled your sarcasm meters.
I have both gold and ceramic caps; dentist said gold is better in general since ceramic is so hard that it wears the opposite tooth, but most people don't want a gold front tooth.
I'd worry about not only the difficulty of putting in a super hard filling material, but how hard it would wear down the opposite tooth.
OK, I'm coming out of cryogenic storage to tell you to shut up. You opened this subthread with *bizarrely ignorant claptrap*, and should have shut up when the first reply called you out on your lies. But now you're doubling down.
Lincoln could not be the "trigger that started the Civil War" when he was elected *after the war started*, after the majority of the Confederate states had already seceded, the last 4 were already proceeding with secession, and the Confederacy had already started shooting at the Union. Which should have been enough facts to shut you up, but I suppose you enjoy the kind of BS sometimes known as "from the South's perspective": any lie to deny the truth, however bizarrely ignorant.
Lincoln wasn't a "two-bit" lawyer prior to his political career, he was an extremely well accomplished lawyer. And he didn't have "zero experience", he had represented Illinois prominently in the US House of Representatives, and served in the Illinois House of Representatives for 8 years prior to that.
Lincoln was of course recognized as a good leader while destroying the Confederacy, being reelected to do so. That is the very definition of "recognized as good leader": reelected wartime Commander in Chief of the USA. Yes, the US press and many factions are always highly critical of any president; "universally recognized as a good leader" doesn't even belong to FDR.
Oh, how about your BS about Lincoln's "razor close" first election? Lincoln: 1,866,452; Douglas: 1,376,957; Breckinridge: 849,781; Bell: 588,789. That 489,495 margin over #2 was a *landslide* 10.4%, . What the hell are you talking about? You also said something deranged like "but if the South had been voting in the second election". What about "but if the South had freed its slaves instead of seceding"? Because they're equally nonsensical hypotheticals. And your Electoral College split 4 ways because *there were 4 candidates*, no reflection on Lincoln's leadership. But Lincoln's 180 EVs to the combined total of the other 3 at 123 EVs was an even bigger landslide than the popular vote. The words "razor close" don't describe any aspect of Lincoln's *landslide victory* over a full field, representing a new party in a large war-divided country.
And how does maintaining his commitment to Emancipation, even in face of a resigning Cabinet member (showing Lincoln's commitment to including even those who disagreed in his Cabinet, more committed than they were to staying), show anything but deeply effective leadership - as the government didn't suffer, but instead the nation was kept together even despite the war?
Your spin on all that crazy talk is that Lincoln turned out to be a leader who rose to the occasion, despite no reason to expect it. But in fact Lincoln gave all indications of being an exemplary leader from start to finish of his presidency.
Were you perhaps educated about Lincoln out of some "ex" Confederate state textbook? In any case, who taught you that when you're totally wrong you should ignore being proven wrong and double down with even more wrong?
No compensation at all? Or is several months severance pay contingent on providing said support?
Almost certainly the latter, because no matter how much the anti-capitalists try to phrase it, companies have no right to enslave former employees (or even current employees) for two years after they quit. All they cn do is offer some inducement to be on call, such as
OK. You first.
Laser guns are fine for shooting down missiles, but on the ground? This isn't Star Wars; lasers don't stop after a short distance, and you evidently are ignorant of the maxim to know your target and what is behind it.
You also don't understand the first thing about self-defense, as evidenced by "legitimate hunter". The Second Amendment is all about self-defense, not sport, not hunting, and that self-defense includes not just bears and wolves, but also criminals and governments.
You seem completely ignorant about the changes 3D printers are making. Pretty soon, it will be utterly irrelevant what governments want to do about guns; anyone will be able to make guns and ammo from raw materials which are used for vacuum cleaners, pots and pans, cars, houses, and everything else people want. Government will only be able to confiscate guns when they are used, and considering how many criminals, even in hoplophobe-friendly places like Britain, Japan, Russia, and elsewhere, have access to guns, this prohibition won;t be very effective either.
Which brings up the last ignorance -- history. History shows that prohibitions don't work. Prisoners make knives. Alcohol prohibition didn't work 90 years ago and doesn't work now. Drug prohibition has never worked. Some 25% of California drivers don't have insurance. All prohibition does is turn everybody into a criminal, which decreases respect for law.
I remembered the rule being that adding programmers (or any other workers in any field) to a late project slows it down even more because the new workers require training from the old workers, which lowers the productivity of the old workers. It also increases the bureaucracy, adding layers of management and further dividing the work, which requires more managers to handle the increased communication load, making coordination harder.
In short, it's a very intuitive rule, and only about adding workers to a late project.
I see the quibblers came out in force, sweating the fine distinction between socialism and socialism. Yes, my joke about USSR and NAZI went over their heads, and they brought out the predictable (but not by me, alas) rejoinder abut those same communist countries calling themselves democratic republics. People who quibble about things like that are blind to any kind of big picture, so this is addressed to them: you have a lousy grasp of reality if you think quibbling about the definition of socialism changes anything.
You probably think raising business taxes socks it to evil businesses and makes them pay their fair share. Here's some news to think about (but you won't): business pass on taxes to consumers, just like they pass on all costs. People pay taxes, you minwits, not businesses. Every single tax comes down to individual people paying them.
You probably think businesses are evil incarnate because they seek profits. Here's something else to think about: profits are to businesses as wages are to people. Just as you wouldn't want to work for free or for some socially responsible wage, neither would you invest your money for free or start a business with friends and expect no income from it. Oh wait, you think paying yourself while the business itself shows no profit makes it a nice business? Talk to any tax accountant for a dose of reality.
Non-profits seek a profit too, but it is diverted to different legal categories that the tax bureaucrats have created to maintain the fiction of being a non-profit, with the express purpose of fooling useful idiots like you. If you don't believe me, go look up the legislative history.
Look up the legislative history of minimum wage laws while you're at it. The US federal minimum wage law began during the Great Depression by FDR's brain trust with the express purpose of preventing northeast textile mills from relocating to the south for labor which was far cheaper, something like 1/4 the rate, because blacks were so discriminated against, by US and state governments. Look up the speeches by beloved FDR backers expressing their contempt for blacks and support of whites.
For that matter, racism was government-mandated. Railroads (yes, evil businesses) in Louisiana were ordered, against their wishes, to have separate cars and trains for blacks and whites. They did not want to because it added expense and reduced profits, but the government ordered it, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court before "separate but equal" was officially approved as government policy. Before government stepped in, blacks and whites rode together and got along. Hell, slavery itself was government-mandated, which you probably do know, but refuse to see as one of the evil consequences of the tyranny of the majority with a coercive government. You'd rather blame it on evil white males, just as you'd rather blame Eric Garner's death on racism than police unaccountability.
Your beloved Democrat President, Woodrow Wilson, was perhaps the most bigoted US President ever. He segregated the post office and other government jobs.
Speaking of Woodrow Wilson, if you look at this chart, or google for "inflation since 1800" if it is invalid. Notice how inflation was consistent up until the 1920s: it rose during war and settled back down after. A dollar in 1900 was very nearly the same value as one from 1800. What happened after? Well, the Fed and income tax were begun in 1913. WW I ran up inflation as usual, and after the war there was the usual depression and deflation -- or would have been, but the new Fed stepped in to prevent deflation back to normality. They wanted to do a lot more damage, but they had no leader, as Woodrow Wilson had had a stroke and was pretty much out of it. The 1920 depression started as bad as the 1929 one, but was over and done with in 18 months precisely because the government did nothing but shrink the budget back to pre-war levels.
If you quibblers were the slightest bit interested in what actually happened, and would open your minds to let history show you a reality which goes against everything your quibbling supports, you could wander all over the place and find all sorts of things which would upset your pre-conceived quibbly notions.
You probably think Standard Oil and Rockefeller were evil incarnate and the government did right by breaking up Standard Oil. You would be wrong. Rockefeller innovated like nobody's business and brought the price of heating and lighting oil down so low that it drove the old stick-in-the-mud companies out of business. He probably single-handedly saved whales from extinction. One of the companies that failed to keep up with his innovations was run by a man whose (wife, daugheter, I forget now) wrote a scathing muckraker expose of him, full of lies and nonsense, which inflamed the public, which goaded the government into a long legal case. Fun fact: Rockefeller himself failed to see how much cheaper Texas and Oklahoma oil was compared to his Pennsylvania oil, and had been losing market share for years by the time the government started its legal case. Yes, look it up: markets broke up his monopoly, not the government, which merely wasted money and disrupted the efficient market for no gain.
On and on the list goes. You clowns who think socialism is so great (if you could ever agree on its definition and whether it has even existed) could learn a lot from history, but it's so much easier to rant and rave and stomp you feet than to actually dig in and do anything useful. You do nothing useful, but luckily for the world, innovators like Uber and Cody WIlson come up with new ideas far faster than governments can knock them down. Socialism is only good for perfecting distribution of a closed static system, and there it would probably excel. Of course you are all right, that there has never been a true socialist system, but that's only because the world is populated with people who can dream up new things and better ways to do old things, upsetting the socialist cart time after time. You may think markets are evil and only socialism can tame them, but trying to prevent markets is like trying to prevent water flowing downhill. Too much rainfall one year, not enough the next, predictable silt buildup, unpredictable earthquakes and fires and landslide, and next thing you know, your clever gravity-defying dam is just a pile of rubble. The analogy with market-defying socialism is beyond your comprehension, but that's ok too, because markets always exist with minds of their own, no matter how much a few social cowards might think otherwise.
Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any system which depends on human reliability is unreliable. -- Gilb