A quick check of Wikipedia would tell you what most people who follow Apple already know: that Apple has a habit of quietly revving its current computers without much fanfare, upgrading their computers on a regular basis.
The current 13 inch and 15 inch MacBook Pros that Apple sell were last updated early 2015. (This correlates with Apple's own on-line store.)
It's not to suggest their current models aren't a little long in the tooth. And it's not to suggest that Apple may be a little behind in using the latest and greatest processors--though one problem Apple has is that they sell quite a bit of volume, so sometimes being on the bleeding edge may not permit them to get the volume of parts they need. But they most certainly are not selling a 4 year old computer.
It's the same argument (how do you, a stupid layman, interpret the results?) that got 23andMe knocked off the air.
Thing is, you can do your own blood tests in most states. It just happens to be expensive and not well known to most people. So Theranos didn't really change anything except improved the price point and increased availability. For those of us with the God-given common sense to (a) know how to use Google, and (b) to not panic when some number is 5% high or 5% low--and notice most blood tests nowadays provide a computer summary of the patterns the computer found on the test as well as bars indicating the usual high/low ranges, so there really is little guessing--lowering the price and increasing availability is a benefit, not a problem.
It's a shame Theranos is having so many problems, because to me it was never about blood testing using small volumes of blood, but about low cost DIY blood testing available at places like Walgreens. The ability to walk in and get a Cholesterol test for $3, and a comprehensive metabolic plane for $7 instead of going through a doctor (and paying several hundred dollars for the privilege of having that doctor cluck-cluck at me) is a big deal: it means I could (for example) try different diets and get a blood test monthly to see how those diets affect me.
... is that crystal meth is relatively easy to obtain, and it can be converted to Sudafed. Now all we need is for researchers to simplify the process and provide a practical process for the layman.
You're assuming, of course, that those who write the regulations come from this relatively rare species of intelligent people. The problem is, we have no way to guarantee this. And we run the risk of codifying in regulation something remarkably stupid instead.
I'm not suggesting not to use regulation. I'm suggesting that concluding we should use technically competent technocrats because there is a lack of technically competent people--especially in a world which seems to discount technical competence--runs the risk of creating single points of failure.
Pilots at those airports simply revert to the rules surrounding uncontrolled airports--which is to coordinate with other pilots at the same airport on the tower frequency in order to work out (according to some well defined rules) who has landing and takeoff priority.
Some information here: FAA: Operations at non-towered airports
It's still a valid question to respond to, if only because for every person who steps up to the plate asking questions to alleviate their ignorance, there are a hundred others out there implementing authentication on various public web sites who remain seeped in their own ignorance.
And programmers are an egotistical lot: when was the last time you ever told a programmer "leave that to the experts" and didn't get "fuck you, asshole; I know what I'm doing!!!" as a response?
"Use bcrypt. Just use bcrypt. Or PBKDF2 if you must. But really bcrypt. General hash (MD, SHA) != Cryptographic hash function. All that extra cleverness that you're doing with UUIDs is superfluous if you just use a proper HASH function (did I mention bcrypt?)."
The purpose of using a separate per-user token is so that when (not "if") someone takes your database, password similarity won't jump out at them. Meaning if a bunch of users use "123456" as their password, they won't be hashed to the same value in the database.
You have to assume if someone steals your database they're not stealing a single user record, but your entire database of 5 million users, and they now have 5 million data points in order to help them reverse engineer which hashing function was used. And even the best cryptographic one-way hashing function will hash the same input and generate the same output each time--meaning if 10,000 of your 5 million users used "123456", well, it will show up as 10,000 identical fields, giving you a hint as to how things are encrypted.
"If there isn't a population problem, why is the government putting cancer in the cigarettes?" -- the elder Steptoe, c. 1970