Yep - there is no other conceivable explanation. Any explanations such as that they realized that there would be too many legal obstacles, or that the public resistance would be too great - unthinkable.
I must have missed that clause in the Constitution. And in any case, under a warrant or court order, how is forced revelation of the contents of your computer any different to forced revelation of the contents of your filing cabinet?
You are paranoid. Adobe voluntarily implemented that feature, as have many companies, probably to make sure that they do not fall foul of accusations of aiding and abetting anyone breaching the 1992 Counterfeit Detection Act. As for bragging about high-profile counter-terrorist operations, they don't, which is why you generally don't hear about them unless they unavoidably become public. If you believe that effective intelligence-based actions have not been important in...
"Could be forced..." How, exactly?And when you say that they only care about the terrorists, not the little people, bear in mind that they only care about the terrorists because it is their job to prevent the terrorists from hurting the little people. And that, of course, is a balancing act between the opposing goals of privacy and intelligence gathering.
I have the XR and the regular SEEK, and I agree that for wildfire applications the larger field of view is better. It also wins for applications such as diagnosing electronic circuits and building issues. The XR works better for outdoor detection of smaller objects at distance, such as for search and rescue use or, presumably, hunting.
Ah - so you are saying that DTI can also improve optical isolation if done with materials of suitable refractive index. That's elegant if it works. From the wording I still don't think the author of the article understood the distinction though - it's not diffusion in the case of photons.