darelrex

Mike Daisey is on top of this, right?

Great observations about Google's efforts to drag desktop search into the future. They remind me of Intel's attempts to drag the x86 ISA into the future -- I wonder if Google will have more success than did Intel!

Also I would like to comment that to get in antitrust trouble as did Microsoft in the '90s, Apple (hopefully) would need to commit a similarly egregious offense, such as demanding that its third-party app authors stop using Google services, else face removal from the iOS App Store. As long as Apple doesn't do anything that bad (and judges like Denise Cote aren't making the decisions), Apple could achieve a 90%+ smartphone monopoly and it wouldn't be an antitrust issue at all.

Why does the FBI need Apple's cooperation at all? Can't they just hire hackers to do what they want? And no, they don't need Apple to digitally "sign" their hacked copy of iOS, because they can simply replace that iPhone 5c's ROM chip(s) with altered ROMs that don't care if the OS isn't signed properly. If you have physical possession of the iPhone -- and it's a pre-secure-enclave iPhone -- you can do whatever you want. (That's why Apple came up with the secure enclave.)

I think the FBI wants Apple to do it for them, simply to set a legal precedent -- a precedent that later might be leveraged into a mandatory built-in backdoor. Without such a backdoor, and with the secure enclave, today's iPhone 6 designs are impenetrable even with the iPhone in your possession, and even by Apple.

Let me get this straight: If you purposely omit a high-dollar-but-low-growth store from your statistics about a given mall, then the average growth will be higher? Quick, call the National Guard.

Will somebody please inform Mr. Mathrani that this will always be true? It's just math, and it isn't going to change while we're around to see it happen. Maybe our great-grandchildren will live to see the rules of math change, but we won't be so lucky.