78Bandit

lkrupp said:

elnbrg said:

This proves that end-to-end encryption is still a right way to protect our data.

Protect our data from who and why? Just because? The police have no right to gather evidence in a criminal case other than by traditional methods? Legal precedent has evolved over the past two centuries regarding what information we have the “right” to conceal from police. How about the new technique of matching DNA in genealogical databases to narrow down or discover possible suspects? Should that be banned? Our DNA is about as private as it gets. With a search warrant issued by a judge I see no problem with forcing the decryption of communications. When the telephone was invented legal wiretapping soon followed. The only difference is today that data is encrypted and law enforcement should have the tools to retrieve that data under the supervision of a judge. Damned Facebook knows more about you than the government does.

Here's the difference.  By Using GedMatch the authorities are comparing validly seized DNA evidence from a person who is already a suspect in a particular crime with voluntarily produced records given by unrelated individuals to a private organization.  In every case so far the person they did a DNA match with was a fairly distant cousin.  That cousin was not compelled to contribute their DNA, they did so willingly.

Under your theory, the U.S. government should be allowed to collect every last, single, solitary newborn's DNA for the specific purpose of setting up a government managed database of DNA records to identify potential suspects at some vague, unknown point in the future.  That is what a centralized security key does.  The personal liberty aspect hinges entirely on whether the citizen's participation is voluntary or not.

The police have the right to gather evidence by whatever means they have at their disposal; however, those means should not include forcing all citizens, even those not accused of any criminal activity, to only use government approved methods of communication.

supadav03 said:

I’m actually cool with a spec bump only. Give me the latest processor, better reflective coating, longer battery life, 120 hz refresh and beat the starting price of the 2018 9.7 inch iPad (maybe start at $249) and I’m sold.

Best case I think is a spec bump to the A11 and a starting price of $299 ($269 for education).  I'm also guessing non-laminated screen and limited Pencil support too.  Probably see a convergence of the iPad and iPad mini with the only difference being the larger screen on the regular iPad.  You are pretty much asking for an iPad Mini Pro which would cost quite a bit more.

seanismorris said:

Obviously you can’t do a direct comparison the iPad Pro + Apple Pencil.  But, doesn’t the drawing experience (of this product) blow it away?

Does the 12.9” feel to small after using this? What about the feeling and accuracy of the stylus?

Should artists that own the iPad consider upgrading to the Cintiq 16?

It’s difficult to judge how much the iPad has resonated with artists... 

The editorial cartoonist for my local news outlet recently got an iPad Pro to do his work on.  He has gone crazy putting out new content, sometimes multiple times per day, and absolutely loves it.  Check out Marshall Ramsey if you are interested.

randominternetperson said:

JanNL said:

“Angela Ahrendts (right) with Apple CEO Tim Cook” 🤔

What?  She's on his left (from his perspective), but she's on the right side of the picture.

I got the impression it was more asking why it was necessary to specify which one was Ms. Ahrendts when it is pretty obvious.

gutengel said:

Wasn't Microsoft complaining a couple years ago about being the sponsors with the Surface, but the trainer and technicians ended up using iPads because they worked better?

I think it was because the TV announcers kept calling them iPads.