Last Active
  • Who would actually use the selfie flash on a 9.7" iPad Pro?

    What is the point in this article exactly? You don't like the idea of doing something so therefore it's worth writing an article basically implying anyone who disagrees with you is a moron?

    Plenty of people will make use of this feature. Did you just forget that Photo Booth is popular? People like a selfie cam, they like taking pictures of themselves and they will like a feature that lets them take better ones. I don't really take selfies, so I won't be getting much if any use out of this, but I know plenty of people will and I really don't see what's wrong with that. A big screen is actually really useful for taking pictures, especially selfies.

    If you think it's silly, don't use it. Don't go on your website and post a worthless editorial decrying those who disagree. it doesn't make you look thoughtful or edgy, it makes you look like assholes.
  • Despite having the same A9X & M9 chips, only the 9.7" iPad Pro has always-on 'Hey Siri'

    My Apple Watch supports always on "Hey Siri."
    No it doesn't. The screen has to be on.
  • Comey: 'Of course' FBI would leverage precedent in San Bernardino case

    Issa, who made a fortune in automotive security, pressed the FBI chief on detailed technical matters that Comey was continually unable to answer.

    "How can you come before this committee..if you can't answer the questions?" Issa asked pointedly.
    That is brutal. Issa showing no mercy.

    jfc1138jbdragonradster360brian greenlostkiwitdknoxIanMC2justadcomics
  • Federal judge rules Apple cannot be forced to aid in NY iPhone unlocking, cites 'unreasonable burde

    For its part, the government maintains that its motion to compel relates to one iPhone -- Farook's -- and does not in any way represent a "master key" to iOS.
    Doesn't the existence of another - substantially similar - request, pre-dating the San Bernardino case, prove that is completely untrue? Do they actually expect that claim to stand up to scrutiny? The Government appears to be attempting to have it both ways in its argument. They are claiming that they only require this to be done "one time", to deflect the criticism that they are seeking a precedent and a standing backdoor. But they are also implicitly claiming that compelling Apple to do this work is not unreasonably burdensome. Under a face value reading of their claim about these cases being individual, that is patently ridiculous since it would mean compelling Apple to repeatedly engage its staff in performing work (The same work, over and over) to undermine its own products against its will. Even if you accept doing it once isn't unreasonably burdensome (Which is itself pretty incredible), the implicit requirement to potentially repeat the work should similar instances arise later definitely is. And Apple has a perfectly reasonable justification to point to for destroying the work after it is used once: they do not want a vulnerability for their product to exist at all, even in their own hands. They have even publicly stated they sell devices with security even they can't break, so they are arguably legally compelled  to destroy it as retaining it might render them vulnerable to false advertising or bad faith claims. The government hasn't got a leg to stand on, aspects of its own case invalidate other aspects of itself.
  • US House members mull court filing arguing Congress should decide Apple-FBI encryption fight

    "It is still our hope that they will see their way clear to complying with that order as thousands of other companies do every day," Lynch said.
    That isn't simply misleading, it's not even close to true. Thousands of companies do not comply with Court Orders to produce crippled versions of their own products for the government's use every day. None do. This particular Court Order is unprecedented, and Lynch knows it. Pretending otherwise is outright intellectual dishonesty and she should be ashamed of herself.