|
phil.o wrote: Nothing is told about Anne's marital status; so "impossible to determine".
Are you sure about that? 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
No ^^
You always obtain more by being rather polite and armed than polite only.
|
|
|
|
|
i) 8
b) Who cares? 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: i) 8
Now why didn't I think of that!
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
Sneaky OG is impressing again, all answers are totally correct!
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2) Yes. Regardless of Anne's marital status, an unmarried person is looking at a married person.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
#1: You're either 8 or 58. Probably the latter.
#2: Yes, assuming you don't introduce some state of not-married-but-not-unmarried-ness:
- If Anne is married, Jack is the unmarried person looking at the married person;
- If Anne is unmarried, she is the unmarried person looking at the married person (George);
- George is probably looking at Zippy. Or possibly Bungle.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: George is probably looking at Zippy. Or possibly Bungle.
Yeah, but what the heck is Geoffrey looking at? 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Probably Bungle's twanger. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
You mean...Have you seen Bungles Twanger?[^] (May not be SFW, depending on headphones used.)
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
9082365 wrote: 1) This year I (9082365) am as old as the century was in the year I was born. How old am I?
You are 20, so born in 1996.
Patrice
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
1: 46 - because your username which you indicated in question is actually a timestamp which translates to 16 Apr 1970 and makes you 46 in year basis
2: i have no idea
|
|
|
|
|
Nr 2. is a sneaky one that had me fooled!
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
1) You're 8 years old, and a very precocious laddie, too. 
2) Who cares?
[Edit] I see that OG beat me to it... 
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE FBI NEVER REALLY NEEDED APPLE THEY COULD HAVE DONE THIS SH*T THE WHOLE TIME
JUST REIMAGE IT ONTO DUPLICATE HARDWARE AND KEEP TRYING ALL 10000 CODES...
They were trying to set a precedent to terrorize other companies besides apple so they have a back door into everything  and it blew up in their faces with pubic opinion
|
|
|
|
|
Not if the serial number of the flash is part of the seed for the encryption.
|
|
|
|
|
Sadly, there are a number of questions that we'll probably never get honest answers to:
0) Who helped the FBI? (NSA, private tech firm, some random hacker, etc...)
1) Did they really crack the phone or was the FBI just trying to get out of a situation that was starting to head South on them?
2) What method did they use?
3) Did they actually find any data on this phone to warrant their desire to threaten the privacy of so many innocent people.
Assuming that they did in fact crack the phone's security and that Apple figures out how they did it and changes things so it won't work on some future OS or device - Apple hasn't seen the last of this.
It will be interesting to see what other tech companies will be targeted. And how well they stand up to it.
It will also be interesting to see if the FBI shares this new method with the dozens of law enforcement offices around the country who said they too have locked iPhones.
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
Why would you want our enemies to know the answers to those questions?
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: 0) Who helped the FBI? (NSA, private tech firm, some random hacker, etc...)
1) Did they really crack the phone or was the FBI just trying to get out of a situation that was starting to head South on them?
1) Apple Did
2) Yes, Apple did.
Neither the FBI nor Apple wanted this showdown. I bet Apple approached the FBI ad said "We'll let you in, but just this one time, and ONLY IF you drop this lawsuit and NEVER ask us again"
Poof, they're in.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think so for 2 reasons...
If this leaked Apple would get killed by the media and the markets. 10's of billions of dollars at stake - maybe more. No way they cave so easily.
Despite their early rhetoric, the FBI would never agree to a one and done. Never.
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
Think about this logically...
...if Apple's phones were hackable, it would have been done by now. This would have been front page news the moment it happened... LONG before now.
Apples doesn't want to take a chance that the court would order them to help.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree - using that logic Apple never would have publicly denied the request.
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
They didn't deny it because their phones can be hacked. They said no because they don't want a precedent to be set.
One it's done, the precedent is set, and the Gov can then order them to do it again, or worse, do other things. Apple would have been at the mercy of the any Gov agency that wanted whatever's on the phone.
Of course Apple has the means to unlock a phone. THEY wrote it... They just don't want to be at the mercy of the gov.
If someone other than Apple could get into their phones it would have been front page news long ago.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
