k-troop

I don't see it as making Apple Pay for anything. If the FBI has figured a way into the phone without Apple's help then there is no issue. If there is a security/privacy issue then it's Apple's own doing for not making their device secure enough.

Day rhymes with spray. Coincidence?

Really depends on what time of year you're going and how much you want to spend. That area (Jupiter, W Palm, N Palm, PB Gardens) has a ton of really, really good golf courses. Maybe the best concentration of outstanding championship courses in the country. It really is a place where you'll have a hard time picking a bad course. If you go in the summer the rates are about 1/4th of what you'll pay Oct-May. Additionally the courses are basically empty (compared to the cooler months) and you can even play some of the private tracks. Check this thread out.

It would be too much for me--If I were to spend 6-8 hours on a golf course four straight days, I'm going to PLAY! Also you don't get to see a lot of golf at events (or watching broadcasts these days, it seems). Benefits of going multiple days at TPC would be you could spend an entire day on the 17th, which would be cool, and you could spend a lot of time at the range. Watching tour pros hit lazer beams one after another on the range is fascinating--you really see how good they are. But even still, that's only two days. You could buy the pass and go Thu/Fri, then sell it for the weekend to avoid the really big crowds.

I've played about a third of the AZ courses, and I'll attest to number two on the list. Quintero doesn't come up a lot in discussions about Phoenix area golf because it's not in Scottsdale, but it is FANTASTIC and cheaper than the more well known courses. It's really, really hard too. I'm surprised that Coachella Valley seems under-represented. Edit: wow, I've played 41 of these courses! I guess it helps that I've lived in nine different states. AZ-8 CA-6 FL-1 GA-2 HI-6 MO-2 SC-3 TX-12 VA-1. I was actually a member at Keswick for a year when I lived in Cville getting my LLM. Played it about a hundred times that year, but before the Fazio re-design.

I'd also like to see a comprehensive re-look at the rules associated with hazards, OB, lost balls, provisionals, and stroke-and-distance. The goal of a re-write (if needed) should be rules that can be intuitively applied, save time, and eliminate disproportionately unfair results. Example: tee ball lands in a tree. The spectators in the vicinity of where it landed saw/heard it and it was caught on camera. Everyone knows it's in the tree. However, the player has to actually climb the tree and identify the ball in order to get relief. If he can't, then he has to trudge all the way back to the tee for a stroke-and-distance penalty. This scenario doesn't happen all that often, and doesn't apply to us mortals without galleries and TV coverage, but here's one that does: ball is lost in a place where it shouldn't be lost. Maybe it's soft rough, or fall leaves, or a stand of trees separating two fairways, but there is no doubt the ball is in there somewhere (i.e. it's not in a hazard, OB, or out of play). In both of these scenarios the S&D penalty creates incentive to spend a long time looking for the ball, only to ultimately have a long trip back to the tee, taking even more time. These are the scenarios that seem most unfair the player, add the most time, and are most likely to be broken. Chalk me up also in the group that doesn't see why an OB should be more penal than a hazard (or a whiff/shank), particularly as residential development courses bring OB stakes ever closer to the fairways. Still, I can see the logic in making one area more penal than another because you can stand on the tee and identify where the trouble is. Random lost ball zones are not as clear to the player when he's setting up his shot.

I'm thinking about how equipment has evolved over the last 3 decades (weights/materials, balls, hybrids, anchored putters, etc.), and how that has changed the way we play, course design, or in some cases even make a stroke (in the case of long putters). I could see them draft a couple of rules that clearly state the spirit of the game. Where is the line between valid golf and unfair advantage with respect to equipment and/or stroke? It seems the way they've approached this has been piecemeal and reactive to specific items of equipment or technologies. A new approach that looks forward might help equipment manufacturers better know where their limits are. (I'll add that I haven't the first idea what the new rules should be, or even if this is really needed. Just a perception.)

Golf shouldn't be an issue in two weeks, though it'll be sore and I might not be able to wear a glove. I will tape it on real good so it doesn't fall off.

Nine is the answer.

Coffee pot exploded while I was cleaning it. While parachuting from a stealth helicopter over southeast Syria.

Sonofabitch. I just cut off half of the tip of my left pinkie. Sitting here now waiting to see how many stitches they're going to give me. I don't really need that finger for golf anyway. But this might rule out any hope of a practice session prior to the outing.

This article describes precisely why I'm having difficulty debating this with @iacas and @newtogolf https://www.lawfareblog.com/apple-v-fbi-shows-lawyers-and-tech-speak-different-language-privacy

FBI says this has already happened. Apple denies.

The terms guerrilla and insurgent are essentially interchangeable in discussions of modern warfare. The term guerrilla originated in Spain, probably as a way to describe popular resistance to Napoleon's push into the Iberian peninsula. It has, however, been used retroactively back to 500 BC (see Sun Tzu) to describe any irregular armed response to a state authority. The essence of guerrilla/insurgent/irregular warfare is that the strategic objective for the counter-guerrilla/insurgent is not the insurgent force itself, but the drivers of the force (recruiting, money, political instability, ideology, etc.) In that sense, it's a perfect description for today's conflict. See Army Counterinsurgency Manual (FM 3-24), as well as TE Lawrence (Seven Pillars), David Kilkullen (Accidental Guerrilla), Max Boot (Invisible Armies), TX Hammes (Sling & Stone), John Nagl, David Galula, Roger Trinquier, etc., etc.

I agree with this list, pretty much entirely. I think most people who get into the medical field want to help people. But that's still not to say doctors have to be paid less. You could create significant savings simply by eliminating the layer of bureaucracy inherent in the insurance system. I agree that a central (or single payer) system should be menu care, but I come out on the other side of catastrophic care. Basic health care such as immunizations, prenatal, child health care, infectious disease, broken bones, etc. should be available to everyone. Specialized (and highly expensive) intensive care for low-density diseases (I'm thinking dialysis, organ transplant, certain cancers, etc.) probably shouldn't be covered (unless by reforming the system you can make it cheaper--see HIV drugs). The R's effectively killed the discussion with the term "death panel", but I don't see anything wrong with the Gov't saying "We're going to provide a basic level of care that will cover most people for most problems, but we have to draw the line somewhere." Drug companies are a problem. I've always felt there was something inherently wrong with an ad for a pill. If I'm sick, I see a doctor. If it's medically advisable, the doctor will give me a pill. I shouldn't be watching a commercial on TV and then go ask the doctor for a pill. To me, this defines the core problem: consumerized care that's paid for by a third party splits the economic incentives in unnatural ways. Will we have adequate drug research, development, and innovation without drug companies as they're currently organized? I don't really know the answer to that. I think we need a true assessment of what real medical innovation is being made by drug companies (not just another boner pill or antidepressant). Then we can weigh the value of that innovation against the cost of HIV drugs (for example) at $2k per pill. Universities funded by grants are excellent centers for research in many fields. Academics driven by the quest for knowledge and innovation (and fueled by a steady stream of graduate students) can be pretty powerful with adequate funding. The med malpractice tort reform argument is bogus. The military issue is tricky. Yes, we need the military capability. Yes, we need strategic presence. We don't have six bases in UK because they need our "help." We have forward bases for strategic presence and to honor our NATO obligations (and essentially for the prevention of WWIII). We don't put everything on one base because, well, that would be stupid (from a strategic force protection/security perspective). Look at history. Throughout history there is a direct correlation between military strength and a country's wealth, power, and influence. To think the world is any different now because of the McDonald's theory or whatever IR thesis du jour you're reading is drivel. Persia, Athens, Rome, Ottoman, Austrian, French, British, etc., from the third millenium B.C. to Sykes-Picot, military strength matters. How much of our military expenditure is directly increasing capability, and what is the marginal cost? Many of our major combat systems are getting old. End strength cuts are impacting Army brigades, and that's a problem. However, we have a ton of "military" that may not be directly contributing to capability in a financially acceptable way. Military organizations (much like any government organization, from a local Parks Department all the way to the Dep't of the Interior) are intensely defensive of their structure. Once you've got that fifth plans team, or government purchase card NCO, or DTS administrator, you wonder how you ever got along without them! Reality is that we could probably cut a ton of positions (like drastically) in HQs and non-deployable institutional organizations without losing capability (or only marginally decreasing). We could probably increase military capability while decreasing cost by doing some of the following- 1. Reduce the overall size of the active force (mostly by trimming HQs and non-deployable institutional positions), but provide them with better equipment and training. 2. Transition more capability to the reserves, but also increase their training and readiness. 3. Reform the budget process so it's tied more directly to increases in readiness or capability. Too much incentive within units and organizations to spend just for spending's sake. 4. Acquisition process is totally broken. The FAR is too restrictive, has too much due process, too many earmarks for preferenced groups, etc. 20-year lead time for major combat systems ensures every project comes in at double the budget and is obsolete at delivery. But that's not even the real problem. The Army's current operating concept and the "operational environment" the military plans (and procures) against contains a central, fundamental premise that makes acquisition of equipment nearly impossible. We don't know who we're going to fight or what capability we will need, so any attempt to organize, equip, and train for a specific set of capabilities is barely better than a wild ass guess. It's almost as bad as you are buying car insurance, and they're offering fire, theft, flood, and collision protection. You can only buy two. Which two do you pick? Aren't you going to feel like a dumbass if you shell out a few thousand bucks for theft protection and a tree falls on it? Bottom line: the acquisition process is one of the biggest obstacles to aligning dollars with capability that is useful at the time the combatant commander needs it. It needs to change drastically to become more adaptive.

So far in 2016: Rickie has had a win and a 2nd (lost playoff). Jordan has a win. Rory has two top-5s. It's only the 2nd week of March. I wouldn't write off the season yet.

Little harsh, no? And US Citizens cannot be sent to Guantanamo, so the rest of your argument is deemed void due to your inaccurate interpretation of USG policy.

Not sure where you got that impression

Banging head against wall. You got it. FBI has tried but can't. (They also may have intentionally sabotaged the effort by losing the iCloud password.) Even if they could write the OS they'd need Apple's key to load it on the phone.

It would work on any iPhone with a compatible OS. But Apple wouldn't have to use it on every iPhone the FBI wants. Only on the ones for which LE has a valid warrant and a writ compelling assistance. Apple doesn't have to provide the FBI with this capability, they have to perform the assistance for the FBI. Which is essentially exactly what you asked for in your post. The problem becomes when Apple has to provide this assistance on a regular basis, they have basically 3 options: 1. Rewrite iOS so that it's less secure. 2. Maintain a division of programmers to write unique code in response to every FBI request, and then destroy it afterwards. Of course they would be training a significant number of people to hack their devices, which is bad. 3. Write and maintain a code that they can re-use in response to requests, and risk that it leaks.

Because the "tool" requires Apple to create a version of their product that is less secure. Security is one of their defining characteristics (at least if you agree with them). A warrant entitles the FBI for the information, for sure. But it doesn't entitle them to help from Apple. That's a separate question, and one that needs a definitive answer. This is what happened. The California court didn't tell Apple to turn over it's code, or anything like that. They told Apple to write code that allowed them to unlock the phone. The FBI's request even allows Apple to delete/destroy it afterwards.

FWIW I 100% agree with you that this is the key question. Apple always has the option of creating a 1-time solution for each case, but that's not practical and probably would increase the chances that the tech would leak (as they'd have to have a full-time division drafting code in response to LE requests). They only practical way for Apple to provide this assistance is to create a less secure OS. I agree with that. CONGRESS needs to speak on this. SCOTUS could take years to settle this issue. Until then, Apple could be subject to dozens (if not hundreds) of courts' individual interpretations of whether the AWA permits this.

FIFY. At least one Court thinks so, and that's the only one that's really relevant to Apple right now. Congress could pass a law specifically applying to compelled assistance to device manufacturers, and then the District Court Judge's ruling under the AWA would be meaningless. Whatever law Congress passed would apply.

That part of it isn't a warrant, it's a writ under the AWA. It's a two-part process: 1. Warrant to seize and search the phone (or consent, if applicable). 2. Writ compelling Apple to provide assistance. It's not a Constitutional privacy (AKA Fourth Amendment) issue. @newtogolf talked about illegal searches; that's what I was responding to. This is not a Fourth Amendment issue. The FBI is doing everything that is legally possible to do to comply with the 4th. The Fourth Amendment doesn't protect you from hackers, nor does it compel the government to protect you from hackers.