My wife and I switched for our Nexus 6. She had significant issues with performance that caused her to switch to a Note 9. Right before the switch, her screen spontaneously shattered, so it was a moot point anyway. The later updates resolved the performance issues for me (but not for her).
We've also had random issues with battery life that appear to come and go with various updates. For now, battery life is good.
Overall, I find it less stable and reliable than the factory supported OS. It's clear that with the bigger resources, Google is able to do much better QA than the one device maintainer (Elektro) than LineageOS, especially with things like battery life. However, it does allow me to postpone a large capital purchase and it's been good as a daily driver.
The problem with LineageOS is that the quality of each device is largely up to the quality that the device maintainer is able to achieve. This is dependent on their time availability, skill, and access to information about the device. Much of Android remains closed source and certain items are difficult/impossible to fix.
Heck, as a gamer, I'm using a Q9550, launched over 10 years ago. While it's not nearly as fast as an i7, it can hold its own, getting 60 FPS in most games and never below 30FPS. And it's running the latest version of Windows 10 with zero issues--10 years later.
The only upgrade I've done is a SSD and a GTX 1050, which have kept the system running nicely. Honestly, the incremental gains made in CPUs just aren't what they were. In fact, if you have at least a 2nd generation i7, your gaming performance benefit for upgrading is low. The i7-8700k's single-threaded performance is only 36% faster than the i7-2700k. You're generally better off taking the money from a new system and sinking it into a better video card.
What you say is true, but it's even worse than that. Like you said, it means EXACTLY 2.6. Not even 2.6.1 will work, so if a security issue is found and fixed and patched in Python, you have to recompile your software to fix the issue.
Along with abysmal performance, it's one of the most annoying things about supporting Python in production.
Actually, it's more complicated. That exemption quoted in the article expired this year and this new law supercedes it.
Thankfully, the original specification language is not present in the car section (see section 1): Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends that the Librarian adopt the
following exemptions:
(1) Computer programs that are contained in and control the functioning of a
lawfully acquired motorized land vehicle such as a personal automobile,
commercial vehicle or mechanized agricultural vehicle, except for
programs accessed through a separate subscription service, when
circumvention is a necessary step to allow the diagnosis, repair or lawful
modification of a vehicle function, where such circumvention does not
constitute a violation of applicable law, including without limitation
regulations promulgated by the Department of Transportation or the
Environmental Protection Agency, and is not accomplished for the
purpose of gaining unauthorized access to other copyrighted works.
(2) Computer programs that are contained in and control the functioning of a
lawfully acquired smartphone or home appliance or home system, such as
a refrigerator, thermostat, HVAC or electrical system, when
circumvention is a necessary step to allow the diagnosis, maintenance or
repair of such a device or system, and is not accomplished for the purpose
of gaining access to other copyrighted works. For purposes of this
paragraph (b)(10):
(i) The “maintenance” of a device or system is the servicing of the
device or system in order to make it work in accordance with its
original specifications and any changes to those specifications
authorized for that device or system; and
(ii) The “repair” of a device or system is the restoring of the device
or system to the state of working in accordance with its original
specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized
for that device or system.
The fact that a librarian needs to provide exemptions to keep the DMCA DRM restrictions reasonable implies that we really should fix the DMCA.
Thankfully, the Copyright Office has already provided an exemption for motor vehicle repair (including modifications) [1].
This is important because manufacturers are starting to install DRM into their cars. For instance, I drive a Nissan Leaf and the battery is software locked to the car. Replacing the car requires that the person involved pair the new battery to the car. And given the technology advances in batteries in the last 10 years, you're going to want to install a bigger battery than the car originally shipped with. Theoretically, a larger capacity battery is not "original specifications."
Similarly, you are allowed to reverse the CAN bus to add a new entertainment device, and there's no copyright violation to modify the emissions control software either. Both are allowed under the previous ruling. That said, you probably are breaking some EPA law if you violate the emissions settings as described.
I'm a commercial drone operator, and literally everything in the parent post is how we already operate. It's not even a little bit burdensome, and it lets sUAS operators fly safely with our crewed counterparts.
You're either very confused or straight out lying.
I fly a RC aircraft at a small RC airfield in a rural area which is around 10 miles from the nearest (small) airport. I fly a homebuilt RC aircraft that cost me $400 total (including the controller) and weighs roughly 2 pounds to a maximum altitude of around 300 ft. I only get to fly 10 times a year due to time constraints, and in fact, I didn't fly at all last year.
Now we have the FAA pushing to RC planes like manned aircraft. Keep in mind a pilot's license currently costs $4-10k plus lots of training--to fly a toy in mostly unnavigable airspace.
Yes, we have a problem. There are drones operated near and in class B airspace, and they have caused issues and encounters with aircraft. Something must be done. But treating toy RC aircraft like planes is insane. Calling those laws "no burden" is wrong.
Yes, this is oppression. I should be able to play with toys without tons of training and paperwork in my own backyard. Except for near airports, the safety argument is crap. Last year in the US, 818 people died riding bikes. 110 died from lawnmowers. 51 died from lightning. How many people have died in the history of recreational RC aircraft? 3?
Honestly, I'm using Windows 10 with a touchscreen enabled laptop, and the tablet-like GUI components are very nice for when I don't want to use the touchpad.
Of all the complaints I have about Windows 10, trying to make it support touchscreens well isn't one. If they want Windows to survive, Microsoft has an obligation to move towards a faster release model and to have touchscreen based features. Computers without touchscreens are going to be very rare, very soon.
We know that. It frustrates and confuses me why folks like yourself aren't as a group shouting down the crazy ones among you because I know you aren't alone.
I think Evangelicals are not shouting him down as a group because as a group, evangelicals overwhelmingly support Trump's policies and ignore who he is as a person. The exit polling was something like 80-16%. In particular, policies most important to most evangelicals are likely abortion, religious freedom, support for Israel, and same-sex marriage. And if you look at those issues, Trump has moved in the direction they desire pretty much completely across the board.
If you assume that Americans feel we're in the middle of a culture war (certainly seems like the left and right think so), basic human conflict instinct kicks in. There are only allies and enemies. And Trump's policies are beneficial, so he becomes an ally, and allies must be defended and rallied around, despite their flaws. Don't underestimate the power of human group think--it's insanely powerful. Trump is nowhere near Hitler, and yet Hitler had millions of people rallied around him and cheering him on. One of my favorite quotes to a college class was "You realize that if this was Germany in 1939, nearly all of you would be Nazis?"
The best course of action would be for us to all learn how to get along with each other. The left calling all Trump supporters racists, homophobes, and bigots isn't helping. The right's treatment of immigrants, immigrant children, homosexuals, and hispanics is infuriating. We need to stop declaring war on each other and learn to compromise and communicate. I personally refuse to "Foe" people on Slashdot to hide their comments, because I believe the Facebook isolation bubble effect is harmful. And while it's uncomfortable to read many posts declaring my faith as "fairy tale worship", it's important that I stay open and communicate with people of all backgrounds.
I would disagree. My faith is based on evidence of Christianity. For instance, Isaiah 53, which was written far before the birth of Christ made a large number of predictions about the messiah. Reading it and knowing it was written hundreds of years before the New Testament is... eerie.
There are many other reasons I believe. I don't have faith based in zero evidence, but I also admit that there's no 100% proof that I'm right.
Brother, you come to my house any time. I can't imagine what it's like to be a devout believe in a faith that is being so badly misused by horrible people.
It's not easy, but I've got it easy compared to some of my liberal Muslim co-workers.
The reality is that it's hard to balance loving others, but reject behavior. Yeshua (Jesus) showed us how to do this in John 8:1-11, but it's not natural. Humans are fundamentally tribal in nature (the recent political situation in the US exemplifies this perfectly). Humans want to categorize people into Good & Evil, Friend and Foe. But then God comes along and says: I want you to behave in this different way. I want you to simultaneously say "I don't condemn you" AND "change your ways--go and sin no more." So it's hard to simultaneously love and accept someone while rejecting their actions--because they're both Friend and Foe simultaneously. I think this is where people so often fail because it's a VERY difficult balance to maintain. Some give up and classify everyone as Friend (Unitarian Universalists). Others go the other way and classify everyone as Foe (Westboro Baptists).
A good example to Friend/Foe is what you linked above. If I were an evangelical leader, I would absolutely pray for and with Donald Trump during his inauguration. But I would do exactly the same for Obama or Clinton as well. One would argue that I should be MORE willing to pray over and with my foes, because they need the most help (Matthew 5:43-47).
But the real key to Christianity is judgement is reserved for the Lord. I'm not allowed to judge others, I'm only allowed to witness and tell the truth as I see it. If I find myself judging others, I'm doing it wrong (Matthew 7:1-5).
As a Christian, I'd love to dispute your argument, but honestly, I agree with it. I think a lot of people have acted that way, consciously or otherwise. A lot of people have definitely gotten off the track and aren't reflecting Jesus at all. John 13:35, Matthew 7:1, etc.
Sorry for the pain they've caused you and others. The only thing I can say is the Jesus I know doesn't act like that, and there are many good Christians who actually reflect love, tolerance, and kindness--not judgement.
As an evangelical God worshipper, I fully support the HPV vaccine (and my children have been vaccinated for HPV and all other diseases as per the recommended schedule) and I don't support a lot of what Trump has done, nor did I vote for him.
I know, sample size of one and all, but we're not all anti-science.
You are also welcome on my lawn. Sorry some of my fellow Christians have behaved so poorly.
Applying intentional discrimination to counter unintentional discrimination is paradoxical, but I don't see any other workable approaches on the table.
My recommendation would be to have government regulate industries that tend towards monopolies so that competition exists. Then, the free market will ensure that companies that stray too far from meritocracy will fail and be replaced with those that do work based on merit.
Granted, my proposal isn't perfect (far from it), but our ability to predict the outcome of laws, and ensure that those in power structures enact laws that are for the good of the people hasn't worked well in history. In general, we fail to predict the results of laws and those in power tend to abuse power, not use power for good. I'd rather encourage competition and let the market sort it out when companies perform poorly.
Yes, if we abandon Meritocracy, we will eventually end up with a downward spiral. This is the danger that movements like https://postmeritocracy.org/ cause.
History has proven this, but we forget. This is exactly what happened in Russia. There was inequality (wealth), so those with resources "obviously" must have been hoarding it--they were biased against those with less. So those in power seized the wealth and imprisoned the farmers (Kulaks) in 1918-1933+[1]. This resulted in the Kulaks slaughtering their animals, selling the meat and grain, and hiding their resources. Keep in mind the Kulaks weren't the "1%"--these were lower-middle class farmers.
This resulted in massive starvation as the agricultural sector in Russia collapsed in 1932.[2] When the snow melted true starvation began. People had swollen faces and legs and stomachs. They could not contain their urine... And now they ate anything at all. They caught mice, rats, sparrows, ants, earthworms. They ground up bones into flour, and did the same with leather and shoe soles...[1]
Don't declare war on those with skills and resources. Do provide social assistance for those less fortunate in your society, but not at the expense of declaring war on the rich. If you eliminate or destroy those who drive the economic engine of your country, it will collapse. Societal collapse results in immeasurable suffering and the deaths of hundreds of millions. This is the lesson that history has taught over and over again, but we seem to have forgotten in the pursuit of "equality". If you don't believe me, read the Gulag Archipelago. It used to be required reading in US social studies classes, but we've abandoned that. The march towards equality at the expense of ability and merit is as scary as it is wrong.
I have not worked with the S7, so I can't speak to the quality of that device. Keep in mind that in cell phones, the thickness of the sensor is a primary consideration, and it does impact other factors of the device, including cost and performance.
I'm not trying to make you comfortable with Wendys or not. I'm just sharing data about how biometrics work, and how much better they are than sensors from the past.
Failure rate is, like I said, <1% of operations (a failure is 3 attempts to unlock that fail in a row). The vast majority of rejects are due to the user not consistently placing their finger on the sensor--the actual image area of the sensor is quite small so a rotation or translation of the finger on the sensor can cause failures. If users are careful with placement, success rates are extremely high.
I don't have 3rd party testing, and unfortunately I can't provide my company's info. You'll just have to trust that I'm not lying--given I haven't even said who I work for or what I do, I really have no incentive to do so. Note: I don't work for Lumidigm--I just used them as an example in my previous post. They do have FAR and FRR rates published at various thresholds in their literature, but I don't believe those were conducted by a 3rd party.
That is a great idea, if there is some way to reliably generate a fixed hash or code from a fingerprint. Unfortunately, I don't know of a way to reliably do this, as minor changes to the finger placement (or elasticity of the skin) can create variations in the minutae. But if some scheme can be derived to generate a fixed code for a finger reliably, that code could be used an encryption key, and then the card could simply store encrypted data.
That would be sweet, but I'm not aware of the tech currently being available to do that.
I'm pretty sure it was an older terminal. Like another poster said, the product lifecycle for devices like clocks is on the order of 10-15 years for replacement, so your device could have been 10-20 year old tech.
Most likely it was a poor capacitive sensor, or poorly written code using the sensor. How the sensor is used affects the experience greatly.
It sounds great, but badges get lost all the time. You did mention "encrypted in the card", but the question is how. Each device would have to have the decryption key, which is a weak point in the attack and means that all devices have to support this mechanism. Do they keys get rotated? How often? How do you rotate the keys when the badges are, by definition, offline. How do you rotate the keys given that many devices can only read (not program) cards? What happens if the encryption algorithm is found to be weak? Re-issue all cards? You have to visit every employee, take their picture (and fingerprint) and create a new badge. Then you have to replace all the copiers, access control systems, and all other devices that rely on the badges.
This also assumes that you have programmable cards at all. While some proximity formats do have a read/write data (mifare, for instance), many others do not (HID Proxpoint, Indala, etc). Magstripe and barcode store very little data, so encoding a fingerprint would be infeasible. If you did, a barcode can be easily photographed unless it's an IR barcode. We've already established that switching card formats is very expensive, so you want to avoid that if possible.
That said, biometrics on the employee's card does present an excellent legal advantage. By never storing the employee's template, the company can reasonably assert that if the badge is lost, it's the employee's fault, and thus they're not liable. I would not be surprised if this approach gains traction, given the penalties of GDPR. However, given how often items are lost, I really don't think it's a good solution.
Then you haven't used modern, good quality biometric devices.
Biometric sensors from 10-15 years ago absolutely worked terribly. Modern ones perform very well, and have a much better experience. 10-15 years ago, the industry had 10-20% of the population that could not reliably use fingerprint readers due to temperature, humidity, worn fingerprints, skin color, no fingerprints, and many other factors. Now, we have between.1-1% of the population that cannot use the devices, and <1% of the biometric operations fail. We have had numerous people use modern sensors that were blown away at how well they operate compared to prior generations.
A break in the chain IS possible. If someone gains access to the device, they could issue commands to retrieve the raw biometric data from the device and offload it. Most biometric sensors have API calls both to receive the template (hash) or the fingerprint image (raw data). If you get remote code execution on the device, employee fingerprints could be stolen by simply calling the API to retrieve the raw data.
Reversing the template to obtain the original fingerprint is simply not possible. That would be equivalent to saying "I have the md5 of a file, so if I find a weakness in md5, I can get the original file back!" To understand why this statement is untrue, let's talk about hashes and how they're broken.
A hash reduces a large data input to a small output, which can be used to verify that the input has not been altered (accidentally or maliciously). Except in extremely rare cases (small, known input sizes), hashing always causes such loss of data that the original file cannot be reconstructed.
A cryptographically secure hash adds one extra property. A cryptographically secure hash is engineered so it is difficult or "impossible" to create a different input that hashes to the same output. When hashes (like md5) are "broken", that means that we've devised a way to generate a series of inputs that resolves to the same hash--not that we can reconstruct the original input. In fact, once broken, we can generate a number of inputs that resolve to the same hash, and the original could be any one of them (or potentially another one we have not yet generated)!
Biometric templates are essentially non-cryptographic hashes. They are simply a measurement of the relative position and orientation between minutae (see here: http://www.uh.edu/engines/fing... for a description of what minutae are). Because they are not cryptographic, if you have a fingerprint template, it is absolutely possible to reconstruct a fingerprint that will match and score well against the template--that is, you could generate a spoof that would be accepted in the fingerprint reader. However, it would NOT be possible to reconstruct the original fingerprint, as too much data has been lost to reconstruct the original fingerprint.
I agree with the privacy concerns of biometric devices. It takes only one hack on such a device for your unchangeable biometric data to be stolen, forever. But if you need a person's fingerprint, the attack vectors aren't on the template data, they're on the device to obtain the raw image. Alternatively, if you had a fingerprint and a large data of stolen templates, you could likely identify a single or small set of individuals that had the fingerprint.
Note: I work on the industry on biometric devices, although not the ones that Wendy's uses.
Slashdot Mirror
And the performance issues too, for that matter.
My wife and I switched for our Nexus 6. She had significant issues with performance that caused her to switch to a Note 9. Right before the switch, her screen spontaneously shattered, so it was a moot point anyway. The later updates resolved the performance issues for me (but not for her).
We've also had random issues with battery life that appear to come and go with various updates. For now, battery life is good.
Overall, I find it less stable and reliable than the factory supported OS. It's clear that with the bigger resources, Google is able to do much better QA than the one device maintainer (Elektro) than LineageOS, especially with things like battery life. However, it does allow me to postpone a large capital purchase and it's been good as a daily driver.
The problem with LineageOS is that the quality of each device is largely up to the quality that the device maintainer is able to achieve. This is dependent on their time availability, skill, and access to information about the device. Much of Android remains closed source and certain items are difficult/impossible to fix.
Pixel has a 4 year support? That's good to know and may shift my purchasing decisions. Me and my family hold on to our phones for a long time.
Heck, as a gamer, I'm using a Q9550, launched over 10 years ago. While it's not nearly as fast as an i7, it can hold its own, getting 60 FPS in most games and never below 30FPS. And it's running the latest version of Windows 10 with zero issues--10 years later.
The only upgrade I've done is a SSD and a GTX 1050, which have kept the system running nicely. Honestly, the incremental gains made in CPUs just aren't what they were. In fact, if you have at least a 2nd generation i7, your gaming performance benefit for upgrading is low. The i7-8700k's single-threaded performance is only 36% faster than the i7-2700k. You're generally better off taking the money from a new system and sinking it into a better video card.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/...
What you say is true, but it's even worse than that. Like you said, it means EXACTLY 2.6. Not even 2.6.1 will work, so if a security issue is found and fixed and patched in Python, you have to recompile your software to fix the issue. Along with abysmal performance, it's one of the most annoying things about supporting Python in production.
Actually, it's more complicated. That exemption quoted in the article expired this year and this new law supercedes it.
Thankfully, the original specification language is not present in the car section (see section 1):
Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends that the Librarian adopt the following exemptions:
(1) Computer programs that are contained in and control the functioning of a lawfully acquired motorized land vehicle such as a personal automobile, commercial vehicle or mechanized agricultural vehicle, except for programs accessed through a separate subscription service, when circumvention is a necessary step to allow the diagnosis, repair or lawful modification of a vehicle function, where such circumvention does not constitute a violation of applicable law, including without limitation regulations promulgated by the Department of Transportation or the Environmental Protection Agency, and is not accomplished for the purpose of gaining unauthorized access to other copyrighted works.
(2) Computer programs that are contained in and control the functioning of a lawfully acquired smartphone or home appliance or home system, such as a refrigerator, thermostat, HVAC or electrical system, when circumvention is a necessary step to allow the diagnosis, maintenance or repair of such a device or system, and is not accomplished for the purpose of gaining access to other copyrighted works. For purposes of this paragraph (b)(10):
(i) The “maintenance” of a device or system is the servicing of the device or system in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that device or system; and
(ii) The “repair” of a device or system is the restoring of the device or system to the state of working in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that device or system.
The fact that a librarian needs to provide exemptions to keep the DMCA DRM restrictions reasonable implies that we really should fix the DMCA.
Source:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/publi...
Thankfully, the Copyright Office has already provided an exemption for motor vehicle repair (including modifications) [1].
This is important because manufacturers are starting to install DRM into their cars. For instance, I drive a Nissan Leaf and the battery is software locked to the car. Replacing the car requires that the person involved pair the new battery to the car. And given the technology advances in batteries in the last 10 years, you're going to want to install a bigger battery than the car originally shipped with. Theoretically, a larger capacity battery is not "original specifications."
Similarly, you are allowed to reverse the CAN bus to add a new entertainment device, and there's no copyright violation to modify the emissions control software either. Both are allowed under the previous ruling. That said, you probably are breaking some EPA law if you violate the emissions settings as described.
Sources:
[1] https://ifixit.org/blog/8510/c...
That video is amazing!
I'm a commercial drone operator, and literally everything in the parent post is how we already operate. It's not even a little bit burdensome, and it lets sUAS operators fly safely with our crewed counterparts.
You're either very confused or straight out lying.
I fly a RC aircraft at a small RC airfield in a rural area which is around 10 miles from the nearest (small) airport. I fly a homebuilt RC aircraft that cost me $400 total (including the controller) and weighs roughly 2 pounds to a maximum altitude of around 300 ft. I only get to fly 10 times a year due to time constraints, and in fact, I didn't fly at all last year.
Now we have the FAA pushing to RC planes like manned aircraft. Keep in mind a pilot's license currently costs $4-10k plus lots of training--to fly a toy in mostly unnavigable airspace.
Yes, we have a problem. There are drones operated near and in class B airspace, and they have caused issues and encounters with aircraft. Something must be done. But treating toy RC aircraft like planes is insane. Calling those laws "no burden" is wrong.
Yes, this is oppression. I should be able to play with toys without tons of training and paperwork in my own backyard. Except for near airports, the safety argument is crap. Last year in the US, 818 people died riding bikes. 110 died from lawnmowers. 51 died from lightning. How many people have died in the history of recreational RC aircraft? 3?
Honestly, I'm using Windows 10 with a touchscreen enabled laptop, and the tablet-like GUI components are very nice for when I don't want to use the touchpad.
Of all the complaints I have about Windows 10, trying to make it support touchscreens well isn't one. If they want Windows to survive, Microsoft has an obligation to move towards a faster release model and to have touchscreen based features. Computers without touchscreens are going to be very rare, very soon.
I seriously hope there were missing tags from the above comment. :)
We know that. It frustrates and confuses me why folks like yourself aren't as a group shouting down the crazy ones among you because I know you aren't alone.
I think Evangelicals are not shouting him down as a group because as a group, evangelicals overwhelmingly support Trump's policies and ignore who he is as a person. The exit polling was something like 80-16%. In particular, policies most important to most evangelicals are likely abortion, religious freedom, support for Israel, and same-sex marriage. And if you look at those issues, Trump has moved in the direction they desire pretty much completely across the board.
If you assume that Americans feel we're in the middle of a culture war (certainly seems like the left and right think so), basic human conflict instinct kicks in. There are only allies and enemies. And Trump's policies are beneficial, so he becomes an ally, and allies must be defended and rallied around, despite their flaws. Don't underestimate the power of human group think--it's insanely powerful. Trump is nowhere near Hitler, and yet Hitler had millions of people rallied around him and cheering him on. One of my favorite quotes to a college class was "You realize that if this was Germany in 1939, nearly all of you would be Nazis?"
Here's an article that I think reflects reality pretty well.
https://www.al.com/living/inde...
But there is a growing movement of liberal evangelicals as well:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
The best course of action would be for us to all learn how to get along with each other. The left calling all Trump supporters racists, homophobes, and bigots isn't helping. The right's treatment of immigrants, immigrant children, homosexuals, and hispanics is infuriating. We need to stop declaring war on each other and learn to compromise and communicate. I personally refuse to "Foe" people on Slashdot to hide their comments, because I believe the Facebook isolation bubble effect is harmful. And while it's uncomfortable to read many posts declaring my faith as "fairy tale worship", it's important that I stay open and communicate with people of all backgrounds.
I would disagree. My faith is based on evidence of Christianity. For instance, Isaiah 53, which was written far before the birth of Christ made a large number of predictions about the messiah. Reading it and knowing it was written hundreds of years before the New Testament is... eerie.
There are many other reasons I believe. I don't have faith based in zero evidence, but I also admit that there's no 100% proof that I'm right.
Brother, you come to my house any time. I can't imagine what it's like to be a devout believe in a faith that is being so badly misused by horrible people.
It's not easy, but I've got it easy compared to some of my liberal Muslim co-workers.
The reality is that it's hard to balance loving others, but reject behavior. Yeshua (Jesus) showed us how to do this in John 8:1-11, but it's not natural. Humans are fundamentally tribal in nature (the recent political situation in the US exemplifies this perfectly). Humans want to categorize people into Good & Evil, Friend and Foe. But then God comes along and says: I want you to behave in this different way. I want you to simultaneously say "I don't condemn you" AND "change your ways--go and sin no more." So it's hard to simultaneously love and accept someone while rejecting their actions--because they're both Friend and Foe simultaneously. I think this is where people so often fail because it's a VERY difficult balance to maintain. Some give up and classify everyone as Friend (Unitarian Universalists). Others go the other way and classify everyone as Foe (Westboro Baptists).
A good example to Friend/Foe is what you linked above. If I were an evangelical leader, I would absolutely pray for and with Donald Trump during his inauguration. But I would do exactly the same for Obama or Clinton as well. One would argue that I should be MORE willing to pray over and with my foes, because they need the most help (Matthew 5:43-47).
But the real key to Christianity is judgement is reserved for the Lord. I'm not allowed to judge others, I'm only allowed to witness and tell the truth as I see it. If I find myself judging others, I'm doing it wrong (Matthew 7:1-5).
As a Christian, I'd love to dispute your argument, but honestly, I agree with it. I think a lot of people have acted that way, consciously or otherwise. A lot of people have definitely gotten off the track and aren't reflecting Jesus at all. John 13:35, Matthew 7:1, etc.
Sorry for the pain they've caused you and others. The only thing I can say is the Jesus I know doesn't act like that, and there are many good Christians who actually reflect love, tolerance, and kindness--not judgement.
As an evangelical God worshipper, I fully support the HPV vaccine (and my children have been vaccinated for HPV and all other diseases as per the recommended schedule) and I don't support a lot of what Trump has done, nor did I vote for him.
I know, sample size of one and all, but we're not all anti-science.
You are also welcome on my lawn. Sorry some of my fellow Christians have behaved so poorly.
Applying intentional discrimination to counter unintentional discrimination is paradoxical, but I don't see any other workable approaches on the table.
My recommendation would be to have government regulate industries that tend towards monopolies so that competition exists. Then, the free market will ensure that companies that stray too far from meritocracy will fail and be replaced with those that do work based on merit.
Granted, my proposal isn't perfect (far from it), but our ability to predict the outcome of laws, and ensure that those in power structures enact laws that are for the good of the people hasn't worked well in history. In general, we fail to predict the results of laws and those in power tend to abuse power, not use power for good. I'd rather encourage competition and let the market sort it out when companies perform poorly.
Yes, if we abandon Meritocracy, we will eventually end up with a downward spiral. This is the danger that movements like https://postmeritocracy.org/ cause.
...[1]
History has proven this, but we forget. This is exactly what happened in Russia. There was inequality (wealth), so those with resources "obviously" must have been hoarding it--they were biased against those with less. So those in power seized the wealth and imprisoned the farmers (Kulaks) in 1918-1933+[1]. This resulted in the Kulaks slaughtering their animals, selling the meat and grain, and hiding their resources. Keep in mind the Kulaks weren't the "1%"--these were lower-middle class farmers.
This resulted in massive starvation as the agricultural sector in Russia collapsed in 1932.[2]
When the snow melted true starvation began. People had swollen faces and legs and stomachs. They could not contain their urine... And now they ate anything at all. They caught mice, rats, sparrows, ants, earthworms. They ground up bones into flour, and did the same with leather and shoe soles
Don't declare war on those with skills and resources. Do provide social assistance for those less fortunate in your society, but not at the expense of declaring war on the rich. If you eliminate or destroy those who drive the economic engine of your country, it will collapse. Societal collapse results in immeasurable suffering and the deaths of hundreds of millions. This is the lesson that history has taught over and over again, but we seem to have forgotten in the pursuit of "equality". If you don't believe me, read the Gulag Archipelago. It used to be required reading in US social studies classes, but we've abandoned that. The march towards equality at the expense of ability and merit is as scary as it is wrong.
Sources:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I have not worked with the S7, so I can't speak to the quality of that device. Keep in mind that in cell phones, the thickness of the sensor is a primary consideration, and it does impact other factors of the device, including cost and performance.
I'm not trying to make you comfortable with Wendys or not. I'm just sharing data about how biometrics work, and how much better they are than sensors from the past.
I did a writeup on fingerprint hashes here, including reversability: https://slashdot.org/comments....
Failure rate is, like I said, <1% of operations (a failure is 3 attempts to unlock that fail in a row). The vast majority of rejects are due to the user not consistently placing their finger on the sensor--the actual image area of the sensor is quite small so a rotation or translation of the finger on the sensor can cause failures. If users are careful with placement, success rates are extremely high.
I don't have 3rd party testing, and unfortunately I can't provide my company's info. You'll just have to trust that I'm not lying--given I haven't even said who I work for or what I do, I really have no incentive to do so. Note: I don't work for Lumidigm--I just used them as an example in my previous post. They do have FAR and FRR rates published at various thresholds in their literature, but I don't believe those were conducted by a 3rd party.
That is a great idea, if there is some way to reliably generate a fixed hash or code from a fingerprint. Unfortunately, I don't know of a way to reliably do this, as minor changes to the finger placement (or elasticity of the skin) can create variations in the minutae. But if some scheme can be derived to generate a fixed code for a finger reliably, that code could be used an encryption key, and then the card could simply store encrypted data.
That would be sweet, but I'm not aware of the tech currently being available to do that.
I'm pretty sure it was an older terminal. Like another poster said, the product lifecycle for devices like clocks is on the order of 10-15 years for replacement, so your device could have been 10-20 year old tech.
Most likely it was a poor capacitive sensor, or poorly written code using the sensor. How the sensor is used affects the experience greatly.
It sounds great, but badges get lost all the time. You did mention "encrypted in the card", but the question is how. Each device would have to have the decryption key, which is a weak point in the attack and means that all devices have to support this mechanism. Do they keys get rotated? How often? How do you rotate the keys when the badges are, by definition, offline. How do you rotate the keys given that many devices can only read (not program) cards? What happens if the encryption algorithm is found to be weak? Re-issue all cards? You have to visit every employee, take their picture (and fingerprint) and create a new badge. Then you have to replace all the copiers, access control systems, and all other devices that rely on the badges.
This also assumes that you have programmable cards at all. While some proximity formats do have a read/write data (mifare, for instance), many others do not (HID Proxpoint, Indala, etc). Magstripe and barcode store very little data, so encoding a fingerprint would be infeasible. If you did, a barcode can be easily photographed unless it's an IR barcode. We've already established that switching card formats is very expensive, so you want to avoid that if possible.
That said, biometrics on the employee's card does present an excellent legal advantage. By never storing the employee's template, the company can reasonably assert that if the badge is lost, it's the employee's fault, and thus they're not liable. I would not be surprised if this approach gains traction, given the penalties of GDPR. However, given how often items are lost, I really don't think it's a good solution.
In short, security is hard.
Then you haven't used modern, good quality biometric devices.
.1-1% of the population that cannot use the devices, and <1% of the biometric operations fail. We have had numerous people use modern sensors that were blown away at how well they operate compared to prior generations.
Biometric sensors from 10-15 years ago absolutely worked terribly. Modern ones perform very well, and have a much better experience. 10-15 years ago, the industry had 10-20% of the population that could not reliably use fingerprint readers due to temperature, humidity, worn fingerprints, skin color, no fingerprints, and many other factors. Now, we have between
Lumidigm has an excellent such sensor. Check out a video of it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That video is not just a marketing gimmick. They absolutely work as shown in the video.
Note: I work in the biometric industry, but not on Wendy's time clocks.
A break in the chain IS possible. If someone gains access to the device, they could issue commands to retrieve the raw biometric data from the device and offload it. Most biometric sensors have API calls both to receive the template (hash) or the fingerprint image (raw data). If you get remote code execution on the device, employee fingerprints could be stolen by simply calling the API to retrieve the raw data.
Reversing the template to obtain the original fingerprint is simply not possible. That would be equivalent to saying "I have the md5 of a file, so if I find a weakness in md5, I can get the original file back!" To understand why this statement is untrue, let's talk about hashes and how they're broken.
A hash reduces a large data input to a small output, which can be used to verify that the input has not been altered (accidentally or maliciously). Except in extremely rare cases (small, known input sizes), hashing always causes such loss of data that the original file cannot be reconstructed.
A cryptographically secure hash adds one extra property. A cryptographically secure hash is engineered so it is difficult or "impossible" to create a different input that hashes to the same output. When hashes (like md5) are "broken", that means that we've devised a way to generate a series of inputs that resolves to the same hash--not that we can reconstruct the original input. In fact, once broken, we can generate a number of inputs that resolve to the same hash, and the original could be any one of them (or potentially another one we have not yet generated)!
Biometric templates are essentially non-cryptographic hashes. They are simply a measurement of the relative position and orientation between minutae (see here: http://www.uh.edu/engines/fing... for a description of what minutae are). Because they are not cryptographic, if you have a fingerprint template, it is absolutely possible to reconstruct a fingerprint that will match and score well against the template--that is, you could generate a spoof that would be accepted in the fingerprint reader. However, it would NOT be possible to reconstruct the original fingerprint, as too much data has been lost to reconstruct the original fingerprint.
I agree with the privacy concerns of biometric devices. It takes only one hack on such a device for your unchangeable biometric data to be stolen, forever. But if you need a person's fingerprint, the attack vectors aren't on the template data, they're on the device to obtain the raw image. Alternatively, if you had a fingerprint and a large data of stolen templates, you could likely identify a single or small set of individuals that had the fingerprint.
Note: I work on the industry on biometric devices, although not the ones that Wendy's uses.