The official unemployment rate is the U-3, and that's generally what the media reports. The U-6 is a larger number but mirrors the peaks & valleys of the U-3 (essentially off by a constant factor)--so doesn't add a whole lot of value. But hey, if you want to use that number than feel free--I don't see how it changes any economic conclusions but feel free.
Libertarian websites tend to use some silly "labor participation" rate that treats retired people the same as unemployed able-bodied 30-year olds. That's the truly fictional number.
Rocket launches are dramatically cheaper with SpaceX then before SpaceX--and the US now nolonger is reliant on Russia for ferrying astronauts to and from the ISS. Any gov investment has long since paid off there.
...as to believe that the Cydia crowd in any way represents a cross-section of iPhone users? Generous estimates put the number at something like 0.3%.
So 99.7% of iPhone users have no interest in jailbreaking their phone--they just want something that works. My microwave is also a pretty restricted platform--I'm okay with that.
why do so many millions of people spend so much money to live there?
People like different things. I like walking, Broadway shows, museums, and not having to own a car. I like living in a place filled with decent human beings rather than some red state shithole where I'd be surrounded by Trump voters.
It's a big world out there, you should get out of your box sometime.
Show me a single news story of somebody fooling FaceID with a photograph. It doesn't exist because FaceID *DOESN'T USE THE CAMERA*!
Pretty much nobody uses more than single-factor for access to their smartphone. The whole point of FaceID (and TouchID before that) is that most people were still using 0-factor. Decent security is better than no security.
You are falling into the classic security myth that if security isn't perfect then it is useless. People who understand security know that ALL security is imperfect, the whole point is to increase the cost of defeating the security to the point where it is nolonger economical and criminals move on to an easier target.
If my phone was only protected by a username then you could get into it easily, since my username is not a secret. But if you had my phone in your hand right now there's no reasonable way you could get into it--even if you had a picture of my face or hell even if you had a full 3D model of my face. So explain to me how FaceID is no better than a username.
The problem is this: stupid IT morons can't understand secret-less authentication, they only understand username:password. They keep trying to understand biometric authentication within the paradigm of username:password--and since your face can't be a password then it must be a username.
Literally everyone else on the planet understands FaceID perfectly--because it's exactly the same as how they authenticate other humans every day. And so unsurprisingly, nearly every one on the planet understands security better than stupid IT morons.
Secret-based authentication is a reasonable approach--that's one factor. Biometric (face recognition) is another factor. Put them together and you have 2-factor authentication. That's a fine solution for when you need the enhanced security provided by 2-factor authentication.
The whole thread was about your little tantrum that "you can't change your face". That's childish little quip is borne out of you not understanding that biometric authentication doesn't require secrets--and thus there's no reason to ever have to change anything because of concern that the "secret has escaped".
You now kinda understand that, but you're still pouting, mostly likely because the world is changing and you can't deal with that.
I have no idea what a CISSP is and couldn't care less. There's nothing trendy about facial & voice recognition for authentication--it's literally how humans have authenticated one another for the last several millenia. It works really well and it's very hard to trick (despite Mission Impossible 3D mask BS). Critically, it *does not* rely on secrets (although it does rely on 'trusted hardware'). I realize that's hard for you to understand, but take a minute and think hard--you'll get it. I believe in you.
Your face is obviously not a secret, but authentication doesn't require secrets. How do you authenticate your wife everyday?
You trust your eyes, and you trust that [eventhough it's technically possible] it's not worth the substantial effort it would take for someone to try to fool your eyes.
Biometric security works the same way. The iPhone has a pretty bullet-proof & un-hackable chain of trust between the 3D sensor and the authentication circuitry--and it's really difficult & expensive to try to trick those circuits with a complicated 3D model. That's the whole ball-game. For the most part there are no secrets involved.
You're wondering whether they can possibly afford that sort of technology at a couple of gates of an airport? Perhaps this isn't common knowledge, but airports already consume quite a bit of electricity. It's not rocket surgery.
Or do you honestly not understand that you can use one battery to charge another?
> All you have to do is charge an even larger stationary battery SLOWLY from some utility feed, and then use that stationary battery to quickly charge (i.e., supercharge) the 900 KWH EV battery.
The new Tesla Semi is also going to have a >900 KWH battery. Tesla sells passenger sedans with ~100 KWH batteries. It's just not a big deal. All you have to do is charge an even larger stationary battery from some utility feed, and then use that stationary battery to quickly charge (i.e., supercharge) the 900 KWH EV battery.
It's amazing how often this silly argument turns up with respect to charging electric vehicles. Somebody calculates the peak charging rates and then extrapolates that to some ridiculous amount that has to be supplied continuously from the original source.
People don't do this with other consumables, like water or gasoline. Noone ever says, "a toilet requires 1 gallon to be refilled within 60 seconds. There are 5 million toilets in NYC, so the NYC water system must be designed to supply 5 million gallons per minute". Nope, that's silly, because obviously not all toilets are going to be flushing continuously. Having intermediate water storage allows us to work in terms of average demand, not peak demand.
Well, guess what? You can store electricity, too. Just charge up a large battery at the airport slowly from the utility infrastructure (or hell, from solar panels for that matter) and use that battery to quickly charge planes when they need to be refilled.
The battery just has to be sized based on average demand (with some buffer). This is pretty much exactly how airport fuel tanks work.
Slashdot Mirror
Do the math.
nt
The official unemployment rate is the U-3, and that's generally what the media reports. The U-6 is a larger number but mirrors the peaks & valleys of the U-3 (essentially off by a constant factor)--so doesn't add a whole lot of value. But hey, if you want to use that number than feel free--I don't see how it changes any economic conclusions but feel free.
Libertarian websites tend to use some silly "labor participation" rate that treats retired people the same as unemployed able-bodied 30-year olds. That's the truly fictional number.
I agree Trump is terrible, the economy is in decent shape only because that's what he inherited from Obama--and we're probably in a bubble.
What I don't believe is the nonsense about the unemployment rate. I didn't believe it when the same criticism was leveled at Obama.
Tells us again how the rocket landings were faked.
so it's kinda hard to take you seriously.
Rocket launches are dramatically cheaper with SpaceX then before SpaceX--and the US now nolonger is reliant on Russia for ferrying astronauts to and from the ISS. Any gov investment has long since paid off there.
...as to believe that the Cydia crowd in any way represents a cross-section of iPhone users? Generous estimates put the number at something like 0.3%.
So 99.7% of iPhone users have no interest in jailbreaking their phone--they just want something that works. My microwave is also a pretty restricted platform--I'm okay with that.
why do so many millions of people spend so much money to live there?
People like different things. I like walking, Broadway shows, museums, and not having to own a car. I like living in a place filled with decent human beings rather than some red state shithole where I'd be surrounded by Trump voters.
It's a big world out there, you should get out of your box sometime.
Show me a single news story of somebody fooling FaceID with a photograph. It doesn't exist because FaceID *DOESN'T USE THE CAMERA*!
Pretty much nobody uses more than single-factor for access to their smartphone. The whole point of FaceID (and TouchID before that) is that most people were still using 0-factor. Decent security is better than no security.
You are falling into the classic security myth that if security isn't perfect then it is useless. People who understand security know that ALL security is imperfect, the whole point is to increase the cost of defeating the security to the point where it is nolonger economical and criminals move on to an easier target.
nt
If my phone was only protected by a username then you could get into it easily, since my username is not a secret. But if you had my phone in your hand right now there's no reasonable way you could get into it--even if you had a picture of my face or hell even if you had a full 3D model of my face. So explain to me how FaceID is no better than a username.
The problem is this: stupid IT morons can't understand secret-less authentication, they only understand username:password. They keep trying to understand biometric authentication within the paradigm of username:password--and since your face can't be a password then it must be a username.
Literally everyone else on the planet understands FaceID perfectly--because it's exactly the same as how they authenticate other humans every day. And so unsurprisingly, nearly every one on the planet understands security better than stupid IT morons.
Secret-based authentication is a reasonable approach--that's one factor. Biometric (face recognition) is another factor. Put them together and you have 2-factor authentication. That's a fine solution for when you need the enhanced security provided by 2-factor authentication.
The whole thread was about your little tantrum that "you can't change your face". That's childish little quip is borne out of you not understanding that biometric authentication doesn't require secrets--and thus there's no reason to ever have to change anything because of concern that the "secret has escaped".
You now kinda understand that, but you're still pouting, mostly likely because the world is changing and you can't deal with that.
I have no idea what a CISSP is and couldn't care less. There's nothing trendy about facial & voice recognition for authentication--it's literally how humans have authenticated one another for the last several millenia. It works really well and it's very hard to trick (despite Mission Impossible 3D mask BS). Critically, it *does not* rely on secrets (although it does rely on 'trusted hardware'). I realize that's hard for you to understand, but take a minute and think hard--you'll get it. I believe in you.
Tesla shorts are getting more and more desperate.
Your face is obviously not a secret, but authentication doesn't require secrets. How do you authenticate your wife everyday?
You trust your eyes, and you trust that [eventhough it's technically possible] it's not worth the substantial effort it would take for someone to try to fool your eyes.
Biometric security works the same way. The iPhone has a pretty bullet-proof & un-hackable chain of trust between the 3D sensor and the authentication circuitry--and it's really difficult & expensive to try to trick those circuits with a complicated 3D model. That's the whole ball-game. For the most part there are no secrets involved.
You're wondering whether they can possibly afford that sort of technology at a couple of gates of an airport? Perhaps this isn't common knowledge, but airports already consume quite a bit of electricity. It's not rocket surgery.
Or do you honestly not understand that you can use one battery to charge another?
> All you have to do is charge an even larger stationary battery SLOWLY from some utility feed, and then use that stationary battery to quickly charge (i.e., supercharge) the 900 KWH EV battery.
List of busiest passenger air routes
Please contact the airlines and let them know they should cancel all these flights immediately.
Has there ever been a more consistently anti-technology forum than the comments section of any Slashdot post?
The new Tesla Semi is also going to have a >900 KWH battery. Tesla sells passenger sedans with ~100 KWH batteries. It's just not a big deal. All you have to do is charge an even larger stationary battery from some utility feed, and then use that stationary battery to quickly charge (i.e., supercharge) the 900 KWH EV battery.
It's amazing how often this silly argument turns up with respect to charging electric vehicles. Somebody calculates the peak charging rates and then extrapolates that to some ridiculous amount that has to be supplied continuously from the original source.
People don't do this with other consumables, like water or gasoline. Noone ever says, "a toilet requires 1 gallon to be refilled within 60 seconds. There are 5 million toilets in NYC, so the NYC water system must be designed to supply 5 million gallons per minute". Nope, that's silly, because obviously not all toilets are going to be flushing continuously. Having intermediate water storage allows us to work in terms of average demand, not peak demand.
Well, guess what? You can store electricity, too. Just charge up a large battery at the airport slowly from the utility infrastructure (or hell, from solar panels for that matter) and use that battery to quickly charge planes when they need to be refilled.
The battery just has to be sized based on average demand (with some buffer). This is pretty much exactly how airport fuel tanks work.
But, hey, yeah--whatever. Great joke.
Maybe look up Tesla supercharging so you don't sound like such a dumbass on the internet.
And just a reminder, your Slashdot comment about Model 3 sales hasn't aged particularly well
What's it like to always be wrong?
All of your arguments are wrong. Your facts are outdated. This is getting old.
That's too bad.