Sorry to be stepping on your lawn, but there is nothing wrong with being in the picture now and then. There are also situations where it's impossible to both have the phone at the right angle for a shot and to see the screen to frame it correctly.
The great thing about EULAs is that it's not illegal to break them. It's understandable that Apple doesn't want you to do these things, but we're free to do what we want with our purchased hardware from a legal standpoint.
You don't know if it 's being exploited. You don 't know if it has to be crafted for a specific phone. You don 't know how many phones will actually get that update.
The FaceTime bug was mitigated very soon after disclosure for every single device simultaneously.
Most Android users would love to have the "problem " of having to have the latest OS. Any iPhone user susceptible to the bug already had iOS 12.
All phones suffer when their batteries are old. It's harder to notice when the device runs like shit out of the box.
Interesting metaphor but it's missing some important details.
For one, the company that built the fruit stand was probably subsidized by the government because fruit stands were deemed to be important social infrastructure. So if the stand is partially publicly funded, why should a private corporation keep all the profit?
Second, when you go to a market there are many fruit stands to choose from. The barrier to entry is low. The metaphor breaks down when you consider that we're really talking about a wire buried underground or strung over roads. If only one company controls the wires competition is severely stifled because digging a trench across or stringing wires over roads is very expensive. Even if it wasn't, it hardly makes sense to have a separate wire going to your house for every ISP.
It makes sense for the wires to be shared and for the other end of the wire to be open to competition. If all the apples were exactly the same it would be more efficient and better for customers for there to be one stand with a bunch of competitors behind it offering prices.
Google did something similar actually - provided a physics model and a humanoid form and let their ML figure out how to walk over various virtual obstacle courses, which it did quite well. (look it up, I love the way it waves one arm as a balance strategy!)
Presumably that would be the next step for this system - after figuring out its own form and limitations, have it figure out how to use that to achieve goals such as locomotion etc.
You could say most of that about humans. I'm not suggesting it's self aware, but we only know ourselves and reality through a model that exists only in our mind, informed only by rather lossy sensors.
Iâ(TM)m not going to argue that what this software is doing is the same as human imagination, but for sake of discussion, how would you define the act of imagining?
Come on, really? Adaptive robots doesn't automatically mean human slavery you know. Think autonomous vehicles, warehouse and shipping routing, manufacturing robots that don't require specific training. Even things like food preparation, architectural design. Just about any process you want to automate will be much easier to do if the computer can fill in the blanks.
I actually have a great deal of interest in the subject. I have multiple VR headsets and have dabbed in AR and VR development. But phone-based AR clearly has no killer app yet. Thatâ(TM)s why I have many AR apps I never use, and why different 3D detection hardware seems of dubious value.
Layering increases security, not decreases. Credit card secrets is a contradiction of terms. The only thing between thieves and your account is numbers printed on a piece of plastic. A piece of plastic thatâ(TM)s sent via snail mail, and can be dropped, stolen, skimmed or photographed. Iâ(TM)ll trust an Apple datacenter over that anyday. Sure there are other payment systems but none with anywhere near the convenience, and thus userbase, as Apple Pay.
Did you read the link you posted? It has nothing to do with Apple Pay. Some idiots without 2FA got phished and their 3rd party apps compromised. Hardly an Apple failing. Even with a stolen Apple ID you canâ(TM)t use someone elseâ(TM)s Apple Pay because it requires biometric authentication.
The number used is different for each merchant and will not correspond with aggregated purchase data. It is random from the perspective of the merchant because it is hashed from data unavailable to the merchant.
I still think there could be benefits to the biometric option. If it was only a matter of creating an account on approved hardware I could imagine a truckload of iPhone 5Ss and a room full of cheap labour being an effective account generation scheme. If it was per-post but based on a per-install token that would solve that problem but would make using multiple devices difficult, especially while maintaining anonymity. And that's already possible.
A per-post biometric scan has the benefit of Twitter not relying on a particular biometric scheme, not needing to save any kind of per-device token in the user profile, and also not incentivizing device manufacturer federated authentication schemes. After all, Apple already knows who you are and what apps you use so if they want to keep those data to themselves then offering an API as I described would actually be better.
You seem to be the only commenter that understands the technology. The problem with current authentication APIs is that all they can do is store and compare provided tokens. Itâ(TM)s up to the app to report back to servers what the result was, and thereâ(TM)s no way for the server to verify that any of it actually happened.
What would be needed is a new API where the app makes a call and receives back a unique token (perhaps a random per-app ID signed with an Apple private key). The server could then make a call to Apple servers to verify the token is authentic.
This way Twitter receives no user-specific information but can verify that a biometric capture took place.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we need a "Name acts the opposite of what they are" act so that we can finally get acts that are named what they are.
If you don't mind being stuck with Android, BlackBerry makes devices for you and the other five people who like physical keyboards.
You're right - if you have zero ability to hold a phone properly then I don't know why you would want one.
Might want to work on that.
You cannot think of a use, therefore there is no use. Classic.
Sorry to be stepping on your lawn, but there is nothing wrong with being in the picture now and then. There are also situations where it's impossible to both have the phone at the right angle for a shot and to see the screen to frame it correctly.
You mock what you do not understand.
The great thing about EULAs is that it's not illegal to break them. It's understandable that Apple doesn't want you to do these things, but we're free to do what we want with our purchased hardware from a legal standpoint.
iOS 12 runs on 5 year old hardware. Being smug is not necessary to understand the benefits of that.
Your 3GS is not susceptible to this bug.
But youâ(TM)re not smug at all right?
You don't know if it 's being exploited. You don 't know if it has to be crafted for a specific phone. You don 't know how many phones will actually get that update.
The FaceTime bug was mitigated very soon after disclosure for every single device simultaneously.
Most Android users would love to have the "problem " of having to have the latest OS. Any iPhone user susceptible to the bug already had iOS 12.
All phones suffer when their batteries are old. It's harder to notice when the device runs like shit out of the box.
And by the way that's what we do - supermarkets.
Interesting metaphor but it's missing some important details.
For one, the company that built the fruit stand was probably subsidized by the government because fruit stands were deemed to be important social infrastructure. So if the stand is partially publicly funded, why should a private corporation keep all the profit?
Second, when you go to a market there are many fruit stands to choose from. The barrier to entry is low. The metaphor breaks down when you consider that we're really talking about a wire buried underground or strung over roads. If only one company controls the wires competition is severely stifled because digging a trench across or stringing wires over roads is very expensive. Even if it wasn't, it hardly makes sense to have a separate wire going to your house for every ISP.
It makes sense for the wires to be shared and for the other end of the wire to be open to competition. If all the apples were exactly the same it would be more efficient and better for customers for there to be one stand with a bunch of competitors behind it offering prices.
Here it is: https://youtu.be/gn4nRCC9TwQ
Google did something similar actually - provided a physics model and a humanoid form and let their ML figure out how to walk over various virtual obstacle courses, which it did quite well. (look it up, I love the way it waves one arm as a balance strategy!)
Presumably that would be the next step for this system - after figuring out its own form and limitations, have it figure out how to use that to achieve goals such as locomotion etc.
You could say most of that about humans. I'm not suggesting it's self aware, but we only know ourselves and reality through a model that exists only in our mind, informed only by rather lossy sensors.
Once we decide that an entity is conscious then yes, we should bestow such considerations, as any decent person does with fellow humans.
Iâ(TM)m not going to argue that what this software is doing is the same as human imagination, but for sake of discussion, how would you define the act of imagining?
Come on, really? Adaptive robots doesn't automatically mean human slavery you know. Think autonomous vehicles, warehouse and shipping routing, manufacturing robots that don't require specific training. Even things like food preparation, architectural design. Just about any process you want to automate will be much easier to do if the computer can fill in the blanks.
Indeed, Marvin could adapt to any situation - he could make anything seem depressing ;)
Oh really. Please, enlighten us as to the killer AR app for Android.
And in 2019 I do not expect to have to encode my own entities.
Oh, delicious irony.
I actually have a great deal of interest in the subject. I have multiple VR headsets and have dabbed in AR and VR development. But phone-based AR clearly has no killer app yet. Thatâ(TM)s why I have many AR apps I never use, and why different 3D detection hardware seems of dubious value.
A proper 3D camera will be amazing for all the AR apps I never use.
I'm really glad to read this and hope that more schools adopt such policies.
I'd mod you up if I had points.
Layering increases security, not decreases. Credit card secrets is a contradiction of terms. The only thing between thieves and your account is numbers printed on a piece of plastic. A piece of plastic thatâ(TM)s sent via snail mail, and can be dropped, stolen, skimmed or photographed. Iâ(TM)ll trust an Apple datacenter over that anyday. Sure there are other payment systems but none with anywhere near the convenience, and thus userbase, as Apple Pay.
Did you read the link you posted? It has nothing to do with Apple Pay. Some idiots without 2FA got phished and their 3rd party apps compromised. Hardly an Apple failing. Even with a stolen Apple ID you canâ(TM)t use someone elseâ(TM)s Apple Pay because it requires biometric authentication.
The number used is different for each merchant and will not correspond with aggregated purchase data. It is random from the perspective of the merchant because it is hashed from data unavailable to the merchant.
Deanonymisation requires correlation.
All good points, thanks. Food for thought.
I still think there could be benefits to the biometric option. If it was only a matter of creating an account on approved hardware I could imagine a truckload of iPhone 5Ss and a room full of cheap labour being an effective account generation scheme. If it was per-post but based on a per-install token that would solve that problem but would make using multiple devices difficult, especially while maintaining anonymity. And that's already possible.
A per-post biometric scan has the benefit of Twitter not relying on a particular biometric scheme, not needing to save any kind of per-device token in the user profile, and also not incentivizing device manufacturer federated authentication schemes. After all, Apple already knows who you are and what apps you use so if they want to keep those data to themselves then offering an API as I described would actually be better.
You seem to be the only commenter that understands the technology. The problem with current authentication APIs is that all they can do is store and compare provided tokens. Itâ(TM)s up to the app to report back to servers what the result was, and thereâ(TM)s no way for the server to verify that any of it actually happened.
What would be needed is a new API where the app makes a call and receives back a unique token (perhaps a random per-app ID signed with an Apple private key). The server could then make a call to Apple servers to verify the token is authentic.
This way Twitter receives no user-specific information but can verify that a biometric capture took place.