when October 31st rolls around and everyone who has an iPhone 10 and is wearing a mask discovers that they have to take off part of their costume just to make a phone call.
I'm guessing you don't work on anything more complicated than a horoscope generator, then. Clearly, the fallback in this case would be the passcode. Did you seriously not consider that? And because you didn't actually consider that possibility, did you seriously not consider that Apple engineers would consider it? Or were you just trying to score snark points?
Dear Apple and Microsoft users. Maybe if you care about freedoms, you should be supporting platforms which respect you as a user and support your right to privacy and freedom. Sincerely, someone who doesn't compromise their integrity by using systems which are broken by design.
Better than using a system that is broken by by lack of design, which is what Linux is. And I like Linux. But if you think I'm going to use it on my laptop as my main interface to the world, you need to stop smoking crack.
Why do you think it would need to store it at all?
You've got to store *something* initially to refer to later, when you try to unlock the phone. I mean, duh.
More to the point the data that it does store is not simply a hash. A hash can be used for comparison but not for machine learning that it does to keep up with gradual changes like ageing, hair, growing a beard, etc.
You're about 20 years behind in your understanding of what's happening here.
They already removed the button in last year's model. The iPhone 7 (and 8) have a touchID sensor on the lower bezel, but the home button itself has been replaced by haptic feedback.
What, you think that's cheaper than a mechanical button?
It's nothing new. For instance, face unlock was available on Alienware laptops 7+ years ago and has been common on Samsung devices for a while. The fact that Apple users "discover" that in September 2017 says a lot about this brand and their customer base.
I think if you'll take a closer look at the actual implementation, you'll find that they're not at all similar. But please, don't let that stop you from being smug.
I'm interested in the topic of Jew hating and belong to groups like "Exposing the Rothschilds", where some members hate Jews and some wonder if we shouldn't be hating Jews. It doesn't mean that I personally hate Jews.
No, but it might mean that you're a bit too close to the topic to have an unbiased opinion on the subject. But really, if we're both honest, it probably means that you're another one of jew-hating nutbags.
We need a new legal framework to ensure that our internet gatekeepers present a balanced view to avoid the spreading of fringe ideas
No, we don't. I hate the fringe nutbags and dumbshit racists just as much as anyone else, but the moment you invoke the idea of "legal frameworks" as a solution to speech (or, god forbid, thought) you've taken the first step down a slippery slope from which we will never, ever recover. Legislating speech or behavior will inevitably lead to an abuse of that power, with all of us paying the price.
The way to deal with hate is for decent people at all levels to lead by example, and to stand up to hate and refuse to tolerate bad behavior from their neighbors, from their coworkers, from their family, or from their friends.
Allowing placement of any ad based on a keyword hit that includes "hate" is just unethical.
Do you know of a software library that automatically detects all forms of hate (in all languages) within human communication, without fail? Care to provide any sources or citations as to how that software works, or even where to find it?
I'm sure you've been waiting for an opportunity to shoehorn that little inspirational nugget in one of your comments.
I rarely have to wait for very long before some hapless turd wanting to score snarkpoints on [_fill_in_discussion_forum_here_] ambles along and demonstrates a piss-poor understanding of what facts are and what they mean. I've used the term many times before.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work as well as you would have hoped because [meaningless argle-bargle]
Get over yourself. It was a direct hit. The only one here who maybe doesn't understand that is you.
2) I didn't "use data", I merely copy-pasted stuff from the first result that comes up when one googles "top 10 cve"
A meaningless distinction if ever there was one.
As others have noted, Windows is largely split across multiple versions, while virtually nothing else is. To willfully ignore that is to willfully misuse the facts in your pursuit of snarkpoints. And for that, you suck, oh-ohhhh!
I think it's a bit more complex than that. Oftentimes, you can determine from poor reviews exactly what the shortcomings are, and decide if those shortcomings affect your intended use of the product. If a competing product has no reviews, then you have no way of knowing what the shortcomings are.
Your sarcasm fails to make the post wrong, though.
Everybody involved in Bitcoin has heard the comparison to tulip mania. Offering it up as if it were some fresh insight just demonstrates that his knowledge of Bitcoin probably came from an article in USA Today.
Funny I just bought stuff at the corner store and the checkout girl's eyes glazed over when I asked if I could pay in BTC. Then I ordered some delivery from a fast food joint and once again the dude on the phone said "what?" when I asked if I could pay in BTC. Some standard you have there.
Funny I just bought stuff at the corner store and the checkout girl's eyes glazed over when I asked if I could pay in H.264. Then I ordered some delivery from a fast food joint an once again the dude on the phone said "what?" when I asked if I could pay in 802.11ac. Some standard you have there.
You don't know that. And neither do I. But that's a moot point. I'm personally much more interested in the concepts that Bitcoin (or something like it) introduces us to that are different from fiat currency, or gold, or securities.
You seem to be fixated on the idea of Bitcoin as a replacement for fiat currency, and all the things that Bitcoin must do in order to achieve that lofty goal. That's a red herring, though. Bitcoin doesn't have to do anything except to offer utility to people that want to use it. And right now, people are using it, whether you approve or not.
Bitcoin does a lot of really interesting things. If you would stop fixating on it as a replacement for fiat currency for a fucking moment, you might find that the way it achieves it's current utility is technically interesting in its own right.
Bitcoin is not gold. Bitcoin requires knowledge of computers, a working network, and the willing participation of many people. Gold is gold. Go to some remote village in Africa and put a piece of paper on the ground with a bitcoin wallet code, and a gold nugget next to it. Guess which one gets picked up every time.
What does that prove? That gold is more useful in some context? That's an obvious given. What do you imagine you've proved here?
there is nothing less real about Bitcoin than other fiat currency.
Oh yes there is. If you think a country's government and central banks don't have real power then you haven't been paying attention. The US dollar is backed by the US government and the US military. Start messing around with the US dollar and see how long it takes before you get sanctioned, invaded or both.
I live in that very country, and I don't find this reasoning very compelling.
Bragging about being the fifth richest nation is not really something to brag about.
Really? Because I read somewhere, that the fifth richest nation has an economy roughly about as big as California's. Fucking California's! That's not something to brag about? WTF planet are you on, where California's economy would be considered smallfry?
It's a matter of perspective. Bragging that your country has an economy only slightly larger than one of the 50 states of another country (and especially when that very country fought a war for independence and beat the snot out of your country) then, well...
Slashdot Mirror
when October 31st rolls around and everyone who has an iPhone 10 and is wearing a mask discovers that they have to take off part of their costume just to make a phone call.
I'm guessing you don't work on anything more complicated than a horoscope generator, then. Clearly, the fallback in this case would be the passcode. Did you seriously not consider that? And because you didn't actually consider that possibility, did you seriously not consider that Apple engineers would consider it? Or were you just trying to score snark points?
Seriously, which is it? I want to know.
Dear Apple and Microsoft users. Maybe if you care about freedoms, you should be supporting platforms which respect you as a user and support your right to privacy and freedom. Sincerely, someone who doesn't compromise their integrity by using systems which are broken by design.
Better than using a system that is broken by by lack of design, which is what Linux is. And I like Linux. But if you think I'm going to use it on my laptop as my main interface to the world, you need to stop smoking crack.
Why do you think it would need to store it at all?
You've got to store *something* initially to refer to later, when you try to unlock the phone. I mean, duh.
More to the point the data that it does store is not simply a hash. A hash can be used for comparison but not for machine learning that it does to keep up with gradual changes like ageing, hair, growing a beard, etc.
You're about 20 years behind in your understanding of what's happening here.
They already removed the button in last year's model. The iPhone 7 (and 8) have a touchID sensor on the lower bezel, but the home button itself has been replaced by haptic feedback.
What, you think that's cheaper than a mechanical button?
AFAICT if you have an iPhone 10 you're stuck with using your face to unlock your phone whether you like it or not.
This is just plan false.
and apple is the only company I dont trust with this info.
So, you would trust google with that information?
It's nothing new. For instance, face unlock was available on Alienware laptops 7+ years ago and has been common on Samsung devices for a while. The fact that Apple users "discover" that in September 2017 says a lot about this brand and their customer base.
I think if you'll take a closer look at the actual implementation, you'll find that they're not at all similar. But please, don't let that stop you from being smug.
I'm interested in the topic of Jew hating and belong to groups like "Exposing the Rothschilds", where some members hate Jews and some wonder if we shouldn't be hating Jews. It doesn't mean that I personally hate Jews.
No, but it might mean that you're a bit too close to the topic to have an unbiased opinion on the subject. But really, if we're both honest, it probably means that you're another one of jew-hating nutbags.
We need a new legal framework to ensure that our internet gatekeepers present a balanced view to avoid the spreading of fringe ideas
No, we don't. I hate the fringe nutbags and dumbshit racists just as much as anyone else, but the moment you invoke the idea of "legal frameworks" as a solution to speech (or, god forbid, thought) you've taken the first step down a slippery slope from which we will never, ever recover. Legislating speech or behavior will inevitably lead to an abuse of that power, with all of us paying the price.
The way to deal with hate is for decent people at all levels to lead by example, and to stand up to hate and refuse to tolerate bad behavior from their neighbors, from their coworkers, from their family, or from their friends.
Allowing placement of any ad based on a keyword hit that includes "hate" is just unethical.
Do you know of a software library that automatically detects all forms of hate (in all languages) within human communication, without fail? Care to provide any sources or citations as to how that software works, or even where to find it?
No, didn't think so.
I'm sure you've been waiting for an opportunity to shoehorn that little inspirational nugget in one of your comments.
I rarely have to wait for very long before some hapless turd wanting to score snarkpoints on [_fill_in_discussion_forum_here_] ambles along and demonstrates a piss-poor understanding of what facts are and what they mean. I've used the term many times before.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work as well as you would have hoped because [meaningless argle-bargle]
Get over yourself. It was a direct hit. The only one here who maybe doesn't understand that is you.
2) I didn't "use data", I merely copy-pasted stuff from the first result that comes up when one googles "top 10 cve"
A meaningless distinction if ever there was one.
As others have noted, Windows is largely split across multiple versions, while virtually nothing else is. To willfully ignore that is to willfully misuse the facts in your pursuit of snarkpoints. And for that, you suck, oh-ohhhh!
top 10 products with highest number of CVE:
You use data like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, rather than illumination.
You're also a dishonest shill. Go fuck yourself.
You really need to stop smoking crack before posting on Slashdot.
It's not like Microsoft has ever been mistaken about security, right?
Right?
Bitcoin is not money. It's more like baseball cards.
There's money in baseball cards.
I've seen people posting that fruit is poison.
What do the random burblings of the internet have to do with the objective facts about sugar?
I think it's a bit more complex than that. Oftentimes, you can determine from poor reviews exactly what the shortcomings are, and decide if those shortcomings affect your intended use of the product. If a competing product has no reviews, then you have no way of knowing what the shortcomings are.
Your sarcasm fails to make the post wrong, though.
Everybody involved in Bitcoin has heard the comparison to tulip mania. Offering it up as if it were some fresh insight just demonstrates that his knowledge of Bitcoin probably came from an article in USA Today.
Funny I just bought stuff at the corner store and the checkout girl's eyes glazed over when I asked if I could pay in BTC. Then I ordered some delivery from a fast food joint and once again the dude on the phone said "what?" when I asked if I could pay in BTC. Some standard you have there.
Funny I just bought stuff at the corner store and the checkout girl's eyes glazed over when I asked if I could pay in H.264. Then I ordered some delivery from a fast food joint an once again the dude on the phone said "what?" when I asked if I could pay in 802.11ac. Some standard you have there.
Bitcoin is not the future, it is a scam.
You don't know that. And neither do I. But that's a moot point. I'm personally much more interested in the concepts that Bitcoin (or something like it) introduces us to that are different from fiat currency, or gold, or securities.
You seem to be fixated on the idea of Bitcoin as a replacement for fiat currency, and all the things that Bitcoin must do in order to achieve that lofty goal. That's a red herring, though. Bitcoin doesn't have to do anything except to offer utility to people that want to use it. And right now, people are using it, whether you approve or not.
Bitcoin does a lot of really interesting things. If you would stop fixating on it as a replacement for fiat currency for a fucking moment, you might find that the way it achieves it's current utility is technically interesting in its own right.
In what context isn't the gold more useful? In an internet chat room?
When the proposition is an ounce of gold vs. 1 bitcoin.
Bitcoin is not gold. Bitcoin requires knowledge of computers, a working network, and the willing participation of many people. Gold is gold. Go to some remote village in Africa and put a piece of paper on the ground with a bitcoin wallet code, and a gold nugget next to it. Guess which one gets picked up every time.
What does that prove? That gold is more useful in some context? That's an obvious given. What do you imagine you've proved here?
there is nothing less real about Bitcoin than other fiat currency.
Oh yes there is. If you think a country's government and central banks don't have real power then you haven't been paying attention. The US dollar is backed by the US government and the US military. Start messing around with the US dollar and see how long it takes before you get sanctioned, invaded or both.
I live in that very country, and I don't find this reasoning very compelling.
Bragging about being the fifth richest nation is not really something to brag about.
Really? Because I read somewhere, that the fifth richest nation has an economy roughly about as big as California's. Fucking California's! That's not something to brag about? WTF planet are you on, where California's economy would be considered smallfry?
It's a matter of perspective. Bragging that your country has an economy only slightly larger than one of the 50 states of another country (and especially when that very country fought a war for independence and beat the snot out of your country) then, well...
They have to accept the large bill don't have to provide change on the spot.
No, they don't.