I'm getting awfully nostalgic for the security addled PHPNuke right now. Reminds me of the good old days when even basic user data sanitatizaton seemed to be considered an excessive novelty.
Perhaps "good old days" is not the best way to describe it, actually.
It's probably not better but there are a lot of people who don't get their eyes checked as regularly as you do. A lot of people don't get their follow ups for example. I see this as another developing tool in the toolbox (used alongside current good methods) that will potentially allow for increased detection rates. It's worth having if it's helpful, passes a cost / benefit analysis, and doesn't suck.
All three of those things seem to be up in the air right now, but time will tell.
The fact that it can be operated by non-specialists also means that there's a greater scope for people to come in to contact with this testing. People could theoretically have this done at their GP instead of exclusively by their optician for example. I'm not entirely sure if opticians are generally so overbooked that people struggle to get appointments... I certainly doubt that actually... but even so it's another string to the bow.
Not a better string, not a replacement string, just another one.
A quick search for "T-Mobile data leak" provided numerous results to several instances. If this is their idea of "amazingly good" then yeah, I guess it is. After all "amazingly good" isn't exactly an empirical measure, it's sitting right in the middle of subjectivity. There are a lot of adjectives that are better than "amazingly" or "good", and maybe "amazingly good" is how they choose word the description of the their level of terrible security.
Believe it or not I'm actually quite aware that that all the money was, in fact, not allocated to NASA. I was referencing the fact that the budget they have now is significantly smaller than what they had during the Apollo moon missions. As you've pointed out.
If you genuinely, sincerely believe that there exists a person who believes every penny of currency was spent by NASA then I think that explaining concept of hyperbole to you is beyond my pay grade.
If you're going to spend just... all the money... on something, and that something can't be things like education or infrastructure, then it might as well be on something cool like putting people on the moon.
I've never claimed it to be the same but that's exactly what it does though. It used basic face finding (a smile detector in fact) to narrow the scope of the images down to the relevant section, decreasing overhead, and then built up a vector map over 100 frames based on shading. It's hardly unique, there's a bunch of open source projects that do something very similar indeed.
Not that you seem to need to be told given that you already know enough to tell me what it does and does not do but the release version uses two cameras.
I don't remember showing you the code. If you seen it then you'd remember that, in fact, it won't:) I've used a derivative of that software as part of a commercial product that I sell, it's a membership facility access system. It has some features to help prevent static images being used, among other things. I'm not saying it's the same approach used by Apple for their security features but it's much more in depth than simple pattern recognition. The reason I got it running on the RasPi is that I had planned on using the RasPi as a single board embedded system to run the whole package but I couldn't get it to run fast enough for comfortable user experience at the time. I ended up using different hardware but maybe the RasPi 3 is up to scratch.
In addition you seem to have missed the point... I can get effective facial recognition working using old hardware but mobile phone manufacturers are saying that they can't get it working with modern cameras on modern mobile hardware because it's too costly. I call that bunk.
I got facial recognition working with a VGA webcam hooked up to a Raspberry Pi v1.0.
Your argument is invalid, manufacturers... but still don't do it anyway because it's a terrible idea.
Good for you! I use three external disks as my backup, I had a bunch of SATA to USB converters lying around after a work project so I stacked them up and put them to use.
I figure the chances of three drives failing simultaneously are pretty slim. It's not like they're all Western Digital. Only one of them is.
Agreed with the fear of just having it turned off but there's always someone to tell you that your backups are not sufficient. Today, for you, that is me!
Online backups are great but if you invest in a hardware backup system that you have control of then you'll get a lot more peace of mind and control. External hard disks are not expensive! Doesn't have to be a fancy RAID setup with redundancies. Dropbox + external disk = more than 99% of people seem to use and gives two layers of reassurance.
I'm not even going to drop in an affiliate link or anything so you know I'm on the level.
I've been in the hosting market for a while and even though I've never had any directly pornographic contracts to fill I've had some that touch the edges, so to speak. One project I had was for a sex toy seller looking for a website, online transactions, marketing materials etc. I learned a lot in a few days reading T's and C's from hosting providers about what does and does not fly with certain providers. Given that the hosting sphere is basically dominated four or five big players and many thousands of their re-sellers it's not surprising to find that most web content hosts are very adult-theme sensitive. If the big players are against it then so are the vast majority of smaller ones.
I'd been of the understanding for a long time that Google Drive didn't want adult content on its service. As the title states: I'm genuinely surprised people had been successfully using Google Drive in such a fashion for such a long time by what appears to be a lot of people.
Ah well, there are alternatives at least. I feel like it would have been nice to tell users about exactly why their content is no longer allowed, but that's far too much for a consumer peon to ask from a faceless & soulless corporate golem.
Bonus: while typing out that last sentence the word golem flags my spell checker as being incorrect. The word "golem" has the spell check autocorrect suggestion of Google. I'm using Chrome. Irony levels are over 9000.
Can you disable the data harvesting and still install the app to use it?
I doubt it. Genuinely curious. I'd try it on my phone to test it but I've got more sense than to use the Facebook app.
Slashdot Mirror
Go well.
I'm getting awfully nostalgic for the security addled PHPNuke right now. Reminds me of the good old days when even basic user data sanitatizaton seemed to be considered an excessive novelty.
Perhaps "good old days" is not the best way to describe it, actually.
I can hold my breath for ten minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's probably not better but there are a lot of people who don't get their eyes checked as regularly as you do. A lot of people don't get their follow ups for example. I see this as another developing tool in the toolbox (used alongside current good methods) that will potentially allow for increased detection rates. It's worth having if it's helpful, passes a cost / benefit analysis, and doesn't suck.
All three of those things seem to be up in the air right now, but time will tell.
The fact that it can be operated by non-specialists also means that there's a greater scope for people to come in to contact with this testing. People could theoretically have this done at their GP instead of exclusively by their optician for example. I'm not entirely sure if opticians are generally so overbooked that people struggle to get appointments... I certainly doubt that actually... but even so it's another string to the bow.
Not a better string, not a replacement string, just another one.
There have been a string of security screwups from T-Mobile. From severe bugs to straight up data theft.
https://it.slashdot.org/story/18/02/23/2118227/critical-t-mobile-bug-allowed-hackers-to-hijack-users-accounts
https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/11/t-mobile-website-flaw-social-engineering-hacks/
A quick search for "T-Mobile data leak" provided numerous results to several instances. If this is their idea of "amazingly good" then yeah, I guess it is. After all "amazingly good" isn't exactly an empirical measure, it's sitting right in the middle of subjectivity. There are a lot of adjectives that are better than "amazingly" or "good", and maybe "amazingly good" is how they choose word the description of the their level of terrible security.
... needs to get Saked.
Time for that shove yet?
I'm guessing that, when the under-the-bus shoving begins, this guy will the the first to get shoved.
Wouldn't have seen it even if it did.
That's what I did... become a hermit I mean.
It's getting awfully crowded.
Believe it or not I'm actually quite aware that that all the money was, in fact, not allocated to NASA. I was referencing the fact that the budget they have now is significantly smaller than what they had during the Apollo moon missions. As you've pointed out.
If you genuinely, sincerely believe that there exists a person who believes every penny of currency was spent by NASA then I think that explaining concept of hyperbole to you is beyond my pay grade.
If you're going to spend just... all the money... on something, and that something can't be things like education or infrastructure, then it might as well be on something cool like putting people on the moon.
We can, you're absolutely right... but it takes informed knowledge, effort, and motivation to do so.
Any combination of those things are widely lacking in the world of the average Internet user.
I used to think it would be a good thing if everyone used the Internet. I've never missed 1996 as much as I do now, and not just for my hairline.
I've never claimed it to be the same but that's exactly what it does though. It used basic face finding (a smile detector in fact) to narrow the scope of the images down to the relevant section, decreasing overhead, and then built up a vector map over 100 frames based on shading. It's hardly unique, there's a bunch of open source projects that do something very similar indeed.
Not that you seem to need to be told given that you already know enough to tell me what it does and does not do but the release version uses two cameras.
Your webcam will be fooled by a photo.
I don't remember showing you the code. If you seen it then you'd remember that, in fact, it won't :) I've used a derivative of that software as part of a commercial product that I sell, it's a membership facility access system. It has some features to help prevent static images being used, among other things. I'm not saying it's the same approach used by Apple for their security features but it's much more in depth than simple pattern recognition. The reason I got it running on the RasPi is that I had planned on using the RasPi as a single board embedded system to run the whole package but I couldn't get it to run fast enough for comfortable user experience at the time. I ended up using different hardware but maybe the RasPi 3 is up to scratch.
In addition you seem to have missed the point... I can get effective facial recognition working using old hardware but mobile phone manufacturers are saying that they can't get it working with modern cameras on modern mobile hardware because it's too costly. I call that bunk.
I got facial recognition working with a VGA webcam hooked up to a Raspberry Pi v1.0. Your argument is invalid, manufacturers... but still don't do it anyway because it's a terrible idea.
Good for you! I use three external disks as my backup, I had a bunch of SATA to USB converters lying around after a work project so I stacked them up and put them to use.
I figure the chances of three drives failing simultaneously are pretty slim. It's not like they're all Western Digital. Only one of them is.
... off by 2... I was using the numpad too. I offer no excuse.
In the new world all this means is that you have something to hide. You don't have anything to hide, do you, citizen? Surely not.
You'll have no complaints to being watched then, since you're not doing anything wrong.
It's like 1982 was an instruction manual... and so many people are clamouring for it, as this is a good thing, it gives me chills.
I bought WinRAR. I feel an obligation to use nothing else now.
Then then banned me, and there was no one left to speak for me
Ban evasion is a bannable offence.
Agreed with the fear of just having it turned off but there's always someone to tell you that your backups are not sufficient. Today, for you, that is me!
Online backups are great but if you invest in a hardware backup system that you have control of then you'll get a lot more peace of mind and control. External hard disks are not expensive! Doesn't have to be a fancy RAID setup with redundancies. Dropbox + external disk = more than 99% of people seem to use and gives two layers of reassurance.
I'm not even going to drop in an affiliate link or anything so you know I'm on the level.
I've been in the hosting market for a while and even though I've never had any directly pornographic contracts to fill I've had some that touch the edges, so to speak. One project I had was for a sex toy seller looking for a website, online transactions, marketing materials etc. I learned a lot in a few days reading T's and C's from hosting providers about what does and does not fly with certain providers. Given that the hosting sphere is basically dominated four or five big players and many thousands of their re-sellers it's not surprising to find that most web content hosts are very adult-theme sensitive. If the big players are against it then so are the vast majority of smaller ones.
I'd been of the understanding for a long time that Google Drive didn't want adult content on its service. As the title states: I'm genuinely surprised people had been successfully using Google Drive in such a fashion for such a long time by what appears to be a lot of people.
Ah well, there are alternatives at least. I feel like it would have been nice to tell users about exactly why their content is no longer allowed, but that's far too much for a consumer peon to ask from a faceless & soulless corporate golem.
Bonus: while typing out that last sentence the word golem flags my spell checker as being incorrect. The word "golem" has the spell check autocorrect suggestion of Google. I'm using Chrome. Irony levels are over 9000.
I'm sure this statement is made in absence of any bias or potential for personal gain.
Can you disable the data harvesting and still install the app to use it? I doubt it. Genuinely curious. I'd try it on my phone to test it but I've got more sense than to use the Facebook app.