Just like the "unlock gesture" in the new Windows stuff, this is a replacement for a 4 digit PIN, not for a real password. This break seems harder and more time consuming than brute forcing a 4 digit PIN, so it's fine.
Anyone who actually cares will have forensic tools that will just immediately present the data anyhow - for any consumer device, physical access is access to the data, eventually.
It's a little more than that. Once unlocked the fingerprint can be used to authorise the iTunes and App stores... not that that does you much more than allow you to download stuff to your stolen phone at present. Maybe Apple were aware of the limitation and that's why they've withheld access to the TouchID API from developers. It would be different if you could authorise real world purchases with it.
Let's face it, Apple has a good product in the iPhone. The problem is that they aren't listening to the customer base and therefore they are allowing the competition to either catch up or maybe in some instances go ahead. I believe the public has stated loud and clear that they want bigger.
If you go down the route of listening to the customer and focus groups you end up with a mess. Apple has been there in the past.
On the comment that the public has stated that they want bigger. Is this really true or have you been watching too many Samsung adverts? I see more iPhones around than large screen Android phones, and more small screen Android phones than either.
I also have never used a case on my iPhone(s). I've kept them in my left pocket with nothing else. I've dropped them on occasion but, as yet, they are fine. They aren't as fragile as the prevailing thought, or case manufacturers, would have you believe.
As to the other, you'd have to ask my girlfriend. It's not my place to comment;)
Except those of us old enough to remember the Microsoft bailout.... When Apple clearly didnt know what they were doing but instead were rehashing product lines over and over...
~sigh~ It wasn't a bail-out it was a a deal whereby MS got access to Apple's patents and Apple got to $150m and a promise to maintain development of Office on the Mac. The money wasn't a token amount, what was important was the statement from Microsoft that they thought that Apple would be around for a while.
Apple didn't know what they were doing at the time. Jobs had a vision though and the commitment from Microsoft gave him breathing room to release the iMac. The rest is history.
~sigh~ this is addressed in the first paragraph of the article. I guess it was too easy just to jump on that fairly minor point though rather than actually comment on the article at length. Slashdot at it's worst.
You have a great luxury in that the police and security services have been effective to date in keeping terrorism under control with a fairly regular series of arrests and convictions. That can change, just ask the Iraqis. They thought they had terrorism under control and now it may be spiraling out of control. At its height, there were probably tens of bombs going off daily around the country. Things are bad enough now they would like the US to come back.
Have we? Who can say? Without information being open for public scrutiny we have only the police and security services word on this to know if they have in fact kept terrorism under control. With all of the powers in place they seemed to miss a fairly obvious suspect that was involved in the Boston Marathon bombing. Was this an aberration or about par for the course? We just don't know.
By all means keep currently operational information secret but allow review of past operations, both successes and failures. It would increase public support and security. The idea that things have to be kept secret so as not to reveal operational information to terrorists is security through obscurity, such a thing only protects against the ignorant. I suggest that terrorist organisations, rather than individuals, already know how they were caught before and will update their procedures accordingly.
Instead they are planning on sinking 10x the amount into high speed rail that won't compete with current airline times and prices. This is as much a call on sense of the high speed rail programme as it is the proposal itself.
I believe it's spelled moron. But regardless, the whole concept of this system is to keep a consistent flow of traffic a high speeds. Slowing down for turns would break that model and could create congestion. Hence me question.
If its necessary to slow down at specific spots then the traffic pattern can be adjusted to manage this. Hint: closed systems are very easy to model. You get congestion because of changes in the traffic pattern. All other travel systems are subject to weather effect which disrupt the normal operations and generate congestion.
The whole article is just a big load of crap written by an Apple fanboy.. What innovation? show me some real innovation by apple which wasn't ripped from others..
Show me some real innovation invented by anyone that wasn't based on the work of others.
Anyone who thinks that iOS 7 is nothing more than a graphical change is an idiot who isn't keeping up with the technical changes going on. This is a classic case of ignoring the facts when they don't fit the narrative you want to use as an argument. What a moron.
This is just a journalist re-treading the old "Apple is doomed" meme because Apple work at Apple's pace. They will release something when they are ready to release it. It's how they work.
Looks more to me like the 3-letter agencies have decided to BREAK THE LAW.
Its an interesting debate. What law has been broken?
I'm pretty sure that with the Patriot Act at its back the FBI can justify the actions they've taken against peoples committing crimes in the US. There will be sufficient wriggle room in there for a good lawyer to argue their case. What is needed is a ruling. Something that's not been tested in court yet. The various Snowden revelations won't see their day in court due to the nature of the material released. A paedophile case would see court which would help determine the exact reach of the law.
The law is not, except in simple cases, a black and white thing. There are generally arguments around specific points and its the judgements around these that determine what is and is not legal.
Its it just me or does the idea of using an online cloud based service provided by a third party to test the strength of your password database sound like a bad idea?
That's the point. If you want to pay for the bandwidth to run a server business, you buy business class. You want residential, you pay residential. You try to run a business on residential, that's leeching.
Huh?
If I pay for a certain amount of bandwidth I pay for a certain amount of bandwidth. I don't pay for X amount divided between N users. If the ISP can't provide the bandwidth that they are selling me then they need to tell me about it. To do otherwise is being deceitful.
Well, it's not the IT people, rather the Information Technology part.
Sorry, but frequently its the people.
- Its those people that are in IT because its a career that will earn them a living rather than because they have a gift for it. - Its those people that blindly follow rules because they only know how, they don't now why. - Its those people who only have round peg and try to use it to fill every hole whatever the shape. - Its those people that decide to implement things from scratch rather than build on experience gathered elsewhere. - Its those people that are more concerned with staying in their job so pick the safe solution rather than the optimal one. - Its those people that have caused ITIL to be necessary.
Get rid of the majority of people that are working in IT for the wrong reasons and things would work better.
Feel free to substitute IT with any other skilled profession. It holds true for most of them.
What timeline do you live in? Here in 2013, iOS is getting absolutely crushed by Android.
Ooh. I spy a Google cheerleader, do I get a prize.
Its odd that things have to be termed in such an adversarial manner. That there has to be a winner and a loser.
That said I suggest you look at the numbers a little closer. Its true that there are more Android phones being bought than iOS ones. However this is only the case if you look at ALL Android phones including cheap ones that are shipping with 2.3 on just good enough hardware. That was always going to happen because Apple have chosen not to play in that space.
iOS is competitive in the market that Apple chooses to engage in. So in that sense iOS isn't being crushed at all.
I'm happy to see the competition between Android and iOS, it should mean that both continue to improve. If one were to truly crush the other then it would be worse for the everyone.
I understand it when people with no knowledge go on about Y2K as some sort of hoax. I despair when it comes from people that should no better.
Any idea why Y2K didn't have the massive impact it could have? Would it be the massive effort testing and patching things to prevent it being a problem. Maybe we should have just left things and picked up the pieces afterwards. Yeah that would have been good. I know for a fact that there would have been issues with the emergency number (999) in the UK. Can you be sure that things would have worked wherever you're from?
Welcome to the mobile phone handset business model. This was the business model for these suppliers long before Android came along, do you really think they are going to change now? Instead of fixing older handsets they want to release new variants every few months to tempt the unwary with a new bright shiny thing.
The only company doing anything different, no matter how much Slashdot hate them, is Apple. The limited hardware targets they have to deal with allows them to provide longer support and its something that they've done since day one. Sadly the Android/iOS holy war prevents this advantage being seen.
A disarmed populace is just a crop of victims waiting to be harvested. Contrary to popular belief, most folks who legally carry a firearm are not cowboys out looking for a reason to go shoot somebody up. Most of us take the responsibility of carrying a firearm very seriously, and we do so because we understand that the world at large is not a friendly place. I am an honest and true believer that it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Isn't this viewpoint as sad testament as to the state of the land of the free?
In a civilised country the populace shouldn't feel that they need to carry a weapon when walking the streets to be safe.
I believe that its better to not have the need to carry than to carry just in case.
Add to it the psychological factor - if someone starts to act nervous when it shows up you have some reason to investigate further.
However in any place outside the US the "probable cause" doesn't exist, so cops can stop anyone whenever they find it necessary.
Interesting view of the rest of the world. I know that you're from the US but really, at least pretend to show some sort of interest/knowledge of the wider world before make pronouncements like this. It's got to be embarrassing for your peers to make such ignorant and ill-informed statements.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like the "unlock gesture" in the new Windows stuff, this is a replacement for a 4 digit PIN, not for a real password. This break seems harder and more time consuming than brute forcing a 4 digit PIN, so it's fine.
Anyone who actually cares will have forensic tools that will just immediately present the data anyhow - for any consumer device, physical access is access to the data, eventually.
It's a little more than that. Once unlocked the fingerprint can be used to authorise the iTunes and App stores ... not that that does you much more than allow you to download stuff to your stolen phone at present. Maybe Apple were aware of the limitation and that's why they've withheld access to the TouchID API from developers. It would be different if you could authorise real world purchases with it.
Let's face it, Apple has a good product in the iPhone. The problem is that they aren't listening to the customer base and therefore they are allowing the competition to either catch up or maybe in some instances go ahead. I believe the public has stated loud and clear that they want bigger.
If you go down the route of listening to the customer and focus groups you end up with a mess. Apple has been there in the past.
On the comment that the public has stated that they want bigger. Is this really true or have you been watching too many Samsung adverts? I see more iPhones around than large screen Android phones, and more small screen Android phones than either.
I also have never used a case on my iPhone(s). I've kept them in my left pocket with nothing else. I've dropped them on occasion but, as yet, they are fine. They aren't as fragile as the prevailing thought, or case manufacturers, would have you believe.
As to the other, you'd have to ask my girlfriend. It's not my place to comment ;)
Except those of us old enough to remember the Microsoft bailout.... When Apple clearly didnt know what they were doing but instead were rehashing product lines over and over...
~sigh~ It wasn't a bail-out it was a a deal whereby MS got access to Apple's patents and Apple got to $150m and a promise to maintain development of Office on the Mac. The money wasn't a token amount, what was important was the statement from Microsoft that they thought that Apple would be around for a while.
Apple didn't know what they were doing at the time. Jobs had a vision though and the commitment from Microsoft gave him breathing room to release the iMac. The rest is history.
~sigh~ this is addressed in the first paragraph of the article. I guess it was too easy just to jump on that fairly minor point though rather than actually comment on the article at length. Slashdot at it's worst.
~sigh~ have you read the article. KDE/Linux doesn't have the image formats built into the OS. It's one of the things OS X does right.
Don't worry about it and drop back. As long as you're keeping speed does it matter?
Stopping someone cutting in front is a pretty bone-headed excuse for tailgating.
You have a great luxury in that the police and security services have been effective to date in keeping terrorism under control with a fairly regular series of arrests and convictions. That can change, just ask the Iraqis. They thought they had terrorism under control and now it may be spiraling out of control. At its height, there were probably tens of bombs going off daily around the country. Things are bad enough now they would like the US to come back.
Iraq seeks help from US amid growing violence
Have we? Who can say? Without information being open for public scrutiny we have only the police and security services word on this to know if they have in fact kept terrorism under control. With all of the powers in place they seemed to miss a fairly obvious suspect that was involved in the Boston Marathon bombing. Was this an aberration or about par for the course? We just don't know.
By all means keep currently operational information secret but allow review of past operations, both successes and failures. It would increase public support and security. The idea that things have to be kept secret so as not to reveal operational information to terrorists is security through obscurity, such a thing only protects against the ignorant. I suggest that terrorist organisations, rather than individuals, already know how they were caught before and will update their procedures accordingly.
I wish I had mod-points right now.
Instead they are planning on sinking 10x the amount into high speed rail that won't compete with current airline times and prices. This is as much a call on sense of the high speed rail programme as it is the proposal itself.
I believe it's spelled moron. But regardless, the whole concept of this system is to keep a consistent flow of traffic a high speeds. Slowing down for turns would break that model and could create congestion. Hence me question.
If its necessary to slow down at specific spots then the traffic pattern can be adjusted to manage this. Hint: closed systems are very easy to model. You get congestion because of changes in the traffic pattern. All other travel systems are subject to weather effect which disrupt the normal operations and generate congestion.
The whole article is just a big load of crap written by an Apple fanboy.. What innovation? show me some real innovation by apple which wasn't ripped from others..
Show me some real innovation invented by anyone that wasn't based on the work of others.
Anyone who thinks that iOS 7 is nothing more than a graphical change is an idiot who isn't keeping up with the technical changes going on. This is a classic case of ignoring the facts when they don't fit the narrative you want to use as an argument. What a moron.
This is just a journalist re-treading the old "Apple is doomed" meme because Apple work at Apple's pace. They will release something when they are ready to release it. It's how they work.
> "Apple is prepping big pushes into wearable electronics and televisions, both of
> which could prove lucrative strategies if executed correctly."
AKA a Microsoft-like "Mee Toooo!", but of Google.
Google did not invent wearable electronics.
They're a "Me Too-er" as well.
Wash your mouth out! Everyone knows that its Apple that doesn't invent anything and copies things. Google never copies anything. That would be evil
Looks more to me like the 3-letter agencies have decided to BREAK THE LAW.
Its an interesting debate. What law has been broken?
I'm pretty sure that with the Patriot Act at its back the FBI can justify the actions they've taken against peoples committing crimes in the US. There will be sufficient wriggle room in there for a good lawyer to argue their case. What is needed is a ruling. Something that's not been tested in court yet. The various Snowden revelations won't see their day in court due to the nature of the material released. A paedophile case would see court which would help determine the exact reach of the law.
The law is not, except in simple cases, a black and white thing. There are generally arguments around specific points and its the judgements around these that determine what is and is not legal.
Its it just me or does the idea of using an online cloud based service provided by a third party to test the strength of your password database sound like a bad idea?
That's the point. If you want to pay for the bandwidth to run a server business, you buy business class. You want residential, you pay residential. You try to run a business on residential, that's leeching.
Huh?
If I pay for a certain amount of bandwidth I pay for a certain amount of bandwidth. I don't pay for X amount divided between N users. If the ISP can't provide the bandwidth that they are selling me then they need to tell me about it. To do otherwise is being deceitful.
Well, it's not the IT people, rather the Information Technology part.
Sorry, but frequently its the people.
- Its those people that are in IT because its a career that will earn them a living rather than because they have a gift for it.
- Its those people that blindly follow rules because they only know how, they don't now why.
- Its those people who only have round peg and try to use it to fill every hole whatever the shape.
- Its those people that decide to implement things from scratch rather than build on experience gathered elsewhere.
- Its those people that are more concerned with staying in their job so pick the safe solution rather than the optimal one.
- Its those people that have caused ITIL to be necessary.
Get rid of the majority of people that are working in IT for the wrong reasons and things would work better.
Feel free to substitute IT with any other skilled profession. It holds true for most of them.
What timeline do you live in? Here in 2013, iOS is getting absolutely crushed by Android.
Ooh. I spy a Google cheerleader, do I get a prize.
Its odd that things have to be termed in such an adversarial manner. That there has to be a winner and a loser.
That said I suggest you look at the numbers a little closer. Its true that there are more Android phones being bought than iOS ones. However this is only the case if you look at ALL Android phones including cheap ones that are shipping with 2.3 on just good enough hardware. That was always going to happen because Apple have chosen not to play in that space.
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/02/20/apples-iphone-5-passes-samsung-galaxy-s3-in-q4-global-sales
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/analyst-samsung-galaxy-s4-sales-vs-apple-iphone-5-sales.html/?a=viewall
iOS is competitive in the market that Apple chooses to engage in. So in that sense iOS isn't being crushed at all.
I'm happy to see the competition between Android and iOS, it should mean that both continue to improve. If one were to truly crush the other then it would be worse for the everyone.
I understand it when people with no knowledge go on about Y2K as some sort of hoax. I despair when it comes from people that should no better.
Any idea why Y2K didn't have the massive impact it could have? Would it be the massive effort testing and patching things to prevent it being a problem. Maybe we should have just left things and picked up the pieces afterwards. Yeah that would have been good. I know for a fact that there would have been issues with the emergency number (999) in the UK. Can you be sure that things would have worked wherever you're from?
Welcome to the mobile phone handset business model. This was the business model for these suppliers long before Android came along, do you really think they are going to change now? Instead of fixing older handsets they want to release new variants every few months to tempt the unwary with a new bright shiny thing.
The only company doing anything different, no matter how much Slashdot hate them, is Apple. The limited hardware targets they have to deal with allows them to provide longer support and its something that they've done since day one. Sadly the Android/iOS holy war prevents this advantage being seen.
A disarmed populace is just a crop of victims waiting to be harvested. Contrary to popular belief, most folks who legally carry a firearm are not cowboys out looking for a reason to go shoot somebody up. Most of us take the responsibility of carrying a firearm very seriously, and we do so because we understand that the world at large is not a friendly place. I am an honest and true believer that it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Isn't this viewpoint as sad testament as to the state of the land of the free?
In a civilised country the populace shouldn't feel that they need to carry a weapon when walking the streets to be safe.
I believe that its better to not have the need to carry than to carry just in case.
Perhaps our criminals, like our police and military, are simply more weaponized than those of your country?
Perhaps if our police was as weaponized as yours our criminals would have to tool up?
Add to it the psychological factor - if someone starts to act nervous when it shows up you have some reason to investigate further.
However in any place outside the US the "probable cause" doesn't exist, so cops can stop anyone whenever they find it necessary.
Interesting view of the rest of the world. I know that you're from the US but really, at least pretend to show some sort of interest/knowledge of the wider world before make pronouncements like this. It's got to be embarrassing for your peers to make such ignorant and ill-informed statements.
Wouldn't they then get a dressing down for not using panels made in the US?