I'm going to step in here as a pizza connoisseur. You are correct about how to order a Papa John's pizza (although you neglect to mention that the reason for going thin crust is more the hideous amounts of sugar they dump in their regular crust than its thickness), but it's definitely not excellent. Passable, if nobody else near you delivers and you don't feel like going out, but far from excellent.
The sauce isn't great, their thin crust is way too crunchy (unless it's soaked in grease and falling apart like toilet paper) and about as flavorful as a wafer cracker, their regular sausage is weird-tasting rubbery balls of fat, and their cheese is as tasteless as everything else unless you get one of their blends, in which case it's actually pretty good but there's far too much of it.
If Papa John's seems like excellent pizza to you, go to New York. Or Chicago, for a completely different but still very yummy experience. Either way, you'll find better pizza on the way there than you will at Papa John's, and I'm saying this as someone who ordered so much of it that the manager of my local store sent me a Christmas card.
As one of the articles explains, HFT algorithms trade almost exclusively based on other trades. Guess what behavior is almost guaranteed to cause a bubble?
Biometrics are more vulnerable to this than passwords are, in two ways:
1) You can enter a password into a remote terminal and have it be verified against a central database without ever transmitting the password in either direction (see challenge-based authentication protocols). You can't do this with biometrics: verification consists of comparing the measure against the database entry and determining that the two match to within the desired degree of precision, and this requires transmitting the measured values to the database.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding here. Sending a hash for near-matching in the way you describe is absolutely possible. See MusicBrainz for an off-the-top-of-my-head example, but a fuzzy hash is a very basic thing, and already done all over the place.
2) The average user does not leave their password on every surface they touch. In order to inject a password into a compromised reader, the attacker needs to record it from a compromised reader. Biometrics can be obtained through any number of methods that don't involve a compromised reader.
Strawman. While correct, you're disputing something that I was not trying to argue, and I certainly wasn't trying to argue that fingerprint scanners are secure in anyway. A review of the post you replied to will show that it wasn't even implied, so if you read that, that's on you. What I was trying to argue is that the wire is irrelevant to the security of biometrics versus the security of any other system that also must have a wire.
We shouldn't enable people to believe that ANY locking mechanism is 100% fool-proof. While some of the responsibility falls on the lock box manufacturers, the owner who placed the lock box in an accessible location for their child ALSO has responsibility in this matter. It's common sense, do not place dangerous objects within reach of children. Whether they are locked in a box or not.
It's not common sense though, that a child can open a safe. In fact, it's exactly contrary to common sense. Just because nothing is certain doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to expect that something that bills itself as a "safe" be able to keep a 3-year-old out. And damn near anywhere is accessible to a 3-year-old with enough time, except maybe behind a locked door. Or are you trying to use your own definitions of words with common emotional attachments you'd like to insert into your argument again? I can deal with people using their own definitions, I can pick up what you mean by context, but if you're going to use a special definition of "common sense", then I will not grant you the expectation that everyone possesses it that the normal definition carries. I can see how you'd expect an educated, responsible parent to realize that a layered defense is necessary when dealing with an intelligent opponent, but it's certainly not "common sense", nor is it common sense that something you buy that's called a safe, isn't. I believe you're trying to say that every parent should be educated and responsible, but this isn't about should, it's about is.
The thing is, you and I mean completely different things by "You shouldn't enable them." You mean that you shouldn't enable them to take the easy mental out by forgiving them, or not expecting them to be responsible. I say forgiveness or punishment after the fact is irrelevant in the face of the scale of the consequences, so you shouldn't enable them to take the out in the first place. Don't sell the things, or if you do, don't call it a safe and show a fucking gun being placed in it on the package. Accepting the reality of a situation is not enabling.
That's how you're enabling them. You're denying the reality that some people are irresponsible and ignorant, and those people will always exist and they will have children, and advocating keeping these things on the market, which, let's be honest with ourselves here, have no purpose.
Is there a fluid shit tone? I ate a garbage plate loaded up with Frank's the other day, and I definitely shit a tone. Musta been a Db, or if you play by feel it was a D#, but either way, it sure hertz.
He owned a gun. He was, therefore, a "real" gun owner, unless you want to debate his existence.
Stop arguing it, because it sounds like you're trying to claim that this isn't a problem. If you meant something else, like, "responsible gun owner", then clarify. Of course, it's still a problem even if you restrict your statement to that because a whole lot of people aren't responsible, and whether you like it or not, everyone has to deal with the messes they make, which may be the hole in your own chest when some irresponsible gun owner's kid says "bang, Mr. Sparticus, you're dead!".
They thought to themselves, "It's in a safe, look at that, $35 and problem solved." These cheap safes are nothing but an easy mental out for people. You shouldn't enable them.
If you can read the sensor's output, and inject your own input, you can defeat any system. A keyboard is a sensor too, and just as vulnerable to what you've described.
There are ways to protect against that when it's warranted, but I don't think it has anything to do with biometric systems in particular. If we're going to debate the relative worth of authentication systems, we need to first assume that the system's communication with its host is secure, or they're all exactly the same--worthless.
Now we're getting somewhere! Now, this test only works if administered by a human, which runs counter to the purpose of having a device, and the specific question will only authenticate that the subject is human, not a specific human, but hey, it's a start.
It's a tricky question though. What is a part of a human, unique for every individual, that we can reliably read often enough that it can be error-corrected, fast enough to be practical, by a device that is cheap enough to be worth the cost of the security it provides, that we can't reproduce?
Almost though, right? Because honestly, it's an insane claim. Your sensors are measuring an image, we can make very convincing images. Make your sensor fancy, have it measure heat. We can generate heat to incredibly precise degrees faster than you can blink. Heartbeat, capacitance, translucency, these are all child's play once we know what you're looking at. Since your sensors are almost surely of lower resolution than we're capable of reproducing, the key is the algorithm.
Now this? Sweat glands? We can make Blu-Rays, but you don't think we can spoof a sweat gland to the precision that you're measuring it? Please.
My ears will perk up in interest if or when a biometrics company claims that they're measuring an effect we're unable to reproduce. Create a biometric system that authenticates based on the subjective experience of consciousness. Now that's biometrics.
With a 250GB cap, you can run out of bandwidth in 1 hour, 49 minutes, and 17 seconds. Even at a terabyte it's less than 8 hours, or about 1% of a billing period.
A few months back some distraught fellow ran into a building shooting everyone that he could and apparently had left behind messages about over population and what is about to occur. I suspect that he was driven off his rocker because nobody wanted to hear him.
Let me see if I'm following the logic of this correctly: Nobody wanted to listen to a criminally insane person rant, so he murdered a bunch of people, therefore he was correct and we should start implementing reproductive laws to keep the population down so we can support a huge military to keep out the countries that can't even feed their own citizens?
Which is probably why so many on the left hate cheap energy so much.
Speaking for myself only, it's not cheap energy I have a problem with, it's destroying the environment and running out or becoming so scarce that it's prohibitively expensive.
From TFA: "Unlike other multilingual programming languages, Babylscript allows people to write programs in a mix of different languages. A programmer can take a library written in French, mix it with their own program written in Spanish, and use code snippets they found on a Chinese help forum."
How? What's the procedure when the library is written in French and contains a function named "return()" and I'm trying to program in English?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe your mistake is ordering the dickcheese pizza.
I'm going to step in here as a pizza connoisseur. You are correct about how to order a Papa John's pizza (although you neglect to mention that the reason for going thin crust is more the hideous amounts of sugar they dump in their regular crust than its thickness), but it's definitely not excellent. Passable, if nobody else near you delivers and you don't feel like going out, but far from excellent.
The sauce isn't great, their thin crust is way too crunchy (unless it's soaked in grease and falling apart like toilet paper) and about as flavorful as a wafer cracker, their regular sausage is weird-tasting rubbery balls of fat, and their cheese is as tasteless as everything else unless you get one of their blends, in which case it's actually pretty good but there's far too much of it.
If Papa John's seems like excellent pizza to you, go to New York. Or Chicago, for a completely different but still very yummy experience. Either way, you'll find better pizza on the way there than you will at Papa John's, and I'm saying this as someone who ordered so much of it that the manager of my local store sent me a Christmas card.
Taco Bell is most definitely American food.
As one of the articles explains, HFT algorithms trade almost exclusively based on other trades. Guess what behavior is almost guaranteed to cause a bubble?
You're probably disabling subdomain cookies. For instance right now we're not on slashdot.org, we're on it.slashdot.org.
I am gay.
Biometrics are more vulnerable to this than passwords are, in two ways:
1) You can enter a password into a remote terminal and have it be verified against a central database without ever transmitting the password in either direction (see challenge-based authentication protocols). You can't do this with biometrics: verification consists of comparing the measure against the database entry and determining that the two match to within the desired degree of precision, and this requires transmitting the measured values to the database.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding here. Sending a hash for near-matching in the way you describe is absolutely possible. See MusicBrainz for an off-the-top-of-my-head example, but a fuzzy hash is a very basic thing, and already done all over the place.
2) The average user does not leave their password on every surface they touch. In order to inject a password into a compromised reader, the attacker needs to record it from a compromised reader. Biometrics can be obtained through any number of methods that don't involve a compromised reader.
Strawman. While correct, you're disputing something that I was not trying to argue, and I certainly wasn't trying to argue that fingerprint scanners are secure in anyway. A review of the post you replied to will show that it wasn't even implied, so if you read that, that's on you. What I was trying to argue is that the wire is irrelevant to the security of biometrics versus the security of any other system that also must have a wire.
We shouldn't enable people to believe that ANY locking mechanism is 100% fool-proof. While some of the responsibility falls on the lock box manufacturers, the owner who placed the lock box in an accessible location for their child ALSO has responsibility in this matter. It's common sense, do not place dangerous objects within reach of children. Whether they are locked in a box or not.
It's not common sense though, that a child can open a safe. In fact, it's exactly contrary to common sense. Just because nothing is certain doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to expect that something that bills itself as a "safe" be able to keep a 3-year-old out. And damn near anywhere is accessible to a 3-year-old with enough time, except maybe behind a locked door. Or are you trying to use your own definitions of words with common emotional attachments you'd like to insert into your argument again? I can deal with people using their own definitions, I can pick up what you mean by context, but if you're going to use a special definition of "common sense", then I will not grant you the expectation that everyone possesses it that the normal definition carries. I can see how you'd expect an educated, responsible parent to realize that a layered defense is necessary when dealing with an intelligent opponent, but it's certainly not "common sense", nor is it common sense that something you buy that's called a safe, isn't. I believe you're trying to say that every parent should be educated and responsible, but this isn't about should, it's about is.
The thing is, you and I mean completely different things by "You shouldn't enable them." You mean that you shouldn't enable them to take the easy mental out by forgiving them, or not expecting them to be responsible. I say forgiveness or punishment after the fact is irrelevant in the face of the scale of the consequences, so you shouldn't enable them to take the out in the first place. Don't sell the things, or if you do, don't call it a safe and show a fucking gun being placed in it on the package. Accepting the reality of a situation is not enabling.
That's how you're enabling them. You're denying the reality that some people are irresponsible and ignorant, and those people will always exist and they will have children, and advocating keeping these things on the market, which, let's be honest with ourselves here, have no purpose.
It says lmao, not homo. Unless there's some other homophobic reference in the vaguely hateful nonsense, I think you're just being over-sensitive.
Is there a fluid shit tone? I ate a garbage plate loaded up with Frank's the other day, and I definitely shit a tone. Musta been a Db, or if you play by feel it was a D#, but either way, it sure hertz.
He owned a gun. He was, therefore, a "real" gun owner, unless you want to debate his existence.
Stop arguing it, because it sounds like you're trying to claim that this isn't a problem. If you meant something else, like, "responsible gun owner", then clarify. Of course, it's still a problem even if you restrict your statement to that because a whole lot of people aren't responsible, and whether you like it or not, everyone has to deal with the messes they make, which may be the hole in your own chest when some irresponsible gun owner's kid says "bang, Mr. Sparticus, you're dead!".
They thought to themselves, "It's in a safe, look at that, $35 and problem solved." These cheap safes are nothing but an easy mental out for people. You shouldn't enable them.
Sadly I paid more for the safe than the firearms contained within ...
You paid to protect people from guns, not guns from people.
If you can read the sensor's output, and inject your own input, you can defeat any system. A keyboard is a sensor too, and just as vulnerable to what you've described.
There are ways to protect against that when it's warranted, but I don't think it has anything to do with biometric systems in particular. If we're going to debate the relative worth of authentication systems, we need to first assume that the system's communication with its host is secure, or they're all exactly the same--worthless.
Now we're getting somewhere! Now, this test only works if administered by a human, which runs counter to the purpose of having a device, and the specific question will only authenticate that the subject is human, not a specific human, but hey, it's a start.
It's a tricky question though. What is a part of a human, unique for every individual, that we can reliably read often enough that it can be error-corrected, fast enough to be practical, by a device that is cheap enough to be worth the cost of the security it provides, that we can't reproduce?
Almost though, right? Because honestly, it's an insane claim. Your sensors are measuring an image, we can make very convincing images. Make your sensor fancy, have it measure heat. We can generate heat to incredibly precise degrees faster than you can blink. Heartbeat, capacitance, translucency, these are all child's play once we know what you're looking at. Since your sensors are almost surely of lower resolution than we're capable of reproducing, the key is the algorithm.
Now this? Sweat glands? We can make Blu-Rays, but you don't think we can spoof a sweat gland to the precision that you're measuring it? Please.
My ears will perk up in interest if or when a biometrics company claims that they're measuring an effect we're unable to reproduce. Create a biometric system that authenticates based on the subjective experience of consciousness. Now that's biometrics.
Not to worry!
"We think we'll be the only technology that's 'spoof-proof,'" says Scott McNulty, president and chief executive of BIOPTid Inc.
With a 250GB cap, you can run out of bandwidth in 1 hour, 49 minutes, and 17 seconds. Even at a terabyte it's less than 8 hours, or about 1% of a billing period.
A few months back some distraught fellow ran into a building shooting everyone that he could and apparently had left behind messages about over population and what is about to occur. I suspect that he was driven off his rocker because nobody wanted to hear him.
Let me see if I'm following the logic of this correctly: Nobody wanted to listen to a criminally insane person rant, so he murdered a bunch of people, therefore he was correct and we should start implementing reproductive laws to keep the population down so we can support a huge military to keep out the countries that can't even feed their own citizens?
Which is probably why so many on the left hate cheap energy so much.
Speaking for myself only, it's not cheap energy I have a problem with, it's destroying the environment and running out or becoming so scarce that it's prohibitively expensive.
The main problem...most people would prefer a global war that wipes out 2/3 of the population rather than living in a world where they can't eat meat.
Well then, most of us are in luck!
What the fuck? I'm free to not be offended if I so choose! Fuck you!
Oh yeah? Well as one of the only people in the world who still has a pair of Jncos in his closet, who's stupid now?
And when I name a variable after one of those canonical names?
From TFA: "Unlike other multilingual programming languages, Babylscript allows people to write programs in a mix of different languages. A programmer can take a library written in French, mix it with their own program written in Spanish, and use code snippets they found on a Chinese help forum."
How? What's the procedure when the library is written in French and contains a function named "return()" and I'm trying to program in English?
So, liberals don't like the TSA. Conservatives don't like the TSA. Why do we still have the TSA again?