Well, if you weren't just sitting around with your thumbs up you butts in the first place, they wouldn't have taken your thumbs! Personally, I'd rather not use biometrics, precisely because of the damage to my body that someone seeking to steal my identity would do.
Actually, eyes do change over time. My contacts weren't letting in enough oxygen, so blood vessels grew into my eyes. Not sure how much that would affect an iris scan, though.
You weigh the costs of false positives vs. false negatives, and you're going to accept the false positives every time. Otherwise, some CEO get pissed off because the system won't let him in, and the whole system gets yanked out. So, short answer, no, they can't check for blinking, it adds yet another failure mode,
It seems like the costs of a lawsuit for anticompetitive behavior would far exceed any benefit derived from stealing a competitor's customer data. Also, shame on the competitor's IT department for allowing the company to be hacked in the first place.
What I find most troubling about this is that they demanded her phone, but then backed down when she insisted on getting WSJ lawyers involved. That implies that they were attempting to do something by intimidation that they were aware they had no legal right to force her to do. Is anyone else bothered by law enforcement using this tactic? I've heard of other cases, i.e. stopping people on the street and tellling them, "You need to show me what's in your bag" Well, according to the Fourth Amendment, no I don't, but probably most people assume law enforcement understands the law better than they do. Fact is, citizens are required to abide by thousands of laws, and ignorance is not an excuse. But if law enforcement doesn't apply the laws correctly, they can always claim ignorance of the law. Not really a reciprocal balance of rights, is it?
Sociopaths make better CEOs. I believe that has been proven by research.
Actually, Forbes thinks psychopaths make better CEOs: http://www.forbes.com/sites/je...
I would have just said sociopaths, myself.
Nationalize the company and give all the assets to the IRS in the event of proven unlawful activity? Sounds good. Because it's not a person, a corporation doesn't have the right to due process. At least that's the theory behind civil forfeiture, right? The property committed the crime, and it must be punished by being confiscated! And, no trial is required, because property doesn't have any rights... so why do corporations have rights, again?
Isn't that illegal? Meaning, wouldn't getting caught hiring people to commit computer trespass have penalties far greater than what could be gained by successfully hacking your competitors?
Not really, because there isn't a huge market out there of people willing to pay considerably more than the cost of parts to have their computer put together for them! $1K/year average is probably enough to keep your system current, but computer hardware is absolutely the worst investment in the world; it depreciates to zero in a couple years. The best argument for Apple hardware is that it actually retains _some_ resale value.
If you've actually built computers, you must have noticed that most sheet metal cases have lots of very sharp edges, so one should let kids or the guy that wrote this article play around in open boxes!
If you can afford to drop $4000 every couple years for a high-end gaming rig, sure, that's a great solution. Most of us work for a living, and/or have kids to feed.
A top-of-the-line video card is currently $700 (GTX 1080 Founder's Edition), and a top-of-the-line CPU is $1700 (i76950X 3 GHz), and you'd want an SSD and lots of memory, so you're talking at least $3000 for a high-end gaming PC, even if you do all the work yourself. On the bright side, you can now use that 4K TV you already have as a monitor. Of course, you don't need 10 cores for any current games, and you probably don't need a GTX 1080 unless you intend to do 60fps gaming in 4K resolution or hook up good VR goggles. For about $500, you could get a machine good enough to run Fallout 4 at 1920x1080 resolution.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you weren't just sitting around with your thumbs up you butts in the first place, they wouldn't have taken your thumbs! Personally, I'd rather not use biometrics, precisely because of the damage to my body that someone seeking to steal my identity would do.
Actually, eyes do change over time. My contacts weren't letting in enough oxygen, so blood vessels grew into my eyes. Not sure how much that would affect an iris scan, though.
You weigh the costs of false positives vs. false negatives, and you're going to accept the false positives every time. Otherwise, some CEO get pissed off because the system won't let him in, and the whole system gets yanked out. So, short answer, no, they can't check for blinking, it adds yet another failure mode,
Having seen the movie Demolition Man, I've always been opposed to biometrics in the first place. My body parts are more important to me than my data!
It seems like the costs of a lawsuit for anticompetitive behavior would far exceed any benefit derived from stealing a competitor's customer data. Also, shame on the competitor's IT department for allowing the company to be hacked in the first place.
What I find most troubling about this is that they demanded her phone, but then backed down when she insisted on getting WSJ lawyers involved. That implies that they were attempting to do something by intimidation that they were aware they had no legal right to force her to do. Is anyone else bothered by law enforcement using this tactic? I've heard of other cases, i.e. stopping people on the street and tellling them, "You need to show me what's in your bag" Well, according to the Fourth Amendment, no I don't, but probably most people assume law enforcement understands the law better than they do. Fact is, citizens are required to abide by thousands of laws, and ignorance is not an excuse. But if law enforcement doesn't apply the laws correctly, they can always claim ignorance of the law. Not really a reciprocal balance of rights, is it?
"I don't think you appreciate the gravity of the situation."
Murder, mayhem and riots aren't legal. Not then, not now.
That's what makes them so much FUN!!!
Sociopaths make better CEOs. I believe that has been proven by research. Actually, Forbes thinks psychopaths make better CEOs: http://www.forbes.com/sites/je... I would have just said sociopaths, myself.
Hey, hey hey! Have some decency here! At least make sure the hookers are of age! (Don't you just _hate_ the inexperienced ones?)
Hey, it's not like super-sketchy slimeballs have any incentive to LIE for financial gain, right?
Nationalize the company and give all the assets to the IRS in the event of proven unlawful activity? Sounds good. Because it's not a person, a corporation doesn't have the right to due process. At least that's the theory behind civil forfeiture, right? The property committed the crime, and it must be punished by being confiscated! And, no trial is required, because property doesn't have any rights... so why do corporations have rights, again?
While we're at it, could we force Republicans to tatoo "I'm a douchebag!" on their foreheads too?
Isn't that illegal? Meaning, wouldn't getting caught hiring people to commit computer trespass have penalties far greater than what could be gained by successfully hacking your competitors?
And yet, still much better latency than IP over avian carrier (RFC 1149).
Isn't illegal... yet. Trump cold still get elected in November, and anybody that can think rationally really pisses him off!
Don't challenge the dominant paradigm. Then you won't need encryption!
How much kitty porn can I transfer per second over it?
Not really, because there isn't a huge market out there of people willing to pay considerably more than the cost of parts to have their computer put together for them! $1K/year average is probably enough to keep your system current, but computer hardware is absolutely the worst investment in the world; it depreciates to zero in a couple years. The best argument for Apple hardware is that it actually retains _some_ resale value.
If you've actually built computers, you must have noticed that most sheet metal cases have lots of very sharp edges, so one should let kids or the guy that wrote this article play around in open boxes!
If you can afford to drop $4000 every couple years for a high-end gaming rig, sure, that's a great solution. Most of us work for a living, and/or have kids to feed.
Top-end graphics cards cost more than $354. The rest of the components, yeah you could probably find for that price.
A top-of-the-line video card is currently $700 (GTX 1080 Founder's Edition), and a top-of-the-line CPU is $1700 (i76950X 3 GHz), and you'd want an SSD and lots of memory, so you're talking at least $3000 for a high-end gaming PC, even if you do all the work yourself. On the bright side, you can now use that 4K TV you already have as a monitor. Of course, you don't need 10 cores for any current games, and you probably don't need a GTX 1080 unless you intend to do 60fps gaming in 4K resolution or hook up good VR goggles. For about $500, you could get a machine good enough to run Fallout 4 at 1920x1080 resolution.
Supply and demand. Economics 101.
Your AK-47 provides very little protection against a Predator drone; the argument against standing armies is fairly moot due to technology advances.