biometric identification and verification is insecure by its very nature. whole concept derives from faulty assumption that identity of a person is securely linked his/her body parts. obviously body parts can be separated from true identity by variety of means ranging from death, amputation, kidnapping and coercion, replication , etc etc. other forms of identification and verification based on links to individual's mind and memory, while far from perfect, is more secure. even simple forms of that, like passwords, can defeat insecurities created by death, amputation, some coercion, etc etc.
all rational knowledgeable people should counter absurd biometric identification hype.
no surprise that sjw lefty editordavid, posting as AC, and driven mad by facts and exposure, has lost his basic ability to comprehend english. and vomit up his racist prejudices
question ultimately is whether we, as individuals, societies or groups, respect humans as they are in themselves, with what we perceive as imperfections, incurable deceases, 'deformities', age or stage of development(from embryos to old age 'sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything", gender, level of education, etc etc or do we disrespect them as they are, and instead try to decide for them and try(sometimes by giving power to authorities through legislation) to change and aim for an ideal of perfect condition(or failing that effort, get rid of them through killing, euthanasia, abortion etc etc), based on our judgments on their perceived imperfections.
iow you are saying, since this particular crime(unlike say crimes that led to financial crisis) is offends against western elite's(herds's) morality, it should be punished severely, ignoring due process, disregarding long established precedents and case law (all of which have solid well argued rationales), and with total disregard for obvious consequence of arbitrarily removing immunity of directors(collapse of the one of the greatest inventions of west, limited liability company ).
because there is no money in it. its not a real market, there is only artificial demand. hence no free market and lots of crony capitalism and subsidies; eg spacex and nasa.
when there is money and its half way free, russians usually get it. even the usa airforce uses russian rockets now.
"not accessible independently to users" really? do they seriously think they can do that? or is that just whitewash to get copyright mafia off their ass?
if there is real competition(instead of crony capitalist control) and real money (instead of subsidies) is space transport and infrastructure business, opened to private enterprises, asian companies (and russians) will blast american ones like spacex to bankruptcy. but usa is big on preaching free markets but bad at practicing them .
netflix is just a paid content pusher. nothing new . it has no real original content, just formulaic stuff and old stuff. it has no new technology. it is no innovator. it employs only a small number of techies.
musk must be desperate to assert things that cannot be verified independently and in direct contradiction to victim' claims. this sort of thing, even if true, should be better coming from an independent source.
aren't you confusing two different things. hardware and software. "self-driving technology, the mapping and intelligence of the software" etc do different things from electric motors, internal combustion, etc powering the car.
it would be like the so called smartphones. so even if herd people will be "riding around in Samsungs and Apples"(at hyped up prices) in future(though i doubt it, see below), those cars will be made by car manufacturers who know how to make whatever is powering the car. and as with the smartphones, there would be generic versions at realistic prices that give all functionality, more or less direct from the manufacturers.
but unlike with smartphones, cars will be judged more on hardware than on software. that is why i doubt even herd people will be "riding around in Samsungs and Apples".
There is no crisis of physics here, jut a massive layer of incomplete work.
that is a crisis. furthermore there has been hardly any real progress in resolving this incomplete work/problems, for several decades.
you seems to have got confused.
"There is only one universe" - sounds like theological clam. And just as unconfirmed ad multiverses.
but we can confirm existence of one universe. existence of others should only be included in theories if there is confirmation, not because its easier to do maths, by assuming multiverses, when working on some pure theories.
"Time is real" - Einstein might disagree. Time is the imaginary part in the complex equations of space-time.
depending on personal authority, however great , is not part of science. your last sentence says a lot about what is wrong . theoretical assumptions should not be taken for unquestionable facts.
"Math is selectively real" - Only f the reality is defined by the capabilities of our brains and our technologies,
when you abandon empirical validation, which is what your claim implies, you are in the field of pure unfalsifiable theory, and thus theology. gods or ghosts(and many other things) are also defended with claims about limits of our brains and technologies.
fact that dnc, a political party, is allowed to make money out of people who want to see the president (a public official), says a lot about state of usa's so called democracy (which they want to export as a good thing to other countries with much bloodshed).
Please explain how our saviour could find gayness an abomination, yet still accept him as an apostle.
Jesus saw himself as reforming Jews. I don't think homosexuality came up very often but then again Jesus ran around with 12 men.
...and a whore, who has mostly been written out.
when 'atheists" attacking Christian religion and its doctrines have to resort to absurd claims and arguments, and logical fallacies, like the above, atheists have clearly lost the argument. fortunately not all atheist are intellectually bankrupt, ignorant, and dishonest, as the above.
i, a non expert, do not see much of a difficulty here is separating various kinds of data.
restrictions on use depends on definition of biometric data. in this context data that allows verification of identity is meant. seems lawyers would have not much trouble in coming up with a workable definition.
i suppose even use of an identity photo in proper context (inside card or passport) should indeed need permission.
-- btw i do think use of biometric data to versify identity is, and always will be, highly insecure, by their nature.
not that putin is a good guy. nor is his new law, and his orders based on that, good. he and it are evil things. though law at least is merely an attempt to give russian government same powers as usa government. definition of evil.
anyway this summary and gawker article exaggerate to absurdity in order to vilify russians in every way possible, and seems to assume total ignorance on the part of readers. (to be expected from gawker but not from/.).
there are much more knowledgeable and rational critiques of putin and his law elsewhere,/. should have posted using them. but maybe instead of knowledgeable discussion, it is gawker like ignorant popularity that/. wants?
facebook has the right to make its own rule in its platform/site, but others have a right to point out (and disseminate with means available) the fact that facebook( ad seller/employer with vested commercial and political interests) is acting like a gatekeeper with hidden criteria on how it decides what to pass and not pass.
never mind quantum computers, shouldn't almighty goog starts working on protecting itself, and its zombies, against omniscient God too?
after all unencrypted communications from goog will indicate its pledge to 'do no evil' was a fat evil lie? especially communications between bloody scum like jared cohen, eric schmidt, ilk, with hillary/kerry run state department. plotting murderous regime change in syria by helping 'rebels'(ie in reality al nusra and isis).
when did self promoting 'reports' with unverified claims become newsworthy? especially considering rather dodgy nature of company concerned, with all sort of litigations going on, rising borrowing costs( that necessitated a takeover from musk's other company), subsidy driven(=politician dependent crony capitalist) industry, etc , etc.
i am dumb on this, but if 'hardware architecture' can be made to take care of avoiding conflicts and "direct how each part of the task should be processed and split up between the processor's cores", same can be done through software that imitate whatever 'hardware architecture' is doing? if this can be done, basically this software would be another step in compiling/assembling process?
i suppose 50s there were similar lists of america's top industrial cities. its a nasty (rather than celebratory) thing when a city/country is not economically diversified.
I suppose deniers like you think just because there are millions of Holocaust survivors, that "facts on the ground" don't support that was a genocide too.
Slashdot Mirror
biometric identification and verification is insecure by its very nature.
whole concept derives from faulty assumption that identity of a person is securely linked his/her body parts. obviously body parts can be separated from true identity by variety of means ranging from death, amputation, kidnapping and coercion, replication , etc etc.
other forms of identification and verification based on links to individual's mind and memory, while far from perfect, is more secure.
even simple forms of that, like passwords, can defeat insecurities created by death, amputation, some coercion, etc etc.
all rational knowledgeable people should counter absurd biometric identification hype.
no surprise that sjw lefty editordavid, posting as AC, and driven mad by facts and exposure, has lost his basic ability to comprehend english. and vomit up his racist prejudices
do you know what you are talking about?
do you want russia, china, india getting american software and more imporantly tech support???
in the 1st place russia is part of wassenaar arrangement . while china and india aren't. so you can't group[ all three together in relation to this.
-
lefty protectionist editors here, as usual, display their ignorance and bias by linking M$ to denigrate. .
your counter argument depends on speculative questions from speculative future about a speculative 'fix'?
lol
no need to say anything else.
question ultimately is whether we, as individuals, societies or groups, respect humans as they are in themselves, with what we perceive as imperfections, incurable deceases, 'deformities', age or stage of development(from embryos to old age 'sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything", gender, level of education, etc etc
or do we disrespect them as they are, and instead try to decide for them and try(sometimes by giving power to authorities through legislation) to change and aim for an ideal of perfect condition(or failing that effort, get rid of them through killing, euthanasia, abortion etc etc), based on our judgments on their perceived imperfections.
hillary will use this as an excuse to start another war benefiting the western elite, killing thousands, as in libya,
iow you are saying, since this particular crime(unlike say crimes that led to financial crisis) is offends against western elite's(herds's) morality, it should be punished severely, ignoring due process, disregarding long established precedents and case law (all of which have solid well argued rationales), and with total disregard for obvious consequence of arbitrarily removing immunity of directors(collapse of the one of the greatest inventions of west, limited liability company ).
short sighted much?
because there is no money in it. its not a real market, there is only artificial demand. hence no free market and lots of crony capitalism and subsidies; eg spacex and nasa.
when there is money and its half way free, russians usually get it. even the usa airforce uses russian rockets now.
"not accessible independently to users"
really?
do they seriously think they can do that? or is that just whitewash to get copyright mafia off their ass?
if there is real competition(instead of crony capitalist control) and real money (instead of subsidies) is space transport and infrastructure business, opened to private enterprises, asian companies (and russians) will blast american ones like spacex to bankruptcy.
but usa is big on preaching free markets but bad at practicing them .
netflix is just a paid content pusher. nothing new .
it has no real original content, just formulaic stuff and old stuff.
it has no new technology.
it is no innovator.
it employs only a small number of techies.
so why is it here?
read title.
musk must be desperate to assert things that cannot be verified independently and in direct contradiction to victim' claims.
this sort of thing, even if true, should be better coming from an independent source.
aren't you confusing two different things. hardware and software.
"self-driving technology, the mapping and intelligence of the software" etc do different things from electric motors, internal combustion, etc powering the car.
it would be like the so called smartphones.
so even if herd people will be "riding around in Samsungs and Apples"(at hyped up prices) in future(though i doubt it, see below), those cars will be made by car manufacturers who know how to make whatever is powering the car.
and as with the smartphones, there would be generic versions at realistic prices that give all functionality, more or less direct from the manufacturers.
but unlike with smartphones, cars will be judged more on hardware than on software. that is why i doubt even herd people will be "riding around in Samsungs and Apples".
There is no crisis of physics here, jut a massive layer of incomplete work.
that is a crisis.
furthermore there has been hardly any real progress in resolving this incomplete work/problems, for several decades.
you seems to have got confused.
"There is only one universe" - sounds like theological clam. And just as unconfirmed ad multiverses.
but we can confirm existence of one universe.
existence of others should only be included in theories if there is confirmation, not because its easier to do maths, by assuming multiverses, when working on some pure theories.
"Time is real" - Einstein might disagree. Time is the imaginary part in the complex equations of space-time.
depending on personal authority, however great , is not part of science.
your last sentence says a lot about what is wrong . theoretical assumptions should not be taken for unquestionable facts.
"Math is selectively real" - Only f the reality is defined by the capabilities of our brains and our technologies,
when you abandon empirical validation, which is what your claim implies, you are in the field of pure unfalsifiable theory, and thus theology.
gods or ghosts(and many other things) are also defended with claims about limits of our brains and technologies.
fact that dnc, a political party, is allowed to make money out of people who want to see the president (a public official), says a lot about state of usa's so called democracy (which they want to export as a good thing to other countries with much bloodshed).
The apostle Paul was gay.
Please explain how our saviour could find gayness an abomination, yet still accept him as an apostle.
Jesus saw himself as reforming Jews. I don't think homosexuality came up very often but then again Jesus ran around with 12 men.
...and a whore, who has mostly been written out.
when 'atheists" attacking Christian religion and its doctrines have to resort to absurd claims and arguments, and logical fallacies, like the above, atheists have clearly lost the argument.
fortunately not all atheist are intellectually bankrupt, ignorant, and dishonest, as the above.
i, a non expert, do not see much of a difficulty here is separating various kinds of data.
restrictions on use depends on definition of biometric data.
in this context data that allows verification of identity is meant. seems lawyers would have not much trouble in coming up with a workable definition.
i suppose even use of an identity photo in proper context (inside card or passport) should indeed need permission.
--
btw i do think use of biometric data to versify identity is, and always will be, highly insecure, by their nature.
not that putin is a good guy. nor is his new law, and his orders based on that, good. he and it are evil things. though law at least is merely an attempt to give russian government same powers as usa government. definition of evil.
anyway this summary and gawker article exaggerate to absurdity in order to vilify russians in every way possible, and seems to assume total ignorance on the part of readers. (to be expected from gawker but not from /.).
there are much more knowledgeable and rational critiques of putin and his law elsewhere, /. should have posted using them. /. wants?
but maybe instead of knowledgeable discussion, it is gawker like ignorant popularity that
facebook has the right to make its own rule in its platform/site, but others have a right to point out (and disseminate with means available) the fact that facebook( ad seller/employer with vested commercial and political interests) is acting like a gatekeeper with hidden criteria on how it decides what to pass and not pass.
never mind quantum computers, shouldn't almighty goog starts working on protecting itself, and its zombies, against omniscient God too?
after all unencrypted communications from goog will indicate its pledge to 'do no evil' was a fat evil lie? especially communications between bloody scum like jared cohen, eric schmidt, ilk, with hillary/kerry run state department. plotting murderous regime change in syria by helping 'rebels'(ie in reality al nusra and isis).
when did self promoting 'reports' with unverified claims become newsworthy?
especially considering rather dodgy nature of company concerned, with all sort of litigations going on, rising borrowing costs( that necessitated a takeover from musk's other company), subsidy driven(=politician dependent crony capitalist) industry, etc , etc.
i am dumb on this, but if 'hardware architecture' can be made to take care of avoiding conflicts and "direct how each part of the task should be processed and split up between the processor's cores", same can be done through software that imitate whatever 'hardware architecture' is doing?
if this can be done, basically this software would be another step in compiling/assembling process?
as i said, i am ignorant on this, but why not?
i suppose 50s there were similar lists of america's top industrial cities.
its a nasty (rather than celebratory) thing when a city/country is not economically diversified.
I suppose deniers like you think just because there are millions of Holocaust survivors, that "facts on the ground" don't support that was a genocide too.