Actually, since the definition of "idiot" is based on IQ, anyone with an IQ of 20 or higher has exactly 0 chance of being an idiot. They may not use their intelligence, so they may be quite dumb, but "idiot" has a definition that excludes all but the absolute least capable people in the world.
You actually make a great example of this. I'm almost positive your IQ is 20 or higher; you're here, so it's quite likely it's over 120, even; yet you didn't know the mental health definition of "idiot". This is, as I'm sure you were intending to point out, because intelligence and knowledge are not directly correlated. That is, while a higher IQ does indicate a higher capacity for processing and absorbing knowledge, it's absolutely no indication that you'll actually use that potential.
If you were forced to agree, then "disagree and commit" wasn't done correctly. You should only be forced to commit, not to agree. I mean... it's right there in the name.
Indeed, which is precisely why I believe we'll see a resurgence of high-cost-per-minute phone plans. For a great many people it just makes sense to pay $1/mo just to maintain a number and agree to an insane rate per minute for the rare instances when they need to make a call away from home. Think phones kept in the glove box in case the car breaks down or given to a young child and configured to only be able to dial 911 and the child's parents. A year of service and 15 minutes of talk time (enough to handle one emergency) would cost less than a month on an unlimited plan, or even a cheaper metered plan, even at $1.25 per minute.
Since the phone will rarely be used, it will incur no notable network load and zero customer service cost beyond the initial sale, so it's basically a free $1/mo per customer on such a plan. And, if the phone does see enough use to incur any meaningful network load or require a call to customer service for any reason, well, at $1.25/min that's easily paid for. It's a win-win, the networks get $1/mo just to maintain a DID which costs them literally nothing and the customer gets relatively cheap security.
Verizon offered a similar plan in the early 2000's, I used to have people come in looking for exactly that and it was, indeed, a win-win. Immensely profitable for the provider and cheap as dirt for the type of user who would want it. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to learn that Verizon still offers it for new lines, or that many of the people who I sold it to a decade and a half ago are still using it. At $12/yr, that's $180 or less than 5 months of unlimited service from T-Mobile; plus usage, of course, which will be low for these users.
But with facetime/skype etc, no one is going to be gouged like the old days again.
You'd be surprised how many people would jump on $1.25/min with a $1/mo maintenance fee for a phone that will roam on any network. Not everyone wants a device they carry and use all day, every day; we're actually a minority, we just happen to form the majority here on Slashdot. A lot of the older crowd just want something they can throw in their glove box for emergencies and don't mind paying $20 for airtime if they have to use it to call for help once when the maintenance fee is $12/yr and the alternative costs more than that in a month after taxes.
Verizon used to offer something like that in the early 2000's and I wouldn't be surprised to find out they still do, or that many people I sold it to back then (because it's exactly what they came in asking for -- I hated selling that plan) are still on it. Of course, Verizon's offering lacked the "roam on any network" aspect back then, but it might not anymore.
There's no "perhaps" about it. We have 4 national providers, everyone else you hear about either has a very limited footprint and buys access from the big 4, or are just off-brands of the big 4 themselves. Seriously.
Well, they have to remain competitive with the current price of unlimited plans. A lot of people use less than 400 minutes of talk time per month ($40 unlimited plan vs 10 cents per minute), while many fewer use less than 32. Back in the early 2000's when I was actively involved in this industry, the cutoff was about 2 hours and it's been trending downward ever since; if I had to guess it's around an hour now. For someone at or below that threshold, 67 cents per minute is still a deal.
Threshold usage is on the decline, plan prices are ever increasing. Getting back to a $1.25/min price point means the threshold usage dropping to 32min/mo at current plan pricing, unlimited plan pricing increasing $75, or some other combination of threshold usage dropping and plan pricing increasing that results in ( plan_price / threshold_usage = 1.25 ) and competition would have to be stifled; current pricing it about 1/6 of "market ideal" right now only due to competition. Under the above conditions, we might more realistically expect to see 20-25 cents per minute with current levels of competition.
I can "call" someone anywhere in the world that has a reasonable 1Mbps internet connection
Assuming whoever you're "calling" uses the same service, which also assumes that service is allowed in their country. Can you Skype or Slack call someone in China?
Today's kids will never know the pain of calling someone 100km away and paying $1.25 a minute for the pleasure OR waiting until after 8pm to do it for *only* 25 cents a minute.
Yes they will. Prices of unlimited plans will get jacked up to the point where per-minute plans for lighter users will begin to look attractive again; then they'll return.
Oh, I hadn't even thought about that. Excellent point, and that 3d sensor can surely capture accurate enough data to recreate the face well enough to fool itself. How long before hackers or state actors get a popular app into the app store that sends back an accurate 3d model of the user's face? Probably not long at all, if I had to guess.
I'm not certain that you were making the same point that I'm about to make, so here I go: If you actually want to let someone unlock your phone, you give them the passcode. Since it's already tried to scan their face, it begins learning to recognize their face as yours. Every time this happens, they become more likely to unlock your phone with their face and you become less likely to unlock your own phone with your own face. Do this with enough people, or someone who looks sufficiently different from yourself, and the number of people who can unlock your phone jut by looking at it begins to grow.
I'd love to see someone test this on a large scale, or to test it myself. Anyone want to loan me an iPhone X for the experiment?
I never said that you couldn't disable 'open eye' checking for FaceID;
You said:
Also, FaceID doesn't work if you're unconscious.
That really seems to strongly imply that, in every mode of operation, your eyes must be open. I showed that this is not the case; however, if that's not what you meant, you really did a poor job of communicating that before this comment.
you claimed that by default you could unlock an iPhone X by holding it up to an unconscious person--I said that was bullshit.
And I admitted as much after seeing the release version, clarifying that it was the default on the development model I held in my hand. When I held the phone in my hand, that was the default; I was not aware it had changed since then. Am I going to need to state this a third time?
For those keeping score, every claim you've made in this thread has been bullshit.
Your scorekeeping abilities are faulty, my friend.
Claim 1) Face-ID can be unlocked with eyes closed: TRUE
Claim 2) Twins can't fool fingerprint unlocks just by being twins: TRUE
Claim 3) Twins can fool Face-ID just by being twins: TRUE (and Apple admits it)
Claim 4) I held in my hands, and used, a development model belonging to an Apple engineer friend of mine: TRUE
Claim 5) On that development model, attention unlock defaulted to OFF: TRUE
Claim 6) The default changed in the final release: TRUE
Claim 7) I was unaware of the fact stated in Claim 6 until I searched for and found a screenshot of the settings screen to prove that the attention requirement could be disabled: TRUE
Yes, I was wrong about the shipping default. I owned that. When will you own everything you've been wrong about here?
One out of 50,000 people have similar enough fingerprints to you to unlock your phone, only one out of 1 million people have similar enough faces to unlock your phone.
It's much easier to identify the one in 1 million who might unlock your phone with their face than it is to identify the one in 50,000 who might do so with their fingerprints, unless you already have a fingerprint to compare to, in which case why do you need to find that one in 50,000 in the first place? Totally irrelevant. Plus, I can change which finger is registered but I only have one face.
In your link they trained it on both faces.
You assume that, of course.
That's bullshit, you're completely wrong, stop getting all your info from Breitbart.
You read this, just like I did:
Face ID is even attention-aware. It recognizes if your eyes are open and looking towards the device. This makes it more difficult for someone to unlock your iPhone without your knowledge (such as when you are sleeping).
The difference is that I've also handled the actual device. I've seen the configuration options, I've tried them, and I've unlocked an iPhone X trained on my face with my eyes closed.
While looking for a screenshot of the settings screen, I did learn that the default changed in the final release, so I'll correct my earlier statement: the more secure option is now the default. It was not the default on the development model my Apple engineer friend showed me, and it can still be disabled.
Seriously, does the fact that Apple exists bother you so much that you feel the need to manufacture lies on the internet, and then desperately hope that noone will call you on your bullshit?
The MacBook Pro in my lap says "no." Does the fact that Apple is not a flawless company and they do, in fact, make mistakes, often involving security, bother you so much that you have to attack people who point them out?
If it is no worse than a thumbprint, then why is it news?
If it's no better than a fingerprint, then why is it needed? And it is worse than a fingerprint: twins can't fingerprint-unlock each others' phones. Hell, even non-twin adult siblings can face-unlock the same phone. And you can only put one face in the phone, so no, they didn't do it by putting both faces in the phone.
Also, FaceID doesn't work if you're unconscious.
Got a citation for this? There's a mode that requires "attention" (e.g. open eyes), but it is not the default. Without that setting being enabled, your iPhone X will unlock if your eyes are closed. Now, if you're just sleeping, rather than being unconscious, you might wake up when someone manipulates your hand to unlock your phone using your fingerprint, but will you wake when they hold the phone in front of your face without touching you?
It seriously took 10 seconds to completely destroy your argument
invisible to other users with a viewing threshold above that level
Well, it sounds like those users who don't see it have decided they wanted to exercise their
right to ignore you.
You still had (and exercised) your
right to speak
and people who wish to hear you can still hear you. How do I know this to be true? I moderate (with a heavy slant toward positive moderation or none at all -- I rarely use all of my mod points), I browse at -1, and I see all of your moronic comments. You are not being censored, but you are being sorted and categorized so that people who wish to ignore your messages, which you seem to imply that you're fine with, can do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone care to explain to me how a statement of fact is a troll?
Actually, since the definition of "idiot" is based on IQ, anyone with an IQ of 20 or higher has exactly 0 chance of being an idiot. They may not use their intelligence, so they may be quite dumb, but "idiot" has a definition that excludes all but the absolute least capable people in the world.
You actually make a great example of this. I'm almost positive your IQ is 20 or higher; you're here, so it's quite likely it's over 120, even; yet you didn't know the mental health definition of "idiot". This is, as I'm sure you were intending to point out, because intelligence and knowledge are not directly correlated. That is, while a higher IQ does indicate a higher capacity for processing and absorbing knowledge, it's absolutely no indication that you'll actually use that potential.
If you were forced to agree, then "disagree and commit" wasn't done correctly. You should only be forced to commit, not to agree. I mean... it's right there in the name.
You're describing the USA mobile and landline markets
I know what I'm describing, thanks.
which are NOT competitive environments and are regarded internationally as some of the most restricted in the world.
Really? I wouldn't have guessed and I certainly didn't mention this elsewhere in the thread...
*sigh*
That said, your information is good and backs up my position, so... thanks, I guess?
Indeed, which is precisely why I believe we'll see a resurgence of high-cost-per-minute phone plans. For a great many people it just makes sense to pay $1/mo just to maintain a number and agree to an insane rate per minute for the rare instances when they need to make a call away from home. Think phones kept in the glove box in case the car breaks down or given to a young child and configured to only be able to dial 911 and the child's parents. A year of service and 15 minutes of talk time (enough to handle one emergency) would cost less than a month on an unlimited plan, or even a cheaper metered plan, even at $1.25 per minute.
Since the phone will rarely be used, it will incur no notable network load and zero customer service cost beyond the initial sale, so it's basically a free $1/mo per customer on such a plan. And, if the phone does see enough use to incur any meaningful network load or require a call to customer service for any reason, well, at $1.25/min that's easily paid for. It's a win-win, the networks get $1/mo just to maintain a DID which costs them literally nothing and the customer gets relatively cheap security.
Verizon offered a similar plan in the early 2000's, I used to have people come in looking for exactly that and it was, indeed, a win-win. Immensely profitable for the provider and cheap as dirt for the type of user who would want it. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to learn that Verizon still offers it for new lines, or that many of the people who I sold it to a decade and a half ago are still using it. At $12/yr, that's $180 or less than 5 months of unlimited service from T-Mobile; plus usage, of course, which will be low for these users.
But with facetime/skype etc, no one is going to be gouged like the old days again.
You'd be surprised how many people would jump on $1.25/min with a $1/mo maintenance fee for a phone that will roam on any network. Not everyone wants a device they carry and use all day, every day; we're actually a minority, we just happen to form the majority here on Slashdot. A lot of the older crowd just want something they can throw in their glove box for emergencies and don't mind paying $20 for airtime if they have to use it to call for help once when the maintenance fee is $12/yr and the alternative costs more than that in a month after taxes.
Verizon used to offer something like that in the early 2000's and I wouldn't be surprised to find out they still do, or that many people I sold it to back then (because it's exactly what they came in asking for -- I hated selling that plan) are still on it. Of course, Verizon's offering lacked the "roam on any network" aspect back then, but it might not anymore.
Perhaps the US is less competitive though?
There's no "perhaps" about it. We have 4 national providers, everyone else you hear about either has a very limited footprint and buys access from the big 4, or are just off-brands of the big 4 themselves. Seriously.
Well, they have to remain competitive with the current price of unlimited plans. A lot of people use less than 400 minutes of talk time per month ($40 unlimited plan vs 10 cents per minute), while many fewer use less than 32. Back in the early 2000's when I was actively involved in this industry, the cutoff was about 2 hours and it's been trending downward ever since; if I had to guess it's around an hour now. For someone at or below that threshold, 67 cents per minute is still a deal.
Threshold usage is on the decline, plan prices are ever increasing. Getting back to a $1.25/min price point means the threshold usage dropping to 32min/mo at current plan pricing, unlimited plan pricing increasing $75, or some other combination of threshold usage dropping and plan pricing increasing that results in ( plan_price / threshold_usage = 1.25 ) and competition would have to be stifled; current pricing it about 1/6 of "market ideal" right now only due to competition. Under the above conditions, we might more realistically expect to see 20-25 cents per minute with current levels of competition.
We'll get there, though, don't you worry.
I can "call" someone anywhere in the world that has a reasonable 1Mbps internet connection
Assuming whoever you're "calling" uses the same service, which also assumes that service is allowed in their country. Can you Skype or Slack call someone in China?
Today's kids will never know the pain of calling someone 100km away and paying $1.25 a minute for the pleasure OR waiting until after 8pm to do it for *only* 25 cents a minute.
Yes they will. Prices of unlimited plans will get jacked up to the point where per-minute plans for lighter users will begin to look attractive again; then they'll return.
Oh, I hadn't even thought about that. Excellent point, and that 3d sensor can surely capture accurate enough data to recreate the face well enough to fool itself. How long before hackers or state actors get a popular app into the app store that sends back an accurate 3d model of the user's face? Probably not long at all, if I had to guess.
These snowflakes are crying liberal tears because global warming melts snowflakes.
Slight correction, those aren't tears. You said it yourself, they're melting.
I'm not certain that you were making the same point that I'm about to make, so here I go: If you actually want to let someone unlock your phone, you give them the passcode. Since it's already tried to scan their face, it begins learning to recognize their face as yours. Every time this happens, they become more likely to unlock your phone with their face and you become less likely to unlock your own phone with your own face. Do this with enough people, or someone who looks sufficiently different from yourself, and the number of people who can unlock your phone jut by looking at it begins to grow.
I'd love to see someone test this on a large scale, or to test it myself. Anyone want to loan me an iPhone X for the experiment?
If you're trying to break in relying on that to be off and it's not then you're going to have a bad time.
Face-ID is a convenience feature. By nature, the kind of people who will be using it will configure it to be as convenient as possible.
I never said that you couldn't disable 'open eye' checking for FaceID;
You said:
Also, FaceID doesn't work if you're unconscious.
That really seems to strongly imply that, in every mode of operation, your eyes must be open. I showed that this is not the case; however, if that's not what you meant, you really did a poor job of communicating that before this comment.
you claimed that by default you could unlock an iPhone X by holding it up to an unconscious person--I said that was bullshit.
And I admitted as much after seeing the release version, clarifying that it was the default on the development model I held in my hand. When I held the phone in my hand, that was the default; I was not aware it had changed since then. Am I going to need to state this a third time?
For those keeping score, every claim you've made in this thread has been bullshit.
Your scorekeeping abilities are faulty, my friend.
Claim 1) Face-ID can be unlocked with eyes closed: TRUE
Claim 2) Twins can't fool fingerprint unlocks just by being twins: TRUE
Claim 3) Twins can fool Face-ID just by being twins: TRUE (and Apple admits it)
Claim 4) I held in my hands, and used, a development model belonging to an Apple engineer friend of mine: TRUE
Claim 5) On that development model, attention unlock defaulted to OFF: TRUE
Claim 6) The default changed in the final release: TRUE
Claim 7) I was unaware of the fact stated in Claim 6 until I searched for and found a screenshot of the settings screen to prove that the attention requirement could be disabled: TRUE
Yes, I was wrong about the shipping default. I owned that. When will you own everything you've been wrong about here?
So you're the only one here that has touched an iPhone X?
No, but I have actually done the thing you said can't be done.
You're a sad, pathetic individual.
Why? Because you can't admit you're wrong?
Actually the iPhone x requires the user to be "awake and paying attention to the lock screen" to unlock. It will not unlock for an unconscious person.
Actually, you can turn that requirement off. Then it will.
That's an option, it can be turned off for convenience and you can bet it will be on a lot of phones.
One out of 50,000 people have similar enough fingerprints to you to unlock your phone, only one out of 1 million people have similar enough faces to unlock your phone.
It's much easier to identify the one in 1 million who might unlock your phone with their face than it is to identify the one in 50,000 who might do so with their fingerprints, unless you already have a fingerprint to compare to, in which case why do you need to find that one in 50,000 in the first place? Totally irrelevant. Plus, I can change which finger is registered but I only have one face.
In your link they trained it on both faces.
You assume that, of course.
That's bullshit, you're completely wrong, stop getting all your info from Breitbart.
You read this, just like I did:
Face ID is even attention-aware. It recognizes if your eyes are open and looking towards the device. This makes it more difficult for someone to unlock your iPhone without your knowledge (such as when you are sleeping).
The difference is that I've also handled the actual device. I've seen the configuration options, I've tried them, and I've unlocked an iPhone X trained on my face with my eyes closed.
While looking for a screenshot of the settings screen, I did learn that the default changed in the final release, so I'll correct my earlier statement: the more secure option is now the default. It was not the default on the development model my Apple engineer friend showed me, and it can still be disabled.
Seriously, does the fact that Apple exists bother you so much that you feel the need to manufacture lies on the internet, and then desperately hope that noone will call you on your bullshit?
The MacBook Pro in my lap says "no." Does the fact that Apple is not a flawless company and they do, in fact, make mistakes, often involving security, bother you so much that you have to attack people who point them out?
ugh... "knocked out", not "being unconscious" which, of course, includes "sleeping". My fault for not proofreading.
If it is no worse than a thumbprint, then why is it news?
If it's no better than a fingerprint, then why is it needed? And it is worse than a fingerprint: twins can't fingerprint-unlock each others' phones. Hell, even non-twin adult siblings can face-unlock the same phone. And you can only put one face in the phone, so no, they didn't do it by putting both faces in the phone.
Also, FaceID doesn't work if you're unconscious.
Got a citation for this? There's a mode that requires "attention" (e.g. open eyes), but it is not the default. Without that setting being enabled, your iPhone X will unlock if your eyes are closed. Now, if you're just sleeping, rather than being unconscious, you might wake up when someone manipulates your hand to unlock your phone using your fingerprint, but will you wake when they hold the phone in front of your face without touching you?
It seriously took 10 seconds to completely destroy your argument
Except that you didn't, really.
maybe try harder next time
Maybe you should.
So I run up behind you and beat you in the head 5 times before you can even think of pressing the power button once.
Then I unlock your phone using your unconscious face.
I expected this... and the downmod, do be honest. I never preface my actual jokes with such an obvious subject.
Hell, I have yo burn all this karma somehow.
Why did the iPhone X stop responding?
It was too cool to care about your input.
invisible to other users with a viewing threshold above that level
Well, it sounds like those users who don't see it have decided they wanted to exercise their
right to ignore you.
You still had (and exercised) your
right to speak
and people who wish to hear you can still hear you. How do I know this to be true? I moderate (with a heavy slant toward positive moderation or none at all -- I rarely use all of my mod points), I browse at -1, and I see all of your moronic comments. You are not being censored, but you are being sorted and categorized so that people who wish to ignore your messages, which you seem to imply that you're fine with, can do so.