Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #72553 > unrolled thread

cellular needed for Covid tracking?

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  cellular needed for Covid tracking? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2020-12-07 21:10 -0500
    Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-12-07 21:24 -0500
      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2020-12-08 05:26 +0000
    Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2020-12-08 04:05 +0000
      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2020-12-08 00:13 -0500
        Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2020-12-08 05:23 +0000
          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2020-12-08 15:14 -0500
            Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking?  Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2020-12-08 21:10 +0000
    Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2020-12-08 02:11 -0600
      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2020-12-08 08:54 +0000
      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2020-12-08 16:39 +0000
        Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? KenW                                        <ken1943@invalid.net> - 2020-12-08 13:01 -0700
          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-12-08 21:11 +0100
            Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2020-12-08 15:20 -0500
            Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? KenW                                        <ken1943@invalid.net> - 2020-12-08 14:09 -0700
          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2020-12-08 20:40 +0000
            Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2021-01-02 12:57 +1300
              Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-02 03:25 +0100
                Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking?  Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-02 05:07 +0000
      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2020-12-08 15:14 -0500
        Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-12-08 21:57 +0100
          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2020-12-08 21:26 +0000
            Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-12-09 13:24 +0100
              Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2020-12-09 13:09 +0000
                Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2020-12-09 08:41 -0500
                  Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-12-09 15:37 +0100
                    Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking?  Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2020-12-09 14:55 +0000
                      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-12-09 23:36 +0100
                        Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2020-12-09 18:21 -0500
                          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking?  Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2020-12-09 23:32 +0000
                            Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-12-09 17:07 -0800
                          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2020-12-10 06:41 -0700
                            Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2020-12-10 09:29 -0500
                        Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking?  Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2020-12-09 23:25 +0000
                    Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2020-12-09 15:00 +0000
                    Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2020-12-09 09:08 -0700
                      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2020-12-09 19:45 +0000
                        Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2020-12-09 12:56 -0700
                        Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2020-12-10 09:29 +0000
                          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2020-12-10 06:39 -0700
                            Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2020-12-11 06:14 -0500
                            Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2021-01-02 13:06 +1300
                    Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2020-12-09 11:10 -0600
                      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2021-01-02 13:13 +1300
                    Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2020-12-10 01:42 -0500
                      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2020-12-10 01:53 -0500
                      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2020-12-10 06:48 -0700
                      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2020-12-10 06:54 -0700
                      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-12-10 21:17 +0100
                        Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2020-12-11 10:12 +0000
        Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2020-12-08 23:51 -0600
          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-12-09 06:00 -0500
          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2020-12-09 11:16 +0000
            Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2020-12-09 10:40 -0600
              Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-12-09 11:56 -0500
              Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2020-12-09 20:43 +0000
                Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2020-12-09 21:45 +0000
                  Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2020-12-10 09:55 +0000
                    Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2020-12-10 11:58 -0600
                      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-12-10 13:47 -0500
                        Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking?  Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2020-12-10 19:10 +0000
                      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-12-10 21:29 +0100
                        Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-01-01 22:52 -0600
                          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-02 05:03 +0000
                          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-02 03:33 -0500
                          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-03 13:48 +0100
                      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking?  Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2020-12-10 21:52 +0000
                      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2021-01-02 13:33 +1300
                      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2021-01-02 13:50 +1300
                        Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking?  Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-02 05:00 +0000
                        Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-01-02 10:27 +0000
                          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-02 17:09 +0000
                          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2021-01-03 14:17 +1300
              Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-12-09 23:43 +0100
          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-12-09 13:34 +0100
            Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2020-12-09 16:06 +0100
            Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2020-12-09 10:43 -0600
              Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2020-12-09 22:39 +0100
            Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2020-12-09 22:37 +0100
      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-12-08 15:44 -0500
        Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2020-12-08 21:17 +0000
          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-12-08 17:11 -0500
            Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking?  Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2020-12-09 02:06 +0000
      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2020-12-09 08:13 +0000
        Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2020-12-09 10:45 -0600
          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2020-12-09 16:55 +0000
            Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2020-12-09 11:30 -0600
          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-12-09 11:56 -0500
          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2020-12-09 20:19 +0000
            Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2020-12-09 22:15 +0100
              Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2020-12-10 09:49 +0000
          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2020-12-11 09:56 +0000
            Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking?  Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2020-12-11 14:57 +0000
      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2020-12-10 09:14 +0000
        Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking?  Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2020-12-10 09:29 +0000
          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2020-12-10 08:58 -0700
            Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-12-10 21:35 +0100
              Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking?  Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2020-12-10 21:48 +0000
                Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-12-10 14:06 -0800
              Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2020-12-10 18:50 -0700
                Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-12-11 04:16 +0100
                  Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking?  Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2020-12-11 03:27 +0000
                  Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2020-12-11 09:46 +0000
                Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking?  Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2020-12-11 03:21 +0000
        Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2020-12-10 12:00 -0600
    Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2020-12-08 08:21 +0000
      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2020-12-08 15:45 +0000
      Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2020-12-08 15:14 -0500
        Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2020-12-08 20:34 +0000
          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-12-14 17:37 -0500
        Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2020-12-10 08:52 +0000
          Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2020-12-10 10:28 +0000
            Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2020-12-11 09:40 +0000
            Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2020-12-14 22:31 +0000
    Re: cellular needed for Covid tracking? Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-12-23 19:35 -0800

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

#72661

In comp.mobile.android, on Thu, 10 Dec 2020 06:39:44 -0700, Ken Blake
<ken@invalidemail.com> wrote:

>On 12/10/2020 2:29 AM, Chris wrote:
>> Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>>> Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 2. Latin words that end in "-us" are normally second declension and in 
>>>> the second declension plural, the "-us" changes to "-i." So, for 
>>>> example, the plural of "cactus" is "cacti."
>>>> 
>>> Or 4th declension, in which case I *think* I remember that the plural
>>> is the same (except with a longer u in the pronunciation).
>>>
>>> So the plural of manus (hand) is man?s (hands).  I think.
>> 
>> How goes anyone know that subtle difference in pronunciation? There are
>> still questions on how 'v' was pronounced either like we do or more like a
>> 'w'.
>
>
>
>I studied Latin in High School, 68 years ago. It was pronounced like a W 
>then, and that's the way I still pronounce it.

Veni, vidi, viri, vici!

I came, I saw, I poisoned, I conquered.     Well, sort of. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72917

On 11/12/2020 2:39 am, Ken Blake wrote:
> On 12/10/2020 2:29 AM, Chris wrote:
>> Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>>> Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2. Latin words that end in "-us" are normally second declension and in the second declension 
>>>> plural, the "-us" changes to "-i." So, for example, the plural of "cactus" is "cacti."
>>>>
>>> Or 4th declension, in which case I *think* I remember that the plural
>>> is the same (except with a longer u in the pronunciation).
>>>
>>> So the plural of manus (hand) is manũs (hands).  I think.
>>
>> How goes anyone know that subtle difference in pronunciation? There are
>> still questions on how 'v' was pronounced either like we do or more like a
>> 'w'.
> 
> I studied Latin in High School, 68 years ago. It was pronounced like a W then, and that's the way I 
> still pronounce it.

Heh! I was going to reply with the same answer. I also studied written and spoken Latin at a 
Grammar school in the early 1970s. A lot of it stays with me to this day.

Amo amas amat amamus amatis amant ... etcetera.
-- 
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification 
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72607

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> On 09/12/2020 14.41, Mayayana wrote:
>> "Chris Green" <cl@isbd.net> wrote
>> 
>>| Well why *would* you think changing a -us ending to -ii makes it
>>| plural?  In English we add -s or -es so why not just viruses?  There a
>>| few words where we use the latin plural - datum -> data but it's not
>>| the default way of making plurals.
> 
> Why should I know? My first language is not English. I simply learn from
> what other people do, and someone told me once that the correct form is
> virii.
> 
>>    Viri. Yes, most people say viruses. The also
>> say millenniums, medias, datas, bacterias, etc.
>> All are technically wrong. So what? You've won
>> a spelling contest. If you have any star stickers
>> you can put a blue or silver one on your forehead,
>> and you can keep it there for the rest of the day.
>> Congradulayshens. Ure wicked smaht. :) 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_form_of_words_ending_in_-us#Virus
> https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3838/viruses-or-virii
> 
> Both confirm that the incorrect word virii is common in IT.

So are the words "lite", "irregardless", "poisonous" (confusing it with
"venomous"), and "conversate".  As noted, we learn from others.  If
others misspell, abuse, or are incorrect for long enough, what was wrong
becomes accepted and eventually correct.  Girl came from ghurl (and
other forms in different languages) which meant a young persod, and
necessarily a female.  "Awful" meant full of awe, not somethind very
bad.  "Factoid" originally meant something untrue, but evolved to become
a tidbit of information.  "viri[i]" has been used, but so little that it
will unlikely be considered proper.  English adopts words from other
languages, words change or new ones added, and even invalid words get
added (where "wrong" refers to Latin roots but English doesn't strictly
adhere to those rules).  It's a mess.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72918

On 10/12/2020 6:10 am, VanguardLH wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 09/12/2020 14.41, Mayayana wrote:
>>> "Chris Green" <cl@isbd.net> wrote
>>>
>>> | Well why *would* you think changing a -us ending to -ii makes it
>>> | plural?  In English we add -s or -es so why not just viruses?  There a
>>> | few words where we use the latin plural - datum -> data but it's not
>>> | the default way of making plurals.
>>
>> Why should I know? My first language is not English. I simply learn from
>> what other people do, and someone told me once that the correct form is
>> virii.
>>
>>>     Viri. Yes, most people say viruses. The also
>>> say millenniums, medias, datas, bacterias, etc.
>>> All are technically wrong. So what? You've won
>>> a spelling contest. If you have any star stickers
>>> you can put a blue or silver one on your forehead,
>>> and you can keep it there for the rest of the day.
>>> Congradulayshens. Ure wicked smaht. :)
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_form_of_words_ending_in_-us#Virus
>> https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3838/viruses-or-virii
>>
>> Both confirm that the incorrect word virii is common in IT.
> 
> So are the words "lite", "irregardless", "poisonous" (confusing it with
> "venomous"), and "conversate".  As noted, we learn from others.  If
> others misspell, abuse, or are incorrect for long enough, what was wrong
> becomes accepted and eventually correct.  Girl came from ghurl (and
> other forms in different languages) which meant a young persod, and
> necessarily a female. 

'Girl' didn't always only apply to females. There was a time not more than a few hundred years ago 
in England when it meant a young child who hadn't developed gender specific traits yet. So that it 
was possible for people to say 'it's a boy girl'.

Yes society was strongly patriarchal then. 'Girls' that didn't become obviously male )in appearance 
or habit) stayed 'girls' until they became women.

> "Awful" meant full of awe, not somethind very
> bad.  "Factoid" originally meant something untrue, but evolved to become
> a tidbit of information.  "viri[i]" has been used, but so little that it
> will unlikely be considered proper.  English adopts words from other
> languages, words change or new ones added, and even invalid words get
> added (where "wrong" refers to Latin roots but English doesn't strictly
> adhere to those rules).  It's a mess.

The mess still has rules though...
-- 
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification 
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72625

In comp.mobile.android, on Wed, 9 Dec 2020 15:37:01 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 09/12/2020 14.41, Mayayana wrote:
>> "Chris Green" <cl@isbd.net> wrote
>> 
>> | Well why *would* you think changing a -us ending to -ii makes it
>> | plural?  In English we add -s or -es so why not just viruses?  There a
>> | few words where we use the latin plural - datum -> data but it's not
>> | the default way of making plurals.
>
>Why should I know? My first language is not English. I simply learn from
>what other people do, and someone told me once that the correct form is
>virii.

Absolutely, you had no way to know.  Given that you are Spanish and live
in Spain, your English is excellent.  Far better than my Spanish (even
though I knew over 1000 words and probably still do.d  The virii have
delayed my plans to return to Guatemala.) 

But ftr, the plural of virus in Latin is virus and I suppose it's
viruses in English.  Virii looks absurd to me and hard to pronounce. 

Words that end in -us and are made plural by changing that to -i are 1st
Declension in Latin, and tend to be masculine iirc. 

Words that end in -us and are made plural with no change are 4th
Declension. Mostly masculine but some feminine and some neuter.  (though
there are some called 4th Dec. that end in -u and are plural by changing
that to -ua!  In the nominative.  In other cases they are the same as
the -us words.) 

Virus is 4th Declension. 

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/latin/stage-1-latin/lessons/lesson-11-fourth-and-fifth-declension-nouns-days-of-the-week/

I have wondered how the declensions arose.  2nd Declension ends in -a
iirc and the words tend to be feminine iirc, like alumna.   I sort of
think 3rd, 4th, and 5th represent non-Latin words that sneaked into the
language, and retained the declination of the original language,
whatever they were, in the same way that in English the plural of
criterion is criteria because, I assume, that is the Greek plural and
the word is Greek.  

BTW, I was 8th and 80th, 3rd and 4th** in the Indiana all-state contest
in Latin during my first two years in high school.  The first year
teacher was probably the best teacher I ever had, and he brought up lots
of extraneous stuff, but not the origin of declensions.   **I have to
brag about this because I have nothing more recent. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72626

In comp.mobile.android, on Thu, 10 Dec 2020 01:42:16 -0500, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

>In comp.mobile.android, on Wed, 9 Dec 2020 15:37:01 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
><robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 09/12/2020 14.41, Mayayana wrote:
>>> "Chris Green" <cl@isbd.net> wrote
>>> 
>>> | Well why *would* you think changing a -us ending to -ii makes it
>>> | plural?  In English we add -s or -es so why not just viruses?  There a
>>> | few words where we use the latin plural - datum -> data but it's not
>>> | the default way of making plurals.
>>
>>Why should I know? My first language is not English. I simply learn from
>>what other people do, and someone told me once that the correct form is
>>virii.
>
>Absolutely, you had no way to know.  Given that you are Spanish and live
>in Spain, your English is excellent.  Far better than my Spanish (even
>though I knew over 1000 words and probably still do.d  The virii have
>delayed my plans to return to Guatemala.) 

Mr. Feldman will be disappointed in me.  Ken called my attention to at
least 2 mistakes. 

>But ftr, the plural of virus in Latin is virus and I suppose it's
>viruses in English.  Virii looks absurd to me and hard to pronounce. 
>
>Words that end in -us and are made plural by changing that to -i are 1st
>Declension in Latin, and tend to be masculine iirc. 

Yes, but they are 2nd Declension, not 1st. 
>
>Words that end in -us and are made plural with no change are 4th
>Declension. Mostly masculine but some feminine and some neuter.  (though
>there are some called 4th Dec. that end in -u and are plural by changing
>that to -ua!  In the nominative.  In other cases they are the same as
>the -us words.) 
>
>Virus is 4th Declension. 

According to two 2 online Latin dictionaries, it's 2nd Declension and
according to one of them, its plural is viri.   
>
>http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/latin/stage-1-latin/lessons/lesson-11-fourth-and-fifth-declension-nouns-days-of-the-week/
>
>I have wondered how the declensions arose.  2nd Declension ends in -a
>iirc and the words tend to be feminine iirc, like alumna.

Yes, but they are 1st Declension, not 2nd. 

>   I sort of
>think 3rd, 4th, and 5th represent non-Latin words that sneaked into the
>language, and retained the declination of the original language,
>whatever they were, in the same way that in English the plural of
>criterion is criteria because, I assume, that is the Greek plural and
>the word is Greek.  
>
>BTW, I was 8th and 80th, 3rd and 4th** in the Indiana all-state contest
>in Latin during my first two years in high school.  The first year
>teacher was probably the best teacher I ever had, and he brought up lots
>of extraneous stuff, but not the origin of declensions.   **I have to
>brag about this because I have nothing more recent. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72636

On 12/9/2020 11:42 PM, micky wrote:

> Words that end in -us and are made plural by changing that to -i are 1st
> Declension in Latin, and tend to be masculine iirc.


No, they are second declension. First declension words end in -a with a 
plural in -ae. For example, agricola, agricolae (farmer, farmers).

I still remember the first sentence in my High School Latin textbook: 
Agricolae sunt in Provincia (The farmers are in the province).


-- 
Ken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72637

On 12/9/2020 11:42 PM, micky wrote:

> BTW, I was 8th and 80th, 3rd and 4th** in the Indiana all-state contest
> in Latin during my first two years in high school.  The first year
> teacher was probably the best teacher I ever had, and he brought up lots
> of extraneous stuff, but not the origin of declensions.   **I have to
> brag about this because I have nothing more recent.


I was a terrible Latin student. I had four terms of it in High School 
and my grades went down every term: 80, 75, 70, and 65. It was a good 
thing I didn't take any more of it.

I don't remember much, but I do remember some of it. The biggest value 
of studying Latin to me was that it greatly improved my English grammar, 
which is still pretty good as a result.


-- 
Ken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72645

On 10/12/2020 07.42, micky wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on Wed, 9 Dec 2020 15:37:01 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 09/12/2020 14.41, Mayayana wrote:
>>> "Chris Green" <cl@isbd.net> wrote
>>>
>>> | Well why *would* you think changing a -us ending to -ii makes it
>>> | plural?  In English we add -s or -es so why not just viruses?  There a
>>> | few words where we use the latin plural - datum -> data but it's not
>>> | the default way of making plurals.
>>
>> Why should I know? My first language is not English. I simply learn from
>> what other people do, and someone told me once that the correct form is
>> virii.
> 
> Absolutely, you had no way to know.  Given that you are Spanish and live
> in Spain, your English is excellent.  Far better than my Spanish (even
> though I knew over 1000 words and probably still do.d  The virii have
> delayed my plans to return to Guatemala.) 

I lived and studied for a while in Ottawa :-)

Not living there now, it deteriorates with time. At college, they told
me my written English was better than what many locals did, which
surprised me a lot.

> 
> But ftr, the plural of virus in Latin is virus and I suppose it's
> viruses in English.  Virii looks absurd to me and hard to pronounce. 
> 
> Words that end in -us and are made plural by changing that to -i are 1st
> Declension in Latin, and tend to be masculine iirc. 
> 
> Words that end in -us and are made plural with no change are 4th
> Declension. Mostly masculine but some feminine and some neuter.  (though
> there are some called 4th Dec. that end in -u and are plural by changing
> that to -ua!  In the nominative.  In other cases they are the same as
> the -us words.) 
> 
> Virus is 4th Declension. 
> 
> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/latin/stage-1-latin/lessons/lesson-11-fourth-and-fifth-declension-nouns-days-of-the-week/
> 
> I have wondered how the declensions arose.  2nd Declension ends in -a
> iirc and the words tend to be feminine iirc, like alumna.   I sort of
> think 3rd, 4th, and 5th represent non-Latin words that sneaked into the
> language, and retained the declination of the original language,
> whatever they were, in the same way that in English the plural of
> criterion is criteria because, I assume, that is the Greek plural and
> the word is Greek.  
> 
> BTW, I was 8th and 80th, 3rd and 4th** in the Indiana all-state contest
> in Latin during my first two years in high school.  The first year
> teacher was probably the best teacher I ever had, and he brought up lots
> of extraneous stuff, but not the origin of declensions.   **I have to
> brag about this because I have nothing more recent. 


I studied one year Latin at high school. It was traumatic. The teacher
fixated a mania on me (it was not me who said that). Initially I could
not make head or tails of Latin, I failed two out of five partials. My
mother got a friend of hers to teach me Latin, and I got so good at it
that friends asked me for translations. But the teacher would invariably
fail me. My mother friend, a teacher at another high school, was
flabbergasted. In the end, I passed at the "recovery" final exam barely.

A year later I had forgotten all of it. As I say, traumatic at an inner
level, even though I liked it. Translating was like solving jigsaws, it
was entertaining. Today I can't translate even a simple Latin phrase.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72660

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 10/12/2020 07.42, micky wrote:
>> In comp.mobile.android, on Wed, 9 Dec 2020 15:37:01 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 09/12/2020 14.41, Mayayana wrote:
>>>> "Chris Green" <cl@isbd.net> wrote
>>>> 
>>>> | Well why *would* you think changing a -us ending to -ii makes it
>>>> | plural?  In English we add -s or -es so why not just viruses?  There a
>>>> | few words where we use the latin plural - datum -> data but it's not
>>>> | the default way of making plurals.
>>> 
>>> Why should I know? My first language is not English. I simply learn from
>>> what other people do, and someone told me once that the correct form is
>>> virii.
>> 
>> Absolutely, you had no way to know.  Given that you are Spanish and live
>> in Spain, your English is excellent.  Far better than my Spanish (even
>> though I knew over 1000 words and probably still do.d  The virii have
>> delayed my plans to return to Guatemala.) 
> 
> I lived and studied for a while in Ottawa :-)
> 
> Not living there now, it deteriorates with time. At college, they told
> me my written English was better than what many locals did, which
> surprised me a lot.

It doesn't surprise me. The standard of english language teaching in EU
countries is high. At school, in the UK, we're only the very basics of
english grammar. I learnt the majority of the concepts of grammar from my
French and Latin lessons. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72585

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
> 
>> How about every delivery driver? USPS, Fedex, UPS, and DoorDash make
>> deliveries to homes, so their Bluetooth contact tracing app could
>> potentially record everyone to whom they make a delivery, even if
>> the
> 
> That's already recorded.  They're given a list of places to go to and
> if they dont' go to one of them, they're supposed to tell the boss.  

No, what's recorded is where the package went, not who was at those
transfer points (in the delivery route and at the final target).  The
packages go to an address, not to a person.  Who knows who is picking up
the package, especially since they're left at the door and picked up
sometime later.  The contact tracking app would record the phone of
anyone inside the home, including a babysitter, friends, or burglar, not
necessarily the home owner.  Then, as the dasher roams an apartment
complex, they would record everyone whose phone was on in the building.

Package tracking implements a whole different scheme than snaring every
Bluetooth smartphone anywhere you travel.

>> Think about it, though.  If you can issue an alert at-will without
>> any authority validating the alert, it would easy for anyone to
>> scare a bunch of phone users.
> 
> I already get alerts on my pc that are phoney.   I rarely use** the
> cell phone but I'm sure I'll get them there too eventually.    **I
> usually take it when I go out.  Now I will always take it and I'll
> turn it on too. 

Seems Slootweg uses this type of tracking app.  Maybe he knows if you
test positive that then some legal authority is the only one that can
issue the alert to every other Bluetooth smartphone you recorded.

>> Go walk around the stores, parking lots, drive on the roads, or
>> anywhere there are people about, record them via Bluetooth, and
>> later issue an alert.  The malcontent would need to use a prepay
>> phone paid with cash to avoid tracking the scare alert back to them.
> 
> Or turn off bluetooth, which I think I used to do because nothing was
> using it, but I'll leave it on now.

I use Bluetooth from my phone to my computer.  In Windows 10, you can
enable a lockscreen on the desktop PC when your phone wanders away.  It
eliminates you remembering to lock your computer just before you leave
it, or hope no one gets at your computer before a passworded screen
saver or power saver mode triggers.

I also use Bluetooth from my phone to my car to use map apps on my phone
for directions to some place.  My car is way too old to have a head
unit, and I wouldn't pay for renewing the maps, anyway.  My smartphone
is the head unit in my old car, and I use a Bluetooth/FM transceiver to
connect my smartphone to my radio to hear the directions.

I thinks that is all, so far, that I used Bluetooth in my smartphone.

Has Bluetooth yet evolved to eliminate its vulnerability that someone
else can hack it when nearby and manage to get at your files without
ever showing a prompt to you to allow the Bluetooth connection?  I
suspect on smartphones that you won't get a newer version of Bluetooth
that addresses this vulnerability until you get a new version of the OS.
Yet many phones get only 1 or 2 software updates (to the next OS
version), or none at all.  You're stuck with the BLURtooth (yep, that's
what it is called) vulnerability.

https://siliconangle.com/2020/09/10/unpatched-bluetooth-vulnerability-allows-hackers-connect-nearby-devices/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluesnarfing

Bluetooth automatically reconnects to previously authorized devices for
convenience.  When I come home and my phone is near my desktop PC, there
is no prompt to get them connected to each other via Bluetooth.  Same
for when Bluetooth connects my phone to the Bluetooth/FM transceiver to
my car radio.  I get the prompt when I first setup the pairing, and not
thereafter.  With the previous authorized wifi connects listed on my
smartphone, there is no auto-reconnect.  I get an alert that a wifi
hotspot is available, but I have to choose to allow it.

That's why any sensitive data on my phone is encrypted.  If hacked, the
hacker gets scrambled data, not raw or text data.

Wonder the future of these contact tracking apps and services when the
pandemic fades away.  For what other use would be this anonymous
nearby-to-anyone tracking apps have without the pandemic?  Maybe to
measure population density or overall movement of the population.  I
suppose they could be used to send alerts to everyone you've been nearby
in the last 5 minutes that you just witnessed a sharknado.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72588

In article <5rq54b30o8da.dlg@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH>
wrote:

> >> How about every delivery driver? USPS, Fedex, UPS, and DoorDash make
> >> deliveries to homes, so their Bluetooth contact tracing app could
> >> potentially record everyone to whom they make a delivery, even if
> >> the
> > 
> > That's already recorded.  They're given a list of places to go to and
> > if they dont' go to one of them, they're supposed to tell the boss.  
> 
> No, what's recorded is where the package went, not who was at those
> transfer points (in the delivery route and at the final target).  The
> packages go to an address, not to a person.  Who knows who is picking up
> the package, especially since they're left at the door and picked up
> sometime later.  The contact tracking app would record the phone of
> anyone inside the home, including a babysitter, friends, or burglar, not
> necessarily the home owner.  Then, as the dasher roams an apartment
> complex, they would record everyone whose phone was on in the building.

no it won't, since the distance is too great and the time much too
short.



> Wonder the future of these contact tracking apps and services when the
> pandemic fades away.  For what other use would be this anonymous
> nearby-to-anyone tracking apps have without the pandemic?  

they cease being used. 

> Maybe to
> measure population density or overall movement of the population.  I
> suppose they could be used to send alerts to everyone you've been nearby
> in the last 5 minutes that you just witnessed a sharknado.

tin foil, aisle 5.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72589

VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
[...]
> >> Think about it, though.  If you can issue an alert at-will without
> >> any authority validating the alert, it would easy for anyone to
> >> scare a bunch of phone users.
> > 
> > I already get alerts on my pc that are phoney.   I rarely use** the
> > cell phone but I'm sure I'll get them there too eventually.    **I
> > usually take it when I go out.  Now I will always take it and I'll
> > turn it on too. 
> 
> Seems Slootweg uses this type of tracking app.  Maybe he knows if you
> test positive that then some legal authority is the only one that can
> issue the alert to every other Bluetooth smartphone you recorded.

[About the Dutch contact tracing app (probably also valid for several
other European apps):]

  When you test positive, you get a call from the health authority
('GGD'). You give them the unique key which is in your app, they check
if it's a valid key and then *you* (*not* the health authority) *can*
(note: voluntary, not mandatory) instruct your app to send the infection
notification to those other phones that have been in contact with yours
(for at least 15 minutes) during the last 14 days.

  So you can not send out fake notifications and nobody knows anything
about anybody, except that - within the last 14 days - they've been in
close proximity - for at least 15 minutes - to someone who turned out to
be infected.

  Again: Note that this is all documented in the app. The way it works,
what to do, documentation, FAQ, etc., the works. It also points to the
source code on GitHub. Absolutely nothing is secret or whatever. And the
whole thing is governed by law, which has been passed through both our
Chambers (House of Representatives and Senate).

[...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72601

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>   When you test positive, you get a call from the health authority
> ('GGD'). You give them the unique key which is in your app, they check
> if it's a valid key and then *you* (*not* the health authority) *can*
> (note: voluntary, not mandatory) instruct your app to send the infection
> notification to those other phones that have been in contact with yours
> (for at least 15 minutes) during the last 14 days.

So anyone can send a false alert.  They don't need to get tested.  They
send the alert.  Hopefully a malcontent doesn't read this newsgroup and
get perked on an antic they hadn't yet thought of.

>   So you can not send out fake notifications and nobody knows anything
> about anybody, except that - within the last 14 days - they've been in
> close proximity - for at least 15 minutes - to someone who turned out to
> be infected.

But those alerted don't know that the alert came from someone that was
infected.  This is a trust model that is easily abused.  The phone owner
gets to send an alert, not some authority that upon testing you has you
send them your private key and database, so they send out the alert.

>   Again: Note that this is all documented in the app. The way it works,
> what to do, documentation, FAQ, etc., the works. It also points to the
> source code on GitHub. Absolutely nothing is secret or whatever. And the
> whole thing is governed by law, which has been passed through both our
> Chambers (House of Representatives and Senate).

Doesn't matter that the code is exposed (public) or not.  Doesn't stop
abuse of the app.  From what you've described, so far, there is nothing
to prevent deliberate false alerts.  There are laws against spam, but it
continues.  The technology should not be in the hands of the phone
owners to issue an alert.  They can install the app, they can use the
app to record other phones (with a mating app), but they shouldn't be
able to issue an alert.  Also, being open source does not guarantee
non-malicious or untoward behavior.  That's not determined until an
independent 3rd party review of the code.  There are lots of open source
software available, and almost none of it ever gets audited.  A bunch of
lawmakers are not programmers to audit the code.

The contact tracking app must employ the same Bluetooth vulnerability as
noted in the cited article.  After all, how is any Bluetooth phone going
to pair with another Bluetooth where the two have never been paired
before and without prompting the user to allow the pairing?  The app
must override the safety of Bluetooth by allowing pairing without
authorization.

There is detailed documentation, like a functional specification, on
what the contract tracking app claims it does?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72605

In article <15jupra4plkir.dlg@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH>
wrote:

> >   When you test positive, you get a call from the health authority
> > ('GGD'). You give them the unique key which is in your app, they check
> > if it's a valid key and then *you* (*not* the health authority) *can*
> > (note: voluntary, not mandatory) instruct your app to send the infection
> > notification to those other phones that have been in contact with yours
> > (for at least 15 minutes) during the last 14 days.
> 
> So anyone can send a false alert.  They don't need to get tested.  They
> send the alert.  Hopefully a malcontent doesn't read this newsgroup and
> get perked on an antic they hadn't yet thought of.

nope. not only must they be tested, but the result needs to be positive.

> >   So you can not send out fake notifications and nobody knows anything
> > about anybody, except that - within the last 14 days - they've been in
> > close proximity - for at least 15 minutes - to someone who turned out to
> > be infected.
> 
> But those alerted don't know that the alert came from someone that was
> infected.  This is a trust model that is easily abused.  The phone owner
> gets to send an alert, not some authority that upon testing you has you
> send them your private key and database, so they send out the alert.

the phone owner can only send a positive result if they actually tested
positive.

> >   Again: Note that this is all documented in the app. The way it works,
> > what to do, documentation, FAQ, etc., the works. It also points to the
> > source code on GitHub. Absolutely nothing is secret or whatever. And the
> > whole thing is governed by law, which has been passed through both our
> > Chambers (House of Representatives and Senate).
> 
> Doesn't matter that the code is exposed (public) or not.  Doesn't stop
> abuse of the app.  From what you've described, so far, there is nothing
> to prevent deliberate false alerts. 

yes there very definitely is.

> There are laws against spam, but it
> continues.  The technology should not be in the hands of the phone
> owners to issue an alert.  They can install the app, they can use the
> app to record other phones (with a mating app), but they shouldn't be
> able to issue an alert.  Also, being open source does not guarantee
> non-malicious or untoward behavior.  That's not determined until an
> independent 3rd party review of the code.  There are lots of open source
> software available, and almost none of it ever gets audited.  A bunch of
> lawmakers are not programmers to audit the code.

it's designed to be anonymous, so the only way it would work is if the
user submits a positive test result, not the doctor or public health
department.

> The contact tracking app must employ the same Bluetooth vulnerability as
> noted in the cited article.  After all, how is any Bluetooth phone going
> to pair with another Bluetooth where the two have never been paired
> before and without prompting the user to allow the pairing?  The app
> must override the safety of Bluetooth by allowing pairing without
> authorization.

there is no bluetooth pairing.

> There is detailed documentation, like a functional specification, on
> what the contract tracking app claims it does?

yes there is.

try reading it so you at least understand how it actually works, rather
than making up all sorts of absurd and demonstrably false scenarios.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72614

VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >   When you test positive, you get a call from the health authority
> > ('GGD'). You give them the unique key which is in your app, they check
> > if it's a valid key and then *you* (*not* the health authority) *can*
> > (note: voluntary, not mandatory) instruct your app to send the infection
> > notification to those other phones that have been in contact with yours
> > (for at least 15 minutes) during the last 14 days.
> 
> So anyone can send a false alert.  They don't need to get tested.  They
> send the alert.  Hopefully a malcontent doesn't read this newsgroup and
> get perked on an antic they hadn't yet thought of.

  Sigh! My description was apparently too simple. See also Carlos'
response. You can not send (actually: enable the sending of) the
infection notification without the approval of the health authority. The
point is that the health authority only gives the approval, the actual
sending of the infection notifications is enabled by you, if you choose
(sp?) to do so.

  N.B. Of course these are highly complicated processes which can not be
fully and absolutely correctly be described in a few sentences.

  But feel free to read up on it.

<https://coronamelder.nl/en>

<https://coronamelder.nl/en/faq>

<https://coronamelder.nl/en/privacy>

  The 'About CoronaMelder' part of this page will probably answer your
questions/'concerns'.

> >   So you can not send out fake notifications and nobody knows anything
> > about anybody, except that - within the last 14 days - they've been in
> > close proximity - for at least 15 minutes - to someone who turned out to
> > be infected.
> 
> But those alerted don't know that the alert came from someone that was
> infected.  This is a trust model that is easily abused.  The phone owner
> gets to send an alert, not some authority that upon testing you has you
> send them your private key and database, so they send out the alert.

  See above, the alert can only be sent after approval by both the health
authority and the infected user.

[Yet more of the same.]

>			   Also, being open source does not guarantee
> non-malicious or untoward behavior.  That's not determined until an
> independent 3rd party review of the code.  There are lots of open source
> software available, and almost none of it ever gets audited.  A bunch of
> lawmakers are not programmers to audit the code.

  Are you for real!? What excuse do you have for assuming that the code
was not reviewed by independent others? And what excuse - other than
obnoxious, pompous twattery - do you have for your derogatory "A bunch
of law makers". Envy that other countries actually have proper
democracies where the trias politica actually *works*, instead of being
abused by one of its powers?

> The contact tracking app must employ the same Bluetooth vulnerability as
> noted in the cited article.  After all, how is any Bluetooth phone going
> to pair with another Bluetooth where the two have never been paired
> before and without prompting the user to allow the pairing?  The app
> must override the safety of Bluetooth by allowing pairing without
> authorization.

  AFAIK, there's no pairing and no need for pairing. There is no need
for exchange of information and hence no need for pairing. The only need
is to know if a device has been (too) close by for too long.

  Maybe you should spend some time on how this technology actually
works, instead of trying to find holes where there aren't any and
there's no reason to assume there are any.

> There is detailed documentation, like a functional specification, on
> what the contract tracking app claims it does?

  Yes, see the above mentioned website and take it from there.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72618

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
>
>> So anyone can send a false alert.  They don't need to get tested.  They
>> send the alert.  Hopefully a malcontent doesn't read this newsgroup and
>> get perked on an antic they hadn't yet thought of.
> 
>    Sigh! 

I think literally everything VanguardLH has claimed about the covid apps 
is wrong, just totally wrong - the info from google and apple is out 
there, and easy to understand.

please VH, do everyone a favour and go read it instead of continuing 
with the bullshit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72632

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
> 
> > VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
> >
> >> So anyone can send a false alert.  They don't need to get tested.  They
> >> send the alert.  Hopefully a malcontent doesn't read this newsgroup and
> >> get perked on an antic they hadn't yet thought of.
> > 
> >    Sigh! 
> 
> I think literally everything VanguardLH has claimed about the covid apps 
> is wrong, just totally wrong - the info from google and apple is out 
> there, and easy to understand.

  Yes, it's wrong and illogical.
  
  I don't understand why someone, who has clearly little to no knowledge
of the subject matter at hand, makes such illogical assumptions, builds
weird scenarios based on those incorrect assumptions and then apparently
thinks he can shoot holes in the work that numerous experts - in all
kinds of fields - the world over, did for months on end.

> please VH, do everyone a favour and go read it instead of continuing 
> with the bullshit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72640

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>
>> I think literally everything VanguardLH has claimed about the covid
>> apps is wrong, just totally wrong - the info from google and apple
>> is out there, and easy to understand.
> 
> Yes, it's wrong and illogical.
>   
> I don't understand why someone, who has clearly little to no knowledge
> of the subject matter at hand, makes such illogical assumptions,
> builds weird scenarios based on those incorrect assumptions and then
> apparently thinks he can shoot holes in the work that numerous
> experts - in all kinds of fields - the world over, did for months on
> end.

The same argument could be made against Microsoft and all their
affiliates in building Windows.  Yep, all those experts, and the OS is
still vulnerable.

>> please VH, do everyone a favour and go read it instead of continuing 
>> with the bullshit.

Yep, I am reading.  You are not.  It's not as rosy a picture as you
would like others to believe.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/06/coronavirus-tracking-app-hacking-348601
https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2020/09/30/covid-19-tracking-apps-leak-data/

Burying your head in the sand and thinking because laws exist means
malcontents cannot exercise their evil deeds is wrong and illogical.
Resorting to citing law as to how things work is a child's argument.
Just because something should be doesn't mean it is.  God forbid anyone
questions your choices.  These apps rely on Bluetooth connectivity and
bypassing user prompting to allow pairing, and I mentioned the Bluetooth
vulnerability but, of course, you buried you head in the sand since that
would get in your way of defending your choice.

The Google/Apple Exposure Notification (GAEN) system is new.  Started in
May 2020.  So, of course, it will need improvements in security.
Besides any vulnerabilities in GAEN (Google/Apple Exposure Notification)
API, there is also issues with the apps themselves, like their
collection of metadata which is completely separate of their GAEN
function.  Field testing has become the norm versus investing in huge
resources for thorough internal testing.

There is also the issue of the haves and have nots.  Not everyone has a
computer nor does everyone have a smartphone.  Of all cell phone users,
some just have a dumb phone because all they want to do is make calls,
not install apps or want or need mobile Internet access.  The elderly
and poor have a lower adoption rate of smartphones, but they are higher
risk.  Even those with smartphones have to elect to install a GAEN or
ENE app, and they need to leave Bluetooth on all the time (which has a
vulnerability along with drawing more power for the BT radio), and they
need to leave the app running in the background eating up more memory
and CPU cycles.

There is also the requirement for the BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy) aka BT
4.0, not just any Bluetooth, which further restricts which smartphones
are compatible hence lowering the availability.  "The first smartphone
to implement the 4.0 specification was the iPhone 4S, released in
October 2011." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth_Low_Energy).  I
don't know the rate of adoption, but not all smartphones manufactured
after 2011 had BLE/BT4.0, and old hardware isn't going to get modified.

With users trying to preserve battery power for longer up-time between
chargings, smartphones could be powered off, Bluetooth turned off, or
the smartphone is in airplane mode.  Despite users installing the GAEN
apps, their phone could be BT dead.  I leave mine powered on all the
time either on battery or on the charger.  Yet that's not what I've
noticed in how others use their phone.  Many times I've tried to call
someone only to find out that they turned off their phone when they
weren't using figuring voicemail would take their calls.  Oh, yes, we
here are technically more proficient, but you really think the typical
smartphone user realizes they must not power off their smartphone,
disable BLE/BT4.0 (if they have that and even know they need that), or
put it in airplane mode?  In fact, there are lots of places where you
are required to power off your phone or put in airplane mode, like at
the hospital, doctor's office, or dentist which are prime locations for
Covid exposure.  You might know that you need to put your phone in
silent mode rather than power off or use airplane mode, but remember
we're discussing a technology targeting all users of GAEN apps (well,
those that install them).

Some folks have said the BT ping is at 15 minute intervals, so someone
would have be around someone else for at least that long.  Yet my
reading rather than opinions stated here is that the GAEN scheme polls
at 5-minute intervals.  For example:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/apple-and-googles-covid-19-exposure-notification-api-questions-and-answers
"Pings will go out at least once every five minutes when Bluetooth is
enabled."

Notice the use of "at least" which means the polling interval could be
shorter.  As yet, I've not read that an app polling at faster than 15
minutes results in null results.  I doubt the lambasting audience here
would know.

"If an app user learns they are infected, they can grant a public health
authority permission to publicly share their temporary exposure keys."

Does these GAEN/ENE apps prompt on installation that the user is
granting permission to share their temporary exposure keys?  There could
be the assumption, but with the GDPR you'd think the grant must be
explicitly stated during installation or when loading the app.

https://developers.google.com/android/exposure-notifications/exposure-notifications-api
"Your app must have the BLUETOOTH and INTERNET permission in its
manifest, but your app doesn't require and can't include
ACCESS_COARSE_LOCATION, ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION, nor BLUETOOTH_ADMIN."

So, it appears Google and Apple mandate the tracking apps cannot track
geolocation of the phone.  With the vague description offered here, so
far, I had to go check myself.

  start()
  Tells Google Play services to start the broadcast and scan process. 
  The first time that this method is called after installation of the 
  app or each time after stop() is called, it prompts Google Play 
  services to display a dialog box, where the user is asked to give 
  permission to broadcast and scan.
  
Supposedly that means the app must issue a prompt every time it is
loaded to have the phone operator grant permission to broadcast and
scan.  I wasn't going to get that info here.  Questioning the lemmings
here results in ridicule instead of information.  It obviously allows
Google to track logistics on the use of their API, just like sites that
use web fonts hosted at Google other font sources to track which sites
to where users web surf.

Still, this is an API.  Apps can use the API, and they can do whatever
else they want.  Never heard of National Security Letters (NSLs)?  It's
what killed TrueCrypt when forced to add a backdoor, so the author(s)
decided to convert the program to read-only mode as a yellow canary.
Despite the efforts of Google and Apple regarding privacy and security,
they only provided the API and service.  They didn't write the apps.
There is what apps should do, but there are bad-actor apps, too.

SSL was considered safe by those "numerous experts - in all kinds of
fields - the world over, did for months on end" and used for many years
until it was found vulnerable and replaced by TLS 1.1 and up (TLS 1.0 is
just SSL 3.0 with different handshaking, so TLS 1.0 got deprecated,
too).  GAEN is new.  Despite all the statements on how it is supposed to
work, it still seems vulnerable, especially since the real trust you put
into GAEN is actually you trusting the app, not the API.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/apple-and-googles-covid-19-exposure-notification-api-questions-and-answers
"proximity tracking apps have to make the profound leap from “there is a
strong Bluetooth signal near me” to “two humans are experiencing an
epidemiologically relevant contact.” Bluetooth technology was not made
for this. An app may log a connection when two people wearing masks
briefly pass each other on a windy sidewalk, or when two cars with
windows up sit next to each other in traffic. The proximity of a patient
to a nurse in full PPE may look the same to Bluetooth as the proximity
of two people kissing."

I already brought up the scenario of people being near each other in
traffic.  Yes, they'd have to be next to each other for awhile, but some
stop lights take a long time to change, and the premise that they must
be near each other for a minimum of 15 minutes is not supported by the
API specification.  I didn't even think about users of these apps
wearing masks or otherwise being parted from each other, like across a
plexyglass barrier (although that scenario was addressed with the
delivery person).

"Third, Apple and Google’s proposal currently specifies that phones will
broadcast signals as seldom as once every five minutes."

Maybe 5 minutes is the minimum exposure interval for Apple's
implementation.  I haven't found a minimal interval for Google's ... yet
... and where the API or their Play Store enforces a minimum interval.
Does the virus really wait for two unprotected people to be near each
other for more than 5 minutes?  Nope, so the random sampling of the
populace of similar app users is inaccurate as to your exposure to those
that prove infected.  Plus not everyone that gets infected exhibits
symptoms to the same degree.  Some just get a bad cold with a bad
headache, and don't need hospitalization or any cause to get tested.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72642

In article <1n8sifmlbdz90$.dlg@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH>
wrote:

> > I don't understand why someone, who has clearly little to no knowledge
> > of the subject matter at hand, makes such illogical assumptions,
> > builds weird scenarios based on those incorrect assumptions and then
> > apparently thinks he can shoot holes in the work that numerous
> > experts - in all kinds of fields - the world over, did for months on
> > end.
> 
> The same argument could be made against Microsoft and all their
> affiliates in building Windows.  Yep, all those experts, and the OS is
> still vulnerable.

irrelevant.

> >> please VH, do everyone a favour and go read it instead of continuing 
> >> with the bullshit.
> 
> Yep, I am reading.  You are not.  It's not as rosy a picture as you
> would like others to believe.
> 
>
> https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/06/coronavirus-tracking-app-hacking-3486
> 01
> https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2020/09/30/covid-19-tracking-apps-leak-data/

that's about apps that do *not* use the apple/google framework.

> Burying your head in the sand and thinking because laws exist means
> malcontents cannot exercise their evil deeds is wrong and illogical.
> Resorting to citing law as to how things work is a child's argument.

it's not that there's a law, it's that the exposure notification
framework is specifically designed so that someone *can't* fake a
positive test and enter it into an app to cause mass panic.

> Just because something should be doesn't mean it is.  God forbid anyone
> questions your choices.  These apps rely on Bluetooth connectivity and
> bypassing user prompting to allow pairing, and I mentioned the Bluetooth
> vulnerability but, of course, you buried you head in the sand since that
> would get in your way of defending your choice.

it uses bluetooth le, therefore there is no bluetooth pairing nor any
bypassing of prompts. 

> The Google/Apple Exposure Notification (GAEN) system is new.  Started in
> May 2020.  So, of course, it will need improvements in security.
> Besides any vulnerabilities in GAEN (Google/Apple Exposure Notification)
> API, there is also issues with the apps themselves, like their
> collection of metadata which is completely separate of their GAEN
> function.  Field testing has become the norm versus investing in huge
> resources for thorough internal testing.

it's based on work at mit, led by ron rivest of rsa fame, beginning in
march, 2020. the initial spec was published in april, 2020.

<https://pact.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The-PACT-protocol-speci
fication-2020.pdf>

> There is also the issue of the haves and have nots.  Not everyone has a
> computer nor does everyone have a smartphone.  Of all cell phone users,
> some just have a dumb phone because all they want to do is make calls,
> not install apps or want or need mobile Internet access.  The elderly
> and poor have a lower adoption rate of smartphones, but they are higher
> risk. 

almost everyone has a smartphone, however, everyone having one is not a
requirement for exposure notification to work.

> Even those with smartphones have to elect to install a GAEN or
> ENE app, and they need to leave Bluetooth on all the time (which has a
> vulnerability along with drawing more power for the BT radio), 

the difference in battery draw is negligible.

> and they
> need to leave the app running in the background eating up more memory
> and CPU cycles.

also wrong. it's built into the operating system and uses almost no cpu
cycles. the app just provides an interface.

> There is also the requirement for the BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy) aka BT
> 4.0, not just any Bluetooth, which further restricts which smartphones
> are compatible hence lowering the availability.  "The first smartphone
> to implement the 4.0 specification was the iPhone 4S, released in
> October 2011." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth_Low_Energy).  I
> don't know the rate of adoption, but not all smartphones manufactured
> after 2011 had BLE/BT4.0, and old hardware isn't going to get modified.

non-issue.

most new phones have bluetooth 5. bluetooth 4 has been in just about
every phone for *years*.

> With users trying to preserve battery power for longer up-time between
> chargings, smartphones could be powered off, Bluetooth turned off, or
> the smartphone is in airplane mode.

this may come as a surprise, but when people are out and about, their
phones are powered *on* and not in airplane mode because they want to
be able to make and receive calls and texts as well as receive push
notifications along with many other benefits of having a smartphone,
such as listening to music, maps/routing, health/fitness tracking, etc.

but keep coming up with crazy unrealistic scenarios. it's entertaining.

> Despite users installing the GAEN
> apps, their phone could be BT dead.  I leave mine powered on all the
> time either on battery or on the charger.  Yet that's not what I've
> noticed in how others use their phone.  Many times I've tried to call
> someone only to find out that they turned off their phone when they
> weren't using figuring voicemail would take their calls.  Oh, yes, we
> here are technically more proficient, but you really think the typical
> smartphone user realizes they must not power off their smartphone,
> disable BLE/BT4.0 (if they have that and even know they need that), or
> put it in airplane mode?  In fact, there are lots of places where you
> are required to power off your phone or put in airplane mode, like at
> the hospital, doctor's office, or dentist which are prime locations for
> Covid exposure.  You might know that you need to put your phone in
> silent mode rather than power off or use airplane mode, but remember
> we're discussing a technology targeting all users of GAEN apps (well,
> those that install them).

there is *no* requirement to power off a phone in a hospital, doctor's
office or dentist office.

hospital staff carry phones (previously pagers) that are active in case
they are needed for an emergency as well as being able to access
patient records and many other purposes.

they might request that calls are not made when it's inappropriate and
could disturb staff or patients, but that's about it.

> Some folks have said the BT ping is at 15 minute intervals, so someone
> would have be around someone else for at least that long.  Yet my
> reading rather than opinions stated here is that the GAEN scheme polls
> at 5-minute intervals.  For example:
> 
>
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/apple-and-googles-covid-19-exposure-noti
> fication-api-questions-and-answers
> "Pings will go out at least once every five minutes when Bluetooth is
> enabled."

pinging must occur more frequently to determine a 15 minute exposure.

> Notice the use of "at least" which means the polling interval could be
> shorter.  As yet, I've not read that an app polling at faster than 15
> minutes results in null results.  I doubt the lambasting audience here
> would know.

many do know, since they actually read the spec and understood it.



> 
>   start()
>   Tells Google Play services to start the broadcast and scan process. 
>   The first time that this method is called after installation of the 
>   app or each time after stop() is called, it prompts Google Play 
>   services to display a dialog box, where the user is asked to give 
>   permission to broadcast and scan.
>   
> Supposedly that means the app must issue a prompt every time it is
> loaded to have the phone operator grant permission to broadcast and
> scan.  I wasn't going to get that info here.  Questioning the lemmings
> here results in ridicule instead of information.  It obviously allows
> Google to track logistics on the use of their API, just like sites that
> use web fonts hosted at Google other font sources to track which sites
> to where users web surf.

it doesn't mean that at all.

> Still, this is an API.  Apps can use the API, and they can do whatever
> else they want.  Never heard of National Security Letters (NSLs)?  It's
> what killed TrueCrypt when forced to add a backdoor, so the author(s)
> decided to convert the program to read-only mode as a yellow canary.
> Despite the efforts of Google and Apple regarding privacy and security,
> they only provided the API and service.  They didn't write the apps.
> There is what apps should do, but there are bad-actor apps, too.

being able to use the exposure notification framework is limited.

for there to be a 'bad-actor' app there would need to be bad actors in
the departments of public health in states, provinces and countries, in
which case, there are far bigger problems.




> 
> I already brought up the scenario of people being near each other in
> traffic.  Yes, they'd have to be next to each other for awhile, but some
> stop lights take a long time to change, and the premise that they must
> be near each other for a minimum of 15 minutes is not supported by the
> API specification. 

what traffic light has a 15 minute cycle?

> I didn't even think about users of these apps
> wearing masks or otherwise being parted from each other, like across a
> plexyglass barrier (although that scenario was addressed with the
> delivery person).

that's still a potential exposure, although a lower risk than without
the barriers.

> "Third, Apple and Googles proposal currently specifies that phones will
> broadcast signals as seldom as once every five minutes."
> 
> Maybe 5 minutes is the minimum exposure interval for Apple's
> implementation.  I haven't found a minimal interval for Google's ... yet
> ... and where the API or their Play Store enforces a minimum interval.
> Does the virus really wait for two unprotected people to be near each
> other for more than 5 minutes?  Nope, so the random sampling of the
> populace of similar app users is inaccurate as to your exposure to those
> that prove infected.  Plus not everyone that gets infected exhibits
> symptoms to the same degree.  Some just get a bad cold with a bad
> headache, and don't need hospitalization or any cause to get tested.

it's *exposure* notification, not diagnosis and treatment.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web