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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #140838 > unrolled thread

Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo

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

Contents

  Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Mickey D <mickeydavis078XX@ptd.net> - 2024-05-05 14:47 -0400
    Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-05-05 21:23 +0200
      Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Oliver <ollie@invalid.net> - 2024-05-05 13:42 -0600
      Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-05 17:06 -0400
        Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2024-05-05 19:04 -0500
          Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> - 2024-05-05 21:49 -0400
            Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> - 2024-05-05 22:30 -0400
              Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-06 02:56 +0000
    Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-05 22:20 +0200
      Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-05 17:04 -0400
        Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-06 09:04 +0200
          Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-06 08:16 +0000
            Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-06 10:45 -0700
          Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-06 10:54 -0400
            Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-06 18:55 +0200
              Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-06 13:33 -0400
                Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-06 21:38 +0200
              Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-05-07 08:53 +0200
                Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-07 10:12 +0200
                  Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-05-07 17:28 +0200
                    Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-07 19:07 +0200
                      Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-05-08 11:49 +0200
                        Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-08 12:31 +0200
                        Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-08 12:09 -0400
                        Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-08 16:22 +0000
                          Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-09 23:24 +0000
                            Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-09 17:28 -0700
                              Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Bill Powell <bill@anarchists.org> - 2024-05-10 19:16 +0200
                                Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "Jan K." <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> - 2024-05-10 19:24 +0200
                                  Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Larry Wolff <larrywolff@larrywolff.net> - 2024-05-10 13:51 -0400
                                    Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-10 18:30 +0000
                                    Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Peter Piper <peterpiper@nospam.invalid> - 2024-05-10 19:01 +0000
                                      Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-10 20:54 +0000
                                  Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-05-10 22:40 +0200
                                Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-10 11:34 -0700
                                Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-10 13:47 -0700
      Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-05-06 10:04 +0200
        Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-05-06 10:23 +0200
          Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 11:41 +0100
            Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-05-08 12:36 +0200
          Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-06 10:59 -0400
            Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-06 18:24 +0000
              Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-06 13:49 -0700
                Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-06 17:04 -0400
              Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-05-07 09:05 +0200
                Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-05-07 17:33 +0200
          Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-05-06 16:28 -0400
            Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-06 17:02 -0400
              Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-05-06 21:44 -0400
                Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-10 01:39 +0000
              Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-05-07 09:08 +0200
                Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-07 08:27 -0400
            Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-05-08 12:43 +0200
          Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-05-07 08:53 +0200
        Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-06 11:51 +0200
          Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-06 11:02 -0400
            Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-06 16:24 +0000
              Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-06 19:13 +0200
                Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-06 13:37 -0400
                  Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-06 22:08 +0200
                    Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-06 16:56 -0400
                      Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-07 09:17 +0200
                        Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-07 08:29 -0400
                          Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-10 01:38 +0000
                Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-06 23:49 +0000
                  Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-07 09:40 +0200
                    Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-07 15:18 +0000
                      Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-07 18:42 +0200
                        Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-05-07 18:35 +0000
                          Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-07 22:11 +0200
                            Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-05-08 13:53 +0000
                              Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-08 17:36 +0200
                                Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-08 16:17 +0000
                                Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-05-08 17:37 +0000
                                  Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-08 20:26 +0200
                              Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 09:05 -0700
                                Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-08 09:39 -0700
                                  Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:16 +0100
                                    Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-08 15:31 -0400
                                Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-08 12:57 -0400
                                Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-05-08 17:23 +0000
                                  Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 12:10 -0700
                                    Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2024-05-08 16:38 -0500
                                    Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-08 16:21 -0700
                                      Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-05-09 14:01 +0200
                                        Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-09 08:57 -0700
                                          Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 09:13 -0700
                                            Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-09 16:27 +0000
                                            Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-09 09:32 -0700
                                              Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 11:07 -0700
                                                Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-09 11:24 -0700
                                                  Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 17:31 -0700
                                                    Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-09 17:43 -0700
                                                      Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 18:06 -0700
                                                        Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-10 09:58 -0700
                        Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-08 02:08 +0000
                          Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-10 21:34 +0000
                            Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-10 14:55 -0700
                            Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-10 22:21 +0000
                              Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-11 04:08 +0000
                                Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-11 04:38 +0000
                                  Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-11 13:58 +0000
                                    Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-11 15:51 +0000
                                      Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-11 16:59 +0000
                                        Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-11 19:39 +0000
                                          Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-11 20:00 +0000
                                            Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-11 21:21 +0000
                                              Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-11 22:10 +0000
                                                Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo danmin@danminart-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Danart) - 2024-05-24 17:35 +0000
                                  Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-05-11 17:43 +0200
                                    Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-11 15:53 +0000
            Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-06 19:03 +0200
              Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-06 13:35 -0400
                Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-06 22:10 +0200
                  Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-06 16:59 -0400
          Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 16:19 +0100
            Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-06 19:10 +0200
              Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-06 10:50 -0700
          Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-06 10:49 -0700
          Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-05-07 09:13 +0200
    Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Mickey D <mickeydavis078XX@ptd.net> - 2024-05-06 02:09 -0400
      Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 12:10 +0100
        Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Mickey D <mickeydavis078XX@ptd.net> - 2024-05-06 07:56 -0400
          Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 15:06 +0100
            Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Mickey D <mickeydavis078XX@ptd.net> - 2024-05-06 14:56 -0400
              Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 07:02 +0000
    Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 11:34 +0100

Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7  Next page →

#140897

On 2024-05-06 16:08, R.Wieser wrote:
> Alan,
> 
>>>> These trolls are just replying the same lines they used back when Face
>>>> ID was first announced. They were wrong then, and they're just as wrong
>>>> now.
>>>
>>> And according to you, which of the pro/con parties is trolling ?
>>>
>>> ... or should I just presume that you are the one trying to troll us both
>>> ?
>>
>> You fail again.  I suggest you take leave of the field, declare victory
>> for yourself (another white ribbon as when you were a child) and find
>> something more in line with your meagre talents.
> 
> All I see is someone who claims stuff, but brings nothing forward to support
> it.  A hot-air balloon.

Well, it seems that your mirror is polished to perfection, at least. 
You've got that.

-- 
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
  nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

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

#140912

Alan,

>>> You fail again.  I suggest you take leave of the field, declare victory
>>> for yourself (another white ribbon as when you were a child) and find
>>> something more in line with your meagre talents.
>>
>> All I see is someone who claims stuff, but brings nothing forward to 
>> support
>> it.  A hot-air balloon.
>
> Well, it seems that your mirror is polished to perfection, at least. 
> You've got that.

:-) You can't "win" your argument (because yo have no clue how to underbuild 
your posirtion) so you decide that switching to a more personal attack is in 
order ?   Yeah, that always works well.

>> No, I don't.  Thats the lock.  The face would be the key. You would only
>> have to make an acceptable faximile of the key.
>
> Completely wrong and proving you don't understand the issue.  At all - not 
> an iota.

Claims made without underbuilding or at least explaining them aren't worth 
worth the ink with which they are written.

... oh, wait. :-)

>> Feel free to disagree - but I do expect a bit more than "I don't believe
>> you" responses.
>
> My responses are not based on my not believing you - they are based on you 
> not understanding the basic problem at all.

I think the problem is reversed : you are supporting a technology which you 
have little-to-no knowledge about, and can't even come up with obvious 
solutions to things you think are a problem.

Just take your "you can't use picture" problem and how I had to tell you 
that 3D imagery has existed for the longest time, and nowerdays even in 
multiple forms.

... and how you tried to derail that by complaining how wax figures are, in 
your opinion, not at all alike the origional.  As if that was what I was 
talking about or even needed.

You also have otherwise resorted to try to disqualify examples I brought 
forward - YT, the lockpicking lawyer - on the torturous grounds that those 
"look too easy".

Bottom line :
I see someone who knows he has nothing to bring forward to the subject at 
hand, and than just tries to derail the whole thing - No doubt in an "if he 
doesn't win than I'm not losing" kind of idea.

Alas, I would not have minded to learn more about the technology, but you 
sure aren't the one to do so.

Goodbye kid.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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

#140919

On 2024-05-07 03:17, R.Wieser wrote:
> Alan,
> 
>>>> You fail again.  I suggest you take leave of the field, declare victory
>>>> for yourself (another white ribbon as when you were a child) and find
>>>> something more in line with your meagre talents.
>>>
>>> All I see is someone who claims stuff, but brings nothing forward to
>>> support
>>> it.  A hot-air balloon.
>>
>> Well, it seems that your mirror is polished to perfection, at least.
>> You've got that.
> 
> :-) You can't "win" your argument 

You brought up several examples of your utter lack of understanding of 
how Face ID works.

So, true to troll form you counter with more nonsense.


-- 
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
  nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

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

#140988

Alan Browne wrote on Tue, 7 May 2024 08:29:18 -0400 :

> You brought up several examples of your utter lack of understanding of 
> how Face ID works.

Biometric marketing gimmicks are expressly designed to make gullible but
ignorant iPhone users *feel* safe, because the factual truth is the iPhone
is (and always was) by far the most exploited smartphone on the planet.

https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog

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

#140902

On 2024-05-06, R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> wrote:
> Jolly,
>
>> These trolls are just replying the same lines they used back when
>> Face ID was first announced. They were wrong then, and they're just
>> as wrong now.
>
> And according to you, which of the pro/con parties is trolling ?

The ones who are beating a dead horse about things we discussed when
Face ID first hit the market and umpteen times after, always trying to
claim it's "insecure" and so on, and never knowing or acknowledging how
it differs from other smartphone facial identification designs. They
know who they are. Either you don't, or you are one of them and are now
offended that anyone should dare to call them out. Which is it?

> ... or should I just presume that you are the one trying to troll us
> both ?

Trolls are bullies at heart, and bullies *always* try to claim they are
the ones /AKTUALLY/ being bullied. Is this your claim now?

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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

#140915

Jolly,

>>> These trolls are just replying the same lines they used back when
>>> Face ID was first announced. They were wrong then, and they're just
>>> as wrong now.
>>
>> And according to you, which of the pro/con parties is trolling ?
>
> The ones who are beating a dead horse about things we discussed when
> Face ID first hit the market and umpteen times after, always trying
> to claim it's "insecure" and so on, and never knowing or acknowledging
> how it differs from other smartphone facial identification designs.

Ah, now I see where you are coming from.  One of Alans compadres, no ?

Feel free to explain/underbuild why that that face-ID was secure than, and 
than how its still secure now - even with technology going forward.

And if you want to claim that what was once secure(?) still must be so, let 
me point out to you how cracking several kinds of, now discarded, SSL 
encryptions has changed from not in your lifetime to less than a day (and 
even shorter than that) is now a thing.

No Jolly, the only thing I see here is someone who tries to kill a 
discussion even before has the chance to start.   And those people often 
have something to hide.  What is it that you are trying to hide ?

> They know who they are. Either you don't, or you are one of them and
> are now offended that anyone should dare to call them out. Which is it?

You post something that could easily have been about either/all of the 
parties involved in that "back when Face ID was first announced" talk, and 
you are offended by me asking for something less ambigue ?   Why ?


And seeing how your current response could still be about any of those 
parties I start to wonder if that is not intentionally ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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

#140921

On 2024-05-07, R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> wrote:
> Jolly,
>
>>>> These trolls are just replying the same lines they used back when
>>>> Face ID was first announced. They were wrong then, and they're just
>>>> as wrong now.
>>>
>>> And according to you, which of the pro/con parties is trolling ?
>>
>> The ones who are beating a dead horse about things we discussed when
>> Face ID first hit the market and umpteen times after, always trying
>> to claim it's "insecure" and so on, and never knowing or
>> acknowledging how it differs from other smartphone facial
>> identification designs.
>
> Ah, now I see where you are coming from.  One of Alans compadres, no ?

Hardly. Arlen and his little band of trolls is more like it. They've
been at this for literal years here.

> Feel free to explain/underbuild why that that face-ID was secure than,
> and than how its still secure now - even with technology going
> forward.

Is that supposed to be English?

> And if you want to claim that what was once secure(?) still must be
> so, let me point out to you how cracking several kinds of, now
> discarded, SSL encryptions has changed from not in your lifetime to
> less than a day (and even shorter than that) is now a thing.

"SSL can be cracked, therefore Face ID is insecure" is a new sentence I
hadn't anticipated reading this morning. Thanks for the giggle.

You're clearly not a sincere person. I see no need to continue wasting
my time with you.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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

#140928

Jolly,

>> Feel free to explain/underbuild why that that face-ID was secure
>> than, and than how its still secure now - even with technology
>> going forward.
>
> Is that supposed to be English?

What ?  Thats too hard for you to understand ?  Not "English" enough for 
your taste ?

> "SSL can be cracked, therefore Face ID is insecure" is a new sentence
> I hadn't anticipated reading this morning. Thanks for the giggle.

Oh well, someone "doesn't understand" a simple example.  How delightfully 
new.

> You're clearly not a sincere person.

Goodness!  After having read that "I can't understand a word of what you're 
saying" drivel that was exactly what I was thinking about you.

> I see no need to continue wasting my time with you.

I see someone who refuses to answer a simple question, and than trying to 
make a run for it, while making it sound as if its all the other persons 
fault.

Yeah, thats not at all obvious. Not at all, no sirree. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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

#140932

> Jolly,
> 
> >> Feel free to explain/underbuild why that that face-ID was secure
> >> than, and than how its still secure now - even with technology
> >> going forward.
> >
> > Is that supposed to be English?
> 
> What ?  Thats too hard for you to understand ?  Not "English" enough for 
> your taste ?

  Not to support Jolly Roger, but there are many, probaby too many,
errors in your sentence. 

  You make *these* (two) errors very often - as in nearly always - so
let me explain, so you can try to prevent them in future.

  You're mixing up 'then' [1] and 'than' [2]. In this case, the 'than's
should have been 'then's.

  And (AFAIK), "underbuild" is not an English word/verb. You're probably
looking for the equivalent of Dutch 'onderbouwen'.

  These are not the only errors in your sentence, but with these errors,
the sentence is indeed hard to parse for an English 'speaker'. (As a
Dutchman, I can quite easily parse this.)

[...]

[1] <https://translate.google.com/details?sl=en&tl=nl&text=then%0A&op=translate>

[2] <https://translate.google.com/details?sl=en&tl=nl&text=than%0A&op=translate>

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

#140935

Frank,

>>> Feel free to explain/underbuild why that that face-ID was secure
>>> than, and than how its still secure now - even with technology
>>> going forward.

>  Not to support Jolly Roger, but there are many, probaby too
> many, errors in your sentence.

Enough *not* to convey the meaning of what I tried to say ?

>  You're mixing up 'then' [1] and 'than' [2]. In this case, the
> 'than's should have been 'then's.

I realized only after posting that I made that error.  But are you sure, 
*both* of them ?  I though only the first one.

The second is indicating a moment after having done something else. In that 
case I though that a "than" was in order.  ( 
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/than-then/ )

But ok, I made a mistake there.

>  And (AFAIK), "underbuild" is not an English word/verb. You're
> probably looking for the equivalent of Dutch 'onderbouwen'.

You hit the nail on the head.  A too-literal translation.  Strange, I've 
been using it for a while now (as in: years), but as far as I remember 
you're to the first one to remark upon it.

And I see (a quick google) that the word I *should* (I think) have used is 
"support".  I'll have to remember that.

>  These are not the only errors in your sentence,

Pray tell.  You might not believe it, but I've got zero problems with being 
told wrong as part of an attempt to help me better myself (upto a point 
ofcourse :-) ).

> but with these errors, the sentence is indeed hard to parse for
> an English 'speaker'. (As a Dutchman, I can quite easily parse this.)

I can understand that.  Ill try to keep the "steenkolen Engels" outof my 
writings.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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

#140943

R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> wrote:
> Frank,
> 
> >>> Feel free to explain/underbuild why that that face-ID was secure
> >>> than, and than how its still secure now - even with technology
> >>> going forward.
> 
> >  Not to support Jolly Roger, but there are many, probaby too
> > many, errors in your sentence.
> 
> Enough *not* to convey the meaning of what I tried to say ?

  Yes, not enough for a native English speaker. Speakers of languages
similar to Dutch might be able to parse (more of) it.

> >  You're mixing up 'then' [1] and 'than' [2]. In this case, the
> > 'than's should have been 'then's.
> 
> I realized only after posting that I made that error.  But are you sure, 
> *both* of them ?  I though only the first one.

  Yes, both of them. Neither of them is a comparison, which would call
for 'than'.

> The second is indicating a moment after having done something else. In that 
> case I though that a "than" was in order.  ( 
> https://www.grammarly.com/blog/than-then/ )

  That's a good reference, but I think my (snipped) references are
simpler, i.e. not so many words.

> But ok, I made a mistake there.

  When I'm unsure about 'then' versus 'than', I ask myself if it's a
comparison, i.e. "greater than", "lighter than", etc.. If so, it's
'than', else it's then.
  
> >  And (AFAIK), "underbuild" is not an English word/verb. You're
> > probably looking for the equivalent of Dutch 'onderbouwen'.
> 
> You hit the nail on the head.  A too-literal translation.  Strange, I've 
> been using it for a while now (as in: years), but as far as I remember 
> you're to the first one to remark upon it.

  Yes, you use it frequently and already for a long time. I think in
most cases it was not a problem, because what you meant could be
'guessed' from the context, or the word was somewhat redundant, i.e. the
text could still be understood without the word (as I think  was the
case this time)

> And I see (a quick google) that the word I *should* (I think) have used is 
> "support".  I'll have to remember that.

  Yes, 'support' suits here. I sometimes use 'substantiate'.

> >  These are not the only errors in your sentence,
> 
> Pray tell.  You might not believe it, but I've got zero problems with being 
> told wrong as part of an attempt to help me better myself (upto a point 
> ofcourse :-) ).

  It's the syntaxis ('zinsbouw') of your sentence. It looks like you
more or less translated a Dutch sentence word-for-word to English.

  Let me try to change it to how I think it would be 'good'/better:

[Repeat:]

> >>> Feel free to explain/underbuild why that that face-ID was secure
> >>> than, and than how its still secure now - even with technology
> >>> going forward.

      Feel free to explain/substantiate why face-ID was secure
      then, and how it's still secure now - even with technology
      going forward.

[N.B. "it's" or "it is", not "its"]

  I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or just
'dat'), but English speakers won't.

  I also deleted the second 'than'/'then'.

  I think the first 'then' should be changed, because it refers to the
past, but not in a very clear way. So probably something like this is
better:

      Feel free to explain/substantiate why face-ID was secure
      in the past, and how it's still secure now - even with [cracking]
      technology going forward.

> > but with these errors, the sentence is indeed hard to parse for
> > an English 'speaker'. (As a Dutchman, I can quite easily parse this.)
> 
> I can understand that.  Ill try to keep the "steenkolen Engels" outof my 
> writings.

  It's indeed a case of "steenkolen Engels" or Louis van Gaal English. :-)

> Thanks for the heads-up.

  You're welcome.

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

#140945

Frank,

>>>>> Feel free to explain/underbuild why that that face-ID was secure
>>>>> than, and than how its still secure now - even with technology
>>>>> going forward.

>> I realized only after posting that I made that error.  But are you sure,
>> *both* of them ?  I though only the first one.
>
>  Yes, both of them. Neither of them is a comparison, which would call
> for 'than'.

Not a comparision ?  Makes sense.

>> >  And (AFAIK), "underbuild" is not an English word/verb. You're
>> > probably looking for the equivalent of Dutch 'onderbouwen'.
>>
>> You hit the nail on the head.  A too-literal translation.  Strange, I've
>> been using it for a while now (as in: years), but as far as I remember
>> you're to the first one to remark upon it.
>
>  Yes, you use it frequently and already for a long time.

I wish I didn't need to (use it that frequently) ... :-\

> I think in most cases it was not a problem, because what you meant
> could be 'guessed' from the context,

I thought that the same was true here.  But as I wrote that line I'm not 
really the one who should be judging it in that regard ("Wij van WC-Eend 
...").

>> And I see (a quick google) that the word I *should* (I think) have used
>> is "support".  I'll have to remember that.
>
>  Yes, 'support' suits here. I sometimes use 'substantiate'.

Substanciate.  That sounds more like what I'm normally after. "Give 
substance".

>  It's the syntaxis ('zinsbouw') of your sentence. It looks like you
> more or less translated a Dutch sentence word-for-word to English.

D*mn.  I though that with all my book reading I would have absorbed the 
syntax rules from them a bit better. :-|

>>>  These are not the only errors in your sentence,
>>
>> Pray tell. [snip]
>
>  Let me try to change it to how I think it would be 'good'/better:
>
> Feel free to explain/substantiate why face-ID was secure
> then, and how it's still secure now - even with technology
> going forward.

I'm trying to get myself to disagree with you, but I can't. :-)

>  I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or
> just 'dat'), but English speakers won't.

It was an attempt to make it clear I was talking about the Face-ID of that 
time (and not the current version).

>  I also deleted the second 'than'/'then'.

I noticed.  There I tried to indicate a sequence : first do {this}, and only 
/after/ thats done do {that}.

>  I think the first 'then' should be changed, because it refers to the
> past, but not in a very clear way. So probably something like this is
> better:
>
> Feel free to explain/substantiate why face-ID was secure
> in the past, and how it's still secure now - even with [cracking]
> technology going forward.

Yes, the sentence certainly flows better.

But you changed the subject with that "[cracking]" part. I really tried to 
refer to the Face-ID technology - as I assume it has, just as the "cracking" 
methods, also progressed.

>>> but with these errors,

Truly errors ?  As in syntax errors ?   Man ... :-(

Thanks for the explanation.   I appreciate it.

now the only thing I need to do is to remember to apply them ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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

#140950

On 2024-05-08, R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>
> Not a comparision ?

Again, in English you do not place a space between the last word of a
sentence and the ending punctuation. That includes question marks.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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

#140957

R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> wrote:
> Frank,

[Lots deleted.]

> >   I think the first 'then' should be changed, because it refers to the
> > past, but not in a very clear way. So probably something like this is
> > better:
> >
> > Feel free to explain/substantiate why face-ID was secure
> > in the past, and how it's still secure now - even with [cracking]
> > technology going forward.
> 
> Yes, the sentence certainly flows better.
> 
> But you changed the subject with that "[cracking]" part. I really tried to 
> refer to the Face-ID technology - as I assume it has, just as the "cracking" 
> methods, also progressed.

  Apparently I guessed wrong. I thought you were referring to the
"cracking" methods, because AFAIK, Apple's Face-ID technology hasn't
changed all that much. But I could be (totally) wrong about that, as
I've not be following/studying that technology over time.

> >>> but with these errors,
> 
> Truly errors ?  As in syntax errors ?   Man ... :-(

  Nah! Your keyboard just doesn't correctly process what you type! :-)

> Thanks for the explanation.   I appreciate it.

  You're again/still welcome.

> now the only thing I need to do is to remember to apply them ...

  Don't worry, I have my share of common - mostly spelling - errors and
you should see what some of the native English 'speakers' emit without
even blinking!

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

#140958

Frank,

>> But you changed the subject with that "[cracking]" part. I really tried
>> to refer to the Face-ID technology - as I assume it has, just as the
>> "cracking" methods, also progressed.
>
>  Apparently I guessed wrong. I thought you were referring to the
> "cracking" methods,

I was trying to let Alan (Browne) know that I wasn't trying to get him to 
defend an old Face-ID method against nowerdays technology.  I may be an ass 
at times, but that would be dishonest.

> Apple's Face-ID technology hasn't changed all that much.

I wouldn't know.  Heck, I do not even know how old it is.

> But I could be (totally) wrong about that, as I've not be
> following/studying that technology over time.

I've not been following it either, for several reasons.  One of them I 
already mentioned, another being the price of those IThingamagotchies.  In 
cold hard cash as well as other stuff.

>> now the only thing I need to do is to remember to apply them ...
>
>  Don't worry, I have my share of common - mostly spelling - errors and
> you should see what some of the native English 'speakers' emit without
> even blinking!

Phew.  :-)  And thanks.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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

#140947

On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

>    I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or just
> 'dat'), but English speakers won't.

Yes we do, or at least I do.  "I believe that that is the truth."  Carry on.


-- 
Cheers, Bev
    "Yahoo has released its own search engine. For more info,
     type 'yahoo search engine' into Google."       -D.Miller

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

#140953

On 2024-05-08 09:05, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> 
>>    I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or just
>> 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
> 
> Yes we do, or at least I do.  "I believe that that is the truth."  Carry 
> on.
> 
> 

Jim where John had had had had had had had had had had had a better 
effect on the teacher.

😎

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

#140960

On 08/05/2024 17:39, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-05-08 09:05, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>>>    I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or just
>>> 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
>>
>> Yes we do, or at least I do.  "I believe that that is the truth."  
>> Carry on.
>>
>>
> 
> Jim where John had had had had had had had had had had had a better 
> effect on the teacher.
> 
> 😎

Or picture a sign painter redoing the sign at the George and Dragon pub. 
The publican comes out to see the progress and spots a problem: "There's 
too much space between George and And and And and Dragon."

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

#140961

On 2024-05-08 15:16, Chris wrote:
> On 08/05/2024 17:39, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-05-08 09:05, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>
>>>>    I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or just
>>>> 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
>>>
>>> Yes we do, or at least I do.  "I believe that that is the truth." 
>>> Carry on.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Jim where John had had had had had had had had had had had a better 
>> effect on the teacher.
>>
>> 😎
> 
> Or picture a sign painter redoing the sign at the George and Dragon pub. 
> The publican comes out to see the progress and spots a problem: "There's 
> too much space between George and And and And and Dragon."

Ah yes, I read that in the The Guardian.

-- 
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
  nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

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

#140955

On 2024-05-08 12:05, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> 
>>    I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or just
>> 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
> 
> Yes we do, or at least I do.  "I believe that that is the truth."  Carry 
> on.

I've been ribbed for, " ... where we do do enhanced processing ..."

-- 
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
  nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

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

Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7  Next page →

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

csiph-web