Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #140838 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mickey D <mickeydavis078XX@ptd.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-05-05 14:47 -0400 |
| Last post | 2024-05-06 11:34 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 127 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
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 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-11 04:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <la8b1uF5lsiU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #141021 |
On 2024-05-11, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote: > Jolly Roger wrote on 10 May 2024 22:21:27 GMT : > >> You're a broken record. Literally useless. > > And yet, [more broken record bullshit] It's literally all little Arlen has at his disposal. His trolls are *that* weak and feeble. Sad. -- 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]
| From | Andrew <andrew@spam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-11 13:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v1nti0$1aae$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #141022 |
Jolly Roger wrote on 11 May 2024 04:38:22 GMT : > His trolls are *that* weak and feeble. Notice that the Apple religious zealots call all facts about Apple to be trolls. Why is that? They don't say that on the adult OS newsgroups. Only on Apple newsgroup is the fact that the iPhone is the most exploited smartphone on the planet called a troll (which Apple never tells them). https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog Only on an Apple operating system is the fact Apple has the most limited operating system support in the industry called a troll (which Apple was recently forced by the security industry to publicly disclose). https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/deployment/depc4c80847a/web If you told a fact on the adult operating systems newsgroups (even a fact that puts the OS maker in a bad light) nobody calls it a troll. But if you tell a fact on the childish Apple newsgroups, they do. Why do you think that is the case? -- HINT: Apple religious zealots will defend Apple to the death, no matter what and yet, they're herd animals who don't know anything about iOS>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-11 15:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <la9igrFbaegU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #141027 |
On 2024-05-11, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote: > Jolly Roger wrote on 11 May 2024 04:38:22 GMT : > >> His trolls are *that* weak and feeble. > > Notice that the Apple religious zealots Notice that little Arlen calls anyone who dares to stand up to his bullshit "Apple religious zealots" - all while little Arlen exhibits true zealotry against anything Apple related. > Why do you think that is the case? Because little Arlen is in fact a zealot. -- 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]
| From | Andrew <andrew@spam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-11 16:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v1o860$1bkg$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #141029 |
Jolly Roger wrote on 11 May 2024 15:51:55 GMT : > "Apple religious zealots" The facts are what you Apple religious zealot nutcases refuse to believe. https://screenrant.com/apple-product-security-update-lifespan/ https://hothardware.com/news/apple-admits-only-fully-patches-security-flaws-in-latest-os-releases https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/ *The iPhone has the worst full OS support in history* What you religious herd animal nutjobs hate, JR, are the facts. https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog *The iPhone is the most exploited phone in history*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-11 19:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <la9vr9Fd792U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #141031 |
On 2024-05-11, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote: > Jolly Roger wrote on 11 May 2024 15:51:55 GMT : > >> "Apple religious zealots" > > The facts [more repitious deflection and trolling] YAWN -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andrew@spam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-11 20:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v1oipn$psn$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #141032 |
Jolly Roger wrote on 11 May 2024 19:39:21 GMT : > YAWN Notice you can't refute the facts nor that you lied for years about them. *The iPhone has the worst full OS support in the history of phones* *As a result, the iPhone is the most exploited phone in history* It's no longer shocking Apple religious zealots know nothing about iOS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-11 21:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <laa5qdFe2h4U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #141033 |
On 2024-05-11, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote: > Jolly Roger wrote on 11 May 2024 19:39:21 GMT : > >> YAWN > > Notice Notice Arlen deflects constantly and has nothing but trolls to offer. -- 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]
| From | Andrew <andrew@spam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-11 22:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v1oqcl$1pdj$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #141034 |
Jolly Roger wrote on 11 May 2024 21:21:17 GMT : > has nothing but trolls to offer. I feel sorry for people like you, Jolly Roger, because your entire life you've been told that you're stupid (which is why you don't have any education and partly it's why you're so ignorant about Apple products). The fact is that Apple is the only common consumer operating system creator who fully supports only a single release. Nobody else does that. *Just Apple* The fact is that the iPhone has by far more exploits than Android. *Ten times more* Those are just facts, Jolly Roger. Yet your IQ is so low that you can't comprehend that those are facts. *You call facts trolls* I understand you better than you understand yourself, Jolly Roger. Which is why I feel sorry for you - as God didn't endow you with brains. Since you hate these facts, you call all facts about Apple you don't like, to be trolls - which tells all of us more about you than you want us to know. You _hate_ Apple, Jolly Roger. Secretly so. You _hate_ that it's so easy to prove Apple lied to you Jolly Roger. You _hate_ every fact I say about Apple makes you hate Apple even more. As I said, I understand you better than you understand yourself. You're a herd animal, Jolly Roger. You bought into the herd mentality. You love the advertisements. But you hate the facts. That's why you call every fact about Apple you hate, a troll. And that... is a lot of facts that you call trolls.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | danmin@danminart-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Danart) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-24 17:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87KdnSPDa8hNUs37nZ2dnZfqnPoAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #141036 |
> Mickey D wrote: > Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo. > https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef-8533-c557f743cc78.png > > Says so here: > > From teenage cyber-thug to Europe¢s most wanted > https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo There is a lot to say about this but I am not going to give people any ideas. It has nothing to do with tech. Remember the way McAfee was taken down? They looked at the trees. Anything in that image could have fingered him. The tiles The magazines The print on the bottle. Reflections of light When you get finger-printed ( especially if you are guilty previously ) in court ( and via city/state/federal jobs ) they do this side thing with your hand as well. They literally are taking a gigantic image of your finger print. You take a big/clean enough image and run that against a database for matches. The other thing cops came to his door under his fake name, via a fake domestic abuse call. He played stupid and gave them information and that information linked them to the same device he was using this fake account and interacting with victims. ........ I do photography and noticed my clients other photographers do not upload big images at all. They only upload small 300X images or even smaller as if it was 1995 or 1999. You look in Truedi's office at his BasketBall photos you will have to ask yourself "What person have a collection of photographs that small". So when you upload those "HD" images to the internet your actually uploading gold making it worthless to the viewer. Thus nobody will purchase your images. Doing illustration as well I found people liking my work but they want me to upload bigger pictures for them. I deny this fact and they call me crazy, but I know in another world like Australia India Eastern Europe China They have so many people making money off the things people upload. They will even make prints with the watermark on them. This is a response to the post seen at: http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=664818969#664818969
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-11 17:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v1o3mm$23pte$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141022 |
On 11.05.24 06:38, Jolly Roger wrote: > On 2024-05-11, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote: >> Jolly Roger wrote on 10 May 2024 22:21:27 GMT : >> >>> You're a broken record. Literally useless. >> >> And yet, [more broken record bullshit] > > It's literally all little Arlen has at his disposal. His trolls are > *that* weak and feeble. Sad. *You* are the Troll, little Roger. Why are still feeding this brain dead idiot Arlen after so many years? Are you bored? -- "Alea iacta est." (Julius Caesar)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-11 15:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <la9ikcFbaegU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #141028 |
On 2024-05-11, Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote: > On 11.05.24 06:38, Jolly Roger wrote: >> On 2024-05-11, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote: >>> Jolly Roger wrote on 10 May 2024 22:21:27 GMT : >>> >>>> You're a broken record. Literally useless. >>> >>> And yet, [more broken record bullshit] >> >> It's literally all little Arlen has at his disposal. His trolls are >> *that* weak and feeble. Sad. > > *You* are the Troll, little Roger. "Standing up to bullies makes *you* the bully!", exclaimed Jörg... -- 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]
| From | "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 19:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v1b34r$2mfh0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140873 |
Alan, >>> Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image >>> of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it. >> >> Yes, and ? 3D printers exist. > > That also express the thermal (IR) "print" that FaceID is looking for? You mean you have never heard of wire that will emit heat when a current is passed thru it ? Or maybe even just flexible plastic tubing where a bit of warm water is pushed thru ? And do excuse me if I take that "thermal (IR) faceprint" as a hogwash. It would mean that if you would be outside in changing weather conditions (changing the heat patterns in your face) you would not be able to unlock your phone. And that would be a death-sentence for the technology. They rather have a lot of false positives than just a handfull of false negatives. Regards, Rudy Wieser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 13:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <dx8_N.76362$neD.67415@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #140877 |
On 2024-05-06 13:03, R.Wieser wrote: > Alan, > >>>> Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image >>>> of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it. >>> >>> Yes, and ? 3D printers exist. >> >> That also express the thermal (IR) "print" that FaceID is looking for? > > You mean you have never heard of wire that will emit heat when a current is > passed thru it ? > > Or maybe even just flexible plastic tubing where a bit of warm water is > pushed thru ? Then you would need to know what the pattern was as the iPhone encoded it from its "learning" session. > > And do excuse me if I take that "thermal (IR) faceprint" as a hogwash. It > would mean that if you would be outside in changing weather conditions > (changing the heat patterns in your face) you would not be able to unlock > your phone. Differences (not to mention the device's ML) are a thing. You dwell in absolutes and fud. (And not very good at it either). -- “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]
| From | "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 22:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v1bdf9$2ou59$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140882 |
Alan, >> You mean you have never heard of wire that will emit heat when a current >> is >> passed thru it ? >> >> Or maybe even just flexible plastic tubing where a bit of warm water is >> pushed thru ? > > Then you would need to know what the pattern was as the iPhone encoded it > from its "learning" session. No, I don't. Thats the lock. The face would be the key. You would only have to make an acceptable faximile of the key. Let me tell you a stupid story : Once passwords where send to the server in plain text Some person though that wasn't very secure - a smart guy. So, he thought that he should encrypt the password before sending it He was rather surprised when someone broke into his account as easily as with a plain-text password. Can you figure out his mistake ? 'cause you are making the same one. >> And do excuse me if I take that "thermal (IR) faceprint" as a hogwash. >> It >> would mean that if you would be outside in changing weather conditions >> (changing the heat patterns in your face) you would not be able to unlock >> your phone. > > Differences (not to mention the device's ML) are a thing. You dwell in > absolutes and fud. (And not very good at it either). It looks to me that you are the one thinking in absolutes. As if every face responds the same way to differences in temperature. As for FUD ? Thinking and claiming that finger- and faceprint lock are "tha sh*t" is, to me, just you falling for the sales department doing the opposite of FUD (praising their stuff into high-heaven). Feel free to disagree - but I do expect a bit more than "I don't believe you" responses. Regards, Rudy Wieser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 16:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vwb_N.37888$nQv.23648@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #140894 |
On 2024-05-06 16:10, R.Wieser wrote: > Alan, > >>> You mean you have never heard of wire that will emit heat when a current >>> is >>> passed thru it ? >>> >>> Or maybe even just flexible plastic tubing where a bit of warm water is >>> pushed thru ? >> >> Then you would need to know what the pattern was as the iPhone encoded it >> from its "learning" session. > > 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. <Ramble snipped> > 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. -- “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]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 16:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <v1aseo$2kjcl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140862 |
On 06/05/2024 10:51, R.Wieser wrote: > Arno, > >> Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image >> of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it. > > Yes, and ? 3D printers exist. I mean getting a 3D scan of someone's face in order to create a copy is not trivial. > > And thats the buget solution. People who created 3D heads (and full body > representations) have existed since *forever* - statues anyone? I think Ronaldo's phone is safe. lol https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5abe9e3a1e0000fb077b037a.jpeg > And as a > more contemporary example just take a look at Madame Tussauds in New York. > (and others like it). They are universally shit. I don't understand how waxworks museums are still a thing. I'm sure they were amazing in Victorian times.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 19:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v1b34s$2mfh0$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140874 |
Chris, >> And as a more contemporary example just take a look at Madame Tussauds >> in New York. (and others like it). > > They are universally shit. I don't understand how waxworks museums are > still a thing. I'm sure they were amazing in Victorian times. Well, I do seem to remember when a certain actor took the place of his wax counterpart. The people walking by didn't even notice his different appearance from the wax puppets next to him. Always funny to see people jump when such a "wax figure" suddenly comes to life. :-) Also, its not how such wax figures look exactly like the person they are supposed to represent, its about the possibility of creating a topographically close enough faximile of a persons head. You know, for those face-ID scanners Regards, Rudy Wieser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 10:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v1b596$2mp4v$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140879 |
On 2024-05-06 10:10, R.Wieser wrote: > Chris, > >>> And as a more contemporary example just take a look at Madame Tussauds >>> in New York. (and others like it). >> >> They are universally shit. I don't understand how waxworks museums are >> still a thing. I'm sure they were amazing in Victorian times. > > Well, I do seem to remember when a certain actor took the place of his wax > counterpart. The people walking by didn't even notice his different > appearance from the wax puppets next to him. How many hours (and therefore how many DOLLARS) weren't spent creating the wax figure, doofus? > > Always funny to see people jump when such a "wax figure" suddenly comes to > life. :-) > > Also, its not how such wax figures look exactly like the person they are > supposed to represent, its about the possibility of creating a > topographically close enough faximile of a persons head. You know, for > those face-ID scanners > > Regards, > Rudy Wieser > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 10:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v1b56q$2mp4v$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140862 |
On 2024-05-06 02:51, R.Wieser wrote: > Arno, > >> Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image >> of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it. > > Yes, and ? 3D printers exist. > > And thats the buget solution. People who created 3D heads (and full body > representations) have existed since *forever* - statues anyone? And as a > more contemporary example just take a look at Madame Tussauds in New York. > (and others like it). > >> Yes, in Android using *images* of a face to unlock a phone is indeed >> not a good idea. > > Its a *very good* idea. It should *not ever* happen though. :-) > > Coming up with a new locking mechanism (mechanical or software) isn't all > that hard. What is is to make sure that only the key designed for it can > actually open it. > > If you want to see examples of how locks, even expensive ones, can be > bypassed with the proverbial paperclip I would like to refer you to the > "Lockpicking Lawyer" clips on YouTube. Those are enlighting. Yes, you incredible simpleton... ...but this is never about stopping people with huge amounts of resources from getting in. You put a lock on the front door of your house, not because you know it will stop anyone from breaking in. You put it there because you HOPE it will convince them to break in to somewhere EASIER.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 09:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <l9u2jsFj4iiU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #140862 |
R.Wieser, 2024-05-06 11:51: [...]>> Yes, in Android using *images* of a face to unlock a phone is indeed >> not a good idea. > > Its a *very good* idea. It should *not ever* happen though. :-) If something should not ever happen, it is not a good idea. [...] > If you want to see examples of how locks, even expensive ones, can be > bypassed with the proverbial paperclip I would like to refer you to the > "Lockpicking Lawyer" clips on YouTube. Those are enlighting. I know the Lockpicking Lawyer quite well. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web