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 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 17:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v1gjf1.77s.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #140947 |
In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> 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 *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a single
'that':
[Edited by me:]
Feel free to explain/substantiate why [that] that face-ID was secure
then, and [then] how it's still secure now - even with technology
going forward.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 12:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v1gimn$4kqn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140956 |
On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> 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 *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
> But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a single
> 'that':
No. People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like "I'm sure
he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best. If it occasionally
requires double thats, so be it.
I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had had
had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher." though,
--
Cheers, Bev
"It is never fallacious to properly cite Donald Knuth in
lieu of providing your own argument." --Sun Tzu
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 16:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v1grcl$6ar4$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140959 |
The Real Bev wrote:
> On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> 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 *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
>
> All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
>
>> But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a single
>> 'that':
>
> No. People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like "I'm sure he
> did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best. If it occasionally requires
> double thats, so be it.
>
> I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had had had
> had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher." though,
>
Shouldn't we all be squabbling about apple minutia?
After all that's the purpose of this group.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 16:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v1h1cv$7vt9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140959 |
On 2024-05-08 12:10, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> 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 *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
>
> All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
>
>> But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a single
>> 'that':
>
> No. People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like "I'm sure
> he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best. If it occasionally
> requires double thats, so be it.
>
> I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had had
> had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher."
> though,
>
I'll give everyone a little longer to ruminate on it...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 14:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <9hqugkxa1o.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #140963 |
On 2024-05-09 01:21, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-05-08 12:10, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> 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 *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
>>
>> All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
>>
>>> But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a single
>>> 'that':
>>
>> No. People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like "I'm
>> sure he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best. If it
>> occasionally requires double thats, so be it.
>>
>> I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had had
>> had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher."
>> though,
>>
>
> I'll give everyone a little longer to ruminate on it...
I gave up on it on first sight.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 08:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v1irpf$o5fi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140966 |
On 2024-05-09 05:01, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-05-09 01:21, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-05-08 12:10, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>> In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or
>>>>> just
>>>>> > 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes we do, or at least I do. "I believe that that is the truth."
>>>>> Carry on.
>>>>
>>>> I *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
>>>
>>> All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
>>>
>>>> But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a single
>>>> 'that':
>>>
>>> No. People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like "I'm
>>> sure he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best. If it
>>> occasionally requires double thats, so be it.
>>>
>>> I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had had
>>> had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher."
>>> though,
>>>
>>
>> I'll give everyone a little longer to ruminate on it...
>
> I gave up on it on first sight.
>
Alright, alright.
Jim, where John had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a
better effect on the teacher.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 09:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v1isnd$oer0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140972 |
On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-05-09 05:01, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2024-05-09 01:21, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-08 12:10, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>> In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> 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 *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
>>>>
>>>> All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
>>>>
>>>>> But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a single
>>>>> 'that':
>>>>
>>>> No. People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like "I'm
>>>> sure he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best. If it
>>>> occasionally requires double thats, so be it.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had had
>>>> had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher."
>>>> though,
>>>
>>> I'll give everyone a little longer to ruminate on it...
>>
>> I gave up on it on first sight.
>
> Alright, alright.
This is not a word. In the same category as 'irregardless'. Ignorant
and sloppy.
> Jim, where John had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a
> better effect on the teacher.
OK. Punctuation, at least periods, should have been included.
--
Cheers, Bev
"Truly, our society's bellyaching sissies are in an elite category.
They are like the Navy SEALS of offendedness. They demonstrate
unmatched skill, dedication, and dexterity in imagining new and
exciting ways to be insulted." --Matt Walsh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 16:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <la4bs3FhpnkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #140974 |
On 2024-05-09, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote: >> >> Alright, alright. > > This is not a word. It's certainly an informal and nonstandard form of "all right", but it is definitely a word. Merriam-Webster says: <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alright> --- alright - adverb or adjective al·right (ˌ)ȯl-ˈrīt ˈȯl-ˌrīt Synonyms of alright : ALL RIGHT If people stay strong and keep pushing we'll be alright. —Keith Ellison Alright, I give in. —Sallie Tisdale Alright already, get in the squad car and solve the darn crime. —Ken Tucker It's cheap, alright. —Chris Hodenfield all right or alright?: Usage Guide Although the spelling alright is more than a century and a half old, some critics have insisted alright is all wrong. Nevertheless, it has its defenders and its users, who perhaps have been influenced by analogy with altogether and already. Alright is less common than all right but is frequently found in informal writing and fictional dialogue. Starting at a slower pace is perfectly alright. —Alia Haley "Alright, it is a bargain. I will help you." —Harold Bell Wright It is sometimes also used in more formal writing. The first two years of the medical school were alright. —Gertrude Stein --- -- 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 | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 09:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v1itqk$oadp$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140974 |
On 2024-05-09 09:13, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-05-09 05:01, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-09 01:21, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-08 12:10, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>> On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>> In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat',
>>>>>>> or just
>>>>>>> > 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes we do, or at least I do. "I believe that that is the truth."
>>>>>>> Carry on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
>>>>>
>>>>>> But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a
>>>>>> single
>>>>>> 'that':
>>>>>
>>>>> No. People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like "I'm
>>>>> sure he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best. If it
>>>>> occasionally requires double thats, so be it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had
>>>>> had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the
>>>>> teacher." though,
>>>>
>>>> I'll give everyone a little longer to ruminate on it...
>>>
>>> I gave up on it on first sight.
>>
>> Alright, alright.
>
> This is not a word. In the same category as 'irregardless'. Ignorant
> and sloppy.
Who appointed you grammarian to the internet?
Is "already" a word? "Always"? Maybe "already" is almost a word?
:-)
>
>> Jim, where John had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a
>> better effect on the teacher.
>
> OK. Punctuation, at least periods, should have been included.
No. That was the POINT: to find how to punctuate it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 11:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v1j3cm$q4j6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140977 |
On 5/9/24 9:32 AM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-05-09 09:13, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-09 05:01, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-09 01:21, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-08 12:10, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>>> In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> 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 *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a
>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>> 'that':
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like "I'm
>>>>>> sure he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best. If it
>>>>>> occasionally requires double thats, so be it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had
>>>>>> had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the
>>>>>> teacher." though,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll give everyone a little longer to ruminate on it...
>>>>
>>>> I gave up on it on first sight.
>>>
>>> Alright, alright.
>>
>> This is not a word. In the same category as 'irregardless'. Ignorant
>> and sloppy.
>
> Who appointed you grammarian to the internet?
I did. Weren't you paying attention? Please try to keep up.
> Is "already" a word? "Always"? Maybe "already" is almost a word?
I agree, there are a lot of proper al- words. Nonetheless, during my
literacy the expression has been "all right" and "alright" appeared at
about the same time as thumb-spelling, indicating either laziness or
ignorance.
Bite me.
> :-)
>
>>
>>> Jim, where John had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a
>>> better effect on the teacher.
>>
>> OK. Punctuation, at least periods, should have been included.
>
> No. That was the POINT: to find how to punctuate it.
OK, I concede. I failed miserably. It happens now and again.
--
Cheers, Bev
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity
is not thus handicapped."
-- Elbert Hubbard, American author
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 11:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v1j4dp$qbr8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140978 |
On 2024-05-09 11:07, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 5/9/24 9:32 AM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-05-09 09:13, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-09 05:01, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-09 01:21, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-08 12:10, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>>>> In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> 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 *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a
>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>> 'that':
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like
>>>>>>> "I'm sure he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best. If it
>>>>>>> occasionally requires double thats, so be it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had
>>>>>>> had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the
>>>>>>> teacher." though,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll give everyone a little longer to ruminate on it...
>>>>>
>>>>> I gave up on it on first sight.
>>>>
>>>> Alright, alright.
>>>
>>> This is not a word. In the same category as 'irregardless'.
>>> Ignorant and sloppy.
>>
>> Who appointed you grammarian to the internet?
>
> I did. Weren't you paying attention? Please try to keep up.
>
>> Is "already" a word? "Always"? Maybe "already" is almost a word?
>
> I agree, there are a lot of proper al- words. Nonetheless, during my
> literacy the expression has been "all right" and "alright" appeared at
> about the same time as thumb-spelling, indicating either laziness or
> ignorance.
>
> Bite me.
Language evolves. Learn to deal with it. "Already" came straight from
"all ready", and the meaning is not subtly different.
Similarly "alright" doesn't mean precisely what "all right" means.
>
>> :-)
>>
>>>
>>>> Jim, where John had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a
>>>> better effect on the teacher.
>>>
>>> OK. Punctuation, at least periods, should have been included.
>>
>> No. That was the POINT: to find how to punctuate it.
>
> OK, I concede. I failed miserably. It happens now and again.
I'm sure it does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 17:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v1jptu$v59n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140979 |
On 5/9/24 11:24 AM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-05-09 11:07, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 5/9/24 9:32 AM, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-09 09:13, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Alright, alright.
>>>>
>>>> This is not a word. In the same category as 'irregardless'.
>>>> Ignorant and sloppy.
>>>
>>> Who appointed you grammarian to the internet?
>>
>> I did. Weren't you paying attention? Please try to keep up.
>>
>>> Is "already" a word? "Always"? Maybe "already" is almost a word?
>>
>> I agree, there are a lot of proper al- words. Nonetheless, during my
>> literacy the expression has been "all right" and "alright" appeared at
>> about the same time as thumb-spelling, indicating either laziness or
>> ignorance.
>>
>> Bite me.
>
> Language evolves. Learn to deal with it. "Already" came straight from
> "all ready", and the meaning is not subtly different.
>
> Similarly "alright" doesn't mean precisely what "all right" means.
No, it means EXACTLY the same. There's a difference between evolution
and sloppiness/ignorance.
--
Cheers, Bev
It's not the speed that kills, it's the stopping.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 17:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v1jqik$v70f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140983 |
On 2024-05-09 17:31, The Real Bev wrote: > On 5/9/24 11:24 AM, Alan wrote: >> On 2024-05-09 11:07, The Real Bev wrote: >>> On 5/9/24 9:32 AM, Alan wrote: >>>> On 2024-05-09 09:13, The Real Bev wrote: >>>>> On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Alright, alright. >>>>> >>>>> This is not a word. In the same category as 'irregardless'. >>>>> Ignorant and sloppy. >>>> >>>> Who appointed you grammarian to the internet? >>> >>> I did. Weren't you paying attention? Please try to keep up. >>> >>>> Is "already" a word? "Always"? Maybe "already" is almost a word? >>> >>> I agree, there are a lot of proper al- words. Nonetheless, during my >>> literacy the expression has been "all right" and "alright" appeared >>> at about the same time as thumb-spelling, indicating either laziness >>> or ignorance. >>> >>> Bite me. >> >> Language evolves. Learn to deal with it. "Already" came straight from >> "all ready", and the meaning is not subtly different. >> >> Similarly "alright" doesn't mean precisely what "all right" means. > > No, it means EXACTLY the same. There's a difference between evolution > and sloppiness/ignorance. > No. It doesn't. I say that something is "all ready", it means that it is "ready in every respect". "Already" clearly means: 'before or by now or the time in question' Similarly, "all right" means "correct in ever respect", and while "alright" is closer in meaning, it is clearly used to ask whether something is just ACCEPTABLE as opposed to the former. Furthermore: 'The merging of all and right to form the one-word spelling alright is first recorded toward the end of the 19th century' So you're a little behind the times, my love.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 18:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v1jru4$vhc9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140984 |
On 5/9/24 5:43 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-05-09 17:31, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 5/9/24 11:24 AM, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-09 11:07, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> On 5/9/24 9:32 AM, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-09 09:13, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alright, alright.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not a word. In the same category as 'irregardless'.
>>>>>> Ignorant and sloppy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who appointed you grammarian to the internet?
>>>>
>>>> I did. Weren't you paying attention? Please try to keep up.
>>>>
>>>>> Is "already" a word? "Always"? Maybe "already" is almost a word?
>>>>
>>>> I agree, there are a lot of proper al- words. Nonetheless, during my
>>>> literacy the expression has been "all right" and "alright" appeared
>>>> at about the same time as thumb-spelling, indicating either laziness
>>>> or ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> Bite me.
>>>
>>> Language evolves. Learn to deal with it. "Already" came straight from
>>> "all ready", and the meaning is not subtly different.
>>>
>>> Similarly "alright" doesn't mean precisely what "all right" means.
>>
>> No, it means EXACTLY the same. There's a difference between evolution
>> and sloppiness/ignorance.
>>
>
> No. It doesn't.
>
> I say that something is "all ready", it means that it is "ready in every
> respect".
>
> "Already" clearly means:
>
> 'before or by now or the time in question'
>
> Similarly, "all right" means "correct in ever respect", and while
> "alright" is closer in meaning, it is clearly used to ask whether
> something is just ACCEPTABLE as opposed to the former.
"All right" SHOULD mean everything ship-shape and Bristol fashion, but
it doesn't. It's just assent. Similar to okay (OK), but different.
> Furthermore:
>
> 'The merging of all and right to form the one-word spelling alright is
> first recorded toward the end of the 19th century'
>
> So you're a little behind the times, my love.
But it fell out of use until the ignorant and slovenly picked it up
again. Remember The Wire? The Baltimore thugs slopped it up even more
by dropping all the consonants. Even Idris Elba, "Stringer" Bell. I am
unable to spell the result, but since everybody watched The Wire there's
no need.
--
Cheers, Bev
Rule 18: Always tip your hat before striking a lady.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 09:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v1ljn5$1f6rm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140986 |
On 2024-05-09 18:06, The Real Bev wrote: > On 5/9/24 5:43 PM, Alan wrote: >> On 2024-05-09 17:31, The Real Bev wrote: >>> On 5/9/24 11:24 AM, Alan wrote: >>>> On 2024-05-09 11:07, The Real Bev wrote: >>>>> On 5/9/24 9:32 AM, Alan wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-05-09 09:13, The Real Bev wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alright, alright. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is not a word. In the same category as 'irregardless'. >>>>>>> Ignorant and sloppy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Who appointed you grammarian to the internet? >>>>> >>>>> I did. Weren't you paying attention? Please try to keep up. >>>>> >>>>>> Is "already" a word? "Always"? Maybe "already" is almost a word? >>>>> >>>>> I agree, there are a lot of proper al- words. Nonetheless, during >>>>> my literacy the expression has been "all right" and "alright" >>>>> appeared at about the same time as thumb-spelling, indicating >>>>> either laziness or ignorance. >>>>> >>>>> Bite me. >>>> >>>> Language evolves. Learn to deal with it. "Already" came straight from >>>> "all ready", and the meaning is not subtly different. >>>> >>>> Similarly "alright" doesn't mean precisely what "all right" means. >>> >>> No, it means EXACTLY the same. There's a difference between >>> evolution and sloppiness/ignorance. >>> >> >> No. It doesn't. >> >> I say that something is "all ready", it means that it is "ready in every >> respect". >> >> "Already" clearly means: >> >> 'before or by now or the time in question' >> >> Similarly, "all right" means "correct in ever respect", and while >> "alright" is closer in meaning, it is clearly used to ask whether >> something is just ACCEPTABLE as opposed to the former. > > "All right" SHOULD mean everything ship-shape and Bristol fashion, but > it doesn't. It's just assent. Similar to okay (OK), but different. Language evolves. Deal with it. "All right" and "alright" have different meanings. Deal with that too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 02:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <la055dFsue1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #140928 |
On 2024-05-07, R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> wrote: > 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 ? You also don't put a space between the end of a sentence and the last punctuation mark. So it seems you don't have a very good grasp of English overall. Whoever taught you English really did you dirty. >> "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. More like a bad allegory. Nobody here has claimed Face ID is the most secure thing on the planet. What people are objecting to is the tired, old, crusty trolls trying to claim its supposedly "insecure" just because someone with tons of time, money, and will power might be able to crack it. These trolls are weak and boring to anyone who has seen them before. >> 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. "No, you"? Is that the best response you have, really? > Regards, > Rudy Wieser Bye 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]
| From | Andrew <andrew@spam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 21:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v1m3tv$i6f$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #140936 |
Jolly Roger wrote on 8 May 2024 02:08:45 GMT :
> More like a bad allegory. Nobody here has claimed Face ID is the most
> secure thing on the planet.
It's even worse when you learn iOS is the most exploited phone OS in
history. https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog
*No phone has ever had more zero-day holes than the iPhone.*
Which is why the phrase "To own an iPhone is to already be hacked" is true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 14:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v1m544$1j4ie$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141018 |
On 2024-05-10 14:34, Andrew wrote: > Jolly Roger wrote on 8 May 2024 02:08:45 GMT : > >> More like a bad allegory. Nobody here has claimed Face ID is the most >> secure thing on the planet. > > It's even worse when you learn iOS is the most exploited phone OS in > history. https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog > > *No phone has ever had more zero-day holes than the iPhone.* > > Which is why the phrase "To own an iPhone is to already be hacked" is true. LOL! You are a zealot, Arlen!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 22:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <la7kv7F2ibsU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #141018 |
On 2024-05-10, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote: > Jolly Roger wrote on 8 May 2024 02:08:45 GMT : > >> More like a bad allegory. Nobody here has claimed Face ID is the most >> secure thing on the planet. > > It's even worse when you learn iOS is the blah blah blah You're a broken record. Literally useless. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andrew@spam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-11 04:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v1mqvb$h10$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #141020 |
Jolly Roger wrote on 10 May 2024 22:21:27 GMT : > You're a broken record. Literally useless. And yet, it's a fact the iPhone is the most exploited phone in history. https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog No phone has more zero-day holes than the iPhone, Jolly Roger. Since you get all your information about Apple only from Apple advertisements, you're not aware of any of the facts about Apple. All you know about is Apple's (brilliant) biometric marketing gimmicks. Apple's advertisements make its gullible users *feel safe*, as Apple will never tell you in its ads that to own an iPhone is to already be hacked. Especially given Apple is the only common consumer operating system vendor who only supports a single release at any one time. Yes, ONE RELEASE ONLY! 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/ You won't find the fact Apple's support is the most limited in the industry in any of Apple's (rather brilliant) advertisements, now will you? All you'll find in Apple advertisements are Apple's fantastic new emoji!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web