Pro Tip: Pay close attention anytime a manager or company says something like "employees are our most valuable asset" or "... are critical to our success" because that's what they look/sound like when they're lying to you.

... again, there's bump in the major version number.

Yup. It is based on public key cryptography, so all you need is every quark in the universe calculating once per planck time, and you will have it cracked in less than a googol years. Trivial.

Can you look at a phone and tell it isn't a live person? Why do you think it would be difficult for a computer? Some early naive implementations of facial recognition could be fooled by a photo. Modern state-of-the-art facial recognition can detect the difference.

This technique may not be perfect, but it is a big security improvement over the current system. It will require two factors: biometric and physical possession of a registered device. For transactions over a set size, it could require a PIN as well, as a third factor.

Not in America anyway. The laws changed and you can no longer discharge debt less than 100k. It's not the clean slate it used to be.

That's really the biggest trouble in America today. Everyone believes there's this safety net, but it's gone. Clinton gutted it in the 90s during the .com boom while the economy was doing so well nobody noticed...

Well, it may interest you to know that courts judging "emotional distress" is not some new Internet fad. In the year 1348 an innkeeper brought suit against a man who had been banging on his tavern door demanding wine. When the innkeeper stuck his head out the doorway to tell the man to stop, the man buried the hatchet he was carrying into the door by the innkeeper's head. The defendant argued that since there was no physical harm inflicted no assault had taken place, but the judged ruled against him [ de S et Ux. v. W de S (1348)]. Ever since then non-physical, non-financial harm has been considered both an essential element of a number of of crimes, a potential aggravating factor in others, and an element weighed in establishing civil damages.

This does *not*, however, mean that hurt feelings in themselves constitute a crime. It's a difficult and sometimes ambiguous area of the law, but the law doesn't have the luxury of addressing easy and clear-cut cases only.

As to why a new law is need now, when the infliction of emotional distress has been something the law has been working on for 667 years, I'd say that the power of technology to uncouple interactions from space and time has to be addressed. Hundreds of years ago if someone was obnoxious to you at your favorite coffeehouse, you could go at a different time or choose a different coffeehouse. Now someone intent on spoiling your interactions with other people doesn't have to coordinate physical location and schedule with you to be a persistent, practically inescapable nuisance.

Does this mean every interaction that hurts your feelings on the Internet is a crime? No, no more than everything that happens in your physical presence you take offense at is a crime.

If Reddit is the peanut gallery of the Web, what does that make Slashdot?

Quick, where's that share button so I can share your great post with all my friends on Flopbook and Twatter...

They get confused about id and authentication all the time. Biometric information is not a secret. Only secrets can be used as token for authentication. It does not necessarily be rotated, but is must be a secret to the rest of the world and only known to the two parties communicating with each other. Rotation is only a subtype of changing. And you only need to change if, and only if, it is no longer a secret or becoming to be known. However, passwords are not the best form of authentication mechanism. As the sender does not know if the receiver is truly the instance you are looking for. Therefore, zero knowledge mechanism can be used.

Yes, they are. Shills of equal quality seem to be active on other topics as well.

It is still stupid, as the software can be cracked or you could cheat the sensor with a photo printout or a photo on another phone.

What I stated was factual; it is a fact that a user does not need to remove their entire hand from typing to use the trackpoint. That is part of the reason why it was designed that way. You can hate the trackpoint as much as you want for whatever reasons you chose, but when you lie about it you just look ridiculous. Why would you move your entire hand to use something that is designed to be manipulated with one finger? You couldn't use your entire hand on it even if you wanted to.

They did not. It was Polish mathematicians. The Brits did not have the experts for it.

Indeed. And TOR warns you that it is not enough to use it to ensure privacy wight there on the first page of the TOR check and gives references what you need to do in addition.

By now I am convinced that there is a systematic, paid-for campaign to bad-mouth TOR in order to make less people use it. The telling thing is that they always use the same old lies and misdirections, i.e. they are working from an anti-TOR propaganda manual.

Indeed. They are deep into stupidity now. Wait until they find out that TCP/IP was developed by the US military...

It was not. Get your facts straight. Maybe read what the TOR developers write about their funding sources?