Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Do not look into laser with remaining eye (Score 1) 62

With the iris scanning, how about getting the person to follow a small dot around the scanner with their eye and an iris tracker can confirm it's doing so.

Any security solution that depends on technology can also be defeated by technology.

In this case, you would have to have a system for tracking the eye, which would be defeated by a system for tracking the dot. Plus, you'd need guards against feeding the system wrong data at multiple points, or bypassing the tracking altogether. You'd multiply complexities unnecessarily, and only end up with another system to keep honest people honest.

Executives[*] who base their "knowledge" on Hollywood movies and detective stories are to blame for big business buying into biometrics for authentication. It's the worst thinkable system possible, because once you have defeated it, you have defeated a living human person, who cannot change his compromised biometrics.

The implementations fly in the face of ADA and similar measures too, directly discriminating against people who cannot use the systems. Some don't have fingerprints. Others cannot stand and look into the iris scanner. Or don't have eyes to look into them with. So you must have a backup system anyhow. That prompts the question: If the backup system is trustworthy, why not use it instead?

[*]: And unfortunately not just business execs. As late as last week, a police superintendent was quoted in a big newspaper saying that DNA evidence is 100% trustworthy and (I kid you not) we should never question it. The newspaper didn't even question that statement or ask an expert for opinion.

Comment Re:Headphone Jack is Pretty Crappy (Score 1) 294

To my dispointment, a number of my live sound colleagues have blown up iphones by plugging in via mini jack to XLR, and forgetting to switch of phantom power. They should know better, luckily they play dumb and tell Apple it just stopped working, and get replacements.

That should be the least of their worries. Plugging pre-amped headphone level output into mic level inputs isn't good for the mixer either. At least use a passive direct box that can match impedance and attenuate the signal. Better ones do re-amp, balun and 48V stripping, but even a $25 direct box is better than blowing your mackie/motu/whatever, and having to software gate a horribly clipped signal.

Comment Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. (Score 1) 330

I'm letting the link speak for me

No you're not. You're unable to speak for yourself, even in a single coherent sentence that explains how you think your wasted vote will constructively work in this upcoming election. Why aren't you saying words of your own? Because you know it will sound like the nonsense it is, and you're trying to use someone else as cover so you can pretend you're not part of that craven charade. You're putting on a transparent veneer of condescending smugness in an attempt to avoid explaining your position, and greatly annoyed that someone isn't falling for the lazy theatrics.

Comment Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. (Score 1) 330

Wake me up when you summon the intellectual courage to form a single sentence of your own that is anything other than lazy, craven ad hominem designed to avoid speaking to the facts. Guess I'll get a good night's sleep, since your only response is to punt to someone else. Your lack of backbone in that area is right in keeping with your unwillingness to face the consequences of deliberately wasting your vote in the general election. But you just carry on, throw some more juvenile personal bile - you clearly think that's what best expresses your character and convictions.

Comment Re:Headphone Jack is Pretty Crappy (Score 4, Interesting) 294

Indeed, I've never had a modern 3,5mm headphone port wear out. I've had a lot of micro-USB ports wear out. : And it's only logical that would be the case, the electrodes on the headphone port are far more robust than those on a micro-USB port.

I know that the standard response to "3,5mm port removal is the feature that nobody requested" is "it'll be painless and we'll be able to use the extra space to more useful internal hardware without having to make the phone bigger". But just ignoring the "painless" thing... how much more "capability" can you add in such a little space? That's enough for what, maybe 5% more battery time?

Maybe I'm wierd, but I couldn't give a rat's arse how thick a phone is... I just want it to be robost and not a big headache.

Comment Re:When will VideoCards peak? (Score 1) 88

Fidelity to what? You still have to store the visual information digitally if it's coming from a computer.

You sound like one of those vinyl purists who romanticizes the 'golden age' before digital, and forgets how crappy it actually used to sound.

You sound like a kid that has never worked with compression algorithms, vectors and interpolation.
Why do you think you can stream an MP4 and get it to look good in 1080p? It's certainly not because they stream the full digital signal, tailored to your pixel resolution.

The tyranny of pixels is falling. With high resolution displays, it becomes a problem and not a solution. Scalable graphics with physical and relative measurements is the future. Including protocols for sending this type of information to a display. Something analogue signals are good for, because they scale without staircasing and other artifacts.

Comment Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. (Score 1) 330

Hey, look! Leading off with more deflection and ad hominem! At least you're right on track with with not caring that she lies, though. Any guilt you may feel about helping her to get elected, though - that's entirely on you. Your phony umbrage isn't very convincing. You want her to be elected, and you're just faking it with the noble third party nonsense. You know perfectly well that the alternatives are completely unelectable. So you are taking actions that will put Hillary Clinton in power. Simple as that. If you actually have the ethics to feel guilty about that, perhaps you have some redeeming qualities after all and just need to work out your baked-in mixed premises and contradictions. Otherwise, your delusion that voting for a guaranteed loser will somehow help things is, well, delusional.

I take all of your vitriol and ad hominem in the context of that delusional perspective, of course. If you're going to be irrational with your vote, it's not surprising that you have an irrational understanding of how to persuade others embrace your world view.

Your entire shtick is so revealing. Thanks for letting other people see and confirm it. And man! you are such a baby! I thought the other guy was bad. I really wish you could step out and see yourself. It would make you gag.

Hey, look! More substance-less ad hominem that lacks even one example of what's "revealed" or any specificity of any kind. Just more hand-waving vague distraction in an attempt to get away from the matter at hand. Thanks for wrapping up the same way you started, just for consistency's sake.

Comment Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. (Score 1) 330

Me? No. I'm watching you unable to express a single salient point on your own. Here's one you can work from: Hillary Clinton, if she were anyone else, would now at the very least be unable to get a security clearance, and she's been steadily lying to you about the circumstances around her handling, hiding and destruction of government records. This pleases you. You like that she lies to you, because you're smug enough to think that even though you know better, you're hoping that everyone else in the world is too dumb not to fall for it. Your own response, rather than being your own factual rebuttal of that characterization of her actions, will be to say that I haven't sufficiently read other material.

This is because you know she's indefensible, and you know that if you use your own words here to say that she (for example) hasn't been lying about such things, you'll be confirmed as a fool. So, of course you're deflecting and attempting to avoid going on the record. Predictable, typical, nothing new. But still entertaining in its transparency.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any system which depends on human reliability is unreliable. -- Gilb

Working...