794CD01

43 ms·

421.
by 794CD01 10y ago
Yes, and those features are not necessary in most scenarios passwords are currently used.
422.
by 794CD01 10y ago
They are password replacements in most contexts. The point of a password is usually just to verify your identity. Biometrics can do that just fine.
423.
by 794CD01 10y ago
I think my contrived example implies the exact opposite. If their new level is largely determined by where they live and work, why wouldn't you expect the same of the old one? Perhaps the 30 moved from New York, while the 90 moved from
424.
by 794CD01 10y ago
Your criticism isn't internally consistent. For the sake of argument, let's say that racism is quantifiable. It probably isn't, but saying people get more or less racist pretty much implied that it is, so just run with it for
425.
by 794CD01 10y ago
There is software competition to perform basic functions. There is not software competition for some more specialized cases because one competitor is far superior to the others.
426.
by 794CD01 10y ago
It is not the responsibility of the hardware seller to know what your intended purpose is. To continue on your graphic card example, perhaps I want to buy them to use in my custom bitcoin mining operation, for which I have created my own mo
427.
by 794CD01 10y ago
Depends on what kind of software you want to buy. I can buy a computer without an operating system. I can then buy an OS separately. If I want to use that OS to run a web browser, I have many options. If I want to use that OS to run the new
428.
by 794CD01 10y ago
There's nothing wrong with selling hardware and software separately. This is the kind of laziness that gave Windows a desktop monopoly.
429.
by 794CD01 10y ago
The founding fathers also "understood" that negroes were subhuman and women existed solely to bear children. There is no reason to base modern decisions on 250-year-old morals.
430.
by 794CD01 10y ago
Or maybe you should understand the point of the comparison. If it truly makes you feel better, pretend I said speeding.
431.
by 794CD01 10y ago
That argument is asinine. Murder happens even though we outlaw it and enforce the law. That doesn't make the law ineffectual or "irrational".
432.
by 794CD01 10y ago
Also, end locks on doors.
433.
by 794CD01 10y ago
Both make money. If the second option didn't, as you disingenuously imply, they wouldn't be trying to stop the piracy.
434.
by 794CD01 10y ago
Everything's disturbing to someone. I know a lot of people who find ad blockers disturbing. That doesn't mean they should be banned.
435.
by 794CD01 10y ago
If there are enough gays to be gay, there are enough to form a church.
436.
by 794CD01 10y ago
Church attendance is available to everyone. For thousands of years, the answer to your dilemma has been obvious. If you are excluded from an existing church, just make a new one. When black people could not attend white churches, do you thi
437.
by 794CD01 10y ago
You're describing the exact use pattern touch ID was designed for.
438.
by 794CD01 10y ago
Biometric authentication is not meant to be an increase in security. It is meant to be, and is, an increase in convenience. Since convenience and security are fundamentally opposed, this allows security to be increased in other ways while k
439.
by 794CD01 10y ago
Not even South Africa?
440.
by 794CD01 10y ago
You're welcome. That means a lot, coming from you.
441.
by 794CD01 10y ago
You seem more interested in putting words in my mouth than having a real discussion, so I will simply say that if you want to go with that metaphor, having a backdoor is preferable to having no walls.
442.
by 794CD01 10y ago
Choosing to have less security because you value freedom more is totally fine. What I object to is choosing to have less security because you value freedom so much you pretend that less security is actually more. And especially when people
443.
by 794CD01 10y ago
The entire history of Windows.
444.
by 794CD01 10y ago
>You seem to be saying that user control automatically leads to less security which is obviously false. No. > If an individual has control then by definition he can chose to be more secure or less secure by his actions He can in theor
445.
by 794CD01 10y ago
Sure it is. So what? Are you going to pretend that they are the only ones affected? It hurts the rest of the internet when their machine is then used by hackers to attack others. It hurts the banking system and indirectly, small vendors whe
446.
by 794CD01 10y ago
I am not. I am under the impression that some people believe "I control my own machine" is a point in favor of security. And that those people are wrong. Perhaps not for themselves specifically, but in turning that philosophy into
447.
by 794CD01 10y ago
I'm not advocating. I am pointing out that user control is fundamentally anti-security. Bad security may very well be worth the tradeoff if you value other things like freedom, fashion, backwards compatibility, fewer restarts, price, e
448.
by 794CD01 10y ago
They used to, and they decided to download and execute random malware, and never take security updates.
449.
by 794CD01 10y ago
Most things that were "once an accepted standard in IT" are horribly insecure. The end user wanting a system he/she controls is very much one of them. Microsoft taking away control from users, especially when it came to forci
450.
by 794CD01 10y ago
Trusting "common sense" over data is irresponsible if not outright delusional.

More ›