wrong

[badgolferman]

Has anyone here ever admitted they were wrong publicly in the newsgroup
even when proven so? How can everyone always be right? Maybe some
consider it a sign of weakness if they concede a point, but it's
actually a sign of humility and maturity.

I guess it's because this is usenet.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 30 May 2019 02:22:16 +0000 (UTC), "badgolferman"
<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Has anyone here ever admitted they were wrong publicly in the newsgroup
>even when proven so? How can everyone always be right? Maybe some
>consider it a sign of weakness if they concede a point, but it's
>actually a sign of humility and maturity.

A lot of discussions (arguments) here are about opinions which are
only wrong according to other opinions. You're talking about
arguments regarding facts. That's where you hardly ever see a
retraction or an admission of being wrong.

>
>I guess it's because this is usenet.

Egos aren't just on Usenet.

[badgolferman]

The most recent example is the Thunderbird discussion. There was no
gray area. One of them was clearly wrong but unwilling to back down
and admit it. But there are many more examples involving different
personalities.

[Lewis]

In message <qcoj9k$9eh$1...@dont-email.me> Meanie <M...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Of all the years I've spent on usenet, I think I've seen a handful of
> admissions of being wrong.....and it wasn't in this group.

then you have not been paying attention. No shock, of course.

> The overt sensitivity of egos prohibits the ability of admitting errors.

Pretty sure I and nospam and David and Roger have all admitted to errors
at come point in the last month.

The most shocking of these is nospam, but I think he admitted he was
wrong about multiple time machine backups on a single drive.

David's might have been longer ago, as the one I remember was about
having multiple boot volumes on a single APFS volume, and I think that
was several months ago.

There are probably more, but since I kill about 80% of the posts in
these groups, I may be under reporting by a large margins.

> Obviously, these people aren't very secure within themselves for such
> admissions. The spinning attempt is one of the major tactics used to
> avoid admitting wrong. It's so pathetic, one can only laugh at them.

I love it when people say things like this dross based on nothing more
than ignorance. THAT is worthy of laughter.


--
I draw the line at 7 unreturned phone calls.

[sms]

Yes. I made a mistake once, but it was that I thought I made a mistake
and I really didn't.

Seriously though, I once said that Costco didn't take contactless
payments. I called Costco's headquarters and asked about this and they
confirmed this. But they actually did take contactless paymeents, both
their customer service person and I were wrong.

It was the only time I was wrong about something in this group. It was
the only time nospam was correct about something in this group. I
admitted that I was wrong about that topic. nospam admitted that he was
wrong about everything else. It was a beautiful moment.

[nospam]

In article <qcolip$msi$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> It was the only time I was wrong about something in this group.

nonsense.

nearly everything you say is easily shown to be wrong, and not just
this group.

one of the better ones is that touch id is more secure than face id,
something you *still* refuse to admit is wrong.

[nospam]

In article <qcovce$gke$2...@dont-email.me>, Meanie <M...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> It was the only time I was wrong about something in this group.
> >
> > nonsense.
> >
> > nearly everything you say is easily shown to be wrong, and not just
> > this group.
> >
> > one of the better ones is that touch id is more secure than face id,
> > something you *still* refuse to admit is wrong.
>

> Who confirms that Facial recognition is better than Fingerprint or vice
> versa? IMO, that's a matter of opinion along with a selling strategy by
> Apple or any other manufacturer.

not true, at least for apple, which is *much* better than competing
systems.

what matters is the implementation.

apple's face id has been mathematically proven to be more secure, and
it's only on its 1st generation, while touch id is on its 2nd.

apple has stated that a false positive for face id is statistically 1
out of 1 million, versus 1 out of 50,000 for touch id.

for the mathematically challenged, that's 20x *less* likely to be
spoofed, making face id a lot *more* secure than touch id.

and that's current generation. expect that to be even better with 2nd
gen face id.

there are edge cases, such as face id not being able to always discern
identical twins (although many times, it does), something which apple
has said can *potentially* be an issue, but in reality is not.

most people don't even have a twin at all, let alone an identical twin,
and of those who do, their twin isn't interested in hacking their
sibling's phone or physically lives close enough to where they can even
get to the phone in time to consider trying, let alone actually doing
it.

youtube videos that show how 'easy' it is for a twin to unlock a phone
are very misleading because they neglect to mention how many tries it
took to make the video. you aren't seeing the outtakes.

each time it fails, they unlock it with the passcode and keep trying
until it works, which is actually training the phone to legitimately
recognize the person trying to spoof it. do that enough times and the
*original* owner will be seen as the intruder (which will never be in a
video).

a bad guy doesn't have that luxury.

a bad guy has 5 attempts within 48 hours to unlock via face or finger,
after which a passcode is required.

the legitimate owner isn't going to reset it so the bad guy can keep
trying.

another issue is that lifting prints to make a fake finger is
relatively easy since the prints are all over the phone, particularly
the touch id sensor itself.

on the other hand, knowing what face to use for an unknown phone is
basically impossible since you have to know what the owner looks like
to even start to make a fake head, and that's ignoring that face id is
designed to reject fake heads, so even if you did know who the owner
was and had enough photos of the person to make a 3d head, it still
isn't likely to work.

this has been rehashed many, many times in the past two years.

that's how apple's face id works.

other face unlock systems are different and do not work particularly
well, and in most cases, not at all, so for them, it's not better.

samsung's face unlock is so bad that it was spoofed in the hands-on
demo room just minutes after it was announced simply by taking a selfie
with another phone. no need to even think about making a fake head, let
alone make one. all you need is a photo.

samsung knows it's not secure, which is why they disallow using it for
financial transactions.

samsung has also said that apple's system is 2-3 years ahead of the
rest of the industry when it was first introduced, which means that
other companies should be catching up to apple's 1st gen face id this
year or next, about when apple introduces 2nd gen face id...

[sms]

On 5/30/2019 9:11 AM, Meanie wrote:

<snip>

> Who confirms that Facial recognition is better than Fingerprint or vice
> versa? IMO, that's a matter of opinion along with a selling strategy by
> Apple or any other manufacturer.

Actually it's not a matter of opinion at all. But you have to be very
careful with your adjectives.

The following are true:

A random face on a phone with FaceID is more secure than a random
fingerprint on a phone with TouchID.

A non-random face on a phone with FaceID is less secure than a random or
non-random fingerprint on a phone with TouchID.

A 3D random or non-random fingerprint scan is more secure than a 3D
random or non-random face scan.

[nospam]

In article <qcp4sm$jch$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Who confirms that Facial recognition is better than Fingerprint or vice
> > versa? IMO, that's a matter of opinion along with a selling strategy by
> > Apple or any other manufacturer.
>
> Actually it's not a matter of opinion at all.

true, which contradicts what you've said in the past.

> But you have to be very
> careful with your adjectives.

no.

> The following are true:

only one is.

> A random face on a phone with FaceID is more secure than a random
> fingerprint on a phone with TouchID.

true, which is what matters.

> A non-random face on a phone with FaceID is less secure than a random or
> non-random fingerprint on a phone with TouchID.

false.

> A 3D random or non-random fingerprint scan is more secure than a 3D
> random or non-random face scan.

false.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 30 May 2019 09:49:00 -0400, nospam wrote:

> nonsense.

Hi nospam,

Offhand, I'd say your record on facts is no better than a coin toss.
o So many references can be sited, it would be tedious to list them

Here's just one, where my belief system is _based_ on facts:
o Nospam being repeatedly dead wrong on throttling facts
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wbCbVX48E5M/sH7PiFtUFAAJ>

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 30 May 2019 12:09:18 -0400, Meanie wrote:

> From that, I have yet to
> view a recant from him.

The fact nospam is often wrong is covered in another post, where Lewis is
classic for being what he claims NOT to be.... to wit... (since my belief
system is based on facts - where I'll modify my beliefs if the facts change
or are corrected)...

This very thread below STARTS with an example of Lewis' behavior on facts!
o The real question is Why do Apple Apologists _hate_ simple facts about Apple products?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/boEv7_ePPQ0/ck2VBgaaCgAJ>

In general, I've found _these_ score of posters almost immune to facts...
o Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
o Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
o Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch>
o Beedle <Bee...@dont-email.me>
o B...@Onramp.net
o Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
o Davoud <st...@sky.net>
o Elden <use...@moondog.org> (aka "LLoyd", aka "LLoyd Parsons")
o *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>
o joe <no...@domain.invalid>
o Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
o Johan <JH...@nospam.invalid>
o Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
o Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
o Lloyd <elfi...@gmail.com> (aka "Elden")
o Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> (aka "Elden")
o nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
o Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
o Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> (aka Michael Glasser)
o Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net>
o Wade Garrett <wa...@cooler.net>
o Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
o et al.

Those _not_ in that eclectic list, are generally reasonable adults, IMHO.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 30 May 2019 06:24:39 -0700, sms wrote:

> It was the only time I was wrong about something in this group.

Hi Steve,

On this newsgroup, facts almost never form the basis of belief systems
o For example, apologists tend to believe the iPhone is private

*Their belief system is based on MARKETING (not actual facts), IMHO.*
o The marketing message, is why they _buy_ Apple products, IMHO.

To the apologists, the MARKETGNIG is fact
o The apologists can't distinguish between MARKETING & fact, IMHO.

*Apologists gravitate to Apple products based on Marketing messages*, IMHO.

However, you're not an apologist like Lewis or nospam or BK et al., IMHO
o Which means your belief system is "usually" based on actual facts'

Yet, you're human, and you _do_ make mistakes at times
o Where you are unable to admit those mistakes

Bearing in mind that facts, and assessment of facts is kind of like what
distinguishes a child from an adult, there is some gray area if you wish to
argue the point, where I recognize that gray area may exist in your mind,
even as it might not exist in mine - as to when you were dead wrong.

Since my belief system is based on actual facts, I can cite those that
bolster my belief system stated above, where I feel you are "mostly"
accurate in your assessments of facts overall, which makes you
FANTASTICALLY far above the many apologists in this newsgroup.

Here are just some of the times I have _said_ you were dead wrong.
1. You claimed Apple lowered their royalties to Qualcomm
2. You calculated iPhone total costs without including all costs
3. You claimed I am only 60% correct on material facts

REFERENCES:
o Apple App Store Security Bypassed By Government iOS Surveillance Malware
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/bC1CDU1pGNM/ucRt17beAwAJ>
o Apple may have paid something like two and a half to three and a half
billion USD to Qualcomm (which is going to be paid by the poor Apple
consumer)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU/lJ4CkRhfCwAJ>
o Steve claims Arlen is only 60% correct & yet shows no factual proof
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/u7yQ959XPRU/a9jvGbXfAwAJ>
etc.

[Arlen G. Holder]

I do not know the answer to badgolferman's question.
o But I do know that adults readily & easily admit they're wrong on facts

Adults are funny that way
o Facts are funny that way

Adults base their belief system on facts
o If their facts are initially wrong, adults change their belief system.

Belief systems are funny that way...
o Adults are funny that way

IMHO, a belief system "should" be based on actual facts - not imagination.
o Where, in this question, the facts "may" be hard to gather

One reason facts may be hard to gather is that we have many ways of saying
that we admit others are correct.
o What are the ways to admit that others are correct?

If we search this newsgroup for certain keywords, that might give us a
better database of facts (other than mere recollection), might it not?

Let's try to _gather_ facts... by search for keywords such as...
O I admit you are right (or I admit you're correct)
o I was wrong, or I am sorry
o Mea culpa, or nolo contendere, or, even
o yikes, I apologize

What keywords should we search for to gain the facts necessary...
o To form a rational logical sentient adult belief system on this question

[badgolferman]

Thank you all for demonstrating my point.

[Lewis]

In message <qcovce$gke$2...@dont-email.me> Meanie <M...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Who confirms that Facial recognition is better than Fingerprint or vice
> versa? IMO, that's a matter of opinion along with a selling strategy by
> Apple or any other manufacturer.

Well, that does explain our particular brand of idiocy: you do not
understand the difference between fact and opinion.


--
Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.

[Lewis]

In message <qcpho0$21g$1...@dont-email.me> Meanie <M...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/30/2019 1:38 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <qcovce$gke$2...@dont-email.me>, Meanie <M...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> It was the only time I was wrong about something in this group.
>>>>
>>>> nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> nearly everything you say is easily shown to be wrong, and not just
>>>> this group.
>>>>
>>>> one of the better ones is that touch id is more secure than face id,
>>>> something you *still* refuse to admit is wrong.
>>>
>>> Who confirms that Facial recognition is better than Fingerprint or vice
>>> versa? IMO, that's a matter of opinion along with a selling strategy by
>>> Apple or any other manufacturer.
>>
>> not true, at least for apple, which is *much* better than competing
>> systems.
>>

> And there you have it, your opinion accepts the Apple superiority and
> from what I have witnessed in this group, it appears you have a problem
> if someone refutes that claim or discusses a flaw in their product(s),
> service and company as a whole along with anyone who opposes what Apple
> says.

You have refuted nothing. "I don't believe facts" is not a refutation.

> The device must be facing the user in order to work but overall, Facial
> recognition performs poorly in dark areas such as a movie theater or
> bright outdoor lighting with sun glare.

Bullshit. It works in pitch darkness you fucking liar.

> Also consider, if Apple was truly that superior, why are there roughly
> 216 million iPhone users compared to 1.25 billion Android users?

For the same reason that cockroaches outnumber humans.

--
There's no present. There's only the immediate future and the recent
past.

[Lewis]

In message <qcp4sm$jch$1...@dont-email.me> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 5/30/2019 9:11 AM, Meanie wrote:

> <snip>

>> Who confirms that Facial recognition is better than Fingerprint or vice
>> versa? IMO, that's a matter of opinion along with a selling strategy by
>> Apple or any other manufacturer.

> Actually it's not a matter of opinion at all. But you have to be very
> careful with your adjectives.

> The following are true:

> A random face on a phone with FaceID is more secure than a random
> fingerprint on a phone with TouchID.

True.

> A non-random face on a phone with FaceID is less secure than a random or
> non-random fingerprint on a phone with TouchID.

Not true, and you can supply no evidence at all for this statement.

> A 3D random or non-random fingerprint scan is more secure than a 3D
> random or non-random face scan.

Possibly true if a good 3D scanner existed, which is so far not the
case.


--
she [Esk] was already learning that if you ignore the rules people will,
half the time, quietly rewrite them so they don't apply to you. --Equal
Rites

[nospam]

In article <glbb04...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> The problem is, he is unable to distinguish the difference between
> refusing to admit you are wrong when you are *not* in fact wrong, and
> refusing to admit you are wrong when you *are* in fact wrong. So he
> assumes that everyone must also be unable to distinguish that very clear
> difference.

yep. simply saying someone is wrong does not mean they actually are
wrong.

[nospam]

In article <qcpho0$21g$1...@dont-email.me>, Meanie <M...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> one of the better ones is that touch id is more secure than face id,
> >>> something you *still* refuse to admit is wrong.
> >>
> >> Who confirms that Facial recognition is better than Fingerprint or vice
> >> versa? IMO, that's a matter of opinion along with a selling strategy by
> >> Apple or any other manufacturer.
> >
> > not true, at least for apple, which is *much* better than competing
> > systems.
> >
>

> And there you have it, your opinion accepts the Apple superiority and
> from what I have witnessed in this group, it appears you have a problem
> if someone refutes that claim or discusses a flaw in their product(s),
> service and company as a whole along with anyone who opposes what Apple
> says.

it's not an opinion and that's an ad hominem attack.

apple's face id is demonstrably the best face unlock out of all current
implementations based on *many* independent and objective tests
(sometimes even android biased) and the technical details on how the
various implementations work.

if you disagree, explain how competing face scanning is better than
apple's offering. that should be interesting, given just how incredibly
bad the competition actually is, which the competing manufacturers
readily admit about their own systems.

samsung even said apple's system is much better than theirs.

maybe one day that will change, but right now, that's how it is.

as i mentioned, samsung's face unlock can be spoofed with a photo,
something which was done in literally just minutes after it was
announced *at* the samsung event in the hands-on area, where the phone
was announced. since it's *not* secure, samsung disallows its use for
financial transactions since they know it's not secure.

oneplus face unlock can also be easily fooled and like samsung, they
admit it's not secure and have disabled it for financial transactions:
<https://www.phonearena.com/news/oneplus-6-face-unlock-bypass-printed-ph
oto-selfie_id105312>
Twitter user @rikvduijn yesterday posted a video of the OnePlus 6
being unlocked with a paper cutout of his face. Worst of all? The
method apparently works with a black and white photo as well.
...
Update: OnePlus has provided us with the following statement:
"We designed Face Unlock around convenience, and while we took
corresponding measures to optimise its security we always recommended
you use a password/PIN/fingerprint for security. For this reason Face
Unlock is not enabled for any secure apps such as banking or
payments. Weąre constantly working to improve all of our technology,
including Face Unlock."

apple's face id can't be spoofed with a photo or a selfie, certainly
not a black&white copy (!).

that means a *newspaper* photo could work. yikes.

> > what matters is the implementation.
>

> Which also has it's flaws.

nothing is perfect. nobody said any of the implementations were perfect.

> The device must be facing the user in order to work but overall,

so does the phone.

or do you somehow manage to use your phone while looking at its back or
side?

one major advantage of face id is that it unlocks the moment you start
using the phone, as if it wasn't locked at all, except it is. if
someone else tries to use it, it will remain locked.

another advantage is that apps can authenticate your face in the
background to take action they otherwise would not, without
interrupting the workflow to wait for a finger or passcode. this is
optional and can be disabled if desired, but most people find it
extremely useful.

> Facial
> recognition performs poorly in dark areas such as a movie theater or
> bright outdoor lighting with sun glare.

not all of them.

apple's face id uses an infrared illuminator so that it will work in
any light condition.

that includes a dark movie theater (but don't do that, as it annoys the
other moviegoers, no matter how the phone is unlocked) or a pitch black
room (that's ok).

in other words, it's not an issue for face id.

humans can't see infrared light, but many digital cameras can:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmIKDpv73PQ>

> Fingerprint works poorly with wet fingers and colder climates when
> wearing a glove.

that is true, which means face id will work when touch id does not.

the biggest problem with face id is when the person's face is blocked,
such as when wearing a ski mask or surgical mask.

very few people need to unlock their phone while skiing or performing
surgery, so this is a minor issue, and one which is a *lot* less common
than wearing gloves in the winter or having wet fingers.

another issue for face id are sunglasses that block infrared light,
which will prevent the depth-sensing camera seeing the person's eyes.

most sunglasses are infrared transparent, so this is normally not an
issue, and since face id requires eye contact, it will not work if the
person is sleeping.

touch id, on the other hand, can be spoofed with a sleeping person. a
trick kids sometimes use is while mommy or daddy is sleeping, touch
their finger to the sensor. that will *not* work with face id.

> > apple's face id has been mathematically proven to be more secure, and
> > it's only on its 1st generation, while touch id is on its 2nd.
> >
> > apple has stated that a false positive for face id is statistically 1
> > out of 1 million, versus 1 out of 50,000 for touch id.
>

> Apple is in the business to make money, Of course they will say what's
> better.

except that as a public company, they are legally bound to *not* lie.

they aren't making up those numbers.

if you think that apple is lying about the numbers, get your facts in
order and file a lawsuit.

> > for the mathematically challenged, that's 20x *less* likely to be
> > spoofed, making face id a lot *more* secure than touch id.
> >
> > and that's current generation. expect that to be even better with 2nd
> > gen face id.
> >
> > there are edge cases, such as face id not being able to always discern
> > identical twins (although many times, it does), something which apple
> > has said can *potentially* be an issue, but in reality is not.
>

> Why not? Their facial features will be more alike than their fingerprint
> which is a guarantee to differ.

i explained why not in the very next paragraph:

> > most people don't even have a twin at all, let alone an identical twin,
> > and of those who do, their twin isn't interested in hacking their
> > sibling's phone or physically lives close enough to where they can even
> > get to the phone in time to consider trying, let alone actually doing
> > it.

and if that's not enough, read this:
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley/2017/11/05/enough-already-with-
the-stupid-face-id-twin-test/>
According to a University of Texas study, only about 32 out of 1,000
people are twins‹which translates to roughly three percent of the
population. However, the rate for identical twins is only 3.5 per
1,000 births. That means the novelty of breaking into an iPhone X
by tricking Face ID only applies to about one third of one percent of
the population.
...
Instead of worrying about the fact that an identical twin might be
able to access the device, letąs focus on the real story here. The
fact is, if it takes a truly identical twin to maybe be able to fool
Face ID, then for the 99.997 percent of the population of the world
who are not part of a set of identical twins, Face ID is pretty damn
secure.

but even with identical twins, most families aren't trying to hack each
others phones, and often even know each others passcodes in case of
emergency, or for parents to make sure their kids aren't up to no good
or putting themselves in danger.

not only that, but quite often, touch id is used to scan more than one
person's finger so that more than one person does have access to a
phone. this is common with husband/wife and parent/child, in addition
to passcodes.

and as mentioned elsewhere, apple has at least one patent on
differentiating between identical twins, so it's quite likely that the
next version of face id will make this even more of an edge case than
it already is.

tl;dr it's theoretically possible, but in the real world, the risk is
very close to zero.

> > youtube videos that show how 'easy' it is for a twin to unlock a phone
> > are very misleading because they neglect to mention how many tries it
> > took to make the video. you aren't seeing the outtakes.
>

> There are many misleading videos in all categories but you aren't
> certain if many have made several attempts or if it was the first time.
> You're assuming.

nope. i'm not assuming anything.

the concepts of how face id and touch id are documented and well
understood, although perhaps not by you and a couple of others in this
thread.

the video where a fake head was used had *many* tries and also required
a precise alignment of the phone and the fake head (the creators even
said as much). that might work in a lab, especially when everything is
controlled and someone can keep trying until it works. otherwise, not
so much.

again, a bad guy has 5 tries or 48 hours and game over. after that, a
passcode is required.

a researcher can easily bypass that by unlocking it with a passcode to
reset it, thereby obtaining as many attempts as needed to get it to
work. a bad guy cannot do that.

also, each time a face fails to authenticate (but is still close to be
considered possible) followed by a passcode unlock, face id updates
what it considers a valid face. however if the face is not close, a
passcode unlock will have no effect on recognition. it's not going to
train on someone that looks very different.

this is intentional, so that someone can grow a beard or shave it off,
put on or remove makeup, put on eyeglasses or remove them, cut, curl or
dye their hair, etc., and the system will continue to work.

it would really suck if someone got a hair cut and for the rest of the
day, the phone wouldn't unlock.

keep in mind that touch id isn't scanning your entire finger, which
means it has a lot less data than face id has for it to evaluate and
one reason why it's not as secure. even just the tip or side of a
finger will unlock it, but not a partly obscured face.

> > each time it fails, they unlock it with the passcode and keep trying
> > until it works, which is actually training the phone to legitimately
> > recognize the person trying to spoof it. do that enough times and the
> > *original* owner will be seen as the intruder (which will never be in a
> > video).
> >
> > a bad guy doesn't have that luxury.
> >
> > a bad guy has 5 attempts within 48 hours to unlock via face or finger,
> > after which a passcode is required.
> >
> > the legitimate owner isn't going to reset it so the bad guy can keep
> > trying.
> >
> > another issue is that lifting prints to make a fake finger is
> > relatively easy since the prints are all over the phone, particularly
> > the touch id sensor itself.
>

> That is a valid point but have you seen evidence of that? More Videos
> proving it?

no videos needed.

a phone you might find in a bar is covered with the owner's prints, but
unless there was some identifying information about the owner, you have
no idea what that person looks like and can't even start to create a
fake head, let alone actually do it.

however, if there was identifying information (e.g., the phone was in a
bag with their wallet and photo id) then you know who the owner is and
can go search for photos online or elsewhere in their bag, but even if
you do find a bunch of photos, you still have a lot of work to fashion
a fake head that's good enough to spoof the system, because face id is
also actively checking for hack attempts.

it's not easy, must be done within 48 hours at the most, *and* unlock
in the first few tries. if it fails, the phone will require a passcode,
with further face/finger attempts not even accepted.

and that's assuming that the rolling 5 day window doesn't trigger a
passcode requirement, another possibility that can appear at seemingly
random times. in fact, just now my phone required a passcode, and i was
using it just a couple of hours ago.

> > on the other hand, knowing what face to use for an unknown phone is
> > basically impossible since you have to know what the owner looks like
> > to even start to make a fake head, and that's ignoring that face id is
> > designed to reject fake heads, so even if you did know who the owner
> > was and had enough photos of the person to make a 3d head, it still
> > isn't likely to work

> > this has been rehashed many, many times in the past two years.
>

> Nor can they enter with without having their fingerprint or know who a
> print belongs to, unless they chop off the finger.

touch id requires a finger that's alive, so if you do chop off a
finger, you won't have very long to use it. a few minutes is probably
fine, and a few hours is probably not.

and if you do have the opportunity to chop off the owner's finger, you
can just force that person to unlock it without any chopping and
avoiding a bloody mess.

> I doubt any phone is
> worth that much to enter.

that depends whose phone it is.

donald trump's phone would be *extremely* interesting to see what's in
it (and it's an iphone), along with many other public figures, fbi,
nsa, etc.

the san bernardino shooter's phone was important enough that the fbi
tried to sue apple to help unlock it (although that was entirely for
show, given that they knew there was nothing important on it).

however, in that particular case, the phone in question was an iphone
5c which did not have a touch id sensor and was secured with just a 4
digit pin code. ultimately, the fbi paid nearly $1 million to crack it,
using a technique that no longer works on iphones that have touch/face
id (i.e, ones that have a secure enclave).

but you're right, that for most people, it's not worth the trouble to
bother trying to hack a phone beyond trying common pin codes, such as
1111, 1234, 123456, and if it works, great, but if not, flip it for
parts, or do the correct thing and return it to apple, who may be able
to determine who bought it via its serial number and/or iccid.

> > that's how apple's face id works.
> >
> > other face unlock systems are different and do not work particularly
> > well, and in most cases, not at all, so for them, it's not better.
> >
> > samsung's face unlock is so bad that it was spoofed in the hands-on
> > demo room just minutes after it was announced simply by taking a selfie
> > with another phone. no need to even think about making a fake head, let
> > alone make one. all you need is a photo.
> >
> > samsung knows it's not secure, which is why they disallow using it for
> > financial transactions.
> >
> > samsung has also said that apple's system is 2-3 years ahead of the
> > rest of the industry when it was first introduced, which means that
> > other companies should be catching up to apple's 1st gen face id this
> > year or next, about when apple introduces 2nd gen face id...
> >
>

> It appears to me you base much of your opinion from what Apple states
> along with some videos that oppose it. You consider Apple's statements
> as the gospel and nothing else matters. My point is not to degrade
> Apple, it's to dispute your belief they are the ultimate.

nonsense.

above, i'm quoting samsung, who readily admits their face unlock is not
as good as apple's face id.

i've also gone into detail about how it works and why it's more secure.

there are also numerous tests by third parties, some of whom have a
vested interest in making apple's face id look worse than it is (i.e.,
android sites).

in every case, apple's face id was clearly much better.

other manufacturers disable face unlock for financial transactions
because it's not secure, including samsung, oneplus and others. if the
manufacturer of the device doesn't think it's secure, why should anyone
else?

if you have facts showing otherwise, by all means provide them.

> I like Apple products. Obviously I'm in here for a reason. I own a
> Macbook, iPad, iPhone but I don't consider Apple to be the savior of all
> communication devices. I have a distrust in most companies in today's
> world because it's all about money. They say and do whatever it takes to
> obtain it. Considering Steve Jobs stole the idea and was known to be a
> total prick, I even distrust Apple a bit more, but IMO, Microsoft is
> worse with their annual "rental" of Office software instead of selling
> it as they once did, though I like Bill Gates, even though he stole the
> idea as well.

stole what idea? mac os was not stolen, nor was ios.

if you're referring to xerox parc, there was a mutual agreement for
apple to use xerox's work, with an exchange of apple stock. in other
words, it was bought, not stolen.

bill gates did copy mac os to create windows, and did a more effective
job (although illegal) in marketing it. in other words, it was stolen,
not bought.

> Regardless, real data would put to the test those who have had their
> phones broken into via fingerprint vs. facial. If Apple is the only
> supplier providing that mathematical proof, then I'll take it with a
> grain of salt. Then again, they don't care what I think as does anyone
> else.

apple's face id is the only system that *can't* be spoofed with a photo
and is considered to be secure enough for financial transactions, not
just by apple, but by major banks and other sellers.

samsung, oneplus and others don't have confidence in their own system
to allow for financial transactions via face unlock, so they disable
it.

what does that tell you?

> But I surely don't have a problem admitting my errors. I often
> make mistakes because I'm human.

if that's true, then you'll admit your error about apple's face id and
its security.

> Also consider, if Apple was truly that superior, why are there roughly
> 216 million iPhone users compared to 1.25 billion Android users?

it's actually 1.4 billion ios devices versus 2.5 billion android
devices (and some people have more than one device so that doesn't
equate to users), but regardless, the number of units sold means
absolutely nothing, certainly not about quality.

<https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/04/apple-reports-second-quarter-res
ults/>
Our March quarter results show the continued strength of our
installed base of over 1.4 billion active devices...

<https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/07/android-now-has-2-5b-users/>
At its I/O developer conference, Google today announced that Android
now runs more than 2.5 billion devices. Thatąs up from 2 billion the
company announced two years ago.

This means overall Android growth remains on pace, though itąs not
exactly accelerating.

most of those android phones are cheapos which don't have face *or*
fingerprint unlock, and are barely more than a feature phone. they're
too slow to encrypt anything, so gaining access is *really* easy.

many companies choose ios devices over android because it's more
secure. it's not that hard to hack an android phone, bypassing whatever
security is on it. it's *extremely* difficult to hack an ios device.

most popular does not indicate quality. mcdonald's sells the most
hamburgers, but they don't make the best burgers. they're cheap and
easily found just about anywhere, but that's about it.

<https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/19/tripadvisor-best-burgers-in-america.htm
l>

[nospam]

In article <qcq690$qj$2...@dont-email.me>, Meanie <M...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>> It was the only time I was wrong about something in this group.
> >>>
> >>> nonsense.
> >>>
> >>> nearly everything you say is easily shown to be wrong, and not just
> >>> this group.
> >>>
> >>> one of the better ones is that touch id is more secure than face id,
> >>> something you *still* refuse to admit is wrong.
> >>>
> >
> >> Who confirms that Facial recognition is better than Fingerprint or vice
> >> versa? IMO, that's a matter of opinion along with a selling strategy by
> >> Apple or any other manufacturer.
> >
> > Well, that does explain our particular brand of idiocy: you do not
> > understand the difference between fact and opinion.
> >
> >

> And yet, you fail to provide a source of your so called fact(s). Apple
> said so, it must be true. LMFAO! What a tool.

no, that's not why it's better.

you've yet to provide any sources why it isn't better, other than you
said so.

see my other post for a lot more facts and details of how face id
works, but the tl;dr is *numerous* independent tests and even the
competing device makers all agree that apple's face id is currently the
best.

maybe one day it won't be, but as of now, the competition is still
trying to catch up, and that's to a moving target, with apple's 2nd
generation face id expected to ship soon, about when the competition
releases something comparable to apple's 1st gen.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Fri, 31 May 2019 01:53:59 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> Thank you all for demonstrating my point.

Hi badgolferman,

Children own imaginary belief systems, badgolferman...
o The belief systems of adults should be _based_ on facts, badgolferman.

Facts first - before you leap to unsupported conclusions, badgolferman...
o Clearly my prior post suggested we _look_ for the facts, badgolferman.

I said so, very clearly, directly to you, in this post, did I not?
o <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/BjiM9DsVXj8/SIoNuICcBwAJ>

Yet you apparently _ignored_ my suggestion for gathering the facts.
o Is your question an adult question - or are you playing silly childish games

If you really want an answer to the question, it would be as simple as a
search such as I had suggested in my prior post which is referenced above.

[Lewis]

In message <qcq690$qj$2...@dont-email.me> Meanie <M...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And yet, you fail to provide a source of your so called fact(s). Apple
> said so, it must be true. LMFAO! What a tool.

A shitton of evidence has been posted.

Learn to read.

--
The Piper's calling you to join him

[Lewis]

In message <qcqb08$j8a$1...@dont-email.me> Meanie <M...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree again. I know Android devices are often behind the Apple
> technology but there are some features of Androids which Apple could use
> or improve on as well.

Maybe, but *none* in the realm of security.

Android is not secure, by design. Google is trying desperately to get to
the level of security that Apple had in iOS 4, They're not there yet.

--
I've got a sonic screwdriver!
Yeah? I've got a chair!
...
Chairs *are* useful.

[Lewis]

In message <qcq645$qj$1...@dont-email.me> Meanie <M...@gmail.com> wrote:

> LMFAO! You halfwits love the spinning game. You tools interpret your own
> definition and fail to provide links, data or references to support your
> whine as typical inferior spinners. "I say so" doesn't confirm factual
> data. I doubt you'll grasp that concept.

Your inability to read the MANY links posted in this newsgroup is a
filing on your part, not a failing on anyone else's.

And your complete bullshit lie about FaceID not working in the dark or
in bright lie is nothing more than a bullshit lie.


--
a vital ingredient of success is not knowing that what you're attempting
can't be done. A person ignorant of the possibility of failure can be a
half-brick in the path of the bicycle of history.

[Lewis]

In message <qcq5ne$u83$1...@dont-email.me> Meanie <M...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/30/2019 9:07 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2019-05-31, Meanie <M...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/30/2019 8:32 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:

>>>> On 2019-05-30, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>>>> In message <qcoj9k$9eh$1...@dont-email.me> Meanie <M...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/30/2019 6:05 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>>>>>>> B...@Onramp.net wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 May 2019 02:22:16 +0000 (UTC), "badgolferman"
>>>>>>>> <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Has anyone here ever admitted they were wrong publicly in the
>>>>>>>>> newsgroup even when proven so? How can everyone always be right?
>>>>>>>>> Maybe some consider it a sign of weakness if they concede a point,
>>>>>>>>> but it's actually a sign of humility and maturity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A lot of discussions (arguments) here are about opinions which are
>>>>>>>> only wrong according to other opinions. You're talking about
>>>>>>>> arguments regarding facts. That's where you hardly ever see a
>>>>>>>> retraction or an admission of being wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I guess it's because this is usenet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Egos aren't just on Usenet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The most recent example is the Thunderbird discussion. There was no
>>>>>>> gray area. One of them was clearly wrong but unwilling to back down
>>>>>>> and admit it. But there are many more examples involving different
>>>>>>> personalities.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of all the years I've spent on usenet, I think I've seen a handful of
>>>>>> admissions of being wrong.....and it wasn't in this group.
>>>>

>>>> Pure irony coming from the numbskull who uses Thunderbird which is known
>>>> to be unable to parse line wrapped links, then turns around and publicly
>>>> complains when links aren't clickable, as if anyone but him can solve
>>>> the problem, then insists everyone else is wrong for pointing that out
>>>> to him afterwards. You, sir, are a master at simple projection. Make
>>>> momma proud!
>>>
>>> LMFAO! Another half wit chiming on delusion. Show me where I insists
>>> everyone else is wrong and complained about an unclickable link.
>>
>> The fact that you complained the link was not clickable is on record.
>> And your insults mean you have nothing constructive to add to the
>> conversation. #WINNING.
>>

> LMFAO! Whatever iyou want to believe to secure your fragile ego,
> Charlie. LMFAO!

The only people around here with a fragile ego are you and sms, who seem
to have an awful lot invested in perpetuating the lie that TouchID is
better than FaceID based on "feels" and in inability to read.

--
"We're philosophers. We think, therefore we am."

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 30 May 2019 23:15:51 -0400, Meanie wrote:

> LMAO! Well played.

Hi Meanie,

How badgolferman responds to actual facts (as shown below) will likely tell
us whether his intent was childish silly meaningless play, or whether his
question was a serious question from an adult who seeks the answer based on
facts.

Was this thread merely for badgolferman's childish amusement?
o Or did badgolferman post his question as an adult?

Facts first - and only after the facts can we discuss the implications.
o Clearly people admit to being wrong on this ng all the time

There are LOTS of ways to admit we're wrong if we're wrong on facts, where
the most basic way is by using these three adult words "I was wrong"...

A quick search, for example, easily instantly shows that _even Snit_ openly
said I had proved him wrong simply by providing the facts by which my
belief system is based, for example.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/AyO0HvE2BwAJ>

This is the verbatim quote at that link, for example, from Snit:
"And to be fair to harry he HAS shown that he can do a recording which has
the screen, the sound from the Android device, and his talking (or at least
heavy breathing as he walks around). Assuming he did not add that later
*he proved me wrong* on that (and I am not accusing him of adding it
later). I did not think that was possible on Android... so kudos to him."

Any adult would seek the facts first, such as I suggested here:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/BjiM9DsVXj8/SIoNuICcBwAJ>

If badgolferman was an adult, he would have responded to that query which
sought the FACTUAL answer ot the question.

If badgolferman was simply wasting our time with childish games, then he
won't respond to this query that proves that some people who post to this
newsgroup certainly can and do admit that they're wrong when confronted
with facts.

Plenty of times it was said, in fact:
"If I said that, *I was _wrong_* in doing so, as I don't "feel" that way"
" If I said that, *I apologize*, and you're welcome to call me out on
it by showing the post where I said that."
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/cQoSkswhASw/uC7oJfllAQQJ>

"I must be explaining something incorrectly, since both you and
Rod Speed said the same thing (or, *possibly, I'm _wrong_*)."
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/cQoSkswhASw/ijm68E_DE1gJ>

"What you say sounds like it's probably right and *I was _wrong_*.
Assuming that you are correct, my apologies for the error. But none of us
is perfect, not even you, and we all make mistakes from time to time.
But not all of is as nasty as you are. Just because I got something
wrong is not an excuse for your nastiness and rudeness. "
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ygt6XZCvhX8/-SAvWJsiCAAJ>

"I guess *I was _wrong_*. It worked great in Atlanta when I tested it"
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/rB3i3ZQD6a8/B-YpC_kYPwsJ>

"Actually, the sales tax is tacked on to the charge. (*I was _wrong_*
about this in a previous message.) If I buy a 99¢ app from the App Store,
I'm charged $1.07, and the eight cents goes to the state. If I buy ten 99¢
apps, I'm charged $10.67 and the 88¢ goes to the state."
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/X1sHKbTAi9I/IKkGvgZ9-IQJ>

"*I was _wrong_* on the fares, the fares for the football game buses are
$8 or $10 unless you take a shuttle that is walking distance from the
stadium, in which case it's *only* $4.50. So, It's $16 for a single person
to take the bus to the football game, versus $20 to park at the stadium. "
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/mEEhdLhQ49c/n0XDlQtyjGEJ>
etc.

This is just for "I was wrong", where there are many ways for an adult to
admit what adults easily admit, but where children have problems (IMHO).

I wonder if badgolferman was just playing silly childish games?
o Or whether badgolferman was seriously asking the question as an adult?

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 30 May 2019 02:22:16 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> Has anyone here ever admitted they were wrong publicly in the newsgroup
> even when proven so?

Hi badgolferman,

It's not clear whether your question serious, where...
o There are many ways an adult can admit that he made a mistake.

Do you own the imaginary belief system of a child?
o Or is your belief system based on facts, like that of an adult?

"You are correct. I made a mistake. Mea culpa. I apologize. I was wrong. "
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/E0wC_Lx2o2w/xSXUG1XQBwAJ>

Adults form a belief system based on facts badgolferman...
o Where the fact is that, yes, of course adults have admitted errors here

For example, here are plenty more examples, from adults...

"Mea culpa. I didn't know it was a hot button.
I publicly apologize for the faux pas."
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/rw2DwKLKAAAJ>

"You are correct (AFAIK). Mea culpa."
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/bC1CDU1pGNM/U4z4mKzHAQAJ>

"mea culpa, I had seen it as a login screen. Didn't think about the
intervening 2FA page."
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-IStrGVOrNw/bcsdBr_aAQAJ>

"I thought I had to hold the center button down for a few seconds. That
was wrong."
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/zNqQgVzzAAAJ>

"* I publicly admit you are right. I was wrong.*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/FR0c0d3IFLY/6dMp8ZIcBgAJ>

"Mea culpa.
I seem to be wrong on that terminology distinction"
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/lx7Ljj0Gudk/ckBa0wIqLQAJ>

"I agree. I didn't realize it wasn't clear until you responded,
and I tried to figure out why you responded in the way that you did.
Mea culpa."
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/cQoSkswhASw/nFOKweMfHOAJ>

"OK. Mea culpa. I did say something to that effect. I agree with you. "
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/cQoSkswhASw/uC7oJfllAQQJ>

"(Sheepish grin) OK, I have a 3GS. mea culpa."
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ebFwtuWPrm4/rDTNLQAGKboJ>
etc.

I think the facts clearly show that there _are_ adults on this newsgroup
o Whose belief systems are not only based on facts, but who also act like
adults when confronted with facts by _modifying_ their belief systems to
conform to the facts.

It's a different question of the _percentage_ of adults on this ng though...

[badgolferman]

Since I don’t read every single message to this group it is extremely
difficult to see the minimal occurrences of someone admitting they were
wrong. Thank you for being a virtual database of facts and providing a few
examples of when this has happened. However the usual suspects dominate the
discussions and personally I tune out after a while when the personal
insults start flying, which usually happens when one side cannot or will
not concede a proven point. Even this one thread has devolved into yet
another finger pointing and chest thumping session carried over from other
threads.

[nospam]

In article <qcqb08$j8a$1...@dont-email.me>, Meanie <M...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> >>>>>> It was the only time I was wrong about something in this group.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> nonsense.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> nearly everything you say is easily shown to be wrong, and not just
> >>>>> this group.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> one of the better ones is that touch id is more secure than face id,
> >>>>> something you *still* refuse to admit is wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>> Who confirms that Facial recognition is better than Fingerprint or vice
> >>>> versa? IMO, that's a matter of opinion along with a selling strategy by
> >>>> Apple or any other manufacturer.
> >>>
> >>> Well, that does explain our particular brand of idiocy: you do not
> >>> understand the difference between fact and opinion.
> >>>
> >> And yet, you fail to provide a source of your so called fact(s). Apple
> >> said so, it must be true. LMFAO! What a tool.
> >
> > no, that's not why it's better.
> >
> > you've yet to provide any sources why it isn't better, other than you
> > said so.
>

> This is why you guys have a problem. Re-read what I said above. "Who

> confirms that Facial recognition is better than Fingerprint or vice

> versa?" You see the "Vice Versa". I don't say it's better or not. I'm
> asking for proof that one is over the other. I'm refuting your habit of
> stating facts when you don't provide proof but merely "I said so because
> Apple said so". You guys have you own perception and you ignore what was
> actually stated then claim it's a complaint or otherwise.

you didn't refute anything.

refuting requires proof to the contrary, which you did not do.

for example, you said apple made up the numbers to make more money,
which is flat out false.

In article <qcpho0$21g$1...@dont-email.me>, Meanie <M...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > apple's face id has been mathematically proven to be more secure, and
> > it's only on its 1st generation, while touch id is on its 2nd.
> >
> > apple has stated that a false positive for face id is statistically 1
> > out of 1 million, versus 1 out of 50,000 for touch id.
>
> Apple is in the business to make money, Of course they will say what's
> better.

as a public company, apple can't make up numbers.

> > see my other post for a lot more facts and details of how face id
> > works, but the tl;dr is *numerous* independent tests and even the
> > competing device makers all agree that apple's face id is currently the
> > best.
>

> I'll agree. I discovered the info about face Rec not working in darkness
> for example was relating to Android devices. I later read iPhones Face
> ID Biometric System works in the dark, as you stated. Therefore, I'm
> wrong (that wasn't so hard).

maybe you'll realize that the other stuff i said is also true.

> > maybe one day it won't be, but as of now, the competition is still
> > trying to catch up, and that's to a moving target, with apple's 2nd
> > generation face id expected to ship soon, about when the competition
> > releases something comparable to apple's 1st gen.
>

> I agree again. I know Android devices are often behind the Apple
> technology but there are some features of Androids which Apple could use
> or improve on as well.

yep.

no device is best at *everything*. pick the best tool for the job.

competition makes for better products.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Fri, 31 May 2019 10:13:53 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> Since I don┤ read every single message to this group it is extremely

> difficult to see the minimal occurrences of someone admitting they were
> wrong.

Hi badgolferman,

*I openly apologize to you for what I was inferring in my previous posts!*

Thank you for your response which I consider reasonable & forthright.
o And thank you for responding to my accusations - as an adult would.

I appreciate that your response tells me of your forthright intent.
o On Usenet, we can only infer what people imply - so I thank you for that.

I've _studied_ these apologists' responses for quite a long time
o And I've characterized their half-dozen responses prior over here...

o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

After careful study, it seems they only have 1/2 dozen response types.
o Unfortunately, _none_ of those entail a reasonable processing of facts.

> Thank you for being a virtual database of facts and providing a few
> examples of when this has happened.

Thank you for being one of the few people here who recognize that there
_are_ adults on this newsgroup whose belief systems are based on fact.

My premise has always been that any belief system should be supported by
fact such that _at least one_ fact should be proffered when challenged,
where, as you're well aware, the apologists consistently fail that simple
adult test.

That's why you'll constantly see me state this simple adult challenge:
o Name just one

While I'm human, I hope to not fail that simple adult belief test.
o My belief system is _easily_ verified with cites of actual fact.

And, if, perchance, I am wrong on facts (which certainly can happen)
o I often instantly apologize & modify my beliefs to conform to the facts.

This is an IMPORTANT point, badgolferman, where I, personally, strive to
show a belief system which is _bolstered_ by facts...
o Not threatened by facts.

Hence, I strive to openly discuss those facts, where, to me, a fact is
merely a component that strengthens or weakens any particular belief
system.

If the belief system is _based_ on facts ....
o Then the facts will tend to _strengthen_ that belief system.

It's really that simple, since the corrolary is also true...

If a belief system is imaginary...
o Then facts will tend to _weaken_ that belief system.

This is, I posit, the _reason_ you see so much factual denial here
o Many people on this newsgroup appear to gravitate to imaginary beliefs

In a way, apologists are much like religious zealots
o Who react with anger to any statement of fact they don't like.

> However the usual suspects dominate the
> discussions and personally I tune out after a while when the personal
> insults start flying, which usually happens when one side cannot or will
> not concede a proven point.

I agree with you that the "usual suspects" dominate this newsgroup.
o And that they only have about a half-dozen canned responses to fact

Where, an 'apology' or a modification of a belief system doesn't appear to
be something that they do often (AFAICT) on this newsgroup.

That's why I've posited that people who tend toward imaginary beliefs...
o Seem to also tend toward Apple product Marketing claims

It's why I claim the apologists are not like normal adults.

As for me, I _knew_ that I could find examples in this ng of
o I apologize, I was wrong, mea culpa, you are right, etc.

Since some of the examples I unearthed, were clearly mine.

> Even this one thread has devolved into yet
> another finger pointing and chest thumping session carried over from other
> threads.

Indeed.
o The facts clearly show your statement to be correct.

It's too detailed to explain to you my strategy for being on this
newsgroup, but suffice to say my strategic purpose may be similar to your
strategic purpose in opening this very thread.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Fri, 31 May 2019 10:07:21 -0400, nospam wrote:

> as a public company, apple can't make up numbers.

Hi nospam,

Facts first; then reasonable adult logic can ensue.

You're an apologist who is very comfortably with telling a lie, IMHO.
o So for you to claim Apple doesn't lie, is quite well in character.

However, many of us are beholden to reasonable assessment of facts...
o And to a rational reasonable adult discussion based on those facts

You keep saying Apple "can't" lie, where you're only sort of correct.
o Apple has been caught in "essential" lies, quite a few times, IMHO

Of course, their lies are well vetted by corporate lawyers, I'm sure...
o Just as "Yeah, but I didn't inhale" was said by a lawyer himself.

Apple does "essentially lie", just as Clinton did when he said...
o "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

To be clear, I've pointed out these essential lies multiple times.
o Tim Cook essentially lied to the public (i.e., doctoring release notes)
o Corporate legal essentially lied to Congress (e.g., "as necessary")
o Apple essentially lied to the public anew (e.g., it was the batteries!)
etc.

I realize _none_ of these obvious logical facts will likely be comprehended
by you apologists - but I still go to the effort of explaining fact &
reason even of these obvious and well supported points - not for the
apologists - but for the adults in this newsgroup to benefit from.

[Jolly Roger]

Meanie <M...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/30/2019 10:40 PM, Lewis wrote:

>> In message <qcpho0$21g$1...@dont-email.me> Meanie <M...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The device must be facing the user in order to work but overall, Facial
>>> recognition performs poorly in dark areas such as a movie theater or
>>> bright outdoor lighting with sun glare.
>>
>> Bullshit. It works in pitch darkness you fucking liar.
>

> LMFAO! You halfwits love the spinning game.

Insults mean you have nothing constructive to add. The fact is Face ID
works in complete darkness, as anyone who has actually used it knows from
first-hand experience. You lose.

> You tools interpret your own
> definition and fail to provide links, data or references to support your
> whine

Projection. You didn’t provide a shred of factual data backing up your
false claim that Face ID performs poorly in bad lighting conditions. You
lose again.

--
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

[nospam]

In article <qcrg8q$nc0$1...@dont-email.me>, Meanie <M...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> This is why you guys have a problem. Re-read what I said above. "Who
> >> confirms that Facial recognition is better than Fingerprint or vice
> >> versa?" You see the "Vice Versa". I don't say it's better or not. I'm
> >> asking for proof that one is over the other. I'm refuting your habit of
> >> stating facts when you don't provide proof but merely "I said so because
> >> Apple said so". You guys have you own perception and you ignore what was
> >> actually stated then claim it's a complaint or otherwise.
> >
> > you didn't refute anything.
> >
> > refuting requires proof to the contrary, which you did not do.
> >
> > for example, you said apple made up the numbers to make more money,
> > which is flat out false.
>

> Fucking hell! Are you guys seriously that dense? Is your tunnel vision
> that narrow to skew your perception? You make up words I never stated.
> It's right below what I said and your interpretation still perceives I
> said "they made up the numbers" when I said "they are in the business to
> make money, of course they will say what's better".

apple doesn't say it's better just for the hell of it. the numbers they
cited are from their tests.

apple tested over 1 billion faces for face id, using *many* volunteers,
photos of people in the public domain, as well as using makeup artists
to make fake heads so the system can't be easily spoofed.

you doubt those numbers, but have not shown them to be false.

as a public company, apple can't make up numbers to make things sound
better than they are.

> >>> maybe one day it won't be, but as of now, the competition is still
> >>> trying to catch up, and that's to a moving target, with apple's 2nd
> >>> generation face id expected to ship soon, about when the competition
> >>> releases something comparable to apple's 1st gen.
> >>
> >> I agree again. I know Android devices are often behind the Apple
> >> technology but there are some features of Androids which Apple could use
> >> or improve on as well.
> >
> > yep.
> >
> > no device is best at *everything*. pick the best tool for the job.
> >
> > competition makes for better products.
> >
>

> Agreed and I believe I indicated the ability to admit my errors without
> tunnel visioned perception or stating comments you or anyone else never
> said. Too bad it isn't reciprocated.

i'm happy to admit error *if* there's an error.

simply saying someone is wrong doesn't make what they said wrong.

if you think anything that's been said by me or anyone else is wrong,
by all means show how it's wrong with relevant references, what the
real story is, and everyone learns something from it.

i've backed up everything i said with many references, including
independent tests.

until you can prove it wrong, it stands.

[sms]

On 5/30/2019 8:15 PM, Meanie wrote:

<snip>

> And yet, you fail to provide a source of your so called fact(s). Apple
> said so, it must be true. LMFAO! What a tool.

All the experts agree that fingerprints are much more secure than face
recognition. I.e.
<https://www.bayometric.com/fingerprint-vs-facial-recognition/>.

The issue is that a 2D fingerprint scanner is not sufficient. The newest
Android phones use a 3D fingerprint scanner under the screen and Apple
has been developing their own version which will have the advantage of
being able to do a 3D fingerprint scan anywhere on the screen. That is
what is expected on the iPhone XII. And it's not just because of the
relative security, it's because dual biometric capability will be
sufficiently secure that the iPhone use can be expanded to things like
ePassports
<https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2018/08/patent-reveals-plans-for-using-apple-pays-secure-element-in-a-future-e-passport-app.html>.

Carefully parse statements regarding the relative security of the
current Touch ID system versus the current FaceID system, paying careful
attention to the word "random." It is probably true that 3D FaceID is
less likely to experience a false positive than 2D TouchID, but that is
not the relevant question.

The issue with FaceID isn't that some random stranger would be able to
unlock your phone, it's that a non-random person such as your child, or
a sibling, could unlock it. Apple even warns about this possibility
advising that a PIN should be used if this is a concern. But
fingerprints are not similar between parents and children or siblings.
See
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/27/apple-face-id-iphone-x-under-13-twin-facial-recognition-system-more-secure-touch-id>.

Above all, when reading statements on this whole subject, believe
posters that actually use citations and references over those that have
no facts to share but that have such an extremely fragile ego that they
feel compelled to respond with incorrect information that they really do
understand is not accurate. When someone responds in a nasty way,
without any evidence, you pretty much know that they have no idea what
they are talking about.

[nospam]

In article <qcrr7e$sq1$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> All the experts agree that fingerprints are much more secure than face
> recognition. I.e.

no they definitely don't, plus that's a logical fallacy, one which you
use a lot.

> <https://www.bayometric.com/fingerprint-vs-facial-recognition/>.

they are not 'experts'.

that's a company who makes fingerprint sensors but not face scanners,
so they have a vested interest in bashing their competition. worse,
their product is not very good.

> The issue is that a 2D fingerprint scanner is not sufficient. The newest
> Android phones use a 3D fingerprint scanner under the screen and Apple
> has been developing their own version which will have the advantage of
> being able to do a 3D fingerprint scan anywhere on the screen.

the newest android phones with an in-screen fingerprint sensor can be
spoofed *incredibly* easily.

they are not secure at all, plus the system is slow and often requires
multiple touches.

<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/in-screen-fingerprint-tinfoil-flaw,news-28
574.html>
Chinese researchers at Tencent's Xuanwu Lab discovered earlier
this year that they were able to unlock handsets simply by placing
a piece of opaque reflective material ‹ i.e., aluminum foil ‹ over
the in-screen fingerprint readers.

<https://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-galaxy-s10-fingerprint-sensor-t
ricked-using-3d-printer-2019-4>
A Galaxy S10 owner with a 3D printer and a photo of his own
fingerprint was able to spoof the ultrasonic in-display fingerprint
sensor on his smartphone ‹ and he said he can do it in "15 minutes."

> That is
> what is expected on the iPhone XII.

nope. that's not what's expected at all since apple would never ship
something that is trivially spoofed.

what's 'expected' is nothing but rumours, none of which are based on
facts.

> And it's not just because of the
> relative security, it's because dual biometric capability will be
> sufficiently secure that the iPhone use can be expanded to things like
> ePassports
>
> <https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2018/08/patent-reveals-plans-for-
> using-apple-pays-secure-element-in-a-future-e-passport-app.html>.

that doesn't say what you claim it does.

> Carefully parse statements regarding the relative security of the
> current Touch ID system versus the current FaceID system, paying careful
> attention to the word "random." It is probably true that 3D FaceID is
> less likely to experience a false positive than 2D TouchID, but that is
> not the relevant question.

it *is* the relevant question.

> The issue with FaceID isn't that some random stranger would be able to
> unlock your phone, it's that a non-random person such as your child, or
> a sibling, could unlock it. Apple even warns about this possibility
> advising that a PIN should be used if this is a concern. But
> fingerprints are not similar between parents and children or siblings.

nope.

apple warns about evil twins *or* kids.

kids unlocking their parents phones is not a risk factor for face id.

in fact, face id is *more* secure than touch id since kids will touch
their sleeping parent's finger to the sensor, something which will not
work for face id.

once again, you are wrong.

> See
>
> <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/27/apple-face-id-iphone-x-und
> er-13-twin-facial-recognition-system-more-secure-touch-id>.

that doesn't support your claim.

> Above all, when reading statements on this whole subject, believe
> posters that actually use citations and references over those that have
> no facts to share but that have such an extremely fragile ego that they
> feel compelled to respond with incorrect information that they really do
> understand is not accurate. When someone responds in a nasty way,
> without any evidence, you pretty much know that they have no idea what
> they are talking about.

yep. believe those who prove you wrong at every turn with *numerous*
credible references (see above).

all you can do is play word games and hurl insults.

[Lewis]

In message <qcr5lq$nib$1...@dont-email.me> Meanie <M...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Typical spinning refute from someone speaking out their ass. It's up to
> the person stating so called facts to provide the cite of that info
> instead of bullshit refute of "look it up" or "what I said is true" blah

Dumbshit, it has been posted IN THIS THREAD.

If you are to stupid or lazy to read the posts IN THIS THREAD then why
would anyone waste their time reposting things you've already refused
to read?

Now go way, child, come back when you've at least reach your late teens.

--
O is for OLIVE run through with an awl
P is for PRUE trampled flat in a brawl

[Beedle]

On May 31, 2019, Jolly Roger wrote
(in article <gld0em...@mid.individual.net>):

> Meanie <M...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/30/2019 10:40 PM, Lewis wrote:
> > > In message<qcpho0$21g$1...@dont-email.me> Meanie<M...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The device must be facing the user in order to work but overall, Facial
> > > > recognition performs poorly in dark areas such as a movie theater or
> > > > bright outdoor lighting with sun glare.
> > >
> > > Bullshit. It works in pitch darkness you fucking liar.
> >
> > LMFAO! You halfwits love the spinning game.
>
> Insults mean you have nothing constructive to add. The fact is Face ID
> works in complete darkness, as anyone who has actually used it knows from
> first-hand experience. You lose.

I have the iPhone XS and it does work in darkness. I wake up while it is
still dark and I unlock it just by picking it up and holding it away from my
face. Just disturbing it from the sitting position will cause the screen to
awaken and become aware and ready to unlock if it sees my face. It doesn’t
perform poorly at all. It is surprisingly perfect.

> > You tools interpret your own
> > definition and fail to provide links, data or references to support your
> > whine
>
> Projection. You didn’t provide a shred of factual data backing up your
> false claim that Face ID performs poorly in bad lighting conditions. You
> lose again.

FaceID performs perfect over here. The only time it doesn’t work is if I am
too close to the phone. If the phone it right next to my face, very close,
then it will not work. Just pull it back 20cm and it works every time.

--
Beedle

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 30 May 2019 02:22:16 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> Has anyone here ever admitted they were wrong publicly in the newsgroup

> even when proven so? How can everyone always be right? Maybe some
> consider it a sign of weakness if they concede a point, but it's
> actually a sign of humility and maturity.
>

> I guess it's because this is usenet.

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 08:54:39 -0700, sms wrote:

> My mistake, I meant to say iPod Touch. Senior moment.

To intelligent people of this Apple-related newsgroup:

Notice something extremely pertinent to Apple-specific newsgroups:
o wrong (by badgolferman, on May 29, 2019)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/BjiM9DsVXj8/iqurJBJnBwAJ>

"Has anyone here ever admitted they were wrong publicly in the newsgroup

even when proven so? How can everyone always be right? Maybe some
consider it a sign of weakness if they concede a point, but it's
actually a sign of humility and maturity."

Notice that we proved in that thread that actual _adults_ easily admit when
they goofed, particularly since Usenet is an ad hoc medium of casual
conversation.

More to the point, notice how these particular people can almost never
admit when they're wrong (particularly since their credibility has been
shown to be, in most cases, no better than the results of a coin toss).
o Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
o Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
o Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch>
o Beedle <Bee...@dont-email.me>
o B...@Onramp.net
o Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
o Davoud <st...@sky.net>
o Elden <use...@moondog.org>
o Elfin <elfi...@gmail.com> (aka Lloyd, aka Lloyd Parsons)
o *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>
o joe <no...@domain.invalid>
o Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
o Johan <JH...@nospam.invalid>
o Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
o Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
o Lloyd <elfi...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")
o Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")
o Meanie <M...@gmail.com>
o nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
o Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
o Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> (aka Michael Glasser)
o Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net>
o Wade Garrett <wa...@cooler.net>
o Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
o et al.

In short, what's poignantly absent from apologists' brains is any semblance
of adult conversation when it comes to admitting when they make a mistake.
o The brilliant way iOS 13 lets you find lost devices that aren¢t even connected to a network
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/h6GykfpRrB8>

An adult is different from an apologist, in many ways, truth being key.

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Thu, 30 May 2019 02:22:16 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> Has anyone here ever admitted they were wrong publicly in the newsgroup
> even when proven so? How can everyone always be right? Maybe some
> consider it a sign of weakness if they concede a point, but it's
> actually a sign of humility and maturity.
>
> I guess it's because this is usenet.

As we easily proved, ADULTS can easily state when they're wrong.
o It's only those with imaginary belief systems - who act like children

They can never admit when they're wrong.
o Meanwhile, adults are never afraid of facts.

Facts form the basis of the belief system of adults.
o In fact, facts _bolster_ the belief system of adults.

To that end, and in keeping with the topic of this thread...
o Let's see, for example, if Steve (aka sms) can admit when he's dead wrong.

FACTS:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZTmmGoAndyM>

Adults aren't afraid of facts.
o Because facts form the basis of an adult belief system.

Yet again, just now, Steve claimed I was "only 60%" correct on material facts
o And yet, it was trivial to prove that Steve was dead wrong on what he
said about him claiming I was wrong about PD throttling (when the fact
shows that Steve didn't read or comprehend the facts ALREADY REPORTED on
that!).

The fact Steve doesn't comprehend fact doesn't mean I was wrong.
o It simply means, yet again, Steve didn't comprehend the facts.

Just like when Steve claimed that the Qualcomm royalties went down
O Where Steve never admitted he was dead wrong on that fact either.

Yet again, Steve claims I'm wrong - where the fact is that Steve needs to
apologize for making that claim - since it flies in the face of fact.

o Do any Android phone manufacturers throttle (CPUs, PD Charging, Modems) like Apple consistently does?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZTmmGoAndyM/UxvB5AMeCAAJ>

Yet more proof that I'm 100% correct on material fact, is here:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZTmmGoAndyM/zD6jp0gjCAAJ>

Adults should be able to comprehend facts.
o Where, my strategy, clearly, is to bring TRUTH to this newsgoup

My tactic is to bring that TRUTH, one fact at a time.
o I am adult enough to admit if I am materially wrong

Let's see if (yet again) Steve fails to admit when he's materially wrong.

--
Finally - Someone who brings TRUTH to this newsgroup - one fact at a time.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 30 May 2019 02:22:16 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> Has anyone here ever admitted they were wrong publicly in the newsgroup
> even when proven so? How can everyone always be right? Maybe some
> consider it a sign of weakness if they concede a point, but it's
> actually a sign of humility and maturity.
>
> I guess it's because this is usenet.

Adults can _easily_ admit when/if they're wrong.

Adults simply adjust their belief system to fit the facts.
o All that matters is the factual truth; one fact at a time.

Case in point:
o How do you run speech to text transcription offline on iOS?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/V-piSLZ_I3w>

In this case, I asked a question of the iOS experts, including David
Empson, and waited 10 days for an answer, which wasn't forthcoming. I
searched on the iTunes app store (admittedly I'm on an older version of
iOS), where Alan Baker, to his credit, found that the app that nobody else
knew existed, exists as of the brand new iOS 13.2 release (for seven bucks,
but at least it exists!).
--
Adults base their belief system on the facts which are known to them; when
new facts arise, adults simply adjust their belief systems to accommodate
the new facts. It's part of being an adult.