131–140 of 206 posts
Isn’t the real problem here that this was caught on video? Otherwise it’s just as secure as any other code.
If you obtained this phone without seeing the video, a singular oil smudge on the number 1 surely gives it away.
I don't lock my phone at all. Never have. However, with the new iPhones that don't have a home button, I believe that Apple is forcing you to either use face unlock or a passcode. There is no choice to just leave it unlocked. So, as soon as my iPhone 6s stops working, I will have to choose to: 1) Give in and use my face to unlock. 2) Use a dumb passcode like 000000. 3) Upgrade to the newest iPhone that still has a ho…
I was just using an iPhone without a home button and you don’t need a passcode or facial recognition to use it. Just swipe up from the bottom.
You don't need a passcode or facial recognition to access any phone that doesn't have those features enabled.
If you enable them you certainly do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I was a kid my house was "broken into" but because the door was unlocked the police couldn't qualify it as breaking and entering. It was merely trespassing and my neighbor who did it got off. I was 12, these details may be a bit fuzzy. I chased the guy off so nothing was taken, he just walked in, saw me running to the door and ran back out. Supposedly he was just drunk and wandered into the wrong house anyway. I…
> Supposedly he was just drunk and wandered into the wrong house anyway. That's what made him fine, not the fact that you didn't lock. That's a thing that quite misunderstood, but for a crime to be committed, you need criminal intent. If you just made a mistake and weren't aware it wasn't your house, it's not a crime to enter it.
Also for some crimes the intent needn't match the outcome. For example in the UK _Attempted Murder_ requires (as well as facts of an attempt) you had an intent to kill, but _Murder_ only requires that you had an intent to at least cause grave harm, the fact of death makes it murder, even if a jury believes you intended only, say, to hospitalize the victim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Why can't you guess the pattern by looking at the smudges?
You can pass over the same point more than once which would obfuscate the direction of the original passes on the smudge.
And yesterday over a dozen members of Congress barged into one of the Congressional versions of this site without authorization and while recording video, audio, and taking photos on their personal smartphones. Here is a Twitter thread about why that is such a problem: https://twitter.com/MiekeEoyang/status/1187032800572125191
[flagged]
By your logic, saying the thread is a thinly veiled attempt at blaming republicans would make the GOP lawmaker actions a thinly veiled attempt at terrorism, wouldn't it?
See where this is going?
There is some good Jon Stewart-era Daily Show material about GOP terrorism for the sake of politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember to switch it off if you invite Dick Cheney in for a visit, though. Frying his pacemaker would be a bit of a PR hit.
You made it weird by singling out Cheney, but impact on medical devices is an important consideration for any such scheme.
Looks like 777777 to me.
And yesterday over a dozen members of Congress barged into one of the Congressional versions of this site without authorization and while recording video, audio, and taking photos on their personal smartphones. Here is a Twitter thread about why that is such a problem: https://twitter.com/MiekeEoyang/status/1187032800572125191
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21344785 and marked it off-topic.