On 2024-05-08 05:49, Arno Welzel wrote:
> R.Wieser, 2024-05-07 19:07:
>
> [...]
>> And as the intended victim is showing off his key every moment of the day I
>> cannot escape the feeling that a few pictures (from diferent angles) would
>> be enough for a 'puter (or a person) to construct a 3D model from it. Take
>> few more pictures with an heat (IR?) camera and you likely have the
>> mentioned heatmap for that face too.
>>
>> Did I forget anything ?
>>
>> No, I didn't say it would be easy. But I don't think its impossible either.
>> Just, for the first few times(!), a lengthy and costly job.
>
> *Nothing* is impossible to break. It is *always* a question of how much
> effort is needed to break a thing. If anyone claims to have an
> "unbreakable" solution he lies.

The problem is nitwits who suggest that because some YouTuber went out
of their way to show a means to break the fingerprint feature of
iPhones, that it is something anyone can do with little effort - when
the truth is it is a hit or miss scheme that takes quite a bit of effort
not to mention improbable steps such as lifting prints in the first
place and having easy access to the target phone.

Then there's the suggestion that one can construct a 3D face using a 3D
printer (very plausible given a stereoscopic set of photos) PLUS a heat
map embedded on that face that matches close enough to that taken by the
iPhone sensor. (extremely non-likely).

So - impossible? No. Likely? Very much no.

--
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

On 2024-05-08, R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>
> Not a comparision ?

Again, in English you do not place a space between the last word of a
sentence and the ending punctuation. That includes question marks.

--
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

On 2024-05-08, Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> R.Wieser, 2024-05-07 19:07:
>
> [...]
>> And as the intended victim is showing off his key every moment of the
>> day I cannot escape the feeling that a few pictures (from diferent
>> angles) would be enough for a 'puter (or a person) to construct a 3D
>> model from it. Take few more pictures with an heat (IR?) camera and
>> you likely have the mentioned heatmap for that face too.
>>
>> Did I forget anything ?
>>
>> No, I didn't say it would be easy. But I don't think its impossible
>> either. Just, for the first few times(!), a lengthy and costly job.
>
> *Nothing* is impossible to break. It is *always* a question of how
> much effort is needed to break a thing. If anyone claims to have an
> "unbreakable" solution he lies.

I haven't seen anyone here make that claim - just a few trolls rehashing
previous claims that Face ID is supposedly "insecure" just because
someone could possibly construct a 3D model of someone else's face and
somehow generate a heat map to lay over it in order to fool Face ID. Of
course they haven't addressed Face ID's Attention Aware feature which
would also have to be defeated. All of it is pie-in-the-sky and not
easily achievable though. In reality, this isn't something most people
who use Face ID worry about happening.

--
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

On 2024-05-08 09:05, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>>    I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or just
>> 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
>
> Yes we do, or at least I do.  "I believe that that is the truth."  Carry
> on.
>
>

Jim where John had had had had had had had had had had had a better
effect on the teacher.

😎

On 2024-05-08 12:05, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>>    I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or just
>> 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
>
> Yes we do, or at least I do.  "I believe that that is the truth."  Carry
> on.

I've been ribbed for, " ... where we do do enhanced processing ..."

--
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or just
> > 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
>
> Yes we do, or at least I do. "I believe that that is the truth." Carry on.

I *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)

But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a single
'that':

[Edited by me:]

Feel free to explain/substantiate why [that] that face-ID was secure
then, and [then] how it's still secure now - even with technology
going forward.

R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> wrote:
> Frank,

[Lots deleted.]

> > I think the first 'then' should be changed, because it refers to the
> > past, but not in a very clear way. So probably something like this is
> > better:
> >
> > Feel free to explain/substantiate why face-ID was secure
> > in the past, and how it's still secure now - even with [cracking]
> > technology going forward.
>
> Yes, the sentence certainly flows better.
>
> But you changed the subject with that "[cracking]" part. I really tried to
> refer to the Face-ID technology - as I assume it has, just as the "cracking"
> methods, also progressed.

Apparently I guessed wrong. I thought you were referring to the
"cracking" methods, because AFAIK, Apple's Face-ID technology hasn't
changed all that much. But I could be (totally) wrong about that, as
I've not be following/studying that technology over time.

> >>> but with these errors,
>
> Truly errors ? As in syntax errors ? Man ... :-(

Nah! Your keyboard just doesn't correctly process what you type! :-)

> Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it.

You're again/still welcome.

> now the only thing I need to do is to remember to apply them ...

Don't worry, I have my share of common - mostly spelling - errors and
you should see what some of the native English 'speakers' emit without
even blinking!

Frank,

>> But you changed the subject with that "[cracking]" part. I really tried
>> to refer to the Face-ID technology - as I assume it has, just as the
>> "cracking" methods, also progressed.
>
> Apparently I guessed wrong. I thought you were referring to the
> "cracking" methods,

I was trying to let Alan (Browne) know that I wasn't trying to get him to
defend an old Face-ID method against nowerdays technology. I may be an ass
at times, but that would be dishonest.

> Apple's Face-ID technology hasn't changed all that much.

I wouldn't know. Heck, I do not even know how old it is.

> But I could be (totally) wrong about that, as I've not be
> following/studying that technology over time.

I've not been following it either, for several reasons. One of them I
already mentioned, another being the price of those IThingamagotchies. In
cold hard cash as well as other stuff.

>> now the only thing I need to do is to remember to apply them ...
>
> Don't worry, I have my share of common - mostly spelling - errors and
> you should see what some of the native English 'speakers' emit without
> even blinking!

Phew. :-) And thanks.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>> > I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or just
>> > 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
>>
>> Yes we do, or at least I do. "I believe that that is the truth." Carry on.
>
> I *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)

All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!

> But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a single
> 'that':

No. People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like "I'm sure
he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best. If it occasionally
requires double thats, so be it.

I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had had
had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher." though,

--
Cheers, Bev
"It is never fallacious to properly cite Donald Knuth in
lieu of providing your own argument." --Sun Tzu

On 08/05/2024 17:39, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-05-08 09:05, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>>>    I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or just
>>> 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
>>
>> Yes we do, or at least I do.  "I believe that that is the truth."
>> Carry on.
>>
>>
>
> Jim where John had had had had had had had had had had had a better
> effect on the teacher.
>
> 😎

Or picture a sign painter redoing the sign at the George and Dragon pub.
The publican comes out to see the progress and spots a problem: "There's
too much space between George and And and And and Dragon."

On 2024-05-08 15:16, Chris wrote:
> On 08/05/2024 17:39, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-05-08 09:05, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>
>>>>    I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or just
>>>> 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
>>>
>>> Yes we do, or at least I do.  "I believe that that is the truth."
>>> Carry on.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Jim where John had had had had had had had had had had had a better
>> effect on the teacher.
>>
>> 😎
>
> Or picture a sign painter redoing the sign at the George and Dragon pub.
> The publican comes out to see the progress and spots a problem: "There's
> too much space between George and And and And and Dragon."

Ah yes, I read that in the The Guardian.

--
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

The Real Bev wrote:
> On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>
>>> >    I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or just
>>> > 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
>>>
>>> Yes we do, or at least I do.  "I believe that that is the truth."  Carry
>>> on.
>>
>>    I *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
>
> All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
>
>>    But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a single
>> 'that':
>
> No.  People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like "I'm sure he
> did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best.  If it occasionally requires
> double thats, so be it.
>
> I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had had had
> had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher." though,
>

Shouldn't we all be squabbling about apple minutia?

After all that's the purpose of this group.

On 2024-05-08 12:10, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>
>>> >    I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or just
>>> > 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
>>>
>>> Yes we do, or at least I do.  "I believe that that is the truth."
>>> Carry on.
>>
>>    I *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
>
> All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
>
>>    But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a single
>> 'that':
>
> No.  People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like "I'm sure
> he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best.  If it occasionally
> requires double thats, so be it.
>
> I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had had
> had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher."
> though,
>

I'll give everyone a little longer to ruminate on it...

On 2024-05-09 01:21, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-05-08 12:10, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >    I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or
>>>> just
>>>> > 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
>>>>
>>>> Yes we do, or at least I do.  "I believe that that is the truth."
>>>> Carry on.
>>>
>>>    I *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
>>
>> All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
>>
>>>    But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a single
>>> 'that':
>>
>> No.  People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like "I'm
>> sure he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best.  If it
>> occasionally requires double thats, so be it.
>>
>> I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had had
>> had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher."
>> though,
>>
>
> I'll give everyone a little longer to ruminate on it...

I gave up on it on first sight.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2024-05-09 05:01, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-05-09 01:21, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-05-08 12:10, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>> In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >    I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or
>>>>> just
>>>>> > 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes we do, or at least I do.  "I believe that that is the truth."
>>>>> Carry on.
>>>>
>>>>    I *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
>>>
>>> All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
>>>
>>>>    But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a single
>>>> 'that':
>>>
>>> No.  People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like "I'm
>>> sure he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best.  If it
>>> occasionally requires double thats, so be it.
>>>
>>> I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had had
>>> had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher."
>>> though,
>>>
>>
>> I'll give everyone a little longer to ruminate on it...
>
> I gave up on it on first sight.
>

Alright, alright.

Jim, where John had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a
better effect on the teacher.

On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-05-09 05:01, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2024-05-09 01:21, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-08 12:10, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>> In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >    I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> > 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes we do, or at least I do.  "I believe that that is the truth."
>>>>>> Carry on.
>>>>>
>>>>>    I *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
>>>>
>>>> All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
>>>>
>>>>>    But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a single
>>>>> 'that':
>>>>
>>>> No.  People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like "I'm
>>>> sure he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best.  If it
>>>> occasionally requires double thats, so be it.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had had
>>>> had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher."
>>>> though,
>>>
>>> I'll give everyone a little longer to ruminate on it...
>>
>> I gave up on it on first sight.
>
> Alright, alright.

This is not a word. In the same category as 'irregardless'. Ignorant
and sloppy.

> Jim, where John had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a
> better effect on the teacher.

OK. Punctuation, at least periods, should have been included.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Truly, our society's bellyaching sissies are in an elite category.
They are like the Navy SEALS of offendedness. They demonstrate
unmatched skill, dedication, and dexterity in imagining new and
exciting ways to be insulted." --Matt Walsh

On 2024-05-09, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote:
>>
>> Alright, alright.
>
> This is not a word.

It's certainly an informal and nonstandard form of "all right", but it
is definitely a word.

Merriam-Webster says:
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alright>

---
alright - adverb or adjective
al·right (ˌ)ȯl-ˈrīt ˈȯl-ˌrīt
Synonyms of alright
: ALL RIGHT
If people stay strong and keep pushing we'll be alright.
—Keith Ellison

Alright, I give in.
—Sallie Tisdale

Alright already, get in the squad car and solve the darn crime.
—Ken Tucker

It's cheap, alright.
—Chris Hodenfield

all right or alright?: Usage Guide

Although the spelling alright is more than a century and a half old,
some critics have insisted alright is all wrong. Nevertheless, it has
its defenders and its users, who perhaps have been influenced by analogy
with altogether and already. Alright is less common than all right but
is frequently found in informal writing and fictional dialogue.

Starting at a slower pace is perfectly alright.
—Alia Haley

"Alright, it is a bargain. I will help you."
—Harold Bell Wright

It is sometimes also used in more formal writing.

The first two years of the medical school were alright.
—Gertrude Stein
---

--
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

On 2024-05-09 09:13, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-05-09 05:01, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-09 01:21, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-08 12:10, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>> On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>> In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >    I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat',
>>>>>>> or just
>>>>>>> > 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes we do, or at least I do.  "I believe that that is the truth."
>>>>>>> Carry on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    I *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
>>>>>
>>>>>>    But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a
>>>>>> single
>>>>>> 'that':
>>>>>
>>>>> No.  People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like "I'm
>>>>> sure he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best.  If it
>>>>> occasionally requires double thats, so be it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had
>>>>> had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the
>>>>> teacher." though,
>>>>
>>>> I'll give everyone a little longer to ruminate on it...
>>>
>>> I gave up on it on first sight.
>>
>> Alright, alright.
>
> This is not a word.  In the same category as 'irregardless'.  Ignorant
> and sloppy.

Who appointed you grammarian to the internet?

Is "already" a word? "Always"? Maybe "already" is almost a word?

:-)

>
>> Jim, where John had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a
>> better effect on the teacher.
>
> OK.  Punctuation, at least periods, should have been included.

No. That was the POINT: to find how to punctuate it.

On 5/9/24 9:32 AM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-05-09 09:13, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-09 05:01, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-09 01:21, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-08 12:10, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>>> In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >    I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat',
>>>>>>>> or just
>>>>>>>> > 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes we do, or at least I do.  "I believe that that is the truth."
>>>>>>>> Carry on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    I *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a
>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>> 'that':
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.  People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like "I'm
>>>>>> sure he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best.  If it
>>>>>> occasionally requires double thats, so be it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had
>>>>>> had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the
>>>>>> teacher." though,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll give everyone a little longer to ruminate on it...
>>>>
>>>> I gave up on it on first sight.
>>>
>>> Alright, alright.
>>
>> This is not a word.  In the same category as 'irregardless'.  Ignorant
>> and sloppy.
>
> Who appointed you grammarian to the internet?

I did. Weren't you paying attention? Please try to keep up.

> Is "already" a word? "Always"? Maybe "already" is almost a word?

I agree, there are a lot of proper al- words. Nonetheless, during my
literacy the expression has been "all right" and "alright" appeared at
about the same time as thumb-spelling, indicating either laziness or
ignorance.

Bite me.

> :-)
>
>>
>>> Jim, where John had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a
>>> better effect on the teacher.
>>
>> OK.  Punctuation, at least periods, should have been included.
>
> No. That was the POINT: to find how to punctuate it.

OK, I concede. I failed miserably. It happens now and again.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity
is not thus handicapped."
-- Elbert Hubbard, American author

On 2024-05-09 11:07, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 5/9/24 9:32 AM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-05-09 09:13, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-09 05:01, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-09 01:21, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-08 12:10, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>>>> In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >    I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat
>>>>>>>>> dat', or just
>>>>>>>>> > 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes we do, or at least I do.  "I believe that that is the
>>>>>>>>> truth." Carry on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    I *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a
>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>> 'that':
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No.  People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like
>>>>>>> "I'm sure he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best.  If it
>>>>>>> occasionally requires double thats, so be it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had
>>>>>>> had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the
>>>>>>> teacher." though,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll give everyone a little longer to ruminate on it...
>>>>>
>>>>> I gave up on it on first sight.
>>>>
>>>> Alright, alright.
>>>
>>> This is not a word.  In the same category as 'irregardless'.
>>> Ignorant and sloppy.
>>
>> Who appointed you grammarian to the internet?
>
> I did.  Weren't you paying attention?  Please try to keep up.
>
>> Is "already" a word? "Always"? Maybe "already" is almost a word?
>
> I agree, there are a lot of proper al- words.  Nonetheless, during my
> literacy the expression has been "all right" and "alright" appeared at
> about the same time as thumb-spelling, indicating either laziness or
> ignorance.
>
> Bite me.

Language evolves. Learn to deal with it. "Already" came straight from
"all ready", and the meaning is not subtly different.

Similarly "alright" doesn't mean precisely what "all right" means.

>
>> :-)
>>
>>>
>>>> Jim, where John had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a
>>>> better effect on the teacher.
>>>
>>> OK.  Punctuation, at least periods, should have been included.
>>
>> No. That was the POINT: to find how to punctuate it.
>
> OK, I concede.  I failed miserably.  It happens now and again.

I'm sure it does.

Jolly Roger wrote on 8 May 2024 16:22:42 GMT :

> In reality, this isn't something most people
> who use Face ID worry about happening.

These marketing gimmicks make iPhone uses only *feel* safe, because the
truth is the iPhone is by far the most exploited smartphone on the planet.

https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog

On 2024-05-09 16:24, Andrew wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote on 8 May 2024 16:22:42 GMT :
>
>> In reality, this isn't something most people
>> who use Face ID worry about happening.
>
> These marketing gimmicks make iPhone uses only *feel* safe, because the
> truth is the iPhone is by far the most exploited smartphone on the planet.
>
> https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog

Are locks on your front door just "marketing gimmicks" because they can
be defeated, Arlen?

On 5/9/24 11:24 AM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-05-09 11:07, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 5/9/24 9:32 AM, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-09 09:13, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Alright, alright.
>>>>
>>>> This is not a word.  In the same category as 'irregardless'.
>>>> Ignorant and sloppy.
>>>
>>> Who appointed you grammarian to the internet?
>>
>> I did.  Weren't you paying attention?  Please try to keep up.
>>
>>> Is "already" a word? "Always"? Maybe "already" is almost a word?
>>
>> I agree, there are a lot of proper al- words.  Nonetheless, during my
>> literacy the expression has been "all right" and "alright" appeared at
>> about the same time as thumb-spelling, indicating either laziness or
>> ignorance.
>>
>> Bite me.
>
> Language evolves. Learn to deal with it. "Already" came straight from
> "all ready", and the meaning is not subtly different.
>
> Similarly "alright" doesn't mean precisely what "all right" means.

No, it means EXACTLY the same. There's a difference between evolution
and sloppiness/ignorance.

--
Cheers, Bev
It's not the speed that kills, it's the stopping.

On 2024-05-09 17:31, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 5/9/24 11:24 AM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-05-09 11:07, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 5/9/24 9:32 AM, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-09 09:13, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>> On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alright, alright.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not a word.  In the same category as 'irregardless'.
>>>>> Ignorant and sloppy.
>>>>
>>>> Who appointed you grammarian to the internet?
>>>
>>> I did.  Weren't you paying attention?  Please try to keep up.
>>>
>>>> Is "already" a word? "Always"? Maybe "already" is almost a word?
>>>
>>> I agree, there are a lot of proper al- words.  Nonetheless, during my
>>> literacy the expression has been "all right" and "alright" appeared
>>> at about the same time as thumb-spelling, indicating either laziness
>>> or ignorance.
>>>
>>> Bite me.
>>
>> Language evolves. Learn to deal with it. "Already" came straight from
>> "all ready", and the meaning is not subtly different.
>>
>> Similarly "alright" doesn't mean precisely what "all right" means.
>
> No, it means EXACTLY the same.  There's a difference between evolution
> and sloppiness/ignorance.
>

No. It doesn't.

I say that something is "all ready", it means that it is "ready in every
respect".

"Already" clearly means:

'before or by now or the time in question'

Similarly, "all right" means "correct in ever respect", and while
"alright" is closer in meaning, it is clearly used to ask whether
something is just ACCEPTABLE as opposed to the former.

Furthermore:

'The merging of all and right to form the one-word spelling alright is
first recorded toward the end of the 19th century'

So you're a little behind the times, my love.

On 5/9/24 5:43 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-05-09 17:31, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 5/9/24 11:24 AM, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-09 11:07, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> On 5/9/24 9:32 AM, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-09 09:13, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alright, alright.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not a word.  In the same category as 'irregardless'.
>>>>>> Ignorant and sloppy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who appointed you grammarian to the internet?
>>>>
>>>> I did.  Weren't you paying attention?  Please try to keep up.
>>>>
>>>>> Is "already" a word? "Always"? Maybe "already" is almost a word?
>>>>
>>>> I agree, there are a lot of proper al- words.  Nonetheless, during my
>>>> literacy the expression has been "all right" and "alright" appeared
>>>> at about the same time as thumb-spelling, indicating either laziness
>>>> or ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> Bite me.
>>>
>>> Language evolves. Learn to deal with it. "Already" came straight from
>>> "all ready", and the meaning is not subtly different.
>>>
>>> Similarly "alright" doesn't mean precisely what "all right" means.
>>
>> No, it means EXACTLY the same.  There's a difference between evolution
>> and sloppiness/ignorance.
>>
>
> No. It doesn't.
>
> I say that something is "all ready", it means that it is "ready in every
> respect".
>
> "Already" clearly means:
>
> 'before or by now or the time in question'
>
> Similarly, "all right" means "correct in ever respect", and while
> "alright" is closer in meaning, it is clearly used to ask whether
> something is just ACCEPTABLE as opposed to the former.

"All right" SHOULD mean everything ship-shape and Bristol fashion, but
it doesn't. It's just assent. Similar to okay (OK), but different.

> Furthermore:
>
> 'The merging of all and right to form the one-word spelling alright is
> first recorded toward the end of the 19th century'
>
> So you're a little behind the times, my love.

But it fell out of use until the ignorant and slovenly picked it up
again. Remember The Wire? The Baltimore thugs slopped it up even more
by dropping all the consonants. Even Idris Elba, "Stringer" Bell. I am
unable to spell the result, but since everybody watched The Wire there's
no need.

--
Cheers, Bev
Rule 18: Always tip your hat before striking a lady.