🚀 go-pugleaf

Fun note but why do a password challenge when a retinal scan would
have been more secure? (please, no disgusting remarks about how to fool
a retinal scanner.)

	-Barry Shein, ||Encore||

Hm.......very interesting. Maybe a science fiction movie of this writing
will be more interesting 8-)

-hindra irawan-

In article <4498@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>Fun note but why do a password challenge when a retinal scan would
>have been more secure? (please, no disgusting remarks about how to fool
>a retinal scanner.)
>
Two reasons actually... first, I wasn't too sure about retinal
scans... the only place I have seen any refs. to them has been in SF
(haven't looked much though), so I didn't (and still don't) know how
practical they are for security.  

The second was that the engineer was actually doing an rlogin from his
workstation to a local mini.  Since the hardware to do the scanning
would necessarily have to be attached to the workstation, it would be
trivial to subvert (ie have it record the retinal image from the
authorized user and play it back to the verification program.  Login
simulators anyone?).  Thus, while it could be safely used in the
example I gave, it probably wouldn't be used for user verification
over a network from an untrusted host (ie a workstation).

It does bring up a point... user verification over a network from
untrusted hosts.  But that is a thread that is better suited for
comp.security.  

+C
-- 
Cory ( "...Love is like Oxygen..." ) Kempf
UUCP: encore.com!gloom!cory
	"...it's a mistake in the making."	-KT

te, you can use this hardwrae to simulate a 2-D display as big as you
want: wherever you look, there is more display.  So, you can still run X,
or vi.  Fun on a double newspaper page size display.

In article <30100@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, irawan@apple.cis.ohio-state.edu (hindra irawan) writes:
> Hm.......very interesting. Maybe a science fiction movie of this writing
> will be more interesting 8-)

Remember. 60 years ago nuclear weapons were science fiction.

> -hindra irawan-

mark
homxb!mr

If you have teleportation, what do you need a space shuttle for?  If
you can't teleport all the way to orbit, isn't a spaceplane more likely
than a shuttle for orbital transport?
-- 
Tim Maroney, Consultant, Eclectic Software, sun!hoptoad!tim
"Religion flourishes in greater purity without than with the aid
 of government." -- James Madison

In article <263@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes:
>The following is a conceptualization of how I imagine that the next generation
>(not the NeXT, but the REAL next generation) of user-interfaces will work...

[ long scenario of how a really nice user interface might work ]

What, no voice input?  Seriously, most people can talk a lot faster
than they can type.  I'd substitute a microphone for the (pseudo)
keyboard.  Good speech recognition hardware can't be more than 5 or 10
years away, can it?
-Peter Schachte
pds@quintus.uucp
..!sun!quintus!pds

In article <908@quintus.UUCP> pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte) writes:
>In article <263@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes:
>[ long scenario of how a really nice user interface might work ]
>
>What, no voice input?  Seriously, most people can talk a lot faster
>than they can type.  I'd substitute a microphone for the (pseudo)
>keyboard.  Good speech recognition hardware can't be more than 5 or 10
>years away, can it?

Hmm.... I don't know about you, but more often than not, I'd rather
have a note pad and a pencil than anything else. It's usually pretty
difficult to get simple arithmetic done quickly on a computer keyboard,
particularly without a desk calculator type program always accessible.
You might be able to formulate an equation well enough to enunciate it
clearly, but more likely it's going to present lots of ambiguities that
a speech recognition system won't know how to handle. And, it's always
nice to be able to see things written out. (It's also kinda fun to
doodle when you're stuck somewhere, or just plain bored...)

Even when working with primarily plain text, I often find it preferable
to lay out the groundwork with paper and pencil, before committing it to
the rigidity of keyboarded text. Who knows... Maybe it's because I like
to jot stuff near the center of a page, and my text editors always force
me to start typing at line 1 column 1... I dunno. I think moving a pencil
across paper is faster than hitting an auto-repeating cursor key, or
dragging a silly mouse across a surface and clicking a button...

How about a nice, large, touch-sensitive pad hooked up to a handwriting
recognition system? Seems the perfect thing for a quick and easy input
device. (Easy to use, not easy to implement...) Although, on second
thought, a speech based system would also be very nice for boilerplate
stuff, like what is normally done by command line processors today.
("Open the pod bay doors, HAL. Copy .login to /usr/lib, HAL.") Gee,
maybe it wouldn't work so well after all. ("Egrep ay-zee-star-left-bracket-
paren-right-bracket star-dot-see, HAL.")
--
  /
 /_ , ,_.                      Howard Chu
/ /(_/(__                University of Michigan
    /           Computing Center          College of LS&A
   '              Unix Project          Information Systems

In article <6122@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
>If you have teleportation, what do you need a space shuttle for?

You entirely missed the point of the article... the Engineer *Never
left his office*.  He was utilizing a network (in this case a Wide
Area Network to participate in a meeeting of the people involved in a
project for designing a new piece of hardware (shuttle).  The people
involved were not necessarily in the same building or country or
continent or even on the same planet!
>								  If
>you can't teleport all the way to orbit, isn't a spaceplane more likely
>than a shuttle for orbital transport?

You missed the part about 'rails' I suppose?

+C
-- 
Cory ( "...Love is like Oxygen..." ) Kempf
UUCP: encore.com!gloom!cory
	"...it's a mistake in the making."	-KT

In article <268@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes:
>[...]
>It does bring up a point... user verification over a network from
>untrusted hosts.  But that is a thread that is better suited for
>comp.security.  

Everytime I get concerned about user verification over an insecure network
from untrusted clients I go back and reread kerberos/doc/dialogue, then I feel
better. I think this one is a solved problem, at least in principle; applying
it is something that folks will or won't get around to, depending on their
perception of their needs.

-Bennett

>Good speech recognition hardware can't be more than 5 or 10
>years away, can it?
>-Peter Schachte

As far as I can tell it's only been 5 or 10 years away for the past
decade or so, I'd imagine that figure is still correct.

	-Barry Shein, ||Encore||

>Remember. 60 years ago nuclear weapons were science fiction.
>mark

So were anti-gravity machines.

	-B

In article <4524@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes:
>>Good speech recognition hardware can't be more than 5 or 10
>>years away, can it?
>As far as I can tell it's only been 5 or 10 years away for the past
>decade or so, I'd imagine that figure is still correct.

It depends on what you mean by good speech recognition.  It can be argued that
speech recognition is here now.  It also can be argued that we have a long way
to go.

There are a lot of systems in the field that are used for inventory tracking 
(speaker dependent).  Dragon Systems is selling a system on PCs for doctors 
that lets them dictate medical reports (speaker dependent isolated words.)
Also, IBM is beta testing a system for speaker independent isolated words for
medical offices and insurance companies.  Finally Kai Fu Lee and the gang
at CMU (and also now SRI and Lincoln Labs) have demonstrated a system
that does speaker independent, continuous word recognition with a 90% correct
word rate.

You can buy a system today that connects to a Mac and lets you execute 
arbitrary commands based on spoken text.  Thus you can say "save" and have
the Command S key sent to the application.

On the other hand....human like speech recognition has been postulated to
take on the order of a Tera Flop by the IBM people.  The current problems
remaining to be solved (other than processor power) are a bunch of front end 
issues (like noise, multiple speakers speaker adaptation) AND incorporating
natural language so that homonyms and missing works can be filled in.

Drop me a note if you want references to any of this work.

							Malcolm

In article <4525@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) 
comments on Mark's remembrance:

 > > Remember.  60 years ago nuclear weapons were science fiction.

 > So were anti-gravity machines.

Not to mention blimps, helicopters, hot air balloons, and birds.

--Barry Kort

In article <268@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes:
>In article <4498@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes:
>>
>>Fun note but why do a password challenge when a retinal scan would
>>have been more secure? (please, no disgusting remarks about how to fool
>>a retinal scanner.)
>>
>Two reasons actually... first, I wasn't too sure about retinal
>scans... the only place I have seen any refs. to them has been in SF
>(haven't looked much though), so I didn't (and still don't) know how
>practical they are for security.  

In a recent issue of either Time or Newsweek, there was an article on
disaster recovery, which also touched on what companies are doing about
*preventing* damage from disasters (what a novel concept).

According to the article, American Airlines has built a new
below-ground machine room for their Saabre mainframes.  Access is
through an airlock-type entrance controlled by both retina scan and a
weight sensor, which I thought was a nice touch: if the weight in the
room doesn't match what's in the records for that retinal image, you
not only don't get let in, the outer door closes and locks.

This should foil some of the "disgusting" ways to fool the scanner; it
also follows that every time an AA employee goes to the lavatory it is
now vitally important they get a receipt...  (apologies to Douglas
Adams)
-- 
Larry Wake                   		 lkw@csun.edu
CSUN Computer Center	       uucp:     {hplabs,rdlvax}!csun!lkw
Mail Drop CCAD               BITnet:     LKW@CALSTATE
Northridge, CA 91330

In article <530@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu> hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) writes:
>Hmm.... I don't know about you, but more often than not, I'd rather
>have a note pad and a pencil than anything else. It's usually pretty
>difficult to get simple arithmetic done quickly on a computer keyboard,
>particularly without a desk calculator type program always accessible.

How about using a light pen to draw out number on top of each other, and
then when you draw the magic line under the group, they automatically
get added together (unless you put a -, x, / next to them).  All the
advantages of paper and pen, except you don't have to do the actual
arithmetic.  If you're a stickler for detail, the computer can put in
the carry marks in your own handwriting.

-- 
Darin Johnson (leadsv!laic!darin@pyramid.pyramid.com)
	"You can't fight in here! This is the war room.."

In article <23040@apple.Apple.COM> malcolm@Apple.COM (Malcolm Slaney) writes:
>On the other hand....human like speech recognition has been postulated to
>take on the order of a Tera Flop by the IBM people.  The current problems
>remaining to be solved (other than processor power) are a bunch of front end 
>issues (like noise, multiple speakers speaker adaptation) AND incorporating
>natural language so that homonyms and missing works can be filled in.

This is if you use the standard Von-Neumann architecture, standard
algorithm's etc.  I saw a setup awhile back at UCSD that did speach
recognition using neural networks (P.D.P. for you purists).  Although I
never actually saw it run (only graphics output), it was supposed to be
able to 'decode' sentences in roughly 1/4 real time.  Presumably, this
was with ideal conditions, short sentences, etc.  With a hardware neural
net, real time speach recognition is quite possible with less than a
super-computer.  You wouldn't even have to devote an entire machine room
to it.

-- 
Darin Johnson (leadsv!laic!darin@pyramid.pyramid.com)
	"You can't fight in here! This is the war room.."

In article <4525@xenna.Encore.COM>, bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes:
> 
> >Remember. 60 years ago nuclear weapons were science fiction.
> >mark
> 
> So were anti-gravity machines.

What's the point ?

The statement above says that some of the things that used to
be science fiction are now real. (and some of the things that
are now science fiction will be real someday)

> 	-B

mark
homxb!mr

In article <43335@linus.UUCP>, bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) writes:
> In article <4525@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) 
> comments on Mark's remembrance:
> 
>  > > Remember.  60 years ago nuclear weapons were science fiction.
> Not to mention blimps, helicopters, hot air balloons, and birds.
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                            1               ^^^^^^
                                                               2       
1. The Montgolfier brothers may be a little surprised to hear about this.
2. I *think* you forgot the :-)  [:-), just in case.]

    --Hal

=========================================================================
  Hal Heydt                             |    "Hafnium plus Holmium is
  Analyst, Pacific*Bell                 |     one-point-five, I think."
  415-645-7708                          |       --Dr. Jane Robinson
  {att,bellcore,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!pbhya!whh   

> >Good speech recognition hardware can't be more than 5 or 10
> >years away, can it?
> >-Peter Schachte

In article <4524@xenna.Encore.COM>, bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes:

> As far as I can tell it's only been 5 or 10 years away for the past
> decade or so, I'd imagine that figure is still correct.

Well, in 1956, in an advertisement on the back cover of Scientific
American, speech recognition equipment was only 4 years away.
-- 
Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.jp@relay.cs.net)
  The above opinions are my own.   |  Why are programmers criticized for
  If they're also your opinions,   |  re-inventing the wheel, when car
  you're infringing my copyright.  |  manufacturers are praised for it?

In article <263@gloom.UUCP>, cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes:
> The following is a conceptualization of how I imagine that the next generation
> (not the NeXT, but the REAL next generation) of user-interfaces will work...
> 
> The Engineer enters his office in the morning and puts on his computer.
> Almost instantly, the plain off-white office is transformed.  Now there is
> a drawing table in front of him, a telephone, and all of the usual desk 
> accutraments.  He picks up his pen, and begins to add those last finishing 
> touches to the design for the Shuttle project.  Oops!  a mistake.  He turns
> the pen upside down and uses the eraser.  Perfect.  The phone rings... it's
> the boss... he wants a meeting in the small conference room.  (Good timing)

When I walk into my office (bay), reality comes up INSTANTLY. This is faster 
than ALMOST INSTANTLY, the speed of the interface of the future (IOTF). 
I pick up a pen, and I CAN WRITE WITH IT! The phone rings, and I CAN TALK ON IT!
All of this happens in REAL TIME! Incredible! Reality is faster than the
IOTF and it is a lot cheaper too. Why would I want the IOTF :-) ?

In article <2462@ssc-vax.UUCP> dickey@ssc-vax.UUCP (Frederick J Dickey) writes:

>All of this happens in REAL TIME! Incredible! Reality is faster than the
>IOTF and it is a lot cheaper too. Why would I want the IOTF :-) ?

Because where reality leaves off IOTF picks up.  The illusion of IOTF
is done primarily to make the human more comfortable using it.  It is less
constrained than reality in what it can do.
--
"...lies, damned lies, and heuristics."

In article <22760@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM
(Wilson "Hal" Heydt) writes:

>In article <43335@linus.UUCP>, bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) writes:
>> In article <4525@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) 
>> comments on Mark's remembrance:
>> 
>>  > > Remember.  60 years ago nuclear weapons were science fiction.
>> Not to mention blimps, helicopters, hot air balloons, and birds.
>                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                                            1               ^^^^^^
>                                                               2       
>1. The Montgolfier brothers may be a little surprised to hear about this.
>2. I *think* you forgot the :-)  [:-), just in case.]

1.  And *I* would be surprised if the Montgolfier brothers heard about
    our comments regarding their work!  

2.  Yes, I was being facetious.  Some people think neural nets are
    new technology.  As far as I can learn, adaptive neural nets
    have been around for 30 million years.  Today's puny neural
    nets are like those fast food hamburgers:  where's the beef?

--Barry Kort

Today's quote:	"I'll be with you in a minute.  I'm not quite done
		 inventing myself."

 >>>Good speech recognition hardware can't be more than 5 or 10
 >>>years away, can it?
 >>>-Peter Schachte
 
 >bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes:
 >> As far as I can tell it's only been 5 or 10 years away for the past
 >> decade or so, I'd imagine that figure is still correct.
 
 diamond@csl.sony.JUNET (Norman Diamond) writes:
 >Well, in 1956, in an advertisement on the back cover of Scientific
 >American, speech recognition equipment was only 4 years away.
 
 And 1989 - (1956 + 4) = *29* years.  Now we're down to only 5 or 10.
 Say, that's progress!
 
	;-D on  ( My fish does speech recognition )  Pardo
-- 
		    pardo@cs.washington.edu
    {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo

In article <10098@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET> diamond@csl.sony.JUNET (Norman
Diamond) writes:
>In article <4524@xenna.Encore.COM>, bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes:
>>>Good speech recognition hardware can't be more than 5 or 10
>>>years away, can it?
>>>-Peter Schachte
>>
>> As far as I can tell it's only been 5 or 10 years away for the past
>> decade or so, I'd imagine that figure is still correct.
>
>Well, in 1956, in an advertisement on the back cover of Scientific
>American, speech recognition equipment was only 4 years away.

Oh, no!  It's getting farther away!  Run faster!


============================================================================
David Wald                                              wald-david@yale.UUCP
waldave@yalevm.bitnet                                 wald-david@cs.yale.edu
"A monk, a clone and a ferengi decide to go bowling together..."
============================================================================

In article <4498@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes:
>Fun note but why do a password challenge when a retinal scan would
>have been more secure? (please, no disgusting remarks about how to fool
>a retinal scanner.)
>
>	-Barry Shein, ||Encore||

How about using some kind of DNA finger printing? - take a small sample
of blood (ouch!) and check on this. This would be almost impossible to fool.

/*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
JANET:  maujt@uk.ac.warwick.cu     BITNET:  maujt%uk.ac.warwick.cu@UKACRL
ARPA:   maujt@cu.warwick.ac.uk	   UUCP:    maujt%cu.warwick.ac.uk@ukc.uucp
Richard Cox, 84 St. Georges Rd, Coventry, CV1 2DL; UK PHONE: (0203) 520995

In article <10098@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET>, diamond@csl (Norman Diamond) writes:
| > >Good speech recognition hardware can't be more than 5 or 10
| > >years away, can it?
| > >-Peter Schachte
| 
| In article <4524@xenna.Encore.COM>, bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes:
| 
| > As far as I can tell it's only been 5 or 10 years away for the past
| > decade or so, I'd imagine that figure is still correct.
| 
| Well, in 1956, in an advertisement on the back cover of Scientific
| American, speech recognition equipment was only 4 years away.

Maybe it is getting farther away? :-)

(How many dipthongs in NeXT?)
-- 
Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095
on contract to BiiN (for now :-), Hillsboro, Oregon, USA.
<merlyn@intelob.intel.com> or ...!tektronix!inteloa[!intelob]!merlyn
HEADER ADDRESS MAY BE UNREPLYABLE if it says merlyn@intelob.biin.com ...
Standard disclaimer: I *am* my employer!

In article <69@poppy.warwick.ac.uk> maujt@warwick.ac.uk (Richard J Cox) writes:
>In article <4498@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes:
>>Fun note but why do a password challenge when a retinal scan would
>>have been more secure? (please, no disgusting remarks about how to fool
>>a retinal scanner.)
>
>How about using some kind of DNA finger printing? - take a small sample
>of blood (ouch!) and check on this. This would be almost impossible to fool.

Be serious. Besides the invasiveness of the procedure, it's just too slow and
labor intensive using present technology.

Donn S. Fishbein, MD

In article <69@poppy.warwick.ac.uk> maujt@warwick.ac.uk (Richard J Cox) writes:
>How about using some kind of DNA finger printing? - take a small sample
>of blood (ouch!) and check on this. This would be almost impossible to fool.

		Er, couldn't this be fooled by an identical twin?
Come to think of it, how much of the DNA would be scanned? DNA has an enormous
information "density". 

>/*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
>JANET:  maujt@uk.ac.warwick.cu     BITNET:  maujt%uk.ac.warwick.cu@UKACRL
>ARPA:   maujt@cu.warwick.ac.uk	   UUCP:    maujt%cu.warwick.ac.uk@ukc.uucp
>Richard Cox, 84 St. Georges Rd, Coventry, CV1 2DL; UK PHONE: (0203) 520995


-- 
			dbell@maths.tcd.ie
		If Basic is for backward children, and Pascal for naughty
schoolboys, then C is the language for consenting adults
				-	Brian Kernighan