Rush Limbaugh posted his huge, wide, big mouth advertisements all over Sacramento's highway. Back then, before he moved to New York, not many people outside of central California recognized him. Back then, not as many recognized the radio lip service behind those 30' wide billboards. Maybe this blog title is not as inappropriate as Limbaugh's comments about feminazis, Ugly Bettys, or their XXX-parody titles, yet consider how many now recognize that face to that voice. How many computers recognize your face and your voice as some security measure? Unfashionably, his air wave disturbances made that measure more comprehensible.
How do we know that somebody didn't make some virtual representation of Limbaugh's studio with an avatar that matches his exact image? Add in software that moves that avatar's mouth to the synthesis of his voice, and now wonder if that is really him! Limbaugh said some people want their religious right over contraceptives, so surely there is some religious right over virtual replicas, or is both subjects inappropriate for further comment? Is this issue comprehensible, still?
It is comprehensible to me with that much said maybe because I value the word “sacrament,” especially since I hear the name Sacramento almost every day. I know not everybody knows the meaning of Sacramento like us natives here in central California. Let's say, it disturbers me when people stretch the meaning of the sacrament more than 30' wide over security of their body. I think it also disturbed people like Limbaugh, and he certainly brought national attention to the issue. What movies people make in the bedroom is one thing, yet how they change, daily, the meaning of their sacrament from one substance to another substance, as their religious right, is not comprehensible. Do we go around and say we belong to the Church of Bread in the morning, the Church of Weight-Witnesses by lunch, the Church of Virtual Studios in the evening, and the Church of XXX overnight? I think there is something in the bible against that, like something comprehensible over of service to one god, despite if there is more than one that exists. The point being that even Sacramento doesn't change the meaning of it's name ever hour, and maybe that solved one major security issue over religion.
Do note that the capitol in Sacramento is one of replicas of the capitol in the District of Columbia, and that Utah has the other replica of the capitol. Salt Lake City means something to the LDS church. At one point, 75% of the FBI consisted of Mormon agents. Do you think that relates anything about security issues? Let's not digress on that note.
In Second Life, people made child-like avatars, and people actually have virtual families where they live together in their virtual home. Virtual reality? Compare virtual rights for virtual contraceptives for virtual sex because because that surely leads to virtual child-support issues, yet that gets into virtual DNA tests, which isn't quite face value? Maybe there is more security under the skin. The genetic algorithms of one virtual avatar mixed with the genetic algorithms of another virtual avatar surely leads to some limited range of newer genetic algorithms.
Maybe we can test the real DNA of two people and know beforehand, err before sex, the possible range of facial complexions. Maybe some want religious rights with contraceptives that further limit that range. Does the Church of the Beautifully Recognized exist? How about the Church of the Unique and Non-Replicable? Maybe there is something there that would make sure Limbaugh does not have some virtual studio that fool's people.
Maybe there is some sense above if we consider the virtual office of the POTUS avatar. How real do you think all those televised news reports have been? How do you know for sure that you don't serve some play'toon? With my knowledge of computer science, I never once considered such air waves as secure as others understood them at face value, so us programmers always needed some more over such security issues. We now know how some ambiguate the meaning of the sacrament, so how do you define “paranoia”? I know I appreciate all my senses. Why should us programmers be thought of as insane over such security issues when we are the ones that have thought about them, dealt with them, and found something safe and sane for others! I know POTUS appreciates our bizarre prose.
I appreciate that their are real girls on the Gadget Girls show, which is an all girl talented coverage on technology. The Gadget Girls tried terminology from their perspective, yet I wondered if Limbaugh considered them feminazis when they mentioned such security. Whatever! The real intent in facial recognition is to do away with those hated password prompts, which some other channel's news reporter also briefed only that much. Compare how many people can steal your password to how many can steal your facial image. Would you be comfortable with webcam-gadgets through-out your home for security? The idea is the password-cracker does not look like you, so the system makes such attempts harder for those “not recognized.”
Does everybody recognize the face value of the dollar? I think as long as anybody can counterfeit those faces that the dollar is only worth “debt”, as noted, instead of credit. Ill-paranoia stems from that in those that do not comprehend that much in security. Where technology fails over security in such recognition, we have relied on the “gift” economy. Every blind person knows how the dollar feels.
Everybody comprehends how their contraceptive pill (looks and) feels? “Sure” they do... (*ahem*).