The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
A human walks up to a place which requires previous approval to get in the building.
The human claims to be Samuel SpecificGuy
The human places his two hands on two pieces of glass
Two scanners take a look at them
Software compares these two scans with previous scans of his hands which are on file
The software indicates the level of confidence that this really is Samuel SpecificGuy
This can't be a brand new idea. I mean, really; checking hand size to help guess if the guy is an impostor ? I've seen the same at least once, without a human; just software granting access to places with pretty important security restrictions.
I'm NOT talking about fingerprints !!! Just hand size.
I asked google and bing for something about hand scanners and I got a bunch of hits about bar code readers.
Could somebody provide me with a vocabulary lesson as to what I should ask, e.g., phrases that google or bing might understand ?
I've designed and created something similar. Rather than putting the palm on glass panels I give authenticated users a device that is placed in the palm instead and the device grants the user the required access. I call it a "key".
With the first sentence you raised my hopes for the one scanner I always was waiting for. Imagine lowering your pants and sitting on the scanner until it has verified your identity, the whole time surrounded by security guards.
For some reason this always must be a lengthy and complicated procedure with bonus points for being embarrassing or involving being groped all over by strangers.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
Google "hand size" scanner. Note the quotes. Several links down, you find this. Not related to security, and probably more than what you're looking for, but might give some guidance on other phrases to try, like "hand measurement."
OK, here's my situation. I have a dir that has a bunch of subdirs & files at various levels of nesting on a pair of drives. My goal is to have both be the union of the original set of stuff so that they have exact same contents.
Using the Properties dialog for the 2 drives, both as directly selecting the top node dir folder icon, and as going into the dir and searching for *.*, then selecting the all the files I get for the # of files & dirs:
C: via *.* -> 3826 in 616
H: via *.* -> 3826 in 616
C: via top folder -> 3824 in 616
H: via top folder -> 3819 in 613
If I open the top dir and select all the items (which are all dirs), the value is the same as if I had selected the top folder.
Going into the CMD window and doing dir *.* /w /s (or whatever) gives the same size as per the *.* selection, although for whatever reason, it shows 3X the # of dirs.
So the good news it that everything seems to be copied (the total size is also the same) properly. However, I like to use the Properties dialog to do a quick check of the # of files, dir & size to make sure that a copy has been done properly. Here, the copy has been done properly, but it still does not show when accessing the Properties via the folder icon, and thus doing this check will involve a big PITA to get something that should be simple.
I have no idea how to fix this!
modified 4 days ago.
Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 18:00 Last Update: 22-Jul-17 20:13