That's a good point. Especially the " they failed to implement protocols for bringing other systems into the environment.", as there are many reasons why they may not have been able to patch the system.
Yes, but... The questions are "How many of the model were sold?" and "How long since it's been under active development?" and "What's involved (cost) in keeping an idle system around?" and "How many experts in this particular model does the manufacturer currently employ?".
I suspect that combining the answers to those questions would yield "The manufacturer will not support ANY changes in the supplied configuration.".
This is a custom machine configuration. There are lots of custom configured Linux machines that can't be updated. Your desktop is not a valid comparison.
OTOH, if they can't do something like run it in a VM, then the problem isn't the OS, it's the licensing agreement. Or possibly the design. That said, time sensitive things often can't be run well under virtualization. And are often sensitive to even minor system upgrades. So it could well be a combination of time sensitivity and a CYA licensing agreement.
The question here is "Who is 'they'?". It's quite likely the configuration is specified by the vendor of the $$EXPENSIVE$$ niche machinery. And they aren't going to change their specs, because, since that machinery is expensive, they don't have any old models to test on. And possibly not anyone currently expert in that particular model. (They're concentrating on the next generation model. "Want to order one? You have have it for beta testing on your production line in only a couple of months.")
That may be correct, but it's also true that medical diagnosis has gotten a lot more refined, and things that once weren't noticed now are.
OTOH, this would explain the people I've encountered who have said that they can't eat bread in the US, but when they visit France they have no problem..
Are there? Would they be the farmers, or the hired laborers? Would the hired laborers be able to either trace the blame or hire a lawyer or document what has happened?
Your basic point is correct, that if this is true one wold expect there to be a lot of victims. I'm just not convinced that they'd know why they got sick or be able to prove it, or even afford to do anything about it even if both of the preceding conditions were met.
FWIW, I'm not convinced that he is correctly attributing the cause of his cancer, but if he is correct I wouldn't expect many others to have done so.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source on *anything*, much less on anything controversial, or where someone has a monetary interest.
Wikipedia is useful, but it's sure not reliable. Documents by experts in a field are routinely rejected, and documents substantiated by some web page somewhere accepted.
Sorry, but I've got to disagree a bit. The evidence against dietary cholesterol was always extremely weak. It got picked up the way fad diets are always picked up, but there was enough surface plausibility that it became official, even overcoming the Dairy lobby.
Fluoridation of drinking water at the levels done to increase dental health has the problem of making the teeth slightly more brittle. This is clearly harmful, even though the main effect, reducing carries, is beneficial. And it's been shown to discolor the teeth in many places that have naturally high levels of fluoride in the water. I'm not sure that it makes the other bones more brittle, but that's certainly a plausible inference.
If the scientists were being paid by a disinterested party, then you'd have a valid point. Unfortunately there's a very large amount of "science" that is twisted into confirming whatever the party that's paying for it wants to prove. And any findings that dispute that somehow never get published.
Now once upon a time University Science Departments were reliable. They were dirt poor, but they were reliable. (They usually depended on donations by the alumni.) But after various alterations in funding, patent law, etc. this is no longer true. So where are you going to find these "scientists paid by a disinterested party"? (Usually these published results aren't actually fraudulent, it's just that only the results that confirm what the funders want get published.)
Direct fraud is a separate matter, and has been a problem in science from the beginning. That's one reason why replication has always been considered essential.
I don't believe you can actually do that. You could do that for a few voices and accents, but to handle a large population I think you need net access.
That said, I'll admit I'm not an expert in this area...but why should I believe you are?
In my experience, the "feeling of entitlement" is much more true of managers than of those they manage, and this differential is maintained at every level of the hierarchy.
The old way of describing this is "the servant problem".
No. I suspect Apple are telling the truth, and that Facebook has tracked people who have interacted with them, and sold the information (or possibly just used it). This wouldn't require that Facebook record their conversations, just where they were when interacting and the same for the person they were interacting with. They've demonstrated the capability in the past. And Apple would, in that case, be a... I can't really say non-participating party, as their phone is hosting the Facebook app, but the participation on Apple's part would be innocent.
That said, I wouldn't be really surprised to find that they lied, even though that's not what I expect.
It probably hinges on the definition they are using for "record", as you're clearly right that you can't parse "OK Google" without recording to RAM. And given what I've heard about "state of the art" it probably even requires sending the stuff over the net to be analyzed elsewhere. Possibly what the actually mean is "there's no permanent record"...for some definition of permanent. How reasonable that definition is would be a good question. So would "What steps are taken to prevent it from being intercepted?".
While you are correct, there's a sound evolutionary reason for doing so... to successfully avoid predators.
FWIW, I think the above comment someone made about Facebook may provide sufficient answer without needing to invoke Apple lying. And I have no strong belief that Apple wasn't lying.
You may be a bit too skeptical. Unlike Google, Apple does not derive funding directly from advertisers. (Indirectly, yes, but that *is* different.)
So there is much less motivation for Apple to wantonly infringe your privacy than there is for Google.
OTOH, Apple is much more likely to want to block you from exporting your data. They've often imposed roadblocks in the past (though admittedly the times I'm thinking of date back to the original Macintosh).
OTOH, I haven't studied their phones eco-system, so I don't know whether they have the same motivations.
I don't know whether the process is AI or not. Do you need to train it? If so, it's probably AI. This doesn't mean it isn't a rather specialized AI, of course. But the higher the bar gets, the more general the AI is going to need to be. Adding in proper eye blinking requires a significantly more powerful AI than just matching head positions....of course, you could, in principle, do the entire thing with image processing matches, but the required dataset would expand at least greater than linearly, and probably exponentially. Then there's matching skin textures under various light conditions. Then...
A lot of things are "security through obscurity". Every combination lock or password is an example of that. It's not always bad.
I think, however, that it would be better to have each piece of code have an individual hash value, one that's different for every instance. And when installing the code, have it register itself with the system giving it's valid hash code. Then you could always check whether it had been corrupted. This requires a customizable way of computing the hash such that, perhaps, the date last copied was included in the hash code. Or perhaps the system that installed it could have a custom id that was blended into the hash code at time of installation. That would be simpler to implement, but arguably less secure.
Well, my feeling is that it would cause tremendous software bloat. That said, if the addition of the bugs is automatic, they could be added AFTER the secure development step. And it would mean that those trying to decipher what actual bugs are there would find many of their tools nearly useless.
So...maybe. It sounds like a long shot, and not terribly good even if it works properly, but it might work. And the code bloat would explode.
You are being silly. How many times does a spreadsheet program need to be written? There are about five common ones used by nearly everyone, and there's little reason to write another. Much of most businesses fits nicely into programs that have already been written. Many businesses don't have any need for ANY custom programs. That's not the way it used to be, and certainly *some* businesses still need custom programs, but most places only need people to use word processors, spreadsheets, and a couple of accounting and tax programs. But systems administration is still relatively primitive. Everyone who tries to do it on a shoestring ends up with their data for sale all over the web.
OTOH, there's a lot more computers in use in a lot more places, so I estimate that there's still a real market for about as many programmers as there were in 1970. It's a guess. I don't think anyone knows. My wife's business didn't need ANY programmers. For her business I ended up being a graphics guy and a music entry tech. (Yuck, but that was what she needed, so that's what I did.) She didn't even use a tax program, she kept her books on paper and carried them off the the tax professional once a year. She *REALLY* didn't need a programmer. And there are a lot more businesses her size than there are corporations. But she did need computer work. She would rough out a graphic and I'd scan it in, move it over to Inkscape, trace the lines, make sure the symmetries were correct, ensure that the lines had the correct thickness, etc. It's computer work, but it sure isn't programming. I did do a tiny bit of javascript animation, something called Jake's train, which would go back and forth across the screen and toot the whistle when you clicked the button. Programming? Hardly. But she didn't need anything more, and she didn't want anything more.
Well, I exaggerate a bit. A decade or so ago she had me cobble up a few special purpose games for teaching note reading. That was back when the Mac was pushing Hypercard, so probably sometime in the 1990's. That was programming of a sort, but don't think of game the way a console game acts. That wasn't the point, and anyway Hypercard was too resource intensive for the processors of that day to do anything fancy. But it *had* to be Hypercard, or some language quite like it, because of the interactions required and the time frame. If I've got my time frame correct, my favorite language at that time was Object Pascal, but I'd have never tried something like this in that. Eventually she decided that computer games weren't effective enough at teaching tools. (We probably only did that for a year or two at the most.) Physical games worked better, and could be altered more easily. Then the computer was just used for things like designing and printing out the rules, pieces, etc. And there's exactly ZERO requirement for a programmer in that.
Most jobs that require a computer interaction can be done quite well using existing packaged programs. There are some that require custom programs, but they are a small fraction of the interactions. Even I, a programmer, do most of my interactions with a computer using packaged programs. That's what an editor is, a compiler, a linker, a software library. When I started off software libraries were essentially missing, unless you needed trigonometric functions or something. Now... you probably don't have any idea how many packaged programs you are using. When I started off there wasn't an operating system. You pushed a button to load your bootstrap code into the computer. Needing the same number of programmers now as then doesn't mean they're doing the same jobs, or that they're as productive, for that matter. Most of the low hanging fruit has already been picked.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good point. Especially the " they failed to implement protocols for bringing other systems into the environment.", as there are many reasons why they may not have been able to patch the system.
Yes, but...
The questions are "How many of the model were sold?" and "How long since it's been under active development?" and "What's involved (cost) in keeping an idle system around?" and "How many experts in this particular model does the manufacturer currently employ?".
I suspect that combining the answers to those questions would yield "The manufacturer will not support ANY changes in the supplied configuration.".
This is a custom machine configuration. There are lots of custom configured Linux machines that can't be updated. Your desktop is not a valid comparison.
OTOH, if they can't do something like run it in a VM, then the problem isn't the OS, it's the licensing agreement. Or possibly the design. That said, time sensitive things often can't be run well under virtualization. And are often sensitive to even minor system upgrades. So it could well be a combination of time sensitivity and a CYA licensing agreement.
The question here is "Who is 'they'?". It's quite likely the configuration is specified by the vendor of the $$EXPENSIVE$$ niche machinery. And they aren't going to change their specs, because, since that machinery is expensive, they don't have any old models to test on. And possibly not anyone currently expert in that particular model. (They're concentrating on the next generation model. "Want to order one? You have have it for beta testing on your production line in only a couple of months.")
Generally correct. He should probably have been blaming the reporter or the editor. Of course, I don't know in the particular case.
Often this misuse of the language is due to an editor insisting that the story be shortened, or at least that was once the case.
That may be correct, but it's also true that medical diagnosis has gotten a lot more refined, and things that once weren't noticed now are.
OTOH, this would explain the people I've encountered who have said that they can't eat bread in the US, but when they visit France they have no problem..
Are there? Would they be the farmers, or the hired laborers? Would the hired laborers be able to either trace the blame or hire a lawyer or document what has happened?
Your basic point is correct, that if this is true one wold expect there to be a lot of victims. I'm just not convinced that they'd know why they got sick or be able to prove it, or even afford to do anything about it even if both of the preceding conditions were met.
FWIW, I'm not convinced that he is correctly attributing the cause of his cancer, but if he is correct I wouldn't expect many others to have done so.
Well, California does have it's problems, and Monsanto(Bayer) is indefensible.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source on *anything*, much less on anything controversial, or where someone has a monetary interest.
Wikipedia is useful, but it's sure not reliable. Documents by experts in a field are routinely rejected, and documents substantiated by some web page somewhere accepted.
Sorry, but I've got to disagree a bit.
The evidence against dietary cholesterol was always extremely weak. It got picked up the way fad diets are always picked up, but there was enough surface plausibility that it became official, even overcoming the Dairy lobby.
Fluoridation of drinking water at the levels done to increase dental health has the problem of making the teeth slightly more brittle. This is clearly harmful, even though the main effect, reducing carries, is beneficial. And it's been shown to discolor the teeth in many places that have naturally high levels of fluoride in the water. I'm not sure that it makes the other bones more brittle, but that's certainly a plausible inference.
If the scientists were being paid by a disinterested party, then you'd have a valid point. Unfortunately there's a very large amount of "science" that is twisted into confirming whatever the party that's paying for it wants to prove. And any findings that dispute that somehow never get published.
Now once upon a time University Science Departments were reliable. They were dirt poor, but they were reliable. (They usually depended on donations by the alumni.) But after various alterations in funding, patent law, etc. this is no longer true. So where are you going to find these "scientists paid by a disinterested party"? (Usually these published results aren't actually fraudulent, it's just that only the results that confirm what the funders want get published.)
Direct fraud is a separate matter, and has been a problem in science from the beginning. That's one reason why replication has always been considered essential.
I don't believe you can actually do that. You could do that for a few voices and accents, but to handle a large population I think you need net access.
That said, I'll admit I'm not an expert in this area...but why should I believe you are?
In my experience, the "feeling of entitlement" is much more true of managers than of those they manage, and this differential is maintained at every level of the hierarchy.
The old way of describing this is "the servant problem".
No. I suspect Apple are telling the truth, and that Facebook has tracked people who have interacted with them, and sold the information (or possibly just used it). This wouldn't require that Facebook record their conversations, just where they were when interacting and the same for the person they were interacting with. They've demonstrated the capability in the past. And Apple would, in that case, be a ... I can't really say non-participating party, as their phone is hosting the Facebook app, but the participation on Apple's part would be innocent.
That said, I wouldn't be really surprised to find that they lied, even though that's not what I expect.
It probably hinges on the definition they are using for "record", as you're clearly right that you can't parse "OK Google" without recording to RAM. And given what I've heard about "state of the art" it probably even requires sending the stuff over the net to be analyzed elsewhere. Possibly what the actually mean is "there's no permanent record"...for some definition of permanent. How reasonable that definition is would be a good question. So would "What steps are taken to prevent it from being intercepted?".
While you are correct, there's a sound evolutionary reason for doing so ... to successfully avoid predators.
FWIW, I think the above comment someone made about Facebook may provide sufficient answer without needing to invoke Apple lying. And I have no strong belief that Apple wasn't lying.
You may be a bit too skeptical. Unlike Google, Apple does not derive funding directly from advertisers. (Indirectly, yes, but that *is* different.)
So there is much less motivation for Apple to wantonly infringe your privacy than there is for Google.
OTOH, Apple is much more likely to want to block you from exporting your data. They've often imposed roadblocks in the past (though admittedly the times I'm thinking of date back to the original Macintosh).
OTOH, I haven't studied their phones eco-system, so I don't know whether they have the same motivations.
Excellent points. Possibly enough to totally explain part of the result. Perhaps all of it.
I don't know whether the process is AI or not. Do you need to train it? If so, it's probably AI. This doesn't mean it isn't a rather specialized AI, of course. But the higher the bar gets, the more general the AI is going to need to be. Adding in proper eye blinking requires a significantly more powerful AI than just matching head positions....of course, you could, in principle, do the entire thing with image processing matches, but the required dataset would expand at least greater than linearly, and probably exponentially. Then there's matching skin textures under various light conditions. Then...
A lot of things are "security through obscurity". Every combination lock or password is an example of that. It's not always bad.
I think, however, that it would be better to have each piece of code have an individual hash value, one that's different for every instance. And when installing the code, have it register itself with the system giving it's valid hash code. Then you could always check whether it had been corrupted. This requires a customizable way of computing the hash such that, perhaps, the date last copied was included in the hash code. Or perhaps the system that installed it could have a custom id that was blended into the hash code at time of installation. That would be simpler to implement, but arguably less secure.
Well, my feeling is that it would cause tremendous software bloat. That said, if the addition of the bugs is automatic, they could be added AFTER the secure development step. And it would mean that those trying to decipher what actual bugs are there would find many of their tools nearly useless.
So...maybe. It sounds like a long shot, and not terribly good even if it works properly, but it might work. And the code bloat would explode.
How about "it's about both"?
It's a reasonable guess, but it's a guess.
Well, OK. *That's* a problem I've never encountered. But I can sure see cases where it might.
You are being silly. How many times does a spreadsheet program need to be written? There are about five common ones used by nearly everyone, and there's little reason to write another. Much of most businesses fits nicely into programs that have already been written. Many businesses don't have any need for ANY custom programs. That's not the way it used to be, and certainly *some* businesses still need custom programs, but most places only need people to use word processors, spreadsheets, and a couple of accounting and tax programs. But systems administration is still relatively primitive. Everyone who tries to do it on a shoestring ends up with their data for sale all over the web.
OTOH, there's a lot more computers in use in a lot more places, so I estimate that there's still a real market for about as many programmers as there were in 1970. It's a guess. I don't think anyone knows. My wife's business didn't need ANY programmers. For her business I ended up being a graphics guy and a music entry tech. (Yuck, but that was what she needed, so that's what I did.) She didn't even use a tax program, she kept her books on paper and carried them off the the tax professional once a year. She *REALLY* didn't need a programmer. And there are a lot more businesses her size than there are corporations. But she did need computer work. She would rough out a graphic and I'd scan it in, move it over to Inkscape, trace the lines, make sure the symmetries were correct, ensure that the lines had the correct thickness, etc. It's computer work, but it sure isn't programming. I did do a tiny bit of javascript animation, something called Jake's train, which would go back and forth across the screen and toot the whistle when you clicked the button. Programming? Hardly. But she didn't need anything more, and she didn't want anything more.
Well, I exaggerate a bit. A decade or so ago she had me cobble up a few special purpose games for teaching note reading. That was back when the Mac was pushing Hypercard, so probably sometime in the 1990's. That was programming of a sort, but don't think of game the way a console game acts. That wasn't the point, and anyway Hypercard was too resource intensive for the processors of that day to do anything fancy. But it *had* to be Hypercard, or some language quite like it, because of the interactions required and the time frame. If I've got my time frame correct, my favorite language at that time was Object Pascal, but I'd have never tried something like this in that. Eventually she decided that computer games weren't effective enough at teaching tools. (We probably only did that for a year or two at the most.) Physical games worked better, and could be altered more easily. Then the computer was just used for things like designing and printing out the rules, pieces, etc. And there's exactly ZERO requirement for a programmer in that.
Most jobs that require a computer interaction can be done quite well using existing packaged programs. There are some that require custom programs, but they are a small fraction of the interactions. Even I, a programmer, do most of my interactions with a computer using packaged programs. That's what an editor is, a compiler, a linker, a software library. When I started off software libraries were essentially missing, unless you needed trigonometric functions or something. Now... you probably don't have any idea how many packaged programs you are using. When I started off there wasn't an operating system. You pushed a button to load your bootstrap code into the computer. Needing the same number of programmers now as then doesn't mean they're doing the same jobs, or that they're as productive, for that matter. Most of the low hanging fruit has already been picked.