It just boils down to "try all possible combinations" and see what the results are. You may be using a computer to tabulate your results, but it's not AI, at least not anymore than Excel spreadsheets with graphing of your data is AI..
Taste is a very subjective thing. What you like, I may not, what you think tastes unique may be totally blah for me.
Assuming you've worked out how to accurately get some electronic devices to "taste" something, how do you figure you are going to train some AI to come up with things that "taste" good to people?
AI is good at a lot of things, but fishing for subjective evaluations of things is not one of them. AI can evaluate and decide things for which there is an objective way to measure what's right, some times it can even make such decisions on less than what seems to be enough information. But how can you decide AI has created something good that is judged by subjective tests like how it tastes? Maybe your time would be better spend in the kitchen trying stuff? Oh that's right, AI let's you fire those folks with the promise that it can do everything they do, only cheaper.
If this goes too far and McCormick fires its test kitchen staff and army of tasters, it might be time to seriously consider shorting that stock.
It most surely *can* kill you.. True, it can usually be managed if you *know* what it is... However, not everybody who has it, knows what it is and is being properly treated for it.
And yes, I have experience with this. My Mother in law has Crohn's and she very nearly died from it. They mis-diagnosed the problem and her gut leaked for days until they opened her up to take a look. She lost the majority of her small intestines, all of her colon and spent nearly a year in the hospital, half in a coma in intensive care. She now must be given IV fluids every other day and can barely get enough nutrition to stay alive eating.
It was woefully managed by her doctors, but Crohn's all but killed her.
So I'm not as ready to dismiss this story as impossible. It most assuredly IS possible.
$137 million, and they didn't think to store the password somewhere it wouldn't be lost? They didn't think to ask the guy before he died? What a stupid company.
What kind of security is this?
TRUE security requires TWO factors (or more) so why in blazes didn't they store multiple copies of the key where multiple people have only part of the key? Then your backup to this "offline key" is having multiple partial copies of it in different hands, with the assurance that at least TWO or more people would be required to agree to provide their portion of the key to open the encrypted file.
Handing any one person the key for "safe keeping" is stupid. You should always have accountability and require agreement of more than one person for such things.
I had a problem with that statement. That's a pretty impossible statement to make. We don't even know what will happen in a generation, or two generations. To say "it will never end" is absurdist.
The Sun will end.... Life on earth WILL end, all of it. Our little solar system will end... The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us these things. I won't be here to see it, but I KNOW it will happen.... Everything ends.
However, I'm with you, I don't think the statements purposing the demise of human life will be true in the time frames they suggest for the reasons they suppose. There are too many unknowns and the principle that individual humans generally want to survive and will adapt to the conditions they find themselves in. Society may collapse, but individual humans will continue to exist and thrive...
Well... Aren't they? I trust them.... For what they claim to be...
They don't try to market themselves as reliable news when they are satire and tabloids, unlike many of the "long established" news outlets do. Everybody knows what they are and they don't claim to be something they are not.
NN only plays to their base who already strongly support the "don't negotiate with Trump at all" perspective so they don't need to distract them.
What this really is, is fundraising and positioning for campaigns in 2020. They just want folks "on record" with a show vote so they can bash them during the campaigns.
I'm afraid that the 2020 campaign cycle has come early for the democrats with everybody and their brother's girlfriend maneuvering to get into fund raising as soon as possible in hopes of getting the jump on the competition for the primaries.
Everybody knows that Net Neutrality is dead for at least two more years being unable to garner enough Senate votes to bring it to the floor (forget cloture) much less get a presidential signature, but that doesn't mean the issue is without value. So it comes out of the House perhaps, but it's for political effect and positioning for November 2020, nothing more.
And what then? You expect to be blackmailed or fired for filling a toilet?
LOL..
Personally, this is much ado about nothing.. The calls would be logged on your device and be limited to about 20 seconds max... However, if one thinks it's a huge risk, then I would ask if you think it's wise to carry a cell phone at all? IF this kind of recording represents a serious security problem for your personal or professional life, you might want to turn off the cell phone and keep it locked in a faraday cage when doing such sensitive things.
Really? You have seriously personal discussions within earshot of your phone, but where you'd not know somebody was trying to face time you? AND that 10-20 seconds of this illicit eavesdropping is enough to drastically compromise your business or personal life?
IF all that's true, then I'd strongly recommend you consider just not carrying a cell phone anyway... The risks are obviously too great. Best leave it turned off, or even locked in a faraday cage too if you think this is too risky for you.
As complex as these applications are and with as many hands involved in development of them, I find it encouraging that they have so few serious bugs..
Where I get that such things shouldn't make it into prime time, the reality is that any large complex development project with as many moving parts as this application has, it's *really* hard to always catch all these things. Hiring inexperienced engineers may be an issue, but even hiring developers with 30 years of development experience in untra-secure environments doesn't fix the problems either. Sometimes, stuff happens, folks make mistakes, nobody thinks of the unique set of events or development of new features isn't fully integrated into the application's design in security. Humans make mistakes.
I'm not giving Apple a pass, I'm just saying they are obviously reacting correctly and you can bet they will revisit their security testing processes to find and correct the process that lets this mistake into the production article.
It may sound unrealistic, but no, I actually do not have my phone on my person most of the time during the business day. I generally set it to forward voice calls to my office phone and power it off. I don't like the distractions it presents.
Also, the only time outside business hours when my phone could ring w/o me knowing it is when I'm asleep as it's on the night stand, on silent being charged. At all other times it's either set to ring, or if on silent it's in my pocket on vibrate.
So, for me, it's not a significant security risk to have somebody listening for the 10 seconds it takes for a face time call to be redirected to voice mail. They won't hear anything but my snoring w/o my knowledge. Where that might be funny to some, it's hardly a risk to me.
LOL...com is actually in use, even though my last name is exceedingly rare in the USA. The issue I see is that the SAME business has.com.biz and.org.
Personally, I think ICAN should make it so any legitimate claimant to a domain name can force an entity who has the same domain registered in multiple top level domains to give up one. So, in my case, the business would be required to give me their choice of.com,.biz or.org as I have a legitimate claim to the domain name.
I'd say a LOT of them are... There are a lot of reasons to buy and keep a domain, but not field a web server. Squatting is likely the majority of the problem for common or "sounds like" domain names, but like others have pointed out, "homesteading" (where the domain is parked for future use, or just doesn't have a webserver) is a huge fraction of this.
Well, the application already has permission to activate the camera and microphone, otherwise the "server" wouldn't have the ability to cause them to be activated.
So this isn't the fault of the phone or the server. Nor is it the fault of Apple's security model. It's the fault of the face time app. The face time app should never enable the microphone or camera until the user answers the call, regardless of what the server does.
Oh yea this security lapse is HUGE.. (not). It allows you to listen to the called phone without permission for the time it's ringing, waiting for somebody to pickup the face time call or for it to divert to voice mail, maybe 20 seconds? Big deal... This doesn't seem like a huge risk to my privacy to me. What are you going to do, call me in the middle of the night and recording my snoring? Any other time when my phone in on my person, I'm going to know when somebody tries a face time call.
Even so, Apple IS doing the right thing. Disable the feature with the exploit as soon as possible, get it fixed, tested, and released before re-enabling the feature.
Most prisoners when released commit more crimes, now we can detect them by their voice.
Well.. We already have their fingerprints and I expect their DNA.. So how's this different?
Personally, I think this is a good idea, but only if the data is only kept until the person in question has fulfilled their sentence, including any time on probation if they are released early. Once the "debt to society" has been paid, delete it.
It's just not big enough yet to get enough attention to make it worth a lawsuit. The only way to avoid the same fate as the last guys who did this is to not grow.
So, have at it guys... Just make sure you have a way to isolate yourself and your personal assets from the company's assets so when you go bankrupt they won't be able to leave you in the poor house.
On net, we are a fossil fuel exporter now, are we not? Yes, we still use the old supply lines, but this is quickly changing with domestic supplies being favored due to lower transportation costs. Certainly we are importing less, on net, than just a few short years ago, lowering the strategic importance of protecting the oil supply lines.
Apart from fracking making more oil and natural gas available for recovery, thus reducing the cost and increasing fossil fuel use, what environmental damage are you thinking it causes? (if any). Also, didn't everybody benefit from the unprecedented oil price drop, where gasoline prices fell from over $3/gal to under $2? Isn't that an economic benefit to all of us?
When we first started to build these things, the waste disposal costs where *supposed* to be pretty fixed. And in reality they would have been, until Jimmy Carter decided that fuel reprocessing was a no-no and we made it illegal.
You do realize that the particularly hard-to-manage waste at Hanford came from reprocessing fuel to make weapons?
Actually I do. However, I was responding to the original post's subject of the costs of nuclear power. Reprocessing was initially planned for this, likely because of the fact that nuclear weapons grade materials would result.
You understand that restarting reprocessing fuel has been discussed a number of times, both at Hanford AND Savannah River. And both of these sites store significant amounts of radioactive waste we need to dispose of.
This stuff was mined out the ground, and a lot of effort spent on processing it to get it to a 'useful' state for boom stuff and power generation.
It's a shame that the waste/depleted version can't be reprocessed several times to get the most out of it (irrespective of cost, as I suspect that in itself may come down one enough minds set on the problem, with enough incentive to get it fixed).
I mean, it's still radioactive, still emitting particles - isn't there a proper use for a lot of this stuff somewhere(space?, thermopiles?) that isn't destructive? or is it simply 'stick it in some glass and keep it cool' the only thing we have going?
Actually, the issue isn't the reprocessing or the mess it makes. The issue is that some of the byproducts are very much in demand for building nuclear weapons. A uranium bomb is pretty big based on the size of the critical mass, but a plutonium bomb literally fits in a large suitcase because it is a lot smaller critical mass and therefore smaller.
The problem is reprocessing spent nuclear fuel produces a quantity of plutonium that cannot be exactly determined in advance, so as you process more and more spent fuel you cannot be sure you are collecting all the plutonium and none is getting pulled off into illicit uses. Eventually, the accounting may lose enough to build a weapon though this uncertainty and it's a problem that you just don't know.
So, in the 70's it was decided that it was just safer to let the spent fuel pile up, than risk nuclear weapons development by parties who may not have the world's best interests at heart and would be willing to use their weapon for reasons we wouldn't find acceptable. I don't blame Carter for this too much, he did what he thought best, but it's made the problem into a long term one as we just keep kicking the can down the road...
Please show your calculation factoring in the cost of wars for oil.
This is not relevant now.
WE (the USA) now produce more natural gas than we use. We have enough proven resources which are economically recoverable to last us decades and support a brisk export business besides. We also produce nearly as much oil as we use. We are therefore not importing oil. You can thank fracking..
Besides, the world at large benefited from our cost stabilization efforts too, so would you recommend we just ignore oil prices and just let the middle east run amok?
THE most important problem with nuclear power ? COST.
More precisely, the problem is unknown waste disposal costs.
When we first started to build these things, the waste disposal costs where *supposed* to be pretty fixed. And in reality they would have been, until Jimmy Carter decided that fuel reprocessing was a no-no and we made it illegal. At that point, the physical amount of high level waste went literally though the roof. From that point on, the environmental concerns (many which where over blown) made it impossible to store, move or permanently dispose of high level waste as it started to pile up at nuclear plants waiting for a way to dispose of it. It's been three decades now.
It is this cost uncertainty that kills Nuclear power... Well, that and the extremely CHEAP fossil fuel known as Natural Gas brought about by hydraulic fracking which turned the industrial fuel supply chain, once largely based on coal, to burning natural gas instead. The old nuclear power plants, with their high maintenance costs due to their age and designs just cannot compete with gas. Although, I believe that modern nuclear power plants would be competitive and much safer, the uncertainty around waste disposal costs make investment in them too risky.
However, I believe that if we can stabilize the waste disposal costs, nuclear power may very well prove profitable again, even in the face of natural gas supplies and costs being nearly level for as far as the eye can see. I sure hope we get this all worked out.
So, you believe the moon landings where a hoax and Elvis is still alive, living as a dishwasher at Mel's diner in Backwater Mississippi... Let me guess, you know where Jimmy Hoffa is too. OK.. I get it. Facts don't matter all that much to you.. (sarc off)
Slashdot Mirror
How is this AI?
It just boils down to "try all possible combinations" and see what the results are. You may be using a computer to tabulate your results, but it's not AI, at least not anymore than Excel spreadsheets with graphing of your data is AI..
Taste is a very subjective thing. What you like, I may not, what you think tastes unique may be totally blah for me.
Assuming you've worked out how to accurately get some electronic devices to "taste" something, how do you figure you are going to train some AI to come up with things that "taste" good to people?
AI is good at a lot of things, but fishing for subjective evaluations of things is not one of them. AI can evaluate and decide things for which there is an objective way to measure what's right, some times it can even make such decisions on less than what seems to be enough information. But how can you decide AI has created something good that is judged by subjective tests like how it tastes? Maybe your time would be better spend in the kitchen trying stuff? Oh that's right, AI let's you fire those folks with the promise that it can do everything they do, only cheaper.
If this goes too far and McCormick fires its test kitchen staff and army of tasters, it might be time to seriously consider shorting that stock.
It most surely *can* kill you.. True, it can usually be managed if you *know* what it is... However, not everybody who has it, knows what it is and is being properly treated for it.
And yes, I have experience with this. My Mother in law has Crohn's and she very nearly died from it. They mis-diagnosed the problem and her gut leaked for days until they opened her up to take a look. She lost the majority of her small intestines, all of her colon and spent nearly a year in the hospital, half in a coma in intensive care. She now must be given IV fluids every other day and can barely get enough nutrition to stay alive eating.
It was woefully managed by her doctors, but Crohn's all but killed her.
So I'm not as ready to dismiss this story as impossible. It most assuredly IS possible.
$137 million, and they didn't think to store the password somewhere it wouldn't be lost? They didn't think to ask the guy before he died? What a stupid company.
What kind of security is this?
TRUE security requires TWO factors (or more) so why in blazes didn't they store multiple copies of the key where multiple people have only part of the key? Then your backup to this "offline key" is having multiple partial copies of it in different hands, with the assurance that at least TWO or more people would be required to agree to provide their portion of the key to open the encrypted file.
Handing any one person the key for "safe keeping" is stupid. You should always have accountability and require agreement of more than one person for such things.
"...it will never end."
I had a problem with that statement. That's a pretty impossible statement to make. We don't even know what will happen in a generation, or two generations. To say "it will never end" is absurdist.
The Sun will end.... Life on earth WILL end, all of it. Our little solar system will end... The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us these things. I won't be here to see it, but I KNOW it will happen.... Everything ends.
However, I'm with you, I don't think the statements purposing the demise of human life will be true in the time frames they suggest for the reasons they suppose. There are too many unknowns and the principle that individual humans generally want to survive and will adapt to the conditions they find themselves in. Society may collapse, but individual humans will continue to exist and thrive...
Well... Aren't they? I trust them.... For what they claim to be...
They don't try to market themselves as reliable news when they are satire and tabloids, unlike many of the "long established" news outlets do. Everybody knows what they are and they don't claim to be something they are not.
No, That's not even close.
NN only plays to their base who already strongly support the "don't negotiate with Trump at all" perspective so they don't need to distract them.
What this really is, is fundraising and positioning for campaigns in 2020. They just want folks "on record" with a show vote so they can bash them during the campaigns.
Because... Politics..
I'm afraid that the 2020 campaign cycle has come early for the democrats with everybody and their brother's girlfriend maneuvering to get into fund raising as soon as possible in hopes of getting the jump on the competition for the primaries.
Everybody knows that Net Neutrality is dead for at least two more years being unable to garner enough Senate votes to bring it to the floor (forget cloture) much less get a presidential signature, but that doesn't mean the issue is without value. So it comes out of the House perhaps, but it's for political effect and positioning for November 2020, nothing more.
And what then? You expect to be blackmailed or fired for filling a toilet?
LOL..
Personally, this is much ado about nothing.. The calls would be logged on your device and be limited to about 20 seconds max... However, if one thinks it's a huge risk, then I would ask if you think it's wise to carry a cell phone at all? IF this kind of recording represents a serious security problem for your personal or professional life, you might want to turn off the cell phone and keep it locked in a faraday cage when doing such sensitive things.
Really? You have seriously personal discussions within earshot of your phone, but where you'd not know somebody was trying to face time you? AND that 10-20 seconds of this illicit eavesdropping is enough to drastically compromise your business or personal life?
IF all that's true, then I'd strongly recommend you consider just not carrying a cell phone anyway... The risks are obviously too great. Best leave it turned off, or even locked in a faraday cage too if you think this is too risky for you.
As complex as these applications are and with as many hands involved in development of them, I find it encouraging that they have so few serious bugs..
Where I get that such things shouldn't make it into prime time, the reality is that any large complex development project with as many moving parts as this application has, it's *really* hard to always catch all these things. Hiring inexperienced engineers may be an issue, but even hiring developers with 30 years of development experience in untra-secure environments doesn't fix the problems either. Sometimes, stuff happens, folks make mistakes, nobody thinks of the unique set of events or development of new features isn't fully integrated into the application's design in security. Humans make mistakes.
I'm not giving Apple a pass, I'm just saying they are obviously reacting correctly and you can bet they will revisit their security testing processes to find and correct the process that lets this mistake into the production article.
It may sound unrealistic, but no, I actually do not have my phone on my person most of the time during the business day. I generally set it to forward voice calls to my office phone and power it off. I don't like the distractions it presents.
Also, the only time outside business hours when my phone could ring w/o me knowing it is when I'm asleep as it's on the night stand, on silent being charged. At all other times it's either set to ring, or if on silent it's in my pocket on vibrate.
So, for me, it's not a significant security risk to have somebody listening for the 10 seconds it takes for a face time call to be redirected to voice mail. They won't hear anything but my snoring w/o my knowledge. Where that might be funny to some, it's hardly a risk to me.
LOL.. .com is actually in use, even though my last name is exceedingly rare in the USA. The issue I see is that the SAME business has .com .biz and .org.
Personally, I think ICAN should make it so any legitimate claimant to a domain name can force an entity who has the same domain registered in multiple top level domains to give up one. So, in my case, the business would be required to give me their choice of .com, .biz or .org as I have a legitimate claim to the domain name.
I'd say a LOT of them are... There are a lot of reasons to buy and keep a domain, but not field a web server. Squatting is likely the majority of the problem for common or "sounds like" domain names, but like others have pointed out, "homesteading" (where the domain is parked for future use, or just doesn't have a webserver) is a huge fraction of this.
Well, the application already has permission to activate the camera and microphone, otherwise the "server" wouldn't have the ability to cause them to be activated.
So this isn't the fault of the phone or the server. Nor is it the fault of Apple's security model. It's the fault of the face time app. The face time app should never enable the microphone or camera until the user answers the call, regardless of what the server does.
Sure it is a big deal security lapse from Apple.
Oh yea this security lapse is HUGE.. (not). It allows you to listen to the called phone without permission for the time it's ringing, waiting for somebody to pickup the face time call or for it to divert to voice mail, maybe 20 seconds? Big deal... This doesn't seem like a huge risk to my privacy to me. What are you going to do, call me in the middle of the night and recording my snoring? Any other time when my phone in on my person, I'm going to know when somebody tries a face time call.
Even so, Apple IS doing the right thing. Disable the feature with the exploit as soon as possible, get it fixed, tested, and released before re-enabling the feature.
Most prisoners when released commit more crimes, now we can detect them by their voice.
Well.. We already have their fingerprints and I expect their DNA.. So how's this different?
Personally, I think this is a good idea, but only if the data is only kept until the person in question has fulfilled their sentence, including any time on probation if they are released early. Once the "debt to society" has been paid, delete it.
Robots imagine it's self? Somebody has a vivid imagination..
I'm guessing it's not the robots...
It's just not big enough yet to get enough attention to make it worth a lawsuit. The only way to avoid the same fate as the last guys who did this is to not grow.
So, have at it guys... Just make sure you have a way to isolate yourself and your personal assets from the company's assets so when you go bankrupt they won't be able to leave you in the poor house.
On net, we are a fossil fuel exporter now, are we not? Yes, we still use the old supply lines, but this is quickly changing with domestic supplies being favored due to lower transportation costs. Certainly we are importing less, on net, than just a few short years ago, lowering the strategic importance of protecting the oil supply lines.
Apart from fracking making more oil and natural gas available for recovery, thus reducing the cost and increasing fossil fuel use, what environmental damage are you thinking it causes? (if any). Also, didn't everybody benefit from the unprecedented oil price drop, where gasoline prices fell from over $3/gal to under $2? Isn't that an economic benefit to all of us?
When we first started to build these things, the waste disposal costs where *supposed* to be pretty fixed. And in reality they would have been, until Jimmy Carter decided that fuel reprocessing was a no-no and we made it illegal.
You do realize that the particularly hard-to-manage waste at Hanford came from reprocessing fuel to make weapons?
Actually I do. However, I was responding to the original post's subject of the costs of nuclear power. Reprocessing was initially planned for this, likely because of the fact that nuclear weapons grade materials would result.
You understand that restarting reprocessing fuel has been discussed a number of times, both at Hanford AND Savannah River. And both of these sites store significant amounts of radioactive waste we need to dispose of.
This stuff was mined out the ground, and a lot of effort spent on processing it to get it to a 'useful' state for boom stuff and power generation.
It's a shame that the waste/depleted version can't be reprocessed several times to get the most out of it (irrespective of cost, as I suspect that in itself may come down one enough minds set on the problem, with enough incentive to get it fixed).
I mean, it's still radioactive, still emitting particles - isn't there a proper use for a lot of this stuff somewhere(space?, thermopiles?) that isn't destructive? or is it simply 'stick it in some glass and keep it cool' the only thing we have going?
Actually, the issue isn't the reprocessing or the mess it makes. The issue is that some of the byproducts are very much in demand for building nuclear weapons. A uranium bomb is pretty big based on the size of the critical mass, but a plutonium bomb literally fits in a large suitcase because it is a lot smaller critical mass and therefore smaller.
The problem is reprocessing spent nuclear fuel produces a quantity of plutonium that cannot be exactly determined in advance, so as you process more and more spent fuel you cannot be sure you are collecting all the plutonium and none is getting pulled off into illicit uses. Eventually, the accounting may lose enough to build a weapon though this uncertainty and it's a problem that you just don't know.
So, in the 70's it was decided that it was just safer to let the spent fuel pile up, than risk nuclear weapons development by parties who may not have the world's best interests at heart and would be willing to use their weapon for reasons we wouldn't find acceptable. I don't blame Carter for this too much, he did what he thought best, but it's made the problem into a long term one as we just keep kicking the can down the road...
Please show your calculation factoring in the cost of wars for oil.
This is not relevant now.
WE (the USA) now produce more natural gas than we use. We have enough proven resources which are economically recoverable to last us decades and support a brisk export business besides. We also produce nearly as much oil as we use. We are therefore not importing oil. You can thank fracking..
Besides, the world at large benefited from our cost stabilization efforts too, so would you recommend we just ignore oil prices and just let the middle east run amok?
THE most important problem with nuclear power ? COST.
More precisely, the problem is unknown waste disposal costs.
When we first started to build these things, the waste disposal costs where *supposed* to be pretty fixed. And in reality they would have been, until Jimmy Carter decided that fuel reprocessing was a no-no and we made it illegal. At that point, the physical amount of high level waste went literally though the roof. From that point on, the environmental concerns (many which where over blown) made it impossible to store, move or permanently dispose of high level waste as it started to pile up at nuclear plants waiting for a way to dispose of it. It's been three decades now.
It is this cost uncertainty that kills Nuclear power... Well, that and the extremely CHEAP fossil fuel known as Natural Gas brought about by hydraulic fracking which turned the industrial fuel supply chain, once largely based on coal, to burning natural gas instead. The old nuclear power plants, with their high maintenance costs due to their age and designs just cannot compete with gas. Although, I believe that modern nuclear power plants would be competitive and much safer, the uncertainty around waste disposal costs make investment in them too risky.
However, I believe that if we can stabilize the waste disposal costs, nuclear power may very well prove profitable again, even in the face of natural gas supplies and costs being nearly level for as far as the eye can see. I sure hope we get this all worked out.
So, you believe the moon landings where a hoax and Elvis is still alive, living as a dishwasher at Mel's diner in Backwater Mississippi... Let me guess, you know where Jimmy Hoffa is too. OK.. I get it. Facts don't matter all that much to you.. (sarc off)