In your scheme of things, how do you propose to let multiple users have access to the same program without duplicating the binaries?
There's no reason to duplicate binaries. Multiple users can access a single program binary, just as we do now. Anyone logged onto my current computer can run Internet
Explorer, and there is only one binary for it. Unfortunatly, any program run by any user can probably modify the binary... but that's current OS design.
Putting programs together in the same location as data files has, in part, been the cause of the current permissions mess on Windows.
No, that's rediculous. Perhaps program + SHARED data files in same folder is a bad idea... but that's not what I'm suggesting. I am suggesting that a program has WRITE
access only to its own folder. Its that simple. Meanwhile, access is further restricted to files/folders therein that are OWNED BY the current user.
Programs in the past were not designed for multiple users; that was the problem. The new convention, given the understanding that the program only has access to its own folder,
is that when a program starts up, it creates a "data_*" folder and a "*.settings" file in its own folder, where * is the name of the currently logged on user. No other
programs, and no other limited user accounts can access the "data_*" folder or "*.settings" file. When run as a different user, the program will not attempt to access them,
since its looking for a folder whose name is based on the current user's unique login name, and even if it wanted to... it couldn't access them because the new user would not
own them!
In summary, under my configuration, a "PROGRAM" is an isolated entity on the system. There is a single copy of it, it can only write to its own folder -- to files and folders
owned by the current user -- and by convension, it looks for a data folder unique to the logged on user.
Also, putting data files in the same folder as the program that created them makes perfect sense. If a program only knows how to WRITE file format "X", then it should not have
WRITE access to EVERY OTHER FILE on the system. This simplifies things considerably. For example, reguardless of file-associations, which are only useful to Windows Explorer
anyway, a program can access any file it created (owned by the current user in the programs own directory). The program should not be changing files it has no business
accessing, such as files it didn't create, files not owned by the current user, and files outside its own directory. And it should be reading from files outside its directory
that it hasn't been explicitly granted read-access to by the user.
With such isolation, a newly installed program cannot harm your existing data files; all it can do is sit in its own folder and play with itself. Antivirus software that embeds
itself in your OS will no longer be necessary. In fact, any program that embeds itself in your OS will be unnecessary. The OS has a modular design where any program can be
downloaded and safely run. This OS knows how to keep any program in check! If any program gets out of hand (maybe it's using APIs to change your desktop background or move
your mouse all around) you can press a button for a Program Manager that immediatly cuts off all program access to input devices, and allows you to kill the annoying
program.
Along with the need to limit programs from accessing data they should not be accessing, there is a need to prohibit limited-privileged user accounts from modifying
program binaries and resources. What we probably need is some combination of your suggestion along with current practices in various UNIX flavors (which have addressed the issue
I raised, BTW).
Not really, my solution is fine. You're still thinking in terms of current system configurations. Under my configuration, how can a person "modify" a binary? The short
answer is that
In the 3rd to last paragraph, a sentense should read "There must also be utility to manage read-only access RIGHTS, whereby a user can TEMPORARILY GRANT read-only access to files or folders to a specific application. This model promotes organization, good backup habits, and PREVENTS accidental overwriting of archived files simply by wanting to save your work."
nschubach, You are absolutely correct. Finally, someone else understands. That is exactly what must be done to make OSs secure:
SHORT VERSION - if you don't want to read the long version
1. For code to run, it must be assigned a working directory by the OS, and denied access to all other directories by default. Viruses are now impossible; any inadvertently installed code can do no more than sit in its own directory and play with itself.
2. The OS must provide a mechanism for the user to temporarily grant an application read-only access to a file(s) or folder(s). This can be as simple as double-clicking an MP3 in explorer to grant access to a media player, or as complex as having a manager for granting applications read-only access to certain directories).
3. The code should only ever have write access outside the folder it is assigned to. Such operations should be reserved for built-in OS utilities. After editing a document, you save a new copy in the program's own directory... where, if you think about it, only files with a format the program is able to modify will reside. You can then use the OSs built-in file manager to copy the files to a documents folder for archiving... where no program can ever touch them (except for read-only access when granted).
4. The OS must have complete control over the applications that run on it -- which means that it must interpret the code, so that it understands what the code is doing, so that it can determine whether or not the operations in the code are allowed. Non-interpreted code, by definition, suggests that the OS doesn't know what the code is doing... and if it doesn't know what it's doing, it can't possibly stop it from doing something bad. It won't be as fast as machine code, but it will sure be secure. And don't even think about the.NET framework; because ultimately, the OS still runs the machine code that it compiles to blindly. Unchecked machine code can still run on the system, so.NET security warnings do not represent security; they simply represent handicapped applications when compared to the unchecked native apps that are allowed to run on the same system.
LONG VERSION - details, if what you read above interests you
First, I have a brief point to make about security. When faced with the question of why we need a computer security industry, people always bring up stupid analogies like "well, why do we need police, or a legal system?" It's not a fair comparison at all. I hate it when people ask dumb questions like "If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?" Well, no, because jumping off a bridge is lethal, but painting my fingernails black and spiking my hair is not.
Besides, we need police because we cannot read from, write to, and "program" the human brain the same way that we can program computers to perform exact and consistent functions.
I have 3 points to make:
1. Current operating systems are insecure "by design", not just because of coding mistakes. We can change their design to be very secure.
2. People make mistakes -> software will have mistakes -> mistakes will cause problems -> we will always need a way to recover from such problems... but we don't need Norton Antivirus or Windows Defender. At worst, we'll need to re-enter information if a program crashes, or restore a backup if a drive crashes. With the setup I mentioned earlier, we won't have to worry about a virus destroying a file.
3. Transmission of information will never be completely secure (i.e. encryption and DRM will never be infallible).
Point 1:
A huge design flaw with current OSs is that I can write a program right now that just deletes all or most of the files on my hard drive; and this program can be copied to any computer running windows and will work the same way. This behavior is allowed, by design. Why? Maybe I want to delete all the files on my hard drive.
Actually, losing your job IS a sort of threat to your family.
While installing unlicenced software and murdering someone are both illegal; they are not equivalent.
Unlike murder, installing a few extra copies of software you've already purchased does not hurt anyone; especially in the case where you don't have the money to purchase it. The industry is not "losing" money that they never made in the first place -- how arrogant; the company in question never had the money to give them! If they can't copy MS Office; they're not going to have a fundraiser; they're just going to use Open Office.
Copying "SOFTWARE" is not equivalent to stealing, because it does not take something from another individual -- they do not "go without" -- because an additional copy is made. If I build a house down the street that is identicle to yours, that is not stealing. Making a copy does not cause your house to disappear.
If someone climbs Mount Everest and discovers a new species of bird on it; does that mean that they own it? No! My point is that just because someone does a lot of work developing software does not mean that they own it. Once some pattern of information is discovered, it becomes part of the universe. Furthermore, most software in existance is destined to arise based on the simple constrains of the development environments, and natural selection of correct choices, which is why you will see so many similar software patterns even at high levels of complexity arising in completely independent places. Copyrights are pure BS.
Anyway... its still illegal (for now); so the guy should quit, turn them in, etc. or they should use Open Office and protest copyright law.
Flood Water Source
The sources of the flood water are given in Genesis 7:11 as "the fountains of the great deep" and the "windows of heaven." Probably subterranian water or sub-oceanic
sources. Flood Water Now
Floodwater now would be in glaciers and underground, which is partly why everyone is so worried about them melting. If they melted, sea level would probably rise about 70
meters. How might that effect us? Most of the USA is under 500m. Obviously coastal areas would be screwed, and with that much water in the water cycle, there would probablybe
flooding everywhere.
Smaller Earth
The water would have been a bigger problem for a smaller earth. "Fixed-Earth theories assume that the Earth has always been as it overtly appears today, and, due to lack of
**considering** contrary evidence, is the currently-accepted paradigm among most scientists and the general public. But examining the accumulated evidence supporting Expanding-
Earth theories now makes Fixed-Earth totally untenable, and it is time for a paradigm shift to recognize Expanding-Earth as the accepted norm." - http://www.aoi.com.au/bcw/FixedorExpandingEarth.ht m (see references at end of page; also see videos on google or
youtube for illustrations of how the geometry fits perfectly; not only on our planet, but others and moons as well.)
Petrification
Petrification does not take a couple dozen thousand years, it takes only a couple dozen years... see pretrified man-made boots, etc. in creation museum.
DNA, Collagen, etc
As for the "intact DNA", I was reffering to the fact that the collegen proteins are chains of amino acids, similar to DNA in a sense that the public would understand... as a
sort of "signature" of the animal. Also that's not all that was there: "Dr. Schweitzer, a biologist affiliated also with Montana State, cut into the thick bone and recovered
the soft tissues, including blood vessels and possibly cells that, she said at the time, "retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity and resilience." This had never
been found in a dinosaur before and prompted the investigations into the nature of the organic matter."
One million years is a long time. If something is thought to have degraded to nothing with absolutely certainty after 1 million years, you'd be pretty sure it's long gone after
2 million. But now they find intact protiens at 68 million years! That's an incredibly huge error. Even so, it's still based on the "assumption" that this dinosaur was 68
million years old to begin with. How do they date it? Rock layers? I sure hope not...
Geologic Layers
We "assume" that these layers were layed down over millions of years. They weren't. They are twisted; a flood did it. Here is evidence against the millions of years
"assumption", which shows how such layers were witnessed forming in just a few hours. http://www.creationism.org/articles/nelson1.htm I'm sure I could dig up terabytes more on this at my university
(I'm a grad student at Penn State).
The point is that what we see on this planet could just as easily have been formed rapidly. There is no reason why what we see had to
have formed over millions of years. That's nothing more than an assumption. Millions of years are no
Actually, finding intact multi-million-year-old DNA is incompatible with chemisty. And since the reality is that we found it, that means that either chemisty is wrong... OR the bones are thousands of years old and evolution is wrong. So either chemisty is wrong, or evolution -- a single theory -- is wrong.
First of all, chemistry is a subset of physical science. So you're listing them both is redundant.
Anyway, as far as physics is concerned, the bones carbon-date to only a few thousand years old.
Incompatible with geology? No... there are a lot of assumptions that are wrong about how rock layers formed and how quickly.
Incompatible with paleontology? No. Human bones are found alongside dinosaur bones. Evolution is incompatible with paleontology.
You need to stop talking out of your ass and listing off areas of science as if you're some sort of expert. This is no different than the previous guy who claims there's one data point for young dinosaur bones v.s. hundreds of data points for old ones. That's called talking out your ass without giving examples. By the way, did you look up that definition of science on Google all by yourself?
Only one data point suggesting the bones are not millions of years old? Are you kidding? All the "data" points suggests they are not millions of years old. Only speculation suggests otherwise.
So we've got intact tissue with DNA. Scientists are shocked! OMG! Creationists are not suprised. We have human remains found in the same rock layers as dinosaurs. Scientists are like wtf. Creationists not suprised. We have twisted strata that contradicts the idea that rock layers built up slowly over time as opposed to being deposited suddenly in a world-wide flood. We also know that in the conditions of a world-wide flood, high pressures, mud, etc. that fossilization occurs rapidly. We have found many many examples of man-made items that are petrified. We have dinosaur bones carbon dating to only a few thousand years old....
Meanwhile, evolutionists ignore all this, date bones based on what layer they're in (nevermind human remains in same layer), based on wrong assumptions about when the layers were laid down. When creationists show how the grand canyon couldn't have been carved out over millions of years and without rivers flowing uphill, evolutions say a mountian range just sprung up.
This is just what I've been taught; this is what creation scientists show; and the fact remains, intact DNA was found in supposedly multi-million year old bones. Can you blame for being skeptical of evolution?
Could you please tell me what these supposed "hundreds of data points" supporting millions-of-years-old bones are... because I have yet to run into such "data" based on facts... I've only seem them based on assuptions. Thanks.
Yeah, back propagation has little to do with brain circuitry. After reading extensively on neurons and their chemical gates and wiring, it's pretty obviously that basic neural networks that have been implemented look nothing at all like the brain.
The brain learns by weakening existing connections, not by adding new ones. It's logically and physiologically impossible for the brain to know in advance which connections to make in order to store something... it's more of a selection process. This is also why "instruction" methods of teaching fail. Knowledge has to be situated among what each individual already has learned. If it doesn't make sense to you, or you can't draw analogy to something that has already been etched in your brain over time... it won't mean much to you. Also, brain cells do regenerate despite the dogma that once they are gone they never come back. They do, but you have to kinda re-learn stuff... you can become a totally different person if you kill off and replace enough of them -- not necessarily a good idea, you might get confused. Then again, what do i know, haha.
Slashdot Mirror
In your scheme of things, how do you propose to let multiple users have access to the same program without duplicating the binaries?
There's no reason to duplicate binaries. Multiple users can access a single program binary, just as we do now. Anyone logged onto my current computer can run Internet Explorer, and there is only one binary for it. Unfortunatly, any program run by any user can probably modify the binary... but that's current OS design.
Putting programs together in the same location as data files has, in part, been the cause of the current permissions mess on Windows.
No, that's rediculous. Perhaps program + SHARED data files in same folder is a bad idea... but that's not what I'm suggesting. I am suggesting that a program has WRITE access only to its own folder. Its that simple. Meanwhile, access is further restricted to files/folders therein that are OWNED BY the current user.
Programs in the past were not designed for multiple users; that was the problem. The new convention, given the understanding that the program only has access to its own folder, is that when a program starts up, it creates a "data_*" folder and a "*.settings" file in its own folder, where * is the name of the currently logged on user. No other programs, and no other limited user accounts can access the "data_*" folder or "*.settings" file. When run as a different user, the program will not attempt to access them, since its looking for a folder whose name is based on the current user's unique login name, and even if it wanted to... it couldn't access them because the new user would not own them!
In summary, under my configuration, a "PROGRAM" is an isolated entity on the system. There is a single copy of it, it can only write to its own folder -- to files and folders owned by the current user -- and by convension, it looks for a data folder unique to the logged on user.
Also, putting data files in the same folder as the program that created them makes perfect sense. If a program only knows how to WRITE file format "X", then it should not have WRITE access to EVERY OTHER FILE on the system. This simplifies things considerably. For example, reguardless of file-associations, which are only useful to Windows Explorer anyway, a program can access any file it created (owned by the current user in the programs own directory). The program should not be changing files it has no business accessing, such as files it didn't create, files not owned by the current user, and files outside its own directory. And it should be reading from files outside its directory that it hasn't been explicitly granted read-access to by the user.
With such isolation, a newly installed program cannot harm your existing data files; all it can do is sit in its own folder and play with itself. Antivirus software that embeds itself in your OS will no longer be necessary. In fact, any program that embeds itself in your OS will be unnecessary. The OS has a modular design where any program can be downloaded and safely run. This OS knows how to keep any program in check! If any program gets out of hand (maybe it's using APIs to change your desktop background or move your mouse all around) you can press a button for a Program Manager that immediatly cuts off all program access to input devices, and allows you to kill the annoying program.
Along with the need to limit programs from accessing data they should not be accessing, there is a need to prohibit limited-privileged user accounts from modifying program binaries and resources. What we probably need is some combination of your suggestion along with current practices in various UNIX flavors (which have addressed the issue I raised, BTW).
Not really, my solution is fine. You're still thinking in terms of current system configurations. Under my configuration, how can a person "modify" a binary? The short answer is that
In the 3rd to last paragraph, a sentense should read "There must also be utility to manage read-only access RIGHTS, whereby a user can TEMPORARILY GRANT read-only access to files or folders to a specific application. This model promotes organization, good backup habits, and PREVENTS accidental overwriting of archived files simply by wanting to save your work."
Sorry, #3 in the short version should read "The code should only ever have write access INSIDE the folder it is assigned to..."
nschubach, You are absolutely correct. Finally, someone else understands. That is exactly what must be done to make OSs secure:
.NET framework; because ultimately, the OS still runs the machine code that it compiles to blindly. Unchecked machine code can still run on the system, so .NET security warnings do not represent security; they simply represent handicapped applications when compared to the unchecked native apps that are allowed to run on the same system.
SHORT VERSION - if you don't want to read the long version
1. For code to run, it must be assigned a working directory by the OS, and denied access to all other directories by default. Viruses are now impossible; any inadvertently installed code can do no more than sit in its own directory and play with itself.
2. The OS must provide a mechanism for the user to temporarily grant an application read-only access to a file(s) or folder(s). This can be as simple as double-clicking an MP3 in explorer to grant access to a media player, or as complex as having a manager for granting applications read-only access to certain directories).
3. The code should only ever have write access outside the folder it is assigned to. Such operations should be reserved for built-in OS utilities. After editing a document, you save a new copy in the program's own directory... where, if you think about it, only files with a format the program is able to modify will reside. You can then use the OSs built-in file manager to copy the files to a documents folder for archiving... where no program can ever touch them (except for read-only access when granted).
4. The OS must have complete control over the applications that run on it -- which means that it must interpret the code, so that it understands what the code is doing, so that it can determine whether or not the operations in the code are allowed. Non-interpreted code, by definition, suggests that the OS doesn't know what the code is doing... and if it doesn't know what it's doing, it can't possibly stop it from doing something bad. It won't be as fast as machine code, but it will sure be secure. And don't even think about the
LONG VERSION - details, if what you read above interests you
First, I have a brief point to make about security. When faced with the question of why we need a computer security industry, people always bring up stupid analogies like "well, why do we need police, or a legal system?" It's not a fair comparison at all. I hate it when people ask dumb questions like "If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?" Well, no, because jumping off a bridge is lethal, but painting my fingernails black and spiking my hair is not.
Besides, we need police because we cannot read from, write to, and "program" the human brain the same way that we can program computers to perform exact and consistent functions.
I have 3 points to make:
1. Current operating systems are insecure "by design", not just because of coding mistakes. We can change their design to be very secure.
2. People make mistakes -> software will have mistakes -> mistakes will cause problems -> we will always need a way to recover from such problems... but we don't need Norton Antivirus or Windows Defender. At worst, we'll need to re-enter information if a program crashes, or restore a backup if a drive crashes. With the setup I mentioned earlier, we won't have to worry about a virus destroying a file.
3. Transmission of information will never be completely secure (i.e. encryption and DRM will never be infallible).
Point 1:
A huge design flaw with current OSs is that I can write a program right now that just deletes all or most of the files on my hard drive; and this program can be copied to any computer running windows and will work the same way. This behavior is allowed, by design. Why? Maybe I want to delete all the files on my hard drive.
Actually, losing your job IS a sort of threat to your family.
While installing unlicenced software and murdering someone are both illegal; they are not equivalent. Unlike murder, installing a few extra copies of software you've already purchased does not hurt anyone; especially in the case where you don't have the money to purchase it. The industry is not "losing" money that they never made in the first place -- how arrogant; the company in question never had the money to give them! If they can't copy MS Office; they're not going to have a fundraiser; they're just going to use Open Office.
Copying "SOFTWARE" is not equivalent to stealing, because it does not take something from another individual -- they do not "go without" -- because an additional copy is made. If I build a house down the street that is identicle to yours, that is not stealing. Making a copy does not cause your house to disappear.
If someone climbs Mount Everest and discovers a new species of bird on it; does that mean that they own it? No! My point is that just because someone does a lot of work developing software does not mean that they own it. Once some pattern of information is discovered, it becomes part of the universe. Furthermore, most software in existance is destined to arise based on the simple constrains of the development environments, and natural selection of correct choices, which is why you will see so many similar software patterns even at high levels of complexity arising in completely independent places. Copyrights are pure BS.
Anyway... its still illegal (for now); so the guy should quit, turn them in, etc. or they should use Open Office and protest copyright law.
See reply to BKX.
Flood Water Source
The sources of the flood water are given in Genesis 7:11 as "the fountains of the great deep" and the "windows of heaven." Probably subterranian water or sub-oceanic sources.
Flood Water Now
Floodwater now would be in glaciers and underground, which is partly why everyone is so worried about them melting. If they melted, sea level would probably rise about 70 meters. How might that effect us? Most of the USA is under 500m. Obviously coastal areas would be screwed, and with that much water in the water cycle, there would probablybe flooding everywhere.
Smaller Earth
The water would have been a bigger problem for a smaller earth. "Fixed-Earth theories assume that the Earth has always been as it overtly appears today, and, due to lack of **considering** contrary evidence, is the currently-accepted paradigm among most scientists and the general public. But examining the accumulated evidence supporting Expanding- Earth theories now makes Fixed-Earth totally untenable, and it is time for a paradigm shift to recognize Expanding-Earth as the accepted norm." - http://www.aoi.com.au/bcw/FixedorExpandingEarth.ht m (see references at end of page; also see videos on google or youtube for illustrations of how the geometry fits perfectly; not only on our planet, but others and moons as well.)
Petrification
Petrification does not take a couple dozen thousand years, it takes only a couple dozen years... see pretrified man-made boots, etc. in creation museum.
DNA, Collagen, etc
As for the "intact DNA", I was reffering to the fact that the collegen proteins are chains of amino acids, similar to DNA in a sense that the public would understand... as a sort of "signature" of the animal. Also that's not all that was there: "Dr. Schweitzer, a biologist affiliated also with Montana State, cut into the thick bone and recovered the soft tissues, including blood vessels and possibly cells that, she said at the time, "retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity and resilience." This had never been found in a dinosaur before and prompted the investigations into the nature of the organic matter."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/science/12cnd-di no.html? ex=1177387200&en=765b089476cf3dfb&ei=5070 I also find the numbers funny: "In a news release from Harvard, Dr. Cantley said, "Basically, this is the breakthrough that says it's possible to get sequences beyond one million years," which had been thought of as the absolute time barrier for the preservation of organic matter in animal remains."
One million years is a long time. If something is thought to have degraded to nothing with absolutely certainty after 1 million years, you'd be pretty sure it's long gone after 2 million. But now they find intact protiens at 68 million years! That's an incredibly huge error. Even so, it's still based on the "assumption" that this dinosaur was 68 million years old to begin with. How do they date it? Rock layers? I sure hope not...
Geologic Layers
We "assume" that these layers were layed down over millions of years. They weren't. They are twisted; a flood did it. Here is evidence against the millions of years "assumption", which shows how such layers were witnessed forming in just a few hours. http://www.creationism.org/articles/nelson1.htm
I'm sure I could dig up terabytes more on this at my university (I'm a grad student at Penn State).
The point is that what we see on this planet could just as easily have been formed rapidly. There is no reason why what we see had to have formed over millions of years. That's nothing more than an assumption. Millions of years are no
Actually, finding intact multi-million-year-old DNA is incompatible with chemisty. And since the reality is that we found it, that means that either chemisty is wrong... OR the bones are thousands of years old and evolution is wrong. So either chemisty is wrong, or evolution -- a single theory -- is wrong. First of all, chemistry is a subset of physical science. So you're listing them both is redundant. Anyway, as far as physics is concerned, the bones carbon-date to only a few thousand years old. Incompatible with geology? No... there are a lot of assumptions that are wrong about how rock layers formed and how quickly. Incompatible with paleontology? No. Human bones are found alongside dinosaur bones. Evolution is incompatible with paleontology. You need to stop talking out of your ass and listing off areas of science as if you're some sort of expert. This is no different than the previous guy who claims there's one data point for young dinosaur bones v.s. hundreds of data points for old ones. That's called talking out your ass without giving examples. By the way, did you look up that definition of science on Google all by yourself?
Only one data point suggesting the bones are not millions of years old? Are you kidding?
All the "data" points suggests they are not millions of years old. Only speculation suggests otherwise.
So we've got intact tissue with DNA. Scientists are shocked! OMG! Creationists are not suprised.
We have human remains found in the same rock layers as dinosaurs. Scientists are like wtf. Creationists not suprised.
We have twisted strata that contradicts the idea that rock layers built up slowly over time as opposed to being deposited suddenly in a world-wide flood.
We also know that in the conditions of a world-wide flood, high pressures, mud, etc. that fossilization occurs rapidly.
We have found many many examples of man-made items that are petrified.
We have dinosaur bones carbon dating to only a few thousand years old....
Meanwhile, evolutionists ignore all this, date bones based on what layer they're in (nevermind human remains in same layer), based on wrong assumptions about when the layers were laid down.
When creationists show how the grand canyon couldn't have been carved out over millions of years and without rivers flowing uphill, evolutions say a mountian range just sprung up.
This is just what I've been taught; this is what creation scientists show; and the fact remains, intact DNA was found in supposedly multi-million year old bones. Can you blame for being skeptical of evolution?
Could you please tell me what these supposed "hundreds of data points" supporting millions-of-years-old bones are... because I have yet to run into such "data" based on facts... I've only seem them based on assuptions. Thanks.
Yeah, back propagation has little to do with brain circuitry. After reading extensively on neurons and their chemical gates and wiring, it's pretty obviously that basic neural networks that have been implemented look nothing at all like the brain.
The brain learns by weakening existing connections, not by adding new ones. It's logically and physiologically impossible for the brain to know in advance which connections to make in order to store something... it's more of a selection process. This is also why "instruction" methods of teaching fail. Knowledge has to be situated among what each individual already has learned. If it doesn't make sense to you, or you can't draw analogy to something that has already been etched in your brain over time... it won't mean much to you. Also, brain cells do regenerate despite the dogma that once they are gone they never come back. They do, but you have to kinda re-learn stuff... you can become a totally different person if you kill off and replace enough of them -- not necessarily a good idea, you might get confused. Then again, what do i know, haha.
I don't use Internet Explorer. It doesn't work. I won't be using Wal-Mart's video service.