Lets give birth to an Ice Age animal during earths period of global high heat.
Today isn't particularly hot, even by the standards of the time since the last ice age, and much of Russia is often extremely cold.
In any case, the next ice age should be along at some point in the next few thousand years, so we might as well get prepared. A mammoth will be much more useful as transport than a Prius when the planet is covered with mile-thick ice and the temperature is permanently below zero.
Fucking Starks and their "winter is coming" doom and gloom bullshit.
To be honest I don't understand the capacitive scren craze. Resistive screens are much more precise and you can use them with gloves and with a stylus.
A million times this. Resistive screens are superior in just about every way.
With the original firmware and no hacks installed? If not, then the PS3 does run Linux.
Yup. They spin up and the Wii sees them (if they're FAT). The Wii just doesn't let you use them in any way unless you have a custom IOS that pokes at it.
Any game developer could have written a custom IOS to use an external HDD, and Nintendo could have written the same custom IOS and pushed it out in an update. The Wii itself was planned for expandability, just like every Nintendo console ever. It ended up seeing very little use of its options, though. (Again, just like every Nintendo console ever.)
It was sold briefly (several months) in the US through Nintendo.com . They stopped selling it because no one wanted it. It did in fact work for all games.
The point I'm trying to make is that Slashdot loves Nintendo and hates Sony, and this story (which is very old--NGV cards were known about last June) only exists to serve that purpose, yet Nintendo has a long history of using expensive, proprietary storage formats. The company doesn't even let you redownload purchases from their online store if you replace your device. Your purchases are forever tied to the single piece of hardware you bought.
The fact that the Wii U will "apparently" support USB HDs isn't very encouraging given that the Wii already had a USB port and did nothing with it. Further, the N64 and Gamecube used their own proprietary memory cards, as did the PS1 and PS2. There is nothing new in this story at all except that it serves as another opportunity for Slashdotters to bitch about Sony.
Stop being wrong. "NGV" cards (did you mix up Vita and "NGP", Next-Generation Portable?) were not "know about last June". Everyone assumed Sony would use a shitty proprietary format. No one knew they would do so to the exclusion of standard formats. No one knew they would charge two buttloads per gigabyte. No one knew the Vita SKU would not include a memory card. No one knew many games would require the memory cards. (No one knew about the complete lack of built-in storage, and no one thought they'd be dumb enough to completely block you from playing games if you couldn't save them.)
Furthermore, USB HDDs do work on the Wii, and the USB ports were used officially for keyboards, Wii Speak, etc. And the Gamecube let you use a standard SD card as a memory card if you bought the official adapter.
In the N64 days, "standard user storage" was a MMC card and was completely unsuited to a video game console.
The point of the article is that people have to spend extra money on new storage formats to expand system storage when people already have spare SD cards lying around they could use instead.
The N64, Gamecube, PS1, PS2, and Xbox all used proprietary memory cards. My point is that this is nothing new (especially since the format of Vita's storage was already known back in June), nor is it specific to Sony, and the only reason this story was posted was to provide another opportunity for Slashdotters to bitch about them.
The Gamecube had an official SD card adapter that let you use any SD card in the memory card slot.
The NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube, Wii, Gameboy, Gameboy Advance, DS, and 3DS all use proprietary storage for games. Sony used CDs, DVDs, and Blu-Rays for the Playstation series.
The Gamecube and Wii use DVDs. They weren't a typical book type, and had protection mechanisms, but they absolutely are DVDs. And proprietary storage for games isn't an issue for users. Proprietary storage for user data is an issue for users. Nintendo loves SD cards for user data storage.
Don't use GoDaddy. If you needed any more reasons to stay far away from GoDaddy and their shitty advertising, RTFA.
So far they have found this has happened to around 12 accounts, all within the "Web Design" genre (so most likely a targeted attack).
There is no accessible log from with your GoDaddy account to see what/when things happened.
They do [claim to] have access logs, but they can't [won't] share that information with me.
The domain was transferred away from GoDaddy the evening of Nov 20th
They [claim to] have, but cannot [won't] provide me with, the email address used to transfer the domain away.
GoDaddy confirmed my global account email has never been changed, but it WAS changed for the domain css-tricks.com prior to the move.
The request to unlock the domain happened on Nov. 14th at 4:30pm Mountain Time. Normally there is a 5-7 day waiting period, but GoDaddy offers instant transfer and they remarked that it was unusual that the hacker chose not to do that.
They confirmed no other domains have left my account.
The 6950 is vastly inferior to the 6970, especially at higher resolutions where VRAM makes a big difference. Yes, the 6990 is just 2 6970 GPUs. That's why the I said the 6970 was the flagship.
I called you out on your bullshit. Just admit it. You didn't even try to explain away the crap where you said a 6950 was a last gen part, or where you have 3 1680x1080 monitors.
No current operating system is immune to exploits. An accurate statement would be 'I use apple because their low population in the wild makes them unpopular targets for malware authors to write exploits for'.
I use Apple because I fear an alien invasion. They're using our own signal against us!
We have come to a point where most of the computing elements are way more powerful than what the human eye demands in graphics even to the extent of photorealism. See, i ran the hell out of star wars the old republic with my 6950 radeon gpu and amd phenom ii 965 cpu in its beta - and in 5040x1080 3 monitor eyefinity resolution. it played overly smooth in 40 fps minimum. Granted, swtor is not a photorealistic 3d rendered game, however, it is very taxing when you factor in the fact that it is a mmo with endless differently textured toons (clothing, armor, face differences) converging on small spaces like coruscant. So, my phenom ii 965 cpu, which is not even a top tier offering in current cpu generation, not only ran the game perfectly, but also stayed so idle that i didnt even hear the cpu fan increase speed at all -> i use a 12 cm fan, and its already VERY silent too. if you go into games like crysis 2 et al, you will find that these games run on consoles very well, and on pc they run even faster.
so, we can easily say that cpus are already over a point where we could consider them a limiting factor for good looking games. the only remaining factor becomes, gpu.
granted, my 6950 is a last generation, top offering card. and even if cpu power had become way too much over the needs of games and graphics cards to become irrelevant after a certain tier, its not possible to play down the mandatory element, the graphics card yet.
but, there are already major strides in this area - amd has already succeeded in fusing cpu and gpu in the form of 'apu', and these apus do low power usage and provide good performance in entry-mid level laptop and netbook market. granted, they are not enough to provide top performance as we see it in pcs yet, but more apus will be coming. this means, we are moving towards a future in which the two indispensable elements of gaming, the cpu and gpu, will be both merged in one unit with top grade components. (next gen apus are to come with 7xxx cores)
so then, indeed lord british is right. you already merged, and optimized cpus and gpus in a form that it will be possible to game in a notebook. the only thing you need for this to become a reality in smartphones, is only more miniaturization and increased efficiency of this concept. and it is, as you know, a given in tech world. and im not even talking about the processors that are developing from the mobile computing vector.
there are already versions of 3d games that play on smartphones. in future, we will indeed be able to plug a device to tv or a monitor and just play.
Another troll by unity. You said "granted, my 6950 is a last generation, top offering card". The AMD 6xxx series is THIS generation, the 7000 series is not out yet, and has no hard release date. Furthermore, the 6970 is the flagship part, with the 6990 being the "top offering". The 6950 is mid range. You did not play SWTOR on a 6950 and Phenom II 965 at 40 fps minimum at 5040x1080 across 3 monitors. The Phenom II 965 is a dog, and 5040x1080 across 3 monitors means your monitors are 1680x1080. I've never seen a panel that size. Perhaps you meant to craft your way-too-long lie with 3 monitors at 1680x1050?
Your database is likely "remote" compared to the application. That is, the database is only accessible through a remote protocol, so that, unless the DB has security issues, the application AND the user can NOT do anything to the data store that they shouldn't.
I see a few replies like yours... and that is the problem. If a user shouldn't be able to delete records from the "Whatever" table, accessing the database outside of the application should yield no more rights than through the application. Alike, if a user shouldn't be able to manipulate file X, then you need to implement security on the OS/Filesystem level, detached from the application.
Logic in the application level can ALWAYS be circumvented, if even just with a hex editor.
You don't know anything about my database.
The only users my database has are the system account, and a user for each application. All access is done through the applications. The applications have full access to their respective databases and tables, and the users of those applications are restricted in their rights by the applications. Users have no access to the database directly. It's all web-based, so logic in the application can NOT be circumvented unless you have access to the application code. If someone has access to that, they have access to everything.
I see a few replies like yours... and that is the problem. If you talk out of your ass without understanding that shit isn't always done exactly in the myopic way you think it is, then you're going to make a fool out of yourself.
If a user shouldn't be able to do X, then all you have to do is ensure that they can't do X. It doesn't matter how you go about doing it as long as it works. Easy to maintain and easy to understand are a bonus.
You say this, like something complex is doomed to be incomprehensible to do correctly. Simple fact of the matter is, these silly folks are still using strlen(...) and ridiculously bad coding practices, known for decades, all to come in under deadlines.
I see WAY too often a multi-tier database application, where security is implemented by constantly querying what rights the user has from a "Users" table. They implement security with a bunch of 'if/switch' statements and claim "it's the nature of complex software!" when a security vulnerability is found, rather than putting security on the database.
Uh, what other way is there to implement a rights check? Whether you get your data once or a hundred times, or whether you do a specific check or rely on the OS do it, it doesn't matter - it's still a table of users + rights, and a bunch of conditional statements the cpu plows through. You may argue that it's more error prone if you're writing a query and an if statement every time a check is needed, rather than using an API or relying on the OS to automatically call its own APIs. But you can't say it's less secure until you actually have an incident where there was an error that would have been prevented by calling the API instead of doing an ad-hoc query + if.
More likely to be insecure != insecure != less secure.
You're either stupid, or a troll. After my extensive explanation of the meaning of baud, and it's relationship with bit rate, and how the two applied to different generations of modems, you persist in your error. Same with the rest. I'm done.
All of your explanations are simply you being wrong and wrong and wrong.
FACT 1: Kilobaud means 1000 baud. FACT 2: Kilobit means 1024 bits. FACT 3: A certain modem spits shit out such that 1 baud yields 8 bits.
If the signal rate of this modem is 1 Kilobaud, what is its data rate?
I am sorry that you and others are always wrong and refuse to correct yourselves. Being wrong together doesn't make you right. It just makes you an ass.
Yes it does. The Heisenburg uncertainty principle is not a limitation of technology. It's a law of the universe.
So the "burden of proof" is on you to prove it is a fundamental law of the universe, and not a phenomenal result in observation that arises due to the laws beneath it. Time and time again, throughout all of human history, we've gotten to the point where people think they've got it all figured out, and then bam, they're wrong.
Unless you have an explanation for everything, you haven't fully explained anything, let alone proven it. I don't see a unified field theory, do you?
Furthermore, the "You made a claim, you have to prove it!" line is tired (and the same goes for "Citation needed."). It's equivalent to a 4 year old saying "Nuh-uh, prove it!". It's a shining beacon of the utter lack of ability or willingness to consider anything but your own entrenched viewpoint.
Your claim is that Heisenberg will always hold. Tell me why, and why it is impossible for there to be a driving principle behind it that we are currently unaware of. If you cannot do that, you must logically conclude that the possibility exists that it may not be a fundamental physical principle.
Just because we can't know a position and vector of a particle now doesn't mean we won't ever be able to.
Yes it does. The Heisenburg uncertainty principle is not a limitation of technology. It's a law of the universe. It's like saying "just because gravity exists today doesn't mean it will exist sometime in the future."
It's a law of the universe as we know it.
I posit the following: There is more to the universe than we currently see/know/understand. Thus, there is the possibility of something existing that we do not know about and that can affect that which we do know and understand.
Unless you can prove that there is not more to the universe than we currently see/know/understand, then you must logically conclude that there is a possibility of Heisenburg being wrong, there is a possibility it really is turtles all the way down, etc. And it is logically impossible to prove that there is not more to the universe than we currently see/know/understand.
The only thing we can truly prove, the only thing we can truly know, is that we exist. Cogito ergo sum means something, you know.
I don't think the idea is far fetched (in terms of feasibility). I think it's unlikely because the bottom line is no one gives a shit about security - they give a shit about users being able to spend money.
Can a current QR code can hold enough data for a signed certificate?
Slashdot Mirror
Lets give birth to an Ice Age animal during earths period of global high heat.
Today isn't particularly hot, even by the standards of the time since the last ice age, and much of Russia is often extremely cold.
In any case, the next ice age should be along at some point in the next few thousand years, so we might as well get prepared. A mammoth will be much more useful as transport than a Prius when the planet is covered with mile-thick ice and the temperature is permanently below zero.
Fucking Starks and their "winter is coming" doom and gloom bullshit.
What the giants will have to say about that.
Who gives a shit what the giants say?
FUS RO DAH
FUS RO DAH
FUS RO DAH
FUS RO DAH
As soon as we get a 3D printer that can properly print bedrock, dirt, forests, and San Francisco.
I thought that was what the magenta ink tank was for.
To be honest I don't understand the capacitive scren craze. Resistive screens are much more precise and you can use them with gloves and with a stylus.
A million times this. Resistive screens are superior in just about every way.
vertisement.
A particularly shitty one, too.
With the original firmware and no hacks installed? If not, then the PS3 does run Linux.
Yup. They spin up and the Wii sees them (if they're FAT).
The Wii just doesn't let you use them in any way unless you have a custom IOS that pokes at it.
Any game developer could have written a custom IOS to use an external HDD, and Nintendo could have written the same custom IOS and pushed it out in an update.
The Wii itself was planned for expandability, just like every Nintendo console ever. It ended up seeing very little use of its options, though. (Again, just like every Nintendo console ever.)
It did in fact work for all games.
Do you have a source for that? As that contradicts all the information you can find on the net about it.
Yeah. I actually have the thing.
It was sold briefly (several months) in the US through Nintendo.com .
They stopped selling it because no one wanted it.
It did in fact work for all games.
The point I'm trying to make is that Slashdot loves Nintendo and hates Sony, and this story (which is very old--NGV cards were known about last June) only exists to serve that purpose, yet Nintendo has a long history of using expensive, proprietary storage formats. The company doesn't even let you redownload purchases from their online store if you replace your device. Your purchases are forever tied to the single piece of hardware you bought.
The fact that the Wii U will "apparently" support USB HDs isn't very encouraging given that the Wii already had a USB port and did nothing with it. Further, the N64 and Gamecube used their own proprietary memory cards, as did the PS1 and PS2. There is nothing new in this story at all except that it serves as another opportunity for Slashdotters to bitch about Sony.
Stop being wrong.
"NGV" cards (did you mix up Vita and "NGP", Next-Generation Portable?) were not "know about last June".
Everyone assumed Sony would use a shitty proprietary format.
No one knew they would do so to the exclusion of standard formats.
No one knew they would charge two buttloads per gigabyte.
No one knew the Vita SKU would not include a memory card.
No one knew many games would require the memory cards. (No one knew about the complete lack of built-in storage, and no one thought they'd be dumb enough to completely block you from playing games if you couldn't save them.)
Furthermore, USB HDDs do work on the Wii, and the USB ports were used officially for keyboards, Wii Speak, etc.
And the Gamecube let you use a standard SD card as a memory card if you bought the official adapter.
In the N64 days, "standard user storage" was a MMC card and was completely unsuited to a video game console.
The N64, Gamecube, PS1, PS2, and Xbox all used proprietary memory cards. My point is that this is nothing new (especially since the format of Vita's storage was already known back in June), nor is it specific to Sony, and the only reason this story was posted was to provide another opportunity for Slashdotters to bitch about them.
The Gamecube had an official SD card adapter that let you use any SD card in the memory card slot.
The NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube, Wii, Gameboy, Gameboy Advance, DS, and 3DS all use proprietary storage for games. Sony used CDs, DVDs, and Blu-Rays for the Playstation series.
The Gamecube and Wii use DVDs. They weren't a typical book type, and had protection mechanisms, but they absolutely are DVDs.
And proprietary storage for games isn't an issue for users. Proprietary storage for user data is an issue for users. Nintendo loves SD cards for user data storage.
Slashdot eating < and > as usual.
You got called out so hard. LOL
Don't use GoDaddy.
If you needed any more reasons to stay far away from GoDaddy and their shitty advertising, RTFA.
So far they have found this has happened to around 12 accounts, all within the "Web Design" genre (so most likely a targeted attack).
There is no accessible log from with your GoDaddy account to see what/when things happened.
They do [claim to] have access logs, but they can't [won't] share that information with me.
The domain was transferred away from GoDaddy the evening of Nov 20th
They [claim to] have, but cannot [won't] provide me with, the email address used to transfer the domain away.
GoDaddy confirmed my global account email has never been changed, but it WAS changed for the domain css-tricks.com prior to the move.
The request to unlock the domain happened on Nov. 14th at 4:30pm Mountain Time. Normally there is a 5-7 day waiting period, but GoDaddy offers instant transfer and they remarked that it was unusual that the hacker chose not to do that.
They confirmed no other domains have left my account.
[Stuff in brackets is mine.]
The 6950 is vastly inferior to the 6970, especially at higher resolutions where VRAM makes a big difference. Yes, the 6990 is just 2 6970 GPUs. That's why the I said the 6970 was the flagship.
I called you out on your bullshit. Just admit it.
You didn't even try to explain away the crap where you said a 6950 was a last gen part, or where you have 3 1680x1080 monitors.
No current operating system is immune to exploits. An accurate statement would be 'I use apple because their low population in the wild makes them unpopular targets for malware authors to write exploits for'.
I use Apple because I fear an alien invasion.
They're using our own signal against us!
We have come to a point where most of the computing elements are way more powerful than what the human eye demands in graphics even to the extent of photorealism. See, i ran the hell out of star wars the old republic with my 6950 radeon gpu and amd phenom ii 965 cpu in its beta - and in 5040x1080 3 monitor eyefinity resolution. it played overly smooth in 40 fps minimum. Granted, swtor is not a photorealistic 3d rendered game, however, it is very taxing when you factor in the fact that it is a mmo with endless differently textured toons (clothing, armor, face differences) converging on small spaces like coruscant. So, my phenom ii 965 cpu, which is not even a top tier offering in current cpu generation, not only ran the game perfectly, but also stayed so idle that i didnt even hear the cpu fan increase speed at all -> i use a 12 cm fan, and its already VERY silent too. if you go into games like crysis 2 et al, you will find that these games run on consoles very well, and on pc they run even faster.
so, we can easily say that cpus are already over a point where we could consider them a limiting factor for good looking games. the only remaining factor becomes, gpu.
granted, my 6950 is a last generation, top offering card. and even if cpu power had become way too much over the needs of games and graphics cards to become irrelevant after a certain tier, its not possible to play down the mandatory element, the graphics card yet.
but, there are already major strides in this area - amd has already succeeded in fusing cpu and gpu in the form of 'apu', and these apus do low power usage and provide good performance in entry-mid level laptop and netbook market. granted, they are not enough to provide top performance as we see it in pcs yet, but more apus will be coming. this means, we are moving towards a future in which the two indispensable elements of gaming, the cpu and gpu, will be both merged in one unit with top grade components. (next gen apus are to come with 7xxx cores)
so then, indeed lord british is right. you already merged, and optimized cpus and gpus in a form that it will be possible to game in a notebook. the only thing you need for this to become a reality in smartphones, is only more miniaturization and increased efficiency of this concept. and it is, as you know, a given in tech world. and im not even talking about the processors that are developing from the mobile computing vector.
there are already versions of 3d games that play on smartphones. in future, we will indeed be able to plug a device to tv or a monitor and just play.
Another troll by unity.
You said "granted, my 6950 is a last generation, top offering card". The AMD 6xxx series is THIS generation, the 7000 series is not out yet, and has no hard release date. Furthermore, the 6970 is the flagship part, with the 6990 being the "top offering". The 6950 is mid range.
You did not play SWTOR on a 6950 and Phenom II 965 at 40 fps minimum at 5040x1080 across 3 monitors. The Phenom II 965 is a dog, and 5040x1080 across 3 monitors means your monitors are 1680x1080. I've never seen a panel that size. Perhaps you meant to craft your way-too-long lie with 3 monitors at 1680x1050?
Your database is likely "remote" compared to the application. That is, the database is only accessible through a remote protocol, so that, unless the DB has security issues, the application AND the user can NOT do anything to the data store that they shouldn't.
I see a few replies like yours... and that is the problem. If a user shouldn't be able to delete records from the "Whatever" table, accessing the database outside of the application should yield no more rights than through the application. Alike, if a user shouldn't be able to manipulate file X, then you need to implement security on the OS/Filesystem level, detached from the application.
Logic in the application level can ALWAYS be circumvented, if even just with a hex editor.
You don't know anything about my database.
The only users my database has are the system account, and a user for each application.
All access is done through the applications. The applications have full access to their respective databases and tables, and the users of those applications are restricted in their rights by the applications. Users have no access to the database directly.
It's all web-based, so logic in the application can NOT be circumvented unless you have access to the application code. If someone has access to that, they have access to everything.
I see a few replies like yours... and that is the problem. If you talk out of your ass without understanding that shit isn't always done exactly in the myopic way you think it is, then you're going to make a fool out of yourself.
If a user shouldn't be able to do X, then all you have to do is ensure that they can't do X. It doesn't matter how you go about doing it as long as it works. Easy to maintain and easy to understand are a bonus.
You say this, like something complex is doomed to be incomprehensible to do correctly. Simple fact of the matter is, these silly folks are still using strlen(...) and ridiculously bad coding practices, known for decades, all to come in under deadlines.
I see WAY too often a multi-tier database application, where security is implemented by constantly querying what rights the user has from a "Users" table. They implement security with a bunch of 'if/switch' statements and claim "it's the nature of complex software!" when a security vulnerability is found, rather than putting security on the database.
Uh, what other way is there to implement a rights check?
Whether you get your data once or a hundred times, or whether you do a specific check or rely on the OS do it, it doesn't matter - it's still a table of users + rights, and a bunch of conditional statements the cpu plows through. You may argue that it's more error prone if you're writing a query and an if statement every time a check is needed, rather than using an API or relying on the OS to automatically call its own APIs. But you can't say it's less secure until you actually have an incident where there was an error that would have been prevented by calling the API instead of doing an ad-hoc query + if.
More likely to be insecure != insecure != less secure.
NOBDOY, that's who.
It's the "Hoddie wearing ASBO" of the rightwingnuts.
PS you already have a hereditary monarchy in the USA. Look at what happened when someone who isn't from an old family got into the top spot.
So you're saying Lincoln only indirectly caused the War of Northern Aggression?
Fucking apologists.
I knew they were from space!
You're either stupid, or a troll. After my extensive explanation of the meaning of baud, and it's relationship with bit rate, and how the two applied to different generations of modems, you persist in your error. Same with the rest. I'm done.
All of your explanations are simply you being wrong and wrong and wrong.
FACT 1: Kilobaud means 1000 baud.
FACT 2: Kilobit means 1024 bits.
FACT 3: A certain modem spits shit out such that 1 baud yields 8 bits.
If the signal rate of this modem is 1 Kilobaud, what is its data rate?
BY FACT 1:
1 Kilobaud = 1 * 1000 baud = 1000 baud.
BY FACT 3:
1000 baud = 1000 * 8 bits = 8000 bits.
BY FACT 2:
8000 bits = 7.8125 Kilobits.
I am sorry that you and others are always wrong and refuse to correct yourselves. Being wrong together doesn't make you right. It just makes you an ass.
You are the one who claimed
Yes it does. The Heisenburg uncertainty principle is not a limitation of technology. It's a law of the universe.
So the "burden of proof" is on you to prove it is a fundamental law of the universe, and not a phenomenal result in observation that arises due to the laws beneath it. Time and time again, throughout all of human history, we've gotten to the point where people think they've got it all figured out, and then bam, they're wrong.
Unless you have an explanation for everything, you haven't fully explained anything, let alone proven it. I don't see a unified field theory, do you?
Furthermore, the "You made a claim, you have to prove it!" line is tired (and the same goes for "Citation needed."). It's equivalent to a 4 year old saying "Nuh-uh, prove it!". It's a shining beacon of the utter lack of ability or willingness to consider anything but your own entrenched viewpoint.
Your claim is that Heisenberg will always hold. Tell me why, and why it is impossible for there to be a driving principle behind it that we are currently unaware of. If you cannot do that, you must logically conclude that the possibility exists that it may not be a fundamental physical principle.
Just because we can't know a position and vector of a particle now doesn't mean we won't ever be able to.
Yes it does. The Heisenburg uncertainty principle is not a limitation of technology. It's a law of the universe. It's like saying "just because gravity exists today doesn't mean it will exist sometime in the future."
It's a law of the universe as we know it.
I posit the following:
There is more to the universe than we currently see/know/understand.
Thus, there is the possibility of something existing that we do not know about and that can affect that which we do know and understand.
Unless you can prove that there is not more to the universe than we currently see/know/understand, then you must logically conclude that there is a possibility of Heisenburg being wrong, there is a possibility it really is turtles all the way down, etc. And it is logically impossible to prove that there is not more to the universe than we currently see/know/understand.
The only thing we can truly prove, the only thing we can truly know, is that we exist. Cogito ergo sum means something, you know.
I don't think the idea is far fetched (in terms of feasibility). I think it's unlikely because the bottom line is no one gives a shit about security - they give a shit about users being able to spend money.
Can a current QR code can hold enough data for a signed certificate?