You're wrong and you're indignant about it; yay America!
As a user of this business, you're allowed to hack into their systems and make all the changes you want, you can inspect everything they do, because you paid for their service! EXCEPT THAT ISN'T HOW IT WORKS ANYWHERE, OR HOW IT HAS EVER WORKED. WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?
Law is a system by definition. So you have a system, that is Law. Yes, it is "legal", but you're arguing semantics when you understood exactly what I meant and it wasn't even technically grammatically wrong. I'm not upset or anything (appreciate the;-) to help pass joking inflection).
But that said, people being sticklers for exact wording is one of the things wrong with the internet. Enough, grammar nazis, enough.:P
He is clearly miles and miles in over his head. My advice: STOP. NOW. Don't touch anything and don't say anything. Go read books on ethical hacking and wiretapping / unauthorized access law. He's likely already in violation of several laws, possibly several federal laws. And now he's admitted to them publicly on the internet. -__-
*sigh* man, I feel you. The word "hack" is just gone, lost from our culture. The mainstream has twisted it far too much.
Reading Aaron Barr from HBGary talk to anonymous and then talk to his "programmer" about all his sweet "hacks" nearly killed me.
The 95 Hackers film has become reality. I can't shake em, he's right behind me! Crash overdrive! Acid Burn!
Ooh, plus there's Swordfish "dropped a logic bomb through the trapdoor" and the wonderful CSI "programmed a GUI interface in Visual Basic to track the IP".
We really need to start educating the non-technical public on some technical things. Treating computers and technology as a whole as a black box ends up in all KINDS of misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
This is not news. This is not a story. There isn't even a fucking article to tell someone to go RTFA. This is some idiot asking for advice on an absolutely terrible scheme which has been explained before (with actual news mind you, of people getting locked up or tried for crimes instead of just theorizing).
This is not something for/. This is something that should go on a programming forum, or a law forum. (Or better yet, kept to oneself as a hair-brained scheme that would fail).
Usually when somebody goes "THIS, on/. ?" I go "hey, news for nerds means a lot of topics."
But this is just ridiculous.
This is the DUMBEST THING EVER. I cannot believe people actually think this way. Are you familiar with the LAW SYSTEM? People can't just go around doing things without permission like that. If your internet connection crosses a state line, (and due to packet routing it probably is and you might not even know) then you are committing a FEDERAL CRIME. That means that not just the police, but the FBI will come knock on your door. History is just FULL of people who though, hey, I'm pretty clever, I'll hack these people and get a job. NOBODY WILL HIRE A CRIMINAL I PROMISE YOU.
Cannot stress this enough. Jeeze.
Here are your options: Call them, email them. Thats it. Move on with your life if they ignore you. There's nothing that says they can't be incompetent if they want to, but there is something that says you can't break into their systems. (yes, even if they're not secured).
Please explain.
I was merely trying to provide a counterexample, where a new discovery IS truly relevant to a great many things we already know about, sheding new light.
Then response said most of the universe is dark energy, and then dark matter, and then matter (atoms), so I was wrong.
This doesn't really mean anything, because even if my example wasn't perfect (okay it wasn't, sorry! You come up with a better one). The point still stands that just because "when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail" doesn't prove that EVERY time you have a hammer, you're falsely believing something is a nail. Maybe sometimes that is the case, but it doesn't prove anything for sure. Like I said in my first post, its a good point of caution, but doesn't really say anything other than to be cautious and hesitate before making wild claims, which is fair.
Nah, it was more like Duke Nukem or Dark forces, games built after DOOM using DOOM. Marathon was slightly post-DOOM, learning from it, but definitely before full 3D polygons like quake.
You're arguing two different reasons why it wouldn't work against each other. So? The point is either one stops you, or the other does. It really doesn't matter to this issue if they're mutually exclusive.
I never implied you could have both at once. I was merely considering two alternatives, and pointing out that in either case it doesn't work.
Also you don't have to start at the big bang as long as you can somehow observe the entire current universe state. I mean, thats gonna be hella hard, but so is everything else we're talking about here.:)
Although as parent-parent pointed out, even if you can perfectly simulate the universe within the universe SOMEHOW, the predictions that that machine makes will then influence your decisions and therefor the universe state, so it would slowly get further away from that prediction.
Um, no? Because we're talking about physical objects (atoms, quarks) not data (string of text). The physical objects have a volume, and have an amount of information contained therein (size, position of quarks, rotation, etc.), and you cannot contain that amount of data in a smaller physical volume than it takes up itself.
A comment takes up no physical volume, so you cannot compare the size of information of the comment to the physical volume of the comment.
You could do that, although you still have to work with the entire uncompressed data set to calculate the next state change, so even if you somehow worked out how to do it piece by piece (questions about locality, etc.) if you're doing that, compressing it and then working with pieces of it at a time, then you're going to have a slower performance time. That means your simulation will be perfect, but slower than the real world, so ultimately useless! xD I can simulate what will happen tomorrow... in a month.
Thats just his funding. If you're going to right him off for "selling out" to a corporation to get funding, fine. But that means you should also hate most of science and the arts. Funding is a necessary evil, you can't do science without. Yes, in a perfect world maybe there'd be science for science's sake. But hey, this guy is out doing what he loves, and he's doing some pretty awesome things. I don't think its fair to judge him just because he needed help paying for those mini-jet engines.
Yes, except we KNOW that the human brain works nothing like a binary computer.
[citation required] ?
If there is a smallest fundamental particle in the universe, it is binary. Thats why we would think it. Things on our scale do not seem to work "like a binary computer" because the scale is so vastly large you get unpredictable behavior. We're up at some 10 ^ 18 powers above the binary level. Its HUGE.
If you have a monitor with only a few discreet pixels, and those pixels can each only have on color, then that is a limited resolution. Any image would appear pixelated and blocky and unrealistic. But as the resolution gets higher and higher and higher, the image becomes indistinguishable from reality.
"things" certainly are. There may be a lot of dark energy out there, but when I am referring to "what things are made of" you can't say dark energy. Dark Matter I'll buy, as a "thing" that isn't made of atoms, but there's very, very little dark matter in our world, and I wouldn't compare matter vs dark matter as "virtually nothing", although yes there is more dark matter.
Also it has nothing to do whatsoever with the point I was making, so awesome, thanks for contributing.
A good point of caution, but doesn't prove anything in of itself. When you discover the atom, everything looks like its made of atoms
Oh wait, most things actually are! Sometimes that happens.
Cellular automata would indeed be able to model *everything* and give us new insights to *everything*, if the universe is indeed digital. (as opposed to continuous, not analog)
Slashdot Mirror
sixteen year old boy playing with computers was arrested today by the FBI...
You're wrong and you're indignant about it; yay America!
As a user of this business, you're allowed to hack into their systems and make all the changes you want, you can inspect everything they do, because you paid for their service! EXCEPT THAT ISN'T HOW IT WORKS ANYWHERE, OR HOW IT HAS EVER WORKED. WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?
Law is a system by definition. So you have a system, that is Law. Yes, it is "legal", but you're arguing semantics when you understood exactly what I meant and it wasn't even technically grammatically wrong. I'm not upset or anything (appreciate the ;-) to help pass joking inflection).
:P
But that said, people being sticklers for exact wording is one of the things wrong with the internet. Enough, grammar nazis, enough.
He is clearly miles and miles in over his head. My advice: STOP. NOW. Don't touch anything and don't say anything. Go read books on ethical hacking and wiretapping / unauthorized access law. He's likely already in violation of several laws, possibly several federal laws. And now he's admitted to them publicly on the internet. -__-
He's already violated several conditions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse act: conspiracy to access a computer without permission, accessing a computer without permission, including financial records
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act State laws on Computer Hacking and Unauthorized Access
I suppose I'm getting ahead of myself by assuming he is in the United States. Regardless though, I ask:
To go to jail, or not to go to jail?
*sigh* man, I feel you. The word "hack" is just gone, lost from our culture. The mainstream has twisted it far too much.
Reading Aaron Barr from HBGary talk to anonymous and then talk to his "programmer" about all his sweet "hacks" nearly killed me.
The 95 Hackers film has become reality. I can't shake em, he's right behind me! Crash overdrive! Acid Burn!
Ooh, plus there's Swordfish "dropped a logic bomb through the trapdoor" and the wonderful CSI "programmed a GUI interface in Visual Basic to track the IP".
We really need to start educating the non-technical public on some technical things. Treating computers and technology as a whole as a black box ends up in all KINDS of misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
This is not news. This is not a story. There isn't even a fucking article to tell someone to go RTFA. This is some idiot asking for advice on an absolutely terrible scheme which has been explained before (with actual news mind you, of people getting locked up or tried for crimes instead of just theorizing). /. This is something that should go on a programming forum, or a law forum. (Or better yet, kept to oneself as a hair-brained scheme that would fail).
/. ?" I go "hey, news for nerds means a lot of topics."
This is not something for
Usually when somebody goes "THIS, on
But this is just ridiculous.
Seriously, how did this get on the front page?!?
This is the DUMBEST THING EVER. I cannot believe people actually think this way. Are you familiar with the LAW SYSTEM? People can't just go around doing things without permission like that. If your internet connection crosses a state line, (and due to packet routing it probably is and you might not even know) then you are committing a FEDERAL CRIME. That means that not just the police, but the FBI will come knock on your door. History is just FULL of people who though, hey, I'm pretty clever, I'll hack these people and get a job. NOBODY WILL HIRE A CRIMINAL I PROMISE YOU.
Cannot stress this enough. Jeeze.
Here are your options: Call them, email them. Thats it. Move on with your life if they ignore you. There's nothing that says they can't be incompetent if they want to, but there is something that says you can't break into their systems. (yes, even if they're not secured).
Please explain.
I was merely trying to provide a counterexample, where a new discovery IS truly relevant to a great many things we already know about, sheding new light.
Then response said most of the universe is dark energy, and then dark matter, and then matter (atoms), so I was wrong.
This doesn't really mean anything, because even if my example wasn't perfect (okay it wasn't, sorry! You come up with a better one). The point still stands that just because "when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail" doesn't prove that EVERY time you have a hammer, you're falsely believing something is a nail. Maybe sometimes that is the case, but it doesn't prove anything for sure. Like I said in my first post, its a good point of caution, but doesn't really say anything other than to be cautious and hesitate before making wild claims, which is fair.
So what mistake? And for what reason now?
Nah, it was more like Duke Nukem or Dark forces, games built after DOOM using DOOM. Marathon was slightly post-DOOM, learning from it, but definitely before full 3D polygons like quake.
Marathon was DOOM era. Unreal was Quake era. BIG difference. (billboarded walls and sprites vs 3D polygons)
I miss the smiley face rockets! :D
You're arguing two different reasons why it wouldn't work against each other. So? The point is either one stops you, or the other does. It really doesn't matter to this issue if they're mutually exclusive.
I never implied you could have both at once. I was merely considering two alternatives, and pointing out that in either case it doesn't work.
Also you don't have to start at the big bang as long as you can somehow observe the entire current universe state. I mean, thats gonna be hella hard, but so is everything else we're talking about here. :)
See where I said "That means your simulation will be perfect, but slower than the real world, so ultimately useless!" ?
Although as parent-parent pointed out, even if you can perfectly simulate the universe within the universe SOMEHOW, the predictions that that machine makes will then influence your decisions and therefor the universe state, so it would slowly get further away from that prediction.
Um, no? Because we're talking about physical objects (atoms, quarks) not data (string of text). The physical objects have a volume, and have an amount of information contained therein (size, position of quarks, rotation, etc.), and you cannot contain that amount of data in a smaller physical volume than it takes up itself.
A comment takes up no physical volume, so you cannot compare the size of information of the comment to the physical volume of the comment.
You could do that, although you still have to work with the entire uncompressed data set to calculate the next state change, so even if you somehow worked out how to do it piece by piece (questions about locality, etc.) if you're doing that, compressing it and then working with pieces of it at a time, then you're going to have a slower performance time. That means your simulation will be perfect, but slower than the real world, so ultimately useless! xD I can simulate what will happen tomorrow... in a month.
Good point, and well put. :)
Thats just his funding. If you're going to right him off for "selling out" to a corporation to get funding, fine. But that means you should also hate most of science and the arts. Funding is a necessary evil, you can't do science without. Yes, in a perfect world maybe there'd be science for science's sake. But hey, this guy is out doing what he loves, and he's doing some pretty awesome things. I don't think its fair to judge him just because he needed help paying for those mini-jet engines.
Balls of Steel.
Move over, Duke.
Care to explain yourself? Or just trolling?
Yes, except we KNOW that the human brain works nothing like a binary computer.
[citation required] ?
If there is a smallest fundamental particle in the universe, it is binary. Thats why we would think it. Things on our scale do not seem to work "like a binary computer" because the scale is so vastly large you get unpredictable behavior. We're up at some 10 ^ 18 powers above the binary level. Its HUGE.
If you have a monitor with only a few discreet pixels, and those pixels can each only have on color, then that is a limited resolution. Any image would appear pixelated and blocky and unrealistic. But as the resolution gets higher and higher and higher, the image becomes indistinguishable from reality.
"things" certainly are. There may be a lot of dark energy out there, but when I am referring to "what things are made of" you can't say dark energy. Dark Matter I'll buy, as a "thing" that isn't made of atoms, but there's very, very little dark matter in our world, and I wouldn't compare matter vs dark matter as "virtually nothing", although yes there is more dark matter.
Also it has nothing to do whatsoever with the point I was making, so awesome, thanks for contributing.
A good point of caution, but doesn't prove anything in of itself. When you discover the atom, everything looks like its made of atoms
Oh wait, most things actually are! Sometimes that happens.
Cellular automata would indeed be able to model *everything* and give us new insights to *everything*, if the universe is indeed digital. (as opposed to continuous, not analog)