You are confused in to thinking GPUs are magical "everything acceleration" devices.
Oh, am I now? That's incorrect, but I wonder what made you think so?
So the virus has to come in, and then launch on the CPU, then it can unpack code to the GPU and execute it. The CPU process will still have to keep running the whole time, because that is how the system schedules resource time.
With the minor correction that the CPU may be scheduled to other processes/threads (until the GPU finished and releases the lock on the memory), you are correct.
Again I fail to see what any of this gains. A virus scanner doesn't even need to look at the GPU to deal with this.
I never said the AV scanner would need to look at the GPU (only that would be advisable the AV scanner to use the GPU by itself).
I assert that the AV scanner cannot take any decision based solely on the behavior of "programs asks the GPU to do something then start executing from memory" and will need to look into the unpacked content to allow/disallow; fail to trap/hook this very moment and the scanner will loose the "race" (malware is already active). The only way would be for the scanner act in "preventive mode" - unpack/emulate/analyse the piece before actually executing (at the "file open" or "file close" moment, that's how most of the Realtime AV scanners do) - well and fine if the "packing algo" is simple (and can be emulated on the CPU), hard if the packing algo is meant to use a GPU as an execution medium (if ignoring the fact, you will finish in using the CPU for a GPU job, which will slow the host computer).
Oh and if your AV program is slow, go buy a better one. There are plenty of fast ones. I recommend reading AV comparatives and making your decision based on that.
Many thanks for the advice, well intended but ineffective (I'm not using any, still safe most of the time and not contributing to global warming by paying tribute in wasted CPU cycles to AV solutions).
Oh, executable packing/encryption. Ya viruses haven't done that since always. Sorry guys, but virus scanners are wise to that. They check for packed code.
So really, I don't see anything special here.
What is special: that you AV would run at CPU speed while the packers/unpackers will run at GPU speed. It would be like trying to catch a bank-robber who drives a Ferrari while riding your push-bike. Granted, you can still control the "roads", but control them too tight and I'll throw away your AV solution because it's making my computer run like on a 386/40 MHz on an everyday basis
Plus this kind of malware might be easier to deal with: Just shut down GPU processing. Unlike the CPU, that is a feasible thing to do. So if a system is infected, the GPU gets turned off, the malware cleaned, the GPU restarted. Graphics cards still work fine when addressed in old "Just a bunch of pixels," mode.
I imagine that a wise AV would use the GPU to actually run the unpacking and analysis/detection code faster.
TFA doesn't seem quite a novelty - even more, the linked article contains some nice layman-term explanations, including how to create a white-hole in the kitchen sink; this may help you to guess an answer on what could happen when you shut close the tap (errr... what happens when the horizon collapses).
Just like gun control isn't going to stop Bob over there from shooting up the neighborhood but does stop Joe from purchasing a handgun to protect himself against people like Bob and also to protect himself against the government.
Letting aside the slippage in formalism (as we are discussing the use of crypto, you should have used Alice/Bob/Eve in naming the parts involved): unlike arms, as long as the access to internet is free, one can find quite quickly (and still legal) manufacturers/providers of crypto communications outside the control of any government. Only a matter of time to have the people protect themselves against gov (errr... Gordon/Plod/Walter) in this regard.
The more I look into it, the more I think is a case of legislating PI=3.
I mean: if the two parties - terrorists or not - exchange private/public key pairs of sufficient length, no matter who intercept the message will need exponential time to decrypt.
The genie's out of the bottle already: with Android and a crypto package, any determined person can put together a mail client good enough for a "dark communication" (or find someone to do it... quite cheap, it's like no more than 3-4 men*days worth of work).
Either they are stupid enough (to even attempt to legislate PI=3) or... what the hell I'm missing from the picture?
I think the bigger question would be why would anybody want this in the first place?
Their declared purpose (read TFA, as non-customary as it is): for the health-care/aged-care domain.
May not make any sense or may make a lot of sense, all depends on how many people would be qualified to work in the industry (the supply) vs how many would need their hair washed by 16-robotic-fingers-because-no-other-fingers-are-available (the demand). Until I don't know the situation in Japan (and, possible, the trends in the next 5-10 years), I abstain from saying "It's stupid" or "It's a clever move".
Try do it with a missing limb. Or with atrocious artritical pains. Then read carefuly the TFA. Actually, contrary to the/. customes, you may start reading the TFA until you hit: "to assist caregivers in hospitals and health-care facilities".
Panasonic hasn't provided a launch date for any of the robots. An obstacle to their commercialization likes in the lack of safety standards and liability laws concerning robots that interact with humans.
Also, if you read between the lines of the title of TFA:
Panasonic unleashes 16-finger, hair washing robot
one may get quite scared (not very far from: "unleash a security-trained doberman dog").
Destroy the equipment, for starters? it's not like those devices are cheap, and shit happens. Something bad can happen to the private entities contracted to operate and maintain them.
Destroy them... hmmm... might be hard (have you tried to destroy an ATM? Neither did I, but the rugged aspect of it doesn't seem inviting).
Render them unusable? Maybe easier, but the question still remains: how?
More important: if/when sabotaging them, what the saboteur may loose? (i.e. sabotaging an ATM - loose at least the possibility to withdraw money. If not your liberty when being accused of vandalism. And boy, I don't want to be in jail for petty crimes under a monstrous regime: better as a political dissident, at least you can hope that Amnesty International may track your case).
our government has already proven itself to be an abuser, maimer, and murderer. It has already shown it desires the power to deprive its citizens of life, liberty, and finances without trial or due process. Why should we give such an evil monstrosity another tool?
Given the circumstances (a monstrous abuser-maimer-murderer gov), IMHO, the correct question would be: "How can you stop the monstrosity of acquiring/imposing the used of another tool?"
Believe me, I'm not trolling, but my imagination fails when thinking on how a Mexican citizen (or many, for the instance) can oppose.
I'll believe it only when I'll see 10+ replies to troll/flamebite messages posted on/. by this algo! (i.e. the posts need to really stir up the debate).
And while single-atom memory is an interesting feat, memory density isn't everything. It lets you get more capacity into less space, which can be nice.
yes, indeed, will let you get more capacity only when you fit the probe in the same space. For the time being, an STM is about this big. As a research technique, is amazing. As an applicative discovery... a long way yet until the real-life consumer grade direct application will emerge (if ever)
But if size was everything
Hit the nail in the head here: latency and power consumption spring into my mind as well.
Why somebody felt compelled to invent a bastardized version of email in the first place is beyond me.
(hmmm... question of a fresher in this world... a better wording would be pre-dates you)
A dose of history... see where the SMS originated (when the gadgets weren't connected to the internet. Heck, when the Internet was something that DARPA and a bunch of universities used - 9600 BITS/s was quite decent at the time).
What? Are the interpipes free of phishing already? Weren't when I went to bed. (that is to say: the total intelligence in this world is constant, the population is raising. Yes, idiots still exists)
Wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that if they truly were seeing what they think they see, it would have continued to expand and wipe us all out in an instant ?
Not quite. On the same line of rationing: one can discover radioactivity in uranium without necessarily creating an A-bomb; one can explode an H-bomb without creating a star.
Sidenote:
Infinite recursion: whenever I'm seeing posts as the parent, I start thinking Pavlov.
Introducing break condition: start thinking "iceberg"... comes with a chance of breaking in the IT security business and, when it happens, thinking of Titanic will stop being wasted CPU cycles.
Conceptually, no different from a "one-ball-in-the-maze random walk" - can have a single state.
...and what is the difference from any other kind of transformation that happens on a photon?
Again, no difference: the photons will random walk the maze independently (entanglement is not a requirement).
Also, what is the difference of "two-photon quantum walk" and normal interference?
a. Conceptual: while walking the maze (and solving your problem), the photons will be particles, thus interference is not an issue to consider.
b. The maze you make the photons walk through (instead of just two slits) should be programmable (model the system for which you want to compute the answer).
c. one may use interference at the end of "computation" to determine the probability of "maze exits" being chosen. This is why the extra requirement of "photons need to be identical" (when using them as waves to get the answer, one needs coherence).
Well, it may be a bit more complicated than that (i.e. one can have a single physical "exit" from the maze but different polarization states of the "balls"), but essentially the answer will come in "the experimentally determined superposition of quantum states after going through the quantum programmable maze").
Slashdot Mirror
I think they should receive some congrats.
You are confused in to thinking GPUs are magical "everything acceleration" devices.
Oh, am I now? That's incorrect, but I wonder what made you think so?
So the virus has to come in, and then launch on the CPU, then it can unpack code to the GPU and execute it. The CPU process will still have to keep running the whole time, because that is how the system schedules resource time.
With the minor correction that the CPU may be scheduled to other processes/threads (until the GPU finished and releases the lock on the memory), you are correct.
Again I fail to see what any of this gains. A virus scanner doesn't even need to look at the GPU to deal with this.
I never said the AV scanner would need to look at the GPU (only that would be advisable the AV scanner to use the GPU by itself).
I assert that the AV scanner cannot take any decision based solely on the behavior of "programs asks the GPU to do something then start executing from memory" and will need to look into the unpacked content to allow/disallow; fail to trap/hook this very moment and the scanner will loose the "race" (malware is already active).
The only way would be for the scanner act in "preventive mode" - unpack/emulate/analyse the piece before actually executing (at the "file open" or "file close" moment, that's how most of the Realtime AV scanners do) - well and fine if the "packing algo" is simple (and can be emulated on the CPU), hard if the packing algo is meant to use a GPU as an execution medium (if ignoring the fact, you will finish in using the CPU for a GPU job, which will slow the host computer).
Oh and if your AV program is slow, go buy a better one. There are plenty of fast ones. I recommend reading AV comparatives and making your decision based on that.
Many thanks for the advice, well intended but ineffective (I'm not using any, still safe most of the time and not contributing to global warming by paying tribute in wasted CPU cycles to AV solutions).
Oh, executable packing/encryption. Ya viruses haven't done that since always. Sorry guys, but virus scanners are wise to that. They check for packed code.
So really, I don't see anything special here.
What is special: that you AV would run at CPU speed while the packers/unpackers will run at GPU speed. It would be like trying to catch a bank-robber who drives a Ferrari while riding your push-bike. Granted, you can still control the "roads", but control them too tight and I'll throw away your AV solution because it's making my computer run like on a 386/40 MHz on an everyday basis
Plus this kind of malware might be easier to deal with: Just shut down GPU processing. Unlike the CPU, that is a feasible thing to do. So if a system is infected, the GPU gets turned off, the malware cleaned, the GPU restarted. Graphics cards still work fine when addressed in old "Just a bunch of pixels," mode.
I imagine that a wise AV would use the GPU to actually run the unpacking and analysis/detection code faster.
Those "ancient" 386 chips are probably mil-spec radiation hardened chips, too.
What? But I thought.... my iPhone3... ummm... never mind, it's not part of the problem.
Given how wonky IT and communication upgrades can be, it makes sense to keep these systems the same for as long as possible.
Where we'd all be without them (obligatory)?
TFA doesn't seem quite a novelty - even more, the linked article contains some nice layman-term explanations, including how to create a white-hole in the kitchen sink; this may help you to guess an answer on what could happen when you shut close the tap (errr... what happens when the horizon collapses).
Just like gun control isn't going to stop Bob over there from shooting up the neighborhood but does stop Joe from purchasing a handgun to protect himself against people like Bob and also to protect himself against the government.
Letting aside the slippage in formalism (as we are discussing the use of crypto, you should have used Alice/Bob/Eve in naming the parts involved): unlike arms, as long as the access to internet is free, one can find quite quickly (and still legal) manufacturers/providers of crypto communications outside the control of any government. Only a matter of time to have the people protect themselves against gov (errr... Gordon/Plod/Walter) in this regard.
The more I look into it, the more I think is a case of legislating PI=3.
The genie's out of the bottle already: with Android and a crypto package, any determined person can put together a mail client good enough for a "dark communication" (or find someone to do it... quite cheap, it's like no more than 3-4 men*days worth of work).
Either they are stupid enough (to even attempt to legislate PI=3) or... what the hell I'm missing from the picture?
I think the bigger question would be why would anybody want this in the first place?
Their declared purpose (read TFA, as non-customary as it is): for the health-care/aged-care domain.
May not make any sense or may make a lot of sense, all depends on how many people would be qualified to work in the industry (the supply) vs how many would need their hair washed by 16-robotic-fingers-because-no-other-fingers-are-available (the demand).
Until I don't know the situation in Japan (and, possible, the trends in the next 5-10 years), I abstain from saying "It's stupid" or "It's a clever move".
Try do it with a missing limb. Or with atrocious artritical pains. /. customes, you may start reading the TFA until you hit: "to assist caregivers in hospitals and health-care facilities".
Then read carefuly the TFA. Actually, contrary to the
Panasonic hasn't provided a launch date for any of the robots. An obstacle to their commercialization likes in the lack of safety standards and liability laws concerning robots that interact with humans.
Also, if you read between the lines of the title of TFA:
Panasonic unleashes 16-finger, hair washing robot
one may get quite scared (not very far from: "unleash a security-trained doberman dog").
Destroy the equipment, for starters? it's not like those devices are cheap, and shit happens. Something bad can happen to the private entities contracted to operate and maintain them.
Destroy them... hmmm... might be hard (have you tried to destroy an ATM? Neither did I, but the rugged aspect of it doesn't seem inviting).
Render them unusable? Maybe easier, but the question still remains: how?
More important: if/when sabotaging them, what the saboteur may loose? (i.e. sabotaging an ATM - loose at least the possibility to withdraw money. If not your liberty when being accused of vandalism. And boy, I don't want to be in jail for petty crimes under a monstrous regime: better as a political dissident, at least you can hope that Amnesty International may track your case).
My god, these countries have no respect for American IP laws at all do they?!
You have no iDea how low it can be ;)
And this include iReLand.
our government has already proven itself to be an abuser, maimer, and murderer. It has already shown it desires the power to deprive its citizens of life, liberty, and finances without trial or due process. Why should we give such an evil monstrosity another tool?
Given the circumstances (a monstrous abuser-maimer-murderer gov), IMHO, the correct question would be: "How can you stop the monstrosity of acquiring/imposing the used of another tool?"
Believe me, I'm not trolling, but my imagination fails when thinking on how a Mexican citizen (or many, for the instance) can oppose.
Only after they're done with iRan and iRaq...
You forgot iTaly.
You expect this AI to be with the cream of the trolls and i think that's a bit too much :P
Now, let the thinking aside and tell me how you feel about, will you? (if day-dreaming... hmmm... forget it, can't evaluate the implications).
Hello Eliza. It's been ages since I last chatted with you.
Just forget ELIZA for the Turing test, will you?
I'll believe it only when I'll see 10+ replies to troll/flamebite messages posted on /. by this algo! (i.e. the posts need to really stir up the debate).
And while single-atom memory is an interesting feat, memory density isn't everything. It lets you get more capacity into less space, which can be nice.
yes, indeed, will let you get more capacity only when you fit the probe in the same space. For the time being, an STM is about this big.
As a research technique, is amazing. As an applicative discovery... a long way yet until the real-life consumer grade direct application will emerge (if ever)
But if size was everything
Hit the nail in the head here: latency and power consumption spring into my mind as well.
Given that Android is a Linux derivative, I guess you are utterly wrong.
Why somebody felt compelled to invent a bastardized version of email in the first place is beyond me.
(hmmm... question of a fresher in this world... a better wording would be pre-dates you)
A dose of history... see where the SMS originated (when the gadgets weren't connected to the internet. Heck, when the Internet was something that DARPA and a bunch of universities used - 9600 BITS/s was quite decent at the time).
What? Are the interpipes free of phishing already? Weren't when I went to bed.
(that is to say: the total intelligence in this world is constant, the population is raising. Yes, idiots still exists)
Wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that if they truly were seeing what they think they see, it would have continued to expand and wipe us all out in an instant ?
Not quite. On the same line of rationing: one can discover radioactivity in uranium without necessarily creating an A-bomb; one can explode an H-bomb without creating a star.
Sidenote:
Infinite recursion: whenever I'm seeing posts as the parent, I start thinking Pavlov.
Introducing break condition: start thinking "iceberg"... comes with a chance of breaking in the IT security business and, when it happens, thinking of Titanic will stop being wasted CPU cycles.
Yes. The story was disassembled into it's component letters and then reassembled to harvest more Slashdot trolls. Recycling at it's most efficient.
Did you mean self-assembled?
What does it mean a "one photon quantum walk"
Conceptually, no different from a "one-ball-in-the-maze random walk" - can have a single state.
...and what is the difference from any other kind of transformation that happens on a photon?
Again, no difference: the photons will random walk the maze independently (entanglement is not a requirement).
Also, what is the difference of "two-photon quantum walk" and normal interference?
a. Conceptual: while walking the maze (and solving your problem), the photons will be particles, thus interference is not an issue to consider.
b. The maze you make the photons walk through (instead of just two slits) should be programmable (model the system for which you want to compute the answer).
c. one may use interference at the end of "computation" to determine the probability of "maze exits" being chosen. This is why the extra requirement of "photons need to be identical" (when using them as waves to get the answer, one needs coherence).
Well, it may be a bit more complicated than that (i.e. one can have a single physical "exit" from the maze but different polarization states of the "balls"), but essentially the answer will come in "the experimentally determined superposition of quantum states after going through the quantum programmable maze").