No, I am not looking at the granularity.I am examining fundamental assumptions.
If you are going to have the basic building block of the universe, then that means it can build the _entire_ universe, including Chemistry and Biology.
imo, we cannot derive either of those from physics so there is a limit to what physics can build of the universe.
My 'logic' is that if there is a limit at one end, I suspect there is a limit at the other, that there are more separate layers that cannot imply or be derived from others.
The problem of basic granularity is different. If matter equals energy, then the very smallest piece of matter must be whatever the smallest piece of energy could be. (Matter might actually be bigger than Planck's constant, but it cannot be smaller). imo, if you want to get smaller, then you will be inside a different sort of science that cannot talk about matter at all. And once you are there, I don't believe you can derive matter from that stuff any easier than you can derive Biology from Chemistry.
imo, the universe includes everything. It isn't just to describe things outside of the earthly domain.
I agree that clean code is the sign of an organized mind.
I guess my point is that _most_ people get better at what they do over time. Their code gets better and better.
If your code isn't getting better over time, perhaps it is perfect and there actually is no room for you to improve whether coding or thinking.
But I think that's kind of rare.
If their own theory explains how it works, then perhaps they can fix the logic problem of Godel's;-)
As far as real science is concerned, I think physicists miss the idea of looking for limits. Predict or derive Chemistry from classical physics.
It can either be done or not (I think it is impossible). If it cannot be done, then physics does NOT describe the entire universe.
Get that layering of emergent reality locked into your head and perhaps physicists will find ways to decide which of the layers of quantum physics are truly separate from each other and non-derivable from the next lower level. That will end up being the foundation of the next revolution in science.
I don't think scientists need to understand how theories work in order to come up with better theories.
In reality, you discover exact places where your theory does NOT work in order to develop a better theory.
What they have discovered is statistical regression, not basic science. Sure, there are just a few factors of a cell that will predict--WITHIN A REASONABLE RANGE OF ERRORS--what a cell will do in the future.
That doesn't mean you can build a cell with only those parts and nothing else. If you want a working cell, you need all that 'irrelevant' crap.
imo, if you're going to try to prove proof, start with math. Read Godel then realize that Pythagoras was wrong about both of his major ideas--that the infinitely long and infinitely dense set of rational numbers describes every length possible and that the harmonics of a plucked string are self-consistent (read about the differences between the equal-tempered and well-tempered musical scales).
Why would he be infected?
Let's get real. It was probably accidental, just like Stuxnet. Or pretty much every god damn worm in the field, spreading relentlessly due to a single mis-coded line.
Stuxnet wasn't discovered by Iranians, it was discovered by European security researchers who were accidentally infected. /* it may have been discovered by American researchers first but they were probably each hired by NSA and their comments removed from the Apple forums;-) */
If your machine had the original version of the dogWhistle-virus, then your only indication would be that you can read a CD-Rom
How many slash dotters even try to use a CD? And if it doesn't work, you'd assume a bad driver.
I suspect the latest version fixed that error.
Audio gaps have been used by the NSA for years, once they realized you could hear a teletype over a phone line and if you could hear the teletype printing, you could maybe decipher what it printed. So there were no phones inside the print rooms.
The speakers and microphones are analog, but they're behind D/A and A/D converters - which are in turn behind lowpass filters. So, there is actually a cutoff.
That is a true statement--there actually is a cutoff in the possible sound the speakers generate.
However, there is not a severe cut-off about the electrical signals any specific circuit could generate. I'd be interested to know how the speakers were turned off. If they were disabled as hardware (which I assume since he turned them both (speaker and microphone) off at once) or if the speaker was merely muted yet the infection still worked.
What? You didn't know that the NSA was really a front for the Albanian State Washing Machine Company?
They've been running the world all along.
Well thank God someone's in charge. Sometimes it seems as if everything is just running on its own with no planning or forethought, just everybody trying to grab as much sex and money as possible;-)
We're either looking at someone who has a LOT of free time and hardware on his hands, or a 1st or 2nd world military-level dev team with LOTS of cash to spend, IMO.
Or a corporation like Sony looking to really fix DRM or like Apple looking at easier ways to update bad software without letting any of its customers know there actually was a problem. There was never a problem because it's not happening now and all the comments about the problem were removed. It's a
Chinese way of doing things, like yin-yank, I mean yin-yang.
Could a dog hear it? I can picture an entirely new computer security model now, one that barks.
Or wags it tail more to the left than the right when the computer is broadcasting.
Maybe John McAffee could hear those sorts of infections and that's what drove him crazy.
When he said the main indication of infection was being unable to read a CD-Rom, I immediately thought of SONY Corporation. They had a pretty good rootkit for DRM (digital rights management) last century that they were trying to get installed everyplace possible (just to ensure profits so we know it was legal).
They would have a vested interest in not reading CDs and having Bulgarians or Disney over-write Sony's DRM.
When they finally had to let it go, their engineers probably contracted for some security work with another shell company owned by the Chinese or the NSA.
In the article, he says he started off thinking the initial infection came from the USB but at the end of the article he's not so sure. Thinking back, maybe it was already infected some other way and then infected the USB second. That re-thinking tended to confirm to me he is a serious researcher constantly re-checking his own assumptions and memory.
I don't know of any coders who started off writing easy to maintain code.
Most of the coders who do _write_ code that is easy to maintain only do so after having to come back a month or year later and revise code they themselves have written./* revising other people's first draft of code just makes you over-confident that you are better than they are when that probably isn't true. Compare first drafts to first drafts, not to final code after all the bugs have been worked out and the customer has finally started understanding his own requirements */
There are even good business reasons not to worry about maintenance, such as if the product doesn't fly, then maintenance of it is moot. And if writing easy-to-understand code slows down getting the product out the door, don't do it.
I dunno. I think it's still fluff.
When you manipulate people face-to-face to bypass security, it is called social engineering.
When you do _exactly_ the same thing not face-to-face but using a computer, it is suddenly "the system's" fault.
Booth babes attract attention. Sex sells. Watch commercials during a football game or prime time.
They even sell drugs such as Viagra and alcohol to help you have sex (with partners).
Forget security, the real headline should be "How to get 3 job offers in 24 hours". She must have had some serious (fake) qualifications and/or a smoking hot profile pic.
I'm on LinkedIn and I get lots of fake job offers.
Oh wait, that's not what you were talking about.
That particular statement does not confirm there was a software defect within the code.
It does however confirm there was a procedural problem with their code-checking software if it doesn't even check 350 functions.
Other statements in the article confirm there was an actual software defect missed by "quality controls" Toyota had set up (none it sounds like to me).
Seems to me reliability in engine control software _is_ doable. Toyota just didn't do it.
Probably some kind of poor management decision that will ultimately be blamed on bad engineering.
I remember when men didn't wear ear rings and nobody had nose rings or tongue rings or elsewhere rings
Times change......back AND forth
Once folks know exactly what sorts of notifications they want, I can imagine various bluetoothed objects in different piercings vibrating for texts, e-mails, and appointments.
You know where the most important ones would be--the place that instantly gets your attention if it vibrates.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I am not looking at the granularity.I am examining fundamental assumptions.
If you are going to have the basic building block of the universe, then that means it can build the _entire_ universe, including Chemistry and Biology.
imo, we cannot derive either of those from physics so there is a limit to what physics can build of the universe.
My 'logic' is that if there is a limit at one end, I suspect there is a limit at the other, that there are more separate layers that cannot imply or be derived from others.
The problem of basic granularity is different. If matter equals energy, then the very smallest piece of matter must be whatever the smallest piece of energy could be. (Matter might actually be bigger than Planck's constant, but it cannot be smaller). imo, if you want to get smaller, then you will be inside a different sort of science that cannot talk about matter at all. And once you are there, I don't believe you can derive matter from that stuff any easier than you can derive Biology from Chemistry.
imo, the universe includes everything. It isn't just to describe things outside of the earthly domain.
I agree that clean code is the sign of an organized mind.
I guess my point is that _most_ people get better at what they do over time. Their code gets better and better.
If your code isn't getting better over time, perhaps it is perfect and there actually is no room for you to improve whether coding or thinking.
But I think that's kind of rare.
If their own theory explains how it works, then perhaps they can fix the logic problem of Godel's ;-)
As far as real science is concerned, I think physicists miss the idea of looking for limits. Predict or derive Chemistry from classical physics.
It can either be done or not (I think it is impossible). If it cannot be done, then physics does NOT describe the entire universe.
Get that layering of emergent reality locked into your head and perhaps physicists will find ways to decide which of the layers of quantum physics are truly separate from each other and non-derivable from the next lower level. That will end up being the foundation of the next revolution in science.
I don't think scientists need to understand how theories work in order to come up with better theories.
In reality, you discover exact places where your theory does NOT work in order to develop a better theory.
What they have discovered is statistical regression, not basic science. Sure, there are just a few factors of a cell that will predict--WITHIN A REASONABLE RANGE OF ERRORS--what a cell will do in the future.
That doesn't mean you can build a cell with only those parts and nothing else. If you want a working cell, you need all that 'irrelevant' crap.
imo, if you're going to try to prove proof, start with math. Read Godel then realize that Pythagoras was wrong about both of his major ideas--that the infinitely long and infinitely dense set of rational numbers describes every length possible and that the harmonics of a plucked string are self-consistent (read about the differences between the equal-tempered and well-tempered musical scales).
Why would he be infected?
/* it may have been discovered by American researchers first but they were probably each hired by NSA and their comments removed from the Apple forums ;-) */
Let's get real. It was probably accidental, just like Stuxnet.
Or pretty much every god damn worm in the field, spreading relentlessly due to a single mis-coded line.
Stuxnet wasn't discovered by Iranians, it was discovered by European security researchers who were accidentally infected.
If your machine had the original version of the dogWhistle-virus, then your only indication would be that you can read a CD-Rom
How many slash dotters even try to use a CD? And if it doesn't work, you'd assume a bad driver.
I suspect the latest version fixed that error.
Audio gaps have been used by the NSA for years, once they realized you could hear a teletype over a phone line and if you could hear the teletype printing, you could maybe decipher what it printed. So there were no phones inside the print rooms.
The speakers and microphones are analog, but they're behind D/A and A/D converters - which are in turn behind lowpass filters. So, there is actually a cutoff.
That is a true statement--there actually is a cutoff in the possible sound the speakers generate.
However, there is not a severe cut-off about the electrical signals any specific circuit could generate. I'd be interested to know how the speakers were turned off. If they were disabled as hardware (which I assume since he turned them both (speaker and microphone) off at once) or if the speaker was merely muted yet the infection still worked.
Enquiring minds want to know,
What? You didn't know that the NSA was really a front for the Albanian State Washing Machine Company?
They've been running the world all along.
Well thank God someone's in charge. Sometimes it seems as if everything is just running on its own with no planning or forethought, just everybody trying to grab as much sex and money as possible ;-)
We're either looking at someone who has a LOT of free time and hardware on his hands, or a 1st or 2nd world military-level dev team with LOTS of cash to spend, IMO.
Or a corporation like Sony looking to really fix DRM or like Apple looking at easier ways to update bad software without letting any of its customers know there actually was a problem. There was never a problem because it's not happening now and all the comments about the problem were removed. It's a Chinese way of doing things, like yin-yank, I mean yin-yang.
Could a dog hear it? I can picture an entirely new computer security model now, one that barks.
Or wags it tail more to the left than the right when the computer is broadcasting.
Maybe John McAffee could hear those sorts of infections and that's what drove him crazy.
Slashdot used to check for duped link in the submission...Somehow that requirement was gone - along with the dupe-link check.
Probably some kind of bios infection on the server. ;-)
Just a guess
When he said the main indication of infection was being unable to read a CD-Rom, I immediately thought of SONY Corporation. They had a pretty good rootkit for DRM (digital rights management) last century that they were trying to get installed everyplace possible (just to ensure profits so we know it was legal).
They would have a vested interest in not reading CDs and having Bulgarians or Disney over-write Sony's DRM.
When they finally had to let it go, their engineers probably contracted for some security work with another shell company owned by the Chinese or the NSA.
In the article, he says he started off thinking the initial infection came from the USB but at the end of the article he's not so sure. Thinking back, maybe it was already infected some other way and then infected the USB second. That re-thinking tended to confirm to me he is a serious researcher constantly re-checking his own assumptions and memory.
I don't know of any coders who started off writing easy to maintain code. /* revising other people's first draft of code just makes you over-confident that you are better than they are when that probably isn't true. Compare first drafts to first drafts, not to final code after all the bugs have been worked out and the customer has finally started understanding his own requirements */
Most of the coders who do _write_ code that is easy to maintain only do so after having to come back a month or year later and revise code they themselves have written.
There are even good business reasons not to worry about maintenance, such as if the product doesn't fly, then maintenance of it is moot. And if writing easy-to-understand code slows down getting the product out the door, don't do it.
I dunno. I think it's still fluff.
When you manipulate people face-to-face to bypass security, it is called social engineering.
When you do _exactly_ the same thing not face-to-face but using a computer, it is suddenly "the system's" fault.
That's probably why 'real' programmers are fairly safe. They don't have any friends ;-)
Booth babes attract attention. Sex sells. Watch commercials during a football game or prime time.
They even sell drugs such as Viagra and alcohol to help you have sex (with partners).
Forget security, the real headline should be "How to get 3 job offers in 24 hours". She must have had some serious (fake) qualifications and/or a smoking hot profile pic.
I'm on LinkedIn and I get lots of fake job offers.
Oh wait, that's not what you were talking about.
Are you sure you are a software engineer, and not some programmer with delusions of grandeur?
There's a difference!?! Now I'm confused.
That particular statement does not confirm there was a software defect within the code.
It does however confirm there was a procedural problem with their code-checking software if it doesn't even check 350 functions.
Other statements in the article confirm there was an actual software defect missed by "quality controls" Toyota had set up (none it sounds like to me).
RTFA. sheesh.
This is one of those scenarios where the cultural fascination with the concept is going to push it into practice before it's really ready
Unlike what other technology? Not fire or electricity or television or smartphones or atlatls.
...if it ever is.
How do you find out until you let it loose?
And no programming language can save you from a management bug.
Seems to me reliability in engine control software _is_ doable. Toyota just didn't do it.
Probably some kind of poor management decision that will ultimately be blamed on bad engineering.
I remember when men didn't wear ear rings and nobody had nose rings or tongue rings or elsewhere rings
Times change......back AND forth
Once folks know exactly what sorts of notifications they want, I can imagine various bluetoothed objects in different piercings vibrating for texts, e-mails, and appointments.
You know where the most important ones would be--the place that instantly gets your attention if it vibrates.