I would posit based on what we read in Ken Thompson's attack that the following can be traced back to Godel's problem:
Can a secure system be build on systems that have tools that verify their own security?
And for the practical minds, is it feasible / possible to trust any system as a starting base for a secure system and build over that?
I have never thought about this this way, but I feel we might have hit security theory's rock bottom.
Cheers!
Dr. Manhattan,
if you are not stupid, nor insane, nor ignorant, then you just have a agenda you would like to further. You are not mean.
The natzis, Yemach Shemam if I might add, were not stupid, nor were they insane nor ignorant.
But in their world view killing Jews were the best idea ever. They had an agenda they wanted to further. And, really, they were not trying to be mean. But the engineering difficulty of murdering 6 million+ people necessitated certain procedural ways, that unfortunately could have appeared cruel for people who didn't read the manual.
Now of course, I am not equating you or Dawkins with the Natzis. I am just bringing an extreme example of the profound stupidity of your words, that you typed in thinking how clever you are.
Please Dr. Manhattan, go into your small room and cry.
Dawkins is simply an idol worshipper. In a universe where scientist are the one who should really know how improbable we are, and how crazy is the whole idea of human life is.... that they make us into an idol, and worship our scientific achievements is BEYOND laughable.
I mean, seriously, our current scientific knowledge of what we estimate knowable is what? under 10e-10 part of it????? I mean we are really kidding ourselves to be so full of science and try to make any deterministic statement.
And again, look the choice of enemy. And look the way of the weapon. It's the religious: because our righteousness is justified by his wrongness. And the weapon is science, because he has the opposite, belief.
WOW!!!!! That's so profoundly stupid it screams, but then again, as a life strategy it works. You know, I am Professor Dawkins, and I really matter, because i am so ridiculously clever, and I will save society from a system that kept it alive for thousands of years. Oh yeah, and I wear my hair in a stylistic professor way, you know.
The dude needs to wake up, look in the mirror, and then get off the high horse and really analyze what we KNOW (not what we assume) about evolution. But really. Who are you kidding, Mr. Dawkins?
Slashdot Mirror
I would posit based on what we read in Ken Thompson's attack that the following can be traced back to Godel's problem: Can a secure system be build on systems that have tools that verify their own security? And for the practical minds, is it feasible / possible to trust any system as a starting base for a secure system and build over that? I have never thought about this this way, but I feel we might have hit security theory's rock bottom. Cheers!
Dr. Manhattan,
if you are not stupid, nor insane, nor ignorant, then you just have a agenda you would like to further. You are not mean.
The natzis, Yemach Shemam if I might add, were not stupid, nor were they insane nor ignorant. But in their world view killing Jews were the best idea ever. They had an agenda they wanted to further. And, really, they were not trying to be mean. But the engineering difficulty of murdering 6 million+ people necessitated certain procedural ways, that unfortunately could have appeared cruel for people who didn't read the manual.
Now of course, I am not equating you or Dawkins with the Natzis. I am just bringing an extreme example of the profound stupidity of your words, that you typed in thinking how clever you are.
Please Dr. Manhattan, go into your small room and cry.
Dawkins is simply an idol worshipper. In a universe where scientist are the one who should really know how improbable we are, and how crazy is the whole idea of human life is.... that they make us into an idol, and worship our scientific achievements is BEYOND laughable. I mean, seriously, our current scientific knowledge of what we estimate knowable is what? under 10e-10 part of it????? I mean we are really kidding ourselves to be so full of science and try to make any deterministic statement. And again, look the choice of enemy. And look the way of the weapon. It's the religious: because our righteousness is justified by his wrongness. And the weapon is science, because he has the opposite, belief. WOW!!!!! That's so profoundly stupid it screams, but then again, as a life strategy it works. You know, I am Professor Dawkins, and I really matter, because i am so ridiculously clever, and I will save society from a system that kept it alive for thousands of years. Oh yeah, and I wear my hair in a stylistic professor way, you know. The dude needs to wake up, look in the mirror, and then get off the high horse and really analyze what we KNOW (not what we assume) about evolution. But really. Who are you kidding, Mr. Dawkins?