Is there somewhere one could see anything implemented in this system you describe? If not, why not?
A small demo would not prove the main claim made on the site, IMO. The only way to prove something like this to a doubting Thomas would be to implement a full OS or a virtual machine with a visual dev environment. Send some money my way and I'll be glad to do it.:-) But even that would not do it for some people. Having said that, the COSA model is not rocket science. It is easy to understand. Besides, the validity of the signal-based, synchronous model is already proven in hardware, AFAIC. If you are not yet convinced, it's because you either don't care enough to understand it or you have an interest in maintaining the status quo.
No. Labview does not go far enough (elementary instruction level) and does not have what I consider to be the two most essential innovations found in the COSA model: 1) Effector-sensor associations (eliminates blind code due to data and event dependencies) and 2) design consistency (eliminates logical contradictions).
Hardware is typically more reliable than software for the following reasons:
Believe me, I have seen your arguments many times before. You are mistaken. I will post a news item to the site soon to address the points that you make.
it at least insured that they wouldn't get any bright ideas ab't increasing sagging revenue by screwing with Java and/or all versions of OO.
There is no money in Java and not much future in Sun's other technologies. I posted this elseswere yesterday but it bears repeating. My advice to Schwartz is the following. Don't try to beat either Linux or Microsoft at their games. You will lose. I suggest instead that you do something that will take the rest of the industry completely by surprise. Invest your remaining resources and passion into the next big thing, the one thing that will solve the nastiest problem in the computer industry today: unreliability. Put all your money in non-algorithmic, signal-based, synchronous software. It will revolutionize both the hardware and the software industry and usher in the most dramatic change in computing since the days of Charles Babbage and Lady Lovelace. Don't say you weren't warned. ahahaha...
Co-founder or not, my advice to Schwartz is the following. Don't try to beat either Linux or Microsoft at their games. You will lose. I suggest instead that you do something that will take the rest of the industry completely by surprise. Invest your remaining resources into the next big thing, the one thing that will solve the biggest problem in the computer industry: unreliability. Put all your money in non-algorithmic, signal-based, synchronous software. It will revolutionize both the hardware and the software industry and usher in the biggest change in computing since the days of Charles Babbage and Lady Lovelace. Don't say you weren't warned. ahahaha...
FTA: It's the very antithesis of the push for greater levels of parallelism
There is only one way to achieve optimum performance using multiple cores (or multiple processors) and that is to adopt a non-algorithmic, signal-based, synchronous software model. In this reactive model , there are no threads at all, or rather, every instruction is its own thread or processor object. It waits for a signal to do something, performs its operation and then sends a signal to one or more objects. There can be as many operations executing in parallel. At every tick of a virtual clock, there is a list of operations to be executed. These can be chanelled to the available cores for processing, assuring a full load for the cores at all times.
The only caveat is the von Neuman memory access bottleneck which gets you every time. In the end, I suspect that only optical computing or something based on quantum tunelling will get around this very serious problem.
The reason is that the vast majority of existing commercial software is running on Windows and people have gotten used to it. Microsoft has a captive market for Windows, the same way Columbian drug dealers have a captive market for cocaine. Microsoft has other things to worry about, not the least of which is that a third party may come into the ring out of nowhere and offer a solution to the biggest problem facing the computer industry today: software unreliability and our inability to manage and create highly complex and safe systems. This is the reason that none of us are riding in self-driving vehicles today among other things. Clearly, something needs to be done and quick. Microsoft (Bill Gates) has no idea what this something is. That's where the fear comes in. Some other company may come in and take everybody by surprise. Microsoft and the other big players would then be left in the dust holding on to yesterday's obsolete technology. Unless, of course, they see the light and take quick action. But I'm not hoilding my breath.
Like any behemoth in the face of rapid change, Microsoft has much to fear. Its reflexes are not what they used to be. Specifically, Microsoft (and a bunch of other big computer companies including Intel) has failed to acknowledge the biggest problem facing the computer industry today. It's the problem of software unreliability and our inability to manage and create highly complex and safe systems. This is the reason that none of us are riding in self-driving vehicles today among other things. Clearly, something needs to be done and quick. But the big guys have no idea what this something is. That's where the fear comes in. Some other company may come into the ring out of nowhere with a definitive solution that takes everybody by surprise. Microsoft and the others would then be left in the dust holding on to yesterday's obsolete technology.
Not to belittle the energy savings, but how fast is it compared to a clocked CPU with a similar instruction set? To me, speed the most interesting quality of a new chip design other than reliability. The problem with a clock is that clock speed is dictated by the slowest instruction. Since a clockless CPU does not have to wait for a clock signal to begin processing the next instruction in a sequence, it should be significantly faster than a conventional CPU. Why is this not being touted as the most important feature of this processor?
Classical physics, which includes both Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics, is mostly descriptive math engineering. Math does not explain physics; on the contrary, it's the physics that explains the math. For examples, they do not explain why things fall or why bodies in motion remain in motion. The beef of a physical theory is the mechanism that is responsible for the observation. Where is the beef of relativity? Until someone comes up with the beef, neither theory can claim to be physical theories, in my opinion. They're just math tricks with no real physics. The best way to improve Einstein's and Newton's theories is to unravel or model the actual physics behind the math. Until then, it's not much better than ptolemaic epicycles.
PS. I already heard the usual ripost by relativists to the effect that science is not about the why of phenomena but the how. IMO, that's just a lame copout to excuse their ignorance and mental laziness. I already know that bodies fall and move; I want to know why they do it, if you don't mind. And please Brian Greene, stop preaching the nonsense about gravity being caused by the curvature of spacetime. Nothing moves in spacetime. ahahaha...
Time is abstract. A temporal dimension makes motion impossible. Why? Because (surprise) nothing moves in time or spacetime as time is not a variable by definition. This is the reason that Sir Karl Popper called spacetime "Einstein's block universe in which nothing ever happens" (Conjectures and Refutations). See Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime for more info.
We've always known that the Human Brain is incredibly good at pattern recognition. This article, and this study, are full of crap.
I agree. We learn the natural geometry of the world automatically. We also learn to recognize musical tunes. It's all in the learning mechanism. There is nothing hardwired about it. I have seen 4-year old kids who swear that the moon follows them as they walk. Sooner or later, they figure it out.
I fully expect cars to drive themselves before I become senile enough to have the keys taken away from me.
Yeah. That would be great. Self-driving technology would do wonders for the world. It would not only save millions of lives around the world by eliminating most accidents but it would help save a huge amount of energy. With a fleet of self-driving vehicles, big cities could abolish private transportation altogether. Every city dweller would be given a wireless pager with which to summons a vehicle at the click of a button. The nearest available car would just drive itself to the customer's location and take them safely to their destination using the most efficient route. Carpooling could also be arranged automatically by the city-wide system. There's no need to have so many cars on the road since most of them are iddle most of the time anayway. Just a thought.
Having said that, don't expect to see this technology in your car any time soon. Not because it cannot be done or is not needed but because its complexity is its Achille's heel. The reliability of software is inversely proportional to complexity. Unless a software system can be guaranteed 100% safe and reliable, it cannot be released to the public on a massive scale. We must find a way to construct guaranteed defect-free software, otherwise I'm afraid computers will never reach their true potential. Regardless of what Fred Brooks and others have claimed in the past, we need a software silver bullet.
Science takes care of its own, in its own way. THis is what peer review is for.
Obviously peer review has failed in this case. He was able to publish his crap in reputable science journals for years and peer review never caught on. One wonders how much more crap is making it past peer review. I suspect a lot. Peer review seems to be a good old boy mechanism used by the scientific community to keep itself above public scrutiny and checks and balances. Science is now no better than a guild looking out for its own self interest and profit.
Luckily, thanks to the internet, we are seeing a trend toward democracy in every field of human knowledge: Wikipedia, digg, etc... Hopefully, scientific knowledge dissemination and creation will be democratized as well. After all, it's the public's money who pays for it all.
I don't know of any such system that could be constructed using synchronous techniques -- in the sense I assume you intend, meaning Kopetz's time-triggered or the French school (Esterel et al.) of thinking. Those make presumptions that cannot be satisfied in the real world of highly dynamic and uncertain systems.
What presumptions are you referring to? Note that the most complex and reliable system in existence is the universe itself and it is inherently synchronous. The human brain is also a non-algorithmic synchronous system in the sense that neurons react immediately to incoming stimuli. Yet, in spite of its complexity, the brain's software is extremely reliable. Same goes for electronic circuits. Hardware systems (e.g., a computer) are extremely dynamic in the sense that they have quasi-infinite states. Yet this complexity is not detrimental to their reliability. Why? I argue that it is because they are synchronous.
The reason that synchronous systems like computer hardware are reliable is because data/event dependencies are automatically and implicitly resolved. This is not the case for algorithmic software. The problem is proportional to complexity. Fortunately for the computer industry, all the nice things that are implict in hardware logic can also be implicit and automatic in sofware logic, given the right software construction model. It's time for a change.
The reality about Correctness by Construction is that bugs do make it to the final product and the more complex the application the more bugs there is. In safety-critical applications, highly reliable software is simply not good enough, only because a single bug can be catastrophic. What is needed is 100% defect-free code, guaranteed. In other words, unless the program is guaranteed bug-free, it must not be deployed. Doubt = failure. The only way to achieve 100% reliability in software regardless of the complexity is to abandon the algorithmic model of software construction and to adopt a non-algorithmic, synchronous model.
saying that a particle has a well-defined property called "position" just doesn't work in the current framework of quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics (modern physics in general) has a nasty habit of equating what they can measure with an underlying reality. Just because one cannot measure something, does not mean it does not exist. A measurement is as much an effect of the phenomenon being measured as it is an effect of the measuring tool. We are limited by our tools. There is only so much we can detect; the rest must be deduced logically. Particles need to have fundamental positional properties for the simple reason that they must be differentiated. This is something that Leibniz alluded to in his "principle of the identity of indiscernables". Two particles may interact directly only if they have equal positions.
Quantum tunnelling is a well-understood phenomenon.
You might want to put a lid on that pomposity of yours. It's annoying. Quantum tunneling is an observation. It is certainly not well understood, any more than gravity is well understood. Nobody in the physics community understands how or why a particle can disappear in one place and reappear in another. Across a physical barrier, no less! But now you do: there is no space. It's an illusion of the senses and the way the brain processes sensory stimuli. Position is not a property of space but of particles. Kind of like the position property of a character in a video game. Cheers.
The experiments which you seem to be referring to are long distance quantum correlations; in these cases particles are said to become "entangled", i.e. their states are not independent.
Nope. I'm talking about quantum tunneling. Google it. You might learn something new.
This is Star-Trek physics crackpottery, in my opinion. No better than time travel and the like. What would be more in keeping with actual physics while being equally astonishing, would be instantaneous travel from anywhere to anywhere without going through the intermediate positions. This is possible because space (distance) is an illusion of perception. This is already corroborated in experiments with quantum tunneling. In certain circumstances, particles are observed going through barriers in a way that defy classical physics. Interestingly, they seem to do so at speeds greater than the speed of light. For more on nonspatiality, see this link: Nasty Little Truth About Space.
Quantum tunneling (long distance quantum jumps) is not to be confused with teleportation which just another example of Star-Trek physics nonsense. Imagine a world where you can travel from anywhere to anywhere instantly. Cheers!
It seems that engineers face an uphill challenge in getting this technology into our cars. The problem is more one of reliability and safety than artificial intelligence.
From the article: With a wide variety of investigations, the FBI must be able to collect and store information in several different systems -- top secret, secret, classified, and sensitive but unclassified -- and any given document might contain information that falls into all four categories. Thus, the new system needs strict security controls to prevent information from falling into the wrong hands...
This is a big complicated system" because of the variety of issues the FBI investigates...
High complexity and the need for utmost security is the ideal combination for monumental failure, IMO. The problem with security is not the lack of adequate secure technology. Current techniques do work, otherwise our electronic commerce would have collapsed already. The problem is that hackers and ennemy spies will try to find ways of getting around the security barriers by exploiting defects in the underlying software. Since the number of defects in a software system is proportional to its complexity, there is no doubt that the system's security will be compromised at one time or another. It makes no difference who develops it.
A network's security is thus intimately tied to the reliability and robustness of the network's software. Security companies have no way of guaranteeing that the various software modules used in their systems are defect-free. This uncertainty is the Achilles' heel of the security industry. The solution is to move away from algorithmic software and adopt a non-algorithmic, signal-based, synchronous software model.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there somewhere one could see anything implemented in this system you describe? If not, why not?
:-) But even that would not do it for some people. Having said that, the COSA model is not rocket science. It is easy to understand. Besides, the validity of the signal-based, synchronous model is already proven in hardware, AFAIC. If you are not yet convinced, it's because you either don't care enough to understand it or you have an interest in maintaining the status quo.
A small demo would not prove the main claim made on the site, IMO. The only way to prove something like this to a doubting Thomas would be to implement a full OS or a virtual machine with a visual dev environment. Send some money my way and I'll be glad to do it.
Do you mean like Labview?
No. Labview does not go far enough (elementary instruction level) and does not have what I consider to be the two most essential innovations found in the COSA model: 1) Effector-sensor associations (eliminates blind code due to data and event dependencies) and 2) design consistency (eliminates logical contradictions).
Hardware is typically more reliable than software for the following reasons:
Believe me, I have seen your arguments many times before. You are mistaken. I will post a news item to the site soon to address the points that you make.
it at least insured that they wouldn't get any bright ideas ab't increasing sagging revenue by screwing with Java and/or all versions of OO.
There is no money in Java and not much future in Sun's other technologies. I posted this elseswere yesterday but it bears repeating. My advice to Schwartz is the following. Don't try to beat either Linux or Microsoft at their games. You will lose. I suggest instead that you do something that will take the rest of the industry completely by surprise. Invest your remaining resources and passion into the next big thing, the one thing that will solve the nastiest problem in the computer industry today: unreliability. Put all your money in non-algorithmic, signal-based, synchronous software. It will revolutionize both the hardware and the software industry and usher in the most dramatic change in computing since the days of Charles Babbage and Lady Lovelace. Don't say you weren't warned. ahahaha...
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
Co-founder or not, my advice to Schwartz is the following. Don't try to beat either Linux or Microsoft at their games. You will lose. I suggest instead that you do something that will take the rest of the industry completely by surprise. Invest your remaining resources into the next big thing, the one thing that will solve the biggest problem in the computer industry: unreliability. Put all your money in non-algorithmic, signal-based, synchronous software. It will revolutionize both the hardware and the software industry and usher in the biggest change in computing since the days of Charles Babbage and Lady Lovelace. Don't say you weren't warned. ahahaha...
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
I would not believe the animals are enjoying their radiation poisoning however until I was able to ask them.
Reporter: "Well, Mr. Horse. How did you like that heavy dose of radiation?
Mr. Horse: "Hmmmmm... No Sir. I didn't like it.
FTA: It's the very antithesis of the push for greater levels of parallelism
There is only one way to achieve optimum performance using multiple cores (or multiple processors) and that is to adopt a non-algorithmic, signal-based, synchronous software model. In this reactive model , there are no threads at all, or rather, every instruction is its own thread or processor object. It waits for a signal to do something, performs its operation and then sends a signal to one or more objects. There can be as many operations executing in parallel. At every tick of a virtual clock, there is a list of operations to be executed. These can be chanelled to the available cores for processing, assuring a full load for the cores at all times.
The only caveat is the von Neuman memory access bottleneck which gets you every time. In the end, I suspect that only optical computing or something based on quantum tunelling will get around this very serious problem.
The reason is that the vast majority of existing commercial software is running on Windows and people have gotten used to it. Microsoft has a captive market for Windows, the same way Columbian drug dealers have a captive market for cocaine. Microsoft has other things to worry about, not the least of which is that a third party may come into the ring out of nowhere and offer a solution to the biggest problem facing the computer industry today: software unreliability and our inability to manage and create highly complex and safe systems. This is the reason that none of us are riding in self-driving vehicles today among other things. Clearly, something needs to be done and quick. Microsoft (Bill Gates) has no idea what this something is. That's where the fear comes in. Some other company may come in and take everybody by surprise. Microsoft and the other big players would then be left in the dust holding on to yesterday's obsolete technology. Unless, of course, they see the light and take quick action. But I'm not hoilding my breath.
Like any behemoth in the face of rapid change, Microsoft has much to fear. Its reflexes are not what they used to be. Specifically, Microsoft (and a bunch of other big computer companies including Intel) has failed to acknowledge the biggest problem facing the computer industry today. It's the problem of software unreliability and our inability to manage and create highly complex and safe systems. This is the reason that none of us are riding in self-driving vehicles today among other things. Clearly, something needs to be done and quick. But the big guys have no idea what this something is. That's where the fear comes in. Some other company may come into the ring out of nowhere with a definitive solution that takes everybody by surprise. Microsoft and the others would then be left in the dust holding on to yesterday's obsolete technology.
Without a clock, what keeps the speed at a safe level?
Interesting question. Maybe the instructions are clocked (slowed) locally within the chip.
Not to belittle the energy savings, but how fast is it compared to a clocked CPU with a similar instruction set? To me, speed the most interesting quality of a new chip design other than reliability. The problem with a clock is that clock speed is dictated by the slowest instruction. Since a clockless CPU does not have to wait for a clock signal to begin processing the next instruction in a sequence, it should be significantly faster than a conventional CPU. Why is this not being touted as the most important feature of this processor?
Classical physics, which includes both Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics, is mostly descriptive math engineering. Math does not explain physics; on the contrary, it's the physics that explains the math. For examples, they do not explain why things fall or why bodies in motion remain in motion. The beef of a physical theory is the mechanism that is responsible for the observation. Where is the beef of relativity? Until someone comes up with the beef, neither theory can claim to be physical theories, in my opinion. They're just math tricks with no real physics. The best way to improve Einstein's and Newton's theories is to unravel or model the actual physics behind the math. Until then, it's not much better than ptolemaic epicycles.
PS. I already heard the usual ripost by relativists to the effect that science is not about the why of phenomena but the how. IMO, that's just a lame copout to excuse their ignorance and mental laziness. I already know that bodies fall and move; I want to know why they do it, if you don't mind. And please Brian Greene, stop preaching the nonsense about gravity being caused by the curvature of spacetime. Nothing moves in spacetime. ahahaha...
Time is abstract. A temporal dimension makes motion impossible. Why? Because (surprise) nothing moves in time or spacetime as time is not a variable by definition. This is the reason that Sir Karl Popper called spacetime "Einstein's block universe in which nothing ever happens" (Conjectures and Refutations). See Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime for more info.
We've always known that the Human Brain is incredibly good at pattern recognition. This article, and this study, are full of crap.
I agree. We learn the natural geometry of the world automatically. We also learn to recognize musical tunes. It's all in the learning mechanism. There is nothing hardwired about it. I have seen 4-year old kids who swear that the moon follows them as they walk. Sooner or later, they figure it out.
I fully expect cars to drive themselves before I become senile enough to have the keys taken away from me.
Yeah. That would be great. Self-driving technology would do wonders for the world. It would not only save millions of lives around the world by eliminating most accidents but it would help save a huge amount of energy. With a fleet of self-driving vehicles, big cities could abolish private transportation altogether. Every city dweller would be given a wireless pager with which to summons a vehicle at the click of a button. The nearest available car would just drive itself to the customer's location and take them safely to their destination using the most efficient route. Carpooling could also be arranged automatically by the city-wide system. There's no need to have so many cars on the road since most of them are iddle most of the time anayway. Just a thought.
Having said that, don't expect to see this technology in your car any time soon. Not because it cannot be done or is not needed but because its complexity is its Achille's heel. The reliability of software is inversely proportional to complexity. Unless a software system can be guaranteed 100% safe and reliable, it cannot be released to the public on a massive scale. We must find a way to construct guaranteed defect-free software, otherwise I'm afraid computers will never reach their true potential. Regardless of what Fred Brooks and others have claimed in the past, we need a software silver bullet.
Science takes care of its own, in its own way. THis is what peer review is for.
Obviously peer review has failed in this case. He was able to publish his crap in reputable science journals for years and peer review never caught on. One wonders how much more crap is making it past peer review. I suspect a lot. Peer review seems to be a good old boy mechanism used by the scientific community to keep itself above public scrutiny and checks and balances. Science is now no better than a guild looking out for its own self interest and profit.
Luckily, thanks to the internet, we are seeing a trend toward democracy in every field of human knowledge: Wikipedia, digg, etc... Hopefully, scientific knowledge dissemination and creation will be democratized as well. After all, it's the public's money who pays for it all.
I don't know of any such system that could be constructed using synchronous techniques -- in the sense I assume you intend, meaning Kopetz's time-triggered or the French school (Esterel et al.) of thinking. Those make presumptions that cannot be satisfied in the real world of highly dynamic and uncertain systems.
What presumptions are you referring to? Note that the most complex and reliable system in existence is the universe itself and it is inherently synchronous. The human brain is also a non-algorithmic synchronous system in the sense that neurons react immediately to incoming stimuli. Yet, in spite of its complexity, the brain's software is extremely reliable. Same goes for electronic circuits. Hardware systems (e.g., a computer) are extremely dynamic in the sense that they have quasi-infinite states. Yet this complexity is not detrimental to their reliability. Why? I argue that it is because they are synchronous.
The reason that synchronous systems like computer hardware are reliable is because data/event dependencies are automatically and implicitly resolved. This is not the case for algorithmic software. The problem is proportional to complexity. Fortunately for the computer industry, all the nice things that are implict in hardware logic can also be implicit and automatic in sofware logic, given the right software construction model. It's time for a change.
The reality about Correctness by Construction is that bugs do make it to the final product and the more complex the application the more bugs there is. In safety-critical applications, highly reliable software is simply not good enough, only because a single bug can be catastrophic. What is needed is 100% defect-free code, guaranteed. In other words, unless the program is guaranteed bug-free, it must not be deployed. Doubt = failure. The only way to achieve 100% reliability in software regardless of the complexity is to abandon the algorithmic model of software construction and to adopt a non-algorithmic, synchronous model.
saying that a particle has a well-defined property called "position" just doesn't work in the current framework of quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics (modern physics in general) has a nasty habit of equating what they can measure with an underlying reality. Just because one cannot measure something, does not mean it does not exist. A measurement is as much an effect of the phenomenon being measured as it is an effect of the measuring tool. We are limited by our tools. There is only so much we can detect; the rest must be deduced logically. Particles need to have fundamental positional properties for the simple reason that they must be differentiated. This is something that Leibniz alluded to in his "principle of the identity of indiscernables". Two particles may interact directly only if they have equal positions.
Quantum tunnelling is a well-understood phenomenon.
You might want to put a lid on that pomposity of yours. It's annoying. Quantum tunneling is an observation. It is certainly not well understood, any more than gravity is well understood. Nobody in the physics community understands how or why a particle can disappear in one place and reappear in another. Across a physical barrier, no less! But now you do: there is no space. It's an illusion of the senses and the way the brain processes sensory stimuli. Position is not a property of space but of particles. Kind of like the position property of a character in a video game. Cheers.
The experiments which you seem to be referring to are long distance quantum correlations; in these cases particles are said to become "entangled", i.e. their states are not independent.
Nope. I'm talking about quantum tunneling. Google it. You might learn something new.
This is Star-Trek physics crackpottery, in my opinion. No better than time travel and the like. What would be more in keeping with actual physics while being equally astonishing, would be instantaneous travel from anywhere to anywhere without going through the intermediate positions. This is possible because space (distance) is an illusion of perception. This is already corroborated in experiments with quantum tunneling. In certain circumstances, particles are observed going through barriers in a way that defy classical physics. Interestingly, they seem to do so at speeds greater than the speed of light. For more on nonspatiality, see this link: Nasty Little Truth About Space.
Quantum tunneling (long distance quantum jumps) is not to be confused with teleportation which just another example of Star-Trek physics nonsense. Imagine a world where you can travel from anywhere to anywhere instantly. Cheers!
Embedded.com has this interesting article on Stanley: http://www.embedded.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleI D=174904699
I D=174400407
They had another article on 11/18/05, that suggested that the biggest problem faced by the Stanley team was not designing the software but keeping the bugs out of the software: http://www.embedded.com/showArticle.jhtml?article
It seems that engineers face an uphill challenge in getting this technology into our cars. The problem is more one of reliability and safety than artificial intelligence.
From the article: With a wide variety of investigations, the FBI must be able to collect and store information in several different systems -- top secret, secret, classified, and sensitive but unclassified -- and any given document might contain information that falls into all four categories. Thus, the new system needs strict security controls to prevent information from falling into the wrong hands...
This is a big complicated system" because of the variety of issues the FBI investigates...
High complexity and the need for utmost security is the ideal combination for monumental failure, IMO. The problem with security is not the lack of adequate secure technology. Current techniques do work, otherwise our electronic commerce would have collapsed already. The problem is that hackers and ennemy spies will try to find ways of getting around the security barriers by exploiting defects in the underlying software. Since the number of defects in a software system is proportional to its complexity, there is no doubt that the system's security will be compromised at one time or another. It makes no difference who develops it.
A network's security is thus intimately tied to the reliability and robustness of the network's software. Security companies have no way of guaranteeing that the various software modules used in their systems are defect-free. This uncertainty is the Achilles' heel of the security industry. The solution is to move away from algorithmic software and adopt a non-algorithmic, signal-based, synchronous software model.
What kinds of tests did they use that show that this is "true" AI? I see a lot of marketing bullshit and not much real data. I call shenanigans.
Yep. Go to the bottom of the press release and you'll find this:
"certain statements about the Company's business contained in the press releases are "forward-looking" rather than "historic."
'Forward-looking' is just another way of saying vaporware aka bullshit. ahahaha...