>In a nutshell, the problem with exponentially >advancing technology [kurzweilai.net] is that it >is increasingly outpacing our primitive human >brain's ability to intelligently deal with it.
What level of advance are you willing to put me in jail to protect? How do you decide on this level? How do you decide at any one time what fits under your arbitrary bar? Given the human nature you are so afraid of, i think we all know what direction this will go.
What makes you think progress will continue at all if you remove its historical growth pattern? A small linear growth goal is just as likely to kill progress and send us back into the dark ages. You have no evidence at all that what he wants to do can or will work. None.
Perhaps we can engage in risk mitigation. If we are worried about ending the world then how about we make it a priority to settle new worlds as a way of balancing our human portfolio?
If our primitive brain is the problem then perhaps, like boosting our immune system, improving our brains is a better choice.
Or we can just stick our vestigal tail between our legs.
> So I don't think cutting off middle-eastern > oil purchases will leave the terrorists > too poor to take further shots at the USA.
It's not the shots that are the problem. It's the large coordinated and growing networks that are the problem. These require energy to survive. One form of energy is lots of money. These organization take lots of money. The other energy input is a burning reason to hate, not just a smoldering reason to hate. Killing the oil economy would accomplish both.
>Priority inversion? Critical sections don't have >anything to do with priority inversion
Um, they have everything to do with priority inversion. http://www.us.design-reuse.com/article s/article242 5.html. I have found NT to have horrible thread scheduling in a real multithreaded app.
Great post. I disgree with this though: > Lots of critical sections
If you actually have many threads in your program critical sections can cause really bad performance and high unpredictable latency. With a few threads it won't matter so much. Plus mutexes vary in performance on different OSs.
To think about something you need data. If a failure happens after 2 months running at a client site, without data there's nothing much to think about. Especially since they will have rebooted (or whatever) and are back to running their system.
Backdoors are very common in embedded devices so you can bootstrap the system. They should have covered this better, but it is probably not an evil conspiracy. It's probably just developers and testers trying to do their job without a lot of security shit that makes everything take longer and be more difficult.
The internet used to be a bunch of us connecting via slooow dialup modems. The real internet is an idea. It's not the privately controlled backbone that the government can tap. The internet is anyone who wants to set up a network and connect.
In the spirit of bio companies before them, microsoft has patented all the information about your life. If you should need to communicate any facts abour your existence please get microsoft approval first.
Then how do they know what to patch? My parsing says a "patch was known" means most attacks happen after a patch, but some attacks happen before, and that's how they know what to patch.
Otherwise the implication is they know about all possible vulnerabilities now, or will discover them by themselves, which can't be true.
What will stop google is not their technology, but the ossification that takes over every large company as it grows. Changes won't be made because it is too big a change. Changes won't be made because it's not cost justified. Marketing concerns will override technology. People we get fat and happy. And unlike microsoft i can switch to a different search engine in a second. Yahoo is looking pretty good...
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you give new technology to
some of the richest people on earth
so they can profit and patent it for
basically nothing?
Google is now more like M$. Times have
changed.
I don't think it was exactly free.
Dave was trying to promote weblogs
for profit so it was in his best interest to
start the market.
How he handled it was bad, but i'm guessing
the pressure got to much and he just wanted
the ties cut. Understandable.
>In a nutshell, the problem with exponentially
>advancing technology [kurzweilai.net] is that it
>is increasingly outpacing our primitive human
>brain's ability to intelligently deal with it.
What level of advance are you willing to put me in
jail to protect? How do you decide on this level?
How do you decide at any one time what fits under
your arbitrary bar? Given the human nature
you are so afraid of, i think we all know what
direction this will go.
What makes you think progress will continue at
all if you remove its historical growth pattern?
A small linear growth goal is just as likely
to kill progress and send us back into the
dark ages. You have no evidence at all that
what he wants to do can or will work. None.
Perhaps we can engage in risk mitigation. If
we are worried about ending the world then how
about we make it a priority to settle new worlds
as a way of balancing our human portfolio?
If our primitive brain is the problem then
perhaps, like boosting our immune system,
improving our brains is a better choice.
Or we can just stick our vestigal tail
between our legs.
> So I don't think cutting off middle-eastern
> oil purchases will leave the terrorists
> too poor to take further shots at the USA.
It's not the shots that are the problem. It's
the large coordinated and growing networks
that are the problem. These require energy to
survive. One form of energy is lots of money.
These organization take lots of money. The
other energy input is a burning reason to
hate, not just a smoldering reason to
hate. Killing the oil economy would
accomplish both.
You are bitter because you are not worshipped
because you are smart? Hm.
>Priority inversion? Critical sections don't have >anything to do with priority inversion
Um, they have everything to do with
priority inversion.
http://www.us.design-reuse.com/articl
I have found NT to have horrible thread scheduling
in a real multithreaded app.
How is windows dealing with priority inversion in
:-)
just a few instructions?
>Never, ever make a call to something you don't have >complete control of, or that is even remotely >large, inside a critical section
Good luck on that one
Great post. I disgree with this though:
> Lots of critical sections
If you actually have many threads in your program
critical sections can cause really bad performance
and high unpredictable latency. With a few threads
it won't matter so much. Plus mutexes vary in
performance on different OSs.
Because nobody would be stupid enough
to say there are no bugs in a system.
To think about something you need data.
If a failure happens after 2 months running
at a client site, without data there's nothing
much to think about. Especially since they
will have rebooted (or whatever) and are back
to running their system.
Sure, just some more math courses and i am sure
he would be happy to pay me 5 times as much
as someone in india or china. Yah right.
Scientists found too stupid to understand
that movie != reality.
Does this book have a plot?
That would be a good start.
Backdoors are very common in embedded devices
so you can bootstrap the system. They should
have covered this better, but it is probably
not an evil conspiracy. It's probably just
developers and testers trying to do their
job without a lot of security shit that
makes everything take longer and be more
difficult.
>USB pen drives aren't very filling.
Don't know. That's a lot of bytes.
Wow, quite the rejoinder.
The internet used to be a bunch
of us connecting via slooow dialup modems.
The real internet is an idea. It's not
the privately controlled backbone that
the government can tap. The internet is
anyone who wants to set up a network and
connect.
For all that money, for all those years,
for all those people, the list of accomplishments
doesn't seem that compelling.
In the spirit of bio companies before them,
microsoft has patented all the information
about your life. If you should need
to communicate any facts abour your
existence please get microsoft approval first.
Then how do they know what to patch?
My parsing says a "patch was known" means
most attacks happen after a patch, but some
attacks happen before, and that's how
they know what to patch.
Otherwise the implication is they know about
all possible vulnerabilities now, or will discover
them by themselves, which can't be true.
Google nows seems to give complete priority
to what is bought in sold. Your first links
will almost always be about where to buy
something.
That is turning me off because i can't find
real information. I'm ready for something
better.
What will stop google is not their technology,
but the ossification that takes over every
large company as it grows. Changes won't be
made because it is too big a change. Changes
won't be made because it's not cost justified.
Marketing concerns will override technology.
People we get fat and happy. And unlike microsoft
i can switch to a different search engine
in a second. Yahoo is looking pretty good...
It was entertaining. Not at the same level
as the code though.
BTW, even if you are a professional assasin it
is hard to shoot in a moving car at
a moving subject. Try it some time.
What successfull tests are those?
You mean after spending billions and billions
they can hit something in absolute ideal
conditions? Wow.
Sorry man, those ships are dangerous.
And we might drop off the edge of the earth.
Way staying home.