It may stop worms, but not e-mail Virii. Because most e-mail virii appear to be social virii. They look like an attachment a user might want to execute, so inexperienced user, or others not paying attention might execute the attachment. Even Unix is vulnerable to these, although they probably don't have quite the destructive potential.
For example. Create an executable that looks like a video file som eone might want to execute. But, what actually happens is the executable forks the virus process, then goes into playing 5 minutes of video data embedded in the executable. The virus process then proceeds to search the users home directory for e-mail addresses to propgate itself to. We can then mak ethe virus destructive by erasing files as they are checked for e-mail addresses. The virus then sends itself to the other e-mail addresses using 'mail person@someplace.com self'.
Notice there is not a single vulnerability exploited here, just dumb users.
Dastardly
P.S. Yes, I know there are a bunch of gotchas involved in the above example. (Hardware differences, BSD vs Linux vs Solaris...)
What kind of exploit would be possible in KDE or GNOME in the future tht isn't possibel now? KDE and GNOME have the same problem as IE and Outlook, except it requires the user to actively do something stupid.
Probably the only problem in GNOME or KDE would be social viruses. I don't know of any Unix mail clients that automatically execute attachments. So, the main possible virus threat is a social e-mail virus, that can get people to detach and run it. It would consists of basically something interesting to look at plus a forked process that looks in as many typical places as possible for e-mail addresses, then simply runs 'mail friend@someplace.com self' for every e-mail address. Worst case when it had retrieved the list of e-mail addresses into process memory it could then run 'rm -rf *' and delete your home directory. While of course entertaining the user with a 15 minute movie clip of something interesting, so that the user would have no idea he/she had been hosed until it was too late. Of course, hopefully most users don't have root access and those that do don't retrienve e-mail ro run e-mail attachements as root. So, worst case would be harm to a few stupid users home directories which could be restored from backup. Of course another interesting social virus could come up with some way to convince a user to run it as root, and then get really destructive or insert backdoors.
and (I've heard suggested) HTML4+CSS as the file format.
A better choice these days would probably be XML+XSL as the file format. And, FOP and XALAN to output PDF and HTML respectively. The only problem I see is that it would need two modes. A default mode for basic word processing tasks, and an expert mode for full scale XML publishing (DTD validation, XSL stylesheet creation...)
I don't think you will have a problem since a big enough peltier for an Athlon is very hard to find, and you probably need to water cool the hot side of a peltier to have a chance of taking away enough heat from the hot side of a peltier to make a processor that cold.
Re:After all, sheep will be sheep
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
Bingo!!! This is a one time ocurrence. Knives won't cut it. Guns, maybe.
In a very real sense this was the biggest con/bluff in history, and from now on it will probably get called because the rosks of not calling it are too high.
Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
(and allow me to repeat that: this is an act of terrorism, in other word a crime, not an act of war (or at least that's what we think at this point in time)
Ahh. But, you still leave the door open. I assume you think like I do. If the organization responsible was funded by a foreign nation, wouldn't that be an act of war. If Iraq payed bin Laden to perform a terrorist attack on the U.S., isn't that an act of war by Iraq, and should be responded to in kind?
The part that may be shaky is whether harboring the group responsible can be considered an act of war. I don't see any other choice though. How do you prosecute another country for 1000+ counts of accessory to murder?
Dastardly
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
The above are good points, and the final point is you don't put them on every flight. You put sky marshalls on essenitally random planes, and no less than half. And, they should all be plain clothes.
Guns on airplanes is an extremely bad idea. Just wait for some idiot to show his gun to the guy next to him and have it go off puncturing the plane.
but knives against hands is good enough
Knives against hands won't work anymore. The only reason it worked this time was because everyone figured it would be the usual hijacking:
1) 3-5 people hijack plane with knives and take hostages
2) Make demands
3) Get some demands
4) Land plane someplace where they will let you gt away.
5) Hostages get away alive for the most part.
Now:
1) 3-5 people try to hijack plane with knives
2) 50-100 passengers attack people with knives with bare hands
3) 3-5 hijackers beaten to pulp. Some injuries to passengers
Hijacking a plane with knives is a one time deal. It will never happen again. Us Americans are too much of cowboys to not risk knife injury given the new risks. Now they will have to get guns on the plane.
Dastardly
Re:Well, US intelligence is enamored of high tech
on
Our New Pearl Harbor
·
· Score: 1
Tom Clancy noted this, while an author of fiction he does research the inteligence community for his fiction, and he made an internesting point. There are 20,000 people in the CIA. Only 1000 of those are field agents.
You are probably right about the planes not being too hard to fly... In a straight line, or under auto pilot. But, to turn a jumbo jet, and accurately aim it at a target is probably very difficult.
Open Source software is written because it is more efficient to write it that way.
From the point of view of some one producing something, software is an expense and has no value beyond what it does to help you produce what your business needs. A trivial example would be writing a book. You want a word processor to let you write the book. The word processor is an expense to writing the book, but it should help make the person more efficent in writing that book. But, any reduction in the cost of the software increases the profitability of the book.
So, the question then becomes how do you get your word processing software at the lowest cost, so you can write the book, and ake the most money.
1) Buy it from a group of programmers, marketers, salesmen, secretaries . . . who have written packaged and distributed a word processor (aka proprietary software company)
2) Hire programmers directly to write it for you.
3) Write it yourself.
4) Write just enough to help you write your book, and give the code away with the stipulation that improvements others need to be distributed as source code withthe same requirements freedoms and restrictions as you gave it away with (GPL).
#1 is the proprietary develpment model where software is bought from a company. It has worked pretty well so far, but is it really the most efficient method for all cases.
#2 gets done by a lot of people and businesses for software that customized specifically for that business, and no one else would probably want.
#3 is done once in a while, but one person can not create a full featured word processor on their own, and probably would not because they would not need all the features.
#4 brings in an interesting efficiency. You write just what you need to get the current job done. Then, make that software open source. Some one else decides they like the program, and it almost does the job they need except it needs to be able to embed images. So, they add image embedding to the program. A year later your next book needs pictures, if you had not open sourced your software you would have to write image embedding code yourself. But, because the software is open sourced some one else wrote that component and you have it ready to server your needs.
Another way to look at it from the corporation point of view is that the proprietary model involves all corporations paying a bunch of programmers, salesmen, managers and support staff to write a program, plus a profit margin.
The Open Source model involes all corporations paying a programmer (or 2) within their organization to add features and maintain the Open Source programs that they use. Other corporations that package and support Open Source products act as a sort of programmer pool for smaller businesses or individuals that either need the product as-is or need modifications.
And, the model that wins should be the one that produces the software that is needed at the lowest cost. Which is showing up in a lot cases the lowest cost method to produce software is open source.
You are right, I should have said Coulomb which is charge which is what I really meant. (It has been a while since physics.)The flaw in your calculation is that we don't want kg to cancel. So, if you changed amperes to Coulomb/s which is the real definition.
Then, volt = kg*m^2/s^3 per Q/s
Then, kg = volt*s^2*Q/m^2
So, as long as you have another standard for volt based on charge and time and the speed of light. Then, all measuring devices could be referenced against a charge standard and time standard.
The onoe thing the article doesn't mention is the real goal which is what is causing a lot of confusion. The real goal is to be able to calibrate all measuring devices against some common standard. The current standards that I know of are:
1) The length of a second as defined by a certain number of oscillations of a Cesium atom.
2) The standard for a Volt (probably related to the charge on an electron) I don't know this one.
3) The standard for mass. (i.e. that hunk of metal)
From these three things and some phenomena based on physical constants (speed of light...) all other units can be referenced. The experiment described in the article pretty much defines the mass standard in terms of the volt standard. So, instead of having 3 standards whose accuracy limits the accuracy of all other standards. There will be only two, and any work to improve the accuracy of a second and the volt will improve the accuracy of all standards.
Just the imprecision of language when explaining precise concepts. The accurate description is probably "And in space, 1 kilogram still has a mass of 1 kilogram."
Yep, that woudl be the guy in Irvine with no progamming trainging, and no known past programming experience. Who claimed to have developed this same thing? Made investors think the same, went public, conned his employees into thinking the codec existed and left the country.
Hmmm... Could he be hiding out in Australia under an assumed name...
marketing based on relative numbers is just plain stupid
Not to mention naming your CPUs based on the performance of a competitors product is just plain stupid. There has got to be a better way that puts AMD in the drivers seat instead of Intel.
I write this as a person with a bachelors in Computer Engineering who is currently completing masters in EE
Please tell me your are kidding about the above.
The older Athlons, for example, run at a 200Mhz clock speed.
Nope they don't. The slowest Athlon was 500Mhz.
But the external CPU bus runs at a 100Mhz clock speed.
Correct.
Does this mean that AMD is cheating? That they are "claiming" 200Mhz when it is only 100Mhz?
If that is what they said they would be cheating since Hz is a scientific word and is defined as a full cycle. But, AMD doesn't say this, they say "100 MHZ/200 MHZ DDR FSB" Which is saying that the front side bus clock is 100 MHz, but it transfers 2 bits per cycle, making the effective data rate 200 MHz.
So your 1Ghz Athlon runs externally at 100Mhz with a 5x multiplier. Inside it runs at 200Mhz with a 5x multiplier. 200x5=1000
Nope. Externally is 100MHz DDR, effective data rate of 200Mhz. Internally it is 100x10=1000.
I think you had the idea right in your head, maybe, but your translation into writing sucked. (No offense)
Too bad you are completely wrong. The clock signal into a P4 clock pin is 100MHz. The same as the CPU bus clock.
"But, Wait.. " you say, " the P4 has a 400MHz CPU bus." Nope, it has a 400 Mbps/p (megabits per second per pin) CPU bus. The bus transfers 4 bits per pin per clock, but the clock is still 100MHz.
As for PLLs there are multiple PLLs in order to keep clock edges sync'd to all parts of the chip. For the most part the PLL's all are the same speed, I haven't heard of any chips with multiple asynchronous PLL. In the case of a P4, the integer ALU is running a twice the core frequency. I don't know about the exact design, so whether they have another PLL to double the core clock for the ALU pipeline, or have designed the pipeline stages to clock on both rising and falling edges is anyone's guess.
If MS pulled their license, why doesn't IBM or Compaq just install Linux for free and say to hell with Redmond?
There are probably 2 reasons.
1) At the time when IBM, Compaq, and Dell had enough leverage to make this happen (3 or 4 years ago), Linux, Xfree, etc. were not goo d enough. Now that they have something that is good enough, I don't think tey have the leverage, and all it would take is just Dell to advertise, IBM and Compaq can't give you Windows, but we can, so buy from Dell not anyone else.
2) Let us assuem they did all say screw MS, and stuck to their guns. Now, they have to actually work to explain why this computer some one purchased has this thing called Linux on it. they also have to explain why a person now has a root password, and why I can't rewrite a file my husband made because he owns it. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. All things that are worth explaining, but take a lot more time, effort, and money than just forking it over to M$.
Why do you think Win95, 98, ME security is so bad. It is because people want to do stuff with computers, and don't want to learn anything. Which is what MS gives them, they can do anything they want to there computer, but so can anyone else.
As multiple people in this thread ahve said. Micorsoft does charge for IE, it is bundledinto the price fo the operating system. So, that $99 you paid for your Win98 Upgrade, or the $1200 you paid for your computer which includes Windows 98, ME,... Includes $5 for IE. So, if you compare pricing. All other browsers cost $0. IE then costs $5, which would be monopolistic pricing, which demonstrates that the MS monopoly is not good for consumers, it costs us money.
You need to qualify your description of an LLC. It doesn't make the owners immune to lawsuits. It only limits their liability to their total investment in the corporation. Basically, it means that just because you invest $1 in a corporation, doesn't allow someone who wins a lawsuit against that corporation to take away your house, car, computer, and everything else you own, and garnish your wages for the rest of your life.
Your entire argument is flawed. There is no such thing as moving backward (or forward) in time or "rate of change of time with respect to time". Why? because changing time is self-referential. It's that simple. That's the reason why there is no motion in spacetime. I thought you agreed with me above because you understood. You apparently don't.
Why does movement through time have to be self referential?
Isn't dt/dx equally valid for a two dimensional space-time? What mathematical reason is there that I cannot move at -3 s/m? Imagine a two-dimensional space represented by a y-axis called time and an x-axis called space. There is no mathematical reason I can't move from (3,3) to (4,0) or (3,3) to (2,6).
If you really want to twist your brain around something try this... There is no time. Everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen, can be thought of as fixed in four dimensional space. But, because of the way physical processes work, and our perception is based on physical processes, we perceive one of these space axes as time. Basically, our 3 space dimensional universe could be thought of as instantaneous snapshots occurring along a 4th dimension that we perceive as time. Note this doesn't take into account additional dimensions postulated by other theories.
So, basically what I am saying is your math does not say anything about the impossibility of moving through time. And, therefore says nothing about whether 4 dimensional space-time exists or not. Because you leave out movement in time wrt to the other 3 dimensions.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget the NP != P problem. It would be nice to have a proof one way or the other.
It may stop worms, but not e-mail Virii. Because most e-mail virii appear to be social virii. They look like an attachment a user might want to execute, so inexperienced user, or others not paying attention might execute the attachment. Even Unix is vulnerable to these, although they probably don't have quite the destructive potential.
For example. Create an executable that looks like a video file som eone might want to execute. But, what actually happens is the executable forks the virus process, then goes into playing 5 minutes of video data embedded in the executable. The virus process then proceeds to search the users home directory for e-mail addresses to propgate itself to. We can then mak ethe virus destructive by erasing files as they are checked for e-mail addresses. The virus then sends itself to the other e-mail addresses using 'mail person@someplace.com self'.
Notice there is not a single vulnerability exploited here, just dumb users.
Dastardly
P.S. Yes, I know there are a bunch of gotchas involved in the above example. (Hardware differences, BSD vs Linux vs Solaris...)
What kind of exploit would be possible in KDE or GNOME in the future tht isn't possibel now? KDE and GNOME have the same problem as IE and Outlook, except it requires the user to actively do something stupid.
Probably the only problem in GNOME or KDE would be social viruses. I don't know of any Unix mail clients that automatically execute attachments. So, the main possible virus threat is a social e-mail virus, that can get people to detach and run it. It would consists of basically something interesting to look at plus a forked process that looks in as many typical places as possible for e-mail addresses, then simply runs 'mail friend@someplace.com self' for every e-mail address. Worst case when it had retrieved the list of e-mail addresses into process memory it could then run 'rm -rf *' and delete your home directory. While of course entertaining the user with a 15 minute movie clip of something interesting, so that the user would have no idea he/she had been hosed until it was too late. Of course, hopefully most users don't have root access and those that do don't retrienve e-mail ro run e-mail attachements as root. So, worst case would be harm to a few stupid users home directories which could be restored from backup. Of course another interesting social virus could come up with some way to convince a user to run it as root, and then get really destructive or insert backdoors.
Dastardly
and (I've heard suggested) HTML4+CSS as the file format.
A better choice these days would probably be XML+XSL as the file format. And, FOP and XALAN to output PDF and HTML respectively. The only problem I see is that it would need two modes. A default mode for basic word processing tasks, and an expert mode for full scale XML publishing (DTD validation, XSL stylesheet creation...)
Dastardly
I don't think you will have a problem since a big enough peltier for an Athlon is very hard to find, and you probably need to water cool the hot side of a peltier to have a chance of taking away enough heat from the hot side of a peltier to make a processor that cold.
Bingo!!! This is a one time ocurrence. Knives won't cut it. Guns, maybe.
In a very real sense this was the biggest con/bluff in history, and from now on it will probably get called because the rosks of not calling it are too high.
(and allow me to repeat that: this is an act of terrorism, in other word a crime, not an act of war (or at least that's what we think at this point in time)
Ahh. But, you still leave the door open. I assume you think like I do. If the organization responsible was funded by a foreign nation, wouldn't that be an act of war. If Iraq payed bin Laden to perform a terrorist attack on the U.S., isn't that an act of war by Iraq, and should be responded to in kind?
The part that may be shaky is whether harboring the group responsible can be considered an act of war. I don't see any other choice though. How do you prosecute another country for 1000+ counts of accessory to murder?
Dastardly
The above are good points, and the final point is you don't put them on every flight. You put sky marshalls on essenitally random planes, and no less than half. And, they should all be plain clothes.
Guns on airplanes is an extremely bad idea. Just wait for some idiot to show his gun to the guy next to him and have it go off puncturing the plane.
but knives against hands is good enough
Knives against hands won't work anymore. The only reason it worked this time was because everyone figured it would be the usual hijacking:
1) 3-5 people hijack plane with knives and take hostages
2) Make demands
3) Get some demands
4) Land plane someplace where they will let you gt away.
5) Hostages get away alive for the most part.
Now:
1) 3-5 people try to hijack plane with knives
2) 50-100 passengers attack people with knives with bare hands
3) 3-5 hijackers beaten to pulp. Some injuries to passengers
Hijacking a plane with knives is a one time deal. It will never happen again. Us Americans are too much of cowboys to not risk knife injury given the new risks. Now they will have to get guns on the plane.
Dastardly
Tom Clancy noted this, while an author of fiction he does research the inteligence community for his fiction, and he made an internesting point. There are 20,000 people in the CIA. Only 1000 of those are field agents.
What is worse is the insurers will claim act of war, and not payy claims.
You are probably right about the planes not being too hard to fly... In a straight line, or under auto pilot. But, to turn a jumbo jet, and accurately aim it at a target is probably very difficult.
Open Source software is written because it is more efficient to write it that way.
From the point of view of some one producing something, software is an expense and has no value beyond what it does to help you produce what your business needs. A trivial example would be writing a book. You want a word processor to let you write the book. The word processor is an expense to writing the book, but it should help make the person more efficent in writing that book. But, any reduction in the cost of the software increases the profitability of the book.
So, the question then becomes how do you get your word processing software at the lowest cost, so you can write the book, and ake the most money.
1) Buy it from a group of programmers, marketers, salesmen, secretaries . . . who have written packaged and distributed a word processor (aka proprietary software company)
2) Hire programmers directly to write it for you.
3) Write it yourself.
4) Write just enough to help you write your book, and give the code away with the stipulation that improvements others need to be distributed as source code withthe same requirements freedoms and restrictions as you gave it away with (GPL).
#1 is the proprietary develpment model where software is bought from a company. It has worked pretty well so far, but is it really the most efficient method for all cases.
#2 gets done by a lot of people and businesses for software that customized specifically for that business, and no one else would probably want.
#3 is done once in a while, but one person can not create a full featured word processor on their own, and probably would not because they would not need all the features.
#4 brings in an interesting efficiency. You write just what you need to get the current job done. Then, make that software open source. Some one else decides they like the program, and it almost does the job they need except it needs to be able to embed images. So, they add image embedding to the program. A year later your next book needs pictures, if you had not open sourced your software you would have to write image embedding code yourself. But, because the software is open sourced some one else wrote that component and you have it ready to server your needs.
Another way to look at it from the corporation point of view is that the proprietary model involves all corporations paying a bunch of programmers, salesmen, managers and support staff to write a program, plus a profit margin.
The Open Source model involes all corporations paying a programmer (or 2) within their organization to add features and maintain the Open Source programs that they use. Other corporations that package and support Open Source products act as a sort of programmer pool for smaller businesses or individuals that either need the product as-is or need modifications.
And, the model that wins should be the one that produces the software that is needed at the lowest cost. Which is showing up in a lot cases the lowest cost method to produce software is open source.
Dastardly
You are right, I should have said Coulomb which is charge which is what I really meant. (It has been a while since physics.)The flaw in your calculation is that we don't want kg to cancel. So, if you changed amperes to Coulomb/s which is the real definition.
Then, volt = kg*m^2/s^3 per Q/s
Then, kg = volt*s^2*Q/m^2
So, as long as you have another standard for volt based on charge and time and the speed of light. Then, all measuring devices could be referenced against a charge standard and time standard.
Does that work?
The onoe thing the article doesn't mention is the real goal which is what is causing a lot of confusion. The real goal is to be able to calibrate all measuring devices against some common standard. The current standards that I know of are:
1) The length of a second as defined by a certain number of oscillations of a Cesium atom.
2) The standard for a Volt (probably related to the charge on an electron) I don't know this one.
3) The standard for mass. (i.e. that hunk of metal)
From these three things and some phenomena based on physical constants (speed of light...) all other units can be referenced. The experiment described in the article pretty much defines the mass standard in terms of the volt standard. So, instead of having 3 standards whose accuracy limits the accuracy of all other standards. There will be only two, and any work to improve the accuracy of a second and the volt will improve the accuracy of all standards.
Just the imprecision of language when explaining precise concepts. The accurate description is probably "And in space, 1 kilogram still has a mass of 1 kilogram."
Yep, that woudl be the guy in Irvine with no progamming trainging, and no known past programming experience. Who claimed to have developed this same thing? Made investors think the same, went public, conned his employees into thinking the codec existed and left the country.
Hmmm... Could he be hiding out in Australia under an assumed name...
marketing based on relative numbers is just plain stupid
Not to mention naming your CPUs based on the performance of a competitors product is just plain stupid. There has got to be a better way that puts AMD in the drivers seat instead of Intel.
I write this as a person with a bachelors in Computer Engineering who is currently completing masters in EE
Please tell me your are kidding about the above.
The older Athlons, for example, run at a 200Mhz clock speed.
Nope they don't. The slowest Athlon was 500Mhz.
But the external CPU bus runs at a 100Mhz clock speed.
Correct.
Does this mean that AMD is cheating? That they are "claiming" 200Mhz when it is only 100Mhz?
If that is what they said they would be cheating since Hz is a scientific word and is defined as a full cycle. But, AMD doesn't say this, they say "100 MHZ/200 MHZ DDR FSB" Which is saying that the front side bus clock is 100 MHz, but it transfers 2 bits per cycle, making the effective data rate 200 MHz.
So your 1Ghz Athlon runs externally at 100Mhz with a 5x multiplier. Inside it runs at 200Mhz with a 5x multiplier. 200x5=1000
Nope. Externally is 100MHz DDR, effective data rate of 200Mhz. Internally it is 100x10=1000.
I think you had the idea right in your head, maybe, but your translation into writing sucked. (No offense)
Dastardly
Too bad you are completely wrong. The clock signal into a P4 clock pin is 100MHz. The same as the CPU bus clock.
"But, Wait.. " you say, " the P4 has a 400MHz CPU bus." Nope, it has a 400 Mbps/p (megabits per second per pin) CPU bus. The bus transfers 4 bits per pin per clock, but the clock is still 100MHz.
As for PLLs there are multiple PLLs in order to keep clock edges sync'd to all parts of the chip. For the most part the PLL's all are the same speed, I haven't heard of any chips with multiple asynchronous PLL. In the case of a P4, the integer ALU is running a twice the core frequency. I don't know about the exact design, so whether they have another PLL to double the core clock for the ALU pipeline, or have designed the pipeline stages to clock on both rising and falling edges is anyone's guess.
Dastardly
If MS pulled their license, why doesn't IBM or Compaq just install Linux for free and say to hell with Redmond?
There are probably 2 reasons.
1) At the time when IBM, Compaq, and Dell had enough leverage to make this happen (3 or 4 years ago), Linux, Xfree, etc. were not goo d enough. Now that they have something that is good enough, I don't think tey have the leverage, and all it would take is just Dell to advertise, IBM and Compaq can't give you Windows, but we can, so buy from Dell not anyone else.
2) Let us assuem they did all say screw MS, and stuck to their guns. Now, they have to actually work to explain why this computer some one purchased has this thing called Linux on it. they also have to explain why a person now has a root password, and why I can't rewrite a file my husband made because he owns it. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. All things that are worth explaining, but take a lot more time, effort, and money than just forking it over to M$.
Why do you think Win95, 98, ME security is so bad. It is because people want to do stuff with computers, and don't want to learn anything. Which is what MS gives them, they can do anything they want to there computer, but so can anyone else.
As multiple people in this thread ahve said. Micorsoft does charge for IE, it is bundledinto the price fo the operating system. So, that $99 you paid for your Win98 Upgrade, or the $1200 you paid for your computer which includes Windows 98, ME, ... Includes $5 for IE. So, if you compare pricing. All other browsers cost $0. IE then costs $5, which would be monopolistic pricing, which demonstrates that the MS monopoly is not good for consumers, it costs us money.
You need to qualify your description of an LLC. It doesn't make the owners immune to lawsuits. It only limits their liability to their total investment in the corporation. Basically, it means that just because you invest $1 in a corporation, doesn't allow someone who wins a lawsuit against that corporation to take away your house, car, computer, and everything else you own, and garnish your wages for the rest of your life.
Your entire argument is flawed. There is no such thing as moving backward (or forward) in time or "rate of change of time with respect to time". Why? because changing time is self-referential. It's that simple. That's the reason why there is no motion in spacetime. I thought you agreed with me above because you understood. You apparently don't.
Why does movement through time have to be self referential?
Isn't dt/dx equally valid for a two dimensional space-time? What mathematical reason is there that I cannot move at -3 s/m? Imagine a two-dimensional space represented by a y-axis called time and an x-axis called space. There is no mathematical reason I can't move from (3,3) to (4,0) or (3,3) to (2,6).
If you really want to twist your brain around something try this... There is no time. Everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen, can be thought of as fixed in four dimensional space. But, because of the way physical processes work, and our perception is based on physical processes, we perceive one of these space axes as time. Basically, our 3 space dimensional universe could be thought of as instantaneous snapshots occurring along a 4th dimension that we perceive as time. Note this doesn't take into account additional dimensions postulated by other theories.
So, basically what I am saying is your math does not say anything about the impossibility of moving through time. And, therefore says nothing about whether 4 dimensional space-time exists or not. Because you leave out movement in time wrt to the other 3 dimensions.
Dastardly
So, RC-5 encryption with a 4 bit key would effectively control access to a work?