All code is mathematics applied and thus can be proven or disproven to work in the way it was intended.
In theory - yes, in practice - absolutely no way.
Before you even begin to think about proving your code, you'd have to start out by proving that your compiler, and every library you are going to use does exactly what it is supposed to, and whilst you're at it, prove from basic physical principles that your hardware will do what you think it will. If you don't bother proving the foundations, but just assume that they work based on past experience, then there's no point proving what you are building on top of it. There's a world of difference between an abstract algorithm, and an implementation of one.
You're also assuming that you can get a completely defined, totally unambiguous specification of what exactly a piece of code is supposed to do in the first place. And that's an immense assumption, because people who want code don't know exactly what they want, only 'sort-of' what they want. Some of what they want will be directly contradictory. And they'll keep changing their minds as well.
The reality is that it's not practical to prove that real code is correct for anything even remotely complex. So what happens is that it gets tested until we're reasonably confident that there's nothing seriously wrong with it. The degree of testing depends on the application.
Yes, claiming that a piece of code is proven because it passed a bunch of tests is wrong. But complaining that people don't actually prove their code is completely unrealistic.
If you think you can do it, you should be able to find extremely well-paid work working on development of safety critical systems.
Sounds like I'm in the minority, but I think this APG thing looks pretty good, assuming it generates from a large enough space.
Despite what everyone is saying, these passwords are pronounceable, and for the really important passwords that you use frequenctly, you can memorise them fairly easily.
I currently use completely random character sequence passwords for my main accounts. I keep them written down until I've learnt them (after a week maybe), then destroy the piece of paper. Since the passwords are strong, I don't need to change them very often.
For all the other minor accounts that I need passwords for as well, I still use randomly generated passwords, but keep them in a keyring application on a memory stick, so I only need to remember it's master password, and I can still have a different password on every account. I carry the stick around just like I carry around a bunch of keys (same thing really)
Yes, good passwords are a nuisance, but if it's convenience you want then just use something easy to guess like '7of9', 'top5ecret', or even the classic 'admin'.
Even with the smallest 27" HDTVs, you'll easily notice the difference between 480i (DVDs) and 1080 (HDTV). It's 6X the resolution!
Well first you're assuming that you've got an 'approved' display that doesn't cause the player to choose to immediately downsample the resolution before it even outputs a signal. But let's assume that most people are happy to go out and but a new TV as well as a new DVD player. If you make a point of looking for the detail, and doing direct comparisons then yes you probably will notice the difference. But by the time you are five minutes into watching a film (rather than just measuring specs) you are unlikely to notice any more, unless you've got a big display, or the film is so dull you're not really watching it but are counting pixels instead. There's a big difference between there being a measureable difference (e.g. 6x resolution) and a noticeable difference (e.g. 'my picture looks blurred'). If the picture looks fine already, 6x resolution will not look much better. DVD is already at the point of diminishing returns for small to medium sized screens. I agree that if you've got a huge display then 6x res is well worth having - but that's not most people.
Congratulations. You've managed to prove you have no idea what you're talking about. You didn't bother to list scratch-proof Blu-ray discs, higher capacity meaning more "extra" features, more audio tracks, higher quality (lossless) audio, far, far more advanced menu system, interactive features, etc.
Not really. I didn't bother to list them because none of them are significant improvements over DVD.
Let's look at them:
Scratch proof disks. Scratch proof coatings can be used on normal DVDs just as easily as Blu-ray disks. I've never had a problem with scratched DVDs anyway, but this is not a differentiator.
More extra features. How many more extra features do you really want? How many do you actually bother watching? More to the point, do you think studios will fill up that extra space with high quality extras, or just any old stuff they've got lying around?
More audio tracks. Again, how many do you want? You typically already get the film in multiple languages, plus several commentaries.
Higher quality audio. Technically true, but who's going to notice? CDs are technically better than MP3s, but that hasn't caused MP3s to flop, because it's very hard for most people to tell the difference.
More advanced menu system. Which makes the film more enjoyable how? I thought the point of watching a film was to watch the film - not to play with the menu system.
Interactive features. I thought you wanted to watch a film, not play a game?
There _are_ improvements in Blu-Ray/HD-DVD, but they are only incremental ones. There's nothing fundamentally new and exciting on offer from Blu-Ray/HD-DVD, it's all just more of the same - but hindered by heavy handed DRM.
Yes, I'm sure you're boycotting DVDs as well, since they contain DRM...
No, of course I'm not - because it's a completely different degree of DRM.
DVDs contain region coding, which you can ignore by buying a multi-region player.
DVDs contain CSS, but because it always works in the same way you can trust
your player to always be able to play a legitimate disk. Unless you're into piracy then (for a stand-alone player) you can completely ignore CSS because it doesn't affect you.
In contrast, Blue-Ray/HD-DVDs offer:
Ever-changing, self-installing, security software, resulting in ever changing compatability bugs, so you never know if your disks will keep working.
Self-destruct option.
In case you get the wrong idea, I'm not against DRM because I want to be able to pirate disks - I don't.
I'm against _excessive_ DRM that I don't trust to leave my system in a useable state. As such I have no problem with the current DVD system, but serious problems with the proposed new
Ultimately, you're going to put a shiny, round disc in your drive, and it'll play
But that's just it. It's a pretty safe assumption for DVD if you've got a multi-region player.
But with these new fangled waffle-irons, your equipment has to pass a whole raft of continually changing security checks. Stating that "it'll play" is a huge oversimplification.
So hopefully people will avoid it and stick with DVD, where it really does play.
Higher resolution (which hardly anyone will even notice - certainly not the majority of people who don't have huge displays).
Erm, that's it really.
Disadvantages of new format:
Another new player to have to buy.
Excessive DRM which means that just because a disk used to play is no guarantee that it will next time you try it (due to inevitable bugs in mandatory firmware upgrades, if nothing else).
Risk of irreversibly trashing your player if source disk has broken new firmware (mandatory install, remember).
If people start buying these things in droves, then the studios will be able to stop DVD production, and force the rest of us to use them too if we want any new content.
But, a combination of lack of clear benefits, together with excessive DRMing, and lack of a clear format winner, will hopefully mean that these players will be ignored and flop. In which case the studios aren't going to stop making DVDs even though they'd like to.
If they do take off, I can't wait for the first mandatory firmware upgrade that breaks a whole bunch of players. I'd love to see the studios explain what they are going to do about that.
Unless the DRM is removed (which isn't likely), then the only interest I have in this technology is watching it fail as a film format, then become available as a cheap data storage format for computers. Shame really, cos I like films.
If the 'analysts' can't get it right most of the time without 'guidance', and this causes stock price instability, then perhaps they should stop making predictions and just admit that they don't know?
Personally I'm convinced that they are just terrified of having to do their own research (maybe even do some analysis!) make their own predictions, and take the flak when they get it wrong.
They only want guidance so that their 'predictions' will be right, and if they aren't they can blame it on bad guidance.
Google should continue doing what it said it was going to do, regardless of what the analysts think of it. Screw them.
There will be no difference. It's a game no matter what. It's kinda hard to forget you got yourself all rigged up to play one hell of an expensive game.
Until it becomes an everyday occurrence that you don't really think about any more. Anyway, the whole point of such a game is that it's immersive, and you can forget where you are for a while. Like a good film - except that whilst watching a film you aren't actively firing off weaponry.
LOL What do you think games are? Escapeism. Fantasy. Freedom to do what you know you can not do in real life.
Which is exactly why this is a concern.
When was the last time you saw an acid drooling cyberdemon charging you?
Never, so what? I said it only matters when the setting goes for realism - which plenty do.
No matter how real the games may look or feel you have to have a mental problem to not know you are playing a freaking game. I mean come on you purchased it fired up the latest and greates xGen gameing rig and all.
Actually the problem is if you think you are playing a game but aren't, not the other way around.
Anyway, say you've spent the last month playing the new hit racing game where the aim is to engage in death defying stunts. Now (in real life) you are driving to work, the context is familiar. In fact, you're even daydreaming about the game whilst driving. Then you see a chance for a triple stunt bonus by slamming into that wall. You'd only need to forget briefly. It only takes a moment to screw up...
Oh for fuck's sake.... people, IGN is trolling. My dog knows the difference between play-fighting and real fighting. Let's give our kids a little credit, shall we?
I agree with you - at the moment.
I think the real problem will come when it starts being genuinely possible to forget whether you are in a game or in reality. I.e. x years down the line when VR headsets are actually good quality and mainstream, and the graphics are photoreal (which isn't really too far off).
Of course if the game world setting is completely different to real life, then you aren't going to forget, but if it isn't you could.
It is just a matter of time before the first court case where someone is accussed of mass murder and their defence could plausibly be that they forgot they weren't in a game at the time.
It's not at that stage yet, but I can imagine that it will be before too much longer.
'If Mozilla permit the sale of copied versions of its software, it makes it virtually impossible for us, from a practical point of view, to enforce UK anti-piracy legislation'
So what are they saying? Mozilla shouldn't be allowed to do this?
I wouldn't say that spending five minutes to visit a company web-site to find out whether they permit copying is impractical.
Unfortunately most of the extra processing speed this gets you will be sucked up the all the DRM software running sefl-checks on itself, calling the mothership, and triple checking that you are licensed to excecute the next instruction.
So your computer will be nice and fast, just not any of your applications...
It doesn't have to be 8 bits. It doesn't even have to be every sample.
If you just use the least significant bit of every sample, you've still got
about 45MB of data, which is still a lot.
Of course if you can't physically get them into the country anyway, you're scuppered with using that particular route.
But the same basic technique can be applyed to images embedded on otherwise 'uninteresting' sites, or you could even embed (admittedly very low rate) data in plain text, through variations of 'take the first letter of each sentence' type ideas.
The fact is that if there's a stream of data coming in, there are lots of ways of hiding extra information in there, as long as the hidden information data rate is substantially lower than the open information rate, it's easy.
"there's a lot that's finished. All the guns are finished. Most of the creatures are finished...we're just basically pulling it all together and trying to make it fun."
If that's the best spin he can put on it, then it's not sounding good. It suggests that there's still a lot that isn't finished.
The really worrying part was the bit about fun. Oh dear. I'm not convinced you can just bolt that on at the end - it should be core to the design.
Having said that - I really hope that they do finish, and that it is fun, but I don't have high hopes.
DN3D is still cool though, despite its age (when 800x600 seemed like the ultimate in high resolution, my 120MHz 486 was amazingly fast, memory was much too expensive, and graphics cards could use screamingly fast PCI!).
The patent says 'specifically tailored to meet applicable standards for
electromagnetic compatibility with aircraft systems and RF exposure levels for
passengers and flight crews'.
It doesn't say it has to be on a plane - only that it has been designed such that it would be acceptable to put on a plane. So to avoid infringing the patent you need to make sure that your system would not meet applicable EMC standards...
And as for it applying to moving platforms - since when is the Earth not a moving platform?
> Not science eh, then please exlplain the reason that the ice caps on Mars are > melting. It's been a pretty steady decline in ice according to the rover that > we have had over there for the last 8 years. I'm sure Global Warming is a > problem over there with all the gas guzzling martians pumping out CO2, eh?
Well obviously the emissions from the rover are causing it. I bet the martians are _really_ hacked off about it too. Just wait till they find out who sent it...
Slashdot Mirror
In theory - yes, in practice - absolutely no way.
Before you even begin to think about proving your code, you'd have to start out by proving that your compiler, and every library you are going to use does exactly what it is supposed to, and whilst you're at it, prove from basic physical principles that your hardware will do what you think it will. If you don't bother proving the foundations, but just assume that they work based on past experience, then there's no point proving what you are building on top of it. There's a world of difference between an abstract algorithm, and an implementation of one.
You're also assuming that you can get a completely defined, totally unambiguous specification of what exactly a piece of code is supposed to do in the first place. And that's an immense assumption, because people who want code don't know exactly what they want, only 'sort-of' what they want. Some of what they want will be directly contradictory. And they'll keep changing their minds as well.
The reality is that it's not practical to prove that real code is correct for anything even remotely complex. So what happens is that it gets tested until we're reasonably confident that there's nothing seriously wrong with it. The degree of testing depends on the application.
Yes, claiming that a piece of code is proven because it passed a bunch of tests is wrong. But complaining that people don't actually prove their code is completely unrealistic.
If you think you can do it, you should be able to find extremely well-paid work working on development of safety critical systems.
Z.
Maybe you're right. But a lot of us did, and we do. And that's why this is big news to us.
If you hate it, fine. We can look forward to it, and you can continue to ignore it. Everyone's happy.
Z.
Despite what everyone is saying, these passwords are pronounceable, and for the really important passwords that you use frequenctly, you can memorise them fairly easily.
I currently use completely random character sequence passwords for my main accounts. I keep them written down until I've learnt them (after a week maybe), then destroy the piece of paper. Since the passwords are strong, I don't need to change them very often.
For all the other minor accounts that I need passwords for as well, I still use randomly generated passwords, but keep them in a keyring application on a memory stick, so I only need to remember it's master password, and I can still have a different password on every account. I carry the stick around just like I carry around a bunch of keys (same thing really)
Yes, good passwords are a nuisance, but if it's convenience you want then just use something easy to guess like '7of9', 'top5ecret', or even the classic 'admin'.
Z.
Z.
How can you say that, have you never seen MAME? http://www.mame.net/
Z.
Z.
Well first you're assuming that you've got an 'approved' display that doesn't cause the player to choose to immediately downsample the resolution before it even outputs a signal. But let's assume that most people are happy to go out and but a new TV as well as a new DVD player. If you make a point of looking for the detail, and doing direct comparisons then yes you probably will notice the difference. But by the time you are five minutes into watching a film (rather than just measuring specs) you are unlikely to notice any more, unless you've got a big display, or the film is so dull you're not really watching it but are counting pixels instead. There's a big difference between there being a measureable difference (e.g. 6x resolution) and a noticeable difference (e.g. 'my picture looks blurred'). If the picture looks fine already, 6x resolution will not look much better. DVD is already at the point of diminishing returns for small to medium sized screens. I agree that if you've got a huge display then 6x res is well worth having - but that's not most people.
Congratulations. You've managed to prove you have no idea what you're talking about. You didn't bother to list scratch-proof Blu-ray discs, higher capacity meaning more "extra" features, more audio tracks, higher quality (lossless) audio, far, far more advanced menu system, interactive features, etc.
Not really. I didn't bother to list them because none of them are significant improvements over DVD.
Let's look at them:
There _are_ improvements in Blu-Ray/HD-DVD, but they are only incremental ones. There's nothing fundamentally new and exciting on offer from Blu-Ray/HD-DVD, it's all just more of the same - but hindered by heavy handed DRM.
Yes, I'm sure you're boycotting DVDs as well, since they contain DRM...
No, of course I'm not - because it's a completely different degree of DRM.
In contrast, Blue-Ray/HD-DVDs offer:
In case you get the wrong idea, I'm not against DRM because I want to be able to pirate disks - I don't. I'm against _excessive_ DRM that I don't trust to leave my system in a useable state. As such I have no problem with the current DVD system, but serious problems with the proposed new
Z.
But that's just it. It's a pretty safe assumption for DVD if you've got a multi-region player.
But with these new fangled waffle-irons, your equipment has to pass a whole raft of continually changing security checks. Stating that "it'll play" is a huge oversimplification.
So hopefully people will avoid it and stick with DVD, where it really does play.
Z.
Benefits of new format:
Disadvantages of new format:
If people start buying these things in droves, then the studios will be able to stop DVD production, and force the rest of us to use them too if we want any new content.
But, a combination of lack of clear benefits, together with excessive DRMing, and lack of a clear format winner, will hopefully mean that these players will be ignored and flop. In which case the studios aren't going to stop making DVDs even though they'd like to.
If they do take off, I can't wait for the first mandatory firmware upgrade that breaks a whole bunch of players. I'd love to see the studios explain what they are going to do about that.
Unless the DRM is removed (which isn't likely), then the only interest I have in this technology is watching it fail as a film format, then become available as a cheap data storage format for computers. Shame really, cos I like films.
Z.
Personally I'm convinced that they are just terrified of having to do their own research (maybe even do some analysis!) make their own predictions, and take the flak when they get it wrong.
They only want guidance so that their 'predictions' will be right, and if they aren't they can blame it on bad guidance.
Google should continue doing what it said it was going to do, regardless of what the analysts think of it. Screw them.
Z.
Until it becomes an everyday occurrence that you don't really think about any more. Anyway, the whole point of such a game is that it's immersive, and you can forget where you are for a while. Like a good film - except that whilst watching a film you aren't actively firing off weaponry.
LOL What do you think games are? Escapeism. Fantasy. Freedom to do what you know you can not do in real life.
Which is exactly why this is a concern. When was the last time you saw an acid drooling cyberdemon charging you?
Never, so what? I said it only matters when the setting goes for realism - which plenty do.
No matter how real the games may look or feel you have to have a mental problem to not know you are playing a freaking game. I mean come on you purchased it fired up the latest and greates xGen gameing rig and all.
Actually the problem is if you think you are playing a game but aren't, not the other way around.
Anyway, say you've spent the last month playing the new hit racing game where the aim is to engage in death defying stunts. Now (in real life) you are driving to work, the context is familiar. In fact, you're even daydreaming about the game whilst driving. Then you see a chance for a triple stunt bonus by slamming into that wall. You'd only need to forget briefly. It only takes a moment to screw up...
Z.
Z.
I agree with you - at the moment.
I think the real problem will come when it starts being genuinely possible to forget whether you are in a game or in reality. I.e. x years down the line when VR headsets are actually good quality and mainstream, and the graphics are photoreal (which isn't really too far off).
Of course if the game world setting is completely different to real life, then you aren't going to forget, but if it isn't you could.
It is just a matter of time before the first court case where someone is accussed of mass murder and their defence could plausibly be that they forgot they weren't in a game at the time.
It's not at that stage yet, but I can imagine that it will be before too much longer.
Z.
You are always getting locked in, whichever way you do it.
Use OS specific calls and you're locked to that OS.
Use any particular framework and you are locked into that framework.
Even if it's available across multiple platforms/OSs, you are still dependent on something which is out of your control and could turn bad.
Personally, I find the least bad solution to be to use libraries not frameworks, and wherever possible to only use cross-platform libraries.
It's easier to swap out a library that your code uses, than to swap out a framework that uses your code - keep your code in control!
Z.
So what are they saying? Mozilla shouldn't be allowed to do this?
I wouldn't say that spending five minutes to visit a company web-site to find out whether they permit copying is impractical.
Z.
Obviously you've never managed to get past the logical door.
Now, where is that thing that my aunt gave me that I don't know what it is...
Z.
All we need to do now is program the question...
Z.
Z.
So your computer will be nice and fast, just not any of your applications...
Z.
It doesn't have to be 8 bits. It doesn't even have to be every sample.
If you just use the least significant bit of every sample, you've still got about 45MB of data, which is still a lot.
Of course if you can't physically get them into the country anyway, you're scuppered with using that particular route.
But the same basic technique can be applyed to images embedded on otherwise 'uninteresting' sites, or you could even embed (admittedly very low rate) data in plain text, through variations of 'take the first letter of each sentence' type ideas.
The fact is that if there's a stream of data coming in, there are lots of ways of hiding extra information in there, as long as the hidden information data rate is substantially lower than the open information rate, it's easy.
Z.
Very well put - If I had mod points, I'd give you some. But I don't. Oh well.
If that's the best spin he can put on it, then it's not sounding good. It suggests that there's still a lot that isn't finished. The really worrying part was the bit about fun. Oh dear. I'm not convinced you can just bolt that on at the end - it should be core to the design.
Having said that - I really hope that they do finish, and that it is fun, but I don't have high hopes.
DN3D is still cool though, despite its age (when 800x600 seemed like the ultimate in high resolution, my 120MHz 486 was amazingly fast, memory was much too expensive, and graphics cards could use screamingly fast PCI!).
It doesn't say it has to be on a plane - only that it has been designed such that it would be acceptable to put on a plane. So to avoid infringing the patent you need to make sure that your system would not meet applicable EMC standards...
And as for it applying to moving platforms - since when is the Earth not a moving platform?
> Not science eh, then please exlplain the reason that the ice caps on Mars are
> melting. It's been a pretty steady decline in ice according to the rover that
> we have had over there for the last 8 years. I'm sure Global Warming is a
> problem over there with all the gas guzzling martians pumping out CO2, eh?
Well obviously the emissions from the rover are causing it.
I bet the martians are _really_ hacked off about it too.
Just wait till they find out who sent it...