An operating system has a API through which you communicate with it. Much like a protocol. Of course the compute environment the programs, both kernel and application are turing complete and operating systems and applications have vulnerabilities.

If on the watch, between application and screen, XML is being generated and parsed into DOM like things to render the user interface of the application, web browser stylee, it's no surprise it runs slow.

I may be wrong, but I fear I may not be.

>Sandboxing solves pretty much all other problems.

Like Java and ActiveX?

Because identifying the 10 million and sampling the 1 million will be expensive. Worse, that many people in the class may not exist. If your class is 'residents of Boring, Oregon', there may simply be too few of them to randomize away the confounders and drive the p-value down.

Top tip. If you want to find something in the data, it helps if it sticks out above the noise floor like a sore thumb. If you're having to push the noise floor down with sample size to make something visible, the odds you got something else wrong go up in proportion.
 

You solved one problem. Now solve all the other problems without knowing what they are. The problem space is undecidably large.

>Also, being Turning-complete is sufficient but not necessary to have this problem

Yes. No argument there. Once free of Turing you can hedge with the simplest possible design. Formal methods may help.

I'm a cryptographic security architect (their name, not mine) for a large techy corporation and I am not willing to use the steaming pile of poo that is TLS. This was a good call on the part of the Minecraft developers. They might not be able to write a good security protocol, but they sure avoided a bad one.

If I succeed in destroying TLS, X.509 and all that goes along with it, replacing it with something sane, I will have succeeded and I can die content.

I don't know much about game programming, but I know how big corporations work.
1) Buy a company
2) Leave it there doing what it does.
3) Think hard about how to integrate it, use it's technology etc.
4) Do that.

The gap between 2 and 4 can be years.

It's not a bug. It's a property of Turing complete languages. You cannot show the server will behave for all inputs. Computer science is a bitch sometimes.

Quick! Someone is wrong on the internet.

Friends don't let friends put Turing complete languages in communication protocols.
This cannot be fixed in general. The behavior of a Turing complete language executor is formally undecidable over all inputs.

Minecraft (and X.509 certs and HTML 5.0 and SQL and, and, and...) all need to switch to non Turing complete languages if they are to have the option of secureable implementations.

I lived through my wife's PhD in education. I helped with the statistics. It was mind curdling stuff. But her thesis had rigor. S-Plus, Excel and everything else doesn't have MANOVAs. R does. We used R.

Well it was statistically unlikely. 100% of gyrocopter visits to the white house have no been to deliver a bomb.

Randomized sampling goes a long way, but only if you have a large enough population. This is one of the problems of social sciences. A randomized 10% subsample from 100 subjects ain't gonna cut it. A randomized subsample from 10,000,000 people isn't going to get funded.

P-values certainly are probabilities. You just argued they aren't probabilities, but they are probabilities of this other thing. You contradicted yourself. I was specifically vague when I called it 'something' because it changes with the type of test and there are many to choose from and I didn't want to write a whole book. That book has already been written by smarter people than I.

I used 'scientists' in quotes in the same sense I'd put computer 'scientistis' in quotes. My degree is computer science, but I dispute that it's a science in the conventional sense.

I find debugging hardware is closer to science. You can't really see inside the chip, but you can develop hypotheses about what it wrong and come up with tests that will refute (or not) the hypotheses. Iterate until you think you probably know the truth.

Doing things well in social sciences is hard. The field (human subjects, IRB etc.) doesn't admit normal testing methods readily. You can't set up a control group and not teach them anything when the control group are school children, or not treat them when the control group is cancer patients, or not house them when the control group is people of the prevalent skin color in the area. The statistics to do things correctly are therefore non trivial and are all about making do with what you have and not over-inferring. If your professors don't know this stuff, and you don't know this stuff, and the paper reviewers don't know this stuff, then it's going to be hard to be rigorous.

I design chips and I do new things that haven't been done before in the analog/digital overlap. So I need data to test. My curves and P-values look great, since I just pull a couple of gig of data when I need it. The control group won't get upset, it's a chip. This is easy compared to statistics in the social sciences. So it's less 'science' and more 'advanced inference'.

It's reasonable for a journal to declare that it (and it's reviewers) don't know that stuff. Presumably there a journal with statistically skilled reviewers and you should submit there if you need that sort of peer review.