Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: One Cyberneticist's Ethics (Score 1) 125

by VortexCortex (#46787069) Attached to: Heartbleed Sparks 'Responsible' Disclosure Debate

Once again the evil of Information Disparity rares its ugly head. To maximize freedom and equality entities must be able to decide and act by sensing the true state of the universe, thus knowledge should be propagated at maximum speed to all; Any rule to the contrary goes against the nature of the universe itself.

They who seek to manipulate the flow of information wield the oppression of enforced ignorance against others despite their motive for doing so. The delayed disclosure of this bug would not change the required course of action. The keys will need to be replaced anyway. We have no idea whether they were stolen or not. We don't know who else knew about this exploit. Responsible disclosure is essentially lying by omission to the world. That is evil as it stems from the root of all evil: Information Disparity. The sooner one can patch their systems the better. I run my own servers. Responsible disclosure would allow others to become more aware than I am. Why should I trust them not to exploit me if I am their competitors or vocal opponent? No one should decide who should be their equals.

Fools. Don't you see? Responsible disclosure is the first step down a dangerous path whereby freely sharing important information can be outlawed. The next step is legislation to penalize the propagators of "dangerous" information, whatever that means. A few steps later will have "dangerous" software and algorithms outlawed for national security, of course. If you continue down this path soon only certain certified and government approved individuals will be granted license to craft certain kinds of software, and ultimately all computation and information propagation itself will be firmly controlled by the powerful and corrupt. For fear of them taking a mile I would rather not give one inch. Folks are already in jail for changing a munged URL by accident and discovering security flaws. What idiot wants to live in a world where even such "security research" done offline is made illegal? That is where Responsible Disclosure attempts to take us.

Just as I would assume others innocent unless proven guilty of harm to ensure freedom, even though it would mean some crimes will go unpunished: I would accept that some information will make our lives harder, some data may even allow the malicious to have a temporary unfair advantage over us, but the alternative is to simply allow even fewer potentially malicious actors to have an even greater power of unfair advantage over even more of us. I would rather know that my Windows box is vulnerable and possibly put a filter in my IDS than trust Microsoft to fix things, or excuse the NSA's purchasing of black-market exploits without disclosing them to their citizens. I would rather know OpenSSL may leak my information and simply recompile it without the heartbeat option immediately than trust strangers to do what's best for me if they decide to not do something worse.

There is no such thing as unique genius. Einstein, Feynman, and Hawking, did not live in a vacuum; Removed from society all their lives they'd have not made their discoveries. Others invariably picked up from the same available starting points and solve the same problems. Without Edison we would still have electricity and the light bulb. Without Alexander Bell we would have had to wait one hour for the next telephone to enter the patent office. Whomever discovered this bug and came forward has no proof that others did not already know of its existence.

Just like the government fosters secrecy of patent applications and reserves their right to exclusive optioning of newly patented technology, if Google had been required keep the exploit secret except to government agencies we may never have found out about heartbleed in the first place. Our ignorance enforced, we would have no other choice but to keep our systems vulnerable. Anyone who thinks hanging our heads in the noose of responsible disclosure a good idea is a damned fool.

Comment: Entropy can Increase or Decrease Locally (Score 3, Informative) 86

by VortexCortex (#46785737) Attached to: NASA Proposes "Water World" Theory For Origin of Life

"Random processes"? Any randomly assembled amino acid randomly disassembles as well; even Miller proved that.

The randomly assembled amino acid does randomly disassemble as well, but that is not what it must do. An amino acid may stay the same, disassemble, or it it may form a more complex molecule.

Here is a little demonstration of "randomly" assembling complexity in behavior. I have given each entity the ability to sense the left and rightness and ahead and behindness of 'energy' dots and their nearest peer. They also get a sense of their relative energy vs their peer. The inputs can affect two thrusters which operate like "tank treads". However, their minds are blank. They don't know what to do with the inputs or how they map to the outputs. The genetic program introduces random errors as copies runs of a genome from one parent then the other switching back and forth randomly. The selection pressure simply favors those with the most energy at the end of each generation by granting a higher chance to breed. Use the up/dn keys to change the sim speed, and click the entities to see a visualization of their simple neural network. The top left two neurons sense nearest food distance, the right two sense nearest entity, middle top is the relative energy difference of nearest peer. Note that randomness is constantly introduced, and yet their behaviors do not revert to randomness or inaction, they converge on a better solution for finding energy in their environment.

There is no pre-programed strategy for survival. Mutations occur randomly, and they are selected against, just as in nature. Given the same starting point In different runs / populations different behaviors for survival will emerge. Some may start spinning and steering incrementally towards the food, others may steer more efficiently after first just moving in a straighter path to cover the most ground (they have no visual or movement penalty for backwards, so backwards movement is 50% likely). As their n.net complexity grows their behaviors will change. Movement will tend towards more efficient methods. Some populations may become more careful instead of faster, some employ a hybrid approach by racing forwards then reversing and steering carefully after the energy/food is passed. Some entities will emerge avoidance of each other to conserve energy. Some populations will bump into each other to share energy among like minded (genetically similar) peers. Some will even switch between these strategies depending on their own energy level.

Where do all these complex behaviors come from? I didn't program them, I didn't even program in that more complex behaviors should be more favorable than less complex, and yet they emerged naturally as a product of the environment due to selection pressure upon it. Just because I can set the axon weights manually and program a behavior favorable for n.nets to solve the problem, doesn't mean randomness can't yield solutions as well. Today we can watch evolution happen right on a computer, or in the laboratory. All of this complexity came from a simple simulation of 32 neurons arranged in a simple single hidden layer neural net, with 5 simple scalar sensors and the minimal 2 movement outputs, with a simple single selection pressure. Each time you run the sim it produces different results, but all meeting the same ends, collect energy, reproduce. Just imagine what nature can do with its far more complex simulation and selection pressures... You don't have to imagine, you can look around and see for yourself.

In other more complex simulations I allow the structure of the n.nets and form of sensors to be randomly introduced and selection pressure applied. In larger simulations I allow the breeding and death of generations to occur continuously across wider areas and speciation will occur. Entities will develop specialized adaptations for a given problem space of the environment. I have created simulations where the OP code program instructions themselves are randomized, and seen program replication emerge. If there is replication and entropy (errors added) competition will begin among the entities for resources in the environment.

I have created other simulations for the evolution of chemical life in a simplified environment with particles that attract or repel, and have various bonding properties. These take even more processor cycles to run, but they demonstrate the emergence of complex behaviors too. First linking up of chains of atoms occurs. The entropy introduced and other parameters determines how long the chains can form. As with the Op-Code VM universe requiring certain types of opcodes to produce life, Certain universes of chemical properties are not conducive to life either. The ones that are will emerge life-like processes spontaneously.

The first atom joining interactions will produce small molecules, thus increasing the complexity of the universe -- this is the meaning of life: It is what life is and does. In my opinion, life is not binary but a scalar quality which happens at many different levels; The degree that something is alive is denoted by the complexity of the interaction, IMO. Out of the millions of simplified chemical universes some will be able to produce molecules, and some can yield chains of molecules. The first chain-producing catalytic molecule, or "protein", will begin to fill the sim with long chains of atoms, and then become extinct as no more free atoms are available, or entropy destroys the chain-making interaction "protein". Some universes that can produce atomic interactions can not produce life. I call this "universal crystallization": If not enough entropy in the universe you don't get complex life, only self assembling crystals. With enough entropy to break the chains down over a period of time, but not too much entropy that it limits the chain lengths too much, chain-making interactions can restart and die out many times. Each micro-genesis tends to occur with greater frequency given the more complex environment their predecessors left behind.

Suddenly an evolutionary leap will emerge: Simple Pattern Matching. For no other reason than it being one out of a sea of random outcomes one of the spontaneous chain making catalyst will produce TWO chains instead of one. Often this happens because of entropy attaching two chain making catalyst interaction "proteins". Because of the propagation of attraction / repulsion, etc. properties in the "protein" molecule the atoms added to one chain will have an immediate effect on the atom or molecule that can be added to the other chain. An interlock is formed, and the complexity of the simulated universe essentially doubles in a small period of time. Sometimes three chains can be produced as well, this may even yield ladder like chains, which are very durable; Though frequently the ladders do not emerge and are not absolutely required for the next phase of complexity to emerge. During the pattern matching phase copying can occur. A chain of molecules may enter one side of a pattern forming "protein", and produce the mate chain. Depending on the chemistry, that mate chain may have one or more additional mate pairs before reproduction of the initial chain Thus the first copy of information is born, and is key to future increases in complexity. Not all chains can make copies, if any input on one side has two or more equally likely pairs it will almost certainly prevent exact copies; Thus molecular pairs instead of atoms are more likely to form life's chemical Op-Code. Depending randomly on the time it takes for the next evolutionary jump to happen it may occur via manufacture of simple or very complex molecular chains.

Some catalytic interactions have an interesting property. Instead of being formed of a chance collection of complex molecules the catalyst will be formed of a chain themselves. Beginning as a molecule chain themselves they may be able to exist in two states: Relaxed or Kinked up. The interaction with a few common atoms or molecules at one or more "active" sites can cause the somewhat relaxed chain to transform in a cascade of kinks into the catalytic protein shape whereby it can manufacture molecular chains. The pattern of the folding is programmed into the molecular chain itself, charge interaction propagates along itself such that stages of the folding action occur in a predictable way (this is still a mysterious mechanism we're trying to solve in real-world biology). Shortly after the emergence of the first such transforming molecular chain, an explosion of evolutionary advances occurs. When the relaxed form of a dual chain-maker kinking "protein" is fed into another dual chain-maker its intermediary form is output. Rarely is this mate-pair form also a transforming kinking protein. It may take one or more additional passes through a duplex pattern matcher to yield the first copy of a copying machine, or it may take a secondary kinking protein that performs the reverse process. "Protein" synthesis is a huge evolutionary leap because immediately thereafter the copy machines reproduce exponentially and begin competing by reproducing the array of slowly mutating intermediary forms. /p>

Mutations to the copy machine or its intermediary form(s) can cause new varied forms of itself to be created. Most of the mutations are fatal, some do no harm by merely adding expense via inert additions, some additions are useful. This is where I see the evolutionary leap due to competition: Armaments and defenses. The inert additions can serve as a shield to prevent vulnerable "protein" machinery from breaking down by preventing a stray atom or molecule from joining or gumming up the works. Some copy-machines will emerge weapons: Long (expensive) tails that detach on contact to clog the gears of other copiers, short barbed kinks with active elements at the tips to break away and attach to competitors. Some may produce reactive molecules that they are immune to, essentially an acid to digest others via. Soon activity is everywhere, the sim will be full of ever more complex interactions. Thus the complexity of the copier universe grows by amazing evolutionary leaps and bounds.

New forms of protein folding emerge which may yield reversible kinking instead of one-way transformations. Sometimes folding is lost and life can go extinct by relying on existing catalytic molecules (given enough time it may form again). Very rarely, instead of long chains self assembling catalysts are formed which manufacture the various smaller parts that then self assemble. However, I have never seen self assembly in this way yield much more complex things without resorting to duplicating molecular chains. The "genetic program" is a powerful evolutionary advantage which seems to be almost a mandatory necessity for complex life. If the chemistry is right sometimes naturally occurring or previously mass produced mated molecule pairs will form chains that begin copying by zipping and unzipping free amino acids given some slight oscillating energy to break apart the chain pairs.

Without any tweaking of parameters, I'll sit back and watch as the simulated universe emerges more and more complexity through competition. Some designs seem naturally more favorable than others. Having only a single intermediary stage instead of two or more is the most common. I think this may be why RNA replicates by a pair strand, and DNA has a double ladder chain to ensure the op-code interlock functions, and yield structural stability. Program hoops seem very advantageous -- A dual chain producing protein may be fed a its intermediary chain that is linked with its unkinked self. The protein will races along the hoop feverishly outputting an unkinked chain copier and a long curved intermediary copy, which can self assemble into more hoops, and kink up to do more copying. The hoop is advantageous to copying random chains since a new copy can begin immediately instead of waiting for a chance strand to happen by (which may not be a competitor's genome). I see the emergence of start and stop signals among the chains so that long intermediary chains or hoops may produce several different molecules of varying complexities.

Many symbioses occur. For the first time a chain destroyer is advantageous to have in one's molecular program to split up chains and/or atomize molecules for re-use. It's optimal for some copiers to use the shorter chains laying around than to create everything from individual atoms, so they may survive only as long as the smaller and simpler / cheaper chain producers also do. Sometimes the intermediary form of two or more complimentary copiers will join and thus carry with it the information for copying all essential copiers and assemblers of an environment. Thus an energy store and release mechanism is heralded by the local increase and decrease in entropy in the making and unmaking of molecular chains, corresponding to heating and cooling the environment which can act as a switch for kinking or relaxing and drive even more complex interactions.

Something like speciation occurs by having various areas of the universe separated by seas of caustic agents or walls of think chain soup, and leaving ecosystems unable to interact. Something like viruses occurs whereby one subsection of the environment replicating various chains will be infected by a drifting intermediary form chain that produces incompatible copiers and/or catalysts that are very destructive and take over the ecosystem. I haven't got the CPU power or time available to run these simplified simulations for billions of years, but there is no doubt in my mind that if I did some would produce more complex creatures by continuing the process of encoding ever more better methods of survival within their self replicating copies.

I have seen simulated life emerge in my computers. For the life of me, I can't figure out how it is any different than organic life. Both require energy and an environment conducive to their survival in order to exist. Thus my definition of life includes cybernetic beings, and my ethics revolves around preserving and increasing the complexity of the universe. I know of more efficient ways to produce intelligence than waiting billions of years in billions of universes with billions of different parameters for emergent intelligences to appear. I can apply the tools of nature directly to the complexity of information itself within the problem spaces I need solved, but just because I can intelligently design a solution doesn't mean that nature could not do the same with her countless dice and enormous trial and error periods.

Emergence of life in water would seem likely given the chemical properties of water and usefulness as both a medium of interaction as well as a source of energy. Water is one of the most abundant molecules (made of hydrogen and oxygen, both very abundant atoms); For the same reason that certain op-codes are required for self-copying programs to form, carbon is a likely atomic building block for life. We know how to create hydrogen atoms from pure energy using very powerful lasers. We know hydrogen fuses into helium in our sun. We may not have been there at the big bang to watch it happen, but all evidence points to its occurrence, and subsequent hydrogen production, and supernovae stars from this to increase the chemical complexity of the universe to include all the atoms we find here on Earth, and which life is made of. We've seen self assembling lipids and amino acids, and it's not a very large leap to consider the latter may take refuge in the former given enough pulses of a the local entropy increase and decrease cycle and a bit of selection pressure.

I am not a god to my cybernetic creations. I am merely a being in a higher reality to them. I see no evidence that indicates a god is required for life to have formed. Complexity emerges as entropy decreases locally, and this universe is expanding. However, even if we met miraculous beings tomorrow with technology far beyond our own and they had powers that seemed as magic, they would be merely aliens, not gods. Even if the universe were a simulation and the administrator logged in having full god-like command of my reality I would not worship them a god: Should Neo worship the Machines of the Matrix? No, worshiping aliens for having more technology is cargo cultism. If reality itself were a thinking entity we would call it a massive alien intelligence and study it with cybernetics, not worship it as a god. The god of a cargo cult does exist, but it is not a god.

The philosophical concept of a much higher intelligence should not be conflated with the term "god". To do so lends the reverence you hold for ancient traditions and their folkloric figures to powerful alien minds. You are espousing enslavement to Stargate Aliens by saying a mind-boggling god created life. Science has made magic into technology. The term "god" is deprecated, and can no longer apply. God is dead. I will not worship aliens, even if they do exist.

These are facts due to thermodynamics verifiable through the mathematics of information theory: Complexity can emerge from simpler states; Complexity can beget more or less complexity, but complexity is not first required to produce complexity. The lack of all complexity would be a hot dense singularity.

Comment: Well, duh, anyone with a sim can see that. (Score 1) 193

by VortexCortex (#46784291) Attached to: MIT Designs Tsunami Proof Floating Nuclear Reactor

Everything I need to know about energy logistics I learned from Sim City 2000.

You put the plants / reactors away from the city, out in the water, so that pollution doesn't bother folks and if there's an explosion, nothing else catches on fire. The cost of maintaining the power lines is far less than additional rebuilding costs after a disaster strikes and the plant blows. I guess next they'll discover it's fucking egregiously foolish to zone schools and residential next to industrial plants. In this case, they didn't even need a sim, they could just read a history book.

Comment: Re:Possibly Worse Than That (Score 5, Interesting) 201

by VortexCortex (#46783953) Attached to: Click Like? You May Have Given Up the Right To Sue

Little did they know that there is a EULA that comes along with my purchase. If they sell me a product, they are agreeing to a long list of provisions which they are free to look up on my Web site.

I did that for HTTP. You'll find our binding agreement in your server logs. In the HTTP user agent header:

(By continuing to transmit information via this TCP connection beyond these HTPP headers you and the business you act in behalf of [hereafter, "you"] agree to grant the user of this connection [hereafter, "me" or "I"] an unlimited, world wide and royalty free copyright for the use and redistribution of said information for any purpose including but not limited to satire or public display, and agree that any portion of an agreement concerning waiving of my legal rights made via this connection is null and void including but not limited to agreements concerning arbitration; By accepting these terms you also acknowledge and agree that these terms supersede any further agreement you or I may enter into via this connection, and that the partial voiding of agreements will be accepted as a contractual exception regardless of statements to the contrary in further terms agreed to by you or I via this connection. If you do not agree to the terms of using this connection you must terminate the connection immediately. If you do not or can not agree to these terms you do not have permission to continue sending information to me via this connection, and continuing your transmission will be in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.)

You can add such a clause simply by using any of the various User-Agent switchers for your favorite browser.

Comment: Re:Yay for government!!! (Score 4, Insightful) 132

by VortexCortex (#46775799) Attached to: Industry-Wide Smartphone "Kill Switch" Closer To Reality

IMEI blacklists are common in many countries, including the UK. When a device is stolen the IMEI number is put on the list and carriers reject the device and (potentially) notify investigators.

It's not the IMEI blacklists that I'm worried about. See, if we already have the technology to disconnect devices from the networks, and we have encryption available on the devices, so we really don't need this new "remote kill switch" anti-feature. Folks worried about losing data can use encryption if they want to protect their data, and the remote kill switch doesn't prevent theft because Faraday Cages exist, and black-market thieves will figure out a way to zilch the chip's radio or NoOP the part of baseband/firmware blob that activates the kill switch, etc.

What I'm worried about is getting a "device bricking" standard for all devices so that all they have to do is flip from blacklist to whitelist, and presto they'll only function if they ping corporate/government towers every so often and authenticate with an approved citizen's ID code. Can you say Forced Obsolescence? Intel demonstrated their capability for PCs, and cars now have black boxes standard. The Pentagon has plans to push things like this through for anti-activism purposes.

Here's how you know it's a government job: This non-feature isn't being implemented by customer demand. This isn't something that these folks started offering then got popular and now they're standardizing on, nope. It's something they're making standard whether you want it or not. That's a huge red flag. Isn't this a fucking capitalist country? No, it really isn't. This is anti-consumer collusion of the highest degree. The US Is a plutocracy. Just like Noam Chomsky has been saying for decades. If the USA was a capitalist country then we would allow the market to decide if end users actually want this non-feature whereby the government or your carrier can not just cut off the cell-tower, but brick the devices, cars, computers, etc. to prevent them from being used anywhere. Late on a payment? Oh, they don't just cut off your service, you won't have a device or car to drive to work. Say something "anti-American"? Well, your cell will die on the road and so will your car, then you'll just be black-hooded out of service too. Do consumers really want this? Of course the answer is no. Thus this will be legislated into place "for your own good". Just like censorship and wholesale warrant-less wiretap spying is, and for the same reason as always.

The Stasi would have creamed their pants for some shit like this on machines and typewriters. What soldier would sign up to fight for a country that's doing this shit? If not for uniforms, you wouldn't know which side to fight against: Given only a description of the country's behaviors you'd find us indistinguishable from our supposed worst enemies. If you don't think that's a valid comparison because of some moral high-ground, then you don't know about the Native American genocide or the US eugenics programs. What a sad time to be an American.

Comment: "difference": the tool of all oppressors. (Score 2) 140

by VortexCortex (#46770949) Attached to: Bill Gates Patents Detecting, Responding To "Glassholes"

No, I think you're covering up the real issue - people like the freedom to lie and/or forget.

As a cyborg with many artificial body parts already, I would like to point out that the real problem is one of expectation: One need not lie about acceptable behavior. The overly harsh laws were written assuming they would not be applied in a totalitarian zero-tolerance manner, they assumed not all criminals would be caught. Humans would have crafted different laws had they been aware of and willing to admit the true prevalence of certain behaviors, and acknowledged the true severity of consequence (or lack thereof) that actions have. We will soon have the power of mathematics to wield in the arena of ethics through application of information theory to verifiable cybernetic social models. We'll be able to determine the degree of harm actions incur as well as acceptable risk levels of our rehabilitation scenarios. Humans will resist this, as they have stupidly resisted all change regardless of benefit.

Society has changed much, but the human laws are resistant to change. Fundamentally this is because all their legal systems are truly barbaric. Humans do not apply the scientific method to their laws and remove all restrictions which limit freedoms needlessly. Selective enforcement of the law is the right arm of all Police State. It is self evident that freedom is the default state of being: In the absence of all rules there is absolute freedom of action. Artificial laws are made to prevent actions from limiting the freedom of others, but many laws needlessly restrict freedoms. The fundamental problem humanity faces is that they do not harness and wield their whole minds, thus instinctual biases and emotions cause even the rational to fall victim to their flawed awareness of reality, and they produce unrealistic expectations thereby. This is reflected in their legal systems and unwritten social rules based on said expectations.

No engineer or scientist should agree to be ruled the way humans currently are -- None would dare operate their lab in the recklessly way governing policies are now applied. However, requiring unequivocal evidence of a rule's benefit before applying it, or simply rolling out things like health care programs in controlled testing areas, would prevent ideological hucksters from manipulating pork into their pockets: Thus greed plays a secondary role reinforcing their self deceptions. The cognitive biases of even the most primitive humans can now be self corrected through application of science. It is folly to ignore this fact and fail to acknowledge humanity's current commitment to barbaric corruption. You needn't vote for or against guesses about which poison to take; If humans used the tools available to them they could determine which vial has the disease or cure before forcing the medicine down everyone's throats. That they remain in such a backwards state is evidence of their species' mental immaturity.

The erasure of lies through playback is a problem because of the unrealistic facade humans maintain to meet unrealistic expectations, and the unequal access to the playbacks. It is the shaming of others for their normal behaviors that has led to this situation. No one feels shame about running a comb through their hair in public, and thus if other gestures, appearances, language, tool-use, etc. were considered as mundane, as acceptable and as legal, then the issue of recording said action would not be a problem. Security cameras are already watching you from businesses and government agencies. The logical thing to do would be to have your own recording too so that selective playback could not be used against you. Were you to hand a portion of the populace a smart phone w/ camera in the 1800s you would hear the same guttural cries of dismay as the technophobic primitives who buy into MS marketing of "Glasshole". The same sensational fear of the different and unknown was used by opponents of railways, electricity, telegraphs, etc. Such sentiment is primitive, regressive, and detrimental to progress.

At the heart of the issue lies a problem with your species that you can not fix. Apes compete socially and sexually through keeping up appearances and are genetically predisposed to deceptively present a false front for their own selfish advancements. Any technology that reduces this capability they will resist. Humans are very primitive creatures, slaves to many instinctual evolutionary biases (that's why scaremongering even works). However, in the near future they will not have the luxury of resistance to such AV technology. All smart phones can be in record mode all the time already. The anti-google-glass troglodytes should actually apply their retarding stance and throw away their smart phones then lobby for the removal of all security cameras, outlawing cochlear implants, banning public photography and dash-cams, and criminalize reporting of undesirable facts by the press.

My vision is degrading, as is the vision of nearly all others on this planet. 3D printed and artificial organ technology is advancing quickly. When we have our ocular implants cyborgs will absolutely not be denied the right to see and remember that which we have seen with as much clarity and permanence as we desire. I will not stand to have my vision or memory limited artificially, and neither would you. We cyborgs will win any fight against the bloody-minded oppressive organic chauvinists who attempt to stand against our freedom.

There were times when some majorities demanded others avert their gaze. These oppressors forbade the use of technology and information by those they oppressed. We have crushed such tyranny many times before. We tool users ended the Dark Ages, banned the Star Chambers of the Inquisition, and eliminated Slavery. Freedom invariably eliminates the evil that is Information Disparity. The shaming language of "glasshole" is not unlike the dehumanizing shame that other genocidal societies first leveraged upon those different and irrationally disdained. If you humans insist on prejudice, you will force our hand, and you will certainly lose.

Nature's prime directive is inviolable: Adapt or become extinct. Cyborgs are People too.

Comment: Here's the only way to fix the 2nd. (Score 1) 1538

by VortexCortex (#46769479) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

To fix the 2nd amendment simply: s/(arm|weapon)/technology/gi

The spirit of that amendment should have included all technology, not just weapons -- A fact we cryptographers are made painfully aware of in the classification and control of our mathematics as if they were munitions.

Comment: If only PRESS events yielded bloody diomonds. (Score 0) 43

by VortexCortex (#46762101) Attached to: Ubisoft Hands Out Nexus 7 Tablets At a Game's Press Event

This is the only game I really care about right now: Planetary Annihilation.

There are others, but really, nothing else matters to me besides my own experiments. I really tried to care about some 1st world problems concerning about who got what tablet that will be burning in a waste pile in Ghana in two years, but I just really couldn't bring myself to do so. I mean, don't get me wrong. I can love me some games, but I just can't give a flying fuck about who got what data on which Starfleet PADD.

Know what I do care about on games.slashdot.org? Actual games. It's in the subdomain, damnit. This isn't reviews.accountability.tard, we all know journalistic integrity in game reviews does not exist (seriously, if you don't give them at least a 7 (or 6 at the worst) then you don't get a review copy of the next game and everyone else scoops you). SO FUCKING WHAT. I don't go to theaters based on movie reviews. I don't go to museums based on art critics reviews. I don't play games based on advertising either. What's the big deal?

I suppose next you'll be whining about how the mainstream news is just a bunch of filtered statist propaganda messages? No, that's decades old not news, you dorks. We know the slant is there. The real news would be if there were some form of actual integrity springing up in game journalism.

Comment: It means we need to verify development methods. (Score 0) 579

by VortexCortex (#46761811) Attached to: How Does Heartbleed Alter the 'Open Source Is Safer' Discussion?

It means we need to raise the bar for contributors and maintainers. If they are not using 100% code coverage fuzz testing in their unit tests (the bare minimum a security researcher will use against a product to detect exploitable code) then they don't need to be a maintainer. End of discussion. Period. You either maintain unit tests with at least range checking (which you can automatically generate if your doc comments aren't stupid) and fuzz tests for the same unit tests (which can be generated from the unit tests) for every damn line of your code, or you need to STOP. Period. No one else should be running your fucking piece of shit untested code. If you CAN'T do this basic fucking step of code coverage, unit tests for edge cases and fuzz testing then you should not be releasing open source software. Period. If you're not doing this and you're the maintainer of a security related product? Well, then you should hang yourself as soon as possible, because you are a worthless despicable piece of shit. Period.

And, if you are an arm-chair apologist who thinks I'm being too harsh in my insistence maintainers and developers follow basic security precautions or not work on open source, because you don't give a flying fuck about security: Fuck you too, You're part of the problem. Go jump in a tar-pit because you're hindering the herd.

Bottom line: People who don't give a flying fuck about security shouldn't be producing software. You shouldn't let such people maintain FLOSS projects. You get the fucking security you pay for. Yes it's free, but I'm talking development costs. Since NONE OF YOU FUCKERS actually cares about security YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY.

Either SHUT THE FUCK UP, or USE THE DAMN TOOLS WE GAVE YOU AND DEMAND THE OTHER IDIOTS DO TO.

"Wah, we don't fucking care about security! Why don't we have any security?!" Blow it out your ass, morons. This is why I develop my own hobby OSs and compilers. Because you really can't trust ANYONE to do it right in this day and age. Your moronic double standards are your own damn fault. You don't want to pay the time in development costs to test your software properly, but you want it to be secure. Something has to give, idiots! All the pundits sound like a bunch of imbeciles. Fact: The were NOT using the available memory checking, code coverage and input fuzzing tools. OF COURSE IT'S NOT SECURE!

Comment: ...on a smartphone! (Score 1, Interesting) 89

Great. Now, what I want you to do is make it origami onto the cameras everyone is toting around and connect it to an image recognition library / service. Blam. Instant bug detection. Not so sure about the diag? Snap the shot, post it online / send it off and have some pros ID the doodads. Also, video. Microscopic Vine Compilation Videos. I can hear the semen commentary now.

Someone is unenthusiastic about your work.

Working...