Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Hacking 2000 years from now...

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Hacking 2000 years from now...
Post by ldwechsler   » Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:19 am

ldwechsler
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 352
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 11:15 am

Why do we assume that computing 2000 years in the future will resemble what we have today? Bringing up Windows or Linux or anything else is ridiculous.

We have not seem a real lot of hacking. Anton is an expert, of course, but Victor notes that he is not.

Harkness was able to hack into a Peep ship by actually being inside.

So we know it is possible but have no idea how it will be done. Chances are, anything RFC uses will be anachronistic. Undoubtedly there will be some kind of biometrics.
Top
Re: Hacking 2000 years from now...
Post by cthia   » Sun Oct 08, 2017 11:26 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8408
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

ldwechsler wrote:Why do we assume that computing 2000 years in the future will resemble what we have today? Bringing up Windows or Linux or anything else is ridiculous.

We have not seem a real lot of hacking. Anton is an expert, of course, but Victor notes that he is not.

Harkness was able to hack into a Peep ship by actually being inside.

So we know it is possible but have no idea how it will be done. Chances are, anything RFC uses will be anachronistic. Undoubtedly there will be some kind of biometrics.


Not as ridiculous as you may think. Let's see...

There are hints that although the innards (technology) of computing may undoubtedly change, the basics of computing will not. For instance, there are laws governing computing. Man has a finite brain which spits out finite solutions. We are bound and governed by our creator. Therefore, we will not be able to rise above the Entscheidungsproblem. Will will not be able to overcome the halting problem or Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Because we are not gods, or God. We are man.

If man can use his finite brain to devise a method to compute outside the box [Turing machine] then we may have a chance. Oh Please! :roll:

Those are the hints that answer your question given unto us in our world. Now... back to that hint given to us in the author's world.

In RFC's world, AI has not progressed very much at all. Indeed, automation is almost nonexistent because of plot requirements. Problem (pardon the pun) therein, is that that implies the very same limits imposed on computing as there are now. The holy grail of the unconquerable -- the halting problem and Gödel. For if man can surpass those limitations then the wall which Einstein could not climb is traversable -- the illusive Unified Field Theory. A theory of everything, which certainly encompasses the then easy feat of automation by a quite intelligent AI "who" then may be completely indistinguishable from man. We will have truly become gods.

In a nutshell, that is why we can assume that computing will still basically resemble what it does now, even 2000 years into the future. They will simply be pricier, more complicated, touting vastly more memory, and much much faster. But they will still be slaves to the same existing laws of computing and thinking. Though undoubtedly arriving much faster at the same conclusion that many of us already know ... for even then, WE WILL NOT BE GODS.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: Hacking 2000 years from now...
Post by ldwechsler   » Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:03 pm

ldwechsler
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 352
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 11:15 am

cthia wrote:
ldwechsler wrote:Why do we assume that computing 2000 years in the future will resemble what we have today? Bringing up Windows or Linux or anything else is ridiculous.

We have not seem a real lot of hacking. Anton is an expert, of course, but Victor notes that he is not.

Harkness was able to hack into a Peep ship by actually being inside.

So we know it is possible but have no idea how it will be done. Chances are, anything RFC uses will be anachronistic. Undoubtedly there will be some kind of biometrics.



Has anyone else but me noted that as our programs have been improved, they've gotten far worse? Wordperfect 6 (for DOS) was a great word processor. Now, every version of Word adds on so many tricks that almost no one ever uses, that doing the simplest things is difficult...particularly for those who have learned the programs years ago.

At the rate we're going, we will have at least a few revolts against technology (and hopefully hand the software geniuses who tell us how wonderful the new versions of programs are) before 2000 years come out.

And much of the AI, etc., will be invisible. When there are 400 ships against a fleet and each can send out a hundred missiles at a time, human reflexes are useless. There is probably a lot more computer power generated even if RFC has decided not to have talking computers.


Not as ridiculous as you may think. Let's see...

There are hints that although the innards (technology) of computing may undoubtedly change, the basics of computing will not. For instance, there are laws governing computing. Man has a finite brain which spits out finite solutions. We are bound and governed by our creator. Therefore, we will not be able to rise above the Entscheidungsproblem. Will will not be able to overcome the halting problem or Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Because we are not gods, or God. We are man.

If man can use his finite brain to devise a method to compute outside the box [Turing machine] then we may have a chance. Oh Please! :roll:

Those are the hints that answer your question given unto us in our world. Now... back to that hint given to us in the author's world.

In RFC's world, AI has not progressed very much at all. Indeed, automation is almost nonexistent because of plot requirements. Problem (pardon the pun) therein, is that that implies the very same limits imposed on computing as there are now. The holy grail of the unconquerable -- the halting problem and Gödel. For if man can surpass those limitations then the wall which Einstein could not climb is traversable -- the illusive Unified Field Theory. A theory of everything, which certainly encompasses the then easy feat of automation by a quite intelligent AI "who" then may be completely indistinguishable from man. We will have truly become gods.

In a nutshell, that is why we can assume that computing will still basically resemble what it does now, even 2000 years into the future. They will simply be pricier, more complicated, touting vastly more memory, and much much faster. But they will still be slaves to the same existing laws of computing and thinking. Though undoubtedly arriving much faster at the same conclusion that many of us already know ... for even then, WE WILL NOT BE GODS.
Top
Re: Hacking 2000 years from now...
Post by cthia   » Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:58 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8408
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

ldwechsler wrote:Why do we assume that computing 2000 years in the future will resemble what we have today? Bringing up Windows or Linux or anything else is ridiculous.

We have not seem a real lot of hacking. Anton is an expert, of course, but Victor notes that he is not.

Harkness was able to hack into a Peep ship by actually being inside.

So we know it is possible but have no idea how it will be done. Chances are, anything RFC uses will be anachronistic. Undoubtedly there will be some kind of biometrics.
cthia wrote:Not as ridiculous as you may think. Let's see...

There are hints that although the innards (technology) of computing may undoubtedly change, the basics of computing will not. For instance, there are laws governing computing. Man has a finite brain which spits out finite solutions. We are bound and governed by our creator. Therefore, we will not be able to rise above the Entscheidungsproblem. Will will not be able to overcome the halting problem or Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Because we are not gods, or God. We are man.

If man can use his finite brain to devise a method to compute outside the box [Turing machine] then we may have a chance. Oh Please! :roll:

Those are the hints that answer your question given unto us in our world. Now... back to that hint given to us in the author's world.

In RFC's world, AI has not progressed very much at all. Indeed, automation is almost nonexistent because of plot requirements. Problem (pardon the pun) therein, is that that implies the very same limits imposed on computing as there are now. The holy grail of the unconquerable -- the halting problem and Gödel. For if man can surpass those limitations then the wall which Einstein could not climb is traversable -- the illusive Unified Field Theory. A theory of everything, which certainly encompasses the then easy feat of automation by a quite intelligent AI "who" then may be completely indistinguishable from man. We will have truly become gods.

In a nutshell, that is why we can assume that computing will still basically resemble what it does now, even 2000 years into the future. They will simply be pricier, more complicated, touting vastly more memory, and much much faster. But they will still be slaves to the same existing laws of computing and thinking. Though undoubtedly arriving much faster at the same conclusion that many of us already know ... for even then, WE WILL NOT BE GODS.
ldwechsler wrote:Has anyone else but me noted that as our programs have been improved, they've gotten far worse? Wordperfect 6 (for DOS) was a great word processor. Now, every version of Word adds on so many tricks that almost no one ever uses, that doing the simplest things is difficult...particularly for those who have learned the programs years ago.

At the rate we're going, we will have at least a few revolts against technology (and hopefully hand the software geniuses who tell us how wonderful the new versions of programs are) before 2000 years come out.

And much of the AI, etc., will be invisible. When there are 400 ships against a fleet and each can send out a hundred missiles at a time, human reflexes are useless. There is probably a lot more computer power generated even if RFC has decided not to have talking computers.
Cleaned up attributions.

My aunt would agree with you. She still uses Wordperfect. All she does is catalog her recipes and the occasional letter, etc. She loves the program and will not abandon it. I don't blame her.

The newer versions are cool. They do have features that are indispensable for the more advanced users. I simply cannot do without the ability to inline formatted mathematical equations, formulas, symbols and foreign alphabet.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: Hacking 2000 years from now...
Post by drothgery   » Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:22 am

drothgery
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1871
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:07 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

ldwechsler wrote:Why do we assume that computing 2000 years in the future will resemble what we have today? Bringing up Windows or Linux or anything else is ridiculous.

2000 years is a far cry from 20, but in 2017 you can make a pretty good case that there has not been a successful new from scratch general-purpose operating system since Windows NT.
Top
Re: Hacking 2000 years from now...
Post by fallsfromtrees   » Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:01 am

fallsfromtrees
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1765
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 9:51 am
Location: Mesa, Arizona

drothgery wrote:
ldwechsler wrote:Why do we assume that computing 2000 years in the future will resemble what we have today? Bringing up Windows or Linux or anything else is ridiculous.

2000 years is a far cry from 20, but in 2017 you can make a pretty good case that there has not been a successful new from scratch general-purpose operating system since Windows NT.

I believe that Windows NT was based on Mach, which was a Unix variants so it wasn't really a from scratch OS either.
The only problem with quotes on the internet is that you can't authenticate them -- Abraham Lincoln
Top
Re: Hacking 2000 years from now...
Post by kzt   » Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:03 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8925
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

fallsfromtrees wrote:I believe that Windows NT was based on Mach, which was a Unix variants so it wasn't really a from scratch OS either.

NT was VMS. Mach flowed into NeXTSTEP which flowed into OS/X.
Top
Re: Hacking 2000 years from now...
Post by cthia   » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:33 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8408
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

Windows NT was actually a joint venture between Microsoft and IBM. Its main focus and appeal was to finally produce a true multitasking OS instead of simply multi-threaded. A feat that Unix had accomplished from the outset. Without true multitasking ability, Windows was going to stagnate. Not to even mention a true multiprocessor capability to allow purposely built power systems. NT was Microsoft's start of a true "professional" OS. It was also its first to use a true 32-bit flat virtual memory addressing model instead of page flips which can bog a system down. Windows was simply not responsive enough and NT was to tackle that problem.

With the flat memory addressing model and its multiprocessing, multithreaded ability true VMS capability was introduced and saw the proliferation of VM Ware products.

Programmers could not wait. However, its kernel was just too fricking bloated for my tastes. A developing problem of the Linux kernel. Which is why Linux aficionados choose their kernel well.

kzt wrote:NT was VMS. Mach flowed into NeXTSTEP which flowed into OS/X.


Not exactly, VMS was the domain of DEC and its VAX computers in the 70's. One of my first careers was coding for the VAX while I was still in college.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: Hacking 2000 years from now...
Post by kzt   » Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:08 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8925
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

A lead architect of VMS was hired by Microsoft to lead the windows NT project. So yes.

“I'll take you on a short tour of NT's lineage, which leads back to Digital and its VMS OS. Most of NT's lead developers, including VMS's chief architect, came from Digital, and their background heavily influenced NT's development. After I talk about NT's roots, I'll discuss the more-than-coincidental similarities between NT and VMS, and how Digital reacted to NT's release.”

http://m.windowsitpro.com/windows-clien ... rest-story
Top
Re: Hacking 2000 years from now...
Post by cthia   » Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:45 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8408
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

kzt wrote:A lead architect of VMS was hired by Microsoft to lead the windows NT project. So yes.

“I'll take you on a short tour of NT's lineage, which leads back to Digital and its VMS OS. Most of NT's lead developers, including VMS's chief architect, came from Digital, and their background heavily influenced NT's development. After I talk about NT's roots, I'll discuss the more-than-coincidental similarities between NT and VMS, and how Digital reacted to NT's release.”

http://m.windowsitpro.com/windows-clien ... rest-story

Absolutely. I was a very sought after coder back then. We all were. Recruited before I could graduate college. Coding professionally before finishing high school, though well paid for code much sooner. Especially if you could code at the system level. You could get hired back then if you could program a calculator. Programmers were in dire need. Female programmers were literally nonexistent, an oxymoron.

Several of the people involved in the project were former colleagues, associates, employers, friends, etc. We all have thousands of lines of code still floating around.

The article is also incomplete. A main reason it was a joint venture with IBM was because of code and technologies that was IBM specific. VMS, virtual memory systems, was right down IBMs alley with its mainframe expertise. If going against DEC was to be successful, you'd better cock and load. There is much more gravy left out of the article, but probably beyond the article's scope.

One of the people named in the article and myself were BBS buds.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top

Return to Honorverse