Printable View
sure hell it is BIG talk,
if u r still in college/univ. , i think u should publish the theory on any of the ACM, IEEE, and so on conference as your paper.. and then link them to ppls here... ppls sure appreciate it...
then if u wanna pattern the technology, there always a way or another...
at least just give us a hint on what r u doing, maybe even some experts here might give u an assist voluntarily.. gbrowne40, where r u?
Hoo boy. Parent poster has yet to respond, so if this was just a troll thread, you guys fell for it hook, line, and sinker!
That said, I don't feel bad contributing to the quickly dying thread. :) I think you're both wrong this time.
On the one hand, yes, we can become too skeptical. We live in a world where virtually everything is possible. However, the proposal here is very, very improbable, so we should pick it apart carefully. If it's as miraculous as it claims, it'll survive the picking. But yes, there are the Einsteins of the world who prove us wrong.
However, I'd have to say Pooh's a little off too (for once). Yes, Einstein did the seemingly impossible, but he didn't begin by walking up to a group of complete strangers and trying to enlist people. If this guy's ligit, he's following a horrible strategy and setting himself up to be scammed. What he should do is get acquainted with a community (like this one) first, build a reputation, and then put his eye on prospective partners and start publicizing his idea. It's just sound strategy to protect himself from being screwed over -- by us. That reason is the biggest red flag to me. Einstein didn't walk into a room of people he had never met and suddenly just spout out his revolutionary idea.
So, no, we shouldn't be too skeptical, but also no, we shouldn't open our arms wide open to a poorly delivered idea either. We should stand somewhere inbetween those two extremes.
So let's see what he's got. But if he's a troll, he just made fools of us! Again!
Lastly, AO's a forum for sharing ideas, not advertising for recruiting. It's walking dangerously close to becoming spam.
I'm not really a programmer but I do have about 15 years of experience combatting viruses, therefor I think I'm qualified enough to judge if it'll work or not. I'm so interested I would even sign that NDA just to see if it can be made to work.
<offtopic>
Not true.. ancient "batteries"have been found in egypt and the middle-east..Quote:
People didn't realise electricity could exist until good old Ben created it.
alsoandQuote:
The German physicist Otto von Guericke experimented with generating electricity in 1650.
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/in...s/story066.htmQuote:
However, the first workable device for generating a consistent flow of electricity was invented around 1799 by the Italian inventor Alessandro Volta. Volta’s discovery of a means of converting chemical energy into electrical energy formed the basis for nearly all modern batteries.
That would be well before your kite guy.. wouldn't it ??
</offtopic>
To get back on the tread at hand..
I am still conviced that however you do it.. as soon as it gets popular, people will invest time in breaking it..
That's what has happened to any "security" invention since the lock (and then I mean the cold hard steel version ;))..
Great point. In fact, I've been told that since CERT came out calling for users to denounce IE, Mozilla exploits started coming to life within minutes of the announcement. Linux viruses are growing as the OS grows in popularity over MS as well.
You were all educated stupid
The only antivirus truth is timecube
The viruses are the evil and stupid
programs which are a construct of
the linear time lies!
With 1000 viruses inside the 4-sided
antiviral timecube there would be
actually 0 viruses since the virus is
not made in four-time space!
You betray the clean system with
animal excrement slavery to evil
and stupid algorithmic programming
only timecube programming can survive.
I would like to also point out that any comparisons to processor speeds and space flight are largely pretty dumb. Almost all of them are based on concepts of SCALE. We COULD shoot things upwards and process algorithms, we just changes the quantity of how fast both happened.
Eliminate world hunger? Nah uh. Significantly reduce it? Sure, someday.
Cure all disease? HAH. Change the level of disease prevention or treatment we have? Sure.
Eliminate all viruses? Hell no, especially considering that at least on the internet almost all of them are designed by people with the same technology used to combat them. At best, we'll just change the level of control which can be exerted over them by all parties in the absence of opposition by similar groups. (Read: Tools)
In a book ("Jennifer Government") someone does something neat. Antiviral programs heuristically detect viruses, make a signature, and upload it to a central server. Cool so far, eh? So a character makes a virus which has a signature that exploits a buffer overflow in the client software... Instant companywide infection through their own system.
IMO... The future only holds more complexity. That is all weve seen so far with technology, components added onto components added with functionality. Unless the future brings simplicity with it's design then obviously security is not possible.
Remember that quote about someone predicting the size of computers to reach the size of warehouses or something? I think it was an Intel or MS guy....
Until the next revelation that brings simplistic design, then there will never be security without stripping functionality to the bone.
You can't email a virus to my alarm clock, because it's not functional enough to know what to do with it.....?
If I had started this thread I would be hesitant to add further to the initial post.
Whilst I accept that gbrowne40 didn't give very much information in their post. I wouldn't consider that they got a warm welcome. Not even a frosty reception, more like a firey response!
As a newbie, to this forum at least, I have noticed that newbies get a hard time as soon as they post slightly away from the norm. This can not be good for the forum, you need fresh blood right? (Not the killed type!)
There have been some attempts to subdue the initial responses and finally a moderator has stepped in. That's good!
All in I would suggest that 90% of the postings could be considered off topic. Whether or not the original post is valid is a different matter.
Perhaps the senior members who condemed would like to consider that perhaps they might gain more from engaging in dialogue with us newbies, rather than condeming them outright. This is a discussion forum, is it not?
*Awaits a neging to death*
A valid point. But, this is one of those you don't really understand until you've been here a while. In fact, I think it's an issue concerning the culture of AO, and isn't necessarily a bad thing, depending on how you look at it.
Once you've been here a while, you see a certain repeating pattern with the more troublesome newbies who aren't here to really contribute. Once you learn the pattern, you start preemptively blocking whoever shows the red flags of it.
On the downside, that means the occasional innocent but blundering newbie gets caught in the crossfire.
That's why my advice to newbies is to "lurk" for a while until you get a good feel for AO and it's culture. It's AO's miniculture of sorts that sets it apart from other forums. It's best as a newbie to simply watch and read for a while, learn how it all works, and then jump in.
But that's just my suggestion, and not worth much. :D I wasn't an "AO Newbie" all that long ago myself, so I know where you're coming from. I'm sure in the eyes of some of the true seniors, I still very much am a newbie still, understandably.
//edit -- By the way, most of us won't neg you to death for expressing your opinoins as you did. We reserve negs for what they were initially meant for: misinformation or forum abuse. There are some crankier people who are more neg-happy than others, but most of us are pretty chilled.
I'd be interested to see just how you would make your "technology" work across a multitude of platforms, and protocols. I.E. "the internet" while still maintaining it's security integrity.