Hacking 2000 years from now...

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:

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!

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: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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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