1

Topic: in the computer: whether it is predetermined by the supreme laws?

Here look. There is a real world which ostensibly arose an evolutionary way and, for this reason, in it a heap , type of a virus of a smallpox or a plague. They hinder the higher forms of life to live and we with them permanently we struggle. But after all computer we created the world, truly? On idea could provide that in it of this "plague" from which it is necessary to struggle permanently, was not? But why it  all arose? Here the real world. There are prostitutes. And risk of infection with viruses through them. Parallely there is a world virtual -  in the core are spread through sites from a porno. Is not present? It is casual so coincided or there is a certain regularity? Like while a program simple it is possible to write it without errors. But in real life the one who writes quickly and with errors benefits. Any protected OS in an ass, are interesting to nobody and for this reason are not financed and die. Why all happens under the similar scenario? Really viruses/zlovredy are a certain objectively existing paradigm which will arise is mandatory in developed enough world?

2

Re: in the computer: whether it is predetermined by the supreme laws?

S> Why all happens under the similar scenario? Really viruses/zlovredy are a certain objectively existing paradigm which will arise is mandatory in developed enough world? The virtual world always reflection of the real. Instead of specially created under any special scenario. You can create the special world on the separately taken computer. But for this purpose it is required to be fenced off by "Iron Curtain" - to be disconnected from the Internet (actually, the remaining world).

3

Re: in the computer: whether it is predetermined by the supreme laws?

Hello, LaptevVV, you wrote: LVV> the Virtual world always reflection of the real. And what is mandatory all rubbish to delay the real world? Why in advance not to make system which even in the theory will not be subject ?

4

Re: in the computer: whether it is predetermined by the supreme laws?

There is no the general-purpose harm. That for you , for me - remote control of the computer. That for you - the cipherer, for me automatic safe . It is impossible to separate useful from the harmful. It is possible to check manually only for what the author created this program. It does Apple in the shop of applications, basically is successful enough, a virus under iPhone it something mythical. About prostitutes - I think this mere coincidence. And not the fact that the true. I to prostitutes did not walk, but respiratory viruses periodically caught in any buses. Here the mass character combination is faster (a porno look all) and not which  (pornosites in some countries out of the law, even there where they are resolved, at them often problem with legalization), as a matter of fact they work in a gray zone and for the account of it they should disappear, hide and . And time they hide, it is possible to distribute viruses also. That is really amusing - powerful legalization and prostitutions and pornosites most likely would help against viruses both there and there.

5

Re: in the computer: whether it is predetermined by the supreme laws?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> will arise is mandatory in developed enough world? Yes. Since this consequence of self-balanced systems. S> they hinder the higher forms of life to live and we with them permanently we struggle. They help us Force to develop and look at the world more widely, i.e. not .

6

Re: in the computer: whether it is predetermined by the supreme laws?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> But after all computer we created the world, truly? On idea could provide that in it of this "plague" from which it is necessary to struggle permanently, was not? But why it  all arose? The question is delivered not quite correctly. It did not arise (especially, itself), it there initially existed and differently even could not be. For the same reason, on which there are algorithmically-unsoluble tasks: because of fundamental restrictions and singularities of the formal computing systems, irrespectively their specific physical embodiments. I will try to explain, why so. What minimum of functional capabilities should be present at the computing system that it was Turing complete? For example, such: 1. Presence of storage with direct access (arbitrary - carried out in any cell for a finite amount of steps without loss of values in any cells), is desirable for infinite; 2. Reading possibility / records in this storage; 3. Possibility of implementation of the cycles, which invariants can depend on values of specific cells of storage. All. I.e. increment/decrement possibilities under the current pointer, an increment/decrement of value of the pointer and banal while from value under the current pointer (it  if who did not learn) - already enough for programming of the machine of Turing (actually, it is even less than really mandatory operations, but now not about it). With a stipulation about a storage extremity in real system, certainly. However, there is also the fourth "control" feature which presence proves Turing completeness of any system with implemented 1-3 or their functional analogs: 4. Self-applicability. It means that the Turing complete computing system should be able to fulfill itself (differently, should allow to implement the general-purpose computing function aka the general-purpose calculator). Well, that is, for example, tjuring-full language should allow  on itself the own interpreter. However Turing completeness is not given also this property for nothing as well the Author does incapable of solution halting problems, the analysis of self-applicability and other special cases of the theorem of Rajsa: kochetkov.vladimir Date: 19.04 23:08. The theorem of Rajsa is a direct consequence of other remarkable theorem - Kleene, about the fixed point stating that for any general-purpose computing function f (x) there will be such function x at which f (x) it will be equal x. From what follows that for any general-purpose calculator it is possible to construct such program which will know the own code. Thanks to what existence , BTW is possible. But, time the program knows the code, it means can it and modify, write down in storage? We remember this fact. How interpretation by the general-purpose calculator looks? To it in storage the code of the interpreted program encoded definitely and its input data registers. Any part of storage will be selected also for information storage about its state. Then the general-purpose calculator actually   operation of the interpreted program, using some part of the storage how if it there was a storage of that program. And if there is a task parallely to fulfill at once some programs? Precisely also in storage the necessary amount of fragments in which the code of programs, their input data, etc. boots is selected Then, each of programs is interpreted , and steps of each of programs are interleft to the given strategy of sharing of the calculator. What hinders in such implementation to one program to re-record the code another? Anything. What hinders one program to add in another the own code that it was fulfilled at start of the "infected" program? Too anything. At least, in naive implementation of the calculator. Here also it turns out that ability of programs to  not only is initially put in  model of calculations, but also is its essential property. P.S. Yes, there is a possibility to implement in the general-purpose calculator the mechanism of protection of address spaces and to cut all programs encroaching on another's territory. And arrive in the modern systems of the so-called Princeton architecture used hardly less, than everywhere. And there is a possibility to place the code of programs in physically selected storage, to write something in which interpreted programs cannot. It is a way of so-called Harward architecture, now in use preferentially in  systems. However in either case,  existence of divided storage through which programs can influence against each other, including the described image is possible. It is exterior storage from which the code of programs boots in address space and in which programs (as a rule) can write down results of the operation. It is possible to implement mechanisms of protection and this type of storage, forbidding programs to write there, other programs, for example whence can boot. Actually, various regular politicians of demarcation of access, and also SELinux/AppArmor in Linux and MIC in Windows just also urged to solve including this task. The basic ability of programs to self-reproduction in this case, as well as in a case with storage protection, entirely depends on a correctness of implementation of protective mechanisms and their configuration. That is in practice we has here a situation of race of a board and a sword. And all would be healthy (actually), if not one nuance: the general-purpose calculator it is not mandatory CPU, virtualizing it , etc. It is any code which can interpret any other code. A small problem, at last. It is simple to imagine, as CPU fulfills the code of OS loading and launching process of a Web server. This process, as a result of handling of each next HTTP-inquiry, loads some PHP-code (not by the night it will be mentioned) from a disk and launches the interpreter fulfilling this code in a separate flow. On a course of performance of a PHP-code, the SQL query which of a PHP-code goes in DBMS is formed of the HTTP-inquiry data. DBMS interprets this request and returns obtained as a result given reversely to a PHP-code. The PHP-code writes down data retrieveds on a disk under a name which contained in the same data from DBMS. Attacking poisons the HTTP-inquiry which data is generated in such a manner that after performance of SQL-code DBMS returns in the answer an ill-intentioned PHP-code which will be written down by a regular PHP-code under a name index.php in a web site root. And which further, at each request to this page will infect with itself all accessible to it on a disk php-files, and also to launch in a separate flow process of scanning of other Web servers about presence in them known  which would allow to implement in their web sites the code of it . Actually, approximately and modern works a web-malvar. And now, a problem: how many time in the scenario described above there was a type converting "the data <-> the code" and how from it rescued the protective mechanisms considered above?... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

7

Re: in the computer: whether it is predetermined by the supreme laws?

S> Why all happens under the similar scenario? Really viruses/zlovredy are a certain objectively existing paradigm which will arise is mandatory in developed enough world? Well you affected philosophical questions... As to not-reasonable a pattern here I to tell I can not whence all it undertakes yet. And if to tell about our social environment, the answer idle time. Always in any social environment there are people who dare to satisfy the needs with any accessible method, without reckoning with other people and in a damage it. Including a deceit, swindle and so on. Type "abrupt", considering "cleverest", "capable", "elite"...

8

Re: in the computer: whether it is predetermined by the supreme laws?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> Hello, LaptevVV, you wrote: LVV>> the Virtual world always reflection of the real. S> and what is mandatory all rubbish to delay the real world? Why in advance not to make system which even in the theory will not be subject ? Who hinders to invent to you gunpowder waterproof?

9

Re: in the computer: whether it is predetermined by the supreme laws?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> Why all happens under the similar scenario? Really viruses/zlovredy are a certain objectively existing paradigm which will arise is mandatory in developed enough world?  not in the virtual world, and specific people which want to play a dirty trick, search for feeble places. Problems with reliability/safety, likely, grow faster than system complexity growth. Creation of more reliable systems demands additional resources of costs, select an optimum. S> any protected OS in an ass, are interesting to nobody and for this reason are not financed and die. A good example: there was time - there were 2 Windows simultaneously, Win95 convenient for everything, and Win NT 4 for exotic applications, with inconvenient excesses/restrictions in respect of reliability/safety. But transited some years, systems became complicated, and branch Win95 appeared deadlock (because in respect of safety there there all on snivels keeps). Went on the way Win NT... . There was time... There was "a protected mode" in 286 processors, any exotic mode with excesses in which anybody really did not work (DOS). Told "the Protected mode", as about something exotic. Already so do not speak, because anything else does not remain.