Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language)

[Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 06:30:02 +0400 (MSD), "Alexander E. Kopilovich"
<aek@VB1162.spb.edu> wrote:

>Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>
>> >[...] Is it correct
>> >to say that such a person, who contribute very little to that, defines or
>> >forms [...] ?
>>
>> You cannot estimate it.
>
>Interesting. So you can easily imagine a situation, in which a person who
>contributes very little (in any way) to the whole nevertheless can define or
>form that whole. This implies that you think that common definitions and forms
>are terribly unstable.

Yes. Many prominent figures contributed little or nothing. Similarly
many great scientists and artists were unknown at their time. Examples
are at your choice. 

>> There is no warranty that the distance would have any physical sense.
>
>You are so fixed on warranties that I wonder whether there is a warranty that
>the warranties you already collected aren't false.

Science deals with facts.

>As for the physical sense of distance, I'd like to assure you that the
>classical distance still has solid physical sense,

Your example was 1) to get *arbitrary* measures, 2) to combine them in
a vector, and finally 3) to apply (euclidean?) distance to it. I
assure you that it most cases the result has absolutely no sense, i.e.
shows nothing. It is a known problem in pattern recognition.

>although it is true that
>you most probably can't win Nobel prize for pronouncing and defending this
>thesis.
>
>> But notion of software deals with all stages of its production and
>> use, I hope.
>
>This isn't so simple as it may seem. A person developed some software and
>was paid for that. Then the same person uses another software, paying for
>that. You can see that money intervene in the middle of the production-use
>chain, and broke it for that person. Most often even programmers don't use
>software for which they are paid. So, although from an external, theoretical
>viewpoint the notion of software indeed deals with all stages of lifecycle,
>from other viewpoints, including those of users and even of many programmers,
>an outlook is quite different.

If you want to tell that there are problems with software in our
society, then yes, that was my original point.

In my view the whole model of selling software is wrong. Because
effectively you can only sell something, that cannot be copied with so
little efforts. It does not work. I think that software should be
considered rather as an insurance against its fault. That should be
sold, not a stream of bits. This is why I am promoting the idea of
liability.

>> >> A recent idea is to replace its simple
>> >> sensor by a computer controlled system which will detect crashes
>> >> before they happen. In the effect air bags will be inflated by
>> >> software. There are also other interesting innovations: brake-by-wire,
>> >> stir-by-wire, which names need not to be explained. Enjoy!
>> >
>> >Well, it isn't simple to estimate the balance of probable consequences of that
>> >things, including a redistribution of negative consequences between guilty and
>> >innocent parties.
>>
>>No, it is absolute clear. Customer (you) pays for all.
>
>I think that not only customer, but a vendor (managers, shareholders, and
>their relatives) also will participate in the payment - for example, as 
>innocent party, being hit by a car produced by another vendor.

Managers are on foot only when playing golf (:-))

>> >By the way, I think that a free and open-source emulator of a generic car,
>> >which, in particular, includes all those devices, would be very good thing.
>>
>> Come on. All specifications and all protocols are strict secret.
>
>It reminds me a secret military constant Pi. Note, though, that the exact
>number of digits of Pi used in particular computation may be indeed a secret,
>which is hard to obtain.

Beware, you could be punished for evaluation of Pi under DCMA law!

>> The system is absolutely unprotected. If you know the protocol and can
>> connect to a car field bus (the devices are free to buy), then you can
>> do everything with it. Starting from resetting your car mileage,
>> ending with taking control over the brake pedal. In a close future you
>> will need no device to do that. A cell phone could be sufficient to
>> break into.
>
>You forgot to add that there will be no windows in a car - there will be
>thin displays instead of them. These displays will show augmented reality -
>using onboard external cameras, satellite TV and wireless broadband Internet
>and mixing all that into combined picture (with ads, of course).

What I wrote about is not a joke. The navigation system, radio, CD
player etc, all that will be connected to the field bus. They will
also have Bluetooth and Internet connections. This will open wide
possibilities for attacks of all sorts.

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de