LjSpike

I didn't know about these security tokens. Interesting. Anyway, A combat to the EPROM's eraseable by software stated earlier (terrible design flaw there, it should be a physical mechanism, but hey ho.) which makes this very 'weak' for security put it in the non-eraseable backup-ROM. Also. To a point above about checking the fields, and copying text, thats no longer a keylogger, and is a trojan (Trojans watch what happens on the screen - in a manner of speaking. As keyloggers log key presses (and to a greater extent mouse clicks))

Well good day then. You do seem very incapable to try and accept any view aside from your own though. Gallileo disputed (at that time) scientifically and universally accepted facts.

Hot Dark Matter is ultrarelativistic, so is near the speed of light. It would have a time dilation which would cause it to 'age' much slower than stationary objects. Could it be an extremely unstable set of sub-atomic particles then, but would just appear to be very stable to us because of the time dilation. Just a thought for you guys.

The problem occurs in that the neuronal reactions in our brain have already determined what we will do but everything is random, thus surely our neuronal reactions haven't decided what were going to do. If the very building blocks of the universe is random, thus in turn everything else has to be equally random, making prediction completely impossible, it'd also mean that working out the probability of something is impossible as randomness follows no rules, so all outcomes are equally random. This would then completely contradict bells theorem as no matter what, it would always be a correlation that's completely random. Yet its always 1, 0, or -1 in bells theorem. Whatever the very lowest level of the universe is, the rest has to follow suit, so if the very lowest level of the universe is random, we have free will as our actions are random? Visa versa, if the very lowest level of the universe is following a set of rules, thus not random, we don't have free will, as were following a set of rules, thus determinism/super-determinism would be correct in this case. I mean, if were going all pro-randomness then the laws of nature don't exist? I mean, if its random it can't follow a rule, thus no laws of nature, and FTL is allowed, bells theorem is wrong, ooh lovely Galileo was wrong, the orbits are just randomly made of randomness so tomorrow we might fall into the sun. Most of science falls out the window because most of science says the universe follows X and Y rules.

Ok, I'll look through the generic what could be considered as insults in that reply. Hunches are the basis of science, and hunches are an opinion. Scientists then try to find a way to backup their opinion, and other scientists try to disprove it, rather than saying "oooh well its an opinion right here so we can't be bothered to do anything with any of it". Galileo had a hunch that everything didn't orbit the earth, as he didn't like the idea everything orbited the earth, because it didn't explain Mar's orbit, he then found evidence to prove his opinion, which was still disputed for a long time, but doing calculations and so on, to suggest that earth isn't the centre of the universe. He then eventually proved it by predicting lots of locations of planets in the sky. Also, Non-local hidden variables aren't ruled out, they're just said to be unlikely, but still possible. You want to critise me for going away from science, well, then don't go away from science and make things up. Now back on topic, randomness isn't necessarily things being...completely well, random. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness Read through ALL of paragraph one. Individual events may be unpredictable, say the roll of a dice. But 7 will normally occur twice as often as 4. If we can predict things that happen in the future, then the universe is not random. Simple as, its just not random. If the very fabric of the universe, particles themselves behaved randomly, then matter can be created and disappear, randomly, because if its random, it doesn't follow any rules. That'd also mean energy could likely be created and destroyed, as energy and matter are interchangeable when anti-matter is added into the equation. It'd also mean storms would magically appear and disappear. God! Even creationism is a more solid explanation for events then complete and utter randomness. At least creationism attempts to actually explain the issue with something. The fact that we can predict things, shows the universe is not random. The fact we can only predict some things, shows it must be an exceptionally complex set of rules it follows. So unless you want to dispute that matter and energy are constant, then randomness begins to fall apart at the seams. The butterfly over in the amazon in our lovely butterfly effect theory, alternates the state of that proton, neutron or electron we're observing under our microscope. Also I did read some of your links, but you gave me a mighty mass of them to digest ok? Also, one of your links comments: "However, because of experimental limitations, all experiments to date required additional assumptions to obtain a contradiction with local realism, resulting in loopholes." So we can't go concrete on all the experiments here. They require assumptions, such as that we have to presume the laws of nature are correct, and you know the rules of this site, that when we start suggesting that the laws of nature are wrong, that we wander into the depths of pseudoscience and skepticality. And bells theorem has to also make an assumption like stated above, because it has to presume that were correct in our observations of the experiments, and our understanding of quantum mechanics as a whole. Though presuming its correct it ONLY eliminates local hidden variables.

You seem to not fully understand the concept of a password. I shall explain its many benefits, which cause the accounts linked to passwords to be incredibly more secure: 1) They're memorable, thus don't have to be written down somewhere unlike a password, so say you get the password to this website for an account, you don't know which username it matches to, thus can't log in. 2) They cause many more combinations for a computer program to have to try if the website of such isn't using a captcha, so a 1 letter password has 26 possibilities, but a 1 letter password 1 letter username has 26x26 possibilities. 3) They offer the capacity to trick key loggers. Say you think you're being key logged, you can type in a letter of the username, then a letter of the password, and make sure you alternate, thus causing the keylogger to be fooled. Usernames are used to make it double-factor or even triple-factor authentication, because single-factor authentication is very weak. Also you're bank is one of the least security-focused I've ever heard of, Most of them have at least a memorable question, password, and then require the account numbers input.

I'd never think of using it as an individual factor authentication, nothing really uses individual factor authentication as its easy to get past, hence why its always password AND username... No, just as a replacement to some of the very slow, extra pieces of information. --- No, I literally mean PHONE TEXTS. Captcha isn't text at all, its an image. Also, a card reader just reads cards. No, I mean a physical object, not connected to a network, which offers capability to assist a login. For example, I have a little device that looks slightly like a calculator, I put in a code, it gives me a code based off its hardware and the time, that code then works to log in.

But, we have a slight problem here. Ok, I can accept your calculator can divide to more decimal places in an answer, giving a more accurate response, BUT, I could square anything from 3.1622776601 to 3.1622776609 to equal to 10. But if a more accurate version of 10 squared is 3.1622776601​68 then surely only 3.1622776601​ to 3.1622776602 should result in an answer of 10, OR they should both not equal 10, as those two rational numbers aren't the square root of 10. 3.1622776601​ should result in just under 10 and 3.1622776602 should be just over 10, and then 3.1622776609 should be quite a way away from 10, yet ALL of these numbers are resulting in 10 when squared?

I know the graph was different interpretations of one theory, but I was just saying about the theory that everything is predetermined by the previous events.

Well, I named it hidden variables because I came across this while looking at hidden variables, anyway, the hidden variables aren't fully disproved (though I don't like the idea of them in this experiment), only the local ones were disproved. Anyway, Do you know a good link to this nice Schrodinger equation so I can have a look at?

I did read you've above post, though other theories are generally more popular now-a-days, its by no means a 'minor theory' that everything is predetermined. This also doesn't require another universe (though doesn't rule out the possibility of one). Now, im not expert in quantum mechanics by far shot. Personally I don't like the whole idea of how it explains things, for example the double slit experiment, and so on, if the proton can 'know' if its wave-like or particle-like characterics are being observed, well that just sounds like a very over-technical version of creationism, and there being a 'higher power' instructing what happens in the universe. Actually, at one point steven hawkings also shows support in the idea that there isn't free will, its just way to many variables for us to find that decide stuff. That would make quite sensible sense as well, if you wish to go on a more visible sort of example, the 'hive mind' of a crowd or group of peers. People follow other people, because the other people, are a variable influenced the person, then influencing the other people.

It would explain the fact of it square rooting, then squaring the result of the root, being not perfect, but I would have expected to get it in a "0.34x10 to the power of a very big number" format appear. Plus, if it were that, i wouldn't expect just two more decimal places to make it be able to return to 10.

Yeah, pretty much. Malware can't reprogram the BIOS can it? The bios is read-only? I can't say to know to much about EPROM, but ROM isn't in rare usage now. BIOS in a (standard) computer though, will be ROM, or atleast the very core of it. If the lovely little security mechanism is programmed into the ROM part, then it would be secure, the EPROM, im still unclear how that could be effected by a virus though, as it specifies it requires huge amounts of ultraviolet light to be directed onto the quartz, computer viruses can't (yet) magically make anything emit ultraviolet light?

I've not read through every reply, but very simply. The amazon is not nessisarily easy to live in, a lot of creatures make lots of competition. LOW PRESSURE results in more species (so greater biodiversity at a glance), and more individuals HIGH PRESSURE results in faster evolution, but more deaths and more 'unusual' adaptions. Now, just because it may only result in 'simple' organisms, doesn't mean it has less biodiversity then an enviroment with 'complex organisms'

Ok, im not an expert in this topic (i'll confess that) but i've done some reading about it, the delayed choice double-slit and the double-slit etc. In the double slit, we either measure the photon as wave-like or particle-like, it then behaves like whatever we are measuring it as, even if we know it hit the photo-detection plate, as long as we don't look at the white dot, it can end up with it causing a particle-like outcome by triggering the telescopes behind after the photo-detection plate is removed without being looked at before it hits the telescopes. (do correct me if i made a mistake somewhere up there.) It sounds to me like theres a very very simple explaination, and i'll probably look like a right fool saying this, but... Isn't it just behaving like a particle and a wave at the same time? we're measuring just the wave-like property, or the particle-like property each time, even randomly, and changing our mind while it travels through free space. Now that very simply makes me think its either behaving like a wave and particle at the same time as stated above, or that its interacting with other objects in the space of the experiment, for example removing a photon from the foil, the foil photon behaving particle like and the other behaving wave-like or visa versa, or intercepting an energy wave of one form or another, or passing through the photodetection plate as a wave, then after that transforming into a particle-like state?

The original post is a bit, very speculatory, but linking to the title about is the future predetermined, and the mention of time flowing one way. We get into a bit of a sticky situation when messing with these subjects, because we can't answer truthfully what reality actually is. The screen your seeing right now, you aren't actually seeing. your not seeing the screen, your seeing, your PERCEPTION of the screen. Now it could be totally different to me and you, thus because we are only seeing our perception of whats around us we can't prove whats actually around us completely, we can only prove it beyond reasonable doubt, with our current understanding. Its a bit like a theory, which we can neither prove or disprove, this is Last Thursdayism. Its the idea the universe, and all your memories of it were created last thrusday. Your memories and thoughts (to our current understanding) is part of the universe, thus the universe could have started at any point. Even last thursday. Now, a lot of people have put down this thread of its negative points, I quite like that mention that time might not be flowing one way, because how we understand time, might not actually be how time behaves. Its merely we don't know how to surpass it moving a single way, if we can stop time in place, then it could be reversed, thus its not how we believe it works. Its a bit like heat, we can't get anything to 0 kelvin, that is the point at which it stops moving. So what happens, if it was at -1 kelvin. It might not be possible, but if it were, would it move in a different fashion, what traits would it exhibit, would it still be cold? And finally, to the title about the future being predetermined. Time for a bit of a 'quantum answer' . the future IS and ISNT predetermined (to our current understanding). Now, this beautifal effect called the butterfly effect, that the floods in britian were a result of a butterfly over in the amazon flapping its wings 1 to little times 300 years ago. This would mean, the future is predetermined, and we could read the future if we knew everything that has happened everywhere. For example, free will doesn't exist, its down to your genetics at birth, and your experienced (Which have effected your genetics as well). This means if you knew all about a person, you'd know their responce to any question or action. Now, of course this could have absolutely no application in the forseeable future, maybe if quantum computers work even better then they do, we might be able to calculate every single variable in the universe, and know whats happening next. but we'd need to be able to scan every variable in all of the current timeline everywhere in the universe and feed it into a quantum computer for that to work. Anyway, after the first event in the universe, the next event was determined, which determined the next event, causing the next event to be determined, and so on...

Just to mke this simpler, im using a CASIO fx83GT PLUS on its standard settings. Now, I got bored in my maths lesson (Honestly, triganomatory, its so boring and so quick to do when you've written out the sohcahtoa). Anyway, I decided I felt like doing the square root of 10! Ooooh, the deadly root of 10. Now I expected either math error, or a long recurring decimal. I then end up with: 3.16227766 Ok, then I decide to do 3.162277662 (squared that is). And I get, 9.999999999 (It didn't show a recurring dot, but its enough decimals for me to know its recurring). So whats going on here? SQUARE ROOT of 10 = 3.16227766 but 3.16227766 SQUARED is not 10? I then decide trial and error on finding what I would square to hit 10. Now, if it wasn't interesting enough, that apparently squared isn't the exact inverse of square root? Well, its getting more interesting. I hit 3.1622776604 as my thing to square to make 10, but then I took it further, I decided to do 3.1622776605 and 3.1622776603 as well, they also make 10. So after a bit of testing out in the spare time I had because im quick at a lot of geometry, I got the result: The root of 10 is 3.16227766 BUT to result in an answer of 10 when squaring a number the number in question must be 3.162277660x where x is either 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 So how can the square root of something, not result in the original number when squared, yet multiple numbers squared can result in the same answer?

Now, before anything else, i apologise if this should be in the speculatory threads area, it is my first post, but i reckon its more suitable here. Recently a rise to what I could only really call 'physical keys' has dawned, such as texts to help verify a login or account creation. Now, I had a slight idea when I was thinking about this, and it links to this magic part in your computer called the 'ROM'. The ROM, for those of you who don't know, in very simple terms, tells your computer, what it is. So, what all its parts are and so on. So it can, well, do stuff! Ok, now this is different on each different PC setup, and when it turns off, (which it will only ever do if the battery for it runs out, it stays on even when the computer is off) the computer is bust, and only really a specialist could fit a new ROM. Now some of these new physical key things I find very time consuming, call me lazy, but I already have to put in a security question, password, account number, sort code and god knows what else to just view how much money i have in the bank. Its terribly time consuming then to have to use fiddly little devices to generates codes and put in more passwords to. What if we had a slightly 'different' approach to these ways of physical security, I mean, they can be VERY secure, but what about making a change to this long-standing component, called the ROM, or adding a secondary component, like a ROM, but slightly different. Instead of telling your computer what it is, telling the person requesting the password, that well, its your computer. Of course alone this wouldn't be very secure, but you could even have it a memory-stick mounted device if you wanted to, and then when you log on, it 'pings' your computer to ask around for this magic device, then if it recieves it, it accepts its probably you, as its your computer that is pinging it. I guess you could say its a bit like a MAC address, but for whenever you use a password. Just an idea, i'd love to know your thoughts