Anton
Your choice of an analogy in physics was poor I think. Physics is a discipline in which it is possible to make discoveries which transform the way that we understand the ‘system’ works. An obvious example is classic physics and the discovery of relativity.
Computer science is not a discipline in which this sort of discovery can be possible because it is not in fact a science per se. There is no search for an abstraction to model the existing physical world using the scientific method of hypothesis, experiment and refine, but rather a concerted program of creating interfaces based on some extant physical reality but on a desired set of behaviours
Of course it is always possible to use discoveries in physics and other sciences to build better machines that can be used to solve problems better faster and cheaper, but there is no certainty that programs designed for the current generation of machines would run on them. When the changes fall within existing abstractions, such as a new generation of fibre optics for an HBA + SAN connection, the programs need not be modified in any way. When the changes fall into the category of breaking existing abstractions, such as a CPU based on quantum effects instead of sequential processing, those new machines don’t break the existing abstractions or transform them in any way, but augment them with new incompatible ones that need to be programmed for explicitly.
To that end, the idea that ‘eventually’ every assumption is specious. What would you do with a machine where assigning a value to a memory location causes side effects in the machine which do not include the
Ability to read the same value from that location later – oh wait lots of control registers work that way ???
Sent from Mailhttps: for Windows 10
________________________________
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com on behalf of xxxxx@hotmail.com
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 1:15:09 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE:[ntdev]__try __except on high irql
> Didn’t you read Mike’s most recent post? He wrote: “That may be possible”.
I guess this is just a classical example of a cultural misunderstanding. Look what Mike said
This sounds (at least to me) like a typical English humourous and indirect assertion of something being very obviously impossible (like, for example, " It may be possible to see a cow flying in a birdlike fashion - please let me know when there is a confirmed observation of it.“).
However, you seem to be coming from a culture that may be known for anything but indirection and sense of humour, so that you take his words literally like " Look- he agrees that cows may fly”.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2134843-chinese-satellite-beats-distance-rec ord-for-quantum-entanglement/
Well, I don’t know how the whole thing may be possibly related to this discussion. This article seems to be speaking about the quantum cryptography that has absolutely nothing to do with either quantum computing or superluminal communication. It takes advantage of the fact that it is impossible to measure the photon transparently to its entangled twin. As a result, if an eavesdropper manages to intercept the encryption key it is going to become obvious to the communicating parties, so that they are going to choose another key.
AFAIK, unlike quantum computing, quantum cryptography is a relatively mature field with commercial-grade products being available. However, it does not imply superluminal communication in any possible way. After all,I have never heard about the products being advertised like “Want to receive the emails from your deceased auntie? Want to know who wins the World Cup in the year 2178? Our new product makes it possible…(etc)”
Anton Bassov
—
NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
Visit the list online at: http:
MONTHLY seminars on crash dump analysis, WDF, Windows internals and software drivers!
Details at http:
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http:</http:></http:></http:></https:>