But Then Face to Face

re: But Then Face to Face

Dryer Vent Cleaning — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 04:30:38 GMT

Excellent site, keep up the good work

re: But Then Face to Face

CyberSongs — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 08:25:27 GMT

I was wondering who was responsible for the Distributed Component Object Model [DCOM] debacle at Microsoft; I've found you!

I know something of Neurology as well, from colleagues such as Barry Stein [PhD University of Pennsylvania] and his studies, which were disrupted by some well meaning, but not so legal oriented action group which burglarized his work in the mid 1980's. And from my own studies, based on acute cerebral damage of relatives and the studies I pursued thereafter.

One of the end results was a statement on which J. Presper Eckert and John Mauchly commissioned some designs, made by me, to them, on the viability of increasing throughput speeds by more than 2 times: "If you want the computer to work like a human brain, you have to desing it like a human brain." Terry James

Perhaps my most simplistic ever quote, however, one that worked and led to the current state of the art.

One of the things in that design was the Execution Bit and the Code Segment Tag Bits. I believe firmly that Microsoft, along with perhaps AMD and Intel, still do not understand the entire concept of "allowed execution."

As for the DCOM, which depends on this bit, Control Mode and/or Supervisory Mode, it lacks "definition" and "documentation." Which means that, in the end, necessary services and applications don't run and are hard to get running.

I didn't really want to have to write a book on how this is supposed to work, however, I'll probably have no choice now.

As for JBoss; 20 years ahead of that with Boss. "B" Operating System Software and its accompanying ideaology Meddac [Monitor Editor Disassembler Decompiler Assembler Compiler]. The "B" remains defined only to the very select few. You can probably find some information on these if you look hard enough.

The whole thing is called GenN and it's the state of the art of so-called Artificial Intelligence [which, as we all know, does, in fact, exist, in high profile and bureaucratic places as just that, artificial intelligence]. But in the beginning, one needs to define some things and explain them, not the least of which is Microsoft's Security, at the hardware level as well as at the software level.

Would I be willing to do an interview? Maybe, I'll have to think about that. But I am going to write about the problems with the security scheme and the lack of proper documentation, you can bet on it.

It's about time to wake up the brass at Microsoft and get them to listen. I didn't want to have to do this, but I've been left no choice, not really.

CyberSongs
ID 1616946

re: But Then Face to Face

Wesley Parish — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 12:39:16 GMT

I have to admit that I envy you your degree in Cognitive Science, that incorporates Neurobiology with Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Psychology. My knowledge of Neuroscience comes from the School of Hard Knocks - quite literally - I'm a Traumatic Brain Injury survivor, and how many Organizational Psychologists aka Human Resources Staff, have I met, with no comprehension of the finer points of Neuroscience? ;)

I decided to read up on Neuroscience to get a handle on the trauma, so I read AR Luria's "The Working Brain", Lezak's "Neuropsychological Assessment", Guyton's "Basic Neuroscience: Anatomy and Physiology", and some others (light reading ;) - then I realized they were third year textbooks and not only had I mastered them on my own, but I had no way to capitalize on my knowledge, NZ Universities not having that sort of recognition of prior knowledge), and I'm glad I did. It's neat to be able to write off a multi-year clinical depression as a self-referential artifact of the brain's internal imaging.

Blog on! It's nice to know there are some people out there in the Tech community who take the Neurosciences seriously. It's a valuable antidote for sensational hype, I find.