Good article Michael,
But stealthy maladies abound, though perhaps not as viral infections. If you substitute Psychiatrist for Hair Stylist in the example above, I have seen one or two examples, and some people would say that Lyme Disease can masquerade as a whole host of other problems. So while that malady is bacteriological, I imagine there are already biological viruses which induce symptoms that mimic something else - and so fall in the category indicated.
Or perhaps I just have a hard time believing that humans are cranking out computer viruses that outdo what is seen in nature. But maybe computer viruses really are more virulent. Pretty scary stuff, either way.
Jonathan
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
The one comment that caught my attention was if a biological virus was encrypted. That would be scary.
I read this: "computer viruses are more evolved than their biological counterparts"
Isn't it the case that computer viruses are really creations (rather than 'naturally evolved' biological entities), so any "evolution" is actually the result of direct design?
Or, if we believe in 'Intelligent Design', does that exclude biological viruses?
Isn't it the case that computer viruses are really creations (rather than 'naturally evolved' biological entities), so any "evolution" is actually the result of direct design?
Or, if we believe in 'Intelligent Design', does that exclude biological viruses?
The semantics behind the word evolution has changed so much that it has become a fire sale word:
Someone in IT may say:
Computers evolve; no they are developed or designed or technological advancements were made.
A musician may say:
My music has evolved over the years; no it has matured.
In most cases there are hundreds of words that better describe something than the word evolution and that is where I relate it to a fire sale as that single word cheapens language.
I have excluded the word evolution from my vocabulary and use it only to address the word itself or the concepts of biological, chemical, stellar, macro evolution etc. (I do not believe in any of the aforementioned evolutions)
I dont think anyone who believes in a Creator God, intelligent designer, or simply enjoys the English language should make use of the word evolution in everyday life.
Someone in IT may say:
Computers evolve; no they are developed or designed or technological advancements were made.
A musician may say:
My music has evolved over the years; no it has matured.
In most cases there are hundreds of words that better describe something than the word evolution and that is where I relate it to a fire sale as that single word cheapens language.
I have excluded the word evolution from my vocabulary and use it only to address the word itself or the concepts of biological, chemical, stellar, macro evolution etc. (I do not believe in any of the aforementioned evolutions)
I dont think anyone who believes in a Creator God, intelligent designer, or simply enjoys the English language should make use of the word evolution in everyday life.
As a wordsmith, I cherish words and their power. I never cease to be amazed at how many heated disputes can be quieted by asking each party to step back and first agree to define what they are arguing about.
is that I don't know how to respond to [hanekwj] so as not to start a heated discussion. 
I thank you. I have been writing a long time and have yet to have one of my articles go in that direction.
from the comment "interesting"
It was clear that the mention of the word "evolution" caused ambiguity in the piece because it was used to describe something that cannot evolve (automatic (please note the difference between automatic and automated) it has to BE changed, in the case of computer viruses by human hand, or by built in morphological code(automated), built in by human hand. Hence no evolution for computer viruses.
The world evolution has to ALWAYS be clearly defined when used or be replaced with a more appropriate word.
In school they taught you if you are going to use an abbreviation multiple times you write it out the first time and put the abbreviation in brackets and then later on use the abbreviation:
The Central Processing Unit (CPU) is at the???. CPU??????.. CPU???.
So with evolution simply because the word has SO MANY MEANINGS
PS. I am not shouting, I just wanted to put some emphasis on a few word
It was clear that the mention of the word "evolution" caused ambiguity in the piece because it was used to describe something that cannot evolve (automatic (please note the difference between automatic and automated) it has to BE changed, in the case of computer viruses by human hand, or by built in morphological code(automated), built in by human hand. Hence no evolution for computer viruses.
The world evolution has to ALWAYS be clearly defined when used or be replaced with a more appropriate word.
In school they taught you if you are going to use an abbreviation multiple times you write it out the first time and put the abbreviation in brackets and then later on use the abbreviation:
The Central Processing Unit (CPU) is at the???. CPU??????.. CPU???.
So with evolution simply because the word has SO MANY MEANINGS
PS. I am not shouting, I just wanted to put some emphasis on a few word
Many are cross platform, many of the most deadly are in fact bird flu's.
So far a computer virus can't both infect Windows and a coke vending machine.
So far a computer virus can't both infect Windows and a coke vending machine.
Those buttons you push for the drinks look a lot like Metro tiles...
I had a nice chuckle when I read this comment.
I haven't made up my mind concerning Metro, but I enjoyed your wittiness.
I haven't made up my mind concerning Metro, but I enjoyed your wittiness.
Be carefull to classify organic matter in differing "Platform" catagories.
All animals including humans are all biological and we have DNA, amino acids etc. the only difference between humans and animals are brain function. Thus all living animals are the same platform.
Software on the other hand are specifically engineered to be defferent and therefore there is a seperation of "Platform"
All animals including humans are all biological and we have DNA, amino acids etc. the only difference between humans and animals are brain function. Thus all living animals are the same platform.
Software on the other hand are specifically engineered to be defferent and therefore there is a seperation of "Platform"
Call it a di-bi virus. Or even shorter still, di-bi-vi. (Combining digital-biological-virus)
Hmmm. This is a step beyond Independence Day's virus delivery to the mother ship. Yes, ahead there surely will be implanted terrorists (or patriots) who will look to deliver digital-biological viruses one-on-one surreptitiously to the computers of specific vehicles or whole transportation systems. To hack medical devices. To attack quality control systems in such as water treatment plants, pharmaceuticals production, and various manufacturing industries. And to corrupt critical "failsafe" systems at places like nuclear plants and defense bases. I laughed too soon when I read the suggestion of a virus under a microscope saying Hello. God help us!
They don't make science-fiction movies like that any more.
it was possible to hack a protein synthesizer and insert arbitrary sequences (e.g. Ebola)
Infecting an RFID chip embedded in the hand strikes me as equivalent to infecting their cell phone. It really doesn't have much convergence unless the device is physiologically tied to the organism. Implant doesn't count unless it has a biological effect. An example of this might be a pace maker. Infect something like that and you have a digital virus converging with the biological realm of effect-on-host.
Infecting an RFID chip embedded in the hand strikes me as equivalent to infecting their cell phone. It really doesn't have much convergence unless the device is physiologically tied to the organism. Implant doesn't count unless it has a biological effect. An example of this might be a pace maker. Infect something like that and you have a digital virus converging with the biological realm of effect-on-host.
This was the Proof of Concept that implanted devices, even as simple as an RFID, can be infected. Also, playing the devil's advocate, a virus is an implanted foreign body, which both are. The replication requirement is a bit of a stretch though.
And being a biologist my answer is no. You could super-glue a cell phone to your skin and it would serve the same proof-of-concept wouldn't it? 
I'm glad you mentioned that you are a biologist.
As the one reporting, I try to leave my opinions out of the mix and report what experts are saying. It really boils down to what definition of virus is agreed upon. I was trying to hint at that in the article.
Did you read the paper by Axelle? There is a significant chunk of the paper that discusses convergence. I'd love to learn what you thought of it.
As the one reporting, I try to leave my opinions out of the mix and report what experts are saying. It really boils down to what definition of virus is agreed upon. I was trying to hint at that in the article.
Did you read the paper by Axelle? There is a significant chunk of the paper that discusses convergence. I'd love to learn what you thought of it.
doesn't strike me as having been written by biologists.
I will say that for their notion of convergence to work the digital ecosphere would have to incorporate mutability. Right now the name of the game is to minimize error and get the same bits out as were put in, yes? Genotypic expression has error correcting systems, but the biological emphasis is on reproduction over error correction of genes aka Evolution.
Digital systems are not designed to support evolution processes. Even GAs require a predefined fitness function. Thus its still a no-go on convergence wrt reproduction and survival being dictated by environmental pressure.
Makes for an interesting read tho!
I will say that for their notion of convergence to work the digital ecosphere would have to incorporate mutability. Right now the name of the game is to minimize error and get the same bits out as were put in, yes? Genotypic expression has error correcting systems, but the biological emphasis is on reproduction over error correction of genes aka Evolution.
Digital systems are not designed to support evolution processes. Even GAs require a predefined fitness function. Thus its still a no-go on convergence wrt reproduction and survival being dictated by environmental pressure.
Makes for an interesting read tho!
"but the biological emphasis is on reproduction over error correction of genes aka Evolution."
As a biologist you should know the next one:
Is it not true that in DNA we find polymerase (enzymes) that is exactly focused on error correction and therefore DNA itself has ANTI-EVOLUTION, error correcting properties?
As a biologist you should know the next one:
Is it not true that in DNA we find polymerase (enzymes) that is exactly focused on error correction and therefore DNA itself has ANTI-EVOLUTION, error correcting properties?
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
