Cryptography-Digest Digest #798, Volume #13 Sun, 4 Mar 01 19:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: super strong crypto, phase 3 ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: super strong crypto, phase 3 ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...? (Free-man)
Re: HPRNG (Darren New)
Re: OT: The Big Breach (book) available for download (Jim D)
Re: philosophical question? ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: OT: Legitimacy of Governmental Power (Was: Re: => FBI easily crack ...?) (Jim
D)
Re: Super strong crypto ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: The Foolish Dozen or so in This News Group (Darren New)
Fwd: Digital Envelope for email (Tony L. Svanstrom)
Re: The Foolish Dozen or so in This News Group (Anthony Stephen Szopa)
Re: Question about double encryption ("Simon Johnson")
Re: The Foolish Dozen or so in This News Group (Anthony Stephen Szopa)
Re: The Foolish Dozen or so in This News Group (Anne & Lynn Wheeler)
Re: OT: Legitimacy of Governmental Power (Was: Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption
...?) (Joe H. Acker)
Re: OverWrite freeware completely removes unwanted files fromharddrive (Benjamin
Goldberg)
Re: Is BORG mental patient Linda Gore SSRIHater?? Re: Fake SSRIHATER ("Beeftain")
Re: OT: Legitimacy of Governmental Power (Was: Re: => FBI easily crack ...?)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: philosophical question? (Benjamin Goldberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: super strong crypto, phase 3
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 22:11:34 GMT
Steve Portly wrote:
> would it be cheaper to pay the terrorist or to pay the cryptoanalytic
> team? You mentioned that XOR was being used to produce cipher text so
> something is known about the algorithm already.
I assume that the complete general system is known to the
cryptanalysts, and that cryptanalysis *will* be performed.
These assumptions are necessary for any consideration of
"super strong" crypto.
> Statistical analysis might find some bias or pattern in
> 2 million bytes of cipher text that would give some
> additional information about the algorithm.
The algorithm is known. What various features of the
straw-man-phase-3 scheme are designed to do is to remove
all exploitable patterns. As I noted, it is not possible
to cryptanalyze an isolated block no matter what technique
might be used, because there is no way to distinguish a
valid key from an invalid one (the correct PT is random).
That means the only hope for the cryptanalyst is to attack
multiple blocks simultaneously, but since they use
different keys (unrelated to each other, if one chooses to
spend a little more bandwidth than I originally suggested)
it is hard to see how correlations might be established.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: super strong crypto, phase 3
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 22:14:20 GMT
John Savard wrote:
> I don't think that masking every block by a constant quantity can be
> expected to improve security that much.
It's meant to prevent any attack based on analysis of a single
block. Changing masks can be used, but one doesn't want to
base the masks on any sort of potentially analyzable algorithm.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Free-man)
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...?
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 22:15:54 GMT
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 19:29:12 -0000, "Randoman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Beretta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:10:01 +0100, "kroesjnov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >
>> >I am willing to trade some privacy for safety.
>> <snip>
>>
>> So basically, you are saying that you'll trade your privacy to be a sheep?
>I.e.
>> you'll give up your rights so that the goverment can play the role of
>> sheepherder?
>>
>
>I don't want police & intelligence services reading my email or files. But
>I do want them to read the communications of people who might plant a bomb
>on the next plane I take.
There is a better way to prevent terrorism. There is an alternative
to the police-state. Governments such as the US, China, Russia, etc.
should stop dropping bombs. Stop stomping on people. Stop their
systematic violations of human rights and freedom. There are many
angry people on this planet who have very good reasons for being
angry. And many of them want to retaliate.
Even governments that don't drop bombs engage in the widespread
use of violence and coercion against peaceful people. More freedom
is the solution to most violence. Free people produce peace and
prosperity.
Rich Eramian aka freeman at shore dot net
------------------------------
From: Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HPRNG
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 22:15:12 GMT
r.e.s. wrote:
> I agree with that, for the most part. At the same time,
> it would be a mistake to consider the human enterprise
> called "science" to be free of political and religious
> agendas.
What you mean is that scientists also participate in politics and religion.
Not that science is political or religious. To the extent that scientists do
bad science to advance their politics or religion, they're not scientific.
> We're way OT for this forum, so I'll stop with this.
At least it has some "sci." in it, which is more than many of the threads
here. ;-)
--
Darren New / Senior MTS & Free Radical / Invisible Worlds Inc.
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim D)
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,alt.security.scramdisk,comp.security.pgp.discuss
Subject: Re: OT: The Big Breach (book) available for download
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 22:14:51 GMT
Reply-To: Jim D
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 14:59:56 -0000, "Sam Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The book Big Breach (by R.Tomlinson, ex-MI6) is available for download at
>the URLs below.....It's caused a lot of controversy in England, so is
>probably worth a read ;) ^^^^^^^
Presumably also in Scotland and Wales. But perhaps not
so much...
--
___________________________________________
Posted by Jim Dunnett
George Dubya Bushisms No 6:
CIA? Howdja spell that?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: sci.crypt.random-numbers,de.sci.informatik.misc,sci.math
Subject: Re: philosophical question?
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 22:17:46 GMT
Randy Poe wrote:
> The answer depends on the rules the host is following. The interesting
> result happens when the host knows which door contains the car, and
> will always open a door with a goat after saying "I'll show you
> something", whether or not you have already picked the car.
> You should switch.
> If the host is malicious, only offering you another choice when he
> knows you have the car, then it doesn't pay to switch (obviously,
> since you're guaranteed to lose in that case).
And what if the host *always* opens one of the unpicked doors?
That's the standard setting for this puzzle.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim D)
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: OT: Legitimacy of Governmental Power (Was: Re: => FBI easily crack ...?)
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 22:14:52 GMT
Reply-To: Jim D
On 4 Mar 2001 10:50:24 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
>Even though there was a lot of dirty bottom-dealing involved, each step
>along the way of Hitler's rise to power was legal. Dirty, but legal.
Rings a bell! I know: just like George W Bush.
--
___________________________________________
Posted by Jim Dunnett
George Dubya Bushisms No 6:
CIA? Howdja spell that?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Super strong crypto
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 22:28:33 GMT
Bryan Olson wrote:
> Given what you've stated, this answer makes no sense. You
> not have information theoretic security, and don't seem to
> be taking that approach, or even seeking to demonstrate
> security.
I've been proposing a *line of thought* via straw-man
designs in several phases, that is consistent with such
an approach. It is not my purpose to fill in the gaps,
such as to provide you with a detailed theory about how
system structure interacts with information measures,
but only to stimulate thought in a different direction.
If you don't wish to consider that direction, that is
your choice. As of phase 3, there has been an unproven
but provable assertion (about uncrackability of a single
block) and an open research question (about correlating
multiple blocks). John Savard has proposed improvements
that could be explored. If you're looking for technical
work to do on this, there is plenty already.
------------------------------
From: Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.hacker
Subject: Re: The Foolish Dozen or so in This News Group
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 22:35:37 GMT
Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
> Wrong. It is possible to ensure that the same disk blocks will
> be ovrwritten (unless a new bad block gets added to the remapping
> table during the process), but you have to open the file in a
> particular mode (r+w in stdio terminology);
I would think it depends on your file system, too. For example, on a CD-R
file system, you can only write to each location once, so you obviously
*cannot* overwrite 27 times.
Compression might have an effect, as well as attempts by the OS to reduce
file fragmentation as well. The Atari disk OS, for example, would always
write to new blocks, and then update all the tables when you closed the
files, so if there was a crash, you either got the whole old file or the
whole new file.
Only in straightforward implementations of a file system can you *ensure*
the same blocks get overwritten.
> if the file is opened
> for writing in the default mode, it gets truncated to 0 length and
> all its previous data blocks are returned to the block-buffer pool.
Perhaps under UNIX. I thought this was a Windows program we were talking
about.
On a side note, the funny thing is that most everything I know about
cryptography (admittedly not much) I learned here. Being ignorant, I might
have believed in Mr Szopa's OAP-L3 stuff. Then he comes along with his
overwrite, demonstrating to me that he doesn't even know about stuff common
in the 70's wrt operating systems, yet vigorously defending his ignorance
and calling everyone who offers concrete proof a "sick mind." It's nice to
have an alternate way of judging someone's competence, isn't it? ;-)
--
Darren New / Senior MTS & Free Radical / Invisible Worlds Inc.
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
------------------------------
Subject: Fwd: Digital Envelope for email
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony L. Svanstrom)
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 22:59:21 GMT
Since someone in sci.crypt tried to figure out a possible solution to this
"problem"... (Personally I think... well, I rather not say what I think about
this thing, because it won't be anything good, and people will just start
quoting me when I release my "solution". ;-)
======= Begin Forwarded Message =======
Subject: Digital Envelope for email
From: Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 17:45:18 +0100
We deleloped a Digital Envelope for emails. It allows you the send encrypted
emails to everybody without searching for public keys.
So checkout http://www.v-research.net/FYE/
We also are looking for developers who support us.
Ray
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
======== End Forwarded Message ========
/Tony
------------------------------
From: Anthony Stephen Szopa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.hacker
Subject: Re: The Foolish Dozen or so in This News Group
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 15:08:54 -0800
"Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
>
> Anthony Stephen Szopa wrote:
> > So, what you are saying is that everything goes on in cache and that
> > disk space is not under the operator's control. A file can be
> > written to one place on a hard drive then read into cache.
> > Processed then written to a completely different place on the hard
> > drive. And this process can continue I suppose until the entire
> > hard drive has been written over once and no bit locations have been
> > overwritten.
> > I would think this is not likely because of the optimization you
> > claim to be expounding. The drive heads are already over these bit
> > locations. To wander all over the hard drive writing to no
> > predetermined fixed hard drive bit locations would be inefficient
> > and un-optimizing.
>
> Wrong. It is possible to ensure that the same disk blocks will
> be ovrwritten (unless a new bad block gets added to the remapping
> table during the process), but you have to open the file in a
> particular mode (r+w in stdio terminology); if the file is opened
> for writing in the default mode, it gets truncated to 0 length and
> all its previous data blocks are returned to the block-buffer pool.
> It is quite common for different disk blocks to get assigned as the
> new file grows.
>
> The more important point is that all the "overwriting" might take
> place in the in-memory buffer pool, not on the hard disk itself.
> UNIX systems usually have a daemon that flushes modified blocks
> back to disk every 30 seconds or so, but obviously depending on
> that for a process that overwrites disk blocks several times
> would entail lengthy waits.
>
> > Your hard drive was quiet because the heads did not move once they
> > were in position. Is that about 1GB with no head movement in 156
> > seconds? If you say so. This is not the point.
>
> No, it was quiet because the updates all took place in the
> in-memory buffer pool. That *is* the point.
>
> > Like I said: What people fail to perceive quickly enough is that we
> > are talking to several sick minds.
>
> What *I* perceive is that you refuse to listen to good advice.
How can we consider your less than considered opinion when you clearly
ignore the very post you are responding to: "in binary append
mode."
Didn't you read this?
Secondly, the 156 sec 1GB overwrite does not pertain since he did not
even tell us anything about the code that was written that carried out
this operation.
Yet you seem to give his account all credibility not even knowing this
information.
And no, it wasn't the point. His exercise in futility is not the point
of this thread.
The point is whether or not Ciphile Software's OverWrite Security
program makes the 27 overwrites as claimed.
You seem to have given me support for MY claim.
"...but you have to open the file in a particular mode (r+w in stdio
terminology)..."
Close but not quite. It is "r+b" What do you perceive now?
I have just given you the exact write mode as "r+b" used in the
OverWrite program. And I said as much in the very post you are
replying to.
Talk about refusing to listen? Geeeze.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question about double encryption
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 23:14:51 -0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> First of all I'm fairly new to all this, so apologies if this is a
> stupid question.
>
> Is it possible that the following scenario actually *weakens* the
> encryption strength :
This is not a yes/no question. Double encryption is only feasible if the
algorithms you use are not groups. DES-56 is far from a group, which means
that 3-DES is much more secure against brute-force. At another extreme, XOR
is a group. Double encrypting with xor doesn't improve security; it simply
makes a third equally strengthed key.
In the case of DES, 2-DES is a little bit more secure than DES but 3-DES is
much more secure than 2-DES. An odd number of multiple encryptions offers
greater change in security than even, if this makes sense ;)
It is possible that two different algorithms used in combination could be
weaker than the parent algorithms by themselves, because one algorithm could
undo the work of the other, though I know of no pairs of decent ciphers that
have this property. Generally, two encryptions is usually considered to be
better than one.
________________________________________________________________________
> Protect your privacy! - Get Freedom 2.0 at http://www.freedom.net
>
------------------------------
From: Anthony Stephen Szopa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.hacker
Subject: Re: The Foolish Dozen or so in This News Group
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 15:13:54 -0800
Darren New wrote:
>
> Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
> > Wrong. It is possible to ensure that the same disk blocks will
> > be ovrwritten (unless a new bad block gets added to the remapping
> > table during the process), but you have to open the file in a
> > particular mode (r+w in stdio terminology);
>
> I would think it depends on your file system, too. For example, on a CD-R
> file system, you can only write to each location once, so you obviously
> *cannot* overwrite 27 times.
>
> Compression might have an effect, as well as attempts by the OS to reduce
> file fragmentation as well. The Atari disk OS, for example, would always
> write to new blocks, and then update all the tables when you closed the
> files, so if there was a crash, you either got the whole old file or the
> whole new file.
>
> Only in straightforward implementations of a file system can you *ensure*
> the same blocks get overwritten.
>
> > if the file is opened
> > for writing in the default mode, it gets truncated to 0 length and
> > all its previous data blocks are returned to the block-buffer pool.
>
> Perhaps under UNIX. I thought this was a Windows program we were talking
> about.
>
> On a side note, the funny thing is that most everything I know about
> cryptography (admittedly not much) I learned here. Being ignorant, I might
> have believed in Mr Szopa's OAP-L3 stuff. Then he comes along with his
> overwrite, demonstrating to me that he doesn't even know about stuff common
> in the 70's wrt operating systems, yet vigorously defending his ignorance
> and calling everyone who offers concrete proof a "sick mind." It's nice to
> have an alternate way of judging someone's competence, isn't it? ;-)
>
> --
> Darren New / Senior MTS & Free Radical / Invisible Worlds Inc.
> San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
You have just given us an alternate way of judging YOUR competence.
Read my reply to the post you just replied to.
Yes, it is a Windows App.
Where am I wrong?
Defend yourself.
(I guess this is the last we'll hear from this guy.)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.hacker
Subject: Re: The Foolish Dozen or so in This News Group
Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 23:22:02 GMT
"Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wrong. It is possible to ensure that the same disk blocks will
> be ovrwritten (unless a new bad block gets added to the remapping
> table during the process), but you have to open the file in a
> particular mode (r+w in stdio terminology); if the file is opened
> for writing in the default mode, it gets truncated to 0 length and
> all its previous data blocks are returned to the block-buffer pool.
> It is quite common for different disk blocks to get assigned as the
> new file grows.
however, overwriting 27 times is a little harder since straightforward
overwrite is likely to just be updating buffer records. frequently
multiple overwriting passes consists of different combinations of ones
& zeros with the intent of exercising the magnetic flux in different
ways on the disk surface.
there is some chance (in unix) of issuing fsck a couple times and
waiting a minute or so between passes.
of course even this changes if you are dealing with log-structured
filesystem ... which attempts to always write to a new location.
random ref:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#93
for many of these scenerios it just about boils down to some
filesystem enhancement that meets some zeroization standard when
blocks are released (and uses sequences of patterns that satisfy some
criteria based on knowledge of magnetic properties of disk surface).
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe H. Acker)
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: OT: Legitimacy of Governmental Power (Was: Re: => FBI easily cracks
encryption ...?)
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 00:18:51 +0100
nemo outis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are institutions which can proscribe a party for actions "against the
> constitution?"
Yes.
>A special secret service to investigate those acting "against
> the constitution?"
Yes.
> Article 18 can be used to remove "freedom of speech" from
> some?
Yes.
> And articles of a constitution that can never be changed?
Yes, indeed there are.
> Wow, what a great infrastructure to act as a springboard from which to
> establish a single-party totalitarian system! Couldn't have asked for much
> more.
There's a big difference between the question about what is according to
the constitution of a country and what is not, and the question about
who has the power over whom in a country. In my previous post, I have
only described answers to the former question. The actual balance of
power in Germany today (the latter question) in my opinion is very
well-weighted. But if you are really interested, read a translation of
the German constitution ("Grundgesetz") and compare it to the US
constitution. And think yourself. But think...
Regards,
Erich
------------------------------
From: Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.hacker
Subject: Re: OverWrite freeware completely removes unwanted files fromharddrive
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 23:32:07 GMT
Szopa, you are an utter moron. Didn't you read what I wrote?
A sucessful close operation merely means that the entry in the list of
open files is removed.
Sure, your program "closes" sucessfully.
What does that have to do with disk writes?
You call the fclose() instructioction, which in turn calls close() on
the file descriptor. It's removed from the list of open files. The
dirty pages remain in cache. (The OS will write them out, eventually,
but nothing has yet happened to make this urgent.) You open the file
again. This creates a new entry in the list of open files, and returns
an index to that list (the file descriptor). IIRC, This becomes the
_fildes element of the (FILE*) struct. You write to the file. The OS
says to itself, hey, I still have some dirty pages in cache for that
file, and so your write() operation modifies the contents of those
pages. You call close again. It successfully removes the entry from
the list of open files. It therefor returns a 'sucess' value. etc,
etc.
At no point is close returning sucess when it actually failed; however,
at no point does sucess imply an actual hardware write operation.
--
The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, theory and
practice are identical, but in practice, they are not.
------------------------------
From: "Beeftain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.support.depression.medication,soc.culture.russian,soc.org.kkk,dk.snak.mudderkastning,rec.scouting.issues
Subject: Re: Is BORG mental patient Linda Gore SSRIHater?? Re: Fake SSRIHATER
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 00:31:11 +0100
Reply-To: "Beeftain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Johan M. Olofsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Beeftain wrote:
>
> > "Johan M. Olofsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Beeftain wrote:
> > >
> > > > "alexplore" <alexplore@alexplore> wrote in message
>news:97jbuk$if6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > Beeftain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:97j635$1sli$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > "alexplore" <alexplore@alexplore> wrote in message
> > > > > news:97j1m4$687$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Beeftain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:97j0ii$1jf5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > Pippelip gokkelok!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You must be mentally ill like Linda Gore!
> > > > >
> > > > > Linda Gore is a mental patient on the "crazies groups"...
> > > > > Very mentally ill... married 4 times... does a lot of
> > > > > "psychiatric medications"... for 23 years in fact...
> > > > > that and fucking drunks and posting about how to stuff their
> > > > > limp dicks up her cunt.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Diagnossing" her son.... sees that he needs a lot of psychiatric drugs
> > > > > too...
> > > > >
> > > > > Disgusting piece of shit! Someone out there will be husband #
> > > > > 5 sooner or later.... always a horny asshole that will fuck anything... Ask
> > > > > Igor Chudov and Yelena Purdunkova about that :)
> > > >
> > > > Who are they?
> > > >
> > > > > > Well, Al Gore _is_ mentally ill...
> > > > >
> > > > > Not so much as his wife "Tipper" (hell kind of name is THAT!)
> > > >
> > > > She discovered these Parental Advisory-stickers. It's narrow-minded.
> > > >
> > > > > > not very less than George Bush.
> > > > >
> > > > > at least his wife ain't eating head-drug pills like "Tipper" :)
> > > > > or Igor Chudov...
> > > >
> > > > No, but any wife of Bush must be brainwashed. Bush is a f...... maniac.
> > > >
> > > > Which group are you writing in?
> > >
> > > All of them, of course.
> >
> > The original, then.
>
> Beats me. I'm reading in soc.org.kkk like most good Democrats.
Is this a place for fascists or anti-fascists? People against KKK?
Beeftain
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: OT: Legitimacy of Governmental Power (Was: Re: => FBI easily crack ...?)
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 17:36:03 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now that is just uncalled for. If you want to talk dirty pool, let's
discuss the naturalized citizens rushed through the naturalization
process to meet quotas, who are significantly more likely to vote
Democrat. Or Madison, Wisconsin, where homeless shelters with 20 beds
where 200 people voted Democrat. Or in some predominantly Democratic
precincts in Texas, where we had 125 percent of registered voters cast
ballots.
I could go on, but this is not a political newsgroup. Bush won it, and
the only reason the Democrats are beside themselves is that they were
certain they had committed enough fraud to win.
GW Bush is president, and he won fairly. He also bears no resemblance
to Hitler. In fact, if you look at the socialist policies the
Democrats want to put in place, and note that the Nazis were the
National Socialist party, one could draw some interesting inferences
about Democrats. I have heard some people compare the OK City Fed
building to the burning of the Reichstag. Clinton could not have
forced his "Anti-Terrorism" legislation through without it.
Mike
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim D) wrote:
>On 4 Mar 2001 10:50:24 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>wrote:
>
>>Even though there was a lot of dirty bottom-dealing involved, each step
>>along the way of Hitler's rise to power was legal. Dirty, but legal.
>
>Rings a bell! I know: just like George W Bush.
------------------------------
From: Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: philosophical question?
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 23:45:09 GMT
Randoman wrote:
>
> Ignacio Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <snip>
> > For example, if you have a 1/2 spin particle with its spin
> > certainly in the x direction, and you measure its spin in the z
> > direction, the result you will get has 50% probability of being +1/2
> > and 50% probability of being -1/2. True random.
> >
>
> I'm pretty hazy on Quantum Physics but isn't there a paradox to do
> with particles generated in pairs so that I measure the spin of one or
> them. You independently measure the spin of the other, then you know
> the spin of mine. The paradox had to do with information (the spin of
> my particle) being transferred faster than light.
>
> Given that, could I not determine your random bit below by feeding you
> the particle to measure and I then look at it's partner?
>
> As I say I'm not a physicist so this could be rubbish.
>
> Comments?
This is only an apparent paradox, not a true one. It is one of the
various methods of QC. I don't understand it well enough to explain why
the paradox is not actually a real paradox, but I'm sure if you look it
up, you can find info.
--
The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, theory and
practice are identical, but in practice, they are not.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to sci.crypt.
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
