Cryptography-Digest Digest #377, Volume #14 Fri, 18 May 01 00:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: OFF-topic by now - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest ("Trevor L.
Jackson, III")
Re: OFF-topic by now - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest ("Trevor L.
Jackson, III")
Re: Kernaugh maps (try #2) ("Tom St Denis")
Re: OT lethal force; was: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest
Algorithm) (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: OFF-topic by now - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm)
(Eric Lee Green)
Re: OT lethal force; was: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest
Algorithm) (Eric Lee Green)
Re: Kernaugh maps (try #2) ("Alexis Machado")
Re: taking your PC in for repair? WARNING: What will they find? (LMB)
Re: Help working through RSA example in Applied Cryptography 2nd edition (Darren
New)
Re: Kernaugh maps (try #2) ("Jeffrey Walton")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OFF-topic by now - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 02:10:27 GMT
"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trevor L. Jackson, III) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> In some
> >> US jurisdictions uninvited intruders (trespassers) in one's home
> >> are assumed de facto to present sufficient threat to permit use of
> >> deadly force.
> >
> >No. The criteria are ability, opportunity, and jeopardy, and all three
> >must be present in order to justify the use of lethal force. There is
> >no US jurisdiction in which mere presence satisfies those criteria.
> >
>
> You don't know what your talking about. Because your wrong
> The mere presence of a male in the house of a woman in California
> is enough. Or the bastrads lied to us in gun safty trainging.
It's possible. We both know there are a lot of interesting people in Ca.
>
> As I said before I know a man who blasted an intruder in his
> house so I doubt you know what your talking about.
You are welcome to retain your doubts. Contact any of Massad Ayoob of
Lethal Force Institute, John Farnam of Defense Training International, Clint
Smith of Thunder Ranch, Ray Chapman of Chapman Academy, Jeff Cooper of
Gunsite Training Center, etc. I didn't invent any of it. Self defense
doctrine is a well established, although esoteric field.
------------------------------
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OFF-topic by now - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 02:13:16 GMT
"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trevor L. Jackson, III) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >>
> >> In most US jurisdictions, one may lawfully use deadly force to stop
> >> what a reasonable person would perceive to be an immediate threat
> >> of death or grave bodily harm to self or others to whom one is
> >> commonly considered to owe protection (family, guests).
> >
> >In fact, that protection extends to any innocent. And rape and arson
> >are considered exactly such a threat.
> >
> >> In some
> >> US jurisdictions uninvited intruders (trespassers) in one's home
> >> are assumed de facto to present sufficient threat to permit use of
> >> deadly force.
> >
> >No. The criteria are ability, opportunity, and jeopardy, and all three
> >must be present in order to justify the use of lethal force. There is
> >no US jurisdiction in which mere presence satisfies those criteria.
> >
>
> I use to work for nickel and dime defense contractor in
> St louis. Where one guy was in a panic becasue he was
> forced to go to West Plans and had the thrill of his life in
> a motel when he heard a noise. One of the country boys
> didn't appreciated his wife going out on the town with a guy
> so he came to the hotel with his 30-30. To make a
> long story short nothing happened. The guy was shocked because
> West PLains is a whole lot different than St. Louis where
> the police would get more upset about some one blowing away
> another person for such matters. I could give you several
> examples of Ozark justice but having numerous blood realatives
> in that part of the country thats were I would want to be tried
> for murder of an intruder cause they don't take kindly to interferance
> from outsiders. They have there own set of rules. First of all
> you don't know the laws. Second of all its the jury that decides
> the guilt so even if the laws where made to fit your beliefs
> if the people of the region don't think like you your view
> of the law wont mean shit.
I would never bother anyone with fantasy as comfortable as yours. What
would be the point?
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Kernaugh maps (try #2)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 02:23:47 GMT
"bubba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom,
>
> Let me test my memory from years ago. First, I think you want
> to write an equation for one output x in terms of inputs a,b,c,d.
> So I assume 00 and 01 represent x=0 and x=1. The grey code
> ordering is correct. The purpose is so that moving up or down
> or left or right changes only a single input.
>
> Now circle all non-zero output cells. Use as few circles as possible.
> Consecutive horizontal or vertical non-zero cells are circled together.
> The reason is that they share some common inputs states, ab or
> cd in this example. Also, the first and last cell in a row (or column)
> are considered neighbors because the corresponding inputs differ
> by only one variable.
>
> Then write the equation as a sum of products (sum is logical or, product
> is logical and), with one product for each circled group.
>
> So for the non-zero output states forming the square, I see from scanning
> the ab values that it spans that a=0 completely describes these two
input's
> contribution. Similarly for the cd inputs, c=1 summarizes the cd
> possibilities.
> So "c and not a" describe the conditions that are present when the output
> is non-zero for the cases covered in the square.
>
> Now there is the 3 in a row group. They are in the column "a and not b".
> But since the group does not include the entire column (c=0 and d=0)
> is not circled), the description becomes "(a and not b) and (c or d)".
>
> There is one final output to consider, "not a and not b and not c and not
> d".
> In other words, when all four inputs are zero, the output is one.
>
> Now write out the equation is some format you like:
>
> ca' + ab'c + ab'd + a'b'c'd'.
>
> OK, so I broke up the group of 3 into 2+1. Dr. Roth's book is on
> the shelf there but I am too tired to look. Maybe someone can
> take over from here.
Thanks for the explanation. I think it's starting to make sense. So the
idea is to look for the minimal rules that describe a given row, column or
square of bits?
I think I will print off some 4x1 functions and see if I can express em.
Thanks for the help,
Tom
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: OT lethal force; was: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best,
Strongest Algorithm)
Date: 18 May 2001 02:21:46 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trevor L. Jackson, III) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> >> I even rember the example given in class if you most
>> >> shot a buglar in your house don't wound him. Kill him (or her) you
>> >> far better off under the law if the bastrad is dead in your house
>> >> than if you wound him and he makes it out the door.
>> >
>> >This is false. The most frequent resolution to these confrontations,
>> >and definitely the optimal solution, is for the invader to flee.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> No its not false.
>
>Yes it is. Completely. Go ask a lawyer who knows something about
>use-of-force doctrine (most don't).
>
I would rather trust the view of a friend who got to blow an
asshole intruder away than some fucken lawyer. You forget lawyers
are never on one side. You get one lawyer to say the grass is green
and another asshole lawyer is saying its red. The fact is the more
money you have the more apt one is to find a lawyer saying what
every the hell you want and the better the chance to win.
I belive you should kill an intruder if you even suspect he
could back later with a gun and suprise you.
>> If you pull a gun on a buglar you should do it
>> as you pull the trigger, The same way a cop would. I have had many
>> disccussion with cops.
>
>Then you weren't listening. There is no state in which that doctrine is
>espoused.
>
Yes cops can enter building with guns drawn. But
even they don't try to talk an armed person into droping a gun
they just shoot. Sorry if I worded above wrong. The advice above
was what they would do if a buglar intered there house. The cops
being off duty.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE "OLD VERSIOM"
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
My website http://members.nbci.com/ecil/index.htm
My crypto code http://radiusnet.net/crypto/archive/scott/
MY Compression Page http://members.nbci.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE FOR EMAIL drop the roman "five" ***
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged or
something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Lee Green)
Subject: Re: OFF-topic by now - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest
Algorithm)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 17 May 2001 21:26:34 -0500
On Fri, 18 May 2001 00:54:16 GMT, Trevor L. Jackson, III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> "Trevor L. Jackson, III" wrote:
>> > And in the U.S. B&E, while a violent crime, does not rise to the level
>> > of a threat of death or great bodily harm. The only actions that
>> > justify a potentially lethal response are rape, arson, a lethal threat
>> > and their respective attempts.
>>
>> That's not quite right, and the details are jurisdiction-dependent.
>
>Hardly.
See the paper that I discuss below, regarding Louisiana law.
>> In most US jurisdictions, one may lawfully use deadly force to stop
>> what a reasonable person would perceive to be an immediate threat
>> of death or grave bodily harm to self or others to whom one is
>> commonly considered to owe protection (family, guests).
>
>In fact, that protection extends to any innocent. And rape and arson are
>considered exactly such a threat.
>
>> In some
>> US jurisdictions uninvited intruders (trespassers) in one's home
>> are assumed de facto to present sufficient threat to permit use of
>> deadly force.
>
>No. The criteria are ability, opportunity, and jeopardy, and all three must
>be present in order to justify the use of lethal force. There is no US
>jurisdiction in which mere presence satisfies those criteria.
Louisiana has the "shoot the burglar" law. Basically, if he entered
your house via B&E while you were present, Louisiana law assumes that
he is armed and a clear and present danger to your life. (Note that if
he entered the house the normal way, by knocking on the door and being
let in, the criteria that you mention applies).
>I suspect you may have replaced "threat" with "use". The presence of an
>intruder certainly justifies the threat of deadly force, but does not even
>begin to justify the use of deadly force.
In Louisiana it does, according to Louisiana law. The Louisiana law
says that homicide is justifiable if: 'first, that the defender be
"lawfully inside a dwelling or place of business"; second, that the
perpetrator be "attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling
or place of business" or "has made an unlawful entry"; and third, that
the defender reasonably believe that "the use of deadly force is
necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the
premises."[36]' (see
http://www.law.emory.edu/ELJ/volumes/fall98/fisher.html ).
According to that paper, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma,
Mississippi, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Vermont, and Washington have
similar laws that state that it is justifiable homicide if the
criminal is killed within the house while engaged in the commission of
a felony. The theory is that if someone has entered your house and is
engaged in the comission of a felony, that is pro forma proof that he
intends bodily harm to the residents of the house.
>> However, once they are fleeing the scene, the law
>> considers the immediate threat to have passed. For specific
>> information on the theoretical rules *and* their practical
>> implementation in your own jurisdiction, it is best to consult a
>> local specialist in such laws. In the basic handgun training
>> I underwent many years ago, this topic was an important part of
>> the course.
>
>It is probably the most important aspect, answering the question of "when"
>rather than "how".
That is true. In most of the states that do have a "shoot the burglar"
law, it only applies to residences, and it only applies while the
burglar is within the residence actually committing the burglary. Once
he's popped out the door and is headed for the hills, sorry.
--
Eric Lee Green mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Lee Green)
Subject: Re: OT lethal force; was: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best,
Strongest Algorithm)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 17 May 2001 21:38:20 -0500
On Fri, 18 May 2001 01:12:35 GMT, Trevor L. Jackson, III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> >> >And in the U.S. B&E, while a violent crime, does not rise to the
>> >> >level of a threat of death or great bodily harm. The only actions
>> >> >that justify a potentially lethal response are rape, arson, a lethal
>> >> >threat and their respective attempts.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Actually it does. And having taken both by kids through the
>> >> repquired California state hunter saftey classed. They even exaime
>> >> the special laws of California where the law makes woman not only
>> >> the equal of man but more equal.
>
>The technical term is "disparity of force". It justifies a response ot a
>threat that is at a higher level of nastiness than that of the threat. E.g,
>where a police officer may use any necessary force, a citizen is restricted
>to the use of only equal force. (fist/fist, knife/knife, firearms/firearm).
I am not a lawyer. However, Jason D. Fisher is. See his survey of
"Shoot the Burglar" laws as part of:
http://www.law.emory.edu/ELJ/volumes/fall98/fisher.html
Basically, there are a variety of situations where it is legal to use
disproportionate force. In California, for example, "CAL. PENAL CODE �
197(2) (West 1988) (justifying a homicide "[w]hen committed in defense
of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends
or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against
one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or
tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose
of offering violence to any person therein");" -- i.e., it is quite legal,
according to California penal code, to shoot and kill someone who is breaking
into your residence. This is all very jurisdiction-dependent.
>Yes it is. Completely. Go ask a lawyer who knows something about
>use-of-force doctrine (most don't).
http://www.law.emory.edu/ELJ/volumes/fall98/fisher.html
Read it again.
>> If you pull a gun on a buglar you should do it
>> as you pull the trigger, The same way a cop would. I have had many
>> disccussion with cops.
>
>Then you weren't listening. There is no state in which that doctrine is
>espoused.
http://www.law.emory.edu/ELJ/volumes/fall98/fisher.html
lists at least a half dozen states (I stopped counting at that point) where
it is legal to kill anybody who is breaking and entering into a home.
>> I was a big poker player. They belived in
>> guns and stated if you need to pull one on an intruder in your house
>> you shoot right then.
>
>And you go up the river for murder -- unjustified homicide.
Check your local state laws. In Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada,
California, Idaho, Georgia, Alabama, Vermont, probably a bunch more,
if someone has violently entered your home with intent to commit a
felony, it is perfectly legal under that state's laws to shoot him. In
other states, as for unjustified homicide, well, dead men don't
testify. If you testify that he turned toward you and had an object in
his hand that you thought was a gun, and you shot him, who's going to
say different? I'm certainly not. While I'm no fan of capital
punishment, I can't condemn a man for shooting a burglar in his home.
--
Eric Lee Green mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Alexis Machado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Kernaugh maps (try #2)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 00:06:01 -0300
Reply-To: "Alexis Machado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Jeffrey Walton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3b034702$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> So, my final equation would be f = a'c + a'b'd' + ab'c + ab'd
>
a'c + a'b'd' + ab'c + ab'd =
a'c + a'b'd' + b'c + ab'd
------------------------------
From: LMB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.privacy,alt.security.pgp,alt.security.scramdisk,alt.privacy.anon-server
Subject: Re: taking your PC in for repair? WARNING: What will they find?
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 03:08:15 GMT
On Thu, 17 May 2001 13:32:53 -0400, P.Dulles <*@*.com> wrote:
>Let's try to be fair. They aren't, this just further substantiates and
>strengthens our argument.
Oh, I'll be fair, very fair. What I will do is to NEVER buy a product
from any company that resorts to SPAM in an attempt to sell their
product. Since EE is a major spammer I will never buy their product.
We should stop this needless arguing and each of us simply send the
message to the writers of EE that their SPAM has resulted in creating
a non buyer for them. THAT is the effective message.
------------------------------
From: Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help working through RSA example in Applied Cryptography 2nd edition
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 03:33:34 GMT
Tom St Denis wrote:
> The idea is if I write something like k * y^-1 * g^x (mod p) it's easier to
> note this is all mod p instead of writting k mod p * (y mod p)^-1 * (g mod
> p)^x mod p.
Actually, in math (as opposed to computers) it's more like "mod p" is a
data type than it is an operation. All the values and all the operations
(such as exponentiation) are interpreted differently.
It's like saying "x/y as an integer operation" vs "x/y as a float
operation" in programming.
--
Darren New / Senior MTS & Free Radical / Invisible Worlds Inc.
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
This is top-quality raw fish, the Rolls-Rice of Sushi!
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Jeffrey Walton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Jeffrey Walton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Kernaugh maps (try #2)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 23:39:17 -0400
I don't see how to drop the a, Alexis. Forgive my ignorance.
Jeff
"Alexis Machado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:
: "Jeffrey Walton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:3b034702$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: >
: > So, my final equation would be f = a'c + a'b'd' + ab'c + ab'd
: >
:
: a'c + a'b'd' + ab'c + ab'd =
: a'c + a'b'd' + b'c + ab'd
:
:
:
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
