Re: constant encryped stream
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Fairbrother [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Get the pull from a party popper and wrap it in a dollar bill. Record the serial number of the bill (some crypto here maybe). Make it impossible to open the closet without setting the pull off, ie no trapdoor. Fairly good tamper-evidence, and the token is hard (and very illegal!) to forge. Most of the security features of a dollar bill are not directed toward the serial number; they are designed to prevent changing the denomination, or to increase the cost of creating a real-looking bill from scratch. Changing the serial number is likely to be fairly straightforward. For this to be secure, you would have to keep the serial number a secret; and in that case, the paper could be any piece of paper with a secret written on it. Depends on your threat model, of course. But of course. -- Shields.
Re: constant encryped stream
Get the pull from a party popper and wrap it in a dollar bill. Record the serial number of the bill (some crypto here maybe). Make it impossible to open the closet without setting the pull off, ie no trapdoor. Fairly good tamper-evidence, and the token is hard (and very illegal!) to forge. Also the dollar bill is still spendable, so the only cost of your accesses are the pulls. Depends on your threat model, of course. -- Peter Fairbrother
Re: Subject: CDR: Re: QM, EPR, A/B
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, blah wrote: 'instantaneously' from -whose- perspective? From anyone's perspective. Not from the photons perspective, from a photons perspective there is -no- time. It is clear from Relativity that as -anything- approaches the speed of light it's mass grows larger (photons have -no- rest mass so 0 can't get any bigger than 0) and time -slows to zero-. A signal carries information. You can't use quantum mechanics to propagate a signal faster than light. Then explain two entangled photons and how they behave. If you think otherwise, allow me to refer you to the last chapter in Quantum Mechanics, L. Schiff, where you will find the commutation relations for electromagnetic fields. I'm familiar with it, however that is taken from the perspective of the external observer, not the photon. Now, do the math -from the perspective of a the photons-. Let me ask you again: - How big is the cosmos to a photon? - How does time pass to a photon? Only so long as there are -not- relativistic effects, which -do- happen -any- time a photon is involved. Don't be ridiculous. Relativistic quantum mechanics is not even a new discipline. I am -not- saying that it is -new-. I -am- saying that QM and Relativity have -not- been -completely combined- and that until that happens we won't and can't understand what is going on. In particular I -am- saying that there is a fundamental error being made in experiments like the 2-slit and Entangled Photons, that error is that only -one- perspective is being looked at, the non-relativistic perspective of the mechanism, and that the -relativiistic perspective of the photon is being completely ignored-. You are throwing information away -a priori-. That to understand these results the experimenter -must- look at the perspective of all participants in the experiment, especially those who experience relativistic effects. And a photon is -always- relativistic. Reality is -observer dependent-, the mechanism observes the photon, the photon observes the mechanism. They are -not- in the same time-space frame. The mechanism behaves in its classical time-space frame and the photon behaves in its relativistic time-spacef frame (the only one it has, excepting slowing effects in BEC's). It's no small wonder the results make little sense. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Re: CDR: François Marc de Piolenc and US Intelligence.,
Ah - I see. You just wanted to resurrect a tired old joke. O-kay - another line in the filter... Marc NOTE FOR ATTENDANT(S): Increase Thorazine. Matthew X wrote: Okay I forgot,army intelligence is an oxymoron...lookie here arschloch...
Re: Liars Paradox Fermi paradox
hi, thank you. what about this http://xray.sai.msu.ru/~lipunov/text/ashkl/node3.html http://www.transhumanism.ndtilda.co.uk/Fermi.htm it says There has been much speculation around Fermi's famous question: Where are they? Why haven't we seen any traces of intelligent extraterrestrial life?. One way in which this question has been answered (Brin 1983) is that we have not seen any traces of intelligent extraterrestrial life because there is no extraterrestrial life because intelligent extraterrestrial life tend to self-destruct soon after it reaches the stage where it can engage in cosmic colonization and communication. This is the same conclusion as that of the Doomsday argument (i.e.: we are likely to perish soon), but arrived at trough a wholly different line of argument. So does the fermi paradox mean that there are no extra terrestrials.Can't we throw away this paradox like every other paradox? Regards Sarath. --- Mike Rosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Sarad AV wrote: As it says-they are self referecial statements.What do we learn from the liars paradox? We arrive at a senseless result-doesn't all other paradoxes do that-with the difference that they pick only either true or false-which they so strongly beleive in and come with the result they want?IS n't that all paradoxes are trying to do? That's kind of a trivial paradox. Any paradox arises from misunderstanding reality. When you point your own finger at yourself (or your mirror image) it is a self referential operation. A sentence can't reference itself - you have to read it. The symbols just sit there. It is your attempt to apply meaning to the symbols that causes a problem. For example: xkdurp sathn kll ftres xcv tyeslr makes as much sense as the paradox. And every paradox can be thrown away in similar fasion. You just have to figure out what it is you don't understand. :-) Usually harder than it looks! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: CDR: Re: Many Worlds Version of Fermi Paradox
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Sarad AV wrote: how do you know that apples and oranges are not same or are same? Its the way you look at it. No, ever see Apple and Oranges cross-breed? -THEY- look at it that way too. So there -is- something there to the cladistic viewpoint. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Subject: CDR: Re: QM, EPR, A/B
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 00:28:46 -0600 (CST)
Jim Choate wrote:
Tim May wrote...
I don't believe, necessarily, in certain forms of the Copenhagen
Interpretation, especially anything about signals propagating
instantaneously,
'instantaneously' from -whose- perspective?
From anyone's perspective. A signal carries information. You can't
use quantum mechanics to propagate a signal faster than light. If
you think otherwise, allow me to refer you to the last chapter in
Quantum Mechanics, L. Schiff, where you will find the commutation
relations for electromagnetic fields.
Yes, this has been a fashionable set of statements, very smiliar to
quantum mechanics is merely a useful tool for calclating the outcome
of experiments.
Only so long as there are -not- relativistic effects, which -do- happen
-any- time a photon is involved.
Don't be ridiculous. Relativistic quantum mechanics is not even a new
discipline. See Bjorken Drell, Vols. I and II, written circa 1963. The
dirac equation has been around for almost 3/4 of a century and the
klein-gordon equation has been around about 80 years. Had the physicists
of the 1920's been able to interpret the klein-gordon equation at the
time, we would have probably had a relativistic theory before the
non-relativistic theory. The schroedinger equation is a result of needing
an equation that's linear in the time variable, due to not knowing at the
time, how to interpret the quadratic which appears if one substitutes the
quantum operators for the dynamical variables in E^2 = p^2 + m^2 (c==1).
Your comment about photons is equally ridiculous. I can derive the qed
lagrangian from the dirac equation in about 1 page of arithmetic, just by
requiring the lagrangian to be locally gauge invariant and applying
noether's theorem to obtain the conserved current. What do you think the
A^{u} in the covariant derivative is? Nevermind, I'll tell you. It's the
field of the electron. Sure, relativity is involved. And it's involved in
a very well understood way. Just start with the dirac lagrangian,
L = \Psibar(p/ - m)\Psi and make the substitution \Psi-\Psi\exp(iS),
where S is ann arbitrary function of the spacetime variable, to obtain
the new lagrangian, L'. For the lagrangian to be locally gauge invariant,
the variation, \delta L = L' - L, must vanish to first order.
General relativity is irrelevant, since (1) we aren't in a strong
gravitational field and the gravitational interaction is about 10^{-32} of
the strength of the EM field, anyway, (2) spacetime is locally flat and
the minimal coupling model in general relativity assumes there is no
curvature coupling, (3) The main difference would end up being that the
photons would propagate along null geodesics that are curved rather than
along null geodesics that are flat. (4) You can replace the ordinary
gauge covariant derivatives with the general relativistically covariant
derivatives. [See for example, Problem Book for General Relativity,
Lighthman, et al, where there is a worked example which includes a
mention of curvature coupling (I think that's the name of the book, but
I don't have it handy, to check it)].
For relativistic quantum field theory to even work, one must appeal
to the same unobservability of the wavefunction, if one is to obtain
a conserved current.
***Reality is -observer- dependent***
The major hole in -all- current QM systems is they do not take into
account relativistic effects. Which are required -any time- a photon is
involved.
There is no major hole. Not even a minor pinprick. You should take a
look at any relativistic quantum mechanics text or any text on quantum
field theory [Gauge Theories of the Strong, Weak and Electromagnetic
Interactions, C. Quigg, is straightforward and physically illuminating].
QED is the most precise theory ever proposed in the entire
history of science. It's a purely relativistic field theory which served
as the prototype for the standard model, which currently explains all
known phenomena except gravity. Incorporating gravity and the standard
model into a single theory is a _technical_ issue not an issue of either
quanum mechanics or general relativity being wrong. Quite the contrary,
both are bviously correct for any purpose that doesn't include black holes
or possibly neutron stars, and even in those cases, one can do quantum
field theory. See Aspects of Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime,
S. Fulling, for an example of quantum field theory in curved spacetime.
I used to chant this too, but the recent (well, over the last 10 years)
experimental work in EPR has convinced me that there's really something
odd going on here.
Many worlds (first proposed in the 50s and recently revived) is one
possible explanation for why, for instance, photons in the double slit
experiment know about the slit they didn't go through. And while I am
not particularly convinced that this is the explanation (there are other
basic things about the QM world it
Re: QM, A-B, and the Z
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote: And no, Relativity and QM have -not- been joined into a -single cohesive theory-. You have to qualify this. No, I don't. General relativity has not been unified with quantum mechanics in any way that is universally accepted yet, but the superstring and M-Theory cats may be closing in. We aren't playing horse-shoes or handgrenades. Almost doesn't count. Special relativity is of course a completely diferent story. That's the almost there, you're flogging a dead horse here. Double whaledreck (I actually never heard that phrase before...) Read Brunner, it's an actual word. It's what's left over after all the good stuff at a whaling station has finished with a carcass. First of all, an intermediate vector boson is not even remotely a photon, It sure as hell ain't a Fermion... Let's take the definition of a boson from Q is for Quantum (pp. 58, ISBN 0-297-81752-3): A particle which obeys Bose-Einstein statistics. All bosons have integer spin (1, 2, and so on). They are the particles associated with the transmission of forces (for example, the photon carries the electromagnetic force) I believe we're done here. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Re: CDR: Re: Many Worlds Version of Fermi Paradox
hi, --- Jim Choate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Sarad AV wrote: As you already see-what you say is correct for your definition of proof and axiom. Here is the fundamental error in your thinking, you are trying to argue apples and oranges. how do you know that apples and oranges are not same or are same? Its the way you look at it. Its where what ur definition of an apple and orange is -how you interpret your apples and oranges and how you see your apples and oranges. As my comments alude to, what you are doing is trying to argue geometry using two different 5th's -at the same time-. While it was certainly done historically for a considerable amount of time, that itself is a logical contradiction. There are two choices: There is no contadiction-there is more than one solution to a problem-we just have to accept that. - demonstrate the two are equivalent, and we go forward with our little game ofcourse-i am least interested in games.I am trying to understand things better. - recognize they are not equivalent, and we end the discussion because there is really no discussion to be had Your choice. I did n't say they are equivalent-simply said that there is more than one way at looking at it and there is more than one solution to a problem which are not equivalent since their *domain* is different . Regards Sarath. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: CDR: Re: Liars Paradox Fermi paradox
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Sarad AV wrote: There has been much speculation around Fermi's famous question: Where are they? Why haven't we seen any traces of intelligent extraterrestrial life?. One way in which this question has been answered (Brin 1983) is that we have not seen any traces of intelligent extraterrestrial life because there is no extraterrestrial life because intelligent extraterrestrial life tend to self-destruct soon after it reaches the stage where it can engage in cosmic colonization and communication. This is the same conclusion as that of the Doomsday argument (i.e.: we are likely to perish soon), but arrived at trough a wholly different line of argument. So does the fermi paradox mean that there are no extra terrestrials.Can't we throw away this paradox like every other paradox? There is no paradox, only a unanswered question. When one is faced with a paradox it is usually more helpfull not to ask what is 'wrong with it' but rather 'what mistake in assumption have I made'. In this case the assumption is that we've covered all the potentials and that we understand what a alien civilization would do (even though we have not even come close to reaching that technology). This 'paradox' is only an example of our curiosity -and- our hubris. There is at least one other alternative, of course my own favorite... As technology increases the rate of increase increases (the famous spike or whatever you want to call it). The way the curve is usually drawn is a straight exponential. However I believe this is wrong. I believe that the rules of the cosmos are simple and limited, and that the total number of things that can be done with such a set is limited as a result. Additionaly there are many 'impossibility theorems' that set other limits. So the technology growth curve should actually be a tanh() sort of shape. The question is: Once a civilization reachs the upper asymptote of the curve (in other words they learn pretty much all they can learn) what do they do with it? In particular, do the totality of laws and effects allow the creation of other cosmoses? Are the physical rules of those cosmoses fixed, decidable, or random? What are the results of each of those choices? When the cosmos is generated does it 'enclose' the generator or is it a 'seperable effect in time-space' (in other words I'm here and the cosmos 'bubble' is over 'there' at least for a while). My view summed up into something like Clarke's Law: Any civilization suitably advanced creates it's own custom cosmoses and moves in. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Re: Using Brin to thwart ISP subpoenas
At 12:41 PM 1/3/2003 -0500, you wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 06:16:48PM -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: A year or two ago, I suggested to someone associated with http://www.thebunker.com (an ISP based in an underground ex-RAF bunker in Britain) that they set up a web-accessible camera on the entrance, so that anyone could detect an attack in progress. Hmm. Why couldn't any corporate officer of an ISP be served at home, on the golf course, in a car on the way to work, at a grocery store, etc.? And why couldn't the court order say be silent? If cypherpunks and the general pubilc know about such security practices, the TLAs would as well. One of my parallel suggestions was to have all the officers and directors non-resident foreigners. steve
Re: Dossiers and Customer Courtesy Cards
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, John Kelsey wrote: It's worth pointing out that if you can afford to do the computerized part of this search for your top 16 suspects today, you'll be able to do it for your top thousand suspects in less than ten years, just assuming processing and storage gets cheaper at current rates I think you're being very conservative here. You can package several GBytes of memory and about a TByte worth of EIDE RAID drive into a 1U system with dual GBit Ethernet. A single facility with a redundancy pool of spares could contain 10^3..10^4 nodes, running for about a megabuck/year for juice and air conditioning. 10 PByte of nonvolatile storage and ~40 TByte of RAM accessed by dual CPUs could easily run data mining on the entire Earth's population (in reality only a fraction of it which generates traffic will be of interest), especially if they run custom dbase code out of core, and use nonvolatile storage mostly as libraries. Assuming there are some 100*10^6 users each of them is sending a 1 kByte pure text email/day a single HD drive will hold a day of world's worth of email traffic, uncompressed. Good quality human voice compresses to about 1.5 kByte/s. Above assembly could store about 3 hours of 100 million people jabbering simultanously. You can of course also run voice recognition either in realtime, or do batch processing of selected stuff from the library. That's the theory, no one knows who is running where what.
Re: Liars Paradox Fermi paradox
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Sarad AV wrote: So does the fermi paradox mean that there are no extra terrestrials.Can't we throw away this paradox like every other paradox? It's easier to assume we don't know what we're looking for. That's not a paradox at all. If you measure the same thing under different conditions, or worse, measre different things under what appear to be the same conditions, you have a paradox. Just because there is no intellegent life on this planet doesn't mean there isn't intellegent life elsewhere :-) Patience, persisstence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: CDR: Re: Liars Paradox Fermi paradox
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Mike Rosing wrote: On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Sarad AV wrote: So does the fermi paradox mean that there are no extra terrestrials.Can't we throw away this paradox like every other paradox? It's easier to assume we don't know what we're looking for. That's not a paradox at all. If you measure the same thing under different conditions, or worse, measre different things under what appear to be the same conditions, you have a paradox. Sorry, that's not a paradox. It does directly address -your assumption the conditions are the same-. What it -actually- implies is that there is one or more unknown parameters you are -not- controlling. Hence, the conditions are -not- the same. A paradox is when you have two or more sets of assertions built from the same axioms. Each can be shown to be 'true'. Each leads to a -different- result or conclusion when, the results -should- be the same. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Re: Dossiers and Customer Courtesy Cards
Not in any 1U system that I know of unless you mean multiple racks. The biggest ATA drives I see on the market today are 200GB. Most 1U systems won't hold more than two of these. That's nowhere near 1TB! Also you're forgetting about doing backups; and I don't know about you, but I get a fuckload more email than 1K/day. Granted, averaged out over the entire population of the earth - what over 99% of don't even have email, it may well be 1k/day/person. Further, you'd want more than one GigE port on these machines just so as to deal with the traffic. And you'll need lots of cage monkeys to run around replacing failed disks. Do the math if the MTBF of one disk is 10,000 hours, what is the MTBF of say 2 spindles (disks) per machines multiplied by 1 machines? One failure every 5 hours? Hell, that's even assuming MTBF is that high! Have you see: http://www17.tomshardware.com/column/200210141/index.html ? You're probably also discounting the sheer amount of bandwidth required to copy all that data, route it to each of those thousands of 1U nodes, and then analyze it near real time and provide the ability to search through the results. Oh, You'd need several such centers since the worlds data flows aren't centralized. I wonder what the specs are for those nice Echelon centers already in existence Likely they're very different from what you propose. --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ --*--:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :their failures, we |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Eugen Leitl wrote: SNIP I think you're being very conservative here. You can package several GBytes of memory and about a TByte worth of EIDE RAID drive into a 1U system with dual GBit Ethernet. A single facility with a redundancy pool of spares could contain 10^3..10^4 nodes, running for about a megabuck/year for juice and air conditioning. 10 PByte of nonvolatile storage and ~40 TByte of RAM accessed by dual CPUs could easily run data mining on the entire Earth's population (in reality only a fraction of it which generates traffic will be of interest), especially if they run custom dbase code out of core, and use nonvolatile storage mostly as libraries. Assuming there are some 100*10^6 users each of them is sending a 1 kByte pure text email/day a single HD drive will hold a day of world's worth of email traffic, uncompressed. Good quality human voice compresses to about 1.5 kByte/s. Above assembly could store about 3 hours of 100 million people jabbering simultanously. You can of course also run voice recognition either in realtime, or do batch processing of selected stuff from the library. SNIP
Re: Liars Paradox Fermi paradox
At 12:39 AM 01/04/2003 -0800, Sarad AV wrote: There has been much speculation around Fermi's famous question: Where are they? Why haven't we seen any traces of intelligent extraterrestrial life?. One way in which this question has been answered (Brin 1983) is that we have not seen any traces of intelligent extraterrestrial life because there is no extraterrestrial life because intelligent extraterrestrial life tend to self-destruct soon after it reaches the stage where it can engage in cosmic colonization and communication. I prefer the argument (I think from Calvin Hobbes) that any aliens smart enough to do space travel are smart enough not to waste their time on this messed-up planet with loser species like Homo sapiens. So does the fermi paradox mean that there are no extra terrestrials. Can't we throw away this paradox like every other paradox? I'd argue that this is different. Most interesting paradoxes are interesting because they're caused by the weaknesses in our tools (e.g. Xeno not being very good at continuous math), and become more interesting if they encourage us to build better tools, or because they question or expose edges in the applicability of language as a tool for analyzing reality, or because they help us to question our assumptions about fundamental issues like the nature of ourselves and other things (e.g. Zen koans), or because they expose the differences between a surface understanding of an issue and the deeper aspects that take more work to understand. In the case of the Fermi Paradox, the weaker form (why aren't they here) is easier to counter than the stronger form (why don't we at least see signals from their radio communications), but it's a probabilistic argument bases on a large number of assumptions, and unless the probabilities are large enough, it doesn't catalyze into an expanding system that we'd see, as opposed to at most a bunch of little blips that we'd miss. Some of the assumptions for the stronger form - what life is - how prevalent are the conditions that life needs to form, - what's the probability that it will form if it can, - how long that will take, - how old the Universe is and how fast it's expanding, - how long it will take for conditions in which life can evolve to obtain, - how likely that life will evolve beings that use radio or other noisy long-distance communication tools or signal byproducts - how long the beings stay in that phase - how strong the signals will be at the source - how far away they'll be from us at the time, - thus how weak the signals will be - whether we have the capability to detect those signals, - how likely it is that we'll actually detect them if we can, - how likely it is that we'll recognize them as signals if we detect them, - how likely that a group of aliens that have technology would be *interested* in contact unknown distant life forms - whether aliens who were interested would think it was worthwhile, given that the response time for such a project would be very long, unless they thought there were lots of aliens nearby, - whether they'd try doing it using signals of types we'd listen for, - how loud their signals would be at the source if they do - whether they succeed in reaching other aliens if they try (similar arguments about whether those aliens could detect it, scaled up by the number of listening aliens within range) - whether those other aliens decide it's worth replying, as opposed to deciding that the senders are long-dead - whether the original senders would be around to have a slow conversation - whether the second group of aliens would decide to start a SETI program whether or not they replied - whether we'd detect the reply or any followon SETI program - whether the density of aliens with SETI programs is sufficient to evolve into conversations - whether any group of intercommunicating aliens can find anything interesting to say to each other, given the time delays - whether the conversations evolve into The Net Of A Million Lies - whether the conversations merely evolve into a scaled Usenet, which has been described as a slowly-moving parody of itself - whether some of the potential participants decide not to bother, because the other aliens appear to be made out of meat :-) http://www.terrybisson.com/meat.html The weaker form involves aliens actually doing interstellar space travel. It gets into additional assumptions about - how closely spaced together are star systems capable of supporting alien life? Such systems are more common that planets that can evolve sentient life, because the aliens would be technologically advanced and able to tolerate a wider range of conditions, at least for a while, and the alien life might end up staying in space rather than colonizing planets, depending on conditions - how long can those systems support
