December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: hackers and minick
by SteffenHo＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 98-01-29 15:44:07 EST, kes21(a)chat.ru writes: << Hello there!!! I send this letter because i want to know anything about hackers Kevin Mitnick please send more information about these topics my E-mail kes21(a)chat.ru >> www.mitnick.com or www.kevinmitnick.com

1 0

Re: Interesting Chemical Reaction (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:36:28 -0500 > From: ghio(a)temp0200.myriad.ml.org (Matthew Ghio) > Subject: Re: Interesting Chemical Reaction > Here's something to ponder: > > Consider two objects initially at the same temperature. One is at the > focus of a hemispherical mirror. An elliptical mirror with both objects > at its foci encloses the remaining space. > > Because of the spherical mirror, the first object reabsorbs most of its > heat lost by radiation, but most of the second object's radiated heat is > reflected upon the first. Hence the first object becomes warmer relative > to the second. > > The entropy here appears to decrease, but according to thermodynamics that > is impossible. Can anyone explain how it is that the total entropy would > not decrease? > Because the thermodynamics assume a *closed* model. The base assumption of your model is that it is closed. This means that not only the mirror, and the two focii are in the system, but also the light source. When taken as a whole the entropy is constant. Now if you allow the light to pass through the mirror from outside an initial axiomatic assumption, a closed system, is broken. This is the reason that thermodynamic arguments against evolution fail, the Earth is most certainly *not* a closed system. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: EPR, Bell, and FTL Bandwidth (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Eric Cordian <emc(a)wire.insync.net> > Subject: Re: EPR, Bell, and FTL Bandwidth (fwd) > Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:53:28 -0600 (CST) > >> Someday in the future, I open my cookie, and instantly know what > >> Lucky will see when he opens his. > > > True, but your opening your cookie does not *force* Lucky to open his > > at the same time. This is one fault with this model. The 'state' of > > the cookies are not inter-dependant as the polarization of the photon > > pairs are. > > While it is true that my examining my cookie does not force Lucky to > examine his, the same can be said of a photon experiment, where the > photons can remain in flight for an arbitrary period of time before > being measured. Um, actualy no. Since the photons are coupled we know that the second photon has actualy changed it's polarization, either that or your original assumption they are coupled is not true. The polarization between the two photons *must* be zero. Otherwise you arent' playing with our physics. > The state of the cookies is highly correlated, since they have > opposite values. The polarization of the photon pairs is similarly > correlated, as they have equal values. Correlation is not a function of any quantity conservation operation. The values of the photons are actualy opposite and therefore sum to zero. Foo is not the inverse of Bar, as is the case for horizontal and vertical polarization. > > It isn't instantanous, the correlation existed when they were printed > > and doesn't change. > > And indeed in the photon case, the entanglement exists when two > photons with correlated wavefunctions are created. True, but the swap of polarization was *not*. That occured later and is what changes instantly irrespective of distance. > > If I destroy one of the cookies it doesn't destroy the other > > spontaneously as would happen in a correlated photon-pair. > > Nope. Destroying one of a pair of entangled photons does nothing to > the other. Yes, it causes the correlation to be destroyed. You are not taking into account the correllation or polarization dependency between the two photons. Our base assumption is that when photon A is horizontal then photon B is vertical. This *must* occur to preserve symmetry. [more stuff deleted] ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

More down-to-earth apps for quantum teleportation...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, On a slightly different tack, consider the application of quantum teleportation to computer construction issues related to propagation delays and multiplexing of data and control lines in limited volumes. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Can someone look this up? (fwd)
by Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 21:48:14 -0500 From: Salvatore Denaro <sal(a)panix.com> To: 'Ray Arachelian' <sunder(a)brainlink.com> Subject: Can someone look this up? Can someone on the list look this up? *************************************************************** If the government has no knowledge of aliens, then why does Title 14, Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations, implemented on July 16, 1969, make it illegal for U.S. citizens to have any contact with extraterrestrials or their vehicles?

3 2

Re: Can someone look this up? (fwd)
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Can someone on the list look this up? > >*************************************************************** >If the government has no knowledge of aliens, then why does >Title 14, Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations, >implemented on July 16, 1969, make it illegal for U.S. >citizens to have any contact with extraterrestrials or their >vehicles? Very SETI/UFO-mysterious. Here's what's listed (three times) at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html [Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 14, Volume 5, Parts 1200 to end] [Revised as of January 1, 1997] >From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 14CFR1211] [Page 75] TITLE 14--AERONAUTICS AND SPACE CHAPTER V--NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PART 1211--[Reserved] ---------- That's the entire entry.

1 0

Re: Predicting cipher life / NSA rigged DES? / Destroying encrypted data (Tangent to Re: Burning papers)
by jim＠mentat.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Randall Farmer skribis: > Been thinking, most applications for ciphers assume solely based on cipher x's > keysize that data will be secure for a certain length of time. ... > My idea ... is averaging the remaining lifetimes in > analysis-hours of broken ciphers which survived as many person-hours of attack > as the one in question. Doesn't seem terribly likely. Typically ciphers will look strong until someone discovers a chink. The chink will sometimes lead to a serious break, but not always, and not always quickly -- but at that point the cipher looks weak. Your best chance at encrypting stuff that needs a long shelf life is with a cipher that's had a lot of analysis and plenty of intrinsic key, like 3DES. > Am I just going crazy, or is it kind of obvious that NSA knew the s-boxes they > provided for DES weren't secure? The former. The S-boxes they replaced were bogus, and the ones they came up with were good against differential cryptanalysis -- better than random ones. There's no a priori reason to believe they knew about linear cryptanalysis, and in any case Matsui's l.c. attack on DES is better than brute force only in situations where you have a great deal of known or chosen plaintext. So how come you claim they aren't secure? DES isn't suitable for long-archived info, but is still OK for short-lifetime data against a not-too-motivated attacker: its only known weakness for this application is its key-length, not its S-boxes. > Anyhow, these two (or three) values are XORed together to form the key used to > encrypt the volume. When your adversaries, armed with their trusty rubber > hoses, come knocking at and/or down your door, you hit a hotkey to start > destroying those 24 bytes on disk, which can be done faster and more > effectively than a wipe of every sector in the volume. The folks with the I like it! Jim Gillogly Trewesday, 8 Solmath S.R. 1998, 00:27 12.19.4.15.17, 8 Caban 15 Muan, Second Lord of Night

3 4

waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=3424713596+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 14, Volume 5, Parts 1200 to end] [Revised as of January 1, 1997] >From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 14CFR1211] [Page 75] TITLE 14--AERONAUTICS AND SPACE CHAPTER V--NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PART 1211--[Reserved]

1 0

Re: EPR, Bell, and FTL Bandwidth (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Eric Cordian <emc(a)wire.insync.net> > Subject: Re: EPR, Bell, and FTL Bandwidth (fwd) > Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:30:56 -0600 (CST) > No. Doing something to the first photon does not do anything to the > second, much less change its polarization. The operators for > polarization for the two photons commute, so they are simultaneously > measureable. This is the last I'm going to respond to this. The photons are 'entangled' which means their states are linked and co-dependant. [rest deleted] ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Can someone look this up? (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 19:16:36 -0500 (EST) > From: Ray Arachelian <sunder(a)sundernet.com> > Subject: Can someone look this up? (fwd) > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 21:48:14 -0500 > From: Salvatore Denaro <sal(a)panix.com> > To: 'Ray Arachelian' <sunder(a)brainlink.com> > Subject: Can someone look this up? > > Can someone on the list look this up? > > *************************************************************** > If the government has no knowledge of aliens, then why does > Title 14, Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations, > implemented on July 16, 1969, make it illegal for U.S. > citizens to have any contact with extraterrestrials or their > vehicles? It is of some interest to note that in the movie 'Andromeda Strain' the code that trips Wildfire is a '1211'... ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0