December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: GSM technology
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Shear <azur(a)netcom.com> writes: > [very useful explanation of GSM TDMA, and the new HSCSD] 64 kbit/s tied to ISDN is very nice technology. > ENCRYPTED GSM LINKS > If the GSM phone includes a data port, as some already do, just connect > your laptop, dial your ISP and 'push' the encrypted traffic over that link > (e.g., using TCP/IP and PGPfone). This would obviously be possible, but to my mind reduces the appeal of the system. Not every one has a laptop. Even if the potential user does have a laptop, booting windows95, and starting up PGPfone is an onerous task compared to just dialing a number on a mobile phone. It's a user friendliness issue, and a question of ergonomics. A mobile phone is more portable than a GSM phone with a laptop plugged into the data port. You can't fit the laptop and GSM phone combination into your shirt pocket. What are you going to use for a handset? Radio operators headphone (with mike attached to the headset) plugged into the laptop? That's more dangling wires, and makes the system less portable, and even more onerous to setup (take laptop from carry bag, plug in headphones, plug in phone data port, wait for laptop to boot, etc). Even for crypto enthousiasts, I would submit that many would neglect to go through the hassle of going through PGPfone for most conversations, and would instead just use the mobile phone in the clear (or with A5 encryption). This for similar reasons to the situation with PGP itself, many people rarely use PGP, even though there is abundant software available to use it seamlessly with most mail readers. (I can vouch for mailcrypt.el the emacs interface to PGP, and use it for to anyone who has a PGP key, and does not express displeasure at receiving encrypted email). Also, the cell phone tarriffs may be higher if you need higher bandwidth to get the software only voice codec implementations in PGPfone to produce equivalent full-duplex voice quality to that expected from a digital mobile phone. Not knocking the mobile phone and laptop combination for the purpose of having mobile TCP/IP access from a laptop, I know several people who have this combination, though only at 9.6kbits, and even at that speed it is very neat. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

2 1

Re: [Math Noise] (fwd)
by Mike Duvos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> writes: > An arbitrary Real can be constructed from the Rationals. If > we accept the proposition, as posed apparently by you and > others, of uncountable Reals then your 'assumption' fails, > otherwise the 'uncountable' members would be countable. We can construct the Reals from the Rationals without having to speak of each specific Real while doing so. A formal system, having only a countable number of strings of symbols from its alphabet, can speak of "The Real Numbers" even though it cannot speak of "The Real Number X" for every single X in the Reals. > A 'limit point' is not the same as 'equal to'. Arbitrarily > close is not equivalent, inherent in the definition of a > limit point is the concept of 'little o' and 'big o', or > worded differently our axiomatic definition of infinity. In standard analysis, the limit of a sequence A[n] is a value x such that given any positive epsilon, no matter how small, we can find a point in the sequence such that all its members after that point are within epsilon of x. Such a limit, if it exists, is unique and exactly defined. "Little o" and "big o" are concepts from complexity theory and I am not precisely sure why you feel they need to be mentioned. > I can, but there is no fundamental rule in mathematics > that requires me to ignore the small but distinct > difference between the element in the original set and the > sequences used to approximate it. In the general case, the limit point will not be a member of the sequence which approximates it. Although every member of the sequence is a finite distance away from the limit, the limit itself is, as I previously mentioned, exactly known without any ambiguity. > It is something that must be agreed upon by accepting a > particular axiomatic definition of infinity. An "infinity" is simply the property of being able to be put in 1-1 correspondence with a proper subset of oneself. > The number of cuts are 1-to-1 with the Reals, they are not > the Reals. There is no way I can make a cut which is > 3.1527, only 1-to-1 with the number(s). Important > distinction. Mathematical objects are sets with structure. We generally consider two mathematical objects equivalent if there exists a 1-1 correspondence between the respective sets which is structure preserving. What the actual members of the set are, and how they were constructed, is usually unimportant. For all practical purposes we may refer to any mathematical object isomorphic to the Reals as "The Reals", without any confusion. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

1 0

how to get off this list
by Marc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How on earth an i meant to get off this mailing list??? have tried loadz of the un scribe says its undone it but it bloody hasnt someone help me

1 0

Re: Thoughts re moderation, filtering, and name changes
by hjk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just one thing about the names of the different lists: I received a mail listing the changes to come. It was very easy to understand that I am going to get the moderated list if I do not change my subscription.I'll find out if I will miss something. We'll see. I wonder who is so brainless, not to understand what's going on. Do you really think the subscribers are pure Idiots? Heinz-Juergen Keller email: hjk(a)ddorf.rhein-ruhr.de

1 0

Re: GSM technology
by Nurdane Oksas 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Adam Back wrote: > > Steve Shear <azur(a)netcom.com> writes: > > [very useful explanation of GSM TDMA, and the new HSCSD] > > 64 kbit/s tied to ISDN is very nice technology. Does anyone use ADSL lines? or are they still very expensive? > > ENCRYPTED GSM LINKS > > If the GSM phone includes a data port, as some already do, just connect > > your laptop, dial your ISP and 'push' the encrypted traffic over that link > > (e.g., using TCP/IP and PGPfone). [...]

1 0

Re: [Math Noise] (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > And I contend that ANY number which is Real can be expressed by the decimal > > expansion above. Which clearly qualifies as a formal system. > > To be a formal system of the type required, you would also have to > specify deterministic rules that could generate the "Ai" values. The > key distinction is between "expressed by" and "generated by". But we do have a formal system for generating those terms. Dedekind Cuts used to enumerate the value of an arbitrary length compared to the unit length.

1 0

Re: One time pads and randomness?
by Rick Osborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>[Blurb on OTPs ...] I realize this has a limited amount of >messages before it is used up. But would this be secure? >Any suggestions, complaints, big gapping holes I missed? TMK, this is as close to a perfectly secure system as can be achieved. *AS LONG AS* the disks/discs are never compromised and never reused. As an interesting sidenote, if you read Tom Clancy's "Sum of All Fears" this is the type of system the CIA wants to implement even though the NSA doesn't want to back them because they think their (compromised) sytem is secure. Don't we all wish... _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ "I thought your patience was infinte?" 'Since space and time are curved, the infinite sooner or later bends back upon itself and ends up where it began and so have I.'

1 0

Re: Dedikend Cut's and such (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > > Did a little research, Dedekind Cut's and such use Integers to define a > > SPECIFIC Real to a arbitrary BUT FIXED resolution. They do not define the > > set of Reals. > > They do. The set of all numbers representable by a DC is precisely > the set of reals. Then you are saying that using Dedekind Cut's it is possible to define the ENTIRE set of Reals? I am assuming that entire includes all those Reals which aren't representable by any algorithm and of which we can't even speak (even though we are). Another pretty nifty trick. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

Re: [Math Noise] (fwd)
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate allegedly said: > [...] > The number of cuts are 1-to-1 with the Reals, they are not the Reals. > There is no way I can make a cut which is 3.1527, only 1-to-1 with the > number(s). Important distinction. They are 1-1 with the Reals, you can define all the operations on them that are defined for reals, for every representable real (like 3.1527) there exists a DC. You have some idea, perhaps that there are "real" reals, as opposed to the various constructs for defining them? Perhaps you could define what a "real" real would be? -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F

1 0

FW: AUTO ANSWER MESSAGE.
by Butler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have set up an autoresponder to bounce back all of this jerks responses. Like a game of e-mail tennis ! I'm sure that he will get sick before I do ! Scott >---------- >From: Gerardo_NUNO@bourns.com[SMTP:Gerardo_NUNO@bourns.com] >Sent: 17 January 1997 18:38 >To: Butler, Scott >Subject: AUTO ANSWER MESSAGE. > > > > ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC06CB.51582470 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; NAME="/HPOFFICE/NETMAIL/C1738354.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970120081000.9885T(a)crl6.crl.com> =8C=8D=8AFrom : "Gerardo NUNO"@[PRCL/01] ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC06CB.51582470 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; NAME="/HPOFFICE/NETMAIL/C1738355.txt" Content-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970120081000.9885U(a)crl6.crl.com> Please check the name and e-mail address of the person that you're looking. Since gerardo_nuno is out of the system temporary. attn. System Administration. ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC06CB.51582470--

1 0