Slashdot Mirror
"Nearly Unbreakable" Encryption Scheme Inspired By Human Biology
rjmarvin (3001897) writes "Researchers at the U.K.'s Lancaster University have reimagined the fundamental logic behind encryption, stumbling across a radically new way to encrypt data while creating software models to simulate how the human heart and lungs coordinate rhythms. The encryption method published in the American Physical Society journal and filed as a patent entitled 'Encoding Data Using Dynamic System Coupling,' transmits and receive multiple encrypted signals simultaneously, creating an unlimited number of possibilities for the shared encryption key and making it virtually impossible to decrypt using traditional methods. One of the researchers, Peter McClintock, called the encryption scheme 'nearly unbreakable.'
The median temperature of earth is still rising and has been for a while now. Thus, global warming is still a valid theory and part of the wider theory of climate change.
So all the hot stuff we've been chucking into our environment for the last couple centuries just magickally went away? All the CO and SO2 likewise? All the forests that have been cleared sprang up anew someplace else that only you managed to notice?
I just try really hard not to think too much about the many mental hoops some folks must jump through to avoid conclusions that should be patently obvious to any 6th-grader of reasonable intelligence.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
you never did answer his questions, infact, you seem to shut the argument down rather quickly which leads me to believe you dont have one.
If his logical fallacy is wrong, whats your argument? how is it that our temperature in a 100 years has grown so fast when normally stuff like this takes thousands of years. Do you really believe that cutting all these trees down and dumping all the co2 in the air is ok? if so why do you believe that? Do you not understand how greenhouse gasses work? If so, explain how dumping a bunch of co2 in the air is ok, if not go read up on it and then answer my question...its ok, ill wait....... What about how the temperature has risen with the co2 levels to a frighting degree of similarity?
There are alot of reasons to believe man is involved, can you provide some logical reason why man is not involved?
Please provide some intelligent argument, your little one liners are cute and amusing, but in no way do the explain the opposing side, infact...i have never really heard a opposing argument, no logical explanation for any of my questions and many more.
Which part do you have difficulty accepting?
The "greenhouse effect" of CO2?
This is a pretty well established, and can be easily tested in microcosm in the lab. We know the transparency of the atmosphere, and we know that CO2 absorbs strongly in a part of the infrared spectrum that the atmosphere is otherwise mostly transparent to, a part that corresponds roughly with part of the peak at which the Earth's surface measurably radiates heat in order to maintain thermal equilibrium. And we've established that historical temperature fluctuations track quite well with the combination of solar radiance and atmospheric CO2 - neither alone tracks well with temperature, nor has any other mechanism been proposed that tracks nearly so well.
Man-made atmospheric CO2 buildup?
We can calculate pretty accurately the amount of CO2 produced by global fossil fuel consumption, and we can measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere. For as long as we've been measuring it it has been increasing in line with human production. Even with a complicated environmental carbon cycle that's not fully understood it's pretty hard to argue that the expansion of a pool at N gallons per minute has nothing to do with the N+k gallons per minute you're pumping into it.
That humanity could be pumping enough energy into the system to be having an effect?
You'd be right, we can't. Not directly anyway. But we can calculate quite easily how much additional solar heat will be captured by a given quantity of atmospheric CO2, and it's on the order of 1,000,000x greater than the heat produced by burning enough fossil fuels to create that CO2. Imagine a world filled with a million times more people, each burning just as much fuel as today - that's how much total heat we're indirectly responsible for adding to the world. Just to put that in perspective - the Earth has ~150 million km^2 of land area, or currently about 21,000 square meters (5 acres) per person. With a million times as many people that would drop to 0.02 m^2 per person, or about 4 people per square foot. At that point it becomes pretty hard to argue that we aren't going to have an impact.
The absence of natural feedback systems that will correct for things?
These could admittedly exist, and in fact a number have been found, but none discovered so far have the potential to operate nearly as fast as necessary to compensate for the rate at which we're pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. It's possible that at some point some other unsuspected effect will kick in, but we also know that the Earth has spent much of it's long life being far warmer than during the ice age we're currently in an interglacial period within, so it's clearly possible to overcome whatever balancing systems may exist.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.