Slashdot Mirror


Happy Birthday Alan Turing! How Modern Technology Could Win WWII In 13 Minutes (digitalocean.com)

DevNull127 writes: A grateful reporter whose father-in-law liberated a concentration camp after D-Day reports on a high-tech team that "accomplished in 13 minutes what took Alan Turing years to do — and at a cost of just $7."

"In late 2017, at the Imperial War Museum in London, developers applied modern AI techniques to break the 'unbreakable' Enigma machine used by the Nazis to encrypt their correspondences in World War II."

Two Polish co-founders of a company called Enigma Pattern decided to honor Alan Turing's ground-breaking work at Bletchley Park, where Turing had automated the testing of over 15 billion possible passwords each day by building what's considered the first modern computer. They took the problem to a modern cloud infrastructure provider, renting what one describes as "2,000 minions that do the tedious work" — specifically, crunching 41 million combinations each second — using Grimm's Fairy Tales to train an algorithm to recognize when they had found a commonly-used German word (including familiar bedtime stories like Hansel & Gretl and Rumpelstiltskin). "In the end the AI could not understand German. But it did what machine learning does best: recognize patterns."

"After 13 minutes of minion work, boom! The new Bombe had broken the code."

Turing's birthday is Saturday — and it's nice to see him being remembered so fondly.

107 comments

  1. Ironic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Turing test is failing on slashdot and they celebrate his birthday anyhow. Let's get another round of denialist shitposting from Superliar Kendall and Ivan's fake account posse in here.

    1. Re:Ironic. by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      The Turing test is failing on slashdot and they celebrate his birthday anyhow.

      I'm sure he's very glad of that six feet under.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:Ironic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wasn't the Turing test. Look it up.

    3. Re:Ironic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know what the Turing test was, I was making a point about the level of shitposting by certain denialist faggots who lie constantly as part of their daily routine and their sentience level versus modern AI. Comparable enough, no?

    4. Re:Ironic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't say "faggots" in an Alan Turing thread.

    5. Re: Ironic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This title is the perfect embodiment of the naive, child minded, liberal douchebags on slushdump.

      Thinking a war can be won in 13 minutes because of what? Code breaking.

      Retards: there is much much more to a war that this.

    6. Re: Ironic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too many faggots turned out by the machine. Thank you, Alan âshitpackerâ(TM) turing.

    7. Re: Ironic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love whiny Republican INCEL faggots as much as the next pest exterminator, but it's pretty clear the faggot above never served in the military lol. They don't allow Boner Spurts like the cowardly Drumpftard klan. Curb, kick, repeat.

    8. Re: Ironic. by sittingnut · · Score: 1

      given the rabid irrational and irrelevant, response to a valid point, that code breaking had only a minor part in winning the world war two, and as such title displays an ignorant and idiotic mindset, it is quite obvious which of the authors of above two comments have a brain.
      readers can judge the relevance of the political affiliations of each likewise, according to their own brain power.

    9. Re: Ironic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "code breaking had only a minor part in winning the world war two" has not been proven valid. Sorry.

    10. Re: Ironic. by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Thinking a war can be won in 13 minutes because of what

      I could have won the Battle of Hastings (and hence the war of the Norman invasion) for the Saxons in less than 13 minutes if I had been there with a machine gun. Was there a point to this excercise?

    11. Re: Ironic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol some trendy yuppie has a fashionable new "iPhone" that can't even enter ASCII quote characters.

    12. Re: Ironic. by Dzimas · · Score: 1

      We understand that there's more to warfare than cyphers. Your assumption that everyone here is an idiot is irrational, too. That said, code breaking played a critical role in the war.

    13. Re: Ironic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, just look at the writing in the summary:

      A grateful reporter whose father-in-law liberated a concentration camp after D-Day reports on a high-tech team that "accomplished in 13 minutes what took Alan Turing years to do â" and at a cost of just $7."

      It starts off with petty selfâ"aggrandizement written to make the reporter look good for an accomplishment he had nothing to do with and swirls on down from there. I wonder if the reporter starts every WW2 article on his FiL liberating Dachau. Did this FiL murder the German guards there put in place just days before when the longtime Kommandant and guards moved out before capture? I need to know.

    14. Re: Ironic. by Talderas · · Score: 1

      I doubt that you could have won the Battle of Hastings in 13 minutes. Mostly because one machine gun isn't going to be significant enough. There were anywhere from 7,000 to 12,000 Norman invaders. Given a fire rate of 400 rounds a minute, which allows for some control, it would take you 17.5 to 30 minutes to kill all the invaders. That's a really optimistic estimate of 100% accuracy and each bullet fired is a kill. There's also the logistics of ammunition weight. I'll use a figure of 24.5gram which matches 7.62x51mm ammunition. That would mean between 171,500 grams and 294,000 grams of ammunition. For those that need a conversion of kg to pound that's about 380 to 650 pounds, again assuming 100% accuracy. The typical effective engagement range for your machine gun is going to be around 300 meters. Beyond that, you'll miss more than you hit. An average human runs at around 22 miles per hour so I'll knock this down to 15 miles per hour to account for equipment (I'm ignoring the cavalry/archer component of the Norman army). This is equivalent to 6.7 meters per second.

      This gives you a scant 45 seconds before the Norman infantry collides with you. Congratulations on killing less than 300 Norman invaders. You most likely didn't cause a rout. You die as the Normans hack you limb from limb. The Normans still probably win.

      The point to his comment is to paint the appropriate context of the Enigma machine. While the cracking the Enigma did provide the Allies with crucial information that did help in many cases it didn't "win" the war by any metric. Information can't win anything. All it can do is better position you to take advantage of a situation. It's a tool, nothing more.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    15. Re: Ironic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      given the rabid irrational and irrelevant, response to a valid point, that code breaking had only a minor part in winning the world war two, and as such title displays an ignorant and idiotic mindset, it is quite obvious which of the authors of above two comments have a brain. readers can judge the relevance of the political affiliations of each likewise, according to their own brain power.

      You can't change the history but only speculate. How critical the code breaking plays in the war may or may not be minor. Certain information that the US knew from breaking the code may be more critical than many things. The only thing all can say is "what if"; thus, attempting to quantify how much the code breaking help is irrelevant and useless. The only thing everyone should admit is that information from code breaking is used in the war and it helped certain decisions made in the war, period.

      Stop trying to prioritize what is important from the history that can't be changed. Learn from it but not pick and choose what should be remember and what not.

    16. Re: Ironic. by nasch · · Score: 2

      If he had a minigun firing at 6,000 rounds per minute, with an effective range of 1,000 meters, I'd say there's a good chance he could kill enough of them that the rest would flee. They would see their compatriots falling to the ground dead for no apparent reason, accompanied by a strange noise. They'd probably think they were being slaughtered by whatever god they believed in. You definitely wouldn't have to kill the entire army.

  2. Wasn't there a movie about that? by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

    The Final Countdown had F-14s having dog fights with Japanese Zeros. Well, maybe not much of a dog fight, but it was fun.

    If they stayed, wouldn't the the war been won pretty quickly?

    1. Re:Wasn't there a movie about that? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      The Final Countdown had F-14s having dog fights with Japanese

      Wasn't that Europe instead?

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:Wasn't there a movie about that? by lenski · · Score: 1

      It was Japan, and the joke was that the Zero pilots tried hard, but they didn't have a snoball's chance... My favorite line from the flick:

      "Splash the Zero..."

    3. Re:Wasn't there a movie about that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love that song!

    4. Re:Wasn't there a movie about that? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure it was Europe.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    5. Re:Wasn't there a movie about that? by lenski · · Score: 2

      ...I am so old that I saw it in a theater... :-)

      The Final Countdown is a 1980 alternate history science fiction film about a modern aircraft carrier that travels through time to the day before the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    6. Re:Wasn't there a movie about that? by lenski · · Score: 1

      Song, yes. Movie setting, no.

    7. Re:Wasn't there a movie about that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear that swoosh over your head? It’s not an f14 chasing a zero.

    8. Re:Wasn't there a movie about that? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      The Final Countdown had F-14s having dog fights with Japanese Zeros.

      I don’t remember that part; but it ended with Moss (AKA “Word”) defeating Negative One in a game of “Street Countdown”.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    9. Re:Wasn't there a movie about that? by rrohbeck · · Score: 2

      John Birmingham's "Axis Of Time" trilogy expands on the idea. A failed physics experiment creates a wormhole that transports a modern carrier battle group into the middle of Admiral Spruance's fleet on its way to Midway. Great story.

    10. Re:Wasn't there a movie about that? by lenski · · Score: 1

      No link, no reference, no hints, no swoosh. Europe the musical group and "Final Countdown" the song came and went quickly. It peaked at #18 and lasted 13 weeks on the Billboard pop chart. I do admit to never being a hair metal fan.... The link you finally deigned to provide in your smugly superior half-assed cultural reference was the only way to recall the song.

    11. Re: Wasn't there a movie about that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the song subsequently used 50% of the time whenever a panel show or satire show needed to use the word "countdown"

    12. Re:Wasn't there a movie about that? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Fuck the billboard pop chart, it was a disco staple for a decade here.

      Maybe you're too young, too antisocial or just too forgetful to have got the reference but it was pretty obvious for many of us.

    13. Re:Wasn't there a movie about that? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      It's probably not as big an effect as you might think for two main reasons. The first reason is munitions. The F-14's combat advantage was with missile payload. Once all those missiles were expended there would be no replacements and the plane would be relegated to carrying bombs/torpedoes of the day, assuming they could be fitted to the airframe. The second, and more critical, factor would be fuel. The US military was operating planes that used high octane fuel while the planes the USS Nimitz carried were using jet fuel. Peacetime exercises for aircraft carriers can see the wing go through the onboard fuel in about a week. The F14s would be grounded in quick order. The US would need to get a sample of the jet fuel, be able to replicate it with the tools and technology they have and start up an industry and supply chain capable of keeping the Nimitz fed for combat operations.

      Once the fuel is gone and the munitions expired, the USS Nimitz's value is as a carrier that doesn't require refueling to move. The good news is that the Nimitz's flight deck is over 1000 feet long. As long as naval aircraft of the era can takeoff and land on that deck the Nimitz can likely be fairly easily repurposed for that era's aircraft. The Nimitz's catapult would likely wreck the airframes of the craft from the era.

      The ability of the Nimitz to have won the war would really be limited to making the Japanese think they have more of these aircraft, munitions, and ships and using a show of force to bring Japan to the peace table.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    14. Re:Wasn't there a movie about that? by terrycarlino · · Score: 0

      Yeah, dumbest movie ever.

      No real admiral is going to throw away the chance to stop Pearl Harbor just because his planes might not make it back. Tell them to sink the Japanese attack fleet and then reroute to Hickam Field if the carrier has returned to the present.

      Typical Hollywood idiocy. They don't understand how people in the real world act. They don't know how technology works. They have no understanding of anything outside their own little screwed up lives.

  3. Never Would Have Used It by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Germans never would have used such an encryption if modern methods of breaking it existed. So a complete misnomer.

    1. Re:Never Would Have Used It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, a misnomer would be misnaming it. This is an unrealistic anachronism.

    2. Re:Never Would Have Used It by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas ; if ifs and ands were pots and pans, there’d be no work for tinker’s hands

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re:Never Would Have Used It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Germans did nothing wrong!

    4. Re:Never Would Have Used It by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Also it's doubtful the decryption took anything like as long for Turning and his team to do as the figuring out how to decrypt in the first place. Unless this device is an amazing AI that can figure out all by itself how encryption and decryption works, it's a little dubious to make the grand claims they're making for it,

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Never Would Have Used It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sure hope Santa leaves a little nut in my butt, Merry Christmas indeed!

    6. Re:Never Would Have Used It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the point is that it is amazing how much we have advanced. It gives us old fuddy duddies a sense of perspective, and even a little bit of nostalgia. You young whipper snappers have to always ruin it. Get off my lawn, rotten kid!

    7. Re:Never Would Have Used It by hackertourist · · Score: 4, Informative

      "a year" was roughly how long it took to develop the Bombe. The Bombe was an important breakthrough in that it automated a tedious step of the decryption.

      Enigma decryption was done like this:
      1. Cryptanalysts used various techniques to find a crib: a possible plaintext for a section of one message. Weaknesses in Enigma were exploited to find these cribs. A famous one is the fact that an Enigma can't encrypt a letter as itself, which gives an easy way to do an initial test. Operational weaknesses included the German propensity to send predictable messages like "nothing to report" and "wettervorhersage" which provided nice cribs.
      2. The crib was converted (by the cryptanalyst) to a menu. The menu was basically a way to tell the Bombe what links there were between the plaintext and ciphertext.
      3. The Bombe ran through all possible wheel settings to find settings that exhibited the links in the menu.
      4. The Bombe produced one or more wheel settings, these were tried on the whole message. The correct settings could then be used to decrypt all messages for that radio net and that day.

      From the article it looks like this "AI" uses German word lists to find cribs, then feeds those in a Bombe equivalent.

    8. Re: Never Would Have Used It by guruevi · · Score: 2

      There was more to it and the "standard message" was less of an issue, I think that's a bit of a historic embelishment.

      The problem was that certain people not quite as bright got involved with later designs and operation. Eg the pin that moved one wheel one step forward "wasn't enough" so they added a second pin so the rotor moved twice. What this did do is basically change the statistics so it was easier to detect when a rotor ticked a character up.

      There were generals that had a high suspicion early on in the war that the Enigma had been cracked, I think it was their Navy general that was a really bright mathematician, hence they added additional rotors to their own design.

      Correctly used and designed an Enigma is pretty close to a one-time-pad and to this day there are messages that can't be cracked.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    9. Re: Never Would Have Used It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They managed to lose a war they started.

    10. Re: Never Would Have Used It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an original copy of the RSA paper that I requested after the article was published about it in Scientific American. Were you out of Grammar School yet?

    11. Re:Never Would Have Used It by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      The Germans never would have used such an encryption if modern methods of breaking it existed. So a complete misnomer.

      The Germans also would never have surrendered just because the British cracked their Enigma code - so the story is rather silly on several levels, and that title is complete bollocks (to borrow a phrase from our cousins across the pond).

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    12. Re:Never Would Have Used It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to buy and use a dictionary, you stupid illiterate fuck.

    13. Re: Never Would Have Used It by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, of course there is more to it. I've read several books that devote a hundred pages or more to the whole process. The most recent one is 'Station X' by Michael Smith. It's full of direct quotes from people who worked at BP, and it includes several references to the 'standard message' technique. So I don't think it's an embellishment.

      The 'standard message' is one of the few aspects of the whole decryption effort that is easy to explain to an outsider. I think that explains why it's so often mentioned in stories about Enigma.

      Enigma, like all electromechanical encryption devices has a degree of predictability. That predictability can be exploited if you throw enough computing power at it. Several Enigma messages that were not cracked during the war have been decoded by small teams of amateurs using modern computers. So 'can't be cracked is an overstatement'.

    14. Re:Never Would Have Used It by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      And the main mistake was to repeat the encryption code at the beginning of the message, to protect against "typing errors", so you knew e.g. that:
      XTZUVF
      TREGCF
      were encrypted by the same code, e.g. MASTER

      Further it was most likely that a message sent to a submarine ended in something like:
      Heil Hitler!
      Good Luck!
      Happy Hunting!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    15. Re:Never Would Have Used It by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Annexing Austria, annexing half of Czechoslovakia, invading the other half, invading Poland, invading Holland, invading Belgium, sinking civilian ships, invading Norway, murdering their own citizens, failing to equip their army for a winter war in Russia and banning swing music.

      Yeah, I reckon the Germans did a few things wrong.

    16. Re:Never Would Have Used It by Cederic · · Score: 1

      It was less the time it took to work out how to decrypt it, it was working out how to decrypt it with technology support while inventing the new technology providing that support.

    17. Re:Never Would Have Used It by Sean_Mc · · Score: 1

      If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak

  4. Wait, what?? by CODiNE · · Score: 1

    Turing had automated the testing of over 15 billion possible passwords each day

    Whoah, thats actually incredibly fast for the 1940s. I need to learn about his architecture a bit. Hadn't realized how ahead of his time it was as well.

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    1. Re:Wait, what?? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      No but he also made a time travel machine.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:Wait, what?? by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Prepare to be disappointed because it is not true. They didn't brute force the "passwords" at all. They used a lot of social engineering techniques to guess the decryption of fragments of the message which they would feed into the bombes to extract the rotor settings. For example, if you intercepted a message every morning at 9am from a weather station,, you might guess it contains the word "Wetterbericht"and you could guess where it is in the message by the fact that Enigma would never encrypt a letter as itself.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    3. Re:Wait, what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they are called 'cribs'. Guessed bis of plain text used to try to break the cipher text.

    4. Re:Wait, what?? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that claim "Turing had automated the testing of over 15 billion possible passwords each day" is simply wrong.

      A enigma message works like this. Everyone involved knows the MASTERKEY used for the next days, weeks or a month. That key you want to "find".

      Then you hear record a few hundred encrypted messages. Which are all encrypted with an individual key, invented/defined by the sender.

      So: how does the receiver know the key? Because each message is headed by two repetitions of that key, encrypted by the MASTERKEY.

      So, all the intercepted messages look like this:
      Message-1
      CODE1ENCODED <-- encoded by MASTERKEY (wheels turn further one knob every character)
      2ENCODEDAGAIN <-- encoded by same MASTERKEY (but wheels are in different position)
      "CODE1ENCODED" and "2ENCODEDAGAIN" are the same CODEWORD, e.g HitlerIsGreat, encoded by MASTERKEY with different wheel positions.

      Message-2
      HARDCODE2 <-- encoded by MASTERKEY (wheels turn further one knob every character)
      2EVENHARDER <-- encoded by same MASTERKEY (but wheels are in different position)
      "HARDCODE2" and "2EVENHARDER" are the same CODEWORD, e.g. ChurchilSucks, encoded by MASTERKEY with different wheel positions.

      Turing found a clever way how to find the MASTERKEY, by exploiting the fact that the secret was repeated at the beginning of each message, even as all those secrets were individual secrets they all point to the same MASTERKEY.

      There is no way that a few "Bombs" (mechanical computers) brute force a billion of variances every day.
      E.g. you have a bomb running with the insane speed of 1000rpm (17 turns per second), then you need 1000seconds to explore 1million possibilities (which is roughly 17 minutes), that means you need 1700 minutes. The day has 1440 minutes, so if you want to invest maximum 8 hours or so you need roughly half a dozen machines. As the speed is most likely less than 100rpm that would be perhaps 50 to 60 "Bombs". (Oh I see now: 15 billion ... adjust my numbers accordingly ;D )

      And now imagine how quickly those "computers" would wear out and would needed to be replaced ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  5. Modern Technology more than IT by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Modern technology includes thermonuclear missiles. One of those on Hitler's bunker and the entire thing would be over in a lot less than 13 minutes.

    1. Re:Modern Technology more than IT by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Depends who has that "modern technology".

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:Modern Technology more than IT by m4rtink · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what I thought as well - 13 minutes (or possibly less) would be the approximate time of flight for a nuclear warhead armed ballistic missile fired from the UK to Germany.

    3. Re:Modern Technology more than IT by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Hitler wouldn't be in that kind of bunker in a world where such weapons existed.

    4. Re:Modern Technology more than IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh - the UK did not have ballistic missiles during WWII. Towards the end, the Nazi's did have a rudimentary ballistic missile though.
      You should brush up on your technology history a little bit. Plus, I doubt very much if a "Fat Boy" type device could fit on a V1.

    5. Re:Modern Technology more than IT by m4rtink · · Score: 1

      I know that of course, but I was reacting to the topic of the article - how modern technology would win WWII in minutes.

    6. Re:Modern Technology more than IT by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      True, but neither would he have used an enigma code machine either. The only way to make any sense of the bizarre headline is to assume that the Nazis had WWII technology while the allies had modern technology. Hence the war would be won by a very brief, limited salvo of missiles and not decoding communications - which might have only taken 13 minutes to do but requires a much longer time frame to have an effect on the war.

    7. Re:Modern Technology more than IT by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      The only way the claim makes any sense is that the allies had modern technology and the Nazis did not. Otherwise the Nazis would not have used an enigma code machine.

    8. Re:Modern Technology more than IT by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Heh, Hitler considering invading the neighboring France with its 300 nuclear warheads and Daffault Rafale aircraft...and going, naah, I'll just go back to painting.

    9. Re:Modern Technology more than IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So.... Germany would not have any of this "technology"? Or France? Only the UK?

      Really, the UK would have nukes ballistic missiles and Germany would still be using horses to pull their supply wagons and burning brown coal in their steam engines. Got it.....

    10. Re:Modern Technology more than IT by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Towards the end, the Nazi's did have a rudimentary ballistic missile though. You should brush up on your technology history a little bit. Plus, I doubt very much if a "Fat Boy" type device could fit on a V1.

      You are implying that the V1 was a ballistic missile. It wasn't - it was a sacrificial pilotless plane, or cruise missile as they are now called. You do not mention the V2 which was a ballistic missile, very advanced for the time as a vehlce, enough to form the technical starting point of the US space program. The V2 was let down by a poor guidance system, even by the standards of the day. The Germans were developing a longer range version of the V2, with a reach to hit the USA with the nuclear bomb they were also developing.

    11. Re:Modern Technology more than IT by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Well, since you ask.. No, Germany do not have nuclear ballistic missiles, and yes the UK (and France) do.

      Makes the effectiveness of the Leopard tank line pretty fucking irrelevant.

    12. Re:Modern Technology more than IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > neither would he have used an enigma code machine either

      Actually he [Hitler] didn't. High-Level messages were sent over a different device, the Lorenz machine attached to a teleprinter, and using XOR operations of plain-text and key material.

  6. Re: queue homophobic responses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You stupid fags butt licking pervs selebrating your sodomite cult follower.

    Next - necrophilia day for goat cocksuckers.

  7. Turing did NOT build a computer for Enigma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Turing built an electromechanical machine for Enigma.
    WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COLOSSUS, THE COMPUTER USED FOR LORENZ, which he did NOT design. Tommy Flowers did.

    It specifically states that on the Wikipedia page, FFS.

    "It has sometimes been erroneously stated that Turing designed Colossus to aid the cryptanalysis of the Enigma."

    Another story full of crap that the "Editors" won't fix.

    Facts, eh ? Dem's too twickee.

  8. And gay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Turing had automated the testing of over 15 billion possible passwords each day

    Whoah, thats actually incredibly fast for the 1940s. I need to learn about his architecture a bit. Hadn't realized how ahead of his time it was as well.

    He was a gay man that wasn't that in closet - being gay back then was actually illegal.
    He didn’t keep his sexuality a secret among friends.

    I just people would stop and think, "Is this person's values and actions behind closed doors really harming me or society?"

    Just because they don't fit into one's own value system, doesn't make them wrong or evil. And maybe people should stop and think about their own values sometimes. Maybe you're wrong. In some cultures, educating girls is against society values.

    And let's also remember that some of our values were created by illiterate goat herders who decided to worship their war god, Yahweh, when they decided to be monotheistic. An evil pathetic god who thought that murdering children was justified.

  9. The Replica BOMBE is on show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the UK's "National Museum of Computing" which is located at Bletchely Park where all the code breaking was done.
    The BOMBE is next to the rebuilt Colossus in Hut H where it was during the war.

    The Museum is not connected to the Bletchley Park Trust which occupies most of the site and many of the old buildings.
    The Museum is well worth a visit if you are in the area. It is only a few minutes walk from Bletchley Railway Station.
    www.TNMOC.org

  10. Re:But Turing was Teh Ghey by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

    It could have been possible maybe. In a 20th century history elective in college, our professor had us read one of those "everything you know about ww2 is wrong" books. The author posited that the bulk of what gets into mass media... Patton and the 3rd army, the atomic bombs, The French resistance, the Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, the Doolittle raid, MacArthur's island-hopping strategy, the USS Enterprise, the involvement of the various other allied powers, etc... was mostly just miscellanea. Rather, his position was that what won the war was 1/3rd Bletchley Park, 1/3rd American manufacturing, and 1/3rd the previously-mentioned miscellaneous.

    The conclusion was that without the US factories, *maybe* the UK could have used Ultra to most effectively utilize its limited resources and still pull off a win. And, without the UK codebreakers, *maybe* the US could have simply constructed so much more war materiel than Germany's and Japan's navies could sink that we'd have eventually just Zerg rushed them and won anyway. But it was the combination of the codebreakers and factories that really secured the allied victory. The argument, especially since more and more about Ultra and Magic that had never been known before was reaching the public eye at the time, was fairly compelling.

    --
    Imagine all the people...
  11. Re:But Turing was Teh Ghey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, America contributed disposable goods and disposable manpower, but it was the contributions of the Russians that ultimately won the war.

  12. How many Turings to screw in a lightbulb? by magusxxx · · Score: 4, Funny

    Only one...which was also enough to screw the Germans.

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  13. Re:But Turing was Teh Ghey by lenski · · Score: 1

    Yes, the way I see it, the Germans attacked the Russians in their own land, sapping their strength. If the Germans had tasked competent general officers and manpower to western Europe, the Allied invasion would certainly be slowed dramatically and possibly stopped.

    America's logistical contributions are not to be underestimated, though. My mother was a little girl living in Yonkers New York and told me about times when the sky was blackened by flights of B-17s.

  14. idiotic title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a stupid and dishonest title. The bombe could crack an Enigma in less than 24 hours, but they did not win the war in 24 hours after it was invented.

    1. Re:idiotic title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, best response of all. Wish I had mod points for you.

  15. Faster decryption wouldn't have helped that much by hackertourist · · Score: 4, Informative

    Bletchley Park's successes were certainly an important factor in the Allied victory. But those successes didn't just depend on quick decryption.
    - BP was the first organization to take codebreaking to an industrial scale, and one of the first to experience information overload in a war scenario. They were drowning in radio traffic, and had to make sense of it all for the intel to be of any use.
    - BP was one of the most closely guarded secrets of the war. Any Allied operation that was too obviously the result of information the Allies could only have gotten by reading Enigma, would have compromised all of BP's work. The Germans would have switched to new, better coding machines and BP would have been back at square 1. So elaborate measures were taken to provide plausible explanations for how the Allies got their intel. Reconnaissance efforts were directed toward enemy troop concentrations, for example. Sometimes the Allies couldn't use their intel because no plausible explanation could be fabricated in time.
    - The Germans occasionally introduced new Enigma variations (the 4-rotor naval and intelligence versions, the steckerboard, new rotors). All BP had to work out how these machines worked, was the encrypted radio messages (and on one memorable occasion, the chance to steal an actual machine from a German U-boot as it sank). It could take months to work out how new rotors were wired.
    - Once the bombes were up and running, the time to get the day's settings dropped to a few hours, and it became rare for BP not to break the settings for all major networks before the day was over.

  16. Timescale was not decode-dependent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The results of cracking Enigma were not immediate, either, since it was necessary to maintain the pretence of not having cracked it in order to avoid rousing the suspicion of the Germans, who would have immediately changed system. The best they could do was save a ship from a submarine attack here, 'accidentally' run into a bomber squadron there. Small enough changes to appear to be statistical noise, but just enough to tip the balance in favour of the Allied forces.

    So, no, it could never have been won much faster.

  17. First modern computer?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alan Turing designed the bombe which was used for breaking enigma, but was not a computer, colossus was build at bletchly park during wwII to break nazi ciphers, but not enigma and not by alan turing, but was arguably a computer, albeit not a general purpose one.

    1. Re:First modern computer?? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Around the time of the Z3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  18. Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The British government in "thanks" for the excellent job Turing did to help defeat the Germans in WWII, arrested Turing and forced him to take female hormones because Alan Turing was gay. This made Turing more and more depressed until he took his own life.

  19. Something's not right with the summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If those numbers are to be believed, that means the "high tech team" was calculating only about 240 times faster than Turing.
     
    I also call BS on the $7 cost - you can't assemble a "high tech" team to do anything for $7.

  20. Tech helping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tech helping the war cause...interesting

  21. Doesn't matter anyway by spineboy · · Score: 1

    Allied forces had to be circumspect on what information they enacted upon. If they anticipated all the German attacks, then they would know it was broken.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  22. Note that almost no AI was actually used here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They brute-forced all the possibilities, and than used a so-called AI to find out where the result was actual German. There was however no need for an AI for the latter part (simple dictionary matching or even regexps would have filtered out 99.999% of the results). So basically what this means is that our computing power has improved, nothing to do with AI.

  23. Break code != Win war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, WW2 could have been entirely avoided if allies had acted early to stop Hitler instead of passively taking it up the ass until it was almost too late

  24. Re: But Turing was Teh Ghey by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    I think that analysis is too conspiratorial. First is that the US production capability is commonly mentioned as one of the things that won the war. Secondly the use of radar and other antisubmarine techniques enabled the allies to create a safe corridor from America to England, even without breaking codes. In the Pacific, Japan had no chance against the vastly superior western manufacturing capability. Even if they had somehow won at Midway, they would have been inexhorably pushed back, as the Zero became obsolete. Pearl Harbor was aggressive but most of the ships they sunk were repaired. In Europe, you have to look at what happened during the Battle of Britain without the codebreaking techniques. Would England still have gained air superiority? I don't know the answer to that.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  25. Wishful thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WWII could not have been won without killing Germans, Japanese, and Italians. Calling them up and saying "hey we can decrypt your messages" would have meant nothing to the occupied countries of the Axis which would have remained occupied.

  26. How to win WW2 = crack the Enigma! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahaha who comes up with this shit? Americans? Next they gonna tell us land-lease and d-day won WW2. LOL

    1. Re:How to win WW2 = crack the Enigma! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      To be fair, without lend-lease the UK may have had to negotiate peace, which would've given Germany a win over their conquered territories and allowed them to focus their full resources against Russia.

  27. Modern technology would finish the war in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    about 20-30 minutes, that's how long it will take the ICBMs to hit their targets.

    After that it won't be a "war", but a slow dying out.

  28. Re: queue homophobic responses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much anger, so little sense.

  29. Unsolved Enigma messages? by shanen · · Score: 1

    Quite disappointing, even by today's standards of Slashdot disappointment. Only question I had, and no comment nor the summary of the article had any hint of the answer.

    Question: Are there any still uncracked Enigma messages?

    I did read that there were a number of still unsolved and unknown Enigma messages as of a few years ago. It certainly seems like we have the capability to brute force them now, but has anyone bothered?

    No funny comments either, but that's just par now.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  30. Re:Floating Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mental note: never discuss fundamentals of computer architecture in Slashdot.

  31. Re:But Turing was Teh Ghey by jcr · · Score: 1

    Lets have a re-do or WWII, banning anything invented by homosexuals

    Well, since that includes the Nazi Party, it pretty much makes the whole war go away..

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  32. Woah, that's some bull by iamacat · · Score: 1

    It's been 15 years since "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq and we are still fighting there. The most likely scenario today would be superpowers defending their own borders and letting Hitler do whatever he wants in the rest of the Europe. People lost this silly notion of fighting and dying to oppose evil. All the tech in the world can't make up for it.

    1. Re:Woah, that's some bull by volmtech · · Score: 1

      You can not defeat a small enemy when larger enemies keep feeding in men and materials. We couldn't defeat North Korea because China and Russia sent men and supplies, the same with North Vietnam. Iran and Russia supply insurgents in Iraq plus religious factions fight each other. There can be no victory under those situations.

      After the Nazi hierarchy was eliminated the German army surrendered. The few holdouts had no one supplying them. The Japanese people would have fought to the last man, woman, and child but the Emperor told them to stop.

  33. "Hansel & Gretl and Rumpelstiltskin"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does that one go? Do Hansel and Gretl have to guess Rumpelstiltskin's name to escape the witch this time? Or maybe Rumpelstiltskin is the witch?

  34. Re:But Turing was Teh Ghey by redlemming · · Score: 1

    It could have been possible maybe. In a 20th century history elective in college, our professor had us read one of those "everything you know about ww2 is wrong" books. The author posited that the bulk of what gets into mass media... Patton and the 3rd army, the atomic bombs, The French resistance, the Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, the Doolittle raid, MacArthur's island-hopping strategy, the USS Enterprise, the involvement of the various other allied powers, etc... was mostly just miscellanea. Rather, his position was that what won the war was 1/3rd Bletchley Park, 1/3rd American manufacturing, and 1/3rd the previously-mentioned miscellaneous.

    The conclusion was that without the US factories, *maybe* the UK could have used Ultra to most effectively utilize its limited resources and still pull off a win. And, without the UK codebreakers, *maybe* the US could have simply constructed so much more war materiel than Germany's and Japan's navies could sink that we'd have eventually just Zerg rushed them and won anyway. But it was the combination of the codebreakers and factories that really secured the allied victory. The argument, especially since more and more about Ultra and Magic that had never been known before was reaching the public eye at the time, was fairly compelling.

    The code breaking was important, but the importance is often greatly exaggerated. The code-breakers had relatively little direct impact on the fighting in the Eastern Front, and that was critical to the overall outcome of the war.

    The major role of the Allied code-breaking in affecting the Eastern Front was indirect: they help get convoys across the Atlantic. But the Germans had their own code-breakers, and at times they were the one's reading the Allied codes. It wasn't at all a one-sided affair.

    Other technologies such as radar, improved sonar, escort carriers, and specialized sub-killing weapons played a key role in the Battle of the Atlantic as well, it wasn't just code-breaking. It eventually reached a point where it really didn't matter if the Germans knew where the convoys were, because the Allied escorts were so much better at finding and killing the Germans subs than the subs were at escaping (and that was independent of the code breaking, which at best might give a rough location for some of the subs - and radio direction finding could do this independent of the code breaking).

    The same, incidentally, was not true for the Japanese: they were far less effective at killing Allied subs. They didn't have the same advanced technology in this area. They had plenty of other advanced technology, but convey escort wasn't something they invested sufficiently in - which ended up being a catastrophic mistake.

    But even considering only the battle of the Atlantic is misleading. During the long days of the Arctic summer, in the early war, the Allies couldn't ship much to the Soviet Union - at that point in the war it was too easy for surface, air, and submarine assets to kill ships, and daylight made it easy to find the ships. So the Allies ended up developing other techniques for getting goods to the Soviet Union.

    A lot the essential items went on Soviet-flag ships directly from the USA. Since the Japanese were at peace with the Soviets, they didn't interfere with this traffic, so long as it was industrial items, food, clothing, etc and not actual warplanes or tanks - but the goods shipped were nevertheless critical to the Soviet war effort - they fed and clothed the Red Army, helped build the weapons and ammunition, and kept the Red Air Force operational.

    The Allies also build a network of air bases in the Northern USA and Canada to fly combat aircraft to the Soviet Union. The American P-39 fighter (and variants) was popular with Soviet pilots and would be used from 1942 to the very end of the war - accounting for more enemy aircraft killed than any other US-made plane.

    Finally, with a major effort the Allies built a railroad in the Middle East to move supp