Ahh, you're right. It's been a while since I read it. Mod parent up.
Surely you must be joking Mr Feynman
on
Steel Bolt Hacking
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
There's a great bit in the book "Surely you must be joking Mr Feynman" where he (Feynman) talks about safe-cracking. His propensity for beating locks gets him called into a boss' office where a safe containing nuclear secrets (or something ridiculously important like that) sits, but no-one knows the combination. So he sits down at the thing, presses his ear to the door and starts listening, only to have the thing pop open on the first try.
Everyone in the room goes "Ooooo! how did you do that? Are you really that good?" And he had the presence of mind to say, "Yes." =)
Mordac: I am Mordac, preventer of information services! I deny your request for specifications! In retribution for disturbing me, I sentence you to one month without email!
Dilbert: okay.
Mordac: What?! No engineer gives up email so easily. Assume the position!
Dilbert (at home, to Dogbert): So, he found the modem strapped to my ankle, but he missed my wireless pen modem.
An OTP is "unbreakable" because given any cryptogram, there exists an OTP to resolve to any message of equal length. But with Quantum Encryption, any attempt to even read the cryptogram alters it en route, and (ideally) the sender stops sending, leaving the attacker S.O.L.
The OTP is ~unbreakable if used right, but there's technically the possibility (if you have 10^99 years and alien supercomputers) to find cracks in the armor of randomness of the OTP. Don't forget that randomness is not a trivial resource to come by and "anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin." Whereas QE is just flat-out un-f***ing-breakable 'cause you can't get the whole message without setting off the "alarm".
As for axes to grind, the only sweeping generalization he made was that religion dealt with "absolute truth". He didn't say it failed, or that it was a dead-end. If you want to go off half-cocked, go do it on a religious themed site. Not here.
>>>It seems as if the guy just didn't know much about science.
Which may have something to do with why he got flamed here. Actually, it sounds like he knows even less than "not much" about science. He was troll-flamebaiting. Are you taking up his banner? Do you really want to be known as someone who thinks that science some kind of sham or hustle? Do you in fact think that?
Thanks, but we're full up with ignorance today, maybe you can visit reality next week. Buh bye.
>>Scientists are human, and are just as prone to being stuck in a certain mindset as the rest of us
Yes, you're quite right of course. We base our logic on our emotional values. Which is why some people see p->q and others see p->~q. I simply take issue with people who imagine that (p\/~p)->(whatever they feel).
I'm not sure I can adequately express my response in a/. post but I will try to keep it brief.
Apologies to any offended by my post (except millahtime. did anyone check his blog? yowza, what a nutjob. He has an absurd, radical right-wing blog and he deletes dissenting posts.)
I have nothing against the spiritual traditions of Catholicism. Really. Pray, quote the bible, it really doesn't bother me. But tell me I'm going to hell, or that scientists are deluded, and I'm going to go ballistic. And I'd apologize directly to Rome, except that PBS had a show on Galileo recently and I'm still heated about it.
Thanks for the link.:) Have a nice day (no really, have a good and lucky day).
>>>I also have trouble harmonizing the two different statements you made about "religions": The faithful make up stories to explain things ("And we are not willing to make up stories to explain the unexplainable"). The faithful don't attempt to explain things ("We don't admit defeat and say "oh well, must be gods way").
Here, let me help you. Attribution to a cause is a form of explanation. That means that vettemph did not imply that the faithful don't attempt to explain things.
>>I'm a Christian, yet I'll admit I can't explain everything.
Will you admit that you can't explain what happened before known space-time existed, or will you insist that I join you in taking a leap of faith in your religious values?
Now, since you couldn't understand the post, I will explain what it means.
>>We are not willing to make up stories to explain the unexplainable.
This most likely alludes to the "prime mover" ideal, aka God. Religion has used this as a bludgeon and know what? The rest of us are sick of hearing about how we have to do X, tithe X, and vote X because "God wants you to". Know what? God wants you to stfu, that's what God wants, okay? As for the second part:
>>We don't admit defeat and say "oh well, must be gods way". (those grapes were probably sour anyway)
Explaining something with "God" may work for the "faithful" but to others it remains unsatisfying. Consider the following: I sit down. You ask me why I did that. I say "well, it happened, and everything that happens is the will of God, therefore I did it because God exists". It's the equivalent of saying "Just because". It's an explanation, but a real crappy one compared to "There's a pebble in my shoe and I plan on removing it, so I sat down to do so".
I can't wait to see the catholic church's explanations of this. One thing that is rare for them to admit is not knowing why something happens. They do have a very small and limited view of the universe and really don't know that much in the overall picture of things.
:P
Abbot: Your holiness, our physics research team has discovered the reason for the heretofore unknown force on the Pioneer probes. Pope: I KNEW we'd get to the bottom of that!
>>they state things they are fairly sure about as being the way it is. many times it's from the limited understanding we have and they have trouble with that.
No, actually scientists state what they know, usually accompanied by how they know it, and how anyone can test the theory. That's what makes them scientists. Don't confuse a journalist spewing dumbed-down reports with a scientist.
>>>many times it's from the limited understanding we have and they have trouble with that.
If by "have trouble with that" you mean, "scientists like to learn and discover", you sure have a crooked way of saying it. If you mean "every time a scientist finds an unknown, they get all pissed off and make up lies to tell everyone, because they are heathen scum", then grow up. Science is here to stay.
Science as a school never said that reason precluded faith. It's the religious types who keep that torch lit, and cry when it burns them. Grow up.
>>>I am can't wait to see the scientist explanations of this. One thing that is rare for them to admit is not knowing why something happens.
What are you smoking? You make it sound like the explanation is on page 95 of the bible.. "And lo, the angel gabriel spake unto the herdsmen, and said: Take thee every herb bearing fruit... and the mysterious force effecting Pioneer 10 & 11 is from God doing his Silver Surfer impression."
Who modded this troll insightful? For shame. Parent post has zero redeeming value.
If science thought it knew everything, scientists wouldn't do experiments.
Galileo? Darwin? Helloooo? Earth to creationists... Stop picking fights with us. Science is not religion. If you think the world isn't big enough for both, go read St Thomas Aquinas (cliff notes: he philosphised that REASON and FAITH were BOTH part of the human mind and that each had it's sphere of relevance, eg, faith won't stop a bullet, but reason can help you design a flak jacket).
For the religious apologists, I held back the flamage, so beat it. And in case parent REALLY thinks this is beyond the ken of science, dude, the friggin' story has two educated guesses as to why it happens. Seriously, do you think you're making converts by posting that ignorant crap?
How to solve a polynomial 1) put poly in standard form and take the first n-1 derivatives. 2) put the derivatives in terms of x(s) (for 1..n-1), or remember why you dropped calculus and goto step 9. 3) Use the derivatives to write a differential equation with coefficients m1..mn, or remember why you dropped differential equations and goto step 9. 4) Use the original equation to reduce the differential equation to order n, and note the use of "then" instead of "than" in the mit write-up. (sorry, mit). 5) Substitute a formula for x(s), multiply resulting eq by it's denominator, getting another diffEq. Whee! ask a Grad student. 6) Now substitute a power series representation. All 's' should be zero. (mutter: Aha! I knew it) Solve b_sub_i for 1..n-2 (Grad student). 7) Substitute another power series to get an equation. (The grad students are gone, ask your hallmates, one of 'em has to be a math major.) 8) Let b_sub_n-1 equal the determinant of a funky, unexplained matrix (here, have an aspirin). 9) Everyone else in the class is out drinking by now, so don't worry about the next matrix, it's even funkier. Write a note on your hand to memorize it this weekend. Go drinking with peers. 10) Wake up at 3pm tomorrow, and try to remember what the hell all those squiggles meant. 11) Change your minor from math to polisci. Don't worry about taking Calc 1-3, DiffEq, or linear algebra. Note: many girls do not care about the roots of arbitrary polynomials, so no worries there. 8^)
they'll be defaulting to -1 for all their logged in lawsuits from now on.
>>"Although SCO for months perpetuated the illusion that is had evidence that IBM took confidential source code from Unix System V and 'dumped' it into Linux, it has become clear that SCO has no such evidence," IBM says in the court filing.
Moral: Don't troll. Yes Darl, even in court. *Especially* in court!
Presuming that convergence is market driven and will therefore happen anyway, I could ask "which would you rather have make your breakfast: PC, console, cell-phone, girlfriend?"
I'd rather have my PC make my breakfast, 'cuz I often eat things other people think are wierd so I'd like to be able to alter the spice to taste. I just know my cellphone would get hammered with telemarketers spewing sauteed spam. And I don't want to depend on an s/o to make me breakfast-- I'm hungry everyday, not once every 25 years.
**Warning, failure to preview may unmake existence. Post anyway? [Y/n]** # _
Slashdot Mirror
I don't need Lucas to tell me where he's taking Star Wars, I know a handbasket when I see one. :)
What? I like to eat soup while I surf the web.. ya' perv.
;)
OMFG, you're my new best friend.
(groveling) I'm not worthy...
(groveling) I'm not worthy...
Oh please, wise and brave anonymous coward, deluge me with further insults so I may one day be brave enough to anonymously insult people.
In other words, bite me.
Ahh, you're right. It's been a while since I read it. Mod parent up.
Everyone in the room goes "Ooooo! how did you do that? Are you really that good?" And he had the presence of mind to say, "Yes." =)
INTERIOR: MOS EISLEY -- CANTINA.
GREEDO: Going somewhere, Solo?
HAN: Yes, Greedo. As a matter of fact, I was just going to Grovers Mill, New Jersey.
Dilbert: okay.
Mordac: What?! No engineer gives up email so easily. Assume the position!
Dilbert (at home, to Dogbert): So, he found the modem strapped to my ankle, but he missed my wireless pen modem.
The OTP is ~unbreakable if used right, but there's technically the possibility (if you have 10^99 years and alien supercomputers) to find cracks in the armor of randomness of the OTP. Don't forget that randomness is not a trivial resource to come by and "anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin." Whereas QE is just flat-out un-f***ing-breakable 'cause you can't get the whole message without setting off the "alarm".
Britain: pop 60,270,708.
Germany: pop 82,424,609.
Japan: pop 127,333,002.
China has plenty of people. I don't imagine they'd outsource anything they could keep in-house. (IANAEconomist)
Did you read the original parent?
As for axes to grind, the only sweeping generalization he made was that religion dealt with "absolute truth". He didn't say it failed, or that it was a dead-end. If you want to go off half-cocked, go do it on a religious themed site. Not here.
>>>It seems as if the guy just didn't know much about science.
Which may have something to do with why he got flamed here. Actually, it sounds like he knows even less than "not much" about science. He was troll-flamebaiting. Are you taking up his banner? Do you really want to be known as someone who thinks that science some kind of sham or hustle? Do you in fact think that?
Thanks, but we're full up with ignorance today, maybe you can visit reality next week. Buh bye.
Yes, you're quite right of course. We base our logic on our emotional values. Which is why some people see p->q and others see p->~q. I simply take issue with people who imagine that (p\/~p)->(whatever they feel).
Mod parent +insightful.
my above post is in response to its parent post which has (thankfully) been modded into oblivion.
I was making light of the original poster, not the catholic church.
Apologies to any offended by my post (except millahtime. did anyone check his blog? yowza, what a nutjob. He has an absurd, radical right-wing blog and he deletes dissenting posts.)
I have nothing against the spiritual traditions of Catholicism. Really. Pray, quote the bible, it really doesn't bother me. But tell me I'm going to hell, or that scientists are deluded, and I'm going to go ballistic. And I'd apologize directly to Rome, except that PBS had a show on Galileo recently and I'm still heated about it.
Thanks for the link. :) Have a nice day (no really, have a good and lucky day).
The faithful make up stories to explain things ("And we are not willing to make up stories to explain the unexplainable").
The faithful don't attempt to explain things ("We don't admit defeat and say "oh well, must be gods way").
Here, let me help you. Attribution to a cause is a form of explanation. That means that vettemph did not imply that the faithful don't attempt to explain things.
>>I'm a Christian, yet I'll admit I can't explain everything.
Will you admit that you can't explain what happened before known space-time existed, or will you insist that I join you in taking a leap of faith in your religious values?
Now, since you couldn't understand the post, I will explain what it means.
>>We are not willing to make up stories to explain the unexplainable.
This most likely alludes to the "prime mover" ideal, aka God. Religion has used this as a bludgeon and know what? The rest of us are sick of hearing about how we have to do X, tithe X, and vote X because "God wants you to". Know what? God wants you to stfu, that's what God wants, okay? As for the second part:
>>We don't admit defeat and say "oh well, must be gods way". (those grapes were probably sour anyway)
Explaining something with "God" may work for the "faithful" but to others it remains unsatisfying. Consider the following: I sit down. You ask me why I did that. I say "well, it happened, and everything that happens is the will of God, therefore I did it because God exists". It's the equivalent of saying "Just because". It's an explanation, but a real crappy one compared to "There's a pebble in my shoe and I plan on removing it, so I sat down to do so".
Anything a-harmonizin' yet?
:P
Abbot: Your holiness, our physics research team has discovered the reason for the heretofore unknown force on the Pioneer probes.
Pope: I KNEW we'd get to the bottom of that!
No, actually scientists state what they know, usually accompanied by how they know it, and how anyone can test the theory. That's what makes them scientists. Don't confuse a journalist spewing dumbed-down reports with a scientist.
>>>many times it's from the limited understanding we have and they have trouble with that.
If by "have trouble with that" you mean, "scientists like to learn and discover", you sure have a crooked way of saying it. If you mean "every time a scientist finds an unknown, they get all pissed off and make up lies to tell everyone, because they are heathen scum", then grow up. Science is here to stay.
Science as a school never said that reason precluded faith. It's the religious types who keep that torch lit, and cry when it burns them. Grow up.
What are you smoking? You make it sound like the explanation is on page 95 of the bible.. "And lo, the angel gabriel spake unto the herdsmen, and said: Take thee every herb bearing fruit... and the mysterious force effecting Pioneer 10 & 11 is from God doing his Silver Surfer impression."
Who modded this troll insightful? For shame. Parent post has zero redeeming value.
If science thought it knew everything, scientists wouldn't do experiments.
Galileo? Darwin? Helloooo? Earth to creationists... Stop picking fights with us. Science is not religion. If you think the world isn't big enough for both, go read St Thomas Aquinas (cliff notes: he philosphised that REASON and FAITH were BOTH part of the human mind and that each had it's sphere of relevance, eg, faith won't stop a bullet, but reason can help you design a flak jacket).
For the religious apologists, I held back the flamage, so beat it. And in case parent REALLY thinks this is beyond the ken of science, dude, the friggin' story has two educated guesses as to why it happens. Seriously, do you think you're making converts by posting that ignorant crap?
Shitsurei shimashita *cuts off finger*
How to solve a polynomial
1) put poly in standard form and take the first n-1 derivatives.
2) put the derivatives in terms of x(s) (for 1..n-1), or remember why you dropped calculus and goto step 9.
3) Use the derivatives to write a differential equation with coefficients m1..mn, or remember why you dropped differential equations and goto step 9.
4) Use the original equation to reduce the differential equation to order n, and note the use of "then" instead of "than" in the mit write-up. (sorry, mit).
5) Substitute a formula for x(s), multiply resulting eq by it's denominator, getting another diffEq. Whee! ask a Grad student.
6) Now substitute a power series representation. All 's' should be zero. (mutter: Aha! I knew it) Solve b_sub_i for 1..n-2 (Grad student).
7) Substitute another power series to get an equation. (The grad students are gone, ask your hallmates, one of 'em has to be a math major.)
8) Let b_sub_n-1 equal the determinant of a funky, unexplained matrix (here, have an aspirin).
9) Everyone else in the class is out drinking by now, so don't worry about the next matrix, it's even funkier. Write a note on your hand to memorize it this weekend. Go drinking with peers.
10) Wake up at 3pm tomorrow, and try to remember what the hell all those squiggles meant.
11) Change your minor from math to polisci. Don't worry about taking Calc 1-3, DiffEq, or linear algebra. Note: many girls do not care about the roots of arbitrary polynomials, so no worries there. 8^)
What is this two you speak of?
*smack!*smack!*
Oh, I get it now.
>>"Although SCO for months perpetuated the illusion that is had evidence that IBM took confidential source code from Unix System V and 'dumped' it into Linux, it has become clear that SCO has no such evidence," IBM says in the court filing.
Moral: Don't troll. Yes Darl, even in court. *Especially* in court!
I'd rather have my PC make my breakfast, 'cuz I often eat things other people think are wierd so I'd like to be able to alter the spice to taste. I just know my cellphone would get hammered with telemarketers spewing sauteed spam. And I don't want to depend on an s/o to make me breakfast-- I'm hungry everyday, not once every 25 years.
**Warning, failure to preview may unmake existence. Post anyway? [Y/n]**
# _
Do you want to be the greatest mime ever? It's much safer here, with me.
Where are you going?
Hey! You're getting paid for that!