But Things like OpenOffice are certainly not specificly MS's IP, Office suites existed (AFAIK) before MS was around. As much as I sometimes would like to think so, not even MS is that dumb...
Samba seems a more likely candidate, I'm not familiar with how all these things work internally, but It strikes me that this thing is no different than an internet connection. In my ignorance, I assume that Samba essentially passes around knowledge of what the filesystem contains, which is no different than if I was hosting a website off of a Windows machine. In fact, if I'm allowed to (S)FTP into a windows box, or run a website which shows my entire filesystem over an intranet, then isn't that isomorphic to Samba? (I use Isomorphic since the given setup is certainly not as useful as Samba, but it does the same job.)
Again, I have no Idea how Samba or any network file system works, but it certainly seems that the argument against it is kindof flat.
First of all, even if they did try to sue an Open source project, like-- KDE, let's use that as an example. Who owns KDE? Who do you Sue? KDE isn't owned by anyone, there are project leaders, but AFAIK those aren't business positions, they typically aren't paid to run the project. The short answer is Noone "owns" KDE, or any other OSS project for that matter. Sure, Red Hat has they're own breed of linux, but they don't own the linux kernel, which I think most will agree is really the "linux" in linux. Granted, Sueing KDE or Linux proper or even Red Hat and the like are probably not what they're aiming for, but what are they aiming for anyway?
I grazed over the article for a while, and didn't find mention of what patents were violated, but I can think of only a few cases:
A) Wine/Cedega/etc
Makes the most sense, as far as I can see though, Cedega is really the only one in any remote danger. But I have to ask, whats the point? Wine is just making your windows software get used more, granted its not on Windows, but it's still getting bought. I understand that the OSS communities implementations of Windows API wrappers is maybe a touch on the "your touching my patent places" side. But Wine alone couldn't make up the 235 some odd violations you're talking about Microsoft.
B) Lower level stuff, driver level stuff.
The classic anti-free patent argument. "You can't write your own (driver|kernel|etc), we sell those, so we must have invented it." It's like saying "You can't sell cars, we sell cars, and it would hurt our business if you, god forbid, tried to make money!" Honestly, I've seen these arguments over and over, they piss me off. From Apple's "Look and feel" suits to the whole issue of who owns Unix, and all this other silly stuff. I think the principle issue is that companies like Microsoft and Apple all call themselves capitalists, but when push comes to shove, they expect competition to get out of there way, because they're big. In the Corporate world, this works, Companies smaller than MS/Apple run away, or they'll be crushed. Companies like IBM don't typically enter MS's or Apple's world, so they get more or less left alone, and everyone's happy. But then there's (F)OSS, which sit directly in MS's and Apple's Path, but unlike small companies, they don't move, because theres effectively nothing MS can do about it. Even if someone were to successfully stop a large set of OSS projects, they would immediately spring right back up somewhere else. It's like trying to sweep up smog, it just wont work.
All in all, MS is just barking because they want to spread some FUD and _maybe_ scare some of the newer, more skiddish OSS dev's from doing something the MS already does.
The argument is over, but I came up with this quip at one point during the post, and just wanted to share it because I though it was good: MS argument really is: "You can't sell cars, because we invented wheels!"
I was wondering how long it would take for Pd to come up,
I've used Pd Extensively, I used to use Reason 3 and Digital Performer on the Mac's at school, I decided to set up a box for music for myself and, while researching I found the Linux, given a properly configured box that is sufficiently powerful (I'm using a 2Ghz, 1G RAM, so by todays standards, not to shabby box) with a decent soundcard can give all the tools I've used on the Mac a good run for there money. I agree that while Linux DAW's are occasionally deficient in some areas, combining them with Jack you can actually get a pretty efficient system working. As for Lack of MIDI editing in things like Ardour. I Think that in some ways its a good thing that it doesn't exist, in my experience, when I try to write a piece of software which does two very different things, I find that both things suffer. However, using a combination of Jack, Ardour, Rosegarden, and Pd, I can edit Efficiently any piece of music I record with my band and other bands I work with.
As for credentials, I'm an amateur Audio engineer and Guitarist, I play with a little band out in MA. I don't claim to know anything more than what I know, and I know what I know quite well. (have fun parsing that).
All in all, Linux + Music == Not half bad, I use it, I like it, and most importantly, it gets the job done well. Whatever your preference, you have to give it that at least.
~~Joe
Re:Can't anyone create a GNU version of Mathematic
on
Mathematica 6 Launched
·
· Score: 1
-- Math Major, *ouch*...
I'm actually working on an OSS CAS in the vein of Mathematica and other Math systems I've dealt with. It's not going to be released for some time, but what I have now (Basic support for Symbols/ Eq solving, Symbolic Polynomial Math, Arbitrary precision arithmetic, Sets) is looking pretty good.
On another Note, based on what I read, this whole thing says that the universe is effectively "not rendering" when we aren't looking/sensing/etc. I think it makes sense, because the universe would totally lag if it were always rendering...:)
The point of those passages is to discourage people from being rampantly promiscuous. Obviously, Doing so can cause problems, STD's, Unwanted Pregnancy, etc. The Author of that passage (Paul, as I remember, Corinthians, maybe?) is trying to warn people to avoid that practice because it could be deadly, and literally cause harm to your body. Not to mention the emotional issues, its often alot more trouble than its worth. Paul isn't trying to say, (AFAIC) that extramarital sex is bad per se. But rather, that its probably not worth the hassal. It's probably safer for you and the person you love to just not do it. Eliminate the possibility of something bad happening. No?
I don't think Paul would be stupid enough to say "Don't do this, ever, if you do, your going to hell" because that would just galvanize the people to want to do it more often. Look at the Christian movement in it's early years. The very fact that Rome tried to stop them only galvanized and actually popularized their movement. This is a common human response, Paul would have known that, it wouldn't make sense for him to yell at the "misbehaving" Corinthians, that would have just made things worse. Instead, he tried to appeal to thier reason.
I think that Christians these days forget that fundamental fact. You get more flies with honey, than with Vinegar.
I direct you to any of the following. Noting that I have not seen (nor do I plan to see) "swap.avi", I would assume that it is a relatively gruesome display of a number of sex acts. I'm not interested in scarring my brain with such things. So you can tell me if this par's up.
Also note, I am a relatively (as much as I can be) unbiased Agnostic, I don't particularly care what side you are on, this is just a response to Crizp's request.
Ezekial 23
link to online version
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekie l%2023;&version=9;
Highlights:
2) Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother:
3) And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity.
4) And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.
5) And Aholah played the harlot when she was mine; and she doted on her lovers, on the Assyrians her neighbours,
6) Which were clothed with blue, captains and rulers, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding upon horses.
7) Thus she committed her whoredoms with them, with all them that were the chosen men of Assyria, and with all on whom she doted: with all their idols she defiled herself.
8) Neither left she her whoredoms brought from Egypt: for in her youth they lay with her, and they bruised the breasts of her virginity, and poured their whoredom upon her.
9) Wherefore I have delivered her into the hand of her lovers, into the hand of the Assyrians, upon whom she doted.
10) These discovered her nakedness: they took her sons and her daughters, and slew her with the sword: and she became famous among women; for they had executed judgment upon her
The passage goes on to describe how Aholah's sister is even more promiscuous than Aholah. Her fare is similar.
The story of Lot's escape from Sodom & Gomhorrah
Genesis 19
Link: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&cha pter=19&version=9
Highlights:
(just one verse, I think that should cover it.)
5) And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
For those who do not know the story, the "men" they are talking about are actually angels, eventually, Lot decides to give the mob his two daughters to rape instead of the two men. Later (I think in chapter 20, if memory serves) Lot's two daughters commit incest with their father, because they thought that it was the end of the world, and they would need to repopulate it.
There are several more examples, I think of Joseph and his Master's wife -- though I must admit, that one is significantly more tame than the former two. Revelation's treatise of the "Whore of Babylon, mother of Abominations" (I think that was the title.)
All the verses were in the King James Version.
I also agree, and would like to note the fact that most of wikipedias entries (at least the math entries) are sourced or mostly sourced. Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source, whether or not the article is sourced or unsourced. But It should certainly not be banned outright.
Only really adressing your first point, the other two look pretty spot on.
It is true that most religions are not particularly hierarchical- not explicitly, anyway. But in every organization there is some sortof structure, you can't have organization without it. To use your example of the jewish religon. Its very true that there is nothing explicitly "higher" than rabbi, but it is also true that some rabbi's are more respected than other rabbi's, and some other rabbi's are more respected than them. I'm sure that there are some members of the religion who are not rabbi's, but function in similar respects- Generally older- wiser- more educated in the religon members. The same is true of other institutions- Schools, Businesses, Cults- everything has implicit structure- or else its not an organization, it's a disorganization.
What annoyed the jiggers out of me was his blatent dismissal of AI technology. He said something to the effect of "Neural nets == AI? Dont think so" which is just ignorant bullshit- Neural nets/SOM's/such are not only vital AI technology, but just one element of a vast set of AI software.
Stupid article.
BTW, to the guy who said VB was a good thing- No, it wasn't, really, not at all- Learn something that will teach you something, like Scheme- or Java, or C or something- anything but Basic.
Your point brings out an even better point...
If it is to work for Everyone, which any decent security system should, then the problem of neurological diseases means that you must require some sort of trade off. That is, it only needs to be X percent correct. If the system can get 70% of your password right, it will let you in, the problem being, what if someone has a set of brainwaves that are like yours to that threshold. Alot of people are thinking along the lines of "I have to think a specific thought" but thats not nessecarily true, there are many things which are consistently happening in your brain which would likely be much easier to measure. I'm no biologist, but I'm sure there are inperceptibly different rhythms to be found in the beating of ones hard or how fast certain neurons fire that would be alot easier to measure than the brainwaves produced by a specific thought. Any way you slice this idea, however, you come down to the problem of whether or not someone has brainwaves that are close enough to be accepted. Heres a possibly better Schema.
I would postulate that most people can remember some long series of something, in a specific order, we do it all the time anyway, most of the time we dont realize it. The problem with using these Long passwords currently is, they take forever to type. Certainly you **could** use the chorus of your favorite song or a passage from a favorite book, but it's impractical because its slow. not because its hard to remember.
With this "technology" it could be possible to have a "voice" recognition system, that would print out characters on the screen, now you've solved the problem of how long it takes you to type something. However, you still have the problem of recognizing individual phonemes or words or etc. And also all the problems associated with voice-typing you have now. Certainly its a good Idea. It would, however, be relatively hard to implement for passwords, at least not the same way we have now. You could, feasibly, have it write down your password, and "read" it back to you by directly stimulating your auditory nerve. (hey, as long as we can listen, why can't we send?) if its wrong, you can manually correct parts of it, still running into the "slow" problem. but if the system were sufficiently accurate, you can now have 200+ character passwords (virtually impossible to crack with todays technology, possibly not by the "time" this "is" implemented, but who knows.)
Anyway, just my.02$
Beng somewhat of a mathematician and crypto-buff, let me say this.
Firstly, it IS encryption, there is data being hidden in a non-obvious format,
Dictionary.com says this about the term "Encrypt"
encrypt tr.v. encrypted, encrypting, encrypts
1. To put into code or cipher.
2. Computer Science. To alter (a file, for example) using a secret code so as to be unintelligible to unauthorized parties.
I see nothing about mathematical transforms there. In fact, many ciphers are not mathematical at all, some are completely visual, take for instance Transpostition ciphers, like the hedgerow cipher, (every other letter is taken out and shifted to the end). There is no mathematical transform that you use, no numbers are assigned. Now, notably, you can describe THIS cipher using group theory (it a morphism on a group), however, It can be done with no knowledge of any math at all.
Second, Slightly less of this topic, this is terribly intresting, as the quantum encryption scheme was touted as "completely" unbreakable. And now its been cracked before its even been used. I wonder if anyone will come up with something stronger before (if they ever get to the point where they are usable) Quantum computers invalidate RSA and other factorization based ciphers...
Any other articles out there about different types of quantum encryption?
Slashdot Mirror
But Things like OpenOffice are certainly not specificly MS's IP, Office suites existed (AFAIK) before MS was around. As much as I sometimes would like to think so, not even MS is that dumb...
Samba seems a more likely candidate, I'm not familiar with how all these things work internally, but It strikes me that this thing is no different than an internet connection. In my ignorance, I assume that Samba essentially passes around knowledge of what the filesystem contains, which is no different than if I was hosting a website off of a Windows machine. In fact, if I'm allowed to (S)FTP into a windows box, or run a website which shows my entire filesystem over an intranet, then isn't that isomorphic to Samba? (I use Isomorphic since the given setup is certainly not as useful as Samba, but it does the same job.)
Again, I have no Idea how Samba or any network file system works, but it certainly seems that the argument against it is kindof flat.
~~Joe
First of all, even if they did try to sue an Open source project, like-- KDE, let's use that as an example. Who owns KDE? Who do you Sue? KDE isn't owned by anyone, there are project leaders, but AFAIK those aren't business positions, they typically aren't paid to run the project. The short answer is Noone "owns" KDE, or any other OSS project for that matter. Sure, Red Hat has they're own breed of linux, but they don't own the linux kernel, which I think most will agree is really the "linux" in linux. Granted, Sueing KDE or Linux proper or even Red Hat and the like are probably not what they're aiming for, but what are they aiming for anyway?
I grazed over the article for a while, and didn't find mention of what patents were violated, but I can think of only a few cases:
A) Wine/Cedega/etc
Makes the most sense, as far as I can see though, Cedega is really the only one in any remote danger. But I have to ask, whats the point? Wine is just making your windows software get used more, granted its not on Windows, but it's still getting bought. I understand that the OSS communities implementations of Windows API wrappers is maybe a touch on the "your touching my patent places" side. But Wine alone couldn't make up the 235 some odd violations you're talking about Microsoft.
B) Lower level stuff, driver level stuff.
The classic anti-free patent argument. "You can't write your own (driver|kernel|etc), we sell those, so we must have invented it." It's like saying "You can't sell cars, we sell cars, and it would hurt our business if you, god forbid, tried to make money!" Honestly, I've seen these arguments over and over, they piss me off. From Apple's "Look and feel" suits to the whole issue of who owns Unix, and all this other silly stuff. I think the principle issue is that companies like Microsoft and Apple all call themselves capitalists, but when push comes to shove, they expect competition to get out of there way, because they're big. In the Corporate world, this works, Companies smaller than MS/Apple run away, or they'll be crushed. Companies like IBM don't typically enter MS's or Apple's world, so they get more or less left alone, and everyone's happy. But then there's (F)OSS, which sit directly in MS's and Apple's Path, but unlike small companies, they don't move, because theres effectively nothing MS can do about it. Even if someone were to successfully stop a large set of OSS projects, they would immediately spring right back up somewhere else. It's like trying to sweep up smog, it just wont work.
All in all, MS is just barking because they want to spread some FUD and _maybe_ scare some of the newer, more skiddish OSS dev's from doing something the MS already does.
The argument is over, but I came up with this quip at one point during the post, and just wanted to share it because I though it was good:
MS argument really is: "You can't sell cars, because we invented wheels!"
Meh, Sillyness.
I was wondering how long it would take for Pd to come up,
I've used Pd Extensively, I used to use Reason 3 and Digital Performer on the Mac's at school, I decided to set up a box for music for myself and, while researching I found the Linux, given a properly configured box that is sufficiently powerful (I'm using a 2Ghz, 1G RAM, so by todays standards, not to shabby box) with a decent soundcard can give all the tools I've used on the Mac a good run for there money. I agree that while Linux DAW's are occasionally deficient in some areas, combining them with Jack you can actually get a pretty efficient system working. As for Lack of MIDI editing in things like Ardour. I Think that in some ways its a good thing that it doesn't exist, in my experience, when I try to write a piece of software which does two very different things, I find that both things suffer. However, using a combination of Jack, Ardour, Rosegarden, and Pd, I can edit Efficiently any piece of music I record with my band and other bands I work with.
As for credentials, I'm an amateur Audio engineer and Guitarist, I play with a little band out in MA. I don't claim to know anything more than what I know, and I know what I know quite well. (have fun parsing that).
All in all, Linux + Music == Not half bad, I use it, I like it, and most importantly, it gets the job done well. Whatever your preference, you have to give it that at least.
~~Joe
-- Math Major, *ouch* ...
I'm actually working on an OSS CAS in the vein of Mathematica and other Math systems I've dealt with. It's not going to be released for some time, but what I have now (Basic support for Symbols/ Eq solving, Symbolic Polynomial Math, Arbitrary precision arithmetic, Sets) is looking pretty good.
ick.
Maple, IMO, looks like Pascal and Intercal got together and had a retarded, one eyed, three toothed baboon child.
But thats just my take, it is a pretty okay CAS, I suppose.
Yes, but it only has a _few_ big holes...
:)
On another Note, based on what I read, this whole thing says that the universe is effectively "not rendering" when we aren't looking/sensing/etc. I think it makes sense, because the universe would totally lag if it were always rendering...
Ditto, Take it from a Bostoner, Big Digs are Bad. Very, Very Bad.
Steve Ballmer == Howard Dean? YAAHHRRRRGGG!!!
The point of those passages is to discourage people from being rampantly promiscuous. Obviously, Doing so can cause problems, STD's, Unwanted Pregnancy, etc. The Author of that passage (Paul, as I remember, Corinthians, maybe?) is trying to warn people to avoid that practice because it could be deadly, and literally cause harm to your body. Not to mention the emotional issues, its often alot more trouble than its worth. Paul isn't trying to say, (AFAIC) that extramarital sex is bad per se. But rather, that its probably not worth the hassal. It's probably safer for you and the person you love to just not do it. Eliminate the possibility of something bad happening. No?
I don't think Paul would be stupid enough to say "Don't do this, ever, if you do, your going to hell" because that would just galvanize the people to want to do it more often. Look at the Christian movement in it's early years. The very fact that Rome tried to stop them only galvanized and actually popularized their movement. This is a common human response, Paul would have known that, it wouldn't make sense for him to yell at the "misbehaving" Corinthians, that would have just made things worse. Instead, he tried to appeal to thier reason.
I think that Christians these days forget that fundamental fact. You get more flies with honey, than with Vinegar.
I direct you to any of the following. Noting that I have not seen (nor do I plan to see) "swap.avi", I would assume that it is a relatively gruesome display of a number of sex acts. I'm not interested in scarring my brain with such things. So you can tell me if this par's up. Also note, I am a relatively (as much as I can be) unbiased Agnostic, I don't particularly care what side you are on, this is just a response to Crizp's request. Ezekial 23 link to online version http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekie l%2023;&version=9;
Highlights:
2) Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother:
3) And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity.
4) And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.
5) And Aholah played the harlot when she was mine; and she doted on her lovers, on the Assyrians her neighbours,
6) Which were clothed with blue, captains and rulers, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding upon horses.
7) Thus she committed her whoredoms with them, with all them that were the chosen men of Assyria, and with all on whom she doted: with all their idols she defiled herself.
8) Neither left she her whoredoms brought from Egypt: for in her youth they lay with her, and they bruised the breasts of her virginity, and poured their whoredom upon her.
9) Wherefore I have delivered her into the hand of her lovers, into the hand of the Assyrians, upon whom she doted.
10) These discovered her nakedness: they took her sons and her daughters, and slew her with the sword: and she became famous among women; for they had executed judgment upon her
The passage goes on to describe how Aholah's sister is even more promiscuous than Aholah. Her fare is similar.
The story of Lot's escape from Sodom & Gomhorrah
Genesis 19
Link: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&cha pter=19&version=9
Highlights:
(just one verse, I think that should cover it.)
5) And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
For those who do not know the story, the "men" they are talking about are actually angels, eventually, Lot decides to give the mob his two daughters to rape instead of the two men. Later (I think in chapter 20, if memory serves) Lot's two daughters commit incest with their father, because they thought that it was the end of the world, and they would need to repopulate it.
There are several more examples, I think of Joseph and his Master's wife -- though I must admit, that one is significantly more tame than the former two. Revelation's treatise of the "Whore of Babylon, mother of Abominations" (I think that was the title.)
All the verses were in the King James Version.
I also agree, and would like to note the fact that most of wikipedias entries (at least the math entries) are sourced or mostly sourced. Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source, whether or not the article is sourced or unsourced. But It should certainly not be banned outright.
Only really adressing your first point, the other two look pretty spot on. It is true that most religions are not particularly hierarchical- not explicitly, anyway. But in every organization there is some sortof structure, you can't have organization without it. To use your example of the jewish religon. Its very true that there is nothing explicitly "higher" than rabbi, but it is also true that some rabbi's are more respected than other rabbi's, and some other rabbi's are more respected than them. I'm sure that there are some members of the religion who are not rabbi's, but function in similar respects- Generally older- wiser- more educated in the religon members. The same is true of other institutions- Schools, Businesses, Cults- everything has implicit structure- or else its not an organization, it's a disorganization.
What annoyed the jiggers out of me was his blatent dismissal of AI technology. He said something to the effect of "Neural nets == AI? Dont think so" which is just ignorant bullshit- Neural nets/SOM's/such are not only vital AI technology, but just one element of a vast set of AI software. Stupid article. BTW, to the guy who said VB was a good thing- No, it wasn't, really, not at all- Learn something that will teach you something, like Scheme- or Java, or C or something- anything but Basic.
Well, for 5D anyway, they'd be cubes in 4d...
Your point brings out an even better point... If it is to work for Everyone, which any decent security system should, then the problem of neurological diseases means that you must require some sort of trade off. That is, it only needs to be X percent correct. If the system can get 70% of your password right, it will let you in, the problem being, what if someone has a set of brainwaves that are like yours to that threshold. Alot of people are thinking along the lines of "I have to think a specific thought" but thats not nessecarily true, there are many things which are consistently happening in your brain which would likely be much easier to measure. I'm no biologist, but I'm sure there are inperceptibly different rhythms to be found in the beating of ones hard or how fast certain neurons fire that would be alot easier to measure than the brainwaves produced by a specific thought. Any way you slice this idea, however, you come down to the problem of whether or not someone has brainwaves that are close enough to be accepted. Heres a possibly better Schema. I would postulate that most people can remember some long series of something, in a specific order, we do it all the time anyway, most of the time we dont realize it. The problem with using these Long passwords currently is, they take forever to type. Certainly you **could** use the chorus of your favorite song or a passage from a favorite book, but it's impractical because its slow. not because its hard to remember. With this "technology" it could be possible to have a "voice" recognition system, that would print out characters on the screen, now you've solved the problem of how long it takes you to type something. However, you still have the problem of recognizing individual phonemes or words or etc. And also all the problems associated with voice-typing you have now. Certainly its a good Idea. It would, however, be relatively hard to implement for passwords, at least not the same way we have now. You could, feasibly, have it write down your password, and "read" it back to you by directly stimulating your auditory nerve. (hey, as long as we can listen, why can't we send?) if its wrong, you can manually correct parts of it, still running into the "slow" problem. but if the system were sufficiently accurate, you can now have 200+ character passwords (virtually impossible to crack with todays technology, possibly not by the "time" this "is" implemented, but who knows.) Anyway, just my .02$
Beng somewhat of a mathematician and crypto-buff, let me say this.
Firstly, it IS encryption, there is data being hidden in a non-obvious format,
Dictionary.com says this about the term "Encrypt"
encrypt
tr.v. encrypted, encrypting, encrypts
1. To put into code or cipher.
2. Computer Science. To alter (a file, for example) using a secret code so as to be unintelligible to unauthorized parties.
I see nothing about mathematical transforms there. In fact, many ciphers are not mathematical at all, some are completely visual, take for instance Transpostition ciphers, like the hedgerow cipher, (every other letter is taken out and shifted to the end). There is no mathematical transform that you use, no numbers are assigned. Now, notably, you can describe THIS cipher using group theory (it a morphism on a group), however, It can be done with no knowledge of any math at all.
Second, Slightly less of this topic, this is terribly intresting, as the quantum encryption scheme was touted as "completely" unbreakable. And now its been cracked before its even been used. I wonder if anyone will come up with something stronger before (if they ever get to the point where they are usable) Quantum computers invalidate RSA and other factorization based ciphers...
Any other articles out there about different types of quantum encryption?