Pete Capelli wrote:
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 20:07:23 +0100, Dave Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
all generalizations are false, including this one.
Is this self-referential?
yes - some generalizations are accurate - and its also a quote, but I
may have misworded it so I didn't quotemark it or supply a
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 20:07:23 +0100, Dave Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> all generalizations are false, including this one.
Is this self-referential?
Morlock Elloi wrote:
Hint: all major cryptanalytic advances, where governments broke a cypher and
general public found out few *decades* later were not of brute-force kind.
all generalizations are false, including this one.
most of the WWII advances in computing were to brute-force code engines,
n
From: "Major Variola (ret)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Aug 2, 2004 11:56 PM
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: On what the NSA does with its tech
...
What they can do is implement an advanced dictionary search that
includes the kin
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 06:16:14PM -0400, Adam Back wrote:
> The planet sized processor stuff reminds me of Charlie Stross' sci-fi
> short story "Scratch Monkey" which features nanotech, planet sized
Not a coincidence, as he's been mining diverse transhumanist/extropian
communities for raw bits.
>The impracticability of breaking symmetric ciphers is only a
>comparatively small part of the overall problem.
I see that "it can be done only by brute farce" myth is live and well.
Hint: all major cryptanalytic advances, where governments broke a cypher and
general public found out few *decades
At 02:23 AM 8/5/04 +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
>
>The impracticability of breaking symmetric ciphers is only a
comparatively
>small part of the overall problem.
Indeed. Following Schneier's axiom, go for the humans, it would not
be too hard to involutarily addict someone to something which the
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, Hal Finney wrote:
> As you can see, breaking 128 bit keys is certainly not a task which is
> so impossible that it would fail even if every atom were a computer.
> If we really needed to do it, it's not outside the realm of possibility
> that it could be accomplished within 50
The planet sized processor stuff reminds me of Charlie Stross' sci-fi
short story "Scratch Monkey" which features nanotech, planet sized
processors which colonize space and build more planet-sized
processors. The application is upload, real-time memory backup, and
afterlife in DreamTime (distribut
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 04:44:58PM -0400, Jack Lloyd wrote:
> If I did my unit conversions right, such a disk would be over 30,000 miles in
Drexler's estimate for computers are coservative (purely mechanical rod
logic).
SWNT-based reversible logic (in spintronics? even utilizing nontrivial
amoun
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 11:04:15AM -0700, "Hal Finney" wrote:
[...]
> The system will consume 10^25 * 60 nanowatts or about 6 * 10^17 watts.
> Now, that's a lot. It's four times what the earth receives from the sun.
> So we have to build a disk four times the area (not volume) of the earth,
> co
MV writes:
> Yes. They can't break a 128 bit key. That's obvious. ("if all the
> atoms in the
> universe were computers..." goes the argument).
Not necessarily, if nanotechnology works. 128 bits is big but not
that big.
Eric Drexler, in Nanosystems, section 12.9, predicts that a nanotech
base
At 02:39 PM 8/2/04 -0400, John Kelsey wrote:
>This is silly. They have black budgets, but not infinite ones. Given
their budget (whatever it is), they want to buy the most processing bang
for their buck.
Yes. They can't break a 128 bit key. That's obvious. ("if all the
atoms in the
universe w
13 matches
Mail list logo
