Cryptography-Digest Digest #796, Volume #13 Sun, 4 Mar 01 15:13:00 EST
Contents:
Re: Is BORG mental patient Linda Gore SSRIHater?? Re: Fake SSRIHATER (Johan M.
Olofsson)
Re: HPRNG (Darren New)
Re: OverWrite freeware completely removes unwanted files fromharddrive (Mok-Kong
Shen)
Re: OverWrite freeware completely removes unwanted files fromharddrive (Darren New)
Re: philosophical question? (Ignacio Rodriguez)
Re: OT: Legitimacy of Governmental Power (Was: Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption
...?) (nemo outis)
Re: OverWrite freeware completely removes unwanted files fromharddrive (Steve Portly)
Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...? (Beretta)
Re: philosophical question? ("Randoman")
Re: philosophical question? (Randy Poe)
Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...? ("Randoman")
Re: philosophical question? (Fred Galvin)
Re: OverWrite freeware completely removes unwanted files fromharddrive (Darren New)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Johan M. Olofsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.support.depression.medication,soc.culture.russian,soc.org.kkk,dk.snak.mudderkastning,rec.scouting.issues
Subject: Re: Is BORG mental patient Linda Gore SSRIHater?? Re: Fake SSRIHATER
Date: 4 Mar 2001 11:35:02 -0600
Beeftain wrote:
> "Johan M. Olofsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Beeftain wrote:
> >
> > > "alexplore" <alexplore@alexplore> wrote in message
>news:97jbuk$if6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > Beeftain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:97j635$1sli$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > "alexplore" <alexplore@alexplore> wrote in message
> > > > news:97j1m4$687$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Beeftain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:97j0ii$1jf5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > Pippelip gokkelok!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You must be mentally ill like Linda Gore!
> > > >
> > > > Linda Gore is a mental patient on the "crazies groups"...
> > > > Very mentally ill... married 4 times... does a lot of
> > > > "psychiatric medications"... for 23 years in fact...
> > > > that and fucking drunks and posting about how to stuff their
> > > > limp dicks up her cunt.
> > > >
> > > > "Diagnossing" her son.... sees that he needs a lot of psychiatric drugs
> > > > too...
> > > >
> > > > Disgusting piece of shit! Someone out there will be husband #
> > > > 5 sooner or later.... always a horny asshole that will fuck anything... Ask
> > > > Igor Chudov and Yelena Purdunkova about that :)
> > >
> > > Who are they?
> > >
> > > > > Well, Al Gore _is_ mentally ill...
> > > >
> > > > Not so much as his wife "Tipper" (hell kind of name is THAT!)
> > >
> > > She discovered these Parental Advisory-stickers. It's narrow-minded.
> > >
> > > > > not very less than George Bush.
> > > >
> > > > at least his wife ain't eating head-drug pills like "Tipper" :)
> > > > or Igor Chudov...
> > >
> > > No, but any wife of Bush must be brainwashed. Bush is a f...... maniac.
> > >
> > > Which group are you writing in?
> >
> > All of them, of course.
>
> The original, then.
Beats me. I'm reading in soc.org.kkk like most good Democrats.
------------------------------
From: Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HPRNG
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 18:03:51 GMT
Simon Johnson wrote:
> I'm not saying physics isn't a religion (in many senses it is),
Err, no, it's not. Science tells you how the universe works. Technology
tells you how to use science to get what you want. Religion tells you what
you want. Faith enters into science only to the extent that you assume the
universe isn't trying to fool you and that the laws of physics aren't
changing. Faith enters into religion only to the extent that religious
leaders want you to want the same things they want.
--
Darren New / Senior MTS & Free Radical / Invisible Worlds Inc.
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.hacker
Subject: Re: OverWrite freeware completely removes unwanted files fromharddrive
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:17:51 +0100
Darren New wrote:
>
> Anthony Stephen Szopa wrote:
........
[snip]
> No. What we're saying is that you don't know what the fclose() statement
> does. It's possible for fclose() to succeed with no I/O to the disk at all.
I have barely any knowledge about I/O in modern OS, but I
suppose that there are disk maintenance software that
directly cause read/write of the hardware. Presumably that
could serve the purpose of reliably manipulating the contents
of the disk at will. Does anyone happen to know publically
available software of that sort?
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.hacker
Subject: Re: OverWrite freeware completely removes unwanted files fromharddrive
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 18:41:46 GMT
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> I have barely any knowledge about I/O in modern OS, but I
> suppose that there are disk maintenance software that
> directly cause read/write of the hardware.
Yes. It's called a device driver. :-)
> Presumably that
> could serve the purpose of reliably manipulating the contents
> of the disk at will. Does anyone happen to know publically
> available software of that sort?
Linux kernel software.
--
Darren New / Senior MTS & Free Radical / Invisible Worlds Inc.
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
Randomness: "To err is human"
Pseudo-randomness: "That air is from beans."
------------------------------
From: Ignacio Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: philosophical question?
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:45:05 +0100
I am sorry but I think you don't understand the laws of physics. According
to current knowledge, quantum theory explains known facts in a very
satisfactory way, and is generally believed to be true. Quantum theory gives
a straightforward way to produce true random numbers. Take a system which is
not in an eigenstate of a particular observable, and measure that
observable. The result that you will get has a known probability but is
trully random. For example, if you have a 1/2 spin particle with its spin
certainly in the x direction, and you measure its spin in the z direction,
the result you will get has 50% probability of being +1/2 and 50%
probability of being -1/2. True random.
HiEv wrote:
> Peter Osborne wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > Can there be a fundamental difference between pseudo-randomness and
> > real randomness (e.g. generated by radioactive decay or thermal
> > noise), especially under these aspects mentioned above?
>
> There is no such thing as "true randomness", there is only randomness
> that is so complex that it cannot be understood.
>
> If you could tell the position, speed, number, age, etc. of the atoms in
> your uranium sample and could shield if from outside influence, with a
> perfect understanding of physics and a *really* powerful computer you
> could simulate the sample and get the same results. (Yes, I know I'm
> violating the Heisenberg uncertainty principal here, but this is a
> theoretical/philosophical thought. :-)
>
> If you got your random numbers from the low order bits of text from
> pseudo-randomly selected, often changing, web sites, is that "true"
> randomness once those sites change?
>
> It seems that "true randomness" really means irreproducibly random,
> because there is no real "true randomness".
>
> Keep in mind that fate exists and cannot be fought because everything
> has, is, and always will follow the laws of physics.
>
> And now, before I lapse into a discussion of the Omega Point <grin>, I
> bid you adieu.
--
같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같�
Ignacio Rodriguez Ramirez de Arellano
Unidad de RMN
Universidad Complutense
Paseo Juan XXIII, 1
Madrid 28040, Spain
Tel. 34-91-394-3288
Fax 34-91-394-3245
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같�
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.crypto
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (nemo outis)
Subject: Re: OT: Legitimacy of Governmental Power (Was: Re: => FBI easily cracks
encryption ...?)
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:03:35 GMT
There are institutions which can proscribe a party for actions "against the
constitution?" A special secret service to investigate those acting "against
the constitution?" Article 18 can be used to remove "freedom of speech" from
some? And articles of a constitution that can never be changed?
Wow, what a great infrastructure to act as a springboard from which to
establish a single-party totalitarian system! Couldn't have asked for much
more.
Somewhere there's probably a unemployed housepainter with a little moustache
figuring out how to get his cronies into that secret service, and do all the
other "necessary things" to "protect the constitution and the people!"
Regards,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe H. Acker) wrote:
>Mxsmanic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> > Democracy may have to account for a lot of sins
>> > but that is not one of them.
>>
>> As I said, it's comforting to think that, but it isn't necessarily true.
>> Democracy allows despots to be elected, too.
>
>Not always. Today's constitution in Germany does not allow despots to be
>elected. It can actively fight persons, groups or parties that actively
>act against the constitution or seek to invalidate the constitution,
>even if these groups only use democratic means. For example, by petition
>the German Supreme Court for the instituion (Bundesverfassungsgericht)
>can check wether a political party is actively and aggressively engaging
>against the constitution, and if so, the party can be prohibited. (Right
>now, the Bundesverfassungsgericht has to decide wether the German NPD
>will be prohibited or not. The decision process is supposed to take
>several years of judgement.) There's also a special secret service to
>gather information about groups or people that act against the
>constitution (the Bundesamt f�r Verfassungschutz). However, this agency
>has no executive rights (it is not a police authority, that's a very
>different concept compared e.g. to the FBI).
>
> There have been installed an immense number of other means to protect
>democracy against inner threads. Most noteworthy: Article 18 can take
>away at least to a part *some* fundamental rights (like freedom of
>speech) from people who actively fight against the constitution. The
>Bundesverfassungsgericht decides about this. Article 20,4 gives the
>expressive right to any German to resist against undemocratic laws,
>violations of the principles of free elections, that all power's source
>is the people, and that Germany is democratic, social and federal.
>Article 25 makes sure that general rights of peoples have precedence
>over special laws of state. And article 79 makes sure that article 1
>(dignity of any human, human rights, validity of the constitution) and
>article 20 can never be changed by any democratic means.
>
>All of that and much more ensures that any despote would automatically
>violate the constitution and none of his decrets, laws or instruments of
>power would ever be democratic or constitutional. And anyone would have
>the right to resist him and would act according to the constitution in
>doing so. :)
>
>As someone has pointed out, the Weimarer Republic had almost none of
>such means to protect democracy, and that's one reason why the Nazis
>could gain power by democratic means--- "democratic" in terms of the
>flawed constitution of the Weimarer Republic.
>
>Regards,
>
>Erich
------------------------------
From: Steve Portly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.hacker
Subject: Re: OverWrite freeware completely removes unwanted files fromharddrive
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 14:07:00 -0500
Darren New wrote:
> Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> > I have barely any knowledge about I/O in modern OS, but I
> > suppose that there are disk maintenance software that
> > directly cause read/write of the hardware.
>
> Yes. It's called a device driver. :-)
>
> > Presumably that
> > could serve the purpose of reliably manipulating the contents
> > of the disk at will. Does anyone happen to know publically
> > available software of that sort?
>
> Linux kernel software.
>
You presume that cache writing protocols are operating system specific.
The problem with cache clearing may be firmware related on some hard
drive configurations. It saves a lot of hardware wear and tear keeping
the I/O virtual and implementing a several second lag time before a
physical write. Physical hard drive overwriting is the only application
that demands on a non virtual implementation of a disk write. The only
absolute requirement for physical hard drive writes is in regards to
data loss from power outages. Consumer machines usually lag only two
seconds. Servers connected to a UPS often have the dirty disk cache lag
time set as long as 30 seconds to eliminate multiple redundant I/O
requests. I am not sure that Linux will implement physical hard drive
writes for all configurations of hardware and firmware although it may.
------------------------------
From: Beretta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...?
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:09:05 GMT
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:10:01 +0100, "kroesjnov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>
>I am willing to trade some privacy for safety.
<snip>
So basically, you are saying that you'll trade your privacy to be a sheep? I.e.
you'll give up your rights so that the goverment can play the role of
sheepherder?
PGP Key: 0x194DF369
Fingerprint: B777 DB2A FB11 55FA 509D CE63 F3DE D665 194D F369
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Randoman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Randoman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: philosophical question?
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 19:13:03 -0000
Ignacio Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> For example, if you have a 1/2 spin particle with its spin
> certainly in the x direction, and you measure its spin in the z direction,
> the result you will get has 50% probability of being +1/2 and 50%
> probability of being -1/2. True random.
>
I'm pretty hazy on Quantum Physics but isn't there a paradox to do with
particles generated in pairs so that I measure the spin of one or them. You
independently measure the spin of the other, then you know the spin of mine.
The paradox had to do with information (the spin of my particle) being
transferred faster than light.
Given that, could I not determine your random bit below by feeding you the
particle to measure and I then look at it's partner?
As I say I'm not a physicist so this could be rubbish.
Comments?
Gerald
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randy Poe)
Crossposted-To: sci.crypt.random-numbers,de.sci.informatik.misc,sci.math
Subject: Re: philosophical question?
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 18:31:46 GMT
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 17:46:31 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe H. Acker)
wrote:
>Here's my question to you, which is only interesting if you haven't yet
>heard about it:
>
>You participate in a TV-show and can win a car. The car is behind one of
>three doors, behind the two other doors are goats. You have to choose
>one door and choose door number 1. It is kept close. Now the moderator
>knows behind which door the car is, and says: "I'll show you something."
>He opens door three and behind the door is a goat. Then he asks: "Would
>you like to stay with door number 1 or do you want to choose door number
>2?"
>
>Are there better chances to win if you choose door number 2?
It's called the "Monty Hall" problem after the host of the "Let's Make
a Deal" game show on which it's based. You can find it in the sci.math
FAQ.
The answer depends on the rules the host is following. The interesting
result happens when the host knows which door contains the car, and
will always open a door with a goat after saying "I'll show you
something", whether or not you have already picked the car.
You should switch.
If the host is malicious, only offering you another choice when he
knows you have the car, then it doesn't pay to switch (obviously,
since you're guaranteed to lose in that case).
- Randy
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Randoman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Randoman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...?
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 19:29:12 -0000
Beretta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:10:01 +0100, "kroesjnov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> >I am willing to trade some privacy for safety.
> <snip>
>
> So basically, you are saying that you'll trade your privacy to be a sheep?
I.e.
> you'll give up your rights so that the goverment can play the role of
> sheepherder?
>
I don't want police & intelligence services reading my email or files. But
I do want them to read the communications of people who might plant a bomb
on the next plane I take. Technology has advanced to the point where small,
easily-carried items can kill a large number of people indiscriminately. I
personally want some degree of protection against being possibly blown up or
infected with some nasty genetically engineered, long-incubation-period,
highly-contagious, high-fatality disease.
I used to hate the metal detector and plastic explosive sniffer in airports.
Then I was flying Pan-Am from London in January. I changed my flights and
for that reason alone wasn't on the Lockerbie flight. Since then I no
longer have any problem with security at airports and would (relatively)
happily put up with more stringent security.
It's a trade-off between safety and privacy. I don't want Big Brother, but
equally, I don't want the police & intelligence services to stop trying to
protect the population where I live. I know it's open to abuse and I wish
there was some way that my communications were left unread but the bad guys
caught.
Unfortunately, the bad guys don't wear black!
Gerry
------------------------------
From: Fred Galvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.crypt.random-numbers,de.sci.informatik.misc,sci.math
Subject: Re: philosophical question?
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:51:27 -0600
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Randy Poe wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 17:46:31 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe H. Acker)
> wrote:
>
> >Here's my question to you, which is only interesting if you haven't yet
> >heard about it:
> >
> >You participate in a TV-show and can win a car. The car is behind one of
> >three doors, behind the two other doors are goats. You have to choose
> >one door and choose door number 1. It is kept close. Now the moderator
> >knows behind which door the car is, and says: "I'll show you something."
> >He opens door three and behind the door is a goat. Then he asks: "Would
> >you like to stay with door number 1 or do you want to choose door number
> >2?"
> >
> >Are there better chances to win if you choose door number 2?
>
> It's called the "Monty Hall" problem after the host of the "Let's
> Make a Deal" game show on which it's based. You can find it in the
> sci.math FAQ.
>
> The answer depends on the rules the host is following. The
> interesting result happens when the host knows which door contains
> the car, and will always open a door with a goat after saying
> "I'll show you something", whether or not you have already picked
> the car.
>
> You should switch.
>
> If the host is malicious, only offering you another choice when he
> knows you have the car, then it doesn't pay to switch (obviously,
> since you're guaranteed to lose in that case).
Good explanation. Now, what about this variant? Just leave out the
part about Monty opening a door and showing you a goat. (We assume
that Monty knows where the car is, and the car is more valuable than
the goats.) After you pick door number 1, without opening any doors,
Monty says, "Are you sure you wouldn't rather have door number 2?
Here's the deal: you can keep door number 1, or you can trade it for
door number 2." This is the *same* problem as the usual Monty Hall
problem, right? Showing you the goat behind door number 3 is just for
misdirection or dramatic effect; it shouldn't affect your decision.
--
People who don't have a sense of humor shouldn't try to be funny.
------------------------------
From: Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.hacker
Subject: Re: OverWrite freeware completely removes unwanted files fromharddrive
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:58:18 GMT
Steve Portly wrote:
> You presume that cache writing protocols are operating system specific.
> The problem with cache clearing may be firmware related on some hard
> drive configurations.
That's true. However, I believe there are both SCSI and IDE specs for
commands that flush even hardware buffers to the platters. These are used by
(for example) Windows when it's shutting down.
No, it's not a simple topic. :-)
--
Darren New / Senior MTS & Free Radical / Invisible Worlds Inc.
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
Randomness: "To err is human"
Pseudo-randomness: "That air is from beans."
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to sci.crypt.
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
