receive substantial income, at this time
Major income handling Judicial Judgments. You can process from anywhere in the world. One's own successful business. Flex Hrs. Current associates are at 5,000US to 12,000US per/Mo. Excellent training and assistance. http://kt.4o.megamixedproducts.com/sn/ Above for additional info or to discontinue receiving or to see our address. This inspection somewhat embarrassed him, and having no mind to be stared at he put on additional speed and soon left the steamer far behind him. About noon the sky clouded over, and Rob feared a rainstorm was approaching So he rose to a point considerably beyond the clouds, where the air was thin but remarkably pleasant to inhale and the rays of the sun were not so hot as when reflected by the surface of the water
Re: Pi: Less Random Than We Thought
hi, If you remember D.E Knuth's book on Semi-Numerical Algorithms he shows some annoying subsequences of pi in it which are far from random. Sarad. --- cypherpunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This doesn't really make sense. Either the digits are random or they are not. You can't be a little bit random. Well, you can be, but the point is that you either pass the test or you don't. If pi's digits fail a test of randomness in a statistically significant way, that is big news. If they pass it, then there is no meaningful way to compare them with another RNG that also passes. It's just a statistical quirk due to random variation as to which will do better than another on any given test. The bottom line is still that either an RNG passes the tests acceptably or it does not. From what they say (or don't say), pi does pass. It doesn't make sense to say that other RNGs do better. CP Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
Re: Pi: Less Random Than We Thought
Sarad writes: If you remember D.E Knuth's book on Semi-Numerical Algorithms he shows some annoying subsequences of pi in it which are far from random. I don't have Knuth's book handy to look at, but it's not really correct to speak of a particular sequence or subsequence of digits as being random or non-random. For example, is this sequence of bits random: 01100100010? How about this one: 00? From a true random number generator, both are completely possible and equally valid. (Furthermore, I would contend that the digits of pi are *non-random* by definition.) --- cypherpunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This doesn't really make sense. Either the digits are random or they are not. You can't be a little bit random. Well, you can be, but the point is that you either pass the test or you don't. [snip] The bottom line is still that either an RNG passes the tests acceptably or it does not. From what they say (or don't say), pi does pass. It doesn't make sense to say that other RNGs do better. One can only do statistical analyses of sequences of digits to determine whether they *appear* to have a uniform distribution of individual digits and subsequences. Of course the result of such a test (positive *or* negative) doesn't positively confirm whether a given digit source is truly random. Wikipedia has a good article on randomness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random GH _ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Re: Pi: Less Random Than We Thought
Cypherpunk: While I respect your forthrightness you are unfortunately wrong. Read the chapters on Randon Mumber generation from Numerical Recipes in C and you get just a small glimpse of how sticky the issue is, particularly when it comes to computers (which are innately non-random, by the way). As a very simple example, imagine that after 10 billion digits we found that the average value was actually 5.1. This would make it, in your book, not random at all, but I suspect that for almost many uses it would be random enough. And then, imagine that the cumulative average of the digits of pi oscillated around 5 (to one part in a zillion) with a period of 100 Billion...is this random enough for you? Let us remember, of course, that the digits of pi are not random whatsoever: they are the digits of pi! Random is in the eye of the beholder. I was hoping Cordian would grumpily reply...he's a number theorist or something. -TD From: Sarad AV [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pi: Less Random Than We Thought Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 05:43:35 -0700 (PDT) hi, If you remember D.E Knuth's book on Semi-Numerical Algorithms he shows some annoying subsequences of pi in it which are far from random. Sarad. --- cypherpunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This doesn't really make sense. Either the digits are random or they are not. You can't be a little bit random. Well, you can be, but the point is that you either pass the test or you don't. If pi's digits fail a test of randomness in a statistically significant way, that is big news. If they pass it, then there is no meaningful way to compare them with another RNG that also passes. It's just a statistical quirk due to random variation as to which will do better than another on any given test. The bottom line is still that either an RNG passes the tests acceptably or it does not. From what they say (or don't say), pi does pass. It doesn't make sense to say that other RNGs do better. CP Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
[IP] Google's Web Accelerator is a big privacy risk (fwd from dave@farber.net)
- Forwarded message from David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 15:38:46 -0400 To: Ip ip@v2.listbox.com Subject: [IP] Google's Web Accelerator is a big privacy risk X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.728) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Begin forwarded message: From: Brian Carini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: May 5, 2005 11:06:12 AM EDT To: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Google's Web Accelerator is a big privacy risk Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dave, (for IP if you wish) Google is now offering a download and service called Web Accelerator (see http://webaccelerator.google.com/support.html ), which purportedly speeds up a broadband connection through proxy and caching. The application routes all page requests (except https) through Google's servers. Each page request is logged by Google. I've said this before: I really like Google, but they are getting dangerous. Google has a great image as a good company. They have engendered a great amount of trust through their Don't Be Evil motto. And I think they really mean it. But the fact is that they are stockpiling a perilous amount of personal information about their users. Already, Google logs every search request with its IP address. Google has acknowledged this log in a number of interviews. But, they have never answered why they keep such a log. The search log by itself is not too harmful since the IP address identifies a computer and not a person. The searches cannot easily be traced to a particular person without help from the ISP, unless a person likes to Google their own name frequently. If Google's search log makes you feel uneasy, Google Web Accelerator is much more threatening to privacy. When you use Google Web Accelerator, Google servers receive and log your page requests. (http://webaccelerator.google.com/privacy.html ) In other words, every non-encrypted web transaction is recorded permanently at Google. This page request log could be used to create a near-perfect reconstruction of a persons web use. Every page view, every search on every engine, every unencrypted login, any information (including name, address, email address, etc) submitted using the HTTP: GET or POST methods will stored in this page request log. I expect that it would be possible to identify a large proportion of individuals from their page request log. I don't think that Google currently has any evil intent for this data. That would be at odds with their Don't' Be Evil motto. I assume the current reason for collecting this data is simply for research. But, over time, slogans change, companies are bought and sold, and data is frequently repurposed, sold, or stolen. Then privacy will suffer. Google admits, Web Accelerator receives much of the same kind of information you currently send to your ISP when you surf the Web (see http://webaccelerator.google.com/support.html#basics5 ) But the difference is that my ISP doesn't keep that information, along with my search history and every email that I send and receive. Or if they do, they aren't telling me about it. Brian Carini - You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ - End forwarded message - -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a __ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[p2p-hackers] ePOST: Secure, Severless Email (fwd from amislove@rice.edu)
- Forwarded message from Alan Mislove [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Alan Mislove [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 15:09:15 -0500 (CDT) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [p2p-hackers] ePOST: Secure, Severless Email Reply-To: Peer-to-peer development. [EMAIL PROTECTED] As some of you may know, the FreePastry group at Rice University is developing ePOST, a secure, decentralized, p2p email system. The service is provided cooperatively by the user's desktop computers, and ePOST provides better security and fault tolerance than existing email systems. Email exchanged between ePOST users is cryptographically sealed and authenticated and the service remains available even when traditional mail servers have failed. ePOST gives users plenty of email storage (users can use as much as they contribute of their own disk space). Moreover, users don't have to entrust their email to a commercial provider, who may mine thier data, target them with advertisement or start charging them once they're hooked. ePOST has been running as the primary email system for members of our group for over a year. ePOST works by joining a peer-to-peer network running a personal IMAP and SMTP server on your desktop, which is only for your email. ePOST is backward compatible with existing email systems, and your ePOST email address works just like a normal email address - you can send and receive messages from non-ePOST users. Additionally, you can use your existing email clients with ePOST, since ePOST provides standard IMAP and POP3 servers. A few of other features of ePOST are: - support for SSL connections - a data durability layer called Glacier, providing durability with up to 60% member node failures - support for laptops and machines behind NATs - support for networks with routing anomalies More information about ePOST is available at http://www.epostmail.org/. We now welcome additional ePOST users. If you are interested in seting up an ePOST account, please follow the installation instructions posted at http://www.epostmail.org/install.html. Most ePOST users have set up mail forwarding so that a copy of incoming mails are kept on their normal mail server, in addition to being forwarded to their ePOST account. We recommend this setup until ePOST is no longer in beta status, although we have not found an instance yet where using this backup was necessary to recover a lost email. Also, please let us know if you are interested in running a local ePOST ring at your institution. Running such a ring allows organizations to ensure all overlay traffic remains internal to the organization, while maintaining global connectivity. More information on running an organizational ring is available at http://www.epostmail.org/deploy.html. We are currently collecting high-level statistics from all of the ePOST nodes in our deployment for research purposes. These statistics concern the number of overlay messages sent and the amount of data stored on disk. We are not recording the plain text of emails, nor are we examining which users are exchanging emails. If the collection of statistics would prevent you from using ePOST, please don't hesitate to contact us, and we can turn these features off for you. Thanks again for your help, and don't hesitate to ask us any questions, comments, or suggestions, Alan Mislove, Ansley Post, Andreas Haeberlen, and Peter Druschel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ p2p-hackers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers ___ Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences: http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences - End forwarded message - -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a __ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pi: Less Random Than We Thought
Cypherpunk: While I respect your forthrightness you are unfortunately wrong. Read the chapters on Randon Mumber generation from Numerical Recipes in C and you get just a small glimpse of how sticky the issue is, particularly when it comes to computers (which are innately non-random, by the way). As a very simple example, imagine that after 10 billion digits we found that the average value was actually 5.1. This would make it, in your book, not random at all, but I suspect that for almost many uses it would be random enough. And then, imagine that the cumulative average of the digits of pi oscillated around 5 (to one part in a zillion) with a period of 100 Billion...is this random enough for you? Let us remember, of course, that the digits of pi are not random whatsoever: they are the digits of pi! Random is in the eye of the beholder. I was hoping Cordian would grumpily reply...he's a number theorist or something. -TD From: Sarad AV [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pi: Less Random Than We Thought Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 05:43:35 -0700 (PDT) hi, If you remember D.E Knuth's book on Semi-Numerical Algorithms he shows some annoying subsequences of pi in it which are far from random. Sarad. --- cypherpunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This doesn't really make sense. Either the digits are random or they are not. You can't be a little bit random. Well, you can be, but the point is that you either pass the test or you don't. If pi's digits fail a test of randomness in a statistically significant way, that is big news. If they pass it, then there is no meaningful way to compare them with another RNG that also passes. It's just a statistical quirk due to random variation as to which will do better than another on any given test. The bottom line is still that either an RNG passes the tests acceptably or it does not. From what they say (or don't say), pi does pass. It doesn't make sense to say that other RNGs do better. CP Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
