Re: your mail
This is the sixth release candidate for the 0.1.0.x series. This is an Did I miss some development or why exactly does cypherpunks care about a release candidate of libevent (or Wolfram's New Kind of Science for that matter)? Was I frozen for that long? Note that I am not trying to be a bitch or troll, but I am on this mailing list to follow the hacker culture and developments in privacy issues and Internet technology, not to learn about all kinds of tangential announcements. Could someone bring me up to speed, please? This is not flamebait. Really not. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! spamtraps: [EMAIL PROTECTED] he gave me his card he said, 'call me if they die' i shook his hand and said goodbye ran out to the street when a bowling ball came down the road and knocked me off my feet -- bob dylan signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: your mail
also sprach J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.05.16.1627 +0200]: and developments in privacy issues and Internet technology, not to learn about all kinds of tangential announcements. Then you are in the wrong fucking place buddy. This is cpunks: Information wants to be free and all that. Anything is postable, nothing turned away, even trolls like you are welcome additions. Interesting... this is not how I remembered it. Anyway, I apologise, and I apologise to Stephen Wolfram for the private message sent along those lines. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! spamtraps: [EMAIL PROTECTED] friendships last when each friend thinks he has a slight superiority over the other. -- honoré de balzac signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: your mail
also sprach martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.05.16.1924 +0200]: Interesting... this is not how I remembered it. ... I had been subscribed to the moderated minder.net list in the past... this explains :) Again, sorry, also for the noise. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! spamtraps: [EMAIL PROTECTED] if i am occasionally a little overdressed, i make up for it by being always immensely over-educated. -- oscar wilde signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: your mail
also sprach martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.05.16.1924 +0200]: Interesting... this is not how I remembered it. ... I had been subscribed to the moderated minder.net list in the past... this explains :) Again, sorry, also for the noise. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! spamtraps: [EMAIL PROTECTED] if i am occasionally a little overdressed, i make up for it by being always immensely over-educated. -- oscar wilde signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Smashing Windows
Here's an interesting read http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1078616,00.html -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! in the beginning was the word, and the word was content-type: text/plain [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
US outsourcing torture
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/11/5/94852/0804 sorry to all who's seen this already... -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! ... doch warum sollte nicht jeder einzelne aus seinem leben ein kunstwerk machen koennen? -- michel foucault [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: IPsec in 2.6
also sprach martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.10.09.2316 +0200]: PS: please don't CC me on mailing lists... i am sorry, you didn't. that was the other guy on another list. doh! -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! Most Intelligent Customers Realise Our Software Only Fools Them. [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: IPsec in 2.6
also sprach Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.10.09.1931 +0200]: What is wrong which just exchanging the keys for ad hoc mode? You could cache them and log whenever a key has changed (at least allowing to detect a MITM post facto). ... like SSH, huh? We're really looking for blanket rollout of a low-security service which wouldn't stand a dedicated attacker yet would effectively prevent large-scale screening of cleartext traffic as currently practised by diverse TLAs. I am all for it. This should be implementable in a cousin of isakmpd, no? PS: please don't CC me on mailing lists... -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! microsoft windoze - the best solitaire game you can buy. [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: IPsec in 2.6
also sprach Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.10.09.1129 +0200]: Are there technical reasons for this situation? If yes, what is required to enable IPsec default interoperability at least with open source OSses? A curious idea that I've been paying some attention to for a while. One could simply implement a means that tries to connect with IPsec by default and falls back to IP if unsuccessful (keeping a cache of IPsec incapable hosts). The main problem here, of course, the required public key repository, if you don't want to have your keys in DNS records. And also, the expensive SA negotiation and the potential for DoS. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! it is only the modern that ever becomes old-fashioned. -- oscar wilde [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: IPsec in 2.6
also sprach Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.10.09.1129 +0200]: Are there technical reasons for this situation? If yes, what is required to enable IPsec default interoperability at least with open source OSses? A curious idea that I've been paying some attention to for a while. One could simply implement a means that tries to connect with IPsec by default and falls back to IP if unsuccessful (keeping a cache of IPsec incapable hosts). The main problem here, of course, the required public key repository, if you don't want to have your keys in DNS records. And also, the expensive SA negotiation and the potential for DoS. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! it is only the modern that ever becomes old-fashioned. -- oscar wilde [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: IPsec in 2.6
also sprach Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.10.09.1931 +0200]: What is wrong which just exchanging the keys for ad hoc mode? You could cache them and log whenever a key has changed (at least allowing to detect a MITM post facto). .. like SSH, huh? We're really looking for blanket rollout of a low-security service which wouldn't stand a dedicated attacker yet would effectively prevent large-scale screening of cleartext traffic as currently practised by diverse TLAs. I am all for it. This should be implementable in a cousin of isakmpd, no? PS: please don't CC me on mailing lists... -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! microsoft windoze - the best solitaire game you can buy. [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: The Register - eBay to Fees: come and get what you want (fwd)
also sprach Roy M. Silvernail [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.09.20.1951 +0200]: slashdot You're new here, aren't you? /slashdot Not at all, I just never came across this discussion. I have pretty strong filters on cypherpunks, letting through only new threads and replies to threads that interest me. Now Choate is also a reason to delete a new thread. That can of worms has been opened many times before. Think of it as nature teaching you to learn about filter rules. I kinda knew the answer before I posted... -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: The Register - eBay to Fees: come and get what you want (fwd)
also sprach Jim Choate [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.09.20.1638 +0200]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32936.html Don't want to open a can of worms here, but is cypherpunks secondary function to be Jim's link distribution list? I mean, we all know The Register and we all look around. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! weekend, where are you? [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: The Register - eBay to Fees: come and get what you want (fwd)
also sprach Jim Choate [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.09.20.1638 +0200]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32936.html Don't want to open a can of worms here, but is cypherpunks secondary function to be Jim's link distribution list? I mean, we all know The Register and we all look around. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! weekend, where are you? [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: The Register - eBay to Fees: come and get what you want (fwd)
also sprach Roy M. Silvernail [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.09.20.1951 +0200]: slashdot You're new here, aren't you? /slashdot Not at all, I just never came across this discussion. I have pretty strong filters on cypherpunks, letting through only new threads and replies to threads that interest me. Now Choate is also a reason to delete a new thread. That can of worms has been opened many times before. Think of it as nature teaching you to learn about filter rules. I kinda knew the answer before I posted... -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: paradoxes of randomness
also sprach Sarad AV [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.08.17.1219 +0200]: Okay- I need 5 bits to represent 32 coins.I count as coin 0,coin 1,... coin 31. No, you can't count coin 0. Or how will you represent no coins? I would appreciate if you wouldn't simply include the quoted message in your reply. Either reply in its context, or delete it altogether. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! i have smoked pot. it is a stupid business, like masturbation. -- thomas pynchon (v) pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: paradoxes of randomness
also sprach Sarad AV [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.08.16.1321 +0200]: f(x)=2x for all x=0,1,2,... ; f(x)=2x+1 for all x=0,1,2,...; You need an extra bit to store which of the two is used. Otherwise, f(x)=2x =2*5 =10for x=5; Decimal number 5 can be represented in binary as 101. ... you can't decompress five as you don't know if it's 10 or 11. and it's exactly this 2^0 bit which your compression kicks off. you need it, can't do without. [...] If the input programmes are picked truely randomly,then I know 16 of the programs will halt(i.e 50% of the programs halt). Look at it differently: you have a 50% chance of guessing whether a given program from the sack will halt or not. This sheds some different light onto the issue, doesn't it? I raise a different question: are there more programs that halt than programs that don't halt, or the other way around, or are they equal in number? So where is the redundancy in different instances of the halting problem? I don't see any redundancy. It's simple, if I am correct. The redundancy simply makes you care less about the specific instance you are looking at. To represent 32 coins-i need 5 bits of information. Since the experiment is truely random-i know half of them will be heads,so in this case using 5 bits of information,i can determine all the coins that are heads and that are tails. Same deal, unless you are counting pairs, in which case you cannot distinguish between the members of a pair. You need an extra bit to tell a head from a tail. So-the question is what is the minimum number of bits or entropy required to determine which all coins are heads and which all coins are tails,is it 5 bits or 6 bits of information? With 5 bits, you can count to 31, so you need 6. Just my two tails. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! i love deadlines. i like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by. -- douglas adams pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: paradoxes of randomness
also sprach Sarad AV [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.08.16.1321 +0200]: f(x)=2x for all x=0,1,2,... ; f(x)=2x+1 for all x=0,1,2,...; You need an extra bit to store which of the two is used. Otherwise, f(x)=2x =2*5 =10for x=5; Decimal number 5 can be represented in binary as 101. ... you can't decompress five as you don't know if it's 10 or 11. and it's exactly this 2^0 bit which your compression kicks off. you need it, can't do without. [...] If the input programmes are picked truely randomly,then I know 16 of the programs will halt(i.e 50% of the programs halt). Look at it differently: you have a 50% chance of guessing whether a given program from the sack will halt or not. This sheds some different light onto the issue, doesn't it? I raise a different question: are there more programs that halt than programs that don't halt, or the other way around, or are they equal in number? So where is the redundancy in different instances of the halting problem? I don't see any redundancy. It's simple, if I am correct. The redundancy simply makes you care less about the specific instance you are looking at. To represent 32 coins-i need 5 bits of information. Since the experiment is truely random-i know half of them will be heads,so in this case using 5 bits of information,i can determine all the coins that are heads and that are tails. Same deal, unless you are counting pairs, in which case you cannot distinguish between the members of a pair. You need an extra bit to tell a head from a tail. So-the question is what is the minimum number of bits or entropy required to determine which all coins are heads and which all coins are tails,is it 5 bits or 6 bits of information? With 5 bits, you can count to 31, so you need 6. Just my two tails. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! i love deadlines. i like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by. -- douglas adams pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
