On May 2, 2005, at 5:06 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
On 4/25/05, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, fair enough -- but how would that really supply you with an
answer?
If you simulated all senders and receivers, how would that be
significantly different from the message content's
On 4/25/05, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, fair enough -- but how would that really supply you with an answer?
If you simulated all senders and receivers, how would that be
significantly different from the message content's encryption itself?
You'd have a reduced range of
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7304
The article describes new inroads into electronically sensing what
human brains are perceiving. There's quite a lot of sensationalistic
language to it, and not much substance IMO, but there are a couple of
interesting passages to me:
The pair
On 4/25/05, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
This intrigues me because of something in my WIP, _The Seven-Year
Mirror_ -- one of the subplots involves using schizophrenics as
information couriers. The reason is pretty simple. In the 2K+
-year-distant future there's a sophisticated
On Apr 25, 2005, at 12:41 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
On 4/25/05, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what would be the way to prevent that mapping from working? It
seemed obvious to me: A one-time pad. One-time pads are used to
scramble a coded message and are then discarded (hence their
