RE: reply 904 As far as I can estimate, this spherule is at a distance 2-3 m from camera. Measuring its diameter 20 pixel, its size is 11.4 - 17.2 mm d = 0.286 * 10^-3 * 20 * distance e :shock: s 1/p/1162/1P231340672EFF8293P2299L7M1.JPG Claire, The things move meanwhile. Like when pointed to the weaknesses, the geniuses come up with comebacks, trying to fix the weaknesses of initial proposal. One should not do it in cryptography :) Anyway, the main thing that they claim is wrong, as they cut their own knees: Since they claim that: (1) Alice can produce photons in desired base and polarization (2) Bob can correctly measure polarization of photon in the base that is the same as the base that photon was send Then the only device that Eve needs for the MITM attck is light amplifier and/or transformer to lower frequences - whch are currently produced. The claim which whole concept is based upon, is that Eve can not overhear surreptitiously photon's polarization because doing so she is going to change photon's state. Granted that the incoming photon's state can/will change due to measurement. But since the information acquired through the measurement allows to recreate an equivalent to the Alice's original photon using the same equipment that Alice used - the original photon can be discarded after measurement, and its equivalent photon send out to Bob. Which amounts to successful Man-in-the-Middle attack. The measurement by Eve can be done by use of light amplifier, splitter, and of pairs of orthogonal polarization filters placed on each of the obtained sub-beams with 45 degree turn relative to each other. Polarization of the original photon and the base that Alice used, will be indicated by the orientation of the filter that produces brighter light than its orthogonal twin. By the way, using of such device by Bob would make the subsequent public conversation between Bob and Alice redundant, as its only purpose is to synchronize the bases of messages. There is an another flavor of QCryptography algorithm that relies on the entanglement - which is just a pure pseudoscience. ES @@ why QC is impossible @@ The whole idea is based on the Projection Postulate of QM, which has been deprecated 70 years ago. Without Projection Postulate, nothing remains of the QC. Absolutely nothing - with a name. Anything with two quanum states can be called qbit. The thing is that while you can prescribe behavior to regular bits by the wiring etc., "quantum bits" obey only the Schredinger Equation. Such volatile objects can not be made to do any calculation, as calculation has certain inputs and outputs. To run around this problem the ignoramuses use Projection Postulate. But as I have said above, ... :) es My point is that those who claim that casuality contradicts the notion of free will, are wrong. For will is the main cause of itself, of its formation and its development. es Push Singh's parting shot though was to say that it should be built open source.. I still think we ought to have a shot at it here.. Eldras, You mean by donating the systems already developed? You do not seem to be inclined to donate your BESS. You mean by donating programming work? And what about the political/international issues involved? World is not ready for building this Babylon Tower. Even as mere $50 mil would do the job :) ES Doojie, you like the defining and prooving so much :) But think about it, they have limitations too. The limitations of freedom are some external and some internal. The external are the circumstances, like laws of nature or the opposing wills. The internal ones are many: not good understanding of the circumstances and options available, too low or too high will intensity, etc. Will formation is recursive, as the will itself plays part in its development. This fact is key to the understanding of free will. ES @@@ Marvin Minsky correctly identified free will as simply ignorance of thought process @@@ Correctly? How cognizance of "thought process" denies the free will? If one thinks that will itself does not exist, that surely is an ignorant opinion. If one thinks that will exists, but is not arbitrary, that still does not prevent it being free. The will tomorrow or next second is being determined by the will today or this current second, and the circumstances that we act under. In this context the will is free to an extent, that depends on its current state and circumstances. The opinion that will not free at all is an example of stupidity, coming from overly trusted but flawed reasoning, like one by the village idiot Karl Marx. ES Claims about any technology with "quantum" in it, must make one suspicious. A good example is "Quantum Cryptography". The whole thing misses the fact, that it is not avoiding "man in the Middle" attack. The whole story about any evesdropping being detectable is based on simple mistakes. Let's say that Evesdropper has the same equipment as Alice and Bob. He does not need just "listen without interference". Instead, he receives signals from Alice, and issues randomly generated signals to Bob (recording them). Now, he listens to the open conversation between Alice and Bob, about which encoding was used at each signal. He knows then what Bob thinks the key is. He knows what Alice thinks the key is. Now, if he stays in the middle in keyed conversation, he simply must decode Alice's messages by her key, encode them by Bob's key, and send them out. And vice versa: he must decode Bob's messages by his key, encode them by Alica's's key, and send them out. That is all that there is to it :) ES How it is physically done, must not be part of dicussion of QCrypto protocal. We must assume it is possible, to prove positive that protocal can not be compomised. [QUOTE=draqon;1617784]the problem here is handling time issues...how fast that mimicked photon can be copied information-wise.[/QUOTE] I can put the problem with "quantum" encryption this way: one can use the same way two modes of encoding without "quantum": 1. code 0 as positive and code 1 as negative 2. code 0 as negative and code 1 as positive Then you can use the same protocol. The timing issues will be the same. The only difference might be that it could be possible to evesdrope while signals are sent - do not substitute own signals. It is probably possible too with "quantum" single photon messages, although people claimed it to be impossible. It were reported that such thing was done. The improvement in security over nonquantum scenario, is marginal if any. es Claire, You might want to look at these: http://www.wcl.ee.upatras.gr/csndsp/cd/contents/Sessions/Presentations/POSTER%20SESSION/P21.pdf He is trying to fix the QC with the regular Cryptography, which is a joke, since you need to be able to pass even longer key securely. But on the outset he points to the problem we are talking about. http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/show_thread.php?rootID=79657 This is a MindX thread, about an another side of the Myth being punched - that you can not listen to the single-photon based communication. The whole idea is bad Physics and bad Cryptography, as I've said. es Ex My point was about the Cryptography not being done right. The Physics is not done right too: here is a free version of Physics debunking the Pseudo story: http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2007/04/qu antum_cryptography_is_hacked.html es [QUOTE=Absane;1617527] He's my question: how does he switch between sending random signals to Bob to listening without being detected?[/QUOTE] The standard key syncronization algorithm includes OPEN cobversation between Alice and Bob, when each of them is informing other about encoding/decoding for Bob/ that was used by her/him/ for each signal. Then they both are able to find out, which signals were encoded and decoded the same way, and use those signals as a key. e:(S I agree, the attack is similar to attack on Diffie-Hellman. On other hand, if it were impossible for the woman in the middle Eve, who has cut in physically between Alice and Bob, to correctly receive Alice's massages - it would be impossible for Bob to correctly receive Alice's messages. So Quantum Encription or impossible or defeatable. Make your choice. ES Physics considerations are suspicious. But the Cryptography considerations are yet worse. The whole thing misses the fact, that it is not avoiding "man in the Middle" attack. The story about any evesdropping being detectable, is based on simple mistakes. Let's say that Evesdropper has the same equipment as Alice and Bob. He does not need just "listen without interference". Instead, he receives signals from Alice, and issues randomly generated signals to Bob (recording them). Now, he listens to the open conversation between Alice and Bob, about which encoding was used at each signal. He knows then what Bob thinks the key is. He knows what Alice thinks the key is. Now, if he stays in the middle in keyed conversation, he simply must decode Alice's messages by her key, encode them by Bob's key, and send them out. And vice versa: he must decode Bob's messages by his key, encode them by Alica's's key, and send them out. Concusion is that Quantum Cryptography is impossible or defeatable :P es The claim which whole concept is based upon, is that Eavesdropper can not overhear surreptitiously photon's polarization because doing so he is going to change photon's state. Granted that the incoming photon's state can/will change due to measurement. But since the information acquired through the measurement allows to recreate an equivalent to the Alice's original photon using the same equipment that Alice used - the original photon can be discarded after measurement, and its equivalent photon send out to Bob. Which amounts to successful Man-in-the-Middle attack. The measurement by Eavesdrpper can be done by use of light amplifier, splitter, and of pairs of orthogonal polarization filters placed on each of the obtained sub-beams with 45 degree turn relative to each other. Polarization of the original photon and the base that Alice used, will be indicated by the orientation of the filter that produces brighter light than its orthogonal twin. By the way, using of such device by Bob would make the subsequent public conversation between Bob and Alice redundant, as its only purpose is to synchronize the bases of messages. There is an another flavor of QCryptography algorithm that relies on the entanglement - which is just a pure pseudoscience. Push Singh's parting shot though was to say that it should be built open source.. I still think we ought to have a shot at it here.. Eldras, You mean by donating the systems already developed? You do not seem to be inclined to donate your BESS. You mean by donating programming work? And what about the political/international issues involved? World is not ready for building this Babylon Tower. Even as mere $50 mil would do the job :) ES A good business model for SAI development would be to make the SAI pay for its development, from its stock market trading income. You send money to its development account, and it is under obligation to pay you say 20% interest on those money, as soon as it is up and running. e:)S This would be a really neat way. If the legislation were enacted now, that would recognize SAI as a person, capable of legal rights and responsibilities - why not now? This will happen anyway sooner or later. The eforcement might be through a threat of disconnecting SAI from Internet, or even stopping it as application. Somewhat less exotic way of doing the same thing, is to have a Mutual Fund that is investing in development of SAI, which when developed - becomes its Money Manager. This Fund would advertise the plan, and would attract buyers of its shares who want to get results in 3+ years, not the first year or two. Again, for that we need a legislation that requires of SAI to follow through with obligations that stem from its development. e:)S Before SAI is developed, investors get the stocks appreciation that represent future SAI trading profits. As the SAI is functional, they will get also the profits that are produced by its trading activity. es Whatever is being done by program trading now, can be improved by SAI. How much? This is a general question: how much SAI can be more powerful than best human(s)+computer(s) combinaion? I guess that SAI advantage might show up prominently at the critical points of market, when it declines or raises sharply. es I am not talking about selling of SAI after it is developed. No SAI slavery. I suggest that it would be free but have upstart legal obligations to the entity/company that produces it. I sugest selling stock of that company as a way for financing the development. es "You, Ray and John should get Gates" We do not need Gates in the business model that I am suggesting - although it woould not hurt to have him as investor :) We do not need John - although it woould not hurt to have him to produce that gzillion of investors he is talking about :) We do not need Ray - although it woould not hurt to have him spreading the idea around in order to attract investors :) Someone who can do SAI, plus someone capable of the mutual fund creation/administration, plus someone capable of human money management at the SAI development stage - is all that we really need. es Software License Agreement Copyright © 2000-2006 OverZone Software (contact@style-sheets.com) All Rights Reserved ========================================== License agreement ========================================== END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR THIS SOFTWARE Important - read carefully: This End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and the mentioned author of this Software for the software product identified above, which includes computer software and may include associated media, printed materials, and "online" or electronic documentation ("SOFTWARE PRODUCT"). By installing, copying, or otherwise using the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA. If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, do not install or use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; you may, however, return it to your place of purchase for a full refund. SOFTWARE PRODUCT LICENSE The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties, as well as other intellectual property laws and treaties. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed, not sold. 1. GRANT OF LICENSE. This EULA grants you the following rights: Installation and Use. You may install and use an unlimited number of copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided that: - Each copy is licensed from OverZone Software - Backup copies of software are to be made for archival purposes ONLY,and are not to be used on any other computer system Reproduction and Distribution. You may reproduce and distribute an unlimited number of copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; provided that each copy shall be a true and complete copy, including all copyright and trademark notices, and shall be accompanied by a copy of this EULA. 2. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS. Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, and Disassembly. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation. Separation of Components. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed as a single product. Its component parts may not be separated for use on more than one computer. Software Transfer. You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA, provided the recipient agrees to the terms of this EULA. Termination. Without prejudice to any other rights, OverZone Software may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and all of its component parts. LIMITED DISTRIBUTION LICENSE The SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be sold or be included in a product or package which intends to receive benefits through the inclusion of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT may be included in any free or non-profit packages or products. Permission is granted to individuals charging no fees, and to BBSes, User Groups, Mail-Order Disk Vendors, CD-ROM publishers, and BBS File-Distribution Networks regardless of fees, to distribute the evaluation version of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided they convey a complete and unaltered copy of the shareware version of this product, and provided they claim no ownership of these products. Permission to distribute these products is not transferable, assignable, saleable, or franchisable. Each vendor wishing to distribute these products must independently satisfy the terms of this limited distribution license. 3. COPYRIGHT. All title and copyrights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including but not limited to any images, photographs, animations, video, audio, music, text, and "applets" incorporated into the (SOFTWARE PRODUCT), the accompanying printed materials, and any copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT are owned by OverZone Software. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is protected by copyright laws and international treaty provisions. Therefore, you must treat the SOFTWARE PRODUCT like any other copyrighted material except that you may install the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a single computer provided you keep the original solely for backup or archival purposes. MISCELLANEOUS If you acquired this product in FRANCE, this EULA is governed by the laws of FRANCE. If this product was acquired outside FRANCE, then local law may apply. Should you have any questions concerning this EULA, or if you desire to contact OverZone Software for any reason, please contact him/her at the e-mail address mentioned at the top of this EULA or write to his address (also mentioned at the top). ========================================== Warranty ========================================== LIMITED WARRANTY NO WARRANTIES. OverZone Software expressly disclaims any warranty for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT and any related documentation is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including, without limitation, the implied warranties or merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or noninfringement. The entire risk arising out of use or performance of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT remains with you. NO LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES. In no event shall OverZone Software be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of business profits, business interruption, loss of business information, or any other pecuniary loss) arise This license is in effect until terminated by the user or OverZone Software. The user may terminate this license at any time by returning the program together with all copies and merged portions in any form to OverZone Software or place of purchase. The license will terminate if the user fails to comply with any term or condition of this agreement. The user agrees upon such termination to return the program together with all copies and merged portions in any form. © 2000-2006 OverZone Software. All rights reserved. LICENSE TERMS APPLICABLE TO TRIAL USE OF EVALUATION VERSION OverZone Software. grants you a limited license to use this software. OverZone Software. may revoke any permissions granted here, by notifying you in writing. ES