Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto?

[Jeremy Bentham]

In article <637756e68148fcbc...@hoi-polloi.org>
Anonymous <anon...@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:
>
> Via SlashDot.org
> There have been rumors for years that the NSA can decrypt a
> significant fraction of encrypted Internet traffic. In 2012, James
> Bamford published an article quoting anonymous former NSA officials
> stating that the agency had achieved a "computing breakthrough" that
> gave them "the ability to crack current public encryption." The
> Snowden documents also hint at some extraordinary capabilities: they
> show that NSA has built extensive infrastructure to intercept and
> decrypt VPN traffic and suggest that the agency can decrypt at least
> some HTTPS and SSH connections on demand.
>
> However, the documents do not explain how these breakthroughs work,
> and speculation about possible backdoors or broken algorithms has been
> rampant in the technical community. Yesterday at ACM CCS, one of the
> leading security research venues, we and twelve coauthors presented a
> paper that we think solves this technical mystery.
>
> If a client and server are speaking Diffie-Hellman, they first need to
> agree on a large prime number with a particular form. There seemed to
> be no reason why everyone couldn't just use the same prime, and, in
> fact, many applications tend to use standardized or hard-coded primes.
> But there was a very important detail that got lost in translation
> between the mathematicians and the practitioners: an adversary can
> perform a single enormous computation to "crack" a particular prime,
> then easily break any individual connection that uses that prime.
>
> https://weakdh.org/imperfect-forward-secrecy-ccs15.pdf

This is not a new problem.

http://instantlogic.net/publications/DiffieHellman.pdf

4 x 8 node 6600 based VAXClusters combined with a Cray were
routinely cracking this years ago.

To be fair, most of the exploits were the result of lazy, stupid
or incompetent programmers.

[Big Bad Bob]

On 10/21/15 14:39, Jeremy Bentham so wittily quipped:

true, but the confirmation of NSA's capabilities might be.

> To be fair, most of the exploits were the result of lazy, stupid
> or incompetent programmers.

not surprising.


but since openssl gives you the ability to create new [reasonably
secure] DH parameters, there's no excuse to re-use them, particularly
for multiple clients. [same client, no problem, just issue new ones for
each session or whatever]

[GreyCloud]

Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the
job. If you hear about talk or reports about experimenting with quantum
computers, then it has already been done.


--
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."

[meagain]

And how many Qbits does it have??

[William Unruh]

Since talk about quantum computers began in the 80s (eg Feynman) it had
already been done then?

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

GreyCloud and Rick_Merrill wrote:
> > Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the job. If you
> > hear about talk or reports about experimenting with quantum computers, then it has
> > already been done.
>
> And how many Qbits does it have??

Without looking, I know that
a real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.

[Peter Köhlmann]

wrote:

And as usual, you are wrong

[William Unruh]

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.computer.security.]

Of course it would be good, if one wants to prevent this discussion from
degenerating into a grade 2 shouting match, for you to give evidence for
your statement.

[Siri Cruz]

In article <n0om2e$ok6$1...@dont-email.me>,

The only commercial quantum computer runs only one program that finds the global
minimum of a function.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
When is a Kenyan not a Kenyan? When he's a Canadian.
That's People's Commissioner Siri Cruz now. Punch!

[Peter Köhlmann]

To scum like Relff? Are you kidding? That POS isn't worth top be pissed on

[William Unruh]

On 2015-10-27, Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <n0om2e$ok6$1...@dont-email.me>,

> Peter K?hlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > GreyCloud and Rick_Merrill wrote:
>> >> > Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the
>> >> > job. If you hear about talk or reports about experimenting with
>> >> > quantum computers, then it has already been done.
>> >>
>> >> And how many Qbits does it have??
>> >
>> > Without looking, I know that
>> > a real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.
>>
>> And as usual, you are wrong
>
> The only commercial quantum computer runs only one program that finds the global
> minimum of a function.

That is of course sufficient to solve almost all problems if it is true.
Factoring-- find the minimum over p and q of ( p q -n)^2 where n is the number and p
and q are the factors.

Ie, a program to efficiently find the minimum of an arbitrary function
is incredibly powerful.

Now the question of course is whether or not the DWave system can
actually find such minima faster than a classical computer can. That is
still somewhat up in the air. And whether their computer actually uses
quantum mechanics in the process (rather than thermal monti-carlo say).




>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems
>

[William Unruh]

Had you wanted to talk to him, you could have emailed him. But you are
engaging in a public discussion, and as such you owe it to the others
who might be reading your posts to to behave responsibly.

[GreyCloud]

Don't know.

[GreyCloud]

They said they were building one in Utah.

[GreyCloud]

Then how come NSA is building one?

[Siri Cruz]

In article <lqGdnTfuoutubbLL...@bresnan.com>,

GreyCloud <cum...@mist.com> wrote:

> On 10/27/15 13:50, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> > GreyCloud and Rick_Merrill wrote:
> >>> Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the job.
> >>> If you
> >>> hear about talk or reports about experimenting with quantum computers,
> >>> then it has
> >>> already been done.
> >>
> >> And how many Qbits does it have??
> >
> > Without looking, I know that
> > a real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.
>
> Then how come NSA is building one?

NSA doesn't. NSA buys computers rather than build them.

A general quantum computer is under development by various universities and
companies but none is useful yet. One quantum computer is commercially available
but it runs a single algorithm and it's efficacy is disputed.

Everything could change tomorrow, but it hasn't changed today.

[William Unruh]

On 2015-10-27, GreyCloud <cum...@mist.com> wrote:
> On 10/27/15 13:50, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>> GreyCloud and Rick_Merrill wrote:
>>>> Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the job. If you
>>>> hear about talk or reports about experimenting with quantum computers, then it has
>>>> already been done.
>>>
>>> And how many Qbits does it have??
>>
>> Without looking, I know that
>> a real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.
>
> Then how come NSA is building one?

Evidence? I believe that NSA has "purchased" a Dwave to try it out and
see if it really can do quantum computing or at least "faster than
classical" computing. They would be fools not to keep track of what is
happening. That does not mean that what is happening is worth anything.


>

[Davoud]

GreyCloud:

> > Then how come NSA is building one?

Siri Cruz:

> NSA doesn't. NSA buys computers rather than build them.

True, if taken literally. NSA and other gov't agencies design and
invent, but government agencies are limited by law in the number of
devices that they can build; after the prototype stage manufacture has
to be turned over to the private sector. If they need a very few of a
sensitive device they may build it themselves. (Obama isn't /really/ a
socialist!) There are exceptions for certain things; NSA has a chip
fabrication facility on its campus to fabricate classified chips, but
for all I know that may be operated by a private-sector contractor as
well. To save the taxpayer money NSA buys off-the-shelf when it can.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[GreyCloud]

On 10/27/15 16:38, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article<lqGdnTfuoutubbLL...@bresnan.com>,
> GreyCloud<cum...@mist.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/27/15 13:50, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>> GreyCloud and Rick_Merrill wrote:
>>>>> Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the job.
>>>>> If you
>>>>> hear about talk or reports about experimenting with quantum computers,
>>>>> then it has
>>>>> already been done.
>>>>
>>>> And how many Qbits does it have??
>>>
>>> Without looking, I know that
>>> a real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.
>>
>> Then how come NSA is building one?
>
> NSA doesn't. NSA buys computers rather than build them.

They still do build their own. Back 1965 they had a running 350mhz
computer chip that they fabbed themselves at Ft. Dietrick,MD.
Where do you get the idea that they don't build them themselves?

>
> A general quantum computer is under development by various universities and
> companies but none is useful yet. One quantum computer is commercially available
> but it runs a single algorithm and it's efficacy is disputed.
>
> Everything could change tomorrow, but it hasn't changed today.
>

Not that you know of anyway.
NSA will build their own and most likely finished the project, and they
do it for security reasons.

[GreyCloud]

On 10/27/15 20:29, Davoud wrote:
> GreyCloud:
>>> Then how come NSA is building one?
>
> Siri Cruz:
>> NSA doesn't. NSA buys computers rather than build them.
>
> True, if taken literally. NSA and other gov't agencies design and
> invent, but government agencies are limited by law in the number of
> devices that they can build; after the prototype stage manufacture has
> to be turned over to the private sector. If they need a very few of a
> sensitive device they may build it themselves. (Obama isn't /really/ a
> socialist!) There are exceptions for certain things; NSA has a chip
> fabrication facility on its campus to fabricate classified chips, but
> for all I know that may be operated by a private-sector contractor as
> well. To save the taxpayer money NSA buys off-the-shelf when it can.
>

They fab their own chips if it isn't commercially available.
Cryptograhpic chips they do themselves for security reasons. They don't
want a vendor to know how it works. I don't know if you have heard
about the 350Mhz cpu chip fabbed in 1965.
Somewere on NSAs website, www.nsa.gov, there is a release program to
corporations for advanced technology that they deem should be useful for
public use.

Anyway, since when did the nsa ever obey the law?

[GreyCloud]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/03/snowden_docs_show_nsa_building_encryptioncracking_quantum_system/

And others I found.

But I do know that NSA has the technology release program:
https://www.nsa.gov/research/_files/tech_transfers/nsa_technology_transfer_program.pdf

Under this program, I believe that Dwave got their technology from NSA
and developed it further, but I'm not sure if it was still classified
then and released under an NDA, or from an earlier catalog.

A lot of classified stuff isn't in the catalog I believe.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Professor William_Unruh wrote:
> a program to efficiently find the minimum of an arbitrary function
> is incredibly powerful.
>
> Now the question of course is whether or not the DWave system can
> actually find such minima faster than a classical computer can.
>
> That is still somewhat up in the air.
> And whether their computer actually uses quantum mechanics
> in the process (rather than thermal monti-carlo say).

Better Randomness ? ! I don't think so.

Seriously, _How_ could thermo/quantum randomness be
better than what I've got, on my i7_4790s/Windows_8 PC ? !
How ? !

I used genetic algorithms back in 1992;
it's no big deal, nothing new.

"Randomness" is just ignorance, nothing more.
Intrinsically, the (4D) timescape is static, immutable.
"Life" is virtual, not real.

We're robots, programmed to want food, water, air, etc.

Like the sun, stars and everything else...
we consume "exergy" (energy that can do work);
i.e. we ratchet entropy.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

 
Repl;ying to me, you (GreyCloud) asked:
> > Without looking, I know that
> > a real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.
> 
> Then how come NSA is building one?

They're hedging their bets, just in case.
Fact is, it doesn't work properly.

[Anonymous]

In article <dsSdnYTJC8VJy63L...@bresnan.com>

GreyCloud <cum...@mist.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/27/15 20:29, Davoud wrote:
> > GreyCloud:
> >>> Then how come NSA is building one?
> >
> > Siri Cruz:
> >> NSA doesn't. NSA buys computers rather than build them.
> >
> > True, if taken literally. NSA and other gov't agencies design and
> > invent, but government agencies are limited by law in the number of
> > devices that they can build; after the prototype stage manufacture has
> > to be turned over to the private sector. If they need a very few of a
> > sensitive device they may build it themselves. (Obama isn't /really/ a
> > socialist!) There are exceptions for certain things; NSA has a chip
> > fabrication facility on its campus to fabricate classified chips, but
> > for all I know that may be operated by a private-sector contractor as
> > well. To save the taxpayer money NSA buys off-the-shelf when it can.
> >
>
> They fab their own chips if it isn't commercially available.
> Cryptograhpic chips they do themselves for security reasons. They don't
> want a vendor to know how it works. I don't know if you have heard
> about the 350Mhz cpu chip fabbed in 1965.

I would question that as a fairy tale since the transisters at
the time could barely support 10 MHZ.

Secondly a 4K RAM chip at the time was 4.25 inches and stored
512 bytes. Approximately 20 KB of RAM was the size of a shoe
box.

Thirdly, there wasn't an I/O bus or storage device on the planet
in existence at that time capable of the I/O requirements for
such a processor.

[Rice Rocketeer]

In article <n0om2e$ok6$1...@dont-email.me>
Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-k...@t-online.de>
wrote:

Not exactly. He's more right than wrong, and he's got some
great reefer.

[chrisv]

William Unruh wrote:

>Ie, a program to efficiently find the minimum of an arbitrary function
>is incredibly powerful.

cola was invented to efficiency find the minimum human mental capacity
that could still manage to type.

Take the Ezekreep, as an example. He thinks that proper perspective
of the "Linux choice problem" is that there are "3 new distros per
day", not that the *top* distros have barely changed in years.

Now *that* is some fscktarded thinking!

--
"Try reading it in the context of '3 new distros per day' and view it
that way." - trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel"

[Michael Moroney]

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>Professor William_Unruh wrote:
>> a program to efficiently find the minimum of an arbitrary function
>> is incredibly powerful.
>>
>> Now the question of course is whether or not the DWave system can
>> actually find such minima faster than a classical computer can.
>>
>> That is still somewhat up in the air.
>> And whether their computer actually uses quantum mechanics
>> in the process (rather than thermal monti-carlo say).

>Better Randomness ? ! I don't think so.

>Seriously, _How_ could thermo/quantum randomness be
>better than what I've got, on my i7_4790s/Windows_8 PC ? !
>How ? !

Any computer algorithm is just pseudorandomness, "ignorance" as you put
it. Dig deep enough into the algorithm and you can _predict_ the next
value, although doing so can be extremely difficult.

On the other hand, something based on truly random events, such as
radioactive decay, is, well, truly random, if implemented properly.

<snip crap>

[chrisv]

Michael Moroney wrote:

>Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

*plonk*

[Ezekiel]

"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:n0qmbc$8pt$1...@pcls7.std.com...

Agreed. There isn't really a software substitute for external "random"
entropy.

--
"Coding in C#, or any other object oriented language, is *not* programming.
It is only arranging predetermined classes like a child will arrange toy
blocks."

Fabian Russell
5 Aug 2015 <pan.2015.08...@localhost.localdomain>

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Replying to me, you (Michael_Moroney) wrote:
> > Seriously, _How_ could thermo/quantum randomness be
> > better than what I've got, on my i7_4790s/Windows_8 PC ? !
> > How ? !
>
> Any computer algorithm is just pseudorandomness,
> "ignorance" as you put it.
>
> Dig deep enough into the algorithm and you can _predict_ the next
> value, although doing so can be extremely difficult.
>
> On the other hand, something based on truly random events, such as
> radioactive decay, is, well, truly random, if implemented properly.

Every second, a 64 bit counter on my 4 GigaHz PC,
QueryPerformanceCounter(), goes up by another 4 billion.

Use the low bits of that counter to seed srand(),
and you have a nice array of PSEUDO_random numbers;
no one could predict what's in the array.

How, pray tell, would that not be good enough ?

[Ezekiel]

"Jeff-Relf.Me" <@.> wrote in message
news:Jeff-R...@Oct.28{8.28A.Seattle.2015}...

You don't even need QueryPerformanceCounter - Intel added hardware support
to make this even better.

<quote>
RDRAND (also RDRAND; previously known as Bull Mountain) is an instruction
for returning random numbers from an Intel on-chip hardware random number
generator. RDRAND is available in Ivy Bridge processors[a] and is part of
the Intel 64 and IA-32 instruction set architectures. AMD added support for
the instruction in June 2015.

The random number generator is compliant with security and cryptographic
standards such as NIST SP 800-90A, FIPS 140-2, and ANSI X9.82. Intel also
requested Cryptography Research Inc. to review the random number generator
in 1999 and 2012, which resulted in two published papers: The Intel Random
Number Generator in 1999, and Analysis of Intel's Ivy Bridge Digital Random
Number Generator in 2012.
</quote>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RdRand


For just about everything (banking, ssh to work, etc) this is sufficient.
But for extremely high security applications (NSA, military, etc) they want
something much more random than this.

[Michael Moroney]

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>Replying to me, you (Michael_Moroney) wrote:
>> > Seriously, _How_ could thermo/quantum randomness be
>> > better than what I've got, on my i7_4790s/Windows_8 PC ? !
>> > How ? !
>>
>> Any computer algorithm is just pseudorandomness,
>> "ignorance" as you put it.
>>
>> Dig deep enough into the algorithm and you can _predict_ the next
>> value, although doing so can be extremely difficult.
>>
>> On the other hand, something based on truly random events, such as
>> radioactive decay, is, well, truly random, if implemented properly.

>Every second, a 64 bit counter on my 4 GigaHz PC,
>QueryPerformanceCounter(), goes up by another 4 billion.

>Use the low bits of that counter to seed srand(),
>and you have a nice array of PSEUDO_random numbers;

As I said, only pseudorandom, not genuinely random.

>no one could predict what's in the array.

>How, pray tell, would that not be good enough ?

"Good enough" depends on what you are up to. Are you trying to generate
statistical noise for a test, or to encrypt something just so a casual
observer can't see a file/packet of not very significant importance?
Or are you trying to keep the NSA or some foreign government from ever
seeing the contents of a file? Because if the NSA really wants to,
they'll figure out your pseudorandom sequence and decrypt your file
just like that.

Remember, computers are deterministic. I was just talking about someone
about using the computer's cycle counter to test memory latency in
different configurations. For a given configuration, a particular test
of his sees the cycle counter increment by the same amount, as long as
interrupts, timer etc. are all locked out.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Ezekiel, RDRAND has numerous problems;
if it worked properly, rand() would use it.

1. It doesn't work on most systems, including mine.
2. You can't guarantee that it'll work as advertized.

I don't see how passing the low bits of
QueryPerformanceCounter() to srand() wouldn't
be good enough for anyone and everyone.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Replying to me, you (Michael_Moroney) wrote:
> > Every second, a 64 bit counter on my 4 GigaHz PC,
> > QueryPerformanceCounter(), goes up by another 4 billion.
> >
> > Use the low bits of that counter to seed srand(),
> > and you have a nice array of PSEUDO_random numbers;

> > no one could predict what's in the array.
>

> if the NSA really wants to, they'll figure out your
> pseudorandom sequence and decrypt your file just like that.

Proof ? are you just making it up, on the fly ?

[William Unruh]

On 2015-10-28, GreyCloud <cum...@mist.com> wrote:
> On 10/27/15 16:47, William Unruh wrote:

...

>
> But I do know that NSA has the technology release program:
> https://www.nsa.gov/research/_files/tech_transfers/nsa_technology_transfer_program.pdf
>
> Under this program, I believe that Dwave got their technology from NSA
> and developed it further, but I'm not sure if it was still classified

Nope. I have been watching them for the past 10 years ( they are just
down the road).

[Big Bad Bob]

On 10/27/15 12:47, William Unruh so wittily quipped:

> On 2015-10-27, meagain <rick0....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> GreyCloud wrote on 10/21/2015 6:42 PM:
>>>>

>>> Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the job. If you
>>> hear about talk or reports about experimenting with quantum computers, then it has
>>> already been done.
>

> Since talk about quantum computers began in the 80s (eg Feynman) it had
> already been done then?
>

I don't think a true 'quantum computer' exists. A massive multi-CPU
monstrosity, yeah, I think China has one already. IBM's "Watson" for
example. It plays jeopardy. And wins.

But anyway, true 'quantum computing', where the answers are instantly
available within a single instruction cycle, doesn't work.

still, you can get *really* close with clever threaded algorithms and
massive SMP.

[Big Bad Bob]

On 10/27/15 13:53, Siri Cruz so wittily quipped:
> In article <n0om2e$ok6$1...@dont-email.me>,

> Peter Köhlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> GreyCloud and Rick_Merrill wrote:

>>>>> Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the
>>>>> job. If you hear about talk or reports about experimenting with
>>>>> quantum computers, then it has already been done.
>>>>

>>>> And how many Qbits does it have??
>>>
>>> Without looking, I know that
>>> a real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.
>>
>> And as usual, you are wrong
>

> The only commercial quantum computer runs only one program that finds the global
> minimum of a function.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems
>

interesting article. yeah, highly specialized

there are actually different definitions of what 'quantum computing' is.
one might be having such a massive computer system that you can
[essentially] look up the answer to anything, in a single instruction
cycle. that would be [for the most part] simulated quantum computing,
but essentially fitting the definition.

Another [more expected] would be the use of quantum entanglements in the
various gates and whatnot.

After reading a bit, it seems there's another definition regarding
'quantum algorithms' and 'quantum gates'. That seemed interesting
enough in that quantum gates are supposed to be 'reversible' like
standard math ops, as opposed to 'irreversible' like matrix math and
whatnot.

in any case it would seem [to me] that outside of probability
determination, and the "just look it up for the answer" definition,
quantum computing would have limited use.

[William Unruh]

On 2015-10-28, Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at...@testing.local> wrote:
> On 10/27/15 13:53, Siri Cruz so wittily quipped:
>> In article <n0om2e$ok6$1...@dont-email.me>,

Matricees are not irreversible in general.

In order for quantum computers to make use of quantum mechanics they
must be reversible (ie the algorithm can be run backwards. For example
an and gate is not reversible. 0+0=0, 0+1=0 1+0=0 1+1=1. If I only have
one imput and the output I cannot figure out in all cases what the other
input was. Ie, it is not reversible.

>
> in any case it would seem [to me] that outside of probability
> determination, and the "just look it up for the answer" definition,
> quantum computing would have limited use.

Quantum computing took off when it was shown that a quantum computer,
using entangelement, could factor far faster than any classical
computer. polynomial with low exponent, vs subexponential. It should
also be able to solve "sat" problems faster.
Quantum algorithms are algorithms to use quantum techniques for solving
problems faster than classical algorithms. Quantum gates are the
equivalent of classical gates (xor, and, not,...) but such that they
entangle qubits as part of the working of the gate.

It is NOT "just look it up"


>
>

[William Unruh]

On 2015-10-28, Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at...@testing.local> wrote:

> On 10/27/15 12:47, William Unruh so wittily quipped:
>> On 2015-10-27, meagain <rick0....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> GreyCloud wrote on 10/21/2015 6:42 PM:
>>>>>
>>>> Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the job. If you
>>>> hear about talk or reports about experimenting with quantum computers, then it has
>>>> already been done.
>>
>> Since talk about quantum computers began in the 80s (eg Feynman) it had
>> already been done then?
>>
>
> I don't think a true 'quantum computer' exists. A massive multi-CPU

True quantum computers exist. Unfortunately the ones know to be quantum
only have about 5 bits.

> monstrosity, yeah, I think China has one already. IBM's "Watson" for
> example. It plays jeopardy. And wins.

Your examples have absoltuely nothing to do with quantum computers.

>
> But anyway, true 'quantum computing', where the answers are instantly
> available within a single instruction cycle, doesn't work.

That is not the definition of a quantum computer.

>
> still, you can get *really* close with clever threaded algorithms and
> massive SMP.

No.
>
>

[GreyCloud]

On 10/28/15 06:07, chrisv wrote:
> William Unruh wrote:
>
>> Ie, a program to efficiently find the minimum of an arbitrary function
>> is incredibly powerful.
>
> cola was invented to efficiency find the minimum human mental capacity
> that could still manage to type.
>
> Take the Ezekreep, as an example. He thinks that proper perspective
> of the "Linux choice problem" is that there are "3 new distros per
> day", not that the *top* distros have barely changed in years.
>
> Now *that* is some fscktarded thinking!
>

You fit the bill quite nicely for minimum mental capacity.

[GreyCloud]

I don't think the public is going to be the recipients of such
technology this century tho.

[GreyCloud]

On 10/28/15 04:19, Anonymous wrote:
> In article<dsSdnYTJC8VJy63L...@bresnan.com>
> GreyCloud<cum...@mist.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/27/15 20:29, Davoud wrote:
>>> GreyCloud:
>>>>> Then how come NSA is building one?
>>>
>>> Siri Cruz:
>>>> NSA doesn't. NSA buys computers rather than build them.
>>>
>>> True, if taken literally. NSA and other gov't agencies design and
>>> invent, but government agencies are limited by law in the number of
>>> devices that they can build; after the prototype stage manufacture has
>>> to be turned over to the private sector. If they need a very few of a
>>> sensitive device they may build it themselves. (Obama isn't /really/ a
>>> socialist!) There are exceptions for certain things; NSA has a chip
>>> fabrication facility on its campus to fabricate classified chips, but
>>> for all I know that may be operated by a private-sector contractor as
>>> well. To save the taxpayer money NSA buys off-the-shelf when it can.
>>>
>>
>> They fab their own chips if it isn't commercially available.
>> Cryptograhpic chips they do themselves for security reasons. They don't
>> want a vendor to know how it works. I don't know if you have heard
>> about the 350Mhz cpu chip fabbed in 1965.
>
> I would question that as a fairy tale since the transisters at
> the time could barely support 10 MHZ.

As I've said, they fabbed their own chips, not from a commercial vendor.
Most of the commercial computers back then had only around a 25khz
clock. They had solved a few manufacturing problems with cell size and
heat dissipation. The KG-13 crypto machine had just two boards loaded
with their own ICs that ran around 25mhz or so.
You can google the KG-13.
They don't say much about it tho.

>
> Secondly a 4K RAM chip at the time was 4.25 inches and stored
> 512 bytes. Approximately 20 KB of RAM was the size of a shoe
> box.
>
> Thirdly, there wasn't an I/O bus or storage device on the planet
> in existence at that time capable of the I/O requirements for
> such a processor.

From the commercial sector, no.
Again, don't think that they buy anything from the commercial sector and
you get the idea somewhat on how they work.

>
>
>> Somewere on NSAs website, www.nsa.gov, there is a release program to
>> corporations for advanced technology that they deem should be useful for
>> public use.
>>
>> Anyway, since when did the nsa ever obey the law?
>

[GreyCloud]

On 10/28/15 13:08, William Unruh wrote:
> On 2015-10-28, GreyCloud<cum...@mist.com> wrote:
>> On 10/27/15 16:47, William Unruh wrote:
> ...
>>
>> But I do know that NSA has the technology release program:
>> https://www.nsa.gov/research/_files/tech_transfers/nsa_technology_transfer_program.pdf
>>
>> Under this program, I believe that Dwave got their technology from NSA
>> and developed it further, but I'm not sure if it was still classified
>
> Nope. I have been watching them for the past 10 years ( they are just
> down the road).
>

They may be just down the road, but a lot of companies do get newly
released technology by signing an NDA. Martin Marietta comes to mind.

>> then and released under an NDA, or from an earlier catalog.
>>
>> A lot of classified stuff isn't in the catalog I believe.
>>
>>

[Siri Cruz]

In article <4vOdnUDaGulSy6zL...@bresnan.com>,

GreyCloud <cum...@mist.com> wrote:

> > in any case it would seem [to me] that outside of probability
> > determination, and the "just look it up for the answer" definition,
> > quantum computing would have limited use.
> >
> >
> I don't think the public is going to be the recipients of such
> technology this century tho.

The government supported the early computer development in order to print out
artillery tables. Then businesses got a hold of them, and businesses became a
better sponsor. Stock traders would pay dearly for technology that would shave
deciseconds off trades. Google would pay to reduce their server load/increase
response time. With the pace of technology if it can be done, it will be done in
the next 90 years, and they people who market will make a fortune selling to
everyone who is taught to want it.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
When is a Kenyan not a Kenyan? When he's a Canadian.
That's People's Commissioner Siri Cruz now. Punch!

[Anonymous]

In article <m5e13b1urn4innici...@4ax.com>

chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> William Unruh wrote:
>
> >Ie, a program to efficiently find the minimum of an arbitrary function
> >is incredibly powerful.
>
> cola was invented to efficiency find the minimum human mental capacity
> that could still manage to type.
>
> Take the Ezekreep, as an example. He thinks that proper perspective
> of the "Linux choice problem" is that there are "3 new distros per
> day", not that the *top* distros have barely changed in years.
>
> Now *that* is some fscktarded thinking!

Nope, he's exactly right. And people complain about Windows
update...

[Anonymous]

In article <2uydnb5Kc_fUxazL...@bresnan.com>

IBM built it for them.

> Most of the commercial computers back then had only around a 25khz
> clock. They had solved a few manufacturing problems with cell size and
> heat dissipation. The KG-13 crypto machine had just two boards loaded
> with their own ICs that ran around 25mhz or so.

There were three boards.

> You can google the KG-13.
> They don't say much about it tho.

The NSA wasn't capable of building anything back then. They
didn't believe in technology, viewed it with suspicion.

> >
> > Secondly a 4K RAM chip at the time was 4.25 inches and stored
> > 512 bytes. Approximately 20 KB of RAM was the size of a shoe
> > box.
> >
> > Thirdly, there wasn't an I/O bus or storage device on the planet
> > in existence at that time capable of the I/O requirements for
> > such a processor.
>
> From the commercial sector, no.

This piece of equipment used a serial bus card reader.

> Again, don't think that they buy anything from the commercial sector and
> you get the idea somewhat on how they work.

They buy everything from the commercial sector and have the
firmware modified.

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <n0qmbc$8pt$1...@pcls7.std.com>

mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>
> Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:
>
> >Professor William_Unruh wrote:
> >> a program to efficiently find the minimum of an arbitrary function
> >> is incredibly powerful.
> >>
> >> Now the question of course is whether or not the DWave system can
> >> actually find such minima faster than a classical computer can.
> >>
> >> That is still somewhat up in the air.
> >> And whether their computer actually uses quantum mechanics
> >> in the process (rather than thermal monti-carlo say).
>
> >Better Randomness ? ! I don't think so.
>
> >Seriously, _How_ could thermo/quantum randomness be
> >better than what I've got, on my i7_4790s/Windows_8 PC ? !
> >How ? !
>
> Any computer algorithm is just pseudorandomness, "ignorance" as you put
> it. Dig deep enough into the algorithm and you can _predict_ the next
> value, although doing so can be extremely difficult.

Seymour Cray and DEC Alpha designers managed it, AMD too.
Intel, well not so much.

> On the other hand, something based on truly random events, such as
> radioactive decay, is, well, truly random, if implemented properly.

There is nothing random about radioactive decay.

> <snip crap>

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

In article <n0rhst$vnk$2...@dont-email.me>

William Unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:
>

> That is not the definition of a quantum computer.
>
> >
> > still, you can get *really* close with clever threaded algorithms and
> > massive SMP.
>
> No.

Yes.

[Snit]

On 10/29/15, 12:14 PM, in article
291020151914153294%timst...@greenbee.net, "Tim Streater"
<timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:

> In article <edf94e286ab256dc...@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio

> In terms of when an individual atom might decay there is. That is
> completely random.

Well, at least as far as we know. :)

> All you know is that the probability that it will
> decay in the next time-period of length equal to its half-life is just
> 0.5.



--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[GreyCloud]

On 10/28/15 17:29, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article<4vOdnUDaGulSy6zL...@bresnan.com>,
> GreyCloud<cum...@mist.com> wrote:
>
>>> in any case it would seem [to me] that outside of probability
>>> determination, and the "just look it up for the answer" definition,
>>> quantum computing would have limited use.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't think the public is going to be the recipients of such
>> technology this century tho.
>
> The government supported the early computer development in order to print out
> artillery tables. Then businesses got a hold of them, and businesses became a
> better sponsor. Stock traders would pay dearly for technology that would shave
> deciseconds off trades. Google would pay to reduce their server load/increase
> response time. With the pace of technology if it can be done, it will be done in
> the next 90 years, and they people who market will make a fortune selling to
> everyone who is taught to want it.
>

Yes, I know. That was the purpose of the NSA technology release program
to corporations that would develop it. Keeps the economy going.
They'll have to reduce the price for the public tho for quantum computers.

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

In article <chine.bleu-5DD1B1.16290528102015@88-209-239-
213.giganet.hu>

Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> In article <4vOdnUDaGulSy6zL...@bresnan.com>,
> GreyCloud <cum...@mist.com> wrote:
>
> > > in any case it would seem [to me] that outside of probability
> > > determination, and the "just look it up for the answer" definition,
> > > quantum computing would have limited use.
> > >
> > >
> > I don't think the public is going to be the recipients of such
> > technology this century tho.
>
> The government supported the early computer development in order to print out
> artillery tables. Then businesses got a hold of them, and businesses became a
> better sponsor. Stock traders would pay dearly for technology that would shave
> deciseconds off trades. Google would pay to reduce their server load/increase
> response time. With the pace of technology if it can be done, it will be done in
> the next 90 years, and they people who market will make a fortune selling to
> everyone who is taught to want it.

facebook.

[GreyCloud]

On 10/29/15 13:19, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <18b0053ed299eb92...@remailer.paranoici.org>,

> Anonymous <nob...@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:
>
>> In article <2uydnb5Kc_fUxazL...@bresnan.com>
>> GreyCloud <cum...@mist.com> wrote:
>
>>> >> They fab their own chips if it isn't commercially available.
>>> >> Cryptograhpic chips they do themselves for security reasons. They
>>> don't
>>> >> want a vendor to know how it works. I don't know if you have heard
>>> >> about the 350Mhz cpu chip fabbed in 1965.
>>> >
>>> > I would question that as a fairy tale since the transisters at
>>> > the time could barely support 10 MHZ.
>>>
>>> As I've said, they fabbed their own chips, not from a commercial vendor.
>>
>> IBM built it for them.
>>
>>> Most of the commercial computers back then had only around a 25khz
>>> clock. They had solved a few manufacturing problems with cell size and
>>> heat dissipation. The KG-13 crypto machine had just two boards loaded
>>> with their own ICs that ran around 25mhz or so.
>

> Where do you get 25KHz from? Look up the IBM/360, to name but one.
>
From working with most of the old military digital computers. A few
years later it moved up to 250khz. I'm not familiar with the IBM/360 in
1965... was it around that year?

[benj]

On 10/28/2015 01:41 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> Professor William_Unruh wrote:
>> a program to efficiently find the minimum of an arbitrary function
>> is incredibly powerful.
>>
>> Now the question of course is whether or not the DWave system can
>> actually find such minima faster than a classical computer can.
>>
>> That is still somewhat up in the air.
>> And whether their computer actually uses quantum mechanics
>> in the process (rather than thermal monti-carlo say).
>
> Better Randomness ? ! I don't think so.
>
> Seriously, _How_ could thermo/quantum randomness be
> better than what I've got, on my i7_4790s/Windows_8 PC ? !
> How ? !
>

> I used genetic algorithms back in 1992;
> it's no big deal, nothing new.
>
> "Randomness" is just ignorance, nothing more.
> Intrinsically, the (4D) timescape is static, immutable.
> "Life" is virtual, not real.
>
> We're robots, programmed to want food, water, air, etc.
>
> Like the sun, stars and everything else...
> we consume "exergy" (energy that can do work);
> i.e. we ratchet entropy.

There you go folks!

"Randomness" is just ignorance!

That means that to Rolf all life is random!



--

___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/

[benj]

On 10/28/2015 10:36 AM, chrisv wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:
>
> *plonk*
>
excellent choice! Rolf gets it all the time.

[GreyCloud]

On 10/30/15 03:13, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <veWdnZRG2slvRK_L...@bresnan.com>, GreyCloud

> <cum...@mist.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/29/15 13:19, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> In article <18b0053ed299eb92...@remailer.paranoici.org>,
>>> Anonymous <nob...@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <2uydnb5Kc_fUxazL...@bresnan.com>
>>>> GreyCloud <cum...@mist.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> >> They fab their own chips if it isn't commercially available.
>>>>> >> Cryptograhpic chips they do themselves for security reasons. They
>>>>> don't
>>>>> >> want a vendor to know how it works. I don't know if you have heard
>>>>> >> about the 350Mhz cpu chip fabbed in 1965.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I would question that as a fairy tale since the transisters at
>>>>> > the time could barely support 10 MHZ.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I've said, they fabbed their own chips, not from a commercial
>>>>> vendor.
>>>>
>>>> IBM built it for them.
>>>>
>>>>> Most of the commercial computers back then had only around a 25khz
>>>>> clock. They had solved a few manufacturing problems with cell size and
>>>>> heat dissipation. The KG-13 crypto machine had just two boards loaded
>>>>> with their own ICs that ran around 25mhz or so.
>>>
>>> Where do you get 25KHz from? Look up the IBM/360, to name but one.
>>>
>> From working with most of the old military digital computers.
>

> Thass not commercial is it.

The old Mk110 digital computer was commercial... Singer-Librascope out
of GlenDale, CA. Slow as all get out.

>
>> A few years later it moved up to 250khz. I'm not familiar with
>> the IBM/360 in 1965... was it around that year?
>

> Yes. CDC 6600 was 10MHz, CDC 3000 Series was at least 1MHz. Even the
> Leo 1 (1951) had a clock speed of 500KHz.
>
I think those were a bit pricey back then. The Navy really didn't have
much room for these, and all digital computers that they did use for
combat purposes were fairly specialized and only programmed from the
another on-shore computer system. IRC, the mk110 only calculated a few
angles to feed to an analog computer, meaning that the time and speeds
of the torpedos were rather slow as well. The Sperry computers were
also commercial, but ran at a slow speed.