coppersurffer

O.o?! really? wow this is the first I've heard of it the problem with encryption is languages and the fact that at some point the data isn't encrypted. at some point the machine is reading or writing the encrypted data and the plaintext is being stored somewhere while it either encrypts or decrytps it. and the code that its using to encrypt it or decrypt it is somewhere too. (with public key encryption accessing the code which encrypts it shouldn't be too big of a deal unless they're getting at the contents as it does what it does.) the way language screws it up is. if I send you a message which looks like ij ipx bsf zpv. uijt jt jo b qsfuuz cbtjd fodszqujpo. J nbef ju dppmfs uipvhi uijt tipvme cf fopvhi ufyu up nblf gsfrvfodz bobmztjt nblf tfotf tp j uijol j dbo tupq uzqjoh opx.. (this is a ceasershift not rsa) then you can make some good assumptions if you're trying to crack my messages encryption. (one of those is that my encryption sucks lol) like that 'b' and that 'j' all alone are pretty suspicious aren't they? might those be an 'a' or 'I'? (they are a and I respectively as this is a Cesarean shift of 1) also... ......^ that's totally incidental and i didn't notice this until I was already about to post. also letters appear in certain ratios so in a random selection of non gibberish English you will see a whole lot of e's also their are certain letter pairs which make up most of english. expect a lot of ing's and th's etc the solution to that should be null's characters which mean nothing and are ignored in decryption. I'm not sure if rsa uses nulls but it probably should

to be clear when i say I'm referring to the fact that if we flip until we get a heads that number of flips will be some arbitrary integer(for this particular series of flips, another series of flips will have some other arbitrary integer.). we can not be sure what that integer is(statistics can help us make some reasonable guess though). we just know that we're perpetually getting closer to it until it happens and we know that the chances of that arbitrary number being 1000 is far less likely than it being 7 as for it to be 1000 we had to get 999 tails in a row which is highly improbable if I understand this. this means their is no constant value whereupon their has to have been a heads. I think we can still assert that at some arbitrary point(for the paticular sequence) h will happen (assuming the flipper dosn't give up) right?

the name kind of makes sense in a loose sense because of some of the plot points but I understand your complaint. also fuck the big bang theory(the show. its awful)

dark matter was a syfy show (which remindend me a lot of firefly. )it only got 3 seasons and now its over </3

sorry if this isn't the right area to post this I wasn't sure where it should go. (I didn't want to post in math or something which might have content which the community might think of as more respectable so I put it here so it can be moved somewhere nicer if the admins think it is worthy.) so recently I've been thinking about the gamblers fallacy. the gamblers fallacy is the idea that things become more or less likely based on previous results which to most people seems obvious. you can't flip a coin and keep coming up tails forever. at one point I thought I discovered why the gamblers fallacy is a fallacy that is that any particular combination of 100 coin flips have the same chance of happening. so 100 heads is just as likely as alternating heads tails until the end. or 99 heads and one tails at the end. but today a new line of reasoning occurred to me. let us assume that their is some unknown number of times we have to flip a coin before we get a heads. lets call that number x every time we flip the coin the number of times we have flipped it gets closer to x meaning that everytime we get a tails the odds of the next flip being a tails gets lower. (remember we don't know what x is we just know that the number of flips is approaching x and will reach it eventually) I'm not sure if this qualifies as the gamblers fallacy but it fits the intuitive notion that either good or bad luck can only hold out for so long. ps. this line of reasoning occurred when thinking about yellowstone and weather it was a gamblers fallacy to say that the volcano is "due" for an eruption or not