Radical Edward

I mean, tell us the whole formula. I want to digure some predictions out from it, and with this scrap that you have posted I can't figure anything out, as it's impossible to know what numbers to put in.

someone in my department might be working on some part of it, I could ask round. I know one of the lecturers has the remains of the ill fated cluster mission in a box in his room.

that could well make the point of sending a message redundant though.

go further. there's nothing worse than half an idea.

you'd jsut destroy the key immediately after using it. If they got hold of the key, you would probably have the message with it, or torture the person who got the message. camp delta perhaps.

heh .I'll assume that's a joke as I have no idea what you're on about there

uh? you said sin(theta) was a vector though. 1) what is dI and how do you calculate it? 2) what is theta an agle with respect to? and does mass really have nothing to play in this whatsoever?

oh I'm fine. I am merely trying to point out to you that a physical formula with no units, ore clearly defined quantities is about as useful as no formula at all. could you clearly define specifically what dI and sin0 are? ...

it isnt better at all.

I like my avatars thans I still think some of the forums need shrinking a bit to make them easier to navigate.

yep. however it is just getting passwords. I still maintain that I am right, and that a random encryption key that is as big as the message is uncrackable if only used once (I neglected to say it is only used once in the original point, but I meant it by implication as it is covered by the rest of the statement anyway)

right. now we have an underived formula that is entirely devoid of units.

interesting post there faf.

there still isn't any maths.

and no decent links with your hypothesis.

your interpretation of these photos is complete junk. you rarely if ever have any concept of the basics of what is going on, you spout unfounded crap incessantly.

Zarkov, there still are many problems with that method you have proposed. I still can't even be bothered to go into them. sorry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2188107.stm now if they did this, would it not be infinitely cool? I'm a little cynical about the price tag though. someone mentions $10bn .... no way ...... ten trillion maybe, I can't see them building it with such a trivially small amount of cash.

Zarkov, there are many problems with that method you have proposed. I can't even be bothered to go into them. sorry.

in that case yes, but that's because I have used the key twice - I now effectively have a key that is half as long as the message. the longer the message is relative to the key, then the easier it is to dectypt. The more I use the same key, the easier it is to decrypt. If I have a new random key every time I send a message, that is the same size as the original key, then you can't decrypt it. a simple exeriment is this. say my encryption sustem involves a number, in which I add that many letters to each letter of the message. and work sequentioally through the message, repeating the numbers as nescessary: key = 3, letter = h, encrypted = k now from that basis, you can't figure out what letter I started with. if you don't know the key. however If I foolishly use the same key five times, then you get khoor and it becomes more possible to figure out that I am saying 'hello' granted it is still a bit tricky with such a short message, but If I did it on a sentence, then it would become far easier, since you could use probability and knowledge of the English language to figure out what I was saying. alternatively, If I had a key that was 5 numbers long, all you could say is that I sent a message that was 5 letters long. as i said in my first post: [edited to remove some ambiguity]

no, you would end up with every permutation of characters. if I encrypted the message hello there my name is edward it is a string of 29 characters. put it in binary, and that is however many binary digits. alternatively encrypt the message plant the bomb at the embassy it's also 29 characters long, and would be described with the same number of binary bits. without knowing the random key applied, it would be impossible to discern which message was right, even with a logical filter, and that is just two of the 27^29 of possible combinations of twenty nine characters (letters and speces only, no numbers, no punctuation) that makes sense.

I know. that's why I included the word 'local'

trust me, the only way of decrypting the message is getting hold of the original key. If you can't get hold of the key, the message is completely random numbers added to non random numbers - which is still a random number. lets go for a stupidly primitive example I want to send a number, but I don't want someone else to know the number. I pick a random key, which somehow I get to you (this is the tricky part) ... lets say this key is the number 4. only you and I know this. now I add it to the message, the number 8. you get 12. now lets say the spy gets hold of the transmission of the number 12, and the fact that I have added the key to the message. there is no way for him to know which of the numbers from 1-11 is the key, and which is the message. If he can't get hold of the key, the message is uncrackable.

and not a single mention of your oil induced ice age anywhere.... stop posting stuff unless it actually has a point to it.

I was making a point. you aren't.