Beautiful Hogsback

Photo of Hogsback (taken by Klara Louw)

Einstein; Podolsky ve Rosen'la beraber geliştirdikleri EPR çifti (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen pair) teorisiyle aslında kuantum fiziğinin bir yanılgı olduğunu göstermeye çalışmıştı. Halbuki ondan yaklaşık 30 sene sonra Bell tarafından oluşturulan eşitsizlikle tabiattaki hadiselerin bir plân, program ve düzen içinde, nasıl gerçekleştiğinin cevabı aranmaya başlandı. Ancak bu eşitsizliğin ortaya konmasından sonra yapılan bir deney, bu eşitsizliği doğrulamadı. Belki de en değerli bir fizik yanlışıydı Bell Eşitsizliği. Bu yanlışlıkla çok şey öğrenildi. Yapılan deneyin sonuçlarıyla, Bell Eşitsizliği tutarlılık göstermiyordu. Ayrıca bu eşitsizliği oluşturan varsayımlar, maalesef tabiatta gözlenmiyor, sadece akla uygun bir tutarlılık gösteriyordu.

Bu eşitsizlikte kullanılan iki varsayımdan birincisi (lokalite); kâinatın farklı iki noktasında aynı anda meydana gelen iki olay birbirinden fizikî olarak bağımsızdır. İkincisi (realizm) ise, tabiatta bulunan mikro-âleme ait bir parçacığın birtakım özelliklerini, (meselâ, momentum, konum gibi) öğrenmek istediğimizde o parçacığın bu özelliklerinin değerinin mutlak olduğuna inanmamızdır.(1) Bu iki varsayım birlikte yerel gerçeklik (local realism) hipotezi olarak da bilinmektedir.

Fiziğin en uç noktalarından sicim teorisine (string theory) bu iki varsayım açısından bakabiliriz. Elimizde belli uzunlukta bir sicim olsun. Bu sicim tek başına hiçbir mânâ ifade etmez. Fakat bundan yapılan gitar veya bağlama telini düşünelim. Bu sicimin farklı titreşimlerinden (vibrasyon) değişik notalar elde edilir. Titreşim olmadığı sürece, o sicimin hangi notayı ifade ettiği anlamsızdır; fakat bizim belirlediğimiz bir titreşim şekline göre, değişik notalar çıkartılabilmektedir. Veya kuantum mekanik ifadesiyle, biz bir şeyi ölçmek istediğimizde, aslında bir şekilde onunla temas kurup bu etkileşimin sonucu olarak ortaya bir şeyler çıkarır ve bu ölçtüğümüz değeri, o parçacığa atfederiz. Bu yüzden aynı teli kullanarak birçok notayı çıkartabiliriz; kuantum mekanik ifadesiyle, aynı parçacık için her ölçümde muhtemel sonuçlar kümesinden bir değer elde ederiz. Bu ise mikro ve makro âlemi anlamaya çalışan insanın niyet ve nazarının önemine işaret eder. Çünkü araştırma yapan insanın niyeti ve bakış açısı, ölçümlere ve gözlemlere tesir eder. Buna algıda seçicilik teorisi denir. Kuantum mekaniğindeki ölçüm ile sicim örneğinin ayrıldığı nokta ise şudur: Sicimden çıkaracağımız notaları biz niyet ve algılarımız ışığında belirleyebiliriz; ama kuantum seviyesindeki parçacıklardan (daha çok mümkünatı vücut mertebesinde) alacağımız sonuç ise, nisbeten belirsizdir. Sicimden herhangi bir nota çıkarmasak da o hâlâ bizim boyutumuzdadır (haricî vücut giymiş), ama kuantum parçacıkla onun varlık seviyesinde doğrudan temas kurmadıkça onun ne olduğu, nerede olduğu, hangi boyut ve belki de zamanda olduğu konusunda kesin bir fikrimiz yoktur. Zira her şey O'nun plânı ve programı dahilindedir. Biz bilmesek de, her şeyin doğrusunu ancak Allah bilir.

Bell Eşitsizliği'ndeki birinci varsayım derinden düşünülüp arka plâna inilirse, aslında Einstein'ın özel izafiyet teorisiyle bu varsayımın bağdaştığını görürüz. Çünkü, özel izafiyet teorisine göre tabiatta hiçbir şey ışık hızından daha hızlı değildir. Dolayısıyla kâinatın birbirinden çok uzakta bulunan iki noktasında meydana gelen iki farklı olayın birbiriyle alâkası olamayacağı akla yakın gözükmektedir. Yani, iki olayın birbirine bağımlı olabilmesi için mutlaka bir şekilde aralarında bir haberleşme olması gerekir. Bu haberleşme de ışık hızından daha hızlı gerçekleşemeyeceğinden bu iki noktada aynı anda gerçekleşen iki farklı olay birbirinden tamamen bağımsızdır. Aralarında haberleşmenin olmadığı birbirinden bağımsız sonsuz parçacık nasıl olur da 15 milyar senedir aralarında mükemmel bir haberleşme sistemi geliştirmiş olabilir?
Atomlar (zerreler) arasındaki bu haberleşme sistemi, İslâm'ın ontolojik kâinat görüşündeki Levh-i Mahfuz'la bağlantılı olabilecek bir mahiyettedir. Kriptoloji ile ilgilenenlerin çok iyi bildiği gibi iletişimde güvenilirlik ve gizlilik esastır. Bilim adamları bunu sağlayabilmek için çok kompleks şifreleme usulleri geliştirip, birtakım protokoller tanımlamışlardır. Meselâ bu şifreleme metotlarından biri RSA kripto sistemidir. RSA birçok bankacılık sisteminde kullanılmakta olup, çok basamaklı bir sayıyı asal çarpanlarına ayırmaktaki zorluğa dayanmaktadır. Meselâ, 1000 basamaklı bir sayıyı asal çarpanlarına ayırmak göründüğü gibi kolay değildir. Bu işlem günümüzün en hızlı bilgisayarları ile dahi kâinatın tahmini yaşından fazla zaman gerektirmektedir.(2)

Bunun yanında ayrıca ilâve protokoller de tanımlanmıştır. Meselâ mesajlar herkesçe ortak mesajı gönderme anahtarı ile şifrelenip alıcıya gönderilir, alıcı da sadece kendisinde bulunan özel şifre anahtarıyla mesajı çözer. Peki anahtar dağıtımı nasıl yapılmalı ki, güvenlik ve gizlilik prensipleri sağlanabilsin? Cevap: Önceden tanımlanma...

Parçacıkların birbirleriyle devamlı olarak haberleşmelerini sağlayabilmek için iki ihtimal vardır: Birincisi, parçacıkların aralarında geliştirmiş oldukları bir tür haberleşme (telepati gibi) metodu ile iletişim kurmalı ve bu iletişim sonsuz hızlı olmalı ki, aynı anda meydana gelen iki olay birbirleri ile gelecekte asla çelişki meydana getirmesin, uyum içerisinde olsun. Bir an için bu haberleşmenin sağlanamadığını düşünelim. Bu durumda kâinatın 15 milyar yıldır mükemmel bir uyum içinde, âdeta bütün parçacıkların birbirlerinden ve yaptıklarından haberi varmış gibi hareket etmeleri mümkün olabilir mi? Meselâ kâinatın yaratılışına ait ileri sürülen teorilerden biri olan Big Bang'ı düşünelim. Bu patlama teorisine göre, zamanın çok kısa bir anında, çok miktarda enerji maddeye dönüşüyor ve bugünkü gezegenimizi, galaksileri meydana getiriyor. Bugünkü uzayın içinde ne varsa tamamı bu patlamanın sonrasında meydana geliyor. Bu patlamayla içinde bulunduğumuz kâinat yaratılıyor, genişliyor, genişledikçe oluşuyor, oluştukça genişliyor. Hattâ artan bir hızla genişliyor. Peki nereye doğru gidiyoruz? Başı boş muyuz? Bizi ne gibi sürprizler bekliyor? Parçacıklar, başlangıçtan beri, kâinatın bu genişlemesi veya Kur'an'ın ifadesiyle "göklerin yükseltilmesi" sırasında birbirleri ile haberleşme içindeler miydi?

Kur'an: "Allah, O Zât-ı Akdestir ki, gökleri görüyorsunuz, dayanak olmaksızın yükseltilmiştir; Sonra arş üzerine istivada bulunmuştur ve Güneş'i de, Ay'ı da musahhar kılmıştır ki, her biri adı konulmuş bir süreye kadar akıp gitmektedir. Her işi evirip düzenler, âyetleri birer birer açıklar. Tâ ki Rabb'inize kavuşacağınızı yakinen bilesiniz."(3) diyor.

Bu durumda, eğer parçacıklar iletişim içindelerse, belirlenmiş bir gâyelerinin olması gerekir. Bu da, hiçbir şey tesadüfe bırakılmıyor, demektir. Zaten Kur'an'ın başka bir âyetinde de: "Semayı yükseltti ve mizanı vaz'etti."(4) denerek, gökyüzünün genişletilmesinin de nice hesap ve ölçüye dayandığına işaret edilmektedir.
Bir an için bütün parçacıkların tesadüfen hareket ettiğini ve mizanın olmadığını düşünelim. Bu durum, bu parçacıkların birbirini dinlemediği ve aralarında haberleşme olmadığı mânâsına gelir. Yani hiçbir parçacık birbirinin durumunu ne biliyor, ne bilmek istiyor, ne de tedbir alıyor. Peki nasıl bir netice beklenir? Anne karnında nasıl dünyaya geldiğimizi, dokuların birbirinden habersiz gelişip farklılaşması ve kâinatın en şerefli varlığının nasıl ahsen-i takvimde yaratıldığını düşünelim. Bunu Kur'an şu âyetlerle ifade etmektedir: "O Allah ki, yaratandır, en güzel bir biçimde kusursuzca var edendir, 'şekil ve suret' verendir. En güzel isimler O'nundur. Göklerde ve yerde olanların hepsi O'nu tesbih etmektedir. O, Aziz ve Hakîmdir."(5)

Bütün bunların yanında bir de kâinatın nasıl bu hali aldığını, yağmur bulutlarının nasıl zamanı geldiğinde, olması gereken yerde olduklarına bakalım: "Şüphesiz, göklerin ve yerin yaratılmasında, gece ile gündüzün art arda gelişinde, insanlara yararlı şeylerle denizde yüzen gemilerde, Allah'ın yağdırdığı ve kendisiyle yeryüzünü ölümünden sonra dirilttiği suda, her canlıyı orada üretip-yaymasında, rüzgarları estirmesinde, gökle yer arasında boyun eğdirilmiş bulutları evirip çevirmesinde düşünen bir topluluk için gerçekten âyetler vardır."(6)

Kâinattaki atomlar arasındaki bu haberleşmenin kurulabilmesi, bilinen fizik kaidelerine aykırı gözükmektedir. Bu durumda ancak ikinci ihtimal söz konusu olabilir. Yani parçacıklar ve hareketlerinin, gelecekteki davranışları harici vücut giymeden önce İlm-i İlâhî'nin bir defteri olan Levh-i Mahfuz'da takdir edilmiş olmalıdır. İşte biz bu önceden tanımlanmış müthiş protokole "İmam-ı Mübin Defteri" diyoruz. Bu protokol öyle gizli ve güvenlidir ki, Allah'tan başka hiçbir güç, düzen ve âhengi oluşturan bu haberleşmenin bozulmasına sebep olamaz. Yaratıcı'dan başka hiçbir güç, kâinatta parçacıklar arasında müthiş bir haberleşme ile gerçekleştirilen "göğün genişletilmesini" durduramaz. Allah (cc) halife olarak yarattığı insana bu şifreleri, bizce meçhul ama Levh-i Mahfuz'da takdir edilmiş sınırlar dahilinde çözme ve böylece eşyaya şekil verme istidadı ve izni vermiştir. Yeter ki O dilesin, O istesin. İnsanın yapamayacağı hiçbir şey yoktur.
Fizikte yapılan pek çok çalışma, uzayın herhangi iki ayrı noktasında aynı anda meydana gelen iki olayın bağlantılı olabilmesinin, gâyet makûl, hattâ gerekli olduğunu göstermiştir. İslâm'ın ontolojik kâinat görüşü zaviyesinden kuantum fiziğinin geldiği nokta, varlığın henüz tam harici vücut giymemiş (mümkünat seviyesinde) varlık mertebesi olan mikro-âlemi ve/veya âlem-i misali açıklayan mevcut en iyi modeldir. Dolayısıyla kuantum fiziği, sadece hakikatin bir kısmını gösterir. Hâlihazırda kuantum teorisiyle izafiyet teorisini birleştiren yeni bir teori geliştirilebilmiş değildir. Kuantum ve izafiyet teorilerinin tedâileri, bazı bilim adamlarının hayal güçlerini geliştirmelerine vesile olmuştur. Meselâ günümüz fiziğiyle neredeyse imkânsız gibi gözüken zaman yolculuğu ve cisimlerin ışınlanması gibi fizikçilerin rüyası haline gelmiş buluşlar, belki de geliştirilecek olan kuantum-izafiyet teorisi ile hayat bulacaktır.

Durdu O. GÜNEY
Kaynak:www.sizinti.com.tr

Two pieces in the Guardian on Tuesday: in G2 there was a profile of Jill Bolte Taylor, the remarkable American neuro-anatomist who suffered a massive stroke which she analyses with unnerving calm in one of the most downloaded TED lectures of all time. Her most recent book argues that understanding the biochemical processes that underpin our emotional states will allow us to control them better.

Meanwhile, in the main paper there was a fascinating report on how Israeli neurologist Alon Friedman is planning a study on the neurological impact of stress on children in Gaza and the long term damage that this can cause to their brain function.

What lies behind the very different work of Friedman and Bolte Taylor is the belief that understanding neurological mechanisms can help us to plan more effective interventions.

There are two common objections to this which we have often come across whilst planning the RSA changing minds project.

The first is that it is too reductionist or mechanistic an account of human behaviour. We cannot explain everything (or the most important things) about our thinking simply by reference to neurological processes and without acknowledging environmental factors or conscious decision making.

The second is that understanding neurological mechanism does not in reality add very much to our responses to these issues. We do not need to understand brain plasticity to know that living in a war zone will be psychologically damaging to children or to know that we can manage or overcome our emotional states. What value is added by explaining these things in terms of neurological processes?

I think both these objections can be resisted. To claim that neurological processes are an influence on our behaviour and capacities is not to deny that other factors influence them. Indeed both these stories could be seen to be about the interaction between neurological processes of which we are unconscious and external factors or conscious thinking. The real challenge is to understand how all these elements interact to shape the way we think.

The question about added value is harder to answer – but it seems clear that understanding how mechanisms work can be helpful at least some of the time. To take a couple of analogous examples, although we have always had a broad understanding of how comparatively healthy particular environments were, it was only in the nineteenth century as we began to understand in reasonably precise terms how and why contaminated water, insanitary conditions, air pollution etc impacted on physical health that we were able to achieve real progress on public health.

Similarly, we have always known how to improve the body’s performance: that by running a lot, for example, you will become better at running, but as we have come to understand more about the physiological processes involved we have been able to devise more sophisticated training regimes that increase performance to previously unimaginable levels.

So understanding how things work can certainly help us to make them work better in some cases – whether this is true of our neurological processes may be a moot point but it can only be resolved if we do the work to find out what those mechanisms are and how they relate to the way we think.

Friedman and Bolte Taylor are both talking abut the neurological hardwiring that impacts on our behaviours. This is certainly a crucial part of understanding why human beings behave as they do but there are other disciplines that offer equally valuable insights.

On Wednesday Danny Finkelstein’s column in the times was dedicated to the political influence of evolutionary psychology, behavioural economics and social psychology. Behavioural economics has been everywhere this week with piece on nudging by George Osborne in the Guardian causing a big stir (including this response on the Telegraph blog from our own Matthew Taylor). Richard Thaler spoke here at the RSA on Thursday and the room was heaving at the seams so there’s clearly a popular appetite to learn more about this thinking. But as Finkelstein points out its political application is patchy. So while we may talk about behavioural nudging in relation to savings policy, it has not figured in the debate about knife crime (indeed as Finkelstein points out the current hysteria around the subject ignores all the lessons from social psychology about how normalising behaviour tends to encourage it).

It’s certainly true that we need to look across the policy landscape at how insights from all these different disciplines map onto real world problems.

Finkelstein was kind enough to describe the RSA as one of the leading think tanks in this area and it’s definitely one of the things that we want to be doing with our new project. But there’s another way in which it’s also important to bring things together. The disciplines Finkelstein refers to (not to mention all those he doesn’t) are all very different, they start from different places and proceed through different methodologies. Evolutionary psychologists and neuroscientists and behavioural economists may have very different accounts of why people behave and think as they do in particular instances, let alone what it means in policy terms.

Obviously there’s a huge amount of work going on in all these disciplines. The RSA wouldn’t claim expertise in any of them – but we can provide a space in which experts from different fields can come together with policy-makers, practitioners and members of the public to share insights ask questions of each other and test ideas for how to use these sciences of thought and behaviour to address some of the key challenges of our time.

I don't agree with Hampson that using 'chav' 'betrays a deep and revealing level of class hatred'. I do agree that it is a deeply unpleasant expression. Trying to find the discussion on the BBC website, I first found a 2005 article, Charvers, which shows that things have not moved on much in the past three years.

And equally thought provoking post, Britain's social recession, by Matthew Taylor in his RSA blog yesterday,

This extreme level of social pessimism [found in the countries of old Europe] is accompanied by a rejection of structural explanations of disadvantage. Whilst there is growing resentment at the very rich, people are more and more inclined to say that the poor have only themselves to blame. This is not fertile territory for developing a new agenda for social solidarity and action.

The figures on expectations of growing inequality are particularly stark. One of the other points made by Roger Liddle is that education - which many progressives hoped would be a driver of social mobility and inclusion - has actually become a major driver of social polarisation. The reason for this is simply that the wages available to those lacking higher education are falling, and will fall even faster now hard times and higher unemployment rates are here again.

Making education a force for inclusion and opportunity will require more than a further cranking up of an increasingly problematic standards agenda. We need to ask what education is for and we need a system which is not about finding our whether children are able but how they are able and how their abilities can be developed.

A simple definition of divergent thinking would be: the ability to see lots of possible answers to a question. It's not the same as creativity, which is more about the process of having original ideas that have value, but it's long been recognised as a prerequisite for it.

A test for divergent thinking would be something like "how many different uses can you find for a paper clip". Those who really score high might break right out of conventional thought. Is there any reason why the paper clip couldn't be 20 foot high, or made of foam?

A set of divergent thinking tests was given to a group of 1500 kids, aged 3 to 5. If they scored above a certain level, they were awarded "geniuses in divergent thinking". Then the same test was given to the same group again 5 years later, again 5 years after that. What do you think happened as the benefits of schooling took effect?

The percentages awarded "genius at divergent thinking" were:

• Age 3 to 5 - 98%
• Age 8 - 10 - 32%
• Age 13 - 15 - 10%

As a control, a group of 200,000 adults were given the test. The number of "geniuses at divergent thinking"? 2%

Sir Ken Robinson recently received the 2008 RSA Benjamin Franklin Medal, and he discussed this survey in an amazing hour-long talk, Changing Paradigms, during the RSA event.

I'm a huge fan of Sir Ken and I've written about his Ted Talk, Do Schools Kill Creativity before.

He believes that we're now living in a world of unprecedented change, in terms of their character and implication, and that our best salvation is to develop a capacity for imagination and connect people to their true talents (through education). As the results of the tests above show, we all start out with that capacity, but we're systematically destroying it in our children and ourselves.

Technology and population growth are not only draining the earth's resources, but have also created a massive wave of demand for innovation, fresh thinking, fresh social systems and fresh ways of allowing people to connect with themselves and have lives with purpose and meaning. Our education system was designed for a different age. It was modeled on the economic premise of Industrialism and the intellectual-mind model of The Age of Enlightenment. We're still looking at education in terms of academic (smart people) verses non-academic (non smart people) and from the viewpoint of economic utility. Not only is this inappropriate for the age we live in, it's damaging to everyone that's judged that way.

Sir Ken believes that parallel to the climate crisis of Al Gore, we have another global crisis in human resources and that it's urgent and palpable.

It's a compelling viewpoint, and Sir Ken is always an entertaining speaker. If you're wondering if the school system is getting it totally wrong, then it's a video that's well worth an hour of your time.

Pic: School's Out (Xiamen) by creativespark

Na innym komputerze już byłem ostrożniejszy i wszystkie aktualizacje WID/WPS oraz RAD/RSA wykonywałem już z pomocą IBM Installation Manager. Kilka paneli wyboru aktualizacji

Po dobrych kilku godzinach całość oprogramowania już miałem na najwyższej możliwej wersji.

Jeszcze nie doświadczyłem dobroci pracy znajnowszym oprogramowaniem, ale z pewnością zebrane doświadczenia przydadzą się klientom, kiedy zapytają Czy warto?.

I expected a big crowd there after seeing the registration page, but not even half turned up. I've been into security stuff at Yahoo! for quite sometime, so I have fair idea of web security. The web security part there was not very interesting to me, for, I know most of it already. I dint plan to speak there, but I prepared a short presentation on the fly about basic practices to avoid XSS, XSRF, SQL attacks. My laptop ran out of power and thanks to RSA guys who allowed me to use their laptop for presentation. I dint speak more than twenty minutes, I know that was not a good presentation, but next time I will plan to talk well before.

Most interesting part of the talk was a tool presented by Yash. He could capture passwords from sites that used SSL, which created a shiver down my spine. The tool captures data before it enters the SSL tunnel between the desktop and the website. It's not a key logger.

If I'm right, Rasmus Lerdorf, the inventor of PHP said "the internet is broken". Yash reiterates desktop (at least Windows) is even more broken.

>> Encore un excellent article de Marc Landré. (...) les entreprises pourraient donc devoir communiquer aux salariés, pourquoi pas via leur CE, les données ayant servies de base à la détermination de leur rémunération si elles ne veulent pas voir d'éventuelles inégalités de traitement entre salariés révélées.

• Watching: Une pétition pour l’installation définitive du Parlement européen à Strasbourg tinyurl.com/6qto4p

>> Ainsi motivée : "Cela coûte environ 200 millions d'euros par an aux contribuables de déplacer le Parlement entre Bruxelles/Belgique et Strasbourg/France".

• Reading: Les PV pour non-affichage du ticket d'horodateur jugés illégaux tinyurl.com/6qxz8o

Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter

Rumah Sakit ASRI dalam BNEWS, program dari Bank Bukopin di Metro TV.

So, finally I changed my strategy. My requirement is more to do with preventing the tampering of the data rather than preventing viewing of the data. So, I used SHA-5 message digest, computed the digest for the data file, then used the RSA Cipher and encrypted the digest with the private key. The idea is to ship the data file and the encrypted message digest and the public key and then at run time, first compute the digest on the data file and compare it with the decrypted digest computed using the public key on the encrypted digest. If they match, then the file is not tampered, otherwise it is.

BTW, in case you are wondering, why not go with the approach of encrypting with a symmetric key and encrypt the symmetric key using the public/private keys, this has a security issue. Unlike a 2-trusted parties communicating with each other using this approach and trying to prevent a 3rd party from knowing the message, here the issue is that me the 1st party, can't trust the 2nd party. So, for example, once the program is run, it would be possible to identify the symmetric key used to encrypt the data by inspecting the RAM and then use that symmetric key and encrypt a different piece of data and overwrite the old encrypted data file. The program would happily accept the tampered data because it was able to successfully decrypt the data file using the same symmetric key that doesn't change (once you ship the software, the key remains the same). Note that the purpose of encrypting the message digest above is not to hide it because again, looking at the RAM, it would be possible to figure this out, but the idea is that one can't compute the encrypted value of the message digest of the tampered file since it can only be done by me using the private key.

Security is an interesting area. There are a handful of tools and which tool to use when depends on the use case. The data file in the above use case can be a software license as well that contains the details of the party that licensed the software. One doesn't care so much about the fact that the license details are visible but that those visible details are not tampered.

Hace algun rato (la verdad fueron como dos horas), estube leyendo un noticia interesante, sobre un cuate de argentina, maestro, doctor en matematicas: Hugo Scolnik, este señor de 67 años, esta logrando lo imposible..

Romper lo que parece ser hasta hoy la base de la seguridad informatica mundial, exagero un poco pero si es muy importante, por ejemplo en donde se usa la clave public RSA?, pasar informacion bancaria ya sea datos , contraseñas, numeros tarjeta, en fin, en las conecciones de internet, los ssh , vpn, que estaria comprometidas si este señor pude romper este algoritmo creado por 3 ñores sin nada que hacer en los años 70´s mas o menos.

Y la clave RSA que es, a grande grandes rasgos su resumen es un metodo en el cual se tiene numero gigante de 200 a 100 digitos de longitud, despues se multiplica por otro de igual longitud,menor o mayor, y te da un digito de alrededor de 300 numeros, sencillo no?, claro que trata de factorizar ese numero(sacarle factores ej. 4, en actores 2x2 ,1x4, 4x1 etc etc), el problema aqui es que para factorizar un numero de esas dimensiones esta muy muy cabron, aunque sea con servidores poderosos tardaria miles de años de calculos.

Asi que si este señor logra desarrollar ese algoritmo para tronar practicamente el cifrado RSA,  se veran en serios problemas si no sacan otro metodo rapido, creo que estan avanando en la criptografia de curva eliptica, pero aun no madura lo suficiente.

Esperemos que este señor tarde un rato en sacar eso sino , nos veriamos en aprietos .

Fuentes, Fuentes 2

Ich habe eine neue Version vom RSA Chat released. Der RSA-Private-Key liegt jetzt, mit einem Session-Key verschlüsselt, im RAM. Außerdem werden jetzt die Port und Keysize Settings in einem ini-File gespeichert und von dort beim Start ausgelesen, d.h. wenn man sie ändert und speichert, muss erst das Programm erst neustarten bevor die Änderungen eintreten.

(Im RSA Chat - Thread ist auch die neue Version eingefügt.)

Download

Drawn in homage to the awesome Matthew Taylor from the RSA:

"People think they have a voice in their head that is their self. If you just asked youself 'What voice in my head?', that's the voice in your head."

(thanks to psd for the photo)

I've tested the code against several test vecor and it shows exactly the same result. That was a nice news to hear. For example 88⁷ mod 187 will result 11. I believe that this code is compatible with the RSA specification. However this is a free open source software that comes with no guarantee, so take your own risk if yiu wish to use this code.

In addition, i divided the RSA implementation into 7 version. Each version has its own characteristics listed below.

• Version 1.x for 32-bit RSA implementation
• Version 2.x for 64-bit RSA implementation
• Version 3.x for 128-bit RSA implementation
• Version 4.x for 256-bit RSA implementation
• Version 5.x for 512-bit RSA implementation
• Version 6.x for 1024-bit RSA implementation
• Version 7.x for 2048-bit RSA implementation

See this screenshots below. First boxed row denote RSA input, second boxed row denote exponentiaion constant, third boxed row denote mod operation constant and fourth boxed row denote the result of RSA algorithm.

Encrypting Screenshot

Decrypting Screenshot

So far, the code only contains the core of RSA cipher, it has no capability of doing key scheduling i.e. key generating. I'll code and upgrade all of that version gradually, so keep visiting this blog and please mail me your suggestion or even question.

RELATED STUFF

Download:
RSA 32-bit | v1.0
RSA 64-bit | v2.0
PIC18F4550 Datasheet
MPLAB v8.0

Reference:
RSA
Ron Rivest
Adi Shamir
Leonard Adleman

Official Website:
- microchip
- RSA Security

Well it's me mainly since I'm learning to drive at the moment (More on that in the next post). But what's grinding my gears in the "getting my goat" sense of the phrase is the abuse of statistics.

What with print media being mostly cut-and-paste press releases, the least we could hope for is a careful analysis of the information the journalist is being spoonfed. Instead standards just seem low across the board. Here are two examples, please feel free to join in the grumpy fun and highlight any others you come across.

1. Men Kill Women Shocka!

• "Men 'to blame for most female road deaths'" the Irish Times informed us on Monday.
• "Male drivers to blame for 68pc of female road deaths" the Indo offered on Tuesday.

"Bold men", you say. But here's a headline the facts actually support.

• "Women to blame for most female road deaths"

Hang on! Isn't that just the IT headline with the first word changed? It is. It's also true. So is this...

• "Female passengers twice as likely to die with male driver".

The actual statistics (from a joint RSA/CAWT report) relate to female passenger deaths on the road between 1997 and 2006.

In short, 345 female passengers died in road collisions, 234 (68%) of those in vehicles driven by men.

Further numbers follow to highlight the extra risk of males aged 17-24. There are also some interesting figures on female passengers' opinion of their male drivers and what action they take/do not take as a result.

There are at least a couple of underlying assumptions*. One is that if you were the driver of a car in which someone died in a collision then you are to blame for their death**. A second is that "road death" means "car user death" although these are only 55 per cent of all road deaths for the period in question. That's fine as long as we're all aware what is being talked about.

2,226 car users died in collisions between 1997 and 2006, out of 4,015 road deaths. Male road deaths are three times as frequent as female ones. That implies 557 female road deaths in the period. The RSA/CAWT report tells us that 345 died as passengers. That means 212 died as drivers. That means 212 female drivers + 111 female passengers driven by other women = 323 total women died in cars driven by women. 323/557 = 58 per cent.

Hence, women were to blame for 58pc of female road deaths. Of course, men were to blame for most female car passenger deaths but that's not what the headlines said. Or what leading paragraphs in the articles said either, viz

New research shows that more than two-thirds of women who died [as passengers - EC] in car crashes from 1997-2006 were passengers in cars driven by men. - Irish Independent

Women are more likely to die in a car crash if they are a passenger in a car driven by a man [than if they were a passenger in a car driven by a women], new statistics have revealed. - Irish Times

Of course the main statistical problem with the report is that raw road death numbers don't really tell you how relatively dangerous different ways of doing the same thing are. No more than my telling you I had firefighters wear orange helmets for three months (during which there were 4 deaths) and yellow helmets the rest of the year (during which there were 9 deaths) tells you that orange helmets save lives. The death rate was 16 per year with orange and 12 per year with yellow... maybe yellow is safer.

The point is, if a risky activity is being tried numerous different ways over a period of time, it is important to know how long each way is tried for. In this case, how many hours do women spend driving, driving other women, being driven by men?

*In the following discussion, I used NRA/RSA statistics collected on this site to fill gaps in the data.

**Seems obvious for single car collisions but what about an innocent being hit/run off the road by some other vehicle. If there were some big difference between the sexes in the frequency or lethality of these accidents then this assumption might no be valid. I'd guess it broadly is though.

2. Growth in Rate of Economic Growth Fails to Grow... Shocker?

Another classy effort from the Times, "Economic growth contracts in first quarter" they assure us. The first sentence of the article reads, "Economic growth in the Republic shrank by 1.5 per cent between January and March this year..."

Growth is the rate at which something becomes bigger.

To contract is to become smaller.

So "growth contracts" means that a reduction in the rate at which something is getting bigger. So, if I weighed 69kg in 2006 and 74kg in 2007 and now weigh 77kg, then I grew by 3kg this year compared to 5kg growth last year. My growth has contracted. I have not, however. I have gotten larger. I am now a svelte 12 stone where once I was a lanky eleven. What's going on?

Well... Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for Ireland, which is a measure of the size of the economy, was 1.5 per cent smaller at the end of the first quarter of 2008 than it was at the beginning. So "growth" was MINUS 1.5 per cent. It (growth) was -1.5 per cent. It did not SHRINK by 1.5 per cent, it, itself, IS minus 1.5 per cent. The economy became 8.7 per cent larger during the first quarter of 2007 so, if you don't mind a year-on-year comparison, economic growth has gone from 8.7 to -1.5. It has fallen by 10.2. Measured in percentage terms, 10.2/8.7 = 117 per cent, so economic growth contracted 117 per cent of itself year-on-year, as in we lost ALL growth (all = 100%) and then some. Alternatively, growth fell by 10.2 (per cent) of the economy's size, from 8.7 to -1.5.

Bottom Line: Economic growth didn't contract by 1.5 per cent, the economy did.

1. The support of the public is essential - both to get the right planning and policy decisions and because individuals are directly responsible for a large part of the UK's carbon footprint. In some cases, the speakers seemed to have a point that individuals don't have enough information to make a judgement about what is in their best interest. Average homeowners are not in a position to calculate the impact of microgenerators on their energy bills and the value of their home, for example. But I'd say that most people do have sufficient information about their energy costs and act quite rationally. The issue is that their demand is inelastic. When fuel prices go up, people continue driving. This is why cap-and-trade (either upstream, like the EU ETS, or downstream, like the personal carbon trading scheme being designed by the RSA) is an attractive mechanism: the price at which people are prepared to change is discovered. If people had carbon rations they would start taking note of their meters.
2. The planning process is jamming up the whole renewable industry and needs to be reformed. Everyone was politely horrified with the UK's planning and it seems an obvoius place to start if the UK is to achieve its target.

Thanks to the RSA for inviting me to blog at this important Summit. I'd encourage you to take a look through the Energy 2020 Action Plan.

1. Virgin materials – there is an enormous untapped resource from forests. The most wooded area of the UK is the south-east, and these woods could provide woodchips for biomass plants. Energy crops still have high potential - for biomass energy and transport biofuels. Virgin materials also could be used much more extensively in construction and manufacturing.
2. Non-virgin materials – many things thought of as waste are useful resources. Up to 10m tonnes of timber are being put into landfill each year – this could easily be turned into energy. Energy from manure and the organic elements of packaging and other types of waste can be extracted through combustion, digestion etc. Food from wasteful processing, homes and supermarkets has a lot of embedded energy.
3. Other renewable sources – waves, tidal power, rivers etc. are abundant in the UK.

The planning process must be driven by the renewable energy strategy. Many applications have been stuck for 6-7 year. Public buy-in is critical to making these plans work and is key to planning decisions.

The National Grid is not delivering for new renewable generation – there is a long queue for connection.

The price-cap regulation for energy is stifling investment. Ofgem needs to prioritise sustainability. These changes will affect consumers – but in the long term, the switch to renewable energy will reduce consumers’ exposure to volatile energy markets.

The 2020 targets are only a milestone and plans must look beyond this (other speakers echo this).

It’s the heat being wasted at the point of generation that we need to look at. The vision for 2020 - where microgenerators are on every home and CHP plants are used everywhere - is within our reach. We just need the will!

Consumer action means modifying day-to-day behaviour: choosing energy efficient products, how and when we travel, the source of energy we use, our use of water and how we deal with waste. It doesn't mean radically different lifestyles.

Consumers are vital across all the sectors being discussed in this summit. Transport in particular needs tackling urgently. If everyone chooses the most efficient car, individual carbon footprints would go down by 25%.

Investment is required for a modal shift, especially in freight. We could be using boats to transport goods round the country to much better effect, for example. These networks don’t exist so investment is required.

Biofuels are also an important area of development. Growth will be driven in part by the long term price of oil. They have been unfairly demonised – some are sustainable and they have an important role to play. 10% biofuels in transport is attainable.

Consumers must demand efficient cars – manufacturers will move fast to block legislation but even faster to meet their customers’ wishes.