Huh? DAPRA GC was not a good thing?



You're really out there in your thinking, or perhaps, knee jerk non-thinking. As they say, a little knowledge is dangerous. Where in the Constitution does it address the charter granted by Congress to the FCC? The FAA? You won't have to look very far. It's the same few sentences that allows DARPA, a US agency chartered by Congressional power, to operate in a manner supporting their charter. In other words, the Constitution absolutely and very clearly granted very broad powers to the three branches of government, including the power to hold a "race" in the middle of the desert.

True or false: NASA is unconstitutional, as was the spending to put a man on the moon.
True or false: The very existence of DHS, let alone its mission and actions, is unconstitutional.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, and that's a pity, because I learned these opinions from reading the opinions of the guys who wrote our Constitution, and also commentary of others on their thinking.
You think mine is bad, man, read Jefferson. You get the impression if he were alive today, he'd have half of capitol hill on a bayonet. For instance he said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" and meant it.
So let me ask you, where did you learn your thinking on the Constitution? Why should it be different from mine? Consider carefully your sources, and explain their motivations.

Generally all such agencies are thought to derive power from one of two clauses. One is the commerce clause, allowing the regulation of trade between the states, the other is the general welfare clause, which is the basis for much of the welfare system. Of course, you have to overlook the meaning of the word welfare as known at the time of the writing of the Constitution, and welfare as currently redefined.
For instance, for the destruction of the hurricane of 1912, no federal relief at all was sent. It was not seen as an enumerated task allowed under the Constitution at the time. Today, billions. Just by redefining a word. Which version of the Constitution were you taught? Why?

I disagree. The commerce and welfare clauses do not allow for DARPA. Brent was right in identifying the common defense as the origin of Congresses power to create DARPA. However, Congress cannot create an agency that in any way violates any other rights in the Constitution. Such as those which violate the 14th or 5th Amendment. If DARPA wants something from the people, it can legally contract with the people to make things. That doesn't mean it can use tax dollars for contests that award big prizes to one, and shaft all others. That's where you get sideways with the 14th.

Well, why don't you answer this one for your self. Where in the Constitution does it allow for NASA?

Same response. Think for yourself. What does the Constitution say? If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, work on expanding your knowledge.
So here's a question for you. Hypothetical. Let's say you work through it, and find NASA and DHS are unconstitutional. What are you going to do about it? What if no one else agrees with you? What are you going to do about it? Does their ridicule stand in in place of your conscience? Does their laughing at you, make you automatically wrong.
Now here's another one. Did cops occasionally beat citizens senseless for no good cause, before there were video tape machines? Can you prove it either way? What are your assumptions? Was it okay, as long as no one taped it? Or are improper actions, still improper, even if they do happen often? And will they stop on their own, or does someone have to take a stand, and say, this is wrong, before changes comes?
--
Randy M. Dumse

Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Randy M. Dumse wrote:

I just want to inject some additional information into the discussion. This is from the front page article on the DARPA Grand Challenge in the October 17, 2005 issue of EE Times.
The Grand Challenge was conceived in 2002 by Darpa director Anthony Tether, ...
The agency has sponsored autonomous-vehicle research for more than a decade in hopes of meeting a Congressional mandate that one-third of all military vehicles be autonomous by 2015. Progress, however, has been so slow that Darpa decided to enlist outside help. Hence, the Grand Challenge.
"All the winners acheived something that the naysayers had said was impossible just a few years ago," Intel's Bradski pointed out.
"Previously, Darpa spent a billion dollars on autonomous-vehicle development," he said, "but in less than three years the Grand Challenge has surpassed all previous efforts. ..."
Note that DARPA has been shelling out some big bucks on this research topic over the past decade or so. It is only with the advent of the GC that they saw some real progress.

Maybe next time, Darpa will stop throwing a billion dollars at the small cadre of established research houses and spread it around a little more from the start. The GC certainly made the established outfits produce some real results for a change for fear that their big lucrative research contracts might get redirected to somewhere else.

-Wayne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The big reseach houses seem to be doing pretty good, but robotics is much harder than it appears when you get serious.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Muddy wrote:

Interesting. I came to exactly the opposite conclusion.
DARPA threw a billion dollars at the big research houses and got nothing. They opened it up to "everybody", spent $40M, and got some solid results.
I would also claim that the 20+ entrants that made it through the qualifying round this year were pretty credible. Indeed, I would claim tha the 40+ entrants that made it to the qualifying round were also credible.
If the challenge were to be run for a few more years, I suspect there would be dozens of viable vehicles crossing the finish line and the average speed would be substancially greater than 20MPH.
To me, the interesting question is what will DARPA learn from all of this? Will DARPA keep throwing money exclusivley at the big research houses, or open it up some more? Since, I am a total cynic when it comes to governmental institutions, I suspect that DARPA will learn nothing and revert to their comfy relationships.
My $.02,
-Wayne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hopefully, DARPA will allow the technology to get away from them, just like they did with that lil' ole thang they call the internet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I worked with DAPRA, and other defense agencies and they almost always handle patent rights as follows. If the Military pays for the research, they own the patents, which were always made freely available to the public. This makes sense, since tax dollars paid for the effort, the people should own the patents. I would think only US companies using US manufacturings should get free use of the patents, but maybe other countries do the same thing.
If a university or company develops something to sell to the military on dime, they own the patent.
The only question comes on projects with multiple sources of funding, and then the company's or university's contract writers are at fault if they don't protect their own patent rights.
No evil conspiracies, just everyone trying to get the best for their share holders, tax payers or whoever owns universities.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Randy M. Dumse wrote:

This is an interesting, if slightly dated, article on the subject: http://www.theregister.com/2003/11/16/darpa_chisels_little_guy_out /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There you go Chris. Good detective work.
"On a very serious note, the teams are also concerned that DARPA granted itself a peek at their intellectual property via the technical paper without offering a fair shot at competing in the race. DARPA has first access rights to all of the technology."
Now go and see if you can find where leaked DARPA GPS coordinates data was leaked on a website to some of the teams months before the contest, and they have chartered special mappings of the course terrain, while the others only got it once they were at the contest.
Does that sound like equal protection under the law? or does a long train of abuses, pursing invariably the same object, evince a design?
--
Randy M. Dumse

Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Randy M. Dumse wrote:

Personally, I found this part more interesting: "As a mid-October deadline for contestants' technical papers drew near, the buzz around the Grand Challenge hit an all time high. Over the course of two weeks, DARPA was flooded with last minute entries to the contest. In fact, the quantity of entries overwhelmed DARPA, throwing the organization into a spell of utter confusion."
The message I'm getting from this article is that although problems have arrisen, they seem mainly due unforeseen circumstances coupled with incompetance and poor planning on the part of DARPA. Real-world reasons for DARPA's rule changes included possible ecological damage to the environment as a result of so many robots rolling over the desert, and DARPA itself being physically unable to process so many technical papers in such a short time.
To cope with the overwhelming turnout, DARPA basically instituted a first-come-first-serve policy. Unfortunately, it was a lot of the smaller teams that waited until the last second to enter, in order to gain additional funding.
While I wouldn't rule out the possibility of more corrupt actions, especially from Tony Tether, a friend of Donald Rumsfeld, criminal wrongdoing appears to be mere speculation at this point.
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris Spencer wrote:

This is all about the first Grand Challenge, which was an embarassment to everyone involved, both on the DARPA side and the entrants. Nothing worked the first year. Even with all their preplanning and aerial laser scanning, CMU crashed three times in seven miles. Only seven of twenty teams made it out of the starting area. It was a debacle.
Besides, you didn't have to say that much in the technical paper. Given the length limit, the technical papers don't have all that much detail. Here are ours:
http://www.overbot.com/public/papers/darpatechpaper2004.html http://www.overbot.com/public/papers/darpatechpaper2005.pdf

And most of the last-minute entries were totally clueless. This isn't something you can hack together in a few weekends.
The second year of the Grand Challenge was better in every way. Every vehicle at the NQE worked better than any vehicle in 2004.
It's worth noting, by the way, that the winning entry, Stanford's vehicle, did NOT use any manual preplanning. They just load the waypoint file and go. CMU still had the trailer of people frantically planning the detailed route by hand, but it didn't get them a win. CMU was the last gasp of the brute-force approach. Stanford's entry is the beginning of intelligent vision for off-road driving.
                    John Nagle                     Team Overbot
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Pardon me, but I'm always skeptical of broad sweeping statements like this, where someone rationalizes having 95% of ones competition wiped out with a rule change. I hope you can understand why I might be critical. Tell us a bit more, please.
Do you have any proof of your claim? first hand knowledge? Is this a well founded statement or an off-the-cuff comment? Specifically: Did you read all of the last-minute entries yourself to really know what most were like? or are you generalizing what the DARPA people told you?
Besides, it doesn't matter if _most_ of them were clueless. What matters if _any_ of them at all weren't. Anyone excluded who did have a clue was defrauded of their labor. I find it difficult to believe out of the 400 some teams only 20 some had a clue, or wouldn't have had one given the five remaining months the contestants were promised and denied.
Personally, I'm always a late starter. I like to think and think on a problem, run some tests and experiments, maybe do some models, do some more thinking, then make a final dash for the deadline. I work best under pressure. I would have been excluded, despite the fact I am often successful using this method.
Anyway, the dust has settled, the race is over. Tell us about yourself and your team, John. How much did you spend? How many man hours did you put into it? Any payback for it? Any big contracts coming your way out of it? For you, was DARPA GC a good thing?
--
Randy M. Dumse

Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There are plenty of cases where the governement steps on the toes of the little guy. It is worth being careful. It is entirely possible that if you come up with something ground breaking, the government will clamp down on it. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68894,00.html
Have a look at. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Secrets_Privilege http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID 301&c 6 http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/9393
If anything that came out of the DARPA GC were a matter of national security, the government not only can, but will clamp down on it, denying you any IP rights, with no legal recourse.
Imagine a scenario where one of the contestants developed sensor platform "A" and processing algorithm "B" that resulted in something not only entirely ground breaking, but allowed the goverment to build unerring car bombs that drive themselves overland to a destination in country "C" to deliver their paylod. If the governement sees this as a viable technology, guess what. They can simply take it since you have disclosed your methods and practices in your whitepapers, and legally fight off any attempt in court to block them. If you attempt to patent, they can block it. If you attempt to make your discovery public, to spite the govt, at the very least, you succeede, and now the enemy has better car bombs too. At the worst you fight it, and loose, potentially suffocating in legal bills.
This isn't speculation. It is national security. This isn't to say it will happen, but it is not unheard of, nor is it unfeasable. It has and could happen. We will leave it to time to tell.
If you doubt the governments involvement in peoples lives :
Philip Zimmermann of PGP fame George I. Davida
The double edged sword here is that the last thing I want is for enemies of the United States to posess this technology, (not that we won't sell it to them for natural resources in 5 or 10 years.)
If I understand Randy correcly, and I have known him for a decade +, he is merely concerned that blind techolust has led the personal, professional, and university robotics communities into being duped. For his courage to stand against his peers, I applaud him.
To close this post, I leave you with a very long and elaborate Haiku. It had to be put into a form of art, because Judge Kaplan ruled that this particular piece in its original form was not allowed to be printed as executable source code in any form...
(I abandon my exclusive rights to make or perform copies of
this work, U. S. Code Title Seventeen, section One Hundred and Six.)
Muse! When we learned to count, little did we know all the things we could do
some day by shuffling those numbers: Pythagoras said "All is number"
long before he saw computers and their effects, or what they could do
by computation, naive and mechanical fast arithmetic.
It changed the world, it changed our consciousness and lives to have such fast math
available to us and anyone who cared to learn programming.
Now help me, Muse, for I wish to tell a piece of controversial math,
for which the lawyers of DVD CCA don't forbear to sue:
that they alone should know or have the right to teach these skills and these rules.
(Do they understand the content, or is it just the effects they see?)
And all mathematics is full of stories (just read Eric Temple Bell);
and CSS is no exception to this rule. Sing, Muse, decryption
once secret, as all knowledge, once unknown: how to decrypt DVDs.
Arrays' elements start with zero and count up from there, don't forget!
Integers are four bytes long, or thirty-two bits, which is the same thing.
To decode these discs, you need a master key, as hardware vendors get.
(This is a "player key" and some folks other than vendors know them now.
If they didn't, there is also a way not to need one, to start off.)
You'll read a "disk key" from the disc, and decrypt it with that player key.
You'll read a "title key" for the video file that you want to play.
With the disk key, you can decrypt the title key; that decrypts the show.
Here's a description of how a player key will decrypt a disk key.
You need two things here: An encrypted disk key, which is just six bytes long.
(Only five of those are the _key itself_, because "zero" marks the end.
So that's five real bytes, and eight times five is forty; in the ideal case,
forty bits will yield just short of two trillion possible choices!
Ian Goldberg once recovered a key that long in seven half-hours.
But his office-mate David Wagner points out that it's _impossible_
to achieve what the DVD CCA seems to want to achieve,
even by making the key some reasonable, "adequate" key-length:
There's no way to write a "secure" software player which contains the key
and runs on PCs, yet somehow prevents users from extracting it.
If the player can decrypt, Wagner has noted, users can learn how.)
This is a pointer, "KEY", to those bytes, and when we're done, they'll be clear-text.
Oh, the other thing! Called "im", a pointer to six bytes: a player key.
(Now those six bytes, the DVD CCA says under penalty
of perjury, are its trade secret, and you are breaking the law if
you tell someone that, for instance, the Xing player used the following:
Eighty-one; and then one hundred three -- two times; then two hundred (less three);
two hundred twenty four; and last (of course not least) the humble zero.)
We will use these few internal variables: t1 through t6,
unsigned integers. k, pointer to five unsigned bytes. i, integer.
So here's how you do it: first, take the first byte of im -- that's byte zero;
OR that byte with the number 0x100 (hexadecimal --
that's two hundred and fifty-six to you if you prefer decimal).
Store the result in t1. Take byte one of im. Store it in t2.
Take bytes two through five of im; store them in t3. Take its three low bits
(you can get them by ANDing t3 with seven); store this in t4.
Double t3, add eight, subtract t4; store the result in t3.
Make t5 zero. Now we'll start a loop; set i equal to zero.
i gets values from zero up to four; each time, do all of these steps:
    Use t2 for an     index into Table Two:     find a byte b1.
    Use t1 for an     index into Table Three:     find a byte b2.
    Take exclusive OR     of b1 with b2 and     store this in t4.
    Shift t1 right by     a single bit (like halving);     store this in t2.
    Take the low bit of     t1 (so, AND it with one),     shift it left eight bits,
    then take exclusive     OR of that with t4; store     this back in t1.
    Use t4 for an     index into Table Four:     find a byte and store
    it back in t4.     Shift t3 right by three bits,     take exclusive OR
    of this with t3,     shift this right by one bit, and     take exclusive OR
    of this with t3,     shift this right by eight bits, and     take exclusive OR
    of this with t3,     shift this right by five bits, and     (No exclusive OR!
    Orange you glad I     didn't say banana?) take     the low byte (by AND
    with two hundred and     fifty-five); now store this     into t6. Phew!
    Shift t3 left eight     bits, take OR with t6, and     store this in t3.
    Use t6 for an     index into Table Four:     find a byte and store
    it in t6. Add     t6, t5, t4; store     the sum in t5.
    Take t5's low byte     (AND t5 with two hundred     fifty five) to put it
    in the ith byte of     the vector called k. Now shift     t5 right eight bits;
    store the result in     t5 again. Now that's the     last step in the loop.
No sooner have we finished that loop than we'll start another; no rest
for the wicked nor those innocents whom lawyers serve with paperwork.
Reader! Think not that technical information ought not be called speech;
think not diagrams, schematics, tables, numbers, formulae -- like the
terrifying and uniquely moving, though cliche, Einstein equation
"Energy is just the same as matter, but for a little factor,
speed of light by speed of light, and we are ourselves frozen energy."
Einstein's formula to convert from joules into kilogram-meters
squared per second squared, for all its power, uses just five characters.
But Einstein wrote to physicists: formal, concise, specific, detailed.
And sometimes we write to machines to teach them how tasks are carried out:
and sometimes we write to our friends to show a way tasks are carried out.
We write precisely since such is our habit in talking to machines;
we say exactly how to do a thing or how every detail works.
The poet has choice of words and order, symbols, imagery, and use
of metaphor. She can allude, suggest, permit ambiguities.
She need not say just what she means, for readers can always interpret.
Poets too, despite their famous "license" sometimes are constrained by rules:
How often have we heard that some strange twist of plot or phrase was simply
"Metri causa", for the meter's sake, solely done "to fit the meter"?
Programmers' art as that of natural scientists is to be precise,
complete in every detail of description, not leaving things to chance.
Reader, see how yet technical communicants deserve free speech rights;
see how numbers, rules, patterns, languages you don't yourself speak yet,
still should in law be protected from suppression, called valuable speech!
Ending my appeal on that note, I will describe the second loop. Store
nine in i; i gets values from nine down to naught. Each time, do this:
    Use i+1 as     an index into Table     Zero: find a byte.
    Call that byte p1.     Now use i for an index     in Table Zero:
    find a byte and     call that byte p0. Now     use p1 as an
    index into k     (a vector, remember?); thus     find a byte b1.
    Use p1 as an     index into KEY, as well:     find a byte, use that
    byte as an index     into Table One. Call the     byte you find b2.
    Use p0 as     an index into KEY to     find a byte b3.
    Take exclusive OR     of b1, b2, b3,     and store that in KEY
    (not just anywhere,     though!). In KEY at the byte that's     indexed by p1.
That's it for that loop and also for the task of disk key decryption.
Title keys are next. It isn't hard to decrypt one. The rule's the same!
Well, there's one slight change: where you use t6, it's Table "Five", not "Four".
And this time im is the decrypted disk key, and KEY the title key.
How would you like to hear how to decrypt _both_ the disk and title keys?
All we'll need are the encrypted versions and a player key. No sweat!
We'll call the title key TKEY, a pointer to six bytes, encrypted.
We'll call the disk key DKEY, a pointer to six bytes, encrypted too.
We will use a few internal variables, once again: so i,
an integer, will serve again as loop index. im1 is six bytes,
im2 is six bytes. Both vectors and the latter holds our player key.
Now I told you once about a player key I think they gave to Xing --
I don't know this for sure; DVD CCA said so in court, though.
Otherwise I'd say that this is just a "magic number" from on high,
vouchsafed to mortals from the mouths of the Muses for our benefit.
In reality I'm told it was discovered by M.o.R.E.,
some Europeans two-thirds of whom are today still anonymous.
I don't want to make a long excursus right now on why that's not bad:
reverse engineers in many fields are heroes of technology,
for advancing the knowledge of their colleagues or of the public mind.
Yet in software the recent trend has been to brand tinkerers as thieves!
I urge you to read the Crypto-gram newletter on why that's not so.
Bruce can make the point better there than I can here, sticking to haiku.
So this number is, once again, the player key: (trade secret haiku?)
"Eighty-one; and then one hundred three -- two times; then two hundred (less three);
two hundred twenty four; and last (of course not least) the humble zero."
If you didn't know a valid player key, then you could find one out --
ask Frank Stevenson, or his fellow programmer wise Andreas Bogk.
All we have to do is this: copy our DKEY into im1,
use the rule above that decrypts a disk key (with im1 and its
friend im2 as inputs) -- thus we decrypt the disk key im1.
Use the rule above that decrypts a title key. TKEY and our new
disk key im1 are inputs now -- we decrypt TKEY, and we're done.
That was straightforward. Probably we didn't need to explain this part,
but computers are very literal, so we might as well do so.
This part is really exciting for movie fans: decrypt DVDs!
Well, at least sectors of DVDs, but they are made up of sectors.
Sectors (of two to the eleventh bytes) are the encryption units.
Rejoice then, get some popcorn out, and butter if you aren't vegan.
Margarine works well if you're vegan, or if you are watching your weight.
I've heard you can put tarragon on your popcorn. I haven't tried it.
Why did I tell you to rejoice? Because we are about to watch a
movie, at least if we have a good MPEG-2 player close at hand.
We need two things now, though, beyond our MPEG-2 players and popcorn:
A vector "SEC" of two thousand forty-eight bytes, disk sector contents.
(These start off in their encrypted form, but we will leave them decrypted.)
And a vector KEY of six bytes, the decrypted title key we'll use.
We will use these few internal variables: t1 through t6,
unsigned integers. Remember those from before? END is a pointer
to the end of the sector, which is SEC plus two thousand forty-eight.
Take the first byte of KEY (that's byte zero), perform exclusive OR with
byte eighty-four of SEC. Treating the result as an integer, take
OR of that with two hundred fifty-six. Store the result in t1.
Take the next byte (which is byte one) of KEY, perform exclusive OR with
the next byte of SEC (byte eighty-five, right?); store the result in t2.
Take bytes two through five of KEY and take exclusive OR of these with their
counterparts abroad, bytes eighty-six through eighty-nine of our sector SEC.
Store this in t3. (It will fit because it is four bytes, like t3.)
I must quote myself because we're going to do some things once again:
(Above, in the first part, we talked about t3:) "Take its three low bits
(you can get them by ANDing t3 with seven); store this in t4.
Double t3, add eight, subtract t4; store the result in t3."
(Now increment SEC by one hundred twenty-eight!) "Make t5 zero."
Now start a loop, and do these things as long as SEC doesn't equal END:
    Use t2 for an     index into Table Two:     find a byte b1.
    Use t1 for an     index into Table Three:     find a byte b2.
    Take exclusive OR     of b1 with b2 and     store this in t4.
    Shift t1 right by     a single bit (like halving);     store this in t2.
    Take the low bit of     t1 (so, AND it with one),     shift it left eight bits,
    then take exclusive     OR of that with t4; store     this back in t1.
    (The step that's coming     up is _slightly_ different from     the original.)
    Use t4 for an     index into Table Five:     find a byte and store
    it back in t4.     Shift t3 right by three bits,     take exclusive OR
    of this with t3,     shift this right by one bit, and     take exclusive OR
    of this with t3,     shift this right by eight bits, and     take exclusive OR
    of this with t3,     shift this right by five bits, and     (No exclusive OR!
    Orange you glad I     didn't say banana?) take     the low byte (by AND
    with two hundred and     fifty-five); now store this     into t6. Phew!
    Shift t3 left eight     bits, take OR with t6, and     store this in t3.
    Use t6 for an     index into Table Four:     find a byte and store
    it in t6. Add     t6, t5, t4; store     the sum in t5.
    (Again, here's a change     from the original steps:     please don't get confused.)
    In Table One use     the byte SEC points to as an     index, get a byte
    there, take exclusive     OR of that byte with the low     byte of t5; store
    the result where SEC     points, and increment SEC by     one. This is all that
    has changed in these steps.     And we're almost done! Now shift     t5 right eight bits;
    store the result in     t5 again. That is the     last step in the loop.
Now I want a drink (mnemonics in crypto poems are great!); exercise
from singing so long makes me thirst for a glass of soda, slice of pie.
For this is the end of the decryption process; you can now go home.
But wait! I hear a voice entreating me to stay: "O, the Tables tell!"
Alas, I have not as yet declared to you the CSS Tables.
This is a major issue, in that I don't know what these tables _mean_:
our noble guide has told us in outline what they are for, or something
of their structure. But to me, a humble poet of mathematics,
they are opaque, they are certain combinations of ancient, noble
Number. Their inner logic, aitia, telos, still unknown to me.
Herein a clear free speech question: would courts see fit to muzzle me, then,
from speaking numbers, technical data, which I did not make and more
cannot memorize, cannot explain in detail, cannot understand?
I have these numbers. They have meaning, this is clear: else why suppress them?
I wish to speak or let the Muse announce through me Tables of Numbers.
Professor Moglen! Help defend my right to share these numbers with you!
You called the right to speak with PGP like that to use Navaho.
Help me then in my haiku quest to share these bits, and not be censored.
Preserve my right to speak here, in this extreme, these mystery Tables
the products, pieces of technique, which but a very few will understand.
Mary Jo White, the United States Attorney for S.D.N.Y.,
your logic erodes any meaningful power Internet speakers
would retain against state censorship. Do you care? Have you any shame?
Fight, brave amici, with effective, functional argumentation.
I'll try to help by singing these octets, until court orders forbid.
(Sad to say, I have removed hyphens in numbers: poetic license.)
Table Zero is: Five, zero, one, two, three, four, oh, one, two, three, four.
Table One is long: two to the eighth power bytes. Ready? Here they are:
Fifty one; then one hundred fifteen; fifty nine; thirty eight; ninety
nine; thirty five; one hundred seven; one hundred eighteen; sixty two;
one hundred twenty six; fifty four; forty three; one hundred ten; then
forty six; then one hundred two; one hundred and twenty three; then two
hundred eleven; one hundred forty seven; two hundred nineteen;
six; sixty seven; three; seventy five; then one hundred fifty; two
hundred twenty two; one hundred fifty eight; two hundred fourteen; then
eleven; and then seventy eight; fourteen; then seventy; then one
hundred fifty five; eighty seven; twenty three; ninety five; then one
hundred thirty; one hundred ninety nine; then one hundred thirty five;
two hundred seven; eighteen; ninety; twenty six; eighty two; then one
hundred forty three; two hundred two; one hundred thirty eight; then one
hundred ninety four; thirty one; two hundred and seventeen; then one
hundred fifty three; two hundred nine; zero; then seventy three; nine;
sixty five; then one hundred forty four; then two hundred sixteen; one
hundred fifty two; two hundred eight; one; and then seventy two; eight;
sixty four; then one hundred forty five; sixty one; one hundred and
twenty five; fifty three; thirty six; one hundred nine; forty five; one
hundred one; then one hundred sixteen; sixty; one hundred twenty four;
fifty two; thirty seven; one hundred eight; then forty four; then one
hundred; one hundred seventeen; two hundred and twenty one; then one
hundred and fifty seven; two hundred thirteen; four; seventy plus
seven; thirteen; then sixty nine; one hundred and forty eight; then two
hundred twenty; one hundred fifty six; then two hundred twelve; five; then
seventy six; twelve; sixty eight; one hundred and forty nine; eighty
nine; twenty five; then eighty one; one hundred and twenty eight; then two
hundred one; then one hundred thirty seven; one hundred ninety three;
sixteen; eighty eight; twenty four; eighty; then one hundred twenty nine;
two hundred; then one hundred thirty six; then one hundred ninety two;
seventeen; then two hundred fifteen; one hundred fifty one; then two
hundred twenty three; two; seventy one; seven; seventy nine; one
hundred forty six; two hundred eighteen; then one hundred fifty four;
two hundred ten; then fifteen; seventy four; ten; sixty six; then one
hundred fifty nine; eighty three; nineteen; ninety one; one hundred and
thirty four; then one hundred ninety five; then one hundred thirty one;
two hundred three; then twenty two; ninety four; then thirty; eighty six;
one hundred thirty nine; two hundred six; then one hundred forty two;
one hundred ninety eight; twenty seven; then one hundred seventy
nine; two hundred and forty three; one hundred and eighty seven; one
hundred sixty six; two hundred twenty seven; one hundred sixty
three; two hundred and thirty five; two hundred and forty six; then one
hundred ninety; two hundred fifty four; then one hundred eighty two;
then one hundred and seventy one; two hundred thirty eight; then one
hundred seventy four; two hundred thirty; two hundred fifty one;
fifty five; then one hundred nineteen; sixty three; thirty four; then one
hundred three; thirty nine; one hundred eleven; one hundred fourteen;
fifty eight; then one hundred twenty two; fifty; forty seven; one
hundred six; forty two; ninety eight; one hundred twenty seven; one
hundred eighty five; two hundred forty nine; one hundred seventy
seven; one hundred sixty; two hundred thirty three; one hundred and
sixty nine; then two hundred twenty five; then two hundred forty; one
hundred eighty four; two hundred forty eight; one hundred seventy
six; one hundred and sixty one; two hundred and thirty two; then one
hundred sixty eight; two hundred twenty four; two hundred forty one;
ninety three; twenty nine; eighty five; one hundred thirty two; then two
hundred five; then one hundred forty one; then one hundred and ninety
seven; twenty; then ninety two; twenty eight; then eighty four; then one
hundred thirty three; two hundred four; one hundred forty; one hundred
ninety six; twenty one; one hundred eighty nine; two hundred fifty
three; one hundred and eighty one; one hundred and sixty four; then two
hundred and thirty seven; then one hundred and seventy three; two
hundred twenty nine; two hundred forty four; one hundred eighty eight;
two hundred fifty two; one hundred eighty; one hundred sixty five;
two hundred thirty six; one hundred seventy two; two hundred and
twenty eight; then two hundred forty five; fifty seven; one hundred
twenty one; forty nine; thirty two; one hundred five; forty one; then
ninety seven; one hundred twelve; fifty six; one hundred twenty; then
forty eight; thirty three; one hundred four; forty; ninety six; then one
hundred thirteen; one hundred eighty three; then two hundred and forty
seven; one hundred ninety one; one hundred and sixty two; then two
hundred thirty one; one hundred sixty seven; two hundred thirty
nine; two hundred and forty two; one hundred and eighty six; then two
hundred fifty; one hundred seventy eight; one hundred seventy
five; two hundred and thirty four; one hundred and seventy; then two
hundred twenty six; two hundred fifty five. That's the whole Table.
Just when you thought it was safe, here is Table Two, which has the same length:
Zero; one; two; three; four; five; six; seven; nine; eight; eleven; ten; then
thirteen; twelve; fifteen; fourteen; eighteen; nineteen; then sixteen; seventeen;
twenty two; twenty three; twenty; twenty one; then twenty seven; then
twenty six; twenty five; twenty four; thirty one; thirty; twenty nine;
twenty eight; thirty six; thirty seven; thirty eight; thirty nine; then
thirty two; thirty three; thirty four; thirty five; forty five; forty
four; forty seven; forty six; forty one; then forty; forty three;
forty two; fifty four; fifty five; fifty two; fifty three; fifty;
fifty one; forty eight; forty nine; sixty three; sixty two; sixty
one; sixty; fifty nine; fifty eight; fifty plus seven; fifty six;
seventy three; then seventy two; seventy five; seventy four;
seventy seven; seventy six; seventy nine; seventy eight;
sixty four; sixty five; sixty six; sixty plus seven; sixty eight;
sixty nine; and then seventy; seventy one; ninety one; ninety;
eighty nine; eighty eight; ninety five; ninety four; ninety three; ninety
two; eighty two; then eighty three; eighty; eighty one; eighty six; then
eighty seven; then eighty four; eighty five; one hundred nine; then one
hundred eight; then one hundred eleven; then one hundred ten; then one
hundred five; then one hundred four; one hundred and seven; one hundred
six; one hundred; one hundred one; one hundred two; one hundred three; then
ninety six; ninety seven; ninety eight; ninety nine; one hundred and
twenty seven; one hundred twenty six; then one hundred twenty five;
one hundred twenty four; one hundred twenty three; one hundred twenty
two; one hundred and twenty one; one hundred and twenty; one hundred
eighteen; one hundred nineteen; one hundred sixteen; then one hundred and
seventeen; then one hundred fourteen; one hundred fifteen; one hundred
twelve; one hundred and thirteen; one hundred forty six; one hundred and
forty seven; one hundred forty four; then one hundred forty five;
one hundred fifty; one hundred fifty one; one hundred forty eight;
one hundred forty nine; one hundred fifty five; one hundred fifty
four; one hundred and fifty three; one hundred and fifty two; then one
hundred fifty nine; one hundred fifty eight; one hundred and fifty
seven; one hundred fifty six; one hundred and twenty eight; then one
hundred twenty nine; one hundred thirty; then one hundred thirty one;
one hundred thirty two; one hundred thirty three; one hundred thirty
four; one hundred and thirty five; one hundred and thirty seven; one
hundred thirty six; one hundred thirty nine; one hundred thirty eight;
one hundred forty one; one hundred forty; one hundred forty three;
one hundred forty two; one hundred eighty two; one hundred eighty
three; one hundred and eighty; one hundred eighty one; one hundred and
seventy eight; one hundred seventy nine; one hundred seventy
six; one hundred and seventy seven; then one hundred ninety one;
one hundred ninety; one hundred eighty nine; one hundred eighty eight;
one hundred eighty seven; one hundred eighty six; one hundred and
eighty five; then one hundred eighty four; then one hundred sixty four;
one hundred sixty five; one hundred sixty six; one hundred sixty
seven; one hundred sixty; one hundred sixty one; one hundred and
sixty two; then one hundred sixty three; then one hundred seventy
three; one hundred and seventy two; one hundred seventy five; one
hundred seventy four; one hundred sixty nine; one hundred sixty
eight; one hundred and seventy one; one hundred seventy; then two
hundred nineteen; two hundred eighteen; two hundred seventeen; then two
hundred sixteen; two hundred twenty three; then two hundred twenty two;
two hundred twenty one; two hundred twenty; two hundred ten; then two
hundred eleven; two hundred eight; two hundred nine; two hundred and
fourteen; two hundred fifteen; two hundred twelve; two hundred thirteen; two
hundred one; then two hundred; two hundred three; two hundred two; then two
hundred five; then two hundred four; two hundred and seven; two hundred
six; one hundred and ninety two; one hundred and ninety three; then one
hundred ninety four; one hundred ninety five; one hundred ninety six;
one hundred ninety seven; one hundred ninety eight; one hundred and
ninety nine; then two hundred fifty five; then two hundred fifty four;
two hundred fifty three; two hundred fifty two; two hundred fifty
one; two hundred and fifty; two hundred forty nine; two hundred and
forty eight; then two hundred forty six; then two hundred and forty
seven; two hundred forty four; two hundred and forty five; then two
hundred forty two; two hundred forty three; two hundred forty; two
hundred forty one; two hundred thirty seven; two hundred thirty
six; two hundred and thirty nine; two hundred and thirty eight; then two
hundred thirty three; two hundred thirty two; two hundred thirty five;
two hundred thirty four; two hundred twenty eight; two hundred twenty
nine; two hundred and thirty; two hundred thirty one; two hundred and
twenty four; then two hundred twenty five; then two hundred twenty six;
two hundred twenty seven. That's the end of the Table Two listing.
Table Three repeats itself sixty-four times with this eight-byte sequence:
Zero, thirty six, seventy three, one hundred nine, one hundred and
forty six, then one hundred eighty two, and then two hundred nineteen,
and last of all, two to the eighth, less one (or two hundred fifty five).
Dr. Touretzky has a more concise account of what Table Four
is for, and where it comes from; but for now, I think I will just list it:
Zero; one hundred twenty eight; sixty four; one hundred ninety two;
thirty two; then one hundred sixty; ninety six; two hundred twenty
four; sixteen; then one hundred forty four; eighty; two hundred eight; then
forty eight; then one hundred seventy six; one hundred twelve; then two
hundred forty; eight; one hundred thirty six; then seventy two; two
hundred; forty; one hundred sixty eight; then one hundred four; then two
hundred thirty two; twenty four; one hundred and fifty two; eighty
eight; two hundred and sixteen; fifty six; then one hundred eighty four;
one hundred twenty; two hundred forty eight; four; one hundred thirty
two; sixty eight; one hundred ninety six; thirty six; one hundred and
sixty four; then one hundred; two hundred twenty eight; twenty; then one
hundred forty eight; eighty four; two hundred twelve; fifty two; then one
hundred eighty; one hundred sixteen; two hundred forty four; twelve; one
hundred forty; then seventy six; two hundred four; forty four; one
hundred seventy two; one hundred eight; then two hundred thirty six;
twenty eight; then one hundred fifty six; ninety two; two hundred and
twenty; sixty; one hundred eighty eight; then one hundred twenty four;
two hundred fifty two; two; one hundred thirty; sixty six; then one
hundred ninety four; thirty four; one hundred and sixty two; ninety
eight; two hundred and twenty six; eighteen; then one hundred forty six;
eighty two; then two hundred ten; fifty; then one hundred seventy
eight; one hundred and fourteen; two hundred forty two; ten; one hundred
thirty eight; and then seventy four; two hundred two; forty two; one
hundred seventy; one hundred six; two hundred thirty four; twenty
six; one hundred and fifty four; ninety; then two hundred eighteen; then
fifty eight; then one hundred eighty six; then one hundred twenty two;
two hundred fifty; six; one hundred thirty four; seventy; then one
hundred ninety eight; thirty eight; one hundred and sixty six; then one
hundred two; then two hundred thirty; twenty two; one hundred fifty;
eighty six; then two hundred fourteen; fifty four; one hundred eighty
two; one hundred and eighteen; two hundred forty six; fourteen; then one
hundred forty two; seventy eight; two hundred six; forty six; one
hundred seventy four; one hundred ten; then two hundred thirty eight;
thirty; one hundred fifty eight; ninety four; two hundred twenty two;
sixty two; then one hundred ninety; one hundred twenty six; then two
hundred fifty four; one; one hundred twenty nine; sixty five; then one
hundred ninety three; thirty three; one hundred and sixty one; ninety
seven; two hundred twenty five; seventeen; one hundred forty five;
eighty one; then two hundred nine; forty nine; one hundred seventy
seven; one hundred thirteen; two hundred forty one; nine; one hundred
thirty seven; then seventy three; two hundred one; forty one; one
hundred sixty nine; one hundred five; two hundred thirty three; twenty
five; one hundred and fifty three; eighty nine; two hundred seventeen;
fifty seven; one hundred eighty five; then one hundred twenty one;
two hundred forty nine; five; one hundred thirty three; sixty nine; one
hundred and ninety seven; thirty seven; one hundred sixty five;
one hundred one; two hundred twenty nine; twenty one; one hundred and
forty nine; eighty five; two hundred thirteen; then fifty three; then one
hundred eighty one; one hundred seventeen; two hundred forty five;
thirteen; one hundred forty one; seventy plus seven; two hundred
five; forty five; one hundred seventy three; one hundred nine; then two
hundred and thirty seven; twenty nine; then one hundred and fifty
seven; ninety three; two hundred twenty one; then sixty one; then one
hundred eighty nine; one hundred twenty five; two hundred fifty three;
three; one hundred and thirty one; sixty seven; one hundred ninety
five; thirty five; one hundred sixty three; ninety nine; two hundred and
twenty seven; then nineteen; one hundred forty seven; eighty three;
then two hundred and eleven; fifty one; one hundred seventy
nine; one hundred and fifteen; two hundred forty three; eleven; one
hundred thirty nine; seventy five; two hundred three; forty three; one
hundred seventy one; one hundred seven; two hundred thirty five;
twenty seven; one hundred fifty five; ninety one; two hundred and
nineteen; fifty nine; one hundred eighty seven; one hundred twenty
three; two hundred and fifty one; seven; then one hundred thirty five;
seventy one; one hundred ninety nine; thirty nine; one hundred and
sixty seven; one hundred three; two hundred and thirty one; twenty
three; one hundred and fifty one; eighty seven; two hundred fifteen;
fifty five; then one hundred eighty three; then one hundred nineteen; two
hundred and forty seven; fifteen; one hundred forty three; and then
seventy nine; two hundred seven; forty plus seven; one hundred
seventy five; one hundred eleven; then two hundred thirty nine;
thirty one; then one hundred fifty nine; ninety five; two hundred and
twenty three; sixty three; one hundred ninety one; one hundred twenty
seven; two hundred fifty five. And that's the end of the fourth Table.
(You'll get Table Five if you flip each bit in the Table Four, supra.)
Have mercy on me, Lord, and lesser judges, and on Jon Johansen.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's hardly restricted to things produced for the DARPA GC. Patents are a government-granted monopoly. What the government giveth, the government taketh away. Especially in times of war.
Tim
--
Shares are your votes in a pigologocracy.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.