Hi everyone,

I've just devised the idea behind what might be termed "secure computation," where if an airborne computer program were run in flight and spied on by adversary aircraft, the program's source code and way of computation would be secure, i.e., impossible for the adversary to learn anything from, other than the input and output of the computation (this could lead to an understanding of which PTIME/FP program was being computed, but not how the algorithm works). If, in contrast to the secure compiled program, the original source code were not included on the computer hardware, an adversary could view both the source code and the computation in action, and still learn nothing beyond what was stated above.

In addition to generating that idea this evening, I also got in some very good and advanced ideas about system safety engineering.

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 8:57:38 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've just devised the idea behind what might be termed "secure computation," where if an airborne computer program were run in flight and spied on by adversary aircraft, the program's source code and way of computation would be secure, i.e., impossible for the adversary to learn anything from, other than the input and output of the computation (this could lead to an understanding of which PTIME/FP program was being computed, but not how the algorithm works). If, in contrast to the secure compiled program, the original source code were not included on the computer hardware, an adversary could view both the source code and the computation in action, and still learn nothing beyond what was stated above.
>
> In addition to generating that idea this evening, I also got in some very good and advanced ideas about system safety engineering.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

I have mixed feelings about David Petraeus, many of which are negative due to my big dislike for George W. Bush and others, but what if this post of mine quietly helped Ukraine? I just thought of this idea around the time I announced it, who knows what I will think of next?--my "1940s secret" I alluded to on my Facebook was very powerful and, I realized, probably not actually Alan Turing's...I can't always tell when a famous mathematician thought of my thing before I did or not, I think that way a lot. By the way, you can thank my cousin for having visited and said something or other that was cryptic that inspired me to investigate something that led to the great idea (the even more powerful one I thought of that I thought was A.T.'s, not this one). I don't announce all of my great ideas, and I don't always announce what problem I've solved. Note, complexity breakthroughs are not the end of things...I won't say about my computational complexity solving power at this time, I refuse to do that, but I will state that even if you could solve P = NP and P = EXP in "most cases," you would still be very unlikely to be able to compete with me...there's much more to innovation than computational complexity.

I don't know how it all works...what if Ukraine got more last-minute backing from foreign forces, perhaps due to this very post and perceptions about the future-tense safety of US air travel?? It could help the economy and protect US trade secrets better and more cheaply.

I didn't intend to help in this way, but if I did, great! I want to save lives, support human rights, and stop evil.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-offensive-unexpectedly-slowed-fierce-184643283.html

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 5:06:31 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 8:57:38 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I've just devised the idea behind what might be termed "secure computation," where if an airborne computer program were run in flight and spied on by adversary aircraft, the program's source code and way of computation would be secure, i.e., impossible for the adversary to learn anything from, other than the input and output of the computation (this could lead to an understanding of which PTIME/FP program was being computed, but not how the algorithm works). If, in contrast to the secure compiled program, the original source code were not included on the computer hardware, an adversary could view both the source code and the computation in action, and still learn nothing beyond what was stated above.
> >
> > In addition to generating that idea this evening, I also got in some very good and advanced ideas about system safety engineering.
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> I have mixed feelings about David Petraeus, many of which are negative due to my big dislike for George W. Bush and others, but what if this post of mine quietly helped Ukraine? I just thought of this idea around the time I announced it, who knows what I will think of next?--my "1940s secret" I alluded to on my Facebook was very powerful and, I realized, probably not actually Alan Turing's...I can't always tell when a famous mathematician thought of my thing before I did or not, I think that way a lot. By the way, you can thank my cousin for having visited and said something or other that was cryptic that inspired me to investigate something that led to the great idea (the even more powerful one I thought of that I thought was A.T.'s, not this one). I don't announce all of my great ideas, and I don't always announce what problem I've solved. Note, complexity breakthroughs are not the end of things...I won't say about my computational complexity solving power at this time, I refuse to do that, but I will state that even if you could solve P = NP and P = EXP in "most cases," you would still be very unlikely to be able to compete with me...there's much more to innovation than computational complexity.
>
> I don't know how it all works...what if Ukraine got more last-minute backing from foreign forces, perhaps due to this very post and perceptions about the future-tense safety of US air travel?? It could help the economy and protect US trade secrets better and more cheaply.
>
> I didn't intend to help in this way, but if I did, great! I want to save lives, support human rights, and stop evil.
>
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-offensive-unexpectedly-slowed-fierce-184643283.html

By the way, in case David Petraeus is cryptically arguing that "I can't be released because of a deal with TexelTek," here is the obvious response to that:

If I had a 15-year-old kid who joined the mob and made a sacred sworn deal to drug his 80-year-old neighbor with crystal meth and PCP and then never tell the mob that he got the drugs from them, I would tell my kid that he did the wrong thing, will probably go to jail for the rest of his life, and it's not the 80-year-old's fault. The right course of action is, turn yourself into the FBI, apologize publicly for what you did to the 80 year old neighbor (and perhaps all of the thousands/millions people who died because her drugging was covered up and not discussed), and accept the consequences like a real man. If my son protested, "But Dad, I don't want to tell everyone what I did...I would be embarrassed, and I had a DEAL! I can't betray the mob!!", my response would be, "You don't have a choice this time, son. It's important to follow the rules, be honorable, and hold yourself responsible, like any 10-year-old boy scout in the face of having made a terrible, destructive mistake. Deals are invalid when morals are tossed aside by such deals if the deals were immoral in the first place. You might rather betray everyone in the country and the legal system rather than betray your friends in the mob, but you just don't have a choice this time. I'm sorry son, I tried to raise you better than this."

In short, "we had a deal and we even promised to back up TexelTek and insulate them no matter what; if we break the deal, what will people think?" The answer is, "You are killing everyone by sticking to 'the deal,' either the deal goes or America goes, and that means 'the deal' goes. Next time, people will sign deals with the USA very very much more carefully, as they should...they might sign good deals with you, if and only if such deals do not involve human trafficking or other awful crimes; slave deals are meant to go horribly wrong and they always do for everyone who signs up for them anyway."

-Philip White

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:39:13 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 5:06:31 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 8:57:38 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I've just devised the idea behind what might be termed "secure computation," where if an airborne computer program were run in flight and spied on by adversary aircraft, the program's source code and way of computation would be secure, i.e., impossible for the adversary to learn anything from, other than the input and output of the computation (this could lead to an understanding of which PTIME/FP program was being computed, but not how the algorithm works). If, in contrast to the secure compiled program, the original source code were not included on the computer hardware, an adversary could view both the source code and the computation in action, and still learn nothing beyond what was stated above.
> > >
> > > In addition to generating that idea this evening, I also got in some very good and advanced ideas about system safety engineering.
> > >
> > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > I have mixed feelings about David Petraeus, many of which are negative due to my big dislike for George W. Bush and others, but what if this post of mine quietly helped Ukraine? I just thought of this idea around the time I announced it, who knows what I will think of next?--my "1940s secret" I alluded to on my Facebook was very powerful and, I realized, probably not actually Alan Turing's...I can't always tell when a famous mathematician thought of my thing before I did or not, I think that way a lot. By the way, you can thank my cousin for having visited and said something or other that was cryptic that inspired me to investigate something that led to the great idea (the even more powerful one I thought of that I thought was A.T.'s, not this one). I don't announce all of my great ideas, and I don't always announce what problem I've solved. Note, complexity breakthroughs are not the end of things...I won't say about my computational complexity solving power at this time, I refuse to do that, but I will state that even if you could solve P = NP and P = EXP in "most cases," you would still be very unlikely to be able to compete with me...there's much more to innovation than computational complexity.
> >
> > I don't know how it all works...what if Ukraine got more last-minute backing from foreign forces, perhaps due to this very post and perceptions about the future-tense safety of US air travel?? It could help the economy and protect US trade secrets better and more cheaply.
> >
> > I didn't intend to help in this way, but if I did, great! I want to save lives, support human rights, and stop evil.
> >
> > https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-offensive-unexpectedly-slowed-fierce-184643283.html
> By the way, in case David Petraeus is cryptically arguing that "I can't be released because of a deal with TexelTek," here is the obvious response to that:
>
> If I had a 15-year-old kid who joined the mob and made a sacred sworn deal to drug his 80-year-old neighbor with crystal meth and PCP and then never tell the mob that he got the drugs from them, I would tell my kid that he did the wrong thing, will probably go to jail for the rest of his life, and it's not the 80-year-old's fault. The right course of action is, turn yourself into the FBI, apologize publicly for what you did to the 80 year old neighbor (and perhaps all of the thousands/millions people who died because her drugging was covered up and not discussed), and accept the consequences like a real man. If my son protested, "But Dad, I don't want to tell everyone what I did...I would be embarrassed, and I had a DEAL! I can't betray the mob!!", my response would be, "You don't have a choice this time, son. It's important to follow the rules, be honorable, and hold yourself responsible, like any 10-year-old boy scout in the face of having made a terrible, destructive mistake. Deals are invalid when morals are tossed aside by such deals if the deals were immoral in the first place. You might rather betray everyone in the country and the legal system rather than betray your friends in the mob, but you just don't have a choice this time. I'm sorry son, I tried to raise you better than this."
>
> In short, "we had a deal and we even promised to back up TexelTek and insulate them no matter what; if we break the deal, what will people think?" The answer is, "You are killing everyone by sticking to 'the deal,' either the deal goes or America goes, and that means 'the deal' goes. Next time, people will sign deals with the USA very very much more carefully, as they should...they might sign good deals with you, if and only if such deals do not involve human trafficking or other awful crimes; slave deals are meant to go horribly wrong and they always do for everyone who signs up for them anyway."
>
> -Philip White

Corrections:

"never tell anyone that he got the drugs from the mob"
"apologize publicly both to the mob for betraying them and for what you did"
"hold yourself accountable"

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:41:38 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:39:13 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 5:06:31 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 8:57:38 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > I've just devised the idea behind what might be termed "secure computation," where if an airborne computer program were run in flight and spied on by adversary aircraft, the program's source code and way of computation would be secure, i.e., impossible for the adversary to learn anything from, other than the input and output of the computation (this could lead to an understanding of which PTIME/FP program was being computed, but not how the algorithm works). If, in contrast to the secure compiled program, the original source code were not included on the computer hardware, an adversary could view both the source code and the computation in action, and still learn nothing beyond what was stated above.
> > > >
> > > > In addition to generating that idea this evening, I also got in some very good and advanced ideas about system safety engineering.
> > > >
> > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > I have mixed feelings about David Petraeus, many of which are negative due to my big dislike for George W. Bush and others, but what if this post of mine quietly helped Ukraine? I just thought of this idea around the time I announced it, who knows what I will think of next?--my "1940s secret" I alluded to on my Facebook was very powerful and, I realized, probably not actually Alan Turing's...I can't always tell when a famous mathematician thought of my thing before I did or not, I think that way a lot. By the way, you can thank my cousin for having visited and said something or other that was cryptic that inspired me to investigate something that led to the great idea (the even more powerful one I thought of that I thought was A.T.'s, not this one). I don't announce all of my great ideas, and I don't always announce what problem I've solved. Note, complexity breakthroughs are not the end of things...I won't say about my computational complexity solving power at this time, I refuse to do that, but I will state that even if you could solve P = NP and P = EXP in "most cases," you would still be very unlikely to be able to compete with me...there's much more to innovation than computational complexity.
> > >
> > > I don't know how it all works...what if Ukraine got more last-minute backing from foreign forces, perhaps due to this very post and perceptions about the future-tense safety of US air travel?? It could help the economy and protect US trade secrets better and more cheaply.
> > >
> > > I didn't intend to help in this way, but if I did, great! I want to save lives, support human rights, and stop evil.
> > >
> > > https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-offensive-unexpectedly-slowed-fierce-184643283.html
> > By the way, in case David Petraeus is cryptically arguing that "I can't be released because of a deal with TexelTek," here is the obvious response to that:
> >
> > If I had a 15-year-old kid who joined the mob and made a sacred sworn deal to drug his 80-year-old neighbor with crystal meth and PCP and then never tell the mob that he got the drugs from them, I would tell my kid that he did the wrong thing, will probably go to jail for the rest of his life, and it's not the 80-year-old's fault. The right course of action is, turn yourself into the FBI, apologize publicly for what you did to the 80 year old neighbor (and perhaps all of the thousands/millions people who died because her drugging was covered up and not discussed), and accept the consequences like a real man. If my son protested, "But Dad, I don't want to tell everyone what I did...I would be embarrassed, and I had a DEAL! I can't betray the mob!!", my response would be, "You don't have a choice this time, son. It's important to follow the rules, be honorable, and hold yourself responsible, like any 10-year-old boy scout in the face of having made a terrible, destructive mistake. Deals are invalid when morals are tossed aside by such deals if the deals were immoral in the first place. You might rather betray everyone in the country and the legal system rather than betray your friends in the mob, but you just don't have a choice this time. I'm sorry son, I tried to raise you better than this."
> >
> > In short, "we had a deal and we even promised to back up TexelTek and insulate them no matter what; if we break the deal, what will people think?" The answer is, "You are killing everyone by sticking to 'the deal,' either the deal goes or America goes, and that means 'the deal' goes. Next time, people will sign deals with the USA very very much more carefully, as they should...they might sign good deals with you, if and only if such deals do not involve human trafficking or other awful crimes; slave deals are meant to go horribly wrong and they always do for everyone who signs up for them anyway."
> >
> > -Philip White
> Corrections:
>
> "never tell anyone that he got the drugs from the mob"
> "apologize publicly both to the mob for betraying them and for what you did"
> "hold yourself accountable"

The way I suspect that anti-human-trafficking lawyers designed the law and accompanying systems to work:

- If you do stop the slavery, you will probably indeed have things go somewhat worse for you for a time.
- If you do NOT the slavery, then everyone who backs you, is backed by you, believes in you, and relies on you, will likely see things get extremely much worse for an extended time.

It isn't really your choice; if you persist in trafficking human beings, you will face a metaphorical knife twisted mainly into the backers of all that you do, strategically and beyond, until you stop or your backers finally "can't take it any more" and oust you from your position themselves and stop the crazy trafficking. Either continue being ultra-selfish and choose you, you, you, or choose the people who like you and believe in you, and stop the illegal madness and evil.

-Philip White

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:56:11 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:41:38 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:39:13 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 5:06:31 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 8:57:38 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've just devised the idea behind what might be termed "secure computation," where if an airborne computer program were run in flight and spied on by adversary aircraft, the program's source code and way of computation would be secure, i.e., impossible for the adversary to learn anything from, other than the input and output of the computation (this could lead to an understanding of which PTIME/FP program was being computed, but not how the algorithm works). If, in contrast to the secure compiled program, the original source code were not included on the computer hardware, an adversary could view both the source code and the computation in action, and still learn nothing beyond what was stated above.
> > > > >
> > > > > In addition to generating that idea this evening, I also got in some very good and advanced ideas about system safety engineering.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > I have mixed feelings about David Petraeus, many of which are negative due to my big dislike for George W. Bush and others, but what if this post of mine quietly helped Ukraine? I just thought of this idea around the time I announced it, who knows what I will think of next?--my "1940s secret" I alluded to on my Facebook was very powerful and, I realized, probably not actually Alan Turing's...I can't always tell when a famous mathematician thought of my thing before I did or not, I think that way a lot. By the way, you can thank my cousin for having visited and said something or other that was cryptic that inspired me to investigate something that led to the great idea (the even more powerful one I thought of that I thought was A.T.'s, not this one). I don't announce all of my great ideas, and I don't always announce what problem I've solved. Note, complexity breakthroughs are not the end of things...I won't say about my computational complexity solving power at this time, I refuse to do that, but I will state that even if you could solve P = NP and P = EXP in "most cases," you would still be very unlikely to be able to compete with me...there's much more to innovation than computational complexity.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know how it all works...what if Ukraine got more last-minute backing from foreign forces, perhaps due to this very post and perceptions about the future-tense safety of US air travel?? It could help the economy and protect US trade secrets better and more cheaply.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't intend to help in this way, but if I did, great! I want to save lives, support human rights, and stop evil.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-offensive-unexpectedly-slowed-fierce-184643283.html
> > > By the way, in case David Petraeus is cryptically arguing that "I can't be released because of a deal with TexelTek," here is the obvious response to that:
> > >
> > > If I had a 15-year-old kid who joined the mob and made a sacred sworn deal to drug his 80-year-old neighbor with crystal meth and PCP and then never tell the mob that he got the drugs from them, I would tell my kid that he did the wrong thing, will probably go to jail for the rest of his life, and it's not the 80-year-old's fault. The right course of action is, turn yourself into the FBI, apologize publicly for what you did to the 80 year old neighbor (and perhaps all of the thousands/millions people who died because her drugging was covered up and not discussed), and accept the consequences like a real man. If my son protested, "But Dad, I don't want to tell everyone what I did...I would be embarrassed, and I had a DEAL! I can't betray the mob!!", my response would be, "You don't have a choice this time, son. It's important to follow the rules, be honorable, and hold yourself responsible, like any 10-year-old boy scout in the face of having made a terrible, destructive mistake. Deals are invalid when morals are tossed aside by such deals if the deals were immoral in the first place. You might rather betray everyone in the country and the legal system rather than betray your friends in the mob, but you just don't have a choice this time. I'm sorry son, I tried to raise you better than this."
> > >
> > > In short, "we had a deal and we even promised to back up TexelTek and insulate them no matter what; if we break the deal, what will people think?" The answer is, "You are killing everyone by sticking to 'the deal,' either the deal goes or America goes, and that means 'the deal' goes. Next time, people will sign deals with the USA very very much more carefully, as they should...they might sign good deals with you, if and only if such deals do not involve human trafficking or other awful crimes; slave deals are meant to go horribly wrong and they always do for everyone who signs up for them anyway."
> > >
> > > -Philip White
> > Corrections:
> >
> > "never tell anyone that he got the drugs from the mob"
> > "apologize publicly both to the mob for betraying them and for what you did"
> > "hold yourself accountable"
> The way I suspect that anti-human-trafficking lawyers designed the law and accompanying systems to work:
>
> - If you do stop the slavery, you will probably indeed have things go somewhat worse for you for a time.
> - If you do NOT the slavery, then everyone who backs you, is backed by you, believes in you, and relies on you, will likely see things get extremely much worse for an extended time.
>
> It isn't really your choice; if you persist in trafficking human beings, you will face a metaphorical knife twisted mainly into the backers of all that you do, strategically and beyond, until you stop or your backers finally "can't take it any more" and oust you from your position themselves and stop the crazy trafficking. Either continue being ultra-selfish and choose you, you, you, or choose the people who like you and believe in you, and stop the illegal madness and evil.
>
> -Philip White

I said, "If you do NOT stop the slavery..."

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 8:57:38 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've just devised the idea behind what might be termed "secure computation," where if an airborne computer program were run in flight and spied on by adversary aircraft, the program's source code and way of computation would be secure, i.e., impossible for the adversary to learn anything from, other than the input and output of the computation (this could lead to an understanding of which PTIME/FP program was being computed, but not how the algorithm works). If, in contrast to the secure compiled program, the original source code were not included on the computer hardware, an adversary could view both the source code and the computation in action, and still learn nothing beyond what was stated above.
>
> In addition to generating that idea this evening, I also got in some very good and advanced ideas about system safety engineering.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

A retraction: I just realized that my "source code disguise" idea, that allows a computer program to be viewed by an adversary without it being possible to understand what the source code is, doesn't work. I think my idea of "disguising the process in action" still works--it still seems to be possible to run a TM without anyone knowing how the computation truly worked, mathematically/algorithmically, aside from seeing the input and output of the computation...unless of course the source code can be accessed in addition to the TM's computation history.

I'll pursue these idea more later.

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:02:10 AM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 8:57:38 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I've just devised the idea behind what might be termed "secure computation," where if an airborne computer program were run in flight and spied on by adversary aircraft, the program's source code and way of computation would be secure, i.e., impossible for the adversary to learn anything from, other than the input and output of the computation (this could lead to an understanding of which PTIME/FP program was being computed, but not how the algorithm works). If, in contrast to the secure compiled program, the original source code were not included on the computer hardware, an adversary could view both the source code and the computation in action, and still learn nothing beyond what was stated above.
> >
> > In addition to generating that idea this evening, I also got in some very good and advanced ideas about system safety engineering.
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> A retraction: I just realized that my "source code disguise" idea, that allows a computer program to be viewed by an adversary without it being possible to understand what the source code is, doesn't work. I think my idea of "disguising the process in action" still works--it still seems to be possible to run a TM without anyone knowing how the computation truly worked, mathematically/algorithmically, aside from seeing the input and output of the computation...unless of course the source code can be accessed in addition to the TM's computation history.
>
> I'll pursue these idea more later.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

A retraction of my retraction:

I did a little more work today and realized that my idea regarding source code design can be fixed and works just fine, which is great!

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)