If you take that, and turn it into trinary code like the rest, you get a really strange pattern. (replacing letters with zero and numbers with 1, or vice versa)

101 100 101 100 010 010 100 010 011 or
010 011 010 011 101 101 011 101 100

Notice a lot of the groupings are repeated… converting these to letters using the already determined code gives me gibberish though:

JIJICCICD or
CDCDJJDJI

Seems far too coincidental to be ignored though…

An article ( http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/06/0043220 ) was posted on slashdot (/.) today. In the article, titled “Theorists Make Quantum Communications Breakthrough”, they talk about scientists Graeme Smith and Jon Yard making a breakthrough in Quantum Computing. The breakthrough [possibly] lays to rest a problem with a 1948 conjecture made by Claude E. Shannon of Bell Labs (1948) regarding the given capacity of a channel to transmit data (bits) via a noisy channel. The problem with the conjecture, which “describ[es] how information can be moved from one place in the universe to another using an idea called the channel capacity,” is that it does not play well when Quantum mechanics are applied in the study of qubits used in Quantum Computing.

Well, since Quantum Computing has been around, scientists have struggled with Shannon’s theory of communication.

The abstract on arXiv is proposed to answer the question of “how much quantum information can be sent from one point to another.” Previously, it was not known how to calculate the capacity of a quantum channel.

Why mention all this?

I am revisiting my theory that the second stanza is an equation.

I do realize however, that these two things may be entirely unrelated. However, before you discount the possibility that this paper is a teaser for a soon-to-be published miraculous work, look at the equations from the abstract.

BTW, in the abstract, you’ll see mention of a Schumacher. This is not Frank. Still, … have fun (I know I did).

Maybe I’m too naive, but is it possible that the double ’s’ in BASSE means that we should correct the double character mistake ALSO in the word “SIXTEEN”?

I mean:

EMPLOYEE NUMBER BASSE SIXTEEN

maybe shoult be corrected as follows:

EMPLOYEE NUMBER BASE SIXTEN

And also it may bring us the real worker number, maybe number 610?

(I already said it is too naive

Best regards from Murcia, in Spain. David C.M.

C0BE58C2CD636F79D2E493E6 as Unicode
삾 売 쵣 汹 틤 鏦

to turn Hex to Unicode (simply) take the 4 digit hex code i.e. C0BE and put it in wordpad and press Alt+X.

More later when I have time…