Re: VMPC isn't free
From: Mok-Kong Shen (mok-kong.shen_at_t-online.de)
Date: 08/27/03
- Next message: Eugene Styer: "Re: the FBI and 1 time pads"
- Previous message: Tom St Denis: "Re: Picture from CRYPTO'03"
- In reply to: Tom St Denis: "Re: VMPC isn't free"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: VMPC isn't free"
- Reply: Tom St Denis: "Re: VMPC isn't free"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 16:00:23 +0200
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> I've thrown in my share of research topics with mixed results. For
> instance, I did get some nice replies to my study of the branch
> properties of FFT-like networks [for instance].
>
> The problem is when people like Barzotak [or whatever] discover "new and
> great" ciphers they waste weeks of time where legitimate questions
> almost always get ignored. In the end their contributions are zero
> since they brought nothing to the table.
There are clever and less clever or stupid people, good
and bad researchers. Maybe you are lucky to belong to the
genius class, but still one has to have certain tolerance
towards the less gifted ones. Note also that everyone
starts as a beginner who can't yet do things that a profi
could do.
> Problem is Moz [for whatever reason] doesn't have a Killfille. It has
> filters which don't really work that well. So unless I move to another
> reader [which isn't an entirely bad idea] all there stupid posts come
> through loud and clear.
I use Netscape and it's trivial to kill mails/posts according
to various criteria. (I even kill mails from one country.)
The only problem is that the spammers employ ever different
new sender address etc. Maybe you have to find out whether
it isn't worthwhile for you to switch to Netscape or
another browser. Even if you couldn't change that, one
simple way is to never click on posts bearing the names
of those who, from your past experience, only write stuff
that you dislike. (In my mailbox, I click on only about
5% of what comes in.)
> The problem is he [like the others] don't take the science seriously.
> They trivialize everything and insult the regulars. This is what drives
> the real pros away. Even if Barzatols didn't "insult people" his
> constant barrage of mootness is enough to drive the S/N ratio straight
> to zero.
>
> Believe it or not but there are actually real people who study crypto
> for a living. Having their work trivialized at every step is just
> insulting and they'd rather do without. This is where us amateurs lose out.
I am not sure that you could correctly decide whether
others are taking the science seriously in many cases.
(Yes, there are on the other hand politicians who
think to be able to always correctly decide who have the
right or wrong 'thought'.) First class researchers don't
spend much of their time in our group in my view. That's
bad, but I don't think you, as individual, could ever
change that. On the other hand, I am personally of the
opinion that this group should provide the opportunity
to amateurs and beginners to express their (eventually
very wrong) ideas so that they could have a certain chance
to mature to become profis oneday. If you are a profi and
have the goodwill to help others, you should have a certain
amount of patience and tolerance to the amateurs and
beginners in my opinion. (Note, though, that you are never
'required' to help others or even to follow-up at all.)
>
> For example, I've been recently having a conversation with Alice
> Silverberg about tori-based crypto. The conversation brought out
> several interesting facts that most newbies probably wouldn't realize
> [and I'm still asking a few questions yet].
>
> I'm rather certain there are other newbies in this group would like to
> learn what the XTR and CEILIDH algorithms are and how they work. [for
> example].
>
> Of course unless one of the few regular pros posts about it you'll never
> learn about it. And why won't you? Because the other pros don't
> discuss matters in this group. And why don't they? The prevalent
> reason [from what I gathered by actually talking to them] is that
> "sci.crypt is a huge waste of effort".
As said previously, you couldn't hope to 'improve' the
world in any big sense. It is a fact in this (and of
course other) group that, if one expresses negative
opinions on others' posts, there will often be a long
sequence of very inutile discussions, unless one expresses
one's opinions in very objective/precise/pertinent/logical
ways such that there isn't anything left that the partner
could counter. So, I would say that one should in general
refrain from giving more or less vague negative opinions,
just for the purpose of reducing bandwidth and (indirectly)
not further worsening the image of the group in the eyes
of the profis (who we desire to attract to our group).
> So you're damn right I'm pissed off at the troll-of-the-week when they
> post their useless design of the week. People have to ignore them
> completely and eventually they'll just leave.
For the general people, I like to re-iterate my hint of
the possibility of employing kill-file and (in case a
suitable browser is not available for that) of refraining
from clicking on posts of certain selected persons.
M. K. Shen
- Next message: Eugene Styer: "Re: the FBI and 1 time pads"
- Previous message: Tom St Denis: "Re: Picture from CRYPTO'03"
- In reply to: Tom St Denis: "Re: VMPC isn't free"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: VMPC isn't free"
- Reply: Tom St Denis: "Re: VMPC isn't free"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
