Re: sci.crypt sandbox
From: Tom St Denis (tomstdenis_at_iahu.ca)
Date: 11/27/03
- Next message: Richard Herring: "Re: Good enough for crypto?"
- Previous message: Tom St Denis: "Re: lockable trapdoor one-way function"
- In reply to: Richard Heathfield: "Re: sci.crypt sandbox"
- Next in thread: Richard Heathfield: "Re: sci.crypt sandbox"
- Reply: Richard Heathfield: "Re: sci.crypt sandbox"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:12:11 GMT
"Richard Heathfield" <invalid@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:3fc5b27c@news2.power.net.uk...
> Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> > Why is it so wrong to expect high standards from people [aside from the
> > fact it requires work]?
>
> It is just as wrong to expect bumbling amateurs in cryptography, such as
me,
> to work to high standards in cryptography as it is to expect bumbling
> amateurs in courtesy, such as you, to work to a high standard in courtesy.
This is getting old. I was writting papers [really horrible ones] about
cipher design when I was in high school. It isn't hard either. Just model
your paper after all the other papers on cipher design, do some
cryptanalysis, timing, dissection and write it up. LaTeX is free, fairly
easy to use and a good skill to have.
> If you don't like the idea of the sandbox, fine, don't use it.
Why not turn the sandbox into something actually productive though?
Tom
- Next message: Richard Herring: "Re: Good enough for crypto?"
- Previous message: Tom St Denis: "Re: lockable trapdoor one-way function"
- In reply to: Richard Heathfield: "Re: sci.crypt sandbox"
- Next in thread: Richard Heathfield: "Re: sci.crypt sandbox"
- Reply: Richard Heathfield: "Re: sci.crypt sandbox"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]