19 Jun
2009
19 Jun
'09
8:06 p.m.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Warren Wolfe<lists at databasics.us> wrote:
Fred Cisin wrote:
Alternate humorous interpretation:
WW: "My perfect unbreakable code is complete! What shall I call it?
THE ONE TIME PAD! GENIUS!"
MIB: "Umm you can't publish that."
WW: "I'll need a pretty good reason before I toss this out!"
MIB: "It's been around for decades, you'll get laughed at"
WW: "Oh ok, that's a good reason."
John
--
"I've tried programming Ruby on Rails, following TechCrunch in my RSS
reader, and drinking absinthe. It doesn't work. I'm going back to C,
Hunter S. Thompson, and cheap whiskey." -- Ted Dziuba
Be careful, Dan.
There is a subtle, but significant difference between somebody not knowing
what they are talking about V talking about a different subject.
Indeed. ?<chuckling>
If you figure out a better way to factor large
numbers into their prime
factors, send a credible description to the personnel department at the
NSA, and they will send a black helicopter to pick you up. ?Actually, you
don't even need to contact them, just talk about it on a phone line or
email that passes between Washington and Baltimore.
Hey, you don't even need to do that. ?I was hanging around the computer
building in college, and gave a whoop of triumph when I discovered that the
encryption method I had been developing actually did provide (mathematically
proven) unbreakable code. ?Within 24 hours, I was talking to a couple
gentlemen from an unnamed security agency, who advised me to avoid
publishing my work. ?I told them that before I'd consign my work to the
trashcan, I'd need a good reason. ?They provided one.
Warren