Re: Suppression of URL details

On 18 Dec, 16:12, Harlan Messinger
wrote:

> So your objection is that you wanted to pick apart my statement but I
> didn't leave room for you to do so, so you tried to recast my remark in
> a manner that would let you pick it apart, and I caught your bluff.
> Sorry for the inconvenience.

OK, I'll make it simple for you: Disparaging PK as "no more than
obfuscation" (either "obfuscation" or "extreme obfuscation") is
disingenuous bollocks.
Happy now?

Re: Suppression of URL details

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 18 Dec, 16:12, Harlan Messinger
> wrote:
>
>> So your objection is that you wanted to pick apart my statement but I
>> didn't leave room for you to do so, so you tried to recast my remark in
>> a manner that would let you pick it apart, and I caught your bluff.
>> Sorry for the inconvenience.
>
> OK, I'll make it simple for you: Disparaging PK as "no more than
> obfuscation" (either "obfuscation" or "extreme obfuscation") is
> disingenuous bollocks.
> Happy now?

Fine. And I'm still right, and you're still wrong.

Re: Suppression of URL details

Harlan Messinger wrote:
> Andy Dingley wrote:
>> On 18 Dec, 16:12, Harlan Messinger
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So your objection is that you wanted to pick apart my statement but I
>>> didn't leave room for you to do so, so you tried to recast my remark in
>>> a manner that would let you pick it apart, and I caught your bluff.
>>> Sorry for the inconvenience.
>>
>> OK, I'll make it simple for you: Disparaging PK as "no more than
>> obfuscation" (either "obfuscation" or "extreme obfuscation") is
>> disingenuous bollocks.
>> Happy now?
>
> Fine. And I'm still right, and you're still wrong.

To make it more specific, I've explained why I'm right, and nothing
you've said contradicts me, and almost as if to prove that point you
resorted to attack mode. If I'm really incorrect, would you please
provide something informative that demonstrates that fact instead of
waving your hands and calling it bollocks?

I don't understand what your problem is with it: there isn't anything
controversial or surprising about it to anyone who understands it. It
may be *disturbing* to anyone who thought that there was anything more
to it than there actually is and who, given genuine information on the
subject, is seized with visions of all our current modes of security
disappearing twenty years from now if someone designs a processor that's
orders of magnitudes more powerful than the ones we have now.

In one sense, that fear is well grounded: eventually, if processor
speeds keep improving, then, for example, our current 128-bit or 256-bit
key SSL encryption will break like a stick! (This is OBVIOUS. It's the
same reason why we don't use, say, only *16-bit* encryption now!) But on
the other hand the day is saved, because it will likewise be no more
time-consuming to use, say, 2048-bit encryption once that time has come
than it is now to use 128-bit encryption.

Re: Suppression of URL details

In article
<2cf1dcb0-b91d-4dbe-9de7-8a29649eb297@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.co
m>,
Andy Dingley wrote:

> OK, I'll make it simple for you: ... is
> disingenuous bollocks.
> Happy now?

Psychiatrist: You're mad.

Patient: I want a second opinion.

Psychiatrist: OK, You're also fat and ugly.

--
dorayme