Prev: Call for papers: ISP-10, USA, July 2010
Next: Final: An obvious pattern found in the first 37Million Prime Sums using the log of the golden ratio Lp!
From: WTShaw on 9 Mar 2010 16:25
On Mar 9, 9:15 am, Noob <r...(a)127.0.0.1> wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Did you let the kooks and cranks out of your kill file?
>
> Regards.

Why does Noob rhyme with Boob?
From: WTShaw on 9 Mar 2010 16:29
On Mar 9, 11:13 am, Maaartin <grajc...(a)seznam.cz> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 4:45 pm, "J.D." <degolyer...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 9, 8:25 am, Phoenix <ribeiroa...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > My question.
>
> > > Why you did not compete at NIST new cryptographic hash Algorithm
> > > Competition?
>
> > The difference between a crank and a snake-oil salesman is that a
> > crank is under the delusion that he is right, while a snake-oil
> > salesman wants _you_ to be under the delusion that he is right.  Snake-
> > oil salesmen do not waste their time and effort trying to market their
> > bullshit to people who are eminently qualified to detect it as such.
>
> So do you REALLY mean, he is no crank???

There are usually more than two categories. It's all or nothing or
binary thinking to oversimplify for political convenience.
From: Gordon Burditt on 10 Mar 2010 03:18
>I am promoting two new forms of cryptography i.e. �vector
>cryptography� and �scalable key cryptography� from my two websites
>called http://www.adacrypt.com and http://www.scalarcryptography.co.uk
>respectively.

If you're promoting it, then you're not prepared to evaluate it
honestly. "marketing" == "lies".

Anything you represent as vectors can also be represented as scalars.
Anything that can be represented as scalars can be represented as
1-dimensional vectors. The calculations are the same either way.

>Both of these new crypto-types are drawing very great interest judging
>from the visitors to the sites which numbers more than 153,000 so far
>and from the many communications that I am getting also.

Don't make the mistake like JSH did in claiming that Google rankings
can be meaningfully used in a proof of correctness of the material
published. Remember, some of the material that gets high rankings
are jokes. Some people probably think your material is a joke.

>Both crypto types use very simple mapping and mutual database
>technology in which Bob becomes Alice�s server and Alice the client in
>a closed-circuit crypto- system that is privy to themselves alone.
>The cipher text is no more than �mark-up� of a special kind.

Then I suggest that you scrupulously avoid any use of the
following words in describing your cryptography: pad, time, one,
unbreakable, theoretically.

>The point I wish to make here is that future cryptography will
>certainly not use any extracts from Claude Shannon�s information
>theory and least of all �unicity� theory.

Then don't use terms which refer to information theory, including
pad, time, one, unbreakable, and theoretically.

I believe that future attempts to break cryptography by crackers
will use Shannon's information theory whether you want them to or
not.

Do you claim that information theory is *WRONG* or just old-fashioned?
If you claim it's *WRONG*, you certainly haven't clearly stated what
you think is wrong, much less presented a proof of it. If you think
it's old-fashioned, well, 2+2=4 is also old-fashioned, but it still works.

>I am an admirer of Claude Shannon and he is pictured on the home page
>of both of my sites but I want to make it clear that the party is over
>for all complexity � theoretic cryptography that used operand-embedded
>cipher text in the past and indeed it is time for modern researchers
>to start getting real about this fact.

>Pulling old role-models out of retirement in a recent posting and
>pretending that there is still worthwhile discussion is a lie and is
>confusing to any newbie who will be sent the wrong way by believing he
>is being given the latest information when in fact that is truly
>redundant information and is worse than useless.
>
>The handbook called �Handbook of Applied Cryptography� is rapidly
>becoming obsolete also for the reason that only the first 20 pages
>that are generally applicable to any part of all future cryptography,
>is now the only part of the book that is worth reading � the rest of
>this once great book is now defunct because it relates to defunct
>algorithms.

>None of these algorithms produced the ultimate high class of
>theoretically unbreakable ciphers so badly needed now by national
>governments - my cryptography does - adacrypt

You don't get to redefine "theoretically unbreakable".

From: amzoti on 10 Mar 2010 11:47
On Mar 9, 7:17 am, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 9:55 am, adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 9, 1:25 pm, Phoenix <ribeiroa...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > My question.
>
> > > Why you did not compete at NIST new cryptographic hash Algorithm
> > > Competition?
>
> > Hi,
> > To be perfectly honest I haved not taken the trouble to pursue the
> > procedure for submissions to NIST since I know almost nothing about
> > them and frankly I baulk at the prospect of being patronised by those
> > good people.  
>
> Almost, but no.
>
> The correct way for adacrypt to have punctuated the previous sentence
> would
> have been for him to place a period after the word "nothing".

:-)
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Call for papers: ISP-10, USA, July 2010
Next: Final: An obvious pattern found in the first 37Million Prime Sums using the log of the golden ratio Lp!