On 9/7/2013 5:35 PM, Ole Tange wrote: > Feel free to let me know if you feel I have left out important concerns.
The good news is that you are not your ideas. Whether your ideas are good or bad has nothing to do with your worth as a person. A great paper won't make you a good human being -- I've known some true geniuses who are terrible people -- and a bad paper doesn't make you stupid, inferior, or bad. Now for the bad news: it's rubbish. NIST, RSA Data Security, Lenstra and Schneier (just to name four) have been extraordinarily careful about their long-term recommendations. None of them have been willing to project beyond about 25 years in the future. They have all shared their reasoning for their circumspection and detailed the factors that make long-term prediction difficult. You're projecting 87 years into the future. Why should we have any confidence in your analysis? In my opinion, you very much need to address two questions right off: 1. What factors have prevented NIST, RSA Data Security, Lenstra, Schneier, et al., from being able to make an 87-year prediction? 2. Why do these factors not apply to your analysis? Without those two questions being raised directly and immediately, there is no reason for a reader to have any confidence in what you've written. It is far more likely that you are limited by the same factors that have limited NIST, RSA Data Security, Lenstra, Schneier, et al., and are simply not aware of how those factors are confounding your analysis. There are a large number of other errors in your write-up, but those two questions above are the most critical shortcomings. Without answers to those two questions I can see no reason for anyone to take your writeup seriously. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users