On 9/9/2013 4:27 AM, Doug Barton wrote: > If what you meant was, "It's important for knowledgeable people to > examine how long various key sizes can be expected to remain secure"
More like, "it is good that key lengths and their expected lifetimes be subjected to rigorous study," with a soupcon of "but that write-up is very much lacking in rigor." I personally don't like phrasing things in terms of "knowledgeable people". There's a joke I like to tell -- === A mathematician, an economist and a physicist are traveling through Great Britain via rail. The physicist looks out the window and sees an animal grazing in a meadow. "Look!" the physicist exclaims. "In Scotland, sheep are brown!" The economist pooh-poohs this. "You're generalizing. All you've proven is that in Scotland there exists at least one brown sheep." The mathematician rolls his eyes. "Not even that. All he's proven is that in Scotland there exists at least one sheep that has at least one brown side." A fellow passenger on the train looks quizzically at the three, then shares: "We're in Wales, and around here we call them 'cattle'." === Knowledgeable people get things wrong all the time, and especially when they say "trust me, I'm knowledgeable." I trust in process instead -- I trust in rigor and logical development of thoughts and ideas to reach a conclusion. If I review the process and feel that it's valid, then it doesn't matter if the person presenting the idea is a Ph.D. or is in the eighth grade. :) I suspect, though, that we are overall in violent agreement. :) _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
