bruce schnier said this is no big deal.
and he know.
the media is hyping this but not a thang to worrie about.
Re:Why do the credentials matter?
on
Tetraktys
·
· Score: 1
>>>Either way, that statement doesn't really support "Dan Brown says that his fiction is closer to historical truth."
of course it does, who do u think u r fooling?
please. enuff/
also, that was such a minimal part of the review, why make a deal over it? must a person be an expert in the genre to write a review?
if that is the case, maybe i should not write a review.
might implies it is not definite.
So he is still technically correct.
As in 'this MIGHT be the biggest upset in sports'
Might is the key word here.
and even so, whats the big deal. this is a tiny error in the book review. so what?
this might be a non-issue.
no, this IS a non-issue:)
Re:Why do the credentials matter?
on
Tetraktys
·
· Score: 1
sorry for the delay.
Link... better.
Look at the preface to the Da Vinci Code.
He writes about accuracy there.
Re:Breaking RSA expected in next few decades?
on
Tetraktys
·
· Score: 1
did he give any estimiates on when quantum factoring will be ready for prime time?
and when it would break RSA?
'which might' he wrote. so he is still technically correct.
and besides the fact, Cryptonomicon is way tooo long!!!
I got bored after the 8th repetition.
Re:slashdot editors must live in caves
on
Tetraktys
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
>>>Security is a complete joke that is absurd. prove it!
ahah!!!
who said he is the end-all? not even he. he is 1 voice, of many. do u hear the voices :)
He did a summary, he didn't say not to read it.
bruce schnier said this is no big deal. and he know. the media is hyping this but not a thang to worrie about.
>>>Either way, that statement doesn't really support "Dan Brown says that his fiction is closer to historical truth." of course it does, who do u think u r fooling? please. enuff/
also, that was such a minimal part of the review, why make a deal over it? must a person be an expert in the genre to write a review? if that is the case, maybe i should not write a review.
wow, i am too overwhelmed by your sense of truth to reply.
me neither... again! :)
might implies it is not definite. So he is still technically correct. As in 'this MIGHT be the biggest upset in sports' Might is the key word here. and even so, whats the big deal. this is a tiny error in the book review. so what? this might be a non-issue. no, this IS a non-issue :)
sorry for the delay. Link... better. Look at the preface to the Da Vinci Code. He writes about accuracy there.
did he give any estimiates on when quantum factoring will be ready for prime time? and when it would break RSA?
Ok, I don't know much, well anything about Umberto Eco. So what is the problem with the comparison?
thank you. yours is the most best reply on this thread.
i thought i read that when quantum crypto goes mainstream in 20 yrs or so, rsa will be broken.
not @ all.
why should it be?
NO! NO! NO!!!! Read the intro to Da Vinci code. Dan Brown prides himself on his fact checking. That is what drives people crazy.
what is the point ????
perhaps the ISP requires that?
as others have posted, Dan Brown says that his fiction is closer to historical truth. that is the reason for the differnce.
So do you mean to imply that wealth trumps truth?
the difference is that dan brown claims to write accurate historical fiction. Stephen King is pure science fiction.
'which might' he wrote. so he is still technically correct. and besides the fact, Cryptonomicon is way tooo long!!! I got bored after the 8th repetition.
what claims?