It appears as if Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|I chose not to reply to "KPJ" for two reasons:
But you _did_ in fact reply, through the cypherpunks list.
So I presume you meant to perform a social gesture of some kind, which,
to me, suggests you felt an emotional reaction to my post. These social
rituals apparently mean a lot to many people.
|1. His "whine" was that he/she/it didn't think I'd "done" enough to
|justify commenting.
You have entered self-defence mode instead of reading the stated points.
Standard human behaviour, but inappropriate. Try to avoid it. Emotions
will cloud your rational mind.
Correction: I have not stated anything on whether you have written ``enough''
(whatever that might mean). Your statements above imply that
you believe I did. If you do, you are in error, and should repent.
|2. I checked, and could find no other messages, ever, from KPJ. (It's
|possible he/she/it posted before, and I deleted the messages....I only
|keep about half of all posts which make it past my filters.)
Yes, humans forget easily, a mark of a short-lived species and a small brain
capacity (e.g. elephants remember much longer due to their larger memory).
A human can remember more and better using mnemotechnic tool, organisation,
and technology. With a wearable and a Remembrance Agent you can remember
every post you have ever seen, if you so wish.
Will you also avoid talking to somebody on the street unless you have a
memory of ever having received a formal presentation or business card from
that person? I have noticed this on-line anomaly which several people:
they require more data on an online communication subject than on an offline
communication subject. Appears irrational to me: online security can never
become higher than physical security of the subject. But I disgress.
|There's no doubt in my mind that commenting on factors affecting crypto
|today and also commenting on math of possible relevance to crypto
|protocols is AT LEAST as on-topic as much of what gets posted here. In
|any case, if KPJ doesn't want to read it, he/she/it should know what to
|do.
On topic, maybe. But as you so eloquently stated, not cypherpunks-y.
Idle guesses as to whether something might prove useful to encryption someday
makes interesting fantasy for people who enjoy fantasy. Nothing more.
Hard work, using the scientific method (including peer review), OTOH, changes
the world. You can make a difference with science as your companion.
Therefore, if one wish to changes the world, one should avoid idle guesses
and do hard, scientific work on the matter. Thus, ``cypherpunks write code''.
Have you forgotten?
FYI: I read _everything_ on this list, including the posts of unit Mathew X.
|> In any case, if Tim or anyone else wants to submit a paper, this is a
|> page
|> on a workshop in "Categorical Methods for Concurrency, Interaction, and
|> Mobility"
|> http://www.cwi.nl/events/2002/cmcim/
|>
|> the call for papers just showed up in my inbox yesterday. While not
|> specifically about crypto protocols, "interaction and mobility" seems to
|> cover some of what I think Tim is getting at.
|
|I'll have more to say about what I'm getting at when I a) know more, and
|b) take the time to write up a teaching essay.
Excellent! Looking forward to read about it.
|In the meantime, I suggest "KPJ" establish a track record for
|interesting posts before taking more potshots.
Whether others interest themselves in my comments lacks relevance to me.
In fact, the less people know about me, the better for my purposes.
As the old saying goes:
The interest lies in the reader's cognitive centre,
just as beauty lies in the viewer's esthetic centre.
Cheers,
/kpj
_____________________________________________________________________
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered. My life is my own.
