Re: [cryptography] Well, that's depressing. Now what?

2012-01-31 Thread Bill Squier
On 01/31/2012 05:21 AM, ianG wrote: > > major software product that still calls self-signed certificates > "snake-oil" certificates. Which is upside down, the use of the term > itself can be snake-oil recursively. That would make it 'Ouroboris oil'. > Yes, easy. QKD requires hardware. A laser+re

Re: [cryptography] Well, that's depressing. Now what?

2012-01-31 Thread Bill Squier
On 01/31/2012 05:21 AM, ianG wrote: > > major software product that still calls self-signed certificates > "snake-oil" certificates. Which is upside down, the use of the term > itself can be snake-oil recursively. That would make it 'Ouroboris oil'. > Yes, easy. QKD requires hardware. A laser+re

Re: [cryptography] Well, that's depressing. Now what?

2012-01-31 Thread Bill Squier
On 01/31/2012 05:21 AM, ianG wrote: > > major software product that still calls self-signed certificates > "snake-oil" certificates. Which is upside down, the use of the term > itself can be snake-oil recursively. That would make it 'Ouroboris oil'. > Yes, easy. QKD requires hardware. A laser+re

Re: [cryptography] Well, that's depressing. Now what?

2012-01-31 Thread Bill Squier
On 01/31/2012 05:21 AM, ianG wrote: > > major software product that still calls self-signed certificates > "snake-oil" certificates. Which is upside down, the use of the term > itself can be snake-oil recursively. That would make it 'Ouroboris oil'. > Yes, easy. QKD requires hardware. A laser+re

Re: [cryptography] Well, that's depressing. Now what?

2012-01-31 Thread Bill Squier
On 01/31/2012 05:21 AM, ianG wrote: > > major software product that still calls self-signed certificates > "snake-oil" certificates. Which is upside down, the use of the term > itself can be snake-oil recursively. That would make it 'Ouroboris oil'. > Yes, easy. QKD requires hardware. A laser+re

Re: [cryptography] Well, that's depressing. Now what?

2012-01-31 Thread Bill Squier
Mmm, mail misfire. Apologies. I'd say "I'm better than that", but apparently, I'm not. -wps On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:50 PM, Bill Squier wrote: > On 01/31/2012 05:21 AM, ianG wrote: >> >> major software product that still calls self-signed certificates >> "snake-oil" certificates. Which is upsid

Re: [cryptography] Well, that's depressing. Now what?

2012-01-31 Thread Bill Squier
On 01/31/2012 05:21 AM, ianG wrote: > > major software product that still calls self-signed certificates > "snake-oil" certificates. Which is upside down, the use of the term > itself can be snake-oil recursively. That would make it 'Ouroboris oil'. > Yes, easy. QKD requires hardware. A laser+re

Re: [cryptography] Well, that's depressing. Now what?

2012-01-31 Thread Marsh Ray
On 01/31/2012 05:21 AM, ianG wrote: major software product that still calls self-signed certificates "snake-oil" certificates. Which is upside down, the use of the term itself can be snake-oil recursively. That would make it 'Ouroboris oil'. Yes, easy. QKD requires hardware. A laser+receiver

Re: [cryptography] Well, that's depressing. Now what?

2012-01-31 Thread ianG
On 29/01/12 13:54 PM, Noon Silk wrote: On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 1:03 PM, ianG wrote: [...] It seems to me that you are resting on a sort of philosophical assumption that pure research is pure, neither good nor bad. If that is the case, the problem with this assumption is that QKD is not pure