🚀 go-pugleaf

Writes zeke@fasttech.com (Bohdan Tashchuk):
 
 > Why don't you post to sci.physics, telling everyone that you've 
 > developed a perpetual motion machine. Then you can whine the same 
 > way when experts "post theoretical considerations" about why they 
 > won't waste time with you.
 
 Why?   Because I don't have such a perpetual-motion machine.  
 I DO have a hard-to-break encryption method.  Perpetual motion
 machines defy basic principles of physics. Tough encryption does
 not. Your comparison is all wet, as is your thinking. 
      
 
 > Even better, why don't you post to rec.autos.tech and tell them 
 > you've developed a new carburetor that lets cars run on tap water. 
 
 Sure, if I had such a carburetor, I might post there as suggested.
 But what I have instead is a new encryption method, so I post it 
 here.
 
 
 > You might find a few people there who would believe you.
 
 Frankly, I don't really give a hoot whether you "believe" me or 
 not. I just would like to know whether you can break a trivial
 instance of NuCrypt encryption.  Can you? 
 
 > There's nothing wrong with posting here. Perhaps you will find 
 > beginners who will accept the challenge. Just don't get all huffy 
 > when experts dismiss it out of hand. 
 
 Sure, I'm not choosy.  Experts, beginners... everybody's invited!
 The prize offered is available equally to all, regardless of 
 professional status or academic degree. First one to break it gets
 the prize.
 
 
 > At least they told you what your friend needs to do for them 
 > to be interested.
 
 Some asked to see the algorithm in order to tell us how it works.
 Some trick.  We already know how it works.  No, I'm afraid that's 
 not _quite_ what I'm after... :-)  Thank you very much...
 

--- Maximus 2.00