🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1hr7hpINNcd@crcnis1.unl.edu> vporguen@unlinfo.unl.edu (victor porguen) writes:
>Researchers who are not willing to consider, or are unwilling to 
>discuss, how their research affects the society they live in, are not
>worth being allowed to do research.

There's a huge difference between a willingness to discuss how cryptography
affects society and a willingness to read endless flame wars between people
who have value system conflicts which will never be resolved.

sci.crypt has always suffered from useless drivel on both sides of the
"should RSA be allowed to be patented" question.  That traffic belonged in
the group ONCE -- back in 1978.  In all the megabytes of postings on that
subject recently, I have not seen one new idea.

The reiteration of old ideas -- the eternal conflict between value systems
-- belongs in a talk.* group, not in a sci.* group.


I think that our problem here is that no one is in a position to enforce
sci.crypt's original charter (assuming it had one).  If we could just give
sci.crypt a moderator who would refuse to permit any reiteration of a
position already seen in the group, it would get back to its proper 1
message a day or less.

-- 
-- <<Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own, of course.>>
-- Carl Ellison						cme@sw.stratus.com
-- Stratus Computer Inc.	M3-2-BKW		TEL: (508)460-2783
-- 55 Fairbanks Boulevard ; Marlborough MA 01752-1298	FAX: (508)624-7488