Re: Bruce Schneier Gets It Wrong

Segfault <usenet-nospam@segfault.co.uk> writes:

[...]

> Well, I don't think it's particularly new either - but I'd also be
> sceptical of quotes attributed to him in either The Register or New
> Scientist. NS is certainly not as well proof read as it used to be. I've
> stopped buying it because of a number of factual errors in recent articles.

This is presumably the blog entry:
<http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/03/quasar_encrypti.html>

The New Scientist article contains the quote (the blog has "Does
anyone have the faintest clue what they're talking about here?...").

I imagine it's been edited, and Schneier would also have commented
that not-dissimilar schemes for producing random streams (sun spots,
stock values, etc.) have been proposed before---indeed, I'm sure he's
commented on several before.

[...]
Received on Mon May 1 01:53:51 2006