3 ms·
Its a reason the average person can see value in. Since it's the average person's tax money often funding this stuff, it makes sense that academics try to expla
by alan_cx 13y ago
Its a reason the average person can see value in. Since it's the average person's tax money often funding this stuff, it makes sense that academics try to explain uses that benefit the people paying for it.
While I agree that its worth it just for its knowledge pushing value alone, academics and researchers do need to take the public with them, especially these days when finances are squeezed and more people are struggling to make ends meet.
- auggierose 13y agoI know WHY the box says what it says. But it is nevertheless bull. If you want to improve online security, the LAST thing you should put money into is research into the Zeta function. So, if this is what you are telling the tax payer, then you are just telling lies to the tax payer.
- zodiac 13y agoIf there exists a fast factoring algorithm that breaks RSA, then investing in research to discover that would allow us to design and switch to better cryptosystems. If there does not exist one, discovering that fact would allow us to prove security guarantees about RSA; either way, we improve security. If we avoid such research out of fear that we might discover something that breaks RSA, we are relying on security by obscurity.
- typon 13y agoNobody is 'avoiding' that research. People already know a fast quantum algorithm exists for the factorization problem, which is the core of RSA. hence, people are already working on cryptosystems more computationally complex than RSA. Hell, even more computationally intensive than what quantum computers are thought to be able to do. The class of algorithms called lattice based cryptography are known to be impossible for quantum computers to break, even though these are fully classical methods of cryptography.
- CamperBob2 13y agoSo where exactly should we have stopped doing math, in order to remain optimally secure for all time?