From: IN%"tcmay@got.net" 28-NOV-1995 20:15:30.64 The reason we speak in terms of physical volumes of "Adleman computers" is to make concrete the way things scale. If the amount of Adleman computers needed to factor, say, a 2000-digit modulus (or some reasonably equivalent Hamiltonian cycle problem, such as the TSP) is "ten Pacific oceans full of them running for 100 years," then one has a pretty clear feel for just how futile it is to ask about "But what about if we apply MASSIVE PARALLELISM?!?!" ------------ Ah. My objection is probably from being too much of a purist in my own area of science. I do tend to try to be quite careful in whatever I write to use the correct terms (then explain them for those who've heard the incorrect ones). ------------- I don't worry much about factoring breakthroughs. And I don't mean minor improvements, which keep occurring: I mean major breakthroughs which would make factoring a 2000-decimal-digit number "easy." Practically speaking, snarfing private keys is a helluva lot easier, for many reasons. -------------- Umm... it's easier for each one. But the effort in question adds up. Ultimately, for an agency (NSA, CIA, etcetera) wanting to do a lot of such unencryptings, coming up with a factoring method is the most efficient way to go. Fortunately, science doesn't work very well with security classifications (unlike engineering, which is what most military classified "science" is from what I know). -Allen