Linked by David Adams on Wed 17th Aug 2011 17:53 UTC, submitted by HAL2001
Permalink for comment 485656
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-06-29
How about "impossible within the natural lifespan of all currently living humans and their great*10^18 offspring"? That's my take on it.
After all, I doubt any humans would be left alive 70 quadrillion years from now to care what the encrypted data was. Even if there were, the computer being used to crack it would likely disintegrate completely a few hundred million years into the process.
So, yeah, "impossible" is, for all intents and purposes, a practical description.
Edit: And yes, I know galvanash's white paper called for 77 septillion years, but I was attempting to stay within the lifespan of the universe, give or take an order of magnitude.
Edited 2011-08-18 00:04 UTC