[r-t] Time to vote?

[Don Morrison]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Andrew Johnson
<andrew_johnson at uk.ibm.com> wrote:
> With the rule change allowing calls to omit rows of a lead of a method
> then
> I suspect you can ring a peal of Cambridge but call it as a peal of all
> the
> rotations of Cambridge

You don't need rotations. Just define a bunch of methods that start
x3x4x25x36x4x5x6x7x6x5x4x36x25x3x12... but continue with other random
bits of place notation. Then splice them together into a peal with
calls omitting all the extraneous bits.

Since you can do this today, rotations don't make matters any worse.

And, conversely, if, today, I really, really want to ring the method
x25x36x4x5x6x7x6x5x4x36x25x4x3x12x3x4 and give it its own name, there's
nothing stopping me from ringing x25x36x4x5x6x7x6x5x4x36x25x4x3x12x3x456,
and always making a call that strips that 56 off at the lead ends.

It's a losing battle trying to stop idiots from doing stupid things
by throwing more rules in their way. They're smarter than we are.

(Among several projects I work are some related to cyber security. One
of my co-workers is a game-theoretician who has a simple model of the
whole good guys trying to stop the bad guys attacking computer
networks kind of stuff. It's an asymmetric game that turns out to be a
completely lost cause for the good guys--with best play on both sides
they can't win, all they can hope to do is lose as slowly as
possible. :-)



-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."                    -- Douglas Adams, _Mostly Harmless_