[conspire] Password permutations (was: Correction)

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Texx (texxgadget at gmail.com):

> Didnt mean to imply that people had to do the math, but explanation of how
> it works it a wise thing to do.

Um, telling people '26 letters twice in a row have 26 ^ 2 permutations' 
isn't explaining how passwords work -- and is also self-evident.
There is nothing to 'explain', really.

> You are fast to remind people when they are wrong, no criticism here,
> just curiosity, why change now?

Seems to me, it would have been both pointless and a bit of a jerk move.

Pretty much anyone who plays around with permutations will see that
the number of letters is the exponent, and writing to Conspire to 
merely advise Paul Zander that he'd accidentally inverted order
would have been rubbing his nose in that without any particular gain
(given that anyone who works the problem sees the order of elements).


> You are right that Conspire doesnt HAVE to, but it would be a good idea
> anyway.

I'm not paid to be someone's servant, here.  

Maybe I cannot sing and dance _quite_ as well as Gene Kelly could, but 
at least I have a good grasp on how to have a good and worthwile time
on a mailing list, and being a free-of-charge educational resource for
others just isn't in it.  (I speak for myself:  Other subscribers 
are of course free to run Texx University if they lack other hobbies.)


> I actually hadnt noticed.
> Id been too busy to notice the suspension till it passed.

That's actually slightly unfortunate, since the aim of putting you 
on moderated status for misbehaviour was to get your attention.
If you're saying I _didn't_ succeed in getting your attention, then
you may be insisting on learning the hard way, i.e., a listadmin
has a graded series of attention-getting tools at his/her disposal.

At a certain point in that process, I simplify, to reduce my hassle
and get the problem by degrees off my agenda (because, see 'I am not
paid to be someone's servant, here').

If I may say so, there's an Open Source 101 common error that might be
occuring here:  valuing someone's time and effort at cost if it appears
to be given away for free.  Oddly enough, we of the open source
community are pretty good at spotting that syndrome and cutting it off.