Talk:Online codes

Nonsense?
The section removed by anonymous user 81.208.61.202 was copied nearly verbatim from the academic paper in the second link (Section 2) from the article. If he/she has any objections as to the accuracy of the deleted statement, that person should state those reasons here. As it stands now, this latest redaction comes across as an immature act of censorship, if not blatant vandalism. Perhaps that section could have explained more clearly that the encoding blocks took O(1) time to generate. If that was the point of contention, the statement should have simply been corrected instead of deleted entirely. If the whole of the statement is scientifically inept, do please explain why for the edification of non-math/compsci geeks such as myself. --PacoBell 03:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)