On 2015-08-16 22:47:01 +0000, Jeremy Bentham said:
> Weener I know you're replying to Ma but can I say I wish there'd be
> no friction here and more posting, whatever the content (within
> reason of course). I don't feel confident just yet posting, but
> will when I do and I really, really want the group to be around
> until then. No apologies from anyone, just getting on would be
> great - or even ignoring each other if you and Ma can't, but keep
> the group alive. Same sentiments to Ma too. I appreciate both of
> you and so do all the others who visit, lurk or post in this group.
>
> I do wonder what happened to Collector though - his CSV is
> magnificent. There is one thing though. I don't really understand
> hashing tables but I do understand cryptographic hash functions
> such as SHA and I know that Piccheck is only using CRC because of
> the 8 place output (32bit) whereas SHA1 gives a 40 place output
> (160bits) and is much more precise in identifying dupes than the
> really, really old CRC. I ran a dupe check on the pics checked
> with Piccheck using Collector's .csv and there are, at SHA1 hash, a
> lot of dupes I thought. Perhaps Piccheck needs a stronger hash
> function than CRC? Or the dupes are acceptable in collecting Vlad
> because they were published as dupes with different names?
Collector is in prison at the moment. As far as getting along? That's
up to the weener. He's the one who won't keep his cocksucker shut. I
tried to tell Weenie boy that CRC wouldn't catch a mixup but he's
hard-headed that way.
I looked futher and found a TM_163 on Freenet but it also only had 85
pictures as well. It's getting late so I'll try again tomorrow.
|
|