Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> wrote in
news:b51996ebe150edfadc5cabdfa7a66849@anemone.mooo.com:
> 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?
>
It most likely just means there are duplicates in his csv. I've not
looked at his big one, if that's what your talking about. If your dupe
checker found duplicate pictures, there should be duplicate crc's in the
csv, that go with them. Some models have duplicate sets released that
way, and the csv could have mistakes, so it's not unusual. I don't
really know anything about SHA1.
As far as getting along with Red Dog, he doesn't want to get along.
Can't you tell. You either do as he says, or get attacked. Agree with
him or get attacked.
Weener
|
|