Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Yeah, but women want it all (Score 1) 427 427

Not that I disagree with your point but clothing and makeup purchases can be amortized over several dates. A man might pay less overall than that specific woman, but he is probably paying more for the date he is actually on with her. She can wear the same outfit, use the same makeup, and have the same haircut for another date the next night and her cost per date just halved.

Comment: Re:Summary that misrepresents the Article... *shoc (Score 2) 373 373

What he means is that there are rainbow tables available for many MD5 hashes. There is software that can search hundreds of thousands of possible hashes per second. You don't need to calculate the MD5 hash over, you just have to do a simple text compare, followed by a lookup in the rainbow table. If you have a rainbow table of the major hack sites in which you're interested, I bet it doesn't take more than a second or two to determine if the hash you sent is of one of those sites. Maybe that doesn't fit your definition of easily enumerable, but it fits mine.

Comment: Re:We need a workers government (Score 3, Insightful) 465 465

Respectfully, that's not an argument; it's a rant with a basis in reducto ad absurdem. I'm not saying I disagree with you (or even that I agree). I'm pointing out that you did not refute a single point with anything approaching valid logic.

Comment: Re:Smart guns... (Score 4, Insightful) 814 814

I cannot conceive of a circumstance where I would be intimidated by any item, while in the absence of belligerent people. The presence of belligerent people on the other hand, may intimidate me without the presence of that item. It's clear to me that items are not what make the world dangerous.

Comment: Re:"Oh noes! The people keep voting it down!" (Score 2, Insightful) 153 153

That will only work for maybe 200 years. Example: the 2nd amendment's "shall not be infringed" bit that's been blatantly ignored for the last few decades. The founding fathers made that as clear as they could, yet we're still screwing it up. What makes you think we can make our intentions any clearer for any longer?

Excessive login or logout messages are a sure sign of senility.

Working...