Re: hash
- From: "Ralph" <nt_consulting64@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:48:30 -0500
"Tony Spratt" <tony_spratt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eB6iUr2wFHA.3180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Tony,
> >
> > "it has been proven recently"
> >
> > It is comforting to know, during moments when I dwell on my own
nerdness,
> > that there others out there with less of a life than me. <g>
> >
> > -ralph
>
> Ralph,
>
> What tickles you more - the fact that I read New Scientist and remember
all
> this stuff or my extremely anal sentence construction? <vbg>
>
> Actually, I wanted to put "it has recently been proven" but that was too
> pedantic even for me...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tony.
>
LOL
Sorry, I didn't mean for my comment to be directed at YOU. I was just musing
on the people that went about 'sleuthing' the innards of MDx hashing. Who
ever they may be.
On another note - please don't bring up split infinitives. Even after 40+
years I am still unable to boldly go, or go boldly, there. <g>
-ralph
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: hash
- From: Tony Spratt
- Re: hash
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: End is bad, mmkay?
- Next by Date: VB6 Gravity type code
- Previous by thread: Re: hash
- Next by thread: Re: hash
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
