This doesn't strictly answer the question the OP asked. It answered the question the OP should have asked. It does answer also the original question insofar as it provides a means to accomplish what he is after in a fundamentally safe way. My 2Cents... and I fully agree with gellyfish, as you can see from my own reply. | [reply] |
actually, it does answer the question when looking at it from a strict point of view...sorry, just my attempt at a cheap laugh on a friday afternoon ;-)
| [reply] |
i disagree, this did answer the question. it's just that the questioner (as usual) didn't know yet what he wanted. therefore he asked for a solution of which he thought would solve his problem. but being slightly psychic, gellyfish swiftly extrapolated the real probelm from the question and came up with a better fiting solution. | [reply] |
May I point out that the thread author is a friar.
I doubt he became a friar by completely ignoring the concept of a hash.
Thus, by not answering his question and stupidly lecturing this esteemed monk with an answer that has remote relevance to the question, this saint just denegrated the thread author.
But I suppose you think that cops who charge physics graduates with motor vehicle speeding fines are doing a good job too hey..
| [reply] |
May I point out that this reply (it was a saint that posted it) directly insulted and denegrated an esteemed friar.
For one thing, gellyfish's reply should not be viewed as "insulting" or "denegrating" -- it cites a relevant page authored by another saint, using that author's own tongue-in-cheek title.
For another thing, looking at the esteemed friar's other posts at the monastery, there is recent evidence that this monk should benefit from the kind of answer that gellyfish so kindly and generously provided. | [reply] |