|
Now scan it in and post it to the cloud so it's never lost again ...
(yeah right)
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Doing better than that - I have scanned and OCRed the code listing, and am replacing the old one or two characters names with full meaningful names, and exceptionally verbose one at that. Then I shall write full documentation for each step, and finally fully realize what a colossal genius I was back then!    
So far I have been extending the maths to provide greater accuracy with a gazillion polynomial arguments (20K integers actually), so not worried about the structure at this stage. That, now, will be a lot simpler - I hope!
|
|
|
|
|
i remember your post. congratulations. what a great find!
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks! I must say, I am grinning from ear to ear at the moment!
|
|
|
|
|
Now you know what HP stands for: Happy Person !
|
|
|
|
|
Yes!
Nice one.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
So I'm working on this SOAP service, which needs to have a sort of two-layered security (according to specs).
The first is basic authentication, which is, of course, a well known protocol (which I had to implement myself because Azure App Services doesn't support this because it checks the (on-premise) AD by default).
The second is on message level, each request has an authentication token in the form of [username][divider][password].
Seems overkill, but alright.
Except that the username and password for the basic authentication are hard-coded! 
It seems I can set the password in the third party application (although that's not possible/allowed according to the specs), but the username is definitely hard-coded in the application
If the username is hard-coded, but the password isn't, all I can do is check if the supplied password matches any passwords in the database* and then check if the token in the message belongs to that password*.
It's all rather clunky
So basically it's just authentication on message level with extra steps 
* Hashed, of course!
|
|
|
|
|
and you're sending passwords out over basic auth with every message. i mean, i'm sure its over SSL but still.
That seems less secure than simply sending an auth token.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
The auth token (which is basically just another set of a username and password, which they call token) is sent over the same line as the basic auth 
SSL goes without saying, it's part of the basic auth spec I believe (but even if it wasn't).
|
|
|
|
|
This makes me glad i don't have to do this kind of thing for a living anymore.
Don't take this personally, but I really want to hack your jobsite now.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
i have written code since i was very young. I wound up at microsoft at 18, and back then i thought it was amazing that i would get paid what i thought was loads of money for doing what i would have basically done anyway.
Still, eventually, I found out that if you do what you love for long enough, you'll no longer love what you do.
I finally decided I liked being a software developer more than I liked working in software.
Not sure how many people left the fold feeling how I did, but there it is.
I still love the craft, just not the job.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the monster, codewitch wrote: if you do what you love for long enough, you'll no longer love what you do.
That's why my wife ordered me to give up my job as a gynecologist.
|
|
|
|
|
maybe it's because I'm gay but i don't understand the appeal of looking at lady's parts all day, particularly when they're not well to begin with.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the monster, codewitch wrote: i don't understand the appeal of looking at lady's parts all day
That's so gay 
|
|
|
|
|
Or maybe it's because you're being realistic about it.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a thing to understand, to wit:
When I was a very young lad, I could not understand what was attractive about a woman's ass. After the onset of puberty, I still didn't know . . . . but the endorphins flowed nonetheless.
Evolution has built this stuff in for the purpose of breeding. Forget about what's fashionable. A male would look for 'substantial' breasts as it implies food for the newborns; hips, etc., because it implies a higher probability of successful birth for both mother and child. Legs - one of the signals, as they reform from 'little girl' to 'woman' about being of breeding age. Although manifested consciously, it is really much deeper. Part of our animal nature that can and should be embraced.
Not knowing quite what's attractive in males, I would hypothesize that an important factor would be perceived strength to supply adequate food while the woman is tending the newborns; possibly protection.
Part of the beauty in all of this is that the actual manifestation of these characteristics and what one finds attractive varies throughout our species - survival at its best.
All of these enhanced by the delightful blessing of having a companion and partner.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I would respond, bur I think you already used all the possible cliches 
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
In case I gave a bad impression, I was trying to put forth that it's not really 'free choice'.
Perverted, perhaps, by modern (and ever changing) "morals", "beauty", and the ever-famous "look what I can see!". Our breeding instincts have been maligned, and as a consequence, targets of perversion. Consider that only humans feel the need to hide while mating, creating the later 'perversion' of exhibitionism.
What should be a universal source of joy.
The problem is not the instincts, but us.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: In case I gave a bad impression,
Not to worry, you have never made an impression on me.
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: Evolution has built this stuff in for the purpose of breeding. Forget about what's fashionable. A male would look for 'substantial' breasts as it implies food for the newborns
Not me. I prefer women with the ability to walk upright, as it implies at least some intelligence. 
W∴ Balboos wrote: Not knowing quite what's attractive in males, I would hypothesize...
That's simple. It's the thickness of your wallet and your social status. Appearance and even your body odor are secondary two these two perfumes. Lose them and you are instantly as attractive as a monkey, appearance again totally irrelevant.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Really - you begged for this reply!
CodeWraith wrote: Not me. I prefer women with the ability to walk upright,
Implying you'll take the others as availability dictates.
Also, implies, having a preference, that you've tried both variants.*
* Are you absolutely sure both variants were female homo sapiens? Do neighborhood pets give you a wide berth, lately?
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: Are you absolutely sure both variants were female homo sapiens? Do neighborhood pets give you a wide berth, lately?
I'm not from Wales.
W∴ Balboos wrote: Implying you'll take the others as availability dictates.
Only if you assume that this is the only criterium, which it is not, and the empty set is not a valid solution.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly a man with his proverbial feces together is attractive, but is attractive enough to cancel BO? Not to me.
It's just what I find attractive in a man generally starts behind the eyes.
But that doesn't mean I like a man to stink. In fact scent and touch are probably as important to me as visual cues are to the typical man. A byproduct of my brand of gayness i think.
I have physical preferences sure. I like hairy guys, and guys that are taller than me. But those things are secondary.
I think most straight men are really visual when it comes to what attracts them - maybe even primarily, although scent can elicit powerful responses in any animal, even us, generally.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the monster, codewitch wrote: I think most straight men are really visual when it comes to what attracts them
If by visual you mean the eyes: oh yes !
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
