PugJr

As opposed to what? A living stuffed animal?

Erm...Nothing too harsh? Back off CV! Anyways, when I refresh the page it goes green and then to that lightblue. I don't know if thats supposed to be right.

Baked bean eating contests? Feels like I missed alot on these forums.

Wait, what exactly isn't working? Get an mysql error or the content just won't show up?

Don't you have to have the $row[file_name] and the others as $row['file_name']? I remember having that problem awhile ago. Try adding the single quotes.

Echofool must be a copper! Team, lets ditch!

Isn't there some autorun.exe or something that you can put in the cd and with that you can code it to do whatever you want, such as a popup with the list? (It activates when you put the CD in your computer.)

Do they still have that one thing going on where you can have windows 7 for like till june/july and then it crashes every 30 minutes?

Hey, grandad, I didn't walk in the dinosaur days. (Otherwords, I didn't check these forums that far back) Can it run computer games like XP?

Ah thats cool. Give us a review once you play around with it for a bit.

No, it isn't that, but isn't it still like beta? Seems like it could be a bit of a hassle.

So, why exactly are you using windows 7?

Burn, nrg_alpha. (Thanks to thefilmgod confiriming that I am not the only genius around these parts!)

What the heck? A puggle? A pug is way better! Look at my avatar! Anyways...Since no one is being PC about this... You people are brutual animal abusers! We should not talk about such terrible actions between animals! It is animal cruelty and wrong! :'(

No, I think how PHP works is that it processes everything and then sends out the HTML/css to the user. EDIT: Its called a server side language for a reason.

Why would it be bad? Some things gotta be censored. It should still be quite trivial as far as computing power goes.

Kodiak bears are real? I thought that was just some propaganda that kodiak cameras use?

Madtechie, I've never said it would. I just said I could group out all the possiblities or well reduce it or something. Actually, at this point I'm kinda confused. Oh, wow, you got a petabyte hardisk? Where can you buy one? I would love to have one. I'd never run out of harddisk space again! (Until 50 years later when 1024 terrabytes are small.) We can reasonably assume that some top-of-the-line harddisk owner wouldn't be spending his time in phpfreaks when he must have millions of dollars. He'd be spending a lifetime of vacations. But see, 1 in 8.2E843 isn't too bad of odds right? See how many possiblities are removed?

Okay lets do points to see where we aren't understanding each other. I do agree the point is kinda useless, but it isn't wrong. Well maybe it is but anyways. 1. Madtechie, is your hash under a 1125899906842624 of characters? (Actually, I know for a fact it is.) 2. Now, that I have up to 1125899906842624 of characters (Well, I don't actually but anyways) for hashes, I must have yours. 3. Now I have all the possible hashes that can be equal to madtechies hash. Now what are my possiblities reduced to? Well yeah, like I previously said it isn't much of a point. But this is still not false. I'd bet ya that assuming I had a computer that can compute all the md5 hashes within that character limit, one of those would be madtechies. Well, lets see, what would the odds of me guessing it be? 1.5E933/62 (Letters and numbers)^32 (character count)...1.5E933/1.9E89. See how well I did Daniel? Now we are down to about 8.2E843 options. See! Within that group of 8.2E843 strings, I MUST have madtechie. Unless I did some math wrong somewhere...

How does one subscribe to a thread?

<script type="text/javascript"> window.open( "/index.php" ) </script> That'll open up a new tab/window. Not sure if it does tabs or what.

This is where we are missing each other. No, my answer would be is that its either 1 or 0. But it can not be 2, 3, 4, 5, +. All I'm saying is that you can group all the content (Okay fine, not all since thats infinite, but whatever, a large number) with the same hash and within that group, it MUST be his hash. I've been saying that in most of my posts that I can group the ones with matching hashes, which then MUST contain the one we are looking for. I've also said plenty of times that you can not pinpoint the exact content of the message. I guess my whole point is kinda worthless. Madtechie, the 5000 years was just an arbitrary number. Okay, sorry, I mean x years. Techie, I'm just saying that I can group out the possiblities of your content just like daniel did with the phone numbers. I can go on a point basis where you guys can agree and disagree, but I think we are just misunderstanding. I never said once I can get the /exact/ content, but I can get a group of the same hashes with different content.

I think I'm not doing a good job of explaining on what I mean. Lets say I cover up to 30 characters. My objective is to find the content of hash (No this isn't a real hash, this is just used for the purpose of a point.) "pug". Okay thats the hash. Now, I run up to all 30 characters and get: George House bob dog Those when used with hashmaker() (No, that isn't a function either.) will all convert to "pug". So it also took 5000 years to get all the hashes done, but anyways, now, I have obtained every possible hash that is "pug" up to 30 characters. Now, although I can't know the exact hash to the one that the person used, I know it still has to be within that group and I have obtained the original content, but just not sure which one is the real one. Now put this into context. There is hash "ec81f8fe815098e02460e0184d3eac4e". I go up to a google plex of characters. Now I have: (These don't make ec81f8fe815098e02460e0184d3eac4e when hashed, but its for the purpose of the point.) spamabcdefg fdmgiIJSDFMosdf KSPDSDV etc. Now I have a set ammount of hashes. I guarntuee you, that now I do have your orignal content. But like I said, its impossible to prove which one is yours, BUT I still have it in that group of content hashed into "ec81f8fe815098e02460e0184d3eac4e". Why would this not work? I've read the posts on this. I know its not possible to use a function like unhashmd5() that gets the exact one as just through math like daniel explained, is impossible as there is an infinite ammount of strings per hash. So anyways, madtechie, assuming I generated up to a googleplex of characters that all end out to "ec81f8fe815098e02460e0184d3eac4e", would you say that absoultely none of those match your content? So from what I understand, if your original content is under a googleplex of characters, I do have it, as a group of millions and millions of other hashes under "ec81f8fe815098e02460e0184d3eac4e".

You defintely /can/ get the same content. Okay, take this for instance, madtechie. Lets say I have a computer with infinite speed. So of course with infinite speed I can obtain infinite ammount of hashes. So I can get your exact content, but there is no possible way of me knowing which one is yours. The only flaw to this hypothetical situation is I would have an infinite ammount of the same hashes that you need me to find...Hm... But regardless, I still obtained your exact content4 (Well, not knowing which content is yours though, but as a group of hashes, one of them must be yours.), without knowing which is yours. I have to if I have every hash possible. I do agree that it isn't possible to prove that the content of one hash is the same one as yours BUT still regardless, I can get the same 32 hash characters. So anyways point is: All the content I've used md5() on, which is everything, must be one with your content as your content is apart of something. But yes, I still do agree it isn't possible to prove which one is yours.

To obtain any content that has the same hash as yours is possible. To prove that its the one you made, is not. I am saying its possible to find a matching hash with infinite CPU power (I'm not sure but is it possible a shared web host is offering that?). I'm not saying its possible to prove that the content I used to make the hash is the same as yours. So, yes, I am serious.