(12-06-2018, 08:18 PM)wolverine_i_am Wrote:

(12-06-2018, 08:16 PM)josh84 Wrote: I made an attempt today to talk to a woman i like at the gym, she gave me a minute or 2 of her time said hi and a couple other things before moving on to keep working out, hopefully when dmsi 3.3 comes out it will help with attraction and keep women around for more than a minute since its hard to say more than one or 2 things when its like that unfortunately.

Heres hoping 3.3 will work for me.

Trouble is today when i mentioned something without finishing what i was saying can come across in a way not meaning, still just general stuff but would of been better to be able to finish what im saying before they walk off.

With a bit of luck we might have this before the 14th as a holiday around lots of people will give it a chance to see if it works as fast as we are hoping with the upgrades.

Is it necessary to turn your gym into your practice ground?

(12-06-2018, 08:41 PM)Benjamin Wrote: Seriously Wolverine? First you continually give people advice about women that isn't helping them at all because you're still a virgin despite all the pua stuff, and now he makes an effort to talk to a woman at the gym, where he did nothing unusual and you're criticizing him?

(12-06-2018, 10:04 PM)K-Train Wrote: I'm not sure if I'm drunk, high, or just a liiiiitttle tired but....I see that DMSI V3.3 is available!

Don't want to touch it yet since we don't have an ASRB or anything like that. Can any other DMSI users confirm what I'm seeing here???

(12-06-2018, 10:03 PM)josh84 Wrote: Wolverine, i wasnt hitting on her i was making small conversation just an extra couple of minutes would of been better as i wanted to mention something but she seemed to want to keep moving to finish her workout.

I have spoken to her a couple times previously took a long time to actually do that but i did approach her and had a good chat with her previously.

I find it easier to talk to people after that first time so i just wanted to have a small chat when saw her i could of bothered her some more as we were training near each other but i didnt.

Difference between hitting on a woman and just wanting to say hi and see how things are going.

I cant make new friends if i dont speak to anyone and she is a very happy cheerful person which would be someone i would enjoy hanging out with.

(12-06-2018, 01:03 PM)Shannon Wrote:

(12-06-2018, 11:56 AM)JackOfHearts Wrote:

Quote:I forgot to mention this earlier, but I was looking into what MD5Sum uses for checksumming, and discovered that:

A) It does not take into account the name or metadata of the file (like tags on an audio file), and
B) it is difficult, but not impossible, to fake an MD5 Sum hash signature

So, from now on, we will be calculating an MD5 Sum Hash value and an SHA512 Sum hash value. The latter is a bit for bit check, and if ANYTHING changes, it will change, and it is cryptographically secure, meaning that there is no known way to fake it. So you will have proof positive that the files are exactly as I made them, and NOTHING has been changed, if that is what you seek.

So at first you didn't really care about checking files integrity for audio as you didn't provide any checksum and your reasoning made sense at the time.
But now MD5 isn't sufficient, there is a need for SHA512??
Seriously??
You are sounding like someone trying trick people that because it is cryptographically secure then it is perfect. I'm not sure you are doing it but it seems to be that from reading that text. I hope it's not.

I don't know why someone like you who could put anything in your subs without anyone knowing would fake an MD5 checksum, please enlighten me

I don't think you're understanding.

In the beginning, I didn't know that checksums would be worthwhile because nobody asked for them. Then someone asked how they could know if they had downloaded the file correctly, so I started making MD5Sum hashes of the files.

Later I discovered that that program doesn't take into account changes to the name and metadata, meaning that someone could scrub those and re-sell my work as their own and it would remain capable of reproducing the same MD5Sum hash.

Now, to make sure that people cannot do that, I provide both.

It's not me who would fake an MD5sum hash. It would be someone who altered the file and then adjusted it so you get the same hash, which would hide the alteration.

SHA512 or 256 will reveal such a thing, because it cannot be faked by a pirate or someone who is trying to alter the files.

I have no reason to even try to fake a signature. Those signatures are your guarantee that the file is exactly as I created it, and unaltered. That's why md5sum is insufficient, given those weaknesses.

(12-07-2018, 02:43 AM)Zane Wrote: Wait DMSI-3.3 is available? I thought you guys were joking.. I was expecting alot of hype, but looks like Shannon kept everything under control.