[QUOTE=chalsall;315740]What you said was wrong.

Using port 443 (HTTPS) does [U]not[/U] guarantee security.
[/QUOTE]

He never said that.

All he said was why bother with port 80 if port 443 is working and secured properly?

[QUOTE=Dubslow;315751]He never said that.

All he said was why bother with port 80 if port 443 is working and secured properly?[/QUOTE]

Actually he did. Please see his post above dated 21 Oct 12, 11:19.

I removed a weird link to GoDaddy in that post which appeared to be an affiliate link. As in, he would have derived income for anyone who purchased a SSL Certificate after following that link.

I stand by my statement that you can not rely on SSL (nominally provided over port 443) to ensure security.

[QUOTE=chalsall;315826]Actually he did. Please see his post above dated 21 Oct 12, 11:19.

I removed a weird link to GoDaddy in that post which appeared to be an affiliate link. As in, he would have derived income for anyone who purchased a SSL Certificate after following that link.

I stand by my statement that you can not rely on SSL (nominally provided over port 443) to ensure security.[/QUOTE]

YOU.. ARE A NUT JOB. Reading your word is like watching a freaking train wreck.

[QUOTE=JMLX;315841]YOU.. ARE A NUT JOB. Reading your word is like watching a freaking train wreck.[/QUOTE]

Huh?

[QUOTE=kracker;315844]Huh?[/QUOTE]

JMLX is swl551's brother.

They work together....

This seemed like the most recent reasonably pertinent post with which to insert this question. Finding a factor overwrites exponent status history. Since a lot of exponents are found with ECM, how can the bit level of exhaustive search on factored exponents be determined? e.g., Exponent n shows TF to 65 bits. An 85 bit facotr is reported. How can someone subsequently know that 66 to 84(!) has not been searched?

Why would we have to know that?
It's proven composite and the proof is a factor.

The distribution of factors of various sizes is interesting, but I think the biggest reason is some sort of OCD.

[QUOTE=dbaugh;316137]This seemed like the most recent reasonably pertinent post with which to insert this question. Finding a factor overwrites exponent status history. Since a lot of exponents are found with ECM, how can the bit level of exhaustive search on factored exponents be determined? e.g., Exponent n shows TF to 65 bits. An 85 bit facotr is reported. How can someone subsequently know that 66 to 84(!) has not been searched?[/QUOTE]
If [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent.php?exponentdetails=5779577"]James' site[/URL] does not show the details you're looking for, then that information is probably lost.
From primenet, you will not even be able to tell anymore that your example has been searched up to 65 bits.

Hmmmmmm
 

[url]http://www.mersenne.info/trial_factored_tabular_delta_7/2/20000000/[/url]

[QUOTE=petrw1;316379][url]http://www.mersenne.info/trial_factored_tabular_delta_7/2/20000000/[/url][/QUOTE]Is this unexpected? The DC wavefront seems to be in the [url=http://www.mersenne.info/trial_factored_tabular_delta_7/2/30000000/]low-32M range[/url], so having no activity in 20-30M seems normal, no?