Not sure what we're discussing. The "one in a million" point is contradictory to my <br>argument, which is that a solution is best if it covers the main use cases. <br><br>There seems to be a tendency to over-analyze too much beforehand in the identity <br>
field. <br><br>Hans<br><br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 9:47 AM, SitG Admin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sysadmin@shadowsinthegarden.com">sysadmin@shadowsinthegarden.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I like this. Fortune favors the bold!<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Does fortune also favor those who abandon perfectly valid gambits when they don't need to?<br>
<br>
Fortune doesn't favor the stupid. If you deliberately throw away advantages just to attain that coveted "one in a million" status (because everyone knows that one-in-a-million odds ALWAYS succeed), you may find that Fate has 999,999 casting votes.<br>
<br>
-Shade<br>
</blockquote></div><br>