Your heartbeat as a password - smart or stupid?
-
N_tro_P wrote:
Maybe you should actually read the posted link before claiming it is not possible.
I did. You can do the same with any kind of random noise, provided you can reproduce it accurately. Reproducing a heartbeat from a particular point in time would be somewhat harder. Not impossible, but at least impractical.
N_tro_P wrote:
Dude, your bank DOES use a password or you could not use online banking.
It is not a password, but a combination of different algorithms.
N_tro_P wrote:
First of all, you do realize what AUTHENTICATION is right????
No, this is the first time I hear the word :|
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Reproducing a heartbeat from a particular point in time would be somewhat harder. Not impossible, but at least impractical.
You clearly did not read how they are translating the data into an authentication token.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It is not a password, but a combination of different algorithms.
*snickers*
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
No, this is the first time I hear the word :|
Would actually explain a lot. You earlier claimed a password is not authentication and then went on to imply it is and we use it successfully. You seem to think authentication is not necessary and is not what passwords are for, and that is simply false. The password is a token that validates an identities authentication and without it all users would essentially be anonymous as anyone could claim they are anyone. BTW, if you actually read how the heart is used as a password you would have realized it is NOT just the heart beat (interval etc.). It is very obvious you did not read the material and are just spouting non sense. I will leave it to you to actually go and read the material to actually learn something rather than spouting your ignorance.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Reproducing a heartbeat from a particular point in time would be somewhat harder. Not impossible, but at least impractical.
You clearly did not read how they are translating the data into an authentication token.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It is not a password, but a combination of different algorithms.
*snickers*
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
No, this is the first time I hear the word :|
Would actually explain a lot. You earlier claimed a password is not authentication and then went on to imply it is and we use it successfully. You seem to think authentication is not necessary and is not what passwords are for, and that is simply false. The password is a token that validates an identities authentication and without it all users would essentially be anonymous as anyone could claim they are anyone. BTW, if you actually read how the heart is used as a password you would have realized it is NOT just the heart beat (interval etc.). It is very obvious you did not read the material and are just spouting non sense. I will leave it to you to actually go and read the material to actually learn something rather than spouting your ignorance.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
N_tro_P wrote:
You clearly did not read how they are translating the data into an authentication token.
The word 'token' is not mentioned, and even if it is, means that the user is already authenticated. Gimme some data that is unique and can be reproduced, and we'll do the same.
N_tro_P wrote:
snickers
Even with my debit-card, and the token-generator, you'd still be unable to log in. You a bit stuck in the previous century or what? :rolleyes:
N_tro_P wrote:
You earlier claimed a password is not authentication and then went on to imply it is and we use it successfully
I did not claim, I showed how it is not.
N_tro_P wrote:
You seem to think authentication is not necessary and is not what passwords are for
No, just making a clear distinction between authorization, authentication and encryption.
N_tro_P wrote:
The password is a token that validates an identities authentication and without it all users would essentially be anonymous as anyone could claim they are anyone.
Validating an identity is usually somewhat complexer than that.
N_tro_P wrote:
BTW, if you actually read how the heart is used as a password you would have realized it is NOT just the heart beat (interval etc.).
I scanned the article, and am not interested in pseudo-intellectual drivel. Regardless which variables are extracted from the hearts beating; it is very easy to point out that they may note be as unique as claimed, and if they are, will be used as either salt or pass - both already have simpeler and proven methods. Let's digest the article, shall we? Here's the bulk of it;
Basically, scientists are proposing to replace random data (entropy) or static encryption keys with ECGs and use these unique parameters to secure a person's data.
Which means, yes, simply taking the noise the heart makes. You could do the same with farts :thumbsup: --edit You're welcome :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[
-
N_tro_P wrote:
You clearly did not read how they are translating the data into an authentication token.
The word 'token' is not mentioned, and even if it is, means that the user is already authenticated. Gimme some data that is unique and can be reproduced, and we'll do the same.
N_tro_P wrote:
snickers
Even with my debit-card, and the token-generator, you'd still be unable to log in. You a bit stuck in the previous century or what? :rolleyes:
N_tro_P wrote:
You earlier claimed a password is not authentication and then went on to imply it is and we use it successfully
I did not claim, I showed how it is not.
N_tro_P wrote:
You seem to think authentication is not necessary and is not what passwords are for
No, just making a clear distinction between authorization, authentication and encryption.
N_tro_P wrote:
The password is a token that validates an identities authentication and without it all users would essentially be anonymous as anyone could claim they are anyone.
Validating an identity is usually somewhat complexer than that.
N_tro_P wrote:
BTW, if you actually read how the heart is used as a password you would have realized it is NOT just the heart beat (interval etc.).
I scanned the article, and am not interested in pseudo-intellectual drivel. Regardless which variables are extracted from the hearts beating; it is very easy to point out that they may note be as unique as claimed, and if they are, will be used as either salt or pass - both already have simpeler and proven methods. Let's digest the article, shall we? Here's the bulk of it;
Basically, scientists are proposing to replace random data (entropy) or static encryption keys with ECGs and use these unique parameters to secure a person's data.
Which means, yes, simply taking the noise the heart makes. You could do the same with farts :thumbsup: --edit You're welcome :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The word 'token' is not mentioned, and even if it is, means that the user is already authenticated. Gimme some data that is unique and can be reproduced, and we'll do the same.
You are funny and clearly have no idea how authentication works, nor what an ECG is or the data it collects.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Even with my debit-card, and the token-generator, you'd still be unable to log in.
It's like you completely ignored the concept of authentication and seem to think it is the same. Seriously dude, give up. You sound like a bumbling idiot now trying to claim that a chip on your debit card is the same as authentication.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I did not claim, I showed how it is not.
Actually you didn't. You did just claim it and now seem to take it as truth and are mixing up security with authentication. FYI the reason chips are used in debit and credit cards has NOTHING to do with authentication and is NOT in any way shape or form close to it. The reason for it is security in that if magnetic strips are used the information can be stolen and re-used. This has NOTHING to do with the authorization of it being used, which is in fact what passwords are used for; to be specific to authenticate a user.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
No, just making a clear distinction between authorization, authentication and encryption.
Actually you are not. You are mixing them all up. You seem to think a chip is the same as authentication and authorization which its not.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Validating an identity is usually somewhat complexer than that.
That is sort of the point to the research here. Maybe you actually could learn a little if you stopped for a second and thought about it, but you seem to still be thinking your stupid chip on your card is the same as authentication. Hint: Its not.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I scanned the article, and am not interested in pseudo-intellectual drivel.
You do realize this isn't the only article or first proposition on it right? You do also realize the article has nothing about WHAT is actually used for authentication right?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The word 'token' is not mentioned, and even if it is, means that the user is already authenticated. Gimme some data that is unique and can be reproduced, and we'll do the same.
You are funny and clearly have no idea how authentication works, nor what an ECG is or the data it collects.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Even with my debit-card, and the token-generator, you'd still be unable to log in.
It's like you completely ignored the concept of authentication and seem to think it is the same. Seriously dude, give up. You sound like a bumbling idiot now trying to claim that a chip on your debit card is the same as authentication.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I did not claim, I showed how it is not.
Actually you didn't. You did just claim it and now seem to take it as truth and are mixing up security with authentication. FYI the reason chips are used in debit and credit cards has NOTHING to do with authentication and is NOT in any way shape or form close to it. The reason for it is security in that if magnetic strips are used the information can be stolen and re-used. This has NOTHING to do with the authorization of it being used, which is in fact what passwords are used for; to be specific to authenticate a user.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
No, just making a clear distinction between authorization, authentication and encryption.
Actually you are not. You are mixing them all up. You seem to think a chip is the same as authentication and authorization which its not.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Validating an identity is usually somewhat complexer than that.
That is sort of the point to the research here. Maybe you actually could learn a little if you stopped for a second and thought about it, but you seem to still be thinking your stupid chip on your card is the same as authentication. Hint: Its not.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I scanned the article, and am not interested in pseudo-intellectual drivel.
You do realize this isn't the only article or first proposition on it right? You do also realize the article has nothing about WHAT is actually used for authentication right?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
As random noise.
You do realize that "noise" is not sound in this case and actual ELECTRICAL data right? Seriously, read the material.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
As random noise.
You do realize that "noise" is not sound in this case and actual ELECTRICAL data right? Seriously, read the material.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
It is random data. Doesn't matter how you present it, it stays that - random elephanting noise that can be replaced with the electrical signal of a recorded fart. Seriously, come up with a decent argument instead of claiming that I did not read or don't understand a word.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
It is random data. Doesn't matter how you present it, it stays that - random elephanting noise that can be replaced with the electrical signal of a recorded fart. Seriously, come up with a decent argument instead of claiming that I did not read or don't understand a word.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It is random data.
You clearly have no clue what an EKG is. Get over yourself. You are not that bright. If it was random data it would not be used for monitoring peoples vitals. You seriously are quite arrogant about your ignorance which IMO is the worst trait a person can have.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
claiming that I did not read or don't understand a word.
But it is so obvious I do not need any other argument. My 9 year old understands how it works better than you apparently.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It is random data.
You clearly have no clue what an EKG is. Get over yourself. You are not that bright. If it was random data it would not be used for monitoring peoples vitals. You seriously are quite arrogant about your ignorance which IMO is the worst trait a person can have.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
claiming that I did not read or don't understand a word.
But it is so obvious I do not need any other argument. My 9 year old understands how it works better than you apparently.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
N_tro_P wrote:
You clearly have no clue what an EKG is.
That's explained in school, and I can see my own heartbeat often enough.
N_tro_P wrote:
If it was random data it would not be used for monitoring peoples vitals.
The ECG is not random data, I said it is used as random data. It states so literally in the article:
replace random data (entropy) or static encryption keys with ECGs
..which part of the quoted sentence is too complicated for you to understand? I'll happily explain each part of that sentence.
N_tro_P wrote:
You seriously are quite arrogant about your ignorance which IMO is the worst trait a person can have.
I call it confidence and it is continuously fed by idiots proving me right. And yes, I'm enjoying this. :rolleyes:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
N_tro_P wrote:
You clearly have no clue what an EKG is.
That's explained in school, and I can see my own heartbeat often enough.
N_tro_P wrote:
If it was random data it would not be used for monitoring peoples vitals.
The ECG is not random data, I said it is used as random data. It states so literally in the article:
replace random data (entropy) or static encryption keys with ECGs
..which part of the quoted sentence is too complicated for you to understand? I'll happily explain each part of that sentence.
N_tro_P wrote:
You seriously are quite arrogant about your ignorance which IMO is the worst trait a person can have.
I call it confidence and it is continuously fed by idiots proving me right. And yes, I'm enjoying this. :rolleyes:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Seriously, you seem to think the writer of this article is one of the actual researchers that published the data. What part of READ THE FUCKING TOPIC do you not get? ITS NOT SOUND AND ITS NOT RANDOM! Moreover, when someone says "random data" and then puts in parenthesis "entropy" you know they don't know how the science actually works. Entropy is not random data but the natural state of chaos. That is not the same as randomness, nor is that how the science of this actually works.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
Seriously, you seem to think the writer of this article is one of the actual researchers that published the data. What part of READ THE FUCKING TOPIC do you not get? ITS NOT SOUND AND ITS NOT RANDOM! Moreover, when someone says "random data" and then puts in parenthesis "entropy" you know they don't know how the science actually works. Entropy is not random data but the natural state of chaos. That is not the same as randomness, nor is that how the science of this actually works.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
It is however, used as a random string. Article says so, not me. Perhaps your 9 year old can help you with understanding that sentence? :)
N_tro_P wrote:
ITS NOT SOUND AND ITS NOT RANDOM
"Noise" was not referring to sound, but to random data. You'll find it a common term. And yes, it is USED as. To make it simpeler for you; a spoon is not a knife, but it can be used as one.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
It is however, used as a random string. Article says so, not me. Perhaps your 9 year old can help you with understanding that sentence? :)
N_tro_P wrote:
ITS NOT SOUND AND ITS NOT RANDOM
"Noise" was not referring to sound, but to random data. You'll find it a common term. And yes, it is USED as. To make it simpeler for you; a spoon is not a knife, but it can be used as one.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
"Noise" was not referring to sound, but to random data. You'll find it a common term. And yes, it is USED as.
And the article is a crap piece around actual science and simply put not accurate at all. As I said, if someone claims randomness is the same as entropy they likely have no clue what they are talking about and misread a scientific paper they was way above their head. Seriously, you keep going on and on about this one 3 paragraph article on a study that has been around now for a while and has numerous papers on and seem to think you know more about it from reading said drivel which does not imply half of what you have said and now you just keep digging. Have you given up on the idea it is sound finally? It seems now you are stuck on noise being indirectly converted into a key and can not understand that one person's EKG is not the same as another's in that the signal (including, yep you guessed it, "The noise") which IS THEN UNIQUE (and btw NOT random).
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
"Noise" was not referring to sound, but to random data. You'll find it a common term. And yes, it is USED as.
And the article is a crap piece around actual science and simply put not accurate at all. As I said, if someone claims randomness is the same as entropy they likely have no clue what they are talking about and misread a scientific paper they was way above their head. Seriously, you keep going on and on about this one 3 paragraph article on a study that has been around now for a while and has numerous papers on and seem to think you know more about it from reading said drivel which does not imply half of what you have said and now you just keep digging. Have you given up on the idea it is sound finally? It seems now you are stuck on noise being indirectly converted into a key and can not understand that one person's EKG is not the same as another's in that the signal (including, yep you guessed it, "The noise") which IS THEN UNIQUE (and btw NOT random).
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
N_tro_P wrote:
As I said, if someone claims randomness is the same as entropy they likely have no clue what they are talking about and misread a scientific paper they was way above their head.
All that is required is a tiny bit of knowledge on encryption. You're not going to bluff your way out with moving this to the difference between randomness and entropy.
N_tro_P wrote:
Have you given up on the idea it is sound finally?
It is not a color. "Noise" is a normal reference to some sound with a random pattern.
N_tro_P wrote:
which IS THEN UNIQUE (and btw NOT random)
The band of possiblities claims that you cannot claim it to be unique without at least defining a length. And yes, random, since even that bloody hot nurse could influence your current heartbeat. Or in your case, this thread :laugh:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
N_tro_P wrote:
As I said, if someone claims randomness is the same as entropy they likely have no clue what they are talking about and misread a scientific paper they was way above their head.
All that is required is a tiny bit of knowledge on encryption. You're not going to bluff your way out with moving this to the difference between randomness and entropy.
N_tro_P wrote:
Have you given up on the idea it is sound finally?
It is not a color. "Noise" is a normal reference to some sound with a random pattern.
N_tro_P wrote:
which IS THEN UNIQUE (and btw NOT random)
The band of possiblities claims that you cannot claim it to be unique without at least defining a length. And yes, random, since even that bloody hot nurse could influence your current heartbeat. Or in your case, this thread :laugh:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Now that you are sending me emails it is clear you are nothing but a troll.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
Now that you are sending me emails it is clear you are nothing but a troll.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
I merely replied to the personal message you sent. I would not have known your mail-adres, but to wit; below is the complete dump of what you sent me and what I replied to. This is a direct email response to your message on the page "The Weird and The Wonderful". This message has not appeared on the discussion board for that page. Do not hit 'reply' to this email: To reply, click send an email to the address below. Message from N_tro_P : Seriously, stop trolling me. You are getting annoying. And no, I will not stop you from making a fool of yourself. Au contraire, please elaborate :laugh:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
I merely replied to the personal message you sent. I would not have known your mail-adres, but to wit; below is the complete dump of what you sent me and what I replied to. This is a direct email response to your message on the page "The Weird and The Wonderful". This message has not appeared on the discussion board for that page. Do not hit 'reply' to this email: To reply, click send an email to the address below. Message from N_tro_P : Seriously, stop trolling me. You are getting annoying. And no, I will not stop you from making a fool of yourself. Au contraire, please elaborate :laugh:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
And no, I will not stop you from making a fool of yourself.
Says the guy that clearly has no clue how an EKG works nor can he even read a crappy article correctly.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
And no, I will not stop you from making a fool of yourself.
Says the guy that clearly has no clue how an EKG works nor can he even read a crappy article correctly.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
N_tro_P wrote:
how an EKG works
How it works is not relevant for the application as described.
N_tro_P wrote:
nor can he even read a crappy article correctly.
And you are still having trouble with that one sentence :) :cool:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
N_tro_P wrote:
how an EKG works
How it works is not relevant for the application as described.
N_tro_P wrote:
nor can he even read a crappy article correctly.
And you are still having trouble with that one sentence :) :cool:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
How it works is not relevant for the application as described.
LOL!!!!
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
And you are still having trouble with that one sentence
Apparently you are having trouble with reading and letting it go. Nope, you are right understanding how an EKG works is not relavant to a person claiming first that "SOUND" is not unique, then double backed to claim NOISE, which then he claimed was noise of sound which has NOTHING to do with an EKG. Then he stuck with this notion of NOISE to claim a person's noise is not unique WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FLIPPING SCIENCE SHOWED HE IS WRONG ABOUT, but hey, yeah it is me that has the problem. Seriously, you just sound like a bumbling idiot now and the fact that you have used CP email services to message me to troll is against their policy. You are on thin ice for breach, but keep it up. I am sure it is working out for your fragile ego in that you clearly no nothing about the topic and just come back for a good troll which is proof by not adding anything to the conversation and the fact that you are now using CP to email my account.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
How it works is not relevant for the application as described.
LOL!!!!
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
And you are still having trouble with that one sentence
Apparently you are having trouble with reading and letting it go. Nope, you are right understanding how an EKG works is not relavant to a person claiming first that "SOUND" is not unique, then double backed to claim NOISE, which then he claimed was noise of sound which has NOTHING to do with an EKG. Then he stuck with this notion of NOISE to claim a person's noise is not unique WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FLIPPING SCIENCE SHOWED HE IS WRONG ABOUT, but hey, yeah it is me that has the problem. Seriously, you just sound like a bumbling idiot now and the fact that you have used CP email services to message me to troll is against their policy. You are on thin ice for breach, but keep it up. I am sure it is working out for your fragile ego in that you clearly no nothing about the topic and just come back for a good troll which is proof by not adding anything to the conversation and the fact that you are now using CP to email my account.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
N_tro_P wrote:
Nope, you are right understanding how an EKG works is not relavant to a person claiming first that "SOUND" is not unique, then double backed to claim NOISE, which then he claimed was noise of sound which has NOTHING to do with an EKG.
Which is still all correct, also according to the article.
N_tro_P wrote:
Then he stuck with this notion of NOISE to claim a person's noise is not unique WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FLIPPING SCIENCE SHOWED HE IS WRONG ABOUT, but hey, yeah it is me that has the problem.
You should look up what a static key would be.
N_tro_P wrote:
Seriously, you just sound like a bumbling idiot now and the fact that you have used CP email services to message me to troll is against their policy.
CP's log will show it was a reaction to your direct-mail, so you are the one who took that initiative.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
N_tro_P wrote:
Nope, you are right understanding how an EKG works is not relavant to a person claiming first that "SOUND" is not unique, then double backed to claim NOISE, which then he claimed was noise of sound which has NOTHING to do with an EKG.
Which is still all correct, also according to the article.
N_tro_P wrote:
Then he stuck with this notion of NOISE to claim a person's noise is not unique WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FLIPPING SCIENCE SHOWED HE IS WRONG ABOUT, but hey, yeah it is me that has the problem.
You should look up what a static key would be.
N_tro_P wrote:
Seriously, you just sound like a bumbling idiot now and the fact that you have used CP email services to message me to troll is against their policy.
CP's log will show it was a reaction to your direct-mail, so you are the one who took that initiative.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
CP's log will show it was a reaction to your direct-mail,
I never sent you any emails, you sent me one. I think you are mixing up your notifications etc.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Which is still all correct, also according to the article.
Its funny cause you keep claiming that and still haven't figured out that this science has been going around far longer than this crappy article.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You should look up what a static key would be.
And you should look up dynamic keys.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
CP's log will show it was a reaction to your direct-mail,
I never sent you any emails, you sent me one. I think you are mixing up your notifications etc.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Which is still all correct, also according to the article.
Its funny cause you keep claiming that and still haven't figured out that this science has been going around far longer than this crappy article.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You should look up what a static key would be.
And you should look up dynamic keys.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
N_tro_P wrote:
I never sent you any emails, you sent me one. I think you are mixing up your notifications etc.
I'm not; it says so in the mail you sent from the board. If you want, you can look up the exact text, as I posted it here :laugh:
N_tro_P wrote:
And you should look up dynamic keys.
No, I should get some sleep :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)