Your heartbeat as a password - smart or stupid?
-
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)
-
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)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
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:
You are full of shit because I neve sent your troll as a flipping email. YOU SENT ONE TO ME! (from your other trolling thread) Piss off 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.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
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:
You are full of shit because I neve sent your troll as a flipping email. YOU SENT ONE TO ME! (from your other trolling thread) Piss off 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.
N_tro_P wrote:
You are full of sh*t because I neve sent your troll as a flipping email. YOU SENT ONE TO ME! (from your other trolling thread)
I merely replied to your thread.
N_tro_P wrote:
Piss off troll.
I'm just defending my name :) You're the idiot that cannot let go. I'm going to keep responding, just to see how for you're going with this.
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 are full of sh*t because I neve sent your troll as a flipping email. YOU SENT ONE TO ME! (from your other trolling thread)
I merely replied to your thread.
N_tro_P wrote:
Piss off troll.
I'm just defending my name :) You're the idiot that cannot let go. I'm going to keep responding, just to see how for you're going with this.
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:
I merely replied to your thread.
You sent an email using the CP services which are not meant to be used for trolling.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I'm going to keep responding, just to see how for you're going with this.
Fine with me.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You're the idiot that cannot let go.
I actually know what I am talking about. It is you that keeps making up the most silly claims and it is quite obvious has not read anything else on the topic other than the single article and now are here trying to claim you are some SME. Yeah, I think it is obvious who the idiot who can't let it go is. :suss:
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 are full of sh*t because I neve sent your troll as a flipping email. YOU SENT ONE TO ME! (from your other trolling thread)
I merely replied to your thread.
N_tro_P wrote:
Piss off troll.
I'm just defending my name :) You're the idiot that cannot let go. I'm going to keep responding, just to see how for you're going with this.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
BTW, I doubt you have
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 are full of sh*t because I neve sent your troll as a flipping email. YOU SENT ONE TO ME! (from your other trolling thread)
I merely replied to your thread.
N_tro_P wrote:
Piss off troll.
I'm just defending my name :) You're the idiot that cannot let go. I'm going to keep responding, just to see how for you're going with this.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
half
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 are full of sh*t because I neve sent your troll as a flipping email. YOU SENT ONE TO ME! (from your other trolling thread)
I merely replied to your thread.
N_tro_P wrote:
Piss off troll.
I'm just defending my name :) You're the idiot that cannot let go. I'm going to keep responding, just to see how for you're going with this.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
the
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 are full of sh*t because I neve sent your troll as a flipping email. YOU SENT ONE TO ME! (from your other trolling thread)
I merely replied to your thread.
N_tro_P wrote:
Piss off troll.
I'm just defending my name :) You're the idiot that cannot let go. I'm going to keep responding, just to see how for you're going with this.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
trolling
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)
capability
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.