[hockey97]

lordofduct, on 14 March 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

hockey97, on 13 March 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

You didn't understand what my post is about. I saying their is no one that is smart nor omniscience. I talk to many people even programmers and people that program games or different parts of software don't know how computers actually work.

Under the definition of the word smart you would say their smart. I wouldn't use the word smart at all. Because if you look at everyone.. you can't actually say someone is smart. I also didn't say smart means knowing everything in the world. Again read my post again. I said this is in my own opinion. I never meant to give exact definitions from a dictionary book. It's my own definition.

You didn't understand what my post is about.

I was saying that the agreed definition of the word smart does not require omniscience. And that the fact you don't use the word smart because you think there is a requirement of omniscience to be called smart for YOUR definition of the word is retarded.

If we changed the definition of smart to mean omniscience, then we wouldn't have a word to describe those who are more intelligent than others by comparison. Then what would happen? Oh... we'd just invent yet another word to fill its place. Then what would happen?

...

You'd probably refuse to use that word because you're retarded absolutist definitions for crap leaves you wading in the child's pool of intelligence.

HONEY!!! the public already did that. They changed the word smart to mean omniscience.

Go ask anyone other then on this website. Ask them what do you think a person that is smart means??

just watch them say oh it means that person knows everything and is intelligent. I seen so many people use the word smart.

12 year old kid works at Microsoft does the same thing as his dad that also works for microsoft...dad teaches his kid how to program... kid gets on news... news says this boy is really smart. He can build computers!!!!

LMAO!!!!... it is used frequently and yes people think smart means omniscience and I do know the difference. The problem is you never understood my post. The OP question Is are programmers smart.

My response is no. For me to call them smart they have to know everything inside and out of a computer.

Since programmers program computers... Most don't even know how a CPU works on a programmatic level.

I then basically said that smart shouldn't be used at all. In my opinion because basically it's used too frequently in public.... and yes the public actually thinks smart is the same thing as omniscience but most of the public dosen't even know what omniscience is.


The funny thing is that most here hate me and think I am stupid. If so then why respond to my postings??? LMAO!!!
I know secretly you have some messed up urges with me...

[no2pencil]

hockey97, on 14 March 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

My response is no. For me to call them smart they have to know everything inside and out of a computer.

That's right, I forgot that you had that weird elitism about using libraries to program.

Maybe you could start by teaching the difference between encryption & hashes?

[hockey97]

no2pencil, on 14 March 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

hockey97, on 14 March 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

The feeling is mutual!!!

The difference is that we like xclite.

So??? whats your point??? I know you want to do him...that's what you put it too him!!!
I get alot of hate and I guess I gotta give some bait...but I hope it's not too late..
to say batter up cuz the butter is melting... and it's smelting my soul...
and I hope you don't hit the floor!!!... hahah LOL!!!

[RudiVisser]

no2pencil, on 14 March 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

Maybe you could start by teaching the difference between encryption & hashes?

I know this will be construed as spam, but just to reiterate my previous point on the same subject by our beloved hockey97's idiocy:
hahahaha

[hockey97]

no2pencil, on 14 March 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

hockey97, on 14 March 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

My response is no. For me to call them smart they have to know everything inside and out of a computer.

That's right, I forgot that you had that weird elitism about using libraries to program.

Maybe you could start by teaching the difference between encryption & hashes?

Ya, I know the difference.

encrypting is 2 way.. generates a public key uses an algorithm to generate a public key. algorithm would be called a cipher. You take a file encrypt it so it's not readable and then decrypt it which turns the unreadable text back into the original message.

hashing in theory is usually one way... it generates no keys so their is no way in theory to back track and get the original.

MD5 is a 128bit Hash. since it's bumpable... it is wise to salt the hash.

Yet, my argument is that a Russian hacker said that he reversed it. That is what my posts were about.
I wasn't arguing about the theory. Just that their are programs online that hackers use and not using bumping databases. Which goes against the theory that hashes are just one way. Because in theory you need a key to decrypt the message back into the original readable message.

Maybe you should teach us a bit about viruses.

[modi123_1]

Oh hey - look at that. The topic's now closed.

[JackOfAllTrades]