Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×
User Journal

Journal Journal: That about wraps it up for "Xerithane" 2

Here's his last attempt to wriggle out of being proven wrong *again*.

You are funny. I know lots of people with lots of OpenSSL experience who are saying the OpenSSL documentation is shit. In fact, on most of the posts I've read on the subject, they say the test code is the best documentation -- they're right. That was what I used. It works now, so you seem to be flawed in your understanding.

Interesting how people who accomplish exactly nothing their entire lives are quick to call the work of others "shit".

Many people use OpenSSL quite easily. Each function is well documented, if you can take the time to read and didn't learn to code from "Visual Basic in 24 hours", as this fucktard clearly did.

Free clue: Applying hash chaining (using SHA1) to ASCII text would not produce ASCII text as in your challenge. Therefore, you are full of shit.

I merely said the encryption was using SHA hash chaining, not the data encoding

I gave him an opportunity to state the encoding by asking a couple of times, but he said it wasn't and was "just using SHA1", and that any mention of encoding was "shit" and "irrelevant".

It's taken a little while but I've finally smacked him enough that he inadvertantly admitted it. How embarassing for him.

I suspect he realized what a mistake he's made. Oh well. Perhaps he's finally figured out what base64 is ... it seemed to cause him confusion and panic earlier.

You can't do it, end of story.

Of course, no one can if the stated method is a lie. He said he was just using SHA1, and now there is an unnamed encoding scheme as well. There's also the fact that he refuses to state the exact algorithm - without knowing which of the many variants it's just a waste of time for anyone. Obviously.

I bet he thinks there is only one form of hash chaining, and only one possible encoding scheme ... he doesn't seem to have actually read anything about cryptography at any point in his miserable life.

So to conclude: by simply inspecting his data, I've proven him to be wrong.

This code has been in production for about 2 years now, so that isn't the case. You can keep making things up though, it's pretty fun

Now he can figure out why this is not a very good idea in production code. I'm betting he just doesn't know any better, as the answer involves mathematics. There's a challenge for him!

A shame he's too cowardly to show the code, where, at the very least, I would point out that he is encoding the output, which contradicts what he said earlier. Then there's the inevitable differences between what he's done and what is described in Applied Cryptography. That's if he's even gotten it right ... I'm guessing that he's shit-scared to show his code. That's the only reason I can think of for his running away from the challenge after being publically called out.

I guess he had better get back to learning how to code and reading up on encryption, then maybe he wouldn't have to take these public slappings ...

Or perhaps he'll just go back to sucking twirlip's cock in public ... I guess that's one way for an underemployed, shiftless loser without a clue to earn some cash.

User Journal

Journal Journal: Uneducated people on slashdot 2

Why are there so many?

Having gone through that whole argument with yet *another* person who thinks they can "hide the HTML" I'm starting to think some sort of IQ test is the only way.

Did we all get a laugh from someone who used a Perl module to do encryption, and didn't realize that just because "SHA" was in the module title, it didn't actually mean it was just SHA1? And he posted *twice* maintaining that this was the case before googling for it, and trying to backpedal. Sad, really.

Some people should simply be put down at birth. At least people like that have to move to places like Oregon to get work ... I wonder what *that* does to their ego.

I also notice that he ran away from his own "challenge", because things like base64 went right over his head ... laughable.

User Journal

Journal Journal: Where has woogieoogieboogie gone? 47

I guess he couldn't handle being proven wrong. He appears to have slunk off with his tail between his legs. There were no replies to my last comments ... at which point he *finally* seemed to be getting some sort of clue as to why he might be wrong. Couched, of course, in cowardly "I always knew that!" terms, but I think it was in fact sinking in!

Perhaps he *finally* figured out why he was wrong. I know, there's slim hope of *that*. Being born of welfare losers, I suppose the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree after all ...

Perhaps he's trying to find somewhere where people are dumb enough to believe that "HTML can be hidden", and don't notice all the obvious technical errors and logical contradictions in his statements.

Maybe he's found some place where people will respect a "Series 7 multiple choice exam in Stock Broking for Dummies" as being the absolute pinnacle of intellectual achievement. Lord knows he kept trying to pass it off as such so many times it got more than a little silly.

Or perhaps he was sacked from his bottom of the barrel "web development" job for an insignificant local real estate office, when they realized that you could get a H1B to do his job better, considering he doesn't understand TCP/IP, HTML, computing, programming, etc, etc as he has demonstrated repeatedly. He doesn't even post his nonsense to usenet any more! He could have gone back to the money and *cough* *cough* power of being a small-time stock broker, applying "fib analysis" to everything in sight without actually understanding basic maths first.

Ah, well, by driving such "people" off /., I'm steadly increasing the average IQ around here.

User Journal

Journal Journal: Cowardice of a Web weenie 17

I notice that my favourite Javascript weenie, woogieoogieboogie, has run and hidden himself away, to be consoled by his boyfriend, and presumably, a case of malt liquor.

So, I guess he's *finally* realized it's impossible to "hide the source" from browsers, and is too cowardly too reply.

Perhaps he's read those specs he posted. How embarrassing for him.

So, if you look at his posting history, you'll be able to laugh along as he gets many things wrong:

* HTML and HTTP (the web is for sending information!)
* programming (it's simple, and just about "moving data around")
* TCP/IP (data gets into the browser by voodoo magic! What's a TCP/IP stack?)
* CSS (what's the order of the application of the attributes, again?)
* tcpdump (I'm confused, and can't read. Tell me which options I need!!)

And, I'll leave you with the unforgettable quote:

"WSH is more powerful than any other language" ... because he wrote a "FULL BLOWN TEXT EDITOR IN JAVASCRIPT!!" *gasp*

What a script kiddie. No wonder he's just a low paid web developer at Nowheresville, Florida. Get a real job, why don't you, before they get a H1B person who's ten times as fast and actually understands technology?

User Journal

Journal Journal: History of a web lightweight 38

Well, woogieoogieboogie seems to have crawled back under his rock.

So much for "showing everyone what a fucktart (sic) [I] really am". He trailed off on his journal when I cornered him on his misunderstanding of the intent of the web, which he got completely wrong. Now it's all deleted, strangly.

If you want a good laugh, take a look at some of William Platt's delusional, uneducated rantings on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html. It will illustrate why a good education is important.

Starting with the absolutely astounding lameness:

> I am so sick and tired of this you cannot hide source code shit.
> Anything is possible.

Can anyone possibly be *this* stupid? If the browser can get it, anyone can get it, just by opening a socket and reading the file. But this is a common mistake of web developers - who think HTTP is some kind of arcane magic that no one could possible reproduce in a simplified form outside a browser. Or even write a browser more flexible than IE.

The link idiot-boy used as an example:


So, I did a "wget" on this and received:

if (document.all){
document.write('Your browser sucks')

Then a wget on "http://home.earthlink.net/~woogieoogieboogie/spacer.gif" gives:

if (document.all){

document.write("If you look under view source in IE, you will be unable to see the source code");
document.write("Of course you can link directly to the javascript file and view
the source of the javascript file, but that is not viewing the source of hideme.html");
document.write("Of course some idiots will link to the javascript file and claim they have viewed the source code, but the fact that they had to link to another reesource to view the source code demonstrates that they were unable to view the source code of the file they were directed to");
document.write("It would not be difficult to write a server side script which would redirect any links to the javascript file which did not come from the proper host. this is done all the time to stop people from linking to certain pages of a website.");
document.write("Alternatively, the name of the external javascript file could be hidden in a cookie which would make it even more difficult to find the name of
the javascript file to even try and link to it.");
document.write("Hope this breaks the myth that source code cannot be hidden");


Here we are, the source. Of course, after this was trivially defeated by someone a bit smarter than he, a disclaimer was added as you can see. But the fact remains that he failed miserably. Even the disclaimer is incorrect. It *is* able to be viewed. We are viewing it now.

And if he understood the first thing about computing, he won't have said something as idiotic in the first place. "Nothing is impossible" ... not much room for a disclaimer there. Sounds fairly absolute to me. The rest of the thread is spent in Clinton-esque backpedalling and attempts at redefining what "hide" means in an extemely whiny and pathetic way.

More recently, we have:

> 20 years earlier and there woudl have been a lot less
> barriers and I probably woudl be the president of some fortune 500 company
> if I applied the same work, determination and persistence.

It's gone beyond comedy and into tragic self-mockery now.

"Barriers". Like expecting people to be able to think or be well educated, perhaps? I wonder what this company would produce, exactly? Idiotic, ignorant and uninformed ramblings on the internet aren't exactly valuable.

Like most losers, he mentions "Fortune 500" rather a lot. It's quite a common pattern I've noticed amongst clueless people. It's often an attempt to borrow credibility when you have none.

> As for disabled people, I think the greatest gift they can give to society
> is to overcome their disability on their own and serve as a role model to
> all that hard work does pay off.

I agree. Pratt himself is proof that now matter how lazy or ignorant you are, or whether your sister is also your mother, you too could become a "web developer" circa 1998 and make everyone else cover for you continually. Luckily, their ranks are rapidly thinning.

Perhaps he will see this, and show it to his real estate buddies where he claims to work. Now *there's* a field that has a low entry threshold ... almost as low as for a stock broker.

User Journal

Journal Journal: Lame web site of the day 2

If you would like to see a web site designed by someone with no skill, clue, taste or talent, take a look at:


Remember, this clown can learn, in minutes, things that take anyone else years. He is, apparently, a highly paid web developer, so you too can have a site this bad, for a price!

Take a look at the woogieoogieboogie user page on /., to see this person boast of his skills. When you look at the end result of the application of these masterful abilities, it's certainly clear that no-one could come close in terms of putting every stupid thing so beloved of clueless web lightweights onto the one page.

Update The page has mysteriously been altered, as Mr Pratt claims to have "seen the light" at some point between doing this page and now. That's an interesting claim considering that this person can learn *everything* about a subject "in minutes", so you would think clunkingly bad mistakes like this would be impossible.

Overall, it's not much of an improvement, as it still uses tables for layout, rather than CSS, which could have been used to achieve the same effect. It's a start, though.

Still, at least one person has been embarrassed into fixing their lameness, and probably won't do it in future. If you want to see it in all it's previous glory, just go to the wayback machine, of course.

Slashdot Top Deals

try again