Slashdot Mirror

Welcome to 21st century America.

> but 0x0D on Apple II

You mean 0x8D. :-)

Castle Wolfenstein on the Apple ][ actually used C strings! There will be a post reverse engineering the game in c.e.a2 soonish once the next version of AppleWin 1.25 is ready ...

Applesoft ROM used low-ascii, and a high-ascii as a end of terminator. The assembler directive was DCI for Merlin and official Apple Assembler.
i.e.
http://i.imgur.com/lD9Na9K.png

I'll leave this here: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD831.html

Tables in Lua, overall, was a bit of an adjustment.

I've been working on a .NET program that uses Lua as an embedded scripting language where I still have some 0-indexed arrays exposed.
Having to switch between the two keeps you on your toes.

https://hyperplaneinteractive.com/blog (alpha available by logging in and visiting Account page)
Screenshots: http://imgur.com/a/p6Obn

Evidence.

1. GGGGP was talking about Quinn, which is not what this image is about.
2. The analysis here is in any case somewhat dubious, as the supposed problems noted can be explained quite simply. Really, an average of 26 seconds per tweet to write correctly spelled and punctuated messages is not even slightly difficult, so I don't suspect advance scripting was necessary. The speed of reaction to get the screen shot can be explained by the capturer noticing the first few tweets, then opening the sender's timeline to take the screenshot, during which time additional tweets will have been sent. If the early tweets were noticed on a mobile device and the capturer then moved to a PC to perform the screen cap this also explains the lack of search terms and the fact that they are not logged in.

Well, here's the other side..

zoe's then-boyfriend's account
http://thezoepost.wordpress.co...

wizardchan's experience with zoe
http://imgur.com/a/4VOcx

the birth of 4chan's 'vivian james' and zoe's attack on the fine young capitalists
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/...

david jaffe vs kotaku
http://kotaku.com/5883107/does...
https://soundcloud.com/ben-kuc...

anita sarkeesian is not a gamer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

anita sarkeesian misrepresents the subject material. 'thunderf00t's analysis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

This is an issue of journalistic integrity and quite possibly attempts at reculturing a community to conform to specific political values. The charge of 'misogyny' is just an attempt to muddy the waters and/or poison the well of any would-be critics.

https://i.imgur.com/NYEgyLe.pn...

In this thread, the "accusation" is that the accusations against Zoe have truth to them. The accusation takes the form of a comment, not an article in its own right. Your "[citation needed]" post is out of place.

If you're curious about it, look it up. If you dispute it, dispute it. This is a website where people comment about the article, and often about things completely unrelated to the article. Some work on your part is required, the comment thread isn't a place for you to whine about not being spoon-fed. For your [citation needed] comment to be taken at all seriously, you have to at least add that you searched for it and couldn't find it, so you don't believe it's true without more work on OP's part, thus [citation needed].

As it turns out I was curious about the accusation as well so I searched for some more information. Took me about 10 seconds to find some interesting things:

http://www.escapistmagazine.co...
http://thezoepost.wordpress.co...
http://imgur.com/a/4VOcx
http://pastebin.com/Ph22THkJ

Well, here's some evidence about Anita.

First of all this is not the evidence that I was asking for. I believe Zoe != Anita.

Secondly, this screen cap merely shows that some tweets were either posted by someone who had prepared themselves, or by a fast typist. Nothing more, nothing less. Very unimpressive.

You mean this ? So far we only have accusations from professional victim.

Threats to rape her?

Criminal behavior.

We've already talked about Anita's death and rape threats.

The reason people hate Anita Sarkeezian is not because she is a woman, but because she purposefully misrepresents facts

What do you mean, Anita misrepresents facts?

Evidence.

They're talking about this.

Well, here's some evidence about Anita.

After magically finding a rape threat 13 seconds after it went down, while not logged into Twitter, we believe every implausible lie out of this woman's mouth.

Is it me, or does "Sundance Vacations" and "Eric Morgan" on the second document (a consent order it seems) look like its signed by the same person?

Same person? Worse, those were both signed by the same font , nobody's signature is involved. The Eric Morgan "signature" uses a slightly larger point size. The lowercase a and n characters are a clear giveaway, I did a comparison of parts of the "Sundance Vacations" text which was all in one point size. The characters are a dead even match.

I wonder if the attempt to "sign" the document using a font was just dumb forgery, or a clever attempt to avoid culpability. After all, there's no actual handwriting on either of these supposed signatures, so QD can't compare the text to anyone's handwriting to prove who did this.

hey will claim that unicorn sent those forged documents, or perhaps it was communists.

A Commie Unicorn? Is that like a Pink Pony with a spiked head?

It looks to me like this hack didn't happen only on Sunday but is something that has been going on for a while: http://i.imgur.com/M41Z5o3.jpg and http://i.imgur.com/ctefDUd.jpg

It looks to me like this hack didn't happen only on Sunday but is something that has been going on for a while: http://i.imgur.com/M41Z5o3.jpg and http://i.imgur.com/ctefDUd.jpg

http://imgur.com/8oaZW6D

Two tabs, nearly double that, with my only extension being AdBlock Edge.

I find it funny everyone makes claims but aren't backing it up with screenshots.

http://imgur.com/8oaZW6D

Only installed plugin is AdBlock Edge.

Two pages. Almost half a gig of RAM used.

Absolute rubbish.

Two tabs. TWO.

http://imgur.com/8oaZW6D

Zero excuse for that bullshit. Slashdot and Fark are NOT loading up nearly half a gig of information.

No, like Hydro, pumped hydro, wave power, tidal schemes, solar thermal, solar PV, compressed air storage, biowaste energy, battery storage etc.

Hydro: already maxed out in the west. Pumped hydro: calculate the scale involved, it ain't pretty. Wave power is so expensive it's not funny, as is solar thermal. Solar PV is intermittent - see linked graph again, it won't cut it. CAES has some potential, but is as yet much more expensive than pumped hydro. Biowaste accounts for a drop in the bucket - there's simply not enough of it. Batteries are horribly expensive at grid scale and environmentally very damaging (Ever seen a lithium mine? Or maybe you prefer lead-acid? And Vanadium redox is still more expensive than pumped hydro). You forgot to mention flywheels.
The point is, you need to understand the problem quantitatively. Run some calculations on the system cost and scale and post them - it's a sobering experience. And don't forget to include the developing world, they want power too, you know.

Cheap gas and oil won't be around for long, coal is the only real fossil fuel problem.

So CO2 emissions from gas and fracking are a-OK? You do realize that natural gas still emits around 50% of the CO2 per unit of energy, not to mention that any small methane leak is also a serious source of GHGs, right?

There is currently enough Uranium reserve to continue to power the nuclear industry at it 10% of global energy rate for 200 years. So if every country were to go nuclear like France, how long would that last?

This is grossly oversimplifying. First you need to understand the relationship between cost and recoverable resources. In general, double the cost, you increase recoverable resources 10-fold. Even using today's nuclear power designs (which I'm not a big fan of, but consider them a necessary evil on the way to better designs), the fuel cost is only about 10% of the TCO of the plant (the rest being construction, O&M and decommissioning), so if you double their raw fuel cost, their LCOE grows only very modestly (a good chunk of their fuel cost is also enrichment and fabrication). So if you accept, say, a 5% increase in their LCOE, you'd have enough Uranium to power all of the world for another 200-300 years. Now you might say that's not enough for fusion to come along, so read on.
The real prospect, is for new reactor designs that either breed fuel from fertile uranium (of which there is approx. 100x as much as directly fissile uranium) or use the existing stock a lot more efficient (e.g. the denatured molten-salt, not a breeder, but a lot simpler than the LFTR being hyped around the net). Breeders are not paper reactors, they exist and are operating. They have their challenges, but give a significant improvement. The molten-salt ones pile a bunch of very attractive safety on top.
Should we *only* do nuclear and not invest in renewables like wind, solar, geothermal and tidal? Absolutely not! We should do all of these! Use what's appropriate where it's appropriate. Iceland is a geothermal bomb, so nuclear there is stupid. Arizona has lots of solar, with a little improvement in salt storage, that could pan out. And where nothing else works really exceptionally well (like central Europe :D), use a mix of nuclear, hydro and whatever else you can lay your hands on.

No, like Hydro, pumped hydro, wave power, tidal schemes, solar thermal, solar PV, compressed air storage, biowaste energy, battery storage etc.

Hydro: already maxed out in the west. Pumped hydro: calculate the scale involved, it ain't pretty. Wave power is so expensive it's not funny, as is solar thermal. Solar PV is intermittent - see linked graph again, it won't cut it. CAES has some potential, but is as yet much more expensive than pumped hydro. Biowaste accounts for a drop in the bucket - there's simply not enough of it. Batteries are horribly expensive at grid scale and environmentally very damaging (Ever seen a lithium mine? Or maybe you prefer lead-acid? And Vanadium redox is still more expensive than pumped hydro). You forgot to mention flywheels.
The point is, you need to understand the problem quantitatively. Run some calculations on the system cost and scale and post them - it's a sobering experience. And don't forget to include the developing world, they want power too, you know.

Cheap gas and oil won't be around for long, coal is the only real fossil fuel problem.

So CO2 emissions from gas and fracking are a-OK? You do realize that natural gas still emits around 50% of the CO2 per unit of energy, not to mention that any small methane leak is also a serious source of GHGs, right?

There is currently enough Uranium reserve to continue to power the nuclear industry at it 10% of global energy rate for 200 years. So if every country were to go nuclear like France, how long would that last?

This is grossly oversimplifying. First you need to understand the relationship between cost and recoverable resources. In general, double the cost, you increase recoverable resources 10-fold. Even using today's nuclear power designs (which I'm not a big fan of, but consider them a necessary evil on the way to better designs), the fuel cost is only about 10% of the TCO of the plant (the rest being construction, O&M and decommissioning), so if you double their raw fuel cost, their LCOE grows only very modestly (a good chunk of their fuel cost is also enrichment and fabrication). So if you accept, say, a 5% increase in their LCOE, you'd have enough Uranium to power all of the world for another 200-300 years. Now you might say that's not enough for fusion to come along, so read on.
The real prospect, is for new reactor designs that either breed fuel from fertile uranium (of which there is approx. 100x as much as directly fissile uranium) or use the existing stock a lot more efficient (e.g. the denatured molten-salt, not a breeder, but a lot simpler than the LFTR being hyped around the net). Breeders are not paper reactors, they exist and are operating. They have their challenges, but give a significant improvement. The molten-salt ones pile a bunch of very attractive safety on top.
Should we *only* do nuclear and not invest in renewables like wind, solar, geothermal and tidal? Absolutely not! We should do all of these! Use what's appropriate where it's appropriate. Iceland is a geothermal bomb, so nuclear there is stupid. Arizona has lots of solar, with a little improvement in salt storage, that could pan out. And where nothing else works really exceptionally well (like central Europe :D), use a mix of nuclear, hydro and whatever else you can lay your hands on.

Add to that construction costs decommissioning costs and nuclear fuel reprocessing / storage costs

Oh my, reading comprehension fail: "The NEI presented figures from the Electric Utility Cost Group on generating costs comprising fuel, capital and operating costs for 61 nuclear sites in 2012.". Fuel costs typically include a fee that is set aside for decommissioning & storage (at least they do in the US - that's what paid for Yucca Mountain), and "construction costs" are a subset of capital costs. So $44/MWh is indeed the full figure.

Why aren't there more nuclear fuel reprocessing plants? Because it's horrendously expensive.

Of course it's expensive and everybody knows it's expensive, because of the oxide fuel and the complexity of the aqueous process. The prospects of cheap reprocessing are by cheaper processes such as pyroprocessing, or even getting rid of it altogether (TWR). If you're hoping for me to take the side of PUREX, then you're wrong, I don't think it's a good process.

Cost of building maintaining, removing new Wind farms? Less than $36.5 per MWh

Care to actually quote how you derived this number from the linked report? It doesn't appear in there, so you must have arrived at it by some other means. The closest I could find is mentioned on page 55 where they quote operating costs of EDPR at around $24/kWh for US installations, which seems about right. This does not factor in capital costs, only operating ones ("supplies and services, which includes O&M costs ($14.7/MWh); personnel costs ($3.7/MWh); and other operating costs, which mainly includes operating taxes, leases, and rents ($5.2/MWh).") or site cleanup after decommissioning (by my guess it's going to be pretty low, but remains to be seen). It also depends on long-term dependability of the mechanics of the wind turbine, mainly the gearbox, which remains to be seen (there is some wonkiness there, but not much).
It also does not include any cost of intermittency, which is going to become significant above about 20-30% of supply (even in Germany wind & solar only account for ~15%, the rest being "hard" renewables like hydro (maxed out) and biomass (problems with land use due to energy crop farming)).
The costs of wind power have also already pretty much leveled out because scaled up component production has been implemented and there's few learning curve benefits to be reaped going forward. A wind turbine is a dead simple system that hasn't substantially changed in 20-30 years. I happen to think that there is good reason to believe current wind turbine designs won't scale well beyond ~10MW because of a simple square-cube law that dictates that for every doubling of rotor diameter, you get a quadrupling of power produced (that's your income) and an octupling of the torque on the gearbox (that's your cost) - heavier gearbox, heavier dome, heavier tower, costlier tower. Moreover, increasing wages are also going to limit the reduction potential. Wind turbines are simply enormously labor intensive, so at some point, the cost of labor is going start to drive the cost of the system. In fact, the report you linked seems to show indications of this when you look at the graph on page 49 for years 2004 - 2009. I don't think all of that growth was natural, certainly there was room to combat it via some larger turbines with better $/kW economies, however, at least to some degree, labor costs were driving that, and they'll begin to do so again once wages in the US start to pick up again. Only time will tell, though.

With the numerous ways of matching and storing wind energy

Such as what ways? Oh right, you mean like running fossil fuel plants and emitting CO2. Like how Germany added ~18% of renewables from 2003 and only had a ~9% reduction in CO2 per capita (and kWh per capita stayed pretty much flat

Add to that construction costs decommissioning costs and nuclear fuel reprocessing / storage costs

Oh my, reading comprehension fail: "The NEI presented figures from the Electric Utility Cost Group on generating costs comprising fuel, capital and operating costs for 61 nuclear sites in 2012.". Fuel costs typically include a fee that is set aside for decommissioning & storage (at least they do in the US - that's what paid for Yucca Mountain), and "construction costs" are a subset of capital costs. So $44/MWh is indeed the full figure.

Why aren't there more nuclear fuel reprocessing plants? Because it's horrendously expensive.

Of course it's expensive and everybody knows it's expensive, because of the oxide fuel and the complexity of the aqueous process. The prospects of cheap reprocessing are by cheaper processes such as pyroprocessing, or even getting rid of it altogether (TWR). If you're hoping for me to take the side of PUREX, then you're wrong, I don't think it's a good process.

Cost of building maintaining, removing new Wind farms? Less than $36.5 per MWh

Care to actually quote how you derived this number from the linked report? It doesn't appear in there, so you must have arrived at it by some other means. The closest I could find is mentioned on page 55 where they quote operating costs of EDPR at around $24/kWh for US installations, which seems about right. This does not factor in capital costs, only operating ones ("supplies and services, which includes O&M costs ($14.7/MWh); personnel costs ($3.7/MWh); and other operating costs, which mainly includes operating taxes, leases, and rents ($5.2/MWh).") or site cleanup after decommissioning (by my guess it's going to be pretty low, but remains to be seen). It also depends on long-term dependability of the mechanics of the wind turbine, mainly the gearbox, which remains to be seen (there is some wonkiness there, but not much).
It also does not include any cost of intermittency, which is going to become significant above about 20-30% of supply (even in Germany wind & solar only account for ~15%, the rest being "hard" renewables like hydro (maxed out) and biomass (problems with land use due to energy crop farming)).
The costs of wind power have also already pretty much leveled out because scaled up component production has been implemented and there's few learning curve benefits to be reaped going forward. A wind turbine is a dead simple system that hasn't substantially changed in 20-30 years. I happen to think that there is good reason to believe current wind turbine designs won't scale well beyond ~10MW because of a simple square-cube law that dictates that for every doubling of rotor diameter, you get a quadrupling of power produced (that's your income) and an octupling of the torque on the gearbox (that's your cost) - heavier gearbox, heavier dome, heavier tower, costlier tower. Moreover, increasing wages are also going to limit the reduction potential. Wind turbines are simply enormously labor intensive, so at some point, the cost of labor is going start to drive the cost of the system. In fact, the report you linked seems to show indications of this when you look at the graph on page 49 for years 2004 - 2009. I don't think all of that growth was natural, certainly there was room to combat it via some larger turbines with better $/kW economies, however, at least to some degree, labor costs were driving that, and they'll begin to do so again once wages in the US start to pick up again. Only time will tell, though.

With the numerous ways of matching and storing wind energy

Such as what ways? Oh right, you mean like running fossil fuel plants and emitting CO2. Like how Germany added ~18% of renewables from 2003 and only had a ~9% reduction in CO2 per capita (and kWh per capita stayed pretty much flat

This seems to explain how the pictures were acquired and that it wasn't just one guy stealing them and it isn't just one guy distributing them:
http://i.imgur.com/vnd0H9J.jpg

This is going to be harder to control and contain than the DefDist 3D printed gun part cad files when they got taken down by the DoD. In other words, absolutely impossible.

What was even more clever was doing it on a holiday weekend, everyone's barbecuing.

This seems to explain how the pictures were acquired and that it wasn't just one guy stealing them and it isn't just one guy distributing them:
http://i.imgur.com/vnd0H9J.jpg

Whoa, it looks like the paste has been removed!

Let's put it here for posterity, shall we?

Ok. I didn't think this was really going to be anything at first but things started to get very very suspicious... I'll try to provide screenshots for anything I think may be taken down later.

Woke up today and bam see a reddit thread on front page called "One more because I am kind" posted in /r/JenniferLawrence. That thread is here http://www.reddit.com/r/Jennif.... (SCREENSHOT http://imgur.com/GsGyrs6)

When you go to that link now you will notice that the creator of it says deleted. Now this is where it get's interesting. I know and remember who the OP was that created that thread. It was http://www.reddit.com/user/Blu....

But that thread was made over 16 hours ago! How could you remember that guys name?

Because when it was created /u/BluntMastermind (the OP) wrote in the comments of the "One more because I am kind" (you can see where he posted, they all say deleted now because he deleted his account) was mentioning he was willing to sell portions of the collection.

It's hard to tell you exactly what he said but I'm telling you what I remember from memory. It wasn't really THAT long ago anyways.

/u/BluntMastermind also mentioned he wasn't the leaker but he just had the collection, someone shared it with him.

What if he was one of the thousands just reposting a picture after it was already posted?

But he wasn't. Somebody called him out on it saying he was getting the pics from 4chan. He posted a reply pretty much showing 4chan's posts of the pic he posted came after his. He used timestamps to back up that he was the real first poster of that specific picture before anyone else. You'll also see the user who called him out on it take it back after he OP replies to him with proof in the comments. (SCREENSHOT http://i.imgur.com/Hj0NREG.png)

Maybe you're not convinced now but keep reading to the very end.

So after seeing BluntMastermind refute claims with timestamp proof it looked like he was really the first person to release that specific Jennifer Lawrence picture.

Even more he mentioned he was willing to sell them. So I PM'd him pretty much asking what's the rate for another celeb's pictures to know if this guy was the real deal.

His reply was "$100 but they're not as good as the others and I might not have all of them. I have 13, 4 full nude." Here's the picture of the reply. (SCREENSHOT http://i.imgur.com/UC6Nu05.png)

I replied back saying ok but I want to see a sample clothed picture and I can't pay in bitcoin.

He didn't respond and I'm pretty sure it was because I mentioned no Bitcoin and maybe he thought I was wasting his time trying to get a freebie (I was wasting his time, I don't have money to pay for what's going to be free shit in a week lol).

-- A few hours pass, other leaks started coming out and I didn't pay attention to him after he didn't reply.

Then everything changes here.. http://www.reddit.com/r/news/c... (SCREENSHOT http://i.imgur.com/APnc3uW.png)

You see deleted? That was /u/fappeningwhistleblow. http://www.reddit.com/u/fappen....

His comment was this (I didn't save the comment but got this one from 4chan which is almost the exact same comment) (SCREENSHOT http://i.imgur.com/Jnq2qn4.png) -- "This will probably get b

Whoa, it looks like the paste has been removed!

Let's put it here for posterity, shall we?

Ok. I didn't think this was really going to be anything at first but things started to get very very suspicious... I'll try to provide screenshots for anything I think may be taken down later.

Woke up today and bam see a reddit thread on front page called "One more because I am kind" posted in /r/JenniferLawrence. That thread is here http://www.reddit.com/r/Jennif.... (SCREENSHOT http://imgur.com/GsGyrs6)

When you go to that link now you will notice that the creator of it says deleted. Now this is where it get's interesting. I know and remember who the OP was that created that thread. It was http://www.reddit.com/user/Blu....

But that thread was made over 16 hours ago! How could you remember that guys name?

Because when it was created /u/BluntMastermind (the OP) wrote in the comments of the "One more because I am kind" (you can see where he posted, they all say deleted now because he deleted his account) was mentioning he was willing to sell portions of the collection.

It's hard to tell you exactly what he said but I'm telling you what I remember from memory. It wasn't really THAT long ago anyways.

/u/BluntMastermind also mentioned he wasn't the leaker but he just had the collection, someone shared it with him.

What if he was one of the thousands just reposting a picture after it was already posted?

But he wasn't. Somebody called him out on it saying he was getting the pics from 4chan. He posted a reply pretty much showing 4chan's posts of the pic he posted came after his. He used timestamps to back up that he was the real first poster of that specific picture before anyone else. You'll also see the user who called him out on it take it back after he OP replies to him with proof in the comments. (SCREENSHOT http://i.imgur.com/Hj0NREG.png)

Maybe you're not convinced now but keep reading to the very end.

So after seeing BluntMastermind refute claims with timestamp proof it looked like he was really the first person to release that specific Jennifer Lawrence picture.

Even more he mentioned he was willing to sell them. So I PM'd him pretty much asking what's the rate for another celeb's pictures to know if this guy was the real deal.

His reply was "$100 but they're not as good as the others and I might not have all of them. I have 13, 4 full nude." Here's the picture of the reply. (SCREENSHOT http://i.imgur.com/UC6Nu05.png)

I replied back saying ok but I want to see a sample clothed picture and I can't pay in bitcoin.

He didn't respond and I'm pretty sure it was because I mentioned no Bitcoin and maybe he thought I was wasting his time trying to get a freebie (I was wasting his time, I don't have money to pay for what's going to be free shit in a week lol).

-- A few hours pass, other leaks started coming out and I didn't pay attention to him after he didn't reply.

Then everything changes here.. http://www.reddit.com/r/news/c... (SCREENSHOT http://i.imgur.com/APnc3uW.png)

You see deleted? That was /u/fappeningwhistleblow. http://www.reddit.com/u/fappen....

His comment was this (I didn't save the comment but got this one from 4chan which is almost the exact same comment) (SCREENSHOT http://i.imgur.com/Jnq2qn4.png) -- "This will probably get b

Whoa, it looks like the paste has been removed!

Let's put it here for posterity, shall we?

Ok. I didn't think this was really going to be anything at first but things started to get very very suspicious... I'll try to provide screenshots for anything I think may be taken down later.

Woke up today and bam see a reddit thread on front page called "One more because I am kind" posted in /r/JenniferLawrence. That thread is here http://www.reddit.com/r/Jennif.... (SCREENSHOT http://imgur.com/GsGyrs6)

When you go to that link now you will notice that the creator of it says deleted. Now this is where it get's interesting. I know and remember who the OP was that created that thread. It was http://www.reddit.com/user/Blu....

But that thread was made over 16 hours ago! How could you remember that guys name?

Because when it was created /u/BluntMastermind (the OP) wrote in the comments of the "One more because I am kind" (you can see where he posted, they all say deleted now because he deleted his account) was mentioning he was willing to sell portions of the collection.

It's hard to tell you exactly what he said but I'm telling you what I remember from memory. It wasn't really THAT long ago anyways.

/u/BluntMastermind also mentioned he wasn't the leaker but he just had the collection, someone shared it with him.

What if he was one of the thousands just reposting a picture after it was already posted?

But he wasn't. Somebody called him out on it saying he was getting the pics from 4chan. He posted a reply pretty much showing 4chan's posts of the pic he posted came after his. He used timestamps to back up that he was the real first poster of that specific picture before anyone else. You'll also see the user who called him out on it take it back after he OP replies to him with proof in the comments. (SCREENSHOT http://i.imgur.com/Hj0NREG.png)

Maybe you're not convinced now but keep reading to the very end.

So after seeing BluntMastermind refute claims with timestamp proof it looked like he was really the first person to release that specific Jennifer Lawrence picture.

Even more he mentioned he was willing to sell them. So I PM'd him pretty much asking what's the rate for another celeb's pictures to know if this guy was the real deal.

His reply was "$100 but they're not as good as the others and I might not have all of them. I have 13, 4 full nude." Here's the picture of the reply. (SCREENSHOT http://i.imgur.com/UC6Nu05.png)

I replied back saying ok but I want to see a sample clothed picture and I can't pay in bitcoin.

He didn't respond and I'm pretty sure it was because I mentioned no Bitcoin and maybe he thought I was wasting his time trying to get a freebie (I was wasting his time, I don't have money to pay for what's going to be free shit in a week lol).

-- A few hours pass, other leaks started coming out and I didn't pay attention to him after he didn't reply.

Then everything changes here.. http://www.reddit.com/r/news/c... (SCREENSHOT http://i.imgur.com/APnc3uW.png)

You see deleted? That was /u/fappeningwhistleblow. http://www.reddit.com/u/fappen....

His comment was this (I didn't save the comment but got this one from 4chan which is almost the exact same comment) (SCREENSHOT http://i.imgur.com/Jnq2qn4.png) -- "This will probably get b

Whoa, it looks like the paste has been removed!

Let's put it here for posterity, shall we?

Ok. I didn't think this was really going to be anything at first but things started to get very very suspicious... I'll try to provide screenshots for anything I think may be taken down later.

Woke up today and bam see a reddit thread on front page called "One more because I am kind" posted in /r/JenniferLawrence. That thread is here http://www.reddit.com/r/Jennif.... (SCREENSHOT http://imgur.com/GsGyrs6)

When you go to that link now you will notice that the creator of it says deleted. Now this is where it get's interesting. I know and remember who the OP was that created that thread. It was http://www.reddit.com/user/Blu....

But that thread was made over 16 hours ago! How could you remember that guys name?

Because when it was created /u/BluntMastermind (the OP) wrote in the comments of the "One more because I am kind" (you can see where he posted, they all say deleted now because he deleted his account) was mentioning he was willing to sell portions of the collection.

It's hard to tell you exactly what he said but I'm telling you what I remember from memory. It wasn't really THAT long ago anyways.

/u/BluntMastermind also mentioned he wasn't the leaker but he just had the collection, someone shared it with him.

What if he was one of the thousands just reposting a picture after it was already posted?

But he wasn't. Somebody called him out on it saying he was getting the pics from 4chan. He posted a reply pretty much showing 4chan's posts of the pic he posted came after his. He used timestamps to back up that he was the real first poster of that specific picture before anyone else. You'll also see the user who called him out on it take it back after he OP replies to him with proof in the comments. (SCREENSHOT http://i.imgur.com/Hj0NREG.png)

Maybe you're not convinced now but keep reading to the very end.

So after seeing BluntMastermind refute claims with timestamp proof it looked like he was really the first person to release that specific Jennifer Lawrence picture.

Even more he mentioned he was willing to sell them. So I PM'd him pretty much asking what's the rate for another celeb's pictures to know if this guy was the real deal.

His reply was "$100 but they're not as good as the others and I might not have all of them. I have 13, 4 full nude." Here's the picture of the reply. (SCREENSHOT http://i.imgur.com/UC6Nu05.png)

I replied back saying ok but I want to see a sample clothed picture and I can't pay in bitcoin.

He didn't respond and I'm pretty sure it was because I mentioned no Bitcoin and maybe he thought I was wasting his time trying to get a freebie (I was wasting his time, I don't have money to pay for what's going to be free shit in a week lol).

-- A few hours pass, other leaks started coming out and I didn't pay attention to him after he didn't reply.

Then everything changes here.. http://www.reddit.com/r/news/c... (SCREENSHOT http://i.imgur.com/APnc3uW.png)

You see deleted? That was /u/fappeningwhistleblow. http://www.reddit.com/u/fappen....

His comment was this (I didn't save the comment but got this one from 4chan which is almost the exact same comment) (SCREENSHOT http://i.imgur.com/Jnq2qn4.png) -- "This will probably get b

Whoa, it looks like the paste has been removed!

Let's put it here for posterity, shall we?

Ok. I didn't think this was really going to be anything at first but things started to get very very suspicious... I'll try to provide screenshots for anything I think may be taken down later.

Woke up today and bam see a reddit thread on front page called "One more because I am kind" posted in /r/JenniferLawrence. That thread is here http://www.reddit.com/r/Jennif.... (SCREENSHOT http://imgur.com/GsGyrs6)

When you go to that link now you will notice that the creator of it says deleted. Now this is where it get's interesting. I know and remember who the OP was that created that thread. It was http://www.reddit.com/user/Blu....

But that thread was made over 16 hours ago! How could you remember that guys name?

Because when it was created /u/BluntMastermind (the OP) wrote in the comments of the "One more because I am kind" (you can see where he posted, they all say deleted now because he deleted his account) was mentioning he was willing to sell portions of the collection.

It's hard to tell you exactly what he said but I'm telling you what I remember from memory. It wasn't really THAT long ago anyways.

/u/BluntMastermind also mentioned he wasn't the leaker but he just had the collection, someone shared it with him.

What if he was one of the thousands just reposting a picture after it was already posted?

But he wasn't. Somebody called him out on it saying he was getting the pics from 4chan. He posted a reply pretty much showing 4chan's posts of the pic he posted came after his. He used timestamps to back up that he was the real first poster of that specific picture before anyone else. You'll also see the user who called him out on it take it back after he OP replies to him with proof in the comments. (SCREENSHOT http://i.imgur.com/Hj0NREG.png)

Maybe you're not convinced now but keep reading to the very end.

So after seeing BluntMastermind refute claims with timestamp proof it looked like he was really the first person to release that specific Jennifer Lawrence picture.

Even more he mentioned he was willing to sell them. So I PM'd him pretty much asking what's the rate for another celeb's pictures to know if this guy was the real deal.

His reply was "$100 but they're not as good as the others and I might not have all of them. I have 13, 4 full nude." Here's the picture of the reply. (SCREENSHOT http://i.imgur.com/UC6Nu05.png)

I replied back saying ok but I want to see a sample clothed picture and I can't pay in bitcoin.

He didn't respond and I'm pretty sure it was because I mentioned no Bitcoin and maybe he thought I was wasting his time trying to get a freebie (I was wasting his time, I don't have money to pay for what's going to be free shit in a week lol).

-- A few hours pass, other leaks started coming out and I didn't pay attention to him after he didn't reply.

Then everything changes here.. http://www.reddit.com/r/news/c... (SCREENSHOT http://i.imgur.com/APnc3uW.png)

You see deleted? That was /u/fappeningwhistleblow. http://www.reddit.com/u/fappen....

His comment was this (I didn't save the comment but got this one from 4chan which is almost the exact same comment) (SCREENSHOT http://i.imgur.com/Jnq2qn4.png) -- "This will probably get b

Wow. If it turns out to be true, it's yet another testament to how difficult it is to be truly anonymous online these days. But not because of standard technical things like using proxies, etc, it's simply because there's so much info out there in social media and Google to provide clues. One mistake or oversight and you're pretty much exposed.

tl;dr: Excluding the reddit users who put the pieces together, it wasn't social media that got Bryan Hamade. It was Bryan Hamade who screwed himself by failing to redact his network information from his attempts to sell data that didn't belong to him.

While what you say is true, that there is so much interconnection between social media services that isolating one's identity while using them is virtually impossible, Bryan Hamade screwed himself on this one.

Paragraph 47 of the pastebin "/u/bluntmastermind = bryan hamade"" points to a screenshot of the alleged perpetrator's desktop. That screenshot reveals the perpetrator failed to redact the names of the network group and servers to which the user was connected.

Some productive user Googled the names and eventually turned up the "About Us" page for Souther Digital Media (screenshot) and initially fingered the 15-year-old, but deeper searching points to Bryan Hamade (aka bluntmastermind, notice the custom URL, http://steamcommunity.com/id/bryanhamade/).

Wow. If it turns out to be true, it's yet another testament to how difficult it is to be truly anonymous online these days. But not because of standard technical things like using proxies, etc, it's simply because there's so much info out there in social media and Google to provide clues. One mistake or oversight and you're pretty much exposed.

tl;dr: Excluding the reddit users who put the pieces together, it wasn't social media that got Bryan Hamade. It was Bryan Hamade who screwed himself by failing to redact his network information from his attempts to sell data that didn't belong to him.

While what you say is true, that there is so much interconnection between social media services that isolating one's identity while using them is virtually impossible, Bryan Hamade screwed himself on this one.

Paragraph 47 of the pastebin "/u/bluntmastermind = bryan hamade"" points to a screenshot of the alleged perpetrator's desktop. That screenshot reveals the perpetrator failed to redact the names of the network group and servers to which the user was connected.

Some productive user Googled the names and eventually turned up the "About Us" page for Souther Digital Media (screenshot) and initially fingered the 15-year-old, but deeper searching points to Bryan Hamade (aka bluntmastermind, notice the custom URL, http://steamcommunity.com/id/bryanhamade/).

Wow. If it turns out to be true, it's yet another testament to how difficult it is to be truly anonymous online these days. But not because of standard technical things like using proxies, etc, it's simply because there's so much info out there in social media and Google to provide clues. One mistake or oversight and you're pretty much exposed.

tl;dr: Excluding the reddit users who put the pieces together, it wasn't social media that got Bryan Hamade. It was Bryan Hamade who screwed himself by failing to redact his network information from his attempts to sell data that didn't belong to him.

While what you say is true, that there is so much interconnection between social media services that isolating one's identity while using them is virtually impossible, Bryan Hamade screwed himself on this one.

Paragraph 47 of the pastebin "/u/bluntmastermind = bryan hamade"" points to a screenshot of the alleged perpetrator's desktop. That screenshot reveals the perpetrator failed to redact the names of the network group and servers to which the user was connected.

Some productive user Googled the names and eventually turned up the "About Us" page for Souther Digital Media (screenshot) and initially fingered the 15-year-old, but deeper searching points to Bryan Hamade (aka bluntmastermind, notice the custom URL, http://steamcommunity.com/id/bryanhamade/).

Screentshot of Netscape Navigator 3.04 Gold running on this bitch a couple days ago: http://i.imgur.com/i9WtAK2.png

Not GP, but SMBC is a better xkcd than xkcd, if only because the author realizes that 'science joke' needs an actual joke attached to it to be funny. Anyway, this is why xkcd sucks. Sure, there are some funny strips, but the issues pointed out in the parody are grating when taken as a whole.

here

SJWs are very real:

http://imgur.com/a/3GhiM

http://imgur.com/a/dtbXq

SJWs are very real:

http://imgur.com/a/3GhiM

http://imgur.com/a/dtbXq

To "Anita Sarkeesian is out of money, lies again to get more well-intended naive people to give her money for nothing".

http://i.imgur.com/zHPLIan.jpg

Credible? http://i.imgur.com/zHPLIan.jpg

Americans are still mad about that

http://i.imgur.com/K3VVoeG.png

That's very interesting. Of course, so is this: http://i.imgur.com/zHPLIan.jpg

Also interesting. Of course, that's also what it would look like if an intelligent person wanted to make a specific threat: Create a burner account, make the threat, be specific, don't make errors, delete the account.

I should point out that it is also what the victim's side would look like if they were signed into email but not twitter, saw the notifications coming into their email, and clicked on them to view the content in twitter.

That's very interesting. Of course, so is this: http://i.imgur.com/zHPLIan.jpg

Also interesting. Of course, that's also what it would look like if an intelligent person wanted to make a specific threat: Create a burner account, make the threat, be specific, don't make errors, delete the account. They probably also conducted their activity through a random open proxy server so it is untraceable. It is also what it would look like if the victim was on an alternate twitter account that they use for safety and didn't want to reveal that account for privacy reasons, so when they saw this tweet they logged out and took the screen cap.

There are plenty of opportunities for a figure such as her to screencap perfectly legitimate threats without needing to make one up. It would be somewhat more surprising if this were false than true, but at this time I'm holding judgement on either possibility until we find out more information.

You must ask yourself honestly : Why is it, when faced with stories like this, is your first instinct to claim that the woman lied or made it up?

http://i.imgur.com/zHPLIan.jpg

I dunno, the opening ceremonies seemed kind of ominous to me.

(Bonus points: The CAPTCHA for this post is 'worried')

I fview Sarkeesian as a professional victim hustling for funds, and hence the darling of the SJWs who aspire to her level of solvency, but in this particular instance I'd like an explanation for this: http://i.imgur.com/zHPLIan.jpg

The proper response is to call her out on her "professional victim hustling". You don't need to threaten her with rape and death to do that. Why do grown men suddenly turn into whining children whenever this issue comes up? What is up with that?