Ha ha ha. You're an idiot. First of all, you're assuming an offline attack, with an insanely, unbelievably large "botnet," which doesn't even exist (even this so-called, way over-blown "storm botnet"). Then you're assuming that software can be written to take advantage of all of these machines in parallel. Please. That would be a nightmare; it's not going to happen. You're assuming all of these machines can be coordinated and that all of them are going to be online at once, and that all of them have any amount of reasonable process power -- they don't, especially not being devoid of spyware and all kinds of other garbage.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Ok, so you know the basics of simple wireless encryption and have used airsnort and kismet and aircrack-ng and whatever the hell else it is you wanna-be hackers kids use. Whatever. The kind of effort needed to do what you're proposing is MONSTROUS, and despite the fact that there may be one or two extremely large "botnets" out there, this isn't common, and you're not just going to go out and make your OWN "botnet" that big just for the purpose of cracking passwords. Then, you're not going to be able to harness the resources of all of those machines, unless you're the world's best programmer and have about the same luck as someone winning the lottery twice in a week while getting hit by lightning when the numbers are announced.
If you really want to mount a good offline attack, you're better served paying a few million down on a good sized supercomputer, and contracting a real programmer to write real parallelized cracking software. But if you're capable of doing that, then no shit you could crack some retard's 8 character passphrase anyway.
What is especially shocking for the community is that the logging bots are very hard to identify. They have human-like nicks, connect via anonymous Tor nodes and authenticate as mIRC clients.
Tor exit nodes are easy to identify (that's why the servers are able to block them). Also, some networks (like EFNet) have been using ident as a general open-proxy check for years. There's no such thing as "authentication" of the IRC client. CTCP VERSION is not even remotely definitive.* And you have fingerprinting. Quick one off the top of my head: send PRIVMSG $nick:\001PING somethingthatsnotaunixtimestamp\001 and see if you get a response. If you do, it's not mIRC.
Finally, this kind of thing has been going on for years, and everyone knows about it (except Slashdot, evidently).
* FYI, IRC bots have been using scripts and "botpacks" that either don't reply at all (going against RFC, IIRC) or send out generic ircII/ircN/mIRC/BitchX/whatever replies since the beginning of time, in order to thwart would-be IRC op kills on stupid servers that don't like bots, or else as a form of security through obscurity to prevent script kids from immediately knowing which Eggdrop exploit will apply.
He is the ONLY candidate to have voted against the Patriot Act. In theory there's still hope.
You're being a little dishonest. Ron Paul wasn't present to vote on it, but he voted against extending it, and I think it's pretty obvious that he would not have voted on it if he were voting.
Dennis is a little Marxist, too. If that's your thing, fine, but his health care plan alone is going to cost us trillions. Not that I'm particularly against the guy. I'd vote for him, for sure, if Ron weren't around.
That's science, and that is hopefully most scientists do (ideally all!) -- not just the good ones. There's a difference between wha you're saying and I think what the guy was talking about, though. You're talking about clear evidence. Yeah, sure, intelligent design proponents probably aren't going to be too convinced by new evidence, since they already discount real, hard evidence that's around now, for all to see. But you're talking about major revelations, and among guys who're trained to look at the facts. I'm not sure they were arguing for the opposite side so much as they were just remaining neutral or agnostic (I am not equating neutralism and agnosticism, fyi) about the issue.
What I think the poster wanted to know was whether or not a religious person had ever been flat-out convinced just by way of a solid argument with a friend, or perhaps even a foe. That would be interesting to know, but that may be something I AM agnostic about; how exactly do we come up with statistics on people's thoughts?
Nevertheless, I think I have an anecdote which is a bit closer to what he wanted. I used to identify as "agnostic" until I heard Richard Dawkins speaking (not live, unfortunately, but we have the tubes). Particularly when he made the argument about Bertrand Russell's teapot, it just clicked. I was a bit younger then, but not unintelligent by any means; I think I probably got out of the religious environment here in the Bible Belt quicker and more efficiently than most; I was probably an agnostic all my life, despite by raised by somewhat zealous southern baptists, and, in my early teens, I managed to understand what atheism really was and why it made sense. At the same time, I am probably a very weird person. I am not very much like many other people, and I seem to have what I would call a higher regard for what's true and a lower regard for what I want than most others. I wouldn't say I'm a masochist by any means, but it just seems that all my life I've realized that none of it really matters in the grand scheme of things, and I don't really have any convictions. I just go with what makes sense. Hopefully there are others like that out there.
I think it's pretty clear why he's against the act, and I think he makes it pretty obvious in his speech.
No one denies that the humanitarian situation in Darfur is dire, but the United States Government has no business entangling itself in this situation, nor in forcing divestment on unwilling parties.
H.R. 180 is an interventionist piece of legislation which will extend the power of the Federal Government over American businesses
The unintended consequences of this bill on American workers, investors, and companies need to be considered as well. Forcing American workers to divest from companies which may only be tangentially related to supporting the Sudanese government could have serious economic repercussions which need to be taken into account.
He thinks it is an encroachment on the freedoms of business and the choice of citizens, especially when connections whatever company may have to Sudan might be very tenuous at best. He is a very libertarian guy, as you know, and favors a very, very small government. This sort of action on the part of the government is just an invitation to more government control and more government bureaucracy -- well, atleast, that's what it seems he thinks; I'm not nearly smart enough to know, myself.
I don't understand the situation in Darfur anywhere near as well as you seem to, but I watched the Frontline episode, and I read the GovTrack speech as well as the one on Lew Rockwell's site, and I don't really see any indication that he was confusing the civil war in Sudan with the genocide in Darfur. If you disagree with his position, then fine, but why do you have to make it seem like he's doing something that he really isn't? Maybe I'm misreading, though, or maybe I'm not reading enough into what he says, but I don't really think that ought to be my call.
I would like to know, though: you said you were very pro-paul before learning about this; are you still considering him? If not, why not? Is this single reason enough to make up your mind, especially if he's just made a mistake? Maybe you're right. Maybe he did confuse the two, and maybe he just misunderstands the situation there. What's wrong with that? You should try to get in contact with him to educate him. He can't always be right, but he does seem like a pretty consistent and principled man, to me, and certainly the best candidate for the presidency I've seen in a while. I don't agree with him on everything; I think his stances on abortion and church and state are both weird, and, were I running, I would certainly be a little more socially liberal in that regard, but I can't really complain -- this guy has cured my political apathy.
Oh, ok. I just started using Opera the other day (I last used 7.54 or something), and I didn't notice the "Manage site preferences" button. It looks exactly like the Firefox content configuration tab, which doesn't allow per-site settings, so I guess I kind of dismissed it out of hand.
I think the system is very clunky and incovenient, though. This kind of thing needs to be in the context menu or status bar or something.
Oh. I forgot recursion. Ideally, an authoritative server is going to be physically (or atleast logically) separate from a caching nameserver, but that's not always the case. You need to check from an external host to find out whether your provider is allowing outsiders to issue recursive queries:
dig anything @nameserver
With BIND, cached queries will be returned to hosts even if they aren't authorized for recursion. This known as cache snooping.
To find out whether it's allowing an outsider to issue new queries and have them answered recursively, put in a domain name that you're sure isn't in cache (or flush the cache), e.g. bananorama.com
to get BIND version (unless it's been changed by way of the "version" directive under the options { } block in named.conf):
dig txt chaos version.bind @nameserver
to check if your name server allows zone transfers to just anyone (you might need to do this from an outside host in case they have their ACLs configured to include the network you're on):
host -l zone.name nameserver
OR
dig axfr zone.name @nameserver
You can also do that with BIND if you want. just make a slave zone and turn notifies off.
To test any of the various other things, you can do TXT SPF, KEY, SIG, and NXT resource records.
As another poster said, this is a lot of hyperbole. There's no need to implement DNSSEC for public zones when the root, gTLD, and ccTLD servers don't have certificates.
His views haven't changed since at least 1988 (the earliest video I've found.)
Well, that's just clearly wrong, and I'd be scared if it weren't. That just means he's getting smarter. For instance, he used to be for the death penalty at the federal level.
I think what you mean is that he's been consistent in voting for what he says he's for. And that he has.
Except I can see that IMDB's recommendation system is REALLY horrible after just ten minutes of fooling around with it. It only made about 5-6 good recommendations, and I tried about 15 different films. Geez.
Not that I'm saying Netflix's is any better; I wouldn't know, since I've never used Netflix or its recommendation system.
You're right. You don't understand. So why are you posting? They're not talking about encryption; they're talking about having ports exposed to the internet. If you use a VPN, you can have a service listen only on its local interface, but still be able to access it remotely through a VPN tunnel.
Then again, implementing that would entail slashdot's development actually accellerating [sic] beyond two new features per decade.
Slashdot already blocks Tor exit nodes. I'm not sure if they're using a DNSBL or other spam list, but I don't think they're actively scanning. This list might include other open proxies; I'm not going to bother to check, to be honest. Slashdot also has restrictions on the number of posts you can make from a certain IP address (or user account, if you're logged in), so if you make more than a couple posts, you're not going to be able to post again, and, chances are, if you're using a popular open proxy, you're going to get blocked anyway because someone else will post before you do.
It wouldn't be very hard to spam the shit out of Slashdot, though. You can do it with user accounts or anonymously. Write a simple script to get a list of recently checked proxies from all of the popular lists, or write your own scanner to get a zero-day list for yourself. Or just get one of the many script kiddie tools that are available for both of those tasks. Then you have an ulimited array of options. One thing I've been thinking about doing (not for spamming Slashdot, mind you) is setting up a server (sort of in the vein of those old IRC flood bot scripts, but with a DDoS network twist) that'll connect to a few hundred proxies, with a single client interface you can manipulate to get a random proxy on each connection. All you need to do then is open a few tabs and a couple of browsers. You could also write a script to just do it automagically.
Of course, if you're a new age script kid, you'll already have access to a few hundred (or maybe even thousand) Windows nodes running Sub7 or PhaggotBot or whatever the newest trend is, and you could always just use those, too. And this doesn't work on Slashdot, for reasons mentioned above, but there's a lazy man's method to spamming, too: just fire up about 20-30 instances of Tor (edit the torrc to change the listening port number) and connect from IE, Opera, and Firefox. Reload whichever Tor server you happen to be using at the moment to try to get a new exit path. There's probably a better method for that, but I haven't looked into that either.
And then there's the method with the account. This is probably even easier, really. I'm not sure if Slashdot limits the number of times you can post from one IP address even if you're logged in, but it might. Nevertheless, we can still have some fun with this. Just make a bunch of accounts. Who doesn't have access to a mailserver? Register a few domains (who doesn't already have several?), set up wild-card forwarding or something like that, then make a few dozen accounts. Write a script to handle the cookies, and maybe attach another client interface so you can spam whatever you feel like (instead of having a bot automagically spam, although you could make a big list of posts for the bot to randomly choose from).
Tie that into the open proxy / Botnet / Tor method as necessary.
Your wife is in the normal range because women have naturally more fat content than men. I have heard all of my life that claim that "men stop growing around age twenty," but, so far, I haven't seen any proof for it at all. I really doubt its veracity, too. From anecdote, personal experience tells me that most men do stop growing closer to the time they're 15-17. That doesn't mean that's the case, either, but I'd like to see some sort of reference for that claim of yours.
15.5-16.5% body fat is not really the low end of the range, in my opinion. It's not bad, though, but unless you're fairly old, closer to 10% would be ideal. I wonder where you got that measurement, though.
Anyway, I'm not saying BMI isn't inaccurate. It certainly is. I just think most people's perceptions of what a good, healthy body is.. are skewed (atleast here in America).
I'm definitely of the opinion that BMI isn't useful for any kind of accurate description of the state of a person's body. It obviously isn't. At the same time, there really just aren't many people who should be over, say, 200 pounds. If you're 6'5" or more and you work out, then okay, you can make that case. Even if you're 7 feet, though, you should probably stop somewhere around 250. A lot of people are just huge, and American culture seems to perpetuate the idea that being > 200 pounds is somehow normal. Most of the folks you see who're around this weight are fat, and some of them don't realize that they are fat. It almost seems like a badge of honor for a man to be two hundred pounds.
Perhaps, even, you aren't a man unless you weigh two hundred or more. That's simply not true. The average height is around 5'8" - 5'9", and, probably, most of us who fit that mould ought to be around 140-150, and no more. But try selling that to these folks who're glued to the latest NBA and NFL games, and they'll laugh in your face. 140? HA! But the guys on my favorite football team are 300 pounds.. Well, yeah. They take steroids. Don't pretend that they don't. Even those of us with the best genetics just aren't going to be capable of packing on twenty pounds of muscle mass without some kind of help.
That's not obese, but it's definitely overweight, and I'd challenge you on your being a "good athlete." Well, you may be able to do some athletic things fairly well, but I think the implication was that you were physically in good 'shape.' Is that so?
I doubt it. 21% body fat is horrible, unless you'ver over fifty years of age, or something. Truly athletic body fat range is 5-10% or so. Good, healthy body fat level is 10-15%. 15-20% is.. acceptable, I guess. Anything higher is pretty bad.
You are way off, sir. I don't think there are 1609.344 meters in one mile. More like 6 BILLION!!!!!11
(20m/60s * 3.2808ft/m) = 1.0936ft/s * (3600s/h) / (5280 ft/mile) = 0.745636 mph (or 0.745645431 miles per hour according to google's calculator; I used mIRC's $calc()).
A bit slower than the Boston Marathon's cut-off time, I think.
Attacking me by calling me a "racist" hardly bothers me. Whether it's true or not, I don't think so. But by all means. I support true freedom of speech, and you can do that if you want. Unlike many other people, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with being racist, although it may make you stupid or uninformed, but how is that different from any other topic, like religion, for example?
I'm not going to go around going batshit crazy at the drop of the hat anytime someone mentions a black person, or even if they espouse truly "racist" beliefs. They can think what they want, and I'm not going to stop them or be a dumbshit. There's even a chance they have a point. The purpose of this discussion, though, is not to personally attack or respond to personal attacks, but to debate whether or not Ron Paul espouses such beliefs. And he clearly does not.
You are the moron. The first comment is not about the criminal justice system. I mean, if it is, what is it saying? Why mention that we should assume 95% of black men are criminals? It makes no sense taken in that context.
I think it's pretty clear that it's saying many people are incarcerated in Washington, and most of them are black, so, by that measure, I guess (this is said tongue-in-cheek, for those obviously deficient in their ability to detect tone through text) it's safe to assume that 95% of blacks in this district are semi-criminal or criminal.
What's more obvious is that you want to see it however you want to see it.
Next, he says it is okay to be afraid of black men. Do you know what selective enforcement is? Black men are targeted for prosecution at levels well beyond what white men are. That's the real reason there are more black men in prison, not that they commit proportionally more crimes.
No, I don't. Black people do commit proportionally more crime, so far as we know. Until you provide evidence otherwise, then why not trust the statistics?
He claims he never made those statements, I said that from the start. They are in his newsletter attributed to him, which he claims is a mistake made by (as always in these situations) an overzealous staffer. In any case, it's his newsletter and his responsibility.
Right. You did make those claims. But the issue at hand is whether or not Ron Paul is a "racist" (like anyone can know that, or like it's somehow our duty to determine the state of his mental health). And I think it's pretty pertinent to the point to discover the veracity of the claims. It might be his "responsibility" if the claims were published under his names, but that doesn't make the statements any more true.
A racist comment is a statement which supports the idea of racism. I know people like you want to believe there is no racism, everything is completely fair, and everyone should just stop whining, but that's not true, things aren't fair, and we're not going to stop whining until they are.
I don't want to believe there is no such thing as racism. It exists, depending on your definition, and I don't even think it's particularly a bad thing, unless we go around killing people based on race. But not because of their race. I don't think we should go around killing people at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that word is not long (9 chars is not long at all), contains multiple dictionary words*, and has only one number.
:>
* a, ah, , and la. I don't think that's majorly significant, though.
Ha ha ha. You're an idiot. First of all, you're assuming an offline attack, with an insanely, unbelievably large "botnet," which doesn't even exist (even this so-called, way over-blown "storm botnet"). Then you're assuming that software can be written to take advantage of all of these machines in parallel. Please. That would be a nightmare; it's not going to happen. You're assuming all of these machines can be coordinated and that all of them are going to be online at once, and that all of them have any amount of reasonable process power -- they don't, especially not being devoid of spyware and all kinds of other garbage.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Ok, so you know the basics of simple wireless encryption and have used airsnort and kismet and aircrack-ng and whatever the hell else it is you wanna-be hackers kids use. Whatever. The kind of effort needed to do what you're proposing is MONSTROUS, and despite the fact that there may be one or two extremely large "botnets" out there, this isn't common, and you're not just going to go out and make your OWN "botnet" that big just for the purpose of cracking passwords. Then, you're not going to be able to harness the resources of all of those machines, unless you're the world's best programmer and have about the same luck as someone winning the lottery twice in a week while getting hit by lightning when the numbers are announced.
If you really want to mount a good offline attack, you're better served paying a few million down on a good sized supercomputer, and contracting a real programmer to write real parallelized cracking software. But if you're capable of doing that, then no shit you could crack some retard's 8 character passphrase anyway.
No. MD5 is 16 bytes.
Tor exit nodes are easy to identify (that's why the servers are able to block them). Also, some networks (like EFNet) have been using ident as a general open-proxy check for years. There's no such thing as "authentication" of the IRC client. CTCP VERSION is not even remotely definitive.* And you have fingerprinting. Quick one off the top of my head: send PRIVMSG $nick
Finally, this kind of thing has been going on for years, and everyone knows about it (except Slashdot, evidently).
* FYI, IRC bots have been using scripts and "botpacks" that either don't reply at all (going against RFC, IIRC) or send out generic ircII/ircN/mIRC/BitchX/whatever replies since the beginning of time, in order to thwart would-be IRC op kills on stupid servers that don't like bots, or else as a form of security through obscurity to prevent script kids from immediately knowing which Eggdrop exploit will apply.
You're being a little dishonest. Ron Paul wasn't present to vote on it, but he voted against extending it, and I think it's pretty obvious that he would not have voted on it if he were voting.
Dennis is a little Marxist, too. If that's your thing, fine, but his health care plan alone is going to cost us trillions. Not that I'm particularly against the guy. I'd vote for him, for sure, if Ron weren't around.
I don't know if Noam Chomsky is a liberal; he's probably libertarian at best. He is an anarchist.
That's science, and that is hopefully most scientists do (ideally all!) -- not just the good ones. There's a difference between wha you're saying and I think what the guy was talking about, though. You're talking about clear evidence. Yeah, sure, intelligent design proponents probably aren't going to be too convinced by new evidence, since they already discount real, hard evidence that's around now, for all to see. But you're talking about major revelations, and among guys who're trained to look at the facts. I'm not sure they were arguing for the opposite side so much as they were just remaining neutral or agnostic (I am not equating neutralism and agnosticism, fyi) about the issue.
What I think the poster wanted to know was whether or not a religious person had ever been flat-out convinced just by way of a solid argument with a friend, or perhaps even a foe. That would be interesting to know, but that may be something I AM agnostic about; how exactly do we come up with statistics on people's thoughts?
Nevertheless, I think I have an anecdote which is a bit closer to what he wanted. I used to identify as "agnostic" until I heard Richard Dawkins speaking (not live, unfortunately, but we have the tubes). Particularly when he made the argument about Bertrand Russell's teapot, it just clicked. I was a bit younger then, but not unintelligent by any means; I think I probably got out of the religious environment here in the Bible Belt quicker and more efficiently than most; I was probably an agnostic all my life, despite by raised by somewhat zealous southern baptists, and, in my early teens, I managed to understand what atheism really was and why it made sense. At the same time, I am probably a very weird person. I am not very much like many other people, and I seem to have what I would call a higher regard for what's true and a lower regard for what I want than most others. I wouldn't say I'm a masochist by any means, but it just seems that all my life I've realized that none of it really matters in the grand scheme of things, and I don't really have any convictions. I just go with what makes sense. Hopefully there are others like that out there.
He thinks it is an encroachment on the freedoms of business and the choice of citizens, especially when connections whatever company may have to Sudan might be very tenuous at best. He is a very libertarian guy, as you know, and favors a very, very small government. This sort of action on the part of the government is just an invitation to more government control and more government bureaucracy -- well, atleast, that's what it seems he thinks; I'm not nearly smart enough to know, myself.
I don't understand the situation in Darfur anywhere near as well as you seem to, but I watched the Frontline episode, and I read the GovTrack speech as well as the one on Lew Rockwell's site, and I don't really see any indication that he was confusing the civil war in Sudan with the genocide in Darfur. If you disagree with his position, then fine, but why do you have to make it seem like he's doing something that he really isn't? Maybe I'm misreading, though, or maybe I'm not reading enough into what he says, but I don't really think that ought to be my call.
I would like to know, though: you said you were very pro-paul before learning about this; are you still considering him? If not, why not? Is this single reason enough to make up your mind, especially if he's just made a mistake? Maybe you're right. Maybe he did confuse the two, and maybe he just misunderstands the situation there. What's wrong with that? You should try to get in contact with him to educate him. He can't always be right, but he does seem like a pretty consistent and principled man, to me, and certainly the best candidate for the presidency I've seen in a while. I don't agree with him on everything; I think his stances on abortion and church and state are both weird, and, were I running, I would certainly be a little more socially liberal in that regard, but I can't really complain -- this guy has cured my political apathy.
Oh, ok. I just started using Opera the other day (I last used 7.54 or something), and I didn't notice the "Manage site preferences" button. It looks exactly like the Firefox content configuration tab, which doesn't allow per-site settings, so I guess I kind of dismissed it out of hand.
I think the system is very clunky and incovenient, though. This kind of thing needs to be in the context menu or status bar or something.
To test any of the various other things, you can do TXT SPF, KEY, SIG, and NXT resource records. As another poster said, this is a lot of hyperbole. There's no need to implement DNSSEC for public zones when the root, gTLD, and ccTLD servers don't have certificates.
So then you have a run-on sentence AND a sentence fragment all in one. Is that even possible?
What version of Opera are you using with ad blocking and script blocking built-in? Yours seems to have more features than mine. dtim
Is there a good mixture of 12+ in Cambodia, as well? By the way, it's Philippines.
That looks like a provocation if I've ever seen one. Let's duel, Britain.
Well, that's just clearly wrong, and I'd be scared if it weren't. That just means he's getting smarter. For instance, he used to be for the death penalty at the federal level.
I think what you mean is that he's been consistent in voting for what he says he's for. And that he has.
Except I can see that IMDB's recommendation system is REALLY horrible after just ten minutes of fooling around with it. It only made about 5-6 good recommendations, and I tried about 15 different films. Geez.
Not that I'm saying Netflix's is any better; I wouldn't know, since I've never used Netflix or its recommendation system.
You're right. You don't understand. So why are you posting? They're not talking about encryption; they're talking about having ports exposed to the internet. If you use a VPN, you can have a service listen only on its local interface, but still be able to access it remotely through a VPN tunnel.
Slashdot already blocks Tor exit nodes. I'm not sure if they're using a DNSBL or other spam list, but I don't think they're actively scanning. This list might include other open proxies; I'm not going to bother to check, to be honest. Slashdot also has restrictions on the number of posts you can make from a certain IP address (or user account, if you're logged in), so if you make more than a couple posts, you're not going to be able to post again, and, chances are, if you're using a popular open proxy, you're going to get blocked anyway because someone else will post before you do.
It wouldn't be very hard to spam the shit out of Slashdot, though. You can do it with user accounts or anonymously. Write a simple script to get a list of recently checked proxies from all of the popular lists, or write your own scanner to get a zero-day list for yourself. Or just get one of the many script kiddie tools that are available for both of those tasks. Then you have an ulimited array of options. One thing I've been thinking about doing (not for spamming Slashdot, mind you) is setting up a server (sort of in the vein of those old IRC flood bot scripts, but with a DDoS network twist) that'll connect to a few hundred proxies, with a single client interface you can manipulate to get a random proxy on each connection. All you need to do then is open a few tabs and a couple of browsers. You could also write a script to just do it automagically.
Of course, if you're a new age script kid, you'll already have access to a few hundred (or maybe even thousand) Windows nodes running Sub7 or PhaggotBot or whatever the newest trend is, and you could always just use those, too. And this doesn't work on Slashdot, for reasons mentioned above, but there's a lazy man's method to spamming, too: just fire up about 20-30 instances of Tor (edit the torrc to change the listening port number) and connect from IE, Opera, and Firefox. Reload whichever Tor server you happen to be using at the moment to try to get a new exit path. There's probably a better method for that, but I haven't looked into that either.
And then there's the method with the account. This is probably even easier, really. I'm not sure if Slashdot limits the number of times you can post from one IP address even if you're logged in, but it might. Nevertheless, we can still have some fun with this. Just make a bunch of accounts. Who doesn't have access to a mailserver? Register a few domains (who doesn't already have several?), set up wild-card forwarding or something like that, then make a few dozen accounts. Write a script to handle the cookies, and maybe attach another client interface so you can spam whatever you feel like (instead of having a bot automagically spam, although you could make a big list of posts for the bot to randomly choose from).
Tie that into the open proxy / Botnet / Tor method as necessary.
Disclaimer: No, I'm not a spammer.
Your wife is in the normal range because women have naturally more fat content than men. I have heard all of my life that claim that "men stop growing around age twenty," but, so far, I haven't seen any proof for it at all. I really doubt its veracity, too. From anecdote, personal experience tells me that most men do stop growing closer to the time they're 15-17. That doesn't mean that's the case, either, but I'd like to see some sort of reference for that claim of yours.
15.5-16.5% body fat is not really the low end of the range, in my opinion. It's not bad, though, but unless you're fairly old, closer to 10% would be ideal. I wonder where you got that measurement, though.
Anyway, I'm not saying BMI isn't inaccurate. It certainly is. I just think most people's perceptions of what a good, healthy body is.. are skewed (atleast here in America).
Okay. So you're fat, but somehow the measure by which you're called fat should be changed to appease your sense of comfortability, or something?
You used to be 160 and have a 30" waist. Now you're 200 and have a 35" waist. What am I missing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroids
I'm definitely of the opinion that BMI isn't useful for any kind of accurate description of the state of a person's body. It obviously isn't. At the same time, there really just aren't many people who should be over, say, 200 pounds. If you're 6'5" or more and you work out, then okay, you can make that case. Even if you're 7 feet, though, you should probably stop somewhere around 250. A lot of people are just huge, and American culture seems to perpetuate the idea that being > 200 pounds is somehow normal. Most of the folks you see who're around this weight are fat, and some of them don't realize that they are fat. It almost seems like a badge of honor for a man to be two hundred pounds.
Perhaps, even, you aren't a man unless you weigh two hundred or more. That's simply not true. The average height is around 5'8" - 5'9", and, probably, most of us who fit that mould ought to be around 140-150, and no more. But try selling that to these folks who're glued to the latest NBA and NFL games, and they'll laugh in your face. 140? HA! But the guys on my favorite football team are 300 pounds.. Well, yeah. They take steroids. Don't pretend that they don't. Even those of us with the best genetics just aren't going to be capable of packing on twenty pounds of muscle mass without some kind of help.
That's not obese, but it's definitely overweight, and I'd challenge you on your being a "good athlete." Well, you may be able to do some athletic things fairly well, but I think the implication was that you were physically in good 'shape.' Is that so?
.. acceptable, I guess. Anything higher is pretty bad.
I doubt it. 21% body fat is horrible, unless you'ver over fifty years of age, or something. Truly athletic body fat range is 5-10% or so. Good, healthy body fat level is 10-15%. 15-20% is
Wikipedia seems to agree with me, more or less:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fat_percentage#Recommendations
You are way off, sir. I don't think there are 1609.344 meters in one mile. More like 6 BILLION!!!!!11
(20m/60s * 3.2808ft/m) = 1.0936ft/s * (3600s/h) / (5280 ft/mile) = 0.745636 mph (or 0.745645431 miles per hour according to google's calculator; I used mIRC's $calc()).
A bit slower than the Boston Marathon's cut-off time, I think.
What's more obvious is that you want to see it however you want to see it. No, I don't. Black people do commit proportionally more crime, so far as we know. Until you provide evidence otherwise, then why not trust the statistics?
Right. You did make those claims. But the issue at hand is whether or not Ron Paul is a "racist" (like anyone can know that, or like it's somehow our duty to determine the state of his mental health). And I think it's pretty pertinent to the point to discover the veracity of the claims. It might be his "responsibility" if the claims were published under his names, but that doesn't make the statements any more true.
I don't want to believe there is no such thing as racism. It exists, depending on your definition, and I don't even think it's particularly a bad thing, unless we go around killing people based on race. But not because of their race. I don't think we should go around killing people at all.