no. 55 megabytes isn't anywhere near the limit; even 100 wouldn't be. and if it were megabytes instead of gigabytes, you'd still look incredibly retarded. who the hell says "meg?"
I don't know anything about chemistry, but you'd think that someone seemingly interested in it (as the submitter presumably is) would know at least this. I'm also surprised that I'm the first to point this out!!1two
Unless you are a bot, that statement is pretty absurd. Why would you take the effort to reply to something unless you cared about it?
I don't know. why not? it's not up to you to make decisions for me. just because you can't comprehend such things doesn't mean they don't happen.
While I'm glad you aren't out killing people, you are still hurting people - and for no logical reason. You yourself said that it's a simple matter of melanin levels... what in the world is the logical basis of your racism? Or is it some kind of religion for you, where simple belief is enough?
words cannot hurt people unless those people allow themselves to be hurt; it is that simple. if you disagree, I'm going to have to leave it at that.
Yeah, my bad. Meant Tennessee. That's gotta be close to Kentucky, unless they moved it since I was there.
could you be a bit more predictable? keep it up, because it's more enjoyable that way. it's not about effort--it's about you actively remembering me and what I've done and seeking me out. I haven't managed to waste my time tracking anyone on slashdot; I just read post occasionally and reply to them, and I happened to read a post once and realize that you were irritatingly stupid, resulting in me "marking you" a "foe."
don't worry; you aren't the only person I've done that for. reading posts and replying to them as necessary doesn't entail caring about anything particularly. I also don't make it harder for your stupid children to live anywhere. if your children can't handle me saying the word "nigger," then I guess that's their problem; they should probably learn how to take care of themselves, not to mention that they wouldn't even care if it weren't for people like you going around crying about how unjust and RACIALIZTSTS the world is.
I'm not out killing or hurting anyone [physically, at least], and have no intention of doing so. I also don't live anywhere near Kentucky.
uhh, I think I realize a great deal bigger than you how people can keep track of others, considering I've been a blackhat "hacker" in the past. I'm not particularly concerned if you know who I am. in any event, you don't. what is sad, however, is you giving a shit about what people post on Slashdot and spending all of your time worrying about replying to them. that's crazy. but if that's what you want to do, then by all means.
Ahh, my bad... you said that you'd never vote for a nigger in a discussion about Obama. Truly I am indeed stupid for thinking that you were referring to Obama himself as the nigger in question.
well, you are? I had never, until now, posted on slashdot that Obama is a nigger.
So... one could say you are intolerant of stupidity?
one could say whatever he wants. I don't really care if you're stupid, but it's funny that you are.
In any event, have fun living in a country full of "nigger lovers", as you - my mental superior - ever so eloquently put it. Where do I purchase such a fine mastery over the English language?
personally, I thought it was pretty eloquent. perhaps you should look at some of my other posts--my command of English is quite good, though I don't want to toot my own horn so much (as you).
yes, that's exactly what's happening. this is nothing new at all, and, in fact, these kinds of attacks have been done using DNS backscatter for years. it's just a generic "amplification" or "reflection" attack, if you will (the same concept as smurf/fraggle and many others).
are you actually running a nameserver? it would be interesting to know where they got their list of nameservers. perhaps they just did a generic query on google to get a list of domains and are using authoritative servers to do look-ups. they wouldn't have found mine by scanning, since I don't allow recursion (well, it would be useless to try use me as an amplifier).
that would be because I don't really care about meaningless slashdot gimmicks. I "foe"d you because you're stupid, and not because you're a nigger lover. I would spend more time demonstrating how retarded you are (for instance, I never called anyone in particular a nigger), but your trolling is too weak. and if you aren't trolling, then you're even more sad for reading hunting down my Slashdot comments to reply to me (or finding my comment by chance and knowing exactly what I posted however many months ago).
I do that frequently, though. I'm not sure why, but I guess I just use cat so much more than "echo" that my brain screws up as a result of their somewhat similar nature.
I've been to Tellico twice before. I'll have to go again, because I've wanted to be able to see the Milky Way for a while now. that will be interesting. thanks for the information.
must be some version of southeastern tennessee that I'm not familiar with! I've lived here all of my life. I'm guessing you're talking about somewhere in Polk County, though?
Re:I'll sleepwalk when I'm stressed
on
Sleep Mailing
·
· Score: 0
of course it wouldn't really matter what you reset it to, although it would be pretty interesting to find out. good luck trying if it's salted MD5 or better, though. but surely you would've just mounted the drive in another computer (unless the filesystem were encrypted.....) and changed the root password manually.
upcoming? do the people in that book normally schedule their wars? it sounds like the author may have been heavily influenced by our political climate!!!
there are several such replies in this thread, and of course they make sense. but it wouldn't be prudent to entirely discredit such criticisms outright, either, because what you fail to assess is that there are actually TWO strange events involved in the process. the first is that things happened the way they did. if that way is physically unlikely, that's one thing. it's interesting. it doesn't mean it didn't happen, because clearly it did. but then you have to remember that because we are here we know it happened, and because we are here AND it happened, two very strange things happened overall, because life itself is strange. I don't mean that it's rare or unlikely; I don't care about that, but I can see a deeper sense of reasoning that people with similar objections might experience.
uhh, well, of course they claimed responsibility. I'm by no means a "truther," but if you were part of a "terrorist organization" (lol) and wanted to rally support for your cause in a region dead set on anti-west sentiment (supposedly), wouldn't you? and, I mean, if I recall correctly (and I do), there was first no evidence whatsoever of Bin Laden's involvement -- Bush esseentially just declared "Bin Laden did it" and there was no proof for quite some time, until, suddenly (after previously denying complicity), a "tape" was randomly found in the desert where Bin Laden was discussing the successes of his attack... I usually record tapes of myself admitting to crimes after murdering people also.
the reason people huff paint is probably because they can't get speed. anyway, oddly enough, the reason we haven't banned paint is presumably because we use it to paint things. not that that makes any sense, and not that there aren't banned drugs which also have uses other than........... drugstuff -- cannabis, for example.
no, something being illegal doesn't deter it by itself. I think that's quite obvious, and I've explained that in another post, but you asked (him, though, not me). there are several questions to be asked here: if we assume you're correct that laws have served to limit or change people's drug use [from what it might otherwise be], obviously you are quite right; the nature of something being illegal means you have to be more careful and look harder to get it, but what are we trying to achieve with such things? it sounds to me like you want to decide what people can or can't do responsibly and then legislate what they're allowed to do based on that arbitrary decision. who is going to make that decision, and why, and by whose authority can we tell people what they can use? maybe some can use it more responsibly than others and maybe some can't. that's hardly the important thing. what's more important even than the efficacy of such systems is the most possible people are allowed to hold their ideas and exercise their desires. that isn't what happens when you make something illegal and try to punish people for it -- it oppresses them, and, in this case, causes a lot of misinformation and propaganda about such things as well as lots of other related or even unrelated things as well. since drug use is not directly related to crime in any meaningful way, unless you manage to show otherwise, these sort of "offenses" are entirely non-violent, so what you are effectively doing is legislating thought. that may be what you want to do, but I would not support that.
further, what actually happens in such a system, as has been mentioned several times, is that a criminal market is established to afford those people who would use such drugs that ability. those who would be most affected by prohibition laws are probably first-time users and not experienced users who can see through the propaganda and the perceived "dangers;" in fact, I would wager that THAT as much as anything may be a larger cause of deterrence in the face of such laws, and a wrong one at that (for example, in this thread, you professed a lack of knowledge about LSD and how it works, though you quickly changed your mind in the face of evidence [technically, the "evidence" was entirely anecdotal and weak, but still entirely correct; I'm not sure that bodes well for your intellectual integrity in this matter], and if you are that uneducated about drugs, surely you can't be advocating to tell us how they should be banned). this means that people who're already establihsed users of a drug are not going to be persuaded to stop using them, PARTICULARLY if the drug cannot be "responsibly used" as the ones you're supposedly discussing, having exactly the opposite intended effect. thus I don't think such drug uses will be curbed very much, though it may not accelerate as quickly in popularity (and why should it have to, if you already think its popularity merits such measures?). the question then becomes whether you're prepared to create a systemized industry which causes crime, promotes propaganda, causes people to be reticent about using drugs that aren't harmful and may be beneficial, disallows people already using a "bad" drug from getting help or being able to obtain cleaner, better drugs from good sources, sacrifices liberty, and institute a precedent for governments deciding what's best for you and I, all so you can potentially slow the growth of a drug's use which is already pretty high.
Slashdot Mirror
no. 55 megabytes isn't anywhere near the limit; even 100 wouldn't be. and if it were megabytes instead of gigabytes, you'd still look incredibly retarded. who the hell says "meg?"
I don't know anything about chemistry, but you'd think that someone seemingly interested in it (as the submitter presumably is) would know at least this. I'm also surprised that I'm the first to point this out!!1two
Arthur C. Clarke would've told Arthur C. Clark to shut the fuck up.
except he aimed for the head--an amateur mistake in Quake 3. .......uh. nevermind.
the guy with verifiable information?
we? who the fuck are you? I value his anonymity about as much as I value your "non-anonymity" or anything else: not at all.
They're not in bed with them in the way you might think. All ISPs in the US do this--it is the same thing as any other DMCA takedown notice.
I don't know. why not? it's not up to you to make decisions for me. just because you can't comprehend such things doesn't mean they don't happen.
words cannot hurt people unless those people allow themselves to be hurt; it is that simple. if you disagree, I'm going to have to leave it at that.
Tennessee is not exactly a small state.
could you be a bit more predictable? keep it up, because it's more enjoyable that way. it's not about effort--it's about you actively remembering me and what I've done and seeking me out. I haven't managed to waste my time tracking anyone on slashdot; I just read post occasionally and reply to them, and I happened to read a post once and realize that you were irritatingly stupid, resulting in me "marking you" a "foe."
don't worry; you aren't the only person I've done that for. reading posts and replying to them as necessary doesn't entail caring about anything particularly. I also don't make it harder for your stupid children to live anywhere. if your children can't handle me saying the word "nigger," then I guess that's their problem; they should probably learn how to take care of themselves, not to mention that they wouldn't even care if it weren't for people like you going around crying about how unjust and RACIALIZTSTS the world is.
I'm not out killing or hurting anyone [physically, at least], and have no intention of doing so. I also don't live anywhere near Kentucky.
uhh, I think I realize a great deal bigger than you how people can keep track of others, considering I've been a blackhat "hacker" in the past. I'm not particularly concerned if you know who I am. in any event, you don't. what is sad, however, is you giving a shit about what people post on Slashdot and spending all of your time worrying about replying to them. that's crazy. but if that's what you want to do, then by all means.
well, you are? I had never, until now, posted on slashdot that Obama is a nigger.
one could say whatever he wants. I don't really care if you're stupid, but it's funny that you are.
personally, I thought it was pretty eloquent. perhaps you should look at some of my other posts--my command of English is quite good, though I don't want to toot my own horn so much (as you).
yes, that's exactly what's happening. this is nothing new at all, and, in fact, these kinds of attacks have been done using DNS backscatter for years. it's just a generic "amplification" or "reflection" attack, if you will (the same concept as smurf/fraggle and many others).
are you actually running a nameserver? it would be interesting to know where they got their list of nameservers. perhaps they just did a generic query on google to get a list of domains and are using authoritative servers to do look-ups. they wouldn't have found mine by scanning, since I don't allow recursion (well, it would be useless to try use me as an amplifier).
binary (45 years) or decimal (almost 43)?
that would be because I don't really care about meaningless slashdot gimmicks. I "foe"d you because you're stupid, and not because you're a nigger lover. I would spend more time demonstrating how retarded you are (for instance, I never called anyone in particular a nigger), but your trolling is too weak. and if you aren't trolling, then you're even more sad for reading hunting down my Slashdot comments to reply to me (or finding my comment by chance and knowing exactly what I posted however many months ago).
I do that frequently, though. I'm not sure why, but I guess I just use cat so much more than "echo" that my brain screws up as a result of their somewhat similar nature.
I've been to Tellico twice before. I'll have to go again, because I've wanted to be able to see the Milky Way for a while now. that will be interesting. thanks for the information.
must be some version of southeastern tennessee that I'm not familiar with! I've lived here all of my life. I'm guessing you're talking about somewhere in Polk County, though?
of course it wouldn't really matter what you reset it to, although it would be pretty interesting to find out. good luck trying if it's salted MD5 or better, though.
but surely you would've just mounted the drive in another computer (unless the filesystem were encrypted.....) and changed the root password manually.
all the smart people are on slashdot? don't make me laugh.
is that supposed to be a contradiction, or something? because it isn't.
upcoming? do the people in that book normally schedule their wars? it sounds like the author may have been heavily influenced by our political climate!!!
And there are so many marijuana users I know who're "trying to quit." ;D
there are several such replies in this thread, and of course they make sense. but it wouldn't be prudent to entirely discredit such criticisms outright, either, because what you fail to assess is that there are actually TWO strange events involved in the process. the first is that things happened the way they did. if that way is physically unlikely, that's one thing. it's interesting. it doesn't mean it didn't happen, because clearly it did. but then you have to remember that because we are here we know it happened, and because we are here AND it happened, two very strange things happened overall, because life itself is strange. I don't mean that it's rare or unlikely; I don't care about that, but I can see a deeper sense of reasoning that people with similar objections might experience.
uhh, well, of course they claimed responsibility. I'm by no means a "truther," but if you were part of a "terrorist organization" (lol) and wanted to rally support for your cause in a region dead set on anti-west sentiment (supposedly), wouldn't you? and, I mean, if I recall correctly (and I do), there was first no evidence whatsoever of Bin Laden's involvement -- Bush esseentially just declared "Bin Laden did it" and there was no proof for quite some time, until, suddenly (after previously denying complicity), a "tape" was randomly found in the desert where Bin Laden was discussing the successes of his attack... I usually record tapes of myself admitting to crimes after murdering people also.
the reason people huff paint is probably because they can't get speed. anyway, oddly enough, the reason we haven't banned paint is presumably because we use it to paint things. not that that makes any sense, and not that there aren't banned drugs which also have uses other than ........... drugstuff -- cannabis, for example.
no, something being illegal doesn't deter it by itself. I think that's quite obvious, and I've explained that in another post, but you asked (him, though, not me). there are several questions to be asked here: if we assume you're correct that laws have served to limit or change people's drug use [from what it might otherwise be], obviously you are quite right; the nature of something being illegal means you have to be more careful and look harder to get it, but what are we trying to achieve with such things? it sounds to me like you want to decide what people can or can't do responsibly and then legislate what they're allowed to do based on that arbitrary decision. who is going to make that decision, and why, and by whose authority can we tell people what they can use? maybe some can use it more responsibly than others and maybe some can't. that's hardly the important thing. what's more important even than the efficacy of such systems is the most possible people are allowed to hold their ideas and exercise their desires. that isn't what happens when you make something illegal and try to punish people for it -- it oppresses them, and, in this case, causes a lot of misinformation and propaganda about such things as well as lots of other related or even unrelated things as well. since drug use is not directly related to crime in any meaningful way, unless you manage to show otherwise, these sort of "offenses" are entirely non-violent, so what you are effectively doing is legislating thought. that may be what you want to do, but I would not support that.
further, what actually happens in such a system, as has been mentioned several times, is that a criminal market is established to afford those people who would use such drugs that ability. those who would be most affected by prohibition laws are probably first-time users and not experienced users who can see through the propaganda and the perceived "dangers;" in fact, I would wager that THAT as much as anything may be a larger cause of deterrence in the face of such laws, and a wrong one at that (for example, in this thread, you professed a lack of knowledge about LSD and how it works, though you quickly changed your mind in the face of evidence [technically, the "evidence" was entirely anecdotal and weak, but still entirely correct; I'm not sure that bodes well for your intellectual integrity in this matter], and if you are that uneducated about drugs, surely you can't be advocating to tell us how they should be banned). this means that people who're already establihsed users of a drug are not going to be persuaded to stop using them, PARTICULARLY if the drug cannot be "responsibly used" as the ones you're supposedly discussing, having exactly the opposite intended effect. thus I don't think such drug uses will be curbed very much, though it may not accelerate as quickly in popularity (and why should it have to, if you already think its popularity merits such measures?). the question then becomes whether you're prepared to create a systemized industry which causes crime, promotes propaganda, causes people to be reticent about using drugs that aren't harmful and may be beneficial, disallows people already using a "bad" drug from getting help or being able to obtain cleaner, better drugs from good sources, sacrifices liberty, and institute a precedent for governments deciding what's best for you and I, all so you can potentially slow the growth of a drug's use which is already pretty high.
what do you say?