Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #569626 > unrolled thread

Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 22:49 -0700
    Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-11 17:02 +0200
      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-04-11 11:16 -0400

#569626 — Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience

On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 6:16:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39153
> 
> 
> You talk like an engineer, not a scientist. For a scientific notion to be valid it must be falsifiable. Compare this statement with your statement above about "fitting the data."
> 
> The Ptolemaic theory of celestial motion fit the data. But it was invalid science. Even when data emerged (Galileo) that, clearly, refuted it people kept believing in it for hundreds of years.
> 
> "It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the claim false. It may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable. The rule of falsifiability is a guarantee that if the claim is false, the evidence will prove it false; and if the claim is true, the evidence will not disprove it (in which case the claim can be tentatively accepted as true until such time as evidence is brought forth that does disprove it). The rule of falsifiability, in short, says that the evidence must matter, and as such it is the first and most important and most fundamental rule of evidential reasoning."
> 
> The convection model is vague. It is unfalsifiable. You yourself have demonstrated this vividly and repeatedly. The observation that warm, moist air stays along the surface and does not constantly rush up through the cool, dry air above IS evidence. This IS data. This data has been put before you, and you have ignored it. So, why do you keep asking me for data? Why don't you ask Toolbox to supply you there data? Guess what. They don't have any. All they have is what they presented on their site, which isn't measured.
> 
> Do you know the difference between something measured and something derived?
> 
> "The rule of falsifiability is essential for this reason: If nothing conceivable could ever disprove the claim, then the evidence that does exist would not matter; it would be pointless to even examine the evidence, because the conclusion is already known -- the claim is invulnerable to any possible evidence. This would not mean, however, that the claim is true; instead it would mean that the claim is meaningless. This is so because it is impossible -- logically impossible -- for any claim to be true no matter what. For every true claim, you can always conceive of evidence that would make the claim untrue -- in other words, again, every true claim is falsifiable."
> 
> Like greenhouse effect, the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience in that the people that promote it, meteorologists, refuse to test it. The weight of moist air vs. dry air has never been tested.
> 
> It is just believed.
> 
> 
What facts could emerge that would falsify it for you? The answer is none. There are no facts that could falsify it because it is but a vague, unfalsifyable belief, like greenhouse effect.
> 
> Source:
> http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_guide_to_critical_thinking/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#569715

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:7a4cc730-1168-4773-b64d-17599335e587@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 6:16:33 PM UTC-8,
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn wrote:

>> htt<SMACKAKOOK!>

Referring back to your own retarded blather isn't proof, James. You
have no experimentation, no empirical observation, no corroborating
studies, nothing backing your "theory"... you pulled it straight from
your ass. It is not based upon reality, it is based upon the mad
rantings of an uneducated moron who finds the world so confusing that
he must invent wholly impossible scenarios to explain it all... you're
the modern equivalent of those who believed that chariots towed the
sun through the sky, the contemporary flat earth halfwit, the latter
day Ptolemaic Model believer, making your "model" more and more
complicated to try to fit it to reality, rather than just embracing
reality, because to do so would entail your having to admit you're
wrong, you're retarded, you're uneducated, you're insane and you're
not special, not even in the slightest.

As proof of what I state, you'll yet again run away from substantively
addressing the gaping logical contradictions found in your "theory",
as is shown in my .sig.

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#569716

On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:02:42 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler  
Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:7a4cc730-1168-4773-b64d-17599335e587@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 6:16:33 PM UTC-8,
>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn wrote:
>
>>> htt<SMACKAKOOK!>
>
> Referring back to your own retarded blather isn't proof,


perhaps you can explain how come anytime you are asked to prove any of  
your k0oky k'lames you spew a bunch of dizum MIDs?

irony much, lotusLiar?


> James. You
> have no experimentation, no empirical observation, no corroborating
> studies, nothing backing your "theory"... you pulled it straight from
> your ass. It is not based upon reality, it is based upon the mad
> rantings of an uneducated moron who finds the world so confusing that
> he must invent wholly impossible scenarios to explain it all... you're
> the modern equivalent of those who believed that chariots towed the
> sun through the sky, the contemporary flat earth halfwit, the latter
> day Ptolemaic Model believer, making your "model" more and more
> complicated to try to fit it to reality, rather than just embracing
> reality, because to do so would entail your having to admit you're
> wrong, you're retarded, you're uneducated, you're insane and you're
> not special, not even in the slightest.
>
> As proof of what I state, you'll yet again run away from substantively
> addressing the gaping logical contradictions found in your "theory",
> as is shown in my .sig.
>


-- 
have you heard about the lotusLoser?
he's a loser but he still keeps on tryin'...

-

"People didn't cause the Great Depression, Liberal ko0kTarD. Governmental  
policy did." - Fakey in MID <7880b90ad2ecebe35ba01b4557597d80%40dizum.com>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression
"The initial stock market crash triggered a "panic sell-off" that made the  
stock market go even lower."

so... so the "government" panicked, snickers?

funny that a bona-fide conservative horatio alger hero type would want the  
government stepping in to save the stock market.

"Current theories may be broadly classified into two main points of view  
and several heterodox points of view.

First, there are demand-driven theories, from Keynesian and institutional  
economists who argue that the depression was caused by a widespread loss  
of confidence that led to underconsumption. The demand-driven theories  
argue that the financial crisis following the 1929 crash led to a sudden  
and persistent reduction in consumption and investment spending.[1] Once  
panic and deflation set in, many people believed they could avoid further  
losses by keeping clear of the markets. Holding money therefore became  
profitable as prices dropped lower and a given amount of money bought ever  
more goods, exacerbating the drop in demand.

Second, there are the monetarists, who believe that the Great Depression  
started as an ordinary recession, but that significant policy mistakes by  
monetary authorities (especially the Federal Reserve), caused a shrinking  
of the money supply which greatly exacerbated the economic situation,  
causing a recession to descend into the Great Depression. Related to this  
explanation are those who point to debt deflation causing those who borrow  
to owe ever more in real terms."

wait?  what?  no major "third" konservative k0okTheory blaming the  
government for everything mentioned?

odd, that.  eh, lotusLoser?

-

the never-ending saga of fakey's "lotus"...
https://web.archive.org/web/20160408001051/http://i.imgur.com/e3OrQSq.png

-

"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://imgur.com/a/yMFsu

-

FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:  
<3dcad3dd0a0d39727506717506883c26@dizum.com>

">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>>  phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>>  voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)

Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking  
*moron*?

"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to  
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.  it says that you're in denial  
about the inversion of your AC legs.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract  
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each  
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png

http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf

on page 2:

** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
  opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
  of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII  
art if you ask nicely.</GROUCHO MARX>
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb8a348293c5cf9f13@dizum.com>

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:

http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html

place those files in a directory and save this file as  
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.

compiles with:

gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>

using namespace std;

int main(){

   //float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
   //float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);

   float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
   float_precision t=float_precision(0);    // time variable
   float_precision sum=float_precision(0);  // sum of SnickerTurd's  
ridiculous sinewave mess
   float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25);  //  
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
   float_precision PI;
   PI =_float_table(_PI,25);

   // this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
   while(sum < snickerPrediction){

     // fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:  
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
     sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*  
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))  
+  
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));

     // perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh  
snickerTurds
     if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
       cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
     }
     t = t+STEP;
   }
/*

Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"

Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves  
never reaches that.  They never reach their max values at the same time.   
That's how stupid you are.

Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"

Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and  
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when  
summed.

the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't  
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while  
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has  
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages that are archived FOREVER.

*/
   cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<  
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic  
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."  
<f4f9193fa7d28b760a9de681e61427e7@dizum.com>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly  
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL

<the band strikes up a rousing version of "on top of old smokey">

on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*

*hell doesn't exist.  hope everybody is having a productive evening.

-

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

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

-

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers  
containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to  
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints  
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful  
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public.  :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you  
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:  
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

-

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as  
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects  
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it  
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,  
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework  
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason  
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating  
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

-

Coming soon!  To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot>       I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,  
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing  
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account?  <snicker>
You>    Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot>       Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed  
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,  
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot>       Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot>       Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)

-

snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n  
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message  
<b5e7da79a455d0c9227b1b50e25e7ea1@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were  
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we  
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers  
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using  
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden  
service. It's not rocket science.

_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how  
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can  
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my  
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._  (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a  
kiddie pr0n network.)

That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016

 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web