# Content-Type: text/shitpost

Subject: I am tired of Occam's Razor
Path: you​!your-host​!ultron​!uunet​!asr33​!skynet​!m5​!plovergw​!shitpost​!mjd
Date: 2018-08-15T15:57:45
Newsgroup: misc.misc.occams-weasel
Message-ID: <561b3703b5f5d237@shitpost.plover.com>
Content-Type: text/shitpost

Subject: Dear Miss Manners,
Path: you​!your-host​!wintermute​!mechanical-turk​!skynet​!m5​!plovergw​!shitpost​!mjd
Date: 2018-08-14T17:07:25
Newsgroup: alt.mjd.tact
Message-ID: <89fb050868dbd747@shitpost.plover.com>
Content-Type: text/shitpost

We leave recyclables for collection on the street in a place near the entrance to the home of neighbor A. Neighbor A has been complaining for some time about an unknown person who leaves bags of recyclables outside her door, because the collectors will not take bagged materials, only materials in bins. Then A has to deal with the bags herself.

Today while picking up my bin I noticed this had happened again. The collectors had come but had left behind a bag of bottles and cans and a second bag of shredded finanical documents. I examined the shreds for a while and observed that they had belonged to neighbor B. Then I carried the bags back to B's house and left them at her door so that A would not have to deal with them.

I wonder if I should suggest to B that she should consider replacing her office shredder with a cross-cut model. But I cannot think of a tactful way to do this. “You should take greater care to keep snoopers like myself from reading your private documents” seems like the wrong thing to say. Perhaps the return of the shredded documents will give her a hint and I should say nothing.

Subject: An unusual web site attack
Path: you​!your-host​!ultron​!uunet​!asr33​!hardees​!brain-in-a-vat​!am​!plovergw​!ploverhub​!shitpost​!mjd
Date: 2018-08-09T11:52:17
Newsgroup: misc.test.attack
Message-ID: <e8e02a888b255fe0@shitpost.plover.com>
Content-Type: text/shitpost

Web blog website was extensively probed yesterday. This is a common occurrence, but this probe had some peculiar features.

• All the probes came from the same address, 42.51.216.29.

• The 3,300 probes were mostly against URLs like /admin/index/php and /admin/index.aspx. Usually, attackers have a list of paths at which there have been past security holes. This attacker seems to be hoping to discover something new. (Every one of them was 404.)

• There were a number of requests for random-sounding pages ending in .jpg, such as /tsnFile/UserFiles/Image/diaosi.asp/bdddf17533.jpg. If this was intended to disguise the activity, it wasn't doing a very good job. A bug?

• The referring-url was http://www.nmily.com//Ac2.asp;.jpg. Generated at random perhaps? Some of the probed URLs were things like /Ac2.asp;.jpg and /sjurj54220.asp;.jpg.

• The claimed user agent was

Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Baiduspider/2.0; +http://www.baidu.com/search/spider.html


Followed by the bytes 0xA3 0xA9.

• When I did a reverse DNS lookup on the client address, I got the nonsense hostname idc.ly.ha. There is no such domain .ha. HA is not even a valid ISO 3166 country code.

When I did a traceroute, I saw what was going on with idc.ly.ha:

11  219.158.101.222 (219.158.101.222)  271.170 ms pc146.zz.ha.cn (61.168.250.146)  229.898 ms 219.158.101.222 (219.158.101.222)  271.159 ms
12  hn.kd.ny.adsl (182.118.124.66)  233.331 ms pc130.zz.ha.cn (61.168.37.130)  287.333 ms  276.773 ms
13  pc146.zz.ha.cn (61.168.250.146)  273.772 ms htuidc.bgp.ip (103.22.188.98)  237.818 ms  238.415 ms
14  * * hn.kd.ny.adsl (182.118.124.66)  278.467 ms
15  htuidc.bgp.ip (103.22.188.98)  276.015 ms *  276.096 ms
16  * idc.ly.ha (42.51.216.29)  465.040 ms  419.584 ms


Someone is running a bunch of hosts (botnet maybe?) and advertising PTR records with random hostnames. (There is actually a .ha.cn, but I doubt it is really involved.) Or do the returning ICMP package have fake source addresses?

It's all pretty weird.

Date: 2018-08-08T16:09:12
Newsgroup: alt.binaries.pictures.infinity-in-japanese
Message-ID: <e49000cb2078c3ee@shitpost.plover.com>
Content-Type: text/shitpost

Gigazine has published an article that discusses my earlier article on how to explain infinity to kids. It is in Japanese. I have learned that my name, transliterated into katakana, is マーク・ジェイソン・ドミナス.

At first I was pleased to see that the article had been written by someone who appeared, at least from their name (Mikael Leppä) to be Finnish. But then I realized that no, that was just the picture credit on the illustration to got from Flickr. So disappointing! Probably the article was written by some Japanese person.

Subject: Biblical blueness
Path: you​!your-host​!walldrug​!epicac​!goatrectum​!plovergw​!plovervax​!shitpost​!mjd
Date: 2018-08-02T19:13:03
Newsgroup: alt.sex.blue-sky
Message-ID: <c0767474516f0c06@shitpost.plover.com>
Content-Type: text/shitpost

Unless I am mistaken the color blue is not mentioned in the New Testament. I don't know what significance this might hold, being mostly ignorant of hermeneutics, but perhaps there is some.

Blue appears many times in the Old Testament, mostly in connection with ephods, which I have already explained.

Path: you​!your-host​!walldrug​!epicac​!thermostellar-bomb-20​!skordokott​!mechanical-turk​!skynet​!m5​!plovergw​!ploverhub​!shitpost​!mjd
Date: 2018-08-02T16:20:15
Newsgroup: misc.blue-sky
Message-ID: <9133b0acde8e8ece@shitpost.plover.com>
Content-Type: text/shitpost

Today's blog post about what to say when a kid asks you “what is infinity?” reminds me of something that I have been angry about for years. My family once went to visit some old friends. During the visit, two of our hosts had the following exchange:

Seven-year-old-daughter: Why is the sky blue?

Mom: Because God wanted it to be blue.

Holy fucking cow, even stipulating that these nice folks' religion is literally true and that this answer is literally correct, it is a terrible answer because it answers nothing; they might as well say “shut up, kid, and don't ask questions.” Just saying “I don't know” is a thousand times better than this.

If you believe, as perhaps this mom did, that God is the almighty lord and creator of the universe and the most important subject of human attention, and that her answer is correct, then it is important to consider the immediately following question:

Why does God want it to be blue and not some other color?

Does God prefer blue? Is blue better? Is there a moral or theological reason why it should be blue? We know from the Bible that God's truth wasn't revealed all at once; there were later revelations. Maybe next week someone is going to realize that the blueness of the sky is really an important communication from God about something, and we should have been paying closer attention to it. (This is well-precedented; see for example Gen 9:13, Exo 10:22, Josh 10:13, the famous vision of Constantine.)

Or perhaps Mom is wrong and God doesn't want it to be blue! A standard explanation for certain features of the world is that they are the work of Satan and are contrary to God's wishes. Could the blue sky be one of these? Was the prelapsarian sky some other color? Should we be trying to correct this? And how can we be sure which it is? How could it be unimportant whether the blue sky is the work of God or Satan?

Supposing that the blue sky is part of God's plan, shouldn't we try to understand this as we do the rest of His plan? What alternative is there? Who could be so presumptuous as to say “The almighty lord and creator of the universe made the sky blue for no reason at all, it was an arbitrary choice” or “God's plan is all-important, but not this particular part, which is merely an unimportant detail.”

And one might go a step farther with the next question:

How does God arrange that thy sky is blue?

Did God command Sherwin Williams to deliver unto Him one hundred trillion gallons of sky-blue paint? No, of course not, I'm just being silly. The actual answer is surprisingly complex: God's plan includes Rayleigh scattering. Now we should ask, why does God want Rayleigh scattering?

Religion can be used for good or for ill. It can be used to further inquiry, or to terminate its own understanding. There are varieties of religious feeling that are thoughtful, and others that are lazy and thoughtless, and disdainful of even the questions that religion itself claims are supremely important. To make oneself more lazy and thoughtless than necessary is not piety. It is despising the gifts of the bountiful God, who giveth us all things richly to enjoy.