(untitled)

dd bs=1 skip=16058 of="embedded.tar" if="b896436026391c6caa6eaaf26822b4ad.png" Soon: Padding to the next power of two (16384 in this case) and including that in the image At least _someone_ is learning something worthwhile from all of this. npow2 () { # Calculate next power-of-two of the specified number [ -z "$1" ] && return 1 local power="1" while [ "${power}" -lt "$1" ]; do power="$((power * 2))" done echo "${power}" }

Oh, and check those digits! :)

Bug: Providing a power-of-two to the npow2 function prints the inputted number. Fix that by using "-le" (less than or equal) instead of "-lt" (less than).

>>53333 wtf do you have against gay ppl? if they want to buttsex just let them you homophobe

>>53337 1. Ultimately this is not about me. 2. You're putting words into my mouth. 3. Not all homosexual people engage in anal eroticism. 4. The following is included in the embedded file. Perhaps I should paste it into the OP of every thread I start about these matters (until it too is blocked by key word/phrase(s)). Logically-fallacious diversionary tactics: • A red herring is a tangential topic introduced as a distraction. Trying to create an unrelated discussion about a messenger or claimant (e.g. by introducing alleged personal attributes or asking about unstated opinions) is one _very_ common example. • An ad hominem logical fallacy involves arguing or implying that at least one supposed attribute of a messenger or source somehow affects the validity of one or more claims presented when any such characteristic is completely irrelevant — and this is nonsensical for cases in which information originates from others. (Sometimes such characteristics can be relevant: For example, it may be appropriate to question someone's honesty when she makes a claim about herself or her own experiences. However, the anecdotal evidence logical fallacy could be a better angle.) • Misrepresentation—introducing a distorted version of something presented—is another form of red herring. Attacking a fabrication as a means to suggest refutal of what was actually presented constitutes a straw man logical fallacy. (A refutation featuring one or more vague, sweeping claims with no proof provided may be related. The burden of proof rests on the claimant, so offering constructive criticism is a good idea.) It is suggestive of a nefarious agenda and/or psychopathy to purposely and repeatedly try to divert attention away from anorectal anatomy and physiology, rampant anoreceptive violence, associated traumatic risks, and an epidemic of ignorance and misinformation. These topics, along with the voluminous amount of information from others, are so much more important than anything about one lone person trying to draw attention to them. Certainly pornography industries would be foolish not to take full advantage of psychopaths as deceitful and manipulative "psyop" agents when some pornography companies already utilize them for perpetration of violence against one or more others.

>>53338 all of these logical fallacies only make sense in the context of a rigorous debate. You have made it clear you are not interested in debate, you consider this place a "dumping ground". Why should we respect you when you so clearly do not respect us?