The Internet

[Buffalobiian]

@Krayz33: as Shinta says, you can vocalise without threatenning, which is what I'm getting at. Someone can tell me that they hate me and want me removed without myself feeling physically threatened.

[Buffalobiian]

Average Faces of Korean Chinese and Japanese Celebrities



A computer in Korea averaged the faces of all the famous celebrities in each country to show the most 'ideal' face.

In Korea, the female celebrity is pale in complexion, innocent looking and looks like she has a cold personality. The Chinese celebrity has well defined features and an alluring look whereas the Japanese celebrity has a cute, feminine and soft look.


The Korean male looks like an average good looking man, whereas the Chinese celebrity has well defined features and is very handsome and striking. The Japanese male looks very masculine and 'macho'. - Korean Herald

For all the "comparisons" out there, this one seems pretty accurate (the images, not necessarily the verbal descriptions).

Who knows if this is actually true, but even if it is it shows celebrities only anyway (the people we want to see on screen), not population average in any way.. so it still doesn't answer the real question people tend to ask (can you tell from just looking?)

[Edort4]

http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/

This one is amazing. I could swear I have read some of those in forums and magazines. The future is in ctrl+c/ctrl+v.

[MFauli]

I love Trump so much

http://i.imgur.com/ZVZS9aj.gif

[Edort4]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/nintend...centre-7464276

I was wondering what ppl would think about this, and the essay that caused the outrage, here seen how we have some ecchi and hentai lovers. Not judging at all.

Talking with a judge/lawyer friend he admited that if he had to tell the truth having images shouldnt be a crime by itself (it would need more emphasys on how the material got obtained) even though he would hate to judge in that way and let someone owning that kind of content free.

He said that it would become a case of public judging. That law would fail itself to satisfy the public opinion.

[Buffalobiian]

He said that it would become a case of public judging. That law would fail itself to satisfy the public opinion.

What does that last sentence mean?

The argument always boils down to "We don't have good evidence that owning pictures causes harm, but better safe than sorry and no one wants to change the status quo just for the sake of principle."

Getting fired for publishing a paper like that is stupid, but companies would do it anyway if they fear she'll eat away at their profits and image. Again - fuck principles.

-----------------------

On a similar note, I've recently learned that there are laws in place to prosecute people who venture abroad to engage in child sexual tourism, even if they don't break any local laws in doing so. That's overstepping some grounds in my book. Then again, there's such things as "crimes against humanity" by the international community. I'm not sure where I stand amongst all this. It'll depend on the technicalities and the framework that international organisations use to judge people.

-----------------------


edit: oh, and there was this clip floating around a few weeks back:



I don't know what all the other deleted responses were, but I got tired of the arguments here. Just call the cops and get it over with - like how you deal with any other activity you think is illegal. No harm's being done such that you can't wait 10 minutes for their arrival.

[Edort4]

What does that last sentence mean?

Im not a lawyer so I cant say I understood what he meant correctly. I think that what he was trying to say is that lawmakers gave up to public opinion in this matter making it illegal to have such content no matter what.

So to say: you have it you are guilty, no extenuating factors. From what he tried to explain thats not how justice (law) is suppossed to act in its spirit. Penal code and jail are the last option and something so "vague" has just having material isnt supposed to be meet with the last option right off the bat.

Actually the last law modification left it completely open here to be guilty of having that kind of pictures even if its drawings, if they are realistic. This opened a door for 2D and 3D art to be crime. So far no1 has crossed that door but it seems the foudantions were planted and he was quite pissed about it.

I liked Shinta's stand. Resonates quite a lot with me. But this kind of matter really makes me tilt. I get contradictory feelings and ideas.

[shinta|hikari]

I have not read the actual essay, but it matters little because my opinion on the matter has long since been established.

My stance is generally possession of 2D should be legal, while real children porn should be illegal, only because those who produce it tend to make money off those who obtain those materials, creating demand. That said, I think the penalty for mere possession should be much lighter than actual production, something like a fine (definitely not jail time or openly labeling them as deviants to be burned at the social media stake). The idea is to discourage people from supporting that industry, but let's face it. Illegal or not, people who WILL venture out and risk themselves to get this content WILL get this content.

[shinta|hikari]

For the record, since it was so obvious I did not mention it in my previous post, I definitely don't think anyone should get fired for publishing a paper.

Interesting thing about that video is, that child looked like she was sad as hell. I wonder how the people would react if she was all happy and actively answered them that she wanted to get married.

I asked a similar question in the Gate thread, but it seems that laws do exist to prosecute people who do illegal things in their home country in a country where it is legal. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I actually do believe some laws are draconian and need to be changed, so I can't support letting people abuse laws in foreign countries. I look at it less from a legal technicality standpoint but from an overall utilitarian perspective.

[Buffalobiian]

I actually do believe some laws are draconian and need to be changed, so I can't support letting people abuse laws in foreign countries.

Wait, that doesn't make sense. I can think of two things:

1) You made a typo and meant "I actually do believe some laws are draconian and need to be changed, but I can't support letting people abuse laws in foreign countries."

or

2) You did not make a typo. You do mean that some laws are draconian, but instead of jumping internationally to circumvent such laws, citizens should make more effort in changing their home laws to make them right.

------------------------------

I think you actually meant 1).

If you really do mean 1), what about seeking euthanasia in foreign countries that have legalised it?

[shinta|hikari]

I was going for a more causal relationship. The reason why I can't support people abusing laws in other countries is because I believe those laws are draconian and need to be changed. Otherwise, when in Rome.

I do not think legal euthanasia is draconian at all. It really depends on the law.

[Buffalobiian]

But we're talking about people abusing the lack of laws in other countries - abusing the less draconian law.

eg: Legal age in Country A where I live is 18yrs. Legal age in Country B is 13, let's have some fun in B.

In my example, Euthanasia being illegal is the draconian law. Legalised euthanasia is the free one.

[shinta|hikari]

I meant the law that allows for something to happen, like child prostitution or abuse, is primitive. I think making laws to prevent those kinds of things make sense.

Legal age of 13 sounds fine and all, but without the proper laws to protect those hebes from abuse, like getting bought from their parents by some guy without their consent, it's a primitive law.

If a country allowed murder, I certainly wouldn't support people going there to kill innocent bystanders for fun. I'd agree to a foreign or international law to prevent that.

My general stand is it's not black and white. It will depend on the context and the specific law in question before I make a decision whether I think foreign interference is justified.

EDIT: It seems I used the term draconian incorrectly. I thought it meant primitive/obsolete. That's what I meant.

[Edort4]

I had a laugh but I fear the day Skynet wakes up.

[Buffalobiian]

The way he got up..0_o

That reminds me, there's supposed to be a robot war between something-Heavy-Industries and an American company.

-------------------


I recently discovered https://www.xiph.org/video/ , the 2nd video explaining in 30 minutes much of the shit I've been trying to figure out about digital audio through white papers for days in the past.

[Death BOO Z]

Something that might relate to the case of prosecuting people for 'not crimes where they did it' is the anti-bribery laws.
from what I understand, it is legal for an american corporation to 'bribe', even in countries where there is no law against it (and when there is a norm to id), and even if a local contractor \ delgate is the one who paid the bribe, the mother company is still at fault.

[shinta|hikari]

I have no idea what you just said.

[Buffalobiian]

from what I understand, it is Illegal for an american corporation to 'bribe',

I think that's corrected now.

[Killa-Eyez]

Hory sheit!

Demonoid is back.png

http://www.demonoid.ph

Demonoid is being rebooted as https://www.demonoid.info

For those interested, here's what happened.

[Assertn]

holy shit, demonoid was still around? I haven't seen that site since... 2008?