Forgot your password?

Comment: Pedophilia is not ridicilously common (Score 4, Interesting) 446

by aepervius (#48193273) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK
Ephobephilia, exclusive or not , is ridicilously common (10 to 20% prevalence depending on the study). Pedophilia IIRC barely scratch the 0.2 to 0.5%. What is the difference ? Secondary sexual characteristic. See in some country people have been flagging teh attraction to underage male & female NO MATTER THE AGE as pedophilia. But the reality is that pedophilia has a clear definition is the attraction to a child which does not display secondary sexual characteristic. Ephebophiliac on the other hand are attracted to young postpubescent teennager which display such sexual characteristic (for example young 14 year old female girl with breast) but are not at all itnerrested into prepubere children , like a 5 year old.

The problem is that in some country like the USA people are mistaking one for the other. They accuse often ephebophiliac as being pedophiliac. They are not the same category, they ephebophiliac,e xclusive or not, are not even recognized as a pathology, only true pedophiliac are.

Comment: The things is , individual abuse this (Score 1) 109

by aepervius (#48179779) Attached to: BBC Takes a Stand For the Public's Right To Remember Redacted Links
"if it's indeed a small error, surely you'd still find acceptance from some people, if not forgiven by all. It's for others to decide, not you."

Look, until google came in, it worked that way : if you had a small problem , then it was forgotten after a while because nobody except the locals knew about it. Let me tgive you an example : you are flagged as person of interrest by the police, they itnerrogate you, keep you in goal for 48h , it is reported by the journals. It turns out you had NOTHIGN to do with the crime and somebody else is arrested.

How many HR despartment would simply stop at the first hit in google associated with your name ? Is that fair that you get punished for the rest of your life for this ?

Let me give you another example. You are stupid and post a photo of you doings tupid stuff. You are after all a teenager, and not yet mature. Should this be taken against you for your whole life ?

There is a lot of example like this, which has NEVER been a problem before search engine. Because it was forgotten after a while. But now anybody can look up google and find everything under your name. This is not a good thing, because we human tend to do snap judgement. So really, think about this "this is for other to decide" twice.

And then the classic : you get drunk and do something stupid somebody get a photo. Pre-2000 a good memory to share between friend. Past 2000 google+facebook : a friend which unwittingly may cost you a good job.

Furthermore freedom is at the side of the road, not in the middle of the road. Thiunk about the impact of the freedom of us all as more and more of our life , without our consent, gets in DB or published.

And since when society has been known to be forgiving ? On the contrary society is quite harsh and unforgiving. Combine that with a memory which goes forvever and you got a NASTY piece of disaster, transforming a youth of generations which is a tiome of discovery and pushing the limit, in a trap which cost you a lot because of that google memory never stops.

A society which does not forget would be a harsh society. I do not want that for my children or grand children. Do you ?

Comment: The things is, it never does (Score 1) 321

All monitor have color correction and use different technology, then people perceive color sometimes differentely. The same for music. No matter the quality of your head phone or louspeaker, in the very end your tympanon your brain and the air and configuration of the room or headphone will change it. Frankly that's why so amny A/B test shows audiophile to be audiofool : they are fooling themselves into thinking a super expensive equipment with whatever response frequency will be better quality. The reality is that the crushing majority of the population is not able to tell quality difference in A/B test.

Comment: As expected from google (Score 1, Insightful) 109

by aepervius (#48179521) Attached to: BBC Takes a Stand For the Public's Right To Remember Redacted Links
" "not a good judgement" by Google. "

I expect nothing else from google, the notification to publication, the semi random removal and lack of judgement is exactly what I would do if I was google and wanted to protest against the law without showing my middle finger to the authority : simply do a very poor job out of it. In a way In understand it, I support the right to be forgotten out of many reason (before search engine we all enjoyed that right, and it is stupid that a small error without much consequence ruin your life. Big stuff like murder, rape, corruption, yes leave it in. But small fish ? Remove it don't be evil don't ruibn the life of people with small stuff which would have been forgotten if only a search engine did not exists). But the court should have been the one to decide case by case who should be removed and who should be not.

Comment: The rage is general (Score 1) 238

by aepervius (#48147463) Attached to: How Women Became Gamers Through D&D
There was a study out there that actually men and women gather "trash talk" post both, but men do receive twice the rate. The difference ? Men most probably ignore being told they are "faggot" or long accepted it as being part of the game voice-over-game, but women seems to take offense far more quickly when they are told they are "bitches" or whatever other stuff. Make of that what you will, some colleague think women should toughen up, personally I think trolls/trashtalker should tone down, probably we have both irrealistic expectation.

Comment: 20 years there was no index (Score 4, Insightful) 144

by aepervius (#48134015) Attached to: Google Rejects 58% of "Right To Be Forgotten" Requests
20 years ago if you were caught giving a hand job to a guy in a corner, maybe youw ere drunk or whatnot, maybe it would ruin your life for a year or two but that would be over , unless somebody dedicated a good amount of time to search paper clip it would fall into forgetness. nowadays the slightiest stuff is kept forever. A society which does not forget is one which will not forgive minor transgression. Now that handjob will hunt you forever maybe even stopping you getting a good job. An unforgiving society is harsh and one I does not want to live in and apparently many others. Also remember freedom is not found at the middle road where everybody find everything acceptable, and reporting would be borring. Freedom lies on the side of the road, where the shadows are , but still on the lgeal side, and what is or what is not accepted by society lies. If you enforce an unforgiving society and one with 100% memory then you WILL lose freedom. In a way this is already hapenning in the US. I refuse to see that coming in europe. Long live teh right to be forgotten. I do not need it, but I will fight for that freedom for everybody.

Comment: That's not what rossi is doing (Score 1) 975

" If the inventor really has figured something out, and I'll grant you that's unlikely, it would behoove him to keep a tight lid on it until he has pretty much the entire eastern seaboards worth of lawyers under his belt"

He pretend to have something and has been very public about it for years while stopping anybody to check for a hoax. The "independent" experiment as this one need size 7 scary quote. So on one hand he is not protecting his invention by doing a NORMAL patent (disclosing thus how to reproduce an ecat 100%) and he tried to make a useless patent same as other scammer do and withholding info(which you are not allowed to do to be protected). On the other hand he keep telling critics are snake clown and having no real independent experiment (all 4 authors are in relationship with rossi, and rossi keep a tight rein on controls).

On the scam side Steorn was more funny.

Comment: Questiona re a bit sexists (Score 1) 445

by aepervius (#48129327) Attached to: Statisticians Uncover What Makes For a Stable Marriage

Your attitude toward your partner (Men are 1.5x more likely to end up divorced when they care more about their partner's looks, and women are 1.6x more likely to end up divorced when they care more about their partner's wealth.)

What about men caring for their wife wealth and women caring for their husband looks ? What about homosexual couple ? Also a lot of the reason given seems to boild down to the following :

* if you know somebody for a long time before getting married your marriage is more stable (less bad surprise)
* if you or your spouse has a lot of wealth invested either in the ceremony or yourself, you are less likely to "split" away and lose wealth

Comment: That justification is used by other scam (Score 1) 975

In science you adapt your protocol, and you eliminate problem when you are told your protocol are not good enough. So when pointed out that IR camera was not a good way, when pointed out that THEY as having a relationship with Rossi were not truly independent, and that rossi loading / unloading the fuel was a possible cause of cheating, what did they do ? Did they adapt protocol ? Nope. More of the same.

So when you ignore scientist objection and try to ram your "this is not science because YOU the critic have no numbers" look into a mirror. What levi did is not science, he repeated the same systematic error in the first experiment.

The fact remain rossi is a *known* scammer, has been condemned by justice previously, pretend he has a source of energy, has been caught near the "rheostat" during previous experiments, was caught with isotopic natural "ashes" at the initial experiments, etc...etc... So sorry if we point out the obvious, Andrea "you are all snake clown" Rossi and levi are not doing science. I am starting to think Levi is either getting Senile , or is "on" the take.

Comment: "NOBODY here is claiming "to violate the known" (Score 1) 975

Yes , yes , if you state that Nickel Hydrogen fusion is providing energy and no radiation (remember rossi is taking quasi no precaution) then you are breaking the known Ni H fusion process and making a new one. By the way Rossi was not aware of the isotopic process initially, and the sample "ashes" he gave had the normal isotopic ratio. Which made people call him rightfully a fraud, and other people try to come up a complex mechanism by which it could come. Funnily enough now that Rossi knows about isotopic ratio suddenly the new experiment (which is not an independent one for many reason) has different isotopic ratio. Why do i get the feeling if we dig a bit, somebody ordered from a isotope reseller different isotopic ratio for the end material ?

Comment: Since you are using occam's razor (Score 5, Insightful) 975

occam's razor is that just as with the first "independent" check this was actually not independent at all, was in Rossi lab with Rossi condition, and Rossi could have simply ordered some specific isotope and mixed it to make it looks like the ratio changed.
A true independent test is made in a lab own premise, with a machine they can watch and look for, and rossi not getting his finger on it at any point. THAT is an independent test. What we got is a second circus show. Oh sorry I meant "independent test". With big scary quotes.

Comment: The scale is not open ended (Score 1) 578

by aepervius (#48118639) Attached to: FBI Says It Will Hire No One Who Lies About Illegal Downloading
Only scam test which want to sell you stuff makes them open ended. The reality is that the scale are relatively well defined from 50 to 150 IIRC where about 99.9% or so of the populaztion fit (3 standard deviation about). Anything beyond that is simply not defined at all. Not even with or without the qualifier "well".

Comment: Stop that stupid clarke quote forever please (Score 1) 269

by aepervius (#48104039) Attached to: MIT Study Finds Fault With Mars One Colony Concept
"If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong"

I highlighted you what's the problem with the quote. It is big honking ad hominem. Judging an opinion on the age of whom did it is wrong. You have to look at the argument. And if the argument are based in ground science then so be it, unless you disprove the science the argument stands. It does not matter if the scientist is young or old.

Stops that stupid citation from Clarke please. Bring argument based on evidence or critique argument based on evidence of the opinion of a person, do not do it based on gender, age, skin color, religion, or whatever other argument you may find about the person.

Money will say more in one moment than the most eloquent lover can in years.