Posts made by farnhamj07

Horray for polynomials!

Wow, I must say, this is something I'd never expect. My opinion of him has increased ever so slightly.

When using a /me command from an IRC client, it is incorrectly handled on the webchat.

More specifically, when an IRC user uses the /me command, the ident string, instead of their nick, is shown.

For example:

[email protected] saying "/me jumps" shows up to webchat users as " ident: /me jumps" instead of "nick: /me jumps". This is obviously very confusing to webchat users if the nick and ident don't match.

Is it possible for someone to fix this? coughtomcough

–--
Edit:

Here are screenshots of the mentioned problem.

Also, although it didn't happen when I went back to take screenshots, no more than 5 minutes before I noticed this, the /me commands showed up like "ident: /me does something" instead of "* ident does something". Not sure if you fixed it that quickly or what

Does GTRU have any plans to implement IPv6 in the near future?

According to GTRU's policies, only one user may connect from a specific IP address, which, for most users, seems reasonable. Two different users on the same home ISP connection doesn't really make sense, however, I am considering colocating a server with some friends, mostly so we can torrent from it. Although we are 'friends' in the sense that we trust each other enough to contribute money to pay for this, sharing a single GTRU account leads to privacy issues; the FAQ mentions that boyfriends should be able to share what porn they watch with each other, but quite clearly we are not all boyfriends and that ideology isn't applicable to this situation. Even without the privacy issues, if we were to share an account, we would have to collectivize our ratio requirements; if one of our group members were to go on a downloading spree and then delete their torrents from the server as soon as it was done, it clearly would affect the ratio for us all, which really isn't fair and undermines the ratio requirement system.

We are seeking an IPv4 /29, so that we could each have our own IP, however, we plan on attempting to get more people to contribute to the pool to reduce our individual costs; thus, if we were to have more than 6 users, someone would have to share an IP, and if they happened to also use GTRU, under the current policy, they would be banned.

That said, we are also able to obtain an IPv6 /48, which would allow us all to have a seperate IP for each user (unless we were going to fit millions of users on a single server!), even if they are on the same physical machine, by simply assigning multiple addresses to the same interface and binding the torrent client run by each user to that address. This would solve both the privacy and ratio tracking issues.

There are free IPv6 tunnel providers if native support isn't available from your providers, and setting them up is pretty straightforward (and I'd be willing to help out if our admins aren't so versed in it). Even with the rather specific rationale I've provided, all of the IPv4 address space has been allocated to the RIRs from the IANA, and eventually IPv6 will be a requirement rather than an option for websites, lest they want to fade into obscurity. It seems like prime time for GTRU to get onboard the train to the future now while the fare is cheap, rather than wait until the last minute when there is no other option.

IRCのユーザーを助けることができます

めでたしめでたし 

Ah, yes, a book is tangible, however, it was just a single example that happens to be so. An example of non-tangible mutual definitions might be "thought", "思想", "idée" etc etc… Although I understand where you were going with that train of thought, it doesn't really hold up. Further, it wasn't really my point that the words are not ambiguous; it was just a simple thing that we can all agree on what is and what isn't a book, and we can all agree on what a thought is as well, even though it is literally impossible to point to one and say "that's a thought!"

As stated, language is wholly subjective. To illustrate my point in a better way, consider the word "bisexual". In common parlance, that word refers to someone who is sexually attracted to people of both genders. Some people who fit the "normal" definition of bisexual choose not to identify themselves as such, however. Are they not bisexual simply because they claim they are not? To the rest of the world, that is not the case-- they meet the standard definition of bisexual and are thus bisexual.

That said, let's pretend that a small group of people claim that science fiction novels are not "books", but instead that they are "agises". All other books retain the name "book". To the people inside that group, no agis is a book. Does it mean that is suddenly true for everyone? Of course, the answer is no. The word "book" only has its meaning because we all agree on what a book is.

Thus, although it's more than possible to assign whatever word we want to whatever object, concept or anything else, when communicating with other people, it is a necessity for the person you are speaking with to actually agree that whatever thing in question is actually what you say it is. To make a long story short, words need to be mutually intelligible for the content to be understood. When talking about things with different meanings to different people, defining them is the only real way to ensure mutual intelligibility is to expressly define the word(s) to include or exclude certain definitions.

For example, a potential ambiguity with "bisexual" would be being attracted to people whose DNA encodes the opposite gender, but they have had sexual reassignment surgery while still maintaining the physical traits of their biological gender. Ie, in simpler terms, a man being attracted to a female who still has breasts and other "feminine" traits but also has a penis because of reassignment surgery. Is the man in that case "bisexual" if he is also to such persons as well as "normal" females, but not "normal" males? The definition of "bisexual" is ambiguous there, and thus on a site like GTRU, if the definition is not clarified by the persons in charge of approving torrents, some people might be displeased to find their torrent rejected, while others might not (and vice-versa).

If you were to use "farnhamality" as a word, not only could I not prevent you from doing so, I could not stop it from entering the English language at large, no matter what meaning you assign it. That's the beauty of language– words only mean what we believe them to mean. Of course, this is the reason that we don't all speak the same language. A book, libro, livre, 本, 書, 책자, เล่ม etc etc all mean the same thing; but only in their respective languages (some share words, but that is besides the point).

The only way that we can 'bridge the gap' would be for all of us to more strictly define a particular word, or for us to coin a completely new one. That said, it would be pointless for us to do that, because since whichever we did, we would have to explain the new meaning or new word. In the particular case of GTRU's community, the fact that we are an international group, with many members that do not speak English well makes it seem a bit foolish to introduce neologisms, or to use non-standard definitions for already existing words.

@smithdtn:

I'm native speaker of Japanese.  ::)
though I haven't played the game, read some articles about it.
(official site: hXXp://ugcp.sakura.ne.jp/)

to me, 家、建てます！ sounds like "we (offer to) build your home!",
but probably "let's build…" was better as game title.
Ugh, it's difficult to me even just a few words!  :cheesy2:

I wouldn't say "home", because in English a home is any place that you live, versus "house" which is more specific. For example, an apartment isn't a house, but it is a home. A live-in caravan/camper/RV or boats with living quarters are another example of types of homes that are not houses.

Using "We offer to build your home!" isn't wrong per se, but you can't really take out "offer to" without putting something else in there, and in Japanese, the offer to do so is implied, and the speaker fully expects the listener to agree. This is more colloquially expressed in English as "Let's ________". For example, when suggesting to a friend that you want to go to a specific restaurant, you might say "Let's go to (name of restaurant)!". You are implying that you're offering to go to that place, and that you expect them to like it enough to agree. If you weren't sure that they'd like it, you might say "How about (name of restaurant)?". You could use that phrase here too– "How about we build your house?" if you weren't sure if the listener would take you up on the offer.

Most of the problem in translating stuff comes from small nuances like that!

Hm, I will have to think about this as I'm not sure if I have to time to commit to such a thing, and although I am good with Japanese, I certainly am not as good as a native speaker, and the language is full of colloquialisms and double-entendres that I admittedly am not the best at

In this particular case it was straightforward but in many it is not

@agis:

Could sound obvious Andy but if the term "homosexuality" was invented in 1869 if we had happened to live in 1868 it seems we wouldn't have had a way to name ourselves even if there was already a term. The term "sodomite" right?

Language is, by nature, completely arbitrary in nature. The mere non-existence of a specific word has no bearing on whether or not the thing it describes exists or not, furthermore, "sodomite" implies that you have oral or anal sex, irrespective of the gender of the people involved.

I'm quite honestly not sure what you're going on about. People can choose to define themselves as "gay", "bi", "straight" or whatever else they want; the simple fact of the matter is that language only has value when the parties involved can agree on what words mean what– although there is a sexual orientation continuum and some things might have fuzzy definitions of where they end and the other begins, for the sake of clarity, it is not wholly unreasonably to make an arbitrary line of distinction between groups.

@Dax:

どうもありがとう! 
Dōmo arigatō!

:urock:

Hai! Btw, your avatar is win, I love Jiraiya's work!

Dax:

やさしい悪魔 / 大門政々 = Yasashii Akuma / Daimon Seishou = Nice little demon / Demon domination (There's a play on words here, the kanji can be taken several different ways– "spirit" (like "fighting spirit"), "togetherness", "authoratative"...)
渚にて = Nagisanite = On The Beach (or At The Beach)
Shave 夢魔 = Shave Muma / Shav[ing] Nightmare
恋する予感 = Koisuru Yokan = Feeling [that] love is near (As in feeling that you'll fall in love with someone or that it's predestined to happen)
新宿夜啼烏 / ナイチソグール = Staying overnight with the cries of the nightingale??? I'm not good enough with Japanese to figure this one out, or to know which readings are being used for the kanji.
王様とボク = Ousama To Boku = The King and I
The next image there isn't a title on the page; the first line at the top says "then dad spanked my ass" (そしてパパは ぼくのお尻叩く). The text (薔薇刑 SMサロン) on the side means "Rose Punishment SM Salon", as in the title of a shop they went to (I assume). I suppose that could be the title, but I doubt it. My guess is that it's a play on words, like roses are red, just like your ass would be after being spanked

Today, I searched for a gay dating sim game entitled " 家、建てます! " in Japanese, which is transliterated to " Ie, tatemasu! " and roughly translates into English as "[Let's] Build [your] house!" (the words in brackets are implied). I already had the game and wasn't sure if it was already up, so when the search for both of those returned no results, I created a torrent for it. That said, after doing so, I found that someone already had uploaded it, with the title " House.built.in. ", located here: https://www.gaytorrent.ru/details.php?id=138007

"House built in" is clearly unintelligible English, and the description isn't much better. Can a mod change the title to the original Japanese or at least the transliteration? Nobody is going to be able to find this title as it currently stands if they're specifically looking for it. Further, the game is Japanese-language only, so I'm not sure why this reverse-Engrish was even used in the first place. I would be happy to write a new description in both English and Japanese if it is desired.

Thanks

@alexshanekr:

Lol actually I'm have natural blond hair… 

Hehe, that seems more reasonable

Couldn't tell it wasn't natural though!

I personally feel that "protected groups" should only have such protections in some contexts. For instance, the government itself should not be allowed to discriminate, nor should public transportation entities, educational institutions or food stores. That said, a business owner has the right to refuse service to any person for any reason– except the protected groups. One can deny service for being fat, having blonde hair, or not having hair at all, but not for being black or disabled.

We aren't forced to talk to people that we don't like, why should we be forced to transact business with them?

@notquiteme:

I'm not sure why the whole Arab shenanigans kept on going on since the Crusades, but I think it's way too long ago to keep harping over it.

@fancydude:

For decades the official policy of the most of their governments, printed for all to see was the destruction of Israel!

What are you talking about? Israel was under Muslim control for centuries, then colonial powers stepped in and eventually proclaimed that Israel was no longer under their sovereignty. There was no self-determination at all– wouldn't you be a bit angry if someone walked into your house with a gun and forced you to sign over the deed to your home to some third party? Of course you would! I respect the Israeli claim to the area, however, it cannot be denied that the creation of an Israeli state was based on sympathy from the world powers after the holocaust. That, however, is not justification for entitlement. Although they may have been in control millennia ago, there has to be a limit to how long a claim can continue to be valid without actively pursuing rectification of it. Both of these things have basis in US law-- "Coercion", "Theft" and the "Statute of Limitations".

All of this said, anti-Islamic sentiment is far from being relegated to a few sporadic cases. In 2009, over 1000 cases of discrimination of Muslim persons were reported to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (source: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-615196.html). This is surely only a small subset of all such cases– I feel it is unlikely that most people report such things. I don't report small instances of discrimination against me for being gay, for instance. Simply because we don't burn Saudi flags in the street doesn't make it any less true. Especially after the 9/11/2001 attacks, and the resulting wars and threats towards various Islamic nations, many Americans have come to associate persons who look ethnically Arab as being Muslim, only making the matters worse.

We are looked at as the "bully" of the world, and we sort of are. We push our personal beliefs down on other nations, by force if needed, hardly heeding international law when doing so. We foment hate in other nations because of this, and then wonder why a few zealots attempt to retaliate against our aggressions.

I don't approve of the actions of many Islamic nations, but the US and Israel are far from being righteous in their discourse on the subject.

Horray!

I wonder how long it will take for someone to try to bring up charges of incest in an attempt to strike this down.

Unfortunately, there is no talking logic to people who do deeply believe in such hate.

It amazes me how violent the Bible is, and then the Christians somehow interpret that part away… "Oh, God didn't really want us to enslave people or stone them to death. But he was serious about the gay part."

News like this shouldn't surprise anyone, sadly.

@macantony:

MrMazda is correct. Enforcement is a BIG issue. I am from the USA, but I live in Mexico now. Back home in the USA internet access is already very restricted.. and the average user doesn't even realize it. In Mexico I can access many sites and download/upload material that I simply cannot even access in the USA. In Mexico, I can buy copies of movies (or almost anything), and somtimes, movies not even released yet. In the marketplace is not uncommon to hear people ask "Is this a copy?" Given what I have just said - Mexcio has similair laws protecting copyrights and infringement that the USA has. The difference? ENFORCEMENT.

I somewhat disagree with this; although it is true that the US enforces its IP laws more often, the "difference" is far more complex. That said, it is not difficult to find physical DVDs with copied movies for sale in the US if you know where to look. That said, it should be noted that Mexico has less developed infrastructure and fewer people have access to the internet in a capacity that would allow them to transfer large amounts of data; thus there is greater demand for physical media than in the United States.

The same woman has been selling pirated DVDs on various subway trains in New York City for at least 4 years; probably longer. It wouldn't be that hard to catch her, the police just have better things to do with their time.

As for the internet being "restricted" in the US, I'm not sure what you're talking about– I've yet to fail to find something that I wanted to download, excepting exceedingly rare things that often aren't even available legally licensed, either. Any site that uses geoblocking is easily averted through the use of proxies and querying foreign DNS servers if they are blocked that way locally.

All in all, it's clear that the "pirates" will eventually win in the end-- no matter what is done by governments and companies to control things, people will always find a way around them. A good example of this is the proverbial Great Firewall of China. Despite the entire internet infrastructure being subject to government control and censorship, people are able to punch through. The governments of the world aren't even able to stop people from counterfeiting money, doing drugs or murdering people-- what makes people think they will truly be able to stop people from copying media? At a base level, no matter how much is done, the basic fact that movies are visual media means that someone can sit there with a video camera and record a screen, and use a microphone for audio. Of course, such copies would suck, but if it comes to that, people will (and already do, for example, recording in movie theaters to release before DVDs).