Jump to content

LAwLz

Member
  • Content count

    12,052
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


About LAwLz

  • Title
    Pseudo-intellectual Charlatan
  • Birthday 1993-02-11

System

  • CPU
    AMD Ryzen 1700X
  • Motherboard
    Gigabyte GA-AX370-GAMING 5
  • RAM
    32GB @ 2666MHz CL16 (Corsair)
  • GPU
    MSI 1060 6GB Gaming
  • Case
    Cooler Master HAF 922
  • Storage
    512GB Samsung 960 Pro - 500GB Samsung 850 EVO - 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 - 2TB Samsung Spinpoint F4
  • PSU
    Corsair RM750X
  • Display(s)
    Dell U2312HM - Dell U2211H - a crappy TN monitor (Philips 221EL)
  • Cooling
    Noctua D15
  • Keyboard
    Corsair K95 (Brown switches)
  • Mouse
    Logitech G502
  • Sound
    AKG K702 - FiiO E9
  • Operating System
    Windows 10
  • PCPartPicker URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Sweden
  • Interests
    Anime/manga, networks, some gaming, tabletop RPGs and posting on forums.
  • Occupation
    Consultant (networking)

Recent Profile Visitors

11,484 profile views
  1. Sometimes I wonder if you actually believe the bullshit you type. Yes, there are a lot of things which are perfectly normal to do, yet people feel ashamed/embarrassed about it. Almost everything related to sex falls into this category because it is a very taboo subject in western culture.
  2. how to convert video file flv to mp3

    Are you sure you want to convert it to .mp3? mp3 is audio-only. If you want to convert it to .mp4 then I recommend you download FFmpeg and then run this command: ffmpeg -i INPUT_FILE_NAME.flv -codec copy OUTPUT_FILE_NAME.mp4 That should do a straight transfer of the video and audio from the .flv container to an mp4 container. No quality loss, and it will finish really quickly. THIS WILL ONLY WORK IF THE .flv FILE CONTAINS CODECS WHICH ARE SUPPORTED BY MP4. If the .flv file contains some other format then you're kind of screwed and is only left with the option of re-encoding it, but at that point it's probably best to keep it as .flv.
  3. Yeah, you can't edit videos like that. A large portion of video editing is just scrubbing through footage, and during that time you are generally clicking very few buttons if any. The APM for video editing is probably not even 30 on average, and even that is probably very generous.
  4. It's often faster, but not always. It depends on how easy the hotkey is to reach from your current positioning of the hand, and how hidden it is in the menus. For example the hotkey for content aware fill in Photoshop is J. In order to push that I need to lift my entire left hand, move it across the entire length of the keyboard and the press it. It can be faster to just quickly move your mouse cursor over to it and click the icon (especially if the cursor is already located on the left side). If the icon is not currently visible it will be faster with J though.
  5. I don't get what that has to do with Amazon applying VAT on the price automatically. When I order something from Amazon, I get the same price regardless of which version I visit. I can visit .es or .de despite Spain and Germany having different tax rates, and I get the same price on products (at least on the products I tried on). So my guess is that Amazon automatically calculates the VAT based on the customer, rather than which version of their website you visit. I don't see why they wouldn't. Using a generalized VAT rate for all products on the .de site, and another one for all products on .es sounds like a terrible idea, but if I understand your post correctly you believe that is what they are actually doing? I think the most sane solution, and probably what Amazon are doing in Europe, is check the registered delivery address and then base the VAT on that. Are you trying to argue that showing prices including VAT is somehow unfeasible in the US despite it working just fine in Europe? That's absurd.
  6. Does the bill specifically state it is only for porn? Or is it any age check? What happened with the ISP level porn filter was that more and more things got classified as needing to be blocked. Like I said, it started off with porn but now it also includes drug related sites, gambling, dating, and many more things. Actually, here is an excerpt from the bill: So no, they would not have to change the bill to block other material. The bill gives them the power to block "other material" as well, and since it is not specified what "other material" is in the bill, it legally speaking means anything. What you're describing as "can't happen" is in fact what the bill says. And yes, I am questioning the whole government. This is the same government that wrote extremely intrusive spying bills which explicitly exempted themselves from it because they found it to be too intrusive. Yes, they wrote a bill and then also wrote that it did not apply to themselves. It's also the same government that has harbored pedophile rings for decades (rather not look up sources for this on my work computer, but remind me again and I'll do it when I'm at home). I do not give the UK government any benefit of the doubt at all. They have expended all the trust I am willing to give them. I think you should start questioning them too. Well, yes. All laws are taking away some freedom from people, but generally there is a strong argument that what we gain is worth more than the freedom we lose. In this case however, I have not seen any good argument for this having any kind of positive benefit to society, and I can see a big negative effect. OK so you do draw the line somewhere. Having the default as blocking porn, and requiring ID verification to watch it is fine, but requiring ID verification for swearing is over the line. See? We do need to draw the line somewhere. What the UK government is doing right now is slowly moving the line one millimeter at a time. Well you seem to be cheering about UK citizens losing some freedom while giving their government a huge amount of power over them so no, I do not trust people to realize what they are losing. Have you seen how many things the UK has banned in recent years? They are strongly cracking down on sex in general. The very same bill this age verification system is part of also includes banning "non-conventional sex acts". If this bill passes, then there is a very high risk that things such as female ejaculation will be completely banned from being viewed in the UK. That goes for everyone by the way, porn-pass or not. The UK government wants to control what fetishes people are allowed to have, which is insane. How many people do you think knows about this? Did you do that? A lot of bills include hidden parts and cryptic language for the sole reason of keeping people in the dark. Both. It's a sign that the UK government is using the boiling frog tactics, and that people are not making any major resistance. However, if they had introduced the current Internet censorship right from the start I am sure far more people had been protesting. Well first of all, I am not making assumptions here. I just read the bill and looked at what power the government would get. I don't want them to have that power so I am against it. But you can absolutely decide if something is bad based on assumptions which haven't happened yet. We do that all the time. Is it bad to be shot? I haven't been shot yet but I assume it is bad, so I try to avoid it. Is giving a government known for abusing their powers every chance they get even more power a bad idea? Probably, so I would rather not give it to them. I mean, what would you say if I proposed Sharia laws? By your logic, you can't be against it because we don't have it in the UK yet. Maybe it would work great, so let's give it a try! Or maybe we should make the reasonable assumption that it is a horrible idea and we should stay away from it. No it's not. I am not saying we should give up. What I am saying is that people need to protest or at the very least make their opinions heard. It is not enough to just say "just vote for someone else" because they will do terrible things too. What people need to do is make their voices heard that politicians can't get away with abusing their powers. Hell, if all you do is vote against them then they won't even know why they don't get votes. It is extremely important that you make your opinion heard regarding specific issues, rather than just stay quiet and abandon a party you might agree with in 90% of all cases. I mean, let's just pretend like I am going to vote for May in the next election (I am not British so I can't). Imagine if I agreed with her in 90% of all questions and decisions she makes. However, I strongly disagree with her regarding this. What you propose is that I keep quiet and: 1) Vote for her because I agree with her on 90% of everything, but this also means that in her mind I agree with her decision regarding porn passes. 2) I ignore all the 90% of other questions and don't vote for her, because I feel so strongly about this particular issue. May will never know this was the question which was the dealbreaker, and she might change her stance on some of the other 90% of questions I did agree with her on. As you can clearly see, neither situation 1 nor situation 2 is favorable to me or democracy in general. What I propose is weight politicians against each other and pick the one you agree with the most on the questions you find the most important. However, in doing so you must also voice your opinion on the questions where you have different views, so that the politicians knows which ones of their actions are not accepted by the public. This not only informs the politicians in power what people believe is wrong or wrong on a particular subject but it also informs their political oppositions so that they can appeal to that crowd in the next election. Keeping criticism to yourself is never the answer. What you're advocating for is a very big threat to democracy. Democracy does not work if the politicians don't know what the people want.
  7. OK, got any good studies on ongoing exposure? I assume this law is intended (if the politicians are to be believed) to combat both accidental and ongoing. I see. Sorry but I might have missed that part of your post or not figured out that they were related. If the benefits/drawbacks of watching porn starts becoming blurry at the age of 12 and forward then I think we should question our current age restriction of 18, rather than try and enforce it even harder. Right now it seems like the UK government is working really hard to enforce something which may be needlessly restrictive and which is currently very broken/ignored. Doesn't matter if it's a meta analysis or not. If it says that most studies found negative effects, but those negatives effects are things which are negative because of old-fashioned moral values (such as casual sex) then it's just garbage in, garbage out from the analysis. Without mentioning what the "negative effects" the research found we can't actually judge if there were real negative effects, or just "negative" in the sense that they do not align with the more traditional views of sex (mostly based on religion). The ideas that sex is immoral and should be prohibited are mostly based on religious ideas and old-fashioned moral values which has been carried over into modern day society. If a research paper defines having casual sex as negative then it is not based on science and research, it's based on that author's bias which most likely steps from the aforementioned sources. It's not a coincident that countries with different religious cultures often differ when it comes to their views of sex, if you also take into consideration the influence western society have had on the "native culture". I have years of experience when it comes to masturbation. You could call me a "masterdebater". Anyway, I thought I asked for the core issues surrounding minors and exposure to porn but so far I have only gotten a generalized "it's bad" which seems to be based on subjective opinions regarding things such as casual sex. I have absolutely no problem with casual sex, definitely not when it comes to myself but I don't have an issue with younger people having it either, as long as they are aware of how to do it properly (which is why I think sex-ed is extremely important). If two 15 year olds want to screw then I say let them. It's better to inform them how to do it properly rather than try to keep them in the dark about sex and hope that they don't start experimenting by themselves (which they will). I want something which actually say what "bad effects" occur. I might not have gotten to that point in your link yet but so far it has just been a generalized "it's bad" which seems to be linked to the notion that sex itself is bad, especially casual sex. In order to say porn has harmful effects I would need some objective measurement. For example a study showing that someone with proper sex-ed who watches porn runs a higher risk of getting an STD, or teen pregnancy, or maybe higher risk of mental issues, than someone who has not watched porn. Not just "sex is bad and porn encourages sex, so therefore porn is bad too". Bold and underlined to add emphasis, because this is the core issue I have with the link you posted earlier. Got any links? I am not trying to argue that the research is wrong. What I am saying is that I am on the fence and the research you have posted so far has not proven the point you're trying to make.
  8. But you do have to draw the line. If we discover that things like hip-hop music videos are also found to have similar effects as porn, do we introduce hip-hop viewing licenses? Right now the line is draw at pornographic websites, but that will probably change (just like the porn filter changed to include a lot of other things including certain political views and critique). Assuming this is actually in order to protect children, surely it would be weird to not change where the line was drawn assuming other evidence appears that the line is not in the right place? But since the line is already infringing on peoples' freedoms there need to be a discussion of what is and isn't acceptable risks, as well as how much of a nanny state is necessary. To take it to the extreme, if it is found that being exposed to swearing is bad for children, to what lengths should the government intervene to make sure children don't hear swearing? Right now they are doing it by age restricting media which contains it. Should the next step be outright banning it unless you have a swearing license? Maybe install microphones into peoples' homes and fine them if they swear where a child might hear it? No, that is not how boiling a frog works. The entire point of boiling a frog is that people are less resistant to small changes. Taking away a large portion of someone's freedom is seen as something worse than taking away the same amount of freedom, but in 5 smaller steps. In the UK the porn filtering system has been changed something like 4 times already, and each time it has become more forceful and censored more things. If we judge each change individually it is not that big of a deal, but once you combine them it is very scary and intrusive. What you have to look at is the cumulative result, not each individual change. Voting doesn't work because all parties are interested in controlling the citizens to some degree. It also assumes that people know what is best for them, which is not always the case. But the even bigger reason why voting won't work is because you can't make a decision on who to vote for just factoring in a single question. We'll have an election in Sweden this year, and I agree with some things and disagree with some things from each individual party. No matter who I vote for, I will essentially be voting for some changes I disagree with. There is no party which I think holds the right position for each question. I therefore have to choose which party I agree the most with (or think is the least awful). A lot of people do the same. So people who are against this system might still vote for the government who suggested it, because that government is seen as better in other areas.
  9. People visibly shake just from seeing two nude people "hug"? Sounds like there is something more at play there, or else our entire society would be fucked. People don't get scared for life from seeing some nudity once or twice. It is worrying that there are no long term studies yet we are acting as if there are. I'm not saying we should ignore everything until it becomes a problem, but before we start restricting peoples' freedoms in the name of "protecting the children", we need to gather evidence that the laws being passed will actually protect children. I will also question what qualifies as "before the child is ready". Biologically speaking, children are ready for sex in their early teens, sometimes sooner. So is the "before the child is ready" based on social or biological qualifications? Because right now there is a massive gap between the two. I am currently reading the study you linked but I can already tell that it is extremely biased because it classifies watching porn as inappropriate and dangerous. It also includes "racist or sexist content" into the stats which muddles the conclusion. It seems like the study was made with a predefined conclusion in mind. Even the part you cited is based on ideas such as having multiple sexual partners being bad, despite it being mostly based on old-fashion morals stemming from religions, rather than any kind of logic or science. In order words, some of the studies which found "negative effects" of watching porn, actually found things like people who watch porn are more likely to have one-night stands rather than committing to a single partner. This is why I am very against any kind of research which uses generalized and non-specific terms to classify something as good or bad. What I would like to see is a large scale, long term study which is unbiased and only interested in what potential effects, good or bad, that exposure to pornography has on different age groups. I know that is a very big ask, but if we are going to pass laws which restricts individuals freedoms because we "want to protect the children" then there should be science backing it up, not just assumptions which might be completely wrong (or even the opposite of what is true). Another problem with these studies is that they often do not take into consideration proper sex-ed, as well as what negative effects treating sexuality as such an extreme taboo might have. Would the same exposure to porn have the same effect on a child that grew up with proper sex-ed and in a household where sex was no well-kept secret that was never talked about, compared to let's say someone following Sharia law where sex before marriage is punishable with 100 lashes and exile? It's very easy to mix up cause and effect if you are not taking these things into consideration. Are children exposed to porn being scared (assuming they are) because of the porn itself, or because of what they have been taught about it?
  10. Stop talking crap. 1) You're talking about the proprietary drivers which not all distros use. 2) You're exaggerating the issues that the 390 drivers had. It had some compatibility issues with some cards. 3) That issue you're referring to was fixed very quickly. Here is a report from January about it being fixed. If all it takes for you to label something an "unreliable ecosystem" is one bad driver update then I am very interested in knowing which system you're using and if it is reliable. Sounds like a problem on your end. I haven't had any issues using FFmpeg's VA-API on my 1060. Decoding works fine in Firefox too.
  11. Not really. Not saying the Surface Hub is bad, but it's not exactly better than let's say a Spark Board. I think it's more accurate to say it is "different" rather than "better". They say it's "greater than 4K". So chances are it will be 3840 or higher horizontally, and then whatever resolution is needed for 3:2 vertically.
  12. Damn, that's really expensive. Why has smartphones become so incredibly expensive? I remember when I bought my Galaxy S 2 for ~400 euros and thought that was crazy expensive. Now it's twice as expensive for the equivalent tier. Just check the delivery address? I am pretty sure Amazon already does that. The reason why they don't display with VAT is because it's not required in the US, and why would a store want to display significantly higher prices than their competitors?
  13. Some random thoughts: 1) Are there any definitive studies that shows accidental exposure to porn having a detrimental effect on children? And I would not classify for example interest in sex at a younger age as detrimental because I don't believe there is anything wrong with sex, assuming all the people involved understand it. Are the studies well accepted or are there controversies surrounding them? Not all studies are unbiased and accurate (just look at the "vaccination causes autism" "study" for an example). 2) If we assume that porn is harmful and things has to change in order to limit exposure, where do we draw the line? Straight up porn sites are obviously bad, but what about media which contains elements of these things without having it has their primary focus? What about books that contains these forbidden themes? And before you think the idea of a "book license" which lets you read books is silly, please bear in mind that the UK already has a ban on literature which contains themes such as rape or incest. What about music that contains these things? Should there be a music license for that? 3) Where is this heading? It's easy to dismiss something as a slippery slope fallacy, but not all slippery slope arguments are fallacies. Here we have a clear path we can follow and the goal is fairly straight forward. First the UK geared up for what's essentially the great firewall of China, except in the UK. It does inspection of all traffic and classifies it into different categories. Then they introduce an optional, opt-in filter so that parents can easily call their ISP, or change the settings in their router to have porn blocked. So far so good. Then that filter got expanded to include other things too, such as drugs, dating, file sharing, gambling, "obscenity", "hate", fashion and beauty, hacking, and so on. Next the filter went from opt-in to opt-out. So now the default was that the things listed above, as well as other things, were blocked. In order to view any of these categories users would have to actively go and change settings in their router or call their ISP to have it unblocked. This next step is that you can't easily just unblock it. You have to provide identification and pay money to have it unblocked. What's that smell? Is someone boiling frogs? It certainly smells like it. It is not unreasonable to expect a full ban on some of these things. Also, please keep in mind that the UK government has been trying to pass laws censoring certain political ideas for a long time. A few years ago Theresa May proposed a "Extremist Disruption Order" which would give the government power to censor anything they labeled as "extremist" from posting on social media, broadcasting or protesting, even if the content itself was completely legal and non-violent. Those legitimations would be a massive step towards the UK being as oppressing and restrictive as the Chinese government when it comes to Internet freedom. 4) Where does the responsibility of the government end and where does the responsibility of the parents begin? It must at some point, or else we will end up with cameras and listening devices inside our homes, making sure parents are only saying government approved things to their children in their own homes. I think it's good that the government handles some things for children, but once it starts restricting completely legal activities for other groups I think people should question the purpose. Is this legislation really here to protect children, or is it here to restrict peoples' freedoms? Because controlling what people can do for entertainment is a massive amount of power. It's something several dictators and other oppressive forms of government has abused a lot.
  14. Way too many things to list. It's kind of like comparing a screwdriver to a hammer.
  15. The UK is so fucked up. It's like the politicians looked at China's extremely oppressive governments and thought "hey, that looks awesome. Let's copy them".
×