Nekohime Posts

Recently there were frequent downtimes and the site was bogged down with various features that slowed it. A rewrite was very much in need.

Had you done any testing yourself?
Was it double blind?

If not, you didn't do anything against your bias and the placebo effect.

http://erikjheels.com/?p=1236
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295

It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exists. The burden of the proof is on the side of the one pretending that a difference can be heard.

Most people *don't* have high end audio equipment. To them, this test is already good referrance to show that on equipment similar to their own, mp3 is transparent.
Other than your subjective claim, you showed no proof that there *is* a difference. A double blind test is not that hard to setup nowadays, if you want to convince us, conduct a test yourself.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_higher_mp3_bit_rates_pay_off

No you don't. Here's why:

You made a blanket statement, so it's not specific enough to be either confirm- or falsifiable. You showed diagrams of various encodes, however you failed to mention which ones sound different from the source.

My statement - lossy compression with high enough bitrate is transparent - is backed up by peer reviewed research. Your claim is subjective.

Here's the deal:

-If you can't distinguish a lossy encode from the lossless source it's said to be transparent.
-If you don't you a fine enough encoding *almost anyone* will hear the difference!

At *least* CBR 224 kbps mp3 encodes are said to be transparent. CBR 256 kbps or VBR encodes are almost guaranteed to be transparent. (There can be encoding issues with specific music that just tricks the algorithms into messing up). CBR 320 kbps is bound to be transparent as it uses the same sampling depth as CD.

So, no. You can't hear the difference between a transparent lossy encoding and the lossless source either. Your CBR 128 kbps encodes prove nothing, as it was never claimed that all lossy encodes are indistinguishable from the lossless source.

You actually believe any of the shit you wrote down? Let me reiterate: your intentions, your ideal weigh nothing. All that matters (to me) are results. So far your results: you destabilized an area, you put more power into the hands of countries hostile to your own, you're engaged in a war that you're unequipped and unwilling to fight. (The only lesson the US learnt in Vietnam? To not fight a war like Vietnam... ergo nothing of substance).

The invasion plan of Iraq had been drawn up long before 9/11. The WDM scare was a total farce and everyone who didn't live with their head up their ass and FoxNews rectally massaging their bowels for good measure will agree that it was 100% fabricated.

You want total oppression?
-Why don't you do something about North Korea? It's the poster state for total oppression.
-Why don't you do something about Kazakhstan? It's pretty much a modern Stalinist state.
-Why don't you do something about Georgia? Even Freedom House (a CIA frontend) had to condemn the last batch of election there... yeah Sakash Villie turned out to be even more of an authoritarian than big bad Putin and his "enforced democracy".

But all of that is bullshit. Once more: your (good) intentions, your ideals don't mean shit. Except you're not even being honest. (The fact that American citizens, hell most western people eat this shit up at face value never ceases to amaze me and make me sick at the same time). You're very good pals and support a wide number of disgusting dictatorships around the globe who're just as bad as Saddam was.

-You went after a country that wasn't threatening you.
-You went after a country that didn't train the terrorists who attacked you.
-You went after a country that never trained terrorist who were a threat against you.
-You went after a country that was thoroughly secular and therefore helped keep fundamentalist states in check.

Please, stop spouting fucking ideology and give a single practical reason why going after either Iraq or Afghanistan was a good idea.

I can't see terrorism that lopsidedly. Terrorism is nothing more than the gestalt state of guerrilla war. Like all warfare, it can be waged in the names of just ideals and against the most depraved sins and injustice. Like all wars it's blind and brutal as has little mercy for those in its way while it tries to "amend" the perceived injustice in the world.

While I won't condone terrorism, it's not because I outright reject (all) their methods or the justice of their cause. It's because they're no better than any other warmonger, who believes that their cause in it's grandness makes the plea of all in their way irrelevant. That's for the ideologists, the freedom fighters, the revolutionaries, the self-proclaimed protectors of justice and order.

...for those who can't even make such a claim, yet purport to seed discord and suffering for the singular benefit of themselves: for those I have no mercy. They showed no mercy for anyone else, no decency, no shred of human morality.

Whether the war is waged by pipe bombs or strategic bombers, whether the fighters are young men indoctrinated with religious fervor, or young men drawn in with promises of career and fighting the good fight, the death and suffering of the innocent are the same.

Your goals, your ideals are irrelevant. If through your actions, you've brought misery upon the people you're no better than what you claim to fight.

In it's "war on terror", the USA has unleashed not just as much, but several magnitudes more bloodshed than it enemies. I'm no delusional hippy. I can accept that war and suffering are sometimes the least bad choice When not going war would purport even greater crimes, when going to war is the only way to preserve the welfare of your own people. However can you in good conscience say that your wars did any of that? America is no further ahead in its war to rid the world of extremism than it was on the eve of 9/11. Your people are terrified, magnified by hiseria now seeing horrors in the very minute details of life where only ordernary was before.

What of the people of Iraq? They lived in a stabile country, under the iron rule of a bloody despot - one you helped create - with horrific atrocities to his name - yet which pale in comparision to your other creations, I for one will not forget the Khmer Rouges had your blessings. Now, not only is the terror still in their life, it's not carried by a dozen warlords who demand coutnermanding proclimations of allience from them and bloodshed - something detained in the sickly sweat smelling dungeons of state security forces and precautionary tales against dissent - has exploded onto the streets claiming their kin in untold numbers. You haven't lived up to your promises to them either...

...and no, you can't demand that they fix it themselves. You're the ones who created this, the ones who can't babbling about a daydrem their nation had no hope of living while the very same scumbags who were among Saddam's cronies were pushed into office and heralded as knight of justice.

So no. I'm not one of those idiots who believes that terrorism is just another "madness" that afflicts the mad or poor (and usually both). It's just the beaten fighting back, with blind fervor and merciless hatred.
In doing so, they become something even worse than what they seek to destroy.

Here:
https://www.fakku.net/viewtopic.php?t=43164

Op-pics are vertically limited to 375 pixels, whereas earlier they were horizontally limited to 960 pixels.
(Unless your pics are long and thin, they'll tend to be a lot smaller).

Only scanlated works are in these torrents. (There are 1-2 that have no dialog, but rest assured anything with speech in it is translated).

The array bug when making a thread seems to have been fixed.
Op-pics and uploads still don't seem to work though.