©®åƒ†¥µåGGø†

To my knowledge, the discussion is legal so long as it doesn't take on a conspiratorial vibe (i.e. words such as "we should" and "you should" should be avoided). Or someone describes how to build a nuke (for obvious reasons).

And now, a few common misconceptions (mainly fingerprint related, apparently ). So they are some things you might consider when planning your perfect crime (though if you seriously consider the first one, ewwww):

-edit- put in spoiler since it was kinda long. May work on the actual perfect crime portion a bit as well at some point in future.


I could go on, but I grow bored. The perfect crime is the one that you yourself are investigating. By interfering with the collection of evidence and systematically destroying all that is found, you can more or less bring an investigation to a standstill. Naturally, this would work much better in an area where there are fewer police and crime scene technicians so your responsibilities would increase accordingly. Granted, this is still far from perfect. I guess I just like the idea of this kind of thing, you know? Police officer breaking the law, arson investigator starting fires, psychologist that encourages and drives people towards insanity. I guess I like any excuse to be cynical.

Otherwise, the more complex a crime, the more disastrous the results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac_Killer

While it is easy to say that the Zodiac Killer committed the perfect crime in that they didn't get caught, it is important to remember that there have been astronomical advances in forensics since the killings. Jack the Ripper was also never caught (to anyone's knowledge), but things might not have turned out so well for the fella in this day and age, or even in the '70s. Anyhow, the Zodiac killer left plenty of evidence behind. Given enough manpower and resources, would their luck have remained? That someone does not get caught does not necessarily speak to the chance that their crime would result in conviction, and I think the latter is a better metric for how "perfect" a crime is. There are far too many imponderables related to actually "getting caught" or being identified as the perpetrator. If the police have no case, it doesn't even matter if they know in their guts that you are the guilty party. On the other hand, there might be a crime scene where the perpetrator bled all over the place, rolled around in paint and put his hands all over the walls, vomited a very unusual breakfast, left a note for police with very distinct handwriting, accidentally shot his foot (thus having to go to the hospital), driven his pickup through the living room (leaving muddy tire tracks everywhere), and so on and so forth. If the bloke doesn't get caught, then can we really say this is the perfect crime? He has clearly left behind ample evidence that points very directly to a suspect, the only problem is that the suspect is unknown. The problem with serial killers isn't a lack of evidence, it is the apparent randomness in choice of victims which makes it difficult to come up with a viable suspect or a strategy to more or less catch them red-handed. I'd say that serial killers, the Zodiac Killer included, leave far too much up to chance for any of their crimes to be considered perfect. It's like monkeys with typewriters and Shakespeare. Eventually, one bastard is gonna get lucky.

Of course, there is a great deal of fascination and myth surrounding serial killers. To an extent, they embody humanity at its darkest. Most of us don't just wake up and say "I'm going to kill someone", get dressed, kiss our wife good-bye, and do just that. There is something both deeply compelling and repellent to the notion that fuels the desire to understand and know more about just what makes these people tick, almost as if this can tell us something about ourselves. The attention is largely undeserved in my opinion. These are not mysterious authority figures, some kind of godheads to be marveled at from afar. They are sickness, but they're still human.

Of course there always will be crimes that won't be solved, those aren't really perfect crimes though. It is just that there are limitations to the ability of those that are trying to solve the crime.

Precisely.

Steal some Nee-chans panties Mission Impossible style.

But at what cost? Jumping up and down like a maniac on Oprah? Hardly seems worth it.

Tor services via Bitcoin are often honeytraps or scams. The Hidden Wiki has a decent verified list, but come on, how much can you trust a site asking for payment of a service over the internet, when you have no way to reprimand the person for not following through?

I must admit, the notion of a list of verified Bitcoin-accepting Tor mercenaries was good for a laugh.

I'm not sure if this is really a bug as such, or just a mechanism quirk. So I figured I'd just mention it anyway. It is currently possible to like your own posts, which in turn adds a like to your overall count. As exhibited below (and a bit to the right).

how should we as laymen respond to it? Can such convoluted idea be graspable to the overall population at large?

Glub.

[It is my... personal belief that people are unequivocally irrevocably implacable and incapable of understanding such immaterial conceptions as those you presently put forth. Not because they are stupid, but because life exists beyond atheism and science. Creationist attempts to downplay science are unsurprisingly flawed and foolhardy, as the personification of a banana does not an argument make. In layman's terms, a creationist trying to argue against documented scientific evidence using ignorance of science as their primary weapon is just as funny as a christian trying to argue against norse mythology by quoting from the bible. In other words, it's quite funny.

Regardless, if there is an acceptance that these are merely two competing models of the universe, perhaps people can just leave it well enough alone... get on with science, get on with religion, and get on with their lives. Yea. It won't happen though. People need constant reassurance that they are correct. Such weak and inferior beings... The taste suits them though.]

i will trust the admin to choose well,
someone whose level headed not hot tempered [X],
considerate but follows the rule[X],
who doesnt discriminate, malign, prejudice any of the potato netizens of ototabs..[X] considering we are of greatly mixed race and with different backgrounds..
who is helpful, just and fair to everyone... [X]
and yes, mature [X] and (take it or leave it..) professional [X] in handling things[ ]...
[X marks all which don't apply]

I guess I fail. Miserably.

^irrelevant

I shall end this line of thought with a philosophical statement (which really isn't that philosophical) - every deep topic always ends up with the wall of religion in front; if a person treats that as coincidence or not is up to them. But I for my part always research into why such a phenomenon occurs. Is it because religion became such a concept as to cover the entire life of a human being? Or is it because it is true?

Well first of all, I suppose this depends on your idea of "deep". I had a rather deep conversation with my roommate about whether or not a smell would be generated (and how long it might take and so on) from a bunch of dead squirrels in a room full of peanut butter that covered several areas such as natural vs. non-natural (mainly because natural often separates), availability of oxygen, and a number of factors that could affect the outcome. That discussion actually ended with looking up on wikipedia whether or not there is an SI accepted unit for smell, and religion took no part in the conversation whatsoever... though perhaps I'm just odd? I grew up in a family full of atheists and agnostics (though I do have an uncle that thinks the mayans are "right") and I simply didn't hear about god growing up. I never read the bible or torah when I was little... etc. Perhaps it is because of this, but I have never come across god in my travels. People reference religion, sure, but each religious claim they make can be dissected and it's merits examined much as any other, from which I adopt some ideas and discard some others.

Whenever I didn't know something, I simply didn't know. It never seemed appropriate, much less even occurred to me that god or religion should come up in a conversation nor have they ever really blocked my path. Though even assuming I did find myself faced with a wall of religion, could I find myself in front of that wall just as easily asking why x=x or why in the world a room would be filled with peanut butter and dead squirrels or even why is it necessary that god should exist? Is it not possible then that there is a point where we just don't know, or where we have reached some fundamental truth and there are no more questions to ask but we mistake this fundamental truth as something that needs to be questioned? Perhaps the problem is not in the answer, but the question itself? If I ask enough stupid sounding questions, do they make a sound? Regardless, I often find myself trudging through buffalo chips in "deep" conversations with simple answers. We can spend twenty years pondering the ice cream in our cone, but by that point it will have melted. This is why come the end of the day I choose to be an idiot. Besides which, I really am an idiot, so it's only logical this is what I should choose to be.

I do at times find that my views coincide with one religion or another, however I do not view this as coincidence. Religion has played a great role in the shaping of the society we see today. Society in turn has played a great role in shaping me. However, if I am to say something religious, I think of it no more than if I were to say something from Shakespeare. Simply put, I am the pinnacle of cultural evolution, so it would hardly be surprising that I should quote Shakespeare (it's pretty much impossible not to if english is your native language, even if when you hear "Shakespeare" you think "spear that wiggles"). I owe as much to zealots as I do to heretics, but this debt need not cloud my judgement.

With regards to why religion might come up in the case of justice specifically, people are doing more here than just stating what justice is. The question people are asking themselves is not only "what is justice" but also "why is my version of justice the right one". The latter question of course containing the two inherent assumptions, "my version of justice is right" and "there is a right version of justice". However, for some right and wrong stem from justice itself, which results for a question that answers itself. Others attribute justice, as well as right and wrong, to something else altogether in order to avoid this problem of self-referencing, ergo God. But while we have replaced the question with an answer, the answer doesn't actually address the logic behind the original question. Others still might go one step further and say that God literally is justice. But as so often is the case when we equate two things, we now are making the assumption that our version of God is right and that there is a right version of God (let us ignore the assumptions that god/justice even exist, as such a discussion goes farther off topic than need be and always winds up in the exchange of trivial niceties that I could do certainly do without. Let it merely be said that a bunch of beliefs and concepts are applied towards one existence, perhaps mistakenly and perhaps not).

To state the problem most simply though, absolutes are unquestionable. They are or are not, and any attempts to justify this are ultimately trivial and/or self-referencing. In order to ensure one is in the right, justice must be assumed to be absolute. However this makes justification of one's stance impossible, as justice simply "is". Given that God also simply "is" and that religion has played such a huge role in who we are today, it is hardly surprising that we should see one absolute replaced for another. Sorry, I know I repeated myself quite a bit here.

"Now imagine there being no judge or leader, even if families are protected by strong members- the weak vulnerable ones shall be targeted."

The strong serve as the judge/leader and the weak are targeted regardless. However, the weak are also more directly responsible for their own well being which is empowering. However, the strong can exert more direct control which is debilitating. However, the weak are also more capable of overpowering the strong, for better or worse. However, there is only so much imagining to be done.

I don't really see how your hypothetical situation is any different from reality except adapted to a smaller scale.

Apologies for impenetrable text wall ^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8tuTSi6Sck&feature=related

I never really knew him unfortunately. What limited interaction we had was perhaps on that thread where you post words beginning with the letter "A", which isn't particularly a social endeavor. So I decided to forum search and get at least some picture of who he was... Do a forum search for Jabberwocky (as topic list), and look at "Last Post Wins" thread.

This really made me laugh. http://vatoto.com/forums/topic/972-would-you-rather/page__hl__jabberwocky__st__604

I appreciate your point, however two wrongs are still just two wrongs. We can't say that one wrong excuses all other wrongs, or else we're left with a world full of "wrong". We can talk about who deserves sympathy and who doesn't, but during that discussion the occurrence of wrong goes wrongfully unnoticed. And I think that's wrong.

With regards to strides into online publishing, scanlation communities may have precipitated it, but it was a long time coming and necessary for survival even without taking scanlations into consideration. In a digital age, it is naive to think that anything but the best will be bought off the shelf. I'm not really excusing or condoning anything. This is just the world we live in. With changing technology comes changing business models... and change can be relentless. Was there much demand for painstakingly hand-copied books after the invention of the printing press? For hand sewn items after the sewing machine? For swords after the advent of tanks and guns? All these things may be treasured, sure. But they are all obsolete. With this new age, paper itself is becoming largely obsolete. Products like kindle are replacing physical books and manga are slowly finding their way onto the internet. Even outside of this realm... Movies and shows, there's netflix and hulu (and many channels now post the most recent episodes of shoes on their own website). Music, there's iTunes, pandora, youtube, blah blah blah. Things are becoming a lot more impersonal and anonymous. You can't go out to a pig farm and say "I want that one"... well you can, and some of them are quite delicious. But you get the point! Whether you feel that's wrong or right... it may suck, but it's still it regardless of whether or not you try to change it into something else. And that's the way it is.

With regards to mangaka having a say, it is perhaps more accurate to suggest that the publisher and magazine choose them. However, a mangaka isn't being held at gunpoint and told "get published", and in that sense it is their choice. However, once they turn over their work to the publisher, it's a whole different power dynamic. Most mangaka, except for the really big ones, actually don't hold much sway at all.

A scanlator can say they're being wronged when they're being wronged. I don't think anybody is really asking for sympathy here... just pointing out an incredible degree of disrespect, plain and simple. And you don't really have to decide what they're doing is right. I think the issue here is largely about attitude. Most scanlators (not all) will, for example, at the very least comply with a C&D. Certain online aggregates will not. You may wish to treat all illegal activity as illegal activity, but I have difficulty doing this. There are different degrees of criminality here. We have scanlators that are willing to comply with certain requests from mangaka and publishers, and aggregates that have demonstrated an unwillingness to do so. If I give a copy I made of my favorite book to a friend with the tacit agreement that he will return it to me right after he's finished and won't do anything unbecoming such as distribute copies of it to people walking by him on the sidewalk, or doodling all over it, or what have you... if he doesn't do what I expected of him am I really just as much to blame as him? It's the Boston Tea Party. We're all throwing the tea overboard, but one guy decides he's gonna steal it. Are we really equally to blame for his actions. Legally, perhaps, but barring that? I don't really think it is a lot to ask that a scanlator does have some control over what is done with his scanlation, and blah blah blah blah blah. You extend the right to decide where a work is hosted back to publishers and mangaka. They have every right to retaliate or request that material is taken down, and they sometimes do and it often is. It is the work of the mangaka, and that counts for something. But so does the work of the scanlators. Why should it not? Because it's like they're stealing? We see the same stories, gags, etc. rehashed from one manga to the next. You don't see people complaining about that. Someone surely must have come up with the classic depiction of blushing in just the cheeks... or plate sized eyes... or the accidental "boy's head meet girls panties". We don't observe accusations being flung across the room about stealing. Mangaka heavily borrow from those who came before them. Scanlations may be much more heavy on the borrowing, but all the editing, translation, proofreading, etc. they do on their own. If somebody improves the telephone, random people can't just start using those improvements and claiming them as their own. If you get too caught up in the legality of the issue and who wronged who, then you'll wind up getting an incomplete picture of just how much wrong is actually going on.

Even ignoring how the attitude of scanlators and some aggregates differ towards mangaka and publisher, it's just common decency to treat people with respect. Some aggregates have not shown respect towards scanlators, of a type that I would show towards any human being. Scanlators are similar (so far as importance to aggregates) to employees, yet they're not being treated that way.

Post enclosed in spoiler for silliness in, perhaps, gratuitous amounts.

I wonder what random thoughts I'm having...

I have a tendency to say nothing in a conversation when I don't have the perfect word to say. When I should be saying something, I'm instead thinking of what to say and when I've thought of what to say the moment to say it has already passed. It's kind of debilitating really. My conversations amount to slow paced banter, small talk, and conversations I really want to get out of but can't because I can't think of the proper way to say "I have to go" so I just keep nodding and smiling and slowly putting my books in my bag and sidling towards the door, dropping subtle hints that I want to leave so please give me a chance to do so, but they never do, so I continue the conversation from the doorway because for me I can only end conversations at very certain points otherwise I feel extremely uncomfortable and for like an hour after the conversation has already ended I'll still want to end the conversation the way it should have been ended. Um... yeah. It's a bit better with family members and people I've known for a long time, and also deep conversations, since I've noticed those have a tendency to go in circles anyway so if I miss my chance on the first rundown there's always a second time, or third, or fourth... It's also fine on forums, though I notice there are things I tend to avoid like the plague, such as introductions. Dunno. So I guess I desperately lack conversational skills? It's not that I can't speak, I'm just unable to. Or was it the other way around?

@CHeezeMaggot: I can't seem to decipher it...

Hint:


As to your question, I'm not entirely sure whether it is supposed to be a riddle or a question of morality but... examining the wording of the question, there is no mention as to you dying if your friend presses the button. So I would not press the button, and point this out to my captor and allow him to clarify the situation. Assuming I would die if my friend pushed it, I still probably wouldn't push it since I know my friends well enough at this point to realize the alternative would lead to mutually assured destruction. If it was somebody I didn't know in the other room, then I'd probably press the button. They might press it too, but if they turn out to be a real softie, well, no point in both of us dying (and I'm going to prioritize my own life... sorry!). One might call this murder, but it's really no different than a ship without enough lifeboats. Getting in is analogous to pressing the button. Granted, in the lifeboat scenario you can talk to one another and make certain decisions such as "woman and children first" or "every man for himself" but the basic concept is the same. Too many people=lifeboat will sink and people die. No people=lifeboat unused and people die. The button situation however adds a certain element, and that is the unknown. You don't know that your friend is in another room. You don't know if pressing that button will actually kill your friend. It may kill you. It may be a test, and perhaps not pressing means you pass but it could be the opposite. All that you know of your situation is that which has been imparted to you by nought but a mysterious disembodied voice. Herein lies an interesting part of this hypothetical. Given no other apparent options, would you blindly follow what (quite literally) is the voice of authority?

It's kind of a scary thought, but I would. I'm not the kind of person to question the "truth" if there seems to be no practical gain in doing so. If offered a solution, then I would take it even if (albeit indirectly) possibly at the cost of others. When catastrophe strikes, we have a tendency to listen to people not because they are wise, but because they say something.

You'll have to forgive me for the long overdue reply. I got caught up in certain... well... not really important!

When I first saw the watermark, I was outraged that one of my favoite mangas had been defaced in such a malicious way. My long-awaited cuteness overdose was no longer cute at all - someone had peed in my punchbowl.

So I gotta say, I actually found the watermark to be adorable and bubbly but I guess perhaps I'm strange? To me it seemed like how the watermark should be for such a manga.

I now realize that was almost the exact reaction the perpetrators were hoping for. I had been successfully trolled.

Reading on mangafox out of spite and posting your disgust on their page was exactly what they were hoping for???

Well you have come here though, and now you are talking to us so it's a start. And you used the expression "peed in my punchbowl" so you're fine in my book.

Now then, first off...

It made me feel like supporting batoto was supporting this type of behavior. That's the last thing I wanted to do.

http://www.batoto.ne...ss/page__st__30

Interpret that how you will, though to me this suggests neither shining support nor unconditional condemnation, rather just plain curiosity. Scanlators do what escalators do. The policy of one scanlation group need not reflect the beliefs or policies of batoto in any way, shape or form. In any case, people think all sorts of different things. For example, I'm going to disagree right about... now!

You say that there will only change if everyone watermarks, but as soon as a single person starts (yes, someone has to start) you complain and tell him to stop? How the hell will you reach the result of everyone watermarking then? Just because a single group/person holds no power against mangafox doesn't mean we should just give up.

Well, I'd start by saying that I don't think you should stop or give up just because people might tell you to. That being said, you are perhaps taking crimsoncalling's point out of context a bit. I think crimson may wonder whether or not everyone watermarking (and change such that it would bring about) is actually a good thing.

It also seems mostly pointless. While it certainly draws attention and starts conversation, i cannot realistically see mangafox, etc. changing in any way because of watermarks.

You're missing the point. I don't think any of us actually expects mf to do a 180º turnaround. There have been a number of people coming here however that decide to stay with batoto, or at the very least utilize the information they gather here to draw their own conclusions (I suggest how effective watermarking is vs. other methods become a more central part of your argument here, as it is rather silly to claim that watermarking gets no results). Reader education is far more important than the absurd notion of batoto and mangafox admins singing and dancing off into the sunset hand in hand, and drawing attention and encouraging discussion are a large part of this. We can't change mangafox (much), but we can change the readers. Now if you'll excuse me for a moment...

these watermark are to educate the common mindless reader of mangafox/mangahere unaware of anything else then they personal reading and not giving a damn about scanlation or the amount of work invested.

Calling your students mindless...
Ah, but where was I?

Thinking more rationally about the issue, watermarking still strikes me as incredibly disrespectful of the original artist. I know that if I saw something I poured my heart and soul into creating defaced like this, it would severly bum me out.

Not to be a buzzkill or anything, but if I were a mangaka and I saw a bunch of people reading my manga for free... well, that might bum me out too (I say might because I am not a mangaka, and the views on scanlation may differ from one to the next). Especially if it were a manga that was already licensed in english, but that doesn't really apply in this particular case. Regardless, you are you and not someone else. How you might act or feel in certain circumstances might not actually coincide with how someone else may act or feel at all. If it were me, I might be a bit miffed but I might be more miffed at leechers that seem to think they are entitled to my manga in english for free. If that were the case, then I'd certainly be happy if they were to perhaps stop reading altogether or at the very least think a bit about their actions. I may even think, "well if lucrative opportunities were to present themselves online, I'd rather go with these guys. They seem gullible, and work for peanuts. As such, it would be good if the competition were taken down a few notches", or I might think "Well, I really like this mangafox business model". But when it really comes down to it, I feel I'd be remiss to suggest I'd feel or think any of these things. I don't know how I'd feel, and I'd be speaking nonsensically if I claimed to hold the same point of view as somebody who is not me and who does not share my circumstances. So I could provide you with a whole long hypothetical situation that might run counter to this argument, but in all good consciousness I can't bring myself to do so. I think Funnybunnylogic makes a really great point on the previous page however without engaging in the whole "if I were" point.

... I do so miss the days when Love So Life (and other wonderful series) were free of obnoxious watermarks! However, in my happy part of reality I can see how the use of watermarks can be a way to respect the author and artist who have worked so hard on the series ... by watermarking the chapters the scanlator is protecting the author/artist's intellectual property because it prevents the online reader, who obtains their work for free and with little to no effort, from completely enjoying the series. Everything has it's price and it is my hope that watermarking would encourage true fans to support the author and artist by purchasing the chapters and volumes when they are available in their region ... Alas, we all know that the majority of fans who read online, only read online, and haven't spent one red cent to support those who deserve it (for clarification, I mean the authors and artists who create the stories . . . don't want to confuse anyone). So, by watermarking the chapters there is a reduction in the awesome factor of the chapter to such a degree that it reminds the online reader that they didn't pay for it, they didn't work on it, and they haven't done squat to support the author or artist, so they have to deal with the consequences and limitations of getting something for free.

Again, these are my thoughts, not yours . . . so do with them as you please. I most certainly shall. Thank you!

I've trimmed it down a bit, but hopefully it gets the point across, and the full thing is on page three so you don't really have to go far to get it.

In the end, I think what is more important here is that you emphasize how the watermark makes you feel. Emotion comes from the heart much more so than from hypotheticals. Trying to empathize tends to work when the situations are simple and the circumstances are few, but can get rather dicey as things become complicated. This is not a simple black and white issue.

A very interesting post. The only thing I disagree with is your comment about Scanlation being disrespectful to the mangaka...The only time I would say that scanlation is disrespectful to the author is when the scanlator is scanlating a manga that is already officially being brought over.

-God Ginrai

You are forgetting something very important here. If scanlators had permission from the mangaka and publishers to do what they do, then there would be no controversy over scanlation. Point being...

Tomorrow, I plan to not care at all.

Well hopefully I've reached you in time, because I have something to say. [cliche speech] Don't run away. Crimsoncalling, if you really care about these manga then I'd like you to stay. What any good forum... any good site needs is dissension (this may be a bit of a strong word, but I can't think of anything else at the moment). We need people who can say "I disagree because" or "I feel this way because". You may ask why it matters, but as far as aggregates go batoto offers the most interplay between scanlator and reader. You have demonstrated here a certain amount of foresight and a willingness to discuss relatively calmly (given the circumstances... I won't say you show no hint of aggravation. ) how you feel, what you feel, and why you feel the way you do. I want you to know that regardless of any disagreement there may be between us, you have still been heard. I would like to see this site and forum in particular being influential in how scanlation is done in the future, and by incorporating many different viewpoints we wind up with a more balanced path (though the road may be rocky) ahead. You may be upset with scanlators at the moment, but you have to remember that they do generally think long and hard about the decisions they make, and have to balance and factor in many different considerations. You may not agree with everything they do, but that is all the more reason to stay here, where you can talk to them when you have problems. My vision is one where the reader too plays an integral role in the scanlation process. Would you join me?[/cliche speech]

Sorry if that got a bit silly towards the end, but I really do kinda feel that way. It just sounds incredibly stupid when saying it so I can't help myself but mock my own post. Anyhow, there are still a couple loose ends I would like to tie up so expect an edit.