>> ^VoodooV:

There is something fishy about this. When you frame by frame this...sure the faces don't appear altered...but there seems to be an overabundance of irregularly shaped faces in the bunch. It just doesn't look like a random sampling of people y'know?


Yes that's intentional. They explain in the abstract:

"The degree of distortion is greatest for faces that deviate from the others in the set on a particular dimension (eg if a person has a large forehead, it looks particularly large)"

^hopefully someday common sense will come in HeadOn format, applicable directly to the forehead (of cops and civvies alike).

Apply directly to the forehead

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Turn Around! Apply directly to the forehead!
Turn Around! Apply directly to the forehead!
Turn Around! Apply directly to the forehead!
Turn Around! Apply directly to the forehead!

I think you MAY be thinking of the mayfly, Retro. Me so punny.

At first glance I was inclined to agree with xxovercastxx, considering the positioning of the wings (something to consider though, they do not always have the appearance of being near-perfectly parallel to the body, sometimes sticking out at acute angles away from the point of attachment/thorax, which sorta looks like the one in the vid and may be easy to confuse with the dragon fly's wing arrangement when viewed from certain angles), BUT there are a couple of very un-dragonfly-like features here as well.

Most species of dragon flies have their compound eyes touching/fused at the top of the head, looking like one cohesive structure, while mayflies' eyes are placed more on the sides of the head and protrude outwards more, with a noticeable gap of forehead space in between them. Also, the base of the bottom pair of wings seems too skinny to be a dragon fly, where usually the bottom wings remain much broader for much longer, compared to the top pair as you get closer to thorax before finally tapering down to the connection point, though there may be exceptions in morphology from species to species.

I'm no entomologist though, just someone who enjoys watching these buggers go about their business (they're surprisingly tolerant of people and seem quite intelligent for insects, I'd say jumping spiders, Phidippus Audax specifically, are the only creepy crawlies around here that appear to be any smarter, more charming, gregarious than dragon/damsel flies).

I'm too torn either way to definitively call it. I did enjoy speculating about it quite needlessly though. Yay insomnia and Videosift!!

It's humorous that now the solution seems to be to have a guy tell a woman she can be viewed from "underneath" and or to tell them to get off the stairwell. *slaps forehead and sighs*

Do tell. I am open to actually changing my points of view (I have done so since I was born on things like race, sexual orientation and such) but I must know reason.

In the cut throat world, I simply bring up "don't complain in the big boy/girl ring." If you do, then stay out of the ring.

Is the catcall right, mature, a positive? Of course not. It is fucking childish. But neither is half the shit thrown at Obama, or Bill Clinton or John McCain. Obama was basically accused of trying to teach really underage children sex. That, I would assume, is worse than a catcall.

Again, is it wrong of them to do so? Of course--and yet people are face palming this statement just because I attach the fact that politicans are scum, and expect this behavior, and stop complainig... I want to hear why.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^hpqp:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Wait? So because Wong can't handle the big girl world of politics we make a fuss about this??? Booho,o he was sexist. And? That's real world when people get off the playground. You fight dirty, you use all the tools to crush the weak---it's probably how Wong got to where she got in politics. Dirty shit...
God forbid she live in Africa (Where women are raped and mutilated every day) or combat (Where their limits are tested) or even women's baseball (Where she could be hit by a ball...)

For shame.

Why? See the comment above to understand why I said what I said. If you still stand up for someone who sensationalizes in politics, then go for it. Also, if you can tell me that the male lawmaker isn't scum to everyone (Men and women) then that makes him sexist. Otherwise, it just makes him a "politician."

raise palm to forehead, close eyes, sigh, lower head. Begin shaking head

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^hpqp:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Wait? So because Wong can't handle the big girl world of politics we make a fuss about this??? Booho,o he was sexist. And? That's real world when people get off the playground. You fight dirty, you use all the tools to crush the weak---it's probably how Wong got to where she got in politics. Dirty shit...
God forbid she live in Africa (Where women are raped and mutilated every day) or combat (Where their limits are tested) or even women's baseball (Where she could be hit by a ball...)

For shame.

Why? See the comment above to understand why I said what I said. If you still stand up for someone who sensationalizes in politics, then go for it. Also, if you can tell me that the male lawmaker isn't scum to everyone (Men and women) then that makes him sexist. Otherwise, it just makes him a "politician."


*raise palm to forehead, close eyes, sigh, lower head. Begin shaking head*

Nah, I just changed to sweat pants. Now if only I could get the mustache to stop tickling me..
>> ^bareboards2:

It would never have occurred to me that a scar could be achieved in that manner. Yet, gwiz, first thing on your mind? Surely it is experience talking. The pain, the suffering, of moving through each day with your shame emblazoned across your forehead! "I forgot to remove his pants first. How could I have forgotten????"
It's okay, sweetie. We understand. We love you anyway.
>> ^gwiz665:
I'm not the one with a scar on my forehead. Hyuk hyuk.
>> ^bareboards2:
I think you are doing it wrong, gwiz. It helps to move the pants.

>> ^gwiz665:
Yeah, you gotta watch out for belt buckles.
>> ^bareboards2:
You can call me Harriet. Like my forehead scar?

>> ^gwiz665:
Do not mention He Who Shall Not Be Named.

It would never have occurred to me that a scar could be achieved in that manner. Yet, gwiz, first thing on your mind? Surely it is experience talking. The pain, the suffering, of moving through each day with your shame emblazoned across your forehead! "I forgot to remove his pants first. How could I have forgotten????"

It's okay, sweetie. We understand. We love you anyway.

>> ^gwiz665:

I'm not the one with a scar on my forehead. Hyuk hyuk.
>> ^bareboards2:
I think you are doing it wrong, gwiz. It helps to move the pants.

>> ^gwiz665:
Yeah, you gotta watch out for belt buckles.
>> ^bareboards2:
You can call me Harriet. Like my forehead scar?

>> ^gwiz665:
Do not mention He Who Shall Not Be Named.

I'm not the one with a scar on my forehead. Hyuk hyuk.
>> ^bareboards2:

I think you are doing it wrong, gwiz. It helps to move the pants.

>> ^gwiz665:
Yeah, you gotta watch out for belt buckles.
>> ^bareboards2:
You can call me Harriet. Like my forehead scar?

>> ^gwiz665:
Do not mention He Who Shall Not Be Named.

I think you are doing it wrong, gwiz. It helps to move the pants.


>> ^gwiz665:

Yeah, you gotta watch out for belt buckles.
>> ^bareboards2:
You can call me Harriet. Like my forehead scar?

>> ^gwiz665:
Do not mention He Who Shall Not Be Named.

Yeah, you gotta watch out for belt buckles.
>> ^bareboards2:

You can call me Harriet. Like my forehead scar?

>> ^gwiz665:
Do not mention He Who Shall Not Be Named.

You can call me Harriet. Like my forehead scar?


>> ^gwiz665:

Do not mention He Who Shall Not Be Named.

Thank you for this comprehensive response, it helps me better understand your stance. I can see now how, from an American legislative point of view, the San Fransisco law might have difficulty passing. That being said, I still believe it is unethical to irretrievably modify a child's body for cultural purposes.

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
In reply to this comment by hpqp:
@SDGundamX

Before you go, would you care to answer the question I posted elsewhere, i.e. "Is it okay for parents to tattoo their children?"

Or, on a similar note, to scarify their faces (for tribal recognition, as is still sometimes done in Africa)?

These analogies may seem irrelevant if you put forth the "health-care" argument of circumcision, but your own links disprove that there is such a one (as do my and others' comments here and on the related threads on the sift), which leaves only aesthetic and cultural arguments in favour of such child-disfiguring procedures.

As I've already told Lawdeedaw several times now, I have no problem with parents performing cosmetic procedures (tribal tattooing, nipple reconstruction, etc.) on their children so long as there is no evidence of permanent harm being done to the child (although I would of course not ever do these to my own children).

To take your tribal tattooing example, I happen to be friends with a Maori who got his first tribal tattoo as a child (he didn't have a choice by the way). Tribal tattoos are an incredibly important part of Maori culture. It's reasonable for New Zealand Maori parents to tattoo their kids and help them fit into the culture, as there isn't any permanent long-term harm that I know of.

Now, this friend currently lives in Japan where tattoo are frowned upon (because of their association with organized crime). But my friend is quite proud of his tattoos and his heritage despite the fact that now he has to cover them up in public. I would hardly consider having to wear long-sleeve shirts when you go to the gym "permanent" or "long-term harm," so I'm not against the Maori maintaining their customs. And if he really wanted to get rid of those tattoos, he could (although I have never ever heard of a Maori who wanted to erase his/her tattoos).

Now, let's say some parents in the U.S. decided they wanted to tattoo the words "Dumb Ass" across their kid's forehead. I'm pretty sure you could easily find thousands of psychologists who would testify that such an act would cause long-term and lasting psychological harm to the child. The state would be justified in intervening in such a case to prevent the parents from taking action or punishing them if they've already taken such action.

So you see, I'm not arguing "parents can do whatever they want" to their children. I'm arguing the state needs to prove that there will be lasting harm to the child in order to justify intervening. In the San Francisco case, the evidence is simply not there. You may disagree with that (i.e. you think enough evidence exists). However, as I pointed out to chilaxe every medical association in the world that has issued a statement on the topic disagrees with your analysis. They've looked at the research and found it to be a safe elective surgery to be performed on children if the parents so desire.

And this is the point. The San Francisco law cannot possibly stand (if it passes) because on appeal the majority of medical experts will shoot down the basis for the existence of the law. The state can't intervene unless it can reasonably prove permanent harm to the child. I don't think the studies that have been done show this and in fact I don't think future studies will either (given the neutral and positive results of the majority of studies that have been done). But as I've said several times now, I'm willing to change my mind if such evidence does appear in the future.