Found recently on E-space[Chinese]
This is so wrong. I don't know much Japanese, but I can see from some Chinese characters, it is a post with a video teaching people how to use iPod touch for the first time for pornography. [Not suitable for work, with minor nudity and strong pervertism.]
To keep this site PG, I can show the only image that's appropriate

First I thought it was a joke, but after I read on...
The author, Yusukebe, first uses one of his perl script specifically designed to download adult photos from Yahoo image search. Then port 4GB of them to the iPod and start the "touching" experience. Yes, I did said he wrote a script for that propose. Apparently he is the leader of Erogeek. According to Google translator, this is what the first sentence meant in Erogeek's official site.

Pornographic information technology (femoral intercourse) MORIMORI rowdy pornographic engineers of the moment of birth Erogeek

I don't find it make sense at all.
No one will go so far for a joke to plan out a small community and a perl script one year ahead of time. This is real!
Anyway, continue to the iPod talk...
The video do know how to scream the word "touch" without ever referring to it in speech.
The author in the video, moves though his photograph collection of all kind of cute Japanese girls. After finding a, say, a gifted girl, he zoom in to a specific region in the upper body that have special powers over 99% of guys[Imprinting]. To zoom in in iPod touch, place 2 fingers in the desired center, then move 2 fingers in the opposite direction, like opening a slit[Pun not intended]. Then he uses his finger to rub the iPod touch screen, and the screen starts to bounce up and down. I don't think that's what he intended to do but he made the point well.
I'm glad he knows that the iPod touch is meant to be touched with hands ONLY...[Thx for Kuzew's comment]

I don't want to single out groups, but, why is it always the Japanese the No.1 country for creating the most perverted items? like these ones.

As I have stated before, I'm in pre-calc class, learning easy1 stuff.
Today, finally something cool happened in the class and arouse my interest.
There is a problem on my homework from orange pre-calc textbook, Precalculus With Limits: A Graphing Approach. Page 214, Problem 85. Solve for x
ln(x+1)²=2
The usual approach
2ln(x+1) = 2
ln(x+1) = 1
x+1 = e
If you did exactly like that then.. you are wrong!
Because there is another approach that find 2 answers
e^ln(x+1)² = e²
e^2ln(x+1) = e²
(e^ln(x+1))² = e²
e^ln(x+1)=±e
x+1 = ±e

How did that happen? how come the rule ln(x^y) = yln(x) doesn't work anymore?

If you read the textbook(I believe, most textbook that teaches logs will say the same thing), it should say that
ln(x^y) = yln(x)
and most importantly, a very NOT noticeable scribble that only 0.00001% percent of the population spots:
x is a positive real number

go back to the original problem, but a bit simplified by taking away the +1
ln(x²)=2
According to the rule, ln(x²) = 2ln(x) only if x is positive.
Think about it, if it works if x<0, you will see this rule also apply.
ln(x²) = ln(x*x) = ln(x) + ln(x)
which would not work because ln(x) is not defined for real numbers when x<0
That's why the other half of the solution is not there.
so, from now on, don't assume that ln(x²) = 2ln(x) unless it states x is not positive.
the more precise one is ln(x²) = 2ln|x|. know how to solve absolute values right? 2ln|x| = 2ln(x) or 2ln(-x), solve each one separately.

If you are going to ask, is ln(x) defined in the complex number system when x<0? yes.
ln(x) = ln(-x) + iπ, x<0.
ln(x^y) = yln(x) still doesn't work for all x even if it's expanded to complex plane.
Proof ln(x) = ln(-x) + iπ
e^ln(x) = e^(ln(-x)(iπ))
x = e^ln(-x)*e^(iπ)
x = -x*-1
x =x
yeahhhhhh...
Actually ln(x) can also be ln(-x) + (2n+1)iπ, where n is a integer, but mathematicians declare it as ln(-x)+iπ for convenient.

I wish there are better textbooks that state this problem. I have read 3 textbooks explaining log, and nothing said something about that. Even Wikipedia's List of logarithmic identities don't have it until I added it up there.

1. 1. another word for boring