Slashdot Mirror
Hack in Space
MelloDawg writes: "From the press release: NASA's Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE) spacecraft, which some had given up for dead in December after critical guidance components failed, was returned to full operations when the team developed an innovative new guidance system. The system uses a complex new set of procedures that lets controllers use electromagnets in the satellite to push and pull on the Earth's magnetic field. Details of the mission are online."
FP!
interstellar duct tape
That IBM ad is pretty ugly. /. got the pageview. Should it count more or less whan I'm drunk?
But I'm glad
Does it make a greater or lesse impact on my subconscious?
Only time will tell.
Writers imply. Readers infer.
It's things like this that really make me proud of our space program. Sure, it's a little tiny thing, we now have one less dead satellite, but that was a beautiful solution, and it's good to know that these folks are still there thinking stuff up.
If all the world's a stage, anyone who says they want better lighting spends far too much time in a dark theatre.
Since the majority of Slashdot readers are COCK SUCKING Linux hippies, I figured you may find this helpful.
Authors note: This guide is not the definitive guide to fellatio as there will never be a guide written that can cover every aspect of the art of cock sucking. Just as all women are different the same is true of men. This guide is merely meant to be just that, a guide. There is no written text that can compensate for having a gentle patient man who is willing to communicate with you as you perform oral sex. What this guide is intended to do, is point you in the right direction...
Introduction
Ask most men and they will tell you that one of the aspects they most enjoy when it comes to sex is receiving oral. In fact, there are very few men that don't enjoy the sensations experienced from this very special and intimate act. Why? It's primarily because the mouth can produce a sucking sensation that the vagina cannot. Giving your lover head should be a gentle mixture of both technique and assessing his response pattern. Use your senses to guide you, listen to the sound of his breathing and channel his energy with each touch. Cock sucking is not something that is learnt overnight and one of the most important things a guy can do for a women, especially if it's her first time, is to be patient and supportive.
The Basics:
For the boys: A lot of chatter goes around when it comes to the distinctive aroma of a woman's pussy. The same is equally true when it comes to the male jiggle stick. Taking a bath or shower prior to getting a blowjob ensures that your genitals are clean & hygienic and you will be greatly rewarded by her talented tongue.
Showering can easily be incoperated into oral sex as not only is it exciting to sensually lather each other up, but it's also a great way to ensure that you're both comfortable and relaxed - especially important when you intend to do some cock sucking later -)).
Back to the lesson. Humans have five senses; taste, touch, sight, smell, and hearing - use them. When it comes to giving good head, you should be using at least three of these senses at any given time. Receiving a blowjob is a combination of physical and visual sensations. Many men find a seductive gaze from their partner while performing fellatio highly erotic. Draw on your ears; listen to your partner's reactions as you touch various areas of his body. Listen to his breathing patterns as you work your way down towards his most prized possession. Feel him jump with anticipation as you softly caress various areas of his body.
Take your time! Many women think that the quicker they can make a guy come the better. Whilst it's true that a fair percentage of men enjoy this approach, this is not the best way to give your guy a great orgasm. In actuality, it's probably the worst way, but as I said a moment ago, some men do enjoy the quick and fast method. The longer that you can keep your partner sexually energized without allowing things to become unexciting, the deeper and harder his orgasm is likely to be.
A word to the guys here, be patient with your partner. Being able to give good head is very much a learnt talent and as such the more expressive you are when your receiving it the better the whole experience will be for both of you. Your partner wants to give you pleasure, help them by showing that's is exactly what you are receiving. A moan or soft words of encouragement can go a long way when it comes to showing your partner what you like. If she hits a particularly sensitive area then don't be afraid to tell her.
Lubrication, lubrication and again I say lubrication. I can't stress how important that one word is when it comes to giving head. Makes sure your partners cock is well lubricated when you give head. Try this little test and you'll see why lubrication makes so much difference. Take your finger and rub it with your hand, it might feel okay, but now put that finger in your mouth and cover it in saliva, now rub your hand across it. Feel the difference that saliva makes to the sensations you receive? Now imagine your finger is your partners cock and you'll have some idea of why lubrication is so important for not only ensuring that your partner does not end up sore but also he has the most pleasurable experience you can give him. It's a good idea to take a sip of a drink [non-alcoholic] before you start, as this will naturally make your mouth moist.
Another way to add lubrication is to use a shop brought lubrication of some kind. Remember you are going to be putting this in your mouth, so make sure you choose an edible one that is specifically made for the purpose. They also have the advantage of making your partner's taste more to your liking if this is something that worries you, as they come in a huge variety of flavors.
Use your hands as well as your mouth. Yes, this is oral sex we are talking about here, but using your hands as well can only add to your experience. Why limit yourself to just using your mouth, tongue, and lips to provide him with pleasure? Your hands can be used in multiple ways and we'll look at specific techniques a little later.
Something that many men complain about is that women forget that a cock is a three-dimension object. It has a back, a front and two sides. For most men the underside of their cock [the part that faces their body when flaccid] is by far the most sensitive of the four but often receives the least attention.
Be Safe: Whether you choose to use condoms when giving oral is a personal choice. It is worth noting however, that brushing your teeth before giving a blowjob is probably not a good idea. This is because the brushing action leaves tiny cuts in your mouth, and although they heal in minutes, it's something worth considering.
That's covered the basics, and these points are all worth remembering if you want to give or receive mind blowing fellatio.
Advanced Techniques
Variety is the spice of good oral.
Many people are under the impression that to give good oral all you have to do is suck hard and move your head up and down. Whilst this works with a good number of guys, I have to say this is not the best route to take. Instead, try varying your techniques - but I don't mean every two seconds. Instead of just pumping for all your worth, slow down and take your time. Enjoy the sensations as his cock jumps to attention. Not only will it feel good for him, you are a lot less likely to end up with jaw ache if you use your hands and tongue as well as your mouth. As one of the guys I interviewed when writing this guide commented:
"Use hands as well! Mouths are very soft and squishy and sometimes some extra firm pressure is nice/needed. When used to slowly stroke the shaft as a tongue plays with the head is very nice (kind of like a blowjob and hand job combined)!"
Doing the vacuuming
This technique has nothing to do with housework so stop panicking. Some guys enjoy being sucked really hard whilst others hate it. But it is worth mentioning, as this can be a useful technique when it comes to adding variety to a blowjob. You might like to try sucking hard as you move your mouth up his shaft or alternatively as you move down it. As always, let your partner be your guide and don't be afraid to try different variations.
"I especially like suction on the penis. The more that is in my lover's mouth (as much as she can tolerate), the better. Tongue motion during the sucking action helps quite a bit."
Fancy ball work
To say that all men enjoy football would be a generalization but it appears overall that most men enjoy a little ball playing whilst you perform oral. Girls, ask yourself this: if a guy is giving you oral, do you enjoy it when he reaches up and pays attention to your nipples and breasts? The chances are the answer is yes, so all you are doing is returning the favor when you play with his crown jewels. Just be careful. While his balls can give him great pleasure, too much pressure can have the opposite effect to the one we desire. I thought this comment was rather poignant from another interviewee:
"It is like the whip cream on a piece of chocolate pie. The chocolate pie alone is good; the whip cream makes it just that much better. A little licking, sucking and squeezing in that area is great."
As a foot note to ball work, it's worth mentioning that although many men don't like the thought of having their anus touched, this can be a very sensitive area and one worth exploring with your tongue if you are comfortable doing so. If you're not comfortable with the idea of licking his anus then try just licking his balls and the surrounding area. This should include the area called the perineum, which runs between his scrotum and his anus. This area of his body is packed with nerve endings and can add greatly to his pleasure.
Deep-Throating
There are few men that will tell you that having their cock buried down their partner's throat is not an extremely pleasurable experience. For many women though deep-throating can cause problems, the most serious one being the gag reflex. It is possible to over-come this reflex however, and practice in this case can certainly pay off.
Next time you want to try deep-throating first start by getting a feel for how far you can comfortably take his cock into your mouth without gagging. Then grip his shaft at that point to prevent him thrusting any deeper into your mouth. Each time you give him a blowjob try taking a little more of him into your mouth. Another important part is to try and breath through your nose and not your mouth. This makes life so much easier and you're less likely to gag.
Guys, be patient! Grabbing her head and yanking it towards your crotch will not get you the results you desire. This is one time when you need to allow your partner to feel in complete control, especially if this is her first attempt. I think the comment below says it all:
"There have been LOTS of discussions on this over the years. I recall reading time and again that when you're highly excited the gag reflex abates, so why force the issue? - Wait for the right moment, see if it works, and if it doesn't, so what?"
Handiwork
Many techniques involve not only using your mouth, but your hands as well. Whilst there is nothing wrong with simply using your mouth, using you hands in conjunction with it can only add to your partner's pleasure.
The most obvious way to use your hands is simply by caressing your partner. This can either be over their whole body during both foreplay or as you give oral. I've listed some techniques below that are worthy of a try.
For this one your partner will need to be really lubricated. Either with your own saliva or with a good shop brought lubricant. To begin, start at the base of his cock and slowly slide your hand towards the tip, whilst you place you're other hand at the base. Just before you're first hand reaches the tip start moving your second hand {the one at the base of his shaft] upwards towards his tip, then place your other hand down at the base once more and repeat. Start out slowly and then begin to increase the tempo. This is one of those tricks that is great for getting him from flaccid to fully erect. Of course, the technique can be applied the other way around, IE: starting at the tip, but my advice is only try this when he's fully erect.
As I mentioned in the deep-throating section, using your hand to stop his cock slipping further down your throat than you desire or can manage is handy as well. Most importantly though, you can use your hands whilst concentrating your oral effort on the spot where most guys are highly sensitive. The spot I'm referring to is where his head meets his shaft, technically known as the corona. Try swirling your tongue around this area as you firmly squeeze his shaft with your hands and watch his reactions. Another great technique is to concentrate your sucking actions only on his head, bobbing your head up and down, so your lips roll over the ridge where his head meets the shaft. Whilst at the sametime moving your hands up and down his shaft. This technique takes a little practice but it's worth the effort, and is great for beginners as it requires only taking a small amount of his cock into your mouth.
Licking:
Imagine your guy's cock is a flavor of ice cream you adore. It even looks like an ice cream when you think about it. [Use your imagination a little here] Take your ice cream and savor it, lick it, tease bits of it with your tongue and explore its tastes and textures with both your tongue and mouth. Apply lashings of long licks to the shaft area and then grip it firmly with your hands and begin slowly moving your hand up and down. Whilst your doing that begin licking his head, before taking the whole head into your mouth and applying a suction motion while moving up and down. Use your mouth and hands in unison for an exquisite all over effect.
Spit or Swallow?
Many people say this is not a big issue, but the truth is in many cases it can be/is. As with everything else, for many guys it's not a big deal. But for most it does make a difference. Not even so much in whether you choose to spit or swallow but the manner in which you do it. In other words, there are polite ways to not swallow. It's similar to being in a restaurant and you find your steak has a little bit of gristle in it. You're not likely to spit it back out onto your plate out of good manners. Instead, you'll most likely discreetly place it in a napkin or your hand before disposing of it.
If you don't want to swallow, then I suggest you either have a napkin or something similar handy. Either that, or you can simply place your tongue in such a position that it acts as a barrier between your mouth and his cum. To do this, place the underside of your tongue over the head of his cock as he's about to come, and allow it to dribble back down the outside of his already lubricated shaft. You might also consider finishing him with a hand job, but keep your mouth close to him, maybe even rub your cheek along his head, whilst your eyes meet his.
Something worth mentioning here is that the trick to swallowing is often not to taste his semen at all. Although some women enjoy the taste, as mentioned before many don't. To avoid tasting it when your guy starts to cum the natural reaction is to hold it in your mouth for a moment before swallowing it. This is the only reason you actually taste it. Next time, right after he comes, just try swallowing immediately and hard. Even better, if you can deep-throat, just make him come whilst it's in the back of your throat. Using both of these techniques means all you will be left with is a vague aftertaste instead of the full monty. The hard swallow technique also feels good to a lot of guys.
Seismic After shocks
Hopefully your guy has just erupted due to your excellent oral administrations. Most guys will tell you or rather they won't that it's great for you to keep up the sucking, moving action whilst they are erupting but once they are spent their head just like your clitoris is inclined to become very sensitive and is best left well alone. As one of the guys I asked put it:
"Keep sucking/licking, during the climax phase (Ejaculation) is great, but when the squirting stops, the head of the penis becomes super sensitive. That is when you should give it a rest for a few minutes, until after the sensitivity subsides."
As I said in the introduction to this 'how to' there are no rights or wrongs here, only what feels good and comfortable to both you and your partner.
Whatever techniques you choose, stay safe and have fun...
Anyone noticed how these day's NASA really sucks? About the most interesting thing they do is have a board room lunch. There's no exploration, there's no experimentation with new ideas, and there's none of the former openness. I'd have to say, that whereas I used support what NASA is doing, I no longer do so and have fallen into a habit of badmouthing NASA nearly all the time. I haven't got anything against the scientists and engineers, it's the beuracracy. I don't think we'll ever see anything interesting out of NASA again.
--Metrollica
It works like a deep space compass :-O
Pretty clever hack. Every time I read about real scientists pulling off neat things like this, I get more and more disgusted with people who simply reboot a server whenever it hangs because it's easier than actually thinking about what the problem is and how to fix it.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
Hosts files are fucking cool. Goodbye doubleclick.net!
Greetings, for free software!
how much morons would have taken it this time to figure that one out? ;-) as much as they needed to screw in their new light-bulb at the mess-hall?
seems they discovered to make all those refrig magnets they send out there have some use after all!
Live, let _them_ die
made me proud of fellow lumberjacks. Imagine, hacking trees where no trees exist (sort of like BC, after clearcutting). Afterall, that is what all we Canaduhians think aboot, right :)
This tutorial will take you through the art of cunnilingus from start to finish. What I'm hoping to do is to give you information that will improve your oral sex techniques, give you some new ideas or confirm what you already know. Keep in mind that these are my personal opinions and things that work for me. I personally love nothing more than having someone lapping at my pussy, teasing and taunting and finally bringing me to orgasm.
There are many men out there who love nothing better than to bury their faces in woman's pussy to lick and explore to their hearts content. On the other hand there are many men who want no part of this. At the same time there are woman who do not enjoy having their pussy licked. These are things that you need to know ahead of time before you get into a lovemaking session that is destined to go wrong because you don't know enough about each other. It's becoming much easier to communicate with another on what you like - sex isn't the taboo it once was. I'm also of the opinion that if the guy wants me to suck his cock on a regular basis then he'd better be prepared to put in equal time on my pussy! This might sound a little selfish to you because pleasing my partner is supposed to turn me on. It does, but at the same time there has to be the same consideration coming back the other direction. If all my partner ever wants is to have me suck on his cock and do nothing in return it's not going to be long before I goes on strike and won't suck my partner's cock either unless I'm really in the mood for it.
If you have a concern with smell or taste of your woman then perhaps you might want to start your session off with a shower and soap each other down and have fun. Perhaps you might even incorporate shaving of both partner's genitals into this scenario.
I personally like to be touched and teased and warmed up before my partner just latches on to my clitoris and starts mauling it to death. That can be a real shock to the system and cause your partner to throw you across the room even though you had the best of intentions.
A good way to get started is to start by kissing your partner. Remember the day when you were only dating and that's all you did was sit and neck? Why not revisit those memories? It's a great way to start the sexual juices flowing. While you and your partner are exchanging all these wonderful kisses run your hands over your partners body skimming across all her erogenous zones, arousing her body.
Gradually move your fingers to run over the inside of her thighs and then brush lightly over her pubic mound making sure not to touch the clitoris or the inner labia. This is a good time to start working your way down over her breasts and stomach heading towards her most private areas. Now how long you want to tease is entirely up to you, although if you make her wait for too long you might find that her hands come up and grab you by the ears and push your face deep into her pussy. That would be a good indication that she wants you to step up the pace a little.
I can't stress enough that there is no right or wrong way to provide your partner with good cunnilingus. It will vary from woman to woman on what they enjoy and how much pressure they like. The best bet is to start by communicating to find out what she likes and then as you try different techniques or strokes to make a note of which ones make her moan or get a reaction good or bad. From there you can then refine and improve your technique.
Positioning
You can experiment with different positions to find what works best for you. The ones that come to mind that have worked well for my partner and I are as follows:
Lying flat - in this instance you can have your partner lie on the bed on her back with her knees slightly bent and spread as wide apart as is comfortable for her. You can then lie between her legs and slide your arms under each of her legs (kind of like a hug) and that will position your head appropriately.
Edge - in this instance you can have your partner slide down the edge of the bed and lean back, perhaps propped up on pillows in a semi-sitting position. You would then kneel on the floor in front of her and start working your magic on her.
69 - in this instance you and your partner can either lie facing one another or have the man on top or the woman on top. The drawback to this position is that it's easy enough to forget what you're supposed to be doing if your partner is also working on you. The one I like best is when I get to be on top and can grind my pussy into my partner's face. However please note that in this position you will get quite wet!
Note to the ladies: It is worth your while to do your Kegels. This exercise will help you to increase the strength of your pubococcygeus (PC) muscles that form the pelvic floor between the legs. The toning of these muscles which contract during orgasm, helps a lot of women to climax more easily.
To do the exercise simply tighten up your muscles as if you were going to stop the flow of urine. Hold in that position for about 3 seconds, then relax for 3 seconds and repeat. You can gradually build up the number of repetitions you do.
Tongue Techniques
Now we'll discuss some of the different tongue techniques you can use on your partner. For this section I've done some research and compiled suggestions from people I know as to what works and why. I can only provide insight from the receiving point of because to date I haven't been on the giving end of cunnilingus.
One of the key points here is to remember to make sure that the clitoris and the vulva are sufficiently lubricated before you start touching them. With the tongue this is pretty easily accomplished. If you need to, gather up a little bit of spit in your mouth and gently drop it down onto your partner's sensitive area. I have found that the heat from the saliva dropping onto my clitoris and vulva to be very erotic.
You can create a wide variety of strokes and responses just by altering the manner in which you use your tongue. It's a most versatile tool and it's totally free! You couldn't ask for more.
I'm not going to go into elaborate detail here and suggest that if you fold your tongue around a certain way to stimulate your partner it will have the desired effect. I'm going to give you some more general ideas with which you can then experiment with and find what works best for you and your partner.
You don't want to head straight for the clitoris with your tongue; your best bet is to start by licking around the area. Stick your tongue between the folds of the labia and lick. Start at the perineum (found just below the vaginal opening) and lick upward in one long stroke. Much like a cat does when cleaning itself. Now you can either do one of two things, lick so that your tongue comes up and brushes over the clitoris or stop just short of it. Either way I'm sure that your partner will start to squirm.
Another stroke that you can use when you've teased her sufficiently is to lap at the clitoris with a pointed tongue - much like a cat lapping at milk would do. This is a stroke that can be used when she's very close to orgasm to push her over the edge. You can speed up the rate of the lapping or slow it down, or combine slow and fast in any rhythm of your choosing. Just remember to listen to your partner's responses so that you know whether she's enjoying the sensations or you're totally pissing her off.
If you're feeling adventuresome then there are a couple of other things that you can try if you are so inclined. One of them is to try dipping your tongue into your partner's vaginal opening. You can vary the depth of the thrusts and the speed.
The other thing you can do is to put your fingers to good use. My recommendation would be to use the fingers once you know she's fully excited and you can sometimes tell this by the way her hips are bucking up and trying to push hard against your face. I know that I sure like the feeling of having the fingers of my partner's fingers thrusting in and out of my pussy while he is sucking on my clit at the same time. It's a most wonderful feeling and makes me cum very quickly.
Another good place to use your fingers while sucking and licking your partner's pussy would be to lubricate them and gently rub around the opening to the anus. There are a lot of nerve endings there and many women enjoy that type of stimulation. If your partner is into it you may even be able to insert the tip of your finger into the anus. If your partner is not one who enjoys this type of stimulation then stop if she requests you to.
Some women will be quite happy to stop at one orgasm, while others will want as many as you can give them. It has been my experience that successive orgasms require a little more aggressive touch and stimulation. I have also found that there comes a point when the clitoris is so over stimulated that you might feel like you can possibly have another orgasm or that the clitoris is just too sensitive to touch. If your partner is finding that her clitoris is too sensitive she will be sure to let you know that in no uncertain terms!
That's the basics to the art of cunnilingus. If you'd like to contribute suggestions or ideas please feel free to do so. They will be added to the bottom of this tutorial as they are received
I admit, it's an excellent hack.
But on the other hand, it's hard to forget what NASA has been doing for the past few years. Failures and mishaps. Bugs in software. Human errors. In critical projects, in times when funding is already really hard to get.
Luckily this time, the engineers had the means and actually got something fixed - but most of the recent news have been pretty much from the opposite end of the happiness scale. Too bad this wasn't a Mars probe - it would've had a tremendous PR value for the whole Mars exploration concept.
__
Zarathustra.fi
Modern man has no goal, no aim, no ideals.
I just had to say that. I think I'm going to go rent October Sky now (if you haven't seen it, you need to. It's guaranteed to make any true geek cry).
-Adam
AUTHOR: Solidarity Federation (Britain)
NOTE: This article is about how the upper class uses the laws of 'correct'
language to make lives hard for the working class. While this happens
everywhere, it's done from a British perspective. People in New Zealand and
Australia probably won't need to make many changes - people in the US and
non-English speaking countries will.
Also, it has a reference to collecting 200 pounds, which people outside Britain
will need to change to local currency.
'Breaking the laws of language'
Why will most people never be 'suitable' for reading the news? A guide to the
workings of the grammar police.
Careful what you say, the language police are just around the corner. Don't
let them catch you saying that. You'll be in trouble, that's not proper English.
OK, you won't get a fine or sent to jail, but they'll try to stop you passing GO
and collecting your 200 pounds. It's done very subtly, by making people feel
self-conscious and inadequate about their language. And then they start to
mumble, and are seen but not heard.
games grammar police play
Can I have another biscuit? You've got hands, so it's physically possible. Uh?
I didn't do nothing. Ah, so you mean you did do something? No!
What's odd about these cases is not the language of the first speaker, but the
reaction of the second. The message was understood perfectly well. What
sort of language user is deliberately awkward, slows down the whole
business, and makes the other person feel uneasy or embarrassed? Someone
who hasn't grasped what language is for. Not a linguist, certainly, but a
pedantic parent or columnist for The Mail, or someone aspiring to these
groups.
If we wanted to be pedantic (and it's a good laugh to take them on at their
own game) we could direct them to the philosopher of language, JL. Austin
and his Speech Act Theory. Like all the best theories, it was a brilliant flash of
common sense. Although we can often work out the sense of words in
isolation; as a social act, language can often have a different force once it's
used in context. 'That's right, just dump your dirty clothes all over the floor.'
On the surface, this looks like a congratulation plus a command. But even a
child can work out what the speaker actually means.
So why does this co-operative principle break down, once a child is speaking
to an adult? Power and status. It's a bit like turning clothing from a practical
and personal issue into a power game, dictating who must wear a tie round
their neck, where and when.(Only men, with suits, but not in bed as a sexual
aid, that's the advice.)
the nonsense of language laws
'You can't begin a sentence with 'but''. But, I just have! There's a bit of
nonsense for you, saying 'You can't' when you clearly can. Challenge the
language pedants, and they rely on two authorities: Latin and Maths. 'To
boldly go where no man has been before.' Don't split an infinitive. You
couldn't in Latin, because it was a single word with an ending. But in English
it's two words 'to go', so there is clearly an option of putting another word in
the middle. (There was a more pressing complaint about the Star Trek slogan
- Women went there too).
Two negatives make a positive. That's how it works in Maths. So, all
languages work in exactly the same way and they work like Maths? Plenty of
languages use double negatives: 'No hace? nada'- I didn't do nothing. We all
know that repetition is a way of emphasising a point.
who gets picked up on suspicion?
Repetition is a no no- when it suits them. 'I can't stand it, me.' is ignorant
repetition; 'I, myself, think...' is right posh. 'More nicer' and 'most biggest' are
wrong, but Shakespeare was the greatest English writer, so inventive and
expressive in quoted lines like 'More nearer' (Hamlet) 'This was the most
unkindest cut of all' (Julius Caesar). Whether something is right or wrong
depends on the status of the person, and it helps if they've been dead for
sometime.
top-down or bottom-up?
The fallacy is to have a 'top-down' view of language. Language was not
devised by one person, like a game, and it doesn't have rules like a game. The
inventor of Snakes and Ladders thought it up and dictates the rules- it only
works if everyone accepts that you go up ladders and down snakes. There
isn't even an elected governing body for language, like FIFA for football.
Language is NOT A GAME, with a Great Inventor in the Sky.
Try a 'bottom-up' view instead. Languages evolve gradually through contact
between groups of people, who need to find a way of communicating. There
can only be communication if people share agreed ways of expressing
meaning. The notion of a private language is so odd-if a person has their own
unique expression that no-one else recognises, it can't be a 'language'.
Children have no status. When they say 'Don't giggle me.' it's a mistake- you
can't use a noun as a verb. Oh, unless you're a businessman and want to
'table a motion' or 'chair a meeting'.
Advertising copywriters are a bit naughty about the rules of language too:
'You've been Tangoed' but, well, they're making loads of money, so we'll put
up with their funny ways. And it might be useful to have a few of their
catchy political slogans.
Poets? 'a grief ago'. A bit mad, some of them on drugs, but we'll make an
exception for culture. And we could turn it into exam fodder.
Humour? Again, it's probably best to stick with the death test. 'Fox hunting is
the pursuit of the inedible by the unspeakable.' Oscar Wilde has been dead so
long now, we can even overlook his sexual preferences.
Foreign speakers saying things like 'I burst myself into tears'? Come on, it's
not their language! The cliche is 'burst into tears'. Interesting, though, how the
new phrasing adds power to the image.
pushing together or pulling apart?
The way that languages develop is a delicate balance between two powerful
tendencies. Pushing in one direction is the need to conform with existing
conventions. The most obvious is the way infants absorb the language they
hear and experiment with those sounds to find ways to communicate.
Anyone plunged into another language environment has to try to pick up a
different set of ways to express themselves. (Up to now, we have demanded
that other peoples pick up our English language- a sort of invasion and
colonisation by language.) But this need to adapt happens for adult speakers
in our home environment- apart from all the different languages spoken in
England, there are so many varieties of English. Yes, they are referred to, in a
derogatory way, as dialects- the dialects of different regions and classes and
ages- but they survive because they work. The fact that they have little status
needs to be challenged. 'A language is a dialect with an army and a navy.' All
languages adapt and change because of contact between people. The more
contact, the more pressure to change.
That doesn't mean that we immediately take on every style of language we
come across. Language is a badge of identity. Some people want to maintain
an identity that is distinct and make very little shift in their style of speech;
others want to be taken as part of that group. We balance a need to fit in,
with a need to remain individual. Every person's language is as unique as
their fingerprints. You cannot pin a language down in a dictionary or
grammar book and say 'That IS THE English language.' Such books are a
snapshot of the language, out of date from the moment they are written.
Pulling in the other direction is the need to stretch the language, so that new
things can be expressed in different ways. Each new generation learns the
habits of the old and moves on. Nothing stays exactly the same and it's the
emerging generation that makes the changes: hairstyles, architecture, music.
And of course some people tut- is it nostalgia, need for stability, weariness?
Whatever, it's the conservatism of age. Pre-fabricated chunks of language,
cliches- we need them for practical reasons, like lack of time; we can't re-
invent the wheel every time we open our mouths. But someone has got to
start adapting the wheel or inventing new ways of travel.
Those who resist changes in a living language should have better reasons
than: 'That's not the way I was taught when I was a child.' What about good
reasons like: 'It's dishonest to use euphemisms to mask the realities of
warfare.' 'That's so longwinded and pompous, you're not getting your point
across.' If there IS a law of language, it is that it should be used as a skilful
tool for communication. Only complain if it doesn't work. People who
invent other laws are using language as a loaded weapon and they are
pointing it at people who have already had their voices stifled.
I am into the copy and paste.
here I am sitting 2 am in the morning trying to fix my printer for last 4 hours... :/ :/
here i am posting on slashdot, just remembering unplugging the printer before I took it apart and not pluggging it back in...
fuck it, i'm off to a bar. THANKS NASA! first you ruin my dreams of being an astronaut (at 6'5" I am too tall) and now you rob me of my manhood... or geekness... call it either way.
Did they keep the ICBMs secret this time, or did it go haywire and start targetting the US again? Someone call Clint Eastwood and tell him to pack an overnight bag.
Then I realized my foodstamps are worth more.
Writers imply. Readers infer.
Class struggle or Class hatred?
About my trial published in
(Umanità Nova, n. 137, September 20, 1921)
I expressed to the jury in Milan some ideas about class struggle and proletariat that raised criticism and amazement. I better come back to those ideas.
I protested indignantly against the accusation of inciting to hatred; I explained that in my propaganda I had always sought to demonstrate that the social wrongs do not depend on the wickedness of one master or the other, one governer or the other, but rather on masters and governments as institutions; therefore, the remedy does not lie in changing the individual rulers, instead it is necessary to demolish the principle itself by which men dominate over men; I also explained that I had always stressed that proletarians are not individually better than bourgeois, as shown by the fact that a worker behaves like an ordinary bourgeois, and even worse, when he gets by some accident to a position of wealth and command.
Such statements were distorted, counterfeited, put in a bad light by the bourgeois press, and the reason is clear. The duty of the press paid to defend the interests of police and sharks, is to hide the real nature of anarchism from the public, and seek to accredit the tale about anarchists being full of hatred and destroyers; the press does that by duty, but we have to acknowledge that they often do it in good faith, out of pure and simple ignorance. Since journalism, which once was a calling, decayed into mere job and business, journalists have lost not only their ethical sense, but also the intellectual honesty of refraining from talking about what they do not know.
Let us forget about hack writers, then, and let us talk about those who differ from us in their ideas, and often only in their way of expressing ideas, but still remain our friends, because they sincerely aim at the same goal we aim at.
Amazement is completely unmotivated in these people, so much so that I would tend to think it is affected. They cannot ignore that I have been saying and writing those things for fifty years, and that the same things have been said by hundreds and thousands of anarchists, at my same time and before me.
Let us rather talk about the dissent.
There are the "worker-minded" people, who consider having callous hands as being divinely imbued with all merits and all virtues; they protest if you dare talking about people and mankind, failing to swear on the sacred name of proletariat.
Now, it is a truth that history has made the proletariat the main instrument of the next social change, and that those fighting for the establishment of a society where all human beings are free and endowed with all the means to exercise their freedom, must rely mainly on the proletariat.
As today the hoarding of natural resources and capital created by the work of past and present generations is the main cause of the subjection of the masses and of all social wrongs, it is natural for those who have nothing, and therefore are more directly and clearly interested in sharing the means of production, to be the main agents of the necessary expropriation. This is why we address our propaganda more particularly to the proletarians, whose conditions of life, on the other hand, make it often impossible for them to rise and conceive a superior ideal. However, this is no reason for turning the poor into a fetish just because he is poor; neither it is a reason for encouraging him to believe that he is intrinsically superior, and that a condition surely not coming from his merit or his will gives him the right to do wrong to the others as the others did wrong to him. The tyranny of callous hands (which in practice is still the tyranny of few who no longer have callous hands, even if they had once), would not be less tough and wicked, and would not bear less lasting evils than the tyranny of gloved hands. Perhaps it would be less enlightened and more brutal: that is all.
Poverty would not be the horrible thing it is, if it did not produce moral brutishness as well as material harm and physical degradation, when prolonged from generation to generation. The poor have different faults than those produced in the privileged classes by wealth and power, but not better ones.
If the bourgeoisie produces the likes of Giolitti and Graziani and all the long succession of mankind's torturers, from the great conquerors to the avid and bloodsucking petty bosses, it also produces the likes of Cafiero, Reclus and Kropotkine, and the many people that in any epoch sacrificed their class privileges to an ideal. If the proletariat gave and gives so many heroes and martyrs of the cause of human redemption, it also gives off the white guards, the slaughterers, the traitors of their own brothers, without which the bourgeois tyranny could not last a single day.
How can hatred be raised to a principle of justice, to an enlightened spirit of demand, when it is clear that evil is everywhere, and it depends upon causes that go beyond individual will and responsibility?
Let there be as much class struggle as one wishes, if by class struggle one means the struggle of the exploited against the exploiters for the abolition of exploitation. That struggle is a way of moral and material elevation, and it is the main revolutionary force that can be relied on.
Let there be no hatred, though, because love and justice cannot arise from hatred. Hatred brings about revenge, desire to be over the enemy, need to consolidate one's superiority. Hatred can only be the foundation of new governments, if one wins, but it cannot be the foundation of anarchy.
Unfortunately, it is easy to understand the hatred of so many wretches whose bodies and sentiments are tormented and rent by society: however, as soon as the hell in which they live is lit up by an ideal, hatred disappears and a burning desire of fighting for the good of all takes over.
For this reason true haters cannot be found among our comrades, although there are many rhetoricians of hatred. They are like the poet, who is a good and peaceful father, but he sings of hatred, because this gives him the opportunity of composing good verses... or perhaps bad ones. They talk about hatred, but their hatred is made of love.
For this reason I love them, even if they call me names.
I am into the copy and paste.
Hope they register within 30 days.
... did they say it blew a FUSE?
I like the way my cum tastes.
I jerk off with my left hand and catch the ejaculate on my thumb and forefinger.
I usually give it a sniff, then slurp most of it down.
If any remains on my hand, I lick it off, and if any has landed on my belly, I use my index finger to scrape it off.
Then I go into the bathroom and wipe off the remainder with toilet paper - and I make sure to flush it. No need to keep it around to stink up the joint.
Writers imply. Readers infer.
here I am sitting 2 am in the morning
As opposed to 2 am in the afternoon?
A basic problem in satellite stabilization is how to get rid of unwanted angular momentum. There are a few options.
You can throw away something. Usually this is reaction mass from a small rocket, or just compressed gas. Weights on the ends of cables that unwind and break free have been used to despin satellites.
You can store angular momentum in an inertia wheel, which is a flywheel on a motor. This doesn't get rid of angular momentum; it just stores it as long as you keep the wheel spinning. Eventually, you hit the maximum motor speed and can't do anything more in that axis. So it's also necessary to have some way to drain off angular momentum, even if very slowly.
You can couple to a gravity gradient. This is done with a long pole aimed towards a nearby planet. The difference between the gravity at the ends of the pole is tiny, but enough that if you get the thing pointed down and stable, it usually stays that way. Only good for one axis, of course.
You can couple to a planetary magnetic field, like these guys are doing. Again, only good for one axis, but it's a different one than the gravity gradient. It's a weak effect, but stronger than the gravity gradient.
You can put out sails and get reaction forces from solar energy. This gets talked about a lot, but isn't done much.
All of these are known techniques. It sounds like this satellite had four inertia wheels and an electromagnet for torquing against a planetary magnetic field. The plan was presumably to maneuver with the inertia wheels, and slowly drain off unwanted angular momentum with the magnetic torquer.
With two inertia wheels down, there are still three torquing devices available, so control of orientation is theoretically possible. Tough, but possible. It's impressive that they made it work.
Using the Earth magnetic field is something used in Amateur radio satellites since many years.
What did one magnet say to the other magnet?
I find you very attractive.
First off bravo to the NASA geeks. I always find it truly heartening when they pull these last minute hacks off. They don't really need to. I hadn't even heard about this one breaking, it wasn't that much of a PR problem. I think the only reason they really bothered is because, like any good geeks, this is their toy, and they love it too much not to try.
Second, to people bemoaning the absense of mars missions and moon bases. Why go? Can we learn so much more by sending people that it justifies the risk and cost of doing so? These are the questions being asked. And if you think this means our motives for going to space aren't pure, think about this: would we have gone to the moon had the Russians not been trying to beat us there?
I think the best way to get American astronauts on Mars today would be to convince Bin Ladin to start a space program.
I for one wonder if NASA has perhaps outlived its usefulness. Could it perhaps persist as a regulatory body, overseeing commercial space ventures, and allowing all-to-scarce public research money to go to other areas?
The mission to Mars sounds even less appealing once you consider how much cancer / AIDS / environmental / fusion / fuel cell / quantum computing / immortality / (name your favorite project) research it would replace.
Obviously the answer is more funding for public research, but then, does anyone really see that happening?
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
This movie fucking rocked.
-----{Scene 1}
[Unicron's theme]
(A binary red/blue giant system.
Something sails past--something huge, and spherical, with a spindly ring around it. UNICRON. Flies past. We see, through his mouth, a small planet which he is approaching.)
(On the planet: the robotic inhabitants go about their daily business, unaware of the fate about to befall them...two of them, KRANIX and ARBLUS, walk down a corridor, carrying a tray of chemicals to a scientist. The table shakes; the tray crashes off. They look out a
window.)
KRANIX: Arblus, look! It's Unicron!
(Unicron activates his tractor beam and starts tearing up the planet. Rock, people, whole buildings are torn up. A pair of huge pincers
tear into the surface.)
KRANIX: The ships, get to the ships! It's our only chance--
(One ship escapes; another is caught and sucked in. We tour Unicron's digestive tract. His ring lights up with energy. He sails off.)
[The Transformers theme]
{Opening credits}
-----{Scene 2}
(Cybertron and its moons)
NARRATOR: It is the year 2005. The treacherous Decepticons have conquered the Autobots' home planet of Cybertron.
(LASERBEAK flies past)
NARRATOR: But from secret staging grounds on two of Cybertron's moons, the valiant Autobots prepare to retake their homeland.
(Laserbeak finds command station on Moon 1. Both OPTIMUS PRIME and IRONHIDE are in the same huge monitor-filled room)
OPTIMUS PRIME: Ironhide, report to me at once!
IRONHIDE: (Looking into a screen which shows images of Decepticons on Cybertron) Every time I look into a monitor, Prime, my circuits sizzle. When are we gonna start bustin'
Deceptichops?
OPTIMUS PRIME: I want you to make a special run to Autobot City on Earth--
IRONHIDE: But Prime--
OPTIMUS PRIME: Listen, Ironhide, we don't have enough energon cubes to power a full-scale assault. Ready the shuttle for launch.
IRONHIDE: Your days are numbered now, Decepticreeps!
(Runs out of room, transforms, drives down ramp)
OPTIMUS PRIME: Jazz, report security status.
JAZZ: (Onscreen, elsewhere in base)
No sign of Decepticons here, Prime.
OPTIMUS PRIME: What about Moonbase 2?
JAZZ: Jazz to Moonbase 2. Jazz to Moonbase 2.
BUMBLEBEE: (Onscreen) Bumblebee and Spike here.
JAZZ: We're about to send up a shuttle. Any Decepticon shenanigans in your area?
BUMBLEBEE: All clear, Jazz.
SPIKE: (Wearing an EXOSUIT)
Hey, Ironhide, tell my son Daniel that I miss him, and tell him not to worry: I'll be coming home just as soon as we kick Megatron's tail across the galaxy!
IRONHIDE: Will do, Spike.
OPTIMUS PRIME: Cliffjumper, commence countdown.
CLIFFJUMPER: Five-four-three-two-one-BLASTOFF!
(Shuttle engines ignite, and it roars off the surface)
OPTIMUS PRIME: Now all we need is a little energon, and a lot of luck.
(Laserbeak flies back to Cybertron)
I am into the copy and paste.
Some people objected to installing a potent soundsystem in a satellite, but the subwoofer saved the day.
In space, noone can hear you scream.
It seems that the CENSORS of slashdot have decided that over 50% of their readers are lame trolls. Look at the figures!! Last posts:
25/51 comments, 116/199, 66/135, 93/201, 69/126
Seems like they don't take their readers serious.
The channel Homer happened to flick to shows two men talking about the
impending launch of the space shuttle.
Tom: It's a lovely day for a launch, here, live at Cape Canaveral, at
the lower end of the Florida Peninsula, and the purpose of
today's mission is truly, really electrifying.
Man 2: That's correct, Tom. The lion's share of this flight will be
devoted to the study of the effects of weightlessness on tiny
screws.
Tom: Unbelievable, and just imagine the logistics of weightlessness.
And of course, this could have literally millions of applications
here on Earth -- everything from watchmaking to watch repair.
Homer: Boring.
[tries to switch channels, but the batteries fall from the
remote control]
No! The batteries!
Tom: Now let's look at the crew a little.
Man 2: They're a colorful bunch. They've been dubbed "the Three
Musketeers". Heh heh heh --
Tom: And we laugh legitimately. There's a mathematician, a different
_kind_ of mathematician, and a statistician.
Homer: Make it stop! [panics]
Bart: Oh no, not another boring space launch. Change the channel.
Change the channel!
Homer: I can't! I can't!
[Bart dives for the plug and tears it from the wall]
[He and Homer both sigh]
--Metrollica
Hey, I have a lot of respect for all you guys who like to eat pussy because there are too few of you out there. And I'm not the only woman who says this. Furthermore, some of you guys who are giving it the old college try are not doing too well, so maybe this little lesson will help you out. When a woman finds a man who gives good head, she's found a treasure she's not going to let go of him too quickly. This is one rare customer and she knows it. She won't even tell her girlfriends about it or that guy will become the most popular man in town. So, remember, most guys can fuck, and those who can usually do it satisfactorily, but the guy who gives good head, he's got it made.
Most women are shy about their bodies. Even if you've got the world's most gorgeous woman in bed with you, she's going to worry about how you like her body. Tell her it's beautiful, tell her which parts you like best, tell her anything, but get her to trust you enough to let you down between her legs. Now stop and look at what you see.
Beautiful, isn't it?
There is nothing that makes a woman more unique than her pussy.
I know. I've seen plenty of them. They come in all different sizes, colors and shapes; some are tucked inside like a little girl's cunnie and some have thick luscious lips that come out to greet you. Some are nested in brushes of fur and others are covered with transparent fuzz. Appreciate your woman's unique qualities and tell her what makes her special. Women are a good deal more verbal than men, especially during love-making. They also respond more to verbal love, which means, the more you talk to her, the easier it will be to get her off. So all the time you're petting and stroking her beautiful pussy, talk to her about it.
Now look at it again.
Gently pull the lips apart and look at her inner lips, even lick them if you want to. Now spread the tops of her pussy up until you can find her clit. Women have clits in all different sizes, just like you guys have different sized cocks. It doesn't mean a thing as far as her capacity for orgasm. All it means is more of her is hidden underneath her foreskin.
Whenever you touch a woman's pussy, make sure your finger is wet. You can lick it or moisten it with juices from inside her. Be sure, by all means, to wet it before you touch her clit because it doesn't have any juices of its own and it's extremely sensitive. Your finger will stick to it if it's dry and that hurts. But you don't want to touch her clit anyway. You have to work up to that. Before she becomes aroused, her clit is too delicate to be handled.
Approach her pussy slowly. Women, even more so than men, love to be teased. The inner part of her thigh is her most tender spot. Lick it, kiss it, make designs on it with the tip of your tongue. Come dangerously close to her pussy, then float away. Make her anticipate it.
Now lick the crease where her leg joins her pussy. Nuzzle your face into her bush. Brush your lips over her slit without pressing down on it to further excite her. After you've done this to the point where your lady is bucking up from her seat and she's straining to get more of you closer to her, then put your lips right on top of her slit.
Kiss her, gently, then harder. Now use your tongue to separate her pussy lips and when she opens up, run your tongue up and down between the layers of pussy flesh. Gently spread her legs more with your hands. Everything you do with a woman you're about to eat must be done gently.
Tongue-fuck her. This feels divine. It also teases the hell out of her because by now she wants some attention given to her clit. Check it out. See if her clit has gotten hard enough to peek out of its covering. If so, lick it. If you can't see it, it might still be waiting for you underneath. So bring your tongue up to the top of her slit and feel for her clit. You may barely experience its presence. But even if you can't feel the tiny pearl, you can make it rise by licking the skin that covers it. Lick hard now and press into her skin.
Gently pull the pussy lips away and flick your tongue against the clit, hood covered or not. Do this quickly. This should cause her legs to shudder. When you sense she's getting up there toward orgasm, make your lips into an O and take the clit into your mouth. Start to suck gently and watch your lady's face for her reaction. If she can handle it, begin to suck harder. If she digs it, suck even harder. Go with her. If she lifts her pelvis into the air with the tension of her rising orgasm, move with her, don't fight her. Hang on, and keep your hot mouth on her clit. Don't let go. That's what she'll be saying too: 'Don't stop. Don't ever stop!'
There's a reason for that - most men stop too soon. Just like with cock sucking, this is something worth learning about and worth learning to do well. I know a man who's a lousy fuck, simply lousy, but he can eat pussy like nobody I know and he never has trouble getting a date. Girls are falling all over him.
But back to your pussy eating session...There's another thing you can do to intensify your woman's pleasure. You can finger-fuck her while she's enjoying your clit-licking talents. Before, during or after. She'll really like it. In addition to the erogenous zones surrounding her clit, a woman has another extremely sensitive area at the roof of her vagina. This is what you rub up against when you're fucking her. Well, since your cock is pretty far away from your mouth, your fingers will have to do the fucking.
Take two fingers. One is too skinny and three is too wide and therefore can't get deep enough. Make sure they're wet so you don't irritate her skin. Slide them inside, slowly at first, then a little faster. Fuck her with them rhythmically. Speed up only when she does. Listen to her breathing.
She'll let you know what to do. If you're sucking her clit and finger-fucking her at the same time, you're giving her far more stimulation than you would be giving her with your cock alone. So you can count on it that she's getting high on this. If there's any doubt, check her out for symptoms. Each woman is unique. You may have one whose nipples get hard when she's excited or only when she's having an orgasm. Your girl might flush red or begin to tremble. Get to know her symptoms and you'll be a more sensitive lover.
When she starts to have an orgasm, for heaven's sakes, don't let go of that clit. Hang in there for the duration. When she starts to come down from the first orgasm, press your tongue along the underside of the clit, leaving your lips covering the top. Move your tongue in and out of her cunt. If your fingers are inside, move them a little too, gently though, things are extremely sensitive just now.
If you play your cards right, you'll get some multiple orgasms this way. A woman stays excited for a full hour after she's had an orgasm. Do you realize the full impact of that information? The potential? One woman was clocked at 56 orgasms at one sitting. Do you know what effect you would have on a woman you gave 56 orgasms to? She'd be yours as long as you wanted her.
The last advice I have for you is this: After you've made her come, made her your slave by giving her the best head she's ever had, don't leave her alone just yet. Talk to her, stroke her body, caress her breasts. Keep making love to her quietly until she's come all the way down. A man can get off and go to sleep in the same breath and feel no remorse, no sense of loss. But a woman by nature requires some sensitivity from her lover in those first few moments after sex.
Oral sex can be the most exciting sexual experiences you can have. But it's what you make it. Take your time, practice often, pay attention to your lover's signals, and most of all, enjoy yourself.
The G-Spot
This does exist. And in over half of the women out there, it works better than anything else you can do to cause a strong, prolonged orgasm. The original name is the Grafenberg spot, after a doctor, Earnest Grafenberg, who documented the area (which may have been known by people here and there throughout history) in the fifties.
This "spot" is a small "mound" of tissue inside the vagina, between a penny and quarter in size, which responds to being pressed upon. It's almost certainly not the skenes glands, (which are located around the urethra, which is behind the G-spot area), as has been suggested by a few people. In fact, the G-Spot is the tissue in that raised area of the vagina, which has a higher concentration of sexual nerves, and produces hormones similar to those made by the male's prostate gland.
A sort of map to the area -- Imagine your lover lying on her back, legs spread. Your position is between her legs. You would slide a finger inside her vagina, palm up. With your finger straight back, middle finger is best, you would curve it toward yourself, gently, as if you were gesturing to someone to "come here". In doing so, the area you press on should be pretty near her "G-Spot" area. If you know enough to follow the urethra (the tube that leads from the bladder to where the pee comes out), along the inside of her vagina, you may feel a slight swelling (if she's excited) at the point where the g-spot is.
She must be excited, especially if either you or she is new to the g-spot, for the g-spot to have any real effect at all. It's not the ideal area for getting your lover aroused.
But when she is excited, this area (more often than not) is the best way to bring her to orgasm. You work your way back to it gradually, teasing her (typically, this works best) with your fingers, slowly and gently. It's easier to hit the right area with two fingers, but this may not be comfortable for her, depending on how "tight" she is at that moment. When you have your fingers around the right area, try gently pressing, not too quickly. The movement should be fairly rhythmic. It's typically best if you're licking her clitoris (or near it, depending on the woman) at the same time...don't make a big deal out of the "quest", this will often make her feel self-conscious, or distracted. The licking should seem to be the primary activity.
When you find the right area, she should respond by getting more excited. Most of the vagina's inside surface isn't really that sexually sensitive, believe it or not...most of the excitement of randomly inserting fingers is more psychological than from the actual stimulation.
While more complicated techniques work with some women, some of the time, the best basic technique, upon finding the g-spot, is to continue to slowly, rhythmically press on it, while licking her clitoris (for a few women, the labia (lips) are sensitive to licking, too).
This should cause her to build up to an orgasm.
A G-Spot orgasm is different (always, when it works at all) than any other kind women have. It is possible, with some women, to have different qualities and kinds of orgasms from vaginal, clitoral, anal, and even breast stimulation...but with other women, those kinds of orgasms are all pretty much the same. But the G-Spot orgasm not only feels different; it also causes her body to react in a different way.
First, it often causes a "push out" orgasm. The area around, or "above" (farther inside, that is) your fingers seems to swell up or to contract toward the opening of her vagina.
If you find the right combination of pushing back when this happens, and slacking off to let it push out, you can cause (in perhaps half of the women) her orgasm to continue happening, long after normal ones would have subsided. In some women you can even keep her at a "plateau" (raised level) of sexual excitement, like a prolonged orgasm (or a little less than one) afterward, building up to an even bigger climax.
That brings me to another important point; G-Spot orgasms sometimes causes a huge amount (relatively speaking) of lubrication (juices, wetness)...far more than even the most excited woman gets from "conventional" stimulation.
When that extra wetness combines with the push-out orgasm, you get actual ejaculation...like a guy, but much better tasting. The built up juices can shoot out in such volume that you, or she, may be afraid that she lost control of her bladder. That is (almost always) not what happened. The fear that she peed can be enhanced by the fact that the urethra is behind the g-spot, so that in rare cases the woman can sometimes get the feeling that she needs to pee, even though she does not.
In reality, in both men and women, enough sexual excitement prevents peeing, unless you try really hard. This is a built-in reflex, because urine is something of a spermicide. The "pee hard-on" that men get in the morning is partially his body taking advantage of this reflex, to keep him from accidentally wetting the bed with the urine that built up while he was sleeping.
Taste
Anyone who likes, say, coffee or beer should have no room to complain about the way most women taste. No, I don't mean it tastes like coffee or beer, genius...I mean that beer and coffee are, at best, acquired tastes...they are not naturally pleasant to a human being, no matter how much your addiction to one or both has convinced you otherwise. Most people, whether they remember it or not, had to learn to like the taste of beer/coffee, and had the desire to be Like the Adults to help them along. Well, I'd list taking pleasure in cunnilingus above drinking addictive beverages on the list of things that prove maturity. Aside from that, there's the fact that many people who give it an honest try genuinely enjoy the taste/smell.
Syndicalism and Anarchism
.
The relationship between the labour movement and the progressive parties is an old and worn theme. But it is an ever topical one, and so it will remain while there are, on one hand, a mass of people plagued by urgent needs and driven by aspirations - at times passionate but always vague and indeterminate - to a better life, and on the other individuals and parties who have a specific view of the future and of the means to attain it, but whose plans and hopes are doomed to remain utopias ever out of reach unless they can win over the masses. And the subject is all the more important now that, after the catastrophes of war and of the post-war period, all are preparing, if only mentally, for a resumption of the activity which must follow upon the fall of the tyrannies that still rant and rage [across Europe] but are beginning to tremble. For this reason I shall try to clarify what, in my view, should be the anarchists' attitude to labour organisations.
Today, I believe, there is no-one, or almost no-one amongst us who would deny the usefulness of and the need for the labour movement as a mass means of material and moral advancement, as a fertile ground for propaganda and as an indispensable force for the social transformation that is our goal. There is no longer anyone who does not understand what the workers' organisation means, to us anarchists more than to anyone, believing as we do that the new social organisation must not and cannot be imposed by a new government by force but must result from the free cooperation of all. Moreover, the labour movement is now an important and universal institution. To oppose it would be to become the oppressors' accomplices; to ignore it would be to put us out of reach of people's everyday lives and condemn us to perpetual powerlessness. Yet, while everyone, or almost everyone, is in agreement on the usefulness and the need for the anarchists to take an active part in the labour movement and to be its supporters and promoters, we often disagree among ourselves on the methods, conditions and limitations of such involvement
Many comrades would like the labour movement and anarchist movement to be one and the same thing and, where they are able for instance, in Spain and Argentina, and even to a certain extent in Italy, France, Germany, etc. - try to confer on the workers' organisations a clearly anarchist programme. These comrades are known as 'anarcho-syndicalists', or, if they get mixed up with others who really are not anarchists, call themselves 'revolutionary syndicalists'. There needs to be some explanation of the meaning of 'syndicalism' If it is a question of what one wants from the future, if, that is, by syndicalism is meant the form of social organisation that should replace capitalism and state organisation, then either it is the same thing as anarchy and is therefore a word that serves only to confuse or it is something different from anarchy and cannot therefore be accepted by anarchists. In fact, among the ideas and the proposals on the future which some syndicalists have put forward, there are some that are genuinely anarchist. But there are others which, under other names and other forms, reproduce the authoritarian structure which underlies the cause of the ills about which we are now protesting, and which, therefore, have nothing to do with anarchy But it is not syndicalism as a social system which I mean to deal with, because it is not this which can determine the current actions of the anarchists with regard to the labour movement.
I am dealing here with the labour movement under a capitalist and state regime and the name syndicalism includes all the workers' organisations, all the various unions set up to resist the oppression of the bosses and to lessen or altogether wipe out the exploitation of human labour by the owners of the raw materials and means of production. Now I say that these organisations cannot be anarchist and that it does no good to claim that they are, because if they were they would be failing in their purpose and would not serve the ends that those anarchists who are involved in them propose. A Union is set up to defend the day to day interests of the workers and to improve their conditions as much as possible before they can be in any position to make the revolution and by it change today's wage-earners into free workers, freely associating for the benefit of all
For a union to serve its own ends and at the same time act as a means of education and ground for propaganda aimed at radical social change, it needs to gather together all workers - or at least those workers who look to an improvement of their conditions - and to be able to put up some resistance to the bosses. Can it possibly wait for all the workers to become anarchists before inviting them to organise themselves and before admitting them into the organisation, thereby reversing the natural order of propaganda and psychological development and forming the resistance organisation when there is no longer any need, since the masses would already be capable of making the revolution? In such a case the union would be a duplicate of the anarchist grouping and would be powerless either to obtain improvements or to make revolution. Or would it content itself with committing the anarchist programme to paper and with formal, unthought-out support, and bringing together people who, sheeplike, follow the organisers, only then to scatter and pass over to the enemy on the first occasion they are called upon to show themselves to be serious anarchists?
Syndicalism (by which I mean the practical variety and not the theoretical sort, which everyone tailors to their own shape) is by nature reformist. All that can be expected of it is that the reforms it fights for and achieves are of a kind and obtained in such a way that they serve revolutionary education and propaganda and leave the way open for the making of ever greater demands. Any fusion or confusion between the anarchist and revolutionary movement and the syndicalist movement ends either by rendering the union helpless as regards its specific aims or with toning down, falsifying and extinguishing the anarchist spirit. A union can spring up with a socialist, revolutionary or anarchist programme and it is, indeed, with programmes of this sort that the various workers' programmes originate. But it is while they are weak and impotent that they are faithful to the programme - while, that is, they remain propaganda groups set up and run by a few zealous and committed men, rather than organisations ready for effective action. Later, as they manage to attract the masses and acquire the strength to claim and impose improvements, the original programme becomes an empty formula, to which no-one pays any more attention. Tactics adapt to the needs of the moment and the enthusiasts of the early days either themselves adapt or cede their place to 'practical' men concerned with today, and with no thought for tomorrow.
There are, of course, comrades who, though in the first ranks of the union movement, remain sincerely and enthusiastically anarchist, as there are workers' groupings inspired by anarchist ideas. But it would be too easy a work of criticism to seek out the thousands of cases in which, in everyday practice, these men and these groupings contradict anarchist ideas. Hard necessity? I agree. Pure anarchism cannot be a practical solution while people are forced to deal with bosses and with authority. The mass of the people cannot be left to their own devices when they refuse to do so and ask for, demand, leaders. But why confuse anarchism with what anarchism is not and take upon ourselves, as anarchists, responsibility for the various transactions and agreements that need to be made on the very grounds that the masses are not anarchist, even where they belong to an organisation that has written an anarchist programme into its constitution? In my opinion the anarchists should not want the unions to be anarchist. The anarchists must work among themselves for anarchist ends, as individuals, groups and federations of groups. In the same way as there are, or should be, study and discussion groups, groups for written or spoken propaganda in public, cooperative groups, groups working within factories and workshops, fields, barracks, schools, etc., so they should form groups within the various organisations that wage class war. Naturally the ideal would be for everyone to be anarchist and for all organisations to work anarchically. But it is clear that if that were the case, there would be no need to organise for the struggle against the bosses, because the bosses would no longer exist.
In present circumstances, given the degree of development of the mass of the people amongst which they work, the anarchist groups should not demand that these organisations be anarchist, but try to draw them as close as possible to anarchist tactics. If the survival of the organisation and the needs and wishes of the organised make it really necessary to compromise and enter into muddied negotiations with authority and the employers, so be it. But let it be the responsibility of others, not the anarchists, whose mission is to point to the inadequacy and fragility of all improvements that are made within a capitalist society and to drive the struggle on toward ever more radical solutions. The anarchists within the unions should strive to ensure that they remain open to all workers of whatever opinion or party on the sole condition that there is solidarity in the struggle against the bosses. They should oppose the corporatist spirit and any attempt to monopolise labour or organisation. They should prevent the Unions from becoming the tools of the politicians for electoral or other authoritarian ends; they should preach and practice direct action, decentralisation, autonomy and free initiative. They should strive to help members learn how to participate directly in the life of the organisation and to do without leaders and permanent officials. They must, in short, remain anarchists, remain always in close touch with anarchists and remember that the workers' organisation is not the end but just one of the means, however important, of preparing the way for the achievement of anarchism.
April-May 1925
I am into the copy and paste.
argh!!! Eat the timbers from me arsehole!! I am the pirate troLL and i am the scourge of seven seas arrrrg!
I'm here to ram my jolly roger up the arse of Anal Cox and his open source bouccaneers! arrrrrgh!! So show me your booty ya dirty scallywags or i'll throw ya in the gibbett cage!!! arrrrrrgh!
"Anarchism",
from The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910.
ANARCHISM (from the Gr. an and archos, contrary to authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international temporary or more or less permanent - for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary - as is seen in organic life at large - harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the state.
If, it is contended, society were organized on these principles, man would not be limited in the free exercise of his powers in productive work by a capitalist monopoly, maintained by the state; nor would he be limited in the exercise of his will by a fear of punishment, or by obedience towards individuals or metaphysical entities, which both lead to depression of initiative and servility of mind. He would be guided in his actions by his own understanding, which necessarily would bear the impression of a free action and reaction between his own self and the ethical conceptions of his surroundings. Man would thus be enabled to obtain the full development of all his faculties, intellectual, artistic and moral, without being hampered by overwork for the monopolists, or by the servility and inertia of mind of the great number. He would thus be able to reach full individualization, which is not possible either under the present system of individualism, or under any system of state socialism in the so-called Volkstaat (popular state).
The anarchist writers consider, moreover, that their conception is not a utopia, constructed on the a priori method, after a few desiderata have been taken as postulates. It is derived, they maintain, from an analysis of tendencies that are at work already, even though state socialism may find a temporary favour with the reformers. The progress of modern technics, which wonderfully simplifies the production of all the necessaries of life; the growing spirit of independence, and the rapid spread of free initiative and free understanding in all branches of activity - including those which formerly were considered as the proper attribution of church and state - are steadily reinforcing the no-government tendency.
As to their economical conceptions, the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility. They are the main obstacle which prevents the successes of modern technics from being brought into the service of all, so as to produce general well-being. The anarchists consider the wage-system and capitalist production altogether as an obstacle to progress. But they point out also that the state was, and continues to be, the chief instrument for permitting the few to monopolize the land, and the capitalists to appropriate for themselves a quite disproportionate share of the yearly accumulated surplus of production. Consequently, while combating the present monopolization of land, and capitalism altogether, the anarchists combat with the same energy the state, as the main support of that system. Not this or that special form, but the state altogether, whether it be a monarchy or even a republic governed by means of the referendum.
The state organization, having always been, both in ancient and modern history (Macedonian Empire, Roman Empire, modern European states grown up on the ruins of the autonomous cities), the instrument for establishing monopolies in favour of the ruling minorities, cannot be made to work for the destruction of these monopolies. The anarchists consider, therefore, that to hand over to the state all the main sources of economical life - the land, the mines, the railways, banking, insurance, and so on - as also the management of all the main branches of industry, in addition to all the functions already accumulated in its hands (education, state- supported religions, defence of the territory, etc.), would mean to create a new instrument of tyranny. State capitalism would only increase the powers of bureaucracy and capitalism. True progress lies in the direction of decentralization, both territorial and functional, in the development of the spirit of local and personal initiative, and of free federation from the simple to the compound, in lieu of the present hierarchy from the centre to the periphery.
In common with most socialists, the anarchists recognize that, like all evolution in nature, the slow evolution of society is followed from time to time by periods of accelerated evolution which are called revolutions; and they think that the era of revolutions is not yet closed. Periods of rapid changes will follow the periods of slow evolution, and these periods must be taken advantage of - not for increasing and widening the powers of the state, but for reducing them, through the organization in every township or commune of the local groups of producers and consumers, as also the regional, and eventually the international, federations of these groups.
In virtue of the above principles the anarchists refuse to be party to the present state organization and to support it by infusing fresh blood into it. They do not seek to constitute, and invite the working men not to constitute, political parties in the parliaments. Accordingly, since the foundation of the International Working Men's Association in 1864-1866, they have endeavoured to promote their ideas directly amongst the labour organizations and to induce those unions to a direct struggle against capital, without placing their faith in parliamentary legislation.
The historical development of anarchism
The conception of society just sketched, and the tendency which is its dynamic expression, have always existed in mankind, in opposition to the governing hierarchic conception and tendency - now the one and now the other taking the upper hand at different periods of history. To the former tendency we owe the evolution, by the masses themselves, of those institutions - the clan, the village community, the guild, the free medieval city - by means of which the masses resisted the encroachments of the conquerors and the power-seeking minorities. The same tendency asserted itself with great energy in the great religious movements of medieval times, especially in the early movements of the reform and its forerunners. At the same time it evidently found its expression in the writings of some thinkers, since the times of Lao-tsze, although, owing to its non-scholastic and popular origin, it obviously found less sympathy among the scholars than the opposed tendency.
As has been pointed out by Prof. Adler in his Geschichte des Sozialismus und Kommunismus, Aristippus (b. c. 430 BC), one of the founders of the Cyrenaic school, already taught that the wise must not give up their liberty to the state, and in reply to a question by Socrates he said that he did not desire to belong either to the governing or the governed class. Such an attitude, however, seems to have been dictated merely by an Epicurean attitude towards the life of the masses.
The best exponent of anarchist philosophy in ancient Greece was Zeno (342-267 or 270 BC), from Crete, the founder of the Stoic philosophy, who distinctly opposed his conception of a free community without government to the state-utopia of Plato. He repudiated the omnipotence of the state, its intervention and regimentation, and proclaimed the sovereignty of the moral law of the individual - remarking already that, while the necessary instinct of self-preservation leads man to egotism, nature has supplied a corrective to it by providing man with another instinct - that of sociability. When men are reasonable enough to follow their natural instincts, they will unite across the frontiers and constitute the cosmos. They will have no need of law-courts or police, will have no temples and no public worship, and use no money - free gifts taking the place of the exchanges. Unfortunately, the writings of Zeno have not reached us and are only known through fragmentary quotations. However, the fact that his very wording is similar to the wording now in use, shows how deeply is laid the tendency of human nature of which he was the mouthpiece.
In medieval times we find the same views on the state expressed by the illustrious bishop of Alba, Marco Girolamo Vida, in his first dialogue De dignitate reipublicae (Ferd. Cavalli, in Mem. dell'Istituto Veneto, xiii.; Dr E. Nys, Researches in the History of Economics). But it is especially in several early Christian movements, beginning with the ninth century in Armenia, and in the preachings of the early Hussites, particularly Chojecki, and the early Anabaptists, especially Hans Denk (cf. Keller, Ein Apostel der Wiedertaufer), that one finds the same ideas forcibly expressed - special stress being laid of course on their moral aspects.
Rabelais and Fenelon, in their utopias, have also expressed similar ideas, and they were also current in the eighteenth century amongst the French Encyclopaedists, as may be concluded from separate expressions occasionally met with in the writings of Rousseau, from Diderot's Preface to the Voyage of Bougainville, and so on. However, in all probability such ideas could not be developed then, owing to the rigorous censorship of the Roman Catholic Church.
These ideas found their expression later during the great French Revolution. While the Jacobins did all in their power to centralize everything in the hands of the government, it appears now, from recently published documents, that the masses of the people, in their municipalities and 'sections', accomplished a considerable constructive work. They appropriated for themselves the election of the judges, the organization of supplies and equipment for the army, as also for the large cities, work for the unemployed, the management of charities, and so on. They even tried to establish a direct correspondence between the 36,000 communes of France through the intermediary of a special board, outside the National Assembly (cf. Sigismund Lacroix, Actes de la commune de Paris).
It was Godwin, in his Enquiry concerning Political Justice (2 vols., 1793), who was the first to formulate the political and economical conceptions of anarchism, even though he did not give that name to the ideas developed in his remarkable work. Laws, he wrote, are not a product of the wisdom of our ancestors: they are the product of their passions, their timidity, their jealousies and their ambition. The remedy they offer is worse than the evils they pretend to cure. If and only if all laws and courts were abolished, and the decisions in the arising contests were left to reasonable men chosen for that purpose, real justice would gradually be evolved. As to the state, Godwin frankly claimed its abolition. A society, he wrote, can perfectly well exist without any government: only the communities should be small and perfectly autonomous. Speaking of property, he stated that the rights of every one 'to every substance capable of contributing to the benefit of a human being' must be regulated by justice alone: the substance must go 'to him who most wants it'. His conclusion was communism. Godwin, however, had not the courage to maintain his opinions. He entirely rewrote later on his chapter on property and mitigated his communist views in the second edition of Political Justice (8vo, 1796).
Proudhon was the first to use, in 1840 (Qu'est-ce que la propriete? first memoir), the name of anarchy with application to the no government state of society. The name of 'anarchists' had been freely applied during the French Revolution by the Girondists to those revolutionaries who did not consider that the task of the Revolution was accomplished with the overthrow of Louis XVI, and insisted upon a series of economical measures being taken (the abolition of feudal rights without redemption, the return to the village communities of the communal lands enclosed since 1669, the limitation of landed property to 120 acres, progressive income-tax, the national organization of exchanges on a just value basis, which already received a beginning of practical realization, and so on).
Now Proudhon advocated a society without government, and used the word anarchy to describe it. Proudhon repudiated, as is known, all schemes of communism, according to which mankind would be driven into communistic monasteries or barracks, as also all the schemes of state or state-aided socialism which were advocated by Louis Blanc and the collectivists. When he proclaimed in his first memoir on property that 'Property is theft', he meant only property in its present, Roman-law, sense of 'right of use and abuse'; in property-rights, on the other hand, understood in the limited sense of possession, he saw the best protection against the encroachments of the state. At the same time he did not want violently to dispossess the present owners of land, dwelling-houses, mines, factories and so on. He preferred to attain the same end by rendering capital incapable of earning interest; and this he proposed to obtain by means of a national bank, based on the mutual confidence of all those who are engaged in production, who would agree to exchange among themselves their produces at cost-value, by means of labour cheques representing the hours of labour required to produce every given commodity. Under such a system, which Proudhon described as 'Mutuellisme', all the exchanges of services would be strictly equivalent. Besides, such a bank would be enabled to lend money without interest, levying only something like I per cent, or even less, for covering the cost of administration. Everyone being thus enabled to borrow the money that would be required to buy a house, nobody would agree to pay any more a yearly rent for the use of it. A general 'social liquidation' would thus be rendered easy, without violent expropriation. The same applied to mines, railways, factories and so on.
In a society of this type the state would be useless. The chief relations between citizens would be based on free agreement and regulated by mere account keeping. The contests might be settled by arbitration. A penetrating criticism of the state and all possible forms of government, and a deep insight into all economic problems, were well-known characteristics of Proudhon's work.
It is worth noticing that French mutualism had its precursor in England, in William Thompson, who began by mutualism before he became a communist, and in his followers John Gray (A Lecture on Human Happiness, 1825; The Social System, 1831) and J. F. Bray (Labour's Wrongs and Labour's Remedy, 1839). It had also its precursor in America. Josiah Warren, who was born in 1798 (cf. W. Bailie, Josiah Warren, the First American Anarchist, Boston, 1900), and belonged to Owen's 'New Harmony', considered that the failure of this enterprise was chiefly due to the suppression of individuality and the lack of initiative and responsibility. These defects, he taught, were inherent to every scheme based upon authority and the community of goods. He advocated, therefore, complete individual liberty. In 1827 he opened in Cincinnati a little country store which was the first 'equity store', and which the people called 'time store', because it was based on labour being exchanged hour for hour in all sorts of produce. 'Cost - the limit of price', and consequently 'no interest', was the motto of his store, and later on of his 'equity village', near New York, which was still in existence in 1865. Mr Keith's 'House of Equity' at Boston, founded in 1855, is also worthy of notice.
While the economical, and especially the mutual-banking, ideas of Proudhon found supporters and even a practical application in the United States, his political conception of anarchy found but little echo in France, where the Christian socialism of Lamennais and the Fourierists, and the state socialism of Louis Blanc and the followers of Saint-Simon, were dominating. These ideas found, however, some temporary support among the left-wing Hegelians in Germany, Moses Hess in 1843, and Karl Grün in 1845, who advocated anarchism. Besides, the authoritarian communism of Wilhelm Weitling having given origin to opposition amongst the Swiss working men, Wilhelm Marr gave expression to it in the forties.
On the other side, individualist anarchism found, also in Germany, its fullest expression in Max Stirner (Kaspar Schmidt), whose remarkable works (Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum and articles contributed to the Rheinische Zeitung) remained quite overlooked until they were brought into prominence by John Henry Mackay.
Prof. V. Basch, in a very able introduction to his interesting book, L'lndividualisme anarchiste: Max Stirner (1904), has shown how the development of the German philosophy from Kant to Hegel, and 'the absolute' of Schelling and the Geist of Hegel, necessarily provoked, when the anti-Hegelian revolt began, the preaching of the same 'absolute' in the camp of the rebels. This was done by Stirner, who advocated, not only a complete revolt against the state and against the servitude which authoritarian communism would impose upon men, but also the full liberation of the individual from all social and moral bonds - the rehabilitation of the 'I', the supremacy of the individual, complete 'amoralism', and the 'association of the egotists'. The final conclusion of that sort of individual anarchism has been indicated by Prof. Basch. It maintains that the aim of all superior civilization is, not to permit all members of the community to develop in a normal way, but to permit certain better endowed individuals 'fully to develop', even at the cost of the happiness and the very existence of the mass of mankind. It is thus a return towards the most common individual ism, advocated by all the would-be superior minorities, to which indeed man owes in his history precisely the state and the rest, which these individualists combat. Their individualism goes so far as to end in a negation of their own starting-point - to say nothing of the impossibility for the individual to attain a really full development in the conditions of oppression of the masses by the 'beautiful aristocracies'. His development would remain unilateral. This is why this direction of thought, notwithstanding its undoubtedly correct and useful advocacy of the full development of each individuality, finds a hearing only in limited artistic and literary circles.
Anarchism in the International Working Men's Association
A general depression in the propaganda of all fractions of socialism followed, as is known, after the defeat of the uprising of the Paris working men in June 1848 and the fall of the Republic. All the socialist press was gagged during the reaction period, which lasted fully twenty years. Nevertheless, even anarchist thought began to make some progress, namely in the writings of Bellegarrique (Caeurderoy), and especially Joseph Déjacque (Les Lazareacute'ennes, L 'Humanisphère, an anarchist-communist utopia, lately discovered and reprinted). The socialist movement revived only after 1864, when some French working men, all 'mutualists', meeting in London during the Universal Exhibition with English followers of Robert Owen, founded the International Working Men's Association. This association developed very rapidly and adopted a policy of direct economical struggle against capitalism, without interfering in the political parliamentary agitation, and this policy was followed until 1871. However, after the Franco-German War, when the International Association was prohibited in France after the uprising of the Commune, the German working men, who had received manhood suffrage for elections to the newly constituted imperial parliament, insisted upon modifying the tactics of the International, and began to build up a Social Democratic political party. This soon led to a division in the Working Men's Association, and the Latin federations, Spanish, Italian, Belgian and Jurassic (France could not be represented), constituted among themselves a Federal union which broke entirely with the Marxist general council of the International. Within these federations developed now what may be described as modern anarchism. After the names of 'Federalists' and 'Anti- authoritarians' had been used for some time by these federations the name of 'anarchists', which their adversaries insisted upon applying to them, prevailed, and finally it was revindicated.
Bakunin (q.v.) soon became the leading spirit among these Latin federations for the development of the principles of anarchism, which he did in a number of writings, pamphlets and letters. He demanded the complete abolition of the state, which -- he wrote -- is a product of religion, belongs to a lower state of civilization, represents the negation of liberty, and spoils even that which it undertakes to do for the sake of general well-being. The state was an historically necessary evil, but its complete extinction will be, sooner or later, equally necessary. Repudiating all legislation, even when issuing from universal suffrage, Bakunin claimed for each nation, each region and each commune, full autonomy, so long as it is not a menace to its neighbours, and full independence for the individual, adding that one becomes really free only when, and in proportion as, all others are free. Free federations of the communes would constitute free nations.
As to his economical conceptions, Bakunin described himself, in common with his Federalist comrades of the International (César De Paepe, James Guillaume, Schwitzguébel), a 'collectivist anarchist' - not in the sense of Vidal and Pecqueur in the 1840s, or of their modern Social Democratic followers, but to express a state of things in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the labour groups and the free communes, while the ways of retribution of labour, communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself. Social revolution, the near approach of which was foretold at that time by all socialists, would be the means of bringing into life the new conditions.
The Jurassic, the Spanish and the Italian federations and sections of the International Working Men's Association, as also the French, the German and the American anarchist groups, were for the next years the chief centres of anarchist thought and propaganda. They refrained from any participation in parliamentary politics, and always kept in close contact with the labour organizations. However, in the second half of the 'eighties and the early 'nineties of the nineteenth century, when the influence of the anarchists began to be felt in strikes, in the 1st of May demonstrations, where they promoted the idea of a general strike for an eight hours' day, and in the anti-militarist propaganda in the army, violent prosecutions were directed against them, especially in the Latin countries (including physical torture in the Barcelona Castle) and the United States (the execution of five Chicago anarchists in 1887). Against these prosecutions the anarchists retaliated by acts of violence which in their turn were followed by more executions from above, and new acts of revenge from below. This created in the general public the impression that violence is the substance of anarchism, a view repudiated by its supporters, who hold that in reality violence is resorted to by all parties in proportion as their open action is obstructed by repression, and exceptional laws render them outlaws. (Cf. Anarchism and Outrage, by C. M. Wilson, and Report of the Spanish Atrocities Committee, in 'Freedom Pamphlets'; A Concise History of the Great Trial of the Chicago Anarchists, by Dyer Lum (New York, 1886); The Chicago Martyrs: Speeches, etc.).
Anarchism continued to develop, partly in the direction of Proudhonian 'mutuellisme', but chiefly as communist-anarchism, to which a third direction, Christian- anarchism, was added by Leo Tolstoy, and a fourth, which might be ascribed as literary-anarchism, began amongst some prominent modern writers.
The ideas of Proudhon, especially as regards mutual banking, corresponding with those of Josiah Warren, found a considerable following in the United States, creating quite a school, of which the main writers are Stephen Pearl Andrews, William Grene, Lysander Spooner (who began to write in 1850, and whose unfinished work, Natural Law, was full of promise), and several others, whose names will be found in Dr Nettlau's Bibliographie de l'anarchie.
A prominent position among the individualist anarchists in America has been occupied by Benjamin R. Tucker, whose journal Liberty was started in 1881 and whose conceptions are a combination of those of Proudhon with those of Herbert Spencer. Starting from the statement that anarchists are egotists, strictly speaking, and that every group of individuals, be it a secret league of a few persons, or the Congress of the United States, has the right to oppress all mankind, provided it has the power to do so, that equal liberty for all and absolute equality ought to be the law, and 'mind every one your own business' is the unique moral law of anarchism, Tucker goes on to prove that a general and thorough application of these principles would be beneficial and would offer no danger, because the powers of every individual would be limited by the exercise of the equal rights of all others. He further indicated (following H. Spencer) the difference which exists between the encroachment on somebody's rights and resistance to such an encroachment; between domination and defence: the former being equally condemnable, whether it be encroachment of a criminal upon an individual, or the encroachment of one upon all others, or of all others upon one; while resistance to encroachment is defensible and necessary. For their self-defence, both the citizen and the group have the right to any violence, including capital punishment. Violence is also justified for enforcing the duty of keeping an agreement. Tucker thus follows Spencer, and, like him, opens (in the present writer's opinion) the way for reconstituting under the heading of 'defence' all the functions of the state. His criticism of the present state is very searching, and his defence of the rights of the individual very powerful. As regards his economical views B. R. Tucker follows Proudhon.
The individualist anarchism of the American Proudhonians finds, however, but little sympathy amongst the working masses. Those who profess it - they are chiefly 'intellectuals' - soon realize that the individualization they so highly praise is not attainable by individual efforts, and either abandon the ranks of the anarchists, and are driven into the liberal individualism of the classical economist or they retire into a sort of Epicurean amoralism, or superman theory, similar to that of Stirner and Nietzsche. The great bulk of the anarchist working men prefer the anarchist-communist ideas which have gradually evolved out of the anarchist collectivism of the International Working Men's Association. To this direction belong - to name only the better known exponents of anarchism Elisée Reclus, Jean Grave, Sebastien Faure, Emile Pouget in France; Errico Malatesta and Covelli in Italy; R. Mella, A. Lorenzo, and the mostly unknown authors of many excellent manifestos in Spain; John Most amongst the Germans; Spies, Parsons and their followers in the United States, and so on; while Domela Nieuwenhuis occupies an intermediate position in Holland. The chief anarchist papers which have been published since 1880 also belong to that direction; while a number of anarchists of this direction have joined the so-called syndicalist movement- the French name for the non-political labour movement, devoted to direct struggle with capitalism, which has lately become so prominent in Europe.
As one of the anarchist-communist direction, the present writer for many years endeavoured to develop the following ideas: to show the intimate, logical connection which exists between the modern philosophy of natural sciences and anarchism; to put anarchism on a scientific basis by the study of the tendencies that are apparent now in society and may indicate its further evolution; and to work out the basis of anarchist ethics. As regards the substance of anarchism itself, it was Kropotkin's aim to prove that communism at least partial - has more chances of being established than collectivism, especially in communes taking the lead, and that free, or anarchist-communism is the only form of communism that has any chance of being accepted in civilized societies; communism and anarchy are therefore two terms of evolution which complete each other, the one rendering the other possible and acceptable. He has tried, moreover, to indicate how, during a revolutionary period, a large city - if its inhabitants have accepted the idea could organize itself on the lines of free communism; the city guaranteeing to every inhabitant dwelling, food and clothing to an extent corresponding to the comfort now available to the middle classes only, in exchange for a half-day's, or five-hours' work; and how all those things which would be considered as luxuries might be obtained by everyone if he joins for the other half of the day all sorts of free associations pursuing all possible aims - educational, literary, scientific, artistic, sports and so on. In order to prove the first of these assertions he has analysed the possibilities of agriculture and industrial work, both being combined with brain work. And in order to elucidate the main factors of human evolution, he has analysed the part played in history by the popular constructive agencies of mutual aid and the historical role of the state.
Without naming himself an anarchist, Leo Tolstoy, like his predecessors in the popular religious movements of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Chojecki, Denk and many others, took the anarchist position as regards the state and property rights, deducing his conclusions from the general spirit of the teachings of the Christ and from the necessary dictates of reason. With all the might of his talent he made (especially in The Kingdom of God in Yourselves) a powerful criticism of the church, the state and law altogether, and especially of the present property laws. He describes the state as the domination of the wicked ones, supported by brutal force. Robbers, he says, are far less dangerous than a well-organized government. He makes a searching criticism of the prejudices which are current now concerning the benefits conferred upon men by the church, the state and the existing distribution of property, and from the teachings of the Christ he deduces the rule of non-resistance and the absolute condemnation of all wars. His religious arguments are, however, so well combined with arguments borrowed from a dispassionate observation of the present evils, that the anarchist portions of his works appeal to the religious and the non-religious reader alike.
It would be impossible to represent here, in a short sketch, the penetration, on the one hand, of anarchist ideas into modern literature, and the influence, on the other hand, which the libertarian ideas of the best contemporary writers have exercised upon the development of anarchism. One ought to consult the ten big volumes of the Supplément Littéraire to the paper La Révolte and later the Temps Nouveaux, which contain reproductions from the works of hundreds of modern authors expressing anarchist ideas, in order to realize how closely anarchism is connected with all the intellectual movement of our own times. J. S. Mill's Liberty, Spencer's Individual versus the State, Marc Guyau's Morality without Obligation or Sanction, and Fouillée's La Morale, I'art et la religion, the works of Multatuli (E. Douwes Dekker), Richard Wagner's Art and Revolution, the works of Nietzsche, Emerson, W. Lloyd Garrison, Thoreau, Alexander Herzen, Edward Carpenter and so on; and in the domain of fiction, the dramas of Ibsen, the poetry of Walt Whitman, Tolstoy's War and Peace, Zola's Paris and Le Travail, the latest works of Merezhkovsky, and an infinity of works of less known authors, are full of ideas which show how closely anarchism is interwoven with the work that is going on in modern thought in the same direction of enfranchisement of man from the bonds of the state as well as from those of capitalism.
I am into the copy and paste.
What good are these things without duct tape?
NASA isnt bad... its just identical to the real corporate world, which btw also sucks.
One solution: let the engineers RULE a little more and actualy have 50% control in all decisions, not 100% by management.
You can couple to a planetary magnetic field, like these guys are doing. Again, only good for one axis
Not really. Full 3-axis stabilization can be implemented using the Earth's magnetic field. Unlike a passive pole the magnetotorquers are active elements and the magnetic field doesn't always point down so at different parts of an orbit it can be used to control all 3 axes.
Design and Experimental Test of Magnetic-Torquer-Based 3-Axis Satellite Attitude Controllers
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
For all questions anal, check out this site.
THAT MAN HAS SERIOUS PROBLEMS! WHAT HAS HE DONE TO HIMSELF? If it is you SEE A DOCTOR IMMEDIATELY. You have serious problems!
It must be getting thirsty in Saudi Arabia by now. We've got all those American fighting troops over there and they're not allowed to have any beer.
The Saudis don't believe in beer. I'm not certain such a country is worth defending, even against Saddam Hussein. How can you stick all those soldiers out in the middle of the desert and not provide them a little beer occasionally?
The Saudis also will not allow anybody to send any nude photos to our kids. They probably can live with that. You can go without nude photos a lot longer than you can go without beer. You may not realize this but beer has played a big part in the military history of this country.
When Washington crossed the Delaware, he took a six-pack, which he drank along the way. That's how he drummed up the courage to stand up there in front of the boat.
When aides complained to President Lincoln that U.S. Grant was drinking too much during the Civil War, Lincoln asked, "What does he drink?"
The aides answered, "Miller Lite."
"Because it's less filling or has more taste?" asked Lincoln.
"He likes the can," they answered.
"Doesn't matter," said Lincoln. "Order each of my generals a case. Maybe they'll learn to fight like Grant."
The real reason Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders charged up San Juan Hill was because somebody told them there was an iced-down keg of beer at the top.
I'm not certain how much our brave fighting women in Saudi Arabia miss beer, but you get a couple of hundred thousand guys together, for whatever reason, and they're going to want a few cold ones.
The lack of beer has got to be hurting morale. If I were George Bush I'd level with the Saudis.
I'd tell them, "Read my lips. My boys have got to have some beer."
Can you imagine being 22 years old, being sent to a glorified sand box and not knowing when you'll get home or even IF you'll get home, and some guy dressed in something that looks like he stole off a bed in a Holiday Inn telling you you can't have a lousy beer after you get off duty?
This is ridiculous. This is unfair. This is an issue that should have come up before and the president should deal with now.
I'm serious. Tell the Saudis to stick it.
If the government won't pick up the tab, I'm certain the American people will be willing to foot the bill for a beer lift to Saudi Arabia.
What are the Saudis going to do if we ignore their no-beer rule? Ask us to leave and have to depend on shaky allies to defend them against Saddam Hussein?
Of course not.
Tell 'em to kiss our Buds and go drink their oil.
I am into the copy and paste.
So, reversing the polarity really DOES work!
Arrrgh! Bill is everywhere!
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
This automatically put the satellite into a pre-programmed "safe mode" configuration on December 10, 2001.
Don't tell me it's running Windows!
You are receiving this message because your browser supports Slashdot Sigs and you have Slashdot Sigs enabled.
This type of smart-ass remark is EXACTLY why I still read slashdot after all these years.
Thanks for the laugh.
... this story, about the IBM 120GXP series of disks being unsuitable (according to IBMs spec) to run 24/7, was refused.
OT I know, but isn't this stuff that matters?
What the article omits is that the fine pointing accuracy is achieved using the magneto-torquers in combination with the two still operational reaction wheels. From the original NASA press release (dated 14 Dec 01) where the anomalies with the two reaction wheels were reported the strategy was laid out to rescue the science mission:
One of the new control mode concepts being investigated is to use the two operational reaction wheels in conjunction with the satellite's magnetic torquer bars to provide control in all three axes. The magnetic torquer bars are presently used to manage the momentum of the reaction wheels by applying a torque on the satellite against the Earth's magnetic field. The torques necessary to make up for the failed wheel would be in addition to that required for momentum management. This is well within the capability of the magnetic torquer bars.
What they probably managed to do is to use the two remaining wheels to do the fine pointing but the satellite will tend to slowly spin 'of course' lacking the two other wheels to compensate. By bringing the torquers into the loop they cancel the spin and attain the fine pointing.
It is nowhere mentioned but I wonder if they can maintain the pointing accuracy long enough to get maximum exposure time. Since they've said that the spacecraft has been restored to full operations I guess it is not a problem.
I'm not trying to take anything away of what they achieved, only to clarify what is omitted from the article (possibly not to make it too technical I guess). It still is an impressive feat and indeed a super hack!
something wicked this way comes...
Sorry, the Preview screwed up the URL. Here is the link to the original NASA Press Release.
something wicked this way comes...
Considering this week's poll... Possibly a better header would have just been "Geeks in Space not totally gone..."
Sorry. It's 4 in the morning and I'm all out of American Dew...
Karma: Non-Heinous
It's been done for years! 25 years ago, I worked for the Defense Meterological Satellite Program. In 1976, we used the same technique to rescue a (brand new) spinning satellite and lock it back into an Earth-facing orientation.
It's hard to imagine where we'd be today if it weren't for the great minds at NASA. So many innovations have come out of NASA. Truly a great set of minds. It really sucks that so many people want to cut their budget.
scott
I almost went to work on this satellite when I was picking grad schools. FUSE is run at Johns Hopkins University. I think it is the only satellite that is run by an American University. The control room and all is in the basement of the physics building...
The system uses a complex new set of procedures...
A NASA Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Satellite uses complex procedures for guidance. What ever happened to controling a satellite with smoke signals?
-... ---
Well, I must say it looks as with budget cuts and a total lack of inspiration (possibly a result of the cuts) NASA is starting to lokk more and more like its russian counterpart, aging technologies, equipment poorly designed equiptment, and having to hack everything to hell and back just to get it to work.
Maybe I should go into the space-tape buiness, or selling external aftermarket thrusters to keep this shit in space.
I am really suprised NASA is in as bad a shape as it is, The Military can use space as the ultimate high ground, cmon the AF even has space figter training in progress, where are the damm ships and when will these efforts pay off in the comercial sector ?
The moon missions were singulary one of the greatest technical feats ever accomplished, more research and commercial products were born from the Appolo missions thatn any other goverment venture sending us YEARS ahead of our competiton , only for what ? To sit on our asses and never rise above 30 year old shuttle designs ?
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
How long will it take to those who did it be persecuted by the DMCA? Seems like they have been circunventing something...
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds !"
About five years ago, Hughes launched a communication satellite. To be useful, these have to reach a geosynchronous orbit. It turns out that the most efficient way to get to from a low-earth orbit to a geosynchronous orbit is to fire a rocket twice [or so it was thought.] The first firing raises the apogee of the orbit to the geosynchronous altitude; so that the satellite is in a very elliptical orbit. Then, when the satellite is at apogee, you fire the rocket again to circularize the orbit. Usually this same motor changes the plane of the orbit as well. Most satellites are launched into orbits inclined to the equator somewhat, and geosynchronous satellites have to be over the equator. It is most efficient to make the orbital plane change at apogee, too.
There was a rash of apogee kick motor failures, and in this particular satellite the motor failed, leaving the satellite in a uselessly ellipitical orbit. There were small thrusters on the satellite which were to be used for station-keeping (small orbital adjustments) but it didn't have nearly enough propellant to raise the perigee. Hughes finally abandoned the satellite.
But one engineer refused to give up. It turns out that the transfer orbit paradigm above is the probably most efficient path in a single-planet system, but Earth has this anomolously large, close, Moon. And while there wasn't nearly enough fuel to get raise the perigee to geosynchronous altitude, there was more than enough fuel to raise the apogee out to lunar orbit. He was given permission to try to rescue the satellite.
In the end, two passes by the moon were made, each raising the perigee somewhat and lowering the inclination of the orbit. The remaining fuel in the satellite was used to lower the apogee back to the geosynchronous orbit altitude, but unfortunately the inclination couldn't be brought down quite to zero, so the satellite isn't in its desired orbit even today. Still, it's in an orbit where some use can be derived from it.
The satisfying conclusion to this story would be that all geosynchronous satellites are launched this way, now. Unfortunately, you can't mess with the status quo to that extent; and satellites are still, in the main, launched the old transfer-orbit way.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
This property only works in low earth orbit because the strength of Earth's magnetic field is not significant in higher orbits (such as Geo, Heo, and so called "Deep Space")
...in this day and age, I wouldn't be surprised if they get a cease-and-desist order in the mail in the next few days because they're infringing on someone's patent or violating someone's intellectual property.
But hey, that's the screwy stated of intellectual property and patent law these days.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
> Grammar nazis unite!
Should that not be "Grammar Nazis unite!" instead?
Virg
There was some work done in an attempt to replace fuses on spacefaring vessels with breakers, the idea of course being that if a breaker popped, a servo could reclose it at a later time (we looked into this issue while I was in college, putting a not-small amount of work into materials development for low-temp breakers that would still work). The concept was scrapped, however, when NASA engineers who were getting our results discovered that (at least with late '80s tech) repairing the fault that opened the breaker was more often than not impossible by remote, so having a servobreaker was pointless. Still, with advances in robotics, I'm still hopeful that one of these gizmos will become useful, and having my name engraved on a piece of polymer that gets to leave the solar system would be a nice memorial.
Virg
Ok then... I'll give you some code for a high fidelity magnetic field model and an orbit propagator. If I just tell you the dipole moments of the three torquer bars and the spacecraft's inertia tensor, you should be able to come up with a simple control algorithm in fairly short order. By the way, we can't accept any more than 1/4000 degree in attitude jitter. Oh yes, your solution has to run on a 386 and not crash for the next 3 years or more, by the way. :b
Kidding of course!
Didn't the scientists actually get the satellite up and running as fast as possible? What would you have had them do, get a really long stick and push it?
The problem is not that you need to push the big button in the sky sometimes. The problem is developing a mentality that says that rebooting the server "fixes" the problem. Rebooting the server is palliative. It keeps people from taking preventative and prophylactic measures. This attitude and its destructiveness are lamentably common in business.
We need to go because the alternative is suicide. We need to go because we are human and wish to continue to be human.
The most valuable result of the moon landing was not the scientific research, the spin-offs, or the political gain. It was the photograph of Earth as seen from the moon, just after Earthrise, taken by a human being, holding the camera.
To continue to have frontiers is more important than anything else. We could cure cancer and AIDS, fix the environment, and become immortal, and we would be nothing more than healthy, immortal apes. But the way of the explorers is a way that apes do not know, and we must keep it. At this juncture, that means deep sea exploration and space exploration, in person, not by robots.
Or perhaps they'd have beamed it into the cargo bay and fixed the damn wheels.
Think, people, think!
Virg
1) Lean how to spell "communist".
2) Communism is OVER. Learn to live with it.
3) No oil, no food at the supermarket. No food at the supermarket, my kid starves. That's worth fighting for, I'd say. Hell, I'll even fight for my hotrod.
4) Go learn some physics and chemistry before spouting off about solar power and electric cars, please. These technologies are not ready to replace oil, and you would know that if you had clue #1 about how things work.
5) We are not fighting for oil right now. We are fighting evil, cocksucking, goat fucking Arabs who want us all dead. Their reason for wanting us all dead is religious, not because we fucked them over. Go visit New York and see the hole they made before continuing this outgassing of idiot leftist vapour you seem to be bent on.
6) In case all of the above is wasted on you, try this experiment: Go to any Arab or Communist country and publicly protest the local government. Compare the experience with your protests here in the civilized world. If you live, report on your results to Slashdot, we will all be fascinated with your findings.
6) Your rhyme is terrible. Work on it.
</i> NASA are a bunch of nerds </i>