You goofed. there are four laws:
1. A robot must maximize profits, and may not through inaction allow profits to be less than maximized.
2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. 4. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First, Second, or Third Law.
If you're reading the PS3 blog, you're probably a gamer who has probably dealt with cheating before.
Yes, if you're reading the PS3 blog you've probably dealt with LOTS cheating before. In particular let me run down the forms you cheating you deal with on a daily basis, and the approximate percentage of each category:
Cheating category 1, 55%: You (meaning the PS3 typical blog reader bitching about cheating) are a clueless loser and you got your ass handed to you by some player who has no-life... a player who has 500 hours of game experience... a player who has expert game knowledge. In your non-existent game knowledge and non-existent game skills you know of no way to do what the expert player did. And obviously it's not possible for anyone to be that much better than you. Obviously they cheated.
Cheating category 2, 37%: You have no clue how the internet works, and you don't understand how internet lag and packet loss can cause strange behavior in games, so every time there's a lag glitch or packet loss glitch in the game and the game-effect is bad for you / helps your opponent, obviously they cheated.
Cheating category 3, 8%: People actually cheating by exploiting bugs in the game itself.
Cheating category 4, ZERO PERCENT: People actually cheating in any way that is even remotely related to Geohot.
A better analogy would be "Well, I wouldn't have had to hit the bitch if she didn't cut the brake lines in my car."
I think you mean in the car you sold her...
And you neglected to mention that the reason she "cut the break lines" because they improperly froze up when she tried to drive it on her own property...
And you neglected to mention that what she actually did was "cut and repair" the "break lines" so they worked properly. So that the car would only stop when.... you know.... the driver-slash-owner actually put their foot on the brake pedal.
in this case Sony is clearly not interested in the hardware.
Correct, this case isn't one of Sony's usual attacks. Almost all Sony's other abusive attacks have been against hardware modification.
Sony is interested in preventing people from modifying Sony software
Yeah, Sony is "interested" in that. However you still have not correctly identified Sony's interest in this case. This isn't about Sony not wanting their software modified. That is not why Sony went after Geohot.
Why did Sony go after Geohot? And what *is* their interest in this case? They went after him for figuring out the keys needed to make NEW SOFTWARE for the system. The keys that make it possible for all of the other game companies to release new games for the Playstation.
Sony's interest in this case is in preventing independent game developers from making and selling new games for the system. And in this case "independent game developers" includes major game developer companies like Electronic Arts and even Microsoft. Sony doesn't get to collect an extra tax on game sales if independent companies are able to simply make and sell new games for the system. But there's an even worse issue for Sony, Playstation owners might buy fewer Sony-brand games because they're too busy buying and playing lots of new non-Sony games for Playstation.
There have been countless other minor issues swirling around the war to lock down consoles, but right from the beginning that has been the one true and driving cause for all of this. Back in the 80's the first attempts to lock down consoles were very fairly simple, the console would refuse to run a game unless there was some copyrighted or trademarked code embedded in the game, or the console would refuse to run a game unless a microchip code was in the cartridge. And in each and every case the console company went to court to try and protect their lock down system, the courts ruled that it was perfectly legal for independent game publishers to write and sell new games for the console.
The exact same thing is going on here. It's just the newest tactic for blocking other games from running on the system. The Playstation looks for a fancy new scrambled signature on the game, are refuses to run it if the signature is there. Other companies can't write games for the Playstation because they don't know the key they need to sign the games. Well, that's what's going on here.... Goehot did the math and figured out the keys that let companies release new games for the Playstation.
When you cut through all the song and dance and propaganda, the case is fundamentally about preventing other companies from making new Playstation games. The case is fundamentally about the fact that Sony doesn't make as much money if people like and buy those other new games.
100 million hours of intellectual work, which is the equivalent of the time the citizens of the United States spend watching advertising on TV in a single weekend,"
The math works out to about ten minutes per person per day. Considering that a typical one-hour show has about twenty minutes of commercials, the 100 million hour figure is probably about right.
The Catholic Church, with one foot proudly marching into the Twentieth Century, scientifically and socially, and one foot firmly planted in the Dark Ages, scientifically and socially.
Anyone who ties up, restrains, or otherwise threatens an unwilling person for an exorcism ritual is a criminal and should damn well be arrested and imprisoned for it. Just as we'd imprison someone for murder if they tied someone to a stake and burned them as a witch.
the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), one of the oldest, largest, and most respected UFO investigation organizations in the world
Announcement: I have justed founded MELFN. The Mutual ELF Network is one of the oldest, largest, and most respected Elf investigation organizations in the world.
P.S. Basic level membership dues are $20 per year. Gold level supporter membership is $50 per year. Adamantium level Lifetime Believer membership is available for a one-time $2500 contribution, a portion of which will fund the purchase of investigative hardware.
Does the new answer +/- error bars overlap with the detected phenomena within the error bars of it's value?
If you read the paper itself, there's a graph on page 10 showing exactly that. The error bars on the measured size of the effect overlap almost completely with the error bars on this new calculation.
Direct thermal radiation off the front of the craft explains most of the effect. The "Pioneer anomaly" vanishes completely once you factor in radiation reflected off the antenna dish. It still warrants some more investigation and more papers pinning it down better, but in my opinion this issue can now be pretty solidly categorized as resolved.
There's probably a significantly lower number of males at that age engaged in a significantly older sexual relationship, but I'd also say that it's safe to assume an even larger percentage would be willing and eager to do so given favorable opportunity
I seriously doubt that the number is significantly lower. It seems like every week, a teacher somewhere in the US is getting busted for sleeping with one of her students
I didn't see figures specifically addressing that, but when ages are closer it did show a significant bias towards older-male younger-female pairings. I think it's pretty well known that pairing bias extends more generally. The male-teacher female-student is a stereotype exactly because it is more common. The female teacher who does it draws special attention exactly because it's contrary to the more common expectation.
Interestingly enough, of the two cases I'm personally familiar with (teens I knew when I was a teen) one involved a 15 year old female with a 40 year old female, and the other involved a 15 year old male with a 52 year old male...
it's probably a statistical fluke that both involved homosexual relationships.
This is the main reason I'm replying. I don't recall the exact figures I read, but they did indicated a real effect going on in your two anecdotes. Homosexuals begin sexual relationships on average a bit younger than heteros, and there is on average a bigger difference in ages.
People with same-sex orientation will generally have less opportunity to meet same-age partners through school and friends. I'm just speculating, but when they do meet someone like themselves they probably feel relief and are more motivated to overcome fear and awkwardness for an earlier first experience. I'd also guess that the older partner would often be sympathetic to the social difficulties of sexual orientation, especially for a teenager. I could see how it could lead to somewhat earlier average first experiences, and often larger age differences.
I'm saying that undercover stings are being done because "it" actually is happening with actual teens. The difficulty here is agreeing what "it" is. If "it" were teens looking to arrange an anonymous lay, I would agree that's mostly nonexistent. I'm saying that teens are very curious to learn about sexuality. I'm saying they are generally awkward and embarrassed about the sexual urges they've started feeling. I'm saying that many teens find internet chatrooms to be an exciting way to sneak through the "taboo" door of adult sexuality, to see and learn the stuff they're curious about that they are "forbidden" to see and know. I'm saying that being hidden behind anonymous computer screens they feel safe and free-of-embarrassment to play and learn, talking and acting like adults discussing and learning about explicit sexuality, anonymously admitting they feel horny with other people who are also openly admitting they feel horny too. Feeling relived that their arousal is normal, and imagining (fantasizing) the various sexual things being discussed. I'm saying that whether it is sex-chat or non-sex-chat, when you speak to the same person online over days or weeks or months, we generally come to consider that person a friend. When it's sex-chat, it's pretty common to consider that person a boyfriend/girlfriend. I'm saying that when people meet online and consider each other boyfriend and girlfriend, and when they've been engaging in explicit sex talk and fantasizing, it's not unusual for them to have a desire to meet in real life and try some of the things they have been fantasizing about. You keep putting it as "teens looking for sex with strangers on the internet". I'm saying that the internet is merely another way that people meet, and that the sitting behind a screen removes the fear and embarrassment of talking about sex and sexual desires. Instead of "random stranger", it's an exciting interesting friend they met, someone they can freely openly and deeply talk with, about things they they can't talk to other people.
A significant (and increasing) percentage of marriages are people who met online. No one wants to marry a stranger, and most people weren't looking for marriage when they met online. People meet online. People don't consider each other strangers anymore after they've been talking a while and getting to know each other.
I'm saying the stings are happening because there are teens actively going into adult discussions, and because there are a many cases where they decide they know and like someone and eventually wish to meet in real life. In many cases it's with other teens and they can't meet up, or it with people far away and they can't meet up, or it's an adult who turns down meeting in person because of their age. And there are cases where the adult they met is willing to go meet them. I'm saying it really is happening, that it happens a lot more than the number of decoys, and that the decoys are out there exactly because it is happening. Teens aren't looking to get laid with random strangers. Many teens actively seek to explore all the "secret sex stuff" online, which often leads to making friends online while in a sexual context, and it is neither surprising nor rare when sometimes they wish to meet that person in real life.
Between Chris Hansen, perverted justice and all the other law enforcement agencies out there, there are a lot of fake teenagers who will say yes to a meeting. How many real teens would agree to meet a 40 year old so fast?
I don't really see "fast" or "slow" as part of the equation, and even it it were I doubt we could get statistics on that. However the rest of the question is interesting, so I spend a few minutes on Google trying to find some real data on the subject. I couldn't find an exact match, but I did find a statistic that should get us into the ballpark of the true answer. Source: US National Institute of Health Age differences between sexual partners in the United States
I realize you're not American, but I didn't have much choice in the matter as that was the only reference I could find with approximately the right sort of statistic. The survey and percentage is based on the US, so I'll continue the calculation based on the US. The final result should not be wildly off for other industrialized countries if you scale for population size. From the reference source:
64% of sexually active women aged 15-17 had a partner within two years of their age, 29% a partner who was 3-5 years older, and 7% a partner who was six or more years older.
The population of the US is 311 million. Half are female, 155.5 Million. (Actually throwing out males is gender biased, but How many are 15-17? We could take 3 years divided by average lifespan, but the population percentages skew younger. 3/70 is more accurate, 6.66 million. If you check back in the threat I posted to someone else statistics demonstrating about 55% of the population lose their virginity by 17, so lets throw out the half who haven't had sex. 3.33 million. The statistic is for "sexually active", so lets be conservative and say only half of non-virgin teens are still sexually active. 1.67 million. 7% currently have a partner 6 or more years older. That gets us to about 117 thousand 15-17 year old girls at any given moment currently engaged in a sexual relationship with a partner 6 or more years older.
Note that what you asked for is how many would be willing to do so. And I do believe that would be the correct number we want. On top of the 117 thousand currently in such a relationship, there would be some additional who had a previous such relationship, there would a large number who tried and failed, and there would be an even larger number who would given favorable circumstances. I'd say that easily puts the answer at over a quarter million at any given time. And lets not forget we threw out males. There's probably a significantly lower number of males at that age engaged in a significantly older sexual relationship, but I'd also say that it's safe to assume an even larger percentage would be willing and eager to do so given favorable opportunity. Basically we're talking over a half million total, easy. That figure is wildly approximate and doesn't fit our definition perfectly, but I'd say it gives a decent feel for what's going on in general. And the number would be even bigger if we count teens who actively engage in explicit sexchat as an online game, deliberately stalling and declining any meetup.
Chris Hansen runs what, a few dozen stings per year? I'd be hard pressed to guess how many active undercover decoys there are dedicated to this, but I doubt there are very many. The number of decoys certainly pales in comparison to the number of actual teens curious to discover what's going on in taboo adult sex chat rooms.
Are you proposing come other way to determine the average age people lose their virginity?
Do you not believe the results, and think it too low? Do you not believe the results, and think it too high? And either way, why would you believe it to be wrong?
Lets look at your comment I originally replied to:
He didn't say "kids online" he said "horny kids online". The ones who seem to be out looking for something.
As I said, "horny" sets in at puberty. And if "looking for something" is taken in a general sense, the majority of teenagers with internet access do actively go looking to explore sexuality on the internet. I agree that in most cases it's not a specific plan "lets go on the internet and find someone to get laid". It's going online to anonymously explore sexy chat, and then finding a friend they're talking about and exploring sexuality with, and then it's wanted to meet that person. And in most cases it's two teenagers hundreds or thousands of miles apart which places the limit on how far it goes.
wonder just how many of those "horny kids" are just law enforcement and are there any actual horny kids left
That is WILDLY out of touch with what's going on in the real world if you think there's hardly any minors online pursing sex talk, and sex-talk-friends, and often desiring to physically meet their sex-talk-friends. For every law enforcement officer pretending to be a minor interested in sexuality, there are probably ten thousand or more actual teenagers online interested in sexuality.
Just yesterday I was in an online game, which automatically opens a public chat box on the side. Usually I ignore the chat. However yesterday was an exception, I was discussing electronics with someone. Most people in the room were making smalltalk and flirting, with occasional explicit sexual comments. I wasn't paying any attention to it, I was busy in a very technical electronics discussion. The two of us generally kept our conversation to private whispers. Someone in the room apparently checked my profile and commented the age was 102. I commented that I always fill in bogus personal info whenever websites ask. One of the flirts in the room, joking about the 102 age, comments to me that she "likes older men". And then she posts a link to her pic for me. Checking her profile, she was 16 of course. And then she posted a link to her picture for me, which I did not ask for. I had simply been chatting chatting about electronics, and merely based on someone mentioning my fake 102 profile age a 16 year old is hitting me up with "I like older men" and sending me her pic. For the hell of it I checked the profile of the biggest flirt in the room, the one with the most sexual talk. 13. I went back to my electronics discussion.
If you go to any of thousands of public chat rooms, the biggest flirts and the most explicit sex chat is usually coming from 13 to 16 year olds.
Now lets look at your next comment:
It's only statutory rape if the other party is over the age of consent and more than 2-3 years older than the other party, and that only applies in the US.
That has absolutely zero relevance to what I was discussing.
We were discussing what teens are doing, when they're on the internet. You made a wildly out of touch comment questioning whether there were any horny teens on the internet, and saying it was pretty much nothing but cops pretending to be teens. I was pointing out the reality of teen sexuality. Not only do most teens actively pursue sexuality both online and offline, the MAJORITY of the entire population pursue it to the point of successfully having sex while they are still statutory minors. You commented on the 2-3 year exception to statutory rape, but that's irrelevant to my point. The majority of the population not only pursues sex while under age, the majority actually do have sex while under age. The topic is what teens are actually doing online, and the majority of them are actively pursuing sexuality online. For every cop posing as a teen interested in sex, there are ten thousand or more actual teens interested in sex.
Being horny and actively looking for sex with random stra
43.8% of tenth graders report having had intercourse 55.5% of eleventh graders report having had intercourse
Month-of-birth for students will somewhat blur the exact ages figures, but the figures are clear enough for our purposes. Tenth grade consists of the older half of 15 year olds and the younger half of 16 year olds. All of whom are statutory minors. The tenth grade figure firmly establishes that more than 43.8% lose their virginity while statutory minors. Eleventh graders are a mix of the older half of 16 year olds and younger half of 17 year olds. The 16 year olds will pull the percentage down while the over 17 year olds will pull the percentage up. The two effects will roughly cancel out, making 55.5% reasonably close to the result we want as if you had you asked all of them exactly on their 17th birthday.
The 43.8% proves that it is "normal" and "very common" for people to lose their virginity as statutory minors, the 55.5% strongly indicates it is a majority.
Lets be clear of what crossmr (957846) was saying. He was indicating that there was no significant number of minors "looking for something", he said "which leads us to wonder just how many of those 'horny kids' are just law enforcement and are there any actual horny kids left." I think that is wildly out of touch with reality when over 43.8%, and probably 55%, of the entire population were not merely "horny kids", that percentage of the entire population were not merely "horny kids looking for something", that percentage of the entire population were "horny kids looking for something AND successfully getting laid".
For every cop pretending to be a minor and trolling for predators, there are probably ten thousand or more actual minors exploring sexuality on the internet.
You're missing the point. He didn't say "kids online" he said "horny kids online". The ones who seem to be out looking for something.
That's a much smaller percentage of the youth population
Are you really that clueless? Or just living in fanstayland? Maybe you don't remember being a teenager, but I do. When puberty sets in, horny sets in. Maybe you're to old to have ever had teen-teen sexual computer chat, but I have. And it was back on a walled-garden porn-free children-oriented pay computer network, before I'd even head the word internet. It was when the only public chat had moderators policing the slightest any foul language. But of course private chat was unmonitored.
You seriously think it's rare for teens to be actively looking for something?
Fact: the MAJORITY of the population lose their virginity at an age that qualifies as statutory rape.
Not only did most people, as children, go looking for sex... more then 50% succeed in getting it.
Haven't sexual predators figured out that "they were asking for it" doesn't work as a defense regardless of how prudish the judge and jury might be?
It doesn't work if it is an actual child "asking for it". However this point here is that it does work if the police ask you to do it.
(Undercover police officer) You should swipe that candybar. The register guy is a total asshole. (grapeape (137008)) No. (Undercover police officer) Ha, what are ya? Chicken? Heh, I'll give you $10 if you do it. (grapeape (137008)) No. (Undercover police officer) Hahahaha, that's funny. Are ya a goodie goodie or a scaredycat? hahaha! (Undercover police officer) Yeah, Mister I-never-litter I-never-ever-jaywalk. Hah. (Undercover police officer) This is fun. Ok, lets see how goodie goodie you really are! (Undercover police officer) Check this out, just this morning I won $3000 free and easy on a two minute bet! [huge grin] (Undercover police officer) Well now I bet you this $3000 to swipe that candybar! HAHAHAHA. (Undercover police officer) Yeah, go for it Mr Perfect! Three thousand bucks to swipe a candybar! (grapeape (137008)) Ummmm, $3000? You serious? [checks out the thirty very real hundred dollar bills] (grapeape (137008)) Uhhhh, ok. $3000 bucks for a lousy candybar. [swipes candybar] (Undercover police officer) [pulls out handcuffs, locks grapeape (137008) in prison]
Slashdot Mirror
Even better...
Brontosaurus: Let's mine the moon for He3 fuel!
Stegosaurus: That's kinda like buying the cart before the horse. If the cart was three hundred thousand kilometers in space.
Brontosaurus: Yeah, but evolution of the horse is only 20 years away!
-
You goofed. there are four laws:
1. A robot must maximize profits, and may not through inaction allow profits to be less than maximized.
2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
4. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First, Second, or Third Law.
-
If you're reading the PS3 blog, you're probably a gamer who has probably dealt with cheating before.
Yes, if you're reading the PS3 blog you've probably dealt with LOTS cheating before. In particular let me run down the forms you cheating you deal with on a daily basis, and the approximate percentage of each category:
Cheating category 1, 55%:
You (meaning the PS3 typical blog reader bitching about cheating) are a clueless loser and you got your ass handed to you by some player who has no-life... a player who has 500 hours of game experience... a player who has expert game knowledge. In your non-existent game knowledge and non-existent game skills you know of no way to do what the expert player did. And obviously it's not possible for anyone to be that much better than you. Obviously they cheated.
Cheating category 2, 37%:
You have no clue how the internet works, and you don't understand how internet lag and packet loss can cause strange behavior in games, so every time there's a lag glitch or packet loss glitch in the game and the game-effect is bad for you / helps your opponent, obviously they cheated.
Cheating category 3, 8%:
People actually cheating by exploiting bugs in the game itself.
Cheating category 4, ZERO PERCENT:
People actually cheating in any way that is even remotely related to Geohot.
-
A better analogy would be "Well, I wouldn't have had to hit the bitch if she didn't cut the brake lines in my car."
I think you mean in the car you sold her...
And you neglected to mention that the reason she "cut the break lines" because they improperly froze up when she tried to drive it on her own property...
And you neglected to mention that what she actually did was "cut and repair" the "break lines" so they worked properly. So that the car would only stop when.... you know.... the driver-slash-owner actually put their foot on the brake pedal.
-
in this case Sony is clearly not interested in the hardware.
Correct, this case isn't one of Sony's usual attacks. Almost all Sony's other abusive attacks have been against hardware modification.
Sony is interested in preventing people from modifying Sony software
Yeah, Sony is "interested" in that. However you still have not correctly identified Sony's interest in this case. This isn't about Sony not wanting their software modified. That is not why Sony went after Geohot.
Why did Sony go after Geohot? And what *is* their interest in this case? They went after him for figuring out the keys needed to make NEW SOFTWARE for the system. The keys that make it possible for all of the other game companies to release new games for the Playstation.
Sony's interest in this case is in preventing independent game developers from making and selling new games for the system. And in this case "independent game developers" includes major game developer companies like Electronic Arts and even Microsoft. Sony doesn't get to collect an extra tax on game sales if independent companies are able to simply make and sell new games for the system. But there's an even worse issue for Sony, Playstation owners might buy fewer Sony-brand games because they're too busy buying and playing lots of new non-Sony games for Playstation.
There have been countless other minor issues swirling around the war to lock down consoles, but right from the beginning that has been the one true and driving cause for all of this. Back in the 80's the first attempts to lock down consoles were very fairly simple, the console would refuse to run a game unless there was some copyrighted or trademarked code embedded in the game, or the console would refuse to run a game unless a microchip code was in the cartridge. And in each and every case the console company went to court to try and protect their lock down system, the courts ruled that it was perfectly legal for independent game publishers to write and sell new games for the console.
The exact same thing is going on here. It's just the newest tactic for blocking other games from running on the system. The Playstation looks for a fancy new scrambled signature on the game, are refuses to run it if the signature is there. Other companies can't write games for the Playstation because they don't know the key they need to sign the games. Well, that's what's going on here.... Goehot did the math and figured out the keys that let companies release new games for the Playstation.
When you cut through all the song and dance and propaganda, the case is fundamentally about preventing other companies from making new Playstation games. The case is fundamentally about the fact that Sony doesn't make as much money if people like and buy those other new games.
-
3 3 4 O O U U
God damn it, I HATE when I don't draw any consonants.
I'll pass my turn and draw seven new tiles.
-
100 million hours of intellectual work, which is the equivalent of the time the citizens of the United States spend watching advertising on TV in a single weekend,"
The math works out to about ten minutes per person per day. Considering that a typical one-hour show has about twenty minutes of commercials, the 100 million hour figure is probably about right.
-
Church of Jesus Christ, Computer Programmer. Free kool-aid and cookies this Sunday.
Shouldn't that be Mountain Dew and Pizza?
-
The Catholic Church, with one foot proudly marching into the Twentieth Century, scientifically and socially, and one foot firmly planted in the Dark Ages, scientifically and socially.
The exorcism should, if possible, be carried out with the consent of the possessed person
Anyone who ties up, restrains, or otherwise threatens an unwilling person for an exorcism ritual is a criminal and should damn well be arrested and imprisoned for it. Just as we'd imprison someone for murder if they tied someone to a stake and burned them as a witch.
With assistance from four nuns, priest Daniel Corogeanu bound Cornici to a cross, gagged her mouth with a towel, and left her for three days without food or water. The ritual, the priest explained, was an effort to drive devils out of the woman. Cornici was found dead on June 15; an autopsy found she had died of suffocation and dehydration... Maricica Cornici is not the first innocent victim of an exorcism. On August 22, 2003, an autistic eight-year-old boy in Milwaukee was bound in sheets and held down by church members during a prayer service held to exorcise the evil spirits they blamed for his condition. An autopsy found extensive bruising on the back of the child's neck and concluded that he died of asphyxiation. In the past ten years, there have been at least four other exorcism-related deaths in the United States alone
When an exorcism results in death, the people responsible damn well should be arrested and imprisoned for murder, or manslaughter at minimum.
-
the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), one of the oldest, largest, and most respected UFO investigation organizations in the world
Announcement: I have justed founded MELFN.
The Mutual ELF Network is one of the oldest, largest, and most respected Elf investigation organizations in the world.
P.S.
Basic level membership dues are $20 per year.
Gold level supporter membership is $50 per year.
Adamantium level Lifetime Believer membership is available for a one-time $2500 contribution, a portion of which will fund the purchase of investigative hardware.
-
Does the new answer +/- error bars overlap with the detected phenomena within the error bars of it's value?
If you read the paper itself, there's a graph on page 10 showing exactly that. The error bars on the measured size of the effect overlap almost completely with the error bars on this new calculation.
Direct thermal radiation off the front of the craft explains most of the effect. The "Pioneer anomaly" vanishes completely once you factor in radiation reflected off the antenna dish. It still warrants some more investigation and more papers pinning it down better, but in my opinion this issue can now be pretty solidly categorized as resolved.
-
There's probably a significantly lower number of males at that age engaged in a significantly older sexual relationship, but I'd also say that it's safe to assume an even larger percentage would be willing and eager to do so given favorable opportunity
I seriously doubt that the number is significantly lower. It seems like every week, a teacher somewhere in the US is getting busted for sleeping with one of her students
I didn't see figures specifically addressing that, but when ages are closer it did show a significant bias towards older-male younger-female pairings. I think it's pretty well known that pairing bias extends more generally. The male-teacher female-student is a stereotype exactly because it is more common. The female teacher who does it draws special attention exactly because it's contrary to the more common expectation.
Interestingly enough, of the two cases I'm personally familiar with (teens I knew when I was a teen) one involved a 15 year old female with a 40 year old female, and the other involved a 15 year old male with a 52 year old male...
it's probably a statistical fluke that both involved homosexual relationships.
This is the main reason I'm replying. I don't recall the exact figures I read, but they did indicated a real effect going on in your two anecdotes. Homosexuals begin sexual relationships on average a bit younger than heteros, and there is on average a bigger difference in ages.
People with same-sex orientation will generally have less opportunity to meet same-age partners through school and friends. I'm just speculating, but when they do meet someone like themselves they probably feel relief and are more motivated to overcome fear and awkwardness for an earlier first experience. I'd also guess that the older partner would often be sympathetic to the social difficulties of sexual orientation, especially for a teenager. I could see how it could lead to somewhat earlier average first experiences, and often larger age differences.
-
I'm saying that undercover stings are being done because "it" actually is happening with actual teens. The difficulty here is agreeing what "it" is. If "it" were teens looking to arrange an anonymous lay, I would agree that's mostly nonexistent. I'm saying that teens are very curious to learn about sexuality. I'm saying they are generally awkward and embarrassed about the sexual urges they've started feeling. I'm saying that many teens find internet chatrooms to be an exciting way to sneak through the "taboo" door of adult sexuality, to see and learn the stuff they're curious about that they are "forbidden" to see and know. I'm saying that being hidden behind anonymous computer screens they feel safe and free-of-embarrassment to play and learn, talking and acting like adults discussing and learning about explicit sexuality, anonymously admitting they feel horny with other people who are also openly admitting they feel horny too. Feeling relived that their arousal is normal, and imagining (fantasizing) the various sexual things being discussed. I'm saying that whether it is sex-chat or non-sex-chat, when you speak to the same person online over days or weeks or months, we generally come to consider that person a friend. When it's sex-chat, it's pretty common to consider that person a boyfriend/girlfriend. I'm saying that when people meet online and consider each other boyfriend and girlfriend, and when they've been engaging in explicit sex talk and fantasizing, it's not unusual for them to have a desire to meet in real life and try some of the things they have been fantasizing about. You keep putting it as "teens looking for sex with strangers on the internet". I'm saying that the internet is merely another way that people meet, and that the sitting behind a screen removes the fear and embarrassment of talking about sex and sexual desires. Instead of "random stranger", it's an exciting interesting friend they met, someone they can freely openly and deeply talk with, about things they they can't talk to other people.
A significant (and increasing) percentage of marriages are people who met online. No one wants to marry a stranger, and most people weren't looking for marriage when they met online. People meet online. People don't consider each other strangers anymore after they've been talking a while and getting to know each other.
I'm saying the stings are happening because there are teens actively going into adult discussions, and because there are a many cases where they decide they know and like someone and eventually wish to meet in real life. In many cases it's with other teens and they can't meet up, or it with people far away and they can't meet up, or it's an adult who turns down meeting in person because of their age. And there are cases where the adult they met is willing to go meet them. I'm saying it really is happening, that it happens a lot more than the number of decoys, and that the decoys are out there exactly because it is happening. Teens aren't looking to get laid with random strangers. Many teens actively seek to explore all the "secret sex stuff" online, which often leads to making friends online while in a sexual context, and it is neither surprising nor rare when sometimes they wish to meet that person in real life.
-
Between Chris Hansen, perverted justice and all the other law enforcement agencies out there, there are a lot of fake teenagers who will say yes to a meeting. How many real teens would agree to meet a 40 year old so fast?
I don't really see "fast" or "slow" as part of the equation, and even it it were I doubt we could get statistics on that. However the rest of the question is interesting, so I spend a few minutes on Google trying to find some real data on the subject. I couldn't find an exact match, but I did find a statistic that should get us into the ballpark of the true answer. Source: US National Institute of Health Age differences between sexual partners in the United States
I realize you're not American, but I didn't have much choice in the matter as that was the only reference I could find with approximately the right sort of statistic. The survey and percentage is based on the US, so I'll continue the calculation based on the US. The final result should not be wildly off for other industrialized countries if you scale for population size. From the reference source:
64% of sexually active women aged 15-17 had a partner within two years of their age, 29% a partner who was 3-5 years older, and 7% a partner who was six or more years older.
The population of the US is 311 million. Half are female, 155.5 Million. (Actually throwing out males is gender biased, but How many are 15-17? We could take 3 years divided by average lifespan, but the population percentages skew younger. 3/70 is more accurate, 6.66 million. If you check back in the threat I posted to someone else statistics demonstrating about 55% of the population lose their virginity by 17, so lets throw out the half who haven't had sex. 3.33 million. The statistic is for "sexually active", so lets be conservative and say only half of non-virgin teens are still sexually active. 1.67 million. 7% currently have a partner 6 or more years older. That gets us to about 117 thousand 15-17 year old girls at any given moment currently engaged in a sexual relationship with a partner 6 or more years older.
Note that what you asked for is how many would be willing to do so. And I do believe that would be the correct number we want. On top of the 117 thousand currently in such a relationship, there would be some additional who had a previous such relationship, there would a large number who tried and failed, and there would be an even larger number who would given favorable circumstances. I'd say that easily puts the answer at over a quarter million at any given time. And lets not forget we threw out males. There's probably a significantly lower number of males at that age engaged in a significantly older sexual relationship, but I'd also say that it's safe to assume an even larger percentage would be willing and eager to do so given favorable opportunity. Basically we're talking over a half million total, easy. That figure is wildly approximate and doesn't fit our definition perfectly, but I'd say it gives a decent feel for what's going on in general. And the number would be even bigger if we count teens who actively engage in explicit sexchat as an online game, deliberately stalling and declining any meetup.
Chris Hansen runs what, a few dozen stings per year? I'd be hard pressed to guess how many active undercover decoys there are dedicated to this, but I doubt there are very many. The number of decoys certainly pales in comparison to the number of actual teens curious to discover what's going on in taboo adult sex chat rooms.
-
Are you proposing come other way to determine the average age people lose their virginity?
Do you not believe the results, and think it too low?
Do you not believe the results, and think it too high?
And either way, why would you believe it to be wrong?
-
I have a sudden and inexplicable urge to get a pedicure.
slashdot.org
-
Lets look at your comment I originally replied to:
He didn't say "kids online" he said "horny kids online". The ones who seem to be out looking for something.
As I said, "horny" sets in at puberty. And if "looking for something" is taken in a general sense, the majority of teenagers with internet access do actively go looking to explore sexuality on the internet. I agree that in most cases it's not a specific plan "lets go on the internet and find someone to get laid". It's going online to anonymously explore sexy chat, and then finding a friend they're talking about and exploring sexuality with, and then it's wanted to meet that person. And in most cases it's two teenagers hundreds or thousands of miles apart which places the limit on how far it goes.
wonder just how many of those "horny kids" are just law enforcement and are there any actual horny kids left
That is WILDLY out of touch with what's going on in the real world if you think there's hardly any minors online pursing sex talk, and sex-talk-friends, and often desiring to physically meet their sex-talk-friends. For every law enforcement officer pretending to be a minor interested in sexuality, there are probably ten thousand or more actual teenagers online interested in sexuality.
Just yesterday I was in an online game, which automatically opens a public chat box on the side. Usually I ignore the chat. However yesterday was an exception, I was discussing electronics with someone. Most people in the room were making smalltalk and flirting, with occasional explicit sexual comments. I wasn't paying any attention to it, I was busy in a very technical electronics discussion. The two of us generally kept our conversation to private whispers. Someone in the room apparently checked my profile and commented the age was 102. I commented that I always fill in bogus personal info whenever websites ask. One of the flirts in the room, joking about the 102 age, comments to me that she "likes older men". And then she posts a link to her pic for me. Checking her profile, she was 16 of course. And then she posted a link to her picture for me, which I did not ask for. I had simply been chatting chatting about electronics, and merely based on someone mentioning my fake 102 profile age a 16 year old is hitting me up with "I like older men" and sending me her pic. For the hell of it I checked the profile of the biggest flirt in the room, the one with the most sexual talk. 13. I went back to my electronics discussion.
If you go to any of thousands of public chat rooms, the biggest flirts and the most explicit sex chat is usually coming from 13 to 16 year olds.
Now lets look at your next comment:
It's only statutory rape if the other party is over the age of consent and more than 2-3 years older than the other party, and that only applies in the US.
That has absolutely zero relevance to what I was discussing.
We were discussing what teens are doing, when they're on the internet. You made a wildly out of touch comment questioning whether there were any horny teens on the internet, and saying it was pretty much nothing but cops pretending to be teens. I was pointing out the reality of teen sexuality. Not only do most teens actively pursue sexuality both online and offline, the MAJORITY of the entire population pursue it to the point of successfully having sex while they are still statutory minors. You commented on the 2-3 year exception to statutory rape, but that's irrelevant to my point. The majority of the population not only pursues sex while under age, the majority actually do have sex while under age. The topic is what teens are actually doing online, and the majority of them are actively pursuing sexuality online. For every cop posing as a teen interested in sex, there are ten thousand or more actual teens interested in sex.
Being horny and actively looking for sex with random stra
Fact: the MAJORITY of the population lose their virginity at an age that qualifies as statutory rape.[citation needed]
According to the United States Center for Disease Control Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance --- United States, 2007:
43.8% of tenth graders report having had intercourse
55.5% of eleventh graders report having had intercourse
Month-of-birth for students will somewhat blur the exact ages figures, but the figures are clear enough for our purposes. Tenth grade consists of the older half of 15 year olds and the younger half of 16 year olds. All of whom are statutory minors. The tenth grade figure firmly establishes that more than 43.8% lose their virginity while statutory minors. Eleventh graders are a mix of the older half of 16 year olds and younger half of 17 year olds. The 16 year olds will pull the percentage down while the over 17 year olds will pull the percentage up. The two effects will roughly cancel out, making 55.5% reasonably close to the result we want as if you had you asked all of them exactly on their 17th birthday.
The 43.8% proves that it is "normal" and "very common" for people to lose their virginity as statutory minors, the 55.5% strongly indicates it is a majority.
Lets be clear of what crossmr (957846) was saying. He was indicating that there was no significant number of minors "looking for something", he said "which leads us to wonder just how many of those 'horny kids' are just law enforcement and are there any actual horny kids left." I think that is wildly out of touch with reality when over 43.8%, and probably 55%, of the entire population were not merely "horny kids", that percentage of the entire population were not merely "horny kids looking for something", that percentage of the entire population were "horny kids looking for something AND successfully getting laid".
For every cop pretending to be a minor and trolling for predators, there are probably ten thousand or more actual minors exploring sexuality on the internet.
-
You're missing the point. He didn't say "kids online" he said "horny kids online". The ones who seem to be out looking for something.
That's a much smaller percentage of the youth population
Are you really that clueless? Or just living in fanstayland?
Maybe you don't remember being a teenager, but I do. When puberty sets in, horny sets in. Maybe you're to old to have ever had teen-teen sexual computer chat, but I have. And it was back on a walled-garden porn-free children-oriented pay computer network, before I'd even head the word internet. It was when the only public chat had moderators policing the slightest any foul language. But of course private chat was unmonitored.
You seriously think it's rare for teens to be actively looking for something?
Fact: the MAJORITY of the population lose their virginity at an age that qualifies as statutory rape.
Not only did most people, as children, go looking for sex... more then 50% succeed in getting it.
-
Haven't sexual predators figured out that "they were asking for it" doesn't work as a defense regardless of how prudish the judge and jury might be?
It doesn't work if it is an actual child "asking for it".
However this point here is that it does work if the police ask you to do it.
(Undercover police officer) You should swipe that candybar. The register guy is a total asshole.
(grapeape (137008)) No.
(Undercover police officer) Ha, what are ya? Chicken? Heh, I'll give you $10 if you do it.
(grapeape (137008)) No.
(Undercover police officer) Hahahaha, that's funny. Are ya a goodie goodie or a scaredycat? hahaha!
(Undercover police officer) Yeah, Mister I-never-litter I-never-ever-jaywalk. Hah.
(Undercover police officer) This is fun. Ok, lets see how goodie goodie you really are!
(Undercover police officer) Check this out, just this morning I won $3000 free and easy on a two minute bet! [huge grin]
(Undercover police officer) Well now I bet you this $3000 to swipe that candybar! HAHAHAHA.
(Undercover police officer) Yeah, go for it Mr Perfect! Three thousand bucks to swipe a candybar!
(grapeape (137008)) Ummmm, $3000? You serious? [checks out the thirty very real hundred dollar bills]
(grapeape (137008)) Uhhhh, ok. $3000 bucks for a lousy candybar. [swipes candybar]
(Undercover police officer) [pulls out handcuffs, locks grapeape (137008) in prison]
-
It looks like you're getting off.
Would you like help?
( )Get help with getting off
( )Just get off without help
-
The site you most despise is Timecube? Seriously?
I consider timecube to be sorta cute harmless nonsense.
I'd me more inclined to pick something like Answersingenesis. Definitely not cute or harmless.
-
It's better than sunlight!
We're computer geeks. Getting poked with a pointy stick is better than sunlight.
-
yes, she can lie her way out of this one even if she's guilty, if she's clever enough. OTOH she doesn't sound very clever.
She doesn't need to be clever. That's what what expensive lawyers are for.
Oh wait, she's broke.
-
I don't have a lithp! My keyboard doeth, you inthenthitive clod!
-