sex +/- drugs: known vulns and exploits What drugs do to sexual performance, physiological reaction and pleasure is rarely discussed in - or out of - clinical or academic settings. Yet most people have sex under the influence of something (or many somethings) at some point in their lives. In this underground talk, Violet Blue shares what sex-positive doctors, nurses, MFT’s, clinic workers and crisis counselors have learned and compiled about the interactions of drugs and sex from over three decades of unofficial curriculum for use in peer-to-peer (and emergency) counseling. Whether you’re curious about the effects of caffeine or street drugs on sex, or are the kind of person that keeps your fuzzy handcuffs next to a copy of The Pocket Pharmacopeia, this overview will help you engineer your sex life in our chemical soaked world. Or, it’ll at least give you great party conversation fodder.
is about hackers as an at-risk population. She did a whole talk about that at 29c3. There was very little sex in it. Very different talk.
The article suggests that she was supposed to repeat the talk she gave ate 29c3, which appears completely wrong.
they were ASKED to make given the limited information that was available to them.
Reports about that are conflicting. The BSides organizer says he was aproached by the ADA initiative. http://bsidessf.org/home/13747344
When the talk was canceled, there was only the title to go by
Which would have made the appropriate reaction to ask for more information, not to suggest cancellation right away. What happened is an abuse of power by the Ada Initiative.
Violet's talk should've hat its abstract published and a trigger warning could have been added. But it should not have been canceled.
There was very very little to gain from cancelling it right before it was supposed to happen. This did not help women's participation in tech spaces. It just means that a probably pretty awesome pro-woman talk by an expierienced sex educator didn't happen, feet got stepped on, people got hurt, drama ensued.
PS: The Ada Initiative does a lot of awesome work, but this isn't it.
Violet was scheduled to speak about "sex +/- drugs: known vulns and exploits", not about "Hackers As A High-Risk Population".
While I don't agree with the cancellation, this talk was more sexually charged (hence problematic) and much less on topic at a hacker conference than her talk at 29c3 was.
> Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs.
> Miss A said Assange was still staying in her flat but they were not having sex because he had "exceeded the limits of what she felt she could accept"
And anyway, that is not the incident for which he may be charged with rape.
You think everyone in this discussion is american. What an americocentric idiot you are. I suppose I should take it as a compliment that you mistake me for a native speaker.
You think it's reason to regard all arguments against Assange only in isolation, so nothing amounts to much, but you weave everything against the accusers into a big conspiracy theory.
So you don't see any difference between having bad sex and being held down and having bad sex forced on you. Or being asleep while bad sex is forced on you.
Revealing.
PS: To the best of my knowledge, both women didn't have sex with him again after those incidents.
Technically true, but I prefer to have a more nuanced stance on this. Imagine your significant other (imagine having one, if necessary) waking you up in the morning by going down on you. Assume that you like it, and that maybe you talked with her/him about how you might like it. Should she/he go to jail for that?
On the other hand, shoving something into a woman's vagina without even trying to make her wet first is going to be unpleasant for her. Add the condom-thing. What Assange did is unacceptable even in the most sex-positive light.
As far as not knowing whom to believe, a lot of people see red flags in the feminazi woman with CIA connections and stuff like that. For me, the biggest red flag is the man who needs to be repeatedly told to please finally put on a condom.
It's very sad that bullshit like this gets voted up on slashdot. I suppose in this boys club wimmin are not someone you bother to empathize with.
This story is not about women who willingly sleep with a man, and afterwards claim he made them. It's a about a man who gets women into his bed, willingly, and then does things to them they don't consent to.
In one case, a condom broke, she tried to grab a new condom but couldn't because he held her down. For this, he may be charged with some sort of sexual assault. In the other case, he put his penis into her while she was asleep, without bothering to put on a condom first. He really should have known better, because the day before, she had to repeatedly tell him to put one on, because he wasn't eager to do so. And after waking her up by getting to be the first man to enter her without a condom, he badgered her into letting him continue. He wanted to have some fun, after all. Who cares if she enjoys it. For this, he may be charged with a minor case of rape.
He enjoys it, she endures it. By itself, one instance of this sort may not mean much. In the heat of the moment, stuff can happen. But if it happens to two women in a row, one might get the idea that he likes sex this way, taking what he wants while she endures it, whether she wants to or not. And when two women talk to each other and find out that there is a pattern behind what they had previously discounted as bad sex, the decision to throw the book at him may well be justified.
PS: The legal terms don't translate well, different legal system and all. PPS: There are men who think that once you have a woman in your bed, you can do with her as you please. If the Swedes have laws against that, good for them.
The best option I see is to work out efficiently. Most of the popular stuff wastes your time.
For strength-training, avoid isolation-exercises. They are designed to train as few muscles as possible. Unfortunately the design is successful, they train as little as possible. Prefer compound-exercises that train many muscles in one go.
For fat-loss, long cardio-workouts are overrated. Short, intense workouts save lots of time and even work better. The Tabata-protocol works pretty well with workouts of just 4 minutes (8 intervals of 20 seconds of intense exercise followed by 10 seconds of rest) and has a scientific study to back up that claim.
One possible workout would be a regimen of push-ups and pull-ups for strength and warm-up followed by five minutes of kettlebell-swings (possibly in Tabata-style intervals) plus a gentle cool-down. The whole thing is over in 10 or 12 minutes and will do wonders if done about three or four times a week.
> No, their idea that "people are teh st00p3d" is what's out.
That's pretty much it. A big problem of our "modern" societies is that people's attention spans get shorter and shorter. From this side of the Atlantic Ocean I would guess that this is worse in the US than in Europe, but we're on the same track as you are, you just have a head-start. This means that any message you want a significant number of people to actually notice has to - be very short - use very very big letters
Style is always easier to advertise than substance.
Sadly, even critics often don't rate good movies appropriately, maybe the movies was too complicated for them to get, or they just know their audience and adjust their own taste appropriatly.
While many blockbusters are now increasingly devoid of substance, good movie-makers still exist and do their job, but you have to dig deeper to find them than a couple of years ago. Watch Butterfly Effect. Watch Stay. Watch Garden State. You may like them, or not. Interesting Movies don't aim for the smallest common denominator. Some of these are big movies with big stars and all, yet you might never have heard of them. Or you didn't care.
Boycott spineless crap. Look out for substance. Demand, and there will be supply, but don't expect the world to tell you where to find it in big letters. That's how Joe Sixpack gets told what to watch.
Cherry's G80 series of keyboards is considered by many (including me) to provide the best tactile expierience since the old IBM-keyboards with click, but without the weight and noise.
All other cherries I ever tried to type (G81 and G83) gave me the expierience that they wanted to break my fingers...
If you knew about the uselessness of anecdotal evidence, you wouldn't have written a post like this...
Which reminds me, I was allowed to go to school! Couldn't meet the requirements in Canada (4.0 gpa or forget it, being black and female and/or gay wouldn't hurt), in the USA I just paid money and they taught me what I wanted to know.
As I said, money as a ruler is very biased towards those who already have it. If you (or your parents) had had less of it, you might not have found the US system very convenient.
Also, under the current circumstances, you might find it difficult to visit a college in the US if you were male, Pakistani...
Socialists think that everyone should be able to go with his/her abilities, wether they have money or not.
Even here in Germany (compared to which Canada must be a neoclassicist's wet dream), we have private schools that will take most poeple for money, although public shools may not.
So the terrible evil factory owners in Eeeevile Amerika are stealing one fuck of a lot less from me than the morally upright socialists of wonderful Canada.
That's not what I meant. I was referring to the deluded socialists and communists who had these idiotic ideas about founding unions, who eventually tought factory-owners that letting people work 14 hours per day is not a good idea. You, yes you, are profiting from the ideas of deluded socialists so much that many things you said must be regarded as either ignorance or hypocrisy.
Instead of anecdotal evidence, lay your hands on some real information, from both sides, some history, broaden your background, and you will see that both systems have their pros and cons. Which one you prefer ist mostly a matter of style.
The only ones who are deluded are those who try to make this a matter of good vs. evil.
There are LOADS of germans who emigrated to the US but eventually got sick of it and came back. There are also loads of people who didn't.
And by the way. In the winter in Arizona, most of the young people on Harley Davidsons cruising up and down the mountain passes of Route 66, strutting about in Tombstone wearing biker leathers and big revlovers and enjoying the beautiful freedom are GERMAN TOURISTS.
So it's the socialist's fault that Germany is lacking in landscape?
If _we_ had that landscape, they could at least drive faster. Or what exactly did you mean with "beautiful freedom"?
That is not quite true, at least not over here, anyway. Taxes are high and rising, but they are rising proportionally.
I don't know the english term, but the fraction of the GDP that is government money is more or less constant.
The problem with the usual economic theories like neoliberalism or communism (I'm referring to Marx here, not what Lenin, Stalin and alii made of it), is that they don't really work. Still, at least we live in an age where democratic governments (usually) at least try to improve life for their people. The best way to achieve this has not been found yet, but both your approach and the socialist approach work "more or less". That you want to live a certain way doesn't mean it's the way it should be. And you might find reading Marx quite interesting, although you won't agree with him (neither do I, communism doesn't work). You would at least understand socialist motivations better, and of course Marx, being an entrepreneur himself, observed many of the problems of "free market" systems.
PS: I always find it strange how you use the word liberal, considering that by origin, "liberal" ist just another word for "free".
PPS: I will end this thread now, as I see it is leading nowhere and I have more important stuff to do.
Exactly the same in German... but in German, you also have to conjugate.
The almost complete absense of conjugation and declension in the English language makes it quite simple to grasp, at least for those who already speak a related language, and most european languages are related, to some degree anyway.
Did you know that before what you call socialism started (I'm referring to the worker movements in the 19th century), people were working 14 hours per day, had no days off and got no pay when they were sick? And this barely enabled them to make a living, because the owner of the factory grabbed all the money? Would you want to live that way, just because those who are rich have the power to rob you?
Socialists think that if you are robbed on a daily basis, it't better to be robbed by a democratic government, at least it's regulated.
How much they rob you will vary locally, and is generally decided by consensus. If you disagree so much you can't bear it, you're free to go and live in the US.
There's a german proverb saying "Money rules the world". Unfortunately, money has proven to be very biased towards those who already have it. No really unregulated market can really work.
Sure, there are worse languages, but when you talk about structure and programming and Latin, I feel that there is a "not" missing somewhere. When you want to shape your programming style or a new programming language after a natural language, Latin does show some Dos, but a lot of Don'ts too.
Frankly, next time I'm asked if I'd rather learn Latin or French, I'll go for French. And if you want to learn a dead language just for the sake of the learning... wouldn't Esperanto be a better choice?
PS: I would've been thinking in German, not English.
In my expierience, translating Latin to something alive usually involved a considerable amount of guessing because Latin lacks structure.
They just use the ablative for everything and you have to guess which meaning of the ablative to might be the right one, they have no punctuation, putting the words of a sentence in any meaningful order is optional.
Latin's heavy reliance on word-endings makes it way to complicated, you have to try to find out which word in the sentence might be related to which of the other words (as I said, often they are in no meaningful order), which might be acceptable if these relations were unambiguous.
There are many reasons why Latin as we are/were tought it was never a spoken language.
Slashdot Mirror
Explain to me which part of
sex +/- drugs: known vulns and exploits
What drugs do to sexual performance, physiological reaction and pleasure is rarely discussed in - or out of - clinical or academic settings. Yet most people have sex under the influence of something (or many somethings) at some point in their lives.
In this underground talk, Violet Blue shares what sex-positive doctors, nurses, MFT’s, clinic workers and crisis counselors have learned and compiled about the interactions of drugs and sex from over three decades of unofficial curriculum for use in peer-to-peer (and emergency) counseling. Whether you’re curious about the effects of caffeine or street drugs on sex, or are the kind of person that keeps your fuzzy handcuffs next to a copy of The Pocket Pharmacopeia, this overview will help you engineer your sex life in our chemical soaked world. Or, it’ll at least give you great party conversation fodder.
is about hackers as an at-risk population. She did a whole talk about that at 29c3. There was very little sex in it. Very different talk.
The article suggests that she was supposed to repeat the talk she gave ate 29c3, which appears completely wrong.
they were ASKED to make given the limited information that was available to them.
Reports about that are conflicting.
The BSides organizer says he was aproached by the ADA initiative. http://bsidessf.org/home/13747344
When the talk was canceled, there was only the title to go by
Which would have made the appropriate reaction to ask for more information, not to suggest cancellation right away. What happened is an abuse of power by the Ada Initiative.
Violet's talk should've hat its abstract published and a trigger warning could have been added.
But it should not have been canceled.
There was very very little to gain from cancelling it right before it was supposed to happen. This did not help women's participation in tech spaces. It just means that a probably pretty awesome pro-woman talk by an expierienced sex educator didn't happen, feet got stepped on, people got hurt, drama ensued.
PS: The Ada Initiative does a lot of awesome work, but this isn't it.
Triggers are not an invention of SF Hippies or Feminists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger
Feel free to google "trauma trigger" or "PTSD trigger" for more.
That you've never heard of something and can't wrap your head around it immediately doesn't mean that is must be bullshit.
Violet was scheduled to speak about "sex +/- drugs: known vulns and exploits", not about "Hackers As A High-Risk Population".
While I don't agree with the cancellation, this talk was more sexually charged (hence problematic) and much less on topic at a hacker conference than her talk at 29c3 was.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
> Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs.
> Miss A said Assange was still staying in her flat but they were not having sex because he had "exceeded the limits of what she felt she could accept"
And anyway, that is not the incident for which he may be charged with rape.
You really like ranting, don't you.
You think everyone in this discussion is american. What an americocentric idiot you are.
I suppose I should take it as a compliment that you mistake me for a native speaker.
You think it's reason to regard all arguments against Assange only in isolation, so nothing amounts to much, but you weave everything against the accusers into a big conspiracy theory.
So you don't see any difference between having bad sex and being held down and having bad sex forced on you. Or being asleep while bad sex is forced on you.
Revealing.
PS: To the best of my knowledge, both women didn't have sex with him again after those incidents.
Technically true, but I prefer to have a more nuanced stance on this.
Imagine your significant other (imagine having one, if necessary) waking you up in the morning by going down on you. Assume that you like it, and that maybe you talked with her/him about how you might like it. Should she/he go to jail for that?
On the other hand, shoving something into a woman's vagina without even trying to make her wet first is going to be unpleasant for her. Add the condom-thing. What Assange did is unacceptable even in the most sex-positive light.
As far as not knowing whom to believe, a lot of people see red flags in the feminazi woman with CIA connections and stuff like that. For me, the biggest red flag is the man who needs to be repeatedly told to please finally put on a condom.
It's very sad that bullshit like this gets voted up on slashdot. I suppose in this boys club wimmin are not someone you bother to empathize with.
This story is not about women who willingly sleep with a man, and afterwards claim he made them. It's a about a man who gets women into his bed, willingly, and then does things to them they don't consent to.
In one case, a condom broke, she tried to grab a new condom but couldn't because he held her down. For this, he may be charged with some sort of sexual assault.
In the other case, he put his penis into her while she was asleep, without bothering to put on a condom first. He really should have known better, because the day before, she had to repeatedly tell him to put one on, because he wasn't eager to do so. And after waking her up by getting to be the first man to enter her without a condom, he badgered her into letting him continue. He wanted to have some fun, after all. Who cares if she enjoys it. For this, he may be charged with a minor case of rape.
He enjoys it, she endures it. By itself, one instance of this sort may not mean much. In the heat of the moment, stuff can happen.
But if it happens to two women in a row, one might get the idea that he likes sex this way, taking what he wants while she endures it, whether she wants to or not.
And when two women talk to each other and find out that there is a pattern behind what they had previously discounted as bad sex, the decision to throw the book at him may well be justified.
PS: The legal terms don't translate well, different legal system and all.
PPS: There are men who think that once you have a woman in your bed, you can do with her as you please. If the Swedes have laws against that, good for them.
The best option I see is to work out efficiently. Most of the popular stuff wastes your time.
For strength-training, avoid isolation-exercises. They are designed to train as few muscles as possible. Unfortunately the design is successful, they train as little as possible. Prefer compound-exercises that train many muscles in one go.
For fat-loss, long cardio-workouts are overrated. Short, intense workouts save lots of time and even work better. The Tabata-protocol works pretty well with workouts of just 4 minutes (8 intervals of 20 seconds of intense exercise followed by 10 seconds of rest) and has a scientific study to back up that claim.
One possible workout would be a regimen of push-ups and pull-ups for strength and warm-up followed by five minutes of kettlebell-swings (possibly in Tabata-style intervals) plus a gentle cool-down. The whole thing is over in 10 or 12 minutes and will do wonders if done about three or four times a week.
> No, their idea that "people are teh st00p3d" is what's out.
That's pretty much it.
A big problem of our "modern" societies is that people's attention spans get shorter and shorter. From this side of the Atlantic Ocean I would guess that this is worse in the US than in Europe, but we're on the same track as you are, you just have a head-start.
This means that any message you want a significant number of people to actually notice has to
- be very short
- use very very big letters
Style is always easier to advertise than substance.
Sadly, even critics often don't rate good movies appropriately, maybe the movies was too complicated for them to get, or they just know their audience and adjust their own taste appropriatly.
While many blockbusters are now increasingly devoid of substance, good movie-makers still exist and do their job, but you have to dig deeper to find them than a couple of years ago.
Watch Butterfly Effect. Watch Stay. Watch Garden State. You may like them, or not. Interesting Movies don't aim for the smallest common denominator.
Some of these are big movies with big stars and all, yet you might never have heard of them. Or you didn't care.
Boycott spineless crap. Look out for substance.
Demand, and there will be supply, but don't expect the world to tell you where to find it in big letters. That's how Joe Sixpack gets told what to watch.
"Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence."
The project died when the developer was hired by Zend. Last Version released in late 2003.
Reincarnated here: http://eaccelerator.net/
It has been exploitet too just two months ago, when ebay.de was hijacked by a 19yo kid.
It seems that Tucows (the domain registrar) messed up by not responding to DENIC's inquiry.
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/50661
Cherry's G80 series of keyboards is considered by many (including me) to provide the best tactile expierience since the old IBM-keyboards with click, but without the weight and noise.
All other cherries I ever tried to type (G81 and G83) gave me the expierience that they wanted to break my fingers...
Furthermore, since many of the charges against him date back some time to when he was still 17, juvenile law will definately be applied for those.
Type checking maybe more impractical and less useful than many people think.
Bruce Eckel explains this quite well:
http://mindview.net/WebLog/log-0051
As I said, money as a ruler is very biased towards those who already have it. If you (or your parents) had had less of it, you might not have found the US system very convenient.
Also, under the current circumstances, you might find it difficult to visit a college in the US if you were male, Pakistani...
Socialists think that everyone should be able to go with his/her abilities, wether they have money or not.
Even here in Germany (compared to which Canada must be a neoclassicist's wet dream), we have private schools that will take most poeple for money, although public shools may not.
That's not what I meant. I was referring to the deluded socialists and communists who had these idiotic ideas about founding unions, who eventually tought factory-owners that letting people work 14 hours per day is not a good idea.
You, yes you, are profiting from the ideas of deluded socialists so much that many things you said must be regarded as either ignorance or hypocrisy.
Instead of anecdotal evidence, lay your hands on some real information, from both sides, some history, broaden your background, and you will see that both systems have their pros and cons. Which one you prefer ist mostly a matter of style.
The only ones who are deluded are those who try to make this a matter of good vs. evil.
There are LOADS of germans who emigrated to the US but eventually got sick of it and came back. There are also loads of people who didn't.
So it's the socialist's fault that Germany is lacking in landscape?
If _we_ had that landscape, they could at least drive faster. Or what exactly did you mean with "beautiful freedom"?
That is not quite true, at least not over here, anyway. Taxes are high and rising, but they are rising proportionally.
I don't know the english term, but the fraction of the GDP that is government money is more or less constant.
The problem with the usual economic theories like neoliberalism or communism (I'm referring to Marx here, not what Lenin, Stalin and alii made of it), is that they don't really work.
Still, at least we live in an age where democratic governments (usually) at least try to improve life for their people.
The best way to achieve this has not been found yet, but both your approach and the socialist approach work "more or less".
That you want to live a certain way doesn't mean it's the way it should be.
And you might find reading Marx quite interesting, although you won't agree with him (neither do I, communism doesn't work).
You would at least understand socialist motivations better, and of course Marx, being an entrepreneur himself, observed many of the problems of "free market" systems.
PS: I always find it strange how you use the word liberal, considering that by origin, "liberal" ist just another word for "free".
PPS: I will end this thread now, as I see it is leading nowhere and I have more important stuff to do.
Do you think that consensus could invent a system that can spend vast amounts of money without a source of income to cover all of these expenses?
The almost complete absense of conjugation and declension in the English language makes it quite simple to grasp, at least for those who already speak a related language, and most european languages are related, to some degree anyway.
Did you know that before what you call socialism started (I'm referring to the worker movements in the 19th century), people were working 14 hours per day, had no days off and got no pay when they were sick? And this barely enabled them to make a living, because the owner of the factory grabbed all the money?
Would you want to live that way, just because those who are rich have the power to rob you?
Socialists think that if you are robbed on a daily basis, it't better to be robbed by a democratic government, at least it's regulated.
How much they rob you will vary locally, and is generally decided by consensus.
If you disagree so much you can't bear it, you're free to go and live in the US.
There's a german proverb saying "Money rules the world". Unfortunately, money has proven to be very biased towards those who already have it. No really unregulated market can really work.
For Esperanto, that's my point exactly. I would't yet call it "alive", but it has future.
Sure, there are worse languages, but when you talk about structure and programming and Latin, I feel that there is a "not" missing somewhere.
When you want to shape your programming style or a new programming language after a natural language, Latin does show some Dos, but a lot of Don'ts too.
Frankly, next time I'm asked if I'd rather learn Latin or French, I'll go for French.
And if you want to learn a dead language just for the sake of the learning... wouldn't Esperanto be a better choice?
PS: I would've been thinking in German, not English.
In my expierience, translating Latin to something alive usually involved a considerable amount of guessing because Latin lacks structure.
They just use the ablative for everything and you have to guess which meaning of the ablative to might be the right one, they have no punctuation, putting the words of a sentence in any meaningful order is optional.
Latin's heavy reliance on word-endings makes it way to complicated, you have to try to find out which word in the sentence might be related to which of the other words (as I said, often they are in no meaningful order), which might be acceptable if these relations were unambiguous.
There are many reasons why Latin as we are/were tought it was never a spoken language.