that's because we're all just animals trying to satisfy an urge for pleasure.
The pleasure in procreation is not only present in the act. Feeling loved by your partner and trusting that he's not going to just do the business but stick around and care for you is not incidental. It's as much a part of the pleasure of procreation as having sex is. After all, someone's got to go and catch mammoths for you when you're up the duff.:)
Hence the "maybe loving sex IS better," you began with.
Hmph. Must have caused quite a referral spike to get the site's webmaster over here so fast.
I think the site is a very positive one in showing normal nudity and that a girl can be pretty without porn star sterotyping. It's reassuring to see that many men do like this more natural approach.
Actually, I was just referring to the general moaning, groaning and Vidal Sassoon hair tossing that porn-star women seem compelled to do whenever they're lucky enough to have a dick stuck in their mouth. I mean if you have a monster like that at your disposal, there're places where you could get a heck of a lot more pleasure out of it, you know?
For crying out loud. The whole point of my comment is that entertainment does not have to be about reality.
Do not meddle in the affairs of LotR fans, for they are unsubtle and very pedantic.:)
I understood your point, and it is well made. I'm getting jumped all over here by people who seem to think I'm an porn-burning fanatic (woe to those who tread the middle ground, for they shall piss off both sides), but at least *your* point addressed what I actually said.
My answer to you would be, fair enough. You want entertainment in your fantasy, why not. If I fantasize about a romantic weekend in Paris, doesn't mean someone's going to take me there - it's still a fantasy as much as you getting into bed with three super endowed porn-stars. (I'm making an assumption about your lifestyle here).
But what I would say, is if we're going to go with the Frodo and Sam analogy (and I really don't think it's wise in a discussion on porn, but we'll risk it), then the situation is more like this:
There is only Lord of the Rings movies out there. You can't find anything that isn't Lord of the Rings.
This is important because unlike LotR, where few people growing up are likely to start worrying about being attacked by CGI orcs, or think that it's an accurate portrayal of real life, this will happen to some extent with porn. People will probably be watching porn for some time before they experience actual sex. And if this forms the basis for their fantasies and expectations, they're going to get a hell of a shock. I'm not saying that people wont do extreme things together. Of course many will. But intimate, emotional sex is (should be) very satisfying and this isn't explored in modern US culture. You get gang-banging or you get nothing.
So why isn't genuinely emotional sex portrayed graphically? I'd say because it undermines too much. Sex is used to sell every magazine, every show, every shirt. The basis of loving sex is trust, feeling okay about yourself and your partner, intimacy. It's hard to sell to someone who has that.
So yes, watch LotR if you like, admire the size of the Oliphant's trunks or the way the blonde elf takes on five orcs at once. But just keep an eye on those who are getting too into it and turning up to showings in Elf ears, eh?;)
you simply ignore my point. I assume that's because you're unable to argue it?
You assume wrong. I was unable to work out what your point was:
I said: People who [have sex with multiple strangers on camera], do it because they are paid to, and in some cases, because they're desperate for some kind of approval or attention.
You don't appear to be arguing against that. You replied:
Ahh, so let's outlaw singing, mime, juggling, (any kind of street performing, actually), dancing, acting, and any other activity people get paid for which is indicative of attention-seeking then.
I'll assume that's sarcasm, shall I? Well, the only conclusion I can draw from that sarcasm is that you think you are extending my point that porn acting should be illegal to everyone else who is paid to perform. The problem is, that I didn't and don't say that it should be illegal. I'm not going to stop anyone from appearing in a porn film. I wouldn't even advocate anyone else to do so.
Hence my suggestion that you actually read my post and realize this.
I had a couple of close friends who used to throw "parties." I'm afraid I always turned down the invitations, but the impression I got was that it wasn't exactly emotionless. I think the feeling of group against the normal world helped foster an emotional bond. But I'm not sure if that's typical of swingers. I think it probably isn't. My friends weren't doing it through any organization - it was all people who knew each other. And there was heavy drug use at the parties too, which probably helped cement the group identity.
I'd guess for-profit groups are much less emotional.
The problem here is that you are not arguing for more sincere and tender porn, but instead making a bigoted argument against everything else.
Where in my post did I argue for restricting people's ability to create or obtain porn? I'll answer that question for you - nowhere.
Here's another one: where did I say people were wrong to enjoy it? Nowhere.
You have decided you know who I am (a moralising bigot) and have re-interpreted everything I said into something you feel you can have a good shout about.
The crux of what I said is that depictions of sex available to people are massively of the brutal, emotionless, subjgating type. If you find this so hard to believe have a look for some porn on the Internet (the primary delivery method of sexually explicit material) and see what you find.
I believe that if US and UK society were more open about sex then the act itself wouldn't be polarised into either gang-bangs or nothing.
You call me a bigot for suggesting that normal sex should be shown? The US is a place where sex is hidden from children, an unmentionable. If there is the slightest nudity on your television where children might see it there is hysteria, as if the sight of a naked breast will lead innocent youths straight to Hell.
Why am I a bigot for saying this is wrong? If you can argue that people have a right to fuck 30 men they don't know and sell the video, then why can't I ask for normal sexual relationships to be portrayed explicitly? Would I want my children's formative impressions of sex to be mostly acts that the participants did because they were paid to? Because lets face it, in US society, the knowledge they get from porn would far outpace that from real life for a good while.
You saw me criticise emotionless sex with people who are paid to do it and decided to have a rant at the "bigot." But I don't fit into your stereotype. If that emotionless sex that doesn't reflect the sexual behaviour of most people is the only available depiction to children, then I am right to critisize. Children should be presented with an accurate view of life and the world. And right now, it's either gang-banging subjugation of women or ignorance. That's a Hell of a choice, so don't have a go at me for suggesting there should be another option.
If you found my argument "meandering" then perhaps it is because you had trouble seeing the connections.
Ahh, so let's outlaw singing, mime, juggling, (any kind of street performing, actually), dancing, acting, and any other activity people get paid for which is indicative of attention-seeking then.
I take it you think that I was advocating legal restrictions on sex workers, then? Please at least read the post your replying to.
If everyone involved consents and enjoys that gangbang, it seems okay to me.
People who do this, do it because they are paid to, and in some cases, because they're desperate for some kind of approval or attention. It's not normal. Now if doing this fulfills someone's psychological or sexual needs, then it's their business. But boys shouldn't grow up thinking that women orgasm from giving blow-jobs or they're going to be pretty disappointed with their partners (and their partners might be pretty pissed, too).
The problem is one of context. US society (and UK society to a lesser extent) is deeply repressed on the subject of sex. It's all very closed doors. And oddly enough, this is why so many boys grow up thinking of sex as being something purely physical. The only porn you get is brutal, wham, bam, say thank you ma'am stuff. There's no exposure to sex between two people who love each other.
So, I think that it's the moralising people who surpress normal exposure to sex, nudity and desire that are responsible for guys growing up thinking of it in the way portrayed in porn. Because if it's kept out of normal life, made illicit, then what else do they see but the porn?
I mean - which is going to prepare people for sexual maturity most - (Not work safe)This, or this? Maybe you see sex is just fucking, and hey - it's good exercise - but for most of us, the best sex we'll ever experience is with someone we love. If people want to protect children from corruption, they should let those children know that it's okay and to have sex with someone you love and that it doesn't have to be 8" this, 36DD that and treat the other person like an object.
I seem to have ended up arguing for more sincere and tender porn. Well, why not. It would appeal to a lot of people, I'm sure. But mostly what I am getting at is that US and UK society itself should be more open on the subject of sex.
And then maybe people wouldn't be using it as a sales technique everywhere I look as well.
OFF TOPIC: /. Poll Locked
on
Hacking Hotels 101
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Well where else can you put a comment about comments being blocked?
Anyone explain why the # DVD's ripped poll has been locked?
Anyway,/. discussion normally stems from the first four or five posts, so this question will sink down to the bottom with time anyway.
Is that on the chest? Because if it is, the kill mght be from "commodio cortis" and it has to be hit during the right part of the cardiac cycle.
Not what I was referring to. I even had to google to find out what it was. And all the references I found were about a baseball incident. I'm not even 100% it isn't a medical myth, but if it is genuine, then I don't think you'd want to waste your shot on the off-chance that you got your opponent in the 15ms window that could kill him. You'd go for something that would hurt him all the time.
Seriously, though. I studied martial arts properly for just a few years and though I improved many skills over someone who had never studied, I learnt one inviable fact - I can be hurt.
Best advice for ninety-percent of people out there is if they are forced into a fight and they can't get out of there, is don't faff around looking for pressure points. Go for the jaw and pray.
Does that stuff actually work. Yeah, Google for "dim mak" or "kyusho" - I have but I'm not sure I can believe it.
The answer is a qualified "no." With sufficient force, there are a few points which can incapacitate, but not kill. There is only one where there is a real chance of death and you'd have to hit it right and hit it hard. There is another point where you could do longer term internal damage again, you'd have to hit pretty darn hard (though possible).
So incapacitate, yes - there are specific points you can whack (not tap), but Kung Fu movie poke with a finger and kill is not so feasible. Which is a good thing. Men who tell you they could kill you by hitting you in such and such are some of life's most irritating and (least liked) people on the planet. IMHO.
Regarding the nuclear know-how, I think it's generally accepted that knowledge of how to make them is, if not easy, at least not a barrier to be depended on. Nuclear weapons control is nowadays focused on preventing Uranium refinement and the obtaining of plutonium. It would have helped if the US and the UK had honoured their part of the non-proliferation treaty and scaled back their armaments as agreed, but they never delivered. Funnily enough, the rest of the World doesn't go for their "but it's okay - we're the good guys" argument and now everyone needs nuclear weapons to feel safe.
BTW, remember the jocks in high school that got all of the chicks? They became frat boys, then sales guys (be it cars or insurance or software), and (some of them -- the smarter ones) finally VPs.
I find this supposed division between academic ability and physical prowess / attractiveness a lot less common in reality than in the media and/. comments. I remember that of the brightest boys in my school, some were very attractive and a few were honestly rank. Others were neither.
Of the academically hopeless, some were honestly rank, some were more attractive. But the more attractive of this set were less so than the attractive of the achievers, mostly because the achievers were... achievers. Profound and hard to grasp, I know, but that's what I thought.
Division between "jocks" and "geeks" is a fiction.
First off, thank you for a much more informed rebuttal than the other one.
My more serious answer to your points are as follows:
a) they can trivially break your VoIP security if they do a MITM attack, unless you have a functioning PKI (that you can verify),
That's not an unlikely 'unless.' Exchanging public keys (or fingerprints, I should say) would be quite easy unless you are initiating a call with a complete stranger. Even if you haven't had a chance to swap details with your partner beforehand, you can always begin the conversation with "my fingerprint is..."
Ditto for SSL - you accept the certificate because it's signed by Verisign and it says they are who they say they are
Ah, that's slightly different (authentication). I meant an SSL tunnel established using a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffie-Hellman_k ey_exchange>Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange. With this technique, you are ruling out a man in the middle technique. The tunnel has only two ends. It doesn't establish who you're talking to if you don't know them, but you do know there's no-one in between.
b) You can encrypt audio in POTS phone calls. The HW for it isn't trivially available, but it's certainly doable. I had friends who made virtually uncrackable digital audio telephone scramblers back in 1983ish at RPI, and tried to start a company to sell them.
I know very little about this, though I've heard it has been done. Perhaps this is a way of making POTs nearer to the security level of VoIP. What happened to your friend, btw? Did he get anywhere with them?
CALEA - the VoIP provider is being required to allow tapping of calls. Currently that's targetting calls that go through their equipment aka POTS gateways.
Absolutely - and I'd be pretty certain that Skype already does. But that doesn't take away my ability to do it myself through any computer I own. I use OSS software to do this rather than Skype - I don't want the market to close with barriers to entry. Cost would increase and flexibility would decrease. The Skype business plan is to make a network closed to non-Skype VoIP users, much like Microsoft tries in other areas.
So, on the principle of the Bellman, I say for the third time, that VoIP is much more secure than POTs.;)
If your tinfoil hat is that large then I suggest you give up the computer and move to the woods and live off the grid.
Sorry if my rational arguement has driven you to retreat into strawmans. Tinfoil hat refers to absurdities - mind-control satellites, etc. I think the belief that the US and UK governments spy on people is somehow not quite in that category.
There's this thing called a judical branch. It issues other things called warrants. The bad guys (tm) need them before they can tap your phone line.
I never said that I was talking about security except where someone decides to secretly remove it. I was talking about security full stop, even if the government doesn't approve of you having it. With VoIP, you can have security regardless of what the police think.
Furthermore, before you accuse me of deluding myself, you might want to bring yourself up to speed on how things work in the present day. There is an arrangement between the UK and the USA whereby the US agencies listen to our conversations and the UK listens to yours (assuming you to be in the US). This sidesteps US wiretapping laws. It is frequent, semi-automated and has nothing to do with judicial oversight.
And if you think that an encrypted VoIP steam is secure from the government then you are deluding yourself. I wouldn't trust any encryption system short of a OTP up against the government. And as you pointed out they could merely bug your house instead.
If the government can break a strong SSL tunnel, then they have a significant leap on the corporate world. Given how integrated government, business and academia are in the US, I'd be very surprised at that. The NSA approach to something like this is to throw very heavy computing power at it. This is feasible with basic public-private key enctyption, but they certainly don't have anything like the resources to sustain the mass monitoring they do at present, should encryption become more common. This problem is compounded with something like SSL where the encryption is generated on the fly for a one time use.
I didn't point out that anyone would "merely" bug your house, either. There are many instances where this would not be possible and the power to counter it is in your hands anyway, whereas there's not much you can do about a phone exchange. Phoning from multiple sites / PCs, or while travelling with Wireless or satellite, or from another country where bugging becomes a much bigger pain in the arse are just simple examples.
I repeat. VoIP offers you security against the entrenched authorities, POTS does not.
There is one sense in which VOIP is much more secure than POTS and inherantly has to be, and that's in security from "Authority".
All POTs systems have wire-tapping built in for the Intelligence services and available to the police. There is next to nothing that can be done about that short of the telecoms joining the People's Revolution.
VOIP may not automatically be encrypted, but it's pretty easy to learn how and short of the NSA having some secret technology we don't know about, you can know that no-one is listening in unless they're bugging your house / cubicle / whatever.
Anyone who thinks their government has too much power, should realize that every additional encrypted VOIP stream out there is a little way of getting back.
"you can stay in there as long as you like, unable to do an awful lot, but we'll be waiting for you outside".
Except where the charge is one of inciting terrorism, criticising someone else's religion or any other of the UKs "thought crime" laws due to be passed in October. All of these, the perpetrator can do quite happily from inside a Mosque, Church or Synagogue.
I agree with all your points though, and an approach that was less burst-through-the-doors-respect-my-authority and more, look we're here, we want to take you in for questioning and it's going to happen sooner or later so come out and come with us, please, would be much more effective a lot of the time.
But it doesn't seem to be the approach the UK government is taking. They seem to be locking themself into the Prove How Tough We Are cycle which always requires escalation. Any school teacher can tell you that once you start shouting, you've had it. And the 'thought crime' laws are just a mindless panic.
On a simpler note, I *hate* stepping in dog shit. I am, in no way, "afraid" of dog shit nor do I have dogshitphobia. There are plenty of things out there that we hate or even just plain don't like that do not stem from fear.
There's a confusion in your analogy between the act and who acts. If you hate having gay sex, then that is not homophobia, just like hating stepping in dog shit is not the same as hating people who do.
If you decline an offer of being sodomised by your friendly neighbourhood gay, doesn't make you homophobic. If you take steps against him as a person however, ranging from refusal of a job to assault, then that is distinct from a revulsion at the act. It's distinct because you no longer have the reason of being directly involved to base your disgust on. You'd have to explain how his lifestyle did have a negative impact on you. And if it were simply a case feeling uncomfortable because thinking about it bothered you, he'd probably be entitled to tell you to deal with it, much as you might tell me (a strict vegetarian) to deal with it when you started eating a steak.
You've implied that you hate gay sex with your dogshit anaology. That doesn't make you homophobic. If you transfer that on to people who do like it, then that fits the definition of homophobia. There is a clear distinction between how you hate an action and how you hate a person.
As to whether that dislike of gay people (as opposed to gay sex) stems from fear... what else can it stem from? There were (and still are) doctors who believe they can "help" gay people; and there are a few religious people who see it as their duty to "save" gay people, but neither of these cases are exhibiting a hatred of the gay people. I think the only motive for hatred of gay people can be fear.
I mean logically, you're either gay, in which case gay men increase your available partners, or you're straight, in which case gay men increase your available partners.
I'd agree with you about Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, but that's because I dislike (a) the really crass stereotyping, (b) the insulting implication that gay men have some sort of inbuilt style advantage over straight men and (c) the whole assumption that people should be told to dress this way / act that way / etc to be worth something. Can't stand that.
But why does disagreeing with any "lifestyle choice" automatically equate to being full of hatred or fear?
It doesn't. And if you simply disagree with homosexuality, then you're not homophobic. If you actively take steps against it (ranging from not employing a gay person to assault) then to varying degrees, you are. Reason being, refusal to participate in that lifestyle is simple disagreement as you say, but actively acting against those who do is the homophobia.
Fucking Hell! I've followed the link and the ones you quote here are just the top ones. I calculate another US$ 765,000 in smaller contributions, including US$ 90,000 from "lobbyists."
I presume that there are strict rules on how this money is used - i.e. has to be used on "campaigning." But this probably covers expensive hotels, taking influential people out for nights out, trips, and general "entertaining." At least I guess that this is how this works. Is this right? Or can this money actually find it's way into his personal bank accounts?
You are exactly right. You can't talk about the character V without talking about the government that created him. But to carry on your point, I like that in the book, he has enough self-insight to realize that he himself must be torn down too - that he has been made into a part of what he opposes and ultimately sacrifices himself to bring everything to a conclusion, leaving room for a new beginning.
That is where the greatest redemption lies and it is impressive of Alan Moore to have realized and written this.
The trailer is quite impressive, though I'm still very doubtful about how it will turn out. I was pleased however, that it contained one of the best lines from the book (give or take a word):
Behind this mask is not flesh, but an idea. And ideas are bullet-proof.
That's what makes the character so powerful. The transformation of oneself into an ideal.
So what you are saying is that the rich guys win - no matter what. More bandwidth, more people to send SPAM, better servers, etc. The little guy (not rich), then becomes toast. Kind of a not-so-nice evolution there...
That's where co-operation and community come in. You've seen what happens when a small fraction of the computers comprising the Internet are subverted by a worm to launch a DOS attack at some entity. Do you really think people are so helpless if they choose to act together. And that is just one, very crude and primitive way in which people can be powerful.
Anyway, we're talking about spam in this instance. Do you also think the people who fund the spammers (to sell their porn and viagra) want to face a backlash of angry potential customers? I think in this instance the scheme can work very effectively without any physical world legal backing. In fact, I think if you're going to make the case that the rich will trample the poor, then interference from the non-cyber world is exactly the most effective way for them to do so.
So in conclusion, I don't think my post was "hilarious." Also, am not a 'Sir.'
Shame you posted as AC. I'd like to be sure you read this.
What I thought when I heard about the casting was why bother? If they want to get Hugo Weaving to do the voice, then that's one thing... but why hire him for the body in the costume. He's 6'2" according to imdb so perhaps he can pull off the physical presence of V (always got the impression he was a large man in the comic), but I'm sure there are better people for it. They should have hired the biggest male ballet dancer they could find in my opinion and V. would have moved with all the power and grace he is supposed to.
Slashdot Mirror
that's because we're all just animals trying to satisfy an urge for pleasure.
The pleasure in procreation is not only present in the act. Feeling loved by your partner and trusting that he's not going to just do the business but stick around and care for you is not incidental. It's as much a part of the pleasure of procreation as having sex is. After all, someone's got to go and catch mammoths for you when you're up the duff.
Hence the "maybe loving sex IS better," you began with.
Hmph. Must have caused quite a referral spike to get the site's webmaster over here so fast.
I think the site is a very positive one in showing normal nudity and that a girl can be pretty without porn star sterotyping. It's reassuring to see that many men do like this more natural approach.
-H.
Actually, I was just referring to the general moaning, groaning and Vidal Sassoon hair tossing that porn-star women seem compelled to do whenever they're lucky enough to have a dick stuck in their mouth. I mean if you have a monster like that at your disposal, there're places where you could get a heck of a lot more pleasure out of it, you know?
For crying out loud. The whole point of my comment is that entertainment does not have to be about reality.
Do not meddle in the affairs of LotR fans, for they are unsubtle and very pedantic.
I understood your point, and it is well made. I'm getting jumped all over here by people who seem to think I'm an porn-burning fanatic (woe to those who tread the middle ground, for they shall piss off both sides), but at least *your* point addressed what I actually said.
My answer to you would be, fair enough. You want entertainment in your fantasy, why not. If I fantasize about a romantic weekend in Paris, doesn't mean someone's going to take me there - it's still a fantasy as much as you getting into bed with three super endowed porn-stars. (I'm making an assumption about your lifestyle here).
But what I would say, is if we're going to go with the Frodo and Sam analogy (and I really don't think it's wise in a discussion on porn, but we'll risk it), then the situation is more like this:
There is only Lord of the Rings movies out there. You can't find anything that isn't Lord of the Rings.
This is important because unlike LotR, where few people growing up are likely to start worrying about being attacked by CGI orcs, or think that it's an accurate portrayal of real life, this will happen to some extent with porn. People will probably be watching porn for some time before they experience actual sex. And if this forms the basis for their fantasies and expectations, they're going to get a hell of a shock. I'm not saying that people wont do extreme things together. Of course many will. But intimate, emotional sex is (should be) very satisfying and this isn't explored in modern US culture. You get gang-banging or you get nothing.
So why isn't genuinely emotional sex portrayed graphically? I'd say because it undermines too much. Sex is used to sell every magazine, every show, every shirt. The basis of loving sex is trust, feeling okay about yourself and your partner, intimacy. It's hard to sell to someone who has that.
So yes, watch LotR if you like, admire the size of the Oliphant's trunks or the way the blonde elf takes on five orcs at once. But just keep an eye on those who are getting too into it and turning up to showings in Elf ears, eh?
you simply ignore my point. I assume that's because you're unable to argue it?
You assume wrong. I was unable to work out what your point was:
I said:
People who [have sex with multiple strangers on camera], do it because they are paid to, and in some cases, because they're desperate for some kind of approval or attention.
You don't appear to be arguing against that. You replied:
Ahh, so let's outlaw singing, mime, juggling, (any kind of street performing, actually), dancing, acting, and any other activity people get paid for which is indicative of attention-seeking then.
I'll assume that's sarcasm, shall I? Well, the only conclusion I can draw from that sarcasm is that you think you are extending my point that porn acting should be illegal to everyone else who is paid to perform. The problem is, that I didn't and don't say that it should be illegal. I'm not going to stop anyone from appearing in a porn film. I wouldn't even advocate anyone else to do so.
Hence my suggestion that you actually read my post and realize this.
I think that was reasonable.
I had a couple of close friends who used to throw "parties." I'm afraid I always turned down the invitations, but the impression I got was that it wasn't exactly emotionless. I think the feeling of group against the normal world helped foster an emotional bond. But I'm not sure if that's typical of swingers. I think it probably isn't. My friends weren't doing it through any organization - it was all people who knew each other. And there was heavy drug use at the parties too, which probably helped cement the group identity.
I'd guess for-profit groups are much less emotional.
The problem here is that you are not arguing for more sincere and tender porn, but instead making a bigoted argument against everything else.
Where in my post did I argue for restricting people's ability to create or obtain porn? I'll answer that question for you - nowhere.
Here's another one: where did I say people were wrong to enjoy it? Nowhere.
You have decided you know who I am (a moralising bigot) and have re-interpreted everything I said into something you feel you can have a good shout about.
The crux of what I said is that depictions of sex available to people are massively of the brutal, emotionless, subjgating type. If you find this so hard to believe have a look for some porn on the Internet (the primary delivery method of sexually explicit material) and see what you find.
I believe that if US and UK society were more open about sex then the act itself wouldn't be polarised into either gang-bangs or nothing.
You call me a bigot for suggesting that normal sex should be shown? The US is a place where sex is hidden from children, an unmentionable. If there is the slightest nudity on your television where children might see it there is hysteria, as if the sight of a naked breast will lead innocent youths straight to Hell.
Why am I a bigot for saying this is wrong? If you can argue that people have a right to fuck 30 men they don't know and sell the video, then why can't I ask for normal sexual relationships to be portrayed explicitly? Would I want my children's formative impressions of sex to be mostly acts that the participants did because they were paid to? Because lets face it, in US society, the knowledge they get from porn would far outpace that from real life for a good while.
You saw me criticise emotionless sex with people who are paid to do it and decided to have a rant at the "bigot." But I don't fit into your stereotype. If that emotionless sex that doesn't reflect the sexual behaviour of most people is the only available depiction to children, then I am right to critisize. Children should be presented with an accurate view of life and the world. And right now, it's either gang-banging subjugation of women or ignorance. That's a Hell of a choice, so don't have a go at me for suggesting there should be another option.
If you found my argument "meandering" then perhaps it is because you had trouble seeing the connections.
Well having read that post and your
Ahh, so let's outlaw singing, mime, juggling, (any kind of street performing, actually), dancing, acting, and any other activity people get paid for which is indicative of attention-seeking then.
I take it you think that I was advocating legal restrictions on sex workers, then? Please at least read the post your replying to.
If everyone involved consents and enjoys that gangbang, it seems okay to me.
People who do this, do it because they are paid to, and in some cases, because they're desperate for some kind of approval or attention. It's not normal. Now if doing this fulfills someone's psychological or sexual needs, then it's their business. But boys shouldn't grow up thinking that women orgasm from giving blow-jobs or they're going to be pretty disappointed with their partners (and their partners might be pretty pissed, too).
The problem is one of context. US society (and UK society to a lesser extent) is deeply repressed on the subject of sex. It's all very closed doors. And oddly enough, this is why so many boys grow up thinking of sex as being something purely physical. The only porn you get is brutal, wham, bam, say thank you ma'am stuff. There's no exposure to sex between two people who love each other.
So, I think that it's the moralising people who surpress normal exposure to sex, nudity and desire that are responsible for guys growing up thinking of it in the way portrayed in porn. Because if it's kept out of normal life, made illicit, then what else do they see but the porn?
I mean - which is going to prepare people for sexual maturity most - (Not work safe) This, or this? Maybe you see sex is just fucking, and hey - it's good exercise - but for most of us, the best sex we'll ever experience is with someone we love. If people want to protect children from corruption, they should let those children know that it's okay and to have sex with someone you love and that it doesn't have to be 8" this, 36DD that and treat the other person like an object.
I seem to have ended up arguing for more sincere and tender porn. Well, why not. It would appeal to a lot of people, I'm sure. But mostly what I am getting at is that US and UK society itself should be more open on the subject of sex.
And then maybe people wouldn't be using it as a sales technique everywhere I look as well.
Well where else can you put a comment about comments being blocked?
Anyone explain why the # DVD's ripped poll has been locked?
Anyway,
-H.
Is that on the chest? Because if it is, the kill mght be from "commodio cortis" and it has to be hit during the right part of the cardiac cycle.
Not what I was referring to. I even had to google to find out what it was. And all the references I found were about a baseball incident. I'm not even 100% it isn't a medical myth, but if it is genuine, then I don't think you'd want to waste your shot on the off-chance that you got your opponent in the 15ms window that could kill him. You'd go for something that would hurt him all the time.
Seriously, though. I studied martial arts properly for just a few years and though I improved many skills over someone who had never studied, I learnt one inviable fact - I can be hurt.
Best advice for ninety-percent of people out there is if they are forced into a fight and they can't get out of there, is don't faff around looking for pressure points. Go for the jaw and pray.
Does that stuff actually work. Yeah, Google for "dim mak" or "kyusho" - I have but I'm not sure I can believe it.
The answer is a qualified "no." With sufficient force, there are a few points which can incapacitate, but not kill. There is only one where there is a real chance of death and you'd have to hit it right and hit it hard. There is another point where you could do longer term internal damage again, you'd have to hit pretty darn hard (though possible).
So incapacitate, yes - there are specific points you can whack (not tap), but Kung Fu movie poke with a finger and kill is not so feasible. Which is a good thing. Men who tell you they could kill you by hitting you in such and such are some of life's most irritating and (least liked) people on the planet. IMHO.
Regarding the nuclear know-how, I think it's generally accepted that knowledge of how to make them is, if not easy, at least not a barrier to be depended on. Nuclear weapons control is nowadays focused on preventing Uranium refinement and the obtaining of plutonium. It would have helped if the US and the UK had honoured their part of the non-proliferation treaty and scaled back their armaments as agreed, but they never delivered. Funnily enough, the rest of the World doesn't go for their "but it's okay - we're the good guys" argument and now everyone needs nuclear weapons to feel safe.
BTW, remember the jocks in high school that got all of the chicks? They became frat boys, then sales guys (be it cars or insurance or software), and (some of them -- the smarter ones) finally VPs.
I find this supposed division between academic ability and physical prowess / attractiveness a lot less common in reality than in the media and
Of the academically hopeless, some were honestly rank, some were more attractive. But the more attractive of this set were less so than the attractive of the achievers, mostly because the achievers were... achievers. Profound and hard to grasp, I know, but that's what I thought.
Division between "jocks" and "geeks" is a fiction.
First off, thank you for a much more informed rebuttal than the other one.
My more serious answer to your points are as follows:
a) they can trivially break your VoIP security if they do a MITM attack, unless you have a functioning PKI (that you can verify),
That's not an unlikely 'unless.' Exchanging public keys (or fingerprints, I should say) would be quite easy unless you are initiating a call with a complete stranger. Even if you haven't had a chance to swap details with your partner beforehand, you can always begin the conversation with "my fingerprint is
Ditto for SSL - you accept the certificate because it's signed by Verisign and it says they are who they say they are
Ah, that's slightly different (authentication). I meant an SSL tunnel established using a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffie-Hellman_
b) You can encrypt audio in POTS phone calls. The HW for it isn't trivially available, but it's certainly doable. I had friends who made virtually uncrackable digital audio telephone scramblers back in 1983ish at RPI, and tried to start a company to sell them.
I know very little about this, though I've heard it has been done. Perhaps this is a way of making POTs nearer to the security level of VoIP. What happened to your friend, btw? Did he get anywhere with them?
CALEA - the VoIP provider is being required to allow tapping of calls. Currently that's targetting calls that go through their equipment aka POTS gateways.
Absolutely - and I'd be pretty certain that Skype already does. But that doesn't take away my ability to do it myself through any computer I own. I use OSS software to do this rather than Skype - I don't want the market to close with barriers to entry. Cost would increase and flexibility would decrease. The Skype business plan is to make a network closed to non-Skype VoIP users, much like Microsoft tries in other areas.
So, on the principle of the Bellman, I say for the third time, that VoIP is much more secure than POTs.
If your tinfoil hat is that large then I suggest you give up the computer and move to the woods and live off the grid.
Sorry if my rational arguement has driven you to retreat into strawmans. Tinfoil hat refers to absurdities - mind-control satellites, etc. I think the belief that the US and UK governments spy on people is somehow not quite in that category.
Two things:
There's this thing called a judical branch. It issues other things called warrants. The bad guys (tm) need them before they can tap your phone line.
I never said that I was talking about security except where someone decides to secretly remove it. I was talking about security full stop, even if the government doesn't approve of you having it. With VoIP, you can have security regardless of what the police think.
Furthermore, before you accuse me of deluding myself, you might want to bring yourself up to speed on how things work in the present day. There is an arrangement between the UK and the USA whereby the US agencies listen to our conversations and the UK listens to yours (assuming you to be in the US). This sidesteps US wiretapping laws. It is frequent, semi-automated and has nothing to do with judicial oversight.
And if you think that an encrypted VoIP steam is secure from the government then you are deluding yourself. I wouldn't trust any encryption system short of a OTP up against the government. And as you pointed out they could merely bug your house instead.
If the government can break a strong SSL tunnel, then they have a significant leap on the corporate world. Given how integrated government, business and academia are in the US, I'd be very surprised at that. The NSA approach to something like this is to throw very heavy computing power at it. This is feasible with basic public-private key enctyption, but they certainly don't have anything like the resources to sustain the mass monitoring they do at present, should encryption become more common. This problem is compounded with something like SSL where the encryption is generated on the fly for a one time use.
I didn't point out that anyone would "merely" bug your house, either. There are many instances where this would not be possible and the power to counter it is in your hands anyway, whereas there's not much you can do about a phone exchange. Phoning from multiple sites / PCs, or while travelling with Wireless or satellite, or from another country where bugging becomes a much bigger pain in the arse are just simple examples.
I repeat. VoIP offers you security against the entrenched authorities, POTS does not.
There is one sense in which VOIP is much more secure than POTS and inherantly has to be, and that's in security from "Authority".
All POTs systems have wire-tapping built in for the Intelligence services and available to the police. There is next to nothing that can be done about that short of the telecoms joining the People's Revolution.
VOIP may not automatically be encrypted, but it's pretty easy to learn how and short of the NSA having some secret technology we don't know about, you can know that no-one is listening in unless they're bugging your house / cubicle / whatever.
Anyone who thinks their government has too much power, should realize that every additional encrypted VOIP stream out there is a little way of getting back.
"you can stay in there as long as you like, unable to do an awful lot, but we'll be waiting for you outside".
Except where the charge is one of inciting terrorism, criticising someone else's religion or any other of the UKs "thought crime" laws due to be passed in October. All of these, the perpetrator can do quite happily from inside a Mosque, Church or Synagogue.
I agree with all your points though, and an approach that was less burst-through-the-doors-respect-my-authority and more, look we're here, we want to take you in for questioning and it's going to happen sooner or later so come out and come with us, please, would be much more effective a lot of the time.
But it doesn't seem to be the approach the UK government is taking. They seem to be locking themself into the Prove How Tough We Are cycle which always requires escalation. Any school teacher can tell you that once you start shouting, you've had it. And the 'thought crime' laws are just a mindless panic.
On a simpler note, I *hate* stepping in dog shit. I am, in no way, "afraid" of dog shit nor do I have dogshitphobia. There are plenty of things out there that we hate or even just plain don't like that do not stem from fear.
There's a confusion in your analogy between the act and who acts. If you hate having gay sex, then that is not homophobia, just like hating stepping in dog shit is not the same as hating people who do.
If you decline an offer of being sodomised by your friendly neighbourhood gay, doesn't make you homophobic. If you take steps against him as a person however, ranging from refusal of a job to assault, then that is distinct from a revulsion at the act. It's distinct because you no longer have the reason of being directly involved to base your disgust on. You'd have to explain how his lifestyle did have a negative impact on you. And if it were simply a case feeling uncomfortable because thinking about it bothered you, he'd probably be entitled to tell you to deal with it, much as you might tell me (a strict vegetarian) to deal with it when you started eating a steak.
You've implied that you hate gay sex with your dogshit anaology. That doesn't make you homophobic. If you transfer that on to people who do like it, then that fits the definition of homophobia. There is a clear distinction between how you hate an action and how you hate a person.
As to whether that dislike of gay people (as opposed to gay sex) stems from fear... what else can it stem from? There were (and still are) doctors who believe they can "help" gay people; and there are a few religious people who see it as their duty to "save" gay people, but neither of these cases are exhibiting a hatred of the gay people. I think the only motive for hatred of gay people can be fear.
I mean logically, you're either gay, in which case gay men increase your available partners, or you're straight, in which case gay men increase your available partners.
I'd agree with you about Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, but that's because I dislike (a) the really crass stereotyping, (b) the insulting implication that gay men have some sort of inbuilt style advantage over straight men and (c) the whole assumption that people should be told to dress this way / act that way / etc to be worth something. Can't stand that.
But why does disagreeing with any "lifestyle choice" automatically equate to being full of hatred or fear?
It doesn't. And if you simply disagree with homosexuality, then you're not homophobic. If you actively take steps against it (ranging from not employing a gay person to assault) then to varying degrees, you are. Reason being, refusal to participate in that lifestyle is simple disagreement as you say, but actively acting against those who do is the homophobia.
Fucking Hell! I've followed the link and the ones you quote here are just the top ones. I calculate another US$ 765,000 in smaller contributions, including US$ 90,000 from "lobbyists."
I presume that there are strict rules on how this money is used - i.e. has to be used on "campaigning." But this probably covers expensive hotels, taking influential people out for nights out, trips, and general "entertaining." At least I guess that this is how this works. Is this right? Or can this money actually find it's way into his personal bank accounts?
SPOILER!
You are exactly right. You can't talk about the character V without talking about the government that created him. But to carry on your point, I like that in the book, he has enough self-insight to realize that he himself must be torn down too - that he has been made into a part of what he opposes and ultimately sacrifices himself to bring everything to a conclusion, leaving room for a new beginning.
That is where the greatest redemption lies and it is impressive of Alan Moore to have realized and written this.
The trailer is quite impressive, though I'm still very doubtful about how it will turn out. I was pleased however, that it contained one of the best lines from the book (give or take a word): That's what makes the character so powerful. The transformation of oneself into an ideal.
So what you are saying is that the rich guys win - no matter what. More bandwidth, more people to send SPAM, better servers, etc. The little guy (not rich), then becomes toast. Kind of a not-so-nice evolution there...
That's where co-operation and community come in. You've seen what happens when a small fraction of the computers comprising the Internet are subverted by a worm to launch a DOS attack at some entity. Do you really think people are so helpless if they choose to act together. And that is just one, very crude and primitive way in which people can be powerful.
Anyway, we're talking about spam in this instance. Do you also think the people who fund the spammers (to sell their porn and viagra) want to face a backlash of angry potential customers? I think in this instance the scheme can work very effectively without any physical world legal backing. In fact, I think if you're going to make the case that the rich will trample the poor, then interference from the non-cyber world is exactly the most effective way for them to do so.
So in conclusion, I don't think my post was "hilarious." Also, am not a 'Sir.'
Shame you posted as AC. I'd like to be sure you read this.
What I thought when I heard about the casting was why bother? If they want to get Hugo Weaving to do the voice, then that's one thing... but why hire him for the body in the costume. He's 6'2" according to imdb so perhaps he can pull off the physical presence of V (always got the impression he was a large man in the comic), but I'm sure there are better people for it. They should have hired the biggest male ballet dancer they could find in my opinion and V. would have moved with all the power and grace he is supposed to.