The G spot is exists, isn't particularly hidden or hard to find. It's just highly overrated. There is also the P spot and the A spot. Most people also aren't aware there are two points in the backdoor as well. And then of course there is the head of the clitoris. Technically, all of these spots are actually part of the clitoris which is as long as the average male penis.

Those are all stage 1 with the backdoor points being the most critical to achieving sustained high intensity orgasm. For some women, on the right day, you can get there in just a few moments pushing the right button, others will require stages of varied stimulation over a good hour or even two, most will flit somewhere between most of time and hit these extremes sometimes. But in every woman exists the potential for a level of sustained high intensity orgasm that doesn't stop as long as stimulation continues. Get her there and you can do whatever you want for your own pleasure and she won't mind a bit, she'll be too busy contorting and spasming with whole body wracking waves of pleasure.

In that state you can still build orgasmic peaks that for lack of distinctive word she will still call orgasms and you can change it up and do those at various points. No matter how long it took to get there in the first place, triggering an orgasm peak from the clit, vagina, or anally will take only a few seconds. Which is very satisfying for a man. Even hopping in at this point for what would normally be the duration of a lackluster quickie will trigger a multiple highly intense orgasm.

A couple words of warning though. Go about figuring her out wrong and she'll feel like you are treating her like a machine. Also there is a point of sustained orgasm where you've started with the clit head to get things moving and completing an orgasm with that point will bring a finale to things. So when she starts repeating from stimulating her somewhere else don't go back to directly stimulating that place for awhile. Also, she'll need a recovery period afterward. She's going to be a little sore the next day from all those muscle spasms and contractions. And if you do it too much she'll desensitize. If she goes for direct clitoral stimulation with any frequency she probably won't desensitize at all especially using something like a wand massager. There is also a good chance the experience will be so intense she is a little afraid of it.

Stage 2 is most effectively reached through Stage 1. In this state it's much easier, though with repetition, to build lasting associations in the nervous system with other points on the body (especially sensitive ones). It's possible to build these associations to the point where she can orgasm through stroking her hair, kissing her, or light touches. The nipples/breasts are particularly easy since some level of association has usually been formed by contact with them during sex already. Anywhere that is ticklish is an especially good target. It's easy to build associations that are strong enough to trigger/escalate arousal through these things. These associations are both psychological and physical because optimized communication pathways will be formed by the two centers being activated at the same time. Eventually, it's best to work toward caresses all over the surface of the skin.

Stage 3 is when you can stimulate this without actually even touching. Strokes so close she can feel them but not actually making contact. Trust me, if you get to this point. That woman will be yours forever. The sight of you, your smell, the stink of your sweat, and the very idea of your touch will send tremors through her body. Especially the smell of your sweat which makes perfect sense if you've taken the time to pay attention to a woman. There is no limit to how much of a man or how strong the man who shows that much consideration and makes her feel that way is entitled to be.

You're welcome.

I think he means we should restructure our health system in such a way that there is no big pharma or at least so that the size of the company offers no advantage. We need some major reforms in healthcare here in the states. With most of it being run by non-profits or at least a viable and equally competitive path being run by non-profits. This is true for all tech development.

Either way, there SHOULD be federal support for this, but only in the sense of loans from the federal reserve at the same rates and terms given to banks. This kind of development is of clear targeted benefit to our society in a far more obvious way than lining the pockets of wealthy bankers.

Let's say I'm someone who is capable of producing a drug or thinks I am. I should be able to use the local biology lab (akin to a library, either private non-profit or city sponsored) to develop it and perform the research I need. I should of course have to pay for access and when I submit a request for new equipment, whether or not to acquire that equipment should be a question posed to the existing membership along with how much it will increase dues and how long it's expected to increase them. Of course, I should always have the option of donating equipment myself. All members must be human persons (including partnerships) or non-profits (with no management salaries in top 10% income brackets). The requirement is that if developed further you must use "in system" facilities for manufacture and distribution and the lab will own the ip and all profits after costs will go to the inventor or non-profit that developed the drug but other members would be able to utilize the IP royalty free. Everyone is assigned a development log for every project and everything they do, every piece of equipment they use goes in and results are logged there. Including anything they do on their own without using lab equipment.

Trials and testing and advertising for the same. The same kind of thing. Centralize the costs but require those using the system to pay the costs. Streamline the process to parallel FDA approval and go through FDA approval using template requests and submissions. Members pay dues while using the process. The previous log is required and access is only to individuals and non-profits. Members vote on whether to proceed on studies and any study that hasn't met the minimum requirements for their study (animal trials on X subjects for Y time for instance) can't have it put to a vote unless they submit for an exemption and provide justification.

Manufacture, Advertising, sales, and distribution. This would need to be a national non-profit. Drugs would be sold with a fixed markup over a fair estimate of costs (30% is typical markup in a retailer). When patents expire drugs would continue to be made available at cost only without the markup as long as they are viable. If a capacity increase is needed or better equipment of some type, it goes to a vote of members with patents in the system. Want to pull a drug? It goes to a vote among the members of the system.

In the end, it costs what it costs and those costs are spread out among everyone developing drugs and those people get all the profits. Since all costs come from federal loans it's very easy to determine them. Divide up the total loan payment among the total number of mg/ml of drug produced and let the more expensive vs less expensive to produce drugs live with the average. It's better than all the min/maxing and duplicate charging games that result from any other way.

Oh look, another Dunning-Kruger sufferer who knows big words but not their meaning.

Wait, if he's not up for re-election... could that mean he's genuinely interested in engaging younger audiences?

The implications boggle the mind!
=Smidge=

Apple's touchpad is possibly one of the most aggravating components I've found on a recent-vintage shipping notebook and moreover, the Surface Pro doesn't have to be used with its keyboard or trackpad, what with the touchscreen and all.

I keep trying to parse your post and trying to find a coherent thought in it, but I can't find nothing beyond "waaah, you're calling me bad names!".

Surface Pro 3s are basically superior in every way when compared to shipping MacBook Air systems. They run Windows, but nothing stops you from running whatever you want in a VM.

Is there a way to reclaim Slashdot from this constant barrage of psychological assault on IT professionals by outsiders?

Yes, it is called "stop being misogynistic whiny manbabies if you're called on some of your misbehaviour".

The other way is of course time. There is a movement for more diversity, and it will win eventually when said manbabies die out. Given their obnoxious whinging, they are not recruiting faster than they are dying out, and every flare-up into uglyness like GamerGhazi throws off more moderates.

And that works wonderfully, given that we assume humans are frictionless spheres in a vacuum.

In the world in which we live, though, millennia of societal mores and pressures have resulted in a situation where huge swaths of people are presented with unique challenges and roadblocks simply by dint of their genetic makeup.

You simply cannot have a society based on merit so long as these deficiencies exist. If you want our world to become a meritocracy, then the responsibility of the coming generations is to work to eradicate these social discrepancies. To pretend they are no longer a factor does not move us towards a society built on merit.

But there were already many women participating in the workforce, particularly as teachers, nurses, and clerical workers. Women formed the backbone of the war machine for World War II--and were basically kicked out of those jobs when the fighting ended, whether or not they wanted to be. The concept of women working wasn't foreign back then; it was the concept of women doing jobs they weren't supposed to do that was the big sticking point.

Yes, absolutely yes! Until the 60's, this was completely true, because programming was viewed as women's work! Then something happened, and women dropped like flies from the ranks of computer programming. Did they suddenly stop being good programmers, or was something else going on?

I'm going to guess that you're with a Fortune 500 company, then. Consider this Senate testimony that goes into considerable detail as to the persistent gender challenges faced by women in large corporations in America, particularly in professional and higher-level positions. It includes data pulled from the Fortune 500, and goes into painstaking detail as to the disparities--both in numbers of women and their compensation--that continue to exist in large corporations.

That's absolutely part of the solution, but it's only part of the solution. Those of us already in the tech sector need to be asking ourselves exactly why, for an industry that repeatedly insists that it is rooted on merit, we look so very different from the society in which we exist.

Further, there exists a clear and significant disparity between women and men pursuing CS degrees--a gap that didn't exist until the 90's. Something happened, and "well, that's just how things played out" doesn't cut it for me.

Oh, this is a problem across many industries, but that doesn't mean we're somehow absolved of trying to get our own house in order. Further, we have some unique challenges of our own in this regard--the large drop in CS college enrollment, for example.

Oh, I recommended a quota? I must be getting old. I have no memory of doing any such thing.

Yes, we wouldn't want to overtax ourselves with doing more than one thing at the same time.

That would be wonderful.

Then you either work for an outlier of a company, or you haven't been able to see it where you are. When as many women--from as many levels and walks of life as we've seen--come out and very clearly state that this is, in fact, a problem, it behooves us to consider that they see and experience things that other people--men, for example--don't.

It's a big part of it, yes! It was also a problem for the medical and legal professions in 1970!

Tech is emphatically not a meritocracy. We really, really want to believe it is, but it simply isn't. It's about who you know. It's about growing up with the right teachers, the right environment, the right access. It's about having the luxury of time--years and years of time--to develop your skills on your own. Tech requires comprehension of advanced, abstract concepts--a thing that is difficult to get without sound educational roots. Tech is still, by and large, an elite playground.

This problem isn't up to the tech sector alone to solve. This is a huge, structural, society-wide problem, its roots going back for centuries. But we're part of that society, and for us to ignore our role in trying to fix it--or worse, claim that things are basically as they should be--would not be particularly meritorious of us.

I'm going to take two sentences from your original post and run with them. First, the opening sentence:

...and the opener to your third paragraph:

If one presumes that there is, in fact, fundamental gender-based inequality in skill, then the most sensible stance to take in this matter would be "therefore, unless we get more women into these fields, we won't really be able to get good data on whether they make better doctors and lawyers than men!"

If we never have a world where women dominate the legal and medical fields, we'll never even have the opportunity to know whether or not we've been royally screwing it up for the past few centuries. After all, we're not about to presuppose that men are better at this than women, are we?

I'm glad to hear it--thank you!

...note that there's a large ball of cooler-than-average over the mid-Atlantic, riiiight on top of the largest and most influential concentration of climate change deniers...