Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Wrong Talk (Score 1) 562

by hhnerkopfabbeisser (#43025855) Attached to: Controversy Over Violet Blue's Harm Reduction Talk

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.

Comment: Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right? (Score 1) 562

by hhnerkopfabbeisser (#43025737) Attached to: Controversy Over Violet Blue's Harm Reduction Talk

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.

Comment: Wrong Talk (Score 4, Insightful) 562

by hhnerkopfabbeisser (#43025127) Attached to: Controversy Over Violet Blue's Harm Reduction Talk

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.

Comment: Re:wow. (Score 1) 197

by hhnerkopfabbeisser (#36739616) Attached to: Assange Back In Court For Sex Crimes Appeal

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.

Comment: Re:Whenever assange comes up, despicable face of (Score 1) 197

by hhnerkopfabbeisser (#36739126) Attached to: Assange Back In Court For Sex Crimes Appeal

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.

Comment: Re:So it goes like this (Score 0) 197

by hhnerkopfabbeisser (#36736344) Attached to: Assange Back In Court For Sex Crimes Appeal

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.

Comment: Re:So it goes like this (Score 3, Insightful) 197

by hhnerkopfabbeisser (#36735582) Attached to: Assange Back In Court For Sex Crimes Appeal

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.

Comment: time-efficient workout (Score 1) 865

by hhnerkopfabbeisser (#28550863) Attached to: Staying In Shape vs. a Busy IT Job Schedule?

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.

Comment: Re:Hollywood is out of ideas (Score 2, Insightful) 664

by hhnerkopfabbeisser (#15812215) Attached to: Why Have Movies Been So Bad Lately?
> 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.

User hostile.

Working...