Friday, February 16, 2018

Yes, Suzy Creamcheese, There Is A God!


The Story of Suzy Creamcheese - Frank Zappa
butlincat 2
Published on Feb 10, 2017

Evolution is Impossible, Not Just Highly Unlikely, But Impossible!
Published on Jul 4, 2017

The Riddle of 6,000 Years: Genetic Clocks Confirm Recent Creation
Theology, Philosophy and Science
Published on Apr 13, 2015

Sunday, February 11, 2018

Can You Trust Your Self-Driving Car?


Self-Driving Car Successfully Avoid Crash | Tech Bet | CNBC

Published on Jun 29, 2015

Google Driverless Car Accidents

The Rubin Report
Published on Jun 14, 2015
Didi Chuxing tests self-driving taxis on public roads
Chinese group takes a lead in global race for autonomous ride-hailing service
Peter Campbell in London and Yuan Yang in Beijing
11 February 2018
Developing autonomous vehicles is essential for ride-booking groups to reduce costs by eliminating drivers © Bloomberg
Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at
Didi Chuxing has been testing two self-driving vehicles on public roads for several months, putting the ride-hailing group further ahead in the race to develop autonomous taxis than had been believed.
The company used two modified Qoros 5 sports utility vehicles for the tests, which took place on a purpose-built testing track near Shanghai and on public roads, the Chinese carmaker told the Financial Times. Didi Chuxing declined to comment.
On Friday the FT revealed that Didi had tested its own autonomous cars.
Testing in real-world conditions is essential for driverless cars to learn from unexpected situations that would be difficult to simulate, such as how human drivers react to a self-driving vehicle. Studies have shown that aggressive drivers block driverless cars at junctions, so the vehicles need to be made more assertive.
Developing autonomous vehicles is essential for ride-booking groups to reduce costs by eliminating drivers, as well as to increase fleet utilisation.
Uber has said it expects to have fully autonomous cars in operation as early as next year, while Grab, a Southeast Asian rival, plans to launch its own 
Didi has not publicly given a timeline for the launch of its autonomous service, though earlier this month it struck partnerships with 12 brands to purchase vehicles in the future.
Qoros, a carmaker based in Shanghai, has been working with the ride-booking group for several months, the company said. The group provided the vehicles for the tests and integrated Didi’s software and sensors into the cars.
Didi employees spent several months at the company’s plant in Changshu, about 50 miles from Shanghai. Qoros also ran the trials, which took place first on the company’s own test track outside its plant and then on public roads.
Qoros was founded in 2007 as a joint venture between Chinese carmaker Chery and Israeli group Kenon Holdings. Last month, Chinese conglomerate Baoneng took a 51 per cent stake in Qoros for $1bn, with a pledge to buy 100,000 vehicles a year from the company for at least the next three years.

It also has the option to buy Kenon’s remaining shares for $500m.
Philosophers are building ethical algorithms to help control self-driving cars
Olivia Goldhill
11 February 2018
Artificial intelligence experts and roboticists aren’t the only ones working on the problem of autonomous vehicles. Philosophers are also paying close attention to the development of what, from their perspective, looks like a myriad of ethical quandaries on wheels.
The field has been particularly focused over the past few years on one particular philosophical problem posed by self-driving cars: They are a real-life enactment of a moral conundrum known as the Trolley Problem. In this classic scenario, a trolley is going down the tracks towards five people. You can pull a lever to redirect the trolley, but there is one person stuck on the only alternative track. The scenario exposes the moral tension between actively doing versus allowing harm: Is it morally acceptable to kill one to save five, or should you allow five to die rather than actively hurt one?
Though the Trolley Problem sounds farfetched, autonomous vehicles will be unable to avoid comparable scenarios. If a car is in a situation where any action will put either the car passenger or someone else in danger—if there’s a truck crash ahead and the only options are to swerve into a motorbike or off a cliff—then how should the car be programmed to respond?
Rather than pontificating on this, a group of philosophers have taken a more practical approach, and are building algorithms to solve the problem. Nicholas Evans, philosophy professor at Mass Lowell, is working alongside two other philosophers and an engineer to write algorithms based on various ethical theories. Their work, supported by a $556,000 grant from the National Science Foundation, will allow them to create various Trolley Problem scenarios, and show how an autonomous car would respond according to the ethical theory it follows.
To do this, Evans and his team are turning ethical theories into a language that can be read by computers. Utilitarian philosophers, for example, believe all lives have equal moral weight and so an algorithm based on this theory would assign the same value to passengers of the car as to pedestrians. There are others who believe that you have a perfect duty to protect yourself from harm. “We might think that the driver has some extra moral value and so, in some cases, the car is allowed to protect the driver even if it costs some people their lives or puts other people at risk,” Evans said. As long as the car isn’t programmed to intentionally harm others, some ethicists would consider it acceptable for the vehicle to swerve in defense to avoid a crash, even if this puts a pedestrian’s life at risk.
Evans is not currently taking a stand on which moral theory is right. Instead, he hopes the results from his algorithms will allow others to make an informed decision, whether that’s by car consumers or manufacturers. Evans isn’t currently collaborating with any of the companies working to create autonomous cars, but hopes to do so once he has results.
Perhaps Evans’s algorithms will show that one moral theory will lead to more lives saved than another, or perhaps the results will be more complicated. “It’s not just about how many people die but which people die or whose lives are saved,” says Evans. It’s possible that two scenarios will save equal numbers of lives, but not of the same people.
“The difference between theory A and theory B is that the people who die in the first theory are mostly over 50 and the people who die in the second theory are mostly under 30,” Evans said. “Then we have to have a discussion as a society about not just how much risk we’re willing to take but who we’re willing to expose to risk.”
If some moral theories save drivers while other protect pedestrians, then there could be a discussion about which option is best. “We could also have a discussion about how we build our traffic infrastructure,” adds Evans, perhaps with a greater separation between pedestrians and drivers.
Evans is also interested in further research on how any set of values used to program self-driving cars could be hacked. For example, if a car will swerve to avoid pedestrians even if this puts the driver at risk, then someone could intentionally put themselves in the path of an autonomous vehicle to harm the driver. Evans says even an infrared laser could be used to confuse the car’s sensory system and so cause a crash. Then there are further questions, such as how differently-programmed cars might react with each other while they’re on the road.
Evans is not the only academic researching how to address self-driving cars’ version of the Trolley Problem. Psychologists are also working on the issue, and have researched which solution the majority of the public would prefer.
But while Evans is focused on Trolley Problem-type scenarios, he acknowledges that simply figuring out the solution for such specific situations does not address the broader issues of whether autonomous cars are ethical. For example, when such cars are rolled out and are on the road alongside current vehicles, they will be something of an experiment in how our transit systems work. Others on the road could be deeply uncomfortable with this.
“One of the hallmarks of a good experiment in medicine, but also in science more generally, is that participants are able to make informed decisions about whether or not they want to be part of that experiment,” he said. “Hopefully, some of our research provides that information that allows people to make informed decisions when they deal with their politicians.”
Patrick Lin, philosophy professor at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, is one of the few philosophers who’s examining the ethics of self-driving cars outside the Trolley Problem. There are concerns about advertising (could cars be programed to drive past certain shops shops?), liability (who is responsible if the car is programmed to put someone at risk?), social issues (drinking could increase once drunk driving isn’t a concern), and privacy (“an autonomous car is basically big brother on wheels,” Lin said.) There may even be negative consequences of otherwise positive results: If autonomous cars increase road safety and fewer people die on the road, will this lead to fewer organ transplants?
Autonomous cars will likely have massive unforeseen effects. “It’s like predicting the effects of electricity,” Lin said. “Electricity isn’t just the replacement for candles. Electricity caused so many things to come to life—institutions, cottage industries, online life. Ben Franklin could not have predicted that, no one could have predicted that. I think robotics and AI are in a similar category.”
The invention of standard cars, for example, gave us the rise of the suburbs and fast food drive-through restaurants. Perhaps autonomous cars will lead to people living further away. The time humans once spent driving could be replaced by leisure while in driverless cars, but this is also highly uncertain. “Nature abhors a vacuum. When you have free time, that usually gets sucked up by work,” Lin said.
Meanwhile, autonomous cars’ efficient driving could reduce traffic. “Or, it could get worse. People could take more unnecessary trips, and further clog up the streets,” Lin said. “I don’t think anyone has a crystal ball when it comes to extrapolating that far out. It’s a safe bet to say that we can’t imagine the scale of effects.” Ultimately, the effects of autonomous cars will likely be huge and unpredictable. No algorithm or philosophical theory can make driverless cars perfectly moral. 
Self-driving cars could easily turn into self-crashing cars that deliberately target and kill humans, expert warns
Saturday, February 10, 2018
(Natural News) There has been a lot of hype surrounding self-driving cars and their potential to change the way humans use roads for a very long time. However, with all of the hope that they can change things for the better, there are also some reasons to fear for your safety while you’re in them.
This is the point that Zach Aysan, a Canadian data scientist and cyber security expert, wants to drive home in a long-form piece titled, Self-Crashing Cars.” To him, while the prospect of self-driving cars can be the source of inspiration and a sign of great things to come, it’s important to be mindful of certain negative consequences that could befall society as a whole as the technology behind them finally hits the mainstream.
In order to understand his overarching point, first it’s important to know exactly what self-driving cars are. It has been said that self-driving cars, or automated cars, shouldn’t even be called cars at all. Instead, they should be called simply automobiles – or autos, for short. It’s simple, straight to the point, and really underlines the fact that they aren’t, and rightfully shouldn’t be, treated as cars.
For one thing, self-driving cars have one fundamental difference from regular cars. And that is the fact that they don’t actually need a driver because, of course, they can drive themselves. In fact, no human even needs to be present in the conventional driver’s seat. It just isn’t necessary at all for a man or woman to take up space inside a self-driving car for it to function. Working as a car that can be used to commute or for any other purpose is just one incidental benefit – a self-driving car is still a car even if there is no driver in it.
And how is this possible? Well, largely because self-driving cars are actually just highly-advanced, internet-connected, GPS-equipped computers on four wheels. And that, according to Aysan, is where the main crux of the problem comes from: Computers-as-cars are just as vulnerable to hackers as most other kinds of computers.
“It only takes a single entry point incorrectly secured to allow inadvertent public access,” said Aysan. “Defending all entry points and permanently keeping them defended, despite changing organizational requirements, personnel, and a never ending stream of vulnerability updates to software libraries; is nigh on impossible.” In his view, this could end up being one of the causes of major problems for self-driving cars.
If a group with nefarious interests somehow manage to access and remotely control just one self-driving vehicle, they could easily and effectively turn it into a directed bomb, warns Aysan. “A fully charged Tesla traveling over 200 kilometers (125 miles) per hour that crashes into a chemical plant, electrical subsystem, oil line, or gas station will have an impact worse than bombs that terrorists set off in the middle east,” he said.
Now imagine if they could hack into and control a fleet of a hundred. Or a thousand.
There exists a silver lining, fortunately. Aysan says that there is largely confusion in the industry, more than any real fear or uncertainty. In short, the door is wide open for preventive measures that could help to protect against the potential dangers that might occur if groups of hackers begin to target autonomous vehicles.
Sources include:

Also See:

The Era Of Neohumanity - Want To Become Immortal?

29 October 2017

Your DNA Can Be Hacked To Spy On You!

17 October 2017

Social Engineering - Really?

(Part 1)
(Part 2)
27 September 2017

Scientists World Wide Are Mixing Human DNA With Animal DNA!

04 December 2015

Are You Keeping Up with the New Technology?

13 December 2014
The Wonderful World of Cell Phones!
(Part 1)
21 July 2008
(Part 2)
24 July 2014
Science Fiction or Future Reality?
01 November 2008
U.S. Lust For Technology Killing Globally
14 September 2010
Will Future Wars be Fought with Robots?
14 November 2013
 Amazing Technology and Health Care!
04 February 2013
A New Paradigm - Integration of Human-Animal-Machine!
11 August 2010
What do You Know about the Post American World?
11 September 2010
What do you Know about New Technologies?
23 February 2011
Is This the Future?
(Part 1)
16 April 2011
(Part 2)
21 September 2011

Saturday, February 10, 2018

The Dark Side of Hugh Hefner!


Hugh Hefner's Pedophile Empire Exposed #Pizzagate

Pizzagate News
Published on Dec 30, 2017

Hugh Hefner, CIA pimp, many stars homes connected to Hefner mansion via tunnel
Linda Kirby
Published on Nov 23, 2017

Q Annon, Hugh Hefner CIA MK Ultra "Wonder Land" Studio Exposed (White Rabbit) #PIZZAGATE
Published on Nov 22, 2017

Police: 'Pedophile' Hugh Hefner Was Murdered

David Zublick Channel
Published on Oct 1, 2017

The Last Word: Hugh Hefner
The New York Times
Published on Sep 28, 2017

Disturbing Things Everyone Just Ignores About Hugh Hefner
Nicki Swift
Published on Jul 25, 2017

Former Playboy Mogul's Girlfriend Paints Dark Picture of Life Inside Mansion
ABC News
Published on Jun 23, 2015

Hugh Hefner's Son Tells Us What It Was Like Growing Up In The Playboy Mansion
Business Insider
Published on Jan 26, 2015

Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: The Playboy Philosophy
Firing Line with William F. Buckley, Jr.
Published on Jan 24, 2017
Hugh Hefner’s Will Says Widow and Four Children Get Nothing If They Use Alcohol Or Drugs
It's better than nothing
Chelsea Ritschel in New York
Friday 22, December 2017
Hugh Hefner may have been known for his extravagant lifestyle - but he tried to make sure his beneficiaries won’t blow through his money after his death.
The Playboy founder included a cause in his trust that blocks any of his beneficiaries - widow Crystal, daughter Christie and sons David, Marson, and Cooper - from accessing his £40m fortune if they abuse drugs or alcohol.
According to documents obtained by Entertainment Tonight, the will states that Crystal or any of his children will be cut off “if the trustees reasonably believe that (the beneficiary) routinely or frequently uses or consumes any illegal substance so as to be physically or psychologically dependent upon that substance.”
This also applies to if they become “clinically dependent upon the use or consumption of alcohol or any other legal drug or chemical substance that is not prescribed by a board-certified medical doctor or psychiatrist in a current program of treatment supervised by such doctor or psychiatrist.”
And Hefner was not taking any chances - Hefner’s trustees can apparently ask for the beneficiaries to submit to drug tests if they suspect any substance misuse.
Hugh Hefner and Cooper Hefner at the Annual Midsummer Night's Dream Party
However, if Crystal or his children fail to abide by these rules, they aren’t out of money forever - just until they follow Hefner’s rules.
According to the will, the beneficiaries may restart payments if they become clean or are “able to care for himself or herself again.”
Although this may sound unfair, the new update comes after many speculated that Crystal Hefner, 31, would not receive any money from her four and a half year marriage due to the airtight prenuptial agreement she signed.
Crystal Hefner and Hugh Hefner were married for almost five years
In addition to the money she will receive from Hugh Hefner’s will, as long as she maintains a clean lifestyle, Hef also left Crystal a four-bedroom home in the Hollywood Hills worth £5m and a £3m fortune.

As for the notorious Playboy Mansion, the house is now owned by Daren Metropoulos, which he purchased for $100m - per an agreement signed prior to Hugh Hefner’s death.
No, Hugh Hefner Did Not Love Women
By Jill Filipovic
September 30, 2017
Hugh Hefner loved his things: his silk bathrobes, his palatial mansion, his vintage cars. And of course, he would be quick to say, his girls — those interchangeable blondes all below a certain age, with their Barbie-shaped bodies and smiles that never moved their eyes.
Hefner claimed to “love women.” He certainly loved to look at women, or at least the type of women who fit a very particular model. He loved to make money by selling images of women to other men who “love women.” He certainly met a lot of women, had sex with a lot of women, talked to a lot of women. But I’m not sure Hefner ever really knew any of us. And he certainly did not love us.
Hugh Hefner wasn’t just a rake in expensive (if extremely cheesy) bathrobes; he was allegedly, according to multiple accounts, an abuser. To add insult to injury, he will be buried next to one of the many women he wronged to enrich himself: Marilyn Monroe, whose images helped launch his magazine, but who never wanted them printed in the first place.
Yes, Hefner was on the right side of many of the biggest issues of the modern era: free speech, reproductive choice, gay rights. Playboy pushed the envelope on nudity and obscenity, sex and desire. But it did so within the narrowest of frames: men’s views, experiences, interests, biases and desires. Hefner likely would say that Playboy was a reflection of the male psyche. But it also had a hand in shaping it — and the cultural psyche, too.
What Hefner and Playboy never did was present women as human, or consider us anything like men. Hefner made female sex objects more relatable and accessible — the Playboy centerfold was the girl next door, not the famous movie actress —but this wasn’t so much an elevation as a downward shift: social permission for men to look at all women through the zipper in their jeans, and not even bother to pretend it was otherwise.
Brilliantly, Hefner attached himself to the sexual revolution and the feminist gains that precipitated it. From his vantage point, publishing a magazine full of naked women was just one part of the new culture of “free love.” Except of course the promise of freedom in love was less free for women, who still found themselves saddled with the social expectation of being sexual gatekeepers, and often burdened and shamed by any pregnancies that resulted.
And women didn’t have equal access to sexual pleasure, either – a dynamic Hefner helped to foster. While “free love” meant that men increasingly faced lower barriers to sexual access, it did not mean those same men tried to sexually please and cater to the women they had sex with, nor take responsibility for any unanticipated result – an infection, a pregnancy. Hefner advocated for contraception and abortion rights, sure, but because those things benefited men’s sex lives, not because they were necessary components of female freedom. He didn’t fundamentally challenge a view of sex as something women provide to men and that is primarily about male pleasure and experience, with women in a performative role. If anything, he took that existing sexual imbalance and magnified it, creating a brand that is synonymous with sexualized women being gazed at as things a man might want to acquire.
There’s nothing wrong with getting naked or being sexy, and some feminists might argue that Hefner admirably challenged our silly cultural puritanism. But American women have long been expected to be aesthetically and sexually pleasing; Hefner just had them show more nipple. Sexist prudery, which equated a woman’s worth with her sexual choices, was supplanted by sexist objectification, which demanded a woman perform sexiness for male approval, and still punished her if she was too sexual on her own terms. Some deal.
Hefner’s commitment to women’s freedoms is apparent in how he treated the women in his life. The women who lived in the Playboy Mansion were 
essentially trapped, required to stick to tight curfews, pressured to engage in whatever sex acts their ancient benefactor demanded and plied with drugs (he reportedly called Quaaludes “thigh-openers”) to get them through it. Before she was a feminist leader, Gloria Steinem was a journalist, and 
one of her stories was about going undercover as a “bunny” at the Playboy Club in New York, where the young women had to follow an arcane set of rules. They were told private detectives may be following them and engaging in workplace sting operations to see if they were breaking any. “Bunnies” were required to undergo an STI test and a gynecological exam conducted by a male doctor of the club’s choice before starting work.
America – and Playboy’s role in it — shifted significantly in the final years of Hefner’s life. The magazine, and Hefner himself, once trafficked in an image of male sophistication. But by the 2000s, that image was, like McMansion America, more associated with the vulgar and tasteless, a run-down portrait painted into further dilapidation by a reality TV show shot at the Playboy Mansion. The magazine itself also changed: With ubiquitous free internet porn, Playboy’s promise of full frontal no longer sold copies. Playboy is now more or less nudity-free.
Hefner did terrible things, and got rich off of them. But it’s still hard not to feel a little bit sorry for a man so clearly uncomfortable with himself that he built an empire on a commodified and empty casing of male sexual desire, a man who threw legendary parties to bond with other men over bikini-clad women, and who paid beautiful women to live in his house and have sex with him so he wouldn’t have to be alone. He was a man who didn’t even believe his “girlfriends” would come home at the end of the day if he didn’t make a rule. If Hugh Hefner wasn’t Hef, the founder of Playboy — if he was just Hugh Hefner, the man – all of the things he confused with love would have never come to him. Not the sex, not the girls, not even the men he considered friends.

He built an empire on male desire, but never seems to have been truly desired himself. He sold a new kind of masculine aspiration, of which he was the paradigm. It was the women he claimed to love who bore most of the cost, but now it’s easy to see the price he paid, too, the things a callow and shallow little man will trade for some time in the spotlight next to a blonde with a great rack. How fitting that, in death, Hef doesn’t evoke hope or ambition, but that simplest and most patronizing of emotions: Pity.
Jill Filipovic is a lawyer and writer
Effusive Hugh Hefner tributes ignore Playboy founder's dark side
The man who created Playboy, who has died aged 91, has been remembered as an American icon – but others recall a controlling, emotionally abusive manipulator
Molly Redden in New York
Fri 29 Sep 2017
Hefner in 1972. Gloria Steinem said he wanted to ‘go down in history as a person of sophistication and glamour’. But she said ‘the last person I would want to go down in history as is Hugh Hefner’. Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock
As celebrities shared their memories of Hugh Hefner, who died on Wednesday aged 91, some of the most fervent elegies came from the Playboy “playmates” who lived in his famous – or infamous – mansion.
“Hef changed my life,” said Kendra Wilkinson, a former girlfriend who lived with him in his later years. “He made me the person I am today. I couldn’t be more thankful for our friendship and our time together. I will miss him so much but he will be in my heart forever.”
The Hefner in these remembrances – a naughty, avuncular mentor – was strikingly different from the man who exploded on to the publishing scene in 1953.
The men’s magazine he founded was the first that sought to take nude photographs mainstream and the uproar from readers, censors, critics, and celebrants was deafening. At the center of the roar was Hefner himself. He fought free-speech battles in courts, defied segregation, drew accusations of exploitation, and lived a life of seemingly breezy bachelorhood as publicly as possible.
But the same forces Hefner helped unleash would come to make his commercial empire seem passé.
While the magazine continued to publish celebrated writers, it dwindled in cultural relevance as competitors, like Hustler, became racier, and, especially, as endless variants of porn available online. The financial toll claimed Playboy’s resorts, clubs, and record label, while the magazine scrambled for a compelling identity. In 2015, Playboy announced it would no longer publish nude pictures, only to reverse itself early this year.
By the time Hugh Hefner died on Wednesday, he and his critics belonged to a bygone age.
In his waning years, Hefner was thought of less as a revolutionary and more for the spectacle of his May-December relationships with a succession of Playboy playmates.
Those who deemed him a purveyor of smut had long since been sublimated by the sexual revolution Hefner helped release. And feminists, who were soldiers in the same sexual revolution as Hefner but who belittled him for placing men at its center, had moved on to bigger targets who made Hefner look tame by comparison.
There was a time when these clashes riveted the country and made Hefner feel as though he were under siege.
“These chicks are our natural enemy,” he wrote in 1970, ordering a hit piece in his magazine on feminists. “What I want is a devastating piece that takes the militant feminists apart. They are unalterably opposed to the romantic boy-girl society that Playboy promotes.”
His most famous bugbear was Gloria Steinem, who in 1963, as a freelance journalist, published a riveting account of her undercover stint as a Playboy bunny. The two-part series depicted Playboy clubs, where ordinary men paid to mingle with bunnies, as frat pads where women were wage-slaves for lewd and abusive customers.
Hefner at Playboy’s 50th anniversary party in 2003. Holly Madison, right, claimed that all Hefner’s girlfriends were expected to participate in group sex with him. Photograph: Damian Dovarganes/AP
Only in retrospect did the exposé seem like a boon to Steinem’s career. After A Bunny’s Tale was published, Steinem has said, “I mostly got requests to go underground in some other semi-sexual way”.
Of Hefner, Steinem said, he wanted “to go down in history as a person of sophistication and glamour”. But, she added, “the last person I would want to go down in history as is Hugh Hefner”.
The feminist onslaught continued with a 1970 debate with Hefner on The Dick Cavett Show, during which Susan Brownmiller lamented: “The role that you have selected for women is degrading to women, because you choose to see women as sex objects, not as full human beings. The day you’re willing to come out here with a cottontail attached to your rear end?”
Hefner smiled and shook his head.
Many remembrances ignored the darkest chapters of Hefner’s life.
The biggest of these came in 1984, when Hollywood director Peter Bogdanovich published the book The Killing of the Unicorn, a love letter to his late partner, Playboy playmate Dorothy Stratten, and invective against the role Playboy supposedly had in her eventual murder.
On Stratten’s first night as a playmate, Bogdanovich claims, Hefner forced himself on her in his infamous jacuzzi grotto. (Publishers removed the word “rape” under pressure from Hefner’s lawyers.) Life in the Playboy dominion was fearful and exploitative for Stratten, Bogdanovich says, to the point that she married an abusive man for protection. Her husband shot Stratten to death, then himself, in 1980.
“[Bogdanovich] buys the continuum between centerfolds and ax murders,” wrote Rolling Stone in 1986. “The notion that when women are presented as passive receptacles of male sexual pleasure, anything can and will happen, that what trivializes women can kill them too.”
Hefner denied the accusation and reciprocated with allegations of his own. Amid an all-consuming media war, the original charges were soon forgotten.
More recently, in 2014, Chloe Goins, a model, claimed in a lawsuit that Bill Cosby drugged and raped her in 2008 and that the Playboy Mansion was the scene of the crime. The lawsuit named Hefner as a conspirator and claims his properties were in fact the site of multiple of Cosby’s attacks on young women. (Cosby has denied all the criminal accusations against him and has only been charged for one alleged incident. This summer, his trial ended in a hung jury. A retrial is expected next year.)
“I would never tolerate this kind of behavior, regardless of who was involved,” Hefner said in a statement, adding the mere thought of the allegations against Cosby, “a good friend”, was “truly saddening”.
Then came a tell-all memoir by Holly Madison, a former Playmate and reality television star by way of The Girls Next Door, a show that followed the exploits of Hefner’s live-in girlfriends, which aired for six seasons on E!.
The book portrayed Hefner as controlling, emotionally abusive, and an instigator of emotional drama between the women, who had a 9 o’clock curfew and strict dress code. Madison claimed that all Hefner’s girlfriends were expected to participate in group sex with him, and expected to perform sexual acts in front of him.
But on Thursday, other women associated with Playboy remembered nothing of the sort.
“RIP to the legendary Hugh Hefner!” wrote Kim Kardashian West, who posed for the magazine in 2007. “I’m so honored to have been a part of the Playboy team! You will be greatly missed! Love you Hef! Xoxo.”
Police: ‘Pedophile’ Hugh Hefner Was Murdered
Baxter Dmitry
September 29, 2017
Police have reportedly launched a murder inquiry into the death of Hugh Hefner, with insiders believing it is “extremely likely” the Playboy founder was silenced before he could name Hollywood elite pedophiles as part of a plea deal.
Hugh Hefner was found dead in suspicious circumstances on Wednesday at his home in Los Angeles, just days before he was set to be arrested on child sex charges, according to a Los Angeles police source.
Hefner had been dealing with police on a daily basis for the past three weeks, trying to work out a plea deal, after an investigation, launched in 2009 after a lawsuit was filed against Hefner, suddenly “went hot.”
“The 2009 case went nowhere. We just couldn’t prove anything. There was plenty of circumstantial evidence, but ultimately it just boiled down to her word versus his,” the LAPD source says.
The 2009 case was launched by Sheri Allred, a Los Angeles native, who alleged that Hugh Hefner raped her when she was 5-years-old.
But in August this year, the case was re-opened after “a significant number of similar complaints were filed. After questioning Mr Hefner we understood that he had mountains of incriminating personal information about a powerful group of Hollywood pedophiles."
“We are talking about dead girls on altars, women being caged and tortured for years, Hollywood execs filming each other performing the vilest acts for blackmail, as the most evil acts are always done on the most innocent.“
“We were building up to one of the biggest pedophile raids in history, certainly the biggest in this city in my lifetime.
“We were working out a plea deal with him, so we could get our hands on the physical evidence and really go after the pedophiles, but then we found him dead.“
Detectives are looking into whether Hugh Hefner was suicided, with the death scene later arranged to resemble a natural death. A team of investigators have been put in place and they are refusing to rule out a criminal homicide charge.
“If we can prove who silenced Hugh Hefner, then we will have a tangible link to some of the most powerful people in the country who perform unspeakable acts with children.”
Asked whether Hefner was actively involved in said “unspeakable acts“, the LAPD source said, “Look, we all know his taste. But this does not mean that he didn’t often get bored with all the easy sex with predictable partners. Perverts need to find sicker and sicker things to get turned on.”
“Let the truth be revealed, and let all the elite predators be exposed.”
Also See:

Is Bill Cosby A Rapist?

04 August 2017