Slashdot Mirror

Let us begin with these-
http://www.indopedia.org/index.php?title=List_of_fictional_curse_words

Everytime I hear one of them I run to the nearest child and cover their little child ears. It is only then that I feel I'm helping society in any meaningful way.

I agree, or at least use some substitutes for it. Not like they would be rare:

* frak - from Battlestar Galactica (2003 miniseries seems to establish same meaning as "fuck")
* frell - from Farscape; same meaning as "fuck"
* grapple - from Firefly; same meaning as the "fuck", as in sexual intercourse
* zark - from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy; seems to have the same meaning as "fuck"

more: http://www.indopedia.org/List_of_fictional_curse_words.html ..

I included the part I found offensive, your "they are such a tiny percent of the population that it is essentially irrelevant."

It has been said that they don't fit the mold of pure male or pure female.So, someone who has a penis but has 2 X Chromosomes is not a male, and someone who has a vagina even if they have a Y Chromosome is male?

You didn't answer either to either question, is someone who has a penis a male? And is someone who has a vagina, and gives birth to a living baby, a female? Are you dodging them?

I never said that. I said that anyone with a documented gender abmormality that could cause confusion (like being XY with and giving birth, or XX with a penis) should be excluded from gender-based competition.

You never said that either, you said the Olympic Committee was right in it's decision. I even included that part, "So I would think the Olympic ruling is sane. A Y-chromosome defines male. The organs the chromosome are supposed to trigger to be made do not." I then pointed out that most people do not use your definitions of male and female.

What they are or are not isn't for you to decide.

Yet you are doing exactly that, you are deciding what they are and are not. My aim is not to decide what people are and are not, though I never did say it I fully support each individual's ability to decide for themselves what they are though I'd personally get rid of gender classifications. Actually I support research into ways to allow a person to, if they decide to, how they can become pregnant and carry a baby to birth or impregnate someone else and sire a baby. I have no problem with one person becoming pregnant and giving birth at the same tyme they fertilize another person's egg making them pregnant.

The dictionary has nothing to do with fairness or the perception thereof. This isn't about classifying them.

You define what things are and classifies them yet when I point out you're wrong, as I did providing a link to the definition of "male" and female (oops the link didn't work the first tyme you indicate I shouldn't do that.

In most cases, hermaphodites are sterile

I don't know the ratio of those intersexuals who are fertile to those who are sterile, however some can have babies:

• "How do doctors and parents decide sex assignment in babies born with ambiguous genitals?"
  "A variety of factors go into this decision. Important goals in deciding sex assignment include preserving fertility where possible"
• "Is it possible for an intersex person to sire or bear children?"
• "There are dozens of named medical conditions that may lead to intersex anatomy. Fertility is variable."

And, oddly enough, from the definition you posted, an infertile person, regardless of reason, is neither male nor female.

male "noun: a person who belongs to the sex that cannot have babies".

Falcon

Are linux users a majority on slashdot?

From http://www.indopedia.org/Slashdot_subculture.html

Some claim that browser statistics show that a majority of Slashdot posters in fact don't run Linux but instead Microsoft operating systems.

Not to disagree with you, just wanted to point out that this law is not popular in Britain.

IIRC the Lords can bounce this back (with good reason) to the Commons, by the time this goes back and forth a couple of times the media will be in a good frenzy about it. The fact that Gordon Brown had to do a deal with another political party to get this through is not going down well:

But there was uproar in the Commons as the result of the key vote on 42 days was announced after five hours of tense debate - with Tory and Lib Dem MPs shouting "You've been bought" at the DUP benches.

They claim the DUP was offered a string of inducements - including extra financial help for Northern Ireland - to guarantee its support.

I for one am hoping this gets pushed back by the Lords.

--- Back to the article ---

this is the same country that charges prisoners who have been falsely accused for bed and boarding costs.

Got a decent reference? Seriously, that link is to the 'Daily Mail', the sensationalism in that paper is renowned. Even its founder (Lord Northcliffe) said its winning formula is to give readers: 'a daily hate'. This is the same paper that pays foreign people to break the law, so they can report about how East Europeans are 'destroying Britain'.

I don't think that you'll be able to break the subsistence cycle in Africa without first letting subsistence farmers have some income.

I thought I said a subsistence farmer should be able to make a living on the farm, yes here is it "By making sure people can make a decent living on farms more people will stay on them, then they could grow plenty for those would decide to live in cities". By allowing farmers to grow food they can then sale in cities they should be able to make a living. As it is one reason farmers can't afford to stay on farms is because they can't compeat with a big agribusiness that gets handouts from the EU, Japan, or the US. Ge rid of the subsides as I've said a number of tymes then indigenous farmers could make a living on their farms.

But something needs to happen to "kick off" the whole process. This happened in Asia during the green revolution - so we even have a model for it.

The Green Revolution only temporarily increased crop yields, crop yields have leveled off. Here's a paper with some of the problems of the Green Revolution. Then as this page says the boom in crop yield owns a lot to the use of petroleum. Petroleum is needed to fuel the machines, then herbicides and pesticides are made from petrochemicals. What happens when all the oil is pumped? No more herbicides and pesticides thats what. With the end of cheap petroleum the only way enough food will be grown is organically. Just a few hours ago I heard oil broke $90 a barrel, guess what that means for farmers who depend on it? Bad news. However organic farmers who don't use petro based herbicides and pesticides will still be able to grow food.

Africa needs the same type of thing, and I just feel like it is silly to delay the whole process by restricting yourself to old-fashioned breeding for no scientific reason... just fear.

Talking about science, as I have repeatedly laid out there is no scientific basis for a need for GMOs. Yet people keep saying they are needed despite being shown evidence, including scientific evidence, GMOs are NOT NEEDED.

Yes I am fixated on organics but despite being shown science you are fixated on GMOs. There is no fear involved, it comes like this, are GMOs needed to feed the world. And science has answered NO.