You cannot crash a helicopter into another helicopter in ten seconds. (In fact, you'd have trouble deliberately crashing a helicopter into another helicopter or airplane within five minutes if you suddenly turned suicidal.)
Vehicles in the air can be ignored for minutes before something bad happens except during takeoff or landing, and I assure you that pilots have their full concentrations on that.
Cars, OTOH, require reaction within three or four seconds at all times. Except when they are stopped in traffic.
Except, sadly for your logic, Thailand does indeed have a minimum wage. It is about 175 baht a day, and they are only allowed to work eight hours a day.
Cost of living is always hard to compare, but apparently an cheap apartment is somewhere from 3000 baht a month. Which is somewhere between 17 days of work a month.
Let us compare to the US, where it is $7.25, IIRC. So for eight hours that's $58 a day. It used to be $5.15 an hour, which is $41 a day.
The cheapest you're going to find an apartment is going to be around $650 a month. Which is 11 days of work at the new rate, or 15 at the old.
Which means that, essentially, the old minimum wage in this country is essentially the same as Thailand. And, oddly enough, we appeared to still be offsourcing and automating just as much before it was raised.
The main down-side is that there has to be a single price of parking in the municipal area.
You could easily have 'two card' areas, where you have to hang two cards with the same time scratched off. And, likewise, have an electric meter with two buttons on it, one for normal speed and one for double speed, with the speed it's running clearly displayed.
Parking appears to be the only variable-cost good or service we sell and make people prepay for. It's stupid.
Imagine if gas pumping was that way. You want to fill your tank? Okay, pay us however much you think it's gong to cost, and then start the pump, which you cannot turn off. If you go over, you pay us a fine, if you are under, you don't get a refund.
It's utterly absurd. What we should do is figure out who is in what parking space, and just bill them for their time there. Simple as pie.(1)
We could do this in a variety of methods, such as people swiping their credit card before they drive off, or people purchasing RFID cards that sensors can pull money off of.
Or camera-vehicles that read license plates driving by every thirty minutes, where you could link your license plate to a CC number and be billed automatically, or you'd just be mailed a bill.
There are a lot of options, but it seems every 'modernized' city parking system has entirely different goals, like not letting people 'steal' time from previous parkers and making every single person walk half a block to pay instead of having a single meter-reader walk down the entire street. And make as much money as they possibly can.
1) And, as an added bonus, you can actually enforce the 'two hour parking' rules if you know who is where. Right now, people can just go out and reset their meter, whereas a system that knew what car was where would even be able to stop you from moving your car two spaces down. (Which you are not usually allowed to do...time-limited parking is almost always for the entire area, you can't move around inside it and reset it, legally.)
You'd have to pay and maintain a force of a lot more attendants than are currently needed.
The real problem is that we don't think that's a good idea.
We offshore all manufacturing and remote-service (telephone). Then we automate as much existing service as we can.
End result: No one has a fucking job.
Perhaps we should just, you know, hire a people at ten dollars an hour to run around photographing cars, or at least emptying meters, instead of building a giant multi-million dollar system.
The real joke is that half these multi-million dollar systems don't work right, so end up getting replaced way before they make back the money they cost. And the half that work are via 'partnerships' with private industries who pay for the cost, but then skim so much off the top that they don't make as much money as they did originally either.
We're spending more money to have less jobs and a crappier system. The only advantage is that private companies selling the system make more money, and I don't...oh, wait. I get it now.
Most people delay their own trial. He could have had one before this point.
Of course, the reason they're delaying it is that the cost of an attorney keeps rising, so the cheap ones are working on fifty cases at once. (And you don't want to know how many cases court-appointed ones are working on.)
We need to demand that people actually are given actual representation in a timely manner.
The only way mentioned that crowds are unlike gases is that people are self directed.
Everything else you said about how we aren't alike is nonsense. Every objection you said boils down to 'If people want to be somewhere, they will'.
Of course if everyone wants to be on one side of a wall, they'll all end up on one side of a way, entropy be damned. People are real-life Maxwell's demon. That doesn't mean that they don't obey fluid dynamics while getting there.
And, hell, you can replicate the same behavior using, oh, a liquid going through a hole thanks to gravity, so I'm not sure what the hell point you think you're making except that sometimes we behave like a liquid and sometimes we behave like a gas. (Both of which are, of course, covered by fluid dynamics.)
If you want an description about how we behave all the time, it is like we're gases that each particle is magically attracted to the gravitational pull of different, random points in space that constantly move. I.e., we often want to be somewhere, or close to somewhere, and fluid dynamics gets us there. In crowds, we are fluid particles with goals.
There are differences between crowds and fluids, but you haven't managed to come up with them.
I can think of one: People's perception of room volume and person density can be reflected in the actual density of the room. I.e., if you have two rooms with one crowd and no one cares which room they are in, if one of them is painted lighter and better lit, and one darker, more people per foot will be in the lighter one, because the light colors have made the room look larger than it is.
And absolutely no one said we were 'exactly' like gases, you just invented that yourself.
Exactly. Often a sample size so small and far in the past that you can't consciously think of it.
The whole idea that there are different kinds of reasoning is a bit silly.
No, there's just reasoning based on things that happened before. (Unless you're some sort of crazy person.)
Those things that happened before might be general societal things that could actually be wrong, they might be a bunch of unconnected and poorly remembered anecdotes in your own life, or they might be a set of specific scientific experiments you ran to actually test some previous reasoning.
That isn't even slightly true. People's ring and their index fingers are generally the same length, and any variation has nothing to do with gender.
Hell, even if it did, it would just be due to hormones, and if you want to know what hormones were flowing around a person's body during their development, an easier method is to pull their pants down.
He's actually competing in the Nude Blinding-Snowstorm Hundred Metre Sprint. Sometimes the officials can't see white people cross the finish line. So skin color really is important.
Incidentally, they used to have a women's event for this, but decided to unsegregate it when men starting passing as women by showing up a few minutes before they were supposed to line up.
Which is just an exaggeration of the fact that attempting to talk after taking a crotch shot will result sometimes result in guys 'whimpering', which is, indeed, high pitched. And is still high pitched when they're trying to talk through it.
Men are normally missing part of their range, they can do 'normal' or falsetto, but their voice 'cracks' in the middle. And men tend to keep in 'low' end, but whimpering ends up being falsetto.
Women whimper also while in serious pain, all people do, but it's a lot less noticeable with them, because they speak higher anyway, and have a much larger range.
Transgendered women often have a disadvantage, in fact, once their previous muscles go away.
People don't realize this, because they learned it in abbreviated health classes in high school, but men and women both have testosterone produced by their gonads.
They just, obviously, have different amounts. Men produce 40-60 times as much testosterone as women. (Although, actually, women turn some of that testosterone into estrogens.)
(This also applies to other, less famous, androgens, and is true, in reverse, for female estrogens, which men make some of, but I am trying to simplify here.)
During male-to-female SRS, the former males, obviously, have their gonads removed, and then start on female hormones, some sort of synthetic estrogen. But they usually don't take the small amounts of testosterone and other androgens that genetic women have. All of which are steroids, and all of which build muscle mass.
As a result, they lose muscle mass past where they'd end up if they were genetically female and had ovaries producing tiny amounts of testosterone.(1) In some ways, this is 'good' in that it makes them look more female, faster, and reduces hair in places it shouldn't be, but it's really sucky if they are an athlete.
And even if such minute amounts of synthetic testosterone were produced and prescribed commonly for SRS, I have to wonder if they would be legal in this competition.
1) Incidentally, as someone mentioned above, XY chromosome people with CAIS, which means their androgen receptors don't work, so they are genetically male but physically female, have the same problem, being weaker because they have no testosterone at all, or, actually, they do, but it has no effect on their body. As would people who are XX but have CAIS, who are almost never detected. (As they are genetically and physically female.)
In fact, 'genetics' determine almost nothing about how a person's body develops.
Hormones determine all that. Genetics just tries to start the hormones in some logical manner...and often fails. Or at least does something weird.
This not only applies to all aspects of gender (gender identity, sexual orientation, physical sex) but to basically everything.
Basically, we got all pumped up thinking that 'genes' did certain things in the body, and at this point we've come to realize that, frankly, 99.999% of genetic information is the same, and that information is what does everything. Everyone has the genes for a penis, everyone has the genes for dark skin, everyone has the genes for perfect eyes, etc.
What some people do, and some do not, have, however are the genes that trip on the hormones to enact such things in their body. That is the genetic variation among people. That's it. That's the whole extent of difference, genes that alter a hormonal dimmer switch.
It is a little disconcerting to realize that someone could go back in time and remove you, at a week old, from your mother's womb and give you carefully calculated and timed doses of hormones for the first couple of months of development, and make you into any sort of person they wanted, including traits we normally think are 'genetic'.
This, incidentally, is why we're not really making as much progress in the Human Genome Process as we should. What we're essentially identifying now are genes that cause 'too much' or 'too little' of specific hormones that make us susceptible to some disease, as opposed to what we thought we'd find, genes that actually 'cause' disease.
I agree. The third and fourth books were a Dirk Gently book, and the fifth book was, in a way, the ultimate Dirk Gently one.
I mean, 'Reverse Temporal Engineering'? That's essentially the solution in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency.
That said, I liked both styles, so I had no problems with the later books. But I can see why people did. The first two HHGTTG books were crazy 'Look at this absurd universe via the eyes of a normal person', whereas the later ones were 'Weird stuff keeps happening to this guy', two plots premises which are not entirely dissimilar.
It wasn't helped by Adams having to shoehorn Dent into whereever he needed to be for the plot of the book, instead of where he'd been before.
You have to wonder how fast Dirk would have figured out the whole Krikkit thing.
Incidentally, I always get confused at the assertions that Adams killed everyone off at the end of the Mostly Harmless. Not only is Zaphod out there, but Fenchurch is somewhere in the multiverse.
And I love Artemis Fowl, but I have no idea how well the humor will translate. A lot of the Artemis Fowl humor is how smart and somewhat amoral Fowl is, and everyone is mostly competent. That is not how things work in the HHGTTG universe.
Well, yeah, that's sorta even worse, when you think about.
Like I pointed out above, the fact that all sorts of devices and OSes actually support IPv6, but almost no one actually uses it is, is much more damning of the transition plan than if no one had bothered to built devices that supported it.
I mean, the excuse for the plan's delay before was 'We need to reach critical mass, and then IPv6 will magically appear'. At this point, frankly, almost every internet connected device except personal DSL routers can do IPv6, and those tend to get replaces every few years so people could upgrade rather easily. If this isn't 'critical mass' I don't know what is.
And, yet, no IPv6. In fact, almost all conversions have either been driven by law, or by countries running out of IPv4 addresses.
How is this any different than what can already be done with the tunneling mechanisms already in place?
It's not tunneling, you loon. It's conversion. Tunneling requires endpoints that know what the hell is going on.
With what I said, you could put a IPv6 knowledgeable computer on an IPv4 network, and it would function. You could upgrade the router it's plugged into, and the local network would now be IPv6, and the ISP still IPv4. You could upgrade the ISP, and it would just change to IPv4 when it hit the backbone. You could even upgrade the ISP without upgrading the router.
Devices would talk to their neighbor with IPv6 if they both understood that, and IPv4 if at least one of them didn't.
It's not a shitty 'tunnel' that you have to actually set up endpoints for and route 'IPv6 traffic' into. There's not even any such damn thing as 'IPv6 traffic' being carried. It's 'traffic that goes to IPv4 addresses that could be carried via IPv6 or IPv4 at any particular point'.
IPv6 addresses wouldn't even be assigned until we'd mostly switched over to using IPv6 as a transport.
Again, you've got a funny definition of failure considering IPv6 is already working on many internet backbones and in other instances, some ISPs are using IPv6 for their internal modem addresses now even.
WOW! And it's only been ten years to get a use 1% penetration! We should be fully done as early as the year 3000!
Also, all the modern major routers(Cisco) and OSes already support IPv6, even windows!
Oh. My. God. You do not realize how funny this is. For a while, the inability of hardware to support IPv6 was, in fact, an excuse to not use it. Fair enough.
And now, considering that something like 80% of computers do support it, and another 10% could with free upgrades, there must, therefore, be some other reason it's not used. Like the sucky transition that was laid out instead an incremental backwards-compatible one.
The fact that it is supported, is cheaper to get addresses for, and isn't used wold suggest something wrong with how this is supposed to happen. Um, duh.
Just so you know, ALL ipv4 addresses have something like a 64-bit ipv6 RANGE dedicated to them, but I forget the details exactly.
I love when people object to what I say without actually reading it. IPv6 does not work the way I have described it. It's easily demonstrated. I will assume your computer is hooked into a IPv4 router:
First, enable the IPv6 stack on your computer. Second, attempt to access your IPv4 router's web page by typing in a IPv6 format address. Whatever it's supposed to be for the router's IPv4 address.
Go ahead. I'll wait.
Oh, you can't. That's because for some idiotic reason, IPv4 and IPv6 operate entirely separate. It doesn't matter that there is, indeed, a subset of IPv6 addresses that were given to IPv4 address holders. (Except not really. You can't take an IPv4 address and state an IPv6 address for it.) They are not, in any manner, treated as the same damn IP address.
They're two entirely separate stacks, you can run services on a certain port of the IPv4 address but not the IPv6 version of it, OSes with IPv6 stacks do not actually attempt to contact the IPv4 version of an IPv6 mapped address if they're on an IPv4 network, etc.
Good point about how it was done before. I knew about ARPANET, but hadn't realized that it was done before that, too.
DNS doesn't really matter in all this. If we could just magically upgrade servers, that would be one thing, but servers end up behind routers that don't speak IPv6, and the routers are on a connection that doesn't speak it, and the connect hooks to a backbone that might speak it, sometimes, and that's hooked to an ISP that doesn't speak it, etc.
The only way to do a transition is to have parts of it able to upconvert IPv4 to IPv6, and then downconvert whenever needed, until everyone has the entire thing running IPv6 the whole length.
Like I said, IEEE 802.2 will actually let you determine what the device at the other end speaks. Routers could have started having a 'We will talk to our other endpoint, and figure out if we can upconvert on the way out, or need to upconvert on the way in.' feature, along with a 'the local network speaks IPv6' feature.
At first, there would be a lot of conversion up and down, but eventually, all devices would be IPv6 functional. (And if not, if some router rotting in an closet somewhere can't be replaced but is routing all traffic for Kuwait, that's when you set up IPv6 tunnels.)
At which point we start giving out new IPv6 addresses a lot cheaper than IPv4 ones, and let everyone switch over. And start building devices that can't handle IPv4 and can't convert either way.
It would be possible if any router behaved in the manner I stated, instead of idiotic IPv6 'tunnels' over IPv4.
And that's not 'the problem' at all. The problem is that what I said is not how the changeover works. It instead works in a rather idiotic way.
The 'problem' that only a subset of IPv6 devices could be accessed by IPv4 devices wouldn't actually matter. At this point in my hypothetical transition, we probably wouldn't have even assigned any actual IPv6 addresses yet, because we'd be waiting for almost all IPv4-converted traffic to be carried its entire length by IPv6 before we start creating anywhere that can be only accessed by IPv6-only traffic.
...is that even new devices don't support IPv6, even when they're in entirely controlled address spaces.
For example, why the hell don't, for example, cell phones internet capabilities have IPv6? I mean the IPv6 routing would seem exactly designed for cell phones, devices external to the network don't need to reach them, and it's a frickin closed system with device upgrades fairly quickly. If we can't even use IPv6 in closed systems like that, it has failed.
The reason, of course, is because IPv6 is, in fact, an EPIC FAIL in actually working, because no one apparently bothered to figure out any sort of actual transition for it.
It's like, if instead of self-driving cars, they invented self-driving micro-monorails and expected us to buy them. But, don't worry, they have a handy monorail carrying rack we can install on top of our car that not that hard to set up so we can carry our monorail to the monorail tracks fifty miles away.
D. J. Bernstein is an ass, but he's right about this.
IPv6 should have been built by changing the damn format of the packets, but using the exact same IPv4 addresses with a specific prefix, routed exactly the same place. Any router that talked to devices that didn't understand IPv6 could just 'dumb it down' to IPv4, and, they should eventually do the same in reverse!
We could actually include a bit in the packet that upconverted IPv6 packets get, so we could keep statistics on how many packets were IPv6 their entire distance, and how many got converted down and back up at some point. So we could see what networks are actually switching out their equipment, and see what misconfigured gear thinks it's talking to IPv4 devices when it's talking to IPv6, so it needlessly converting. (IEEE 802.2 specifics a way to autonegotiate IPv4 or IPv6 using the EtherType, but it might not always work, and it's only for Ethernet anyway.)
At some point, as routers and OSes got replaced, large amounts of traffic on the internet would end up being IPv6 their entire distance, and at that point we can start assigning the IPv6 addresses that don't have a equivalent IPv4 one.
And, incidentally, we should keep the IPv4 network operational forever. 95% of the people can give their IPv4 addresses back, and as people stop connecting IPv4 devices, routers and whatnot will lose the ability to speak to them but there will still be some devices that cannot be upgraded, some embedded device that speaks only IPv4 or whatever. The company should be able to keep an IPv4 address, and require people to install one of the routers that can still upconvert in front of the device, and it gets routed over the internet and back just like anything else, because, for almost all the trip, it's IPv6. There would be no reason to ever turn off the subset of IPv6 that is IPv4.
Instead we invented a new fucking network that doesn't interact with IPv4 at all. Yes, yes, you can get IPv6 versions of IPv4 addresses, but routers and OSes do not automatically translate them. And it's actually against the rules for someone to try to contact a IPv4 server 'over' IPv6. They have to use their IPv4 address, like there should be a difference.
Well, everyone with a copyrighted track on their PC who is hooked up to the internet, at least.
I said your logic sounded absurd. This was not a complaint about your logic, this was a complaint about the RIAA's.
Any sufficiently incorrect premise, extended to the logical conclusion, produces a reasonable facsimile of insanity. You just extended the RIAA's idiotic premise to the logical conclusion.
Slashdot Mirror
You cannot crash a helicopter into another helicopter in ten seconds. (In fact, you'd have trouble deliberately crashing a helicopter into another helicopter or airplane within five minutes if you suddenly turned suicidal.)
Vehicles in the air can be ignored for minutes before something bad happens except during takeoff or landing, and I assure you that pilots have their full concentrations on that.
Cars, OTOH, require reaction within three or four seconds at all times. Except when they are stopped in traffic.
Except, sadly for your logic, Thailand does indeed have a minimum wage. It is about 175 baht a day, and they are only allowed to work eight hours a day.
Cost of living is always hard to compare, but apparently an cheap apartment is somewhere from 3000 baht a month. Which is somewhere between 17 days of work a month.
Let us compare to the US, where it is $7.25, IIRC. So for eight hours that's $58 a day. It used to be $5.15 an hour, which is $41 a day.
The cheapest you're going to find an apartment is going to be around $650 a month. Which is 11 days of work at the new rate, or 15 at the old.
Which means that, essentially, the old minimum wage in this country is essentially the same as Thailand. And, oddly enough, we appeared to still be offsourcing and automating just as much before it was raised.
The main down-side is that there has to be a single price of parking in the municipal area.
You could easily have 'two card' areas, where you have to hang two cards with the same time scratched off. And, likewise, have an electric meter with two buttons on it, one for normal speed and one for double speed, with the speed it's running clearly displayed.
Erm, what's to stop people from doing that with parking meters now?
Oh, that's right. Meter maids do not follow a set schedule people can guess, because that would obviously be stupid.
Also they don't take a damn hour off for lunch, like there's only one of them in the entire city.
Parking appears to be the only variable-cost good or service we sell and make people prepay for. It's stupid.
Imagine if gas pumping was that way. You want to fill your tank? Okay, pay us however much you think it's gong to cost, and then start the pump, which you cannot turn off. If you go over, you pay us a fine, if you are under, you don't get a refund.
It's utterly absurd. What we should do is figure out who is in what parking space, and just bill them for their time there. Simple as pie.(1)
We could do this in a variety of methods, such as people swiping their credit card before they drive off, or people purchasing RFID cards that sensors can pull money off of.
Or camera-vehicles that read license plates driving by every thirty minutes, where you could link your license plate to a CC number and be billed automatically, or you'd just be mailed a bill.
There are a lot of options, but it seems every 'modernized' city parking system has entirely different goals, like not letting people 'steal' time from previous parkers and making every single person walk half a block to pay instead of having a single meter-reader walk down the entire street. And make as much money as they possibly can.
1) And, as an added bonus, you can actually enforce the 'two hour parking' rules if you know who is where. Right now, people can just go out and reset their meter, whereas a system that knew what car was where would even be able to stop you from moving your car two spaces down. (Which you are not usually allowed to do...time-limited parking is almost always for the entire area, you can't move around inside it and reset it, legally.)
You'd have to pay and maintain a force of a lot more attendants than are currently needed.
The real problem is that we don't think that's a good idea.
We offshore all manufacturing and remote-service (telephone). Then we automate as much existing service as we can.
End result: No one has a fucking job.
Perhaps we should just, you know, hire a people at ten dollars an hour to run around photographing cars, or at least emptying meters, instead of building a giant multi-million dollar system.
The real joke is that half these multi-million dollar systems don't work right, so end up getting replaced way before they make back the money they cost. And the half that work are via 'partnerships' with private industries who pay for the cost, but then skim so much off the top that they don't make as much money as they did originally either.
We're spending more money to have less jobs and a crappier system. The only advantage is that private companies selling the system make more money, and I don't...oh, wait. I get it now.
Dude. That's not a reason to not use robotic parking.
That's a reason not to live in Florida.
Most people delay their own trial. He could have had one before this point.
Of course, the reason they're delaying it is that the cost of an attorney keeps rising, so the cheap ones are working on fifty cases at once. (And you don't want to know how many cases court-appointed ones are working on.)
We need to demand that people actually are given actual representation in a timely manner.
The only way mentioned that crowds are unlike gases is that people are self directed.
Everything else you said about how we aren't alike is nonsense. Every objection you said boils down to 'If people want to be somewhere, they will'.
Of course if everyone wants to be on one side of a wall, they'll all end up on one side of a way, entropy be damned. People are real-life Maxwell's demon. That doesn't mean that they don't obey fluid dynamics while getting there.
And, hell, you can replicate the same behavior using, oh, a liquid going through a hole thanks to gravity, so I'm not sure what the hell point you think you're making except that sometimes we behave like a liquid and sometimes we behave like a gas. (Both of which are, of course, covered by fluid dynamics.)
If you want an description about how we behave all the time, it is like we're gases that each particle is magically attracted to the gravitational pull of different, random points in space that constantly move. I.e., we often want to be somewhere, or close to somewhere, and fluid dynamics gets us there. In crowds, we are fluid particles with goals.
There are differences between crowds and fluids, but you haven't managed to come up with them.
I can think of one: People's perception of room volume and person density can be reflected in the actual density of the room. I.e., if you have two rooms with one crowd and no one cares which room they are in, if one of them is painted lighter and better lit, and one darker, more people per foot will be in the lighter one, because the light colors have made the room look larger than it is.
And absolutely no one said we were 'exactly' like gases, you just invented that yourself.
Exactly. Often a sample size so small and far in the past that you can't consciously think of it.
The whole idea that there are different kinds of reasoning is a bit silly.
No, there's just reasoning based on things that happened before. (Unless you're some sort of crazy person.)
Those things that happened before might be general societal things that could actually be wrong, they might be a bunch of unconnected and poorly remembered anecdotes in your own life, or they might be a set of specific scientific experiments you ran to actually test some previous reasoning.
But it's all the same sort of reasoning.
It could just coast slowly, which would certainly prevent people crowding the door. :)
That isn't even slightly true. People's ring and their index fingers are generally the same length, and any variation has nothing to do with gender.
Hell, even if it did, it would just be due to hormones, and if you want to know what hormones were flowing around a person's body during their development, an easier method is to pull their pants down.
He's actually competing in the Nude Blinding-Snowstorm Hundred Metre Sprint. Sometimes the officials can't see white people cross the finish line. So skin color really is important.
Incidentally, they used to have a women's event for this, but decided to unsegregate it when men starting passing as women by showing up a few minutes before they were supposed to line up.
Maybe he meant that neither of them caused each other, in which case, he's sorta right.
Mental gender and physical sex are both caused by a third thing, namely, hormones during development, which are in turn determined by genetics.
Which is just an exaggeration of the fact that attempting to talk after taking a crotch shot will result sometimes result in guys 'whimpering', which is, indeed, high pitched. And is still high pitched when they're trying to talk through it.
Men are normally missing part of their range, they can do 'normal' or falsetto, but their voice 'cracks' in the middle. And men tend to keep in 'low' end, but whimpering ends up being falsetto.
Women whimper also while in serious pain, all people do, but it's a lot less noticeable with them, because they speak higher anyway, and have a much larger range.
Transgendered women often have a disadvantage, in fact, once their previous muscles go away.
People don't realize this, because they learned it in abbreviated health classes in high school, but men and women both have testosterone produced by their gonads.
They just, obviously, have different amounts. Men produce 40-60 times as much testosterone as women. (Although, actually, women turn some of that testosterone into estrogens.)
(This also applies to other, less famous, androgens, and is true, in reverse, for female estrogens, which men make some of, but I am trying to simplify here.)
During male-to-female SRS, the former males, obviously, have their gonads removed, and then start on female hormones, some sort of synthetic estrogen. But they usually don't take the small amounts of testosterone and other androgens that genetic women have. All of which are steroids, and all of which build muscle mass.
As a result, they lose muscle mass past where they'd end up if they were genetically female and had ovaries producing tiny amounts of testosterone.(1) In some ways, this is 'good' in that it makes them look more female, faster, and reduces hair in places it shouldn't be, but it's really sucky if they are an athlete.
And even if such minute amounts of synthetic testosterone were produced and prescribed commonly for SRS, I have to wonder if they would be legal in this competition.
1) Incidentally, as someone mentioned above, XY chromosome people with CAIS, which means their androgen receptors don't work, so they are genetically male but physically female, have the same problem, being weaker because they have no testosterone at all, or, actually, they do, but it has no effect on their body. As would people who are XX but have CAIS, who are almost never detected. (As they are genetically and physically female.)
In fact, 'genetics' determine almost nothing about how a person's body develops.
Hormones determine all that. Genetics just tries to start the hormones in some logical manner...and often fails. Or at least does something weird.
This not only applies to all aspects of gender (gender identity, sexual orientation, physical sex) but to basically everything.
Basically, we got all pumped up thinking that 'genes' did certain things in the body, and at this point we've come to realize that, frankly, 99.999% of genetic information is the same, and that information is what does everything. Everyone has the genes for a penis, everyone has the genes for dark skin, everyone has the genes for perfect eyes, etc.
What some people do, and some do not, have, however are the genes that trip on the hormones to enact such things in their body. That is the genetic variation among people. That's it. That's the whole extent of difference, genes that alter a hormonal dimmer switch.
It is a little disconcerting to realize that someone could go back in time and remove you, at a week old, from your mother's womb and give you carefully calculated and timed doses of hormones for the first couple of months of development, and make you into any sort of person they wanted, including traits we normally think are 'genetic'.
This, incidentally, is why we're not really making as much progress in the Human Genome Process as we should. What we're essentially identifying now are genes that cause 'too much' or 'too little' of specific hormones that make us susceptible to some disease, as opposed to what we thought we'd find, genes that actually 'cause' disease.
I agree. The third and fourth books were a Dirk Gently book, and the fifth book was, in a way, the ultimate Dirk Gently one.
I mean, 'Reverse Temporal Engineering'? That's essentially the solution in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency.
That said, I liked both styles, so I had no problems with the later books. But I can see why people did. The first two HHGTTG books were crazy 'Look at this absurd universe via the eyes of a normal person', whereas the later ones were 'Weird stuff keeps happening to this guy', two plots premises which are not entirely dissimilar.
It wasn't helped by Adams having to shoehorn Dent into whereever he needed to be for the plot of the book, instead of where he'd been before.
You have to wonder how fast Dirk would have figured out the whole Krikkit thing.
Incidentally, I always get confused at the assertions that Adams killed everyone off at the end of the Mostly Harmless. Not only is Zaphod out there, but Fenchurch is somewhere in the multiverse.
And I love Artemis Fowl, but I have no idea how well the humor will translate. A lot of the Artemis Fowl humor is how smart and somewhat amoral Fowl is, and everyone is mostly competent. That is not how things work in the HHGTTG universe.
Well, yeah, that's sorta even worse, when you think about.
Like I pointed out above, the fact that all sorts of devices and OSes actually support IPv6, but almost no one actually uses it is, is much more damning of the transition plan than if no one had bothered to built devices that supported it.
I mean, the excuse for the plan's delay before was 'We need to reach critical mass, and then IPv6 will magically appear'. At this point, frankly, almost every internet connected device except personal DSL routers can do IPv6, and those tend to get replaces every few years so people could upgrade rather easily. If this isn't 'critical mass' I don't know what is.
And, yet, no IPv6. In fact, almost all conversions have either been driven by law, or by countries running out of IPv4 addresses.
How is this any different than what can already be done with the tunneling mechanisms already in place?
It's not tunneling, you loon. It's conversion. Tunneling requires endpoints that know what the hell is going on.
With what I said, you could put a IPv6 knowledgeable computer on an IPv4 network, and it would function. You could upgrade the router it's plugged into, and the local network would now be IPv6, and the ISP still IPv4. You could upgrade the ISP, and it would just change to IPv4 when it hit the backbone. You could even upgrade the ISP without upgrading the router.
Devices would talk to their neighbor with IPv6 if they both understood that, and IPv4 if at least one of them didn't.
It's not a shitty 'tunnel' that you have to actually set up endpoints for and route 'IPv6 traffic' into. There's not even any such damn thing as 'IPv6 traffic' being carried. It's 'traffic that goes to IPv4 addresses that could be carried via IPv6 or IPv4 at any particular point'.
IPv6 addresses wouldn't even be assigned until we'd mostly switched over to using IPv6 as a transport.
Again, you've got a funny definition of failure considering IPv6 is already working on many internet backbones and in other instances, some ISPs are using IPv6 for their internal modem addresses now even.
WOW! And it's only been ten years to get a use 1% penetration! We should be fully done as early as the year 3000!
Also, all the modern major routers(Cisco) and OSes already support IPv6, even windows!
Oh. My. God. You do not realize how funny this is. For a while, the inability of hardware to support IPv6 was, in fact, an excuse to not use it. Fair enough.
And now, considering that something like 80% of computers do support it, and another 10% could with free upgrades, there must, therefore, be some other reason it's not used. Like the sucky transition that was laid out instead an incremental backwards-compatible one.
The fact that it is supported, is cheaper to get addresses for, and isn't used wold suggest something wrong with how this is supposed to happen. Um, duh.
Just so you know, ALL ipv4 addresses have something like a 64-bit ipv6 RANGE dedicated to them, but I forget the details exactly.
I love when people object to what I say without actually reading it. IPv6 does not work the way I have described it. It's easily demonstrated. I will assume your computer is hooked into a IPv4 router:
First, enable the IPv6 stack on your computer. Second, attempt to access your IPv4 router's web page by typing in a IPv6 format address. Whatever it's supposed to be for the router's IPv4 address.
Go ahead. I'll wait.
Oh, you can't. That's because for some idiotic reason, IPv4 and IPv6 operate entirely separate. It doesn't matter that there is, indeed, a subset of IPv6 addresses that were given to IPv4 address holders. (Except not really. You can't take an IPv4 address and state an IPv6 address for it.) They are not, in any manner, treated as the same damn IP address.
They're two entirely separate stacks, you can run services on a certain port of the IPv4 address but not the IPv6 version of it, OSes with IPv6 stacks do not actually attempt to contact the IPv4 version of an IPv6 mapped address if they're on an IPv4 network, etc.
Good point about how it was done before. I knew about ARPANET, but hadn't realized that it was done before that, too.
DNS doesn't really matter in all this. If we could just magically upgrade servers, that would be one thing, but servers end up behind routers that don't speak IPv6, and the routers are on a connection that doesn't speak it, and the connect hooks to a backbone that might speak it, sometimes, and that's hooked to an ISP that doesn't speak it, etc.
The only way to do a transition is to have parts of it able to upconvert IPv4 to IPv6, and then downconvert whenever needed, until everyone has the entire thing running IPv6 the whole length.
Like I said, IEEE 802.2 will actually let you determine what the device at the other end speaks. Routers could have started having a 'We will talk to our other endpoint, and figure out if we can upconvert on the way out, or need to upconvert on the way in.' feature, along with a 'the local network speaks IPv6' feature.
At first, there would be a lot of conversion up and down, but eventually, all devices would be IPv6 functional. (And if not, if some router rotting in an closet somewhere can't be replaced but is routing all traffic for Kuwait, that's when you set up IPv6 tunnels.)
At which point we start giving out new IPv6 addresses a lot cheaper than IPv4 ones, and let everyone switch over. And start building devices that can't handle IPv4 and can't convert either way.
It would be possible if any router behaved in the manner I stated, instead of idiotic IPv6 'tunnels' over IPv4.
And that's not 'the problem' at all. The problem is that what I said is not how the changeover works. It instead works in a rather idiotic way.
The 'problem' that only a subset of IPv6 devices could be accessed by IPv4 devices wouldn't actually matter. At this point in my hypothetical transition, we probably wouldn't have even assigned any actual IPv6 addresses yet, because we'd be waiting for almost all IPv4-converted traffic to be carried its entire length by IPv6 before we start creating anywhere that can be only accessed by IPv6-only traffic.
...is that even new devices don't support IPv6, even when they're in entirely controlled address spaces.
For example, why the hell don't, for example, cell phones internet capabilities have IPv6? I mean the IPv6 routing would seem exactly designed for cell phones, devices external to the network don't need to reach them, and it's a frickin closed system with device upgrades fairly quickly. If we can't even use IPv6 in closed systems like that, it has failed.
The reason, of course, is because IPv6 is, in fact, an EPIC FAIL in actually working, because no one apparently bothered to figure out any sort of actual transition for it.
It's like, if instead of self-driving cars, they invented self-driving micro-monorails and expected us to buy them. But, don't worry, they have a handy monorail carrying rack we can install on top of our car that not that hard to set up so we can carry our monorail to the monorail tracks fifty miles away.
D. J. Bernstein is an ass, but he's right about this.
IPv6 should have been built by changing the damn format of the packets, but using the exact same IPv4 addresses with a specific prefix, routed exactly the same place. Any router that talked to devices that didn't understand IPv6 could just 'dumb it down' to IPv4, and, they should eventually do the same in reverse!
We could actually include a bit in the packet that upconverted IPv6 packets get, so we could keep statistics on how many packets were IPv6 their entire distance, and how many got converted down and back up at some point. So we could see what networks are actually switching out their equipment, and see what misconfigured gear thinks it's talking to IPv4 devices when it's talking to IPv6, so it needlessly converting. (IEEE 802.2 specifics a way to autonegotiate IPv4 or IPv6 using the EtherType, but it might not always work, and it's only for Ethernet anyway.)
At some point, as routers and OSes got replaced, large amounts of traffic on the internet would end up being IPv6 their entire distance, and at that point we can start assigning the IPv6 addresses that don't have a equivalent IPv4 one.
And, incidentally, we should keep the IPv4 network operational forever. 95% of the people can give their IPv4 addresses back, and as people stop connecting IPv4 devices, routers and whatnot will lose the ability to speak to them but there will still be some devices that cannot be upgraded, some embedded device that speaks only IPv4 or whatever. The company should be able to keep an IPv4 address, and require people to install one of the routers that can still upconvert in front of the device, and it gets routed over the internet and back just like anything else, because, for almost all the trip, it's IPv6. There would be no reason to ever turn off the subset of IPv6 that is IPv4.
Instead we invented a new fucking network that doesn't interact with IPv4 at all. Yes, yes, you can get IPv6 versions of IPv4 addresses, but routers and OSes do not automatically translate them. And it's actually against the rules for someone to try to contact a IPv4 server 'over' IPv6. They have to use their IPv4 address, like there should be a difference.
Well, everyone with a copyrighted track on their PC who is hooked up to the internet, at least.
I said your logic sounded absurd. This was not a complaint about your logic, this was a complaint about the RIAA's.
Any sufficiently incorrect premise, extended to the logical conclusion, produces a reasonable facsimile of insanity. You just extended the RIAA's idiotic premise to the logical conclusion.
That was, of course, direct to the post above it, which has apparently vanished, not to the post it was attached to. Sorry.