If you want to make it harder for somebody to break into your house - what is the first step ?
Oh right, it's asking "How could I break into it right now".
Thinking of how one could take revenge does not imply any desire to act on those thoughts - it implies doing your due diligence as an admin by looking for weaknesses in the setup that need to be fixed and fixing them before somebody else can exploit them.
So, sorry, but if you've never sat down and thought "how could I take revenge on this company if they fuck me over" - you are not doing your JOB. Because it means, if somebody else (rightly or wrongly) feels they have been fucked over, you won't know what revenge they may want to take, and you won't have put the systems in place to prevent it.
The answer is (almost certainly) no. Parthenogeneses has never been observed in humans at all and has never been naturally observed in any mammal in fact. It does occur in some other species (fishes, reptiles and amphibians) but it is apparently impossible in mammals. The only cases in any mammals seen thus far were deliberately done by human intervention using the same types of techniques used for cloning.
Life finds a way, life survives - any particular species may not. Life is resilient - but species are not. Indeed it could be argued that life is resilient BECAUSE species are not.
You have no idea what chromosomes somebody has. Without a genetic test, you cannot know. Plenty of people have a dick and no Y chromosome, so the presence of a penis is not proof of a Y chromosome. More-over, what if you are XXY, or XXXY ? Those exist. The presence of a penis is not proof of the presence of a Y chromosome and the presence of a Y chromosome is not proof that you do NOT have 2 X chromosomes and in any case ALL of these biological things describe your SEX which is not the same thing as your GENDER which is what we are discussing. These are related but NOT equivalent concepts.
You answered my point in your very response. What's the price of air to breath ? Oh right, it's free.... but this is the most essential resource there is. Take it away and anybody is dead in a few minutes. Even water we can survive a few days without. It costs nothing - because the supply is sufficiently larger than the demand that there is no profit to be made in selling it, no motivation to try and own it, and if you try to privatise it the political fallout would simply be too big.
One scenario for long range stellar exploration would be, if we find sources for the required resources that are so abundant they become effectively free. Your complaints about Star Trek's economy, by the way, are not very true to the source material. The shows, under network pressure, added things which couldn't be replicated in order to create conflict and drama. Roddenberry's vision had no room for such things, they were a dramatic addition - not part of what he actually thought would happen. ToS is also the furthest removed from his vision (which is why it's incredibly sexist - while the later series which were not network shows were significantly better). In later series they somewhat tried to reconcile that approach to dramatic irony by claiming that the full fruition of an economy that provides for all regardless of what they do so they can do whatever they love - was only achieved on earth. Sisko describes earth as "paradise".
There are other scenarios too - for example the one postulated in several SF stories as wide-ranging as Firefly/Serenity and Interstellar. An extinction level event that isn't rapid - but is defying all our efforts at adapting. Being able to see our extinction looming, with enough time to flee would certainly motivate us.
Getting to near light speed is probably feasible even with current technology. It doesn't need a lot of acceleration, just a constant one and you'll get there in a few years. It would take a lot of energy - but if you're fleeing for your species, who cares ? Use up all the stored energy earth has, why not - it will be worthless after you're gone.
Frankly I think there are more interesting problems to solve. One of which is that extended periods in relative-zero-gravity is known to cause severe health problems in humans, skeletal problems which we have no cure for. Any long-term trip requires somehow solving that. This could mean medical advances, perhaps genetic, or maybe something more prosaic like artificial gravity of some sort. Right now the only viable technology we have for the latter (and the only one I know physics allows) is to spin the shift constantly and let the the centripetal-force effect provide a decent gravity-analog. But that has it's own (significant) engineering challenges, not to mention massively increasing an already significant energy budget.
You think your country is the only one ? Russia and China are terrible at it, I'll grant you, but Japan has strong free speech protections (in some ways stronger than American), Europe is a continent - not a country but almost all the countries in it have very strong free speech protections.
Same goes for most countries in Africa and South America, for Australia and New Zeeland... now granted, there isn't a lot of space news coming out of Africa but it's not zero either - the the largest radio-satelite network on earth is being built in Africa for one thing - and they are building amazing control and analysis code, which is written in python.
That wasn't what the media reports said. What it said was that he wants to limit the FCC to spectrum control, and move the other functions to the FTC. While I think that's a mistake, it's a very different thing and there can at least be an argument made for it (a stupid argument but an argument).
Seems like a database glitch or a lazy data-entry or even just a missread/type with bad editing.
The proper definition is "unwanted sexual contact" or "sexual contact without consent". The latter includes any person incapable of giving legal consent due to age or incapacity. If she is too drunk to drive she is too drunk to legally say yes. Ifshe did not say yes to everything she said no to something.
> If the two definitions were different since they were coined, as you say, then when and why did they merge?
Actually the answer is well known. They merged because of squeamish prudes. See the word 'sex' is also widely used as a shorthand for "sexual intercourse". As a result a lot of prudish people get squeamish about the word. So they started using the word gender when they MEANT "sex" - as it was the closest concept with a name, despite only sometimes being similar. Businesses and bureaucrats, not wanting to hurt their public image by offending prudes, started putting "Gender" on forms instead of "Sex"...
But it all goes back to prudes being squeemish about the word sex, ever since sex started being used as a shorthand for fucking, and using gender as a substitute which, conveniently, doesn't remind them of the SCARIEST THING IN ALL THE KNOWN UNIVERSE. I was listening to grammar Nazis complain about the use "gender" when people meant "sex" at least 18 years ago.
> apparently marriage is indeed between a man and a woman. That is likely to change in the next updated edition though - to reflect that the law has changed since the last edition... well assuming whoever Trump appoints into Scalia's seat doesn't change it back before that can happen. Like I said, it's a fairly conservative source - and it updates slowly - and never faster than the actual law.
>Apparently an infant is anyone under twenty-one years of age Legally "infant" and "child" are synonymns, medically you're only an "infant" for the first year. Terms of art may not mean the same thing in one subject as in another. So for example "function" has a very specific meaning in mathematics which has NOTHING in common with the meaning of the word in law and neither meaning bears any similarity to the meaning of the word in common speech.
>Rape requires force You may want to look up "sexual assault" as well though. In common speech rape is commonly used for both, but in LAW they are different. Brock Turner was charged with sexual assualt, and sexualt assualt of an unconscious person - but not actually with rape. There is no doubt he was a rapist though.
>Still, you made your point. I'd like to know how Black's comes up with these definitions, Easy- by telling you what the law, and court precedence, define the words as. Basically it's a one-place summary of both legislative and common-law's decisions about what these words mean in a court.
Manning leaked a lot more than one video. One of the others, for example show US soldiers murdering an Al Jazeera journalist and laughing about it. Other leaks by her revealed the torture happening in Abu Ghraib which put an end to that travesty.
Even if you think that "that" video has visible weapons (which somehow nobody else can see - and kind of disputed considering we know from other evidence they were ambulance workers) that doesn't mean there wasn't a public interest in the many other atrocities she revealed. Or are you denying those as well ? Was Abu Ghraib just harmless fun by horny girl soldiers who liked any excuse for showing their genitals to strangers ?
You may have misunderstood what I said. You were CONFIRMING my claim - not contradicting it. I said the same thing as you, only in different words. The west is fairly unique in trying to wipe it out, nearly all other cultures recognise at least 3 genders.
It apparently never occurred to him that, the correct answer, would be for Manning's lawyer to be appeal to plead with the court for a transfer to a women's prison - and for that to be granted upon testimony from doctors/therapists.
I can see no sane reason the state would even bother to oppose the application (at least if it's legitimate as with Manning) - for the current prison it's one less mouth to feed out of their budget, and a major, difficult, logistical problem off their shoulders. Hell if I was the warden I'd testify in favour of granting the application.
The only trouble is, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that YOU are the one who is retreating from reality. You're the one who clings to a mistaken belief that genitalia always matches brain development, hormonal development and genetics. But science has utterly disproven that belief. The reality is these things do NOT always match. You however, are, retreating from that reality and refusing to confront it. Which has led to a mental illness in your case that causes you to lash out angrily, and in future likely violently, towards people who do not fit your desire about what you want reality to be.
There are numerous other variations. Some biological women have abnormally high testosterone levels - for a long time they were barred from competing in the olympics. Then there is a condition where the body is incapable of absorbing testosterone. And sometimes these can occur in the same person. For a long time women barred from the olympics due to high testosterone levels were allowed back in if they also had that condition.
Human bodies are extremely complex machines and come in many varieties - and most of them are harmless variation. There is nothing harmful about transgender genetics - the only harm they suffer is from the way people treat them, it's not their genes causing that, it's a flawed culture. One of the greatest Winter Olympians of all time had a rare genetic trait that made his body produce far higher than average red blood cells (Polycythemia). What some sportsman try to achieve with drugs like EPO - he had by nature of his genes.
When she was 3 months old my daugher swallowed a peanut which went down the wrong hole and got inhaled. She needed an endoscope to remove it. While doing the endoscope we learned that she had only one tube connecting her airways to her left lung. Generally there are two. I asked the doctor if this was anything to be concerned about and she said "Absolutely not, it's entirely harmless and will have no impact on her life whatsoever. It's a known and perfectly natural genetic variation and it's quite likely either you or your wife also has it. The only reason I pointed it out is because I found it personally interesting because though I knew about it, I hadn't seen it myself before".
Humans are not simple and don't fit into such super-simplistic categories as "male/female" very well and never really have. Just like anybody who says "people have two passages connecting the left lung to the airway" would be saying something that looks extremely obvious on the surface but simply isn't TRUE of all people.
It's been different ever since the words were first coined ! It predates western civilization itself (which is STILL the ONLY culture on earth to only have two recognised genders). Just a few posts up you can see Black's legal dictionary being cited proving that these things have different meanings in current law. Black's have been the standard legal dictionary in the USA for many decades and it's about as conservative a source as you can get for anything.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to make it harder for somebody to break into your house - what is the first step ?
Oh right, it's asking "How could I break into it right now".
Thinking of how one could take revenge does not imply any desire to act on those thoughts - it implies doing your due diligence as an admin by looking for weaknesses in the setup that need to be fixed and fixing them before somebody else can exploit them.
So, sorry, but if you've never sat down and thought "how could I take revenge on this company if they fuck me over" - you are not doing your JOB. Because it means, if somebody else (rightly or wrongly) feels they have been fucked over, you won't know what revenge they may want to take, and you won't have put the systems in place to prevent it.
The answer is (almost certainly) no. Parthenogeneses has never been observed in humans at all and has never been naturally observed in any mammal in fact. It does occur in some other species (fishes, reptiles and amphibians) but it is apparently impossible in mammals. The only cases in any mammals seen thus far were deliberately done by human intervention using the same types of techniques used for cloning.
Life finds a way, life survives - any particular species may not. Life is resilient - but species are not. Indeed it could be argued that life is resilient BECAUSE species are not.
This place is filled with people with the world's most experienced experts on asexual reproduction.
I expect you are likely correct.
You have no idea what chromosomes somebody has. Without a genetic test, you cannot know. Plenty of people have a dick and no Y chromosome, so the presence of a penis is not proof of a Y chromosome.
More-over, what if you are XXY, or XXXY ? Those exist. The presence of a penis is not proof of the presence of a Y chromosome and the presence of a Y chromosome is not proof that you do NOT have 2 X chromosomes and in any case ALL of these biological things describe your SEX which is not the same thing as your GENDER which is what we are discussing.
These are related but NOT equivalent concepts.
I showed an example in another reply to this same thread, but yes, they appear to have gotten rid of it since.
You answered my point in your very response. What's the price of air to breath ? Oh right, it's free.... but this is the most essential resource there is. Take it away and anybody is dead in a few minutes. Even water we can survive a few days without. It costs nothing - because the supply is sufficiently larger than the demand that there is no profit to be made in selling it, no motivation to try and own it, and if you try to privatise it the political fallout would simply be too big.
One scenario for long range stellar exploration would be, if we find sources for the required resources that are so abundant they become effectively free. Your complaints about Star Trek's economy, by the way, are not very true to the source material. The shows, under network pressure, added things which couldn't be replicated in order to create conflict and drama. Roddenberry's vision had no room for such things, they were a dramatic addition - not part of what he actually thought would happen. ToS is also the furthest removed from his vision (which is why it's incredibly sexist - while the later series which were not network shows were significantly better). In later series they somewhat tried to reconcile that approach to dramatic irony by claiming that the full fruition of an economy that provides for all regardless of what they do so they can do whatever they love - was only achieved on earth. Sisko describes earth as "paradise".
There are other scenarios too - for example the one postulated in several SF stories as wide-ranging as Firefly/Serenity and Interstellar. An extinction level event that isn't rapid - but is defying all our efforts at adapting. Being able to see our extinction looming, with enough time to flee would certainly motivate us.
Getting to near light speed is probably feasible even with current technology. It doesn't need a lot of acceleration, just a constant one and you'll get there in a few years. It would take a lot of energy - but if you're fleeing for your species, who cares ? Use up all the stored energy earth has, why not - it will be worthless after you're gone.
Frankly I think there are more interesting problems to solve. One of which is that extended periods in relative-zero-gravity is known to cause severe health problems in humans, skeletal problems which we have no cure for. Any long-term trip requires somehow solving that. This could mean medical advances, perhaps genetic, or maybe something more prosaic like artificial gravity of some sort. Right now the only viable technology we have for the latter (and the only one I know physics allows) is to spin the shift constantly and let the the centripetal-force effect provide a decent gravity-analog. But that has it's own (significant) engineering challenges, not to mention massively increasing an already significant energy budget.
You think your country is the only one ? Russia and China are terrible at it, I'll grant you, but Japan has strong free speech protections (in some ways stronger than American), Europe is a continent - not a country but almost all the countries in it have very strong free speech protections.
Same goes for most countries in Africa and South America, for Australia and New Zeeland... now granted, there isn't a lot of space news coming out of Africa but it's not zero either - the the largest radio-satelite network on earth is being built in Africa for one thing - and they are building amazing control and analysis code, which is written in python.
I don't recall Yoko claiming she did a rimjob ...
That wasn't what the media reports said. What it said was that he wants to limit the FCC to spectrum control, and move the other functions to the FTC. While I think that's a mistake, it's a very different thing and there can at least be an argument made for it (a stupid argument but an argument).
Seems like a database glitch or a lazy data-entry or even just a missread/type with bad editing.
The proper definition is "unwanted sexual contact" or "sexual contact without consent". The latter includes any person incapable of giving legal consent due to age or incapacity. If she is too drunk to drive she is too drunk to legally say yes. Ifshe did not say yes to everything she said no to something.
> If the two definitions were different since they were coined, as you say, then when and why did they merge?
Actually the answer is well known. They merged because of squeamish prudes. See the word 'sex' is also widely used as a shorthand for "sexual intercourse". As a result a lot of prudish people get squeamish about the word. So they started using the word gender when they MEANT "sex" - as it was the closest concept with a name, despite only sometimes being similar. Businesses and bureaucrats, not wanting to hurt their public image by offending prudes, started putting "Gender" on forms instead of "Sex"...
But it all goes back to prudes being squeemish about the word sex, ever since sex started being used as a shorthand for fucking, and using gender as a substitute which, conveniently, doesn't remind them of the SCARIEST THING IN ALL THE KNOWN UNIVERSE. I was listening to grammar Nazis complain about the use "gender" when people meant "sex" at least 18 years ago.
> apparently marriage is indeed between a man and a woman.
That is likely to change in the next updated edition though - to reflect that the law has changed since the last edition... well assuming whoever Trump appoints into Scalia's seat doesn't change it back before that can happen. Like I said, it's a fairly conservative source - and it updates slowly - and never faster than the actual law.
>Apparently an infant is anyone under twenty-one years of age
Legally "infant" and "child" are synonymns, medically you're only an "infant" for the first year. Terms of art may not mean the same thing in one subject as in another. So for example "function" has a very specific meaning in mathematics which has NOTHING in common with the meaning of the word in law and neither meaning bears any similarity to the meaning of the word in common speech.
>Rape requires force
You may want to look up "sexual assault" as well though. In common speech rape is commonly used for both, but in LAW they are different. Brock Turner was charged with sexual assualt, and sexualt assualt of an unconscious person - but not actually with rape. There is no doubt he was a rapist though.
>Still, you made your point. I'd like to know how Black's comes up with these definitions,
Easy- by telling you what the law, and court precedence, define the words as. Basically it's a one-place summary of both legislative and common-law's decisions about what these words mean in a court.
And Frankly, Reagan should have hanged next to North as it's an open secret North was acting on the orders of the great white hype.
From Russia with love... to a federal prison in the US ? That's one helluva long distance relationship....
Manning leaked a lot more than one video. One of the others, for example show US soldiers murdering an Al Jazeera journalist and laughing about it. Other leaks by her revealed the torture happening in Abu Ghraib which put an end to that travesty.
Even if you think that "that" video has visible weapons (which somehow nobody else can see - and kind of disputed considering we know from other evidence they were ambulance workers) that doesn't mean there wasn't a public interest in the many other atrocities she revealed. Or are you denying those as well ? Was Abu Ghraib just harmless fun by horny girl soldiers who liked any excuse for showing their genitals to strangers ?
>He's looking for a ticket to the US so he can be a Fox News contributor.
On consideration - a James Bond villain is marginally less scary than a fox news contributor.
You may have misunderstood what I said. You were CONFIRMING my claim - not contradicting it. I said the same thing as you, only in different words. The west is fairly unique in trying to wipe it out, nearly all other cultures recognise at least 3 genders.
It apparently never occurred to him that, the correct answer, would be for Manning's lawyer to be appeal to plead with the court for a transfer to a women's prison - and for that to be granted upon testimony from doctors/therapists.
I can see no sane reason the state would even bother to oppose the application (at least if it's legitimate as with Manning) - for the current prison it's one less mouth to feed out of their budget, and a major, difficult, logistical problem off their shoulders. Hell if I was the warden I'd testify in favour of granting the application.
Except that the locker room full of 12-year old boys have fewer virgins in it.
>which is where people who don't have the emotional control or wits to moderate tone and speech often end up.
That, or apparently, they end up in the white house.
The only trouble is, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that YOU are the one who is retreating from reality. You're the one who clings to a mistaken belief that genitalia always matches brain development, hormonal development and genetics. But science has utterly disproven that belief. The reality is these things do NOT always match. You however, are, retreating from that reality and refusing to confront it.
Which has led to a mental illness in your case that causes you to lash out angrily, and in future likely violently, towards people who do not fit your desire about what you want reality to be.
There are numerous other variations. Some biological women have abnormally high testosterone levels - for a long time they were barred from competing in the olympics. Then there is a condition where the body is incapable of absorbing testosterone. And sometimes these can occur in the same person. For a long time women barred from the olympics due to high testosterone levels were allowed back in if they also had that condition.
Human bodies are extremely complex machines and come in many varieties - and most of them are harmless variation. There is nothing harmful about transgender genetics - the only harm they suffer is from the way people treat them, it's not their genes causing that, it's a flawed culture. One of the greatest Winter Olympians of all time had a rare genetic trait that made his body produce far higher than average red blood cells (Polycythemia). What some sportsman try to achieve with drugs like EPO - he had by nature of his genes.
When she was 3 months old my daugher swallowed a peanut which went down the wrong hole and got inhaled. She needed an endoscope to remove it. While doing the endoscope we learned that she had only one tube connecting her airways to her left lung. Generally there are two. I asked the doctor if this was anything to be concerned about and she said "Absolutely not, it's entirely harmless and will have no impact on her life whatsoever. It's a known and perfectly natural genetic variation and it's quite likely either you or your wife also has it. The only reason I pointed it out is because I found it personally interesting because though I knew about it, I hadn't seen it myself before".
Humans are not simple and don't fit into such super-simplistic categories as "male/female" very well and never really have. Just like anybody who says "people have two passages connecting the left lung to the airway" would be saying something that looks extremely obvious on the surface but simply isn't TRUE of all people.
Trump is not mentally ill. According to his vet he is in exceptionally good health for a senile orangutan his age.
It's been different ever since the words were first coined ! It predates western civilization itself (which is STILL the ONLY culture on earth to only have two recognised genders). Just a few posts up you can see Black's legal dictionary being cited proving that these things have different meanings in current law. Black's have been the standard legal dictionary in the USA for many decades and it's about as conservative a source as you can get for anything.