In reality, there will be bathroom breaks, at least one meal, so add another 2 hours. Now, add two hours for recharge stops
Huh?
So your conception is that you would drive for 9 hours and have two hours of stops.... but you would leave your vehicle unplugged during those stops? And then make two hours of charging stops, charging that you could have done during your already planned stop time?
The thing that makes your conception especially puzzling to me is that people already combine "recharging" and break / meal stops when driving gasoline cars. If they pull off the highway to get a meal, they'll also tend to fill up, or vice versa, since they've already had to take an exit, drive into the nearest town, and stop. The only difference with an EV is that you leave the vehicle connected to the "pump" while you're eating.
Not only "probably need a break", but should take a break (whether they "need" one or not). Long periods of driving without breaks are not safe. Your attention begins to wane. There's a reason why truck drivers are mandated to take periodic breaks.
If everyone had to stop for half an hour or so every several hundred kilometers, the highways would be a lot safer place; it's almost unfortunate that ranges keep improving, in that regard;). But most people prefer to push themselves rather than stop.
I don't think many people just stumble into a Musk company. For the most part, you know what you're getting into, you believe that what you're doing is the future as much as Musk does, and you put in the hours to make it happen. I don't think someone who didn't actually believe in the goals would last long in any of his companies.
Oh, and guess what? The US just launched an air attack on Assad's troops again. This time airplanes against ground forces - a mix of SAA (Syrian Army) and various paramilitaries - because they were getting too close to US special forces. Current estimates 6 dead, 3 injured.
But oh no, it's Hillary who was going to risk igniting a conflict in Syria...
You can choose to believe what you want, but the Nazis, too, did prisoner exchanges where it was useful to them. Assad's pockets of Foua and Kafarya have been being steadily evacuated to his territory in exchange for the rebel evacuations.
Right now, Assad is trying to create a contiguously unified territory while trying to shove the rebels into as small of a pocket in Idlib as he can. And it's proven too hard to eliminate them by force from their positions in these pockets because of how well dug in they are among the rubble; he's been trying for years.
Seriously? There were Russian troops on the ground at that base. You're going to act like the odds of accidentally hitting Russian troops while lobbing dozens of cruise missiles from hundreds of kilometers away is totally a nothing thing, but that the odds of hitting Russian aircraft when shooting at Assad's aircraft (after tracking them from takeoff from Assad's airbases (rather than the Russian airbase at Hmeimim)) is by contrast absurdly high? Do I even need to mention that as a consequence of Trump's attack Russia shut down the deconfliction line? It was reestablished just recently.
Yes, for forgetting all those violations of Syria's sovereignty, all those acts of war.
Are you talking about US troops in Syria? Because those have increased by an order of magnitude under Trump.
The hypocrisy is so glaring here I need sunglasses.
They switched so fast from hating Comey to singing his praises
You seem to have made the assumption that Democrats care more about disliking Comey than they do about obstruction of justice. Seems Trump made that assumption as well.
Bad assumption.
- Republicans have loved imperialism and bombing other countries for several decades now - you think this is a change for them?
Going from 22% support for bombing Syria as punishment for using chemical weapons to 86% support just because the president changed is not a simple case of "they always like it". Meanwhile, Democrats only shifted by 1%.
Right. Hillary totally said "Let's attack Russia."
Meanwhile, in our universe, what she did was express support for no-fly zones against Assad's aircraft. Which the right pretended means "go to war with Russia", because if you attack one of Assad's planes, then you might accidentally hit Russian planes, and then everything will spiral out of control.
Now, ignoring the fact that the US at present actually maintains de facto no-fly zones over Kurdish and Daesh territory (including threatening Assad with shooting down his aircraft if they took off during a Kurdish uprising in al-Hasakah), and Turkey maintains their own no-fly zone in northern Syria... forgetting about all of that... Trump outright bombed a Syrian base to bits.
Naturally Republicans freaked out about the imminent war with Russia and condemned Trump for his recklessness!..... but meanwhile in our universe, they gave Trump high poll ratings for his actions. Because of course, consistency isn't their strong suit.
Given the fact that Flynn and Manafort are officially named as subjects of a criminal investigation into illegal foreign influence and grand jury subpoenas have been issued for their records?
Your first link says its a conspiracy theory. Your second link says that no wrongdoing was found. Your third link says that Holder didn't know about the operation, much less Obama. The very headline of your fourth link states that the weapons airdrop to the Kurds accidentally hit the wrong place, and they had to destroy them to stop Daesh from getting them.
Do we even need to go on, with a person who thinks that Obama bears personal responsibility (or even deliberately ordered) an airdrop's landing in the wrong place in order to support terrorists, while he's busy deliberately trying to fuel Mexican crime, personally running IRS persecution campaigns which the FBI says didn't actually exist, and ordering hits on Democratic staffers?
Funny, I only see people obsessing over Jenner's involvement in the multiple vehicle collision that killed Howe (which police did not file charges over) because of her trans status. Had Jenner not been trans, very few people would even be aware of the accident and virtually nobody would be talking about it today.
If I took a sword to a blacksmith and he beat it into a ploughshare, would you insist on calling it a sword because it once was one?
In short, do you make an "immutability of essence" argument with everything, or just gender?
If you see gender as an immutable binary, I strongly recommend learning about the amazing diversity of intermediary intersex forms which occur surprisingly commonly in humans. Humanity tends toward the binary, but it's fully capable of everything in-between. I also recommend that you learn about tissue homologues.
Lastly, how exactly does what's in one's pants affect your everyday interaction with them, and thus define how you should treat them? And should what's in their pants define your interaction with them?
Male and female genitals develop from the same initial sets of tissues; every organ has a homologue (although those descending from the Mullerian or Wolfian ducts are degenerated to very small sizes in the opposite sex). The clitoris and glans are the same organ. Same tissue, same nerves, etc. Under the influence of testosterone, for example, the clitoris becomes several times larger. The shaft of the penis in women is bifurcated, beneath the skin, and not as developed - but still present. The labia minora and scrotum are the same tissue. Guys, see the line in the middle of your scrotum? That's where your labia fused. On and on down the line.
Where GRS has to make compromises is with degenerated organs, where the equivalent tissues are too small to be useful. For FTMs, the shaft of the penis is the biggest challenge, while for MTFs, it's the vaginal barrel. While the lower portion of the vagina is equivalent to part of the male external tissue, the upper portion is Mullerian, which is degenerated. Hence MTF GRS uses grafts (grafts also being used for natal females with insufficient vaginal depth). Also, while testes and ovaries are equivalent organs, and most cells in the body react to changing hormones by changing their behavior (for example, breasts develop in MTFs under the influence of estrogen, and they can breastfeed a child, just like any other woman), there's not yet a technique to change the transcription factors that affect hormone production in them.
In short, in the human body there are aspects that absolutely are reversible, and there are aspects that are not at present reversible with current technology. The techniques used to overcome the latter are the same as are used for natal-sex equivalents needing reparative or reconstructive work. Without gonadal hormone production, hormones must be taken artificially - but they are the exact same hormones as are normally found in the bloodstream, and cells respond to them in the same way.
Now, could you clarify why exactly you care so much about their genitals?
Intersex conditions (of which chromosomal reversals are a type) are surprisingly common. For example, genital anomalies occur in 1 in 300 births, with outright ambiguous genitalia in 1 in 5000. Estimates of rates of intersex conditions including non-visible traits are as high as 1-2% of the global population - about the same rate as red hair. Some conditions are rare in the general population but high in specific groups - for example, 0.3% of Yupik children are born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, while 5-ARD (a curious condition where children are born seemingly as female but develop a penis and descended testes at puberty) is very rare globally but higher in the Dominican Republic - in one village 12 of the 13 families there had at least one child with the condition.
Males with XX and females with XY are just another in a long line of sex chromosomal abnormalities including XXY females, XXXX females, XXYY males (1 in 18-40k),XXXXX females, XXXXY males (1 in 85-100k), XXY males (1 in 500-1000), XXX females (1 in 1000), and XO females (1 in 2-5k). And it's not just changes in numbers or selections of chromosomes; the SRY gene (which is really the virilization cascade trigger, not the whole Y chromosome) seems unusually prone to migration.
So again: if you want to assert that Manning is XY: show us the lab results. You can say it's most probable that Manning is XY and get no contest from me. But chromosomal abnormalities are common enough to make arbitrary assertion of the claim as fact indefensible.
There was no sing of any transgender tendencies before.
Someone clearly wasn't paying attention.
(1:11:54 PM) bradass87: and... its important that it gets out... i feel, for some bizarre reason (1:12:02 PM) bradass87: it might actually change something (1:13:10 PM) bradass87: i just... dont wish to be a part of it... at least not now... im not ready... i wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of having pictures of me... plastered all over the world press... as boy... (1:14:11 PM) bradass87: i've totally lost my mind... i make no sense... the CPU is not made for this motherboard... (1:14:42 PM) bradass87: s/as boy/as a boy (1:30:32 PM) bradass87: >sigh< (1:31:40 PM) bradass87: i just wanted enough time to figure myself out... to be myself... and be running around all the time, trying to meet someone else's expectations (1:32:01 PM) bradass87: *and not be (1:33:03 PM) bradass87: im just kind of drifting now... (1:34:11 PM) bradass87: waiting to redeploy to the US, be discharged... and figure out how on earth im going to transition (1:34:45 PM) bradass87: all while witnessing the world freak out as its most intimate secrets are revealed (1:35:06 PM) bradass87: its such an awkward place to be in, emotionally and psychologically
Slashdot is always flooded with teenagers who love to try to get a rise out of other people by posting racism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, etc. Plus some legitimate racists, homophobes, transphobes, misogynists, etc, but a large portion are just immature kids.
1) When did you do a DNA test? Because there's plenty of people who are anatomically male who are XX, and anatomically female who are XY. Odds are high that she's XY, but there's certainly no guarantee. You cannot simply assert "she's XY" as a fact without a test.
2) Is that how you interact with people - going around insisting on DNA tests with them before you can figure out how to proceed? And if so, do you demand DNA tests only for just sex chromosomes (or just the gene SRY), or do you insist on other DNA tests first as well?
3) Why do you care so much what's in her pants? It's a bit creepy, as if you have some sort of sexual obsession with her. Who thinks about other peoples' genitals this much, apart from someone with a sexual fixation?
you need to disable their military capability otherwise millions of innocent people will die.
In a worst case situation only, and overwhelmingly on the DPRK side.
Contrary to hype (which the media loves, and does before every major conflict), the DPRK does not have the ability to flatten Seoul. For example, you've apparently seen the meme that takes estimates of the total number of artillery pieces the DPRK has, multiplies by how fast an artillery piece can fire, multiplies by an hour or more, pretends that cities go down under artillery fire faster than they actually do, and then arrives at "Seoul leveled, millions dead".
In practice, the DPRK only has 400-500 artillery pieces that can actually hit Seoul - the "Koksan" family - and some long-range MLRS systems. The Koksans are lumbering, awkward, slow-firing systems. MLRS systems take even longer to reload. Even if you discount the terrible reliability of DPRK hardware, they can't just sit there and fire. Because unlike the DPRK, the ROK has counter-battery radar and a high level of accuracy. You have to move after firing, or you only get 1-2 shots off. And unless you're shooting at the enemy's forces, you're inviting them to overrun you. Furthermore, only a minority of long-range systems are near Seoul - they have a whole DMZ to defend/threaten. And beyond that, only a fraction of their artillery is at the DMZ.
With the Yeonpyeong attack they fired about 10 tonnes of artillery at the island, killing four and injuring 19. The DPRK might be able to get 20-30 times that launched at Seoul in a first wave. So multiply. Now, they do benefit from higher population densities in what they're firing at. On the other hand, working against that:
1) The target density isn't as extreme as you might picture. The vast majority the area of even the most populous districts are roads, greenery, water, and single family houses. 2) They're having to shoot from much further than when they shot at Yeonpyeong, with less accurate systems. That was pre-planned and with their best troops, not whatever arbitrary troops and hardware happen to be firing. 3) If this was in response to a US bombing, the ROK would know about it in advance, and you would expect people to be in the shelters (the ROK uses the Seoul subway system as a shelter). 4) Cities just don't go down that fast under artillery fire. Even sustained (aka, no need to move) fire. Look at Grozny, or Homs, or any other example in modern warfare, and the months to years it took to flatten districts of them.
The DPRK certainly could also use CBW, but in terms of scale of destruction vs. how much effort has to go into them, they're not very efficient. They mainly function as terror weapons. The exception is contageous biowarfare, but there's no evidence that the DPRK has been developing it (it's believed they've weaponized anthrax, however); contageous biowarfare would likely blowback and hit them harder than the ROK, as the ROK has a much better communications and medical system.
Now, talking about Seoul alone is unfair - there's also varying suburbs / border towns; Paju, the largest, is over 400k people and 10km from the nearest point on the DMZ. But the suburbs and border towns just don't have the population or population density or total population of Seoul, and you're talking "millions"; you need to literally do the media hyperbole of "flattening Seoul" to get those numbers. DPRK artillery is scattered across the whole DMZ, most of which is unpopulated. And most of it is ancient (even more obsolete than Saddam's hardware was in GW1), and it's questionable how well it all works. The DPRK prefers to build new hardware while not scrapping old hardware to boost their numbers game, rather than scrapping old systems and replacing them.
Now, that's the artillery threat. The ballistic threat is a different beast. But it has its own problems.
1) Their missiles have historically been highly unreliable. One model last I checked had an 88% f
It's weird how people generally give North Korea either too much or too little credit, often at the same time.
First off, North Korea is not at present starving its people. The North Korean economy has been growing at a rather good clip. They're trying to make Pyongyang into a model city with a lot of impressive architecture projects. While they're generally rushed and substandard construction, they're visually quite impressive (the DPRK actually has some good architects and artists - one of their biggest sources of foreign currency is giant statues built for African dictators - I kid you not). There's now nearly 3 million cell phones in the DPRK. They can't connect out of the country, but the country is modernizing (while still trying - and progressively getting worse at - keeping its people isolated). DVD and Blu-Ray players are not that rare, particularly in cities, and the government is increasingly giving up on trying to stop media smuggled in from China. They don't mind US and European movies / TV sneaking in that much anymore, but South Korean media still bugs them a lot (because their propaganda tries to portray the South as impoverished and oppressed by the US, a country that they need to "save").
DPRK military technology, including missile technology, is a piecemeal mix of foreign tech (either imported legitimately, or acquired illegally and smuggled) and legitimate homegrown engineering. Some of their solutions are rather "hacks", but they work. For example, one of their missiles that kept flying out of control... later pictures of it showed a ton of big grid fins on the back, making it like a shuttlecock. Then it worked. Sure, that's added drag and it's going to make it light up radar screens like a Christmas tree, but they want to advance their technology as fast as possible. They're following a natural rocketry progression. Their latest rockets, for example, appear to now use a common bulkhead approach to reduce mass rather than two separate tanks. They're working with better materials. Their Q&A and local manufacturing quality is low. But it'll get the job done. They expect failures. When they shelled Yeonpyeong, only half of the shells even hit the island, a quarter of those that hit it didn't explode, and most of their shots were aimed based on obsolete maps, or just aimed poorly. But they simply put out enough firepower to overcome that. And that's undoubtedly going to be the same strategy that they pursue with missiles - "so what if a lot of them explode on the pad, in the air, go way off course.... we'll just make enough that some of them will get through."
You know, in a way, the DPRK is sort playing a high-stakes game of Kerbal Space Program.
Right now, while there was a lot of movement initially, I'm not seeing much to suggest imminent US action. The Carl Vinson is there, but no other carriers. The Reagan was just headed out for sea trials, but it's needing to go back for some additional repairs. The Nimitz is still on the west coast. Really for something as complicated as North Korea you'd want at least five carrier strike groups (think GW1), particularly if the ROK doesn't let you launch attacks from their territory (which Moon Jae-in almost certainly wouldn't). Japan would help to the best of its capabilities and constitutional limits, and last I saw France was deploying a Mistral... but there's just not that much firepower there yet, versus how many targets you've got in the DPRK. At least they have THAAD in place (plus Aegis BMD from the coasts, and PAC-3s for the lower-altitude threats)... but the longer they wait the more they're going to need to expand THAAD. And if they wait too long, even THAAD will start to have trouble hitting the increasingly high-energy trajectory launches.
Also, if the US goal was to be "do a limited strike, but make it clear that if the DPRK attacks the ROK that the consequences for it will become much worse", you're going to want something to back up that threat. Like, say, mobilizations of ground troops. Forward-deployed armour en masse waiting to be landed. Etc. None of these sorts of things seem to be in progress. The "much worse" threat could simply be "the ROK will retaliate" or "we'll bomb more" or "we'll focus on regime change rather than just disarmament"... but that's not nearly as effective of a deterrent as the threat of a full invasion.
Perhaps this is a "stick" they're saving for later if China can't or won't manage to get the DPRK to stop this behavior. Or perhaps they're just doing like every other president has before and decided "I don't want to be the one responsible for starting a war on the Korean peninsula, I'll just pass this off to my successor". But as things stand, I'm not seeing any real movement toward military action against the DPRK. Just some showboating, and having some "counterstrike" capability in the area.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh?
So your conception is that you would drive for 9 hours and have two hours of stops.... but you would leave your vehicle unplugged during those stops? And then make two hours of charging stops, charging that you could have done during your already planned stop time?
The thing that makes your conception especially puzzling to me is that people already combine "recharging" and break / meal stops when driving gasoline cars. If they pull off the highway to get a meal, they'll also tend to fill up, or vice versa, since they've already had to take an exit, drive into the nearest town, and stop. The only difference with an EV is that you leave the vehicle connected to the "pump" while you're eating.
Not only "probably need a break", but should take a break (whether they "need" one or not). Long periods of driving without breaks are not safe. Your attention begins to wane. There's a reason why truck drivers are mandated to take periodic breaks.
If everyone had to stop for half an hour or so every several hundred kilometers, the highways would be a lot safer place; it's almost unfortunate that ranges keep improving, in that regard ;). But most people prefer to push themselves rather than stop.
I don't think many people just stumble into a Musk company. For the most part, you know what you're getting into, you believe that what you're doing is the future as much as Musk does, and you put in the hours to make it happen. I don't think someone who didn't actually believe in the goals would last long in any of his companies.
Oh, and guess what? The US just launched an air attack on Assad's troops again. This time airplanes against ground forces - a mix of SAA (Syrian Army) and various paramilitaries - because they were getting too close to US special forces. Current estimates 6 dead, 3 injured.
But oh no, it's Hillary who was going to risk igniting a conflict in Syria...
It was not "bombing tarmac".
Why won't people just trust Assad's offers of Amnesty? I can't think of a reason...
You can choose to believe what you want, but the Nazis, too, did prisoner exchanges where it was useful to them. Assad's pockets of Foua and Kafarya have been being steadily evacuated to his territory in exchange for the rebel evacuations.
Right now, Assad is trying to create a contiguously unified territory while trying to shove the rebels into as small of a pocket in Idlib as he can. And it's proven too hard to eliminate them by force from their positions in these pockets because of how well dug in they are among the rubble; he's been trying for years.
Seriously? There were Russian troops on the ground at that base. You're going to act like the odds of accidentally hitting Russian troops while lobbing dozens of cruise missiles from hundreds of kilometers away is totally a nothing thing, but that the odds of hitting Russian aircraft when shooting at Assad's aircraft (after tracking them from takeoff from Assad's airbases (rather than the Russian airbase at Hmeimim)) is by contrast absurdly high? Do I even need to mention that as a consequence of Trump's attack Russia shut down the deconfliction line? It was reestablished just recently.
Are you talking about US troops in Syria? Because those have increased by an order of magnitude under Trump.
The hypocrisy is so glaring here I need sunglasses.
You seem to have made the assumption that Democrats care more about disliking Comey than they do about obstruction of justice. Seems Trump made that assumption as well.
Bad assumption.
Going from 22% support for bombing Syria as punishment for using chemical weapons to 86% support just because the president changed is not a simple case of "they always like it". Meanwhile, Democrats only shifted by 1%.
Right. Hillary totally said "Let's attack Russia."
Meanwhile, in our universe, what she did was express support for no-fly zones against Assad's aircraft. Which the right pretended means "go to war with Russia", because if you attack one of Assad's planes, then you might accidentally hit Russian planes, and then everything will spiral out of control.
Now, ignoring the fact that the US at present actually maintains de facto no-fly zones over Kurdish and Daesh territory (including threatening Assad with shooting down his aircraft if they took off during a Kurdish uprising in al-Hasakah), and Turkey maintains their own no-fly zone in northern Syria... forgetting about all of that... Trump outright bombed a Syrian base to bits.
Naturally Republicans freaked out about the imminent war with Russia and condemned Trump for his recklessness! ..... but meanwhile in our universe, they gave Trump high poll ratings for his actions. Because of course, consistency isn't their strong suit.
Given the fact that Flynn and Manafort are officially named as subjects of a criminal investigation into illegal foreign influence and grand jury subpoenas have been issued for their records?
You.
By now, quite a bit ;)
Your first link says its a conspiracy theory.
Your second link says that no wrongdoing was found.
Your third link says that Holder didn't know about the operation, much less Obama.
The very headline of your fourth link states that the weapons airdrop to the Kurds accidentally hit the wrong place, and they had to destroy them to stop Daesh from getting them.
Do we even need to go on, with a person who thinks that Obama bears personal responsibility (or even deliberately ordered) an airdrop's landing in the wrong place in order to support terrorists, while he's busy deliberately trying to fuel Mexican crime, personally running IRS persecution campaigns which the FBI says didn't actually exist, and ordering hits on Democratic staffers?
Funny, I only see people obsessing over Jenner's involvement in the multiple vehicle collision that killed Howe (which police did not file charges over) because of her trans status. Had Jenner not been trans, very few people would even be aware of the accident and virtually nobody would be talking about it today.
If I took a sword to a blacksmith and he beat it into a ploughshare, would you insist on calling it a sword because it once was one?
In short, do you make an "immutability of essence" argument with everything, or just gender?
If you see gender as an immutable binary, I strongly recommend learning about the amazing diversity of intermediary intersex forms which occur surprisingly commonly in humans. Humanity tends toward the binary, but it's fully capable of everything in-between. I also recommend that you learn about tissue homologues.
Lastly, how exactly does what's in one's pants affect your everyday interaction with them, and thus define how you should treat them? And should what's in their pants define your interaction with them?
"What's put in place" is their own tissue.
Male and female genitals develop from the same initial sets of tissues; every organ has a homologue (although those descending from the Mullerian or Wolfian ducts are degenerated to very small sizes in the opposite sex). The clitoris and glans are the same organ. Same tissue, same nerves, etc. Under the influence of testosterone, for example, the clitoris becomes several times larger. The shaft of the penis in women is bifurcated, beneath the skin, and not as developed - but still present. The labia minora and scrotum are the same tissue. Guys, see the line in the middle of your scrotum? That's where your labia fused. On and on down the line.
Where GRS has to make compromises is with degenerated organs, where the equivalent tissues are too small to be useful. For FTMs, the shaft of the penis is the biggest challenge, while for MTFs, it's the vaginal barrel. While the lower portion of the vagina is equivalent to part of the male external tissue, the upper portion is Mullerian, which is degenerated. Hence MTF GRS uses grafts (grafts also being used for natal females with insufficient vaginal depth). Also, while testes and ovaries are equivalent organs, and most cells in the body react to changing hormones by changing their behavior (for example, breasts develop in MTFs under the influence of estrogen, and they can breastfeed a child, just like any other woman), there's not yet a technique to change the transcription factors that affect hormone production in them.
In short, in the human body there are aspects that absolutely are reversible, and there are aspects that are not at present reversible with current technology. The techniques used to overcome the latter are the same as are used for natal-sex equivalents needing reparative or reconstructive work. Without gonadal hormone production, hormones must be taken artificially - but they are the exact same hormones as are normally found in the bloodstream, and cells respond to them in the same way.
Now, could you clarify why exactly you care so much about their genitals?
Intersex conditions (of which chromosomal reversals are a type) are surprisingly common. For example, genital anomalies occur in 1 in 300 births, with outright ambiguous genitalia in 1 in 5000. Estimates of rates of intersex conditions including non-visible traits are as high as 1-2% of the global population - about the same rate as red hair. Some conditions are rare in the general population but high in specific groups - for example, 0.3% of Yupik children are born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, while 5-ARD (a curious condition where children are born seemingly as female but develop a penis and descended testes at puberty) is very rare globally but higher in the Dominican Republic - in one village 12 of the 13 families there had at least one child with the condition.
Males with XX and females with XY are just another in a long line of sex chromosomal abnormalities including XXY females, XXXX females, XXYY males (1 in 18-40k),XXXXX females, XXXXY males (1 in 85-100k), XXY males (1 in 500-1000), XXX females (1 in 1000), and XO females (1 in 2-5k). And it's not just changes in numbers or selections of chromosomes; the SRY gene (which is really the virilization cascade trigger, not the whole Y chromosome) seems unusually prone to migration.
So again: if you want to assert that Manning is XY: show us the lab results. You can say it's most probable that Manning is XY and get no contest from me. But chromosomal abnormalities are common enough to make arbitrary assertion of the claim as fact indefensible.
Someone clearly wasn't paying attention.
Slashdot is always flooded with teenagers who love to try to get a rise out of other people by posting racism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, etc. Plus some legitimate racists, homophobes, transphobes, misogynists, etc, but a large portion are just immature kids.
1) When did you do a DNA test? Because there's plenty of people who are anatomically male who are XX, and anatomically female who are XY. Odds are high that she's XY, but there's certainly no guarantee. You cannot simply assert "she's XY" as a fact without a test.
2) Is that how you interact with people - going around insisting on DNA tests with them before you can figure out how to proceed? And if so, do you demand DNA tests only for just sex chromosomes (or just the gene SRY), or do you insist on other DNA tests first as well?
3) Why do you care so much what's in her pants? It's a bit creepy, as if you have some sort of sexual obsession with her. Who thinks about other peoples' genitals this much, apart from someone with a sexual fixation?
It's a "tragedy" that her genitals may change? What, were you hoping to fuck her?
He has the best diet.
Nobody has a better diet than him.
Tidal forces beg to differ ;) F may be the same, but dF is very different.
In a worst case situation only, and overwhelmingly on the DPRK side.
Contrary to hype (which the media loves, and does before every major conflict), the DPRK does not have the ability to flatten Seoul. For example, you've apparently seen the meme that takes estimates of the total number of artillery pieces the DPRK has, multiplies by how fast an artillery piece can fire, multiplies by an hour or more, pretends that cities go down under artillery fire faster than they actually do, and then arrives at "Seoul leveled, millions dead".
In practice, the DPRK only has 400-500 artillery pieces that can actually hit Seoul - the "Koksan" family - and some long-range MLRS systems. The Koksans are lumbering, awkward, slow-firing systems. MLRS systems take even longer to reload. Even if you discount the terrible reliability of DPRK hardware, they can't just sit there and fire. Because unlike the DPRK, the ROK has counter-battery radar and a high level of accuracy. You have to move after firing, or you only get 1-2 shots off. And unless you're shooting at the enemy's forces, you're inviting them to overrun you. Furthermore, only a minority of long-range systems are near Seoul - they have a whole DMZ to defend/threaten. And beyond that, only a fraction of their artillery is at the DMZ.
With the Yeonpyeong attack they fired about 10 tonnes of artillery at the island, killing four and injuring 19. The DPRK might be able to get 20-30 times that launched at Seoul in a first wave. So multiply. Now, they do benefit from higher population densities in what they're firing at. On the other hand, working against that:
1) The target density isn't as extreme as you might picture. The vast majority the area of even the most populous districts are roads, greenery, water, and single family houses.
2) They're having to shoot from much further than when they shot at Yeonpyeong, with less accurate systems. That was pre-planned and with their best troops, not whatever arbitrary troops and hardware happen to be firing.
3) If this was in response to a US bombing, the ROK would know about it in advance, and you would expect people to be in the shelters (the ROK uses the Seoul subway system as a shelter).
4) Cities just don't go down that fast under artillery fire. Even sustained (aka, no need to move) fire. Look at Grozny, or Homs, or any other example in modern warfare, and the months to years it took to flatten districts of them.
The DPRK certainly could also use CBW, but in terms of scale of destruction vs. how much effort has to go into them, they're not very efficient. They mainly function as terror weapons. The exception is contageous biowarfare, but there's no evidence that the DPRK has been developing it (it's believed they've weaponized anthrax, however); contageous biowarfare would likely blowback and hit them harder than the ROK, as the ROK has a much better communications and medical system.
Now, talking about Seoul alone is unfair - there's also varying suburbs / border towns; Paju, the largest, is over 400k people and 10km from the nearest point on the DMZ. But the suburbs and border towns just don't have the population or population density or total population of Seoul, and you're talking "millions"; you need to literally do the media hyperbole of "flattening Seoul" to get those numbers. DPRK artillery is scattered across the whole DMZ, most of which is unpopulated. And most of it is ancient (even more obsolete than Saddam's hardware was in GW1), and it's questionable how well it all works. The DPRK prefers to build new hardware while not scrapping old hardware to boost their numbers game, rather than scrapping old systems and replacing them.
Now, that's the artillery threat. The ballistic threat is a different beast. But it has its own problems.
1) Their missiles have historically been highly unreliable. One model last I checked had an 88% f
It's weird how people generally give North Korea either too much or too little credit, often at the same time.
First off, North Korea is not at present starving its people. The North Korean economy has been growing at a rather good clip. They're trying to make Pyongyang into a model city with a lot of impressive architecture projects. While they're generally rushed and substandard construction, they're visually quite impressive (the DPRK actually has some good architects and artists - one of their biggest sources of foreign currency is giant statues built for African dictators - I kid you not). There's now nearly 3 million cell phones in the DPRK. They can't connect out of the country, but the country is modernizing (while still trying - and progressively getting worse at - keeping its people isolated). DVD and Blu-Ray players are not that rare, particularly in cities, and the government is increasingly giving up on trying to stop media smuggled in from China. They don't mind US and European movies / TV sneaking in that much anymore, but South Korean media still bugs them a lot (because their propaganda tries to portray the South as impoverished and oppressed by the US, a country that they need to "save").
DPRK military technology, including missile technology, is a piecemeal mix of foreign tech (either imported legitimately, or acquired illegally and smuggled) and legitimate homegrown engineering. Some of their solutions are rather "hacks", but they work. For example, one of their missiles that kept flying out of control... later pictures of it showed a ton of big grid fins on the back, making it like a shuttlecock. Then it worked. Sure, that's added drag and it's going to make it light up radar screens like a Christmas tree, but they want to advance their technology as fast as possible. They're following a natural rocketry progression. Their latest rockets, for example, appear to now use a common bulkhead approach to reduce mass rather than two separate tanks. They're working with better materials. Their Q&A and local manufacturing quality is low. But it'll get the job done. They expect failures. When they shelled Yeonpyeong, only half of the shells even hit the island, a quarter of those that hit it didn't explode, and most of their shots were aimed based on obsolete maps, or just aimed poorly. But they simply put out enough firepower to overcome that. And that's undoubtedly going to be the same strategy that they pursue with missiles - "so what if a lot of them explode on the pad, in the air, go way off course.... we'll just make enough that some of them will get through."
You know, in a way, the DPRK is sort playing a high-stakes game of Kerbal Space Program.
Right now, while there was a lot of movement initially, I'm not seeing much to suggest imminent US action. The Carl Vinson is there, but no other carriers. The Reagan was just headed out for sea trials, but it's needing to go back for some additional repairs. The Nimitz is still on the west coast. Really for something as complicated as North Korea you'd want at least five carrier strike groups (think GW1), particularly if the ROK doesn't let you launch attacks from their territory (which Moon Jae-in almost certainly wouldn't). Japan would help to the best of its capabilities and constitutional limits, and last I saw France was deploying a Mistral... but there's just not that much firepower there yet, versus how many targets you've got in the DPRK. At least they have THAAD in place (plus Aegis BMD from the coasts, and PAC-3s for the lower-altitude threats)... but the longer they wait the more they're going to need to expand THAAD. And if they wait too long, even THAAD will start to have trouble hitting the increasingly high-energy trajectory launches.
Also, if the US goal was to be "do a limited strike, but make it clear that if the DPRK attacks the ROK that the consequences for it will become much worse", you're going to want something to back up that threat. Like, say, mobilizations of ground troops. Forward-deployed armour en masse waiting to be landed. Etc. None of these sorts of things seem to be in progress. The "much worse" threat could simply be "the ROK will retaliate" or "we'll bomb more" or "we'll focus on regime change rather than just disarmament"... but that's not nearly as effective of a deterrent as the threat of a full invasion.
Perhaps this is a "stick" they're saving for later if China can't or won't manage to get the DPRK to stop this behavior. Or perhaps they're just doing like every other president has before and decided "I don't want to be the one responsible for starting a war on the Korean peninsula, I'll just pass this off to my successor". But as things stand, I'm not seeing any real movement toward military action against the DPRK. Just some showboating, and having some "counterstrike" capability in the area.