I'm not a programming expert at all, and in fact whenever I need to automate something, the best I can do is write something in bash or make something GUI driven in powershell.
But, it's my understanding that Assembly is psuedocode that translates more directly into machine code than say C. Unless you want to argue that CPU architectures directly interpret words like PUSH, INT, CALL, JMP, etc, then why wouldn't assembly be considered a programming language in the same vein as anything else?
The cat woman is irrelevant. Can't get that through your head, can you? Whether she has a mental condition or not makes no difference.
Yup, and while you're at it, also totally disregard my point about you not having any idea why (from a medical standpoint) Manning chose to get a sex change that makes you sure that he deserves to get free surgery while in prison. And yes, that is the heart of the issue, which you keep dodging, in addition to the simple fact that US prisons don't provide cosmetic surgeries. Let's also disregard that when somebody has these kinds of surgeries, the cavity they create, absent of routine maintenance, tries to heal up like the wound that it is by all medical definitions of the term.
you refuse to call Chelsea Manning by her legal name.
I don't call my sister by her legal name either, and people rarely call me by my legal name. I'm not sure what you're getting at?
That's the same excuse rednecks use to keep calling black people - "That's how I first knew them."
I haven't heard any rednecks use that word in recent memory. In fact I hear it the most from black people. Rednecks are kind of fun to hang out with though, except for when they watch nascar which bores the fuck out of me.
Big shit. There are plenty of people who are left-handed, but right eye dominant. Like me. I don't consider that a problem.
Probably because you sit at a computer all day. I try to get outdoors though, and it does somewhat negatively impact my ability to do skeet shooting. Same with my chronic kidney disease, which is responsible for my anemia. Speak of which, I've had three people who I've known for less than 5 months offer to donate a kidney to me when the time comes that I need it, without me even asking. When I ask why, they say I come off as a really nice guy. But I kind of doubt anybody would do the same for you, because you're kind of a dick, to be honest. In fact, these same people would probably stop hanging out with you once they found you forcing your morality on them.
As for the presumption of you being a man, women generally don't have much of a problem with transsexuals. It's a "guy" thing. Studies have shown in court that the men who most strongly resist anything outside the male sex/female sex divide are, deep down, repressed gays. Like you. You doth protest too much.
My girlfriend was telling me that she liked how thick my beard was, but that she was also into long hair and that while she was cool with mine being short and thin (I've shaved my head to almost nothing since I was 16 years old) she's more attracted to longer hair, but she's about 8 years older than me and was a teenager in the 80's whereas I was born in 1982. Somehow that got me into one of my typical "sciency" moments where I talked about how testosterone actually causes most males to lose their hair, and ones with thicker hair tend to have thinner beards due to producing less of it. I then drove the point home by mentioning, very matter of factly and without any bias, how female to male trans grow a beard by injecting testosterone. You know what her reaction was? "Oh that's gross."
Oh and look at that? I trashed two of your arguments in one stone. Also if I hated gays, I probably wouldn't have paid to see James Rhandi's documentary, which I knew well before seeing it that it had a strong pro-gay-marriage message. The only gays I get annoyed with are the ultra femmy ones, (think Richard Simmons) but even other gays get annoyed with them so I don't think that makes me somehow hateful or bigoted.
So, keep on being like the racists who insist on calling black people names
Yep, obviously I'm a racist because I dare to utter the name "Bradley Manning", herp derp.
You see, your opinion doesn't matter - you can tell it to the judge, you'll still lose, just like they did. The o
Especially given how we shed two digits from the year to save memory, I kinda doubt having quadruple the number of bytes in an IP address would fly.
Still though, it occurs to me that the first internet protocol implementation could have even longer address space than ipv6 without mandating (at the time) unfathomable memory needs. Why did they change that?
I personally don't like to use voice assistants, mainly for privacy reasons. And no, I don't particularly care if Google or Apple knows what I'm searching for. Rather, I don't particularly like when people I'm sitting near know what my immediate intentions are. I'm not doing anything nefarious, I just like keeping my personal business personal, which is much easier with Swype.
I kind of doubt that the Israeli government was involved in a company whose main customers are common internet trolls that want to (for a fee) knock video game streamers offline for 5 minutes to cause them to lose an arena match in world of warcraft. Seriously, that's the biggest revenue driver for a company like vDOS.
The fact that it was located in Israel is likely coincidence, more than anything. It wouldn't surprise me if a collection people who offer these "booter" services didn't like the thought that somebody could possibly expose them, which is bad for their business, and they simply retaliated. Perhaps to send a message of "leave us alone"? Who knows. People have done worse to krebs for exposing illegal activity, like mailing drugs to his address and then reporting him to police, or SWATing him. Oh, and did I mention, these are also tactics that trolls have used against world of warcraft streamers?
The fact that you're turning this into a big government conspiracy just because of the fact that it's in Israel is possibly anti-semetic however, as I doubt you'd make a similar claim if the company operated in Nicuragua for example.
1. Really surprised that all violence against civilians isn't recorded, whether necessary or otherwise.
I don't think that it isn't recorded, rather I think this is more of a tool to make statistical gathering/reporting easier. Everything the police do that involves some kind of formal report is recorded somewhere in excruciating detail, but in the absence of something like this, I doubt there's any kind of detailed statistical gathering.
By excruciating, what I mean is this: I did a police ride along once, and everything that involves some kind of citation, no matter how small, invariably requires a solid minimum of 30 minutes worth of sitting at a computer and typing, detailing literally everything that the cop did, saw, heard, etc. The cop I did my ride along with didn't even like to give out speeding tickets because it's that much of a pain in the ass. In fact, we got called to help out some girl who drove the left side of her truck on top of a median and flattened both of her left tires, and I was in one of the two cars that responded. She technically broke the law, (I don't recall which one) but they weren't going to write a ticket. However she indicated that she wanted to make an insurance claim, and so the cops told her that if she wanted to make one they'd have to issue a citation, which would include points on her driver's license and a fine. Otherwise she could fix her tires on her own dime. She of course opted for the later, thus saving the cops involved a lot of paperwork (and time) so that they could respond to other calls.
And from my observation in all of this, the only time cops tend to issue citations for minor infractions is when they have a quota that they need to fill for promotion or other purposes (ticket quotas are banned in my state, by the way, except in Indian reservation where I've literally been issued a citation for going 2mph instead of a COMPLETE stop for a stop sign, aka a rolling stop) or if the cop has a chip on his shoulder and just wants to be a dick, or if they notice you doing something blatantly unsafe (like driving unreasonably faster or slower than the rest of traffic -- I drive 80mph all the time where the freeway is 65, and cops I've driven past never care because that's practically the same speed everybody else drives.)
Anyways, what I'm getting at, is that if there's violence or other injury caused by a cop, 99.999% chance there's a formal (and likely very detailed) report.
Because the other universities and colleges are "not for profit", i.e. government run so off the hook. They know how to play the crony games with the politicians and bureaucrats.
Even though many are grade inflating diploma mills who graduate students with worthless degrees and lots of debt as well.
Regardless of whether or not a college is for profit, there are a lot of really stupid people out there who don't belong in college at all but go anyways because there's this overall mantra that "you must go to college". Contrary to popular belief, college is NOT for everybody.
I can't tell you how many people I've met that get either completely worthless degrees (i.e. being a history major) or degrees that are legit but are in professions that are over-saturated (i.e. law degrees.) You can get these degrees at what are otherwise good state universities, and, it's not the university's fault if you fail to make a successful career out of it, even though you were (in a sense) doomed to failure before you even took your first class. However we should probably stop sending the message that college is for everybody, lest these people go deep into debt for no good reason at all, and worse, since there's a lot of them, they put upward pressure on tuition costs that make it more expensive for those who should be going to college.
And on that note, I think student loans are a really dumb idea, no matter what college you're going to or what degree you're getting (unless you want to be a doctor, which most med school students I've spoken to said it's just not worth it and if they had to start over again, they'd have done something else.) Furthermore I have almost no sympathy at all for anybody who has a huge amount of student loan debt. Why? Well, if college costs you so much that you have to borrow, you're probably doing it wrong. Community college is dirt cheap, so you should be taking advantage of that for as long as you can.
I personally spent about $14,000 on college, with 75% of my bachelor's degree credits coming from community college, (my graduate's degree is from Northern Arizona University) and two years after graduating I'm already within the top 30% of income earners in the Phoenix area.
Then again I'm also the kind of guy who believes that if you need to borrow money to buy a car, then you're paying too much, so maybe I'm biased.
Not for profit doesn't necessarily mean charity either. I work for a nonprofit company and we don't do any charity work (other than the usual fundraiser type stuff that just about every other company does) and we don't take donations or government money either. It also doesn't mean that the services we provide don't yield a profit or are somehow less expensive. All nonprofit basically means is that the company doesn't have shareholders of any sort and doesn't pay dividends to anybody.
We do have a system though where when the company revenues go a certain amount above its expenses, it's dispersed to ALL of the company's employees as a bonus. Since we're a pretty large company, it doesn't amount to anything huge (I think last year's was about $300) but it's purpose is to be an incentive for everybody within the company to feel responsible for the overall goal of customer satisfaction, thus driving results.
I think this is a problem in want of a legal solution rather than a technical one. That is, people hosting ddos botnet nodes behind their internet connection, winningly or not, be held accountable. And it needs not be anything drastic, just require heavy throttling until they fix their shit. And foreign actors can simply have their mal intended traffic dropped at the border links if their country doesn't enforce similar rules.
- When I say condition, I'm referring to a state of being, and not necessarily anything medical. For example, the phrase "the human condition" doesn't refer to a medical condition. - When I say problem, I mean a situation in want of a resolution. If a situation is not in want of a resolution, then it is not a problem.
The woman who wanted to be a cat has nothing to do with transsexuals. We've been able to demonstrate, and the APA has accepted, that transsexuality is not a mental condition.
Is the cat woman's problem a mental condition? In her own words, she seems pretty sure that she was born the wrong species.
Hmmm...sounds familiar...I swear I've heard this word "dysphoria" somewhere before...ring a bell?
So why do you keep on bringing up examples that have noting to do with the actual topic?
Well I'll try explaining this from another angle then: In the case of Bradley Manning, you immediately hop on the argument that his brain is a female brain, and therefore he's a female. But the truth is, you really have no idea. And, that's exactly I'm bringing up pretty clear examples of people wanting to be things they are not, such as FTM which, try as you might, you can't explain away with your conjecture about Manning.
Because you have a problem.
And what problem do I have, exactly? I'm comfortable with my views and they don't need any solution. If I meet a brony (and I have met a few) I'm going to think "eh this dude is kinda weird, but whatever." I think the same about trannies and RPers. Does it need a solution? No. I just see some odd people....and...well shit, I'll have a beer with em, even be friends with em -- hell I'd even have a beer with you and be friends with you for that matter -- or a member of ISIS (provided they didn't try to cut my head off) or Hitler. I'm the kind of guy who will get along with anybody, even those who hate me.
But the thing is, and this is the meat of the issue: If I see a woman making herself to be a cat, I'd probably offer her another pint rather than some catnip.
In other words, it's perfectly normal for ANYBODY to behave one way towards one sex while behaving in often completely different ways towards another sex. And no, that's not sexist or somehow wrong or misogynistic, because women do and say different things around other women than they do to men. It's just human behavior, and I don't know if you have a problem with that or not, but if you do...well...not my problem.
And -- what I'm ultimately getting at -- if I meet a man making himself to be a woman -- and I have -- my communication with this person will be just as if they were another one of the guys. I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just a no bullshit kind of guy. Make sense? If that bothers you, and makes you want to rid the world of me, or at least rid the immediate area of my presence, then that's not my problem, that's your problem. I don't have a problem because to me you're just another one of the guys, because again, I'm a no BS kind of guy, (sometimes to my detriment because if somebody asks me an IT question that I don't know the answer to, then I'll just flat out say "I don't know, but I'll figure it out", instead of doing the typical IT geek thing and pretend I know while I go look up the actual solution, whereas the later person will probably look better and will probably get promoted easier.)
If you were born with one eye, that would be a physical condition. It too would cause mental distress. The fix for the mental stress is not therapy to help you accept that you have only one eye - it's changing you physically - giving you a glass eye. That physical change relieves a lot of the mental stress because it lets you be who you should have been except for that missing eye.
Do I know it's wrong? Yeah. Do I care? No, not particularly. I've personally written software that I've had people pirate, and was just like "meh, whatever". I guess it's kind of like speeding, which I do all the time, and the cops don't seem to care as I've had several watch me do it and I've never gotten a speeding ticket.
I think the best thing would be to treat internet access much like we do electromagnetic spectrum, and require those using it to have some kind of accountability in that if they participate in a ddos, willingly or not, then they have to have their access throttled to something like 128kbit, even if they switch ISPs, and they can only have it unthrottled once they decide to secure their devices or otherwise stop participating in ddos.
In other words, the article you quoted is irrelevant. The world has moved on. The government does not want any more of what they called unethical and abusive conversion therapy on children - not from Zucker, not from anyone else.
Except if you actually read what I mentioned, that's not what anybody accused him of, except for the PC police.
Again, what do you fear so much about transsexuals that you can't even call them by their names?
Who? Bradley Manning? Bruce Jenner? Actually about that -- I refer to everybody by names I've known them as for a long time. That includes my sister who legally changed her name (and still remains her birth gender, by the way.) That also includes that total douchebag Brianna Wu, who I've never known by any other name.
That has nothing to do with being trans or anything like that; it's that I think it's a load of crap that somebody can be one thing and then one day wake up and claim to be something/someone else and expect everybody to follow that as if life is world of warcraft on an RP server where one you hop on an alt, you're suddenly a new identity with a new personality (and yes, I'm also annoyed by RPers.) And don't think your special because that includes this:
Much in the same as that woman wants to be a cat and might pick up the mannerisms of a cat, at the end of the day she's a woman. Likewise much as you pick up the mannerisms of a woman, you still are a man, and even debate just like one.
That offends you? Honestly, that's your problem, not mine.
You made it clear several times that my explanations relating to m2f transsexuals must be invalid because they don't explain f2m transsexuals, even though I made it clear that my remarks were only applicable to m2f transsexuals. Quit trying to imply things I never said, and using that to discredit what I actually said.
Are you high? That is NOT putting words in your mouth; rather it's pointing out a big inconsistency with your argument. I've stated multiple times that I think there's a different underlying cause in many if not most cases, even one time showing you a medical whitepaper that suggested that BIID may share a same or similar underlying cause, but you always go right back to the argument about brain development, which obviously can't explain many cases, ftm being a very obvious example that it can't explain at all.
There had been complaints about Zucker's methods in treating children for 2 decades, and he was unable to produce any studies that he didn't have a connection to that backed him up. Zucker is now toxic - nobody is going to hire him after years of documented child abuse.
If you read that article I quoted, you'd find out that this isn't true. He never at any point refused treatment to anybody. What the PC police (and people like you) were wanting to string him up for was the fact that his clinic never made surgery referrals, and the thing is, it was never supposed to, instead it was supposed to refer them to another clinic who was then supposed to evaluate for candidacy for surgery -- his whole thing was always about the behavioral health aspect of it, and nothing else. (In any medical study, it's always a good idea that if a person is otherwise in good physical health, and a particular condition has a chance to correct on its own, then it's best to give it that chance instead of pushing for more drastic options, i.e. surgery, and you cannot fault him for that, especially given that he ultimately sent many patients in the direction that you advocate) Anyways, some dumbass claimed that he was insulted by Zucker, which is what prompted the firing. Only it turns out that he had never even seen Zucker, which was later proven, but only after he was fired.
But honestly you're worse than a church official that is being given evidence that his beliefs might be wrong, because at least they don't lash out at you and try to make you out to be a nazi.
I think that if there was any use for something like this, it would be as a replacement for the polygraph. It would probably be equally worthless in that it isn't accurate enough to conclusively determine whether or not one is lying, while also possibly being harder to fool in that the existing techniques for fooling polygraphs may not work.
Either way though, I suspect that the asshole administering the polygraph (and yes, they're pretty much all assholes, even former polygraphers usually agree) won't let you wear any tinfoil.
That is not true here in Boston. Comcast appears to be sending exactly the same bits that the local TV stations are broadcasting; the only difference is that they demultiplex the transport stream and send each subchannel as a separate cable channel.
Yeah this is the way most cablecos seem to do it. As I mentioned:
It's up to the cableco, and with most cablecos it's usually 720p unless it's pay per view or local channels.
Or another way of putting it, pretty much all cablecos will retransmit the locals undisturbed from their original broadcast, and pay-per-view or on-demand content will be at a higher resolution.
It's the other content, i.e. that which comes from content provider feeds like viacom, AMC, HBO, etc, that they tend to keep at 720p and only rarely go higher than that (usually major sporting events, like March Madness for example will typically be 1080i.)
It's up to the cableco, and with most cablecos it's usually 720p unless it's pay per view or local channels. Even premium channels like HBO are usually 720p with most cablecos. Why? Because cable typically lacks the bandwidth for it, and industry standard still considers 720p to be "HD". The interesting thing about 4k though is that there's only one resolution that the industry actually defines as 4k, so they can't even do like what DirecTV does where they have 1440x810 upscaled to 1080p by your IRD and then just label it as "HD" (since it's above 720p, they can get away with that.) 4k is just fucking 4k; broadcasting at any lower resolution while claiming otherwise would be blatant false advertising.
But who cares, cable sucks anyways; it's all about torrents and netflix these days.
Anyways, it's not surprising that 4k is being adopted faster than 1080p, because 4k TVs are a LOT cheaper than HDTVs were when they first came out, while also being bigger and higher quality (i.e. more accurate colors, sharper pixels, etc) while likely lasting longer (LCD ages much slower than the phosphors found in CRT/Plasma displays of yore, in addition to consuming less power and producing less heat for your AC to deal with in the summer.) So much for the "race to the bottom" that Luddites often claim were in.
It is hard to unweave the fact from fiction which you've heard. Joseph used seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon from "reformed Egyptian" to English. Eleven other men say and handled these plates and published their testimonies to the world. None of these eleven ever denied the Book of Mormon. The papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was translated is lost. The mummy contained multiple papyrus writings, some of which have been found. Joseph did not claim the ability to find water sources, though he tried a few times.
Yes, it was lost and thought burned, and then later it was found in 1966. In fact they even found it with the original letter from Smith's mother who gave it to the museum, thus authenticating it as the very same one Smith had, and indeed even the LDS church believes it to be the same. You can read about that here, including actual pictures of the papyrus that you claim to have been lost, which also match up rather well with what is depicted in the book of mormon:
Furthermore, it was never contained in a mummy, rather it was a part of a collection of egyptian artefacts that Smith purchased, which included some mummies.
Also, Smith even wrote direct "translations" of individual hieroglyphs that weren't even anywhere close to being accurate (often "translating" a single glyph into multiple sentences.) He also said that a depiction of Isis was a depiction of Abraham (in other words, he even got the gender wrong) and turned a drawing of Anubis resurrecting Osiris into what he called an "idolous priest" slaying Abraham.
In fact, you can find a pretty good rundown of the whole thing here:
I never tried to "explain the causes" of female-to-male trans, because we just don't have enough information (and it's irrelevant to the discussion of Chelsea Manning anyway).
It's relevant because the key contention is whether prisoners are entitled to sex change operations. Your argument is that it is because of the way a trans person's brains develop, yet two counterpoints I plainly observe are thus:
- Female to male transexualism is a thing, and yet following your reasoning about brain physiology, it cannot apply here. - You can dismiss this assertion if you want, but I tend to draw a mental picture of the person I'm debating and how the person debates tends to hint their gender. I've had it happen at least a few times where I suspected that a "female" was debating with online was actually a male, and then it turned out to be the case later (sometimes years later.) I've read about this and indeed, it turns out that males tend to argue more direct-aggressive. Females tend to try to be more passive-manipulative. You, to me, argue much more like a male does, especially given that your posts are often vitriolic. In light of this, I remain dubious about neurology claims when applied to your particular case. But again, you're welcome to dismiss that if you want, because it's more based on intuition than any hard evidence, and I will not be debating this particular point any further.
Also, your figures for spontaneously deciding against it are based on fraudulent studies, including those at CAMH, where one of the leading proponents of "reparative therapy" was fired and his clinic shut down.
About that...It turns out that Zucker was in the right, and that this whole thing was due to politics.
The External Review, Zucker’s allies believe, was just a sloppily executed pretense for submitting to political pressure. “There was likely a desire on the part of the [CAMH] administration to close the clinic, and the review was designed to allow them to do just that,” wrote Dr. Susan Bradley, who founded the GIC in 1975 before handing the reins over to Zucker about a decade later, in an email.
And if you look closely at what really happened — if you read the review (which CAMH has now pulled off of its website), speak with the activists who effectively wrote large swaths of it, examine the scientific evidence, and talk to former GIC clinicians and the parents of patients they worked with, it’s hard not to come to an uncomfortable, politically incorrect conclusion: Zucker’s defenders are right. This was a show trial.
***
In 2016, there’s fairly solid agreement about the proper course of treatment for otherwise healthy, stable young people who have persistent gender dysphoria, and who are either approaching puberty or older than that: You help them transition to their true gender. The process is different from person to person, but for an 11-year-old, it might include a round of puberty-blocking hormones to prevent the development of secondary sex characteristics and buy time to figure out the best course of transition, followed by the administration of male or female hormones, and, later on, possibly sex-reassignment surgery or surgeries.
With kids who are still years away from the onset of puberty, though, there’s a charged controversy about what’s best. That’s because here, two seemingly conflicting truths collide: Trans people deserve to have their identities recognized and respected; and research suggests that most gender-dysphoric kids will, in the long run, end up identifying as cisgender. In other words, a sizable percentage of them aren’t transgender in the same, usually permanent way trans adults are.
More important bits:
So Zucker and his colleagues can’t even agree with their critics on basic terms and definitions — on what a “reparative therapy” accusation eve
I've always paid cash for my cars, so my monthly (and overall) costs are lower since I don't pay any finance fees/charges. My insurance is about $700 per year, repair and maintenance costs rarely exceed $200 per year, registration is $250 per year. I paid $8k for my current car, (2013 Camry SE) and usually own my cars for about 8 years, expected to sell for about $3000 at that time, so this time around roughly $625 per year just to own the car.
So my car costs me roughly $148 per month to own and use, not including fuel, which depending on usage and pricing is probably another $100. Using a taxi service of any kind instead would easily exceed $248 a month.
So if I believe that I'm a helicopter then that makes me a real helicopter. Got it. But at any rate, that doesn't make any kind of a case for surgery.
And yes, prisoners are entitled to orthodontic care. That's part of good health for everyone, no controversy there whatsoever.
I really don't think you understand what orthodontic care means, and why it's not health related. In fact if you go to prison already having braces, chances are the only "care" you'll get is to simply have them removed. There's only super rare medical cases where orthodontic care is medically necessary, and chances are that if you were born with a medical need for orthodontic care, you'd have had it addressed long before you were even old enough to land in prison.
In other words, if you enter prison with crooked teeth, then you're coming out with crooked teeth. Having crooked teeth is perfectly healthy and is neither a disfigurement nor is it a birth defect, much in the same as being slightly overweight is perfectly healthy and doesn't call for liposuction.
Think of it - even when you're "thinking with your little head", it's the big head that's being influenced. Dicks do NOT have a mind of their own, despite what Barf says in Space Balls.
This is exactly why I don't like replying to your posts.
Same with the unborn male fetus, when the testes fail to produce enough testosterone at the 12th week, or when the receptors fail to react. In both cases, we can see the effects in the development of other structures that are growing at the same time - the finger bones. Just look up 2D:4D digit ratio. Kind of hard to deny something is going on differently when there's easily visible proof. To think that it wouldn't influence the rapidly developing brain at the same time is pretty much not believable.
If the case is strictly this, then there's practically no medical explanation for female to male trans people, nor would you be able to explain why about 10% of adult trans over 26 decide to return to their birth gender, or why around 70% of people under 26 spontaneously lose the desire for a sex change.
Your second paragraph is trivially wrong - you don't deny people medical care just because they're in locked up. Whatever your political opinion on gender identity disorder and associated therapy+surgery, the medical opinion is what matters.
I'd otherwise agree except, as GP stated, this isn't medically necessary and is purely cosmetic. This would be like saying you should have the right to orthodontic care, tummy tucks, facelifts, liposuction, etc. Hell, I've debated this very issue with another slashdotter, Barbara Hudson, who is obviously a trans advocate, and even stated to me that what's between one's legs doesn't define them. If we follow that logic, then why on earth would srs surgery ever be a "right"? Hell, a good number of trans people never go through with bottom surgery at all; not even because they can't afford it, but because they just don't want to. I think that, for example, if Bruce/Cait Jenner wanted to give himself the chop, he has plenty of money to pay for it, and yet he doesn't, meaning the only thing stopping him from doing it is himself.
At any rate, the person who turned Manning in seemed to do so under reasonable grounds. And keep in mind, I'm not a rabbid "hang all traitors" type. I actually fully support Snowden's efforts AND his means, and support a pardon for the same. However, what Manning did was purely out of spite and he even knew that it would be used to paint a very false narrative and in a very reckless manner, and yet he did it anyways. I honestly don't give a shit what happens to either Manning or Assange. Furthermore, neither Assange nor Manning believe in any form of responsible disclosure, and would rather make a name for themselves than give even the slightest shit about the safety of the US and its allies. This is in deep contrast to Snowden who goes out of his way to protect those who are in a sensitive position and would likely be either killed or jailed if he made their names public.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a programming expert at all, and in fact whenever I need to automate something, the best I can do is write something in bash or make something GUI driven in powershell.
But, it's my understanding that Assembly is psuedocode that translates more directly into machine code than say C. Unless you want to argue that CPU architectures directly interpret words like PUSH, INT, CALL, JMP, etc, then why wouldn't assembly be considered a programming language in the same vein as anything else?
https://play.google.com/store/...
The cat woman is irrelevant. Can't get that through your head, can you? Whether she has a mental condition or not makes no difference.
Yup, and while you're at it, also totally disregard my point about you not having any idea why (from a medical standpoint) Manning chose to get a sex change that makes you sure that he deserves to get free surgery while in prison. And yes, that is the heart of the issue, which you keep dodging, in addition to the simple fact that US prisons don't provide cosmetic surgeries. Let's also disregard that when somebody has these kinds of surgeries, the cavity they create, absent of routine maintenance, tries to heal up like the wound that it is by all medical definitions of the term.
you refuse to call Chelsea Manning by her legal name.
I don't call my sister by her legal name either, and people rarely call me by my legal name. I'm not sure what you're getting at?
That's the same excuse rednecks use to keep calling black people - "That's how I first knew them."
I haven't heard any rednecks use that word in recent memory. In fact I hear it the most from black people. Rednecks are kind of fun to hang out with though, except for when they watch nascar which bores the fuck out of me.
Big shit. There are plenty of people who are left-handed, but right eye dominant. Like me. I don't consider that a problem.
Probably because you sit at a computer all day. I try to get outdoors though, and it does somewhat negatively impact my ability to do skeet shooting. Same with my chronic kidney disease, which is responsible for my anemia. Speak of which, I've had three people who I've known for less than 5 months offer to donate a kidney to me when the time comes that I need it, without me even asking. When I ask why, they say I come off as a really nice guy. But I kind of doubt anybody would do the same for you, because you're kind of a dick, to be honest. In fact, these same people would probably stop hanging out with you once they found you forcing your morality on them.
As for the presumption of you being a man, women generally don't have much of a problem with transsexuals. It's a "guy" thing. Studies have shown in court that the men who most strongly resist anything outside the male sex/female sex divide are, deep down, repressed gays. Like you. You doth protest too much.
My girlfriend was telling me that she liked how thick my beard was, but that she was also into long hair and that while she was cool with mine being short and thin (I've shaved my head to almost nothing since I was 16 years old) she's more attracted to longer hair, but she's about 8 years older than me and was a teenager in the 80's whereas I was born in 1982. Somehow that got me into one of my typical "sciency" moments where I talked about how testosterone actually causes most males to lose their hair, and ones with thicker hair tend to have thinner beards due to producing less of it. I then drove the point home by mentioning, very matter of factly and without any bias, how female to male trans grow a beard by injecting testosterone. You know what her reaction was? "Oh that's gross."
Oh and look at that? I trashed two of your arguments in one stone. Also if I hated gays, I probably wouldn't have paid to see James Rhandi's documentary, which I knew well before seeing it that it had a strong pro-gay-marriage message. The only gays I get annoyed with are the ultra femmy ones, (think Richard Simmons) but even other gays get annoyed with them so I don't think that makes me somehow hateful or bigoted.
So, keep on being like the racists who insist on calling black people names
Yep, obviously I'm a racist because I dare to utter the name "Bradley Manning", herp derp.
You see, your opinion doesn't matter - you can tell it to the judge, you'll still lose, just like they did. The o
Especially given how we shed two digits from the year to save memory, I kinda doubt having quadruple the number of bytes in an IP address would fly.
Still though, it occurs to me that the first internet protocol implementation could have even longer address space than ipv6 without mandating (at the time) unfathomable memory needs. Why did they change that?
I personally don't like to use voice assistants, mainly for privacy reasons. And no, I don't particularly care if Google or Apple knows what I'm searching for. Rather, I don't particularly like when people I'm sitting near know what my immediate intentions are. I'm not doing anything nefarious, I just like keeping my personal business personal, which is much easier with Swype.
I kind of doubt that the Israeli government was involved in a company whose main customers are common internet trolls that want to (for a fee) knock video game streamers offline for 5 minutes to cause them to lose an arena match in world of warcraft. Seriously, that's the biggest revenue driver for a company like vDOS.
The fact that it was located in Israel is likely coincidence, more than anything. It wouldn't surprise me if a collection people who offer these "booter" services didn't like the thought that somebody could possibly expose them, which is bad for their business, and they simply retaliated. Perhaps to send a message of "leave us alone"? Who knows. People have done worse to krebs for exposing illegal activity, like mailing drugs to his address and then reporting him to police, or SWATing him. Oh, and did I mention, these are also tactics that trolls have used against world of warcraft streamers?
The fact that you're turning this into a big government conspiracy just because of the fact that it's in Israel is possibly anti-semetic however, as I doubt you'd make a similar claim if the company operated in Nicuragua for example.
1. Really surprised that all violence against civilians isn't recorded, whether necessary or otherwise.
I don't think that it isn't recorded, rather I think this is more of a tool to make statistical gathering/reporting easier. Everything the police do that involves some kind of formal report is recorded somewhere in excruciating detail, but in the absence of something like this, I doubt there's any kind of detailed statistical gathering.
By excruciating, what I mean is this: I did a police ride along once, and everything that involves some kind of citation, no matter how small, invariably requires a solid minimum of 30 minutes worth of sitting at a computer and typing, detailing literally everything that the cop did, saw, heard, etc. The cop I did my ride along with didn't even like to give out speeding tickets because it's that much of a pain in the ass. In fact, we got called to help out some girl who drove the left side of her truck on top of a median and flattened both of her left tires, and I was in one of the two cars that responded. She technically broke the law, (I don't recall which one) but they weren't going to write a ticket. However she indicated that she wanted to make an insurance claim, and so the cops told her that if she wanted to make one they'd have to issue a citation, which would include points on her driver's license and a fine. Otherwise she could fix her tires on her own dime. She of course opted for the later, thus saving the cops involved a lot of paperwork (and time) so that they could respond to other calls.
And from my observation in all of this, the only time cops tend to issue citations for minor infractions is when they have a quota that they need to fill for promotion or other purposes (ticket quotas are banned in my state, by the way, except in Indian reservation where I've literally been issued a citation for going 2mph instead of a COMPLETE stop for a stop sign, aka a rolling stop) or if the cop has a chip on his shoulder and just wants to be a dick, or if they notice you doing something blatantly unsafe (like driving unreasonably faster or slower than the rest of traffic -- I drive 80mph all the time where the freeway is 65, and cops I've driven past never care because that's practically the same speed everybody else drives.)
Anyways, what I'm getting at, is that if there's violence or other injury caused by a cop, 99.999% chance there's a formal (and likely very detailed) report.
Because the other universities and colleges are "not for profit", i.e. government run so off the hook. They know how to play the crony games with the politicians and bureaucrats.
Even though many are grade inflating diploma mills who graduate students with worthless degrees and lots of debt as well.
Regardless of whether or not a college is for profit, there are a lot of really stupid people out there who don't belong in college at all but go anyways because there's this overall mantra that "you must go to college". Contrary to popular belief, college is NOT for everybody.
I can't tell you how many people I've met that get either completely worthless degrees (i.e. being a history major) or degrees that are legit but are in professions that are over-saturated (i.e. law degrees.) You can get these degrees at what are otherwise good state universities, and, it's not the university's fault if you fail to make a successful career out of it, even though you were (in a sense) doomed to failure before you even took your first class. However we should probably stop sending the message that college is for everybody, lest these people go deep into debt for no good reason at all, and worse, since there's a lot of them, they put upward pressure on tuition costs that make it more expensive for those who should be going to college.
And on that note, I think student loans are a really dumb idea, no matter what college you're going to or what degree you're getting (unless you want to be a doctor, which most med school students I've spoken to said it's just not worth it and if they had to start over again, they'd have done something else.) Furthermore I have almost no sympathy at all for anybody who has a huge amount of student loan debt. Why? Well, if college costs you so much that you have to borrow, you're probably doing it wrong. Community college is dirt cheap, so you should be taking advantage of that for as long as you can.
I personally spent about $14,000 on college, with 75% of my bachelor's degree credits coming from community college, (my graduate's degree is from Northern Arizona University) and two years after graduating I'm already within the top 30% of income earners in the Phoenix area.
Then again I'm also the kind of guy who believes that if you need to borrow money to buy a car, then you're paying too much, so maybe I'm biased.
Not for profit doesn't necessarily mean charity either. I work for a nonprofit company and we don't do any charity work (other than the usual fundraiser type stuff that just about every other company does) and we don't take donations or government money either. It also doesn't mean that the services we provide don't yield a profit or are somehow less expensive. All nonprofit basically means is that the company doesn't have shareholders of any sort and doesn't pay dividends to anybody.
We do have a system though where when the company revenues go a certain amount above its expenses, it's dispersed to ALL of the company's employees as a bonus. Since we're a pretty large company, it doesn't amount to anything huge (I think last year's was about $300) but it's purpose is to be an incentive for everybody within the company to feel responsible for the overall goal of customer satisfaction, thus driving results.
I think this is a problem in want of a legal solution rather than a technical one. That is, people hosting ddos botnet nodes behind their internet connection, winningly or not, be held accountable. And it needs not be anything drastic, just require heavy throttling until they fix their shit. And foreign actors can simply have their mal intended traffic dropped at the border links if their country doesn't enforce similar rules.
Before I respond, let me clarify my terms:
- When I say condition, I'm referring to a state of being, and not necessarily anything medical. For example, the phrase "the human condition" doesn't refer to a medical condition.
- When I say problem, I mean a situation in want of a resolution. If a situation is not in want of a resolution, then it is not a problem.
The woman who wanted to be a cat has nothing to do with transsexuals. We've been able to demonstrate, and the APA has accepted, that transsexuality is not a mental condition.
Is the cat woman's problem a mental condition? In her own words, she seems pretty sure that she was born the wrong species.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hmmm...sounds familiar...I swear I've heard this word "dysphoria" somewhere before...ring a bell?
So why do you keep on bringing up examples that have noting to do with the actual topic?
Well I'll try explaining this from another angle then: In the case of Bradley Manning, you immediately hop on the argument that his brain is a female brain, and therefore he's a female. But the truth is, you really have no idea. And, that's exactly I'm bringing up pretty clear examples of people wanting to be things they are not, such as FTM which, try as you might, you can't explain away with your conjecture about Manning.
Because you have a problem.
And what problem do I have, exactly? I'm comfortable with my views and they don't need any solution. If I meet a brony (and I have met a few) I'm going to think "eh this dude is kinda weird, but whatever." I think the same about trannies and RPers. Does it need a solution? No. I just see some odd people....and...well shit, I'll have a beer with em, even be friends with em -- hell I'd even have a beer with you and be friends with you for that matter -- or a member of ISIS (provided they didn't try to cut my head off) or Hitler. I'm the kind of guy who will get along with anybody, even those who hate me.
But the thing is, and this is the meat of the issue: If I see a woman making herself to be a cat, I'd probably offer her another pint rather than some catnip.
In other words, it's perfectly normal for ANYBODY to behave one way towards one sex while behaving in often completely different ways towards another sex. And no, that's not sexist or somehow wrong or misogynistic, because women do and say different things around other women than they do to men. It's just human behavior, and I don't know if you have a problem with that or not, but if you do...well...not my problem.
And -- what I'm ultimately getting at -- if I meet a man making himself to be a woman -- and I have -- my communication with this person will be just as if they were another one of the guys. I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just a no bullshit kind of guy. Make sense? If that bothers you, and makes you want to rid the world of me, or at least rid the immediate area of my presence, then that's not my problem, that's your problem. I don't have a problem because to me you're just another one of the guys, because again, I'm a no BS kind of guy, (sometimes to my detriment because if somebody asks me an IT question that I don't know the answer to, then I'll just flat out say "I don't know, but I'll figure it out", instead of doing the typical IT geek thing and pretend I know while I go look up the actual solution, whereas the later person will probably look better and will probably get promoted easier.)
If you were born with one eye, that would be a physical condition. It too would cause mental distress. The fix for the mental stress is not therapy to help you accept that you have only one eye - it's changing you physically - giving you a glass eye. That physical change relieves a lot of the mental stress because it lets you be who you should have been except for that missing eye.
In a m
Do I know it's wrong? Yeah. Do I care? No, not particularly. I've personally written software that I've had people pirate, and was just like "meh, whatever". I guess it's kind of like speeding, which I do all the time, and the cops don't seem to care as I've had several watch me do it and I've never gotten a speeding ticket.
I think the best thing would be to treat internet access much like we do electromagnetic spectrum, and require those using it to have some kind of accountability in that if they participate in a ddos, willingly or not, then they have to have their access throttled to something like 128kbit, even if they switch ISPs, and they can only have it unthrottled once they decide to secure their devices or otherwise stop participating in ddos.
In other words, the article you quoted is irrelevant. The world has moved on. The government does not want any more of what they called unethical and abusive conversion therapy on children - not from Zucker, not from anyone else.
Except if you actually read what I mentioned, that's not what anybody accused him of, except for the PC police.
Again, what do you fear so much about transsexuals that you can't even call them by their names?
Who? Bradley Manning? Bruce Jenner? Actually about that -- I refer to everybody by names I've known them as for a long time. That includes my sister who legally changed her name (and still remains her birth gender, by the way.) That also includes that total douchebag Brianna Wu, who I've never known by any other name.
That has nothing to do with being trans or anything like that; it's that I think it's a load of crap that somebody can be one thing and then one day wake up and claim to be something/someone else and expect everybody to follow that as if life is world of warcraft on an RP server where one you hop on an alt, you're suddenly a new identity with a new personality (and yes, I'm also annoyed by RPers.) And don't think your special because that includes this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Much in the same as that woman wants to be a cat and might pick up the mannerisms of a cat, at the end of the day she's a woman. Likewise much as you pick up the mannerisms of a woman, you still are a man, and even debate just like one.
That offends you? Honestly, that's your problem, not mine.
You made it clear several times that my explanations relating to m2f transsexuals must be invalid because they don't explain f2m transsexuals, even though I made it clear that my remarks were only applicable to m2f transsexuals. Quit trying to imply things I never said, and using that to discredit what I actually said.
Are you high? That is NOT putting words in your mouth; rather it's pointing out a big inconsistency with your argument. I've stated multiple times that I think there's a different underlying cause in many if not most cases, even one time showing you a medical whitepaper that suggested that BIID may share a same or similar underlying cause, but you always go right back to the argument about brain development, which obviously can't explain many cases, ftm being a very obvious example that it can't explain at all.
There had been complaints about Zucker's methods in treating children for 2 decades, and he was unable to produce any studies that he didn't have a connection to that backed him up. Zucker is now toxic - nobody is going to hire him after years of documented child abuse.
If you read that article I quoted, you'd find out that this isn't true. He never at any point refused treatment to anybody. What the PC police (and people like you) were wanting to string him up for was the fact that his clinic never made surgery referrals, and the thing is, it was never supposed to, instead it was supposed to refer them to another clinic who was then supposed to evaluate for candidacy for surgery -- his whole thing was always about the behavioral health aspect of it, and nothing else. (In any medical study, it's always a good idea that if a person is otherwise in good physical health, and a particular condition has a chance to correct on its own, then it's best to give it that chance instead of pushing for more drastic options, i.e. surgery, and you cannot fault him for that, especially given that he ultimately sent many patients in the direction that you advocate) Anyways, some dumbass claimed that he was insulted by Zucker, which is what prompted the firing. Only it turns out that he had never even seen Zucker, which was later proven, but only after he was fired.
But honestly you're worse than a church official that is being given evidence that his beliefs might be wrong, because at least they don't lash out at you and try to make you out to be a nazi.
I think that if there was any use for something like this, it would be as a replacement for the polygraph. It would probably be equally worthless in that it isn't accurate enough to conclusively determine whether or not one is lying, while also possibly being harder to fool in that the existing techniques for fooling polygraphs may not work.
Either way though, I suspect that the asshole administering the polygraph (and yes, they're pretty much all assholes, even former polygraphers usually agree) won't let you wear any tinfoil.
That is not true here in Boston. Comcast appears to be sending exactly the same bits that the local TV stations are broadcasting; the only difference is that they demultiplex the transport stream and send each subchannel as a separate cable channel.
Yeah this is the way most cablecos seem to do it. As I mentioned:
It's up to the cableco, and with most cablecos it's usually 720p unless it's pay per view or local channels.
Or another way of putting it, pretty much all cablecos will retransmit the locals undisturbed from their original broadcast, and pay-per-view or on-demand content will be at a higher resolution.
It's the other content, i.e. that which comes from content provider feeds like viacom, AMC, HBO, etc, that they tend to keep at 720p and only rarely go higher than that (usually major sporting events, like March Madness for example will typically be 1080i.)
What words did I put in your mouth?
Or, I do understand rather well, meanwhile you have more of a male mind than you realize.
It's up to the cableco, and with most cablecos it's usually 720p unless it's pay per view or local channels. Even premium channels like HBO are usually 720p with most cablecos. Why? Because cable typically lacks the bandwidth for it, and industry standard still considers 720p to be "HD". The interesting thing about 4k though is that there's only one resolution that the industry actually defines as 4k, so they can't even do like what DirecTV does where they have 1440x810 upscaled to 1080p by your IRD and then just label it as "HD" (since it's above 720p, they can get away with that.) 4k is just fucking 4k; broadcasting at any lower resolution while claiming otherwise would be blatant false advertising.
But who cares, cable sucks anyways; it's all about torrents and netflix these days.
Anyways, it's not surprising that 4k is being adopted faster than 1080p, because 4k TVs are a LOT cheaper than HDTVs were when they first came out, while also being bigger and higher quality (i.e. more accurate colors, sharper pixels, etc) while likely lasting longer (LCD ages much slower than the phosphors found in CRT/Plasma displays of yore, in addition to consuming less power and producing less heat for your AC to deal with in the summer.) So much for the "race to the bottom" that Luddites often claim were in.
It is hard to unweave the fact from fiction which you've heard. Joseph used seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon from "reformed Egyptian" to English. Eleven other men say and handled these plates and published their testimonies to the world. None of these eleven ever denied the Book of Mormon. The papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was translated is lost. The mummy contained multiple papyrus writings, some of which have been found. Joseph did not claim the ability to find water sources, though he tried a few times.
Yes, it was lost and thought burned, and then later it was found in 1966. In fact they even found it with the original letter from Smith's mother who gave it to the museum, thus authenticating it as the very same one Smith had, and indeed even the LDS church believes it to be the same. You can read about that here, including actual pictures of the papyrus that you claim to have been lost, which also match up rather well with what is depicted in the book of mormon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Furthermore, it was never contained in a mummy, rather it was a part of a collection of egyptian artefacts that Smith purchased, which included some mummies.
Also, Smith even wrote direct "translations" of individual hieroglyphs that weren't even anywhere close to being accurate (often "translating" a single glyph into multiple sentences.) He also said that a depiction of Isis was a depiction of Abraham (in other words, he even got the gender wrong) and turned a drawing of Anubis resurrecting Osiris into what he called an "idolous priest" slaying Abraham.
In fact, you can find a pretty good rundown of the whole thing here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I never tried to "explain the causes" of female-to-male trans, because we just don't have enough information (and it's irrelevant to the discussion of Chelsea Manning anyway).
It's relevant because the key contention is whether prisoners are entitled to sex change operations. Your argument is that it is because of the way a trans person's brains develop, yet two counterpoints I plainly observe are thus:
- Female to male transexualism is a thing, and yet following your reasoning about brain physiology, it cannot apply here.
- You can dismiss this assertion if you want, but I tend to draw a mental picture of the person I'm debating and how the person debates tends to hint their gender. I've had it happen at least a few times where I suspected that a "female" was debating with online was actually a male, and then it turned out to be the case later (sometimes years later.) I've read about this and indeed, it turns out that males tend to argue more direct-aggressive. Females tend to try to be more passive-manipulative. You, to me, argue much more like a male does, especially given that your posts are often vitriolic. In light of this, I remain dubious about neurology claims when applied to your particular case. But again, you're welcome to dismiss that if you want, because it's more based on intuition than any hard evidence, and I will not be debating this particular point any further.
Also, your figures for spontaneously deciding against it are based on fraudulent studies, including those at CAMH, where one of the leading proponents of "reparative therapy" was fired and his clinic shut down.
About that...It turns out that Zucker was in the right, and that this whole thing was due to politics.
The External Review, Zucker’s allies believe, was just a sloppily executed pretense for submitting to political pressure. “There was likely a desire on the part of the [CAMH] administration to close the clinic, and the review was designed to allow them to do just that,” wrote Dr. Susan Bradley, who founded the GIC in 1975 before handing the reins over to Zucker about a decade later, in an email.
And if you look closely at what really happened — if you read the review (which CAMH has now pulled off of its website), speak with the activists who effectively wrote large swaths of it, examine the scientific evidence, and talk to former GIC clinicians and the parents of patients they worked with, it’s hard not to come to an uncomfortable, politically incorrect conclusion: Zucker’s defenders are right. This was a show trial.
***
In 2016, there’s fairly solid agreement about the proper course of treatment for otherwise healthy, stable young people who have persistent gender dysphoria, and who are either approaching puberty or older than that: You help them transition to their true gender. The process is different from person to person, but for an 11-year-old, it might include a round of puberty-blocking hormones to prevent the development of secondary sex characteristics and buy time to figure out the best course of transition, followed by the administration of male or female hormones, and, later on, possibly sex-reassignment surgery or surgeries.
With kids who are still years away from the onset of puberty, though, there’s a charged controversy about what’s best. That’s because here, two seemingly conflicting truths collide: Trans people deserve to have their identities recognized and respected; and research suggests that most gender-dysphoric kids will, in the long run, end up identifying as cisgender. In other words, a sizable percentage of them aren’t transgender in the same, usually permanent way trans adults are.
More important bits:
So Zucker and his colleagues can’t even agree with their critics on basic terms and definitions — on what a “reparative therapy” accusation eve
I've always paid cash for my cars, so my monthly (and overall) costs are lower since I don't pay any finance fees/charges. My insurance is about $700 per year, repair and maintenance costs rarely exceed $200 per year, registration is $250 per year. I paid $8k for my current car, (2013 Camry SE) and usually own my cars for about 8 years, expected to sell for about $3000 at that time, so this time around roughly $625 per year just to own the car.
So my car costs me roughly $148 per month to own and use, not including fuel, which depending on usage and pricing is probably another $100. Using a taxi service of any kind instead would easily exceed $248 a month.
Because it's what's between the ears that counts.
So if I believe that I'm a helicopter then that makes me a real helicopter. Got it. But at any rate, that doesn't make any kind of a case for surgery.
And yes, prisoners are entitled to orthodontic care. That's part of good health for everyone, no controversy there whatsoever.
I really don't think you understand what orthodontic care means, and why it's not health related. In fact if you go to prison already having braces, chances are the only "care" you'll get is to simply have them removed. There's only super rare medical cases where orthodontic care is medically necessary, and chances are that if you were born with a medical need for orthodontic care, you'd have had it addressed long before you were even old enough to land in prison.
In other words, if you enter prison with crooked teeth, then you're coming out with crooked teeth. Having crooked teeth is perfectly healthy and is neither a disfigurement nor is it a birth defect, much in the same as being slightly overweight is perfectly healthy and doesn't call for liposuction.
Think of it - even when you're "thinking with your little head", it's the big head that's being influenced. Dicks do NOT have a mind of their own, despite what Barf says in Space Balls.
This is exactly why I don't like replying to your posts.
Same with the unborn male fetus, when the testes fail to produce enough testosterone at the 12th week, or when the receptors fail to react. In both cases, we can see the effects in the development of other structures that are growing at the same time - the finger bones. Just look up 2D:4D digit ratio. Kind of hard to deny something is going on differently when there's easily visible proof. To think that it wouldn't influence the rapidly developing brain at the same time is pretty much not believable.
If the case is strictly this, then there's practically no medical explanation for female to male trans people, nor would you be able to explain why about 10% of adult trans over 26 decide to return to their birth gender, or why around 70% of people under 26 spontaneously lose the desire for a sex change.
Your second paragraph is trivially wrong - you don't deny people medical care just because they're in locked up. Whatever your political opinion on gender identity disorder and associated therapy+surgery, the medical opinion is what matters.
I'd otherwise agree except, as GP stated, this isn't medically necessary and is purely cosmetic. This would be like saying you should have the right to orthodontic care, tummy tucks, facelifts, liposuction, etc. Hell, I've debated this very issue with another slashdotter, Barbara Hudson, who is obviously a trans advocate, and even stated to me that what's between one's legs doesn't define them. If we follow that logic, then why on earth would srs surgery ever be a "right"? Hell, a good number of trans people never go through with bottom surgery at all; not even because they can't afford it, but because they just don't want to. I think that, for example, if Bruce/Cait Jenner wanted to give himself the chop, he has plenty of money to pay for it, and yet he doesn't, meaning the only thing stopping him from doing it is himself.
At any rate, the person who turned Manning in seemed to do so under reasonable grounds. And keep in mind, I'm not a rabbid "hang all traitors" type. I actually fully support Snowden's efforts AND his means, and support a pardon for the same. However, what Manning did was purely out of spite and he even knew that it would be used to paint a very false narrative and in a very reckless manner, and yet he did it anyways. I honestly don't give a shit what happens to either Manning or Assange. Furthermore, neither Assange nor Manning believe in any form of responsible disclosure, and would rather make a name for themselves than give even the slightest shit about the safety of the US and its allies. This is in deep contrast to Snowden who goes out of his way to protect those who are in a sensitive position and would likely be either killed or jailed if he made their names public.