I know just being picky, but no one doubts that climate change is behind changes in climate. I don't think anyone doubts climate change. Now perhaps some doubt anthropogenic climate change, technically this summary doesn't mention that.
Most people believe in climate change simply because it's been observable over my lifetime. The temperate zone chart has moved up something like half a zone during that time. In other words, if you used to be in the middle of zone 6 you're now at the top of zone 7. There's been a marked change in some areas.
What Bill Nye doesn't like is that most "deniers" aren't denying actual change - they're "denying" that it's going to end in a huge catastrophe like Bill Nye, Al Gore and company like to say. Remember how the polar ice caps are supposed to be gone by now, snow is done, etc. etc.? People take notice of these things.
And the old "Al Gore isn't a scientist" canard is wonderful, but the bottom line is that he's been leading the charge for years, and cashing in on it. And he's not the only one.
Maths fail. According to the link, 0.24% of female athletes, 8 out of 3387, were incorrectly identified as male by the genetic test. Extrapolating to the whole of North Caroline, population 10,000,000, that's about 24,000 people. Hardly "very, very few".
No idea how that's a "fail"..24% is very, very few - 1/4 of one percent. And that's female athletes, by the way. I believe that group likely has a higher percentage of such people - think hard about it.
To protect young girls and women from perverts, rapists, etc etc who would certainly use the opportunity to legally enter the opposite sex's restrooms?
Just as a matter of curiosity, is this actually a problem in places which don't have laws of this type?
I'll add in those disorders: XYY syndrome and Klinefelter (XXY) syndrome. The latter can really mess with a person's gender (and sexual) identity, as even those that are 'male' can develop distinctly female sexual traits (e.g. breasts). As you can imagine, this does a number on their body chemistry as well.
It's rare, but I do know someone with Klinefelter that was born with both sets of reproductive parts. She eventually identified as female and had the appropriate surgeries sometime in her 30's. I'm curious how these black and white lawmakers would handle someone like this.
Even more rare are the XXYY, XXXY and some others, see the second link for more info.
They don't handle it because they're ignorant of it. But this whole episode should be laid at the feet of the looney left as far as I'm concerned, because what you're seeing is a semi-legitimate backlash to their insistence that anybody be able to use any restroom. I'll post this again:
The vast majority of people (probably 99% or more) do not want that to be legal. It's difficult to write a law that makes that illegal while not causing harm to your acquaintance. I hate to say it, but we were doing fine before the loonies started pushing for total acceptance of transsexuals.
The use of DNA to determine gender was discredited decades ago. Too many false positives, too ambiguous.
Sorry. I know you were hoping that there was a simple and irrefutable way to determine sex, but there isn't. And in any case, sex is irrelevant to bathroom use, only gender matters.
If you could read, you would see that I acknowledge that there are some people for whom their sex and chromosomes don't match. It's very, very few, and your cite confirms that. See the link I posted above to see where this is heading.
I feel bad for trannies, but they need psychiatric help. At the same time, people on the right need to look beyond Bruce Jenner and realize that there are some people - not many, but some - who really aren't "fully male" or "fully female". I'm leading the charge on both sides.
DNA absolutely specifies sex for the vast majority (around 99.9% last I looked) of the people out there.
Ah, so you think that because NC's new law only discriminates against 10,000 NC citizens with what you'd judge to be a legitimate reason, that it's ok?
It doesn't truly discriminate against them because they are already using the restroom that fits their physical look. Take the WNBA player, for example. She's a woman but with XY chromosomes. Still a woman, looks like a woman, uses the ladies' room. Nobody's going to care. Is she breaking this law? Her birth certificate says "female". But the point is that nobody cares.
On the other hand, we *need* to "discriminate" against people like this:
The law specifies DNA, but DNA doesn't specify sex. That part where the Bible says male and female he created them... turns out, wrong again Bible. http://www.ted.com/talks/alice...
DNA absolutely specifies sex for the vast majority (around 99.9% last I looked) of the people out there. XY is male, XX is female. There are a few disorders (note: they are *disorders*) that may cause XX to be male or XY to be female (see that one WNBA player as an example), and there are also issues such as chimerism that can cause sexual ambiguity.
That has little or nothing to do with someone like Bruce Jenner wanting to use the women's room.
It still beats the shit out of another ice age - even a little ice age. Europe was nearly deforested as people tried to heat their homes during the LIA.
I'm not sure what the problem is, really. You have a 20 story condo tower by the ocean, fine. Add a boat dock on the second floor and carry on. The first floor was just 1/20th of the building, anyway, and now it's an indoor pool.
Why would the author of this article call a female voice that helps people a 'servant'. That seems kind of sexist and demeaning to me. Is is OK now to refer to people, including women, who work on help lines 'servants'?
Uh, yeah. A "servant" is a person who serves.
My wife's from the Philippines where household servants are still very common even in the middle classes. They typically use the term "maid", but "servant" is also used.
You mean the drugs the drug companies sell? Or the drugs they were using at the time like cocaine, marijuana, heroin and opium?
Come now, the DEA says that marijuana is 500000000000000000 times more potent now than 10 years ago! This isn't George Washington's marijuana, this is *dangerous stuff*.
And you know the DEA wouldn't lie to you to justify their unneeded jobs, right?
... so up until now, cell-phone shaped guns weren't stupid ideas? You were aware they existed before this example, right?
I know they exist in fantasy and movies, and a photoshopped picture that went around facebook a few years ago. Other than that, no, I don't believe anybody is producing them. Someone may have put together a homemade zip gun at some point that looks like a cell phone, but I've yet to see pictures of such.
I mean, to be fair had the founding fathers had any idea of just how terrible drugs are they probably wouldn't have bothered writing the Constitution, right? They were more concerned about petty matters like tyranny, which totally don't even apply today.
Police are already claiming that you can't film them because there are guns disguised as cell phones so they have to make you put the phone away "for their safety". Of course, it's complete bullshit and they just don't want accountability.
Until now.
This is the reason the Geneva Conventions require soldiers to be dressed in uniform. When soldiers start dressing as civilians, actual civilians are harmed at a far higher rate because nobody knows who the enemy is.
Now we're giving police officers in this country plausible reason to take your cell phone because "they thought it was a gun." Stupid, stupid, stupid.
This is dictionary-definition cronyism, the exact opposite of a free market. If the market was free then the prisoners could get long-distance service from anybody willing to offer it and the rates for in-country calling would be pennies/minute or less.
Wild guess - you're voting for Bernie. I've found people who don't understand basic economics tend to swing that direction.
It's kind of scary to see a Presidential race where Ted Cruz is the least bad choice out of 4 people, and the only one who doesn't belong in a nursing home.
It's kind of scary to see a Presidential race where Ted Cruz is the least bad choice out of 4 people, and the only one who doesn't belong in an insane asylum.
Good point. Go back 8 years and do the same thing with Barack Obama.
They're the same guy, and I have no reason to believe they're "across the aisle" from each other. It's all just empty "we're going to do great things!" rhetoric.
Please show me how Trump is beholden to the Wall Street and the PACs.
Well, yeah, you got me on that one. Still, though, empty rhetoric.
. . . . he may be tele-operating a squad of Infantry-bots or a Robo-tank or three, but the age of the manned Airborne Assault was over 50+ years ago. ..
And, yet, we're quietly moving more and more troops back into Iraq....
Good point. Go back 8 years and do the same thing with Barack Obama.
They're the same guy, and I have no reason to believe they're "across the aisle" from each other. It's all just empty "we're going to do great things!" rhetoric.
It's kind of scary to see a Presidential race where Ted Cruz is the least bad choice out of 4 people, and the only one who doesn't belong in a nursing home.
We will deal with Islamic terrorism without sacrificing our way of life.
LOL, really? I'm going to tell you a dirty little secret, lean in here close: the millions of "refugees" that you geniuses just let flood into your countries are absolutely all about sacrificing your way of life for you. They don't want your way of life, moron - they want your land, your houses, and your money. Sure, not all of them, but enough of them to make a difference. And while you're working your ass off to pay for their welfare they're home breeding like rabbits. Your grandchildren will be a minority, and it's not going to be pretty.
I'm already explaining to my children that the day will come soon when Europe will again ask us to help clean up their mess. We did a damned good job of it 70 years ago, probably leaving Europe in better shape than it's been in for the last 2000 years. But they didn't learn their lessons. Again.
Oh, and my kids? The other thing I'm explaining to them is that it's best to let Europe deal with their own shit this time. They can wallow in it for all I care. Enjoy it, and learn Arabic while you're at it - you're gonna need it.
That troubling part is that as incompetent as they may be, they're still quite highly effective.
But they aren't.
You think the aim of a terrorist attack is to kill people, and to the extent that they do they're not terribly good at it (thankfully). The aim of a terrorist attack is to instill fear. The 9/11 attacks killed 3000 people - about 3 days worth of tobacco deaths in America - but it paved the way for unconstitutional laws that supposedly will help government keep that from happening again. It led us to spend a trillion dollars trying to clean up part of the middle east. Etc. These attacks tend to be quite effective at their actual goal - which is to make the target do stupid irrational stuff.
Is that really Big Data? I wouldn't consider 565M records Big Data. 5.65G records is low end of Big Data.
Thus, how is this more than warm, fuzzy, feel good PR for IBM?
My first thought upon reading the summary was that these folks would shit their pants if they saw actual big data. As others have said, it's a press release.
Slashdot Mirror
Did they have any "refugees" hiding in the back?
I know just being picky, but no one doubts that climate change is behind changes in climate. I don't think anyone doubts climate change. Now perhaps some doubt anthropogenic climate change, technically this summary doesn't mention that.
Most people believe in climate change simply because it's been observable over my lifetime. The temperate zone chart has moved up something like half a zone during that time. In other words, if you used to be in the middle of zone 6 you're now at the top of zone 7. There's been a marked change in some areas.
What Bill Nye doesn't like is that most "deniers" aren't denying actual change - they're "denying" that it's going to end in a huge catastrophe like Bill Nye, Al Gore and company like to say. Remember how the polar ice caps are supposed to be gone by now, snow is done, etc. etc.? People take notice of these things.
And the old "Al Gore isn't a scientist" canard is wonderful, but the bottom line is that he's been leading the charge for years, and cashing in on it. And he's not the only one.
ran out of steam 20 years ago.
Maths fail. According to the link, 0.24% of female athletes, 8 out of 3387, were incorrectly identified as male by the genetic test. Extrapolating to the whole of North Caroline, population 10,000,000, that's about 24,000 people. Hardly "very, very few".
No idea how that's a "fail". .24% is very, very few - 1/4 of one percent. And that's female athletes, by the way. I believe that group likely has a higher percentage of such people - think hard about it.
To protect young girls and women from perverts, rapists, etc etc who would certainly use the opportunity to legally enter the opposite sex's restrooms?
Just as a matter of curiosity, is this actually a problem in places which don't have laws of this type?
Again:
http://dailysignal.com/2016/02...
I'll add in those disorders: XYY syndrome and Klinefelter (XXY) syndrome. The latter can really mess with a person's gender (and sexual) identity, as even those that are 'male' can develop distinctly female sexual traits (e.g. breasts). As you can imagine, this does a number on their body chemistry as well.
It's rare, but I do know someone with Klinefelter that was born with both sets of reproductive parts. She eventually identified as female and had the appropriate surgeries sometime in her 30's. I'm curious how these black and white lawmakers would handle someone like this.
Even more rare are the XXYY, XXXY and some others, see the second link for more info.
They don't handle it because they're ignorant of it. But this whole episode should be laid at the feet of the looney left as far as I'm concerned, because what you're seeing is a semi-legitimate backlash to their insistence that anybody be able to use any restroom. I'll post this again:
http://dailysignal.com/2016/02...
The vast majority of people (probably 99% or more) do not want that to be legal. It's difficult to write a law that makes that illegal while not causing harm to your acquaintance. I hate to say it, but we were doing fine before the loonies started pushing for total acceptance of transsexuals.
The use of DNA to determine gender was discredited decades ago. Too many false positives, too ambiguous.
Sorry. I know you were hoping that there was a simple and irrefutable way to determine sex, but there isn't. And in any case, sex is irrelevant to bathroom use, only gender matters.
If you could read, you would see that I acknowledge that there are some people for whom their sex and chromosomes don't match. It's very, very few, and your cite confirms that. See the link I posted above to see where this is heading.
I feel bad for trannies, but they need psychiatric help. At the same time, people on the right need to look beyond Bruce Jenner and realize that there are some people - not many, but some - who really aren't "fully male" or "fully female". I'm leading the charge on both sides.
DNA absolutely specifies sex for the vast majority (around 99.9% last I looked) of the people out there.
Ah, so you think that because NC's new law only discriminates against 10,000 NC citizens with what you'd judge to be a legitimate reason, that it's ok?
It doesn't truly discriminate against them because they are already using the restroom that fits their physical look. Take the WNBA player, for example. She's a woman but with XY chromosomes. Still a woman, looks like a woman, uses the ladies' room. Nobody's going to care. Is she breaking this law? Her birth certificate says "female". But the point is that nobody cares.
On the other hand, we *need* to "discriminate" against people like this:
http://dailysignal.com/2016/02...
The law specifies DNA, but DNA doesn't specify sex. That part where the Bible says male and female he created them... turns out, wrong again Bible.
http://www.ted.com/talks/alice...
DNA absolutely specifies sex for the vast majority (around 99.9% last I looked) of the people out there. XY is male, XX is female. There are a few disorders (note: they are *disorders*) that may cause XX to be male or XY to be female (see that one WNBA player as an example), and there are also issues such as chimerism that can cause sexual ambiguity.
That has little or nothing to do with someone like Bruce Jenner wanting to use the women's room.
It still beats the shit out of another ice age - even a little ice age. Europe was nearly deforested as people tried to heat their homes during the LIA.
Your Florida will turn into the sea.
How is this an argument against global warming?
I'm not sure what the problem is, really. You have a 20 story condo tower by the ocean, fine. Add a boat dock on the second floor and carry on. The first floor was just 1/20th of the building, anyway, and now it's an indoor pool.
Why would the author of this article call a female voice that helps people a 'servant'. That seems kind of sexist and demeaning to me. Is is OK now to refer to people, including women, who work on help lines 'servants'?
Uh, yeah. A "servant" is a person who serves.
My wife's from the Philippines where household servants are still very common even in the middle classes. They typically use the term "maid", but "servant" is also used.
What's the big deal with that?
You mean the drugs the drug companies sell? Or the drugs they were using at the time like cocaine, marijuana, heroin and opium?
Come now, the DEA says that marijuana is 500000000000000000 times more potent now than 10 years ago! This isn't George Washington's marijuana, this is *dangerous stuff*.
And you know the DEA wouldn't lie to you to justify their unneeded jobs, right?
... so up until now, cell-phone shaped guns weren't stupid ideas? You were aware they existed before this example, right?
I know they exist in fantasy and movies, and a photoshopped picture that went around facebook a few years ago. Other than that, no, I don't believe anybody is producing them. Someone may have put together a homemade zip gun at some point that looks like a cell phone, but I've yet to see pictures of such.
I mean, to be fair had the founding fathers had any idea of just how terrible drugs are they probably wouldn't have bothered writing the Constitution, right? They were more concerned about petty matters like tyranny, which totally don't even apply today.
Police are already claiming that you can't film them because there are guns disguised as cell phones so they have to make you put the phone away "for their safety". Of course, it's complete bullshit and they just don't want accountability.
Until now.
This is the reason the Geneva Conventions require soldiers to be dressed in uniform. When soldiers start dressing as civilians, actual civilians are harmed at a far higher rate because nobody knows who the enemy is.
Now we're giving police officers in this country plausible reason to take your cell phone because "they thought it was a gun." Stupid, stupid, stupid.
This is dictionary-definition cronyism, the exact opposite of a free market. If the market was free then the prisoners could get long-distance service from anybody willing to offer it and the rates for in-country calling would be pennies/minute or less.
Wild guess - you're voting for Bernie. I've found people who don't understand basic economics tend to swing that direction.
Seriously, expect the google maps TOS to get an update over this.
It's kind of scary to see a Presidential race where Ted Cruz is the least bad choice out of 4 people, and the only one who doesn't belong in a nursing home.
It's kind of scary to see a Presidential race where Ted Cruz is the least bad choice out of 4 people, and the only one who doesn't belong in an insane asylum.
FTFY. And I'm not joking. You're welcome.
I wish you were joking, but I'm with you.
Good point. Go back 8 years and do the same thing with Barack Obama.
They're the same guy, and I have no reason to believe they're "across the aisle" from each other. It's all just empty "we're going to do great things!" rhetoric.
Please show me how Trump is beholden to the Wall Street and the PACs.
Well, yeah, you got me on that one. Still, though, empty rhetoric.
. . . . he may be tele-operating a squad of Infantry-bots or a Robo-tank or three, but the age of the manned Airborne Assault was over 50+ years ago. . .
And, yet, we're quietly moving more and more troops back into Iraq....
Okay tell me what his platform is.
1. Go here: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/
2. Click on "Positions" and pick something
3. Read
Good point. Go back 8 years and do the same thing with Barack Obama.
They're the same guy, and I have no reason to believe they're "across the aisle" from each other. It's all just empty "we're going to do great things!" rhetoric.
It's kind of scary to see a Presidential race where Ted Cruz is the least bad choice out of 4 people, and the only one who doesn't belong in a nursing home.
We will deal with Islamic terrorism without sacrificing our way of life.
LOL, really? I'm going to tell you a dirty little secret, lean in here close: the millions of "refugees" that you geniuses just let flood into your countries are absolutely all about sacrificing your way of life for you. They don't want your way of life, moron - they want your land, your houses, and your money. Sure, not all of them, but enough of them to make a difference. And while you're working your ass off to pay for their welfare they're home breeding like rabbits. Your grandchildren will be a minority, and it's not going to be pretty.
I'm already explaining to my children that the day will come soon when Europe will again ask us to help clean up their mess. We did a damned good job of it 70 years ago, probably leaving Europe in better shape than it's been in for the last 2000 years. But they didn't learn their lessons. Again.
Oh, and my kids? The other thing I'm explaining to them is that it's best to let Europe deal with their own shit this time. They can wallow in it for all I care. Enjoy it, and learn Arabic while you're at it - you're gonna need it.
But they aren't.
You think the aim of a terrorist attack is to kill people, and to the extent that they do they're not terribly good at it (thankfully). The aim of a terrorist attack is to instill fear. The 9/11 attacks killed 3000 people - about 3 days worth of tobacco deaths in America - but it paved the way for unconstitutional laws that supposedly will help government keep that from happening again. It led us to spend a trillion dollars trying to clean up part of the middle east. Etc. These attacks tend to be quite effective at their actual goal - which is to make the target do stupid irrational stuff.
Is that really Big Data? I wouldn't consider 565M records Big Data. 5.65G records is low end of Big Data.
Thus, how is this more than warm, fuzzy, feel good PR for IBM?
My first thought upon reading the summary was that these folks would shit their pants if they saw actual big data. As others have said, it's a press release.