I'd just do it by genotype not phenotype, xy and xx being male and female, and all the weird genetic abnormalities having different labels as they are in fact different.
Distinguishing between biology and culture is indeed useful. That sentence is a mouthful, though. Maybe we could use shorter words to distinguish the concepts -- how about "sex" and "gender"? And if we wanted to ask someone what gender *they* think they are, then we'd be talking about their, er... "gender identity". Oops.
Using that terminology insinuates that those behavioural properties are inherent to the sex though, using male and female for them is the cause of the linguistic troubles there.
Being callously dismissive of other people's lives and concerns for your own personal convenience is often considered bigotry. Are you aware that there's no biological [slashdot.org] or sociological basis for what you're saying?
So there are males, females, and genetic deformities. How is any of it relevant to what we do day to day? Why should I care? What I care about is words having distinct meaning, so that they can be used to convey ideas. Words are already far too crude to display the nuances of human thought.
People care when others interfere in their interests. Techies interests often include minute details of how systems function at low levels, one of the lovely things about computer systems is that you cannot be ambiguous to them. Unnecessary ambiguity is silly, as is created when the transgender people try to use the terms male and female for their behavioural traits. If I say "I am male" does that mean biologically? socially? etc.
The only one with solid definition is in regard to biology, and that is with an xx and xy set of chromosomes. Even the phenotype is irrelevant. The other genotypes I would actually call something else, what should it be called? who cares, whatever name takes their fancy, so long as it is solidly defined.
When solutions exist that avoid stepping on others interests, why not take it? In general technical people dislike it when solidly defined things get changed to fuzzy wuzzy feelings based items.
They are entitled to try to change language of course, hell people could even try to redefine red to be blue, but you would get the same kind of resistance.
Why ascribe certain behaviours to males and females as an absolute?
Say for instance you were born a male, but had strong behavioural tendencies towards behaviours more associate with females. That still wouldn't make you a female. It makes you a male with behaviours typically ascribed to females.
The solution as far as I can see is to not assume those behaviours are an absolute thing, because they are not otherwise we would not have this problem in the first place.
Without knowledge it is fair to make a weak assumption about those behaviours, much in the way people assume a spider has eight legs but you can encounter ones with less through damage etc. But they should not be surprised when the outliers present themselves, and accept them just the same.
I think a lot of folks on slashdot that have problems with these people do so simply because while they don't care about transgender/gay/whatever, they _do_ care about calling a spade a spade. Since saying that a man is a woman clashes with things pretty hard.
Having behaviours typically ascribed to women does not make you a woman. Same with men.
While there are some quite inflammatory remarks here, most of them seem to simply be of the not wanting to deal with peoples irrelevant emotional bullshit.
People don't give a crap how others act or what they want to call themselves, but the slashdot demographic have a penchant for details, they like to cut through emotional bullshit.
A man wanting to call himself a lady is more than welcome to.. but he is still a man, your feelings do not change reality.
What a lot of people want is to just get by, do/make nice things and cut the crap.
I notice a lot of "us vs them" mentality with the people who choose empathy over reality, when really there is no need to fight. There is nothing wrong with wanting to call a spade a spade. If the spade is offended by that then tough.
What I'd like to see is people embracing whatever they do instead of hiding behind emotional crap. You're transgender? fine, who cares. Don't like being called a man when you are one? why should you care, it is true, don't be ashamed of what you are.
"gender identity" is a complete load of bollocks. It is ascribing behaviours to sexes that are not necessarily the case, since if it were we would not have these issues. To be perfectly clear it would be more accurate to say for instance "I am male, but have behaviours typically attributed to females."
Actually, the amendment protocols released in 1977 cover this case (you can't execute them according to it, they are either a prisoner of war if military or civilian if not, there is no "vague" ground, the US refuses to become a signing party to it though.
Other things in that protocol amendment include.
Article 77 forbids conscription of children under age 15 into the armed forces. It does allow, however, for persons under the age of 15 to participate voluntarily.
Articles 51 and 54 outlaw indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, and destruction of food, water, and other materials needed for survival. Indiscriminate attacks include directly attacking civilian (non-military) targets, but also using technology such as biological weapons, nuclear weapons and land mines, whose scope of destruction cannot be limited. A total war that does not distinguish between civilian and military targets is considered a war crime.
The list of things it bans is rather sane. That the US doesn't want to sign it is a pretty bad sign.
We have legal restricted gun ownership here, as a result less deaths caused by guns. FACT, period.
Sure it did.. in males committing suicides by firearms. Interesting to note though that overall male suicides didn't go down, the means simply changed.
This may surprise you, but even _before_ the australian firearms laws were introduced, our firearm casualties were minuscule compared to the US and other countries.
All restricting firearms to the level that has been done has effectively done is reduce the number of people who know how to safely handle them.
This is a pretty nasty cycle of "The industry uses x product, we should teach them with x product" then when it comes to those students being in a position of power later on of since they know that product, they are more likely to choose it, enforcing the selection even more.
With a _per year_ cost of over $500k, you could hire a couple full time developers to work on gimp to better suit your needs and still come out ahead.
Best of all, since quite a few universities will be in this situation, you wouldn't even have to front the entirety of the cost yourselves, band together to share expenses lessening the overall cost to you all.
This is a perfect opportunity to break free of adobe in creative circles.
Still no support for 16-bit per channel after all these years.
That would actually be wrong, if you want 16 bits per channel you just use any of the in development source of the last six months or so. As a bonus the whole thing is then accelerated by gpu also.
And even a $499 DSLR can shoot 14 bpc these days.)
I have an eos 6d, and even _with_ a 16-bit per colour build of gimp, I find I almost never use it. Why? I process the raw files to my liking using ufraw first and only minor minor touchups are done in gimp if ever./p
Already the case where I live in Australia. There is a severe aversion to anything that could be remotely dangerous here. You can't even buy "shopgoods fireworks" (under 40 grams) without public liability insurance, having done several courses and acquiring multiple different licenses.
First up you have your fireworks contractor license, $330 a year. Want the ability to import fireworks (even those tiny under 40 gram ones) $300 a year. Want to be able to store fireworks? $35 per year under 100kg, $300 for over. Want to be able to transport fireworks? $92 per year per vehicle you want to use.
Have even one roman candle? (only using that as an example as it's one of the only sort I know from silly youtube videos) that'll be $44,000 and six months jail time thankyou very much.
young children born on the US West Coast are 28 percent more likely to develop congenital hyperthyroidism.
From the title of the article
Almost third of US west coast newborns hit with thyroid problems.
Is it just me or is this really irresponsible reporting, considering the article mentions it is a _really_ rare condition, so 30% more of a chance still isn't all that much.
It is still noteworthy of course, but there are so many scare tactics at play in that article.
in the same way, a persons concept of what is human can be arbitrary. Fair enough if people have a general consensus and align (just like with morals), but this need not be the case.
People are free to ascribe any meaning to any series of characters they like, we have differing languages for a reason. A series of letters does not have inherent meaning, even the characters themselves can be anything at all, it does not matter.
Is there any particular reason the character 'c' _must_ be shaped the way it is?
Depends on how you define human of course. Are 'people' 2000 years ago 'human', 10k years? 800k? This is the problem with saying morals are an inherent human property, what people consider to be human is just as arbitrary as the morals you try to place on it.
The thing you have to remember with the US is that there are large sections of the country where you can go and not see another person for weeks (or hours if you're moving fast enough). Not a car, not a house, nothing. So that high speed train would go out all that way and find no one who wants ride most of the time.
But apparently I can fly there using a normal plane that travels to airports?
Anywhere there is enough population density to have an airport, there is enough to have a fast rail system.
If they are not arbitrary (in this case dependent on situation, of which any situation can arise) then they are set properties, if they are set properties and properties of humans, then any person not having those set properties would not be human yes?
Well, would you care to define what it is to be human then? Even though morals can provide a survival benefit, to say that it is then an inherent human property is to label those without those morals as not human, which I imagine many would take issue with.
Deciding the cause of something is a little different from making a normative evaluation of whether something is good or bad.
One involves only what occurred, the other involves making a judgement about whether it's good or bad.
Morals are completely devoid from reality. The universe doesn't give a crap about us, the wheels just keep on turning. What can happen does happen. Good and evil are simply a human construct, and an arbitrary one at that like most.
Nothing is intrinsically 'good or bad' since that would require criteria for judgement which is subjective, people assign these properties to it, it is not an inherent property of the object.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you classify people with XXY, XXX, etc?
They would also not be male/female, as they are too a genetic abnormality.
Then you are a genetic abnormality, and I would not classify them as male _or_ female technically (you'd still be nice to them etc of course).
I'd just do it by genotype not phenotype, xy and xx being male and female, and all the weird genetic abnormalities having different labels as they are in fact different.
Distinguishing between biology and culture is indeed useful. That sentence is a mouthful, though. Maybe we could use shorter words to distinguish the concepts -- how about "sex" and "gender"? And if we wanted to ask someone what gender *they* think they are, then we'd be talking about their, er... "gender identity". Oops.
Using that terminology insinuates that those behavioural properties are inherent to the sex though, using male and female for them is the cause of the linguistic troubles there.
Being callously dismissive of other people's lives and concerns for your own personal convenience is often considered bigotry. Are you aware that there's no biological [slashdot.org] or sociological basis for what you're saying?
So there are males, females, and genetic deformities. How is any of it relevant to what we do day to day? Why should I care? What I care about is words having distinct meaning, so that they can be used to convey ideas. Words are already far too crude to display the nuances of human thought.
People care when others interfere in their interests. Techies interests often include minute details of how systems function at low levels, one of the lovely things about computer systems is that you cannot be ambiguous to them. Unnecessary ambiguity is silly, as is created when the transgender people try to use the terms male and female for their behavioural traits. If I say "I am male" does that mean biologically? socially? etc.
The only one with solid definition is in regard to biology, and that is with an xx and xy set of chromosomes. Even the phenotype is irrelevant. The other genotypes I would actually call something else, what should it be called? who cares, whatever name takes their fancy, so long as it is solidly defined.
When solutions exist that avoid stepping on others interests, why not take it? In general technical people dislike it when solidly defined things get changed to fuzzy wuzzy feelings based items.
They are entitled to try to change language of course, hell people could even try to redefine red to be blue, but you would get the same kind of resistance.
Why ascribe certain behaviours to males and females as an absolute?
Say for instance you were born a male, but had strong behavioural tendencies towards behaviours more associate with females. That still wouldn't make you a female. It makes you a male with behaviours typically ascribed to females.
The solution as far as I can see is to not assume those behaviours are an absolute thing, because they are not otherwise we would not have this problem in the first place.
Without knowledge it is fair to make a weak assumption about those behaviours, much in the way people assume a spider has eight legs but you can encounter ones with less through damage etc. But they should not be surprised when the outliers present themselves, and accept them just the same.
I think a lot of folks on slashdot that have problems with these people do so simply because while they don't care about transgender/gay/whatever, they _do_ care about calling a spade a spade. Since saying that a man is a woman clashes with things pretty hard.
Having behaviours typically ascribed to women does not make you a woman. Same with men.
How is calling a spade a spade bigotry?
While there are some quite inflammatory remarks here, most of them seem to simply be of the not wanting to deal with peoples irrelevant emotional bullshit.
People don't give a crap how others act or what they want to call themselves, but the slashdot demographic have a penchant for details, they like to cut through emotional bullshit.
A man wanting to call himself a lady is more than welcome to.. but he is still a man, your feelings do not change reality.
What a lot of people want is to just get by, do/make nice things and cut the crap.
I notice a lot of "us vs them" mentality with the people who choose empathy over reality, when really there is no need to fight. There is nothing wrong with wanting to call a spade a spade. If the spade is offended by that then tough.
What I'd like to see is people embracing whatever they do instead of hiding behind emotional crap. You're transgender? fine, who cares. Don't like being called a man when you are one? why should you care, it is true, don't be ashamed of what you are.
"gender identity" is a complete load of bollocks. It is ascribing behaviours to sexes that are not necessarily the case, since if it were we would not have these issues. To be perfectly clear it would be more accurate to say for instance "I am male, but have behaviours typically attributed to females."
Actually, the amendment protocols released in 1977 cover this case (you can't execute them according to it, they are either a prisoner of war if military or civilian if not, there is no "vague" ground, the US refuses to become a signing party to it though.
Other things in that protocol amendment include.
Article 77 forbids conscription of children under age 15 into the armed forces. It does allow, however, for persons under the age of 15 to participate voluntarily.
Articles 51 and 54 outlaw indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, and destruction of food, water, and other materials needed for survival. Indiscriminate attacks include directly attacking civilian (non-military) targets, but also using technology such as biological weapons, nuclear weapons and land mines, whose scope of destruction cannot be limited. A total war that does not distinguish between civilian and military targets is considered a war crime.
The list of things it bans is rather sane. That the US doesn't want to sign it is a pretty bad sign.
We have legal restricted gun ownership here, as a result less deaths caused by guns. FACT, period.
Sure it did.. in males committing suicides by firearms. Interesting to note though that overall male suicides didn't go down, the means simply changed.
This may surprise you, but even _before_ the australian firearms laws were introduced, our firearm casualties were minuscule compared to the US and other countries.
All restricting firearms to the level that has been done has effectively done is reduce the number of people who know how to safely handle them.
This is a pretty nasty cycle of "The industry uses x product, we should teach them with x product" then when it comes to those students being in a position of power later on of since they know that product, they are more likely to choose it, enforcing the selection even more.
With a _per year_ cost of over $500k, you could hire a couple full time developers to work on gimp to better suit your needs and still come out ahead.
Best of all, since quite a few universities will be in this situation, you wouldn't even have to front the entirety of the cost yourselves, band together to share expenses lessening the overall cost to you all.
This is a perfect opportunity to break free of adobe in creative circles.
Still no support for 16-bit per channel after all these years.
That would actually be wrong, if you want 16 bits per channel you just use any of the in development source of the last six months or so. As a bonus the whole thing is then accelerated by gpu also.
And even a $499 DSLR can shoot 14 bpc these days.)
I have an eos 6d, and even _with_ a 16-bit per colour build of gimp, I find I almost never use it. Why? I process the raw files to my liking using ufraw first and only minor minor touchups are done in gimp if ever./p
Already the case where I live in Australia. There is a severe aversion to anything that could be remotely dangerous here. You can't even buy "shopgoods fireworks" (under 40 grams) without public liability insurance, having done several courses and acquiring multiple different licenses.
First up you have your fireworks contractor license, $330 a year. Want the ability to import fireworks (even those tiny under 40 gram ones) $300 a year. Want to be able to store fireworks? $35 per year under 100kg, $300 for over. Want to be able to transport fireworks? $92 per year per vehicle you want to use.
Have even one roman candle? (only using that as an example as it's one of the only sort I know from silly youtube videos) that'll be $44,000 and six months jail time thankyou very much.
From the article linked.
young children born on the US West Coast are 28 percent more likely to develop congenital hyperthyroidism.
From the title of the article
Almost third of US west coast newborns hit with thyroid problems.
Is it just me or is this really irresponsible reporting, considering the article mentions it is a _really_ rare condition, so 30% more of a chance still isn't all that much.
It is still noteworthy of course, but there are so many scare tactics at play in that article.
You're off on the memory bandwidth by a fair chunk, check this out.
Haven't checked your other numbers though. On my machine with dual channel ddr-1333 I get about 16gb/sec, and l1 cache is about 60gb/sec
in the same way, a persons concept of what is human can be arbitrary. Fair enough if people have a general consensus and align (just like with morals), but this need not be the case.
People are free to ascribe any meaning to any series of characters they like, we have differing languages for a reason. A series of letters does not have inherent meaning, even the characters themselves can be anything at all, it does not matter.
Is there any particular reason the character 'c' _must_ be shaped the way it is?
Depends on how you define human of course. Are 'people' 2000 years ago 'human', 10k years? 800k? This is the problem with saying morals are an inherent human property, what people consider to be human is just as arbitrary as the morals you try to place on it.
The thing you have to remember with the US is that there are large sections of the country where you can go and not see another person for weeks (or hours if you're moving fast enough). Not a car, not a house, nothing. So that high speed train would go out all that way and find no one who wants ride most of the time.
But apparently I can fly there using a normal plane that travels to airports?
Anywhere there is enough population density to have an airport, there is enough to have a fast rail system.
If they are not arbitrary (in this case dependent on situation, of which any situation can arise) then they are set properties, if they are set properties and properties of humans, then any person not having those set properties would not be human yes?
Well, would you care to define what it is to be human then? Even though morals can provide a survival benefit, to say that it is then an inherent human property is to label those without those morals as not human, which I imagine many would take issue with.
Yep, progress you say? You need criteria for that. Is mars good or bad? Without criteria, without a wanted purpose, you can make no judgements.
Those criteria can be arbitrary, and then so too can be the judgements.
Deciding the cause of something is a little different from making a normative evaluation of whether something is good or bad.
One involves only what occurred, the other involves making a judgement about whether it's good or bad.
Morals are completely devoid from reality. The universe doesn't give a crap about us, the wheels just keep on turning. What can happen does happen. Good and evil are simply a human construct, and an arbitrary one at that like most.
Well "Those that are better at surviving are better at surviving" Does seem a bit of a tautology though :P .
Nothing is intrinsically 'good or bad' since that would require criteria for judgement which is subjective, people assign these properties to it, it is not an inherent property of the object.
So it's objective except when its subjective?.... in other words, it's always completely subjective.