This isn't a gender issue, it's a sex issue. And for about 99% of human beings our genetic makeup falls distinctly into two categories (two sexes), male and female (we are a sexually dimorphic species). The other 1% have ambiguous sex resulting from genetic errors.
Gender, which is a synonym for sex but has recently taken on new meaning, is that which you imagine yourself to be.
If the bathroom you use does not matter (i.e. a unisex bathroom is fine), then what is the problem with using a same sex bathroom? It shouldn't matter. It can't not matter when you're using a unisex bathroom, but then matter when you're using a same sex bathroom. A transgender couldn't argue that they'd feel uncomfortable being in the appropriate same sex bathroom (instead of their chosen gender bathroom). They've made it abundantly clear that a unisex bathroom is fine and that the opposite sex should be perfectly comfortable with their presence in the opposing sexes same sex bathroom (i.e. it would be hypocritical) - so they should be perfectly comfortable in the appropriate same sex bathroom even dressed in contemporary opposite sex clothing.
Or go to the http://www.abs.gov.au/ and find the same information by a different department.
Look to New Zealand to see a perfect example of how the Australian laws did not work. They have a very similar culture to Australia's. Their last big firearms massacre was in 1997. They didn't change their laws the same as Australia did. I.e. they didn't introduce firearms restrictions, magazine restrictions, or have any buy backs etc. They did introduce a sensible licensing scheme that prevents crazy people and criminals from owning firearms. Most of their firearms do not need to be registered (I believe they've publicly stated it does not decrease crime with firearms). Their homicide rate is lower than Australia's. Their homicide by firearm rate is lower than Australia's.
New Zealand is the model to copy. Forget about Australia. Copy New Zealand with its lower homicide rates and more sensible firearms laws.
The USA has it good. At least you have a right to silence. Unlike Australia, where that right has been eroded down. It's now in many Australian states, under several Acts, illegal to not answer questions. The penalties range from fines to jail time, to having any chance of parole while in jail revoked.
Australian Citizens were also the single largest exit type, with more leaving than arriving - a net loss of 2.6% (in that particular year).
All things considered Australia is not doing too badly, ranking 19th in the world for resettlement of refugees in 2012. http://www.refugeecouncil.org....
Ignoring the huge difference in sound pressure levels between a car backfiring and a gun firing, they sound very different and are easily distinguished by the human ear.
Yes, they are the politically right party in our country.
What I'm getting at is that overall, compared to the USA, our politicians (including the right) are politically very left. A great example is how our right wing government enacted tight gun control,reducing personal freedom, which is considered left. Another great example is the topic at hand, the new draconian censorship laws which again reduces personal freedom, and is considered a left wing ideology. Both parties spend heavily on social security, free health care, public schooling, etc. Again politically left. Australian's don't enjoy protected free speech. Say something offensive and you can be charged. Very left. The politically right haven't changed this even though they could. Australian's don't enjoy the right to self defense. (but it is a defense to a charge of assault). Very left. The politically right haven't changed this even though they could. Etc. I could go on for quite a bit more.
As a generalisation Australian politicians are so far to the left that they make the American Democrats look like right wing fanatics. Comparisons with America at just about any level are very wrong.
Of course there are circumstances where it wouldn't work.
But there are circumstances where it would as well. E.g. there are plenty of niche papers cited on wikipedia. Unless there are sufficient knowledgeable people editing that page who are intimate with the relevant papers, then it is likely to go by unnoticed. As you would know, there are examples of purposeful misedits going by unnoticed for years on wikipedia.
Academic - primary research papers are considered "original research". Wikipedia - facts, allegations, and ideas for which no reliable published source exists are considered "original research".
The academic definition is basically all primary research. The wikipedia definition only encompasses a small subset of research which doesn't belong to a reliable source. They define different things and AFAIK one (the academic definition) existed well before the other.
An "appeal to authority" requires that the person not be an authority on the subject.
If he and the other enthusiasts are authorities on Sunbeam Tigers then it is not an appeal to authority. I suggest that if they felt strongly enough to attempt a factorial edit in regards to Sunbeam Tigers, then they are very likely authorities on the topic.
The question is, under what circumstances do you get to decide whether or not the person has authority.
The amount of paywalled information is also higher now in 2015 than it was in 2003.
Restricting information so that the general public can't verify it's veracity without paying money makes those references useless to a very large amount of people.
You could even game a paywall system.
E.g. make an edit with a reference to a fake article behind a paywalled site that you setup. Make the subscription cost to the site very expensive. Will anyone but a very motivated, wealthy individual, with a lot of time on their hands, pay and investigate the paywalled article? Done carefully enough it may be possible to avoid detection for quite a while.
Wikipedia's attempt to redefine the term original research doesn't help.
Research articles, or primary articles are based on original research. I.e. someone makes a hypothesis, tests it, and writes it up. Furthermore the person who designed and performed the test is the paper author.
It's telling that Wikipedia even has to qualify the definition as their own interpretation: 'The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.' (italics mine)
It only works on phones that meet the specified criteria:
"smartphones that have their WiFi connection open, and then, employing a diverse arsenal of security vulnerabilities, gain root permission on devices"
I.e. they must have an open wifi connection and they must have an unpatched security vulnerability.
This automatically excludes millions of older phones of various brands that don't have wifi, any phone with wifi disabled, and any phone with encrypted wifi.
And if the phone is fully patched for known exploits, they need a zero day attack.
'This characterization that "the Internet" got it wrong is such a lie.'
Are you pushing the blame away from those who may have got it wrong onto someone else? It is everyone's own responsibility to verify the information they have is as correct as possible.
Yes. The internet (i.e. people) get things wrong often. And then people love to either deny their wrongness with lies or ignore the other people pointing out said wrongs (and these other people are also usually the people who may have been affected by said wrongs).
An omnipotent god can take any form. The followers claim the FSM is omnipotent. Basically form is no problem for an omnipotent god. It can appear as a giant walking penis and it's still the same god.
His description is close enough to the historical narrative. It was Bobby Henderson's idea to show that it was just as ridiculous and believable to say the FSM did what he describes as any other god.
I had a similar idea a while back. A Justice of the Peace course (a non-trivial course that isn't just rubber stamped). The course would be very similar to how you have suggested but longer and more in depth and the graduates would be closer to an official deputy. But your idea is probably more in line with what Americans would want.
I think background checks are good but criminal behaviour should not be an automatic preclusion, instead it should be a graduated scheme, with time length of bans on ownership based upon the severity of the crime (with people able to appeal to a magistrate if they believe their circumstances warrant a shorter ban).
I had thought previously that to meet the "well regulated" part of the militia clause, that firearms owners could be required to be members of gun clubs. This would give the opportunity to make friends, become more proficient in firearms use, self-vet members (if a screw is coming loose they could step in somehow), be an organised group when disaster strikes (to help the community), etc.
I wonder if it would be too hard to reinforce the right to ownership of firearms whilst adding some simple required responsibilities?
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't a gender issue, it's a sex issue. And for about 99% of human beings our genetic makeup falls distinctly into two categories (two sexes), male and female (we are a sexually dimorphic species). The other 1% have ambiguous sex resulting from genetic errors.
Gender, which is a synonym for sex but has recently taken on new meaning, is that which you imagine yourself to be.
If the bathroom you use does not matter (i.e. a unisex bathroom is fine), then what is the problem with using a same sex bathroom? It shouldn't matter. It can't not matter when you're using a unisex bathroom, but then matter when you're using a same sex bathroom. A transgender couldn't argue that they'd feel uncomfortable being in the appropriate same sex bathroom (instead of their chosen gender bathroom). They've made it abundantly clear that a unisex bathroom is fine and that the opposite sex should be perfectly comfortable with their presence in the opposing sexes same sex bathroom (i.e. it would be hypocritical) - so they should be perfectly comfortable in the appropriate same sex bathroom even dressed in contemporary opposite sex clothing.
No, the statistics are clear. The Australian firearm laws introduced in 1997 did not change already downwards trend of firearms homicides.
Further to that, the total homicide rate hasn't changed much, with firearms being replaced by knives as the choicest weapon for murder.
http://www.aic.gov.au/statisti...
Or go to the http://www.abs.gov.au/ and find the same information by a different department.
Look to New Zealand to see a perfect example of how the Australian laws did not work. They have a very similar culture to Australia's. Their last big firearms massacre was in 1997. They didn't change their laws the same as Australia did. I.e. they didn't introduce firearms restrictions, magazine restrictions, or have any buy backs etc. They did introduce a sensible licensing scheme that prevents crazy people and criminals from owning firearms. Most of their firearms do not need to be registered (I believe they've publicly stated it does not decrease crime with firearms). Their homicide rate is lower than Australia's. Their homicide by firearm rate is lower than Australia's.
New Zealand is the model to copy. Forget about Australia. Copy New Zealand with its lower homicide rates and more sensible firearms laws.
The USA has it good. At least you have a right to silence. Unlike Australia, where that right has been eroded down. It's now in many Australian states, under several Acts, illegal to not answer questions. The penalties range from fines to jail time, to having any chance of parole while in jail revoked.
Australian Citizens were also the single largest exit type, with more leaving than arriving - a net loss of 2.6% (in that particular year).
All things considered Australia is not doing too badly, ranking 19th in the world for resettlement of refugees in 2012.
http://www.refugeecouncil.org....
There were clearly reasonably good choices early on who've dropped out. Frankly, American's are spoiled for choice compared to Australia.
Ignoring the huge difference in sound pressure levels between a car backfiring and a gun firing, they sound very different and are easily distinguished by the human ear.
I think your perception of firearms is wrong.
In think totalitarian control is politically left (communism). But some argue it is politically right as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I prefer this clarification of left vs right:
https://www.theobjectivestanda...
Yes, they are the politically right party in our country.
What I'm getting at is that overall, compared to the USA, our politicians (including the right) are politically very left. ,reducing personal freedom, which is considered left.
A great example is how our right wing government enacted tight gun control
Another great example is the topic at hand, the new draconian censorship laws which again reduces personal freedom, and is considered a left wing ideology.
Both parties spend heavily on social security, free health care, public schooling, etc. Again politically left.
Australian's don't enjoy protected free speech. Say something offensive and you can be charged. Very left. The politically right haven't changed this even though they could.
Australian's don't enjoy the right to self defense. (but it is a defense to a charge of assault). Very left. The politically right haven't changed this even though they could.
Etc. I could go on for quite a bit more.
There are 24 million people in Australia. We take over 200,000 migrants (net) a year.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats...
As a generalisation Australian politicians are so far to the left that they make the American Democrats look like right wing fanatics. Comparisons with America at just about any level are very wrong.
Where's the data for the initial implementation of center white lines?
Of course there are circumstances where it wouldn't work.
But there are circumstances where it would as well. E.g. there are plenty of niche papers cited on wikipedia. Unless there are sufficient knowledgeable people editing that page who are intimate with the relevant papers, then it is likely to go by unnoticed. As you would know, there are examples of purposeful misedits going by unnoticed for years on wikipedia.
You replied to an explanation.
Academic - primary research papers are considered "original research".
Wikipedia - facts, allegations, and ideas for which no reliable published source exists are considered "original research".
The academic definition is basically all primary research. The wikipedia definition only encompasses a small subset of research which doesn't belong to a reliable source. They define different things and AFAIK one (the academic definition) existed well before the other.
They may be bigger than you or me, but they're still not armed.
An "appeal to authority" requires that the person not be an authority on the subject.
If he and the other enthusiasts are authorities on Sunbeam Tigers then it is not an appeal to authority. I suggest that if they felt strongly enough to attempt a factorial edit in regards to Sunbeam Tigers, then they are very likely authorities on the topic.
The question is, under what circumstances do you get to decide whether or not the person has authority.
Nice guide here: http://www.nizkor.org/features...
(note - I'm arguing from prior knowledge of this fallacy, but I did look up the guide to post a link for others to read more)
Yes really. Wikipedia should stop attempting to redefine words or phrases to suit their purpose. It muddies the waters.
The amount of paywalled information is also higher now in 2015 than it was in 2003.
Restricting information so that the general public can't verify it's veracity without paying money makes those references useless to a very large amount of people.
You could even game a paywall system.
E.g. make an edit with a reference to a fake article behind a paywalled site that you setup. Make the subscription cost to the site very expensive. Will anyone but a very motivated, wealthy individual, with a lot of time on their hands, pay and investigate the paywalled article? Done carefully enough it may be possible to avoid detection for quite a while.
Wikipedia's attempt to redefine the term original research doesn't help.
Research articles, or primary articles are based on original research. I.e. someone makes a hypothesis, tests it, and writes it up. Furthermore the person who designed and performed the test is the paper author.
It's telling that Wikipedia even has to qualify the definition as their own interpretation: 'The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.' (italics mine)
It only works on phones that meet the specified criteria:
"smartphones that have their WiFi connection open, and then, employing a diverse arsenal of security vulnerabilities, gain root permission on devices"
I.e. they must have an open wifi connection and they must have an unpatched security vulnerability.
This automatically excludes millions of older phones of various brands that don't have wifi, any phone with wifi disabled, and any phone with encrypted wifi.
And if the phone is fully patched for known exploits, they need a zero day attack.
'This characterization that "the Internet" got it wrong is such a lie.'
Are you pushing the blame away from those who may have got it wrong onto someone else? It is everyone's own responsibility to verify the information they have is as correct as possible.
Yes. The internet (i.e. people) get things wrong often. And then people love to either deny their wrongness with lies or ignore the other people pointing out said wrongs (and these other people are also usually the people who may have been affected by said wrongs).
An omnipotent god can take any form. The followers claim the FSM is omnipotent. Basically form is no problem for an omnipotent god. It can appear as a giant walking penis and it's still the same god.
That was not the original idea. That came well after the original usage of the FSM.
And that idea stopped when the original letter ended. After that it took on a life of it's own outside of the original intentions of the inventor.
His description is close enough to the historical narrative. It was Bobby Henderson's idea to show that it was just as ridiculous and believable to say the FSM did what he describes as any other god.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That is a good idea.
I had a similar idea a while back. A Justice of the Peace course (a non-trivial course that isn't just rubber stamped). The course would be very similar to how you have suggested but longer and more in depth and the graduates would be closer to an official deputy. But your idea is probably more in line with what Americans would want.
I think background checks are good but criminal behaviour should not be an automatic preclusion, instead it should be a graduated scheme, with time length of bans on ownership based upon the severity of the crime (with people able to appeal to a magistrate if they believe their circumstances warrant a shorter ban).
I had thought previously that to meet the "well regulated" part of the militia clause, that firearms owners could be required to be members of gun clubs. This would give the opportunity to make friends, become more proficient in firearms use, self-vet members (if a screw is coming loose they could step in somehow), be an organised group when disaster strikes (to help the community), etc.
I wonder if it would be too hard to reinforce the right to ownership of firearms whilst adding some simple required responsibilities?