StringJunky

Six of one and half a dozen of the other. The confounding factor is that they can both act which obscures the veracity of both positions. No doubt this will be turned into a political spectacle. Probably been a good career move for both of them in their respective interests: Depp's probably marketable again movie-wise and Heard will be the new figurehead for the #MeToo movement or other cause celebre. Personally, I think they both just spoilt, petulant people that feel they can sue on a whim and they are probably equal in blame.

OK.

I never got the sense he was taking a side swipe at anybody. Are you taking umbrage at this? This is a general statement about the collective human condition.

Having an easily accessible, loaded firearm in the home for personal protection... what can go wrong?

+1 @zapatos but I can't give anymore today.

The ignorance is all yours.

It works for many other countries. I would be very upset if we had a Second Amendment in the UK, as it would indicate to me that UK civil society had collapsed.

We know your thoughts on this and I'm pretty sure iNow created this thread to go in another direction. Either contribute in the spirit of the question or butt out.

Not sure if it's had the pleasure of being engaged by an NLAW yet.

Same with their Tank Terminator he said was in Ukraine... all ONE of them.

Solutions instead of obstacles.

@beecee if you quote it as source without caveats, you will be assumed to agree with it verbatim.

All men are stronger than all women? False. Your gross generalizations are getting old.

How long is a piece of string? It's not answerable until an indivdual is measured. This reinforces the point that performance should govern competition class eligibility and not gender per se. A more useful question would be "Do transitioned cis-females gain a performance advantage over their pre-transitioned selves?"

Yes, I noticed this. Irritating. Had a play: click on the clock symbol I've highlighted here and it will take you to that post.

15%-50% of pregnancies end spontaneously. God is a lot busier than our clinics.

I didn't know until now, but it looks we have our own merry bands of evangelistical anti-abortion fraternity inj the UK: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-6162448

You can post point by point if you want. If you quote each person in separate posts, providing no one else has posted in the interim, they will automatically be merged, if it occurs within a certain time. Just try things out. There is sandbox to play with forum controls in: https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/99-the-sandbox/

I never said it would be cleavage, our signalling processes would just change architecture. The 'wet' human forms would still co-exist as long as conditions allowed it, same with chip-based forms. Evolution is a blind watchmaker, we do what we do. Necessity is moot. On the large scale it's not directed. Evolutionary predecessors will co-exist as long as conditions allow. You seem not to have grasped what I'm saying. All I'm saying is autonomous AI becomes a new path of human manifestation that may or may not evolve away from us. That does not mean AI needs to destroy humans. I was rhetorically saying in my post that we don't have a metaphysical basis, as Alzheimer's demonstrates.

yes

Yes, naturally, we will tend to make AI as an extended reflection of our own abilities. There could be a time though, if/when they can self-program, they can evolve in their own direction. At that point, I think we can say humanity has shed its mortal coil.... evolution of our species becomes non-biological in the physical sense. There's no difference between similar molecules residing in a biological entity or a complex machine.... they are, I think, both capable of ultimately performing the same functions. I tend to think of consciousness as just an emergent function of sufficient signalling complexity. I think of Alzheimer's and how easily that human complexity can be undone as evidence that we are not some seamless, holistic entity. Operationally, we seem to be the sum of many parts.

If the issue persists and increases, they will have to address it, irrespective of offending people. If a person takes up 2 seats and there is an increasing number of them aboard planes, the price can't stay the same and neither can the seat size.

You misunderstand me, you have introduced a 'men vs women' angle to this. All you've done lately is harp on about how much stronger/faster cis-men are. Does that mean trans women are necessarily as strong or as fast as cis-men? No. I wish you would stop repeating yourself... it's waste of space. Repetition does not strengthen your argument.

How has this morphed into men vs women when it's about transgenders and their suitability to play in leagues outside their assigned birth gender? It's not a given that that trans-women will carry their cis-male characteristics into the female game.

AFAIK, this would be the case because we can't predict a prior unknown emergent phenomenon; we can only know ex post facto.