Who said anything about 'turning off' scripts? I want to be able to whitelist sites I trust and reject all other scripts from being run. Since many legit sites use scripts, people have to leave script-execution enabled all the time in IE.

As long as you want to disable it GLOBALLY, them yeah that's great. Even IE can do that. But that makes many legitimate and useful sites useless. I don't want to have globally enable and disable scripts every time. With NoScript I can 'whitelist' specific sites or just temporarily allow scripts for a single page if I want.

So women who have their ovaries removed become men? Or what about women born without reproductive organs? Are they not women anymore?

So if I chop your nuts off, you become a woman? Do you forget a lifetime of experiences being male? Do you have to change the little 'M' on your driver's license to an 'F'?

This is an abuse of science when we have clear and documented cases where your definitions are inadequate, yet you continue to insist they are correct. Your definition, your model, is in error. Scientifically speaking -- science takes all available evidence into consideration, not just the parts you agree with.

Again, your definition is in error: A hermaphrodite is an organism that has both male and female reproductive organs. Nowhere in that definition is "Ova" or "sperm" included -- it is possible to have both male and female reproductive organs and have either, both, or neither, of those conditions met. Neuter is a an adjective that refers to either a lack of gender (a social construct, not physical), or the lack of reproductive organs.

The very definition of gender is cultural, subjective, and very much not scientific. You're attempting to use science to advance your own religious or personal beliefs about how the world "should be", not how it is. Science is about how things ARE not how they SHOULD be. The moment you start saying "should", you've left the realm of science.

Indeed, some more organized and large countries (China being the most effective current example) have programs to try to find people with particular genetic variants to recruit into sports. Want to dope people with testosterone but it's illegal? Find someone with abnormally high levels of testosterone naturally! Thinking of competing in a sport where HGH would help? Find a guy who naturally produces really high levels. Etc.

I guess I don't find that process that interesting. Is there really anything better or more fair about a guy who produces abnormally high levels of HGH, vs. someone else injecting HGH? Why is one more interesting to watch than the other? It seems the only possible answer is attaching some sort of mysticism to the fact that one was "natural".

My concern about using Grandcentral for business (or any other real-person contact, for that matter) is that it really doesn't protect my privacy. The way I see it working is:

1) I give out my Grandcentral number to someone.
2) They call me. I don't pick up, and they leave a message.
3) I call them back on my cell or home phone, they pick up and comment about the caller ID not being what I gave them.
4) They record my cell number, and use it from then on to contact me, thus negating the whole point of Grandcentral.

Is there a way to overcome this?

Hummingbird rocks, in my experience. It involves a fundamental shift in the way people create and access documents, since it doesn't work with network shares. It also means that you have to enter the meta-data associated with the files every time. However, it does have very strong permissions, access controls, and versioning support, and would likely solve your problem, since you can prevent those who don't need access to a document or project from access, or even viewing that the document exists. On the down side, it's fairly expensive. (In our organization, implementation was at least 5-figures, and probably 6) and it requires a lot of support and baby-sitting (1/2 to 1 FTE, with an organization of about 500).

I'm on the same list as this guy. He is basically a whining, privileged douche, just like all commercial pilots. He is not on the "no-fly" list (otherwise he would not be allowed to fly, period.) The list that he is on is the "Watch" list, which means that he has a name that is the same or similar to someone the government is interested in. What this means is that he has to verify his ID before he gets a boarding pass and pass security. It means that he has to stand in line with the rest of us plebes, rather than walking to front of the line because he's a pilot and therefore exempt from all the hassles that us citizens have to endure. This guy is whining about being treated like everyone else, and having to arrive 15 minutes earlier and show his ID. His job is not on the line, that's just a claim he's making to sue the government.