They didn't profess to know it, you inferred it. What they said was, "only half (of x number) felt comfortable being identified as female." Some people don't feel comfortable being identified as female because they are, in fact, male. You should realize that.
One cannot speak to what percentage of those who did not report their sex are male and what percentage are female, nor to their motivations for withholding this information. To infer that the sex this group felt "uncomfortable" reporting was female, rather than male, is unjustified. To infer that members of this group were "uncomfortable" reporting their sex is also unjustified, given that one might refuse to disclose information for other reasons than comfort. For example, one might refuse to provide information he expects might be employed by nitwits inclined to jump to unjustified conclusions.
I think the survey was 1. Male 2. Female 3. Do not want to disclose. 90-94% said they were male, and of the remaining 6-10%, half said they were female. The other half preferred not to say. But that does mean between 3-5% actually did identify as female.
If that is so, then it is incorrect to infer the sex of those who preferred not to disclose it.
WellPlayed, said, '[A] whopping 90-94% of the viewers were male, and interestingly enough, only about half of the remaining survey takers felt comfortable being identified as female.'
If half the remaining survey takers didn't reveal their sex (assuming this is in fact what is meant by the above), how can one profess to know they are female?
For example the "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" scenario. The police would have to prove that the flashing of your lights posed a significant hazard to the public to get the ticket to stick.
I successfully used this argument in court, arguing that it was free speech to flash my lights in a crowded theater. Unfortunately I was not able to get out of the numerous traffic violations required to put me in a position to exercise that right.
Where was Bono? Probably "doing some charity gig in Africa," or so he always claims...
If they are really worried about piracy, they need to keep teens apart
This idea has promise. After all, keeping teens apart has long been used to stifle a more primal kind of information transfer. Indeed, hasn't some part of the human genome been patented yet? Why haven't the fundies tried to crack down on fornication using copyright law? A limited-license agreement could be written into marriage contracts.
Over time, however, the sale of organs would grow to be accepted, just as the voluntary military now has widespread support.
Over time, however, the sale of bananas would grow to be accepted, just as the Lil' Orphan Annie Fan Club now has widespread support. Wait, what? Oh, they're trying to draw a parallel based on efficacy, as opposed to such piffling concerns as morality.
A voluntary military has the same moral problem. If you pay people to fight wars, you're going to end up with poorer people dying in your wars.
problems with the current system don't excuse problems with the proposed system.
No, but surely he is arguing that the good (reducing deaths resulting from a scarcity of organs) outweighs the bad (problems associated with an organ market).
He is making two different points, first that an organ market would be beneficial, and second, that it could become acceptable in the same way that paying an army has become acceptable, despite the fact that the latter presents a similar moral concern. One might disagree with these assertions, but they do not appear to be as incoherent as you imply.
then escalated it further into the physical realm
then the texter escalated even further, into the spiritual realm
Particularly since they are using it in the off-season to keep the boat in use year round. Whales are in Hawaii now.
Great! Google hijacked so many boats the poor unemployed whales had to move to Hawaii. What's next, gentrification of the clouds?
And, it should be noted, they want to find out in controlled conditions with sufficient protective equipment in a facility explicitly configured for this kind of situation. This is science.
Hopefully the researchers have purchased a sufficient quantity of GI Joe figurines and toy tanks to deal with the inevitable tiny Godzilla they will create.
Why don't they just put a spit cup at toll booths?
They do. It's this funnel-shaped thing that idiots throw coins into for some reason.
No, Apple is not packaging them up and putting them on iTunes. Apple doesn't own the copyrights. Apple Corps, the corporation founded by the members of the Beetles who do have the copyrights, is the one releasing them on iTunes.
When you have two entities that have almost the same name involved in the same story, it makes a different to differentiate the two to be absolutely clear. But this is Slashdot after all...
You mean two entities like the obscure music collaborative of common insects to which you refer, and celebrated rock band the Beatles?
And once infected, you are twice as likely to get in a car accident, among other negative effects.
How can they possibly know this? You'd have to know precisely when each person in the sample was infected, so you could compare accident rates before and afterward. (Otherwise it might just be the case that cat owners tend to be accident prone.) You'd need to set up an experiment where you infected half the people with it and then employed them all as taxi drivers.