Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
A female is an organism that can produce an ova to create young during its lifespan.
So women who have their ovaries removed become men? Or what about women born without reproductive organs? Are they not women anymore?
A male is an organism that can create sperm to fertilize said Ova during its lfiespan.
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 not arbitrary -- this is the scientific definition from biology.
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.
Any organism that can do neither of those two during its lifespan is neuter, and any that can do both is hemaphroditic (sic).
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.
ANY OTHER DEFINITION is cultural, subjective, non-scientific crap.
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".
Knowingly cutting that kind of revenue requires more than balls, my friend. That requires the confidence that doing this is going to bring at least that 2% back. That it does not scare away more that are exploiting that haven't been caught. These guys took a chance for ideals of the players. There should be nothing but kudos from the community and an understanding that they have your best interests in mind despite scandals in the past.
You might have missed the portion about the in-game "PLEX" asset they created in order to fill the demand for RMT. The idea is that if you want to purchase ISK, you need to broker it through EVE. Basically you can sell off your own subscribed months to another player for market value of in-game money. People that want to trade real money for in-game money can do so by subscribing to more months than they normally would. They benefit by knowing they will not get scammed, or get a virus. Further, people that would like to play, but can't completely afford it, can subsidize they're playing time by doing boring background tasks such as low-sec mining. What this does is transfers the profits RMTers were making to the developers. By creating a legitimate exchange, brokered by them, they kept any potential profits from RMT tied up in subscriptions, rather than having it spent on mountain dew and cheetos. I don't think they'll lose a dime from this.
I suggest it for anyone who deals with clients and wants their number to remain the same after they leave a job. Get a GC number and put it on your business cards. Link up your cell and your desk phone. Leave the job, keep the cards, your clients may not even know the difference.
It has always been a good service.
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?