mistermack

Surely it's obvious? Same reason you do.

Is that what you call engaging in good faith? You'll have to explain it, I'm finding it hard to follow.

Along the lines of my original post, where I suggested using AI to reconstruct, or improve old photos with new parts, from a huge database, I would imagine that something similar could be done with old music recordings, and even old film and video. The principle would be the same. Amass a huge database of high definition music or video, and replace tiny sections of original material with new high definition stuff that best matches the section. There's no reason why classic material, like Robert Johnson records, or Laurel and Hardy, couldn't be brought up to modern quality, by AI substitutions of that kind.

Link? I thought I was.

As soon as I ask you to put flesh on the bones, you bail out. That just confirms what I already knew. Your dream world doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

What kind of handicapping can be "fair" to both sides, and who decides on the handicap? It seems pretty obvious from today's reactions that female athletes won't consider it fair, and neither will the trans athletes, they will blame the handicap unless they win. (as Caster Semenya did) It's a recipe for bitterness on both sides, in any contest that's worthwhile winning.

What rules are you offering?

This comment by Dawkins applies pretty closely to a lot of posting on here : "The God Delusion author said that some activists choose not to listen to counter-arguments, instead only hearing “hate hate hate”. And this : Dawkins believed that the user who complained was sincere in their outrage, but pins this down to a “paranoid hypersensitivity that almost literally warps their hearing”. Of course, being silenced for Dawkins, on here translates as negative "arse-lick" points, which might influence some people I guess, if they are sad enough to treasure them. Well, it can be one or the other, or both. It's mainly because people identify as their mental ID firstly, over their physical ID. That's why people consider they have the wrong body, and not the wrong brain. You could conceivably put your brain in another body, and still feel that you are still yourself. But if they put another brain in your body, then "you" would be gone. What are these rules, that will make it fair for both groups?

Richard Dawkins put it so well, as usual. It's like he's been reading this thread : Richard Dawkins blasts 'paranoid hypersensitive' trans activists as he outlines attempts to silence him (msn.com)

Don't you know? That explains a lot. First words of the article : Sex - Wikipedia

You say categories, then magically transform that to 6 biological sexes. Magic isn't good enough, where's the citation for six biological sexes? This is your latest dodge? Why don't you just bite the bullet and say how the XY male, brought up past puberty as a male, becomes a woman after a few snips and pills. Is it more magic? Or transubstantiation? Your tap dancing round the question is surely embarrassing?

That's clearly a bad-faith post. If you have to twist and squirm like a squirmy thing, rather than address the issue, then it's obvious you haven't got a valid argument. Again

That doesn't confirm what you said. "What ISN'T a woman, is a human with XY sex chromosome configuration, who has grown up past puberty as a male, and has since had some surgery and drugs. "

Can you supply a link to confirm that? So you get to dodge the question?

You need to read it again.

When you have women's sport, as distinct form men's sport, then what qualifies as a woman IS the issue. You can't wish it away.

People keep making this thoroughly flawed argument, that because you can't give a catagoric 100% all encompassing definition of "male" or "female", then those catagories are somehow less than real. The flaw with that argument is that while it's hard to nail down what IS a woman, it's very easy to nail down what ISN'T. And it's what ISN'T that's important in the question of men who transition gender being allowed to compete against women. I've posted this ages ago, and didn't get much response, so here goes again. What ISN'T a woman, is a human with XY sex chromosome configuration, who has grown up past puberty as a male, and has since had some surgery and drugs. Can anybody refute that?

To make the point that it doesn't mean anything, used in the way that they used it. Without numbers, their "combination" statement tells you nothing. It could be 99.9999 % "natural forcing" and still be correct. Whoopee

Oh yeh, I missed that... But it doesn't. As I pointed out above.

Who said that? Rubbish, it doesn't tell you that. It tells you that somebody estimated that. And what does it tell you about it? A combination of . . . . blah blah . A combination can be any combination. For example, the air you breath is a combination of nitrogen, oxygen, Argon, water vapour and trace gases. CO2 is part of that combination, a trace gas at 0.04 percent. That illustrates why using the word "combination" adds nothing at all. It's word salad, just there to give an impression, to make an unsupported point.

One thing that might help with navigation on the final km of the trip is if you have a facility to drive a certain trip manually, recording it as you go, and then feed that into the computer, as the template, next time you do the trip driverless. So the car computer has the basics and doesn't need to do so much calculating. Something I read the other day also makes the point that if your car can be summoned, then it doesn't need to be parked on the road, it can go to a nearby car park, and come when called. This could eventually mean that no cars are parked on the roads, making driving much easier for people and machines.

I remember about a year ago, a tv news piece on an experimental taxi service in the UK, where the cars are linked to a control room, where there are drivers that can take over control of the cars. If a car encounters an issue that stops it, the human driver takes over, they had two or three screens, brake, wheel etc, and could drive the car till it was past the problem. I'm not sure if this is the one I remember, but it's on similar principles : Milton Keynes to hold large-scale driverless car trial - BBC News

So, just let men play the women, so long as they claim female gender? There's a lot of money at stake, it would be well worth it. Wimbledon, US open, women's events won by second grade men claiming female gender? I don't think it would go down too well.

In chess certainly. I wouldn't say it's typical. My self control is about average, not great, but not the worst. But I suppose a game of chess doesn't really matter, especially against a computer, so control doesn't come at a premium.

I don't play chess, haven't for years, except now and again I'll hazard a go against an online computer. I know I haven't got the temperament for it. As soon as my opponent moves, I have to move, almost instantly. I just can't sit there and plan. For some reason, I have a compulsion to move straight away. And I usually see what was wrong with the move within another second. That's part of the reason I'm rubbish at it.