zapatos

If you are going to tell us what cosmologists and astrophysicists say and think, it is important that you first KNOW what they say and think. Either provide citations for your far-fetched assertions, or ask for help in understanding what the prevailing theories really are.

Can you please define "observe" in this context? What device would you use to 'observe' it? Not your eye of course as the eye detects electromagnetic radiation, not space. Not a magnetometer for similar reasons. What kind of device 'observes' space?

I don't see how you can measure or observe a point of space. You can observe or measure something that is in that point of space, but you cannot observe space itself.

Thanks. I just misunderstood.

Can you please present that definition here? Much of my memory no longer exists. Much of the early history of the earth no longer exists. My father no longer exists. Can you pinpoint a spot outside your body that your consciousness exists? Can we test that location to verify your claim?

If there is enough of an alteration, no version of you would exist. For instance, if you have a sibling, they are an "altered" version of you; they came from a similar but different sperm and egg as what spawned you. Since you are clearly not "experiencing" your sibling's consciousness, "you" would not be here if there is enough alteration.

Here's a classic.

Go to your profile. On the left is a list of the people following you. Choose "Options". You can select to not allow others to follow you.

Another winner! 😀

For God's sake quit your whining. The world is not against you.

I also suggest that you read whatever it is that he chooses to read. Then you can speak to him on level ground.

I saw a cat show at the circus once. It was awesome!

I think you are confusing the components of the brain with the brain itself. Circuits don't do my online shopping at Amazon. They are just a component of my computer. All by themselves the circuits just open and close.

Do you have a citation or is this just your opinion? Why do you assume training would focus on standardized responses rather gaining familiarity? If familiarity is better, it seems that would be the focus. Generally speaking, doesn't training and certification increase ability in pretty much every field? I don't see why it would be different with dogs.

Yeah, I hate to be the one that brings up this stuff, it's just that I've been hearing a lot about it lately. But back to the spirit of your OP... When I'm on vacation I stop strangers and ask to pet their dogs so I get my fix after not seeing mine for a while. My wife thinks there is something wrong with me. 😆 My dogs also recognize when I'm in distress from being ill and will lie next to me all day. My son's dog is weirdly intelligent. One day my son and his friends were floating on rafts in a lake not far from shore. An empty chip bag blew into the water and my son told his dog to go get it. She jumped right up, went to the edge of the lake, got the bag and carried it out. She has also done things like go out and chase the cat back in the house on request and other surprising things. She's very easy to train; we had her going out and bringing in the newspaper in short order.

By coincidence I happened to see this story today. I realize this is just anecdotal. https://www.yahoo.com/news/1-old-dies-she-bitten-173706925.html

I currently have two dogs and a cat. If I had to choose only one species it would be dog, but the cat is also a great source of fun and amusement. With regard to this part of your post, I have to take issue. I'm not sure how else to put it, but where the rubber meets the road, a dog is still an unpredictable animal. My son happens to be a pediatrician and he tells horror stories of dogs biting children, family members and not. Dogs that the parents trusted around their children implicitly. Children are poor at guessing when a dog wants to be left alone, is sick or injured, feels cornered, when the child is getting close to their food bowl, are a rival for the owners attention, etc. They keep approaching dogs to pet them, get in their faces, and are frequently bit in the face which can leave life long scars. My dogs are sweethearts but they still spend a lot of time locked in the bedroom when my toddler grandchildren are around.

I recently read an article that I don't have now, stating that these kinds of comparisons are very difficult. Since the trials involved simply vaccinating individuals then sending them home to see who gets sick, you would expect that trials performed when COVID infections were less widespread (i.e. earlier in the pandemic) would show higher efficacy rates than when COVID infections were more widespread (i.e. later in the pandemic). Unless the trials are coordinated a comparison of the vaccines done after the fact can be very misleading.

Okay.

I'm sorry but I often have a hard time understanding points you are trying to make. I'll keep it to myself next time.

In her professional career she had a grand total of five wins. As I said, I'm having trouble finding any transgender athlete who has had even modest success at the professional level.

I guess you didn't accept my explanation the first time you called me out for that post.

Why not? I'm having trouble finding any transgender athlete who has had even modest success at the professional level. Could be. I imagine though that transgender would find a handicap for themselves or their team less onerous than being banned from competition altogether. When two people are at odds, someone is ultimately going to have to bear the brunt. No getting around that. Sort of like pitting pitchers agains hitters by asking them to accept "solutions from experts" who make a decision on the height of the pitching mound. The governing bodies of sports always get the last say. This is no different than any other issue in any other sport. Unless people choose to make it different. I'm sure we can come up with dozens of rules in all sports that are not fully accepted by all. Why would we set the bar higher for this issue than for any other issue?

Sure, no reasonable questions should be excluded from consideration. If we find that transgender athletes are generally no better than cisgender athletes then we have no issues. If we find that there are very few transgender athletes and none are head and shoulders above the rest, then we have no issues. If we find that transgender athletes are markedly better and trying out for teams in great numbers that is going to hurt great numbers of cisgender athletes then we may find a way to include them in a fair way, have a separate league, develop a handicapping system, or (again IMO) as a last resort not let them compete in certain sports. I don't feel that coming to a reasonable solution is going to be all that difficult. To me the difficulty lies with getting people to overcome their prejudices and preconceptions and approach this just like any other new situation that a sport must deal with (like drugs, blood doping, etc.)

My suggestion is to look at data that predicts the impact of transgender women on women's sports, discuss it, and develop a plan. It would not involve anyone being forced to change their bodies or hormones. That would involve things such as how many people are involved, what the average difference is between trans- and cisgender women wrt to physical ability, whether or not that difference is material in the sport being discussed, the feedback received from the women/governing bodies/governments/etc. IMO the default position should be to let them play, and only exclude them if their inclusion is deemed "unfair", however that may turn out to be defined. There is no reason this has to be an arbitrary decision, and analysis may very well find that the inclusion of transgender women in women's sports is indeed fair. On a side note, I suspect that even if a transgender woman is materially faster and stronger than her soccer teammates it will not necessarily make much of a difference as she is only one of 22 people on the pitch.