andrewcellini

Odd... Then what exactly are you here for? Others have suggested desiccants as well. You're on an internet forum where people don't know you personally and are trying their best to help you with what little information they're provided, and this information is provided by you. Please keep that in mind, and also that no one here would (I'm fairly certain) insinuate that you are a bad parent. This can only be said so many times in so many ways before it becomes redundant.

make up your mind No one has made a claim remotely close to this. You said essentially the same thing I did, just sandwiched in a longer response and more boring to read. I still don't know what problems you are having with my post. x2

The word science can refer to both the scientific method and the body of knowledge gathered through its use. So you could and indeed must compare science in the latter sense to nature in order to do science in the former.

has anyone here seriously made this claim (aside from the poetic "we are the human race" thing, if you're to twist its meaning)? good strawman mate 10/10

I'm not sure who is being harmed by the nudity in that hypothetical. Why would you need to make another law barring acts which are probably already going to be illegal under your government ie murder, torture, etc? That seems redundant. And so long as the followers of the religion do not perform rituals which would be considered illegal why couldn't they be allowed the freedom to practice?

Did it ever stop being involved? There needs to be more detail on what you mean and how you're going to carry this out. What constitutes discrimination? How will you enforce laws against it? What kinds of punishments or rehabilitation will be available? What does it mean to have religious freedom? How will you protect it? What will you do to keep the public safe, and what do you mean by that? How will you regulate guns? Which guns are allowed?

Did you end up figuring it out?

It's quite alright, I'm probably not the most clear when expressing my views about political and social issues.

I agree (as I even mention it's rare and have given a news article showing no rise in sexual crime in states which protect trans individuals), to clarify again I don't think that policing bathrooms is the right idea in any circumstance. Imagine the logistics of trying to identify individuals who are trans; do people carry and are they even willing to carry such documentation just to use a bathroom? Are we to require special licenses? And imagine the time delays for actually being able to use the facility.

Did you guys learn bayes theorem? edit: though you may not need it after all. your teacher is talking about a conditional probability where the | or / in your notation refers to "given __" where after the | are some conditions, P(having disease| positive test), you're given P(not having disease| positive) = .04, this is not the probability of having a positive test.

Can you read? First to clarify as you seem to miss my point, neither case is of a person who is actually transgender and both are claiming they can use facilities of the opposite gender in areas where trans individuals are protected under law to do so, the perceived loophole I mentioned. Second, no I clearly stated that these laws wouldn't have an impact, do I have to repeat my question how would you know the individual is a predator? How would you know they're actually transgender? Laws on both ends, attempting to protect the rights of trans individuals to use the facilities corresponding to their gender identity or quashing the rights of trans individuals to protect the rest of the population, seem ineffective at eliminating sexual predators and bound to infringe someones rights if they're legitimately enforced, and I personally don't want bathroom guards from either camp blocking my way. You seem to think I'm claiming that trans individuals are the predators which I am clearly not; I'm talking about the rare individual who gets the idea in their head they can use these laws which allow trans people to use the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity as a means to hurt others. And I never said it was. Thank you for trying to put words in my mouth. The point in even mentioning these cases is that people, and it is certainly rare as it's hard to find such cases, use laws protecting transgender individuals use of bathrooms of the gender they identify as a means of preying on others. This is contrary to your claim that this never happens or has never happened.

What other motives? At least in these two cases, sexual: http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/26/predator-who-claimed-to-be-transgender-declared-dangerous-offender https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/man-strips-in-front-of-girls-in-swimming-pool-locker-says-transgender-law-a To say this never happens would be incredulous and, as I said previously, you wouldn't be able to tell whether the individual is passing themselves off as trans unless, perhaps, they were to do something lewd and illegal. This isn't to say that there will be a rise in sexual assault given some perceived loophole in the law as such a rise isn't evident in the data for parts of the country with laws protecting trans individuals: http://abcnews.go.com/US/sexual-assault-domestic-violence-organizations-debunk-bathroom-predator/story?id=38604019

Well firstly, it seemed as if hormone replacement therapy and the like were your implied criteria for a person to be trans. Secondly, how would you know, given that not all people who are actually transgender actually go through such things, that a person is actually trans and not entering the bathroom for other motives? You probably wouldn't if you're basing your assessment on their appearance, and ultimately barring based on appearance would do nothing except potentially discriminate against those who are actually trans.

There are people, trans men and women alike, who do not for whatever reason go through or delay hormone replacement and various surgeries.

citation needed. And before you rail against me please note I am not an expert; I can't find this information. According to the wiki there are two types, one which affects hair, skin and eyes pigmentation and the other just the eyes (oculocutaneous and ocular respectively). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albinism Edit: Did find this though http://ojrd.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-1172-2-43 Is the locus (or loci) for the mutation(s) that leads to OCA albinism actually the same as that which produced european whites though? I'm having trouble finding the answer to this. Perhaps you can lead me in the right direction.

Do you mean the luminiferous aether? That was proposed as a medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves, and there is no evidence of its existence. Here's a famous null experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment Not sure how the higgs field and the aether are related as they serve different purposes. I suppose you can say they are similar as the higgs field and aether (at least it was supposed to) permeate space but that's about it.

yup, you got it.

This and your op offer little more than poetry. You're essentially posting your conclusions without providing some sort of argument for them to follow. I can reply with something akin to what iNow said: I'm not sure what else can be said as you offer no context, though I doubt that prophets long for a complete understanding of the world when what they do amounts to making stuff up, and there is no evidence that supposed prophets had any contact with the supernatural.

I agree, and it would be somewhat pointless to introduce these hypothetical machines without a problem to solve. +1

Assuming it has an accurate model of reality, if it's allowed to search the solution space unhindered and it comes to a solution with high utility which happens to be taking some violent actions or includes a violent action among the sequence of actions then why would it need to be taught or even built with those responses? Do you mean built to have access to necessary tools? Having an internet connection might be enough to do some dangerous, potentially nuclear things.

Whether its the machine that burst into tears or a super intelligence, these systems learn. You do acknowledge that your machine that bursts into tears can potentially learn to do otherwise right? What if it learns to fight back whether by force or by implicating the aggressor in a crime which ruins their life or by taking something dear from them? I don't know why you're hung up on super intelligence. The simple example in this video is scary, and it's a stamp collector: It seems like the kind of fears you're thinking of are more grand and terminator esque than some simpler ones that are also scary though not as action packed.

Seemingly nothing, but who's to say it can't outwit us? We haven't established what it learned on, how it compares to humans in solving problems etc, just a dangerous connection between red and anger/violence in some hypothetical machine which tells us nothing about its wit; really that's all we've doing by loosely constructing these hypothetical machines.

Whatever the tears are made of. What of a machine that gets uncontrollably, perhaps homicidal angry as the sight of the color red? It's quite obvious you'd want that to be shut off.

That's not clear given the op.