transigence

Computer vision was just popping off five years after that, so I would say that it is prescient.

Owning land with a livable structure on it, and keeping it to the standards of living in is a job.

Just be aware that they're selling models that are USB 2.0 with the USB-C interface.

He would be so assassinated, so quickly. The IRS does not fuck around. Neither does the Department of Education.

So it's reasonable to think that if your driver is a male, you will be harassed (and that if your driver is a female, you will not)? That doesn't enable misandric bigotry in any way whatsoever. I mean, everybody knows that men are the ones who cause problems and women are the ones who suffer them.

Let me try to explain:
The 2nd Amendment has two clauses, a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The operative clause is the one that secures the right, and the prefatory clause informs it. However, not being the operative clause, it's ultimately not anything from which rights are derived, nor restricted. The bill of rights wasn't written to restrict the rights of the people.
The prefatory clause is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...," which informs the reader as to why the latter exists. So, you can argue until you're blue in the face about how "well regulated militia" was intended, but ultimately, its immaterial as it's not part of the operative clause.
"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is the operative clause and the only one you really need to be concerned about. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. That is very easy to understand. It's hard to like if you are a violent criminal and prefer that your violence and violations of the rights of others go uncontested and unprevented, and you don't want to get shot. For everybody else, this is not only perfectly acceptable and necessary, it's intuitive.

The supreme court is wrong about 2A. Laws and regulations are infringements, which the constitution specifically prohibits.

Can prospective developers use engines like Id Tech 3 or Unreal 2 commercially without paying?

Right. And don't forget to address the issue of them all being differently situated as a starting condition. You'll have to kneecap some and put others on wheels.

Fearing for your safety from relational aggression from women is completely rational. Women are just as aggressive as men — it just takes a different form.

Low-effort and incorrect.

As does "well-regulated," especially at the time when that amendment was drafted.

Does Windows still use GDI? Looks like GDI took a shit.

My own Git server.

Is that ChromeOS? I don't recognized the windowing system.

means well-supplied and ready to go on a moment's notice

I've seen dictionary arguers do this all the time. You say that a word means one thing, and they say, "No, it doesn't." Then they cite a dictionary which provides a few definitions, one of which is in the sense that the subject was using it, and they point to the existence of literally any other definition as evidence that "it does not mean that."

Perhaps a small bash script to iterate through all of the package delivery mechanisms' for updating everything?

At least props for Stereo MC's Connected.

You can host your own Git server.

I didn't say it was "empty words," I said it was immaterial, as in, from a legal standpoint.

The thing is, if someone makes observations about you, and save that in the form of data, that's not your data. It's their data. It might be about you, but people are allowed to observe and sell their observations.

Fixing and maintaining a linux box is good exercise. Ubuntu has been sucking, though. I've been on a straight Debian for about six months now.

What "playing field" are you talking about, what is unequal, and what does this do to supposedly equalize this... playing field?

I guess I just have a problem with your phrasing. You make it sound like if we worked to increase the number of sexual assaults that happen to men by women, this would be a solution to the problem.

A "playing field" is an analogy for a field of opportunities, like the job market or access to services like education.

The Nazi isn't the audience.

I think there's a difference here where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy, and where there is not. Out on the sidewalk, you don't have one. Selling someone's CC is a violation of contract law because you do have an expectation of privacy there. So, we have to be very clear, what kind of data are we talking about? "Sharon Thomas visited this site, looked at these items, spent 14.2 seconds looking at that item, then clicked on this link," I think, is not something you can expect privacy from.
However, there are some things I do think you have an expectation of privacy from, which is the collation and sale of personal information that the customer enters into the site for the purposes of business with that site, like the collation names with addresses, driver's license numbers, social security numbers (or whatever local equivalents), etc. Another thing is that, and I don't know if I'm 100% right here, but I believe that when you visit a site, even by typing an address into the address bar, the site you're visiting is told, by your browser, what site you're coming from. That doesn't make sense to me, and that's not a thing that should exist.

Nonetheless, I don't think the GDPR is a good fit for addressing any of these issues.

Why? I'm allowed to stand at a street corner and watch people walk by. I'm allowed to count them, and observe the direction they're going. I don't need any of their permission to do this. I'm allowed to know who they are, and I'm allowed to tell anyone I want what I saw. I'm allowed to charge money for it, and none of the people I observe are a party to this at all, so why should I need to either not do this, or tell them what I'm doing or ask for their permission to remember what I saw? How is internet tracking different?

What world are you living in? All but one or two televised media outlets bend over backwards with big money to run cover for the left. Are you seriously suggesting that CNN, MSNBC, and ABC disadvantage the Democrats?

Sure, that's fair enough. That's fact-checking. But refusing to report on something ostensibly "because it wasn't correct" isn't an ethical journalistic practice. That would be propaganda.

Keeping contemporary weapons is not cowardice, it's just smart. Intentionally disarming yourself is colossolly stupid. Pretending that the world isn't dangerous is mental illness.

Not at all. I'm as serious as a heart attack. We've had three generations of people subjected to intense radicalization by feminists who have been in power and influence, particularly over children, for over a century, which is why everybody just accepts it as gospel and few have questioned it for decades.

But the truth is we have been heavily propagandized for generations by feminists who take advantage of the male and societal instinct to protect women in order to inject their doctrine into society and law without proper scrutiny.

People think feminists are the plucky underdogs who popped up in the '60s and finally convinced men to "share some of the power" that only men ever had, but the truth is that feminists (whether in that name) have been around at least since the 1850s and have been spreading radical lies about men and society since then. You can read the "Declaration of Sentiments" of Seneca Falls in, something like 1857 and the criticism of E. Belford Bax if you want to dive further into it. You can also read the crazy blatherings of Charles Fourier, who actually coined the term "feminism." He posited that a society should be judged according to how it treats its women.

No, when it comes to journalism specifically, it's also when one or more sides are absolutely batshit insane. Actually, even especially when one or more sides is absolutely batshit insane.

Those laws prevent you from infringing on the rights of others. There are no laws regarding firearms that prevent you from infringing on the rights of others; they merely infringe on yours.

Let me be very clear here:
There is nothing that comes from the doctrine of feminism that is true or grounded in reality. All of it is false, from the wage gap to its stupid cousin the pink tax, supposed rape culture, the glass ceiling, and toxic masculinity — all of it. Every single item in the feminist list of grievances is false. It's completely ungrounded in reality. It's nothing but a fabrication from whole cloth spun from a place of hatred towards men and disdain and jealousy of normal women who are living their best lives.
But the biggest lie — the foundational lie that underpins every other lie and the entirety of the feminism movement is their "Patriarchy Theory," so it is sometimes called. (It's not a threory, it's just completely untested conjecture.) This is the idea that men have organized society (alone) to benefit themselves, and themselves alone, at the expense of the women in their own society. This abominable lie is the common thread that runs through every wave and variant of feminism. It is not true, and it has never been true. It has never been demonstrated, and nobody who purports it has ever bothered to subject it to nullification. It has merely been granted axiomatically.
None of the feminist doctrine has ever been supported by any real academia, but instead is supported by a beachhead of nearly-unassailable woozles in their own self-referential journals and articles. But we have gone for so long without challenging it because it's perceived to be in the interest of women (although, ultimately, it is not). In actuality, it comes at the expense of all of society and amounts to nothing but a misanthropic power- and money-grab.

Women have never, ever, not once been oppressed by the men in their own society. This lie, and every other one that derives from it, amounts to the entirety of feminist doctrine. It doesn't hold up to even casual scrutiny, much less any real fact-checking or consideration of historical context.

If there is someone who says it's dry when it's obviously raining, that is absolutely more newsworthy than the mere fact that it's raining.
It would be fairness-biased to pretend like it could possibly be true that it's not raining, but yes, it is absolutely journalism to present all available sides, every single time. It's not the journalist's job to tell you which one is right — it's their job to show you what is out there.
What you're describing is propaganda or advocacy.

You don't have to give up your rights to privacy to get rid of the GDPR. The GDPR isn't the reason you have any rights to privacy, nor does it actually effect any. What it effects is an entitlement to be forgotten and to move in anonymity when your identity is clearly observable and memorable. It's an overreach, and some people don't feel like dealing with it.

There is no systemic oppression of women and there never has been.

Go climb a tree. You're a stereotype.

Why not just not allow men to be drivers? Problem solved, equity maximized.
Neither "equality" nor "equity" involve any amount of equality, equity, fairness, nor justice of any kind. They're all hot garbage.
What people need is freedom and liberty maximized, and artificial barriers removed. And don't expect equal outcomes.