transigence

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

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.

Evangelicals don’t think that gay people should not exist, they think people shouldn’t do gay stuff. I don’t know what it is with the left, and especially the alphabet mafia, but you guys have a habit of characterizing the slightest disagreement as “they are trying to erase our existence.” That’s not what’s happening. Lighten up a bit. It’s a conversation.
Nobody is trying to strip you of any fundamental civil rights. Perhaps you’re trying to characterize the violation of other people’s fundamental civil rights as your own civil rights, and what you’re sensing is the civil rights of the innocent being protected, which sometimes necessitates not letting you do what you want to do.

Yes, evangelicals, by definition, do not leave people alone. Yes, they are given to harassment, and they need to be checked against it. But what you see at planned parenthood isn’t your typical evangelical, those are activists. And yes, they can be violent, and that needs to be checked. People are free to hold signs, advocate, and form picket lines, but they are not free to interfere with people’s movement, hit people, or project bodily fluids on them. But again, that’s not evangelicals.

Religion doesn’t inflict damage and pain — people do. Conversely, you don’t seem to be able to look at religion and see the structures and advancement it has enabled. It’s not that you can’t know, it’s that you don’t want to.

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

What you described as ideal is what the US is supposed to be, and what you described evangelicals as doing is what evangelicals are actually doing, and doesn’t really rise above the level of annoying. Maybe they are mentally ill, but that doesn’t make them anything beyond annoying.

But people do have a first amendment right to preach. They don’t have a claim to a captive audience, though.

That wasn’t “evangelicals,” alone. That was a lot of different kinds of people, most of whom were women. Roe vs. Wade was bad precedent. If you think women should have the freedom to abort pregnancies without interference, get it enshrined in actual law, not dubious interpretation of constitutional law.

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

Evangelicals are, at best, annoying. I say this as a Christian conservative. There are other (and better) ways of fulfilling the Great Commission besides arsing people into your favorite flavor of dogma.

That would be a good way to bring about the end of the state.

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

Or because they got bigger than they can currently support and they don’t want to lay off their employees.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 is the administration telling news execs what to report on, and how to frame it?

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?

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.

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.