BA is PA. The BAs here take meeting minutes, and ask for clarifications where needed. For the additional job of "asking dumb questions", they are paid 5x what a PA is paid. They don't know anything about anything, and if they do accidentally learn something, play dumb.

Power falls off at the square of the distance. Nobody ever said that the engineers failed to make that calculation, but that the power levels of the craft would have to be lower than my phone power needs to be able to function at those distances. That seems difficult. Nobody said impossible. Nobody said it wouldn't work. Someone said that the power would be low that far out. The rest was fabricated by you.

Dead like me?

It is really deceive - without the scare quotes no less.

Then you think wrongly. One can always not purchase at Walmart. You, however, are attempting to rationalize illegal activity.

So, just like any of the countless ARM-based Android mini-PCs that are already out there right now. Except this is quite more expensive.

That's how it is at the practice we use. The owner, a man, is there six days a week. He puts in 60-80 hours a week. Off and on, he's had other full-time vets (mostly men), but in recent years he says that almost every applicant for positions in the practice have been women, and most are willing to work only 4 to 6 hours per day, and no more than 4 days per week. They also still want to be able to take maternity leave, etc. So he has a constantly shifting crew of other vets who make what feel like drive-by appearances, greatly reducing the odds that a customer will be able even see the same person twice during the course of some treatment. It's fine, the practice is well run and and they're all good, talented people. But the incoming "class" of vets shows absolutely no interest in putting in the long (and thus much better paying) hours that they used to. And they're almost all women, so hence the correlation.

Measurable, routinely reported, easily verified basic facts are now "bias" in some way? Why? How does smearing the person who mentions facts help you make whatever point you're trying to make, unless you know your ability to persuade relies on less information being on the table.

You implied that licensing eliminated assaults. He proved you wrong. If you want to claim they reduce them, rather than eliminate them, we'll demand to see your proof.

Nah, it was about the industrialized North controlling the raw resources of the south. Slavery is a convenient surrogate to ignore the oppression by the winners. Like every other war, the cause was written by the winners.

In case anyone reads this, it is 100% wrong. He is lying to make a point. No, I'm not going to debate the point with him. I am an expat. I had to deal with it more than him. He just read something once that was a lie to make a point, and he's repeating it. But he's a zealot. So there's no point addressing this to him. I just don't want anyone else reading it and thinking that's correct. It's not.

If they have a monopoly, people will either do it or not fly. And people have put up with worse to fly. So your example fails.

That's why it's inconsistent. The heirarchy of liberties is weak. They are all equal, and conflicting. Right to carry a gun? Not when you are on someone's property who doesn't want it. So their property rights override your personal rights. But when you put it that way, they object.

I'm a socialist libertarian. The problem with libertarians is that they think the government should be small. I believe it should be effective (and with that, it would be small if it were ideally effective).

In practice, libertarians are also anti-democracy. Because they don't trust anyone else with the vote. Benevolent dictatorship is the libertarian ideal. Though sometimes they call it a "constitutional" democracy, where the constitution eliminates the power of the vote.

So, does a person have the right to carry a gun on them in public? What about in private? Must they notify the landowner if requested? Why does the ownership of the land trump the personal liberty to carry a gun?

Is abortion murder, or a medical procedure?

Libertarians fight over such issues amongst themselves, so it's not very self consistent. The self consistent libertarian philosophy is the one based on property having rights, but people don't have rights. When you over-simplify to that abominable extreme, it agrees with 90% of the Libertarian philosophy, and is self-consistent. But highly impractical.