Sorry, no.

Think of 'rights' and 'freedoms' being a continuum. You want to be somewhere in that continuum.

If you live in a society of absolute freedom, you no longer have, for example, the 'right to be secure in one's person.' Somebody else in your society is at absolute freedom to assault or kill you.

If, on the other hand, you live in a society of 'absolute rights,' you are not allowed to do anything that society hasn't expressly allowed.

So you want to be somewhere in the middle. If you want 'privacy,' then somebody else's freedom to gather information about you has been curtailed. If you want 'absolute liberty,' then there can be no privacy, as somebody is at 'absolute liberty' to get information about you, by any means they care to use.

Put another way: Your rights are, by definition, a curtailment of *somebody's* freedom to act against that right.

I wonder though, if they really needed it to do that sort of thing, wouldn't they go with something like the titan or quadro or whatever is the one that's aimed at that sort of work, and not at gaming?

I agree completely with everything you said. I simply object to referring to it as a 'first amendment issue.'

It is, in fact, an employment discrimination issue. What that discrimination is, is irrelevant. 'Statement affirming optimal body fat percentage' would be no different. 'Statement affirming purity of blood' would be no different. 'Statement affirming hair is naturally red' would be no different.

The first amendment prevents Congress from doing various things. Says nothing about state legislatures. (Fun arugment: If anybody claims America is founded on 'christan values,' ask them why the first amendment is the exact opposite of the first commandment.)

I don't know why the State got involved in funding the park in the first place (it is a pretty obvious potential conflict with their first amendment duties, but then again, this is Kentucky),

Which duties are those? I agree that the State shouldn't have touched this with a ten foot pole, but I fail to see what the first amendment has to do with it.

And the first few chapters should detail how to build and operate a printing press.

If so, then shhhhh, don't tell anybody who cares to that for the investment of several throw-away Wi-Fi routers, and several cheap digital timer-enabled powerbars, they can utterly fuck up any airport they choose to, for potentially years to come, with a few hours work of plugging the aforementioned bits in out-of-the-way places.

Flight Delayed when excited man greeted his friend, Jack Plainsman, at the gate.

No, no, I meant that the person of faith claiming that any evidence that supports your view, and disputes theirs, must be false evidence planted by some sort of adversary, isn't 'reason.'

It's the same 'logic' where one points to 2nd Timothy, 3:16, as definitive proof that there are, in fact, no contradictions in the Bible.

You can turn that kind of reasoning back on itself.

No, you can't, because it's not reason.

These are the same people who think that Christianity is pro-family.

So what you're saying is that information has no value.

Also, I'm fairly sure that something like that would be laughed out of existence by the Human Rights Tribunal.

Dammit, I want my 80s cyberpunk sit at the table, order from computer (bonus points for miniature holographic waiter who appears in middle of table), and food is delivered out of hidden conveyor system experience!

I've wanted a modern version of Omega for quite while now.

Out of curiosity, other than trappings (laser rifle versus wand of lightning, say,) how would you differentiate 'Science Fiction' from 'Fantasy Fiction?'