Only men can be forced into dangerous combat roles. Combat for a woman is an option.

So what? Your inane rebuttal clearly reinforces that, the US at least, is a Matriarchy. Otherwise men would be able to opt out of war duty the same way a woman can opt out of children duty. The sexism against men in this society and the negation of children's rights for women's preferences is at the core of why western birthrates are plummeting. Third wave Feminism is a human rights disaster unfolding right before our eyes.

So you're telling me that a man has an option of committing a woman to a full term pregnancy if he wants the child and she does not? Conversely you're telling me a man can opt out of financial responsibilities for a child if he does not want the child? I don't see any equality there or are you telling me that men have those rights?

Instead of an actual argument all I see is an ad hom of my intellect telling me I'm naive whilst dismissing the concerns of millions of men, how sexist of you. Let's see your predictable attack on my masculinity next.

The down mod was expected and proves it's not even possible to have this conversation because feminist views are so easily dismantled when confronted with facts.

Genetic Men cannot have children and are basically slaves in this society whilst simultaneously portrayed as the oppressors in a system where they are forced to participate in being disposable. Both Feminism and Male chauvinism are dedicated to the protection of women and imposing the disposability of men at war and work.

When a man is sent to war, he never gets to say "My Body, My Choice" HE is forced to do HIS duty and jailed or permanently unemployable if he objects. If the world was actually a Patriarchy (which is also designed to protect women) then Marriage would be called Patrimony and the deaths of hundreds of thousands babies through abortion would not occur.

Feminists appear committed to the downfall of the very culture that nurtured them at the expense of Children's rights and men are gradually waking up to that.

There, I said it.

It's not hard to allow only traffic related to an outgoing connection. Are you asking because you don't know how to do it? Not that I'm supporting the GP's assertion here, that's not what I want from my ISP, but it's not even slightly difficult to do what they said you should do without interfering with establishing and maintaining outgoing sessions.

I watched Jayz video on this subject and apparently "manufacturers" (sellers) of foreign-made routers will be able to request an exception... from the Department of War and the DHS. So this is really just a solicitation for more bribes/the opportunity to pick the winners and losers like Republicans always say the government shouldn't.

You can't trust the Windows kernel, so you need a component external to the system as well.

Hold up what? Your ability to do work with the device after the OS has been updated a couple of times and performance degraded to avoid drawing too much current from an under-specified battery?

It would arguably be a better solution technically, but I suspect that most people want to use one app at a bigger size than two apps at once. And then you've either got content spread over two screens with stuff in the middle, or the app has to be designed around the screen layout. And that either won't be done or will be done poorly in the majority of cases.

Yep. If it supported modern standards I'd still be using mine, and then hotspotting for a device with more screen when I needed that. Carrying two devices is nonoptimal, but so is holding a brick up to my ear, and fixing that with a headset would ALSO require carrying two devices.

Modern leather isn't suitable for food, it's got too much plastic on it.

All ACs are the same LLM as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, the company's interests are financial. That's what companies are for. The military's interests are also financial. People may think they're enlisting to serve their country, but they're really serving oligarchs. We have to blow up the middle east so we can rebuild it in our image — at great expense... and benefit to corporations like Halliburton who get awarded the no-bid contracts (sometimes literally, sometimes figuratively - I'm picking on Halliburton here not just because they deserve it in general, but because they were declared to be the only corporations capable of doing the job the last time around, short-circuiting the legally mandated bidding process.)

I've owned a lot of resistive touch devices. Zero of them were "very precise". Most of them had a lot of depth so you'd struggle to pick pixels even when they were big enough to easily count. Palm Pilots and Visors, Zoomer/GRiDPad 2390, an HTC phone, blah blah blah. Phones had plastic screens because gorilla glass hadn't been invented yet. Jobs was irritated by his scratched plastic screen at exactly the right time and yes, made the right call. Yes, a plastic stylus on a resistive screen is more precise than your finger, but it's also either irritatingly tiny or you are just having to carry around more shit.

In fact, the most precise non-wacom screen device I've ever used was the capacitive glass screen on the GRiDPad 1910... also a device where a well-sighted (or near-sighted) person can count pixels, but there you can also actually touch them. But then that's got a tethered pen. I have GEOS on mine, with Graffiti. That is precise... But still not as precise as my lady's Fujitsu tablet with Wacom. That's what you'd use now if you needed precision, a radio pen. There was a company which sold an IBM 486SLC-based portable called Dauphin which had one that ran on batteries, how tragic... but it was precise. Unfortunately it was also as thick as a pretty good-sized hardback book.

Can't have your security broken if there is no security. I like the cut of your jib.