But you're the one who claimed it wasn't an issue in the first place because of those non-functioning parts. First you dodged the question, then you moved the goalposts. You're a hypocrite.

I don't see a cite here, and regardless of what happened in Missoula, what does that have to do with North Carolina? This is misdirection on your part to avoid the fact that a city passed a pro-trans bathroom law, which prompted a reaction from the state.

It works in context. Sorry, no sale.

So you can't say you would have "passed" in that regard. And if you haven't had genital surgery, you know you wouldn't have passed in that regard.

That's a pretty dumb analogy. I don't believe men can become women, but what does that have to do with what you call black people? A more appropriate analogy would be considering if Rachel Dolezal is black because she made herself look black and "identifies" as black. I consider her white. Do you accept her as black? Do you think the black community should accept her as black?

As I said, businesses have to deal with irate customers, and it's costing them money, despite your claim that it was good business and economic sense.

Then you don't really understand what makes blockchains useful as compared to any other kind of system.

For the cases you pointed out, e.g. when changes need to be made to things already in the blockchain, those should be done as new blocks that revert or modify previous blocks. That preserves both the history and trust of the block chain.

Just stick "# XXX" comments around your debug code. Many editors automatically highlight XXX so prominently that it's just as easy to spot as unindented code.

You mean, like:
arr = [[1,2,3][4,5,6]]
What's the problem?

First I will note that you completely skipped (for a second time) the question I put to you in response to your assertion: "You made an assertion about non-functionion male genitals. I'm asking how only those transsexuals with non-functioning male genitals will be allowed to use the women's bathroom."

You call me chicken shit (for not fully quoting you, though when pressed you give nothing that would have invalidated my reply), but here you are dodging a question based on your assertion.

I also did not see you admit that the North Carolina anti-trans state law was in response to a pro-trans city law, despite your earlier implication that it was conservatives against gay marriage going after a new target that started all this bathroom nonsense.

That's twice now you fabricated a quote that I did not say. I gave a single case, "When men dress up as women in Hollywood movies, it's for a gag." I admitted there were other cases I missed, namely the "progressive" cause du jour of transsexuals.

It doesn't invalidate the context of the argument, which started with you talking about male actors in Shakespeare being accepted as women (turns out the law forbid women from acting at the time). The overwhelmingly vast majority of women's roles in Hollywood are taken by actual women. In fact, the only cases that you gave me were roles where the "women" were transsexual as specified by the role.

That's what passing trans laws has done, opening up new lawsuit threats. This happens every time the government creates a new "equality" law.

Everybody has a "right" to be pissed off or not.

No, they all jumped in to the current climate of political correctness and the "progressive" cause du jour. Whether it makes economic sense or not is debatable, as they're really just afraid of the mainstream press targeting them and doing virtue signaling of their own to get positive press.

In response to all this drama, started by "progressives", Target is spending $20 million to install a single-use bathroom for any sex in all its stores.

How many times do I have to answer this? I'm not afraid of anything, and I have very little interest in the bathroom drama, but you insist on dragging me into this argument, and I feel obliged to correct some of your bullshit and play devil's advocate.

Because I refuse to go along with the herd and participate in other people's delusions. We've already covered this.

Congratulations. But there are plenty of cases where I could tell. And I'm guessing you didn't have sex with any of your roommates without them knowing.

You seem to be confusing the tactics that made them successful with the tactics that made them vile.

Somehow I don't like the idea that people can keep the details of what they are offering me for the purpose of putting it into my body a secret. Not that the tools for managing that information is all that great... and they really ought to be a whole lot better than they are currently. The company that provides my health care is just now getting all their people on one system and there are no guarantees regarding exchanges of information between health care companies.

I am also suspicious of the concept of trade secrets and proprietary information in general. Come on, people, what happened to that big talk we were going to have about ethics and intellectual property and culture and stuff?

I'm not speaking as to the truth of his statements, just that there is enough substance there to not be trolling.

There's enough nostalgia to go around. It's naive to think that the only ones with nostalgia are the most blatant actors.

But only if you were using your disks with single side devices and you also had to make a notch or you couldn't write anything. I was using double side drives and doing this would have erased the data.

How does something being a lie make it a little less likely it is false?

Except for the wall bit, everything else you have said talks about what you think Trump's actions will cause without actually mentioning the actions themselves.

Well they are stealing from the public domain, so there's that.

He is saying things that make well enough sense without resorting to the conclusion that he is trolling.

I don't have to justify something I don't see as morally wrong. It is up to the other person to convince me I should see something as morally wrong.