If you waited a few months, the needed drivers came out, and all was well.
In 1994 I was struggling with a modem, that worked fine under Windows, but would not work under FreeBSD.
This wasn't a "winmodem" in the sense it required a driver to function. But it had to be initialized and would not work without that.
To my delight, certain phkadded the code necessary to allow a userspace program (which he also wrote) to load the modem's firmware into the chip — you had to load different code (supplied on manufacturer's floppies) depending on whether you wanted to use it for data (SLIP, PPP, kermit, etc.) or faxing. I, for one, was most grateful.
Unfortunately, the same guy deleted the functionality some years later — claiming, it was too hard to maintain and "nobody wants it, or whoever does, should ask the manufacturer to supply drivers — the usual...
This rendered my old computer — which I kept around for faxing — unupgradable. I was, actually, able to maintain the local diff for the feature for some time longer, but not long enough — the little ISA-card outlasted FreeBSD support for it.
A fetus is as much a human being as a schoolchild is a valuable member of the workforce. It could be at some point in the future, but only after additional investment in it.
By this logic, the permanently incapacitated are no longer humans either. Are they?
But, stipulating the equality between a fetus and a young child, are you saying, it should not be a crime (or less of a crime) to kill a schoolgirl, than an adult?
And that anyone seeking to unquestionably ban killings of schoolchildren, is "anti-choice"?
At some point one of them would be a recognizable human being that you would happily grant rights to, and your genetic codes would be compatible enough for reproduction. [...] There is no definite point
I'm used to opponents contradicting themselves, but usually it takes them longer to complete the circle. Congratulations!
Just the same way as there is no clear point at which a human egg becomes a human being.
Conception? Birth? Cutting of umbilical cord? First sound made? First tooth? Death of the father (or explicit emancipation) — as in ancient Rome? These are all "clear bright lines", that lawyers love so much.
All we can do it set some kind of limit we are somewhat happy with, erring on the side of caution.
Just when a blob of cells becomes a human being is the subject of the debate. That it is wrong to kill it once it happens is uncontroversial and there is nothing wrong in opposing any "choice", where such killing is an option.
And how in the world is it your business what someone else does with her body?
If the fetus is a human being, then its very life is a valid concern for all members of society.
Unless, of course, you are prepared to argue, laws against murder, for example, are wrong too.
And, maybe, they are — or some of them. For example, a Libertarian could say, fine, let's stipulate fetus is a human being. Then he (not "it"!) is trespassing inside the womb — and so the woman has a right to expel him by any means necessary — "stand your ground" and all that. And, of course, she can pay someone to help her perform the extraction.
If you like that line, you'll have to become a Libertarian too, however. How do you feel about the "Castle Doctrine"? A surprising number of supporters of legality of abortions are against it for some reason...
There's also a certain irony that those who cry "murder" are living in a country with a death penalty.
"Murder" is a very specific kind of killing — executing a lawfully-condemned prisoner does not qualify.
Plenty of crimes do deserve death-penalty — the only valid argument against it can be based on the imperfections of the justice systems. Because, unlike a prison-sentence, death penalty is irreversible — the wrongfully accused can not be compensated upon exoneration.
But the fetus has not committed any crimes. So, if it is a human being, then it is wrong to deliberately kill it.
fucked up people in government out there that want to get in the way between doctor and patient in life and death situations
Happens all the time. FDA would not let terminal cancer patients try experimental treatments, for example — not without lengthy application and review process — yet, when I rail about FDA's power here, my opponents are usually people, who do not mind abortions.
There are some seriously fucked up people in government out there
You are not kidding. Many countries — including Mexico and Ireland — ban abortions either from day one (Christianity teaches, that "life begins at conception"), or limit it beyond fairly early into gestation. For example, the Worker's Paradise[TM] of Cuba allows it for up to 10 weeks only — beyond that woman needs "special permissions".
If that's not excessive red tape and "nanny state" then I don't know what is.
The usual arguments against nanny state concentrate on what the state wishes to do to you, or prevent you from doing to your own self. Preventing you from killing another human being — even if it is to save yourself — is generally uncontroversial.
Unless it is a case like this one, when the debating parties can not agree on whether fetus is already a human being or not...
So, the abortion debate is not about "nanny state", nor is it about "choice" or "life". It is about whether the fetus is a human.
I think, I worded my posting most carefully to avoid specifying my own opinion.
Do not make it personal.
The point remains — the people, whom you denounce as "anti-choice", are not — contrary to your implication — against choice in general. They are against the particular choice between having an abortion and not having one.
Because the term, "pro-life" really doesn't have any meaning. What life?
It has just as much meaning as the term "pro-choice". Which choice? What are the options?
Whose life?
That of a human fetus. Which — to millions of people world-wide — is already a human being. The choice, which you and VoiceOfDoom wish to preserve, has two options in these millions' opinion:
murder
new human life
Because they consider abortion to be murder, they don't view this particular choice as legitimate.
Not sure, whether the organizations mentioned in TFA think so, or simply wish to increase the birth-rates in USA. But even in the former case, they are not "anti-choice" in general — they are against offering this particular choice.
No doubt, there are a lot of things you think ought to be illegal — even if abortion is not among them. That makes you "ant-choice" too, whenever the choice is between doing and not doing one of those things...
thinktank Demos counted the number of uses of "slut" and "whore" were used on Twitter to indicate misogyny
Could the terms not have been used — if only in some cases — to indicate unhealthy promiscuity or express some other disapproval (e.g. "He is such a ratings-whore!")?
This does not look like an invitation for romantic love-making — the sex will be forceful and against the recipient's will...
Why do you hate them so much? If you like their content enough to bother tuning your ad-blocker, you are supposed to thank them, not curse them...
Reminds me of the attitude towards movie-studios and musicians — they are shitheads, and their content is shit, but people still want it. Want it badly enough to complain on Slashdot, when they can't get it...
How about we let parents choose, how and where their children study?
Whichever approach public schools take, it will be a single one — certainly so per state and, with the increasing power of the Federal Department of Education, for the entire nation.
At best, it will be the right one for a majority of pupils, but even that's a lot to hope for. And, when the government makes a mistake (such as declaring "fat is evil"), it makes the same one for all of us.
Slashdot used to be very cautious against monocultures — why are so many people here able to recognize its dangers in technology, but not in education, for example?
You mean like the $100 Billion (time.com) that has gone into every single nuclear pant ever built since the beginning of the DOE?
I appreciate your attempt to provide a citation here, but am compelled to point out, it failed.
This is pure Econ 101. If a $1billion solar plant has the same CapEx as nuclear plant [...]
Why, then, aren't private investors lining up to invest in your power plant? Why do you need taxpayers to give you loan-guarantees and grants?
I can put a panel in service every 10 seconds for $150 each
Marvelous. I'm sure, statements like this were made when the Ivanhoe facility was proposed and discussed. So, what would you have done differently from these failures?
We spend $6B/Year on cleanup.
Citation needed. Point remains — none of the nuclear power plants world-wide have had a nuclear explosion so far... Building such a plant in a location, where nukes were once tested, would not have raised risks perceptibly.
Still haven't found a long term storage solution.
Yes, because of the artificially high requirements — set by the government as if seeking to kill off an industry competing with that of the politicians' donors.
Maybe, solar is the way to go. But as long as it needs taxpayers' monies — and thus the favor of government officials controlling the funds — it will be a corruption-breeding disaster.
The [reports] improperly used causal language to describe their results. They misleadingly cited others' results. And they also improperly used causal language in citing others' results. People believe, and want you to believe, that skipping breakfast is bad.
Argh! What a bad news — just as I was about to call for criminal prosecution of breakfast deniers...
And how would those various consumer reports make money?
That's entirely up to them. If they are providing something people want, they will get paid — by manufacturers eager to have their wares certified, and/or by consumers wanting to read up on the stuff they are choosing.
A completely different model may be product reviews — such as offered by Amazon, which has a deeply vested interest in the reviews' helpfulness and objectivity.
Unless you have the government there to uphold copyright
Yes, the government is supposed to uphold copyright — as well as other rights. Like I said several times, law-enforcement (including military) is in the government's purview. Nothing else...
is product safety information a "creative" work under copyright law?
Dywolf is a Statist asshole, who stalks my postings with meaningless follow-ups. To paraphrase Mark Twain, when you find yourself on the side of Dywolf, it is time to reform.
Lyft is a direct and fierce competitor of Uber — both ignore taxi regulations and neither is obviously advantaged over the other.
1-Jobs that must be done, but can't be done profitably, must be done by the government
Other than law-enforcement (including military), I can not think of any examples... Incidentally, military and police are the government's explicit prerogatives by the US Constitution — nothing else...
Yes a private company might be able to do a better job, but they won't
Ever heard of Consumer Reports? "Good Housekeeping" approval label? UL certifications? All of these exist already — they are voluntary and compete with each other.
because it's expensive and there is no way to make money on this
That's wrong pretty much by definition... When free, people pay money for things they want. If you can not find enough people to buy whatever it is you are selling, that means nobody wants it — or not enough to pay what it costs.
By paying for something with taxes (which are collected at gun-point by definition), you force people to pay for things they do not want. A free country should avoid that — I hope, you agree.
but not even close to having the best healthcare on earth.
Your attempt to bait me off-topic with an unsubstantiated bombastic claim noted and ignored.
Is it? The write-up does not mention financing and TFA is at Fortune... Did they get any money from the DOE, like that failure we discussed yesterday, or are they financed the old-fashioned way — by people voluntarily giving them money hoping for nice payback?
medical breakthroughs at universities funded by federal grants
Why wouldn't it have happened if the same monies were left in taxpayers' pockets — to invest as they see fit?
did you forget that fully 90% of all research money spent in this country comes from the fed?
That's pretty awful and entirely depressing. What makes you think, this (unsubstantiated) figure being so high is a good thing?
DOE bureaucrats you disdain so much...so far their loan program is rocking a 97% success rate
Citations missing.
proving once again that you dont have
Darling, your stalking of my humble self is very bad for your blood pressure. See, how your otherwise impeccable manners suffer, when you find yourself compelled to respond to my posts? Take a break, please, do!
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly not "must" — but "might", which the write-up actually attributes to Facebook, is valid.
Now, why would you attack a strawman?
In 1994 I was struggling with a modem, that worked fine under Windows, but would not work under FreeBSD.
This wasn't a "winmodem" in the sense it required a driver to function. But it had to be initialized and would not work without that.
To my delight, certain phk added the code necessary to allow a userspace program (which he also wrote) to load the modem's firmware into the chip — you had to load different code (supplied on manufacturer's floppies) depending on whether you wanted to use it for data (SLIP, PPP, kermit, etc.) or faxing. I, for one, was most grateful.
Unfortunately, the same guy deleted the functionality some years later — claiming, it was too hard to maintain and "nobody wants it, or whoever does, should ask the manufacturer to supply drivers — the usual...
This rendered my old computer — which I kept around for faxing — unupgradable. I was, actually, able to maintain the local diff for the feature for some time longer, but not long enough — the little ISA-card outlasted FreeBSD support for it.
This has always been an option in a free country.
What TFA talks about is making the country a little less free and "protect" employees from these emails.
By this logic, the permanently incapacitated are no longer humans either. Are they?
But, stipulating the equality between a fetus and a young child, are you saying, it should not be a crime (or less of a crime) to kill a schoolgirl, than an adult?
And that anyone seeking to unquestionably ban killings of schoolchildren, is "anti-choice"?
I'm used to opponents contradicting themselves, but usually it takes them longer to complete the circle. Congratulations!
Conception? Birth? Cutting of umbilical cord? First sound made? First tooth? Death of the father (or explicit emancipation) — as in ancient Rome? These are all "clear bright lines", that lawyers love so much.
Yep, and that is, how it is usually done.
Just when a blob of cells becomes a human being is the subject of the debate. That it is wrong to kill it once it happens is uncontroversial and there is nothing wrong in opposing any "choice", where such killing is an option.
If the fetus is a human being, then its very life is a valid concern for all members of society.
Unless, of course, you are prepared to argue, laws against murder, for example, are wrong too.
And, maybe, they are — or some of them. For example, a Libertarian could say, fine, let's stipulate fetus is a human being. Then he (not "it"!) is trespassing inside the womb — and so the woman has a right to expel him by any means necessary — "stand your ground" and all that. And, of course, she can pay someone to help her perform the extraction.
If you like that line, you'll have to become a Libertarian too, however. How do you feel about the "Castle Doctrine"? A surprising number of supporters of legality of abortions are against it for some reason...
"Murder" is a very specific kind of killing — executing a lawfully-condemned prisoner does not qualify.
Plenty of crimes do deserve death-penalty — the only valid argument against it can be based on the imperfections of the justice systems. Because, unlike a prison-sentence, death penalty is irreversible — the wrongfully accused can not be compensated upon exoneration.
But the fetus has not committed any crimes. So, if it is a human being, then it is wrong to deliberately kill it.
Should not it be passed by both Senate and Congress first? And then be signed by the President before we bury the country?
There is not a word about "government" in TFA.
Happens all the time. FDA would not let terminal cancer patients try experimental treatments, for example — not without lengthy application and review process — yet, when I rail about FDA's power here, my opponents are usually people, who do not mind abortions.
You are not kidding. Many countries — including Mexico and Ireland — ban abortions either from day one (Christianity teaches, that "life begins at conception"), or limit it beyond fairly early into gestation. For example, the Worker's Paradise[TM] of Cuba allows it for up to 10 weeks only — beyond that woman needs "special permissions".
The usual arguments against nanny state concentrate on what the state wishes to do to you, or prevent you from doing to your own self. Preventing you from killing another human being — even if it is to save yourself — is generally uncontroversial.
Unless it is a case like this one, when the debating parties can not agree on whether fetus is already a human being or not...
So, the abortion debate is not about "nanny state", nor is it about "choice" or "life". It is about whether the fetus is a human.
Not until you come here with a subpoena.
My beliefs are irrelevant to the point I made. Which you would not refute.
I think, we are done here.
I think, I worded my posting most carefully to avoid specifying my own opinion.
Do not make it personal.
The point remains — the people, whom you denounce as "anti-choice", are not — contrary to your implication — against choice in general. They are against the particular choice between having an abortion and not having one.
It has just as much meaning as the term "pro-choice". Which choice? What are the options?
That of a human fetus. Which — to millions of people world-wide — is already a human being. The choice, which you and VoiceOfDoom wish to preserve, has two options in these millions' opinion:
Because they consider abortion to be murder, they don't view this particular choice as legitimate.
Not sure, whether the organizations mentioned in TFA think so, or simply wish to increase the birth-rates in USA. But even in the former case, they are not "anti-choice" in general — they are against offering this particular choice.
No doubt, there are a lot of things you think ought to be illegal — even if abortion is not among them. That makes you "ant-choice" too, whenever the choice is between doing and not doing one of those things...
Yep, TFA is about convincing women to make the right choice. But for "progressives" some choices are more equal than others.
Choosing to have a baby makes you "anti-choice".
Could the terms not have been used — if only in some cases — to indicate unhealthy promiscuity or express some other disapproval (e.g. "He is such a ratings-whore!")?
This does not look like an invitation for romantic love-making — the sex will be forceful and against the recipient's will...
Why do you hate them so much? If you like their content enough to bother tuning your ad-blocker, you are supposed to thank them, not curse them...
Reminds me of the attitude towards movie-studios and musicians — they are shitheads, and their content is shit, but people still want it. Want it badly enough to complain on Slashdot, when they can't get it...
How about we let parents choose, how and where their children study?
Whichever approach public schools take, it will be a single one — certainly so per state and, with the increasing power of the Federal Department of Education, for the entire nation.
At best, it will be the right one for a majority of pupils, but even that's a lot to hope for. And, when the government makes a mistake (such as declaring "fat is evil"), it makes the same one for all of us.
Slashdot used to be very cautious against monocultures — why are so many people here able to recognize its dangers in technology, but not in education, for example?
Citation needed.
I appreciate your attempt to provide a citation here, but am compelled to point out, it failed.
Why, then, aren't private investors lining up to invest in your power plant? Why do you need taxpayers to give you loan-guarantees and grants?
Marvelous. I'm sure, statements like this were made when the Ivanhoe facility was proposed and discussed. So, what would you have done differently from these failures?
Citation needed. Point remains — none of the nuclear power plants world-wide have had a nuclear explosion so far... Building such a plant in a location, where nukes were once tested, would not have raised risks perceptibly.
Yes, because of the artificially high requirements — set by the government as if seeking to kill off an industry competing with that of the politicians' donors.
Maybe, solar is the way to go. But as long as it needs taxpayers' monies — and thus the favor of government officials controlling the funds — it will be a corruption-breeding disaster.
Argh! What a bad news — just as I was about to call for criminal prosecution of breakfast deniers...
That's entirely up to them. If they are providing something people want, they will get paid — by manufacturers eager to have their wares certified, and/or by consumers wanting to read up on the stuff they are choosing.
A completely different model may be product reviews — such as offered by Amazon, which has a deeply vested interest in the reviews' helpfulness and objectivity.
Yes, the government is supposed to uphold copyright — as well as other rights. Like I said several times, law-enforcement (including military) is in the government's purview. Nothing else...
Irrelevant...
Dywolf is a Statist asshole, who stalks my postings with meaningless follow-ups. To paraphrase Mark Twain, when you find yourself on the side of Dywolf, it is time to reform.
Lyft is a direct and fierce competitor of Uber — both ignore taxi regulations and neither is obviously advantaged over the other.
So does Lyft. Fail.
Other than law-enforcement (including military), I can not think of any examples... Incidentally, military and police are the government's explicit prerogatives by the US Constitution — nothing else...
Ever heard of Consumer Reports? "Good Housekeeping" approval label? UL certifications? All of these exist already — they are voluntary and compete with each other.
That's wrong pretty much by definition... When free, people pay money for things they want. If you can not find enough people to buy whatever it is you are selling, that means nobody wants it — or not enough to pay what it costs.
By paying for something with taxes (which are collected at gun-point by definition), you force people to pay for things they do not want . A free country should avoid that — I hope, you agree.
Your attempt to bait me off-topic with an unsubstantiated bombastic claim noted and ignored.
Is it? The write-up does not mention financing and TFA is at Fortune... Did they get any money from the DOE, like that failure we discussed yesterday, or are they financed the old-fashioned way — by people voluntarily giving them money hoping for nice payback?
Why wouldn't it have happened if the same monies were left in taxpayers' pockets — to invest as they see fit?
That's pretty awful and entirely depressing. What makes you think, this (unsubstantiated) figure being so high is a good thing?
Citations missing.
Darling, your stalking of my humble self is very bad for your blood pressure. See, how your otherwise impeccable manners suffer, when you find yourself compelled to respond to my posts? Take a break, please, do!