You don't need to upgrade your machines. When FF 3.0 comes out and doesn't support your platform, just continue to use FF 2.x (or whatever the last version to support Win9x happens to be).
However, you might consider setting up a test box with Linux and Wine to see if you can use your win9x-only software under Wine. If only to know what your real options are.
While that may be true of the kernel, it is not true of the desktop environments (Gnome, KDE, etc) or of any apps that make use of the large widget libraries (qt, gtk, etc).
Fair enough, if the fetus is large enough to be recognizable as such, then the mother is probably sincerely concerned for the dying fetus. However, a miscarried embryo is microscopic and is never "held in the hand" once miscarried (it's similar to a menstrual flow). The mother only realizes that she's miscarried if she already knew she was pregnant. Otherwise it might just seem like a late period.
Let's not get too far from the discussion at hand: cloning of human embryos and whether or not they deserve the same rights and protections of a human just because they have the potential to become a human. Fully formed fetuses are a different discussion.
How many friends friends have you had that have miscarried after a few weeks? As they cried over the loss of their babies, did you reassure them that they had only lost some "tissue," no different from, as you say, as "liver"?
When someone miscarries, they cry because they have an unfulfilled emotional attachment to the idea of having a baby, not because they think the rights of the embryo have been violated or that the embryo has suffered in any way.
There is no personal loss in the case of these fertility clinic left-overs. They've already been abandoned and slated for destruction. They are just tissue at this point and scavaging useful cells from them seems completely reasonable to me.
So we can breed cattle to kill them, but cloning them directly would be wrong?
You are making young humans simply to strip-mine them for their desired cells and parts.
Not young humans, potential humans. These things aren't humans yet and, since lab created embryos are generally not even viable (wouldn't survive to full term), these things aren't even really potential humans.
But assuming that these things could eventually become humans, is having the potential to be human sufficient to grant them the same rights and protections that humans get?
Do they suffer? No. Do they even feel? No. Is this any different from cloning liver tissue in a lab? No.
Remind me again what the arguments against this are. I can't seem to come up with any.
That would accomplish nothing. All it would show is that you know the standard solutions to already solved problems. Most new software is solving new problems, not old problems. I agree that there is value in knowing the classics, but knowing the classics says nothing about your ability to solve new problems.
I'm generally amazed at how easy it is to get things working under Linux, so I'm interested to know what things prevent you from having a "smooth" experience with Linux.
No, this isn't true. If the failure rate of drives is constant (pretty close to reality), then if you've got 7 drives and I've got 1, you're seven times more likely to lose a drive than I am.
Granted, you only lose 1/7th if your drive fails, and I lose all of it, but since we're both making backups (you ARE making backups, right?), you're paying 7 times the space, electricity, heat, and noise costs for less reliable storage than I am. Assuming that we both run out systems long enough for drives to fail, you're also paying 7 times as much of your time replacing drives than I am.
You missed the point of not having the win2k box on the network. It has nothing to do with protecting the BSD machines and everything to do with protecting the win2k box.
I do something similiar with an XP box at work. If it's on the network, then I'm required to let the network security goons run their software on it that lets them monitor and make changes without my permission. By not having it on the network, it remains a stable development platform that I have full control over.
For distros that have a regular release cycle, something like LSB makes sense. For distros that are moving targets by design (Gentoo, Arch, Debian), then any standard that specifies specific versions of libraries and compilers would reduce the value of these distros and so they're better off ignoring those parts of the standard (and thus will never be certified).
However, if in a specific instance the Windows method is better, shouldn't it then be preferable?
Only if it can be added in such a way that it has zero impact on those of us who are not interested in it. Nothing pisses me off more than when I have to relearn how to configure fundamental subsystems becuase they've been changed to make things easier for users of software that I don't use.
Out of curiosity, why didn't you show your girlfriend the find command? If that wouldn't have increased her geek-cred, then nothing would have. Also, isn't it trivial to make an rpm give you the installed manifest of its contents?
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need to upgrade your machines. When FF 3.0 comes out and doesn't support your platform, just continue to use FF 2.x (or whatever the last version to support Win9x happens to be).
However, you might consider setting up a test box with Linux and Wine to see if you can use your win9x-only software under Wine. If only to know what your real options are.
For Linux, the increase is negligible.
While that may be true of the kernel, it is not true of the desktop
environments (Gnome, KDE, etc) or of any apps that make use of the
large widget libraries (qt, gtk, etc).
Fair enough, if the fetus is large enough to be recognizable as such, then the
mother is probably sincerely concerned for the dying fetus. However, a miscarried
embryo is microscopic and is never "held in the hand" once miscarried (it's similar
to a menstrual flow). The mother only realizes that she's miscarried if she already
knew she was pregnant. Otherwise it might just seem like a late period.
Let's not get too far from the discussion at hand: cloning of human embryos and
whether or not they deserve the same rights and protections of a human just
because they have the potential to become a human. Fully formed fetuses are
a different discussion.
What kinds of documentation did they require that they couldn't find?
I've never had any trouble finding the documentation that I need to
support my Linux machines. What, pray tell, do you think is missing?
And please don't give me any BS about documentation for desktop
applications. We're talking servers here.
How many friends friends have you had that have miscarried after a few weeks? As they cried over the loss of their babies, did you reassure them that they had only lost some "tissue," no different from, as you say, as "liver"?
When someone miscarries, they cry because they have an unfulfilled emotional
attachment to the idea of having a baby, not because they think the rights of
the embryo have been violated or that the embryo has suffered in any way.
There is no personal loss in the case of these fertility clinic left-overs.
They've already been abandoned and slated for destruction. They are just
tissue at this point and scavaging useful cells from them seems completely
reasonable to me.
Any figures available on how many pregnancies are self-aborted?
you are creating life precisely to destroy it.
So we can breed cattle to kill them, but cloning them directly would be wrong?
You are making young humans simply to strip-mine them for their desired cells and parts.
Not young humans, potential humans. These things aren't humans yet and, since lab created embryos
are generally not even viable (wouldn't survive to full term), these things aren't even really
potential humans.
But assuming that these things could eventually become humans, is having the potential to be
human sufficient to grant them the same rights and protections that humans get?
Do they suffer? No.
Do they even feel? No.
Is this any different from cloning liver tissue in a lab? No.
Remind me again what the arguments against this are. I can't seem to come up with any.
Most statistical studies dump their data into a database of some sort.
However, results are very often viewed from within a spreadsheet.
That would accomplish nothing. All it would show is that you know the standard
solutions to already solved problems. Most new software is solving new problems,
not old problems. I agree that there is value in knowing the classics, but knowing
the classics says nothing about your ability to solve new problems.
I think it's interesting that you say that, because every release since v1.5 has
improved performance for me (running on Gentoo).
That's been my experience also. The more I tell it what I don't like, the more it plays
stuff that I don't like. It doesn't make any sense.
Umm, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't RAM power requirements constant regardless of
whether it's preserving state or changing state?
Now is the time to sell Puts.
Welcome to the world of Gentoo, Debian, OpenBSD, and NetBSD (sorry, don't know about FreeBSD).
Upgrading should never be a hassle.
How is Gentoo working for you?
The reason I ask is that it seems odd to me that if Ubuntu was your first choice that
Gentoo would be your second.
I'm generally amazed at how easy it is to get things working under Linux, so I'm
interested to know what things prevent you from having a "smooth" experience with
Linux.
Care to embellish your original post?
Better make it 4 or 8 or 10. There are enough laws that need to exist that
if they had to revote on them every year, they couldn't get through them.
Have you ever witnessed the slaughter of livestock?
It is quick and efficient.
Not torture.
What's your beef with Intel Integrated Graphics?
I've always been partial to them since they're well supported under
Linux (thank you Intel for making your hardware specs publically available).
No, this isn't true. If the failure rate of drives is constant (pretty close to reality), then
if you've got 7 drives and I've got 1, you're seven times more likely to lose a drive than
I am.
Granted, you only lose 1/7th if your drive fails, and I lose all of it, but since we're both
making backups (you ARE making backups, right?), you're paying 7 times the space, electricity,
heat, and noise costs for less reliable storage than I am. Assuming that we both run out systems
long enough for drives to fail, you're also paying 7 times as much of your time replacing drives
than I am.
What sense does that make?
You missed the point of not having the win2k box on the network. It has
nothing to do with protecting the BSD machines and everything to do with
protecting the win2k box.
I do something similiar with an XP box at work. If it's on the network,
then I'm required to let the network security goons run their software
on it that lets them monitor and make changes without my permission. By
not having it on the network, it remains a stable development platform
that I have full control over.
Support standardization where it makes sense.
For distros that have a regular release cycle, something like LSB makes
sense. For distros that are moving targets by design (Gentoo, Arch,
Debian), then any standard that specifies specific versions of
libraries and compilers would reduce the value of these distros and so
they're better off ignoring those parts of the standard (and thus will
never be certified).
However, if in a specific instance the Windows method is better, shouldn't it then be preferable?
Only if it can be added in such a way that it has zero impact on those
of us who are not interested in it. Nothing pisses me off more than when
I have to relearn how to configure fundamental subsystems becuase they've
been changed to make things easier for users of software that I don't use.
Out of curiosity, why didn't you show your girlfriend the find command?
If that wouldn't have increased her geek-cred, then nothing would have.
Also, isn't it trivial to make an rpm give you the installed manifest of
its contents?
As long as there is scarcity, there will always be uneven distribution
of wealth. There is no other way.