That may be true but, well, I accept that the public good may suffer for the individual liberty, it is precisely because of the public wouldn't be aware of this (ignorance) that I would prefer opt-in. I'd expect that the vast majority of customers wouldn't even understand it and enabling it by default would be unfair to them. Let the provider run an education campaign and send mailings with notices.
I'd compromise with suitable notice being given (and said education campaign) warning that this would be enabled by default (and how to opt-out) if that were done in an acceptable manner with a suitable timeline for customers to become educated about it before it is enabled by default. I'd be okay with that but I'd want the company to do a good job at making the effort to notify customers, educate customers, and provide them with easy access to the information.
As an aside, I got a hell of a deal on mine which was pretty awesome. I honestly probably wouldn't have bothered except for the geekiness of it. If I'd known I could buy them I'd certainly have not bought them. Ah well.
I should have been nicer but I have now read like five articles because there's people (or a person?) posting that this is not new - and they have done so a few times. Sorry about that. But, seriously, this is NOT a new interpretation or the likes. Read more than the summary and click a few links and search the names for more information. It's as if Slashdot has gone insane...
So, yeah, I was a bit frustrated and should have been nicer. Seriously though - this is nothing new. It even kind of makes sense.
There's a whole bunch of news articles about this and an AC who's posted about this. How are you guys all missing this? This ruling is NOT new. It's relying on case law from 1948. LOL
Thank you. I was scrolling through hoping someone had answered that. I can't imagine they'll offer *me* anything like this service/feature but it's a question that I had concerning this. I'd be worried (assuming I lived somewhere that this is possible) that there would be people using my 'net and slowing it down. That is, well, if I were in an area where I'd be invited to make use of this feature. Here? You'd have to drive a long ways down the road, a long ways up my driveway, and then you could connect. An alternative would be some sort of moose-mesh wireless network, perhaps squirrels would be better though.
Anyhow, in my case at least, if you were to want to use the wireless you'd probably be better served by coming in for a drink while you're here. I can't really imagine someone coming all this way to access a public wireless access point.;) I was still curious about QoS though, I wasn't sure how that would work or if they'd even bothered thinking about it.
Do you know if the consumer can configure it? Perhaps having some scheduling for allowing it to impact your bandwidth to some extent or maybe configuring it so that it allowed X% of bandwidth during evening hours, more during the day when you're not home, or less on weekends or that sort of setup?
I found a lawn sale, I'm not sure where the guy had gotten them all, but he had two dozen WRT54Gs but several were missing cords (not even remotely a problem). They were priced at $10 each but I wasn't sure if they were able to run Tomato. I offered him $50 for the lot, I figured it was a gamble on my part, and he took it. I brought them home, booted one, and was happily able to write the Tomato firmware to it.
I have given three (I think) away. I have two running on the property, one is setup as an AP so I can reach the WiFi from way outside and near the garage. I believe they both automatically update to the latest firmware but I forget if they are or not, it isn't much of a problem here if they don't - moose don't use computers or steal wireless signals. I never have to touch them. I have had one die, I'm not sure why. It just stopped working one day. I'd already prepped another with the firmware so I was able to get that squared away with no problem and in short order.
I made sure to make multiple copies of the firmware (I've since loaded all but a few of them up with the Tomato firmware but I wanted to keep the copy I was using on hand as a "known good" version) and I've not had any problems except for the one that died. The lights come on but it never connects, I could log in and whatnot, but it would never connect. It probably could be used as an AP if it was ever required to fill that role. I'm positive that I stuck a label to it and kept it along with the rest.
Anyhow, it has been good to me. I can't speak for others and I'd recently looked at the firmware page before I'd purchased it (I'd been wanting to try it or the other one whose name I forget at the moment) and so I knew that the 54G was one of the ones that may work. I should, barring some very strange happenstance, now have a Tomato-based firmware for the remainder of my life. I don't have to reboot them, I don't have to worry about them, and I only see the interface once in a while when I want to do something like forward a port or set a static IP address. They've been stable, speedy, and I've had nothing to worry about that I've noticed so far.
Take it as a grain of salt if you'd like but that's my experience. You're probably not going to get a better router for around $5 each.
You needn't have stopped. A broken record is a broken record but repeating yourself in different ways often means that you include new information each time and each revelation will be more informative and this information will help to better understand you. I don't have a lot of time at the moment so that means I'll not author another novella.
If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion? There is a site, it is http://www.fark.com/ where there are an inordinately high number of transgendered folk. I'd recommend creating some unique username and generating an account there. For their privacy sake I won't list their names but they'll likely reveal themselves and, as a whole, there's a pretty good community there. I'd recommend joining them and taking part in the conversations.
In a way the site is a bit like Slashdot, it even has a "Geek" section. It's a news aggregation site and people find the news, link it (often with a funny headline), and then some of those are posted to the front page where there is a comments section. It is a very good site and the comments are what brings me back to it. Some of the people there, the vast majority, are very good people. There are, of course, the usual trolls but they're harmless and the majority of them seem inclined to do so simply for the "art" of trolling. Some are actually pretty good at it.
Additionally the site has an ignore feature which is pretty good and beneficial. I think you may find the site interesting and I believe you'll find the site's community to be welcoming and understanding if you do out yourself. You don't even need to do that... Instead you can simply watch and you'll see that other people are managing it and that may inspire you to do so or may just give you some hope that it can be done in the future.
Either way, you have made me think about it so I felt (and feel) compelled to offer it to you as a site that you may wish to frequent. Even if it is of no benefit there's a chance to laugh, enjoy the community, and read a bunch of links to amusing stories from around the globe. They've been around for quite a while and they're a pretty decent group of people. Feel free to stop by. If you do decide to stop over let me know via email and I'll share my username over there.
I am still awaiting that link. I'd be doubly impressed if it were NOW advocating that a female teacher that sexually abused a child be subject to the same penalty that a man was subjected to. Of course it should be equal so they should find a man convicted of the same charge with the same criminal history and the same age range. It should not be difficult. Hell, even shoplifting, DUI, or other generic charges. Read your local crime beat (if you live in an area small enough to have one in your local paper, if not read someone else's) to see what I mean.
Don't, obviously, think I'm against equality - I'm strongly in favor of it. One should be judged by their actions and not by gender, race, creed, etc... Just their actions.
I'm still waiting for them to provide a link to a feminist organization advocating for fair treatment under the law. I don't see it coming soon. Just one little link of a group, such as NOW, advocating that a woman be sentenced to the same sentence a man would have (demonstrably) been given in the same circumstances. I don't mean compare a woman's sentence with a guy's where he has a history of beating women. No, I mean a woman who slaps a man vs a man who slaps a woman. There's provable disparity in the sentences. Let's fight for equality. This goes on to other court cases, especially sex offenses. Let's see some equality there too.
That will mean something. That will show that the goal is equality. Let's see them take Curves to court to force them to allow men at their gym. They feel comfortable suing to allow women to join men only groups. Let's see them do the opposite.
I think that it is invasive in that they can (and will) use it for identification beyond the scope of what the photo was originally taken for.
I, a private citizen, offered the chance for dialogue - a choice.
Maybe you just don't know what is and isn't invasive or private? The first you have no right to give up on unless you forgo your right to a state identification card or to drive a motor vehicle. The second is an invitation that you're free to decline.
You needn't decline it. I can see it would be a waste of time.
I tried tripping once, for about 10 years. I decided I didn't like it, so I quit.;)
Actually, I still imbibe once in a while, usually a couple of times a year. I find that it is maintenance for my mental health and is a good way for me to be truly introspective. I'm an older person these days, I've been doing it for years, and I tend to think that in all but a very small percentage of the populace the use of psychedelic drugs would be beneficial. The trouble is identifying that small percentage of the population before they imbibe. Other than that I think that most folks should try hallucinating at least once in their life. However, I'm quite a fan of a variety of drugs.
I meant to reply to this but it was lost in my thinking about how to reply to the remainder of your post. There is a lot of content and a lot to think about.
I'm a bit verbose in that thread as well. Certain subjects are passions of mine and, at times, I'm simply verbose in other threads to avoid ambiguity and attempts to argue based on my comments being taken out of context.
No, the science means everything. It is a mental illness. That you choose to judge on this criteria is your own issues and one which you seem to proudly display. Carry on then. Carry on... What's one more prejudiced and ignorant twit? Fortunately there are fewer and fewer of you these days, you'll die out and the world will be a better place because of it. It's cute that you try to appeal to the authority of science when, frankly, the science agrees with me. It is still currently considered a mental illness. That *is* the science. Speculations about how it will be defined in the future is not science. If you're going to appeal to the authority of science you should know the science behind it and you should actually have some sort of inkling of an idea as to what science actually is.
Additionally... If you can possibly read any sort of prejudice into my posts then you're an idiot. Well, no. You're status as an idiot is long since established. You're just continuing to display it. Proud as a peacock with drool on your shin, a shit in your pants, and a grin from ear to ear. Yeah, your mother must be proud. Maybe if you go upstairs she'll make you some pizza pockets.
Well, you got some derp on your lapel. Perhaps you should clean that up. Banning my account? Really? Wow... In fact I got a nice email today apologizing for the inconvenience and a notice that they'll be attempting to repair it. My response count was high because the vast majority of folks are capable of reading and thinking so they replied in kind and we actually had interesting dialogues. 'Tis a pity you are unable to participate. It would help if you actually stuck to words that you could define. Banning my account? Come now... Don't be silly.
Seriously, do you actually manage to eat without blinding yourself from fork stabs? No, seriously, that's something I am curious about. Go log in to your sock puppet accounts and rail against the next big outrage. Enjoy yourself. I'll even reply to you, I have time enough and you amuse me. If I could teach you to sing I could poke you and you'd sing and dance for me. Until then I'll content myself with just your dancing.
Dance for me some more my little pet monkey, dance.
You note that it is being moved out, not that it has been moved out. Until then I'll refer to it as it is. That you choose to bring your own biases into the conversation is not something I have control over. If you can read my posts and still somehow manage to conclude that I'm in any way biased then you're not nearly as bright as you'd like to pretend. A person who has lost a leg is still physically handicapped. They're not a lesser person, they're just handicapped and should be judged on their merits not on their handicap. Do, please, try to keep up and leave your biases at home. Slashdot, it may seem so at times, really isn't the place to proudly display your bigotry as though you're a peacock.
I think that if we had such a society (which I doubt we could sadly), very many of the cases where people currently undergo gender reassignment surgery would not be requested. However, I also think that some people would still want it. There'd still be those who would look at their body and say to themselves, "This isn't who I'm supposed to be" regardless of how accepted and normal it is. The question is whether in such a society the surgery would remain as the best option or not. Given that the feelings of 'not being right' would likely be much more muted due to a lack of external pressures, perhaps simply skilful counselling may be sufficient to help. Or, maybe not.
But regardless, we don't have such a society, and I really don't have enough faith in humanity in general to think we could achieve such. So, given the society that we have right now, it seems to be either a case of changing the person's 'core being', or changing their body. And from these two options, changing the body seems significantly less abhorrent to me.
I scrolled back up to add this: Sorry for the novella, I wanted to be complete and to include everything that seemed relevant to the conversation. It shouldn't take you more than a few minutes to read it though and you seem inclined to be communicative so I'll take the time to be available to learn what you have to offer and share my own thinking.
Take, for example, this thread... I have posted nothing but supportive, fact-based, reasoned posts that have been mostly well received. I have not counted and did the whole statistics thing but seemingly the vast majority of the "attack responses" that I have had have been from those who are somehow trying to fight with me because they support gender equality too.
Erf... This may well be taken the wrong way but I guess the risk is worth it. Take, and be honest with both of us, your initial response to me. Your assumption appears (to me) to have been that I was being negative even though you had to reach to interpret what I said as being negative. Your response wasn't nearly as bad as some of the others but here I am, being completely (and the first) to be completely and totally supportive and truly concerned with this and yet people have invented, extrapolated, confused, lied, and otherwise misinterpreted my posts to have something to argue against.
Since your initial reply you appear to have realized that I am not, at all, being biased against the transgendered folk. Your initial view is that I was arguing for something when, if you recall, I was pretty clear in that I wasn't arguing anything. I even made it a point to clearly state that I wasn't arguing for anything - that I was pretty sure that because I was not subject to this that my own personal ethics may not carry any weight at all. You also brought the biases of "mental health" with you when I made every effort to ensure that my post didn't imply any negative connotations regarding mental health status as being anything more than a health problem.
Now, having said that, please be aware that that was not intended to be an attack or a slight against you. That, deep within this yet another novella, there is a purpose and a point. No, this isn't a slight against you at all nor should it be seen as such. I simply used your replies to me as my example because, well, I'm talking with you. (I need to diverge here slightly... I initially typed that out as "talking to you." My point is that I have carefully chosen my words to avoid confusion and ambiguity. I have chosen my words carefully to be inclusive, to not offend, and to be as specific as I am able to though I'm not perfect by any means. I changed it to "with you" because I'm engaging in a dialogue with you, not to you, as to you would be as if it were from a position of authority which I am not nor do I wish to be seen as attempting to be. I want open and honest dialogue and am not afraid of being incorrect nor am I afraid of learning new things.)
It is interesting to see the path that my moderation score has taken on that post as well. There were a LOT of votes about it. Anyhow, I'll try to make this short...
I have learned the things I have learned about them because I'm open and just plain ask them. It's a long story but I'll make it short.
When I was a younger lad, quite some time ago really, I was a friend of a friend who was afflicted by some ailment (I can not recall which) and was forced to hobble along, on crutches, in a very ungainly manner. They had poor control of their legs and the crutches afforded them greater mobility than a chair would have so they used the crutches. The end result was that their walking was akin to what I imagine a drunken three legged giraffe would look like only their shape was more closely aligned with a hippo.
We were drinking, she was of age and I was not, and conversing. I'd met her a number of times through my friend and was comfortable talking with her. Anyhow, somehow we ended up on the subject of her disability and how people reacted to it. She informed me that she would rather people stare than to look away. She would rather they they eye her without abandon instead of waiting until she wasn't looking so that they could observe her. Of course, really, she'd rather they simply ask her about the disability to her face and that they be upfront about it. Quite frequently people made an effort to "ignore" her disability, to look away, to stare at her straight in the eyes, or to find other ways to avoid observing her.
She much preferred people who would ask, if they were curious, instead of ignoring or pretending it didn't exist. She would rather talk about it and educate people about her disability. She would rather be engaged and a part of the conversation so that they'd know the truth instead of them having a conversation about it in their own heads and drawing their own conclusions. She was (is, she's not dead or anything) a very bright person and this has changed my behavior and my outlook ever since.
Since then I've (and I'm not sure that I did before, I suspect I did but I don't really know as it was done without thought and I never acted in an untoward manner simply because of ones afflictions) made it a point to judge disabled people based on what they do. And yes, of course, I judge people. We all do and it is a requirement. How we react, respond, and use those judgments is a subject for another post and too much to get into here. However, and THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT BIT to take from this, I have since maintained the policy of being openly curious about the disabilities of those whom I interact with and they're far more appreciative of it with very few exceptions. It obviously isn't the first question out of my mouth when I meet new people, it is not even always a question - sometimes I'm simply not curious. It is obviously done with tact and with true appreciation and attention paid to the answers.
My first question is not, of course, "How did you end up in the chair, gimp?" I have no standard lead in questions, I don't have scripted conversations prepared for life. However, I certainly ask openly about it, observe, and generally don't make any effort to assist them physically unless they are obviously in need of assistance or have asked for it. But, as I mentioned, the most important thing to take from this conversation (for me) was that it better to ask. It was important to not ignore, not shy away, not pointedly be unobservant, nor should I be afraid of slighting them by being curious. It isn't politically correct but a person's handicap is indeed a part of them. It is a part of who they are. It makes up a good portion of why they are who they are, why they do what they do, and how they respond to the world around them. That's the truth. However, it isn't all of who they are. It doesn't define them. It doesn't make them less important (nor does it make them more important or special). It makes them human, it makes them a bit unique (just like everybody else), and it isn
Everyone likes to point out how if we legalize drugs people will do drugs.
I see that as about as bright as pointing out that you always find stuff in the last place you looked. If you found it, why would you keep looking?
Anyhow, there is no shortage of drugs. Legalization isn't going to make a bunch of people suddenly decide that they want to go out and try heroin. Legalization isn't going to cause those types of problems, it will ALLEVIATE many of those types of problems though as it takes the crime out of it. Bad behavior is already criminalized. There are already laws to punish socially unacceptable behaviors. The substances you opt to put into your body are not excuses to engage in bad behavior. Additionally, those who want to try drugs already can try drugs. If they're available legally that doesn't mean that people are going to suddenly change their minds about recreational drug use. Every single person that wants to do drugs, finances notwithstanding, is already able to do drugs. We have already criminalized the bad behavior, legalizing drugs doesn't suddenly mean that robbery is going to be legal. If anything it means that people won't be in jail for drug use, will be productive members of society, and if they want drugs they'll simply purchase them because they can get a job because they're not felons.
No but I think that it is sufficient for its purpose unless there are extenuating circumstances to investigate further. Because someone may forge a drivers license is not justification for using the data for anything else or for doing more than cursory inspections of said physical licenses for the purpose of a quick, near certain, identification. Because a small group of people may opt to violate the law does not mean that the remainder of law abiding citizens should be subject to invasive measures. That you see this as justification, some obscure care where something may happen in a trivially small number of cases, is telling but not surprising. This is not a personal attack nor do I expect to change your mind. (I'm anonymous pixels on a screen. I don't think anyone is willing to admit they're wrong or have their views changed. We much prefer an echo chamber usually.)
You needn't answer but, if you do not mind, would you care to share your political party affiliation? The reason I ask is because I'm curious as to how it aligns with what I'm perceiving this to be. In an effort to show that this isn't meant to attack, I'm a registered Independent/Green Party member (they go together in the State of Maine, oddly enough) but my ideology is classic libertarian which shouldn't be confused with Randians or embarrassed Republicans who have co-opted the Libertarian party name with little regard for the actual platform itself. I'm a firm believer that absolutely no one pure ideology can be an effective form of governing and am a moderate. I tend to favor fiscally conservative policies while being socially liberal and have a preference to individual liberty even where safety is concerned. I prefer sound legislation that ensures the good of society, as a whole, is the beneficiary.
It is long winded but I wanted to be sure that I was clear, open, and honest about my own personal beliefs when asking you to reveal personal information such as your party affiliation. It doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. I bothered typing that all out to help assure that you can be comfortable knowing that my goal is not a personal attack, to attempt to change your views, or to have an impact on your online reputation. I am simply wanting to understand and have a dialogue.
You can argue with the doctors. There is a reason that I termed it as such, that's because it is the correct term even if you wish to ascribe your own prejudices to it. There's a reason that they make them go to a lot of therapy before they are able to undergo reassignment. There are plenty of other posts in this thread who also confirm what I've just typed out.
Anyhow, I understand your desire to be right and your desire to find offense where there is none to be found. Just because you don't like the term or wish to be prejudiced about the term doesn't mean that you're correct. I've spent a great deal of time learning, listening, and understanding. You've spent two minutes jumping to conclusions as is your typical posting fashion. Feel free to consult Google for more information. Until then you're dismissed.
I have to post AC 'cause I've replied to too many topics but this is KGIII.
I'm not sure why you posted that to me? I'm obviously not a fan of assuming such. I'm a fan of letting people fill the roles they feel most comfortable with and would hope that doing so would reduce the need people would have to get an invasive surgery done. People should be able to be treated equally as who they are without needing to conform. To me changing ones gender would be making an effort to conform. They should be able to be treated equally, fairly, and without prejudice without needing to do that.
So, yeah, I'm not sure why you felt that your post belonged as a reply to me. I haven't read the thread but I'm sure there are all sorts of people who disagree with you that would be better served by your post. This may sound rude (that isn't the intent though) but I don't need an echo chamber to reenforce my beliefs. I was, at one time, probably prejudiced against the transgendered people (I don't know if I was but I suspect that I was) but I've taken the time to learn about them, to actually get to know some of them, and have found that I've been able to reach a comfortable mental position on the topic.
Perhaps you mistook what I said and thought I was saying something else? Perhaps I'm misreading your reply - it looks as if it is confrontational in tone or as if you're trying to explain something to me that I've already stated? I could be misreading it... I woke up to more than twenty replies and have now worked through them all (except one) in a thoughtful manner that is more than one sentence long. So, well, I could be misreading your reply and intent and, if so, I'm sorry.
No but nor do you (assuming you're the GP poster) speak for them. To state that they're born that way is incorrect as it states that they're all born that way by default. Such is not true and, especially with the sensitivity of this topic, I think it is imperative to maintain clear, open, and honest language use. This will help to prevent the trolls from getting a foothold and starting to insert their silliness into the topic.
There are, unfortunately, a lot of prejudiced people on the planet. They often don't even seem to know it and some seem to even be proud of it. We can't do much about them other than to educate them. A lot of people seem to think that they'll die off and that the world will be a different place but that doesn't appear to be true. If anything it seems as though we're coming up with new and different ways to be prejudiced.
I don't bring the biases to the table. It is a mental health issue (according to the doctors at this time) but being prejudiced against mentally ill people is something you bring to the table. I can't control that. Those are your issues and your issues alone.
Slashdot Mirror
That may be true but, well, I accept that the public good may suffer for the individual liberty, it is precisely because of the public wouldn't be aware of this (ignorance) that I would prefer opt-in. I'd expect that the vast majority of customers wouldn't even understand it and enabling it by default would be unfair to them. Let the provider run an education campaign and send mailings with notices.
I'd compromise with suitable notice being given (and said education campaign) warning that this would be enabled by default (and how to opt-out) if that were done in an acceptable manner with a suitable timeline for customers to become educated about it before it is enabled by default. I'd be okay with that but I'd want the company to do a good job at making the effort to notify customers, educate customers, and provide them with easy access to the information.
I did not know that - mod this one up.
As an aside, I got a hell of a deal on mine which was pretty awesome. I honestly probably wouldn't have bothered except for the geekiness of it. If I'd known I could buy them I'd certainly have not bought them. Ah well.
I should have been nicer but I have now read like five articles because there's people (or a person?) posting that this is not new - and they have done so a few times. Sorry about that. But, seriously, this is NOT a new interpretation or the likes. Read more than the summary and click a few links and search the names for more information. It's as if Slashdot has gone insane...
So, yeah, I was a bit frustrated and should have been nicer. Seriously though - this is nothing new. It even kind of makes sense.
There's a whole bunch of news articles about this and an AC who's posted about this. How are you guys all missing this? This ruling is NOT new. It's relying on case law from 1948. LOL
Seriously!?! Has Slashdot gone mad?
Since 1948. This is not a new interpretation. Read more than the summary fuckstick.
I'd prefer opt-in instead of opt-out.
Thank you. I was scrolling through hoping someone had answered that. I can't imagine they'll offer *me* anything like this service/feature but it's a question that I had concerning this. I'd be worried (assuming I lived somewhere that this is possible) that there would be people using my 'net and slowing it down. That is, well, if I were in an area where I'd be invited to make use of this feature. Here? You'd have to drive a long ways down the road, a long ways up my driveway, and then you could connect. An alternative would be some sort of moose-mesh wireless network, perhaps squirrels would be better though.
Anyhow, in my case at least, if you were to want to use the wireless you'd probably be better served by coming in for a drink while you're here. I can't really imagine someone coming all this way to access a public wireless access point. ;) I was still curious about QoS though, I wasn't sure how that would work or if they'd even bothered thinking about it.
Do you know if the consumer can configure it? Perhaps having some scheduling for allowing it to impact your bandwidth to some extent or maybe configuring it so that it allowed X% of bandwidth during evening hours, more during the day when you're not home, or less on weekends or that sort of setup?
I found a lawn sale, I'm not sure where the guy had gotten them all, but he had two dozen WRT54Gs but several were missing cords (not even remotely a problem). They were priced at $10 each but I wasn't sure if they were able to run Tomato. I offered him $50 for the lot, I figured it was a gamble on my part, and he took it. I brought them home, booted one, and was happily able to write the Tomato firmware to it.
I have given three (I think) away. I have two running on the property, one is setup as an AP so I can reach the WiFi from way outside and near the garage. I believe they both automatically update to the latest firmware but I forget if they are or not, it isn't much of a problem here if they don't - moose don't use computers or steal wireless signals. I never have to touch them. I have had one die, I'm not sure why. It just stopped working one day. I'd already prepped another with the firmware so I was able to get that squared away with no problem and in short order.
I made sure to make multiple copies of the firmware (I've since loaded all but a few of them up with the Tomato firmware but I wanted to keep the copy I was using on hand as a "known good" version) and I've not had any problems except for the one that died. The lights come on but it never connects, I could log in and whatnot, but it would never connect. It probably could be used as an AP if it was ever required to fill that role. I'm positive that I stuck a label to it and kept it along with the rest.
Anyhow, it has been good to me. I can't speak for others and I'd recently looked at the firmware page before I'd purchased it (I'd been wanting to try it or the other one whose name I forget at the moment) and so I knew that the 54G was one of the ones that may work. I should, barring some very strange happenstance, now have a Tomato-based firmware for the remainder of my life. I don't have to reboot them, I don't have to worry about them, and I only see the interface once in a while when I want to do something like forward a port or set a static IP address. They've been stable, speedy, and I've had nothing to worry about that I've noticed so far.
Take it as a grain of salt if you'd like but that's my experience. You're probably not going to get a better router for around $5 each.
You needn't have stopped. A broken record is a broken record but repeating yourself in different ways often means that you include new information each time and each revelation will be more informative and this information will help to better understand you. I don't have a lot of time at the moment so that means I'll not author another novella.
If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion? There is a site, it is http://www.fark.com/ where there are an inordinately high number of transgendered folk. I'd recommend creating some unique username and generating an account there. For their privacy sake I won't list their names but they'll likely reveal themselves and, as a whole, there's a pretty good community there. I'd recommend joining them and taking part in the conversations.
In a way the site is a bit like Slashdot, it even has a "Geek" section. It's a news aggregation site and people find the news, link it (often with a funny headline), and then some of those are posted to the front page where there is a comments section. It is a very good site and the comments are what brings me back to it. Some of the people there, the vast majority, are very good people. There are, of course, the usual trolls but they're harmless and the majority of them seem inclined to do so simply for the "art" of trolling. Some are actually pretty good at it.
Additionally the site has an ignore feature which is pretty good and beneficial. I think you may find the site interesting and I believe you'll find the site's community to be welcoming and understanding if you do out yourself. You don't even need to do that... Instead you can simply watch and you'll see that other people are managing it and that may inspire you to do so or may just give you some hope that it can be done in the future.
Either way, you have made me think about it so I felt (and feel) compelled to offer it to you as a site that you may wish to frequent. Even if it is of no benefit there's a chance to laugh, enjoy the community, and read a bunch of links to amusing stories from around the globe. They've been around for quite a while and they're a pretty decent group of people. Feel free to stop by. If you do decide to stop over let me know via email and I'll share my username over there.
I am still awaiting that link. I'd be doubly impressed if it were NOW advocating that a female teacher that sexually abused a child be subject to the same penalty that a man was subjected to. Of course it should be equal so they should find a man convicted of the same charge with the same criminal history and the same age range. It should not be difficult. Hell, even shoplifting, DUI, or other generic charges. Read your local crime beat (if you live in an area small enough to have one in your local paper, if not read someone else's) to see what I mean.
Don't, obviously, think I'm against equality - I'm strongly in favor of it. One should be judged by their actions and not by gender, race, creed, etc... Just their actions.
I'm still waiting for them to provide a link to a feminist organization advocating for fair treatment under the law. I don't see it coming soon. Just one little link of a group, such as NOW, advocating that a woman be sentenced to the same sentence a man would have (demonstrably) been given in the same circumstances. I don't mean compare a woman's sentence with a guy's where he has a history of beating women. No, I mean a woman who slaps a man vs a man who slaps a woman. There's provable disparity in the sentences. Let's fight for equality. This goes on to other court cases, especially sex offenses. Let's see some equality there too.
That will mean something. That will show that the goal is equality. Let's see them take Curves to court to force them to allow men at their gym. They feel comfortable suing to allow women to join men only groups. Let's see them do the opposite.
I think that it is invasive in that they can (and will) use it for identification beyond the scope of what the photo was originally taken for.
I, a private citizen, offered the chance for dialogue - a choice.
Maybe you just don't know what is and isn't invasive or private? The first you have no right to give up on unless you forgo your right to a state identification card or to drive a motor vehicle. The second is an invitation that you're free to decline.
You needn't decline it. I can see it would be a waste of time.
Oh, and regarding your signature...
I tried tripping once, for about 10 years. I decided I didn't like it, so I quit. ;)
Actually, I still imbibe once in a while, usually a couple of times a year. I find that it is maintenance for my mental health and is a good way for me to be truly introspective. I'm an older person these days, I've been doing it for years, and I tend to think that in all but a very small percentage of the populace the use of psychedelic drugs would be beneficial. The trouble is identifying that small percentage of the population before they imbibe. Other than that I think that most folks should try hallucinating at least once in their life. However, I'm quite a fan of a variety of drugs.
I meant to reply to this but it was lost in my thinking about how to reply to the remainder of your post. There is a lot of content and a lot to think about.
Anyhow, more of my thoughts on drug use are actually posted under my username at this recent (and still active) link:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/06/13/2222244/do-it-yourself-brain-stimulation-has-scientists-worried
I'm a bit verbose in that thread as well. Certain subjects are passions of mine and, at times, I'm simply verbose in other threads to avoid ambiguity and attempts to argue based on my comments being taken out of context.
That, my good sir or madam, is a brilliant point.
No, the science means everything. It is a mental illness. That you choose to judge on this criteria is your own issues and one which you seem to proudly display. Carry on then. Carry on... What's one more prejudiced and ignorant twit? Fortunately there are fewer and fewer of you these days, you'll die out and the world will be a better place because of it. It's cute that you try to appeal to the authority of science when, frankly, the science agrees with me. It is still currently considered a mental illness. That *is* the science. Speculations about how it will be defined in the future is not science. If you're going to appeal to the authority of science you should know the science behind it and you should actually have some sort of inkling of an idea as to what science actually is.
Additionally... If you can possibly read any sort of prejudice into my posts then you're an idiot. Well, no. You're status as an idiot is long since established. You're just continuing to display it. Proud as a peacock with drool on your shin, a shit in your pants, and a grin from ear to ear. Yeah, your mother must be proud. Maybe if you go upstairs she'll make you some pizza pockets.
Well, you got some derp on your lapel. Perhaps you should clean that up. Banning my account? Really? Wow... In fact I got a nice email today apologizing for the inconvenience and a notice that they'll be attempting to repair it. My response count was high because the vast majority of folks are capable of reading and thinking so they replied in kind and we actually had interesting dialogues. 'Tis a pity you are unable to participate. It would help if you actually stuck to words that you could define. Banning my account? Come now... Don't be silly.
Seriously, do you actually manage to eat without blinding yourself from fork stabs? No, seriously, that's something I am curious about. Go log in to your sock puppet accounts and rail against the next big outrage. Enjoy yourself. I'll even reply to you, I have time enough and you amuse me. If I could teach you to sing I could poke you and you'd sing and dance for me. Until then I'll content myself with just your dancing.
Dance for me some more my little pet monkey, dance.
You note that it is being moved out, not that it has been moved out. Until then I'll refer to it as it is. That you choose to bring your own biases into the conversation is not something I have control over. If you can read my posts and still somehow manage to conclude that I'm in any way biased then you're not nearly as bright as you'd like to pretend. A person who has lost a leg is still physically handicapped. They're not a lesser person, they're just handicapped and should be judged on their merits not on their handicap. Do, please, try to keep up and leave your biases at home. Slashdot, it may seem so at times, really isn't the place to proudly display your bigotry as though you're a peacock.
I think that if we had such a society (which I doubt we could sadly), very many of the cases where people currently undergo gender reassignment surgery would not be requested. However, I also think that some people would still want it. There'd still be those who would look at their body and say to themselves, "This isn't who I'm supposed to be" regardless of how accepted and normal it is. The question is whether in such a society the surgery would remain as the best option or not. Given that the feelings of 'not being right' would likely be much more muted due to a lack of external pressures, perhaps simply skilful counselling may be sufficient to help. Or, maybe not.
But regardless, we don't have such a society, and I really don't have enough faith in humanity in general to think we could achieve such. So, given the society that we have right now, it seems to be either a case of changing the person's 'core being', or changing their body. And from these two options, changing the body seems significantly less abhorrent to me.
I scrolled back up to add this:
Sorry for the novella, I wanted to be complete and to include everything that seemed relevant to the conversation. It shouldn't take you more than a few minutes to read it though and you seem inclined to be communicative so I'll take the time to be available to learn what you have to offer and share my own thinking.
Take, for example, this thread... I have posted nothing but supportive, fact-based, reasoned posts that have been mostly well received. I have not counted and did the whole statistics thing but seemingly the vast majority of the "attack responses" that I have had have been from those who are somehow trying to fight with me because they support gender equality too.
Erf... This may well be taken the wrong way but I guess the risk is worth it. Take, and be honest with both of us, your initial response to me. Your assumption appears (to me) to have been that I was being negative even though you had to reach to interpret what I said as being negative. Your response wasn't nearly as bad as some of the others but here I am, being completely (and the first) to be completely and totally supportive and truly concerned with this and yet people have invented, extrapolated, confused, lied, and otherwise misinterpreted my posts to have something to argue against.
Since your initial reply you appear to have realized that I am not, at all, being biased against the transgendered folk. Your initial view is that I was arguing for something when, if you recall, I was pretty clear in that I wasn't arguing anything. I even made it a point to clearly state that I wasn't arguing for anything - that I was pretty sure that because I was not subject to this that my own personal ethics may not carry any weight at all. You also brought the biases of "mental health" with you when I made every effort to ensure that my post didn't imply any negative connotations regarding mental health status as being anything more than a health problem.
Now, having said that, please be aware that that was not intended to be an attack or a slight against you. That, deep within this yet another novella, there is a purpose and a point. No, this isn't a slight against you at all nor should it be seen as such. I simply used your replies to me as my example because, well, I'm talking with you. (I need to diverge here slightly... I initially typed that out as "talking to you." My point is that I have carefully chosen my words to avoid confusion and ambiguity. I have chosen my words carefully to be inclusive, to not offend, and to be as specific as I am able to though I'm not perfect by any means. I changed it to "with you" because I'm engaging in a dialogue with you, not to you, as to you would be as if it were from a position of authority which I am not nor do I wish to be seen as attempting to be. I want open and honest dialogue and am not afraid of being incorrect nor am I afraid of learning new things.)
Where was I? Oh yeah
It is interesting to see the path that my moderation score has taken on that post as well. There were a LOT of votes about it. Anyhow, I'll try to make this short...
I have learned the things I have learned about them because I'm open and just plain ask them. It's a long story but I'll make it short.
When I was a younger lad, quite some time ago really, I was a friend of a friend who was afflicted by some ailment (I can not recall which) and was forced to hobble along, on crutches, in a very ungainly manner. They had poor control of their legs and the crutches afforded them greater mobility than a chair would have so they used the crutches. The end result was that their walking was akin to what I imagine a drunken three legged giraffe would look like only their shape was more closely aligned with a hippo.
We were drinking, she was of age and I was not, and conversing. I'd met her a number of times through my friend and was comfortable talking with her. Anyhow, somehow we ended up on the subject of her disability and how people reacted to it. She informed me that she would rather people stare than to look away. She would rather they they eye her without abandon instead of waiting until she wasn't looking so that they could observe her. Of course, really, she'd rather they simply ask her about the disability to her face and that they be upfront about it. Quite frequently people made an effort to "ignore" her disability, to look away, to stare at her straight in the eyes, or to find other ways to avoid observing her.
She much preferred people who would ask, if they were curious, instead of ignoring or pretending it didn't exist. She would rather talk about it and educate people about her disability. She would rather be engaged and a part of the conversation so that they'd know the truth instead of them having a conversation about it in their own heads and drawing their own conclusions. She was (is, she's not dead or anything) a very bright person and this has changed my behavior and my outlook ever since.
Since then I've (and I'm not sure that I did before, I suspect I did but I don't really know as it was done without thought and I never acted in an untoward manner simply because of ones afflictions) made it a point to judge disabled people based on what they do. And yes, of course, I judge people. We all do and it is a requirement. How we react, respond, and use those judgments is a subject for another post and too much to get into here. However, and THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT BIT to take from this, I have since maintained the policy of being openly curious about the disabilities of those whom I interact with and they're far more appreciative of it with very few exceptions. It obviously isn't the first question out of my mouth when I meet new people, it is not even always a question - sometimes I'm simply not curious. It is obviously done with tact and with true appreciation and attention paid to the answers.
My first question is not, of course, "How did you end up in the chair, gimp?" I have no standard lead in questions, I don't have scripted conversations prepared for life. However, I certainly ask openly about it, observe, and generally don't make any effort to assist them physically unless they are obviously in need of assistance or have asked for it. But, as I mentioned, the most important thing to take from this conversation (for me) was that it better to ask. It was important to not ignore, not shy away, not pointedly be unobservant, nor should I be afraid of slighting them by being curious. It isn't politically correct but a person's handicap is indeed a part of them. It is a part of who they are. It makes up a good portion of why they are who they are, why they do what they do, and how they respond to the world around them. That's the truth. However, it isn't all of who they are. It doesn't define them. It doesn't make them less important (nor does it make them more important or special). It makes them human, it makes them a bit unique (just like everybody else), and it isn
LOL Valid point... Valid point indeed. (I'm active in said thread too, oddly enough.)
Then again, who knows? Maybe I'll like it? I've never tried it. I probably never will. But, you know, maybe I will like it.
Another fun one...
Everyone likes to point out how if we legalize drugs people will do drugs.
I see that as about as bright as pointing out that you always find stuff in the last place you looked. If you found it, why would you keep looking?
Anyhow, there is no shortage of drugs. Legalization isn't going to make a bunch of people suddenly decide that they want to go out and try heroin. Legalization isn't going to cause those types of problems, it will ALLEVIATE many of those types of problems though as it takes the crime out of it. Bad behavior is already criminalized. There are already laws to punish socially unacceptable behaviors. The substances you opt to put into your body are not excuses to engage in bad behavior. Additionally, those who want to try drugs already can try drugs. If they're available legally that doesn't mean that people are going to suddenly change their minds about recreational drug use. Every single person that wants to do drugs, finances notwithstanding, is already able to do drugs. We have already criminalized the bad behavior, legalizing drugs doesn't suddenly mean that robbery is going to be legal. If anything it means that people won't be in jail for drug use, will be productive members of society, and if they want drugs they'll simply purchase them because they can get a job because they're not felons.
No but I think that it is sufficient for its purpose unless there are extenuating circumstances to investigate further. Because someone may forge a drivers license is not justification for using the data for anything else or for doing more than cursory inspections of said physical licenses for the purpose of a quick, near certain, identification. Because a small group of people may opt to violate the law does not mean that the remainder of law abiding citizens should be subject to invasive measures. That you see this as justification, some obscure care where something may happen in a trivially small number of cases, is telling but not surprising. This is not a personal attack nor do I expect to change your mind. (I'm anonymous pixels on a screen. I don't think anyone is willing to admit they're wrong or have their views changed. We much prefer an echo chamber usually.)
You needn't answer but, if you do not mind, would you care to share your political party affiliation? The reason I ask is because I'm curious as to how it aligns with what I'm perceiving this to be. In an effort to show that this isn't meant to attack, I'm a registered Independent/Green Party member (they go together in the State of Maine, oddly enough) but my ideology is classic libertarian which shouldn't be confused with Randians or embarrassed Republicans who have co-opted the Libertarian party name with little regard for the actual platform itself. I'm a firm believer that absolutely no one pure ideology can be an effective form of governing and am a moderate. I tend to favor fiscally conservative policies while being socially liberal and have a preference to individual liberty even where safety is concerned. I prefer sound legislation that ensures the good of society, as a whole, is the beneficiary.
It is long winded but I wanted to be sure that I was clear, open, and honest about my own personal beliefs when asking you to reveal personal information such as your party affiliation. It doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. I bothered typing that all out to help assure that you can be comfortable knowing that my goal is not a personal attack, to attempt to change your views, or to have an impact on your online reputation. I am simply wanting to understand and have a dialogue.
You can argue with the doctors. There is a reason that I termed it as such, that's because it is the correct term even if you wish to ascribe your own prejudices to it. There's a reason that they make them go to a lot of therapy before they are able to undergo reassignment. There are plenty of other posts in this thread who also confirm what I've just typed out.
Anyhow, I understand your desire to be right and your desire to find offense where there is none to be found. Just because you don't like the term or wish to be prejudiced about the term doesn't mean that you're correct. I've spent a great deal of time learning, listening, and understanding. You've spent two minutes jumping to conclusions as is your typical posting fashion. Feel free to consult Google for more information. Until then you're dismissed.
I have to post AC 'cause I've replied to too many topics but this is KGIII.
I'm not sure why you posted that to me? I'm obviously not a fan of assuming such. I'm a fan of letting people fill the roles they feel most comfortable with and would hope that doing so would reduce the need people would have to get an invasive surgery done. People should be able to be treated equally as who they are without needing to conform. To me changing ones gender would be making an effort to conform. They should be able to be treated equally, fairly, and without prejudice without needing to do that.
So, yeah, I'm not sure why you felt that your post belonged as a reply to me. I haven't read the thread but I'm sure there are all sorts of people who disagree with you that would be better served by your post. This may sound rude (that isn't the intent though) but I don't need an echo chamber to reenforce my beliefs. I was, at one time, probably prejudiced against the transgendered people (I don't know if I was but I suspect that I was) but I've taken the time to learn about them, to actually get to know some of them, and have found that I've been able to reach a comfortable mental position on the topic.
Perhaps you mistook what I said and thought I was saying something else? Perhaps I'm misreading your reply - it looks as if it is confrontational in tone or as if you're trying to explain something to me that I've already stated? I could be misreading it... I woke up to more than twenty replies and have now worked through them all (except one) in a thoughtful manner that is more than one sentence long. So, well, I could be misreading your reply and intent and, if so, I'm sorry.
No but nor do you (assuming you're the GP poster) speak for them. To state that they're born that way is incorrect as it states that they're all born that way by default. Such is not true and, especially with the sensitivity of this topic, I think it is imperative to maintain clear, open, and honest language use. This will help to prevent the trolls from getting a foothold and starting to insert their silliness into the topic.
There are, unfortunately, a lot of prejudiced people on the planet. They often don't even seem to know it and some seem to even be proud of it. We can't do much about them other than to educate them. A lot of people seem to think that they'll die off and that the world will be a different place but that doesn't appear to be true. If anything it seems as though we're coming up with new and different ways to be prejudiced.
I don't bring the biases to the table. It is a mental health issue (according to the doctors at this time) but being prejudiced against mentally ill people is something you bring to the table. I can't control that. Those are your issues and your issues alone.