They used lead solder back in those days, assuming the floppy drive isn't too dusty and your boot disk is intact.

When Steve Jobs died I booted a mid-80s Mac and it came up fine. MacPaint (source code here) was an amazing feat given that it had to run in 128KB (really 192KB - like most Mac applications of its time, it made extensive use of the code that was in the 64KB of ROM).

So was the "disk copy" program that could copy a 400KB (400,000 byte) disk in only 4 passes. It stole a large chunk of the 22KB RAM normally allocated to video to do it.

It's just a matter of when. Perhaps long after I die, perhaps even later.

So his voice is about to crack, he's skinny, and no woman would dare date him for fear of going to prison? What adult wants that?

Yeah, 12 was kind of fun when the bullies weren't around, but even if I had a magic wand I wouldn't want to revisit that age again, at least not for more than a few days.

Amber? are people too.

Do you know what else came in green and amber? 1970s/1980s monochrome computer monitors. Yes, I'm a nerd. But this is Slashdot, so you already knew that.

I guess the terms is so new that its definition is evolving. From what I've been exposed to, "gender" and "sex" (as a biological state, not the thing you do in the bedroom) are the same thing. Sexual orientation is who you prefer to have sexual or romantic relations with. Gender identity or sexual identity is your "mental sex." Those are three different concepts.

Absent qualifying words or context, "sexual minority" and "gender minority" have their obvious meaning - someone who is of a biological sex that is neither a majority nor, if there is no majority, a plurality. Technically speaking, either males or females are probably a majority or plurality, leaving everyone else a minority. Practically speaking (and absent high levels of gender-specific childhood deaths e.g. female infanticide) males and females are approximately equal in numbers, so calling either one a "gender minority" is kind of silly. That leaves those who are neither unambiguously male nor unambiguously female.

You can legitimately argue that those whose gender identity doesn't match their body are also gender minorities if you take the view that the brain (vs. the mind) has a "gender." One day this will be "settled science" but I don't think it's quite there yet.

However, I don't think you can make the same argument about a person who is male or female: A gay man is almost always a man in his genes, in his reproductive organs, and in his head. A lesbian woman is almost always a woman in her genes, her reproductive organs, and in her head.

Another distinct concept is the group of people who are disenfranchised or dis-empowered merely because of their gender, gender identity, and/or sexual orientation. You don't have to be a minority to fall into this category: In many parts of the world females are technically a majority but hold relatively little political power.

At probably less than 1% of the population, people with chromosomes other than XY or XX are the real gender minorities.

Them and people whose reproductive biology is neither clearly male nor clearly female and people whose biology is clearly one gender but their chromosomes are the other gender.

These are the real gender minorities.

Pity the poor guy named A. D. Mindell who wants to use his real name on a Dell-oriented forum, but they don't allow spaces or punctuation.

They want their mushrooms back.

This is a good idea in principle but unless existing covenants were grandfathered in, it would be a political non-starter and subject to expensive court challenges, challenges the state might very well lose.

Keep your cotton-pickin' hands off me and my configuration files!

The future social contract will probably evolve into something like this:

"When you go to a restaurant, leave your animals at home. Bona fide medically necessary animals like guide dogs are exempt."

"When you go to a movie or the changing rooms at the local swimming pool, turn off your cameras or at least don't point them at the screen during a movie. Bona fide medical technology used for bona fide medical reasons* is exempt."

*If you are blind man using a camera to see and you turn on the recording feature in the movie theater so you can upload it to the Internet later, that's not a bona fide medical reason.

And you know this because ....???

In some states they would've had the right to sue the property owner, in this case the bank, to compel compliance.

I don't think bank presidents like being hauled into court for contempt.

I feel the same way you do. In some areas, it's hard to avoid HOAs and restrictive covenants. Where it's unavoidable or the only non-HOA homes are undesirable for other reasons, I factor in the reduction in my ability to enjoy my property when I make my bid.

When the grandparent post said

I assume "Sometimes" meant "before such restrictions were invalidated."

I think he was talking to people with time machines that went forwards AND backwards.

The deed restrictions may read something like "Must be a member of the HOA" AND "must abide by these other deed restrictions like no above-ground utilities."

Even if the HOA is dissolved, the remaining deed restrictions remain in force, and the property owners of the properties that were in the now-defunct HOA may still have standing to take you to court to enforce them. I say "may" - if the HOA extended over a mile in width, the guy a mile away from you may not have standing if your violating the covenant doesn't affect his enjoyment of his property or the value of the property. But your next-door neighbor and the guy down the block almost certainly would have a valid claim.