I agree. I was saying that the American public would demand a "line item veto" in the exact same way the French public demanded the head of Louis XVI.
In other words, if the legislature keeps this pace up, they will neuter Congress as a branch of government entirely. The people will deem their "omnibus" railroads not just inefficient, but intolerable.
I don't prefer a line item veto, I prefer a Congress that understands what its job is, and therefore a government that works. If they keep this up, and the crisis really is as dire as I think it is, there will be calls for dissolving the Congress entirely, let alone neutering it with a line item veto.
From what I've read of history, that is the way these things play out.
Gee. Do you think anyone in Congress understands the concept of a targeted bill, arrived at quickly, to address a nascent crisis?
How many more "poison pills" can they put into this thing? They've already managed to cause the entire Republican caucus (save 3) to bolt on this mess.
If they keep it up, the public is going to demand a line item veto to neuter Congress' ability to sabotage our entire Union.
Okay, so basically you either upgrade to a Postscript enabled printer, or you have only ASCII/EBCDIC text printouts, like the old-school lineprinters? I mean, a 14" text drawing of Snoopy in a Santa hat is fun, but there's a lot of non-postscript hardware out there, and I can't see that as being sufficient for much of anything these days.
I use HP-LIP over CUPS for my venerable DeskJet 812C printer. While I'm sure that sounds like an inefficient piece of cr#p to some, it's what I've been using for the last 8 years. It can't handle Postscript files, because it assumes all the PCL stuff is going to be done in software, and sent down a serial or USB cable.
Here's what I'm unsure of: CUPS provides a common interface, which allowed HP to design the LIP software. So that any kind of output hardware, especially cheap, non-postscript hardware, can talk to a common interface and get the correct output instructions for the specific device. Right?
And Postscript and networking add to the cost of the printer. Right?
If so, what you described above sounds like a resourceful, shrewd, but expensive nightmare from where I sit.;^)
I'm assuming, of course, that Ubuntu without CUPS will be for netbook and iPhone style computers. Situations where any printer doesn't make much sense. I think they're looking to make a portable or embedded version of it.
Thanks for the answer. The other guy really hated CUPS, and I wouldn't dream of teasing him with a reply like this. Thanks for the info on how to print at the command line.;^)
Since Star Trek is an NTSC program, the effect of the "HD" letterboxing is that my 17" monitor is now an 11" monitor. It's getting letterboxed, twice. Once on the left and right to accommodate the "HD" widescreen format, and again on top and bottom to show that widescreen format on my 4:3 monitor.
I find this to be utterly silly, given that it is being streamed over a computer.
Okay, this is probably a dumb question, but how do you print anything without CUPS?
What is the alternative printing system they're going to use, and does CUPS really present that much of a footprint? Is the claim that personal printers are too much of a hassle and we should all send our stuff out to a printing service?
Excellent, but you're missing my point. Are they *security* updates? Why not just issue a separate.NET 2.0 patch to fix the issues with.NET 2.0?
There is no justification for this kind of ham handed 'fix.'
My statement about the abuse of the 'high-priority' channel stands. Microsoft is doing what Microsoft does when the chips are down; they're cheating. They're not offering a vital security update, or there would be a security bulletin referenced, one marking.NET 2.0 as vulnerable to an exploit.
They're pushing.NET 3.5 on people, for whatever reason, but I'm sure it isn't for the benefit of the user.
Why the hell should I have to download this monster (248+ MB), just to get a simple tiny hotfix for.NET 2.0? Why am I being told this is 'high-priority?' They should have offered a patch for 2.0, in the 'Software, optional' section, not a bloody upgrade in toto to.NET 3.5, in the 'high-priority/security' section.
And one that slips an uninstallable extension into Firefox as well? WTF?
I just put the thing in my ignore basket as another example of Microsoft's malfeasance and general contempt for the fact that *I* own my computer.
That explains why.NET 3.5 SP1 was tagged as a 'high-priority,' and thus completely automatic and unnotified, install for anyone who allows Automatic Updates self-governance.
It clearly wasn't a security update: I only have.NETs v1 and v2 installed, and yet I still got a notification to install the SP1 update for.NET v3.5! Luckily, I don't automatically trust Microsoft with anything. I told it to ignore the update and never show it to me again.
Basically, MS is once again abusing the high-priority update channel, just like they did with the Genuine Advantage Notification tool. Don't let anyone tell you differently. They are treating machines set to update automatically like a spammer treats his botnet.
I agree. But what you and I consider conspicuous, and what a court will consider as such ("reasonable"), are different things. Suffice it to say that there is a reason the button you click to get past the EULA says "I agree," and not "OK."
At the point you click that button, from the standpoint of the law, the only defense you may have is duress. Unless you don't speak English, in which case you might be able to claim that you didn't understand what "I agree" means.
It's definitely something that will be argued in court, and the outcome of that argument is not settled. You and I most assuredly will not be on the jury, unless we lie during voi dire.
It isn't good enough that it's totally f!cking ridiculous, one needs to have an available defense that disclaims responsibility for the totally f!cking ridiculous.
If a rant is a calmly delivered, if mildly peeved, response where you demand respect as an equal from another who, due to translational problems, appears to be treating you as a child, then what I'm writing right here is the Magna Carta.
He doesn't want a Dell. Big whoop. Neither do I. I'm sick of their crappy support. I get more friendly support calls from friends with Dells than any other machine combined.
I would guess that in a state that allows you disclaim an implied warranty, the client with the most money to litigate is going to be the winner, in the end. I could be wrong. IANAL, but I've run data centers for them. It certainly wouldn't keep me from trying.
The problem is any such suit is an "average guy" going up against a professional class. They'll appeal, they'll countersue, and they're on retainer so it doesn't matter how much they do it, so long as they don't expense too much. Too much being over $1,000 worth. Otherwise, it just rolls into the budget pretty easily. Class action is pretty much the only equalizer.
So does this guy have $1,000 and an infinite amount of time to fight it, or enough chutzpah to start a class? That is the only question. The law is whatever the courts interpret it to be.
In the United States, the obligation is in Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). This warranty will apply to a merchant (that is, a person who makes an occupation of selling things) who regularly deals in the type of merchandise sold.
Under US law, goods are 'merchantable' if they meet the following conditions:
1. The goods must conform to the standards of the trade as applicable to the contract for sale.
2. They must fit for the purposes such goods are ordinarily used, even if the buyer ordered them for use otherwise.
3. They must be uniform as to quality and quantity, within tolerances of the contract for sale.
4. They must be packed and labeled per the contract for sale.
5. They must meet the specifications on the package labels, even if not so specified by the contract for sale.
If the merchandise is sold with an express "guarantee", the terms of the implied warranty of merchantability will fill the gaps left by that guarantee. If the terms of the express guarantee are not specified, they will be considered to be the terms of the implied warranty of merchantability. The UCC allows sellers to disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability, provided the disclaimer is made conspicuously and the disclaimer explicitly uses the term "merchantability" in the disclaimer.[1] Some states, however, have implemented the UCC such that this can not be disclaimed.
So it depends on your state, as this is usually disclaimed in the EULA. Go get 'em tiger.
Well exactly. That's why I said there were holes in the theory. There was no "public domain" in that time. Nor was there copyright. I'm highly skeptical about Jews needing to pay to reproduce the torah, however.
Now if a Jew wanted to sell the Old Testament to a bunch of Christians, that I can see. Do you have a reference of that story. I'd be interested to read it.
Despite all of this, the Bible was printed like hotcakes at a pancake brunch in Germany, and there was good reason to want to control the text, given that the schism started in Germany. But it couldn't be controlled as easily as other manuscripts because there were so many extant copies to begin with.
The basic premise holds true. Copyright limits copies, which limits dissemination, which is a problem if you're writing to get your ideas out to the world, and a benefit if you're writing to make money.
They have to do this to prevent against a disruption by the Linux product family for entry level customers. As long as Linux is "mostly free" as in beer, they are seriously threatened by entry level consumer, and especially business, customers traveling up the food chain, and eventually subsuming the whole market using open source.
Get used to this. They're deliberately stratifying a monopolized market as a defense against a potentially disruptive technology.
But instead people are talking about it all at once, sometimes stridently or incoherently, always passionately, and from positions ranging from complete authority to total ignorance, as the case may be.
You must be new here. Welcome to the Slashdot, buddy.;^)
And it may have been the same problem with Gutenberg in the middle ages. I've read economic historical analysis that claims the issue of movable type press documents devaluing handwritten manuscripts was as big an issue as copyright piracy is now.
Do you think they printed the Bible so much because they loved it? No. They printed it because it was public domain. The meek inherit the earth, or so the story goes. I saw some holes in the documentation. I would consider it an unreliable, if entertaining, account.
To abuse a meme, IMHO, "nothing of value will be lost" to copyright.
This is great stuff, and I'm relieved to see it hit Slashdot.
I'm writing a speculative fiction book, and in that story I have introduced something called the "Preservation of Information Act," in which even cc camera logs are reduced to transcripts, and stored in low volatility storage mediums, which is cheap enough to do this. A whole new class of cataloging workers, Catalog Recognition And Preservation workers (jokingly called 'crap shooters') makes it possible.
Basically, they figure out that it is easier to keyword mine a transcript, than the video, and it is easier to just store and index *everything* to those text files, than to worry about the and ethical and legal issues of a "disappearing" and ephemeral data based culture.
The concept of privacy under POIA has become a very different thing. You have a right to privacy *only* if you don't cause trouble. If you become a "Person Of Interest" anything you have ever done can be called up in a wink, and that is the accepted norm.
Working title "Person of Disinterest." Thought I'd share with y'all.
Bravo on this story. We've got some ethics and consequences to sort out, and I'm not sure this book is going to remain "speculative" for very long at all.
And, as a follow up, these tests notoriously reflect a person's "self-image," not necessarily the way their personality actually functions and how they will interact with others. The indications a test determines must be carefully verified in an interview, not taken at face value like a piece of litmus paper.
The basic fact is that a single person's testimony is demonstrably unreliable, sometimes even (or in many cases especially) when it regards themselves.
I don't know why the Slashdot censor crowd is modding these points down. I'm somehow being marked as "flamebait" even though I'm 20% flamebait and 40% insightful.
And not a single flame in reply. Every one of these replies has been intelligent, and has brought up fine examples of why we might consider light to be "pollution."
Go figure.
In any event, responding to you, you echo my point. I think you can't "pollute" darkness. You can, however, see darkness as a natural state, and that we are evolved to function within that natural state, and therefore the natural state is the ideal.
But what we are then saying is that the natural state is the ideal. Therefore, it's enough to call it "artificial light." It says the same thing as "light pollution."
And at that point, we start having a rational discussion about the drawbacks of "artificial light," if there are any. There is no debate as to the drawbacks of "natural darkness." And what we have is a choice between drawbacks, with it all on the table, instead of viewing "artificial" as bad and "natural" as good.
"Light pollution" is a term born of a false dichotomy. That somehow nature is good and artifice is evil, when in fact, both have drawbacks and benefits in a spectrum.
I think the overriding drawback of city lights is the carbon footprint, for instance, the actual tritium leak that occurred at the nuclear power plant near me. You know, actual pollution, and would kindly like the "think of the squirrels" and the "consult your pineal gland" people to stop distracting from the real issue of industrial pollution with their desire to star gaze, or become latter day cave men.
Oh dear, that last sentence may actually qualify as flame bait. Never mind. I have karma to burn.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I was saying that the American public would demand a "line item veto" in the exact same way the French public demanded the head of Louis XVI.
In other words, if the legislature keeps this pace up, they will neuter Congress as a branch of government entirely. The people will deem their "omnibus" railroads not just inefficient, but intolerable.
I don't prefer a line item veto, I prefer a Congress that understands what its job is, and therefore a government that works. If they keep this up, and the crisis really is as dire as I think it is, there will be calls for dissolving the Congress entirely, let alone neutering it with a line item veto.
From what I've read of history, that is the way these things play out.
--
Toro
Gee. Do you think anyone in Congress understands the concept of a targeted bill, arrived at quickly, to address a nascent crisis?
How many more "poison pills" can they put into this thing? They've already managed to cause the entire Republican caucus (save 3) to bolt on this mess.
If they keep it up, the public is going to demand a line item veto to neuter Congress' ability to sabotage our entire Union.
I want a government that works.
--
Toro
1) You are not a trial attorney
2) You are not a criminal attorney
3) You are not to be construed as legal advice
and my personal favorite...
4) Not enough sand.
-- ;^)
Toro
Okay, so basically you either upgrade to a Postscript enabled printer, or you have only ASCII/EBCDIC text printouts, like the old-school lineprinters? I mean, a 14" text drawing of Snoopy in a Santa hat is fun, but there's a lot of non-postscript hardware out there, and I can't see that as being sufficient for much of anything these days.
I use HP-LIP over CUPS for my venerable DeskJet 812C printer. While I'm sure that sounds like an inefficient piece of cr#p to some, it's what I've been using for the last 8 years. It can't handle Postscript files, because it assumes all the PCL stuff is going to be done in software, and sent down a serial or USB cable.
Here's what I'm unsure of: CUPS provides a common interface, which allowed HP to design the LIP software. So that any kind of output hardware, especially cheap, non-postscript hardware, can talk to a common interface and get the correct output instructions for the specific device. Right?
And Postscript and networking add to the cost of the printer. Right?
If so, what you described above sounds like a resourceful, shrewd, but expensive nightmare from where I sit. ;^)
I'm assuming, of course, that Ubuntu without CUPS will be for netbook and iPhone style computers. Situations where any printer doesn't make much sense. I think they're looking to make a portable or embedded version of it.
Thanks for the answer. The other guy really hated CUPS, and I wouldn't dream of teasing him with a reply like this. Thanks for the info on how to print at the command line. ;^)
--
Toro
Since Star Trek is an NTSC program, the effect of the "HD" letterboxing is that my 17" monitor is now an 11" monitor. It's getting letterboxed, twice. Once on the left and right to accommodate the "HD" widescreen format, and again on top and bottom to show that widescreen format on my 4:3 monitor.
I find this to be utterly silly, given that it is being streamed over a computer.
--
Toro
Okay, this is probably a dumb question, but how do you print anything without CUPS?
What is the alternative printing system they're going to use, and does CUPS really present that much of a footprint? Is the claim that personal printers are too much of a hassle and we should all send our stuff out to a printing service?
--
Toro
Excellent, but you're missing my point. Are they *security* updates? Why not just issue a separate .NET 2.0 patch to fix the issues with .NET 2.0?
There is no justification for this kind of ham handed 'fix.'
My statement about the abuse of the 'high-priority' channel stands. Microsoft is doing what Microsoft does when the chips are down; they're cheating. They're not offering a vital security update, or there would be a security bulletin referenced, one marking .NET 2.0 as vulnerable to an exploit.
They're pushing .NET 3.5 on people, for whatever reason, but I'm sure it isn't for the benefit of the user.
Why the hell should I have to download this monster (248+ MB), just to get a simple tiny hotfix for .NET 2.0? Why am I being told this is 'high-priority?' They should have offered a patch for 2.0, in the 'Software, optional' section, not a bloody upgrade in toto to .NET 3.5, in the 'high-priority/security' section.
And one that slips an uninstallable extension into Firefox as well? WTF?
I just put the thing in my ignore basket as another example of Microsoft's malfeasance and general contempt for the fact that *I* own my computer.
--
Toro
That explains why .NET 3.5 SP1 was tagged as a 'high-priority,' and thus completely automatic and unnotified, install for anyone who allows Automatic Updates self-governance.
It clearly wasn't a security update: I only have .NETs v1 and v2 installed, and yet I still got a notification to install the SP1 update for .NET v3.5! Luckily, I don't automatically trust Microsoft with anything. I told it to ignore the update and never show it to me again.
Basically, MS is once again abusing the high-priority update channel, just like they did with the Genuine Advantage Notification tool. Don't let anyone tell you differently. They are treating machines set to update automatically like a spammer treats his botnet.
--
Toro
I agree. But what you and I consider conspicuous, and what a court will consider as such ("reasonable"), are different things. Suffice it to say that there is a reason the button you click to get past the EULA says "I agree," and not "OK."
At the point you click that button, from the standpoint of the law, the only defense you may have is duress. Unless you don't speak English, in which case you might be able to claim that you didn't understand what "I agree" means.
It's definitely something that will be argued in court, and the outcome of that argument is not settled. You and I most assuredly will not be on the jury, unless we lie during voi dire.
It isn't good enough that it's totally f!cking ridiculous, one needs to have an available defense that disclaims responsibility for the totally f!cking ridiculous.
--
Toro
It's a bad sign for the space program that they aren't offering money. :^(
If a rant is a calmly delivered, if mildly peeved, response where you demand respect as an equal from another who, due to translational problems, appears to be treating you as a child, then what I'm writing right here is the Magna Carta.
He doesn't want a Dell. Big whoop. Neither do I. I'm sick of their crappy support. I get more friendly support calls from friends with Dells than any other machine combined.
--
Toro
I would guess that in a state that allows you disclaim an implied warranty, the client with the most money to litigate is going to be the winner, in the end. I could be wrong. IANAL, but I've run data centers for them. It certainly wouldn't keep me from trying.
The problem is any such suit is an "average guy" going up against a professional class. They'll appeal, they'll countersue, and they're on retainer so it doesn't matter how much they do it, so long as they don't expense too much. Too much being over $1,000 worth. Otherwise, it just rolls into the budget pretty easily. Class action is pretty much the only equalizer.
So does this guy have $1,000 and an infinite amount of time to fight it, or enough chutzpah to start a class? That is the only question. The law is whatever the courts interpret it to be.
--
Toro
From wiki, under implied warranty of merchantability.
In the United States, the obligation is in Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). This warranty will apply to a merchant (that is, a person who makes an occupation of selling things) who regularly deals in the type of merchandise sold.
Under US law, goods are 'merchantable' if they meet the following conditions:
1. The goods must conform to the standards of the trade as applicable to the contract for sale.
2. They must fit for the purposes such goods are ordinarily used, even if the buyer ordered them for use otherwise.
3. They must be uniform as to quality and quantity, within tolerances of the contract for sale.
4. They must be packed and labeled per the contract for sale.
5. They must meet the specifications on the package labels, even if not so specified by the contract for sale.
If the merchandise is sold with an express "guarantee", the terms of the implied warranty of merchantability will fill the gaps left by that guarantee. If the terms of the express guarantee are not specified, they will be considered to be the terms of the implied warranty of merchantability. The UCC allows sellers to disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability, provided the disclaimer is made conspicuously and the disclaimer explicitly uses the term "merchantability" in the disclaimer.[1] Some states, however, have implemented the UCC such that this can not be disclaimed.
So it depends on your state, as this is usually disclaimed in the EULA. Go get 'em tiger.
--
Toro
Well exactly. That's why I said there were holes in the theory. There was no "public domain" in that time. Nor was there copyright. I'm highly skeptical about Jews needing to pay to reproduce the torah, however.
Now if a Jew wanted to sell the Old Testament to a bunch of Christians, that I can see. Do you have a reference of that story. I'd be interested to read it.
Despite all of this, the Bible was printed like hotcakes at a pancake brunch in Germany, and there was good reason to want to control the text, given that the schism started in Germany. But it couldn't be controlled as easily as other manuscripts because there were so many extant copies to begin with.
The basic premise holds true. Copyright limits copies, which limits dissemination, which is a problem if you're writing to get your ideas out to the world, and a benefit if you're writing to make money.
--
Toro
They have to do this to prevent against a disruption by the Linux product family for entry level customers. As long as Linux is "mostly free" as in beer, they are seriously threatened by entry level consumer, and especially business, customers traveling up the food chain, and eventually subsuming the whole market using open source.
Get used to this. They're deliberately stratifying a monopolized market as a defense against a potentially disruptive technology.
--
Toro
And it only took him 8 years to kill the entire American middle class!
I'm sure we have plenty o
CARRIER LOST
But instead people are talking about it all at once, sometimes stridently or incoherently, always passionately, and from positions ranging from complete authority to total ignorance, as the case may be.
You must be new here. Welcome to the Slashdot, buddy. ;^)
--
Toro
And it may have been the same problem with Gutenberg in the middle ages. I've read economic historical analysis that claims the issue of movable type press documents devaluing handwritten manuscripts was as big an issue as copyright piracy is now.
Do you think they printed the Bible so much because they loved it? No. They printed it because it was public domain. The meek inherit the earth, or so the story goes. I saw some holes in the documentation. I would consider it an unreliable, if entertaining, account.
To abuse a meme, IMHO, "nothing of value will be lost" to copyright.
--
Toro
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
-- George Santayana
A more differently George seems to misagree with you. ;^)
--
Toro
This is great stuff, and I'm relieved to see it hit Slashdot.
I'm writing a speculative fiction book, and in that story I have introduced something called the "Preservation of Information Act," in which even cc camera logs are reduced to transcripts, and stored in low volatility storage mediums, which is cheap enough to do this. A whole new class of cataloging workers, Catalog Recognition And Preservation workers (jokingly called 'crap shooters') makes it possible.
Basically, they figure out that it is easier to keyword mine a transcript, than the video, and it is easier to just store and index *everything* to those text files, than to worry about the and ethical and legal issues of a "disappearing" and ephemeral data based culture.
The concept of privacy under POIA has become a very different thing. You have a right to privacy *only* if you don't cause trouble. If you become a "Person Of Interest" anything you have ever done can be called up in a wink, and that is the accepted norm.
Working title "Person of Disinterest." Thought I'd share with y'all.
Bravo on this story. We've got some ethics and consequences to sort out, and I'm not sure this book is going to remain "speculative" for very long at all.
--
Toro
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/C-9979_landing_craft
Bet you thought I should turn in my geek card, eh?
--
Toro }B^>
A communications disruption can mean only one thing...
Keep your eyes peeled for those Trade Federation landers.
(Yeah, just kidding. Here's the real page.)
--
Toro
And, as a follow up, these tests notoriously reflect a person's "self-image," not necessarily the way their personality actually functions and how they will interact with others. The indications a test determines must be carefully verified in an interview, not taken at face value like a piece of litmus paper.
The basic fact is that a single person's testimony is demonstrably unreliable, sometimes even (or in many cases especially) when it regards themselves.
--
Toro
I don't know why the Slashdot censor crowd is modding these points down. I'm somehow being marked as "flamebait" even though I'm 20% flamebait and 40% insightful.
And not a single flame in reply. Every one of these replies has been intelligent, and has brought up fine examples of why we might consider light to be "pollution."
Go figure.
In any event, responding to you, you echo my point. I think you can't "pollute" darkness. You can, however, see darkness as a natural state, and that we are evolved to function within that natural state, and therefore the natural state is the ideal.
But what we are then saying is that the natural state is the ideal. Therefore, it's enough to call it "artificial light." It says the same thing as "light pollution."
And at that point, we start having a rational discussion about the drawbacks of "artificial light," if there are any. There is no debate as to the drawbacks of "natural darkness." And what we have is a choice between drawbacks, with it all on the table, instead of viewing "artificial" as bad and "natural" as good.
"Light pollution" is a term born of a false dichotomy. That somehow nature is good and artifice is evil, when in fact, both have drawbacks and benefits in a spectrum.
I think the overriding drawback of city lights is the carbon footprint, for instance, the actual tritium leak that occurred at the nuclear power plant near me. You know, actual pollution, and would kindly like the "think of the squirrels" and the "consult your pineal gland" people to stop distracting from the real issue of industrial pollution with their desire to star gaze, or become latter day cave men.
Oh dear, that last sentence may actually qualify as flame bait. Never mind. I have karma to burn.
--
Toro