Agreed... OTOH, didn't the head of the DNC (Howard Dean... you know, the "YEEEEARGH!" guy) say straight-up on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart that Michigan and Florida would be counted anyway (at least if he had anything to do with it)?
Sure, the rules were set and the two state committees broke them with impunity anyway, but if the leader of the Democrat party is saying that he wants them to count, then, err... I'm thinking they may get chucked in anyway.
(This of course doesn't shake my agreement with your statements on the matter - rules are rules - but they may not matter anyway).
The absolute shamelessness of these people is what amazes me. They don't care how badly they are hated.
If they (by some astronomical anti-miracle) win, they'd be wealthy enough to be left alone and/or purchase whatever friends they desire to keep around (see also William Gates).
/P
Doesn't even have to be live life...
on
The Phoenix Has Landed
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Personally, I think it would be damned cool if they found an indisputable fossil. It would force a whole lot of philosophical re-thinking, and probably give a huge-assed push towards getting humans into space (well, those who don't suddenly get scared silly and decide to crawl into a cave, hoping the aliens pass us by or somesuch).
But then... what if they do find evidence of life? I mean large, complex forms of life, not some fossilized bacteria that everyone will debate and bitch about. That's what I'm hoping they dig up.
*sigh*... unlike the **AA, the paper I write on isn't green and doesn't say "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private..." on it. So, it'll likely be ignored by any congress-critter.
Perhaps, but the effects (side or immediate) of coffee/caffeine taken in moderation are well-known (and have been for literally over at least a century).
The key term is "moderation" - if I were to suck down a case of Bawls in the morning (or even one bottle), then yes, the term 'clear mind' would not be perfectly accurate - just as taking any stimulant in large doses (or in the case of, say, Ampehtamines, in any but the smallest doses) would affect mental clarity.
One cannot say the same for synthetic chemicals whose effects are not known fully.
Taking a somewhat little-understood psychotropic drug for treatment of illness is one thing (especially when prescribing it to children), but it is another thing entirely to start talking it up as a performance enhancer.
What is the long-term (or even all of the short-term) effects of this? IIRC, Ritalin comes with a bucketload of side effects.
I guess that drugs specifically made for the mind start (at least for me) creeping deeper and deeper into questions of morality and ethics than one designed to treat any other body part. Just something that makes me a bit wary about them... For instance, is an "enhanced" person more susceptible to suggestion than otherwise? Are they more focused on the task at hand, but not as aware of their surroundings? How does it affect multitasking? Emotions? Attitude and outlook?
Dunno... but caffeine seems to work just fine for me, and I get to keep a clear mind which I retain full control of while I'm at it.
Agreed w/ the sibling... that would've been damned cool (not sure how the apartment complex I had originally lived at up here would've handled the parked box, though).
I also agree that the 16-hour drive in a U-Haul (as opposed to 11 hrs in a normal car) could've been a hell of a lot easier... w/o the U-Haul, a trailered car behind it, and two pissed-off cats crated in the cab w/ a pissed-off (at the cramped quarters) missus holding them on her lap the whole way.:)
If I ever find myself moving again, you're right - I'd definitely be looking into PODS, U-PACK, or similar.
My last position (in Utah) required a DoD IT-1 clearance, and I'd gotten the offer to work in Oregon at my current position. Funny thing is, when I gave two weeks' notice, they immediately removed my access to the production environment servers and from the datacenter that held 'em (as required). But, they didn't remove them from all the non-DoD-related servers and services.
I spent those two weeks typing documentation on everything I did, and in training one of the junior admins to wrangle SMTP until they found a replacement. The only real benefit I got out of the deal was that I didn't have to carry a pager anymore.
The other benefit? The folks there were okay with me burning off paid sick days to arrange for the U-Haul and to tie up loose ends before the move.
Most companies that I've worked with in the past were similar - you only really lose access to the vital stuff, but there's usually plenty of non-vital stuff that still needs done until you bail.
I think the only time I ever get anything about the emails I send is an automated "Controlled Countries" notification if I hadn't sent or received coordination emails with colleagues in China for awhile, then start up again.
Trust me - if the email admins noticed you, Joe Low-Level Employee, shuffling encrypted emails back and forth, you'd be frog-marched out of the corp faster than you can say "WTF?"
Small companies? One admin who does email in addition to everything else. Mid-sized companies? There's prolly one, maybe two dedicated admins, and they're more interested in using your emails as a means to track SMTP problems than in reading what's in 'em.
Large corps? Heh - you're just begging for attention if you start flinging around abnormal-looking SMTP traffic; esp. in really big companies that get a touch paranoid about such things as corporate espionage.
You'd be better off risking the attention of the proxy-minders with webmail than by dicking around with encryption on your email client. Using the proggies you linked to also tends to stick up like a sore thumb in any workstation app auditing... and you could conceivably get fired faster for loading unauthorized software onto your corp-issued equipment than a quickie email to your girlfriend describing in graphic detail at what you want to do to her when you get home.
Besides, most email admins have better things to do than grep emails (e.g. battle spam, figure out and fix bounces from remote mis-configured servers, curse at Verizon's RFP-non-compliant configs, keep enough inodes handy in/var, pound the load averages down to something sane, beg the powers-that-be for decent equipment, etc).
Unless your corp specifically has good reason to be ultra-anal about security (e.g. gov't contractors, Microsoft/Intel/IBM-sized corps, etc), then monitoring user emails with anything beyond simple log and traffic grepping tools is a waste of resources and time. Any company that spends more time watching their employees than their customers is a company that isn't long for the world these days.
I remember cautioning students a long time ago to not expect to be working for a fat paycheck at Novell the minute he/she graduated (I was living in Utah at the time, hence "Novell"). You have to start small, but if you know what you're doing, you stand a good chance of moving up.
Those who listened threw themselves at the entry-level help desk jobs, where they stayed just long enough to angle for a junior admin slot at a start-up or small biz, which in turn was a resume' boost for bigger and better things. It's just how one gets up in the world nowadays... I still get a kick out of hearing from a couple of them, and how they've been doing. The ones who didn't are working in some other field entirely after a ton of disappointment and rejection.
The funniest thing is, I don't think it's us the pros who have foisted visions of joy and glory onto the kids: It's the images from Hollywood of "'leet hackers" (*snort*). It's the unholy size of Bill Gates' bank account. It's the image that all the non-tech-oriented folks project (as if we were keepers of some arcane dogma that only The Chosen Few can ever learn... Cripes, folks - it's just a frickin' BASH prompt!)
That, I think in combination with typical youthful impatience, is what tends to delude the kids into thinking that it's all glory and no muck-hauling...
Having to maintain a token-ring network in a poultry plant? THAT was the absolute worst (albeit the most interesting).
Large parts of the network had been strung in the production area - where nightly, a gaggle of folks would hose the entire place down with hot water and caustic cleaners, all delivered at 1500 psi. Troubleshooting a busted wire or device in a non-beaconing token-ring network got to be real fun, especially when half the automated weigh-stations' operators knew maybe 5 words in English. At one point, I drilled holes in the NEMA 4x-rated junction boxes to let the water drain out faster than it got in - just to keep things from corroding as quickly.
You had to fend off (and sometimes referee) 'manager wars', where area managers would slip into the control room and try to literally steal chickens from other managers off the pneumatic shackle lines (by twiddling the priorities and weights when they thought no one was looking).
It was an interesting sysadmin slot though... one which taught me some (since forgotten) Spanish, how to weld stainless steel, how to deal with USDA inspectors who walked about with permanent anal cramps, how to remove chicken fat from a keyboard, and how to endure some brain-melting odors every time one of the pH meters at the water treatment building went down. It was the only computer job where the combination of rubber boots and a hair net were required.
I think it was something like three years after I left before I would bring myself to eat chicken again...
True, and trying to ride a bicycle in bell-bottoms would be tough to do (as someone old enough to have worn them as a kid, I can tell you that many pairs of bell-bottom pants fell victim to the insatiable appetite of the bicycle chain...)
I merely said that there have been incidents which support the hypothesis. Whether it qualifies as proof or not is up to the reader, not me.
The link to Watson tells his side of the story, complete with enough supporting evidence to be rather damning. If you have evidence from Greenpeace's board (or elsewhere) that refutes his, then please, let's see it. Personally, I view the whole thing as a case of Greenpeace trying to distance themselves from their own history in order to look respectable. One could credibly argue that it would be directly akin to the early attempts by Sinn Fein towards distancing themselves from the IRA ('oh, we're not violent, honest 'guv! Ne'ermind all that funding and support that we'd fed the louts for decades... we're peaceable y'know.')
All poking aside? To be honest I have yet to see a fully objective definition for the term "terrorism" that hasn't been bent, shrunk (see a sibling post) or stretched (elsewhere) to fit a particular viewpoint. Whether they can be called the name or not doesn't discount the acts which they have committed - either directly (as in the past) or indirectly (now).
Your use of the word 'terrorist' is sloppy enough to qualify you for employment in the DHS.
Neat - a petty insult followed by a redefinition of a term to fit your viewpoint. I sincerely hope you have something better, because by your definition? Any nutcase who bombs a Planned Parenthood clinic would escape the tag just as easily, as would any terrorist act by simple dint of redefining the victims as "involved" by simple dint of nationality, religion, or job function.
At worst they are criminals; at best, they are justifiable vigilantes
So do tell - what is justifiable about putting civilian (as in "non-military") human lives at risk on the high seas over what is essentially a civil issue? Please explain - I'm all eyes.
I'm no fan of greenpeace, but their attacks on whaling ships of ill repute are not terrorism.
Demonizing the target doesn't change the facts any more than sanctifying the actor would. The fact remains that Greenpeace has committed acts of violence against non-military targets.
The point is, there is quite a bit of legal traffic being generated via BT, and Comcast is interfering with it in ways that involve impersonation and MiTM attacks.
That said, even if 100% of BT traffic was piracy, one is not allowed to fight civil violations with criminal acts, which is exactly what Comcast is doing.
That's nice - now explain to Joe WarcraftPlayer why he has to endure a forced wait just to get patches. Or explain why in the hell it takes someone 3x as long to grab Fedora Core 9 via BT than it would by grabbing it directly from an overloaded mirror server.
Therein lies the clue you appear to be missing - not all BT traffic is illegal. Bittorrent has shown itself to be one hell of a sweet distribution channel during times when new releases of legit content and applications come out, which takes bandwidth pressure off of mirror servers.
Also, all questions of legality and illegality aside, I honestly don't see any improvements in bandwidth that come from Comcast's forging of RST packets. If anything, it would only increase the amount of crap traffic and excess traffic (mostly caused by peer reconnects, re-establishment of connections lost, seeking new available connections, etc)...
You'll find few if any people in here that have anything against buying legit software. The objections come from two places:
1) Comcast is perfoming 'man-in-the-middle' attacks on their own customers, regardless of whether that attack may be justified (pirated material) or not (legit material). Conceptually, if they can do that, then what's to stop them from pretending to be you in any other context? It's a violation of many things, including existing anti-hacking laws.
2) What right does Comcast have to interfere with legitimate traffic?
I already know the argument - it's their network, take it or leave it... great: so let's strip the artificial monopolies they've been granted by state and local government, and remove any special privileges that they've been enjoying from said governments. Until they are willing to give those up, then they should and must be subject to us, the customer base.
i imagine that eventually frustration if nothing else would drive most of Comcast's users to use "their" software...
It also stands a solid change of driving Comcast's users to Verizon, AT&T, Sprint Broadband...
I realize that Comcast has a total monopoly on broadband in many areas, but not in mine. I have zero problems with calling up Verizon, or AT&T, or even DirecPC if it ever came to that.
(this probably explains why I don't really see any heavy P2P throttling in my area, as opposed to areas in which Comcast is the sole provider. I wonder if anyone has done any sort of differential study based on monopoly power...)
I dunno - it depends on the topic and the site more than anything else.
Strict moderation doesn't automatically make it better, either. I happen to do server work (and am currently rebuilding) a website that deals in NSFW (okay, pr0n) 3D/CG artwork. The only moderation is to keep out spam and the occasional dickhead who can't seem to figure out how to behave in polite company.
We have roughly 300k members, ab't 75% of them active. The galleries get the lion's share of the traffic (for obvious reasons). OTOH, the discussion forums are pretty light... not much traffic. A good share of that traffic is either related to technique and art, or just general discussion and/or debate.
Thing is, we don't really censor anything, save to keep out spam and the occasional dickhead (I can count on two hands --with fingers to spare-- the number of bannings, and most of those dealt with chargebacks at the store).
A good set of moderators (we have 'em), and a loose atmosphere that has one basic rule - act like an adult - and that's basically all you need sometimes.
If you're ratcheting down the zone settings for one site, you're NOT using zones correctly. What you'd want to do is add MySpace to your Trusted Sites zone. Now MySpace has the permissions it needs, but the rest of the internet still is kept on higher guard.
Thing is it ain't that easy (ref. a similar post to mine that explains it better). This could apply almost anywhere that has a ton of mixed content (for instance at my work, where one has to do it just to get some of the corp's more bone-headed ActiveX controls to behave normally).
The problem is, you and I can grok-out a way around it. My wife (or any other non-tech-oriented person) cannot, at least not without a lot of Googling and even more patience (or a more tech-oriented spouse to impose the issue upon).
Having actually used the 'Zones' concept recently on IE, I gotta say - it needs work. LOTS of work. The first time someone wants to diddle with a MySpace app and discovers that it won't work until you basically ratchet down the settings --often by hand in the advanced options--? Then couple that with the fact that many websites can pull in parts and content from multiple domains, requiring permissions to be set on each and every one? The whole thing would go out the window and the user would promptly ratchet down the whole WWW.
The concept itself is okay, but the implementation could use a good, solid overhaul.
Actually, I could see uses for it - but mostly for web designers as an audit tool, and for corporate security types who want to gin up a list of naughty links with which to show the employee and his/her boss.
Now for a real use? Well, maybe one. To save having to scribble them down, you could waste a couple reams of paper printing out, oh, maybe a dozen MS Sharepoint links to an overly-anal supervisor who demands that you include reference links in a printed report.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, the rules were set and the two state committees broke them with impunity anyway, but if the leader of the Democrat party is saying that he wants them to count, then, err... I'm thinking they may get chucked in anyway.
(This of course doesn't shake my agreement with your statements on the matter - rules are rules - but they may not matter anyway).
If they (by some astronomical anti-miracle) win, they'd be wealthy enough to be left alone and/or purchase whatever friends they desire to keep around (see also William Gates).
But then... what if they do find evidence of life? I mean large, complex forms of life, not some fossilized bacteria that everyone will debate and bitch about. That's what I'm hoping they dig up.
The key term is "moderation" - if I were to suck down a case of Bawls in the morning (or even one bottle), then yes, the term 'clear mind' would not be perfectly accurate - just as taking any stimulant in large doses (or in the case of, say, Ampehtamines, in any but the smallest doses) would affect mental clarity.
One cannot say the same for synthetic chemicals whose effects are not known fully.
What is the long-term (or even all of the short-term) effects of this? IIRC, Ritalin comes with a bucketload of side effects.
I guess that drugs specifically made for the mind start (at least for me) creeping deeper and deeper into questions of morality and ethics than one designed to treat any other body part. Just something that makes me a bit wary about them... For instance, is an "enhanced" person more susceptible to suggestion than otherwise? Are they more focused on the task at hand, but not as aware of their surroundings? How does it affect multitasking? Emotions? Attitude and outlook?
Dunno... but caffeine seems to work just fine for me, and I get to keep a clear mind which I retain full control of while I'm at it.
I also agree that the 16-hour drive in a U-Haul (as opposed to 11 hrs in a normal car) could've been a hell of a lot easier... w/o the U-Haul, a trailered car behind it, and two pissed-off cats crated in the cab w/ a pissed-off (at the cramped quarters) missus holding them on her lap the whole way. :)
If I ever find myself moving again, you're right - I'd definitely be looking into PODS, U-PACK, or similar.
I spent those two weeks typing documentation on everything I did, and in training one of the junior admins to wrangle SMTP until they found a replacement. The only real benefit I got out of the deal was that I didn't have to carry a pager anymore.
The other benefit? The folks there were okay with me burning off paid sick days to arrange for the U-Haul and to tie up loose ends before the move.
Most companies that I've worked with in the past were similar - you only really lose access to the vital stuff, but there's usually plenty of non-vital stuff that still needs done until you bail.
I think the only time I ever get anything about the emails I send is an automated "Controlled Countries" notification if I hadn't sent or received coordination emails with colleagues in China for awhile, then start up again.
Small companies? One admin who does email in addition to everything else. Mid-sized companies? There's prolly one, maybe two dedicated admins, and they're more interested in using your emails as a means to track SMTP problems than in reading what's in 'em.
Large corps? Heh - you're just begging for attention if you start flinging around abnormal-looking SMTP traffic; esp. in really big companies that get a touch paranoid about such things as corporate espionage.
You'd be better off risking the attention of the proxy-minders with webmail than by dicking around with encryption on your email client. Using the proggies you linked to also tends to stick up like a sore thumb in any workstation app auditing... and you could conceivably get fired faster for loading unauthorized software onto your corp-issued equipment than a quickie email to your girlfriend describing in graphic detail at what you want to do to her when you get home.
Besides, most email admins have better things to do than grep emails (e.g. battle spam, figure out and fix bounces from remote mis-configured servers, curse at Verizon's RFP-non-compliant configs, keep enough inodes handy in /var, pound the load averages down to something sane, beg the powers-that-be for decent equipment, etc).
Unless your corp specifically has good reason to be ultra-anal about security (e.g. gov't contractors, Microsoft/Intel/IBM-sized corps, etc), then monitoring user emails with anything beyond simple log and traffic grepping tools is a waste of resources and time. Any company that spends more time watching their employees than their customers is a company that isn't long for the world these days.
Those who listened threw themselves at the entry-level help desk jobs, where they stayed just long enough to angle for a junior admin slot at a start-up or small biz, which in turn was a resume' boost for bigger and better things. It's just how one gets up in the world nowadays... I still get a kick out of hearing from a couple of them, and how they've been doing. The ones who didn't are working in some other field entirely after a ton of disappointment and rejection.
The funniest thing is, I don't think it's us the pros who have foisted visions of joy and glory onto the kids: It's the images from Hollywood of "'leet hackers" (*snort*). It's the unholy size of Bill Gates' bank account. It's the image that all the non-tech-oriented folks project (as if we were keepers of some arcane dogma that only The Chosen Few can ever learn... Cripes, folks - it's just a frickin' BASH prompt!)
That, I think in combination with typical youthful impatience, is what tends to delude the kids into thinking that it's all glory and no muck-hauling...
Large parts of the network had been strung in the production area - where nightly, a gaggle of folks would hose the entire place down with hot water and caustic cleaners, all delivered at 1500 psi. Troubleshooting a busted wire or device in a non-beaconing token-ring network got to be real fun, especially when half the automated weigh-stations' operators knew maybe 5 words in English. At one point, I drilled holes in the NEMA 4x-rated junction boxes to let the water drain out faster than it got in - just to keep things from corroding as quickly.
You had to fend off (and sometimes referee) 'manager wars', where area managers would slip into the control room and try to literally steal chickens from other managers off the pneumatic shackle lines (by twiddling the priorities and weights when they thought no one was looking).
It was an interesting sysadmin slot though... one which taught me some (since forgotten) Spanish, how to weld stainless steel, how to deal with USDA inspectors who walked about with permanent anal cramps, how to remove chicken fat from a keyboard, and how to endure some brain-melting odors every time one of the pH meters at the water treatment building went down. It was the only computer job where the combination of rubber boots and a hair net were required.
I think it was something like three years after I left before I would bring myself to eat chicken again...
The link to Watson tells his side of the story, complete with enough supporting evidence to be rather damning. If you have evidence from Greenpeace's board (or elsewhere) that refutes his, then please, let's see it. Personally, I view the whole thing as a case of Greenpeace trying to distance themselves from their own history in order to look respectable. One could credibly argue that it would be directly akin to the early attempts by Sinn Fein towards distancing themselves from the IRA ('oh, we're not violent, honest 'guv! Ne'ermind all that funding and support that we'd fed the louts for decades... we're peaceable y'know.')
All poking aside? To be honest I have yet to see a fully objective definition for the term "terrorism" that hasn't been bent, shrunk (see a sibling post) or stretched (elsewhere) to fit a particular viewpoint. Whether they can be called the name or not doesn't discount the acts which they have committed - either directly (as in the past) or indirectly (now).
One can only split hairs (and definitions) so much...
Your use of the word 'terrorist' is sloppy enough to qualify you for employment in the DHS.
Neat - a petty insult followed by a redefinition of a term to fit your viewpoint. I sincerely hope you have something better, because by your definition? Any nutcase who bombs a Planned Parenthood clinic would escape the tag just as easily, as would any terrorist act by simple dint of redefining the victims as "involved" by simple dint of nationality, religion, or job function.
At worst they are criminals; at best, they are justifiable vigilantesSo do tell - what is justifiable about putting civilian (as in "non-military") human lives at risk on the high seas over what is essentially a civil issue? Please explain - I'm all eyes.
I'm no fan of greenpeace, but their attacks on whaling ships of ill repute are not terrorism.Demonizing the target doesn't change the facts any more than sanctifying the actor would. The fact remains that Greenpeace has committed acts of violence against non-military targets.
There have been incidents.
Also - apparently in spite of --now-- publicly trying to distance themselves from the Sea Shephard, there are credible ties to GP and a ship specifically built to ram and sink whaling ships.
The point is, there is quite a bit of legal traffic being generated via BT, and Comcast is interfering with it in ways that involve impersonation and MiTM attacks.
That said, even if 100% of BT traffic was piracy, one is not allowed to fight civil violations with criminal acts, which is exactly what Comcast is doing.
Therein lies the clue you appear to be missing - not all BT traffic is illegal. Bittorrent has shown itself to be one hell of a sweet distribution channel during times when new releases of legit content and applications come out, which takes bandwidth pressure off of mirror servers.
Also, all questions of legality and illegality aside, I honestly don't see any improvements in bandwidth that come from Comcast's forging of RST packets. If anything, it would only increase the amount of crap traffic and excess traffic (mostly caused by peer reconnects, re-establishment of connections lost, seeking new available connections, etc)...
You'll find few if any people in here that have anything against buying legit software. The objections come from two places:
1) Comcast is perfoming 'man-in-the-middle' attacks on their own customers, regardless of whether that attack may be justified (pirated material) or not (legit material). Conceptually, if they can do that, then what's to stop them from pretending to be you in any other context? It's a violation of many things, including existing anti-hacking laws.
2) What right does Comcast have to interfere with legitimate traffic?
I already know the argument - it's their network, take it or leave it... great: so let's strip the artificial monopolies they've been granted by state and local government, and remove any special privileges that they've been enjoying from said governments. Until they are willing to give those up, then they should and must be subject to us, the customer base.
It also stands a solid change of driving Comcast's users to Verizon, AT&T, Sprint Broadband...
I realize that Comcast has a total monopoly on broadband in many areas, but not in mine. I have zero problems with calling up Verizon, or AT&T, or even DirecPC if it ever came to that.
(this probably explains why I don't really see any heavy P2P throttling in my area, as opposed to areas in which Comcast is the sole provider. I wonder if anyone has done any sort of differential study based on monopoly power...)
Yep - and for a very long time, too.
Strict moderation doesn't automatically make it better, either. I happen to do server work (and am currently rebuilding) a website that deals in NSFW (okay, pr0n) 3D/CG artwork. The only moderation is to keep out spam and the occasional dickhead who can't seem to figure out how to behave in polite company.
We have roughly 300k members, ab't 75% of them active. The galleries get the lion's share of the traffic (for obvious reasons). OTOH, the discussion forums are pretty light... not much traffic. A good share of that traffic is either related to technique and art, or just general discussion and/or debate.
Thing is, we don't really censor anything, save to keep out spam and the occasional dickhead (I can count on two hands --with fingers to spare-- the number of bannings, and most of those dealt with chargebacks at the store).
A good set of moderators (we have 'em), and a loose atmosphere that has one basic rule - act like an adult - and that's basically all you need sometimes.
Thing is it ain't that easy (ref. a similar post to mine that explains it better). This could apply almost anywhere that has a ton of mixed content (for instance at my work, where one has to do it just to get some of the corp's more bone-headed ActiveX controls to behave normally).
The problem is, you and I can grok-out a way around it. My wife (or any other non-tech-oriented person) cannot, at least not without a lot of Googling and even more patience (or a more tech-oriented spouse to impose the issue upon).
The concept itself is okay, but the implementation could use a good, solid overhaul.
Now for a real use? Well, maybe one. To save having to scribble them down, you could waste a couple reams of paper printing out, oh, maybe a dozen MS Sharepoint links to an overly-anal supervisor who demands that you include reference links in a printed report.