The purpose of the dots and why they are limited to color printouts is because they are intended to be used to identify currency counterfeiters.
That is the justification, not the intended purpose or the actual functions. Those three concepts are entirely different.
TFA is correct: the yellow dots are "used to watermark documents and track down leakers". That is one of their functions, even if it wasn't the justification.
I suspect it was also their intended purpose (i.e., the political justification was probably a lie).
And the analog copier often has defects due to analog technology that could allow it to be traced back.
No, it doesn't allow it to be "traced back" because there is no registry of analog copiers. Color laser printers are special because you need no other detective work for finding the printer: the yellow dots are designed to make that identification trivial.
For other printing technologies (inkjet, black and white printers, etc.), you can only prove that a document came from a particular printer once you have "traced it back" via some other means.
Peter, the Internet is just a transport. If you don't like Facebook, don't use it. If you don't like anything in the US, don't use anything in the US. (Of course, in that case, why do you use Twitter and why did you help redistribute so many films created in the US and promoting US culture and ideas?)
If you want to isolate yourself completely from icky people like me, you can even run a mesh overlay network on top of the Internet. Neither Trump, nor Facebook, nor people like me can then communicate with you or get at your data. Come to think of it, I strongly encourage you to do that.
The buildings on the site you linked to are all quite beautiful. One is even a Corbusier
Whether you consider them "beautiful" is irrelevant; they are examples of brutalist architecture. You obviously like "brutalist architecture", which was my point to begin with: people like you like buildings like that. People like you also tend to like futurism, modernism, and the crap that the WPA created, and which you also find all over big cities in the US. What those buildings tend not to be are buildings at a "human scale".
Generally speaking, your suggestion that you can pick a livable city based on political parties in power is just utterly stupid.
There's also a website that says the Earth is 6000 years old.
I didn't know! But the fact that you do explains a lot! It's obviously where you learned how to reason and use empirical data!
You've never been to Chicago, have you? And do you even know what "brutalist architecture" is
Ugly raw concrete blocks; a variant of modernism. Explicitly designed not to appeal to human comfort or scale.
or did you see the word "brutal" in it and assume it was brutal? I can believe you vote Republican. I assume you believe the buildings with your current President's
Not everybody is as ignorant or bigoted as you. So, the answer to your questions and assumptions is "no, no, and no".
It sounds like your argument is that if you want to live in a beautiful city, don't live in a city.
No, I'm merely saying that you should avoid living in a big city (the minimum population for a "city" in the US is 2500); and that experience with big cities pretty much disproves your notion that Democrats produce livable, human-scale, comfortable environments.
Which definition of free market are you using that you believe the EU has none?
The same one as the EU: EU members widely proclaim that they believe in a "social market economy", as distinct from the horrible, icky American "free market" (their distinction, not mine).
The rest you wrote is basically bollocks.
You're basically an idiot, so I take that as a compliment.
This probably means you'll have to live in a city run by Democrats, but you'll adjust.
You must be kidding. Democrats and progressives are in love with futurism, modernism, brutalist architecture, and the dregs of the WPA: grandiose architecture that makes people feel insignificant, lost, and out of place. Democrats and progressives are also in love with urbanization and run pretty much all big cities in the US.
If you want "to live in a city with beautiful, functional buildings that respect human scale, that has sidewalks and bike lanes and parks and a nice chunk of water with public access" pick a small-to-mid-size, sleepy American town. That's why they are popular. That's also why people there tend to vote Republican.
The whole point of the single market, which is essential for truly free trade
Having free trade requires first and foremost actually having free markets, which the EU doesn't.
The UK seems to think that it can get some kind of special deal where it gives its industries huge advantages over the EU, but clearly the EU is never going to accept that and will offset the advantage with tariffs.
Actually, the "huge advantages" the UK might be able to realize would be to actually strike true free trade deals with nations that matter, like the US and China, as opposed to being locked into mercantilist arrangements with the decrepit and troubled nations of continental Europe.
Having said that, there IS evidence that more entertaining is better. When conditions get too bad, guards start getting assaulted.... This implies that the people in this environment are at least somewhat open, questing, seeking. This is an entirely different mindset than that found in the vast majority of inmates.
You probably can keep people from committing violence by keeping them entertained, but that's merely treating the symptoms. Most people might not choose a monastic or military life, but if they get forced into it, they cope and remain civilized, cooperative, and non-violent. If people can't coexist peacefully in that environment, they are not rehabilitated. And as far as I can tell, conditions in a minimum security are, if anything, a bit less harsh than in a monastery or in the military.
I am a reentering felon and I am struggling. I take some of this too personally. Anyway, I wish you well.
No doubt your life is hard now. You have lost some trust and respect forever. There are many things you will never be able to achieve or do because of the choices you have made. Yet, there is probably literally a billion people on the planet who would not hesitate to trade places with you; there are times in my life when I might have. Regret, struggle, and loss are universal human experiences. People cope with it differently, through gratitude, prayer, philosophy, meditation. It helps to focus on what you can give and how you can help others, not what you lack. I wish you well too.
Let's stick to the UK, since I know something about that. There is no executive branch. There are executive departments, under the control of Parliament.
You're splitting hairs now. The fact is that executive power is not determined by popular vote. In fact, very few decisions are made by popular vote in parliamentary democracies.
The public was tired of Trump's tweets before he got elected. Trump got elected not because people liked him, but because they hated Hillary even more.
A Prime Minister isn't a real good equivalent to a US President.
You're grasping at straws now. Other democracies have executive branches? Those executive branches are led by one or more people? Name other democracies in which those people are "decided by getting the most votes". In fact, in "almost all democracies", little of importance is ever decided by "getting the most votes", it is decided by political coalitions between all-minority parties, usually after the vote.
Your implication that the US with its electoral college is some kind of outlier among a sea of majoritarian democracies is ludicrous. If anything, the US gives people much more of what they want, which is why a populist like Trump can come to power against the imprecations of his own party establishment.
The US electoral system has served the US well, in particular at keeping mad(wo)men out of power. The price we pay for that is a long string of incompetent, mediocre, or simply annoying presidents.
By the time this finally eventuates, if it ever does, the UK won't be part of Europe any more
Ah, the arrogant and silly position that the only way to be a client state of the Greater Franco-German Reich, aka the EU.
I don't think so. The UK is part of Europe and will continue to be so until long after the EU has been relegated to the proverbial dustbins of history, where it belongs.
like free trade also requiring freedom of movement
"You can trade with our cartel in return for billions of contributions and accepting millions of people we don't know what to do with" is not principled free trade, it is an embrace of the mercantilism and protectionism. It is Orwellian doublespeak to characterrize EU trade policy as "free trade".
but the EU won't compromise its most basic principals
The EU never compromises its principals or its principles: both are rooted in greed, selfishness, and illiberal government.
Basically, UK just lost its voice at the EU table - its share of sovereignty.
That is wonderful Orwellian doublespeak; an EU bureaucrat couldn't have done better.
In fact, the UK decided that its "voice at the EU table" wasn't worth it; not surprising, given what a lousy deal the UK was getting from the EU.
UK went from a full blown EU member, to probably the same status as Switzerland and Norway, two countries who were never members of the EU to begin with, and just sign treaties to be able to participate anyway.
Norway and Switzerland are two of the wealthiest countries on the planet, and they stay out of the EU by choice. If the UK just went to "the same status" as those countries, that definitely is a step up from being just a run of the mill EU member.
I think the point is that it is cheaper to educate these people once for three or four years so they can get decent jobs and make a positive contribution to society, than it is to incarcerate them repeatedly for the rest of their lives.
And we are already spending massive amounts of money to "educate these people"; spending more isn't going to educate them any better.
A genetic predisposition for aggression or drug use, bad parenting, and low IQ simply cannot be fixed through spending more money on education.
In comparison to other nations, we are spending massively on both education and prisons. And the reasons have little to do with public policy, and far more with the endorsements of public sector unions for politicians.
Well, the US already spends more than $11000 on average per elementary school student, and more than $12000 on average per secondary school student, more than all but a handful of other nations. The US also has one of the largest percentage of college/university educated adults in the world. US teachers are paid significantly more than OECD average. Some of the students on which we spend the most (inner cities, native Americans) have some of the worst outcomes.
Slashdot Mirror
If you print a black-and-white document in color mode, the yellow dots will be there.
If you print any document in an actual black-and-white mode on the printer, the black cartridge is all that will be used (i.e., no yellow dots).
So, you need to select the correct printing mode.
That is the justification, not the intended purpose or the actual functions. Those three concepts are entirely different.
TFA is correct: the yellow dots are "used to watermark documents and track down leakers". That is one of their functions, even if it wasn't the justification.
I suspect it was also their intended purpose (i.e., the political justification was probably a lie).
No, it doesn't allow it to be "traced back" because there is no registry of analog copiers. Color laser printers are special because you need no other detective work for finding the printer: the yellow dots are designed to make that identification trivial.
For other printing technologies (inkjet, black and white printers, etc.), you can only prove that a document came from a particular printer once you have "traced it back" via some other means.
There is little difference: they are both social market economies, rather than free markets. Why do you ask?
Peter, the Internet is just a transport. If you don't like Facebook, don't use it. If you don't like anything in the US, don't use anything in the US. (Of course, in that case, why do you use Twitter and why did you help redistribute so many films created in the US and promoting US culture and ideas?)
If you want to isolate yourself completely from icky people like me, you can even run a mesh overlay network on top of the Internet. Neither Trump, nor Facebook, nor people like me can then communicate with you or get at your data. Come to think of it, I strongly encourage you to do that.
You can get symmetric speeds if you like, you just have to pay for it.
Whether you consider them "beautiful" is irrelevant; they are examples of brutalist architecture. You obviously like "brutalist architecture", which was my point to begin with: people like you like buildings like that. People like you also tend to like futurism, modernism, and the crap that the WPA created, and which you also find all over big cities in the US. What those buildings tend not to be are buildings at a "human scale".
Generally speaking, your suggestion that you can pick a livable city based on political parties in power is just utterly stupid.
I didn't know! But the fact that you do explains a lot! It's obviously where you learned how to reason and use empirical data!
There's even a website: http://chicagobrutalism.com/
But nowhere did I claim that brutalism was the only architectural sin of progressives.
Geez, talking to you is like talking to someone with late stage Alzheimers.
Ugly raw concrete blocks; a variant of modernism. Explicitly designed not to appeal to human comfort or scale.
Not everybody is as ignorant or bigoted as you. So, the answer to your questions and assumptions is "no, no, and no".
No, I'm merely saying that you should avoid living in a big city (the minimum population for a "city" in the US is 2500); and that experience with big cities pretty much disproves your notion that Democrats produce livable, human-scale, comfortable environments.
The same one as the EU: EU members widely proclaim that they believe in a "social market economy", as distinct from the horrible, icky American "free market" (their distinction, not mine).
You're basically an idiot, so I take that as a compliment.
You must be kidding. Democrats and progressives are in love with futurism, modernism, brutalist architecture, and the dregs of the WPA: grandiose architecture that makes people feel insignificant, lost, and out of place. Democrats and progressives are also in love with urbanization and run pretty much all big cities in the US.
If you want "to live in a city with beautiful, functional buildings that respect human scale, that has sidewalks and bike lanes and parks and a nice chunk of water with public access" pick a small-to-mid-size, sleepy American town. That's why they are popular. That's also why people there tend to vote Republican.
What does "Trump's America" have to do with UK free trade with China?
Having free trade requires first and foremost actually having free markets, which the EU doesn't.
Actually, the "huge advantages" the UK might be able to realize would be to actually strike true free trade deals with nations that matter, like the US and China, as opposed to being locked into mercantilist arrangements with the decrepit and troubled nations of continental Europe.
You probably can keep people from committing violence by keeping them entertained, but that's merely treating the symptoms. Most people might not choose a monastic or military life, but if they get forced into it, they cope and remain civilized, cooperative, and non-violent. If people can't coexist peacefully in that environment, they are not rehabilitated. And as far as I can tell, conditions in a minimum security are, if anything, a bit less harsh than in a monastery or in the military.
No doubt your life is hard now. You have lost some trust and respect forever. There are many things you will never be able to achieve or do because of the choices you have made. Yet, there is probably literally a billion people on the planet who would not hesitate to trade places with you; there are times in my life when I might have. Regret, struggle, and loss are universal human experiences. People cope with it differently, through gratitude, prayer, philosophy, meditation. It helps to focus on what you can give and how you can help others, not what you lack. I wish you well too.
You're splitting hairs now. The fact is that executive power is not determined by popular vote. In fact, very few decisions are made by popular vote in parliamentary democracies.
The public was tired of Trump's tweets before he got elected. Trump got elected not because people liked him, but because they hated Hillary even more.
And that's the case here: the protocol is bad, hence you can draw no sound conclusions from the data.
Yet, a psychologist saying "almost all Americans have psychological problems, based on the sample that I see in my practice" would be idiotic.
You're grasping at straws now. Other democracies have executive branches? Those executive branches are led by one or more people? Name other democracies in which those people are "decided by getting the most votes". In fact, in "almost all democracies", little of importance is ever decided by "getting the most votes", it is decided by political coalitions between all-minority parties, usually after the vote.
Your implication that the US with its electoral college is some kind of outlier among a sea of majoritarian democracies is ludicrous. If anything, the US gives people much more of what they want, which is why a populist like Trump can come to power against the imprecations of his own party establishment.
The US electoral system has served the US well, in particular at keeping mad(wo)men out of power. The price we pay for that is a long string of incompetent, mediocre, or simply annoying presidents.
Ah, the arrogant and silly position that the only way to be a client state of the Greater Franco-German Reich, aka the EU.
I don't think so. The UK is part of Europe and will continue to be so until long after the EU has been relegated to the proverbial dustbins of history, where it belongs.
"You can trade with our cartel in return for billions of contributions and accepting millions of people we don't know what to do with" is not principled free trade, it is an embrace of the mercantilism and protectionism. It is Orwellian doublespeak to characterrize EU trade policy as "free trade".
The EU never compromises its principals or its principles: both are rooted in greed, selfishness, and illiberal government.
That is wonderful Orwellian doublespeak; an EU bureaucrat couldn't have done better.
In fact, the UK decided that its "voice at the EU table" wasn't worth it; not surprising, given what a lousy deal the UK was getting from the EU.
Norway and Switzerland are two of the wealthiest countries on the planet, and they stay out of the EU by choice. If the UK just went to "the same status" as those countries, that definitely is a step up from being just a run of the mill EU member.
And we are already spending massive amounts of money to "educate these people"; spending more isn't going to educate them any better.
A genetic predisposition for aggression or drug use, bad parenting, and low IQ simply cannot be fixed through spending more money on education.
Yes: you looked in the mirror again.
In comparison to other nations, we are spending massively on both education and prisons. And the reasons have little to do with public policy, and far more with the endorsements of public sector unions for politicians.
Well, the US already spends more than $11000 on average per elementary school student, and more than $12000 on average per secondary school student, more than all but a handful of other nations. The US also has one of the largest percentage of college/university educated adults in the world. US teachers are paid significantly more than OECD average. Some of the students on which we spend the most (inner cities, native Americans) have some of the worst outcomes.