They're going to grant the telecoms immunity and the Bush Administration a free pass on breaking federal wiretap laws and violating the 4th Amendment, but *this* concerns them? Spare me.
1970s: Don't steal. The government hates competition.
2010s: Don't spy on your users. The government still hates competition.
"And then there's ReiserFS, which had integrity issues when it came to retrieving the location of a bunch of widely-scattered bits under an unbalanced tree."
Clearly, the emergence of online video is something that cable video providers find very threatening and by capping off bandwidth usage, they're effectively killing two birds with one stone; discouraging users from using their Internet connections for video while increasing the efficiency of the network.
I'd be delighted to see streaming video killed.
We'd go back to "download the video to the client's hard drive, and play it back." Was that really such a bad thing?
Requiring a web-based client to stream content hosted on an external server, is, at the root of it, a form of DRM. When the server goes away (or deletes the link to it), the content becomes unplayable. This applies whether you're talking about YouTube's embedded flash player, or the hoops through which Windows users have to jump in order to save.wmv clips from TV news sites, etc.
And streaming is inefficient. You not only require a continuous throughput at a reasonably high bitrate, but after you've finished downloading your 20 megabytes of content for that 2-minute video clip, your client does you the favor of immediately deleting it. So the next time you want to watch the video, you get the joy of re-downloading it. WTF? In an age of $200 terabyte hard drives, that's ridiculous.
So bring on the death of streaming video, and let's get back to the good old days of File->SaveAs.mpg,.flv,.avi,.mp4, and a few minutes later, you can play the locally-stored content to your heart's content. Forever.
Like I said, cable companies... be careful what you ask for.
I thought excite.com (the story link) was long dead.
That's OK. We all thought Sanford "Spamford" Wallace and Walt "Picklejar" Rines were out of business as of ten years ago. Those two motherfuckers (and I already have lawyers from the Oedipus Complex Anti-Defamation Leage calling on line one for my slur against people who fuck their mothers) have been spamming in one form or another since before excite.com even started. Here's a snapshot of the spam wars, circa 2001. Look
Walt Rines' nickname of Pickle Jar comes from news.admin.net-abuse.email, and he was dubbed thusly by one of the Elder Gods of Spamfighting, the immortal Bill Mattocks. The USENET thread to which I just linked was the one in which what had been widely known for some time was finally proven -- that every time a spammer says he's going to "remove you from his list", he's lying. (Following the FTC hearings, most of the major spammers of the day, including Spamford and Pickle Jar, were touting a "universal remove list" as the solution -- unbeknownst to the spammers, the list was seeded with never-used email addresses, and unsurprisingly, those never-used email addresses immediately started receiving spam.)
> Quantum stuff is so illogical to us mortals that you'd expect attempting to break it would just make it stronger.
Which is precisely what happened.
In a research paper, published in the international engineering journal IEEE Transactions on Information Theory (abstract), the researchers propose a change in the quantum cryptography process that they expect will restore the security of the technology.
By being sufficiently precise about the nature of the insecurity, they changed the probability of its being insecure!
Furthermore, now that we know it's secure again (that is, we've proven it to be secure, effectively computing the probability of insecurity to be precisely zero), we no longer know anything about the nature of the system's security holes again!
That was all supposed to be a lead-up to a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle joke, but it's actually a pretty good description of how computer security works in even the non-quantum world. The more secure you think your system is, the more likely it is you'll get 0wn3d in some completely unexpected way. The known unknowns aren't the ones you've gotta worry about, and nailing them down doesn't do anything about the unknown unknowns, other than to collapse the joke's waveform into something resembling a Don Rumsfeld speech.
In anything other than a Slashdot quantum crypto discussion, that sort of whiplash-inducing change of joke subjects would be highly improbable. As it stands, I'm going to shift gears a third time and hand it off to Douglas Adams.
Zaphod: Tackhead, is this sort of thing going to happen every time you post using the Infinite Improbability joke drive?
Tackhead: Very probably, I'm afraid.
> TIA standing for total information awareness. >It was shut down over privacy profiling and other concerns, surely you remember, it wasn't that long ago. >
This story seems to lament this but geeze, make up your mind, if it's not an outcry about the lack of datamining it's someone saying datamining is one foot in Orwell's 1984. >If this ever grows logs it'll become a political hot potato again and get dropped.
"shut down", v.t., to change the name of something, preferably in a way that doesn't even change acronym, see Terrorism Information Awareness
"logs", n., (1) typo for "legs", (2) a means for recording users' actions on a system, esp. when used as a mechanism for ensuring users are accountable for their actions
"dropped", v.t., see shut down, esp. under threat of accountability.
There's three pictures in total. One of them was of the inside of the drive and it didn't look scorched at all - there was some kind of metallic spray pattern on the inside but other than that the platters were still shiny and the ribbon cables undamaged.
What's interesting about that pic is the upside-down surface-mount chip sitting on the orange ribbon cable, and the matching (empty) solder pads underneath it.
I was about to speculate that the heat of re-entry melted the solder, but there's at least one are other surface-mount component immediately adjacent to the chip, and it's still attached to the same ribbon cable. (On the other hand, that small discrete part, likely a resistor or capacitor, would be more likely to adhere to the ribbon cable due to surface tension of the solder, which might not be the case for the heavier chip.)
On the gripping hand, maybe the photograph was taken immediately after the chip was desoldered using hot-air equipment. (Since it's upside-down and I don't have any pictures of hard drive internals handy, I'm not sure what the chip is, nor if there'd be any value in removing it. A flash device might hold useful data such as bad block maps and/or SMART-related drive operating parameters, etc...)
So, in other words, the bill would prevent US companies from helping censorship in countries other than the US. Awesome.
They hate us for our freedom. So the less we have of it, the happier they'll be.
And furthermore, you've gotta remember that freedom is like e-waste -- it's messy and unpredictable and a natural offshoot of a technologically-advanced society, and the more of it we export abroad, the less of it we'll have to deal with at home.
Copyright infringement is a civil offence, its the responsibly of the owner to enforce their copyright, why then are people trying to create a federal division to enforce it?
Because that's how you gain power. By making criminals of your subjects, you gain power over them - the power to threaten them with fines, imprisonment, or death. How can your government control you if you've broken no law? It can't -- at least, not reliably -- so it makes up laws that are impossible to follow or interpret, and in so doing, forces us to jump through its hoops to avoid imprisonment. It doesn't matter whether they catch all the "criminals", only that they catch enough to make examples of. Eventually, you find yourself complying, if for no other reason than that you're afraid that someday you might be picked as the "example".
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said
Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that
it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know
that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power
and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick,
and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares
so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live
without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens'
What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that
can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and
you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt.
Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you
understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
And for those who automatically reject everything Rand wrote (because they don't like some of what Rand wrote), how about a former Attorney General and US Supreme Court Justice?
"With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes,
a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical
violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case,
it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and
then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of
picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting
investigators to work, to pin some offense on him."
- Robert H. Jackson, 1940
And then I'd push my state legislature to outlaw these 'copyright cops'.
And then your Federal overlords would threaten to withhold highway funding, and your state legislature would cave.
Just can't get our act together. It's why we've never been able to get past our image as disorganized and in general lower than the other birds.
Pigeon controversies triggering forks is nothing.
For a fork, you'd have had to go all the way to Soviet Russia, but a dart was close enough to prove that In Moderately Liberal Seattle, dart triggers pigeon controversy.
(Ten years ago, I saw this gem in the Scary Devil Monastery, and printed it out. It still rings true.)
Choose no life. Choose sysadminning. Choose no career.
Choose no family. Choose a fucking big computer, choose hard
disks the size of washing machines, old cars, CD ROM writers
and electrical coffee makers. Choose no sleep, high caffeine
and mental insurance. Choose fixed interest car loans. Choose
a rented shoebox. Choose no friends. Choose black jeans and
matching combat boots. Choose a swivel chair for your office
in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose NNTP and wondering why
the fuck you're logged on on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting
in that chair looking at mind-numbing, spirit-crushing web
sites, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose
rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last on some
miserable newsgroup, nothing more than an embarrassment to
the selfish, fucked up lusers Gates spawned to replace the
computer-literate.
Choose your future.
Choose to sysadmin[1].
[1] It might fuck you up a little less than heroin[2].
[2] ObFootnote.
RTFA, Reiser's defense attorney didn't want to put him on the stand, but Reiser insisted.
Heh.
From the SFGate blog article: "After the verdict was read, the judge told deputies
to remove Reiser from the courtroom. As he was led out, he asked,
'Can I talk to my attorney?'"
How about next time, Hans tries listening to his attorney?
Oh well, maybe Hans will confess and reveal where he stashed the body now.
Probably a blob, or maybe split under a well-balanced grove of trees. Even if he can't use the journal to recover the data, he should at least be able to get the last-modified date, right?
(Why does it smell of sulfur all of a sudden, and what am I doing in this handbasket?)
No, but Stroustrup himself is reputed to have apologized for C++ as far back as 1998.
"It was only supposed to be a joke, I never thought people would take the book seriously."
- From the lost tapes of the legendary IEEE interview of 1998:)
Banks should have been doing this since they introduced internet banking.
Are you nuts?
"We're sorry. You're not using IE. And if you are using IE, your IE configuration isn't permitting us to run the MegabanX proprietary ActiveX control that our conslutants [sic] told us would eliminate all our liability. Please enable ActiveX support in order to continue banking with us, or turn off that Netscape thingy and upgrade to IE4.0 and resize your window to 800x600 while you're at it."
Forgive me for the sarcasm, but I had to switch banks twice because of that sort of crap. Think back a few years. The last thing any of us would have wanted "since they introduced internet banking" was our banks doing User-Agent and Javashit-based snooping on our configuration.
I'm sure it will be a lot of fun for small mom and pop retailers to deal with filing paperwork and collecting tax in 50 states just in order to sell trinkets off a small business website.
Which, if you're a major retailer, is probably the point. With the stroke of a pen, all of your smaller competition can be eliminated.
It doesn't have to be that sinister, of course. It could be as simple as the fact that it's an election year, and what better way to raise money for Congressional campaigns (and make sure that retailers throw a few bucks for ex-Congressmen currently "working" as lobbyists) than to threaten to do something unpleasant between now and the election...
They should sell one of the rovers to any institution willing to pay for it rather than let it die a slow death of neglect. A deployed rover with a proven track record is better than an $800 million shot that might arrive and land successfully.
The Planetary Society immediately comes to mind as a serious buyer. They launched the Cosmos 1 Solar Sail on an all-private budget of $4M. The mission failed due to hardware problem (hey, it really is rocket science), but it proved that private charitable organizations are quite capable of raising $4M for space exploration.
The Planetary Society was also instrumental in getting the word out (and raising funds to rescue the data) regarding the Pioneer Anomaly.
More important than the funding angle is the political one, but the Planetary Society has worked extremely closely with NASA over the past 30 years. The collaboration has been sufficiently close that they've actually flown hardware on the ill-fated) Mars Polar Lander. The Society's work with NASA on Spirit and Opportunity goes all the way back to when the rovers were named in the first place, as well as the calibration target" for the rovers' cameras.
In other words, $4M isn't just a business possibility, the handover of a rover from NASA to the Planetary Society is a political possibility too.
> Guess that means i'll have to buy the white album again
It's taken 30 years, but the irony is that the $400M is still cheap compared to the costs to everyone of relitigating the original lawsuit against... Apple Records, originally owned by none other than The Beatles.
The case in question is one of the landmark cases whereby trademarks can be deemed non-infringing, so long as there a "reasonable man" wouldn't be confused. In 1978, there was absolutely no confusion that the "Apple" that computers wasn't the same "Apple" as the one that made vinyl discs.
In the 80s, when computers started to be capable of producing sound (and especially when "Apple" computers started to talk MIDI), the "Apple" vinyl disc company tried again, and as a side effect, killed the Apple ][.
Every few decades, Apple Records tries to fuck Apple Computer out of a few million more bucks, and yes, they did it in response to the Mac, and in response to iTunes. It was only a couple of years ago that it was finally laid to rest.
For $400M in exchange for an agreement whereby Apple Computer can finally start selling the products of the Beatles (which, unlike the past few times, might actually be a win-win for both Apple and the Beatles), this had better be the last time this lawsuit rears its ugly head.
But much like the fact that the Beatles want to sell you the White Album every few years, this case will probably show up again.
Slashdot Mirror
1970s: Don't steal. The government hates competition.
2010s: Don't spy on your users. The government still hates competition.
"And then there's ReiserFS, which had integrity issues when it came to retrieving the location of a bunch of widely-scattered bits under an unbalanced tree."
I'd be delighted to see streaming video killed.
We'd go back to "download the video to the client's hard drive, and play it back." Was that really such a bad thing?
Requiring a web-based client to stream content hosted on an external server, is, at the root of it, a form of DRM. When the server goes away (or deletes the link to it), the content becomes unplayable. This applies whether you're talking about YouTube's embedded flash player, or the hoops through which Windows users have to jump in order to save .wmv clips from TV news sites, etc.
And streaming is inefficient. You not only require a continuous throughput at a reasonably high bitrate, but after you've finished downloading your 20 megabytes of content for that 2-minute video clip, your client does you the favor of immediately deleting it. So the next time you want to watch the video, you get the joy of re-downloading it. WTF? In an age of $200 terabyte hard drives, that's ridiculous.
So bring on the death of streaming video, and let's get back to the good old days of File->SaveAs .mpg, .flv, .avi, .mp4, and a few minutes later, you can play the locally-stored content to your heart's content. Forever.
Like I said, cable companies... be careful what you ask for.
"Wireless. About as much space as a nomad. Still Lame?"
- Steve Jobs, wondering if we're finally satisfied.
That's OK. We all thought Sanford "Spamford" Wallace and Walt "Picklejar" Rines were out of business as of ten years ago. Those two motherfuckers (and I already have lawyers from the Oedipus Complex Anti-Defamation Leage calling on line one for my slur against people who fuck their mothers) have been spamming in one form or another since before excite.com even started. Here's a snapshot of the spam wars, circa 2001. Look
Walt Rines' nickname of Pickle Jar comes from news.admin.net-abuse.email, and he was dubbed thusly by one of the Elder Gods of Spamfighting, the immortal Bill Mattocks. The USENET thread to which I just linked was the one in which what had been widely known for some time was finally proven -- that every time a spammer says he's going to "remove you from his list", he's lying. (Following the FTC hearings, most of the major spammers of the day, including Spamford and Pickle Jar, were touting a "universal remove list" as the solution -- unbeknownst to the spammers, the list was seeded with never-used email addresses, and unsurprisingly, those never-used email addresses immediately started receiving spam.)
Which is precisely what happened.
By being sufficiently precise about the nature of the insecurity, they changed the probability of its being insecure!
Furthermore, now that we know it's secure again (that is, we've proven it to be secure, effectively computing the probability of insecurity to be precisely zero), we no longer know anything about the nature of the system's security holes again!
That was all supposed to be a lead-up to a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle joke, but it's actually a pretty good description of how computer security works in even the non-quantum world. The more secure you think your system is, the more likely it is you'll get 0wn3d in some completely unexpected way. The known unknowns aren't the ones you've gotta worry about, and nailing them down doesn't do anything about the unknown unknowns, other than to collapse the joke's waveform into something resembling a Don Rumsfeld speech.
In anything other than a Slashdot quantum crypto discussion, that sort of whiplash-inducing change of joke subjects would be highly improbable. As it stands, I'm going to shift gears a third time and hand it off to Douglas Adams.
Zaphod: Tackhead, is this sort of thing going to happen every time you post using the Infinite Improbability joke drive?
Tackhead: Very probably, I'm afraid.
IBM:Apple::Comcast:Charter.
Proof by Advertising follows:
IBM: Think.
Apple: Think Different.
Comcast: Suck.
Charter: Suck Different.
>It was shut down over privacy profiling and other concerns, surely you remember, it wasn't that long ago.
> This story seems to lament this but geeze, make up your mind, if it's not an outcry about the lack of datamining it's someone saying datamining is one foot in Orwell's 1984.
>If this ever grows logs it'll become a political hot potato again and get dropped.
"shut down", v.t., to change the name of something, preferably in a way that doesn't even change acronym, see Terrorism Information Awareness
"logs", n., (1) typo for "legs", (2) a means for recording users' actions on a system, esp. when used as a mechanism for ensuring users are accountable for their actions
"dropped", v.t., see shut down, esp. under threat of accountability.
What's interesting about that pic is the upside-down surface-mount chip sitting on the orange ribbon cable, and the matching (empty) solder pads underneath it.
I was about to speculate that the heat of re-entry melted the solder, but there's at least one are other surface-mount component immediately adjacent to the chip, and it's still attached to the same ribbon cable. (On the other hand, that small discrete part, likely a resistor or capacitor, would be more likely to adhere to the ribbon cable due to surface tension of the solder, which might not be the case for the heavier chip.)
On the gripping hand, maybe the photograph was taken immediately after the chip was desoldered using hot-air equipment. (Since it's upside-down and I don't have any pictures of hard drive internals handy, I'm not sure what the chip is, nor if there'd be any value in removing it. A flash device might hold useful data such as bad block maps and/or SMART-related drive operating parameters, etc...)
At least the pic of the server is still intermittently retrievable!
I'll draw on a third author for that: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
- Orwell
They hate us for our freedom. So the less we have of it, the happier they'll be. And furthermore, you've gotta remember that freedom is like e-waste -- it's messy and unpredictable and a natural offshoot of a technologically-advanced society, and the more of it we export abroad, the less of it we'll have to deal with at home.
Because that's how you gain power. By making criminals of your subjects, you gain power over them - the power to threaten them with fines, imprisonment, or death. How can your government control you if you've broken no law? It can't -- at least, not reliably -- so it makes up laws that are impossible to follow or interpret, and in so doing, forces us to jump through its hoops to avoid imprisonment. It doesn't matter whether they catch all the "criminals", only that they catch enough to make examples of. Eventually, you find yourself complying, if for no other reason than that you're afraid that someday you might be picked as the "example".
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
And for those who automatically reject everything Rand wrote (because they don't like some of what Rand wrote), how about a former Attorney General and US Supreme Court Justice?
"With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him." - Robert H. Jackson, 1940
And then your Federal overlords would threaten to withhold highway funding, and your state legislature would cave.
Pigeon controversies triggering forks is nothing.
For a fork, you'd have had to go all the way to Soviet Russia, but a dart was close enough to prove that In Moderately Liberal Seattle, dart triggers pigeon controversy.
Choose no life. Choose sysadminning. Choose no career. Choose no family. Choose a fucking big computer, choose hard disks the size of washing machines, old cars, CD ROM writers and electrical coffee makers. Choose no sleep, high caffeine and mental insurance. Choose fixed interest car loans. Choose a rented shoebox. Choose no friends. Choose black jeans and matching combat boots. Choose a swivel chair for your office in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose NNTP and wondering why the fuck you're logged on on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting in that chair looking at mind-numbing, spirit-crushing web sites, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last on some miserable newsgroup, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up lusers Gates spawned to replace the computer-literate.
Choose your future.
Choose to sysadmin[1].
[1] It might fuck you up a little less than heroin[2].
[2] ObFootnote.
Heh.
From the SFGate blog article: "After the verdict was read, the judge told deputies to remove Reiser from the courtroom. As he was led out, he asked, 'Can I talk to my attorney?'"
How about next time, Hans tries listening to his attorney?
No, but Stroustrup himself is reputed to have apologized for C++ as far back as 1998.
"It was only supposed to be a joke, I never thought people would take the book seriously." :)
- From the lost tapes of the legendary IEEE interview of 1998
Are you nuts?
"We're sorry. You're not using IE. And if you are using IE, your IE configuration isn't permitting us to run the MegabanX proprietary ActiveX control that our conslutants [sic] told us would eliminate all our liability. Please enable ActiveX support in order to continue banking with us, or turn off that Netscape thingy and upgrade to IE4.0 and resize your window to 800x600 while you're at it."
Forgive me for the sarcasm, but I had to switch banks twice because of that sort of crap. Think back a few years. The last thing any of us would have wanted "since they introduced internet banking" was our banks doing User-Agent and Javashit-based snooping on our configuration.
Which, if you're a major retailer, is probably the point. With the stroke of a pen, all of your smaller competition can be eliminated.
It doesn't have to be that sinister, of course. It could be as simple as the fact that it's an election year, and what better way to raise money for Congressional campaigns (and make sure that retailers throw a few bucks for ex-Congressmen currently "working" as lobbyists) than to threaten to do something unpleasant between now and the election...
That's not an oxymoron, that's a feature! (Rather like most proposals for electronic voting itself...)
The Planetary Society immediately comes to mind as a serious buyer. They launched the Cosmos 1 Solar Sail on an all-private budget of $4M. The mission failed due to hardware problem (hey, it really is rocket science), but it proved that private charitable organizations are quite capable of raising $4M for space exploration.
The Planetary Society was also instrumental in getting the word out (and raising funds to rescue the data) regarding the Pioneer Anomaly.
More important than the funding angle is the political one, but the Planetary Society has worked extremely closely with NASA over the past 30 years. The collaboration has been sufficiently close that they've actually flown hardware on the ill-fated) Mars Polar Lander. The Society's work with NASA on Spirit and Opportunity goes all the way back to when the rovers were named in the first place, as well as the calibration target" for the rovers' cameras.
In other words, $4M isn't just a business possibility, the handover of a rover from NASA to the Planetary Society is a political possibility too.
How so? Are you suggesting that Matter is lacking in Gravitas?
It's taken 30 years, but the irony is that the $400M is still cheap compared to the costs to everyone of relitigating the original lawsuit against... Apple Records, originally owned by none other than The Beatles.
The case in question is one of the landmark cases whereby trademarks can be deemed non-infringing, so long as there a "reasonable man" wouldn't be confused. In 1978, there was absolutely no confusion that the "Apple" that computers wasn't the same "Apple" as the one that made vinyl discs.
In the 80s, when computers started to be capable of producing sound (and especially when "Apple" computers started to talk MIDI), the "Apple" vinyl disc company tried again, and as a side effect, killed the Apple ][.
Every few decades, Apple Records tries to fuck Apple Computer out of a few million more bucks, and yes, they did it in response to the Mac, and in response to iTunes. It was only a couple of years ago that it was finally laid to rest.
For $400M in exchange for an agreement whereby Apple Computer can finally start selling the products of the Beatles (which, unlike the past few times, might actually be a win-win for both Apple and the Beatles), this had better be the last time this lawsuit rears its ugly head.
But much like the fact that the Beatles want to sell you the White Album every few years, this case will probably show up again.
>
> How did this not make it in to the summary?
Truth in Advertising laws. Consider this billboard, for example. Much more accurate!