I suppose there are spambots on both sides of the fight.
While using the tool to look for comments from me, I was shown pages and pages and pages of comments from the same guy with the same address with the same comment. Probably a couple hundred or more. All in favor of net neutrality.
So yes, the spambots were running on both sides. What do you expect for an issue that has to do with computers using a forum that has no authentication at all? Does the FCC even have a captcha on the submission system?
Your phone could listen for its ID and receive text messages without revealing it's location.
When it registers with the cell site, so the cell site knows where to send the ID and text message, the system will determine your location. All your phone has to do is register, and it does that just to know it has service and what to listen to.
However, there's no reason in principle that the same entity that controls the network also needs to know *who* corresponds to each IP address
Other than knowing who to send the monthly bill to, or who to charge the pay-as-you-go to, no reason at all.
If you've already managed to get around them knowing who you are (by cash pay-as-you-go?), then what does this new system gain you? Your location, if not your name, will be known no matter what, when you get your internet over your phone.
but it seems to me to be a sober reflection on the electoral campaign and the result.
Had he stuck to that it would have been a much closer call. It became name calling, and that was too far.
Here's the Linux connection: we need to hack news back in a logical direction, and away from the fact-free, misleading and emotion-stirring ways that news is made today.
This is not a "linux connection". It is much bigger than linux. It's a social issue that neither linux nor Linus can fix, and it has been going on for a lot longer than today. Just because web hosting services may be running linux servers doesn't create the linux connection. It was a problem even back when Sun was the internet. It is likely to still be an issue when the next big thing replaces linux.
Now that we've opened the floodgates to anyone and their brother putting their "news" online, it is impossible to go back -- without authoritarian control over what gets published. Somebody will have to be in charge of deciding what is "right" and what is "fake" and stopping the "fake" from being distributed somehow. Sadly, a lot of those who think they can decide for others what that "right" stuff is tend to think opinions that don't gibe with theirs are "fake". Facebook thinks they can do it for their "news feeds", but that doesn't seem to be highly successful. Twitter is going after "Russian connected accounts", but that's not going to solve anything.
Every game of whack-a-mole for fake news misses most of the moles, and it creates someone who thinks it is their job to whack what they don't believe. The US first amendment was based on the idea that silencing objectionable speech was not the solution; commercial censorship is based entirely on the concept that it is.
The result will be an internet that nobody likes, and even having linux on every desktop won't make it better.
This. It's pretty stupid to be running a business that isn't doing very well and then decide to take political sides on a polarizing situation, either way. Businesspeople who value the custom will go out of their way not to alienate people needlessly. Political commentary in a magazine about a computer operating system is "needlessly".
It's especially silly when you resort to name calling and childish games with someone's name. "Internet troll"? No, sorry, he's not an internet troll. ("Twitter" isn't "the internet". Why would LJ think it was?) And the fact that the guy you didn't like won an election shouldn't be an epiphany that "news" and "internet" have had a dark side ever since the internet got hot (i.e. opened up to "the public"). That's a lot longer ago than the last election cycle.
It's even sillier when you get a comment from an unhappy subscriber and then completely ignore it. "Maybe the problem will go away if we do nothing" makes nobody happy.
But if he had made a pro-Trump rant it would have been fine, right?
Nope. I don't subscribe to technical journals and magazines for politics of either kind. I subscribe for the technical information. Political commentary that wastes space on the page I'm paying for is a waste either way. You might note that I didn't say which way he ranted, because it was truly irrelevant.
If I want to waste my time reading political commentary, there's plenty of places I can get it for free, which is a bit more than the commentary is worth.
For those of my traveling contingent who think my comment was flamebait, nope. I simply made an observation of how the magazine had drifted away from its intended purpose. If that upsets you, well, sorry. I didn't say he had no right to do that. I didn't even say he was wrong. Just inappropriate for the medium he was using.
I always like Linux Journal, it wasn't dumbed down, like so many things are these days.
No, but it took a political turn to the left, and that's why I dropped my subscription. Technical journals, or magazines that try to be professional, just don't do that.
That, and the electronic edition never was as good as the print, or as useful. They never seemed to be able to deal with fonts properly, and some of the results were magical to see. By that I mean the page looked like it was filled with alchemy symbols and mystic runes.
The situation does mot change for a patient either.
When I am conscious I can participate in my own care and thus safely refuse outside help. E.g., I can hold a pressure dressing on a bleeding cut. When I pass out, I can no longer do that. If I am actively dealing with an injury while conscious, the assumption would be that I would want it dealt with when I can no longer do so. That's the change.
If he desides he does not want help while consciousness, he does not want help when he blacke dout either!
That is an assumption that I do not think a reasonable person makes when being asked if they want help for an injury.
What else would be the point in asking?
The question was not "can I help you after you pass out", it was "can I help you now?" "Thanks, I don't want help now" is different than "I don't ever want help even if I am about to die." It's kind of like the difference between a DNR and getting a broken bone taken care of. If someone goes to the hospital to get a broken toe cared for and the doctor says "I see you have a DNR so I am not going to help you", the hospital is going to lose the lawsuit.
A lot of those links, especially the early ones, are "stackexchange", the well-known regulatory agency for flight operations. Not. That's where the 1000 hr/yr number is coming from.
The FAA, however, has the final say. Eight hours per day, with requirements for rest periods of at least 8 hours. That makes the maximum in a year 2900 hours.
Of course, nobody will fly that much. No sane employer will require it. But that's the official legal limit.
I didn't say it was. I said that "you" can be plural.
Just because you won the civil war doesn't mean y'all get to tell others how to speak English.
Oh, please. Nobody is telling you how to speak English. If you never want to use "you" in a plural context, please don't. Just don't deny that it has one.
If your ISP does something today then they can do that under NN since NN is currently is in effect.
You didn't bother reading what I wrote. The claim is that it violates NN today, as defined in certain stupid, incorrect ways. That's the point. The definition being used by some folks here would prevent it.
The only people claiming that ISP:s can no longer filter out spam or DDoS attacks and so on are only the anti NN lobbyists that are making false claims.
When someone claims that NN means that ISPs cannot "censor or discriminate by source" they are implicitly claiming that an ISP cannot filter spam by IP address. That's discriminating by IP address. It is not a false claim to say that the ISP would be prevented, because it is a fact. The false claim is the definition of NN.
It is not NN as currently being implemented that is at issue at all. It is the off-the-wall definitions being tossed about by people flaming about all the bad guy ISPs doing bad things and how the sky will fall if NN is not enforced by the FCC. NN as it exists says the ISP can do things that the nuts are ranting about the ISPs doing if NN is repealed. "If NN is repealed Comcast could do X and Y and yada yada yada", with the assumption that X or Y is automatically bad, and I'm just pointing out that Comcast can already do X and Y and that it isn't bad.
Please stop telling me what NN in your definition actually says they can do, because I know.
900 per year averages less than three hours per day. For an 8 hour duty day, that means flying only every third day. (900/8 is 116). That doesn't make sense. Do you have a cite?
Nope. If they said "no" while conscious, that counts as "no" while unconscious.
Do you just need to try to find ways to contradict me, even when you have no clue? Saying "no" when they are conscious is "no" when they are conscious, and when their medical situation changes the assumed response to the question changes, too. While they are conscious they are in less need of treatment, and the need is different. Their ability to provide for their own care is also different. That makes the situation different. (My bad -- it is "assumed consent", not "implied", but that's a minor point.)
Don't apply your personal sex life to this.
You may want to assume that there is a difference between a conscious and unconscious person when it comes to having sex with you, but intelligent people would not. If a conscious person tells you "no", the situation doesn't change just because you've drugged them into oblivion. So stop being an asshole.
Yet strangely the airlines can provide 802.11 service themselves
The FAR allows the aircraft operator to authorize use of PED, including WiFi. The passenger does not get to authorize use of anything. If the aircraft operator has not authorized it, it is against the law.
and we don't see planes becoming lawn darts because of supposed "interference."
When you see the claim that every PED causes interference on every aircraft, y'all come back and make this statement. Until then, see if you can figure out how the claim that such things can cause interference, not that they must, is different. Also see if you can figure out the difference between an aircraft having a WiFi access point under the direct control of the flight crew and an aircraft having 80 access points under the control of arbitrary passengers.
Do you want doctors to withhold treatment from unconscious patients until they can verify there is no DNR order for that patient? I don't.
It isn't an issue of just being unconscious. It's an issue of resuscitation. When it comes to that, if the patient has made the conscious decision to tattoo a DNR in specific words and signed on his chest, then I do expect the doctor to respect that and do nothing.
If I'm heading to the hospital like that, I want the most effective treatment as soon as I can get it.
Then don't tattoo DO NOT RESUSCITATE on your chest. Problem solved.
So if you "accidentally" save someone in that condition, you can reverse course as soon as the paperwork comes through.
So someone who has known terminal conditions that might result in painful resuscitation efforts and continued painful existence decides to tattoo DNR on themselves. The doctor ignores it and does continue the patient's pain. But you can "reverse course" and solve the problem? Pillow over the face? OD of morphine? You kill someone who you resuscitated in error?
as soon as the paperwork comes through.
Oh, well, then. Never mind. The paperwork says kill the guy who is in pain because you resuscitated him in error. No problem after all.
How do I change my tattoo DNR? I use the sharpie in my junk drawer.
Imagine, you are unconscious, and a nurse starts prepping you for emergency surgery. She sees "DO scribble scribble RESUSCITATE" on your chest. Ok. No problem.
She starts scrubbing your chest to clean the field and suddenly she sees DO NOT RESUSCITATE" instead. Oops. Call the OR back, you aren't getting resuscitated after all.
I don't think an ink pen is the right way to cancel a tattooed DNR. Lots of tattoo artists will happily charge you to cover up the NOT.
If what you said is true, how can they even touch an unconscious person that comes into the hospital?
Technically, what the OP said is true. Most (all?) legislatures have covered this by creating "implied consent" for patients who are unable to give consent in a life threatening situation. The assumption is they would consent, or the guardian would.
This is something every first aid course I've ever had over the last 30 years has taught. If you come across a conscious accident victim, you ask if you can give aid. If they say yes, you're good. If they say no, you may not touch them. This applies to professionals like EMTs, too. If you tell a firefighter/paramedic you refuse treatment, that's what treatment you'll get.
There is always one altruistic person in the group that is concerned about this. The answer to how you deal with an uncooperative conscious victim is, you wait until they pass out, implied consent kicks in, and you can help them. The fact they said "no" before was based on them being conscious. Going unconscious changes the situation.
Every consumer device with a radio is already tested and certified by the FCC and is guaranteed not to cause harmful interference
You are pathetically and arrogantly ignorant. Look up what Part 15 says about "unintentional radiators", and then think about what intentional radiators are allowed to do.
and is guaranteed to not block interference the FCC and their goons throw at it.
Very little of modern electronics is actually tested by the FCC directly. Most of it is based on manufacturer certifications -- and for a lot of Chinese electronics that certification is fudged or based on version 0.1 prototype of a device and not the current, shipping product.
ARRL did an amazing test of common amateur handhelds by setting up test gear at hamfests and examining the handhelds that attendees were carrying. They found that some models passed FCC standards only marginally. I've duplicated these tests with my own gear and found the same thing. These are the things that are "guaranteed not to cause harmful interference" or "not block interference" (whatever that means).
In fact, any device, even a certificated, legal transmitter, can cause harmful interference to another device. Ask anyone who works with radio systems in a close environment, like on a mountaintop repeater/communications site. I've already talked about a legal, unintentional radiator (GPS receiver) that causes harmful interference to a nearby radio system. That's just one example. Here's a second one: a receiver system in an aircraft generated a birdie that blanked out a New York Center ATC frequency. The pilot and co-pilot heard nothing from ATC, and only knew the channel was blocked and not just silent because the RX light with on saying something was being received. No audio at all.
You can drop a mouse down a thousand-yard mine shaft; and, on arriving at the bottom, it gets a slight shock and walks away.
Terminal velocity depends on drag and mass. Mouse has lots of drag, low mass. This is why Galileo dropped feathers and bowling balls.
Now, try that experiment in a thousand-yard vacuum and the mouse will not walk away when it hits bottom, I tell you. I don't care you you are, that there's funny.
So the union wants to limit the ability of the pilots to make lots of extra money in order to increase the number of people they represent? Sheesh, that's cynical even by American labor standards.
Union management is like any management. The more people you have under you, the higher your status. In this case, the more people who have to belong to your union times the amount of money they have to pay for the privilege means more money you control, too. Cynical, maybe, but not outrageously so.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose there are spambots on both sides of the fight.
While using the tool to look for comments from me, I was shown pages and pages and pages of comments from the same guy with the same address with the same comment. Probably a couple hundred or more. All in favor of net neutrality.
So yes, the spambots were running on both sides. What do you expect for an issue that has to do with computers using a forum that has no authentication at all? Does the FCC even have a captcha on the submission system?
Your phone could listen for its ID and receive text messages without revealing it's location.
When it registers with the cell site, so the cell site knows where to send the ID and text message, the system will determine your location. All your phone has to do is register, and it does that just to know it has service and what to listen to.
However, there's no reason in principle that the same entity that controls the network also needs to know *who* corresponds to each IP address
Other than knowing who to send the monthly bill to, or who to charge the pay-as-you-go to, no reason at all.
If you've already managed to get around them knowing who you are (by cash pay-as-you-go?), then what does this new system gain you? Your location, if not your name, will be known no matter what, when you get your internet over your phone.
but it seems to me to be a sober reflection on the electoral campaign and the result.
Had he stuck to that it would have been a much closer call. It became name calling, and that was too far.
Here's the Linux connection: we need to hack news back in a logical direction, and away from the fact-free, misleading and emotion-stirring ways that news is made today.
This is not a "linux connection". It is much bigger than linux. It's a social issue that neither linux nor Linus can fix, and it has been going on for a lot longer than today. Just because web hosting services may be running linux servers doesn't create the linux connection. It was a problem even back when Sun was the internet. It is likely to still be an issue when the next big thing replaces linux.
Now that we've opened the floodgates to anyone and their brother putting their "news" online, it is impossible to go back -- without authoritarian control over what gets published. Somebody will have to be in charge of deciding what is "right" and what is "fake" and stopping the "fake" from being distributed somehow. Sadly, a lot of those who think they can decide for others what that "right" stuff is tend to think opinions that don't gibe with theirs are "fake". Facebook thinks they can do it for their "news feeds", but that doesn't seem to be highly successful. Twitter is going after "Russian connected accounts", but that's not going to solve anything.
Every game of whack-a-mole for fake news misses most of the moles, and it creates someone who thinks it is their job to whack what they don't believe. The US first amendment was based on the idea that silencing objectionable speech was not the solution; commercial censorship is based entirely on the concept that it is.
The result will be an internet that nobody likes, and even having linux on every desktop won't make it better.
It's especially silly when you resort to name calling and childish games with someone's name. "Internet troll"? No, sorry, he's not an internet troll. ("Twitter" isn't "the internet". Why would LJ think it was?) And the fact that the guy you didn't like won an election shouldn't be an epiphany that "news" and "internet" have had a dark side ever since the internet got hot (i.e. opened up to "the public"). That's a lot longer ago than the last election cycle.
It's even sillier when you get a comment from an unhappy subscriber and then completely ignore it. "Maybe the problem will go away if we do nothing" makes nobody happy.
But if he had made a pro-Trump rant it would have been fine, right?
Nope. I don't subscribe to technical journals and magazines for politics of either kind. I subscribe for the technical information. Political commentary that wastes space on the page I'm paying for is a waste either way. You might note that I didn't say which way he ranted, because it was truly irrelevant.
If I want to waste my time reading political commentary, there's plenty of places I can get it for free, which is a bit more than the commentary is worth.
For those of my traveling contingent who think my comment was flamebait, nope. I simply made an observation of how the magazine had drifted away from its intended purpose. If that upsets you, well, sorry. I didn't say he had no right to do that. I didn't even say he was wrong. Just inappropriate for the medium he was using.
Doc Searls decided to rant about the election, and since he's an editor ...
I always like Linux Journal, it wasn't dumbed down, like so many things are these days.
No, but it took a political turn to the left, and that's why I dropped my subscription. Technical journals, or magazines that try to be professional, just don't do that.
That, and the electronic edition never was as good as the print, or as useful. They never seemed to be able to deal with fonts properly, and some of the results were magical to see. By that I mean the page looked like it was filled with alchemy symbols and mystic runes.
The situation does mot change for a patient either.
When I am conscious I can participate in my own care and thus safely refuse outside help. E.g., I can hold a pressure dressing on a bleeding cut. When I pass out, I can no longer do that. If I am actively dealing with an injury while conscious, the assumption would be that I would want it dealt with when I can no longer do so. That's the change.
If he desides he does not want help while consciousness, he does not want help when he blacke dout either!
That is an assumption that I do not think a reasonable person makes when being asked if they want help for an injury.
What else would be the point in asking?
The question was not "can I help you after you pass out", it was "can I help you now?" "Thanks, I don't want help now" is different than "I don't ever want help even if I am about to die." It's kind of like the difference between a DNR and getting a broken bone taken care of. If someone goes to the hospital to get a broken toe cared for and the doctor says "I see you have a DNR so I am not going to help you", the hospital is going to lose the lawsuit.
Link.
A lot of those links, especially the early ones, are "stackexchange", the well-known regulatory agency for flight operations. Not. That's where the 1000 hr/yr number is coming from.
The FAA, however, has the final say. Eight hours per day, with requirements for rest periods of at least 8 hours. That makes the maximum in a year 2900 hours.
Of course, nobody will fly that much. No sane employer will require it. But that's the official legal limit.
That's also flight time, not "being paid" time.
But "y'all" is never ambiguous,
I didn't say it was. I said that "you" can be plural.
Just because you won the civil war doesn't mean y'all get to tell others how to speak English.
Oh, please. Nobody is telling you how to speak English. If you never want to use "you" in a plural context, please don't. Just don't deny that it has one.
If your ISP does something today then they can do that under NN since NN is currently is in effect.
You didn't bother reading what I wrote. The claim is that it violates NN today, as defined in certain stupid, incorrect ways. That's the point. The definition being used by some folks here would prevent it.
The only people claiming that ISP:s can no longer filter out spam or DDoS attacks and so on are only the anti NN lobbyists that are making false claims.
When someone claims that NN means that ISPs cannot "censor or discriminate by source" they are implicitly claiming that an ISP cannot filter spam by IP address. That's discriminating by IP address. It is not a false claim to say that the ISP would be prevented, because it is a fact. The false claim is the definition of NN.
It is not NN as currently being implemented that is at issue at all. It is the off-the-wall definitions being tossed about by people flaming about all the bad guy ISPs doing bad things and how the sky will fall if NN is not enforced by the FCC. NN as it exists says the ISP can do things that the nuts are ranting about the ISPs doing if NN is repealed. "If NN is repealed Comcast could do X and Y and yada yada yada", with the assumption that X or Y is automatically bad, and I'm just pointing out that Comcast can already do X and Y and that it isn't bad.
Please stop telling me what NN in your definition actually says they can do, because I know.
Not without ambiguity.
Yes, you can create contexts where it is ambiguous. You can also create contexts where it is not. Thus, 'you' can still be plural.
900 per year averages less than three hours per day. For an 8 hour duty day, that means flying only every third day. (900/8 is 116). That doesn't make sense. Do you have a cite?
Nope. If they said "no" while conscious, that counts as "no" while unconscious.
Do you just need to try to find ways to contradict me, even when you have no clue? Saying "no" when they are conscious is "no" when they are conscious, and when their medical situation changes the assumed response to the question changes, too. While they are conscious they are in less need of treatment, and the need is different. Their ability to provide for their own care is also different. That makes the situation different. (My bad -- it is "assumed consent", not "implied", but that's a minor point.)
Don't apply your personal sex life to this.
You may want to assume that there is a difference between a conscious and unconscious person when it comes to having sex with you, but intelligent people would not. If a conscious person tells you "no", the situation doesn't change just because you've drugged them into oblivion. So stop being an asshole.
Yet strangely the airlines can provide 802.11 service themselves
The FAR allows the aircraft operator to authorize use of PED, including WiFi. The passenger does not get to authorize use of anything. If the aircraft operator has not authorized it, it is against the law.
and we don't see planes becoming lawn darts because of supposed "interference."
When you see the claim that every PED causes interference on every aircraft, y'all come back and make this statement. Until then, see if you can figure out how the claim that such things can cause interference, not that they must, is different. Also see if you can figure out the difference between an aircraft having a WiFi access point under the direct control of the flight crew and an aircraft having 80 access points under the control of arbitrary passengers.
Do you want doctors to withhold treatment from unconscious patients until they can verify there is no DNR order for that patient? I don't.
It isn't an issue of just being unconscious. It's an issue of resuscitation. When it comes to that, if the patient has made the conscious decision to tattoo a DNR in specific words and signed on his chest, then I do expect the doctor to respect that and do nothing.
If I'm heading to the hospital like that, I want the most effective treatment as soon as I can get it.
Then don't tattoo DO NOT RESUSCITATE on your chest. Problem solved.
So if you "accidentally" save someone in that condition, you can reverse course as soon as the paperwork comes through.
So someone who has known terminal conditions that might result in painful resuscitation efforts and continued painful existence decides to tattoo DNR on themselves. The doctor ignores it and does continue the patient's pain. But you can "reverse course" and solve the problem? Pillow over the face? OD of morphine? You kill someone who you resuscitated in error?
as soon as the paperwork comes through.
Oh, well, then. Never mind. The paperwork says kill the guy who is in pain because you resuscitated him in error. No problem after all.
How do I change my tattoo DNR? I use the sharpie in my junk drawer.
Imagine, you are unconscious, and a nurse starts prepping you for emergency surgery. She sees "DO scribble scribble RESUSCITATE" on your chest. Ok. No problem.
She starts scrubbing your chest to clean the field and suddenly she sees DO NOT RESUSCITATE" instead. Oops. Call the OR back, you aren't getting resuscitated after all.
I don't think an ink pen is the right way to cancel a tattooed DNR. Lots of tattoo artists will happily charge you to cover up the NOT.
If what you said is true, how can they even touch an unconscious person that comes into the hospital?
Technically, what the OP said is true. Most (all?) legislatures have covered this by creating "implied consent" for patients who are unable to give consent in a life threatening situation. The assumption is they would consent, or the guardian would.
This is something every first aid course I've ever had over the last 30 years has taught. If you come across a conscious accident victim, you ask if you can give aid. If they say yes, you're good. If they say no, you may not touch them. This applies to professionals like EMTs, too. If you tell a firefighter/paramedic you refuse treatment, that's what treatment you'll get.
There is always one altruistic person in the group that is concerned about this. The answer to how you deal with an uncooperative conscious victim is, you wait until they pass out, implied consent kicks in, and you can help them. The fact they said "no" before was based on them being conscious. Going unconscious changes the situation.
Every consumer device with a radio is already tested and certified by the FCC and is guaranteed not to cause harmful interference
You are pathetically and arrogantly ignorant. Look up what Part 15 says about "unintentional radiators", and then think about what intentional radiators are allowed to do.
and is guaranteed to not block interference the FCC and their goons throw at it.
Very little of modern electronics is actually tested by the FCC directly. Most of it is based on manufacturer certifications -- and for a lot of Chinese electronics that certification is fudged or based on version 0.1 prototype of a device and not the current, shipping product.
ARRL did an amazing test of common amateur handhelds by setting up test gear at hamfests and examining the handhelds that attendees were carrying. They found that some models passed FCC standards only marginally. I've duplicated these tests with my own gear and found the same thing. These are the things that are "guaranteed not to cause harmful interference" or "not block interference" (whatever that means).
In fact, any device, even a certificated, legal transmitter, can cause harmful interference to another device. Ask anyone who works with radio systems in a close environment, like on a mountaintop repeater/communications site. I've already talked about a legal, unintentional radiator (GPS receiver) that causes harmful interference to a nearby radio system. That's just one example. Here's a second one: a receiver system in an aircraft generated a birdie that blanked out a New York Center ATC frequency. The pilot and co-pilot heard nothing from ATC, and only knew the channel was blocked and not just silent because the RX light with on saying something was being received. No audio at all.
You can drop a mouse down a thousand-yard mine shaft; and, on arriving at the bottom, it gets a slight shock and walks away.
Terminal velocity depends on drag and mass. Mouse has lots of drag, low mass. This is why Galileo dropped feathers and bowling balls.
Now, try that experiment in a thousand-yard vacuum and the mouse will not walk away when it hits bottom, I tell you. I don't care you you are, that there's funny.
They came to great us and we splattered them.
I'm imagining a contingent of space alien politicians pushing for funding their equivalent of NASA by using the slogan "make Earth great again" ...
UTI.
The kind of terrorist who sends a threat doesn't want people to become so desensitized that they ignore the threat.
Thanks, I missed hearing about the manager's meeting that coordinated that new policy. Maybe the announcement got stuck in my spam-kablam filter?
So the union wants to limit the ability of the pilots to make lots of extra money in order to increase the number of people they represent? Sheesh, that's cynical even by American labor standards.
Union management is like any management. The more people you have under you, the higher your status. In this case, the more people who have to belong to your union times the amount of money they have to pay for the privilege means more money you control, too. Cynical, maybe, but not outrageously so.