Of course there are lots of ways to identify a document back to the originating person. The reason for mentioning printing in the first place is that perhaps in this instance there was no particular means by which to electronically remove the document, such as more thorough logging of the insertion of flash media or copy-access of files, but there could have been a demonstrable need in the office to print, such that printing a limited number of documents for smuggle-out would not really stand out, and where checkpoint security guards might not be in a position to thoroughly check paperwork ad people come and go.
In such circumstances the information perhaps must be removed on-paper, but once it's out then it's in the smuggler's interest to do something to obfuscate the origin of the document. At a minimum simply either OCR-scanning and then generating a text version, or else manually transcribing to an electronic version, to remove some of what can easily be removed.
Because you can so surreptitiously print-off dozens of pages of incriminating documents in a cublcle-farm on a dot matrix printer that you had to bring-in with you and that no one has ever heard run before...
So the solution is to either scan/OCR the smuggled-out document and destroy the printed-copy original before presenting to the third-party source, or else to utilize a third-party source that's smart enough to do this themselves.
The dot-pattern in the printer is not meaningful if it doesn't exist, and since it takes a forensic examination of the printout to identify the dot pattern it's not something that a security guard is going to be able to routinely check at a building security point.
Fundamentally it comes down to understanding the technology one is using, and to mitigate the pitfalls. If you're ignorant or stupid then you'll probably get caught.
...with the computer-within-a-computer model. Instead of doing one thing and doing it well, and to use a cliche, putting all of one's eggs in one basket and then watching the basket, a fragmented model means that inevitably pieces get missed, as the proliferation of extra and possibly extraneous systems makes it impossible to keep-up with everything going on.
More and more layers are piled-on, and more and more points are created for there to be problems.
Not all 9V batteries are that construction, but that's not the real issue, is it?
The Estes model rocket launcher controller that I used as a kid only required a pair of Double-A batteries (sorry, "AA Battery" means something entirely different) in order to set off the chain-reaction needed to set off a rocket motor. The actual process that ignited the motor was passing current through a wire that was intentionally too thin to carry that current without generating heat, and the heat is what set off the engine.
Additionally, if they have identified a lower-limit on voltage that is actually dangerous, what are they going to about cell phone batteries? 3.6V of Lithium Ion could probably be made to do something as bad and as dangerous as a laptop cell, especially if multiple cell phone batteries are brought together to make for more mass. Are they going to force phones into checked baggage too?
At what point do we accept that the world we live in has some dangers, and that while attempting to mitigate the dangers is not necessarily bad, there are limits as to what we are willing to put up with?
Apple and its shareholders may be in for a wild ride, but they're not offering anything that isn't available in some form or another from someone else.
Kind of wish that I'd read Ringworld earlier, didn't get to anything Niven until I was already in my 30s. It's interesting to see what all Niven did with works in other genres like in the scripts he wrote for Star Trek: The Animated Series that included characters from N-Space.
Frankly, as one that does not work for IBM, I am not in a position to know why they felt the need to recall their staff, but I would be very surprised if it's attributable to any single reason. Also, IBM historically has been one of the most conservative and least ageist technology services companies. Admittedly they might have changed since I last paid close attention, but I would be surprised if they'd changed solely as a means to shed older workers.
I guess I look at it this way; if IBM performs poorly with the policy of work-from-home or otherwise telecommute, they're criticized for the policy. If they recall their staff in an attempt to determine why they're performing poorly, they're criticized for forcing their employees to change.
Perhaps IBM should face a little bit of criticism for having a policy that essentially allowed the employee to live anywhere irrespective of an IBM facility, but perhaps it would have also been in employees' interest to be mindful of how far from the employer they live. It seems risky to live too far from one's employer simply because of the possibility of the job duties causing a change in workflow depending on circumstances and forcing a need to come in.
My problem with this stems from the piss-poor job that has been done dealing with the king-of-the-hill mentality among frequent editors, basically those people who have made Wikipedia their hobby and will edit-out other peoples' contributions simply because they do not like them. The upper management of the Foundation is making far too much money for the lack of oversight of what's going on at the edge where the actual action happens. Frankly, from the outside it looks like the wild-west, where there is no oversight and those trolls who camp on articles. For all it looks like from the outside there may as well be one guy with an office outside the datacenter keeping the servers and connection working, and leaving the whole built-architecture alone.
I don't have a problem with good salaries, but I expect good results for those salaries. I expect management to be poking-in and tweaking things and making things run well if they want donation dollars to pay them to keep their money-sink running. It's rather insulting to be begging for money from the public to then go around pay pay themselves handsomely while doing a poor job of running the entity that the money was given to support.
I was limiting the discussion to the last couple-hundred years because that encompasses what's essentially the modern times of the area. It's good for considering who ruled the area, who the people in the area were, what the actual population numbers were, and how the fall of various empires and the nature of the fracturing of the area after World War One affected things.
Water treatment, purification, and distribution. Trash collection. Sewer service. In my state they operate a damn-good highway maintenance program, admittedly with the actual repair jobs being contracted, but the project management being centrally coordinated by a bureaucrat.
There's no single solution to the problem, and the mandate for care regardless of the ability to pay is part why emergency rooms are treated this way.
In a single-payer system with universal coverage paid-for by taxes that replace the current costs paid to maintain private insurance, basically everyone is covered and doctors don't have a lot of choice about participating. If they don't participate then they probably don't have incomes except for a few highly-specialized doctors catering as private physicians to individual patrons that are paying cash. As a result, just about all doctors could take just about all patients, and hospitals would be in a position to refer non-emergency patients to the appropriate clinic. It might even be in the hospitals' interests to set up their own conventional urgent-care clinics for walk-ins that don't need actual emergency, life-saving care, and for the triage process to help as a filter.
I would expect that medicare and/or medicaid would actually form the basis for the expansion of universal payment for a single-payer system. The VA system has two missions, one of which is to directly provide care. That aspect has been shown to be fundamentally broken in several VA facilities in the country. It would make more sense to expand how coverage for payment for service is handled as a federal program than the actual care itself.
If anything it might make sense to reconsider the nature of the VA system once single-payer is implemented. First, it might make more sense for veterans with conditions that are a result of military service to have medical care through the branch of service instead of a distinct civilian agency, and second, a lot of what the VA provides would not be needed if single-payer was instituted anyway. The reconfigured remainder that had been the VA would be in a better position to focus on conditions that are much rarer and found predominately among veterans like the results of being exposed to Agent Orange, or Asbestos, or Decayed Uranium, while many of the services that veterans lacking-insurance now use them for would be shifted to other parts of the system.
I don't have a problem with doctors and other end-providers doing well for themselves. I also don't have a problem with people who invent things making some real money from their inventions. After all, those who invent life-saving devices and those that have the knowledge and skills to save lives are doing some pretty amazing things. What I do have a problem with is all of the middlemen, that act to hand-off something, without really contributing, and siphoning-off their cut as they do it.
I suppose this is why I support single-payer. I've heard arguments about choice in one's insurance company, I've heard arguments about being being worried about being denied treatment for something. Thing of it is, most people do not have choice in their insurance providers as they're limited to what their employers provide, and those insurers themselves limit the doctors available for affordable pricing (ie, which doctors have come to terms with the insurer), and the companies themselves already have things like stipulations against pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps on expenditures per patient.
As far as I am concerned, if we already have numerous redundant bureaucracies that are bloated, inefficient, and expensive as a side-effect of being profit-driven, then why don't we do away with that and go to a system with a single bureaucracy? Even if it is bloated and inefficient, it's still only one bloated and inefficient bureaucracy, and if it's not profit-driven then it will probably cost less to operate than the numerous private insurance companies. And if proper separation is reintroduced then suddenly basically all providers are available.
I think it's even funnier given that sin usually requires action and I have not had an abortion, caused a pregnancy leading to abortion, advocated in-favor of any particular woman having an abortion, or engaged in homosexual acts.
It's also quite presumptuous for him to cast aspersion upon me and to condemn me to Hell when Jesus is said according to John 8:7 something to the effect of, "He who is without sin may cast the first stone..."
No, you may be labeled antisemtic, or labeled racist or islamophobic, but labels are usually applied by others. Those others in-turn have their own labels, etc.
Granted, you can be those too, but you do not have to be those things in order for someone that disagrees with you to label you as such.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course there are lots of ways to identify a document back to the originating person. The reason for mentioning printing in the first place is that perhaps in this instance there was no particular means by which to electronically remove the document, such as more thorough logging of the insertion of flash media or copy-access of files, but there could have been a demonstrable need in the office to print, such that printing a limited number of documents for smuggle-out would not really stand out, and where checkpoint security guards might not be in a position to thoroughly check paperwork ad people come and go.
In such circumstances the information perhaps must be removed on-paper, but once it's out then it's in the smuggler's interest to do something to obfuscate the origin of the document. At a minimum simply either OCR-scanning and then generating a text version, or else manually transcribing to an electronic version, to remove some of what can easily be removed.
And now you know why.
Because you can so surreptitiously print-off dozens of pages of incriminating documents in a cublcle-farm on a dot matrix printer that you had to bring-in with you and that no one has ever heard run before...
So the solution is to either scan/OCR the smuggled-out document and destroy the printed-copy original before presenting to the third-party source, or else to utilize a third-party source that's smart enough to do this themselves.
The dot-pattern in the printer is not meaningful if it doesn't exist, and since it takes a forensic examination of the printout to identify the dot pattern it's not something that a security guard is going to be able to routinely check at a building security point.
Fundamentally it comes down to understanding the technology one is using, and to mitigate the pitfalls. If you're ignorant or stupid then you'll probably get caught.
...with the computer-within-a-computer model. Instead of doing one thing and doing it well, and to use a cliche, putting all of one's eggs in one basket and then watching the basket, a fragmented model means that inevitably pieces get missed, as the proliferation of extra and possibly extraneous systems makes it impossible to keep-up with everything going on.
More and more layers are piled-on, and more and more points are created for there to be problems.
If you can gate-check it then you've already brought it through security, and could likely smuggle it onboard without checking it.
At least it will be easier for them to search it for contraband that way.
Not all 9V batteries are that construction, but that's not the real issue, is it?
The Estes model rocket launcher controller that I used as a kid only required a pair of Double-A batteries (sorry, "AA Battery" means something entirely different) in order to set off the chain-reaction needed to set off a rocket motor. The actual process that ignited the motor was passing current through a wire that was intentionally too thin to carry that current without generating heat, and the heat is what set off the engine.
Additionally, if they have identified a lower-limit on voltage that is actually dangerous, what are they going to about cell phone batteries? 3.6V of Lithium Ion could probably be made to do something as bad and as dangerous as a laptop cell, especially if multiple cell phone batteries are brought together to make for more mass. Are they going to force phones into checked baggage too?
At what point do we accept that the world we live in has some dangers, and that while attempting to mitigate the dangers is not necessarily bad, there are limits as to what we are willing to put up with?
What's this "we" shit?
Apple and its shareholders may be in for a wild ride, but they're not offering anything that isn't available in some form or another from someone else.
Well, if you can't experience it firsthand you can always read about it I suppose.
Kind of wish that I'd read Ringworld earlier, didn't get to anything Niven until I was already in my 30s. It's interesting to see what all Niven did with works in other genres like in the scripts he wrote for Star Trek: The Animated Series that included characters from N-Space.
Frankly, as one that does not work for IBM, I am not in a position to know why they felt the need to recall their staff, but I would be very surprised if it's attributable to any single reason. Also, IBM historically has been one of the most conservative and least ageist technology services companies. Admittedly they might have changed since I last paid close attention, but I would be surprised if they'd changed solely as a means to shed older workers.
I guess I look at it this way; if IBM performs poorly with the policy of work-from-home or otherwise telecommute, they're criticized for the policy. If they recall their staff in an attempt to determine why they're performing poorly, they're criticized for forcing their employees to change.
Perhaps IBM should face a little bit of criticism for having a policy that essentially allowed the employee to live anywhere irrespective of an IBM facility, but perhaps it would have also been in employees' interest to be mindful of how far from the employer they live. It seems risky to live too far from one's employer simply because of the possibility of the job duties causing a change in workflow depending on circumstances and forcing a need to come in.
...and you should too.
My problem with this stems from the piss-poor job that has been done dealing with the king-of-the-hill mentality among frequent editors, basically those people who have made Wikipedia their hobby and will edit-out other peoples' contributions simply because they do not like them. The upper management of the Foundation is making far too much money for the lack of oversight of what's going on at the edge where the actual action happens. Frankly, from the outside it looks like the wild-west, where there is no oversight and those trolls who camp on articles. For all it looks like from the outside there may as well be one guy with an office outside the datacenter keeping the servers and connection working, and leaving the whole built-architecture alone.
I don't have a problem with good salaries, but I expect good results for those salaries. I expect management to be poking-in and tweaking things and making things run well if they want donation dollars to pay them to keep their money-sink running. It's rather insulting to be begging for money from the public to then go around pay pay themselves handsomely while doing a poor job of running the entity that the money was given to support.
I was limiting the discussion to the last couple-hundred years because that encompasses what's essentially the modern times of the area. It's good for considering who ruled the area, who the people in the area were, what the actual population numbers were, and how the fall of various empires and the nature of the fracturing of the area after World War One affected things.
Water treatment, purification, and distribution. Trash collection. Sewer service. In my state they operate a damn-good highway maintenance program, admittedly with the actual repair jobs being contracted, but the project management being centrally coordinated by a bureaucrat.
There's no single solution to the problem, and the mandate for care regardless of the ability to pay is part why emergency rooms are treated this way.
In a single-payer system with universal coverage paid-for by taxes that replace the current costs paid to maintain private insurance, basically everyone is covered and doctors don't have a lot of choice about participating. If they don't participate then they probably don't have incomes except for a few highly-specialized doctors catering as private physicians to individual patrons that are paying cash. As a result, just about all doctors could take just about all patients, and hospitals would be in a position to refer non-emergency patients to the appropriate clinic. It might even be in the hospitals' interests to set up their own conventional urgent-care clinics for walk-ins that don't need actual emergency, life-saving care, and for the triage process to help as a filter.
I would expect that medicare and/or medicaid would actually form the basis for the expansion of universal payment for a single-payer system. The VA system has two missions, one of which is to directly provide care. That aspect has been shown to be fundamentally broken in several VA facilities in the country. It would make more sense to expand how coverage for payment for service is handled as a federal program than the actual care itself.
If anything it might make sense to reconsider the nature of the VA system once single-payer is implemented. First, it might make more sense for veterans with conditions that are a result of military service to have medical care through the branch of service instead of a distinct civilian agency, and second, a lot of what the VA provides would not be needed if single-payer was instituted anyway. The reconfigured remainder that had been the VA would be in a better position to focus on conditions that are much rarer and found predominately among veterans like the results of being exposed to Agent Orange, or Asbestos, or Decayed Uranium, while many of the services that veterans lacking-insurance now use them for would be shifted to other parts of the system.
For Wednesday June 7th, 2017: "Google Releases Chrome 60".
For sometime this weekend: "Google Releases Chrome 61"
For next week: "Google Releases Chrome 62"
I don't have a problem with doctors and other end-providers doing well for themselves. I also don't have a problem with people who invent things making some real money from their inventions. After all, those who invent life-saving devices and those that have the knowledge and skills to save lives are doing some pretty amazing things. What I do have a problem with is all of the middlemen, that act to hand-off something, without really contributing, and siphoning-off their cut as they do it.
I suppose this is why I support single-payer. I've heard arguments about choice in one's insurance company, I've heard arguments about being being worried about being denied treatment for something. Thing of it is, most people do not have choice in their insurance providers as they're limited to what their employers provide, and those insurers themselves limit the doctors available for affordable pricing (ie, which doctors have come to terms with the insurer), and the companies themselves already have things like stipulations against pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps on expenditures per patient.
As far as I am concerned, if we already have numerous redundant bureaucracies that are bloated, inefficient, and expensive as a side-effect of being profit-driven, then why don't we do away with that and go to a system with a single bureaucracy? Even if it is bloated and inefficient, it's still only one bloated and inefficient bureaucracy, and if it's not profit-driven then it will probably cost less to operate than the numerous private insurance companies. And if proper separation is reintroduced then suddenly basically all providers are available.
And in my heart I do not feel compelled to these actions either. So, what's your point again?
According to the results of her trial for the Marin County Courthouse affair, she is not a murderer.
Some more information on your assertion of public money is in-order if you want that assertion to hold merit.
I think it's even funnier given that sin usually requires action and I have not had an abortion, caused a pregnancy leading to abortion, advocated in-favor of any particular woman having an abortion, or engaged in homosexual acts.
It's also quite presumptuous for him to cast aspersion upon me and to condemn me to Hell when Jesus is said according to John 8:7 something to the effect of, "He who is without sin may cast the first stone..."
Enjoy being kicked out of the NCAA. I'm sure that will help your school's donation rate for the long-term.
No, you may be labeled antisemtic, or labeled racist or islamophobic, but labels are usually applied by others. Those others in-turn have their own labels, etc.
Granted, you can be those too, but you do not have to be those things in order for someone that disagrees with you to label you as such.