Or with the average laser printer, plug in printer, don't bother with the install disk, select whatever is the nearest version of the HPLJ that Windows happens to have handy. (This also works for older inkjets and some pin-impact printers.)

As to TFA, didn't you know that no device is complete until it can play DOOM? :D

But yeah, methinks if software started from the perspective of the douchebag, 90% of the hacks would go away and the rest wouldn't be worth the trouble.

Nifty. But is it preserved when sold?

There are always "patented mining claims" for sale in my state. Does the patent convey with the title?

I'm not worried about the peeping tom. I'm worried about the peeping tom who is in fact a government snitch, since nearly any private activity could be construed as illegal, given the right spin and a motivated prosecutor, especially in a climate of moral panic.

Judging by the false-positives rate, a case might be made that they are in fact aiming for zero negatives.

Possibly. But the short-term social disruption would not be something I'd like to witness.

And since the 'short-term' in this case is probably 'a generation or two', I'd have to be a witness. (Or dead.)

All it takes is a couple of people who 'aren't infected, just look' (there are a few days of little-to-no symptoms) to bribe some official to get on some plane or past a border check. We're a significantly more interconnected world today than even a hundred years ago - you don't need rats to spread things widely.

It's not a pandemic - yet. But it wouldn't take much for it to be one, and it would be major.

No, what I was pointing out is that as "deregulation" was done where I'm painfully familiar with how it worked out (namely, Montana and California), said "deregulation" was a crock, and did nothing but increase costs for the hapless consumers. And I speculate that absent this bogus "deregulation", alt-energy might have been a lot more cost-competitive -- without raising prices on conventional-fuel energy.

In other words, they're doing exactly the inverse of the occasional U.S. states' so-called "deregulation", which in practice amounted to "sell off all our infrastructure to foreign investors, then buy back the product at an inflated price." Guess Germany figured out this doesn't work so well after all.

As I say above, that "green" energy might not be so expensive in a market that's not been "deregulated" in this fashion.

And another, which I forgot to put in the previous post:

http://4thst8.wordpress.com/20...

Also, cost in the U.S. varies as much as it does in the rest of the world. In California, it's closer to 25c/KWH (nominally it's lower, but you get into a higher rate tier at a level that would power one light bulb, and it goes up from there).... one of the "greenest" states. But the real problem is the so-called deregulation, not the energy source. Absent deregulation (aka "sell all our power generation facilities to foreign investors, who then charge us through the nose") the "green" energy might not wind up being that much more costly to the consumer.

On that note, an opinion piece on Nevada's 'encouragement' for Tesla's new plant:

http://4thst8.wordpress.com/20...

Automobile makers do not get to dictate what their customers do with the cars they built. If the buyer wants to chop the car, make it into a lowrider, put different wheels on, change the paint color, smash it, bury it, or throw it with a trebuchet, there's not a thing the automobile manufacturer can or should be able to do about it. John Lennon's psychedelic Rolls Royce offended some people. Some of these people had nothing to do with the automaker, they were just upset that someone did something they thought inappropriate to a product they admired. Lot of rock stars are great at puncturing sacred cows that people didn't even realize they had.

Some people get all bent out of shape over a flag burning. Others find book burnings offensive. Get over it. Let them throw copies of Huckleberry Finn, Harry Potter, and the Dungeon Master's Guide in the flames all they like. Nothing is lost, even more so if digitization has not been blocked. The best the arsonists can hope for is that nothing comes of it, as it could backfire and raise awareness of those works. On numerous occasions, vandals have tried to destroy works of art. If there are digital copies, destruction is practically impossible. In any case, a great work like the Mona Lisa can last only so long. It will inevitably deteriorate. If idiotic copyright laws and museum policies have prevented us from copying it into a more permanent form, for posterity, we deserve to lose it to the next time some insane person loses his mind and attacks the art. Rarities have been lost because the owner decided to destroy it. If there are good copies everywhere, the owner of an original can't deny a work to the rest of us out of spite, malice, revenge, or whatever, can't demand a big ransom not to destroy it. Can't mutilate it either through reckless bureaucratic policy, as was done to many paintings, including Rembrandt's Night Watch when they cut the painting down to size to fit a space. Then there are always Acts of God. Art has been lost in fires, floods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters.

I don't see why a work of art should be any different from a car. If the artists don't like it, it should be their responsibility to make copies or documents describing how to recreate it, before handing one over to a buyer. It's not like making a copy is so hard any more. Indeed, the biggest barriers can be legal ones.

It's a start. Lot of "owners" think they have such far reaching power over works of art, think they get to dictate what others may and may not do.

I've heard many a museum claim that copyright gives them the authority to forbid photos. It's one thing to forbid flash photography on the grounds that flashes put out UV radiation which can damage art. But they try to forbid photos, not just flashes. Claim that it would violate copyright, even though the work of art in question is long out of copyright, and they never held ownership of any copyright over the work anyway. The Alamo also claims it's "disrespectful" to the dead. A building near downtown Dallas, the Infomart, has signs that say you can't take photos of the building, and they include in that photos of the exterior from public locations such as nearby sidewalks. They claim it's for security reasons. Some museums reveal their real fears, crying that they will not have any more visitors, not be able to sell postcards. Was funny to hear this one old lady complain about the Internet ruining their business.

One place I know of that did have a change of heart is the memorial to the Oklahoma City bombing. They still have signs up that forbid photos inside, but if you ask them, they will tell you that you can take pictures.