How does Magnusson-Moss not apply here?

Yeah, I decided to screw it with the ink replacements, and switched to a Samsung ML-1710.

I then wanted duplex, so, remembering how well I liked the Brother at a previous job, went with an HL-2270dw. And then later added a DCP series multifunction laser for scanning purposes.

Brother is great.

We can now tap the perpetual energy source of Bill Hewlett and David Packard spinning in their graves.

Thanks so f***ing much, Carly and successors.

I'm thinking this:

State X says "The people shall have A, B, C, and D"
Bill says, "The people shall have A and B. This bill supercedes all state laws".

What happens to the people of State X who now no longer have access to C and D?

Does it have a clause that says it supercedes all state laws?

If it does, it's evil.

Well, original BSD from Berkeley, became really good at 4.2, so....

So, the Year of the Linux Desktop?

And since bribery is assured under the guise of "campaign contributions", that system is always going to be flawed.

Liberty is the common problem.

https://www.mudbots.com/

Looks like you can get into this business pretty cheap. A 15x15x15 foot printer is only $39k

Until we get to the point that we no longer need a pound and a half of extra plastic strapped to our faces to see the matrix, I'm fairly certain we aren't living in it- yet.

And if, as the study shows- the stress of the 9 months of pregnancy is equivalent to two years of life, and the woman only gets back a large portion of that investment with engaging in breastfeeding- then does a late-term abortion also abort the positive portions of birth and breastfeeding?

"G-BOMBS: The anti-cancer foods that should be in your diet right now"
https://www.drfuhrman.com/blog...
"Looking for the biggest bang for your caloric buck? Remember the acronym G-BOMBS, which stands for Greens, Beans, Onions, Mushrooms, Berries and Seeds. These foods fuel your body with protective micronutrients and phytochemicals that support your immune defenses and have a wide range of health-promoting effects. And hereâ(TM)s a bonus: Theyâ(TM)re delicious!"

For anyone worried about any type of cancer, this is essential reading and action.

https://www.amazon.com/Mammogr...
"'This book gives plenty of examples of ad hominem attacks, intimidation, slander, threats of litigation, deception, dishonesty, lies and other violations of good scientific practice. For some years I kept a folder labeled Dishonesty in breast cancer screening on top of my filing cabinet, storing articles and letters to the editor that contained statements I knew were dishonest. Eventually I gave up on the idea of writing a paper about this collection, as the number of examples quickly exceeded what could be contained in a single article.' From the Introduction The most effective way to decrease women's risk of becoming a breast cancer patient is to avoid attending screening. Mammography screening is one of the greatest controversies in healthcare, and the extent to which some scientists have sacrificed sound scientific principles in order to arrive at politically acceptable results in their research is extraordinary. In contrast, neutral observers increasingly find that the benefit has been much oversold and that the harms are much greater than previously believed. This groundbreaking book takes an evidence-based, critical look at the scientific disputes and the information provided to women by governments and cancer charities. It also explains why mammography screening is unlikely to be effective today. All health professionals and members of the public will find these revelations disturbingly illuminating. It will radically transform the way healthcare policy makers view mammography screening in the future. 'If Peter Gotzsche did not exist, there would be a need to invent him ...It may still take time for the limitations and harms of screening to be properly acknowledged and for women to be enabled to make adequately informed decisions. When this happens, it will be almost entirely due to the intellectual rigour and determination of Peter Gotzsche.' From the Foreword by Iona Heath, President, RCGP 'If you care about breast cancer, and we all should, you must read this book. Breast cancer is complex and we cannot afford to rely on the popular media, or on information from marketing campaigns from those who are invested in screening. We need to question and to understand. The story that Peter tells matters very much.' From the Foreword by Fran Visco, President, National Breast Cancer Coalition."

And also by the same researcher (Peter C Goetzsche):
"Mammography screening is harmful and should be abandoned"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
"Mammography screening has been promoted to the public with three simple promises that all appear to be wrong: It saves lives and breasts by catching the cancers early. Screening does not seem to make the women live longer; it increases mastectomies; and cancers are not caught early, they are caught very late. They are also caught in too great numbers. There is so much overdiagnosis that the best thing a women can do to lower her risk of becoming a breast cancer patient is to avoid going to screening, which will lower her risk by one-third. We have written an information leaflet that exists in 16 languages on www.cochrane.dk, which we hope will make it easier for a woman to make an informed decision about whether or not to go to screening. I believe that if screening had been a drug, it would have been withdrawn from the market long ago. Many drugs are withdrawn although they benefit many patients, when serious harms are reported in rather few patients. The situation with mammography screening is the opposite: Very few, if any, will benefit, whereas many will be harmed. I therefore believe it is appropriate that a nationally appointed body in Switzerland has now recommended that mammography screening should be stopped because it is harmful."

It looks like human radiologists reading mammograms have essentially about a 9 out of 10 false positive rate -- false positives which can turn someone's life upside down and cause a lot of stress and unnecessary medical procedures. If AI can eliminate the false positives, I'd be curious how much that would change the cost/benefit ration of Goezsche's conclusions?

What console EDIT command? I just fired up a command prompt, and there's no "EDIT" available.