The probably people have with Rush isn't his political stance, it's that he has no trouble lying, and other people repeat these lies.
Seriously, I've listened to him a few times, and, when he talked about stuff I knew about, he was either objectively lying, or at a minimum misrepresenting things. When I say 'misrepresenting' I mean, not in a subjective 'agree to disagree' way, doing shit like comparing 'How many X' there are in two different sized populations, and 'forgetting' to mention that one population was three times the size of another. I'm sorry, but that's lying.
There are at least three ways of being biased: You can selectively report the triumphs of your side and the failures of the other side, you can misrepresent the truth by clever wording and manipulation of facts, and you can lie about actual facts.
All political commentary does the first one. More and more, I see the second done, sometimes by the liberal side, more often by the conservative, but it's possible I'm biased. Either way, I tend to stop listening to such people when I realize they'll say anything that's 'technically' true, no matter how much it misleads people.
But people like Rush, who actually make up facts? Like his recent assertation that the Foley emails were 'planted by a liberal' and that you need abortions to get embryonic stem cells and that Clinton was down to a 20 approval rating at one point and other such inanities. That's way past 'biased' and into 'lying'. Those aren't even vaguely, under any defination, true.
Thinking Rush is 'biased' is part of the problem. He's not presenting an unfair view of reality. He's not presenting reality at all, he's just lying. Not only that, it's been repeatedly documented. Al Franken got a whole book out of it.
Also he says horribly offensive with regard to race and gender, but that's not 'biased' per se, and if people actually like to listen to that, I have no problem with it. WRT the lies, however, I wish someone would sue him for slander.
The US does have a third otion for dealing with North Korea, and, oddly enough, it involves no interaction with North Korea at all.
It involves working with China. Demanding they clean up their own mess, and threatening sanction on them until they do do so. But no President even vaguely considers standing up to China, considing they're funding 1/8th of our fucking government. China doesn't care, because NK doesn't threaten them at all.
So we've reached this point where NK has probably ceased serving China's purposes, and the shit is about to hit the fucking fan. Sanctions will start, and NK will probably do something batshit insane like wipe out Seoul.
And we got played by China for the last two decades. And we're going to lose ten thousand troups in the DMZ, exactly at the point we can't afford it militarily.
Seriously, we've never had any good options for North Korea. We should have slowly been withdrawing from any influence in that area, while making sure that both China and North Korea understand that if they invade South Korea, we'd bomb the hell out of whoever did it. This would have made China step up to the plate, which of course they would have.
The question is, of a chained North Korea, and a wildly out of control North Korea that everyone agrees China has to shoot, which one plays more into China's hands? I actually kinda thing it's the later, and that this had to happen someday anyway, so I'm not that worried.
However, comparing the handling of NK by Bush and Clinton, I've got to go with Clinton's handling. We bribed them, sure, but it wasn't that worthwhile a bribe. Meanwhile, Bush didn't seem to actually have any handling at all. I mean, at the least, strict words for removing the nuclear material. Hell, we're talking about bombing places Iran may be nuclear research, but we don't bomb trucks that are carrying nuclear materials? Even if Bush's non-handling coincidentally results in the best solution for us with China being forced to take out NK, I can't really condone that behavior.
We don't even know there has been a murder. They apparently searched the house with a 'cadaver dog' and didn't find anything.
It sounds a little weird. I mean, she shows up with the kids to drop them off, and that's the last anyone knows of her. How, logically, would that work for a murder? 'Okay kids, be quiet while I murder Mommy, put her in her car, drive her somewhere, bury her, ditch her car miles away, and then come back.' They don't say how old the kids are, but they were married in 1999, and she was only 31 anyway, so not old enough to live alone for hours. Although his mother also lived in the house too, and obviously she could be in on it.
Some people have said 'How did she go to the grocery store?', but nothing in the article implies she did so after dropping off the kids, so that's not really relevant.
Obviously, I don't have any sort of timeline here, but it really does seem circumstanial, based on the idea he'd benefit if she was dead...and then she vanishes. They've taken some stuff from the house, presumably because they think it's evidence, but we'll see what happens. (Evidence? After a month? That would be pretty shoddy 'Covering up a crime' work.)
Spamhaus' list is the SBL. It does not list open relays.
Spamhaus also provides an XBL mirror. It is an independent list that they recommend which is not accociated with Spamhaus. It is reachable by itself at cbl.abuseat.org. (Don't ask why it's called the 'XBL' when it's at cbl.*. Long story.)
The XBL lists machines that have, in the last X hours, actually delivered spam to their spamtraps, so it does indeed list a lot of open relays and open proxies and various other owned machines. It's not an 'open relay list' in the traditional meaning of the phrase, though...they don't run around testing machines and stuff like that. The only 'false positives' are dynamic addresses that get reassigned in that time period, and if you're wanting mail from people on short-term dynamic IPs, you really shouldn't be using any IP blocklists.
Spamhaus also has a service where you query both the SBL and the XBL at the same time.
However, and this is the most important thing, if your mail gets rejected using the combined list, it lists the actual reason. If it gets rejected by the XBL data, it will say it was rejected by the XBL, and list a cbl.abuseat.org URL. Spamhaus isn't mentioned in the reject message at all.
Ergo, anyone who says their mail was rejected by 'Spamhaus' for being an open relay is a bald-faced liar. It might have been rejected by using the Spamhaus mirror of the XBL, but there's no way to tell that apart from a reject created by looking up cbl.abuseat.org, or any other XBL mirror.
I think you're wrong about going with US juridiction.
Just working with law enforcement in the US has nothing to do with US juridiction. Now, the US law enforcement agencies clearly are under US juridiction, so could be ordered by the courts to alter their relationship with Spamhaus, but just because someone in another country helps an investigation doesn't put them under US juridiction.
If Canada law enforcement, while attempting to track someone in Canada who was born in the US, calls up a US citizen and gets information, they can't, for example, subpoena the US guy and cite him for contempt if he doesn't show up. That's essentially what Spamhous is doing, saying 'Those people breaking the law you're looking for? Yeah, we've tracked them to this address in Flordia.'. Talking to US law enforcement doesn't magically make them subject to US law for stuff they do in the UK.
Spamhaus' does not own any US mirrors. Various trusted people operate Spamhaus mirrors for free, using Spamhaus data. Those people could be subject to lawsuits in the US for their actions, but not Spamhaus.
Their for-pay rsync service is the best argument for them doing business in the US, because that's the only business they do at all. But, as was determined with mail order 100 years ago, simply letting people in an area buy something doesn't mean you're operating a business there. You have to have a physical location.
However, I will completely agree with you that Spamhaus completely screwed their handling of this lawsuit up.
If they're with a shared host, the rDNS should point back to what the mail server HELOs as. If it says 'HELO blah.example.com', it damn well better be reachable as blah.example.com, and the IP damn well better resolve to blah.example.com.
No one's insisting that the rDNS match the MAIL FROM domain name. That would just be stupid, and disallow multiple domains on the same machine and multiple mail servers for the same domain.
In the process of washing windows, other than kinetic energy, no other elements are involved and the customers are paying for the same. This proves that kinetic energy constitutes goods, which is liable for levy of tax. Therefore, the State has every legal competence and jurisdiction to tax it," the department has contended.
I think you should give them a flashlight when you sign up, and then assert they're just sending the photons you provided in advance, at specific time intervals that make it more convenient for you, and that is a service, not a good. It's Just-In-Time Photons.
Yes, they're sending back 'different' photons, but banks work that way too, and no one claims they're selling goods. If you go to a bank and demand 'your' money, they won't give you back the money you gave them, but entirely different money. And the difference between individual pieces of cash, which all have serial numbers and can even be in different denominations than you originally gave the bank, is much much greater than the difference between photons, which might slightly vary in frequency.
Because we encouraged him to invade Iran and overthrow their government ten years ago in a war that ended slightly less than two years earlier, you moron.
Of course, wherever ICANN is located, it will be subject to the jurisdiction of some court.
No it wouldn't. It could be a soveign organization, like the United Nations or the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Just because those are physically located in countries doesn't allow host countries to barge in and make demands. They have treaties with said organizations, and other nations, that say they will not do that.
Of course, ICANN needs internet access, which complicates things a bit. OTOH, they're just actually in charge of the 13 root servers, which require a lot less bandwidth than people think...all DNS servers ask, for example 'Where is.com or.uk located?', get that answer once, and cache it for days.
They actually work on a Red Cross-like idea...the 13 root servers being operated by different national organizations, like the Red Crosses, but if one of them gets meddled with by their government, or goes rogue, they can uncertify it and pick another national organization, probably in a different country.(1)
And, incidentally, means this entire idea of messing with ICANN is silly. The only way ICANN could get rid of the.uk and.org address for spamhous would be is to take all of.uk and.org off the air.
1) I don't recommend this, because ICANN is, right now, CRAP. Seriously, it is completely screwed up, and, right now at least, the US government could fix it.
Or just buy a damn email account. They have free ones that you have to do webmail with, and they have pay ones for trivial prices that you do anything with.
So, the person you're responding to is right, and that's revisionist?
Let's recap. Invading Iraq when they have WMD is a bad idea. That's why Iraq wasn't invaded during the Gulf War. With me so far?
So, when there's talk about invading Iraq again, the Democratic party mentions this, presumably because they believe Iraq does have WMDs, thanks to faulty intelligence provided them by the Administration, and because they don't want to send our soldiers to their death pointlessly.
The Administration, however, completely disregard this possiblity, either because they're idiots, they're willing to sacrifice the soldiers, or they know there are no WMDs. (The Republicans in Congress, of course, went along with our Decider-in-Chief.)
What, exactly, was your point there? How does saying 'The Democrats objected to the invasion on the grounds Iraq might use their WMDs' translate into rebuting 'If there had been even the remotest chance that Saddam Hussein had had weapons of mass destruction, do you think we'd have invaded Iraq?'?
'If we thought this road was closed, we wouldn't have taken it.' 'Pete thought this road was closed, and he objected to us taking it, so you're wrong!' 'Huh? Isn't that what I just said?'
All you've demonstrated with your comment is that the Democrats honestly believed there were WMDs, based on the reports from the Administration, and thus, quite sanely, objected to the invasion.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes we are, you stupid shit.
All speech is, indeed, speech.
Incorrect speech, however, isn't news at all. It can be fiction, or a lie, or all sorts of things, but it isn't news.
The probably people have with Rush isn't his political stance, it's that he has no trouble lying, and other people repeat these lies.
Seriously, I've listened to him a few times, and, when he talked about stuff I knew about, he was either objectively lying, or at a minimum misrepresenting things. When I say 'misrepresenting' I mean, not in a subjective 'agree to disagree' way, doing shit like comparing 'How many X' there are in two different sized populations, and 'forgetting' to mention that one population was three times the size of another. I'm sorry, but that's lying.
There are at least three ways of being biased: You can selectively report the triumphs of your side and the failures of the other side, you can misrepresent the truth by clever wording and manipulation of facts, and you can lie about actual facts.
All political commentary does the first one. More and more, I see the second done, sometimes by the liberal side, more often by the conservative, but it's possible I'm biased. Either way, I tend to stop listening to such people when I realize they'll say anything that's 'technically' true, no matter how much it misleads people.
But people like Rush, who actually make up facts? Like his recent assertation that the Foley emails were 'planted by a liberal' and that you need abortions to get embryonic stem cells and that Clinton was down to a 20 approval rating at one point and other such inanities. That's way past 'biased' and into 'lying'. Those aren't even vaguely, under any defination, true.
Thinking Rush is 'biased' is part of the problem. He's not presenting an unfair view of reality. He's not presenting reality at all, he's just lying. Not only that, it's been repeatedly documented. Al Franken got a whole book out of it.
Also he says horribly offensive with regard to race and gender, but that's not 'biased' per se, and if people actually like to listen to that, I have no problem with it. WRT the lies, however, I wish someone would sue him for slander.
Exactly.
The only solution to North Korea is China, and it's always been only China.
The US does have a third otion for dealing with North Korea, and, oddly enough, it involves no interaction with North Korea at all.
It involves working with China. Demanding they clean up their own mess, and threatening sanction on them until they do do so. But no President even vaguely considers standing up to China, considing they're funding 1/8th of our fucking government. China doesn't care, because NK doesn't threaten them at all.
So we've reached this point where NK has probably ceased serving China's purposes, and the shit is about to hit the fucking fan. Sanctions will start, and NK will probably do something batshit insane like wipe out Seoul.
And we got played by China for the last two decades. And we're going to lose ten thousand troups in the DMZ, exactly at the point we can't afford it militarily.
Seriously, we've never had any good options for North Korea. We should have slowly been withdrawing from any influence in that area, while making sure that both China and North Korea understand that if they invade South Korea, we'd bomb the hell out of whoever did it. This would have made China step up to the plate, which of course they would have.
The question is, of a chained North Korea, and a wildly out of control North Korea that everyone agrees China has to shoot, which one plays more into China's hands? I actually kinda thing it's the later, and that this had to happen someday anyway, so I'm not that worried.
However, comparing the handling of NK by Bush and Clinton, I've got to go with Clinton's handling. We bribed them, sure, but it wasn't that worthwhile a bribe. Meanwhile, Bush didn't seem to actually have any handling at all. I mean, at the least, strict words for removing the nuclear material. Hell, we're talking about bombing places Iran may be nuclear research, but we don't bomb trucks that are carrying nuclear materials? Even if Bush's non-handling coincidentally results in the best solution for us with China being forced to take out NK, I can't really condone that behavior.
We don't even know there has been a murder. They apparently searched the house with a 'cadaver dog' and didn't find anything.
It sounds a little weird. I mean, she shows up with the kids to drop them off, and that's the last anyone knows of her. How, logically, would that work for a murder? 'Okay kids, be quiet while I murder Mommy, put her in her car, drive her somewhere, bury her, ditch her car miles away, and then come back.' They don't say how old the kids are, but they were married in 1999, and she was only 31 anyway, so not old enough to live alone for hours. Although his mother also lived in the house too, and obviously she could be in on it.
Some people have said 'How did she go to the grocery store?', but nothing in the article implies she did so after dropping off the kids, so that's not really relevant.
Obviously, I don't have any sort of timeline here, but it really does seem circumstanial, based on the idea he'd benefit if she was dead...and then she vanishes. They've taken some stuff from the house, presumably because they think it's evidence, but we'll see what happens. (Evidence? After a month? That would be pretty shoddy 'Covering up a crime' work.)
Spamhaus' list is the SBL. It does not list open relays.
Spamhaus also provides an XBL mirror. It is an independent list that they recommend which is not accociated with Spamhaus. It is reachable by itself at cbl.abuseat.org. (Don't ask why it's called the 'XBL' when it's at cbl.*. Long story.)
The XBL lists machines that have, in the last X hours, actually delivered spam to their spamtraps, so it does indeed list a lot of open relays and open proxies and various other owned machines. It's not an 'open relay list' in the traditional meaning of the phrase, though...they don't run around testing machines and stuff like that. The only 'false positives' are dynamic addresses that get reassigned in that time period, and if you're wanting mail from people on short-term dynamic IPs, you really shouldn't be using any IP blocklists.
Spamhaus also has a service where you query both the SBL and the XBL at the same time.
However, and this is the most important thing, if your mail gets rejected using the combined list, it lists the actual reason. If it gets rejected by the XBL data, it will say it was rejected by the XBL, and list a cbl.abuseat.org URL. Spamhaus isn't mentioned in the reject message at all.
Ergo, anyone who says their mail was rejected by 'Spamhaus' for being an open relay is a bald-faced liar. It might have been rejected by using the Spamhaus mirror of the XBL, but there's no way to tell that apart from a reject created by looking up cbl.abuseat.org, or any other XBL mirror.
I think you're wrong about going with US juridiction.
Just working with law enforcement in the US has nothing to do with US juridiction. Now, the US law enforcement agencies clearly are under US juridiction, so could be ordered by the courts to alter their relationship with Spamhaus, but just because someone in another country helps an investigation doesn't put them under US juridiction.
If Canada law enforcement, while attempting to track someone in Canada who was born in the US, calls up a US citizen and gets information, they can't, for example, subpoena the US guy and cite him for contempt if he doesn't show up. That's essentially what Spamhous is doing, saying 'Those people breaking the law you're looking for? Yeah, we've tracked them to this address in Flordia.'. Talking to US law enforcement doesn't magically make them subject to US law for stuff they do in the UK.
Spamhaus' does not own any US mirrors. Various trusted people operate Spamhaus mirrors for free, using Spamhaus data. Those people could be subject to lawsuits in the US for their actions, but not Spamhaus.
Their for-pay rsync service is the best argument for them doing business in the US, because that's the only business they do at all. But, as was determined with mail order 100 years ago, simply letting people in an area buy something doesn't mean you're operating a business there. You have to have a physical location.
However, I will completely agree with you that Spamhaus completely screwed their handling of this lawsuit up.
No, he's not, as Spamhaus doesn't even list open relays.
Actually, he's just made the whole thing up.
Well, that's gonna be hard, considing that Tucows knows jack shit about www.spamhous.org
The only people who'd notice anything are ICANN, the next time they tried to do anything and discovered they were no longer in control of DNS.
Why would they? Theyare spammers.
If they're with a shared host, the rDNS should point back to what the mail server HELOs as. If it says 'HELO blah.example.com', it damn well better be reachable as blah.example.com, and the IP damn well better resolve to blah.example.com.
No one's insisting that the rDNS match the MAIL FROM domain name. That would just be stupid, and disallow multiple domains on the same machine and multiple mail servers for the same domain.
And...Spamhous doesn't block dynamic IPs, or at least doesn't block them because they're dynamic.
So I have no idea what your point is.
That was the old Republican party.
The new Republican party doesn't ever cut anything under any circumstances, unless it's for poor people.
They should have people provide their own air.
No, I'm serious. They should have an intake hose laying there, and the theory is that you drive up with your own air and stick the hose in it.
In the process of washing windows, other than kinetic energy, no other elements are involved and the customers are paying for the same. This proves that kinetic energy constitutes goods, which is liable for levy of tax. Therefore, the State has every legal competence and jurisdiction to tax it," the department has contended.
I think you should give them a flashlight when you sign up, and then assert they're just sending the photons you provided in advance, at specific time intervals that make it more convenient for you, and that is a service, not a good. It's Just-In-Time Photons.
Yes, they're sending back 'different' photons, but banks work that way too, and no one claims they're selling goods. If you go to a bank and demand 'your' money, they won't give you back the money you gave them, but entirely different money. And the difference between individual pieces of cash, which all have serial numbers and can even be in different denominations than you originally gave the bank, is much much greater than the difference between photons, which might slightly vary in frequency.
You counted 'it' twice.
You...honestly don't know why he'd think that?
Because we encouraged him to invade Iran and overthrow their government ten years ago in a war that ended slightly less than two years earlier, you moron.
Um, quite a few of us don't use it as a 'blocking list', we use it a tiny part in the overall decision to block.
Of course, wherever ICANN is located, it will be subject to the jurisdiction of some court.
No it wouldn't. It could be a soveign organization, like the United Nations or the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Just because those are physically located in countries doesn't allow host countries to barge in and make demands. They have treaties with said organizations, and other nations, that say they will not do that.
Of course, ICANN needs internet access, which complicates things a bit. OTOH, they're just actually in charge of the 13 root servers, which require a lot less bandwidth than people think...all DNS servers ask, for example 'Where is .com or .uk located?', get that answer once, and cache it for days.
They actually work on a Red Cross-like idea...the 13 root servers being operated by different national organizations, like the Red Crosses, but if one of them gets meddled with by their government, or goes rogue, they can uncertify it and pick another national organization, probably in a different country.(1)
And, incidentally, means this entire idea of messing with ICANN is silly. The only way ICANN could get rid of the .uk and .org address for spamhous would be is to take all of .uk and .org off the air.
1) I don't recommend this, because ICANN is, right now, CRAP. Seriously, it is completely screwed up, and, right now at least, the US government could fix it.
Or just buy a damn email account. They have free ones that you have to do webmail with, and they have pay ones for trivial prices that you do anything with.
Yes, we could bomb Iran.
And what on earth would that accomplish?
I think you would have been morally justified in taking their car keys away so they couldn't sign up.
So, the person you're responding to is right, and that's revisionist?
Let's recap. Invading Iraq when they have WMD is a bad idea. That's why Iraq wasn't invaded during the Gulf War. With me so far?
So, when there's talk about invading Iraq again, the Democratic party mentions this, presumably because they believe Iraq does have WMDs, thanks to faulty intelligence provided them by the Administration, and because they don't want to send our soldiers to their death pointlessly.
The Administration, however, completely disregard this possiblity, either because they're idiots, they're willing to sacrifice the soldiers, or they know there are no WMDs. (The Republicans in Congress, of course, went along with our Decider-in-Chief.)
What, exactly, was your point there? How does saying 'The Democrats objected to the invasion on the grounds Iraq might use their WMDs' translate into rebuting 'If there had been even the remotest chance that Saddam Hussein had had weapons of mass destruction, do you think we'd have invaded Iraq?'?
'If we thought this road was closed, we wouldn't have taken it.' 'Pete thought this road was closed, and he objected to us taking it, so you're wrong!' 'Huh? Isn't that what I just said?'
All you've demonstrated with your comment is that the Democrats honestly believed there were WMDs, based on the reports from the Administration, and thus, quite sanely, objected to the invasion.