Im not saying that ignoring them will make them go away-- though certainly I dont think the media coverage of them when theyre outrageous helps; Im saying to ignore them so it would stop offending us. We know that theyre hateful, but whether we choose to be offended and hurt by it is up to us.
You know that you wont change them by calling them hateful bigots, and I contend that any attempt to make "being hateful" illegal would be even more destructive; so I see no reason to spend another moment worrying about "what to do" about them-- theres nothing to be done.
You are seeing what WBC does as an "abuse" ; do you not realize that folks who disagree (or even take offense) with your views might view them as similar abuses?
This is precisely why you do not want to start down that road. Once we see certain views as "abuses" of the first amendment, all bets are off on safe political speech. People read about the NSPA (basically nazis) in Skokie, Il and their legal fight to keep their right to assembly-- and they think that this is an anomaly, that real free speech should not be as offensive as the Nazi party's. But who is to say whether someone else finds your own poltical views just as offensive? Are you willing to stake your first amendment rights on it?
Have you ever thought about what the consequence of so called "free speech" in this case?
You know, it means very little to defend free speech when it is speech you like. Have you thought of the consequences of only allowing that "free" speech which you find acceptable? Or whether it could be considered free at all?
The WBC is guilty of being hateful. To my knowledge that is not currently against the law (but stay tuned!), and you really do not want something that arbitrary to BECOME against the law, either officially or in a de facto manner by the actions of vigilantes. That people see anonymous' actions in attacking a particular brand of free speech as acceptable and commendable is just a clear example of why true freedoms cannot last in a society; eventually people realize what that freedom means and start to give it up in the name of their own wants.
There is no "solution" to what the WBC does except to ignore them. It is how you deal with someone in the classroom who calls you names behind the teacher's back, and for much the same reason: sometimes trying to "solve" the problem creates much worse ones.
PS: If you think the goal of a company is "spend time / money in court trying to milk a dry cow", then you really dont have the knowledge to comment on this issue. "Using appropriate legal means" is generally your last resort, right after "forwarded to collections and took a 50% loss".
Take it to court and it could either A) get you absolutely nothing (company goes bankrupt, your debt is last in line) or B) get tied up for years and cost more than the invoice (if the customer has a lot of money and wants to make your life difficult). Generally businesses want to stay in their primary competency, not get slogged down in a painful legal battle.
Oh. I see. So your saying that he may be in exactly the same spot he is in now. They might not keep pissing in his face if he doesn't allow it. That's a great point!
Theories are great. This is a policy that was actually in use by the company I used to work for, and it worked well. Companies with an urgent IT need would generally draft a check for however much they could afford, and we would do the work. Generally the amount paid was for a greater amount than the new work to be invoiced-- I believe that was also part of the general policy.
So you can say all you want about how it should be and what you would do, but that doesnt mean a whole log unless you have actual data to back it up.
I really think Im starting to see things through Metro's point of view. Really, Im sure I deserve this somehow, and its not all THAT bad. Honestly, Microsoft is doing me a favor here.
To be fair, I was pretty rabidly anti-metro about 2 weeks ago, and my dislike is waning a bit. I still miss the old start menu, and every time metro comes up i hit "escape", but the new search is OK and it seems like the use of RAM as cache is better this time around.
"Getting used to" doesnt mean that Im happy that things changed, however. One "gets used to" a chronic health ailment; that doesnt mean youre happy that you got it to begin with, it just means youre learning to deal with it.
You can't stop a problem from continuing if you endorse the behavior on any level.
Its not about endorsing it, its about getting your money. Saying "i wont accept a penny less than full payment" may just end you up without a single penny.
We have the westboro baptist to show how people still really dont get how "rights for everyone" means protecting people they dont like. And most people still dont get it.
Comments like his, and like this from the article: “You are one of the most disgusting people on Earth,@DearShirley. I wish it was you and your hate group instead of those beautiful children.” Kind of disgust me.
Good to know hate is OK, so long as its "us" hating "them".
I wasnt aware that ext3 was considered "highly reliable"; certainly it is a journaling filesystem, but I think ive seen a relatively (compared to number of systems seen) equal number of filesystem disasters on both. Ive seen chkdsk recover NTFS from some pretty bad states, and ive seen fsdisk fail spectacularly.
Ext3 is "reliable" because it has been in service basically forever and because it is journaling, not for any other reason. AFAIK it doesnt have any super-advanced reliability features like checksumming or automatic snapshotting.
The odds are that if OP didnt give us the name, its because he/she was not authorized to do so by superiors / legal department. Publicly calling someone out like that without being cleared first is a bad idea: for the poster, it could potentially cost their job, and for the company it could start a defamation lawsuit.
Im not a huge supporter of unions, but Im not seeing why I would hate that idea. I think most people would agree that if a customer treats you like crap, dropping them is a really good way to solve the problem.
Maybe next time they send a work request to you just respond "would love to do the work, but my superiors say I cannot begin work until we get at least a partial payment for the past invoices". Thats how we handled it at my past job and it always worked pretty well, both at cutting off people who truly werent going to pay and at getting money from folks who were just a bit behind the curve.
If ext3 is showing as faster than FAT in your benchmarks, your benchmarks are horribly flawed. A non-journaling filesystem with real metadata is going to be oodles faster than any journaling filesystem.
Heck, I wouldnt be suprised if NTFS were competitive with EXT3, ext3 isnt exactly known as a speed demon.
FAT32 is going to be faster than a LOT of filesystems precisely because it lacks features like dedup, any notion of real ACLs, and, oh, I dont know, data integrity. Thats why if you want a really fast RAMDisk, you dont use NTFS or ReFS, you use FAT16 or FAT32.
Things in a state of perpetual change generally have a terminal position-- theyre in a state of instability, and will naturally tend towards a state of stability. Its not just running out of juice, but why that stable terminal position hasnt been reached yet.
The domains he mentions in his automated emails are considered threats by a lot of filtering programs out there. Theyre literally about circumventing acceptable use policies.
Theres not much of a mystery here; I feel like this story comes up every few months, and he still doesnt get why hes so unpopular with IT departments.
You skipped the part where the emails are sent in an automated fashion and that their content is very likely to violate computer acceptable use policy in a LOT of places, which I strongly suspect is related to the reason they are blocked. He also mentioned starting up a number of domains to get around the problem, which behavior is quite remeniscent of how spammers rapidly register obscure domains to get around blacklists.
Theres not a story here. People use blacklists, and have for years, and some of those blacklists are shared. If you want to stay off the blacklist, there are simple steps you can take:
* Dont run an open relay
* Probably a good idea to have a static ip, especially so that...
* You have an accurate reverse DNS entry
* Block outgoing SMTP from network except from trusted sources to prevent spamviruses from getting you blacklisted
* SPF records wouldnt hurt
* If you dont use SPF, it might help if an MX record actually exists for the domain you are sending from
* Make sure your server can handle greylisting (ie, that it will retry after some period if it receives a "server busy" response)
Slashdot Mirror
You might say that, until you see the part where he says "....tip over....[insert flipping motion with hand]... and capsize".
Honestly, the hand motions are what kill me-- that, and the admiral trying to keep a straight face.
Im not saying that ignoring them will make them go away-- though certainly I dont think the media coverage of them when theyre outrageous helps; Im saying to ignore them so it would stop offending us. We know that theyre hateful, but whether we choose to be offended and hurt by it is up to us.
You know that you wont change them by calling them hateful bigots, and I contend that any attempt to make "being hateful" illegal would be even more destructive; so I see no reason to spend another moment worrying about "what to do" about them-- theres nothing to be done.
B) Customer has lots of money, and because you acted like a jerk they tie it up in court for years. You get no money, and have a stack of legal bills.
Great idea! Rather than just doing $x worth of work and getting a check for $x + some quantity of the past invoices, we'll put it in legal limbo!
You are seeing what WBC does as an "abuse" ; do you not realize that folks who disagree (or even take offense) with your views might view them as similar abuses?
This is precisely why you do not want to start down that road. Once we see certain views as "abuses" of the first amendment, all bets are off on safe political speech. People read about the NSPA (basically nazis) in Skokie, Il and their legal fight to keep their right to assembly-- and they think that this is an anomaly, that real free speech should not be as offensive as the Nazi party's. But who is to say whether someone else finds your own poltical views just as offensive? Are you willing to stake your first amendment rights on it?
Have you ever thought about what the consequence of so called "free speech" in this case?
You know, it means very little to defend free speech when it is speech you like. Have you thought of the consequences of only allowing that "free" speech which you find acceptable? Or whether it could be considered free at all?
The WBC is guilty of being hateful. To my knowledge that is not currently against the law (but stay tuned!), and you really do not want something that arbitrary to BECOME against the law, either officially or in a de facto manner by the actions of vigilantes. That people see anonymous' actions in attacking a particular brand of free speech as acceptable and commendable is just a clear example of why true freedoms cannot last in a society; eventually people realize what that freedom means and start to give it up in the name of their own wants.
There is no "solution" to what the WBC does except to ignore them. It is how you deal with someone in the classroom who calls you names behind the teacher's back, and for much the same reason: sometimes trying to "solve" the problem creates much worse ones.
PS: If you think the goal of a company is "spend time / money in court trying to milk a dry cow", then you really dont have the knowledge to comment on this issue. "Using appropriate legal means" is generally your last resort, right after "forwarded to collections and took a 50% loss".
Take it to court and it could either A) get you absolutely nothing (company goes bankrupt, your debt is last in line) or B) get tied up for years and cost more than the invoice (if the customer has a lot of money and wants to make your life difficult). Generally businesses want to stay in their primary competency, not get slogged down in a painful legal battle.
Oh. I see. So your saying that he may be in exactly the same spot he is in now. They might not keep pissing in his face if he doesn't allow it. That's a great point!
Theories are great. This is a policy that was actually in use by the company I used to work for, and it worked well. Companies with an urgent IT need would generally draft a check for however much they could afford, and we would do the work. Generally the amount paid was for a greater amount than the new work to be invoiced-- I believe that was also part of the general policy.
So you can say all you want about how it should be and what you would do, but that doesnt mean a whole log unless you have actual data to back it up.
I really think Im starting to see things through Metro's point of view. Really, Im sure I deserve this somehow, and its not all THAT bad. Honestly, Microsoft is doing me a favor here.
To be fair, I was pretty rabidly anti-metro about 2 weeks ago, and my dislike is waning a bit. I still miss the old start menu, and every time metro comes up i hit "escape", but the new search is OK and it seems like the use of RAM as cache is better this time around.
"Getting used to" doesnt mean that Im happy that things changed, however. One "gets used to" a chronic health ailment; that doesnt mean youre happy that you got it to begin with, it just means youre learning to deal with it.
You can't stop a problem from continuing if you endorse the behavior on any level.
Its not about endorsing it, its about getting your money. Saying "i wont accept a penny less than full payment" may just end you up without a single penny.
I got an 8 core piledriver for $180, and it wasnt any particular kind of deal. Just go to newegg.
I am a conservative, but grats on the ad hominem.
Anon is attempting to suppress free speech, and people are applauding and calling it "right" because they dont like this particular brand of speech.
Which means that really, its not free speech people want, its their personal right to say what they want.
We have the westboro baptist to show how people still really dont get how "rights for everyone" means protecting people they dont like. And most people still dont get it.
Law intrudes because people are applauding vigilante action that would attempt to suppress freedom of speech.
No, its not OK to hack someone just because you find them really, REALLY offensive. Really.
Comments like his, and like this from the article:
“You are one of the most disgusting people on Earth,@DearShirley. I wish it was you and your hate group instead of those beautiful children.”
Kind of disgust me.
Good to know hate is OK, so long as its "us" hating "them".
I wasnt aware that ext3 was considered "highly reliable"; certainly it is a journaling filesystem, but I think ive seen a relatively (compared to number of systems seen) equal number of filesystem disasters on both. Ive seen chkdsk recover NTFS from some pretty bad states, and ive seen fsdisk fail spectacularly.
Ext3 is "reliable" because it has been in service basically forever and because it is journaling, not for any other reason. AFAIK it doesnt have any super-advanced reliability features like checksumming or automatic snapshotting.
The odds are that if OP didnt give us the name, its because he/she was not authorized to do so by superiors / legal department. Publicly calling someone out like that without being cleared first is a bad idea: for the poster, it could potentially cost their job, and for the company it could start a defamation lawsuit.
Im not a huge supporter of unions, but Im not seeing why I would hate that idea. I think most people would agree that if a customer treats you like crap, dropping them is a really good way to solve the problem.
Maybe next time they send a work request to you just respond "would love to do the work, but my superiors say I cannot begin work until we get at least a partial payment for the past invoices". Thats how we handled it at my past job and it always worked pretty well, both at cutting off people who truly werent going to pay and at getting money from folks who were just a bit behind the curve.
If ext3 is showing as faster than FAT in your benchmarks, your benchmarks are horribly flawed. A non-journaling filesystem with real metadata is going to be oodles faster than any journaling filesystem.
Heck, I wouldnt be suprised if NTFS were competitive with EXT3, ext3 isnt exactly known as a speed demon.
FAT32 is going to be faster than a LOT of filesystems precisely because it lacks features like dedup, any notion of real ACLs, and, oh, I dont know, data integrity. Thats why if you want a really fast RAMDisk, you dont use NTFS or ReFS, you use FAT16 or FAT32.
You cant multiply / divide temperatures in the way youre doing without converting to kelvin first.
for reference,
-179C is 94K
-57C is 216K
So the first is a little bit under "half the temperature" or "twice as cold".
Things in a state of perpetual change generally have a terminal position-- theyre in a state of instability, and will naturally tend towards a state of stability. Its not just running out of juice, but why that stable terminal position hasnt been reached yet.
The domains he mentions in his automated emails are considered threats by a lot of filtering programs out there. Theyre literally about circumventing acceptable use policies.
Theres not much of a mystery here; I feel like this story comes up every few months, and he still doesnt get why hes so unpopular with IT departments.
You skipped the part where the emails are sent in an automated fashion and that their content is very likely to violate computer acceptable use policy in a LOT of places, which I strongly suspect is related to the reason they are blocked. He also mentioned starting up a number of domains to get around the problem, which behavior is quite remeniscent of how spammers rapidly register obscure domains to get around blacklists.
Theres not a story here. People use blacklists, and have for years, and some of those blacklists are shared. If you want to stay off the blacklist, there are simple steps you can take:
* Dont run an open relay
* Probably a good idea to have a static ip, especially so that...
* You have an accurate reverse DNS entry
* Block outgoing SMTP from network except from trusted sources to prevent spamviruses from getting you blacklisted
* SPF records wouldnt hurt
* If you dont use SPF, it might help if an MX record actually exists for the domain you are sending from
* Make sure your server can handle greylisting (ie, that it will retry after some period if it receives a "server busy" response)