I think providing a true phone number of the caller, and some reasonably verified contact information for the entity using it, is completely reasonable. Yes.
It would be the only way from preventing some boiler room operation with their own PBX posing as some telephone company. "We just provide the phones! We're not responsible for our customers in the cubicles!" Well... then... you pay the fine. You're the last traceable hop.
Will we ever get it? No. No regulatory agency would be able to get past the politics. This contest is a smokescreen to make it look like they're doing something.
Huge fines, but with the added requirement that the phone company must pay it if the caller cannot be identified.
"The phone company" being the company where the trace gets lost. The concept that the sender is responsible for provisioning his own caller id is a ludicrous design flaw. Something more akin to ANI is needed (host based)... plus some very aggressive regulatory enforcement. It's a political 3rd rail, however.
Haselton has long been an advocate of open mail servers. For the longest time he claimed to have been running one and that he had his own system to control the spam through it. I admit I never really cared what his system of control was. He continued to run one at the same time the industry was quickly realizing that open mail servers were a bigger nuisance than they were worth, so were locking them down to send outgoing mail only from their internal netblocks and terminating the spammers on their own network.
I must assume Bennett's system was not perfect, because the DNS blocklist operators would occasionally list him, at which point he would raise a ruckus about the evils of blocklists rather than accept the facts showing the evils of open mail servers in the first place. This sure feels like an extension of that, with the consequences being applied to his domains instead of his mail servers.
Don't talk to him like a noob, people. Bennett has been around a very, very long time. He has had a beef with DNS distributed blocklists for most of that time. Others publishing their opinions gets in his craw when it interferes with his operations. He comes in here periodically with his latest incident to rally the "freedom to do whatever I want" crowd into a frenzy. He also posts lots of other stuff worth reading. *grin*
If one considers the DBL a list of domains who have appeared in emails to spamtraps, then I would contend that it very possible that the "zero false positive" claim holds up because it very well might have happened. If it claims that all listed entities are domains owned by spam operators, then he might have an argument.
Haselton's fundamental gripe is that he should be free to communicate until a real person decides he shouldn't. The fact that automated systems now make the blocking decision, requiring human intervention to override them, is an inverted model compared to the "old internet." (The necessity came from the raw volume of spam) The death of the "old internet" began with Canter and Siegel. Some of our long-term, asylum residents just haven't accepted that fact.
Use of false identities was a modus operandi in committing his previous crimes. I read somewhere that one of his conditions for parole was that he stop doing it.
The Wikitravel.org website is theirs. The content was created by volunteers, who agreed to let the site use the content they created under the CC by-sa license. At no point did the content creators relinquish their copyright to Wikitravel.org. In fact the volunteers all agreed their content could be shared and modified under the Creative Commons license, as long as the modifications were also shareable.
Wikitravel wants to claim copyright on material that was never theirs to begin with.
Because, like a [water] ship, fellow passengers can't just get off the plane at the side of the road at the first sign of trouble. Thousands of years of experience have shown why the the captain having this authority is necessary. There are no police to call in an emergency. There is the authority of the captain and, after that, the mob, your fellow passengers. Anyone who has studied mass psychology as a reaction to fear will tell you that you really want the captain making those decisions.
"Rage against THE MAN!" just isn't going to fly here, in both the metaphorical and literal sense.
This is a knee-jerk reaction, but I am going to just say it anyway.
My instinct tells me it is much more likely they were denied for just being jerks during the whole ordeal. I just find it highly unlikely that someone would decide to wear such a shirt in advance, arrive at the terminal, and not do or say other things to provoke. I suppose it's possible... in some alternate universe.
You define, in person and in writing, what sexual harassment is. (See a lawyer if you're confused, although there is plenty of documentation on the internet.) You develop a policy, also written, on how it will be dealt with, including full documentation in their employee file for every offense and then you follow that policy to the letter. That policy had better be "one, maybe two, warnings and then they are they are fired," or you are going to lose any resulting lawsuit.
You have very little time to "embrace your managerness" here. As someone else pointed out, this ain't yer frat house.
20% advantage of black voters, which are 12.6% of the population... so any such effect results in a 2.52% boost in support over previous democratic candidates. But yeah, 20% sounds scarier.
Asking questions is such a hostile act. I don't know how my predecesors dealt with such abuse! It's downright inhumane I tell you. Such brutality must be stamped out everywhere.
Let me follow...
Ukrainian border security underpaid, uninterested, and don't do their jobs. Therefore, this is the right way to do things.
US border security actually does something, like ask questions (omg). Therefore they're being brutal.
I make dog jackets and I just performed a survey. (The participants were lImited to my existing customer base if you're interested). They apparently have a deep fear of their dogs getting cold. We need a press release on this immediately. Alert MSNBC, Foxnews, and TMZ immediately.
The post is a bit misleading. My understanding is that this first production batch is to be the $35 version which is what the developers are clamoring for.
I'm not so sure the scientists intended that, but the reporters felt a need to glam the article up to sell copy.
The issue here is that now we are going to have trouble with a union of the set of anti-science loons and the set of religious fundamentalists. Let us not be satisfied with unnecessarily pissing off just one group, when we can do two!
I merely will point out... again... that you're testing the wrong thing.
If you want to test the student's knowledge of the equal sign, then do so. If you want to test the student's adaptability and intuitiveness given non-standard notation, then do so. But don't mix the two and think you're proving anything valuable. Which piece do you fix? Remember, as the teacher, you are now tasked with remedial teaching.
Slashdot Mirror
I think providing a true phone number of the caller, and some reasonably verified contact information for the entity using it, is completely reasonable. Yes.
It would be the only way from preventing some boiler room operation with their own PBX posing as some telephone company. "We just provide the phones! We're not responsible for our customers in the cubicles!" Well... then... you pay the fine. You're the last traceable hop.
Will we ever get it? No. No regulatory agency would be able to get past the politics. This contest is a smokescreen to make it look like they're doing something.
Oh that's easy.
Huge fines, but with the added requirement that the phone company must pay it if the caller cannot be identified.
"The phone company" being the company where the trace gets lost. The concept that the sender is responsible for provisioning his own caller id is a ludicrous design flaw. Something more akin to ANI is needed (host based)... plus some very aggressive regulatory enforcement. It's a political 3rd rail, however.
Check me on this.
Haselton has long been an advocate of open mail servers. For the longest time he claimed to have been running one and that he had his own system to control the spam through it. I admit I never really cared what his system of control was. He continued to run one at the same time the industry was quickly realizing that open mail servers were a bigger nuisance than they were worth, so were locking them down to send outgoing mail only from their internal netblocks and terminating the spammers on their own network.
I must assume Bennett's system was not perfect, because the DNS blocklist operators would occasionally list him, at which point he would raise a ruckus about the evils of blocklists rather than accept the facts showing the evils of open mail servers in the first place. This sure feels like an extension of that, with the consequences being applied to his domains instead of his mail servers.
Don't talk to him like a noob, people. Bennett has been around a very, very long time. He has had a beef with DNS distributed blocklists for most of that time. Others publishing their opinions gets in his craw when it interferes with his operations. He comes in here periodically with his latest incident to rally the "freedom to do whatever I want" crowd into a frenzy. He also posts lots of other stuff worth reading. *grin*
If one considers the DBL a list of domains who have appeared in emails to spamtraps, then I would contend that it very possible that the "zero false positive" claim holds up because it very well might have happened. If it claims that all listed entities are domains owned by spam operators, then he might have an argument.
Haselton's fundamental gripe is that he should be free to communicate until a real person decides he shouldn't. The fact that automated systems now make the blocking decision, requiring human intervention to override them, is an inverted model compared to the "old internet." (The necessity came from the raw volume of spam) The death of the "old internet" began with Canter and Siegel. Some of our long-term, asylum residents just haven't accepted that fact.
Oh man. I hope his daughter doesn't have a cellphone.
Use of false identities was a modus operandi in committing his previous crimes. I read somewhere that one of his conditions for parole was that he stop doing it.
Hardware to run it on. Space in server room. Back up procedures. There is a cost.
Not that you specifically advocated this but "just download Subversion and run it on your desktop" is not an adequate solution here.
The Wikitravel.org website is theirs. The content was created by volunteers, who agreed to let the site use the content they created under the CC by-sa license. At no point did the content creators relinquish their copyright to Wikitravel.org. In fact the volunteers all agreed their content could be shared and modified under the Creative Commons license, as long as the modifications were also shareable.
Wikitravel wants to claim copyright on material that was never theirs to begin with.
Because, like a [water] ship, fellow passengers can't just get off the plane at the side of the road at the first sign of trouble. Thousands of years of experience have shown why the the captain having this authority is necessary. There are no police to call in an emergency. There is the authority of the captain and, after that, the mob, your fellow passengers. Anyone who has studied mass psychology as a reaction to fear will tell you that you really want the captain making those decisions.
"Rage against THE MAN!" just isn't going to fly here, in both the metaphorical and literal sense.
This is a knee-jerk reaction, but I am going to just say it anyway.
My instinct tells me it is much more likely they were denied for just being jerks during the whole ordeal. I just find it highly unlikely that someone would decide to wear such a shirt in advance, arrive at the terminal, and not do or say other things to provoke. I suppose it's possible... in some alternate universe.
ROFL. Those statutes don't mean what you think they mean. Good luck with that. Enjoy prison.
In the state of Georgia I have the right to use deadly force to protect my property from being forcibly taken from me.
Citation please. I call shenanigans.
That's a clown question, bro.
You define, in person and in writing, what sexual harassment is. (See a lawyer if you're confused, although there is plenty of documentation on the internet.) You develop a policy, also written, on how it will be dealt with, including full documentation in their employee file for every offense and then you follow that policy to the letter. That policy had better be "one, maybe two, warnings and then they are they are fired," or you are going to lose any resulting lawsuit.
You have very little time to "embrace your managerness" here. As someone else pointed out, this ain't yer frat house.
20% advantage of black voters, which are 12.6% of the population... so any such effect results in a 2.52% boost in support over previous democratic candidates. But yeah, 20% sounds scarier.
Asking questions is such a hostile act. I don't know how my predecesors dealt with such abuse! It's downright inhumane I tell you. Such brutality must be stamped out everywhere.
Let me follow...
Ukrainian border security underpaid, uninterested, and don't do their jobs. Therefore, this is the right way to do things.
US border security actually does something, like ask questions (omg). Therefore they're being brutal.
I make dog jackets and I just performed a survey. (The participants were lImited to my existing customer base if you're interested). They apparently have a deep fear of their dogs getting cold. We need a press release on this immediately. Alert MSNBC, Foxnews, and TMZ immediately.
I'm betting there is some warranty clause that kicks in at 115.
The post is a bit misleading. My understanding is that this first production batch is to be the $35 version which is what the developers are clamoring for.
Great quote. And true, if you think murder is the only crime an entity should go to jail for.
Their names and approximate location are given in the article. You can easily locate their home using county auditor's website.
Well... that and a compass should make it easy.
RTFA fail
I'm sure it's true the two sets are not mutually exclusive. It would be amazing if it were.
I'm not so sure the scientists intended that, but the reporters felt a need to glam the article up to sell copy.
The issue here is that now we are going to have trouble with a union of the set of anti-science loons and the set of religious fundamentalists. Let us not be satisfied with unnecessarily pissing off just one group, when we can do two!
The crux being that The Daily Show admits it openly.
I merely will point out... again... that you're testing the wrong thing.
If you want to test the student's knowledge of the equal sign, then do so. If you want to test the student's adaptability and intuitiveness given non-standard notation, then do so. But don't mix the two and think you're proving anything valuable. Which piece do you fix? Remember, as the teacher, you are now tasked with remedial teaching.