For example, there's nothing on wikipedia's email page or "online service provider law" pages about this, so, no, I'm still not convinced it would be a huge deal to tell people that you're dumping spam, and then dump spam.
That would be fine. Again, it's the 'accept, then silently delete' that's the problem.
And in this case, it should be marked as spam, and either a) held by the ISP for some period of time, per the ToS that the user agreed to, or b) delivered to the user, marked as spam, for them to do with as they see fit.
The ONLY situation that anybody here has described that MUST NOT HAPPEN is this chain of three steps: 1) Recipient's ISP SMTP server accepts a message 2) Recipient's ISP SMTP server decides the message is spam 3) Recipient's ISP SMTP server deletes the message with no notification to anybody
There have, in fact, been lawsuits over this sort of thing.
The ISP must either a) refuse the message at time of delivery, via SMTP reject code, or b) accept the message, and hold it for the recipient. If the recipient chooses not to then access the message, that's their lookout.
Imagine walking up to someone who just got suckerpunched and saying you're neutral on the whole punching-in-the-face thing.
No, imagine talking to somebody who *claims* to have been punched in the face, and saying 'I'm neutral on this, as I don't have enough evidence.'
Or is she expecting the 'privilege' of having her word taken at face value simply because she's a woman? See how pernicious that line of thinking is?
When you take the 'victim's' word at face value, you wind up with this and people even tangentially associated with the accused being fired, harassed and otherwise unfairly treated.
The state is deeply embedded into all economic activity already. Pick a type of business at random and go see what permissions you need to seem before you can start, and what rules you must follow while operating.
Yes, but nowhere near the level of Soviet style communism.
Nearly all education is collectivized, as is nearly all medicine now. Your insurance may not be under Obamacare yet, but every doctor and clinic you go to has warped their practice and administration to comply with Obamacare and Medicare mandates.
Good. Education was one thing the soviets were good at, and the problem with Obamacare is that it's a half-assed compromise cluster fuck. Just go full single-payer, and join the rest of the civilized world in making people not have to consciously decide if they can afford to go see a doctor or not.
The NSA knows everwhere you go and everyone you talk to. If they notice you, they can expand that to knowing what you talk about, secretly. They have dirt on everyone worth the effort. Parallel construction is an abomination against justice. Your local police are equipped and trained like soldiers.
These are problems, but have nothing to do with communist influence, per se. When the NSA can disappear you, when being sent to count trees in an Alaskan gulag is a common threat with teeth, then maybe.
People are routinely pushed out of work, even out of companies they founded, and out of polite society for saying things opposed to the party line. Someone out there tries to maintain a list, but it is hard to keep up now. Brendan Eich, Tim Hunt, James Watson, Donald Sterling. Martin O'Malley was just forced to supplicate himself publicly for failing to stick to the party script. Reporters are climbing over one another for a chance to demonize Trump for daring to utter hatefacts in public.
You know, freedom of the press, and freedom of association, aren't exactly Communist bulwarks. Again, of somebody utters 'hatefacts' and winds up doing 20 years in a labour camp of strict regime, we're communist. If the people, having heard somebody exercise their right of free speech, thanks to the free press, then decides to exercise their own right of free speech in criticizing the original speaker, however, that's kind the opposite of communism.
The idea is that because classification X didn't have certain rights for as long as classification Y did, classification X deserves additional compensation to make up for it.
The classic example is 'two people are in a 100 meter race. One is wearing running shoes, one is wearing iron balls and shackles. At the 50 meter point, you allow the second person to take off the iron balls and shackles. Are they now 'equal?'
I honestly don't know where I fall on that question.
Hmm. I see no state-run economy, no shortages of basic, or even luxury, goods or services, no five year plans, no collectivization of goods or services, no state secret police or internal security apparatus, no political officers, no mandatory party affiliation to progress past 'illiterate farm or factory worker,' and nobody calls anybody 'comrade.'
So, yeah, offhand, I'd say Soviet-style communism hasn't taken hold anywhere, even the former Soviet union.
But this guy was operating his little gun drone safely and responsibly. The fact that he could have chosen not to operate it safely and responsibly doesn't, or shouldn't, suddenly make it illegal.
He didn't point a gun at anyone. If he had, he'd be breaking existing laws, and would be so charged.
So yes, there is no difference between 'he operated a firearm safely' and 'he operated a motor vehicle safely.' If in the first case, you feel justified in saying 'yes BUT,' then you must also feel that the second case is exactly the same.
A lethal weapon whose range can very likely reach far beyond the bounds of the private property. Thus, yes, I should feel threatened because all it takes is a few more feet of altitude, or not paying attention to bearing, or any of a dozen other minor lapses and suddenly I have bullets flying towards me.
By that logic, every time you drive, every human being around you should feel threatened, and you should be charged with something, because all it takes is a few more feet of drift, or not paying attention to bearing, or any of a dozen other minor lapses and suddenly they have a car bearing down on them.
And again, there's a difference between your ISP's mail server issuing an SMTP refusal code, which presumably would then result in a non-delivery message going back to the original sender, and your ISP's mail server accepting the message and deleting it, without informing either a) the sender, or b) the recipient.
You're on ISP A. You want to download from some random site. Random site is on a server hosted by ISP B.
Your buddy is on ISP B. He wants to download from another site. Said site is hosted on ISP A.
See how that works? ISP A is pulling data from ISP B, and ISP B is pulling data from ISP A. Therefore, rather than cut each other identical cheques, they swap data.
Now, you want to pull data from Netflix. Netflix does not want to pull data from your ISP. Therefore, Netflix cannot pay for data with data; they need to pay with cash.
No, that would be stupid, and it's unfortunate that you feel the need to resort to ridiculous hyperbole.
I'm saying that Netflix, like everybody else, needs to pay for wanting to access a given ISP's network. Seeing as how they can't pay with in-kind transit, like, say, other ISPs that both give *and take* traffic, they need to pay with cash.
Cars with ABS brakes, automatic traction control, built-in skid recovery and what not, are already navigating the snow and ice better than the humans driving them can.
An old Lee-Enfield 303 with a wooden stock isn't so easy for the school shooter to conceal on his way to committing the crime.
Because it's impossible to remove either part of the wooden stock, making it a 'sporterized' model, or most of the wooden stock, making it harder to aim, but more concealable.
And it's sure as fuck impossible to replace the stock, or even chop most of it off, drill some holes for large dowels in one end, some holes in the other end, conceal them, and mate them together when you're ready to shoot.
If this were two counties, the term used would be 'imbalance of trade.' Countries have gone to war over this.
Peering is two ISPs bartering bandwidth, rather than writing each other cheques for similar amounts each month. What is Netflix offering to barter with? They want to dump tons of data onto the ISP; what does the ISP get in return?
Slashdot Mirror
That would be fine. Again, it's the 'accept, then silently delete' that's the problem.
Well, here's one along those lines: on Slashdot no less
And in this case, it should be marked as spam, and either a) held by the ISP for some period of time, per the ToS that the user agreed to, or b) delivered to the user, marked as spam, for them to do with as they see fit.
The ONLY situation that anybody here has described that MUST NOT HAPPEN is this chain of three steps:
1) Recipient's ISP SMTP server accepts a message
2) Recipient's ISP SMTP server decides the message is spam
3) Recipient's ISP SMTP server deletes the message with no notification to anybody
There have, in fact, been lawsuits over this sort of thing.
The ISP must either a) refuse the message at time of delivery, via SMTP reject code, or b) accept the message, and hold it for the recipient. If the recipient chooses not to then access the message, that's their lookout.
But did it have any opinions on the idea that love can bloom on the battlefield?
No, imagine talking to somebody who *claims* to have been punched in the face, and saying 'I'm neutral on this, as I don't have enough evidence.'
Or is she expecting the 'privilege' of having her word taken at face value simply because she's a woman? See how pernicious that line of thinking is?
When you take the 'victim's' word at face value, you wind up with this and people even tangentially associated with the accused being fired, harassed and otherwise unfairly treated.
Yes, but nowhere near the level of Soviet style communism.
Good. Education was one thing the soviets were good at, and the problem with Obamacare is that it's a half-assed compromise cluster fuck. Just go full single-payer, and join the rest of the civilized world in making people not have to consciously decide if they can afford to go see a doctor or not.
These are problems, but have nothing to do with communist influence, per se. When the NSA can disappear you, when being sent to count trees in an Alaskan gulag is a common threat with teeth, then maybe.
You know, freedom of the press, and freedom of association, aren't exactly Communist bulwarks. Again, of somebody utters 'hatefacts' and winds up doing 20 years in a labour camp of strict regime, we're communist. If the people, having heard somebody exercise their right of free speech, thanks to the free press, then decides to exercise their own right of free speech in criticizing the original speaker, however, that's kind the opposite of communism.
Brianna Wu was born a man. I'm honestly not sure if, despite being transsexual, Brianna Wu can actually speak to the problems women face.
The idea is that because classification X didn't have certain rights for as long as classification Y did, classification X deserves additional compensation to make up for it.
The classic example is 'two people are in a 100 meter race. One is wearing running shoes, one is wearing iron balls and shackles. At the 50 meter point, you allow the second person to take off the iron balls and shackles. Are they now 'equal?'
I honestly don't know where I fall on that question.
Hmm. I see no state-run economy, no shortages of basic, or even luxury, goods or services, no five year plans, no collectivization of goods or services, no state secret police or internal security apparatus, no political officers, no mandatory party affiliation to progress past 'illiterate farm or factory worker,' and nobody calls anybody 'comrade.'
So, yeah, offhand, I'd say Soviet-style communism hasn't taken hold anywhere, even the former Soviet union.
But this guy was operating his little gun drone safely and responsibly. The fact that he could have chosen not to operate it safely and responsibly doesn't, or shouldn't, suddenly make it illegal.
He didn't point a gun at anyone. If he had, he'd be breaking existing laws, and would be so charged.
So yes, there is no difference between 'he operated a firearm safely' and 'he operated a motor vehicle safely.' If in the first case, you feel justified in saying 'yes BUT,' then you must also feel that the second case is exactly the same.
By the way, I'm not American.
So after McCarthy was stopped, why did the Reds not manage to take over the country?
In other words, as with everything else, it can be put to good or to bad use depending solely on the volitional human being actually employing it.
By that logic, every time you drive, every human being around you should feel threatened, and you should be charged with something, because all it takes is a few more feet of drift, or not paying attention to bearing, or any of a dozen other minor lapses and suddenly they have a car bearing down on them.
And again, there's a difference between your ISP's mail server issuing an SMTP refusal code, which presumably would then result in a non-delivery message going back to the original sender, and your ISP's mail server accepting the message and deleting it, without informing either a) the sender, or b) the recipient.
No, but if your ISP incorrectly classifies a job offer sent to you as spam, and summarily deletes it, you're probably going to sue them.
You're on ISP A. You want to download from some random site. Random site is on a server hosted by ISP B.
Your buddy is on ISP B. He wants to download from another site. Said site is hosted on ISP A.
See how that works? ISP A is pulling data from ISP B, and ISP B is pulling data from ISP A. Therefore, rather than cut each other identical cheques, they swap data.
Now, you want to pull data from Netflix. Netflix does not want to pull data from your ISP. Therefore, Netflix cannot pay for data with data; they need to pay with cash.
No, that would be stupid, and it's unfortunate that you feel the need to resort to ridiculous hyperbole.
I'm saying that Netflix, like everybody else, needs to pay for wanting to access a given ISP's network. Seeing as how they can't pay with in-kind transit, like, say, other ISPs that both give *and take* traffic, they need to pay with cash.
Because in America, you can open a bank like you can open any other business, so there's thousands of them.
If you don't have ABS, or you have sub-average braking, you'd best be driving to reflect that. So no.
Or you could just watch the video linked in the submission, which shows the situation, and clearly shows the human driver as at fault.
Where was it supposed to go? It had a vehicle in front, in front and left, and a sidewalk to the right.
Cars with ABS brakes, automatic traction control, built-in skid recovery and what not, are already navigating the snow and ice better than the humans driving them can.
Happy customers are paying to move traffic across their ISP's network.
ISPs agree to swap traffic in kind.
Netflix has nothing to swap in kind, so they need to pay.
Because it's impossible to remove either part of the wooden stock, making it a 'sporterized' model, or most of the wooden stock, making it harder to aim, but more concealable.
And it's sure as fuck impossible to replace the stock, or even chop most of it off, drill some holes for large dowels in one end, some holes in the other end, conceal them, and mate them together when you're ready to shoot.
If this were two counties, the term used would be 'imbalance of trade.' Countries have gone to war over this.
Peering is two ISPs bartering bandwidth, rather than writing each other cheques for similar amounts each month. What is Netflix offering to barter with? They want to dump tons of data onto the ISP; what does the ISP get in return?
Interestingly, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has this explicitly laid out:
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
Whereas the US Constitution doesn't. Historical US Jurisprudence on the subject is, as with most other US Jurisprudence, tricky. Teh Wikis.