There's that bit at the end where the Nebucannazar (sp?) gets cut open, but we don't see what happens after the EMP blast; maybe the instant the squiddies are dead, the remaining living humans on the hovercraft have to go running for the oxygen masks.
Neo and Trinity did take the time to have a nice passionate kiss immediately after, so it seems kind of unlikely.
Maybe they were just sharing oxygen, like Coster & other person in Waterworld... or maybe not.
I use NBD (network block device) combined with software RAID1 to give automatic mirroring of data across 2 machines.
Unfortunately NBD in 2.4 simply _doesn't work_ - the client (with the nbd.o module) dies as soon as you try to transfer any significant amount of data (~4Kb). How it could have made it all the way to the stable kernel is beyond me, even with 2.4's reputation.
I've tried unapplying the NBD sections of each relevant patch since 2.2, (all of 2.4 and 2.3 series) to see where it broke, without much luck so far. I've worked out that the current behaviour has existed since 2.4.4. I got all the way back to 2.3.46, prior to which (haven't tried any earlier yet) it doesn't compile properly.
In short, yucky. So much for our backup solution on a RH6.2->RH8.0 upgrade...
Someone a while ago made a good point in this regard. It's especially true since these folks would definitely be wary of any code that is submitted through unknown / untrusted sources.
Someone else made an opposing argument, but I don't think this project will have these problems, for much the same reason.
I think it's a good idea, all round. These workers get the benefit of peer review, and the peers come away with a good feeling, knowing that they've potentially saved a lot of peoples' lives (not just their jobs)...
Do you really think any of the GTA games are about realistic game play? Seriously, how long would you be able to run around beating old women, stealing cars and breaking every traffic law under the sun?
Making games too realistic has the downside that they're too much like my real life (which is one of the reason I enjoy the non-realistic games).
Good point, I suppose. Granted, you're certainly not _allowed_ to do all those things, and with good reason.
But, on the other hand, if it's not actually about realism, then why go to the trouble of making them as realistic as they are? (And, in the case of GTA1 I believe, actually modelling various cars on real-world counterparts?)
For those who don't really want realism, there's plenty of "unrealistic" ways of having fun, such as slaying dragons, etc. (No offence to our fantasy-loving friends.)
But, it seems, if they do bother with things like driving on the correct side of the road, obeying traffic signals, etc (even though you, as the player, don't have to - which is the "illegal" "unrealistic" part), then they should at least _try_ to make the driving characteristics sensible, seeing as driving is a major part of the game...
But the answer to the more important question doesn't bode well for Mr. Gates. Honestly, what do you think he's going to say, 20 years (or 22, now) later? "Yes, absolutely. If you can't fit your OS and all your applications into a generous 640K RAM you're doing something wrong" ? Right...
I instead favour the "revisionist history" theory - think Internet strategy and The Road Ahead (version 1) here.
Actually, I heard from Bill himself that he was misquoted on that and he basically said the opposite, that computers would not survive on a small amount of ram.
Interesting... do you have any link for that?
And of course the more important question is, how soon after the original "quote" was that statement made? I'm sure he'd love to "clear up" one of his most infamous statements after the fact... revisionist history and all that;)
Well, I guess "Score 4, Interesting" means that someone's interested... just save some mod points for this post, OK?;)
This is taken from "The Philadelphia Experiment", Charles Berlitz and William Moore, pp173-7. The story is told in the book as being one- and two-levels removed,
so there are a lot of extra names in here which I'm snipping. The gist of
the actual UFO story is as follows...
(It looks like this is reported elsewhere online, but not in this level of detail.)
Late in the evening on Tuesday October 7, 1975, Robert Suffern, a
twenty-seven-year-old carpenter from rural Bracebridge, Ontario,
received a call from his sister, who lives down the road, asking him to
investigate a strange glow that seemed to be coming from a nearby barn.
Suffern drove to the barn, took a quick look around, and not seeing
anything out of the ordinary, was proceeding to his sister's house when
he was startled to see a darkened saucer-shaped object about 12 to 14
feet in diameter squatting on the gravelled road directly ahead of
him.
`I was scared,' he later recounted to a Toronto Sun reporter.
`It was right there in front of me with no lights and no signs of
life.' His car hadn't quite come to a full stop, he said, when the
object `went straight up in the air and out of sight.'
According to Suffern's story, he had no sooner managed to turn his
car around and head for home when a strange, 4-foot-tall humanlike
creature with `very wide shoulders which were out of proportion to his
body' and wearing a silver-grey suit and a globe-type helmet walked out
into the road right in front of his car. Suffern slammed on the brakes,
skidding on the loose gravel, and came within inches of colliding with
the creature, who promptly dodged out of the way, ran to the side of
the road, jumped a fence, and disappeared into a field. According to
the account Suffern gave to the Sun reporter, when the figure
`got to the fence, he put his hands on a post and went over it with no
effort at all. It was like he was weightless.'
Badly shaken by this encounter, Suffern finally succeeded in
driving home, only to discover when he looked out the window of his
house that the UFO had returned, this time flying slowly close over the
road. At that moment, it flew around an electric pole and again
disappeared, seemingly going straight up into the night sky.
Neither relatives, close friends, nor the reporters, investigators,
and plain curious who descended on his farmhouse over the next several
weeks could dislodge him from his story.
`I know what I saw,' he said. `But I don't care if I ever see that
creature again.'
Of course, if the story ended at this point, it would be nothing
more than another addition to an every growing list of mysterious and
difficult-to-verify close-encounter cases in recent years. But there
was more...
On December 12, 1975, after the Sufferns were beginning to feel some
semblance of order again (their farm was literally swamped for weeks by
roving bands of curiosity seekers) three men were delivered to their
home in an Ontario Provincial Police cruiser. The appointment had been
pre-arranged in November. These officials arrived in full uniform,
bearing impressive credentials and representing themselves as the TOP
BRASS from the Canadian Forces in Ottawa, the United States Air Force,
Pentagon, and from the Office of Naval Intelligence. Suffern,
previously perturbed about the nature of his UFO encounter, claimed
that ALL his questions were answered POINT BLANK and with NO
HESITATIONS by these three helpful gentlemen. They `opened the books'
to him and gave him the answers to the WHERE FROM, the What and the
Why. They implied that the U.S. and Canadian governments have known all
about UFOs since 1943 and have in fact been cooperating with the ALIENS
in some unknown capacity since then!
As if this wasn't enough to swallow in one gulp, the military
`know-it-alls' threw us yet another curve when they made a formal
APOLOGY [to Suffern] for the unfortunate incident of Oct. 7. They
claimed it was a MISTAKE!! To which Suffern immediately thought out
loud that it must have been a supersecret military craft. No, they
claimed. It was a malfunction in the saucer that brought the craft
down, complete with aliens, on his property. Mrs Suffern found all this
quite impossible to accept, but when she quizzed them, the officers
actually came up with the exact time of the landing - to the minute - a
small detail that only the Sufferns knew and had not conveyed to
anyone. They have had three different UFO sightings over their
property, only the last of which they reported, and again the
times and dates were duly related to them by the knowledgeable trio.
The enlightened agents, carrying a battery of books and data (complete
with gun camera photos of UFO), again emphasized that the landing was
an ACCIDENT and should not have occurred...
... Further along we learned that the military still refer to UFO
occupants as `humanoids'. Contact was apparently made in 1943
(reputedly through an accident which occurred during a U.S. Naval
experiment regarding radar invisibility) and now our forces are aware
of the aliens' movements on this planet...
... Suffern adamantly insisted that all his questions about the
craft and the occupant were answered `to his satisfaction' despite the
fact that (many) civilian investigators have visited him and offered
alternate hypotheses to clear up the mystery for him. Many came close
but none answered him with the same `degree of accuracy'...
The critical key to Suffern's encounter is the fact that he had a
`near miss' car situation with a physical entity, dressed in a
one-piece silver suit and short in stature. If contact indeed
had taken place then there could have been serious repercussions, had
he actually run the being down. This could account for the military's
intervention and unusual frankness...
The Sufferns remained firm in their statement that all three
military personnel answered all their questions with uncanny precision
and immediately. Suffern himself claims that he knows the identities of
these three men and can prove that they were not imposters. He also
denies he is bound by the Canadian Secrets Act and claims that his only
motive for keeping the details secret is for the `moral reason' of
simply wanting to keep his part of the bargain by complying with the
`government's wishes' in this matter.
... the documentary book entitled The Philadelphia Experiment?
No, I'm not talking about the movie (well I guess I am sort of), but this was a documentary on possible US Navy research into invisibility, just as in the movie.
Most of the book is about that (I think; I haven't read it all yet), but in line with the "government conspiracy" angle there was a very interesting UFO sighting and subsequent follow-on (or is that redundant?).
I might post it here tonight when I get back home if anyone's interested; it's about 2 pages, which from a typical novel is probably little enough for fair use.
Note to those who are unaware: category (1) includes... most Protestant denominations. Since they teach "works" salvation, they are not teaching what the Bible teaches.
Hmm, not quite sure where you get that from. Admittedly the situation in the US may be different, but here in Oz, under the AOG (which is a large collection of Pentecostal churches) I don't think I have _ever_ heard works teaching - quite the opposite.
(I don't usually post on religious topics given the well-known bias here on/., but this is my 2c+GST.)
At the time, Direct3D was indeed a steaming pile to work with. The most recent versions are vastly easier to use.
That may be so, but he predicted that very fact in his.plan anyway:
I'm sure D3D will suck less with each forthcoming version, but this is an opportunity to just bypass dragging the entire development community through the messy evolution of an ill-birthed API.
and also: Some of these choices were made so that the API would be able to gracefully expand in the future, but who cares about having an API that can grow if you have forced it to be painful to use now and forever after?
(as quoted from a copy of said.plan (at the bottom))
OK, Daniel coming back I guess I sorta understand. I mean they'll find some way to write him back in without too much trouble.
But Michael Shanks coming back? What's with that? I thought he left because he didn't like the X-Files'ish direction the show was going, with all the government conspiracies.
Hmm, for some bizarre reason the byline hasn't come up on my generated (due to login) page for this story. I had to go back to the homepage to see what it was...
I've never used pie menus, but they do look an interesting interface method...
I just hope that they are easier to select than the "line-based" menus in W9x/Gnome/KDE. Well OK, maybe the last ones aren't too bad (particularly Ximian Gnome is good) but I've often had trouble with the W9x menus - you put the cursor on your menu item, then by the time you move across to the resultant submenu, you've moved up/down far enough (before you hit the edge) that the next/previous menu comes out instead:(
It's probably just related to the abysmal text size in the aforementioned GUI. Or maybe I should just click to select the menu item instead...
Anyway, hopefully pie menus will resolve this problem by having a full 90 degrees to work with - much less ambiguity.
This is the beauty of Spam Assassin. You do not blacklist or build elaborate access tables. The spammer never gets a notification that his mail violates any RFC or is triggered as spam. All that happens is you rate inbound mail by certain criteria and if it hits a scored threshhold it is placed in a container mailbox for admin review. No lawsuits can be filed...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that looks to me like something very similar to procmail. In which case it still has to fully receive the mail from the remote server before it can process it - which still takes up bandwidth...
As opposed to a blacklist-enabled mail server, which would (as I understand it) close the connection as soon as it receives the MAIL FROM: line (if it gets that far). I can afford to pay for that level of bandwidth use.
> I find it ironic that the lawyer for the defendant in this case is the same lawyer who was threatening to sue another website on behalf of the "church" of scientology.
> Then again, I'm sure that lawyers would not see the irony in defending free speech for one client while suppressing it for another.
IANAL, but I know one (I actually work for the lawyer in question, but not in a legal capacity - he has an IT business as well).
It's not quite as simple as that. A lawyer's first duty (well, second, after the Court) - is to his client, regardless of whether or not he necessarily agrees with what the client is trying to achieve.
If you think about it, it has to be that way, otherwise how do you think people accused of things like murder and rape would be represented? And if you say that they shouldn't be represented at all, you're forgetting the whole reason we have "innocent until proven guilty"...
Slashdot Mirror
There's that bit at the end where the Nebucannazar (sp?) gets cut open, but we don't see what happens after the EMP blast; maybe the instant the squiddies are dead, the remaining living humans on the hovercraft have to go running for the oxygen masks.
Neo and Trinity did take the time to have a nice passionate kiss immediately after, so it seems kind of unlikely.
Maybe they were just sharing oxygen, like Coster & other person in Waterworld... or maybe not.
I use NBD (network block device) combined with software RAID1 to give automatic mirroring of data across 2 machines.
Unfortunately NBD in 2.4 simply _doesn't work_ - the client (with the nbd.o module) dies as soon as you try to transfer any significant amount of data (~4Kb). How it could have made it all the way to the stable kernel is beyond me, even with 2.4's reputation.
I've tried unapplying the NBD sections of each relevant patch since 2.2, (all of 2.4 and 2.3 series) to see where it broke, without much luck so far. I've worked out that the current behaviour has existed since 2.4.4. I got all the way back to 2.3.46, prior to which (haven't tried any earlier yet) it doesn't compile properly.
In short, yucky. So much for our backup solution on a RH6.2->RH8.0 upgrade...
Someone a while ago made a good point in this regard. It's especially true since these folks would definitely be wary of any code that is submitted through unknown / untrusted sources.
Someone else made an opposing argument, but I don't think this project will have these problems, for much the same reason.
I think it's a good idea, all round. These workers get the benefit of peer review, and the peers come away with a good feeling, knowing that they've potentially saved a lot of peoples' lives (not just their jobs)...
Do you really think any of the GTA games are about realistic game play? Seriously, how long would you be able to run around beating old women, stealing cars and breaking every traffic law under the sun?
Making games too realistic has the downside that they're too much like my real life (which is one of the reason I enjoy the non-realistic games).
Good point, I suppose. Granted, you're certainly not _allowed_ to do all those things, and with good reason.
But, on the other hand, if it's not actually about realism, then why go to the trouble of making them as realistic as they are? (And, in the case of GTA1 I believe, actually modelling various cars on real-world counterparts?)
For those who don't really want realism, there's plenty of "unrealistic" ways of having fun, such as slaying dragons, etc. (No offence to our fantasy-loving friends.)
But, it seems, if they do bother with things like driving on the correct side of the road, obeying traffic signals, etc (even though you, as the player, don't have to - which is the "illegal" "unrealistic" part), then they should at least _try_ to make the driving characteristics sensible, seeing as driving is a major part of the game...
My 0.02c, anyway.
Although for some reason I didn't like GTA2 as much as the first.
Ditto. I think the main reason (for me) was because of the poor game physics. For instance, try the following:
Good fun... or not, depending on how intensely you're being chased :(
travels by starship from world to world to (and this part's key) alphabetically insult, and then slay, every demon in the known universe
How can you call this the key part without even mentioning its source (HHGTTG #3)? How DARE you!
Seriously, good ol' Wowbagger. I think he and Agrajag (sp?) were my favourite minor characters from the series.
RIP, DNA...
OK, that answers that, I guess.
But the answer to the more important question doesn't bode well for Mr. Gates. Honestly, what do you think he's going to say, 20 years (or 22, now) later? "Yes, absolutely. If you can't fit your OS and all your applications into a generous 640K RAM you're doing something wrong" ? Right...
I instead favour the "revisionist history" theory - think Internet strategy and The Road Ahead (version 1) here.
Actually, I heard from Bill himself that he was misquoted on that and he basically said the opposite, that computers would not survive on a small amount of ram.
Interesting... do you have any link for that?
And of course the more important question is, how soon after the original "quote" was that statement made? I'm sure he'd love to "clear up" one of his most infamous statements after the fact... revisionist history and all that ;)
And for that matter, what's with Doc's pronunciation of the first part?
"One point Twenty One"
HELLO??? Virtually _any_ scientist or engineer knows that you would say
"One point Two One"
and _never_ mix the parts after the decimal into whole-number pronunciations.
But hey, I guess maybe Twenty-One sounds better on screen...
Well, I guess "Score 4, Interesting" means that someone's interested... just save some mod points for this post, OK? ;)
This is taken from "The Philadelphia Experiment", Charles Berlitz and William Moore, pp173-7. The story is told in the book as being one- and two-levels removed, so there are a lot of extra names in here which I'm snipping. The gist of the actual UFO story is as follows...
(It looks like this is reported elsewhere online, but not in this level of detail.)
Late in the evening on Tuesday October 7, 1975, Robert Suffern, a twenty-seven-year-old carpenter from rural Bracebridge, Ontario, received a call from his sister, who lives down the road, asking him to investigate a strange glow that seemed to be coming from a nearby barn. Suffern drove to the barn, took a quick look around, and not seeing anything out of the ordinary, was proceeding to his sister's house when he was startled to see a darkened saucer-shaped object about 12 to 14 feet in diameter squatting on the gravelled road directly ahead of him.
`I was scared,' he later recounted to a Toronto Sun reporter. `It was right there in front of me with no lights and no signs of life.' His car hadn't quite come to a full stop, he said, when the object `went straight up in the air and out of sight.'
According to Suffern's story, he had no sooner managed to turn his car around and head for home when a strange, 4-foot-tall humanlike creature with `very wide shoulders which were out of proportion to his body' and wearing a silver-grey suit and a globe-type helmet walked out into the road right in front of his car. Suffern slammed on the brakes, skidding on the loose gravel, and came within inches of colliding with the creature, who promptly dodged out of the way, ran to the side of the road, jumped a fence, and disappeared into a field. According to the account Suffern gave to the Sun reporter, when the figure `got to the fence, he put his hands on a post and went over it with no effort at all. It was like he was weightless.'
Badly shaken by this encounter, Suffern finally succeeded in driving home, only to discover when he looked out the window of his house that the UFO had returned, this time flying slowly close over the road. At that moment, it flew around an electric pole and again disappeared, seemingly going straight up into the night sky.
Neither relatives, close friends, nor the reporters, investigators, and plain curious who descended on his farmhouse over the next several weeks could dislodge him from his story.
`I know what I saw,' he said. `But I don't care if I ever see that creature again.'
Of course, if the story ended at this point, it would be nothing more than another addition to an every growing list of mysterious and difficult-to-verify close-encounter cases in recent years. But there was more...
On December 12, 1975, after the Sufferns were beginning to feel some semblance of order again (their farm was literally swamped for weeks by roving bands of curiosity seekers) three men were delivered to their home in an Ontario Provincial Police cruiser. The appointment had been pre-arranged in November. These officials arrived in full uniform, bearing impressive credentials and representing themselves as the TOP BRASS from the Canadian Forces in Ottawa, the United States Air Force, Pentagon, and from the Office of Naval Intelligence. Suffern, previously perturbed about the nature of his UFO encounter, claimed that ALL his questions were answered POINT BLANK and with NO HESITATIONS by these three helpful gentlemen. They `opened the books' to him and gave him the answers to the WHERE FROM, the What and the Why. They implied that the U.S. and Canadian governments have known all about UFOs since 1943 and have in fact been cooperating with the ALIENS in some unknown capacity since then!
As if this wasn't enough to swallow in one gulp, the military `know-it-alls' threw us yet another curve when they made a formal APOLOGY [to Suffern] for the unfortunate incident of Oct. 7. They claimed it was a MISTAKE!! To which Suffern immediately thought out loud that it must have been a supersecret military craft. No, they claimed. It was a malfunction in the saucer that brought the craft down, complete with aliens, on his property. Mrs Suffern found all this quite impossible to accept, but when she quizzed them, the officers actually came up with the exact time of the landing - to the minute - a small detail that only the Sufferns knew and had not conveyed to anyone. They have had three different UFO sightings over their property, only the last of which they reported, and again the times and dates were duly related to them by the knowledgeable trio. The enlightened agents, carrying a battery of books and data (complete with gun camera photos of UFO), again emphasized that the landing was an ACCIDENT and should not have occurred...
... Further along we learned that the military still refer to UFO occupants as `humanoids'. Contact was apparently made in 1943 (reputedly through an accident which occurred during a U.S. Naval experiment regarding radar invisibility) and now our forces are aware of the aliens' movements on this planet...
... Suffern adamantly insisted that all his questions about the craft and the occupant were answered `to his satisfaction' despite the fact that (many) civilian investigators have visited him and offered alternate hypotheses to clear up the mystery for him. Many came close but none answered him with the same `degree of accuracy'...
The critical key to Suffern's encounter is the fact that he had a `near miss' car situation with a physical entity, dressed in a one-piece silver suit and short in stature. If contact indeed had taken place then there could have been serious repercussions, had he actually run the being down. This could account for the military's intervention and unusual frankness...
The Sufferns remained firm in their statement that all three military personnel answered all their questions with uncanny precision and immediately. Suffern himself claims that he knows the identities of these three men and can prove that they were not imposters. He also denies he is bound by the Canadian Secrets Act and claims that his only motive for keeping the details secret is for the `moral reason' of simply wanting to keep his part of the bargain by complying with the `government's wishes' in this matter.
So, folks, what do you make of that?
I think it must vary every time... The search I just did (before seeing these posts), Slashdot was #50, and GNU was about 38 from memory. Strange...
... the documentary book entitled The Philadelphia Experiment?
No, I'm not talking about the movie (well I guess I am sort of), but this was a documentary on possible US Navy research into invisibility, just as in the movie.
Most of the book is about that (I think; I haven't read it all yet), but in line with the "government conspiracy" angle there was a very interesting UFO sighting and subsequent follow-on (or is that redundant?) .
I might post it here tonight when I get back home if anyone's interested; it's about 2 pages, which from a typical novel is probably little enough for fair use.
(Then again, maybe it's online somewhere...)
This was posted to our LUG mailing list today, I thought it belonged here, even though no mods will probably see it :(
Archive here
Note to those who are unaware: category (1) includes ... most Protestant denominations. Since they teach "works" salvation, they are not teaching what the Bible teaches.
Hmm, not quite sure where you get that from. Admittedly the situation in the US may be different, but here in Oz, under the AOG (which is a large collection of Pentecostal churches) I don't think I have _ever_ heard works teaching - quite the opposite.
(I don't usually post on religious topics given the well-known bias here on /., but this is my 2c+GST.)
(Bleh, why doesn't Slashcode allow <u>?)
At the time, Direct3D was indeed a steaming pile to work with. The most recent versions are vastly easier to use.
That may be so, but he predicted that very fact in his .plan anyway:
I'm sure D3D will suck less with each forthcoming version, but this is an opportunity to just bypass dragging the entire development community through the messy evolution of an ill-birthed API. .plan (at the bottom))
and also:
Some of these choices were made so that the API would be able to gracefully expand in the future, but who cares about having an API that can grow if you have forced it to be painful to use now and forever after?
(as quoted from a copy of said
OK, Daniel coming back I guess I sorta understand. I mean they'll find some way to write him back in without too much trouble.
But Michael Shanks coming back? What's with that? I thought he left because he didn't like the X-Files'ish direction the show was going, with all the government conspiracies.
So what happened? Did he change his mind?
My dad thinks that this whole thing started when this movie was released.
Certainly makes sense to me...
(No, I don't think it was faked.)
That's right you read that correctly.
I dunno - you might have seen it, but I don't think "every" one has.
Oh, you mean... AAH.
(Humour-impaired mods: please ignore this post...)
There should be a blacklist of suits circulated around the geek community, so you know to bail when one of these idiots signs on to your company...
<obvious> :)
We only need a picture... anyone with pointy hair is a good candidate
</obvious>
Here's a website for this case:
http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/
And another:
http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/
Hey! Are you trying to /. our poor server TWICE??
Unless you got to the two different sites via our mirrored DNS setup, but then messed up the links...
/me watches the MRTG output :)
30Gb of space on this is pretty damn impressive
I think I'll stick to my 30Gb single IDE drive in my Debian P100 home gateway, if it's all the same to you... :)
I did like the "From the ... dept." byline though.
Hmm, for some bizarre reason the byline hasn't come up on my generated (due to login) page for this story. I had to go back to the homepage to see what it was...
What's up with that?
I've never used pie menus, but they do look an interesting interface method...
:(
I just hope that they are easier to select than the "line-based" menus in W9x/Gnome/KDE. Well OK, maybe the last ones aren't too bad (particularly Ximian Gnome is good) but I've often had trouble with the W9x menus - you put the cursor on your menu item, then by the time you move across to the resultant submenu, you've moved up/down far enough (before you hit the edge) that the next/previous menu comes out instead
It's probably just related to the abysmal text size in the aforementioned GUI. Or maybe I should just click to select the menu item instead...
Anyway, hopefully pie menus will resolve this problem by having a full 90 degrees to work with - much less ambiguity.
This is the beauty of Spam Assassin. You do not blacklist or build elaborate access tables. The spammer never gets a notification that his mail violates any RFC or is triggered as spam. All that happens is you rate inbound mail by certain criteria and if it hits a scored threshhold it is placed in a container mailbox for admin review. No lawsuits can be filed...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that looks to me like something very similar to procmail. In which case it still has to fully receive the mail from the remote server before it can process it - which still takes up bandwidth...
As opposed to a blacklist-enabled mail server, which would (as I understand it) close the connection as soon as it receives the MAIL FROM: line (if it gets that far). I can afford to pay for that level of bandwidth use.
> I find it ironic that the lawyer for the defendant in this case is the same lawyer who was threatening to sue another website on behalf of the "church" of scientology.
> Then again, I'm sure that lawyers would not see the irony in defending free speech for one client while suppressing it for another.
IANAL, but I know one (I actually work for the lawyer in question, but not in a legal capacity - he has an IT business as well).
It's not quite as simple as that. A lawyer's first duty (well, second, after the Court) - is to his client, regardless of whether or not he necessarily agrees with what the client is trying to achieve.
If you think about it, it has to be that way, otherwise how do you think people accused of things like murder and rape would be represented? And if you say that they shouldn't be represented at all, you're forgetting the whole reason we have "innocent until proven guilty"...