Your problem isn't that your ISP's reverse DNS doesn't asnwer with your domain. The problem is it returns an error. That is totally broken and a sure sign of an IP address in one of the less civilized netblocks. That is why your mail is being rejected.
I know it sucks not having a real ISP to switch to, but don't blame the world for your ISP's incompetence.
Actually you don't care what the reverse DNS says, just that there IS one. Many of the spam canneries live in wasteland IP blocks where attempts to lookup their IP return an error.
> I haven't heard one yet, usually there's a lot of shrill, > one-sided political analysis of what the US has done in > the past and nothing more.
And you probably won't ever hear one. About the most 'thought' the typical protester can manage is "I hate Bush. Bush wants to topple Saddam. Therefore Saddam has to be good." There ARE reasons to be against Gulf War II but you won't hear any of them from the usual suspects who are still stuck in Jan 2001.
You silly pup. "The Liberal Media" was being lambasted in National Review before Rush picked up his first microphone. You are either too young to know better or are a aging hippy who carefully managed to avoid all opposing views until Rush & Fox got in your face, as conservatives learned ways to compete by ceasing to try for a fair hearing in a hopelessly biased set of media outlets and instead built their own.
> EULAs have never been ruled as being unenforceable, although > some terms have. It's a shaky legal situation right now.
The laws governing buying and selling things are pretty settled law. EULAs are a major departure and require major proof of legality. Which is why no company has tested a EULA in court, the emperor has no clothes.
So take a stand and don't bend over and take it from the megacorps. Yes that might mean being a victim, but if you aren't willing to fight for your inalienable rights you aren't deserving of the exercise of them.
Getting the State to prop up businesses that couldn't succeed in a free market is called mercentilism. We already have more than enough of that crap already. If they want to regulate what you can do with their product, enter into a CONTRACT. We already have perfectly good contact law.
Why does every video rental shop require a signed agreement? Because otherwise when they took your money and handed you a product they would have just SOLD it and would have no recourse if you failed to return it.
1. EULAs are to be ignored. Unless both parties sign a contract you can ignore the EULA and simply obey the copyright laws in your locality. Except for two states in the US.
2. Software patents are only a problem in the US. Notice the point of origin for mplayer.
Pleaase don't confure our current system with what would happen in an actual capitalist system. And even here it isn't quite as bas as you think. For example, the problem with inherited money is not as bas you you apear to think. Most of the truly wealthy are either self made or took a modest inheritance and made it big through skill or risk taking. Trust fund kids don't tend to create a lot of wealth and it gets split into smaller and smaller chunks with each generation.
That tendancy for power to monopolize is a result of mercantilism, or using the power of the State to prohibit competition.
Random example: Automobiles. Once there were hundreds of makers, now there are perhaps a dozen worldwide. Because new companies can't enter the market and companies occasionally fail or merge, the number can only decrease. But WHY can't a new company enter? Reason #1 is government regulation.
We should be in a wonderland of variety because te big automakers don't actually make much of anything. They outsource everything from engines to body parts. Small niche builders should be buying parts off the rack and designing all sort of intersting cars. But they would want to start with high margin cars and would never meet the CAFE standards without also selling as assload of cheap econoboxes to keep the average MPG up. And while there would be an inital market for exotic cars, it would be hard for a startup to compete in the lowball market without volume purchasing. And consider how expensive it would be to meet the paperwork requirements of the huge body of federal regulation that a large multi-national corp can easily absorb.
And don't fall for the finite resources argument. Liberals see a finite world and obsess over how to carve up the pie 'fairly' but free people see infinite vistas and a ever increasing pie, limited only by our imagination and will to succeed. Running out of oil? Who gives a rats ass! As we run low the price will rise (if we retain a semblence of a free market) and someone will see a profit in a replacement.
Sieze the stars and we won't ever worry about resource limits again.
Yup, instead of copy paste, here is a link to a
long post on the subject of enviromentalists real motvations. Of course it is =1 Troll, but that's ok, my Karma is excellent and I gotta burn some off.
SCO doesn't sell UNIX per se. They sell SCO UNIX, UNIXWare and whatever the hell they call their Linux distro this week.
SCO UNIX is dead, dead, dead. UNIXWare is in maintaince mode and has pretty much been that way since '95 when SCO bought it from Novell. Exactly what useful ideas are in there that didn't get cloned years ago?
As for borrowing from NT, unfortunatly yes. The design philosophy behind KDE seems to be "We like Windows, if it just didn't suck. Oh, and we LOVE Qt more than Free Software." and GNOME seems to be all about reimplementing all of the core Microsoft technologies except putting more themes and chrome in. Of course the desktop is where we are always behind, wonder why..... Couldn'e be chasing taillights and reinventing crappy tech poorly..... nah.
But RMS won't die happy until everyone is using GNU/Linux, GNU/BSD or GNU/HURD. Ok, honestly everyone has to use GNU/HURD and spend 90% of their time in Emacs. Make that GNU-Emacs, the heretics using XEmacs must all die.:)
I do have to agree with ya. I'm a lifelong Republican, occasional dittohead, and wouldn't vote for Gore as dogcatcher (beep! non-PC. correct to Animal Control Officer) but I'd never compare him to the buttslime that is masquerading for life over at Caldera.
Uh huh. I'm going to replace a fairly important package on a stable machine with one that may or may not build from Rawhide. If I was that sort I'd be running Sid.
Interesting that you can't run BitTorrent on RedHat 7.x to download a newer copy of RH (8.0 does have Python 2.x so it should work, but I never had any luck running with RH8.0.). For that matter you can't use Debian unless you like using packages from testing.
And how is that interesting? Or did you think American script kiddies were any less idiotic and misguidedly patrotic than the "Hacked by Chinese" morons that ran amok around the time of the spy plane incident? Nothing to see here, move along.
By reaction as a RHL user, goodbye. RHEL is too fscking expensive to deploy in a desktop environment and RHL doesn't plan to follow the.0 == buggy,.1 == beta and.2 == stable model anymore to I can't track the.2 versions.
Good advice except for/home. Been running RH since 4.0 and have yet to see it touch anything in/home. On the other hand, backing up/home (and anything else you care about) is never a bad thing.
Ok, they change the major version when the API changes. Fair enough. But 8 wasn't ready for prime time and I'll bet 9 won't be either if it has enough low level changes to require a new major. Will a new stable version ship before 7.3 goes unsupported on Dec 31? Perhaps, but it sure won't leave much time to test and deploy.
If they are going to pitch themselves as "Commercial Linux" they really need to act like it. And no, their "Enterprise" offerings are only going to be applicable to a very small customer base, the ones who would be buying Solaris or HP-UX; i.e. Enterprise computing applications. not the computing lab or departmental server market. If they are departing the small/medium/education markets I really wish they would announce that so we could be putting energy into investigating alternatives NOW instead of when the crunch hits Dec 31.
Actually, it takes a non-trivial amount of cash to organize and fund any large public event. Permits usually need to be purchased from the city, portapotties and PA systems rented, the organizers are almost always salaried professionals (bet ya didn't know that) if you want a successful event, any entertainers appearing will usually expect their expenses and hotel covered even if they are donating their time, etc. If the protest you attended was actually solely funded by local sources it was almost certainly probably small enough to ignore most of the above expenses.
As for evidence, the original piece I saw is now gone, but try these links from somewhat more biased but better archived sources:
http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/030225P W. asp
And if you care to look into it next time, you will discover for yourself that there is a big overlap between the current anti-war protesters, the anti-globalism protesters, the environmental protesters, etc. Basically, most of those mobs are "the usual suspects" with a few new recruits like yourself. (and YOU are the primary purpose, they want to recruit new blood.) Don't believe me? Go to another protest and ask around. Ask like you are interested in becoming 'active' and you will get recruitment pitches from all of the above mentioned groups and then some.
> It's beginning to look like their agenda all along was > to slow economic activity, and concern about the environment > was only ever a vehicle for pushing that agenda.
Congratulations, you have just taken a small step into a larger world. Most debate you see in the popular press is like that, a public position covering one or more real reasons.
In the case of the enviromentalists they break down into two basic groups. The ground troops, who tend to be well intentioned but ignorant, actually believe they are the guardians of Gaia. Don't think too highly of them though, they are active because it boosts their ego to think themselves the chosen holy warriers of Gaia. Which is why they almost always exhibit such religious zeal and are impervious to any arguments counter to their preconceived notions. The leaders are almost always diehard Socialists/Communists, which is why the movement as a whole is often disparagingly referred to as "Watermelons", green on the outside, red on the inside.
And it isn't just the environmental movement, almost EVERY political argument is carried out the same way, which is why most people get turned off on politics, because when first taking an interest they realize that the two sides of any issue are talking past one another with arguments that don't match what they seem to actually stand for. Stick with it a bit and it starts to make more sense.
Just to show another example of how it works, consider current events. Nobody in this Iraq situation is coming anywhere close to stating their true positions.
Bush has becided that the only way to end Islamic fanatics wanting to blow stuff up is to end the tinpot dictatorships over there, Saddam was a convienent target to get a foothold over there. He is convinced (and I tend to agree) that if the US takes and holds one of those middle eastern kingdoms for a few years and remakes it in our image, the example will spread and a rising standard of living will end the desire to strap a bomb on. Of course that is the last thing he can actually SAY if he expects support from ANYONE. None of the aforementioned tinpot dictators would help overthrow themselves, the Demorats would be agahst at the notion that we want to spread our diseased notions of representive government and capitalism, Europe would 'just know' we are embarking on Pax Americana, etc. So we get weak arguments about WMDs, support for terrorism, etc.
France, Germany and Russia are fighting to keep Saddam in power long enough for sanctions to be lifted so they can cash in on the oil contracts they signed. They also want to prevent anyone from discovering just how much they have been breaking the UN sanctions by selling all sorts of deadly stuff to Saddam. And of course they all despise the US and want to see the last superpower humbled and reduced in influence because they feel small and insignificant and prefer to make us small instead of becoming great themselves. And they can't admit (even to themselves in some cases) to any of those reasons, so we get the current tripe from Paris.
The protestors against the war here in the states are mostly being financed by the Worker's World Party and others in the "Hate America" clique. The warm bodies are mostly the "I hate Bush" crowd. In Europe the protests are mostly Anti-American for whatever the current excuse happens to be. Same for the college students in the middle east. After all, most of the Muslim world doesn't actually like Saddam and his Islamic Socalists (Baath party) but if America is fighting him they know which side to pick.
> The problem with Enterprise is that the basis is time > travel and crummy technology.
You hit the problem, but don't seem to realize it. The problem is they write with an obvious pov that it is a prequel and the 'tech sucks'. If they would write from the pov that humanity is just starting to explore space, everything is NEW and it is a big unexplored universe out there, they would have a good show. But no, almost every episode has a hook to a earlier episode. Klingons, Romulans, Ferengi, Borg, Holodecks, blah.
The transporter isn't unsafe because NX-01 is a wreck like the Falcon, but because it is newly invented. Many of the other races don't have them yet! Apparently the Vulcans don't even have reliable transporters. It is StarFleet's secret wonder gadget. But because of the prequel mindset the sense of wonder is lost from this wonderful new gadget that can transport someone almost instantly thousands of miles.
And while the warp five engine is at best average among the races seen so far, it is leading edge tech to THEM. The ship's problems are because it is a beta test version that left dock for it's five year mission without even a shakedown cruise. Again, because the writers are still thinking in Warp 9 terms, it comes off primitive and there is no sense of wonder and discovery.
Allowing for 1st season jitters, season 1 actually showed promise. Season 2 has almost uniformly sucked. I actually enjoyed some of the earlier episodes like "Strange New World", "Breakking the Ice", even "Fight or Flight". And the founding of the Federation arc that was shaping up with "The Andorian Incident" and "Shadows of P'Jem" was even promising. Sure there were turds like "Dear Doctor" but it IS Rick Bermen so some suckage was expected. But it has went straight downhill.
Actually watch the episode. I almost stopped watching at that episode. As far as I am concerned that episode never happened because I wouldn't be able to watch a show with a criminal at the helm. It had nothing at all to do with the prime directive. The inhabitants already had dealings with other races and while their own tech was pretty primitive they came out and met Enterprise.
No, Archer condemmed a race to death because of some obscure rule of Political Correctness I still haven't been able to grok. In a just universe a couple of seasons later the agrieved race would manage to find a solution to their problem, realize just what a scuzbag Archer was and set out to destroy him, Starfleet and the degenerate planet that spawned such a monster. (And before anyone blames it on Flox, Archer sits in the comfy chair, he is responsible.)
Slashdot Mirror
Your problem isn't that your ISP's reverse DNS doesn't asnwer with your domain. The problem is it returns an error. That is totally broken and a sure sign of an IP address in one of the less civilized netblocks. That is why your mail is being rejected.
I know it sucks not having a real ISP to switch to, but don't blame the world for your ISP's incompetence.
Actually you don't care what the reverse DNS says, just that there IS one. Many of the spam canneries live in wasteland IP blocks where attempts to lookup their IP return an error.
> I haven't heard one yet, usually there's a lot of shrill,
> one-sided political analysis of what the US has done in
> the past and nothing more.
And you probably won't ever hear one. About the most 'thought' the typical protester can manage is "I hate Bush. Bush wants to topple Saddam. Therefore Saddam has to be good." There ARE reasons to be against Gulf War II but you won't hear any of them from the usual suspects who are still stuck in Jan 2001.
You silly pup. "The Liberal Media" was being lambasted in National Review before Rush picked up his first microphone. You are either too young to know better or are a aging hippy who carefully managed to avoid all opposing views until Rush & Fox got in your face, as conservatives learned ways to compete by ceasing to try for a fair hearing in a hopelessly biased set of media outlets and instead built their own.
> EULAs have never been ruled as being unenforceable, although
> some terms have. It's a shaky legal situation right now.
The laws governing buying and selling things are pretty settled law. EULAs are a major departure and require major proof of legality. Which is why no company has tested a EULA in court, the emperor has no clothes.
So take a stand and don't bend over and take it from the megacorps. Yes that might mean being a victim, but if you aren't willing to fight for your inalienable rights you aren't deserving of the exercise of them.
Actually the president can veto a unamious vote. The veto means they have to reconsider it and put it to a recorded vote.
Not that Clinton was going to do anything of the sort, the Hollywood lefties were a core funding source.
Getting the State to prop up businesses that couldn't succeed in a free market is called mercentilism. We already have more than enough of that crap already. If they want to regulate what you can do with their product, enter into a CONTRACT. We already have perfectly good contact law.
Why does every video rental shop require a signed agreement? Because otherwise when they took your money and handed you a product they would have just SOLD it and would have no recourse if you failed to return it.
1. EULAs are to be ignored. Unless both parties sign a contract you can ignore the EULA and simply obey the copyright laws in your locality. Except for two states in the US.
2. Software patents are only a problem in the US. Notice the point of origin for mplayer.
Pleaase don't confure our current system with what would happen in an actual capitalist system. And even here it isn't quite as bas as you think. For example, the problem with inherited money is not as bas you you apear to think. Most of the truly wealthy are either self made or took a modest inheritance and made it big through skill or risk taking. Trust fund kids don't tend to create a lot of wealth and it gets split into smaller and smaller chunks with each generation.
That tendancy for power to monopolize is a result of mercantilism, or using the power of the State to prohibit competition.
Random example: Automobiles. Once there were hundreds of makers, now there are perhaps a dozen worldwide. Because new companies can't enter the market and companies occasionally fail or merge, the number can only decrease. But WHY can't a new company enter? Reason #1 is government regulation.
We should be in a wonderland of variety because te big automakers don't actually make much of anything. They outsource everything from engines to body parts. Small niche builders should be buying parts off the rack and designing all sort of intersting cars. But they would want to start with high margin cars and would never meet the CAFE standards without also selling as assload of cheap econoboxes to keep the average MPG up. And while there would be an inital market for exotic cars, it would be hard for a startup to compete in the lowball market without volume purchasing. And consider how expensive it would be to meet the paperwork requirements of the huge body of federal regulation that a large multi-national corp can easily absorb.
And don't fall for the finite resources argument. Liberals see a finite world and obsess over how to carve up the pie 'fairly' but free people see infinite vistas and a ever increasing pie, limited only by our imagination and will to succeed. Running out of oil? Who gives a rats ass! As we run low the price will rise (if we retain a semblence of a free market) and someone will see a profit in a replacement.
Sieze the stars and we won't ever worry about resource limits again.
Yup, instead of copy paste, here is a link to a long post on the subject of enviromentalists real motvations. Of course it is =1 Troll, but that's ok, my Karma is excellent and I gotta burn some off.
SCO doesn't sell UNIX per se. They sell SCO UNIX, UNIXWare and whatever the hell they call their Linux distro this week.
:)
SCO UNIX is dead, dead, dead. UNIXWare is in maintaince mode and has pretty much been that way since '95 when SCO bought it from Novell. Exactly what useful ideas are in there that didn't get cloned years ago?
As for borrowing from NT, unfortunatly yes. The design philosophy behind KDE seems to be "We like Windows, if it just didn't suck. Oh, and we LOVE Qt more than Free Software." and GNOME seems to be all about reimplementing all of the core Microsoft technologies except putting more themes and chrome in. Of course the desktop is where we are always behind, wonder why..... Couldn'e be chasing taillights and reinventing crappy tech poorly..... nah.
But RMS won't die happy until everyone is using GNU/Linux, GNU/BSD or GNU/HURD. Ok, honestly everyone has to use GNU/HURD and spend 90% of their time in Emacs. Make that GNU-Emacs, the heretics using XEmacs must all die.
I do have to agree with ya. I'm a lifelong Republican, occasional dittohead, and wouldn't vote for Gore as dogcatcher (beep! non-PC. correct to Animal Control Officer) but I'd never compare him to the buttslime that is masquerading for life over at Caldera.
Interesting. I'll try it!
Uh huh. I'm going to replace a fairly important package on a stable machine with one that may or may not build from Rawhide. If I was that sort I'd be running Sid.
Interesting that you can't run BitTorrent on RedHat 7.x to download a newer copy of RH (8.0 does have Python 2.x so it should work, but I never had any luck running with RH8.0.). For that matter you can't use Debian unless you like using packages from testing.
Sounds like a "Windows" focused product to me.
And you have obviously never been to Tom's Hardware.
And how is that interesting? Or did you think American script kiddies were any less idiotic and misguidedly patrotic than the "Hacked by Chinese" morons that ran amok around the time of the spy plane incident? Nothing to see here, move along.
Translated: RHL == Debian testing. RHEL == Debian stable
.0 == buggy, .1 == beta and .2 == stable model anymore to I can't track the .2 versions.
By reaction as a RHL user, goodbye. RHEL is too fscking expensive to deploy in a desktop environment and RHL doesn't plan to follow the
Good advice except for /home. Been running RH since 4.0 and have yet to see it touch anything in /home. On the other hand, backing up /home (and anything else you care about) is never a bad thing.
Ok, they change the major version when the API changes. Fair enough. But 8 wasn't ready for prime time and I'll bet 9 won't be either if it has enough low level changes to require a new major. Will a new stable version ship before 7.3 goes unsupported on Dec 31? Perhaps, but it sure won't leave much time to test and deploy.
If they are going to pitch themselves as "Commercial Linux" they really need to act like it. And no, their "Enterprise" offerings are only going to be applicable to a very small customer base, the ones who would be buying Solaris or HP-UX; i.e. Enterprise computing applications. not the computing lab or departmental server market. If they are departing the small/medium/education markets I really wish they would announce that so we could be putting energy into investigating alternatives NOW instead of when the crunch hits Dec 31.
Actually, it takes a non-trivial amount of cash to organize and fund any large public event. Permits usually need to be purchased from the city, portapotties and PA systems rented, the organizers are almost always salaried professionals (bet ya didn't know that) if you want a successful event, any entertainers appearing will usually expect their expenses and hotel covered even if they are donating their time, etc. If the protest you attended was actually solely funded by local sources it was almost certainly probably small enough to ignore most of the above expenses.
P W. asp
e .a sp?ID=5734
As for evidence, the original piece I saw is now gone, but try these links from somewhat more biased but better archived sources:
http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/030225
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticl
And if you care to look into it next time, you will discover for yourself that there is a big overlap between the current anti-war protesters, the anti-globalism protesters, the environmental protesters, etc. Basically, most of those mobs are "the usual suspects" with a few new recruits like yourself. (and YOU are the primary purpose, they want to recruit new blood.) Don't believe me? Go to another protest and ask around. Ask like you are interested in becoming 'active' and you will get recruitment pitches from all of the above mentioned groups and then some.
Which is why it was modded troll. Welcome to /. :)
> It's beginning to look like their agenda all along was
> to slow economic activity, and concern about the environment
> was only ever a vehicle for pushing that agenda.
Congratulations, you have just taken a small step into a larger world. Most debate you see in the popular press is like that, a public position covering one or more real reasons.
In the case of the enviromentalists they break down into two basic groups. The ground troops, who tend to be well intentioned but ignorant, actually believe they are the guardians of Gaia. Don't think too highly of them though, they are active because it boosts their ego to think themselves the chosen holy warriers of Gaia. Which is why they almost always exhibit such religious zeal and are impervious to any arguments counter to their preconceived notions. The leaders are almost always diehard Socialists/Communists, which is why the movement as a whole is often disparagingly referred to as "Watermelons", green on the outside, red on the inside.
And it isn't just the environmental movement, almost EVERY political argument is carried out the same way, which is why most people get turned off on politics, because when first taking an interest they realize that the two sides of any issue are talking past one another with arguments that don't match what they seem to actually stand for. Stick with it a bit and it starts to make more sense.
Just to show another example of how it works, consider current events. Nobody in this Iraq situation is coming anywhere close to stating their true positions.
Bush has becided that the only way to end Islamic fanatics wanting to blow stuff up is to end the tinpot dictatorships over there, Saddam was a convienent target to get a foothold over there. He is convinced (and I tend to agree) that if the US takes and holds one of those middle eastern kingdoms for a few years and remakes it in our image, the example will spread and a rising standard of living will end the desire to strap a bomb on. Of course that is the last thing he can actually SAY if he expects support from ANYONE. None of the aforementioned tinpot dictators would help overthrow themselves, the Demorats would be agahst at the notion that we want to spread our diseased notions of representive government and capitalism, Europe would 'just know' we are embarking on Pax Americana, etc. So we get weak arguments about WMDs, support for terrorism, etc.
France, Germany and Russia are fighting to keep Saddam in power long enough for sanctions to be lifted so they can cash in on the oil contracts they signed. They also want to prevent anyone from discovering just how much they have been breaking the UN sanctions by selling all sorts of deadly stuff to Saddam. And of course they all despise the US and want to see the last superpower humbled and reduced in influence because they feel small and insignificant and prefer to make us small instead of becoming great themselves. And they can't admit (even to themselves in some cases) to any of those reasons, so we get the current tripe from Paris.
The protestors against the war here in the states are mostly being financed by the Worker's World Party and others in the "Hate America" clique. The warm bodies are mostly the "I hate Bush" crowd. In Europe the protests are mostly Anti-American for whatever the current excuse happens to be. Same for the college students in the middle east. After all, most of the Muslim world doesn't actually like Saddam and his Islamic Socalists (Baath party) but if America is fighting him they know which side to pick.
> The problem with Enterprise is that the basis is time
> travel and crummy technology.
You hit the problem, but don't seem to realize it. The problem is they write with an obvious pov that it is a prequel and the 'tech sucks'. If they would write from the pov that humanity is just starting to explore space, everything is NEW and it is a big unexplored universe out there, they would have a good show. But no, almost every episode has a hook to a earlier episode. Klingons, Romulans, Ferengi, Borg, Holodecks, blah.
The transporter isn't unsafe because NX-01 is a wreck like the Falcon, but because it is newly invented. Many of the other races don't have them yet! Apparently the Vulcans don't even have reliable transporters. It is StarFleet's secret wonder gadget. But because of the prequel mindset the sense of wonder is lost from this wonderful new gadget that can transport someone almost instantly thousands of miles.
And while the warp five engine is at best average among the races seen so far, it is leading edge tech to THEM. The ship's problems are because it is a beta test version that left dock for it's five year mission without even a shakedown cruise. Again, because the writers are still thinking in Warp 9 terms, it comes off primitive and there is no sense of wonder and discovery.
Allowing for 1st season jitters, season 1 actually showed promise. Season 2 has almost uniformly sucked. I actually enjoyed some of the earlier episodes like "Strange New World", "Breakking the Ice", even "Fight or Flight". And the founding of the Federation arc that was shaping up with "The Andorian Incident" and "Shadows of P'Jem" was even promising. Sure there were turds like "Dear Doctor" but it IS Rick Bermen so some suckage was expected. But it has went straight downhill.
Actually watch the episode. I almost stopped watching at that episode. As far as I am concerned that episode never happened because I wouldn't be able to watch a show with a criminal at the helm. It had nothing at all to do with the prime directive. The inhabitants already had dealings with other races and while their own tech was pretty primitive they came out and met Enterprise.
No, Archer condemmed a race to death because of some obscure rule of Political Correctness I still haven't been able to grok. In a just universe a couple of seasons later the agrieved race would manage to find a solution to their problem, realize just what a scuzbag Archer was and set out to destroy him, Starfleet and the degenerate planet that spawned such a monster. (And before anyone blames it on Flox, Archer sits in the comfy chair, he is responsible.)