I don't see the point. Sure, if you bid the last 10 seconds you prevent yourself from getting into a bidding war.
But this is precisely equally true if you bid a week before the item ends, and bid what you're actually willing to pay for the item. Either that's more than anyone else wants to pay and you win, or it's not, and someone else gets the item. I don't see the problem.
Are people stupid enough to bid $20, and then when they see someone else bids $22 they then go and bid $25 ?
There's idiots in Norway too. (quite a few, matter of fact)
Thing is, if some idiot behaves unacceptably towards me at work, I'll first simply tell him: "I don't accept that behaviour, please stop it." (it's not that hard!)
If that didn't work, I'd talk to my supervisor: "I've got this problem with [idiot] -- he keeps doing [thing] even though I find that unacceptable and have clearly said so to him."
Which would result in [idiot] getting a stern talk with the supervisor, perhaps even a written warning, depending on what exactly he is doing. If he choose to ignore this warning too, he'll be fired. Simple.
Now, even the idiot who doesn't use common sense can't claim he didn't know. After the written warning, he *must* know. And if he persists, I find firing him perfectly reasonable.
Firing immediately, on first offense, can happen to. But it's very rare, and basically only happens when the employeee has also trough his actions broken a law. For example, an employee convicted of sexual assault in some job-related situation would definitely be fired without warning. But he can hardly claim that he "didn't know" that sexual assault was unacceptable. (well, he could claim it, but it'd get laughed out of court)
I guess so, comes down to your silly system of liability once again I guess.
If someone behaves in an unacceptable way towards you at work, and you notify your supervisor about this -- but nothing happens -- then I agree it's reasonable to hold the company responsible.
But there's a long way from that and to require companies to hold "sensitivity training" or similar stupidity to avoid liability for what is clearly not their fault.
It also seems to me the US workplace is amazingly intolerant. Personal expression is restrained a *LOT* more than is required for a nice workplace. To me, it's even *desirable* that people can be themselves at work. Personal attacks or disrespect for the limits of others (be they sexual or other) is unacceptable anywhere, but that doesn't mean one should behave as on Disney-TV, it would be nice if one could atleast assume we're dealing with adults -- capable of saying so if something doesn't fit them.
There is always the obligatory legal issues (dress code, no bad language in the workplace, no molestation of the opposite sex, and whatnot).
There is ?
You guys hire as *employees* people that aren't yet done with primary-school ?
Is this a US-thing ? That employees are to be treated as pre-school idiots ? Is basic normal human behaviour not among the things you would expect from someone *before* even considering hiring them ?
I've had like half a dozen different jobs (not counting smaller short-time stuff), and not even *once* have I had anyone explain dress-code, polite behaviour, refraining-from-butt-grabing or any of that stuff to me. Nor should there be any need to. Now on the (extremely rare if your hiring-policies are sane) occasions when somebody *does* behave in an unacceptable way, you need to have a talk with the person in question. But to assume from the get-go that you're dealing with idiots is extremely insulting.
Apache, for obvious reasons, need to start with sufficient priviledges to bind to port 80.
Traditionally, binding to low ports was a priviledged operation only available to root. This is however currently changing with the introduction of more fine-grained capabilities.
Apache however, was (and is) extremely diligent in using the root-process *only* for opening port 80 and forking the worker-processes which then do all the actual work. (and run as a dedicated user, typically "httpd" or "apache")
I don't think I've seen even a single root-level vulnerability in Apache the last several years. But sure, one could exist, so it'd always be preferable if one could run it with less priviledges.
Yeah. But with a round-the-clock average of 19 degrees, I don't know perhaps that means a normal july has +27 daytime and +12 nigths or some such ? I'd actually have guessed Cottbus a few degrees warmer than that on the average. But you may be rigth that this is only a recent trend and not the general norm. I only lived there from 2001-2006 afterall.
There are parts are serious hot. I lived in Cottbus, which is like 100km south of Berlin in the former east.
It was perfectly common (well, the 5 years I spent there anyway, dunno if that's typical) to have 2 months with above-30 daytime temperatures and 2-3 weeks with above-35 daytime highs. This counts as AC-territory in my book, yet pretty much nobody had AC, partly because few people earned well, and most houses sucked anyway. (it'd cost a fortune to AC a suckily insulated east-german house)
Yeah, I know, Cottbus is atypical for Germany. I don't imagine they get +38 on Sylt or in Hamburg all that often.
True. But as stated, that "other country" is then Sweden, and honestly, Sweden and Norway are more similar than some US-states are (Hawaii and Alaska aren't *that* similar) so it doesn't really feel much like "abroad" to the average Norwegian.
I absolutely agree that USA is huge. My entire point was that there's people in Europe too that have no real alternative to planes if they want to really go abroad. If you live in Northern norway and want to visit say France, Germany or the UK, you're going to travel by plane, because the alternative is to spend a *week* for the travel alone. And you're likely to pay *more* for Kirkenes-London than you'd pay for Chicago-London or NY-London. (you won't get the jet-lag though, only 1 hour difference)
Actually you heat the house mostly with waste heat. A refrigerator produces on the order of 1Kwh of heat a day. A freezer too. Laundry, cooking, showering, tv, stereo, computer, ligth, vacuum-cleaner, all produce waste-heat, which can actually be sufficient for a well-insulated house.
For that matter, your body itself produces on the order of 50W of heat, so if 5 people live in a house, that's 250W of extra heating rigth there.
Yeah, at full sunligth, a square meter of pv can produce aproximately 200W. But there's not full sunligth 24/365. You are lucky to get 1Kwh/day from a single square-meter of pv.
And 350Kwh/year is worth, depending on where you live, something like perhaps $35-$70. Which ain't enough to pay for the square meter of pv, plus batteries, plus inverter, plus installation, plus maintenance and so on inside of the useful life of the pv.
So no, you won't make your investment back. In general it'll be cheaper to *buy* the required energy than it is to *produce* it yourself using PV.
I never claimed it was "free". I just claimed that for you personally, it may be worthwhile if the local tax-regime is infact such that you are given benefits.
You should wipe your drool. I never said it makes *sense* to have such a tax-regime, just that some areas do infact *have* such a regime.
I'm curious though, in which precise way is "the taxpayer" harmed if I can, for example, purchase photovoltaics and have them installed VAT-free ? In what way is "the taxpayer" harmed if the taxcode says, for example, that private income derived from selling renewable power is tax-free ? In what way is "the taxpayer" harmed if the government decides to invest in solar-power in a town rather than the otherwise nessecary grid-strengthening to take the peak-load on warm days ? In what way is "the taxpayer" harmed if the government decides to reduce local particle-pollution by stimulating installation of photovoltaics rather than, for example, by setting more stringent demands on allowable car-pollution ?
True. The *best* *new* houses are so well-insulated that they require essentially zero heating, even in cool climates. If you already live in such a house, then that means there's no more savings-potential on that account.
Most people don't though. The average house in Norway, for example, uses 15 times the heating-energy as a modern energy-efficient house. And even a *new* house built to the minimum required by law uses about 5 times the energy of a energy-efficient one.
I'm just saying, it may be a good idea to spend $X on adding insulation to your old poorly-insulated house in order to reduce your utility-bills in the future. Or it may be worth it to pay 10-15% more for a new house to get extra insulation above and beyond that required by law.
It depends. I find *some* level of subsidies is fair.
Thing is, there's externalities. Positive and negative. If I heat my house by burning oil or wood, then everyone around me suffers sligthly from this choice. The burning releases particles that are bad for the lungs of everyone living around me. (and CO2 that is probably not all that good for the climated)
I don't have to pay that cost however. Which is why, from my point of view that ain't relevant. (unless I'm a "hippie" and actually care what influence my actions have on others)
So, solar-cells deserve subsidies to the degree they actually provide benefits to the surrounding community. The two main examples are reduced pollution and less strain on the grid on warm peak-load days.
It depends on your local building-code. In some countries there are essentially no regulation as to insulation, but only regulation of safety and/or estetics. In most countries, especially those with lots of cold and/or lots of warm weather insulation is required by law in new buildings.
But even there, it can be a good investment to put in more than the legally required minimum, or add insulation to an older poorly insulated house.
The reality is that on average, photovoltaics costs more to install and maintain than the power they produce is worth, thus on the average you're poorer *with* photovoltaics than without.
This is however only true on average. If, for example, you live in an area where you get tax-breaks or subsidies for installing, then this can be enough to break even. In Germany, for example they have a "100.000 roofs" program where you're guaranteed a price about 3 times market-price for the power you produce for the next 15 years. That is *more* than enough to make it profitable.
Solar water-heaters on the other hand are beneficial. Especially if you live in an area with plenty of sun *and* have a large family that likes to frequently shower in the summer, it can be a huge win. There are substantial savings from installing them at the same time one installs roofing, so your best bet is probably going to be to install them at the same time your roofing needs replacement anyway, rather than separately.
The *most* beneficial investment however is building/buying a well-insulated house with balanced ventilation. This saves power in summer for AC, and in winther for heating. And a well-insulated house doesn't have higher maintenance-costs than a poorly insulated one.
Agreed. For central Europe this is indeed the case. I lived near Berlin for a few years, and if I sat down in my car for a day I could visit any of the following countries:
Germany 0 hours.
Poland 0.5 hours.
Austria ~4-5 hours
Switzerland ~6-7 hours
Netherland ~6-7 hours
Denmark ~5 hours
Sweden ~7 hours
Checkoslovakia (however you guys spell that!) ~5 hours
That ain't so in Norway where I grew up though. From the west coast where I grew up it's like ~7-8 hours to the next closest country, and then that's only Sweden which ain't really much different from Norway culture/languagelike. If you want anything other than Sweden, you're looking at a multi-day drive. From northern parts of Norway its worse, Sweden is close there too (but that's like Canada to parts of the USA, less different actually since Canada atleast has french parts), but other than that it's like literally 2000 miles or so to drive to reach central europe, and the roads aren't 3-lane highways but more like 2-lane roads with 80km/h speedlimit for the most part. Just for visiting Oslo you'd need a *week*. (so noone does that, planes are where its at)
On the other hand, I had a penpal in central Belgium. She claimed that from where she lived, she could visit any of the neighbouring countries in a day --by bike. So I guess my answer is: It depends. For much of Europe you're certainly correct.
Ok. Quite possible. Allthough last I checked here the best price/GB was to be had at around 3-500GB, but I guess it can vary somewhat depending on country and/or retailer.
The basic point though, was that 20GB is ridicolous, *especially* for a machine that is its first halfyear of a ~5-year lifecycle.
On the other hand Sony *still* sells 8MB (that's 1/125th of a GB) "memory-cards" for the PS2 for a price very similar to that of a 1GB flash-stick in a non-proprietary format. I guess what I'd like would be just simply the ability to store on flash. It's not as if the PS2 didn't *already* have usb-ports (which where severly under-utilized).
64 MB memory-cards are beyond ridiciolous in the age of dirt-cheap multi-GB usb-sticks.
20GB for a HD is also ridicolouse. Even 2.5 disks start out around 80-100GB today, and there's no reason whatsoever for buying a 3.5 HD smaller than say 3-500GB.
So, Americans don't bother to learn language 2, because they think english alone "works".
Europeans, on the other hand, learn english because they realice they "need to", and once they *have* mastered it, they conclude that languages are doable, and go on to learn a third language despite already knowing english.
I still think there's more to it, Americans seem to be rather introspective in general (on average, there's always exceptions offcourse!) -- not just when it comes to languages. There seem to be a relatively low fraction of foreign culture, less reporting on what goes on abroad and so on. But I'm sure the effect you mention has part of the blame.
Sure we'll survive. Only doomsday-fanatics suggest anything else. There's no plausible scenario where humanity would literally die out as a result of a few puny degrees higher average temperature.
That is not to say there won't be suffering. Sure there'll be. Lost land too. Dead too. Mostly poor people, so I guess we don't care.
But on the other hand, that doesn't explain it all. It explains, partially atleast, why the average Norwegian knows english better than the average American knows their second language (excluding the spanish-talking part of the USA).
But it doesn't explain at *all* why it's more common to speak *3* languages fluently in Norway than it is to speak *2* in the USA. I mean, if knowing english serves as a demotivator -- stopping you from wanting to learn more (since it works "everywhere"), then what motivates Norwegian (german, swedish, finnish, whatever) kids for learning further languages *after* english ?
No. It ain't a myth that the languages are similar. You won't instantly understand every single word if you've had little prior experience with the languages and no training. But you *will* understand the general gist of things and probably 75% of the words if you take care and listen carefully and the person is talking clearly.
English may still be used, for the simple reason that most Scandinavians have had extensive training and lots of experience with that, so it can feel in some sense "safer" than a more "unknown" language, despite the unknown language being very similar to your mother-tongue.
Poetry is just about the hardest text possible to really *get* in any language, it frequently uses uncommon words and/or depend on fine nuanses of meaning, english poetry, for example, still give me very little, despite my english being perfectly adequate for most other stuff. I read fiction, I read technical literature, I discuss orally or written without feeling limited by the language at all, but poetry is a different matter alltogether.
It's even better in most of the world. You see, age of consent tends to be lower, on the average something like 16 in most parts of the world.
So, if you meet a 16 year old and the two of you decide to fuck, it's all perfectly good fun. But if the same 16-year-old sends you a nudie-pic of herself you better delete it real quick: Posession of childporn is a criminal offence, and the definition is "under 18", despite the age of consent being 16.
Hell, in principle you could get convicted for posession of child-porn for posessing a nudie pic of *yourself* at age 17, even if you *are* 17. There's no exception in the law for people of similar age, or for pictures of *yourself*.
$ telnet someserver smtp
220-someserver ESMTP Exim, welcome.
HELO eivind
250 someserver Hello eivind, nice to meet you !
MAIL FROM eivindorama@gmail.com
250 OK
RCPT TO someguy@somewhere
250 Accepted. Will do my best to deliver your message.
DATA
354 Enter message, ending with "." on a line by itself
Subject: Message for you
Hi somguy, how's it going ? .
200 Message accepted for delivery.
QUIT
Most people don't imagine that email-servers go around exchanging courtesies with oneanother while delivering mail, but infact many of them do. Some of them even have a sense of humour. (postfix used to, for example, on wrong commands say something along the lines of "Proper forging of email requires learning SMTP")
Slashdot Mirror
But this is precisely equally true if you bid a week before the item ends, and bid what you're actually willing to pay for the item. Either that's more than anyone else wants to pay and you win, or it's not, and someone else gets the item. I don't see the problem.
Are people stupid enough to bid $20, and then when they see someone else bids $22 they then go and bid $25 ?
Thing is, if some idiot behaves unacceptably towards me at work, I'll first simply tell him: "I don't accept that behaviour, please stop it." (it's not that hard!)
If that didn't work, I'd talk to my supervisor: "I've got this problem with [idiot] -- he keeps doing [thing] even though I find that unacceptable and have clearly said so to him."
Which would result in [idiot] getting a stern talk with the supervisor, perhaps even a written warning, depending on what exactly he is doing. If he choose to ignore this warning too, he'll be fired. Simple.
Now, even the idiot who doesn't use common sense can't claim he didn't know. After the written warning, he *must* know. And if he persists, I find firing him perfectly reasonable.
Firing immediately, on first offense, can happen to. But it's very rare, and basically only happens when the employeee has also trough his actions broken a law. For example, an employee convicted of sexual assault in some job-related situation would definitely be fired without warning. But he can hardly claim that he "didn't know" that sexual assault was unacceptable. (well, he could claim it, but it'd get laughed out of court)
If someone behaves in an unacceptable way towards you at work, and you notify your supervisor about this -- but nothing happens -- then I agree it's reasonable to hold the company responsible.
But there's a long way from that and to require companies to hold "sensitivity training" or similar stupidity to avoid liability for what is clearly not their fault.
It also seems to me the US workplace is amazingly intolerant. Personal expression is restrained a *LOT* more than is required for a nice workplace. To me, it's even *desirable* that people can be themselves at work. Personal attacks or disrespect for the limits of others (be they sexual or other) is unacceptable anywhere, but that doesn't mean one should behave as on Disney-TV, it would be nice if one could atleast assume we're dealing with adults -- capable of saying so if something doesn't fit them.
There is ?
You guys hire as *employees* people that aren't yet done with primary-school ?
Is this a US-thing ? That employees are to be treated as pre-school idiots ? Is basic normal human behaviour not among the things you would expect from someone *before* even considering hiring them ?
I've had like half a dozen different jobs (not counting smaller short-time stuff), and not even *once* have I had anyone explain dress-code, polite behaviour, refraining-from-butt-grabing or any of that stuff to me. Nor should there be any need to. Now on the (extremely rare if your hiring-policies are sane) occasions when somebody *does* behave in an unacceptable way, you need to have a talk with the person in question. But to assume from the get-go that you're dealing with idiots is extremely insulting.
Traditionally, binding to low ports was a priviledged operation only available to root. This is however currently changing with the introduction of more fine-grained capabilities.
Apache however, was (and is) extremely diligent in using the root-process *only* for opening port 80 and forking the worker-processes which then do all the actual work. (and run as a dedicated user, typically "httpd" or "apache")
I don't think I've seen even a single root-level vulnerability in Apache the last several years. But sure, one could exist, so it'd always be preferable if one could run it with less priviledges.
Yeah. But with a round-the-clock average of 19 degrees, I don't know perhaps that means a normal july has +27 daytime and +12 nigths or some such ? I'd actually have guessed Cottbus a few degrees warmer than that on the average. But you may be rigth that this is only a recent trend and not the general norm. I only lived there from 2001-2006 afterall.
It was perfectly common (well, the 5 years I spent there anyway, dunno if that's typical) to have 2 months with above-30 daytime temperatures and 2-3 weeks with above-35 daytime highs. This counts as AC-territory in my book, yet pretty much nobody had AC, partly because few people earned well, and most houses sucked anyway. (it'd cost a fortune to AC a suckily insulated east-german house)
Yeah, I know, Cottbus is atypical for Germany. I don't imagine they get +38 on Sylt or in Hamburg all that often.
I absolutely agree that USA is huge. My entire point was that there's people in Europe too that have no real alternative to planes if they want to really go abroad. If you live in Northern norway and want to visit say France, Germany or the UK, you're going to travel by plane, because the alternative is to spend a *week* for the travel alone. And you're likely to pay *more* for Kirkenes-London than you'd pay for Chicago-London or NY-London. (you won't get the jet-lag though, only 1 hour difference)
For that matter, your body itself produces on the order of 50W of heat, so if 5 people live in a house, that's 250W of extra heating rigth there.
Yeah. Wood is carbon-neutral, if from sustainable forests. But that doesn't mean the particles aren't harmful to peoples lungs.
And 350Kwh/year is worth, depending on where you live, something like perhaps $35-$70. Which ain't enough to pay for the square meter of pv, plus batteries, plus inverter, plus installation, plus maintenance and so on inside of the useful life of the pv.
So no, you won't make your investment back. In general it'll be cheaper to *buy* the required energy than it is to *produce* it yourself using PV.
You should wipe your drool. I never said it makes *sense* to have such a tax-regime, just that some areas do infact *have* such a regime.
I'm curious though, in which precise way is "the taxpayer" harmed if I can, for example, purchase photovoltaics and have them installed VAT-free ? In what way is "the taxpayer" harmed if the taxcode says, for example, that private income derived from selling renewable power is tax-free ? In what way is "the taxpayer" harmed if the government decides to invest in solar-power in a town rather than the otherwise nessecary grid-strengthening to take the peak-load on warm days ? In what way is "the taxpayer" harmed if the government decides to reduce local particle-pollution by stimulating installation of photovoltaics rather than, for example, by setting more stringent demands on allowable car-pollution ?
Most people don't though. The average house in Norway, for example, uses 15 times the heating-energy as a modern energy-efficient house. And even a *new* house built to the minimum required by law uses about 5 times the energy of a energy-efficient one.
I'm just saying, it may be a good idea to spend $X on adding insulation to your old poorly-insulated house in order to reduce your utility-bills in the future. Or it may be worth it to pay 10-15% more for a new house to get extra insulation above and beyond that required by law.
Thing is, there's externalities. Positive and negative. If I heat my house by burning oil or wood, then everyone around me suffers sligthly from this choice. The burning releases particles that are bad for the lungs of everyone living around me. (and CO2 that is probably not all that good for the climated)
I don't have to pay that cost however. Which is why, from my point of view that ain't relevant. (unless I'm a "hippie" and actually care what influence my actions have on others)
So, solar-cells deserve subsidies to the degree they actually provide benefits to the surrounding community. The two main examples are reduced pollution and less strain on the grid on warm peak-load days.
But even there, it can be a good investment to put in more than the legally required minimum, or add insulation to an older poorly insulated house.
This is however only true on average. If, for example, you live in an area where you get tax-breaks or subsidies for installing, then this can be enough to break even. In Germany, for example they have a "100.000 roofs" program where you're guaranteed a price about 3 times market-price for the power you produce for the next 15 years. That is *more* than enough to make it profitable.
Solar water-heaters on the other hand are beneficial. Especially if you live in an area with plenty of sun *and* have a large family that likes to frequently shower in the summer, it can be a huge win. There are substantial savings from installing them at the same time one installs roofing, so your best bet is probably going to be to install them at the same time your roofing needs replacement anyway, rather than separately.
The *most* beneficial investment however is building/buying a well-insulated house with balanced ventilation. This saves power in summer for AC, and in winther for heating. And a well-insulated house doesn't have higher maintenance-costs than a poorly insulated one.
That ain't so in Norway where I grew up though. From the west coast where I grew up it's like ~7-8 hours to the next closest country, and then that's only Sweden which ain't really much different from Norway culture/languagelike. If you want anything other than Sweden, you're looking at a multi-day drive. From northern parts of Norway its worse, Sweden is close there too (but that's like Canada to parts of the USA, less different actually since Canada atleast has french parts), but other than that it's like literally 2000 miles or so to drive to reach central europe, and the roads aren't 3-lane highways but more like 2-lane roads with 80km/h speedlimit for the most part. Just for visiting Oslo you'd need a *week*. (so noone does that, planes are where its at)
On the other hand, I had a penpal in central Belgium. She claimed that from where she lived, she could visit any of the neighbouring countries in a day --by bike. So I guess my answer is: It depends. For much of Europe you're certainly correct.
The basic point though, was that 20GB is ridicolous, *especially* for a machine that is its first halfyear of a ~5-year lifecycle.
On the other hand Sony *still* sells 8MB (that's 1/125th of a GB) "memory-cards" for the PS2 for a price very similar to that of a 1GB flash-stick in a non-proprietary format. I guess what I'd like would be just simply the ability to store on flash. It's not as if the PS2 didn't *already* have usb-ports (which where severly under-utilized).
64 MB memory-cards are beyond ridiciolous in the age of dirt-cheap multi-GB usb-sticks. 20GB for a HD is also ridicolouse. Even 2.5 disks start out around 80-100GB today, and there's no reason whatsoever for buying a 3.5 HD smaller than say 3-500GB.
So, Americans don't bother to learn language 2, because they think english alone "works".
Europeans, on the other hand, learn english because they realice they "need to", and once they *have* mastered it, they conclude that languages are doable, and go on to learn a third language despite already knowing english.
I still think there's more to it, Americans seem to be rather introspective in general (on average, there's always exceptions offcourse!) -- not just when it comes to languages. There seem to be a relatively low fraction of foreign culture, less reporting on what goes on abroad and so on. But I'm sure the effect you mention has part of the blame.
That is not to say there won't be suffering. Sure there'll be. Lost land too. Dead too. Mostly poor people, so I guess we don't care.
But on the other hand, that doesn't explain it all. It explains, partially atleast, why the average Norwegian knows english better than the average American knows their second language (excluding the spanish-talking part of the USA).
But it doesn't explain at *all* why it's more common to speak *3* languages fluently in Norway than it is to speak *2* in the USA. I mean, if knowing english serves as a demotivator -- stopping you from wanting to learn more (since it works "everywhere"), then what motivates Norwegian (german, swedish, finnish, whatever) kids for learning further languages *after* english ?
English may still be used, for the simple reason that most Scandinavians have had extensive training and lots of experience with that, so it can feel in some sense "safer" than a more "unknown" language, despite the unknown language being very similar to your mother-tongue.
Poetry is just about the hardest text possible to really *get* in any language, it frequently uses uncommon words and/or depend on fine nuanses of meaning, english poetry, for example, still give me very little, despite my english being perfectly adequate for most other stuff. I read fiction, I read technical literature, I discuss orally or written without feeling limited by the language at all, but poetry is a different matter alltogether.
So, if you meet a 16 year old and the two of you decide to fuck, it's all perfectly good fun. But if the same 16-year-old sends you a nudie-pic of herself you better delete it real quick: Posession of childporn is a criminal offence, and the definition is "under 18", despite the age of consent being 16.
Hell, in principle you could get convicted for posession of child-porn for posessing a nudie pic of *yourself* at age 17, even if you *are* 17. There's no exception in the law for people of similar age, or for pictures of *yourself*.
Dumb is just the first letter of it.
$ telnet someserver smtp
.
220-someserver ESMTP Exim, welcome.
HELO eivind
250 someserver Hello eivind, nice to meet you !
MAIL FROM eivindorama@gmail.com
250 OK
RCPT TO someguy@somewhere
250 Accepted. Will do my best to deliver your message.
DATA
354 Enter message, ending with "." on a line by itself
Subject: Message for you
Hi somguy, how's it going ?
200 Message accepted for delivery.
QUIT
Most people don't imagine that email-servers go around exchanging courtesies with oneanother while delivering mail, but infact many of them do. Some of them even have a sense of humour. (postfix used to, for example, on wrong commands say something along the lines of "Proper forging of email requires learning SMTP")