Diversity is not about just moving the bigotry and discrimination around from one group to another, nor is it about creating artificial safe spaces that suppress both competition and actual achievement.
It is with pleasure I note that apparently the leaders of St. Augustine have realized this and declined to participate in musical bigotry chairs.
Let boys and girls, hetero and not, religious and secular, of dark hue and light participate on an equal playing field - defeating the racist meme as youth of all descriptions work to simply create the most effective approaches and, in this instance, the greatest beauty.
Education shouldn't be about who has the coolest grievance or privilege card - it should be about who, through intellectual achievement, is best suited to a limited opportunity - and when opportunities are broad, they should be offered broadly without consideration of race, gender, orientation, religion, creed or philosophy.
It Spain wishes to use its "authoriteh" as a nation to attempt to extort protectionist fees for a service that already serves as a benefit to the very business they are trying to protect - Google is, as a private entity, well within its rights to terminate the availability of Google News in Spain and take additional steps up to and including delisting targeted classes of companies entirely from their general index as a method of showing their dismay.
Shouldn't mean you will necessarily get.
Certainly if I were subject to EU or even the lower US privacy standards, I'd have grave concerns about out-sourcing *anything* to a locale that so cavalierly violated the most rudimentary notions of privacy and security. More pro-actively, to the extent a mere slashdot-peon can, I'd encourage RIM to go back to their pre-agreement stance and begin negotiations with other telecommunications providers and ex-pat companies with an India presence to present a united front at both the political and technical levels - implementing further and hardened security and privacy measures rather than undermining the often-minimal security in place today.
Governments are like puppies. They keep crapping in the middle of the floor until you rub their nose in it a few times.
As a gay man, I find the very concept of barring such anti-discrimination policies offensive. However, before we really get the bandwagon rolling, what say we ask a couple of questions:
1) What have past Virginia AG's advised cities, towns, and political subdivisions regarding non-discrimination policy generally and LGBT affecting law specifically? What was their reasoning? What is Cucinelli's?
2) Do, in fact, any provisions exist in Virginia statute or state constitutional provision that a competent attorney would be compelled to advise his client (the Universities and colleges) that such a policy (and thus they) are in violation of, or potentially might reasonably to be argued to be in violation of?
3) Given the increasing evidence that at least some portions of the "Global Warming" theory are based on spurious or manufactured evidence (without addressing in any way whether or not anthropogenic global warming valid as a theory or in any way a verifiable phenomenon), is it not the duty of a sitting AG when the question is raised about whether the science and research paid for on the public dime might be fraudulent, to then investigate such questions - and if a preponderance of evidence shows that fraud was committed on the public dime, is it then not the duty of said Attorney General to prosecute the perpetrator of the fraud and misuse of state funds to the full extent of the law?
(For the newbs, in most instances this would mean an affirmative answer to : Did Mann knowingly publish false or misleading results? If so, were state funds used in producing/creating/obtaining such false data?)
4) Aside from Cucinelli as a common factor does the University policy issue have anything to do with the rightness or wrongness of the investigation of Mann and his global warming work?
To address our first question, we have but to look at Cucinelli's advisory letter itself . He cites a number of relevant prior Virginia Attorney Generals opinions, yet notably fails to cite either constitutional or statutory provision - instead basing his reasoning on the theory that unless it is specifically permitted, that a University or other subordinate political division (from governor to rural village) may not extend or expand civil rights beyond those enumerated by the Virginia General Assembly, a body that as recently as a few weeks ago (and on 26 other occasions) has declined with varying degrees of vehemence to add sexual orientation or expression to the list of protected classes (i.e., list of things forbidden to discriminate based upon).
The actions or lack thereof of the Virginia General Assembly, notwithstanding the opinions of the current and several prior Attorney Generals of the State of Virginia, are simply irrelevant. Our fundamental legal tradition is not "whatever is not specifically permitted, is forbidden" - rather, it is "whatever is not specifically forbidden, is permitted" which undermines a basic argument of Cucinelli and his predecessors.
Further, as demonstrated in a long line of prior cases, subordinate political divisions may extend MORE civil rights protections, but never less than those extended by their respective superior bodies, subject to the provisions of the prior paragraph.
Since the Virginia General Assembly has, to the best of my knowledge, never barred subordinate bodies from extending such protections to allege such a bar is mistaken at best, and in my opinion, malicious bigotry at worst.
To address our second question, I return to the reasoning addressed in the first. Any competent attorney would, given the opportunity, to cite clear statutory law would do so - as it would substantially strengthen their legal argument. I find the absence of such citation telling, to put it mildly and the "public policy" argument weak on the face of it. If public policy barred any action not specifically authorized by
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, c. 1775
Might I suggest the right answer for Canada (and I say this as an American) is to deny use of Canadian Airspace and/or landing rights to U.S. carriers until this demand is withdrawn? And on the U.S. side, to simply state that Canada can take whatever measures it wishes to guarantee aviation safety, but any damages that involve flights departs from Canadian airports that resulting from failures in whatever aviation safety system Canada may choose to implement will then be paid from randomly seized Canadian assets in the U.S.?
Let Canada figure it out, and if they get it wrong, let Canada pay!
It's been feel-good security theatre since day one. I now only fly if there is no other practical option. This sucks...as once flying was a joy in and of itself, a pleasant addition to the travel experience. Now it's a little slice of hell, and I won't play if I don't have to...and what's truly offensive is these various unpleasantries, as far as I can tell, do little or nothing to enhance safety and have everything to do with "looking busy" and providing a "sense of security" where there is little actual security, as actual security measures would largely be politically unacceptable.
So...one dim-bulbed attempted bombing that...if successful...might have killed *at most* 1,000 persons (all aboard, crashing into crowded high school and/or nursing home) will inflict largely useless idiocy upon everyone flying in U.S. Airspace. If we consider that a goal of asymmetrical warfare is to make things unpleasant for the populace of the opponent - wouldn't this count as a casualty-free win for the Al-Qaeda bandits?
Folks, we're *in an economic depression* and don't know when we're going to get out - and neither does Shell.
It is not surprising that Shell (and other companies) are re-trenching and focusing on "profitable RIGHT NOW" business segments as they bunker down to weather the economic storm.
Right now, Wind/Solar are at best marginal investments dependent more on customers need to "feel good" than on any net benefit. The average joe is hunkering down (as is Shell) and more interested in a $500 cast iron wood stove that lets him heat his house with darned near anything flammable than in a 30k investment in solar panels with a minimum 5 years to break-even.
Catch a clue. The moment the economy went into the deep end, most anything speculative (so-called renewable energy certainly qualifies) went into the tank right alongside for the duration...
More survival-oriented, but..
Operation Helmet, Operation BoreSnake (defunct but offers useful information for troops), and comfort kits all help out. Check with your brother about his armor vest quality - this has been an issue in Iraq, though some reports report it as resolved.
The solar kit will help, but recall that most solar panels *reflect* in sunlight (see: "Iraq", "Desert Climes") and reflections have an unfortunate tendency to *draw fire*. This is an un-good thing in a combat environment. Think this through.
It's obviously time for the good folks at Google to simply smile peacefully, and ramp up a $10/mo Mesh Network plan in affected region - Google supplies WAPS, and at the end of the year, a $50.00 rebate to the end-user...as well, of course, as supplying internet connectivity through a variety of vendors close to CO's...
Plenty of technology out there to completely supplant an obstreperous Cable Data service...just need folks with the capital and the motivation (i.e., are sufficiently pissed) to implement it.
Personal: Lawfully owned handgun and license to carry (http://www.packing.org/state/louisiana/) - there are some bad critters down there, and I'm not even talking about the two-legged bad-un's (which may also be a consideration).
Two pair sturdy broken-in workboots. High-Waders.
Heavy work pants, long-sleeve shirts, LOTS of dry socks.
Cot/Sleeping bag/etc.
GLOVES - 1 pair each, heavy leather and insulated rubber (at a min.) (Bring extra for locals in need if you can).
GROUP:
Appropriate Vehicle(s) "Pinzgauer", Unimog, "PTO Winch", "Amphibious", are *good* words in this context, as is "Diesel". "Zodiac" and "Airboat" are other words to conjure with. Ebay is our friend.
Chainsaws.
Gasoline. Chain Saw sharpening gear. Heavy brush cutters. LOTS of 2-3' crow bars...maybe 7-8 great big ones (the 6' "let's get serious about this" sort). Machetes - remember, they never run out of fuel. Cross cut saws, similarly, aren't real fuel-hogs.
Sleeper Vehicles. Old school buses convert quickly & nicely...again, see e-bay for cheap rides and sleeping quarters...can also be filled with supplies and converted to nappy-time space as supplies are off-loaded.
Tarps. Tents.
At least one person with a legitimate badge or similar mojo for "liason with ninnies". Should always ride in lead vehicle when entering/leaving area.
Well-defined and achievable mission. Signed contract w/ local business may prove useful.
Sufficient Water/Food for mission duration. Don't be a burden.
For those of us who carry for self-defense (be we law enforcement or private citizens) the 2nd Amendment arguments may exist - but we're MUCH more concerned about being forced to use a piece of life-saving equipment with a 10% failure rate that would replace a similar piece of equipment with a.0001% failure rate.
I'm just not up for 10% being acceptable. I'll stick with my old-fashioned.45acp Gov't Model clone or a revolver, or other equipment that is *reliable*. By the time things have fallen so completely apart I'm willing to draw or fire a handgun, the last thing I need is a 1 in 10 chance of failure.
This, of course, is *before* we factor in little things like battery life, equipment fragility, EMP (a low order event, but still), injury (to the assigned shooter, thus forcing a grip change or change to the off hand, or both), the difference between a grip in a relaxed setting on a range and with adrenalin pumping in a crisis situation, etc).
Eeek. Just give me a *dumb* gun, one that works, and I'll do my best to refrain from using it inappropriately.
If you're *going* to do it, it's just not true that you've gotta be gun-free and you can't shoot back. From what I hear, quite a few contractors have acquired assault prevention devices and have utilized them successfully and quietly.
Before you do, however, I strongly sugest you look into the courses available at the Gunsite Academy or with Massad Ayoob's group or LFI..and take all you can afford before boarding that plane.
Nobody requires anyone to use SPEWS. If your ISP utilizes SPEWS and you don't like it, either complain till the policy changes - or move to another ISP.
Similarly, nobody has some special magical right not to be blocked - that's one of the joys of server ownership..you can block any domain or ip that you find annoying, and since the *box belongs to you* its' really only your business.
In short, what's the big deal? The various anti-spam lists vices/virtues are known to those who'd care to investigate, and since we're all big boys and girls, we makes our choices and takes our chances.
As U.S. Citizens we are not bound to talk about only peaceful things that bestow warm fuzzy feelings upon our government officials. Talking or writing about bombs, guns, knives, bad lasagne recipes, and other less than pleasant objects is perfectly lawful.
It is even lawful to suggest that it would be morally correct to inflict bad lasagne, bobs, guns, knives, and other unpleasantry on persons and/or organizations of which we disapprove.
Where the line is crossed is when one takes a concrete action to serve bad lasagne(etc) unto the disapproved parties.
As the case is described, it is a farce of intimidation and terror (if you don't find the threat of 20 years in a federal penitentiary terrifying, you need to seriously re-evaluate)implemented by persons either constitutionally clueless or so eager to be seen to be doing something to fight "terrorism" that they forget that the Bill of Rights exists...and a federal prosecutor more afraid of losing face than of inflicting injustice on an individual without the resources to do legal battle with the federal government.
The sad thing is, that with the ridiculous powers we have allowed state and federal governments in ever larger increments over the last thirty years (as if, in fact, we learned NOTHING from the civil rights and vietnam eras) this sort of tale of rampant abuse of government authority (which ought never have been granted in the first place) are and will continue to become ever more common until another generation of angry youth drives the cowards and control freaks back into their caves.
Now, it'd just be morally wrong to go on a crusade to carefully inform the world of what we think of NWLinks actions, Quality of Service, or other issues we have with them....w/o contacting them first to share our love and affection..
Option A & B are all good, but you neglect option C -
C. Remembering the Intel PIII serial number debacle, launch paralell lines of production for DRM and non-DRM chips...and watch which one actually sells, killing the other.
The result will be simple enough - firearms manufacturers, quite reasonably, will refuse to sell firearms in the state of New Jersey based on the liability issues involved.
The first time a battery runs down, or a "smart gun system" fails to fire when necessary - resulting in the death or injury of the lawful firearm owner - the manufacturer of that so-called "smart gun" is going to be sued out of existence.
There are seldom many volunteers to be sued out of existence.
A firearm is a last-ditch tool of self defense, and like a fire extinguisher, introducing exciting new failure modes is a *very bad thing*.
Certainly, my *very first* priority if I were to purchase a so-called "smart gun" would be to dumb it down and remove the potentially fatal failure mode implicit in its' alleged "safety-system".
This, of course, does not even begin to address the notion that I'd be MUCH more willing to buy a WWI era.45 and recondition it than I would be willing to purchase a risk-intensive "smart gun"...
Lokinator "A gun is one of those things that if you need it, you really really need it...and you need it WORK the first time..."
Some ISP's offer as a FEATURE that they block (or at least try to) certain sorts of sites; almost all ISP's have spam block ranges or approaches in place regarding known spammers.
In the first case, this is less about Freedom, than what the customer is willing to pay cold hard cash for - some customers WANT a filtered experience, and part of the freedom they enjoy is to seek out and "enjoy" such filtering - it is only when such filtering is forced on the unwilling that it becomes vile and oppressive.
In the second case, IT'S MY SERVER - and I'll block who I bloody well please. If US Congress critters are sufficiently annoying, I may block.gov relaying; if the Australian Gov't's rampant ludditism offends, I may block.au; and if after endless complaints re open relay servers by multiple players fails to effect change in the behaviour of the open relay operators, I may block them - and where there are enough of them, I may begin blocking entire TLD's or IP Blocks. It is, after all, my server, and just like my living room, I get to decide who I'm going to let in.
Let there be no doubt. The recent weeks increased blocking of asian mail servers has been successful in getting the attention of the folks blocked, indicative of a successful approach. We need, however, to provide solutions as well as stimuli, lest the Chinese government or others become excessively creative.
May I suggest a three prong approach?
1) Continue the blocks of any offenders not demonstrated to have closed open relays.
2) Creation of, as suggested by another poster, Open Relay Correction Notice websites - wherein the offended administrator would fill in the blanks on a form in the appropriate language and hit "send" and have the message sent off in said appropriate language to the offender.
3) Encourage LIMITED anti-spam laws in China. I think, for instance, that execution is a bit of a heavy handed response for operating an open relay.
Slashdot Mirror
Ad hominem, much?
Diversity is not about just moving the bigotry and discrimination around from one group to another, nor is it about creating artificial safe spaces that suppress both competition and actual achievement. It is with pleasure I note that apparently the leaders of St. Augustine have realized this and declined to participate in musical bigotry chairs. Let boys and girls, hetero and not, religious and secular, of dark hue and light participate on an equal playing field - defeating the racist meme as youth of all descriptions work to simply create the most effective approaches and, in this instance, the greatest beauty. Education shouldn't be about who has the coolest grievance or privilege card - it should be about who, through intellectual achievement, is best suited to a limited opportunity - and when opportunities are broad, they should be offered broadly without consideration of race, gender, orientation, religion, creed or philosophy.
It Spain wishes to use its "authoriteh" as a nation to attempt to extort protectionist fees for a service that already serves as a benefit to the very business they are trying to protect - Google is, as a private entity, well within its rights to terminate the availability of Google News in Spain and take additional steps up to and including delisting targeted classes of companies entirely from their general index as a method of showing their dismay.
Shouldn't mean you will necessarily get. Certainly if I were subject to EU or even the lower US privacy standards, I'd have grave concerns about out-sourcing *anything* to a locale that so cavalierly violated the most rudimentary notions of privacy and security. More pro-actively, to the extent a mere slashdot-peon can, I'd encourage RIM to go back to their pre-agreement stance and begin negotiations with other telecommunications providers and ex-pat companies with an India presence to present a united front at both the political and technical levels - implementing further and hardened security and privacy measures rather than undermining the often-minimal security in place today.
Governments are like puppies. They keep crapping in the middle of the floor until you rub their nose in it a few times.
As a gay man, I find the very concept of barring such anti-discrimination policies offensive. However, before we really get the bandwagon rolling, what say we ask a couple of questions:
1) What have past Virginia AG's advised cities, towns, and political subdivisions regarding non-discrimination policy generally and LGBT affecting law specifically? What was their reasoning? What is Cucinelli's?
2) Do, in fact, any provisions exist in Virginia statute or state constitutional provision that a competent attorney would be compelled to advise his client (the Universities and colleges) that such a policy (and thus they) are in violation of, or potentially might reasonably to be argued to be in violation of?
3) Given the increasing evidence that at least some portions of the "Global Warming" theory are based on spurious or manufactured evidence (without addressing in any way whether or not anthropogenic global warming valid as a theory or in any way a verifiable phenomenon), is it not the duty of a sitting AG when the question is raised about whether the science and research paid for on the public dime might be fraudulent, to then investigate such questions - and if a preponderance of evidence shows that fraud was committed on the public dime, is it then not the duty of said Attorney General to prosecute the perpetrator of the fraud and misuse of state funds to the full extent of the law?
(For the newbs, in most instances this would mean an affirmative answer to : Did Mann knowingly publish false or misleading results? If so, were state funds used in producing/creating/obtaining such false data?)
4) Aside from Cucinelli as a common factor does the University policy issue have anything to do with the rightness or wrongness of the investigation of Mann and his global warming work?
To address our first question, we have but to look at Cucinelli's advisory letter itself . He cites a number of relevant prior Virginia Attorney Generals opinions, yet notably fails to cite either constitutional or statutory provision - instead basing his reasoning on the theory that unless it is specifically permitted, that a University or other subordinate political division (from governor to rural village) may not extend or expand civil rights beyond those enumerated by the Virginia General Assembly, a body that as recently as a few weeks ago (and on 26 other occasions) has declined with varying degrees of vehemence to add sexual orientation or expression to the list of protected classes (i.e., list of things forbidden to discriminate based upon).
The actions or lack thereof of the Virginia General Assembly, notwithstanding the opinions of the current and several prior Attorney Generals of the State of Virginia, are simply irrelevant. Our fundamental legal tradition is not "whatever is not specifically permitted, is forbidden" - rather, it is "whatever is not specifically forbidden, is permitted" which undermines a basic argument of Cucinelli and his predecessors.
Further, as demonstrated in a long line of prior cases, subordinate political divisions may extend MORE civil rights protections, but never less than those extended by their respective superior bodies, subject to the provisions of the prior paragraph.
Since the Virginia General Assembly has, to the best of my knowledge, never barred subordinate bodies from extending such protections to allege such a bar is mistaken at best, and in my opinion, malicious bigotry at worst.
To address our second question, I return to the reasoning addressed in the first. Any competent attorney would, given the opportunity, to cite clear statutory law would do so - as it would substantially strengthen their legal argument. I find the absence of such citation telling, to put it mildly and the "public policy" argument weak on the face of it. If public policy barred any action not specifically authorized by
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, c. 1775 Might I suggest the right answer for Canada (and I say this as an American) is to deny use of Canadian Airspace and/or landing rights to U.S. carriers until this demand is withdrawn? And on the U.S. side, to simply state that Canada can take whatever measures it wishes to guarantee aviation safety, but any damages that involve flights departs from Canadian airports that resulting from failures in whatever aviation safety system Canada may choose to implement will then be paid from randomly seized Canadian assets in the U.S.? Let Canada figure it out, and if they get it wrong, let Canada pay!
It's been feel-good security theatre since day one. I now only fly if there is no other practical option. This sucks...as once flying was a joy in and of itself, a pleasant addition to the travel experience. Now it's a little slice of hell, and I won't play if I don't have to...and what's truly offensive is these various unpleasantries, as far as I can tell, do little or nothing to enhance safety and have everything to do with "looking busy" and providing a "sense of security" where there is little actual security, as actual security measures would largely be politically unacceptable. So...one dim-bulbed attempted bombing that...if successful...might have killed *at most* 1,000 persons (all aboard, crashing into crowded high school and/or nursing home) will inflict largely useless idiocy upon everyone flying in U.S. Airspace. If we consider that a goal of asymmetrical warfare is to make things unpleasant for the populace of the opponent - wouldn't this count as a casualty-free win for the Al-Qaeda bandits?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator Time to fire up the production line, and carpet bomb Iran with the things....then stand well back.
Ye leaping lizards of shoggoth! Mirroring=/=Back-up!
Folks, we're *in an economic depression* and don't know when we're going to get out - and neither does Shell. It is not surprising that Shell (and other companies) are re-trenching and focusing on "profitable RIGHT NOW" business segments as they bunker down to weather the economic storm. Right now, Wind/Solar are at best marginal investments dependent more on customers need to "feel good" than on any net benefit. The average joe is hunkering down (as is Shell) and more interested in a $500 cast iron wood stove that lets him heat his house with darned near anything flammable than in a 30k investment in solar panels with a minimum 5 years to break-even. Catch a clue. The moment the economy went into the deep end, most anything speculative (so-called renewable energy certainly qualifies) went into the tank right alongside for the duration...
More survival-oriented, but.. Operation Helmet, Operation BoreSnake (defunct but offers useful information for troops), and comfort kits all help out. Check with your brother about his armor vest quality - this has been an issue in Iraq, though some reports report it as resolved. The solar kit will help, but recall that most solar panels *reflect* in sunlight (see: "Iraq", "Desert Climes") and reflections have an unfortunate tendency to *draw fire*. This is an un-good thing in a combat environment. Think this through.
Absurd is kind. But rather than heaping scathing abuse...
Proxies, anyone? And for those as enjoy freedom, might I suggest the SouthWest corner of the U.S. (always excluding California, of course).
It's obviously time for the good folks at Google to simply smile peacefully, and ramp up a $10/mo Mesh Network plan in affected region - Google supplies WAPS, and at the end of the year, a $50.00 rebate to the end-user...as well, of course, as supplying internet connectivity through a variety of vendors close to CO's...
Plenty of technology out there to completely supplant an obstreperous Cable Data service...just need folks with the capital and the motivation (i.e., are sufficiently pissed) to implement it.
Personal:
Lawfully owned handgun and license to carry (http://www.packing.org/state/louisiana/) - there are some bad critters down there, and I'm not even talking about the two-legged bad-un's (which may also be a consideration).
Two pair sturdy broken-in workboots. High-Waders.
Heavy work pants, long-sleeve shirts, LOTS of dry socks.
Cot/Sleeping bag/etc.
GLOVES - 1 pair each, heavy leather and insulated rubber (at a min.) (Bring extra for locals in need if you can).
GROUP:
Appropriate Vehicle(s) "Pinzgauer", Unimog, "PTO Winch", "Amphibious", are *good* words in this context, as is "Diesel". "Zodiac" and "Airboat" are other words to conjure with. Ebay is our friend.
Chainsaws.
Gasoline. Chain Saw sharpening gear. Heavy brush cutters. LOTS of 2-3' crow bars...maybe 7-8 great big ones (the 6' "let's get serious about this" sort). Machetes - remember, they never run out of fuel. Cross cut saws, similarly, aren't real fuel-hogs.
Sleeper Vehicles. Old school buses convert quickly & nicely...again, see e-bay for cheap rides and sleeping quarters...can also be filled with supplies and converted to nappy-time space as supplies are off-loaded.
Tarps. Tents.
At least one person with a legitimate badge or similar mojo for "liason with ninnies". Should always ride in lead vehicle when entering/leaving area.
Well-defined and achievable mission. Signed contract w/ local business may prove useful.
Sufficient Water/Food for mission duration. Don't be a burden.
For those of us who carry for self-defense (be we law enforcement or private citizens) the 2nd Amendment arguments may exist - but we're MUCH more concerned about being forced to use a piece of life-saving equipment with a 10% failure rate that would replace a similar piece of equipment with a .0001% failure rate.
.45acp Gov't Model clone or a revolver, or other equipment that is *reliable*. By the time things have fallen so completely apart I'm willing to draw or fire a handgun, the last thing I need is a 1 in 10 chance of failure.
I'm just not up for 10% being acceptable. I'll stick with my old-fashioned
This, of course, is *before* we factor in little things like battery life, equipment fragility, EMP (a low order event, but still), injury (to the assigned shooter, thus forcing a grip change or change to the off hand, or both), the difference between a grip in a relaxed setting on a range and with adrenalin pumping in a crisis situation, etc).
Eeek. Just give me a *dumb* gun, one that works, and I'll do my best to refrain from using it inappropriately.
Perhaps it's a hint that coercive governmental do-gooders are....damned silly?
If you're *going* to do it, it's just not true that you've gotta be gun-free and you can't shoot back. From what I hear, quite a few contractors have acquired assault prevention devices and have utilized them successfully and quietly.
Before you do, however, I strongly sugest you look into the courses available at the Gunsite Academy or with Massad Ayoob's group or LFI..and take all you can afford before boarding that plane.
Nobody requires anyone to use SPEWS. If your ISP utilizes SPEWS and you don't like it, either complain till the policy changes - or move to another ISP.
.
Similarly, nobody has some special magical right not to be blocked - that's one of the joys of server ownership..you can block any domain or ip that you find annoying, and since the *box belongs to you* its' really only your business.
In short, what's the big deal? The various anti-spam lists vices/virtues are known to those who'd care to investigate, and since we're all big boys and girls, we makes our choices and takes our chances
As U.S. Citizens we are not bound to talk about only peaceful things that bestow warm fuzzy feelings upon our government officials. Talking or writing about bombs, guns, knives, bad lasagne recipes, and other less than pleasant objects is perfectly lawful.
It is even lawful to suggest that it would be morally correct to inflict bad lasagne, bobs, guns, knives, and other unpleasantry on persons and/or organizations of which we disapprove.
Where the line is crossed is when one takes a concrete action to serve bad lasagne(etc) unto the disapproved parties.
As the case is described, it is a farce of intimidation and terror (if you don't find the threat of 20 years in a federal penitentiary terrifying, you need to seriously re-evaluate)implemented by persons either constitutionally clueless or so eager to be seen to be doing something to fight "terrorism" that they forget that the Bill of Rights exists...and a federal prosecutor more afraid of losing face than of inflicting injustice on an individual without the resources to do legal battle with the federal government.
The sad thing is, that with the ridiculous powers we have allowed state and federal governments in ever larger increments over the last thirty years (as if, in fact, we learned NOTHING from the civil rights and vietnam eras) this sort of tale of rampant abuse of government authority (which ought never have been granted in the first place) are and will continue to become ever more common until another generation of angry youth drives the cowards and control freaks back into their caves.
Now, it'd just be morally wrong to go on a crusade to carefully inform the world of what we think of NWLinks actions, Quality of Service, or other issues we have with them....w/o contacting them first to share our love and affection..
http://www.nwlink.com/contact/index.php
Option A & B are all good, but you neglect option C -
C. Remembering the Intel PIII serial number debacle, launch paralell lines of production for DRM and non-DRM chips...and watch which one actually sells, killing the other.
The result will be simple enough - firearms manufacturers, quite reasonably, will refuse to sell firearms in the state of New Jersey based on the liability issues involved.
.45 and recondition it than I would be willing to purchase a risk-intensive "smart gun"...
The first time a battery runs down, or a "smart gun system" fails to fire when necessary - resulting in the death or injury of the lawful firearm owner - the manufacturer of that so-called "smart gun" is going to be sued out of existence.
There are seldom many volunteers to be sued out of existence.
A firearm is a last-ditch tool of self defense, and like a fire extinguisher, introducing exciting new failure modes is a *very bad thing*.
Certainly, my *very first* priority if I were to purchase a so-called "smart gun" would be to dumb it down and remove the potentially fatal failure mode implicit in its' alleged "safety-system".
This, of course, does not even begin to address the notion that I'd be MUCH more willing to buy a WWI era
Lokinator
"A gun is one of those things that if you need it, you really really need it...and you need it WORK the first time..."
http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/news/stories/20 020322/localnews/1871053.html
Oh, my. These folks need Tech Help in just the worst way - won't someone write them with a set of correct definitions?
Some ISP's offer as a FEATURE that they block (or at least try to) certain sorts of sites; almost all ISP's have spam block ranges or approaches in place regarding known spammers.
.gov relaying; if the Australian Gov't's rampant ludditism offends, I may block .au; and if after endless complaints re open relay servers by multiple players fails to effect change in the behaviour of the open relay operators, I may block them - and where there are enough of them, I may begin blocking entire TLD's or IP Blocks. It is, after all, my server, and just like my living room, I get to decide who I'm going to let in.
In the first case, this is less about Freedom, than what the customer is willing to pay cold hard cash for - some customers WANT a filtered experience, and part of the freedom they enjoy is to seek out and "enjoy" such filtering - it is only when such filtering is forced on the unwilling that it becomes vile and oppressive.
In the second case, IT'S MY SERVER - and I'll block who I bloody well please. If US Congress critters are sufficiently annoying, I may block
Let there be no doubt. The recent weeks increased blocking of asian mail servers has been successful in getting the attention of the folks blocked, indicative of a successful approach. We need, however, to provide solutions as well as stimuli, lest the Chinese government or others become excessively creative.
May I suggest a three prong approach?
1) Continue the blocks of any offenders not demonstrated to have closed open relays.
2) Creation of, as suggested by another poster, Open Relay Correction Notice websites - wherein the offended administrator would fill in the blanks on a form in the appropriate language and hit "send" and have the message sent off in said appropriate language to the offender.
3) Encourage LIMITED anti-spam laws in China. I think, for instance, that execution is a bit of a heavy handed response for operating an open relay.
thoughts?
Paradyne has a good product (in terms of DSLAMS) and you might well be able to find one on the market 2nd hand...