That doesn't explain why spammers unmunge deliberately-munged email addresses. I once posted to a newsgroup as xyz-DONT-SPAM@domain, where xyz was a name that I made up especially for that post, and domain is my domain name. Within hours, I started getting SPAM at xyz@domain and xyz-@domain, as well as at xyz-DONT-SPAM@domain. Now, I could see an automatic harvester sending SPAM to xyz-DONT-SPAM@domain, but to send it to the other two, it had to have some sort of filtering to defeat anti-harvesting measures, which means that they are deliberately sending SPAM even to people who make a special effort not to receive it. That's just evil.
I find nothing funny about killing beautiful, harmless, innocent creatures.
I've been a vegan since 1984. That means that I don't eat anything that comes from an animal, not meat, not seafood, not even milk, eggs, honey, or bee pollen. I don't even use refined sugar, because animal charcoal is used as part of the refining process. I don't wear leather shoes or a leather belt. I don't have any pets because I consider it animal slavery. I don't knowingly use products that were tested on animals, when I can help it. (Some medications are a bit of a problem here.) When there is an insect in the house, I catch it with a butterfly net and release it outside.
Nonetheless, I can joke about killing animals in the same way that I can joke about killing humans. There are people here who joke about people being raped in jail (the tired "Bubba's boyfriend" line). Does that mean that they actually advocate or support people getting raped in jail, or that they would do it themselves? I don't think so (well, most of them).
The killing of innocents, whether they be civilians in a war zone, people wrongfully convicted for murder, human children who haven't yet been born, or non-human animals, is a great tragedy in this nation, and, indeed, the world. That doesn't mean that we can't make fun of it.
Picture me holding my hand horizontally, open-palmed, with fingers and thumb together, about one foot in front of my head, and several inches above it, then rapidly moving my hand to a position several inches above and behind my head while saying the following:
I am exclusively talking about small businesses (and I'm saying it for the third time now
OK, I saw "I'm generally talking about a mom-and-pop class of business on Main Street USA". Where are the other two? (And "generally" is not the same as "exclusively".)
If a small business (i.e., single shop) discriminates, then word will get around the neighborhood, and the shop will lose business, even if the people discriminated against don't go to the press.
The majority of discimination cases go unreported. If you're discriminated against at a business, the easier option is to go elsewhere. It takes the right kind of person to fight back. Sadly, such persons are rare.
So you're saying that a person who won't go to the media to report discrimination will go to the state's AG or hire a lawyer to sue? My guess is that a person who won't go to one won't go to the other, either, meaning that the discrimination would go unreported in either case. I have never reported discrimination (in my case, it was done by Canadian border guards), but I would guess that it would be easier for me to call up the local TV station to report discrimination than it would be to fill out a bunch of forms to report it to the state, or to spend my money on a lawyer.
There are advocate groups for many minorities, and they can take action and make a big stink even if the individual discriminated against doesn't want to go public. For good examples of this, look up the garbage and bus boycotts of the 1960s. For more recent examples, look at Nike et al, who no longer (or at least, less frequently) engage in child abuse in the manufacture of their products.
I haven't seen any good ideas for something that will cheaply [make it above LEO].
The spaceelevator will. Sure, there is a modest up-front cost, but once it's built, transportation to geo, HEO, and beyond will be relatively inexpensive. It may sound unfeasible at the present time, but the US congress is funding research on it.
I'm generally talking about a mom-and-pop class of business
They don't exist to make money for their owners? All businesses (except maybe charities and other NPOs) exist to make money for their owners, even if their owners are just one person.
the most probable scenario is that you wouldn't even know they engaged in such discrimination
That's what publicity is for. That's what picket lines (on the street outside the business's property), etc., are for. For example, there is an insurance company from which I won't buy insurance because of some of the things that they practice (not discrimination, but the idea is similar). Similarly, there are some brands of food that I won't buy. I'm sure that there are people who have stopped buying Michael Jackson records because of his recent alleged activities.
You don't have to witness things first-hand. If a business discriminates against some class of people, the people discriminated against can take their case to the press. In addition, there are parts of this country where people are proud to be bigots. These are the types that would put "for whites only" or "no homos" or similar signs on their front doors. This would make it much easier for people like me to avoid patronizing such establishments.
Oh, and I have experienced discrimination first-hand.
No, it doesn't. It exists to make its owners money. One way to do this is to "serve the community". I know about the prejudice angle; I addressed it in my next paragraph. Potential patrons can vote with their pocketbooks. If the owner of a business wants to exclude someone based on race, gender, sexual preference, etc., let him/her. Such a business will not be as successful as the one down the street that doesn't engage in such behavior, because many people (such as I) will boycott a business that engages in discrimination. There were several examples of this during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, e.g., bus boycotts, etc.
Business owners perceive too much power. I hope there are many more lawsuits to slap that wrong notion out of their heads.
Business owners have no power without customers. Let individual people decide. It's not wrong to let a person run his/her business the way he/she wants (barring public safety/nuisance issues, etc.).
Maybe this is a good way for humans to travel thru space while conserving fuel. Comments?
You would not conserve fuel, because it takes more fuel to land on a comet than it does to "park" in space nearby. In fact, it would be more fuel-efficient to avoid the comet altogether, and just travel toward your ultimate desination.
That said, there is one scenario where hitching a ride on a comet could be beneficial: A spacecraft with an ion engine could rendezvous with a comet to refuel itself. However, this is not quite the same thing as saving fuel by riding the comet.
And to the two previous responders to this question: Lighten up. One of the best ways to learn is to ask questions. Not everybody is familiar with astromechanics.
Perhaps if the police were doing their jobs, the brawl would have been terminated before it grew to nearly 100 people. And what the hell were the truant officers doing?
Unfortunately, your post makes so much sense and is so insightful that moderators are going to blow a fuse, and your karma will suffer greatly as a result.
Civil rights trump business owners' private property rights (and rightfully so).
This kind of crap thinking ("the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one") by too many people is one of the (many) things that is wrong with this country. An owner of an establishment should be able to refuse entry to anyone he/she wants, for any reason. It's his/her property, after all. If members of the community don't like the admittance policy, then they can boycott the establishment.
(Oh, before anyone brings up pre-60s Southern U.S. segregation as a counter-example, those were laws as well, and IMO worse than laws requiring unqualified admittance. But laws either way are bad. Let the owner decide who he/she wants inside, and potential patrons will vote with their pocketbooks.)
Perhaps that's what the GP meant by "severe limitations". If the gyros and other stuff can't fit through a hatch, it might be possible to either:
redesign/remanufacture the components so that they do fit, or
figure out a way to attach them to the outside of the capsule, or
send the components up via a separate flight.
(If the last option is chosen, though, I would hope that they park the unmanned craft some distance away from Hubble, to prevent a repeat of the near-disaster that happened on the Mir.)
Because, AFAIK, my P2/300 won't run MS-Windows XP (at least not very well). The other reason for not upgrading is to avoid spending my hard-earned money on another defective Microsoft product. Fool me once (MS-Win95), shame on you; fool me twice (MS-WinXP), shame on me.
BTW, the 16=bit app that I use runs very well. It loads faster and runs more quickly than any similar 32-bit app that I have used. The only thing that I don't like about it is that it temporarily freezes the system when I have it do a search on a large (>100Mb) file, and I don't do that very often.
Has anyone got a good reason why landmines are a bad thing in such an area?
Eventually, the two Koreas will reunify. Shortly thereafter, the DMZ will be no more. Can the US government guarantee that it can remove all of the land mines when that time comes?
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't explain why spammers unmunge deliberately-munged email addresses.
I once posted to a newsgroup as xyz-DONT-SPAM@domain, where xyz was a name that I made up especially for that post, and domain is my domain name.
Within hours, I started getting SPAM at xyz@domain and xyz-@domain, as well as at xyz-DONT-SPAM@domain.
Now, I could see an automatic harvester sending SPAM to xyz-DONT-SPAM@domain, but to send it to the other two, it had to have some sort of filtering to defeat anti-harvesting measures, which means that they are deliberately sending SPAM even to people who make a special effort not to receive it.
That's just evil.
That means that I don't eat anything that comes from an animal, not meat, not seafood, not even milk, eggs, honey, or bee pollen.
I don't even use refined sugar, because animal charcoal is used as part of the refining process.
I don't wear leather shoes or a leather belt.
I don't have any pets because I consider it animal slavery.
I don't knowingly use products that were tested on animals, when I can help it.
(Some medications are a bit of a problem here.)
When there is an insect in the house, I catch it with a butterfly net and release it outside.
Nonetheless, I can joke about killing animals in the same way that I can joke about killing humans.
There are people here who joke about people being raped in jail (the tired "Bubba's boyfriend" line).
Does that mean that they actually advocate or support people getting raped in jail, or that they would do it themselves?
I don't think so (well, most of them).
The killing of innocents, whether they be civilians in a war zone, people wrongfully convicted for murder, human children who haven't yet been born, or non-human animals, is a great tragedy in this nation, and, indeed, the world.
That doesn't mean that we can't make fun of it.
To summarize: Lighten up.
Where are the other two?
(And "generally" is not the same as "exclusively".)
If a small business (i.e., single shop) discriminates, then word will get around the neighborhood, and the shop will lose business, even if the people discriminated against don't go to the press.So you're saying that a person who won't go to the media to report discrimination will go to the state's AG or hire a lawyer to sue?
My guess is that a person who won't go to one won't go to the other, either, meaning that the discrimination would go unreported in either case.
I have never reported discrimination (in my case, it was done by Canadian border guards), but I would guess that it would be easier for me to call up the local TV station to report discrimination than it would be to fill out a bunch of forms to report it to the state, or to spend my money on a lawyer.
There are advocate groups for many minorities, and they can take action and make a big stink even if the individual discriminated against doesn't want to go public.
For good examples of this, look up the garbage and bus boycotts of the 1960s.
For more recent examples, look at Nike et al, who no longer (or at least, less frequently) engage in child abuse in the manufacture of their products.
Sure, there is a modest up-front cost, but once it's built, transportation to geo, HEO, and beyond will be relatively inexpensive.
It may sound unfeasible at the present time, but the US congress is funding research on it.
I am an vegan and my Ike you is
Wat was the queschin?
All businesses (except maybe charities and other NPOs) exist to make money for their owners, even if their owners are just one person.That's what publicity is for.
That's what picket lines (on the street outside the business's property), etc., are for.
For example, there is an insurance company from which I won't buy insurance because of some of the things that they practice (not discrimination, but the idea is similar).
Similarly, there are some brands of food that I won't buy.
I'm sure that there are people who have stopped buying Michael Jackson records because of his recent alleged activities.
You don't have to witness things first-hand.
If a business discriminates against some class of people, the people discriminated against can take their case to the press.
In addition, there are parts of this country where people are proud to be bigots.
These are the types that would put "for whites only" or "no homos" or similar signs on their front doors.
This would make it much easier for people like me to avoid patronizing such establishments.
Oh, and I have experienced discrimination first-hand.
It exists to make its owners money.
One way to do this is to "serve the community".
I know about the prejudice angle; I addressed it in my next paragraph.
Potential patrons can vote with their pocketbooks.
If the owner of a business wants to exclude someone based on race, gender, sexual preference, etc., let him/her.
Such a business will not be as successful as the one down the street that doesn't engage in such behavior, because many people (such as I) will boycott a business that engages in discrimination.
There were several examples of this during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, e.g., bus boycotts, etc.Business owners have no power without customers.
Let individual people decide.
It's not wrong to let a person run his/her business the way he/she wants (barring public safety/nuisance issues, etc.).
In fact, it would be more fuel-efficient to avoid the comet altogether, and just travel toward your ultimate desination.
That said, there is one scenario where hitching a ride on a comet could be beneficial:
A spacecraft with an ion engine could rendezvous with a comet to refuel itself.
However, this is not quite the same thing as saving fuel by riding the comet.
And to the two previous responders to this question:
Lighten up.
One of the best ways to learn is to ask questions.
Not everybody is familiar with astromechanics.
Perhaps if the police were doing their jobs, the brawl would have been terminated before it grew to nearly 100 people.
And what the hell were the truant officers doing?
Unfortunately, your post makes so much sense and is so insightful that moderators are going to blow a fuse, and your karma will suffer greatly as a result.
An owner of an establishment should be able to refuse entry to anyone he/she wants, for any reason.
It's his/her property, after all.
If members of the community don't like the admittance policy, then they can boycott the establishment.
(Oh, before anyone brings up pre-60s Southern U.S. segregation as a counter-example, those were laws as well, and IMO worse than laws requiring unqualified admittance.
But laws either way are bad.
Let the owner decide who he/she wants inside, and potential patrons will vote with their pocketbooks.)
If the gyros and other stuff can't fit through a hatch, it might be possible to either:
- redesign/remanufacture the components so that they do fit, or
- figure out a way to attach them to the outside of the capsule, or
- send the components up via a separate flight.
(If the last option is chosen, though, I would hope that they park the unmanned craft some distance away from Hubble, to prevent a repeat of the near-disaster that happened on the Mir.)Really?
I thought that you and Edna Crabapple had something going on.
You know, I just thought of a neat new way to harvest email addresses ...
What more proof do you need?
Because, AFAIK, my P2/300 won't run MS-Windows XP (at least not very well).
The other reason for not upgrading is to avoid spending my hard-earned money on another defective Microsoft product.
Fool me once (MS-Win95), shame on you; fool me twice (MS-WinXP), shame on me.
BTW, the 16=bit app that I use runs very well.
It loads faster and runs more quickly than any similar 32-bit app that I have used.
The only thing that I don't like about it is that it temporarily freezes the system when I have it do a search on a large (>100Mb) file, and I don't do that very often.
Shortly thereafter, the DMZ will be no more.
Can the US government guarantee that it can remove all of the land mines when that time comes?
And what happens when tinfoil-hat-wearing paranoids like myself, who have all scripting turned off, visit your site?