Following that line of reasoning, since most Americans over 18 voted, shall I hold each of them responsible for voting in what I consider to be a rather bad president?
No, because you don't know how each of them voted. As to your ISP, you made the choice. If you're trying to e-mail from an IP address belonging to spam-friendly.com, then you aren't an innocent casualty.
Let's not forget that it's completely legal for someone to publish a list of spam-friendly ISPs and for someone else to refuse e-mail from those ISPs. I know of no place where it is legal to kill people with improvised explosives or to behead them because you don't like their government's policies.
And when customers don't leave? And if the ISP doesn't suffer financially?
It doesn't happen. If an ISP is regularly having e-mail bounce, then customers will complain and will leave. That costs the ISP money.
Then don't object when we call them vigilantes. You've just admitted they are.
Don't try to redefine words. A vigilante is someone who takes, or advocates taking, law enforcement into their own hands. Since SPEWS is not attempting to enforce any laws, they are not vigilantes. They are trying to punish ISPs who sell services to spammers.
Are people who boycott Nike vigilantes? Are parents who give their children time-outs vigilantes? Punishing undesirable behavior does not mean that you are a vigilante.
Regardless, there is a big difference between specifically blocking IPs that send spam, and blocking ranges when one or some IPs in that range send spam.
Yes, there is. If an ISP knows that entire blocks of IPs will be listed, then he's less likely to write a pink contract with a spammer. If he knows that the worse thing that will happen is that the spammers' one IP address will be blocked, he can write the pink contract and even provide the spammer with a new IP address when the old one gets blocked. If the ISP has a spare couple of thousand IP addresses, they could move spammers from one to another for a long time.
If an ISP allows spam to pass through their outbound smtp server, I see no issue whatsoever in blocking that smt server.
So as long as the ISP requires that the spammer run their own SMTP server, then the ISP will remain safe in your scenario.
I do see an issue in blocking the entire IP range of that ISP. When a customer of an ISP is sending out spam, I don't see a good enough justification to hinder all customers at that ISP by blocking the IP range. Does it put pressure on an ISP? I guess it does, but as said, I do not see that as a strong enough argument because of the damage it causes to people without a direct involvement.
It's not like SPEWS blacklists all of Comcast because one rogue user sent spam. To be listed on SPEWS, an ISP basically has to be turning a blind eye to spam for an extended period of time. If you're giving money to that ISP, you are involved.
As an ISP or email host, you could easily get sued for using SPEWS, such a negligent disregard for false positives would likely cause you to lose the case.
First off, in the U.S., you could get sued for anything, so being sued doesn't mean that you did something wrong.
Secondly, unless the ISP has made an SLA with you with limits on false positives, you don't stand a chance. The ISP can block whatever he chooses. If you don't like the blacklists that he uses, then you can go to a different ISP. That's the beauty of the free market.
That's the essence of the innocent bystander problem, but it's worse than that because there's really no hope that the few who complain will have any impact, so you're just causing pain for the wrong people with no benefit for the people being injured (those who recieve the spam).
If thousands of users are having their e-mail bounce because the ISP is on SPEWS, there will be more than a few complaints. Some users will even take their business elsewhere.
If your ISP has ignored the spam problem for so long that they are on SPEWS, then they are scum. And you're financing the scum with your monthly fees. That means that you're not innocent.
Yeah, that would be like punishing a thief after he's taken your stereo and has gone.
The spammer is gone, and all Spews does is punish innocent bystanders who spammed no one.
ONE SPAMMER IS GONE. What about the next one? The idea is to punish the ISP. If customers leave because the ISP is always on SPEWS, then the ISP suffers financially. That's a good thing.
If your ISP is on SPEWS, it's probably because they turn a blind eye to spam. As the SPEWS web page says, "Finally, most places listed in SPEWS have shown a consistent pattern of spamming, giving support to spammers, or tolerating spammers on their systems."
It's kinda funny how when we're talking about "spammers" vs "legitimate ISP users" the solution is "kill 'em all and let God sort it out" but when we're talking about "pirates" vs "legitimate P2P users" the solution is "hands off, legitimate use trumps illegitimate use at all times". So which one is it?
When we're talking about spammers and SPEWS, we're talking about free speech on the part of individuals who publish SPEWS and we're talking about the property rights of a mail server owner to block e-mail based on any criteria that he chooses to use.
When we're talking about pirates and P2P, we're talking about whether the government should step in and completely kill a means of information interchange, trampling on free speech rights as they do it.
So you're presenting a false dichotomy and a strawman argument all rolled up into one.
80% of spam in the US is sent by Windows PCs that have been infected by an Outlook worm and converted into a zombie spambot. So an idiot customer at my cable ISP shares an IP block with me and his Windows spambot causes my email to be blocked? That's fair.
Why is your ISP not complying with the FTC's request to block port 25 as part of Operation Spam Zombies? I'm sick and tired of dealing with spam from infected home PCs. If you don't have a need to run a mail server, then you don't need port 25 open to the rest of the net.
A Windows spambot with a cable ISP connection can send A LOT of spam. High bandwidth providers need to run software that detects spam (an outgoing spam filter) and shut down a user before a huge volume of spam can be sent. But the ISPs have largely taken the attitude that sending spam is not their problem.
And when they end up on SPEWS and customers start complaining, then they will probably change their attitude.
"government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan (First Inaugural Address)
Odd that he would want to be in charge of the root of our problems, isn't it? But then what do you expect from a man who lets his wife plan his schedule based on the advice of an astrologer?
Here we see government trying to be the solution to our problems. Phewy. The solution to SPAM is not laws, but technology.
Here are the best anti spam techniques (in order of effectiveness) 1. Graylisting (awesome!) 2. SPF (Stop forgery) 3. Spamassassin . . . 1001. CAN SPAM act.
Graylisting: Graylisting slows e-mail down and increases the chance of failure due to requiring more network traffic over a longer period of time. It also takes more bandwidth.
SPF: I use it on my domain and have a valid SPF record. Unfortunately, most domains do not have a valid SPF record. When/if they do, this becomes practical and very useful.
Spamassasin: I'm opposed to it on principle because it is a post-reception process that simply hides spam from the recipients. If some spammer blasts my network with 10,000 e-mails, he's stolen my bandwidth and I want to know it so that I can actively block spam from him in the future. I don't want to have something silently delete the spam, taking up cycles on my server to do so.
CAN-SPAM Act: Simply evil. It gives every spammer one free shot at you.
The most effective means that I've found for blocking spam is to use country-based blacklists. I don't know anyone in China, Korea, Malaysia, Nigeria, Brazil, Argentina, etc. so I just block mail from those places. If enough people start implementing country-wide blocks, then the countries where the spam originates will have to do something about the problem -- or be at a significant economic disadvantage.
I think it's just you. Try plugging your network cable back in.
You must work tech support for an ISP. No one else would read and online posting on the Internet and conclude that the poster's network cable was unplugged.
No. They set up blocking based on historical data rather than trying to block in real-time by adding records in response to spam that is currently being sent.
Tthey do have a choice. They can get mail service from any of hundreds of companies who don't tolerate spammers. Meanwhile, if the only ISP in a given area is in SPEWS, that's a great opportunity for a decent ISP to eat their lunch.
We're agreeing! I'm going to www.accuweather.com to check a temperature. Do you have the ZIP Code for Hell?
Or who have no choice with regards to ISPs because there is only one active in their area?
So they live with dial-up. If the only provider of cable television in my area is NAMBLA, then I'll live with the seven local broadcast channels rather than give NAMBLA my money.
Stupid argument, not agreeing to using 'collatoral damage' to force things onto an ISP is not the same as not wanting those ISPs to remove spammers.
That's not what the OP said. He said "bullying ISPs into shutting down spammers after the event" as if the fact that it was done after the spam was sent was somehow the important point.
As long as you and other SPEWS proponents cannot see that difference, you will by most be seen as bullies and as doing more damage then good.
I don't care how I'm seen as long as I'm helping reduce spam. And I've seen no compelling argument to make me believe that SPEWs is ineffective. Quite the contrary. I've seen more and more instances of ISPs refusing to write pink contracts after being listed on SPEWS.
Hmm, you do not see the similarity to the reasoning of those who justify killing innocent bystanders in order to put pressure on the USA to change its policies?
I hardly think that someone bouncing your e-mail is akin to killing people. Now you're just being silly.
You're also missing something important: It's not illegal for me to refuse your e-mail at my server. I can refuse it because your IP address is on SPEWS, because I don't like your ISP, because your sysadmin "dissed" me in a newsgroup, because your IP address has a prime number in it, or because you tried to send the mail during the witching hour. You don't have a legal right to deliver your e-mail to my server.
On the other hand, SPEWS contributers do have a Constitutionally guaranteed right (free speech and freedom of the press) to publish a list of address blocks which they believe are spam sources. There is nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical about doing that.
Again, if you've got a better plan than SPEWS, what is it?
... we'd still be relying on SPEWS to bully innocent bystanders
By "innocent bystanders," do you mean people helping to finance an ISP which caters to spammers?
into bullying ISPs into shutting down spammers after the event.
So you would prefer that the ISPs not shut down spammers?
You obviously don't understand SPEWS.
SPEWS does not wait for spam to happen. They list IP blocks which have been repeated sources for spam. If an ISP sells services to spammers, their IP blocks will end up listed on SPEWs. Those using the SPEWS list can block all traffic from that ISP -- including traffic from spammers who will use those IP blocks in the future.
Before SPEWS, "pink contracts" were becoming all-too common. A pink contract is a contract between an Internet service provider and a spammer in which the spammer is exempted from the usual terms of service prohibiting spamming. Pink contracts came into existence because ISPs could charge the spammer much more than they would a normal client. Such contracts were quite profitable.
So how do you fight against such practices? You blacklist the ISP's IP blocks. That means that "normal" users will find that the ISP cannot reliably deliver e-mail. Those users will pressure the ISP into not writing pink contracts and not tolerating spamming. A blacklisted ISP will not be able to survive on pink contract revenue alone and, thus, will be forced to stop writing pink contracts in order to remain solvent.
That said, your workflow is pretty bad. Anyone with that large of a collection should just set up program(s) for one-click extraction and tagging.
If only it were that easy!
The sad reality is that the freedb and cddb databases are filled with crap. Song and album titles are inconsistently capitalized. There are spelling errors. One person will refer to a two CD collection as "Disk 1" and "Disk 2" while another will call it "CD 1" and "CD 2." One person will classify the genre of The Who as "Rock" while others will classify it as "Classic Rock," "Blues", or "Hard Rock." Some people will refer to the artists as "Who, The" while others will write "The Who" and "Who." On top of that, there will be multiple hits per CD, many with the inconsistencies listed above, but others for different albums that happen to match at to the algorithm that interprets which CD is in the drive. Album cover art has to be scrounged from various sources around the net. It's all really ugly.
One major problem with cdparanoia is that it does not work properly with many modern CD drives that sport large audio caches. It does two reads, but the data fits into the drive's cache. It then declares a "pass" for the read when, in fact, the physical read was done only once and the second read came out of the cache. This causes it to miss errors that EAC catches.
Also, EAC is far more user-friendly and convenient, with automatic freedb CD look-up, offset detection, ID3 tagging, and one-button rip+encode (if you want to compress the tracks). Yes, I know that it's possible to string a large number of Linux programs together with shell scripts, but that's hardly as convenient.
Companies that are directed to by their DoD customers. Companies doing point-to-point networking with existing facilities -- often to facilities in Europe.
Not every networking installation is a dot-com looking for Internet connectivity.
You protected your interests and they protected theirs. Don't take it so personally. It's just business.
Many companies have a policy of not allowing employees who resigned stay around. They terminate the employment immediately and pay the two weeks.
It's not so much a matter of expecting computer sabotage, but rather an issue of morale. They don't need two weeks of you talking to coworkers about how you got a better job with more pay at company Y. The thought of you explaining what you didn't like about the company to multiple coworkers is not something that they would relish, either.
I'm married and therefore have sex, which puts me in a better position to understand it than someone who has never had sex and has learned everything they think they know about it by watching porn (which may include a few slashdot readers). The reason I am coming down hard against porn isn't due to my naivety, lack of experience, or my fear of something new. The reason I am coming down hard against porn is _because_ of my experience.
Your experience with porn or your prejudice against it?
Being happy and being sexually active is the opposite of watching porn. It really is, though it may not seem that way at first.
So you can have sex with your wife every night, but if you watch an erotic DVD on Sunday morning while she's at church, you're not sexually active?
In my experience, if you want to happy and sexually active (and I think every male does) then you will avoid porn like the plague and just focus on getting married and serving your wife as best you can.
It's so sad that you would deny yourself sexual pleasure out of some twisted, probably religious, notion that all sexual pleasure must come from the woman to whom you are married. No erotic fantasies. No role-playing with your spouse based on shared erotic materials (porn, as you call it).
If you watch porn, you will have no sex (women do not appreciate it), not be happy, you will have wasted both time and money, and all you will have to show for it is a closet full of used tissue paper. A dubious trade off...
Dude, that is gross! If you jerk off, you don't save the tissue that you cleaned up with. Throw it away or flush it down the toilet. Don't be so disgusting!
Some prudish, religious zealot women don't appreciate erotic publications, but normal women do. While men generally prefer pictures and videos, women typically prefer erotic writings (think Variations and Penthouse Forum magazines). And who do you think is buying all of those vibrators? It's not men.
I said "their song" meaning a song the band played, not one that Jerry wrote.
Anyway, I think the line I quoted ("What can I do for you to see you through.") can be generalized to encompass the concept of a culture of sharing which many in the 60's talked about, even if it wasn't always practiced.
Reading that, I can't help but quote a scene from "This Is Spinal Tap":
MARTY: You play to predominantly, uh predominantly a white audience, you feel your music is racist in any way? DAVID: No! NIGEL: No, no, of course not.... DAVID: We pro...we say, we say "love your brother", we don't say it, really, but.. NIGEL: We don't literally say it. DAVID: No, we don't say it...at all. NIGEL: No, we don't literally mean it, but we're not racists. DAVID: No, we don't believe it either, but...that message should be clear anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Following that line of reasoning, since most Americans over 18 voted, shall I hold each of them responsible for voting in what I consider to be a rather bad president?
No, because you don't know how each of them voted. As to your ISP, you made the choice. If you're trying to e-mail from an IP address belonging to spam-friendly.com, then you aren't an innocent casualty.
Let's not forget that it's completely legal for someone to publish a list of spam-friendly ISPs and for someone else to refuse e-mail from those ISPs. I know of no place where it is legal to kill people with improvised explosives or to behead them because you don't like their government's policies.
And when customers don't leave? And if the ISP doesn't suffer financially?
It doesn't happen. If an ISP is regularly having e-mail bounce, then customers will complain and will leave. That costs the ISP money.
Then don't object when we call them vigilantes. You've just admitted they are.
Don't try to redefine words. A vigilante is someone who takes, or advocates taking, law enforcement into their own hands. Since SPEWS is not attempting to enforce any laws, they are not vigilantes. They are trying to punish ISPs who sell services to spammers.
Are people who boycott Nike vigilantes? Are parents who give their children time-outs vigilantes? Punishing undesirable behavior does not mean that you are a vigilante.
Regardless, there is a big difference between specifically blocking IPs that send spam, and blocking ranges when one or some IPs in that range send spam.
Yes, there is. If an ISP knows that entire blocks of IPs will be listed, then he's less likely to write a pink contract with a spammer. If he knows that the worse thing that will happen is that the spammers' one IP address will be blocked, he can write the pink contract and even provide the spammer with a new IP address when the old one gets blocked. If the ISP has a spare couple of thousand IP addresses, they could move spammers from one to another for a long time.
If an ISP allows spam to pass through their outbound smtp server, I see no issue whatsoever in blocking that smt server.
So as long as the ISP requires that the spammer run their own SMTP server, then the ISP will remain safe in your scenario.
I do see an issue in blocking the entire IP range of that ISP. When a customer of an ISP is sending out spam, I don't see a good enough justification to hinder all customers at that ISP by blocking the IP range. Does it put pressure on an ISP? I guess it does, but as said, I do not see that as a strong enough argument because of the damage it causes to people without a direct involvement.
It's not like SPEWS blacklists all of Comcast because one rogue user sent spam. To be listed on SPEWS, an ISP basically has to be turning a blind eye to spam for an extended period of time. If you're giving money to that ISP, you are involved.
As an ISP or email host, you could easily get sued for using SPEWS, such a negligent disregard for false positives would likely cause you to lose the case.
First off, in the U.S., you could get sued for anything, so being sued doesn't mean that you did something wrong.
Secondly, unless the ISP has made an SLA with you with limits on false positives, you don't stand a chance. The ISP can block whatever he chooses. If you don't like the blacklists that he uses, then you can go to a different ISP. That's the beauty of the free market.
That's the essence of the innocent bystander problem, but it's worse than that because there's really no hope that the few who complain will have any impact, so you're just causing pain for the wrong people with no benefit for the people being injured (those who recieve the spam).
If thousands of users are having their e-mail bounce because the ISP is on SPEWS, there will be more than a few complaints. Some users will even take their business elsewhere.
If your ISP has ignored the spam problem for so long that they are on SPEWS, then they are scum. And you're financing the scum with your monthly fees. That means that you're not innocent.
It doesn't matter if it's after the event.
Yeah, that would be like punishing a thief after he's taken your stereo and has gone.
The spammer is gone, and all Spews does is punish innocent bystanders who spammed no one.
ONE SPAMMER IS GONE. What about the next one? The idea is to punish the ISP. If customers leave because the ISP is always on SPEWS, then the ISP suffers financially. That's a good thing.
If your ISP is on SPEWS, it's probably because they turn a blind eye to spam. As the SPEWS web page says, "Finally, most places listed in SPEWS have shown a consistent pattern of spamming, giving support to spammers, or tolerating spammers on their systems."
It's kinda funny how when we're talking about "spammers" vs "legitimate ISP users" the solution is "kill 'em all and let God sort it out" but when we're talking about "pirates" vs "legitimate P2P users" the solution is "hands off, legitimate use trumps illegitimate use at all times". So which one is it?
When we're talking about spammers and SPEWS, we're talking about free speech on the part of individuals who publish SPEWS and we're talking about the property rights of a mail server owner to block e-mail based on any criteria that he chooses to use.
When we're talking about pirates and P2P, we're talking about whether the government should step in and completely kill a means of information interchange, trampling on free speech rights as they do it.
So you're presenting a false dichotomy and a strawman argument all rolled up into one.
80% of spam in the US is sent by Windows PCs that have been infected by an Outlook worm and converted into a zombie spambot. So an idiot customer at my cable ISP shares an IP block with me and his Windows spambot causes my email to be blocked? That's fair.
Why is your ISP not complying with the FTC's request to block port 25 as part of Operation Spam Zombies? I'm sick and tired of dealing with spam from infected home PCs. If you don't have a need to run a mail server, then you don't need port 25 open to the rest of the net.
A Windows spambot with a cable ISP connection can send A LOT of spam. High bandwidth providers need to run software that detects spam (an outgoing spam filter) and shut down a user before a huge volume of spam can be sent. But the ISPs have largely taken the attitude that sending spam is not their problem.
And when they end up on SPEWS and customers start complaining, then they will probably change their attitude.
"government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan (First Inaugural Address)
Odd that he would want to be in charge of the root of our problems, isn't it? But then what do you expect from a man who lets his wife plan his schedule based on the advice of an astrologer?
Here we see government trying to be the solution to our problems. Phewy. The solution to SPAM is not laws, but technology.
Here are the best anti spam techniques (in order of effectiveness)
1. Graylisting (awesome!)
2. SPF (Stop forgery)
3. Spamassassin
.
.
.
1001. CAN SPAM act.
Graylisting: Graylisting slows e-mail down and increases the chance of failure due to requiring more network traffic over a longer period of time. It also takes more bandwidth.
SPF: I use it on my domain and have a valid SPF record. Unfortunately, most domains do not have a valid SPF record. When/if they do, this becomes practical and very useful.
Spamassasin: I'm opposed to it on principle because it is a post-reception process that simply hides spam from the recipients. If some spammer blasts my network with 10,000 e-mails, he's stolen my bandwidth and I want to know it so that I can actively block spam from him in the future. I don't want to have something silently delete the spam, taking up cycles on my server to do so.
CAN-SPAM Act: Simply evil. It gives every spammer one free shot at you.
The most effective means that I've found for blocking spam is to use country-based blacklists. I don't know anyone in China, Korea, Malaysia, Nigeria, Brazil, Argentina, etc. so I just block mail from those places. If enough people start implementing country-wide blocks, then the countries where the spam originates will have to do something about the problem -- or be at a significant economic disadvantage.
I think it's just you. Try plugging your network cable back in.
You must work tech support for an ISP. No one else would read and online posting on the Internet and conclude that the poster's network cable was unplugged.
Doesn't the above statement contradict itself?
No. They set up blocking based on historical data rather than trying to block in real-time by adding records in response to spam that is currently being sent.
Tthey do have a choice. They can get mail service from any of hundreds of companies who don't tolerate spammers. Meanwhile, if the only ISP in a given area is in SPEWS, that's a great opportunity for a decent ISP to eat their lunch.
We're agreeing! I'm going to www.accuweather.com to check a temperature. Do you have the ZIP Code for Hell?
Or who have no choice with regards to ISPs because there is only one active in their area?
So they live with dial-up. If the only provider of cable television in my area is NAMBLA, then I'll live with the seven local broadcast channels rather than give NAMBLA my money.
Stupid argument, not agreeing to using 'collatoral damage' to force things onto an ISP is not the same as not wanting those ISPs to remove spammers.
That's not what the OP said. He said "bullying ISPs into shutting down spammers after the event" as if the fact that it was done after the spam was sent was somehow the important point.
As long as you and other SPEWS proponents cannot see that difference, you will by most be seen as bullies and as doing more damage then good.
I don't care how I'm seen as long as I'm helping reduce spam. And I've seen no compelling argument to make me believe that SPEWs is ineffective. Quite the contrary. I've seen more and more instances of ISPs refusing to write pink contracts after being listed on SPEWS.
Hmm, you do not see the similarity to the reasoning of those who justify killing innocent bystanders in order to put pressure on the USA to change its policies?
I hardly think that someone bouncing your e-mail is akin to killing people. Now you're just being silly.
You're also missing something important: It's not illegal for me to refuse your e-mail at my server. I can refuse it because your IP address is on SPEWS, because I don't like your ISP, because your sysadmin "dissed" me in a newsgroup, because your IP address has a prime number in it, or because you tried to send the mail during the witching hour. You don't have a legal right to deliver your e-mail to my server.
On the other hand, SPEWS contributers do have a Constitutionally guaranteed right (free speech and freedom of the press) to publish a list of address blocks which they believe are spam sources. There is nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical about doing that.
Again, if you've got a better plan than SPEWS, what is it?
... we'd still be relying on SPEWS to bully innocent bystanders
By "innocent bystanders," do you mean people helping to finance an ISP which caters to spammers?
into bullying ISPs into shutting down spammers after the event.
So you would prefer that the ISPs not shut down spammers?
You obviously don't understand SPEWS.
SPEWS does not wait for spam to happen. They list IP blocks which have been repeated sources for spam. If an ISP sells services to spammers, their IP blocks will end up listed on SPEWs. Those using the SPEWS list can block all traffic from that ISP -- including traffic from spammers who will use those IP blocks in the future.
Before SPEWS, "pink contracts" were becoming all-too common. A pink contract is a contract between an Internet service provider and a spammer in which the spammer is exempted from the usual terms of service prohibiting spamming. Pink contracts came into existence because ISPs could charge the spammer much more than they would a normal client. Such contracts were quite profitable.
So how do you fight against such practices? You blacklist the ISP's IP blocks. That means that "normal" users will find that the ISP cannot reliably deliver e-mail. Those users will pressure the ISP into not writing pink contracts and not tolerating spamming. A blacklisted ISP will not be able to survive on pink contract revenue alone and, thus, will be forced to stop writing pink contracts in order to remain solvent.
I was wondering why we all stopped getting spam.
Yeah, but you still don't get error-free rips with some drives (due to the cache issue).
Why spend more time setting up and configuring CDex, CDParanoia, etc., if you aren't guaranteed accurate rips?
That said, your workflow is pretty bad. Anyone with that large of a collection should just set up program(s) for one-click extraction and tagging.
If only it were that easy!
The sad reality is that the freedb and cddb databases are filled with crap. Song and album titles are inconsistently capitalized. There are spelling errors. One person will refer to a two CD collection as "Disk 1" and "Disk 2" while another will call it "CD 1" and "CD 2." One person will classify the genre of The Who as "Rock" while others will classify it as "Classic Rock," "Blues", or "Hard Rock." Some people will refer to the artists as "Who, The" while others will write "The Who" and "Who." On top of that, there will be multiple hits per CD, many with the inconsistencies listed above, but others for different albums that happen to match at to the algorithm that interprets which CD is in the drive. Album cover art has to be scrounged from various sources around the net. It's all really ugly.
One major problem with cdparanoia is that it does not work properly with many modern CD drives that sport large audio caches. It does two reads, but the data fits into the drive's cache. It then declares a "pass" for the read when, in fact, the physical read was done only once and the second read came out of the cache. This causes it to miss errors that EAC catches.
Also, EAC is far more user-friendly and convenient, with automatic freedb CD look-up, offset detection, ID3 tagging, and one-button rip+encode (if you want to compress the tracks). Yes, I know that it's possible to string a large number of Linux programs together with shell scripts, but that's hardly as convenient.
Indians donated 50 millon USD to US for Katrina relief ;)
Castro offered assistance, too, but that doesn't mean that Cuba is financially better off than we are.
Addressing 5,000 developers in Bangalore, Bill Gates announced the Code4Bill contest
As opposed to the "Code4Food" contest that they've been participating in?
Twenty finalists will receive internships with Microsoft India before one Superhero is selected to join Mr. Gates's own team.
It sounds like Bill Gates has watched just a bit too many episodes of The Apprentice.
Who uses ISDN in a new installation anyway?
Companies that are directed to by their DoD customers. Companies doing point-to-point networking with existing facilities -- often to facilities in Europe.
Not every networking installation is a dot-com looking for Internet connectivity.
You protected your interests and they protected theirs. Don't take it so personally. It's just business.
Many companies have a policy of not allowing employees who resigned stay around. They terminate the employment immediately and pay the two weeks.
It's not so much a matter of expecting computer sabotage, but rather an issue of morale. They don't need two weeks of you talking to coworkers about how you got a better job with more pay at company Y. The thought of you explaining what you didn't like about the company to multiple coworkers is not something that they would relish, either.
Again, it's just business.
I'm hardly naive, my friend.
...
Twisted, maybe, but not naive.
I'm married and therefore have sex, which puts me in a better position to understand it than someone who has never had sex and has learned everything they think they know about it by watching porn (which may include a few slashdot readers). The reason I am coming down hard against porn isn't due to my naivety, lack of experience, or my fear of something new. The reason I am coming down hard against porn is _because_ of my experience.
Your experience with porn or your prejudice against it?
Being happy and being sexually active is the opposite of watching porn. It really is, though it may not seem that way at first.
So you can have sex with your wife every night, but if you watch an erotic DVD on Sunday morning while she's at church, you're not sexually active?
In my experience, if you want to happy and sexually active (and I think every male does) then you will avoid porn like the plague and just focus on getting married and serving your wife as best you can.
It's so sad that you would deny yourself sexual pleasure out of some twisted, probably religious, notion that all sexual pleasure must come from the woman to whom you are married. No erotic fantasies. No role-playing with your spouse based on shared erotic materials (porn, as you call it).
If you watch porn, you will have no sex (women do not appreciate it), not be happy, you will have wasted both time and money, and all you will have to show for it is a closet full of used tissue paper. A dubious trade off
Dude, that is gross! If you jerk off, you don't save the tissue that you cleaned up with. Throw it away or flush it down the toilet. Don't be so disgusting!
Some prudish, religious zealot women don't appreciate erotic publications, but normal women do. While men generally prefer pictures and videos, women typically prefer erotic writings (think Variations and Penthouse Forum magazines). And who do you think is buying all of those vibrators? It's not men.
I said "their song" meaning a song the band played, not one that Jerry wrote.
...at all.
Anyway, I think the line I quoted ("What can I do for you to see you through.") can be generalized to encompass the concept of a culture of sharing which many in the 60's talked about, even if it wasn't always practiced.
Reading that, I can't help but quote a scene from "This Is Spinal Tap":
MARTY: You play to predominantly, uh predominantly a white audience, you feel your music is racist in any way?
DAVID: No!
NIGEL: No, no, of course not....
DAVID: We pro...we say, we say "love your brother", we don't say it, really, but..
NIGEL: We don't literally say it.
DAVID: No, we don't say it
NIGEL: No, we don't literally mean it, but we're not racists.
DAVID: No, we don't believe it either, but...that message should be clear anyway.