in my town, the old horse & cart transports have died out too. Is this because of high-speed road access and a youth culture that uses some of the most sophisticated automobiles available?
Or is it just because there is a better way of doing things?
My textbook says its because people illegally stole buggy plans off the internet...
Unfortunately, Rutan's technology is not applicable to orbital space travel, as near as I can tell, so I'm not sure that this does anything for space tourism, except as a something for the press to report (which may be worth something, but I tend to doubt that it means much).
Rutan's technology may be the starting point for reasonable sub-orbital flights (think NYC->Tokyo).
For orbital, affordable space travel, I believe that the X-prize should have been for building a 10 meter long cable made from single-walled carbon nanotube with a tensile strength above 80 GPa and a reasonable density. But that wouldn't attract the journalists, would it? Probably wouldn't have attracted as many teams either.
This is just moving towards a time where they can pass a law saying that all ISPs must block all ports besides port 80, and all ports registered with the FCC for valid, licensed use, like AOL Messenger and Windows Media.
I honestly don't see any inclination of them doing that.
My bet is a tax on broadband connections similar to the CDR tax we pay. Out of every 1 GB you download, $X goes to the associations which they'll then distribute to the likely copyright holders (e.i. themselves).
It will be a beautiful day for them when I download a linux distro and am forced to pay them money for copyright infringment.
Ponder how you might feel if you were a Regular Joe using your WiFi equipment. You read the confusing literature and try your best to secure your WiFi network. But you're not exactly sure if you go it right. Now you find out that there are people out there lurking around in your neighborhood whose sole purpose is to look for unsecure networks and... and you don't know what, but you're not exactly excited to find out what these wardrivers are going to do once they've gained access.
Will they gain access to your network? Maybe, mabye not. But it makes you nervous because unlike most Slashdot readers, technology is not your life. You're just doing your best with the stuff you bought at the local ComputerShack.
...
Bashing on regular computer users perpetuates the stereotype that technically-savvy computer geeks are elitist snobs who take every opportunity to trumpet their intellectual superiority while taking advantage of the less technically-inclined.
Lately, with marriage, student loans, two incomes, medical bills, etc, I've found that my finances and tax situations have grown rather complex -- so complex that I don't know what the hell I'm doing.
My reaction to this has been to go down the the local library, pick up a few investing/tax books to learn the basics, and then go to a bloody professional!
Another example from yesterday morning -- my old work truck has been having problems running while cold. I know a bit about vehicles, but don't have the equipment or experience to tune a carberator and set the timing. So, what did I do? I grabbed the yellow pages and found the services of a professional!
Admittedly, part of the problem is with hardware/software companies advertising their products as "user-friendly" and "easy-to-use", but most computer users, no matter how clueless, are aware that viruses and nasty hackers exist. Why don't they take the steps to educate themselves and protect themselves?
I'm computer saavy and have many other skills, but I'm not an expert in all aspects of my life. However, when I know I'm not an expert, I take the steps to educate myself on the basics, and then consult an expert if it is required.
OR, what if the school gets built a year or two after the pipeline goes in. Who is going to tell the school district that they'd better not build their school in that location? How are they going to explain why they shouldn't build there?
More importantly, there are at least two risks present:
1) The risk the terrorists will use this knowledge to kill people.
2) The risk that the school will accidentally puncture or break the pipe during construction/renovations.
I'm confused. I'm taped every time I walk in/out of my building. The hallway cam also probably catches me when I go to the bathroom. I'm taped when I go to the bank. I'm taped when I go to the fucking deli. Why should I be worried about taping people in my own home?
Again, IANAL, so this could be wrong, but you don't have an expectation of privacy at the bank. You would have an expectation of privacy in a hotel room.
You might have an expectation of privacy at someone's house, even if you are babysitting there.
I don't know, but the little knowledge I have of this area makes me think that the laws would be state-specific. Which is why I say, check with a lawyer.
People who think they have the right to enforce their ideas of "how fast is too fast" turn my stomach. Fuck you all.
Yet you have no problem with your "right" to decide that everyone should break the law and risk a speeding ticket just so you can get someplace 5 minutes earlier.
I was coming down out of the mountains last year and got stuck behind some flatlander doing 35-40 mph around the curves. On that road it's all curves. The funny thing was, there was a bicycle behind him and the guy on the bike was tailgating the flatlander.
FYI, not all vehicles handle curves the same, nor do all tires. Also, many people don't want to feel the centrifugal force while going around the corner, or have everything in the back shift to the other side of the vehicle.
Is it the car commercials that creates the race-car mentality in most people? Is it the long commutes to work? What? Its amazing how irate people can become when you do "only" 5 mph over the speed limit. Or when you slow down on a curvy road so that your stopping distance is less then your field of vision. Speaking of stopping distance, its amazing how many people think that a 20 year old pickup, fully loaded, with trailer, will stop as quickly as a compact car. At least, that's what I'm assume they are thinking, why else would they pull out right in front of me?
Oh, and if you look at any statistics, poor people don't pay enough taxes.
In that case, with your best interest in mind, I will advance you this offer: Give most of your money to me, and then you can take advantage of the famous poor-person tax loophole.
A national sales tax has some big problems, to be the sole source of gov't income.
For example, lets say I own a computer repair shop, and I buy 20 network cards. Do I pay tax on them? How about if I combine those network cards with some other parts and build computer workstations, which I sell to the public for $1k. Do they pay tax on that instead? But what if I sell the parts for $800, and add $200 worth of services. Do they pay tax on both parts and services, or one or the other? What is I use ten of those network cards in my business. Do I have to pay tax on that now?
See how this is getting complicated now? Do we tax goods and services, or just goods? Do we tax all goods sold, leading to cascading taxes, or do we have exemptions for businesses buying goods? Does the exemption only apply for goods being resold, or for goods being used internally?
More fun -- lets say, instead of selling you a car at $25k with $10k in interest on the loan, I'll sell you a car for $15k with $20k interest on the loan. Sounds good, doesn't it? A nat'l sales tax won't tax loans now, will it? With the high rates estimated for a nat'l sales tax, there will be an excellent incentive to evasion.
Finally, in the "screw-the-poor" department, nat'l sales taxes tend to be fairly regressive.
Sorry, but a nat'l sales tax isn't a cure-all solution.
The cold war is over and there really isn't anyone who can threaten us except with terrorism or nuclear missles (China, India, Pakistan, and certain EU states).
In the waning years of the cold war, the Russians found that the whole "turn the world into nuclear ash" idea was becoming a tad expensive.
They still wanted powerful weapons as a deterrent to a first strike, and they wanted those weapons to be cheap.
They ended up building one of the scariest biological weapons programs this planet has ever known. Diseases that were vaccine resistant. Weaponized Ebola. Plague. Variants of common diseases that were much more infectious, and much more lethal.
With the fall of the USSR, and the Russian economy going down the drain, there are a lot of poor, job-hungry biological warfare people out there looking for any employer. Some of these people have already gone missing.
So, lets say you are a rogue state and you want to take down the US. Are you going to do it with an ICBM? Probably not, since the origin is easy to find, and retaliation will probably destroy you. Smuggle in a nuclear device? Good news coverage, good terror, but, to be honest, working nukes aren't easy to come by, even after the fall of the USSR. How about a nice biological weapon? Send one person to Europe or whatnot, let him or her infect themselves, wait until they are infectious, and have them stand outside an airplane gate with tourists and business travelers departing to the US.
Nukes don't scare me. They are too hard to find compared to biological weapons.
IPSEC can be brute brute-forced and/or dictionary attacked, just like anything can... and IPtables are the same, if the cracker can assume any neccessary IP address and remain adressable. Whereas a net based attack must come from a correctly addressed (even if it's a compromised 3rd party) machine, or the packets will simply never return to the attacker.
Er, almost anything can be dictionary-attacked or brute-forced attacked. Given enough time, the ability to ignore the death of the universe, and a ton of processing power, the attack may even be successful. It took distributed.net only 1,757 days to crack a 64-bit RSA key, using the resources of an estimated one-third of a million people. At their peak rate, they could have found a solution by 790 days (with a 50% chance of it being found in 395 days). That was using the computing power equivalent to over 45 thousand Athlon XP 2GHz machines.
That was with a 64-bit key. A 128 bit key would be 18446744073709551616 times harder to crack. ( Of course, IPSEC uses different cyphers, with different-bit lenghts, which means that the time would probably vary to break an IPSEC key. )
Its possible to set up IPSEC to encrypt a VPN between two machines, and deny any machine not using IPSEC from connecting.
Such a wireless setup is going to be pretty damn secure. If an organization is going to take the time to crack you, the IPSEC VPN is not the place they are going to start.
IPSEC can be brute brute-forced and/or dictionary attacked, just like anything can... and IPtables are the same, if the cracker can assume any neccessary IP address and remain adressable. Whereas a net based attack must come from a correctly addressed (even if it's a compromised 3rd party) machine, or the packets will simply never return to the attacker.
Er, almost anything can be dictionary-attacked or brute-forced attacked. Given enough time, the ability to ignore the death of the universe, and a ton of processing power, the attack may even be successful. It took distributed.net only 1,757 days to crack a 64-bit RSA key, using the resources of an estimated one-third of a million people. At their peak rate, they could have found a solution by 790 days (with a 50% chance of it being found in 395 days). That was using the computing power equivalent to over 45 thousand Athlon 2GHz machines.
That was with a 64-bit key. A 128 bit key would be 18446744073709551616 times harder to crack. ( Of course, IPSEC uses different cyphers, with different-bit lenghts, which means that the time would probably vary to break an IPSEC key. )
Its possible to set up IPSEC to encrypt a VPN between two machines, and deny any machine not using IPSEC from connecting.
Such a wireless setup is going to be pretty damn secure. If an organization is going to take the time to crack you, the IPSEC VPN is not the place they are going to start.
I expect those in Data Forensics to be bright, inquisitive people who are willing to quickly learn new things.
I expect that the role requires it.
So, when someone asks "Linux and Data Forensics" without taking a few minutes to think about the problem, it disturbs me.
Perhaps that person would be better suited for a less imaginative job.
Off the top of my head, I could figure out several tools useful in data forensics. Copy the original drive block-by-block to a new drive. Mount the copy as read-only. Examine typical file locations for email and web caches. Use find to locate most documents. Use grep to search for specific words. Use find to look for all files newer then a specific date. If you want to get more involved, write up scripts that compare the drive to an original OS install and find differences. Write scripts that go through the drive and figure out what each file is. Etc, etc.
Learn how a few common unix commands work, and learn perl. You should be set.
Blind + Linux = BLINUX. This is the best solution in the long run and it doesn't cost anything, unlike solutions from Microsoft and other proprietary software. I wish you the best luck. The command-line interface is ideal for blind users.
Interestingly (but a tad OT) is that nethack can be configured for blind users as well.
All work and no play makes Johnny a dully boy.
Other games for the blind would probably include the many, many MUDs out there.
I can't stress this enough: *unconditionally* WIRELESS IS MUCH LESS SECURE. It doesn't matter what protocol/encryption you're using, by going wireless you introduce additional ways your system/data can be accessed.
Explain to me how a properly configured IPSEC setup is less secure then a wired setup.
[ As for the original question, I'm protecting my computers through iptables on the server (running debian stable), and the samba shares are scanned with f-prot weekly. Each desktop machine runs their own antivirus, and I don't use IE or Outlook/OE. Updates are applied very often. ]
Animal fats are a component of the plastics used in things like Velcro and debit cards. Sorry.
Your point? No realistic vegan in a modern society believes that it is possible to eliminate all products that have animal ingrediants from your life. Rubber in tires, stearol in plastic, bone charcoal in city water filters, etc.
What is possible to make a very reasonable effort to use cruelty-free products where possible. My diet is almost free of animal products. The soaps and other cleaners I use are almost free of animal products. The clothes I wear are almost free of animal products.
In the end, I think I do more good then harm. I make an effort. For the most part, the amount of animals killed for my lifestyle if a tiny fraction of what most people require.
An effective stop gap measure would be for ISPs to block port 25 ( along with a number of others ) outbound by default, and open it up only on customer requests.
The only problem is that it then becomes trivial to send spam through the ISP's email server instead.
Slashdot Mirror
in my town, the old horse & cart transports have died out too. Is this because of high-speed road access and a youth culture that uses some of the most sophisticated automobiles available?
Or is it just because there is a better way of doing things?
My textbook says its because people illegally stole buggy plans off the internet...
If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.
Then:
H A R D W O R K
8+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%
Er, doesn't A = 1?
In that case, the forumla is 8 + 1 + 18 + 4 + 23 + 15 + 18 + 11.
The result is the same though: 98%
Unfortunately, Rutan's technology is not applicable to orbital space travel, as near as I can tell, so I'm not sure that this does anything for space tourism, except as a something for the press to report (which may be worth something, but I tend to doubt that it means much).
Rutan's technology may be the starting point for reasonable sub-orbital flights (think NYC->Tokyo).For orbital, affordable space travel, I believe that the X-prize should have been for building a 10 meter long cable made from single-walled carbon nanotube with a tensile strength above 80 GPa and a reasonable density. But that wouldn't attract the journalists, would it? Probably wouldn't have attracted as many teams either.
This is just moving towards a time where they can pass a law saying that all ISPs must block all ports besides port 80, and all ports registered with the FCC for valid, licensed use, like AOL Messenger and Windows Media.
I honestly don't see any inclination of them doing that.
My bet is a tax on broadband connections similar to the CDR tax we pay. Out of every 1 GB you download, $X goes to the associations which they'll then distribute to the likely copyright holders (e.i. themselves).
It will be a beautiful day for them when I download a linux distro and am forced to pay them money for copyright infringment.
This also reminds me of that old headline at The Onion: "Dolphins Develop Thumbs: 'Oh Shit,' say Humans"
For those googling, try the actual headline: "Dolphins Evolve Opposable Thumbs: 'Oh, Shit,' Says Humanity"
Ponder how you might feel if you were a Regular Joe using your WiFi equipment. You read the confusing literature and try your best to secure your WiFi network. But you're not exactly sure if you go it right. Now you find out that there are people out there lurking around in your neighborhood whose sole purpose is to look for unsecure networks and... and you don't know what, but you're not exactly excited to find out what these wardrivers are going to do once they've gained access.
Will they gain access to your network? Maybe, mabye not. But it makes you nervous because unlike most Slashdot readers, technology is not your life. You're just doing your best with the stuff you bought at the local ComputerShack.
Bashing on regular computer users perpetuates the stereotype that technically-savvy computer geeks are elitist snobs who take every opportunity to trumpet their intellectual superiority while taking advantage of the less technically-inclined.
Lately, with marriage, student loans, two incomes, medical bills, etc, I've found that my finances and tax situations have grown rather complex -- so complex that I don't know what the hell I'm doing.
My reaction to this has been to go down the the local library, pick up a few investing/tax books to learn the basics, and then go to a bloody professional!
Another example from yesterday morning -- my old work truck has been having problems running while cold. I know a bit about vehicles, but don't have the equipment or experience to tune a carberator and set the timing. So, what did I do? I grabbed the yellow pages and found the services of a professional!
Admittedly, part of the problem is with hardware/software companies advertising their products as "user-friendly" and "easy-to-use", but most computer users, no matter how clueless, are aware that viruses and nasty hackers exist. Why don't they take the steps to educate themselves and protect themselves?
I'm computer saavy and have many other skills, but I'm not an expert in all aspects of my life. However, when I know I'm not an expert, I take the steps to educate myself on the basics, and then consult an expert if it is required.
Sure, you complain about the dupes, but imagine the productivity increase they cause.
I've glanced at slashdot today, saw the Doom3 story, and thought "Hmmm, I already read all the stories below this -- time to go back to work."
OR, what if the school gets built a year or two after the pipeline goes in. Who is going to tell the school district that they'd better not build their school in that location? How are they going to explain why they shouldn't build there?
More importantly, there are at least two risks present:
1) The risk the terrorists will use this knowledge to kill people.
2) The risk that the school will accidentally puncture or break the pipe during construction/renovations.
Tell me, what do you think the bigger risk is?
I'm confused. I'm taped every time I walk in/out of my building. The hallway cam also probably catches me when I go to the bathroom. I'm taped when I go to the bank. I'm taped when I go to the fucking deli. Why should I be worried about taping people in my own home?
Again, IANAL, so this could be wrong, but you don't have an expectation of privacy at the bank. You would have an expectation of privacy in a hotel room.
You might have an expectation of privacy at someone's house, even if you are babysitting there.
I don't know, but the little knowledge I have of this area makes me think that the laws would be state-specific. Which is why I say, check with a lawyer.
People who think they have the right to enforce their ideas of "how fast is too fast" turn my stomach. Fuck you all.
Yet you have no problem with your "right" to decide that everyone should break the law and risk a speeding ticket just so you can get someplace 5 minutes earlier.
Before you start videotaping a third person (a babysitter), shouldn't you check what laws in your area might apply to such monitoring?
I was coming down out of the mountains last year and got stuck behind some flatlander doing 35-40 mph around the curves. On that road it's all curves. The funny thing was, there was a bicycle behind him and the guy on the bike was tailgating the flatlander.
FYI, not all vehicles handle curves the same, nor do all tires. Also, many people don't want to feel the centrifugal force while going around the corner, or have everything in the back shift to the other side of the vehicle.
Is it the car commercials that creates the race-car mentality in most people? Is it the long commutes to work? What? Its amazing how irate people can become when you do "only" 5 mph over the speed limit. Or when you slow down on a curvy road so that your stopping distance is less then your field of vision. Speaking of stopping distance, its amazing how many people think that a 20 year old pickup, fully loaded, with trailer, will stop as quickly as a compact car. At least, that's what I'm assume they are thinking, why else would they pull out right in front of me?
Slow down.
I'm not paranoid enough to believe that the US gov't is holding Mr. bin Laden at an undisclosed location, waiting for the right moment.
OTOH, I would have no problem in believing that the amount of forces dedicated to his capture has been stepped up in the last few weeks.
Oh, and if you look at any statistics, poor people don't pay enough taxes.
In that case, with your best interest in mind, I will advance you this offer: Give most of your money to me, and then you can take advantage of the famous poor-person tax loophole.
Have fun.
A national sales tax has some big problems, to be the sole source of gov't income.
For example, lets say I own a computer repair shop, and I buy 20 network cards. Do I pay tax on them? How about if I combine those network cards with some other parts and build computer workstations, which I sell to the public for $1k. Do they pay tax on that instead? But what if I sell the parts for $800, and add $200 worth of services. Do they pay tax on both parts and services, or one or the other? What is I use ten of those network cards in my business. Do I have to pay tax on that now?
See how this is getting complicated now? Do we tax goods and services, or just goods? Do we tax all goods sold, leading to cascading taxes, or do we have exemptions for businesses buying goods? Does the exemption only apply for goods being resold, or for goods being used internally?
More fun -- lets say, instead of selling you a car at $25k with $10k in interest on the loan, I'll sell you a car for $15k with $20k interest on the loan. Sounds good, doesn't it? A nat'l sales tax won't tax loans now, will it? With the high rates estimated for a nat'l sales tax, there will be an excellent incentive to evasion.
Finally, in the "screw-the-poor" department, nat'l sales taxes tend to be fairly regressive.
Sorry, but a nat'l sales tax isn't a cure-all solution.
The cold war is over and there really isn't anyone who can threaten us except with terrorism or nuclear missles (China, India, Pakistan, and certain EU states).
In the waning years of the cold war, the Russians found that the whole "turn the world into nuclear ash" idea was becoming a tad expensive.
They still wanted powerful weapons as a deterrent to a first strike, and they wanted those weapons to be cheap.
They ended up building one of the scariest biological weapons programs this planet has ever known. Diseases that were vaccine resistant. Weaponized Ebola. Plague. Variants of common diseases that were much more infectious, and much more lethal.
With the fall of the USSR, and the Russian economy going down the drain, there are a lot of poor, job-hungry biological warfare people out there looking for any employer. Some of these people have already gone missing.
So, lets say you are a rogue state and you want to take down the US. Are you going to do it with an ICBM? Probably not, since the origin is easy to find, and retaliation will probably destroy you. Smuggle in a nuclear device? Good news coverage, good terror, but, to be honest, working nukes aren't easy to come by, even after the fall of the USSR. How about a nice biological weapon? Send one person to Europe or whatnot, let him or her infect themselves, wait until they are infectious, and have them stand outside an airplane gate with tourists and business travelers departing to the US.
Nukes don't scare me. They are too hard to find compared to biological weapons.
IPSEC can be brute brute-forced and/or dictionary attacked, just like anything can... and IPtables are the same, if the cracker can assume any neccessary IP address and remain adressable. Whereas a net based attack must come from a correctly addressed (even if it's a compromised 3rd party) machine, or the packets will simply never return to the attacker.
Er, almost anything can be dictionary-attacked or brute-forced attacked. Given enough time, the ability to ignore the death of the universe, and a ton of processing power, the attack may even be successful. It took distributed.net only 1,757 days to crack a 64-bit RSA key, using the resources of an estimated one-third of a million people. At their peak rate, they could have found a solution by 790 days (with a 50% chance of it being found in 395 days). That was using the computing power equivalent to over 45 thousand Athlon XP 2GHz machines.
That was with a 64-bit key. A 128 bit key would be 18446744073709551616 times harder to crack. ( Of course, IPSEC uses different cyphers, with different-bit lenghts, which means that the time would probably vary to break an IPSEC key. )
Its possible to set up IPSEC to encrypt a VPN between two machines, and deny any machine not using IPSEC from connecting.
Such a wireless setup is going to be pretty damn secure. If an organization is going to take the time to crack you, the IPSEC VPN is not the place they are going to start.
Just my $.02
PS: Perhaps you were thinking of WEP...
IPSEC can be brute brute-forced and/or dictionary attacked, just like anything can... and IPtables are the same, if the cracker can assume any neccessary IP address and remain adressable. Whereas a net based attack must come from a correctly addressed (even if it's a compromised 3rd party) machine, or the packets will simply never return to the attacker.
Er, almost anything can be dictionary-attacked or brute-forced attacked. Given enough time, the ability to ignore the death of the universe, and a ton of processing power, the attack may even be successful. It took distributed.net only 1,757 days to crack a 64-bit RSA key, using the resources of an estimated one-third of a million people. At their peak rate, they could have found a solution by 790 days (with a 50% chance of it being found in 395 days). That was using the computing power equivalent to over 45 thousand Athlon 2GHz machines.
That was with a 64-bit key. A 128 bit key would be 18446744073709551616 times harder to crack. ( Of course, IPSEC uses different cyphers, with different-bit lenghts, which means that the time would probably vary to break an IPSEC key. )
Its possible to set up IPSEC to encrypt a VPN between two machines, and deny any machine not using IPSEC from connecting.
Such a wireless setup is going to be pretty damn secure. If an organization is going to take the time to crack you, the IPSEC VPN is not the place they are going to start.
Just my $.02
PS: Perhaps you were thinking of WEP...
I expect those in Data Forensics to be bright, inquisitive people who are willing to quickly learn new things.
I expect that the role requires it.
So, when someone asks "Linux and Data Forensics" without taking a few minutes to think about the problem, it disturbs me.
Perhaps that person would be better suited for a less imaginative job.
Off the top of my head, I could figure out several tools useful in data forensics. Copy the original drive block-by-block to a new drive. Mount the copy as read-only. Examine typical file locations for email and web caches. Use find to locate most documents. Use grep to search for specific words. Use find to look for all files newer then a specific date. If you want to get more involved, write up scripts that compare the drive to an original OS install and find differences. Write scripts that go through the drive and figure out what each file is. Etc, etc.
Learn how a few common unix commands work, and learn perl. You should be set.
Just my $.02
Blind + Linux = BLINUX. This is the best solution in the long run and it doesn't cost anything, unlike solutions from Microsoft and other proprietary software. I wish you the best luck. The command-line interface is ideal for blind users.
Interestingly (but a tad OT) is that nethack can be configured for blind users as well.
All work and no play makes Johnny a dully boy.
Other games for the blind would probably include the many, many MUDs out there.
I can't stress this enough: *unconditionally* WIRELESS IS MUCH LESS SECURE. It doesn't matter what protocol/encryption you're using, by going wireless you introduce additional ways your system/data can be accessed.
Explain to me how a properly configured IPSEC setup is less secure then a wired setup.
[ As for the original question, I'm protecting my computers through iptables on the server (running debian stable), and the samba shares are scanned with f-prot weekly. Each desktop machine runs their own antivirus, and I don't use IE or Outlook/OE. Updates are applied very often. ]
Animal fats are a component of the plastics used in things like Velcro and debit cards. Sorry.
Your point? No realistic vegan in a modern society believes that it is possible to eliminate all products that have animal ingrediants from your life. Rubber in tires, stearol in plastic, bone charcoal in city water filters, etc.
What is possible to make a very reasonable effort to use cruelty-free products where possible. My diet is almost free of animal products. The soaps and other cleaners I use are almost free of animal products. The clothes I wear are almost free of animal products.
In the end, I think I do more good then harm. I make an effort. For the most part, the amount of animals killed for my lifestyle if a tiny fraction of what most people require.
I tend to carry around a large amount of cash, a library card, a debit card for an account with little cash, a calling card, and a library card.
The back of my wallet is also filled with receipts that I haven't put in my ledger yet.
The wallet itself it a trifold, no animal products (I'm a vegan) that closes with a velcro tab. I tend to keep it in my front pocket.
They won't match a Buddist with a 7th Day Adventist...
Why not? Both tend towards vegetarianism. :)
An effective stop gap measure would be for ISPs to block port 25 ( along with a number of others ) outbound by default, and open it up only on customer requests.
The only problem is that it then becomes trivial to send spam through the ISP's email server instead.