Recently Linus has shown his dislike for the scsi emulator for ide devices. He went on to say that there werent any common devices that needed the scsi layer.
I can't use my IDE DVD-ROM drive as a reader for ripping CDs without SCSI emulation, at least not through any method that I've seen. I've also heard that IDE CD recording devices need it (I use a USB device, which also uses the SCSI layer, but it doesn't use IDE SCSI emulation).
I don't have any major ALSA bugs, but I noticed that I cannot make/dev/sequencer work with my emu10k1 device unless several things are compiled as modules rather than built into the kernel. I've still not figured out why this is, but since I don't mind loading modules when necessary, it's not an issue for me (at least, it wasn't once I determined the problem).
Which what is true? Evolution is a rather broad theory, with diverging opinions on just what happened. "Creationism" is a catch-all for the various religious myths regarding origins. Typically the reference is to the Christian mythos, but Christianity is not the only religion with a creation myth and even within Christianity there are diverging viewpoints.
Of course, one (evolution) is science and one is not, and that's where much of the controversy lies, with morons insisting that religious mythology that circumvents the scientific method by invoking supernatural entities is still somehow "science" and deserves a place in a science classroom.
All spammers are, without exception, unrepentant liars. Therefore, if Alan Ralsky claims to abide by "remove" requests, he is essentially admitting that he does not honour them.
I was surprised that I liked Elf. I've normally not been much for Ferrel's more "over the top" characters (I loved him as Alex Trebek, though), yet he worked so well in Elf. Perhaps it's because his character is arguably not over-the-top, and even believable given the context.
So spam is okay, as long as it 'honestly' identifies itself as such? Should robbery be okay if the robber wears a sign identifying himself when he breaks into your house?
If you are in fact a legitimate company and not some slimey spammer then you will have no problem with that. I, as an end-user, can configure my filters to filter the advertisements
If it is a "legitimate company", then they are not sending unsolicited email advertising. Only criminals send junk email.
My response to a company sending unsolicited advertising to me via email is a series of complaints to them and their hosting ISP, maintained until I get some kind of response, preferrably a notice from the ISP that the account has been terminated.
What?! And force those "black bars" onto the 4:3 television sets displaying the downconverted 16:9 image? Those black bars cover up the picture, we Americans won't stand for it!
I got the Nvidia drivers working after very little tooling around, and I'm usually clueless when it comes to high-level configuration like that.
I've had audio problems, specifically with/dev/sequencer support with my emu10k1-driven card. I finally discovered that the only way to make it work was to build the sequencer support in as a module. If I build the sequencer driver into the kernel, it doesn't work (/dev/sequencer gives me no such device any time I try to access it).
Maybe Anthrax isn't, but icepicks can be very effective for drawn-out torment in the right places. Just be sure to suppliment, and have a nice supply of salt handy.
.this is about a guy who made fairly severe death threats against the company concerned.
This wasn't a company. this was a criminal organization. They deserved every single thing that he threatened. He shouldn't be in jail, he should be given an opportunity to act out on his frustrations. A week alone with the CEO of the "company", a baseball bat, an icepick, a power drill, a can of kerosine and a box of matches should do the trick.
Spammers deserve horrible, terrible death. Should I learn that Alan Ralsky died after suffering months of terrible torture, I'd do a dance.
Five years in prison, and potentially up to $6 million in damages, all for spamming?
I agree. Far too soft.
Spam is theft. Spammers steal billions of dollars per year, and they do it brazenly, without remorse, deliberately circumventing attempts to prevent their theft. Slow torture is too soft.
Their attempt to 'justify' the hack shortly after it was exposed earned them almost as much bad karma as having it in the first place -- did you not see the USENET posting from a company spokesperson on this?
Seriously, Belkin's response to this has been utterly abysmal. First they tried to justify it, only now that it's blowing up in their face do they try to remedy it.
They've lost a great deal of trust that they will never regain.
That is, couldn't there be legal means of breaking a contract with an ISP that operates in a manner that devalues its own services?
It has been suggested by anti-spam groups, but many people who find themselves on spam-friendly ISPs prefer whining about it rather than being proactive. Apparently it's not their fault and it's not the fault of the ISP for hosting spammers, it's the fault of people who don't want to accept traffic from spam-friendly ISPs.
Instead, I am starting to consider the notion that there is a pro-spammer astroturf campaign being waged against blocklist sites.
Starting?
Haven't you heard of "antispews.org"? It's dead now, but it was a clearly spammer-run outfit claiming to serve the "victims" of SPEWS in tracking down whomever ran SPEWS and suing them. Full of bluster on how they were "this close" to exposing the organization, they were a relatively reliable source of amusement in news.admin.net-abuse.email
Forgive me for not caring. The ISP is supporting criminal activity by hosting spammers. As such, there's no reason for me to want traffic from that ISP. If the OP wants his mail to get through, then he should find an IP address not owned by a bunch of sleazebags who openly support and encourage criminal activity.
By all means block IPs, but specific ones, not whole ranges
That has been tried. It failed. The spam-friendly ISPs just moved their spammers around to new IP addresses and moved non-spamming customers into the blocked ones. At least by blocking the entire ISP, the "innocents" hit can't complain that they're being unfairly branded as spammers (well, they do, but that's because they don't RTFF).
...they wouldn't bother checking against the "do not spam" list. Spammers are, by nature, sociopaths with absolutely no regard for the law. Further, they tend to define "spamming" as anything other than that which they do.
The only sure-fire solution to the spam problem is brutally and publically torturing spammers to death.
Still - to have the whole domain rejected because of BS is wrong, IMO.
I agree, if by "BS" you mean dubious reports of spam-friendlyness. However, I have no problems with blocking mail or all IP traffic in general from known crime-ridden providers (such as Cogentco, Verio, Qwest or any ISP in South America).
Thus, there is a fine line between what the governing body considers spam and what I do.
Spam is very clearly defined. It is unsolicited, impersonal (having a bot that tries to tack on the recipient's name based upon their USENET postings does not count) e-mail sent as a means of advertising (whether for commercial or non-commercial purposes is irrelevant).
Comparing false-positives in spam-detection tools to political censorships is a stretch at best.
Slashdot Mirror
Recently Linus has shown his dislike for the scsi emulator for ide devices. He went on to say that there werent any common devices that needed the scsi layer.
I can't use my IDE DVD-ROM drive as a reader for ripping CDs without SCSI emulation, at least not through any method that I've seen. I've also heard that IDE CD recording devices need it (I use a USB device, which also uses the SCSI layer, but it doesn't use IDE SCSI emulation).
I don't have any major ALSA bugs, but I noticed that I cannot make /dev/sequencer work with my emu10k1 device unless several things are compiled as modules rather than built into the kernel. I've still not figured out why this is, but since I don't mind loading modules when necessary, it's not an issue for me (at least, it wasn't once I determined the problem).
Since you meant 2.6.1-rc1, I assume that it applies to 2.6.0?
Noone can truly say wich one is true.
Which what is true? Evolution is a rather broad theory, with diverging opinions on just what happened. "Creationism" is a catch-all for the various religious myths regarding origins. Typically the reference is to the Christian mythos, but Christianity is not the only religion with a creation myth and even within Christianity there are diverging viewpoints.
Of course, one (evolution) is science and one is not, and that's where much of the controversy lies, with morons insisting that religious mythology that circumvents the scientific method by invoking supernatural entities is still somehow "science" and deserves a place in a science classroom.
All spammers are, without exception, unrepentant liars. Therefore, if Alan Ralsky claims to abide by "remove" requests, he is essentially admitting that he does not honour them.
Well, ok maybe he doesn't deserve death.
He deserves far, far worse, as do all e-mail spammers.
I was surprised that I liked Elf. I've normally not been much for Ferrel's more "over the top" characters (I loved him as Alex Trebek, though), yet he worked so well in Elf. Perhaps it's because his character is arguably not over-the-top, and even believable given the context.
Quiet you, unless you want a visit from Walton Simons.
So spam is okay, as long as it 'honestly' identifies itself as such? Should robbery be okay if the robber wears a sign identifying himself when he breaks into your house?
If you are in fact a legitimate company and not some slimey spammer then you will have no problem with that. I, as an end-user, can configure my filters to filter the advertisements
If it is a "legitimate company", then they are not sending unsolicited email advertising. Only criminals send junk email.
My response to a company sending unsolicited advertising to me via email is a series of complaints to them and their hosting ISP, maintained until I get some kind of response, preferrably a notice from the ISP that the account has been terminated.
What?! And force those "black bars" onto the 4:3 television sets displaying the downconverted 16:9 image? Those black bars cover up the picture, we Americans won't stand for it!
It's not going to stop SPAM just make it honest.
Oxymoron.
I got the Nvidia drivers working after very little tooling around, and I'm usually clueless when it comes to high-level configuration like that.
/dev/sequencer support with my emu10k1-driven card. I finally discovered that the only way to make it work was to build the sequencer support in as a module. If I build the sequencer driver into the kernel, it doesn't work (/dev/sequencer gives me no such device any time I try to access it).
I've had audio problems, specifically with
Maybe Anthrax isn't, but icepicks can be very effective for drawn-out torment in the right places. Just be sure to suppliment, and have a nice supply of salt handy.
.this is about a guy who made fairly severe death threats against the company concerned.
This wasn't a company. this was a criminal organization. They deserved every single thing that he threatened. He shouldn't be in jail, he should be given an opportunity to act out on his frustrations. A week alone with the CEO of the "company", a baseball bat, an icepick, a power drill, a can of kerosine and a box of matches should do the trick.
Spammers deserve horrible, terrible death. Should I learn that Alan Ralsky died after suffering months of terrible torture, I'd do a dance.
Five years in prison, and potentially up to $6 million in damages, all for spamming?
I agree. Far too soft.
Spam is theft. Spammers steal billions of dollars per year, and they do it brazenly, without remorse, deliberately circumventing attempts to prevent their theft. Slow torture is too soft.
Their attempt to 'justify' the hack shortly after it was exposed earned them almost as much bad karma as having it in the first place -- did you not see the USENET posting from a company spokesperson on this?
...It involves a hatchet.
Seriously, Belkin's response to this has been utterly abysmal. First they tried to justify it, only now that it's blowing up in their face do they try to remedy it.
They've lost a great deal of trust that they will never regain.
Some on-click popups are still controlled through javascript, which Mozilla (I dunno about Opera) will often still block.
Ah, yes, sorry. You're absolutely right, they would do that.
That is, couldn't there be legal means of breaking a contract with an ISP that operates in a manner that devalues its own services?
It has been suggested by anti-spam groups, but many people who find themselves on spam-friendly ISPs prefer whining about it rather than being proactive. Apparently it's not their fault and it's not the fault of the ISP for hosting spammers, it's the fault of people who don't want to accept traffic from spam-friendly ISPs.
Instead, I am starting to consider the notion that there is a pro-spammer astroturf campaign being waged against blocklist sites.
Starting?
Haven't you heard of "antispews.org"? It's dead now, but it was a clearly spammer-run outfit claiming to serve the "victims" of SPEWS in tracking down whomever ran SPEWS and suing them. Full of bluster on how they were "this close" to exposing the organization, they were a relatively reliable source of amusement in news.admin.net-abuse.email
But they're not paying the price, the OP is.
Forgive me for not caring. The ISP is supporting criminal activity by hosting spammers. As such, there's no reason for me to want traffic from that ISP. If the OP wants his mail to get through, then he should find an IP address not owned by a bunch of sleazebags who openly support and encourage criminal activity.
By all means block IPs, but specific ones, not whole ranges
That has been tried. It failed. The spam-friendly ISPs just moved their spammers around to new IP addresses and moved non-spamming customers into the blocked ones. At least by blocking the entire ISP, the "innocents" hit can't complain that they're being unfairly branded as spammers (well, they do, but that's because they don't RTFF).
...they wouldn't bother checking against the "do not spam" list. Spammers are, by nature, sociopaths with absolutely no regard for the law. Further, they tend to define "spamming" as anything other than that which they do.
The only sure-fire solution to the spam problem is brutally and publically torturing spammers to death.
Still - to have the whole domain rejected because of BS is wrong, IMO.
I agree, if by "BS" you mean dubious reports of spam-friendlyness. However, I have no problems with blocking mail or all IP traffic in general from known crime-ridden providers (such as Cogentco, Verio, Qwest or any ISP in South America).
Thus, there is a fine line between what the governing body considers spam and what I do.
Spam is very clearly defined. It is unsolicited, impersonal (having a bot that tries to tack on the recipient's name based upon their USENET postings does not count) e-mail sent as a means of advertising (whether for commercial or non-commercial purposes is irrelevant).
Comparing false-positives in spam-detection tools to political censorships is a stretch at best.