Buy myself out of the contract I have with my ISP?
If you're unable to use email because of your ISPs negligence, they may have abrogated the contract by failing to provide the level of service you signed up for.
Oh great. Another frivoulous lawsuit. Don't these ambulance-chaser lawyers realize that the federal government will protect our privacy? These lawsuits just add to the cost of doing business. We must crack down hard on these frivoulous lawsuits by getting some real tort reform. After all, Northwest Airlines has the best interests of their customers in mind and can't really be expected to keep customer data private when there are profits to be made. Of all the nerve!
By that logic virtually all the major ISP should be blacklisted and all real users should find little mom and pop operated providers.
If that's what it takes to stop the spammers, then so be it. I've been using the SPEWS DNSBL on and off for over a year now and am very satisfied with it. If you insist on doung business with a spam-supporting ISP, then by all means that is your right. However, I have no moral, ethical, legal or other duty to accept your email - even if you think it is completely valid, non-spam email. It's my server and I'll block for whatever reason I feel like. Maybe someday I'll feel especially illogical and will block any email with too many vowels in the headers. If so, that's my right. For now, just blocking people who support businesses that spam is enough for me. Deal with it. Your need to contact me is not equivalent to my need to hear from you.
I disagree. I think this is yet another attempt at so-called "tort reform". Now that the US Congress and our government is a wholly-owned subsidiary, the last vestige of citizen protection, the lawsuit, must be removed from the hands of the people.
What makes these companies think that finding means to actively go against consumers' wishes will be an effective way to earn their business?
They have marketing data that points to the fact that, if they can get their advertisement in front of you, a certain percentage of you will buy their product. Additionally, people are so calloused to being annoyed by advertising that a large percentage will not make any effort to take their business elsewhere. Therefore, the net gain of customers makes it worthwhile to be as offensive as necessary to gain eyeballs and customers. As I see it, there are two ways to resolve this: Convince the sheep to actually quit buying the products that annoy them -or- recognize that corporations are not people and, therefore, have no constitutional right to unregulated free speech.
I never thought I'd see the day when geeks would cheer at the idea of a government censor, but I guess I was wrong.
I didn't see much cheering amongst the geek-set. The general consensus was that the Can-SPAM act was a worse-than-nothing-at-all piece of legislation that was bought and paid for by the Direct Marketing Association. Give the geeks a bit more credit.
This is a favorite attack strategy of the right-wing whenever the Ninth issues an opinion they disagree with. As it happens, the Ninth is overturned more often because it has more appeals because it is far and away the largest of the US Circuit Courts. If you look at it as a percentage of the cases they handle, the Ninth is roughly the same as the rest of the US Circuit Courts. Funny how you never hear a peep out of the right-wingers when a anti-gun or pro-choice decision gets overturned.
I gave a sound reason. You didn't like it and accused me of hating rich people. You want me to solve your problems for you by following your commands to do things your way. You go ahead and believe what you want.
Please, point us to a single study that says they aren't safe. A real study, not just someone being irrationally paranoid about the mystical evils of genetic engineering.
I imagine any study I point to will be immediately dismissed by you as being "irrationally paranoid" so you'll have to excuse me for not wasting my time doing a Google search. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done, especially when the only gain is to make someone enough money to buy their second Hummer, "cool invention" or not.
I think there are bigger threats to the survival of mankind than some glow in the dark fish.
You're probably right. But, on the other hand, we realy have no way of knowing what the long-term effects are and that is the nut of the matter. John Q. Public buys glowing fish for his kids, gets tired of feeding them and tosses them in the local river where they become part of the food chain. AIDS is such a scourge because it can spread quietly for years before it shows itself in symptoms. What if it takes twenty years of eating genetically-modified foods before poisonous levels of some protein are developed in the body? The sciense we're relying on to tell us this is safe has largely been funded by the people who stand to make a profit off of it. Are you ready to roll the dice now?
Republicans are in charge of all three branches of the Federal government. There is nothing more important than profits and nothing must be allowed to impede them.
Re:He doesn't have to be a right winger ...
on
Spirit Rolls on Mars
·
· Score: 1
... to argue correctly that the percieved risks of nuclear power are far greater than any known actual risk from them.
That would be the case if he were arguing "correctly" instead of clouding the issue with irrelevancies like blasting through the earth's crust. That is very much a tactic of the Limbaugh Right and similar to your efforts to go further off-topic by bringing up drain cleaners and BGH.
ease of installation? The strain must really be getting to you.
It's common knowledge amongst Linux users that Debian is very difficult to install. You can imagine my surpise last year when I turned to Debian after being unable to get Redhat to recognize my CD-ROM drive. The Debian install sailed through without a hitch and also came through with flying colors on my off-brand laptop. I don't know if the "common wisdom" is based on old software or has just been repeated often enough that it's accepted as gospel. I do know I'm unable to repeat the conditions necessary to make the Debian install anything but painless.
Did you know that if every Hydrogen, Neutron, and Atomic bomb were detonated, it wouldn't even penetrate the earth's crust?
Do you mean if they were detonated above the earth's crust... where we are? I'm glad to hear their won't be any damage to the earth's precious mantle.
Did you know that the laws of physics say that 6 megawatts of destructive force is the same whether it's 6 megawatts of coal, nuclear, oil, or dynamite power?
My physics book didn't have any formulas for destructive or constructive force. Is there a physical constant I'm not aware of there, Mr Limbaugh?
Did you know that only 40 people on site died in Chernobyl?
Whew - I was worried about the billions of people off the site.
Did you know that you have been brainwashed into thinking that nuclear power can destroy the world?
I'm so thankful for you clear-headed people who can clear it up for the rest of us retards. I do so enjoy being patronized.
Don't take the environmentalists at face value.
And don't take babbling right-wingers at face-value either.
I'll grant you that the odds that the plutonium will become aerosolized are low. If it happens there will be widespread death, undoubtedly. Given the risks and that other solutions are workable, I can't see what the need is to take that risk. The tradeoff between the gains to the mission versus the consequences from a (admittedly unlikely) catastrophe doesn't make sense to me.
The state's new Enterprise Open Standards Policy defines open standards as: "Specifications for systems that are publicly available and are developed by an open community and affirmed by a standards body."
While open standards aren't the same as open source, it certainly leans away from a Microsoft-style, vendor lock-in.
Slashdot Mirror
Helium? You lucky, lucky bastard!
Buy myself out of the contract I have with my ISP?
If you're unable to use email because of your ISPs negligence, they may have abrogated the contract by failing to provide the level of service you signed up for.
Oh great. Another frivoulous lawsuit. Don't these ambulance-chaser lawyers realize that the federal government will protect our privacy? These lawsuits just add to the cost of doing business. We must crack down hard on these frivoulous lawsuits by getting some real tort reform. After all, Northwest Airlines has the best interests of their customers in mind and can't really be expected to keep customer data private when there are profits to be made.
Of all the nerve!
By that logic virtually all the major ISP should be blacklisted and all real users should find little mom and pop operated providers.
If that's what it takes to stop the spammers, then so be it. I've been using the SPEWS DNSBL on and off for over a year now and am very satisfied with it.
If you insist on doung business with a spam-supporting ISP, then by all means that is your right. However, I have no moral, ethical, legal or other duty to accept your email - even if you think it is completely valid, non-spam email. It's my server and I'll block for whatever reason I feel like. Maybe someday I'll feel especially illogical and will block any email with too many vowels in the headers. If so, that's my right. For now, just blocking people who support businesses that spam is enough for me.
Deal with it. Your need to contact me is not equivalent to my need to hear from you.
I disagree. I think this is yet another attempt at so-called "tort reform". Now that the US Congress and our government is a wholly-owned subsidiary, the last vestige of citizen protection, the lawsuit, must be removed from the hands of the people.
What makes these companies think that finding means to actively go against consumers' wishes will be an effective way to earn their business?
They have marketing data that points to the fact that, if they can get their advertisement in front of you, a certain percentage of you will buy their product. Additionally, people are so calloused to being annoyed by advertising that a large percentage will not make any effort to take their business elsewhere. Therefore, the net gain of customers makes it worthwhile to be as offensive as necessary to gain eyeballs and customers.
As I see it, there are two ways to resolve this: Convince the sheep to actually quit buying the products that annoy them -or- recognize that corporations are not people and, therefore, have no constitutional right to unregulated free speech.
I never thought I'd see the day when geeks would cheer at the idea of a government censor, but I guess I was wrong.
I didn't see much cheering amongst the geek-set. The general consensus was that the Can-SPAM act was a worse-than-nothing-at-all piece of legislation that was bought and paid for by the Direct Marketing Association.
Give the geeks a bit more credit.
This is a favorite attack strategy of the right-wing whenever the Ninth issues an opinion they disagree with. As it happens, the Ninth is overturned more often because it has more appeals because it is far and away the largest of the US Circuit Courts. If you look at it as a percentage of the cases they handle, the Ninth is roughly the same as the rest of the US Circuit Courts.
Funny how you never hear a peep out of the right-wingers when a anti-gun or pro-choice decision gets overturned.
I gave a sound reason. You didn't like it and accused me of hating rich people. You want me to solve your problems for you by following your commands to do things your way. You go ahead and believe what you want.
Rich people have done more for this world than whiners like you ever will.
I could not agree with you more. I could never get people to blindly worship me the way you worship the rich.
Please, point us to a single study that says they aren't safe. A real study, not just someone being irrationally paranoid about the mystical evils of genetic engineering.
I imagine any study I point to will be immediately dismissed by you as being "irrationally paranoid" so you'll have to excuse me for not wasting my time doing a Google search.
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done, especially when the only gain is to make someone enough money to buy their second Hummer, "cool invention" or not.
Who knows, maybe tis glofish will help the environment.
When it comes to the enviromnent, I'm of the opinion that no change is a good change.
The only people who have determined this product is safe are the ones selling it.
I think there are bigger threats to the survival of mankind than some glow in the dark fish.
You're probably right. But, on the other hand, we realy have no way of knowing what the long-term effects are and that is the nut of the matter.
John Q. Public buys glowing fish for his kids, gets tired of feeding them and tosses them in the local river where they become part of the food chain.
AIDS is such a scourge because it can spread quietly for years before it shows itself in symptoms. What if it takes twenty years of eating genetically-modified foods before poisonous levels of some protein are developed in the body? The sciense we're relying on to tell us this is safe has largely been funded by the people who stand to make a profit off of it. Are you ready to roll the dice now?
How do they keep getting away with it?
Republicans are in charge of all three branches of the Federal government. There is nothing more important than profits and nothing must be allowed to impede them.
... to argue correctly that the percieved risks of nuclear power are far greater than any known actual risk from them.
That would be the case if he were arguing "correctly" instead of clouding the issue with irrelevancies like blasting through the earth's crust. That is very much a tactic of the Limbaugh Right and similar to your efforts to go further off-topic by bringing up drain cleaners and BGH.
ease of installation? The strain must really be getting to you.
It's common knowledge amongst Linux users that Debian is very difficult to install.
You can imagine my surpise last year when I turned to Debian after being unable to get Redhat to recognize my CD-ROM drive. The Debian install sailed through without a hitch and also came through with flying colors on my off-brand laptop. I don't know if the "common wisdom" is based on old software or has just been repeated often enough that it's accepted as gospel. I do know I'm unable to repeat the conditions necessary to make the Debian install anything but painless.
Did you know that if every Hydrogen, Neutron, and Atomic bomb were detonated, it wouldn't even penetrate the earth's crust?
... where we are? I'm glad to hear their won't be any damage to the earth's precious mantle.
Do you mean if they were detonated above the earth's crust
Did you know that the laws of physics say that 6 megawatts of destructive force is the same whether it's 6 megawatts of coal, nuclear, oil, or dynamite power?
My physics book didn't have any formulas for destructive or constructive force. Is there a physical constant I'm not aware of there, Mr Limbaugh?
Did you know that only 40 people on site died in Chernobyl?
Whew - I was worried about the billions of people off the site.
Did you know that you have been brainwashed into thinking that nuclear power can destroy the world?
I'm so thankful for you clear-headed people who can clear it up for the rest of us retards. I do so enjoy being patronized.
Don't take the environmentalists at face value.
And don't take babbling right-wingers at face-value either.
The area of Canada where that happened is one of the least populated areas around. it would be a different story over the eastern seaboard of the USA.
I'll grant you that the odds that the plutonium will become aerosolized are low. If it happens there will be widespread death, undoubtedly. Given the risks and that other solutions are workable, I can't see what the need is to take that risk. The tradeoff between the gains to the mission versus the consequences from a (admittedly unlikely) catastrophe doesn't make sense to me.
Actually, the black box would be too heavy to be carried by tides.
Assuming it's in one piece.
Actually, that's why NASA launches over the ocean. If something does fail, it falls into an unpopulated area (i.e. miles of water).
Do they launch it over a section of the ocean that's devoid of tide and current?
It seems more like a clarification to me:
The state's new Enterprise Open Standards Policy defines open standards as: "Specifications for systems that are publicly available and are developed by an open community and affirmed by a standards body."
While open standards aren't the same as open source, it certainly leans away from a Microsoft-style, vendor lock-in.
In the USA, the corporations control everything. It remains to be seen which is better for the end-user.