That's as ludicrous as saying "he starved to death, but he conquered his food-addiction."
Except as vegetarians have proven, meat is not necessary like food is.
Personal experience. Much better than statistics, although not nearly as flexible.
Well my personal experience has shown the opposite.
You're right and wrong...
on
P2P Spam?
·
· Score: 1
There would be no need to pay for a personal cert. You'd just get the cert when you request the email. When you sign up for slashdot, slashdot sends you its public key. When you give someone your email address, they give you their fingerprint. There's no need for a centralized system.
Yes, this would eliminate all unsolicited email. But I wouldn't consider that "destroying email completely."
Re:Truly P2P if SOBIG.G contains the spam message
on
P2P Spam?
·
· Score: 1
They'd need some big balls to associate their company name with a virus.
At the moment it looks like I may never be able to have any @gelhaus.net e-mail again.
Since the return addresses are all invalid (e.g. 'nonexistent_address@gelhaus.net'), I would think it would be simple to filter out all messages that aren't specific ones I've set up (e.g. 'valid_address@gelhaus.net').
See that, you answered your own question. Just block invalid addresses.
I've had this happen before to my domain, and eventually it died down. If it doesn't die down for you maybe you could track the spammer down and sue her.
Any sane protocol would never suffer from this problem. Yet people still claim that email is not broken...
As I mentioned in the first post, I think they are jealous of the vegetarians ability to conquer their meat-addiction.
Definitely not health, as that has more to do with eating responsibly, as opposed to the types of foods you eat (excluding "junk food" of course).
Most vegetarians eat much more responsibly than average.
Not to mention the that I think most vegans are vegans because they don't like meat.
Well, first of all I was talking about vegetarians, not vegans. And secondly, most of the vegetarians I know do like meat, or at least they did before they conquered their addiction to it.
If, however, the vegans are telling others not to eat meat because it's murder and they are living in sin by doing it, that is self-righteous.
I know a lot of vegans and vegetarians, and not a single one has ever told me not to eat meat, so that doesn't seem to be the case.
By calling attention to themselves as better-than-the-meat-eaters and victims, when they are not.
Umm, when has that happened? Are you saying that michael is a vegan? He's the one who called attention to the issue.
Okay, persecuted isn't necessarily the right word, but you said yourself that non-veg's are abrasive towards veg's, meaning there is supposed animosity there.
I said? It was eclectric who said it. But more importantly, it's true. Just take a look at the responses to this article.
The Veg's consider themselves victims, i.e., persecuted.
If it's a problem, exchange all ocurrences of "you" with "them."
So how is anyone being (self-)righteous? And who is calling themselves persecuted? I stand by my answer. I think non-vegetarians are abrasive towards vegetarians primarily due to jealousy.
What would be a good business model for the BBC to take, understanding that their mandate is to produce entertainment for the British public, to enable foreigners to have access, provide support and feedback without jeopardizing that mandate?
Release the content into the public domain for British citizens, and under the GPL for non-Brits.
I thought the government cut off all grant money to PBS during the Gingrich years. That's why they now have commercials, in addition to frequent telethons.
What I've never understood is why non-vegetarians are so damned abrasive towards vegetarians?
Probably jealousy. There are a lot of non-vegetarians who know that they are contributing to something which is wrong. But meat is an addiction, and our society makes it extremely difficult to quit. I've tried several times myself, and I can't do it.
It's pretty hypocritical for someone who regularly eats meat from a store, but is unable to look the creature in the eye before killing it for the meat.
It would only be hypocritical if the person professes that it's OK to eat meat. Doing something immoral is not hypocrisy in itself.
I really don't think that you could eat meat and not consider yourself a killer.
What if the animal whose meat you're eating didn't die?
If you aren't prepared to kill, butcher, and then prepare your meat you shouldn't be eating it.
Why not? If I'm not prepared to deliver a baby, should I not have kids? If I'm not prepared to clean out a septic system should I not take a shit? If there are other people who are willing to do the dirty work, why shouldn't I reap the benefits?
Vegans are a group of new-age diet gurus who tell everyone who will listen that they are evil for eating meat.
I know a lot of vegans, have conversations with them regularly, and not a single one has told me that I am evil for eating meat.
If you meet a vibrant, glowing person who tries to sell you on a vegan diet, they're killing animals somewhere.
We're all killing animals somewhere. Most vegans tend to kill fewer animals than others. That's not always true, of course. A person who regularly hunts for food likely kills far fewer animals than the average first-world country buy-it-at-the-store vegan.
a color is a quality that hair possesses. as such, you cannot take the color away (save chemicals)
There are chemicals.
a SSN is not a quality that is part of a person, it is a thing that a person receives.
True, but that doesn't make a difference. If all citizens have a social security number, and you are a citizen, then you necessarily have a social security number.
It means that if I, as an admin of a mail site, choose to employ a spam filter for whatever reason, a spammer can't sue me if his spam doesn't get through.
Are you implying that isn't already obviously the case? Are you implying that a spammer has tried to sue for such a thing?
Slashdot Mirror
What you mean to say is "meat is not necessary unlike VEGETABLES are" then. Well, vegetables aren't really necessary either
So obviously that's not what I mean to say. What I mean to say is that meat is not necessary, like food is.
Unless everyone who sends me mail supports SPF, it's useless.
Yes, meat is food. But meat is not necessary, like food is.
That's as ludicrous as saying "he starved to death, but he conquered his food-addiction."
Except as vegetarians have proven, meat is not necessary like food is.
Personal experience. Much better than statistics, although not nearly as flexible.
Well my personal experience has shown the opposite.
There would be no need to pay for a personal cert. You'd just get the cert when you request the email. When you sign up for slashdot, slashdot sends you its public key. When you give someone your email address, they give you their fingerprint. There's no need for a centralized system.
Yes, this would eliminate all unsolicited email. But I wouldn't consider that "destroying email completely."
They'd need some big balls to associate their company name with a virus.
That's what reseller programs are for.
But nobody seems interested in a modern-day email alternative.
Just about everyone is interested in a modern-day email alternative. The problem is getting everyone to agree on which particular one to use.
If everyone uses SPF, it will cut down on spam and joe-jobs.
Of course, if everyone would stop spamming, it would also cut down on spam.
It's a good idea, but SMTP without SPF is far too integrated into our lives to eliminate any time soon.
At the moment it looks like I may never be able to have any @gelhaus.net e-mail again.
Since the return addresses are all invalid (e.g. 'nonexistent_address@gelhaus.net'), I would think it would be simple to filter out all messages that aren't specific ones I've set up (e.g. 'valid_address@gelhaus.net').
See that, you answered your own question. Just block invalid addresses.
I've had this happen before to my domain, and eventually it died down. If it doesn't die down for you maybe you could track the spammer down and sue her.
Any sane protocol would never suffer from this problem. Yet people still claim that email is not broken...
How are they jealous? And of what?
As I mentioned in the first post, I think they are jealous of the vegetarians ability to conquer their meat-addiction.
Definitely not health, as that has more to do with eating responsibly, as opposed to the types of foods you eat (excluding "junk food" of course).
Most vegetarians eat much more responsibly than average.
Not to mention the that I think most vegans are vegans because they don't like meat.
Well, first of all I was talking about vegetarians, not vegans. And secondly, most of the vegetarians I know do like meat, or at least they did before they conquered their addiction to it.
If, however, the vegans are telling others not to eat meat because it's murder and they are living in sin by doing it, that is self-righteous.
I know a lot of vegans and vegetarians, and not a single one has ever told me not to eat meat, so that doesn't seem to be the case.
By calling attention to themselves as better-than-the-meat-eaters and victims, when they are not.
Umm, when has that happened? Are you saying that michael is a vegan? He's the one who called attention to the issue.
Okay, persecuted isn't necessarily the right word, but you said yourself that non-veg's are abrasive towards veg's, meaning there is supposed animosity there.
I said? It was eclectric who said it. But more importantly, it's true. Just take a look at the responses to this article.
The Veg's consider themselves victims, i.e., persecuted.
Where are you getting this from?
If it's a problem, exchange all ocurrences of "you" with "them."
So how is anyone being (self-)righteous? And who is calling themselves persecuted? I stand by my answer. I think non-vegetarians are abrasive towards vegetarians primarily due to jealousy.
What commercials are you talking about?
The ones they run in between shows.
They have sponsor acknowledgements.
What's the difference?
There are pretty strict rules on these as well. The only one that comes quickly to mind is that they must not contain mention of specific products.
I didn't know about that, but apparently you're right on that point.
What they fail to mention is that most of the corporate money is CPB, which is funded totally by the fed.
You're right again. Thanks for the info.
Oh (self-)righteous one, I am jealous of you for depriving yourself of certain types of food.
Really? I don't deprive myself of any types of food. If you read my comment you would realize I'm not a vegetarian.
The UK is not in america so the RIAA and MPAA have very little say there.
That would explain all the UK websites offering RIAA and MPAA material for free download. Oh, wait a second, there aren't any.
What would be a good business model for the BBC to take, understanding that their mandate is to produce entertainment for the British public, to enable foreigners to have access, provide support and feedback without jeopardizing that mandate?
Release the content into the public domain for British citizens, and under the GPL for non-Brits.
I thought the government cut off all grant money to PBS during the Gingrich years. That's why they now have commercials, in addition to frequent telethons.
What is BitTorrent NOT terrible on?
What I've never understood is why non-vegetarians are so damned abrasive towards vegetarians?
Probably jealousy. There are a lot of non-vegetarians who know that they are contributing to something which is wrong. But meat is an addiction, and our society makes it extremely difficult to quit. I've tried several times myself, and I can't do it.
It's pretty hypocritical for someone who regularly eats meat from a store, but is unable to look the creature in the eye before killing it for the meat.
It would only be hypocritical if the person professes that it's OK to eat meat. Doing something immoral is not hypocrisy in itself.
I really don't think that you could eat meat and not consider yourself a killer.
What if the animal whose meat you're eating didn't die?
If you aren't prepared to kill, butcher, and then prepare your meat you shouldn't be eating it.
Why not? If I'm not prepared to deliver a baby, should I not have kids? If I'm not prepared to clean out a septic system should I not take a shit? If there are other people who are willing to do the dirty work, why shouldn't I reap the benefits?
Vegans are a group of new-age diet gurus who tell everyone who will listen that they are evil for eating meat.
I know a lot of vegans, have conversations with them regularly, and not a single one has told me that I am evil for eating meat.
If you meet a vibrant, glowing person who tries to sell you on a vegan diet, they're killing animals somewhere.
We're all killing animals somewhere. Most vegans tend to kill fewer animals than others. That's not always true, of course. A person who regularly hunts for food likely kills far fewer animals than the average first-world country buy-it-at-the-store vegan.
that is different than what I am talking about.
No it isn't.
a color is a quality that hair possesses. as such, you cannot take the color away (save chemicals)
There are chemicals.
a SSN is not a quality that is part of a person, it is a thing that a person receives.
True, but that doesn't make a difference. If all citizens have a social security number, and you are a citizen, then you necessarily have a social security number.
Stop trying to confuse the issue. You're wrong.
all men are people so the be a person you have to be a man?
No.
all citizens have a SSN, but you do not need one to be a citizen.
No.
the 2 clauses of that statement are not logically the same.
Yes they are.
All redheads have red hair, so you need red hair to be a redhead.
Spamcop was not sued for employing a filter system.
It means that if I, as an admin of a mail site, choose to employ a spam filter for whatever reason, a spammer can't sue me if his spam doesn't get through.
Are you implying that isn't already obviously the case? Are you implying that a spammer has tried to sue for such a thing?
How does this help the problem of spam?