No, you should be using a MAIL SERVER that has an A record anyways. It's not that you can't send mail, you just can't run the SMTP server on a machine that you can't do a reverse-lookup on.
I think you are a bit confused, the 5th ammendment says you DON'T have to testify. I don't see where your apparent contradiction happens. You don't have to testify, however, if you DO choose to testify under oath and they can prove you lied, then you are guilty of perjury.
Property rights ARE precisely necessary to prevent the tragedy of the commons. Since the spectrum is a shared resource, it makes sense for it to be regulated by a public authority (government).
Actually I have seen dust destroy computers. Usually by killing the fans (CPU or the Power Supply). I depends on where you live though. One lady had a floor refinished in the next room. The CPU fan died and fried both the CPU and the board, literally melted part of the board.
"Two men are flying in a captive balloon. The wind is ugly and they come away from their course and they have no idea where they are. So they go down to 20 m above ground and ask a passing wanderer. "Could you tell us where we are?"
"You are in a balloon."
So the one pilot to the other:
"The answer is perfectly right and absolutely useless. The man must be an economist"
"Then you must be businessmen", answers the man.
"That's right! How did you know?"
"You have such a good view from where you are and yet you don't know where you are!"
"
SIgh, no SPF only effects the envelope "from", not the body "from", which is what most mail clients show. You seem to have it backwards. Under SPF your body "from" can be anything you want, just like now. SFP only checks the envelope. Users don't have to change addresses based on location if they are using SMTP AUTH or webmail. Only if they can't use those would they have to use a different "from" address (at least in the envelope).
I don't think domainkeys is "better" or "worse" than SPF because they both solve different problems. That's why SPF (potentially) breaks traditional forwarding, but nothing else, which is pretty impressive considering it's task. Of course when all the MTAs start to do forwaring by rewriting the envelope, then you can start rejecting forged emails instead of just flagging them.
Deforestation isn't taking place because of us using wood products. In fact there IS reforestation taking place in the US and Canada. Deforestation occurs today primarily in poor countries where it happens primarily because very poor people are clearing forests to use the land for food and shelter and the wood for fuel.
Re:The only real answer is to reorganize society.
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Soy beans aren't a nitrogen hog, they are a nitrogen producer. You must be thinking of corn.
The problem with the idea of "solve all of our problems first" is that it is very shortsighted. If we wanted to we could spend all of our money just on providing everyone with a certain minimum standard of living, healthcare, you name it. And expectations will always rise as long as we keep becomming more wealthy as a group, so you are fighting a never ending battle. In short, you are committing what is known as the "snaphot falacy"
You have to balance the temptation to blow all our money on current wants and needs and to make investments in research and technology, that will make us (and our kids) better off in the future. It is the productivity through education. technology and specialization that allows us to live as well as we do. Saying that we need to slow down progress means that your standard of living is implicitly going to suffer. This is the same trap that communism fell into. You have to account for the long term effects of those kind of decisions.
But his point is that technological change and the monopoly's high prices contain the seeds of the monopoly's own undoing. Every dominant company faces the problem that innovation doesn't always pay. It's easier for new companies to do that, due to size and sunk costs.
The problem with regulation is that government moves slower than technology. By the time the government gets on the ball to take care of monopolies, the damage is done and the marketplace has already started to look for alternative ways to surplant the monopoly (witness all of microsoft's violations, and the emergence of linux). The wheels of government and justice grind to slowly to be truely effective. Sometimes, the best thing the government can do is nothing. (Though I would argue that Microsoft should have gotten slammed for threatening ISV's on software bundling. That's simple restraint of trade, which is a pretty slam dunk arguement compared to all the discussion about "bundling" software).
NO, to be more accurate gilder thinks that regulating monopolies is a loosing game because of the pace of technological change. Instead of regulation, he proposes the government make rules that make it easier for new competition to enter the arena.
I think you are mostly right, a company will produce UP TO the point where MC = MR. Because after that point they lose more than they gain by making any more windows XP disks. However, a momopoly company may choose to price somewhere BELOW MC=MR in order avoid becomming a target for regulators. Ideally for microsoft, they could set a price above average cost but below mc=mr. They would still be extracting some monopoly rent, just not all that they could.
Implication: microsoft COULD choose to increase prices if it felt that keeping them low(er) wasn't strategically worthwile.
Smaller jobs, and OSS will probably enable companies to keep more jobs in the US. (Since reusing GPLed code is less work than a big rewrite from scratch.)
Anyone that thinks that non-profits magically are cheeper than for-profit establishments needs to undergo a quick examination of the brain, followed by some data input.
I'd agree about average not being that meaningful. What would be a good measure is the median, at least in this case. It's my perception that the middle class in the US is slightly better off than in Canada, the rich are way better off in the US, but the poor (bottom 1/3 or so) would be significantly better off.
You've "always been of that opinion" huh. Funny how that is not reassuring as facts are:). I won't argue with data though. I think the biggest difference is cultural, as evidenced by all the posts here.
"School vouchers is (are) BS. Most students in America go to public schools. By the way, they use the _SAME_ teachers private school next door uses. Plus the private school pays less. School vouchers can only lead to the dismantling of public education, putting school in the hands of profiteers."
Yeah, down with the profiteers!!
Just look how those vouchers have ruined the public university system!! Oh, wait....
Look at how the US University system is funded (in large part by grants and loans to the STUDENT) and I'm not sure how you can make the claim that vouchers with destroy public education. Students going to private colleges can get the same access to loans/grants/financial aid that students to public Unis do. Why is it somehow "different" for k12. Honestly, most college's "general ed" requirements are focused on teaching the material that you were supposed to learn in HS, but because the large variance in quality in k12 education in the US, the first year or two of college is primarily remedial education.
Two things, you are confusing dollar supply with dollar demand. Countries that buy american goods are dollar demanders. Japan, as a buyer of dollars, is a dollar demander. They do this to try to keep the yen weaker than the dollar, in order to sustain trade surpluses with the US. The dollar is weaker in spite of, not because of, Japan's dollar buying. A falling dollar value makes US exports more competitve, in fact, one of the reasons the US has been running a long term trade deficit is because the dollar is so strong. Foreign coutries and investors like to park their money in the US because the US is considered a relatively "safe" place to invest one's money or "park" it. Thus we have a deficit in goods and services because folks outside the US continue to invest their money here, keeping the dollar strong.
And the IMF thinks all budget deficits are "dangerous", not just the US budget deficit, but all of those countries in the EU that have deficits just as large.
Yeah the guy was paid upfront, but don't you think that "piracy" will affect his future pay. If movies become less profitable, then it is certainly to be expected that those who are involoved in their production will stand to make less money.
Question, why us the US, or any other country for that matter obligated to sign a treaty just because YOU think it's such a good idea? That's why treaties have to be signed and ratified before they have force of law in the US. I'm sure I can come up with a list of treaties that Canada or the UK or France or.... haven't signed too. But that's not the point. The point is that a country has the perogative not to sign a treaty if they don't want to. Otherwise why sign them, why not just have the UN dictate terms to everyone, see how simple that would be. But of course I don't think you'd like that result.
Never give your best friend a power you would never want your worst enemy to have.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you should be using a MAIL SERVER that has an A record anyways. It's not that you can't send mail, you just can't run the SMTP server on a machine that you can't do a reverse-lookup on.
I think you are a bit confused, the 5th ammendment says you DON'T have to testify. I don't see where your apparent contradiction happens. You don't have to testify, however, if you DO choose to testify under oath and they can prove you lied, then you are guilty of perjury.
Property rights ARE precisely necessary to prevent the tragedy of the commons. Since the spectrum is a shared resource, it makes sense for it to be regulated by a public authority (government).
Actually I have seen dust destroy computers. Usually by killing the fans (CPU or the Power Supply). I depends on where you live though. One lady had a floor refinished in the next room. The CPU fan died and fried both the CPU and the board, literally melted part of the board.
"Two men are flying in a captive balloon. The wind is ugly and they come away from their course and they have no idea where they are. So they go down to 20 m above ground and ask a passing wanderer. "Could you tell us where we are?" "You are in a balloon." So the one pilot to the other: "The answer is perfectly right and absolutely useless. The man must be an economist" "Then you must be businessmen", answers the man. "That's right! How did you know?" "You have such a good view from where you are and yet you don't know where you are!" "
SIgh, no SPF only effects the envelope "from", not the body "from", which is what most mail clients show. You seem to have it backwards. Under SPF your body "from" can be anything you want, just like now. SFP only checks the envelope. Users don't have to change addresses based on location if they are using SMTP AUTH or webmail. Only if they can't use those would they have to use a different "from" address (at least in the envelope).
I don't think domainkeys is "better" or "worse" than SPF because they both solve different problems. That's why SPF (potentially) breaks traditional forwarding, but nothing else, which is pretty impressive considering it's task. Of course when all the MTAs start to do forwaring by rewriting the envelope, then you can start rejecting forged emails instead of just flagging them.
Deforestation isn't taking place because of us using wood products. In fact there IS reforestation taking place in the US and Canada. Deforestation occurs today primarily in poor countries where it happens primarily because very poor people are clearing forests to use the land for food and shelter and the wood for fuel.
Soy beans aren't a nitrogen hog, they are a nitrogen producer. You must be thinking of corn.
You have to balance the temptation to blow all our money on current wants and needs and to make investments in research and technology, that will make us (and our kids) better off in the future. It is the productivity through education. technology and specialization that allows us to live as well as we do. Saying that we need to slow down progress means that your standard of living is implicitly going to suffer. This is the same trap that communism fell into. You have to account for the long term effects of those kind of decisions.
The problem with regulation is that government moves slower than technology. By the time the government gets on the ball to take care of monopolies, the damage is done and the marketplace has already started to look for alternative ways to surplant the monopoly (witness all of microsoft's violations, and the emergence of linux). The wheels of government and justice grind to slowly to be truely effective. Sometimes, the best thing the government can do is nothing. (Though I would argue that Microsoft should have gotten slammed for threatening ISV's on software bundling. That's simple restraint of trade, which is a pretty slam dunk arguement compared to all the discussion about "bundling" software).
Sigh, you mean Linux is a Unix-like operating system?! Well golly gee Blanch, imagine that!!! Nothing to see here, move along.
NO, to be more accurate gilder thinks that regulating monopolies is a loosing game because of the pace of technological change. Instead of regulation, he proposes the government make rules that make it easier for new competition to enter the arena.
Implication: microsoft COULD choose to increase prices if it felt that keeping them low(er) wasn't strategically worthwile.
Smaller jobs, and OSS will probably enable companies to keep more jobs in the US. (Since reusing GPLed code is less work than a big rewrite from scratch.)
Why does everyone keep whipping out that statistic as if it is meaningful?? What exactly does that tell us??
Anyone that thinks that non-profits magically are cheeper than for-profit establishments needs to undergo a quick examination of the brain, followed by some data input.
I'd agree about average not being that meaningful. What would be a good measure is the median, at least in this case. It's my perception that the middle class in the US is slightly better off than in Canada, the rich are way better off in the US, but the poor (bottom 1/3 or so) would be significantly better off.
You've "always been of that opinion" huh. Funny how that is not reassuring as facts are :). I won't argue with data though. I think the biggest difference is cultural, as evidenced by all the posts here.
Yeah, down with the profiteers!! Just look how those vouchers have ruined the public university system!! Oh, wait.... Look at how the US University system is funded (in large part by grants and loans to the STUDENT) and I'm not sure how you can make the claim that vouchers with destroy public education. Students going to private colleges can get the same access to loans/grants/financial aid that students to public Unis do. Why is it somehow "different" for k12. Honestly, most college's "general ed" requirements are focused on teaching the material that you were supposed to learn in HS, but because the large variance in quality in k12 education in the US, the first year or two of college is primarily remedial education.
And the IMF thinks all budget deficits are "dangerous", not just the US budget deficit, but all of those countries in the EU that have deficits just as large.
Yeah the guy was paid upfront, but don't you think that "piracy" will affect his future pay. If movies become less profitable, then it is certainly to be expected that those who are involoved in their production will stand to make less money.
What makes you think that OO can't antialias fonts?
I'm curious, what makes spam "US spam". A .us domain? Anything using english? It is recieved by someone in the US? Selling something from the US?
Question, why us the US, or any other country for that matter obligated to sign a treaty just because YOU think it's such a good idea? That's why treaties have to be signed and ratified before they have force of law in the US. I'm sure I can come up with a list of treaties that Canada or the UK or France or.... haven't signed too. But that's not the point. The point is that a country has the perogative not to sign a treaty if they don't want to. Otherwise why sign them, why not just have the UN dictate terms to everyone, see how simple that would be. But of course I don't think you'd like that result. Never give your best friend a power you would never want your worst enemy to have.