Thank you for the condescending lecture on risk management and actuarial science, jandrese. So much really brand new and exciting information I've never ever ever thought about.
You're not paying your fair share, but still expect to be treated when you get sick or injured.
So, $12,000 for insurance to cover what cost $2000 to provide and I'm not only not paying my fair share, but I shouldn't expect to be treated when I get sick or injured. Thanks. Do you have a newsletter I can sign up for?
Just how many times expenses should everyone's health insurance cost so that you can get your treatments when you want them?
Otherwise, I'll say how dare you expect the rest of us to pay for your health care because you don't want to.
Not wanting to be forced to buy health insurance by a government that has no real constitutional authority to force you to buy what it tells you to is not he same as not expecting to have to pay for health care.
I just saw the nice new box on my W2 that shows "employer health insurance" payments. It was about five times what I would have paid out of my own pocket for my health care last year. Had my employer been legally allowed to hand me that money directly and allow me to pay as I go, I'd be several thousand dollars ahead of the game.
The accepted convention of the Earth orbiting the Sun is simply the one which we've found to have the simplest math and laws.
Actually, the laws and math works out much better if you assume that both the Earth and the Sun orbit about a common point that is located at the center of neither one. That's why the masses of both appear in the equations regarding gravitational attraction. It is just as pedantically incorrect to claim that the Earth orbits the Sun as to say the Sun orbits the Earth.
As I recall, for the Earth/Moon pair, this point is about 40 miles beneath the surface of the Earth. For the Earth/Sun pair, I don't care enough to calculate it, I just know it exists.
Which city do you live in that has 35 million Muslims? Tokyo is not >95% Muslim.
You missed the detail that there are also 30 million Christians and an unstated number of "poor people" in the same city. We're talking about a single city that has more than three times the total population of the entire state of New York, USA in 2013!
The thing that struck me most was how Wesley had trouble getting a slot in the Academy despite being a Wunderkind.
The only "wunder" to that "kind" was wondering why his activities were tolerated and why he hadn't gotten himself and/or a large number of his fellow travelers killed. Oh, you let your nanobots escape because you fell asleep with the container open and it endangered the entire ship? No problem.
Anyone interested in Starfleet should have been accommodated.
This is not an issue of scarcity, it is one of standards. We see it today where we must accommodate anyone who wants to try something and the standards have to be lowered to either allow them to try in the first place or to keep from damaging their self-esteem when they naturally fail. Children in schools can't play games where there are winners and losers. Every participant gets a medal.
I was in the military during the time the arguments about women in combat were being waged and they were winning. I remember that women had a lower standard for physical tests, and I remember a lot of the men were very unhappy about that. Why should they have to be able to run a mile in 6 minutes (I think that was the standard, I don't remember the exact number) if the women in the same job got 8 minutes? If running a mile in 6 minutes was what it takes to keep from becoming an unnecessary casualty, aren't we then saying that it's ok for women to be unnecessary casualties? But more like, "if I have to meet these standards to be promoted and make more money, why don't women have to meet the same standards for the same promotions?"
So no, StarFleet was behaving responsibly by not accepting just "anyone interested".
Added a new wing to the Academy. Whatever.
I was going to point out that even in a non-scarcity society, there are still limits on physical property such as land. But remembering the vast gardens that My Favorite Martian maintained, I'll grant the point that they could have built more buildings easily.
It's specifically designed this way because it's much easier to take the money out of people's paycheques then to get them to send you a cheque at the end of the year.
The US withholding system was designed with this in mind. Also, perhaps just as important, it hides the true amount you are paying in taxes. You don't have to write a check for $12,000 so you're less likely to remember a month after you file that you actually did pay that much, but you'll remember you got $100 BACK! In my case I planned ahead to avoid a federal penalty for underpayment and wound up with a large "refund", which because I couldn't do the same for the state means I send them almost every penny of the refund (with a $3 interest penalty). WOOT! WooT! I'm not going to Disneyland!
In our community, perhaps the worst decision ever for government was to make the due dates for property taxes just a week after the general election. That means that any tax levies that are on the general election ballot show up in the mail just about the same time as the property tax bill. I like the fact that the local government is saying "we want more of your money, and by the way, here's how much we're already sucking out of your pocket...". I expect someone will figure it out and move the due dates for property taxes back a month sometime soon.
Digests are not relevant to this discussion because digests won't be blocked by DMARC. They are compilations of messages, not the original messages themselves. They already contain, or should contain, origination header fields that will pass SPF or whatever valid spam detection techniques are available.
If the list server acted exactly as a proper MTA would, then the message would only be subject to a single level of sender authentication.
If the list server acts as a proper MTA would, then there would still be a problem with DMARC because the list server won't fiddle with the origination headers.
My idea would subject the forwarded message to double authentication: Once for the original sender and the second for the list server.
Your idea is a waste of time, simply because if you're going to write a new list server that fiddles with messages the way you describe, and try lobbying Yahoo et.al. to adopt the system, why not just use an existing listserve that produces digests? You've got a solution in search of a problem.
From a technical standpoint, however, it is perfectly valid to state that list-serv software is authoring the message.
That's utter nonsense.
It just happens to be quoting verbatim from some random message it received.
If it is quoting verbatim then the outgoing headers will be the same as the ones it got. And quoting verbatim means that it is NOT the author, the person or entity it is quoting from is still the author.
You might want to note that any MTA is simply "quoting verbatim" the "random message" it receives, and yet nobody in their right mind would try claiming that the MTA has assumed authorship of the message and should fiddle with the origination headers. You might also note that many delivery agents have trivial ways for users (and admins) to deliver messages sent to one mailbox into two or more -- for example, sales@example.com may be delivered to every sales agent -- and nobody in their right mind would want or expect such a delivery agent to claim authorship of the message.
You can't sell verbatim copies of the latest Harry Potter book and claim that you're the author because you made the copy.
It's only when you move into the digest-style mailing lists that you can claim any authorship, and 1) those kinds of mailing lists already DO make that claim, and 3) they aren't the subject of discussion because they won't be blocked by DMARC.
If I had a secretary and I instructed him to forward messages related to certain topics to designated recipients, he would be the author of the new messages that contain the original messages.
Nonsense. Whoever wrote the original message is the author. Your secretary would be the sender and his mailbox would appear in the Sender header field.
Here's just a trivial reason why that must be. The boss sends an email describing a new policy regarding the use of slashdot during working hours. Your secretary forwards that to others and in doing so obeys your instruction to become the author. Let's say I'm on that forwarding list. Now I would ask "why is a secretary writing a policy regarding use of slashdot?" You say he's the author? Well, he has no authority to be the author.
The section I quoted allows this.
No, it does not. The author remains the person who wrote the message. Under your system, if I make a photocopy of a book I'm now the author of that book. That's patently absurd.
A multi-post digest is reasonably consided a new message.
It is because it has a different message ID. And, as I've already said, digests are not the topic of this discussion because digests won't be blocked by DMARC because digests have headers that originate with the mailing list. The topic here is mailing lists that forward messages.
And digests are not forwarded messages, they are compilations of messages.
So, why not a digest with just one post?
Because that is not how mailing lists that act as simple forwarders work. I run both kinds. It isn't that hard to tell the difference.
So, that leaves it to the list server admins (and, possibly, developers) to implement a work around.
Here's my work-around as a mailing list admin: if you're using a mail system that blocks properly composed and valid messages from my mailing list, it is your responsibility to fix it. I'm following the standards. Playing the game "keep making changes as stupid people keep finding new ways of violating the standards" is a waste of my time.
The original message could be made an attachment to the message sent by the list server. This way, both the list message and the original message would be available for DMARC/SPF/whatever sender authentication.
So not only do you suggest that the "robot" who is handing the mailing list forge emails to look like they were written by it instead of the real author, you want it to now use arbitrary contents of the body of the message (an attachment) for SPF and DMARC analysis? The body, which is under complete and full control of any spammer who happens to figure out there is a new way of bypassing spam filters by just putting something that looks like valid email transport information as an attachment to his spam?
So, one could make the case that a list server is a robot reading and forwarding messages, therefor it is technically not wrong for the list server to put its own address in the From field and a contact address for the list owner in the Sender field.
Other than such action would be a direct violation of the section of the RFC I quoted. The "robot" is not the author; its mailbox does not appear in the header field intended for the mailbox of the author. The "robot" is also not the agent that introduced the message for transmission, it is retransmitting a message already in the system.
Note that list servers that batch posts in to messages containing several posts already do this.
Not all mailing lists do this, many mailing lists allow recipients to determine whether this happens or not, and ones that do create digests are not the topic of discussion because Yahoo doesn't block them under DMARC (precisely because the digest is sent under different headers than the original messages).
I would think that is what we would want... mail can't come from one domain and claim to be from another.
Of course it can. It is perfectly reasonable that I use one email address for all my correspondence but use different outgoing SMTP servers depending on where my network connection is at the moment. Or I may want to use the address of a mail forwarder I use (one of many professional organizations that provide this service, e.g. IEEE) while sending an email.
Because it is essentially coming from the mailing list
Mailing list software is not the author of any email it distributes on behalf of a list user. The standards define what the From header contains.
There really ought to be a better way to handle this.
RFC822 has been obsoleted at least twice now. The current standard (RFC5322) says this about the origination headers:
The originator fields indicate the mailbox(es) of the source of the
message. The "From:" field specifies the author(s) of the message,
that is, the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible
for the writing of the message. The "Sender:" field specifies the
mailbox of the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the
message.
In other words, any mailing list that rewrites the From header field is wrong. It is also wrong for it to rewrite the Sender field, since the mailing list is not the "agent" responsible for the actual transmission of the message. It is only a transport agent, not an initiator. In the contextual history of RFC*22, the Sender is the person (secretary, e.g.) who sent the message when that person is not the author.
And, additionally: "In all cases, the 'From:' field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that
does not belong to the author(s) of the message." While that's only a SHOULD not, it is still relevant and shows the intent of that header.
I've found the room full of horse droppings. I'm sure there's a pony around here somewhere. I'll let you ride him when I find him.
Powered planes and gliders have basically nothing in common,
Other than wings, flaps, elevators, ailerons, rudder, wheels. Notice that none of those items requires engine input to function. The major difference between powered aircraft and glider is the powerplant.
If you look at this POH (pilots operating handbook) for a Cessna 182T, you'll see on page 3-23 the power-off glide as slightly more than 11 nm from an altitude of 8000 feet AGL. Yes, that's not as good as for a glider, but it is hardly the " AerrrrrrrrrrrRRRRRRRRRR... CRASH!" that you seem to think it is.
That kind of ignorance about airplanes is not uncommon. It's exacerbated by bad science in movies where crashes are exciting and safe landings are not. I surprised the heck out of a friend of mine who was obviously worried about our flight over the local mountains -- if something went wrong we'd certainly AerrrrrrrRRRRRRRR CRASH! I pulled the power back and he noticed that there was no significant change in the flight other than a slight downangle.
even though the public likes to imagine that running out of gas in a plane means soaring gently until you land on a convenient 4-lane road or meticulously preened grass field.
Well, "meticulously preened" is rare, but roads make good landing spots, as do regular fields. And even when the airplane catches a wheel and flips it isn't unusual for everyone to walk away from it.
And you personally know all of the pilots before you board any plane?
On a commercial air carrier flight, I know that the pilot has been to recurrent training within the last six months (I think it is, maybe 12), has had a check pilot evaluate his performance within the same time frame, and has a second fully qualified pilot sitting in the other seat. He's had intensive simulator training to deal with a vast number of potential in-flight emergencies. I know both of them are fully IFR qualified in a fully IFR capable aircraft in case the weather deteriorates enroute. Both have 1st Class medical certificates which involve a lot more than "kicking the tires and peeing in a cup".
On a private flight, I'm pretty sure the pilot has had an hour of flight sometime in the last two years (a biennial flight review) and has made three landings that he could walk away from in the last 90 days (or heals really quickly). The airplane has probably been inspected sometime within the last year for airworthiness. But there is little overview by the FAA for those requirements. If he owns his own plane nobody really checks until the NTSB does the investigation after the crash. If he's renting then the FBO will probably make sure he's met the legal minimums. There's no easy way to tell rental vs. owner. And the medical? The last time the pilot may have seen any doctor was a decade or more ago*.
I fear this kind of ride-share is going to make the FAA look closer at the requirements for private pilots, not simplify them.
* sport pilot rules. All a pilot needs for a "medical" is a driver's license as long as he's not had an application for a medical certificate denied, revoked, suspended or withdrawn.
The idea here is that itâ(TM)s the barest minimum, so folks working on industrial applications can add the ports and extra connectivity they need.
I thought the purpose of the Raspberry Pi foundation was for education, not to produce embedded hardware for industrial control developers. Yes, the latter was a side effect of the former, but this new board is hardly an educational tool anymore.
The first amendment guarantees that my speech an never (legally) be restricted, constrained, repressed, silenced, censored, etc. by the government. Never.
The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Guess who is the Constitutionally appointed authority on the Constitution?
Then why does the FAA have rules that govern when you can and cannot operate VFR for example?
Those rules do NOT override my decision that there are too many risks to make a flight. Any pilot who says "gee, the FAA thinks it will turn out ok because the rules allow it" is a moron. And any passenger -- i.e. YOU -- who tells me "we should go anyway" is going to be ignored.
NASA as an organization has minimum safety criteria.
And the entire argument is whether it is ethical (not "legal") for one-way missions. Those "safety criteria" can be changed.
A Mars mission will exceed the defined limits of NASA for radiation exposure.
So change the limits. The current argument to the contrary, it is quite ethical for NASA to do that.
Your point that part of the Operational Risk Management process is subjective is valid, but in this case, we have an objective criteria that will be exceeded.
That happens all the time. And the final question is still based on an opinion. Is it worth exceeding the "objective limit" to fulfill the mission? And I hate to have to keep pointing out, that when the mission design includes a foreknowledge that the crew will not return, is it ridiculous to try use "crew will not return" as a hazard in the planning. It's like using "will not land with the aircraft" as a hazard when planning a skydive.
I'll put you down as a vote for them to ignore the objective criteria, though I believe that to be setting a dangerous precedent.
You can lie about my stated position if you want. I'll just "put you down" as one of those self-important folks who thinks that anyone who doesn't do things your way has ignored all the reasons they ought to do it your way, instead of considering those issues and making a different decision. I've not said once, and I've been explicit in saying the opposite, that risks should be ignored. I've said that the people who are subject to the risks make the decision, not you, and not me.
Not my choice to make. Not your's either, unless you're one of the people going.
Is killing 1/3rd of the crew OK with you?
Such inflammatory rhetoric is not productive. Nobody is killing anyone. Some people will weigh the risk of death on such a mission and decide that the benefits are worth it and decide to go. Just as some people weigh the risk of death while skydiving and still decide to go skydiving. And some of them have come damn close to dying and still go again.
As a pilot, if I take someone up to skydive and their parachute fails, and their backup fails, and they die, did I kill them? Don't be stupid. We both knew it was a hazard but we both participated.
How about a 1 in 4 chance of success?
Since I'm guessing that by "success" you mean "everyone survives" and not "the mission meets the design goals", I'll fold this answer back into the previous one.
You see, we have to draw the line someplace,
No, WE don't. The people involved in the danger do.
I'm a pilot. I have to make that kind of decision every time I go flying. What are the hazards? (That's what most people refer to as the "risks".) What is the probability and severity of loss from those hazards? (That's the real "risks" part of Operational Risk Management.) How can they be mitigated? With mitigation factors considered, is the benefit still greater than the danger? That final question, that's an OPINION. And guess what? Unless your butt is in my airplane, your opinion doesn't count.
My point here is that you simply cannot ignore risks because you have no way to deal with them.
Who said anything about ignoring anything? You are one of those people who think that because I don't accept your opinion as the rulebook for my life that I'm ignoring you? You think that if someone evaluates the hazards and risks and mitigation factors and still decides to take some action that he's ignoring the hazards and risks?
What that crew expected and deserved was a vehicle that was a safe as could be designed and operated,
The safest way to operate a huge SRB is to never light it off. The safest way to deal with a huge tank of oxidizer and propellant is to never fill them up and light them off. The safest way to deal with a pressure hull is to never expose it to a differential pressure. The safest way to explore space is to film a mockup on a soundstage. Yes, let's always choose the safest way because the risks are NEVER worth the benefits ever.
The entire phrase was "not taking risks seriously enough". Nobody can claim that someone who chooses to go on a one-way mission (to alpha centauri, e.g.) and knows he won't be coming back hasn't taken the risks seriously. It's the people who claim that he isn't allowed to make that decision because he didn't take them seriously ENOUGH (in their opinion) that are the problem.
The astronauts CHOSE to sign on with the implicit understanding that everyone behind them was doing their absolute best,
And with explicit knowledge that everyone "behind them" was human and subject to making mistakes.
The boundary NASA failed to stick to was "We built the best possible rocket that humans can make".
Perfect is the enemy of Good. As I've already pointed out, given that we are humans and that some missions are inherently "one-way", and that them being "one-way" is not a sign of failure but part of the design, if you want perfection and believe it is unethical to do anything where someone is knowingly going to die, then we might as well stop all space exploration now and just have a beer and watch TV.
Sorry, I think you're misreading here, and I think we all agree.
No, I don't agree at all. The claim was that the people who risk life and health for the Olympics and X Games do so for the entertainment of the OP. That's a pretty clear claim. "for my entertainment". Tell me how I misread that.
even if only a handful of other humans really care once the cameras turn off.
Even if there are no cameras. There are no ESPN cameras and announcers telling us in breathless voice "we're at the summit of Mt. Everest where Billy Joe Bob Smith is about to become the 3,487th person to reach the peak." Yet he tries. And you have to realize that there are more competitors in the Olympics than just the few that make it onto your TV screen. Those 14th place finishers are risking just as much and they get very little TV time to "entertain" you. They clearly can't be doing it for your pleasure since they know you'll never see them.
And just because there are cameras doesn't mean they're doing it "for my entertainment". Cameras means records. It means video proving "look, I did that". It has nothing to do with your entertainment, it has to do with that person having documented that he did something that most people will never be able to.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not paying your fair share, but still expect to be treated when you get sick or injured.
So, $12,000 for insurance to cover what cost $2000 to provide and I'm not only not paying my fair share, but I shouldn't expect to be treated when I get sick or injured. Thanks. Do you have a newsletter I can sign up for?
Just how many times expenses should everyone's health insurance cost so that you can get your treatments when you want them?
Really? So you moan about having to pay a bit more to a guy who couldn't get insurance? You really need to get a reality check...
Reality check:
"Higher priced than I wanted to pay" is not the same as "could not get".
Otherwise, I'll say how dare you expect the rest of us to pay for your health care because you don't want to.
Not wanting to be forced to buy health insurance by a government that has no real constitutional authority to force you to buy what it tells you to is not he same as not expecting to have to pay for health care.
I just saw the nice new box on my W2 that shows "employer health insurance" payments. It was about five times what I would have paid out of my own pocket for my health care last year. Had my employer been legally allowed to hand me that money directly and allow me to pay as I go, I'd be several thousand dollars ahead of the game.
The accepted convention of the Earth orbiting the Sun is simply the one which we've found to have the simplest math and laws.
Actually, the laws and math works out much better if you assume that both the Earth and the Sun orbit about a common point that is located at the center of neither one. That's why the masses of both appear in the equations regarding gravitational attraction. It is just as pedantically incorrect to claim that the Earth orbits the Sun as to say the Sun orbits the Earth.
As I recall, for the Earth/Moon pair, this point is about 40 miles beneath the surface of the Earth. For the Earth/Sun pair, I don't care enough to calculate it, I just know it exists.
Which city do you live in that has 35 million Muslims? Tokyo is not >95% Muslim.
You missed the detail that there are also 30 million Christians and an unstated number of "poor people" in the same city. We're talking about a single city that has more than three times the total population of the entire state of New York, USA in 2013!
The thing that struck me most was how Wesley had trouble getting a slot in the Academy despite being a Wunderkind.
The only "wunder" to that "kind" was wondering why his activities were tolerated and why he hadn't gotten himself and/or a large number of his fellow travelers killed. Oh, you let your nanobots escape because you fell asleep with the container open and it endangered the entire ship? No problem.
Anyone interested in Starfleet should have been accommodated.
This is not an issue of scarcity, it is one of standards. We see it today where we must accommodate anyone who wants to try something and the standards have to be lowered to either allow them to try in the first place or to keep from damaging their self-esteem when they naturally fail. Children in schools can't play games where there are winners and losers. Every participant gets a medal.
I was in the military during the time the arguments about women in combat were being waged and they were winning. I remember that women had a lower standard for physical tests, and I remember a lot of the men were very unhappy about that. Why should they have to be able to run a mile in 6 minutes (I think that was the standard, I don't remember the exact number) if the women in the same job got 8 minutes? If running a mile in 6 minutes was what it takes to keep from becoming an unnecessary casualty, aren't we then saying that it's ok for women to be unnecessary casualties? But more like, "if I have to meet these standards to be promoted and make more money, why don't women have to meet the same standards for the same promotions?"
So no, StarFleet was behaving responsibly by not accepting just "anyone interested".
Added a new wing to the Academy. Whatever.
I was going to point out that even in a non-scarcity society, there are still limits on physical property such as land. But remembering the vast gardens that My Favorite Martian maintained, I'll grant the point that they could have built more buildings easily.
It's specifically designed this way because it's much easier to take the money out of people's paycheques then to get them to send you a cheque at the end of the year.
The US withholding system was designed with this in mind. Also, perhaps just as important, it hides the true amount you are paying in taxes. You don't have to write a check for $12,000 so you're less likely to remember a month after you file that you actually did pay that much, but you'll remember you got $100 BACK! In my case I planned ahead to avoid a federal penalty for underpayment and wound up with a large "refund", which because I couldn't do the same for the state means I send them almost every penny of the refund (with a $3 interest penalty). WOOT! WooT! I'm not going to Disneyland!
In our community, perhaps the worst decision ever for government was to make the due dates for property taxes just a week after the general election. That means that any tax levies that are on the general election ballot show up in the mail just about the same time as the property tax bill. I like the fact that the local government is saying "we want more of your money, and by the way, here's how much we're already sucking out of your pocket...". I expect someone will figure it out and move the due dates for property taxes back a month sometime soon.
Are digest messages considered forgery?
Digests are not relevant to this discussion because digests won't be blocked by DMARC. They are compilations of messages, not the original messages themselves. They already contain, or should contain, origination header fields that will pass SPF or whatever valid spam detection techniques are available.
If the list server acted exactly as a proper MTA would, then the message would only be subject to a single level of sender authentication.
If the list server acts as a proper MTA would, then there would still be a problem with DMARC because the list server won't fiddle with the origination headers.
My idea would subject the forwarded message to double authentication: Once for the original sender and the second for the list server.
Your idea is a waste of time, simply because if you're going to write a new list server that fiddles with messages the way you describe, and try lobbying Yahoo et.al. to adopt the system, why not just use an existing listserve that produces digests? You've got a solution in search of a problem.
From a technical standpoint, however, it is perfectly valid to state that list-serv software is authoring the message.
That's utter nonsense.
It just happens to be quoting verbatim from some random message it received.
If it is quoting verbatim then the outgoing headers will be the same as the ones it got. And quoting verbatim means that it is NOT the author, the person or entity it is quoting from is still the author.
You might want to note that any MTA is simply "quoting verbatim" the "random message" it receives, and yet nobody in their right mind would try claiming that the MTA has assumed authorship of the message and should fiddle with the origination headers. You might also note that many delivery agents have trivial ways for users (and admins) to deliver messages sent to one mailbox into two or more -- for example, sales@example.com may be delivered to every sales agent -- and nobody in their right mind would want or expect such a delivery agent to claim authorship of the message.
You can't sell verbatim copies of the latest Harry Potter book and claim that you're the author because you made the copy.
It's only when you move into the digest-style mailing lists that you can claim any authorship, and 1) those kinds of mailing lists already DO make that claim, and 3) they aren't the subject of discussion because they won't be blocked by DMARC.
If I had a secretary and I instructed him to forward messages related to certain topics to designated recipients, he would be the author of the new messages that contain the original messages.
Nonsense. Whoever wrote the original message is the author. Your secretary would be the sender and his mailbox would appear in the Sender header field.
Here's just a trivial reason why that must be. The boss sends an email describing a new policy regarding the use of slashdot during working hours. Your secretary forwards that to others and in doing so obeys your instruction to become the author. Let's say I'm on that forwarding list. Now I would ask "why is a secretary writing a policy regarding use of slashdot?" You say he's the author? Well, he has no authority to be the author.
The section I quoted allows this.
No, it does not. The author remains the person who wrote the message. Under your system, if I make a photocopy of a book I'm now the author of that book. That's patently absurd.
A multi-post digest is reasonably consided a new message.
It is because it has a different message ID. And, as I've already said, digests are not the topic of this discussion because digests won't be blocked by DMARC because digests have headers that originate with the mailing list. The topic here is mailing lists that forward messages.
And digests are not forwarded messages, they are compilations of messages.
So, why not a digest with just one post?
Because that is not how mailing lists that act as simple forwarders work. I run both kinds. It isn't that hard to tell the difference.
So, that leaves it to the list server admins (and, possibly, developers) to implement a work around.
Here's my work-around as a mailing list admin: if you're using a mail system that blocks properly composed and valid messages from my mailing list, it is your responsibility to fix it. I'm following the standards. Playing the game "keep making changes as stupid people keep finding new ways of violating the standards" is a waste of my time.
The original message could be made an attachment to the message sent by the list server. This way, both the list message and the original message would be available for DMARC/SPF/whatever sender authentication.
So not only do you suggest that the "robot" who is handing the mailing list forge emails to look like they were written by it instead of the real author, you want it to now use arbitrary contents of the body of the message (an attachment) for SPF and DMARC analysis? The body, which is under complete and full control of any spammer who happens to figure out there is a new way of bypassing spam filters by just putting something that looks like valid email transport information as an attachment to his spam?
So, one could make the case that a list server is a robot reading and forwarding messages, therefor it is technically not wrong for the list server to put its own address in the From field and a contact address for the list owner in the Sender field.
Other than such action would be a direct violation of the section of the RFC I quoted. The "robot" is not the author; its mailbox does not appear in the header field intended for the mailbox of the author. The "robot" is also not the agent that introduced the message for transmission, it is retransmitting a message already in the system.
Note that list servers that batch posts in to messages containing several posts already do this.
Not all mailing lists do this, many mailing lists allow recipients to determine whether this happens or not, and ones that do create digests are not the topic of discussion because Yahoo doesn't block them under DMARC (precisely because the digest is sent under different headers than the original messages).
I would think that is what we would want... mail can't come from one domain and claim to be from another.
Of course it can. It is perfectly reasonable that I use one email address for all my correspondence but use different outgoing SMTP servers depending on where my network connection is at the moment. Or I may want to use the address of a mail forwarder I use (one of many professional organizations that provide this service, e.g. IEEE) while sending an email.
Because it is essentially coming from the mailing list
Mailing list software is not the author of any email it distributes on behalf of a list user. The standards define what the From header contains.
There really ought to be a better way to handle this.
RFC822 has been obsoleted at least twice now. The current standard (RFC5322) says this about the origination headers:
In other words, any mailing list that rewrites the From header field is wrong. It is also wrong for it to rewrite the Sender field, since the mailing list is not the "agent" responsible for the actual transmission of the message. It is only a transport agent, not an initiator. In the contextual history of RFC*22, the Sender is the person (secretary, e.g.) who sent the message when that person is not the author.
And, additionally: "In all cases, the 'From:' field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that does not belong to the author(s) of the message." While that's only a SHOULD not, it is still relevant and shows the intent of that header.
I've found the room full of horse droppings. I'm sure there's a pony around here somewhere. I'll let you ride him when I find him.
Powered planes and gliders have basically nothing in common,
Other than wings, flaps, elevators, ailerons, rudder, wheels. Notice that none of those items requires engine input to function. The major difference between powered aircraft and glider is the powerplant.
If you look at this POH (pilots operating handbook) for a Cessna 182T, you'll see on page 3-23 the power-off glide as slightly more than 11 nm from an altitude of 8000 feet AGL. Yes, that's not as good as for a glider, but it is hardly the " AerrrrrrrrrrrRRRRRRRRRR... CRASH!" that you seem to think it is.
That kind of ignorance about airplanes is not uncommon. It's exacerbated by bad science in movies where crashes are exciting and safe landings are not. I surprised the heck out of a friend of mine who was obviously worried about our flight over the local mountains -- if something went wrong we'd certainly AerrrrrrrRRRRRRRR CRASH! I pulled the power back and he noticed that there was no significant change in the flight other than a slight downangle.
even though the public likes to imagine that running out of gas in a plane means soaring gently until you land on a convenient 4-lane road or meticulously preened grass field.
Well, "meticulously preened" is rare, but roads make good landing spots, as do regular fields. And even when the airplane catches a wheel and flips it isn't unusual for everyone to walk away from it.
And you personally know all of the pilots before you board any plane?
On a commercial air carrier flight, I know that the pilot has been to recurrent training within the last six months (I think it is, maybe 12), has had a check pilot evaluate his performance within the same time frame, and has a second fully qualified pilot sitting in the other seat. He's had intensive simulator training to deal with a vast number of potential in-flight emergencies. I know both of them are fully IFR qualified in a fully IFR capable aircraft in case the weather deteriorates enroute. Both have 1st Class medical certificates which involve a lot more than "kicking the tires and peeing in a cup".
On a private flight, I'm pretty sure the pilot has had an hour of flight sometime in the last two years (a biennial flight review) and has made three landings that he could walk away from in the last 90 days (or heals really quickly). The airplane has probably been inspected sometime within the last year for airworthiness. But there is little overview by the FAA for those requirements. If he owns his own plane nobody really checks until the NTSB does the investigation after the crash. If he's renting then the FBO will probably make sure he's met the legal minimums. There's no easy way to tell rental vs. owner. And the medical? The last time the pilot may have seen any doctor was a decade or more ago*.
I fear this kind of ride-share is going to make the FAA look closer at the requirements for private pilots, not simplify them.
* sport pilot rules. All a pilot needs for a "medical" is a driver's license as long as he's not had an application for a medical certificate denied, revoked, suspended or withdrawn.
The idea here is that itâ(TM)s the barest minimum, so folks working on industrial applications can add the ports and extra connectivity they need.
I thought the purpose of the Raspberry Pi foundation was for education, not to produce embedded hardware for industrial control developers. Yes, the latter was a side effect of the former, but this new board is hardly an educational tool anymore.
The first amendment guarantees that my speech an never (legally) be restricted, constrained, repressed, silenced, censored, etc. by the government. Never.
The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Guess who is the Constitutionally appointed authority on the Constitution?
Their job was also a bit easier in that they used 4-pin rather than 6, but I guess they decided they wouldn't need GigE
GigE uses 8.
Where We're Going, We Don't Need Tickets
You need a ticket, but only a one-way.
Count number of empty seats, a much easier task. Passengers=total seats-empty seats.
And you'd totally miss lap kids.
Then why does the FAA have rules that govern when you can and cannot operate VFR for example?
Those rules do NOT override my decision that there are too many risks to make a flight. Any pilot who says "gee, the FAA thinks it will turn out ok because the rules allow it" is a moron. And any passenger -- i.e. YOU -- who tells me "we should go anyway" is going to be ignored.
NASA as an organization has minimum safety criteria.
And the entire argument is whether it is ethical (not "legal") for one-way missions. Those "safety criteria" can be changed.
A Mars mission will exceed the defined limits of NASA for radiation exposure.
So change the limits. The current argument to the contrary, it is quite ethical for NASA to do that.
Your point that part of the Operational Risk Management process is subjective is valid, but in this case, we have an objective criteria that will be exceeded.
That happens all the time. And the final question is still based on an opinion. Is it worth exceeding the "objective limit" to fulfill the mission? And I hate to have to keep pointing out, that when the mission design includes a foreknowledge that the crew will not return, is it ridiculous to try use "crew will not return" as a hazard in the planning. It's like using "will not land with the aircraft" as a hazard when planning a skydive.
I'll put you down as a vote for them to ignore the objective criteria, though I believe that to be setting a dangerous precedent.
You can lie about my stated position if you want. I'll just "put you down" as one of those self-important folks who thinks that anyone who doesn't do things your way has ignored all the reasons they ought to do it your way, instead of considering those issues and making a different decision. I've not said once, and I've been explicit in saying the opposite, that risks should be ignored. I've said that the people who are subject to the risks make the decision, not you, and not me.
How much risk is too much?
Not my choice to make. Not your's either, unless you're one of the people going.
Is killing 1/3rd of the crew OK with you?
Such inflammatory rhetoric is not productive. Nobody is killing anyone. Some people will weigh the risk of death on such a mission and decide that the benefits are worth it and decide to go. Just as some people weigh the risk of death while skydiving and still decide to go skydiving. And some of them have come damn close to dying and still go again.
As a pilot, if I take someone up to skydive and their parachute fails, and their backup fails, and they die, did I kill them? Don't be stupid. We both knew it was a hazard but we both participated.
How about a 1 in 4 chance of success?
Since I'm guessing that by "success" you mean "everyone survives" and not "the mission meets the design goals", I'll fold this answer back into the previous one.
You see, we have to draw the line someplace,
No, WE don't. The people involved in the danger do.
I'm a pilot. I have to make that kind of decision every time I go flying. What are the hazards? (That's what most people refer to as the "risks".) What is the probability and severity of loss from those hazards? (That's the real "risks" part of Operational Risk Management.) How can they be mitigated? With mitigation factors considered, is the benefit still greater than the danger? That final question, that's an OPINION. And guess what? Unless your butt is in my airplane, your opinion doesn't count.
My point here is that you simply cannot ignore risks because you have no way to deal with them.
Who said anything about ignoring anything? You are one of those people who think that because I don't accept your opinion as the rulebook for my life that I'm ignoring you? You think that if someone evaluates the hazards and risks and mitigation factors and still decides to take some action that he's ignoring the hazards and risks?
What that crew expected and deserved was a vehicle that was a safe as could be designed and operated,
The safest way to operate a huge SRB is to never light it off. The safest way to deal with a huge tank of oxidizer and propellant is to never fill them up and light them off. The safest way to deal with a pressure hull is to never expose it to a differential pressure. The safest way to explore space is to film a mockup on a soundstage. Yes, let's always choose the safest way because the risks are NEVER worth the benefits ever.
and "not taking the risk seriously".
The entire phrase was "not taking risks seriously enough". Nobody can claim that someone who chooses to go on a one-way mission (to alpha centauri, e.g.) and knows he won't be coming back hasn't taken the risks seriously. It's the people who claim that he isn't allowed to make that decision because he didn't take them seriously ENOUGH (in their opinion) that are the problem.
The astronauts CHOSE to sign on with the implicit understanding that everyone behind them was doing their absolute best,
And with explicit knowledge that everyone "behind them" was human and subject to making mistakes.
The boundary NASA failed to stick to was "We built the best possible rocket that humans can make".
Perfect is the enemy of Good. As I've already pointed out, given that we are humans and that some missions are inherently "one-way", and that them being "one-way" is not a sign of failure but part of the design, if you want perfection and believe it is unethical to do anything where someone is knowingly going to die, then we might as well stop all space exploration now and just have a beer and watch TV.
Sorry, I think you're misreading here, and I think we all agree.
No, I don't agree at all. The claim was that the people who risk life and health for the Olympics and X Games do so for the entertainment of the OP. That's a pretty clear claim. "for my entertainment". Tell me how I misread that.
even if only a handful of other humans really care once the cameras turn off.
Even if there are no cameras. There are no ESPN cameras and announcers telling us in breathless voice "we're at the summit of Mt. Everest where Billy Joe Bob Smith is about to become the 3,487th person to reach the peak." Yet he tries. And you have to realize that there are more competitors in the Olympics than just the few that make it onto your TV screen. Those 14th place finishers are risking just as much and they get very little TV time to "entertain" you. They clearly can't be doing it for your pleasure since they know you'll never see them.
And just because there are cameras doesn't mean they're doing it "for my entertainment". Cameras means records. It means video proving "look, I did that". It has nothing to do with your entertainment, it has to do with that person having documented that he did something that most people will never be able to.