They are also wired into the electronics system, can integrate with the autopilot and other aircraft devices, and are not loose in the cockpit. Finally, another plus is that many and possibly all C-5 and C-17 aircraft in operation already have them.
Which means that the iPad is replacing the paper copies as a backup system to start with. So, if the main system breaks, the iPad needs to work only long enough to find a reasonable field to land at, and not necessarily provide a full-flight's worth of operation. Considering that both pilots will have one, there will be two backups.
No, it would mean the excessively rich exploit a different loophole instead.
You mean they'd use a different legal means of avoiding paying tax that they aren't required to pay. Why do people seem happy to take every deduction they are allowed, and then rant about the deductions other people get?
But yes, taxes aren't a zero sum game. Raise the tax rates, the revenue goes down as people use more of the options to avoid paying it, or simply have less to invest in making more money to start with. Even JFK figured that one out. You can't simply say "double the tax rates means double the revenue".
Every Engineer knows this is bullshit. data on such a short span as 100 years (max) does not give nearly enough statistic data.
You do realize that "100 year event" doesn't mean they've only got data for the last 100 years, right?
Here in Oregon, we've got data from earthquakes that took place in 1700 or so. Are you saying that people in Japan haven't been keeping track at least that long?
If a car (or a thousand) crash, you don't have consequences that span time measured in millenia.
AP - Linz, Austria, 1918. In a freak accident, Adolph Schicklgruber, 19, son of Alois Hitler, was killed while riding in the 1918 Packard automobile his father had imported and was demonstrating to his fellow customs agents....
UPI - Berlin, 1948. Physicist Albert Einstein announced a breakthrough in the overall theory of matter and energy yesterday at the annual German Physicist Association conference in Berlin. He was assisted in his work by German mathematicians Robert Remak and Otto Blumenthal. "They were absolutely vital in finding the theoretical basis" said Einstein....
AP - Poland, 1955. The Nobel prize committee announced the award of its highest prize in medicine to Polish physician and researcher Wladyslaw Dobrzaniecki for his pioneering research in the cure for cancer and other degenerative diseases. Since his discovery of the main biological pathways leading to carcinomas, the rate of cancer deaths has dropped by 50%,...
You didn't read the article:
"The lame excuse offered by the university was that a student had created a petition and was using the change.org site to "spam" other ASU accounts; of course, even if that had been the real reason, it would have easily been possible for ASU to block mail from the change.org servers, without blocking all students from accessing the website."
I read the article, and my first reaction was "how disengenuous". Had ASU blocked all email from the site, it is more than likely that this guy, who admits he was looking for something to complain about, would be here whining about how ASU was blocking email from a political site.
The students aren't paying the University for the internet. They pay class fees, and room and board fees, and a "technology fee" which goes to provide classroom technology and improve the on-campus wireless, but the University isn't their ISP.
Are you suggesting there is no place in a public university for spam filters, antivirus on the firewalls, network intrusion systems, and such? These are specifically in place to protect the community members from threats.
There is also a duty to keep the network usable for the purposes it was built and paid for. That's not "unlimited free access to the Internet", it's for reseach and academic purposes. That may mean blocking things when students forget that fact.
University classrooms and labs are also paid for by tax dollars. Nobody sane would argue that this means that anyone who wants to use one of them has the right to use it for whatever purpose they want. But since this is "The Internet", the rules seem to be different, but not really.
It was politically motivated, not technologically.
And your proof is what? The rant of someone who admits he was ready to be outraged about something? "So as I went to my profile to read it, I was already predisposed to be pissed off,...".
That is not their function
Their function is to provide network services for academic and research uses. They aren't a general purpose ISP. You want unlimited bandwidth for unlimited purposes, find an ISP and pay them for it. Get a smartphone or a modem.
and to allow them to operate in such a manner should be incompatible with the taking of taxpayer money.
To demand they provide open-ended unlimited service to anyone who wants it would be a violation of the taxpayer trust and an unwarranted intrusion into the private commercial sector. (I've lived through an "open access" computer service being thrown off campus because of exactly that reason.) Their job is to support the functions of the University, not free Internet for all comers. The employees of the University have to live with that, and so do the students.
Who is "he"? This is a university you're talking about.
legitimate normal amounts of mail
Define "legitimate". "a significant number of ASU email addresses, which he used to send unsolicited, unwanted email, which is the definition of spam".
but because of their content,
"a significant number of ASU email addresses, which he used to send unsolicited, unwanted email, which is the definition of spam". No content was mentioned.
If hes blocking spam, thats something else entirely.
Ok.
Change.org was politically censored, not blocked for technical reasons.
According to you. According to the Uni, you're wrong.
"However, we must reserve the right to protect the use of our limited and valuable network resources for legitimate academic, research and administrative uses." The Uni provides nerwork access for academic, research, and administrative purposes. They can't be a generic ISP to every student. Students have no reason to expect a taxpayer funded ISP at their beck and call for any purpose they desire.
Claiming this is a violation of someone's first amendment rights would mean that I could walk onto any public university and demand Internet access, otherwise they would be interfering with my first amendment rights. Since that's obviously ridiculous, there must be some failure in the argument that this is an infringement of first amendment rights.
Publicly funded (i.e. they take taxpayer money) universities dont have the luxury of interfering in this manner.
Yes, they do. They have every right to block traffic that interferes with the operation of the educational network they are allowing the students to access. Public universities are not ISPs, they are providing network access for school use.
It is not unheard of for a Uni to block access to file sharing sites when the students are using 100% of the bandwidth of the outside connection for file sharing. Our local Uni had a nitwit student who was using his dorm internet access to run a commercial business, which included having his own domain name with a PTR to his dorm room. He lost access.
In this case, they blocked a source of spam. What's dishonest about this matter is the statement: "...it would have easily been possible for ASU to block mail from the change.org servers, without blocking all students from accessing the website."
Of course it would have been possible, but don't you think this person would have raised just as big a stink over the blockage of email from a "political" website?
So just where is this user's 24/7 webservice going to be running, that can accept this "push" content? You haven't solved the problem, you've just hidden it behind a URL.
You are trolling beyond your normal silliness. Sight and sound are two different things.
Ok, so SIGHT is a constitutionally protected means of speech but SOUND is not? Upon which planet doth thou livest, that "speech" occurs through visual and not aural methods? I're read science fiction that has such beings (most of whom cannot fathom that the random noises the human protaganist made were actually conveying information) but never run across one posting to/..
No, that's indecent exposure (and arguably public exposure) which is enforceable and not protected under the first amendment.
Why isn't it? As someone else pointed out, if displaying a picture of ones genitalia (in action or at "parade rest") is protected speech (as these librarians claim), how can displaying the live thing not be? That's a serious question.
Yes, it's called reductio ad absurdum. Answer why one is protected and the other isn't and it will show that maybe neither really are after all.
Just because you cannot imagine what someone is "saying" by whacking off in front of you doesn't mean he isn't trying to express some constitutionally protected concept, just as I cannot imagine any significant statement being made by someone who pisses on a flag doesn't seem to mean they aren't trying to make one.
Further, how can you call a video of someone "choking the chicken" being viewed on a library computer "speech" and then say that a live performance isn't? If the performer on the computer screen is exercising his constitutional rights, then the library patron is, too.
I know that speech has been stretched to the point of breaking by the Citizens United case,
It sounds like you've never actually read the Citizen's United case and are relying on Air America and the like to tell you what it said. Try reading it. All it reaffirmed is that corporations are associations of people and that those people do not lose their rights to speak because they join the corporation. Specifically, it said that a corporation FOUNDED FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF POLITICAL SPEECH had the right to spend money ON POLITICAL SPEECH, even if it was less than some arbitrary amount of time prior to an election. Part of the abomination called McCain-Feingold that stomps on the first amendment.
What I'd love to hear is your reasoning behind your apparent support of a ban on political ads within 60 days of an election. If you denonce the CU result, that's what you are supporting, you know. Or maybe you didn't.
Of course the second he starts tugging it, they need to haul him off.
Why? Isn't it his constitutionally protected right to opine on the subject matter he's constitutionally allowed to view?
If other actions can be protected speech, how can wanking off as a sign of approval not be?
I'd be curious to hear what these folks would do if someone set a flag on the floor and took a dump on it. That's constitutionally protected first amendment speech, too. Oh, wait, even SPEAKING in a library is limited, so they already limit first amendment rights.
How will this work with dynamic IPs?
What privacy implications are there if a message intended for me got sent to someone else who now has my IP?
What's even more important is how does this deal with people who are behind NAT or a firewall? I mean, my "browser" can become a "server" by opening a port on my desktop all it wants, nobody from outside is going to be able to connect to it.
Now, I can open that path through my router if I want to, but what about people who work behind firewalls that can't change anything?
What the FDA is claiming and will probably be backed up by the executive on but possibly not the judicial, is that because the company performing the procedure purchases equipment from other states,
No, the argument has nothing to do with equipment, it has to do with materials that are used in the manufacture of the drug. Not the beakers they make it in, but chemicals and enzymes that are used in the production. The FDA has authority to regulate what goes into making a drug.
End-users should not be using SMTP to communicate directly with recipient servers, and almost none do.
"Almost none"? I believe that Outlook does. Evolution does. Pine does. The mail program on my smart phone uses SMTP to send email. I would hardly call that "almost none".
Nearly all ISPs provide authenticating SMTP relays for their subscribers,
Yes, which talk SMTP to the "end user".
Legitimate large-volume senders have already dealt with this.
They haven't already dealt with some new proposal that requires MX records for sending hosts and "human" limits on sending email.
Sure, the FDA can regulate the device's movement across state lines. However, once the device reaches it's destination, their power over it is done.
So, you're saying, once the oxycontin package hits the pharmacist's shelves, the FDA no longer has any jurisdiction to regulate it? That once the 50 pound barrel of oxycontin powder reaches the formulary, the FDA no longer has any regulatory authority over how it is used or mixed with other "devices", as long as it doesn't go back out of state?
Interesting theory. Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?
Oh, now I know you're making things up. Who said anything about dead people?
I'm saying if you're going to die in a few months,
I thought you were talking about people in chronic pain. Now you're talking about people you know are going to die in a few months. Was THIS in the article anywhere?
Well, I'm assuming
Yes, you are. You should read the actual brief. It's fascinating.
and that this doctor is the one person to help them
Then let him follow the federal law regarding the manufacture and use of drugs and he can. The FDA didn't just swoop in and say "stop that", they were there on previous visits and told them what was being done wrong. They could have complied. Read the brief. It's fascinating.
And you are assuming that this procedure is anything more than snake oil. You are assuming quite a lot.
Nobody's flying anybody into a mountain or endangering 100s of people who don't know the risks.
So you are actually claiming that every person who gets on an airplane knows exactly what the correct altitude to fly a specific route is and accepts the risks of the decision the pilot makes? Every person on a commercial airliner knows the risks of flying five miles off the centerline of an airway, or 500 feet high or low, when they get on board an aircraft. That they know the risks of exceeding the ATP standards for instrument approaches and accept those risks freely? That the rules and laws regarding those actions are unnecessary because the passengers know the risks and accept them all? And that there is some mechanism in place for passengers who do not agree with a decision of the pilot during the flight to rescind his authorization to act on their behalf?
Have you ever flown on an airliner? Describe for me the "protected zone" for an ILS approach and what, if any, are the hazards that can exist even within that protected area. You need to know that if you are going to evaluate and agree to the risks in any educated manner. How about describing the reason for the "ILS HOLD" lines at the airport, the technical details regarding the area, and what effects there could be were you to enter that area. Or, you could accept that the FAA has issued rules regarding required and minium altitudes and procedures to be used that minimize the risk, and that the FAA has tested the pilot for his understanding of and ability to adhere to those rules before allowing him to pilot the aircraft.
In addition, the FAA has rules regarding the manufacture and use of nuts and bolts and rivets and all kinds of hardware that go into an airplane. According to you, people who get on an airplane know and accept the risks of the use of unapproved hardware and laws are not required. Guess what? Bogus aircraft hardware IS an issue and does cause crashes. A bolt made from cheap steel doesn't hold as well as the proper one and can come apart in midair. You don't just pull over and stop when your wing falls off while flying, like you can maybe pull to the side of the road in your car. The people who get on that airplane have no knowledge of the standards or that the aircraft is safe, sans those regulations, and even then mistakes happen. They're all "stupid", and they deserve protection from cut-rate fly-by-night operations. Just like the people who go to a doctor expect him to be certified and knowledgable, and to be using approved medications where the risks are, if not absent, reasonably well known, and are produced according to health and safety standards that prevent avoidable serious injury or death. (Read the brief. The defendants admitted that microbacterial contamination of the process was likely but didn't take sufficient measures to prevent it.)
Hell, I can barely get a root canal without having to sign a waver telling me about the risks.
So if somebody is too stupid to do something, nobody gets to do it.
Where did you get that one from? The article? Nope.
If you are so smart and understand the process so well, do it to yourself. It should be simple for someone so smart. The FDA won't care. You just can't charge others for doing it to them.
Or was this "nobody can do it" part of that old joke, "nobody can do it, and I'm nobody...".
1) By your logic, because I'm not a trained electrician, I shouldn't be allowed to work on the wiring in my house. Where do you draw the line? "I know it when I see it"?
Incorrect. By my logic, you aren't allowed to work on OTHER PEOPLE'S houses for money.
"The difference is that you don't have a licensed expert telling you that you ought to do those things, and when you go to a doctor you do." Does the article state that?
The article also doesn't state that the sky is blue and ice is frozen water.
3) Antibiotic resistance hardly seems a relevant paradigm.
It demonstrates that most people have no understanding of how medicine or medical things work, so need to be able to trust the provider to be correct and accurate. I could have used airline pilot as another example. If you want to go up all by yourself in a small plane, the rules are VERY much different than if you want to be paid to take two hundred souls up on a commercial flight. Most of those people would have no way of judging your flying abilities before risking their lives on your skill. And most of them would have no way of judging your decision to fly above certain altitudes. That's why there are rules that tell pilots how low they can fly. According to you, there should be no rules and everyone on board should just trust that the pilot is making good decisions on his own. The only problem with that, most FAA regulations are there because someone demonstrated that pilots don't always make the correct decisions and need some limits. How dare the FAA put limits on me because some stupid people showed they couldn't fly a plane without running into a mountain!
Them wanting to do something, and having exhausted so many alternatives that they've now only found one person to help them --
Did the article tell you that, or are you making it up?
Is it your argument that it is ok to rip people off if they are coming to you as a last resort? That everyone prior to "last resort" can be regulated, but "last resorts" can do whatever they want to you without any danger of recrimination?
Ask Spamhaus - we know most of the top offenders. We know who they are and in many cases we know where they live. And law enforcement is sitting on their hands.
What do you want them to enforce? Spam laws vary from laughable (CAN-SPAM act) to nonexistant. Do you want US marshalls breaking down the doors of a Moscow apartment to enforce CAN-SPAM?
and servers that send mail (which should have valid PTR records in reverse DNS for their IP).
Since MUA can use SMTP to send email, it is not required that there be a PTR for every sending host. It is true that there MAY be one, but it isn't a requirement. Large sites that may not publish DNS records for every internal system can likely get around any requirement from the recipient MTA by using a central mail server through which outgoing mail is sent. That server would have a PTR (and SPF) record.
That, however, seems to be an undesirable solution when it comes to an ISP serving many customers, however.
Slashdot Mirror
They are also wired into the electronics system, can integrate with the autopilot and other aircraft devices, and are not loose in the cockpit. Finally, another plus is that many and possibly all C-5 and C-17 aircraft in operation already have them.
Which means that the iPad is replacing the paper copies as a backup system to start with. So, if the main system breaks, the iPad needs to work only long enough to find a reasonable field to land at, and not necessarily provide a full-flight's worth of operation. Considering that both pilots will have one, there will be two backups.
No, it would mean the excessively rich exploit a different loophole instead.
You mean they'd use a different legal means of avoiding paying tax that they aren't required to pay. Why do people seem happy to take every deduction they are allowed, and then rant about the deductions other people get?
But yes, taxes aren't a zero sum game. Raise the tax rates, the revenue goes down as people use more of the options to avoid paying it, or simply have less to invest in making more money to start with. Even JFK figured that one out. You can't simply say "double the tax rates means double the revenue".
Every Engineer knows this is bullshit. data on such a short span as 100 years (max) does not give nearly enough statistic data.
You do realize that "100 year event" doesn't mean they've only got data for the last 100 years, right?
Here in Oregon, we've got data from earthquakes that took place in 1700 or so. Are you saying that people in Japan haven't been keeping track at least that long?
If a car (or a thousand) crash, you don't have consequences that span time measured in millenia.
AP - Linz, Austria, 1918. In a freak accident, Adolph Schicklgruber, 19, son of Alois Hitler, was killed while riding in the 1918 Packard automobile his father had imported and was demonstrating to his fellow customs agents. ...
UPI - Berlin, 1948. Physicist Albert Einstein announced a breakthrough in the overall theory of matter and energy yesterday at the annual German Physicist Association conference in Berlin. He was assisted in his work by German mathematicians Robert Remak and Otto Blumenthal. "They were absolutely vital in finding the theoretical basis" said Einstein. ...
AP - Poland, 1955. The Nobel prize committee announced the award of its highest prize in medicine to Polish physician and researcher Wladyslaw Dobrzaniecki for his pioneering research in the cure for cancer and other degenerative diseases. Since his discovery of the main biological pathways leading to carcinomas, the rate of cancer deaths has dropped by 50%, ...
You were saying, Mr. Godwin?
You didn't read the article: "The lame excuse offered by the university was that a student had created a petition and was using the change.org site to "spam" other ASU accounts; of course, even if that had been the real reason, it would have easily been possible for ASU to block mail from the change.org servers, without blocking all students from accessing the website."
I read the article, and my first reaction was "how disengenuous". Had ASU blocked all email from the site, it is more than likely that this guy, who admits he was looking for something to complain about, would be here whining about how ASU was blocking email from a political site.
and the students paying the university
The students aren't paying the University for the internet. They pay class fees, and room and board fees, and a "technology fee" which goes to provide classroom technology and improve the on-campus wireless, but the University isn't their ISP.
Are you suggesting there is no place in a public university for spam filters, antivirus on the firewalls, network intrusion systems, and such? These are specifically in place to protect the community members from threats.
There is also a duty to keep the network usable for the purposes it was built and paid for. That's not "unlimited free access to the Internet", it's for reseach and academic purposes. That may mean blocking things when students forget that fact.
University classrooms and labs are also paid for by tax dollars. Nobody sane would argue that this means that anyone who wants to use one of them has the right to use it for whatever purpose they want. But since this is "The Internet", the rules seem to be different, but not really.
It was politically motivated, not technologically.
And your proof is what? The rant of someone who admits he was ready to be outraged about something? "So as I went to my profile to read it, I was already predisposed to be pissed off, ...".
That is not their function
Their function is to provide network services for academic and research uses. They aren't a general purpose ISP. You want unlimited bandwidth for unlimited purposes, find an ISP and pay them for it. Get a smartphone or a modem.
and to allow them to operate in such a manner should be incompatible with the taking of taxpayer money.
To demand they provide open-ended unlimited service to anyone who wants it would be a violation of the taxpayer trust and an unwarranted intrusion into the private commercial sector. (I've lived through an "open access" computer service being thrown off campus because of exactly that reason.) Their job is to support the functions of the University, not free Internet for all comers. The employees of the University have to live with that, and so do the students.
If he
Who is "he"? This is a university you're talking about.
legitimate normal amounts of mail
Define "legitimate". "a significant number of ASU email addresses, which he used to send unsolicited, unwanted email, which is the definition of spam".
but because of their content,
"a significant number of ASU email addresses, which he used to send unsolicited, unwanted email, which is the definition of spam". No content was mentioned.
If hes blocking spam, thats something else entirely.
Ok.
Change.org was politically censored, not blocked for technical reasons.
According to you. According to the Uni, you're wrong.
"However, we must reserve the right to protect the use of our limited and valuable network resources for legitimate academic, research and administrative uses." The Uni provides nerwork access for academic, research, and administrative purposes. They can't be a generic ISP to every student. Students have no reason to expect a taxpayer funded ISP at their beck and call for any purpose they desire.
Claiming this is a violation of someone's first amendment rights would mean that I could walk onto any public university and demand Internet access, otherwise they would be interfering with my first amendment rights. Since that's obviously ridiculous, there must be some failure in the argument that this is an infringement of first amendment rights.
Publicly funded (i.e. they take taxpayer money) universities dont have the luxury of interfering in this manner.
Yes, they do. They have every right to block traffic that interferes with the operation of the educational network they are allowing the students to access. Public universities are not ISPs, they are providing network access for school use.
It is not unheard of for a Uni to block access to file sharing sites when the students are using 100% of the bandwidth of the outside connection for file sharing. Our local Uni had a nitwit student who was using his dorm internet access to run a commercial business, which included having his own domain name with a PTR to his dorm room. He lost access.
In this case, they blocked a source of spam. What's dishonest about this matter is the statement: "...it would have easily been possible for ASU to block mail from the change.org servers, without blocking all students from accessing the website."
Of course it would have been possible, but don't you think this person would have raised just as big a stink over the blockage of email from a "political" website?
3. the user says Sure post you notifications to my notification URL http://example.com/my-notes
So just where is this user's 24/7 webservice going to be running, that can accept this "push" content? You haven't solved the problem, you've just hidden it behind a URL.
6. user checks http://example.com/my-notes for notifications
So it really is pull, just written with the letters 'p', 'u', 's' and 'h'?
If I want to check a URL for content, why not just check the URL directly?
You are trolling beyond your normal silliness. Sight and sound are two different things.
Ok, so SIGHT is a constitutionally protected means of speech but SOUND is not? Upon which planet doth thou livest, that "speech" occurs through visual and not aural methods? I're read science fiction that has such beings (most of whom cannot fathom that the random noises the human protaganist made were actually conveying information) but never run across one posting to /..
No, that's indecent exposure (and arguably public exposure) which is enforceable and not protected under the first amendment.
Why isn't it? As someone else pointed out, if displaying a picture of ones genitalia (in action or at "parade rest") is protected speech (as these librarians claim), how can displaying the live thing not be? That's a serious question.
Yes, it's called reductio ad absurdum. Answer why one is protected and the other isn't and it will show that maybe neither really are after all.
Because choking the chicken isn't speech.
Just because you cannot imagine what someone is "saying" by whacking off in front of you doesn't mean he isn't trying to express some constitutionally protected concept, just as I cannot imagine any significant statement being made by someone who pisses on a flag doesn't seem to mean they aren't trying to make one.
Further, how can you call a video of someone "choking the chicken" being viewed on a library computer "speech" and then say that a live performance isn't? If the performer on the computer screen is exercising his constitutional rights, then the library patron is, too.
I know that speech has been stretched to the point of breaking by the Citizens United case,
It sounds like you've never actually read the Citizen's United case and are relying on Air America and the like to tell you what it said. Try reading it. All it reaffirmed is that corporations are associations of people and that those people do not lose their rights to speak because they join the corporation. Specifically, it said that a corporation FOUNDED FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF POLITICAL SPEECH had the right to spend money ON POLITICAL SPEECH, even if it was less than some arbitrary amount of time prior to an election. Part of the abomination called McCain-Feingold that stomps on the first amendment.
What I'd love to hear is your reasoning behind your apparent support of a ban on political ads within 60 days of an election. If you denonce the CU result, that's what you are supporting, you know. Or maybe you didn't.
Gee, you think there might be some bias?
In both reports, sure. You aren't accepting the "international report" at face value either, are you?
Of course the second he starts tugging it, they need to haul him off.
Why? Isn't it his constitutionally protected right to opine on the subject matter he's constitutionally allowed to view? If other actions can be protected speech, how can wanking off as a sign of approval not be?
I'd be curious to hear what these folks would do if someone set a flag on the floor and took a dump on it. That's constitutionally protected first amendment speech, too. Oh, wait, even SPEAKING in a library is limited, so they already limit first amendment rights.
How will this work with dynamic IPs? What privacy implications are there if a message intended for me got sent to someone else who now has my IP?
What's even more important is how does this deal with people who are behind NAT or a firewall? I mean, my "browser" can become a "server" by opening a port on my desktop all it wants, nobody from outside is going to be able to connect to it.
Now, I can open that path through my router if I want to, but what about people who work behind firewalls that can't change anything?
What the FDA is claiming and will probably be backed up by the executive on but possibly not the judicial, is that because the company performing the procedure purchases equipment from other states,
No, the argument has nothing to do with equipment, it has to do with materials that are used in the manufacture of the drug. Not the beakers they make it in, but chemicals and enzymes that are used in the production. The FDA has authority to regulate what goes into making a drug.
End-users should not be using SMTP to communicate directly with recipient servers, and almost none do.
"Almost none"? I believe that Outlook does. Evolution does. Pine does. The mail program on my smart phone uses SMTP to send email. I would hardly call that "almost none".
Nearly all ISPs provide authenticating SMTP relays for their subscribers,
Yes, which talk SMTP to the "end user".
Legitimate large-volume senders have already dealt with this.
They haven't already dealt with some new proposal that requires MX records for sending hosts and "human" limits on sending email.
Sure, the FDA can regulate the device's movement across state lines. However, once the device reaches it's destination, their power over it is done.
So, you're saying, once the oxycontin package hits the pharmacist's shelves, the FDA no longer has any jurisdiction to regulate it? That once the 50 pound barrel of oxycontin powder reaches the formulary, the FDA no longer has any regulatory authority over how it is used or mixed with other "devices", as long as it doesn't go back out of state?
Interesting theory. Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?
How does a dead person sue someone anyway?
Oh, now I know you're making things up. Who said anything about dead people?
I'm saying if you're going to die in a few months,
I thought you were talking about people in chronic pain. Now you're talking about people you know are going to die in a few months. Was THIS in the article anywhere?
Well, I'm assuming
Yes, you are. You should read the actual brief. It's fascinating.
and that this doctor is the one person to help them
Then let him follow the federal law regarding the manufacture and use of drugs and he can. The FDA didn't just swoop in and say "stop that", they were there on previous visits and told them what was being done wrong. They could have complied. Read the brief. It's fascinating.
And you are assuming that this procedure is anything more than snake oil. You are assuming quite a lot.
Nobody's flying anybody into a mountain or endangering 100s of people who don't know the risks.
So you are actually claiming that every person who gets on an airplane knows exactly what the correct altitude to fly a specific route is and accepts the risks of the decision the pilot makes? Every person on a commercial airliner knows the risks of flying five miles off the centerline of an airway, or 500 feet high or low, when they get on board an aircraft. That they know the risks of exceeding the ATP standards for instrument approaches and accept those risks freely? That the rules and laws regarding those actions are unnecessary because the passengers know the risks and accept them all? And that there is some mechanism in place for passengers who do not agree with a decision of the pilot during the flight to rescind his authorization to act on their behalf?
Have you ever flown on an airliner? Describe for me the "protected zone" for an ILS approach and what, if any, are the hazards that can exist even within that protected area. You need to know that if you are going to evaluate and agree to the risks in any educated manner. How about describing the reason for the "ILS HOLD" lines at the airport, the technical details regarding the area, and what effects there could be were you to enter that area. Or, you could accept that the FAA has issued rules regarding required and minium altitudes and procedures to be used that minimize the risk, and that the FAA has tested the pilot for his understanding of and ability to adhere to those rules before allowing him to pilot the aircraft.
In addition, the FAA has rules regarding the manufacture and use of nuts and bolts and rivets and all kinds of hardware that go into an airplane. According to you, people who get on an airplane know and accept the risks of the use of unapproved hardware and laws are not required. Guess what? Bogus aircraft hardware IS an issue and does cause crashes. A bolt made from cheap steel doesn't hold as well as the proper one and can come apart in midair. You don't just pull over and stop when your wing falls off while flying, like you can maybe pull to the side of the road in your car. The people who get on that airplane have no knowledge of the standards or that the aircraft is safe, sans those regulations, and even then mistakes happen. They're all "stupid", and they deserve protection from cut-rate fly-by-night operations. Just like the people who go to a doctor expect him to be certified and knowledgable, and to be using approved medications where the risks are, if not absent, reasonably well known, and are produced according to health and safety standards that prevent avoidable serious injury or death. (Read the brief. The defendants admitted that microbacterial contamination of the process was likely but didn't take sufficient measures to prevent it.)
Hell, I can barely get a root canal without having to sign a waver telling me about the risks.
You just
So if somebody is too stupid to do something, nobody gets to do it.
Where did you get that one from? The article? Nope.
If you are so smart and understand the process so well, do it to yourself. It should be simple for someone so smart. The FDA won't care. You just can't charge others for doing it to them.
Or was this "nobody can do it" part of that old joke, "nobody can do it, and I'm nobody...".
1) By your logic, because I'm not a trained electrician, I shouldn't be allowed to work on the wiring in my house. Where do you draw the line? "I know it when I see it"?
Incorrect. By my logic, you aren't allowed to work on OTHER PEOPLE'S houses for money.
"The difference is that you don't have a licensed expert telling you that you ought to do those things, and when you go to a doctor you do." Does the article state that?
The article also doesn't state that the sky is blue and ice is frozen water.
3) Antibiotic resistance hardly seems a relevant paradigm.
It demonstrates that most people have no understanding of how medicine or medical things work, so need to be able to trust the provider to be correct and accurate. I could have used airline pilot as another example. If you want to go up all by yourself in a small plane, the rules are VERY much different than if you want to be paid to take two hundred souls up on a commercial flight. Most of those people would have no way of judging your flying abilities before risking their lives on your skill. And most of them would have no way of judging your decision to fly above certain altitudes. That's why there are rules that tell pilots how low they can fly. According to you, there should be no rules and everyone on board should just trust that the pilot is making good decisions on his own. The only problem with that, most FAA regulations are there because someone demonstrated that pilots don't always make the correct decisions and need some limits. How dare the FAA put limits on me because some stupid people showed they couldn't fly a plane without running into a mountain!
Them wanting to do something, and having exhausted so many alternatives that they've now only found one person to help them --
Did the article tell you that, or are you making it up?
Is it your argument that it is ok to rip people off if they are coming to you as a last resort? That everyone prior to "last resort" can be regulated, but "last resorts" can do whatever they want to you without any danger of recrimination?
Ask Spamhaus - we know most of the top offenders. We know who they are and in many cases we know where they live. And law enforcement is sitting on their hands.
What do you want them to enforce? Spam laws vary from laughable (CAN-SPAM act) to nonexistant. Do you want US marshalls breaking down the doors of a Moscow apartment to enforce CAN-SPAM?
and servers that send mail (which should have valid PTR records in reverse DNS for their IP).
Since MUA can use SMTP to send email, it is not required that there be a PTR for every sending host. It is true that there MAY be one, but it isn't a requirement. Large sites that may not publish DNS records for every internal system can likely get around any requirement from the recipient MTA by using a central mail server through which outgoing mail is sent. That server would have a PTR (and SPF) record.
That, however, seems to be an undesirable solution when it comes to an ISP serving many customers, however.