True, and I haven't found greylisting to be worthwhile enough yet to use myself. But it should also be noted that the problem you describe is a problem for the greylister, not the greylistee. It's problems for the greylistee that would cause most of the "we could lose business" issues, like the one to which I replied.
The "try again" message goes to the sender's mail server. Greylisting is performed between servers. The only perceptible result of greylisting for people is that the first time they email somebody, it might take longer than normal for the recipient to get it.
Congratulations on the proper use of the word "champing". I hear people use "chomping" in that context all the time, and can't recall the last time I heard the correct word.
The Union is not the be-all and end-all. It's a voluntary union of sovereign states, or it was, until 1865.
Me attempting to declare independence for my own house from local authorities would be much more like an insurrection that secession of states. States were, and should be, self-governing, self-sufficient units, and are (or should be) the primary unit of government in this country.
Are you saying that secession was wrong in 1861, but right in 1776? Can you explain why?
So basically we have a president who will do whatever it takes (or not) to protect and preserve the Union that he swore to lead despite his personal convictions.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. He swore to protect and defend the Constitution, NOT the "Union". But since he won the war, you believe that the Union, the almighty federal government, is the ultimate authority in the universe.
So basically your last argument, since I've torn down the idea that the Yankee was out to improve the status of blacks, is to say that the Southern cause was also self-serving.
If it's self-serving to oppose the very type of government that the United States was designed to prevent, then so be it.
There was no insurrectionist activity. The North was so committed to their cause (which was money from the South and spending it in the North) that they were willing to invade their neighbors.
Making the war into an anti-slavery crusade was a halfway-point military tactic, and a later whitewash.
The South didn't "have" a civil war over it. The South didn't want the war, and didn't start the war. The North invaded the South, not vice versa. And if you think any significant portion of the North gave a damn about blacks and their rights, you're deluding yourself.
So we can only have stuff as long as the government doesn't find it threatening?
Oh, I see this guy's on the Union side. Maybe they're worried about him pointing it at Baltimore's civilians and making demands, as the Union army did.
Allowance under the Constitution isn't required. If a state leaves and SCOTUS says they can't, what are they going to do? Invade again? I guess they could, although I doubt that people would stand for it.
The Articles of Confederation specifically said that the union of the 13 states was perpetual. Yet 9 of them seceded from that union to go do something else, leaving the other 4 in the lurch. They eventually joined the 9, after securing certain assurances, such as the Bill of Rights.
So the very creation of the Constitution itself is a story of secession being valid, regardless of what a constitution says about it.
Slashdot Mirror
True, and I haven't found greylisting to be worthwhile enough yet to use myself. But it should also be noted that the problem you describe is a problem for the greylister, not the greylistee. It's problems for the greylistee that would cause most of the "we could lose business" issues, like the one to which I replied.
The "try again" message goes to the sender's mail server. Greylisting is performed between servers. The only perceptible result of greylisting for people is that the first time they email somebody, it might take longer than normal for the recipient to get it.
Now correct me if I'm incorrect, but was I told it's untrue that people in Springfield have no faith? Was I not misinformed?
Congratulations on the proper use of the word "champing". I hear people use "chomping" in that context all the time, and can't recall the last time I heard the correct word.
There's some argument to be made that Firefox should fit in to Windows, if that's where it's running.
My question is, will this abomination also be applied to other OSes?
It was more about control, about Microsoft being in charge of how you get to your data, than about anything else. It's a great message.
Although I can't listen to more than 5 minutes of Kim Komando without wishing my fingernails were being pulled out instead.
Trigger finger modded this offtopic; posting to cancel.
I'll soon be configuring another ICH10 box with an X25-E; if you want to send me some benchmarks to run I could probably do it.
That doesn't get around the bottleneck at all. You've got the same ratio of actual bandwidth used to theoretical bandwidth possible.
A single drive with multiple SATA interfaces, acting like RAID 0, would alleviate the bottleneck.
Any thoughts on NILFS? Similar situation?
Except maybe Southwest.
The Union is not the be-all and end-all. It's a voluntary union of sovereign states, or it was, until 1865.
Me attempting to declare independence for my own house from local authorities would be much more like an insurrection that secession of states. States were, and should be, self-governing, self-sufficient units, and are (or should be) the primary unit of government in this country.
Are you saying that secession was wrong in 1861, but right in 1776? Can you explain why?
So basically we have a president who will do whatever it takes (or not) to protect and preserve the Union that he swore to lead despite his personal convictions.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. He swore to protect and defend the Constitution, NOT the "Union". But since he won the war, you believe that the Union, the almighty federal government, is the ultimate authority in the universe.
So basically your last argument, since I've torn down the idea that the Yankee was out to improve the status of blacks, is to say that the Southern cause was also self-serving.
If it's self-serving to oppose the very type of government that the United States was designed to prevent, then so be it.
Well excepting the formation of another state within the existing Union, raising an army to support it, printing currency, etc...
That isn't an insurrection. The state had seceded.
You would have a much stronger case if the writings and histories of key figures in the CSA did not directly contradict your sentiments.
Let's look at some the sentiments of a key USA figure:
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it" - Lincoln
"Let the South go? Where then shall we get our revenues!" - Lincoln
Yeah, that sounds like a holy crusade to free the slaves. More like a holy crusade to fatten their wallets.
There was no insurrectionist activity. The North was so committed to their cause (which was money from the South and spending it in the North) that they were willing to invade their neighbors.
Making the war into an anti-slavery crusade was a halfway-point military tactic, and a later whitewash.
It's illegal to secede from the US.
Secession is extra-legal. While it can explicitly be made legal, it can never be illegal.
The South didn't "have" a civil war over it. The South didn't want the war, and didn't start the war. The North invaded the South, not vice versa. And if you think any significant portion of the North gave a damn about blacks and their rights, you're deluding yourself.
Slavery was dying. Everywhere else in the world it died a natural death, without war, and without the decades of resentment afterwards.
Instead, are we not now all slaves? We only have rights that the federal government decides to grant us. That's what the South was fighting against.
America was created by a group of colonies who had become states asserting their right of independence from the mother country.
So what's more American than a group of states wanting to not be under the thumb of an imperial federal government?
It's Charleston, West Virginia. But he still shouldn't be shooting at rebels.
So we can only have stuff as long as the government doesn't find it threatening?
Oh, I see this guy's on the Union side. Maybe they're worried about him pointing it at Baltimore's civilians and making demands, as the Union army did.
Allowance under the Constitution isn't required. If a state leaves and SCOTUS says they can't, what are they going to do? Invade again? I guess they could, although I doubt that people would stand for it.
The Articles of Confederation specifically said that the union of the 13 states was perpetual. Yet 9 of them seceded from that union to go do something else, leaving the other 4 in the lurch. They eventually joined the 9, after securing certain assurances, such as the Bill of Rights.
So the very creation of the Constitution itself is a story of secession being valid, regardless of what a constitution says about it.
Except that's wrong, and should be overturned by any reasonable judge.
On top of that, it doesn't even really make sense to say that secession is "illegal". What does that even mean?
Care to explain how the law against murdering multiple people will later be deemed unconstitutional?
Instead of blaming them for leaving, why don't we stop chasing them away?
Seriously.