Oh? That's odd. I'm looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iplayer#DRM_criticism, and the DRM and the fact that Iplayer only worked on XP at first with its Microsoft Media DRM was critical to get it switched to a basically streaming format. The amount of bandwidth they needed for the much less DRM burdensome streaming, instead of the original Bittorrent like protocol hidden inside the Iplayer app, are not an issue of "competent coders". Those are issues of managerial plans on how the system will work and what is critical.
I'm fascinated to hear that other channels have copied _the interface_. When I look at streaming services of US providers, they're vastly more sensibly arranged, by title of the show, with the episode title and number and the description of it, with no care for precisely the timeslot in which it was originally broadcast. When I saw Iplayer, it was _horrid_ for actually finding the Doctor Who my Iplayer wielding compatriot wished to see: he had to select down each episode that had been played all week to see if it was the new one.
Are you saying some other channel has copied _that_?
_Now_ it streams. It was originally designed to do something like Bittorrent live, so that you shared bandwidth with your neighbors from a BBC provided list of seed servers, in their proprietary setup. It apparently didn't used to, before the lawsuits that led to the move away from the DRM burdened Windows Media Player technology and using more open formats, suitable to Macintosh and Linux systems.
Just because a lot of people watch Iplayer doesn't make it "successful". Does it make money for the BBC? Does it please them, or do its interface problems and frequent streaming interruptions turn away people who might otherwise use it?
Take a good look at the "Palladium" toolkit, renamed "Trusted Computing". This is precisely what it was designed for: hardware specific encryption, with cautious escalation of privileges to run secured hardware with secured software. Its proprietary design broke down under virtualization, for reasons that would have been spotted much faster with an open source approach, much as the old "Clipper Chip" and "SkipJack" tools were discovered to be "flawed" because you could use your own keys to encrypt, rather than the federally registered keys the devices came with, and the ability of "Law Enforcement" to monitor it failed because the "Law Enforcement Authentication Field" was too short of a checksum, and they violated at least 3 privately held patents.
I'd expect the BBC to fail at this as they did with Iplayer: their goals are well understood, but they can't get past the demoware shown to middle management or non-technical VP's with "big plans for the future". They don't want people to record and re-broadcast the material in any way, and only Windows closed source media players try very hard to provide that. Even if I lived in the UK and paid my telivision tax, I'd prefer to get my Doctor Who off of Pirates Bay because it's a faster download and better organized than that weird cruft in Iplayer. I went over this last year with a Windows laptop owning compatriot, who walked me through the interface. I _do not care_ when the episode of Doctor Who was last broadcast so I can download that timeslot's authorized copy and see it for up to 7 days after broadcast. I want the _episode_, and I'd prefer the last broadcast one so that I can see it as long as possible. So does everyone else.
Does the menu allow anything like this, or even index the episodes by numerical order? No. Does Pirate Bay give the episode numbers so I can get the one I want? Why, yes! Yes, they do!!! And it downloads faster. So even if I have paid for Iplayer with my television tax, why would I want to use it? And guess whom the BBC is doomed to failure against unless they fix their interface so it works better?
I understand the legality issues of Pirate Bay and the Bittorrent issues, so I avoid it for non-public images and reserve it for PGP signed Linux DVD images. But once the video stream of Iplayer and its ilk is intercepted and the program can be digitally repackaged and Bittorrented, why are they wasting their time building the Iplayer infrastructure and paying developer and manager salaries?
"Conditions at hand" can be and often are, illegally, deceptively, or destructively manipulated. If you even imagine that I'm kidding, look at the history of child labor, indentured servitude, diamond mining, or the music industry to see how workers have been abused to focus wealth in the power of a select few.
This is an old desire. The amount of electrical noise in a nervous system is very large, compared to the relevant signals. The result is that no matter what you do with all the processing, you have to monitor for roughly 500 msec to detect a real signal. So unless you type less than two characters/second, and don't care about having to do lots of corrections, it's not worth the effort and expense.
And oh, dear me, that resource/fork mess was unstable. They inevitably fell out of sync during hardware issues or during software problems, and completely ruined MacOS filesystems and components. Re-implementing that mess would be like bringing back punch cards. Sure, they have some advantages in stability, but the mostly useless overhead of handling them is unacceptable.
Who can tell? None of my core CAD applications run properly on Windows 7 yet, and my userbase has mired itself in XP to the point where I have to bribe them with new hardware to get them to let me back up their systems: they've become frightened that any backed-up machine will be replaced with Vista.
I don't know if younger or less aware drinkers have noticed, but there is a lot of truly horrid southeast Asian farmed coffee that has entered the market. I've been tasting it mixed with more expensive beans to make "morning blends", or used in flavored coffee where its lack of coffee aroma and its aftertaste of lemongrass is concealed. The next time you visit one of those less successful coffee bars, try to get a good whiff of the beans before they're ground to see why they're so much less expensive and so much less successful. The distinction between the richer, more full-scented, quality beans and the weird, always half-priced, Asian sacks of mud, sticks, and a few coffee beans is quite noticeable.
No, it's obviously not. It's about control. By saying it's "for the children" they can erect far broader controls, and enforce whitelists, rather than attempting to pursue criminally or politically active people. The difference in the availability of political, religious, artistic, and even scientific information that might offend the party in power is profound.
One might expect Facebook, Google, and other vendors trying to expand their Chinese markets to comply immediately. But genuinely useful sites like Wikileaks will refuse, and thus will be blocked, and accessing them will be illegal.
Yes, but most mid-level and top-level network providers refuse to do anything about their misbehaving clients, citing concerns such as "common carrier status" and "we have no policy for that" and "contact the registering entity" and "contact abuse@spamserver.com". This has been going on for years in various ways, especially for the 'legal' bulk advertisers as opposed to fraudulent spammers, and 'legal' spam for pyramid schemes, spam that is in complete compliance with the the USA's 'CAN-SPAM' laws but is nevertheless unwanted, excessive, and damaging to recipients.
While their peer or upstream providers will be targets for shutdown requests, they've been historically extremely reluctant to act. Look into the history of agis.net and Cyberpromo to see how a spamming domain can remain active for months and even years, continuing to gather civil and criminal lawsuits, while their upstream provider refuses to act. A list of domains who eventually disconnected Cyberpromo is at http://www.rahul.net/falk/Cp/, and the amazing thing is the length of time that each of them permitted the activity to go on. The final trigger that stopped their last haven, agis.net, from serving Cyberpromo was the series of DOS attacks that hindered agis.net from serving any of their more legitimate customers.
Do you need to be there when a contractor is fixing the roof, or replacing a faucet, or replacing your carburetor? Do you want to be awake when a doctor sets your broken arm?
It depends tremendously on the level of trust, and the risk of needing to consult the person who holds the authority and the purse strings. It also depends on the expertise of the manager. If the manager is the one who remembers the last time this happened in a department full of new hires, or if the manager is needed to sign off on rebooting all the servers or taking core switches offline and disabling email for an hour, it can help if the manager is onsite. People accept such orders more readily, and it's often easier to explain consequences to the manager, if they're right there.
When it's the manager's bonehead decisions that caused the disaster, however, it can help the cleanup a lot if they're not there playing the "hide the evidence" or "find alternate explanations" game. I've been faced with that one on occasion, and on one memorable occasion had to sneak a pager message to a corporate partner's CEO to get him to send the manager home and out of our hair so I could speak unsupervised with the engineers.
That's right, because a similar level of chicanery is going on in this claim. A small factor of system expense is being extended into a region of pure nonsense. There are plenty of more reasons to have a large, scattered base of servers. These include:
* Local database mirroring and caching to improve response times for dynamic content. * Local proxying of static material to improve response times and to improve upstream bandwidth costs, and reduce the number of connections made to the core servers and avoid DDOS'ng yourself. * The idea that PHP's function calls to pull and present disk-based or data-based material would somehow magically reduce the overall cost and need for servers, even theough the request for material is probably one of the most efficient steps.
I've had eager young engineers extrapolate their favorite tool into being the great solution to all issues this way before. Educating them in the concept of looking for the _other_ bottlenecks is a painful process, and I wish I could have found a good course in it before a lot of recent projects myself.
Well, it's politics that leaves out the members of one sex. If most members of the workplace are men, it very effectively cuts women out of that particular venue, and even conceal the existence of the venue. Not having heard the conversations for the lady's room, I can assume they do the same thing. But it does create an inequality.
If you can at your next code review, _watch_ how people handle comments by women. I'm probably older than you, and may have seen it at far worse levels when women were even rarer in computing worlds. But I still see it.
I can't confirm that theory, but I wasn't there that long and wasn't at the meetings of the Politburo.
I can imagine that control of staples was used to control people. I can also imagine that merely _seem_ that way. If the staples were short in supply (because what 5 year plan ever really works in farming or manufacturing?) and supplies then had to be managed, small privileges or favoritism or bribery would get your family or community more of the small supply.
You see the same thing with office supplies and funding in academia: people fight so hard for academic turf because the turf is _so small_.
Detecting the FBI agent pretending to be a 13 year old girl could be useful, for many reasons. But despite the stupidity of such an easily fooled system for general use, there is a legitimate use: physical therapy with Wii-like or Dance-Dance Revolution like components, designed to measure progress in a genuine fitness program.
Because she's a girl in a predominantly boy environment. The earlier poster in this thread was claiming that women are treated just the same as men, that they avoid the field because it's hard work and they're "too smart" to do that. You've just affirmed my claim of profound differences in the workplace for them. Are you denying that the differences are particularly slanted against women in the IT world?
You're also being a complete sexist (rude word) assuming that the change in behavior towards my male-female collleague was because "men are more likely to get lucky if they hit on stupid women". She was smarter than almost all geeks I know, both before and after the transformation. Her ideas were picked up and acted on far more easily if they came from the lips of a man at the same meeting. It was _awful_ to watch.
The men's room behavior is very dependent on the environment, and on the men involved. It wasn't a constant event where I saw it, but I did witness it a few times. What you describe of wandering to the men's room while talking is far more frequent, but I saw and heard some real business decisions occurring in the men's room. Come to think of it, it was especially common during rest breaks from long presentations.
Oh, yes, I'll agree that transsexuals are troubled. I know some male-female and some female-male (much rarer!) Only one of them would I consider really attractive after the fact, but she was striking before the fact, too. With another, who was that programmer I mentioned, new employees didn't realize just how senior she was: you could see them switching gears in code reviews to talk down to her and not confuse her with details of the software she actually _wrote_. And they would ignore her comments until a _man_ said it. The behavior is much less apparent when a woman first enters a predominantly male environment, and was much more apparent because of the change.
Since SPF acts on the bounce address, not the "From:" address, it's not necessarily a big issue. You should set up SRS, which resets the bounce address to be you, and makes sending the bounce message back to the originator your problem, not hte email recipient's.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
This is nonsense, at least for Gmail. I have no difficulty sending to their domain from unregistered hosts.
SPF is not an anti-spam tool: it's an anti-spoofing tool. It also helps prevent 'backscatter' from certain types of forged spam, the bouncing of forged emails from scattered SMTP servers around the world, because its classic form blocks the message before it is even fully transmitted when the bounce address is published. It still has issues with sites that do email forwarding, since most of them simply repeat the original sender's bounce address, and their forwarding host is not usually authorized to send mail from that bounce address.
And make no mistake. SPF isn't about the "From:" line, it's about the bounce address. This confuses many people who have to deal with it.
Right. That's why I've caught VP's having meetings in men's rooms, to avoid the presence of female members of staff, and why the engineer in my workgroup who got the sex change was _amazed_ at the number of times "she" was both hit on, and technologically ignored, after her transformation.
In the UK for pounds and in Europe for euros, the different bills are different sizes, and they use different physically sized currency, they use one and two "dollar" coins extensively, and they don't charge fees for most ATM withdrawals. The result is that cash transactions can be less painful, and the checks don't save you money over using an ATM card or withdrawing a bit of cash when you need it.
The flaw is that people get used to using plastic to buy everything, and can become very casual about credit card use, and _that_ has tremendous dangers.
This is reasonable. My concern was your statement that "men are not supposed to look". It's a common enough belief, but it doesn't seem practical or effective.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh? That's odd. I'm looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iplayer#DRM_criticism, and the DRM and the fact that Iplayer only worked on XP at first with its Microsoft Media DRM was critical to get it switched to a basically streaming format. The amount of bandwidth they needed for the much less DRM burdensome streaming, instead of the original Bittorrent like protocol hidden inside the Iplayer app, are not an issue of "competent coders". Those are issues of managerial plans on how the system will work and what is critical.
I'm fascinated to hear that other channels have copied _the interface_. When I look at streaming services of US providers, they're vastly more sensibly arranged, by title of the show, with the episode title and number and the description of it, with no care for precisely the timeslot in which it was originally broadcast. When I saw Iplayer, it was _horrid_ for actually finding the Doctor Who my Iplayer wielding compatriot wished to see: he had to select down each episode that had been played all week to see if it was the new one.
Are you saying some other channel has copied _that_?
_Now_ it streams. It was originally designed to do something like Bittorrent live, so that you shared bandwidth with your neighbors from a BBC provided list of seed servers, in their proprietary setup. It apparently didn't used to, before the lawsuits that led to the move away from the DRM burdened Windows Media Player technology and using more open formats, suitable to Macintosh and Linux systems.
Just because a lot of people watch Iplayer doesn't make it "successful". Does it make money for the BBC? Does it please them, or do its interface problems and frequent streaming interruptions turn away people who might otherwise use it?
Take a good look at the "Palladium" toolkit, renamed "Trusted Computing". This is precisely what it was designed for: hardware specific encryption, with cautious escalation of privileges to run secured hardware with secured software. Its proprietary design broke down under virtualization, for reasons that would have been spotted much faster with an open source approach, much as the old "Clipper Chip" and "SkipJack" tools were discovered to be "flawed" because you could use your own keys to encrypt, rather than the federally registered keys the devices came with, and the ability of "Law Enforcement" to monitor it failed because the "Law Enforcement Authentication Field" was too short of a checksum, and they violated at least 3 privately held patents.
I'd expect the BBC to fail at this as they did with Iplayer: their goals are well understood, but they can't get past the demoware shown to middle management or non-technical VP's with "big plans for the future". They don't want people to record and re-broadcast the material in any way, and only Windows closed source media players try very hard to provide that. Even if I lived in the UK and paid my telivision tax, I'd prefer to get my Doctor Who off of Pirates Bay because it's a faster download and better organized than that weird cruft in Iplayer. I went over this last year with a Windows laptop owning compatriot, who walked me through the interface. I _do not care_ when the episode of Doctor Who was last broadcast so I can download that timeslot's authorized copy and see it for up to 7 days after broadcast. I want the _episode_, and I'd prefer the last broadcast one so that I can see it as long as possible. So does everyone else.
Does the menu allow anything like this, or even index the episodes by numerical order? No. Does Pirate Bay give the episode numbers so I can get the one I want? Why, yes! Yes, they do!!! And it downloads faster. So even if I have paid for Iplayer with my television tax, why would I want to use it? And guess whom the BBC is doomed to failure against unless they fix their interface so it works better?
I understand the legality issues of Pirate Bay and the Bittorrent issues, so I avoid it for non-public images and reserve it for PGP signed Linux DVD images. But once the video stream of Iplayer and its ilk is intercepted and the program can be digitally repackaged and Bittorrented, why are they wasting their time building the Iplayer infrastructure and paying developer and manager salaries?
"Conditions at hand" can be and often are, illegally, deceptively, or destructively manipulated. If you even imagine that I'm kidding, look at the history of child labor, indentured servitude, diamond mining, or the music industry to see how workers have been abused to focus wealth in the power of a select few.
Obligatory xkcd comic on the power of editing with non-standard interfaces:
http://xkcd.com/378/
This is an old desire. The amount of electrical noise in a nervous system is very large, compared to the relevant signals. The result is that no matter what you do with all the processing, you have to monitor for roughly 500 msec to detect a real signal. So unless you type less than two characters/second, and don't care about having to do lots of corrections, it's not worth the effort and expense.
Linux CD and DVD images. It's the fastest way to get a burnable Knoppix ISO image.
Check your md5sums and PGP signatures, of course.
And oh, dear me, that resource/fork mess was unstable. They inevitably fell out of sync during hardware issues or during software problems, and completely ruined MacOS filesystems and components. Re-implementing that mess would be like bringing back punch cards. Sure, they have some advantages in stability, but the mostly useless overhead of handling them is unacceptable.
Who can tell? None of my core CAD applications run properly on Windows 7 yet, and my userbase has mired itself in XP to the point where I have to bribe them with new hardware to get them to let me back up their systems: they've become frightened that any backed-up machine will be replaced with Vista.
I don't know if younger or less aware drinkers have noticed, but there is a lot of truly horrid southeast Asian farmed coffee that has entered the market. I've been tasting it mixed with more expensive beans to make "morning blends", or used in flavored coffee where its lack of coffee aroma and its aftertaste of lemongrass is concealed. The next time you visit one of those less successful coffee bars, try to get a good whiff of the beans before they're ground to see why they're so much less expensive and so much less successful. The distinction between the richer, more full-scented, quality beans and the weird, always half-priced, Asian sacks of mud, sticks, and a few coffee beans is quite noticeable.
No, it's obviously not. It's about control. By saying it's "for the children" they can erect far broader controls, and enforce whitelists, rather than attempting to pursue criminally or politically active people. The difference in the availability of political, religious, artistic, and even scientific information that might offend the party in power is profound.
One might expect Facebook, Google, and other vendors trying to expand their Chinese markets to comply immediately. But genuinely useful sites like Wikileaks will refuse, and thus will be blocked, and accessing them will be illegal.
Yes, but most mid-level and top-level network providers refuse to do anything about their misbehaving clients, citing concerns such as "common carrier status" and "we have no policy for that" and "contact the registering entity" and "contact abuse@spamserver.com". This has been going on for years in various ways, especially for the 'legal' bulk advertisers as opposed to fraudulent spammers, and 'legal' spam for pyramid schemes, spam that is in complete compliance with the the USA's 'CAN-SPAM' laws but is nevertheless unwanted, excessive, and damaging to recipients.
While their peer or upstream providers will be targets for shutdown requests, they've been historically extremely reluctant to act. Look into the history of agis.net and Cyberpromo to see how a spamming domain can remain active for months and even years, continuing to gather civil and criminal lawsuits, while their upstream provider refuses to act. A list of domains who eventually disconnected Cyberpromo is at http://www.rahul.net/falk/Cp/, and the amazing thing is the length of time that each of them permitted the activity to go on. The final trigger that stopped their last haven, agis.net, from serving Cyberpromo was the series of DOS attacks that hindered agis.net from serving any of their more legitimate customers.
Do you need to be there when a contractor is fixing the roof, or replacing a faucet, or replacing your carburetor? Do you want to be awake when a doctor sets your broken arm?
It depends tremendously on the level of trust, and the risk of needing to consult the person who holds the authority and the purse strings. It also depends on the expertise of the manager. If the manager is the one who remembers the last time this happened in a department full of new hires, or if the manager is needed to sign off on rebooting all the servers or taking core switches offline and disabling email for an hour, it can help if the manager is onsite. People accept such orders more readily, and it's often easier to explain consequences to the manager, if they're right there.
When it's the manager's bonehead decisions that caused the disaster, however, it can help the cleanup a lot if they're not there playing the "hide the evidence" or "find alternate explanations" game. I've been faced with that one on occasion, and on one memorable occasion had to sneak a pager message to a corporate partner's CEO to get him to send the manager home and out of our hair so I could speak unsupervised with the engineers.
That's right, because a similar level of chicanery is going on in this claim. A small factor of system expense is being extended into a region of pure nonsense. There are plenty of more reasons to have a large, scattered base of servers. These include:
* Local database mirroring and caching to improve response times for dynamic content.
* Local proxying of static material to improve response times and to improve upstream bandwidth costs, and reduce the number of connections made to the core servers and avoid DDOS'ng yourself.
* The idea that PHP's function calls to pull and present disk-based or data-based material would somehow magically reduce the overall cost and need for servers, even theough the request for material is probably one of the most efficient steps.
I've had eager young engineers extrapolate their favorite tool into being the great solution to all issues this way before. Educating them in the concept of looking for the _other_ bottlenecks is a painful process, and I wish I could have found a good course in it before a lot of recent projects myself.
Well, it's politics that leaves out the members of one sex. If most members of the workplace are men, it very effectively cuts women out of that particular venue, and even conceal the existence of the venue. Not having heard the conversations for the lady's room, I can assume they do the same thing. But it does create an inequality.
If you can at your next code review, _watch_ how people handle comments by women. I'm probably older than you, and may have seen it at far worse levels when women were even rarer in computing worlds. But I still see it.
Goodness, thank you. How flattering.
I can't confirm that theory, but I wasn't there that long and wasn't at the meetings of the Politburo.
I can imagine that control of staples was used to control people. I can also imagine that merely _seem_ that way. If the staples were short in supply (because what 5 year plan ever really works in farming or manufacturing?) and supplies then had to be managed, small privileges or favoritism or bribery would get your family or community more of the small supply.
You see the same thing with office supplies and funding in academia: people fight so hard for academic turf because the turf is _so small_.
Detecting the FBI agent pretending to be a 13 year old girl could be useful, for many reasons. But despite the stupidity of such an easily fooled system for general use, there is a legitimate use: physical therapy with Wii-like or Dance-Dance Revolution like components, designed to measure progress in a genuine fitness program.
And for related entertainment, there is the video "Do You Want To Date My Avatar?" at http://www.watchtheguild.com/the-guild/the-guild-music-video/.
> Why was she hit on a lot? Because she's a girl
Because she's a girl in a predominantly boy environment. The earlier poster in this thread was claiming that women are treated just the same as men, that they avoid the field because it's hard work and they're "too smart" to do that. You've just affirmed my claim of profound differences in the workplace for them. Are you denying that the differences are particularly slanted against women in the IT world?
You're also being a complete sexist (rude word) assuming that the change in behavior towards my male-female collleague was because "men are more likely to get lucky if they hit on stupid women". She was smarter than almost all geeks I know, both before and after the transformation. Her ideas were picked up and acted on far more easily if they came from the lips of a man at the same meeting. It was _awful_ to watch.
The men's room behavior is very dependent on the environment, and on the men involved. It wasn't a constant event where I saw it, but I did witness it a few times. What you describe of wandering to the men's room while talking is far more frequent, but I saw and heard some real business decisions occurring in the men's room. Come to think of it, it was especially common during rest breaks from long presentations.
Oh, yes, I'll agree that transsexuals are troubled. I know some male-female and some female-male (much rarer!) Only one of them would I consider really attractive after the fact, but she was striking before the fact, too. With another, who was that programmer I mentioned, new employees didn't realize just how senior she was: you could see them switching gears in code reviews to talk down to her and not confuse her with details of the software she actually _wrote_. And they would ignore her comments until a _man_ said it. The behavior is much less apparent when a woman first enters a predominantly male environment, and was much more apparent because of the change.
Since SPF acts on the bounce address, not the "From:" address, it's not necessarily a big issue. You should set up SRS, which resets the bounce address to be you, and makes sending the bounce message back to the originator your problem, not hte email recipient's.
From http://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt:
Your post advocates a
( ) technical
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
This is nonsense, at least for Gmail. I have no difficulty sending to their domain from unregistered hosts.
SPF is not an anti-spam tool: it's an anti-spoofing tool. It also helps prevent 'backscatter' from certain types of forged spam, the bouncing of forged emails from scattered SMTP servers around the world, because its classic form blocks the message before it is even fully transmitted when the bounce address is published. It still has issues with sites that do email forwarding, since most of them simply repeat the original sender's bounce address, and their forwarding host is not usually authorized to send mail from that bounce address.
And make no mistake. SPF isn't about the "From:" line, it's about the bounce address. This confuses many people who have to deal with it.
Right. That's why I've caught VP's having meetings in men's rooms, to avoid the presence of female members of staff, and why the engineer in my workgroup who got the sex change was _amazed_ at the number of times "she" was both hit on, and technologically ignored, after her transformation.
In the UK for pounds and in Europe for euros, the different bills are different sizes, and they use different physically sized currency, they use one and two "dollar" coins extensively, and they don't charge fees for most ATM withdrawals. The result is that cash transactions can be less painful, and the checks don't save you money over using an ATM card or withdrawing a bit of cash when you need it.
The flaw is that people get used to using plastic to buy everything, and can become very casual about credit card use, and _that_ has tremendous dangers.
This is reasonable. My concern was your statement that "men are not supposed to look". It's a common enough belief, but it doesn't seem practical or effective.